I 
 
i 
 
 A DICTIONARY OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY 
 AND LITERATURE 
 
A DICTIONARY OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY 
 
 AND LITERATURE 
 
 TO THE END OF THE SIXTH CENTURY A.D., WITH 
 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL SECTS AND HERESIES 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 HENRY WAGE, D.D. 
 
 DEAN OF CANTERBURY 
 
 AND 
 
 WILLIAM C. PIERCY, M.A. 
 
 DEAN AND CHAPLAIN OF WHITELANDS COLLEGE, S.W. 
 
 IN ONE VOLUME 
 
 BOSTON 
 LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY 
 
 191 1 
 

 PRINTED BY 
 
 HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LU., 
 
 LONDON AND AYLESBURY, 
 
 iNGLAND. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This volume is designed to render to a wider circle, alike of clergy and 
 of laity, the service which, as is generally admitted, has been rendered to 
 the learned v.'orld by The Dictionary of Christian Biography. Literature, 
 Sects, and Doctrines, published under the editorship of Dr. Wace and the 
 late Dr. Wm. Smith, about twenty years ago, in four large volumes. That 
 work covered the whole of the first eight centuries of the Christian era, and 
 was planned on a very comprehensive scale. It aimed at giving an account, 
 not merely of names of importance, but of all names, however small, con- 
 cerned in the Christian literature of those eight centuries ; and to illustrate its 
 extent and minuteness, it may be enough to mention that no fewer than 596 
 Johns are recorded in due order in its columns. The surviving Editor may 
 be pardoned for expressing his satisfaction that the work is now recognized, 
 abroad as well as at home, as a valuable work of reference, being constantly 
 quoted alike in the great Protestant Cyclopaedia of Herzog, in its third edition 
 now happily complete, and in the Patrology of the learned Roman Catholic 
 Professor at Munich, Dr. Bardenhewer. To the generous band of great 
 English scholars to whose unstinted labours the chief excellences of that 
 work are due, and too many of whom have now passed away, it is, or it would 
 have been, a welcome satisfaction to find it described in the Patrology of 
 that scholar as "very useful, relatively complete and generally reliable." * 
 But that work was mainly adapted to the use of men of learning, and 
 was unsuited, both by its size and expense, and by the very wideness of 
 its range, for the use of ordinary readers, or even for the clergy in general. 
 In the first place, the last two centuries of the period which it covered, 
 although of immense interest in the history of the Church, as including 
 the origins of the Teutonic civilization of Europe, have not an equal 
 interest with the first six as exhibiting primitive Christianity in its purer 
 forms. With the one important exception of John of Damascus, the 
 Fathers of the Church, so called, alike in East and West, fall within the 
 first six centuries, and in the West the series is closed by St. Gregory 
 the Great, who died in the year 604. English divines accordingly, since the 
 days of Bp. Jewel, have, like Bp. Cosin, appealed to the first six centuries 
 of the Church as exhibiting, in doctrine as well as in practice, subject to 
 Holy Scripture, the standards of primitive Christianity. Those six centuries, 
 consequently, have a special interest for all Christian students, and part- 
 
 • Edition of 1908, published in English at Freiburg im Breisgau, and at St. Louis, Mo., 
 U.S.A., translated from the second German edition by Dr. T. J. Shahan, Professor of 
 Church History in the Catholic University of America, p. ir. 
 
 235337 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 icularly for those of our own Church, and deserve accordingly some special 
 treatment. It was thought, therefore, that a Dictionary of Christian 
 Biography which confined itself to this formative and authoritative period 
 of the Church's history would be of special interest and service, not only 
 to the clergy, but also to the Christian laity and to students for Holy Orders. 
 But the limitation of such a work to this period at once disembarrassed 
 our pages of the mass of Teutonic, and sometimes almost pagan, names 
 with which, after the settlement of the barbarians in Europe, we were over- 
 whelmed ; and thus of itself rendered it possible to bring the work into 
 much narrower compass. Moreover, a mass of insignificant names, which the 
 principles of scholarly completeness obliged us to introduce into the larger 
 Dictionary, were not needed for the wider circle now in contemplation. 
 They were useful and necessary for purposes of learned reference, but they 
 cast no light on the course and meaning of Church history for ordinary 
 readers. We have had to exercise a discretion (which may sometimes seem 
 to have been arbitrary) in selecting, for instance, from the 596 Johns just 
 mentioned those which were the most valuable for such readers as we had 
 in view ; and for the manner in which we have exercised that discretion 
 we must trust ourselves to the indulgent judgment of our readers. The 
 publisher gave us generous limits ; but it seemed to him and to ourselves 
 indispensable for the general usefulness of the Dictionary that it should be 
 restricted to one volume ; and we were thus, with respect to the minor 
 names, obliged to omit many which, though of some interest, seemed to be 
 such as could be best dispensed with. 
 
 By omissions of this nature we have secured an object Avhich will, we 
 are sure, be felt to be of inestimable value. We have been able to retain, 
 with no material abbreviation, the admirable articles on the great characters 
 of early Church history and literature which were contributed, with an 
 unselfish devotion which can never be sufficiently acknowledged, by the 
 great scholars who have been the glory of the last generation or two of 
 English Church scholarship, and some of whom are happily still among us. 
 To mention only some of the great contributors who have passed away, such 
 articles as those of Bp. Westcott on Clement of Alexandria and Origen, 
 Bp. Lightfoot on Eusebius, Archbp. Benson on St. Cyprian, Dr. Bright 
 on St. Athanasius and kindred subjects. Dr. Salmon on varied subjects 
 of the first importance, Bp. Stubbs on early English history, and some by 
 the learned Professor Lipsius of Jena, have a permanent value, as the ap- 
 preciations of great characters and moments of Church history and literature 
 by scholars and divines who have never been surpassed, and will hardly be 
 equalled again, in English sacred learning. We deemed it one of the greatest 
 services which such a work as this could render that it should make ac- 
 cessible to the wide circle in question these unique masterpieces of patristic 
 and historical study. It has therefore been one of our first objects to avoid, 
 as far as possible, any abbreviation of the body of these articles. We have 
 occasionally ventured on slight verbal condensation in secondary passages, 
 and we have omitted some purely technical discussions of textual points 
 and of editions. But in the main the reader is here placed in possession, 
 within the compass of a moderate volume, of what will probably be allowed 
 to be at once the most valuable and the most interesting series of monographs. 
 
PREFACE vii 
 
 on the chief characters and incidents of early Church history, ever con- 
 tributed to a single undertaking by a band of Christian scholars. We 
 feel it no more than a duty to pay this tribute of gratitude and admira- 
 tion to the great divines, to whose devotion and learning all that is per- 
 manently valuable in these pages is due. and we are confident that their 
 monographs, thus rendered generally available, will prove a permanent 
 possession of the highest value to English students of Church history. 
 
 We must further offer the expression of our cordial gratitude to several 
 living scholars, who have contributed new articles of similar importance 
 to the present volume, in place of some in the original edition which the 
 lapse of time or other circumstances had rendered less valuable than 
 the rest. In particular, our warmest thanks are due to Dr. Robertson, the 
 present Bp. of Exeter, who has substituted for the sketch of St. Augustine 
 contributed to the original edition by an eminent French scholar, M. de 
 Pressense, a study of that great Father, similar in its thoroughness to the 
 other great monographs just mentioned. W^e arc also deeply indebted 
 to the generosity of Chancellor Lias for fresh studies of such important 
 subjects as Arius and Monophysitism ; and a valuable account of the Nes- 
 torian Church has been very kindly contributed by the Rev. W. A. Wigram, 
 who, as head of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission, possesses 
 unique qualifications for dealing with the subject. We have to thank also 
 the eminent learning of Dr. A. J. Mason for an article on Gaudentius of 
 Brescia, who was unaccountably omitted from the larger work, and whose 
 name has of late acquired new interest. The gratitude of the Editors, is 
 also specially due to Dr. Knowling and Dr. Gee, of Durham University, for 
 their assistance in some cases in which articles required to be supplemented 
 or corrected by the most recent learning. 
 
 In all cases where the writers of the original articles are still living 
 they were afforded the opportunity, if they desired it, of revising their 
 work and bringing it up to date, and of checking the condensations : 
 though the Editors and not the writers must take the responsibility for 
 the latter and also, in most cases, for bibliographical additions. The 
 Editors desire gratefully to record their appreciation of the assistance 
 thus readily and kindly rendered by most of the original writers who are 
 still spared to us. and, as an example, we are glad to thank the Rev. 
 E. B. Birks for his very thorough revision of his article on the Epistle to 
 Diognetus. 
 
 Cross-references are inserted, where needed, on the principle adopted 
 in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (to which this is intended to be 
 a companion volume in size, appearance, and price) — namely, the name 
 of the article to which a cross-reference is intended is printed in capitals 
 within brackets, but without the brackets when it occurs in the ordinary 
 course of the text. 
 
 In the headings of articles the numbers in brackets after names which 
 are common to more than one person are retained as in the large edition, 
 to facilitate reference to that edition when desired, and also to indicate 
 that there were other persons of the same name. 
 
 It was not consistent with the limits of the work to retain in all cases 
 the minute bibliography sometimes furnished in the larger edition. But, 
 
Yiii PREFACE 
 
 on the other hand, an endeavour has been made to give references, at the 
 end of articles, to recent publications of importance on each subject ; and 
 in this endeavour the Editors must express their great indebtedness to the 
 valuable Patrology of Professor Bardenhewer, already referred to, and to 
 the admirable third edition of Herzog and Hauck's Protestant Cyclopaedia, 
 and occasionally to the parallel Roman Catholic Cyclopaedia of Wetzer and 
 Welte, edited by Cardinal Hergenrother. It may be permissible, in referring 
 to these auxiliary sources, to express a deep satisfaction at the increasing 
 co-operation, in friendly learning, of Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars, 
 and to indulge the hope that it is an earnest of the gradual growth of a 
 better understanding between those two great schools of thought and life. 
 
 The Editors cannot conclude without paying a final tribute of honour 
 and gratitude to the generous and devoted scholar whose accurate labours 
 were indispensable to the original work, as is acknowledged often in its Pre- 
 faces, and who rendered invaluable assistance in the first stage of the pre- 
 paration of the present volume — the Rev. Charles Hole, late Lecturer for 
 many years in Ecclesiastical History in King's College, London. Dr. Wace 
 hoped to have had the happiness of having his own name associated with 
 that of his old teacher, friend, and colleague on the title-page of this volume, 
 and he laments that death has deprived him of this privilege. He cannot, 
 however, sufficiently express his sense of obligation to his colleague, Mr. 
 Piercy, for the ability, skill, and generous labour without which the pro- 
 duction of the work would have been impossible. 
 
LIST OF WRITERS 
 
 Initials 
 
 A.H.D.A. The Right Hon. A. H. Dyke Acland. LL.D. 
 
 Hon. Fellow of Balliol College, 0.\ford. 
 M.F.A. The late Ri:v. M. F. .\rgles, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Principal of St. Stephen's House, O.xford. 
 C.J.B. Rev. C. J. Ball, M..\. 
 
 Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxford; Rector of Blechingdon. 
 J.B— y. The late Rev. J. Barmbv, B.D. 
 
 Formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham, and Rector of 
 Pilkington. 
 S.A.B. S. A. Bennett, Esq., B..\. 
 
 Of Lincoln's Inn. 
 E.W.B. The late Most Rev. E. W. Benson, D.D. 
 
 Formerly .Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 E.B.B. Rev. E. B. Birks, M..\.. 
 
 Vicar of Kellington ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 C.W.B. The late Rev. C. W. Boase, ^LA. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 
 W.B. The late Rev. Canon W. Bright, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford. 
 T.R.B. The late Right Hon. T. R. Buchanan, M.A., M.P. 
 
 Fellow of .A.11 Souls' College, Oxford. 
 D.B. The late Rev. D. Butler, U.A. 
 
 Formerly Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire. 
 J.G.C. The lite Rev. ]. G. Cazenove, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Provost of Cumbrae College, N.B. 
 M.B.C. Rev. M. B. Cowell, M.A. 
 
 Vicar of Ash Bocking. 
 F.D. F. H. Blackburne Daniel, Esq. 
 
 Of Lincoln's Inn. 
 G.W.D. The Ven. G. W. Daniell, M.A. 
 
 .'Vrchdeacon of Kiugston-on-Thamcs. 
 T.W.D. The late Rev. T. W. Davids. 
 
 Upton. 
 L.D. Rev. L. Davidson, M..A. 
 
 Rector of Stanton St. John, Oxford. 
 J.LL.D. Rev. J. Ll. Davies, D.Litt. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 CD. Rev. C. Deedes, M.A. 
 
 Prebendary of Chichester. 
 W.P.D, The late Rev. W. P. Dickson, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Professor of Divinity, Glasgow. 
 E.S.Ff. The late Rev. E. S. Ffoulkes, M..\. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary's. 
 A.P.F. The late Right Rev. A. P. Forbes, D.C.L. 
 
 Formerly Bishop of Brechin. 
 W.H.F. The Very Rev. and Hon. W. H. Fremantle, D.D. 
 
 Dean of Ripon. 
 J.M.F. The late Rev. J. M. Fuller, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 
 
 ix 
 
X LIST OF WRITERS 
 
 INITIAI^ 
 
 J.G. Rev. J. Gammack. M.A. 
 
 Rector of St. James's, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. 
 H.G. Rev. H. Gee, D.D. 
 
 Master of University College, Durham. 
 C.G. The Right Rev. C. Gore, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of Birmingham. 
 J.Gw. Rev. J. Gwvnn, D.D., D.C.L. 
 
 Regius Professor of Divinity, T.C.D. 
 A.W.H. The late Rev. A. W. Haddan, B.D. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 
 T.R.H. The late Rev. T. R. Halcomb, .M.A. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. 
 C.H. The late Rev. C. Hole, B.A. 
 
 Formerly Rector of Loxbear, and Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History 
 in King's College, London. 
 H.S.H. Rev. Canon H. ScoTr Holland, D.D. 
 
 Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. 
 H. The late Rev. F. J. A. Hort, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. 
 D.R.J. The late Rev. D. R. Jo.-es. 
 
 Oxford. 
 R.J.K. Rev. Canon R. J. Knowling, D.D. 
 
 Professor of Divinity, Durham. 
 j.j.L. Rev. Chancellor J. J. Lias, M.A. 
 
 Chancellor of Llandafi Cathedral. 
 L. The Right Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Bishop of Durham. 
 R.A.L. The late R. A. Lipsius, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Professor of Divinity, University of Jena. 
 W.L. Rev. W. Lock, D.D. 
 
 Ireland Professor of Exegesis, Oxford ; Warden of Keble College. 
 J.H.L. The late Rev. J. H. Lupton, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 
 G.F.M. The late Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. 
 A.C.M. A. C. Madam, Esq., M.A. 
 
 Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 
 S.M. The late Rev. S. Mansel, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 A.J.M. Rev. A. J. Mason, D.D. 
 
 Master of Pembro'ice College, Cambridge, and Canon of Canterbury. 
 W.M. The late Rev. W. Milligan, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Professor of Divinity, Aberdeen. 
 G.H.M. The late Rev. G. H. Moberly, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 
 T.D.C.M. The late Rev. T. D. C. Morse. 
 
 Formerly Rector of Drayton, Nuneaton. 
 H.G.C.M. The Right Rev. H. G. C. Moule, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of Durham. 
 J.R.M. J. R. Mozley, Esq., M.A. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 
 F.P. The Right Rev. F, Paget, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of Oxford. 
 H.W.P. The late Rev. H. W. Phillott, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Rector of Staunton-on-Wye. 
 W.C.P. Rev. W. C. Piercy, M.A. 
 
 Dean and Chaplain of Whitelands College, S.W. 
 E.H.P. The late Rev. E. H. Plujiftre, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Dean of Wells. 
 P.O. The late Rev. P. Onslow, B.A. 
 
 Formerly Rector of Upper Sapey. 
 J.R. The late Rev. Canon J. Raine, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Durham University. 
 
LIST OF WRITERS xi 
 
 Initials 
 
 H.R.R. The Kite Rev. H. R. Reynolds, I>.D. 
 
 Formerly Principal of Cheshunt College. 
 A.R. The Right Rev. A. Robertson, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of Exeter. 
 G.S. The late Rev. G. Salmon, D.D. 
 
 Formerlv Regius Professor of Divinitv and Provost of Trinity College, 
 Dublin. 
 P.S. The late Rev. P. Schaff. 
 
 Bible House, New York. 
 W.M.S. The Ven. W. M. Sinclair, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Archdeacon of London. 
 I.G.S. Rev. I. G. Smith, LL.D. 
 
 Formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 
 R.P.S. The late Verv Rev. R. P. Smith, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Dean of Canterbury. 
 G.T.S. The late Rev. G. T. Stokes, .M.A. 
 
 Formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin. 
 S. The late Right Rev. W. Stubbs, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Bishop of Oxford. 
 E.S.T. The Right Rev. E. S. Talbot, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of Winchester. 
 R.St.J.T. The late Rev. R. St. J. Tyrvvhitt. 
 
 Formerly Student of Christchurch, Oxford. 
 E.V. The late Rev. Canon E. Venables. 
 
 Formerly Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral. 
 K.W. The Very Rev. H. Wage, D.D. 
 
 Dean of Canterbury. 
 M..\.\V. Mrs. Humfrhy Ward. 
 
 Stocks House, Tring. 
 H.W.W. The Ven. H. W. Watkins, D.D. 
 
 Prof, of Hebrew, Durham University, and Archdeacon of Durham. 
 W. or B.F.W. The late Right Rev. B. F. Westcott, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Bishop of Durham. 
 W..\.W. Rev. W. A. Wigram, M.A. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyria. 
 H.A.W. Rev. H. A. Wilson, M.A. 
 
 Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 
 J.W. The Right Rev. J. Wordsworth, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of Salisbury. 
 E.M.Y. The late Rev. E. M. Young, M.A. 
 
 Formerly Headmaster of Sherborne School. 
 
DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN 
 BIOGRAPHY 
 
 Abercius ('AifV*'"'- "Aoiipvio?, Wov^pKio^, 
 
 etc. ; I. at. Avircius, or Avercius ; on the form 
 and origin, see Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd 
 -r.i, pp. 26S, 3Q4, and Zahn, art. " Aver- 
 
 -." Rcalencvclopddie fiir protest. Theol. und 
 
 ■.'che. Hauck). The Life of the saint, de- 
 
 . ibed as bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia in tlie 
 
 u-ae of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, as given by 
 
 Svmeon Metaphrastes and in the Bollandist 
 
 Ada Sanctorum, Oct. 22. is full of worthless 
 
 1 fantastic tales. But the epitaph which 
 .\cts incorporate, placed, according to the 
 : ly, on the altar brought from Rome by the 
 ueiiion whom the saint had driven out of 
 the emperor's daughter, is of great value, and 
 the discovery of some of the actual fragments 
 of the inscription may well be called " a 
 romance of archaeology." For this redis- 
 covery our thanks are due to the rich labours 
 of Prof. Ramsay. The fact that Abercius 
 was described as bp. of Hierapolis at the 
 time mentioned above had contributed to 
 hesitation as to the genuineness of the epitaph. 
 But Ramsay (Bulletin de correspondance hel- 
 lenique, Juillet 1882) pointed out that Hiera- 
 polis had been frequently confounded with 
 Hieropolis ; and he also published in the same 
 journal a metrical and early Christian epitaph 
 of a certain Alexander (.\.d. 216), discovered 
 at Hieropolis, and evidently copied from the 
 epitaph of Abercius, as given in his Life. As 
 to the copying, there can be no doubt, for the 
 third line of the epitaph of Alexander, son of 
 Antonius, will not scan, owing to the substi- 
 tution of his name for that of Abercius (Light- 
 foot, Apost. Fathers^, i. p. 479 ; Headlam in 
 Authority and Archaeology, pp. 307 ff., 1899). 
 Ramsay's attention being drawn to the earlier 
 epitaph, he collected various topographical 
 notices in the Life of the saint, which pointed 
 to Hieropolis, near Synnada (not Hierapolis 
 on the Maeander), and he further established 
 the case for the former by finding, in 1883, 
 in the bath-room at some hot springs near 
 Hieropolis, a small portion of the epitaph of 
 Abercius himself on the fragment of an altar- 
 shaped tomb ; the hot springs in their posi- 
 tion near the city exactly correspond with 
 the position of the hot springs described in 
 the Life. We have thus fortunately a three- 
 fold help in reconstructing the text of the 
 whole epitaph — (i) the text in the Life; (2) 
 the rediscovered fragments in the stone ; (3) 
 the epitaph on the tomb of Alexander. 
 
 There is much to be said for the identifica- 
 tion of Abercius with the Avircius Marcellus 
 (Eua. H. E. V. 16) to whom the extracts of 
 
 ABERCIUS 
 
 the anonymous writer against Montanus are 
 dedicated. We cannot be sure as to the date of 
 these extracts, but there is reason to place them 
 towards the close of the reign of Commodus, 
 180-192, and the epitaph of Abercius must at 
 least have been earlier than 216, the date of 
 the epitaph of Alexander. But the writer of 
 the extracts addresses the person to whom he 
 dedicates his work as a person of authority, 
 although he does not style him a bishop (but 
 see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 483), who had urged 
 him a very long time ago to write on the 
 subject. Avircius Marcellus might therefore 
 have well flourished in the reign of M. Aurelius, 
 and might have visited Rome at the time men- 
 tioned in the legend, a.d. 163. Further, in 
 the extracts mention is made by the writer 
 of one Zoticus of Otrous, his " fellow-presby- 
 ter," and Otrous was in the neighbourhood of 
 this Hieropolis (for the identification, see 
 further Lightfoot and Zahn, u.s. ; Headlam, 
 U.S. ; Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), p. 
 394). Against the attempt of Ficker to prove 
 that the epitaph was heathen, Sitzungsberichte 
 d. Bert. Akad. 1895, pp. 87-112, and that of 
 Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, xii. 4b, 
 p. 21, to class it as partly heathen and partly 
 Christian, see Zahn, u.s., and further in Neue 
 Kirchliche Zeilschrift, 1895, pp. 863-886 ; also 
 the criticism of Ramsay, quoted by Headlam, 
 U.S. Both external and internal evidence are 
 in favour of a Christian origin, and we have 
 in this epitaph what Ramsay describes, 
 C. R. E. pp. 437 ff., as " a testimony, brief, 
 clear, emphatic, of the truth for which Avir- 
 cius had contended — the one great figure on 
 the Catholic side produced by the Phrygian 
 church during this period," a man whose 
 wide experience of men and cities might in 
 itself have well marked him out as such 
 a champion. The faithful, i.e. the sacred 
 writings, the Sacraments of Holy Baptism 
 and Holy Communion, the miraculous birth 
 of our Lord (the most probable reference of 
 irapOifos d7»'7;). His omnipresent and omni- 
 scient energy, the fellowship of the members 
 of the church, not only in Rome but else- 
 where — all these (together with the mixed 
 cup, wine and water ; the prayer for the 
 departed ; the symbolic IX9TIS, one of its 
 earliest instances) have a place in the picture 
 of early Christian usage and belief gained 
 from this one epitaph ; however widely Aber- 
 cius travelled, to the far East or West, the 
 same picture, he assures us, met his gaze. 
 We thus recover an instructive and enduring 
 monument of Christian life in the 2nd cent., 
 all the more remarkable because it is pre- 
 
 1 
 
2 abgAr 
 
 sented to us, not in any systematic form, but 
 as the natural and simple expression of a 
 pure and devout soul. For full literature, see 
 Zahn, M.S. ; for the development of the legend 
 from the facts mentioned in the epitaph, and 
 for the reconstruction of the text by Light- 
 foot and Ramsay, see three articles by the 
 latter in Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), also Ram- 
 say's Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. 722. 
 In addition to literature above, cf. art. by 
 Lightfoot in Expositor, i. (3rd ser.), pp. 3 ff. ; 
 and Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, i. pp. 10 ff. 
 Prof. V. Bartlet discusses Harnack's hypo- 
 thesis in the Critical Review, April 1896, and 
 regards it as at present holding the field ; 
 though he finds Harnack's elimination of any 
 reference to Paul the Apostle in the inscrip- 
 tion quite unintelhgible. Even Schmiedel 
 (Encycl. Bibl. ii. 1778) refers unhesitatingly to 
 the inscription as Christian. See further Dr. 
 Swete's art. /. T. S. July 1907, p. 502, on 
 Avircius and prayers for the departed. 
 
 The following is a translation of the epitaph : 
 " Citizen of a chosen city I have made this (tomb) in 
 my lifetime, that I may have here before the eyes of 
 men (ijjai'epux; v. I. xaipo.) a resting-place for my 
 body — Avircius by name, a disciple of the pure 
 Shepherd, who on the mountains and plains feedeth 
 the flocks of His sheep, who hath eyes large and be- 
 holding all things. For He was my Teacher, teaching 
 me {SLSa.(jK(oi>, so Ramsay, omitted by Zahn) the 
 faithful writings ; who sent me to Rome to behold the 
 King Oao-iAJjai', so Ramsay, but I,ightfoot /3a(riA»)ai', 
 Zahn, 0j.(TiAii di'a^pijTai), and to see the Qvieen in 
 golden robes and golden sandals, and there, too, I saw 
 a people bearing a shining seal (a reference to Bap- 
 tism). And I saw the plain of Syria and all its cities, 
 even Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates, and 
 everywhere I had fellow-worshippers (rrwoixiieti.^ , so 
 Ivightfoot and Ramsay ; cmi'oSiiTjr, Zahn, referring 
 to Paul). With Paul in my hands / followed (i.e. the 
 writings of Paul, Ramsay ; but I,ightfoot and Di 
 Rossi apparently ' with Paul as my comrade ' ; 
 whilst Zahn conjectures cVoxor, or rather en' 6xco>' 
 instead of ctto^dji'), while Faith everywhere led the 
 way, and everywhere placed before me food, the Fish 
 from the fountain, mighty, pure, which a spotless 
 Virgin grasped (Ramsay refers to the Virgin Mary, 
 but see also Lightfoot and Farrar). And this she 
 {i.e. Faith) gave to the friends to eat continually, 
 having excellent wine, giving the mixed cup with 
 bread. These words, I, Avircius, standing by, bade 
 to be thus written ; I was in fact in my seventy- 
 second year. On seeing this let every one who thinks 
 with him {i.e. who is also an anti-Montanist, so 
 Ramsay ; I,ightfoot and Farrar simply ' fellow- 
 Christian ') pray for him {i.e. Avircius). But no one 
 shall place another in my tomb, but if so, he shall 
 pay 2000 gold pieces to the Romans, and 1000 gold 
 pieces to my excellent fatherland Hierapolis " (so 
 Ramsay, vide Expositor, ix. 3rd ser. p. 271, for a 
 justification of this reading). [r.j.k.] 
 
 Abgar. [Thaddaeus.] 
 
 Acacius (2), bp. of Caesarea, from a personal 
 defect known as 6 fj.oi'6(pda\fios. the pupil and 
 biographer of Eusebius the church historian. 
 He succeeded his master as bishop, a.d. 340 
 (Socr. H. E. ii. 4 ; Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He is 
 chiefly known to us as the bitter and uncom- 
 promising adversary of Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 and as the leader of an intriguing band of 
 ambitious prelates. The events of his life 
 show Acacius to have been a man of great 
 intellectual abiHty but unscrupulous. After 
 the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, c. 342, 
 he became the head of the courtly Arian party, 
 and is thought by some to be the person styled 
 
 ACACIUS 
 
 by Greg. Naz. {Orat. xxi. 21) " the tongue of 
 the Arians," George of Cappadocia being " the 
 hand." He assisted in consecrating Cyril, a.d. 
 351, and in accordance with the 7th Nicene 
 Canon claimed a right of priority for the metro- 
 political see of Caesarea over that of Jeru- 
 salem. This Cyril refused to yield. Acacius^ 
 supported by the Palestinian bishops, deposed 
 Cyril on frivolous grounds, and expelled him 
 from Jerusalem, a.d. 358. [Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem.] (Soz. iv. 23 ; Theod. ii. 26.) 
 
 Acacius attended the council of Antioch, 
 A.D. 341 (Soz. iii. 5), when in the presence of 
 the emperor Cons'tantius " the Golden Basil- 
 ica " was dedicated by a band of ninety 
 bishops, and he subscribed the ambiguous 
 creeds then drawn up from which the term 
 Homoousion and all mention of " substance " 
 were carefully excluded. With other bishops 
 of the Eusebian party he was deposed at the 
 council of Sardica, a.d. 347. They refused to 
 submit to the sentence, and withdrew to 
 Philippopolis, where they held a council of 
 their own, deposing their deposers, including 
 Pope Julius and Hosius of Cordova (Theod. 
 ii. 26 ; Socr. ii. 16 ; Soz. iii. 14 ; Labb. Cone. 
 ii. 625-699). According to Jerome {Vir. III. 
 98), his influence with the emperor Constan- 
 tius was considerable enough to nominate 
 Felix (the antipope) to the see of Rome at the 
 fall of Liberius, a.d. 357. Acacius took a 
 leading place among the intriguing prelates, 
 who succeeded in spHtting into two the 
 oecumenical council which Constantius had 
 proposed to summon, and thus nullifying its 
 authority. While the Western bishops were 
 assembling at Rimini, a.d. 359, he and his 
 brethren of the East gathered at Seleucia, 
 where he headed a tiurbulent party, called 
 after him Acacians. After the majority had 
 confirmed the semi-Arian creed of Antioch 
 (" Creed of the Dedication "), Acacius brought 
 forward a Confession (preserved by Athan- 
 asius, de Synod, § 29 ; Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. iv. 
 22) rejecting the terms Homoousion and Ho- 
 moiousion " as aUen from Scripture," and 
 anathematizing the term " Anomoeon," but 
 distinctly confessing the " likeness " of the 
 Son to the Father. This formula the semi- 
 Arian majority rejected, and becoming ex- 
 asperated by the disingenuousness of Acacius, 
 who interpreted the " likeness of the Son to 
 the Father " as " likeness in will alone," 
 ofioiov Kara ttjv ^ov\-r)<nv ^bvov, and refused 
 to be judged by his own published writings 
 (Socr. and Soz. I.e.), they proceeded to de- 
 pose him and his adherents. Acacius and 
 the other deposed prelates flew to Con- 
 stantinople and laid their complaints before 
 the emperor. The adroit Acacius soon 
 gained the ear of the weak Constantius, and 
 finding that the favour he had shown to the 
 bold blasphemies of Aetius had to some de- 
 gree compromised him with his royal patron, 
 he had no scruple in throwing over his former 
 friend. A new council was speedily called at 
 Constantinople, of which Acacius was the 
 soul (Philostorg. iv. 12). Mainly through his 
 intrigues the Council was brought to accept 
 the Confession of Rimini, by which, in Jerome's 
 strong words, " the whole world groaned and 
 wondered to find itself Arian " {Dial. adv. 
 Luc. 19). To complete their triumph, he and 
 
ACACIUS 
 
 Eudoxius of Antioch. then bp. of Con- 
 stantinople, put forth tluir whole influence to 
 bring the edicts of the Nici-iie council, and all 
 mention of the Honioousioa, into disuse and 
 oblivion (Soz. iv. 26). On his return to the 
 East in 361 Acacius and his party consecrated 
 new bishops to the vacant sees, iMeletius 
 being placed in the see of Antioch. When 
 the imperial throne was filled by the orthodox 
 Jovian, Acacius with his friends found it con- 
 venient to change their views, and in 363 
 they voluntarily accepted the Nicene Symbol 
 (Socr. iii. 25). On the accession of the Arian 
 Valens in 364 Acacius once more went over 
 to the more powerful side, making common 
 cause with the Arian Eudoxius (Socr. iv. 2). 
 But he found no favour with the council of 
 Macedonian bishops at Lampsacus, and his 
 deposition at Selcucia was confirmed. Accord- 
 ing to Baronius, he died a.d. 366. 
 
 Acacius enriched with parchments the 
 library at Caesarea founded by Pamphilus 
 (Hieron. Ep. ad. Marcellam, 141). He wrote 
 on Ecclesiastes, six books of (^^V/"^•ra 
 (ifTi'inaTa and other treatises ; a considerable 
 fragment of his 'AvriXoyia against Marccllus 
 of Ancyra is preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. 
 72, 6-9). His Life of Eusebius Pamphili has 
 unhappily perished. See Fabricius, H. G. 
 vii. p. 336, ix. pp. 254, 256 (ed. Harless) ; 
 Tillemont, Mem. eccl. vi. {passim) ; Rivington 
 (Luke), Dublin Review, 1894, i. 358-380; 
 Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i. [e.v.] 
 
 Acacius (4), bp. of Beroea, in Syria, c. a.d. 
 379-436. He was apparently a Syrian by 
 birth, and in his early youth adopted the 
 ascetic life in the monastery of (lindarus near 
 Antioch, then governed by Asterius (Theod. 
 Vit. Patr. c. 2). Not much is known with 
 certainty of this period of his life. He ap- 
 pears, however, to have been prominent as a 
 champion of the orthodox faith against the 
 Arians, from whom he suffered (Baluz. Nov. 
 Collect. Cone. p. 746), and it is specially men- 
 tioned that he did great service in bringing 
 the hermit Julianus Sabbas from his retire- 
 ment to Antioch to confront this party, who 
 had falsely claimed his support (Theod. Vil. 
 Patr. 2, H. E. iv. 24). We find him in Rome, 
 probably as a deputy from the churches of 
 Syria when the Apolliiiarian heresy was treated 
 before pope Uamasus (Baluz. Cone. 763). 
 After the return of Eusebius of Saraosata from 
 exile, A.D. 378, Acacius was consecrated to the 
 see of Beroea (the modern Aleppo) by that 
 prelate (Theod. H. E. v. 4). As bishop he 
 did not relax the strictness of his asceticism, 
 and like Ambrose (August. Confess, vi. 3), 
 throwing the doors of his house open to every 
 comer, he invited all the world to witness the 
 purity and simplicity of his life (Soz. H. E. 
 vii. 28). He attended the council of Con- 
 stantinople in 381 (Theod. v. 8). The same 
 year, on the death of Meletius, taking a pro- 
 minent part in the consecration of Flavian to 
 the bishopric of Antioch [Flavianus], thus 
 perpetuating the Eustathian schism, he in- 
 curred displeasure both in East and West, 
 and was cut off from communion with the 
 church of Rome (Soz. vii. 11). The council 
 of Capua at the close of 391 or 392 received 
 Acacius again into communion, together with 
 the prelates of Flavian's party (Ambros. Ep. 
 
 ACACIOS 3 
 
 9 ; Labb. Cone. ii. 1072) ; while Flavian him- 
 self, through the exertions of .Xcacius, received 
 letters of communion not only from Rome, 
 but also from Theophilus of Alexandria and 
 the Egyptian bishops. The whole merit of 
 this success was ascribed by the bishops of the 
 East to " their father " Acacius (Socr. vi. ; 
 Soz. viii. 3 ; Theod. v. 23 ; Labb. Cone. iii. 
 p. 391 ; Tallad. p. 39). Acacius was one of 
 the most implacable of the enemies of Chry- 
 sosTOM. He bore part in the infamous 
 " Synod of the Oak," a.d. 403 ; took the lead 
 in the Synod of 404, after Chrysostom's return 
 from exile ; and joined in urging Arcadius to 
 depose him (Pallad. p. 82). He added acts of 
 open violence to his urgency with the timid 
 emperor, until he had gained his end in the 
 final expulsion of the saint, June 20, 404. 
 Nor was his hostility even now satiated. 
 .\cacius sent to Rome one Patronus, with 
 letters accusing Chrysostom of being the 
 author of the conflagration of his own church. 
 The pope treated the accusation with deserved 
 contempt, and Acacius was a second time sus- 
 pended from communion with Rome (Pallad. 
 (). 35), which he did not regain till 414, and 
 then chiefly through Alexander of Antioch. 
 The letter sent to the pope by Acacius, with 
 those of Alexander, was received with haughty 
 condescension, and an answer was returned re- 
 admitting the aged prelate on his complying 
 with certain conditions [Cone. ii. 1266-8). His 
 communion with Alexander was fully restored, 
 and we find the two prelates uniting in ordain- 
 ing Diogenes, a " bigamus " (Theod. Ep. no). 
 Acacius's enmity to Chrysostom's memory 
 seems however to have been imquenched ; 
 and on the succession of Theodotus of Antioch, 
 a.d. 421, he took the opportunity of writing 
 to .'Mticus of Constantinople to apologize for 
 the new bishop's having, in defiance of his 
 better judgment, yielded to popular clamour 
 and placed Chrysostom's name on the diptychs 
 (Theod. V. 34 ; Niceph. xiv. 26, 27). On the 
 rise of the Ncstorian controversy Acacius 
 endeavoured to act the part of a peacemaker, 
 for which his age of more than 100 years, and 
 the popular reverence which had gained for 
 him the title of ' ' the father and master of all 
 bishops," well qualified him. With the view 
 of healing the breach between Cyril of Alex- 
 andria and Nestorius, he wrote a pacificatory 
 reply to a violent letter of the former (a.d. 
 430). In the general council which followed 
 at Ephesus, a.d. 431, he entrusted his proxy 
 to Paul of Emesa. The influence of the aged 
 Acacius was powerful at court. Theodosius 
 wrote to him in most reverential terms be- 
 seeching him to give his endeavours and 
 prayers for the restoration of unity to the 
 distracted church. Acacius was also ap- 
 pealed to by Pope Sixtus III. for the same 
 object (Baluz. Cone. pp. 721, 754, 757 ; Labb. 
 Cone. iii. 1087). 
 
 Acacius disapproved of Cyril's anathemas 
 of Nestorius, which appeared to him to 
 savour of ApoUinarianism ; but he spent his 
 last days in promoting peace between the 
 rival parties, taking part in the synod held at 
 the emperor's instance in his own city of 
 Beroea, a.d. 432, by John of Antioch, and 
 doing all in his power, both by personal in- 
 fluence and by letters to Cyril and to the 
 
4 ACACIUS 
 
 Roman bp. Coelestinus to bring about an 
 agreement. He ultimately succeeded in 
 establishing friendly communion between 
 John and Cyril. He saw the peace of the 
 church re-established, and died full of days 
 and honour, aged, it is said, more than no 
 years, a.d. 436. 
 
 Three letters are still extant out of the large 
 number that he wrote, especially on the 
 Nestorian controversy : two to Alexander of 
 Hierapolis, Baluzius, Nov. Collect. Concil. 
 c. xli. p. 746, c. Iv. p. 757 ; and one to Cyril, 
 ib. c. xxii. p. 440 ; Labbe, Cone. vol. iii. p. 382 
 (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 417 ; Tillemont, Metn. eccl. 
 vol.-xiv. ; Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.)- [e.v.] 
 AcaciUS (7), patriarch of Constantinople, 
 A.D. 471-489. Acacius was originally at the 
 head of an orphanage at Constantinople, 
 which he administered with conspicuous suc- 
 cess (Suidas, s.v. 'AvdKios). His abihties at- 
 tracted the notice of the emperor Leo, over 
 whom he obtained great influence by the arts 
 of an accomplished courtier (Suidas, I.e.). On 
 the death of Gennadius (471) he was chosen 
 bp. of Constantinople, and soon found him- 
 self involved in controversies, which lasted 
 throughout his patriarchate, and ended in 
 a schism of thirty-five years' duration be- 
 tween the churches of the East and West. 
 On the one side he laboured to restore unity 
 to Eastern Christendom, which was distracted 
 by the varieties of opinion to which the Euty- 
 chian debates had given rise ; and on the other 
 to aggrandize the authority of his see by 
 asserting its independence of Rome, and 
 extending its influence over Alexandria and 
 Antioch. In both respects he appears to 
 have acted more in the spirit of a statesman 
 than of a theologian ; and in this relation the 
 personal traits of liberaUty, courtliness, and 
 ostentation, noticed by Suidas [I.e.), are not 
 without importance. 
 
 The first important measures of Acacius 
 carried with them enthusiastic popular support 
 and earned for him the praise of pope Sim- 
 plicius. In conjunction with a Stylite monk, 
 Daniel, he placed himself at the head of the 
 opposition to the emperor Basiliscus, who, 
 after usurping the empire of the East, had 
 issued an encyclic letter in condemnation of 
 the council of Chalcedon, and taken Timo- 
 theus Aelurus, the Monophysite patriarch of 
 Alexandria, under his protection, a.d. 476. 
 The resistance was completely successful. In 
 the meantime Zeno, the fugitive emperor, 
 reclaimed the throne which he had lost ; and 
 Basiliscus, after abject and vain concessions to 
 the ecclesiastical power, was given up to him 
 (as it is said) by Acacius, after he had taken 
 sanctuary in his church, a.d. 477 (Evagr. H. E. 
 iii. 4 ff. ; Theod. Lect. i. 30 ff. ; Theophan. 
 Chron. pp. 104 ff. ; Procop. B. V. i. 7, p. 195). 
 At this period the relations between Zeno, 
 Acacius, and Simplicius appear to have been 
 amicable, if not cordial. They were agreed 
 on the necessity of taking vigorous measures 
 to affirm the decrees of the council of Chalce- 
 don, and for a time acted in concert (Simplic. 
 Epp. 5, 6). Before long a serious difference 
 arose, when Acacius, in 479, consecrated a 
 bishop of Antioch (Theophan. Chron. p. no), 
 and thus exceeded the proper limits of his 
 jurisdiction. However, Simplicius admitted 
 
 ACACIUS 
 
 the appointment on the plea of necessity, 
 while he protested against the precedent 
 (Simplic. Epp. 14, 15). Three years later 
 (482), on the death of the patriarch of Ale.x- 
 andria, the appointment of his successor gave 
 occasion to a graver dispute. The Mono- 
 physites chose Petrus Mongus as patriarch, 
 who had already been conspicuous among 
 them ; on the other side the Catholics put 
 forward Johannes Talaia. Both aspirants 
 lay open to grave objections. Mongus was, 
 or at least had been, unorthodox ; Talaia was 
 bound by a solemn promise to the Emperor 
 not to seek or (as it appears) accept the 
 patriarchate (Liberat. c. 17 ; Evagr. H. E. 
 iii. 12). Talaia at once sought and obtained 
 the support of Simplicius, and slighted 
 Acacius. Mongus represented to Acacius 
 that he was able, if confirmed in his post, to 
 heal the divisions by which the Alexandrine 
 church was rent. Acacius and Zeno readily 
 listened to the promises of Mongus, and in 
 spite of the vehement opposition of Simplicius, 
 received the envoys whom he sent to discuss 
 the terms of reunion. Shortly afterwards the 
 Henoticon (An Instrument of Union) was 
 drawn up, in which the creed of Nicaea, as 
 completed at Constantinople, was affirmed to 
 be the one necessary and final definition of 
 faith ; and though an anathema was pro- 
 nounced against Eutyches, no express judg- 
 ment was pronounced upon the doctrine of the 
 two Natures (Evagr. H. E. iii. 14). Mongus 
 accepted the Henoticon, and was confirmed in 
 his see. Talaia retired to Rome (482-483), and 
 Simplicius wrote again to Acacius, charging 
 him in the strongest language to check the 
 progress of heresy elsewhere and at Alexandria 
 (Simplic. Epp. 18, 19). The letters were 
 without effect, and Simplicius died soon after- 
 wards. His successor, Felix III. (II.), es- 
 poused the cause of Talaia with zeal, and 
 despatched two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, 
 to Constantinople with letters to Zeno and 
 Acacius, demanding that the latter should 
 repair to Rome to answer the charges brought 
 against him by Talaia (Felix, Epp. i, 2). The 
 mission utterly failed. Vitalis and Misenus 
 were induced to communicate publicly with 
 Acacius and the representatives of Mongus, 
 and returned dishonoured to Italy (484). On 
 their arrival at Rome a synod was held. 
 They were themselves deposed and excom- 
 municated ; a new anathema was issued 
 against Mongus, and Acacius was irrevocably 
 excommunicated for his connexion with 
 Mongus, for exceeding the limits of his juris- 
 diction, and for refusing to answer at Rome 
 the accusations of Talaia (Evagr. H. E. iii. 
 21 ; Felix, Ep. 6) ; but no direct heretical 
 opinion was proved or urged against him. 
 Felix communicated the sentence to Acacius, 
 and at the same time wrote to Zeno, and to 
 the church at Constantinople, charging every 
 one, under pain of excommunication, to 
 separate from the deposed patriarch {Epp. 9, 
 10, 12). Once again the envoy of the pope 
 was seduced from his allegiance, and on his 
 return to Rome fell under ecclesiastical cen- 
 sure (Felix, Ep. n). For the rest, the threats 
 of Felix produced no practical effect. The 
 Eastern Christians, with very few exceptions, 
 remained in communion with Acacius ; Talaia 
 
ACEPHALI 
 
 .-irkiiowlcdged the hopelessness of his cause 
 bv accepting the bishopric of Nola ; and 
 Z<-no and Acacius took active measures to 
 obtain the general acceptance of the Henoti- 
 ( >ii. Under these circumstances the con- 
 demnation of Acacius, which had been made 
 III the name of the Pope, was repeated in the 
 name of the council of Chalcedon, and the 
 s. hism was complete * (485)- Acacius took 
 11 ' heed of the sentence up to his death in 480, 
 which was followed by that of Mongus in 
 1 i->. and of Zeno in 401- Fravitas (Flavitas, 
 I Livianus), his successor, during a very short 
 patriarchate, entered on negotiations with 
 1-. lix, which led to no result. The policy of 
 Ai acius broke down when he was no longer 
 al'lc to animate it. In the course of a few 
 \ ,ars all for which he had laboured was un- 
 d 'uc. The Henoticon failed to restore unity 
 t ' the Fast, and in 519 the emperor Justin 
 -ubinitted to pope Hormisdas, and the con- 
 il.nination of Acacius was recognized by the 
 (. "ustantinopolitan church. 
 
 Tillemont has given a detailed history of 
 the whole controversy, up to the death of 
 Fravitas, in his Memoires, vol. xvi., but with 
 a natural bias towards the Roman side. The 
 original documents, exclusive of the histories 
 of Evagrius, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are 
 for the most part collected in the 58th volume 
 of Migne's Palrologia. See also Hefele, Koiiz. 
 Gesch. Bd. ii. ["'.] 
 
 Acephali (from d and K€(pa\ri, those without 
 a head or leader) is a term applied : — (i) To 
 the bishops of the oecumenical council of 
 Ephesus in 431, who refused to follow either 
 St. Cvril or John of Antioch— the leaders of 
 the two parties in the Nestorian controversy. 
 (2) To a radical branch of Monophysites, who 
 rejected not only the oecumenical council of 
 Chalcedon in 451, but also the Henoticon of 
 the emperor Zeno, issued in 482 to the Chris- 
 tians of Egypt, to unite the orthodox and the 
 Monophvsites. Peter Mongus, the Monophy- 
 site patriarch of Alexandria, subscribed this 
 compromise [Ac.\cius (7)] ; for this reason 
 many of his party, especially among the 
 monks, separated from him, and were called 
 Acephali. They were condemned, under Jus- 
 tinian, by a synod of Constantinople, 536, as 
 schismatics, who sinned against the churches, 
 the pope, and the emperor. Cf. Mansi, Cone. 
 torn. viii. p. 891 sqq. ; Harduin, Cone. torn, 
 ii. 1203 sqq. ; W'alch, Ketzerhistorie, vol. vii. ; 
 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii. pp. 549. 
 744. (3) To the clerici vagi, i.e. clergy- 
 men belonging to no diocese (as in Isid. 
 Hispal. de Offic. Eccl., the so-called Egbert's 
 Excerpts, 160, and repeatedly in Carlovingian 
 Councils: see Du Cange) \D. C. A. art. 
 Vagi Clerici]. (4) It is said to be used 
 sometimes for avroKicpaXoi. [D. C. A. art. 
 
 AUTOCF.PHALl.] [r.S.] 
 
 Adamantius (1). [Origen.] 
 
 AeriUS, 'Ae>05, founder of the heretical sect 
 of the Aerians, c. 355, still living when 
 Epiphanius wrote against heresies, 374-376. 
 He was the early friend and fellow-disciple of 
 EusTATHiis OF Sebaste in Pontus. While 
 
 • This appears to be the best explanation of 
 the "double excommunication" of Acacius. Cf. 
 Tillemont, .Memoires, xvi. n. sj, pp. 764 f . 
 
 AETIUS 5 
 
 they were living an ascetic life together, the 
 bishopric of Sebaste became vacant. Each 
 of the friends was a candidate for the office. 
 The choice fell on Eustathius. This was 
 never forgiven by .\erius. l-.ustathius endea- 
 voured to soften' his friend's disappointment 
 by at once ordaining .-Verius presbyter, and 
 setting him over the hospital established at 
 Sebaste (^(voSox^^on, or TrTwxorpo^fi'oi'). Hut 
 all his attempts were fruitless. Aerius threw 
 up his charge, deserted the hospital, and 
 openly published grave accusations against 
 his bishop. The rupture with Eustathius 
 widened into a rupture with the church. 
 Aerius and his numerous followers openly 
 separated from their fellow-Christians, and 
 professed dnoTa^ia, or the renimciation of 
 all worldlv goods. They were consequently 
 denied not only admission to the churches, 
 but even access to the towns and villages, and 
 they were compelled to sojourn in the fields, 
 or in caves and ravines, and hold their re- 
 ligious assemblies in the open air exposed to 
 the severity of Armenian winters. 
 
 Our knowledge of Aerius is from Epiphanius 
 {Haer. 75). Augustine, de Haeresibus, c. 53, 
 merelv epitomises Epiphanius. Aerius went 
 so fearlessly to the root of much that the 
 church was beginning to cling to, that we 
 cannot feel much surprise at the vehemence of 
 Epiphanius with regard to his teaching. 
 
 Epiphanius asserts that he went beyond 
 Arius in his impieties, specifying four counts, 
 (i) The first, with which the name of Aerius 
 has been chiefly identified in modern times, 
 is the assertion of the equality of bishops 
 and presbyters, fiia rd^is, fx-a Tifiri. tii> d^iu>fj.a. 
 (2) Aerius also ridiculed the observance of 
 Easter as a relic of Jewish superstition. (3) 
 Prayers and offerings for the dead he regarded 
 as pernicious. If they availed for the de- 
 parted, no one need trouble himself to live 
 holily : he would only have to provide, by 
 bribes or otherwise, a multitude of prayers and 
 offerings for him, and his salvation was secure. 
 (4) All set fasts he condemned. A Christian 
 man should fast when he felt it to be for his 
 soul's good : appointed days of fasting were 
 relics of Jewish bondage. Philaster, whose 
 
 unconfirmed authority is very small, con- 
 founds the Aerians with the Encratites, and 
 asserts that thev practised abstinence from 
 food and rejected marriage (Philast. Haer. 
 72). Consult Schrockh, Christliche Kirch. 
 Gesch. vol. vi. pp. 226-234 ; Walch, Ketzerhist. 
 vol. iii. pp. 221 seq. ; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. 
 iii. pp. 461-563 (Clark's trans.) ; Herzog. Real- 
 encycl. vol. i. 165 ; Tillemont, Hist. eccl. vol. 
 ix. pp. 87 seq. [e. v.] 
 
 AetiUS ('AMos), the founder and head of 
 the strictest sect of Arianism, upon whom, 
 on account of the boldness of his reasonings 
 on the nature of (iod, was affixed the surname 
 of " the ungodly," d^fos (Soz. iii. 15)- He 
 was the first to carry out the doctrines of 
 Arius to their legitimate issue, and in opposi- 
 tion both to Homoousians and Homoiousians 
 maintained that the Son was unlike, dvdpLoios, 
 the Father, from which his followers took the 
 name of Anomoeans. They were also known 
 as Eunomians, from his amanuensis Euno- 
 Mius, the principal apologist of the party ; and 
 
6 AETIUS 
 
 as Heterusiasts and Exukontians, as affirming 
 that the Son was e^ erepas ovaias from the 
 Father, and created e^ ovk 6vtuv. 
 
 The events of his singularly vagrant and 
 chequered career are related from very differ- 
 ent points of view by the Eunomian Philos- 
 torgius, and the orthodox writers Socrates, 
 Sozomen, Theodoret, and Gregory Nyssen. 
 We must regard Aetius as a bold and unprin- 
 cipled adventurer, endowed with an indomit- 
 able love of disputation, which led him into 
 incessant arguments on the nature of the God- 
 head, the person of our Lord, and other trans- 
 cendental subjects, not only with the orthodox 
 but with the less pronounced Arians. He was 
 born at Antioch. His father, dying insolvent, 
 left Aetius, then a child, and his mother in 
 extreme destitution (Philost. H. E. iii. 15 ; 
 cf. Valesius's notes; Suidas, sub. voc. "AeVios). 
 According to Gregory Nyssen, he became the 
 slave of a woman named Ampelis ; and having 
 obtained his freedom in some disgraceful 
 manner, became a travelling tinker, and after- 
 wards a goldsmith. Having been convicted 
 of substituting copper for gold in an ornament 
 entrusted to him for repair, he gave up his 
 trade, and attaching himself to an itinerant 
 quack, picked up some knowledge of medicine. 
 He met with a ready dupe in an Armenian, 
 whose large fees placed Aetius above the reach 
 of want. He now began to take rank as a 
 regular and recognized practitioner at Antioch 
 (Greg. Nys. adv. Etinom. lib. i. vol. ii. p. 293). 
 Philostorgius merely tells us that he devoted 
 himself to the study of philosophy and dia- 
 lectics, and became the pupil of Paulinus the 
 Arian bishop, recently removed from Tyre to 
 Antioch, c. 323 (Philost. iii. 15). Aetius at- 
 tached himself to the Aristotelian form of 
 philosophy, and with him, Milman remarks 
 {Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 443), the strife 
 between Aristotelianism and Platonism among 
 theologians seems to have begun. His chief 
 study was the Categories of Aristotle, the scope 
 of \yhich, according to Socrates {H. E. ii. 33), he 
 entirely misconceived, dra\\-ing from them soph- 
 istical arguments repudiating the prevailing 
 Platonic mode of argument used by Origen and 
 Clemens Alex. On the death of Paulinus his 
 protector, c. 324, he was banished to Anazar- 
 bus in Cilicia, where he gained his livelihood by 
 his trade. Here his dialectic skill charmed a 
 grammarian, who instructed him more fully, 
 receiving repayment by his menial services. 
 Aetius tried his polemic powers against his 
 benefactor, whom he put to public shame by 
 the confutation of his interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture. On the ignominious dismissal which natu- 
 rally followed, Athanasius, the Arian bishop of 
 the place, opened his doors to the outcast, and 
 read the Gospels with him. Aetius also read 
 St. Paul's Epistles at Tarsus with Antonius, 
 who, like Athanasius, was a disciple of Lucian, 
 Arius's master. On Antonius's elevation to 
 the episcopate, Aetius returned to Antioch, 
 where he studied the prophets, particularly 
 Ezekiel, with Leontius, afterwards bishop 
 of that see, also a pupil of Lucian. A 
 storm of unpopularity soon drove him from 
 Antioch to Cilicia ; but having been defeated 
 in argument by one of the Borborian Gnostics, 
 he betook himself to Alexandria, where he 
 soon recovered his character as an invincible 
 
 AETIUS 
 
 adversary by vanquishing the Manichean 
 leader Aphthonius. Aphthonius, according to 
 Philostorgius {H. E. iii. 15), only survived his 
 defeat seven days. Here Aetius took up his 
 former professions, studying medicine and 
 working as a goldsmith. 
 
 On the return of St. Athanasius to Alex- 
 andria in 349, Aetius retired to Antioch, of 
 which his former teacher Leontius was now 
 bishop. By him Aetius was ordained deacon, 
 c. 350 (Philost. iii. 17 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 35 ; 
 Athan. de Synod. § 38, Oxf. trans, p. 137 ; 
 Suidas, S.V.). His ordination was protested 
 against by Flavian and Diodorus, and he was 
 inhibited from the exercise of his ministry 
 (Theod. H. E. ii. 24). Epiphanius errone- 
 ously asserts that he was admitted to the 
 diaconate by George of Cappadocia, the in- 
 truding bp. of Alexandria (Epiph. Haeres. 
 Ixxvi. i). Aetius now developed more fully 
 his Anomoean tenets, and he exerted all his 
 influence to induce the Arian party to refuse 
 communion with the orthodox. He also be- 
 gan to withdraw himself from the less pro- 
 nounced Arians (Socr. H. E. ii. 359). This 
 schism in the .\rian party was still further 
 developed at the first council of Sirmium, 
 A.D. 351, where he attacked the respectable 
 semi-Arian (Homoiousian) bishops, Basil of 
 Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste (Philost. 
 H. E. iii. 16), reducing them to silence. Exas- 
 perated by his discomfiture, Basil denounced 
 Aetius to Gallus. His hfe was spared at 
 the intercession of bp. Leontius ; and being 
 subsequently introduced to Gallus by Theo- 
 philus Blemmys, he was sent by him to his 
 brother JuUan to win him back from the 
 paganism into which he was lapsing. Gallus 
 also appointed him his religious teacher 
 (Philost. H. E. iii. 27 ; Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 294). 
 
 The fall of Gallus in 354 caused a change in 
 the fortunes of Aetius, who returned to Alex- 
 andria in 356 to support the waning cause of 
 Arianism. The see of Athanasius was then 
 occupied by George of Cappadocia, under 
 whom Aetius served as a deacon, and when 
 nominated to the episcopate by two Arian 
 bishops, Serras and Secundus, he refused to be 
 consecrated by them on the ground that they 
 had held communion with the Homoousian 
 party (Philost. iii. 19). Here he was joined 
 by his renowned pupil and secretary Eunomius 
 (Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 299 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 22 ; 
 Philost. H. E. iii. 20). Greater troubles were 
 now at hand for Aetius. Basil of AncvTa de- 
 nounced him to the civil power for his supposed 
 complicity in the treasonable designs of Gallus, 
 and he was banished to Pepuza in Phrygia. 
 The influence of Ursacius and Valens procured 
 his recall ; but he was soon driven again into 
 exile. The hard irreverence of Aetius, and 
 the determination with which he pushed con- 
 clusions from the principles of Arius, shocked 
 the more religious among the Arian party, and 
 forced the bishops to use all measures to crush 
 him. His doctrines were also becoming alarm- 
 ingly prevalent. " Nearly the whole of 
 Antioch had suffered from the shipwreck of 
 Aetius, and there was danger lest the whole 
 (once more) should be submerged " (Letter 
 of George, bp. of Laodicea, ap. Soz. H. E. vL 
 13). A synod was therefore appointed for 
 Nicomedia in Bithynia. A violent earthquake 
 
AFRICANUS, JULIUS 
 
 and the intrigues of tlie court brouglit about 
 its division into two synods. Tlie West met 
 at Ariminum ; the East at Seleucia in Isauria, 
 A.D. 359. The hitter separated without any 
 definite conchision. "The Arians, senii-Arians, 
 and Anomoeans, mingled in tumultuous strife, 
 and hurled anathemas at one another " (Mil- 
 man, Hist. Christ, iii. c. 8). Whatever triumph 
 was gained rested with the opponents of the 
 Aetians, who appealed to the emperor and the 
 court, and a second general council was sum- 
 moned to meet at Constantinople (Athan. lie 
 Synod. § 10, 12). Of this council Acacius 
 was the leading spirit, but a spUt occurred 
 among the Anomoean followers of Aetius. The 
 party triumphed, but its founder was sent into 
 banishment, first to Mopsuestia, then to Am- 
 blada in Pisidia. Here he gained the good- 
 will of the savage inhabitants by his prayers 
 having, as they supposed, averted a pestilence 
 (Theod. ii. 23 ; Soz. iv. 23, 24 ; Philost. iv. 12 ; 
 Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 301). 
 
 The death of Constantius, a.d. 361, put an 
 end to Aetius's exile. Julian recalled all the 
 banished bishops and invited Aetius to his 
 court {Ep. Juliani, 31, p. 52, ed. Boisson ; Soz. 
 V. 5), and at the instance of Eudoxius (Philost. 
 iz. 4) presented him with an estate in the is- 
 land of Lesbos. The ecclesiastical censure was 
 taken ofif Aetius by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of 
 Antioch (ib. vii. 5), who, with the bishop of 
 his party, compiled a defence of his doctrines 
 (ib. viii.'2). According to Epiphanius (Haer. 
 U.S.), he was consecrated bishop at Constanti- 
 nople, though not to any particular see ; and 
 he and Eunomius consecrated bishops for his 
 own party (Philost. viii. 2). On the death of 
 Jovian, a.d. 364, Valens shewed special favour 
 to Eudoxius, between whom and Aetius and 
 Eunomius a schism had arisen. Aetius in dis- 
 gust retired to his farm in Lesbos {ib. ix. 
 4). The revolt of Procopius once more en- 
 dangered his hfe. He was accused to the 
 governor, whom Procopius had placed in the 
 island, of favouring the cause of Valens, 
 A.D. 365-366 (ib. ix. 6). Aetius returned to 
 Constantinople. He was the author of several 
 letters to Constantius and others, filled with 
 subtle disquisition on the nature of the Deity 
 (Socr. ii. 35), and of 300 heretical proposi- 
 tions, of which Epiphanius has preserved 47 
 (Haer. Ixxvi. § 10), with a refutation of each. 
 Hefelo, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i. [k.v.] 
 
 Afrlcanus, Julius ('A(ppiKav6s), a Christian 
 writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent. A 
 great part of his life was passed at Emmaus in 
 Palestine — not, however, the Emmaus of St. 
 Luke (xxiv. 16), as assumed by the ancient 
 authorities (Soz. H. E.v. 21 ; Hieron. in libra 
 de Locis Hebraicis, s.v. '¥J^J.fJ.aovs, ii. p. 439 ; et 
 in Epitaph. Paulae. iv. p. 673) ; but, as Reland 
 has shewn in his Palaeslina, pp. 427, 758 (see 
 also Smith's Diet, of Geogr. s.v. Emmaus), 
 the Emmaus in the plain (i Mace. iii. 40), 22 
 Roman miles ( = 176 stadia) from Jerusalem. 
 He may have been born a.d. 170 or a little 
 earlier, and died a.d. 240 or a little later. 
 There seems to be no ancient authority for 
 dating his death a.d. 232. 
 
 Africanus ranks with Clement and Origen as 
 among the most learned of the ante-Nicene 
 fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 35 ; Hieron. Ep. ad 
 .Magnum, 83, vol. iv. p. 656). His great work, 
 
 AFRICANUS. JULIUS 7 
 
 a comparatt\e view of sacred and profane his- 
 tory from the creation of the world, demanded 
 extensive reading ; and the fragments that 
 remain refer to the works of a considerable 
 number of historical writers. His only work 
 now extant in a cotniilete state is his letter 
 to Origen referred to by many authors (Eus. 
 H. E. vi. 31 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 63 ; Photius, 
 Cod. 34 ; Suidas, s.v. 'A</>ptvoi'6t ; Niceph. Call. 
 H. E. V. 21, and others). The correspondence 
 originated in a discussion between Origen and 
 a certain Bassus, at which .\fricanus was pre- 
 sent, and in which Origen appealed to the au- 
 thority of that part of the Book of Daniel which 
 contains the story of Susanna. Africanus 
 afterwards wrote a short letter to Origen urg- 
 ing several objections to the authenticity of 
 this part of the book ; among others, that the 
 style is different from that of the genuine book, 
 that this section is not in the book as received 
 by the Jews, and that it contains a play on 
 Gk. words which shews that, unlike other 
 O.T. books, it was originally written in Gk. 
 and not in Heb. Origen replied at greater 
 length. That Africanus had any intimate 
 knowledge of Heb. must not be regarded as 
 proved by this letter. The date of the corre- 
 spondence is limited by the facts that Origen 
 writes from Nicomedia, having previously 
 visited Palestine, and refers to his labours in 
 a comparison of the Gk. and Heb. text, indi- 
 cating that he had already published the 
 Hexapla. These conditions are best satisfied 
 by a date c. 238. 
 
 Not less celebrated is the letter of Africanus 
 to Aristides on the discrepancy in our Saviour's 
 genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. 
 Luke. A considerable portion of this has been 
 preserved by Eusebius (H. E. i. 7), and Routh 
 (Ret. Sac. ii. 228) has jniblished this together 
 with a fragment not previously edited. A 
 compressed version of the letter is given also in 
 Eusebii ad Stephanum, Quaest. iv. (Mai, Script. 
 Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. i.). Africanus begins by 
 rejecting a previous explanation that the gene- 
 alogies are fictitious lists, designed to establish 
 our Lord's claim to be both king and priest by 
 tracingHisdesccntin one Gospel from Solomon, 
 in the other from Nathan, who was assumed to 
 be Nathan the prophet. Africanus argues the 
 necessity of maintaining the literal truth of 
 the Gospel narrative, and against drawing dog- 
 matic consequences from any statements not 
 founded on historical fact. He then gives his 
 own explanation, founded on the levirate law 
 of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally 
 derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of 
 the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the 
 villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According 
 to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke 
 the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is 
 said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the 
 house of Nathan, married the same woman, 
 whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of 
 Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in 
 our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by 
 Africanus) having died childless, his uterine 
 brother Jacob, Matthan's son, took his wife 
 and raised up seed to him ; so that the offspring 
 Joseph was legally Heli's son as stated by St. 
 Luke, but naturally Jacob's son as stated by 
 St. Matthew. For a critical examination and 
 defence of this solution, which is adopted by St. 
 
8 
 
 AFRICANUS, JULIUS 
 
 Augustine {Retract, lib. ii. c. vii.), see Mill, On 
 the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, p. 201. 
 
 The great work of Africanus was his " accu- 
 rately laboured" (Eus. H. E. vi. 31) treatise 
 on chronology, in five books. As a whole it is 
 lost, but we can form a good idea of its general 
 character from the still remaining Chronicon of 
 Eusebius, which was based upon it, and which 
 undoubtedly incorporates much of it. Euse- 
 bius himself, p. 132, mentions Africanus among 
 his authorities for Jewish history, subsequent 
 to O.T. times. Several fragments of the work of 
 Africanus can be identified by express quota- 
 tions, either by Eusebius in his Praeparatio and 
 Demonstratio Evangelii, or by other writers, in 
 particular bv Georgius Syncellus in his Chrono- 
 graphia. These have been collected by Gal- 
 landi {Bibl. Vet. Pat. vol. ii.), and more fully by 
 Routh {Rel. Sac. vol. ii.). 
 
 Christian Apologists had been forced to en- 
 gage in chronological discussions, to remove 
 the heathen contempt of Christianity as a 
 noveltv, bv demonstrating the great antiquity 
 of the Jewish svstem, out of which the Chris- 
 tian sprang. Thus Tatian {Or. ad Graec. c. 
 39), Theophilus of Antioch {ad. Autol. iii. 21), 
 Clement of Alexandria {Stromata, i. 21), dis- 
 cuss the question of the antiquity of Moses, 
 and, following Josephus {cont. Apion. i. 16), 
 arrive at the conclusion that Moses was a con- 
 temporary of Inachus, and that the Exodus 
 took place 393 years before the coming of 
 Danaus to Argos. Africanus set himself to 
 make a complete synopsis of sacred and pro- 
 fane history from the Creation, and to establish 
 a synchronism between the two. He concludes 
 that Moses and Ogyges were contemporaries. 
 He thinks a connexion between the Ogygian 
 deluge and the plagues of Egypt likely ; and 
 confirms his conclusions by deducing from 
 Polemo, Apion, and Ptolemaeus Mendesius, 
 that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, 
 whose son, Phoroneus, reigned at Argos in the 
 time of Ogyges. Africanus follows the LXX : 
 he counts 2262 years to the Deluge ; he does 
 not recognize the second Cainan ; he places the 
 Exodus A.M. 3707. In computing the years 
 of the Judges he is blamed by Eusebius for 
 lengthening the chronology by adding, without 
 authority, 30 years for the elders after Joshua, 
 40 for anarchy after Samson, and 25 years of 
 peace. He thus makes 740 years between the 
 Exodus and Solomon. Our Lord's birth he 
 places A.M. 5500, and two years before our 
 common computation of Anno Domini. But 
 he allows only one year for our Lord's public 
 ministry, and thus dates the Crucifixion a.m. 
 5531. He calculates the commencement of 
 the 70 weeks from the 20th year of Artaxerxes : 
 from this to the death of our Lord he counts 
 only 475 years, contending that the 70 weeks 
 of Daniel are to be understood as 490 lunar 
 years of 354 days each, equivalent to 475 
 Julian years. 
 
 Another interesting passage in the xport^d is 
 one in which he treats of the darkness at the 
 Crucifixion, and shews, in opposition to the 
 Syrian historian Thallus, that it was miracu- 
 lous, and that an eclipse of the sun could not 
 have taken place at the full moon. Lastly, we 
 may notice his statement that there were still 
 in his time remains of Jacob's terebinth at 
 Shechem, Gen. xxxv. 4, held in honour ; and 
 
 AGAPETUS 
 
 that Jacob's tent had been preserved in 
 Edessa until struck by lightning in the reign 
 of the emperor Antoninus (Elagabalus ?). 
 Africanus probably had personally visited 
 Edessa, whose king, Abgarus, he elsewhere 
 mentions. 
 
 The work in all probability concluded with 
 the Doxology, which St. Basil has cited (de 
 Spir. Sanct. § 73, iii. 61) in justification of the 
 form of doxology crvv 'Ayiw llvev/jiaTc. 
 
 It remains to speak of another work, the 
 Kea-Toi, expressly ascribed to Africanus by Euse- 
 bius {H. E. vi. 31), Photius (i.e.), Suidas {I.e.), 
 and Syncellus (p. 359), perhaps (as ScaUger 
 suggests) quoting the Chronica of Eusebius. 
 According to this authority, the work consisted 
 of nine books ; and it is probably owing to 
 errors of transcribers that we now find Photius 
 enumerating 14 and Suidas 24. The work 
 seems to have received the fanciful name of 
 Cesti, or variegated girdles, from the miscella- 
 neous character of its contents, which em- 
 braced the subjects of geography, natural his- 
 tory, medicine, agriculture, the art of war, etc. 
 The portions that remain have suffered muti- 
 lation and addition by different copyists. The 
 external evidence for ascribing the Cesti and 
 Chronology to the same author is too strong to 
 be easily set aside, and is not without some in- 
 ternal confirmation. Thus the author of the 
 Cesti was better acquainted with Syria than 
 with Libya ; for he mentions the abundance of 
 a certain kind of serpent in Syria, and gives its 
 Syrian name {Vet. Math. p. 290), but when he 
 gives a Libyan word {Geopon. p. 226) he does 
 so on second-hand testimony. And he was a 
 Christian, for he asserts {Geopon. p. 178) that 
 wine may be kept from spoiling by writing on 
 the vessels " the divine words, Taste and see 
 that the Lord is gracious." The unlikelihood 
 of Africanus having written such a work be- 
 comes less if we look upon him not as an eccle- 
 siastic, but as a Christian philosopher, pursuing 
 his former studies after his conversion, and 
 entering in his note-books many things more 
 in accordance with the spirit of his own age 
 than with that of ours. Cf. Harnack on J uUus 
 Africanus Sextus in Herzog, 3rd ed. The 
 last edition of the Chronographv is in Gelzer, 
 Sex. Jul. Afr. (2 vols. Leipzig, 1880-1898) ; 
 see also Spitta (Halle, 1877) on the letter to 
 Aristides, Harnack, Lit. i. 507-513 and ii. i, 
 pp. 124 sqq. [G.S.] 
 
 Agapetus, bp. of Rome, was, we are told, a 
 Roman by birth, the son of Gordianus a priest 
 (Anast. quoted by Chnton, Fasti Romani, 
 p. 763 ; Jaffe, Regesta Pontificum, p. 73). He 
 was already an old man when, six days after 
 the death of Johannes II., he was elected pope 
 in June 535. He began by formally reversing 
 an act of Bonifacius II., one of his own imme- 
 diate predecessors, fulminating anathemas 
 against the deceased antipope Dioscorus, a.d. 
 530 (Anast. vol. i. p. 100). 
 
 We next find him entering Constantinople 
 on Feb. 19, 536 (Chnt. F. R. p. 765), sent 
 thither by Theodahad to avert, if possible, the 
 war with which he was threatened by the em- 
 peror Justinian in revenge for the murder of 
 his queen Amalasontha : and we are told that 
 he succeeded in the objects of his mission 
 (Anast. vol. i. p. 102), which must refer to 
 other objects, for he certainly failed to avert 
 
AGATHA 
 
 the war ; Justinian had already incurred such 
 expense as to be unwilling to turn back (I.ib- 
 erat. quoted by Baronius, Aunales KccUsi- 
 astici, vii. p. 314), and as a matter of fact Bcli- 
 sarius took Rome within the year. In 535 
 Anthimus, who was suspected of Monothelit- 
 isra, had been appointed patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople by the influence of Theodora. Agape- 
 tus, on his first arrival, refused to receive An- 
 thimus unless he could prove himself orthodox, 
 and then only as bp. of Trebizond. for he was 
 averse to the practice of translating bishops. 
 At the same time he boldly accused Justinian 
 himself of Monophysitism ; who was fain to 
 satisfy him by signing a " libellus fidei " and 
 professing himself a true Catholic. But the 
 emperor insisted upon his communicating 
 with .\nthimus, and even threatened him with 
 expulsion from the city if he refused. Agapetus 
 repUed with spirit that he thought he was visit- 
 ing an orthodox prince, and not a second Dio- 
 cletian. Then the emperor confronted him 
 with Anthimus, who was easily convicted by 
 Agapetus. Anthimus was formally deposed, 
 and Mennas substituted ; and this was done 
 without a council, by the single authority of 
 the pope Agapetus ; j ustinian of course allow- 
 ing it, in spite of the remonstrances of Theo- 
 dora (Anast. vol. i. p. 102 ; Theophanes, 
 Chronogr. p. 184). Agapetus followed up his 
 victory by denouncing the other heretics who 
 had collected at Constantinople under the 
 patronage of Theodora. He received petitions 
 against them from the Eastern bishops, and 
 from the " monks " in Constantinople, as the 
 Archimandrite coenobites were beginning to 
 be called (Baronius, vii. p. 322). He died on 
 April 21, 536 (Clint. F. R. p. 765)- His body 
 was taken to Rome and buried in St. Peter's 
 basilica, Sept. 17. Five of his letters remain : 
 (i) July 18, 535, to Caesarius, bp. of Aries, 
 about a dispute of the latter with bp. Con- 
 tumeiiosus (Mansi, viii. p. 856). (2) Same 
 date, to same, " De augendis alimoniis 
 pauperum " {ib. 855). (3) Sept. 9, 535, Reply 
 to a letter from African bishops to his pre- 
 decessor Johannes (ib. 848). (4) Same date, 
 reply to Reparatus, bp. of Carthage, who had 
 congratulated him on his accession {tb. 850). 
 (5) March 13, 536, to Peter, bp. of Jerusalem, 
 announcing the deposition of Anthimus and 
 consecration of jSIennas {ib. 921). Hefele, 
 Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii. [g.h.m.] 
 
 Agatha, a virgin martyred at Catana in Sicily 
 under Decius, Feb. 5, 251, according to her 
 Acta ; but under Diocletian according to the 
 Martyrol. and Aldhelm (de Virgin. 22) ; men- 
 tioned by Pope Damasus a.d. 366 (Carm. v.), 
 and by Venantius Fortunatus c. 580 ; inserted 
 in the Canon of the Mass by Gregory the Great 
 according to Aldhelm (u.s., and see also S. 
 Greg. M. Dial. iii. 30) ; and commemorated in 
 a homily by Methodius, c. 900. Her name is in 
 the Carthag. Calendar of c. 450 ; in Ruinart, 
 p. 695 ; and in the black-letter calendar in our 
 Prayer-book. Churches at Rome were dedi- 
 cated to her by pojie Synimachus c. 500 ; by 
 Ricimer a.d. 460, enriched with her relics by 
 Gregory the Great ; and by Gregory II. in 726. 
 She is the patroness of \ialta (Butler's Lu'W 
 of Saints). See also the homily against Peril 
 0/ Idolatry, p. iii. [a.w.h.] 
 
 A^es, M. a virgin, 12 or 13 years old, be- 
 
 AGNOETAE 9 
 
 headed at Rome under Diocletian, celebrated 
 by Ambrose (de Offic. i. 41 ; de Virg. ad Mar- 
 cell, i. 2), Jerome (£^. 97 ad dcmetriad.), 
 Augustine (Serin. 273, 286, and 354), Sulp. 
 Sever. (Dial. ii. 14), Prudentius (irepi ^Te((>dvu)v, 
 xiv.), Venant. Fortunatus (Poem. vii. iii. 35), 
 Aldhelm (de Virgin.) ; and by her Acta in 
 Syriac in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 148 seq. ; 
 besides .4cta falsely attributed to St. Ambrose, 
 a doubtful homily of St. Maxim. Taurin., and 
 some verses questionably assigned to pope 
 Damasus. Her name is in the Carthag. Cal. of 
 c. 450, Jan. 21 ; in Ruinart, p. 695. A church 
 at Rome, in her honour, said to have been built 
 under Constantine the Great, was repaired by 
 Pope Honorius, a.d. 625-638, and another was 
 built at Rome by Innocent X. (.\ssomani, .4ct. 
 Mart. ii. 134, I55)- Sec also Act. SS. Jan. 21, 
 on which <lay her name stands in the black- 
 letter calendar of our Prayer-book. Baeda 
 and Usuanl place it on Jan. '23 ; the Menolog. 
 and MeiKica "ii July 5. [a.w.ii.] 
 
 Agnoetae (from ayvo^u, to be ignorant of), a 
 name applied to two sects who denied the 
 omniscience either of God the Father, or of God 
 the Son in His state of humiliation. 
 
 I. The first were a sect of the Arians, and 
 called from Eunomius and Theophronius " Eu- 
 nomio-Theophronians " (Socr. H. R. v. 24). 
 Their leader, Theophronius, of Cappadocia, 
 who flourished about 370, maintained that God 
 knew things past by memory and things future 
 only by uncertain prescience. Sozomen (H. E. 
 vii. 17) writes of him : " Having given 
 some attention to the writings of Aristotle, 
 he composed an appendix to them, entitled 
 Exercises of the Mind. But he afterwards en- 
 gaged in many unprofitable disputations, and 
 soon ceased to confine himself to the doctrines 
 of his master. [Eunomu's.] Under the assump- 
 tion of being deeply versed in the terms of 
 Scripture, he attempted to prove that though 
 God is acquainted with the piresent, the past, 
 and the future, his knowledge on these subjects 
 is not the same in degree, and is subiect to some 
 kind of mutation. As this hypothesis appeared 
 positively absurd to the Eunomians, they 
 excommunicated him from their church ; and 
 he constituted himself the leader of a new sect, 
 called after his own name, ' Theophronians.' " 
 
 II. Better known are the Agnoetae or The- 
 mistiani, in the Monophysite controversy in 
 6th cent. Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, 
 representing a small branch of the Monophy- 
 site Severians, taught, after the death of 
 Severus, that the human soul (not the Divine 
 nature) of Christ was like us in all things, even 
 in the limitation of knowledge, and was ignor- 
 ant of many things, especially the day of judg- 
 ment, which the Father alone knew (Mark xiii. 
 32, cf. John xi. 34). Most Monophysitcs rejected 
 this view, as inconsistent with their theory of 
 one nature in Christ, which implied also a 
 unity of knowledge, and they called the follow- 
 ers of Themistius Agnoetae. The orthodox, 
 who might from the Chalcedonian dogma of 
 the two natures in Christ have inferred two 
 kinds of knowledge, a perfect Divine and an 
 imperfect human admitting of growth (Luke 
 ii. 52), nevertheless rejected the view of the 
 Agnoetae, as making too wide a rupture be- 
 tween the two natures, and generally under- 
 stood the famous passage in Mark of the official 
 
10 
 
 ALARIC 
 
 ALARIC 
 
 ignoraace only, inasmuch as Christ did not i charge that the calamities of the empire were 
 
 choose to reveal to His disciples the day of 
 judgment, and thus appeared ignorant for a 
 wise purpose (.■car' o'lKovo.u^av). His inquiry 
 concerning Lazarus was explained from refer- 
 ence to the Jews and the intention to increase 
 the effect of the miracle. Euloeius, Patriarch 
 of Alexandria, wrote against the Agnoetae a 
 treatise on the absolute knowledge of Christ, 
 of which Photius has preserved large extracts. 
 Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, anathema- 
 tized Themistius. Agnoetism was revived by 
 the Adoptionists in the 8th cent. Felix of 
 Urgel maintained the limitation of the know- 
 ledge of Christ according to His human nature, 
 and appealed to Mark xiii. 32. Gallandi, Dibl. 
 Pair. xii. p. 634 ; Mansi, Cone. xi. 502 ; Leont. 
 Byz. de SecHs, Actio X. c. iii. ; Photius, Cod. 
 230 (ed. Bekk. p. 284) ; Baronius, Annal. ad 
 A.D. 535; Walch. Hist, der Ketzereien, viii. 
 644-684 ; Baur. Lehre v. der Dreieinigkeit, etc., 
 ii. pp. 87 ff; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte, 
 etc., ii. pp. 172 f ; cf. D. C. B. (4 vol. ed.) art. 
 Person of Christ. [p-S-] 
 
 Alaric (Teut. prob. = Athalaric, noble ruler), 
 general and king (398) of the Goths, the most 
 civihzed and merciful of the barbarian chiefs 
 who ravaged the Roman Empire. 
 
 Alaric first appears among the Gothic army 
 who assisted Theodosius in opposing Eugenius, 
 394. He led the revolt of his nation against 
 Arcadius, ravaged the provinces south of the 
 Danube, and invaded Greece 395- Athens 
 capitulated, and afterwards Corinth, Argos, and 
 Sparta. Under the title of Master-General of 
 Eastern Illvricum, 398. he became the ally of 
 Arcadius and secretlv planned the invasion 
 of Italv. In the winter of 402 he crossed the 
 Alps, was defeated by Stilicho at Pollentia on 
 Easter Day 403, and driven from Italy. In 404 
 he exchanged the prefecture of Eastern for that 
 of Western Illyricum, and the service of Ar- 
 cadius for that of Honorius, and, after the in- 
 cursion and annihilation of Radagaisus and 
 his Sclavonian hordes in 405, he was sub- 
 sidized for his supposed services to the empire 
 by the pavment of 4,000 pounds of gold. 
 Stihcho's ruin and death in 408, the subsequent 
 massacre of the Goths settled in Italy, and 
 Honorius's impoUtic refusal of Alaric's equit- 
 able terms, caused the second invasion of Italy, 
 and the first siege of Rome, which ended in 
 a capitulation. At the second siege in 409, 
 preceded by the capture of Ostia, the city was 
 surrendered unconditionally, and Alaric set up 
 Attains as emperor, in opposition to Honorius, 
 who remained at Ravenna. At the close of 
 the third siege, in 410 (Aug. 24), the city was 
 in the hands of the Goths for six days, during 
 three of which the sack was continued. Alaric 
 died at Consentia late in 410. 
 
 The effect of Alaric's conquests on the cause 
 of Christianity, and on the spiritual position 
 of Rome in Western Christendom, is well 
 traced by Dean Milman {Lat. Christ, i. iio- 
 140). Alaric and his Goths had embraced 
 Christianity probablv from the teaching of 
 Umias, the Arian bishop, who died in 388 
 (Mosheim, ed. Stubbs, i. 233). This age wit- 
 nessed the last efforts of Paganism to assert 
 itself as the ancient and national rehgion, and 
 Rome was its last stronghold. Pagans and 
 Christians had retorted upon each other the 
 
 due to the desertion of the old or new system 
 of faith respectively, and the truth or falsehood 
 of either was generally staked upon the issue. 
 The almost miraculous discomfiture of the 
 heathen Radagaisus by Stihcho, in spite of his 
 vow to sacrifice the noblest senators of Rome 
 on the altars of the gods which deUghted in 
 human blood, was accepted as an ill omen by 
 those at Rome who hoped for a pubhc restora- 
 tion of Paganism (Gibbon, iv. 47-49, ed. Smith ; 
 Milman, Lat. Christ, i. 122). Rome, impreg- 
 nable while Stilicho, her Christian defender, 
 lived, could submit only to the approach 
 of Alaric, " a Christian and a soldier, the 
 leader of a discipUned army, who understood 
 the laws of war, and respected the sanctity 
 of treaties." In the first siege of Rome 
 both pagan and Christian historians relate the 
 strange proposal to relieve the city by the 
 magical arts of some Etruscan diviners, who 
 were believed to have power to call down 
 lightning from heaven, and direct it against 
 Alaric's camp. That pope Innocent assented 
 to this public ceremony rests only on the au- 
 thority of the heathen Zosimus (v. 41). It is 
 questioned whether this idolatrous rite actu- 
 ally took place. Alaric perhaps imagined that 
 he was furthering the Divine purpose in be- 
 sieging Rome. Sozomen {Hist. Eccl. ix. c. 7) 
 mentions as a current story that a certain 
 monk, on urging the king, then on his march 
 through Italy, to spare the city, received the 
 reply that he was not acting of his own accord, 
 but that some one was persistently forcing 
 him on and urging him to sack Rome. 
 
 The shock felt through the world at the 
 news of the capture of Rome in Alaric's third 
 siege, 410, was disproportioned to the real 
 magnitude of the calamity : contrast the ex- 
 aggerated language of St. Jerome, Ep. ad Prin- 
 cipiam, with Orosius, 1. vii. c. 39, and St. 
 Augustine, de Civ. Dei, ii. 2 (a work written be- 
 tween 413 and 426 with the express object of 
 refuting the Pagan arguments from the sack of 
 Rome), and his tract, de Excidio Urbis (0pp. t. 
 vi. 622-628, ed. Bened.). The book in which 
 Zosimus related the fall of Rome has been lost, 
 so that we have to gather information from 
 Christian sources ; but it is plain that the de- 
 struction and loss was chiefly on the side of 
 Paganism, and that Httle escaped which did 
 not shelter itself under the protection of Chris- 
 tianity. " The heathens fled to the churches, 
 the only places of refuge. . . . There alone 
 rapacity and lust and cruelty were arrested and 
 stood abashed" (Milman, p. 133). The pro- 
 perty of the churches and the persons of Chris- 
 tian virgins were generally respected. The 
 pagan inhabitants of Rome were scattered over 
 Africa, Egypt, Syria, and the East, and were 
 encountered alike by St. Jerome at Bethlehem 
 and by St. Augustine at Carthage. Innocent I. 
 was absent at Ravenna during the siege of 
 Rome. On his return heathen temples were 
 converted into Christian churches ; " with 
 Paganism expired the venerable titles of the 
 religion, the great High Priests and Flamens, 
 the Auspices and Augurs. On the pontifical 
 throne sat the bp. of Rome, who would soon 
 possess the substance of the imperial power" 
 lib. p. 139). Alaric was also instrumental in 
 driving Paganism from Greece. Zosimus (v. 7) 
 
ALBANUS 
 
 asserts that on his approach to Athens its walls 
 were seen to be guarded by Minerva and 
 Achilles, (iibbon says that " the invasion of 
 the Goths, instead of vindicating the honour, 
 ( oiitributed, at least accidentally, to extirpate 
 the last remains of Pagaiiisin " (vol. iv. p. 37). 
 
 The conquests of .-Marie, though achieved at 
 an age when the Church boasted many eminent 
 saints and writers, afford far fewer materials 
 for the niartyrologist and hagiologist than 
 those of Attila. Alaric, though an Arian, is 
 nowhere recorded to have persecuted the 
 Catholics whom war had placed in his power. 
 Jornandes and Isidore of Seville, Gothic his- 
 torians, and Orosius, a Spanish Catholic, are 
 equally silent on this point. The following 
 facts of personal history have been preserved. 
 In the sack of Kome Marcella, an aged matron, 
 was thrown on the ground and cruelly beaten 
 (Micron. Fp. ad Priticify.) ; a nameless lady, 
 who persistently repelled her capturer, was 
 ( oudueted by him to the sanctiiary of the Vati- 
 can ; and an aged virgin, to whose charge some 
 sacred vessels had been entrusted, through her 
 bold constancy preserved them intact. At 
 the plunder of Nola in Campania, St. Paulinus 
 its bishop is said to have prayed, " Lord, let 
 me not suffer torture either for gold or silver, 
 since Thou knowest where are all my riches" 
 (Fleury,£cc/. Hist. ed. Newman, bk. xxii.c. 21). 
 Proba,' widow of the prefect Petronius, retired 
 to Africa with her daughter Laeta and her 
 granddaughter Demetrias (Hicron. E{y. cxxx. 
 t. i. p. 969, ed. Vallars.), and spent her large 
 fortune in relieving the captives and exiles. 
 (See Tillemont, Mem. trclrs. t. xiii. pp. 620- 
 635.) \'aluable contributions to the history 
 of Alaric not already mentioned are Sigonius, 
 0pp. t. i. par. I, pp. 347 sqq. ed. Argellati ; 
 Aschbach, Gesch. der Westgothen. [c.d.] 
 
 Albanus, M. The protomartyr of Britain 
 was martyred probably at Verulamium, and 
 according to either the " conjecture " or the 
 " knowledge " (conjicimus or cognoscititus) of 
 Gildas, in the time of Diocletian, and if so, a.d. 
 304, but according to another legend, which, 
 however, still speaks of Diocletian, in 286 
 (Attgln-Sax. Chron., Lib. Landav.). Eusebius 
 (//.£. viii. 1 3, and (/<■ .Urtr/. Pa/afet/. xiii. 10, 11), 
 Lactantius {de Mart. Persecut. xv. xvi.), and 
 Sozomen (i. 6) deny that there was any perse- 
 cution during the time of Constantius in " the 
 Gauls," which term included Britain. Possibly, 
 however, Constantius may have been com- 
 pelled to allow one or two martyrdoms. It is 
 certain that 125 years after the latest date 
 assigned to Alban's martyrdom, 144 after the 
 earliest, viz. a.d. 429 (Prosper, Chron.), Ger- 
 manus visited his relics in Britain, presumably 
 at \'erulamium (Constant, in V. S. Germani, 
 written a.d. 473-492). Gildas mentions him 
 in 560 (his statement, however, about the 
 persecution is of no value, being simply a 
 transference of Euscbius's words to Britain, 
 to which Eusebius himself says they did not 
 apply), and Venantius Fortunatus {Poem. viii. 
 'y- 155) c. 580. Bede, in 731, copies Constan- 
 tius and certain Acta otherwise unknown. 
 And the subsequent foundation of Offa in 793 
 only serves to identify the place with the 
 tradition. The British Life discovered by the 
 St. Albans monk Unwona in the loth cent., 
 according to Matthew Paris, in VV. Abb. 
 
 ALBOIN 
 
 S. Alhan., is apparently a myth ; and the Life 
 by William of St. Albans (12th cent.) is of the 
 ordinary nature and value of lives of the kind 
 and date. But the testimony of Germanus, 
 in Constantius's Life of him, seems sufficient 
 proof that a tradition of the martyrdom of 
 somebody named Albanus existed at Veru- 
 lamium a century and something more after 
 the supposed date of that martyrdom. His 
 martvrdom with manv fabulous details is re- 
 lated in Bede (i. 7). ' \V. Bright, Chapters of 
 Earlv Ch. Hist. (1897), p. 6. [a.w.h.] 
 
 Albion, king of the Langobardi, or Lom- 
 bards, and founder of the kingdom subject to 
 that people in Italy, was the son of that Audoin 
 under whom the Lombards emerge from ob- 
 scurity to occupy Pannonia, invited by the 
 Emperor of Constantinople, in accordance 
 with the usual Byzantine policy, as a check 
 to the Gepidae. In the wars with the latter 
 nation Albf>in first appears. The confused 
 accounts of them which Procoi>ius preserves 
 exhibit the tribe and their prince as rude 
 and ferocious barbarians, and Alboin was a fit 
 leader of such a tribe (Paul. Diac. i. 27, ii. 
 28). That he was personally a Christian, 
 though an Arian, is proved by a letter from a 
 Gallic bishop to his first wife, a Gallic princess, 
 which deplores, not his heathenism, but his 
 heresy (Sirmond. Cone. Gall. i.). Succeed- 
 ing his father, Alboin accomplished, by the aid 
 of the Avars, the destruction of the Gepidae 
 (see Gibbon, c. xlv.). The conquest of Italy 
 followed. Alboin's invading army wms hetero- 
 geneous. Besides 20,000 Saxons accompanied 
 by their families, who recrossed the Alps after 
 the conquest, Muratori has deduced {Aniich. 
 It. i. diss, i) from Italian topography the pre- 
 sence of the Bavarians, and Paul. (ii. 26) adds 
 distinctly the names of several other tribes. 
 The number of the army is unknown, but was 
 considerable, as it was a migration of the whole 
 tribe, and it largely changed the character and 
 arrangements of population in Italy. Alboin 
 left Pannonia in April 568 ; the passes were 
 unguarded, and he learnt from his own success 
 the need of securing his rear and the frontier of 
 his future kingdom, and entrusted the defence 
 and government of \'enetia Prima, his first con- 
 quest, to Gisulf his nephew, with the title of 
 duke and the command of those whom he 
 should himself select among the most eminent 
 of the " Farae " or nobles (Paul. ii. ix.). From 
 this point the conquest was rapid. In Liguria 
 (the western half of north Italy), Genoa, with 
 some cities of the Riviera, alone escaped. 
 Pavia held out for three years : perhaps its 
 siege was not very vigorously pressed, for we 
 know that a great part of Alboin's force was de- 
 tached in flying squadrons which ravaged the 
 country southwards all through Tuscany and 
 Aemilia, to so great a distance that Paul men- 
 tions Rome and Ravenna as almost the only 
 places which escaped. The death of Alboin 
 followed the fall of Pavia. The story of his 
 death is like that of his early hfe in the picture 
 which it gives of a thoroughly barbaric society, 
 where the skull of an enemy is used as a 
 drinking-cup, and the men hold their banquets 
 apart from the women (Gibbon, c. 45). Paul, 
 avouches that the cup was to be seen in his 
 own day. The chief authority for the life of 
 Alboin, Paulus Diaconus. lived towards the 
 
12 
 
 ALEXANDER 
 
 end of the 8th cent., in the last days of the 
 Lombard monarchy. [e.s.t.] 
 
 Alexander, St., archbp. of Alexandria, ap- 
 pears to have come to that see in 313, after 
 the short episcopate of Achillas. He was an 
 elderly man, of a kindly and attractive disposi- 
 tion ; " gentle and quiet," as Rufinus says (i. 
 i), but also capable of acting with vigour and 
 persistency. Accusations were laid against 
 him by the malcontent Meletian faction, " be- 
 fore the emperor," Constantine (Athan. 
 Apol. c. Ar. II ; ad Ep. Ae^. 23), but appar- 
 ently without result. He was involved in a 
 controversy with one Crescentius as to the 
 proper time for keeping Easter (Epiph. Haer. 
 70, 9). But in 319 he was called upon to con- 
 front a far more formidable adversary. [Arius.] 
 Arius was the parish priest, as he may be de- 
 scribed, of the church of BaukaUs, the oldest 
 and the most important of the churches of 
 Alexandria, situated " in the head of the mer- 
 cantile part of the city " (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 
 116), a man whose personal abilities enhanced 
 the influence of his official position ; he had 
 been a possible successor at the last vacancy 
 of the " Evangehcal Throne," and may have 
 consequently entertained unfriendly feelings 
 towards its actual occupant. But it would be 
 unreasonable to ascribe his opinions to private 
 resentment. Doubtless the habits of his mind 
 (Bright, Hist. Ch. p. 11) prepared him to adopt 
 and carry out to their consequences, with a 
 peculiar boldness of logic, such views as he now 
 began to disseminate in Alexandrian society: 
 that the Son of God could not be co-eternal 
 with His Father ; that He must be regarded as 
 external to the Divine essence, and only a crea- 
 ture. The bishop tried at first to check this 
 heresy by remonstrance at an interview, but 
 with no real success. Agitation increasing, 
 Alexander summoned a conference of hisclergy; 
 free discussion was allowed ; and, according to 
 Sozomen, Alexander seemed to waver between 
 the Arian and anti-Arian positions. Ulti- 
 mately he asserted in strong terms the co- 
 equality of the Son ; whereupon Arius criti- 
 cized his language as savouring of the Sabellian 
 error [Sabellius] which had " confounded the 
 Persons." The movement increased, and 
 Alexander himself was charged with irresolu- 
 tion or even with some inclination towards the 
 new errors. It was then, apparently, that 
 CoUuthus, one of the city presbyters, went so 
 far as to separate from his bishop's communion, 
 and, on the plea of the necessities of the crisis, 
 " ordained " some of his followers as clergy. 
 (See Valesius on Theod. i. 4, and Neale, i. 116). 
 Alexander's next step was to write to Arius and 
 his supporters, including two bishops, five 
 priests, and six deacons, exhorting them to re- 
 nounce their " impiety " ; and the majority of 
 the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis, at 
 his request, subscribed his letter. The ex- 
 hortation failing, the archbishop brought the 
 case formally before the synod of his suffragans, 
 who numbered nearly 100. The Arians were 
 summoned to appear : they stated their 
 opinions ; the Son, they held, was not eternal, 
 but was created by the impersonal " Word," or 
 Wisdom of the Father ; foreign, therefore, to 
 the Father's essence, imperfectly cognizant of 
 Him, and, in fact, called into existence to be 
 His instrument in the creation of man. " And 
 
 ALEXANDER 
 
 can He then," asked one of the bishops, 
 " change from good to evil, as Satan did ? " 
 They did not shrink from answering, " Since 
 He is a creature, such a change is not impos- 
 sible " ; and the council instantly pronounced 
 them to be " anathema." Such was the ex- 
 comm)mication of Arius, apparently in 320. 
 It was as far as possible from arresting the 
 great movement of rationalistic thought (for 
 this, in truth, was the character of Arianism) 
 which had now so determinedly set in. The 
 new opinions became extraordinarily popular ; 
 Alexandrian society was flooded with colloquial 
 irreverence. But Arius ere long found that he 
 could not maintain his position in the city 
 when under the ban of the archbishop ; it may 
 be that Alexander had power actually to banish 
 him ; and he repaired to Palestine, where, as 
 he expected, he found that his representations 
 of the case made a favourable impression on 
 several bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea. 
 Some wrote in his favour to Alexander, who, on 
 his part, was most indefatigable in writing to 
 various bishops in order to prevent them from 
 being deceived by Arius ; Epiphanius tells us 
 that seventy such letters were preserved in his 
 time {Haer. 69. 4). Of these, some were suffi- 
 ciently effectual in Palestine to constrain Arius 
 to seek an abode at Nicomedia. He had se- 
 cured the support of the bishop of the city, the 
 able but unprincipled Eusebius (Theod. i. 5 ; 
 Athan. de Syn. 17) ; and he now wrote (Athan. 
 de Syn. 16) in the name of " the presbyters and 
 deacons" who had been excommunicated, to 
 Alexander, giving a statement of their views, 
 and professing that they had been learned from 
 Alexander himself ; the fact being, probably, 
 as Mohler thinks, that Alexander had formerly 
 used vague language in an anti-Sabellian 
 direction. Eusebius now repeatedly urged 
 Alexander to readmit Arius to communion ; 
 and the other bishops of Bithynia, in synod 
 (Soz. i. 15), authorized their chief to send cir- 
 cular letters in his favour to various prelates. 
 A Cilician bishop, Athanasius of Anazarbus, 
 wrote to Alexander, openly declaring that 
 Christ was " one of the hundred sheep " ; 
 George, an Alexandrian presbyter, then stay- 
 ing at Antioch, had the boldness to write to his 
 bishop to the effect that the Son once " was 
 not," just as Isaiah " was not," before he was 
 born to Amoz (Athan. de Syn. 17), for which 
 he was deposed by Alexander from the priest- 
 hood. Arius now returned into Palestine, and 
 three bishops of that country, one of whom 
 was Eusebius of Caesarea, permitted him to 
 hold religious assemblies within their dioceses. 
 This permission naturally gave great offence to 
 Alexander. He had hitherto written only to 
 individual bishops, but he now * drew up (per- 
 haps with the help of his secretary and " arch- 
 deacon," Athanasius) his famous encyclic to 
 all his fellow-ministers, i.e. to the whole Chris- 
 tian episcopate, giving an account of the 
 opinions for which the Egyptian synod had ex- 
 communicated the original Arians, adducing 
 Scriptural texts in refutation, and warning his 
 brethren against the intrigues of Eusebius 
 (Socr. i. 6). This letter, which he caused his 
 
 • A comparatively late date for this encyclic ap- 
 pears necessary, on account of its allusions to Euse- 
 bius. {See'Sea\e, Hist. Alex. i. i2y.) Some identify 
 the encvclic with the Tome. 
 
ALEXANDER 
 
 rlergy to sign, probably preceiled the " Tome " 
 or confession of faith which lie referred to 
 as having been signed by some bishops, when 
 he wrote to Alexander. b|>. of Byzantinm, the 
 long and elabor.iti- Icttir preserved by Theod. 
 i. 4 ; in which, while using some language 
 which in strictness must be called inaccurate, 
 he gives an exposition of texts which became 
 watchwords of the orthodox in the struggle 
 (A.D. 323). 
 
 Another correspondent now appears on the 
 scene. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had a 
 strong influence over the emperor Constantine, 
 persuaded the latter to write, or to adopt and 
 sign, a letter to Alexander and Arius, in which 
 the controversy was treated as a logomachy 
 (Eus. Vil. Con. ii. 64 seq. ; Socr. i. 7). The im- 
 perial epistle was entrusted to a prelate of very 
 high position. Hosius of Cordova, who can have 
 had but little sympathy with the tone assumed 
 by the Emperor. Thee ouncilhcUl at Alexandria 
 on his arrival decided onv point very unc(]ui vo- 
 cally : the ordinations performed by Collutlnis 
 were pronounced absolutely null (Athan. Apul. 
 76). Peace was impossible on the basis of in- 
 differentism, and Constantine summoned a gen- 
 eral assemblv of bishops to meet at Nicaea, in 
 June 325. [D. C. A., art. Nicaea, Council of.] 
 The Arians were condemned, and the Nicene 
 Creed, in its original form, was drawn up. 
 
 The story told by Epiphanius, of severities 
 used by Alexander towards the Meletians 
 [Meletius], and of a consequent petition ad- 
 dressed by them to Constantine, appears to be 
 one of several misstatements which he adopted 
 from some Meletian sources. Athanasius tells 
 us expressly that Alexander died within five 
 months after the reception of the Meletians 
 into church communion in the council of 
 Nicaea (Apol. c. Ari. 59), and this, if strictly 
 reckoned from the close of the council, would 
 place his death in Jan. 326. It cannot be 
 dated later than April 18 in that year. See 
 further, Athanasius. 
 
 Athanasius mentions a circumstance of Alex- 
 ander's local administration which furnished a 
 precedent, on one occasion, f<.)r himself. Alex- 
 ander was building the church of St. Theonas 
 at Alexandria, on a larger scale than any of the 
 existing churches, and used it, for convenience' 
 sake, before it was completed (Ap. ad Const. 
 15). He is also said by tradition to have never 
 read the Gospels in a sitting posture, and to 
 have never eaten on fast days while the sun 
 was in the sky (BoUand. Act. SS., Feb. 26). 
 Two short fragments of a letter addressed by 
 him to a bishop named Aeglon, against the 
 Arians, are quoted in the works of Maximus 
 the Confessor (in the Monothelite controversy), 
 vol. ii. p. 132. A trans, of his extant writings 
 isin the Ante-Xicene Lib. (T. &T. Clark), [w.b.] 
 Alexander, St., bp. of Byzantium, as the 
 city was then called (Theod. Hist. i. 19) for 
 about 23 years, his consecration being vari- 
 ously dated from a.d. 313 to 317. He was al- 
 ready 73 years old at the time (Socr. Hist. ii. 6 ; 
 Soz. Hist. iii. 3). He is highly praised by 
 Gregory of Nazianzurn {Or. 27), and by Epi- 
 phanius {adv. Haer. Ixix. 10). Theodoret calls 
 him an "apostolic" bishop {Hist. i. 3, cf 
 Phil. 12). In the commencement of the Arian 
 troubles the co-operation of Alexander was 
 specially requested by his namesake of Alex- 
 
 ALEXANDER 
 
 13 
 
 andria (Theod. i. 4) ; and he was present at 
 the council of Nicaea (Soz. ii. 29). When 
 Constantine, induced by the Eusebians (Athan. 
 Kp. ad Si-rap.; Kutiniis, Hist, i.), and deceiv('d 
 by the equivocations of Arius (Socr. i. 37), 
 commanded that Arins should be received to 
 communion, Alexander, though threatened by 
 the Eusebians with deposition and banish- 
 ment, persisted in his refusal to admit the 
 archheretic to communion, and shut himself 
 up in the church of Irene for prayer in this 
 extremity. Alexander did not long survive 
 Arius (Socr. ii. 6 ; Theod. i. 19). On his death- 
 bed he is said to have designated Paulus as 
 his successor, and warned his clergy against 
 the S]>eciousness of Macedonius. [i.o.s.] 
 
 Alexander, bp. of Hierapolis Euphratensis 
 and metropolitan in the patriarchate of Anti- 
 och ; the uncompromising opponent of Cyril 
 of .Mexaiuiria, and the resolute advocate of 
 Ncstorius in the controversies that followed the 
 council of h:phesus, a.d. 431. His dignity as 
 metropolitan gave him a leading place in the 
 opposition of which the patriarch John of An- 
 tioch was the head, and his influence was con- 
 firmed by personal character. He may have 
 commenced his episcopate as early as a.d. 404, 
 when with uncompromising zeal he erased 
 from the diptychs of one of his churches the 
 name of J ulian, a man famous for sanctity, but 
 accused of Apollinarianism (Baluz. Nov. Coll. 
 Cone. p. 867). 
 
 Alexander arrived at the council of Ephesus 
 in company with his brother metropolitan 
 Alexander of .'Vpameaon or about June 20, 431. 
 ,\s soon as the Alexanders discovered Cyril's 
 intention to open the council before John of 
 Antioch's arrival they, on June 21, united 
 with the other bishops of the East in signing a 
 formal act demanding delay (Labbe, Concil. iii. 
 552, 660, 662 ; Baluz. 697, 699). The council 
 heeded them not, opened their sittings the 
 next day, June 22, and soon did the work for 
 which they had been summoned, the condem- 
 nation of Nestorius. When John at last 
 arrived, June 27, Alexander joined in the 
 counter-council held by him and the prelates 
 of his party in his inn, and signed the acts 
 which cancelled the proceedings of the former 
 council, deposing Cyril and Memnon, bp. of 
 Ephesus, and declaring Cyril's anathemas here- 
 tical. As a necessary consequence Alexander 
 was included in the sentence against John, and 
 cut off from communion with Cyril's party 
 (Labbe, iii. 764 ; Baluz. 507). Later he joined 
 the council held by John at Tarsus, which pro- 
 nounced a fresh sentence of deposition on 
 Cyril (Baluz. 840, 843, 874) ; also that at An- 
 tioch in the middle of December, ratifying the 
 former acts and declaring adherence to the 
 Nicene faith. A meeting was held at Antioch 
 early in 432, attended by Alexander, when six 
 alternative articles were drawn up, one of which 
 it was hoped Cyril would accept, and so afford 
 a basis of reconciliation {ib. 764). One de- 
 clared a resolution to be content with the 
 Nicene Creed and to reject all the documents 
 that had caused the controversy. Another 
 council was summoned at Beroea. Four more 
 articles were added to the six, and the whole 
 were despatched to Cyril. Cyril was well con- 
 tent to express his adherence to the Nicene 
 I Creed, but felt it unreasonable that he should 
 
14 
 
 ALEXANDER 
 
 be required to abandon all he had written on 
 the Nestorian controversy ( Labbe, iii. 114,1151, 
 1 157, iv. 666 ; Baluz. 786). Cyril's reply was 
 accepted by Acacius and John of Antioch, 
 and other bishops now sincerely anxious for 
 peace, but not by Alexander or Theodoret 
 (Baluz. 757, 782). The former renewed his 
 charge of ApoUinarianism and refused to sign 
 the deposition of Nestorius {ib. 762-763). This 
 defection of Acacius of Beroea and John of 
 Antioch was received with indignant sorrow 
 by Alexander. It was the first breach in the 
 hitherto compact opposition, and led to its 
 gradual dissolution, leaving Alexander almost 
 without supporters. In a vehement letter to 
 Andrew of Samosata, he bitterly complained 
 of Acacius's fickleness and protested that he 
 would rather fly to the desert, resign his 
 bishopric, and cut off his right hand than recog- 
 nize Cyril as a Catholic until he had recanted 
 his errors {ib. 764-763). The month of April, 
 433, saw the reconciliation of John and the 
 majority of the Oriental bishops with Cyril 
 fully established (Labbe, iv. 659 ; Cyril, Ep. 
 31, 42, 44). Alexander was informed of this 
 in a private letter from John, beseeching him 
 no longer to hinder the peace of the church. 
 Alexander's indignation now knew no bounds. 
 He wrote in furious terms to Andrew and 
 Theodoret (Baluz. 799, 800). His language 
 became more and more extravagant, " exile, 
 violent death, the beasts, the fire, the preci- 
 pice, were to be chosen before communion 
 with a heretic " (ib. 768, 775, 799, 800, 809, 
 810), and he even "made a vow to avoid 
 the sight, hearing, or even the remembrance 
 of all who in their hearts turned back again 
 to Egypt" {ib. 865). Alexander's contumacy 
 had been regarded as depriving him of his func- 
 tions as metropolitan. John, as patriarch, 
 stepped in, a.d. 434, and ordained bishops in 
 the Euphratensian province. This act, of very 
 doubtful legality, excited serious displeasure, 
 and was appealed against by Alexander and 
 six of his suffragans (ib. 831-833, 865) 
 
 The end was now near at hand. Pulcheria 
 and Theodosius had been carefully informed of 
 the obstinate refusal of Alexander and the few 
 left to support him to communicate with those 
 whose orthodoxy had been recognized by the 
 church. John had obtained imperial rescripts 
 decreeing the expulsion and banishment of all 
 bishops who still refused to communicate with 
 him {ib. 876). This rescript was executed 
 in the case of other recusants ; Alexander still 
 remained. John expressed great unwilling- 
 ness to take any steps towards the deprivation 
 of his former friend. He commissioned Theo- 
 doret to use his influence with him. But Theo- 
 doret had again to report the impossibility of 
 softening his inflexibility. John now, a.d. 
 435, felt he could not offer any further resist- 
 ance to the imperial decrees. But no compul- 
 sion was needed : Alexander obeyed the order 
 with calmness, and even with joy at laying 
 aside the burdens and anxieties of the episco- 
 pate. He went forth in utter poverty, not 
 taking with him a single penny of his episcopal 
 revenue, or a book or paper belonging to the 
 church. His sole outfit consisted of some neces- 
 sary documents, and the funds contributed 
 by friends for the hire of vehicles (ib. 868, 881, 
 882). The banishment of their beloved and 
 
 AL06IANS 
 
 revered bishop overwhelmed the people of 
 Hierapolis with grief. Fear of the civil au- 
 thorities deterred them from any open mani- 
 festation, but they closed the churches, shut 
 themselves up in their houses, and wept in pri- 
 vate. In exile at the mines of Phamuthin in 
 Egypt, Alexander died, sternly adhering to his 
 anathemas of Cyril to the last (Tillemont, Mem. 
 Eccli's. xiv. XV. ; Labbe, Concil. vol. iii. ; 
 Baluz. Nov. Collect.) [e-v.] 
 
 Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, was an early 
 friend and fellow scholar of Origen at Alex- 
 andria, where they studied together under 
 Pantaenus and Clemens Alex. (Ens. H. E. vi. 
 14). He was bishop of a city in Cappadocia 
 {ib. vi. 11) ; or, according to Valesius {Not. 
 ad Euseb.) and Tillemont {Mem. eccl. iii. p. 
 183), of Flaviopolis in Cilicia. He became a 
 confessor in the persecution of Severus, a.d. 
 204, and was thrown into prison, where he con- 
 tinued some years. He was still a prisoner at 
 the commencement of Caracalla's reign, a.d. 
 211, when he sent a letter by the hand of Cle- 
 mens to congratulate the church of Antioch on 
 the appointment of Asclepiades as their bishop 
 in the room of Serapion (Ens. vi. 11). The next 
 year he was released from prison, and, in fulfil- 
 ment of a vow, visited Jerusalem, where he was 
 chosen coadjutor to the aged bp. Narcissus. 
 This being the first occasion of the translation 
 of a bishop, as well as of the appointment of a 
 coadjutor bishop, and in apparent violation 
 of the canons of the church, it was deemed 
 essential to obtain the sanction of the whole 
 episcopate of Palestine. A synod was sum- 
 moned at Jerusalem, and the assembled bish- 
 ops gave their unanimous consent to the step, 
 A.D. 213 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. ; Vales. Not. 
 in Euseb. vi. 1 1 ; Socr. vii. 36 ; Bingham, Ori- 
 gines, bk. ii. § 4). On the death of Narcissus, 
 Alexander succeeded as sole bishop. His chief 
 claim to celebrity rests on the library he formed 
 at Jerusalem, and on the boldness with which 
 he supported Origen against his bishop, 
 Demetrius of Alexandria. [Origen.] The 
 friendship of Alexander and Origen was warm 
 and lasting ; and the latter bears testimony to 
 the remarkable gentleness and sweetness of 
 character manifested in all Alexander's public 
 instructions (Orig. Homil. I. in Lib. Reg. No. 
 i). Alexander was again thrown into prison 
 at Caesarea in the Decian persecution, where 
 he died a.d. 251 (Eus. H. E. vi. 46 ; Hieron. 
 Script. Eccl.). Eusebius has preserved some 
 fragments of Alexander's letters : to the An- 
 tinoites, H. E. vi. 11, to the church of Antioch, 
 ib. ; to Origen, H. E. vi. 14, and to Demetrius, 
 H. E. vi. 19. These have been pubUshed by 
 Galland, Biblioth. Vet. Patrum, vol. ii. pp. 201 
 seq. Clemens Alex, dedicated his Canon 
 Ecclesiasticus to him (Eus. vi. 13). [e.v.] 
 
 Alexander I., bp. of Rome, is stated by all 
 the authorities to have been the successor of 
 Evaristus. Eusebius {H. E. iv. 4) makes him 
 succeed in a.d. 109, in his Chronicle, a.d. hi 
 (f. 89). He assigns him in both works a reign 
 of ten years. He has been confused with a 
 martyr of the same name, who is mentioned 
 in a fragment of an inscription. [g.h.m.] 
 
 Alogians, or Alogi (from d privative and 
 Ao'705, deniers of the Logos, or at least of the 
 strongest witness for the Logos ; not from 
 dXoyoi, unreasonable), a heretical sect of dis- 
 
AMBROSlAStEli 
 
 puted existence in the latter half of 2nd 
 cent. (c. 170). Epiphaiiius invented the term 
 (Haeres. 1. i, adv. Al. c. 3), to characterize 
 their rejection of the Divine Word preached by 
 John (fVft ovv t6i> AtJ^OJ- ov d^xoi-rai tov wapa 
 'luidwov KfKr)pi'yiJ.evov, 'Woyoi \-\7j<>i/(roi'rat). 
 He traces their origin to Theodotus of Byzan- 
 tium (Hiur. liv. c. i). According to his re- 
 presentation they denied, in ardent opposition 
 to the Gnosticism of Cerinthus on the one 
 hand, and to the Montanists on the other, that 
 Jesus Christ was the eternal Logos, as taught 
 in John i. 1-14 ; and rejected the Fourth 
 Gospel and the Apocalypse as productions of 
 Cerinthus.* Heiaichen supposes that the 
 Alogi rejected only the Apocalypse and not 
 the Fourth Gospel; but this is directly con- 
 
 I tradicted by Hpiphanius (1. c. 3 ; cf. Haer. 
 1. iv. i). That they attributed these books to 
 Cerinthus, the Docetist and enemy of St. J ohn, 
 shows their utter want of critical judfiment. 
 They tried to refute the Gospel of St. John by 
 the Synoptic Gospels, but with very poor 
 arguments. In oppcisition to the Montanists, 
 
 ; thev also denied the continuance of the 
 spiritual gifts in the church. It is not clear 
 from Epiphanius whether the Alogi rejected 
 only St. John's doctrines of the Logos, or also 
 the divinity of Christ in any form. He calls 
 
 ; them in his violent way (1. c. 3) aWorpioi 
 ■KavTairaaiv rod KJjpvyfi.aTOi tj}s a\i}6ela^ : and 
 says of their heresy {Haer. liv. c. i) that it 
 denied the Gospel of St. John and the God- 
 
 < Word taught therein {rbv ev avn^ iv apxn 6vTa 
 
 ■ debv Xdyov). Yet he clearly distinguishes them 
 from the Ebionites ; and their opposition 
 to Cerinthus implies that they believed in the 
 real humanity of Christ. Dorner {Hist, of 
 Christology, i. p. 503, German ed.l thinks it 
 
 I probable that they allowed no distinctions in 
 
 i the Godhead, and thought that the divinity 
 
 I of the Father dwelt in the man Jesus. But 
 
 this would identify them with the Patripas- 
 
 sians. Lardner {Works, iv. 190, viii. 627) 
 
 ■ doubts the existence of this sect, because of 
 ' the absence of other data, and the tendency of 
 , Epiphanius to multiply and exaggerate here- 
 1 sies. But the testimony of Epiphanius is 
 I essentially sustained by Irenaeus, who men- 
 j tions persons who rejected both the Gospel 
 1 of St. John and the prophetic Spirit {simul et 
 I evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum : 
 j adv. Haer. iii. c. 11, § 9). 
 
 Epiphanius, Haer. 50, and esp. 54 ; M. 
 
 Merkel, Historisch-kritische Aufkldrung der 
 I Streitigkeit der Aloger iiber die Apokalypsis 
 '■ ( Frank f. and Leipz. 1782); F. A. Heinichen, 
 j de Alogis, Theodotianis atque Arlemonilis 
 
 (Leipz. 1829); Neander, Kirchengesch. i. ii. 
 
 pp. 906, 1003 ; Dorner, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 500- 
 
 503; Harnack, Literatur, ii. i ; Zahn, Neutest. 
 
 Kanon. i. 220, ii. 967. [v.s.] 
 
 Ambrosiaster, or Pseudo-Ambrosliis, a 
 
 name generally employed to denote the un- 
 
 Imown author of the Commentaria in xiii 
 
 • This, it may be remarked, is an argument against 
 the criticism of the Tubingen school, which would 
 bring the composition of the Gospel of .St. John down 
 to the middle of the 2nd cent. ; for Cerinthus %vas 
 a contemporary of the apostle. Had the Alogi had 
 any idea of the recent origin of St. John, they would 
 have made much account of it. 
 
 AMBROSIASTER 
 
 15 
 
 Episiolas beati Paiili, f>irnurlv ascribed to St. 
 .•\mbrose and usually printed along with his 
 works. The commentary itself contains no 
 definite indication of its authorship. An in- 
 cidental remark, however, on i Tim. iii. 15, 
 " Ecclesia . . . cujus hodie rector est Dania- 
 sus," shows that it was written during the 
 pontificate of Damasus (366-384). It has 
 been suggested that this clause may be an 
 interpolation ; but such an interpolation 
 seems dillicult to account for. Other marks, 
 negative and positive, \wi\\\. to the same 
 period. The text used is not the Vulgate, 
 but a prior form of the Latin version. The 
 ecclesiastical authors to whom he refers — 
 Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus — belong to an 
 earlier date. Among the heresies which he 
 mentions he applies himself more especially to 
 those of the 4th cent. — e.g. those of Arius, 
 Novatian, I'hotinus — while the absence of 
 allusion to later forms of error points the same 
 way. He speaks of the Marcionites as on the 
 verge of extinction (" quamvis pene defecer- 
 int," in Ep. ad Timoth. I. iv. i). The date 
 thus indicated would be the latter half of the 
 4th cent. ; although, in that case, it is 
 certainly somewhat surprising that Jerome 
 in his treatise de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis 
 should not mention any other Latin comment- 
 ator on the Pauline Epistles than Victorinus. 
 
 It was the generally received opinion in the 
 Middle Ages that our author was Ambrose, bp. 
 of Milan ; but this belief, which Erasmus was 
 among the first to question, is now universally 
 admitted to rest on no sufficient grounds, 
 though opinions differ much as to the probable 
 author. From certain expressions which ap- 
 pear favourable to Pelagianism the work has 
 been assigned by some to J ulian of Aeclanum ; 
 but, as Richard Simon has naively remarked, 
 " if the writer does not always appear ortho- 
 dox to those who profess to follow the doctrine 
 of St. Augustine, it must be taken into account 
 that he wrote before that Father had pub- 
 lished his opinions." The expressions in 
 question were probably employed without re- 
 ference to the Pelagian controversy, and 
 previous to its emergence, and are, moreover, 
 accompanied by others entirely incompatible 
 with a Pelagian authorship {e.g. the statement 
 in Ep. ad Rom. v. 12, " Manifestum est in 
 Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa "). 
 
 The only positive statement as to the 
 authoiship is contained in the following pas- 
 sage of Augustine, Contra duas Episiolas 
 Pelagianorum, lib. iv. c. 7 : " Nam et sic 
 sanctus Hilarius intellexit quod scriptum est, 
 in quo omnes peccaverunt : ait enim, ' In quo, 
 id est in Adam omnes peccaverunt.' Delude 
 addidit : ' Manifestum est in Adam omnes 
 peccasse quasi in massa ; ipse enim per 
 peccatum corruptus, quos genuit omnes nati 
 sunt sub peccato.' Haec scribens Hilarius 
 sine ambiguitate commonuit, quomodo in- 
 telligendum esset, in quo omnes peccaverunt." 
 As the words cited are found in this com- 
 mentary, it may be reasonably assumed that 
 the statement applies to it, and that Augustine 
 reckoned Hilarius its author. Of the persons 
 of that name, Augustine elsewhere mentions 
 only Hilarius the Sardinian, deacon of the 
 Roman church, sent by pope Liberius in 354 
 to the emperor Constantius after the synod 
 
16 
 
 AMBROSim 
 
 of Aries. By many modern scholars Hilary 
 the deacon has been accepted as the author 
 of the work. But Petavius and others have 
 objected that Augustine was not likely to 
 apply the epithet sancttis to one whom he 
 must have known to be guilty of schism. 
 There can be little doubt that, whoever was 
 the author, the work no longer retains its 
 original form. The well-meaning zeal of 
 copvists appears to have freely inserted com- 
 ments from various sources, such as Augustine, 
 Chrysostom, Jerome, the commentary which 
 is printed at the end of the works of Jerome 
 and is usually ascribed to Pelagius. These 
 circumstances sufficiently account for the 
 various forms of the text in MSS., and for the 
 discrepancies and inequalities of treatment 
 in several parts. 
 
 There is, moreover, a marked attinity be- 
 tween this commentarv and certain portions 
 of the Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti 
 usually printed with the works of St. Augus- 
 tine. The similarity of ideas and, in various 
 cases, identity of language can only be 
 explained by supposing either that they have 
 had a common author, or that the writer of 
 the one work has borrowed largely from the 
 other. The note of time in the Quaestiones — 
 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem— 
 and some references to contemporary events 
 suit the period of Damasus, and have induced 
 many to ascribe this work also to Hilary the 
 deacon. But the authorship of both remains 
 uncertain, and probably the Quaestiones was 
 composed subsequently to the commentary. 
 
 The commentary on the Pauline Epistles, 
 notwithstanding its inequalities of treatment, 
 is of great value, and is well characterized by 
 Sixtus Senensis as " brief in words, but 
 weighty in matter " ; and, although the writer 
 is frequently controversial, he speedily returns 
 to the proper work of exegesis. In conse- 
 quence of his use of the old Latin version and 
 frequent reference to various readings, his 
 work affords important materials for textual 
 criticism. 
 
 The commentary on the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, which accompanies the others in 
 some editions, but is omitted by the Benedic- 
 tine editors, is a compilation from various 
 Patristic sources, principally from Chrysostom. 
 Cf. H. B. Swete, Theod. Mops. Comm. (1880), 
 vol. i. p. Ixxviii., vol. ii. p. 351. 
 
 The commentary was issued separately at 
 Cologne in 1530 and 1532. Cf. A Study of 
 A mbrosiaster bv A. Souter (Camb. Univ. Press) ; 
 Text and Studies, vol. vii. No. 4. [w.p.d.] 
 
 AmbrosiUS (1) {'Afx^poaios) of Alexandria, a 
 deacon according to Jerome {de Vir. III. 56), 
 the disciple and friend of Origen, died c. 250. 
 
 It is not certain whether Ambrose was a 
 Christian by birth ; but he was of a noble 
 and wealthv family (Orig. Exhort, ad. Mart. 
 14 f. 49 ; Hieron. I.e.), and probably occupied 
 some office under the Imperial Government 
 (Epiph. Haer. 64, 3: cf. Orig. tb. c. 36). 
 Endowed with an active and critical mind, he 
 at first neglected the simple teaching of the 
 Gospel for the more philosophic systems of 
 heresy (Orig. in Johann. torn. v.). Hov/ever, 
 when he met Origen he recognized his true 
 teacher, and embraced the orthodox faith 
 (Epiph. I.e.). From that time to his death 
 
 AMBROSIUS 
 
 Ambrose devoted his whole energy to en- 
 couraging his great master in his labours on 
 Holy Scripture, and used his fortune to 
 further them (Eus. H. E. vi. 23). M 
 
 Ambrose left no writings of his own except 
 some letters, but it is evident that he exer- 
 cised a powerful influence upon Origen, who 
 called him his " taskmaster," epyodiwKTTjs {in 
 Johann. tom. v.), and it may have been through 
 his zeal in "collation" (Orig. Ep. 1.) that 
 Origen undertook his critical labours. Through 
 mistaken devotion, Ambrose indiscreetly per- 
 mitted the publication of some unrevised 
 treatises of Origen which were intended only 
 for his own use (Hieron. Ep. 84, 10). [b.f.w.] 
 
 AmbrosiUS (2), " a chief man of Greece," 
 and a " senator," " who became a Christian," 
 and, according to the title of the Syriac trans- 
 lation, wrote the "Address to the Greeks" 
 (.V670S Trpbs"E\\rivas), which is published with 
 the works of Justin Martyr (Cureton, Spicil. 
 Syr. pp. xi. 61). There is no other trace of this 
 tradition, nor ground for identifying him with 
 Ambrose of Alexandria. [b.f.w.] 
 
 AmbrosiUS, St., bp. of Milan (a.d. 374-397). 
 The chief materials for his Ufe are his own 
 works, which include an important collection 
 of letters. Another source is a Life by 
 Paulinus, his notarius or secretary, who had 
 been with him at his death and \vrote at the 
 suggestion of St. Augustine. This Life is full 
 of prodigies, and adds hardly anything to 
 what we learn from the works. The letters 
 have been reduced to a chronological order 
 with great care by the Benedictine editors 
 of St. Ambrose, who have also digested the 
 various particulars into a useful biography. 
 
 Ambrose's father, who bore the same name, 
 was a Roman of the highest rank, and at the 
 time of St. Ambrose's birth was prefect of 
 the Galliae, a province which included Britain 
 and Spain, and constituted one of the four 
 great praetorian prefectures of the empire. 
 The onlv datum for determining the year of 
 Ambrose's birth is a passage in one of his 
 letters in which he happens to mention that 
 he is fifty-three years old, and at the same time 
 contrasts the quiet of Campania with the com- 
 motions by which he was himself surrounded 
 (Ep. hx. 3). There are two periods to which 
 this description would apply, a.d. 387 or 
 393. If we assume, as seems most probable, 
 that Ambrose was fifty-three years old in 393, 
 we shall place his birth in 340. 
 
 After receiving a liberal education at Rome, 
 Ambrose devoted himself to the profession of 
 the law, which was then the usual path to the 
 highest civil offices (see Gibbon, c. xvii.). He 
 practised at the court of the praetorian prefect 
 of Italv, Probus, who appointed him " con- 
 sular" * magistrate of the provinces of Liguria 
 and Aemilia. He made an admirable 
 magistrate, and became known to the people 
 of Milan, where he held his court, as a high- 
 minded, conscientious, and religious man. 
 Whilst he was discharging his office, Auxen- 
 tius, whom the Arian partv had foisted into 
 the see of Milan, died. The Catholic partv 
 had now grown stronger, and a vehement strife 
 
 » The empire was divided into 116 provinces, of 
 which 3 were governed by pro-consuls, 37 by 
 consulars, 5 by correctors, and 71 by president 
 (Gibbon, U.S.). 
 
AMBROSIOS 
 
 arose as to the appointment of a successor 
 i to Auxentius. The consular came down to 
 j the church to keep the peace and was ad- 
 i dressing tlie people in his character as a civil 
 ; magistrate, when a cry (which tradition 
 I asserts to have been that of a child) was 
 , heard, " Ambrose for bishop ! " In a moment 
 it struck the whole multitude as a solution in 
 which both parties might acquiesce without 
 the sense of defeat, and a unanimous shout 
 i arose, " We will have Ambrose for bishop ! " 
 : It was a singular choice, even for those rougher 
 and more tumultuous times, for Ambrose was 
 not yet so much as baptized. But he was an 
 earnest Christian in his belief, and had only 
 been kept from seeking baptism by a religious 
 awe, of which there were then many examples. 
 Such an one naturally shrank from being 
 made bishop. With undoubted sincerity, he 
 resisted this popular nomination. He was, 
 he savs, raplus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium 
 de Officiis, i. 4). He was baptized, passed 
 summarily through the intermediate eccle- 
 siastical stages, and on the eighth day was 
 consecrated bp. of Milan. This was in the 
 year 374 (a year after the death of Athan- 
 asius, and before the death of Valentinian 
 I.), Ambrose being thirty-four years of age. 
 The vox populi was never more thoroughly 
 justified. The foundation of his excellence 
 was laid in a singular and unsullied purity of 
 character. In the see of Milan Ambrose had 
 found precisely his place, and he laboured 
 I indefatigably as its bishop for twenty-three 
 : years till his death. 
 
 I One of his first cares after his ordination was 
 . to divest himself of the charge of private 
 j property. As a member of a wealthy family 
 ! he appears to have possessed both money and 
 1 lands. What he did not give away to the poor 
 ' or the church or reserve as an income for his 
 I sister, he placed entirely under the manage- 
 I ment of a dearly loved brother named Satyrus. 
 I He was thus free to devote his whole energies 
 ' to the work of his calling. His writings 
 ' enable us to follow him in both his ordinary 
 and his extraordinary occupations. He was 
 wont to '• celebrate the sacrifice" every day 
 (Ep. XX. 15). Every Lord's Day he preached 
 in the Basilica. His extant works consist 
 mainly of addresses and expositions which had 
 ; been first spoken in the church and were after- 
 wards revised for publication. They bear 
 traces of this mode of composition in their 
 simplicity and naturalness, and also in their 
 popular character and undigested form. 
 Ambrose had to begin, as he ingenuously de- 
 clares, to learn and to teach at the same time 
 (de Officiis, lib. i. cap. i. 4). In doctrine he 
 followed reverently what was of best repute in 
 the church in his time, carefully guarding his 
 own and his people's orthodoxy from all 
 heresy, and urging, but with wholesome, if not 
 always consistent, qualifications, the ascetic 
 religious perfection which the best Christians 
 were then pursuing. The sacred books, for 
 which he had a profound reverence, were to 
 him — what pastoral and didactic theology has 
 always tended to make them — verbal mater- 
 ials fur edification, which was to be extracted 
 from them by any and every kind of inter- 
 pretation to which their letter could be 
 subjected. His writings, therefore, or ser- 
 
 AMBROSIUS 17 
 
 j mons, are chiefly of interest with reference to 
 
 the history and character of tiicir author ; but 
 
 I they are lively and ingenuous, full of good 
 
 practical advice, and interspersed with gnomic 
 
 I sentences of much felicity. 
 
 One of the secrets of Ambrose's influence 
 I over the people was his admission of them into 
 all his interests and cares. He had nothing 
 private from the congregation in the Basilica. 
 The sister Marcellina and the brothers Satyrus 
 and Ambrose (this was the order of their ages) 
 were united together by a remarkable affec- 
 tion. The three loved one another too de- 
 votedly to think of marrying. Marcellina 
 became early a consecrated virgin, but con- 
 tinued to feel the keenest and tenderest 
 concern in her brothers' lives. When Ambrose 
 became a bishop, Satyrus appears to have 
 given up an important appointment in order 
 to come and live with his brother and take 
 every secular care off his hands. These 
 domestic virtues of Marcellina and Satyrus we 
 learn from sermons of Ambrose. His dis- 
 courses on virginity became famous, and 
 attracted virgins from distant parts to receive 
 I consecration at his hands. These discourses, 
 in the third year after his ordination, he 
 [ digested into three books, de Virginibus, 
 \ which were addressed in their new form to his 
 \ sister, and which contain, besides much praise 
 1 of Marcellina, the address made to her at her 
 '. consecration by the bp. of Rome. A year or 
 two later occurred the death of Satyrus, in 
 the flower of his age. In the depth of his 
 grief Ambrose pronounced a funeral discourse 
 upon his brother {de Exccssu Salyri), which 
 was followed seven days after by a sermon 
 ' upon the hope of a future life (de Fide Res.). 
 The bp. of Milan, exercising the authority of 
 a patriarchate, and presiding over a city which 
 j was frequently the residence of the emperor, 
 j was a great dignitary. But we cannot fail to 
 recognize the high reputation which Ambrose 
 had won for himself personally and in a sur- 
 prisingly short period, when we observe the 
 deference paid to him by the emperors of his 
 time. He was certainly fortunate in the 
 sovereigns with whom he had to do. The 
 youths Gratian and Valentinian II., and the 
 great Theodosius, were singularly virtuous and 
 religious princes. Gratian was a boy of six- 
 teen when the death of his father placed him 
 I on the throne, and in the year 377, the third 
 of Ambrose's episcopate, he was two years 
 older. In that year he was preparing to go 
 ! to the assistance of his uncle Valens against 
 the barbarian invaders by whom he was hard 
 pressed ; and desiring to be fortified against 
 the arguments of the Arians whom Valens was 
 favouring at Constantinople, he wrote to 
 Ambrose, and asked him to furnish him with a 
 controversial treatise in support of the ortho- 
 dox faith. Ambrose complied with the pious 
 youth's request by writing two books de Fide. 
 ' In the following year Gratian wrote a letter, 
 preserved with those of Ambrose, in which he 
 requests another copy of that work, together 
 with an additional argument upon the divinity 
 of the Holy Spirit. In this letter he calls 
 Ambrose parens. Ambrose amplified his 
 ! former treatise by adding three books to the 
 j two he had already composed. This work de 
 I Fide was reckoned an important defence of the 
 2 
 
18 
 
 AMBROSIUS 
 
 orthodox faith. The work de Spiritu Sancto, 
 in three books, was written in the year 381. 
 
 The successes of the Goths which attended 
 the defeat and death of Valens were the 
 occasion of frightful calamities to the empire. 
 From Illyricum and Thrace, especially, an 
 immense number of captives were carried off 
 by the barbarians, in ransoming whom the 
 whole available resources of the church were 
 exhausted by Ambrose ; and when everything 
 else had been taken, he did not scruple to 
 break up and sell the sacramental vessels. 
 He himself relates this fact with pride (de 
 Off. lib. ii. 136, 138). We now see Ambrose 
 zealous in the general affairs of the church, 
 and the leading ecclesiastic of his time. Pre- 
 siding in the council of Aquileia, 381, he 
 questioned the two Arianizing prelates who 
 were put on their trial before it. Several 
 letters addressed to the emperor at this time 
 in the name of the council of Aquileia or of the 
 Italian episcopate on the general government 
 of the church are preserved amongst Am- 
 brose's letters {Epp. ix.-xii.). When Acholius 
 died— the bp. of Thessalonica by whom Theo- 
 dosius had been baptized— his death was 
 formally announced to Ambrose by the clergy 
 and people of his diocese ; and we have two 
 letters in reply, one written to the church 
 and the other to Anysius the new bishop. 
 The next two letters of the collection (xvii., 
 xviii.) are addressed to the emperor Valen- 
 tinian, after the death of Gratian, to exhort 
 him not to comply with a request of Symma- 
 chus, prefect of the city, that he would replace 
 the altar of Victory in the Senate House, and 
 restore the funds for certain heathen cere- 
 monies. Ambrose, whose influence was in- 
 voked by the bp. of Rome, protested strongly 
 against any such concessions to paganism ; 
 and Victory, as it was said, favoured in the 
 result her enemy more than her champion. 
 
 The struggle between Ambrose and Justina, 
 the mother of Valentinian II., which after- 
 wards reached such a height at Milan, had 
 been begun with a preliminary trial of strength 
 about the appointment of a bishop at Sirmium. 
 But when the usurpation of Maximus occurred 
 (a.d. 383), and had been stained by the 
 violent death of Gratian, Justina in her alarm 
 had recourse to the great Cathohc bishop, and 
 persuaded him to go on an embassy to Max- 
 imus, to beg him to leave Italy untouched. 
 Maximus had Theodosius to deal with behind 
 the boy-emperor and his mother ; and his first 
 act, when Gaul had fallen into his hands, was 
 to send to Theodosius and propose to him, 
 instead of war, the partition of the empire. 
 Theodosius was constrained by motives of 
 pohcy to assent to the proposal ; and Ambrose 
 had the comfort of returning to Milan with 
 the announcement that the new emperor 
 would refrain from passing the boundary of 
 the Alps. Allusions are made to this embassy 
 in a letter of Ambrose {Ep. xxiv. 7) in which 
 he reports the less successful issue of a later 
 appeal to Maximus. 
 
 One of the chief glories of Ambrose is that 
 St. Augustine ascribed to him his conver- 
 sion, and sought Christian baptism at his 
 hands. The circumstances of his intercourse 
 with St. Ambrose (a.d. 383-387) are related 
 by St. Augustine in his Confessions. He 
 
 AMBROSIUS 
 
 tells us of the singularly eminent position 
 of St. Ambrose (vi. 3), of his reputation for 
 eloquence (vi. 13), of the difficulty of getting 
 an opportunity of conversing with him on 
 account of his many engagements, and his 
 habit of reading to himself when company vyas 
 present (v. 3), and of his method of expounding 
 the Old Testament by finding under the letter 
 a spiritual or mystical sense (vi. 4). 
 
 It was during this period, in the years 385-6, 
 that Ambrose defended the churches of Milan 
 so stoutly against the intrusion of Arian wor- 
 ship. Justina, who patronized the languishing 
 Arian party, was bent on obtaining one of the 
 churches at Milan for the use of her friends. 
 Ambrose was not likely to make the con- 
 cession. How in this matter he resisted the 
 violent efforts of Justina, and the authority of 
 her son (at this time fifteen years of age), is 
 described at length by Ambrose himself in 
 letters to his sister Marcellina and to Valen- 
 tinian, and in a sermon preached at the crisis 
 of the struggle {Epp. xx. xxi., and the Sermo 
 de Basilicis Tradendis which follows them). 
 There appear to have been two churches at 
 Milan, the one without, the other within, the 
 walls. The former, as of less importance, 
 was first asked for. This being refused, some 
 persons of the court came to Ambrose, and 
 begged him to concede — probably for partial 
 use only — the newer and larger basilica, and 
 to exert his influence to prevent any popular 
 disturbance. For it is important to observe 
 that throughout the struggle the people were 
 on the Catholic side. Ambrose replied loftily 
 that the temple of God could not be sur- 
 rendered by His priest. The next day, which 
 was Sunday, as Ambrose was officiating in 
 the principal basilica, news came that poUce- 
 agents had been sent from the palace, who 
 were hanging on the Portian basiUca the cur- 
 tains which marked a building as claimed for 
 the imperial treasury. A part of the multitude 
 hastened thither ; Ambrose remained to per- 
 form Mass. Then he heard that the people 
 had seized on a certain Arian presbyter, whom 
 they met on the way. Ambrose began to 
 pray with bitter tears that the cause of the 
 church might not be stained with blood ; and 
 sent presbyters and deacons, who succeeded 
 in rescuing the prisoner unhurt. Justina, in 
 her irritation, treated the rich men of the city 
 as responsible for a tiunult, and threw many 
 of them into prison. The imperial authority 
 was being dangerously strained. PoUtic offi- 
 cials came to Ambrose and entreated him to 
 give way to the sovereign rights of the em- 
 peror ; Ambrose rephed that the emperor had 
 no rights over what belonged to God. A 
 body of troops was sent to take possession of 
 the basilica, and there was great fear of blood 
 being shed ; but after mutual appeals between 
 their officers and Ambrose, the soldiers with- 
 drew, and Ambrose remained all day in the 
 chinrch. At night he went home, and on 
 coming out the next morning he found that 
 the church (the Portian) was surrounded by 
 soldiers. But the soldiers were in awe of 
 Ambrose, and, learning that he had threatened 
 them with excommunication, they began to 
 crowd in, protesting that they came to pray 
 and not to fight. Ambrose took the lesson 
 for the day as the subject of a sermon, and 
 
AMBROSIUS 
 
 whilst he was preaching he was told that the 
 imperial curtains were taken down. The 
 (emperor was worsted by the bishop, and was 
 « naturally angry. He sent a secretary to 
 reproach .\mbrose, and ask if he meant to 
 make himself a tyrant. Soldiers continued to 
 surround the church, and .\inbrose remained 
 there singing psalms with the faithful. 
 The next day the soldiers were withdrawn, 
 and the merchants who had been imprisoned 
 were released. The struggle was over ; but 
 Ambrose heard that the emperor had said 
 bitterly to the soldiers, " If .\mbrose orders 
 \ 11, you will give me up in chains." He 
 rt cords another saying, which drew from him 
 a retort of characteristic felicity. The court 
 chamberlain sent him a message : " Whilst I 
 am aUve, shall you despise Valentinian ? 1 
 will take off your head." Ambrose answered : 
 •• May God grant you to fulfil what you 
 threaten ; for then my fate will be that of a 
 bishop, your act will be that of a eunuch." 
 
 In the course of the following year the 
 attempts of the .\riaii party, and of the em- 
 peror as at this time governed by that party, 
 ' were renewed. Ambrose was asked to hold 
 a discussion with Auxentius, an Arian bishop, 
 before chosen judges in the presence of the 
 court, or else to withdraw from Milan. He 
 I consulted such bishops and presbyters as were 
 ; within reach, and in their name uTote a letter 
 : to the emperor {Ep. xxi.), declining the dis- 
 I cussion. An alarm was spread amongst the 
 I people that he was going to be taken away 
 I from Milan, and for some days, by night and 
 I by day, he was surrounded and watched by 
 j an immense concourse of his friends. He 
 I preached them a sermon (de Basilicis Traden- 
 dis), assuring them of his steadfastness, and 
 I encouraging them to confidence, and at the 
 ! same time gave them hymns composed by 
 ' himself to sing — hymns in honour of the 
 Trinity — by which their fervour was greatly 
 stimulated. Again the court party found 
 themselves worsted, and gave way. 
 
 The singing of hymns, by which this re- 
 markable occupation of the basilica was char- 
 acterized, is described by St. Augustine as 
 extremely moving (Conf. vi. 7), and is said 
 by him to have been an imitation of Eastern 
 customs, and to have been followed generally 
 I throughout the church. PauUnus also ob- 
 ' serves that at this time " antiphons, hymns, 
 ' and vigils began to be performed in the 
 I church of Milan, and had spread thence 
 I amongst all the churches of the West " {Vita, 
 1 13). The reputation of St. Ambrose as a 
 I composer of hymns was such that many cer- 
 I tainly not his have been attributed to him, 
 I and amongst them the Te Deum. The Bene- 
 i dictine edition gives twelve hymns, which 
 ] there is some good authority for ascribing to 
 I Ambrose, the best known of which are those 
 I beginning Aeterne rerum conditor, Deus creator 
 I omnium. Veni redemptor gentium, and lux 
 I beata Trinitas. They have a brightness and 
 : felicity which have reasonably made them 
 j favourites in the church to the present day. 
 I We must take into account the state of 
 j mind brought about in the bishop and his 
 I flock by that protracted vigil in the basilica, 
 I when we read of the miracles into which their 
 triumph over heresy blazed forth. We have 
 
 AMBROSIUS 
 
 10 
 
 a narrative from St. Ambrose's own pen, in a 
 letter to Marcellina (Ep. xxii.), of the wonder- 
 ful disco\ery of the remains of two niartyrs, 
 and of the cures wrought by them. \ basilica 
 was to be dedicated, and Ambrose was longing 
 to find some relics of martyrs. \ presage 
 suddenly struck him. (This " presagium " is 
 called a vision by St. .Augustine, Conf. Ix. 7, 
 de Civ. Dei, xxii. 8.) He caused the ground 
 to be opened in the church that was ronse- 
 crated by the remains of St. Felix and St. 
 Nabor. Two bodies were found, of wonderful 
 size (ut prisca uetas ferebal), the heads 
 severed from the shoulders, the tomb stained 
 with blood. This discovery, so precious to a 
 church " barren of martyrs," was welcomed 
 with the wildest enthusiasm. Old men began 
 to remember that they had heard formerly the 
 names of these martyrs — Gervasius and Pro- 
 tasius — and had read the title on their grave. 
 Miracles crowded thick upon one another. 
 They were mostly cures of demoniacs, and of 
 sickly persons ; but one blind man received 
 his sight. Ambrose himself, for once, eagerly 
 and positively affirms the roaUty of the cure ; 
 and Augustine, who generally held that the 
 age of miracles was past, also bears witness to 
 the common acceptance of the fact at Milan. 
 Gibbon has some excuse for his note, " I 
 should recommend this miracle to our divines, 
 if it did not prove the worship of relics, as well 
 as the Nicene Creed." The Arians, as we 
 learn from Ambrose and Pauhnub, made light 
 of the healing of demoniacs, and were sceptical 
 about the blind man's history. The martyrs' 
 bones were carried into the " Ambrosian " 
 Basilica (now the church of St. Ambrogio), and 
 deposited beneath the altar in a place which 
 Ambrose had designed for his own remains. 
 
 The memory of this conflict did not restrain 
 Justina and her son from asking help shortly 
 after of Ambrose. It was evident that 
 Maximus was preparing to invade Italy ; and 
 as Ambrose had apparently been successful in 
 his former embassy, he was charged with 
 another conciliatory appeal to the same ruler. 
 The magnanimous bishop consented to go, but 
 he was unfavourably received, and having 
 given great offence by abstaining from com- 
 munion with the bishops who were about 
 Maximus, he was summarily ordered to return 
 home. He reports the failure of his mission 
 in a letter to Valentinian {Ep. xxiv.). It is 
 worthy of remark that the punishment of 
 heresy by death was so hateful to .\mbrose 
 that he declined communion with bishops who 
 had been accompUces in it ("qui aliquos, devios 
 licet a fide, ad necem petebant," ib. 12). 
 These bishops had prevailed on Maximus to 
 put to death Priscillian — the first time that 
 heresy was so punished. [Priscillianus.] 
 
 Maximus was not diverted from his project. 
 
 He crossed the Alps, and justina, with her son, 
 
 fled to Theodosius. It was not long before the 
 
 vigour and ability of Theodosius triumphed 
 
 over Maximus, who perished in the conflict 
 
 he had provoked. Ambrose, who withdrew 
 
 from Milan when Maximus came to occupy it, 
 
 appears to have been near Theodosius in the 
 
 j hour of victory, and used his influence with 
 
 him in favour of moderation and clemency, 
 
 j which the emperor, according to his usual 
 
 ; habit, displayed in an eminent degree {Ep. xl. 
 
20 
 
 AMBROSIUS 
 
 32). But Ambrose unhappily prevailed upon 
 Theodosius to abandon a course which his 
 stricter sense of his duty as a ruler had 
 prompted him to take. In some obscure place 
 in the East the Christians had been guilty of 
 outrages, from which it had often been their 
 lot to suffer. With the support of their bishop, 
 they had demolished a Jewish synagogue and 
 a meeting-house of certain Gnostic heretics. 
 Theodosius, hearing of this violence, had 
 ordered that the bishop should rebuild the 
 synagogue at his own expense, and that the 
 rioters, who were chiefly monks, should be 
 punished at the discretion of the local gover- 
 nor. This order naturally affronted the party 
 spirit of the Christians. Ambrose could not 
 bear that his fejlow-believers should be thus 
 humiliated. He wrote a letter to the em- 
 peror (who was at Milan, Ambrose being for 
 the moment at Aquileia), entreating him most 
 earnestly to revoke the order. With much 
 that Ambrose says we can sympathize ; but he 
 lays down a principle fruitful in disastrous 
 issues : Cedat oportet censura (the functions of 
 the civil ruler) devotioni (Ep. xl. 11). Shortly 
 after, he had the opportunity of preaching be- 
 fore the emperor at Milan. In a letter to his 
 sister he gives the sermon at length, with its 
 conclusion, addressed directly to the emperor, 
 and begging of him the pardon of those who 
 had been caught in a sin. When he came 
 down from the ptilpit, Theodosius said to him, 
 De nobis proposuisti. " Only with a view to 
 your advantage," replied Ambrose. "In 
 truth," continued the emperor, " the order 
 that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue 
 was too hard. But that is amended. The 
 monks commit many crimes." Then he re- 
 mained silent for a while. At last Ambrose 
 said, " Enable me to offer the sacrifice for thee 
 with a clear conscience." The emperor sat 
 down and nodded, but Ambrose would not be 
 satisfied without extracting a solemn engage- 
 ment that no further proceedings should be 
 taken in the matter. After this he went up 
 to the altar ; " but I should not have gone," 
 adds Ambrose, " unless he had given me his 
 full promise " (Ep. xli. 28). 
 
 About two years later (a.d. 390) the lament- 
 able massacre at Thessalonica gave occasion 
 for a very grand act of spiritual discipline. The 
 commander of the garrison at Thessalonica and 
 several of his officers had been brutally 
 murdered by a mob in that city. The indigna- 
 tion of the emperor was extreme ; and after 
 appearing to yield to gentler counsels, he sent 
 orders, which were executed by an indis- 
 criminate slaughter of at least 7,000 persons 
 in Thessalonica. Ambrose protested against 
 this in the name of God and of the church. 
 He had always acted on the principle that 
 " nothing was more dangerous before God or 
 base amongst men than for a priest not to 
 speak out his convictions freely," and his lofty 
 disinterestedness {non pro meis commodis 
 faciebam, Ep. Ivii. 4) gave him great power 
 over a religious and magnanimous mind like 
 that of Theodosius. Ambrose now wrote 
 him a letter (Ep. li.), which Gibbon most 
 unjustly calls " a miserable rhapsody on a 
 noble subject," but which most readers will 
 feel to be worthy of its high purpose. With 
 many protestations of respect and sympathy 
 
 AMBROSIUS 
 
 Ambrose urges his Emperor to a genuine 
 repentance for the dreadful deed to which 
 in an access of passion he had given his 
 sanction. He intimates that he could not 
 celebrate the Eucharist in the presence of one 
 so stained with blood, (iibbon represents 
 the behaviour of Ambrose as marked by a 
 prelatical pomposity, of which there is no 
 trace whatever in the only documents ou 
 which we can rely. In his own letter the ■ 
 bishop is most considerate and tender, though 
 evidently resolute. He and Paulinus record 
 simply that the emperor performed public 
 penance, stripping himself of his royal insignia, 
 and praying for pardon with groans and tears ; 
 and that he never passed a day afterwards 
 without grieving for his error (Paulinus, 24; 
 Amb. de Ob. Theod. 34). 
 
 In the course of the following year (391), 
 Theodosius having returned to the East, the 
 weak authority of Valentinian II. was over- 
 thrown by Arbogastes and his puppet 
 Eugenius, and the unfortunate youth perished 
 by the same fate as his brother. He was in 
 Gaul at the time of his death, and Ambrose 
 was at that moment crossing the Alps to visit 
 him there, partly by the desire of the Italian 
 magistrates, who wished Valentinian to return 
 to Italy, and partly at the request of the 
 emperor himself, who was anxious to be 
 baptized by him. In the next year (392) a 
 funeral oration was delivered at Milan by 
 Ambrose {de Obitu Valentimani), in which he 
 praises the piety as well as the many virtues 
 of the departed. It appears that under the 
 influence of Theodosius, Valentinian had 
 learnt to regard Ambrose with the same 
 reverence as his brother had done before him 
 (Letter to Theodosius, Ep. liii. 2). He had 
 died unbaptized ; but Ambrose assures his 
 sorrowing sisters that his desire was equivalent 
 to the act of baptism, and that he had been 
 washed in his pietv as the martyrs in their 
 blood (de Ob. Val. 51-53)- 
 
 Eugenius held the sovereign power in the 
 West for two or three years, and made friendly 
 overtures to the great Italian prelate. But 
 Ambrose for a time returned no answer ; and 
 when Eugenius came to Milan, he retired from 
 that city. Shortly after this withdrawal, he 
 wrote a respectful letter to Eugenius, explain- 
 ing that the reason why he had refused to hold 
 intercourse with him was that he had given 
 permission, though himself a Christian, that 
 the altar of Victory should be restored — the 
 boon which Svmmachus had begged for in 
 vain being yielded to the power of Arbogastes. 
 
 When the military genius and vigour of 
 Theodosius had gained one more brilUant 
 triumph by the rapid overthrow of Arbogastes 
 and Eugenius, Ambrose, who had returned 
 to Milan (Aug. a.d. 394), received there a 
 letter from Theodosius requesting him to offer 
 a public thanksgiving for his victory. Ambrose 
 replies (Ep. Ixi.) with enthusiastic congratula- 
 tions. But the happiness thus secured did not 
 last long. In the following year the great Theo- 
 dosius died at Milan (Jan. 395). asking for 
 i Ambrose with his last breath (de Obiiu Theod. 
 I 35V The bishop had the satisfaction of paying 
 j a cordial tribute to his memory in the funeral 
 oration he delivered over his remains. 
 
 Ambrose himself had only two more years 
 
AMBROSIUS 
 
 -1 live. The time was filled with busy labours 
 >f expositi'in, correspondence, and episcopal 
 lucrnnieut ; and, according to Paulinus, with 
 aril uis prodigies. Unhappily this biographer 
 polls with his childish miracles what is still a 
 ■ •luhinp account of the good bishop's death. 
 t hcrame known that his strength was failing, 
 mil the count Stilicho, saying that the death 
 t such a man threatened death to Italy itself, 
 luiiiccd a number of the chief men of the 
 itv to go to him, and entreat him to pray to 
 ..h1 that his life might be spared. Ambrose 
 .-plied, " I have not so lived amongst you, 
 liU I should be ashamed to live ; and I do 
 1 t fear to die. because we have a good 
 
 rd." • For some hours before his death 
 If l.iv with his hands crossed, praying ; as 
 'aulinus could see by the movement of his 
 ips. though he heard no voice. When the 
 .ist moment was at hand, Honoratus, the 
 >p. of Vercellac, who was lying down in 
 mother room, thought he heard himself thrice 
 .ilicd, and came to .\mbrose, and offered 
 um the Bodv of the Lord ; immediately after 
 .-(■civing which he breathed his last breath — 
 I man, Paulinus says well, who for the fear 
 f ("fiul had never feared to speak the truth 
 ■ kings or any powers. He died on Good 
 riilav night, 307, and was buried in the 
 \nibrosian Basilica, in the presence of a 
 iniltitude of every rank and age, including 
 ■\rn lews and pagans. 
 
 Bv the weight of his character St. Ambrose 
 
 ■ rjave a powerful support to the tendencies 
 '■ l.vhich he favoured. He held without mis- 
 ' Idvings that the church was the organ of God 
 
 • In the world, and that secular government had 
 
 - iihe choice of being either hostile or subser- 
 >' Ivient to the Divine authority ruling in the 
 
 • bhurch. To passages already quoted which 
 "^ Express this conviction may be added a remark 
 ■- Let fall by Ambrose at the council of Aquileia, 
 K [' Sacerdotes de laicis judicare debent, non 
 H Baici de sacerdotibus " (Gesta Cone. Aqu. 51). 
 
 He was of strict Athanasian orthodoxy as 
 
 '■• against heresy of every colour. His views of 
 
 - the work of Christ in the Incarnation, the 
 
 ■ iPassion, and the Resurrection, have in a 
 ■~ marked degree the broad and universal 
 ''■ jcharacter which belongs to the higher pat- 
 ; fistic theology on this subject. (For example, 
 
 peaking of the resurrection of Christ, he says, 
 
 Resurrexit in eo mundus, resurrexit in eo 
 
 oelum, resurrexit in eo terra," de Fide Res. 
 
 02.) With reeard to religion and religious 
 
 ractices, he is emphatic in insisting that the 
 
 .'orship of the heart is all-important (" Deo 
 
 nim vellc pro facto est," de Fide Res. 115 ; 
 
 Deus non sanguine sed pietate placatur," 
 
 b. qS ; " Non pecuniam Deus sed fidem 
 
 uaerit," de Poen. ii. ix.) ; but at the same time 
 
 is language concerning the two Sacraments 
 
 s often undeniably that of materializing theo- 
 
 |logy. .\ttempts have been made, chiefly on this 
 
 ccount, to call in question the Ambrosian 
 
 li: |authorship of the treatises de Mysteriis and 
 
 t \de Sacramentis ; but their expressions are 
 
 ir lsuppf)rted by others to be found in undoubted 
 
 ! |works of Ambrose. He praises his brother 
 
 ;; jSat\Tus for having tied a portion of the conse- 
 
 1' i • St. Augustine was wont to express his peculiar 
 
 fi- jadmiration of this saying, with its elimata ac lihrata 
 
 iverba (Possidius, l^it. Aug. c. xxvii.). 
 
 AMBROSIUS 
 
 21 
 
 crated elements in a napkin round his neck 
 when he was shipwrecked, and adds, th.it 
 having found the benefit of " the heavenly 
 mystery " in this form, he was eager to recei\o 
 it into his luotith — " (piam majus putabat 
 fusum in viscera, quod tantum sibi tectum 
 orario profuisset ! " {de Exc. Sal. 43, .}6). Ho 
 argues for the daily reception of the Kutharist 
 from the prayer, Give us this day our daily 
 bread {de Sacr. v. 25). His frequent strong 
 
 recommendations of virginity arc based, not 
 on a theory of self-denial, but rather on one 
 of detachment from the cares of the world and 
 the troubles inseparable from matrimony and 
 parentage. According to him. marriage is 
 the more painful state, as well as the less 
 favourable to spiritual devotion. Neverthe- 
 less, he did not expect or desire a large number 
 to embrace the life which he so highly eulo- 
 gized. ■' Dicet aliquis : Ergo dissuades 
 nuptias ? ego vero suadeo, ct eos damno qui 
 dissuadere consuerunt. . . . Paucarum quippe 
 hoc munus [virginity] est, illud omnium " {de 
 Virginihtts, I. vii.). He and his sister used to 
 press Satyrus to marry, but Satyrus put it 
 of! through family affection — " nc a fratribus 
 divellerctur " {de Exc. Sal. §§ 53, 59). Fast- 
 ing is commended, not as self-torture pleasing 
 to God, but as the means of making the bodv 
 more wholesome and stronger. A keen sense 
 of the restraints and temptations and annoy- 
 ances which reside in the flesh is expressed 
 in Ambrose's remarkable language concerning 
 death. It is a great point with him that 
 death is altogether to be desired. He argues 
 this point very fully in the address de Fide 
 ResurrecHonis and' in the essay de Bono 
 Mortis. There are three kinds of death, he 
 says — the death of sin, death to sin, and the 
 death of the body {de B. M. § 3). This last is 
 the emancipation of the soul from the body. 
 He appeals to the arguments of philosophers 
 and to the analogies of nature, as well as to 
 Scripture, to shew not only that such a deliver- 
 ance may be hoped for, but that it must be a 
 thing to be desired by all. The terrors of the 
 future state almost entirely disappear. He 
 admits now and then that punishment must be 
 looked for by the wicked ; but he affirms that 
 even to the wicked death is a gain {de B. M. 
 § 28). There are two reasons why the foolish 
 fear death : one because they regard it .as 
 destruction ; " altera, quod poenas reformi- 
 dent, poetarum scilicet fabulis territi, latratus 
 Cerberi, et Cocyti fluminis tristem voraginem, 
 etc., etc. Haec plena sunt fabularum, nee 
 tamen negaverim poenas esse post mortem " 
 {ib. 33). " Qui infidcles sunt, descendunt in 
 infernum viventes ; etsi nobiscum videntur 
 vivere sed in inferno stmt " (ih. 56). 
 
 The see of Milan was in no way dependent 
 upon that of Rome ; but Ambrose always 
 delighted to pay respect to the bp. of Rome, 
 as representing more than any other the unity 
 of the church. His feeling towards Rome 
 is expressed in the apology with which he 
 defends the custom of washing the feet in 
 baptism — a custom which prevailed at Milan 
 but not at Rome. " In omnibus cupio scqui 
 Ecclesiam Romanam ; sed tamen et nos 
 homines sensum habemus ; ideo quod alibi 
 rectius servatur, et nos rectius custodimus. 
 Ipsum sequimur apostolum Petrum, ... qui 
 
22 AMBROSIUS 
 
 sacredos fuit Ecclesiae Romanae " {de Sacra- 
 mentis, III. §§ 5, 6). 
 
 As a writer, St. Ambrose left a multitude 
 of works behind him, which show competent 
 learning, a famihar acquaintance with Plato, 
 Cicero, Vergil, and other classics, and much 
 intellectual liveliness and industry. Their 
 want of originality did not hinder them from 
 obtaining for their author, through their 
 popular and practical quaUties, a distinguished 
 reputation as a sound and edifying teacher. 
 He is often mentioned with respect by his 
 contemporaries, St. Jerome and St. Augustine 
 (see especially the latter, de Doctrind Chris- 
 tiana, iv. 46, 48, 50). He came to be joined 
 with them and Gregory the Great as one of 
 the four Latin doctors of the church. His 
 writings mav be classified under three heads, 
 as (i) Expository, (2) Doctrinal or Didactic, 
 and (3) Occasional. 
 
 (i) The first class contains a long list of 
 expositions, delivered first as sermons, of 
 many books of Scripture. They begin with 
 the Hexaemeron, or commentary on the 
 Creation. Of this work St. Jerome says, 
 " Nuper S. Ambrosius sic Hexaemeron illius 
 [Origenus] compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti 
 sententias Basiliique sequeretur" [Ep. 41). It 
 is in a great part a literal translation from 
 St. Basil. St. Augustine was interested by the 
 method of interpretation in which Ambrose 
 followed Basil, Origen, and Philo Judaeus, 
 finding a spiritual or mystical meaning latent 
 under the natural or historical. The Hexae- 
 meron (6 books) is followed by de Paradiso, 
 de Cain et Abel (2), de Noe et Area, de 
 Abraham (2), de Isaac et Animd, de Bono 
 Mortis, de Ftiga Saeculi, de Jacob et Beatd 
 Vita (2), de Joseph Patriarchd, de Benediction- 
 ibus Patriarcharum. de Elid et Jejunio, de 
 Nabuthe Jezraelita, de Tobid, de Interpella- 
 tione Job et David (4^, Apologia Prophetae 
 David, Apol. altera ib.. Enarrationes in Psalmos 
 (12), Expositio in Ps. cxviii., Expositio Evang. 
 secundum Lucam (10). 
 
 (2I The second class contains de Officiis 
 Ministrorum (3 books), de Virginibus (3), de 
 Viduis, de Virginitate, Exhortatio Virginitatis, 
 de Lapsu Virginis Consecratae, de Mysteriis, 
 de Sacramentis (6), de Poenitentid (2), de 
 Fide (5), de Spiritu Sancto (3), de Incarna- 
 tionis Dominicae Sacramento. Of these the 
 books de Officiis, addressed to the clergy 
 (imitated from Cicero), and those de Fide, 
 mentioned above, are the most important. 
 
 (3) The occasional writings, which are 
 biographically the most valuable, are the dis- 
 courses de Excessu Fratris sui Satvri (2), de 
 Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, de Obitu Theo- 
 dosii Oratio, and the Epistles, ninety-one in 
 nimiber, with the Gesta ConcHii Aquileiensis 
 inserted amongst them. 
 
 Various ecclesiastical writings have been 
 attributed to .\mbrose, which critical exami- 
 nation has determined to be spurious. [Am- 
 BROSIASTER.] Most of these are given in the 
 Benedictine edition ; in that of Migne there 
 is an additional appendix, containing some 
 other compositions which have borne Am- 
 brose's name, but are either manifestly 
 spurious or have no sufficient title to be 
 considered genuine. Some of his genuine 
 works appear to have been lost, especially 
 
 AMMONIUS 
 
 one, mentioned with high praise by St. 
 Augustine (Ep. xxxi. 8), against those who 
 alleged that our Lord had learnt from Plato. 
 Of the connexion of St. Ambrose with the 
 liturgical arrangement which bears his name, 
 we know nothing more than what has been 
 quoted above from Paulinus. [See D. C. A., 
 arts. Liturgies ; Ambrosian Music] 
 
 There are three principal editions of Am- 
 brose's works — that of Erasmus, the Roman, 
 and the Benedictine. Erasmus's ed. was pub. 
 at Basle, by Froben, in 1527. He divided the 
 works into four tomes, with the titles, (i) 
 Ethica, (2) Polemica, (3) Orationes, Epistolae. 
 et Condones, (4) Explanationes Vet. et Novi 
 Testatnenti. The great Roman edition was 
 the work of many years' labour, undertaken 
 by the desire of popes Pius IV. and Pius V., 
 and begun by a monk who afterwards became 
 pope with the name of Sixtus V. It was pub. 
 in 5 vols, at Rome, in the years 1580-1-2-5. 
 This edition superseded all others, until the 
 publication of the excellent work of the Bene- 
 dictines (du Frische and Le Nourry) at Paris, 
 A.D. 1686 and 1690. A small revised ed. of 
 the de Officiis and the Hexaemeron has been 
 printed in the Bibliotheca Pat. Eccl. Latin. 
 Selecta (Tauchnitz, Leip?.). Some of his works 
 are reprinted in the Vienna Corpus Ser. Eccl. 
 \ Lat. ; and in the loth vol. of the Nic. and Post- 
 j Nic. Fathers are English trans, of select works. 
 j An elaborate Life of St. Ambrose by Baronius, 
 I extracted from his Annales, is prefixed to the 
 I Roman edition ; but improved upon by the 
 more critical investigations of the Benedictine ' 
 editors, who have laid the basis for all sub- 
 ' sequent Lives. (Cf. Th. Forshaw, A mbrose, Bp. 
 i of Milan, 1884 ; a Life by the due de Broglie 
 \ in Les Saiiits, 1899 (Paris). A cheap popular , 
 Life by R. Thornton is pub. by S.P.C.K. in.j 
 their Fathers for Eng. Readers.) [j.ll.d.] 
 
 Ammon (or Amon), St., the founder of the 
 celebrated settlement of coenobites and her- 
 mits on and near Mons Nitria (Ruf. de Mon. 
 30) ; he Is often styled the " father of Egyp- 
 tian monasticism." He was contemporary 
 with St. Anthony, and filled the same place in 
 Lower Egypt as Anthony in the Thebaid. 
 Being left an orphan by his parents, wealthy 
 people near Alexandria, he was forced by his 
 uncle to marry. But on the wedding day he 
 persuaded his bride to take a vow of celibacy, 
 and for eighteen years they lived together as 
 brother and sister : afterwards with her con- 
 sent he withdrew to Nitria, and from that time 
 only visited his wife twice a year (Pall. Hist. 
 Laiis. 8). A great multitude of zealous dis- 
 ciples soon gathered round him ; so that 
 Palladius not many years later found about 
 five thousand monks, some living quite alone, 
 some with one or more companions ; while 
 six hundred " advanced in hoUness " (reXe ot) 
 dwelt apart from the rest in more complete 
 isolation (ib.). Several miracles are related of 
 Ammon (Socr. Hist. iv. 23 ; Soz. Hist. i. 14 ; 
 Niceph. Hist. viii. 41). [i.g.s.] 
 
 AmmoniUS, a disciple of Pambo, and one oi 
 the most celebrated of the monks of Nitria. 
 Being of unusual stature, he and his brothers 
 DioscoRUS, Eusebius, and Euthymius were 
 I called the Tall Brothers (Soz. Hist. viii. 12). 
 I Ammonius himself was distinguished by the 
 I epithet wapwr-qi (Niceph. Hist. xi. 37), in 
 
AMMONIUS SACCAS 
 
 consequence of having cut off one of his ears 
 to escape being made a bisliop (Pall. Hist. 
 Liius. 12). In his youth he accompanied St. 
 Athanasius to Rome (Socr. Hist. iv. 23 ; Tall. 
 I.:). He was a learned man, and could 
 n peat, it is said, the O. and N. T. by heart, 
 ,1^ well as passages from Origen and other 
 lathers (Pall. 12). He was banished to Dio- 
 ( Mi'sarea in the persecution under Valens {ib. 
 117). After being for some time iiigh in 
 favour with Theopliilus of Alexanilria, he and 
 his brothers were accused by him of Origenism. 
 Sozoraen (viii. 12) and Nicephorus (xiii. 10) 
 ascribe the accusation to personal animosity 
 >n the part of Theophilus. Socrates (vi. 7) 
 xplains the accusation as an attempt to divert 
 trim himself the odium which he had incurred 
 as an Origenist. Jerome considers the ac- 
 cusation merited (£/'. ad Alex.). Driven from 
 Egypt, the brothers took refuge first in Pales- 
 tine (Niceph. xiii. ii) and afterwards at Con- 
 stantinople, where they were well received 
 by Chrysostom (viii. 13). There they were 
 protected also by the favour of the Empress 
 Eudoxia (Soz. viii. 13), and even satisfied 
 Epiphanius of Salamis, who came to Constan- 
 tinople at the instigation of Theophilus to 
 convict them of heresy (viii. 15). At the 
 sj'nod "ad Quercum," held on the arrival of 
 Theophilus, they were persuaded to submit 
 to him, Ammonius being ill at the time. 
 He died shortly afterwards. Perhaps this 
 Ammonius is the author of the Instittitioiies 
 Ascelicat', of which 22 chapters are extant 
 (Lambec. Biblioth. Viiidob. iv. 155). [i.g.s.] 
 
 Ammonius Saccas. Next to nothing is 
 known of this philosopher. That he obtained 
 his name of Saccas (= craKKocpopos) from having 
 been a porter in his youth is affirmed by 
 Suidas (under Origenes) and Ammianus Mar- 
 cellinus (xxii. 528). He was a native of 
 Alexandria ; Porph>Ty asserts that he was 
 bom of Christian parents, and returned to 
 the heathen religion. Eusebius (H. E. vi. 
 19, 7) denies this, but perhaps confounds 
 him with another Ammonius, the author of a 
 Diatessaron, still extant. That the founder of 
 the Alexandrian school of philosophy (for 
 such Ammonius Saccas was) should have been 
 at the same time a Christian, though not 
 impossible, seems hardly likely. Moreover, 
 the Ammonius of Eusebius wrote books ; 
 whereas, according to both Longinus and 
 Porph\Ty, Ammonius Saccas wrote none. 
 Plotinus is said to have been most strongly 
 impressed with his first hearing of Ammonius, 
 and to have cried out, " This is the man I was 
 looking for!" [tjvtov i'^riTovv), after which he 
 remained his constant friend till the death of 
 the elder philosopher. Among other disciples 
 of Ammonius were Herennius, the celebrated 
 Longiiius, Heracles the Christian, Olympius, 
 Antonius, a heathen called Origen, and also 
 the famous Christian of that name. It is 
 possible, however, that the Christians, Origen 
 and Heracles, may have been the disciples of 
 that Ammonius whom Eusebius confounds 
 with Ammonius Saccas, and who was himself 
 a Christian ; but this cannot be certainly 
 known. We may guess sf>mething concerning 
 the philosophy of Ammonius Saccas from the 
 fact that Plotinus was his pupil. Hierocles 
 {ap. Photjus) affirms that his aim was to 
 
 AMPHILOCHIUS 
 
 23 
 
 reconcile the pliilosoiihies of Plato and Aris- 
 totle, hence he appears to have combined 
 mysticism and eclecticism. Nemesius, a 
 bishop and a neo-Platonist of the close of the 
 4th cent., cites two passages, one of which he 
 declares to contain the views of Numenius 
 and Ammonius, the other he attributes to 
 Ammonius alone. They concern the nature 
 of the soul and its relation to the Ixxly ; but 
 they appear to have been merely the tradi- 
 tional views of Ammonius, not any actual 
 ritten words of his. The life and philosofihy 
 of Ammonius have been discussed by Vache- 
 rot. Hist, de I'Ecole d'Alex. i. 342; Jules 
 Simon. Hist, de V Ecole d' Alex. i. 204 ; Dehaut 
 in his historical essay on the life and teaching 
 of our philosopher; and Zeller in his Pliilo- 
 sophie dcr Gttcchciu who also mentions other 
 writers on .Vniinoiiius. [j.r.m.] 
 
 Amphiiochius (1), archbp. of Iconium. Of 
 this great Catholic leader, who was regarded 
 by his contemporaries as the foremost man 
 in the Eastern church after his friends Basil 
 of Caesarca and Gregory of Nazianzus, very 
 scanty information remains. The works 
 ascribed to him are mostly spurious ; and the 
 Life (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxix. p. 14) is a later 
 fiction. Various references to the writings 
 of Basil and Gregory contain nearly all that 
 is known of him and his family. Amphiiochius 
 appears to have been a first cousin of Gregory 
 Nazianzen. The language of Basil (Ep. 161) 
 might imply that he was born and Uved in 
 Basil's own town Caesarea. Gregory ex- 
 presses regret that he did not see much of 
 Amphiiochius during his earlier years (Ep. 13). 
 Their intimate friendship commenced at a 
 later date. Amphiiochius, like many other 
 eminent Christian fathers, was educated for 
 the bar. The letters of his cousin imply that 
 he carried on his profession at Constantinople. 
 It is not improbable that trouble in regard 
 to money matters about 369 weaned Amphi- 
 iochius from his worldly pursuits and turned 
 his thoughts inward. He had abandoned his 
 profession, and was then living in retirement 
 at Ozizala, devoting himself apparently to 
 religious exercises and to the care of his aged 
 father. His cousin Gregory appears to have 
 been mainly instrumental in bringing about 
 this change. At least he says with honest 
 pride, that " together with the pure Thecla" * 
 he has " sent Amphiiochius to God " (Op. ii. 
 p. 1068). And now his closer friendship with 
 Basil and Gregory begins. Ozizala was situ- 
 ated not far from Nazianzus, for Gregory's 
 correspondence implies that they were near 
 neighbours. A letter of Basil, apparently 
 belonging to this period, is in the name of one 
 Heraclidas, who, hke Amphiiochius, had re- 
 nounced the profession of the bar and devoted 
 himself to a religious life. Heraclidas, lodged 
 in a large hospital (TrrwxoT-po^eioi') recently 
 erected by Basil near Caesarea, and enjoying 
 the constant instructions of the bishop, urges 
 Amphiiochius to obtain leave from his father 
 to visit Caesarea and profit by the teaching 
 and example of the same instructor (Ep. 150). 
 This letter was written in the year 372 or 373 
 (see Gander's Basil. Op. iii. p. cxxxiv.). The 
 • This seems to be the same Thecla with whom 
 Gregory elsewhere corresponds, and not the monas- 
 tery of St. Thecla, whither Gregory retired. 
 
24 
 
 AMPHILOCHIUS 
 
 invitation to Caesarea appears to have been 
 promptly accepted, and was fraught with 
 immediate consequences. It does not appear 
 that at that time Amphilochius was even 
 ordained ; yet at the very beginning of the 
 year 374 we find him occupying the important 
 see of Iconium. Amphilochius can hardly 
 have been then more than about 35 years of 
 age. A few months before Faustinus, bp. of 
 Iconium, had died, and the Iconians applied 
 to the bp. of Caesarea to recommend them a 
 successor (Basil. Ep. 138). It is impossible 
 not to connect this apphcation to Basil with 
 the ultimate appointment of Amphilochius. 
 
 From this time forward till his death, about 
 five years afterwards, Basil holds close inter- 
 coiu:se with Amphilochius, receiving from him 
 frequent visits. The first took place soon 
 after his consecration, about Easter 374, and 
 was somewhat protracted, his ministrations on 
 this occasion making a deep impression on the 
 people of Caesarea (Ep. 163, 176). 
 
 It was probably in another visit in 374 (see 
 Garnier, Op. iii. p. cxl.) that Amphilochius 
 urged Basil to clear up all doubt as to his 
 doctrine of the Holy Spirit by writing a 
 treatise on the subject. This was the occasion 
 of Basil's extant work, de Spiritu Sancto (see 
 § i), which, when completed, was dedicated 
 to the petitioner himself and sent to him 
 engrossed on vellum [Ep. 231). During this 
 and the following year Basil likewise ad- 
 dresses to Amphilochius his three Canonical 
 Letters (Ep. 188, 199, 217), to solve some 
 questions relating to ecclesiastical order, which 
 the bp. of Iconium had propounded to him. 
 At this same period also we find Amphilochius 
 arranging the ecclesiastical affairs of Isauria 
 (Ep. 190), Lycaonia (Ep. 200), and Lycia 
 (Ep. 218), under the direction of Basil. He 
 is also invited by Basil to assist in the adminis- 
 tration of his own diocese of Caesarea, which 
 has become too great a burden for him, 
 prostrated as he now is by a succession of 
 maladies (Ep. 200, 201). The affectionate 
 confidence which the great man reposes in his 
 younger friend is a powerful testimony to the 
 character and influence of Amphilochius. 
 
 After the death of Basil, the slender thread 
 by which we trace the career of Amphilochius 
 is taken up in the correspondence of Gregory. 
 Gregory writes with equal affection and 
 esteem, and with more tenderness than Basil. 
 He has been ill, and he speaks of Amphilochius 
 as having helped to work his cure. Sleeping 
 and waking, he has him ever in his mind. He 
 mentions the many letters which he has 
 received from Amphilochius (/xvpLOLKis ypdrpuiv), 
 and which have called forth harmonies from 
 his soul, as the plectrum strikes music out of 
 the lyre (Ep. 171). The last of Gregory's 
 letters to Amphilochius (Ep. 184) seems to 
 have been written about the year 383. Not 
 long before (a.d. 381) Amphilochius had been 
 present with his friend at the council of Con- 
 stantinople, and had subscribed to the creed 
 there sanctioned, as chief pastor of the 
 Lycaonian church, at the head of twelve other 
 bishops (Labb. Cone. ii. p. 1135, ed. Coleti). 
 At this council a metropoHtan authority was 
 confirmed to, rather than conferred on, his see 
 of Iconium ; for we find it occupying this 
 position even before his election to the 
 
 AMPHILOCHIUS 
 
 episcopate. During this sojourn at Constanti- 
 nople he signs his name as first witness to 
 Gregory's will (Greg. Op. ii. p. 204), in which 
 the testator leaves directions to restore to 
 his most reverend son the bp. Amphilochius 
 the purchase-money of an estate at Canotala 
 (ib. p. 203). It was probably on this occasion 
 also that Amphilochius fell in with Jerome 
 and read to him a book which he had written 
 on the Holy Spirit (Hieron. de Vir. 111. 133) 
 as Jerome is known to have paid a visit to 
 Gregory Nazianzen at this time (Hieron. Op. 
 xi. 65 seq., ed. Vallarsi). 
 
 About two years later must be placed the 
 well-known incident in which the zeal of 
 Amphilochius against the Arians appears 
 (Theod. H. E. v. 16).* Obtaining an audience 
 of Theodosius, he saluted the emperor him- 
 self with the usual marks of respect, but paid 
 no attention to his son Arcadius, who had 
 recently (fewtrri) been created Augustus and 
 was present at the interview. Theodosius, 
 indignant at this sUght, demanded an ex- 
 planation. " Sire," said the bishop, " any 
 disrespect shewn to your son arouses your 
 displeasure. Be assured, therefore, that the 
 Lord of the universe abhorreth those who are 
 ungrateful towards His Son, their Saviour 
 and Benefactor." The emperor, adds Theo- 
 doret, immediately issued an edict prohibiting 
 the meetings of the heretics. As Arcadius 
 was created Augustus in the beginning of the 
 year 383 (Clinton, Fast. Rom. i. p. 504), and 
 as Theodosius issued his edict against the 
 Eunomians, Arians, Macedonians, and Apol- 
 linarians in Sept. of that year (ib. p. 507), 
 the date is accurately ascertained (see Tillem. 
 Mim. eccl. vi. pp. 627 seq., 802). In 383 
 also we find Amphilochius taking energetic 
 measures against heretics of a different stamp. 
 He presided over a synod of 25 bishops 
 assembled at Sida in Pamphylia, in which the 
 Messalians were condemned, and his energy 
 seems to have instigated the reUgious crusade 
 which led to the extirpation of this heresy 
 (Photius, Bibl. 52 ; Theod. E. H. iv. 10; cf. 
 Labb. Cone. ii. 1209, ed. Coleti). 
 
 The date of Amphilochius's death is un- 
 certain. When J erome wrote the work quoted 
 above, he was still hving (a.d. 392) ; and 
 two years later (a.d. 394) his name occurs 
 among the bishops present at a synod held 
 at Constantinople, when the new basilica of 
 St. Peter and St. Paul was dedicated (Labb. 
 Cone. ii. 1378, ed. Coleti). On the other hand, 
 he is not mentioned in connexion with the 
 troubles of St. Chrysostom (a.d. 403 seq.) ; 
 and it is a fairly safe assumption that he was 
 no longer living. Despite the martyrologies, 
 he probably died in middle life. His day is 
 Nov. 23 in both Greek and Latin calendars. 
 
 The works ascribed to Amphilochius (/a/H6^ 
 ad Seleucum, Homilies, etc.) seem to be mostly 
 spurious, with the exception of an Epistola 
 Synodiea (Migne, p. 94), on the Macedonian 
 heresy. Its object is to explain why the 
 Niceiie fathers did not dwell on the doctrine 
 of the Spirit, and to justify the ordinary form 
 
 • Sozomen (vii. 6) tells the story, but without the 
 name of the bishop. He describes him as "an old 
 man, a priest of an obscure city, simple and in- 
 experienced in affairs." This description is as 
 unlike Amphilochius as it could possibly be, 
 
AMPHILOCHIUS 
 
 of the doxology. It is entitled 'A.a0'7ox'v 
 Ba<Ti\eiot in one MS., but was certainly not 
 written by Basil, who indeed is mentioned 
 in it. 
 
 Of his ability as a theologian and a writer 
 the extant fragments arc a wholly inadequate 
 criterion ; but his reputation with his con- 
 temporaries and with the later church leaves 
 very little ground for doubt. His contem- 
 porary Jerome, an eminently competent judge, 
 speaks of the Cappadorian triad, Basil, Gre- 
 gory, and .A.mphilochius, as writers " who 
 cram [refarciunl\ their books with the lessons 
 and sentences of the philosophers to such an 
 extent that you cannot toll which you ought to 
 admire most in them, their secular erudition or 
 their Scriptural knowledge" {Kf^. 70, i. p. 429). 
 
 Of his character his intimate friends are the 
 best witnesses. The trust reposed in him by 
 Basil and liregory appears throughout their 
 correspondence. The former more especially 
 praises his love of learning and patient in- 
 vestigation, addressing him as his " brother 
 Amphilochius, his dear friend most honoured 
 of all " (de Spir. Sand. § i) ; while the latter 
 speaks of him as " the blameless high-priest, 
 the loud herald of truth, his pride " {Carm. ii. 
 p. 1068). He seems to have united the genial 
 sympathy which endears the friend, and the 
 administrative energy which constitutes the 
 ruler, with intellectual abilities and acquire- 
 ments of no mean order. [l.] 
 
 Amphilochius (2), bp. of Sida in Pamphylia. 
 Like his more famous namesake of Iconium, 
 he appears as an antagonist of the Messalians. 
 He was urged, as one of the Pamphylian 
 metropolitans, to take measures against them 
 ia encyclical letters wxitten by two successive 
 bps. of Constantinople, Atticus and Sisinnius 
 (Phot. Bibl. 52). and seems to have prose- 
 cuted the matter with zeal. He brought for- 
 ward the subject at the council of Ephesus 
 (a.d. 431) in conjunction with Valerianus ; 
 and in consequence of their representations 
 the council confirmed the decrees of former 
 synods against these heretics (Labbe, Cone. 
 ii'i. 1331 seq., ed. Coleti). At this same 
 council we find him assenting to Cyril's 
 letter, and subscribing in very strong language 
 to the condemnation and deposition of Nes- 
 torius {ib. pp. 1012, 1046, 1077, 1133). His 
 
 conduct, later, was marked by great vacilla- 
 tion, if not insincerity. It is sometimes stated 
 that he was present at the " Robbers' Synod " 
 (a.d. 449), and there committed himself to 
 the policy of Dioscorus and the heresy of 
 Eutyc.hes (Le Quien, Oriens Christ, i. 998) ; 
 but his name does not appear in the list of 
 bishops assembled there (Labbe, Cone. iv. 
 889 seq.). At the council of Chalcedon, how- 
 ever (a.d. 451), he shewed great tenderness 
 for Dioscorus, and here his career of tergiver- 
 sation began. He tried to defer the second 
 citation of Dioscorus (iv, 1260) ; and when 
 after three citations Dioscorus did not appear, 
 he consented to his condemnation, though 
 with evident reluctance (iv. 1310, 1337). At 
 a later session, too, he subscribed his assent to 
 the epistle of pope Leo (iv. 1358, 1366 ; and 
 we find his name also appended to the canons 
 of the council (iv. 1715). Thus he committed 
 himself fully to the principles of this council, 
 and to the reversal of the proceedings of 
 
 ANASTASIUS I. 25 
 
 Latrocinium. But a few years later (a.d. 
 458), when the emperor Leo wrote to the 
 bishops to elicit their o|iiiii()ns, Amphilochius 
 stated, in reply, that, while he disapproved 
 the appointment of Timotheus Aelurus, he 
 did not acknowledge the auth<iritv of the 
 council of Chalcedon (Hvagr. H. E. ii. loK 
 Yet, as if this were not enough, we are told 
 that he shortly afterwards assented and 
 subscribed to its decrees (Eulogius in I'hot. 
 Bibl. 230). [1..] 
 
 Anastasia. [Chrvsogonus.] 
 Anastasius (I), a presbyter of Antioch, the 
 conhdeiitial friend and ouusellor of Nestorius, 
 the archbp. of Constantinople. Tlieophanes 
 styles him the " sviu ellus," or courulential 
 secretary of Nestorius, who never took anv 
 step without consulting him and being guided 
 by his opinions. Nestorius having com- 
 menced a persecution against the Ouarto- 
 decimans of Asia in 428, two presbyters, 
 Antonius and Jacobus, were dispatched to 
 carry his designs into effect. They were 
 furnished with letters commendatory from 
 Anastasius and Photius, bearing witness to the 
 soundness of their faith. The two emissaries 
 of the archbp. of Constantinople did not 
 restrict themselves to their ostensible object, 
 to set the Asiatics right as to the keeping of 
 Easter, but endeavoured to tamper with their 
 faith. At Philadelphia they persuaded some 
 simple-minded clergy to sign a creed of doubt- 
 ful orthodoxy, attributed to Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia. This was strongly ojiposed by 
 Charisius, the oeconomus of the church, who 
 charged Jacobus with unsoundness in the 
 faith. His opposition aroused the indignation 
 of Anastasius and Photius, who dispatched 
 fresh letters, reasserting the orthodoxy of 
 Jacobus, and requiring the deprivation of 
 Charisius (Labbe, Cone. iiL 1202 seq. ; Socr. 
 vii. 29). 
 
 It was in a sermon preached by Anastasius 
 at Constantinople that the fatal words were 
 uttered that destroyed the peace of the church 
 for so many years. " Let no one call Mary 
 QiorbKos. She was but a human being. It is 
 impossible for God to be born of a human 
 being." These words, eagerly caught up by 
 the enemies of Nestorius, caused much excite- 
 ment among clergy and laity, which was 
 greatly increased when the archbishop by 
 supporting and defending Anastasius adopted 
 the language as his own (Socr. H. E. vii. 32 ; 
 Evagr. H. E. i. 2). [Nestorius.] In 430, 
 when Cyril had sent a deputation to Constan- 
 tinople with an address to the emperor, An- 
 astasius seems to have attempted to bring 
 about an accommodation between him and 
 Nestorius (Cyril, Ep. viii. ; Mercator, vol. ii. 
 p. 49). We find him after the deposition of 
 Nestorius still maintaining his cause and ani- 
 mating his party at Constantinople (Lupus, 
 Ep. 144)- 
 
 Tillemont identifies him with the Anastasius 
 who in 434 wrote to Helladius, bp. of Tarsus, 
 when he and the Oriental bishops were refusing 
 to recognize Proclus as bp. of Constantinople, 
 bearing witness to his orthodoxy, and urging 
 them to receive him into communion (Baluz. 
 § 144). [E.V.] 
 
 Anastasius I., bp. of Rome, was consecrated 
 A.D. 398 (" Honorio IV. et Eutychiano coss." 
 
26 ANASTASIUS II. 
 
 Prosp. Aq. Chron.), and died in April, 402 
 (Anast. Bibl. vol. i. p. 62). According to 
 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, he put an end to 
 an unseemly strife between the priests and 
 deacons of his church, by enacting that priests 
 as well as deacons should stand bowed (" curvi 
 starent ") at the reading of the Gospels. Jer- 
 ome calls him a " vir insignis," taken from the 
 evil to come, i.e. dying before the sack of 
 Rome by Goths, a.d. 410. One letter by 
 Anastasius is extant. Rufinus wrote to him 
 shortly after his consecration (not later than 
 A.D. 400, Constant. Epp. Pont. Rom. p. 714) 
 to defend himself against the charge of com- 
 plicity in the heresy ascribed to Origen. 
 Anastasius replied (see Constant. I.e.) in a 
 tone which, dealing leniently with Rufinus, 
 explicitly condemned Origen. Nine other 
 letters are referred to : — (1-5) To Paulinus, bp. 
 of Nola (Paul. Nol. Ep. 20). (6) To Anysius. 
 bp. of Thessalonica, giving him jurisdiction 
 over Illyria ; referred to by Innocent I., in his 
 first letter (Constant.). (7) To Johannes, bp. 
 of Jerusalem. (8) To African bishops who 
 had sent him an embassy to complain of the 
 low state of their clergy. (9) Contra Rufinum, 
 an epistle sent ad Orientem (Hieron. Apol. 
 
 lib. 3)- [G.H.M.] 
 
 Anastasius II., bp. of Rome, succeeded 
 Gelasius I. in Nov. 496 (Clinton's Fasti 
 Romani, pp. 536, 713). The month after his 
 accession Clovis was baptized, and the new 
 Pope wrote congratulating him on his conver- 
 sion. Anastasius has left a name of ill-odour 
 in the Western church ; attributable to his 
 having taken a different hue from his pre- 
 decessors with regard to the Eastern church. 
 Felix III. had excommunicated Acacius of 
 Constantinople, professedly on account of his 
 communicating with heretics, but really be- 
 cause Zeno's Henoticon, which he had sanc- 
 tioned, gave the church of Constantinople a 
 primacy in the East which the see of Rome 
 could not tolerate. Gelasius I. had followed 
 closely in the steps of FeUx. But Anastasius, 
 in the year of his accession, sent two bishops, 
 Germanus of Capua and Cresconius of Todi, 
 (Baronius) to Constantinople, with a proposal 
 that Acacius's name, instead of being expunged 
 from the roll of patriarchs of Constantinople 
 as Gelasius had proposed, should be left upon 
 the diptychs, and no more be said upon the 
 subject. This proposal, in the very spirit of 
 the Henoticon, gave lasting offence to the 
 Western church, and it excites no surprise 
 that he was charged with communicating 
 secretly with Photinus, a deacon of Thessa- 
 lonica who held with Acacius ; and of wishing 
 to heal the breach between the East and West 
 — for so it seems best to interpret the words 
 of Anastasius Bibliothecarius — " voluit revo- 
 care Acacium " (vol. i. p. 83). 
 
 Anastasius died in Nov. 498. He was still 
 remembered as the traitor who would have 
 reversed the excommunication of Acacius ; 
 and Dante finds him suffering in hell the 
 punishment of one whom " Fotino " seduced 
 from the right way (Dante, Inf. xi. 8, 9). 
 
 Two epistles by him are extant : one in- 
 forming the emperor Anastasius of his acces- 
 sion (Mansi, viii. p. 188) ; the other to Clovis 
 as above Ub. p. 193). [g.h.m.] 
 
 Anastasius Sinaita ('AfacrTdo-ios i,LvaLT-qi). 
 
 ANATOLIUS 
 
 Three of this name are mentioned by eccle- 
 siastical writers, among whom some confusion 
 exists. Two were patriarchs of Antioch, and 
 it has been reasonably questioned whether 
 they were ever monks of Mount Sinai, and 
 whether the title " Sinaita " has not been 
 given to them from a confusion with the one 
 who really was so, and who falls outside our 
 period (see Smith's D. C. B. in loc). 
 
 (1) Bp. of Antioch, succeeded Domnus III. 
 A.D. 559 (Clinton, Fasti Romani). He is 
 praised by Evagrius (H. E. iv. 40) for his 
 theological learning, strictness of life, and 
 well-balanced character. He resolutely op- 
 posed Justinian's edict in favour of the 
 Aphthartodocetae, and encouraged the mon- 
 astic bodies of Syria against it, a.d. 563 
 (Evagr. iv. 39, 40). Justinian threatened him 
 with deposition and exile, but his death in 
 565 hindered his design, which was carried 
 into effect by his nephew Justin II., a.d. 570. 
 Fresh charges were brought against Anastasius 
 of profuse expenditure of the funds of his see, 
 and of intemperate language and action in 
 reference to the consecration of John, bp. of 
 Alexandria, by John, bp. of Constantinople, 
 in the Ufetime of the previous bp. Eutychius 
 (Evagr. V. i ; Valesius's notes, ib. ; Theoph. 
 Chron. ; CUnton, Fast. Rom.). He was suc- 
 ceeded by Gregory, on whose death, in the 
 middle of 593 (Clinton), he was restored to his 
 episcopate. This was chiefly due to the in- 
 fluence of Gregory the Great with the emperor 
 Maurice and his son Theodosius (Evagr. vi. 24; 
 Greg. Mag. Ep. i. 25, 27, Ind. ix.). Gregory 
 wrote him a congratulatory letter on his return 
 to Antioch (Ep. iv. 37 ; Ind. xiv.) ; and several 
 epistles of his are preserved relating to the 
 claim the bp. of Constantinople was then 
 making to the title of " universal bishop " 
 (Ep. iv. 36, Ind. xiii. ; vi. 24, 31, Ind. xv.). 
 Anastasius defended the orthodox view of the 
 Procession of the Holy Ghost (Baron. Annul. 
 Eccl. 593^, and died at the close of 598 (Clinton, 
 Fast. Rom.). Five sermons, " de Orthodoxa 
 Fide," and five others, printed in a Latin 
 version by Migne and others, are ascribed by 
 some to this Anastasius. Oudin, Dupin, and 
 others refer them more probably to a later 
 Anastasius. For a catalogue and description 
 of the works assigned to him, either existing 
 or lost, see Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. 
 pp. 332-336, and Migne. 
 
 (2) Followed the preceding as bp. of An- 
 tioch in the beginning of 599. A letter of 
 Gregory the Great to him (Ep. vii. 48, Ind. ii.) 
 acknowledges one announcing his appointment 
 and declaring his adherence to the orthodox 
 faith. Gregory had written to him before 597 
 (Ep. vii. 3, Ind. i.), exhorting hira to con- 
 stancy under the persecutions of heretics. He 
 translated Gregory's de Curd Pastorali into 
 Greek (ib. x. 22, Ind. v.). His death occurred 
 in an insurrection of the Jews, Sept. 610 
 (CUnton, F. R.). Nicephorus (H. E. xviii. 
 44) confounds him with (1). [e.v.] 
 
 Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, 449 a.d., 
 through the influence of Dioscorus of Alex- 
 andria with Theodosius II., after the deposi- 
 tion of Flavian by the " Robber Council," 
 having previously been the " apocrisiarius " or 
 representative of Dioscorus at Constantinople 
 (Zon. Ann. iii.). After his consecration, being 
 
ANATOLroS 
 
 under suspicion of Eiitychianisin (Leo, Epp. 
 ad. Theod. 33 ad Pulch. 35), he publicly con- j 
 demned the heresies both of Eutyches aiul | 
 Nestorius, signing the letters of Cyril against 
 Nestorius and of Leo against Eutyches (Leo, 
 Epp. 40, 41, 48). In conjunction with Leo of 
 Rome, according to Zonaras (Ann. iii.), he 
 requested the emperor Marcian to summon a 
 general council against Dioscorus and the 
 Eutychians ; but the imperial letter directing 
 Anatolius to make preparations for the 
 council at Chalcedou speaks only of Leo 
 (Labbe, Cone. Max. Tom. iv.). In this council 
 Anatolius presided in conjunction with the 
 Roman legates (Labbe, Cone. Max. iv. ; Evagr. 
 H. E. ii. 4. iS ; Niceph. H. E. xv. 18). By the ; 
 famous 28th canon, passed at the conclusion ■ 
 of the council, equal dignity was ascribed to j 
 Constantinople with Rome (Labbe, iv. 796 ; 
 Evagr. ii. 18). Hence arose the controversy 
 between Anatolius and the Roman pontiff. 
 Leo complained to Marcian (Ep. 54) and to 
 Pulcheria {Ep. 53) that Anatolius had out- 
 stepped his jurisdiction, by consecrating 
 Maximus to the see of .Antioch ; and he re- 
 monstrated with Anatolius [Ep. 53). After 
 the council of Chalcedon some Egyptian 
 bishops wrote to Anatolius, earnestly asking 
 his assistance against Tiinotheus, who was 
 usurping the episcopal throne at Alexandria 
 (Labbe, Cone. Max. iv. iii. 23, p. 897). Ana- 
 tolius wrote strongly to the emperor Leo 
 against Timotheus (Labbe, iii. 26, p. 903). 
 The circular of the emperor requesting the 
 advice of Anatolius on the turbulent state 
 of Alexandria is given by Evagrius (//. E. 
 ii. 9), and by Nicephorus (H. E. xv. 18). 
 The crowning of Leo on his accession by 
 Anatolius is said (Gibbon, iii. 313) to be the 
 first instance of the kind on record (Theoph. 
 Chron. 93 Par.). [i.G.S.] 
 
 Anatolius, bp. of Laodicea in Syria Prima 
 (Bus. H. E. vii. 32). He had been famous at 
 Alexandria for proficiency in the liberal arts, 
 while his reputation for practical wisdom was 
 so great that when the suburb of Brucheium 
 was besieged by the Romans during the revolt 
 of Aemilianus, a.d. 262. the command of the 
 place was assigned to him. Provisions having 
 failed, and his proposition of making terms 
 with the besiegers having been indignantly 
 rejected, Anatolius obtained leave to relieve 
 the garrison of all idle mouths, and by a clever 
 deception marched out all the Christians, and 
 the greater part of the rest, many disguised as 
 women. Having passed over to Palestine, he 
 was ordained by Theotecnus, bp. of Caesarea, 
 as bishop-coadjutor, with the right of suc- 
 cession. But going to Antioch to attend the 
 synod against Paul of Samosata, on his way 
 through Laodicea, whicii had just lost its 
 bishop, his old friend Eusebius, he was de- 
 tained and made bishop in his room, a.d. 
 269. 
 
 Eusebius speaks of him as not having 
 written much, but enough to show at once 
 his eloquence and manifold learning. He 
 specially mentions a work on the Paschal 
 question, published in a Latin version by 
 Bucherius {Doct. Temp., Antv. 1634). Some 
 fragments of his mathematical works were 
 pub. at Paris, 1543, and by Fabricius [Bibl. 
 Grace, iii. 462 ; Hieron. Sc. Eccl. c. 73). For 
 
 ANDREAS SAMOSATENSIS 
 
 27 
 
 an Eng. trans, of his extant works see Ante- 
 Xieene Lib. (T. \- T. Cl.irkK [e.v.] 
 
 -Ancyra, Seven Martyrs of, female victims 
 of Dii)cletian's persecution, 304. They were 
 unmarried, about 70 years old, and notable 
 for piety and good works. When the perse- 
 cution was determined upon, Theotecnus, a 
 magician, a philosopher and pervert from 
 Christianity, was dispatched as governor to 
 C.alatia to root out Christianity. Among 
 the earliest victims were the seven virgins, 
 Tecusa, Alexandra, Faina, Claudia, Euphrasia, 
 Matrona, Julitta. Theotecnus called upon 
 them to offer incense, and upon their refusal 
 condenuKHl them to the public brothel, from 
 which tliey escaptxl scatheless on account of 
 their age, and by the ingenuity of Tecusa their 
 leader. He then ordered them to officiate as 
 priestesses of Diana and Minerva in washing 
 their statues according to the annual custom 
 of Ancyra. They were accordingly carried 
 naked through the streets to a neighbouring 
 lake, where garlands and white garments were 
 offered them in which to fulfd his commands. 
 Upon their refusal Theotecnus ordered them 
 to be drowned in the lake, with heavy stones 
 tied round their necks lest their bodies should 
 be recovered and buried by their fellow- 
 Christians. Many legends have gathered 
 round the story. The acts of the seven virgins 
 and of St. Theodotus (a tavern-keeper of 
 Ancyra mart>Ted for rescuing and burying 
 the bodies) are recorded in Gk. in a Vatican 
 MS., purporting to have been written by an 
 eye-witness named Nilus. They are foimd in 
 Gk. and Lat. in Boll. Acta SS. May 18 ; cf. 
 also Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p. 336 ; Ceillier, 
 iii. 13. [G.T.S.] 
 
 Andreas of Caesarea. [Arethas.] 
 I Andreas Samosatensis, bp. of Samosata at 
 i the time of the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. 
 Sickness prevented bis attending the council 
 (Labbe, Cone. iii. 506), but he took a leading 
 part in the controversies between Cyril and 
 the Oriental bishops that succeeded it. With- 
 I out identifying himself with the erroneous 
 j teaching ascribed to Nestorius, he shewed 
 ' himself his zealous defender, and remained 
 j firm to him when his cause had been deserted 
 ' bv almost all. For his zeal in the defence of 
 [ an heresiarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita 
 h dpdKWP. The reputation of Andreas for 
 learning and controversial skill caused John 
 of Antioch to select him, together with his 
 ' attached friend Thcodoret, to answer Cyril's 
 anathemas against Nestorius (Labbe, iii. 1150 ; 
 Liberatus, c. iv. p. 16). Cyril replied and 
 wrote in defence of his anathemas, which 
 called forth a second treatise from Andreas 
 [(Labbe, iii. 827). In 433 Andreas accom- 
 panied Alexander and Thcodoret to the 
 council summoned at Antioch by Aristolaus 
 the tribune, in compliance with the commands 
 of Theodosius, to consult how the breach with 
 Cyril might be healed (ib. 764). On the 
 amicable reception by Acacius and John of 
 Cyril's letter written in answer to the rescript 
 of this council, Andreas fully sympathized 
 with his aged metropolitan Alexander's dis- 
 tress and indignation. Andreas deplored the 
 recognition of Cyril's orthodoxy by so many 
 ! bishops, and desired to bury himself in some 
 I solitude where he might weep (ib. 784, 785, 
 
28 ANICETUS 
 
 796, 797)- This was before he had see 
 Cyril's letter. On perusing Cyril's own state- 
 ment his opinions changed. What Cyril had 
 written was orthodox. No prejudice against 
 him ought to prevent his acknowledging it. 
 The peace of the church was superior to all 
 private feelings. His alteration of sentiments 
 exasperated Alexander, who refused to see or 
 speak to his former friend {ib. 810, 811). 
 Andreas deeply felt this alienation of one he so 
 much venerated, but it could not lead him to 
 retrace his steps. He used his utmost en- 
 deavours in vain to persuade Alexander to 
 attend the council at Zeugma, which acknow- 
 ledged the orthodoxy of Cyril's letter {ib. 805). 
 
 His death must have occurred before 451, 
 when Rufinus was bp. of Samosata. Theo- 
 doret speaks of Andreas with much affection 
 and esteem, praising his humihty and readi- 
 ness to help the distressed (Theod. Ep. xxiv. 
 p. 918). His own letters give us a high idea of 
 his sound, practical wisdom, readiness to con- 
 fess an error, and firmness in maintaining what 
 he believed right. [k.v.] 
 
 Anicetus, bp. of Rome, stated in Eusebius's 
 History (iv. 11) and by Irenaeus {Adv. omn. 
 Haer. iii. 3, 3) to have succeeded Pius. As to 
 the date of his pontificate, see Lightfoot's 
 elaborate discussion in Apost. Fathers (part i. 
 vol. i. pp. 201-345). As Polycarp visited him 
 at Rome, and as Polycarp's death has been 
 fixed by recent criticism in 155, Lightfoot says 
 that "the latest possible date for the accession 
 of Anicetus is 154," and if he sat for eleven 
 years, as is said, his death would be in 165. 
 Anastasius Bibliothecarius singles him out as 
 the pope who prescribed the tonsure for the 
 clergy (Anast. vol. i. p. 13); and a forged 
 letter upon this subject is given by Isidorus 
 Mercator (Constant, p. 75)- But the single re- 
 liable fact recorded of him has reference to the 
 early Paschal controversy (Eus. H. E. iv. 24). 
 He, like his four predecessors, did not allow 
 the Jewish or Quartodeciman usage within 
 their own church, but communicated as freely 
 as before with other churches which did allow 
 it. Polycarp visited Rome, hoping to per- 
 suade Anicetus to adopt the Quartodeciman 
 practice. But Anicetus was firm, even against 
 the age and saintliness of Polycarp. As a 
 mark of personal respect, he allowed him to 
 celebrate the Eucharist in Rome ; but they 
 parted without agreement, though with mutual 
 cordiality. We are told that Anicetus was 
 buried in the Calixtine cemetery on April 
 
 20. [G.H.M.] 
 
 Anomoeans (from dro/xotos. dissimilar), one 
 of the appellations of the radical Arians who, 
 in opposition to the Athanasian or Nicene 
 doctrine of the consubstantiality (buooiKria) 
 and the semi-Arian view of the likeness 
 {opLoiovaia) of the Son to the Father, taught 
 that the Son was dissimilar, and of a different 
 substance {eTepoovcnos). [Arianism.] [p.s.] 
 
 AnonomastUS (Iren. 56 : cf. 54). [Valen- 
 TiNUS ; Epiphanes.] [h.] 
 
 Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, a contemporary 
 of St. Basil bp. of Caesarea in Cappodocia 
 (Basil. Ep. 58). In 372 he joined in sub- 
 scribing a circular letter addressed by the 
 Oriental bishops to those of Italy and Gaul 
 {Ep. 92). But dissensions broke out between 
 
 ANTHROPOMORPHITAE 
 
 them, (i) When the civil province of Cap- 
 padocia was divided and Tyana became the 
 capital of the second division, Anthimus, in- 
 sisting that the ecclesiastical arrangements 
 should follow the civil, claimed metropolitan 
 rights over several of Basil's suffragans. 
 Herein he was assisted by the disaffection 
 which prevailed in Basil's province. He was 
 even bold enough to attack Basil on a journey, 
 and plunder a train of mules laden with sup- 
 plies of money and provisions for the bp. of 
 Caesarea. Basil, thinking to establish an 
 invincible outpost against his aggressive an- 
 tagonist, consecrated his friend Gregory bp. 
 of Sasima, a town not far from Tyana and one 
 over which Anthimus claimed metropolitan 
 rights. So long as Gregory remained there, 
 he staunchly resisted alike the enticements 
 and the menaces of Anthimus ; but he soon 
 resigned the see which he had unwillingly 
 occupied. [Gregory Nazianzen.] A peace 
 was patched up between Basil and Anthimus, 
 apparently by the intercession of Gregory. 
 This happened in the year 372 (Greg. Naz. 
 Or. xHii. i. pp. 813 seq. ; Ep. 47, 48, 49, 50, ii. 
 pp. 42 seq. ; Carm. ii. pp. 696 seq.). (2) A 
 certain Faustus had applied to Basil to con- 
 secrate him to an Armenian see ; but as he 
 did not produce the proper authority, the 
 consecration was deferred. Faustus imme- 
 diately applied to Anthimus, who at once 
 compUed with his request, thus setting 
 canonical rules at defiance (Basil, Ep. 120, 
 121, 122). A reconciliation, however, seems 
 to have been effected, as Basil afterwards 
 spoke of Anthimus in very friendly terms 
 {Ep. 210, rbv bfj.b^vxov 7]/j.C:v). Except in 
 connexion with Basil and Gregory, nothing is 
 known of this prelate. (See Tillemont, Mem. 
 eccl. ix. pp. 174 seq., 196 seq.; Gamier, Vit. 
 Bas. Op. iii. pp. cxi. seq., pp. cxxiii. seq.) [l.] 
 
 Anthropolatrae (AvUpuwdXaTpai), a nick- 
 name given by the Apollinarians (c. a.d. 371) 
 to the Cathohcs, on the assumption that the 
 union of " perfect God " with " perfect Man " 
 necessarily involved two Persons in Christ, 
 and therefore that the Catholic exposition of 
 the doctrine implied the worship of a man : 
 an inference assumed to be avoided by the 
 special Apollinarian dogma. See Apollin- 
 aris (the Younger). The nickname in ques- 
 tion is mentioned by St. Greg. Naz. Orat. Ii., 
 who retorts that in truth, if any one is to be 
 called by a name of the kind, the Apollinarian 
 ought to be called " aapKoXaTpr^s." [a.w.h.] 
 
 Anthropomorphitae {A nthropomorphism), 
 {di'ffpojTroi, man, and t-wprpi), form). Terms 
 applied to those who ascribe to God human 
 shape and form. We must distinguish two 
 kinds of anthropomorphism, a doctrinal and 
 a symbolical. The former is heretical, the 
 latter Scriptural, and necessarily arises from 
 the imperfection of human language and 
 human knowledge of God. The one takes the 
 Scripture passages which speak of God's arm, 
 hand, eye, ear, mouth, etc., hterally ; the 
 other understands and uses them figuratively. 
 Anthropomorphism is always connected with 
 anthropopathism (from dvUpuTros and irdOoi, 
 passion), which ascribes to God human pas- 
 sions and affections, such as wrath, anger, 
 envy, jealousy, pity, repentance. The latter, 
 however, does not necessarily imply the ; 1 
 
ANTIDIKOMARIANITAE 
 
 f riner. All forms of idolatry, especially 
 tl'.ose of Greece and Rome, are essentially 
 uithropomorphic and anthropopathic. The 
 
 1 i>sical divinities are in character siniply 
 ilied men and women. The Christian, 
 vish, and Mohammedan religions teach 
 It God is a Spirit, and thus elevate him 
 >ve the reach of materialistic and sensual 
 nceptions and representations. But within 
 ■ Christian church anthropomorphism ap- 
 
 . ared from time to time as an isolated opinion ; 
 
 ; as the tenet of a party. Tertullian is often 
 . (i.irged with it, because he ascribed to God 
 a bodv {Adv. Prax. c. 7 : " (Juis enim nega- 
 bit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? 
 Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in effigie "). 
 But he probablv identified corporeality with 
 substantiality, and hence he maintained that 
 everything real had a body of some kind (tie 
 Carne Chr. c. 11 : " Omne quod est, corpus 
 est sui generis, nihil est incorporale, nisi quod 
 non est "). The pseudo-Clementine Homilies 
 (xvii. 2 seq.) teach that God, in order to be 
 an object of love, must be the highest beauty, 
 and consequently have a body, since there is 
 no beautv without form ; nor could we pray 
 to a God Who was mere spirit. (Cf. Baur, 
 Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmettgeschichte, vol. i. 
 p. 412.) In the middle of the 4th cent. 
 Audius, or Audaeus, of Syria, a bold censor 
 of the luxury and vices of the clergy, and an ; 
 irregularlv consecrated bishop, founded a 
 strictly ascetic sect, which were called A udians 
 or Anthropomorphites, and maintained them- 
 selves, in spite of repeated persecution, till 
 the close of the 5th cent. He started from 
 a literal interpretation of Gen. i. 28, and 
 reasoned from the natiu-e of man to the nature 
 of God, Whose image he was (Epiphanius, 
 Haer. 70 ; Theod. H. E. iv. 9 ; Walch, Kel- \ 
 serhistorie, iii. 300). During the Origenistic 1 
 controversies towards the end of the 4th cent., ' 
 anthropomorphism was held independently 
 by many Egyptian monks in the Scetic desert, 
 who, with Pachomius at their head, were the 
 most violent opponents of the spiritualistic 
 theology of Origen, and were likewise called 
 Anthropomorphites ; they felt the need of 
 material conceptions in their prayers and 
 ascetic exercises. Theophilus of Alexandria, 
 formerly an admirer of Origen, became his 
 bitter opponent, and expelled the Origenists 
 from Egypt, but nevertheless he rejected the 
 Anthropomorphism of the anti-Origenistic 
 monks (Ep. Pastr. for 399). In the present 
 century Anthropomorphism has been revived 
 by the Mormons, who conceive God as an 
 intelligent material being, with body, mem- 
 bers, and passions, and unable to occupy two 
 distinct places at once. [p-S.] 
 
 Antidlkomarianitae ( XfTibiKoixapiavirai = 
 Adversaries of Mary : Epiph. Haer. Ixxxix.). 
 The name given to those in Arabia in the latter 
 part of the 4th cent, who (in opposition to the 
 KoXXi'piSidi'iSes) maintained the novel supposi- 
 tion advanced at that time by Bonosus of 
 Sadica, and by Helvidius, that " our Lord's 
 brethren " were children borne by the Blessed 
 Virgin to Joseph after our Lord's birth. The 
 controversy arose out of the then prevailing 
 reverence for virginity, which in its extreme 
 form had led certain women, originally from 
 Thrace, but dwelling in Arabia, to celebrate 
 
 ANTONINUS, PIUS 29 
 
 an idolatrous festival in honour of the Virgin, 
 bv taking certain cakes (>io\\vpibf%) about in 
 chariots, and then solenuilyolTcring thorn to her 
 and consuming them, in imitation of the Lord's 
 Supper, or (more probablv) of the pagan wor- 
 ship of Ceres. The reaction from this super- 
 stition led to the existence of the sect spoken 
 of in this article, which, contemporaneously 
 with the controversy carried on by St. Jerome 
 and by others against Helvidius and Bonosus, 
 the literary supporters of the hypothesis, was 
 led to endeavour to cut away all pretence for 
 the CoUyridian superstition by adopting their 
 view and so denying its very groundwork. The 
 controversy itself is discussed in Smith's D. B. 
 (4 vols. 1893) under Brothers and James, and 
 in Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908) under James. 
 For its literary history, see under Helvidius, 
 
 HiLRONVMUS. ' [A.W.H.] 
 
 Antiochus (l),bp. of Ptolemais, c. a.d. 401. 
 To displav his oratorical powers in a wider 
 field he left Ptolemais and settled at Con- 
 stantinople, where his fine voice and appro- 
 priate action, together with the eloquent and 
 perspicuous character of his discourses, soon 
 attracted large auditories, by whom, Uke his 
 great contemporary John, he was surnamed 
 " The Golden-mouthed." Having amassed 
 considerable wealth, he returned to his de- 
 serted see, where he employed his leisure in 
 composing a long treatise " against avarice." 
 He took a zealous part in the proceedings 
 against Chrysostom, and is reckoned by Pall- 
 adius among his bitterest enemies. He died 
 in the reign of Arcadius, before a.d. 408, and, 
 according to Nicejihorus, his end, like that of 
 all the enemies of Chrysostom, was miserable. 
 A homilv on The Cure of the Blind Man is 
 also mentioned. With the exception of a 
 \ sentence quoted by Theodoret, Dial. 2, and a 
 ! longer fragment given in the Catena on St. 
 ' John, xix. p. 443, his works have perished 
 (Socr. vi. II ; Soz. viii. 10 ; Niceph. xiii. 26; 
 (;ennadius in Catalog. ; Pallad. Dialog, p. 49 ; 
 Fabr. Bibl. Gk. ix. 259)- [e-v-I 
 
 Antipopes, claimants to the popedom in 
 opposition to the lawful popes. There were 
 seven such during the first six centuries, some 
 owing their elevation to the existence of con- 
 flicting parties at Rome, others intruded into 
 the see bv the civil power. A fuller account 
 of them, with the authorities, is given under 
 their respective names — viz. Novatianus ; 
 Felix; Ursinls (or Ursicinus) ; Eulalius ; 
 Laurentius; Dioscorus; Vigilius. 
 
 [J. B-Y.] 
 
 Antoninus, Pius, emperor, a.d. 138- 161. 
 The character of this prince as loving righteous- 
 ' ness and mercy, choosing rather, in his own 
 noble words, " to save the life of one citizen 
 than to slay a thousand foes," shewed itself, 
 as in other things, so also in his treatment of 
 the Christians of the empire. Hackian had 
 checked the tendency to persecution by im- 
 posing severe penalties on false accusers 
 (Just. Mart. Apol. i. c. 68). In some way or 
 other, Antoninus was led to adopt a policy 
 which was even more favourable to them 
 (Xiphilin. Epit. Dion. Cass, i, 70, p. ii73)- 
 Melito, writing his Apologia to Marcus Aure- 
 lius (Hus. H. E. iv. 26), speaks of edicts which 
 Antoninus had issued, forbidding any new and 
 violent measures against the Christians. A 
 
30 
 
 ANTONIUS 
 
 more memorable proof of his tolerance is 
 found, if the document be genuine, in the 
 decree addressed to the general assembly of 
 the proconsular province of Asia, at a time 
 when the Christian church was exposed to 
 outrages of all kinds {irpos to kolvov ttis 'Acr/as). 
 It speaks in admiring terms of the innocence 
 of the Christians, declares the charges against 
 them to be unproved, bids men admire the 
 steadfastness and faith with which they met 
 the earthquakes and other calamities that 
 drove others to despair, ascribes the perse- 
 cution to the jealousy which men felt against 
 those who were truer worshippers of God 
 than themselves. Unfortunately, however, 
 the weight of both textual and internal 
 evidence preponderates against the genuine- 
 ness of the edict as it stands, but some 
 modern authorities are disposed to regard 
 it as an interpolated form of a real edict 
 of similar character. See, e.g., Renan, 
 L'Eglise Chretienne, p. 302. In any case 
 it is natural to connect the more lenient 
 policy, which there is no doubt that 
 Antoninus adopted, with the memorable 
 Apologia which Justin addressed to him. 
 Confining ourselves to its bearing on the charac- 
 ter of the emperor, we note (ij that there had 
 been at least the threat of persecution even 
 unto death (c. 68) ; (2) that it is wTitten 
 throughout in a tone of manifest respect as 
 to men not unworthy of the epithets that were 
 attached to their names (" Pius " to Anto- 
 ninus, " philosopher " to Verissimus and 
 Lucius) ; (3) that the mere fact of the dedi- 
 cation and, apparently, presentation of such 
 an address implies a tolerance which had not 
 been often found in preceding emperors ; (4) 
 that even the forged document, if it be such, 
 shews a certain verisimilitude in the ascription 
 of such a document to him. See Champagny, 
 Les Antonines (Paris), and Aube, Hist, des 
 Persecut. (Paris, 1875). pp. 297-341. [e.h.p.] 
 
 Antonius, St. (Abbas), termed by Athan- 
 asius " the founder of asceticism " and his 
 life a "model for monks" (Praef. Vit. St. 
 Ant.). We have a tolerably complete, but 
 probably interpolated, biography of him by 
 Athanasius, derived in part from his o\vn 
 recollections, in part from others who had 
 known him, as well as frequent mention of 
 him by the ecclesiastical historians ; and we 
 shall here treat Anthony as a historic char- 
 acter, despite the recent assumption that he 
 is "a myth" (see, e.g., Gwatkin's Arian Con- 
 troversv, 1891, and cf. F. W. Farrar, Contemp. 
 Rev. 1SS7, pp. 617-627). 
 
 Anthony was bom c. a.d. 250 at Coma, on 
 the borders of Upper Egypt (Soz. Hist. i. 13). 
 By his parents, who were wealthy Christians, 
 he was trained in pious habits (Athan. Vit. St. 
 Ant. ; Aug. de Doct. in Prol). Six months 
 after the death of his parents, being then 18 
 years of age, he chanced to hear in church the 
 words " If thou wilt be perfect," etc., and re- 
 solved to obey the precept literally, reserving 
 only a small portion for his sister. Returning 
 into the church he heard, " Take no thought 
 for the morrow." On this he resolved to 
 commend her to the care of some devout 
 woman, and gave away all his property to the 
 poor (Athan. cf. Soz. i. 13). 
 
 At that time cells of Anchorites [fiovaaT-rfpLa) 
 
 ANTONIUS 
 
 were very rare in Egypt, and none far from 
 the habitations of men. Anthony retired by 
 degrees farther and farther from his native 
 village, fixing his abode first in a tomb, 
 afterwards in a ruined castle near the Nile. 
 Here he remained some 20 years, shut up for 
 months at a time with only bread and water 
 (the bread of the country is said to be good for 
 keeping), and issuing forth only to instruct 
 the multitudes who flocked to see and hear 
 him ; at other times communication was pre- 
 vented by a huge stone at the entrance. 
 During the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 
 311), in which their bishop had fallen, he went 
 to comfort the Christians of Alexandria ; and 
 though the presence of monks at these trials 
 was forbidden as encouraging the martyrs in 
 their disobedience to the emperor's edict, he 
 persisted in appearing in court. When the 
 storm had ceased he withdrew, though now 
 an old man, to a more complete isolation than 
 ever, near the Red Sea ; and here, to save his 
 disciples the trouble of bringing him food, he 
 made a small field of wheat, which he culti- 
 vated with his own hands, working also at 
 making mats. From time to time he re- 
 visited his former disciples in the Thebaid, 
 always, however, declining to preside over a 
 convent. About a.d. 335 he revisited Alex- 
 andria, at the urgent request of Athanasius, to 
 preach against the Arians (Theod. Hist. iv. 
 27), and there was followed by crowds as 
 " the man of God." But he soon returned to 
 the congenial seclusion of his cell, and there 
 died, at the great age of 105, in the presence 
 of the two disciples, Amathas and ^Iacarius, 
 who had ministered to his wants during the 
 last 15 years. To them he bequeathed his 
 hair-shirt ; and the rest of his worldly goods, 
 liis two woollen tunics and the rough cloak 
 on which he slept, to bp. Serapion and St. 
 Athanasius (Athan. Vit. St. Ant.). 
 
 The fame of Anthony spread rapidly 
 through Christendom ; and the effect of his 
 example in inducing Christians, especially in 
 the East, to embrace the monastic Ufe is 
 described by his biographers as incalculable. 
 In the next century he began to be venerated 
 as a saint by the Greek church, and in the 
 I ninth by the Latin. St. Jerome says he was 
 the author of seven Epistles to certain Eastern 
 monasteries, which have been translated from 
 the Egyptian into the Greek (Hieron. de 
 Script. 88), but whether these are the same as 
 those now extant in Latin is doubtful (cf. 
 Erdinger's ed. of them (Innsbruck, 1871). 
 Though by all accounts far from being a 
 learned man (Soz. Hist. i. 13 ; Niceph. Hist. 
 vii. 40 ; Athan. Vit. St. Ant.), his dis- 
 courses are evidence that he was not alto- 
 gether illiterate. His influence was great at 
 the court of the emperor. Constantine the 
 Great and his sons wTote to him as a father 
 (Athan.), and when Athanasius was contending 
 with the Meletians, Anthony wTote from his 
 cell to the emperor in behalf of his friend 
 (Soz. ii. 31). His austerities were great ; as 
 a rule he fasted till sunset, and sometimes for 
 four days together. Of sleep he was equally 
 sparing. His coarse rough shirt is said to 
 have lasted him for a lifetime ; and his only 
 ablutions seem to have been involuntary in 
 wading occasionally through a river. Yet 
 
APHRAAT 
 
 e lived to an unusual age, robust, and in full 
 ession of his faculties to the last. He 
 not morose to others ; only to iieretics 
 he austere and repulsive, refusins to hold 
 y intercourse with them even for a moment. 
 
 e was careful always, though so universally 
 
 vered, not to arrogate to himself priestly 
 ctions, shewing, even in his old age, a 
 marked and studious deference even to the 
 youngest deacons. 
 
 Anthony was evidently a man, not merely 
 of strong determination, but of ability, and 
 the discourses, if indeed they are his, which 
 his disciples record as adtircssed to themselves 
 and to the pagan philosophers who disputed 
 with him, shew that if he read Uttle he thought 
 much. He met objections against the tloc- 
 trines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection 
 as mysterious by the retort that the pagan 
 mythology, whether in its grossness as appre- 
 hended by the vulgar or as the mystical system 
 of philosophers, was equally above reason. 
 From their dialectical subtleties he appealed 
 to facts, to a Christian's contempt of death 
 and triumph over temptation ; and con- 
 trasted the decay of pagan oracles and magic 
 with the growth of Christianity in spite of 
 persecutions. He taught that prayer to be 
 
 Cxfect must be ecstatic (Cass. Coll. ix. 31). 
 Lngled with sound and practical advice are 
 strange stories of his visions, in which he 
 describes himself as engaged continually in 
 deadly conflict with evil spirits. 
 
 Beyond these encounters and powers of 
 exorcism it is not clear how far and in what 
 manner Anthony believed himself able to 
 work miracles. It would indeed be strange if 
 so lonely an existence did not breed many in- 
 voluntary and unconscious illusions ; still more 
 Strange if those whose eyes were dazzled by 
 the almost more than human self-abnegation 
 of the great eremite had not exaggerated 
 this aspect of his story. Among the many in 
 whom the marvellous experiences of Anthony 
 awoke a longing to renounce the world was 
 Augustine himself (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, 12). 
 A. Verger, Vie de St. Antoine le Grand 
 (Tours, 1898). [i.G.s.] 
 
 Aphraat {.iphrahat, Farhad, " the Sage of 
 Persia"). Little is known of the life of this 
 writer, who was the principal theologian of 
 the Persian {i.e. Eastern or Ncstorian) church 
 in the 4th cent. He was born late in the 3rd 
 cent., and was certainly a monk, and probably 
 a bishop of his church. Tradition says that 
 he resided at the monastery of Mar Mattai, 
 near Mosul, and was bishop in that province. 
 Either at his baptism or consecration he 
 
 adopted the name Jacob ( ^SCVxri^j ) in 
 
 addition to his own, and for this reason his 
 works have sometimes been attributed to 
 better-known namesakes. 
 
 In the year 344 he presided over a council 
 of the church of his province (Adiabene), and 
 the synodal letter is included in his works 
 {Homily xiv.). Sapor's persecution was then 
 raging in the country, but is known to have 
 been, for local reasons, less severe in this 
 district than elsewhere. The time and man- 
 ner of his death are not known. 
 
 Works. — These consist of a collection of 22 
 Homilies, written at the request of a friend (a 
 
 APHTHARTODOCETAE 
 
 31 
 
 monk) to give an exposition of the Christian 
 faith. Their importance consists in the 
 picture that they give of the current teaching 
 of an independent church, already organized 
 under its own primate, outside the Roman 
 empire. The language is Syriac, the quota- 
 tions from the O.T. are taken from the 
 Peshitta, but in the N.T. he quotes the dospels 
 from the Diatessaron. Some of his inter- 
 pretations (e.g. Horn. XV.) shew signs of 
 Jewish or " Talmudical " teaching. 
 
 Doctrine. — As a theologian, Aphraat is 
 strikingly independent and remote from the 
 controversies of his day in the Roman empire. 
 Writing 20 years after the council of Nicaea, 
 he expresses himself in a way impossible for 
 any one who had heard of the Arian contro- 
 versy, whatever his s\ini)atliies in it ; with 
 him we are back in the indcfmitencss of an 
 earlier age, when an orthodox writer might 
 use on one page the language of psilanthropism 
 (Horn, xvii.) and on another confess both the 
 Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (vi. 11.). 
 This is consistent with the fact that the 
 " church of the East " was so isolated that it 
 was never asked to accept the Nicene Creed 
 till the year 410 ; and apparently used, till 
 that date, the formula that Aphraat gives 
 (Horn. i.). See Nestorian Church. 
 
 A curious feature in Aphraat's teaching is 
 the use of expressions that jjlainly suggest that 
 he regarded the Holy Spirit as the female 
 element in the Godhead (xviii. 10). It is a 
 thought strange to us, but not necessarily 
 unorthodox, and natural to a mind of Semitic 
 cast, that used a word for " spirit " that is 
 feminine ; its absence from Greek and Latin 
 theology may account in part for the enthrone- 
 ment of another figure as Queen of Heaven. 
 Aphraat's whole teaching has the ascetic cast 
 natural to a 4th-cent. Oriental monk. The 
 celibates (xviii.) are emphatically the aristo- 
 cracy of the church, the professors of the 
 higher life, who alone can attain to true 
 communion with God. Any one who doubts 
 his own capacity for the keeping of a vow of 
 virginity, which apparently was often taken 
 at the time of baptism, is advised to marry 
 before that rite, a fall subsequent to it being 
 a heinous sin (vii. 10). Nevertheless, all are 
 warned that open abandonment of the reso- 
 lution and avowed marriage is better than 
 secret incontinence. 
 
 Broadly, Aphraat shews us the existence of 
 an independent Oriental theology, which, 
 however, was not allowed to develop on its 
 own lines, but was assimilated to Greek 
 standards a few generations later. This was 
 a distinct loss to the fullness of Christian 
 thought, and a misfortune to the Syriac 
 church itself, in that it soon shewed itself 
 unable to think on Greek lines, so that schisms 
 resulted that endure to this day. Parisot, 
 Patrol. Syriac. Aphraatis Demonstrationes ; 
 Labourt. Christiamsme dans Vempire perse ; 
 Burkitt, Earlv Eastern Christianity, [w.a.w.] 
 
 Aphthartodocetae (from dtptiapros, incor- 
 ruptible, and ooK^ij}, to think), a sect of the 
 MoNOPHvsiTES, which arose in the 6th cent. 
 They were also called Phantasiastae, because 
 they appeared to acknowledge only a seeming 
 body of Christ, and to border on Docetism ; 
 and Julianists, from their leader Julian, bp. of 
 
32 
 
 APION 
 
 Halicarnassus, and his contemporary Xenajas 
 of Hierapolis. They argued, from the com- 
 mingling (avyxvffis) of the two natures of 
 Christ, that the body of our Lord, from the 
 very beginning, became partaker of the in- 
 corruptibiUty of the Logos, and was subject 
 to corruptibihty merely Kar' oiKovofxiav. They 
 appealed in proof especially to Christ's walking 
 on the sea during His earthly Hfe. Their 
 opponents among the Monophysites, the 
 Severians (from Severus, patriarch of Anti- 
 och), maintained that the body of Christ before 
 the Resurrection was corruptible, and were 
 hence called Phihartolatrae {<^i>9apTo\dTpai. from 
 <pdapT6s and \drpela), or Corrupticolae, i.e. 
 Worshippers of the Corruptible. Both parties 
 admitted the incorruptibility of Christ's body 
 after the Resurrection. The word (pOopd was 
 generally taken in the sense of corruptibility, 
 but sometimes in the sense of mere frailty. 
 This whole question is rather one of scholastic 
 subtlety, though not wholly idle, and may be 
 solved in this way : that the body of Christ, 
 before the Resurrection, was similar in its 
 constitution to the body of Adam before the 
 Fall, containing the germ or possibiHty of 
 immortality and incorruptibility, but subject 
 to the influence of the elements, and was 
 actually put to death by external violence, but 
 through the indwelling power of the sinless 
 Spirit was preserved from corruption and 
 raised again to an imperishable life, when — 
 to use an ingenious distinction of St. Augustine 
 — the immortalitas minor became immortalitas 
 major, or the posse nan mori a nan posse mori. 
 
 The Aphthartodocetae were subdivided into 
 Ktistolalrae, or, from their founder, Gaianitae, 
 who taught that the body of Christ was created 
 {KTiarbv). and Aktistetae, who asserted that the 
 body of Christ, although in itself created, yet 
 by its union with the eternal Logos became 
 increate, and therefore incorruptible. The 
 most consistent Monophysite in this direction 
 was the rhetorician Stephanus Niobes (about 
 550), who declared that every attempt to 
 distinguish between the divine and the human 
 in Christ was improper and useless, since they 
 had become absolutely one in him. An abbot 
 of Edessa, Bar Sudaili, extended this principle 
 even to the creation, which he thought would 
 at last be wholly absorbed in God. 
 
 Cf. the dissertations of Gieseler, Monophysi- 
 tarum variae de Christi Persona Opiniones, 1835 
 and 1838 ; the remarks of Dorner, History of 
 Christology, \i. 159 ff. (German ed.) ; Ebrard, 
 Church and Doctrine History, i. 268 ; and 
 Schaff, Church History, iii. 766 ff. [p.s.] 
 
 Apion. The name is properly Egyptian 
 (see Procop. Pers. i. 8 ; Ross. Itlscr. fasc. 2, 
 p. 62) and derived from the god Apis, after the 
 analogy of Anubion, Serapion, etc. 
 
 (1) The son of Poseidonius (Justin (?) Coh, 
 ad Gent. § 9 ; Africanus in Eus. Pr. Ev. x. 10. 
 p. 490), a grammarian of Alexandria in the 
 1st cent. His literary triumphs and critical 
 labours on Homer do not fall within our scope, 
 but his conflict with Jews and Jewish Chris- 
 tians entitles him to a place here. 
 
 (i) His hostility to Judaism was deep, per- 
 sistent, and unscrupulous (Joseph, c. A p. ii. 
 1-13 ; Clem. Horn. iv. 24, v. 2, irdw 'lovdaiovi 
 5i' dTrex^eiay 'ixovra, v. 27, 29, 6 dX67ws /jLiauv 
 
 APOLINARIS 
 
 rb 'lovSaiuv k.t.X. ; Clem. Strom, i. 21), as 
 the direct extracts preserved by Josephus 
 from his writings clearly prove. These at- 
 tacks were contained in two works especially : 
 in his Egyptian History (MyvirTLaKo.), and in 
 a separate treatise Against the Jews (Kara. 
 'lov5a'LWv ^'i^\o%, Justin. (?) I.e. ; Africanus, 
 I.e.). Josephus exposes the ignorance, men- 
 dacity, and self-contradictions of Apion. 
 
 (ii) It is not surprising that the spent wave 
 of this antagonism should have overflowed on 
 Judaic Christianity. Whether Apion actually 
 came in contact with any members of the new 
 brotherhood is more than questionable. His 
 early date (for he flourished in the reigns of 
 Tiberius, Caius, and Claudius) renders this 
 improbable. But in the writings of the Petro- 
 Clementine cycle he holds a prominent place 
 as an antagonist of the Gospel. In the 
 Clementine Homilies he appears in company 
 with Anubion and Athenodorus among the 
 satellites of Simon Magus, the arch-enemy of 
 St. Peter and St. Peter's faith. The Clementine 
 Recognitions contain nothing corresponding to 
 the disputes of Clement and Apion in the 4th, 
 5th, and 6th books of the Homilies ; but at 
 the close of this work (x. 52), as at the close 
 of the Homilies, he is introduced as a sub- 
 sidiary character in the plot. See the 
 treatises on these writings by Schliemann, 
 Uhlhorn, Hilgenfeld, Lehmann, and others. 
 
 (2) A Christian author about the end of 2nd 
 cent., who wrote on the Hexaemeron (Eus. 
 H. E. V. 27 ; Hieron. Vir. III. 49). [l.] 
 
 Apolinaris, or Apolinarius Claudius. Atto- 
 
 XLudpios : so spelt in the most ancient Gk. 
 MSS. ; Latin writers generally use the form 
 Apollinaris), bp. of Hierapolis, in Phrygia 
 A.D. 171 and onwards (Eus. Chron.) ; one 
 of the most active and esteemed Christian 
 writers of the day, he is praised by Photius 
 for his style (Phot. Cod. 14). Jerome enumer- 
 ates him among the ecclesiastical writers who 
 were acquainted with heathen literature, and 
 who made use of this knowledge in the refuta- 
 tion of heresy (Ep. ad Magnum, iv. 83, p. 656. 
 Cf. Theod. Haer. Fab. Compend. iii. 2). 
 
 Only a few fragments of his works have been 
 preserved. Eusebius [H. E. iv. 27) gives the 
 following list of those which had fallen into his 
 hands ; and his list is repeated by St. Jerome 
 (de Vir. III. c. 26) and Nicephorus (H. E. 
 iv. 11). (i) An apology addressed to Marcus 
 Aurelius, probably written after a.d. 174, 
 since it is likely that it contained the reference 
 to the miracle of the Thundering Legion else- 
 where quoted by Eusebius from Apolinaris 
 (H. E. V. 5). (2) Five books Trp6s "EWr/cas, 
 written according to Nicephorus in the form 
 of a dialogue. (3) Two books ire pi d\T]0€ias. 
 (4) Two books 7rp6s 'lovSaiovs : these are 
 not mentioned by St. Jerome, and the refer- 
 ence to them is absent from some copies of 
 Eusebius. (3) Writings against the Phry- 
 gian heresy, published when Montanus was 
 first propounding his heresy ; i.e. according to 
 the C/jyonjcoH of Eusebius, c. 172. These writ- 
 ings, which were probably in the form of letters, 
 are appealed to by Serapion, bp. of Antioch 
 (Eus. H. E. V. 19) ; and Eusebius elsewhere 
 (v. 16) describes Apolinaris as raised up as a 
 strong and irresistible weapon against Mon- 
 

 APOUNARIS 
 
 APOLLINARIS THE ELDER 
 
 33 
 
 tanisin. The situation of liis see sufficiently 
 ,(' counts for the prominent part taken by 
 Apolinaris in this controvorsv. We are told 
 ' li>ed by an anonynaous writer who probably 
 te at the end of the gth cent. (Auctor, 
 ■ ,lli Synodici apud Labbe et Cossart, i. 599) 
 it Apolinaris on this occasion assembled 
 uty-six other bishops in council, and ex- 
 amunicated Montanus and Maximilla, as 
 11 as the shoemaker Theodotus. Besides 
 works mentioned by Eusebius, who does 
 ; i^ive his list as a complete one, Theodoret 
 :.i!-r. Fab. a. 21) mentions (6) that Apolinaris 
 te against the Encratites of the school of 
 . rrus (7rp6s rous ^(ovrjpiavoui 'KyKparirai). 
 I'hotius (Cod. 14) mentions having read 
 linaris's work wpHi EWTjj'ai Kai irfpi 
 "'fi'aj Kai TTfpi evctSfiat. (8) In the pre- 
 . c to the Alexandrian Chronicle a work 
 Tfp* Tov irdffxo- is attributed to Apolinaris, 
 ■■■ from which two extracts are furnished 
 '' which have given rise to much contro- 
 '- versy; the main point bein^ whether (if the 
 '?: fragments are genuine) Apolinaris wrote 
 fc lon the side of the practice of the Roman 
 I hurch, or on that of the (Juartodeciraans of 
 '..1 >iinor. In support of the former v^iew 
 .rged the similarity of the language of these 
 laments with that of Clement of Alexandria 
 ''■ and of Hippolytus, who advocated the VVest- 
 ^E em practice ; and also the fact that Apolin- 
 ''- arts is not claimed as a Quartodeciman by 
 E-: Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus, in his letter to 
 Victor of Rome. On the other side it is urged 
 It, that Apolinaris speaks of his antagonists as 
 1,^ 1" some who raise contention through ignor- 
 cc lance," language which would rather convey 
 vp {the impression that Apolinaris was writing 
 i; [against the opinions of some small sect than 
 IL .that he was combating the belief of the whole 
 t, jchurch of Asia Minor to which he belonged; 
 k: land it is further urged that if Apolinaris had 
 iti I been the first to defend in the East the prac- 
 tice which ultimately prevailed, it is incredible 
 that neither Eusebius nor any early writer 
 mentions this early champion of the Catholic 
 practice. Socrates the historian (H. E. iii. 7) 
 names Apolinaris, together with Irenaeus, 
 Clement, and Serapion, as holding the doctrine 
 that our Lord when He became man had a 
 human soul (l.w^i'xov tov ivavdpijjiryjaavTa). 
 
 Apolinaris had been set down as a Chiliast 
 on St. Jerome's authority (de Vir. III. c. 
 18), but Routh (Rel. Sac. i. 174) has given 
 good reason for thinking that the ApoUinaris 
 intended is the younger ApoUinaris, of 
 Laodicea ; since Jerome speaks of Irenaeus 
 and ApoUinaris as the first and the last of the 
 Greek Millenarians (lib. xi. Comm. in Ezech. 
 c 36, iii. 952), and also states that ApoUi- 
 naris answered Dionysius of Alexandria 
 (Prooem. in Ub. xviii. Comm. Esaiae iii. 
 478). 
 
 The Martyrologies commemorate the death 
 of ApoUinaris on Feb. 7. Of the year or of 
 the place and manner of his death nothing is 
 known; but that it was before the end of 
 the 2nd cent, may be inferred from the lan- 
 guage in which he is described in the letter of 
 Serapion written about that time (KXai'Sioc 
 'AroXtfopiou ToiJ naKapiwraTov yevofitvov iv 
 le/MT^Xet T^j 'Affias iiriaKbirov). [g.s.] 
 
 ApoUlnarianism, ApoUinarians, Apolli- 
 
 narists. [.VrouiiSAKis tmk Vouncer.] 
 
 ApoUinaris, St. and Mart., first bp. or 
 arclibp. of Ravenna, pcrliaps fron\ 50-7.S. 
 .According to the Life written by .\gneUus in 
 9th cent. (Lihcr Ponli/icalis, ap. .Muratori, 
 Rer. It. Scrif^l. ii. part i.), St. .ApoUinaris was 
 a native of Antioch, well instructed in Clk. 
 and Lat. literature, who followed St. Peter 
 to Rome, and was sent by him to Ravenna. 
 On his way he healed the son of Irenaeus who 
 was blind, and did other miracles. At Rav- 
 enna he baptized in the river Bidens, and 
 raised the daughter of the patrician Rufus to 
 life ; imprisoned by the heathen near the 
 capitol, he was there fed by angels. After- 
 wards, being expelled from the city, he 
 preached in Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace, and 
 Corinth. After three years he returned, 
 suffered new persecutions, and did new mir- 
 acles, destroying a statue and temple of 
 .\pollo by his prayers. He was martyred 
 under Vespasian, after an episcopate of over 
 28 years. 
 
 Other lives, such as that in the Ada Sanc- 
 torum, are more full of miracles, but do not 
 add anything else of importance. The day 
 of his death is agreed upon as July 23 ; the 
 year may have been 78. From a sermon of 
 St. Peter Chrysologus in 5th cent. (No. 128, 
 pp. 552 seq. ed. Migne), it appears that St. 
 -•VpoUinaris was the only bp. of Ravenna who 
 suffered martyrdom, and that he, strictly 
 speaking, can only be called a confessor. He 
 did not die, it would seem, a violent death, 
 though it may have been hastened by the 
 persecutions he underwent. Probably, like 
 his successor Aderitus, he died in the port- 
 town Classis, where he was buried. A new 
 church, still existing, was built about the 
 same time as that of St. Vitale, and into this 
 his body was translated by St. Maximianus 
 c. 552. The mosaic over the apse seems to 
 realize the words of St. Peter Chrysologus 
 {U.S.), " Ecce vivit, ecce ut bonus pastor suo 
 medius assistit in grege." As early as 575 
 it was the custom to take solemn oaths upon 
 his reUcs (St. Greg. Magn. Ep. vi. 61). His 
 body was taken to Ravenna in 15 15 for 
 safety, but restored in 1655 (see authorities 
 in Acta Sanctor. for July 23). This most 
 interesting basiUca, with the vacant monas- 
 tery adjoining, is now the only remnant of 
 the town of Classis. [j-w.] 
 
 ApoUinaris (or, according to Greek ortho- 
 graphy, Apollinarius) the Elder, of Alex- 
 andria, was born about the beginning of the 
 4th cent. After teaching grammar for some 
 time at Berytus in Phoenicea, he removed, 
 A.D. 335, to Laodicea, of which church he 
 was made presbyter. Here he married and 
 had a son, afterwards the bp. of Laodicea. 
 [Apqlunaris the Ygu.vger.] Both father 
 and son were on intimate terms with the 
 heathen sophists Libanius and Epiphanius of 
 Petra, frequenting the lecture-room of the 
 latter, on which account they were admonished 
 and, upon their venturing to sit out the 
 recitation of a hymn to Bacchus, excommuni- 
 cated by Theodotus, bp. of Laodicea, but 
 restored upon their subsequent repentance 
 (Socr. Eccl. Hist. iii. 16 ; Soz. vi. 25). 
 
 The elder ApoUinaris is chiefly noted for 
 
34 APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER 
 
 his literary labours. When the edict of J ulian, 
 A.D. 362, forbade the Christians to read 
 Greek literature, he undertook with the aid 
 of his son to supply the void by reconstructing 
 the Scriptures on the classical models. Thus 
 the whole BibUcal history down to Saul's 
 accession was turned into 24 books of Homeric 
 hexameters, each superscribed, like those of 
 the Iliad, by a letter of the alphabet. Lyrics, 
 tragedies, and comedies, after the manner of 
 Pindar, Euripides, and Menander, followed. 
 Even the Gospels and Epistles were adapted 
 to the form of Socratic disputation. Two 
 works alone remain as samples of their in- 
 domitable zeal: a tragedy entitled Christus 
 Pattens, in 2601 lines, which has been edited 
 among the works of Gregory Nazianzen ; and 
 a version of the Psalms, in Homeric hexa- 
 meters. The most that can be said of this 
 Psalter is that it is better than the tragedy, 
 and that as a whole it fully bears out the 
 reputation of the poet (Basil. Ep. 273, 406) 
 that he was never at a loss for an expression. 
 Socrates, who is more trustworthy than Sozo- 
 men (v. 18), ascribes the O.T. poems to the 
 father (iii. 16), and adds that the son as the 
 greater rhetorician devoted his energies to 
 converting the Gospels and Epistles into 
 Platonic dialogues. He likewise mentions a 
 treatise on grammar compiled by the elder 
 Apollinaris, XP"^''""""*V tvttu}. For different 
 opinions as to the authorship of father and 
 son, cf. Vossius, de Hist. Graec. ii. 18 ; de Poet. 
 Graec. c. g ; Duport, Praef. ad Metaph. Psalm. 
 (Lond. 1674). 
 
 The Metaphrasis Psahnorum was pubUshed 
 at Paris 1552 ; by Sylburg, at Heidelberg, 
 1596 ; and subsequently in various collections 
 of the Fathers. The latest edition is that in 
 Migne's Patr. Gk. xxiii. [e.m.y.] 
 
 Apollinaris the Younger, bp. of Laodicea 
 flourished in the latter half of the 4th cent., 
 and was at first highly esteemed, even by 
 Athanasius and Basil, for his classical culture 
 piety, and adhesion to the Nicene Creed 
 during the Arian controversv, until he intro- 
 duced a Christological heresy which is called 
 after him, and which in some respects pre- 
 pared the way for Monophysitism. He 
 assisted his father in rewriting the Christian 
 Scriptures in imitation of the style of Homer, 
 Menander, etc., mentioned in the preceding 
 article. He also wrote in defence of Christian- 
 ity against J uUan and Porphyry ; of orthodoxy 
 against the Manicheans, Arians, Marcellus, 
 Eunomius, and other heretics ; Biblical com- 
 mentaries, and other works, of which only 
 fragments remain. Jerome enjoyed his in- 
 struction, A.D. 374. He did not secede from 
 the communion of the church and begin to 
 form a sect of his own till 375. He died about 
 392. After his death his followers, who were 
 not numerous, were divided into two parties 
 the Polemians and Valentinians. His doctrine 
 was condemned by a synod of Alexandria 
 (not naming him), by two synods at Rome 
 under Damasus (377 and 378), and by the 
 second oecumenical council (381). Imperial 
 decrees prohibited the pubUc worship of the 
 Apollinarists (388, 397, 428), until during the 
 5th cent, they were absorbed partly by the 
 orthodox, partly by the Monophysites. But 
 the peculiar Christology of ApoHinaris has 
 
 APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER 
 
 reappeared from time to time, in a modified 
 shape, as an isolated theological opinion. 
 
 Apollinaris was the first to apply the results 
 of the Nicene controversy to Christology pro- 
 per, and to call the attention of the church to 
 the psychical and pneumatic element in the 
 humanity of Christ ; but in his zeal for the 
 true deity of Christ, and fear of a double 
 personality, he fell into the error of a partial 
 denial of His true Humanity. Adopting the 
 psychological trichotomy of Plato (aOi/xa, \pvxv, 
 TTvev/xa), for which he quoted I. Thess. v. 23 
 and Gal. v. 17, he attributed to Christ a 
 human body ((rw/xa) and a human soul (the 
 ^'vxv S.'^oyos, the anima animans which man 
 has in common with the animal), but not a 
 rational spirit (foPs, trvev/xa. \pvxv XoyiKrj, 
 anima rationalis), and put in the place of the 
 latter the divine Logos. In opposition to the 
 idea of a mere connexion of the Logos with 
 the man Jesus, he wished to secure an organic 
 unity of the two, and so a true incarnation ; 
 but he sought this at the expense of the most 
 important constituent of man. He reached 
 only a ^eo's (xapKocpopos, as Nestorianism only 
 an 8.v6pwKos 6eo(p6pos, instead of the proper 
 Oedvdpwiros. He appealed to the fact that the 
 Scripture says, " the Word was made flesh "— 
 not spirit ; " God was manifest in the fl_esh," 
 etc. To which Gregory Nazianzen justly 
 replied that in these passages the term adp^ 
 was used by synecdoche for the whole human 
 nature. In this way Apollinaris estabUshed 
 so close a connexion of the Logos with human 
 flesh, that all the divine attributes were trans- 
 ferred to the human nature, and all the human 
 attributes to the divine, and the two merged 
 in one nature in Christ. Hence he could 
 speak of a crucifixion of the Logos, and a 
 worship of His flesh. He made Christ a 
 middle being between God and man, in Whom, 
 as it were, one part divine and two parts 
 human were fused in the unity of a new nature. 
 He even ventured to adduce created analogies 
 of mixtures in nature. Christ, said he, is 
 oCre dudpiowos oXos, ovre deos, dWd deov koI 
 d.vdpuTrov pii^ii. On the other hand, he re- 
 garded the orthodox view of a union of full 
 humanity with a full divinity in one person — 
 of two wholes in one whole — as an absurdity, 
 in a similar category with the mythological 
 figure of the Minotaur. But the Apolhnarian 
 idea of the union of the Logos with a trun- 
 cated human nature might be itself more 
 justly compared with this monster. Starting 
 from the Nicene homoousion as to the Logos, 
 but denying the completeness of Christ's 
 humanity, he met Arianism half-way, which 
 likewise put the divine Logos in the place of 
 the human spirit in Christ. But he strongly 
 asserted Christ's unchangeableness, while 
 Arians taught His changeableness (rpfTrroTTjs). 
 The faith of the church revolted against 
 such a mutilated and stunted humanity of 
 Christ, which necessarily involved also a 
 merely partial redemption. The incarna- 
 tion is an assumption of the entire human 
 nature, sin only excluded. The ivadpKuai.'s is 
 ivavdpih-n-Qji^. To be a full and complete 
 Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect man 
 (TeXe£Oj &vdp(,}ivos'). The spirit or rational 
 soul is the most important element in man. 
 
APOLLONIUS 
 
 111' siMt of iiitelligcmc and freedom, and 
 I .lis redemption as well as the soul and the 
 ).il\- ; for sin has corrupted all the faculties. 
 
 Athanasius, the two t".rej,'ories, Basil, and 
 Ipiplianius combated the ApolUnarian error, 
 )Ut were unpreparctl to answer duly its 
 aain point, that two intesjral persons cannot 
 urni one person. The liter orthodox doc- 
 riiu' surmounted this ditSculty by teaching 
 lie impersonality of the hunian nature of 
 hrist, and by making the personality of 
 lirist to reside wholly in the Logos. 
 
 .VpoUinarianism opened the long line of 
 hristological controversies, which resulted in 
 he Chalcedonian symbol. 
 
 luERATUKE. — Of the Writings of Apollt- 
 
 .^. TTtpl ffipKibiTfUS. Trffi 7r/(TTfws, TTtpi avaard- 
 
 scird \-60d\eio»'. and other polemical and 
 
 _ lical works and epistles, only fragments 
 
 ■mam in the answers of Gregory of Nyssa and ■ 
 
 "hoodoret, in Leontius Byzant. in the Catenae, | 
 
 lui in .\ngelo Mai's i^ova Bihlioiheca Patrum, 
 
 . vii. (Rom. 1834) pt. ii. pp. 82-91. 
 
 ast ApoUinaris are directed Athanasius's 
 
 .<.i Apollinariutn, or rather Trfpi aapKwaews 
 
 i\vplov ij.u.CJi' 'I. \. {Opera, ed. Bencd. tom. 
 
 . I't. ii. pp. 921-953). written about 372 
 
 \ith.>ut naming ApoUinaris; Gregory of 
 
 syssa, A670S, dfTipprjTiKos Trpbs ra 'Airo\- 
 
 .napiov, first edited by Zaccagni, Rom. 1698, 
 
 iiid then by Gallandi, .Bji)/. Vet. Patr. vi. 517- 
 
 ,77 ; Basilius M., Ep. 263 (Opera, ed. Ben. t. 
 
 ii. pt. ii. 391 sqq.) ; Epiph. Haer. Ixxvii. ; 
 
 rheod. Fabulae Haer. iv. 8, v. 9. Of the 
 
 ater literature, cf. especially Petavius, de In- 
 
 \artuitione Verbi, i. c. 6 ; Dorner, History of 
 
 Zhristology, i. 974-1080; Neander, History, 
 
 • 334-33^ ; Schaff, History of the Christian 
 
 Church, iii. 708-714 ; Harnack, Dogmengesch. 
 
 I1909), ii. 324-334 ; Thomasius, Dogmengesch. 
 
 I1889), 314 f. ; Schwaue, Dogmengesch. (1895), 
 
 1:77-283; G. Voisin, L'ApoUinarisme (Paris, 
 
 I901). [P.S.] 
 
 I ApoUontus, M. [CoMMODus.] 
 
 I Apollonius of Ephesus, so called on the 
 loubtful authority of the writer of Prae- 
 iestinatus, ed. by Sirmond, who styles him bp. 
 !)f Ephesus, but the silence of Eusebius and 
 jill other earlier testimony makes it difficult to 
 lay much stress on this statement. He wrote 
 
 II work in five books against the Cataphrygian 
 hr Montanist heresy. Fragments of the first 
 
 hree books are extant in Eusebius (H. E. 
 
 18), and contain much that is curious 
 
 nd valuable with regard to the lives and 
 
 haracters of Montanus, the prophetesses 
 
 riscilla and Maximilla, and their followers. 
 
 erome also devotes an article to Apollonius. 
 
 'if. Illust. c. 50, in which he calls him durip 
 
 Woyifiurraro^, the author of a fj-iya Kal 
 
 Trlaijixou Ttvxos, and quotes him as stating 
 
 hat .Montanus and his prophetesses hanged 
 
 Ihcmselves. The book professes to be written 
 
 \o years after the commencement of Mon- 
 
 lauus's pretensions to prophesy. Taking for 
 
 I he rise of .M<-)ntanism the date given in the 
 
 '•r'>>i»co« of Eusebius (a.d. 172), this would 
 
 ibout A.D. 210 for the date of this work. 
 
 liius mentions also that Apollonius cites 
 
 Revelation of St. John, that he relates the 
 
 iiMiig to life of a dead man at Ephesus by 
 
 lir same John, and that he makes mention 
 
 APOLLONIUS 
 
 35 
 
 of the tradition quoted also by Clement of 
 Alexandria (Strom, vi. 5 sub finem) from the 
 Apocryphal "Preaching of I'eter " that our 
 Lord commanded His apostles not to leave 
 Jerusalem for twelve years after His ascension. 
 This wi^)rk of Apollonius was thought suffi- 
 ciently important by TertuUian to demand 
 an answer ; bk. vii. of his lost work, de 
 Ecstasi, was devoted to a refutation of his 
 assertions (Hii-ron. de Vir. III. c. 50). Tille- 
 mont. Hist. Eccl. ii. 426; Bi)nwetsch. Gcsch. 
 dcs Montanismus (Erlanger, 1881). [e.v.] 
 
 Apollonius of Tyana. The life of this 
 philosopher is related by Philostratus, but 
 the entire fabulousness of his story is obvious. 
 The prodigies, anachronisms, and geographical 
 blunders, and entire absence of other authority 
 are fatal to it (see H. Conybeare in the Guard- 
 ian, June 21, 1893, anci Ai)nlloii. Apology, 
 Acts, etc. Loud. 1894). Philostratus indeed 
 claims the authority of " the records of cities 
 and temples, and Apollonius's epistles to the 
 Eleans, Dclphians, Indians, and Egyptians " ; 
 but the cities and temples are nameless. 
 
 What, then, can we really be said to know 
 of Apollonius of Tyana ? That he was born 
 at Tyana and educated at Acgae, that he 
 professed Pythagoreanism, and that he was 
 celebrated in his day for what were considered 
 magical arts, are the only facts that rest on 
 altogether unexceptionable authority. The 
 account of his opposition to the Stoic 
 Euphrates may perhaps also be taken as 
 authentic. His reputation as a magician is 
 confirmed by the double authority of Moera- 
 genes and Lucian (Pseudomantis, c. 5). Yet 
 there are also reasons for believing that he 
 was more than a mere magician, and even a 
 philosopher of some considerable insight. 
 Eusebius (Pracp. Ev. p. 1506) quotes a pas- 
 sage from his book On Sacrifices (with the 
 reservation " Apollonius is said to write as 
 follows "), which if really his is certainly re- 
 markable. All later authorities base their 
 accounts on the Life by Philostratus ; except 
 Origen, who quotes Mocragenes. Hierocles 
 mentions Maximus of Aegae and Damis, but 
 probably only knew of them through Philos- 
 tratus. We now come to the collection of 
 letters still extant which are attributed to 
 Apollonius. Prof. Jowett (in the D. of G. and 
 K. Biogr.) thinks that part may be genuine ; 
 but Kayser and Zeller reject them summarily, 
 and most writers on .Apollonius barely mention 
 them. Zeller even says that they are obviously 
 composed to suit the Life by Philostratus. We 
 do not think that this opinion can be held by 
 any one who attentively compares the letters 
 with the biography ; and we think it probable 
 that the letters, whether genuine or not, were 
 composed before the work of Philostratus, and 
 hence form our earliest and best authority 
 respecting Apollonius. 
 
 The question arises, Had Philostratus in the 
 biography any idea of attacking Christianity 
 by setting up a rival to Christ ? Hierocles, 
 at the end of the 3rd cent., was the first person 
 who actually applied the work of Philostratus 
 to this purpose, as is said expressly by Euse- 
 bius, who replied to him. The Deists of the 
 i8th cent., both in France and England, used 
 them thus: but whereas Hierocles would admit 
 the miracles both of Christ and of Apollonius, 
 
36 APOLLONIUS 
 
 Voltaire and Lord Herbert had an equal dis- 
 belief in both. Naturally, none of these 
 writers held that Philostratus wrote in direct 
 imitation of the Gospels, as it would have 
 marred their point to do so. But equally 
 naturally the orthodox writers, beginning 
 with Huet, bp. of Avranches, and coming 
 down through Paley to our own day, have 
 considered Philostratus a direct though con- 
 cealed antagonist of Christianity. This view 
 has been opposed in Germany by Meiners, 
 Neander, Buhle, and Jacobs, and in England 
 by Watson [Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1867). Baur 
 took an intermediate view in his Apollonius 
 von Tyana unci Christus, Tlibingen, 1832), 
 which in its main outline will we think com- 
 mend itself as by far the most probable ac- 
 count. According to this view Philostratus 
 wrote with no strictly polemical reference to 
 Christianity, but, in the eclectic spirit of his 
 time, strove to accommodate Christianity to 
 the heathen religion. We are disposed to 
 believe, without attributing to Philostratus 
 any formal design of opposing or assimilating 
 Christianity, that he was strongly influenced 
 by its ideas and history. 
 
 The central aim of his biography is to set 
 forth, not merely wise precepts in the abstract, 
 but an example of supreme wisdom for 
 humanity to imitate. It is not imphed by 
 this that Philostratus considered Apollonius 
 as entirely and necessarily unique among 
 men ; but it is implied that he considered 
 him as more than a mere teacher of doctrine, 
 as a pattern to men in his own person, as one 
 in whom wisdom and truth were incorporate. 
 He wished men to honour Apollonius himself, 
 and not merely to study or believe certain 
 truths delivered by Apollonius. This cannot, 
 we think, be doubted by any one who reflects 
 on the whole tone of the book. Apollonius 
 is called " divine " ; his disciples stand in 
 an altogether different relation to him from 
 that in which the disciples of Socrates stand to 
 Socrates ; they do not argue with him as 
 equals with an equal ; they follow him, listen 
 to him, are rebuked by him. His miracles, 
 again, do not result from his being in posses- 
 sion of any secret communicable to other men, 
 but arise from his own nature and wisdom. 
 Such a character must remind us, however 
 different in some respects, of the Christ of the 
 Gospels. But was any character like this, or 
 approaching to this, drawn by any heathen 
 writer before Christ ? We think not. Philo- 
 sophy and magic, the search after knowledge 
 and the search after power, were familiar to 
 men who had never heard of Christianity ; 
 but this ideal is different from either, and from 
 both of them united. Those who affirm that 
 Philostratus never thought of the Christian 
 history in his work, say that he intended 
 Apollonius as a rival to Pythagoras. But by 
 whom was Pythagoras portrayed as this super- 
 human ideal ? Not certainly by any writer 
 of the centuries before Christ. Even Plutarch 
 (Numa, c. viii.) does not set him up as an 
 ideal exemplar. Is it possible that the age of 
 Caracalla and Severus, so eclectic, so tradi- 
 tional, so unoriginal, can of its own mere 
 motion have gone off into this new and un- 
 heard-of line? — unheard of, that is, unless, as 
 we must, we suppose it to have been borrowed 
 
 APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
 
 from Christianity. The Christians were not 
 then by any means an unknown sect ; so well 
 known were they that Alexander Severus 
 (with a singular parallelism to the supposed 
 conduct of Philostratus) placed Christ with 
 Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius himself, 
 among his household gods. Secondly, the 
 resemblance to the Gospel histories is in par- 
 ticular instances very broad indeed. Tlie 
 miraculous birth of Proteus, and the circum- 
 stances attending it; the healing of demoni- 
 acal possessions (was the idea of such posses- 
 sions in any way familiar to the Greeks ?) ; 
 the raising of the dead ; the appearance of 
 Apollonius to two of his disciples after his 
 deUverance from Domitian ; his ascent to 
 heaven, and appearance after his death, — 
 these are points of similarity that cannot be 
 evaded : and, taken together with the central 
 idea of the book, they seem to imply that 
 Philostratus consciously borrowed from the 
 Gospels. It should be noticed that the very 
 striking resemblances between the biography 
 of Apollonius and the Gospels are resem- 
 blances in externals ; the inner spirit is 
 entirely different : in the one we find the 
 self-contained philosophic spirit, striking even 
 amid all the rhetoric and tawdry marvels with 
 which Philostratus has dressed it ; in the other, 
 the spirit of the insufhciency of self. 
 
 Those who wish to examine the whole 
 question respecting Apollonius should consult 
 Baur, op. cit. ; Kayser's Philostratus ; Zeller's 
 Philosophie der Griechen ; and the writers 
 noticed above. [j.r.m.] 
 
 Apostolic Fathers. Definition of the Term.— 
 The adjective Apostolicus (ano<TTo\LKb%) is 
 used to denote either morally or doctrinally 
 accordance with the Apostles', or historically 
 connexion with the Apostles. In this latter' 
 sense it is especially applied to churches 
 founded directly by Apostles, or to persons 
 associated with and taught by Apostles. The 
 former are Apostolicae ecclesiae ; the latter 
 Apostolici viri, or Apostolici simply. See 
 especially Tertull. de Praescr. 32, " ut primus 
 ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apos- 
 tolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis persever- 
 avit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc 
 enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census sues 
 deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Poly- 
 carpum ab Joanne coUocatum refert, sicut 
 Romanonmi Clementem a Petro ordinatum 
 itidem," with the whole context. Cf. also de 
 Praescr. 20, 21 ; adv. Marc. i. 21, v. 2 ; de 
 Carn. Chr. 2 ; de Pudic. 21. Hence among 
 the Evangelists, while St. Matthew and St.^ 
 John are Apostoli, St. Mark and St. Luke are. 
 Apostolici {adv. Marc. iv. 2). In accordance 
 with this usage the term Apostolic Fathers is 
 confined to those who are known, or may 
 reasonably be presumed, to have associated' 
 with and derived their teaching directly from 
 some Apostle. In its widest range it will 
 include Barnabas, Hernias, Clemens, Ignatius, 
 Polycarp, Papias, and the writer of the epistle 
 to Diognetus. Some of these fail to satisfy 
 the conditions which alone entitle to a place 
 among the works of the Apostolic Fathers. 
 Thus the " Shepherd" of Hermas has been 
 placed in this category, because it was sup- 
 posed to have been written by the person oi, 
 this name mentioned by St. Paul (Rom. xvi. 
 
APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
 
 14; stH' Ori,i;iMi aJ loc. Of>. iv. 6S3) ; hut a 
 
 more authentic tradition ascribes it to the 
 
 trother of Pius, who was bp. of Rome a little 
 
 t >re the middle of Jiid cent. {Canon. Murat. 
 
 58, ed. Tregelles ; sec pseudo-Tertull. 
 
 /tn. adv. Marc. iii. 294, in TcrtuU. Of>. ii. 
 
 .'. ed. Oehlcr). Thus again the claim of 
 
 i.'ias to be considered an Apostolic Father 
 
 ;s on the supposition that he was a disciple 
 
 1 St. John the Evangelist, as Irenaous 
 
 .ipparently imagines (Haer. v. 33, § 4) ; but 
 
 I Eusebius says that Irenaeus was mistaken, 
 and that the teacher of Papias was not the 
 Apostle St. John, but the presbyter of the 
 same name (H. E. iii. 30). Again, there 
 is some uncertainty about the Epistle to 
 Diogneius. Its claim is founded on an ex- 
 pression which occurs in § 11, and which has 
 been interpreted literally as implying that 
 the writer was a personal disciple of one or 
 other of the Apostles. But in the first place 
 the context shews that tliis literal interpreta- 
 tion is out of place, and the passage must be 
 explained as follows : " I do not make any 
 
 i strange statements nor indulge in unreason- 
 able questionings, but having learnt my 
 lessons from the .\postles (lit. having become 
 a disciple of Ajiostlcs), I stand forward as a 
 teacher of the nations " ; and secondly, this 
 is no part of the Ep. to Diognettts proper 
 (§§ i-io), but belongs to a later writing, which 
 has been accidentally attached to the Epistle, 
 owing to the loss of some leaves in the MS. 
 This latter fact is conclusive. If therefore the 
 Epistle has any title to a place among the 
 Apostolic Fathers, it must be established by 
 internal evidence ; and though the internal 
 character suggests an early date, perhaps as 
 early as about a.d. 117 (see Westcott, Canon, 
 P- 79), ypt there is no hint of any historical 
 connexion between the writer' and the 
 Apostles. Lastly, the so-called Ep. of Bar- 
 nabas occupies an unique position. If the 
 writer had been the companion of St. Paul 
 who bore that name, then ho would more 
 properly be styled, not an " apostolic man," 
 as he is designated by Clement of Alexandria 
 {Strom, ii. 20, p. 489, 6 aTroaroXinds IJaprd/iasX 
 but an " apostle," as the same Clement else- 
 where styles him {Strom, ii. 6, p. 445 ; ii. 7, 
 f>. 447), in accordance with St. Luke's language 
 Acts xiv. 14). But if the writer be not the 
 Apostle Barnabas, then we have no evidence 
 of any personal relations with the Apostles, 
 though such is not impossible, as the Epistle 
 must have been written at some date between 
 the age of Vespasian and that of Nerva. 
 Three names remain, Clement, Ignatius, and 
 Polycarp, about which there is no reasonable 
 ground for hesitation. 
 
 All the genuine writings of these three 
 Apostolic Fathers arc epistolary in form, 
 modelled more or less after the pattern of the 
 Canonical Ei)istles, especially those of St. 
 Paul, and called forth by pressing temporary 
 needs. In no case is any literary motive 
 prominent. A famous teacher writes in the 
 name of the c )mmunity over which he pre- 
 sides to quell the dissensions of a distant but 
 friendly church. An aged disciple on his 
 way to martyrdom pours out a few parting 
 words of exhortation to the Christian brother- 
 hoods with whom he is brought in contact i 
 
 APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
 
 .•^7 
 
 during his journey. .\ bishop of a loading 
 church, having occasion to send a parrel to 
 another brotherhood at a distance, takes the 
 opjiortunity of writing, in answer to their 
 solicitations, a few plain words of advice and 
 instruction. Such is the simple account of 
 the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp 
 respectively. 
 
 The same forna is preserved in the Ep. of 
 Barnabas and the letter to Diognctus. But 
 the spirit is somewhat different. They are 
 rather treatises clothed in an epistolary dress, 
 the aim of the one being polemical, of the other 
 apologetic. Herein they resemble Hebrews 
 more than the ICpp. of St. Paul. 
 
 " The Apostolic Fathers," says de Prcs- 
 sense, " are not great writers,' but great 
 characters" {Trois Premiers Si^cles, ii. 384). 
 Their stylo is loose ; there is a want of ar- 
 rangement in the topics, and an absence of 
 system in their teaching. On the one hand 
 they present a marked contrast to the depth 
 and clearness of conception with which the 
 several N.T. writers place before us different 
 aspects of the Gospel, and by which their title 
 to a special inspiration is established. On the 
 other, they lack the scientific spirit which 
 distinguished the Fathers of the 4th and 5th 
 cents., and which enabled them to formulate 
 the doctrines of the faith as a bulwark against 
 unbridled speculation. But though they are 
 deficient in distinctness of conrejition and 
 power of exposition, "this inferiority" to 
 the later Fathers " is amply compensated by 
 a certain naivete and simplicity which forms 
 the charm of their letters. If they have not 
 the precision of the scientific spirit, they are 
 free from its narrowness." There is a breadth 
 of moral sympathy, an earnest sense of per- 
 sonal responsibility, a fervour of Christian 
 devotion, which is the noblest testimony to 
 the influence of the Gospel on characters 
 obviously very diverse, and which will always 
 command for their writings a resiic<t to which 
 their literary merits could lay no claim. The 
 gentleness and serenity of Clement, whose 
 whole spirit is absorbed in contemplating the 
 harmonies of nature and of grace ; the fiery 
 zeal of Ignatius, in whom the one over- 
 mastering desire of mart>Tdom has crushed 
 all human passion ; the unbroken constancy 
 of Polycarp, whose protracted life is spent in 
 maintaining the faith once delivered to the 
 saints, — these are lessons which can never 
 become antiquated or lose their value. 
 
 Their Relation to the Apostolic Teaching and 
 to the Canonical Scriptures. — Of the respective 
 provinces of the Apostolic Fathers, we may 
 say that Clement co-ordinates the different 
 elements of Christian teaching as left by 
 the Apostles ; and Ignatius consolidates the 
 structure of ecclesiastical polity, as sketched 
 out by them ; while for Polycarp, whose 
 active career was just begiiming as theirs 
 ended, and who lived on f(jr more than half 
 a century after their deaths, was reserved the 
 task of handing down unimpaired to a later 
 generation the Apostolic doctrine and order 
 thus co-ordinated and cons(jlidated by his 
 elder contemporaries — a task for which he 
 was eminently fitted by his passive and 
 receptive character. 
 
 The writings of these three Fathers lie well 
 
38 
 
 APOSTOLIC FATHERS 
 
 within the main stream of Catholic teaching. 
 They are the proper link between the Canon- 
 ical Scriptures and the church Fathers of the 
 succeeding ages. They recognize all the 
 different elements of the Apostolic teaching, 
 though combining them in different propor- 
 tions. " They prove that Christianity was 
 Catholic from the very first, uniting a variety 
 of forms in one faith. They shew that the 
 great facts of the Gospel narrative, and the 
 substance of the Apostolic letters, formed 
 the basis and moulded the expression of the 
 common creed " (Westcott, Canon, p. 55). 
 
 But when we turn to the other writings for 
 which a place among the Apostolic Fathers 
 has been claimed, the case is different. Though 
 the writers are all apparently within the pale 
 of the church, yet there is a tendency to that 
 one-sided exaggeration — either in the direc- 
 tion of Judaisms or the opposite — which 
 stands on the very verge of heresy. In the 
 Ep. of Barnabas and in the letter to Diognetus, 
 the repulsion from Judaism is so violent, that 
 one step further would have carried the 
 writers into Gnostic or Marcionite dualism. 
 On the other hand, in the Shepherd of 
 Hermas, and possibly in the Expositions 
 of Papias (for in this instance the inferences 
 drawn from a few scanty fragments must be 
 precarious), the sympathy with the Old Dis- 
 pensation is unduly strong, and the distinctive 
 features of the Gospel are darkened by the 
 shadow of the Law thus projected upon them. 
 In Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, both 
 extremes are avoided. 
 
 For the relation of these \vriters to the 
 Canonical Scriptures the reader is referred to 
 the thorough investigation in Westcott's Hist, 
 of the Canon, pp. 19-55. It will be sufficient 
 here to state the more important results: (i) 
 The Apostolic Fathers do not, as a rule, quote 
 by name the canonical writings of the N.T. 
 But (2), though (with exceptions) the books 
 of the N.T. are not quoted by name, fragments 
 of most of the canonical Epistles lie embedded 
 in the writings of these Fathers, whose 
 language is thoroughly leavened with the 
 Apostolic diction. In like manner the facts 
 of the Gospel history are referred to, and the 
 words of our Lord given, though for the most 
 part not as direct quotations. For (3) there 
 is no decisive evidence that these Fathers 
 recognized a Canon of the N.T., as a distinctly 
 defined body of writings ; though Barnabas 
 once introduces our Lord's words as recorded 
 in Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14, with the usual 
 formula of Scriptural citation, " As it is 
 written (ws y^ypatrTaL)." But (4), on the 
 other hand, they assign a special and pre- 
 eminent authority to the Apostles which 
 they distinctly disclaim for themselves. This 
 is the case with Clement (§§ 5, 7) and Ignatius 
 (Rom. 4), speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul ; 
 and with Polycarp f§ 3), speaking of St. Paul 
 — the only Apostles that are mentioned by 
 name in these writings. (5) Lastly, though 
 the language of the Canonical Gospels is 
 frequently not quoted word for word, yet 
 there is no distinct allusion to any apocryphal 
 narrative. [l.] 
 
 The standard work on the Apostolic 
 Fathers is by the writer of the above article, 
 the late bp. Lightfoot. His work on the 
 
 AQUILA 
 
 principal subject, in five 8vo volumes, in- 
 cludes Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. But after 
 his death a single vol. was pub. containing re- 
 vised texts of all the Apostolic Fathers, with 
 short introductions and Eng. translations. 
 
 Apostolici, one of the names adopted by an 
 ascetic sect in Phrygia, Cihcia, and Pamphylia. 
 Their leading principle seems to have been 
 the rejection of private property. They are 
 also said to have resembled Tatian, the 
 Encratites, and the " Cathari " (Novatian- 
 ists), in that they refused to admit offenders to 
 communion, and condemned marriage. They 
 appealed chiefly to the apocryphal Acts of 
 Andrew and of Thomas. They entitled them- 
 selves Apotactiri, i.e. " Renuntiants." What i 
 little is recorded about them, beyond the name, . 
 we owe to Epiphanius (Haer. Ixi. 506-513), 
 who apparently knew them only by vague 
 oral report. Their place in his treatise would i 
 naturally assign them to the 3rd cent. ; and i 
 they evidently had not ceased to exist in the 
 4th. " Encratites, Saccophori, and Apotac- 
 tites," described together as " an offshoot of ' 
 the Marcionites," are associated with Nova- 
 tianists by Basil in a letter answering queries 
 from Amphilochius of Iconium (cxcix. can. 
 47 ; cf. clxxxviii. can. i), written in 375, when 
 Epiphanius had begun and not completed 
 his work. A law of Theodosius against the 
 Manicheans in 381 (Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 7 ; cf. 
 II an. 383) alleges that some of these lieretics 
 endeavoured to evade the existing severe 
 legislation by calling themselves " Encratites, 
 Apotactites, Hydroparastatae, or Saccophori." 
 Any true historical connexion, however, 
 between the Apostolici and either the Mar- 
 cionists or the Manicheans is highly improb- 
 able, [h.] 
 
 Apphianus, or Appianus, or Amphianus, 
 
 M., a son of rich parents at " Pagae " (pro- 
 bably Araxas) in Lycia, educated in the 
 schools of Berytus, who being not twenty 
 years old interrupted the governor at Caesarea 
 when sacrificing, by an exhortation to desist 
 from idolatry, and was, after horrible tortures 
 — e.g. by his feet being wrapped in a tunica 
 molesla of flax steeped in oil and set on fire — 
 finally martyred by drowning, April 11, 306 
 (Eus. de Mart. Palaest. iv. ; Syriac Acta, in 
 Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 189 seq.). [a.w.h.] 
 
 Aquila (\'^Kv\as), the author of a translation 
 of the O.T. into Greek, which was held in 
 much esteem by the Jews and was reproduced 
 by Origen in the third column of the Hexapla, 
 seems to have belonged to the earlier half of 
 2nd cent. Little is known regarding his per- 
 sonal history beyond the fact that he was, 
 like the Aquila associated with St. Paul, a 
 native of Pontus, and probably, according to 
 the more definite tradition, of Sinope. We 
 learn also from Irenaeus, in whom we find 
 the earliest mention of him (adv. Haer. 
 iii. 24), that he was a proselyte to the Jewish 
 faith — a statement confirmed by Eusebius 
 (Demonst. Evang. vii. i : irpoariXvTOi oe b 
 'AkvXus i)v ov (pvacL 'lovoaTo^), Jerome (Ep. ad 
 Painmach. 0pp. iv. 2, p. 255), and other 
 Fathers, as well as by the Jerusalem Talmud 
 (Megill. f. 71, c. 3 ; Kiddush. f. 59, c. i, 
 where there can be little doubt that the Akilas 
 referred to is to be identified with Aquila). 
 
ARCHELAUS 
 
 ■III thi< rircmnstancc he is frequently called 
 V.iuila the proselyte." 
 
 The object of Aqiiila was to furnish a 
 inslation on which the Jews could relv as 
 more accurate rendering of the Hebrew 
 h,m that of the Septuapint, which not onlv 
 \,\s in many instances loose and incorrect 
 r Mn the first, but had also in the course 
 f four centuries undergone change and 
 eruption. With this view he made his 
 crsion strictly literal, striving to provide a 
 ;rcek equivalent for everv Hebrew word 
 iiul particle, in frequent disregard of the 
 ules of grammar and of idiom, and with the 
 •esult of often rendering his meaning hardly 
 ntelligible to those who were not acquainted 
 vith Hebrew (as in Job xxx. i, Kal i'vi> 
 '~i^\a<Tav iir' (noi Sp^x^^^ '^"p' «V^ '^^^^ vntpai 
 Ps. xlix. 21, vir^\a^es tcro/xfi'o^ fcrofiai 5uoi6s croi 
 ■■- rxlix. 6, Kal ^iAxaipa a-rondrwv if x^P'^'-" 
 Ii'\ He carefully endeavoured even to re- 
 luce Hebrew etymologies in Greek, and for 
 ; lat purpose freely c<->ined new forms (as in 
 !'*. xxi. i.^. SwdcTTaiBaa-av SieS-nfJ-aTtaavrd fte 
 Ts. cxviii. lo, fi^i dyvorj,uaTl<Tris n(). Origen 
 accordingly characterizes him as Sov\(v(x'v ry 
 ESpaiKV Xe'tft {P.p. ad Afric). and the frag- 
 ments of the version which have been preserved 
 amplv bear out the truth of the description. 
 But the excessively literal character of the 
 work, while impairing its value as a translation 
 * -r those who were not Jews, renders it all 
 more valuable as a witness to the state 
 :he Hebrew text from which it was made. 
 .'.i to the nature and value of the version, 
 see Smith's D. B. iii. 1622.) 
 
 Several scholars of eminence have recently 
 maintained that Aquila is to be identified 
 not onlv with the Akilas of the Talmud, but 
 also with Onkelos, whose name is associ- 
 ated with the well-known Targum on the 
 Pentateuch ; holding that the latter is merely 
 an altered form of the name, and that the. 
 Chaldee version came to receive what is now 
 its ordinary designation from its being drawn 
 up on the model, or after the manner, of that 
 of Aquila. The arguments in support of this 
 view, which appear to have great weight, are 
 set forth with much clearness and force bv Mr. 
 Deutsch in his article on " Versions, Ancient, 
 (Targum)," in Smith's D. B. iii. 1642-1645. 
 
 The fragments of the version of Aquila — 
 first collected by Morinus for the Sixtine 
 edition of the Septuagint, Rome, 1587, and 
 subsequently bvDrusius, in his Veierum interp. 
 Grace, in V. T. Fra^menta. Arnb. 1622 — are 
 more fully gi%-en in the edition of the Hexapla 
 by Montfaucon, Paris 1714, audits abridgment 
 by Bahrdt, 1769-1770. A most complete and 
 valuable edition is that bv Mr. Frederick 
 Field: Oxf. 1867-1870 (see Field, HeraHa 
 [1875], xvi-xxvii). The chief questions con- 
 nected with Aquila are discussed bv Mont- 
 faucon, and by Hody (de Bibliorum Textihus 
 Originalibus, Oxf. 1705). rw.p.n.l 
 
 Arohelaus. supposed bp. of Carchar (perhaps 
 Carrhof Harrom in Mesopotamia). A work is 
 attributed to him called Acta Disputalionis 
 Archel. Ep. Mesop. et Manetis haeresiarcJwe. 
 It is extant in a Latin translation from a 
 Greek text, but some think the Greek is 
 derived from a Syriac original. The author 
 
 ARETHAS 
 
 39 
 
 was i>robably (cf. Phot. Cod. 85) a certain 
 Hegemonius. The disputation and Archelaus 
 himself seem to be fictitious ; but the work 
 affords valuable information respecting the 
 Manichean system (cf. Bardcnhewer, 1008, pp. 
 208-260). [h.w.I 
 
 Arethas, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadoria, and 
 Andreas, an earlier archbp. of the same see, 
 are so intimately associated as commentators 
 on the Book of Revelation, and so little 
 known otherwise, that thev may most fitly 
 be noticed together. We have no direct in- 
 formation regarding either, beyond the bare 
 fact of their common connexion with the see 
 of Caesarea. The dates at which they flour- 
 ished can only be inferred approximately, and 
 somewhat vaguely, from incidental notices of 
 persons or of events in their writings. The 
 question has been most fully discussed by 
 Rettig (Die Zeugui'ise des .A ndreas und Arethas 
 . . . in the Theol. Studicn und Kritiken for 
 i'*^.^!. PP- 734 seq.) ; and his conclusions have 
 been very generally accepted. He has shewn 
 by enumerating the succession of bishops in 
 Caesarea that the last 30 or 40 years of the 
 5th cent, may be assigned to Andreas and 
 .\rethas ; and the absence of any reference 
 to later events favours the belief that the 
 work was prepared towards the close of the 
 5th. or in the earlier part of the 6th, cent. 
 
 The commentary of Andreas on the .\po- 
 calypse (entitled 'YjppL-r^vda fi's ttjc ' \voKa\x<\piv^ 
 seems to have been the earliest systematic 
 exposition of the book in the Greek church. 
 The statement of R. Simon, Fabricius, Rosen- 
 miiller, and others, that the work belongs to 
 the class of Catenae, is not borne out either by 
 its form or by the language of the Preface, 
 which simply means that he made use of the 
 materials which he found in the early writers 
 whom he names, and occasionally quoted 
 their expressions (irap' Siv 7]/j.fh woWas Xa^ovres 
 d(popfjids . ■ . Kaflujs Iv TL<n tottois xPVCf^^ 
 ToiTwv irapedifMeOa). He wrote, in compliance 
 with the urgent request of persons who had a 
 greater opinion of his judgment than he had 
 himself, " to unfold the meaning of the Apo- 
 calypse, and to make the suitable application 
 of its predictions to the times that followed 
 it " [dyaTTTV^ai tt)v . . . 'ATroKd\i'^Lv. Kal ro?? 
 HfTo, rrjv ai'Trjs lirTaaiav xpovoi's ((papfioaai to, 
 ■n-po(p-i)T€\<dhTa). His method rests on the 
 distinction of a threefold sense in Scripture 
 — the literal or outward historical (rh ypd/x/xa 
 Kal T) Kar at<jdr)<nv laropia), the tropological or 
 moral (17 Tpo-no\oyia (^ aiffOrjT&f inl to. votjto. 
 6dr]you(Ta rbv dvayifwcrKovra), and the mystical 
 or speculative (17 tuv nfWovrwu Kal ii\l/T)\o- 
 Wpajr dvayuyr) Kal Oeupia) ; the expositor of 
 the Revelation is chiefly concerned with the 
 latter. He divided the text into twenty-four 
 \6yoi corresponding to the four-and-twenty 
 elders, and 72 Kf<pd\aia, according to the 
 threefold distinction of body, soul, and spirit 
 (24x3 = 72). The exposition contains not 
 a little that is of value, but it is full of the 
 fanciful interpretations to which the method 
 gave rise. The paucity of MSS. of the Apo- 
 calypse renders the text which accompanies 
 the commentary of great importance to 
 criticism ; and Bengel was of opinion that the 
 
40 
 
 ARINTHAEUS 
 
 work of Andreas, by directing fresh attention 
 to the book, contributed in no small degree 
 to its more frequent use and transcription. 
 An interesting passage in the Preface, where 
 the writer mentions Papias among the other 
 Fathers whose testimony to the inspiration 
 of the book rendered it superfluous to enlarge 
 on that point, has been much discussed. 
 
 The work of Arethas, again, professes to be 
 a compilation. It is no mere reproduction of 
 the work of his predecessor, although it incor- 
 porates a large portion of the contents of that 
 work, occasionally abridging or modifying the 
 language of Andreas, and often specifying with 
 more precision the sources of his quotations. 
 But it contains much derived from other 
 soiurces, or contributed by Arethas himself. 
 
 The commentary of Andreas was first 
 printed in the form of an imperfect and in- 
 accurate Latin version by Peltanus in 1574. 
 The Greek text was first edited by Sylburg 
 from a collation of three MSS. in 1596, along 
 with a reprint of the Latin version. It has 
 been several times reissued in connexion with 
 the works of Chrysostom. The Greek text of 
 Arethas is presented in its fullest and best 
 form by Cramer (in his Catenae Gk. Patrum in 
 N. T., bxf. 1840) ; whose valuable additions, 
 furnished chiefly by the Codex Baroccianus, 
 exhibit the text in' a shape so different from 
 that previously printed as to make the latter 
 often appear a mere abridgment. [w.p.d.] 
 
 Arinthaeus, a general under Valens, with 
 whom St. Basil corresponds, and from whom 
 he seeks protection for a friend in difficulty 
 {Ep. 179). On his death Basil wTites a letter 
 of consolation to his widow, in which he 
 dwells on his remarkable endowments, his 
 striking personal beauty and strength, as 
 well as his lofty character and renown. Like 
 many others in that age, Arinthaeus, though 
 a devout Christian and a protector of the 
 Church, deferred his baptism till at the point 
 of death {Ep. 269). He was consul in the 
 year 372, and must have died before Basil 
 (a-d. 379)- If the story told by Theodoret 
 {H. E. iv. 30) be true, that he was present and 
 seconded the rebuke administered to Valens 
 by the general Trajan in 378 for his persecu- 
 tion of the Catholics, his death cannot have 
 preceded his friend's by many months. For 
 his mihtary achievements see Tillemont, 
 Empereurs, v. 100. [l.] 
 
 Aristides, of Athens ; mentioned by Euse- 
 bius as having presented to the emperor 
 Hadrian an Apology for the Christians (Hist. 
 Eccl. iv. c. 3). Jerome also (de Vir. III. c. 20, 
 and Ep. 83, ad Magnum) mentions him as 
 an Athenian philosopher and a disciple of 
 Christ ; and says that his Apology, containing 
 the principles of the faith, was well known. 
 But it was lost until, in 1878, the Mechitarists 
 published part of an Armenian translation, the 
 genuineness of which was vindicated by Har- 
 nack in Texte und Untersuch. i. i, 2. But in 
 1 89 1 J. Rendel Harris and J. .\rmitage Robin- 
 son (now Dean of Westminster) published 
 in Texts and Studies, I. i., a complete Syrian 
 translation from the Codex Sinait. Svr. 16, 
 and shewed that the greater part of the 
 Apology was found in Greek in the legend of 
 Barlaam and Josaphat. These texts have 
 been carefully discussed, especially by Seeberg 
 
 ARISTO PELLAEUS 
 
 (in Zahn's Forschungen, V. p. 159, and in an 
 edition published at Erlangen 1894), and it is 
 
 not yet agreed whether the Syrian or the Greek 
 represents the original. It seems clear that 
 the Apology was presented, not to Hadrian, 
 but to Antoninus Pius. The main subject of 
 the Apology, which, in the legend, is supposed 
 
 ; to be addressed by Barlaam to Josaphat, is 
 
 ! that the Christians alone possess the true 
 knowledge of God. The emperor is invited 
 
 [ to consider the conceptions of God among the 
 various races of mankind, Barbarians and 
 Greeks, Jews and Christians ; it is then shewn 
 how the Christians express their belief in their 
 Uves, and an attractive sketch of Christian 
 life is given. The Apology has points of con- 
 
 ; tact with the Preaching of Peter, with the 
 Shepherd, with the Didache, with Justin 
 Marti.T, and particularly with the Ep. to 
 Diognetus. Mention is made of the Incarna- 
 tion of the Son of God through a Hebrew 
 maiden and of Christ's return to judgment. 
 The Apology is thus of an interesting and 
 
 ' original character. Two other fragments 
 exist in Armenian which are ascribed to 
 Aristides, a homily on the cry of the Robber 
 and the answer of the Crucified, and a passage 
 from " a letter to all philosophers," but their 
 genuineness is doubtful, and F. C. Conybeare, 
 in the Guardian, 1894 (July 18), has she\\-n 
 that in the 5th and 7th cent's, literary frauds 
 were often connected with the name of Aris- 
 tides and other names of old Christian 
 literature. [n.w.] 
 
 Aristion, one of the " elders " from whom 
 Papias professed to have derived traditional 
 information (Eus. H. E. iii. 39), and described 
 by him as a personal follower of our Lord. 
 Beyond this, there is no trustworthy infor- 
 mation about him. The Roman Martyrology 
 (p. 102, Ven. 1630), apparently referring to the 
 description just quoted, states on the author- 
 
 , ity of Papias that he was one of the seventy- 
 two disciples of Christ. It commemorates his 
 
 ; mart\Tdom at Salamis in Cyprus on Feb. 22, 
 the same day as that of Papias at Pergamus. 
 Cotelerius conjectures that he may be the 
 Aristo who is given as the first bp. of Smyrna 
 {A post. Const, vii. 45 ; Harnack, Altchr. Lit. 
 i. 64; ConyhczTe, in Expositor, i8g:i). [g.s.] 
 
 Aristo Pellaeus, the supposed author of a 
 lost dialogue between Papiscus and Jason, 
 quoted, without his name, by Origen {cont. 
 CelsHs, iv. 52) and referred to by Eusebius 
 (Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 6, pp. 145, 146) ; by Moses 
 
 ! Chorenensis, in a history of Armenia (bk. ii. 
 c. 57) ; and by Maximus, in his notes on the 
 work de Mystica Theol., ascribed to Dionysius 
 the Areopagite (c. i. p. 17, ed. Corderii) in 
 these words, " I have also read the expression 
 ' seven heavens ' in the dialogue of Papiscus 
 and Jason, composed by Aristo of Pella, 
 which Clemens of Alexandria in the 6th book 
 of his Hypot\-poses says was written by St. 
 Luke." This testimony is the only one con- 
 necting the name of Aristo with the dialogue, 
 and though doubt has been thrown on its 
 trustworthiness by its strange assertion that 
 Clement attributed the work to St. Luke, 
 Maximus is far less likely to be in error when 
 simply giving the name of an author than 
 when repeating another's words. Jason, a 
 
 i Jewish Christian, argues so conclusively that 
 
ARIUS 
 
 the Messianic prophecies arc fullilleil in our 
 id that his opponent, the J e\v Papiscus, begs 
 he baptized. 
 
 We cannot fix the date of this dialogue, 
 
 , ept that it must have been written before 
 
 time of Celsus, i.e. before the middle of 
 
 . 2nd cent. ; and, if .\risto be its author, 
 
 w. see from Eusebius (I.e.) that he lived after 
 
 ilif destruction of Jerusalem. It is referred 
 
 t ' in a pseudo-Cyprianic Ep. Hartd. 0/>/». 
 
 ( \pr. iii. p. 119. If Maximus's information 
 
 be correct, Clement's belief that St. Luke was 
 
 the writer of the Dialogue shews at least that 
 
 it must have been commonly assigned to a 
 
 \ rry early date (Rmith, Rel. Sac. i. cii-ioq ; 
 
 ll.irnack,' .-!//. Chr. Lit. i. 92 95-97). [s.M.] 
 
 Arius ( Aptios) the heresiarch was born in 
 Africa — the locality is disputed — in a.d. 256. 
 l:i his early days he was a pupil of Lucian of 
 Aiitioch, a celebrated Christian teacher, and a 
 martyr for the faith. By some Arius is said 
 ti have derived his heresy from Lucian (see 
 l.iciAN-rs, 12). This statement is made in 
 a letter written by Alexander, bp. of Alex- 
 I andria. to bp. Alexander of Constantinople. 
 The object of the letter is to complain of 
 ! the errors .\rius was then diffusing. The 
 , writer says of Lucian that he lived for 
 many years out of communion with three 
 : bishops (Theod. Eccl. Hist. i. 4). But the 
 ' charge is somewhat vague in itself; it is un- 
 \ supported by other authority, and Alexander's 
 ' language, like that of most controversialists in 
 past days, is not a little violent. Moreover, 
 Lucian is not stated, even by Alexander him- 
 self, to have fallen into the heresy afterwards 
 promulgated by Arius, but is accused generally 
 — rather ad invidiam, it would seem — of 
 heretical tendencies. The question of the exact 
 nature of the relation between the Father 
 ' and the Son had been raised some 50 years 
 before the Nicene controversy arose. Biit the 
 discussion of it at that time had been in- 
 I sufficient and unsatisfying. So far as the 
 I earlier controversy could be said to have been 
 decided, it was decided in favour of the 
 opinions afterwards held bv Arius. But so 
 unsatisfactory was that settlement that the 
 reopening of the question sooner or later was 
 practically unavoidable, especially in an 
 atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alex- 
 andria. The reason of the deposition of 
 Paul of Samosata in a.d. 269 was his 
 agreement with those who had used the 
 word ofiooi'ffiot to express the relation of the 
 Father and the Son. The expression was at 
 I that time thought to have a Sabellian ten- 
 j dency, though, as events shewed, this was 
 on account of its scope not having been satis- 
 factorily defined. In the discussion which 
 I then arose on the question, Dionysius, bp. of 
 I Alexandria, had used much the same language 
 I as Arius afterwards held, and a c )rrcsp()iulence 
 I is extant in wliich Dionysius of Rome blames 
 I his brother of Alexandria for using such lan- 
 guage. Dionysius of Alexandria withdrew, 
 , or perhaps rather explained (see .-Vthan. de 
 I Decret. Syn. Nic. c. 25), the expressions com- 
 
 Clained of, and posterity has been inclined to 
 lame him for vacillation. Whether this accu- 
 ( sation be just or not, it is quite clear that the 
 position in which a question of such supreme 
 importance was left by the action of Dionysius 
 
 ARIUS 41 
 
 could only postpone the controversy, and 
 that its resumption was therefore only a 
 question of time. For the synod of Antioch 
 which condemned Paul of Samosata had ex- 
 pressed its disapproval of the word o^oovaiotin 
 one sense. The bp. (.Alexander) of Alexandria 
 (c. 320) undertook its defence in another. 
 
 The character of Arius has been severely 
 assailed by his opponents. Alexander, bp. of 
 .Alexandria, in a letter to Alexander of Con- 
 j stantinople, describes it in very unfavourable 
 j terms. But in those days it was customary 
 , to mingle personal attacks with religious con- 
 troversies. Arius appears to have been a man 
 of ascetic character, pure morals, and decided 
 convictions. It has been stated that his 
 action was largely the result of jealousy on 
 account of his having been a candidate for 
 the patriarchal throne of Alexandria, when 
 Alexander was elected to it. But the best 
 early authorities arc doubtful on the point. 
 He had no doubt a disproportionate number 
 of female supporters, but there seems no 
 ground for the insinuation of Alexander of 
 Alexandria, in the above-mentioned letter, 
 that these women were of loose morals. 
 There appears, however, more foundation for 
 the charge that -Arius allowed the songs or 
 odes contained in the book called Thalcia — 
 which he wrote after his first condenmation, 
 in order to popularize his doctrine — to be set 
 to tunes which had gross and infamous associa- 
 tions. Nor can he be acquitted of something 
 like a personal canvass of the Christian popu- 
 lation in and around Alexandria in order to 
 further his views. 
 
 The patriarch of Alexandria has also been 
 the subject of adverse criticism for his action 
 against his subordinate. He too, like his pre- 
 decessor Dionysius, has been charged with 
 vacillation in his treatment of Arius. Yet it 
 is difficult to see how he could have acted 
 otherwise than he did. The question, as we 
 have seen, had been left unsettled two gener- 
 ations previously, or, if in any sense it could be 
 said to have been settled, it had been settled 
 in favour of the opponents of the Homoousion. 
 Therefore Alexander allowed the contro\ersy 
 to go on until he felt that it was becoming 
 dangerous to the peace of the church. Then 
 he called a council of bishops (about 100 in 
 number), and sought their advice. They de- 
 cided against Arius. Alexander then delayed 
 no longer. He acted with resolution as well 
 as promptitude, deposed Arius from his office, 
 and repelled both him and his supporters from 
 communion. Then he wrote (the letters are 
 extant) to Alexander of Constantinople and 
 Eusebius of Nicomcdia (where the emperor 
 was then residing), detailing the errors into 
 which Arius had fallen, and complaining of the 
 danger to the Christian church arising from his 
 heresy. It is clear, from Arius's own letter 
 (also extant) to Eusebius of Nicomcdia, that 
 Alexander's charges against Arius were in no 
 way unfair. The question, as the event has 
 shewn, was a vital one, and plainly called for 
 an authoritative decision. Arius taught : (i) 
 that the Logos and the Father were not of the 
 same oiVi'a (essence) ; (2) that the Son was a 
 created being (Krtfffia or Troirj/xa) ; and (3) 
 that though He was the creator of the worlds, 
 and must therefore have existed before them 
 
42 
 
 ARIUS 
 
 and before all time, there was — Arius refused 
 to use such terms as XP^^°^ or aiwv — when He 
 did not exist. The subsequent controversy 
 shews that the absence of the words xp^^os or 
 alcbv was a mere evasion, and that when de- 
 fending himself he argued in just the same 
 manner as though he had used those words. 
 Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had an 
 °-PXV (beginning) ; yet not only Athanasius, 
 but Origen before him, had taught that the 
 relation of the Son to the Father had no 
 beginning, and that, to use Corner's words 
 {Person of Christ, ii. 115), "the generation of 
 the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an 
 eternally continued, act " ; i.e. the Father has, 
 from all eternity, been communicating His 
 Being to the Son, and is doing so still. 
 
 Arius was obviously perplexed by this doc- 
 trine, for he complains of it in his letter to the 
 Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself (see 
 above), had studied under Lucian, in the 
 words, deiyevvri^ ecrriv ; dyevvTjToyevrji icrrlv. It 
 is unquestionably to be lamented that so much 
 stress should have been laid in the contro- 
 versy on words which, when used, not popu- 
 larly, but in metaphysical discussions, had a 
 tendency to confound the eternal generation 
 of the Son with the purely physical process 
 of the generation of men and animals. The 
 latter is a single act, performed at a definite 
 moment in time. The former is a mysterious, 
 eternal pr'^cess, for ever going on. Had the 
 defenders of the Nicene doctrine made more 
 general use of the terra communication of 
 Being, or Essence, they would have made it 
 clearer that they were referring to a continual 
 and unchangeable relation between the First 
 and Second Persons in the Trinity, which bore 
 a very slight analogy indeed to the process 
 which calls inferior creatures into existence. 
 Moreover, Arius contended that the Son was 
 unchangeable (ctrpeTrros). But what he thus 
 gave with the one hand he appears to have 
 taken away with the other. For so far as we 
 can understand his language — on a subject 
 which even Athanasius seems to have admitted 
 to have been bevond his power thoroughlv to 
 comprehend — he taught that the Logos was 
 changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The 
 best authorities consider that he was driven to 
 this concession by the force of circumstances. 
 [See art. Arius, Followers of.] He was 
 doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his 
 fear of falling into Sabellianism [Sabellius], 
 which practically represented the Logos as a 
 sensuous emanation of the Godhead for the 
 purpose of carrying out the work of salvation, 
 or else as a purely subjective human concep- 
 tion of certain aspects of the Divine Being — 
 not as an eternal distinction subsisting objec- 
 tively in the Godhead itself. Arius, while 
 opposing the Sabellian view, was unable to 
 see that his own view had a dangerous ten- 
 dency to bring back Gnosticism, with its long 
 catalogue of aeons. Macedgnics, who had 
 to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of 
 Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the 
 Spirit in much the same light in which the 
 Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Yet 
 Arius undoubtedly derived some support 
 from the dangerous language of Origen, who 
 had ventured to represent the Logos as a 
 
 ARIUS 
 
 bfvrepo^ (or Sevrepiiuv) Oeoi. Origen (see 
 his de Principiis, I. ii. 6, 12) had also made 
 use of expressions which favoured Arius's 
 statement that the Logos was of a different 
 substance tothe Father, and that He owed His 
 existence to the Father's will. But it is not 
 sufficiently remembered that the speculations 
 of Origen should be regarded as pioneer work 
 in theology, and that they were often hazarded 
 in order to stimulate further inquiry rather 
 than to enable men to dispense with it. This 
 explains why, in the Arian, as well as other 
 controversies, the great authority of Origen is 
 so frequently invoked b}' both sides. 
 
 The Christian church had by this time 
 become so powerful a force in the Roman 
 world that Constantine, now sole emperor, 
 found himself unable to keep aloof from the 
 controversy. He was the less able to do so 
 in that he had himself been brought up under 
 Christian influences. [Constantine.1 He 
 therefore sent the venerable Hosius, bp. of 
 Cordova, a man who had suffered cruelly on 
 behalf of his faith, on a mission to Egypt, with 
 instructions to put an end, if possible, to the 
 controversy. But as it continued to rage, 
 Constantine took a step hitherto unprece- 
 dented in Roman history. Republican Rome 
 of course had her free institutions, and the 
 Christian church had been accustomed to 
 determine matters of faith and practice in 
 her local assemblies. But anything like a 
 council of delegates, summoned from all parts 
 of the empire, had been hitherto unknown. 
 Such an assembly Constantine determined to 
 call together. All the secular dioceses into 
 which the empire had been for some time 
 divided, Britain only excepted, sent one or 
 more representatives to the council. The 
 majority of the bishops came from the East, but 
 there was, nevertheless, an imposing display of 
 men of various races and languages. Sylvester 
 of Rome, himself too aged to be present, 
 sent two presbyters as his delegates. The 
 object of the council, it must be remembered, 
 was not to pronounce what the church ought 
 to believe, but to ascertain as far as possible 
 what had been taught from the beginning. It 
 was indeed a remarkable gathering. There 
 was not only as good a representation of race 
 and nationality as was possible under the 
 circumstances, but the ability and intellect of 
 the church were also well represented. There 
 was Eusebius of Nicomedia, the astute poli- 
 tician and man of the world. There was also 
 the renowned Eusebius of Caesarea, a sound 
 theologian, and perhaps the most well-in- 
 formed, careful, impartial, and trustworthy 
 ecclesiastical historian the church has ever 
 possessed. Alexander, patriarch of Alexan- 
 dria, was also a man of mark. And, young as 
 he was, the great Athanasius was already a 
 host in himself, from his clearness of insight 
 into the deepest mysteries of our religion. 
 And beside these there were men present who 
 manifested the power of faith — the brave 
 " confessors," as they were called, whose faces 
 and limbs bore evident traces of the sufferings 
 they had undergone for their Master. Nor 
 could any one object that it was a packed 
 assembly. The emperor did his best to secure 
 an honest selection and an honest decision. 
 
 The council met (325) at Nicaea, in Bithynia, 
 
ARIUS 
 
 ,T t<Mvii (if soino importance, on the Soa of 
 Marmora, near Constaiitiuople. The munberof 
 I'ishops present is variously stated at from 250 
 to 318. But the latter number, as typified 
 by the number of Abraham's servants when 
 he rescued Lot, was generally accepted before 
 the council of Constantinople. No Acts of the 
 council are extant. In the writings of two men 
 .'t note who were present, Athanasius, then a 
 vcmng deacon of about 28 years old, and the 
 already celebrated and learned Eusebius of 
 Caesarea, we have accounts of what hap- 
 pened. Moreover, well-informed and honest, 
 if sometimes more or less inaccurate, historians 
 h.jve studied and handed down documents of 
 i;reat value, bearing on the proceedings. 
 Constantine himself was present at the 
 I council. At first he refused to take part in 
 ' its deUbcrations, or even to take a seat until 
 invited. But he afterwards departed from 
 that humble attitude, if some of our author- 
 ities are to be trusted, and when he found 
 difficulties arising, did his best to remove them 
 liy joining in the discussions. At the outset 
 he administered a well-merited rebuke to the 
 bishops for the spirit in which many of them 
 had come to the council. Producing a num- 
 ber of recriminatory letters from those who 
 were present, he called for a brazier, and burnt 
 them all before the assembly, begging the 
 bishops to lay aside their personal animosities, 
 and to devote themselves whole-heartedly to 
 setting forth the truth. The question next 
 arose, in what form the universal belief of the 
 church from the beginning should be ex- 
 pressed. This, of course, was the crux of the 
 whole situation. Hitherto particular churches 
 had their own forms of creed (ttiVtis) for use 
 at baptisms and in catechetical instruction. 
 There was no substantial difference between 
 them, consisting as they did of a confession of 
 faith in the Trinity, as well as a summary of 
 the main facts recorded in the gospels. But 
 now a dogmatic formula for Christendom had 
 to be drawn up, a task full of difficulty and 
 even of danger. Some few of the bishops, 
 we learn, apparently under the leadership of 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, presented a document 
 so frankly Arian that it was at once torn to 
 pieces by those present, and Arius was ex- 
 communicated by all but Theonas and 
 Secundus. Then, as it seems, the famous 
 scholar and ecclesiastical historian Eusebius 
 of Caesarea intervened, and produced a Pales- 1 
 tinian Creed, which he said he had received 
 from " the bishops before him." He adds 
 that " no one present could gainsay " the 
 orthodoxy of this creed. This statement 
 must, however, be taken with some limita- 
 tions. The Palestinian Creed could only, if 
 accepted, have been accepted as a basis for 
 discussion. It was not ultimately adopted in 
 the shape in which it was propounded, but 
 underwent considerable alteration. The sen- 
 tence ytvvr^OivTo. tK Tov narpos fiovoyevij was 
 made definitely TovrfaTiv (k t^j oi'cri'as tov 
 Harpot. Further on, the words bfj-oouaiov tu> 
 Warpl were added after the words " be- 
 gotten, not made." And the word ivavdpijnrr)- 
 ffavTa, which means rather more than " made 
 man," and implies an intimate association of 
 the Godhead with the Manhood, was added 
 
 ARIUS 
 
 43 
 
 after "was Incarnate" (i.e. n\M\v flesh — 
 ; (xapKuO^vTa—a phrase which was felt to be 
 insutVicient and even misleading by itself). 
 The anathema which was also added embraces 
 I those who deny that the Son and the Father 
 were of one ovala or vir6eTa<m, as well as 
 I those who say that there was a time when the 
 Son did not exist, or that He was created from 
 nothing, or that He was liable to change or 
 alteration. At this stage of the controversy the 
 words otV/a (essence) and virdaraais (substance) 
 were used as synonymous. It will be seen 
 [art. Arius, Followers of] that Basil and the 
 Gregories afterwards wrung from Athanasius 
 a concession on this point. Athanasius had 
 warmly attacked Arius for asserting that there 
 were three hypostases in the Trinity. But at 
 the later date it was agreed that the word 
 otVi'a might be used to denote what was 
 common to all three Persons, and i'Tr6(7ra(Tis 
 to denote the distinctions (which wc call Per- 
 sons) between them. For the present, however, 
 any distinction between ovala. and virdnraan 
 was considered heretical. The council then 
 broke up, after having addressed a letter to 
 the churches in and around .Mexandria. 
 Constantine issued a circular letter to the same 
 eflfect. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus were de- 
 posed and banished, while three other bishops, 
 who had displayed leanings toward Arius, 
 namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of 
 Nicaea itself, and Maris of Chalcedon, a city 
 on the Asiatic shore opposite Constantinople, 
 were unwilling signatories of the document, 
 but affixed their signatures in deference to the 
 emperor's wishes. Eusebius of Caesarea de- 
 scribes himself, in a letter to some Arians who 
 had accused him of tergiversation, as having 
 demurred to the changes in the creed which 
 he had himself presented, but as having finally 
 accepted them in the interests of peace (Theod. 
 H. E. i. 12, from Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic). 
 That the apparent unanimity of the coimcil 
 (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being 
 the only dissentients) covered a considerable 
 amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. 
 Doubts of the wisdom of employing a term 
 which had been rejected at an important 
 council as savouring of Sabellianism weighed 
 on the minds of many who had submitted. 
 Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by 
 many later writers as having coquetted with 
 Arianism. But his moderate attitude through- 
 out the period which followed proves that his 
 objections to the decision, which he allowed 
 his love of peace to overrule, were more owing 
 to the dread of possible consequences than 
 to the decision in itself. Though a man of 
 ability, learning, and honesty, he was timorous 
 withal, and desirous to stand well with the 
 powers that be. And his allusion to the pro- 
 ceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned 
 shews that his apprehensions were not alto- 
 gether unreasonable. For he remarks how it 
 was elicited after considerable discussion at 
 the council that the term ofxoovaLOv was not 
 intended to signify that the Son formed an 
 actual portion [fxipos] of the Father. That 
 would have been Sabellianism pure and simple, 
 a danger against which it was necessary to 
 guard. And much of the dissension to which 
 the adoption of the creed of Nicaea led was 
 
44 
 
 ARIUS 
 
 due to this very natural apprehension. But 
 Eusebius emphatically condemned the lan- 
 guage of Arius, and there is no reason whatever 
 to suspect his sincerity in so doing. On the 
 other hand, Athanasius was convinced— and 
 the event proves that he was right — that un- 
 less the Essence of the Son was definitely 
 understood to be the same as that of the 
 Father, it would inevitably follow that the 
 Sc>n would at best be no more than the highest 
 of a series of Gnostic aeons. As to Eusebius 
 of Nicomedia, it is clear that Constantine 
 found some reason to suspect his sincerity, as 
 well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon 
 after included them in the sentence pro- 
 nounced on Arius. Philostorgius says that 
 Secundus and Theonas predicted that this 
 would happen when they themselves had been 
 sentenced to banishment. Possibly expressions 
 fell from them in the heat of argument which 
 led Constantine to the conclusion that their 
 submission was not genuine. 
 
 It must be confessed that the Nicene settle- 
 ment, though necessary in itself and satis- 
 factory in the end, was at least premature. 
 The controversy recommenced as soon as the 
 decrees were promulgated. When Alexander 
 died at Alexandria in 327, the election of 
 Athanasius in his place was only secured 
 in the face of violent opposition from the 
 Arianizing faction. Soon after, Eusebius of 
 Nicomedia was reinstated in his see, after 
 having written a diplomatic letter to the 
 emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in 
 Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, 
 after having made a somewhat disingenuous 
 recantation. So astute a politician as the 
 Nicomedian Eusebius was not long before he 
 regained his influence with the emperor, and 
 then began a series of intrigues which led to 
 a complete reversal of the position of the 
 contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, 
 one of the staunchest adherents of Athana- 
 sius, was the first victim. The question 
 of heterodoxy was skilfully kept in the back- 
 ground, and a number of false and odious 
 personal charges were trumped up against 
 him by men and women of abandoned lives. 
 If Theodoret is to be trusted, one of the 
 women aforesaid, when seized by a serious 
 illness, retracted her accusation in a remark- 
 ably sensational manner. But the other his- 
 torians (Socrates and Sozomen) are reticent 
 about the nature of the charges, and only tell 
 us that Eustathius had been unfortunate 
 enough to get involved in a controversy 
 with Eusebius PamphiU (of Caesarea). Eusta- 
 thius was at once ejected from his see, and 
 was regarded by the emperor as having been 
 the cause of the riot his expulsion excited 
 among the people, with whom Eustathius was 
 a favourite. Marcellus of Ancyra was the 
 next victim. He had all along been the friend 
 and champion of Athanasius. But unfor- 
 tunately he was not at home in the thorny 
 paths of metaph^'sical theology, and found it 
 impossible to defend the Nicene decisions 
 without falling into Sabellianism. There was 
 no need, therefore, for the Arianizers to bring 
 personal charges against him. Accordingly 
 few, if any such, were brought. He was 
 charged, and quite fairly, with Sabellianism. 
 On this point Eusebius Pamphili came safely to 
 
 ARIUS 
 
 the front, and wrote strongly against Marcellus, 
 while the latter sturdily defended himself. 
 The actual condemnation of Marcellus was 
 deferred till 336, and in the meantime Eusebius 
 of Nicomedia had commenced proceedings 
 against the only rival he really dreaded, 
 Athanasius himself. He had, as we have seen, 
 contrived the restoration of Arius to the 
 emperor's favour by inducing the latter to 
 write an insincere retractation, and when the 
 emperor, deceived by this manoeuvre, laid his 
 commands on Athanasius to readmit Arius 
 to communion, Athanasius, naturally, pleaded 
 reasons of conscience against doing so. Then 
 the storm burst forth in all its fulness. The 
 accusations of treason against the emperor 
 and the insinuations that the patriarch wished 
 to set up an empire of his own against or 
 above the supreme authority of the divine 
 Augustus had certainly some effect on the 
 mind of Constantine. Charges were made 
 of sacrilege, tyranny, magic, mutilation, 
 murder, of immorality (as some allege), and, 
 worst of all in the emperor's eyes, of raising 
 funds for treasonable objects. They were in- 
 vestigated (if the scenes of violence and passion 
 which took place can be termed an investiga- 
 tion) at a synod of 150 bishops at Tyre (335). 
 The triumphant vindication of himself by 
 Athanasius at that council, the dramatic 
 scenes with which that vindication, according 
 to some historians, was accompanied, and the 
 equally dramatic appeal from his accusers to 
 Constantine himself in the streets of Con- 
 stantinople (which all the accounts describe 
 as having taken place), belong rather to the 
 history of Athanasius than of Arius. [Athan- 
 asius.] Suffice it to say that the bold and 
 decisive action, backed by innocence, of the 
 great archbishop only succeeded in deferring 
 his fall. The synod of Tj're had already 
 issued a condemnation while he was on his 
 way to Constantinople in order to appeal to 
 the emperor. The emperor, for the moment, 
 was struck and touched by the appeal and 
 by the commanding personality of Athan- 
 asius. But Eusebius proved ultimately to be 
 master of the situation. With consummate 
 dexterity the wily tactician, with the aid of 
 Theognis and Maris, his old associates, as well 
 as of the arch-intriguers Ursacius and Valens, 
 of whom we shall hear so much in the next 
 article, contrived that the old charges of 
 ecclesiastical offences should be dropped, and 
 that fresh charges of interference with the 
 secular affairs of the empire should be sub- 
 stituted for them. Accordingly, Athanasius 
 was now charged with detaining the corn 
 which was ordered to be sent from Egypt to 
 Constantinople. The artifice succeeded. Con- 
 stantine was weary of the strife. His only 
 object had been the settlement of the question. 
 The shape which that settlement took was to 
 him a secondary matter. He had, as he him- 
 self tells us (see his letters to Alexander and 
 Arius in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius 
 Pamphili), a strong objection to idle and word- 
 splitting discussions, private or public, and 
 considered them unnecessary and unprofitable. 
 The measures he had been persuaded to take 
 at Nicaea had not produced the effect which 
 he had expected from them. So, like other 
 despots in a similar position, he turned fiercely 
 
ABtCS 
 
 ■ ■n those who had induced him to adopt tlu-iii. 
 riiat it was Atliaiiasiiis wlio had advocated the 
 iiRMSiires whidi had so palpably failed needed 
 no deiuonstratiou. So he was exiled to Trier 
 ( rrcves), after a number of leading; bishops 
 had been assembled at Constantinople to try 
 him, and Alexander of Constantinople was 
 
 ■ ■rdered to receive Arius back into church 
 ..>minunion. But Ciod had otherwise or- 
 dained. Alexander was in dire perplexity. 
 He dared not disobey the command, neither 
 dare he obey it. In his extremity lie asked the 
 prayers of the orthodox that either he or Arius 
 might be removed from the world before 
 the latter was admitted to communion. The 
 praver was, we must admit, a strange one. 
 But even tiibbon records the incident as a fact, 
 though he makes it the occasion for one of his 
 characteristic gibes at Christianity and Christ- 
 ians. Meanwhile, as the historian Socrates 
 tells us, Arius was ordered to appear before the 
 emperor, and asked whether he was willing to 
 sign the Nicene decrees. He replied, without 
 hesitation, that he was ready to do so. Asked 
 whether he would confirm his signature by an 
 oath, he agreed to do this also. This last fact 
 Socrates declares {H. E. i. 38) that he had 
 verified by an inspection of the imperial 
 archives. The very day before the one ap- 
 pointed for his readmission to communion, 
 Arius died suddenly, and in a most remark- 
 able manner. Whether his death can be 
 described as a miracle or not may be dis- 
 puted. It seems preferable to attribute it to 
 natural causes. But that the event was one 
 of the numerous occasions in history when we 
 are compelled to recognize a Divine inter- 
 position can hardly be doubted. The extra- 
 ordinary occurrence made a vast impression 
 throughout Christendom. The heresiarch 
 had only been able to obtain the decree for 
 readmission to communion by a feigned 
 adherence to the Nicene symbol. His posi- 
 tion was, therefore, in the eyes of Christendom 
 one of gross and palpable deception — nothing 
 less than an act of glaring and defiant impiety. 
 Socrates tells us that in his time, a century 
 afterwards, the place where he died was still 
 pointed out. Athanasius himself describes 
 the incident (d^ Morte Arii). There are there- 
 fore few facts in history more fully attested. 
 The tragic death of Arius, followed as it was a 
 year later by that of Constantine himself, led 
 to a temporary lull in the controversy. The 
 sequel will be found in the next article. 
 
 Bibliography. — (i) Ancient. The writings 
 of Athanasius generally, especially his de In- 
 carnatioue Verbi Dei and de Decretis Synodi 
 Nicenae; the Vita Constantini of Eusebius 
 Pamphili; and the ecclesiastical histories of 
 Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Of these 
 the first is the best, though the documents 
 cited at length by Theodoret are valuable. 
 English translations of these authors, save of 
 quite recent date, are by no means implicitly 
 to be trusted, especially as to metaphysical 
 terms. The ecclesiastical history of Philo- 
 storgius, which would give us the Arian point 
 of view, is unfortunately only known to 
 us through a hostile epitome by Photius, 
 patriarch of Constantinople in 9th cent. 
 
 (2) Of comparatively modern works the 
 church histories of Neander and Gieseler 
 
 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 45 
 
 cont.iin very valuable informalii>ii, as does 
 also Dorners learned and impartial treatise 
 On the Person of Christ. Bp. Martenscn's 
 History of Christian Doginatics is also valuable ; 
 Ciibboii's Decline and Fall is useful in giving 
 us the secular view of the period. Bp. Kaye's 
 Council of Xicaca will be found worth reading. 
 De Broglie's L'Eglise et I'Emf^ire romain au 
 IV' sic-cle is full of information. Newman's 
 .irians of the Fourth Century is marred by some 
 prejudices and prept)Ssessions. Dean Stanley's 
 acct)unt of the Nicene council in his Eastern 
 Church will be found more picturesque than 
 accurate. Prof. Gwatkin's Studies of Arian^ 
 ism is, as its title implies, rather a series 
 of sketches than a detailed history, but 
 contains a vast amount of original research, 
 illuminated by flashes of insight into the char- 
 acters and motives of the principal actors in 
 the controversy, and gives an exhaustive bib 
 liography. His Arian Controversy is a brief 
 summary for popular use. There is a valuable 
 article in Texts and Studies, vol. vii. (1901), by 
 Mr. Bethune Baker on "The Meaning of Homo- 
 ousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed." His 
 Introduction to the Early Hist, of Christian 
 Doctrine (1903) will be found useful, as will the 
 art. " Arianism" in Hastings's Encyd. of Re- 
 ligion and Ethics, i. (1908). Harnack, Wj's/. 0/ 
 Dogma (Hng. trans. 1894-1899), gives the 
 modern C.erman view. [j-J-L.] 
 
 Arius, Followers of. After the deaths of 
 Arius and Constantine we enter on a tangled 
 web of controversy which lasted from a.d. 336 
 to 381, when the question was finally decided 
 by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed at the 
 council of Constantinople. This period of 
 confusion is due to the change of conditions 
 under which the contest was carried on. For 
 a time the division of the empire between 
 three Augusti contributed an additional ele- 
 ment of uncertainty to the conflict. Yet when 
 the deaths of the j-ounger Constantine and his 
 brother Constans left the whole empire for 
 eleven years in the hands of Constantius, 
 matters were scarcely less involved. Con- 
 stantius, though by no means devoid of 
 ability, as his success in maintaining his un- 
 divided authority against such rebellions as 
 those of Magnentius and Vetranio proves, was 
 far inferior to his father in clearness of vision 
 and breadth of aim. The great Constantine 
 himself was not altogether inaccessible to 
 flattery and family influences. His sister 
 Constantia is credited with having prevailed 
 upon him to allow Eusebius of Nicomedia and 
 Arius to return from exile. But her influence 
 was still more strongly felt in the next reign, 
 and after the death of the astute and able 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, mere intriguers, such 
 as Ursacius and Valens, and even the worth- 
 less eunuchs about the court, were able to 
 persuade the emperor into unreasonable and 
 tortuous courses, of which jealousy of the 
 great Athanasius formed in reality the secret 
 motive. Amid all the distractions of the 
 time, three main stages may be marked in the 
 progress of the controversy. The first con- 
 sisted of the six years between the death of 
 Constantine and the council of Sardica (343)- 
 During this period the attitude of all the 
 various parties save those who adhered to 
 the Nicene symbol is most perplexing, and 
 
46 ARiUS, FOLLOWERS OF 
 
 the changes of opinion most bewildering. 
 Court intrigue occupies a prominent place in 
 the history. Yet it gradually became clear, as 
 far as tlie march of opinion was concerned, 
 that the West was irrevocably attached to 
 the views of Athanasius, while in the East 
 opinion was divided and variable, and the 
 court influence grew more decisive on the 
 progress of events in proportion as the power 
 of Constantius increased. The second period 
 was that between the councils of Sardica and 
 Ariminum (Rimini, in Italy) in 359, during 
 which opinion was gradually setthng down into 
 three distinct forms, which may be roughly de- 
 scribed as the orthodox, the semi-Arian, and 
 the Arian view. The last period, that between 
 359 and 3S1, is that during which Homoean- 
 ism and Anomoeanism (see below) became 
 gradually discredited, while Homoiousians and 
 orthodox approximated by degrees, until the 
 final victory of the Nicene symbol at Con- 
 stantinople. The ferment of opinion may be 
 gauged by the fact that the historian Socrates 
 gives no less than ten forms of creed — eleven 
 if we count that presented at Nicaea by Euse- 
 bius of Caesarea — which were produced at 
 various councils in hope of settling the con- 
 troversy. But the Nicenes remained firmly 
 attached to the creed of Nicaea, while their 
 opponents were divided into three groups — the 
 Anomoeans, or Arians proper, who taught the 
 unlikeness of the nature of the Son to that of 
 the Father ; the Homoeans, who believed the 
 Son's nature to bear only a general resem- 
 blance to that of the Father; and the Homoi- 
 ousians, who believed in the similarity (but 
 not the identity) of the essence of the Son to 
 that of the Father. These last are also called 
 semi-Arians. 
 
 The first important step in the history of 
 the controversy after the death of Arius 
 was the return of Athanasius to his diocese 
 (337) permitted by Constantine II., in 
 whose division of the empire Egypt lay. 
 But he was not suffered to remain long un- 
 molested. In 340 Constantine II. died, and 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest of Athan- 
 asius's antagonists, contrived to get himself 
 removed to Constantinople after the death of 
 the bishop, Alexander. His proximity to the 
 emperor secured to him the leading influence 
 in affairs ecclesiastical. The orthodox party 
 had elected Paul as their bishop, but Eusebius 
 contrived to get this election annulled, and 
 to secure the vacant post for himself. He 
 " left no stone unturned," as the historian 
 Socrates puts it, to overthrow one whom he 
 had long regarded as a rival. A council was 
 assembled at Antioch (33S-339), in which the 
 old charges were revived against Athanasius, 
 and which confirmed his sentence of deposi- 
 tion from his see. Athanasius was expelled 
 in the spring of 339 ; and after a third Eusebius 
 (afterwards bp. of Emesa), a man of principle 
 and character, had declined to take his place, 
 one Gregory was appointed, who speedily 
 became unpopular in consequence of his 
 violence and cruelty. Eusebius Paraphili of 
 Caesarea, who would undoubtedly, had he 
 survived, have been a moderating force, died 
 about this time, and was succeeded hy Acacius, 
 who played a prominent part in the sub- 
 sequent proceedings, but lacked the special 
 
 ARlUS, FOLLOWERS OF 
 
 knowledge of Church history, as well as the 
 experience and judgment, of his celebrated 
 predecessor. Athanasius fled to Rome, and 
 thus brought its bishop Julius on the scene. 
 Julius acted with spirit and discretion. He 
 summoned a synod of 50 bishops of the 
 West, who annulled the deposition of 
 Athanasius, and acquitted him of all the 
 charges against him. He further trans- 
 mitted to Antioch a strong remonstrance 
 against the inconsistency and unfairness of 
 the proceedings at the council held there. 
 The Eastern bishops, however, were not to be 
 deterred from their course by his representa- 
 tions. At the council held at the dedication 
 (encaenia) of a church at Antioch in 341, the 
 sentence on Athanasius was confirmed, and 
 after the rejection of a creed of distinctly 
 Arian tendencies, a new creed, either com- 
 posed by Lucian the Martyr or by his disciple 
 Asterius, was brought forward as a substitute 
 for the symbol of Nicaea. It rejected the 
 expression bixoovcriov, but it as emphatically 
 rejected Arianism by declaring the Son to be 
 unchangeable and unalterable, and by adding 
 that He was " the Image of the essence, 
 the power, the will, and the glory of the 
 Father." But Eusebius had not thrown over 
 the symbol of Nicaea for such a halting sub- 
 stitute as this. On the other hand, Athan- 
 asius did not fail to point out that the language 
 of the creed of Lucian was not more that of 
 Scripture than was the language of the creed 
 of Nicaea. The court party, whose object 
 was simply to produce a formula which would, 
 as they thought, meet. the emperor's views by 
 putting a stop to controversy, endeavoured to 
 force another creed on the council, but in vain. 
 This additional creed was a compromise pure 
 and simple, enshrining no truth, although in 
 form corresponding as nearly to the Nicene 
 formula as possible. Its supporters then put 
 the document into the hands of Constans, 
 emperor of the West, who had demanded the 
 assembling of another general council. The 
 West had been roused by the proceedings at 
 Antioch, and Constantius, now engaged in a 
 war with Persia, dared not refuse. The able 
 leader of the dissentients, however, Eusebius 
 of Nicomedia, was now dead, and the leader- 
 ship had fallen into the hands of Ursacius 
 and Valens, who were mere opportunists. To 
 their dismay and that of their party, it was 
 settled that the council should be held at 
 Sardica, in Dacia, just within the limits of the 
 Western empire. Thither, in 343, the de- 
 puties repaired. But the courtiers perceived 
 that there was no chance whatever of forcing 
 their views upon a phalanx consisting, as it 
 is now thought, of about 100 Western bishops 
 devoted to the decisions of Nicaea. So they 
 left Sardica in haste, and betook themselves 
 to Philippopolis, a city just across the Eastern 
 border. There, after declaring that the de- 
 crees of one council cannot be revised by 
 another, they began inconsistently to revise 
 the decrees of former councils, and to hurl 
 charges against the venerated Fathers of the 
 West, Hosius and Juhus. The Westerns at 
 Sardica, meanwhile, had once more acquitted 
 Athanasius and his alhes, and had rejected the 
 Eastern formulae, as leaning to the Gnostic 
 doctrine of successive emanations from the 
 
ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 
 
 source of all being. Tho proceedings at 
 Fhiiippopulis and the outrageous conduct of 
 Stephen, then patriarch of Antioch, gave 
 offence even in the East, and the decision of 
 : the Western bishops to hold no communion 
 I with their Eastern brethren while the existing 
 state of things lasted produced a reaction. 
 j Another council was held at Antioch, and a 
 ' new and more conciliatory creed, usually 
 I called naKfidcTTixoi, from its exceeding length, 
 ! was substituted for the Lucianic document. 
 As Constans pressed for the restoration of 
 Athanasius, and Constantius had the war 
 with Persia still on hand, the latter gave way, 
 the more readily because Gregory the intruder 
 was now dead (345). Constantius summoned 
 Athanasius to his presence, and after a friendly 
 interview dismissed him, and wrote three 
 letters, one to the bishops and clergy in 
 Egypt, one to the laity, and one to the 
 governors of provinces, explaining that it was 
 his will that Athanasius should be allowed to 
 return in peace to his flock. But when he 
 demanded of Athanasius that he should allow 
 the use of one church to the Arians in Alex- 
 andria, the latter preferred a request in his 
 turn that the same thing should be done in 
 cities where the Arians were in possession — 
 a request which Constantius did not deem 
 it prudent to grant. Athanasius therefore, 
 unfettered by conditions, returned (346) to 
 Alexandria, and the people, wearied of Arian 
 violence and cruelty, received him with the 
 warmest demonstrations of joy. 
 j Peace was thus restored for the moment, 
 but it endured only so long as Constantius 
 was occupied with foreign war and intestine 
 strife. It is noteworthy that the restless 
 intriguers, Ursacius and Valens, found it 
 prudent just at present to repair to Rome and 
 make friends with Julius and the West. 
 Socrates {H. E. ii. 37) remarks on their dis- 
 position to identify themselves with the 
 1 strongest side. But permanent peace was 
 I impossible until the questions at issue had 
 ; been fully threshed out. As soon as Constans 
 (350) was dead, and Magnentius, the usurper, 
 defeated and slain (353), the strife recom- 
 ! menced. For ten years Athanasius had 
 , remained undisturbed at Alexandria, but 
 I premonitory signs of the eruption which 
 I was soon to burst forth had long been dis- 
 1 cernible. On the one hand the Easterns were 
 beginning to substitute the semi- Arian doctrine 
 ' of the likeness {o/xoioixnos) of the Son to the 
 I Father for the vaguer conception of the 
 ■ more moderate Arians of the earlier period. 
 : On the other hand, the wnlikeness of the 
 ' Son to the Father was more boldly and de- 
 fiantly pressed by the holders of that doctrine, 
 and by degrees a sect, which almost reducecl 
 I Christ to the level of a mere man, appeared 
 ' on the scene. The chief exponents of this 
 ! doctrine were Aetius and Euzoius. The 
 i Anomoeans now began to separate themselves 
 ! more definitely from the orthodox. All this 
 was not without its effect on Constantius, 
 whose sole object, like that of most poli- 
 ticians, was to avoid dissensions. When the 
 tide turned, Ursacius and Valens were ready, 
 as usual, with suggestions. But he could not 
 at once take the steps they urged. New wars 
 confronted him, and the attitude of the West 
 
 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 
 
 47 
 
 was decidedly disijuii tiiij;. Tlu> Western 
 church had found a ntw champion in 
 Hilaryof Poictiers (HilariusPictavensis), wlu)se 
 ability, learning, and high character were 
 recognized by his own contemiioraries. Con- 
 stantius shewed his sense of his abilities 
 by exiling liini, as well as l.iberius, bp. of 
 Rome, who had succeeded Julius (355). Early 
 in 356 the imperial troops burst into the 
 cathedral at Alexandria to seize Athanasius, 
 who was at prayer with his flock. It was 
 night, and Athanasius almost miraculously 
 escaped in the tumult, and remained secreted 
 for some time. From his undiscovered re- 
 treat he issued numerous letters and treatises, 
 by which he kept up the courage of his 
 adherents. His Arian successor, one George, 
 did not venture to set foot in Alexandria till 
 a year after the departure of Athanasius, 
 and his atrocious cruelties soon made him 
 hated as well as feared by the populace. 
 
 Meanwhile the court intriguers resumed their 
 activity. Sirmium, in Slavonia, between the 
 Save and the Drave, now takes the place of 
 Antioch in the matter of creed-making. A 
 creed had already been issued thence in 351 
 against Sabellianism. In the latter part of 
 357 the emperor was in residence there, and 
 Ursacius and Valens naturally took the oppor- 
 tunity of renewing their mischievous activity. 
 A second creed was promulgated there, in 
 which the difference between the Father and 
 the Son was strongly insisted upon ; the 
 Father and the Son were declared to be two 
 Persons {wpdauwa), and the use of the words 
 ovala and inroffTacis, as applied to God's 
 nature, was condemned, as not warranted by 
 Scripture. The intriguers no doubt imag- 
 ined that, as the supporters of the Nicene 
 formula were in exile, they could give no 
 further trouble, and that the line of least 
 resistance would be to come to an arrangement 
 with the Arian (Anomocan) party. But 
 events proved them utterly wrong. The re- 
 sult was just the opposite : to convert the 
 moderates into a distinctly semi-Arian party, 
 laying especial stress on the likeness of tlie 
 Son's essence (biJ^oiovaiov) to that of the Father, 
 instead of minimizing the likeness, as the 
 Homoeans had done. The Homoiousians 
 thus began to lean to the orthodox side, while 
 the Homoeans inclined more and more to 
 those who denied even the likeness of the Son's 
 essence to that of the Father. Hilary now 
 (359) intervened with his de Synodis, in which 
 he reviewed the action of previous councils, 
 and defended the Nicene Creed, yet in such a 
 way as he thought best calculated to win back 
 the semi-Arians (or Homoiousians) to the 
 orthodox camp. This treatise marks the 
 stage in the controversy in which semi- 
 Arianism began definitely to separate itself 
 from its doubtful allies, and to draw towards 
 union with the orthodox party. Hilary, it 
 may be added, admits the force of scmie semi- 
 Arian objections to the word bfxoovauiv, and 
 suggests certain express limitations of its 
 meaning. Two other creeds of considerable 
 length, one of them provided with innumerable 
 anathemas, were draw^n up at Sirmium. The 
 last of these, commonly known as the dated 
 creed (359), was ridiculed by .•\tlianasius for 
 
48 
 
 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF 
 
 its pompous opening, and for its assumption 
 that the Catholic faith had, at the date given, 
 been proclaimed for the first time. It is 
 clear, he adds, from their own confession, 
 that theirs is a new faith, not the old one. 
 
 We now enter upon the last stage of the con- 
 troversy. It is marked by the first attempt to 
 make a distinction between ovaia and inroaraais 
 — terms which had hitherto been regarded as 
 svnonymous — and to use the former as in- 
 dicating the nature which is common to beings 
 of the same order, while the latter was used 
 to express the diversities between these pos- 
 sessors of a common nature. The word ouj-ia 
 was used to indicate the Divine Nature, 
 while VTroj-TaaLS was henceforth used by the 
 Greeks of the Persons in the Trinity. (It 
 should, however, be observed that substantia 
 remained the Latin equivalent of ovaia.) 
 The first to press this use of language 
 was Basil of Ancyra, at a council he had 
 called to protest against the proceedings at 
 Sirmium. He defends the new use of the 
 word vwdcTTaais in an able minute he issued, 
 criticizing the proceedings at Sirmium, by 
 pointing out that a word was needed — and it 
 must be neither ovcria nor apxv — to denote the 
 underlying and definitely existing {virapxova-as) 
 distinctions {idLOTjjras) of the Persons (irpocruj- 
 TTWv) ; and he acutely remarks that if ocaia 
 was a term not to be found in Scripture, the 
 Godhead was indicated there by the words 
 6 wf. In the end, this new and more careful use 
 of words completely revolutionized the situa- 
 tion. Henceforth the semi- Arians as a body not 
 only laboured for an understanding with the 
 orthodox, but also drew still more markedly 
 apart from the Homoeans and Anomoeans. 
 The calling of a new council in the same year at 
 Rimini (Ariminum) in Italy brought these new 
 tendencies very plainly to light. Constantius, 
 finding it impossible to lay down a common 
 basis for action between the East and the 
 West, commanded the Eastern bishops to 
 meet at Seleucia in Cilicia, a mountain fortress 
 near the sea. Sozomen tells us that the 
 reason for calling this council was the growing 
 influence of Anomoeanism through the in- 
 fluence of Aetius. The Western bishops, who 
 numbered more than 200, had no scruples in 
 the matter. They boldly deposed Ursacius 
 and Valens, who had been sent to bring them 
 to submission, and as boldly reaffirmed the 
 Nicene symbol, and they sent a deputation 
 of 20 bishops to the emperor to defend their 
 action. He was, however, (or pretended to 
 be) too busy to see them. The Easterns 
 were still inclined to hesitate. The semi- 
 Arian majority desired to accept the Nicene 
 Creed, with the omission of the obnoxious 
 ofj.oova-Lov. The Homoeans, under the leader- 
 ship of Acacius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
 condemned the expressions 6iJ.ooi'taiov and 
 ofxaLouffiov , but anathematized the expression 
 a.v6/j.oiov. " The Acacian [Homoean] party " 
 (Socr. H. E. ii. 40) "affirmed that the Son was 
 like the Father as respected His will only, 
 and not in His substance or essence." And 
 they tendered yet another creed in accordance 
 with these views, which the council rejected, 
 and deposed those who had tendered it. 
 
 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 
 
 Among those who were present at this council 
 were men so diverse as the hated tyrant 
 George of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poictiers, 
 still exiled from his diocese. Meanwhile, Ur- 
 sacius and Valens were engaged in the con- 
 genial task of endeavouring to persuade the 
 deputies from Ariminum to sign yet another 
 creed at Nike in Thrace, in the hope, if some 
 authorities are to be trusted, of making the 
 world believe, from the similarity of names, 
 that it was the renowned document promul- 
 gated at the Nicene council. But this was 
 surely an impossibility. The Nicene symbol 
 was far too well known to the Christian world. 
 .\thanasius now intervened from his retreat, 
 and wrote his famous treatise de Synodis, 
 in which he reviewed the creeds and acts 
 of the various councils. But he assumed no 
 non-possumus attitude. He had even seemed 
 inclined, for a moment, to admit the ortho- 
 doxy of the expression 6/j.oio6cnoy. But in this 
 treatise he points out (c. 41) that though brass 
 is like gold, tin like iron, and the dog like the 
 wolf, yet they are of different natures, and no 
 one could call the wolf the offspring of the 
 dog. Nevertheless, he still endeavours to 
 bridge over the gulf between himself and the 
 semi-Arians. 
 
 These two councils were the final turning- 
 point of the controversy. It had clearly 
 appeared that, whenever the Nicene defini- 
 tions had been rejected, Anomoeanism, which 
 was Arianism in a more definite philosophical 
 shape, came once more to the front, and this 
 fact was increasingly seen to point to the 
 Nicene symbol as the only safe way out of the 
 difiiculty. Henceforth the secular authority 
 might retard, but it could not prevent, the 
 victory of Athanasius and his followers. From 
 this moment (see Socr. H. E. ii. 22) the 
 Western churches definitely renounced com- 
 munion with those of the East. The episode 
 of Meletius of Antioch (not to be confounded 
 with Meletius of Egypt^ shewed plainly which 
 way events were tending. He had been 
 elected patriarch of Antioch by the Homoean 
 party. But in his inaugural speech he frankly 
 confessed his Nicene leanings, and when a 
 busy archdeacon rushed up and closed his 
 mouth, he continued by gestures to affirm 
 what he had previously affirmed by his voice. 
 Meletius was promptly banished, but before 
 the year (361) was over Constantius was dead. 
 The action of his successor Julian, who had 
 renounced Christianity, gave a still further 
 impulse to the policy of conciliation. As 
 between heathenism and Christianity, impar- 
 tiality cannot certainly be predicated of him. 
 But he was impartial enough in his hostility 
 to Christians of all shades of opinion. This 
 threw them, for the time, into one another's 
 arms. True, when the external pressure was 
 removed, the suspicions and jealousies, as is 
 commonly the case, broke out afresh. But 
 none the less had an impulse been given 
 towards union which henceforth never ceased 
 to be felt. The oppressor George had been 
 expelled from Alexandria by a rising of the 
 populace as early as 358. In 361, on his 
 return to Alexandria, he was seized and 
 murdered by his exasperated flock. The edict 
 of Julian (361) permitting the return of the 
 exiles left the way open to Athanasius to rejoin 
 
AMUS, FOLLOWERS OF 
 
 his i>.-'>j)k-. He at ouce (362) sumiiionod a 
 council, ill which Maccdonianism [Mackdo- 
 Niusj, ail oflshoot from Arianisin which applied 
 the same line of argument to the Holy Spirit 
 which had previously been applied to the Son, 
 was condemned as well as Arianisin. But 
 Athanasius was wise and liberal enough to 
 make overtures to the semi-Arians. Three 
 men almost worthv to stand on a level with 
 Athanasius himself had appeared among the 
 Eastern bishops — men who were capable of 
 negotiating on equal terms with that great 
 and prescient theologian. These were Basil, 
 afterwards bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
 his brother Gregory, bp. of Nyssa, and the 
 brilliant orator, poet, and thinker Grkgory 
 OF Nazianzus, who was the intimate friend 
 of both. These men had some opinions in 
 common with the less extreme members of the 
 semi-.Arian party, and were therefore quite 
 ready to resume tlie work of conciliation which, 
 as we have seen, had been attempted by Basil 
 of Ancyra. .Athanasius, on his part, was ready 
 to accept the distinction mentioned above 
 between oi'tjia and iV6(JTa(riy, which had not 
 been recognized at Nicaea. Before the death 
 of Jovian {364), Aoacius of Caesarea, who 
 cannot be acquitted of being an unworthy 
 intriguer or at best a time-server, came for- 
 ward to make his peace by accepting the 
 Nicene formula. On the death of Jovian 
 the empire was divided between Valentinian 
 and Valens, the former taking the West, the 
 latter the East, under his charge. Valen- 
 tinian, as a man unacquainted with theology, 
 was naturally influenced by the general 
 opinion in the West, which had remained 
 decisively Xicene. Valens as naturally fell 
 under the influence of the Eastern bishops, 
 and the time was not yet ripe for their accept- 
 ance of the Xicene decision. The .Anomoeans 
 were still a powerful party, and so deter- 
 mined were they to enforce their views that 
 they persecuted not only the orthodox but 
 the semi-.\rians and Macedonians. When the 
 semi-Arians, with the permission of Valen- 
 tinian, held a council at Lampsacus in 364, 
 its decisions were set aside by Valens, whose 
 hand had already been heavy on the Homo- 
 ousians, and who now exiled the semi-Arian 
 bishops. Four years later he dealt equally 
 harshly with the Macedonians, who were 
 terrified into imploring the help of the ortho- 
 dox West, and endeavoured to secure it by 
 promising Liberius that they would receive the 
 Nicene Creed. But the latter replied in a 
 letter in which he declared that the faith 
 depended on the acceptance of the words 
 hypostasis (in the sense in which it is used 
 in the Nicene formula) and homoousios. On 
 the other hand, the dissensions which broke 
 out between Eudoxius, patriarch of Antioch 
 and afterwards of Constantinople and his 
 Arian (or .\nomoean) allies, drove both him 
 and Valens into the arms of the Homoeans, 
 in whose possession most of the churches 
 were. But the affairs of the empire fell into 
 confusion in the incompetent hands of Valens, 
 and the influence of the Arian and Homoean 
 parties was steadily waning. Athanasius died 
 •D 373, after a noteworthy attempt to cast 
 his shield over his faithful supporter and friend 
 Marcellus. The result was that Marcellus was 
 
 ARNOBIUS 
 
 49 
 
 acquitted, but hisschonl disajipoarcd witli him 
 (he died in 371), and the way lay clear for 
 the conciliatory action of the three great 
 Eastern leaders already mentioned. There 
 was no theologian in Christendom who could 
 withstand them. Among their opponents no 
 concert reigned, but only confusion ; their 
 ascendancy was founded on court intrigue and 
 imperial violence. Sozomon (//. /•". vi. 6) tells 
 us how Valentinian, while he stedfastly clung 
 to orthodoxy, studiously refrained from har- 
 assing those opposed to it, and notes with 
 disapproval the different course taken by 
 Valens. The cause of genuine, practical 
 Christianity sufTered seriously under these 
 divisions, intrigues, and acts of violence, and 
 men of earnest and even indifferent minds were 
 longing for peace. When Theodosius suc- 
 ceeded Valens in 379 (Valentinian was already 
 dead) there was no force strong enough 
 among the heretical factions to resist the 
 coalition between the semi-Arians and the 
 Nicenes. The West was united in support of 
 the latter, the strength and patience of the 
 divided East were exhausted. A council of 
 150 bishops — all Easterns — assembled at 
 Constantinople, and the weary 56 years of 
 conflict and confusion terminated in the 
 acceptance of the symbol * which, in the East 
 and West, is repeated whenever Christians who 
 profess the Catholic faith meet for communion 
 with one another and their Lord. Arianism 
 had no moral strength with which to resist 
 persecution. But it still lingered among the 
 Goths for some centuries. They were not an 
 educated race, and Ulphilas, who converted 
 them to Christianity, was a missionary rather 
 than a theologian. And so it came to pass 
 in the end that, so far as this vital doctrine of 
 the Christian faith is concerned, " they all 
 escaped safe to land." 
 
 The bibliography of this period is much the 
 same as has been given in art. Arius, only 
 that the Life of Constantinc, by Euscbius Pam- 
 phili, is of course no longer available. The 
 de Synodis of Athanasius passes in review the 
 various councils and their creeds, from the 
 Encaenia at Antioch to the councils of 
 Ariminum and Seleucia. Various mono- 
 graphs connected with the history of this 
 period will be found mentioned by Prof. 
 Gvvatkin in his Studies of Arianism, if the 
 student wishes to go more deeply into the 
 subject than is possible here. fj.j.L.] 
 
 Arnobius, an eminent Latin apologist for 
 Christianity. The records of his life are 
 meagre and somewhat uncertain ; consisting 
 in a few brief notices by St. Jerome, and 
 another by Trithemius, aided by his own few 
 incidental allusions to himself. 
 
 The outbreak of the last great persecution 
 (303-313) found Arnobius a professor of 
 rhetoric at Sicca, in Africa. His reputation 
 was high, and his pupils numerous and 
 distinguished ; among them was Lactantius. 
 Arnobius was a sincere pagan ; versed in 
 schemes of philosophy ; but none the less an 
 unhesitating and even abject idolator. He 
 was, moreover, active as a lecturer in attacks 
 upon Christianity. The sight, however, of 
 
 • It ends, however, as far as the council of Nicaea 
 is concerned, with the words, "And I believe in the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
60 
 
 ARNOBIUS 
 
 the martyrdoms which followed the edict of 
 Nicomedia appears speedily to have touched 
 him ; and a dream or vision (says St. Jerome) 
 warned him to submit to Christ. He pre- 
 sented himself to the church at Sicca ; but 
 "they were afraid of him," and demanded 
 from their late enemy some hostage for 
 sincerity. The result was the composition of 
 the Disputations against the Pagans ; whether 
 in their present form or not. He was there- 
 upon baptized, and (according to Trithemius) 
 attained the rank of presbyter. Of his sub- 
 sequent history we know nothing. Some 
 doubt attaches to the exact date of the con- 
 version of Arnobius and publication of his 
 treatise. On the whole the evidence points to 
 some date between 303 and 313 (Hieron. de 
 Scr. Eccl. c. 79 ; id. in Chronicon Eusebii ; 
 Trithemius, de Scr. Eccl. p. 10 a). 
 
 The title of Arnobius's work usually appears 
 as Disputationes adversus Gentes ; occasion- 
 ally, adv. Nationes. It is divided into seven 
 books of unequal length. The first two are 
 devoted to the defence of Christianity, the 
 remainder to the exposure of paganism. 
 
 Of God, he speaks in the noblest and fullest 
 language of adoration. His existence is 
 assumed (i. 33) as a postulate in the argument. 
 He is the First Cause ; the Father and Lord 
 of things ; foundation of all ; author of only 
 good ; unborn ; omnipresent ; infinite, incor- 
 poreal ; passionless ; shrouded in light ; to be 
 known only as the Ineffable (see especially 
 1. 31). Arnobius hesitates, however, over the 
 details of creation ; thinking apparently that 
 alike the human soul and the lower animals — 
 insects and reptiles — are the work of some 
 intermediate creator (ii. 36, 47). 
 
 Of the Lord Jesus Christ he uses the most 
 glowing language. As a man He is the 
 supreme philosopher and teacher, both of 
 nature and religion. But He is also God : 
 " Deus re cert a : Deus, homo tamen natus ; 
 Deus interiorum potentiarum ; Deus sublimis ; 
 radice ex intima ; ab incognitis regnis ; 
 sospitator, ab omnium principe missus " ; His 
 pontificium is to give salvation to the soul ; He 
 is the only path to light ; His followers alone 
 are saved ; He is stronger than fate. Some 
 doubt may, perhaps, be thrown over the 
 extent of these ascriptions of deity bv the 
 vague language with which Arnobius speaks of 
 the gods (see below). But with everv de- 
 duction they are magnificent, and at least lie 
 in the direction of the fullest orthodoxy. The 
 allusions to the incarnation, life, and death of 
 the Redeemer are numerous. Ihe first is 
 somewhat vaguely described as the assump- 
 tion of a man to the self, the God ; its motive 
 was the presentation of the God to human 
 senses, and the general performance of Christ's 
 mission. His resurrection and the subsequent 
 appearances are insisted upon ; it is asserted 
 (apparently) that He still appears to the 
 faithful. To the Second Advent there is at 
 most only a doubtful allusion (i. 39). (See 
 generally, i. 36, 6.5 ; ii. 60.) 
 
 On the origin of the Soul he is far more 
 speculative than is his wont. Its sin im- 
 perfection, and inborn infirmity (he holds) 
 forbid the belief that it comes direct from the 
 Supreme Cause. It cannot for the like reasons 
 be immortal [i.e. absolutely and per se) ■ it 
 
 ARNOBIUS 
 
 outlives the body, but depends wholly on the 
 gift of God for eternal duration. After death 
 there awaits the evil a second death, a 
 Gehenna of unquenchable fire, in which 
 gradually they are consumed and annihilated 
 (see especially ii. 15-54). The resurrection 
 of the flesh is emphatically asserted, but in 
 somewhat obscure terms (ii. 13). 
 
 Of the existence of gods he speaks with 
 much ambiguity. The actual objects of 
 heathen worship he concludes from the nature 
 of their mythology and ritual to be real but 
 evil beings. But he nowhere denies that 
 there exist also dii boni ; only he views them 
 (if existent) as mere reflexes of the Supreme 
 Nature, and as in no sense distinct objects of 
 worship and prayer. In worshipping the 
 Supreme (he argues), we worship by implica- 
 tion — if to be worshipped they are — such gods 
 as are gods indeed. 
 
 On the nature and efficacy of prayer he 
 uses perplexing language. His belief appar- 
 ently is that in the present life all externals 
 are fixed by an immovable destiny (vii. 10) ; 
 that prayer is useful only as a means of divine 
 communion ; but he yet describes the prayers 
 of the Christian church as petitions for peace 
 and pardon for all classes of mankind ; the 
 emperor, the magistrate, the armies, etc. (iv. 
 36). Prayer is regarded as (in some sense 
 not specified) efficacious for the dead (I.e.). 
 Arnobius asserts the " freedom of the will " ; 
 God calls man " non vi sed gratia " (ii. 64). 
 
 In the latter books his arguments against 
 heathen sacrifices are so managed as logically 
 to exclude altogether the sacrifices both of 
 the Jewish temple and of the Cross. Of idol- 
 worship and incense he speaks in terms which 
 prove that he can have known nothing of 
 images, or incense, or a local presence, in the 
 conventicula of the Christians. 
 
 Of the Holy Scriptures Arnobius appears to 
 have known very little. He makes some 
 acute remarks (i. 58) on the rude style of the 
 evangelists, but only one text (I. Cor. iii. 19) is 
 quoted verbatim ; and even this is introduced as 
 illud vulgatum (ii. 6). He records apocryphal 
 miracles as evangelical (i. 46, 53) ; he knows 
 nothing of any promise of temporal happiness 
 (ii. 76) ; he confuses the Pharisees with the 
 Sadducees (iii. 12). Of the O.T. he was 
 apparently quite ignorant. In one passage 
 (iii. 10) he even seems to speak of it with dis- 
 respect ; though the passage has been ex- 
 plained of the Rabbinical books. In many 
 places he shews by implication a total ignor- 
 ance of the national election and the ritual; 
 of the Jews (to whom he scarcely alludes at 
 all), and of the Scriptural prophecies andl 
 chronology. These phenomena are, of course,, 
 in great measure accounted for by the allegedi 
 circumstances of the composition of the- 
 work. They render more remarkable the- 
 faintness of the tinge of Gnosticism in its 
 pages. Obviously the authority of Arnobius; 
 on points of Christian doctrine is reduced 
 almost ad nihilum by these indications ; and 
 we can hardly wonder that in the 5th cent. 
 his treatise was banished by pope Gelasius 
 to the index of apocryphal works. 
 
 Critical opinions on the merits of Arnobius 
 have been very various. St. Jerome's verdict 
 varies between praises of his libri luculentissimi 
 
ARNOBIUS, JUNIOR 
 
 and censure of his defects as iiine-qiialis, tiinniis, 
 con/usus, in style, method, and doctrine. 
 Dr. Woodham (in liis edition of Tertullian's 
 j Apologv, preliminary Kssays, ed. 1S30) pro- 
 tests against the obscurity and neglect which 
 have attended his name ; holds that his 
 " peculiar position anil character invest his 
 sentiments and reasoning with very singular 
 , interest and value " ; pronounces him to he 
 in some respects *' the keenest of tiie apolo- 
 gists," and to be remarkably apposite to the 
 popular arguments of modern times (pp. 21, 
 29, 52. 53)- 
 
 To the whole of tliis verdict we subscribe. 
 
 Arnobius presents as a maii a mind and 
 
 ; character combinins; mucii ardour with much 
 
 I common sense. His sincerity is eminently 
 
 j manifest. He has apprehended to a degree 
 
 ■ nowhere and never common tiie great fact of 
 
 human ignorance. As a writer, he appears as 
 
 the practised and facile, but not very fanciful, 
 
 rhetorician of his time and country ; and is 
 
 even a master and model of that peculiar 
 
 style of a declining age which consists in a 
 
 , subtle n\cdium between the dictions of poetry 
 
 and of prose. 
 
 As a storehouse of old I.atinity and of 
 allusions to points of antiquity — to heathen 
 mythology and ceremonial ; to law, educa- 
 tion, and amusements — his work is of the 
 ! greatest interest and importance. 
 ! The following editions of Arnobius may be 
 mentioned: — 1816, Leipz., J. C. Orellius (ex- 
 cellent for a full and learned commentary) ; 
 Halle, 1844, ed. G. F. Hildebrand; Paris, 
 I 1844, Migne's Patr. Lat. ; Reifferscheid, 
 ! Vienna, 1875 [Corpus Script. Ecd. Lat. iv.). 
 I For an Eng. trans, see Ante-Nicene Lib. 
 \ (T.&. T.Clark). [h.c.g.m.1 
 
 I Arnobius, Junior, a presbyter, or possibly 
 I bp., of Gaul ; presumed, from internal evid- 
 ! ence of his writings, to have lived at least as 
 ; late as a.d. 460. 
 
 I The only external notices seem to be those 
 I of Venerable Bede, who praises his Com- 
 j mentary on the Psalms, and of Alcuin, who 
 I favourably alludes to his Altercation with 
 I Serapion in a letter addressed to Flavius 
 ! Merius, and in the sixth book of his treatise 
 ' Contra Felicem Urgelitanum. The internal 
 ! evidence is based upon the Commentarittm in 
 j Psalmos, the Notes on some passages of the 
 I Gospels, and the Altercatio cum Serapione. 
 j The Commentary and Altercation may botli 
 I be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima 
 i (torn, viii.), Lyons, 1677 ; but the contents 
 j render it very difficult to believe that the 
 ] same person was author of both. 
 I The Commentary on the Psalms is avowed 
 by its author, who dedicates it to Leontius, 
 j bp. of .\rles, and to Rusticus, bp. of Narbonne. 
 ' The comments are devout, practical, and 
 ' pointed, but brief and uncritical, interpreting 
 , everything as referring to Christ and the 
 church. They are, however, accused of a 
 semi- Pelagian tendency ; and a very learned 
 'TOter, whose Hist. Eccl. appeared c. 1686, 
 \ Natalis Alexander, invites special attention 
 : to remarks of .Arnobius upon Pss. 1. ciii. cviii. 
 . and cxxvi. (in the Heb. ; in A.V., li. civ. 
 etc.). But Nat. Alexander was a Jansenist ; 
 I and anti- Jansenist writers, such as the Bollan- 
 : dists, might maintain that the majority were 
 
 ARSACIUS 
 
 51 
 
 capable of an orthodox iulerprelati"n. It 
 must, however, be allowed that the author of 
 the Commentary is anti-.\ugustinian ; as on 
 Ps. cviii. (cix.) 16, 17, he speaks of the heresy, 
 " quae dicit Deum aliquos praedestinasse ad 
 benedictionem. alios ad maledictioiiem." 
 
 The Altercatio cum Sernpinne is a dialogue, 
 represented as having been held between 
 .Arnobius and Serapion. Serapion by turns 
 plays the part of a Sabellian, an Arian, and a 
 Pelagian, and is gradually driven from each 
 position. Considerable learning is displayed 
 and a clear apprehension of the points at 
 issue, combined with much real ingenuity <if 
 argument. The circumstance of Arnobius 
 being the chief speaker does not of course 
 prove that the authorship is his, any more 
 than the position of Socrates in certain of the 
 Platonic dialogues would prove that Socrates 
 wrote them. Moreover, just as we cannot 
 make Socrates responsible for all that Plato 
 lias put into his mouth, so neither can Arnobius 
 junior be justly credited with the tenets here 
 ascribed to him by some unknown author. 
 Both the style and tone of tlie Altercation 
 seem different from that of the Commentary ; 
 and though there is in both works a con- 
 sentient rejection of the errors condemned in 
 the first four general councils, yet it is hardly 
 possible that an author of semi- Pelagian 
 leanings, who had stigmatized predestinarian 
 doctrine as a heresy, should declare, as Arno- 
 bius is made to do' towards the conclusion of 
 the Altercatio cum Serapione, that he " accepts 
 and defends the dicta of St. Augustine con- 
 cerning Pelagianism, as if they were the most 
 hallowed writings of the Apostles." 
 
 The Notes on some passages of the Gospels, 
 which seem really to belong to Arnobius 
 junior, are given in the edition of his works 
 by Laurence de la Barre (Paris, 1639). But 
 for a new view of the authorship of these 
 works see G. Morin in Revue Benedictine { 1903). 
 He thinks that the author of the Adnotationes, 
 the Altercatio, andthe Predestinatusis -prohsibly 
 an Illyrian, who lived in Rome. Of the 
 events of our author's life we are wholly 
 ignorant. [j.g.c] 
 
 Arsacius, the intruding archbp. of Con- 
 stantinople, after the violent expulsion of 
 Chrysostom (a.d. 404). He was the brother 
 of Nectarius, Chrysostom's predecessor, and 
 had served as archpresbvter \mder Chrysostom 
 (Photius C. 59). In earlier life his brother had 
 selected him for the bishopric of Tarsus, and 
 had attributed his refusal to an ambitious 
 design of becoming his successor at Constanti- 
 nople. On this, Palladius asserts, he swore 
 voluntarilv tiiat he would never accept the see 
 of Constantinople (Pallad. c. xi.). After he 
 had passed his 8oth year, the success of the 
 base intrigue of Eudoxia and Theophilus 
 against Chrysostom opened an unexpected 
 way for his elevation to the archiepiscopal 
 throne. Eudoxia and the party now trium- 
 phant wanted for their new archbishop a 
 facile tool, under whose authority they might 
 shelter the violence of their proceedings. 
 Such an instrument they had in Arsacius. 
 Moreover, his hostility to Chrysostom had 
 been sufficiently testified at the synod of the 
 Oak, when he appeared as a witness against 
 him and vehemently pressed his condemna- 
 
52 
 
 ARSENiUS 
 
 tion. He was consecrated archbishop on 
 June 27, 404. Chrysostom, on hearing of it, 
 denounced him " as a spiritual adulterer, and 
 a wolf in sheep's clothing " {Ep. cxxv.). The 
 diocese soon made it plain that they regarded 
 the new archbishop as an intruder. The 
 churches once so thronged became empty ; 
 with the exception of a few officials, the de- 
 pendants of the court party, and the expect- 
 ants of royal favour, the people of Constanti- 
 nople refused to attend any religious assembly 
 at which he might be expected to be present. 
 Deserting the sacred edifices, they gathered 
 in the outskirts of the city, and in the open 
 air. Arsacius appealed to the emperor 
 Arcadius, by whose orders, or rather those of 
 Eudoxia, soldiers were sent to disperse the 
 suburban assembhes. Those who had taken 
 a leading part in them were apprehended and 
 tortured, and a fierce persecution commenced 
 of the adherents of Chrysostom. [Olympias 
 (2)]. We learn from Sozomen (H. E. viii. 23) 
 that Arsacius was not personally responsible 
 for these cruel deeds ; but he lacked strength 
 of character to offer any decided opposition to 
 the proceedings of his clergy. They did what 
 they pleased, and Arsacius bore the blame. 
 His position became intolerable. In vain all 
 the bishops and clergy who, embracing 
 Chrysostom's cause, had refused to recognize 
 him were driven out of the East (Nov. 18, 
 404). This only spread the evil more widely. 
 The whole Western episcopate refused to 
 acknowledge him, and pope Innocent, who 
 had warmly espoused Chrysostom's interests, 
 wrote to the clergy and laity of Constantinople 
 strongly condemning the intrusion of Arsacius, 
 and exhorting them to persevere in their 
 adhesion to their true archbishop (Soz. H. E. 
 vi. 22, 26). It is no cause for surprise that 
 Arsacius's episcopate was a brief one, and 
 that a feeble character worn out by old age 
 should have soon given way before a storm of 
 opposition so universal. He died Nov. 11, 
 405 (Socr. H. E. vi. 19 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 23, 
 26 ; Phot. C. 59 ; Pallad. Dial. c. xi. ; Chrys. 
 Ep. cxxv.). [E.V.] 
 
 Arsenius, called "the Great," one of the 
 most famous of the monks of Egypt. He was 
 of high Roman family ; born probably in 354. 
 He was deeply read in Greek literature. 
 About 383, Theodosius the Great being de- 
 sirous of finding a suitable instructor for his 
 sons Arcadius and Honorius, the elder of 
 whom was then about six years old, Arsenius 
 was recommended to him, it is said, by the 
 Roman bishop, and in this way came into the 
 service of the best of the Christian Caesars. 
 The time that Arsenius spent at the court 
 came to an end when he was forty years old, 
 in 394. A thoughtful and high-souled Roman 
 Christian living under the ascendancy of 
 Rufinus might not unnaturally be impelled 
 towards monastic seclusion by sheer disgust 
 and despair as to the prospects of so-called 
 Christian society. He gave up his charge, 
 in obedience, as he said, to a voice which 
 bade him " fly from men, if he would be safe." 
 
 Arsenius, arriving at the monastic wilder- 
 ness of Scetis, begged the clergy there to put 
 him in the way of salvation by making him a 
 monk. They took him to abbot John Colobus 
 (the Dwarfish), who in^■ited them to a meal : 
 
 ARTEMON, ARTEMONITES 
 
 Arsenius was kept standing while they sat ; a 
 biscuit was flung at him, which he ate in a 
 kneeling posture. " He will make a monk," 
 said John; and Arsenius stayed with him 
 until he had learned enough of the monastic 
 life from John's teaching, and then established 
 himself as a hermit in Scetis, where he con- 
 tinued forty years. His love of solitude 
 became intense ; the inward voice had seemed 
 to bid him " be silent, be quiet," if he would 
 keep innocency. One visitor he even drove 
 away with stones ; he discouraged the visits 
 of Theophilus the archbp. ; and when a high- 
 born Roman lady visited him during one of 
 his occasional sojourns outside the desert, her 
 request to be remembered in his prayers was 
 met by the brusque expression of a hope that 
 he might be able to forget her. Whenever he 
 came into a church he hid himself behind a 
 pillar ; he even shrank at times from his 
 brother hermits, remarking that the ten 
 thousands of angels had but one will, but men 
 had many. But with all his sternness, which 
 was coup'led with more than the usual mon- 
 astic austerities, Arsenius could be cordial, 
 and even tender. His humility was worthy 
 of a follower of Anthony. He was heard to 
 cry aloud in his cell, " Forsake me not, 
 God ! I have done no good in Thv sight, but, 
 in Thy goodness, grant me to make a begin- 
 ning." A very famous saying of his referred 
 to faults of the tongue : " Often have I been 
 sorry for having spoken — never for having 
 been silent." The Exhortation to Monks, 
 ascribed to him (Combefis, Gr. Patr. Auc- 
 tarium, i. 301 ; Galland, Biblioth. vii. 427), 
 exhibits the results of deep spiritual experi- 
 ence. It warns the monk not to forget that 
 his great work is not the cleansing of the outer 
 life, but of the inner man : spiritual sins, iiot 
 carnal only, have to be conquered ; many a 
 good action has, through the tempter's sublety, 
 become the door to unexpected evil ; many 
 who have thought their battle with sin 
 accomphshed have relapsed through the 
 perilous hearing of other men's sin : " we 
 must keep guard all round." 
 
 In 434 Arsenius left Scetis, driven forth by 
 an irruption of the Mazici. He stayed at 
 Troe, near Memphis, until 444 ; then spent 
 three years at the little island (not the city) 
 of Canopus ; returned to Troe for the two 
 remaining years of his long monastic Ufe. 
 The Greek church honours him as " our 
 Father, Arsenius the Great," on May 8 ; the 
 Latin, on Julv 19. [vv.b.] 
 
 Artemon, Artemonites, belong to that 
 
 class of ante-Nicene Monarchians, or Anti- 
 trinitarians, who saw in Christ a mere man 
 filled with divine power. Of Artemon, or 
 Artemas, we know very httle. He taught in 
 Rome at the end of the 2nd and beginning 
 of the 3rd cent., and was excommunicated 
 by pope Zephyrinus (202-217), who, as we 
 learn from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, 
 favoured the opposite error of Patripassianism. 
 He declared the doctrine of the divinity of 
 Christ to be an innovation dating from the 
 time of ZephjTinus, the successor of Victor, 
 and a relapse into heathen polytheism. He 
 asserted that Christ was a mere man, but born 
 of a virgin, and superior in virtue to the 
 prophets. The Artemonites were charged 
 
ASTERroS 
 
 with placing Euclid above Christ, ami ab.m- 
 donitig the Scriptures for dialectics and mathe- 
 matics. This indicates a critical or sceptical 
 turn of mind. The views of .\rtemon wore 
 afterwards more fully developed bv Paul of 
 Samosata, who is sometimes counteil with the 
 Arteraonites. The sources of our fragmentary 
 infonnation are Eusebius, Hist. Keel. v. 28 ; 
 Epiphanius, Haer. Ixv. 1,4; Theodoret, Haer. 
 Fab. ii. 4 ; Photius. Bihlioth. 48. Cf. Schleier- 
 macher's essay on the Sabellian and Athanasian 
 conceptions of the Trinity (M'or/!5, vol. ii.), and 
 Domer's Entwicklungs^eschichte dcr L. v. d. 
 Person Christi, 2nd e'd. i. 50S ff. [p.s.] 
 
 Asterlus (1), a bp. of Arabia (called bp. of 
 Petra, Tomwi ad .Aniioch. § lo). He accom- 
 panied the Eusebians to the council of Sar- 
 dica, but separated himself from them along 
 with bp. Arius or Macarius (who by some 
 confusion is also called bp. of Petra), com- 
 plaining of the violent treatment to which 
 the deputies had been subjected, with the view 
 of driving them into supporting the Eusebian 
 faction (Theod. ii. 8). The Eusebians soon 
 had their revenge, and the two bishops were 
 banished to Upper Libya, where they endured 
 much suffering (.\than. Hist. Arian. § iS ; 
 .Apol. § 48). On the promulgation of the 
 
 edict of Julian, recalling all the banished 
 bishops, Asterius returned, and (a.d. 362) 
 took part in the important council summoned 
 by the newly restored Athanasius at Alex- 
 andria, for the purpose of promoting union 
 between the orthodox and those who, without 
 embracing the errors of Arius, had held 
 communion with the Arian party. One of 
 the chief subjects that came before this synod 
 was the unhappy schism at Antioch between 
 the Eustathians and the Meletians. [Luci- 
 FERUS (1); Meletius; Paulinus (6).] On the 
 singular fact that the name of Asterius, to- 
 gether with that of Eusebius of Vercelli, is 
 found among those to whom this letter is 
 addressed, as well as among those by whom it 
 was written, of which it is difficult to give a 
 satisfactory explanation, cf. Tillemont, Mem. 
 viii. p. 707; Baronius, Ann. sub. ann. 362, 
 S219. [E.V.] 
 
 Asterias (2), bp. of Amasea in Pontus, a 
 contemporary of St. Chrysostom. He him- 
 self tells us that his teacher was a certain 
 Scythian (i.e. Goth), who, having been sold 
 in his youth to a citizen of Antioch, a school- 
 master, had made marvellous progress under 
 his owner's instructions, and won himself a 
 great name among Greeks and Romans (Phot. 
 Bibl. 271, p. 1500). Beyond this not a single 
 incident in his life is recorded. His date, how- 
 ever, is fixed by allusions to contemporary 
 events in his Homilies. He speaks of the 
 apostasy of Julian as having happened within 
 his memory (.Aster. Or. 3, p. 56, ed. Combefis) ; 
 and in his sermon on the Festival of the 
 Calends [Or. 4, p. 76) he mentions the consulate 
 and fall of Eutropius as an event of the pre- 
 ceding year. This sermon therefore must 
 have been delivered on New Year's Day, 400. 
 Elsewhere he spoke of himself as a man of 
 very advanced age (Phot. Amphil. 125 [312]). 
 
 The extant works of Asterius consist almost 
 solely of sermons or homilies. Of these we 
 possess twenty-two perfect ; twelve on various 
 subjects included in the edition of Combefis 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 .53 
 
 (Paris, i(.4S) ; eight on the Psalms, .>f which 
 one is fouiul among the works of St. Chrysos- 
 tom, and the renaaining seven wore published 
 by Cotelier, Mou. Eccl. Grace, ii. (Pans, 1688) ; 
 and two again on other subjects, which arc 
 published among the works of Gregory 
 Nyssen, but must be assigned to Asterius on 
 the authority of Photius. Besides these 
 Photius (Bibl. 271) gives extracts from 
 several others. In addition to these homilies, 
 a Life of his predecessor, St. Basil of Amasea, 
 printed in the .ic'.a Sanctorum, April 26, is 
 ascribed to him. A complete collection of his 
 works will be found in Migne's Patr. Gk. xl. ; 
 a complete list in Fabric. Bibl. Gk. ix. 513 
 seq. ed. Harlcs. An account of their contents 
 is given by Tillemont, x. 400 seq. 
 
 Asterius was a student of Demosthenes (Or. 
 II, p. 207), and himself no mean orator. His 
 best sermons (for they are somewhat uneven) 
 display no inconsiderable skill in rhetoric, 
 great power of expression, and great earnest- 
 ness of moral conviction ; and some passages 
 are even strikingly eloquent. His orthodoxy 
 was unquestioned. Photius (Amphil. I.e.) 
 contrasts him with his Arian namesake, as 
 stanch in the faith, devoting himself to the 
 care of his flock, and setting an example of 
 a virtuous and godly life. His authority was 
 quoted with great respect in later ages, more 
 especially during the Iconoclastic controversy 
 at the second council of Nicaea, when with a 
 play on his name he was referred to as "a 
 bright star (astrum) illumining the minds of 
 all" (Labbe, Cone. viii. 1385, 1387, ed. 
 Coleti). Bardenhewer (1008) refers to a 
 Svllogehistoriea on Asterius by V. de Buck in 
 Acta SS. Oct. (Paris, 1883), xiii. 330-332. [l.] 
 Athanasius, St., archbp. of Alexandria. 
 The life of Athanasius divides itself naturally 
 into seven sections, respectively terminated 
 by (i) his consecration; (2) his first exile; 
 (3) his second exile ; (4) his second return ; 
 (5) his third exile ; (6) his fourth exile ; (7) 
 his death. 
 
 (i) He was born at Alexandria, and had but 
 scanty private means (Apol. c. Ar. 51 ; Socr. 
 iv. 13). We must date his birth c. 296 ; not 
 earlier, because he had no personal remem- 
 brance of the persecution under Maximian in 
 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), and w^ as comparatively a 
 yoimg man when consecrated bishop, soon 
 after the Nicene council ; not later, because 
 he received some theological instruction from 
 persons who suffered in the persecution 
 under Maximian II. in 311 (de Incarn. 56), 
 and the first two of his treatises appear to 
 have been written before 319. There can 
 be no reason to doubt that Athanasius 
 became an inmate of bp. Alexander's house, 
 as his companion and secretary (Soz. ii. 
 17). The position involved great advan- 
 tages. The place held by Alexander as 
 " successor of St. Mark," and occupant of 
 " the Evangelical throne," was second in 
 the Christian hierarchy : we may call the bps. 
 of Alexandria in the 4th cent., for conveni- 
 ence' sake, archbishops or patriarchs, al- 
 though the former name was then very rarely 
 applied to them, and the latter not at all, 
 and they were frequently designated, though 
 not in contradistinction to all other prelates, 
 by the title of Papas (pope), or " dear father." 
 
54 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 Their ]io\ver throughout the churches of 
 Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis was, by ancient 
 custom, which the Nicene council afterwards 
 confirmed, almost monarchical, extending over 
 about a hundred bishops, who revered their 
 judgments as the decisions of the see of 
 Rome were revered in Italv. One experience 
 of a different kind, most fruitful in its con- 
 sequences, was Athanasius's acquaintance 
 with the great hermit Anthony. He tells us, 
 in his Life of Anlhnnv, that he often saw him ; 
 and although that reading of the conclusion 
 of the preface, which makes him say that 
 " he himself for some time attended on him, 
 and poured water on his hands," may be con- 
 sidered doubtful, yet we know that he was 
 afterwards spoken of as " the ascetic," and 
 that when, years later, he took shelter in the 
 cells of the monks of Egypt, he found himself 
 perfectly at home. He contracted an admir- 
 ation for monasticism, which will not surprise 
 those who remember that the spiritual inten- 
 sity of the Christian life had found a most 
 emphatic, though a one-sided expression, in 
 the lives of men who fled, like Anthony, from 
 a society at once tainted and brutalized 
 beyond all modern conception. [Antonius.] 
 
 TThe two essays of Athanasius, Against the 
 Gentiles and On the Incarnation, which form 
 one complete work addressed to a convert 
 from heathenism, cannot be dated later than 
 the end of 318 ; for they make no reference to 
 the Arian controversy which broke out in 319. 
 Dorner, in his work On the Person of Christ, 
 has given a resume of their argument on the 
 threefold subject of God, man, and the Incar- 
 nate Word ; and Mohler calls the book on the 
 Incarnation " the first attempt that had been 
 made to present Christianity and the chief 
 circumstances of the Ufe of Jesus Christ under 
 a scientific aspect. By the sure tact of his 
 noble and Christian nature, everything is 
 referred to the Person of the Redeemer : 
 everything rests upon Him : He appears 
 throughout." The young author seems to 
 have been ordained deacon about this time, 
 and placed in the position of chief among the 
 Alexandrian deacons. Among the clergy who 
 joined the archbishop in calling on Arlus to 
 retract, and who afterwards assented to his 
 deposition, was the young archdeacon of 
 Alexandria (see the Benedictine Athanasius, 
 i. 396 seq.). In this spirit he attended Alex- 
 ander to the Nicene council in 325. 
 
 In that assembly he is represented by 
 Gregory of Nazianzum {Orat. 21) as " foremost 
 among those who were in attendance on 
 bishops," and as " doing his utmost to stay 
 the plague." His writings may assure us of 
 the argument which he would maintain : that 
 the real Divinity of the Saviour was (i) as- 
 serted in many places of Scripture, (ii) involved 
 in the notion of His unique Sonship, (iii) re- 
 quired by the Divine economy of redemption, 
 and (iv) attested by the immemorial conscious- 
 ness of the church. And although, as he 
 himself informs us, the council would willingly 
 have confined themselves to purely Scriptural 
 terms {de Deer. 19) if their legitimate sense 
 could have been bond fide admitted ; although 
 too he was far from imagining that any form 
 or expression of human thought would 
 adequately represent a Divine mystery ; yet 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 his convictions went thoroughly with the 
 adoption of the term " Homoousion " or " co- 
 essential," explained, as it was, in a sense 
 which made it simply equivalent to " truly 
 Son of God," and proposed as a test of adher- 
 ence to the Scriptural Christology. And if 
 we are to understand his mind at the close of 
 the council, we must say that he regarded 
 its proceedings as something done, in fact, 
 " for the rightful honour of Jesus." Nothing 
 was to him more certain than that Jesus was, 
 in tlie full force of the words, God Incarnate ; 
 that Arianism was essentially a denial, and 
 the " Homoousion " the now authenticated 
 symbol, of His claim on men's absolute 
 devotion ; and that it was infinitely worth 
 while to go through any amount of work or 
 suffering in defence of such a truth, and in 
 the cause of such a Master. 
 
 More work was near at hand, and suffering 
 was not far off. A solemn and touching in- 
 cident of Alexander's last moments is con- 
 nected with the history of Athanasius, who 
 was then absent from Alexandria. The dying 
 man, while his clergy stood around him, 
 called for Athanasius. One of those present, 
 also bearing that name, answered, but was not 
 noticed by the archbishop, who again repeated 
 the name, and added, " You think to escape 
 — but it cannot be." Some time appears to 
 have elapsed between his death and the 
 assembling of the Egyptian bishops to con- 
 secrate a successor. An encyclical letter of 
 these same Egyptian prelates proclaimed to 
 all Christendom, some years later, that a 
 majority of them had elected Athanasius in 
 the presence, and amid the applause, of the 
 whole Alexandrian laity, who for nights 
 and days persevered in demanding him as 
 " the good, pious, ascetic Christian," who 
 would prove a " genuine bishop," and prayed 
 aloud to Christ for the fulfilment of their 
 desire (Apol. c. Ar. 6). It was granted ; and 
 then, in the words of Gregory, " by the 
 suffrages of the whole people, and not by those 
 vile methods, afterwards prevalent, of force 
 and bloodshed, but in a manner apostolic and 
 spiritual, was Athanasius elevated to the 
 throne of Mark," some time after the begin- 
 ning of May in 326, and very probably on 
 June 8. 
 
 (2) From his Consecration (326) to his First 
 Exile (336). — At the outset of his archiepisco- 
 pate is to be placed the organization of the 
 church in Ethiopia or Abyssinia by his con- 
 secration of Frumentius as bp. of Axum. 
 [Edesius.] Another event of these com- 
 paratively quiet times was Athanasius's 
 visitation of the Thebaid, a region where 
 much trouble was being caused by the Arians, 
 and by the Meletians, who resisted his earnest 
 efforts to repress their separatist tendency. 
 
 Now began the troubles from which the 
 Arians never suffered Athanasius to rest till 
 the last hour of his life. It was probably 
 in 330 that he had his first severe experience 
 of their hatred. After the Nicene council, 
 Constantine had become a zealot for ortho- 
 doxy, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had been 
 exiled. But Eusebius had procured his recall 
 by orthodox professions ; it may have been 
 by his means that Arius himself was recalled, 
 perhaps in Nov. 330. Eusebius now entered 
 
ATHANASIUS 
 
 iiit" a league with the Meletiaiis of Egypt, of 
 uhmn a bishop named John Arcaph was the 
 h. .1(1. " He bought them," says Athanasius, 
 • l>v large promises, and arranged that they 
 should help him on any emergency " by that 
 m.ii-hincry of false accusation which they had 
 .ilroady employed against three archbishops. 
 Tlie charges were not to be theological : to 
 .ittack Athanasius's teaching would be to 
 (Itclare against the Nicene doctrine, and this 
 was a step on which Eusebius could not 
 \<iiture. He began by writing to Athanasius 
 in behalf of .\rius, and urging that, as a man 
 \vl\ose opinions had been seriously niisrepre- 
 >. iited, he ought in justice to be received to 
 I liurch communion. Athanasius's answer 
 shows the ground on which he took his stand. 
 "It cannot be right to admit persons to com- 
 iniuiinn who invented a heresy contrary to 
 t'i>- truth, and were anathematized by the 
 imenical council." It is probable that 
 Fleury thinks, though Tillemont and 
 . iiuier date it much later) we should refer to 
 I ins period the visit of Anthony to Alexandria 
 [Vtt. Ant. 69), when he confounded the Arians' 
 ' report that he " agreed with them." This 
 would be a great support to Athanasius. But 
 Eusebius had recourse to Coustantine, who 
 thereupon wrote, commanding Athanasius to 
 admit into the church " all who desired it," 
 I on pain of being removed from his see by sheer 
 I State power. This gave him an opportunity 
 I of laying before Constantine his own views of 
 j his duty. " There could be no fellowship," 
 he wrote, " between the Catholic church of 
 i Christ and the heresy that was fighting against 
 Him." Not long afterwards, in compliance 
 with instructions from Eusebius, three Mele- 
 tians, Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus, ap- 
 peared before the emperor at Nicomedia with 
 ! a charge against Athanasius that he had 
 assumed the powers of the government by 
 taxing Egypt to provide linen vestments for 
 the church of Alexandria. But two of 
 Athanasius's priests, happening to be at 
 court, at once refuted this calumny ; and 
 1 Constantine wrote to Athanasius, condemning 
 ; his accusers, and summoning him to Nicome- 
 ' dia. Eusebius, however, persuaded the ac- 
 j cusers to meet him on his arrival with a bolder 
 I charge : "he had sent a purse of gold to 
 1 Philumenus, a rebel." This, being easily 
 i overthrown, was at once followed up by the 
 j famous story of the broken chalice. A certain 
 j Isch\Tas, a layman pretending to the character 
 of a presbyter, officiated at a little hamlet 
 1 called " the Peace of Sacontarurum," in the 
 ; Mareotis ; Athanasius, being informed of this 
 ' while on a visitation tour, sent a priest named 
 I Macarius, with the actual pastor of the dis- 
 i trict, to summon Ischyras before him, but 
 ' found him ill. Isch^Tas, on recovering, 
 . attached himself to the Meletians, who, re- 
 , solving to use him as a tool, made him declare 
 j that Macarius had found him in church 
 I " ofifering the oblations," had thrown down 
 I the holy table, broken the chalice, and burnt 
 I the church books ; of which sacrilege Athan- 
 I asius was to share the responsibilitv. But 
 Athanasius was able to prove before Constan- 
 tine at Nicomedia, early in 332, that, point by 
 point, it was a falsehood. About mid-Lent he 
 returned home with a letter from Constantine 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 55 
 
 reprobating his enemies .iiul praising him as 
 " a man of God " ; whereupon Ischyras came 
 to him, asking to be received into the church, 
 and piteously protesting that the Meletians 
 had set him on to assert a falsehood. But he 
 was not admitted to conmiunion ; and the 
 story was ere long revived in an aggravated 
 form — Athanasius himself being now called 
 the perpetrator of the outrage (Apol. 62, 6.1, 
 2S. 74. 17, 63, 68). 
 
 A darker ]ilot followed. John Arcaph per- 
 suaded a Meletian bishop, named Arsenius, 
 to go into hiding. A rumour was then spread 
 that he had been murdered, and dismembered 
 for purposes of magic, by Athanasius, in proof 
 of which the Meletians exhibited a dead man's 
 hand (Apol. 63, 42 ; Socr. i. 27 ; Soz. ii. 25 ; 
 Theod. i. 30). The emperor was persuaded 
 to think it a case for inquiry. Athanasius 
 received a summons to appear at Antiorh and 
 stand his trial. At first ho disdained to take 
 any steps, but afterwards sent a deacon to 
 search for the missing Arseiuus. The deacon 
 ascertained that Arsenius was concealed in a 
 monastery at Ptemencyrcis, on the eastern 
 side of the Nile. Before he could arrive there 
 the superior sent off Arsenius, but was himself 
 arrested by the deacon, and obliged to confess 
 " that Arsenius was alive." At Tyre Arsenius 
 was discovered. Constantine stopped the 
 proceedings at Antioch on hearing of this 
 exposure, and sent Athanasius a letter, to be 
 read frequently in public, in which the 
 Meletians were warned that any fresh offences 
 would be dealt with by the emperor in person, 
 and according to the civil law (Apol. 9, 68). 
 
 The slandered archbishop had now a 
 breathing-time. Arcaph himself " came into 
 the church," announced to Constantine his 
 reconciliation with Athanasius, and received 
 a gracious reply ; while Arsenius sent to his 
 " blessed pope " a formal renunciation of 
 schism, and a promise of canonical obedience 
 {Apol. 66, 17, 70, 69, 8, 27). 
 
 But the faction had not repented. Eusebius 
 persuaded Constantine that such grave scand- 
 als as the recent charges ought to be examined 
 in a council ; and that Caesarea would be the 
 fitting place. There a council met in 334 
 (see Tillemont, Ath. a. 15 ; cf. Festal. Epp. 
 index, for a.d. 334). Athanasius, expecting 
 no justice from a synod held under such 
 circumstances, persisted, Sozomen says (ii. 25), 
 " for thirty months " in his refusal to attend. 
 Being at last peremptorily ordered by Con- 
 stantine to attend a council which was to 
 meet at Tyre, he obeyed, in the summer of 
 335, and was attended by about fifty of his 
 suffragans. Athanasius saw at once that his 
 enemies were dominant ; the presiding bishop, 
 Flacillus of Antioch, was one of an Arian 
 succession. Some of the charges Athanasius 
 at once confuted ; as to others he demanded 
 time. Incredible as it may seem, the dead 
 man's hand was again exhibited. Athanasius 
 led forward a man with downcast face, closely 
 muffled ; then, bidding him raise his head, 
 looked round and asked, " Is not this Ar- 
 senius ? " The identity was undeniable. 
 He drew from behind the cloak first one hand, 
 and then, after a pause, the other ; and 
 remarked with triumphant irony, " I suppose 
 no one thinks that God has given to any man 
 
56 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 more hands than two." The case of the 
 broken chalice now remained ; it was resolved 
 to send a commission of inquiry to the Mare- 
 otis. Ischvras accompanied the commis- 
 sioners, as " a sharer in lodging, board, and 
 wine-cup " ; they opened their court in the 
 Mareotis. It appeared in evidence that no 
 books had been burned, and that Isch>Tas 
 had been too ill to officiate on the day of the 
 alleged sacrilege. An inquiry of such an ex 
 parte character called forth indignant protests 
 from the Alexandrian and Mareotic clergy, 
 one of the documents bearing the date 
 Sept. 7, 335. The commissioners, disregarding 
 remonstrance, returned to Tyre (Apol. 27, 
 73-76, 17, 15). 
 
 Athanasius, regarding the proceedings of the 
 council of Tyre as akeady vitiated {Apol. 82), 
 resolved, without waiting for the judgment of 
 such an assembly, " to make a bold and 
 dangerous experiment, whether the throne 
 was inaccessible to the voice of truth." 
 Attended bv five of his suffragans, he took the 
 first vessel for Constantinople, and suddenly 
 presented himself in the middle of the road 
 when the emperor was riding into the city. 
 Constantine, on learning who he \yas, and 
 what was his errand, tried to pass him by in 
 silence ; but Athanasius firmly stood his 
 ground. "Either summon a lawful council, 
 or give me opportunity of meeting my accusers 
 in your presence." The request was con- 
 ceded. The bishops of the council, after 
 receiving their commissioners' report, had by 
 a majority condemned Athanasius, and then 
 pronounced Arius orthodox on the ground of 
 a doctrinal statement made five years earlier, 
 when they were startled by an imperial letter 
 expressing suspicion of their motives, and 
 summoning them to Constantinople. Many 
 of them, in alarm, fled homewards ; but the 
 two Eusebii, Theognis, Patrophilus, Valens, 
 and Ursacius repaired to court, and, saying 
 nothing of " the chalice," or the report of the 
 commission, presented a new charge, like the 
 former quasi-political ones — that Athanasius 
 had talked of distressing Constantinople by 
 preventing the sailing of Alexandrian corn- 
 ships. " How could I, a private person, and 
 poor, do anything of the kind ? " asked 
 Athanasius. Eusebius of Nicomedia answered 
 by affirming with an oath that Athanasius 
 was rich and powerful, and able to do any- 
 thing. The emperor cut short Athanasius's 
 defence with a show of indignation ; and, 
 perhaps not from real beUef in the charge, but 
 by way of getting rid of the case and silencing 
 the archbishop's enemies in his own interest, 
 banished him to the distant city of Trier or 
 Treves, the seat of government of his eldest 
 son Constantine, who received the exile with 
 much kindness, in Feb. 336. 
 
 (3) Frofn his First Exile {336) to his Second 
 (340). — His life at Treves, including nearly two 
 years and a half, was an interval of rest, much 
 needed and doubtless invigorating, between 
 the storms of the past and those of the future. 
 He had now to " stand and wait " — a new 
 experience for him. He was " abundantly 
 suppUed with all necessaries " (Constantine II. 
 in Apol. 87) ; he had the friendship of Maxi- 
 min, the orthodox bp. of Treves, afterwards 
 canonized ; he had with him some Egyptian 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 " brethren," and kept up a correspondriu e 
 with his friends at home, although at the risk 
 of having his letters seized. 
 
 For more than a year Constantine's death 
 produced no change in Athanasius's position ; 
 but at length, on June 17, 338, Constantine II., 
 who in the partition of the empire had a 
 certain precedency over his brothers Con- 
 stantius and Constans, the sovereigns of the 
 East and of Italy, wrote from Treves to the 
 Catholics of Alexandria, announcing that he 
 had resolved, in fulfilment of an intention of 
 his father, to send back Athanasius, of whose 
 character he expressed high admiration (Apol. 
 87). In this he appears to have presumed his 
 brother's consent, and to have then taken 
 Athanasius with him to Viminacium, an 
 important town of Moesia Superior, on the 
 high-road to Constantinople. Here the three 
 emperors had a meeting, and all concurred in 
 ' the restoration of Athanasius, who, after pass- 
 ing through Constantinople, saw Constantius 
 j a second time, at a farther point on his 
 homeward journey, at Caesarea in Cappadocia 
 (Apol. ad Const. 5 ; Hist. Ar. 8). His arrival 
 at Alexandria, in Nov. 338, was hailed by 
 popular rejoicing : the churches resounded 
 with thanksgivings, and the clergy " thought 
 it the happiest day of their Hves." But his 
 enemies bestirred themselves, and " did not 
 shrink from long journeys " in order to press 
 on the emperors new charges against him — 
 that he had misappropriated the corn granted 
 by the late emperor for charitable purposes in 
 Egypt and Libya, and that the day of his re- 
 turn had been signalized by bloodshed. Con- 
 stantius wrote to him in anger, assuming the 
 truth of the former charge ; but Athanasius 
 was successful in disproving both. However, 
 Constantius— who was so soon to be " his 
 scourge and torment " (Hooker, v. 42, 2) — fell 
 more and more under the influence of his great 
 enemy Eusebius, now transferred from Nico- 
 media to the see of Constantinople, which had 
 been forcibly vacated by the second expulsion 
 of the orthodox Paul. The Eusebians now 
 resumed a project which had been found im- 
 practicable, while Constantine lived ; this was 
 i to place on " the Evangelical throne " an 
 I Arian named Pistus, who had been a priest 
 I under Alexander, had been deposed by him 
 for adhering to Arius, and had been conse- 
 crated, as it seems [Apol. 24), by a notorious 
 Arian bishop named Secundus. It was argued 
 that Athanasius had offended against all eccle- 
 siastical principles by resuming his see in 
 defiance of the Tyrian'sentence, and by virtue 
 of mere secular authority. The charge did 
 not come well from a party which had leaned 
 so much on the court and the State ; but it 
 must be allowed that Athanasius's return had 
 given some colour to the objection, although 
 he doubtless held that the assembly at Tyre 
 had forfeited all moral right to be respected as 
 a council. By way of harassing Athanasius, 
 the Eusebians, apparently about this time, 
 made Isch>Tas a bishop, after obtaining an 
 order in the name of the emperor that a church 
 should be built for him — an oider which failed 
 to procure him a congregation {Apol. 12, 85). 
 The Eusebians now applied to the West in 
 behalf of their nominee Pistus. Three clergy 
 appeared as their envoys before Julius, bp. of 
 
ATHANASIUS 
 
 Kninr ; on the othor liaiui, Atli.iii.isius mmiI 
 to Rome presbyters to state his rase, and an 
 iiicvclir — the invaluable ilocunient which has 
 inrnished us with so niiich inforniatii>n — from 
 
 the holv svnod assembled at Alexandria ont 
 t Egypt, thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis," 
 
 :uposed, says Atlianasius, of nearly loo 
 !■ Kites. At Rome his envoys gave such 
 - ulcnce respecting Pistus as to cause the 
 - iiior of the Eusebian envoys to decamp by 
 insht in spite of an indisposition. His coni- 
 panions asked Julius to convoke a council, 
 and to act, if he pleased, as judge. He 
 aicordingly invited both parties to a council, 
 I > be held where Athanasius should choose, 
 rhus matters stood about the end of 339. 
 
 Early in 340 a new announcement disquieted 
 the Alexandrian church. It was notified in a 
 formal edict of the prefect that not Pistus, 
 but a Cappadocian named Gregory, was com- 
 ing from the court to be installed as bishop 
 {Encycl. 2). This, says Athanasius, was con- 
 sidered an unheard-of wrong. The churches 
 were more thronged than ever ; the people, 
 in great excitement, and with passionate out- 
 .ries, called the magistrates and the whole city 
 tii witness that this attack on their legitimate 
 bishop proceeded from the mere wantonness of 
 Arian hatred. Ciregory, they knew, was an 
 Arian, and therefore acceptable to the Euse- 
 bian party : he was a fellow-countryman of 
 Philagrius. Philagrius attacked the church 
 • f St. (Juirinus, and encouraged a mob of the 
 
 west townspeople and of savage peasants to 
 
 ■ rpetrate atrocious cruelties and profana- 
 u ms. Athanasius was residing in the pre- 
 . incts of the church of St. Theonas : he knew 
 that he was specially aimed at, and, in hope of 
 preventing further outrage, he withdrew from 
 the city to a place of concealment in the 
 neighbourhood, where lie busied himself in 
 preparing an encyclic to give an account of 
 these horrors. This was on March 19. Four 
 days later Gregory is said to have " entered 
 the city as bishop." Athanasius, after hastily 
 completing and dispatching his encyclic, 
 sailed for Rome in the Easter season of 340, 
 some weeks after Constantine II. had been 
 slain during his invasion of Italy. 
 
 (4) From his Second Exile (^40) to his Second 
 Return (346). — After Julius had welcomed 
 Athanasius, he sent two presbyters, Elpidius 
 and Philoxenus, in the early summer of 340, to 
 repeat his invitation to the Eusebian prelates, 
 to fix definitely the next December as the time 
 of the proposed council, and Rome as the 
 place. Athanasius received much kindness 
 from the emperor's aunt. Entropion, and from 
 many others {Ap. ad Const. 417 ; cf. Fest. 
 Ep. 13). He had with him two Egyptian 
 monks. Their presence in the city, and 
 Athanasius's enthusiasm for Anthony and 
 other types of monastic saintliness, made a 
 strong impression on the Roman church 
 society, and abated the prejudices there exist- 
 ing against the very name of monk, and the 
 disgust at a rude and strange exterior. In 
 fact, Athanasius's three years (340-343) at 
 Rome had two great historic results, "(a) The 
 Latin church, which became his "scholar" 
 as well as his " loyal partisan," was confirmed 
 by the spell of his master-mind " in its 
 adhesion to orthodoxy, although it did not 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 57 
 
 iiubihc fioiu liiiu the theological spirit"; and 
 (/>) when Gibbon says that " .Vthanasius intro- 
 duced into Rome the knowledge and practice 
 of the monastic life," he records the origination 
 of a vast European movement, and represents 
 the great Alexandrian exile as the spiritual 
 ancestor of Benedict, of Bernard, and of the 
 countless founders and reformers of " re- 
 ligious " communities in the West. 
 
 Meantime Elpidius and Philoxenus had 
 discharged their errand. The liusebians at 
 Antioch, finding that .Athanasius was at Rome, 
 and that the council to which they were 
 invited would be a free ecclesiastical assembly, 
 detained the Roman legates beyond the time 
 specified, and then dismissed them with the 
 excuse that Constantius was occupied with 
 his Persian war. At the same time they 
 stimulated Philagrius and Gregory to new 
 severities. Orthodox bishops were scourged 
 and imprisoned ; Potammon never recovered 
 from his stripes ; Sarapammon, another 
 confessor-bishop, was exiled {Hist. Ar. 12). 
 The letters of Alexandrians to Athanasius, 
 consolatory as proofs of their affection, gave 
 mournful accounts of torture and robbery, of 
 hatred towards himself shewn in persecution 
 of his aunt, of countenance shewn to Gregory 
 by the " duke " Balacius ; and some of these 
 troubles were in his mind when, early in 341, 
 he wrote " from Rome " his Festal Letter for 
 the year. That year had begun without any 
 such settlement of his case as had been hoped 
 for at Rome. December had passed, and 
 no council could be held, for the Eusebians 
 had not arrived. January came, and at last 
 the legates returned, the unwilling bearers of 
 a letter so offensive that Juhus "resolved 
 to keep it to himself, in the hope that some 
 Eusebians" would even yet arrive (Apol. 24) 
 and render the public reading of it unneces- 
 sary. No one came. On the contrary, the 
 Eusebians resolved to take advantage of the 
 approaching dedication of a new cathedral at 
 Antioch, " the Golden Church," in order to 
 hold a council there. Accordingly, ninety- 
 seven bishops, many of whom were rather 
 negatively than positively heterodox, as- 
 sembled on this occasion, apparently in Aug. 
 341. Constantius was present. The sentence 
 passed against Athanasius at Tyre was af- 
 firmed ; several canons were passed ; and 
 three creeds were framed, in language partly 
 vague and general, partly all but reaching the 
 Nicene standard (cf. Newman, Arians, c. 4, 
 s. I ; cf. Athan. Treatises, i. 105 seq.). This 
 business necessarily lasted some time ; and 
 no information as to this council had reached 
 Rome when, in Nov. 341, Athanasius having 
 now been waiting at Rome for eighteen 
 months (Apol. 29), Julius assembled the long- 
 delayed council, consisting of more than fifty 
 bishops, in the church of the presbyter Vito. 
 Athanasius's case was fully examined ; Ath- 
 anasius was formally i)ronounced innocent ; 
 his right to brotherly treatment and church 
 communion — admitted from the first by the 
 Roman bishop — was solemnly recognized by 
 the Italian council. The year 342 is not 
 eventful in his history. Constans had shewn 
 himself friendly to Athanasius, who at his 
 request had sent him from Alexandria some 
 bound copies of the Scriptures [A p. ad Const. 4). 
 
58 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 Narcissus, Maris, and two other prelates ap- 
 peared before Constans at Treves, spoke in 
 support of the decisions against Athanasius, 
 and presented a creed which might, at first 
 sight, appear all but to confess the " Homo- 
 ousion." But Constans, doubtless swayed by 
 bp. Maxiinin, who would not admit the 
 Eastern envoys to communion, dismissed them 
 from his presence (Athan. de Syn. 25 ; Soz. iii. 
 10 ; Hil. Fragm. iii. 27). 
 
 Athanasius remained at Rome until the 
 summer of 343, when, " in the fourth year" 
 from his arrival, he received a letter from 
 Constans, bv which he was ordered to meet 
 him at Milai'i (Ap. ad Const. 3, 4)- Surprised 
 at the summons, he inquired as to its probable 
 cause, and learned that some bishops had 
 been urging Constans to propose to Constan- 
 tius the assembling of a new council, at which 
 East and West might be represented. On 
 arriving at the great capital of Northern Italy, 
 which was to be so memorably associated with 
 the struggle between the church and Arianism, 
 he was admitted, with Protasius, bp. of Milan, 
 behind the veil of the audience-chamber, and 
 received with " much kindness " by Constans, 
 who told him that he had already written to 
 his brother, " requesting that a council might 
 be held." Athanasius left Milan immediately 
 afterwards, being desired by Constans to come 
 into Gaul, in order to meet Hosius, the ven- 
 erated bp. of Cordova, and accompany him to 
 the council, which both sovereigns had now 
 agreed to assemble on the frontier line of their 
 empires, at the Moesian city of Sardica. And 
 there, about the end of 343, some 170 prelates 
 met, a small majority being Westerns. 
 
 It soon appeared that united action was 
 impossible. The majority, ignoring the 
 councils of TjTe and Antioch, and treating 
 the whole case as open, could not but regard 
 Athanasius as innocent, or, at least, as not 
 yet proved guilty ; and he " joined them in 
 celebrating the Divine mysteries " (Hil. 
 Fragm. iii. 14). The Eusebian minority, on 
 reaching Sardica, had simply announced their 
 arrival, and then shut themselves up in the , 
 lodgings provided for them at the palace, and 
 refused to join their brethren until the persons ' 
 whom they denounced as convicted men 
 should be deprived of seats in the council. 
 The answer was, that the council was pre- 
 pared to go into all the cases which could be 
 submitted to it : each party would be free to 
 implead the other. The Eusebian bishops, 
 although urged to confront their adversaries, 
 withdrew from Sardica and established them- 
 selves as a council at Philippopolis within the 
 Eastern empire, renewed the sentences against 
 Athanasius, put forth new ones against Julius, 
 Hosius, and others, drew up an encyclic, and [ 
 adopted a creed (Apol. 36, 45, 48 ; Hist. Ar. 15, 
 16, 44 ; Hil. de Syji. 34 ; Fragm. 3). The pre- 
 lates at Sardica proceeded with their inquiry, 
 recognized the innocence of Athanasius, and 
 excommunicated eleven Eusebian bishops, as 
 men who " separated the Son from the Father, 
 and so merited separation from the Catholic 
 church." They enacted several canons, in- 
 cluding the famous one providing for a 
 reference, in certain circumstances, to " Julius, 
 bp. of Rome," in " honour of Peter's mem- 
 ory," so that he might make arrangements 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 for the rehearing of a prelate's cause. It need 
 hardly be added that they would have no 
 creed but the Nicene. They wrote letters of 
 sympathy to the suffragans of Athanasius and 
 the churchmen of Alexandria, urging the 
 faithful " to contend earnestly for the sound 
 faith and the innocence of Athanasius." 
 
 The bold line taken at Sardica provoked 
 the advisers of Constantius to fresh severities ; 
 and the Alexandrian magistrates received 
 orders to behead Athanasius, or certain of his 
 clergy expressly named, if they should conn; 
 near the city. Athanasius, still kept under 
 the emperor's ban, had gone from Sardica 
 to Naissus, and thence, at the invitation of 
 Constans, to Aquileia. There, in company 
 with the bp. Fortunatian, he was admitted 
 to more than one audience ; and whenever 
 Constans mentioned Constantius, he replied 
 in terms respectful towards the latter. Con- 
 stans peremptorily, and even with a threat 
 of civil war, urged his brother to reinstate 
 Athanasius (Socr. ii. 22). The death of Gre- 
 gory, about Feb. 345 {Hist. Ar. 21), gave 
 Constantius an occasion for yielding the point. 
 He therefore wrote to Athanasius, affecting to 
 be solicitous of the Western emperor's assent 
 to an act of his own free clemency. He wrote 
 two other letters {Apol. 51 ; Hist. Ar. 22), 
 and employed six " counts " to write encour- 
 agingly to the exile ; and Athanasius, after 
 receiving these letters at Aquileia, made up 
 his mind, at last, to act on those assurances ; 
 but not until Constantius could tell Constans 
 that he had been " expecting Athanasius for 
 a year." Invited by Constans to Treves, 
 Athanasius made a diversion on his journey 
 in order to see Rome again ; it was some six 
 years since he had been cordially welcomed 
 by JuUus, who now poured forth his generous 
 heart in a letter of congratulation for the 
 Alexandrian church, one of the most beautiful 
 documents in the whole Athanasian series. 
 Julius dwelt on the well-tried worth of Athan- 
 asius, on his own happiness in gaining such a 
 friend, on the steady faith which the Alex- 
 andrians had exhibited, on the rapture with 
 which they would celebrate his return ; and 
 concluded by invoking for his " beloved 
 brethren" the blessings " which eye had not 
 seen, nor ear heard." * Athanasius travelled 
 northward about midsummer ; visited Con- 
 stans, passed through Hadrianople {Hist. Ar. 
 18), proceeded to Antioch, and saw Constan- 
 tius for the third time {Ap. ad Const. 5). The 
 reception was gracious : the emperor valued 
 himself on his impassive demeanour (Ammian. 
 xvi. 10). Athjmasius, without viUfying his 
 enemies, firmly desired leave to confront them 
 {Ap. ad Const. I.e. ; Hist. Ar. 22, 44). " No," 
 said Constantius, " God knows, I will never 
 again credit such accusations ; and all records 
 of past charges shall be erased." This latter 
 promise he at once fulfilled, by orders sent 
 to the authorities in Egypt ; and he ^\Tote 
 letters in favour of the' archbishop to the 
 clergy of Egypt and the laity of Alexandria. 
 One thing he asked, that Athanasius would 
 allow the Alexandrian Arians a single church. 
 Athanasius promptly replied that he would do 
 so, if a church might be granted at Antioch to 
 * Apol. 55. Socrates (ii. 23) inserts eulogistic 
 phrases which Athanasius's text does not give. 
 
ATHANASIUS 
 
 the " Eustathiau " Ixuly. which held aloof 
 from the crypto- Ariaii bp. Lcontiiis, and whose 
 services, held in a house, lie had been attend- 
 ing. The emperor would have agreed to this, 
 but his advisers stood in the way.* 
 
 From Antioch Athanasius proceeded to 
 Jerusalem, where an orthodox council met to 
 do him honour, and to congratulate his 
 church. And now lie had but to return home 
 and enjoy the welcome which that church was 
 eager to give. This he did, acconling to the 
 Festal Index, on Oct. 21 (Paophi 24), 3.tC. 
 We see in Gregory Nazianzen's panegyric a 
 picture of the vast mass of population, dis- 
 tributed into its several classes, and streaming 
 latth, " like another Nile," to meet him at 
 some distance from Alexandria ; the faces 
 gazing from every eminence at the well-known 
 team, the ears strained to catch his accents, 
 the voices rising in emulous plaudits, the 
 hands clapping, the air fragrant with incense, 
 the city festal with banquets and blazing with 
 illuminations — all that made this return of 
 Athanasius in aftor-times the standard for any 
 -pltMuiid popul.ir display. 
 
 (5) From his Si-cotul Return (346) to his Third 
 ;:..nV^ (^36).— His 19th Festal Letter, for 347. 
 begins with a thanksgiving for having been 
 " brought from distant lands." The Egyptian 
 prelates, in council, received the decrees of 
 Sardica. More than 400 bishops of different 
 countries, including Britain, were now in 
 communion with Athanasius ; he had a mul- 
 titude of their " letters of peace " to answer. 
 Many persons in Egypt who had sided with 
 the Arians came by night to him with their 
 excuses : it was a time " of deep and wondrous 
 peace" (Hist. At. 25), which lasted for a few 
 years. Valens and Ursacius had already, it 
 seems, anathematized Arianism before a 
 council at Milan ; but they deemed it ex- 
 pedient to do more. In 347 they appeared at 
 Rome, and presented to Julius a humble 
 apologetic letter, having already written in a 
 different strain to Athanasius, announcing 
 that they were " at peace with him." t He 
 believed at the time that they were sincere ; 
 thev afterwards ascribed their act to fear of 
 Con'stans (Hist. Ar. 29). This motive, if it 
 existed, was ere long removed ; the revolt of 
 Magnentius brought Constans to an ignomini- 
 ous death at the foot of the P>Tenees, in 
 Feb. 350. This tragedy was a severe shock 
 to Athanasius. He received, indeed, letters 
 from Constantius, assuring him of continued 
 favour, and encouraging him to pursue his 
 episcopal work. The .-Mexandrian authorities 
 were also commanded to suppress any " plot- 
 ting against Athanasius." Thereupon in pre- 
 sence of high state officers, including the 
 
 • See Socr. ii. 23, Soz. iii. 20. They were called 
 after bp. Eustathius (Hist. Ar. 4), deposed by Arians 
 in 330. For Leontius, see de Fuua, 26 ; Theod. 
 ii. 24 ; Hooker, v. 42, 9. Many of the orthodox 
 continued to worship in his churches (<•.?. Flavian 
 and Diodore). Constantius's absolute dependence 
 on his advisers is scornfully noted in Hisl. Ar. 69, 70. 
 
 t See Newman's note, Hist. Tracts, p. 86 (.-ipol. 
 19): cf. Apol. 2; Hisl. Ar. 26, 44. As Westerns, 
 they naturally treated the bp. of Rome with much 
 greater deference than the bp. of Ale.xandria ; and 
 even in their statement to Julius they betray their 
 distrust of Athanasius. That they should retract, 
 from motives of policy, was for them no unnatural 
 course : cf. Hil. Fragm. i. 20. 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 59 
 
 bearers of these letters, .Vthanasiiis desired 
 his people, assembled in church, *' to pray for 
 the safety of the most religious Constantius 
 .\iigustus." The response was at once made, 
 " C) Christ, help Constantius ! " (Ap. ad 
 Const. 9, 10, 23; Hist. Ar. 24, 51). He 
 had leisure for writing On the Nicinc Definition 
 of Faith * and On the Opinions of Dionysius, 
 his great predecessor in the 3rd cent., whose 
 language, employed in controversy with 
 Sabellianism, had been unfairly quoted in 
 support of Arianism. t fDiONVSius.] He 
 also brought out, at this time, what is called 
 his Apology Of^ainst the Arians, although he 
 afterwards made additions to it.t It may 
 have been about this time that he chose the 
 blind scholar Didymus, already renowned for 
 vast and varied learning, to preside over the 
 " Catechetical School." [Didymus.] When 
 Magnentius sent envoys to Constantius, one 
 of them visited Alexandria ; and Athanasius, 
 in speaking to him of Constans, burst into 
 tears. He at first had some apprehension of 
 danger froni Magnentius ; but it was soon 
 evident that his real danger was from the 
 Arianizing ad\iscrs of Constantius. Valens 
 and Ursacius, having now recanted their re- 
 cantation, were ready to wea\e new plots ; 
 and Liberius, the new bp. of Rome, was plied 
 with letters against him, which were out- 
 weighed, in the judgment of a Roman synod, 
 by an encyclic of eighty Egyptian prelates ; 
 and Rome remained faithful to his cause. 
 (See Liberius's letter to Constantius, Hil. 
 Fragm. 5. Another letter, in which Liberius 
 is made to say that he had put Athanasius out 
 of his communion for refusing to come to 
 Rome when summoned, is justly regarded as 
 a forgery.) This was in 352 ; and Athanasius, 
 in May 353, thought it well to send 5 bishops 
 (Soz. iv. 9, and Fragm. Maff.), one being his 
 friend Serapion of Thmuis, and 3 presbyters, 
 to disabuse Constantius of bad impressions as 
 to his conduct. Five days later, May 23, 
 Montanus, a " silcntiary " or palace chamber- 
 lain, arrived with an imperial letter for- 
 bidding him to send envoys, but granting 
 a request for himself to go to Milan. 
 Athanasius, detecting an attempt to decoy 
 him, replied that as he had never made such 
 a request, he could not think it right to use a 
 permission granted under a misconception ; 
 but that if the emperor sent him a definite 
 order, he would set forth at once (Ap. ad 
 Const. 19-21). Montanus departed ; and the 
 next news that Athanasius received from 
 Europe was such as to make him forget all 
 personal danger. The Western usurper had 
 been finally overthrown in August ; and 
 Constantius, having gone to Aries for the 
 
 • In this treatise he guards the Catholic sense of 
 the title " Son," gives some account of the council's 
 proceedings, and defends the language adopted by 
 it, adducing ante-Xicene authorities. (He upholds 
 Origen's orthodoxy.) 
 
 t He urged that Dionysius had been speaking 
 simply of Christ's Manhood (see I,iddon's Bamp. 
 l.tcl. p. 425). 
 
 : In the Hollandist I.ife (Act. .SS., May 2), the 
 Apology acainst Arians is called the Syllogus, or 
 collection of documents, etc., framed about 342, and 
 afterwards appended to the Arian History "ad 
 Monachos." The old name of Second Apology is, at 
 all events, clearly misapplied. 
 
60 ATHANASIUS 
 
 wiater, was induced by the Arians to hold 
 there, instead of at Aquileia, the council which 
 Liberius and many Italian bishops had re- 
 quested him to assemble.* The event was 
 disastrous : Vincent, the Roman legate, was 
 induced to join with other prelates in con- 
 demning Athanasius ; but Paulinus of Treves 
 had inherited Maximin's steadfastness, and 
 preferred exile to the betrayal of a just cause. 
 
 In the Lent of 354 the Alexandrian churches 
 were so crowded that some persons suffered 
 severely, and the people lu-ged Athanasius to 
 allow the Easter services to be held in a large 
 church which was still unfinished, called the 
 Caesarean. The case was pecuUar {Ap. ad 
 Const. 15 ; Epiph. Haer. 69, 2) : the church 
 was being built on ground belonging to the 
 emperor ; to use it prematurely, without his 
 leave, might be deemed a civil offence ; to 
 use it before dedication, an ecclesiastical im- 
 propriety. Athanasius tried to persuade the 
 people to put up with the existing inconveni- 
 ence : they answered, they would rather keep 
 Easter in the open country. Under these 
 circumstances he gave way. The Arianizers 
 were habitually courtiers, and ready, on 
 occasion, to be formahsts likewise ; and this 
 using of the undedicated imperial church was 
 one of several charges now urged at court 
 against their adversary, and dealt with in his 
 Apology to Constantius ; the others being that 
 he had stimulated Constans to quarrel with 
 his brother, had corresponded with Magnen- 
 tius, and that he had not come to Italy on 
 receiving the letter brought by Montanus. A 
 letter which Athanasius wrote before the 
 Easter of this year, or perhaps of 355, is par- 
 ticularly interesting ; he seeks to recall 
 Dracontius, a monk who had been elected to 
 a bishopric, and had weakly fled from his 
 new duties. The earnestness, good sense, and 
 affectionateness of this letter are very charac- 
 teristic of Athanasius. He dwells repeatedly 
 on the parable of the Talents, reminds Dra- 
 contius of solemn obligations, and warns him 
 against imagining the monastic life to be 
 the one sphere of Christian self-denial. f The 
 calm contemplation of fast-approaching trials, 
 which would make a severe demand on 
 Christian men's endurance, shews a "discern- 
 ment " of the " signs " of 354-5 in Athanasius. 
 
 For, in the spring of 355, he would hear of 
 the success of Constantius in terrorizing the 
 great majority of a large council at Milan, 
 which had been summoned at the urgent desire 
 of Liberius. A few faithful men, such as 
 Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Caliaris, 
 Dionysius of Milan, after a momentary weak- 
 ness, and Maximus of Naples, who was suffer- 
 ing at the time from illness, alone refused to 
 condemn Athanasius {Hist. Ar. 32-34^ ; and 
 in standing out against the incurable tyran- 
 nousness of Caesarism, as thus exhibited, must 
 have felt themselves to be contending both for 
 civil justice and for Nicene orthodoxy. 
 
 That some coup d'etat was meditated against 
 Athanasius must have been evident, not only 
 
 • See Uberius's letter to Hosius in Hil. Fragm. 6 
 The spurious letter referred to above (as to which see 
 de Broglie, VEgLet I'Emp. 2me part. i. 233) begins 
 Studens paci," and forms Fr. 4. 
 
 t " I know of bishops who do, and of monks who 
 do not, fast." 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 from the emperor's passionate eagerness to 
 have him condemned, and from the really 
 brutal persecution which began to rage 
 throughout the empire against those who 
 adhered to his communion (Hist. Ar. 31), but 
 from the appearance at Alexandria, in July 
 or Aug. 355, of an imperial notary, named 
 Diogenes, who, though he brought no express 
 orders, and had no interview with Athanasius, 
 used every effort to get him out of the city. 
 Failing in this, he departed in Dec. ; and on 
 Jan. 5, 356, Syrianus, a general, with another 
 notary named Hilarius, entered Alexandria. 
 The Arian party exulted in their approaching 
 triumph ; Athanasius asked SyTianus if he 
 had brought any letter from the Emperor. He 
 said he had not. The archbishop referred him 
 to the guarantee of security which he had 
 himself received ; and the presbyters, the 
 laity, and the majority of all the inhabitants 
 supported him in demanding that no change 
 should be made without a new imperial letter 
 — the rather that they themselves were pre- 
 paring to send a deputation to Constantius. 
 The prefect of Egypt and the provost of 
 Alexandria were present at this interview ; 
 and Syrianus, at last, promised " by the hfe 
 of the emperor" that he would comply with 
 the demand. This was on Jan. 18 ; and for 
 more than three weeks all was quiet. But 
 about midnight on Thursday, Feb. 8, when 
 Athanasius was at a night-long vigil service 
 in St. Theonas's church, preparatory to the 
 Friday service, Syrianus, with Hilarius, and 
 Gorgonius, the head of the poUce force, beset 
 the church with a large body of soldiers. " I 
 sat down," says Athanasius, " on my throne " 
 (which would be at the extreme end of the 
 church), " and desired the deacnn to read the 
 Psalm " (our 136th), " and the people to 
 respond. For His mercy endureth for ever,_ and 
 then all to depart home." This majestic 
 " act of faith " was hardly finished, when the 
 doors were forced, and the soldiers rushed in 
 with a fierce shout, clashing their arms, 
 discharging their arrows, and brandishing 
 their swords in the light of the church lamps. 
 Some of the people in the nave had already 
 departed, others were trampled down or 
 mortally injured ; others cried to the arch- 
 bishop to escape. " I said I would not do so 
 until they had all got away safe. So I stood 
 up, and called for prayer, and desired all to 
 go out before me . . . and when the greater 
 part had gone, the monks who were there, 
 and certain of the clergy, came up to me and 
 carried me away." And then, he adds, he 
 passed through the mass of his enemies un- 
 observed, thanking God that he had been able 
 to secure in the first instance his people's 
 safety, and afterwards his own. As on a 
 former occasion, he deemed it his duty to 
 accept an opportunity of escape, especially 
 when the sacrifice of his life would have been 
 ruinous to the cause of the church in Egypt 
 (see Augustine, Ep. 228, 10) ; and he there- 
 fore concealed himself in the country, " hiding 
 himself," as the Arian History, c. 48, employs 
 the prophet's words, " for a little moment, 
 until the indignation should be overpast." 
 
 (6) From his Third to his Fourth Exile (356- 
 362). — On leaving Alexandria, Athanasius at 
 first thought of appealing in person to Con- 
 
ATHANASIUS 
 
 ' iiitiiis, who could not, he tried to hope, have 
 !■ tioued the late outrage. But he was dt-- 
 I i-d by the news of one woe following upon 
 ther (.-f^. ad Const. 27, iq). Bishops of 
 West who had refused to disown him were 
 icriuK under tyranny, or had been hurried 
 t>) exile. Among the latter class was the 
 ^i: l\oman bishop himself, who had manfully 
 Pi spumed both gifts and menaces (Theod. ii. 16); 
 1:; ind Hosius, on addressing to Constantius a 
 lUMistrance full of pathetic dignity, had been 
 ii for to be detained at Sirmium. Then 
 1 lie news which touched Athanasius more 
 :iosely. It was given out that one George, 
 ; ,a Cappadocian of ev'il reputation and ruthless 
 d ;temper, was coming to supersede him ; and 
 ; jthat a vague creed, purporting to be simply 
 Scriptural, but in fact ignoring tiie Nicene 
 it: doctrine, was to be proposed for his suffragans' 
 1;' 'acceptance. This last report set him at once 
 |, ;to work on a Letter to the Egyptian and Libyan 
 Bishops. But he had soon to hear of a 
 - repetition of the sacrileges and brutalities of 
 1 "the days of Gregory. As before. Lent was 
 ,, 'the time chosen for the arrival of the usurper. 
 (Easter brought an increase of trouble in the 
 f [persecution of prelates, clergy, virgins, widows, 
 I the poor, and even ordinary Catholic house- 
 I holders. On the evening of the Sunday after 
 Pentecost, when " the brethren " had met for 
 worship, apart from the Ariaus, in the pre- 
 cincts of a cemetery, a military commander, 
 named Sebastian, a fierce-tempered Mani- 
 'chean, whose sympathies went with George, 
 came to the spot with more than 3000 soldiers, 
 , and found some virgins and others still in 
 prayer after the general congregation had 
 ' broken up. On their refusal to embrace 
 Arianism, he caused them to be stripped, and 
 beaten or wounded with such severity that 
 ' some died from the effects, and their corpses 
 were kept without burial. This was followed 
 i by the banishment of sixteen bishops, doubt- 
 less for rejecting the new-made creed ; more 
 : than thirty fled, others were scared into 
 ' an apparent conformity, and the vacated 
 I churches were given over to men whose moral 
 , disqualifications for any religious office were 
 compensated by their profession of Arianism. 
 Tragical as were these tidings, Athanasius still 
 clung to his purpose of presenting himself 
 '. before Constantius, until he learned that one 
 ■ imperial letter had denounced him as a fugitive 
 ' criminal who richly merited death, and an- 
 I other had e.xhorted the two Ethiopian sove- 
 reigns to send Frumentius to Alexandria, that 
 j George might instruct him in the knowledge 
 I of " the supreme God." 
 I Then it was that .Athanasius, accepting the 
 
 Sosition of a proscribed man who must needs 
 ve as a fugitive, " turned back again," as he 
 ; says, " towards the desert," and sought for 
 I welcome and shelter amid the innumerable 
 ; monastic cells. Anthony had died at the be- 
 ginning of the year, desiring that a worn-out 
 sheepskin cloak (the monk's usual upper dress), 
 which when new had been the gift of .-Kthan- 
 asius, might be returned to him (Vit. Ant. 91). 
 As Athanasius appears to have made secret 
 : visits to Alexandria, he probably spent some 
 time among the recluses of Lower Egypt, but 
 he also doubtless visited what Villemain calls 
 " the pathless solitudes which surround Upper 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 CI 
 
 Egypt, and the monasteries and liermitages of 
 the Thebaid." A veil of mystery was thus 
 drawn over his life ; and the interest was 
 heightened by the romantic incidents naturally 
 following from the Government's attempts to 
 track and seize him. When comparatively 
 undisturbed, he would still be full of activities, 
 ecclesiastical and theological. Athanasius made 
 those six years of seclusion available for 
 literary work of the most substantial kind, 
 both controversial and historical. The books 
 which he now began to pour forth were appar- 
 ently Nvritten in cottages or caves, where he 
 sat, like any monk, on a mat of palm-leaves, 
 with a bundle of papyrus beside him, amid the 
 intense light and stillness of the desert (Kings- 
 ley's Hermits, p. 130, 19). He finished his 
 .Apology to Constantius, a work which he had 
 for some time in hand, and which he still 
 hoped to be able, in better days, to deliver in 
 the emperor's presence. He met the taunts 
 of " cowardice " directed against him by the 
 Arians with an Apology for his Flight. To 
 the same period belong the Letter to the 
 Monks, with the Arian History (not now 
 extant as a whole), which it introduces (and 
 as to which it is difficult to resist the impres- 
 sion that part of it, at least, was written under 
 Athanasius's supervision, by some friend or 
 secretary) ; a Letter to Serapion, bp. of Thmuis, 
 giving an account of the death of Arius, the 
 details of which he had learned from his 
 presbyter Macarius, while he himself was re- 
 sident at Treves ; and, above all, the great 
 Orations or Discourses against the Arians. 
 These last have been described by Montfaucon 
 as " the sources whence arguments have been 
 borrowed by all who have since written in 
 behalf of the Divinity of the Word." The 
 first discourse is occupied with an exposition 
 of the greatness of the question at issue ; with 
 proofs of the Son's eternity and uncreateduess, 
 with discussion of objections, and with com- 
 ments on texts alleged in support of Arianism 
 [i.e. Phil. ii. 9, 10 ; Ps. xlv. 7, 8 ; Heb i. 4). 
 The second, written after some interval, pur- 
 sues this line of comment, especially on a text 
 much urged by Arians in the LXX version 
 (Prov. viii. 22). The third explains texts in 
 the Gospels, and in so doing sets forth the 
 Christ of the church, as uniting in Himself 
 true Godhead and true Manhood; and it then 
 passes to the consideration of another Arian 
 statement, that the Sonship was a result of 
 God's mere will. Differing from other writers. 
 Dr. Newman considers the fourth Discourse to 
 be an undigested collection of notes or memo- 
 randa on several heresies, principally that 
 which was imputed to his friend Marcellus, 
 and to persons connected with him — an 
 imputation which Athanasius, about 360, 
 began to think not undeserved. It may be 
 thought by some who have no bias against 
 the theology of the Discourses that his tender- 
 ness towards an old associate is in striking 
 contrast with the exuberance of objurgation 
 bestowed on the Arian " madmen " and " foes 
 of Christ." But not to urge that the 4th 
 cent, had no established rules of controversial 
 poHteness, and that the acerbity of Greek 
 disputation and the personalities of Roman 
 society had often too much influence on the 
 tone of Christian argument, one must remem- 
 
62 ATHANASIUS 
 
 ber that Athanasius is not attacking all 
 members of tlie Arian communion, but repre- 
 sentatives of it who had been conspicuous, 
 not for heterodoxy alone, but for secularity in 
 its worst form, for unscrupulousness, and for 
 violence. He followed up his Discourses by 
 four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, of which 
 the second briefly repeated the teaching of the 
 Discourses, while the others were directed 
 against a theory then reported to him by 
 Serapion as springing up, and afterwards 
 known as Macedonianism ; which, abandon- 
 ing the Arian position in regard to the Son, 
 strove with singular inconsistency to retain it 
 in regard to the Spirit. Athanasius met this 
 error by contending for " a Trinity real and 
 undivided," in which the Spirit was included 
 with the Father and the Son. 
 
 The general aspect of church affairs was 
 very unhopeful. At Constantinople an Arian 
 persecution had again set in. But the defec- 
 tion of Hosius in 357, and Liberius in 358, 
 after hard pressure and cruel usage, from the 
 steadfastness which Athanasius had so much 
 admired, must have wounded him to the 
 heart. Yet he speaks of them with character- 
 istic and most generous tenderness, and with 
 full recognition of the trials under which they 
 had given way (Hist. Ar. 45, 41 ; Apol. 89 ; 
 de Fugii, 5). In 350 the general body of 
 Western bishops, at the council of Ariminum, 
 were partly harassed and partly cheated into 
 adopting an equivocal but really Arian con- 
 fession, which was also adopted at the begin- 
 ning of 360 by the legates of the Eastern 
 council of Seleucia. An account of the earlier 
 proceedings of these two councils was drawn 
 up, in the form of a letter, by Athanasius, 
 who, on the ground of a few words in the 
 opening of this Letter on the Councils of Ari- 
 minum and Seleucia, has been thought by 
 Tillemont and Gibbon to have been present 
 at any rate at the latter place. The treatise 
 is remarkable for his considerateness towards 
 those of the semi-Arians whose objections to 
 the Nicene Creed were rather verbal than 
 real, while the second creed of Sirmium had 
 driven them into open hostility to the Arians 
 properly so-called, which they had expressed 
 in their council of Ancyrain 358. Athanasius, 
 then expressly naming their leader, Basil of 
 Ancyra, welcomes them as brothers who mean 
 essentially what churchmen mean. He will 
 not for the present urge the Horaoousion upon 
 them. He is sure that in time thev will 
 accept it, as securing that doctrine of Christ's 
 essential Sonship which their own svmbol 
 " Homoiousion " could not adequately guard 
 [de Syn. 41). But while exhibiting this large- 
 minded patience and forbearance he is careful 
 to contrast the long series of Arian creeds with 
 the one invariable standard of the orthodox : 
 the only refuge from restless variations will 
 be found in a frank adoption of the creed of 
 Nicaea [ib. 32 ; cf. ad Afros, 9). 
 
 On Nov. 30 the accession of Julian was 
 formally proclaimed at Alexandria. The 
 Pagans, in high exultation, thought that their 
 time was come for taking vengeance on the 
 Arian bishop, whom they had once before 
 tumultuously expelled for oppressive and 
 violent conduct. They rose in irresistible 
 force, threw George into prison, and on Dec. 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 24 barbarously murdered him. The Arians 
 set up one Lucius in his place ; but Julian, as 
 if to shew his supercilious contempt for the 
 disputes of " Galileans," or his detestation 
 of the memory of Constantius, permitted all 
 the bishops whom his predecessor had exiled 
 to return ; and Athanasius, taking advantage 
 of this edict, reappeared in Alexandria, to the 
 joy of his people, Feb. 22, 362. 
 
 One of his first acts was to hold a council 
 at Alexandria for the settlement of several 
 pressing questions, {a} Many bishops deeply 
 regretted their concessions at Ariminum in 
 359 : how were they to be treated ? (b) It 
 had become urgently necessary to give some 
 advice to Paulinus and his flock at Antioch, 
 with a view to healing the existing schism 
 there, (c) A dispute which had arisen as to 
 the word " hypostasis " had to be settled. (4) 
 A correct view as to the Incarnation and the 
 Person of Christ had to be established. The 
 work before the council was that of harmoniz- 
 ing and reconciling. A synodal letter, or 
 "Tome," addressed "to the Antiochenes " 
 {i.e. to Paulinus and his flock), and composed 
 by Athanasius, is one of the noblest documents 
 that ever emanated from a council. But it 
 came too late to establish peace at Antioch. 
 Lucifer of Caliaris had taken upon him to 
 consecrate Paulinus as the legitimate bp. of 
 Antioch, and so perpetuated the division 
 which his wiser brethren had hoped to heal. 
 
 The pagans of Alexandria had been rebuked 
 by Julian for the murder of George, but he 
 lent a ready ear to their denunciations of 
 Athanasius as a man whose influence would 
 destroy their religion. Julian assured them 
 that he had never intended Athanasius to 
 resume " what is called the episcopal throne " ; 
 and peremptorily commanded him to leave 
 Alexandria ; the imperial edict was communi- 
 cated to Athanasius on Oct. 23 ( = Paophi 27, 
 Fest. Ind., Fragm. Maff.). The faithful 
 gathered around him weeping. " Be of good 
 heart," he said ; " it is but a cloud ; it will 
 soon pass." He instantly embarked to go up 
 the Nile. But Julian's implied orders were 
 not forgotten ; some Government agents 
 pursued his vessel. They met a boat coming 
 down the river, and asked for news of Athan- 
 asius. " He is not far off," was the reply. 
 The boat was his own — he himself, perhaps, 
 the speaker (Theod. iii. 9). His facilities of 
 information had given him warning of the 
 peril, and his presence of mind had baffled it. 
 He sailed on towards Alexandria, but con- 
 cealed himself at Chaereu, the first station 
 from the capital, then proceeded to Memphis, 
 where he wrote his Festal Letter for 363, and 
 then made his way to the Thebaid. 
 
 (7) From his Fourth Exile to his Death 
 (362-373). It was probably about this time, 
 shortly before Easter, 363, that Athanasius 
 was met, while approaching Hermopolis, by 
 Theodore of Tabenne, the banks of the Nile 
 being thronged by bishops, clergy, and monks. 
 Night apparently favoured this demonstra- 
 tion ; Athanasius, having disembarked, 
 mounted an ass which Theodore led, and pur- 
 sued his way amid a vast body of monks 
 bearing lanterns and torches, and chanting 
 psalms. He stayed some time at Hermopohs 
 and Antinoe, for the purpose of preaching ; 
 
ATHANASIUS 
 
 ...II prDcecdcd soutlnvarils t«> Tabcnno. At 
 
 iii.l-.iitiimor, according to anotlu-r narrative, 
 
 f was at Antinoe, apprehensive oi being 
 
 iiiested and put to death, when Theodore 
 
 iiid another abbot named Tanmion came to 
 
 .v liim, and i>orsuaded him to embark with 
 
 .111 in Theodore's closely covered boat, in 
 
 r to conceal himself in Tabenne. Athan- 
 
 . was in praver, agitated by the prospect 
 
 : i.irt\Tdom, when Theodore, according to 
 
 .u storv, assured him that Julian had at that 
 
 , nv hour been slain in his Persian war. The 
 
 i.iv of Julian's death was June 26, 363. 
 
 "The cloud had passed," and Athanasius 
 (turned by night to Alexandria. After his 
 trrival, which was kept secret, he received a 
 ■ r from the new emperor Jovian, desiring 
 t> resume his functions, and to draw up 
 •.cment of the Catholic faith. .Vthauasius 
 ,1 ^.iice assembled a council, and framed a 
 SNTiodal letter, in which the Nicene Creed was 
 prabodied, its Scripturalness asserted, and the 
 |;n"eat majoritv of Churches (including the 
 British) referred to as professing it : Arianism 
 ivas condemned, semi-Arianism pronounced 
 inadequate, the Homoousion explained as 
 •expressive of Christ's real Sonship, the co- 
 Jequality of the Holy Spirit maintained in 
 terms which partly anticipate the language 
 :>f the Creed of Constantinople. On Sept. 5 
 ^Athanasius sailed to Antioch, bearing this 
 letter. He was most graciously received, 
 while the rival bp. Lucius and his companions 
 were rebuffed with some humour and some 
 |impatience by the blunt soldier-prince, who, 
 ihowever, during his brief reign, shewed him- 
 !f;elf as tolerant as he was orthodox. The 
 [general prospects of the church must now 
 have seemed brighter than at any time since 
 330. Llberius was known to have made a 
 full declaration of orthodoxy ; and many 
 IWestern bishops, responding to the appeals of 
 lEusebius and Hilary of Poictiers, had eagerly 
 jrenounced the Arim'inian Creed and professed 
 ithe Nicene. But the local troubles of Antioch 
 Kvere distressing ; and Athanasius, seeing no 
 |<)ther solution, recognized their bishop Paulinus 
 |as the true head of the Antiochene church, on 
 |his appending to his signature of the Tome a 
 ifull and orthodox declaration, which, accord- 
 ling to Epiphanius (Haer. 77, 20), Athanasius 
 Ihimself had framed. 
 
 Having written his Festal Letter for 364 
 |at Antioch, Athanasius reached home, appar- 
 lently, on Feb. 13, a few days before Jovian's 
 [death. Valentinian L succeeded, and soon 
 (afterwards assigned the Hast to his brother 
 iValens. The Alexandrian church was not at 
 Ifirst a sufferer by this change of monarchs ; 
 [and 364-365 may be the probable date for the 
 jpublication of the Life of Anthony, which 
 i.-Vthanasius addressed " to the monks abroad," 
 \t.e. those in Italy and Gaul. But, ere long, 
 ihis troubles to some extent reappeared. Ac- 
 jcording to the Egyptian documents, it was 
 Ithe spring of 365 when Valens issued an order 
 'for the expulsion of all bishops who, having 
 .been expelled under Constantius, had been 
 'recalled under Julian, and thereby announced 
 that he meant to follow the Arian policv of 
 iConstantius. On May 5 this order reached 
 jAlexandria, and caused a popular ferment, 
 lOnly quieted on J une 8 by the prefect's pro- 
 
 ATHANASIUS fi.-l 
 
 mise to refer the case of Athanasius tn the 
 emperor. H we may combine his statement 
 with Sozomen's (wlm, however, i>laces these 
 events in a subsequent year), we should suj)- 
 pose that the prefect was but biding his time ; 
 and on the night of Oct. 5, Athanasius, having 
 doubtless been forewarned, left his abode in 
 the precinct of St. Dionysius's church, and 
 took refuge in a country house near the New 
 River. For four months the archbishop's 
 concealment lasted, until an imperial notary 
 came to the country house with a great multi- 
 tude, and led .\thanasius back into his church, 
 Feb. I (Mechir 7), 366. His quiet was not 
 again seriously disturbed, and Athanasius was 
 free to ilevote himself to his proper work, 
 whether of writing or of administration. His 
 Festal Letter for 367 contained a list of the 
 books of Scripture which, so far as regards 
 the New Testament, agrees precisely with our 
 own (see, too, de Deer. 18). The canonical 
 books are described as " the fountains of 
 salvation, through which alone " (a mode of 
 speaking very usual with Athanasius) " is the 
 teaching of religion transmitted" ; a second 
 class of books is mentioned, as "read" in 
 church for religious edification ; the name 
 " apocryphal " is reserved for a third class to 
 which heretics have assigned a fictitious dig- 
 nity (VVestcott, On the Canon, pp. 487, 520). 
 To this period has been assigned the comment 
 on doctrinal texts which is called a treatise 
 On the Incarnation and against the Arians ; 
 but its entire genuineness may be reasonably 
 doubted. In or about 369 he held a council 
 at Alexandria, in order to receive letters from 
 a Roman council held under Damasus, the 
 successor of Liberius, and also from other 
 Western prelates, excommunicating Ursacius 
 and Valens, and enforcing the authority of the 
 Nicene Creed. Hereupon Athanasius, in a 
 synodal letter addressed To the Africans, i.e. 
 to those of the Carthaginian territory, con- 
 trasts the " ten or more " synodical formulas 
 of Arianism with the Nicene Creed, gives some 
 account of its formation, and exposes the 
 futile attempt of its present adversaries to 
 claim authority for the later, as distinct from 
 the earlier, proceedings of the Ariminian 
 council. It appears that on Sept. 22, 369, 
 
 Athanasius, who had in May 368 begun to 
 rebuild the Caesarean church, laid the 
 foundations of another church, afterwards 
 called by his own name (Fest. Jnd.). We 
 find him excommimicating a cruel and licen- 
 tious governor in Libya, and signifying the 
 act by circular letters. One of these was 
 sent to Basil, who had just become exarch, or 
 archbp., of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and had 
 received, perhaps at that time, from Athan- 
 asius, a formal notification of the proceedings 
 of the council of 362 (Ep. 204). Basil immedi- 
 ately announced to his own people the sentence 
 pronounced in Egypt ; the strong sense oi 
 church unity made such a step both regular 
 and natural, and he wrote to assure Athan- 
 asius that the offender would be regarded by 
 the faithful at Caesarea as utterly alien from 
 Christian fellowship (Ep. 60). This led to a 
 correspondence, carried on actively in 371. 
 Basil, who had troubles of all kinds weighing 
 upon his spirit, sought aid in regard to one of 
 them — the unhappy schism of Antioch [Ep. 
 
64 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 66). He wanted Athanasius to promote the 
 recogaition by the Westerns of Meletius as 
 rightful bp. of Antioch, and to induce Paulinus 
 to negotiate. In the autumn Basil wrote 
 again (Ep. 69), and the tone which he adopts 
 towards Athanasius is very remarkable. He 
 calls him the foremost person (literally, the 
 summit) of the whole church, the man of 
 " truly grand and apostohc soul, who from 
 boyhood had been an athlete in the cause of 
 religion " — " a spiritual father," whom he 
 longed earnestly to see, and whose conversa- 
 tion would amply compensate for all the 
 sufferings of a lifetime {Ep. 69, 80, 82). But 
 although Athanasius consented to act as a 
 medium between Basil and the Westerns 
 {Ep. 90), he could not take any direct part in 
 favour of Meletius, whose rival's position he 
 had unequivocally recognized. Nothing came 
 of the appUcation. 
 
 Athanasius was far from tolerating, in these 
 latter years of his life, any theories which 
 seemed definitely heterodox respecting what 
 may be called the human side of the Incar- 
 nation. If, in his Letter to Adelphius, he 
 condemned a certain class of Arians, and 
 vindicated against their cavils the adoration 
 paid to Christ's Manhood, that is, to His one 
 Person Incarnate ; if, in his Letter to Maximus, 
 he denomiced those who spoke of the man 
 Christ as simply a saint with whom the 
 Word had become associated ; he was also, 
 in his Letter to Eptctetus, bp. of Corinth — a 
 tract called forth by a communication from 
 Epictetus — most earnest against some who, 
 while " glorying in the Nicene confession, 
 represented Christ's body as not truly human, 
 but formed out of the essence of Godhead. 
 This was, in fact, the second proposition of the 
 heresy called Apollinarian ; the first being that 
 which had attracted the attention of the 
 coimcil of 362, and had been disclaimed by 
 those whom the council could examine — as 
 to the non-existence, in Christ, of a rational 
 soul, the Word being supposed to supply its 
 place. These views had grown out of an 
 unbalanced eagerness to exalt the Saviour's 
 dignity : but the great upholders of Nicene 
 faith saw that they were incompatible with 
 His Manhood and His Headship, that they 
 virtually brought back Docetism, and that one 
 of them, at any rate, involved a debased con- 
 ception of Deity. In the next year, 372, he 
 combated both these propositions with " the 
 keenness and richness of thought which dis- 
 tinguish his writings generally " (see Newman, 
 Church of the Fathers, p. 162 ; Praef. ed. 
 Benson, ii. 7) in two books entitled Against 
 Apollinaris. These books are remarkable for 
 the masterly distinctness with which the one 
 Christ is set forth as " perfect God and 
 perfect Man " 'i. iG) : if words occur in 
 ii. 10 which seem at first sight to favour 
 MonotheUtism, the context shews their mean- 
 ing to be that the Divine will in Christ was 
 dominant over the human ; if in the next 
 chapter the phrase " God suffered through 
 the flesh " is called unscriptural, the whole 
 argument shews that he is contending against 
 the passibihty of the Saviour's Godhead. 
 Inexact as might be some of his phrases, the 
 general purport of his teaching on this great 
 subject is unmistakable ; it is, as he says in 
 
 ATHANASIUS 
 
 Oral. iii. 41, that Christ was " very (iod ii 
 the flesh, and very Flesh in the Word." Ii 
 truth, these later treatises, like the grea 
 Discourses, exclude by anticipation both th 
 forms of heresy, in reference to the Person an( 
 Natures of Christ, which troubled the churcl 
 in the next three centuries (see especially i 
 II, ii. 10). Athanasius, in the fruits of hi 
 work, was " in truth the Immortal" {Christ 
 Rememhr. xxxvii. 206I : he was continuall; 
 " planting trees under which men of a late: 
 age might sit." It might indeed be said tha 
 he " waxed old in his work " (Ecclus. xi. 20) 
 
 But the time of work for him came to ar 
 end in the spring of 373. The discussion; 
 about the year of his death may be considerec 
 as practically closed ; the Festal Index 
 although its chronology is sometimes faulty 
 may be considered as confirming the date 
 373. given in the Maffeian Fragment, sup 
 ported by other ancient authorities, anc 
 accepted by various writers. The exact day 
 we may believe, was Thursday, May 2, 01 
 which day of the month Athanasius is vener 
 ated in the Western church. He had sat or 
 the Alexandrian throne, as his great successoi 
 Cyril says in a letter to the monks of Egypt 
 " forty-six complete years " ; had he lived t 
 few weeks longer, the years of his episcopatt 
 would have been forty-seven. Having recom- 
 mended Peter, one of his presbyters, foj 
 election in his place, he died tranquilly in hiv I 
 own house, " after many struggles," as Rufinus. ! 
 says (ii. 3), " and after his endiurance had woE' ' 
 many a crown," amid troubles which Tille- 
 mont ventures to call a continual martyrdom 
 
 Such was the career of Athanasius the 
 Great, as he began to be called in the next 
 generation. Four points, perhaps, oughl- 
 especially to dwell in our remembrance : {a] 
 the deep religiousness which illuminated al! 
 his studies and controversies by a sense of his 
 relations as a Christian to his Redeemer ; (6) 
 the persistency, so remarkable in one whose 
 natural temperament was acutely sensitive; 
 (c) the combination of gifts, " firmness with: 
 discretion and discrimination," as Newman' 
 expresses it, which enabled him, while never 
 turning aside from his great object, to be, as 
 Gregory Nazianzen applies the apostolic 
 phrase, " all things to all men " ; and in 
 close connexion with this, {d) the affectionate- 
 ness which made him so tender as a friend, 
 and so active as a peacemaker — which won 
 for him such enthusiastic loyalty, and endowed 
 the great theologian and church ruler with the 
 powers peculiar to a truly lovable man. That 
 he was not flawless, that his words could be 
 somewhat too sharp in controversy, or some- 
 what unreal in addressing a despot, that he 
 was not always charitable in his interpretation 
 of his adversaries' conduct, or that his casu- 
 istry, on one occasion, seems to have lacked 
 the healthy severity of St. Augustine's — this 
 may be, and has been, admitted ; but it is 
 not extravagant to pronounce his name the 
 greatest in the church's post-apostolic history. 
 
 In 1698 appeared the great Benedictine 
 ed. of his works, enriched by the Life from the 
 pen of Montfaucon, who in 1707 published, 
 in one of the volumes of his Nova Patrum et 
 Scriptorum Graecormn Collectio, additional 
 remains collected by his industry. The work 
 
Athanasius 
 
 fi\ the " Titles of the Psahns " was edited by 
 ,sic. Aiit'iielli at Rome, in 1746 ; and in 1777 
 : |ppi"ar«<i at I'ailiia an cd. in 4 vols, fol., coni- 
 • iiiiiig the lal)oiir» of previous editors. 
 
 A few English translations of some of 
 itii.iiiasius's works had appeared before the 
 ubliiation of any part of the " Library of 
 
 I he Fatliers." But the volume of Historictil 
 
 II ["racls oi SI. Athana^iiiis. and the two volumes 
 J jif Treatises in Cotitroversv u-ilh the Arians. 
 
 .ublished in that series at O.xford in 1843- 
 S44, under Dr. Newman's editorship, must 
 ivhatever exceptions may be taken to a few 
 assages in the notes) be always ranked among 
 jhe richest treasures of Knglish Patristic 
 .terature. These translations have been re- 
 ; printed and revised in what is now the best 
 lollection in English of Athanasius's chief 
 |.orks, with a very valuable introduction, life, 
 ,nd illustrative notes by Dr. A. Robertson, 
 |ip. of Exeter, in the I'ost-Xiceiie Fitthcrs, ed. 
 ^>y Dr. Schaff and Dr. Wace. The Orations 
 [gainst Arius, with an account of the life of 
 [kthanasius by W. Bright, are pub. by the 
 I'larendon Press, as also his Historical Writings 
 [ccording to the Benedictine text, with intro. 
 IV W. Bri-^ht. A cheap popular Life of 
 ithanasius by R. W. Bush is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
 .1 their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; and a cheap 
 rans. of the Orations in " A. and M. Theol. 
 .ib." (C.riltith). [w.b.] 
 
 , Athanasius (l), bp. of Anagastus in Cilicia 
 ieeunda and metropolitan, a disciple of St. 
 Lucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. iii. 15), 
 jeckoned by .\rius, in his letter to Eusebius 
 J\icom., among the bishops who coincided 
 yith him in doctrine (Theod. H. E. i. 5). The 
 jeat .\thanasius {de Synod, p. 886) accuses 
 iiim of having, previous to the council of 
 |Sicaea, written blasphemies equal to those of 
 jVrius, of which he gives a specimen. He is 
 l-aid by Le (Juien, on the authority of the Lib. 
 Synod. Graec. to have supported Arius at the 
 touncil of Xicaea. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. 
 is) tells us that when Aetius was expelled from 
 (lis master's house, after his unlucky victory 
 n argument, Athanasius received him and 
 [ead the Gospels with him. [e.v.] 
 
 I Athanasius (2), an Arian bp. who succeeded 
 j^hilip in the see of Scythopolis, c. 372. He is 
 i:harged by Epiphanius with pushing his Arian 
 ,enets to the most audacious impiety, asserting 
 I hat the Son and Holy Spirit were creatures, and 
 iiad nothing in common with the Divine nature 
 'Epiph. Haer. Ixxiii. c. 37, p. 885). [k.v.] 
 1 Athanasius (3), bp. of Perrha, a see dependent 
 tn the Syrian Hierapolis; present at the council 
 >l Ephesus, 431, supporting Cyril of Alex- 
 ;indria. Grave accusations, brought against 
 ,um by his clergy, led him to resign his see. 
 Through the intervention on his behalf of 
 ;-*roclus of Constantinople and Cyril of Alex- 
 mdria, Domnus II., patriarch of Antioch, 
 ummoned a council to consider the matter. 
 Athanasius, refusing to appear, was unani- 
 .nously condemned by default and deposed 
 .rom his bishopric, to which Sabinianus was 
 |onsecrated. After " the Robber Synod " 
 )f Ephesus, A.D. 449, had made Dioscorus of 
 Alexandria the temporary ruler of the Eastern 
 |-hurch, Sabinianus was in his turn deposed, 
 ind Athanasius reinstated at Perrha. Sabini- 
 juius appealed to the council of Chalcedon, 
 
 ATHENAGORAS 
 
 (;.') 
 
 A.D. 451, where both he and his rival signed as 
 bp. of Perrii.i. His c.ise w.is tuilv heard, anil 
 it was determined that the original charges 
 against him should be investigateil by Maximus 
 at .\ntioch. We are in complete ignorance of 
 the issue of this investigation. (Labbe, Cone, 
 
 , iv. 717-754 ; Libcratus Diac. in lireviario. 
 
 i Labbe, v. 762 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 479 ; Christ. 
 Lupus, ii.) [k.v.] 
 
 Athanasius (4), bp. of Ancyra in N. Galatia 
 (a.d. 360-360). His father, who bore the same 
 name, was a man of high family and great 
 learning, and had held important offices in the 
 State (iOvuyv Kai jrtiXfwc aox°-^ 5ifiiOvvavTo%) ; 
 but was reputed harsh and unfatherly to his 
 children. This rumour, reaching St. Basil's 
 ears, led him to write a friendly remonstrance, 
 and hence arose a correspondence of which 
 one letter is preserved (£/>. 24). Tiie son 
 .\thanasius was raised to the see of Ancyra by 
 the .\rian Acacius of Cacsarea, through whose 
 influence his jiredccessor Basilius had been 
 deposed at a synod held at Constantinople 
 A.D. 360 (Soz. iv. 25 ; Philost. v. i). But not- 
 withstanding this inauspicious beginning, he 
 gave unquestionable proofs of his orthodoxy 
 by taking an active part in tlie Synod of 
 Tyana (a.d. 367), at which the Nicene symbol 
 was accepted (Soz. vi. 12). J3y St. Basil he 
 is commended as " a bulwark of orthodoxy " 
 (Ep. 25), and Gregory Nyssen praises him as 
 " valuing the truth above everything " (c. 
 Eunom. i. ii. 292). Owing to some misunder- 
 standing, however, Athanasius had spoken in 
 very severe terms of St. Basil, misled, as Basil 
 conjectures, by the fact that some heretical 
 writings had been fathered upon him ; and 
 the bp. of Caesarea sends an affectionate letter 
 of remonstrance (Ep. 25), in which he speaks 
 of .\thanasius in the highest terms. At his 
 death Basil writes a letter of condolence to the 
 church of .Ancyra, on the loss of one who was 
 truly " a pillar and foundation of the church " 
 (Ep. 29). This seems to have happened a.d. 
 368 or 369 (see Garnicr, Basil. Op. iii. p. 
 ixxvii. seq.). [l.] 
 
 Athenagoras.— I. Life.— There is scarcely 
 one catalogue of the ancient writers of the 
 church wherein we find mention of Athen- 
 agoras or his works. He is not noticed by 
 Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, or Suidas. But 
 in a fragment of the book of Methodius, bp. 
 of Tyre (3rd cent.), de Resurrectione Anim- 
 arum against Origen, there is an unmistakable 
 quotation from the Apology (c. 24, p. 27 b) 
 with the name of Athenagoras appended. 
 This fragment is given by Epiphanius (Haer. 
 64, c. 21) and Photius (Cod. 224, 234). Scanty 
 as this information is, it yet assures us of the 
 existence of the Apology in the 3rd cent, and 
 its ascription to Athenagoras. Much more is 
 told us by Phihppus Sidetes, deacon of Chry- 
 sostom (5th cent.), in a fragment preserved 
 by Nicephorus Callistus (Dodwell, Diss, in 
 Irenaeum, 429) to this effect : " Athenagoras 
 was the first head of the school at Alexandria, 
 flourishing in the times of Hadrian and An- 
 toninus, to whom also he addressed his Apol- 
 ogy for the Christians ; a man who embrac ed 
 Christianity while wearing the garb of a 
 philosopher, and presiding over the academic 
 school. He, before Celsus, was bent on 
 writing against the Cliristians ; and, studying 
 
66 
 
 ATHENAGORAS 
 
 the divine Scriptures in order to carry on the 
 contest with the greater accuracy, was thus 
 himself caught by the all-holy Spirit, so that, 
 like the great Paul, from a persecutor he 
 became a teacher of the faith which he 
 persecuted." Philippus says, continues Nice- 
 phorus, " that Clemens, the writer of the 
 Stromata, was his pupil, and Pantaenus the 
 pupil of Clemens." But Phihppus's statement 
 about Pantaenus is not true, according to 
 Clemens and Eusebius ; his character as an 
 historian is severely criticized, and his book 
 pronounced valueless bv Socrates Scholasticus 
 (Hist. Eccl. vii. 27) and'Photius (Cod. 35, p. 7, 
 Bekker) ; and his assertion that the Apology 
 was addressed to Hadrian and Antoninus is 
 contradicted by its very inscription. Never- 
 theless, as he was a pupil of Rhodon (head 
 of the school in the reign of Theodosius the 
 Great) he may be supposed to have had some 
 facts as the groundwork of what he has said. 
 The only other source of information about 
 Athenag'oras is the inscription of his Apology 
 with such internal evidence as may be gath- 
 ered from his works themselves. The inscrip- 
 tion runs thus : " The embassy (irpeulSeia) of 
 Athenagoras of Athens, a Christian philoso- 
 pher, concerning Christians, to the emperors 
 Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus, and Lucius 
 Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci, Sarmatici, 
 and, greatest of all, philosophers." Without 
 at present considering the pecuhar difficulties 
 involved in this inscription (of which below), 
 we learn from it in general that Athenagoras 
 was an Athenian and a philosopher, which 
 character and profession he evidently retained 
 after his conversion. His connexion with 
 Athens (probably his birth there) and pro- 
 fession of philosophy are thus substantiated ; 
 and the manner in which he became converted 
 to Christianity may very well have been as 
 described by Philippus, whose account that 
 he was head of the Academics is probably but 
 an exaggeration of the fact that he had be- 
 longed to that sect. That he was ever leader 
 of the Catechetical school of Alexandria cannot 
 be definitely proved. In the Commentatio of 
 Clarisse, § 8, is the acute conjecture that the 
 treatise de Resurrectione was written at 
 Alexandria rather than Athens, from c. 12, 
 p. 52 A, where the builder of a house is repre- 
 sented as making stalls for his camels ; and 
 on a supposed Alexandrian tinge in the philo- 
 sophy of Athenagoras vide Brucker (Hist. 
 Crit. Philosophiae, iii. 405 seq.). Of his death 
 nothing is known, the idea that he was 
 martyred apparently arising from a confusion 
 between him and Athenogenes. That the 
 Apology was really intended to be seen and 
 read by the emperors is obvious ; how it 
 reached them is less clear ; we are hardly 
 entitled to assert that it was in anv formal or 
 pubUc manner delivered to them by Athen- 
 agoras himself, an idea which may be due to 
 the title it bears, of Upea^eia, or " Embassy." 
 Upea^da, however, according to Stephanus 
 (Thesaur. Ling. Graec. iii. col. 543), is occasion- 
 ally used for an apology, intercession, or 
 deprecation. 
 
 II. Genuine Works. — These are, (i) the 
 Apology ; (2) the Treatise on the Resurrection 
 of the Dead. 
 
 (i) Apology. Genuineness.— The testimonies 
 
 ATHENAGORAS 
 
 to this work are the inscription which it bears, 
 and the quotation by Methodius given above. 
 Some indeed have supposed that when Jerome 
 speaks of an apology delivered by Justin 
 Martyr to Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius 
 Aurelius Commodus, he refers (since these ob- 
 tained the empire after Justin's death) to the 
 Apology of Athenagoras and attributes it to 
 Justin ; but it appears that he intends Marcus 
 Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Mosheim, Disseit. 
 ad Hist. Eccles. pertinent, i. 279), to whoia 
 Justin's Lesser Apology was given (vid. Pn- 
 legomena to Maranus's Justin, pt. iii. c. 8, § 4, 
 pp. 93 sqq.). Attempts to prove the work in 
 question to be that of Justin (vid. Le Moyne, 
 Varia sacra., ii. 171), or of a later author (vid. 
 Semler, Introduction to Baumgarten's Theolog. 
 Sireitigkeiten, ii. 70 note) have alike failed. 
 There is nothing whatever in the writings of 
 Athenagoras unsuitable to their assigned age ; 
 and Athenagoras's name was not sufficiently 
 known to have been selected for the author of 
 a supposititious book. 
 
 Date. — This is a difficult question ; some 
 have taken the Commodus of the inscription 
 for Lucius Aelius Aurelius Verus (d. 169), son- 
 in-law and brother of Marcus Antoninus. But 
 Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus, Antoninus's 
 son and successor, must be intended ; for 
 Verus dropped the name of Commodus after 
 obtaining a share in the government, and 
 could never have been called Sarmaticus ; for 
 Sarmatia was not conquered till after his 
 death. Mommsen, following Tentzel, but 
 without MS. authority, would read Yep/xaviKoh 
 for ' App-evLaKo'is. As little right had Com- 
 modus to the title of " philosopher." Athen- 
 agoras may have only intended to include the 
 son in the honours of the father. At all 
 events, the illustration (at c. 18, p. 17 d) of 
 the Divine government, taken from that of 
 the two emperors, father and son, seems 
 conclusive. We have also allusions to the 
 profound peace of the empire, appropriate 
 only between a.d. 176, when Avidius Crassus's 
 insurrection was crushed, and a.d. 178, when 
 the outbreak of the Marcomannic wars 
 occurred. The Apology cannot well have 
 been of later date than a.d. 177, since in that 
 year arose the fearful persecution of the 
 Christians of Vienne and Lyons, upon the 
 accusations brought by their slaves ; whereas 
 in c. 35, p. 38 B, Athenagoras declares that 
 no slaves of Christians had ever charged their 
 masters with the crimes popularly imputed to 
 them ; nor is there any allusion whatever to 
 this persecution, which would hardly have 
 been passed over in silence. We therefore 
 conclude that the Apology was written be- 
 tween the end of a.d. 176 and that of a.d. 177. 
 
 Analysis. — The Apology consists of cate- 
 gorical answers to the three charges usually 
 brought against the Christians, of (a) atheism, 
 
 (b) incest, and (c) cannibaUsm. (a) They wor- 
 ship one God, and can give a reason why. 
 The philosophers have held like views ; Poly- 
 theism and its worship are absurd, modern, 
 and the work of demons. (6^ Incest is most 
 contrary to their pure and even ascetic life. 
 
 (c) They are even more humane than the 
 heathen, condemning abortion, infanticide, 
 and gladiatorial games as murder. 
 
 (2) Treatise on the Resurrection Genuine- . 
 
ATHENAGORAS 
 
 nea and Date. — There is no iiidepciideiit 
 external evidence for the aiithorsliip of this 
 work ; but there is uo reason whatever to 
 .iouht that, as its inscription informs us, it 
 
 •r .m the pen of Athenagoras. It closely 
 s with the .-f/'o/ogy in style and thought, 
 ill that has been said above of the internal 
 !. lice for the genuineness of the former 
 k applies equally to this. That such a 
 luse was in Athenagoras's mind when he 
 wrote the Apology appears from the words 
 near its close, c. 36, p. 39 c, " let the argument 
 upon the Resurrection stand over " ; from 
 which words we may not unfairly gather that 
 the Treatise on the Resurrection shortly fol- 
 lowed the former work. This is the only clue 
 to its date which we possess. From the 
 
 closing sentences of c. 23 (p. 66 c) it seems 
 that it was intended as a lecture. " VVc have 
 not made it our aim to leave nothing unsaid 
 that our subject contained, but sinnmarily to 
 point out to those who came together what 
 view ought to be taken in regard to the 
 Resurrection " must allude not merely to a 
 few friends who might happen to be present 
 when the book was read, but to a regular 
 audience. From a reference, c. i, p. 41 u, to 
 an occasional mode for arranging his argu- 
 ments, it may be supposed that Athenagoras 
 was in the habit of delivering public lectures 
 upon Christianity. The arrangement, too, 
 and peculiar opening of the treatise decidedly 
 favour the view that it was a lecture, some- 
 what enlarged or moditied for publication. 
 
 Atialysis. — The work consists of two parts : 
 (i) The removal of the objections (i) that God 
 wants the power {2) or the will to raise the 
 dead, (i) He does not want the power to do 
 it, either through ignorance or weakness — 
 as Athenagoras proves from the works of 
 creation ; defending his positions against the 
 philosophic objections, that the bodies of men 
 after dissolution come to form part of other 
 bodies ; and that things broken cannot be re- 
 stored to their former state. (2) God wants 
 not the will to raise the dead — for it is neither 
 unjust to the raised men, nor to other beings ; 
 nor unworthy of Him — which is shewn from 
 the works of creation, (ii) Arguments for 
 the Resurrection, (i) The final cause of 
 man's creation, to be a perpetual beholder of 
 the Divine wisdom. (2) Man's nature, which 
 requires perpetuity of existence in order to 
 attain the true end of rational life. (3) The 
 necessity of the Divine judgment upon men in 
 body and soul, (a) from the Providence, lb) 
 from the justice of God. (4) The ultimate 
 end of man's being, not attainable on earth. 
 
 III. Athenagoras as a Writer. — To most of 
 the apologists Athenagoras is decidedly 
 superior. Elegant, free from superfluity of 
 language, forcible in style, he rises occasion- 
 ally into great power of description, and his 
 reasoning is remarkable for clearness and 
 cogency ; e.g. his answer to the heathen 
 argument, that not the idols, but the gods 
 represented, are really honoured. His treat- 
 ment of the Resurrection is for the most part 
 admirable. Even where the defective science 
 of the day led him into error, e.g. in answering 
 the question, apparently so difficult, as to the 
 assimilation of the materials of one human 
 body into another the line taken is one that 
 
 ATHENAGORAS 
 
 67 
 
 shews no little thought and ability ; and his 
 whole writings indii .ite a philosophic mind, 
 which amply justifies the title given to him in 
 the inscription of his two works. 
 
 His style, however, is not unfrequently 
 somewhat obscured by difficult elliptic or 
 parenthetical passages, and anacolutha (for 
 examples of which see the Apology, c. i, p. 2 c ; 
 c. 20, p. 19 B ; c. 22, p. 23 B ; and de 
 Resurr. c. 18, p. 60 d). Among his peculiar 
 words and phrases, Clarisse notices his use of 
 dVdv in the sense of ducere, to think, and rd 
 fiTLavfi.ji(dr)K6Ta 0f(^ for the attributes of God. 
 
 IV. His Philosophy. — Mosheim represents 
 Athenagoras as having been the first of the 
 Eclectics. It is far more true to say that he 
 shared in the eclecticism which then pervaded 
 all i)hilosophy. That he had been a I'latonist 
 ajipcars, on the whole, from his continual 
 reference to I'lato and the thoroughly Pla- 
 tonic view which on many points pervades his 
 works. We easily recognize this view in his 
 language about matter and the souls, angels, 
 natures sensible and intelligible, and the con- 
 templation of God as the end of man's being ; 
 and also in that referring to the Son of God as 
 the Logos and Creator (except that this is not 
 at all peculiar to Athenagoras), more especially 
 in his caUing the Word " idea (or archetype) 
 and energy " in the work of Creation. He 
 also appears to allude slightly to the doctrine 
 of reminiscences [de Resurr. c. 14, p. 55 a). 
 The Platonism of Athenagoras was modified, 
 however, by the prevailing eclecticism (cf. 
 e.g. the Peripatetic doctrine of the mean, so 
 alien to Plato, Resurr. c. 21, p. 64 b), and still 
 more, of course, by his reception of Christian- 
 ity, which necessitated the abandonment of 
 such views as the unoriginated nature of the 
 soul. With all this agrees excellently so much 
 of Philippus Sidetes's account as connects 
 Athenagoras with the Academics ; whose 
 Platonism was precisely such as is here de- 
 scribed. Allusions to the other philosophers 
 are abundant ; e.g. to Aristotle and the Peri- 
 patetics, Apol. c. 6, p. 7 A ; c. 16, p. 15 D ; to 
 the Stoics, ib. c. 6, p. 7 b ; to the Cyrenaics 
 and Epicureans, Resurr. c. 19, p. 62 b. We 
 see from Apol. c. 7, p. 8 a, that he regarded 
 the Gentile philosophers as possessing some 
 measure of Divine light in their minds, but 
 unable thereby to come to the full know- 
 ledge of God, because this could only be ob- 
 tained by revelation, which they never sought. 
 
 V. Theology, etc. — Athenagoras's proof of 
 the Divine unity rests on the propositions, 
 expressed or implied, that God is perfect, self- 
 existent, uncompounded ; the Creator, Sus- 
 tainer, and Ruler of the universe. Were there 
 more gods than one, they could not co-exist 
 and co-work as a community of beings similar 
 to each other, in the same sphere ; for things 
 self-existent and eternal cannot be like a 
 number of creatures formed all on one pattern, 
 but must be eternally distinct and unlike. 
 They could not be parts of one whole, for God 
 has no parts. There could be no place for 
 another God in connexion with this universe, 
 for the Creator is over and around His own 
 works. Another God, confined to some other 
 universe of his own, could not concern us ; 
 and so would be but a finite being. 
 
 The Son of God. — In God, since He is an 
 
68 
 
 ATHENAGORAS 
 
 eternal, rational Mind, there dwelt from eter- 
 nity the " Logos " (" Reason," " Expression," 
 or " Word ") as His Son, and in the Son 
 dwelt the Father. To bring matter into 
 existence, and afterwards give it form and 
 order, the Divine Word " came forth " (i.e. the 
 eternal Son assumed, towards the finite, the 
 office and relation of " the Word " or Mani- 
 festor of God), to be the Archetype and 
 Effectuating Power of creation [Apol. c. lo, 
 p. 10 d). His Incarnation is only indirectly 
 mentioned, in the supposition at c. 21, p. 21 d 
 (ib.), of God assuming flesh according to divine 
 dispensation. 
 
 The Holy Ghost is said to be the Spirit Who 
 spoke by the prophets, and an Emanation 
 from God [Apol. c. 10, p. 10 d), flowing forth 
 and returning as a rav from the sun. It has 
 hence been much disputed whether Athen- 
 agoras believed the Blessed Spirit to be a 
 distinct Person, or not. His expressions 
 greatly resemble those used by some whom 
 Justin condemns for their denial of the per- 
 sonaUty of the Son : " They say that this 
 virtue is indivisible and inseparable from the 
 Father, as the sunUght on earth is indivisible 
 and inseparable from the sun in the heavens " 
 {Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, p. 338 b). But it 
 must be remembered that the apologists 
 present the actings and offices of the three 
 Blessed Persons of the Godhead in creation, 
 etc., rather than Their eternal subsistence ; and 
 of necessity do this in a form inteUigible to a 
 heathen mind, yet so as not to be confounded 
 with polytheism. It is not doubted that 
 Athenago'ras held the personaUty of the 
 Father, but with " God the Father, and God 
 the Son" [Apol. c. 10, p. 11 a) he joins as 
 third, the Holy Spirit ; so also c. 12, p. 62 d, 
 and again c. 24, p. 26 d. That two Divine 
 Persons and an impersonal emanation should 
 be thus enumerated together by so philosophic 
 a writer as Athenagoras is not conceivable. 
 The angels, too — indubitably personal beings 
 — are mentioned as holding a place after the 
 Trinity, in Christian theology (c. 10) ; and it 
 is worthy of notice that, in the passage cited 
 above from Justin, angels as well as the Word 
 are described by the persons whom that writer 
 is condemning as temporary appearances ; as 
 if it were the Sadducees, or some similar J ewish 
 sect, of which he is speaking. We are, there- 
 fore, decidedly of opinion that the personality 
 of the Holy Spirit is held by Athenagoras ; cf. 
 however, Clarisse. 
 
 Man he holds to be composed of body and 
 soul, the latter immortal, with spiritual powers 
 of its own {Apol. c. 27, p. 31 a) ; but assigns 
 the rational judgment not to the soul alone, 
 but to the whole compound being, man ; 
 perhaps implying that in the actings and 
 expression of thought both the mind and the 
 bodily organs share. Hence he shews that 
 the soul without the body is imperfect ; that 
 only when embodied can man be justly judged, 
 or render to God perfect service, in a heavenly 
 life. The sin and misery of man are described, 
 in the Platonic manner, as entanglement with 
 matter {Apol. c. 27, p. 30 c), and missing the 
 true aim of his existence (Resurr. c. 25, p. 
 68 b) ; which is said to be the state of the 
 majority, a prevalence of evil which he con- 
 nects with the influence of the demons, i.e. 
 
 ATHENAGORAS 
 
 of fallen angels, or their offspring by human 
 wives, a view common with the apologists. 
 The evil angels he regards as having fallen bv 
 misuse of free will, as did also man ; cf. Apol. 
 c. 25, p. 29 B. Of infants he remarks {Resurr. 
 614, p- 55 d) that they need no judgment, 
 inasmuch as they have done neither good nor 
 evil. The nature of the scheme of redemption 
 is not treated of by Athenagoras. 
 
 VI. Was Athenagoras a Montanist ? — This 
 idea was suggested by Tillemont, who founds 
 it upon two points in the opinions of Athen- 
 agoras, his account of prophecy, and his abso- 
 lute condemnation of second marriages. In 
 the Apology, c. 9, p. 9 d, Athenagoras's view 
 of inspiration is thus given : " who " {i.e. the 
 prophets) " rapt in mind out of themselves by 
 the impulse of the Spirit of God, uttered the 
 things with which they were inspired ; the 
 Spirit using them as if a flute player were 
 breathing into his flute." With this has been 
 compared the language of Montanus (Epi- 
 phanius Panar. Haer. 48, c. 4, p. 405), where 
 the prophet is said to be as a lyre, the Spirit 
 like the plectrum. So Tertullian, Against 
 Marcion, c. 22. Yet similar language is found 
 in Justin {Dial. c. Tryph. c. 115, p. 343 a) ; 
 and Athenagoras may only mean that the 
 prophet was carried beyond himself by the 
 Holy Spirit, and that the words uttered were 
 not his own. The severe condemnation ol 
 second marriage, in the works of Athenagoras, 
 is doubtless a point of contact with the Mon- 
 tanists ; but the same view is very common 
 with the Greek Fathers {vid. Hefele's Beitrdge. 
 vol. i. lect. 2). Moreover, of the authority and 
 office of the Paraclete, in the sense attributed, 
 to Montanus, there is no trace in the writings 
 of Athenagoras. 
 
 VII. Quotations of Scripture, Early Writers 
 etc. — The inspiration of Scripture is strongl) 
 stated by Athenagoras, e.g. Apol. c. 9, p. 9 d. 
 He is seldom careful to quote exactly, so thai 
 it is not always certain what version is em- 
 ployed ; probably the Septuagint throughout 
 From the N.T. he often quotes or borrows 
 phrases, without mentioning whence they 
 come. It is treated as authoritative amongsi 
 Christians ; its maxims being used shewing 
 their discipline and practice {vid. Lardner 
 Credibility ; Clarisse, Athenag. § 55). 
 
 It has been disputed whether Athenagora: 
 refers to other Christian writers, especially thi 
 Apology of Justin Martyr, which some con 
 sider him to have made the foundation of hi 
 own. Certainly the resemblance betweei 
 them seems too great to be the result o 
 accident alone. Both J ustin and Athenagora 
 urged that Christians were unconvicted o 
 any crime, that the mere name does no 
 deserve punishment, and that they were n( 
 more Atheists than the poets and the philo 
 sophers ; and both, in a similar manner, shev 
 the unworthiness of sacrificial worship. The; 
 give very much the same view of the Christiai 
 way of life ; and both lay great stress 01 
 chastity, and on the confining of marriage ti 
 its sole end, the begetting of children. Nearl; 
 the same account of the fall of the angels i 
 found in both : the same books are quoted 
 often the same passages ; by both the ver; 
 same phrases are occasionally employed 
 This correspondence is especially seen betweei' 
 
ATTICUS 
 
 the exordium of Justin's first Apoln/iy and 
 that of Athenagoras. Hence Clarisse infers 
 \Comm. in Athenag. § 57) that Athenagoras 
 intended to rearrange and epitomize the work 
 of his predecessor. In the treatise On the 
 Resurrection, c. S, p. 48 c, is an apparent 
 imitation of Tatian, Or. ad Graec. c. 6, p. 146 n. 
 
 VIII. Editions. — A good ed. of Athenagoras 
 is that of Otto (Jena, 1857) ; its text is based 
 on the three earliest MSS. (viz. the Cod. Paris. 
 CDLI., Cod. Paris. CI.XXIV'., and Cod. Ar- 
 gentoratensis), with which the rest have been 
 collated, some for the first time ; the most 
 recent is bv E. Schwartz. Leipz. i8qi {Texte 
 utid Untersidchungen, iv. 2). There is an Eng. 
 trans, in the Antc-\icene Fathers. 
 
 IX. Sf>urious ll'or^s. — From a careless ex- 
 pression of desner, in reference to the books 
 of Antoninus, Ilepi rwv ei's eavrSi', a notion 
 arose of the existence, amongst Gesner's 
 books, of a work by Athenagoras with the 
 above title ; an idea which, though wholly 
 erroneous, was entertained by Scultatus, and 
 at one time bv Tentzel. with some others. 
 
 About the close of the i6th cent, there 
 appeared a French romance, entitled Dn vray 
 et par/ait .imour, purporting to be a work of 
 Athenagoras, trans, by M. Fum6e, Seigneur 
 dc S. Geuillac. Its many anachronisms and 
 whole character prove it, however, the work 
 of some later author, probably Fumee him- 
 self. Certainly no Greek original has ever 
 been produced. 
 
 The following may be consulted : Clarisse, 
 Comm. in A then. ; Hefele, Beitrdge ; Mohler, 
 Patrol.; I. Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. ; L. 
 Amould, deApol. Athen. (Paris, iSgS). [s.m.] 
 
 Attlcus, archbp. of Constantinople, suc- 
 ceeding Arsacius in March 406. He died 
 Oct. 10, 426. Born at Scbaste in Armenia, 
 he early embraced a monastic life, and re- 
 ceived his education from some Macedonian 
 monks near that place. Removing to Con- 
 stantinople, he adopted the orthodox faith, 
 was ordained presbyter, and soon became 
 known as a rising man. He proved himself 
 one of Chrysostom's most bitter adversaries. 
 Ifnot. as Palladius asserts (c. xi.), the architect 
 of the whole cabal, he certainly took a very 
 leading part in carrying it into execution. 
 The organization of the s\Tiod of the Oak 
 owed much to his practical skill (Phot. Cod. 
 59). The expulsion of Chrysostom took 
 place June lo, 404. His successor, the aged 
 Arsacius, died Nov. 5, 405. Four months of 
 intrigue ended in the selection of Atticus. 
 
 Vigorous measures were at once adopted by 
 Atticus in conjunction with the other members 
 of the triumvirate to which the Eastern 
 church had been subjected, Theophilus of 
 Alexandria, and Porphyry of Antioch, to 
 crush the adherents of Chrysostom. An 
 imperial rescript was obtained imposing the 
 severest penalties on all who dared to reject 
 the communion of the patriarchs. A large 
 number of the bishops of the East persevered 
 in the refusal, and suffered a cruel persecu- 
 tion ; while even the inferi(jr clergy and laity 
 were compelled to keep themselves in conceal- 
 ment, or to fly the country. The small 
 minority of Eastern bishops who for peace's 
 sake deserted Chrysostom's cause were made 
 to f«el the guilt of having once supported it, 
 
 ATTILA 69 
 
 being compelled to l<Mve tlieir sees and take 
 other dioceses in the inh<is]Utable regions of 
 Thrace, where they might be more under 
 Atticus'seve and hand (Socr. vii. 36 ; Niceph. 
 xiii. 30 ; Pallad. c. xx.). 
 
 Unity seemed hardly nearer when the death 
 of Chrysostom (Sejit. 14, 407) removed the 
 original ground of the schism. A large pro- 
 portion of the Christian population of Con- 
 stantinople still refused communion with the 
 usurper, and continued tti hold their religious 
 assemblies, more numerouslv attended than 
 the churches, in the open air in the suburbs 
 of the city (Niceph. xiv. 23, 27), until Chry- 
 sostom's name took its place on the registers 
 and in the public prayers of the church of 
 Constantinople. 
 
 Atticus's endeavours were vigorously di- 
 rected to the maintenance and enlargement of 
 the authority of the sec of Constantinople. 
 He obtained a rescript from Theodosius sub- 
 jecting to it the whole of lUyria and the 
 " Provincia Orientalis." This gave great 
 offence to pope H<iniface and tlie emperor 
 Honorius, and the decree was never put into 
 execution. Another rescript declaring his 
 right to decide on and approve of the election 
 of all the bishops of the province was more 
 effectual. Silvanus was named by him bp. 
 of Philippolis, and afterwards removed to 
 Troas. He asserted the right to ordain in 
 Bithynia, and put it in practice at Nicaea, A.n. 
 425, a year before he died (Socr. vii. 25, 28, 37). 
 
 He also displayed great vigour in combat- 
 ing and repressing heresy. He wrote to the 
 bishops of Pamphylia and to Amphilochius of 
 Iconium, calling on them to drive out the 
 Messalians (Phot. c. 52). The zeal and energy 
 he displayed against the Pelagians are highly 
 commended by pope Celestine, who goes so 
 far as to style him " a true successor of St. 
 Chrysostom " (Labbe, Cone. iii. 353, 361, 363, 
 1073 ; cf. S. Prosper, p. 549 ; S. Leo. Ep. 
 cvi. ; Theod. Ep. cv.). His writings were 
 quoted as those of an orthodox teacher 
 by the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon 
 (Labbe, iii. 518, iv. 831). 
 
 Atticus was more an actor than a writer ; 
 and of what he did publish little remains. A 
 treatise On Virginity, combating bv anticipa- 
 tion the errors of Nestorius, addressed to 
 Pulcheria and her sisters, is mentioned by 
 Marcellinus, Chron. sub ann. 416, and Gen- 
 nadius, de Scrip. Eccl. c. 52. 
 
 Socrates, who is a partial witness, attributes 
 to him a sweet and winning disposition which 
 caused him to be regarded with much affec- 
 tion. Those who thought with him found in 
 him a warm friend and supporter. Towards 
 his theological adversaries he at first shewed 
 great severity, and after they submitted, 
 changed his behaviour and won them bv 
 gentleness (Socr. vii. 41 ; Soz. viii. 27). [i;.v.] 
 
 Attila, king and general of the Huns. For 
 the facts of his life and his personal and moral 
 characteristics see D. of G. and R. Biogr. It 
 comes within our scope only to note his in- 
 fluence upon Christendom ; though, through- 
 out, it is difficult to separate legend from 
 history. The rapid series of events between 
 the Hunnish attack on the Eastern empire in 
 441 and the battle of Chalons in 451 has been 
 compared to a deluge of rain which sweeps a 
 
70 
 
 ATTILA 
 
 district and leaves no further trace than the 
 debris which the torrent has washed down. 
 But in Eastern Europe, though Attila's 
 kingdom was dismembered at his death, the 
 great body of the Huns, who had followed him 
 from the wilds of Central Asia, settled per- 
 manently in the wide plains of the Lower 
 Danube ; while, viewed as a special instru- 
 ment of Providence, " a Messiah of grief and 
 ruin," whose mission it was to chastise the 
 sins of Christians, the " scourge (or rather flail) 
 of God " had an abiding influence over Western 
 Christendom, and the virtues and merits of 
 the saints who thwarted him by bold resist- 
 ance or prudent submission shone forth the 
 brighter, the darker became the picture of 
 the oppressor. 
 
 Portents in sky and earth announced to the 
 inhabitants of Gaul that the year 450 was the 
 opening of a terrible epoch (Idat. Chron. ann. 
 450). Servatius, bp. of Tongres, visiting 
 Rome to consult St. Peter and St. Paul, was 
 informed that Gaul would be entirely devas- 
 tated by the Huns, but that he himself would 
 die in peace before the devastation came 
 (Paul. Diac. ap. Bouquet, Rec. i. p. 649). 
 Attila, strengthened by an alliance with Gen- 
 seric, king of the Vandals (Jom. Reb. Get. 36), 
 had two pretexts for his attack — his claim 
 to the hand of Honoria, and the vindication 
 of the rights of an elder son of a Frank prince 
 against his brother, whom Aetius had given 
 possession of their paternal territory (Prise. 
 Exc. Leg. p. 40). Theodoric, king of the Goths, 
 whose alliance was sought by both Attila and 
 Valentinian, inclined to the side of order, and 
 the Hun, who now took the role of chastising 
 his rebellious subjects, the Visigoths, marched 
 with five, or perhaps seven, hundred thousand 
 warriors, including many Franks, Burgun- 
 dians, and Thuringians (Sid. Apoll. Paneg. 
 Avit. V. 324), to the banks of the Rhine, which 
 he crossed near Coblenz. He installed him- 
 self at Treves, the Roman metropolis of Gaul, 
 which was pillaged. After one fruitless at- 
 tempt, he entered Metz on Easter Eve, April 
 8, slaughtered indiscriminately priests and 
 people, except the bishop, and reduced the 
 city to ashes, all the churches perishing except 
 the oratory of St. Stephen (Paul. Diac. ap. 
 Bouquet, Rec. i. p. 650). Rheims. deserted by 
 its inhabitants, was easily reduced, and a Hun 
 struck off the head of its bishop, Nicacius, 
 while he was precenting the words " Quicken 
 me according to Thy word" (Ps. cxix. 25) 
 (Frodoard. Marh'r. Remens. p. 113). Tongres, 
 Arras, Laon, and Saint-Quentin also fell. The 
 inhabitants of Paris had resolved on flight, 
 but the city was saved by the resolution and 
 devotion of St. Genevieve (Genovefa), the 
 maiden of Nanterre who was warned in a 
 vision that Paris would be spared [Act. SS. 
 Boll. Jan. i. 143-147). Attila did not wish to 
 wage war against Christianity, though doubt- 
 less some of his followers we're stimulated by 
 polemical rancour ; he fought against Rome, 
 not its church. Nor did he intend to give up 
 Gaul to indiscriminate pillage ; he hoped to 
 crush the Visigoths first, and then to cope 
 separately with Aetius and the Roman forces. 
 About April 10 he left Metz for Orleans. 
 Anianus (St. Agnan), bp. of Orleans, hastened 
 to Aries to apprise Aetius of their danger, but 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 Orleans was only relieved by the influence of 
 the senator Avitus of Clermont, who secured 
 the help of Theodoric, when the gates had 
 actually been opened to the Huns and pillage 
 was beginning (Vita S. Aniani, in Bouquet, 
 Rec. i. 645). Attila retreated precipitatelv 
 towards Chalons-sur-Marne, in the Campi 
 Catalaunici. Near Troyes he was met by its 
 bishop, Lupus (St. Loup), at whose inter- 
 cession Attila spared the defenceless inhabit- 
 ants of Champagne, carrying Lupus with 
 him as a hostage to the banks of the Rhine. 
 For the subsequent military movements and 
 the battle of Chalons, see Thierry, Hist, 
 d' Attila, pp. 172-188,428-437, and art. "Attila" 
 in the Noiiv. Biog. Gen. In the spring of 452 ; 
 Attila penetrated into Italy by the passes 
 of the Julian Alps (Prosp. Aquit. Chron.), ^ 
 Aetius having sent Valentinian for safety to 
 Rome. Attila received his first check at the 
 walls of Aquileia; but after three months' 
 resistance he observed some storks preparing 
 to leave their nests with their young (Jorn. 
 Reb. Get. 42), and, taking this as a favourable 
 omen, redoubled the vigour of his siege, and 
 a century afterwards Jornandes {ib.) could 
 scarcely trace the ruins of Aquileia. Milan 
 and Pavia were sacked, and probably also 
 Verona, Mantua, Brescia, Bergamo, and Cre- 
 mona. An embassy, sent by the people and 
 senate of Rome, to endeavour to obtain 
 Attila's peaceful evacuation of Italy, met the 
 invaders on the Mincio, near Mantua and 
 Vergil's farm. At its head were two illustrious 
 senators and the eloquent Leo the Great, who 
 had been bp. of Rome since 440. His appear- 
 ance in pontifical robes awoke in Attila some 
 feeling akin to awe, and he retired as before a 
 power superior to his own. Soon after he died 
 from the bursting of a blood-vessel, though 
 not without suspicion of foul play. Cf. Leo I. 
 Undoubtedly the great and distinguishing 
 feature of the war in the eyes of 5th-cent. 
 Christians would be the threefold repulse of 
 Attila, " the scourge of God" ; from Orleans by 
 St. Agnan, from Troj'es by St. Loup, and, 
 above all, from Rome by St. Leo ; so signal 
 a triumph was it of the church's spiritual 
 weapons over the hosts who were held to 
 symbolize the powers of darkness and of Anti- 
 christ. It was the final and conclusive 
 answer to the few heathen who still referred 
 all the misfortunes of the empire to the 
 desertion of the ancient polytheism. For a 
 discussion of the various national legends that 
 have clustered around Attila, " the hammer 
 of the world," see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v. 
 The leading authorities for his life are in 
 Gibbon's Roman Empire (ed. Smith), iv. 191 
 (notes). See also his Life bv Am. Thierrv, 
 
 1855- ' [CD.]' 
 
 Augustinus, Aurelius. 
 
 A. Early Life. — §§ i, 2, Name, Materials 
 
 for biography ; § 3. Early life ; § 4. 
 Manicheism ; § 5. Philosophical period; 
 § 6. Conversion ; § 7. Early Christian 
 life : (a) as layman, (6) as presbyter. 
 
 B. Episcopate. — § 8. Donatism : (a) Origin, 
 
 (b) Early history, (c) Augustine and 
 the schism ; § 9. Paganism and the 
 de Civitate Dei; § 10. Pelagianisra : 
 (a) Origin, {b) Zosimus and JuUan, (c) 
 The semi- Pelagians, (d) Doctrinal 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 issues; § ii. AiiKUstiiio and Greek 
 Christendom ; § 12. Augustine and the 
 hierarchy : (a) Church authority and 
 episcopate, {b) EquaHty of episcopate, 
 (c) Rome and the episcopate : Case of 
 Apiarius, (</) Rome and doctrinal 
 authority, {«•) Ultimate authority ; 
 § 13. Death and character. 
 c. Influence. — § 14. Writings; § 13. 
 Asceticism and the "Rule": The 
 Church and property; § 16. Intel- 
 lectual influence : (a) Philosophic 
 Theism, {b) Ecclesiasticism, (c) Pre- 
 destinarianism ; § 17. Bibliography. 
 \. Early Life. — § i. .V<j»i<-. — Orosius, Hist. 
 Pagan. I. 4 ; Prosper, Car. dc Ins^rat. i. 3, 
 ; Chron. ad ann. 430; Claudian Mamert. 
 >tat. Ati. ii. 10; Bede, Vit. St. Ctitlib., 
 r the name as above. The name .•\urelius 
 . a >t given by Possidius, nor is it ever used 
 s;. iby Augustine himself nor by any of his cor- 
 Jit j-cspondents. But the Benedictine editors 
 k [tind it in the earliest MS. titles of his works, 
 tj land it is probably authentic. 
 c § 2. Materials for Bioi^raphy. — These are 
 » [exceptionally ample. For his first thirty- 
 It jthree years we have, in the Confessions, the 
 t most perfect of religious autobiographies (see 
 t below, § 8, ad init.). The word " Confessions " 
 ; includes not only the idea of self-accusation, 
 t {but also that of thanksgiving (see IX. vi. con- 
 . Ifiteor tibi dona tua, and the use of confiteor in 
 E ithe Vulgate Psalter). For his career as a 
 w Christian and a bishop, we possess an admir- 
 r, [ably simple and graphic life by his pupil and 
 {friend Possidius, bp. of Calamis. The writings 
 and correspondence of Augustine himself 
 copiously supplement the narrative. The 
 Benedictine editors have worked up the 
 whole of the material into a very accurate 
 biography in eight books. It fills 513 columns 
 of the Patr. Lat., and leaves little to be added 
 by others. (See below, § 17.) 
 
 § 3. Birth and Early Years (354-373). — 
 .\ugustine was born at Thagaste in Numidia 
 Proconsular is, on Xov. 13, 354 (for evidence 
 as to this date, see Bencd. Life in Patr. Lat. I. 
 118). His father Patricius, a jovial, sensual, 
 passionate man, and till near the end of his 
 life a heathen, was one of the curiales of the 
 town, but without large means. His mother 
 Monoica was a Christian by parentage, con- 
 viction, and character. Augustine acknow- 
 ledged (de Vit. Beat. i. 6) that he owed his 
 all to her ; conversely we can trace to her 
 anxious care for her son's spiritual well-being 
 a distinct deepening of her own character (see 
 Conf.W.m.subfin.; IX. viii. ix.). From his 
 mother he received the elements of Christian 
 teaching, and, as he tells us, a devotion to the 
 very name of Jesus Christ which his later 
 spiritual wanderings never wholly e.xtin- 
 I guished, and which forbade him to find satis- 
 faction in any writings which lacked it {Conf. 
 III. iv. 3). As a child he had a severe illness, 
 and demanded baptism. His mother had 
 agreed to allow it ; but when he recovered, in 
 accordance with the then prevailing dread of 
 post-baptismal sin, she put off his baptism to 
 riper years. Augustine was one of several 
 children (we read of his brother Navigius, 
 Conf. IX. xi., de Beat. Vit. i. 6 ; a sister, Ep. 
 an*; nieces, Possid. xxvi. ; nephew Patricius 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 71 
 
 and nieces. Serin. 35()'i, see. Honed. Life, I. 
 i. 4). He early shewed signs of pre-eminent 
 ability, and his parents, both of whom enter- 
 tained the ordinary parental ambitions, found 
 means to send him to school at the neigh- 
 bouring town of Madaura. Here, though ho 
 found the study of (Ireek distasteful, he made 
 good progress ; in fact it became clear that 
 he was ripe for the higher schools of Carthage, 
 and he was withdrawn from Madaura. The 
 difficulty of providing the means for his 
 studies at the more expensive and distant 
 capital kept him at home for a year (369-370). 
 He laments bitterly the comjiany he kept and 
 the habits into whicli lie fell at this period. 
 The boyish freak of rnbi)iiig a pear-tree with 
 his companions weighed heavily on his mind 
 in later years (Conf. II. iv. ix.). He tells us, 
 however, with sliame, that in order not to be 
 outdone by his companions he boasted of 
 licentious acts which he had not committed. 
 This may modify our natural inferences from 
 the self-accusing language of the Confessions. 
 
 At last, aided by their wealthy and benevo- 
 lent neighbour Romanianus, his parents were 
 able to send him to Carthage. Here, at the 
 age of sixteen, Augustine began his " univer- 
 sity " life, as a student of Rhetoric. Again 
 he speaks with an agony of remorse of his life 
 as a student. It is certain that he contracted 
 an irregular union, and in 372 he became the 
 father of a son, Adeodatus. But he remained 
 faithful to his mistress until the very eve of his 
 conversion, and watched over his son's educa- 
 tion and character. Eventually father and 
 son were baptized together (see below, § 6 ; 
 also cf. Conf. VI. xv. 25). We must infer that 
 his life was on the whole above the average 
 level of student life in Carthage. He tells us 
 that the " best set " among them were given 
 to brutal horse-play, directed especially 
 against shy freshmen ; but although he 
 associated with these " eversores," he took 
 no part in their wild doings. 
 
 In 371 his father had died, but, aided once 
 more by the kindness of Romanianus, Mon- 
 nica was able still to keep her son at Carthage. 
 Ambition for social success, and for a future 
 career at the bar, rather than any deeper 
 motive, led him to pursue his studies with 
 ardour. But in his nineteenth year, while 
 reading Cicero's Hortensius, he became deeply 
 impressed with the supreme value of Wisdom, 
 as contrasted with the vain hopes and fleeting 
 opinions of the world. From this time on- 
 ward he is a restless seeker after Truth {Conf. 
 III. iv.). His first impulse was toward the 
 Scriptures, but their simplicity repelled him ; 
 " they seemed to me to be far inferior to the 
 dignity of Tully." 
 
 § 4. Manicheism (373-383). — A baffled in- 
 quirer, he was attracted by the Manichean 
 system, which appears to have been actively 
 pushed in Africa at this period. This is not 
 the place for a description of Manicheism. 
 From .\ugustine's many allusions to its tenets, 
 it appears to have been a strange medley of 
 dualism and materialism, asceticism and 
 licence, theosophy and rationalism, free- 
 thought and superstition. What specially 
 attracted Augustine appears to have been the 
 high moral pretensions of the sect, their criti- 
 cism of Scripture difficulties, and their explana- 
 
72 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 tion of the origin of evil by the assumption 
 of an independent evil principle. For nine 
 years (373-382, Conf. IV. L, de Util. Cred. 2) 
 Augustine was an ardent Manichean. He 
 brought over his friends Alypius and Honor- 
 atus, and his patron Romanianus, to the same 
 convictions, and delighted in controversy with 
 Catholics. He remained an " auditor " only. 
 The " electi " were bound to strict continence, 
 and Augustine was increasingly conscious of 
 the chasm between his ideal and his practice. 
 " Make me chaste, but not yet, "was his prayer 
 during this period of his hfe {Conf. VIII. vii.). 
 Augustine completed his studies, and returned 
 to Thagaste as a teacher of grammar. His 
 mother, overwhelmed with horror at his new 
 opinions, refused to receive him at home. At 
 first, therefore, he hved with Romanianus. 
 Monnica's prayers were answered by a con- 
 soling dream {Conf. III. xi.) and a friend, a 
 bishop, himself a convert from Manicheism, 
 whom she entreated to argue with her son, 
 while wisely refusing her request, dismissed 
 her with the words, " It cannot be that the son 
 of those tears of yours should be lost." She 
 accepted the words as a voice from Heaven, 
 and received Augustine into her household. 
 The death of a dear friend — Augustine was a 
 man of warm friendships {Conf. IV. ix.) — 
 moved him to leave Thagaste, and return, as 
 a teacher of Rhetoric, to Carthage. Here he 
 studied zealously, devoting attention to the 
 " liberal arts," astronomy, and other sub- 
 jects, and lived a life of cultivated society and 
 successful literary effort. He tells us of a 
 prize poem which won a crown in the theatre 
 from the proconsul Vindicianus, a wise old 
 phvsician who convinced him (but see Con/. 
 Vli. vi.) of the futility of astrology {Conf. IV. 
 iii. ; this apparently occurred at Carthage). 
 About this time he wrote a work in two or 
 three books, de Pulcro et Apto, which he in- 
 scribed to Hierius, a professor of Rhetoric at 
 Rome, whom he had come to admire by 
 reputation. These books he did not preserve'; 
 they appear to have been his first. Mean- 
 while, he began to be less satisfied with the 
 Manichean view of existence ; these mis- 
 givings were intensified by disillusion in regard 
 to the morals of the electi (de Moribus Man. 
 68 sqq.). But his Manichean friends urged 
 him to await the arrival at Carthage of Faust- 
 us, a " bishop " of the sect, who enjoved a 
 reputation for brilliant ability and learning, 
 and who could be trusted to resolve all his 
 doubts. But when the great Faustus appeared, 
 Augustine soon discovered him to be a very 
 ordinary person, " of charming manner and 
 pleasant address, who said just what the others 
 used to say, but in a much more agreeable 
 style" {Conf. V. iii. 6). When, after his 
 addresses to the crowd, Augustine laid before 
 him some of his doubts, his mediocritv was 
 transparent. " He knew that he did not 
 know, and was not ashamed to confess the 
 fact . . . and for this I liked him all the 
 better." But he liked the system all the less ; 
 and without formally separating from the 
 Manicheans, he adopted an " academic " 
 suspense of judgment in regard to the opinions 
 he had hitherto adopted ; henceforth he held 
 them provisionallv, pending the discovery of 
 something better {de Vii. Beat. i. 4). 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 § 5. Rome. Philosophy (383-386). — MainU 
 in disgust at the rough and disorderly student; 
 of Carthage {Conf. V. viii.), Augustine now 
 migrated to Rome. With bitter self-reproacl 
 he tells us of the deceit by means of which h( 
 left his mother, who had followed him tc 
 Carthage, behind {Conf. V. viii.). At Rome 
 his host was a Manichean, Alypius and othei 
 Manichean friends surrounded him, and in 3 
 severe illness he received the greatest kindness 
 from them all. But the students of Rome dis- 
 appointed Augustine. They were less rude, 
 but also less honest, than those of Carthage, 
 especially in the matter of payment of theii 
 fees {Conf. V. xi.). Presently (about the 
 summer of 384) Symmachus, the Praefectus 
 Urbi, was commissioned by the Milanese to 
 find them a professor of Rhetoric. Augustine, 
 by the aid of his Manichean friends, obtained 
 the post, and travelled, at the public expense, 
 to Milan. Here he was attracted by the elo- 
 quence of Ambrose, then at the height of his 
 fame, and soon made his acquaintance. " I 
 began to love him, not at first as a teacher of 
 the truth, which I despaired of finding in Thy 
 Church, but as a fellow-creature who was kind 
 to me." Contemptuous of the subject-matter 
 of his sermons, Augustine listened to them as 
 an interested professional critic. " I cared 
 not to understand what he said, but only to 
 hear how he said it." But it was impossible 
 to keep form and substance wholly apart, and 
 by degrees he began to realize that the case for 
 Catholic Christianity was not wholly beneath 
 discussion. This was especially the case with 
 regard to the O.T., a principal target for 
 Manichean ridicule. The allegorical method 
 of exegesis by which Ambrose explained every 
 difficulty struck away the substratum of 
 literalism upon which Manichean objections 
 were based. " For while I read those Scrip- 
 tures in the letter, I was slain in the spirit." 
 But though one main foundation of his Mani- 
 cheism was thus giving way, the materialistic 
 presuppositions remained. " Had I been able 
 to conceive of a spiritual substance, all their 
 devices would have been broken, but this as 
 yet I found impossible." He remained in a 
 state of suspense ; his philosophic position 
 was that of the " New Academy," one of pure 
 negation. However, pending' further hght, 
 he resumed the position he had occupied in 
 boyhood of a catechumen in the Catholic 
 church {Conf. V. xiv.). Alypius. who was in 
 legal practice, had accompanied him to Milan, 
 and presently their friend Nebridius joined 
 them. Monnica, probably accompanied by 
 his brother Navigius, soon followed her son to 
 Milan {Conf. VI. ix.). The friends appear 
 {Conf. VIII. viii.) to have hired a roomy house 
 and garden. Augustine's worldly prospects 
 seemed excellent, a career of official distinction 
 was opening before him {Conf. \T. xii.) ; his 
 mother, hoping that if would lead to his bap- 
 tism, encouraged him in the selection of a wife. 
 But two years had to pass before the lady was 
 of age {Conf. VI. xiii.). Meanwhile his mis- 
 tress was dismissed {ib. xv.), to his and her 
 great grief, and Augustine took another. 
 
 Augustine was now thirty vears of age. He 
 had almost wholly shaken off Manicheism, and 
 was, as his mother saw, steadily gravitating 
 towards the Catholic church. His successful 
 
AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 
 
 and intrrosting work, hniiourable position, 
 and delightful social surroiiiulitigs made his 
 lot outwardly enviable. But he pronounces, 
 and apparently with some truth, that at this 
 I period he touched his lowest moral level (Conf. 
 1 VI. xvii.. VII. i., VIII. v.). .\t any rate 
 ' ( the contrast between his actual life and his 
 I ! habitual idealism was never more painfully 
 f realized. His ideal was the philosophic life, 
 ' i and but for his matriintMiial plans and his still 
 u five ambition, he would probably have 
 luecl his frii'iuis in foundinR a small philo- 
 j>hir coininunitv with a comnu^n purse and 
 ii.'uschold {Conf.' VI. xiv. ; f. Academ. II. 
 11. 4, lie Beat. Vit. i. 4, ne in philosophiae 
 i^rciuium celeritcr advolarem, uxoris honor- 
 . isque illecebra detinebar). But his cnthu- 
 j siasm burned low (c. Acad. II. ii. 5), until it 
 I was kindled afresh by his study of the Platonic 
 I philosophy. A friend (apparently Theodorus, 
 who became consul in 309 — see Retr. I. ii. 
 Displicet autem, etc., and Conf. VII. ix. 
 immanissimo typho turgidum) put into his 
 hands (Conf. VII. ix., de Beat. Vit. i. 4) some 
 translations of the nco-Platonist authors, pro- 
 bably by Victorians. The elTect was rapid 
 ) and profound. Much Christian truth he 
 found there, but not inward peace : the 
 1 eternal Word, but not Christ the Word made 
 I flesh. But his flagging idealism was braced, 
 he was once for all lifted out of materialism, 
 I and his tormenting doubts as to the origin of 
 evil were laid to rest by the conviction that 
 evil has its origin in the will, that evil is but 
 the negation of good, and that good alone has 
 a substantive existence (Conf. VII. vii. xiv.). 
 His first impulse was to give up all earthly 
 ties ("omnesillasancoras," Vit. Beat. ^), resign 
 his professorship, and live for philosophy 
 alone. But this he delayed to do, until, after 
 his conversion, a serious lung-attack gave him 
 what was now a welcome excuse (Conf. IX. 
 ii., of. SoHl. I. i. I ; c. .Acad. I. i. 3 ; de Beat. 
 Vit. i. 4). Meanwhile he read with care the 
 Epistles of St. Paul, in which he found a 
 provision for the disease of sin, which he had 
 vainly sought in the Platonic books. But his 
 life remained unregenerate, and his distress 
 thickened. He then laid his case before 
 Simplicianus, the spiritual adviser, and even- 
 tually the successor, of Ambrose. Simplici- 
 anus described to him the conversion of the 
 aged Victorinus, to whose translation of the 
 Platonists he had owed so much (Conf. VIII. 
 ii.). .\ugustine hinged to follow the example 
 of his pubUc profession of faith, but the flesh 
 still held him back, like a man heavy with 
 drowsiness who sinks back to sleep though he 
 knows that the hour for rising has struck. 
 So he went on with his usual life. 
 
 § 6. Conversion (386-387). — One day a 
 Christian fellow-townsman, Pontitianus, who 
 held an appointment at court, called to 
 visit Alypius. Observing with pleasure a 
 volume of St. Paul's Epistles, he went on to 
 talk to his friends of the wonderful history 
 of the hermit Anthony, whose ascetic life had 
 begun from hearing in church a passage of 
 the gospel (Matt. xix. 21), on which he had 
 promptly acted ; he then described the spread 
 of the monastic movement, and informed his 
 astonished hearers that even at Milan there 
 was a monastery in existence. As Pontitianus 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 7:^ 
 
 told his tale, Augustine was lillcd with self- 
 reproach. Conscience shamed him that after 
 ten years of study he was still carrying a 
 burden which men wearied by no research had 
 already cast aside. When Pontitianus had 
 gone, he poured out his incoherent feelings to 
 the astonished .Mypius, and then, followed by 
 his friend, fled into the garden. " Let it be 
 now — let it be now," he said to himself ; but 
 the vanities of his life plucked at his clothes 
 and whispered, " Do you think you can live 
 without us ? " Then again the continence of 
 the monks and virgins confronted him with 
 the question, " Can you not do as these have 
 done ? " Alypius watched him in silence. 
 At last he broke down and, in a torrent of 
 tears, left his friend alone. He threw himself 
 down under a fig-tree, crying passionately, 
 " Lord, how long ? — to-morrow and to-mor- 
 row ! — why not now ? " Suddenly he heard 
 a child's voice from the next house repeating, 
 in a sing-song voice, " Take and read " (loUe, 
 lege). He tried to think whether the words 
 were used in any kind of children's game ; but 
 no, it must be a divine command to open the 
 Bible and read the first verse that he should 
 happen upon. He thought of Anthony and 
 the lesson in church. He ran back to AJypius 
 and opened " the .Apostle " at Kom. xii. 13, 
 14, " Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in 
 chambering and wantonness, not in strife and 
 envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and make not provision for the flesh 
 to fulfil the lusts thereof." " No further 
 would I read, nc)r was it necessary." The 
 peace of God was in his heart, and the shadows 
 of doubt melted away. He marked the pas- 
 sage and told Alypius, the friends exchanged 
 confidences, and Alypius applied to himself 
 the words, a little further on, " Him that is 
 weak in the faith receive " (Rom. xv. i). 
 They went in, and filled the heart of Monnica 
 with joy at the news (Conf. VIII. viii.). It 
 was now the beginning of the autumn vaca- 
 tion. Augustine decided to resign his chair 
 before the next term, and meanwhile wrote to 
 Ambrose to announce his desire for baptism. 
 His friend Verecimdus, who was himself on 
 the eve of conversion, lent his country house 
 at Cassiciacum, near Milan, to Augustine and 
 his party ; there they spent the vacation and 
 the months which were to elapse before bap- 
 tism (winter 386-387). At Cassiciacum he 
 spent a restful, happy time with his mother 
 and brother, his son Adeodatus, Alypius, and 
 his two pupils, Licentius and Trygetius, the 
 former a son of his old patron Romanianus. 
 He wrote several short books here, " in a 
 style which, though already enlisted in Thy 
 service, still breathed, in that time of waiting, 
 the pride of the School" (Conf. I.\. iv.). 
 These were the three books contra Acadcmicos, 
 two de Ordine, the de Beata Vita, and two 
 books of Soliloquies ; to this period also belong 
 letters 1-4, of which 3 and 4 are the beginning 
 of his correspondence with Nebridius (Conf. 
 IX. iii.). Ambrose had, in answer to his re- 
 quest for advice, recommended him to read 
 Isaiah. But he found the first chapter so hard 
 that he put it aside till he should be more 
 able to enter into its meaning. The Psalms, 
 however, kindled his heart at this time. To 
 him, as to many in most diverse conditions, 
 
74 
 
 AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 
 
 they seemed to interpret the depths of his 
 soul and the inmost experiences of his life 
 (Conf. IX. iv.). But Augustine's main in- 
 tellectual interest was still philosophical. Ex- 
 cept when engaged upon the classics with his 
 pupils, or on fine days in country pursuits (" in 
 rebus rusticis ordinandis," c. Acad. I. v. 14 ; cf. 
 II. iv. 10), the time was spent in discussing 
 the philosophy of religion and Ufe. The above- 
 mentioned books, of which those de Ordine are 
 perhaps the most characteristic, are, excepting 
 of course the Soliloquies, in the form of notes 
 of these discussions. The time to give in his 
 name for baptism was approaching, and the 
 party returned to Milan. Augustine was 
 baptized by Ambrose, along with his heart's 
 friend Alypius, and his son Adeodatus. The 
 church music, which Milan, first of all the 
 Western churches, had recently adopted from 
 the East, struck deep into his soul : " The tide 
 of devotion swelled high within me, and the 
 tears ran down, and there was gladness in 
 those tears." 
 
 § 7. (a) Early Christian Life. Death of 
 Monnica. Return to Africa. Life as a Lay- 
 man (387-391). — While waiting for baptism 
 at Milan, Augustine had written a short book, 
 de Immortaliiate Animae, and the first part, de 
 Gramnititica, of a work on the " Uberal arts " : 
 the latter, though included by Possidius in his 
 list of Augustine's hterary remains, was early 
 lost by him {Retr. I. vi.). After the baptism, 
 Augustine, with Alypius, and Evodius, a 
 fellow-townsman, converted before Augustine 
 himself, who had joined him at Milan, set out 
 for Africa, with the intention of continuing 
 their common life. But at Ostia, Monnica 
 was seized with fever, and died " in the fifty- 
 sixth year of her age, and the thirty-third of 
 mine." Augustine's account of her life and 
 character, and of his conversations with her, 
 shortly before her death, on Eternal Life, 
 forms perhaps the most exquisite and touching 
 part of the Confessions (IX. viii.-xiii.). He 
 prayed for her soul, beheving that what he 
 prayed for was already performed. " Let 
 none have power to drag her away from Thy 
 protection. . . . For she will not answer that 
 she owes nothing, lest she should be confuted 
 and seized by the crafty accuser ; but she will 
 answer that her debt has been forgiven by 
 Him, to Whom none can give back the ransom 
 which He paid on our behalf, though He owed 
 it not." Augustine now remained in Rome 
 till the autumn of 388 (" jam post Maximi 
 tyranni mortem," c. lit. Petit. III. 30, cf. Retr. 
 I. vii.-ix.). Of his life there, the two books 
 de Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae et de Moribus 
 Manichaeorum, the de Qtiantitate Animae, and 
 the first of his three books de Libera A rbitrio, 
 are the monument. From them we gather 
 that he lived with Evodius a life of " abun- 
 dant leisure," entirely given to the studies 
 begun at Cassiciacum. The book on the 
 morals of the Manicheans, founded on his 
 former converse with them at Rome (see 
 above, § 5), was reserved for completion and 
 pubhcation in Africa (xii. 26). At last Augus- 
 tine crossed with Alypius to Carthage [de Civ. 
 XXII. viii.), and returned to Thagaste. A 
 work composed by him here, de Magistro 
 (Conf. IX. vi. ; Retr. I. xii.), is in the form of 
 a dialogue with Adeodatus, and Augustine 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 assures us that the substance of the words was 
 really from the lips of his son at the age of 
 sixteen, i.e. not later than 388. The boy died 
 young, full of piety and promise ; we do not 
 know the date, but he was present at Mon- 
 nica's death (Conf. IX. xi.), and very pro- 
 bably lived to accompany his father to Africa. 
 At Thagaste Augustine and his friends lived 
 on his paternal estate for nearly three years, 
 a quiet, industrious, and prayerful life. Ne- 
 bridius (Ep. 5) condoles with him for having 
 to give so much time to the negotia civium ; but 
 evidently there was plenty of leisure for study. 
 We saw above (§ 6) that Augustine's studies 
 were, up to the present, philosophical rather 
 than Biblical. His ordination found him still 
 but little versed in Scripture (Ep. 213). His 
 continued correspondence with Nebridius 
 (Epp. 5-14) shews the continued predominance 
 of philosophical interest ; the same may be 
 said of the writings of the period, de Genesi adv. 
 Manichaeos, de Musica, de Magistro, de Vera 
 Religione, and parts of the Liber de Diversis 
 Quaestionibus LXXXIIL The de Musica 
 was a portion of the above-named unfinished 
 work on the " liberal arts " : he wrote it at 
 the request of an African bishop. It is inter- 
 esting as giving one side of Augustine's view 
 of secular culture, for which he claims, in the 
 spirit of Plato, that if rightly used, it leads 
 up to God, the underlying Truth of all things. 
 The other works of this period are still per- 
 vaded with the Manichean controversy. This 
 is the origin of the de Vera Religione, one of 
 Augustine's ablest works ; years later (about 
 414) he refers Evodius to it for the theistic 
 argument (Ep. 162, 2). There is a difference 
 of opinion as to the exact time at which 
 Augustine sold his father's estate, and as to 
 the monastic or lay character of the life at 
 Thagaste. The Benedictine Life (III. ii.-v.), 
 maintaining that Augustine's settlement at 
 Thagaste was strictly monastic, accounts for 
 the fact that he lived on his patrimony by 
 supposing that he did so as a tenant of the 
 purchaser. Of this there is no evidence 
 whatever. The most probable inference from 
 the crucial passage (Serm. 355, 2) combined 
 with the statements of Possidius, is briefly as 
 follows : — Augustine and his friends lived at 
 his home in Thagaste, reaUzing approximately 
 the ideal, formed already at Milan (Conf. VI. 
 xiv.), and partially realized at Cassiciacum, 
 of a common life of study and detachment 
 from worldly cares. The tendency to a mon- 
 astic ideal was there, and as time went on, 
 Augustine determined to sell his property, 
 and find a home more suitable for a monastery. 
 Possibly the importunate demands of his 
 fellow-citizens upon his kindness (see above) 
 made Thagaste itself unsuitable. Hand in 
 hand with the question of the place went the 
 question of recruits. Augustine travelled to 
 different places in search of a suitable site — 
 a\-oiding towns where the see was vacant, for 
 he knew that his growing fame might lead men 
 to think of him. Among other places, he came 
 to Hippo (Bona), where he knew of a young 
 official whom he hoped io enlist for his 
 monastery (" juvenis veni ad istam civitatem, 
 quaerebam ubi constituerem monasterium . . . 
 veni ad istam civitatem propter videndum 
 amicum quern putabam lucrari me posse Deo 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 ut nobiscuin esset in moiuisterin." Tlic 
 tnonasterium is clearly prospective). This was 
 probablv early in .191. Augustine had come 
 to Hippo intending to stay no time, " with 
 nothing but his clothes " ; but as it happened, 
 he entered the church just as \'alerius, the 
 aged bishop, was addressing the people on 
 the necessity of choosing a new presbyter. 
 Valerius, by birth a Greek (Possid. v. "homo 
 natura Graecus "). wanted a fluent Latin 
 preacher. Augustine's reputation had come 
 before him. With one accord the people 
 seized .\ugustiue. and presented him to \ale- 
 rius for ordination. With sincere reluctance 
 and many tears .\ugustine yieklcd ; Hippo 
 became his home, and the Christian ministry 
 his calling. Knowing of his plans. Valerius 
 gave him a wonastt-riiim in the episcopal 
 gardens. He had possibly already sohl his 
 small estate at Thagaste ; if not, he did so 
 now : the proceeds were spent on the poor of 
 that place, and the people of Hippo approved 
 and felt no jealousy (see Ef^. 126', 157*'). 
 I He assembled in his monastery a number of 
 i brethren like-minded, each with nothing of 
 his own and all things common : above all, 
 the common aim, "commune nobis ut esset 
 magnum et uberrinum praedium ipse Deus." 
 (6) Augustine a Presbyter of Hippo (391- 
 395)- — .\ugustine at the time of his ordi- 
 nation as presbyter (he does not appear 
 to have passed, as .\mbrose had formally 
 done, through the diaconate) was a Christian 
 Platonist. His temper was absolutely 
 Christian, his stock of ideas wholly Platonic 
 He had used the Bible devotionally rather 
 than worked at its theology. Fully conscious 
 of this, he obtained from his bishop a short 
 period of leisure in order to master the mini- 
 mum of Scriptural knowledge necessary for 
 the discharge of his office (Ep. 21). At 
 Easter, 391, he was entrusted with the 
 tradilio symholi. His addresses to the candi- 
 dates for baptism on that occasion are still 
 extant {Serm. 214-216). He was, in fact, 
 soon full of work. His monastery, the first 
 in Africa (see below, § 13), became a training- 
 school for clergy. Possidius tells us of ten 
 bishops who proceeded from it. Among the 
 earliest were Alypius, who in 394 went to 
 Thagaste, and Evodius, to Uzala. Possidius 
 himself became bp. of Calamus, but appears 
 to have spent much of his time at Hippo, 
 which was only some forty miles away. 
 Moreover, the example of the monastic life 
 spread rapidly (Ep. 24, sub fin.) ; before 
 Augustine died, there were at least three 
 monasteries in Hippo alone {Vit. Ben. III. v. 
 4). Of his life as a presbyter we know few 
 details. He corresponds with Aurclius, the 
 new bp. of Carthage, with a view to putting 
 down the disorderly feasts o\er the tombs of 
 the mart>Ts {Epp. 22, 29 ; Conf. V. ii.). At 
 the end of Aug. 392, he held a public dis- 
 cussion for two days with Fortunatus, a 
 .Manichean presbyter^ the notes of which re- 
 main. Pf)ssidius tells us that as the result 
 Fortunatus left Hippo and never returned. 
 In 393 a general council of .African bishops met 
 at Hippo, and .Augustine preached to them 
 de Fide et Symbolo (one of his best-known 
 shorter works) ; he also mentions {Retr. I. 
 23) a stay at Carthage which must have been 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 75 
 
 of some, length, as it w.is there tli.it lie lieUl 
 his epoch-marking tliscussioiis of diflicnlties 
 in the ICp. to the Romans, and at the re- 
 quest of his friends committed the results to 
 writing (see below, § 10). We know that a 
 council was held at Carthage in 394 : pos- 
 sibly that may have been the occasion of his 
 presence. The Manichean controversy still 
 claimed his energies. In addition to the 
 public discussions already referred to, he 
 WTotc at this time the famous tract tie Utilitate 
 Credendi; another, de Duahus Animabus, a 
 tract against the Manichean Adimantus ; and 
 the imperfect work de Genesi ad Literam, a work 
 which he abandoned, as he felt his novice- 
 hand unequal to the task (Rctr. I. xviii. ; 
 sec below, § 14). A new task, imposed upon 
 him by his oificial responsibilities, was the 
 controversy with the Donatists (sec below, 
 § 8). Early in his presbyterate he wrote to a 
 neighbouring bishop of that sect to remon- 
 strate with him for rebaptizing {Ep. 23). He 
 also composed, for popular use, an acrostic 
 song in refutation of the sect (about 394 : 
 Psalmus contra partem Donati), and a tract, 
 now lost, contra Epistolam Donati. To this 
 period, lastly, belong a group of cxegetical 
 works which shew a rapid advance in the 
 command of Holy Scripture, the fruit of 
 systematic study : an exposition of the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount, a commentary on Gala- 
 tians, some of the Quaestiones LXXXIII. 
 {supra, § ya), and the above-mentioned notes 
 on Romans. He began a continuous commen- 
 tary on the Epistle, but only succeeded in 
 completing the Salutation. The de Mendacio 
 (see Retr. I. xxvii.) was also written at this 
 period, but its issue w^as deferred till about 
 420, when the contra Mend, was also published 
 {Retr. II. Ix.). Generally speaking, the works 
 of this transition period are remarkable for the 
 supersession of the philosophical form of the 
 older works by Biblical, and to a great extent 
 Pauline, citcgories. The philosophical sub- 
 stratum of Platonism remains, but Augustine 
 is now a Biblical and ecclesiastical theologian. 
 (For a detailed analysis of the ideas distinctive 
 of this and the preceding periods respectively, 
 see the masterly article of Loofs, mentioned 
 at the end of this article, pp. 270-276.) Lastly, 
 it was as a presbyter that he completed his 
 three books de Libera Arbitrio {supra, § 7fl) : 
 they were directed against the Manichean 
 theory of the origin of evil {supra, § 4), and 
 vindicate the moral responsibility of man 
 against the theory of a physical principle of 
 evil. To the position taken up in these books 
 the Pelagians {infra, § 10) appealed, against 
 Augustine's later doctrine of irresistible grace. 
 Augustine has no difficulty in shewing that 
 he had even at this early date refuted them by 
 anticipation. But it was less easy to meet 
 the appeal of the so-called semi- Pelagians (sec 
 below, § 10 d), who were on the side of the 
 church against Pelagius, but demurred to 
 positions taken up by Augustine later in life. 
 Of personal interest is Augustine's correspond- 
 ence with the saintly Paulinus of Nola, to 
 whom he sent the' books on Free Will. 
 Paulinus had heard of the growing fame of 
 Augustine, and sought his acquaintance by 
 letters addressed to Alypius and to Augustine 
 himself {Epp. 24-27, 30-32)- Augustine at this 
 
76 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 period also began to correspond with Jerome 
 (Fp. 28) ; in a letter of about this date he 
 indignantly rejects the theory that the scene 
 at Antioch between SS. Paul and Peter was 
 to be explained patrocinium mendacii sus- 
 cipiendo. 
 
 B. Episcopate (from 395). — § 8. The Don- 
 atist Controversy, (a) Origin. — Valerius was 
 old and infirm, and had marked out Augustine 
 as his successor. But he daily feared that 
 some other church might elect him as bishop, 
 and that he would therefore be lost to Hippo. 
 So, with the eager consent of his flock, he 
 took a step then almost without precedent, 
 and, unconsciously breaking the letter of the 
 eighth canon of Nicaea, induced Megahus 
 of Calama, the " primae sedis Episcopus," 
 i.e. bishop senior by consecration in Numidia, 
 to consecrate Augustine as his coadjutor with 
 right of succession. Valerius had (Possid. 
 viii.) privately gained the consent of Aurelius, 
 bp. of Carthage ; Megalius made some per- 
 sonal objections, which he subsequently 
 withdrew (references in Vit. Ben. IV. i. 2). 
 Valerius did not long survive the fulfilment of 
 his hopes and prayers ; for nearly thirty-five 
 years Augustine was bp. of Hippo. His 
 episcopate was occupied by grave controver- 
 sies, and productive of monumental works ; 
 but it was not eventful as regards Augustine's 
 personal history. It will be best, therefore, 
 to deal with it, not by annalistic narrative, 
 but by considering in turn the great questions 
 with which Augustine had to deal. We have 
 spoken sufficiently of the Manichean contro- 
 versy. As a bishop (about 397-400) Augustine 
 wrote against these heretics the tracts c. Ep. 
 Fundamenti and de A gone Christiana. The 
 Confessions, written about this time, give an 
 insight into Augustine's personal experiences 
 of Manicheism (see above, §§ 2, 4). About 
 400 he refuted, in thirty-three short books, a 
 treatise by his old Manichean friend Faustus ; 
 at the end of 404 (Retr. II. viii., cf. Ep. 29) 
 he held a public discussion with a Manichean 
 named Felix, and as a result penned the short 
 tract de Natvra Boni. Somewhat later he was 
 brought into controversy with the Manichean 
 " auditor " Secundianus. Of his reply he says, 
 " omnibus, quae adversus illam pes tern scribere 
 potui, facile praepono." These are writings 
 drawn out by occasional contact with a con- 
 troversy which Augustine had outgrown. It 
 was otherwise with the Donatist struggle, 
 which pressed continually upon him for the 
 first twenty years of his episcopate. As we 
 have seen, it claimed some of his energy 
 already as a presbyter. But it may fairly be 
 called the one great question of his earlier 
 episcopate. According to Possidius, the 
 Donatists were at the time of Augustine's 
 ordination a majority among the Christians 
 of the African provinces ; at Hippo they were 
 a very large majority, and terrorized the 
 Catholics by exclusive dealing (c. Duas Lit. 
 Petil. II. 184). The schism had existed since 
 about 311, when Caecihanus was elected bp. 
 of Carthage. Personal dislike to the election 
 found a pretext for denying its validity. 
 FeUx of Aptunga, his consecrator, was alleged 
 to have been a traditor — i.e. to have given up 
 the sacred books during persecution. This, it 
 was argued, vitiated his power to give valid 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 Orders. For to communicate with an offender 
 is to take part in his offence ; and Felix's 
 offence, ipso facto, cut him off from the 
 church. Like Cyprian, the opponents of 
 Caecilianus denied the validity of any sacra- 
 ment conferred outside the church. These 
 two principles, then, were involved : firstly, the 
 old Cyprianic denial of the validity of sacra- 
 ments conferred by heretical (or schismaticel) 
 hands; secondly, the nullity of sacraments! 
 performed by unworthy ministers: "oleum 
 peccatoris non impinguet caput meum " 
 (Ps. cxl. 5, Vulg.). The question at issue, 
 then, was really that of the essential nature of 
 the church as a holy society (see Renter, pp. 236 
 sqq. note 2). The Catholics, in reply, insist on 
 the fact that the church throughout the world 
 is on their side, and that the Donatists are, 
 by their separation, offenders against the bond 
 of charity which maintains the peace and 
 unity of the church : " Una est columba mea, 
 speciosa mea " (Cant. vi. g). 
 
 (ft) Earlier History of Donatists. — It is not 
 necessary here to detail the phases through 
 which the controversy had passed in the nearly 
 three generations which preceded the episco- 
 pate of Augustine, nor to unravel the intricate 
 charges and counter-charges which encumber 
 the real principles at issue. The principal 
 landmarks in the question were : (i^ The appeal 
 to Constantine, apparently first made by the 
 Donatists, which resulted in the adverse 
 decisions of the councils of Rome (313) and 
 Aries (314). (2) The consecration of Ma- 
 jorinus as bp. of Carthage in opposition to 
 Caecilianus (311). He died in 315, and was 
 succeeded by Donatus, a man of great energy, 
 to whom the schism probably owes its name. 
 
 (3) Imperial persecution of the Donatists, 
 first by Constantine in 316, and then, after an 
 attempt to bribe the Donatists into submission 
 (340), a ruthless suppression by Constans in 
 347. This was successful in producing tem- 
 porary submission, but it intensified the feeling 
 of protest ; moreover, the fanatical ferocity 
 of the " Circumcellions," which Constantine's 
 first persecuting edict had evoked, was 
 smouldering in readiness to break out again. 
 
 (4) Return of the Donatists under Julian. 
 In 361, agreeably to his general policy of the 
 restoration of ecclesiastical exiles, Julian re- 
 pealed his predecessor's measures against the 
 Donatists, and during his short reign they 
 exercised a violent supremacy in Africa. (5) 
 Optatus and Parmenian. Donatus had died 
 in exile, and was now succeeded by Parmeni- 
 anus, an able and comparatively moderate 
 man. With him begins the first phase of the 
 literary debate between Donatists and Catho- 
 lics. The opponent of Parmenianus was Op- 
 tatus of Milevis, who was still living after 384. 
 His work on the Donatist schism is a rich 
 mine of materials for its history. It is to be 
 noted that Parmenianus and Optatus both 
 believe in the visible unity of the church. 
 But Parmenianus, insisting on the holiness of 
 the church, identifies it with the separatist 
 body in Africa, while Optatus insists upon 
 the Catholicity of the church, and upon its 
 Apostolicity as tested by communion with the 
 chair of St. Peter and with the seven churches 
 of the Apocalypse. (6) Disintegration of 
 Donatism. This began to be apparent in the 
 
AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 
 
 ' ■rrtaiiiau srhisin of Ko^aUis, wliose fol- 
 :- uiuhurrlutl the otlicr Uimatists, and 
 i.itcit the Cireuincellious ; in the iiioder- 
 l>.>ixatism of Tycouius (the author of a 
 vork on exegesis, of which Augustine speaks 
 lighly, dc Doctr. Chr. III. xxx.), who exposed 
 [he inconsistencies of tlie Donatist position, 
 jnd was consequently cxconununicated by 
 Parinenianus ; and lastly, in the formidable 
 Maximianist schism of 303, which resulted in 
 he election of a second Donatist bishop, 
 Maximianus, at Carthage, in opposition to 
 ,\imianus. the successor of Parmeuianus. 
 ijver 100 bishops sided with Maximianus ; a 
 council of 310 Donatist bishops in 394 decided 
 (igainst him. The civil authority was then 
 invoked against the dissidents, who were per- 
 iecuted with the usual severity. 
 I Meanwhile the council of Hippo in 303 
 isupra, % 7 b) had, by judicious reforms and 
 Souciliatorv provisions, paved the way back 
 1:0 the church for any Donatists who might 
 be disillusioned by the inward breakdown of 
 ithe sect. But its external position was still 
 inposing. Edicts issued against the Dona- 
 Ilists (since 373. (^od. Theod. XVI. vi.) by 
 Valentiaian and (.'.ratian had had, owing to the 
 Estate of the empire, but little effect. The 
 edict of Theodosius against heretics (392, Cod. 
 Theod. X\'I. V.) was not enforced against 
 them ; in fact, from some time previous to 
 Ithe death of Theodosius in 395 till 398 the 
 imperial writ did not run in the African 
 provinces. 
 
 (c) A ugustine and Donatism. — When 
 !Stilicho recovered Africa for Honorius from 
 the usurper Gildo, Augustine had been a 
 bishop seven years. He had preached, cor- 
 responded, and written actively against the 
 ; Donatists, who had heard his sermons and 
 |read his tracts in great numbers. Their 
 !leaders had realized that they were now op- 
 jposed by a champion of unexampled power, 
 .and endeavoured to keep their publications 
 'from falling into his hands. His earliest epis- 
 I copal work, contra Partem Doitati, is lost. But 
 ;in 400 he wrote a reply to an old letter of 
 I Parraenianus, and the seven books de Bapt. 
 ,c. Donat. In 401 and 402 he replied to a 
 j letter of Petilianus, the Donatist bp. of Cirta, 
 I and wrote his letter to the Catholics, de Unitate 
 ^EccUsiae, an important contribution to the 
 1 controversy. In 403 the Catholic bishops in 
 syaod at Carthage agreed to propose a decisive 
 coaference ; the Donatists declined, and in 404 
 I the Catholic synod determined to ask for a 
 ' revival of the imperial laws against the schism, 
 i From 405-409 the remedy of force was once 
 ' more tried, with very partial success. In the 
 j latter year the Catholic synod petitioned 
 Honorius to order a conference, and as the 
 j Donatists were now understood to agree, 
 I Marcellinus, a " tribune," was specially com- 
 missioned to arrange for the meeting. At the 
 ! conference Augustine naturally played the 
 j principal part on the Catholic side. Marcel- 
 I linus closed the proceedings by giving judg- 
 ; ment in favour of the Catholics, and in 412 
 ; this was followed up by an imperial edict of 
 \ drastic severity. 
 
 During this period Augustine wrote, in 
 I addition to twenty-one extant letters on the 
 I controversy, and four lost works, the following, 
 
 AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 
 
 77 
 
 which we btiU have: f. 'ur books contra 
 Cresconium; one dc Viiim liapli-itno, the lire- 
 viculiis (ollationis (a report of the conference 
 mentioned above), and a bcR>k contra Donatis- 
 tas post Collationem. After 412, physical force 
 had to some extent diminished the need for 
 argument. A few more letters — an address 
 to the people at Caesarea (.-Mgiers), a public 
 discussion with Emeritus, on Sept. 20, 418, 
 two books contra Gaiidentium (a Donatist 
 bishop, c. 420) — are the remains of a waning 
 controversy. For a fuller account of the history, 
 and of the contents of some of Augustine's 
 anti-Donatist writings, see art. Do.natism, 
 D. C. B. (4-V0I. ed.). 
 
 It remains to gather up briefly the import- 
 ance of the controversy in .Augustine's life and 
 thought. So far as Donatism fell before ar- 
 gument, its fall was the work of Augustine. 
 But what was the reflex eifect of the contro- 
 versy upon Augustine himself ? Augustine 
 was the tirst Christian writer who made the 
 church, as such, the subject of systematic 
 thought. But this was not wholly the result 
 of the Donatist crisis. He fought Donatism 
 in part with arguments which had been current 
 for over two generations of the controversy, 
 and which we find less lucidly formulated in 
 Optatus, partly with conceptions which his 
 own personal history and reflections had im- 
 pressed upon his mind before he came into the 
 conflict. The utmost that can justly be said 
 — but that much is important — is that the 
 Donatist conflict crystallized ideas which 
 needed a shock of the kind to bring them into 
 clear shape and form. It was beside the 
 purpose to insist, as Cyprian had done, upon 
 the episcopate, which the Donatists possessed, 
 or upon the unity of the church, which they 
 claimed for themselves. The question at issue 
 went behind these points to the spiritual 
 conditions necessary to the saving efficacy of 
 means of grace. This exists, argued Augustine, 
 only in the Catholic church. The baptism 
 and orders of the Donatists were valid sacra- 
 mentally, but useless spiritually. In a sense, 
 the Holy Spirit operates in schismatical sacra- 
 ments, so that a convert to the Catholic church 
 will not be re-baptized or re-ordained. But it 
 is only in the Catholic church that the Spirit 
 operates, as the Spirit of peace and love. " Non 
 autem habent Dei caritatem qui ecclesiae non 
 diligunt unitatem ; ac per hoc recte intelligitur 
 dici non accipi nisi in Catholica Spiritus 
 Sanctus" (de Bapt. III. xvi.). Augustine 
 formulates with a clearness not found in any 
 previous writer the distinction between what 
 in later times was called the " gratia gratis 
 data," which confers status only (the indelible 
 " character " of a " baptizatus " or a priest), 
 without any necessary change in the moral 
 or spiritual character ; and " gratia gratum 
 faciens," which makes a man not only a mem- 
 ber of the visible church, but a real member 
 of Christ, not merely a priest, but a g(jod 
 priest. This distinction was hardly perceived 
 by Cyprian (see Cypr. Epp. 65-67, esp. 66 : 
 " credere quod indigni . . . sint qui ordinan- 
 tur quid aUud est quam contendere quod non 
 a Deo. . . . sacerdotes ejus in ecdesia con- 
 stituantur ? "), who regarded a deposed bishop 
 as a mere layman with but " the empty name 
 and shadow " of priesthood. The recognition 
 
78 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 of the validity of Donatist orders and sacra- 
 ments was imposed upon Augustine by the 
 settled judgment of the Catholic church, 
 especially of the council of Aries, in 314 (Can. 
 xiii., cf. viii., rejecting the Cyprianic view). 
 But he clearlv found it difficult to grasp 
 habitually the distinction between the 
 " Spiritus Sanctus," the agent m every 
 " valid " sacrament ( = " gratia gratis data "), 
 and the " Spirilns cariiatis," which makes the 
 sacrament a means of grace (" gratum 
 faciens ") to the Catholic recipient. His fre- 
 quent denials that " the Holy Spirit " could 
 be possessed outside the visible unity of the 
 church relate really to the latter, though 
 there are passages which seem to extend to 
 the former. But on the whole his mind is 
 clear. He distinguishes sharply between 
 Office and Person ; between the sacramental 
 act and its benefit to the soul. The former 
 can exist outside the CathoUc church, the 
 latter onlv within it. In this respect Augus- 
 tine is an uncompromising assertor of Cyprian's 
 axiom, extra ecclesiam nulla saliis. But it 
 must be observed that he subordinates the 
 institutional to the spiritual conception of the 
 church. The Donatists are wrong, because 
 they have broken the bond of caritas which 
 unites the CathoUc society. It is this, and 
 not the mere fact, necessary though it be, of 
 the episcopal succession, that unites CathoUcs 
 with the Apostolic churches and through 
 them by an " inconcussa series " with the 
 Apostles themselves. (See below, § 16, 6, c ; 
 also Gore, The Church and the Ministry, latter 
 part of c. iii. ; Hatch, Organization, v. ; Renter, 
 pp. 231-283, an able and thorough discussion.) 
 §9. Augustine and the Heathen. Philosophy 
 of Historv. — Augustine tells us {de Civ. Dei, 
 XVIII. liii. 2) of an oracle current among the 
 heathen, that the Christian religion would last 
 365 years, and then come to an end. He 
 reckons that this time expired in the year 399. 
 As a matter of fact, the year in question was 
 marked by a widespread destruction of pagan 
 temples throughout the Roman world (Vit. 
 Bened. IV. xvi.). In this year apparently the 
 counts Gaudentius and Jovius arrived in 
 Africa to execute an imperial decree for the 
 dismantling of the temples. At Carthage the 
 splendid temple of Dea Coelestis, which had 
 been closed, as it seems, since the law of 391 
 (Cod. Th. XVI. X. 10), and was already over- 
 grown with weeds and bushes, was taken 
 possession of by the Christians. But in 421 it 
 was razed to the ground (Prosper, de Praed. 
 III. xxxviii.). In some places images were 
 hidden to preserve them from destruction. 
 Heathen customs, as we gather from a sermon 
 of Augustine {Serm. 62, 4), were still secretly 
 observed even by some Christians. A council 
 at Carthage in 401 petitioned the emperor to 
 abolish public feasts and games which were, 
 in spite of a previous imperial prohibition 
 (Cod. Th. ib. 17), occasions of heathenish 
 observances. The destruction of a statue of 
 Hercules at Colonia Suffectana (? Sufetula) 
 was the cause of a riot in which sixty Christians 
 lost their lives (Ep. 50). In 407-408 a sweep- 
 ing law, confiscating temples and ordering the 
 destruction of altars, images, etc., was issued 
 (Cod. Th. ib. 19, rf. Vit. Bened. VI. iv. 2, 
 V. 3). Its promulgation was attended by most 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 serious riots at Calama, where the church wa; 
 repeatedly wrecked by the heathen (Ep. 90 
 91, 103, 104). The murder of Stilicho (Sept 
 408), and the rumours that the laws agains' 
 the heathen and the Donatists passed during 
 his life lapsed with his death, caused a furthei 
 widespread outburst of heathen violence ir 
 Africa (cf. Cod. Th. App. Sirm. XIV.; Aug. 
 Ep. q7). A stringent law, passed apparentl} 
 at the instance of the provincial council at 
 Carthage, of which Augustine was not a 
 member, ordered rigorous penalties against 
 all the offenders, and against conniving of- 
 ficials. Alarmed by the state of the empire, 
 the ministers of Honorius appear to have 
 relaxed for a time the rigour of the laws 
 against paganism and heresy alike, but at the 
 urgent request of the African bishops they 
 were again strictly enforced. On the whole, 
 Augustine's tone and attitude towards the 
 pagans is dignified and conciUatory {Epp. 133, 
 etc.), but he shares in the general responsibiUty 
 for persecution which must be allotted to the 
 churchmen of this degenerate age. 
 
 In 408 and 409 the Goths, under Alaric, had 
 laid siege to Rome, and after long and fruitless 
 negotiations, the city was taken and sacked 
 on Aug. 24, 410. The sack of Rome, in its 
 direct effects, was but an incident in the pro- 
 found abasement of the empire in the miser- 
 able reign of Honorius. But the downfall of 
 the " Eternal Citv " struck awe into the minds- 
 of men who failed to appreciate the material ^ 
 and moral exhaustion which the disaster 1 
 merely symboUzed. Augustine's friend Mar- 
 cellinus, the imperial officer who had been in 
 charge of the conference with the Donatists,. 
 introduced him to a distinguished (" illustris ") 
 official, Volusianus, who was kept back from 
 the Christian faith by difficulties relating to the 
 Old Testament, the Incarnation, and the in- 
 compatibility of some principles of the Gospel 
 with civil life and the public good (Epp. 135- 
 138, cf. 132). The last-named question natur- 
 ally connected itself with the prevalent 
 heathen explanation of the fall of Rome, as 
 due to the desertion of the old gods and the 
 progress of Christianity. Augustine, unable 
 at the time to discuss this question except 
 in passing (Ep. 138I. 9-i6. cf. i3,&), presently 
 began a more thorough consideration of it. 
 This is his famous treatise de Civitate Dei, 
 begun about the end of 412, and not com- 
 pleted until 426. The first two books are 
 addressed to Marcellinus, who was put to 
 death, Sept. 13, 413 ; with a third book, they 
 were published before 415. In this year, 
 about Lent, he wrote two more (Ep. 169') 
 In 416-417, when he was advising Orosius to 
 write his Historia adversus Paganos, Augustine 
 had published ten books, and was at work on 
 the eleventh. By 420 he had published four- 
 teen ; the eighteenth was finished " nearly 
 thirty years " after the consulate of Theodorus 
 (399), i.e. hardly earlier than 426. The work 
 then was continued amid interruptions, and 
 the plan widened out from a refutation of the 
 heathen calumny (Retr. II. xliii.) to a compre- 
 hensive explanation of the course of human 
 affairs — a religious philosophy of history. 
 
 The problem was one of terrible actuality. 
 The ancient world and its civilization were in 
 real truth breaking up, and the end of Rome' 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 
 
 TO 
 
 seemed like a giving way of tlio solid earth ^ is dependent for it on the f/V/Vu.'i /ct;ivi<i (XIX. 
 
 beneath men's feet. Lesser men were moved 17, of. "per jura reguiii pt)ssidentur posses- 
 itn write : Orosius, mentioned above, in 417, siones," in Joh. Tr. VI. if,) ; practically f<ir all 
 
 and Salvian. whose hirid indictment of the ' civil purposes the churchn\an must obey the 
 isins of the Christian world (<le Guhcrnatioiie law. Diit, on the other liand. the ciij/ai- /frrfdrt 
 \Dei) was penned in 431, four years before the cannot attain its chief good, the pax Ifrrena, 
 |sack of Rome by C.aiserie. But it was I unless heavenly motives are brought to bear ; 
 I Augustine who brought the jtroblem under a { for the social boml of carilas, for the elemen- 
 i single master-idea. This idea (which occurs tary requisite of justitia, it is dependent upon 
 lalreadv in de Catech. Rud., written as early 1 the civitas Dei. 
 
 I as A.D. 400) is that of the two civitatcs, which, I The destiny of the civilas terrena, therefore, 
 (after a refutation of paganism as useless when at the Judgment thi^ two are finally 
 |alike in this world (I.-V.) ami in the ne.xt ' separated, is the destruction of its social 
 .(VI.-X.), are treated of constructively in the bond ; it will cease to be a civitas at all. 
 r remainder of the work, in respect of their { There is, then, if we look at things in their 
 I origin (X1.-.\IV.), history (X\'.-XVII1.), and eternal aspect, only one civilas, and, applying 
 
 , destiny (XI.X.-XXII.). The work would 
 I have gained by condensation, but as it stands, 
 I with all the marks of discontinuous produc- 
 i tion, it is a priceless legacy of Augustine's 
 , most characteristic thoughts (on Kp. 102, 
 I which illustrates the de Civ., and was written 
 j about 4oq, see below, § i6a). By the word 
 ' civilas, commonly rendered " city," Augustine 
 i means rather a bond of union, or citizenship 
 1 (cf. Philipp. iii. 20 Gk., "duo quaedam genera 
 [ humanae societatalis " XIV. i., the " civitas " 
 takes visible form in the shape of a government, 
 but its essential character is in the spirit that 
 , animates it). There are then two, and only 
 I two, civilales, the one heavenly, the other 
 I earthly. The civitas terrena began with the 
 I fall of the angels, was continued by that of 
 1 man, in the history of the Cainites, of Babel, 
 and of the great world-empires. The civitas 
 t Dei began with Creation ; its earthly realiza- 
 
 the ideal to the empirical, the state {ijiia g(K)d, 
 i.e. if Christian) is in the church. Optatus had 
 said (de Schism. III. 3) " Ecclesia in Impcrio." 
 Augustine reverses this relation : " I)t)minus 
 jugo suo in gremio ecclesiae toto orbe diffuso 
 omnia terrena regna subjecit." The state is 
 in the church, and is bound to carry out the 
 church's aims. The subject of " Church and 
 State " was not the theme of the book, and it 
 is not easy to extract from it a strictly consis- 
 tent theory of their relations (see Renter, pji. 
 125-150, 380-392). But these relations were 
 the question of the future, and in the de 
 Civitate Augustine laid the theoretical founda- 
 tion for the medieval system (see also below, 
 § 16 ad fin.). The modifying ideas alluded 
 to above were not forgotten, but their asser- 
 tion was the work of the opponents of the 
 medieval hierocracy ; and Dante, de Mon- 
 archia, is practically a reversal of the charac- 
 
 ; tion is traceable in the history of the Sethites, teristic doctrine of the de Civitate Dei, after 
 
 ' of Noah, Abraham, Israel, of Christ, and of His that doctrine, tested by being put into prac- 
 
 i people. The one is rooted in love of God, tice, has been found to lead to unchristian 
 
 I usque ad contemptutn sui ; the other in love of results. One unchristian corollary of Augus- 
 
 ; self, usque ad contemptum Dei. The chief good tine's doctrine was the persecution of heretics 
 
 i of the one is the/)a;r cot;/^s/ts (XIX. 13), that of as a duty of the Christian state. In his earlier 
 
 the other, the pax terrena. The great empires 
 ! are, in their genesis, the .State is per se iremota 
 I justitia), " latrocinium magnum " (IV. 4). 
 j So that, looked upon in the abstract, since 
 
 there are but two civitates, the state is the 
 I civilas diaboli, the church the civitas Dei 
 
 days Augustine disapproved of this (contr. 
 Ep. Man. 1-3 ; Ep. 23, 7; 93, 2, 5, etc.) ; 
 but the stress of the Donatist controversy 
 changed his mind ; in the interest of the 
 doubtful, the weak, the generations to come, 
 he found a sanction for persecution in St. 
 But this conclusion is not, thus baldly j Luke xiv. 23 : Cogite intrare. 
 stated, that of .A.ugustine. To begin with, his § 10. The Pelagian Controversy (412-430). — 
 I conception of the church (see §§ 8, 16, b, c) \ Augustine, in his first days as a Christian, held 
 I is not consistent. Does he mean the visible ! the common view that, while the grace of God 
 I church, the communio externa, or the cow- is necessary to the salvation of man, the first 
 I munio sanctorum, the number of those pre- step, the act of faith, by which man gains 
 I destined to life, to which not all belong who I access to grace, is the act of man, and not 
 I are members of the visible church, and to j itself the gift of God (de Praed. III. 7). This 
 I which some belong who are not ? Augustine's 1 view is manifest in the Expos. Propos. in Rom. 
 I language on this point is not always uniform. 13-18, 55, etc., and traceable in de Quaest. 
 1 But at the time when he wrote the de Civitate, I LXX.\III., qu. 68 and 83). He came to see 
 I the predestinarian idea was growing upon him, that faith itself is the gift of (iod, and that 
 I and the two civitates tend to coincide with the very first step to Godward must be of 
 I the predestined on the one hand, and, on God's doing, not of our own. This conviction 
 I the other, the rest of mankind. Again, the was not due to reaction against Pelagianism ; 
 visible church, even apart from its merely on the contrary, Pelagius himself was roused 
 
 j nommal members, is but part of a larger whole, 
 
 j but the empirical shadow of a transcendent 
 
 I reality, the civitas superna, which includes 
 
 ; angels as well as redeemed humanity (XI. 7). 
 
 I And in its earthly visible existence the church 
 borrows the form of the earthly state (XV. 2). 
 
 ; A^ain, historically, the two civitates are 
 
 j mingled together and interpenetrate. More 
 
 to contradiction by Augustine's language in 
 his Confessions : "Dominedaquod jubes" (see 
 de Don. Persev. 53). Augustine's change of 
 mind was directly and wholly due to his study 
 of St. Paul (see above, § 76) ; partly his 
 wrestling with the difficulties of the Ep. to 
 the Romans; but especially his reflection on 
 St. Paul's question (I. Cor. iv. 7), " What 
 
 over, the church needs the pax terrena, and | hast thou that thou hast not received ? " 
 
AUGUSTiNUS, AURELIUS 
 
 80 
 
 coupled with Rom. ix. i6. The change may 
 be assigned to the year 396, when, in the first 
 book, he wrote as a bishop {de Divers. Quaest. 
 ad Simplic. I.), as he says (Retr. II. i. i), " to 
 solve this question, we laboured in the cause 
 of the freedom of the human will, but the 
 grace of God won the day " (of. de Don. Pers. 
 52, plenius sapere coepi). To Simplicianus he 
 says, I. ii. 13 : " If it is in man's own power 
 not to obey the call, it would be equally correct 
 to say, 'Therefore it is not of God that 
 sheweth mercy, but of man that runs and 
 wills,' because the mercy of Him that calls 
 does not suffice, unless the obedience of him 
 who is called results. . . . God shews mercy 
 on no man in vain ; but on whom He has 
 mercy, him He calls in such sort as He knows 
 to be fitted for him [congritere], so that He does 
 not reject him that calleth." Here we have 
 the essential of the " Augustinian " doctrine 
 of grace, the distinction of the vocatio congrua 
 and vocatio nan congrua (" Illi enim electi qui 
 congruenter vocati"), formulated more than 
 fifteen years before the Pelagian controversy 
 began (see also Loofs, pp. 279-280, who shews 
 in detail that Augustine's whole later position 
 is virtually contained in rfe Div. Quaest. ad Sim- 
 plician.). For the details of this controversy, 
 see the church histories; D. C. B. (4-vol. 
 ed.), S.V.; Bright, Introd. to Anti-Pelagian 
 Treatises, and other authorities. (A lucid 
 summary in Gibson, XXXIX. Articles, art. 
 ix.) It will suf&ce here to mention the main 
 outlines. 
 
 (a) 410-417. — Pelagius, offended at a pas- 
 sage in Augustine's Confessions (see above), 
 began at Rome (405-409^ to express his dis- 
 approval of such an insistence upon Divine 
 grace as should undermine human responsi- 
 bility. Before the siege of Rome {supra, § 9) 
 he left with his friend Coelestius for Africa ; 
 there Pelagius left Coelestius, and went to 
 Palestine. Coelestius sought ordination at 
 Carthage, and thus attracted additional atten- 
 tion to his doctrines. A council of bishops 
 in 412 condemned him ; he went away to 
 Ephesus, and there he was ordained. Subse- 
 quently he went to Constantinople and (417) 
 to Rome. Meanwhile, opposed by Jerome in 
 Palestine, Pelagius was found not guilty of 
 heresy by John, bp. of Jerusalem, and by 
 councils at Jerusalem and Diospolis (415). 
 He dispatched to Rome (417) a confession 
 of faith to be submitted to Innocentius : it 
 arrived after that bishop's death. Coelestius 
 shortly afterwards (still in 417) arrived at 
 Rome, and submitted his confession of faith 
 to the new bp. Zosimus. Augustine appears 
 to have been partly aware of the opinions of 
 Pelagius before his arrival in Africa (see de 
 Gest. Pel. 46 ; also probably through Paulinus 
 of Nola, see deGrat. Christi, 38), but he appears 
 to have attached little importance to them at 
 the time ; and the arrival of Pelagius found 
 him in the very thick of other questions (see 
 above, §§ 8, 9). He alludes to the Pelagian 
 doctrines (without any mention of names) in 
 preaching {Serm. 170, 174, 175), but took no 
 part in the proceedings at Carthage in 412. 
 But his friend MarcelUnus {supra, § 9) pressed 
 him for his opinion upon the questions there 
 discussed, and his first anti- Pelagian writings 
 (a.d. 412, de Pecc. Meritis et Remiss, lib. III., 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 and de Spiritu et Litera) were addressed to 
 him. In 415 he wrote de Natura et Gratia, 
 and probably the tract, in the form of a letter to 
 Eutropius and Paulus, de Perfectione Justitiae 
 Hominis, in refutation of the propositions of 
 Coelestius in 412 ; in 417 he wrote de Gestis 
 Pelagii, a discussion of the proceedings in 
 Palestine above referred to. Augustine and 
 the African bishops, who had been represented 
 in Palestine not only by Jerome, but by 
 Orosius, fresh from Hippo, were naturally 
 dismayed at what had happened there. They 
 knew that Pelagius and Coelestius were likely 
 to address themselves to Rome, where they 
 had a strong following {Ep. lyy, 2). Accord- 
 ingly councils at Carthage and at Milevis, at 
 ! the latter of which Augustine was present, 
 J wrote to urge Innocentius to support them 
 against the " alleged " decision of the Pales- 
 tinian councils, cither bv reclaiming the heretics 
 or by adding the authority of his see to their 
 condemnation. A letter carefully explaining 
 the doctrinal issue was also sent by Aurelius 
 of Carthage, Augustine, Alypius, Possidius, 
 and Evodius (see above, §§ 6, 7). Augustine 
 certainly drew up the latter two {Epp. 176, 
 177), and his inspiration is also manifest in 
 the Carthaginian letter. Innocent, unable to 
 conceal his satisfaction at so important an 
 appeal to his authority (he assumes that the 
 African bishops, though they do not refer to 
 them, are not unacquainted with the " in- 
 siituta patrum," which direct that nothing 
 shall be done in any province of the church 
 without reference to the Apostolic See; Epp. 
 i8r', 182- ; see below, § 12, c), responded 
 cordially with a prompt condemnation of 
 Pelagianism, root and branch. Augustine was 
 triumphant. Ihe unfortunate j^roceedings of 
 Diospolis were more than neutralized. Preach- 
 ing on Sunday, Sept. 23, 417, he says : " Jam 
 enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad 
 sedem Apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta 
 venerunt. Causa finita est ; utinam ali- 
 quando finiatur error " (Seym. 131). But the 
 author of the rescripta was already dead six 
 months before, and there was need of another 
 council. The cause was not " finished " yet. 
 {b) Zosimus. Julian (418-430). — Zosimus, 
 the new bp. of Rome (see D. C. B. 4-vol. 
 ed. S.V.), was favourably impressed with the 
 confessions of faith submitted by Pelagius 
 and Coelestius, as well as by their deference 
 to his authority. He pronounced them ortho- 
 dox, and twice wrote indignantly to Aurefius 
 and the Africans for their hasty condemnation 
 of the accused in their absence. He adds that 
 he has admonished Coelestius and others to 
 abstain from curious and unedifying questions. 
 But the original accusers of Pelagius were 
 unmoved. After some correspondence with 
 Zosimus they held a plenary council at Car- 
 thage (May 418), in which they passed nine 
 dogmatic canons condemning the characteristic 
 Pelagian theses. Meanwhile, Aurelius had 
 been taking more practical steps. A rescript 
 in the emperor's name (Honorius was here, as 
 in the Donatist question, the passive instru« 
 ment of his advisers, probably count Valerius, 
 whose ear Aiurelius gained — " secuta est de- 
 mentia nostra judicium sanctitatis tuae," 
 Honorius wTites in 419) ordered the banish- 
 ment of Pelagius, Coelestius, and all their 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 iher-'iUs. Zosiimis at once came round to 
 
 le side of the Africans. In a circular letter 
 
 racloria'* he condemned Coelestius and 
 
 I lat,'ianism alike, and required all the bishops 
 
 t his jurisiliction to signify their adhesion. 
 
 has ended the official support i>f PelaKius in 
 
 ic West. (On Augustine's view of Zosimus, 
 
 I Kcuter, pp. 312-322, and below, § 12 d. 
 
 Ill the whole question, see Clarnier in Marti 
 
 !cic<U. o/'/>. I. p. IQ.) Zosimus appears to 
 
 .i.e imperfectly grasped the points at issue, 
 
 ad in this case', as in that of Apiarius in the 
 
 ime year iinfra, § 12, c), and in that of the 
 
 letropolitan rights of Aries, he appears to 
 
 ave been in a greater hurry to assert the 
 
 laims of his see than to ascertain the merits 
 
 f the question in debate. 
 
 The most able advocate of Pelagianism now 
 
 ppears in the person of Julian, bp. of Ecla- 
 
 um in Southern Italy. He refused to sign 
 
 he trattoria, accused Zosinius of changing his 
 
 ■ont under imperial pressure '"jussionis terr tc 
 
 erculsos," c. Duas Efyp. Pclag. ii. 3), and ap- 
 
 ealed to a general council. This ajipeal came 
 
 o nothing (ib. iv. 34). Julian was deposed 
 
 •y Zosimus, banished by the (Government, and 
 
 tick refuge in the East. He is said to have 
 
 ound a friend in Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
 
 it any rate, in 431 the Westerns secured the 
 
 ondemnation of Pelagianism (without speci- 
 
 (Cation of its tenets) along with Nestorianism 
 
 t the council of Ephesus, on the ground of 
 
 he kindred nature of the two heresies. This 
 
 .'as not without substantial reason. The two 
 
 leresies rest upon the same fundamental idea 
 
 •f the benefit which the redemptive work of 
 
 !hrist brings to man — viz. moral improvement , 
 
 )y perfect teaching and example, rather than ! 
 
 .tonement for an inherently guilty race (" ut 
 
 'el sero redamaremus eum," Julian in Op. 
 
 mpert. I. xciv.). Augustine continued to write 
 
 .gainst Pelagianism. In 418 he wrote two 
 
 )ooks, de Gratia Chrisli et de Peccalo Originali ; ' 
 
 n the two following years the two books de [ 
 
 S'uptiis et Concupiscentia, and four de Anima 
 
 iusque Origine. These works bore on the 
 
 ransmixsion of original sin, and the difficult 
 
 toUateral question of the origin of the soul, I 
 
 vhether by direct creation or ex traduce. 
 
 Tertullian had roundly maintained tradux j 
 
 mimae, tradux peccati. Pelagius denied both. 
 
 \ugustine cannot decide the question ; he 
 
 lalf leans to creation, but his theory appears 
 
 :o require the other alternative (see below, 
 
 i 15). JuUan attacked the de Nuptiis hotly. 
 
 Augustine's four books, contra Duas Epp. Pela- 
 
 'janorum (420) are in reply to Julian on this i 
 
 Is well as on the historical questions ; they 
 
 A-ere followed by six books contra Julianum j 
 
 about 421). Julian replied with vigour, and j 
 
 ■Xugustine at the time of his death had only 
 
 inished six books of a rejoinder which he in- 
 
 ;ended to be complete (Opus Imperfectum). I 
 
 (c) The semi- Pelagians (from about 42 0). — 
 
 In the combat with Pelagianism, Augustine 
 
 iannot be said to have changed his views 
 
 supra, § 10, sub init.) ; but he stated, with i 
 
 ncreasing clearness and sharper consistency, 
 
 jpinions which he had gathered from his study 
 
 <f St. Paul long before the combat began. 
 
 These opinions were new to most churchmen, 
 
 although reaction from the paradoxes of 
 
 Pelagius, and Augustine's immense authority 1 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 81 
 
 throughout the Latin church, gained them 
 widespread acceptance. But there were, 
 especially in monastic circles, grave misgivings 
 as to their soundness. The three points to 
 which most seriinis objection was felt were 
 the doctrines of the total depravity of fallen 
 man, of irresistible grace, and of absolute 
 predestination, not on the ground of foreseen 
 merit. The Christian, as taught by Augustine, 
 I received instruction, baptism, th(^ subsequent 
 \ beneficia gratiae which went to build up the 
 Christian life and train the soul for its eternal 
 j home. But the success or failure, the per- 
 manent value of the whole process, de|ieniled 
 ; upon the crowning hene/icium gratiae, tlie 
 Donum Perseverantiae, which even at the very 
 moment of death decides whether the soul 
 departs in Christ or falls from Him. This 
 I awful gift, which alone decides between the 
 saved and the lost, may be withheld from 
 many who have lived as good and sincere 
 Christians : it may be granted to those whose 
 lives have been far from Christ. Its giving 
 or withholding depends upon the Divine pre- 
 destination only ; tiod's foreknowledge of 
 those who will " persevere " is but His own 
 foreknowledge of what He Himself will give 
 or withhold. Only the foreknown in this 
 sense are called with vocatio congrua. If these 
 doctrines were true, if free will was by itself 
 entirely powerless to accept the Divine call 
 or to reject the vocatio congrua, if man's sal- 
 vation at bottom depended simply and solely 
 upon the Divine predestination, what appeal 
 was possible to the conscience of the wicked 
 {correptio) ? Was not preaching deprived of 
 its raison d'etre ? 
 
 This was the view of John Cassian, the 
 father of Western monachism, and of Vincent 
 and other monks of Lerins on the southern 
 coast of Gaul. These " semi- Pelagians," who 
 may with equal justice be called " senii- 
 Augustinians," were not a sect outside the 
 church, but a party of dissentient Catholics. 
 Excepting the above-mentioned points and 
 certain obvious corollaries, such as the doctrine 
 of " particular " redemption, they accepted 
 the entire Augustiuian position. The contro- 
 versy, which is in reality insoluble, lasted long 
 after Augustine's death. Temporarily laid to 
 rest at Orange (where a modified Augustinian- 
 ism was adopted by a small council in 529), 
 it burst out again in the Gottschalk troubles 
 in the 9th cent., it ranged the Scotists against 
 the Thomists in the 13th, the Arminians 
 against the Calvinists, the Jesuits against the 
 Jansenists in the 17th. Intellectually it is 
 a case of an " antinomy," in which from 
 obvious trutlis we are led by irresistible logic 
 to incompatible conclusions. Morally, our 
 crux is to insist on human responsibility while 
 excluding human merit. The religious instinct 
 of deep and genuine self-accusation is not easy 
 to combine with the unreserved acknowledg- 
 ment that we have no power of ourselves to 
 help ourselves. We must, with Cassian, ap- 
 peal to free will from the pulpit, but Augustine 
 is with us in the secret sanctuary of prayer. 
 
 Augustine's attention was drawn to these 
 difficulties by Hilary and Prosper of Aquitaine, 
 the latter tlie most active, and indeed bitter, 
 opponent of the Ingrati, as he calls Cassian 
 and his friends. The works de Gratia et Libera 
 G 
 
82 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 Arbitrio and de Correptione et Gratia (426-427) 
 relate to the moral issues of the question, while 
 the de Praedest. Sanctorum and de Dono Per- 
 severantiae (428, 9) are in direct controversy 
 with the " brethren " of Southern Gaul. 
 
 (d) The Doctrinal Issues. — Pelagianism split 
 upon the rock of infant baptism. Had this 
 practice not become general by the time when 
 Pelagius arose, Augustine would have had to 
 combat him by arguments which churchmen 
 at large would have found difficulty in follow- 
 ing. As it was, to the question, " Why " — if 
 Adam's sin directly affected himself only, and 
 extended to his descendants 7ion propagine 
 sed exemplo — " why, then, are infants bap- 
 tized ? " Pelagius had no satisfactory reply. 
 His answer, that the unbaptized infant is 
 excluded, not from eternal life, but only from 
 the kingdom of heaven, was a relic of Alillen- 
 iarism with which the Eastern church had 
 even less sympathy than the West. Pelagius 
 allowed that man can do no good thing without 
 the grace of God. But his conception of grace 
 was loose and shallow ; practically it went 
 back to the general providence of God, which 
 supplies our temporal and spiritual wants 
 alike. His assertion that a sinless life was 
 not only possible, but was actually lived by 
 many of the holy men of the Bible, was in 
 direct conflict with the promptings of a deep 
 religious sense {de Nat. et Grat. xxxvi. 42). 
 His conception of the beneficium Christi {supra, 
 b, c) was shallow and unsatisfying. Pelagius 
 was an ardent churchman, a strict ascetic, 
 and a behever in sacramental grace. The 
 earher church had reflected but little on the 
 questions raised by him. " Unde factum est 
 ut de gratia Dei quid sentirent breviter ac 
 transeuntes attingerent." Free will equipped 
 with sacraments, the Christian religion a 
 " New Law," predestination founded upon 
 prescience, fairly represent the implicit pre- 
 Augustinian view of the Christian life and its 
 relation to the mystery of Divine election. 
 Augustine pressed Pelagius with the impHca- 
 tions of sacramental grace. H free will is as 
 complete as Pelagius believed, sacraments 
 are in reality superfluous as means of grace. 
 If sacramental grace is as real as Pelagius 
 admitted it to be, then man depends for his 
 salvation not upon his own free will, but upon 
 the gift of God. Augustine, assuming the 
 church doctrine of sacramental grace, gave it 
 a deeper meaning and a wider context, and 
 brought it into close relation with the almost 
 forgotten Pauline categories of sin, faith, justi- 
 fication, and the gratia Christi (see Reuter, 
 pp. 40-45). It was formerly thought (by Baur 
 and others) that Augustine's antagonism to 
 Pelagius was dictated by his conception of 
 the church and the sacraments, especially of 
 baptism. This we have seen to be incorrect. 
 As a matter of fact, Pelagius was, as the pro- 
 ceedings at Diospolis shew, hard to convict of 
 heresy on merely ecclesiastical grounds. The 
 theological principles which Augustine brought 
 to the analysis of ecclesiastical practice, and 
 to the refutation of Pelagianism, he had 
 learned from St. Paul at first hand. Pelagius 
 appealed to the naive language of churchmen 
 before him, who as Augustine says, " Pela- 
 gianis nondum litigantibus securius loque- 
 bantiur." Augustine shewed that the accord 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 was superficial, and that if Pelagius were right, 
 the church and the positive religion of Christ 
 had only a relative value. Moreover, it was 
 impossible for the Pelagians to argue out their 
 case without exposing themselves to an array 
 of damaging quotations from recognized 
 Fathers of the church (c. Julian. I. II.). And 
 it is impossible to deny that Augustine, in the 
 points at issue with the semi- Pelagians, was 
 following out the strict logical consequences 
 of the elementary truths which Pelagius and 
 Julian denied. He admits frankly, in this as 
 in some other questions, that he had changed 
 his mind, plenius sapere coepi, but he again 
 and again protests that he is merely defending 
 the doctrine which nunquani Ecclesia Christi 
 nan habuit (i.e. predestination, de Don. Persev. 
 xiv. 36, etc.). 
 
 This is certainly sincere, but also certainly 
 incorrect, so far as concerns the formal asser- 
 tion of absolute predestination, irresistible 
 grace, and total depravity. And it must 
 further be noted that the doctrine of pre- 
 destination is, logically at least, as subversive 
 of the worth of church and sacraments as is 
 the Pelagian doctrine of human nature (see 
 below, § 16, c). Probably neither Augustine 
 nor the Pelagians were conscious of the full 
 consequences of their position — the naturalism 
 of the one and the transcendentalism of the 
 other were alike tempered by common church 
 teaching. But the ecclesiastical instinct has 
 generally been (in spite of the rapier-thrusts 
 of a Pascal) to seek some illogical via media 
 between the Augustinian and the semi-Pela- 
 gian (itself an illogical) position. Instinct in 
 such a matter is perhaps a safer guide than 
 logic. But it is important to bear in mind 
 that in rejecting Pelagianism the whole 
 church, Augustinian and semi- Pelagian alike, 
 were as one. [Pelagianism.] 
 
 § II. Augustine and Greek Christendom. — 
 The last sentence may seem questionable so 
 far as the Greek-speaking churches were con- 
 cerned. But we must remember that Coeles- 
 tius found no welcome at Constantinople, that 
 Augustine not only wrote {Ep. 179) to bp. 
 John of Jerusalem to warn him of Pelagius's 
 errors, but also quotes John's arguments as 
 decisive against Pelagianism {Ep. iSG^*", de 
 Gest. Pel. 37 seq., " sanctus Johannes "), and 
 that Pelagianism was formally condemned at 
 the council of Ephesus. But Augustine is 
 somewhat biased in his review of the proceed- 
 ings in Palestine by the assumption, which it 
 never occurred to him to question, of the 
 absolute doctrinal homogeneity of the East and 
 West. Accordingly he explains the acquittal 
 of Pelagius by the difficulty of language, 
 and by the evasive answers of Pelagius, with- 
 ' out allowing for the strangeness to Greek 
 ] theology of the very categories of the question 
 at issue. The catholicity of the church, he 
 argues against the Donatists, is to be tested 
 by communion, not only with the apostolic 
 see of Rome, but with the other apostolic 
 churches, and with Jerusalem, the common 
 source of all (ad Don. Post Collat. xxix. 50 ; 
 de Unit. X. xi. ; Ep. 52''). In Augustine's 
 time the first symptoms of the coming rift 
 between the Greek and Latin churches had 
 i indeed appeared, but few realized their mean- 
 I ing. Augustine certainly did not. He meets 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 the arguments of Julian, who claimed the 
 Greek Fathers for his side, by an appeal to 
 the Greek text of Chrysostom. On the other 
 hand, he does not, even in the de Triuitate 
 (written 400-416 : " juvenis inchoavi senex 
 edidi"), spontaneously build much upon 
 Greek theology. The Nicene Creed, which he 
 accepted of course ex animo, is but seldom re- 
 ferred to in that work ; of the " Constantino- 
 politan " Creed he shews no knowledge. The 
 de Triuitate is Western in the texture of its 
 thought, true to the original sense of the 
 ofiooi'diov, a formula imposed on the Eastern 
 rhuroh at Nicaea bv VVestern influences (see 
 the present writer's Prolegomena to Athanasius 
 ill Nic. Lib. IV. p. xxxii., etc.) in the interest 
 (>/ the Divine Unity. Augustine paves the 
 way, by his insistence on the doctrine of the 
 One Personal God, for the scholastic doctrine 
 "f the Una Res, the specifically Western pro- 
 duct of Trinitarian thetilogy. The same holds 
 i;i>od of Christology. At Chalcedon, Leo's 
 t>>nie, which shews the profound influence of 
 Augustine, carried the day in the teeth of the 
 dominant tone of Greek Christology ; and it 
 is interesting to find Theodoret, who of all 
 Greek churchmen had most reason to welcome 
 the result, quoting Ambrose and Augustine as 
 authorities in his dogmatic Dialogues — an ex- 
 ( eption to the general indifference of the East 
 to Latin theologians. Another exception, 
 due in part to independent controversial 
 reasons, is the protest of Leontius and the 
 " Scythic monks," under Justinian, against 
 the " semi-Pelagianism " of Faustus of Reii ; 
 Leontius shews some knowledge, direct or 
 second-hand, of Augustine (Loofs's Leontius, 
 pp. 231 ff.). Augustine's influence, then, 
 on Greek Christianity has been very slight. 
 But although he has powerfully contributed 
 to the divergence in thought and feeling of 
 Latin Christianity from Greek, he is personally 
 unconscious of any such tendency. Of his 
 ' >wn knowledge of Greek he speaks slightingly ; 
 I'.ibbon (c. xxiii.^s) and others take him 
 -trictly at his word, but Renter (pp. 179, etc.) 
 iiews that we must rate it somewhat more 
 highly than Augustine himself does. 
 
 § 12. Augustine and the Constitution of the 
 Church. The Roman See. — Augustine's view 
 of the relation of the church to the civil power 
 (see above, § 9) prepared the way for the 
 medieval system. But in Augustine's hands 
 the theory lacked elements indispensable for 
 its practical application. Not only did his 
 conception of the church hover between the 
 transcendental spiritual ideal and the empir- 
 ical, tangible organization, but his conception 
 of the organization of the visible church itself 
 lacked that practical precision without which 
 the church could assert no effective claim to 
 control the secular arm. To the authority of 
 the church he surrendered himself with pas- 
 sionate affection. " I should not believe in 
 the Gospel," he wrote in the early days of 
 his episcopate, " did not the authority of the 
 Catholic church compel me " (c. Ep. Fund. 6, 
 in A.D. 397). But this was the immanent 
 authority which the church by her life, creed, 
 and worship exercised upon his soul, rather 
 than her official decisions. These, again, he 
 
 AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 
 
 83 
 
 Where was its centre ? What was the final stan- 
 dard of appeal ? To these questions it is hard 
 to obtain from Augustine a definite answer. 
 .\ugustine was not an ecclesiastical statesman. 
 His interest was above all in personal religion, 
 and therefore, in a secondary degree, in doctrine 
 and discipline. Although he takes for granted 
 the Cyprianic view of the episcopal office, he 
 does not insist upon it with special emphasis ; 
 he emphasises, on the other hand, in a marked 
 manner, the universal priesthood of Christians. 
 His insistence on the indelible character of the 
 priestly ordination is not in the interest of 
 " sacerdotalism," but as against the spiritual 
 \'alue of valid but schismatical orders {supra, 
 § 8, c). He accepts the authority of Nicaea 
 (the only strictly general council known to 
 him), but as to the authority of other councils 
 his language is ambiguous. He disallows 
 Julian's appeal to a general council on the 
 ground that " the cause is finished " by " a 
 competent judgment of bishops" (c. Jul. III. 
 3). But in another passage (supra, § 10, a, 
 fin.) he is understood to say, " the cause is 
 finished " by two African councils, plus " re- 
 scripts from' the apostolic see." What is his 
 real view of the supreme organ of church 
 authority ? 
 
 {a) The Apostles in their lifetime were the 
 leaders, " principes" (Ps. lxvii.2« Vulg. ; see 
 Enarr. in loc), and " patres '' (Ps. xliv.i^ 
 and Enarr.) ; now that they are gone, we 
 have their f'llii in their place, the bishops, 
 who are principes super omnem terram. The 
 Apostles still live on in the bishops, who are 
 accordingly the vehicle of the supreme author- 
 ity of the church. The Donatist bishops 
 cannot claim this status {Ep. 53^ etc.), because 
 they are out of communion with the apostolic 
 churches. Hence {b) the unity and continuity 
 of the episcopate are essential to its Apostolic 
 rank. In this unity even mali praepositi are 
 authoritative, " non enim sua sunt quae dicunt, 
 sed Dei, qui in cathedra unitatis doctrinam 
 posuit veritatis " {Ep. 1051*'). This is the old 
 Cyprianic doctrine, which Augustine, like 
 Cyprian, finds in the symbolic foundation of 
 the Church upon Peter, who represents the 
 whole body. All bishops are equal ; there is 
 no Episcoptts episcoporum {de Bapt. III. 5, 
 VI. 9, quoting Cyprian). But as Peter repre- 
 sented his coequal colleagues, the Apostles, 
 so his successors in the Roman see represent 
 their co-equal colleagues the bishops (cf. ad 
 Classic, in Ep. 250, ad fin. . . . " .n concilio 
 nostro agere cupio, et si opus fuerit ^ad Sedem 
 Apost. scribere, ut . . . quid sequi debeamus 
 cowwMWj owmmw auctoritate . . . firmetur"). 
 All bishops alike hold the cathedra unitatis, 
 all alike trace their succession to one or other 
 of the Apostles. This is more easily traceable 
 in some cases {i.e. the churches quibus Apos- 
 toli scripserunt) than in others, but most 
 obvious in the Roman see, whose bishops, 
 from the sedes (i.e. episcopate, c. Ep. Fund. 
 5 ; cf. " primae sedis episcopus," supra, § 8, 
 init.) of Peter himself, have followed onu 
 another in a succession known to all {Psalm 
 c. Donat. sub fin., Ep. 53^). The successio 
 sacerdotum at Rome and the successiones 
 episcoporum generally {de Util. Cred. xvii. 
 
 accepted with all his heart. But what was the I 35) are, to Augustine, co-ordinate and convert' 
 ultimate organ of the church's authority ? | ible ideas. Even with regard to the authority 
 
84 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 of councils, there is no real finality. Earlier 
 councils are subject to correction by later {de 
 Bapt. II. iii. 4). This is the position of Julius 
 I. (see below, § i6, and the present writer's 
 Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii- fin.). 
 
 (c) The Episcopate and the Roman See. — The 
 Roman see was ApostoUca sedes, not ex- 
 clusively {c. Faust, xi. X.; de Doct. Christ. II. 
 viii. 12), but conspicuously. This implied a 
 pre-eminence of rank, at any rate over sees not 
 " Apostolic" {Ep. 431, "Rom. ecclesiae, in qua 
 semper Apostolicae Cathedrae vigiiit principa- 
 tus" ; c. Jul. I. iv. 13, prior loco; c. Duas Epp. 
 Pel. I. i. 2 [to pope Bonifatius], " quamvis 
 ipse in ea [sc. communi specula pastorali] 
 praeemineas celsiore fastigio," and ib. i, " qui 
 non alta sapis quamvis altiiis praesideas "). 
 But in none of the passages where this is fully 
 recognized is any definite authority assigned to 
 the " apostolic see." Peter was first of the 
 Apostles, superior to any bishop (even to 
 Cyprian, de Bapt. III. i.-2) ; but he is simply 
 tlie representative of the Apostles, nor does 
 Augustine ascribe to him authority over the 
 others (see Serm. 463c), and the same applies 
 to his estimate of Peter's successors. 
 
 Augustine's own instinct towards Rome is 
 one of unbounded respect. Towards the end 
 of his life (about 423) he had to remove, for 
 obvious unfitness, Autonius, the bishop of the 
 newly-created see of Fussala, a daughter- 
 church of Hippo {Ep. 209). Antonius, like 
 Apiarius (of whom presently), and possibly 
 encouraged, Uke others {ib.^), by his example, 
 decided to try his fortune at Rome. He 
 obtained from the senior bp. of Numidia a 
 favourable verdict and an introduction to 
 Bonifatius, who was, prima facie, incUned to 
 take up his cause, and wrote to that effect. 
 But Bonifatius died (422), and his successor 
 Coelestinus had to deal with the case. 
 Rumours reached Fussala that he would insist 
 on the restoration of Antonius, and that the 
 Government would support him by miUtary 
 force. Augustine, in fear lest the people of 
 Fussala should go back en masse to the 
 Donatists, writes to Coelestinus to entreat his 
 support. He entreats him by the memory of 
 St. Peter, " who warned the praepositi of 
 Christian peoples not to domineer over their 
 brethren " {ib. 9). The case is an interesting 
 one, but it loses some of its importance in view 
 of the fact that the African church was then 
 still bound by voluntary promise, pending in- 
 quiry into the genuineness of an alleged Nicene 
 canon to that effect, to allow appeals to Rome 
 by bishops. The promise arose out of the 
 famous case of Apiarius. This presbyter was 
 deposed by Augustine's friend and pupil 
 Urbanus, bp. of Sicca, and appealed to Zosi- 
 mus, bp. of Rome. Zosimus had hastily taken 
 his side and ordered his restoration. Urbanus 
 refused, both on the merits of the case, which 
 he knew and Zosimus did not, and also on the 
 ground that Zosimus had no right to interfere. 
 This was the real question at issue. Zosimus 
 first wrote (418), basing his right to interfere 
 on the canons of Nicaea. As the African 
 bishops found no such provision in their copy 
 of the canons, they postponed the matter for 
 further verification of the true text, promising 
 meanwhile {paulisper) to act (without pre- 
 judice) on the assumption that the alleged 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 canon was genuine. In reply, Zosimus sent 
 three legates — Faustinus, bp. of Potentia in 
 Picenum, and the presbyters Philip and 
 Asellus — to Carthage, with written and oral 
 instructions. The written instructions {com- 
 monitorium) comprised four points (Bruns 
 Canones, I. 197) : (i) the right of the Roman 
 See to receive appeals from bishops (see Can. 
 Sard. Lat. 3, 4) ; (2) bishops not to go over 
 the sea to court {i.e. from Africa) " importune " 
 {ib. 8) ; (3) presbyters and deacons excom- 
 municated by their bishop to have an appeal 
 to fiyiitimi episcopi {ib. 17) ; (4) Urbanus to 
 be excommunicated, " or even cited to Rome." 
 I Of these points, (2) betrays the soreness of 
 ! Zosimus at the wav in which AureUus had 
 ! forced his hand {supra, § 10, b) ; (4) hangs 
 I upon (i) ; (3) is necessary in order to bring 
 ; the case of Apiarius, who ivas not a bishop, 
 I somehow under the scope of the pretended 
 1 Nicene canon relating to (i) ; the case of 
 Apiarius would become a factor in that of 
 Urbanus, which Zosimus would, by stretching 
 the right of receiving appeals to a right of 
 evocatio. claim to deal with under (i). A re- 
 ference to the Sardican canons will shew how 
 flimsv a foundation they offer for the claims 
 founded upon them. But what is important 
 to observe is that Zosimus, like Innocentius 
 {supra, § 10, a), bases his right to interfere 
 simply upon canonical authority. On neither 
 side is there any notion of jiurisdiction inherent 
 in the Roman see prior to ecclesiastical legis- 
 lation. If the alleged canon was genuinely 
 Nicene, it estabUshed the jurisdiction ; if not, 
 the jurisdiction fell to the ground. 
 
 When Faustinus and his colleagues reached 
 Africa, Zosimus had been succeeded by Boni- 
 fatius. They were received by the plenary 
 council of the African provinces at Carthage 
 (419). Alypius and Augustine were there, 
 and joined in the proceedings (Bruns, pp. 
 j 153 ff.). The council cut short the verbal 
 instructions of Faustinus {ib. p. 197), and in- 
 sisted upon hearing the commonitorium. When 
 it was read, and the canon on episcopal ap- 
 peals was quoted, Alypius undertook the in- 
 vidious duty of pointing out that the Latin 
 and the Greek copies of the Nicene canons 
 accessible at Carthage contained no such 
 I canon. He suggested that both sides should 
 obtain authentic copies from the bps- of 
 Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. 
 Meanwhile, the copies above referred to should 
 be placed on the minutes ; but the alleged 
 canon should be observed donee integra exem- 
 plaria veniant. Augustine proposed a like 
 action with regard to (3) ; the proposals were 
 unanimously carried, and accepted, though 
 with no good grace, by Faustinus. The 
 council wrote to Bonifatius intimating their 
 action (Bruns, pp. 196 f.), stating how they had 
 dealt with Apiarius, and complaining with 
 dignity and firmness of the insolence of 
 j Faustinus, which, they add, they beheve and 
 hope they will not, under the new Roman 
 bishop, be called upon to suffer. The signa- 
 tures include those of Augustine and Alypius. 
 Six years later (425) an African council 
 (Bruns, p. 200) receive Faustinus once again. 
 Coelestinus, now bp. of Rome, writes that 
 " he has been rejoiced by the coming of Api- 
 arius," and with Faustinus, Apiarius once more 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 reappears at Carthage. But not only did the i 
 culprit finally and ignominiously break down 
 before the council : the replies from the j 
 Eastern churches had come in, with authentic 
 copies of the Nicene canons ; and the canons ; 
 put forward by Zosinius and his successors j 
 were not there! [It must be noted that, al- 
 though C.ratus of Carthage was possibly pre- 
 sent at Sardica in 343 (see Xicene Lib. vol. 4, 
 Athanasius, p. 147), the .African church knew 
 nothing of the canons passed there. They 
 onlv knew Sardica by repute as an " .\rian " 
 synod, and friendly to the Uonatists {Ep. 
 44'i ; c. Crescon. IV. xliv. 52). The canons 
 of Sardica had not passed into the generally 
 accepted rules of the church.] The council 
 press the ignominious exposure, which makes 
 .» dean sweep of papal jurisdiction in Africa, 
 with a firm but respectful hand. They are 
 ontent to ask Coelestinus to observe the 
 canons, not to receive appellants, not to send 
 legates tanquam a latere, and, above all, not 
 to iiitlict Faustinus upon them any more. The 
 Roman chancery did not learn from this pain- 
 ful experience not to tamper with the canons 
 -ce the present writer's Roman Claims to 
 Supremacy, iv., S.P.C.K. i8g6), but the in- 
 ■ ident is decisive as to the mind of the African 
 church. Though Renter, in his scrupulous 
 desire to be fair, minimizes the part taken by 
 Augustine in the case (pp. 306 seq.), there is 
 nothing to shew that in this matter he was in 
 other than perfect accord with Aurelius and 
 the .\frican bishops. On the contrary, he 
 says, late in his life, of clergy who merely 
 evade his own rigorous dioces;ui rule : " in- 
 tcrpellet contra me mille concilia, naviget 
 contra me quo voluerit, adjuvabit me Deus ut 
 ubi ego episcopus sum, ille clericus esse non 
 possit." This tone implies that the Apiarius 
 case is now matter of history {Senn. 156'). 
 But Renter is probably right in his view that 
 Augustine's interest in constitutional ques- 
 tions was small compared to his concern for 
 doctrine. 
 
 (d) The Roman See and the Final Doctrinal 
 Authority. — Augustine shews no jealousy of 
 the power and prestige of the Roman see. On 
 the contrary, he regarded it as, in a special 
 degree, the depository of apostolic tradition. 
 What degree of dogmatic authority did this 
 imply ? The principal data for answering 
 this question are connected with the Pelagian 
 controversy (supra, § 10, a, b). Innocentius 
 certainly reads into the letters of the Africans 
 (Aug. Epp. 175-177, see 181-183) a hyper- 
 Sardican attitude towards his chair of which 
 they were innocent. But it is clear that the 
 .\fricans attach the greatest importance to his 
 approbation of their decision, only they do 
 not treat the doctrinal issue as at ail doubtful 
 i>r subject to papal decision ; on the contrary, 
 in the private letter {Ep. 1773.6-9) which 
 .\ugustine sends to ensure that Innocentius 
 shall not lack full information on the merits of 
 the case, he takes for granted that the eccle- 
 siaslica et apostolica Veritas is already certain. 
 He assumes (with |>robable historical correct- 
 ness) that tlie .\frican church owes its original 
 tradition to Rome {ib.i'>) ; but both have their 
 source ("ex eodem capito") in the .\postolic 
 tradition itself (see Renter, pp. 307-311). 
 Augustine refers to Innocentius's reply in a 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 85 
 
 letter to Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 186). Ho 
 treats it not as a doctrinal decision, but as a 
 splendid confirmation of a doctrine already 
 certain (see Renter, p. 311). As a result, the 
 Pelagians have definitely lost their case : 
 " causa finita est." Augustine uses this phrase 
 twice : once (§ 10, a, fin.) with reference to the 
 African councils and the reply of Innocentius ; 
 once (see beginning of this section) in 421 of 
 the condemnation of Pelagianism by the 
 judicium episcoporum. With the latter pas- 
 sage we must compare Ep. i()&^i (written in 
 418), where the " adjutorium Salvatoris qui 
 suam tuetur ecclesiam " is connected with the 
 " conciliorum episcoporum vigilantia," not 
 with the action of popes Innocentius and 
 Zosimus. At a much later date (426), review- 
 ing the controversy as a whole, he speaks of 
 the whole cause as having been dealt with 
 j conciliis episcopalibus ; the letters of the 
 I Roman bishops are not dignified with separate 
 \ mention (Ep. 214"'). On the whole, these utter- 
 ances are homogeneous. The prominence, if 
 any, assigned to the rcscripta over the concilia 
 in Serm. 131, 10 (supra, § 10, a, fin.) is relative 
 to a passing phase of the question. Its sense 
 is, moreover, wholly altered in the utterance in- 
 vented for Augustine by some Roman Catholic 
 apologists : Roma locuta est, et causa finita est. 
 It occurred to no one in those days to put 
 any bishop, even of an apostolic see, above 
 a council, although there are signs at Rome 
 of a tendency to work the Sardican canons in 
 that direction. Augustine experienced, as 
 we have seen, a signal, and to him especially 
 galling, papal blunder in the action of Zosimus 
 with reference to the Pelagians. The brunt 
 of the correspondence witii Zosimus at this 
 painful crisis apparently fell upon Aurehus 
 and the bishops of his province (.\fri. c. Duas 
 Epp. Pel. II. iii. 5), rather than upon Numidia, 
 Augustine's own province. Augustine, as 
 compared with the African bishops, distinctly 
 minimizes the indictment. Zosimus had pro- 
 nounced the libellus of Coelestius catholic. 
 Augustine explains this favourably, as refer- 
 ring not to his doctrine, but to his profession of 
 submission to correction ; " voluntas emen- 
 dationis, non falsitas dogmatis approbata est." 
 The action of Zosimus was well meant, even 
 if too lenient (lenius actum est. See also de 
 Pecc. Orig. vi. 7, vii. 8). The letter of the 
 Afri, which was stern and menacing in tone 
 (" Constituimus . . . per venerabilem . . . 
 Innocentium . . . prolatam manere sententiam," 
 Prosp. adv. Coll. v. 15) put an end to all hopes 
 of compromise. Zosimus, however (c. Duas 
 Epp., U.S.), " never by a word, in the wliole 
 course of the proceedings," denied original 
 sin. His faith was consistent throughout. 
 Coelestius deceived him for a time, but illam 
 sedem usque ad finem fallere non potuit (de 
 Pecc. Orig. xxi. 24). " The Roman church, 
 where he was so well known, he could not 
 deceive permanently " (ib. viii. 9). But there 
 had been danger. " Supposing — which (lod 
 forbid ! — the Roman church had gone back 
 upon the sentence of Innocentius and ap- 
 proved the dogmata condenmed by iiim, then 
 it would be necessary ratiicr [/w/n<s| to brand 
 the Roman clergy with the note of ' praevari- 
 catio.' " Even in contemplating the repellent 
 possibility that the action of Rome had been 
 
86 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 worse than he will allow, Augustine evidently 
 shrinks from pushing the conclusion to its 
 full consequences to the extent of censuring 
 Zosimus by name. "Rather" he would 
 brand " the Roman clergy " in confuso. But 
 this reserve must not be misconstrued as an 
 anticipation of later Roman infalhbilism ; not 
 even St. Peter was strictly infalhble in August- 
 ine's eves (refs. in Reuter, pp. 326 ff.), much 
 less his successors', none of whom " Petri aposto- 
 latui conferendus est " {de Bapt. VI. ii. 3). 
 
 (e) Conclusion. — Augustine has no consistent 
 theorv of the ultimate organ of church 
 autho'ritv, whether legislative, disciplinary, or 
 dogmatic. This authority resides in the Epis- 
 copate, its content is the catholica Veritas, and 
 in practical matters the consuetitdo or tradiiio. 
 These are to be interpreted by the bishops 
 acting in concert — especially in councils. The 
 "regional" council is subordinate to the 
 " plenary," the plenary council of the province 
 to that of the whole church {de Bapt. V. 
 xvii., VII., liii. ; Ep. 43, 9 \ de Bapt. II. 
 iii. 4) ; while of the latter, the earher are 
 subject to amendment by later councils. 
 Even, then, with regard to the authority of 
 councils there is no real finality ; Augustine 
 sees, hke Julius of Rome in 340 (see the 
 writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii. ad 
 fin.), no remedy but the revision of earlier 
 councils by later. Clearly we have here no 
 complete system of thought. Augustine falls 
 back on the sensus catholicus, a real and valu- 
 able criterion, but not easv to bring within a 
 logical definition. The church is infalhble, 
 but he cannot point to an absolutely infalhble 
 organ of her authority. By his very vague- 
 ness on this point, Augustine practically paved 
 the way for the future centralization of in- 
 fallible authority in the papacy (on the whole 
 question, see Reuter, pp. 329-355 ; and below, 
 § 16, b). 
 
 § 13. Death and Character. — Augustine died 
 on Aug 28, 430. Clouds were thickening over 
 his country and church. The Vandals, invited 
 by the error, too late discovered, of August- 
 ine's friend count Bonifatius (see Ep. 220), 
 welcomed by the fierce Moors and the perse- 
 cuted Donatists, had swept Numidia and 
 Africa. Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo alone re- 
 mained untaken (Possid. xxviii.). Bonifatius, 
 routed by Gaiseric, was besieged by him in 
 Hippo itself. Augustine had exhorted all 
 bishops, so long as they had any flocks to 
 minister to, to remain at their posts {Ep. 228 ; 
 Possid. XXX.) ; but many, whose dioceses were 
 swept away, took refuge, like Possidius him- 
 self, at Hippo. Up to the time of his death, 
 during three months of the siege, Augustine 
 was working at his unfinished refutation of 
 Julian. He prayed, so he told his friends at 
 table, that God would either see fit to deliver 
 the city, or fortify His servants to bear His 
 will, or at any rate would take him out of this 
 world to Hiniself. In the third month he was 
 attacked by fever. Now, as on other marked 
 occasions (Possid. xxix.), his prayer was 
 heard. He healed a sick man who came to 
 him as he lay upon his death-bed. He had a 
 copy of the Penitential Psalms written out, 
 and fixed to the wall opposite his bed. For ten 
 days, at his special request, he was left alone, 
 except when the physician came or food was 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 brought. He spent his whole time in prayer, 
 and died in the presence of his praying friends, 
 in a green old age, with hearing, sight, and all 
 his bodily faculties unimpaired. The Sacrifice 
 was offered and he was buried. He left no 
 will, nor any personal property. His books 
 he had given to the church to be kept for ever ; 
 fortunately, they survived when Hippo was 
 destroyed by the Vandals ; his writings, says 
 Possidius, " will for ever keep his character 
 fresh in the minds of his readers, yet not even 
 they will supply, to those who knew him, the 
 place of his voice and his presence. For he 
 was one who fulfilled the word of St. James : 
 ' So speak ye, and so do.' " He had lived 
 76 years, and nearly 40 in the ranks of the 
 clergy. Till his last illness he had preached 
 regularly. His arbitration was greatly in 
 request, on the part both of churchmen and 
 non-churchmen. He gladly aided all, taking 
 opportunity when he could to speak to them 
 for the good of their souls. For criminals, he 
 would intercede with discrimination and tact, 
 and rarely without success. He attended 
 councils whenever he could, and in these, as 
 in the ordination of bishops and clergy, he 
 was conspicuously conscientious. In dress and 
 furniture he followed a just mean between 
 luxiury and shabbiness ; his table was spare, 
 his diet mainly vegetarian, though meat was 
 there for visitors or for infirmiores. Wine he 
 always drank. His spoons were silver, but 
 his other vessels wood, earthenware, or marble. 
 His hospitality never failed : his meals were , 
 made enjoyable, not by feasting and carousing, : 
 but by reading or conversation. Ill-natured j 
 gossip he sternly repressed. He had this 
 motto conspicuously displayed : 
 
 Quisquis amat dictis absentem rodere vitam, 
 Hanc mensam indignam noverit esse slbi. 
 
 He sharply rebuked even bishops for 
 breaches of this excellent rule. He freely 
 spent upon the poor both the income of his 
 see and the alms of the faithful. To ill- 
 natured grumblings about the wealth of his 
 see, he replied that he would gladly resign all 
 the episcopal estates, if the people would 
 support him and his brethren wholly by their 
 ofterings. " Sed nunquam id laici suscipere 
 voluerunt" The whole management of the 
 property of the see was entrusted to the more 
 capable clergy in rotation, subject only to an 
 annual report to himself. He would never 
 increase the estate by purchase, but he 
 accepted bequests. Only he refused them if 
 he thought they entailed hardship upon the 
 natural heirs. He felt but little interest in 
 such affairs — his part was that of Mary, not 
 that of Martha. Even building he left to his 
 clergy, only interfering if the plans seemed 
 extravagant. If the annual accounts shewed 
 a deficit, he would announce to the Christian 
 people that he had nothing left to spend on 
 the poor. Sometimes he would have church 
 plate melted to relieve the poor or ransom 
 prisoners. His clergy lived with him, and no 
 one who joined them was permitted to retain 
 any property of his own. If one of them 
 swore at table, one of the regulation nurnber 
 of cups of wine (these were strictly limited, 
 even for visitors) was cut off by way of fine. 
 Women, even near relatives, were excluded. ; 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 1 1.' never would speak to them solus cum solis. 
 He was prompt in visiting the fatherless and 
 widows in their affliction, and the sick. But 
 he would never visit the feminarum monastc-iia 
 except under ur^'ent necessity. In reganl to 
 death, he was fond of quoting the dying 
 Ambrose, who replied to his friend's entreaty 
 til, it he would ask Cod for a respite of life: 
 " I have not so lived as to be ashamed to 
 remain with you ; but neither do I fear to 
 die, for we have a gracious God." To this 
 artless picture, drawn by Possidius, it seems 
 impertinent to add supplementary touches. 
 Possidius, as Loots has excellently renuirked, 
 shews himself saturated by the consciousness 
 that he is erecting a lasting memorial to a 
 great historical personage. 
 
 Without doubt Augustine is the most 
 commanding religious personality of the early 
 church. No Christian writer since the 
 apostolic age has bequeathed to us so deep an 
 insight into the working of a character pene- 
 trated with the love of Cod, none has struck 
 deeper into the heart of religion in man. 
 
 C. Influenck. — §14. Retractations and Other 
 Writings. — Shortiv before his last illness 
 (Possid. xxviii.) he went over all his writings, 
 noting points, especially in the earlier books, 
 which he would wish amended. The result is 
 his two books of Ketraclatioiies, which, from 
 the chronological order, and the mention of 
 the circumstances which elicited the several 
 writings, places the literary history of St. 
 Augustine on an exceptionally sure footing. 
 He enumerates, characterizes, and identifies 
 by the first words, two hundred and thirty- 
 two books. His letters and sermons he 
 mentions collectivelv, but he did not live to 
 reconsider them in detail. Possidius includes 
 most of them in the indiculus of Augustine's 
 works appended to the Life ; but it is not 
 always easy to identify them by the titles he 
 employs. Some of the letters, however, are 
 counted as " books " in the Retractations, while 
 the books de Unitate Ecclesiae, de Bono Vidui- 
 talisad Julianuin, and de Perfectione Justitiae 
 are passed over (being reckoned as letters) in 
 the Retractations. The Sermons are not chrono- 
 logically arranged in the Bened. ed. ; some 
 are duplicate recensions of the same discourse. 
 Augustine preaclied extempore, but with 
 careful preparation {de Cat. Rud. 2, 3) ; his 
 words were taken down by shorthand, or else 
 dictated by himself. On one occasion we 
 read (Possid. xv.) that he abandoned his pre- 
 pared matter and spoke on another subject, 
 with the result of the conversion of a Mani- 
 chean who happened to be present. His 
 homilies (traclatus) on St. John, and on the 
 I "Epistle of John to the Parthians " (i.e. i 
 { John), belong to the ripest period of his theo- 
 j logical power, about 416 ; these and the 
 I somewhat later Enarraliones in Psalmos are 
 I his most important exegetical works. 
 I Many of his works have been already men- 
 I tioned in connexion with the occasion of their 
 ; production. For a full list of other writings, 
 ; see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v., and the art. of 
 • Loots referred to below. But one or two of 
 I special importance must be briefly charac- 
 I terized. He accomplished by 415 the task, 
 ; his first attempt at which liad failed, of a 
 goinincntary on Genesis ad literam [Retr. IL 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 87 
 
 xxiv. ; c.f. L xviii., and supra, § 7, b). But 
 even now, he claims to have reached only 
 problematical results. The de Catechizandis 
 Rudibus (c. 400) gives a syllabus of the 
 course for catechumens, with hints as to 
 effective method in their instruction. It is 
 full of wisdom, and suggestive to all engaged 
 in teaching. The de Spirilu et Litera (supra, 
 § 10) was supplemented (c. 413) by the 
 book de Fide et Operibus, in which he deals 
 with the obHgations of the Christian life, 
 insisting that faith cannot save us without 
 charity. Here occurs the often quoted refer- 
 ence to the Lord's Prayer as the quotidiana 
 niedela for sins not demanding public penance 
 (xxvi. 48), nor even fraternal rebuke (correptio, 
 Matt, xviii. 15. cl. Serm. 352). The Kncheiri- 
 dion (c. 421) is Augustine's most complete 
 attempt at a brief summary of Christian 
 doctrine. Nominally it is based on the triple 
 scheme of Fides, Spes, Charitas. But the 
 latter two are very briefly treated at the end ; 
 practically the whole comes under the head 
 of Fides, and is an exposition of the Creed and 
 its corollaries. It should be compared with 
 the much earlier tract de Fide et Symbolo 
 (supra, § 7, b). On the de Trinitate, see above, 
 §11. The last work to be specially mentioned 
 is the de Doctrina Christiana (written in 397 
 as far as III. xxv.). which contains Augustine's 
 principles of Scriptural exposition, and a dis- 
 cussion of the exegetical " rule " of Tyconius. 
 Bk. iv. (added in 426) is on the method and 
 spirit in which the sense of Scripture should 
 be taught. It supplements the more special 
 "pedagogics" of the de Catech. Rudibus. 
 
 Of Augustine as a writer, Gibbon says : 
 " His style, though sometimes animated by 
 the eloquence of passion, is usually clouded 
 by false and affected rhetoric." This verdict 
 would gain in justice if the words " usually " 
 and " sometimes " were transposed. August- 
 ine had indeed learned and taught rhetoric to 
 some purpose ; but tried by Aristotle's cri- 
 terion — the revelation of character — Augustine 
 stands far above the category of rhetorical 
 writers. He rarely or never spends words 
 upon mere effect. He is always intent upon 
 bringing home to his hearers or readers things 
 which he feels to be momentously real. He 
 handles subjects of intimate and vital interest 
 to the human spirit. And whether he is right 
 or wrong, his deep feeling cannot fail to kindle 
 the hearts of those who read him. 
 
 § 15. Asceticism. Estimate of Poverty and 
 Riches. — Among the attractions which Mani- 
 cheism had for Augustine in his youth, the 
 strict continency supposed to prevail among 
 the perfecti (supra, § 4) had been prominent. 
 His whole early experience had led him to 
 regard sexual temptation as the great ordeal of 
 life. Disillusioned with the pertecti, he was 
 fired with the ideals of Catholic monasticism 
 (§ 6), and one of his earliest resolves at the 
 time of his con\ersion was to forswear for 
 ever even lawful marriage. The whole drift 
 of Christian feehng at that period was in this 
 direction. The influence of Ambrose, the 
 horror of representative churchmen at the 
 anti-monastic tenets of Jovinian and Vigil- 
 antius, the low tone even of nominally Christ- 
 ian society in an age of degenerate civilization, 
 all teuded to &x in him the conviction, exem- 
 
88 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 plified in his last letter to count Bonifatius, 
 that practically the one escape from an 
 immoral life was in the vow of monastic 
 continence. He is aware of the difficulties of 
 the questions raised, and endeavours to face 
 them in his books de Bono Conjugali, de Vir- 
 ginitate (401, against Jovinian), and de 
 Contmentia. He is specially anxious not to 
 depreciate marriage ; but in his attempt to 
 explain the transmission of original sin, not 
 merely by the fact " that the human embryo 
 grows from the very first in a soil positively 
 sinful," but by the assumption that the mode 
 of ordinary human generation is inevitably 
 sinful, he fairly lavs himself open to the charge 
 of doing so (de Nupt. U. 15 ; Enchir. xii. 
 34 ; de Civ. XIV. xvi.-xxi.). The orthodox 
 theologv of original sin has by common consent 
 dropped this element of the Augustinian 
 theory, which shifts the fundamental Christian 
 condemnation of sensuality from the basis of 
 moral insight to that of senii-Manichean 
 duaUsm. But Julian was wrong in setting It 
 down wholly to Augustine's Manichean past. 
 This may at most account for a bias, which 
 neither his subsequent philosophical studies 
 nor the atmosphere of the church were likely 
 to eradicate. Augustine only exaggerates an 
 instinct not dominant, but really present 
 (Matt. xix. 12; I. Cor. vii. i, 26) in the Christian 
 religion from the first, strengthened by the 
 influences of the times, especially that of 
 the Christian Platonism, and by the end of 
 the 4th cent, elevated to unassailable supre- 
 macy. In that cent, the influx of heathen 
 society into the church threatened her dis- 
 tinctive character as a holy society'. The 
 monastic ideal of life, with its corollary of 
 a double standard of Christian morality — 
 baleful as the latter was in its effects — was 
 probably the church's then only possible re- 
 sponse to the challenge of a momentous peril. 
 Augustine introduced monachism into North 
 Africa, and its spread there was rapid. In 
 Hippo it was compulsory for the clergy. At 
 first, Augustine permitted a " secular " clergy, 
 but toward the end of his life the permission 
 was revoked. With celibacy went the com- 
 mon life and the obligation of absolute per- 
 sonal poverty. We saw above (§ 7, a) how 
 Augustine had followed, early in his Christian 
 career, the example of Anthony. He took the 
 communism of Acts iv. 32 as the normal ideal 
 of Christian Ufe (Enarr. in Ps. cxxxi. 5), and 
 his community was modelled upon it (supra, 
 § 13). At the same time, in the book de 
 Opere Monachorum (c. 400), he insists that 
 monks must work, and not idly rely upon the 
 alms of the faithful. He shews an almost 
 prophetic appreciation of monastic abuses 
 (cf. what he says of the Euchites, de Haer. 
 Ivii.). He regards poverty as a consilium (de 
 Bono Conj. xxiii. 30, Ep. 15729), not a prae- 
 ceptmn. Worldly possessions are allowed to 
 the good as well as to the evil, " et a mails 
 habetur et a bonis ; tanto melius habetur 
 quanta minus amatur " (Ep. i532«, cf. de Civ. 
 XVIII. liv.). The Pelagians, who naturally 
 insisted on human effort as a condition of 
 salvation, took a severer view of wealth than 
 did Augustine (Epp. 157, i8632, divites bap- 
 tizatos, sqq.). He combats them on BibUcal 
 grounds : Dives and Lazarus, the rich Abra- 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 ham, the rich young man, the camel and the 
 needle's eye, St. Paul's charge to the rich in 
 this world ; but his treatment of the question 
 is not constructively built on first principles. 
 He perceives that it is the spirit, not the mere 
 fact of riches or poverty that is all-important ; 
 even a rich man may be poor in spirit and 
 ready to suffer not only the loss of all, but 
 mart>Tdom itself, for Christ's sake (see Serm. 
 50S, 14; Ep. 157,29,34,36, etc.; de Virg. 14). 
 Yet riches — and this is the reflection towards 
 which he gravitates^are, as a matter of ex- 
 perience, a great hindrance ; the rich are as 
 a rule the chief offenders " difficile est ut non 
 plura peccata contrahant " (in Psalm, cxxxii. 
 4), therefore " abstineamus nos, fratres, a pos- 
 sessione rei privatae . . . fac locum domino " 
 (ib. cxxxi. "^j ; the counsel of poverty is the 
 safe course. Augustine bases this on the 
 temptation to misuse of wealth ; this would 
 tend to place the man who uses his wealth 
 well and wisely, overcoming temptation, in 
 God's service, higher than him who evades the 
 trial. But the drift of church feeling was too 
 strong for this thought to prevail. Augustine 
 and Pelagius were agreed that monks as a 
 class must rank above " secular " Christians ; 
 widely removed as Augustine was from the 
 Pelagian idea of merit, yet practically he often 
 subordinates the importance of the inward to 
 the outward, of character to works. But 
 monks must live, and, as we have seen, August- 
 ine would have them work. To " take no 
 thought for the morrow" means to seek first 
 the Kingdom of God ; not improvidence or 
 laziness, but singleness of aim is the note of 
 the Christian life (in Serm. in Mont. II. 56). 
 Augustine had occasion (Ep. 211) to address 
 a long letter to his nuns, giving directions for 
 the abatement of evils incidental to the com- 
 mon life, and for the regulation of their 
 prayers, food, costume, and other details. 
 This letter, a model of good sense and right- 
 mindedness, is the basis of the " Regula " for 
 monks printed among his works. This Rule 
 is therefore an adaptation of Augustine's actual 
 counsels, but can hardly be from his own 
 hand. It has been much valued by monastic 
 reformers, and was the basis of the rules of 
 St. Norbet, of St. Dominic (i2i6),and of the 
 different communities of "canons regular" 
 and friars which have borne the title of 
 "Augustinian" (from 1244). 
 
 It will be noticed that Augustine's theory 
 of property is vitiated by the assumption that 
 Acts iv. 32 implies a permanent condemnation 
 of private property. This was even more 
 conspicuously the case with St. Ambrose, who 
 speaks very strongly of the duty of Christians 
 to treat their possessions as the property of 
 the poor. Augustine, in a passage not wholly 
 consistent with some referred to above, speaks 
 similarly of the private propertv of Christians 
 as the common property of all ; to treat it 
 otherwise is damnabilis usurpatio (Ep. 10535). 
 This " Christian communism," it may be re- 
 marked in passing, differs from that of Proud- 
 hon (" la propriete c'est le vol ") as the duty 
 to give differs from the right to take. In one 
 point Augustine takes the opposite view to 
 Ambrose, namely, in the theory of church 
 property. Ambrose, in his resistance to the 
 action of the empress J ustina, who attempted 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 to transfer the church at Milan to the Arian 
 bishop, anticipated the medieval theory of the 
 absolute right of the church to ecclesiastical 
 property, a right with which the emperor, 
 who is intra ecclesiam, may not presume to 
 tamper. This agrees perfectly with principles 
 laid down by Augustine in the de Civitate Dei 
 [supra. § <) : imperium in ecclesia, etc.). But 
 .\ugustine, defending the acti<in of Honorius 
 I or his ministers) in transferring to the 
 t"athoIicsthc church property of the Donatists, 
 strongly maintains that all rights to property 
 are created bythcState. Thechurch'sexternal 
 power and property are hers by indirect Divine 
 right. «•<■. because they are conferred on her 
 bv the ordinatissima potcstas of the sovereign 
 power (Ep. los*. «). " Per jura regum possi- 
 dentur possessiones " (in Joh. Tr. vi. 25) ; the 
 Dnnatist objects to state interference with 
 religion, but " Noli dicere (^)uid niihi et Regi ! 
 I tuid tibi rl possessioni ? " {ih. 13). As one 
 side of Augustine's theory of the church pre- 
 pares the way for the Gregorian system (§ 9), 
 so here we have that conception of Apostolic 
 poverty consistently applied to church pro- 
 perty, which underlies so much medieval 
 reaction against the Gregorian system from 
 Arnold of Brescia onwards. 
 
 § 16. Intellectual Influence on Christian 
 Posterity. — The diverse influences which met 
 in .Augustine, held together rather than fused 
 into unison by the strength of his superb 
 personality, parted in after-times into often 
 conflicting streams. It has been said with 
 truth (Loots) that three primary elements 
 determine .Augustine's complex realm of ideas : 
 his neoPlatonist philosophical training (supra, 
 § s), his profound I3iblical studies (§§ 7, b, 10, 
 init.), and his position as an officer of the 
 church. In combinations which we can in 
 part analyse, these elements, given the 
 -Augustine of a.d. 387, go to constitute 
 .Augustine as he became — the greatest of the 
 Latin doctors, the pioneer of modern Christi- 
 anity — in his threefold significance for the 
 church of all time. Augustine is (a) the 
 prince of theists, (h) the incomparable type of 
 reasoned devotion to the Catholic church, and 
 (c) the founder of the theology of sin and 
 grace. 
 
 (a) Theistic Transcendentalism. — The passion 
 of theism was the core of his personal religion. 
 His was an experimental theism, a theism of 
 the heart. The often quoted words, " Tu 
 Domine fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor 
 nostrum donee requiescat in te " (Conf. I. i.), 
 sum up his inmost personal experience. This 
 is, above all, what Augustine found in the 
 Psalms, which were his introduction to the 
 deeper study of Scripture (supra, § 6). " Mihi 
 autem adhaerere Deo bonum est" (Ps. Ixxii. 
 28, Vulg.) is the immovable centre upon 
 which his whole religion and theology turns. 
 But his theism was also speculative and 
 metaphysical, and intimately bound up with 
 the philosophical framework of his theology. 
 God, though not beyond our apprehension ("ex 
 minima quidem parte, sed tamen sine dubi- 
 tatione," c. Ep. Eund. 5), is beyond our know- 
 ledge ; " ego sum qui sum quae mens potest 
 capere ? " (in Joh. Tr. viii. 8). To be, to be 
 good, to be one, are correlative attributes ; 
 they belong to God alone. All things that 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 SO 
 
 exist, do so by " participation " of God (in 
 Joh. Tr. xxxix. 8 — the Platonic doctrine of 
 H^Oe^if) ; but by comparison with God they 
 are non-existent (Enarr. in Ps. xxxviii. 22, 
 cxxxiv. 4). Real being is incommutable being, 
 which belongs to God only. Realitv, then, 
 can only be found out of time : " ut ergo et tu 
 sis, transcende tempus " (in Joh. Tr. xxxviii. 
 10) ; anything nuitablc is not really existent 
 — it is in process, has been, is to be, but is not 
 in ^(■J)I/J : " praesens quaero, nihil stat " (ih.). 
 .Absolute good is therefore the only reality, 
 namely, God. Absolute evil is the non- 
 existent. All created existence, so far as it 
 has reality (" Deus fecit hominem, substanliam 
 [i.e. aliquidesse] fecit," Enarr. in Rs. Ixviii. 5), 
 is good ("in quantum sumus, boni sumus," de 
 Doctr. I. 35). Thcio is no " nalura tenebra- 
 rum," no ei'il substance (Conf. IV. xv. 24). 
 Sin has its roots in the evtl tvill ; it is negative 
 (" non est substantia," Ps. Ixviii. 3, Vulg.); 
 the evil will consists in "inordinate moveri, 
 bona inferiora superioribus praeponendo " (de 
 Gen. ad lit. xi. 17) ; sin is therefore an in- 
 clinatio in nihilum ; yet the sinner " non 
 penitus perit, sed in infimis ordinatur " 
 (Enarr. in Ps. viii. 10) — even Satan, in that 
 he exists, has something of the good, though 
 he is worse than the worst we know. " In 
 quantum mali sumus, in tantuin etiam minus 
 sumus " (de Doctr., u.s.). It is easy to 
 see that this idealism, taken by itself, tends 
 to lower the importance of everything that 
 takes place in time, of everything empirical 
 and historical, in comparison with the trans- 
 cendent being and unchangeable will of God, 
 in which nothing " takes place," but all is 
 eternally, immovably real. In Angtistine this 
 idealism did not stand alone ; but under all 
 his passionate appreciation of the church and 
 the historical elements of Christianity there 
 is in the background, as a limiting influence, 
 the appeal to the view of things sub specie 
 aeterni ; and the drift of his theological re- 
 flection strengthened this element in his view 
 of ultimate problems. 
 
 From this point of view we can partly under- 
 stand Augustine's famous conception of the 
 universality of the Christian Religion. This he 
 insists on in his letter to Deogratias (Ep. 102) 
 contra Paganos. At all times, he writes, since 
 the world began, the same faith has been 
 revealed to men, at one time more obscurely, 
 at another more plainly, as the circumstances 
 altered ; but what we now call the Christian 
 religion is but the clearest revelation of a 
 religion as old as the world. Never has its 
 of!er of salvation been withheld from those 
 who were worthy of it (see references. Renter, 
 p. 91 n), even though they may not be (like 
 Job, etc.) mentioned in the sacred record. Such 
 men, who followed His commands (however 
 unconsciously), were implicit believers in 
 Christ. The changing (and therefore semi- 
 real) form represents the one constant reality, 
 the saving grace of (iod, revealed through the 
 passion and resurrection of Christ (Ep. iSg'"). 
 
 (b) Catholic Churchmanship. — Of this we 
 have already spoken (§ H). Augustine was not 
 the first to formulate belief in the Holy 
 Catholic Church ; but no one before him had 
 reflected so deeply, or expressed himself with 
 such inimitable tenderness and devotion, on 
 
90 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 the church as the nurse and home of the 
 Christian life, and the saving virtue of her 
 means of grace. The church to him is the 
 society of the saints, the Kingdom of God on 
 earth. With the whole drift of contemporary 
 churchmanship, asceticism, miracles, relics, 
 the incipient cultus of saints (he believes in 
 their intercession, but strongly dissuades from 
 " placing our hope " in them : " noli facere " ; 
 if we pray to God alone, we shall be the mnre 
 likely to benefit by their intercession : " non 
 solum tibi non succensebunt ; sed tunc ama- 
 bimt, tunc magis favebunt " : but Augustine 
 is evidently correcting a known tendency to 
 invocation, Serm. 461^), he is in entire sym- 
 pathy. It is unnecessary to multiply examples 
 of what every page of his writings abundantly 
 illustrates. But it must be noted that his 
 interest throughout is in the spiritual life 
 rather than in the external system ; the latter 
 is but the means to the former. Augustine, 
 first of all extant Christian writers, identifies 
 the Kingdom of God (so far as it exists on 
 earth ; its full realization, in common with 
 all Christian antiquity, he reserves for the 
 end) with the Catholic church : but not in 
 respect of its government or organization. It 
 is the Kingdom of Christ in so far as Christ 
 reigns in His saints and they (even on earth, in 
 a sense) reign with Him. From this point of 
 view, we may trace the negative influence of 
 Augustine's idealism {supra, a) upon his view 
 of the church. We saw above (§ 15, e) his 
 inability to complete his theory of church 
 authority by the essential feature of an infalli- 
 ble organ of authority. Councils are authori- 
 tative, but earlier councils are subject to later 
 ones, there is no final expression of absolute 
 positive truth (of course there is relative truth ; 
 the church will never rehabilitate Arianism 
 nor Pelagianism inferiora superioribus prae- 
 ponendo, see above, a). Truth is, ideally, 
 perceived by the reason {de Vtil. Cred. 34) ; 
 infallibility is an ideal attribute of the church, 
 its realization now is subject to the semi-reality 
 which is the condition of all things on earth. 
 She has catholica Veritas, but never as ultimate 
 truth that man can explicitly grasp. To the 
 church, as to the individual,' it may be said, 
 " ut et tu sis, transcende tempus." Ideally, 
 authority is but the "door" to reason; 
 authority is for the babes, the stulti, who are 
 not the type of mature Christian growth. The 
 intelligendi vivacitas is for the paucissimi, the 
 credendi simplicitas is safest for the turba (c. 
 Ep. Fund. 5). But Augustine does not press 
 these thoughts to their full issue. " Alia est 
 ratio verum tacendi, alia verum dicendi neces- 
 sitas . . . ne pejores faciamus eos qui non 
 intelligiint dum volumus eos qui intelligunt 
 facere doctiores " (de Dona Persev. 40). Prac- 
 tically they operate negatively, by leaving in 
 the vague the question of an infallible organ 
 of authority, while the positive conception of 
 the church is left unaffected. In the sphere 
 of transcendent reality, the decrees of councils 
 may be provisional only ; but in practice any 
 authoritative decision is final, even the appeal 
 to a general council (supra, § 10, 6, Julian) may 
 be ignored, " causa finita est " (supra, 15, d). 
 Medieval ecclesiasticism accepted Augustine's 
 homage to the external fabric of the church, 
 and concerned itself little with his metaphy- 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 sical conception of Reality (see references to 
 Gregory VII., in Renter, pp. 499 seq.). 
 
 (c) Influence of his Doctrine of Grace. — 
 Augustine's conception of the church, little as 
 it was modified in practice by his transcen- 
 dental theory of " Being " taken by itself, was 
 more seriously affected by his predestinariaa 
 doctrine, which his transcendentalism certain- 
 ly tended to reinforce. Augustine had first 
 found salvation in the Catholic church (c. Ep. 
 Fund. 6) in self-surrender to the authority of 
 Christ (c. Acad. III. 43 : " mihi autem cer- 
 tum est nusquam prorsus ab auctoritate 
 Christi discedere," etc.). His whole religious 
 thought, founded upon his experience of the 
 Catholic church, turned upon Christ as its 
 fountain-head and centre (see the passages 
 collected by Renter, pp. 19-25). His whole 
 being, and that of the church, was owing to 
 the grace of Christ (" gratia Dei per Christum, 
 propter Christum," etc.) ; the gratia Christi is 
 the central idea of his theology. We saw- 
 above (§ 10) by what steps he was led, from 
 the inward recognition of the sovereignty of 
 grace in his personal life, to the logical con- 
 clusion that salvation depends upon the 
 Divine will irrespective of merit or of anything 
 which takes place on earth. Membership of 
 the church, a holy life, use of the means of 
 grace, may be indispensable to the pre- 
 destined ; but they are in no sense conditions 
 of predestination, which is absolute. They 
 depend on it, not it on them. Even the 
 historical work of Christ is secondary to the 
 Divine purpose to save some and " pass over " 
 the rest of mankind. Hence, on the one hand, 
 the doctrine of particular redemption (for none 
 perish for whom Christ died, Ep. 169*, while 
 those predestined ad interitum are " non ad 
 vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio compar- 
 ati " — in J oh. Tr. xlvii. 11, 4), on the other 
 hand, a tendency to make the atonement not 
 an efficient cause'of redemption but a proof (to 
 the elect) of God's love : " ut ostenderet Deus 
 dilectionem suam," etc. (de Catech. Rud. 4 ; 
 cf. Ep. 177"^^ : " gratia Dei quae revelata est 
 per passionem et resurrectionem Christi "). 
 The number of the predestined is irrevocably 
 fixed, and this certus numerus constitute the 
 church as it will be in the perfect Kingdom of 
 God. The church on earth, viewed as it is 
 in God's sight, in its true " being," consists 
 of the elect and of them alone. The old 
 Catholic axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus thus 
 acquires a new and unlooked-for meaning: 
 out of the number of the elect there is no salva- 
 tion. This is the Augustinian doctrine of the 
 communion of saints, which stands in contrast 
 with the externa communio or visible church 
 as the invisible reality with the semi-real 
 phenomenon. The distinction is not quite 
 identical with the familiar distinction of wheat 
 and tares, nominal and real Christians ; for 
 even real Christians have no certainty that 
 they are " elect." The donum perseverantiae, 
 which is as absolutely unmerited as that of 
 faith, and is, in fact, the turning-point of the 
 whole predestinarian scheme, may fail them 
 (supra, § 10, c). In that case they are, after 
 all, vessels of wrath ; while again it may be 
 vouchsafed to others who are now but nominal 
 Christians, or not even that. When Augustine 
 identifies the church with the Kingdom of 
 
AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 God, it is reallv of the commtmio sanctorum 
 that he is thinking. The logical incompati- 
 bility of the predestinarian and the Catholic 
 view of the church is obvious, and Augustine 
 never effected their reconciliation. The ob- 
 vious reconciliation, upon which he often 
 appears to fall back, is that although the 
 I hurch contains many who are not " elect," 
 it vet contains all the elect. But this is to 
 .i^s'umc that the Divine election is absolutely 
 b niiid to external means, which Augustine 
 il<s not really hold. On the contrary, his 
 . >!u .'ption of the universality of the One 
 Ktli-i.<u of Christ {stif^ra. a. sub fin.) brings in 
 I"b, the Sibyl, and doubtless many others 
 qui secundem Deum vixerunt eique placuer- 
 unt, pertinentes ad spiritalem Hierusalem " 
 ,,/{• ("/;•. Will, xlvii.). Again, there are the 
 \mjustly excommunicated, who have nothing 
 of the character of schismatics : " hos coronat 
 in occulto Pater," etc. {de Vera Rclig. ii. cf. 
 de. Bapt. I. 26, Epp. 78. 3, 250, fragm. ad. fin.). 
 But practically Augustine passes to and fro 
 between the thought of the Humerus prae- 
 destinatorum and that of the visible church 
 without being careful to distinguish them, 
 and he freely applies to the latter the exalted 
 and ideal prcrogativ es which are theoretically 
 proper to the former. 
 
 To this side of Augustine's teaching applies 
 the remark of Gibbon, that " the rigid system 
 of Christianity which he framed or restored 
 has been entertained with public applause and 
 secret reluctance by the Latin church." In 
 fact, as the ecclesiastical side of Augustine's 
 thought supplied the inspiration for the medi- 
 eval theocracy, so his predestinarian idea of 
 the church furnished the theological founda- 
 II i I tion for most of the medieval counter-move- 
 ipj. ments, especially those of Marsilius, of Wyclif, 
 
 ,lh and of Hus ; and the Zwinglian idea of 
 
 an invisible church is little more than an 
 isolation of this doctrine from the Catholic 
 context which surrounded it in Augustine's 
 own theologv. 
 
 §17. Select Bibliography, (i) History of Pub- 
 lication. — Augustine's Retractationes, coupled 
 with the Indiculus of Possidius, give a prac- 
 tically complete list of his authentic works 
 and of the occasions of their composition and 
 publication. During his lifetime they were 
 widely multiplied in Latin Christendom (Pos- 
 sid. vii.) ; the Emendatiora Exempla, revised 
 by himself, and bequeathed to the church of 
 Hippo, were preserved through the disasters 
 which overtook the town (ib. x\iii.). The 
 history of the study and literary influence of 
 Augustine in after- times must be read in the 
 histories of Christian doctrine. For the nth 
 cent, we have a useful investigation by Mirbt 
 (pupil of Renter), Die Stellung Augustins in 
 der Publizistik des Gregorianischen Kirchen- 
 streits (Leipz. 1888). The history of manu- 
 script transmission may be read in the prefa- 
 tory notes to the several treatises in the 
 Benedictine ed., and in the Prolegomena to 
 the instalments of Augustine's works that have 
 so far been published in the Vienna Corpus 
 Script. Eccles. Latinorum. The list of editif>ns 
 since the first by Amerbach (Basel, 1506) may 
 be found in the' article by Loofs {infra). The 
 standard ed. is that by the Benedictines of 
 St. Maur (see Kukula and Rottmanner in Hist. 
 
 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 
 
 01 
 
 Phil. Transactions of the Vienna Academy, 
 1 890- 1 892, .and Tassin, Hist. lit. de la Congreg. 
 de S. Maur., Brux. 1770), completed in 1690. 
 The edition was by several hands, and was 
 attacked fiercely by the opponents of Jansen- 
 ism. This was perhaps inevitable in the at- 
 tempt to make Augustine speak for himself. 
 The principal points of attack were the Preface, 
 by Mabillon, to the Tenth Volume, which its 
 author revised under pressure, and the Index. 
 The latter is a marvel of completeness, and 
 many of its articles are in substance theologi- 
 cal treatises. The Vita, mainly by Vaillant, 
 is largelv indebted to the contemporary work 
 of Tillemont, the thirteenth vol. of whose 
 Memoires, a Life of St. Augustine, in 1075 pp., 
 appeared after his death (1698). The Bened. 
 ed. was reprinted at Venice, 1729-1735. The 
 eleven vols, in folio were replaced in the 
 next reprints (Venice, 1756-1769, Bassano, 
 1 797- 1 807) by eighteen in quarto. The Paris 
 reprint of Gaume (1836-1839) and that of 
 Migne (in the Patr. Lat., vols. 32-46) return to 
 the arrangement of eleven vols. ; but in Migne 
 some of the vols, are subdivided, and a twelfth 
 of supplementary matter {Patr. Lat. 47) is 
 added. This edition is better printed than 
 many of the series, and is the most convenient 
 for reference. Its text should be superseded 
 by that of the Vienna Corpus ; but at present 
 only a portion of Augustine's works have 
 appeareci in this series {Confessions, de Civ. 
 Dei, Letters, 1-133, Speculum, several exegeti- 
 cal works, anti-Manichean treatises, various 
 anti-Pelagian works, and a vol. containing de 
 Fid. et Symb., the Retractationes, and other 
 works (1900); also the excerpts of Eugippius, 
 an edition important for the light thrown by 
 it on the text of Augustine). 
 
 (2) Editions of Separate Works. — We have a 
 good edition of the de Civitate Dei, by Dom- 
 bart (Triibner, 1863), and a more recent one of 
 bks. xi. and xii., with intro., literal trans., and 
 notes by Rev. H. Gee (Bell, 5s.), who has also 
 ed. Ln joannis Evang. Tract, xxiv.-xxvii. and 
 Ixvii.-lxxix. (is. bd. each. Bell), with trans, 
 by Canon H. Brt)wn ; a number of smaller 
 tracts, and the de Trinitate in the SS. Patr. 
 Opusc. Selecta, by H. Hurter, S.J. (Inns- 
 bruck, Wagner) ; Anti-Pelagian Treatises, 
 with valuable Introduction by Dr. Bright 
 (Clarendon Press, 1880) ; de Cateehiz. Rud., by 
 Kriiger (in his Quellenschri/ten, 4, Frieburg, 
 1891) ; Confessions, by Pusey (Oxf. 1838), 
 and Gaume (Paris, 1836, i2mo). The new 
 ed. of Tract, in Joh. Ixvii.-lxxix., by H. F. 
 Stewart (Camb. 1900), has a translation and 
 some admirably digested introductory matter. 
 
 (3) Translations. — The translations in the 
 Oxford Library of the Fathers, and in Clark's 
 scries (Edin. 1866- 1872), are incorporated 
 and supplied with useful introductory matter 
 in the Post-Nicene Library (ser. i). ed. by 
 Dr. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, 1886-8). Three 
 Anti-Pelagian Treatises, by Woods and John- 
 ston (D. Nutt, 1887). The Confessions, bks. 
 i.-ix., are translated by Dr. Charles Bigg 
 (Methuen, 1897, with a most interesting Intro- 
 duction). The extracts in this article follow 
 this translation. Another ed. by Temple 
 Scott, with intro. by Mrs. Meynell, is pub. by 
 Mowbrav (7s. 6d. net.), and follows Dr. Pusey's 
 trans. Dr. Hutchings trans, and ed. the Con- 
 
92 
 
 AUGUSTINUS 
 
 fessions (Longmans, 2S. 6^.)- Preaching and 
 Teaching ace. to S. Aug. is a new trans, of 
 the de Doct. Christ, bk. iv., and de Rudibus 
 Catech. with 3 intro. essavs by Rev. W. J. V. 
 Baker and C. Bickersteth and a preface by 
 Bp. Gore (Mowbray, 2S. 6d.). 
 
 (4) Biographies.^n addition to that of 
 Possidius. and those of the Benedictines and 
 Tillemont mentioned above, see Remy Ceillier, 
 Auteitrs Sacres, vols. 11 and 12 ; Acta Sanc- 
 torum ■ .•\ug. vol. 6 ; Poujoulat, Hist, de Saint 
 Aug. (Paris, 1843) ; Bohringer, Aur. Aug. 
 (2 ed., Stuttg. 1878) ; Naville, St. Aug. : 
 Etude sur le developpement de sa pensee, etc. 
 (Geneva, 1872) ; Bindemann, der h. Aug. (3 
 vols., Berlin, 1844-1S69) ; Harnack, Augus- 
 tin's Confessionem (Giessen, 1888). The 
 greater Church Histories, and works on Chris- 
 tian literature, deal fully with Augustine. A 
 brochure, S. Augustine and African Church 
 Divisions by the Rev. W. J- Sparrow Simpson, 
 was pub. by Longmans in igro. Of articles 
 in Dictionaries, etc., we may mention those of 
 de Pressense, in D. C. B. ('4-vol. ed.'>, which 
 gives a very useful list of the contents of the 
 several vols, of his works in the great Bene- 
 dictine edition, and Loots, in Herzog-Hauck's 
 Real-Encyclopddie (Leipz. 1897), an article 
 worthy of the writer's high reputation, and 
 much used in the present article. 
 
 (5) Doctrinal and General. — For older litera- 
 ture, see the references to fuller bibliographies 
 at the end. The Augustinische Studien of 
 Hermann Renter (Gotha, 1887), so frequently 
 quoted above, are beyond comparison for 
 thoroughness and impartiality, and indispens- 
 able. The histories of doctrine should be 
 consulted. Harnack's treatment of Augustine 
 (in his Dogmengeschichte, vol. 3) is among the 
 most s>Tnpathetic and powerful portions of 
 that work ; the writer's instinctive apprecia- 
 tion of a great religious personality is nowhere 
 more apparent than here. Loofs's Leitfaden 
 is also most useful. Mozley, The Augustinian 
 Doctrine of Predestination (3rd. ed. 1S83) ; 
 Nourrisson, La Philosophie de St. Augustin 
 (Paris, 1886, 2 vols.) ; Bright, Lessons from 
 the Lives of Three Great Fathers (ed. 2, Oxf. 
 1891) ; Cunningham, St. Austin (Hulsean 
 Lectures, 1886) ; Bigg, Christian Platonists 
 of Alexandria (Bampton Lectiures, 1886 ; 
 comparison of Aug. with Origen, etc.) ; 
 Robertson, Regnum Dei (Bampton Lectures, 
 No. 5); Dorner, Augustinus (Berlin, 1873); 
 Gibb and Montgomery's ed. of the Confessions 
 in the Camh. Patristic Texts, 1908, a v^aluable 
 critical ed. with Introduction. 
 
 The above list is a mere selection. For more 
 complete bibliography see Loots («.s.) ; Barden- 
 hewer's Patrology. Dr. Shahan's trans. 1908, 
 pub. by Herder, Freiburg i/B. and St. Louis, 
 Mo. ; Potthast, BibliothecaHist. Medii Aevi{ed. 
 2, 1896), vol. ii. p. 1187 ; Chevallier, Repertoire 
 des sources historiques ; de Pressense (m.s.) ; 
 Nicene and post-Nicene Libr., ser. i, vol. i. 
 A short popular Life of St. Augustine is pub. 
 in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, by S.P.C.K., 
 who also pub. an Eng. trans, of the Treatise 
 on the City of God, by F. R. M. Hitchcock. 
 Cheap trans, of the Confessions and the City 
 of God (2 vols.) are in^. and M. Theol. Lib. 
 (Griffith). [A.R., 1901.] 
 
 Augustinus, St., archbp. of Canterbury. 
 
 AUGUSTINUS 
 
 i The materials for the life of the first archbp. 
 of Canterbury are almost entirely comprised 
 
 I in the first and second books of Bede's Eccle- 
 
 , siastical History, with some additional points 
 in Gocelin's Life of St. Augustine, Thorn's 
 
 j Chronicles of St. Augustine's Abbey ; a few 
 letters of Gregory the Great ; the Lives of 
 
 1 Gregory the Great by Paul the Deacon and 
 John the Deacon. 
 
 His mission to England was due to the 
 circumstance of Gregory the Great, a monk in 
 the monastery of St. Andrew, on the Caelian 
 Mount at Rome, one day passing through the 
 market-place of the city, and noticing three 
 boys exposed for sale who told him they were 
 
 ; Angles from Deira, a province of King Ella. 
 
 ' By a playful interpretation of the word he was 
 
 [ reminded of angels, delivered from u-rath, with 
 songs of hallelujah. Years passed away and 
 
 i the idea ripened into a mission to Britain 
 
 I headed by .\ugustine the abbot of St. Andrew's. 
 
 i In the' summer of a.d. 596 they set out, 
 traversed the north of Italv, and reached 
 the neighboiurhood of Aix, in Provence, and 
 the north of France. They crossed the 
 English Channel and landed at Ebbe's Fleet, 
 in the Isle of Thanet and kingdom of Kent. 
 King Ethelbert received the missionaries in 
 a friendly spirit, either in the open space near 
 Ebbe's Fleet, or, according to another ac- 
 count, under an ancient oak in the middle of 
 the island. To make a deeper impression on 
 the monarch's mind, Augustine came up from 
 the shore in solemn procession, preceded by 
 a verger caixying a large silver cross, and 
 
 I followed by one bearing aloft on a board, 
 painted and gilded, a representation of the 
 Saviour. Then came the rest of the brethren 
 and the choir, headed by Honorius and the 
 deacon Peter, chanting a solemn litany for 
 the eternal welfare of themselves and the 
 people amongst whom they had come. 
 Ethelbert listened attentively to Augustine's 
 address, delivered through interpreters, and 
 then, in a manner at once politic and courteous, 
 replied that the promises of the strangers were 
 fair, but the tidings they announced were new 
 and full of a meaning he did not understand. 
 He could not give his assent to them and 
 leave the customs of his people, but he pro- 
 mised the strangers kindness and hospitality, 
 together with liberty to celebrate their ser- 
 vices, and undertook that none of his subjects 
 who might be so disposed should be prohibited 
 from espousing their religion. Augustine and 
 his companions again formed a procession, and 
 crossing the ferry to Richborough, advanced 
 to Canterbury, chanting one of the solemn 
 litanies learnt from Gregory, and took up 
 their abode in the Stable-gate, near the present 
 church of St. Alphege. till the king should 
 finally make up his mind. 
 
 Thus admitted into the city, the mission- 
 aries commended their message by their self- 
 devotion and pure and chaste living. Before 
 long they were allowed to worship in the 
 church of St. Martin, which Ethelbert's 
 Christian queen Bertha, a Gallic princess 
 with bp. Liudhard for her chaplain, had been 
 accustomed to attend, and they were thus 
 encouraged to carry on their labours with 
 renewed zeal. At last Ethelbert avowed him- 
 self ready to accept Christianity, and was bap- 
 
AUGUSTINUS 
 
 tized on Whitsunday, June 2, 597, probably 
 at St. Martin's church. 
 
 The convcrsir)n of Ihi-ir rhiof was, as is 
 ilUistratcd again and agaiu in tlio history i>f 
 medieval missions, tlie signal for the baptism 
 of the tribe. At tlie next assembly, therefore, 
 of the Witan, the matter was formally referred 
 to the authorities of the kingdom, and they 
 decided to follow the example of Ethelbert. 
 Aicordingly, on Dec. 25, 3()7, upwards of 
 10,000 received baptism in the waters of the 
 >\vale, at the mouth of the Medway, and thus 
 si-aleil their acceptance of the new faith. 
 
 Thus successful in the immediate object of 
 the mission, .\ugiistinc rei>aired to France, and 
 was consecrated the first archbp. of Canter- 
 bury by \'irgilius, the metropolitan of Aries. 
 On his return he took up his abode in the 
 uixxien palace of Ethelbert, who retired to 
 Keculver, and this, with an old British or 
 Roman church hard by, became the nucleus of 
 Augustine's cathedral. Another proof of the 
 king's kindness was soon displayed. To the 
 west of Canterbury, and midway between it 
 and the church of St. Martin, was a building, 
 once a British church, but now used as a Sa.xon 
 temple. This Ethelbert, instead of destroy- 
 ing, made over to the archbishop, who dedi- 
 cated it to St. I'ancras, in memory, probably, 
 ■ if the young Roman martyr on the tombs of 
 whose family the monastery on tlie Caelian 
 -Mount at Rome had been built. Round this 
 I building now rose another monastery, at the 
 j head of which Augustine placed one of his 
 companions, Peter, as its first abbot. 
 
 Before, however, these arrangements were 
 1 .jmpleted, he sent Peter and Laurence to in- 
 f.irm Gregory of the success of the mission. 
 
 Gregory was overjoyed at the receipt of the 
 intelligence, and after an interval sent over a 
 reinforcement of fresh labourers for the mis- 
 sion, amongst whom were Mellitus, Paulinus, 
 I and Justus. They brought ecclesiastical vest- 
 ments, sacred vessels, some relics of apostles 
 and martyrs, a present of books, and the pall 
 of a metropolitan for Augustine himself, who 
 was thus made independent of the bishops 
 of France. In a lengthened epistle Gregory 
 sketched out the course which the archbishop 
 was to take in developing his work. London 
 was to be his metropolitan see, and he was to 
 consecrate twelve bishops as suffragans. More- 
 over, whenever Christianity had extended to 
 York, he was to place there also a metropolitan 
 with a like number of bishops under him. As 
 to the British bishops, they were all entrusted 
 to his care, " that the unlearned might be 
 instructed, the weak strengthened by per- 
 suasion, the perverse corrected with author- 
 ity." .Augustine, thereupon, invited the 
 British clergy to a conference on the confines 
 of VVessex, near the Severn, under an oak, long 
 after known as Augustine's oak. Prepared to 
 make considerable concessions, he yet felt 
 that three points did not admit of being sacri- 
 ficed. He proposed that the British church 
 should (i) conform to the Roman usage in the 
 celebration of Easter ; and (2) the rite of 
 baptism ; and (3) that they should aid him in 
 evangelizing the heathen Saxons. The dis- 
 cussi(jn was long and fruitless. At last the 
 archbishop prop<Jsed that an appeal should be 
 made to the Divine judgment. A blind Saxon 
 
 AUGUSTINUS 
 
 93 
 
 was introduced, whom the British clergy were 
 unable to cure, .\ugustine supplicated aid 
 from above, and the man, we are told, forth- 
 with recovered his sight. 
 
 Convinced but unwilling to alter their old 
 customs, the \anquished party proposed 
 another meeting. Seven British bishops met 
 on this occasion, together with Dinoth, abbot 
 pi the great monastery of Bangor in Flint- 
 shire. Before the synod assembled, they pro- 
 posed to ask the advice of an aged hermit 
 whether they ought to change the traditions 
 of tlieir fathers. " Yes," replied the old man, 
 " if the new-comer be a man of God ? " " But 
 how," they asked, " are we to know whether 
 he be a man of God ? " " The Lord hath 
 said," was the reply, " 'Take My yoke upon 
 you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly.' 
 Now if this Augustine is meek and lowly, be 
 assured that he beareth the yoke of Christ." 
 " Nay, but how are we to know this ? " they 
 asked again. " If he rises to meet you when 
 ye approach," answered the hermit, " hear 
 and follow him ; but if he despise you, and 
 fails to rise up from his place, let him also be 
 despised by you." The synod met, and Augus- 
 tine remained seated when they approached. 
 It was enough. It was deemed clear that he 
 had not the Spirit of Christ, and no efforts of 
 the archbishop could induce the British clergy 
 to yield to any of his demands. Thereupon 
 .'\ugustine broke up the conference with an 
 angry threat that, if the British clergy would 
 not accept peace with their brethren, they 
 must look for war with their foes, and if they 
 would not proclaim the way of life to the 
 Saxons, they would suffer deadly vengeance 
 at their hands. Thus, unsuccessful, Augus- 
 tine returned to Canterbury, and there relaxed 
 none of his efforts to evangelize the Saxon 
 tribes. As all Kent had espoused the Faith, 
 it was deemed advisable to erect a second 
 bishopric at Rochester. Over it Augustine 
 placed his companion Justus, and Ethelbert 
 caused a cathedral to be built, which was 
 named after St. Andrew, in memory of the 
 monastery dedicated to that Apostle on the 
 Caelian Hill at Rome, whence the missionaries 
 had started. At the same time, through the 
 connexion of the same monarch with the king 
 of Essex, who was his nephew, Christianity 
 found its way into the adjacent kingdom, and 
 the archbishop was able to place Mellitus in 
 the see of London, where Ethelbert built a 
 church, dedicated to St. Paul. 
 
 This was the limit of Augustine's success. 
 It fell, indeed, far short of Gregory's grand 
 design ; but this had been formed on a very 
 imperfect acquaintance with the condition of 
 the island, the strong natural prejudices of 
 the British Christians, and the relations which 
 subsisted between the different Anglo-Saxon 
 kingdoms. On Mar. 12, 604, (iregory died, and 
 two months afterwards according to some 
 authorities, or a year after according to 
 others, Augustine followed his patron and 
 benefactor, and was buried in the cemetery 
 which he himself had consecrated, beside the 
 Roman road that ran over St. Martin's Hill 
 from Richborough to Canterbury. 
 
 The most important modern authorities for 
 the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury 
 are Montalambert, Monks of (he West, iii. ; 
 
94 
 
 AURELIAN 
 
 Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, i. ; Stanley, 
 Memorials of Canterbury, 4th ed. 1865 ; 
 Milman, Hist, of Latin Christianity, ii. 4th ed. 
 1867 ; A. J. Mason, The Mission of St. Aug. 
 to Eng., 1897; Bp. Browne, Aug. and his 
 Companions, 1S95 ; Gasquet, Missions of St. 
 At4g. ; Bp. Collins, Beginnings of Eng. Chris- 
 tianity. [G.F.M.] 
 
 Aurelian, a.d. 270-275. The few facts 
 which connect the name of this emperor with 
 the history of the Christian church are as 
 follows: — (i) he is said (Vopiscus, c. 20) to 
 have reproached the Roman senate for not 
 consulting the Sibylline books, as their fathers 
 would have done, at a time of danger and per- 
 plexity. " It would seem," he said, " as if 
 you were holding your meetings in a church 
 of the Christians instead of in the temple of 
 all the gods." The words clearly imply a 
 half-formed suspicion that the decline of the 
 old faith was caused by the progress of the 
 new. The decree of Gallienus recognising 
 Christianity as a religio licita had apparently 
 stimulated church building. (2) Startled by 
 the rapid progress of Christianity, Aurelian is 
 said to have resolved towards the close of his 
 reign on active measures for its repression. 
 The edict of Gallienus was to be rescinded. A 
 thrill of fear pervaded the Christian popula- 
 tion of the empire. The emperor was sur- 
 rounded by counsellors who vurged on him a 
 policy of persecution, but his death hindered 
 the execution of his plans. (3) In the interval 
 we find him connected, singularly enough, 
 with the action of the church in a case of 
 heresy. Paul of Samosata had been chosen 
 as bp. of Antioch in a.d. 260. A synod of 
 bishops including Firmilianus of the Cappado- 
 cian Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and 
 others, had condemned his teaching ; but on 
 receiving promises of amendment had left him 
 in possession of the see. Another (a.d. 270) 
 deposed him, and Domnus was appointed in 
 his place. Paul refused to submit and kept 
 possession of the episcopal residence. Such 
 was the position of affairs at Antioch when 
 Aurelian, having conquered Zenobia, became 
 master of the city. The orthodox bishops 
 appealed to the emperor to settle whose the 
 property was, and he adjudged it to belong 
 to those to whom the bishops in Italv and 
 in Rome had addressed their epistles (Eus. 
 H. E. viii. 27-30). [E.H.P.] 
 
 Aurelius, Marcus, emperor, a.d. 161- 180. 
 The policy adopted by Marcus Aurelius to- 
 wards the Christian church cannot be separ- 
 ated from the education which led him to 
 embrace Stoicism, and the long training which 
 he had, after he had attracted the notice of 
 Hadrian and been adopted bv Antoninus Pius, 
 in the art of ruling. In the former he had 
 learnt, as he records with thankfulness, from 
 his master Diognetus (Medit. i. 6), the temper 
 of incredulity as to alleged marvels, like those 
 of seers and diviners. Under Hadrian and 
 Antoninus Pius he had acquiesced, at least, 
 in a policy of toleration, checking false accu- 
 sations, requiring from the accusers proof of 
 some other crime than the mere profession of 
 Christianity. It is, therefore, startling to find 
 that he takes his place in the list of persecutors 
 along with Nero and Domitian and Decius. 
 The annals of mart>Tdom place in his reign 
 
 AURELIUS, MARCUS 
 
 the deaths of Justin Martyr at Rome (a.d. 
 166), of Polycarp at Smyrna (a.d. 167), of 
 Blandina and Pothinus and the other sufferers 
 at Lyons (a.d. i77)- The last-named year 
 seems indeed to have witnessed an outburst 
 of popular fury against the new sect, and this 
 could not have been allowed to rage without 
 the emperor's sanction, even if there were no 
 special edicts like those of which Melito 
 speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26) directly authoriz- 
 ing new measures of repression. It was ac- 
 cordingly an era of Apologies ; J ustin had led 
 the way under Antoninus Pius, and the second 
 treatise that bears his name was probably 
 written just before his own martyrdom under 
 .\urelius. To the years 177 and 178 are 
 assigned those which were written by Melito, 
 Tatian, Athenagoras, ApoUinaris, and Theo- 
 philus, perhaps also that of Miltiades. The 
 causes of this increased rigour are not difficult 
 to trace, (i) The upward progress of Chris- 
 tianity brought its teachers into rivalry with 
 the Stoic philosophers who up to this time, 
 partly for good and partly for evil, had occu- 
 pied the position of spiritual directors in the 
 families in which there was any effort to rise 
 out of the general debasement. They now 
 found themselves brought into contact with 
 men of a purer morality and a nobler fortitude 
 than their own, and with a strange mysterious 
 power which enabled them to succeed where 
 others failed. Just in proportion, therefore, 
 as the emperor was true to his Stoicism was 
 he likely to be embittered against their rivals. 
 (2) A trace of this bitterness is found in his 
 own Meditations (xi. 3). Just as Epictetus 
 (.\rrian, Epict. iv. 7) had spoken of the 
 " counterfeit apathy " which was the off- 
 spring not of true wisdom, but " of madness 
 or habit like that of the Galileans, " so the 
 emperor contrasts the calm considerate pre- 
 ference of death to life, which he admired, 
 with the " mere obstinacy (Trapdrafis) of the 
 Christians." " The wise man," he says, 
 " should meet death cre.ui'JJs Kal drpaYoj'Sws." 
 The last word has, there seems reason to be- 
 lieve, a special significance. Justin, towards 
 the close of his second Apology, presented to 
 this emperor, had expressed a wish that some 
 one would stand up, as on some lofty rostrum, 
 and " cry out with a tragic voice, Shame, 
 shame on you who ascribe to innocent men the 
 things which ye do openly yourselves. . . . 
 Repent ye, be converted to the ways of purity 
 and wisdom [yiirddiffOe, a-io(ppovia-dTjTe)." If 
 we believe that his acts were in harmony with 
 his words or that what he wrote had come 
 under the emperor's eye, it is natural to see 
 in the words in which the latter speaks so 
 scornfully of the " tragic airs " of the Chris- 
 tians a reference to what had burst so rudely 
 upon his serene tranquillity. (3) The period 
 was one of ever-increasing calamities. The 
 earthquakes which had alarmed Asia under 
 Antoninus were but the prelude to more 
 serious convulsions. The Tiber rose to an 
 unprecedented height and swept away the 
 public granaries. This was followed by a 
 famine, and that by a pestilence, which spread 
 from Egypt and Ethiopia westward. Every- 
 where on the frontiers there were murmurs of 
 insurrection or invasion. The year 166 was 
 long known as the " annus calamitosus," and 
 
AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS 
 
 it was in that year that the persecution broke 
 ..lit and that Justin sulTered. These calami- 
 ties roused the superstition of the great mass 
 of tlie people, and a wild fanaticism succeeded 
 to an epicurean atheism. The gods were 
 wroth, and what had roused their anger but 
 the presence of those who dei\ied them ? 
 • Chrtsiianos ad leones " seemeil the remedy 
 for every disaster. The gods might accept 
 that as a piacular offering. On the other 
 hand, the Christians saw in them signs of the 
 coming judgment, aiid of the end of the 
 world ; ami now in apocalyptic utterances, 
 u.)w in Sibylline books, uttered, half exult- 
 .intly, their preilictions of the impending 
 V >e(cf. TertuU. ad Sca[y. c. 3). All this, of 
 iirse, iiK Teased the irritation against them 
 . the white heat of frenzy (Milman's Hist. 
 „/ Christianity, bk. ii. c. 7). They not only 
 provoked the gods, and refused to join in 
 sacrifices to appease them, but triumphed in 
 their fellow-citizens' miseries. 
 
 Two apparent exceptions to this policy of 
 repression have to be noticed, (i) One edition 
 of the edict Jr/xb? to KOLvdv r?;? 'Affias, though 
 ascribed by Kusebius (//. E. iv. 13) to 
 Antoninus Pius, purports, as given by him, to 
 come from Aurelius. But the edict is unques- 
 tionably spurious, and merely shows the wish 
 of some Cliristians, at a later stage in the con- 
 flict, to claim the authority of the philosopher 
 in favour of his brethren. (2) There is the 
 decree mentioned by Eusebius (//. E. v. 5) on 
 theauthority of Tertullian (.-1 />()/. c. 5, adScap. 
 C 4, p. 208) and appended to Justin's first 
 Apology, which purports to be addressed to the 
 Senate, informing them how, when he and his 
 army were in danger of perishing for want of 
 water in the country of the Marcomanni, the 
 Christians in his army had prayed to their 
 God, and refreshing rain had fallen for them, 
 and a destroying hail on their enemies, and 
 bidding them therefore to refrain from all 
 accusations against Christians as such, and 
 ordering all who so accused them to be burnt 
 alive. (Cf. Thunderinc; Legion in D. C.B. 
 4-V0I. ed.) The decree is manifestly spurious. 
 An interesting monograph, M. Aurelius An- 
 toninus als Freund nnd Zeitgenosse des Rabbis 
 Jehudas ben Xasi, by Dr. A. Bodck (Leipz. 
 1868), may be noticed as maintaining that this 
 emperor is identical with the Antoninus ben 
 I Ahasuerus, who is mentioned in the Talmud 
 I as on terms of intimacy with one of the 
 j leading Jewish teachers of the time. If this 
 I be accepted, it suggests another possible 
 I element in his scorn of Christianity. G. H. 
 I Rendal, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, to Him- 
 I self, Eng. trans, with valuable Intro. (Lond. 
 
 1898). [E.H.P.] 
 
 I Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, a native of 
 
 ] Bordeaux, was tin- s. .n of Julius Ausonius, a 
 i physician of Cos^ium tlluzus), in Aquitania 
 
 (Aus. Idyll, ii. 2). His poems, which are 
 I singiilarly communicative as to his private 
 I history, display him to us in riper years both 
 I as student and courtier, professor and prefect, 
 ! poet and consul. At the age of 30 he was 
 I promoted to the chair of rhetoric in his native 
 I city, and not long after was invited to court 
 I by the then Christian emperor V'alentinian I., 
 1 who appointed him tutor to his son Gratian 
 
 (Prat/, ad Syagr. 15-26). Ausonius was held 
 
 AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS 9.') 
 
 I in high regard by the emperor and his sons 
 ; and accomi)anictl the former in his expedition, 
 ; against the Alemanni. It was no doubt 
 i during the residence of the court at Treves at 
 ' this time that he composed his Mosella. From 
 Valentinian he obtained the title of Comes and 
 the oihce. of (Juaestor, and on the accession 
 I of Gratian became successively Prefect of 
 i Latium, Libya, and Gaul, and linally, a.d. 379, 
 was raised to the consulship (Praef. ad Sya^r. 
 35, etc. ; Epigr. ii. iii., de fast.). After the 
 death of Gratian, a.d. 383, although he seems 
 to have enjoyeii the favour of Theodosius 
 (Praef. ad Theodos.), it is probable that he 
 returned to the neighbourhood of his native 
 city and spent the remainder of his life in 
 studious retirement (Ep. xxiv.). His corre- 
 spondence with Paulinus of Nola evidently 
 belongs to these later years. The date of his 
 death is unknown, but he was certainly alive 
 in A.D. 388, as he rejoices in the victory of 
 Theodosius over the murderer of Gratian at 
 Aquileia {Clar. Urb. vii.). 
 
 The question of the poet's religion has 
 always been a matter of ilispute. Voss, Cave, 
 Heindrich, Muratori, etc., maintain that he 
 was a pagan, while Jos. Scaliger, Fabricius, 
 Funccius, and later M. Ampere, uphold the 
 contrary view. Without assenting to the 
 extreme opinion of Trithemius, w^ho even 
 makes him out to have held the see of Bor- 
 deaux, we may safely pronounce in favour of 
 his Christianity. The negative view rests 
 purely upon assumptions, such as that a 
 Christian would not have been guilty of the 
 grossness with which some of his poems are 
 stained, nor have been on such intimate terms 
 with prominent heathens (Symmach. Epp. ad 
 .4uso}t. passim), nor have alluded so constantly 
 to pagan rites and mythology without some 
 expression of disbelief. On the other hand, 
 he was not only appointed tutor to the Chris- 
 tian son of a Christian emperor, whom he 
 seems at any rate to have instructed in the 
 Christian doctrine of prayer (Grat. Act. 43) ; 
 but certain of his poems testify distinctly to 
 his Christianity in language that is only to be 
 set aside by assuming the poems themselves 
 to be spurious. Such are (i) the first of his 
 idylls, entitled Versus Paschales, and com- 
 mencing Sancta sahitiferi redeunt solemnia 
 Christi, the genuineness of which is proved by 
 a short prose address to the reader connecting 
 it with the next idyll, the Epicedion, inscribed 
 to his father. (2) The Ephemeris, an account 
 of the author's mode of spending his day, 
 which contains not merely an allusion to the 
 chapel in which his morning devotions were 
 performed (I. 7), but a distinct confession of 
 faith, in the form of a praver to the first two 
 Persons of the Trinity. (3) The letters of the 
 poet to his friend and former pupil St. Paulin- 
 us of Nola, when the latter had forsaken the 
 service of the pagan Muses for the life of a 
 Christian recluse. This correspondence, so far 
 from being evidence that he was a heathen 
 (see Cave, etc.), displays him to us rather as a 
 Christian by conviction, still clinging to the 
 pagan associations of his youth, and incapable 
 of understanding a truth which had revealed 
 itself to his friend, that Christianity was 
 not merely a creed but a life. The letters 
 are a beautiful instance of wounded but not 
 
96 AVrrUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS 
 
 embittered affection on the one side, and of 
 an attachment ahnost filial tempered by firm 
 religious principle on the other. Paulinus : 
 nowhere chides Ausonius for his paganism ; 
 on the contrary, he assumes his Christianity ; 
 (Paulin. Ep. ii.'iS, 19), and this is still further , 
 confirmed by a casual passage in one of the 
 poet's letters to Paulinus, in which he speaks , 
 of the necessity of returning to Bordeaux in | 
 order to keep Easter (Ep. viii. 9). Ausonius ! 
 was not a Christian in the same sense as 1 
 Paulinus ; he was one who hovered on the , 
 borderland which separated the new from : 
 the old religion : not ashamed, it is true, to \ 
 pen obscenities beneath the eye and at the 
 challenge of his patron, yet in the quiet of his 
 oratory feehng after the God of the Christians ; 
 convinced apparently of the dogma of the 
 Trinity, yet so little penetrated by its awful 
 mystery as to give it a haphazard place in a 
 string of frivolous triplets composed at the '\ 
 dinner-table (Gryph. Tern. 87) : keenly alive to j 
 natural beauty, and susceptible of the tender- ; 
 est affection, he yet fell short of appreciating 
 in his disciple the more perfect beauty of 
 holiness, and the entire abnegation of self for 
 the love of a divine master. Probably his 
 later Christianity would have disowned his j 
 own youthful productions. i 
 
 The works of Ausonius comprise : Epigram- I 
 tnalon Liber, a collection of 150 epigrams 1 
 on all maimer of subjects, political, moral, 1 
 satirical, amatory ; many of which for terse- , 
 ness and power of sarcasm are only sur- \ 
 passed by those of Martial. Ephemer'is (see j 
 above). Parentalia, a series of tributes to the | 
 memory of those of his family and kindred 
 who had died before him, many of which are 
 full of pathos. The Mosella is a poem in , 
 praise of his favourite river. The Epistolae 
 are, on the whole, the most interesting, be- ' 
 cause the most heartfelt, of the works of 
 Ausonius ; they number 25, addressed to 
 various friends. Those to St. Paulinus of 
 Nola prove that the poet was capable of 
 earnestness when his heart was stirred. 1 
 
 The works of Ausonius are published in 
 Migne's Pair. Lat. vol. xix. There is a com- 
 plete ed. by R. Peiper (Leipz. 1886); H. de 
 la V. de Mirmont, Mosella. with trans. (Bor- ' 
 deaux. 1889): also de Mosella (Paris, 1892); 
 Dill. Roman Society (Lond. 1S9S). [e.m.y.] 
 
 AvitUS, Alcimus Ecdicius, archbp. of Vienne 
 in Xarbonian Gaul ; born about the middle 
 of 5th cent. His father belonged to a familv 
 of senatorial rank. His mother, Audentia, 
 was, in all probability, a sister of M. Maecilius 
 AvitUS, emperor of the West, a.d. 456. The 
 mother of Sidonius Apollinaris the poet, who, 
 in a letter to Alcimus Avitus, speaks of their 
 near relationship and the identity of their 
 youthful pursuits, seems to have been another 
 sister of the same illustrious family (Sidon. 
 Apoll. Ep. iii. I, 61). A student's life at- 
 tracted AvitUS more than did wealth and rank, 
 and at an early age he bestowed his patrimony 
 upon the poor and retired into the seclusion 
 of a monastery close to the walls of his native 
 city. Here he gained so high a reputation for 
 piety and learning that in 490 a.d., upon the 
 death of his father, he was elected to succeed 
 him in the archbishopric. The fame of Avitus 
 rests partly upon his poetry and partly upon 
 
 AVITUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS 
 
 the important part he was called to play in the 
 controversies of his time. In 499 Vienne 
 was captured by Gundobald, king of the 
 Burgundian5, who was at war with Clovis, 
 king of the Franks ; and Avitus, as metro- 
 politan of S. and E. Gaul, took the lead in 
 a conference between the Catholic and Ariaa 
 bishops held in presence of Gundobald at 
 Sardiniacum near Lyons (Greg. Turon., ii. 
 34). The king was convinced by the earnest 
 entreaties and powerful reasoning of Avitus, 
 who addressed several extant letters to him, 
 but could never be induced to recant his 
 errors publicly. His successor Sigismund was 
 converted by Avitus from Arianism. 
 
 Avitus published treatises in confutation 
 of the Xestorian, Eutychian, and Sabellian 
 heresies ; he also wxote against the Pelagian 
 errors of Faustus, abbot of Lerins, and con- 
 verted many Jews who had settled in his 
 diocese (X'enant. Fortun. 1. v. c. 3). 
 
 From a letter of pope Hormisdas to Avitus 
 [Ep. X.) we gather that he was made vicar 
 apostolic in Gaul by that pontiff ; and in a.d. 
 517 he presided in this capacity at the council 
 of Epaune (Concilium Epaonense) for the 
 restitution of ecclesiastical discipline in Xar- 
 bonian Gaul. But his influence seems to have 
 extended far beyond the limits of his own 
 diocese, as is shewn by his correspondence 
 with several historical personages at Rome, 
 e.g. Faustus, Symmachus, V'italianus, etc. 
 Fie appears also' to have exerted himself to 
 terminate the dispute between the churches 
 of Rome and Constantinople which arose out 
 of the excommunication of Acacius ; that 
 this was accomplished before his death we 
 gather from his letters (Epp. iii, vii.). 
 
 Avitus died Feb. 5, 523, and was buried in 
 the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at 
 Vienne, where the greater part of his youth 
 had been spent. 
 
 The extant works of St. Avitus are as 
 follows : A poem in five books on subjects 
 drawn from Genesis and Exodus : de Origine 
 Mttndi ; de Peccato Originali ; de Sententia 
 Dei ; de Diluvio ; de Transitu Maris Rubri, 
 this is dedicated to his brother Apollinaris, 
 and consists of 261 1 hexameter lines. The 
 first three books might almost have suggested 
 the idea of Milton's Paradise Lost, to which 
 they bear a curious and in many points 
 interesting analogy. A collection of 91 
 letters, several of historical interest, especially 
 that addressed to Clovis {Ep. xli.) upon his 
 baptism. A homily, de Festo Rogationum, 
 from which the religious obser\-ance of Roga- 
 tion days took its origin. [Mamertus.] A 
 second homily representing the Rogation of 
 the third day, which was discovered in the 
 library of the Grande Chartreuse, and first 
 published in 1717 by Dom Marten (Thesaur. 
 Anecd. p. 47). A homily preached on the 
 occasion of the dedication of a church erected 
 by Maximus, bp. of Geneva. Seventy-two 
 short fragments of homilies, sermons, etc 
 The Collatio Episcoporum contra Arianos coram 
 Gundohaldo rege, first published in d'Achery's 
 Spicilegium, 1655 ff. (tom. iii. p. 304, ed. Paris, 
 1725). These remains contain much that is 
 valuable with reference to the history, doc- 
 trine, and discipline of the church in the 5th 
 cent. The works of Avitus are contained 
 
BABYLAS 
 
 in Migne's Palrologia, vol. lix. Oeiivres, ed. 
 N. Chevallier (Lyons, 1890). [e.m.v.] 
 
 BARDAISAN 
 
 9^ 
 
 Babylas (1), bp. of Antioch from a.d. 237 
 or 238 until his mart\Tdom, a.d. 250 or 251, 
 
 i under Decius, either by death in prison for the 
 
 I faith (Ens. H. E. vi. 39). or by direct violence 
 
 \ (St. Chrys. de St. Bab. c. Gentcs. torn, i.) ; other 
 
 i authorities — Epiphanius (</t-.Uf>is.xviii.). Sozo- 
 inen (v. 19), Thcodoret (H. E. iii. 6) — simply 
 calling him mart>T, while St. Jerome (deScriptt. 
 
 Eccl. liv. Ixii.) gives both accounts in different resurrection life, and those\)f Helvidius on the 
 places. The Ada of Babylas (Acta SS. Jan. perpetual virginity of the Virgin (§ 3, 4), and 
 24), place his martyrdoni^under Numerian, by { bv his omission of the Son when speaking of 
 
 memorated by Gennadius (c. 24), who attri- 
 butes to him several works, only one of which 
 he acknowledges to have read — viz. the Libellus 
 de Fide A pologcticus, to satisfy the bp. of Rome 
 of his ortiiodoxy, who regarded him with 
 suspicion on account of his being a native of 
 a country tainted with heresy. What this 
 country was there is nothing in his Libellus to 
 determine. Bachiarius's profession of faith 
 is thoroughly orthodox in all leading points. 
 Its date is fixed approximately at about the 
 middle of the 5th cent., by his denial of the 
 tenets of Origen regarding the soul and the 
 
 kconfusion(according to Baronius's conjecture 
 
 ad ann. 253, § 126) with one Numerius, who 
 
 was an active officer in the Decian persecution 
 
 (Tillemont, M. E. iii. 729). The great act of 
 
 i his life was the compelling the emperor Philip, 
 
 I when at Antioch shortly after the murder of 
 
 Gordian, to place himself in the ranks of the 
 
 penitents, and undergo penance, before he was 
 
 admitted to church privileges (vot^x^' X<i7os, 
 
 according to Eus. H. E. vi. 34. but asserted 
 
 : without qualification by St. Chrysostom, as 
 
 above, while the V. St. Chrys. in Acta SS. Sept. 
 
 torn. iv. 439, transfers the story, against all 
 
 j probability, to Decius, and assigns it as the 
 
 I cause of St. Babylas's martyrdom). But his 
 
 , fame has arisen principally from the triumph 
 
 I of his relics after his death over another 
 
 i emperor, viz. Julian the Apostate, a.d. 362. 
 
 The oracle of Apollo at Daphne, it seems, was 
 
 the procession of the Holy Ghost. This con- 
 fession is an interesting document, and will 
 repay perusal. It was first printed by Mura- 
 tori (Anecd. Latin, ii. 939). He also wrote ad 
 JantMrium Liber de Reparatione Lapsi in 
 behalf of a monk whom Januarius had ex- 
 pelled from the monastery of which he was the 
 head for inmiorality with a nun. He rebukes 
 Januarius and his monks for refusing to 
 receive the monk again on his penitence. 
 
 Bachiarius has been confused by Cave, Bale, 
 and others with Mochta, a disciple of St. 
 Patrick. Tillemont, xvi. 473-476 ; Cave, Hist. 
 Lit. i. 429. [e.v.] 
 
 Bardaisan [Bardesanes). A Syrian theo- 
 logian, commonly reckoned among Gnostics. 
 Born at Edessa a.d. 155, and died there a.d. 
 222-223. His theology as known to us is 
 doubtless a mere fraction of his actual theo- 
 
 I rendered dumb by the near vicinity of St. logy. His reception of the Pentateuch, which 
 Babylas's tomb and church, to which his body | he seemed to contradict, is expressly attested, 
 had been translated by Gallus, a.d. 351. And j and there is no reason to suppose that he 
 Julian in consequence, when at Antioch, rejected the ordinary faith of Christians as 
 ordered the Christians to remove his shrine founded on the Gospels and the writings of 
 (XApvaKo), or rather (according to Amm. the apostles, except on isolated points. The 
 Marcell. xxii.), to take away all the bodies I more startling peculiarities of which we hear 
 buried in that locality. A crowded procession 1 belong for the most part to an outer region 
 of Christians, accordingly, excited to a pitch ; of speculation, which it may easily have 
 of savage enthusiasm characteristic of the I seemed possible to combine with Christianity, 
 Antiochenes, bore his relics to a church in 1 more especially with the undeveloped Chris- 
 Antioch, the whole city turning out to meet tianity of Syria in the 3rd cent. The local 
 them, and the bearers and their train tumul- colour is everywhere prominent. In passing 
 tuously chanting psalms the whole way, over to the new faith, Bardaisan could not 
 especially those which denounce idolatry. On ; shake off the ancient glamour of the stars, 
 the same night, by a coincidence which Julian or abjure the Semitic love of clothing 
 strove to explain away by referring it to I thoughts in mythological forms. Scarcely 
 Christian malice or to' the neglect of the , anything survives of his writings, for a Dia- 
 heathen priests, the temple of Apollo was | logue concerning Fate, extant in Syriac 
 struck by lightning and burned, with the great ! under the title "Book of the Laws of the 
 idol of Apollo itself. Whereupon Julian in I Countries," is by his disciple Philip. The 56 
 
 I revenge both punished the priests and closed Hymns of Ephrem Syrus against Heresies are 
 
 I the great church at Antioch (Julian Imp. [intended to refute the doctrines of Marcion 
 
 j Misopog. 0pp. ii. 97 (Paris, 1630) ; St. Chrys, 
 
 Horn, de St. Bab. c. Gent, and Horn, de St. Bab. ; 
 j Theod. de Cur. Graec. Affect, x. and H. E. iii. 
 
 6, 7 ; Socr. iii. 13 ; Soz. v. 19, 20 ; Rufin. x. 
 
 35 ; Amm. Marcell. xxii. pp. 225, 226). St. 
 
 Chrysostom also quotes a lamentable oration 
 
 of the heathen sophist Libanius upon the event. 
 [ The relics of St. Babylas were subsequently 
 I removed once more to a church built for them 
 
 on the other side of the Orontes (St. Chrys. 
 
 Horn, de St. Bab. ; Soz. vii. 10). [a.w.h.] 
 Bachiarius, a monk, early in the 5th cent., 
 
 author of two short treatises printed in the 
 I Biblioth. Vet. Patr. of Galland, vol. ix. and the 
 ' Patrologia of Migne, vol. xx. He is com- 
 
 Bardaisan, and Mani, but Ephrem's criticism 
 is harsh and unintelligent. On the whole, 
 whatever might have come to Bardaisan 
 through Valentinianism might as easily have 
 come to him directly from the traditions of his 
 race, and both alternatives are admissible. 
 It is on any supposition a singular fact that 
 the remains of his theology disclose no traces 
 of the deeper thoughts which moved the 
 Gnostic leaders. That he held a doctrinal 
 position intermediate between them and the 
 church is consistent with the circumstances of 
 his life, but is not supported by any internal 
 evidence. On this, as on many other points, 
 we can only deplore our ignorance about a 
 
BARNABAS, EPISTLE OB* 
 
 98 
 
 person of singular interest. — (From H. in 
 D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. ; cf. Bardenhewer, p. 78.) 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of.— I- Authenticity.— \s 
 this epistle the production of the Barnabas so 
 often associated with St. Paul ; or has it been 
 falsely connected with his name ? The ques- 
 tion is one of deep interest, bearing on the 
 historical and critical spirit of the early Chris- 
 tian church. 
 
 It is admitted on all sides that the external 
 evidence is decidedly in favour of the idea that 
 the epistle is authentic. Clement of Alex- 
 andria bears witness to it as the work of 
 " Barnabas the apostle " — " Barnabas who 
 was one of the seventy disciples and the 
 fellow-labourer of Paul " — " Barnabas who 
 also preached the Gospel along with the 
 apostle according to the dispensation of the 
 Gentiles " (Strom, ii. 7, 35 ; ii- 20, 116 ; v. 10, 
 64. Cf. also ii. 6, 31 ; ii. 15, 67 ; ii- 18, 84 ; 
 V. 8, 52). The same may be said of Origen, 
 who speaks of it as " the Catholic Ep. of 
 Barnabas " (c. Cels. i. 63). Eusebius disputes 
 its canonicity, but is hardly less decided 
 in favour of its authenticity. It is included 
 by him at one time among the disputed, at 
 another among the spurious books ; yet there 
 is no reason to doubt that when, in both pas- 
 sages, he calls it the Ep. of Barnabas, he under- 
 stands not an unknown person of that name 
 but the Barnabas of Scripture (vi. 14, iii. 25). 
 Jerome must be understood to refer to it when 
 he tells us of an Ep. read among the apocry- 
 phal books, and written by Barnabas of 
 Cyprus, who was ordained along with Paul 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles (de Vir. III. c. vi.). 
 In the Stichomelria of Nicephorus, in the 5th 
 cent., it is enumerated among the uncanonical 
 books ; and, at the close of that cent., a 
 similar place is assigned to it by Anastasius 
 Sinaita. Since it is, moreover, found in 
 Codex X attached to the books of N.T., there 
 is no doubt the early Christian church con- 
 sidered it authentic. That she refused to allow 
 its canonicity is little to the purpose. The very 
 fact that many thought it entitled to a place 
 in the canon is a conclusive proof of the opinion 
 that had been formed of its authorship. The 
 early Church drew a line between apostles and 
 companions of apostles ; and, although writ- 
 ings of the latter, such as the Gospels of 
 St. Mark and St. Luke, and the Ep. to the 
 Hebrews, were received into the canon, the 
 connexion between the writers of these books 
 and one or other of the apostles was believed 
 to be such that the authority of the latter 
 could be transferred to the former. Such a 
 transference would be more difficult in the 
 case of Barnabas, because, although associ- 
 ated at one time with St. Paul in his labours, 
 the two had differed in opinion and separated. 
 
 It is on internal evidence that many dis- 
 tinguished critics have denied its authenticity. 
 That there is great force in some at least of 
 the arguments adduced by them from this 
 source it is impossible to deny, yet they do 
 not seem so irresistible as to forbid renewed 
 consideration. They have been summed up 
 by Hefele (Patr. Apost. p. 14), and succeeding 
 writers have added little to his statement. 
 Of his eight arguments, five may be at once 
 rejected : The first, that the words of Augus- 
 tine regarding the Apocr3T)ha of Andrew and 
 
 BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 
 
 J ohn, si illorum essent recepta essent ab ecclesia, 
 show that oiu: epistle would have been placed 
 in the canon had it been deemed authentic ; 
 for Andrew and John were apostles, Barnabas 
 was not. The second, that Barnabas had died 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem, while the 
 epistle bears clear marks of not having been 
 written until after that date ; for this idea is 
 no just inference from the texts referred to, 
 Col. iv. 10, I Pet. V. 13, 2 Tim. iii. (iv. ?) 11, 
 and the authority of a monk of the 6th or 
 9th cent, is not to be relied on. The third, 
 that the apostles chosen by our Lord are 
 described in c. v. as virfp Tracra;' a/xapTlav 
 dvo/j-uirepoi ; for these words are simply intro- 
 duced to magnify the grace of Christ in calling 
 not the righteous but sinners to repentance. 
 It was an undoubted fact that the Saviour had 
 associated with publicans and sinners, and 
 Barnabas may mean no more than that out of 
 that class were the apostles chosen. He may 
 even have had the career of Saul previous to 
 his call to the apostleship mainly in view. The 
 fourth argument of Hefele, that the epistle be- 
 trays in c. X. so much ignorance of the habits 
 of various animals, is not valid ; for natural 
 history was then but little known. The fifth 
 argument of the same writer to be set aside 
 is that Barnabas, who had travelled in 
 Asia Minor, and lived at Antioch in Syria, 
 could not have asserted in c. ix. that the 
 Syrians were circumcised, when we know from 
 Josephus (contr. Ap. i. 22 ; Antiq. viii. 10, 3) 
 that they were not ; for, however frequently 
 this statement has been repeated, Josephus 
 says nothing of the kind. What he says is, 
 that a remark of Herodotus, to the effect that 
 the Syrians who live in Palestine are circum- 
 cised, proves that historian's acquaintance 
 with the Jews, because the Jews were the only 
 inhabitants of Palestine by whom that rite 
 was practised, and it must have been of them, 
 therefore, that he was speaking, and he quotes 
 Herodotus, and without any word of dissent, 
 as saying that the Syrians about the rivers 
 Thermodon and Parthenius, that is in the 
 northern parts of Syria, did submit to circum- 
 cision. He may thus be even said to confirm 
 the statement of our epistle. 
 
 The three remaining arguments of Hefele 
 are more important. 
 
 (i) That the many trifling allegories of cc. 
 v.-xi. are unworthy of one who was named the 
 " Son of Consolation." It is true that it is 
 difficult to conceive how such a one could find 
 in the numeral letters of the Greek version of 
 the O.T. an indication of the will of Him Who 
 had given that Testament in Hebrew to His 
 ancient people. Yet, after all, is it not the 
 time rather than the writer that is here in 
 fault ? It is unfair to take as our standard of 
 judgment the principles of interpretation just 
 now prevailing. We must transfer ourselves 
 into the early Christian age, and remember the 
 spirit of interpretation that then prevailed. 
 We must call to mind the allegorical explana- 
 tions of both Jewish and heathen schools, 
 whose influence passed largely into the Christ- 
 ian church. Above all, we must think of the 
 estimation in which the epistle was held for 
 centmries, e.g. by Clement and Origen ; that 
 some would have assigned it a place in the 
 canon ; and that, even by those who denied 
 
BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 
 
 it that place, it was regarded as a most useful 
 and edifying work. In judging, therefore, of 
 the ability of our author, we must turn from 
 the form to the substance of his argument, 
 from the shell in which he encloses his kernel 
 of truth to that truth itself. When we do so 
 his epistle will appear in no small degree 
 worthy of approbation. It exhibits a high 
 appreciation of many of the cardinal truths of 
 Christianity, of the incarnation and death of 
 Christ, of the practical aims of the Gospel, 
 of the freedom and spirituality of Christian 
 living ; while the general conception of the 
 relation of the N. T. to the Old, although in 
 some respects grievously at fault, enabodies 
 the important principle that the Old is but the 
 shadow of the New, and that " the testimony 
 of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Through- 
 out the epistle there are many sentences of 
 great beauty and warmth of Christian feeling, 
 and the description of the rebuilding of the 
 spiritual temple in c. xvi. is most eloquent. 
 
 (2) .-Vgainst its aluthenticitv are urged, ne.xt, 
 the numerous mistakes committed by the 
 writer in cc. vii. viii. with regard to the rites 
 and ceremonies of Judaism, mistakes to all 
 appearance inconsistent with the idea that he 
 could be a Jew, a Levite, who had lived long 
 in Jerusalem, and must have been acquainted 
 with the ceremonial institutions of the Jews. 
 It is impossible not to feel the great force of 
 the objection, or even to complain of one who, 
 upon this ground alone, should reject the 
 authorship of Barnabas. Let it only be 
 remenxbered that these mistakes are almost 
 equally inexplicable on the supposition that 
 the author was not Barnabas. If such rites 
 were not actually practised, whence did he 
 learn their supposed existence ? It is out of 
 the question to think that they were a mere 
 fancy of his own. And huw came the great 
 Fathers whose names have been ahready men- 
 tioned, how came the church at large, to value 
 the epistle as it did if in the mention of them 
 we have nothing but absurdity and error ? 
 We are hardly less puzzled to account for such 
 inaccuracies if the writer was an Alexandrian 
 Christian of heathen origin than if he were a 
 Jew and a Levite. 
 
 {3) The third and last important argument 
 adduced by Hefele is founded upon the unjust 
 notions with regard to Judaism which are 
 presented in our epistle. They are correctly 
 so described. But it is not so clear that they 
 might not have been entertained by one who, 
 educated in the school of St. Paul and ani- 
 mated by a high sense of the spirituality and 
 universality of the Christian faith, would be 
 easily led, in the heat of the Judaic contro- 
 versies of his day, to depreciate a system which 
 was threatening to overthrow the distinctive- 
 ness and power of the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 To these arguments recent writers have 
 added that the strong anti-Judaistic tendency 
 of the epistle is inconsistent with its ascrip- 
 tion to Barnabas, inasmuch as he erred in too 
 great attachment to the Jewish party (Gal. 
 ii. 13). But the incident thus referred to 
 reveals no such trait in the character of Bar- 
 nabas. His conduct on that occasion was a 
 momentary weakness by which the best may 
 be overtaken ; and it rather shews us that his 
 position on the side of the freer party had 
 
 BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 
 
 99 
 
 been previously a decided one, " insomuch 
 that even Barnabas was carried away by their 
 dissinmlation." The incident may also have 
 made him in time to come ashamed of his 
 weakness, firmer and more determined than 
 before. 
 
 To sum up the evidence, it seems to the 
 present writer that its balance favours its 
 composition by Barnabas more than critics 
 have been generally willing to allow. The 
 bearing of the external evidence upon this 
 result is unquestionable ; and, where we have 
 such evidence, it is a sound principle that 
 nothing but the strongest internal evidence 
 should be permitted to overcome it. The 
 traditions of the early church with regard to 
 historical facts do not appear to have been 
 so loose as is often alleged. It is difficult 
 also to imagine how a generally accepted and 
 firmly held tradition could arise without some 
 really good foundation. 
 
 Finally, we are too prone to forget that the 
 substance of Christian truth may be held by 
 others in connexion with misapprehensions, 
 imperfections, misinterpretations, of Scrip- 
 ture, absurd and foolish views, in connexion 
 with which it would be wholly impossible for 
 us to hold it. The authorship of Barnabas is 
 rejected by, among others, Neander, UUman, 
 Hug, Baur, Hefele. Winer, Hilgenfeld, Donald- 
 son, Westcott, Miihler, while it is maintained 
 by Gieseler, Credner, Guericke, Bleek, Mohler, 
 and, though with hesitation, De Wette. [The 
 weighty judgment of bp. Lightfoot must now 
 (1911) be added to the list in favour, and 
 will generally be considered as decisive : see 
 Apost. Fathers, pt. i. vol. ii. pp. 503-512.] 
 
 II. The Dale of the Epistle. — External evi- 
 dence does not help us here. We are thrown 
 wholly upon the internal. Two limits are 
 allowed by all, the destruction of Jerusalem 
 on the one hand, and the time of Clement of 
 Alexandria on the other — that is, from a.d. 70 
 to the last years of the 2nd cent. Between 
 these two limits the most various dates have 
 been assigned to it ; the general opinion, how- 
 ever, being that it is not to be placed earlier 
 than towards the close of the ist, nor later 
 than early in the 2nd cent. Most probably 
 it was wxitten only a very few years after the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 III. Object of the Epistle, and Line of Argu- 
 ment pursued in it. — Two points are especially 
 insisted on by the writer : first, that Judaism, 
 in its outward and fleshly form, had never 
 been commended by the Almighty to man, 
 had never been the expression of God's cove- 
 nant ; secondly, that that covenant had never 
 belonged to the Jews at all. 
 
 In carrying out his argument upon the first 
 point, the writer everywhere proceeds on the 
 idea that the worship which God requires, 
 which alone corresponds to His nature, and 
 which therefore can alone please Him, is 
 spiritual, not a worship of rites and ceremon- 
 ies, of places and seasons, but a worship of the 
 heart and life. It is not by sacrifices and 
 oblations that we approach God, Who will 
 have no offerings thus made by man * (c. ii.) ; 
 it is not by keeping sabbaths that we honour 
 
 • The reading of Codex X is to be preferred to 
 that of the Latin, ii'a 6 Kni.vo<; . . . ij.r\ avBpM-noiriTov 
 «XD ''1'' '^poCT^opai'. For the sense cf . Matt. xv. 9, 
 
BARNABAS, EPISTLE OP 
 
 100 
 
 Him (c. XV.) ; nor is it in any temple made 
 with hands that He is to be found (c. xvi.). 
 The true helpers of our faith are not such 
 things, but fear, patience, long-suffering, 
 continence ; and the " way of light " is found 
 wholly in the exhibition of moral and spiritual 
 virtues (c. xix.). But how was it possible to 
 reconcile with such an idea the facts of history? 
 Judaism had had, in time past, and still had, 
 an actual existence. Its fasts and sacrifices, 
 its sabbaths and temple, seemed to have been 
 ordained by God Himself. How could it be 
 pleaded that these things were not the ex- 
 pression of God's covenant, were not to be 
 always binding and honoured ? It is to the 
 manner in which such questions are answered 
 that the peculiar interest in our epistle be- 
 longs. They are not answered as they would 
 have been by St. Paul. The Apostle of the 
 Gentiles recognized the value of Judaism and 
 of all the institutions of the law as a great 
 preparatory discipline for the coming of the 
 Messiah, as " a schoolmaster to bring us unto 
 Christ." There is nothing of this kind in the 
 argument of Barnabas. Judaism has in it 
 nothing preparatory, nothing disciplinary, in 
 the sense of training men for higher truths. 
 It has two aspects — the one outward and 
 carnal, the other inward and spiritual. The 
 first was never intended by God ; they who 
 satisfy themselves with it are rather deceived 
 by " an evil angel." The second is Christian- 
 ity itself, Christianity before Christ (c. ix. 
 and passim). This view of the matter is 
 made good partly by shewing that, side by 
 side with the institutions of Israel, there were 
 many passages of the Prophets in which God 
 even condemned in strong language the out- 
 ward ceremony, whether sacrifice, or fasting, 
 or circumcision, or the temple worship (cc. 
 ii. iii. ix. xvi.) ; that these things, in their 
 formal meaning, were positively rejected by 
 Him ; and that the most important of them 
 all, circumcision, was fully as much a heathen 
 as a divine rite (c. ix.). This line of argument, 
 however, is not that upon which the wTiter 
 mainly depends. His chief trust is in the 
 -yvusais, that deeper, that typical and alle- 
 gorical, method of interpreting Scripture 
 which proceeded upon the principle that the 
 letter was a mere shell, and had never been 
 intended to be understood literally. By the 
 application of this principle the whole actual 
 history of Israel loses its validity as history, 
 and we see as the true meaning of its facts 
 nothing but Christ, His cross. His covenant, 
 and the spiritual life to which He summons 
 His disciples. It is unnecessary to give illus- 
 trations. What is said of Moses, that he 
 spoke iv TrvfvfxaTt, is evidently to be applied 
 to the whole O. T. The literal meaning is 
 nowhere what was really intended. The 
 Almighty had always had a deeper meaning 
 in what was said' He had been always 
 thinking, not of Judaism, but of Christ and 
 Christianity. The conclusion, therefore, could 
 not be mistaken ; Judaism in its outward and 
 carnal form had never been the expression of 
 God's covenant. To whom, then, does God's 
 covenant belong ? It is indeed a legitimate 
 conclusion from the previous argument that 
 the Jews cannot claim the covenant as theirs. 
 By the importance they always attached, and 
 
 BARNABAS, EPISTLE OP 
 
 still attach, to outward rites they prove that 
 they have never entered into the mind of God ; 
 that they are the miserable victims of the wiles 
 of Satan (cc. i%'. ix. xvi.). But the same thing 
 is shewn both by Scripture and by fact — by 
 Scripture, for in the cases of the children of 
 Rebekah, and of the blessing of Ephraim and 
 Manasseh, we learn that the last shall be first 
 and the first last (c. xiii.) ; by fact, for when 
 Moses broke the two tables of stone on his 
 way down from the mount, the covenant 
 which was at that moment about to be 
 bestowed upon Israel was dissolved and trans- 
 I ferred to Christians (c. xiv.). 
 ! This line of argument clearly indicates what 
 was the special object of the epistle, the 
 special danger against which it was designed 
 to guard. It was no mere Judaizing tendency 
 that was threatening the readers for whom it 
 was intended. It was a tendency to lapse 
 into Judaism itself. The argument of those 
 who were endeavouring to seduce them was, 
 " The covenant is ours " (c. iv.).* These men, 
 as appears from the tenor of the whole chapter, 
 must have been Jews, and their statement 
 could have no other meaning than that Juda- 
 ism, as the Jews understood and lived it, was 
 God's covenant, that it was to be preferred to 
 Christianity, and that the observance of its 
 rites and ceremonies was the true divine life 
 to which men ought to be called. Yet 
 Christians were shewing a disposition to listen 
 to such teaching, and many of them were 
 running the serious risk of being shattered 
 against the Jewish law (c. iii.).t With this 
 the errors of a coarsely J udaistic life naturally 
 connected themselves, together with those 
 many sins of the " evil way " in which, when 
 we take the details given of them in c. xx., 
 we can hardly fail to recognize the old features 
 of Pharisaism. In short, those to whom 
 Barnabas writes are in danger of falling away 
 from Christian faith altogether ; or, if not in 
 j actual danger of this, they have to contend 
 j with those who are striving to bring about 
 such a result, who are exalting the ancient 
 oeconomy, boasting of Israel's nearness to 
 i God, and praising the legal offerings and 
 ' fastings of the O.T. as the true way by which 
 the Almighty is to be approached. It is the 
 spirit of a Pharisaic self-righteousness in the 
 strictest sense of the words, not of a Judaizing 
 Christianity, that is before us. Here is at 
 once an explanation of all the most peculiar 
 phenomena of our epistle, of its polemical 
 zeal pointed so directly against Judaism that, 
 as Weizacker has observed, it might seem to 
 
 * The w? rj&r) SeSiKaiuofieyoi. of c. iv. has led 
 j Hilgenfeld [die A post. Voter, p. 38) to think of those 
 who were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. 
 ', But the whole passage leads rather to the thought of a 
 proud Judaic self-righteousness, " the temple of the 
 I<ord, the temple of the Lord are we." 
 
 t 'Iva iJ.Tr) Tvpoa-epxuitJ.eSa m? CTrtjAurai to) eKfii'OiV 
 I'dfiu. So Hilgenfeld reads, Nov. Test, extra 
 Canonem ; but Codex X) "'" M') Trpocrpijtrffw/ieSa 
 I lis €ttl\vtu TO) (Kfiiwi' I'djicj. The passage is 
 ! almost unuitelligible. M'eizacker proposes to read 
 £7rtA.vTw ; and to render by means of 2 Pet. i. 20, which 
 I is utterly untenable. Might we suggest that en-i'AuToi 
 I may here be used in the sense of " set loose," the 
 figure being that of persons or things loosened from 
 their true foundations or securities, and then dashed 
 against a wall, or perhaps against the beach, and thus 
 1 destroyed ? 
 
BARSUMAS 
 
 be directed as much against Jews as against 
 Judaizers*; of its effort to shew that the 
 whole O. T. citltus had its meaning only in 
 Christ ; of its denial of all value to outward 
 Judaism ; of its aim to prove that the inward 
 meaning of that ancient faith was really 
 Christian ; of its exclusion of Jews, as such, 
 from all part in God's covenant ; and of its 
 dwelling precisely upon those doctrines of the 
 Christian faith which were the greatest 
 stumbling-block to the Jewish mind, and those 
 graces of the Christian life to the importance 
 of which it had most need to be awakened. 
 
 IV. Authorities for the Text. — These consist 
 of MSS. of the Greek text, of the old Latin 
 version, and of citations in early Christian 
 writings. The MSS. are tolerably numerous, 
 but the fact that, except the Sinaiticus ({<), 
 which deserves separate mention, they all lack 
 exactly the same portion of the epistle, the 
 first five and a half chapters, seems to shew 
 that they had been taken from a common 
 source and cannot be reckoned as independent 
 witnesses. Since the discovery of Codex N 
 bv Tischendorf a new era in the construction 
 of the text has begun. Besides bringing to 
 light the portion previously wanting, valuable 
 readings were suggested by it throughout, and 
 it is now our chief authority for the text. The 
 old Latin version is of high value. The MS. 
 from which it is taken is probably as old as 
 the 8th cent., but the translation itself is 
 supposed by Miiller to have been made from 
 a text older even than that of Codex N- It 
 wants the last 4 chapters of the epistle. Cita- 
 tions in early Christian writings are extensive. 
 
 Editions and Literature. — Valuable editions 
 are those of Hefele, 1855 (4th ed.) ; Dressel, 
 1863 ; Hilgenfeld, 1866 ; and Miiller, 1869. 
 Dressel was the first to make use of Codex S, 
 but of all these editors Miiller seems to have 
 constructed his text upon the most thoroughly 
 scientific principles. The literature is very 
 extensive. Notices of the Epistle will be 
 found in the writings of Dorner, Baur, Schweg- 
 ler, Ritschl, Lechler, Reuss, and others. The 
 following monographs are especially worthy 
 of notice : Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des 
 Apostels Barnabas aitfs neue untersucht, iiber- 
 setzt tind erkldrt (Tiibingen, 1840) ; Hilgenfeld 
 in his Die Apostolischen Voter (Halle, 1853) ; 
 Weizacker, Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus 
 dem Codex Sinaiticus (Tiibingen, 1863) ; J. (i. 
 Miiller's Erkldrung des Barnabasbriefes, Bin 
 Anhan^ zu de Wette's Exegetischem Handbuch 
 xum neuen Testament (Leipz. 1869), contains 
 general prolegomena to the epistle, a critically 
 constructed text, and an elaborate com- 
 mentary, together with careful Excursus on 
 all the most important difficulties. W. 
 Cunningham, A Dissertation on the £/>. of B. 
 (Lond. 1877). A trans, of the epistle is 
 contained in the vol. of the A post. Fathers in 
 the Ante-Xicene Christian Lib. (T. & T. Clark, 
 los. 6d.). The ed. princeps by archbp. Ussher 
 (Oxf. 1642) has been reprinted by the Clar- 
 endon Press with a dissertation by J. H. 
 Backhouse. The best text for English scholars 
 is given in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ed. by 
 bp. Banner (Lond. 1S91), pp. 237-242. [w.m.] 
 
 Barsumas (the Eutychian), an archimand- 
 rite of a Syrian monastery, who warmly 
 • L.c. pp. 5, 15. 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 ICI 
 
 espoused the cause of Eutyches. When, in 
 448, Eutyches was denounced before the local 
 synod of Constantinople, Barsumas, who was 
 resident in the city, raised a violent opposition 
 to the Eastern bishops. The next year, 449, 
 at the " Robbers' Synod " of Ephesus, Theo- 
 dosius II. summoned Barsumas as the repre- 
 sentative of the malcontent monastic party, 
 and granted him a seat and vote among the 
 bishops. He was the first monk allowed to 
 act as a judge at a general council. Barsumas 
 brought with him a turbulent band of 1000 
 monks to coerce the assembly, and took a 
 prominent part in the disorderly proceedings, 
 vociferously expressing his joy on the acquittal 
 of Eutyches and joining in the assault on the 
 aged Flavian by the monks and soldiers. The 
 injuries inflicted were so serious that the 
 venerable patriarch died three days after- 
 wards. When with great effrontery Barsumas 
 presented himself at the council of Chalcedon, 
 451, an outcry was raised against him as " the 
 murderer of the blessed Flavian." He active- 
 ly propagated Eutychian doctrines in Syria 
 and died 458. His disciple, Samuel, carried 
 Eutychianism into Armenia. He is regarded 
 among the Jacobites as a saint and worker of 
 miracles (Assemani, Bibl. Orient, ii. 4 ; Labbe, 
 iv. 103 seq. ; Liberatus, c. 12 ; Tillemont, 
 XV. ; Schrockh, xvii. 451 seq.). [e.v.] 
 
 Barsumas (the Nestorian), bp. of Nisibis 
 and metropolitan, 435-489, who, after the 
 suppression of Nestorianism within the em- 
 pire, engaged successfully in its propagation 
 in Eastern Asia, especially in Persia. Ban- 
 ished from Edessa by Rabulas, after his 
 desertion of his former friends, Barsumas 
 proved the chief strength and wisdom of the 
 fugitive church. In 435 he became bp. of 
 Nisibis, where, in conjunction with Maanes, 
 bp. of Hardaschir, he established a theological 
 school of deserved celebrity, over which Narses 
 presided for fifty years. Barsumas had the 
 skill to secure for his church the powerful 
 support of the Persian king Pherozes (Firuz), 
 who ascended the throne in the year 462. He 
 worked upon his enmity to the Roman power 
 to obtain his patronage for a development of 
 doctrine which had been formally condemned 
 by the emperor and his assembled bishops, 
 representing to him that the king of Persia 
 could never securely reckon on the allegiance 
 of his subjects so long as they held the same 
 religious faith with his enemies. Pherozes 
 admitted the force of this argument, and 
 Nestorianism became the only form of Christ- 
 ianity tolerated in Persia. Barsumas died in 
 489, in which year the emperor Zeno broke 
 up the theological seminary at Edessa on 
 account of its Nestorianism, with the result 
 that it flourished still more at Nisibis. Mis- 
 sionaries went out from it in great multitudes, 
 and Nestorianism became the recognized form 
 of Christianity in Eastern Asia. The Malabar 
 Christians are the lineal descendants of their 
 missions. Assemanni, Bibl. Or, iii. i, 16-70 ; 
 Wigram, Hist, of Assyrian Ch. c. viii. [Nes- 
 torian CiurRCH.] [e-V.] 
 
 Basilides (Bao-tXeiOT/s), the founder of one 
 of the semi-Christian sects, commonly called 
 Gnostic, which sprang up in the early part of 
 the 2nd cent. 
 
 I. Biography. — He called himself a disciple 
 
i02* 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 of one Glaucias, alleged to be an interpreter 
 (ipp.y)v4a) of St. Peter (Clem. Strom, vii. p. 
 898). He taught at Alexandria (Iran. p. 100 
 Mass. ; followed by Eus. H. E. iv. 7 ; Epiph. 
 Haer. xxiv. i, p. 68 c ; cf. xxiii. i, p. 62 b ; 
 Theod. Haer. Fab. i. 2) : Hippolytus {Hacr. 
 vii. 27, p. 244) in general terms mentions 
 Egypt. Indeed Epiphanius enumerates 
 various places in Egypt visited by Basilides ; 
 but subsequently allows it to appear that his 
 knowledge of the districts where Basilidians 
 existed in his own time was his only evidence. 
 If the Alexandrian Gnostic is the Basilides 
 quoted in the Acts of the Disputation of Arche- 
 laus and Mani (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. Sac. v. 
 196 ; see later, p. 276), he was reported to 
 have preached in Persia. Nothing more is 
 known of his life. According to Epiphanius 
 {62 B, 68 D, 69 a), he had been a fellow-disciple 
 of Menander with Saturnilus at Antioch in 
 Syria; but this is evidently an arbitrary ex- 
 tension of Irenaeus's remarks on the order of 
 doctrines to personal relations. If the view 
 of the doctrines of Basilides taken in this 
 article is correct, they afford no good grounds 
 for supposing him to have had a S\Tian educa- 
 tion. Gnostic ideas derived originally from 
 Syria were sufficiently current at Alexandria, 
 and the foundation of what is distinctive in 
 his thoughts is Greek. 
 
 Several independent authorities indicate the 
 reign of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138) as the time 
 when Basilides flourished. To prove that the 
 heretical sects were " later than the Catholic 
 church," Clement of Alexandria II. c.) marks 
 out early Christian history into different 
 periods : he assigns Christ's own teaching to 
 the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius ; that of 
 the apostles, of St. Paul at least, ends, he says, 
 in the time of Nero ; whereas " the authors of 
 the sects arose later, about the times of the 
 emperor Hadrian (ko-to} 5^ irepl rovi k.t\. 
 yeydvaffi), and continued quite as late as the 
 age of the elder Antoninus." He gives as ex- 
 amples Basilides, Valentinus, and (if the text 
 is sound) Marcion, taking occasion by the way 
 to throw doubts on the claims set up for the 
 two former as having been instructed by 
 younger contemporaries of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul respectively, by pointing out that about 
 half a century lay between the death of Nero 
 and the accession of Hadrian. Again Eusebius 
 (I.e.) places Saturnilus and Basilides under 
 Hadrian. Yet his language about Carpocrates 
 a few lines further on suggests a doubt whether 
 he had any better evidence than a fallacious 
 inference from their order in Irenaeus. He 
 was acquainted with the refutation of Basilides 
 by Agrippa Castor ; but it is not clear, as is 
 sometimes assumed, that he meant to assign 
 both writers to the same reign. His chronicle 
 (Armenian) at the year 17 of Hadrian (a.d. 
 133) has the note " The heresiarch Basilides 
 appeared at these times " ; which Jerome, as 
 usual, expresses rather more definitely. A 
 similar statement without the year is repeated 
 by Jerome, de Vir. III. 21, where an old corrupt 
 reading {mortuns for moratus) led some of the 
 earlier critics to suppose they had found a 
 limit for the date of Basilides's death. Theo- 
 doret (I.e.) evidently follows Eusebius. Ear- 
 liest of all, but vaguest, is the testimony of 
 Justin Martyr. Writing in or soon after a.d. 
 
 BASILIDES f 
 
 145, he refers briefly [Ap. i. 26) to the founders 
 of heretical sects, naming first the earliest, 
 Simon and Menander, followers of whom were 
 still aUve ; and then apparently the latest, 
 Marcion, himself still alive. The probable 
 inference that the other great heresiarchs, 
 including Basilides, were by this time dead 
 receives some confirmation from a passage 
 in his Dialogue against Trypho (c. 35), a later 
 but probably not much later book, where the 
 " Marcians," Valentinians, Basilidians, Sat- 
 urnilians, " and others," are enumerated, 
 apparently in inverse chronological order : 
 the growth of distinct and recognized sects 
 implies at least the lapse of some time since 
 the promulgation of their several creeds. It 
 seems therefore impossible to place Basilides 
 later than Hadrian's time ; and, in the ab- 
 sence of any evidence to the contrary, we may 
 trust the Alexandrian Clement's statement 
 that his peculiar teaching began at no earlier 
 date. 
 
 II. Writings. — According to Agrippa Castor 
 (Eus. H. E. I.e.), Basilides wrote " twenty-four 
 books (jSifiXia) on the Gospel." These are no 
 doubt the Exegetica, from the twenty-third of 
 which Clement gives an extract (Strom, iv. 
 §§ 83 If., pp. 599 f.). The same work is doubt- 
 less intended by the " treatises " (tractatuum), 
 the thirteenth book of which is cited in the 
 Acta Archelai, if the same Basilides is referred 
 to. The authorship of an actual Gospel, of 
 the " apocryphal " class, is likewise attributed 
 to Basilides on plausible grounds. The word 
 " taken in hand" (iwexf^ipriTav) in Luke i. i 
 gives Origen occasion to distinguish between 
 the four evangelists, who wrote by inspiration, 
 and other writers who " took in hand " to 
 produce Gospels. He mentions some of these, 
 and proceeds " Basilides had even the auda- 
 city " (fjSri 5k fT6\/x77(ref , more than ewex^i^pvcc) 
 " to write a Gospel according to Basilides " ; 
 that is, he went beyond other fabricators of 
 Gospels by affixing his own name (Hom. in 
 Luc. i.). This passage is freely translated, 
 though without mention of Origen's name, 
 by Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. i. i) ; and is pro- 
 bably Jerome's authority in an enumeration 
 of the chief apocryphal Gospels (Com. in 
 Matt, praef. t. vii. p. 3) ; for among the six 
 others which he mentions the four named by 
 Origen recur, including that of the Twelve 
 Apostles, otherwise unknown (cf. Hieron. 
 Dial. cont. Pelag. iii. 2, t. ii. p. 782). Yet no 
 trace of a Gospel by Basilides exists elsewhere ; 
 and it seems most probable either that Origen 
 misunderstood the nature of the Exegetica, or 
 that they were sometimes known under the 
 other name (cf. Hilgenfeld, Clem. Rec. u. 
 Hom. 123 ff.). 
 
 An interesting question remains, in what 
 relation the Exegetica stand to the exposition 
 of doctrine which fills eight long chapters of 
 Hippolytus. Basilides (or the Basilidians), 
 we are told (vii. 27), defined the Gospel as 
 " the knowledge of supermundane things " 
 (17 Tu)v vnepKoa/iiiwv yvujffLs), and the idea of 
 the progress of " the Gospel " through the 
 different orders of beings plays a leading part 
 in the Basilidian doctrine (cc. 25 ff.). But 
 there is not the slightest reason to think that 
 the " Gospel " here spoken of was a substitute 
 for the Gospel in a historical sense, any more 
 
BASILIDES 
 
 than in St. Paul's writings. Indeed several 
 passages (p. 238, 1. 28 ff. ; 239, 42, 58 ; 240, 
 70 ff. of Miller), with their allusions to Rom. 
 V. 14, viii. 19, 22, 23 ; I. Cor. ii. 13 ; II. Cor. 
 xii. 4 ; Eph. i. 21, iii. 3, 5, 10, prove that the 
 wTiter was throughout thinking of St. Paul's 
 " mystery of the Gospel." Hippolytus states 
 distinctly that the Basilidian account of " all 
 things concerning the Saviour " subsequent to 
 " the birth of Jesus " agreed with that given 
 in " the Gospels." It may therefore be 
 reasonably conjectured that his exposition, if 
 founded on a work of Basilides himself (see 
 § III.), is a summary of the opening book or 
 books of the Exegetica, describing that part 
 of the redemptive process, or of the prepara- 
 tion for it, which was above and antecedent 
 to the phenomenal life of Jesus. The com- 
 ments on the Gospel itself, probably containing 
 much ethical matter, as we may gather from 
 Clement, would have little attraction for 
 Hippolytus. 
 
 The certain fragments of the Exegetica have 
 been collected by Grabe (Spicil. Pair. ii. 35-43), 
 followed by Massuet and Stieren in their 
 editions of Irenaeus ; but he passes over much 
 in Clement which assuredly has no other 
 origin. A single sentence quoted in Origen's 
 commentary on Romans, and given further 
 on (p. 275), is probably from the same source. 
 In an obscure and brief fragment preserved in 
 a Catena on Job (Venet. 1587, p. 345), Origen 
 imphes the existence of Odes by Basilides and 
 Valentinus. No other \\Titings of Basilides 
 are mentioned. 
 
 III. Authenticily of the Hippolytean Extracts. 
 — In endeavouring to form a clear conception 
 of the work and doctrine of Basilides, we are 
 met at the outset by a serious difficulty. The 
 different accounts were never easy to harmon- 
 ize, and some of the best critics of the first 
 half of the 19th cent, considered them to refer 
 to two different systems of doctrine. But till 
 1 85 1 their fragmentary nature suggested that 
 the apparent incongruities might conceivably 
 be due only to the defects of our knowledge, 
 and seemed to invite reconstructive boldness 
 on the part of the historian. The publication 
 of Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies in 
 185 1 placed the whole question on a new 
 footing. Hardly any one has ventured to 
 maintain the possibility of reconciling its 
 ample statements about Basilides with the 
 reports of Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Which 
 account then most deserves our confidence ? 
 
 Before attempting to answer this question 
 it is well to enumerate the authorities. They 
 are Agrippa Castor as cited by Eusebius, 
 Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, the 
 anonymous supplement to Tertullian, de 
 Praescriptione. the Refutation of Hippolytus, 
 Epiphanius, Philaster, and Theodoret, and 
 possibly the Acta Archelai, besides a few 
 scattered notices which may be neglected here. 
 This ample list shrinks, however, into small 
 dimensions at the touch of criticism. 
 Theodoret's chapter is a disguised compilation 
 from previous Greek writers. The researches 
 of Lipsius have proved that Epiphanius 
 followed partly Irenaeus, partly the lost 
 Compendium of Hippolytus, this same work 
 being also the common source of the Latin 
 authors pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster. 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 103 
 
 I Our ultimate authorities therefore are Irenaeus 
 (or the unknown author from whom he took 
 this section of his work), the Compendium of 
 Hippolytus (represented by Epiphanius [part], 
 Philaster, and pseudo-Tertullian), Clement 
 and the Refutation of Hippolytus, together 
 with a short statement by Agrippa Castor, 
 and probably a passing reference and quota- 
 
 j tion in the Acts of Archelaus. 
 
 It is now generally allowed that the notices 
 
 I of Clement afford the surest criterion by which 
 
 \ to test other authorities. Not only does his 
 whole tone imply exact personal knowledge, 
 but he quotes a long passage directly from the 
 
 1 Exegetica. Is then his account, taken as a 
 whole, consistent with other accounts ? And 
 does it agree best with the reports of Irenaeus 
 and Hippolytus in his younger days, or with 
 the elaborate picture drawn by Hippolytus at 
 a later time ? This second question has 
 
 j received opposite answers from recent critics. 
 
 I A majority have given the preference to 
 
 j Hippolytus ; while Hilgenfeld (who three 
 years before, in his earliest book, the treatise 
 On the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, 
 pp. 125-149, had described the Basilidian 
 system from the then known records, en- 
 deavouring with perverse ingenuity to shew 
 their virtual consistency with each other) 
 has prided himself on not being dazzled by 
 the new authority, whom he holds to be in 
 effect describing not Basilides but a late 
 development of his sect ; and Lipsius takes 
 the same view. 
 
 It should be observed at the outset that 
 the testimony of Clement is not quite so 
 homogeneous' as is generally assumed. Six 
 times he criticises doctrines of " Basilides " 
 himself ; eight times he employs the 
 ambiguous plural (oi dirb B., oi d/j.'pi rbv B.). 
 Are we to suppose a distinction here, or is 
 the verbal difference accidental ? Both views 
 might be maintained. The quotation from 
 the Exegetica [Strom, iv. pp. 599 f.) is a piece 
 of moral argument on Providence, wholly 
 free from the technical terms of Gnostic 
 mythology. In the succeeding discussion 
 Clement eventually uses plurals (d . . . tls 
 ainCiv \eyoL — ireTrrcoKev r) virddecns oi'TOiS — u)5 
 
 j (pdvai, apparently a misreading for wy <f>a<jLv 
 
 ! — (Ijs avTol \eyov<jLv), which might equally 
 imply that he employs both forms indifferent- 
 ly, or that he distinguishes Basilides from his 
 followers within the limits of a single subject. 
 The other references to " Basilides " are like- 
 wise of a distinctly ethical character, while 
 several of the passages containing the plural 
 name abound in technical language. Yet 
 
 ! the distinction is not absolute on either side. 
 
 1 " Basilides " furnishes the terms " the 
 
 i Ogdoad," " the election," " supermundane " ; 
 
 ' while such subjects as the nature of faith, 
 
 \ the relation of the passions to the animal 
 soul, and the meaning of Christ's saying about 
 eunuchs, occur in the other group, though 
 they remind us rather of Basilides himself. 
 In the last passage, moreover (Strom, iii. pp. 
 508 ff.), the ambiguous plural (ol a-rrb 15. <t>a<Tl 
 
 , —\4yov<n—^r)yovvTai — <{)a(rl bis) is applied to 
 a quotation intended to shame by contrast 
 the immoral Basilidians of Clement's own 
 time ; and a similar quotation from Basi- 
 
104 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 lides's son Isidore immediately follows ; the 
 authors of the two quotations being designated 
 as " the forefathers of their (the late Basili- 
 dians') doctrines." It is hard to believe that 
 mere anonymous disciples, though of an earlier 
 date, would be appealed to in this manner, or 
 would take precedence of the master's own 
 son. On the whole, there can be no reasonable 
 doubt that all the doctrinal statements in 
 Clement concern Basilides himself, when not 
 distinctly otherwise expressed, and depend on 
 direct knowledge of the Exegetica. With good 
 reason therefore they may be assumed as a 
 trustworthy basis for the whole investigation. 
 The most doubtful instances are the passages 
 cited presently on the Baptism and (in the 
 Exc. Theod.) on the descent of the Minister 
 {dicLKOfos), i.e. the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The range of possible contact between the 
 quotations and reports of Clement and any of 
 the other authorities is not large. His extant 
 writings contain nothing like an attempt to 
 describe the Basilidian System. The Strom- 
 ates, which furnish the quotations from Basil- 
 ides, expressly limit themselves to moral and 
 practical questions (6 ^^t/c6s X670S) ; and 
 reserve for a future work, i.e. the lost Hypotyp- 
 oses, the exposition of the higher doctrine 
 (t^j Kara tt}v eiroirTLKyjv dewplav yvwcrews. — 
 TTjv T(J5 6vTi yvu(TTiKT]v (pvcTcoKoylav) belonging 
 to the department of knowledge which the 
 Stoics called Physics, beginning with the 
 Creation and leading up to Theology proper 
 {Strom, i. p. 324 ; iv. pp. 563 f., 637 ; vi. pp. 
 735 f., 827 ; vii. 829, 902 ; cf. Bunsen, Anal. 
 Antenic. i. 159 ff.). Now it is precisely to 
 this latter department that the bulk of Gnostic 
 speculation would belong, and especially such 
 theories as Hippolytus ascribes to Basilides ; 
 and moreover Clement distinctly promises 
 that in the course of that loftier investigation 
 he will " set forth in detail the doctrines of the 
 heretics (tG)v irepodo^ciiv), and endeavour to 
 refute them to the best of his power" (iv. 
 § 3, p. 564). We have therefore no right to 
 expect in the Stromates any cosmological or 
 even theological matter respecting Basilides 
 except such as may accidentally adhere to 
 the ethical statements, the subjects treated 
 of in the various books " against all heresies " 
 being formally excluded by Clement. His 
 sphere being thus distinct from theirs, the 
 marked coincidences of language that we do 
 find between him and Hippolytus afford a 
 strong presumption that, if the one account 
 is authentic, the other is so likewise. Within 
 the narrow limits of Clement's information we 
 meet with the phrases " primitive medley and 
 confusion " ((nVy^utT-is), and on the other hand 
 " separation " (differentiation) and restora- 
 tion {(Totpia (})v\oKpivT)TLK-q, airoKaTaaTaTLKT)) ; 
 with a division of the universe into stages 
 (5ia(TTT7/naTa), and prominence given to the 
 sphere of " super-mundane " things ; with an 
 " Ogdoad " and an " Archon " ; all of these 
 terms being conspicuous and essential in the 
 Hippolytean representation. Above all, we 
 hear of the amazement of the Archon on 
 receiving " the utterance of the ministering 
 Spirit " or " Minister " [diaKovos, cf. Eel. 
 Theod. p. 972) as being that fear of the Lord 
 which is called the beginning of wisdom 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 {Strom, ii. p. 448) ; the utterance itself being 
 implied to be a Gospel {evyjyyeXifffjL^vov) ; while 
 Hippolytus describes the same passage as 
 interpreted of the amazement of the Great 
 Archon on receiving " the Gospel," a revela- 
 tion of things unknown, through his Son, who 
 had received it from a " power " within the 
 Holy Spirit (vii. 26). The coincidences are 
 thus proportionately great, and there are no 
 contradictions to balance them : so that it 
 would require strong evidence to rebut the 
 conclusion that Clement and Hippolytus had 
 the same materials before them. Such evi- 
 dence does not exist. The coincidences between 
 Clement and the Irenaean tradition are limited 
 to the widely spread " Ogdoad " and a single 
 disputable use of the word " Archon," and 
 there is no similarity of doctrines to make up 
 for the absence of verbal identity. The only 
 tangible argument against the view that 
 Hippolytus describes the original system of 
 Basilides is its Greek rather than Oriental 
 character, which is assumed to be incom- 
 patible with the fundamental thoughts of a 
 great Gnostic leader. We shall have other 
 opportunities of inquiring how far the evidence 
 supports this wide generalization as to 
 Gnosticism at large. As regards Basilides 
 personally, the only grounds for expecting 
 from him an Oriental type of doctrine are the 
 quotation in the Acts of Archelaus, which will 
 be discussed further on, and the tradition of 
 his connexion with Saturnilus of Antioch, 
 which we have already seen to be founded on 
 a misconception. The fragmentary notices 
 and extracts in Clement, admitted on all 
 hands to be authentic, are steeped in Greek 
 philosophy ; so that the Greek spirit of the 
 Hippolytean representation is in fact an 
 additional evidence for its faithfulness. 
 
 It may yet be asked. Did Hippolytus con- 
 sult the work of Basilides himself, or did he 
 depend on an intermediate reporter ? His 
 own language, though not absolutely decisive, 
 favours the former alternative. On the one 
 hand it may be urged that he makes no 
 mention of a book, that occasionally he quotes 
 by the words " they say," " according to 
 them," and that his exposition is immediately 
 preceded by the remark, " Let us then see 
 how openly both Basilides and [his son] Isi- 
 dore (B. ofxov Kai'l.) and the whole band of them 
 not merely calumniate Matthias [from whom 
 they professed to have received records of 
 Christ's secret teaching], but also the Saviour 
 Himself " (c. 20). Against these indications 
 may be set the ten places where Basilides is 
 referred to singly, and the very numerous 
 quotations by the words " he says." It is 
 true that Greek usage permits the occasional 
 use of the singular even when no one writer or 
 book is intended. But in this case the most 
 natural translation is borne out by some of 
 the language quoted. The first person sin- 
 gular (drau 5^ \^7w, (p-qah, t6''\\v, ovx oti ijv 
 \iyii3, dXX' 'iva c-qixdviij tovto 6irep ^ovKop,ai 
 du^at, \^yu}, (p-qcxlv, oti. J]v dXws ov8^v • . . . 
 Kai ov Sexopai, (p-qaiv k.t.\.) proves the 
 book in Hippolytus's hands to have been 
 written by an original speculator ; yet this 
 very quotation is immediately followed by a 
 comment on it with the third person plural 
 
BASILIDES 
 
 uliich here at least can mean no more than 
 that Hippolytus held the Basilitlians of his 
 own day responsible for the doctrines of his 
 author. The freshness and power of the whole 
 section, wherever we touch the actual words of 
 the author, strongly conftrni the impression 
 I that he was no other than Basilides himself. 
 . I Thus we are led independently to the conclu- 
 sion suggested by the correspondence with the 
 information of Clement, whom we know to 
 have drawn from the fountain-head, the 
 Exegetica. The fancy that the book used by 
 Hippolytus was itself the Traditions of 
 I Matthias has nothing to recommend it. The 
 whole form is unlike that which analogy would 
 lead us to expect in such a production. If it 
 was quoted as an authcrity in the Exegetica, 
 the language of Hippolytus is justified. Nor 
 is there anything in this inconsistent with the 
 fact vouched for by Clement (Strom, vii. 
 p. 89S) that Basilides claimed to have been 
 taught by Glaucias, an " interpreter " of St. 
 Peter. 
 
 We shall therefore assume that the eight 
 chapters of Hippolytus (vii. 20-27) represent 
 faithfully though imperfectly the contents of 
 part at least of the Exegetica of Basilides ; and 
 proceed to describe his doctrine on their 
 authority, using likewise the testimony of 
 Clement wherever it is available. 
 
 I\'. Doctrine. — Basilides asserts the begin- 
 ning of all things to have been pure nothing. 
 He uses every device of language to express 
 absolute nonentity. He will not allow the 
 primitive nothing to be called even " unspeak- 
 able " : that, he says, would be naming it, and 
 it is above every name that is named (20). 
 Nothing then being in existence, " not-being 
 i God " (or Deity, ovk Civ dios : the article is 
 I omitted here) willed to make a not-being world 
 out of not-being things. Once more great 
 pains are taken to obviate the notion that 
 " willing " implied any mental attribute what- 
 ever. Also the world so made was not the 
 ' extended and differentiated world to which we 
 I gave the name, but " a single seed containing 
 ' within itself all the seed-mass of the world," 
 i the aggregate of the seeds of all its forms and 
 ' substances, as the mustard seed contains the 
 ; branches and leaves of the tree, or the pea- 
 hen's egg the brilliant colour of the full-grown 
 , peacock (21). This was the one origin of all 
 , future growths ; their seeds lay stored up by 
 the will of the not-being God' in the single 
 world-seed, as in the new-born babe its future 
 ' teeth and the resemblances to its father which j 
 ' are thereafter to appear. Its own origin too j 
 I from God was not a putting-forth (7rpo/3oXfj), 
 ; as a spider puts forth its web from itself. (By 
 I this assertion, on which Hippolytus dwells 
 I with emphasis, every notion of " emanation " 
 j is expressly repudiated.) Nor was there an 
 j antecedent matter, like the brass or wood 
 wrought by a mortal man. The words " Let 
 there be light, and there was light " convey 
 the whole truth. The light came into being 
 out of nothing but the voice of the Speaker ; 
 I *' and the Speaker was not, and that which 
 I came into being was not." 
 ■ What then was the first stage of growth of | 
 the seed ? It had within itself " a tripartite 
 sonship, in all things consubstantial with the 
 \ aot-being God." Part of the sonship was 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 105 
 
 subtle of substance (XtirTOiifph), part coarse 
 of substance (waxvfi-fp^s), part needing puri- 
 fication [airoKadApcew'i Sfofxevoy). Simulta- 
 neously with the first beginning of the seed 
 the subtle sonship burst through {SU<T<pv^(v) 
 and mounted swiftly up " like a wing or a 
 thought " (Odyss. vii. 36) till it reached the 
 not-being (lod ; " for toward Him for His 
 exceeding beauty and grace (uipato'rTjros) 
 every kind of nature yearns {Sptytrai), each 
 in its own way." The coarse sonship could 
 not mount up of itself, but it took to itself as 
 a wing the Holy Spirit, each bearing up the 
 other with mutual benefit, even as neither 
 a bird can soar without wing, nor a wing 
 without a bird. But when it came near the 
 blessed and unutterable place of the subtle 
 sonship and the not-being God, it could take 
 the Holy Spirit no further, as not being con- 
 substantial or of the same nature with itself. 
 There, then, retaining and emitting downwards 
 the fragrance of the sonship like a vessel that 
 has once held ointment, the Holy Spirit re- 
 mained, as a firmament dividing things above 
 the world from " the world " itself below (22). 
 
 The third sonship continued still within the 
 heap of the seed-mass. But out of the heap 
 burst forth into being the Great Archon, " the 
 head of the world, a beauty and greatness and 
 power that cannot be uttered." He too raised 
 himself aloft till he reached the firmament 
 which he supposed to be the upward end of all 
 things. Then he became wiser and every way 
 better than all other cosmical things except 
 the sonship left below, which he knew not to 
 be far better than himself. So he turned to 
 create the world in its several parts. But 
 first he " made to himself and begat out of 
 the things below a son far better and wiser 
 than himself," for thus the not-being God had 
 willed from the first ; and smitten with wonder 
 at his son's beauty, he set him at his right hand. 
 " This is what they call the Ogdoad, where 
 the Great Archon is sitting." Then all the 
 heavenly or ethereal creation (apparently 
 included in the Ogdoad), as far down as the 
 moon, was made by the Great Archon, in- 
 spired by his wiser son (23). Again another 
 Archon arose out of the seed-mass, inferior to 
 the first Archon, but superior to all else 
 below except the sonship ; and he likewise 
 made to himself a son wiser than himself, and 
 became the creator and governor of the aerial 
 world. This region is called the Hebdomad. 
 On the other hand, in the heap and seed-mass, 
 constituting our own (the terrestrial) stage, 
 " those things that come to pass come to pass 
 according to nature, as having been previously 
 uttered by Him Who hath planned the fitting 
 time and form and manner of utterance of 
 the thmgs that were to be uttered (dis (pOdaafTa 
 XexO^iVai i/n-6 rod to. fxeWuvra X^yecrOai brt Set 
 Kal ola 8fi Kal (is Set XfXoyiafxerov) : and these 
 things have no one to rule over them, or exer- 
 cise care for them, or create them : for suffi- 
 cient for them is that plan (\oyL(T/j.us) which 
 the not-being One planned when He was 
 making " [the seed-mass] (24). 
 
 Such is the original cosmogony as conceived 
 by Basilides, and it supplies the base for his 
 view of the Gospel, as well as of the interval 
 before the coming of the Gospel into the 
 
106 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 world. When the whole world had been 
 finished, and the things above the world, and 
 nothing was lacking, there remained in the 
 seed-mass the third sonship, which had been 
 left behind to do good and receive good in the 
 seed ; and it was needful that the sonship 
 thus left behind should be revealed (Rom. viii. 
 19) and restored up yonder above the Limit- 
 ary Spirit to join the subtle and imitative 
 .sonship and the not-being One, as it is written, 
 " And the creation itself groaneth together 
 and travaileth together, expecting the revela- 
 tion of the sons of God." Now we the 
 spiritual, he said, are sons left behind here to 
 order and to inform and to correct and to 
 perfect the souls whose nature it is to abide 
 in this stage. Till Moses, then, from Adam sin 
 reigned, as it is written ; for the Great Archon 
 reigned, he whose end reaches to the firma- 
 ment, supposing himself to be God alone, and 
 to have nothing above him, for all things 
 remained guarded in secret silence ; this is 
 the mystery which was not made known to 
 the former generations. But in those times 
 the Great Archon, the Ogdoad, was king and 
 lord, as it appeared, of all things : and more- 
 over, the Hebdomad was king and lord of 
 this stage ; and the Ogdoad is unutterable, 
 but the Hebdomad utterable. This, the 
 Archon of the Hebdomad, is he who spoke 
 to Moses and said, " I am the God of Abraham 
 and Isaac and Jacob, and the name of God 
 did I not make known to them " (for so, 
 says Hippolytus, they will have it read), that 
 is, of the unutterable God who is Archon of 
 the Ogdoad. All the prophets, therefore, 
 that were before the Saviour, spoke from that 
 source (eKeWev). 
 
 This short interpretation of the times before 
 Christ, which has evidently suffered in the 
 process of condensation by Hippolytus, carries 
 us at once to the Gospel itself. " Because 
 therefore it was needful that we the children 
 of God should be revealed, concerning whom 
 the creation groaned and travailed, expecting 
 the revelation, the Gospel came into the world, 
 and passed through every principality and 
 power and lordship, and every name that is 
 named." There was still no downward coming 
 from above, no departure of the ascended son- 
 ship from its place ; but " from below from the 
 formlessness of the heap the powers penetrated 
 {SirjKovcTii') up to the sonship " {i.e. probably 
 throughout the scale the power of each stage 
 penetrated to the stage immediately above), 
 and so thoughts {v or] /.tar a) were caught from 
 above as naphtha catches fire at a distance 
 without contact. Thus the power within the 
 Holy Spirit " conveyed the thoughts of the 
 sonship, as they flowed and drifted (peoura Kal 
 ^epofifva) to the son of the Great Archon" 
 (25) ; and he in turn instructed the Great 
 Archon himself, by whose side he was sitting. 
 Then first the Great Archon learned that he 
 was not God of the universe, but had himself 
 come into being, and had above him yet 
 higher beings ; he discovered with amazement 
 his own past ignorance, and confessed his sin 
 in having magnified himself. This fear of his, 
 said Basilides, was that fear of the Lord which 
 is the beginning of wisdom (wisdom to " separ- 
 ate and discern and perfect and restore," 
 Clem. Strom, ii. 448 f.). From him and the 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 Ogdoad the Gospel had next to pass to 
 the Hebdomad. Its Archon's son received 
 the light from the son of the Great Archon, he 
 became himself enlightened, and declared the 
 Gospel to the Archon of the Hebdomad, and 
 he too feared and confessed, and all that was 
 in the Hebdomad received the light (26). 
 
 It remained only that the formlessness of 
 our own region should be enlightened, and 
 that the hidden mystery should be revealed 
 to the third sonship left behind in the form- 
 lessness, as to " one born out of due time " 
 {oiovel eKTpLcixaTL, I. Cor. xv. 8). The light 
 came down from the Hebdomad upon Jesus 
 the Son of Mary. That this descent of the 
 light was represented as taking place at the 
 Annunciation, and not merely at the Baptism, 
 is clearly implied in the express reference to 
 the words of the angel in Luke i. 35, " A Holy 
 Spirit shall come upon thee," which are ex- 
 plained to mean " that [? spirit] which passed 
 from the sonship through the Limitary Spirit 
 to the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad till it 
 reached Mary " (the interpretation of the 
 following words, " And a power of the Most 
 High shall overshadow thee," appears to be 
 hopelessly corrupt). On the other hand, 
 when it is described as a result of the descent 
 of the light from the Hebdomad " upon Jesus 
 the Son of Mary," that He " was enlightened, 
 being kindled in union with the light {a-vv- 
 €^a(pO(ls T(^ (pwTi) that shone on Him," the 
 allusion to the traditional light at the Bap- 
 tism can hardly be questioned ; more especi- 
 ally when we read in Clement's Excerpta 
 (p. 972) that the Basilidians interpreted the 
 dove to be " the Minister," i.e. (see pp. 270, 
 276) the revealing " power " within the Holy 
 Spirit (26). 
 
 From the Nativity Hippolytus's exposition 
 passes on at once to its purpose in the future 
 and the final consummation. The world holds 
 together as it is now, we learn, until all the 
 sonship that has been left behind, to give 
 benefits to the souls in formlessness and to 
 receive benefits by obtaining distinct form, 
 follows Jesus and mounts up and is purified 
 and becomes most subtle, so that it can mount 
 by itself like the first sonship ; " for it has 
 all its power naturally established in union 
 {avvidT-qpiypiivqv) with the light that shone 
 down from above" (26). When every son- 
 ship has arrived above the Limitary Spirit, 
 " then the creation shall find mercy, for till 
 now it groans and is tormented and awaits 
 the revelation of the sons of God, that all the 
 men of the sonship may ascend from hence " 
 (27). When this has come to pass, God will 
 bring upon the whole world the Great Ignor- 
 ance, that everything may remain according to 
 nature, and that nothing may desire aught 
 that is contrary to nature. Thus all the souls 
 of this stage, whose nature it is to continue 
 immortal in this stage alone, will remain 
 without knowledge of anything higher and 
 better than this, lest they suffer torment by 
 craving for things impossible, like a fish 
 desiring to feed with the sheep on the moun- 
 tains, for such a desire would have been to 
 them destruction. All things are indestruc- 
 tible while they abide in their place, but 
 destructible if they aim at overleaping the 
 bounds of Nature. Thus the Great Ignorance 
 
BASILIDES 
 
 will overtake even the Archon of the Heb- 
 domad, that grief and pain and sighing may 
 depart from him : yea, it will overtake the 
 (ireat Archon of the Ogdoad, and all the 
 creations subject to him, that nothing may in 
 any respect crave for aught that is against 
 I nature or may suflcr pam. " And in this 
 I wise shall be the Restoration, all things accord- 
 1 ing to nature having been founded in the seed 
 I of the universe in the beginning, and being 
 • restored at their due seasons. And that each 
 thing has its due seasons is sufficiently proved 
 by the Saviour's words, ' My hour is not yet 
 , come,' and by the beholding of the star by 
 I the Magi ; for even He Himself was subject 
 to the ■ genesis ' [nativity] of the periodic 
 return (dTrovarao-Tdo-ttDt, here used in the 
 limited astrological sense, though above as 
 ' restoration ' generally) of stars and hours, 
 as foreordained [irpoXeXoynrnevos : cf. c. 24, 
 s. f. ; X. 14] in the great heap." " He," adds 
 Hippolvtus, evidently meaning our Lord, " is 
 [in the Basilidian view] the inner spiritual 
 man in the natural [psychical] man ; that is, 
 a sonship leaving its soul here, not a mortal 
 soul, but one remaining in its present place 
 according to nature, just as the first sonship 
 up above hath left the Limitary Holy Spirit 
 in a fitting place ; He having at that time 
 been clothed with a soul of His own " (27). 
 These last two remarks, on the subjection 
 to seasons and on the ultimate abandonment 
 of the immortal but earth-bound soul by the 
 ascending sonship or spiritual man, taking 
 place first in the Saviour and then in the 
 other " sons of God," belong in strictness to 
 an earlier part of the scheme ; but they may 
 have been placed here by Basilides himself, to 
 explain the strange consummation of the Great 
 Ignorance. The principle receives perhaps 
 a better illustration from what purports to 
 be an exposition of the Basilidian view of 
 the Gospel, with which Hippolytus concludes 
 his report. " According to them," he says, 
 " the Gospel is the knowledge of things above 
 the world, which knowledge the Great Archon 
 understood not : when then it was shewn to 
 him that there exists the Holy Spirit, that is 
 the Limitary Spirit, and the sonship and a 
 God Who is the author (alrios) of all these 
 things, even the not-being One, he rejoiced 
 at what was told him, and was exceeding glad : 
 this is according to them the Gospel." Here 
 Hippolytus evidently takes too generally the 
 special form under which Basilides represented 
 the Gospel as made known to the Great 
 Archon. Nor, when he proceeds to say that 
 " Jesus according to them was bom in the 
 manner that we have previously mentioned," 
 is it clear that Basilides gave a different 
 account of the Nativity itself from that 
 accepted by the church, because he gave a 
 peculiar interpretation to the angel's words. 
 " After the Nativity already made known," 
 adds Hippolytus, " all incidents concerning 
 the Saviour came to pass according to them 
 [the Basihdiansj as they are described in the 
 Gospels." But all this is only introductory 
 to the setting forth of the primary principle. 
 " These things " (apparently the incidents 
 of our Lord's life) " are come to pass that 
 Jesus might become the first fruits of the 
 sorting of the things confused " (r^j (}>v\oKpi- 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 107 
 
 v{)a(i^% tC>v <ri'7Af«x''M^''wf). For since the world 
 is divided into the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad 
 and this stage in which we dwell, where is the 
 formlessness, " it was necessary that the 
 things confused should be sorted by the divi- 
 sion of Jesus. That therefore suffered which 
 was His botlily part, which was of the form- 
 lessness, and it was restored into the formless- 
 ness; and that rose up which was His psychical 
 part, whicli was of the Hebdomad, and it was 
 restored into the Hebdomad ; and he raised 
 up that which belonged to the summit where 
 sits the Great Archon (rrfs anpuipeiai tou fi. <£.), 
 and it abode beside the Great Archon : and 
 He bore up on high that which was of the 
 Limitary Spirit, and it abode in the Limitary 
 Spirit ; and the third sonship, which had been 
 left behind in [the heap] to give and receive 
 benefits, through Him was purified and 
 mounted up to the blessed sonship, passing 
 through them all." " Thus Jesus is become 
 the first fruits of the sorting ; and the Passion 
 has come to pass for no other purpose than 
 this [reading yeyovev f} vv^p for yiyoviv vir6\ 
 that the things confused might be sorted." 
 For the whole sonship left behind in the 
 formlessness must needs be sorted in the same 
 manner as Jesus Himself hath been sorted. 
 Thus, as Hippolytus remarks a little earlier, 
 the whole theory consists of the confusion of 
 a seed-mass, and' of the sorting and restoration 
 into their proper places of things so confused 
 (27)- 
 
 Clement's contributions to our knowledge of 
 Basilides refer chiefly, as has been said, to the 
 ethical side of his doctrine. Here " Faith " 
 evidently played a considerable part. In itself 
 it was defined by " them of Basilides " (oi anb 
 B.) as " an assent of the soul to any of the 
 things which do not excite sensation, because 
 they are not present" (Strom, ii. p. 448) ; the 
 phrase being little more than a vague rendering 
 of Heb. xi. i, in philosophical language. 
 From another unfortunately corrupt passage 
 (v. p. 645) it would appear that Basilides 
 accumulated forms of dignity in celebration of 
 faith. But the eulogies were in vain, Clement 
 intimates, because they abstained from setting 
 forth faith as the " rational assent of a soul 
 possessing free will." They left faith a matter 
 of " nature," not of responsible choice. So 
 again, while contrasting the honour shewn by 
 the Basilidians to faith with its disparagement 
 in comparison with " knowledge " by the 
 Valentinians, he accuses them (oi aixcpl rbv B.) 
 of regarding it as " natural," and referring it 
 to " the election " while they apparently con- 
 sidered it to " discover doctrines without 
 demonstration by an intellective apprehen- 
 sion " (to. p.aOrifj.aTa avairohuKTOj% eifpLffKOvaav 
 KaTa\r}\pei vovriKrj). He adds that accord- 
 ing to them (oi d-rro H.) there is at once a 
 faith and an election of special character 
 (ohdav) in each "stage" (Sida-rrj/ta), the 
 mundane faith of every nature follows in 
 accordance with its supermundane election, 
 and for each (? being or stage) the [Divine] 
 gift of his (or its) faith corresponds with his 
 (or its) hope (ii. 433 f.). What " hope " was 
 intended is not explained : probably it is 
 the range of legitimate hope, the limits of 
 faculty accessible to the beings inhabiting 
 
108 BASILIDES 
 
 this or that " stage." It is hardly likely that 
 Clement would have censured unreservedly 
 what appears here as the leading principle of 
 Basihdes, the Divine resignment of a limited 
 sphere of action to each order of being, and 
 the Divine bestowal of proportionally limited 
 powers of apprehending God upon the several 
 orders, though it is true that Clement himself 
 specially cherished the thought of an upward 
 progress from one height of being to another, 
 as part of the Divine salvation {Strom, vii. p. 
 835, etc.). Doubtless Basilides pushed elec- 
 tion so far as to sever a portion of mankind 
 from the rest, as alone entitled by Divine 
 decree to receive the higher enlightenment. 
 In this sense it must have been that he called 
 " the election a stranger to the world, as being 
 by nature supermundane " ; while Clement 
 maintained that no man can by nature be a 
 stranger to the world (iv. p. 639). It is hardly 
 necessary to point out how closely the limita- 
 tion of spheres agrees with the doctrine on 
 which the Great Ignorance is founded, and 
 the supermundane election with that of the 
 Third Sonship. 
 
 The same rigid adhesion to the conception 
 of natural fixity, and inability to accept 
 Christian beliefs, which transcend it, led 
 Basilides (6 P..) to confine the remission of sins 
 to those which are committed involuntarily 
 and in ignorance ; as though, says Clement 
 {Strom, iv. p. 634), it were a man and not God 
 that bestowed the gift. A like fatalistic view 
 of Providence is implied in the language held 
 by Basilides (in the 23rd book of his Exegetica, 
 as quoted by Clement, Strom, iv. pp. 599-603) 
 in reference to the sufferings of Christian 
 martyrs. In this instance we have the benefit 
 of verbal extracts, though unfortunately their 
 sense is in parts obscure. So far as they go, 
 they do not bear out the allegations of Agrippa 
 Castor (ap. Eus. H. E. iv. 7, § 7) that Basilides 
 taught that the partaking of food offered to 
 idols, and the heedless {aTrai)a(})v\aKTu%) abjur- 
 ation of the faith in time of persecution was 
 a thing indifferent ; and of Origen {Com. in 
 Matt. iii. 856 Ru.), that he depreciated the 
 martyrs, and treated lightly the sacrificing to 
 heathen deities. The impression seems to 
 have arisen partly from a misunderstanding of 
 the purpose of his argument, partly from the 
 actual doctrine and practices of later Basili- 
 dians ; but it may also have had some justifi- 
 cation in incidental words which have not been 
 preserved. Basilides is evidently contesting 
 the assumption, probably urged in controversy 
 against his conception of the justice of Provi- 
 dence, that the sufferers in " what are called 
 tribulations " (eV rah Xeyofi^vais OXlxl/fcnv) are 
 to be regarded as innocent, simply because 
 they suffer for their Christianity. He suggests 
 that some are in fact undergoing punishment 
 for previous unknown sins, while " by the 
 goodness of Him Who brings events to pass " 
 {tov TrepidyovTos) they are allowed the comfort 
 of suffering as Christians, " not subject to the 
 rebuke as the adulterer or the murderer " 
 (apparently with reference to i Pet. iii. 17, 
 iv. 15, 16, 19) ; and if there be any who suffers 
 without previous sin, it will not be "by the 
 design of an [adverse] power " (rar iiri^ovXrju 
 Svfdfiews), but as suffers the babe who appears 
 to have committed no sin. The next quota- 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 tion attempts at some length an exposition of 
 this comparison with the babe. The obvious 
 distinction is drawn between sin committed 
 in act (sVep-ycSs) and the capacity for sin (rd 
 d/xaprriTiKdi') ; the infant is said to receive a 
 benefit when it is subjected to suffering, 
 "gaining" many hardships {irAM K^pdaivov 
 diKTKoXa). So it is, he says, with the sufferirg 
 of a perfect man, for his not having sinned 
 must not be set down to himself ; though he 
 has done no evil, he must have willed evil ; 
 " for I will say anything rather than call Pro- 
 vidence (r6 Trpovovu) evil." He did not shrink, 
 Clement says, and the language seems too 
 conclusive, from applying his principle even 
 to the Lord. " If, leaving all these arguments, 
 you go on to press me with certain persons, 
 saying, for instance, ' Such an one sinned 
 therefore, for such an one suffered,' if you will 
 allow me I will say, ' He did not sin, but he 
 is like the suffering babe ' ; but if you force 
 the argument with greater violence, I will say 
 that any man whom you may choose to name 1 
 is a man, and that God is righteous ; for ' no 11 
 one,' as it has been said, ' is clear of defile- ij 
 ment ' " {pvrrov). He likewise brought in the 1! 
 notion of sin in a past stage of existence < 
 suffering its penalty here, "the elect soul" ] 
 suffering " honourably {emri^uu^) through '■ 
 martyrdom, and the soul of another kind ■ 
 being cleansed by an appropriate punishment." ' 
 To this doctrine of metempsychosis (raj '. 
 ipawpLaTuifffii) "the Basilidians " {ol dvb B.) 
 are likewise said to have referred the language 
 of the Lord about requital to the third and 
 fourth generations {Exc. Theod. 976) ; Origen 
 states that Basilides himself interpreted Rom. 
 vii. 9 in this sense, " The Apostle said, ' I hved 
 without a law once,' that is, before I came into 
 this body, I lived in such a form of body as 
 was not under a law, that of a beast namely, 
 or a bird " {Com. in Rom. iv. 549, Ru.) ; and 
 elsewhere {Com. in Matt. I.e.) Origen com- 
 plains that he deprived men of a salutary fear 
 by teaching that transmigrations are the only 
 punishments after death. What more Basil- 
 ides taught about Providence as exemplified 
 in martyrdoms is not easily brought together 
 from Clement's rather confused account. He 
 said that one part of what is called the will 
 of God {i.e. evidently His own mind towards 
 lower beings, not what He would have their 
 mind to be) is to love (or rather perhaps be 
 satisfied with, -q^aw-qKivai) all things because 
 all things preserve a relation to the universe 
 {Xbyov diroffih^ovai vpbs rb trav diravra), and 
 another to despise nothing, and a third to hate 
 no single thing (601). In the same spirit pain 
 and fear were described as natural accidents 
 of things {eiri<TvpL^aivfL rots w pdy /.lacnv) , as 
 rust of iron (603). In another sentence (602) 
 Providence seems to be spoken of as set in 
 motion by the Archon ; by which perhaps was 
 meant (see Hipp. c. 24, cited above, p. 272 a) 
 that the Archon was the unconscious agent 
 who carried into execution (within his own 
 " stage ") the long dormant original counsels 
 of the not-being Ciod. The view of the har- 
 mony of the universe just referred to finds 
 expression, with a reminiscence of a famous 
 sentence of Plato {Tim. 31 b), in a saying 
 {Strom, v. p. 690) that Moses " set up one 
 
BASILIDES 
 
 Itcinple of God and an oiily-begotten world " 
 llfiovoyevyj re nixTfiov : cf. I'liit. ii. 423 A, 
 fva ToiTov [t6«' KOJuoi'l (Ivai /.loyoyev)) t(^ Oei^ 
 ^al ayairrjTOv). 
 
 I We have a curious piece of psychological 
 (theory in the account of the passions attri- 
 |buted to the Basilidians {01 d/x(pi rbv H.). 
 iThey are accustomed, Clement says (Strom. 
 Ai. p. 4S8), to call the passions Appendages 
 |()r/)o<ra/)7-;;uaro'), stating that these are certain 
 (spirits wliich have a substantial existence 
 (/cor oiViaf I'Trapx^'*'). having been appended 
 (or " attached." or " adherent," various kinds 
 of close external contact being expressed by 
 \xpo(rr)prT)i.Uva, cf. M. Aur. xii. 3, with Gataker's 
 mote, and also Tertullian's ceteris apfen- 
 tJicibus, sensibus et affectibus, Adv. Marc. i. 25, 
 jcited by r.ieselcr) to the rational soul in a 
 i certain primitive turmoil and confusion, and 
 I that again other bastard and alien natures 
 I of spirits grow upon these (wpoafirKpvijOai 
 irriih-ais), as of a wolf, an ape, a lion, a goat, 
 ' whose characteristics (t(5tui/xara), becoming per- 
 iceptible in the region of the soul ((pavraio/j.ei'a 
 
 refi Tr}y ^I'X^"). assimilate the desires of the 
 'son to the animals; for they imitate the 
 I actions of those whose characteristics they 
 (wear, and not only acquire intimacy (n-potrot- 
 I Kdovvrai) with the impulses and impressions 
 I of the irrational animals, but even imitate 
 I ({"TjXoi/jO the movements and beauties of 
 i plants, because they likewise wear the char- 
 I acteristics of plants appended to them ; and 
 ; [the passions] have also characteristics of 
 I habit [derived from stones], as the hardness 
 t of adamant (cf. p. 487 med.). In the absence 
 I of the context it is impossible to determine 
 I the precise meaning and origin of this singular 
 I theory. It was probably connected with the 
 : doctrine of metempsychosis, which seemed to 
 I find support in Plato's Timaeus 42, 90 f.), and 
 
 was cherished by some nco- Pythagoreans 
 ' later in the 2nd cent. (cf. Zeller, Philos. d. 
 I Gt. v. 198 f.) ; while the plurality of souls is 
 ' derided by Clement as making the body a 
 ; Trojan horse, with apparent reference (as 
 1 Saiunaise points out, on Simplic. Epict. 164) 
 I to a similar criticism of Plato in the Theaetetus 
 I (184 d). .\nd again Plutarch (de Co mm. Xot. 
 I 45, p. 1084) ridicules the Stoics (i.e. appar- 
 ' ently Chrysippus) for a " strange and out- 
 I landish " notion that all virtues and vices, 
 ; arts and memories, impressions afid passions 
 ' and impulses and assents (he adds further 
 I down even " acts," ivepyeia^. such as " walk- 
 I ing, dancing, supposing, addressing, reviling ") 
 ■ are not merely " bodies " (of course in the 
 ! familiar Stoic sense) but living creatures or 
 ; animals (^'.iia), crowded apparently round the 
 ; central point within the heart where " the 
 I ruling principle " (t6 ■IjyffxoviKdi') is located : 
 , by this " swarm," he says, of hostile animals 
 j they turn each one of us into " a paddock or 
 I a stable, or a Trojan horse." Such a theory 
 I might seem to Basilides an easy deduction 
 1 from his fatalistic doctrine of Providence, and 
 I of the consequent immutability of all natures. 
 I The only specimen which we have of the 
 ; practical ethics of Basilides is of a favourable 
 , kind, though grossly misunderstood and mis- 
 '. applied by Epiphanius (i. 211 f.). Reciting 
 
 the views of difierent heretics on Marriage, 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 100 
 
 Clement [Strom, iii. 508 ff.) mentions first its 
 approval by the V'alentinians, and then gives 
 s|)ecinuMis of the teaching of Basilides (oi dirb 
 B.) and his son Isidore, by way of rebuke to the 
 immorality of the later Basilidians, before 
 proceeding to the sects which favoured licence, 
 and to those which treated marriage as unholy. 
 He first reports the exposition of Matt. xix. 
 II f. (or a similar evangelic passage), in which 
 there is nothing specially to note except the 
 interpretation of the last class of eunuchs as 
 those who remain in celibacy to avoid the 
 distracting cares of providing a livelihood. 
 He goes on to the paraphrase of I. Cor. vii. 9, 
 interposing in the midst an illustrative sen- 
 tence from Isidore, and transcribes the language 
 used about the class above mentioned. " But 
 suppose a young man either poor or (?) de- 
 pressed [var77</)77s seems at least less unlikely 
 than KaTiofeprii], and in accordance with the 
 .-ord [in the Gospel] unwilling to marry, let 
 iiim not separate from his brother ; let him say 
 I have entered into the holy place [rd dyia, 
 probably the communion of the church], 
 nothing can befall me ' ; but if he have a 
 suspicion [? self-distrust, virovolav ?xv\, l*^t him 
 say, ' Brother, lay thy hand on nie, that I 
 may sin not,' and he shall receive help both 
 to mind and to senses (i>or)TT]v koI a.l(jdr)Ti)v) ; 
 let him only have the will to carry out com- 
 pletely what is good, and he shall succeed. 
 But sometimes we say with the lips, ' We will 
 not sin,' while our thoughts are turned towards 
 sinning : such an one abstains by reason of 
 fear from doing what he wills, lest the punish- 
 ment be reckoned to his account. But the 
 estate of mankind has only certain things at 
 once necessary and natural, clothing being 
 necessary and natural, but rd tGiv a((>po5iaiuiv 
 natural, yet not necessary " (cf. Plut. Mor. 
 989). 
 
 Although we have no evidence that Basil- 
 ides, like some others, regarded our Lord's 
 Baptism as the time when a Divine being first 
 was joined to Jesus of Nazareth, it seems clear 
 that he attached some unusual significance to 
 the event. " They of Basilides (ol awd B.)," 
 says Clement (Strom, i. 146, p. 408), " cele- 
 brate the day of His Baptism by a preliminary 
 night-service of [Scripture] readings (xpoSia- 
 vvKTfpeuovTes afayi/uifffji) ; and they say 
 that the ' fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar ' 
 (Luke iii. i) is (or means) the fifteenth day of 
 the [Egyptian] month Tybi, while some [make 
 the day] the eleventh of the same month." 
 Again it is briefly stated in the Excerpta (16, 
 p. 972) that the dove of the Baptism is said 
 by the Basilidians [ol airb U. ) to be the Minister 
 (6 budKovos). And the same association is 
 implied in what Clement urges elsewhere 
 (Strom, ii. p. 449) : " If ignorance belongs to 
 the class of good things, why is it brought to 
 an end by amazement [i.e. the amazement of 
 the Archon], and [so] the Minister that they 
 speak of [ai'/roij] is superfluous, and the Pro- 
 clamation, and the Baptism : if ignorance had 
 not previously existed, the Minister would not 
 have descended, nor would amazement have 
 seized the Archon, as they themselves say." 
 This language, taken in conjunction with 
 passages already cited from Hippolytus (c. 26), 
 implies that Basilides regarded the Baptism 
 
no 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 as the occasion when Jesus received " the and perceiving that at that time everything 
 Gospel " by a Divine illumination. The sup- was preoccupied, decided to maintain that 
 posed descent of " Christ " for union with I dualism which was likewise in favour with 
 " Jesus," though constantly assumed by I Scythianus," named shortly before (c. 51, 
 Hilgenfeld, is as destitute of ancient attesta- I p. 186) as a contemporary of the Apostles, who 
 tion as it is inconsistent with the tenor of 1 had introduced dualism from a Pythagorean 
 Basilidian doctrine recorded by Clement, to | source. " Finally, as he had no assertion to 
 say nothing of Hippolytus. It has been ar- 1 make of his own, he adopted the sayings of 
 gued from Clement's language by Gieseler (in j others " (the last words are corrupt, but this 
 the Halle A.L.Z. for 1823, i. 836 f. ; cf. K.G. j must be nearly the sense). " And all his 
 i. I. 186), that the Basilidians were the first | books contain things difficult and rugged.' ' 
 to celebrate our Lord's Baptism. The early j The wTiter then cites the beginning of the 
 history of the Epiphany is too obscure to thirteenth book of his treatises (/mrta/Hwm), in 
 allow a definite conclusion on this point ; but ' which it was said that " the saving word " (the 
 the statement about the Basilidian services 1 Gospel) by means of the parable of the rich 
 of the preceding night receives some illustra- ' man and the poor man pointed out the source 
 tion from a passage of Epiphanius, lately : from which nature (or a nature) without a root 
 published from the Venice MS. ii. 483 Dind. : \ and without a place germinated and extended 
 iii. 632 Oehler), in which we hear of the night ; itself over things (rebus supervenientem, unde 
 before the Epiphany as spent in singing and pullulaverit). He breaks off a few words later 
 flute-playing in a heathen temple at Alex- ' and adds that after some 500 lines Basilides 
 andria : so that probably the Basilidian rite , invites his reader to abandon idle and curious 
 was a modification of an old local custom, elaborateness (varietate), and to investigate 
 According to Agrippa Castor (Eus. I.e.) Basil- ; rather the studies and opinions of barbarians 
 ides " in Pythagorean fashion " prescribed a ' on good and evil. Certain of them, Basilides 
 
 silence of five years to his disciples. 
 
 The same author, we hear, stated that 
 
 states, said that there are two beginnings of all 
 things, light and darkness ; and he subjoins 
 
 Basilides " named as prophets to himself some particulars of doctrine of a Persian cast. 
 Barcabbas and Barcoph, providing himself 1 Only one set of views, however, is mentioned, 
 likewise with certain other [? prophets] who : and the Acts end abruptly here in the two 
 had no existence, and that he bestowed upon | known MSS. of the Latin version in which 
 them barbarous appellations to strike amaze- | alone this part of them is extant, 
 ment into those who have an awe of such ! It is generally assumed that we have here 
 things." The alleged prophecies apparently j unimpeachable evidence for the strict dualism 
 belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian of Basilides. It seems certain that the writer 
 literature popular with various Gnostics. I of the Acts held his Basilides responsible for 
 
 From Hippolytus we hear nothing about j the barbarian opinions quoted, which are 
 these prophecies, which will meet us again clearly dualistic, and he had the whole book 
 presently with reference to Basilides's son before him. Yet his language on this point is 
 Isidore, but he tells us {Haer. vii. 20) that, loose, as if he were not sure of his ground ; 
 according to Basilides and Isidore, Matthias and the quotation which he gives by no means 
 spoke to them mystical doctrines (Xoyovs bears him out : while it is quite conceivable 
 diroKpiKpovs) which he heard in private teach- that he may have had some acquaintance with 
 ing from the Saviour : and in like manner I dualistic Basilidians of a later day, such as 
 Clement {Strom, vii. 900) speaks of the sect of ! certainly existed, and have thus given a vvTong 
 Basilides as boasting that they took to them- i interpretation to genuine words of their 
 selves the glory of Matthias. Origen also ! master (cf. Uhlhorn, 52 f-)- It assuredly 
 {Horn, in Luc. i. t. iii. p. 933) and after him requires considerable straining to draw the 
 Eusebius refer to a " Gospel " of or according i brief interpretation given of the parable to a 
 to Matthias {H. E. iii. 25, 6). The true name Manichean position, and there is nothing to 
 was apparently the Traditions of Matthias : shew that the author of it himself adopted the 
 three interesting and by no means heretical first set of " barbarian " opinions which he re- 
 extracts are given by Clement [Strom, ii. 452 ; I ported. Indeed the description of evil (for evil 
 iii- 523 [copied by Eusebius, H. E. iii. 29. ' doubtless is intended) as a supervenient nature, 
 4] ; vii. 882). In the last extract the respon- j without root and without place, reads almost 
 sibility laid on " the elect " for the sin of I as if it were directed against Persian doctrine, 
 a neighbour recalls a passage already cited ; and may be fairly interpreted by Basilides's 
 (p. 275 b) from Basilides. j comparison of pain and fear to the rust of 
 
 It remains only to notice an apparent , iron as natural accidents (f7ricru/x,3a/vet)- The 
 reference to Basilides, which has played a \ identity of the Basilides of the Acts with the 
 considerable part m modern expositions of his Alexandrian has been denied by Gieseler with 
 doctrme. Near the end of the anonymous ' some shew of reason. It is at least strange 
 Acts of the Disputation between Archelaus and that our Basilides should be described simply 
 Mam, wTitten towards the close of the 3rd ; as a " preacher among the Persians," a 
 cent, or a little later, Archelaus disputes the i character in which he is otherwise unknown ; 
 originality of Mani's teaching, on the ground and all the more since he has been previously 
 that It took rise a long time before with " a I mentioned with Marcion and Valentinus as a 
 certam barbarian " (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. , heretic of familiar name (c. 38, p. 138). On 
 Sac. V. 196 ff.). " There was also," he says, the other hand, it has been justly urged that 
 a preacher among the Persians, a certain the two passages are addressed to different 
 Basihdes of great [or ' greater,' antiuqior] | persons. The correspondence is likewise 
 antiquity, not long after the times of our remarkable between the " treatises " in at 
 Apostles, who bemg himself also a crafty man, I least thirteen books, with an interpretation of 
 

 BASILIDES 
 
 6ASILID£S 
 
 111 
 
 a parable among their contents, and the 
 twenty-four books on the Gospel" mentioned 
 by Agrippa Castor, called Exegelica by 
 Clement. Tlius the evidence for the identity 
 of the two writers may on the whole be treated 
 as preponderating. But the ambiguity of 
 interpretation remains ; and it would be im- 
 possible to rank Basilides confidently among 
 dualists, even if the passage in the Acts stood 
 alone : much more to use it as a stand;xrd by 
 which to force a dualistic interpretation upon 
 other clearer statements of his doctrine. 
 
 Gnosticism was throughout eclectic, and 
 Basilides superadded an eclecticism of his own. 
 Antecedent Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and 
 the Christian faith and Scriptures all exercised 
 a powerful and immediate influence over his 
 mind. It is evident at a glance that his 
 system is far removed from any known form of 
 Syrian or original Gnosticism. Like that of 
 Valentinus, it has been remoulded in a (.ireek 
 spirit, but much more completely. Historical 
 records fail us almost entirely as to the per- 
 sonal relations of the great heresiarchs ; yet 
 internal evidence furnishes some indications 
 which it can hardly be rash to trust. Ancient 
 writers usually name Basilides before Valen- 
 tinus ; but there is little doubt that they were 
 at least approximately contemporaries, and it 
 is not unlikely that Valentinus was best 
 known personally from his sojourn at Rome, 
 which was probably (Lipsius, Quellen d. alt. 
 Ketzergeschichte. 256) the last of the recorded 
 stages of his life. There is at all events no 
 serious chronological difficulty in supposing 
 that the Valentinian system was the starting- 
 point from which Basilides proceeded to con- 
 struct by contrast his own theory, and this is 
 the view which a comparison of doctrines 
 suggests. In no point, unless it be the reten- 
 tion of the widely spread term archon, is 
 Basilides nearer than Valentinus to the older 
 Gnosticism, while several leading Gnostic 
 forms or ideas which he discards or even re- 
 pudiates are held fast by Valentinus. Such 
 are descent from above (see a passage at the 
 end of c. 22, and p. 272 b, above), putting 
 forth or pullulation (imperfect renderings of 
 TpoSoXri, see p. 271 b), syzygies of male and 
 female powers, and the deposition of faith to 
 a lower level than knowledge. Further, the 
 unique name given by Basilides to the Holy 
 Spirit, " the Limitary {fxeOopwu) Spirit," to- 
 gether with the place assigned to it, can hardly 
 be anything else than a transformation of the 
 strange Valentinian " Limit " (o/jos), which 
 in like manner divides the Pleroma from the 
 lower world ; though, in conformity with the 
 unifying purpose of Basilides, the Limitary 
 Spirit is conceived as connecting as well as 
 parting the two worlds (cf. Baur in Theol. 
 Jahrb. for 1856, 156 f.). The same softening of 
 oppositions which retain much of their force 
 even with Valentinus shews itself in other 
 instances, as of matter and spirit, creation 
 and redemption, the Jewish age and the 
 Christian age, the earthly and the heavenly 
 elements in the Person of our Lord. The 
 strongest impulse in this direction probably 
 came from Christian ideas and the power of a 
 true though disguised Christian faith. But 
 Greek speculative Stoicism tended likewise to 
 break down the inherited dualism, while at 
 
 the same time its own inherent limitations 
 brought faith into captivity. An antecedent 
 matter was expressly repudiated, the words 
 of Gen. i. 3 eagerly appropriated, and a 
 Divine counsel represented as foreordaining all 
 future growths and processes ; yet the chaotic 
 nullity out of which the developed universe 
 was to spring was attributed with equal bold- 
 ness to its Maker : Creator and creation were 
 not confused, but they melted away in the 
 distance together. Nature was accepted not 
 only as prescribing the conditions of the lower 
 life, but as practically the supreme and per- 
 manent arbiter of destiny. Thus though faith 
 regained its rights, it remained an energy of 
 the understanding, confined to those who 
 had the requisite inborn capacity ; while the 
 dealings of God with man were shut up within 
 the lines of mechanical justice. The majestic 
 and, so to speak, pathetic view bounded by 
 the large Basilidian horizon was well fitted to 
 inspire dreams of a high and comprehensive 
 theology, but the very fidelity with which 
 Basilides strove to cling to reality must have 
 soon brought to light the incompetence of his 
 teaching to solve any of the great problems. 
 Its true office consisted in supplying one of the 
 indispensable antecedents to the Alexandrian 
 Catholicism which arose two generations later. 
 V. i?<?/i</aho«s.— Notwithstanding the wide 
 and lasting fame of Basilides as a typical 
 heresiarch, no treatise is recorded as written 
 specially in confutation of his teaching except 
 that of Agrippa Castor. He had of course a 
 place in the various works against all heresies ; 
 but, as we have seen, the doctrines described 
 and criticized in several of them belong not to 
 him but to a sect of almost wholly different 
 character. Hippolytus, who in later years 
 became acquainted with the Exegetica, con- 
 tented himself with detecting imaginary 
 plagiarisms from Aristotle (vii. 14-20). Even 
 Origen, who likewise seems to have known 
 the work (if we may judge by the quotation 
 on metempsychosis given at p. 275, and by 
 a complaint of " long-winded fabling," aut 
 Basilidis longam fabulositatem : Com. in 
 Matt. xxiv. 23, p. 864 Ru.), shews in the few 
 casual remarks in his extant writings little real 
 understanding even of Basilides's errors. On 
 the other hand, Clement's candid intelligence 
 enables him to detect the latent flaws of 
 principle in the BasiUdian theory without 
 mocking at such of the superficial details as he 
 has occasion to mention. Hilgenfeld, writing 
 (1848) on the pseudo-Clementine literature, 
 made a singular attempt to shew that in one 
 early recension of the materials of part of the 
 Recognitions Simon was made to utter Basil- 
 idian doctrine, to be refuted by St. Peter, the 
 traces of which had been partly effaced by 
 his becoming the mouthpiece of other Gnostics 
 in later recensions. Ritschl took the same 
 view in the first ed. of his Entstehung d. altkath. 
 Kirche (1850, pp. 169-174) ; but the whole 
 speculation vanishes in his far maturer second 
 ed. of 1857. The theory lacks even plausi- 
 bility. The only resemblances between this 
 part of the Recognitions and either the true or 
 the spurious Basilidianism are common to 
 various forms of religious belief ; and not a 
 single distinctive feature of either Basilidian 
 system occurs in the Recognitions. A brief but 
 
112 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 sufficient reply is given in Uhlhorn's Mom. u. 
 Recog. d. Clem. Rom. 1854, pp. 286 ff. 
 
 VI. Isodorus.- — In the passage already 
 noticed (Haer. vii. 20) Hippolytus couples 
 with Basilides " his true child and disciple " 
 Isidore. He is there referring to the use 
 which they made of the Traditions of Matthias ; 
 but in the next sentence he treats them as 
 jointly responsible for the doctrines which he 
 recites. Our only other authority respecting 
 Isidore is Clement (copied by Theodoret), who 
 calls him in like manner " at once son and 
 disciple " of Basilides {Strom, vi. 767). In 
 this place he gives three extracts from the 
 first and second books of Isidore's Expositions 
 ('E|7;77)T{/cd) of the Prophet Parchor. They are 
 all parts of a plea, like so many put forward 
 after the example of Josephus against Apion, 
 that the higher thoughts of heathen philo- 
 sophers and mythologers were derived from a 
 Jewish source. The last reference given is to 
 Pherecydes, who had probably a peculiar 
 interest for Isidore as the earliest promulgator 
 of the doctrine of metempsychosis known to 
 tradition (cf. Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, i. 
 55 f. ed. 3I. His allegation that Pherecydes 
 followed the prophecy of Ham" has been 
 perversely urged as a sign that he set up the 
 prophets of a hated race against the prophets 
 of Israel. The truth is rather that the 
 identification of Zoroaster with Ham or Ham's 
 son, whatever may have been its origin, 
 rendered it easy to claim for the apocryphal 
 Zoroastrian books a quasi-biblical sanctity 
 as proceeding from a son of Noah, and that 
 Isidore gladly accepted the theory as evidence 
 for his argument. " The prophets " from 
 whom " some of the philosophers " appro- 
 priated a wisdom not their own can be no other 
 than the Jewish prophets. Again Clement 
 quotes his book On an Adherent Soul (Ilepi 
 irpoaipvovs ^i'l'X'ls) in correction of his preced- 
 ing quotation from Basilides on the passions 
 as "appendages" (Strom, ii. 488). If the 
 eight lines transcribed are a fair sample of the 
 treatise, Isidore would certainly appear to 
 have argued here against his father's teaching. 
 He insists on the unity {fxovo/j.€p-qs) of the 
 soul, and maintains that bad men will find 
 " no common excuse" in the violence of the 
 " appendages " for pleading that their evil 
 acts were involuntary : our duty is, he says, 
 " by overcoming the inferior creation within 
 us {Tjjs eXcLTTovos if rifuv /criVews) through 
 the reasoning faculty (rep Xovtcrrivcfi), to shew 
 ourselves to have the mastery." A third 
 passage from Isidore's Ethics {Strom, iii. 510) 
 is intercalated into his father's argument on 
 I. Cor. vii. 9, to the same purport but in a 
 coarser strain. Its apparent diificulty arises 
 partly from a corrupt reading {avTexoi' iJ.axifJ.ijs 
 yi'vaiKOS, where ya/xerTJi must doubtless be 
 substituted for /uaxi/J-vs. clvt^xov meaning not 
 " resist," which would be djrexf. ^s in the 
 preceding line, but " have recoxirse to ") ; 
 partly from the assumption that the following 
 words orav Si k.t.X. are likewise by Isidore, 
 whereas the sense shews them to be a con- 
 tinuation of the exposition of Basilides himself. 
 Basilides had to all appearance no eminent 
 disciple except his own son. In this respect 
 the contrast between him and Valentinus is 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 remarkable. A succession of brilliant fol- 
 lowers carried forward and developed the 
 Valentinian doctrine. It is a singular testi- 
 mony to the impression created at the outset 
 by Basilides and his system that he remained 
 for centuries one of the eponymi of heresy ; 
 his name is oftener repeated, for instance, in 
 the writings of Origen, than that of any other 
 dreaded of the ante-Nicene church except 
 Marcion, Valentinus, and afterwards Mani. 
 But the original teaching, for all its impressive- 
 ness, had no vitality. The Basilidianism 
 which did survive, and that, as far as the 
 evidence goes, only locally, was, as we have 
 seen, a poor and corrupt remnant, adulterated 
 with the very elements which the founder 
 had strenuously rejected. 
 
 VII. The Spurious Basilidian System. — In 
 briefly sketching this degenerate Basilidianism 
 it will seldom be needful to distinguish the 
 authorities, which are fundamentally two, 
 Irenaeus (loi f.) and the lost early treatise of 
 Hippolytus ; both having much in common, 
 and both being interwoven together in the 
 report of Epiphanius (pp. 68-75). The other 
 relics of the Hippolytean Compendium are the 
 accounts of Philaster (32), and the supplement 
 to Tertullian (4). At the head of this theology 
 stood the Unbegotten (neuter in Epiph.), the 
 Only Father. From Him was born or put 
 forth Nus, and from Nus Logos, from Logos 
 Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dyna- 
 mis, from Sophia and Dynamis principalities, 
 powers, and angels. This first set of angels 
 first made the first heaven, and then gave 
 birth to a second set of angels who made a 
 second heaven, and so on till 365 heavens had 
 been made by 365 generations of angels, each 
 heaven being apparently ruled by an Archon 
 to whom a name was given, and these names 
 being used in magic arts. The angels of the 
 lowest or visible heaven made the earth and 
 man. They were the authors of the pro- 
 phecies ; and the Law in particular was given 
 by their Archon, the God of the Jews. He 
 being more petulant and wilful than the other 
 angels {ira/j.u>Ttpov Kai avdabeartpov)^ in his 
 desire to secure empire for his people, pro- 
 voked the rebellion of the other angels and 
 their respective peoples. Then the Unbegotten 
 and Innominable Father, seeing what discord 
 prevailed among men and among angels, and 
 how the Jews were perishing, sent His First- 
 born Nus, Who is Christ, to deliver those Who 
 believed on Him from the power of the makers 
 of the world. " He," the Basilidians said, 
 " is our salvation, even He Who came and 
 revealed to us alone this truth." He accord- 
 ingly appeared on earth and performed mighty 
 works ; but His appearance was only in out- 
 ward show, and He did not really take flesh. 
 It was Simon of C>Tene that was crucified ; 
 for Jesus exchanged forms with him on the 
 way, and then, standing unseen opposite in 
 Simon's form, mocked those who did the deed. 
 But He Himself ascended into heaven, passing 
 through all the powers, till He was restored 
 to the presence of His own Father. The 
 two fullest accounts, those of Irenaeus and 
 Epiphanius, add by way of appendix another 
 particular of the antecedent mythology ; a 
 short notice on the same subject being like- 
 wise inserted parenthetically by Hippolytus 
 
BASILIDES 
 
 (vii. 26, p. 240 : cf. Uhlhorn, D. Basilid. 
 Syst. 63 f.)- The supreme power and source 
 .f being above all principalities and powers 
 .md angels (such is evidently the reference 
 I'f Epiphanius's avrQv : Irenacus substitutes 
 " heavens," which in tliis connexion comes 
 to much the same thing) is Abrasax, the 
 dreek letters of whose name added together 
 as numerals make up 365, the number of the 
 heavens ; whence, they apparently said, the 
 year has 365 days, and the human body 365 
 members. This supreme Power they called 
 ■'the Cause" and "the First Archetype," 
 while they treated as a last or weakest product 
 .Hysteretim, a \'alentinian term, contrasted 
 with Pleronui) this present world as the work 
 of the last Archon (Epiph. 74 a). It is evident 
 from these particulars that Abrasax was the 
 name of the first of the 365 Archons, and 
 accordingly stood below Sophia and Dynamis 
 and their progenitors ; but his position is not 
 expressly stated, so that the writer of the 
 supplement to Tertullian had some excuse for 
 L<infusing him with " the Supreme God." 
 
 On these doctrines various precepts are 
 said to have been founded. The most dis- 
 tinctive is the discouragement of martyrdom, 
 which was made to rest on several grounds. 
 To confess the Crucified was called a token 
 "f being still in bondage to the makers of the 
 li>Kly {nay, he that denied the Crucified was 
 pronounced to be free from the dominion of 
 those angels, and to know the economy of the 
 Unbegotten Father) ; but it was condemned 
 especially as a vain and ignorant honour paid 
 not to Christ, Who neither suffered nor was 
 crucified, but to Simon of Cyrene ; and 
 further, a public confession before men was 
 stigmatized as a giving of that which is holy 
 to the dogs and a casting of pearls before 
 swine. This last precept is but one expression 
 of the secrecy which the Basilidians diligently 
 cultivated, following naturally on the supposed 
 possession of a hidden knowledge. They 
 evaded our Lord's words, " Him that denieth 
 Me before men," etc., by pleading, " We are 
 the men, and all others are swine and dogs." 
 He who had learned their lore and known all 
 angels and their powers was said to become 
 invisible and incomprehensible to all angels 
 and powers, even as also Caulacau was (the 
 sentence in which Irenaeus, our sole authority 
 here, first introduces Caulacau, a name not 
 peculiar to the Basilidians, is unfortunately 
 corrupt). And as the Son was unknown to 
 all, so also, the tradition ran, must members 
 of their community be known to none ; but 
 while they know all and pass through the 
 midst of all, remain invisible and unknown 
 to all, observing the maxim, " Do thou know 
 all, but let no one know thee." Accordingly 
 they must be ready to utter denials and un- 
 willing to suffer for the Name, since [to out- 
 ward appearance] they resembled all. It 
 naturally followed that their mysteries were 
 to be carefully guarded, and disclosed to 
 " only one out of 1000 and two out of 10,000." 
 When Philaster (doubtless after Hippolytus) 
 tells us in his first sentence about Basilides 
 that he was " called by many a heresiarch, 
 because he violated the laws of Christian truth 
 by making an outward show and discourse 
 (proponendo et loquendo) concerning the Law 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 11:1 
 
 and the Prophets and the Apostles, but 
 believing otherwise," the reference is probably 
 to this contrast between the outward confor- 
 mity of the sect and their secret doctrines and 
 practices. The Basilidians considered them- 
 selves to be no longer Jews, but to have be- 
 come more than Christians (such seems to 
 be the sense of the obscure phrase \pi<rTiavovi 
 5k fxr)K(TL yeyev i^ffOai, for the nondum of the 
 translator of Irenaeus can hardly be right). 
 Repudiation of martyrdom was naturally 
 accompanied by indiscriminate use of things 
 offered to idols. Nay, the principle of in- 
 difference is said to have been carried so far 
 as to sanction promiscuous immorality. In 
 this and other respects our accounts may 
 possibly contain exaggerations ; but Clement's 
 already cited complaint of the flagrant de- 
 generacy in his time from the high standard 
 set up by Basilides himself is unsuspicious 
 evidence, and a libertine code of ethics would 
 find an easy justification in such maxims as 
 are imputed to the Basilidians. It is hardly 
 necessary to add that they expected the 
 salvation of the soul alone, insisting on the 
 natural corruptibility of the body. They 
 indulged in magic and invocations, " and all 
 other curious arts." A wrong reading taken 
 from the inferior MSS. of Irenaeus has added 
 the further statement that they used " im- 
 ages " ; and this single spurious word is often 
 cited in corroboration of the popular belief 
 that the numerous ancient gems on which 
 grotesque mythological combinations are 
 accompanied by the mystic name ABPAZASJ 
 were of Basilidian origin. It is shewn in 
 D. C. B. (4-V0I. ed.), art. Abrasax, where 
 Lardner (Hist, of Heretics, ii. 14-28) should 
 have been named with Beausobre, that there 
 is no tangible evidence for attributing any 
 known gems to Basilidianism or any other 
 form of Gnosticism, and that in all probability 
 the Basilidians and the heathen engravers of 
 gems alike borrowed the name from some 
 Semitic mythology. 
 
 Imperfect and distorted as the picture may 
 be, such was doubtless in substance the creed 
 of Basilidians not half a century after Basilides 
 had written. Were the name absent from 
 the records of his system and theirs, no one 
 would have suspected any relationship be- 
 tween them, much less imagined that they 
 belonged respectively to master and to dis- 
 ciples. Outward mechanism and inward 
 principles are alike full of contrasts ; no 
 attempts of critics to trace correspondences 
 between the mythological personages, and to 
 explain them by supposed condensations or 
 mutilations, have attained even plausibility. 
 Two misunderstandings have been specially 
 misleading. Abrasax, the chief or Archon of 
 the first set of angels, has been confounded 
 with " the Unbegotten Father," and the God 
 of the Jews, the Archon of the lowest heaven, 
 has been assumed to be the only Archon re- 
 cognized by the later Basilidians, though 
 Epiphanius (69 B.C.) distinctly implies that 
 each of the 365 heavens had its Archon. The 
 mere name " Archon " is common to most 
 forms of Gnosticism. So again, because 
 Clement tells us that Righteousness and her 
 daughter Peace abide in substantive being 
 within the Ogdoad, " the Unbegotten Father " 
 
114 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 and the five grades or forms of creative mind 
 wtiich intervene between Him and the creator- 
 angels are added in to make up an Ogdoad, 
 though none is recorded as acknowledged by 
 the disciples : a combination so arbitrary and 
 so incongruous needs no refutation. On the 
 other hand, those five abstract names have 
 an air of true Basilidian Hellenism, and the 
 two systems possess at least one negative 
 feature in common, the absence of syzygies 
 and of all imagery connected directly with 
 sex. On their ethical side the connexion 
 is discerned with less difficulty. The con- 
 tempt for martyrdom, which was perhaps the 
 most notorious characteristic of the Basil- 
 idians, would find a ready excuse in their 
 master's speculative paradox about martyrs, 
 even if he did not discourage martyrdom 
 himself. The silence of five years which he 
 imposed on novices might easily degenerate 
 into the perilous dissimulation of a secret 
 sect, while their exclusiveness would be nour- 
 ished by his doctrine of the Election ; and 
 the same doctrine might further after a while 
 receive an antinomian interpretation. The 
 nature of the contrast of principle in the 
 theological part of the two creeds suggests 
 how so great a change may have arisen. The 
 system of Basilides was a high-pitched philo- 
 sophical speculation, entirely unfitted to exer- 
 cise popular influence, and transporting its 
 adherents to a region remote from the sym- 
 pathies of men imbued with the old Gnostic 
 phantasies, while it was too artificial a 
 compound to attract heathens or Catholic 
 Christians. The power of mind and character 
 which the remains of his writings disclose might 
 easily gather round him in the first instance 
 a crowd who, though they could enter into 
 portions only of his teaching, might remain 
 detached from other Gnostics, and yet in their 
 theology relapse into " the broad highway of 
 vulgar Gnosticism " (Baur in the Tiibingen 
 Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, pp. 158 f.), and make 
 for themselves out of its elements, whether for- 
 tuitously or by the skill of some now forgotten 
 leader, a new mythological combination. In 
 this manner evolution from below might once 
 more give place to emanation from above, 
 Docetism might again sever heaven and earth, 
 and a loose practical dualism (of the pro- 
 founder speculative dualism of the East there 
 is no trace) might supersede all that Basilides 
 had taught as to the painful processes by which 
 sonship attains its perfection. The composite 
 character of the secondary Basilidianism may 
 be seen at a glance in the combination of the 
 five Greek abstractions preparatory to creation 
 with the Semitic hosts of creative angels bear- 
 ing barbaric names. Basilidianism seems to 
 have stood alone in appropriating Abrasax ; 
 but Caulacau plays a part in more than one 
 system, and the functions of the angels recur 
 in various forms of Gnosticism, and especially 
 in that derived from Saturnilus. Saturnilus 
 likewise affords a parallel in the character 
 assigned to the God of the Jew as an angel, 
 and partly in the reason assigned for the 
 Saviour's mission ; while the Antitactae of 
 Clement recall the resistance to the God of 
 the J ews inculcated by the Basilidians. Other 
 " Basilidian " features appear in the Pistis 
 Sophia, viz. many barbaric names of angels 
 
 BASILIDES 
 
 (with 365 Archons, p. 364), and elaborate 
 collocations of heavens, and a numerical image 
 taken from Deut. xxxii. 30 (p. 354). The 
 Basilidian Simon of CyTene is apparently 
 unique. 
 
 VIII. History of the Basilidian Sect. — There 
 is no evidence that the sect extended itselt 
 beyond Egypt ; but there it survived for a long 
 time. Epiphanius (about 375) mentions tht 
 Prosopite, Athribite, Saite, and " Alexandrio- 
 polite " (read Andropolite) nomes or cantons, 
 and also Alexandria itself, as the places in 
 which it still throve in his time, and which he 
 accordingly inferred to have been visited by 
 Basilides (68 c). All these places lie on the 
 western side of the Delta, between Memphis 
 and the sea. Nearer the end of cent. iv. 
 Jerome often refers to Basilides in connexion 
 with the hybrid Priscillianism of Spain, and the 
 mystic names in which its votaries delighted. 
 According to Sulpicius Severus {Chron. ii. 46) 
 this heresy took its rise in " the East and 
 Egypt " ; but, he adds, it is not easy to say 
 " what the beginnings were out of which it 
 there grew " [quibus ibi initiis coaluerit). He 
 states, however, that it was first brought to 
 Spain by Marcus, a native of Memphis. 
 This fact explains how the name of Basilides 
 and some dregs of his disciples' doctrines or 
 practices found their way to so distant a land 
 as Spain, and at the same time illustrates the 
 probable hybrid origin of the secondary Basil- 
 idianism itself. 
 
 IX. Litemture.—Basihdes of course occupies 
 a prominent place in every treatise on Gnosti- 
 cism, such a? those of Neander (including the 
 Church History), Baur (the same), Lipsius, 
 and MoUer (Geschichte der Kosmologie in der 
 Christlichen Kirche). Two reviews by Gieseler 
 {Halle A. L. Z. for 1823, pp. 335-338 ; Studien 
 u. Kritiken for 1830, pp. 395fl-) containvaluable 
 matter. The best monograph founded on 
 the whole evidence is that of Uhlhorn [Das 
 Basilidianische System, Gottingen, 1855), 
 with which should be read an essay by Baur 
 (Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, pp. 121-162) ; Jacobi's 
 monograph (Basilidis Philosophi Gnostici 
 Sententius, etc., Berlin 1852) being also good. 
 Able expositions of the view that the true 
 doctrine of Basilides is not represented in 
 the larger work of Hippolytus Against all 
 Heresies will be found in a paper by Hilgenfeld, 
 to which Baur's article in reply is appended 
 (pp. 86-121), with scattered notices in other 
 articles of his (especially in his Zeitschrift for 
 1862, pp. 452 ff.) ; and in Lipsius's Gnosticis- 
 mus. Three articles by Gundert {Zeitschfift 
 f. d. Luth. Theol. for 1855, 209 ff., and 1856, 
 37 ff., 443 ff.) are of less importance. The 
 lecture on Basilides in Dr. Manscl's post- 
 humous book on The Gnostic Heresies is able 
 and independent and makes full use of the 
 best German criticisms, but underrates the 
 influence of Stoical conceptions on Basilides, 
 and exaggerates that of Platonism ; and after 
 the example of Baur's Christliche Gnosis in 
 respect of Gnosticism generally, though 
 starting from an opposite point of view, it 
 suffers from an effort to find in Basilides a 
 precursor of Hegel. Cf. Harnack, Gesch. Alt. 
 Chr. Lit. 1893, pp. 157-161 ; Th. Zahn, Gesch. 
 des N. T. Kanon (1888-1889), i. 763-774; J- 
 Kennedy, " Buddhist Gnosticism : the System 
 
BASIUSCUS 
 
 of Basilides " (Lond. 1902, Journal of the Royal 
 Asiatic Society). [11.] 
 
 Basiliscus, martyr, bp. of Comana, martyred 
 with Lucianus at Nicomedia under Maxiinin, 
 A.D. 312 (Pallad. Dial, tie V. St. Chrys. xi., 
 misreading, however, Maxiniian for Maximin). 
 St. Chrysc^stom, when exiled, was received 
 upon his journey in a " mart>Tium," built 
 some five or six miles out of Comana in 
 memory of Basiliscus, and there died and was 
 buried (Theod. H. E. v. 30; Soz. viii. 28; 
 Pallad. as above ; Niceph. xiii. 37). Basiliscus 
 is said to have been shod with iron shoes, red 
 hot, and then beheaded and thrown into the 
 river {.Me)wl. in Baron. May 22). [a.w.h.] 
 
 Basilius of Ancyra {BaaiXeios, also called 
 Basilas. Socr. ii. 42), a native of Ancyra, 
 cirigiiially a physician (Hieron. de Vir. III. '89 ; 
 Suidas, S.V.), and subsequently bp. of that 
 city, A.D. 336-360, one of the most respectable 
 prelates of the semi-Arian party, whose essen- 
 tial orthodoxy was acknowledged by Athan- 
 asius himself, the differences between them 
 being regarded as those of language only 
 (Athan. de Synod, toni. i. pp. 915, 619, ed. 
 Morell, Paris, 1627). He was a man of learn- 
 ing, of intellectual power, and dialectical skill, 
 and maintained an unwavering consistency 
 which drew upon him the hostility of the 
 shifty Acacians and their time-serving leader. 
 The jealousy of Acacius was also excited by 
 the unbounded influence Basil at one time 
 exercised over the weak mind of Constantius, 
 and his untiring animosity worked Basil's over- 
 throw. On the deposition of Marcellus, the 
 aged bp. of Anc\Ta, by the Eusebian party, 
 on the charge of Sabellianism, at a synod 
 meeting at Constantinople, a.d. 336, Basil 
 was chosen bishop in his room. He enjoyed 
 the see undisturbed for eleven years ; but in 
 347, the council of Sardica, after the with- 
 drawal of the Eusebians to Philippopolis, 
 reinstated Marcellus, anrl excommunicated 
 Basil as " a wolf who had invaded the fold " 
 (Socr. ii. 20). Three years later, a.d. 350, 
 the Eusebians were again in the ascendant, 
 through the powerful patronage of Constan- 
 tius, and Basil was replaced in his see by the 
 express order of the emperor (Socr. ii. 26). 
 Basil speedily obtained a strong hold over 
 Constantius, who consulted him on all eccle- 
 siastical matters, and did nothing without his 
 cognizance. He and George of Laodicea 
 were now the recognized leaders of the semi- 
 Arian party (Epiph. Haer. Ixxiii. i). The 
 next year, a.d. 351, Basil took the chief part I 
 in the proceedings of the council that met at 
 Sirmium, where Constantius was residing, to 
 depose Photinus the pupil of Marcellus, who 
 was developing his master's views into direct 
 Sabellianism (ib. Ixxi. Ixxiii. ; Socr. ii. 30). j 
 Shortly after this we find him attacking with 
 equal vigour a heresy of an exactly opposite I 
 character, disputing with Aetius, the Ano- 
 moean, in conjunction with Eustathius of 
 Sebaste, another leader of the semi-Arian 
 party. The issue of the controversy is vari- 
 ously reported, according to the proclivities ! 
 of the historians. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. [ 
 16) asserts that Basil and Eustathius were 
 worsted by their antagonist ; orthodox writers 
 assign them the victory (Greg. Nys. in 
 Eunom. lib. i. pp. 289, 296). Basil's repre- I 
 
 BASILIUS OF ANCYRA 
 
 115 
 
 sentations of the abominable character of 
 Aetius's doctrines so exasperated Gallus 
 against him that he issued an order for his 
 execution ; but on having personal inter- 
 course with him pronounced him maligned, 
 and took him as his theological tutor. 
 [Aetius.1 Basil's influence increased, and 
 just before Easter, a.d. 338, when a number 
 of bishops had assembled at Ancyra for the 
 dedication of a new church that Basil had 
 built, Basil received letters from George of 
 Laodicea speaking with great alarm of the 
 spread of Anomoean doctrines, and entreating 
 him to avail himself of the opportunity to 
 obtain a synodical condemnation of Aetius 
 I and Eunomius. Other bishops were accord- 
 ingly summoned, and eighteen anathemas 
 were drawn up. Basil himself, with Eusta- 
 j thius and Eleusius, were deputed to commu- 
 ! nicate these anathemas to Constantius at Sir- 
 I mium. The deputies were received with much 
 i consideration by the emperor, who ratified 
 their synodical decrees and gave his authoritv 
 for their publication. Basil availed himself 
 ! of his influence over Constantius to induce him 
 to summon a general council for the final 
 settlement of the questions that had been so 
 long distracting the church. It was ultimate- 
 I ly decided to divide the council into two, and 
 j Ariminum was selected for the West, and 
 j Seleucia in Isauria for the East. The Eastern 
 council met, Sept. 27, 359. Basil did not 
 i arrive till the third day. He was soon made 
 aware that his influence with the emperor had 
 j been undermined by his Acacian rivals, and 
 that his power was gone. When he reproved 
 : Constantius for unduly favouring them, the 
 emperor bid him hold his peace, and charged 
 I him with being himself the cause of the dis- 
 sensions that were agitating the church 
 (Theod. ii. 27). At another synod convened 
 at Constantinople under the immediate super- 
 intendence of Constantius, Acacius found him- 
 self master of the situation and deposed whom 
 he would. Basil was one of the first to fall. 
 No doctrinal errors were charged against him. 
 He was condemned on frivolous and unproved 
 grounds, together with Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 Eustathius of Sebaste, and other leading pre- 
 lates. Banishment followed deposition. Basil 
 was exiled to Illyria (Soz. iv. 24 ; Philost. v. 
 i). On the accession of Jovian, a.d. 363, he 
 joined the other deposed bishops in petitioning 
 that emperor to expel the Anomoeans and 
 restore the rightful bishops ; but Basil seems 
 to have died in exile (Socr. iii. 25). 
 
 Athanasius speaks of his having written 
 Trepi TTicrrews (Athan. de Synod, u.s.). Ittigius 
 {de Haer. p. 453) defends him from the charge 
 of Arianism. Jerome identifies him, but un- 
 justly, with the Macedonian party (Tillemont, 
 vol. vi. passim). [e.v.] 
 
 Basilius of Ancyra, a presbyter who became 
 a martyr under Julian a.d. 362. During the 
 reign of Constantius he had been an uncom- 
 promising opponent of Arianism. He was 
 more than once apprehended by the provin- 
 cial governors, but recovered his liberty. The 
 Arian council under Eudoxius at Constanti- 
 nople in 360 forbade him to hold any eccle- 
 siastical assembly. The zeal of Basil was still 
 further quickened by the attempts of Julian 
 to suppress Christianity. Sozomen tells us 
 
Ill 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 that he visited the whole of the adjacent dis- 
 trict, entreating the Christians everywhere to 
 be constant to the faith and not to pollute 
 themselves with sacrifices to idols (Soz. H. E. 
 V. ii). He was apprehended and put to the 
 torture. On the arrival of Julian at Ancyra, 
 Basil was presented to him, and after having 
 reproached the emperor with his apostasy was 
 further tortured. Basil's constancy remained 
 unshaken, and after a second interview with 
 Julian, in which he treated the emperor with 
 the greatest contumely, he suffered death by 
 red-hot irons on June 29 (Soz. H. E. v. 11 ; 
 Ruinart, Act. Sine. Martyr, pp. 559 seq. ; 
 Tillemont, vii. 375 seq.). [e-v.] 
 
 Basilius, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
 commonly called Basil the Great, the 
 strenuous champion of orthodoxy in the East, 
 the restorer of union to the divided Oriental 
 church, and the promoter of unity between 
 the East and the West, was born at Caesarea 
 (originally called Maraca), the capital of Cap- 
 padocia, towards the end of 329. His parents 
 were members of noble and wealthy families, 
 and Christians by descent. His grandparents 
 on both sides had suffered during the Maxi- 
 minian persecution, his maternal grandfather 
 losing both property and life. Macrina, his 
 paternal grandmother, and her husband, were 
 compelled to leave their home in Pontus, of 
 which country they were natives, and to take 
 refuge among the woods and mountains of that 
 province, where they are reported to have 
 passed seven years (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 319). 
 [Macrina.] His father, whose name was also 
 Basil, was an advocate and teacher of rhetoric 
 whose learning and eloquence had brought 
 him a very large practice. Gregory Xazianzen 
 speaks of this elder Basil in terms of the 
 highest commendation as one who was re- 
 garded by the whole of Pontus as " the 
 common instructor of virtue " {Or. xx. p. 
 324). The elder Basil and Emmelia had ten 
 children, five of each sex, of whom a daughter, 
 Macrina, was the eldest. Basil the Great was 
 the eldest son ; two others, Gregory Nyssen 
 and Peter, attained the episcopate. Naucra- 
 tius the second son died a layman. Four of 
 the daughters were well and honourably 
 married. Macrina, the eldest, embraced a life 
 of devotion, and exercised a very powerful 
 influence over Basil and the other members 
 of the family. [Macrina, (2).] Basil was 
 indebted for the care of his earliest years to 
 his grandmother Macrina, who brought him 
 up at her country house, not far from Neo- 
 caesarea in the province of Pontus (Bas. Ep. 
 210, § i). The date of Basil's baptism is 
 uncertain, but, according to the prevalent cus- 
 tom, it was almost certainly deferred until he 
 reached man's estate. For the completion of 
 his education, Basil was sent by his father 
 first to his native city of Caesarea (Greg. Naz. 
 Or. xx. p. 325). From Caesarea he passed to 
 Constantinople (Bas. Epp. 335-359 ; Liban. 
 Vita, p. 15), and thence to Athens, where he 
 studied diuring the years 351-355, chiefly under 
 the Sophists Himerius and Prohaeresius. His 
 acquaintance with his fellow-student and 
 inseparable companion Gregory Nazianzen, 
 previously begun at Caesarea, speedily ripened 
 at Athens into an ardent friendship, which sub- 
 sisted with hardly any interruption through 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 the greater part of their lives. Athens also 
 afforded Basil the opportunity of familiar 
 intercourse with a fellow-student whose name 
 was destined to become unhappily famous, 
 the nephew of the emperor Constantius, 
 Julian. The future emperor conceived a 
 warm attachment for the young Cappado- 
 cian, with whom — as the latter reminds hiir. 
 when the relations between them had so sadly 
 changed — he not only studied the best models 
 of literature, but also carefully read the sacred 
 Scriptures {Epp. 40, 41 ; Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 
 adv. Julian, pp. 121 seq.). Basil remained at 
 Athens till the middle or end of 355, when 
 with extreme reluctance he left for his native 
 city. By this time his father was dead. 
 His mother, Emmelia, was residing at the 
 village of Annesi, near Neocaesarea. Basil's 
 Athenian reputation had preceded him, and 
 he was received with much honour by the 
 people of Caesarea, where he consented to 
 settle as a teacher of rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Or. 
 XX. p. 334). He practised the profession of a 
 rhetorician with great celebrity for a consider- 
 able period (Rufin. ii. 9), but the warnings and 
 counsels of Macrina guarded him from the 
 seductions of the world, and eventually in- 
 duced him to abandon it altogether and 
 devote himself to a religious life (Greg. Nys. 
 U.S.). Basil, in a letter to Eustathius of 
 Sebaste, describes himself at this period as 
 one awaked out of a deep sleep, and in the 
 marvellous light of Gospel truth discerning 
 the folly of that wisdom of this world in the 
 study of which nearly all his youth had van- 
 ished. His first care was to reform his life. 
 Finding, by reading the Gospels, that nothing 
 tended so much toward perfection as to sell 
 all that he had and free himself from worldly 
 cares, and feeling himself too weak to stand 
 alone in such an enterprise, he desired earnestly 
 to find some brother who might give him his 
 aid {Ep. 223). No sooner did his determina- 
 tion become known that he was beset by the 
 remonstrances of his friends entreating him, 
 some to continue the profession of rhetoric, 
 some to become an advocate. But his choice 
 was made, and his resolution was inflexible. 
 Basil's baptism may be placed at this epoch. 
 He was probably baptized by Dianius, bp. of 
 Caesarea, by whom not long afterwards he 
 was admitted to the order of reader {d€ Spir. 
 Sancto, c. xxix. 71). Basil's determination 
 in favour of a life of devotion would be 
 strengthened by the death of his next brother, 
 Naucratius, who had embraced the life of a 
 solitary, and about this period was drowned 
 while engaged in works of mercv (Greg. Nys. 
 de Vtt. S. Macr. p. 182). About a.d. 357. 
 when still under thirty, Basil left Caesarea to 
 seek the most celebrated ascetics upon whose 
 life he might model his own; visiting Alex- 
 andria and Upper Egypt, Palestine, Coeles>Tia, 
 and Mesopotamia. He records his admira- 
 tion of the abstinence and endurance of the 
 ascetics whom he met, their mastery over 
 hunger and sleep, their indifference to cold 
 and nakedness, as well as his desire to 
 imitate them {Ep. 223, § 2). The year 358 
 saw Basil again at Caesarea resolved on the 
 immediate carrying out of his purpose of 
 retiring from the world, finally selecting for 
 his retreat a spot near Neocaesarea, close to 
 
BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 the village of Annesi, where his father's 
 estates lav. and where he had passed his 
 (hildhood under the care of his grandmother 
 Macrina. To Annesi his mother Emmelia and 
 his sister Macrina had retired after the death 
 of the elder Basil, and were living a semi- 
 monastic life. Basil's future home was only 
 divided from Annesi by the river Iris, by 
 which and the gorges of the mountain torrents 
 a tract of level ground was completely in- 
 sulated. A wooded mountain rose behind. 
 There was only one approach to it, and of 
 that he was master. The natural beauties of 
 the spot, with its ravines, precipices, dashing 
 torrents, and waterfalls, the purity of the air 
 and the coolness of the breezes, the abundance 
 of flowers and multitude of singing birds 
 ravished him, and he declared it to be more 
 beautiful than Calypso's island {Ep. 14). His 
 glowing description attracted Gregory for a 
 lengthy visit to study the Scriptures with him 
 (Ep. 9). together with the commentaries of 
 Origen and other early expositors. At this 
 time they also compiled their collection of the 
 " Beauties of Origen," or " Philocalia" (Socr. 
 iv. 26 ; Soz. vi. 17 ; Greg. Naz. Ep. 87). In this 
 secluded spot Basil passed five years, an epoch 
 of no small importance in the history of the 
 church, inasmuch as it saw the origin under 
 Basil's influence of the monastic system in the 
 coenobitic form. Eustathius of Sebaste had 
 already introduced monachism into Asia 
 Minor, but monastic communities were a 
 novelty in the Christian world, and of these 
 Basil is justly considered the founder. His 
 rule, like that of St. Benedict in later times, 
 united active industry with regular devotional 
 exercises, and by the labour of his monks over 
 wide desert tracts, hopeless sterility gave place 
 to golden harvests and abundant vintages. 
 Not the day only but the night also was 
 divided into definite portions, the intervals 
 being filled with prayers, hymns, and alternate 
 psalmody. The day began and closed with 
 a psalm of confession. The food of his monks 
 was limited to one meal a day of bread, water, 
 and herbs, and he allowed sleep only till 
 midnight, when all rose for prayer (Ep. 2, 
 207). On his retirement to Pontus, Basil 
 devoted all his worldly possessions to the 
 i service of the poor, retaining them, however, 
 in his own hands, and by degrees divesting 
 himself of them as occasion required. His 
 life was one of the most rigid asceticism. He 
 had but one outer and one inner garment ; he 
 slept in a hair shirt, his bed was the ground ; 
 he took little sleep, no bath ; the sun was his 
 fire, his food bread and water, his drink the 
 running stream (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 358 ; 
 Greg. Nys. de Basil, p. 490). The severe 
 bodily austerities he practised emaciated his 
 frame and ruined his already feeble health, 
 sowing the seeds of the maladies to which in 
 later years he was a martyr. His friend 
 describes him as " without a wife, without 
 property, without flesh, and almost without 
 blood" (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. p. 311). Basil's 
 reputation for sanctity collected large numbers 
 about him. He repeatedly made missionary 
 journeys through Pontus ; his preaching result- 
 ing in the founding of many coenobitic in- 
 dustrial communities and monasteries for both 
 sexes, and in the restoration of the purity of the 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 117 
 
 orthodox faith (Rufin. ix. 9 ; Soz. vi. 17 ; Greg. 
 Nys. de Basil, p. 488). Throughout Pontus and 
 Cappadocia Basil was the means of the erection 
 of numerous hospitals for the poor, houses of 
 refuge for virgins, orphanages, and other homes 
 of beneficence. His monasteries had as their 
 inmates children he had taken charge of, 
 married persons who had mutually agreed to 
 live asunder, slaves with the consent of their 
 masters, and solitaries convinced of the dangt r 
 of living alone (Basil, Rcgulae, 10, 12, 15). 
 
 After two years thus spent Basil was sum- 
 moned from his solitude in 359 to accompany 
 Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste, 
 who had been delegated by the council cf 
 Seleucia to communicate the conclusions cf 
 that assembly to Constantius at Constanti- 
 nople. Basil seems from his youth and natural 
 timidity to have avoided taking any part in 
 the discussions of the council that followed, 
 360, in which the Anomoeans were condemned, 
 the more orthodox semi-Arians deposed, and 
 the Acacians triumphed. But when Con- 
 stantius endeavoured to force those present 
 to sign the creed of Ariminum, Basil left the 
 city and returned to Cappadocia (Greg. Nys. 
 in Eunom. pp. 310, 312 ; Philost. iv. 12). 
 Not long after his return George of Laodicea 
 arrived at Caesarea as an emissary of Con- 
 stantius, bringing with him that creed for 
 signature. To Basil's intense grief, bp. 
 Dianius, a gentle, undecided man, who valued 
 peace above orthodoxy, was persuaded to sign. 
 Basil felt it impossible any longer to hold 
 communion with his bishop, and fled to 
 Nazianzus to find consolation in the society 
 of his dear friend Gregory (Ep. 8, 51). He 
 denied with indignation the report that he 
 had anathematized his bishop, and when two 
 years afterwards (362) Dianius was stricken 
 for death and entreated Basil to return and 
 comfort his last hours, he at once went to him, 
 and the aged bishop died in his arms. 
 
 The choice of Dianius's successor gave ris'-^ 
 to violent dissensions at Caesarea. At last 
 the populace, wearied with the indecision, 
 chose Eusebius, a man of high position and 
 eminent piety, but as yet unbaptized. They 
 forcibly conveyed him to the church where the 
 provincial bishops were assembled, and com- 
 pelled the unwilling prelates first to baptize 
 and then to consecrate him. Eusebius was 
 bp. at Caesarea for 8 years (Greg. Naz. Or. 
 xix. 308, 309). 
 
 Shortly before the death of Dianius, Julian 
 had ascended the throne (Dec. 11, 361), and 
 desired to surround himself with the associates 
 of his early days (Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 120). 
 Among the first whom he invited was his 
 fellow-student at Athens, Basil. Basil at 
 first held out hopes of accepting his old friend's 
 invitation ; but he delayed his journey, and 
 Julian's declared apostasy soon gave him 
 sufficient cause to relinquish it altogether. 
 The next year Julian displayed his irritation. 
 Receiving intelligence that the people of 
 Caesarea, so far from apostatizing with him 
 and building new pagan temples, had pulled 
 down the onlv one still standing (Greg. Naz. 
 Or. iii. 91, xix. 309 ; Socr. v. 4), he expimsed 
 Caesarea from the catalogue of cities, made 
 it take its old name of Mazaca, imposed heavy 
 payments, compelled the clergy to serve in the 
 
118 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 police force, and put to death two young men 
 of high rank who had taken part in the 
 demolition of the temple. Approaching 
 Caesarea, he dispatched a minatory letter to 
 Basil demanding a thousand pounds of gold 
 for the expenses of his Persian expedition, 
 or threatening to rase the city to the ground. 
 Basil, in his dauntless reply, upbraids the em- 
 peror for apostasy against God and the church, 
 the nurse and mother of all, and for his folly in 
 demanding so vast a sum from him, the poorest 
 of the poor. The death of Julian (June 26, 
 363) delivered Basil from this imminent peril. 
 
 One of the first acts of bp. Eusebius was to 
 compel the reluctant Basil to be ordained 
 priest, that the bishop might avail himself of 
 Basil's theological knowledge and intellectual 
 powers to compensate for his own deficiencies. 
 At first he employed him very largely. But 
 when he found himself completely eclipsed he 
 became jealous of Basil's popularity and 
 treated him with a marked coldness, amount- 
 ing almost to insolence, which awoke the 
 hostility of the Christians of Caesarea, whose 
 idol Basil was. A schism was imminent, but 
 Basil, refusing to strengthen the heretical 
 party by creating divisions among the ortho- 
 dox, retired with his friend Gregory to Pontus, 
 where he devoted himself to the care of the 
 monasteries he had founded (Greg. Naz. Or. 
 XX. pp. 336, 337 ; Soz. vi. 15). 
 
 Basil had passed about three years m his 
 Pontic seclusion when, in 365, the blind zeal 
 of the emperor Valens for the spread of 
 Arianism brought him back to Caesarea. As 
 soon as it was known that Valens was ap- 
 proaching that city, the popular voice de- 
 manded the recall of Basil as the only bulwark 
 against the attack on the true faith and its 
 adherents meditated by the emperor. Greg- 
 ory acted the part of a wise mediator, and 
 Basil's return to the bishop was effected (Greg. 
 Naz. Ep. 19, 20, 169 ; Or. xx. p. 339). Treat- 
 ing Eusebius with the honour due to his 
 position and his age, Basil now proved him- 
 self, in the words of Gregory, the staff of his 
 age, the support of his faith ; at home the 
 most faithful of his friends ; abroad the most 
 efficient of his ministers (ib. 340). 
 
 The first designs of Valens against Caesarea 
 were interrupted by the news of the revolt of 
 Procopius (Amm. Marc. 26, 27). He left 
 Asia to quell the insurrection which threatened 
 his throne. Basil availed himself of the 
 breathing-time thus granted in organizing the 
 resistance of the orthodox against the Euno- 
 mians or Anomoeans, who were actively pro- 
 pagating their pernicious doctrines through 
 Asia Minor ; and in uniting the Cappadocians 
 in loyal devotion to the truth. The year 368 
 afforded Basil occasion of displaying his large 
 and universal charity. The whole of Cappa- 
 docia was desolated by drought and famine, 
 the visitation pressing specially on Caesarea. 
 Basil devoted his whole energies to helping 
 the poor sufferers. He sold the property he 
 had inherited at the recent death of his 
 mother, and raised a large subscription in the 
 city. He gave his own personal ministrations 
 to the wretched, and while he fed their bodies 
 he was careful to nourish their souls with the 
 bread of life (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 340-342 ; 
 Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. 306). 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 Eusebius died towards the middle of 370 
 in Basil's arms (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. 310, 
 XX. 342). Basil persuaded himself, not alto- 
 gether unwarrantably, that the cause of 
 orthodoxy in Asia Minor was involved in 
 his succeeding Eusebius. Disappointed of 
 the assistance anticipated from the younger 
 Gregory, Basil betook himself to his father, 
 the aged bp. of Nazianzus of the same name. 
 The momentous importance of the juncture 
 was more evident to the elder man. Orthodoxy 
 was at stake in Basil's election. " The Holy 
 Spirit must triumph " (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 342). 
 Using his son as his scribe, he dictated a letter 
 to the clergy, monks, magistrates, and people 
 of Caesarea, calling on them to choose Basil ; 
 another to the electing prelates, exhorting 
 them not to allow Basil's weakness of health 
 to counterbalance his marked pre-eminence 
 in spiritual gifts and in learning (Greg. Naz. 
 Ep. 22, 23). No orthodox prelate had at that 
 time a deservedly greater influence than 
 Eusebius of Samosata. Gregory wrote to him 
 and persuaded him to visit Caesarea and 
 undertake the direction of this difficult busi- 
 ness (Bas. Ep. 47). On his arrival, Eusebius 
 found the city divided into two opposite 
 factions. All the best of the people, together 
 with the clergy and the monks, warmly advo- 
 cated Basil's election, which was vigorously 
 opposed by other classes. The influence and 
 tact of Eusebius overcame all obstacles. The 
 people warmly espoused Basil's cause ; the 
 bishops were compelled to give way, and the 
 triumph of the orthodox cause was consum- 
 mated by the arrival of the venerable Gregory, 
 who, on learning that one vote was wanting 
 for the canonical election of Basil, while his 
 son was still hesitating full of scruples and 
 refused to quit Nazianzus, left his bed for a 
 litter, had himself carried to Caesarea at the 
 risk of expiring on the way, and with his own 
 hands consecrated the newly elected prelate, 
 and placed him on his episcopal throne (Greg. 
 Naz. Ep. 29, p. 793, Or. xix. 311, xx. 343). 
 Basil's election filled the orthodox everywhere 
 with joy. Athanasius, the veteran champion 
 of the faith, congratulated Cappadocia on 
 possessing a bishop whom every province 
 might envy (Ath. ad. Pallad. p. 953, ad 
 Joann. et Afit. p. 951). At Constantinople it 
 was received with far different feelings. 
 Valens regarded it as a serious check to his 
 designs for the triumph of Arianism. Basil 
 was not an opponent to be despised. He 
 must be bent to the emperor's will or got rid 
 of. As bp. of Caesarea his power extended 
 far beyond the limits of the city itself. He 
 was metropolitan of Cappadocia, and exarch 
 of Pontus. In the latter capacity his author- 
 ity, more or less defied, extended over more 
 than half Asia Minor, and embraced as many 
 as eleven provinces. Ancyra, Neocaesarea, 
 Tyana, with other metropolitan sees, acknow- 
 ledged him as their ecclesiastical superior. 
 
 Basil's first disappointment in his episcopate 
 arose from his inability to induce his dear 
 friend (iregory to join him as his coadjutor in 
 the government of his province and exarchate. 
 He consented at last for a while, but soon with- 
 drew. Difficulties soon thickened round the 
 new exarch. The bishops who had opposed his 
 election and refused to take part in his con- 
 
BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 serration, now exchanged their open hostility 
 for secret opposition. While professing out- 
 ward union, they withheld their support in 
 everything. They treated Basil with marked 
 slight and shewed a complete want of sym- 
 pathy in all his plans (Ep. 98). He complains 
 of this to Eusebius of Samosata [Epp. 48, 141, 
 zSz). This disloyal behaviour caused him 
 despondency and repeated attacks of illness. 
 He overcame all his opponents in a few years 
 by firmness and kindness, but their action had 
 greatly increased the difficulties of the com- 
 mencement of his episcopate. 
 
 Basil had been bishop little more than 
 twelve months when he was brought into open 
 collision with the emperor Valcns, who was 
 traversing Asia Minor with the fixed resolve 
 of exterminating the orthodox faith and 
 establishing Arianism. No part of Basil's 
 history is better known, and in none do we 
 more clearly discern the strength and weak- 
 ness of his character. " The memorable inter- 
 view with St. Basil," writes Dean Milman, 
 " as it is related by the Catholic party, dis- 
 plays, if the weakness, certainly the patience 
 and toleration of the sovereign — if the uncom- 
 promising firmness of the prelate, some of that 
 leaven of pride with which he is taunted by 
 St. Jerome " [Hist, of Christianity, iii. 45). 
 Valens had never relinquished the designs 
 which had been interrupted by the revolt of 
 Procopius, and he was now approaching 
 Caesarea determined to reduce to submission 
 the chief champion of orthodoxy in the East. \ 
 His progress hitherto had been one of uniform 
 victory. The Catholics had everywhere fallen 
 before him. Bithynia had resisted and had 1 
 become the scene of horrible tragedies. The 
 fickle Galatia had yielded without a struggle. 
 The fate of Cappadocia depended on Basil. 
 His house, as the emperor drew near, was 
 besieged by ladies of rank, high personages of 
 state, even by bishops, who entreated him to 
 bow before the storm and appease the emperor 
 by a temporary submission. Their expostula- 
 tions were rejected with indignant disdain. A 
 band of Arian bishops headed by Euippius, an 
 aged bishop of Galatia and an old friend of 
 Basil's, preceded Valens's arrival with the 
 hope of overawing their opponents by their 
 numbers and unanimity. Basil took the 
 initiative, and with prompt decision separated 
 himself from their communion (Bas. Epp. 68, 
 128, 244, 251). Members of the emperor's 
 household indulged in the most violent men- 
 aces against the archbishop. One of the most 
 insolent of these was the eunuch Demosthenes, 
 the superintendent of the kitchen. Basil met 
 his threats with quiet irony, and was next 
 confronted by Modestus, the prefect of the 
 Praetorium, commissioned by the emperor to 
 offer Basil the choice between deposition or 
 communion with the Arians. This violent and 
 unscrupulous imperial favourite accosted Basil 
 with the grossest insolence. He refused him 
 the title of bishop ; he threatened confiscation, 
 exile, tortures, death. But such menaces, 
 Basil replied, were powerless on one whose 
 sole wealth was a ragged cloak and a few 
 b<X)ks, to whom the whole earth was a home, 
 or rather a place of pilgrimage, whose feeble 
 body could endure no tortures beyond the 
 first stroke, and to whom death would be a 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 119 
 
 mercy, as it would the sooner transport him 
 to the God to Whom he lived. Modestus 
 expressed his astonishment at hearing such 
 unusual language (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 351 ; 
 Soz. vi. 16). "That is," replied Basil, 
 " because you have never before fallen in 
 with a true bishop." Modestus, finding his 
 menaces useless, changed his tone. He 
 counselled prudence. Basil should avoid 
 irritating the emperor, and submit to his 
 requirements, as all the other prelates of Asia 
 had done. If he would only yield he promised 
 him the friendship of Valens, and whatever 
 favours he might desire for his friends. Why 
 should he sacrifice all his power for the sake 
 of a few doctrines ? (Theod. iv. 19). But flat- 
 tery had as little power as threats over Basil's 
 iron will. The prefect was at his wit's end. 
 Valens was expected on the morrow. Modes- 
 tus was unwilling to meet the emperor with a 
 report of failure. The aspect of a court of 
 justice with its official state and band of 
 ministers prepared to execute its sentence 
 might inspire awe. But judicial terrors were 
 equally futile (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 315). 
 Modestus, utterly foiled, had to announce to 
 his master that all his attempts to obtain sub- 
 mission had been fruitless. " Violence would 
 be the only course to adopt with one over 
 whom threats and blandishments were equally 
 powerless " (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 350). Such 
 Christian intrepidity was not without effect on 
 the feeble, impressionable mind of Valens. He 
 refused to sanction any harsh measures against 
 the archbishop, and moderated his demands to 
 the admission of Arians to Basil's communion. 
 But here too Basil was equally inflexible. To 
 bring matters to a decided issue, the emperor 
 presented himself in the chief church of Cae- 
 sarea on the Epiphany, a.d. 372, after the 
 service had commenced. He found the church 
 flooded with " a sea" of worshippers whose 
 chanted psalms pealed forth like thunder, 
 uninterrupted by the entrance of the emperor 
 and his train. Basil was at the altar celebrat- 
 ing the Eucharistic sacrifice, standing, accord- 
 ing to the primitive custom, behind the altar 
 with his face to the assembled people, sup- 
 ported on either hand by the semicircle of his 
 attendant clergy. " The imearthly majesty 
 of the scene," the rapt devotion of the arch- 
 bishop, erect like a column before the holy 
 table, the reverent order of the immense 
 throng, " more like that of angels than of 
 men," overpowered the weak and excitable 
 Valens, and he almost fainted away. When 
 the time came for making his offering, and the 
 ministers were hesitating whether they should 
 receive an oblation from the hand of a heretic, 
 his limbs failed him, and but for the aid of one 
 of the clergy he would have fallen. Basil, it 
 would seem, pitying his enemy's weakness, 
 accepted the gift from his trembling hand {ib. 
 p. 351). The next day Valens again visited 
 the church, and listened with reverence to 
 Basil's preaching, and made his offerings, 
 which were not now rejected. The sermon 
 over, Basil admitted the emperor within the 
 sacred veil, and discoursed on the orthodox 
 faith. He was rudely interrupted by the 
 cook Demosthenes, who was guilty of a gross 
 solecism. Basil smiled and said, " We have, 
 it seems, a Demosthenes who cannot speak 
 
120 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 Greek; he had better attend to his sauces 
 than meddle with theology." The retort 
 amused the emperor, who retired so well 
 pleased with his theological opponent that he 
 made him a grant of lands for the poor-house 
 Basil was erecting (Theod. iv. 19 ; Greg. Naz. 
 Or. XX. 351 ; Bas. Ep. 94)- The vaollating 
 mind of Valens was always influenced by the 
 latest and most imperious advisers, and when 
 Basil remained firm in his refusal to admit 
 them to his communion, the Arians about the 
 emperor had little difficulty in persuading him 
 that he was compromising the faith by per- 
 mitting Basil to remain, and that his banish- 
 ment was necessary for the peace of the East. 
 The emperor, yielding to their importunity, 
 ordered Basil to leave the city. Basil at once 
 made his simple preparations for departure, 
 ordering one of his attendants to take his 
 tablets and follow him. He was to start at 
 night to avoid the risk of popular disturbance. 
 The chariot was at his door, and his friends, 
 Gregory among them, were bewailing so great 
 a calamity, when his journey was arrested by 
 the sudden and alarming illness of Galates, 
 the only son of Valen and Dominica. The 
 empress attributed her child's danger to the 
 Divine displeasure at the treatment of Basil. 
 The emperor, in abject alarm, sent the chief 
 military officials of the court, Terentius and 
 Arinthaeus, who were known to be his friends, 
 to entreat Basil to come and pray over the 
 sick child. Galates was as yet unbaptized. 
 On receiving a promise that the child should 
 receive that sacrament at the hands of a 
 Catholic bishop and be instructed in the 
 orthodox faith, Basil consented. He prayed 
 over the boy, and the malady was alleviated. 
 On his retiring, the Arians again got round the 
 feeble prince, reminded him of a promise he 
 had made to Eudoxius, by whom he himself 
 had been baptized, and the child received 
 baptism from the hands of an Arian prelate. 
 He grew immediately worse, and died the 
 same night (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 352, 364 ; 
 Theod. iv. 19 ; Socr. iv. 26 ; Soz. iv. 16 ; 
 Eph. Syr. apud Coteler. Monum. Eccl. Graec. 
 iii. 63 ; Rutin, xi. 9). Once more Valens 
 yielded to pressure from the unwearied 
 enemies of Basil. Again Basil's exile was 
 determined on, but the pens with which Valens 
 was preparing to sign the decree refused to 
 write, and split in his agitated hand, and the 
 supposed miracle arrested the execution of the 
 sentence. Valens left Caesarea, and Basil re- 
 mained master of the situation (Theod. iv. 19 ; 
 Ephr. S>T. M.S. p. 65). Before long his old 
 enemy Modestus, attacked by a severe malady, 
 presented himself as a suppliant to Basil, and 
 attributing his cure to the intercessions of the 
 saint, became his fast friend. So great was 
 Basil's influence with the prefect that persons 
 came from a distance to secure his intercession 
 with him. We have as many as six letters 
 from Basil to Modestus in favour of different 
 individuals (Bas. Epp. 104, no, 111,279,280, 
 281 ; Greg. Naz. Or. xx. pp. 352, 353). 
 
 The issue of these unsuccessful assaults was 
 to place Basil in a position of inviolability, and 
 to leave him leisure for administering his 
 diocese and exarchate, which much needed his 
 firm and unflinching hand. His visitation 
 disclosed many irregularities which he sternly 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 repressed. The chorcpiscopi had admitted 
 men to the lower orders who had no intention 
 of proceeding to the priesthood, or even to the 
 diaconate, but merely to gain immunity from 
 military service [Ep. 54). Many of his suffra- 
 gans were guilty of simony in receiving a fee 
 for ordination (Ep. 55). Men were raised to 
 the episcopate from motives of personal in- 
 terest and to gratify private friends (Ep. 290). 
 The perilous custom of unmarried priests 
 having females (ffweiaaKrai, stibintroduc(ae) 
 residing with them as " spiritual sisters " 
 called for reproof (Ep. 55). A fanatic deacon, 
 Glycerins, who had collected a band of pro- 
 fessed virgins, whom he forcibly carried off 
 by night and who wandered about the country 
 dancing and singing to the scandal of the 
 faithful, caused him much trouble (Epp. 169, 
 170, 171). To heal the fountain-head, Basil 
 made himself as far as possible master of 
 episcopal elections, and steadily refused to 
 admit any he deemed unworthy of the office. 
 So high became the reputation of his clergy 
 that other bishops sent to him for presbyters 
 to become their coadjutors and successors 
 (Ep. 81). Marriage with a deceased wife's 
 sister he denounced as prohibited by the laws 
 both of Scripture and nature (£^. 160). Feeble 
 as was his health, his activity was unceasing. 
 He visited every part of his exarchate, and 
 maintained a constant intercourse by letter 
 with confidential friends, who kept him in- 
 formed of all that passed and were ready to 
 carry out his instructions. He pushed his 
 episcopal activity to the very frontiers of 
 Armenia. In 372 he made an expedition by 
 the express command of Valens, obtained by 
 the urgency of his fast friend count Terentius, 
 to strengthen the episcopate in that country 
 by appointing fresh bishops and infusing fresh 
 life into existing ones (Ep. 99). He was very 
 diligent in preaching, not only at Caesarea and 
 other cities, but in country villages. The 
 details of public worship occupied his atten- 
 tion. Even while a presbyter he arranged 
 forms of prayer (evx^i'v Siard^eis), probably 
 a liturgy, for the church of Caesarea (Greg. 
 Naz. Or. xx. 340). He established nocturnal 
 services, in which the psalms were chanted by 
 alternate choirs, which, as a novelty, gave 
 great offence to the clergy of Neocaesarea (Ep. 
 207). These incessant labours were carried 
 out by one who, naturally of a weak constitu- 
 tion, had so enfeebled himself by austerities 
 that " when called well, he was weaker than 
 persons who are given over " (Ep. 136). His 
 chief malady, a disease of the liver, caused him 
 repeated and protracted sufferings, often 
 hindering him travelling, the least motion 
 bringing on a relapse (Ep. 202). The severity 
 of winter often kept him a prisoner to his house 
 and often even to his room (Ep. 27). A letter 
 from Eusebius of Samosata arrived when he 
 had been 50 days ill of a fever. " He was 
 eager to fly straight to Syria, but he was un- 
 equal to turning in his bed. He hoped for 
 relief from the hot springs " (Ep. 138). He 
 suffered " sickness upon sickness, so that his 
 shell must certainly fail unless God's mercy 
 extricate him from evils beyond man's cure " 
 (Ep. 136). At 45 he calls himself an old man. 
 The next year he had lost all his teeth. Three 
 years before his death all remaining hope o| 
 
BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 life had left him (£/>. io8). Ho died, pre- 
 maturely aged, at 50. Seldom did a spirit of 
 50 indomitable activity reside in so feeble a 
 frame, and, triumphing over weakness, make 
 It tlio instrument of such vigorous work for 
 Christ and ilis church. 
 
 In 372 a harassing dispute with Anthimus, 
 bp. of Tvana, touching ecclesiastical juris- 
 diction, led to the chief personal sorrow of 
 Basil's life, the estrangement of the friend of 
 his vouth, Gregory of Nazianzus. The cir- 
 cumstances were these. Towards the close of 
 371 Valens determined to divide Cappadocia 
 into two provinces. Podandus, a miserable 
 little town at the foot of mount Taurus, was 
 at first named as the chief city of the new 
 province, to which a portion of the executive 
 was to be removecl. The inhabitants of 
 Caesarea entreated Basil to go to Constanti- 
 nople and petition for the rescinding of the 
 edict. His weak health prevented this, but 
 he wrote to Sophronius, a native of Caesarea 
 in a high position at court, and to Aburgius, a 
 man of influence there, begging them to use 
 all their power to alter the emperor's decision. 
 Thev could not prevent the division of the 
 province, but did obtain the substitution of 
 Tyanafor Podandus (£/)^. 74-76). Anthimus 
 thereupon insisted that the ecclesiastical divi- 
 sion should follow the civil, and claimed 
 metropolitan rights over several of Basil's 
 suffragans. Basil appealed to ancient usage 
 in vain. Anthimus called a council of the 
 bishops who had opposed Basil's election and 
 were ready to exalt his rival. By flattery, 
 intimidation, and even the removal of oppo- 
 nents, Anthimus strengthened his faction. 
 Basil's authority was reduced to a nullity in 
 one-half of his province (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 
 355; EPP- 31. 33; Bas. Ep. 259)- Basil 
 appealed to his friend Gregory, who replied 
 that he would come to his assistance, though 
 Basil wanted him no more than the sea wanted 
 water. He warned Basil that his difficulties 
 were increased by the suspicions created by 
 his intimacy with Eustathius of Sebaste and 
 his friends, whose reputation for orthodoxy 
 was more than doubtful (Greg. Naz. Ep. 25). 
 On Gregory's arrival the two friends started 
 together for the monastery of St. Orestes on 
 mount Taurus, in the second Cappadocia, the 
 property of the see of Caesarea, to collect the 
 produce of the estate. This roused Anthi- 
 mus's indignation, and despite his advanced 
 age, he occupied the defile, through which the 
 pack-mules had to pass, with his armed re- 
 tainers. A serious affray resulted, Gregory 
 fighting bravely in his friend's defence (Greg. 
 Naz. Or. XX. 356; Ep. ^i, Carm. i. 8). Basil 
 erected several new bishoprics as defensive 
 outposts against his rival. One of these was 
 near St. Orestes at Sasima, a wretched little 
 posting-station and frontier custom-house at 
 the junction of three great roads, hot, dry, and 
 dusty, vociferous with the brawls of muleteers, 
 travellers, and excisemen. Here Basil, dis- 
 regarding Gregory's delicate temperament, 
 determined to place him as bishop. Gregory's 
 weaker character bowed to Basil's imn will, 
 and he was most reluctantly consecrated. 
 But Anthimus appointed a rival bishop, and 
 Gregory took the earliest opportunity of 
 escaping from the unwelcome position which 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 121 
 
 he could only have maintained at the risk 
 of continual conflict, and even bloodshed. 
 [Gregory Nazianzen ; Anthimus.] A peace 
 was ultimately patched up, ajiparently 
 through the intercession of Gregory and the 
 mediation of Eusebius of Samosata and the 
 senate of Tyana. Anthimus was recognised 
 as metropolitan of the new province, each 
 province preserving its own revenues (Bas. 
 Epp. 97, 98, 122). Gregory attributed Basil's 
 action to a high sense of duty, but could never 
 forget that he had sacrificed his friend to that, 
 and the wound inflicted on their mutual 
 attachment was never healed, and even after 
 Basil's death Gregory reproaclies him with his 
 unfaithfulness to thelaws of friendship. "This 
 lamentable occurrence took place seven years 
 before Basil's death. He had before and after 
 it many trials, many sorrows ; but this prob- 
 ably was the greatest of all " (Newman, 
 Church of the Fathers, p. 144). 
 
 The Ptochotropheion, or hospital for the 
 reception and relief of the poor, which Basil 
 had erected in the suburbs of Caesarea, 
 afforded his untiring enemies a pretext for 
 denouncing him to Helias, the new president 
 of the province. This establishment, which 
 was so extensive as to go by the name of 
 the " New Town," 17 KaivT) wdXts (Greg. Naz. Or. 
 XX. p. 359), and subsequently the " Basileiad" 
 after its founder (Soz. vi. 34), included a 
 church, a palace for the bishop, and resi- 
 dences for his clergy and their attendant min- 
 isters ; hospices for the poor, sick, and way- 
 farers ; and workshops for the artisans and 
 labourers whose services were needed, in 
 which the inmates also might learn and 
 practise various trades. There was a special 
 department for lepers, with arrangements for 
 their proper medical treatment, and on these 
 loathsome objects Basil lavished his chief 
 personal ministrations. By such an enor- 
 mous establishment Basil, it was hinted, was 
 aiming at undue power and infringing on 
 the rights of the civil authorities. But Basil 
 adroitly parried the blow by reminding the 
 governor that apartments were provided in 
 the building for him and his attendants, and 
 suggesting that the glory of so magnificent 
 an architectural work would redound to him 
 {Ep. 84). . , . 
 
 Far more harassing and more lasting 
 troubles arose to Basil from the double dealing 
 of Eustathius, the unprincipled and time- 
 serving bp. of Sebaste. [Eustathius of 
 Sebaste.] Towards the middle of June 
 372, the venerable Theodotus, bp. of Nico- 
 polis, a metropolitan of Lesser Armenia, a 
 prelate of high character and unblemished 
 orthodoxy, deservedly respected by Basil, 
 had invited him to a festival at Phargamon 
 near his episcopal see. Meletius of Antioch, 
 then in exile in Armenia, was also to be there. 
 Sebaste was almost on the road between 
 Caesarea and Nicopolis, and Basil, aware of 
 the suspicion entertained by Theodotus of 
 the orthodoxy of Eustathius, determined to 
 stop there on his way, and demand a definite 
 statement of his faith. Many hours were 
 spent on fruitless discussion until, at three 
 in the afternoon of the second day, a sub- 
 stantial agreement appeared to have been 
 attained. To remove all doubt of his ortho- 
 
122 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 doxy, Basil requested Thfodotus to draw up 
 a formulary of faith for Eustathius to sign. 
 To his mortification not only was his request 
 refused, but Theodotus plainly intimated that 
 he had now no wish for Basil's visit. While 
 hesitating whether he should still pursue his 
 joumev, Basil received letters from his friend 
 Eusebi'us of Samosata, stating his inability to 
 come and join him. This at once decided 
 him. Without Eusebius's help he felt himself 
 unequal to face the controversies his presence 
 at Nicopolis would evoke, and he returned 
 home sorrowing that his labours for the peace 
 of the church were unavailing {Epp. 98, 99). 
 A few months later the sensitive orthodoxy I 
 of Theodotus prepared another mortification 
 for Basil. In carrying out the commands of 
 Valens. mentioned above, to supply Armenia 
 with bishops, the counsel and assistance of 
 Theodotus as metropolitan was essential. As 
 a first step towards cordial co-operation, Basil 
 sought a conference with Theodotus at Getasa, 
 the estate of Meletius of Antioch, in whose 
 presence he made him acquainted with what 
 had passed between him and Eustathius at 
 Sebaste, and his acceptance of the orthodox 
 faith. Theodotus replied that Eustathius had 
 denied that he had come to any agreement 
 with Basil. To bring the matter to an issue, 
 Basil again proposed that a confession of 
 faith should be prepared, on his signing which 
 his future communion with Eustathius would 
 depend. This apparently satisfied Theodotus, 
 who invited Basil to visit him and inspect his 
 church, and promised to accompany him on 
 his journey into .\rmenia. But on Basil's 
 arrival at Nicopolis he spurned him with 
 horror (e/iSeXi'-^aro) as an excommunicated 
 person, and refused to join him at either 
 morning or evening prayer. Thus deserted 
 by one on whose co-operation he relied, Basil 
 had little heart to prosecute his mission, but 
 he continued his journey to Satala, where he 
 consecrated a bishop, established discipline, 
 and promoted peace among the prelates of 
 the province. Basil well knew how to dis- 
 tinguish between his busy detractors and one 
 like Theodotus animated with zeal for the 
 orthodox faith. Generously overlooking his 
 former rudenesses, he reopened communica- 
 tions with him the following year, and \^isiting 
 Nicopolis employed his assistance in once more 
 drawing up an elaborate confession of faith 
 embodying the Nicene Creed, for Eustathius 
 to sign (Bas. Ep. 123). Eustathius did so in 
 the most formal manner in the presence of 
 witnesses, whose names are appended to the 
 document. But no sooner had this slippery 
 theologian satisfied the requirements cf Basil 
 than he threw off the mask, broke his promise 
 to appear at a synodical meeting called by 
 Basil to seal the union between them and 
 their respective adherents, and openly assailed 
 him with the most unscrupulous invectives 
 (Epp. 130, 244). He went so far as to hold 
 assemblies in which Basil was charged with 
 heterodox views, especially on the Divinity of 
 the Holy Spirit, and with haughty and over- 
 bearing behaviour towards his chorepiscopi 
 and other suffragans. At last Eustathius 
 pushed matters so far as to publish a letter 
 written by Basil twenty-five years before to 
 the heresiarch Apollinaris. It was true that 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 at that time both were laymen, and that it 
 was merely a friendly letter not dealing with 
 theological points, and that Apollinaris had 
 not then developed his heretical views and 
 stood high in the esteem of Athanasius. But 
 its circulation served Eustathius's ends in 
 strengthening the suspicion already existing 
 against Basil as a favourer of false doctrine. 
 The letter as published by Eustathius had been 
 disgracefully garbled, and was indignantly 
 repudiated by Basil. By a most shameful 
 artifice some heretical expressions of Apol- 
 linaris, without the author's name, had been 
 appended to Eustathius's own letter accom- 
 panying that attributed to Basil, leading to 
 the supposition that they were Basil's own. 
 Basil was overwhelmed with distress at being 
 represented in such false colours to the church, 
 while the ingratitude and treachery of his 
 former friend stung him deeply. He restrained 
 himself, however, from any public expression 
 of his feelings, maintaining a dignified silence 
 for three years (Bas. Epp. 128, 130, 224, 225, 
 226, 244). During this period of intense trial 
 Basil was much comforted in 374 by the ap- 
 pointment of his youthful friend Ampuilo- 
 CHius to the see of Iconium. But the same 
 year brought a severe blow in the banishment 
 of his intimate and confidential counsellor 
 Eusebius of Samosata. At the end of this 
 period (375) Basil, impelled by the calumnies 
 heaped upon him on every side, broke a silence 
 which he considered no longer safe, as tending 
 to compromise the interests of truth, and 
 published a long letter nominally addressed 
 to Eustathius, but really a document intended 
 for the faithful, in which he briefly reviews the 
 history of his life, describes his former intimacy 
 with Eustathius, and the causes which led to 
 i the rupture between them, and defends him- 
 self from the charges of impiety and blasphemy 
 so industriously circulated (Bas. Epp. 223, 226, 
 244). It was time indeed that Basil should 
 take some public steps to clear his reputation 
 from the reckless accusations which were 
 showered upon him. He was called a Sabel- 
 lian, an Apollinarian, a Tritheist, a Mace- 
 donian, and his efforts in behalf of orthodoxy 
 in the East were continually thwarted in every 
 direction by the suspicion with which he was 
 regarded. Athanasius, bp. of Ancyra, misled 
 by the heretical writings that had been fath- 
 ered upon him, spoke in the harshest terms 
 of him (Ep. 25). The bishops of the district 
 of Dazimon in Pontus, giving ear to Eusta- 
 thius's calumnies, separated themselves from 
 his communion, and suspended all intercourse, 
 and were only brought back to their allegiance 
 by a letter of Basil's, written at the instance 
 of all the bishops of Cappadocia, characterized 
 by the most touching humility and affection- 
 ateness {Ep. 203). The alienation of his rela- 
 tive Atarbius and the church of Neocaesarea, 
 of which he was bishop, was more difficult to 
 redress. To be regarded with suspicion by 
 the church of a place so dear to himself, his 
 residence in youth, and the home of many 
 members of his family, especially his sainted 
 grandmother, Macrina, was peculiarly painful. 
 But the tendency of the leading Neocaesareans 
 was Sabellian, and the emphasis with which 
 he was wont to assert the distinctness of the 
 Three Persons was offensive to them. They 
 
BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 took umbrage also at the favour he shewed to 
 monasticism, and the nocturnal services he 
 had established. Basil wrote in terms of 
 affectionate expostulation to them, and took 
 advantage of the existence of his brother 
 Peter's monastic community at Annesi to pay 
 the locality a visit. But as soon as he was 
 known to be in the neighbourhood a strange 
 panic seized the whole city ; some fled, some 
 hid themselves ; Basil was everywhere de- 
 nounced as a public enemy. Atarbius abrupt- 
 ly left the synod at Nicopolis on hearing of 
 Basil's approach. Basil returned, mortified 
 and distressed [Epp. 126, 204, 207, 210). Be- 
 sides other charges Basil was widely accused of 
 denying the proper divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
 This charge, which, when made by some Cap- 
 padocian monks, had been already sternly 
 reproved by Athanasius (Ath. ad. Pall. ii. 
 763, 764), was revived at a later time on the 
 plea that he had used a form of the doxology 
 open to suspicion, " Cilory be to the Father, 
 through the Son, in the Holy Spirit " * (de 
 Spir. Sanct. c. r, vol. iii. p. 3). Self-defence 
 was again reluctantly forced on the victim of 
 calumny. He prayed that he might be de- 
 serted by the Holy Ghost for ever if he did 
 not adore Him as equal in substance and in 
 honour (bixoovcnov koX oij.6tlixov) with the 
 Father and the Son (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 365). 
 Similar charges made at the festival of St. 
 Eupsychius in 374 led Amphilochius to re- 
 quest him to declare his views, which he 
 did in his treatise de Spiritu Sancto (§ i ; 
 Ep. 231). Maligned, misrepresented, regarded 
 with suspicion, thwarted, opposed on all 
 hands, few champions of the faith have had 
 a heavier burden to bear than Basil. The 
 history of the Eastern church at this period is 
 indeed little more than a history of his trials 
 and sufferings. But his was not a nature to 
 give way before difficulties the most tremen- 
 dous and failures the most disheartening. The 
 great object he had set before himself was 
 the restoration of orthodoxy to the Eastern 
 church, and the cementing of its disorganized 
 fragments into one compact body capable of 
 withstanding the attacks of hostile powers. 
 This object he pursued with undaunted per- 
 severance, notwithstanding his feeble health, 
 " which might rather be called the languor 
 of a dying man." Cut to the heart by 
 the miserable spectacle which surrounded 
 him, the persecution of the orthodox, the 
 triumphs of false doctrine, the decay of piety, 
 the worldliness of the clergy, the desecration 
 
 • Cf. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. V. xJii. 12, "Till 
 Arianism had made it a matter of great sharp- 
 ness and subtilty of wit to be a sound believing 
 Christian, men were not curious what syllables 
 or particles of speech they used. Upon which 
 when St. Basil began to practise the like indif- 
 ferency, and to conclude public prayers, glorifying 
 sometime the Father ivith the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost, sometime the Father by the Son in the Spirit, 
 whereas long custom had inured them to the former 
 kind alone, by means whereof the latter was new 
 and strange in their ears ; his needless experiment 
 brought afterwards upon him a necessary labour of 
 excusing himself to his friends and maintainiug his 
 own act against them, who because the light of his 
 candle too much drowned theirs, were glad to lay 
 hold on so colourable a matter, and exceedingly 
 forward to traduce him as an author of suspicious 
 innovation." 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 123 
 
 of the episcopate by ambition and covetous- 
 ness, rival bishops rending asunder the vener- 
 able church of Antioch, Christians wasting 
 in mutual strife the strength that should have 
 been spent in combating the common foe, 
 feeling himself utterly insufficient in his 
 isolation to work the reformation he desired, 
 Basil had looked round eagerly for effectual 
 aid and sympathy. He naturally turned 
 first to that " great and apostolic soul who 
 from boyhood had been an athlete in the 
 cause of religion," the great Athanasius [Epp. 
 69, 80, 83). In the year 371 he begged his 
 assistance in healing the unhappy schism of 
 Antioch by inducing the Western Church to 
 recognize Meletius, and persuading Paulinus 
 to withdraw. He called on him to stir up 
 the orthodox of the East by his letters, and 
 cry aloud like Samuel for the churches {Epp. 
 66, 69). In his request about Antioch, Basil 
 y was inviting Athanasius to what was in fact 
 impossible even to the influence and talents 
 of the primate of Egypt ; for being committed 
 to one side in the dispute he could not mediate 
 between thorn. Nothing then came of the 
 application " (J. H. Newman, Church of the 
 Fathers, p. 105). Basil had other requests to 
 urge on Athanasius. He was very desirous 
 that a deputation of Western prelates should 
 be sent to help him in combating the Eastern 
 heretics and reuniting the orthodox, whose 
 authority should overawe Valens and secure 
 the recognition of their decrees. He asked 
 also for the summoning of a council of all the- 
 West to confirm the decrees of Nicaea, and 
 annul those of Ariminum (Epp. 66, 69). 
 
 Basil next addressed himself to the Western 
 churches. His first letter in 372 was written 
 to Damasus, bp. of Rome, lamenting the 
 heavy storm under which almost the whole 
 Eastern church was labouring, and entreating 
 of his tender compassion, as the one remedy 
 of its evils, that either he, or persons like- 
 minded with him, would personally visit the 
 East with the view of bringing the churches 
 of God to unity, or at least determining with 
 whom the church of Rome should hold com- 
 munion (Ep. 70). Basil's letters were con- 
 veyed to Athanasius and Damasus by Doro- 
 theus, a deacon of Antioch, in communion 
 with Meletius. He returned by way of Alex- 
 andria in company with a deacon named 
 Sabinus (afterwards bp. of Piacenza) as bearer 
 of the replies of the Western prelates. These 
 replies were full of expressions of sympathy, 
 but held out no definite prospect of practical 
 help. Something, however, was hoped from 
 the effect of Sabinus's report on his return to 
 the West, as an eye-witness of the lamentable 
 condition of the Eastern church. Sabinus 
 was charged with several letters on his return 
 to Italy. One, bearing the signatures of 
 thirty-two Eastern bishops, including besides 
 Basil, Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samo- 
 sata, Gregory Nyssen, etc., was addressed to 
 the bishops of Italy and Gaul ; another was 
 written in Basil's own name to the bishops of 
 the West generally. There were also private 
 letters to Valerian of Aquileia and others. 
 These letters gave a most distressing picture 
 of the state of the East. " Men had learnt 
 to be theorists instead of theologians. The 
 true shepherds were driven away. Grievous 
 
124 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 wolves, spoiling the flock, were brought in 
 instead. The houses of prayer were destitute 
 of preachers, the deserts full of mourners. 
 The faithful laity avoided the churches as 
 schools of impiety. Priestly gravity had 
 perished. There was no restraint on sin. 
 Unbelievers laughed, the weak were unsettled. 
 . . . Let them hasten to the succour of their 
 brethren, nor allow the faith to be extinguished 
 in the lands whence it first shone forth " (Ep. 
 93). A Western priest, Sanctissimus, who 
 visited the East towards the end of 372 — 
 whether travelling as a private individual or 
 deputed by Damasus is uncertain — again 
 brought assurances of the warm attachment 
 and sincere sympathy of the Italian church ; 
 but words, however kind, were ineffectual to 
 heal their wounds, and Basil and his friends 
 again sent a vehement remonstrance, beseech- 
 ing their Western brethren to make the 
 emperor Valentinian acquainted with their 
 wretched condition, and to depute some of 
 their number to console them in their misery, 
 and sustain the flagging faith of the orthodox 
 (Epp. 242, 243). These letters, transmitted by 
 Dorotheus — probably a different person from 
 the former — were no more effectual. The 
 only point gained was that a council' — con- 
 fined, however, to the bishops of Illyria — was 
 summoned in 375 through the instrumentality 
 of Ambrose, by which the consubstantiality 
 of the Three Persons of the Trinity was de- 
 clared, and a priest named Elpidius dispatched 
 to publish the decrees in Asia and Phrygia. 
 Elpidius was supported by the authority of 
 the emperor Valentinian, who at the same 
 time promulgated a rescript in his own name 
 and that of his brother Valens, who dared 
 not manifest his dissent, forbidding the 
 persecution of the Catholics, and expressing 
 his desire that their doctrines should be 
 everywhere preached (Theod. iv. 8, 9). But 
 the death of Valentinian on Nov. 17, 375, 
 frustrated his good intentions, and the per- 
 secution revived with greater vehemence. 
 
 The secret of the coldness with which the 
 requests for assistance addressed by the 
 Eastern church were received by the West 
 was partly the suspicion that was entertained 
 of Basil's orthodoxy in consequence of his 
 friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste and 
 other doubtful characters, and the large- 
 heartedness which led him to recognize a 
 real oneness of belief under varying technical 
 formulas, but was principally due to his refusal 
 to recognize the supremacy of the bp. of Rome. 
 His letters were usually addressed to the 
 bishops of the West, and not to the bp. of 
 Rome individually. In all his dealings Basil 
 treats with Damasus as an equal, and asserts 
 the independence of the East. In his eyes 
 the Eastern and Western churches were two 
 sisters with equal prerogatives ; one more 
 powerful than the other, and able to render 
 the assistance she needed, but not in any 
 way her superior. This want of deference in 
 his language and behaviour offended not 
 Damasus only, but all who maintained the 
 supremacy of Rome. Jerome accused Basil 
 of pride, and went so far as to assert that 
 there were but three orthodox bishops in the 
 East' — Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus 
 [ad Pammach. 38). His appeals proving ia- 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 effectual, Basil's tone respecting Damasus 
 and the Western prelates changed. He began 
 to suspect the real cause of the apathy with 
 which his entreaties for aid had been received, 
 and to feel that no relief could be hoped from 
 their " Western superciliousness " (r?}? dvTiKf)% 
 6<ppvos), and that it was in vain to send emis- 
 saries to " one who was high and haughty and 
 sat aloft and would not stoop to listen to the 
 truth from men who stood below ; since an 
 elated mind, if courted, is sure to become 
 only more contemptuous" (Epp. 215, 239). 
 But while his hope of assistance from the 
 West lessened, the need for it increased. The 
 persecution of the orthodox by the Arians 
 grew fiercer. " Polytheism had got posses- 
 sion. A greater and a lesser God were wor- 
 shipped. All ecclesiastical power, all church 
 ordinances, were in Arian hands. Arians 
 baptized ; Arians visited the sick ; Arians 
 administered the sacred mysteries. Only one 
 offence was severely punished, a strict observ- 
 ance of the traditions of the Fathers. For 
 that the pious were banished, and driven to 
 deserts. No pity was shewn to the aged. 
 Lamentations filled the city, the country, the 
 roads, the deserts. The houses of prayer 
 were closed ; the altars forbidden. The 
 orthodox met for worship in the deserts 
 exposed to wind and rain and snow, or to the 
 scorching sun" {Epp. 242, 243). In his dire 
 extremity he once more appealed to the West, 
 now in the language of indignant expostulation. 
 " Why," he asks, " has no writing of consola- 
 tion come to us, no visitation of the brethren, 
 no other of such attentions as are due to us 
 from the law of love ? This is the thirteenth 
 year since the war with the heretics burst 
 upon us. Will you not now at last stretch 
 out a helping hand to the tottering Eastern 
 church, and send some who will raise our 
 minds to the rewards promised by Christ 
 to those who suffer for Him ? " (Ep. 242). 
 These letters were dispatched in 376. But 
 still no help came. His reproaches were as 
 ineffectual as his entreaties. A letter addressed 
 to the Western bishops the next year (377) 
 proves that matters had not really advanced 
 a single step beyond the first day. We find 
 him still entreating his Western brethren in 
 the most moving terms to grant him the 
 consolation of a visit. " The visitation of 
 the sick is the greatest commandment. But 
 if the Wise and Good Disposer of human 
 affairs forbids that, let them at least write 
 something that may comfort those who are 
 so grievously cast down." He demands of 
 them " an authoritative condemnation of the 
 Arians, of his enemy Eustathius, of Apollin- 
 aris, and of Paulinus of Antioch. If they 
 would only condescend to write and inform 
 the Eastern churches who were to be admitted 
 to communion and who not, all might yet be 
 well " (Ep. 263). The reply brought back 
 by the faithful Dorotheus overwhelmed him 
 with sorrow. Not a finger was raised by the 
 cold and haughty West to help her afflicted 
 sister. Dorotheus had even heard Basil's 
 beloved friends Meletius and Eusebius of 
 Samosata spoken of by Damasus and Peter 
 of Alexandria as heretics, and ranked among 
 the Arians. What wonder if Dorotheus had 
 waxed warm and used some intemperate Ian- 
 
BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 guage to the prelates ? If he had done so, 
 wTote Basil, let it not be reckoned against 
 I him, but put down to Basil's ai count and the 
 I untowardness of the times. The deep de- 
 I spondency which had seized Basil is evidenced 
 i by his touching words to Peter of Alexandria : 
 ( " I seem for my sins to prosper in nothing, 
 ! since the worthiest brethren are found de- 
 ficient in gentleness and fitness for their 
 (iflice from not acting in accordance with my 
 wishes " {Ep. 266). 
 
 Foiled in all his repeated demands, a deaf 
 ear turned to his most earnest entreaties, the 
 council he had begged for not summoned, the 
 deputation he had repeatedly solicited unsent, 
 Basil's span of life drew to its end amid blasted 
 hopes and apparently fruitless labours for the 
 unity of the faith. It was not permitted him 
 to live to see the Eastern churches, for the 
 purity of whose faith he had devoted all his 
 powers, restored to peace and unanimity. 
 " He had to fare on as he best might — admir- 
 ing, courting, but coldly treated by the Latin 
 world, desiring the friendship of Rome, yet 
 wounded by her superciliousness- — suspected 
 of heresy by Damasus, and accused by Jerome 
 of pride " (Newman, Church of the Fathers, 
 p. 115). 
 
 Some gleams of brightness were granted to 
 ! cheer the last days of this dauntless champion 
 of the faith. The invasion of the Goths in 378 
 1 gave Valens weightier cares than the support 
 I of a tottering heresy, and brought his perse- 
 cution of the orthodox to an end on the eve of 
 I his last campaign, in which he perished after 
 j the fatal rout of Hadrianople (Aug. 9, 378). 
 I One of the first acts of the youthful Gratian 
 was to recall the banished orthodox prelates, 
 and Basil had the joy of witnessing the event 
 so earnestly desired in perhaps his latest ex- 
 tant letter, the restoration of his beloved 
 friend Eusebius of Samosata {Ep. 268). Basil 
 died in Caesarea, an old man before his time, 
 Jan. I, 378, in the 50th year of his age. He 
 rallied before his death, and was enabled to 
 ordain with his dying hind some of the most 
 faithful of his disciples. " His death-bed was 
 ; surrounded by crowds of the citizens, ready," 
 , writes his friend Gregory, " to give part of 
 . their own life to lengthen that of their bishop." 
 ' He breathed his last with the words " Into 
 ; Thy hands I commend my spirit." His funeral 
 j was attended by enormous crowds, who 
 I thronged to touch the bier or the hem of his 
 I funeral garments, or even to catch a distant 
 I glimpse of his face. The press was so great 
 i that several persons were crushed to death, 
 almost the object of envy because they died 
 with Basil. Even Jews and pagans joined in 
 the general lamentations, and it was with 
 j some difficulty that the bearers preserved their 
 • sacred burden from being torn to pieces by 
 I those who were eager to secure a relic of the 
 ! departed saint. He was buried in his father's 
 , sepulchre, " the chief priest being laid to the 
 priests ; the mighty voice to the preachers ; 
 the martyr to the martyrs" (Greg. Naz. Or. 
 ^^: 371. 372). In person he was tall and 
 thin, holding himself very erect. His com- 
 plexion was dark, his face pale and emaciated 
 I with close study and austerities ; his forehead 
 ; projecting, with retiring temples. A quick 
 . eye, flashing from under finely arched eye- 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 125 
 
 brows, gave light and animation to his coun- 
 tenance. His speech was slow and deliberate. 
 His manner manifested a reserve and scdatc- 
 ness which some of his contemporaries attri- 
 buted to pride, others to timidity. Gregory 
 says, " It was the self-possession of his char- 
 acter, and composure and polish, which they 
 called pride," and refers not very convincingly 
 to his habit of embracing lepers as a proof 
 of the absence of superciliousness (Or. xx. 
 360). Basil's pride, indeed, was not the empty 
 arrogance of a w^eak mind ; but a well- 
 grounded confidence in his own powers. His 
 reserve arose partly from natural shyness — 
 he jestingly charges himself with " the want 
 of spirit and sluggishness of the Cappadocians " 
 {Ep. 48)— partly from an unwillingness to 
 ciHumit himself with those of whom he was 
 not sure. It is curious to see the dauntless 
 opponent of Modestus and Valens charged 
 with timidity. The heretic Eunomius after 
 his death accused him of being " a coward 
 and a craven skulking from all severer la- 
 bours," and spoke contemptuously of his 
 " solitary cottage and close-shut doors, and 
 his flustered look and manner when persons 
 entered unexpectedly " (Greg. Nys. adv. 
 Eunom. i. p. 318). Philostorgius also speaks 
 of Basil as " from timidity of mind with- 
 drawing from public discussions " {H. E. iv. 
 12). The fact seems to be that Basil was like 
 many who, while shewing intrepid courage 
 when once forced into action, are naturally 
 averse from publicity. He was a great lover 
 of natural beauty, as shewn by his letters. 
 The playful turn of his mind is also seen in 
 many passages of his familiar letters, which 
 sufficiently vindicate him from the charge of 
 austerity of character. In manner he united 
 Oriental gravity with the finished politeness 
 of the Greeks, and sedateness with sweetness ; 
 his slightest smile was commendation, and 
 silence was his only rebuke (Greg. Naz. Or. 
 XX. 260, 261). 
 
 The voice of antiquity is unanimous in its 
 praise of Basil's literary works (Cave, Hist. 
 Lit. i. 239). Nor has the estimate of modem 
 critics been less favourable. " The style of 
 Basil," writes Dean Milman, " did no dis- 
 credit to his Athenian education. In purity 
 and perspicuity he surpasses most of the 
 heathen as well as Christian writers of his 
 age " {Hist, of Christianity, iii. no). 
 
 The works of Basil which remain may be 
 classed as : I. Expository, II. Dogmatic, III. 
 Moral, IV. Epistolary, V. Liturgical. 
 
 I. Expository. — Cassiodorus records that 
 Basil wrote commentaries on almost all the 
 books of Holy Scripture. The greater part of 
 these are lost. Those that remain are — 
 
 1. Hexaemeron. — Nine Homilies on the Six 
 Days' Work of Creation. This is the most 
 celebrated of all his works. 
 
 2. Seventeen Homilies on the Psalms. — These 
 were preached ad populum. The first, on the 
 Psalms generally, was translated by Rufinus, 
 and is found prefixed to St. Augustine's Com- 
 mentaries. The only other homilies that have 
 reached us are those on Ps. 7, 14 (two), 28 
 (two), 29, 32, 33, 37, 44, 45, 48, 59, 61, and 
 114 (two). 
 
 3. Commentaries on the first Sixteen Chapters 
 of Isaiah, a continuous work. 
 
126 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT 
 
 II. Dogmatic. 
 
 1. Five books against Eunomius. — Com- 
 mended by Jerome (cgregii libri), Gregory 
 Naziaazen, and Photius (e^aiperoi Xoyoi). 
 
 2. On the Holy Spirit, addressed to Amphi- 
 lochius and written at his request. 
 
 3. On Baptism, two books. 
 
 4. Homilies. 
 
 III. Moral and Ascetic. 
 
 1. Homilies, against envy, drunkenness, 
 anger, on fasting, etc. A very sensible ad- 
 monition to a young man how to read the 
 books of heathen WTiters with profit (Homil. 
 24), included among these homilies, has been 
 frequently translated and separately pub- 
 lished, among others by abp. Potter, 1694. 
 Several homilies are in honour of local martyrs, 
 St. Julitta, St. Barlaam, St. Mammas, etc. 
 
 2. On true Virginity, a treatise addressed 
 to Letoius, bp. of Melitene, rejected by Garnier 
 on internal evidence, but generally accepted. 
 
 3. Ascetic Writings,* including- — (a) Pre- 
 fatory Discourse ; (b) Discourse on the Renun- 
 ciation of Worldlv Goods ; (c) On the Ascetical 
 Life ; (d) On Faith ; (e) On the Judgment of 
 God, a prologue to the Ethics ; (f) Ethics 
 or Morals, under 80 heads, compiled from 
 N.T. ; (g) On the Monastic Institutions, includ- 
 ing \dyos a.<XKT]TLKo<>, and viroTvirijJcn'i aaK-qaeiiis ; 
 (h) The Greater Monastic Rules, opoi Kara 
 TrXdros, 55 in number (in the form of Basil's 
 answers to questions of his monks), with 
 a proem ; (i) The Lesser Rules, opoi Kara 
 (TnTOfj.rjv. 313 in number, in the same form 
 of question and answer ; (k) Animadversions 
 on Delinquent Monks and Nuns, a very early 
 example of a Poenitentiale ; (1) Monastic Con- 
 stitutions, daKr)TLKal 5tard?€i5, in 34 chapters. 
 
 IV. Epistolary.' — In addition to those just 
 mentioned we have a collection of no fewer 
 than 365 letters addressed by Basil to his 
 private and official correspondents, including 
 two attributed to the emperor Julian and 
 twelve to Libanius (cf. F. Loofs, Eustathius 
 von Sebaste und die Chronologie der Basilian- 
 ischen Briefe, Halle, 1897). Excerpts from 
 some Letters of Basil from papyrus MSS. were 
 published by H. Landwehr : Greek MS. from 
 Fayoum, 188^. 
 
 V. Liturgical. — There is no reason to call 
 in question the universal tradition of the East, 
 that Basil was the composer of a liturgy. 
 Those offices, however, which have come down 
 to us under his name have been so largely 
 interpolated at many different periods, that it 
 is impossible to ascertain the correct text of 
 the liturgy as drawn up by him. There are 
 three chief editions of the Liturgy bearing 
 Basil's name : (i) the Greek or Constantino- 
 politan, (2) the Syriac, translated into Latin 
 by Masius, (3) the Alexandrian, found in 
 Coptic, Greek, and Arabic, which versions 
 concur in establishing one text. Of these, 
 the Constantinopolitan furnishes the surest 
 materials for ascertaining the genuine form. 
 
 The standard edition is the Benedictine, 
 pub. at Paris, 1 721- 1730, by Julian Garnier, 
 in 3 vols, fol., reprinted by Migne, Patr. Gk. 
 
 * Sozomen informs us that in his day the ascetic 
 writings commonly attributed to Basil were ascribed 
 by some to his, at one time, friend and companion 
 Eustathius of Sebaste. 
 
 BASILIUS 
 
 vol. 29-32. In Pitra's Analecta (Paris, 1888) 
 some Fragmenta Ascetica and Epitimia, and in 
 Psalmos were ascribed to Basil. An English 
 translation of some selected works and letters 
 and useful Prolegomena are given in Post- 
 Nice ne Fathers (VVace and Schaff) by W. 
 Blomfield Jackson, 1895. A revised text 
 of the treatise On the Holy Spirit with 
 notes and intro. is pub. by the Clarendon 
 Press. A cheap popular Life by R. T. Smith 
 is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. 
 Readers. [e.v.] 
 
 Basilius.theintimatefriendof Chrysostom, 
 with whom he resolved on the adoption of an 
 ascetic life, and whose consecration to the 
 episcopate he secured by a strange deception. 
 His see is unknown, but was probably neat 
 Antioch. [e-v.] 
 
 Basilius of Cilicia, presbyter of Antioch and 
 bp. of Irenopolis in Cilicia, c. 500 ; the author 
 of an Ecclesiastical History in three books, 
 from A.D. 450 to the close of Justin's reign. 
 ! Photius speaks disparagingly of it {Cod. 42). 
 He also wrote a violent book against Joannes 
 Scythopolitanus, and Photius {Cod. 107) says 
 ' its object was to oppose the doctrine of the 
 i union of the two natures in Christ. [e.v.] 
 j Basilius, bp. of Seleucia, in Isauria, and 
 I metropolitan, succeeded Dexianus, who at- 
 tended the council at Ephesus, and therefore 
 after 431. He is erroneously identified by 
 Photius with the early friend of Chrysostom, 
 who must have been considerably his senior 
 (Tillemont, xv. p. 340). He is very unfavour- 
 ably known from the vacillation he displayed 
 with regard to the condemnation of Eutyches. 
 He took a leading part in the council at 
 Constantinople in 448, at which Eutyches 
 was condemned ; and the next year, when 
 the fidelity of the acts of the council was 
 called in question, was one of the commission 
 appointed to verify them (Labbe, Concil. 
 vol. iv. 182, 230). But at the " Robbers' 
 Synod " held at Ephesus a few months later 
 his courage gave way, and he acquiesced in 
 the rehabilitation of Eutyches, and retracted 
 his obnoxious language. Before long he re- 
 turned to orthodoxy, and in 450 affixed his 
 signature to the famous Tome of pope Leo, 
 on the Incarnation. At the council of 
 Chalcedon, 451, the imperial commissioners 
 proposed his deposition, together with that of 
 other prelates who had aided in restoring 
 Eutyches. But Basil submitted, concurred 
 in the condemnation of Eutyches, and his 
 offence was condoned (ib. 553, 604, 787). 
 j His extant works comprise 39 homilies (17 
 t on O.T. and 22 on N.T.), the titles and subjects 
 j being given by Fabricius, Bibl. Grace, lib. v. 
 c. 19, 10. Four on John xi., published as his, 
 1 prove to be the work of St. Chrysostom. A 
 Homily on the Transfiguration was added to 
 the series in the ed. of the Jesuit Daus- 
 queius, in 1604. A prose work on The Life 
 and Miracles of St. Thecla has been attributed 
 to him ; but not only does the style differ, 
 and savour of a later age, but we learn from 
 Photius that Basilius wrote St. Thecla's life 
 in verse. Another supposititious work is the 
 Demonstratio contra Judaeos, which appears in 
 the Heidelberg ed. of 1596. Basil's homilies 
 shew much oratorical power and skill in the 
 I use of figurative language. He does not lose 
 
BEDA 
 
 sight of persoicuity, but overburdens his style 
 with metaphors. He not unfrcqucntly re- 
 raiuds us of Chrysostom, though greatly his 
 inferior in power. His homilies were first 
 pub. in Gk. bv Commelin, Lugd. Bat. i,so6, 
 8vo ; and in 'Latin by Claud. Dausqueius, 
 1604, 8vo. Thev are in the Dibl. Patr. 
 Colon. V. and Lugd. Bat. viii. 1677. They 
 were also printed at the end of the works of 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Paris, 1672, fol. 
 (Phot. Cod. 168 ; Tillemont, M,in. cccl. xv. 340, 
 seq. et passim ; Cave Hist. Lift. 441)- [k.v.] 
 
 Beds, more correctly Baeda, The Vener- 
 able. [Xote. — Though not prt)perly coming 
 within the period of this condensed ed.. Dr. 
 Stubbs's valuable art. is retained as Bede 
 is the classical historian of the English 
 Church for so much of our proper period. — 
 Ed.] Bede was born on the estate given by 
 Ecgfrith, king of Northunibria, to Benedict 
 Biscop for the foundation of his sister monas- 
 teries of Wearmouth and J arrow, probably, 
 however, before the lands were so bestowed ; 
 for the Wearmouth estate was given in 674, 
 and the J arrow one in 682, whilst the birth of 
 Bede seems satisfactorily fixed to 673. The 
 place of his birth is uncertain, for whilst tra- 
 dition and local history fix it at J arrow, there 
 is no positive evidence. Nor are the names 
 of his parents preserved. He himself, writing, 
 as may be reasonably concluded, immedi- 
 ately on the completion of his History in 731, J 
 describes himself then as in his 59th year ; 
 this would fix his birth in 673 ; but as he lived 
 until 735, and the passage may have been added 
 at anv time between 731 and 735, his birth has 
 bien sometimes put as late as 677. Mabillon, 
 however, whose arguments are sound and 
 whose conclusion has been generally recei\'ed, 
 accepts 673. At the age of 7 Bede was handed 
 over by his relations to the care of Benedict 
 Biscop, who had not, in 680, begun the build- 
 ings at J arrow, but had just returned from 
 Rome bringing the arch-chanter John. Bede 
 was educated in one or both of the sister monas- 
 teries, and after Benedict's death he passed 
 under the rule of Ceolfrith. At the age of 19 
 he was ordained deacon by John of Beverley, 
 then bp. of Hexham, and in his 30th year 
 received the priesthood from the same prelate ; 
 as John ceased to be bp. of Hexham in 705, 
 and the later date for Bede's birth would place 
 his ordination as priest in 706 at the earliest, 
 this conclusively favours the earlier date ; in 
 which case he was ordained deacon in 691 and 
 priest in 702. From his admission to the joint 
 monastery to his death he remained there 
 employed in study and devotional exercises, 
 and there is no evidence that he ever wan- 
 dered further than to York, which he visited 
 shortly before his death. In the valuable 
 MS. Cotton, Tiberius A. xv. fo. 50, which is 
 not later than the loth cent., is preserved a 
 letter of pope Sergius to Ceolfrith, desiring 
 him to send to Rome "religiosum famulum 
 Dei N. venerabilis monasterii tui," to assist 
 in the examination of some points of eccle- 
 siastical discipline. This letter was very early 
 believed to refer to Bede ; and by the time of 
 William of Malmesbury had begun to be read, 
 " religiosum Dei famulum Bedam, venerabilis 
 monasterii tui presbyterum " \ the name of 
 Bede resting on the authority of William of 
 
 BEDA 
 
 127 
 
 Malmesbury only, and the word presbyterum 
 on an interlineation in the Cotton MS. as well. 
 H presbyterum be authentic, it is a strong 
 argument against the identification of Bede, 
 for he was not ordained priest until 702, and 
 Sergius died in 701 ; but it is not essential to 
 the sense, rests apparently on an interpolation, 
 and if genuine may be a mistake of the pope. 
 Intercourse between Wearmouth and Konie 
 was nearly continuous at this time, and there 
 is no more likely monk under Ceolfrith's rule 
 than Bede. Some monks of the monastery 
 went to Rome in 701 (Bede, de Temporum 
 Ratione, c. 47), and brought a privilege from 
 Sergius on their return (Hist. Abbat. c. 12), 
 but Bede was not among them. The invita- 
 tion was probably meant for Bede, and per- 
 haps the acceptance of it was prevented by 
 the death of Sergius. Whether Bede's studies 
 were mainly at Wearmouth or at J arrow is 
 not important ; as he died and was buried at 
 J arrow, he probably lived there chiefly, but 
 the two houses were in strict union, and he 
 was equally at home in both. Under the 
 liberal and enlightened ministration of Bene- 
 dict Biscop and Ceolfrith, he enjoyed advan- 
 tages perhaps not elsewhere available in 
 Europe, and perfect access to all existing 
 sources of learning in the West. Nowhere 
 else could he acquire at once the Irish, Roman, 
 Gallican, and Canterbury learning; that of the 
 accumulated stores of books which Benedict 
 had bought at Rome and at Vienna ; or the 
 disciplinary instruction drawn from the 
 monasteries of the continent as well as from 
 the Irish missionaries. Amongst his friends 
 and instructors wereTrumbert, the disciple of 
 St. Chad, and Sidfrid, the fellow-pupil of St. 
 Cuthbert under Boisil and Eata ; from these 
 he drew the Irish knowledge of Scripture and 
 discipline. Acca, bp. of Hexham and pupil of 
 St. VVilfrid, furnished him with the special lore 
 of the Roman school, martyrological and 
 other ; his monastic learning, strictly Bene- 
 dictine, came through Benedict Biscop from 
 Lerins and many other continental monas- 
 teries ; and from Canterbury, with which he 
 was in friendly correspondence, he probably 
 obtained instruction in Greek, in the study of 
 the Scriptures, and other refined learning. 
 His own monastery offered rest and welcome 
 to learned strangers like abbot Adamnan 
 (Bede, H. E. v. 21), and Bede lost no oppor- 
 tunity of increasing his stores. 
 
 He describes the nature of his studies, the 
 meditation on Scripture, the observance of 
 regular discipline, the care of the daily singing 
 in church, "semper aut discere, aut docere, 
 aut scribere dulce habui." These were the 
 occupations of his youth. After his ordina- 
 tion he devoted himself to selecting from the 
 Fathers passages suitable for illustration and 
 edification, and, as he says modestly, added 
 contributions of his own after the pattern of 
 their comments. 
 
 The list of his works given at the conclusion 
 of his History, Bede seems to have arranged 
 in order of relative importance, not of their 
 composition ; and most of them afford only 
 very slight indications of the dates of writing. 
 Probably the earliest of his writings are the 
 more elementary ones, on Orthography, the 
 A rs Metrica and the de Naiura Rerum. The 
 
128 
 
 BEDA 
 
 BEt)A 
 
 Ars Metrica is dedicated to Cuthbert, a " con- [ Benedict Biscop, not of that of Wilfrid. The 
 levita," which seems to fix the date of writing , soundness and farsightedness of his ecclesias- 
 before 702 {0pp. ed. Giles, vi. 78). The de I tical views would be remarkable in any age, 
 Temporibus, the latest date of which is 702, j and especially in a monk. His letter to 
 may have followed almost immediately, and j Egbert contains lessons of wisdom, clear 
 the de Natura Rerum has been referred to the [ perception of abuses, and distinct recommen- 
 same date. The de Sex aetatibus Saeculi was 1 dation of remedies, which in the neglect of 
 written 5 years later to be read to Wilfrid. 1 observance of them might serve as a key for 
 The whole of the commentaries are later ; the whole later history of the Anglo-Saxon 
 they are all dedicated to bp. Acca, who sue- church. It breathes also the purest patriot- 
 ceeded his master Wilfrid in 709. The Com- ■ ism and most sincere love of souls. There is 
 mentaries on the Apocalypse, the Catholic 1 scarcely any father whose personal history is 
 Epp., and Acts, came first. Then that on 1 so little known, and whose personal character 
 St. Luke ; that on Samuel followed, 3 books [ comes out in his writings so clearly as does 
 of it being written before the death of Ceol- : that of Bede in this letter, and in his wonderful 
 frith in 716 ; that on St. Mark many years : History, 
 after. De Tempomm Ratione is assignable on | Loved and honoured by all alike, he lived 
 
 internal evidence to 726. Before the History 
 come the Life of Cuthbert and of the 
 abbots of Wearmouth and J arrow which are 
 
 period which, at least for Northumbria, 
 was of very varied character. The wise Ald- 
 frid reigned during his youth and early man- 
 
 referred to in the greater work. The History ! hood, but many years of disquiet followed his 
 was completed in 731, after which only the ' death, and even the accession of his friend 
 Ep. ad Egbertum seems to have been written. 1 Ceolwulf in 731 did not assure him of the end 
 The work on which he was employed at the of the evils, the growth of which, since king 
 time of his death was the translation of St. ! Aldfrid's death, he had watched with mis- 
 John's Gospel. i givings. His bishops, first John of Beverley, 
 
 Bede's attainments were very great. He \ and after the few years of Wilfrid's final 
 certainly knew Greek (H. E. v. 24) and some J restoration, Acca his friend and correspondent, 
 Hebrew. He knew Vergil, Ovid, Lucan, ! and his abbots, first Ceolfrith and then Huaet- 
 Lucretius, Terence, and a host of smaller 1 bert, were men to whom he could look up and 
 poets. Homer he quotes once, perhaps at ' who valued him. His fame, if we may judge 
 second-hand. He knew nearly all the second- | from the demand for his works immediately 
 rate poets, using them to illustrate the .4 rs I after his death, extended wherever English 
 Metrica. The earlier Fathers were, of course, missionaries or negotiators found their way, 
 in familiar use. The diversity and extent of { and must have been widespread during hislife. 
 his reading is remarkable : grammar, rhetoric, j Nearly every kingdom of England furnished 
 poetry, hagiography, arithmetic, chronology, I him with materials for his history : a London 
 the holy places, the Paschal controversy, i priest searched the records at Rome for him ; 
 epigrams, hymns, sermons, pastoral admoni- ! abbot Albanus transmitted him details of the 
 tion and the conduct of penitents ; even j history of the Kentish church ; bp. Daniel, the 
 speculations on natural science, on which he I patron of Boniface, supplied the West Saxon ; 
 specially quotes Pliny, employed his pen, ' the monks of Lastingham, the depositories 
 besides his great works on history and the 1 of the traditions of Cedd and Chad, reported 
 interpretation of Scripture. On all these how Mercia was converted ; Esi wrote from 
 points his knowledge was thoroughly up to I East Anglia, and Cynibert from Lindsey. 
 the learning of the day ; his judgment inde- I Soon after visiting Egbert at York in 734 
 pendent and his conclusions sound. He must ! his health began to fail ; and by Easter, 735, 
 have had good teachers, a good librjury, and he had become asthmatic. But he laboured to 
 an insatiable desire for learning. These \ the last, and, like Benedict Biscop, spent the 
 qualifications fitted him for the remarkable j time of unavoidable prostration in listening 
 place he holds in literature. 1 to the reading and singing of his companions. 
 
 By promoting the foundation of the school , When he could, he continued the work of trans- 
 of York, he kindled the flame of learning in | lation, and had reached the gth verse of John vi. 
 the West at the moment that it seemed to be ! on the day he died. As the end approached, he 
 expiring both in Ireland and in France. This \ distributed the few little treasures he had been 
 school transmitted to Alcuin the learning of allowed to keep in his chest, a little pepper, 
 Bede, and opened the way for culture on the | incense, and a few articles of linen ; then, 
 continent, when England was relapsing into having completed the sentence he was die- 
 barbarism under the terror of the Danes. It fating, he desired to be propped up with his 
 is impossible to read the more popular writings I face towards his church. He died repeating 
 of Bede, especially the Ecclesiastical History, '\ the Gloria Patri. The day is fixed by the 
 without seeing that his great knowledge was letter of Cuthbert, who details the events of 
 coupled with the humility andsimplicity of the , his deathbed to his friend Cuthwin, May 26, 
 purest type of monasticism. Employed on a 735. He was buried at J arrow where he 
 theme which, in the prevailing belief of mira- died; hisrelics werein the nth cent, removed 
 culous stories, could scarcely be treated of to Durham, and in 1104 were found in the 
 without incurring the charge of superstition, j same coffin with those of St. Cuthbert. The 
 he is eminently truthful. The wonders he | story of his epitaph and the tradition of the 
 relates on his own account are easily referred 1 bestowal of the title of Venerable is too well 
 to natural causes; and scarcely ever is a known and too apocryphal to be repeated here, 
 reputed miracle recounted without an author- For the subsequent fate of his remains see 
 ity. His gentleness is hardly less marked. Cuthbert. Alcuin has preserved one of his 
 He is a monk and politician of the school of sayings : "I know that the angels visit the 
 
BEDA 
 
 canonical hours and gatherings of the brethren; 
 what if they find not rae there among the 
 brethren ? Will they not say, Where is Bede : 
 whv does he not come with the brethren to the 
 prescribed prayers ? " (Ale. E[}. i6, ed. Migne). 
 
 Of tlie legendary or fictitious statements 
 about Bede, the following are tlie most 
 important : his personal acquaintance with 
 Alcuin, which is impossible ; his education 
 and sojourn at Cambridge, on which see tHles, 
 PP. Eccl. Angl. i. Ixx. seq. ; his visits to Italy 
 and burial at Genoa or at Rome, which seem 
 to belong to another person of the same name, 
 {ib. i. cvi.). and the legendary statements about 
 his title of Venerable (ib. i. ci.). For a detailed 
 investigation of these, and the alleged author- 
 ities for them, see Ciehlc's learned monograph, 
 Disp. Hist. Thcol. dc Bed. Vcn. (Leydcn, 1838), 
 pp. 2-4, 17-21, and for the fallacies as to the 
 date of Bede's death, ib. pp. 31 seq. 
 
 Bede's own list of his works may be re- 
 arranged as follows : 
 
 (i) Commentaries on O.T. — viz. Gen. 4 
 books, derived chiefly from Basil, Ambrose, 
 and Augustine ; the Tabernacle, 3 books ; 
 Sam. 3 books ; the Building of the Temple, 
 2 books ; on Kings, 30 questions dedicated to 
 Nothelm ; Prov. 3 books ; Canticles, 7 books ; 
 on Isa., Dan., the 12 minor prophets, and part 
 of Jer., extracts from Jerome ; on Ezra and 
 N'eh. 3 books ; on the Song of Habakkuk, i 
 book ; on Tobit, i ; chapters of lessons on the 
 Pentateuch, Josh., and Judges; Kings, Job, 
 Prov. Eccles. Canticles, Isa., Ezra, and Neh. 
 
 (2) Commentaries on N.T. : St. Mark, 4 
 books ; St. Luke, 6 books ; 2 books of homilies 
 on the Gospels ; Acts, 2 books ; a book on 
 each Catholic Ep. ; 3 books on the Apocalypse, 
 
 . Lessons on the whole N.T. except the Gospels. 
 
 (3) Letters: de Sex Aetatibus ; de Mansion- 
 ibus filiormn Israel ; de eo quod ait Esaias " et 
 claudentur, etc." ; de Ratione Bissexti ; de 
 
 1 Aequinoctio. 
 
 ; (4) Hagiographies : on St. Felix, rendered 
 
 from the poem of Paulinus ; on Anastasius, a 
 
 revised trans, from the Greek ; on St. Cuth- 
 ' bert, in verse and prose ; the abbots of Wear- 
 i mouth and J arrow ; the History of the 
 
 English Church ; the Martyrology. 
 I (5) Hymns and epigrams, 
 i (6) Scientific books : de Natura Rerum, de 
 \ Temporibus, de Temporum Ratione. 
 I (7) Elementary books : on Orthography, Ars 
 i Melrica, Schemato, and Trope. 
 
 Besides these he wrote translations into 
 : English, none of which are extant, from the 
 
 Scriptures ; Retractationes on the Acts ; the 
 
 Letter to Egbert ; and a book on penance is 
 I ascribed to him. 
 
 1 Bede's collected works, including many not 
 I his, were pub. at Paris, 1544 ; Basle, 1563 ; 
 ■ Cologne, 1612, 1688 ; and bv Dr. Giles (Lond. 
 i and Oxf.) in 1843 ; and in Migne's Patr. xc- 
 i "V- [S-] 
 
 j All study of Bede must henceforth begin 
 : with Mr. C. Plummer's monumental edition 
 'i0f the historical writings Baedae Opera His- 
 ./ortca (Clarendon Press, 1896). It contains 
 ; the //»s/oria Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, the 
 
 Htstoria Abbatttm, the Ep. ad Egbertum, and 
 ;the anonymous Historia Abbatum. An excel- 
 ,lent introduction presents a critical survey of 
 
 Bede's works with large references in footnotes 
 
 BENEDICTUS OF NURSIA 
 
 129 
 
 to modern authorities. The student should 
 consult the index in vol. ii. 418 for the fre- 
 quent allusions scattered throughout the two 
 vols, to the various writings of Bede. For the 
 text of works other than historical reference 
 must still be made to Migne's Patr. Lai. (vols. 
 94-95), or to Dr. J. .\. Giles's Patres F.cclcsiae 
 .inglicanae (vols. 1-12). A critical edition of, 
 at all events, the Biblical words of Bede is still 
 a desideratum. Dr. Giles edited some of the 
 smaller treatises 50 years ago, and Mr. Edward 
 Marshall published Bede's Explanation of the 
 .■\pocalypse in 1878; but with these exceptions 
 few, if any, of his writings have in recent years 
 appeared separately. In the i6th and 17th 
 cents, homilies and other works were frequently 
 printed. Reference may be made on this point 
 to the art. Bede in the 4-vol. ed. of this Dict. 
 Translations of the historical books were made 
 by Dr. Giles in 1840, Mr. Gidley in 1870, and 
 by Miss A. M. Sellar in 1907. The last named 
 is the most useful for the student. It is a 
 revision of Dr. Giles, and his work is in turn 
 based upon Mr. Stevens (1723). The notes in 
 Mayor and Lumby's ed. of H. E. iii. and iv. 
 (Camb. Univ. Press) are learned and important. 
 Reference should also be made to Lives of Bede 
 by Bp. Browne ( 1 879 )and Canon H.D.Rawnsley 
 (1904), and to the general treatmentof Bedeand 
 his times in Dr. Bright's Chapters from Early 
 English Church Hist. (pp. 335-338), and Dr. W. 
 Hunt's History of the English Church (vol. i. 
 pp. 205-208). A monograph on "Place Names 
 in the English Bede and the Localization of 
 the MSS.," by Thomas Miller, was contri- 
 buted to Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- 
 und CuUurgeschichte der germanischen Volker 
 (Strassburg, i8g6). The important question 
 of the chronological order of Bede's works is 
 discussed by Mr. Plummer, op. cit. (i. cxlv.- 
 
 Clix.). [H.G.] 
 
 Benedictus of Nursia. St. Benedict, abbot 
 of Monte Cassino (" Abbas Casinensis "), 
 called " patriarch of the monks of the West," 
 lived during the troubled and tumultuous 
 period after the deposition of Augustulus, 
 when most of the countries of Europe were 
 either overrun by Arians or still heathen. 
 There were many monks in southern Europe, 
 but without much organization till Benedict 
 reformed and remodelled the monastic life 
 of Europe (Mab. Ann. I. i.). The principal, 
 almost sole, authority for the life of St. Bene- 
 dict are the Dialogues of Gregory the Great. 
 
 \ The genuineness of these has been questioned, 
 but without sufficient cause. 
 
 Benedict was born about a.d. 4 So at Nursia 
 (Norcia), anciently belonging to the Sabines 
 ("frigida Nursia," Virg.), an episcopal city in 
 the duchy of Spoleto in Umbria. His parents 
 were of the higher class (" liberiori genere," 
 Praef. Dial.). A later writer gives their 
 names, Euproprius and Abundantia (Petr. 
 Diac. de Vir. III. i.). The ruins of the an- 
 cestral palace are shewn at Norcia, with a 
 crypt, the reputed birthplace of Benedict 
 (^lab. Ann. i. 4). He was sent as a boy to 
 
 j be educated at Rome ; but soon, shocked by 
 the immorality of his companions, fled, 
 followed by his nurse (Cvrilla ; Petr. D. de 
 Vir. III. i.), to Able (Effide), on the Anio 
 (Teverone), about forty miles from Rome 
 [Dial. ii. i). Thence he retired to a cave at 
 
130 
 
 BENEDICTUS OF NURSlA 
 
 Sublaqueum (Subiaco), where he lived as a 
 hermit in almost utter isolation for some years, 
 visited only from time to time by a priest of 
 the neighbourhood, Romanus (Dial. ii. i). 
 The cave, the well-known " il Sagro Speco," 
 is shewn about three miles of very steep ascent 
 above the town of Subiaco, and the tradition- 
 ary spot marked by a monastery, once famous 
 for its library and for the first printing press 
 in Italy, where the youthful anchoret rolled 
 naked in the thorn-bushes to overcome sensual 
 temptations (Mab. Ann. i. 8). The fame of 
 his sanctity spreading abroad, Benedict was 
 invited, his youth notwithstanding, by the 
 monks of a neighbouring monastery (at Vico- 
 varro) to preside over them, and very reluc- 
 tantly consented. Soon, however, their laxity 
 rebelled against his attempts at reformation 
 (he seems thus early to have shewn the or- 
 ganizing faculty for which he became after- 
 wards so remarkable), and he abdicated, after 
 miraculously escaping being poisoned by them 
 [Dial. ii. 3). He retired to his cave ; and 
 undertook the superintendence of youths, 
 among whom were two who became foremost 
 among his followers, Maurus and Placidus, 
 sons of Roman patricians {Dial. ii. 4). Here 
 he founded, it is said, twelve monasteries, 
 each of twelve monks with a " father " at the 
 head of them (Dial. ii. 3). Of these only 
 two remain, " II Sagro Speco " and " Sta. 
 Scholastica " ; the rest being in ruins, or 
 merely oratories (Mab. Ann. ii. i). That of 
 " Sta. Scholastica," so named after Benedict's 
 sister, enjoys special privileges, and takes 
 precedence among the Benedictine foundations 
 even of Monte Cassino, as of older date (Alb. 
 Butler, Lives of the Saints). Several of the 
 miracles ascribed to Benedict are connected 
 with Subiaco. But, after some time, finding 
 his work continually hindered by the machi- 
 nations of a dissolute priest, Florentius, he re- 
 moved, probably c. 530 (Mab. Ann. iii. 5), with 
 some of his disciples to Monte Cassino (Dial. ii. 
 8), destined to become illustrious as the head- 
 quarters of the great Benedictine order, and as 
 a stronghold of learning and liberal arts even 
 in the darkest ages. The mountain, with a town 
 and stream at its base, all of the same name, 
 stands on the borders of what were formerly 
 Latium and Campania, nearer to Naples than 
 Rome, a few miles from the birthplace of the 
 great Dominican, Thomas Aquinas. Some ruins 
 of an old Roman amphitheatre mark the site of 
 the town, near the modern St. Germano ; the 
 little stream flows into the Rapido, a tributary 
 of the Garigliano (Liris). The summit of the 
 mountain three miles above the town, and 
 even at the present time inaccessible to 
 carriages, was crowned, before the arrival of 
 Benedict, by a temple of Apollo ; frequented 
 even then by the rustics (Dial. i. 8), although 
 the existence of a bp. of Cassino is indicated 
 by the list of bishops present at the Roman 
 council, A.D. 484 (Mab. Ann. iii. 5). On this 
 precipitous eminence, looking down on the 
 plains washed by the peaceful Liris (" taci- 
 turnus amnis," Hor.), and backed by the wild 
 crags of the Abruzzi Benedict set himself with 
 new vigour to carry out his plans of a revival 
 of monasticism. The miraculous intervention 
 of which Gregory hands down the story (Dial. 
 ii. 9, 10) is not necessary to explain how the 
 
 BENEDICTUS OF NURSIA 
 
 missionary spirit of Benedict and his monks, 
 overthrew the image and altar of Apollo, and' 
 reared shrines of St. John Evang. and St. 
 Martin, the founder of monasticism in France, 
 within the very walls of the Sun-god's temple 
 — it was customary to reconsecrate, not to 
 destroy, pagan edifices (Greg. M. Ep. xi. 76) 
 — where now stands one of the most sump- 
 tuous of Italian churches. Here Benedict 
 commenced the monastery destined to a 
 world-wide reputation. Here for 12 years or 
 more he presided over his followers ; here he 
 is believed to have composed the Benedictine 
 Rule, in the same year, it is said, in which the 
 schools of Athens were suppressed, and his 
 famous Code was promulgated by Justinian; 
 and from this sequestered spot he sent forth 
 his emissaries not only to Anxur (Terracina, 
 Dial. ii. 22), but beyond the borders of Italy 
 to Sicily (Mab. Ann. iii. 25). Mabillon con- 
 siders the narrative in Greek by Gordianus 
 of the Mission of Placidus into Sicily spurious, 
 but the mission itself beyond doubt. Not 
 many years elapsed before this and other 
 similar foundations were richly endowed with 
 lands and other offerings (Greg. M. Ep. iii. 3). 
 
 It was in the vicinity of Monte Cassino that 
 Benedict confronted and rebuked the ferocious 
 Totila (a.d. 542) at the head of his victorious 
 Ostrogoths (Dial. ii. 14, 15), and that he was 
 wont to cheer his solitude by brief and rare 
 interviews with his beloved sister, Scholastica, 
 herself a recluse at no great distance (ib. 33), 
 He is said to have been summoned to a synod 
 at Rome (a.d. 531) by Boniface II. (Cave, 
 Hist. Litt. on the authority of a codex 
 Bibl. Fa/, by Ant. Scrip. Mon. Cas., Eleg. Abb. 
 Cas. p. 25). His death is variously computed 
 from 539 (Schol. Bened. in Honor. August, 
 ii'. 30 ap. Fabr. Bibl. Ecd.) to a.d. 543 
 (Trithem, de Vir. 111. c. 300, ap. Fabr. ; of. 
 Clint. Fast. Rom. and Mab. A A. SS. O.S.B. 
 Praef.). Some few writers assign a yet later 
 date. His sister (his twin-sister according to . 
 Trithemius, but cf. Mab. Ann. iii. 14) shortly 1 
 predeceased him. She is called abbess by 
 Bertharius, Abb. Cas. in the 8th cent, (ib.) ; | 
 but probably lived alone (cf. Greg. M. Dial. iii. ; 
 7, 14), or as one of a sisterhood. The words j 
 " adcellampropriam recessisset " areambiguous 
 (Dial. ii. 34 ; cf. Act. Sand. Feb. 10). I 
 
 The character of St. Benedict may be best : 
 estimated from his Regula Monastica, if, as 
 indeed is reasonable to suppose, it was his 
 composition. In contrast to monastic rules 
 already in existence, chiefly of Eastern origin, : 
 it breathes a spirit of mildness and considera- , 
 tion, while by the sanction for the first time 
 given to study it opened the way for those 
 literary pursuits which afterwards developed 
 themselves so largely within convent walls.' 
 The account of the great Reformer's tender, 
 affection for his sister, and of his withdrawal 
 before opposition at Subiaco, seems to give'' 
 verisimilitude to the traditionary portraits 
 of him, as of gentle though dignified aspect. 
 His demeanour before Totila, the strict rule 
 under which he kept others as well as himself 
 {Dial. ii. 23, etc.), and his severity in repress-, 
 ing the slightest disobedience (24, 28, etc.) 
 testify to his practical insight into character, 
 (20), as well as to his zeal and courage. In 
 Dial. iii. 161 he is said (like Anthony) to have 
 
BENEDICTUS I. 
 
 reprove(] a hermit who had chained himself to 
 a rock, in these words, " Brother, be bound 
 only by the chain of Christ ! " The character 
 of the Benedictine Order, by the specialities 
 which have always distinguished it from other 
 religious orders, attest the sagacious and liberal 
 character of its founder. Fleury thinks he was 
 not ordained, although he preached {Keel. Hist. 
 xxxii. 15). The idea of his being a priest is 
 modern (Mab. Ann. O.S.B. v. 122 ; Murat. Ser. 
 Ital. iv. 27). 
 
 Some, probably not all, of the remains of 
 St. Benedict were transferred from his shrine 
 at M. Cassino to the Benedictine abbey at 
 Floriacum (Fleury), on the Loire, in the 7th 
 cent, or at a later date (Mab. Acta, ii. 339). 
 The question is discussed at length in A A. SS. 
 Boll. 21 Mar. iii. 299-301, and ia Mab. AA. 
 SS. O.S.B. Saec. ii. 337-352. 
 
 For his life, see Greg. M. Dial. lib. ii. in 
 Migne's Patr. Ixvi., also in Mabillon's Acta 
 Sanctorum O.S.B. Saec. i., in Muratori, Script. 
 Rer. Italic, iv., and elsewhere. Vita S. Bene- 
 dicli (in verse), by ^Slarcus Pocta, said to be 
 a disciple of St. Benedict, in Mab. A. A. SS. 
 Saec. i. ; cf. Pauli Diac. Histor. Langobard. i. 
 26 ; see also Gregoire le Grand, la vie de St. 
 Benoit, etc., par Jos. Mege, Par. 1734, 4to ; 
 Mab. Ann. O.S.B. i. viii.. Acta Sanctorum 
 (BoUand.), 21 Mar. iii. Bened. Haefteni, 
 Commentar. in Vit. S. Bened. For a more 
 complete catalogue of hymns, sermons, etc., 
 on St. Benedict see Potthast s.v. Among 
 modem biographies see Le pitture dello Zingaro 
 nel cJnostro di S. Severino in Napoli piibblicate 
 per la prima volta e dilucidate da Stanislao 
 d'.-iloe (Napoli, 1846, 4to) ; also Tosti St. 
 Ben., historical discourse on his life from the 
 Italian (Lond. 1896), and Essays on Tosti's 
 Life (Lond. 1S96). In a new ed. of the English 
 trans, of Montalembert's Monks of the West 
 (Lond. 6 vols. 1S96) is an introduction by 
 Dom Gasquet on the Rule. A convenient ed. 
 of the Rule, by D. H. Blair, with Eng. 
 translation, was pub. at Lond. and Edin. 
 (zi\d. ed.), 1896. [i.G.s.] 
 
 Benedictus I., pope, called bv the Greeks 
 BonoSUS (Evagr. Sc. H. E. v. 16), son of 
 Boniface, a Roman, was elected successor to 
 John III. on June 3, 574 (Jaffe, Regesta Pont. ; 
 the dates given by Baronius are erroneous ; 
 of. Clinton, F. R. ii. 543, on the causes of 
 discrepancy in the pontifical chronology). 
 During his pontificate Italy was harassed by 
 the invasion of the Lombards. Though they 
 never actually penetrated into the city o'f 
 Rome, they ravaged the suburbs, violated the 
 cemeteries, and persecuted the Christians. 
 Misery and famine ensued, and Rome was 
 only relieved eventually by a corn fleet from 
 Egypt, dispatched at the pope's request by 
 the emperor Justin. Benedict died in July 
 578, and was buried on the last day of that 
 month in St Peter's. He was succeeded by 
 Pelagius II. (Anastas. Liber. Pontif. ; cf. Paul. 
 Diac. de Gestis Long. ii. 10, ap. Muratori, i.). 
 According to Ciacconius {Vitae Pont. Rom.) 
 his memory was eulogized by Gregory the 
 Great. His restoration of certain lands to 
 the Abbot of San Marco at Spoleto rests on 
 the same authority (Greg. Op. ii. 950, ed. 
 Bened.) ; see generally Baronius, sub annis 
 573-577 ; Labbe, Concil vol. v.). [t.r.b.] 
 
 BERYLLUS 
 
 131 
 
 Bertha [Bercta), wife of Ethelbert, king of 
 Kent. She was daughter of Caribort, king 
 of PariS, by liis wife Ingobcrga (Greg. Turon. 
 iv. 26, ix. 26), and lost her father in 575, her 
 mother in 589. The date of her marriage is 
 unknown, but it was probably after the death 
 of her mother, although Bede speaks of the 
 king receiving her " a parentibus." Ethel- 
 bert was still a heathen, and on his marriage 
 it was made a condition that his wife should 
 be allowed to enjoy the exercise of her own 
 religion, and should be attended by a bishop. 
 Liudhard, or Letard, who is called by the 
 Canterbury historians bp. of Senlis (Thorn, 
 ed. Twysden, 1767), was chosen to accompany 
 her, and the remains of the church of St. 
 Martin, at Canterbury, were allotted for 
 Christian worship (Bede, H. E. i. 26). It was 
 partly, no doubt, by her influence that Ethel- 
 bert was induced to receive the Roman mission 
 and to be baptized. Pope Gregory, in 601, 
 when sending Mellitus to reinforce Augustine's 
 company, addressed a letter to Bertha, in 
 which he compliments her highly on her faith 
 and knowledge of letters, and urges her to 
 make still greater efforts for the spread of 
 Christianity. He also ascribes the conversion 
 of the English mainly to her, and compares 
 her to the empress Helena (St. Greg. Epp. 
 xii. 29 ; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 
 17, 18). The date of her death is unkno\vn. 
 She was buried in the porch of St. Martin, in 
 the church of SS. Peter and Paul (Bede, H. E. 
 ii. 5). Ethelbert seems to have marriccl again 
 after her death. She was the mother of 
 Eadbald, who succeeded to the throne on 
 Ethelbert's death, and of Ethelburga, who, in 
 625, was married to Edwin, King of North- 
 umbria. As her son was uubaptized in 616, 
 it is probable that she found considerable 
 difficulty in promoting Christianity in her own 
 family, or else that she died whilst her children 
 were very young. Elmham (ed. Hardwick, p. no) 
 says she took part in founding the monastery 
 of St. Augustine, at Christmas, 604, but this is 
 merely traditional ; and the latest trustworthy 
 trace of her is St. Gregory's letter of 601. [s.] 
 Beryllus, bp. of Bostra,* in Arabia, known 
 in his day as one of the most learned teachers 
 of the church. He conceived heretical views 
 as to the person of our blessed Lord, to con- 
 sider which a synod assembled at Bostra, a.d. 
 244. The bishops unanimously condemned 
 j his teaching, and declared that Christ at His 
 I Incarnation was endowed with a human soul 
 (Socr. H. E. iii. 7), but were unable to con- 
 ! vince Beryllus of his error. Origen. however, 
 i who, having been recently degraded from Holy 
 Orders and excommunicated at Alexandria, 
 was then residing at Caesarea, had been in- 
 vited to the synod, and by his intellectual 
 superiority, dialectical skill, and friendly 
 moderation succeeded in proving to Beryllus 
 the unsoundness of his tenets, and in leading 
 him back to the orthodox faith. For this, 
 according to Jerome, he received the thanks 
 of Beryllus in a letter extant in his time. Our 
 only authority as to the tenets of Beryllus is 
 a somewhat obscure passage of t;usebius, 
 H. E. vi. 33, and a fragment of Origen's com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to Titus, found in the 
 • Socr. H. E. iii. 7, erroneously makes Beryllus 
 bp. of Philadelphia. 
 
132 
 
 BLANDINA 
 
 apology of Pamphilus, Orig. 0pp. torn. iv. 
 p. 22, ed. Bened., which have led to very 
 opposite conclusions. These may be seen in 
 Dorner, where the whole question is discussed 
 at length. His views were Monarchian, and 
 are identified by Schleiennacher with those 
 of the Patripassians, and by Baur with those 
 of Artemon and the neo-Ebionites. Accord- 
 ing to Dorner, Bervllus occupies a middle 
 place, forming a connecting link between 
 the Patripassians and Sabellius. The leadmg 
 ideas of his teaching as developed by Dorner 
 from Eusebius were as follows : (i) there 
 existed a Trarpt^rj ^eorTjs in Christ, but not an 
 Ihia eedrrjs: (2) Christ had no independent 
 existence in a circumscribed form of being 
 of His own (Kar idiav ouaias -n-fpi-ypacp-qv), 
 before His Incarnation {eviSruxia). (3) Sub- 
 sequently to His Incarnation, He Who had 
 been identified with the TrarpLKr} deoTrjs became 
 a circumscribed Being possessed of an in- 
 dependent existence ; the being of God in 
 Christ being a circumscription of the deor-r^s 
 of the Father, i.e. of God Himself. According 
 to Eusebius, H. E. vi. 20, Beryllus was the 
 author of epistles and treatises displaying 
 considerable elegance. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. 
 No. Ix. ; Niceph. H. E. v. 22 ; Neander ii. 
 pp. 350 ff. ; Gieseler, v. p. 219; Dorner, 
 Person of Christ, First Period, Second Epoch, 
 § i. c. 2, div. i. vol. ii. pp. 35-45. Clark's 
 trans. ; Schrockh, iv. 38 ; Mosheim, de Reb. 
 Christ, ante Constant, p. 699 ; UUman, Comment, 
 de Bervll. Bost. (Hamb. 183^) ; Fock, Diss, de 
 Christolog. Bervll. Bost. (1843). [e.v.] 
 
 Blandina, martyr, a female slave, reckoned 
 as the chief among the martyrs of Lyons, in 
 that, although weakest in body, she suffered 
 longest and most bravely the most various 
 and prolonged torture. Among other things 
 she was stretched upon a cross and thrown to 
 wild beasts, which, however, refused to touch 
 her ; and finally she was tied up in a net and 
 gored to death by a bull. (Eus. H. E. v. i ; 
 Eucher. Lugdun. Horn, inter Horn. Euseb. 
 Emesen. xi. ; Greg. Tur. de Glor. Martt. xlix. ; 
 Baron. June 2.) [a.w.h.] 
 
 Boethlus {Boirios. Procop.), Anicius Man- 
 
 lius Severinus.* This honourable name, in- 
 vested by the church for so many centuries 
 with a halo of sanctity, can hardly be ex- 
 cluded from a Dictionary of Christian Bio- 
 graphy, though some criticism in modern 
 times has tended to distinguish the Roman 
 senator, the author of the Consolatio Philoso- 
 phiae, from the writer of certain theological 
 treatises which bear his name, and upon 
 the genuineness of which depends his claim 
 to be enrolled among the mart>TS of 
 Christendom. These works, (i.) de Sancta 
 Trinitate, (ii.) Utrum Pater et Filius Substan- 
 tialiter Praedicentur, (iii.) de Duabus Naturalis 
 et una Persona Christi, contra Eutychen et 
 Nestorium, (iv.) Fidei Confessio sen brevis 
 Institutio Rcligionis Christianae, based upon 
 the Aristotelian Categories, and compiled in 
 great measure from the writings of St. Augus- 
 tine, being concerned entirely with abstract 
 questions of dogma, offer but little to compare 
 
 * The additional name of Torquatus does not 
 occur before the 15th cent. Bertius is the only 
 commentator who gives the praenomen Flavins. 
 
 BOfiTHIUS 
 
 with the Consolatio, into which the mind and 
 heart of its author were manifestly thrown ; 
 nevertheless Hand {Encyclopddie, v. Ersch. 
 u. Gruber, in voce) has endeavoured to shew 
 that they are alien in point of philosophy as 
 well as in the method of thought and expres- 
 sion from the undoubted writings of Boethius. 
 For instance, although philosopher and theo- 
 logian alike demonstrate the substantial as 
 opposed to the accidental nature of God, 
 Boethius (ad Arist. Categ. c. 4) maintains 
 Aristotle's distinction of substances, whereas 
 the author of the first theological treatise 
 { insists upon the substantial indifference of 
 j the three persons in the Trinity. Again, 
 while Boethius translates the ov<ria of Aristotle 
 1 by substantia, the author of the third treatise 
 adopts the later rendering essentia, while 
 ! he also follows ecclesiastical writers in his 
 use of the words substantia {hwoaraaL's] and 
 : persona [irpcxTiinrov). The arguments of Hand 
 have been controverted by Gustave Baur (de 
 Boeth. Christianae Fidei Assertore, c. i), but 
 [ the theory of a second Boethius, whom Hand 
 [ supposes to have been confounded at an early 
 date with the philosopher, so far from being 
 refuted, has suggested the still more plausible 
 conjecture of Obbarius (Proleg. ad Consol. 
 Phil. p. xxxvii. Jenae, 1843) that another 
 j Severinus was the author of the works in 
 I question, and that to this person, and not to 
 i the author of the Consolatio, belong the 
 honours of martyrdom in defence of the 
 Catholic faith. In support of this conjecture 
 there are the facts : (i.) That no author is 
 known to mention the theological works of 
 Boethius before Alcuin (de Proc. Spir. Sancti, 
 P- 752), who flourished nearly three centuries 
 after his death. (ii.) That although the 
 tradition was current in the Middle Ages, from 
 Paulus Diaconus (8th cent.) downwards, that 
 Boethius laid down his life in his zeal for the 
 Catholic faith against the Arian invaders of 
 Italy, this is not his own account of his fall 
 from court favour nor is it supported by any 
 contemporary writer, (iii.) That in the 
 epitaph of Gerbertus, bp. of Ravenna, after- 
 wards pope Sylvester II., inscribed upon the 
 monument raised in his honour by Otho III., 
 A.D. 996, no mention is made of martyrdom 
 or of canonization (Migne, Patr. vol. 139, p. 
 287). (iv.) That while the church of Rome 
 knows nothing of St. Boethius, the festival of 
 St. Severinus has been held on Oct. 23 ever 
 since the 8th cent., in the neighbourhood of 
 Ticinum, where Boethius is popularly believed 
 to have been executed. The double clue nms 
 throughout the history of Boethius, as derived 
 from various sources ; the same twofold 
 character, half secular, half ecclesiastical, 
 pervades the whole ; and hence the unusual 
 number of so-called fables mingled with the 
 best authenticated facts — e.g: — 
 
 (i) The wife of Boethius was unquestion- 
 ably Rusticiana, the daughter of the senator 
 Symmachus (Cons. Phil. ii. 3, 4 ; Procop. 
 Goth. iii. 20), by whom he had two sons, 
 Aurelius Anicius' Symmachus and Anicius 
 Manlius Severinus, who were consuls a.d. 522 
 (Cons. Phil. ii. 3, 4) ; but tradition makes 
 him to have been also the husband of Elpis, 
 a Sicilian lady and the authoress of two 
 hymns in the Breviary [Elpis], and by her to 
 
BOETHIUS 
 
 have had two sons, Patricius and Hypatius, 
 Greek consuls a.d. 500. 
 
 (2) According to his own statement, Boethius 
 was" imprisoned {Cons. Phil. i. ii. metr. 24) 
 at a distance of 500 miles from Rome {ib. i. 
 4) ; according to other accounts he was simply 
 exiled, a confusion which no doubt arose from 
 the epitaph of the said Elpis, in which she is 
 said (Burni. Auih. Lai. toni. ii. epigr. 138) to 
 have followed her husband into banishment. 
 
 (3) His fall and death is mixed up by 
 Paulus Diaconus and other writers, who 
 are followed among modern writers by Bahr 
 [Rom. Lit. p. 162) andHeyne (Ccnsar. ingenii, 
 etc.. Boeth.), with the constrained embassy of 
 pope John to Constantinople on behalf of 
 the Arians of the East, which is said to have 
 resulted in the suspicion of his treachery and 
 finally in his death ; whereas Boethius was 
 put to death, according to others (Anonym. 
 Vales., etc.), before the embassy, or at least 
 before the return of the pope, a.d. 525, and 
 as he himself implies [Cons. Phil, i- 4).. on 
 suspicion of conspiracy, not against Arianism, 
 but for the restoration of the liberty and power 
 of the senate. 
 
 (4) Two distinct accounts exist of his 
 execution, one stating that he was beheaded 
 atTicinum (Anast. Vit. Pontif. in Johanne I. ; 
 Aimoin, Hist. Franc, ii. i), where he was 
 imprisoned, according to popular tradition, 
 in a tower still standing at Pa via in 1584 
 (Tiraboschi, iii. 1. i, c. 4) ; another relating 
 (Anonym. Vales, p. 36, in Gronov. ed. Amm. 
 Marceil.) that he was confined along with 
 Albinus in the baptistery of a church, and 
 soon afterwards executed " in agro Calven- 
 tiano," first being tortured by a cord tightly 
 twisted round his forehead, and then beaten 
 to death with a club. 
 
 (3) He is claimed by the church as a saint 
 and martyr under the name of Severinus, 
 the friend of St. Benedict (Tritenhem, ap. 
 Fabric. Bibl. Lat. iii. 13), and the worker of 
 a miracle at his death (Martianus Rota, vid. 
 Boeth. in usum Delphin.), but of all this his 
 contemporaries knew nothing, and no hint of 
 it appears until three centuries after his death, 
 when he also becomes the author of four 
 dogmatic treatises on the mysteries of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 Whether or not this double tradition has 
 grown out of the history of two distinct 
 individuals, there can be little doubt that to 
 obtain a true estimate of the character and 
 writings of Boethius, the author of the 
 Consolatio must be distinguished from 
 Severinus, saint and martyr, or whoever else 
 was the writer of the above-mentioned 
 theological works. It remains for us briefly 
 to notice the most authentic facts of the 
 philosopher's life, and to inquire how far his 
 thoughts were coloured by the contempor- 
 aneous influence of Christianity, or exercised 
 an influence in their turn upon the religious 
 thought of the Middle Ages. 
 
 Boethius was born between the years a.d. 
 470-475, as is inferred from his contemporary 
 Ennodius (Eucharisma de Vita sua), who says 
 that he himself was sixteen when Theodoric 
 invaded Italy, a.d. 490. As a wealthy orphan 
 (Cons. Phil. ii. 3) Boethius inherited the patri- 
 mony and honours of the Anician family, was 
 
 BOETHIUS 
 
 133 
 
 brought up under the care of the chief men 
 at Rome (ib. ii. 3), and became versed in 
 the erudition of his own country and like- 
 wise in that of Greece. In the words of 
 his friend Cassiodorus, " The geometry of 
 Euclid, the music of Pythagoras, the arith- 
 metic of Niconiachus, the mechanics of 
 Archimedes, the astronomy of Ptolemy, the 
 theology of Plato, and the logic of Aristotle," 
 were translated and illustrated for the benefit 
 of the Romans by his indefatigaljle pen (Var. 
 i. Ep. 43). Nor was he less distinguished for 
 his virtue. His purse was ever open to the 
 poor of Rome (Procop. Goth. I. i.). He 
 exerted his authority and eloquence on behalf 
 of the oppressed provincials (Cons. Phil. i. 4). 
 Such conspicuous merit was at first appre- 
 ciated by Theodoric. He received the title 
 of patrician while still a youth (ib. i. 3), 
 became consul a.d. 510, and princeps senatus 
 (Procop. Goth. I. i.), was employed in the 
 important station of master of the offices 
 (Anonym. Vales, p. 26), in which post his 
 scientific knowledge and mechanical skill 
 were turned to ample account (Cassiod. Ep. i. 
 10, 43, ii. 40), and reached the summit of 
 his fortune on the day when, supported by his 
 two sons, who had just been inaugurated in 
 the consulship, he pronounced a panegyiic 
 upon Theodoric and gratified the populace 
 with a largess (Cons. Phil. ii. 3). But a re- 
 verse was at hand. The philosopher had 
 exerted himself to rescue the state from the 
 usurpation of ignorance ; the senator had 
 opposed his integrity to the tyranny and 
 avarice of the barbarians who did not in 
 general share the moderation of their leader. 
 His expression, " palatini canes " (ib. i. 4), 
 shews his uncompromising spirit against their 
 iniquities ; and it is not surprising that 
 the courage and sympathy he shewed in 
 pleading the cause of Albinus, a senator who 
 was accused of " hoping the liberty of Rome " 
 (ib.), joined to other similar conduct, and 
 misrepresented by his foes, at length poisoned 
 the mind of Theodoric, who seems to have 
 appointed one Decoratus, a man of worthless 
 character, to share and control the power 
 of his favourite (ib. iii. 4). As to the 
 existence of any widespread conspiracy to 
 overthrow the Ostrogothic rule there is but 
 very faint evidence, and against this must be 
 set down his own indignant self-justification 
 (ib. i. 4). A sentence of confiscation and death 
 was passed upon him by the senate without 
 a trial ; he was imprisoned in the Milanese 
 territory, and ultimately executed in one of 
 the ways named above, probably about the 
 30th year of his age, a.d. 520-324. His 
 father-in-law, Symmachus, was involved in his 
 ruin (Procop. Goth. I. i.), and his wife, Rus- 
 ticiana, reduced to beggary (ib. iii. 20). The 
 remorse of Theodoric, which came too late 
 to save " the last of the Romans," is the 
 natural and tragic finish to a story which has 
 too many parallels in history. 
 
 It was during his imprisonment that Boe- 
 thius composed his Consolation of Philosophy, 
 a work described by Gibbon as " a golden 
 volume, not unworthv of the leisure of Plato 
 or Tully." It is a dialogue in prose and verse 
 (a species of composition suggested probably 
 by the medleys of Petronius and Capella) 
 
134 
 
 BOETHIUS 
 
 between the author and his visitant, Philo- 
 sophy, whom he represents as a woman of 
 reverend mien and varying stature, upon the 
 borders of whose vesture were woven the 
 letters IT and e, symbolizing no doubt the 
 Platonic division of philosophy into wpaKTiKr) 
 and OeuipriTLKT]. Those who regard the " Con- 
 solation " as the work of a Christian have not 
 unnaturally been perplexed by its total silence 
 as to the distinctive faith of Christianity, and 
 have been forced to suppose it incomplete 
 (Bertius, Lips. 1753), or to interpret it allegori- 
 cally (Gervais, vid. Schrockh, Hist. Eccles- xvi. 
 118). It breathes a spirit of resignation and 
 hope, but so does the Phaedo. It is based 
 upon a firm belief in Providence, but it is 
 only in his poetic flights that the author's 
 language seems to savour of a belief in a 
 personal God {Cons. Phil. iii. metr. 9), his 
 faith never elsewhere rising higher than 
 Theism, and occasionally passing into Pan- 
 theism (ib. iii. 12, et pass.). He asserts the 
 efficiency of prayer, but the injunction thereto 
 is drawn from the Timaeus and not from the 
 N.T. (ib. iii. 9), while the object of his 
 aspirations is not the (rrefpavos fciT/s or 61/caio- 
 avvr}s of the Apostle, but the summum bonum 
 of the Greek philosopher. He has been 
 thought to betray an acquaintance with the 
 Christian idea of heaven (ib. i. 5, iii. 12, iv. 
 I, V. i), but his patria is the peace of the 
 philosophic mind, not the woX'iTevfxa ev oipavui 
 virapxov. In short, the whole work, with 
 the exception of words and phrases which 
 merely imply an acquaintance with Christian 
 writers, might have been written, so far as 
 theology is concerned, by Cicero himself. The 
 works of Boethius prove his intimate know- 
 ledge of Greek literature, and were for centuries 
 the only vehicle bv which Greek philosophy 
 penetrated to the West ; but his chief work 
 is now of value only as serving, along with 
 the poetry of Claudian and Ausonius, to mark 
 the point of contact between the thought of 
 heathendom and the faith of Christianitv. 
 that from the 6th to the 14th cent, its author 
 Pfas invested with a monopoly of philosophic 
 neatness was natural in the' utter decav of 
 (earning, but it was the excess of darkness 
 ivhich made his light of brightness sufficient 
 to shine across the ages till it paled in the 
 rising splendour of the revival of letters. 
 
 His works are : rfe Consolatione Philosophiae 
 libri v. ; in Porphyrii Isagogcn a Victorino 
 Translatam Dialogi ii. ; in eandem a se ipso 
 Latine Translatam libri v. ; in Categorias 
 Aristoielis libri ii. ; in Ejusdem Librum ire pi 
 ep/jiriVfLas lib. i. ; Editionis secundae libri vi. ; 
 Analyticorum Aristotelis Priorum et Posteri- 
 orum libri iv. ; Topicorum Aristotelis libri viii. ; 
 in Aristotelis Topica libri viii. (not extant) ; 
 Introduclio in Syllogismos Categoricos ; de 
 Syllogismis Hypvtheticis libri ii. ; de Divisione ; 
 de Definitione ; de Differentiis Topicis libri iv. ; 
 in Topica Ciceronis libri vi. ; Elenchorum 
 Sophisticorum libri ii. ; de Arithmeticd libri 
 ii. ; de Musicd libri v. ; de Geonietrid libri 
 ii. ; also two short treatises entitled respec- 
 tively " de Rhetoricae Cognatione," and " Loc- 
 orum Rhetoricorum Distinctio," discovered by 
 cardinal Mai in a MS. of the nth cent. 
 Doubtful works : de Unitaie et Uno ; de 
 
 BONIFACIUS I. 
 
 Bono ; de Hebdomadibus ; all of which are 
 dedicated to pope John. 
 
 The most complete ed. of his works is in 
 Migne's Pair. Lat., which is a collation of the 
 best edd. The best edd. of the Consolatio are 
 those of Theod. Obbarius (Jenae, 1843) and 
 R. Peiper (Leipz. 1871), the latter including 
 the theological works and prolegomena. The 
 most interesting trans, is that into Anglo- 
 Saxon by Alfred the Great, edited by W. J. 
 Sedgefield (Lond. 1899). See also G. Boissier, 
 "Le Christianisme de Boece" in Journal des 
 savants (Paris, 1899). 
 
 The chief ancient authorities for the life of 
 Boethius are the epistles of his contemporaries 
 Cassiodorus and Ennodius, and the History of 
 Procopius. The best modern authorities are 
 Hand, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop. ; and 
 for an opposite view of his religious faith, 
 Gustave BauT, de Boeth. Christianae Fidei As- 
 sertore (Davmst. 1841) ; Heyne, Censura Boeth. 
 de Cons. Phil. (Gotting. 1805), in Opusc. 
 Academ. vi. 142 ; the " Prologomena de 
 Boethii vita et scriptis " to the ed. of the 
 Cons. Phil, by Obbarius ; A. Hildebrand, 
 Boethius und seine Stelling zum Christenthum 
 (Regussburg, 1885); and H. F. Stewart, 
 Boethius, an Essay (Edin. 1891). [e.m.y.] 
 
 Bonifacius I., pope and saint, successor of 
 Zosimus, a Roman, son of a priest, Jocundus, 
 has been identified with Boniface the priest, 
 the papal representative at Constantinople 
 during the time of Innocent I. (Baron ins s.a. 
 405, § 15, cf. Bianchi-Giovini, Storia dei Papi, 
 i- 353)- Zosimus died on Dec. 26, 418. On 
 i the 28th Boniface was elected bishop in the 
 I Church of St. Theodora by a majority of the 
 ! clergy and people, and consecrated next day 
 I in the church of St. Marcellus. Previously, 
 ; however, a small body of the clergy, contrary 
 I to the command of the prefect Symmachus, 
 ' had shut themselves up in the Lateran, and 
 j as soon as the burial of Zosimus took place, 
 proclaimed Eulalius the archdeacon pope. 
 Three bishops (including the bp. of Ostia) 
 assisted at the consecration of Eulalius, nine 
 at that of Boniface. Symmachus reported to 
 the emperor Honorius in favour of Eulalius. 
 Honorius decided accordingly, and ordered 
 Boniface to quit the city, but ultimately pro- 
 nounced in his favour.' This was the third 
 disputed election (see full account, with all 
 the documents, in Baronius s.a. 419 ; Jaiie, 
 Regesta). Personally, Boniface is described as 
 an old man at the time of his appointment, 
 which he was unwilling to accept, of mild 
 character, given to good works (Anastasius, 
 Lib. Pont.). In the contest against Pelagius, 
 Boniface was an unswerving supporter of 
 orthodoxy and Augustine. [Pelagius.] Two 
 letters of the Pelagians had fallen into the 
 pope's hands, in both of which Augustine was 
 calumniated. Boniface sent them promptly 
 by the hands of Alypius to Augustine him- 
 self, that he might reply to them. His reply, 
 contained in the " Ouatuor libri contra duas 
 Epp. Pelagianorum " (Opp- x. 411, Ben. ed. ; 
 cf. Repr. ii. 61 in \'o\ i.), is addressed to Boni- 
 face, and bears testimony to the kindness and 
 condescension of his character. Boniface 
 was strenuous in enforcing the discipline of 
 the church. Thus he insisted that Maximus, 
 bp. of Valence, should be brought to trial for 
 
BONIFACIUS II. 
 
 his misdemeanours before the bishops of Gaul 
 (see letter in Labbe, Cone. ii. 15S4). So also 
 in the case of the vacancy of the see of Lodove 
 he insisted on a rigid adherence to the decrees 
 of the council of Nicaca, that each metropoli- 
 tan, and in this case the metropolitan of 
 Narbonne, should be supreme within his own 
 province, and that the jurisdiction conferred 
 bv his predecessor Zosimus on the bp. of Aries 
 should be of none effect (Labbe, ib. 1585). 
 On the significance of this transaction as re- 
 gards the history of the relation of the pope 
 to the metropolitans, see Gieseler, Ecc. Hist. 
 i. § 92 (p. 265, Eng. trans.). Nor was he less 
 strenuous in his assertion of the rights of the 
 Roman see. Following the policy of his pre- 
 decessors, Siricius and Innocent, he vindicated 
 the supremacv of his patriarchate over the 
 province of Eastern Illyria. The people of 
 Corinth had elected a certain Perigenes bishop, 
 and sent to Rome to ask the pope to ratify 
 the election. Boniface refused to entertain 
 their request until sent through the hands 
 and with the consent of the papal legate, 
 Rufus, archbp. of Thessalonica. The party 
 in Corinth opposed to Perigenes appealed to 
 the Eastern emperor. Theodosius decreed 
 that canonical disputes should be settled 
 bv a council of the province with appeal 
 to the bp. of Constantinople. Boniface im- 
 mediately complained to Honorius that this 
 law infringed the privileges of his see, and 
 Theodosius, on the request of his uncle, an- 
 nulled it. Proposals, however, had actually 
 been made for the convocation of a provincial 
 council to consider the Corinthian election. 
 To check this tendency to independence, and 
 to defeat the rival claims of Constantinople, 
 Boniface forthwith addressed letters to Rufus, 
 to the bishops of Thessaly, and to the bishops 
 of the entire province. Rufus was exhorted 
 to exercise the authority of the Roman see 
 with all his might ; and the bishops were 
 commanded to obey him, though allowed the 
 privilege of addressing complaints concerning 
 him to Rome. " No assembly was to be held 
 without the consent of the papal vicar. Never 
 had it been lawful to reconsider what had once 
 been decided by the Apostolic see" (see 
 documents in Labbe, iv. 1720 sqq.). Among 
 the lesser ordinances attributed to him by 
 Anastasius the most important is that whereby 
 he forbade slaves to be ordained without the 
 consent of their masters. Boniface died on 
 Sept. 4, 422, and was buried, according to the 
 Martyr. Hieronyni. (an. Jaffe, Reg.), in the 
 cemetery of St. Maximus, according to Anas- 
 tasius in that of St. Felicitas (cf. Ciacconius, 
 Vtt. Pont, who gives several epitaphs). He 
 was succeeded by Celestine L His letters are 
 given by Labbe, vol. iv. ; Migne, Pair. vol. xx. ; 
 Baronius. (Cf. Jaffe, Regesta and App. pp. 
 932.. 933, where spurious letters and decrees 
 attributed to Boniface are given), [t.r.b.] 
 
 Bonifacius II., pope, successor to Felix IV., 
 of Roman birth but Gothic parentage, son of 
 Sigisbald or Sigismund, was elected bp. of 
 Rome on Sept. 17, 530, and consecrated five 
 days later in the basilica of Julius (Jaffe, 
 Regesta Pont.). At the same time a rival party 
 in the basilica of Constantine elected and con- 
 secrated Dioscorus. The Roman church was 
 saved from schism by the death of Dioscorus 
 
 BONOSUS 
 
 135 
 
 a few weeks afterwards ; but Boniface carried 
 his enmity beyond the grave, and anathema- 
 tized his dead rival for simony (cf. Cassiodorus, 
 Var. 0, Ep. 5I. This anathema was subse- 
 quently removed by Agapetus I. It has been 
 conjectured (by Baronius, Labbe, Cave, etc.) 
 that the double election was brought about by 
 Athalaric the Gothic king, that he might have 
 an opportunity to intervene after the example 
 of Theodoric, and place a partisan of his own 
 upon the papal throne. [Theodoricus (3) ; 
 Fflix III. (cf. Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i. § 115, p. 
 340, Eng. trans, and reff.).] The pontificate of 
 Boniface is chiefly remarkable for the bold 
 measure proposed and carried by him at a 
 council at St. Peter's, by which he was em- 
 powered to nominate his own successor. 
 Accordingly he nominated the deacon Vigilius 
 (subsequently pope, 537), and obtained the 
 consent of the clergy thereto. Shortly after- 
 wards, however, another council met and 
 annulled the previous decree as contrary 
 to the canons. Boniface acknowledged his 
 error and publicly burned the document with 
 his own hands. Some {e.g. Bianchi-Giovlni, 
 Storia dei Papi, ii. 165) have conjectured that 
 Boniface acted throughout as the tool of the 
 unprincipled Vigilius ; others {e.g. Baronius, 
 Milman, etc.) that the object of Boniface was 
 to prevent for the future the interference of 
 the Gothic king, and that it was the Gothic 
 king that compelled him to rescind the decree. 
 It would have been equally difficult, however, 
 to have brought the clergy and people of Rome 
 to tolerate such a scheme. Of the pontificate 
 of Boniface there is little else to record. A 
 petition was presented to him (in which he is 
 styled " Universal Bishop ") by Stephen, 
 archbp. of Larissa, metropolitan of Thessaly, 
 complaining of the encroachments of the 
 patriarch of Constantinople, who had suspend- 
 ed Stephen from his office. The result of the 
 council held is unknown, but there can be 
 little doubt that Boniface followed the policy 
 of his predecessors in this matter and asserted 
 the authority of the Roman see over the 
 whole of the province of Illyria (see documents 
 in Labbe, Cone. iv. 1690 seq., also Bonifacius 
 I.). He died in Oct. 532, and was buried on 
 the 17th in St. Peter's. He was succeeded 
 by John II. (see generally Anastasius, Lib. 
 Pont. ; Labbe, Cone. iv. 1682 sqq. ; Baronius, 
 sub annis ; Migne, Patr. Ixv.). [t.r.b.] 
 
 Bonosus, the founder of the sect of the 
 Bonosiani, was bp. of Sardica in IlljTia at 
 the end of the 4th cent. (Tillemont, x. 754). 
 Bonosus is only known to us as holding the 
 same views with Helvidius with regard to the 
 perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, 
 and as to His brethren, whom he affirmed to 
 have been the natural offspring of Joseph and 
 Mary. At the synod of Capua, convened by 
 Valentinian, a.d. 391, to settle the rival claims 
 of Flavian and Evagrius to the see of Antioch, 
 opportunity was taken to lay an accusation 
 against Bonosus. The synod was unwilling 
 to consider the question, and transferred it 
 to Anysius, the bp. of Thessalonica and 
 metropolitan, and his suffragans, who, as a 
 neighbour of Bonosus, might be supposed to 
 be more fully acquainted with the merits of 
 the case (Labbe, ii. 1033). Bonosus was 
 condemned for heretical teaching, deposed, 
 
136 
 
 BOSPHORIUS 
 
 and his church closed against him. Bonosus 
 consulted Ambrose, who recommended pati- 
 ence and submission. This prudent counsel 
 was not followed, and the difference was ex- 
 aggerated into a schism, which lasted into the 
 7th cent. Bonosus and his followers were 
 widely accredited with heretical views respect- 
 ing the conception and person of Christ. 
 Mercator calls him an Ebionite, and a pre- 
 cursor of Nestorius {Dissert, i. de Haeres. 
 Nestor. § 6, ii. 315). But the Bonosians were 
 more usually charged with Photinianism 
 (Gennadius, de Eccl. Dogm. c. 52, " Photini- 
 ani qui nunc vocantur Bonosiaci "). Whether 
 these charges were well grounded, or were 
 based on the general unpopularity of the sect, 
 it is impossible to determine. Their baptism 
 was pronounced valid by the 17th canon of 
 the second synod of Aries, a.d. 445, on the 
 ground that, like the Arians, they baptized in 
 the name of the Trinity (Labbe, iv. 1013). 
 But Gregory the Great, in a letter to the Irish 
 bishops (Ep. lib. ix. 61), includes them in 
 those whose baptism the church rejected be- 
 cause the name of the Trinity was not invoked 
 (cf. Gennadius, de Eccl. Dogm., u.s.). They 
 on their part rebaptized those who joined 
 them. The third council of Orleans, a.d. 
 538, ordained that they who did so should be 
 arrested by the royal officers and punished. 
 The Bonosians were anathematized by pope 
 Vigilius {Ep. XV. ; Labbe, v. 333). [e.v.] 
 
 Bosphorius, bp. of Colonia in Cappadocia 
 Secunda, a confidential friend and corre- 
 spondent of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the 
 Great. His episcopate was prolonged through 
 at least 48 years (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203), and 
 must have commenced in 360. From the 
 letters of Gregory we learn that he and Bos- 
 phorius had lived together in youth, laboured 
 together, and grown old together (Greg. Ep. 
 141, 227). He had great influence over the 
 gentler nature of Gregory, who speaks of him 
 with the highest respect, both for the purity 
 of his faith and the sanctity of his life, as well 
 as for his successful exertions in bringing 
 back wanderers to the truth, acknowledging 
 the benefit he had derived, both as hearer 
 and teacher, from him {Ep. 164, 225). He 
 persuaded Gregory to remain at Nazianzus 
 after his father's death, and to accept the 
 unwelcome charge of the see of Constantinople. 
 Gregory bitterly complained of his unscrupu- 
 lous importunity, but yielded (Ep. 14, 15). 
 In 383 Bosphorius was accused of unsound- 
 ness in the faith — a charge which greatly 
 distressed Gregory, who ^vrote urgently in his 
 behalf to Theodore of Tyana, Nectari'us. and 
 Eutropius {Ep. 225, 227, 164). Basil ad- 
 dressed to him a letter denying the charge of 
 having excommunicated his bp. Dianius {Ep. 
 li.). He attended the second oecumenical 
 council at Constantinople in 381 (Labbe, ii. 
 956). Palladius speaks with gratitude of the 
 sympathy shewTi by him towards the bishops 
 banished in 406 for adherence to Chrysos- 
 tom's cause (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203). [e.v.] 
 
 Briglda (5), v., abbess of Kildare— Feb. i, 
 523. The designation " Fierv Dart" seems 
 peculiarly appropriate for " the Mary of 
 Ireland," who, although her fame on the 
 continent is eclipsed by the greater reputation 
 there of her namesake the widow-saint of 
 
 CAECILIA 
 
 Sweden, yet stands forth in history with a very 
 marked individuality, though the histories 
 that have come down to us are mainly devoted 
 to a narrative of the signs and wonders which 
 God wTought by her. As to her Acts, Colgan 
 has published six Lives in his Trias Thauma- 
 turga, and the Bnllandists five. It is more 
 difficult to trace the historical points in St. 
 Bridget's life than to recount the legendary 
 accretions which testify to a basis of fact, 
 could we but find it after so many centuries. 
 In the legend there is no little beauty, and in 
 almost all we find an undercurrent of true 
 human feeling and deep Christian discern- 
 ment. (See some of them given at length 
 in Bp. Forbes's Kal. Scott. Saints, 288 seq., 
 from Boece. Breviary of Aberdeen, and Col- 
 gan's Tr. Thaum. For a full and critical 
 account of her life, see Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. 
 Ir. i. 68, 335, and chaps, viii. and ix. passim ; 
 Todd, Book of Hymns, i. 65 seq. ; O'Hanlon, 
 Ir. Saints, ii. i seq. ; Baring-Gould, Lives of 
 the Saints, ii. 14 seq.) Her chief residence 
 was the monastery of Kildare, " cella quercus," 
 which she founded ; but affiliated houses of 
 both men and women (" de utroque sexu ") 
 were raised all over the country, she being 
 abbess above all other abbesses, and the 
 bishop with her at Kildare being similarly 
 above all bishops in her other monasteries. 
 Montalembert (Monks of the West, Edin. ii. 
 393-395) gives an account of St. Brigida and 
 her monasteries, and places her birth at a.d. 
 467 and her death at a.d. 525. He says, 
 "There are still 18 parishes in Ireland which 
 bear the name of Kilbride or the Church of 
 Bridget " (ib. ii. p. 395, n.). The Irish annals, 
 however, vary as to the date of her death, 
 but the most probable, and resting on highest 
 authority, is a.d. 523 (O'Conor, Rer. Hib. 
 Scrip, iv. 13 ; Bp. Forbes. Kal. Scott. Saints, 
 287). In Scotland the cultus of this saint was 
 very extensive, her dedications being chiefly 
 found in the parts nearest to Ireland and 
 under Irish influence. (For a short list see Bp. 
 Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 290-291.) [a. p.p.] 
 
 ^ I 
 
 Caecilia (1), St., a Roman lady, one of < 
 the four principal virgins and mart>TS of the : 
 Western Church, who is commemorated in 
 both the Latin and Greek churches on Nov. 
 22, but of whom we have hardly any authen- 
 tic account. ', 
 
 The veneration paid to her can be traced ; 
 to a very early period. Her martyrdom and 
 that of her three companions is referred to 
 in nearly all the most ancient Latin breviaries ; 
 and missals — e.g. in the Sacramentary of ' 
 pope Gregory ; the breviary and missal of 1 
 Milan ascribed to St. Ambrose ; the Moz- 
 arabic or Spanish liturgy, with proper prayers ' 
 and prefaces ; and a grand office for her feast 
 is contained in the Gallican missal, which is 
 believed to have been in use in Gaul from the 
 6th cent, down to the time of Charlemagne. 
 Her name appears in the Martyrology attri- , 
 buted to Jerome, in that of Bede, and in all 
 the others, and her mart\Tdom is placed at . 
 Rome. Yet it is very difficult, says Tille- 
 mont, to find her true place iu the chroaology. I 
 
CAECILIA 
 
 The earliest writer who mentions her is For- 
 tiinatus, bp. of Poictiers, at the end of the 6th 
 cent., who states that she died in Sicily be- 
 tween A.D. 1/6 and i8o, nnder the emperor 
 M. Aurelius or Commodus. The Life of St. 
 Caccilia by Symeon Metaphrastes, a hagio- 
 f^rapher of the loth cent., makes her contem- 
 porary with Urban, and places her martyrdom 
 at Rome under Alexander Severus, c. 230 ; 
 the Greek menologies place it under Diocle- 
 tian (2S4-305). On the other hand, the 
 Roman calendar drawn up at Rome under 
 pope Liberius, c. a.d. 352-366, contains no 
 mention of her. This, indeed, is not a com- 
 plete list of martvrs, but a list of the chief 
 feasts (Rossi, i. 116). Her body must, how- 
 ever, have been there not long after this 
 period ; for in the time of pope Symmachus 
 (A.D. 498) there was a church of St. Caecilia 
 at Rome, in which he held a council. 
 
 The account of her life and martyrdom by 
 Svmeon Metaphrastes, to be found in Surius, 
 is of no authority. The narrative is full of 
 marvels and improbabilities, and the internal 
 evidence alone is quite sufficient to prove its 
 legendary character, though some critics have 
 of" late endeavoured to uphold its credibility, 
 and to refer its compilation in its present form 
 to the commencement of the 5th cent. (cf. 
 Ceillier, //!s/. dcs Auteurs Sacres, vol. ii. Paris, 
 I S59. and see below). There can be little doubt 
 that these Acts of St. Caecilia were composed 
 to be read in the church of the saint on the 
 day of her feast. According to the legend, she 
 was born at Rome of a noble family. She re- 
 solved, from love to her Lord, to devote her- 
 self to Him by a vow of perpetual virginity. 
 Her parents wished her to marry Valerian, a 
 young Roman, who at that time was not a 
 Christian. She went through the marriage 
 ceremonies ; but when alone with her young 
 husband, told him of her vow, and Valerian 
 allowed her to keep it. At her entreaty, he 
 sought out the retreat of Urban, and received 
 baptism at his hands. On returning to his 
 spouse, wearing the white robe of a neophyte, 
 he found her praying in her chamber, and 
 an angel of God at her side. In answer to 
 Valerian's prayer, the angel promised that 
 his brother, Tiburtius, should become a 
 Christian, and foretold that both brothers 
 should receive the crown of martyrdom. In 
 A.D. 230 Turcius Almachius, prefect of the 
 city, took advantage of the emperor's absence 
 to give free vent to his hatred of the Christians, 
 and daily put many to death. Valerian and 
 Tiburtius were soon brought before his tri- 
 bunal. After being scourged, the two brothers 
 were commanded to offer incense to the gods. 
 On refusing, they were condemned to be be- 
 headed and given in charge to Maximus. So 
 moved was he by their exhortations that 
 in the night he and all his family, together 
 with the lictors, believed and were baptized. 
 On the morrow his prisoners were beheaded 
 at the place called Pagus Triopius on the Via 
 Appia at the fourth mile from Rome. When 
 the news reached the prefect that Maximus 
 also had become a Christian, he ordered him 
 to be scourged to death with leaden balls. 
 Soon afterwards he sent his officers to Caecilia 
 ind bade her sacrifice to the gods. As she 
 refused, he commanded her to be shut up in 
 
 CAECILIA 
 
 137 
 
 her bath, and that the furnace should be 
 heated with wood seven times hotter than it 
 was wont to be. But a heavenly dew falling 
 upon tiic spouse of Christ refreshed and cooled 
 her body, and preserved her from harm. A 
 day and a night the prefect waited for news 
 of her death. Then he sent one of his soldiers 
 to behead her ; but though the sword smote 
 her neck thrice, the executioner could not 
 cut off her head, and he departed, leaving her 
 on the floor of her bath bathed in blood. For 
 three days longer she lived, never ceasing to 
 exhort the people whom she loved to continue 
 steadfast in the Lord, and watching over the 
 distribution of her last alms. Having given 
 her house to the church, she gave up her 
 spirit into the hands of the living God. Urban 
 and his deacons buried her in the cemetery of 
 Calixtus on the Via Appia near the third mile- 
 stone. Her house he consecrated to God as a 
 church for ever. It is alleged that her body 
 
 was found at Rome by pope Paschal I. (a.d. 
 821), in the cemetery of Praetextatus, adjoin- 
 ing that of Calixtus on the Via Appia, and 
 that it was removed by him to the church of 
 St. Caecilia, which he was then rebuilding, 
 and which stands, as is said, on the site of 
 her house, at the extremity of the Trastevere. 
 Here, it is said, her body was again dis- 
 covered at the end of the'i6th cent, in the 
 time of Clement VIII. Baronius has given a 
 long account of the circumstances connected 
 with this pretended discovery, of which he 
 was a witness (s. ann. 821). 
 
 The legend of this saint has furnished the 
 subject of several remarkable pictures. The 
 oldest representation of her is a rude picture 
 or drawing on the wall of the catacomb called 
 the cemetery of San Lorenzo, of the date 
 probably of the 6th or 7th cent. (See d'Agin- 
 court, plate xi.) In the 13th cent. Cimabue 
 painted an altar-piece, representing different 
 episodes in the life of the saint for the church 
 dedicated to her at Florence. In both these 
 she appears with the martyr's crown. In 
 fact, before the 15th cent. St. Caecilia is 
 seldom depicted with her musical instruments. 
 She has generally the martyr's palm and the 
 crown of red or white roses. When she came 
 to be regarded as the patron saint of musicians 
 is unknown, nor have we any record of her 
 use of instruments of music. The most cele- 
 brated representation of St. Caecilia as 
 patroness of this art is the picture by Raphael 
 {c. A.D. 1513), now in the gallery of Bologna. 
 
 In 1584, in the time of pope Pius V., an 
 academy of music was founded at Rome, and 
 placed under the tutelage of St. Caecilia. 
 Thenceforward she came to be more and more 
 regarded as queen of harmony, and Dryden's 
 well-known ode has rendered her familiar to 
 us in this character. 
 
 For a more detailed account, we may refer 
 to the following : de Vitis Sanctorum, ed. 
 Surius (Venice, 1581), torn. vi. p. 161, s.d. 
 Nov. 22 ; Acta Sanctorum, by the Bollandists, 
 s.d. April 14, p. 204; Baronii Annates s. an. 
 A.D. 821; Tillemoat, vol. iii. pp. 259-689; 
 S. Caeciliae Acta a Laderchio (Rome, 1722), 
 2 vols. 4to, incorporating the work of Bosio, 
 with large additions ; Sacred and Legendary 
 Art, by Mrs. Jameson, 3rd ed. (Lond. 1857), 
 pp. 583-600; Ceillier, Histoire des Auteur$ 
 
138 
 
 CAECILIANUS 
 
 Sacres, vol. ii. (Paris, 1859); S. Cecile, par 
 Dom. Gueranger (Paris, 1874). [t.d.c.m.] 
 
 Here may be added the ingenious ex- 
 planation, given by bp. Fitzgerald, of how 
 St. Caecilia became regarded as the patron 
 of music. She is described as steeling her 
 heart at her marriage festi%'ities against all the 
 allurements to sensual pleasure, and among 
 these, special mention is made of the " sym- 
 phonia instrumentorum " to which she refused 
 to hearken; but " organis cantantibus die 
 nuptiarum " she made melody in her heart to 
 God, saying, " May my heart and body be 
 undefiled." The necessities of the pictorial 
 art demanded that each saint should be 
 depicted with an appropriate and distinc- 
 tive symbol. Bp. Fitzgerald suggests that 
 St. Caecilia was hence represented in early 
 pictures with the organ prominent in her 
 Acts ; and that she was thence imagined to 
 be a musician by those who did not under- 
 stand that she was only represented with an 
 organ as other saints are depicted with the 
 instrument of torture by which they suffered. 
 We may certainly believe that Dryden's 
 " drew an angel dowTi " had its origin in a 
 misunderstanding of pictures. The Acts 
 relate that on her wedding night she told 
 Valerianus that she was under the protection 
 of an angel who would punish him if he did 
 not respect her chastity, and whom he could 
 see for himself if he would be baptized. This 
 no doubt is the angel who appears in pictures 
 of St. Caecilia, and there is no groimd for 
 the idea that the angel came down to listen 
 to her music. 
 
 Erbes {Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, ix. i) 
 thinks that the Acts of St. Caecilia are not 
 earlier than the end of the 5th cent. They 
 not only exhibit a use of St. Augustine's 
 work on the Trinity which appeared in a.d. 
 416, but coincidences in language, as well as 
 in substance, make it probable that the whole 
 story of Caecilia is derived from the story 
 of Martinianus and Maxima told bv Victor 
 Vitensis, I. 30. This would bring down the 
 date of the Acts to c. a.d. 490. Erbes remarks 
 that the original day of commemoration of 
 St. Caecilia was Sept. 16 : Nov. 22 really 
 commemorates the dedication of the church 
 of St. Caecilia, which probably took place 
 under Sixtus III. between 434 and 440. 
 Concerning the neighbourhood of the burial- 
 place of St. Caecilia in the catacombs to that 
 of certain popes, Erbes holds that in the year 
 236 a suitable burial-place was being prepared 
 for the body of Pontianus, then brought from 
 Sardinia, as well as for that of Anteros who 
 had died in Rome, that the site was furnished 
 by the Caecilian family, and that in order to 
 make room for the two bishops the body of 
 Caecilia was moved to an adjacent side 
 chamber. As to how Caecilia suffered martjT- 
 dom we have no authentic information, [g.s.] 
 
 Caecilianus (2), first archdeacon, then 
 (a.d. 311) bp., of Carthage. Of importance 
 in connexion with the Donatist controversy. 
 When archdeacon, he resolutely supported 
 his bishop Mensurius in opposing the fanatical 
 craving for martyrdom. The Christianity of 
 N. Africa exhibited an extravagance in this 
 respect which reached its height after Diocle- 
 tian's persecution. Men courted death that 
 
 CAECILIANUS 
 
 they might be honoured as martyrs and con- 
 fessors ; some, without doubt, in a spirit 
 which commands our respect, but others in a 
 spirit which fostered the supposition that the 
 martyr's cross would wash away for eternity 
 the misery, follies, sins, and crimes of a whole 
 life. 
 
 On the death of Mensurius, Caecilian was 
 nominated as his successor. The part he had 
 taken against the would-be martyrs was then 
 brought up against him. The religious world 
 of Carthage divided itself broadly into two 
 sections, the moderate and rigoris'tic parties, 
 or the supporters and opponents of the prin- 
 ciples of Caecilian. At the head of the latter 
 was a devout and wealthy lady named 
 Lucilla, who had been severely rebuked by 
 the archdeacon for superstitious veneration 
 for mart>Ts' relics. The rigoristic party 
 wished to fill the vacant see with one of their 
 own followers. Caecilian's party hastened 
 matters, and the archdeacon was consecrated 
 by Felix, bp. of Aptunga ; whether in the 
 presence of any Numidian bishops or not 
 seems uncertain. Secundus, primate of 
 Numidia and bp. of Tigisis, was presently 
 invited to Carthage by the rigoristic party. 
 He came, attended by 70 bishops, and cited 
 Caecilian before them.' Felix of Aptunga was 
 denounced as a " traditor " (i.e. one who had 
 delivered up the sacred writings in his pos- 
 session), and consequently it was claimed that 
 any ordination performed by him was invalid. 
 Caecilian himself was charged with unneces- 
 sary and heartless severity to those who had 
 visited the confessors in prison ; he was de- 
 nounced as a " t>Tannus " and a " camifex." 
 He declined to appear before an assembly so 
 prejudiced ; but professed his willingness to 
 satisfy them on all personal matters, and 
 offered, if right was on their side, to lay down 
 his episcopal office, and submit to re-osdina- 
 tion. Secundus and the Numidian bishops 
 answered by excommunicating him and his 
 party, and ordaining as bishop the reader 
 Majorinus, a member of LuciUa's household. 
 The church of N. Africa now became a prey 
 to schism. The party of Caecilian broke off 
 from that of Majorinus, and the Christian 
 world was scandalized by fulminations, ex- 
 communications, invectives, charges, and 
 countercharges. Both parties confidently an- 
 ticipated the support of the state ; but Con- 
 stantine, now emperor of this part of the 
 Roman world, took the side of the Caecilianists. 
 In his largesse to the Christians of the province, 
 and in his edicts favourable to the church 
 there, he expressly stipulated that the party 
 of Majorinus should be excluded : their 
 views were, in his opinion, the "madness" of 
 men of " unsound mind." The rigoristic 
 party appealed to the justice of the emperor, 
 and courted full inquiry to be conducted in 
 Gaul — at a distance, that is, from the spot 
 where passions and convictions were so strong 
 and one-sided. A council met a.d. 313 at 
 Rome, in the Lateran, presided over by 
 Melchiades (Miltiades), bp. of Rome, who had 
 as his assessors the bishops of Cologne, Aries, 
 and seventeen others. Caecilian appeared 
 with ten bishops ; Donatus, bp. of Casae 
 Nigrae, in Numidia, headed the party of 
 Majorinus. The personal charges against 
 
CAESARIUS 
 
 Caecilian were examined and dismissed, and 
 his party proclaimed the representatives of 
 the orthodox Catholic church ; Donatus him- 
 self was declared to have violated the laws 
 of the church, and his followers were to be 
 allowed to retain their dignity and office only 
 on condition of reunion with Caecilian's party. 
 The bitterness of this decision was modified 
 by Caecilian's friendly proposal of compromise ; 
 but his advances were rejected, and the cry 
 of injustice raised. It was wrong, the rigorists 
 pleaded, that the opinion of twenty should 
 overrule that of seventy ; and they demanded 
 first that imperial commissioners should in- 
 vestigate matters at Carthage itself, and that 
 then a council should be summoned to examine 
 their report, and decide upon its information. 
 Constantine met their wish. Jurists went to 
 Carthage, collected documents, tabulated the 
 statements of witnesses, and laid their report 
 before the bishops assembled (a.d. 314) at 
 .Aries. This council, presided over by Marinus, 
 bishop of the see, and composed of about 200 
 persons, was the most important ecclesiastical 
 assembly the Christian world had yet seen ; 
 and its decisions have been of permanent value 
 to the church. As regarded Caecilian person- 
 ally, the validity of his ordination was con- 
 firmed, the charge raised against his conse- 
 crator, Felix, being proved baseless ; and as 
 regarded the general questions debated — such 
 as traditorship, its proof or disproof ; ordina- 
 tion by traditors, when valid or not ; baptism 
 and re-baptism — canons of extreme import- 
 ance were passed. [Arles, Synod of, in 
 D. C. A.] 
 
 The temper displayed by the victors was 
 not calculated to soothe the conquered ; and 
 an appeal was at once made from the council 
 to the emperor himself. Constantine was 
 irritated ; but, after some delay, ordered the 
 discussion of the question before himself per- 
 sonally. This occurred at Milan (a.d. 316). 
 The emperor confirmed the previous decisions 
 of Rome and Aries, and followed up his 
 judgment by laws and edicts confiscating the 
 goods of the party of Majorinus, depriving 
 them of their churches, and threatening to 
 punish their rebellion with death. 
 
 From this time the schism in the N. African 
 church lost its purely personal aspect, and 
 became a stern religious contest on questions 
 of discipline. [Donatism.] Caecilian lived to 
 c. A.D. 345. (For authorities, etc., see Dona- 
 tism.) [J.M.F.] 
 
 Caesarius (2), St., of Nazianzus, physician, 
 son of Gregory bp. of Nazianzus, brother of 
 St. Gregory of the same place, and youngest 
 of the family, born probably c. a.d. 330. His 
 death occurred in a.d. 368 or 369. The name 
 is simply a derivative from Caesar, originally 
 adopted in compliment to the reigning family. 
 
 Authorities. — The funeral oration by his 
 brother, St. Gregory Nazianzen (the 7th, in 
 some ed. the loth) ; two letters addressed by 
 Gregory to Caesarius and one to the Praeses 
 Sophronius (numbered 17, 18, 19, or, more 
 commonly, 30, 51, 52), and a few lines in the 
 Carmen de Vita Sua of the same. Photius, 
 Btbliotheca Cod. 210 (p. 168 ed. Bekker, 
 Berolini, 1824). 
 
 L«/e.— According to the testimony of his 
 brother, Caesarius owed much to the careful 
 
 CAESARIUS 
 
 training received from his parents. He be- 
 took himself to Alexandria, " the workshop of 
 every sort of education," for better instruc- 
 tion in physical science than he could obtain 
 in Palestine. There he behaved as a model 
 student, being very careful in the matter of 
 companionship, arid earnest in pursuit of 
 knowledge, more especially of geometry and 
 astronomy. This last-named science he 
 studied, says his panegyrist, in such wise as 
 to gain the good without the evil — a remark 
 readily intelligible to those who are aware 
 how deeply a fatalistic astrology was at that 
 period associated with the study of astronomy. 
 Refusing a post of honour and emolument 
 at Byzantium, he came home for a time, but 
 returned to the court and was much honoured 
 by Julian. There is a slight, but not per- 
 haps irreconcilable, discrepancy between the 
 funeral oration delivered by Gregory and the 
 letter (17 or 51) which Gregory addressed to 
 his brother. The oration seems to depict 
 Caesarius as from the first spurning all offers 
 of Julian, but the letter severely rebukes 
 Caesarius for becoming a member of the im- 
 perial household, and taking charge of the 
 treasury. Such a step is called a scandal in a 
 bishop's son, and a great grief to his mother. 
 Caesarius, however, finally avowed himself a 
 Christian, and broke with Julian. His con- 
 duct, together with that of Gregory, caused 
 Julian to exclaim, "Oh happy father! oh 
 unhappy sons ! " Under subsequent emperors, 
 more especially under Valens, Caesarius more 
 than regained his former honours, and became 
 a quaestor of Bithynia. A remarkable escape 
 from a terrible earthquake at Nicaea, appar- 
 ently c. A.D. 367 or 368, to which many dis- 
 tinguished men fell victims, induced Caesarius, 
 at his brother's suggestion, to arrange for 
 retirement from worldly cares. He received 
 Baotism, and soon after died. 
 
 The Uvareis or Quaestiones (sive Dialogi) de 
 Rebus Divinis, attributed to this physician, 
 may be safely ascribed to some Caesarius. 
 But the name was not an uncommon one, and 
 some considerations seem to shew that the 
 author was not Caesarius of Nazianzus. 
 Photius treats the supposed authorship as 
 merely a current unexamined tradition, and 
 the book refers to Maximus, who lived sub- 
 sequently. [j.G.c] 
 
 Caesarius (3), St., sometimes called of Chalons 
 (Cabillonensis sen Cabellinensis) from his birth- 
 place Chalons-sur-Saone ; but more usually 
 known as Caesarius of Aries (Arelatensis) from 
 his see, which he occupied for forty years. He 
 was certainh' the foremost ecclesiastic in the 
 Gaul of his own age. The date of his birth 
 lies between a.d. 468 and 470 ; the date of his 
 death is Aug. 27, 542. 
 
 Authorities. — (i) The biography, written by 
 his admiring disciple, St. Cyprian, bp. of 
 Toulon (Tolonensis) with the aid of other 
 ecclesiastics (ed. by d'Achery and Mabillon 
 in the Acta Sanctorum Ord. S. Benedicti, Venet. 
 1733, tom. i. p. 636, et sqq., also in the Bol- 
 landists' Acta Sanctorum under date of Aug. 
 27). (2) His will, first published by Baronius 
 (Annal. tom. vi. ad ann. 508) from archives 
 preserved at Aries ; also given by Surius, 
 I.e. ; a document of some interest for the 
 student of Roman law, but thought by 
 
140 
 
 CAESARIUS 
 
 Brugsch (archives o*f the Society of Ancient 
 History) to be a forgery of Hincmar of Rheims. 
 (3) Acts of various councils, over all of which 
 Caesarius presided (Labbe, Concilia, torn. ii. 
 pp. 995-1098, ed. Parisiis, 1714). (4) The 
 Regula ad Monachos and Regula ad Virgines, 
 drawn up by him for a monastery and a con- 
 vent of his own foundation (ed. by Holstenius 
 in his Codex Regularum, and by P. de Cointe 
 in his Annales Ecdesiastici Francorum). Tri- 
 themius, fixing the date of Caesarius much 
 too late, fell into the error of supposing him 
 to be a Benedictine. (5) His sermons. Of 
 these 40 were pubd. at Basle in 1558 ; 46 in 
 a Bibliotheca Patrmn, ed. at Leyden in 1677 ; 
 14 more in another Bihl. Pair, of (iallandi, 
 Venice 1776 (cf. Oudin in Comment, de Script. 
 Eccles. vol. i. p. 1339) ; and 102, formerly 
 ascribed to St. Augustine, are by the Bene- 
 dictine editors assigned to Caesarius (Appen- 
 dix to tom. V. of the works of St. Augustine). 
 Others have been separately pubd. by Baluz ; 
 but Neander justly remarks that a complete 
 collection of his sermons, conveying so much 
 important information respecting the charac- 
 ter of Caesarius and his times, still remains a 
 desideratum [Church Hist. vol. v. p. 4, note). 
 Cf. also A. Malnory, St. Cesaire, eveque d' Aries 
 (Paris, 1894) ; Arnold, Cesarius von Arelate, 
 (Leipz. 1894). 
 
 Life. — Caesarius was born at Chalons of 
 pious parents. His sister Caesaria afterwards 
 presided over the convent which he founded, 
 and to her he addressed his Regula ad Virgines. 
 At the age of thirteen he betook himself to 
 the famous monastery of Lerins (Lerinum), 
 where he rapidly became master of all which 
 the learning and discipline of the place could 
 impart. Having injured his health by 
 austerities, he was sent to Aries (Arelate) to 
 recruit. There the bp. Eonus, having made 
 his acquaintance, ordained him deacon and 
 then presbyter. For three years he presided 
 over a monastery in Aries ; but of this building 
 no vestige is now left. 
 
 At the death of Eonus the clergy, citizens, 
 and persons in authority proceeded, as Eonus 
 himself had suggested, to elect Caesarius, 
 sincerely against his own wish, to the vacant 
 see. He was consecrated in a.d. 502, being 
 probably about 33 years of age. In the fulfil- 
 ment of his new duties he was courageous and 
 unworldly, but yet exhibited great power of 
 kindly adaptation. He took great pains to 
 induce the laity to join in the sacred offices, 
 and encouraged inquiry into points not made 
 clear in his sermons. He also bade them 
 study Holy Scripture at home, and treat the 
 word of God with the same reverence as the 
 sacraments. He was specially zealous in 
 redeeming captives, even selling church 
 ornaments for this purpose. 
 
 A notary named Licinianus accused Caesar- 
 ius to Alaric as one who desired to subjugate 
 the civitas of Aries to the Burgundian rule. 
 Caesarius was exiled to Bordeaux, but was 
 speedily, on the discovery of his innocence, 
 allowed to return. He interceded for the life 
 of his calumniator. Later, when Aries was 
 besieged by Theodoric, apparently c. a.d. 512, 
 he was again accused of treachery and im- 
 prisoned. An interview with the Ostrogothic 
 king at Ravenna in a.d. 513 speedily dispelled 
 
 CAESARIUS 
 
 these troubles, and the remainder of his epis- 
 copate was passed in peace. 
 
 The directions of Caesarius for the conduct 
 of monks and nuns have been censured as 
 pedantic and minute. They certainly yielded 
 to the spread of the rising Benedictine rule, 
 but must be judged by their age and in the 
 light of the whole spirit of monasticism. 
 
 As the occupant of an important see, the 
 bishop of Aries exercised considerable influ- 
 ence, official as well as personal. Caesarius 
 was liberal in the loan of sermons, and sent 
 suggestions for discourses to priests and even 
 bishops living in Spain, Italy, Gaul, and 
 France [i.e. the province known as the Isle 
 of France). The great doctrinal question of 
 his age and country was that of semi- Pelagian- 
 ism. Caesarius, though evidently a disciple 
 of St. Augustine, displayed in this respect 
 considerable independence of thought. His 
 vigorous denial of anything like predestination 
 to evil has caused a difference in the honour 
 paid to hismemory, according as writers incline 
 respectively towards the Jesuit or Jansenist 
 views concerning divine grace. 
 
 The most important local council over which 
 Caesarius presided was that of Orange. Its 
 statements on the subject of grace and free 
 agency ha\'e been justly eulogized by modern 
 historians (see, e.g., Canon Bright's Church 
 History, ch. xi. ad fin.). The following pro- 
 positions are laid down in canon 25 : " This 
 also do we believe, in accordance with the 
 Catholic faith, that after grace received 
 through baptism, all the baptized are able 
 and ought, with the aid and co-operation of 
 Christ, to fulfil all duties needful for salvation, 
 provided they are willing to labour faithfully. 
 But that some men have been predestinated 
 to evil by divine power, we not only do not 
 believe, but if there be those who are willing 
 to believe so evil a thing, we say to them with 
 all abhorrence anathema. This also do we 
 profess and believe to our soul's health, that 
 in every good work, it is not we who begin, 
 and are afterwards assisted by Divine mercy, 
 but that God Himself, with no preceding 
 merits on our part, first inspires within us 
 faith and love." On the express ground that 
 these doctrines are as needful for the laity as 
 for the clergy, certain distinguished laymen 
 (illustres ac magnifici viri) were invited to 
 sign these canons. They are accordingly sub- 
 scribed by 8 laymen, and at least 12 bishops, 
 including Caesarius. [Pelagianism.] 
 
 As a preacher, Caesarius displayed great 
 knowledge of Holy Scripture, and was emin- 
 ently practical in his exhortations. Besides 
 reproving ordinary vices of humanity, he had 
 often to contend against lingering pagan 
 superstitions, as auguries, heathen rites on 
 the calends, etc. His sermons on O.T. are not 
 critical, but dwell on its typical aspects. 
 
 Some rivalry appears to have existed in 
 the 6th cent, between the sees of Aries and 
 Vienne, but was adjusted by pope Leo, whose 
 adjustment was confirmed by Symmachus. 
 Caesarius was in favour at Rome. A book 
 he wrote against the semi- Pelagians, entitled 
 de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, was sanctioned by 
 pope Felix ; and the canons passed at Orange 
 were approved by Boniface II. The learned 
 antiquary Tbomassin believed him to have 
 
CAESARIUS 
 
 been the first Western bishop who received 
 a pall from the pope. Guizot, in his Civilisa- 
 tion en Frame, cites part of one of his sermons 
 as that of a representative man ; while 
 Neande£ has nothing but eulogy for his " un- 
 wearied, active, and pious zeal, ready for 
 (verv sacrifice in the spirit of love," and his 
 moderation on the controversy concerning 
 scmi-Pclagianism. This is indeed the great 
 glorv of Caesarius. He more than anticipates 
 the famous picture drawn by Chaucer of a 
 teacher, earnest, sincere, and humble, but 
 never sparing reproof where needed. [j.g.c] 
 Caesarius (7). Among the works attributed 
 to Chrvsostom is a treatise entitled ad Caesar- 
 tiiiii Moiiachum Epistola contra Apollinaristas. 
 We onlv possess it in a Latin translation, 
 though a few fragments of the Greek original 
 are found in Anastasius and John Damascene 
 and elsewhere. This tract, the literary 
 history of which is very curious, is of disputed 
 authenticity. If it is genuine, Caesarius had 
 embraced a religious life from his childhood 
 and become a monk ; his piety had secured 
 Chrvsostom's affection, and at one time he 
 had lived with him. Meeting with some 
 ApoUinarists, he purchased a book by Apolli- 
 narius which led him eagerly to embrace 
 those views. The intelligence caused great 
 grief to Chrysostom, then in exile at Cucusus, 
 who sent him this letter to refute the Apolli- 
 narian heresy. It contains a celebrated 
 passage illlustrating the doctrine of the two 
 distinct natures in the one person of Jesus 
 Christ by reference to the holy Eucharist, in 
 which he speaks of the nature of bread as 
 remaining in that which by the sanctifying 
 grace of God is freed from the appellation of 
 bread and thought worthy to be called the 
 body of the Lord. This passage was adduced 
 in controversy about the year 1548 by Peter 
 Mart\T, who deposited a transcript of it in 
 archbp. Cranmer's library. After Cranmer's 
 death this document was lost, and Martyr 
 was accused of having forged it (Perron, de 
 I'Euchar. 381-3). His reputation was cleared 
 by the rediscovery by Emeric Bigot, in a 
 Florentine library, of doubtless the very MS. 
 which Martyr, himself a Florentine, had used. 
 Bigot in 1680 printed the epistle with Palla- 
 dius's Life of Chrysostom. Previous to pub- 
 lication, through the influence of two censors 
 of the Sorbonne, Louis XIV. ordered the 
 leaves containing the letter to be cancelled. 
 For an account of the mutilation see Mend- 
 hdiva'slndex of Pope Gregory XVI. xxxii.-xxxiv. 
 But Bigot having made known his discovery 
 to literary friends, Allix (preface to Anastasius 
 in Hexaemeron, 1682) protested against the 
 suppression, and the cancelled leaves were 
 printed bv le Moyne, Varia Sacra, 1683, by 
 Wake, 1686, and by Basnage, 1687. The 
 Jesuit Harduin published the epistle in 1689, 
 accepting it as Chrysostom's, and vindicating 
 the consistency of its doctrine with that of 
 his church. It is accepted as genuine by 
 Tillemont and Du Pin. The genuineness was 
 first assailed by Le Quien (1712) in the preface 
 to his edition of John of Damascus, and his 
 arguments were adopted and enlarged by 
 Montfaucon. Maffei found a Greek fragment 
 also at Florence, professing to be from Chry- 
 sostom, the first sentence of which is identical 
 
 CAIUS 
 
 141 
 
 with one in this letter, but proceeding to illus- 
 trate its doctrine by two similes not found 
 in the Latin. The extract was printed by 
 Basnage in Canisius's Lectiones Antiquae 
 (.\ntwerp, 1725), pp. 283-287. The second 
 paragraph may be taken from a different work, 
 but the MS. gives no indication of a change 
 of author. Perhaps the Latin does not re- 
 present the whole of the letter. Against the 
 genuineness it is urged that Caesarius is not 
 mentioned elsewhere by Chrysostom, though 
 the letter implies that they had been intimate 
 from youth ; that the style (if so little of the 
 Greek allows us to judge) is rugged and abrupt, 
 and the tone more scholastic than is common 
 with Chrysostom ; that the earliest Greek 
 author who quotes it as Chrysostom's is of 
 the 7th cent., though we should expect it to 
 have been used in the Eutychian disputes, 
 and quoted in the Acts of the 4th, 5th, and 
 6th councils. Le Quien also urged that lan- 
 guage is used which is not heard of until 
 employed by Cyril of Alexandria in contro- 
 versy with Nestorius. Montfaucon, however, 
 has produced precedents for much of this 
 language from Athanasius, and has clearly 
 proved that the letter was directed not against 
 Eutychianism, but against Apollinarianism ; 
 and with much probability he identifies the 
 work assailed with a work of Apollinarius 
 quoted by Eulogius (ap. Photium, Cod. 230, 
 p. 849). This being so, we are more inclined 
 to accept the letter as written while the 
 ApoUinarian disputes were raging than, as 
 Montfaucon conjectures, forged a century or 
 two afterwards for use in the Eutychian 
 controversy, since one of the arguments 
 against its genuineness is that there is no 
 evidence that it ever was so used. On the 
 controversy as to the genuineness, see the 
 authorities referred to by Fabricius, Bibl. 
 Gr., ed. Harles, i. 699 ; Chrys. iii. 747-760, 
 and xiii. 496, ed. Migne ; iii. 736-746, ed. Mont- 
 faucon ; Tillemont, vii. 629, and xi. 340-343 ; 
 Routh, Opuscula, ii. (479-488). [e.v.] 
 
 Cainites. [Carpocrates.] 
 
 Caius (2), an ecclesiastical writer at the 
 beginning of the 3rd cent., according to late 
 authority, a presbyter of the Roman church. 
 Eusebius mentions but one work of his, to 
 which he refers four times (H. E. ii. 25, iii. 
 28, 31, vi. 20), and from which he gives some 
 short extracts. This was a dialogue pur- 
 porting to be a report of a disputation held 
 at Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus 
 (a.d. 201-219) between Caius and Proclus, a 
 leader of the sect of Montanists. [Proclus.] 
 
 This dialogue is mentioned by the following 
 writers, who may, however, have only known 
 it from the account given by Eusebius : — 
 Hieron. de Vir. III. 59 ; Theod. Haer. Fab. ii. 
 3 ; iii. 2, where the present text, doubtless 
 by a transcriber's error, reads Patroclus in- 
 stead of Proclus (Niceph. Call. H. E. iv. 12, 
 20 ; Photius, Bibl. 48). Only the last of these 
 attributes any other work to Caius. Theo- 
 doret says that he wrote against Cerinthus, 
 but is probably referring to a part of the 
 dialogue in question. 
 
 In the short fragments preserved, Proclus 
 defends the prophesyings of his sect by appeal- 
 ing to the four daughters of Philip, who with 
 their father were buried at Hicrapolis ; Caius, 
 
142 
 
 CAIUS 
 
 on the other hand, offers to shew his anta 
 gonist at the Vatican and on the Appian Way 
 the tombs of the apostles " who founded th 
 church." That Caius should have conducted 
 a disputation at Rome does not of itself prove 
 that he, any more than Proclus, permanently 
 resided there. Yet the expression cited con- 
 veys the impression that he did ; and Eusebius 
 was apparently of that opinion, for elsewhere 
 (vi. 20), having mentioned that Caius only 
 counted St. Paul's epistles as thirteen, omit- 
 ting that to the Hebrews, he adds that even in 
 his own time " some of the Romans " did not 
 ascribe that epistle to the apostle. It is just 
 possible that we are still in possession of 
 the list of genuine apostolic v\Titings which 
 Eusebius (I.e.) intimates that Caius gave, in 
 order to rebuke the rashness of his opponents 
 in framing new Scriptmres. Muratori attri- 
 buted to Caius the celebrated fragment on 
 the canon published by him, which concludes 
 with a rejection of Montanist documents. 
 [MuRATORiAN FRAGMENT.] But it is difficult 
 to believe that if this were the list referred 
 to by Eusebius, he would not have quoted it 
 more fully. Among the heretical writings 
 rejected by Caius was a book of Revelations 
 (Eus. ii. 25) purporting to be WTitten by a 
 great apostle and ascribed by Caius to Cerin- 
 thus, in which the author professes to have 
 been shewn by angels that after the resurrec- 
 tion Christ's kingdom should be earthly, that 
 men should inhabit Jerusalem, should be the 
 slaves of lusts and pleasures, and should spend 
 a thousand years in marriage festivities. The 
 strongest reason for thinkmg that the book 
 intended is the canonical book of the Revela- 
 tion is that Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. 
 vii. 25) asserts that some of his predecessors 
 had maintained that the Apocalypse is the 
 work of Cerhithus, and describes their views 
 in language strongly resembling that of Caius. 
 
 There had been much speculation respect- 
 ing Caius himself (s.v. D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.) ; and 
 Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers (Clement of 
 Rome, vol. ii. p. 377), questions his existence. 
 But Dr. Gwynn, of Dublin, pub. in Herma- 
 thena VI. some fragments of Capita adv. 
 Caium, written by Hippolytus, which he had 
 discovered in Cod. Mus. Brit. Orient. 560. 
 These passages shew that he had attacked 
 the Apocalypse of St. John, and treated the 
 book as inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures. 
 Harnack (Herzog.3) thinks it not improbable 
 that he had treated the Apocalypse as a work 
 of Cerinthus ; and as he would be at one in 
 this opinion with the Alogi of Asia Minor, a 
 connexion between him and them may be 
 supposed. Nothing more is known with 
 certainty of him (cf. Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. 
 Kanons, ii. 985 seq.). [g.s. and ed.] 
 
 Caius (3). Pope from Dec. 17 (16 ?) a.d. 283 
 {9 or 10 days after the death of his predecessor 
 Eutychianus), to Apr. 22, a.d. 296, i.e. for 
 12 years 4 months i week (Pontifical, Bucher, 
 p. 272), but only for 11 years according to 
 Anastasius (c. 24) and to most Latins, and for 
 15 years according to Eusebius, who speaks of 
 him as a contemporary [H. E. vii. 32 ; Chron. 
 284). He is probably the same as Caius the 
 deacon, imprisoned With pope Stephen, a.d. 
 257 (Anastas. c. 24). Just as he was raised to 
 the chair, the stern old Roman Carus died 
 
 CALANDIO 
 
 mysteriously in a thunderstorm in the East, 
 and his profligate son Carinus succeeded to 
 the empire at Rome. These events would 
 seem to make a persecution, such as is assigned 
 to this period by various martyr Acts, not in 
 itself improbable, and though the Acts in 
 question are untrustworthy (see Tillemont, 
 iv. 565), we are hardly justified in taking 
 Eusebius for a witness to the contrary, a£ 
 far as concerns the West. The probability 
 is confirmed by the delay of the funeral of 
 Eutychianus tiU July 25, 284 (v. Rossi, ii. 
 378). The persecution is not represented as 
 general, but as aimed at a few obnoxious de- 
 votees, and Caius does not appear as leading, 
 accompanying, or inciting them, but only as 
 exercising a fatherly supervision. Probably 
 the persecution continued for some time under 
 Diocletian. The early Pontifical, as well as 
 Anastasius, makes Caius of Dalmatian origin 
 and cousin to this emperor. The Acts of St. 
 Susanna confirm this, but are untrustworthy 
 (Till. iv. 760). Caius is said in the early Pon- 
 tifical to have avoided persecution by hiding 
 in the crypts. During his latter years the 
 Church must have enjoyed peace. He is said 
 by Anastasius to have established the 6 orders 
 of usher, reader, exorcist, subdeacon, deacon, 
 and presbyter, as preliminary stages necessary 
 before attaining the episcopate, and also to 
 have divided Rome into regions assigned to 
 the deacons. He is said to have sent Protus 
 and Januarius on a mission to Sardinia (Mart. 
 Rom. Baron. Oct. 25). He died in peace 
 according to the 6th-cent. Pontifical, and is 
 not called a martyr by any one earlier than 
 Bede and Anastasius. He was succeeded by 
 Marcellinus. A decretal is ascribed to him. 
 From a confusion between the calends of 
 March and of May in the Mart. Hieron., 
 Rabanus assigns his death, and Notker his 
 burial, to Feb. 20 (Rossi, ii. 104). His com- 
 memoration on July I in the Mart. Hieron. is 
 unexplained (ib. p. 105). He was the last of 
 the 12 popes buried in the crypt of Sixtus, in 
 the cemetery of Callistus (ib. p. 105). He is 
 therefore mentioned again, Aug. 9, at which 
 date a copy of the inscription set up by Sixtus 
 III. was placed in the margin of the ancient 
 mart>Tology (ib. pp. 33-46). [e.b.b.] 
 
 Calandlo orCalendIo (Ka\av5iuv), succeeded 
 Stephen II. as bp. of Antioch, a.d. 481. He 
 owed his promotion to the episcopate to the 
 emperor Zeno and Acacius, bp. of Constanti- 
 nople ; but the exact circumstances of his 
 appointment are uncertain. There is a large 
 body of evidence (not, however, to be admitted 
 without grave question) that Calandio's elec- 
 tion was of the same uncanonical character as 
 that of his predecessor in the see [Stephen 
 II.] ; and that being at Constantinople on 
 business connected with the church of Antioch 
 at the time of the vacancy of the see, he was 
 chosen bishop, and ordained by Acacius ; but 
 the letter of pope Simplicius to Acacius, dated 
 July 15, a.d. 482, conveying his sanction of 
 Calandio's election (Labbe, Cone. iv. 1035). 
 suggests a possible confusion between the 
 election of Calandio and of Stephen II. 
 
 Calandio commenced his episcopate by 
 excommunicating his theological opponents. 
 He refused communion with aU who declined 
 to anathematize Peter the Fuller. Timothy 
 
CALUGONUS 
 
 the Weasel, and the Encyclic of Basiliscus 
 cuademning the decisions of the council of 
 Chalcedou (Evagr. H. E. iii. lo ; Niceph. H. E. 
 XV. 28). He is reported to have endeavoured 
 to counteract the Monophysite bias given to 
 the Trisagion by Peter the Fuller in the 
 addition of the words 6 (XTavpwOeis 5t" 7}/j.3.s, by 
 prefixing the clause Xpiare HacriXei) (Theod. 
 Lector, p. 556 b.) Calandio translated the 
 remains of Eustathius, the banished bp. of 
 Antioch, with the permission of Zeno, from 
 Philippi in Macedonia, where he had died, to 
 his own city — a tardy recognition of the 
 falsehood of the charges against Eustathius, 
 which had the happy result of reuniting to 
 the church the remains of the party that still 
 called itself by his name (Theod. Lector, 
 p. 577; Theophanes, p. 114). Calandio fell 
 into disfavour and was banished by the Em- 
 peror Zeno, at the instigation of Acacius, to 
 the African Oasis, a.d. 485, where, probably, 
 he died. The charge against him was that of 
 having erased from the diptychs the name 
 of Zeno, as the author of the Heiioticon ; and 
 of having favoured Illus and Leontius in their 
 rebellion, a.d. 4S4. But the real cause of his 
 deposition was the theological animosity of 
 Acacius, whom he had offended by writing a 
 letter to Zeno accusing Peter Mongus of adul- 
 tery, and of having anathematized the decrees 
 of the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. ii. 
 16 ; Liberatus Diaconus, Breviar. c. xviii. ; 
 Gelasius, Ep. xiii. ad Dardan. Episc. ; Labbe, 
 iv. 1208-1209, XV. ad Episc. Orient, ib. 1217). 
 On his deposition, the victorious Peter the 
 Fuller was recalled to occupy the see of 
 Antioch. ' [e.v.] 
 
 Calligonus, eunuch and chamberlain to 
 Valentinian IL, insulted Ambrose, a.d. 385 
 (Ambr. Ep. xx. (i), iii. p. 859). He conveyed 
 a message, or reported a saying, of the em- 
 peror's, and added, " While I am alive, dost 
 thou contemn Valentinian ? I will remove 
 thy head from off thee." Ambrose answered, 
 " God grant thee to fulfil thy threat ; for I 
 shall suffer what bishops suffer, and thou wilt 
 do what eunuchs do. And would that God 
 would avert them from the church, that they 
 might turn all their weapons on me." Calli- 
 gonus was afterwards put to death on a 
 peculiarly infamous charge (Augustine, contra 
 Julianum, vi. 14, vol. x. 845). Tillemont 
 (x. 175) supposes that these events were in 
 the mind of Ambrose when he wrote the 6th 
 chapter of his book on Joseph. This is very 
 probable, but the further inference that that 
 book was WTitten two years later seems wholly 
 erroneous. The event that occurred after two 
 years was the usurpation of Maximus. It 
 is possible that Ambrose encountered two 
 eunuchs. Cf. also de Broglie, VEglise et 
 VEmpire, vi. 173. [e.b.b.] 
 
 Callistus (1) (i. q. formosissimus ; later 
 spelt Calistus, but Calixtus first in nth cent., 
 Bunsen's Hippolytus, i. 131, note), the suc- 
 cessor of pope Zephyrinus in a.d. 218, said to 
 have been a Roman, and the son of Domitius. 
 Nothing was known of Callistus, except that 
 the Martyrologium Romanum contained a 
 tradition of his martyrdom, till the discovery 
 of the Philosophumena in 1850. This work, 
 which first appeared under the name of 
 Origen, but is now ascribed to Hippolytus, 
 
 CALLISTUS 
 
 143 
 
 almost certainly the contemporary bp. of 
 Portus, gives an account of the life of Callistus 
 which is scarcely credible respecting one of 
 the bishops of Rome, who had before been 
 honoured as a saint and martyr. According- 
 ly, much controversy has sprung up round the 
 names of Callistus and Hippolytus. H Hippo- 
 lytus is to be believed, Callistus was an 
 unprincipled adventurer ; if Callistus can be 
 defended, grave doubt is thrown upon the 
 veracity of Hippolytus. Bunsen and Words- 
 worth adopt the former view ; Dollinger the 
 latter, in an ingenious treatise translated by 
 Dr. Plummer (T. &. T. Clark, 1876). The 
 story as told by Hippolytus is lifelike and 
 natural, and, however much we may allow 
 for personal rancour, we cannot but believe 
 it to be substantially true. 
 
 He tells us that Callistus was originally a 
 slave in the household of a rich Christian called 
 Carpophorus. His master intrusted to his 
 charge a bank in the Piscina Publica, where 
 Callistus induced his fellow-Christians to 
 deposit their savings upon the security of the 
 name of Carpophorus. The bank broke, and 
 Callistus fled, but Carpophorus tracked him 
 to Portus, and found him on board an out- 
 ward-bound ship. The slave threw himself 
 overboard in despair, but was picked up, and 
 delivered to his master, who brought him 
 back and put him to the pistrinum, or mill 
 worked by the lowest slaves, for a punishment. 
 After a time, however, he was set at liberty, 
 and again attempted suicide, and for this 
 purpose raised a riot in a synagogue of the 
 Jews. By them he was brought before 
 Fuscianus, the praefectus urbi, who, in spite 
 of the fact that Carpophorus claimed him as 
 his slave, condemned him, as a disturber of 
 public worship allowed by the Roman laws, 
 to be sent to the mines of Sardinia {Philoso- 
 phumena, ed. Miller, pp. 286, 287). 
 
 His supposed desire for death certainly 
 seems an inadequate motive for raising the 
 riot in the Jewish synagogue. Dollinger 
 supposes that, while claiming his debts at the 
 hands of members of the Jewish synagogue, 
 his zeal for religion impelled him to bear 
 witness for Christ, and that thus his exile to 
 Sardinia was a species of martjTdom for 
 Christianity (Dollinger, Hippolytus u. Kallis- 
 tus, p. 119). The date of his exile is proxi- 
 mately fixed, since Fuscianus served the office 
 of praefectus urbi between a.d. 188 and a.d. 
 193 (Bunsen's Hippolytus, i. 138). Some time 
 after, proceeds Hippolytus, Marcia, the 
 Christian mistress of Commodus, persuaded 
 the emperor to grant an amnesty to Christians 
 undergoing punishment in Sardinia ; and 
 Callistus, at his own entreaty, was released, 
 although his name was not on the list (supplied 
 by the then bp. Victor) of those intended to 
 benefit by Marcia's clemency. Callistus re- 
 appeared in Rome, much to the annoyance of 
 Victor, for the outrage on the synagogue was 
 recent and notorious. He therefore sent him 
 to Antium, making him a small monthly 
 allowance {Philosophumena, p. 288). Milman 
 dates this c. a.d. 190, in the very year of 
 Victor's accession {Lat. Christ, i. 55, note). 
 
 That Carpophorus's runaway slave should 
 be of such importance that the pope should 
 buy him off with an allowance, and insist upon 
 
144 
 
 CALLISTUS 
 
 his residing at a distance, shews that Callistus 
 was already thought to he no ordinary man. 
 He must have resided at Antium for a long 
 time ; for Zephyrinus, who did not succeed 
 Victor till A.D. 202, recalled him. The new 
 bishop " gave him the control of the clergy, 
 and set him over the cemetery " {Phil. p. 288). 
 This suggests that Callistus had been ordained 
 at Antium ; and the words " set him over the 
 cemetery" {els to KOifj.r]Tripiov Kar^ffTijaev) 
 have a special interest ; for one of the largest 
 catacombs in Rome is known as the Coe- 
 meterium Sti. Calixti. That this should have 
 been intrusted to the same man to whom also 
 was given the control of the clergy proves 
 what a high value was set upon this first 
 public burial-place of the Christians in Rome. 
 Thirteen out of the next eighteen popes are 
 said to have been buried here ; and the names 
 of seven of the thirteen (Callistus himself 
 being one of the exceptions) have been 
 identified from old inscriptions found in one 
 crypt of this cemetery. 
 
 Now (a.d. 202) for the first time Callistus 
 became a power in the Roman church. To 
 Hippolytus, who held a double position in 
 that church [Hippolytus], he became especi- 
 ally obnoxious. Being set over the Roman 
 clergy, he was over Hippolytus, who was the 
 presbyter of one of the Roman cardines or 
 churches ; but as a presbyter himself, he was 
 inferior ecclesiastically to one who was also 
 the bp. of Portus. Hippolytus claims to have 
 detected Callistus's double-dealing from the 
 first ; but tells us that Callistus, aspiring to 
 be bp. of Rome himself, would break openly 
 with neither party. The question which now 
 divided the church was that of the Monarchia, 
 or how to reconcile the sovereignty of the 
 Father with the Godhead of the Son. Cal- 
 listus, who had obtained a complete ascend- 
 ancy over the mind of Zephyrinus, according 
 to Hippolytus an ignorant and venal man, 
 took care to use language now agreeing with 
 the Sabellians, now with Hippolytus. But 
 he personally sided with Sabellius, called 
 Hippolytus a Ditheist, and persuaded Sabel- 
 lius, who might otherwise have gone right, to 
 coalesce with the JMonarchians. His motive, 
 says Hippolytus, was that there might be two 
 parties in the church which he could play off 
 against each other, continuing on friendly 
 terms with both {Phil. p. 289). 
 
 We find from Tertullian that Zephyrinus 
 began, no doubt under Callistus's influence, 
 the relaxation of discipline which he himself 
 afterwards carried further when he became 
 bishop. Under Zephyrinus the practice first 
 obtained of allowing adulterers to be re- 
 admitted after public penance {de Pudicitid, 
 i. 21 ; Dollinger, pp. 126-130). Zephyrinus 
 
 died in a.d. 218, and Callistus was elected 
 bishop instead ; and Hippolytus does not 
 scruple to avow that by this act the Roman 
 church had formally committed itself to 
 heresy. He regards his own as the orthodox 
 church, in opposition to what he henceforth 
 considers as only being the Callistian sect 
 {Phil. pp. 289, 292). Yet the first act 
 apparently of Callistus as bishop was towards 
 conciliating his rival. He threw off, perhaps 
 actually excoramimicated (djr^wo-e), Sabellius. 
 But he only did this, says Hippolytus, to 
 
 CAPRASIUS 
 
 proclaim a heresy quite as deadly as the 
 other. If he is to be believed, he is right in 
 thus characterizing it. The Father and the 
 Son, Callistianism said, were one ; together 
 they made the Spirit, which Spirit took flesh 
 in the womb of the Virgin. Callistus, says 
 Hippolytus indignantly, is as Patripassian as 
 Sabellius, for he makes the Father suffer with 
 the Son, if not as the Son {ib. pp. 289-330). 
 
 Hippolytus brings against him several other 
 grave accusations of further relaxing the bonds 
 of church discipline {ib. pp. 290, 291) — e.g. 
 (i) He relaxed the terms of readmission into 
 the church : accounting no sin so deadly as to 
 be incapable of readmission, and not exacting 
 penance as a necessary preliminary. {2) He 
 relaxed the terms of admission into orders, 
 ordaining even those who had been twice or 
 thrice married ; and permitting men already 
 ordained to marry freelv. (3) He also re- 
 laxed the marriage laws of the church, thereby 
 bringing them into conflict with those of the 
 state; and Hippolytus says that a general 
 immorality was the consequence. Dollinger, 
 however, pertinently observes that Hippolytus ] 
 does not even hint a charge of personal im- ; 
 morality against Callistus (Dollinger, Hippo- ■ 
 lytus und Kallistus, p. 195). (4) He allowed ; 
 second baptisms, which perhaps means that ; 
 a repetition of baptism was substituted for ', 
 the penance which had been necessary at the \ 
 readmission of grievous sinners into the • 
 church. This is the only accusation which . 
 Dollinger meets with a distinct contradiction, 
 on the ground that no such practice was known 
 in the later Roman church (p. 189). Yet it i 
 surely is not as inconceivable as it seemed to , 
 him that later bishops of Rome might have , 
 reversed the acts of their predecessor. 
 
 Callistus is said to have died in a.d. 223 
 (Eus. H. E. vi. 20). Tradition tells us that ; 
 he was scourged in a popular rising, thrown | 
 out of a window of his house in Trastevere, ; 
 and flung into a well. This would account for 1 
 no epitaph being found to Callistus in the 1 
 papal crypt of his own cemetery in the cata- • 
 combs. E. Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuch. 1 
 (1893), xi. 3 ; P. Battifol, Le Decret de Callist. i 
 in Etudes d'Hist. etde Thiol. (Paris, 1902), pp. j 
 69 seq. [g.h.m.] 
 
 Caprasius (2), St., presbyter at Lerins (I'lsle ■ 
 de St. Honorat). Having a great desire to 
 become a hermit, he distributed his goods to 
 the poor and with St. Honoratus ultimately 
 fixed on the isle of Lerins, described as a 
 frightful desert where nothing was to be seen , 
 but serpents and other venomous creatures. • 
 There Honoratus built a monastery, into 
 which he received many monks from the 
 neighbouring countries. It was under the \ 
 discipline of Caprasius and Honoratus, who ' 
 are said to have made it the home of saints. 1 
 Hilarius describes their new monastery as 
 being distinguished for chastity, faith, wisdom, 
 justice, truth. They also built in the island 
 a church, of which Honoratus became minister. 
 Caprasius died c. 430, and is commemorated 
 on June i. (Acta Sanctorum, Jun. i, p. 77 ; 
 Hilar. Arelat. de Vita S. Honorati, cap. ii. Patr. ■ 
 Lat.l.p. 1255; EucheTiusLugd. de Laud. Eremi, 
 42, Patr. Lat. 1. p. 711 ; Sidonius ApoU Carm. • 
 § 384, Patr. Lat. Iviii. p. 721 ; Ceillier, Hist, des 
 Auteurs S acres et Eccles. t. viii. p. 439.) [c.h.J ' 
 
CAPREOLUS 
 
 Capreolus, bp. of Carthage, known in con- 
 nexion with the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. 
 N. Africa at that time being ravaged by the 
 Vandals under Genseric, it was impossible to 
 convene the bishops to appoint representatives 
 from the church of Carthage at the council. 
 The bishop, however, in his zeal for the 
 catholic doctrine, dispatched an elaborate 
 letter in its defence, which is extant, both in 
 Greek and Latin. There is also extant an- 
 other letter by Capreolus on this controversy, 
 written in answer to inquiries addressed to 
 him from Spain, by Vitalis and Constantius. 
 Both letters are iii Migne, vol. liii. p. 843. 
 Also a fragment of the letter which he 
 addressed to Theodosius, who convoked the 
 council, is quoted by Ferrandus in his letter 
 to Pelagius and .\natolius, c. 6, Pair. Migne, 
 Ixvii. 925. The Sermo de Tempore Barbarico, 
 .11 the Vandal invasion of Africa, usually 
 attributed to St. Augustine, and other ser- 
 mons in which Augustine describes the Vandal 
 ravages, are considered byTillemont (xvi. 502) 
 to have been written by Capreolus (Hardouin, 
 i. 1419-1422 ; Fleury, xxv. 41 ; Till. xii. 559, 
 xiii. 901, xiv. 376. '399. xvi. 495, 502, 789), 
 but this is doubtful. [d.b.] 
 
 Tillemont supposes Capreolus to have suc- 
 ceeded to the see of Carthage shortly before 
 the death of Augustine (430), as the letter 
 convoking the council of Ephesus seems to 
 have been addressed to him and to Augustine 
 (xii. 559). Another object of his letter to 
 Ephesus was to implore the council not to re- 
 open the question of the Pelagian heresy. 
 When his letter was read, Cyril and all the 
 bishops exclaimed, " That is what we all say ; 
 that is what we all wish." and they ordered it 
 to be inserted in the Acts of the council (Vine. 
 Lerin. c. 31 ; Labbe, Cone. iii. 529). He is 
 probably the " priest " in Africa in the time 
 of Aspar, mentioned in the Book of Promises, 
 ascribed to Prosper (i. 4, c. 6). 
 
 It is instructive to note the importance 
 that he attaches to the descent of the God-man 
 into Hades. Chaps. 5-12 are taken up with 
 answering the new error. He quotes Ps. xvi. 
 10 ; John X. 18 ; I. Cor. ii. 7, 8 ; II. Cor. v. 18, 
 19 ; Heb. i. 2, 3 ; Col. ii. 15 ; Heb. x. 28-30 ; 
 John XX. 17. He does not quote John xvi. 
 32, but says (c. 13) that it would be endless to 
 adduce all scripture testimonies. His answer 
 to the argument from Ps. xxii. i is drawn from 
 the latter half of the verse (as it is in the 
 LX.\ and \'ulgate, which are not improbably 
 right), " Far from my health are the words of 
 my failings," and based on the mystery of the 
 union of the two natures, " that human con- 
 dition should know itself" (c. 5). 
 
 The death of Capreolus is generally dated 
 c. A.D. 435. His burial was commemorated 
 in the calendar of Carthage between July 21 
 and 30 ; the note of the day is lost, [e.b.b.] 
 
 Caracalla, the nickname of M. Aurelius 
 Severus Antoninus Bassianus, son of Lucius 
 Septimius Severus, born April 4, 188, declared 
 Caesar a.d. 196, three years after his father's 
 accession ; succeeded to the empire in con- 
 junction with his brother Geta, Feb. 211, sole 
 emperor after slaying his brother in his 
 mother's arms a.d.' 212, in Gaul 213, in Ger- 
 many and on the Danube 214, at Antioch and 
 Alexandria 215, marched against Parthia 216, 
 
 CARACALLA 
 
 145 
 
 killed on the way from Edessa to Carrhae, 
 April 8, 217. His mother, according to con- 
 temporary authorities, was Julia, a Syrian 
 woman, whom Severus had married because 
 of certain prophecies. Spartianus, in the 
 time of Constantine, assures us that Julia was 
 his stepmother, and that his mother was 
 Severus's first wife Marcia. This would make 
 his story somewhat less horrible, but compels 
 the historian at the cost of some inconsistency 
 to refer his birth to 174, or earlier. 
 
 The principal authorities are TertuUian, ad- 
 dressing Scapula, governor of Africa, in 211 ; 
 the sober, contemporary, and apparently im- 
 partial, narrative of Herodian (bks. vii. viii.) ; 
 the abridgment, by the very late compiler 
 Xiphilinus, of the 77th book of the contem- 
 porary historian Dion Cassius, with which the 
 compiler seems to have incorporated fragments 
 of other works of a like early date ; the narra- 
 tive written for Constantine by Lampridius 
 Spartianus in the Historia Augusta ; laws, 
 coins, inscriptions (see Clinton), and especially 
 a record in the Digest, bk i, tit. 5, 1. 17, from 
 the 22nd book of Ulpian. 
 
 Dion charges him with inheriting all the 
 worst features of the races from which he 
 sprang ; on his father's side, the braggart 
 levity of the Gaul and the truculence of the 
 African ; on his mother's, the tricksiness of 
 the Syrian. TertuUian (ad Scap. c. 4) calls 
 him Antoninus, and informs us that " his 
 .father Severus had a regard for Christians ; 
 . . . and Antoninus . . . was brought up on 
 Christian milk. And, moreover, Severus knew 
 most illustrious men and most illustrious 
 women to be of this sect, and not only did not 
 hurt, but honoured [exornavit or, more pro- 
 bably, exoneravit, exonerated] them by the wit- 
 ness he bore them, and withstood the raging 
 populace." It has been inferred that the young 
 prince was not only brought up amid Christian 
 influences, but had a Christian wet-nurse. 
 
 We can easily conceive how injurious it must 
 have been for the child to find the Christians in 
 the palace screened, while yet he was taken to 
 see shows of wild beasts where Christians were 
 thrown to them to devour. Spartianus tells 
 us that he was a most charming child, quick at 
 learning, engaging with his prattle, and of a 
 very tender heart. " If he saw condemned 
 criminals thrown to the beasts, he cried, or 
 looked away, which more than won the hearts 
 of the people. At seven years of age, when he 
 heard that a boy that was his playmate had 
 been severely beaten for Jewish superstition, 
 it was a long while before he would look at his 
 own father or the boy's father again, or at the 
 people who had him flogged. By his own in- 
 tercession he restored their ancient rights to the 
 people of Antioch and Byzantium, who had 
 helped Niger against his father. It was for his 
 cruelty that he took an aversion to Plautianus. 
 But all this was only while he was a boy [sed 
 haec puer]." The " Jewish superstition " has 
 been interpreted, with great probability, to 
 mean Christianity. The Plautianus men- 
 tioned was, teste Herodian, a vile tyrant, all- 
 powerful with Severus, whose daughter Cara- 
 calla was compelled to marry, much against 
 his will, in the hope of reforming him from 
 certain low tastes, such as won him the favour 
 of the city populace. 
 
 10 
 
146 
 
 CARACALLA 
 
 Spartianus tells us that when Caracalla 
 emerged from boyhood, before his accession, 
 he was so changed, so stern, that no one would 
 have known him ; whereas his brother Geta, 
 who had been an unpleasing child, was very 
 much improved as he grew up. His narrative, 
 and the abridgment of Dion, afford no clue 
 to the enmity that sprang up between the 
 brothers, and deeper principles seem to have 
 been involved than mere fraternal jealousy. 
 Caracalla's early life was such as to teach him 
 heart-hardening dissimulation ; TertuUian, 
 while the brothers yet ruled jointly, lu-ges at 
 once the uncertainty of human life, and the 
 probability that Caracalla would favour the 
 Christians ; and it is the fact that his victory 
 coincided with a general and prolonged cessa- 
 tion of a long and cruel persecution. 
 
 We cannot tell whether he had any higher 
 motives than a mean malice and uneasy envy 
 in his murder of his brother, and whether the 
 mother, for whose sake he claimed to have 
 done it and whom he would not allow to utter 
 or even listen to a complaint, ever forgave 
 him. The incredible charge of incest was 
 afterwards brought against them. But there 
 is little doubt as to the results of the deed. 
 He did not become a Christian, and the ancient 
 gods of the state were the last to whom he 
 had recourse. He patronised Philostratus, 
 who wrote for his mother and for him the Life 
 of Apollonius of Tyana. He thus fostered one 
 of the chief counterfeits of Christianity. He 
 gathered round him all who professed to read 
 the future, and he worshipped the spirits of 
 the dead. But they could not rid his ears of 
 his brother's dying cry, yU^re/), fxriTip, rexoOffa, 
 TtKoma, [So-jOei, acpd^Ofiai. He continued to 
 court the city populace, and enriched Rome 
 with magnificent baths, which even in ruins 
 are the most superb monuments of refined 
 luxury. But his fits of savagery must have 
 made it hard for him to continue a favourite 
 of the populace. Henceforth he relied mainly 
 on his army, and sought ease of mind in 
 excitement. Both necessities involved ex- 
 pense. Whatever impulse he gave to the 
 corruption of the capital, he himself con- 
 tentedly shared the roughest privileges of the 
 soldiers. But that alone could not secure their 
 aflection. In the first day of his crime he 
 had lavished the wealth his father had been 
 eighteen years in acquiring. New sources of 
 revenue were needed. 
 
 It is the method that Caracalla adopted to 
 raise a revenue that gives him his main claim 
 to a place in the catalogue of men whose lives 
 affected the Christian church. His act, as 
 Gibbon has shewn, marked an era in the de- 
 cline of the empire. But more than that, it 
 affected very greatly the position of Christians 
 in all future persecutions. It is this indeed 
 mainly that enables us to pronounce with 
 certainty that the act was his, and belonged 
 to no earlier date. " All who are in the 
 Roman world," says Ulpian, " have been 
 made citizens of Rome by an institution of the 
 emperor Antoninus." " A most grateful and 
 humane deed ! " exclaims Augustine {de Civ. 
 Dei, v. 17, vol. vii. 161), and immediately 
 subjoins the proviso that made the boon so 
 equivocal. At a stroke the Roman world 
 was pauperized. Every citizen resident in the 
 
 CARITAS 
 
 capital was entitled to receive every month, 
 at a cheap rate — the indigent quite gratuitous- 
 ly' — a certain amount of corn or bread. This 
 was one of the chief drains upon the revenue, 
 and one of the main causes of extortion in the 
 provinces. But Augustus laid a tax on 
 citizens from which aliens were exempt, a tax 
 which made the franchise in many cases a 
 burden to be declined rather than a boon to be 
 coveted, a duty of five per cent, on all be- 
 quests. Nerva and Trajan, however, exempted 
 the passage of moderate inheritances from 
 parent to child, or vice versa (Plin. Paneg. 37, 
 38). Caracalla, by raising the provincials to 
 the franchise, did not free them from the 
 tribute they owed before, but imposed this 
 additional burden, which he doubled in 
 amount, and which involved the odious intru- 
 sion of the taxgatherer in seasons of domestic 
 bereavement. The act seems to synchronize 
 with a cotigiariiim or largess to the populace 
 in A.D. 214. Thenceforward Caracalla's laws, 
 wherever promulgated, seemed to be dated at 
 Rome. Oppressive as were the effects of the 
 act, it seems yet to have been welcomed. It 
 was but fair, thought Augustine, that rustics 
 who had lands should give food to citizens who 
 had none, so long as it was granted as a boon 
 and not extorted as a right. 
 
 But besides its effects as a financial measure, 
 Caracalla's act broke down the barriers of so- 
 ciety ; annulled, as far as any imperial institu- 
 tion could, the proud old sovereign common- 
 wealth, the queen of nations, whose servants 
 and ministers the emperors had ever professed 
 to be ; opened the command of armies to 
 unlettered barbarians ; removed the bars to 
 the influx of Greek and Syrian and Egyptian 
 corruption into Rome ; reduced the subjects 
 to a level, above which only the emperor, the 
 minion of the army, towered supreme. 
 
 In earlier times St. Paul's Roman citizenship 
 had stood him in good stead ; and in the story 
 of the martyrs in Gaul under M. Aurelius the 
 Roman citizens had been reserved till the 
 emperor's will was known. A boon now so 
 widely diffused could scarcely retain the same 
 value. But we hear no more of Christians 
 being crucified, unless they were slaves, or 
 first reduced to slavery. Unutterably horri- 
 ble as the tortures devised against them were, 
 they were no longer commonly thrown to the 
 beasts as a show. They suffered by the sword 
 at last, and all their tortures were such as 
 might befall any citizen of Rome who trans- 
 gressed the mandate of the emperor. [D. C.A.< 
 Persecution ; Torture.] Thus martyrdom, ' 
 instead of the obstinacy of an abject alien . 
 superstition, became the bold and cheerful 
 resistance of free citizens to the arbitrary will ; 
 of one who, when he began to torture, became 
 a barbarous tyrant. [e.b.b.] 
 
 Caritas. Charity with her virgin sisters, ; 
 Faith and Hope, and their mother Wisdom, 
 seem to have been the names of real martyrs. 
 The names were very natural ones for Chris- 
 tians to give to their children. On the Aurelian 
 Way, in the church of St. Pancras, lay Sophia 
 with her three daughters : Sapientia, with her 
 daughters Fides, Spes, and Charitas, as Wil- 
 liam of Malmesbury calls them ; but the Latin' 
 names nowhere else occur in this order, the 
 Greek names, when given in full, always do. 
 
CARPOCRATES 
 
 Sophia, Pistis, Elpis, Agape, arc said to have 
 been a mother and daughters who suffered in 
 September, and whose relics were transferred 
 to the church of St. Silvester. On the other 
 hand, Sapienta, Spes, Fides, Caritas, are said 
 by Ado to have suffered Aug. i, and were 
 buried on the Appian Way, in the crypt of 
 St. Caecilia. In that crypt has been found the 
 inscription, pistk si»ei sokoki dulcissimae 
 FECir. In the same place, if we rightly under- 
 stand de Rossi, was found agape qve vxit 
 
 A.NNIS VGIKTI ET SEX IN PACE Agape, who 
 
 lived twenty-six years in peace. There is no 
 statement of relationship in the notices of the 
 tombs on the Appian Way. It appears pro- 
 bable that Ado has confounded the widely 
 celebrated martyrs who are said to have suf- 
 fered in September under Adrian, with the 
 occupants of some Christian tombs in a crypt 
 where there were many celebrations early in 
 .\ugust. The Menology gives the ages of 
 Faith, Hope, and Love as 12, 10, and 9. (De 
 Rossi, Rom. Soft. i. 180-183, ii. 171 ff., pi. Iv. 
 10; Bede, Mart. July i, Bede, Mart. And. 
 June 23 ; Usuard, Aug. i ; Menol. Basil. 
 
 Sept. 16.) [E.B.B.] 
 
 Carpocrates {Kap7ro\-pdT?7?, Irenaeus ; Kapn-o- 
 Kpas, Epiphanius and Philaster, both probably 
 deriving this form from the shorter treatise 
 against heresies by Hippolytus), a Platonic 
 philosopher who taught at Alexandria early in 
 the 2nd cent., and who, incorporating Chris- 
 tian elements into his system, became the 
 founder of a heretical sect mentioned in one 
 uf our earliest catalogues of heresies, the list 
 of Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius (//. E. 
 iv. 22). These heretics are the first of whom 
 Irenaeus expressly mentions that they called 
 themselves Gnostics ; Hippolytus first speaks 
 of the name as assumed by the Naassenes or 
 Ophites (Ref. v. r). Of all the systems called 
 Gnostic, that of Carpocrates is the one in 
 which the Hellenic element is the most strong- 
 ly marked, and which contains the least of 
 what is necessarily Jewish or Oriental. He is 
 described as teaching with prominence the 
 doctrine of a single first principle : the name 
 fiovaSiKT] yvuxris, given by Clement of Alex- 
 andria {Strom, iii. 2) to the doctrine of the 
 school which he founded, is made by Neander 
 to furnish the key to the whole Carpocratian 
 system ; but possibly is only intended to 
 contrast with the doctrine of the Valentinian 
 teachers, who thought it necessary to provide 
 the first Being with a consort, in order that 
 emanations from Him might be conceivable. 
 Carpocrates taught that from the one unknown 
 unspeakable God different angels and powers 
 had emanated, and that of these the lowest in 
 the series, far below the unbegotten Father, 
 had been the makers of the world. The privi- 
 lege of the higher souls was to escape the rule 
 of those who had made the world ; even by 
 magical arts to exercise dominion over them, 
 and ultimately, on leaving the world, to pass 
 completely free from them to God Who is 
 above them. Jesus he held to be a mere man 
 naturally born of human parents, having no 
 prerogatives beyond the reach of others to 
 attain. His superiority to ordinary men con- 
 sisted in this, that His soul, being steadfast and 
 pure, remembered those things which it had 
 seen in the revolution (rj Trepiipop^) in which 
 
 CARPOCRATES 
 
 147 
 
 it had been carried round with the unbegotten 
 (lod, and therefore power [or a " power "] had 
 been sent from God en.ibling Him to escape the 
 makers of the world. Though brought up in 
 Jewish customs, He had despised them, and 
 therefore had received powers enabling Him to 
 destroy the passions which are given to men as 
 a punishment. But in this there was nothing 
 special : others might be the equals or the 
 superiors not only of Peter or Paul, but of our 
 Lord Himself. Their souls, too, might remem- 
 ber the truths they had witnessed ; if they 
 despised the rulers of the world as much as 
 Jesus did, they would be given the same privi- 
 leges as He, and higher if they despised them 
 more. Thus the Carpocratians gave honour, 
 but not an exclusive honour, to Christ. They 
 had pictures of Him, derived, it was said, 
 from a likeness taken by Pilate's order ; and 
 images, which they crowned and treated with 
 other marks of respect ; but this they did also 
 in the cases of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, 
 and other philosophers. 
 
 In the opening statement concerning the 
 making of the world, the doctrine ascribed to 
 Carpocrates is almost identical with that as- 
 cribed to Saturninus ; but in the next para- 
 graph the language is distinctly taken from the 
 myth in Plato's Phaedrus, in which human 
 knowledge is made to be but a recollection of 
 what the soul had seen when carried round 
 with the gods in their revolution, and per- 
 mitted to see the eternal forms of things. 
 
 The doctrine of the duty of despising the 
 rulers of the world received among the Car- 
 pocratians an interpretation which enabled 
 them to practise immorality without scruple. 
 Things in themselves were indifferent ; no- 
 thing was in its own nature good or evil, and 
 was only made so by human opinion. The 
 true Gnostic might practise everything — nay, 
 it was his duty to have experience of all. 
 A doctrine concerning the transmigration of 
 souls which was taught by other Gnostic sects, 
 and which harmonized well with Platonic 
 teaching, was adopted by the Carpocratians in 
 the form that a soul which had had its com- 
 plete experience passed at once out of the 
 dominion of the rulers of the world, and was 
 received up to society with the God above 
 them : those which had not were sent back to 
 finish in other bodies that which was lacking 
 to them ; but all ultimately would be saved. 
 But as was also taught by the Basilidians of 
 Irenaeus and by the Ophites, salvation be- 
 longed to the soul alone ; there would be no 
 resurrection of the body. In conformity with 
 this theory was interpreted the text from the 
 Sermon on the Mount, " Agree with thine 
 adversary quickly." The "adversary" (whom, 
 Epiphanius tells us, they named Abolus, a 
 corruption, doubtless, from the Diabolus of 
 Irenaeus) was one of the world-making angels, 
 whose office it was to conduct the soul to the 
 principal of these angels, " the judge." If he 
 found that there were acts left undone, he de- 
 livered it to another angel, " the officer," to 
 shut it up " in prison " — i.e. in a body — until it 
 had paid the last farthing. The doctrine that 
 we ought to imitate the freedom with which our 
 Lord despised the rulers of the world raises the 
 question. Did Carpocrates intend to impute 
 immorality to Him ? On this point Carpo- 
 
148 
 
 CARPOCRATES 
 
 crates was misunderstood either by Hippolytus 
 or by his own disciples. According to Hippo- 
 lytus, Carpocrates taught that Jesus surpassed 
 other men in justice and integrity (aojcppoavvr] 
 Kal dperrj Kai /iiy diKaioavvris, Epiphanius), and 
 no doubt our Lord's example might have been 
 cited only in reference to freedom from Jewish 
 ceremonial obligations ; yet the version of Ire- 
 naeus seems more trustworthy, which does not 
 suggest that the superiority of Jesus consisted 
 in anything but the clearer apprehension of 
 eternal truths which His intellect retained. 
 Carpocrates claimed to be in possession of the 
 true teaching of Christ spoken secretly by Him 
 to His apostles, and communicated by them in 
 tradition to the worthy and faithful ; and the 
 apostolic doctrine that men are to be saved by 
 faith and love was used by him to justify an 
 antinomian view of the complete indifference of 
 works. Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates by 
 a Cephallenian woman, maintained a licentious 
 theory of communism in all things, women 
 included. The Carpocratians and the Cainites 
 have often been coupled together as the two 
 most immoral of the Gnostic sects, and in 
 practical effects their doctrines may not have 
 been very different ; but the Carpocratian 
 theory of the indifference of human actions fell 
 short of the inversion of good and evil which 
 is ascribed to the Cainites. Whereas the latter 
 represented the God of the Jews and Maker of 
 the world as an evil Being who ought to be 
 resisted the former only spoke of the makers 
 of the world as inferior beings whose restric- 
 tions it is true enlightenment to despise ; and 
 the arguments of Epiphanes, derived from the 
 equality that reigns in nature, assume that the 
 creation is so far conformed to the will of God 
 that from the laws which pervade it we may 
 infer what is pleasing to the supreme power. 
 Whether immorality were directly taught by 
 Carpocrates himself or not, his followers be- 
 came proverbial for deliberate licentiousness of 
 life. The Christians thought it likely that the 
 stories current among the heathen of scenes of 
 shameless debauchery in the Christian love- 
 feasts had a real foundation in what took place 
 among the Carpocratians. Philaster, who, 
 apparently through oversight, enumerates the 
 Carpocratians twice, the second time (57) 
 giving them the alternative names of Floriani 
 and Milites, directly asserts this. His pre- 
 decessors had suggested it as probable (Clem. 
 Alex. Strom, iii. 2 ; cf. Justin Martvr, Apol. 
 26). Irenaeus counts Carpocratian doctrines 
 and practices as means employed by Satan 
 to discredit the Christian name among the 
 heathen. (See also Eus. H. E. iv. 7.) 
 
 A more trifling heathen belief about the 
 Christians generally seems to have been true 
 of the Carpocratians, viz. that they knew 
 each other by secret bodily marks (noiaculo 
 corporis, Minucius Felix, cc. 9, 31) ; for the 
 Carpocratians marked their disciples by 
 cauterizing them in the back of the lobe of the 
 right ear. It appears from Heracleon (Clem. 
 Alex. p. 995, Eclog. ex Script. Proph. xxv.) that 
 this was a baptismal ceremonv, intended to 
 represent the " baptism with fire," predicted 
 of our Lord by the Baptist. This confirms the 
 evidence as to the use of at least St. Matthew's 
 Gospel by the Carpocratians furnished by 
 Epiphanius {Haer. xxx. p. 138) and by the 
 
 CARPOCRATES 
 
 use made of the Sermon on the Mount. Celsus 
 probably refers to this rite (Origen, v. 64) when 
 he says that Christians gave to certain others 
 of them the opprobrious name aKorjs KavaT-qpia.. 
 Origen, however, supposes that L Tim. iv. 2 
 is here referred to. 
 
 Mention has already been made of the culti- 
 vation of magic by the Carpocratians, and 
 their pretension to equal the miraculous 
 powers of our Lord. Hippolytus, in the 
 fourth book of the Refutation, gives us several 
 specimens of wonders exhibited by magicians, 
 not very unlike feats performed by profes- 
 sional conjurors to-day. It was easy for Ire- 
 naeus to shew (ii. 32) how very unlike these 
 transient wonders were to be permanent 
 miracles of healing effected by our Lord, and 
 which, as he claimed, continued in the church. 
 
 According to Neander, the Carpocratian 
 system sees in the world's history one struggle 
 between the principles of unity and of multi- 
 plicity. From one eternal Monad all existence 
 has flowed, and to this it strives to return. 
 But the finite spirits who rule over several 
 portions of the world counteract this universal 
 striving after unity. From them the different 
 popular religions, and in particular the Jewish, 
 have proceeded. Perfection is attained by ; 
 those souls who, led on by reminiscences of 1 
 their former condition, soar above all limita- : 
 tion and diversity to the contemplation of the j 
 higher unity. They despise the restrictions ■ 
 imposed by the mundane spirits ; they regard ' 
 externals as of no importance, and faith and 
 love as the only essentials ; meaning by faith, ■ 
 mystical brooding of the mind absorbed in the ' 
 original unity. In this way they escape the ' 
 dominion of the finite mundane spirits ; their ■ 
 souls are freed from imprisonment in matter, ' 
 and they obtain a state of perfect repose (cor- 
 responding to the Buddhist Nirwana) when ; 
 they have completely ascended above the '. 
 world of appearance. ' 
 
 With respect to the Carpocratians, the pri- j 
 mary authorities are Irenaeus (i. 25, ii. 31-34), ' 
 Clem. Alex. (Strom, iii. 2 ) ; Tertullian (de i 
 Anima, 23, 35), who appears to have drawn his > 
 information from Irenaeus ; Philaster (35) and : 
 Pseudo-Tertullian (9), who represent the ear- ' 
 Her treatise of Hippolytus ; Epiphanius (27), ; 
 who weaves together the accounts of Hippoly- 
 tus and of Irenaeus ; and Hippolytus, who in 
 his later treatise (vii. 20) merely copies Ire- 
 naeus, with some omissions, thereby suggesting 
 that he was not acquainted with the work of 
 Irenaeus when he wrote the earlier treatise. ' 
 He certainly had at that time other sources of 
 information, for he mentions three or four 
 points not found in Irenaeus — e.g. he empha- 
 sizes the Carpocratian doctrine of the unity of : 
 the first principle, tells of emanations from 
 that principle of angels and powers, gives a ' 
 different version of the excellence of Jesus, and . 
 says that Carpocrates denied the resurrection 
 of the body. It is not impossible that Justin's 
 work on heresies may have furnished some 
 materials for Irenaeus. In any case Irenaeus 
 probably added much of his own, for the pains 
 he has taken with the confutation make it ' 
 probable that in his time the sect was still 
 active at Rome. 
 
 We cannot assign an exact date to Carpo- 
 crates ; but there are affinities between his 
 
CASSIANUS JULIUS 
 
 system and those of Saturninus and Basilides, 
 which suggest one a little later than Basilides, 
 from wliom he mav have derived his know- 
 ledge of Christianity. Eusebius is probably- 
 right in placing him in the reign of Hadrian 
 {d. A.D. 138). It suffices merely to mention the 
 invention of the writer known as Praedestin- 
 atus (i. 7) that the Carpocratians were con- 
 demned in Cyprus by the apostle Barnabas. 
 Matter, in his history of Gnosticism, gives an 
 account of certain supposed Carpocratian in- 
 scriptions, since found to be spurious (Giese- 
 ler's Ecc. Hist. c. ii. § 45, note 16). [g.s.] 
 
 Cassianus (2) Julius, a heretical teacher who 
 lived towards the end of the 2nd cent., chiefly 
 known to us by references to his writings made 
 on two occasions by Clemens Alexandrinus. In 
 the first passage {Strom, i. 21, copied by Euse- 
 bius, Praep. Ev. x. 12) Clement engages in a 
 chronological inquiry to shew the greatly 
 superior antiquity of Moses to the founders of 
 Grecian philosophy, and he acknowledges him- 
 self indebted to the previous investigations 
 made by Tatian in his work addressed to the 
 Greeks, and by Cassian (spelt Casianus in the 
 MS. of Clement, but not in those of Eusebius) 
 in the first book of his Exegetica. Vallarsi (ii. 
 865) alters without comment the Cassianus of 
 previous editors into Casianus, in Jerome's 
 Catalogue 33, a place where Jerome is not us- 
 ing Clement directly, but is copying the notice 
 in Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13). Jerome adds that 
 he had not himself met the chronological work 
 in question. In the second passage (Strom. 
 iii. 13, seq.) Cassian is also named in con- 
 nexion with Tatian. Clement is, in this 
 section, refuting the doctrines of those 
 Gnostics who, in their view of the essential 
 evil of matter, condemned matrimony and the 
 procreation of children ; and after consider- 
 ing some arguments urged by Tatian, says 
 that similar ones had been used by Julius 
 Cassianus whom he describes as the origi- 
 nator of Docetism (6 r^s SoKTjcrecos f^apxwi'), 
 a statement which must be received with some 
 modification. [Docetae.] He quotes some 
 passages from a treatise by Cassian on Con- 
 tinence {irepi eyvpareias, i) Trept evvovxio-s), in 
 which he wholly condemned sexual inter- 
 course, and referred its origin to instigations 
 of our first parents by the serpent, alleging in 
 proof II. Cor. xi. 3. Cassian quoted Is. Ivi. 3.. 
 Matt. xix. 12, and probably several other 
 passages which are discussed by Clement 
 without express mention that they had been 
 used by Cassian. Cassian also uses certain 
 alleged sayings of our Lord, cited likewise in 
 the so-called second epistle of the Roman 
 Clement to the Corinthians, cap. xii., as well 
 as in the Excerpta Theodoti, Ixvii. p. 985. 
 I-ightfoot U'jtices (Clement, I.e.) that Cassian, 
 by the omission of a clause, makes the Encra- 
 tite aspect of the passage much stronger than it 
 appears in the citation of the Pseudo-Clement. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus makes no complaint of 
 unfairness in the quotation ; but while he re- 
 marks that the sayings in question arenot found 
 incur four Gospels, but only in the Gospel ac- 
 cording to the Egyptians, he gives adifferent ex- 
 planation far less natural than that of Cassian. 
 
 • Another specimen of Cassian's arguments in 
 this treatise is preserved in Jerome's Commen- 
 tary on Gal. vi. 8. Jerome there answers an 
 
 CASSIANUS 
 
 149 
 
 Encratite argument founded on this text, viz. 
 that he who is united to a woman soweth to the 
 flesh, and therefore shall of the flesh reap 
 corruption. This argument is introduced with 
 words which, according to the common read- 
 ing, run, " Tatianus qui putativam Christi 
 carnem introducens, omnem conjunctionem 
 masculi ad foeminam immundam arbitratur, 
 tali adversum nos sub occasione praesentis 
 tcstimonii usus est argumento." There is 
 little doubt that we are to read instead of 
 Tatianus, Cassianus. The Benedictine editor 
 who retains the old reading notes that Cas- 
 sianus is the reading of two of the oldest 
 MSS., while Vallarsi says that Cassianus was 
 the reading of every MS. he had seen. 
 
 The Docetism of Cassian was closely con- 
 nected with his Encratism, for it was an 
 obvious answer of the orthodox to his doctrine 
 on Continence, that if the birthof children were 
 essentially evil, then our Lord's own birth was 
 evil, and His mother an object of blame. This 
 was met by a denial of the reality of our Lord's 
 body. Cassian also taught that man had not 
 been originally created with a body like ours, 
 but that these fleshly bodies were the " coats 
 of skin " in which the Lord clothed our first 
 parents after the Fall. This notion, probably 
 derived from Valentinus (Iren. I. v. p. 27), had 
 considerable currency. References for it will 
 be found in Huet's Origeniana, ii. Qu. 12, viii., 
 and Beausobre, Manicheisme, ii. 135). 
 
 Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 8) enumerates 
 among the followers of Valentinus one Cossian, 
 by whom, no doubt, Julius Cassianus is in- 
 tended ; for many greater inaccuracies in the 
 names are in the present text of Theodoret, 
 and Theodoret would have found authority in 
 Clement for classing Cassian with Valentinus. 
 
 The coincidences between Tatian and Cas- 
 sianus seem too close to be accidental, but we 
 have not data to determine their relative 
 priority. If Cassian were really the founder of 
 the sect called Docetae, he must have been 
 some time antecedent to Serapion (Eus. H. E. 
 vi. 12). His country may have been Egypt 
 (of. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt. Chr. Lit. pp. 201- 
 204). [Docetae ; Excratites]. [g.s.] 
 
 Cassianus (6), bp. of Autun. The date we 
 assign him will vary according as we attach 
 more weight to the ancient Life of him, which 
 professes to be based on a contemporary record 
 (.4cteSS. Aug. 5, vol. ii. p. 64), as Ruinart prefers 
 to do, or to a casual statement by Gregory of 
 Tours, who was shewn his tomb (Glor. Conf. 74, 
 75), as doTillemont and the Bollandists. The 
 Life tells us that he was born of noble parents 
 in Alexandria, and brought up by a bp. Zonis ; 
 that he made his house a Christian hospital in 
 the time of Julian, liberated his slaves, and 
 built a church to St. Lawrence at Orta in 
 Egypt, at which place he was made bishop 
 against his will in the time of Jovian, a.d. 363. 
 
 The tomb of Cassian was famous. A stain 
 in the form of a cross appeared on it, which is 
 said to have prompted Germanus to hold a con- 
 versation with the saint in his tomb. He 
 asked him how he did, and the saint answered 
 that he was at rest. This is told in his Life, 
 and may explain the great eagerness to obtain 
 dust scraped from the stones of his tomb, 
 which was almost bored through in con- 
 sequence, as testified by Gregory. [e.b.b.] 
 
150 
 
 CASSIANUS JOHANNES 
 
 Casslanus (11) Johannes has been called the 
 founder of Western monachism and of the semi- 
 Pelagian school. More exactly, he was the first 
 to transplant the rules of the Eastern monks 
 into Europe, and the most eminent of the 
 writers who steered a course between Pelagian- 
 ism and the tenets of St. Augustine. Like St. 
 Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, and others, 
 he is usually designated by his agnomen. His 
 birth is dated between a.d. 350 and 360 ; his 
 birthplace is not known. Gennadius calls him 
 " Scytha " {Fabric. Biblioth. Eccles. s.v.) ; but 
 this inav be merely a corruption from Scetis or 
 Scyathis, where Cassian resided for some time 
 among the monks of Nitria. His parents, of 
 whose piety he speaks gratefully (Coll. xxiv. i), 
 sent him to be educated in a monastery at 
 Bethlehem ; and there he would have frequent 
 intercourse with pilgrims from the West. This 
 cannot have been, as some have thought, the 
 monastery of St. Jerome, for that was not then 
 in existence, nor does Cassian ever refer to 
 Jerome as his teacher. Here Cassian became 
 intimate with Germanus, the future companion 
 of his travels. The fame of the Egyptian 
 monks and hermits reached Cassian and his 
 friend in their cells. About a.d. 390 they 
 started, with leave of absence for sev-en years, 
 to study by personal observation the more 
 austere rules of the " renuntiantes," as they 
 were called, in the Thebaid. At the end of 
 seven years they revisited Bethlehem ; and 
 thence returned very soon to the Egyptian 
 deserts {Coll. xvii. 31). Thus Cassian collected 
 the materials for his futiu-e writings. Besides 
 other voluntary hardships, he speaks of the 
 monks having to fetch water on their shoulders 
 a distance of three or four miles (Coll. xxiv. 10). 
 Evidently in his estimation, as in that of his 
 contemporaries generally, the vocation of a 
 solitary is hoUer than even that of a coenobite. 
 
 About A.D. 403 we find Cassian and Ger- 
 manus at Constantinople, perhaps attracted by 
 the reputation of Chr>sostom. By him Cas- 
 sian was ordained deacon, or, as some think, 
 appointed archdeacon ; and in his treatise de 
 Incarnatione (vii. 31) he speaks of Chrysostom 
 with affectionate reverence. Cassian and his 
 friend were entrusted with the care of the cathe- 
 dral treasures ; and, after the expulsion of 
 Chrysostom, they were sent by his adherents 
 on an embassy to Rome c. a.d. 405 to solicit 
 the intervention of Innocent I. No further 
 mention is made of Germanus ; nor is much 
 known of Cassian during the next ten years. 
 Probably he remained at Rome after Chrys- 
 ostom died, A.D. 407, until the approach of 
 the Goths under Alaric, and thus acquired a 
 personal interest in the Pelagian controversy. 
 
 After quitting Rome it has been inferred 
 from a casual expression in the de Instittttis 
 (iii. i) that Cassian visited the monks of Meso- 
 potamia ; some say that he returned for a 
 time to Egypt or Palestine ; and by some he 
 is identified' with Cassianus Presbyter. Prob- 
 ably Cassian betook himself from Rome to 
 Massilia (Marseilles). In this neighbourhood 
 he founded two monasteries (one afterwards 
 known as that of St Victor) for men and 
 women respectively. Tillemont says that the 
 rule was taken from the fourth book of the de 
 lustitutis ; and that many monasteries in that 
 part of Gaul owed their existence to this foun- 
 
 CASSIANUS JOHANNES 
 
 dation. As Cassian is addressed in the Epis- 
 tola Castoris as " abbas," " dominus," and 
 " pater," it is argued, but not with certainty, 
 that he presided over his new monastery. 
 Here he devoted himself to literary labours for 
 many years, and died at a very great age, 
 probably between a.d. 440 and 450. 
 
 The de Institutis Renuntiantimn, in twelve 
 books, was written c. 420 at the request of 
 Castor, bp of Apta Julia, in Gallia Narbo- 
 nensis (Praef. hist.). Books i.-i%'. treat of the 
 monastic rule ; the others of its especial 
 hindrances. The former were abridged by Eu- 
 cherius Lugdunensis. The Collationes Pairum 
 in Scithico Eremo Commorantium, in which 
 Cassian records his Egyptian experiences, were 
 evidently intended to complete his previous 
 work ; his purpose being to describe in the de 
 lustitutis the regulations and observances of 
 monachism ; in the Collationes its interior 
 scope and spirit : in the former he writes of 
 monks, in the latter of hermits. The Colla- 
 tiones were commenced for Castor, but after 
 his death Collat. i.-x. were inscribed to Leon- 
 tius, a kinsman of Castor, and Helladius, 
 bishop in that district ; xi.-xvii. to Honoratus, 
 abbat of Lerins, and Eucherius, bp. of Lug- 
 dunum (Lyons) ; xviii.-xxiv. to the monks and 
 anchorets of the Stoechades (Hyeres). The 
 Collationes have been well called a " speculum 
 monasticum " : St. Benedict ordered them to 
 be read daily ; they were highly approved also 
 by the founders of the Dominicans, Carthu- 
 sians, and Jesuits. But the orthodoxy of 
 the Collationes, especially of iii. and xiii., on 
 the subject of Grace and Freewill, was 
 impugned by St. Augustine and Prosper of 
 Aquitania. [Pelagianism.] An attempt was 
 made by Cassiodorus and others to expur- 
 gate them. Cassian's last work, de Incar- 
 natione Christi (cf. i. 3, v. 2), was directed 
 against the Nestorian heresy, c. 429, at the 
 suggestion of Leo then archdeacon and after- 
 wards pope. Probably Cassian was selected 
 for this controversy as a disciple of Chrys- 
 ostom, the illustrious predecessor of Nestorius 
 in the see of Constantinople (Inc. vii. 31). 
 The treatises de Spirituali Medicind Monachi, 
 Theologica Confessiu, and de Conflictu Virtutum 
 acVitiorum are generally pronounced spurious. 
 Cassian is remarkable as a link between 
 Eastern and Western Christendom, and as com- 
 bining in himself the active and the contem- 
 plative life. It is difficult to overestimate his 
 influence indirectly on the great monastic 
 system of mediaeval Europe. His writings 
 have always been in esteem with monastic re- 
 formers ; especially at the revival of learning 
 in the 15th cent. Even his adversary Prosper 
 calls him " insignis ac facundus." Cassian 
 shews a thorough knowledge of the Holy 
 Scriptures ; often with a good deal of quaint- 
 ness in his application of it. His style, if not 
 i so rich in poetic eloquence as that of his great 
 I opponent, is clear and forcible ; and he is 
 practical rather than profound. His good 
 sense manifests itself in his preface to the 
 I Instituta, where he annoimces his intention to 
 1 avoid legendary wonders and to regard his 
 subject on its practical side. He insists con- 
 tinually on the paramount importance of the 
 intention, disclaiming the idea of what is 
 called the " opus operatum " — for instance, on 
 
CASSIODORUS MAGNUS AURELIUS CASSIODORUS MAGNUS AURELIUS 151 
 
 almsgiving (Inst. vii. 21), fasting {Coll. i. 7), 
 and prayer (ix. 3) ; and he is incessant in 
 denouncing the especial sins of cloister-life, 
 as pride, ambition, vainglory. The life of a 
 monk, as he portraj's it, is no formal and 
 mechanical routine ; but a daily and hourly 
 act of self-renunciation (xxiv. 2). On the 
 other hand, he is by no means free from ex- 
 aggerated reverence for mere asceticism ; and, 
 while encouraging the highest aspirations after 
 holiness, allows too much scope to a selfish 
 desire of reward. As a casuist he is for the 
 most part sensible and judicious, e.s:;., in dis- 
 criminating between voluntary and involun- 
 tary thoughts (i. 17). But he presses obedience 
 so far as to make it unreasonable and fanatical 
 {I list. iv. 27, etc.), and under certain circum- 
 stances he sanctions deceit {Coll. xvii.). 
 
 On the subject of Predestination Cassian, 
 without assenting to Pclagius, protested 
 against what he considered the fatalistic ten- 
 dency of St. Augustine. In the CoUationes 
 he merely professes to quote the words of the 
 Egyptian " fathers " ; and in the de Incar- 
 natione he distinctly attacks Pelagianism as 
 closely allied with the heresy of Nestorius 
 (i. 3, vi. 14). Still, it is certain from the tenor 
 of his WTitings that Cassian felt a very strong 
 repugnance to any theory which seemed to 
 him to involve an arbitrary limitation of the 
 possibility of being saved. It has been well 
 said that St. Augustine regards man in his 
 natural state as dead, Pelagius as sound and 
 well, Cassian as sick. [Pelagianism.] 
 
 The best critical ed. of Cassian's works is 
 in the Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. xiii. xvii., ed. by 
 Petschenig. In Schaff and Wace's Posi- 
 Nicene Library there is a translation of most 
 of them, with valuable prolegomena and notes 
 by Dr. Gibson, Bp. of Gloucester. Fi.G.s.l 
 
 Casslodorus (or rather, Cassiodorius) Mag- 
 nus Aurelius, senator, and chief minister to 
 the Ostrogothic princes of Italy, born at 
 Scylacium (Squillace) in Bruttium, 469-470, of 
 a noble, wealthy, and patriotic family. Cas- 
 slodorus was brought up under circumstances 
 highly favourable to his education, which 
 included the study of grammar, rhetoric, 
 dialectic, music, arithmetic, geometry, astro- 
 nomy, mechanics, anatomy, Greek, and the 
 sacred Scriptures. His learning and accom- 
 plishments early attracted the notice of 
 Odoacer, the first barbarian ruler of Italy, by 
 whom he was made " comes privatarum," and 
 subsequently " comes sacrarum largitionum " 
 {Var. i. 4). After the final defeat of Odoacer 
 by Theodoric at Ravenna, 493, Cassiodorus 
 retired to his patrimonial estate in Bruttium, 
 and secured the wavering allegiance of the 
 provincials to the cause of the new ruler ; for 
 this service he was appointed by Theodoric to 
 the official government of Lucania and Brut- 
 tiurn. Happy in the art of ruling to the satis- 
 faction of the governed without neglecting the 
 interests of his master, he was summoned, up- 
 on the conclusion of his prefecture, to Raven- 
 na, and advanced successively to the dignities 
 of secretary, quaestor, master of the offices, 
 praetorian prefect, patrician, and consul. 
 Meanwhile he enjoyed an intimacy with the 
 prince, which, reflected as it is in his Varieties, 
 has given to that work much of the character 
 apd value of a state journal. Illiterate him- 
 
 self, Theodoric employed the eloquent pen of 
 his minister in all public communications, and 
 spent his leisure time in acquiring from him 
 erudition of various kinds {Var. ix. 24). It 
 would seem to have been the ambition of 
 Cassiodorus, whose genius for diplomacy was 
 consummate, to bring about a fusion between 
 the Arian conquerors and the conquered 
 Catholic population of Italy, to establish 
 friendly relations with the Eastern empire, and 
 possibly to create at Rome a peaceful centre to 
 which the several barbaric kingdoms which 
 had established themselves in Gaul, Spain, and 
 Africa might be attracted. The progress of 
 Theodoric to the capital, where the schism 
 between pope Symmachus and his rival, 
 Laurentius, was then raging, a.d. 500, was 
 probably planned by him in view of this result 
 {Var. xii. 18, 19 ; cf. Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, 
 c. 39) ; but the temper of Theodoric's declin- 
 ing years must have disappointed the hopes of 
 Cassiodorus, and in 524 he resolved to divest 
 himself of his honours, and to seek shelter in 
 his Calabrian retreat from the storm which 
 proved fatal to his co-senators, Boethius and 
 Symmachus. After the death of Theodoric, 
 525, Cassiodorus again became conspicuous as 
 the trusted adviser of his daughter Amalasun- 
 tha, widow of Eutaric, who acted as regent for 
 her son Athalaric {Var. ix. 25). By his influ- 
 ence the Goths were kept in subjection to the 
 new rule, notwithstanding the Roman pro- 
 clivities of Amalasuntha as displayed in the 
 education of the young prince. The threat- 
 ened danger of an invasion by Justinian was 
 likewise averted by the ready aid of his purse 
 and pen (Procop. B. G. i. 3)- Upon the en- 
 forced acceptance by Amalasuntha of Theo- 
 datus as co-regent, Cassiodorus again submit- 
 ted to circumstances {Var. x. 6, 7), and wrote 
 letters soliciting the goodwill of the senate 
 and the emperor (x. i, 2, 3). He was then 
 praetorian prefect and continued to serve 
 under Theodatus after the untimely death of 
 Athalaric and the treacherous murder of 
 Amalasuntha. One is tempted to suspect the 
 nobleness of a character which, no matter how 
 Infamous the ruler, could accommodate itself 
 with such singular tact to every change of 
 government ; but Cassiodorus was no mere 
 time-server. His writings shew him to have 
 been animated by a truly patriotic spirit ; and 
 if he adapted himself skilfully to the varying 
 humours of the court, it was that he might be 
 able to alleviate the misfortunes of his con- 
 quered countrymen. 
 
 Upon the triumph of Belisarius and the 
 downfaU of the Ostrogoths, Cassiodorus, now 
 70 years of age, withdrew to his native 
 province and founded the monastery of 
 Viviers at the foot of Mount Moscius, which 
 he describes (xii. 15). For 30 years he 
 had laboured to preserve authority from its 
 own excesses, to soften the manners of the 
 Goths and uphold the rights of the Romans ; 
 but, weary of the superhuman task, turned to 
 the cloister for repose and freedoni. His 
 activity, however, was not satisfied with the 
 ordinary occupations of monastic life. Hence 
 while the summit of the mountain was set 
 apart for the hermits of the community {mon- 
 asterium castellense), there sprang up at its 
 base, beneath his own immediate auspices, a 
 
152 
 
 CATHARINE 
 
 societv'of coenobites, devoted to the pursuit 
 of learning and science {monasterium yivari- 
 ense). He endowed the monastery with his 
 extensive Roman library (Div. Lit. c. 8). The 
 monks were incited by his example to the study 
 of classical and sacred literature, and trained 
 in the careful transcription of manuscripts, in 
 the purchase of which large sums were con- 
 tinually disbursed. Bookbinding, gardening, 
 and medicine were among the pursuits of the 
 less intellectual members of the fraternity 
 (ib. 28, 30, 31). Such time as he himself 
 could spare from the composition of sacred 
 or scientific treatises he employed in con- 
 structing self-acting lamps, sundials, and 
 water-clocks for the use of the monastery. 
 Nor was the influence of his example confined 
 to his own age, institution, or country ; the 
 multiplication of manuscripts became gradu- 
 ally as much a recognized employment of 
 monastic life as prayer or fasting ; and for this 
 the statue of Cassiodorus deserves an honour- 
 able niche in every library. The date of his 
 death is uncertain. He composed his treatise 
 on orthography in his 93rd year (de Orthogr. 
 praef.). 
 
 Of his extant writings, the twelve Books of 
 Varieties, consisting principally of letters, 
 edicts, and rescripts, are the only work of real 
 importance ; apart, however, from the study 
 of these pages, it is hardly possible to obtain a 
 true knowledge of the Italy of the 6th cent. 
 The very style of the writer, possessing, as it 
 does, a certain elegance, yet continually de- 
 viating from pure idiom and good taste, is 
 singularlv characteristic of the age which wit- 
 nessed the last flicker of Roman civilization 
 under the Ostrogothic rule. It is as though 
 the pen of Cicero had been dipped in barbaric 
 ink. The general result is artificial and bi- 
 zarre ; but though his meaning is frequently 
 obscured by his rhetoric, his manner is not as 
 unpleasing as is often asserted. It will be 
 sufficient to enumerate here the other writings 
 of Cassiodorus, a more detailed account of 
 which is given in Smith's D. of G. and R. Biogr. 
 (2) Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae, libri 
 xii., being an epitome of the ecclesiastical his- 
 tories of Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoretus, 
 as digested and translated by Epiphanius 
 Scholasticus. (3) Chronicon, chiefly derived 
 from Eusebius, Jerome, and Prosper. (4) Coin- 
 putus Paschalis. (5) Exposttio in Psalmos, 
 principally borrowed from St. Augustine. (6) 
 Expositio in Cantica Canticorum, of doubtful 
 authenticity. (7) De Institutione Divinarum 
 Literarum, an interesting work as illustrating 
 the enlightened spirit which animated the 
 monastic life of Viviers. (8) Complexioncs in 
 Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalyp- 
 sin, first brought to light by the Marquis Scipio 
 Maffei at Florence, in 1721. (9) De Artibus ac 
 Disciplinis Liberalium Literarum. (10) De 
 Oratione et de Octo Partibus Orationis, of doubt- 
 ful authenticity. (11) De Orthographia. (12) 
 De Anima. Of the lost writings of Cassio- 
 dorus the most important appears to have been 
 de Rebus Gestis Gothorutn, libri xii., of which 
 we have the abridgment of Jornandes. 
 
 The best ed., together with an appendix con- 
 taining the commentaries discovered by Maffei, 
 is in Migne's Pair. vols. Ixix. Ixx. [e.m.y.] 
 
 Catharine (Catharina, Catherine, etc), St., 
 
 CATHARINE 
 
 virgin and martyr of Alexandria. Tillemont 
 writes, in the 17th cent., that it would be 
 hard to find a saint more generally reverenced, 
 or one of whom so little was known on credible 
 authority, and adds that no single fact about 
 her is certain (Mem. eccl. vii. pp. 447, 761 ; 
 cf. Papebrocius, as quoted in Baron. Ann. 
 Eccl. ed. Theiner, iii. ad ann. 307). 
 
 The earliest mention of St. Catharine in the 
 Eastern church (v. Menology of Basil) under 
 the name of WiKadapiva. (possibly a corruption 
 of 7? KaOapivij, dim. of Kadap6i, pure), is about 
 the end of 9th cent. (Tillem. u.s. ; Baillet, Vies 
 des Saints, torn. viii. Nov. 25) ; in 13th cent, 
 she appears in the Latin Martyrologies 
 (Baillet, ib.), the crusaders having brought 
 her fame to Europe among other marvels 
 from the East. Some time in the 8th or 9th 
 cent, the monks on Mount Sinai disinterred 
 the body, as they were eager to believe, of one 
 of those Christian martyrs whose memory they 
 cherished. Eusebius relates how a lady of 
 Alexandria — he omits her name — was one of 
 the victims of Maximinus early in 4th cent. 
 {H. E. xiii. 14). It was easy to identify the 
 corpse as that of the anonymous sufferer, to 
 invent a name for it, and to bridge over the 
 distance between Alexandria and Mount Sinai. 
 Simeon Metaphrastes, a legendist of Constan- 
 tinople in loth cent., gives a long account of 
 St. Catharine's martyrdom, with horrible de- 
 tails of her tortures, an exact report of her : 
 dispute in public with the philosophers of the ■ 
 city and of the learned oration by which she ■ 
 converted them and the empress Faustina . 
 and many of the court, and how her corpse ] 
 was transported to Mount Sinai by angels ! 
 (Martin, Vies des Saints, tom. iii. pp. 1841, 1 
 seq.). But the whole story is plainly unhis- ; 
 torical, even apart from the significant fact 
 that there is no external testimony to its ; 
 authenticity. For in Eusebius the emperor's ; 
 exasperation is provoked, not, as in the 
 legend, by a refusal to abjure Christianity and 1 
 to sacrifice to his gods, but by a refusal to ' 
 gratify his guilty passion ; and the punish- , 
 ment inflicted is merely exile, not torture and 
 death. Even Baronius, who suggests emend- 
 ations to make the legend more probable, 
 hesitates to accept it as historical, while his 
 commentator, with Tillemont and Baillet, 
 abandons altogether the hopeless attempt to 
 reconcile Simeon Metaphrastes with Eusebius. 
 
 The martyrdom of St. Catharine is commem- 
 orated in the Latin and Greek calendars on 
 Nov. 25 ; the discovery (" invention ") of her r 
 bodv on Mount Sinai on May 13 in the French • 
 Martyrology (Baillet, «.s.). In England her 
 festival was promoted from the 2nd class (on 
 which field labour, though no other servile ; 
 work, was permitted) to the ist class of holy- 
 days in 13th cent. {Cone. Oxon. a.d. 1222, c. 8 ; ■ 
 Cone. Vigorn. a.d. 1240, c. 54), and retained 
 as a black-letter day at the Reformation. It 
 was left untouched in Germany at the re- 
 trenchment of holidays in a.d. 1540- In 
 France it was gradually abolished as a holiday, 
 although the office was retained in 17th cent. 
 (Baillet, ii.s.). In Europe during the middle • 
 ages her name was held in great reverence. 
 Louis IX. of France erected in Paris a costly ' 
 church in her name ; and the famous Maid of , 
 Orleans claimed her special favour and tutC' ' 
 
CAULACAU 
 
 lage (Martin, u.s.). The head of St. Catharine I 
 was alleged to be preserved in her church in j 
 the Piazza of St. Peter's at Rome. She was 
 regarded generally as the patron saint of 
 schools, probably from the tradition of her 
 learned controversy with the philosophers at 
 .Alexandria. A semi-monastic order, the 
 Knights of Mount Sinai or of Jerusalem, in- 
 stituted in Europe A.n. 1063 in honour of St. 
 Catharine, under the rule of St. Basil, bound 
 themselves by vows to chastity, though not 
 to celibacy '{castitd conjugale), to entertain 
 pilgrims, and in rotation, each for two years, 
 to guard the holy relics. Their dress was a 
 white tunic, and embroidered on it a broken 
 wheel, armed with spikes, in memory of the 
 jagged wheel on which, according to the 
 legend, the saint was racked, and which was 
 miraculously shattered by divine interposition. 
 The order became extinct after the fall of 
 Constantinople ; but in the 17th cent, the 
 Basilian monks at Paris gave the badge of 
 the order to any candidates who would take the 
 vow of chastity and of obedience to the rule of 
 St. Basil (Moroni, Dizion. Eccles. Reference to 
 Giustiniani, Hist. Chronol. d- Ordini Equestri, 
 p. 121 ; Bonami, Catalogo d. Ord. Equest. p. 21). 
 
 See Tillem. Mem. eccl. ; Baronius (Caesar), 
 Annales Ecclesiastici (Barri Ducis, 1864, 4to, 
 torn. iii.);Bollandus Joannes, Les^ctorfessain/s, 
 etc. (Lyons, Besan^on, 1865, 8vo, Nov. 25); 
 Life of St. Catharine, with its Latin original 
 from the Cotton MSS., ed. with Intro., etc., by 
 E. Einenkel (Lond. 1884); Life and Martyrdom 
 of St. Cath. of Alex. (Roxburghe Club, No. 90, 
 Lond. 1884). [I.G.S.] 
 
 Caulacau. [Basilides.] 
 
 Celsus (1). Of the personal history of this, 
 the first great polemical adversary of Chris- 
 tianitv, we know nothing with certainty ; and 
 even Origen, from whom the whole of our 
 knowledge of Celsus is derived, had received 
 the work of Celsus, entitled d\r]d7]s \6yos, or 
 the True Discourse, without any hint of the 
 history or date of its author. 
 
 But questions far more interesting than 
 personal ones are raised by his attack on 
 Christianity, of which enough has been pre- 
 served by Origen in his contra Celsum to con- 
 vey to us a very tolerable idea of its nature. 
 We must be on our guard at once against dis- 
 paraging it too much, and against thinking 
 too highly of its ability. Origen, indeed, who 
 to all appearance is a very fair antagonist, 
 speaks of it with contempt. But Celsus was not 
 a mere polemical assailant ; he was a philo- 
 sopher on his own account, and held in certain 
 respects by no means unenlightened opinions. 
 He had strong faith in reason. " What evil 
 is it," he asks, " to be learned and to have 
 cultivated the intellect with the best puisuits, 
 to be and to appear wise ? What obstacle are 
 these things to the knowledge of God ? Do 
 not they rather lead and assist to the attain- 
 ment of truth ? " Nor had that similarity 
 between the human and the animal frame, 
 which the natural science of our own day in- 
 sists upon, escaped his notice. Hence he 
 deduces that ants " converse, have reason, 
 notions of general truths, speech," etc. (iv. 84), 
 and even that they have knowledge of God. 
 It would be hard, again, to cavil at his ideas 
 of the Divine Nature ; he speaks of men 
 
 CELSUS 
 
 153 
 
 '' burning with the love of it " (i. 8) ; he is 
 intolerant of the association of it with any- 
 thing that is mortal or perishable. He was 
 not free from superstition ; he believed in 
 magic, and declared that serpents and eagles 
 were more skilled in it than men (iv. 86). 
 Baur says that " in acuteness, in dialectical 
 aptitude, in many-sided cultivation, at once 
 philosophic and general, Celsus stands behind 
 no opponent of Christianity." Admitting that 
 this panegyric is not groundless, we must add, 
 that in vital insight Celsus was deficient. As 
 an ofiponent of Christianity, the chief charac- 
 teristic of Celsus is a strong, narrow, intolerant 
 common sense. To him Christianity is an 
 " exitiabilis superstitio " ; he gives credence to 
 every story against it on which he can lay his 
 hands ; he dwells with coarse jocularity on the 
 Jewish tradition of Panthera and the Virgin 
 Mary (i. 28, sqq.) ; he unearths a certain 
 Diagramma, a figure symbolizing the world, 
 and consisting of a circle called Leviathan en- 
 closing ten other circles, apparently used in the 
 rites of some sect more or less approximating 
 to the Christians (vi. 22). He has no idea of 
 regarding Christianity from the inside, and of 
 inquiring into the reason of its influence ; he 
 uses jest for argument, and interprets every- 
 thing in a bad sense. Treating of the flight 
 of Jesus into Egypt, and afterwards (as he 
 alleges) before the betrayal, he asks, " Had 
 God need to fly from His enemies ? Does fear 
 belong to Goci ? " 
 
 From such instances it is evident that Cel- 
 sus wholly misapprehended the force of the 
 doctrine that he was attacking. There are 
 cases, indeed, in which he shews himself more 
 acute. He challenges the evidence of Chris- 
 tianity, and asks, "Who saw the dove lighting 
 on the head of Jesus after His baptism ? " As 
 to the Resurrection, he makes the remark which 
 has been copied by Renan and others, that it 
 was Mary Magdalene, " a fanatical woman," 
 who was the first witness of the resurrection, 
 according to all the accounts (ii. 55) ; and 
 remarks on the disbelief invariably given to 
 such accounts as those of the resurrection of 
 Zamolxis, Pythagoras, Orpheus, Protesilaus, 
 Hercules, and Theseus. But the most remark- 
 able portions of his attack are those directed 
 against the general character of Christianity. 
 He dwells on the numerous sects of Christians, 
 all of whom said, " Crede, si salvus fieri velis," 
 and asks how one is to judge between so many? 
 Origen does not deny the fact, but maintains 
 that it is a proof of the importance of that on 
 which they debated, and further that they all 
 set forth Jesus alone as the means of salvation 
 (vi. 11). Celsus accuses the Christians of law- 
 lessness, and of keeping wholly to themselves, 
 and not caring for those outside. He com- 
 plains vehemently of them as discouraging 
 learning, wisdom, and thought ; as rejecting 
 the authority of reason ; as being the patrons 
 of sinners, whereas to the heathen mysteries 
 only " the holy and virtuous " were invited. 
 He makes a great point of the opposition be- 
 tween the morality of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, in respect of the earthly success which 
 is the crowning happiness of the former, and 
 so strongly reprobated by the latter. Finally, 
 he maintains that no revelation of the Supreme 
 1 Being can be made ; but that, if it could be 
 
154 
 
 CERDO 
 
 made, it must be of universal and compelling ' 
 efficacy ; that, however, all that is possible is 
 revelation by an angel or demon, and even that 
 he denies to Judaism or Christianity. 
 
 The form of Celsus's work, the aX-qdy]? \6yos, 
 is well known. He begins with a dialogue be- 
 tween a Jew and a Christian, in which the Jew 
 sets forth his objections to Christianity. But 
 he had not any partiality for Judaism. He 
 treats Moses and the Jewish Scriptures with a 
 contempt which amusingly contrasts with 
 the uncritical reverence which he pays to the 
 Galactophagi of Homer, the Druids, and the 
 Getae, whom he terms " wise and ancient 
 nations " (i. i6) ; and with which he accepts 
 the stories of Linus and Musaeus, though after- 
 wards he rejects those of Perseus and Amphion 
 (i. 64). In one of the most unpleasing pas- 
 sages of his work, he compares Jews and 
 Christians to a set of worms or frogs squab- 
 bling in the mud, and saying, " God is, and we 
 are next to Him, and it is for our sake that the 
 whole world is made ; and God will come and 
 take us up to heaven, except those who are 
 bad, whom He will burn with fire." 
 
 The work of Origen against him is, as a 
 whole, of much controversial merit and philo- 
 sophical breadth. Origen, indeed, like Celsus, 
 is not free from the superstitions of his time ; 
 thus he defends the star whose appearance is 
 told in the second chapter of St. Matthew by a 
 reference to comets, which, he remarks, por- 
 tend future events, such as wars and pestil- 
 ences. But, on the whole, there are few works 
 of the ancient Fathers which can be read with 
 more pleasure and profit. F. C. Baur has 
 written an elaborate critique on Celsus in his 
 work on Christendom and the Christian Church 
 in the First Three Centuries (Tiibingen, 1853). 
 But especially valuable is Prof. Theodor 
 Keim's monograph (Celsus's Wahres Wort. 
 Ziirich, 1873). Dr. Keim gathers together, 
 and translates, the fragments of Celsus con- 
 tained in Origen ; and adds disquisitions of 
 much interest, both on Celsus himself and on 
 two of his contemporaries, Lucian of Samosata 
 and Minucius Felix. Both Baur and Keim 
 rate Celsus too highly ; but the general ten- 
 dency of Christian writers has naturally been 
 to underrate him. The date of Celsus's treat- 
 ise is fixed by Keim as a.d. 177, or 178. 
 (Cf. Renan, Marc-Aurele; Pelagaud, Etude sur 
 Celse (Lyons, 1828) ; Aube, Histoire des perse- 
 cutions (Paris, 1878) ; Lightfoot, Apost. Fath. 
 IL i. pp. 513 ff-) [J-R-M.] 
 
 Cerdo (1) (KipSwv), a Gnostic teacher of the 
 first half of the 2nd cent., principally known 
 as the predecessor of Marcion. Epiphanius 
 (Haer. 41) and Philaster (Haer. 44) assert him 
 to have been a native of Syria, and Irenaeus 
 (i. 27 and iii. 4) states that he came to Rome in 
 the episcopate of Hyginus. This episcopate 
 lasted four years, and Lipsius {Chronologie der 
 romischen Bischo/e) places its termination a.d. 
 139-14 1. Bearing in mind the investigations 
 of M. Waddington concerning the year of Poly- 
 carp's martyrdom, we prefer the earlier date, 
 if not a still earlier one, and would put Cerdo's 
 arrival at Rome as early as a.d. 135. 
 
 According to the account of Irenaeus, Cerdo 
 had not the intention of founding a sect apart 
 from the church. He describes him as more 
 than once coming to the church and making 
 
 CERINTHUS 
 
 public confession, and so going on, now teach- 
 ing his doctrine in secret, now again making 
 public confession, now convicted in respect of 
 his evil teaching, and removed, or, as some 
 think, voluntarily withdrawing himself, from 
 ! the communion of the brethren (d^itrTd/iei'os 
 TTjj Tu!v a.5e\(pQi> evvodias). Epiphanius seems 
 I inaccurate in giving a heading to a sect of 
 I Cerdonians. Preceding writers speak ordy of 
 Cerdo, not of Cerdonians ; and probably his 
 1 followers were early merged in the school of 
 1 Marcion, who is said to have joined himself to 
 ! Cerdo soon after his arrival in Rome. 
 j Apparently Cerdo left no writings, nor is 
 1 there evidence that those who report his 
 1 doctrine had any knowledge of it independent 
 j of the form it took in the teaching of his 
 Marcionite successors. Consequently we can- 
 not now determine with certainty how much 
 of the teaching of Marcion had been antici- 
 pated by Cerdo, or what points of disagree- 
 ment there were between the teaching of the 
 I two. Hippolytus, in his Refutation (x. 19), 
 makes no attempt to discriminate between 
 their doctrines. Tertullian, in his work 
 against Marcion, mentions Cerdo four times, 
 but only as Marcion's predecessor. Irenaeus 
 says that Cerdo taught that the God preached 
 : by the law and the prophets was not the 
 j Father of our Lord ; for that the former was 
 known, the latter unknown ; the former was 
 j just, the latter good. Pseudo-TertuUian's 
 account {Haer. 16) may be regarded as repre- 
 senting that in the earlier treatise of Hippoly- 
 tus, which was also used by Philaster and 
 j Epiphanius. Thus we learn that Cerdo intro- 
 duced two first principles (dpx«0 and two 
 gods, the one good, the other evil, the latter 
 I the creator of the world. It is an important 
 difference that to the good god is opposed in 
 j the account of Irenaeus a just one ; in that of 
 Hippolytus, an evil one. In the later work 
 of Hippolytus already cited, Cerdo is said to 
 \ have taught three principles of the universe, 
 j dyaddv, diKaiov, vXrjv. Ps. -Tertullian goes on 
 to say that Cerdo rejected the law and the 
 prophets, and renounced the Creator, teaching 
 I that Christ was the son of the higher good 
 , deity, and that He came not in the substance 
 i of flesh but in appearance only, and had not 
 ' really died or really been born of a virgin ; and 
 j that Cerdo only acknowledged a resurrection 
 of the soul, denying that of the body. He 
 adds, but without support from the other 
 authorities, that Cerdo received only the 
 j Gospel of St. Luke, and that in a mutilated 
 } form ; that he rejected some of Paul's epistles 
 j and portions of others, and completely re- 
 I jected the Acts and the Apocalypse. There 
 is every appearance that Ps. -Tertullian here ; 
 I transferred to Cerdo what in his authority was 
 ! stated of Marcion. For a discussion of his ' 
 other doctrines see Marcion. [g.s.] 
 
 Cerinthus, a traditional opponent of St. 
 John. It will probably always remain an 
 open question whether his fundamentally 
 Ebionite sympathies inclined him to accept ' 
 Jewish rather than Gnostic additions. Modern 
 scholarship has therefore preferred to view his ' 
 doctrine as a fusing together and incorporating 
 in a single system tenets collected from Jewish, ' 
 Oriental, and Christian sources ; but the , 
 nature of that doctrine is sufi&ciently clear, and '. 
 
CERINTHUS 
 
 its opposition to the instruction of St. John as 
 decided as that of the Nicohiitanes. 
 
 Cerinthus was of Egyptian origin, and in 
 religion a Jew. He received his education in 
 the J udaeo-Philonic school of .Alexandria. On 
 leaving Egvpt he visited Jerusalem, Caesarca, 
 and .Antioch. From Palestine he passed into 
 Asia and there developed t^s aiVoP dTru-Xeias 
 ^dfyaOpoy (Epiph. xxviii. 2). Galatia, accord- 
 ing to the same authority, was selected as his 
 headquarters, whence he circulated his errors. 
 On one of his journeys he arrived at Ephesus, 
 and met St. John in the public baths. The 
 Apostle, hearing who was there, fled from the 
 place as if for life, crying to those about him : 
 " Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerin- 
 thus, the enemy of the truth, is there." 
 
 The value of this and other such traditions 
 is confessedly n(it great — that of the meeting 
 with St. John in the bath is told of " Ebion " 
 as well as of Cerinthus ; — but a stratum of 
 fact probably underlies them, and they at 
 least indicate the feeling with which the early 
 " Churchmen " regarded him. Epijihanius, 
 by whom the majority are preserved, derived 
 the principal portion of his statements partly 
 from Irenaeus, and partly, as Lipsius has 
 shewn with high probability, from the now 
 lost earlier work of Hippolytus on heresies. 
 
 His doctrines may be collected under the 
 heads of his conception of the Creation, his 
 Christology, and his Eschatology. His opin- 
 ions upon two of these points, as preserved in 
 existing works, support the usual view, that 
 Cerinthus rather than Simon Magus is to be 
 regarded as the predecessor of Judaeo-Chris- 
 tian Gnosticism. 
 
 Unlike Simon Magus and Menander, Cerin- 
 thus did not claim a sacred and mystic power. 
 Caius the Presbyter can only assert against 
 him that he pretended to angelic revelations 
 (Eus., Theod.). But his mind, like theirs, 
 brooded over the co-existence of good and evil, 
 spirit and matter ; and his scheme seems 
 intended to free the " unknown God " and 
 the Christ from the bare imputation of infec- 
 tion through contact with nature and man. 
 Trained as he was in the philosophy of Philo, 
 the Gnosis of Cerinthus did not of necessity 
 compel him to start from opposition- — in the 
 sense of malignity- — of evil to good, matter to 
 spirit. He recognized opposition in the sense 
 of difference between the one active perfect 
 principle of life — God — and that lower imper- 
 fect passive existence which was dependent 
 upon God ; but this fell far short of malignity. 
 He therefore conceived the material world to 
 have been formed not by " the First God," 
 but by angelic Beings of an inferior grade of 
 Emanation (Epiph.). More precisely still he 
 described the main agent as a certain Power 
 {ii'rvaiiii) separate and distinct from the 
 " Principality " (7; vnep to. b\a avOevrda, v. 
 Suicer, Thes. s.v. ai'^.) and ignorant of t6v 
 i'TTtp wdvTa 6iov. He refused in the spirit of 
 a true Jew to consider the " God of the Jews" 
 identical with that author of the material 
 world who was alleged by Gnostic teachers to 
 be inferior and evil. He preferred to identify 
 him with the Angel who delivered the Law 
 (Epiph. and Philastr.). Neander and Ewald 
 have pointed out that these are legitimate 
 deductions from the teaching of Philo. The 
 
 CERINTHUS 
 
 156 
 
 conception is evidently that of an age when 
 hereditary and instinctive reverence for the 
 law served as a check upon the system- 
 maker. Cerinthus is a long way from the 
 bolder and more hostile schools of later 
 Cinosticism. 
 
 The Christology is of an Ebionite cast and 
 of the same transition character. \t must not 
 be assumed that it is but a form of the common 
 Gnostic dualism, the double-personality after- 
 wards elaborated by Basilides and Valentinus. 
 Epiphanius, the chief soiirce of information, 
 is to many a mere uncritical compiler, some- 
 times following Hippolytus, sometimes Ire- 
 naeus. Now it is Christ Who is born of Mary 
 and Joseph (Epiph. xxviii. i), now it is Jesus 
 Who is born like other men, born of Joseph and 
 Mary ; He differs from others only in being 
 more righteous, more prudent, and more wise ; 
 it is not till after baptism, when Jesus has 
 reached maiUiood, that Christ, " that is to 
 say, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove," 
 descends upon Jesus from above {&vw0ev iK 
 Tou &VUI Qiov' dirb ttJs virip ret 8\a avOevTEiat, 
 Iren.), revealing to Him and through Him to 
 those after Him the " unknown Father." If, 
 as Lipsius thinks (p. 119), Irenaeus has here 
 been influenced by the later Gnostic systems, 
 and has altered the original doctrine oif Cerin- 
 thus as given in Hippolytus, that doctrine 
 would seem to be that he considered " Jesus " 
 and " Christ " titles given indifferently to that 
 One Personality Which was blessed by the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit, the Power on high 
 (t) ai'wOei' diii^afxis)- This Power enables Jesus 
 to perform miracles, but forsakes Him at His 
 Passion, " flying heavenwards." So, again, 
 it is Jesus, according to one passage of Epiph- 
 anius, Who dies and rises again, the Christ 
 being spiritual and remaining impassible ; 
 according to a second, it is Christ Who dies, 
 but is not yet risen, nor shall He rise till the 
 general resurrection. That passage, how- 
 ever, which allows that the human body of 
 Jesus had been raised from the dead separates 
 its author completely from Gnostic successors. 
 The Chiliastic eschatology of Cerinthus is 
 very clearly stated byTheodoret, Caius, Diony- 
 sius (Eus.), and Augustine, but not alluded to 
 by Irenaeus. His silence need perhaps cause 
 no surprise : Irenaeus was himself a Chiliast of 
 the spiritual school, and in his notes upon 
 Cerinthus he is only careful to mention what 
 was peculiar to his system. The conception 
 of Cerinthus was highly coloured. In his 
 " dream " and " phantasy " the Lord shall 
 have an earthly kingdom in which the elect are 
 to enjoy pleasures, feasts, marriages, and 
 sacrifices. Its capital is Jerusalem and its 
 duration 1000 years : thereafter shall ensue 
 the restoration of all things. Cerinthus de- 
 rived this notion from Jewish sources. His 
 notions of eschatology are radically Jewish : 
 they may have originated, but do not contain, 
 the Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage 
 between the souls of the elect and the Angels 
 of the Pleroma. 
 
 Other peculiar features of his teaching may 
 be noted. He held that if a man died unbap- 
 tized, another was to be baptized in his stead 
 and in his name, that at the day of resurrec- 
 tion he might not suffer punishment and be 
 made subject to the i^ov<xia Koa/jLoiroioi (cf. 
 
156 
 
 CERINTHUS 
 
 I. Cor. XV. 29). He had learned at Alexandria I 
 to distinguish between the different degrees of ] 
 inspiration, and attributed to different Angels 1 
 the dictation severally of the words of Moses 
 and of the Prophets ; in this agreeing with | 
 Saturninus and the Ophites. He insisted upon ] 
 a partial observance of the "divine" law, 1 
 such as circumcision and the ordinances of [ 
 the sabbath ; resembling, in this severance of | 
 the genuine from the spurious elements of the I 
 law, the school which produced the Clemen- \ 
 tina and the Book of Baruch. He did not even ' 
 scruple (ace. to Epiph.) to call him who gave 
 the law " not good," though the epithet may ' 
 have been intended to express a charge of - 
 ethical narrowness rather than an identification 
 of the Lawgiver with the wovnpbs of Marcion. 
 Epiphanius admits that the majority of these 
 opinions rest upon report and oral communi- 
 cation. This, coupled with the evident 
 confusion of the statements recorded, makes 
 it difficult to assign to Cerinthus any certain 
 place in the history of heresy. He can only 
 be regarded generally as a link connecting 
 Judaism and Gnosticism. The traditionary 
 relations of Cerinthus to St. John have pro- 
 bably done more to rescue his name from 
 oblivion than his opinions. In the course of 
 time popular belief asserted that St. John had 
 written his Gospel specially against the errors 
 of Cerinthus, a belief curiously travestied by 
 the counter-assertion that not St. John but 
 Cerinthus himself was the author of both the 
 Gospel and the Apocalypse. It is not difficult 
 to account on subjective grounds for this latter 
 assertion. The Chiliasm of Cerinthus was an 
 exaggeration of language current in the earliest 
 ages of the church ; and no work in N.T. 
 reproduced that language so ingenuously as 
 the Apocalypse. The conclusion was easy 
 that Cerinthus had but ascribed the Apoca- 
 lypse to the Apostle to obtain credit and cur- 
 rency for his own forgery. The " Alogi " 
 argued upon similar grounds against the 
 Fourth Gospel. It did not agree with the 
 Synoptists, and though it disagreed in every 
 possible way with the alleged doctrines of 
 Cerinthus, yet the false-hearted author of the 
 Apocalypse was, they asserted, certainly the 
 writer of the Gospel. 
 
 The Cerinthians (known also as Merinthians) 
 do not appear to have long survived. If any 
 are identical with the Ebionites mentioned by 
 Justin {Dial. c. Tryph. 48), some gradually 
 diverged from their master in a retrograde 
 direction (Dorner, p. 320) ; but the majority 
 were engulfed in sects of greater note. One 
 last allusion to them is found in the ecclesias- 
 tical rule applied to them by Gennadius Mas- 
 siliensis : " Ex istis si qui ad nos venerint, 
 non requirendum ab eis utrum baptizati sint 
 an non, sed hoc tantum, si credant in ecclesiae 
 fidem, et baptizentur ecclesiastico baptismate" 
 {de Eccles. Dogmatibus, 22 ; Oehler, i. 348). 
 
 The following primary and secondary autho- 
 rities upon Cerinthus may be mentioned : 
 Irenaeus, adv. Haer. ; S. Hippolytus, Refutatio 
 omn. Haeres. (" Philosophumena ") ; Theod. 
 Haeret. Fab. Camp. ; Epiphanius, Epit. Panar., 
 Haer. ; Philastrius de Haeret., Corp. Haeres- 
 olog. ; Augustine, de Haer. lib. viii. ; Pseudo- 
 Tertullian, Lib. adv. omn. Haeres. x. ; Eus. 
 Hist. Eccles. ; Neander, Ch. Hist. ; Ewald, 
 
 CHR0MATIU5 
 
 Gesch. d. Volk. Israel ; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. ; 
 Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Epiphanius ; 
 Dorner, Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi ; Mil- 
 man, Hist, of Christianity ; Robertson, Hist 
 of Christ. Ch. ; Westcott, Canon of N.T., p. 
 243 (ed. 1866) ; Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Canons, 
 vol. i. 220-262, vol. ii. 973 etc. [j.m.f.] 
 
 Christopher, St. (\piaTocp6pos), a martyr of 
 universal fame, baptized by St. Babylas, the 
 martyr-bp. of Antioch, who suffered (c. 250) 
 under Decius in Lycia. From early times 
 the untrustworthy character of some of the 
 popular stories of him has been acknowledged. 
 Usuard (a.d. 876) thus commemorated him 
 (July 25) after St. James, according to the 
 common Western use, in his Martyrologium : 
 " At Samos in Licia. After he had been 
 scourged with iron rods, and then delivered 
 from the broiling flames by the virtue of Christ, 
 his head was at last severed from his body, 
 which had fallen full of arrow-wounds, and the 
 martyr's witness was complete." 
 
 For the legends respecting him (including 
 the very familiar, but quite unauthentic, one 
 of his bearing the Christ-child), see D. C. B. 
 (4-V0). ed., S.V.), and two simple works 
 written respectivelv bv the late Archd. Allen 
 and W. G. Pearse (S.P.C.K.). [e.b.b.] 
 
 Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, one of the most 
 influential Western prelates of his day, the 
 friend and correspondent of Ambrose, Jerome, 
 Rufinus, and other leading ecclesiastics, and 
 a warm supporter of Chrysostom against his 
 Oriental assailants. He was a native of 
 Aquileia, w-here he resided under the roof of 
 his widowed mother, together with his brother 
 Eusebius and his unmarried sisters. Jerome, 
 writing c. a.d. 374, congratulates the mother on 
 her saintly offspring (Hieron. Ep. xliii. [vii.]). 
 He was still a presbyter when he took part in 
 the council held at Aquileia, against the Arians 
 Palladius and Secundianus, a.d. 381 (Am- 
 brose, Gest. Concil. A quit. tom. ii. pp. 834, 
 § 45 ; 835, § 51 ; 843, § 76). On the death of 
 Valerian, Chromatius became bishop of his 
 native city. The date is placed by Baronius 
 towards the end of a.d. 388. 
 
 It was at his request that St. Ambrose ex- 
 pounded the prophecy of Balaam in an epis- 
 tolary form (Ambros. Ep. lib. i. ep. 50, § 16). 
 To his importunities, together with those of 
 Heliodorus, bp. of Altino, and the liberality 
 with which they both contributed to the 
 expenses, we owe several of Jerome's transla- 
 tions of and commentaries on the books of 
 O.T. {e.g. Tobit, Prov., Eccl., Cant., andChron.). 
 In A.D. 392 he dedicated to Chromatius his 
 two books of Commentaries on Habakkuk 
 {Prolog, ad Habacc), and c. 397 yielded to his 
 urgency and undertook the translation of 
 Chronicles {Praef. in Paralip.). 
 
 Chromatius was also an early friend of Rufi- 
 nus, who, whilst an inmate of the monastery at 
 Aquileia, received baptism at his hands c. a.d. 
 371 (Rufin. Apolog. in Hieron. lib. i. p. 204). 
 When, on the publication of Rufinus's trans- 
 lation of Origen's de Principiis, the friendship 
 between Jerome and Rufinus was exchanged 
 for violent animosity, Chromatius main- 
 tained his friendship with both, and did his 
 best to reconcile them. Chromatius imposed 
 on Rufinus the task of translating the Eccle- 
 siastical History of Eusebius into Latin, to- 
 
CHRYSIPPUS 
 
 gether with Origen's Homilies on Joshua 
 (Rufin. Hist. p. 15)- 
 
 In the persecution of Chrysostom, Chroma- 
 tins warmly embraced his cause. The posi- 
 tion he held in the West is shewn by Chrysos- 
 tom's uniting his name with those of Innocent 
 bp. of Rome and Venerus bp. of Milan in 
 the protest addressed to the Western church 
 I Fallad. c. ii. ad fin.). Chromatins sent Chry- 
 sostom a letter of sympathy by the hands of 
 the Western deputation {ib. c. iv.), and a.d. 
 406 received from him a letter of grateful 
 thanks (Chrys. E/y. civ.). Chromatins also 
 wrote in Chrysostom's behalf to Honorius, who 
 forwarded his letter to his brother Arcadius as 
 an evidence of the sentiments of the Western 
 church (Pallad. c. iii. iv.). He died c. 407. 
 
 We have under his name 18 homilies on "the 
 Sermon on the Mount," commencing with a 
 Tractatus Singularis de Octo Beatitudinibus, 
 followed by 17 fragments of expositions on 
 Matt. iii. 13-17 ; v. ; \'i. His interpretation 
 is literal, not allegorical, and his reflections 
 moral rather than spiritual. Galland. Bibl. 
 Vet. Pair. viii. c. 15 ; Migne, Patr. Led. xx. 247 
 seq. ; Tillemont, Mem. eccl. xi. pp. 538 seq. ; 
 Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 378. [e.v.] 
 
 Chrysippus, one of four brothers, Cappa- 
 docians by birth, of whom two others were 
 named Cosmas and Gabriel, as recorded by 
 C\Til of Scythopolis. They left their native 
 country for Jerusalem, that they might be 
 instructed by the celebrated abbat Euthymius. 
 In 455 Chrysippus was made the superior of 
 the monastery of Laura, and subsequently of 
 the church of the Resurrection, by the patri- 
 arch Juvenal. He was raised to the presby- 
 terate, and on the elevation of his brother 
 Cosmas, who had held the office, to the see of 
 Scythopolis, was appointed " guardian of the 
 Holy Cross," which he held till his death. 
 Chrysippus was a copious author, and accord- 
 ing to Cyril, who praises him as davfiacrrbs 
 avyypacpevs, " left many works worthy of all 
 acceptation," very few of which are extant. 
 A"laudatio Joannis Baptistae," delivered on 
 the occasion of his festival, is printed in a Latin 
 translation by Combefis (Biblioth. Concionat. 
 vii. 108). Fabricius mentions a Homilia in 
 Deiparam, printed in the Auctarium Biblioth. 
 Patr. (Paris, 1624), vol. ii. p. 424, and a Laud- 
 atio Theodori Martyris, which appears to be 
 lost. Photius (Cod. 171) records his having 
 read in a writing of Chrysippus a statement 
 relating to the baptism of Gamaliel and Nico- 
 demus by SS. Peter and John, and the martj'r- 
 dom of the latter, which Chrysippus had 
 derived from a fellow-presbyter^ Lucian, to 
 whom it had been revealed in a dream, to- 
 gether with the localities in which their bodies 
 and that of St. Stephen were to be found. 
 This is a very early example of the dreams 
 indicating the position of valuable relics which 
 we meet with so frequently in the middle ages, 
 by which the failing fortunes of a religious 
 house were revived, or the rival attractions of 
 another establishment emulated (Cyrill. Scy- 
 thop. Vit. S. Eiithym. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 444 ; 
 Combefts, Bibl. Cone. i. 8.) [e.v.] 
 
 Chrysogonus (1), martyr in the persecution 
 of Diocletian, whose name was inserted in the 
 Canon of the Mass from a very early period, 
 which shews his importance, though little is 
 
 CHRYSOLOGUS, PETRUS 157 
 
 now known of him. In the Menology he is 
 commemorated along with Anastasia, Dec. 22. 
 He was of " great Rome," " a man that feared 
 God," "teacher of the Christians"; "and 
 when persecution was set on foot he was 
 arrested and cast into prison." " Diocletian, 
 staying at Nice, wrote to Rome that all the 
 Christians should die, and that Chrysogonus 
 should be brought bound to Nice, and when 
 he was brought he beheaded him." For Nice 
 we should probably read Nicomedia. In 
 these acts it is easy to trace the effects of the 
 first and second of Diocletian's edicts. Chry- 
 sogonus evidently was not one of the traditors, 
 so numerous at Rome under the first edict, 
 Feb. A.D. 303. Hence, when by the second 
 edict, not long after, all the clergy were com- 
 mitted to jail, he exercised great influence 
 from his prison on the faithful, still for the 
 most part unscathed and at large. The ques- 
 tion is to what we are to refer the statement 
 about the decree that all Christians should 
 be killed, and that Chrysogonus should be 
 brought to Bithvnia. His passion is assigned 
 to Dec. 22. By the third edict, on the great 
 anniversary festival of the emperor on the 
 2ist, the clergy were to sacrifice if they were 
 to be included in the general release of prison- 
 ers ; if not, torture was to be employed to 
 induce them. But there were no general 
 orders for the arrest of all Christians. The 
 rescript of Trajan was still in force. But the 
 great festival must have brought to light many 
 a recusant. They might not be executed, but 
 if they died under torture it was strictly legal. 
 When, in the spring of a.d. 304, the fourth 
 edict appears, it sets forth no new penalties ; 
 it merely interprets the previous decrees in all 
 the grim pregnancy of their meaning : " certis 
 poenis intereant." 
 
 It may well be that the constancy of men 
 like Chrysogonus, under their tortures, was 
 among the things that drove Diocletian mad ; 
 and that he left word at his hurried departure 
 from Rome (Dec. 22, a.d. 303), " Send him 
 after me." The martyrdom is assigned by 
 several Western authorities to Aquileia or the 
 neighbouring Aquae Gradatae in Friulia. The 
 day to which it is almost universally assigned 
 in "the West, from the Calendar of Carthage 
 onwards, is Nov. 24. Anastasia's commemo- 
 ration in the West is on Dec. 25, and in some of 
 the Hieronymian martyrologies her passion is 
 assigned to Sirmium, which was probably the 
 scene of Diocletian's illness. But Usuard tells 
 that she was transported to the little isle 
 Palmaruola (about lat. 410, long. 310) in the 
 Tyrrhene sea. [e.b.b.1 
 
 ChrysologUS, Petrus, archbp. of Ravenna, 
 A.D. 433-454, said to have been born at Forum 
 Cornelii (Imola), according to Agnellus, in the 
 episcopate of Cornelius, by whom he was 
 brought up [Serm. 165), ordained deacon, and 
 made oeconomus of the church. The ordinary 
 account of Peter's elevation to the see of 
 Ravenna, which is repeated by successive bio- 
 graphers with ever-increasing definiteness of 
 statement, does too much violence to the facts 
 of history to be worthy of credit. The impro- 
 babilities of the story are exposed by Tille 
 mont, and it is stigmatized by Dupin as " a 
 groundless tale related by no credible author." 
 It is, however, given so circumstantially by 
 
15^ 
 
 CHRYSdSTOM, JOHK 
 
 Agiiellus in his Liber Pontificalis that it may 
 contain some distorted elements of truth. 
 
 In tlie 176 sermons of his still extant we 
 look in vain for traces of the golden eloquence 
 to which he owed his surname. They are very 
 short, written in brief simple sentences ; his 
 meaning is always clear, and his language 
 natural ; but there is nothing in them calcu- 
 lated to touch the heart or move the affections. 
 His fame as a preacher evidently depended 
 more on voice and manner than on matter. 
 His sermons are almost all on subjects from 
 the gospels, usually the parables and miracles, 
 commencing with a course of six on the pro- 
 digal son. Many other works ascribed to him, 
 including commentaries on Scripture, and 
 letters against the Arians, have all perished by 
 lire, partly in the siege of Imola, by Theodoric, 
 c. A.D. 524 ; partly in the conflagration of the 
 archbishop's library at Ravenna, c. a.d. 700. 
 
 Tillemont.xv. ii4seq. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 432; 
 Migne, Pair. Lat. lii. pp. 9-680 ; Herzog, Real- 
 Encyc. ii. 695. [e.v.] 
 
 ChrysOStom, John ('Iwawrj^ Xpi'trooro^os). 
 The surname " golden-mouthed," given to the 
 great preacher of Antioch, and bp. of Constan- 
 tinople, on account of the magnificent brilliancy 
 of his eloquence (cf. Petrus Chrvsologus), 
 has entirely superseded . his personal name 
 John, which alone is found in contemporary or 
 closely subsequent writers. When the epithet 
 was first applied is unknown. There is no 
 trace of it in his lifetime, but it was in common 
 use before the end of the 5th cent. 
 
 Chrysostom was born at Antioch probably 
 A.D. 347. He was of good family ; his father 
 Secundus filling the post of " magister mili- 
 tum " (a-TpaT7)\d.TT]s), one of the eight men of 
 distinguished rank — illustres viros ( Veget. de Re 
 Militari, ii. 9) — who commanded the imperial 
 armies. His mother, Anthusa, was also a lady 
 of good family (Pallad. p. 40 ; Socr. vi. 3). 
 Anthusa, while John was an infant, was left 
 a widow at the age of twenty, refused all offers 
 of marriage, and devoted herself to the educa- 
 tion of her boy and the care of his property 
 (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 55). Her unremitting 
 devotion to her maternal duties excited ad- 
 miration even from the heathen [Ep. ad Vid. 
 Jun. i. c. 2, p. 340). 
 
 St. Chrysostom's life may be conveniently 
 divided into five epochs : (a) His life as a lay- 
 man at Antioch till his baptism and admission 
 as a reader, a.d. 347-370 ; (b) his ascetic and 
 monastic life, a.d. 370-381 ; (c) his career as 
 deacon, presbyter, and preacher at Antioch, 
 A.D. 381-398 ; (d) his episcopate at Constan- 
 tinople, a.d. 398-404 ; {e) exile, a.d. 404-407. 
 (a) Life as a Layman at Antioch. — The intel- 
 lectual power manifested at a very early age 
 marked him out as fitted for one of the learned 
 professions. The bar was chosen, and at 
 about 18 years of age he began to attend the 
 lectures of the celebrated sophist Libanius, 
 the intimate friend and correspondent of the 
 emperor Julian, and tutor of Basil the Great, 
 who had come to end his days in his native 
 city of Antioch. The genius and ability of the 
 pupil excited the greatest admiration in his 
 master, who, being asked on his deathbed, c. 
 A.D. 395, which of his pupils he thought wor- 
 thiest to succeed him, replied, " John, if the 
 Christians had not stolen him from us " (Soz. 
 
 CHRVSOStOM, JOHN 
 
 H. E. lib. viii. c. 2). When Chrysostom 
 commenced practice as an advocate, his gift 
 of eloquence speedily displayed itself. His 
 si^eeches were listened to with delight, and 
 were highly praised by Libanius, no mean 
 judge of rhetoric. A brilliant career was 
 opening before the young man, leading to al 
 that men most covet, wealth, fame, high place. 
 But a change, gradual but mighty, came over 
 his spirit, and like another young student of 
 the neighbouring province of Cilicia, " the 
 things that were gain to him he counted loss 
 for Christ." Like Timothy at the knees of 
 Eunice, " from a child " Chrysostom had 
 learnt from his devout mother the things that 
 were " able to make him wise unto salvation," 
 and his soul revolted at the contrast between 
 the purity of the gospel standard and the 
 baseness of the aims and viciousness of the 
 practices prevalent in the profession he had 
 chosen. To accept a fee for making the worse 
 appear the better cause seemed to his generous 
 and guileless soul to be bribed to lie— to take 
 Satan's wages — to sin against his own soul. 
 His disinclination to the life of a lawyer was 
 much increased by the influence of the exam- 
 ple of his intimate friend Basil, the companion 
 of his studies and the sharer of all his thoughts 
 and plans. The two friends had agreed to 
 follow the same profession ; but when Basil 
 decided on adopting a monastic life, and to 
 follow, in Chrysostom's words, " the true 
 philosophy," Chrysostom was unable at once 
 to resolve to renoimce the world, to the attrac- 
 tions of which his ardent nature was by no 
 means insensible, and of which he was in some 
 danger of becoming a slave. He was " a 
 never-failing attendant at the law courts, and 
 passionately enamoured of the theatre " {de 
 Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 14, p. 363). His friend 
 Basil's adoption of an ascetic life at first caused 
 an interruption of their intercourse. But life 
 was intolerable separated from his second self. 
 He renewed his intimacy with Basil. The 
 pleasures and pursuits of the world became 
 distasteful to him, and he soon resolved to 
 abandon it altogether, quitting mother and 
 home, and finding some sacred retreat where 
 he and his friend could devote themselves to 
 strict ascetism (ib. c. 4). This decisive change 
 — Chrysostom's conversion we should now call 
 it- — was greatly promoted by the acquaintance 
 he formed at this period with the mild and holy 
 Meletius, the orthodox and legitimate bp. of 
 Antioch, who had recently returned to his see 
 after one of his many banishments for the 
 faith. Meletius quickly observed the intel- 
 lectual promise of the young lawyer, and, 
 enamoured of the beauty of his disposition, 
 sought frequent opportunities of intercourse, 
 and in a prophetic spirit declared the greatness 
 of his future career (Pallad. p. 40). Up to this 
 time Chrysostom, though the child of Christ- 
 ian parents, had remained unbaptized, a not 
 unfrequent practice at this epoch. The time 
 for public profession of his faith was now come, 
 and after a probation of three years, Meletius 
 baptized him, and ordained him reader. This 
 was in a.d. 369 or 370, when Chrysostom was 
 about 23 years old (Pallad. p. 41). 
 
 (b) Ascetic and Monastic Life. — Baptism re- 
 stored the balance which Chrysostom tells us 
 had been so seriously disturbed by Basil's 
 
CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 higher religious attainments {de Sacerdut. lib. 
 i. c. 3, p. 363)- He became in the truest sense 
 '■ a new man " (Pallad. p. 184). His desire to 
 flee from the world, with his beloved Basil, 
 was established, and only frustrated by the 
 passionate entreaties of his weeping mother 
 that her oidv child, for whom she had given up 
 all, would not desert her. The whole scene is 
 narrated by Chrysostom in a passage of ex- 
 quisite simplicity and tenderness (de Sacerdot. 
 lib. i. c. 5, pp. 363-365). His affectionate 
 nature could not resist a mother's tears. In 
 spite of Basil's continued urgency, he yielded 
 so far as to remain at home. But if out of 
 lUial regard he abstained from deserting his 
 home for a monastery, he would make a mon- 
 astery of his home. He practised the most 
 rigid asceticism, ate little and seldom, and that 
 of the plainest, slept on the bare ground, and 
 rose frequently for prayer. He rarely left the 
 house, and, to avoid his old habit of slander, 
 kept almost unbroken silence. It is not sur- 
 prising tliat his former associates called him 
 morose and unsociable (ib. lib. vi. c. 12, p. 431). 
 
 Upon some of these associates, however, his 
 influence began to tell. Two of his fellow- 
 pupils under Libanius, Maximus, afterwards 
 bp. of Seleucia, and Theodorus, bp. of Mop- 
 suestia, adopted the ascetic life under the 
 superintendence of Diodorus and Carterius, 
 who presided over a monastery in or near 
 Antioch. From Diodorus Chrysostom learnt 
 the clear common-sense mode of interpreting 
 Holy Scripture (repudiating the allegorizing 
 principle), of which he and Theodore became 
 such distinguished representatives. The in- 
 ability of his friend Theodore to part definitely 
 with the world, and stifle natural instincts, 
 was the occasion of the composition of Chry- 
 sostom's earliest extant treatises. Theodore's 
 love for a girl named Hermione led him to 
 leave the ascetic brotherhood and return to 
 secular life. Chrysostom's heart was deeply 
 stirred at this. He regarded it as a sin to be 
 repented of and forsaken if Theodore would 
 not forfeit salvation. He addressed two 
 letters to him full of impassioned eloquence, 
 earnestly calling him to penitence and amend- 
 ment. His fervid remonstrances succeeded. 
 Theodore gave up his engagement, and finally 
 abandoned the world (ad Theodorum Lapsum, 
 Ep. i. ii. ; Socr. H. E. vi. 3). 
 
 We now come to a passage in Chrysostom's 
 life which we must condemn as utterly at 
 variance with truth and honour. Yet we 
 must bear in mind that the moral standpoint 
 of the Fathers was on this point different from 
 our own. It was generally held that the cul- 
 pability of an act of deception depended upon 
 its purpose, and that if this was good the 
 deception was laudable. Chrysostom himself 
 says, " There is a good deceit such as many 
 have been deceived by, which one ought not 
 even to call a deceit at all," instancing that 
 of Jacob, " which was not a deceit, but an 
 economy " (Hotnil. vi. in Col. ii. 8). On this 
 principle, which every healthy conscience 
 now repudiates, Chrysostom proceeded to plan 
 and execute a deliberate fraud to entrap his 
 friend Basil into consecration to the episco- 
 pate. Several sees were now vacant in Syria, 
 which it was desirable to fill without delay. 
 A body of prelates met at Antioch for this 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 159 
 
 purpose. Among those suitable for the epis- 
 copate, Chrysostom and Basil were pointed 
 out, though they were not yet even deacons. 
 Chrysostom's awful sense of the weight and 
 responsibility of the priestly office, which 
 breathes in every line of his treatise de Sacer- 
 dotio, and of his own unfitness, made him 
 tremble at the idea of ordination. Basil, on 
 the contrary, he considered to be well tjualified, 
 and he was fully resolved that the church 
 should not lose the services of his friend. 
 While, therefore, he pretended acquiescence in 
 his friend's proposition that they should decide 
 alike in the matter, he secretly resolved to 
 avoid the dreaded honour by concealment. 
 When the time of consecration arrived, and 
 Basil was carried before the bishops, and re- 
 luctantly forced to accept ordination, Chry- 
 sostom was nowhere to be found, and it was 
 represented to Basil that he had been already 
 consecrated. When too late Basil discovered 
 the unfaithfulness to their compact, and 
 upbraided Chrysostom ; his complaints were 
 received with laughter and loud expressions 
 of thankfulness at the success of his plot (de 
 Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 3, p. 365). [Basilius.] 
 
 About A.D. 374 Chrysostom carried into 
 effect his resolution of devoting himself to an 
 ascetic life, and left his home for a monastic 
 community on one of the mountain ranges S. 
 of Antioch. As there is no reference in any of 
 his writings to any opposition from his mother, 
 it is probable that her death had left him free. 
 After four years spent in unremitting auster- 
 ities, he left the society of his kind, and, dwel- 
 ling in a mountain cavern, practised still more 
 rigid self-discipline (Pallacl. p. 41). At the 
 end of two years his health so completely gave 
 way that he was forced to return to his home 
 in Antioch. To these austerities may be 
 attributed that debilitated frame, weakness of 
 digestion, and irritability of temperament, to 
 which his constant physical sufferings and 
 many of his chief difficulties and calamities are 
 not remotely traceable. 
 
 (c) A Preacher and Presbyter at Antioch.' — ■ 
 Chrysostom did not return to Antioch to be 
 idle. He was ordained deacon by Meletius 
 A.D. 381, shortly before the latter left to pre- 
 side over the oecumenical council of Constan- 
 tinople (Pallad. p. 42). Meletius died during 
 the session of the council, and his successor 
 Flavian raised Chrysostom to the presby- 
 terate early in a.d. 386 (ib.). During his 
 five years' diaconate he had gained great 
 popularity by his aptness to teach, and his 
 influence had made itself widely felt at 
 Antioch. While deacon he composed the de 
 Virginitate : the Ep. ad Viduam Juniorem, 
 addressed to the young widow of Therasius 
 (c. 381) ; its sequel de non Iterando Conjugio ; 
 and the orations de Martyre Babyla. After his 
 ordination he preached his first sermon before 
 the bishop, and a vast crowd was gathered 
 by the fame of his eloquence (Sermo, cum 
 Presbyt. fuit Ordinatus, de se ac de Episcopo, 
 deque Populi M ultitudine) . The succeeding 
 ten years, embracing Chrysostom's life as a 
 presbyter at Antioch, were chiefly devoted to 
 the cultivation of the gift of pulpit eloquence 
 on which his celebrity mainly rests. It was 
 during this period that " the great clerk and 
 godly preacher," as our First Homily terms 
 
160 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 him, deli%'ered the greater part of the dis- 
 courses extant, which must be but a very small 
 portion of those preached, for he preached re- 
 gularly twice a week, on Saturday and Sunday, 
 besides Lent and saints' days, and, as we learn 
 from his homilies on Genesis, sometimes five 
 days in succession (Tillemont, torn. xi. p. 34)- 
 Flavian appointed him frequently to preach 
 in the cathedral. Whenever he preached the 
 church was densely thronged, the hearers tes- 
 tifying their delight in loud and noisy applause. 
 This was highly offensive to Chrysostom, who 
 often rebuked their unseemly behaviour {adv. 
 Avian, de Incomprehen. Dei Natura, Homil. 
 iii. c. 7, p. 471 ; Homil. iv. § 6, p. 480). The 
 most remarkable series of homilies, containing 
 his grandest oratorical flights, and evincing 
 most strikingly his power over the minds 
 and passions of men, are the Homilies on the 
 Statues, delivered in March and April, a.d. 
 387, while the fate of Antioch was hanging in 
 awful suspense on the will of the justly of- 
 fended emperor Theodosius. The demand for 
 a large subsidy to pay a liberal donative to 
 the army had exasperated the citizens. The 
 ominous silence with which the proclamation 
 of the edict was received, Feb. 26, broken only 
 by the wailings of the women, was soon suc- 
 ceeded by mutinous cries, and all the symp- 
 toms of a popular outbreak. The passions of 
 the mob were stimulated by those who had 
 nothing to lose and might gain from public 
 disorder. The influence of Flavian might 
 have calmed the tumult, but he was from 
 home. The rabble, swelling in numbers and 
 fury as it rushed through the city, proceeded 
 to acts of open violence. The public baths 
 were ransacked ; the praetorium was attacked 
 and the mob with difficulty repulsed, the 
 governor saving himself by flight through a 
 back door, and finally the hall of judgment was 
 stormed. This was the scene of their crowning 
 act of insurrection. The portraits of the 
 emperors, which decorated the walls of the 
 court, were pelted with stones and filth, and 
 torn to shreds, the Augusti themselves were 
 loaded with curses, and the statues of Theo- 
 dosius and his deceased wife, the excellent 
 Flaccilla, were torn from their pedestals and 
 ignominiously dragged through the streets. 
 Further outrages were only stopped by the 
 appearance of a band of archers dispatched by 
 the prefect. The mutiny quelled, calm reflec- 
 tion set before them the probable consequences 
 of this recent fury. Panic fear, as is usual, 
 succeeded the popular madness. The out- 
 bursts of unrestrained passion, to which the 
 emperor was subject, were well known. The 
 insult to his beloved empress would be certain 
 to be keenly resented and terribly avenged. 
 It was only too probable that an edict would 
 be issued for the destruction of Antioch or for 
 the massacre of its inhabitants, foreshadowing 
 that of Thessalonica, which three years later 
 struck horror into the Christian world. Their 
 only hope lay in the intercession of Flavian, 
 who, regardless of his age and the serious ill- 
 ness of his sister, had instantly started for the 
 imperial city, to lay at the emperor's feet the 
 confession of his people and to supplicate for 
 pardon. Day by day, during this terrible 
 suspense, lasting for three weeks, Chrysostom 
 devoted his noblest gifts as a sacred orator 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 to awaken repentance among the dissolute 
 crowds hanging on his impassioned words. 
 Just before Easter Flavian returned with the 
 glad tidings that their crime was pardoned. The 
 homily delivered by Chrysostom on Easter 
 day (the 21st of the series) describes the inter- 
 view of Flavian with Theodosius, the prelate's 
 moving appeal for clemency, and its immedi- 
 ate effect on the impressionable mind of the 
 emperor, who granted a complete amnesty and 
 urged Flavian's instant return to relieve the 
 Antiochenes from their terrible suspense. One 
 happy result of this crisis was the conversion 
 of a large number of the still heathen popula- 
 tion to Christianity (Homil. de Anna. I. c. i, 
 vol. iv. p. 812). 
 
 These events occurred in the spring of a.d. 
 387. For ten years longer Chrysostom con- 
 tinued as a preacher and teacher at Antioch. 
 To this period may be assigned his comment- 
 aries on Gen. and Pss., St. Matt, and St. John, 
 Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., and Eph. Those on 
 Tim. i., ii.. Tit., and on the other Epp. of 
 St. Paul, are considered by Tillemont to have 
 been certainly delivered at Constantinople 
 (Till. Mem. eccl. torn. xi. pp. 92-97, 370-376). 
 
 (d) Episcopate of Constantinople. — Chrysos- 
 tom's residence at Antioch ended in a.d. 397. 
 In Sept. the bp. of Constantinople, the amiable 
 and indolent Nectarius, died. The vacant see 
 was one of the most dignified and influential in 
 the church. Public expectation was excited 
 as to his successor. The nomination rested 
 with the emperor Arcadius, but virtually with 
 the prime minister Eutropius. Passing by 
 numerous candidates, he determined to ele- 
 vate one who had no thought of being a 
 candidate at all, John of Antioch, whose 
 eloquence had impressed him during a recent 
 visit to Antioch on state business. Chrysos- 
 tom's name was received with delight by the 
 electing prelates, and at once unanimously 
 accepted. The difficulty lay with Chrysostom 
 himself and the people of Antioch. The 
 double danger of a decided " nolo episcopari " 
 on Chrysostom's part and of a public commo- 
 tion among the Antiochenes was overcome 
 by stratagem. Asterius, the " comes orien- 
 tis," in accordance with secret instructions 
 from Eutropius, induced Chrysostom to ac- 
 company him to a martyr's chapel outside the 
 city walls. There he was apprehended by the 
 officers of the government, and hurried over 
 the 800 miles under military escort from stage 
 to stage, and reached his imperial see a closely 
 guarded prisoner. His remonstrances were 
 unheeded ; his inquiries met with obstinate 
 silence. Resistance being useless, Chrysostom 
 felt it more dignified to submit. He was 
 consecrated Feb. 26, 398, by Theophilus, 
 patriarch of Alexandria. The duty was very 
 unwelcome, for Theophilus had left no stone 
 unturned to secure the nomination of Isidore, 
 a presbyter of Alexandria. The ceremony 
 was witnessed by a vast multitude, assembled 
 to listen to the inaugural sermon of one of 
 whose eloquence they had heard so much. 
 This " sermo enthronisticus " is lost (Socr. 
 H. E. vi. 2 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 2 ; Pallad. p. 42). 
 Constantinople soon learnt the difference 
 between the new bishop and his predecessor. 
 Chrysostom at once disfurnished the epis- 
 copal residence, and disposed of the costly 
 
CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 plate and rich equipment for the benefit of the 
 poor and the hospitals (Pallad. pp. 46, 47). 
 Instead of banqueting with the laity, he ate 
 the simplest fare in his solitary chamber {ib. 
 pp. loi, 102). He studiously avoided the 
 court and association with the great, and even 
 ordinarv conversation, except when duty com- 
 pelled (ib. pp. 103, 120-123). Such behaviour 
 could hardly fail to be misrepresented. To 
 the populace, accustomed to the splendour of 
 former bishops, Chrysostom's simplicity ap- 
 peared unworthy of his lofty station, and he 
 was openly charged with parsimony, morose- 
 ness, and pride (Socr. H. E. vi. 4 ; Soz.. H. E. 
 viii. 9). Nor was the contrast more acceptable 
 to most of his clergy, whose moral tone was 
 far from elevated. Chrysostom, with uncom- 
 promising zeal, attempted to bring them back 
 to simplicity of life and to activity in their 
 calling. He deposed some on charges of 
 homicide and adultery, and repelled others 
 from the Eucharist. He set his face resolutely 
 against the perilous custom of receiving 
 " spiritual sisters " {avveiffaKrai), which was 
 frequently the source of the grossest immorali- 
 ties. To obviate the attractions of the Arians 
 who at night and at early dawn gathered large 
 crowds by their antiphonal hymns under por- 
 ticoes and in the open air, as well as for the 
 benefit of those unable to attend the church in 
 the day, he revived the old custom of nocturnal 
 services with responsive chanting, to the in- 
 dignation of those clergy to whom ease was 
 dearer than the spiritual improvement of 
 their flocks (Pallad. p. 47 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 8 ; 
 Homil. in Acta, 26, c. 3, p. 212). His dis- 
 ciplinary measures were rendered more un- 
 popular by his lack of a conciliatory manner, 
 coupled with irritability of temper and no 
 small obstinacy (Socr. H. E. vi. 3, 21 ; Soz. 
 H. E. viii. 3). He was also too much 
 swayed by his archdeacon, Serapion, a proud, 
 violent man, who is reported to have ex- 
 claimed at an assembly of the clergy, " You 
 will never be able, bishop, to master these 
 mutinous priests unless you drive them before 
 you with a single rod " (Pallad. 18, 19 ; Socr. 
 H. E. vi. 4 ; Soz. viii. 9). 
 
 But while his relations with his clergy were 
 becoming increasingly embittered, he stood 
 high in favour with the people, who flocked 
 to his sermons, and drank in greedily his 
 vehement denunciations of the follies and 
 vices of the clergy and aristocracy (Socr. 
 vi. 4, 5). He was no less popular with Arca- 
 dius and his empress, the Prankish general's 
 daughter, Eudoxia, who was beginning to sup- 
 plant the author of her elevation, the eunuch 
 Eutropius, and to make her feeble partner 
 bow to her more powerful will. For a time the 
 bishop and the empress, between whom was 
 afterwards so uncompromising an hostility, 
 vied with one another in expressions of mutual 
 admiration and esteem. Towards the latter 
 part of 398, not long after Chrysostom had 
 taken possession of his see, the relics of some 
 anonymous martyrs were translated by night 
 with great ceremony to the martyry of St. 
 Thomas, on the seashore of Drypia, about nine 
 miles from the city, which the empress had 
 instituted in a fit of religious excitement. So 
 lengthened was the procession and so brilliant 
 the torches, that Chrysostom compares it to 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 161 
 
 a river of fire. The empress herself in royal 
 diadem and purple, attended by nobles and 
 ladies of distinction, walked by the side of the 
 bishop, in the rear of the chest enclosing the 
 sacred bones. It was dawn before the church 
 was reached and Chrysostom began his sermon. 
 1 1 was full of extravagant laudat ions of Euxodia 
 and of ecstatic expressions of joy, which after- 
 wards formed a ground of accusation against 
 him (Homil. Dicta Postquam Reliquiae, etc. 
 vol. xii. pp. 4.68-473). The next day the em- 
 peror with his court visited the shrine, and, 
 laying aside his diadem, reverenced the holy 
 martyrs. After the departure of Arcadius Chry- 
 sostom delivered a second enthusiastic homily 
 in praise of his piety and humility (Homil. 
 Dicta Praesente Imperatore, ib. pp. 474-480). 
 At the same period the largeness of Chrysos- 
 tom's heart and the sincerity of his Christian 
 love were manifested by his care for the spirit- 
 ual state of the numerous Goths at Constan- 
 tinople. Some were Catholics, but the major- 
 ity were Arians. He had portions of the Bible 
 translated into their vernacular, and read by 
 a Gothic presbyter to his countrymen in the 
 church of St. Paul, who afterwards addressed 
 them in their own tongue (Homil. 8, vol. xii. 
 pp. 512-526). Chrysostom himself frequently 
 preached to them by an interpreter. He 
 ordained native readers, deacons, and presby- 
 ters, and dispatched missionaries to the Gothic 
 tribes who still remained on the banks of the 
 Danube, and consecrated a bishop from among 
 themselves named Unilas (Theod. H. E. v. 
 30 ; Ep. 14, 207). Having learnt that the 
 nomad Scythian tribes on the banks of the 
 Danube were desirous of being instructed in 
 the faith, he at once dispatched missionaries 
 to them, and corresponded with Leontius, bp. 
 of Ancyra, with regard to the selection of able 
 men from his diocese for this work (ib. H. E. 
 V. 31). In his zeal for the suppression of pagan 
 idolatry he obtained an imperial edict, a.d. 
 399, for the destruction of the temples in 
 Phoenicia, which was carried out at the cost of 
 some Christian ladies of Constantinople, who 
 also supplied funds for missionary exertions 
 in that country (ib. v. 29). These efforts for 
 the propagation of the faith were very dear to 
 Chrysostom's heart, and even during his exile 
 he superintended and directed them by letter 
 (Ep. 53, 54, 123, 126). He endeavoured to 
 crush false doctrine wherever it was making 
 head. Having learnt that the Marcionite 
 heresy was infecting the diocese of Cyrus, he 
 wrote to the then bishop, desiring him to 
 expel it, and offering to help him in putting 
 in force the imperial edicts for that purpose. 
 He thus evidenced, in the words of Theodoret, 
 that, like St. Paul, he bore in his heart " the 
 care of all the churches " (H. E. v. 31). 
 
 Eutropius fell from power in 399. He had 
 hoped for a subservient bishop ; but not 
 only did Chrysostom refuse to countenance 
 his nefarious designs, but denounced his vices 
 from the pulpit with unsparing fidelity. The 
 unhappy man, hurled in a moment from the 
 pinnacle of his greatness, took refuge for a 
 while in the church, but was ultimately be- 
 headed at Chalcedon (Socr. H. E. vi. 5 ; Soz. 
 H. E. viii. 7 ; Philost. H. E. xi. 6 ; Zosimus, 
 V. 18 ; Chrys. Horn, in Eutrop. vol. iii. pp. 
 454-460; de Capto Eutrop. ib. pp. 460-482). 
 
 u 
 
162 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 Early in a.d. 400 Gainas, the haughty Goth 
 who had had a large share in the downfall of 
 Eutropius.demandedthesurrenderofthreelead- 
 ingministers, Aurelianustheconsul.Saturninus, 
 ajid count John the empress's chief favourite. 
 To relieve the emperor of embarrassment, they 
 surrendered themselves. Their lives were in 
 extreme danger. Chrysostom resorted to 
 Gainas's camp, pleaded the cause of the hos- 
 tages, and endeavoured to persuade the Goth 
 to lessen his extravagant demands to be made 
 consul and commander-in-chief, which would 
 have placed the emperor at his mercy. Gain- 
 as had urged his claim for one of the churches 
 of Constantinople for Arian worship, but 
 Chrysostom's eloquence and spiritual author- 
 ity overpowered him, and he desisted for a 
 time at least in pressing his demand (Soz. 
 H. E. viii. 4 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 6 ; Theod. H. E. 
 V. 32, 33 ; Chrys. Horn, cum Saturn, et Aurel. 
 etc., vol. iii. pp. 482-487). The sequel belongs 
 to general history. The emperor, as a last 
 resort, declared Gainas a public enemy ; the 
 inhabitants of the city rose against the Goths ; 
 a general massacre ensued, and Gainas was 
 forced to flee for safety (Zosim. v. 18-22). 
 
 At this epoch the power and popularity of 
 Chrysostom was at its culminating point. We 
 have now to trace its swift and complete de- 
 cline. The author of his overthrow was the 
 empress P2udoxia. Her shortlived religious 
 zeal had burnt itself out, and when she found 
 Chrysostom too clear-sighted to be imposed 
 upon by an outward show of piety, and too 
 uncompromising to connive at wrong-doing 
 even in the highest places, and that not even 
 her rank as empress could save her and her 
 associates from public censure, her former 
 attachment was changed into the most im- 
 placable enmity. Jealousy of Chrysostom's 
 influence over Arcadius contributed to her 
 growing aversion. Chrysostom was now the 
 only obstacle to her obtaining undisputed 
 supremacy over her imbecile husband, and 
 through him over the Eastern world. Means 
 must be found to get rid of this obstacle also. 
 Chrysostom himself afforded the opportunity 
 inhis excessof zeal for the purity of the church 
 by overstepping his episcopal jurisdiction, not 
 then so strictly defined as in modem dioceses. 
 Properly speaking, the bp. of Constantinople 
 had no jurisdiction beyond the limits of his 
 own city and diocese. For Constantinople, 
 as a city whose imperial dignity was of modern 
 creation, was not a metropolitan see, but sub- 
 ject ecclesiastically to the metropolitan of 
 Heraclea (otherwise Perinthus), who was ex- 
 arch of the province of Thrace. The claims 
 of Heraclea becoming antiquated, the prelates 
 of Alexandria, as the first of the Eastern 
 churches, gradually assumed metropolitan 
 rights over Byzantium. But subjection to 
 any other see was soon felt to he inconsistent 
 with the dignity of an imperial city, and by the 
 third canon of the oecumenical council held 
 within its walls, a.d. 381, its bishop was de- 
 clared second to the bp. of Rome, after him 
 coming the metropolitans of Alexandria and 
 Antioch. But this precedence was simply 
 honorary, and although Nectarius had set the 
 precedent followed by Chrysostom of exer- 
 cising jurisdiction in the Thr'acian and Asiatic 
 dioceses, the claim did not receive legal I 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 authority until the council of Chalcedon (can. 
 28). At a conference of bishops held at Con- 
 stantinople in the spring of a.d. 400, Eusebius 
 of Valentinopolis accused his brother bishop, 
 Antoninus of Ephesus, of selling ordination to 
 bishoprics, melting down the church plate for 
 his own benefit, and other grave offences 
 (Pallad. p. 126). A delegacy was dispatched 
 to Asia to investigate these charges. Many 
 dishonest and vexatious delays occurred, and 
 the accused bishop died before any decision 
 could be arrived at (ib. pp. 130-133). The 
 Ephesian clergy and the bishops of the circuit 
 appealed to Chrysostom to make peace. 
 Prompt at the call of duty, Chrysostom, 
 though it was the depth of winter (Jan. 401), 
 and he in very feeble health, proceeded to 
 Ephesus. On his arrival he exercised metro- 
 political authority, deposing six bishops con- 
 victed of simony, and correcting with unspar- 
 ing hand the venality and licentiousness of the 
 clergy {ib. pp. 134-135 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 10; 
 Soz. H. E. viii. 6). His excessive severity did 
 not reconcile the reluctant ecclesiastics to 
 the questionable authority upon which he 
 acted. The results of Chrysostom's absence 
 of three months from Constantinople were dis- 
 astrous. He had entrusted his episcopal 
 authority to Severian, bp. of Gabala, who 
 basely abused his trust to undermine Chry- 
 sostom's influence at court. The cabal against 
 Chrysostom was headed by the empress and 
 her favourite ladies, of whose extravagance of 
 attire and attempts to enhance their personal 
 charms, the bishop had spoken with contemp- 
 tuous ridicule, and among whom the wealthy 
 and licentious widows Marsa, Castricia, and 
 Eugraphia, " who used for the ruin of their 
 souls the property their husbands had gained 
 by extortion" (Pallad. pp. 35, 66), were con- 
 spicuous. This cabal received an important 
 accession by the arrival of two bishops from 
 Palestine, Antiochus of Ptolemais and the 
 grey-haired Acacius of Beroea (Pallad. 49). 
 [AcAcius ; Antiochus.] Serapion, Chrysos- 
 tom's archdeac(jn, had kept his master in- 
 formed of Severian's base proceedings, and 
 had continually urged his speedy return. His 
 return was the signal for the outbreak of open 
 hostilities, which Chrysostom's vehement and 
 unguarded language in the pulpit exasperated. 
 Soon after his return, he chose his text from 
 the history of Elijah, and exclaimed, " Gather 
 together to me those base priests that eat at 
 Jezebel's table, that I may say to them, as 
 Elijah of old, ' How long halt ye between two 
 opinions ? ' " {ib. 74). This allusion was only 
 too clear. He had called the empress Jezebel. 
 The haughty Eudoxia could not brook the 
 insult, and the doom of Chrysostom was sealed. 
 But until the plot was ripe it was necessary to 
 keep up the semblance of friendship, and even ■ 
 of deference, towards one who could still make 
 ecclesiastical authority felt. Some half-heard 
 words of Severian, uttered in annoyance at 
 Serapion's discourtesy, were distorted by the 
 archdeacon into a blasphemous denial of 
 Christ's Divinity (Socr. H. E. vi. 10; Soz. 
 H. E. viii. 10). The charge was rashly 
 credited by Chrysostom, who, without further 
 inquiry, sentenced him to excommunica- 
 tion and banishment from Constantinople. 
 Chrysostom was still the idol of the commou 
 
CHRYS03T0M, JOHN 
 
 people. The news spread that Severian had 
 insulted their bishop, and Severian's life would 
 have been in danger had he not speedily fled 
 to Chalcedon, and put the Bosphorus be- 
 tween himself and the enraged mob. All the 
 authority of the emperor and the passionate 
 entreaties of the empress, who even placed 
 her infant son on Chrysostom's knees in the 
 church of the Apostles as an irresistible plea 
 for yielding to her petition, were needed to 
 extort forgiveness for Severian. Chrysostom 
 interceded for him with the populace {Horn, 
 lie Recipiendo Severiano, vol. iii. pp. 492-494), 
 and the semblance of peace was restored 
 (Socr. and Soz. u.s.). 
 
 The secret intrigues, checked for the time, 
 soon broke out afresh. The allusion to J ezebel 
 was not forgiven by Eudoxia, and Severian 
 was equally implacable. The clergy were 
 eager to rid themselves of one who, in the 
 words of Palladius, " like a lamp burning be- 
 fore sore eyes," was intolerable from the bril- 
 liancy of his virtues. All they wanted was a 
 powerful leader. 
 
 Such a leader was found in Theophilus, bp. 
 of .Alexandria, who had been unwillingly com- 
 pelled to consecrate Chrysostom. A pretext 
 for his interference was afforded by the hos- 
 pitality shewn by Chrysostom and his friends 
 to some Egyptian monks, known from their 
 remarkable stature as " the Tall Brethren " 
 [Ammonius], whom Theophilus had treated 
 with great injustice and cruelty, nominally 
 because of their Origenistic views, but really 
 because they were privy to his own avarice 
 and other vices (Isid. Pelusiot. Ep. i. 142). 
 Chrysostom had received them kindly, and 
 written in their behalf to Theophilus, who re- 
 plied with an indignant remonstrance against 
 protecting heretics and interfering in the affairs 
 uf another diocese. The monks claimed the 
 right of prosecuting their defamers (Pallad. 
 pp. 51-62 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 7, 9 ; Soz. H. E. 
 viii. 12, 13). A personal appeal to Eudoxia 
 secured them this. Theophilus was summoned 
 to appear before a council for the investigation 
 of the whole case of these Nitrian monks, 
 while their calumniators were called upon to 
 substantiate their charges or suffer punishment. 
 Theophilus, however, devised a scheme for 
 turning the tables upon Chrysostom, and 
 transforming the council into one before which 
 Chrysostom himself might be arraigned ( Pallad. 
 
 p. 64). [DiOSCORUS.] 
 
 To pave the way for the execution of this 
 plot Theophilus induced Epiphanius, the ven- 
 erable bp. of Salamis, to visit Constantinople, 
 with the decrees of a council recently held in 
 Cyprus, by which the tenets of Origen which 
 the Nitrian monks were charged with holding 
 were condemned, for Chrysostom's signature 
 (Socr. H. E. vi. 10-14 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 
 14)- Epiphanius petulantly declined the 
 honours and hospitality prepared for him 
 until Chrysostom had formally condemned 
 Origen and expelled " the Tall Brethren." 
 Chrysostom replied that he left both to the 
 coming council, and would not prejudge the 
 matter. The relations between the two pre- 
 lates were further embittered by the ordination 
 of a deacon by Epiphanius in violation of 
 the canons of the church (Socr. H. E. vi. 11). 
 No better success attended Epiphanius's 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 163 
 
 attempt to obtain a condemnation of Origen 
 from the bishops then at Constantinople. An 
 interview with the accused monks, at which 
 Epiphanius was obliged to acknowledge that 
 he had not read a page of their writings, and 
 had condemned them on hearsay, seems to 
 have opened his eyes to the real character of 
 Theophilus and the nature of the transaction 
 in which he had become an agent. He refused 
 to take any further share in the designs of 
 Theophilus, and set sail for Cyprus, dying on 
 his voyage or soon after his return (Socr. H. E. 
 vi. 12-14 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 14, 15). 
 
 Shortly after Epiphanius's departure Theo- 
 philus arrived at Constantinople, accompanied 
 by a bodyguard of rough sailors from his own 
 city of Alexandria, laden with costly presents. 
 He received a vociferous welcome from the 
 crews of the Egyptian corn-ships, but the 
 bishops and clergy of the city kept aloof. He 
 refused all communications with Chrysostom, 
 rejected all his offers of hospitality, and, as- 
 suming the position of an ecclesiastical supe- 
 rior, not of a defendant about to take his trial, 
 openly declared that he had come to depose 
 Chrysostom for grave offences. The three 
 weeks between his arrival and the commence- 
 ment of the synod were devoted to ingratiating 
 himself with influential personages and the 
 disaffected clergy, by flattery, sumptuous 
 banquets, and splendid gifts. Arcadius, pro- 
 bably unaware of the plans of the secret cabal, 
 remonstrated with Chrysostom for his delay 
 in proceeding to Theophilus's trial, which 
 Chrysostom justified by his unwillingness to 
 usurp a jurisdiction not legitimately his (Socr. 
 H. E. vi. 15; Soz. H. E. viii. 16; Pallad. 
 65, 66 ; Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent, i). Theo- 
 philus had no such scruples. He assumed as 
 patriarch of Alexandria the supremacy over 
 all Eastern bishops, and claimed the right of 
 summoning Chrysostom as a suffragan before 
 his tribunal. Apprehensive of the well-known 
 popularity of Chrysostom with the lower 
 orders, he dared not venture to hold a synod 
 in Constantinople. The place chosen was a 
 suburb of Chalcedon, on the other side of the 
 Bosphorus, known as " the Oak," where was 
 a large church with contiguous buildings for 
 the clergy and monks. Thirty-six bishops, of 
 whom all but seven were Egyptians, Theo- 
 philus's suffragans, formed the council. The 
 Asiatic bishops were mainly such as Chrysos- 
 tom had made his enemies during his recent 
 visitation. None was more hostile than Ger- 
 ontius of Nicomedia, whom he had deposed. 
 The presidential chair was occupied by the 
 bp. of Heraclea, as metropolitan. To this 
 packed council, the members of which were at 
 the same time " judges, accusers, and wit- 
 nesses " (Phot. Cod. 59, ad init.), in the middle 
 of July, A.D. 403, Chrysostom was summoned 
 to answer to a list of charges containing 29 
 articles drawn up by the archdeacon John. 
 Many of these were contemptibly frivolous, 
 others grossly exaggerated, some entirely 
 false (Pallad. p. 66). They had reference to 
 the administration of his church and the al- 
 leged malversation of its funds ; to his violent 
 and tyrannical behaviour towards his clergy ; 
 to his private habits — " he had private inter- 
 views with women " — " he dined gluttonously 
 by himself as a cyclops would eat " ; to ritual 
 
Ifi4 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 irregularities — " he robed and unrobed himself 
 on his episcopal throne, and ate a lozenge after 
 celebration " (Pallad. p. 66), and had violated 
 the rule as to fasting communion ; to his 
 having ordained unworthy persons ; and 
 heretical deductions were drawn from sonie 
 incautious and enthusiastic expressions in his 
 sermons. A second list of charges under r8 
 heads was presented by Isaac the monk. In 
 these the accusation of violence and inhos- 
 pitality was renewed, and he was charged with 
 invading the jurisdiction of other prelates 
 (Phot. Cod. 59 ; Chrys. Ep. 125, ad Cyr.). The 
 most flagrant charge was that of uttering 
 treasonable words against the empress, com- 
 paring her to Jezebel (Pallad. p. 74). This 
 was construed into exciting the people to 
 rebellion, and on this his enemies chiefly relied. 
 The sessions lasted 14 days. Four times was 
 Chrysostom summoned to appear before the 
 self-appointed tribunal. His reply was digni- 
 fied and unwavering. He refused to present 
 himself before a packed synod of his enemies, 
 to which he was summoned by his own clergy, 
 and he appealed to a lawfully constituted 
 general council. But irregular as the synod 
 was, he expressed his readiness, in the interests 
 of peace, to appear before it, if his avowed 
 enemies, Theophilus, Severianus, Acacius, and 
 Antiochus, were removed from the number 
 of the judges. As this proposal met with no 
 response, Chrysostom summoned a counter- 
 synod of bishops attached to his cause, forty 
 in number, whose letter of remonstrance to 
 Theophilus was treated with contempt. At 
 its twelfth sitting a message from the court 
 urged the packed synod to come to a speedy 
 decision. To this it yielded prompt obedience. 
 By a unanimous vote it condemned Chry- 
 sostom as contumacious and deposed him 
 from his bishopric. The charge of uttering 
 treasonable words was left to the civil power, 
 his enemies secretlv hoping fof a capital 
 sentence (Socr. H. E. vi. 15 ; Soz. H. E. 
 viii. 17). The imperial rescript confirming 
 the sentence of deposition, however, simply 
 condemned the bishop to banishment for life. 
 The indignation of the people knew no bounds, 
 when, as the evening wore on, the sentence on 
 their beloved bishop became generally known. 
 A crowd collected round Chrysostom's resid- 
 ence, and kept watch for 3 days and nights 
 at its doors and those of the great church, lest 
 he should be forcibly carried off. A word 
 from him would have raised an insurrection. 
 But the sermons he addressed to the vast 
 multitudes in the cathedral advocated patience 
 and resignation to the Divine Will. On the 
 third day, during the noontide meal, he slipped 
 out unperceived by a side door, and quietly 
 surrendered himself to the imperial officers, by 
 whom he was conducted after dark to the 
 harbour and put on board a vessel which con- 
 veyed him to Hieron at the mouth of the 
 Eiixine. The victory of his enemies seemed 
 complete. Theophilus entered the city in 
 triumphal state and wreaked vengeance on 
 the bishop's partisans. The people, who 
 had crowded to the churches to pour forth 
 their lamentations, were forcibly dislodged, 
 not without bloodshed. Furious at the loss 
 of their revered teacher, they thronged the 
 approaches to the imperial palace, clamour- 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 ing for his restoration and demanding that 
 his cause should be heard before a general 
 council. Constantinople was almost in re- 
 volt (Socr. H. E. vi. 16 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 
 18 ; Theod. H. E. v. c. 34 ; Zosim. Hist. 
 V. 23 ; Pallad. p. 15). The following night 
 the city was convulsed by an earthquake, 
 felt with peculiar violence' in the bedroom 
 of Eudoxia. The empress fell at Arcadius's 
 feet, and entreated him to avert the wrath 
 of Heavenby revoking Chrysostom's sentence. 
 Messengers were dispatched to discover 
 the exiled prelate, bearing letters couched 
 in terms of the most abject humiliation. 
 The news of Chrysostom's recall caused uni- 
 versal rejoicing. Late as it was, a whole 
 fleet of barques put forth to meet him. The 
 Bosphorus blazed with torches and resounded 
 with songs of triumph (Theod. H. E. v. 34). 
 Chrysostom at first halted outside the city, 
 claiming to be acquitted by a general council 
 before resuming his see. The people sus- 
 pected another plot, and loudly denounced 
 the emperor and empress. Fearing a serious 
 outbreak, Arcadius sent a secretary to desire 
 Chrysostom to enter the walls without delay. 
 .\s a loyal subject he obeyed. On passing the 
 gates he was borne aloft by the crowd, carried 
 into the church, placed on his episcopal seat, 
 and forced to deliver an extemporaneous ad- 
 dress. His triumph was now as complete as 
 that of his enemies a few days before. Theo- 
 philus, and some of the leaders of the cabal, 
 lingered on in Constantinople, hoping for a 
 turn in the tide. But they were now the un- 
 popular party, and could hardly shew them- 
 selves in the streets without being attacked 
 and ill-treated. The person of Theophilus was 
 no longer safe in Constantinople ; while a more 
 formidable danger was to be apprehended if 
 the general council, which Chrysostom pre- 
 vailed OP the emperor to convoke, met and ' 
 proceeded to inquire into his conduct. On the 
 plea that his diocese could no longer put up 
 with his absence, Theophilus abruptly left 
 the city, and sailed by night for Alexandria 
 (Socr. H. E. vi. 17; Soz. H. E. viii. 19; 
 Chrys. £/>. ad Innocent.). His flight was 
 speedily followed by the assembling of a 
 council of about 60 bishops, which annulled 
 the proceedings at the council of the Oak, and 
 declared Chrysostom still legitimate bp. of 
 Constantinople. This judicial sentence re- 
 moved all Chrysostom's scruples, and he 
 resumed his episcopal duties (Soz. H. E. 
 viii. 19). The first result of the failure of. 
 the machinations of Chrysostom's enemies, 
 was an apparently complete reconciliation 
 between him and the empress, who seemed 
 entirely to have forgotten her former resent- 
 ment. But, within two months, circumstances 
 arose which proved the unreality of the friend-, 
 ship, and awakened a still more irreconcilable 
 feud. Eudoxia aspired to semi-divine hon- 
 ours. A column of porph>Ty was erected in 
 the lesser forum, in front of the church of St. 
 Sophia, bearing aloft her silver statue for the 
 adoration of the people. Its dedication in 
 Sept. 403 was accompanied by boisterous 
 and licentious revehry. The noise of this un- 
 seemly merriment penetrated the church and. 
 disturbed the sacred services. Chrysostom's 
 holy indignation took fire, and he mounted the 
 
CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 diiibo and thundered forth a homily, embrac- 
 ing in its fierce invective all who had any share 
 in these profane amusements, abov^e all, the 
 arrogant woman whose ambition was the cause 
 of them. " Herodias," he was reported to 
 Eudoxia to have exclaimed, " is once rnore 
 maddening ; Herodias is once more dancing ; 
 once more Herodias demands the head of John 
 on a charger." All her former fury revived, 
 and she demanded of the emperor signal 
 redress. Sacerdotal and imperial authority 
 stood confronted. One or other must yield 
 (Socr. H. E. vi. iS ; Soz. H. E. viii. 20; 
 Theophan. p. 68 ; Zosim. v. 24). The enemies 
 of Chrysostom were not slow in reappear- 
 ing. Acacius, Severian, Antiochus, with 
 other members of the old cabal, hastened 
 from their dioceses, and were soon in close 
 conference with their former confederates 
 among the fashionable dames and worldly and 
 fri%-olous clergy of the city. After repeated 
 deliberations they decided their policy. For 
 months past Chrysostom had been wearying 
 the emperor with demands for a general 
 council. Let such a council be called, care 
 being taken to select its members discreetly, 
 and let this fresh outburst of treasonable lan- 
 guage be laid before it, and the result could not 
 be doubtful. Theophilus, too wary to appear 
 again on the scene of his defeat, directed the 
 machinations of the plotters. He put a new 
 and powerful tool in their hands, in the 12th 
 canon of the council of more than doubtful 
 orthodoxy held at Antioch, a.d. 341, pro- 
 nouncing the ipso facto deprivation of any 
 bishop who, after deposition, appealed to the 
 secular arm for restoration. The council met 
 towards the end of 403. On the succeed- 
 ing Christmas Day the emperor refused to 
 communicate, according to custom, in the 
 cathedral, on the ground of the doubtful 
 legality of Chrysostom's position (Socr., Soz. 
 U.S.). This was justly regarded as ominous 
 of Chrysostom's condemnation. Chrysostom, 
 supported by 42 bishops, maintained his usual 
 calm confidence. He continued to preach to 
 his people, and his sermons were characterized 
 by more than common vigour and unction 
 (Pallad. p. 81). The synod determined to 
 submit the decision to the emperor. An 
 adroit demand was made in Chrysostom's 
 favour by Elpidius, the aged bp. of Laodicea, 
 himself a confessor for the faith, that the 
 chief promulgators of the canon of Antioch, 
 Acacius and Antiochus, should subscribe a 
 declaration that they were of the same faith 
 as its original authors, who were mainly 
 Arians. The emperor was amused, and at once 
 agreed to the proposal. The two bishops 
 caught in the trap became livid with rage 
 (It'i. t6 7r€X(5i'67-epoi' fxerajSaXdvTes Tr)v fiopcpriv, 
 Pallad. p. 80), but were compelled to promise 
 a compliance, which their astuteness had little 
 difficulty in evading. The synod continued 
 its protracted session. We have no record of 
 any formal decision or sentence. None indeed 
 was necessary ; Chrysostom's violation of the 
 Antiochene canon had deposed him : he was 
 no longer bp. of Constantinople. Meanwhile 
 Easter was fast approaching. It would be 
 intolerable if the emperor were a second time 
 shut out from his cathedral on a chief festival 
 of the church. Chrysostom must be at once 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 165 
 
 removed : if possible, quietly ; if not, by 
 force. Assured by Antiochus and his com- 
 panions that Chrysostom had been actually 
 condemned and had ceased to be a bishop, 
 Arcadius was persuaded to order his removal 
 {ib. p. 81). An imperial officer was sent to 
 desire the bishop to leave the church imme- 
 diately. Chrysostom respectfully but firmly 
 refused. " He had received the church from 
 God, and he would not desert it. The em- 
 peror might expel him forcibly if he pleased. 
 His violence would be his excuse before God 
 for leaving his post." When the time arrived 
 for the great baptismal function on Easter 
 Eve, when no fewer than 3,000 catechumens 
 were expected, he calmly left his residence, 
 despite the orders of the emperor, and pro- 
 ceeded to the cathedral. The imperial guards, 
 forbidden to use force, dared not interfere. 
 The perplexed emperor summoned Acacius 
 and Antiochus, and reproached them for their 
 advice. They replied that " Chrysostom, being 
 no longer a bishop, was acting illegally in 
 administering the sacraments, and that they 
 would take his deposition on their own heads " 
 (/7). p. 82). The emperor, overjoyed at having 
 the responsibility of the bishop's condemna- 
 tion removed from himself, at once ordered 
 some guards to drag Chrysostom from the 
 cathedral as usurping functions no longer his, 
 and reconduct him to his domestic prison. A 
 vast crowd was assembled in the church of 
 St. Sophia, to keep the vigil of the Resurrec- 
 tion. The sacrament of baptism was being 
 administered to the long files of catechumens. 
 Suddenly the din of arms broke the solemn 
 stillness. A body of soldiers, sword in hand, 
 burst in, and rushed, some to the baptisteries, 
 some up the nave to the sacred bema and 
 altar. The catechumens were driven from the 
 font at the point of the sword. Many were 
 wounded, and, as an eye-witness records, " the 
 waters of regeneration were stained with 
 blood" (ib. p. 81). The baptisteries appropri- 
 ated to the females were invaded by the rude, 
 licentious soldiers, who drove the women, half- 
 dressed, shrieking into the streets. Other 
 soldiers forced open the holy doors, and the 
 sanctuary was profaned by the presence of 
 pagans, some of whom, it was whispered with 
 horror, had dared to gaze on and even to 
 handle the Eucharistic elements. The clergy, 
 clad in their sacred robes, were forcibly 
 ejected, and chased along the dark streets by 
 the brutal soldiery. With holy courage the 
 dispersed catechumens were reassembled by 
 their clergy in the baths of Constant ine, 
 which, hastily blessed by the priests, became 
 sacred baptisteries. The candidates were again 
 approaching the laver of regeneration, when 
 they were once more forcibly dispersed by the 
 emissaries of Antiochus. The soldiers, rude 
 barbarians from Thrace, executed their com- 
 mission with indiscriminating ferocity. The 
 ministering priest received a wound on the 
 head ; a blow on the arm caused the deacon 
 to drop the cruet of sacred chrism. The 
 women were plundered of their robes and 
 ornaments ; the clergy of their vestments, and 
 the extemporized altar of its holy vessels. The 
 fugitives were maltreated and beaten, and 
 many dragged off to prison. The horrors of 
 that night remained indelibly imprinted on 
 
Kir. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 the minds of those who witnessed them, and 
 were spoken of long afterwards with shudder- 
 ing. Similar scenes were enacted wherever 
 the scattered congregations endeavoured to 
 reunite. For the greater part of Easter week 
 Constantinople was like a city that had been 
 stormed. Private dwellings were invaded to 
 discover clandestine assemblies. The partisans 
 of Chrysostom — the Joannites, as they began 
 to be called — were thrown into prison on the 
 slightest suspicion, and scourged and tortured 
 to compel them to implicate others (Chrys. 
 Ep. ad Innocent, ap. PaJlad. pp. 17-20 ; Pallad. 
 pp. 82-88). For two months the timid Arcadius 
 could not be prevailed upon to sign the decree 
 for Chrysostom's banishment, and Chrysostom 
 continued to reside in his palace, which was 
 again guarded by successive detachments of 
 his adherents. His life was twice attempted 
 by assassins (Soz. H. E. viii. 21). 
 
 (e) Exile. — At last, on June 5, a.d. 404, 
 Arcadius was persuaded to sign the edict of 
 banishment. Chrysostom, after a final prayer 
 in the cathedral with some of his faithful 
 bishops, prepared with calm submission to 
 yield it prompt obedience. To guard against 
 a popular outbreak, he directed that his horse 
 should be saddled and taken to the great west 
 entrance, and after a tender farewell of his 
 beloved Olympias and her attendant deacon- 
 esses, he passed out unobserved at a small 
 postern and surrendered himself to the guard, 
 who conveyed him, with two bishops who re- 
 fused to desert him, to a vessel which instantly 
 started under cover of night for the Asiatic 
 shore (Pallad. pp. 89-90). He had scarcely 
 left the city when the church he had just 
 quitted took fire ; the flames, which are said 
 to ha%'e broken out first in the episcopal throne, 
 caught the roof, and the conflagration spread 
 to the senate house and adjacent public build- 
 ings {ib. pp. 91-92 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 18 ; 
 Soz. H. E. viii. 22 ; Zosim. v. 24). The sus- 
 picion, however unjustly entertained, that this 
 fire was due to Chrysostom's adherents, re- 
 solved that the church of their beloved teacher 
 should never be possessed by his enemies, led 
 to a relentless persecution of the Joannites 
 under the semblance of a judicial investiga- 
 tion. Innocent persons of every age and sex 
 were put to the torture, in the vain hope that 
 they would inculpate leading members of their 
 party. The presbyter Tigrius and the young 
 reader Eutropius expired under their torturer's 
 hands. Others barely escaped with their lives, 
 maimed and mutilated (Soz. H. E. viii. 22-24). 
 The tender heart of Chrysostom was wrung 
 upon hearing of the sufferings inflicted on his 
 friends, especially upon his dearly loved Olym- 
 pias. To the charge of incendiarism was added 
 that of contumacious resistance to the em- 
 peror's will, in refusing to hold communion 
 with Arsacius and Atticus, who in succession 
 had been thrust into Chrysostom's see. [Arsa- 
 cius ; Atticus.] This was made a crime 
 punishable with degradation from official rank, 
 fine, and imprisonment. The clergy faithful 
 to Chrysostom were deposed, and banished 
 with every circumstance of brutality. Some 
 did not reach their place of banishment alive. 
 The most persevering endeavours were made 
 to stamp out the adherents of the banished 
 prelate, not only in Constantinople but in 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 Asia Minor and Syria — endeavours which only 
 deepened their attachment to him, and con- 
 firmed their resolution never to yield (Theod 
 H. E. v. 34). 
 
 All other help failing, the persecuted party 
 appealed to the Western church as represented 
 by its chief bishops. Letters were sent ad- 
 dressed to Innocent, bp. of Rome, Venerius of 
 Milan, and Chromatins of Aquileia, by Chry- 
 sostom himself, by the 40 friendly bishops, and 
 by the clergy of Constantinople (Pallad. p. 10). 
 Theophilus and his adherents sent counter- 
 representations (ih. p. 9). Innocent, without 
 hesitation, pronounced the synod that had 
 condemned Chrysostom irregular, and an- 
 nulled his deposition because pronounced in 
 the absence of the accused, and wrote authori- 
 tative letters to the chief parties. To Theo- 
 philus he addressed sharp reproof, to the Con- 
 stantinopolitan clergy fatherly sympathy, to 
 Chrysostom himself sympathy and encourage- 
 ment {ib. pp. 23, 24 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 26), and 
 he persuaded Honorius to write a letter to his 
 brother Arcadius, urging the convocation of 
 a general synod. This letter was conveyed 
 to Constantinople by a deputation of Western 
 bishops. But Arcadius was not a free agent. 
 The bishops were not allowed admission to his 
 presence. The letters they bore were wrested 
 from them, the thumb of one of the bishops 
 being broken in the struggle. They were in- 
 sulted, maltreated, and sent home with every 
 mark of contumely (Pallad. pp. 30-33 ; Soz. 
 H. E. viii. 28). 
 
 Chrysostom's place of exile, selected by 
 Eudoxia's hatred, was Cucusus, a lonely moun- 
 tain village in the Tauric range, on the borders 
 of Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. It had a most 
 inclement climate and was exposed to per- 
 petual inroads from Isaurian marauders. 
 Chrysostom first learnt at Nicaea the place of 
 his future abode. His disappointment was 
 severe, but remonstrance was vain. Re- 
 freshing breezes from lake Ascanius invigora- 
 ted his worn constitution, and helped him to 
 face the long and sultry journey. It was the 
 season when the heat was most oppressive, 
 and his conductors were instructed to push on 
 with the utmost speed, without regard to his 
 strength or comfort. Whatever kind con- 
 sideration could do to mitigate his sufferings 
 was done by the officers in charge, Anatolius 
 and Theodorus, who gladly executed for him 
 all the duties of personal servants. On July 5 
 Chrysostom left Nicaea to traverse the scorch- 
 ing plains of Galatia and Cappadocia under a 
 midsummer sun. More dead than alive, he 
 reached Caesarea. The bp. Pharetrius, an 
 unworthy successor of the great Basil and a 
 concealed enemy of Chrysostom (Pallad. p. •J^), 
 was greatly troubled at a halt being fixed at 
 Caesarea. His clergy were Joannites almost 
 to a man : if he treated Chrysostom badly, he 
 would offend them ; if well, he would incur 
 the more terrible wrath of the empress. So, 
 while sending complimentary messages, he 
 carefully avoided an interview, and used all 
 means to dispatch him from Caesarea as 
 quickly as possible. This was not so easy, for 
 a severe access of his habitual ague-fever had 
 compelled Chrysostom to seek medical aid 
 {Ep. 12). He was received with enthusiastic 
 affection by all ranks in the city. His lodging 
 
CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 was attacked by a body of fanatical monks, 
 probably the tools of Pharetrius, who threat- 
 ened to' burn it over his head unless he in- 
 stantly quitted it. Driven out by their fury, 
 Chrysostom, suffering from a fresh attack of 
 fever, found refuge in the country house of a 
 wealthy lady near, named Seleucia. But the 
 threats of Pharetrius prevailed on Seleucia to 
 turn Chrysostom out of doors in the middle of 
 the night, on the pretext that the barbarians 
 were at hand, and that he must seek safety by 
 flight. The dangers of that terrible night, 
 when the fugitives' torches were extinguished 
 for fear of the Isaurians and, his mule having 
 fallen under the weight of his litter, he was 
 taken up for dead and had to be dragged or 
 rather carried along the precipitous mountain 
 tracks, are graphically described in his letters 
 to Olympias [Epp. 12, 14). He reached Cucu- 
 sus towards the end of August. His reception 
 was of a nature to compensate for the fatigues 
 of the way and to mitigate the trials of exile 
 (Ep. 14, § i). He found agreeable occupation in 
 writing and receiving letters, and insocial inter- 
 course with congenial friends. Never even as 
 bp. of Constantinople did he exert a wider and 
 more powerful influence. The East was almost 
 governed from a mountain village of Armenia. 
 His advice was sought from all quarters. No 
 important ecclesiastical measure was under- 
 taken without consulting him. In the words 
 of Gibbon, " the three years spent at Cucusus 
 were the most glorious of his life. From that 
 solitude Chrysostom, whose active mind was 
 invigorated by misfortunes, maintained a 
 strict and frequent correspondence with the 
 most distant provinces ; exhorted the separ- 
 ate congregations of his faithful adherents to 
 persevere in their allegiance ; urged the de- 
 struction of the temples of Phoenicia, and the 
 extirpation of heresy in the isle of Cyprus ; 
 extended his pastoral care to the missions of 
 Persia and Scythia, and negotiated by his 
 ambassadors with the Roman pontiff and the 
 emperor Honorius." His voluminous corre- 
 spondence, which all belongs to this period, 
 shews how close a connexion he kept up with 
 the clergy and laity of his former diocese, and 
 how ururemitting was his oversight of the in- 
 terests of his church (Soz. H. E. viii. 27). His 
 chief cause of suffering was the variable clim- 
 ate and the length and severity of the winter. 
 In the winter of 405 the intelligence that the 
 Isaurian brigands were intending a coup de 
 main on Cucusus drove nearly the whole of 
 the inhabitants from the town. Chrysostom 
 joined the fugitives. The feeble old man 
 with a few faithful companions, including the 
 presbyter Evethius and the aged deaconess 
 Sabiniana, wandered from place to place, often 
 passing the night in forests or ravines, pur- 
 sued by the terror of the Isaurians, until they 
 reached the mountain fort of Arabissus, some 
 60 miles from Cucusus, in the castle of which 
 place, " more a prison than a home," he spent 
 a winter of intense suffering, harassed by the 
 fear of famine and pestilence, unable to pro- 
 cure his usual medicines, and deprived of the 
 comfort of his friends' letters, the roads being 
 blocked with snow and beset by the Isaurians 
 who ravaged the whole district with fire and 
 sword (Epp. 15, 61, 69, 70, 127, 131). Once he 
 narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 167 
 
 marauders, who made a nocturnal attack, and 
 all but took the town (Ep. 135). With the 
 return of spring the Isaurians retired, and 
 Chrysostom was able to descend to Cucusus 
 early in 406. After Arabissus this desolate 
 little town seemed a paradise. His greatest 
 joy was in being nearer his friends and receiv- 
 ing their letters more regularly (Epp. 126, 127, 
 128). A third winter brought its usual hard- 
 ships, but Chrysostom was now somewhat 
 acclimatized and endured them without a re- 
 currence of illness (£/>/?. 4, 142). His wonderful 
 preservation from dangers hitherto, and the 
 manner in which his feeble health, instead of 
 sinking under the accumulated trials of his 
 banishment, became invigorated, awoke san- 
 guine anticipations, and he now confidently 
 anticipated his return from banishment and 
 his resumption of the care of his diocese (Epp. 
 I, 2, 4). But this was not to be. The unhappy 
 Eudoxia had preceded the victim of her hatred 
 to the grave, but left other equally relentless 
 enemies behind. Stung with disappointment 
 that the rigours of Cucusus had failed to kill 
 him, and that from his mountain banishment 
 he exercised a daily growing influence, they 
 obtained a rescript from Arcadius transferring 
 him first to Arabissus (Pallad. p. 96), and then 
 to the small town of Pityus at the roots of 
 Caucasus on the bleak N.E. shores of the 
 Euxine. This was chosen as the most un- 
 genial and inhospitable spot in the whole 
 empire, and therefore the most certain to rid 
 them quickly of his hated existence, even if, 
 as proved to be the case, the long and toilsome 
 journey had not previously quenched the 
 feeble spark of life. This murderous purpose 
 was plainly evidenced by the selection of two 
 specially ferocious and brutal praetorian 
 guards to convey him there, with instructions 
 to push forward with the most merciless haste, 
 regardless of weather or the health of their 
 prisoner, a hint being privately given that they 
 might expect promotion if he died on the road 
 (ib. p. 98). The journey was to be made on 
 foot. Towns where he might enjoy any ap- 
 proach to comfort and have the refreshment of 
 a warm bath were to be avoided. The neces- 
 sary halts, as few and brief as possible, were to 
 be at squalid villages or in the unsheltered 
 country. All letters were forbidden, the least 
 communication with passers-by punished with 
 brutal blows. In spite of some approach 
 to consideration on the part of one of his 
 guards, the three months' journey between 
 i Cucusus and Comana must have been one long 
 slow martyrdom to the fever-stricken old man. 
 His body was almost calcined by the sun, and, 
 to adopt Palladius's forcible image, resembled 
 a ripe apple ready to fall from the tree (ib. 
 p. 99). On reaching Comana it was evident 
 that Chrysostom was entirely worn out. But 
 his pitiless guard hurried him through the 
 town without a moment's halt. Five or six 
 miles outside stood a chapel over the tomb of 
 the martyred bishop, Basiliscus. Here they 
 halted for the night. In the morning Chry- 
 sostom begged for a biicf respite in vain ; but 
 he had gone scarcely four miles when a violent 
 attack of fever compelled them to return to 
 the chapel. Chrysostom was supported to the 
 altar, and, clothed in white baptismal robes, he 
 distributed his own clothes to the bystanders, 
 
168 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 partook of the blessed Eucharist, prayed a last 
 prayer " for present needs," uttered his accus- 
 tomed doxology, " Glory be to God for all 
 things," and having sealed it with an " Amen," 
 yielded up his soul to his Saviour, Sept. 14, 
 407, in the 6oth year of his age and loth 
 of his episcopate, 3 years and a quarter 
 of which he had spent in exile. He was 
 buried in the mart\Ty by the side of Basiliscus 
 {ib. pp. 99-ior). Thirty-one years afterwards 
 (Jan. 27, 438), when Theodosius II. was 
 emperor, and Proclus, formerly a disciple of 
 Chrysostom, was bp. of Constantinople, Chry- 
 sostom's body was taken from its grave near 
 Comana and translated with great pomp to his 
 own episcopal city, and deposited hard by the 
 altar in the church of the Holy Apostles, the 
 place of sepulture of the imperial family and 
 of the bishops of Constantinople, the young 
 emperor and his sister Pulcheria assisting at 
 the ceremony, and asking the pardon of Heaven 
 forthe grievous wrong inflicted by their parents 
 on the sainted bishop (Socr. H. E. vii. 45 ; 
 Theod. H. E. v. 36 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 31). 
 
 The personal appearance of Chrysostom, as 
 described by contemporary writers, though 
 dignified, was not imposing. His stature was 
 diminutive {a-ic/xdriov) ; his limbs long, and so 
 emaciated by early austerities and habitual 
 self-denial that he compares himself to a spider 
 {apaxvwST]^. Ep. 4). His very lofty forehead, 
 furrowed with wrinkles, expanded widely at 
 the summit, his head was bald " like that of 
 Elisha," his eyes deeply set, but keen and 
 piercing ; his cheeks pallid and withered ; his 
 chin pointed and covered with a short beard. 
 His habits were of the simplest, his personal 
 wants few and easily satisfied. The excessive 
 austerities of his youth had ruined his digestive 
 powers and he was unable to eat food except 
 in the smallest quantities and of the plainest 
 kind. Outward display in dress, equipage, or 
 furniture was most distasteful to him. En- 
 amoiured of the cloister, the life of the bishop 
 of the capital of the Eastern world, compelled 
 by his position to associate with persons of 
 the highest rank and magnificence of life, 
 was intolerable. It is not surprising that 
 he was thought morose and ungenial and 
 was unpopular with the upper classes. His 
 strength of will, manly independence, and 
 dauntless courage were united with an inflexi- 
 bility of purpose, a want of consideration for 
 the weaknesses of others, and an impatience 
 at their inability to accept his high standard, 
 which rendered him harsh and unconciliatory. 
 Intolerant of evil in himself, he had little 
 tolerance for it in other men. His feebleness 
 of stomach produced an irritability of temper, 
 which sometimes led to violent outbursts of 
 anger. He was accused of being arrogant and 
 passionate. He was easily offended and too 
 ready to credit evil of those whom he dis- 
 liked. Not mixing with the world himself, 
 he was too dependent on the reports of his 
 friends, who, as in the case of Serapion, some- 
 times abused his confidence to their own 
 purposes. But however austere and reserved 
 to the worldly and luxurious, he was ever 
 loving and genial to his chosen associates. In 
 their company his natural plaj-fulness and 
 amiability was shewn, and perhaps few ever 
 exercised a more powerful influence over the 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 hearts and affections of the holiest and most 
 exalted natures. His character is well summed 
 up by Dr. Newman — " a bright, cheerful, 
 gentle soul," his unrivalled charm " lying in 
 his singleness of purpose, his fixed grasp of his 
 aim, his noble earnestness ; he was indeed a 
 man to make both friends and enemies, to 
 inspire affection and kindle resentment ; but 
 his friends loved him with a love ' stronger ' 
 than ' death,' and his enemies hated him with 
 a hatred more burning than ' hell,' and it was 
 well to be so hated, if he was so beloved." 
 
 Chrysostom's extant works are more volumi- 
 nous than those of any other Father, filling 13 
 folios in the Benedictine ed. They may be 
 roughly divided into — I. Treatises ; II. Ex- 
 positions of Scripture, chiefly in the form of 
 Homilies, but partly continuous Comment- 
 aries ; III. Homilies, (a) doctrinal, (b) occa- 
 sional, (c) panegyrical, {d) general ; IV. 
 Letters ; V. Liturgy. 
 
 I. Treatises. — The earliest works we have 
 from his pen are his letters ad Theodorum 
 Lapsum, i. ii. [sea supra) , written while Chry- 
 sostom was still resident at Antioch before 
 A.D. 372. To his early monastic life we may 
 assign the two books de Compunctione, ad- 
 dressed respectively to Demetrius and Stele- 
 chius. His three books in defence of the 
 monastic life (adversus Oppugnatores Vitae 
 Monasticae) were called forth by the decree 
 of Valens enforcing military service and civil 
 functions on monks, a.d. 373. His short 
 treatise, Comparatio Regis et Monachi, belongs 
 to the same period. The three books de Pro- 
 videntiii, ^^Titten to console his friend Stagirius, 
 the subject of an hysterical seizure then iden- 
 tified with demoniacal possession, were prob- 
 ably composed after his return to Antioch, i.e. 
 subsequently to 381. Before ordination to 
 the priesthood he composed two letters on the 
 superior happiness of a single life {ad Viduam 
 Juniorem) and his treatise on celibacy (de 
 Virginilate). His six books de Sacerdotio, 
 justly ranked among his ablest, most instruc- 
 tive, and most eloquent \vritings, are among his 
 earliest, and placed by Socrates (H.E. vi. 3) in 
 the first days of his diaconate, c. 382. Its 
 maturity of thought and sobriety of tone pre- 
 vent our fixing this work at a much earlier 
 period. The treatises denouncing the custom 
 for the clergy to have " spiritual sisters " re- 
 siding under the same roof with them {contra 
 eos qui subintroductas habent ; Regulares 
 foeminae viris cohabitare non debent), incorrect- 
 ly assigned by Socrates (ib.) to his diaconate, 
 were written, Palladius tells us (p. 45), after he 
 became bp. of Constantinople, c. 398. To his 
 exile belong the Nemo laeditur nisi a seipso, 
 and Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt ob adversitates. 
 II. Expositions of Scripture. — It is as an ex- 
 positor of Scripture that Chrysostom is' most 
 deservedly celebrated. His method of dealing 
 with the divine Word is characterized by the 
 sound grammatical and historical principles 
 and the healthy common sense, introduced by 
 his tutor Diodorus, which mark the exegetical 
 school of Antioch. He seeks to discover not 
 what the passage before him may be made to 
 mean, but what it was intended to mean ; not 
 what recondite lessons or truths may be forced 
 from it by mystical or allegorical interpreta- 
 tions, but what it was intended to convey; 
 
CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 not what may be introduced into it, but what 
 may be legitimately elicited from it. While 
 regarding Scripture in the strictest sense as the 
 word of God, no sentence of which must be 
 neglected, he is far from ignoring the human 
 element in it, holding that though its writers 
 " spoke as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost," they retained their personal indi- 
 viduality ; that their natural powers were 
 quickened and illuminated, not superseded by 
 divine inspiration. He regards the Scriptures 
 as a connected whole, and avoiding the erro- 
 neous plan of treating texts as isolated gnomes, 
 he seeks always to view a passage in relation 
 to its context, and to the general teaching of 
 Scripture. His expository works, being chief- 
 ly homiletic, do not give any continuous or 
 systematic exegesis of the text. His primary 
 object was a practical one — the conversion and 
 edification of his hearers — and he frequently 
 disappoints those who, looking for the meaning 
 of a difficult passage, find instead a vehement 
 denunciation of some reigning vice or fashion- 
 able folly, or an earnest exhortation to culti- 
 vate some Christian grace or virtue (of. Phot. 
 Cod. 174)- 
 
 We are told by Suidas and Cassiodorus that 
 Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the whole 
 of Holy Scripture, from the beginning to the 
 end. Among those extant are the 67 Homilies 
 on Genesis, preached at Antioch ; and 8 
 shorter and slighter, but more florid and 
 rhetorical, sermons on topics from Gen. i. and 
 ii., delivered earlier in the same year. The 
 ninth of these sermons, de Mutatione Nomi- 
 num, does not belong to the series. The only 
 other homilies on the historical books of 
 O.T. are five on the narrative of Hannah in 
 I. Samuel, and three on David and Saul, as- 
 signed by Tillemont to a.d. 387. He delivered 
 homilies on the whole book of Psalms, of which 
 we have only those on Ps. iii.-xii., xliii.-xlix., 
 cyiii.-cl. (inclusive), collected at an early 
 period with great critical acumen. As early 
 as Photius the gaps indicated already existed. 
 There is a homily on the opening verses of 
 Ps. xli., which belongs to a different series. 
 On Isaiah a continuous commentary was 
 composed by Chrysostom, but only the part 
 on CO. i.-viii. 11 is extant. There is a 
 series of six homilies on the opening verses 
 of c. vi., in Oziam sen de Seraphinis. The 
 fourth of these belongs to a different series. 
 To these we may add a homily on Is. xlv. 7. 
 The only extant commentary on any part of 
 Jeremiah is one " on free will," Jer. x. 23. 
 Chrysostom's general views on prophecy are 
 given in two sermons de Prophetiarum Obscur- 
 ilate, justly ranked by Montfaucon " inter 
 nobilissimas." The Synopsis Sacrae Scrip- 
 turae is an imperfect work, ending with Nahum. 
 
 His commentaries on N.T. commence with 
 go on Matthew, delivered at Antioch. St. 
 Thomas Aquinas is reported to have said that 
 he would rather possess these homilies than be 
 the master of all Paris. There are none on 
 Mark or Luke ; but we have 88 on St. John's 
 Gospel, also preached at Antioch. These are 
 more doctrinal than hortatory or practical, 
 being chiefly against the Anomoeans. The 55 
 homilies on Acts are among his feeblest works. 
 The style is inelegant, the language unrefined, 
 and the line of interpretation jejune (Phot. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 
 
 169 
 
 Cod. 174). The secret of their inferiority is 
 that they were written at Constantinople in 
 the midst of the troubles arising from Gainas 
 and the Goths, when he had no time for studied 
 composition ; as also were the 24 homilies on 
 Eph., the 15 on Phil., the 12 on Col., the 11 on 
 I. Thess., and the 5 on II. Thess., which hardly 
 reach Chrysostom's highest standard of excel- 
 lence. On the other hand, the 33 on Rom., 
 which were certainly delivered at Antioch, 
 are among his most elaborate discourses. No- 
 where does he shew more argumentative power 
 or greater skill in developing his author's mean- 
 ing. On I. Cor. we have 44 homilies, and 30 
 on II. Cor., preached at Antioch, of which the 
 former series " have ever been considered by 
 devout men as among the most perfect speci- 
 mens of his mind and teaching " (Keble). The 
 commentary on Gal. is continuous, not in the 
 homiletical form, and a somewhat hasty work. 
 Montfaucon correctly assigns the 18 homilies 
 on I. Tim., the 10 on II. Tim., and the 6 on 
 Tit. to his ministry at Antioch. From some 
 marks of negligence the three on Philemon 
 have been thought to be extemporaneous 
 addresses taken down by others. The 34 on 
 Hebrews were delivered at Constantinople, and 
 pub. from notes by Constantine, a presbyter, 
 after Chrysostom's death. 
 
 III. Homilies, (a) Doctrinal. — The chief of 
 these are the 12 delivered against the Ano- 
 moean form of Arianism, in the first year of his 
 presbyterate, at Antioch, a.d. 387. " They 
 are," writes Stephens, " among the finest of 
 his productions." Soon after he wrote the 8 
 against the Jews and Judaizing Christians 
 {contra Judaeos). 
 
 {b) Occasional.' — Not a few of his grandest 
 flights of Christian oratory were called forth 
 by the events of the stirring times in which he 
 lived. The most remarkable is the series of 
 21 " On the Statues" {ad Populum Aniioch- 
 eniim de Statuis), for the circumstances of 
 which see supra. Another class includes 
 orations delivered at Constantinople on the 
 fall of Eutropius, on the insurrection of Gainas, 
 on the troubles connected with Severian, and 
 the noble and pathetic series connected with 
 his own deposition and exile. To these we 
 may add homilies delivered on the great 
 Church festivals. 
 
 (c) Panegyrical.' — These deserve careful at- 
 tention as illustrating " the passionate devo- 
 tion to the memory of departed saints which 
 was rapidly passing into actual adoration." 
 The earliest is probably that commemorating 
 his venerated spiritual father Meletius, a.d. 
 386. The others are mostly devoted to the 
 eulogy of the bishops and martyrs of the 
 church of Antioch, St. Ignatius, St. Eusta- 
 thius, St. Babylas, St. Pelagia, St. Domnina 
 and her two daughters, and others, and were 
 delivered at the martyria, or chapels erected 
 over their remains. Chrysostom delivered a 
 homily on the day of the commemoration of 
 the emperor Theodosius, and heaped extra- 
 vagant laudations on the empress Eudoxia 
 and on Arcadius during his ardent but short- 
 lived friendship with them at the outset of his 
 episcopate. 
 
 {d) General.- — Among these we include those 
 belonging to Christian life generally, e.g. the 
 9 de Poenitenda, 2 Catecheses ad Illuminandos, 
 
170 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM. JOHN 
 
 those de Contitientia, de Perfecta Caritate, de 
 Consolatione Mortis, and numerous ones on 
 single texts or separate parables. 
 
 On his homilies, expository and practical, 
 Chrysostom's fame chiefly rests, and that de- 
 servedly. He was in truth " the model of a 
 preacher for a great capital. Clear, rather 
 than profound, his dogmatic is essentially 
 moulded up with his moral teaching. . . . His 
 doctrines flow naturally from his subject or 
 from the passage of Scripture under discus- 
 sion ; his illustrations are copious and happy ; 
 his style free and fluent ; while he is an un- 
 rivalled master in that rapid and forcible 
 application of incidental occurrences which 
 gives such life and reality to eloquence. He 
 is at times, in the highest sense, dramatic in 
 manner " (Milman, Hist, of Christ, iii. 9). 
 
 IV. Letters. — The whole of Chrysostom's 
 extant letters belong tohis banishment, wTitten 
 on his road to Cucusus, during his residence 
 there, or in the fortress of .\rabissus. The most 
 important are 17 addressed to the deaconess 
 Olyrapias, who shared his hopes and fears and 
 all his inmost feelings. The whole number is 
 242, written to every variety of friend — men 
 of rank, ladies, ecclesiastics of every grade, 
 bishops, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses, 
 monks and missionaries, his old friends at 
 Antioch and Constantinople, and his more 
 recent acquaintances at Caesarea and other 
 halting-places on his journey — and including 
 every variety of subject ; now addressing re- 
 proof, warning, encouragement, or consola- 
 tion to the members of his flock at Constanti- 
 nople, or their clergy ; now vigorously helping 
 forward the missionary work in Phoenicia, and 
 soliciting funds for pious and beneficent works ; 
 now thanking his correspondents for their 
 letters or their gifts ; now complaining of 
 their silence; now urging the prosecution of 
 the appeal made in his behalf to Innocent 
 and the Western bishops, and expressing his 
 hope that through the prayers of his friends he 
 would be speedily given to them again ; and 
 the whole poured forth with the undoubting 
 confidence of a friend writing to friends of 
 whom he is sure. We have in this correspond- 
 ence an index to his inner life such as we possess 
 of few great men. The letters are simply in- 
 estimable in aiding us to understand and ap- 
 preciate this great saint. In style, as Photius 
 remarks, they are characterized by his usual 
 brilliancy and clearness, and by great sweet- 
 ness and persuasive power (Phot. Cod. 86). 
 
 V. Liturgical. — It is impossible to decide 
 how much in the liturgies passing under the 
 name of St. Chrysostom is really of his age. 
 There are very many editions of the liturgy, 
 no two of which, according to Cave {Hist. Lit. 
 i- 305). present the same text ; and hardly any 
 that do not offer great discrepancies. It 
 would be, of course, a fundamental error to 
 attribute the composition of a liturgy de novo to 
 Chrysostom or any of the old Catholic Fathers. 
 When a liturgy is called by the name of any 
 Father, all that is implied is that it was in use 
 in the church to which that Father belonged, 
 and that it may have owed some corrections 
 and improvements to him. The liturgy kno%vn 
 in comparatively late times by the name of 
 Chrysostom has been from time immemorial 
 that of the church of Constantinople. 
 
 CLAUDIUS 
 
 The best and most complete edition of Chry- 
 sostom, as of most of the Christian Fathers, is 
 the Benedictine, prepared by the celebrated 
 Bernard de Montfaucon, who devoted to it 
 more than twenty years of incessant toil and 
 of journeys to consult MSS. It was pub. at 
 Paris, in 13 vols. fol. in 171 8. The value of 
 this magnificent edition lies more in the his- 
 torical and critical prefaces, and other literary 
 apparatus, than in the text, which is faulty. 
 It has been reprinted at Venice in 1734 and 
 1755, and at Paris in 1834-1839. The most 
 practically useful edition is in the Patrologia 
 of the Abbe Migne, in 13 vols. 8vo. (Paris, 1863). 
 It is mainly a reprint of the Benedictine ed., but 
 enriched by a judicious use of the best modem 
 commentators. The chief early authorities 
 for the life of Chrysostom, besides his own 
 works, are the Dialogue of his contemporary 
 Palladius, bp. of Hellenopolis, which, however 
 valuable for its facts, deserves Gibbon's cen- 
 sure as "a partial and passionate vindica- 
 tion," and the Ecclesiastical Histories of 
 I Socrates (lib. vi.), Sozomen (lib. viii.), and 
 Theodoret (lib. v.), the Lexicon of Suidas {sub 
 voc. 'lwdvvr)%), and the letters of Isidorus of 
 Pelusium (ii. Ep. 42). The biography by 
 George of Alexandria is utterly worthless, be- 
 ing more an historical romance than a memoir. 
 Of more modern works, it will suffice to name 
 " the moderate Erasmus " (tom. iii. Ep. 1150), 
 the ■' patient and accurate " Tillemont {Mem. 
 Eccl. tom. ix.), and the diligent and dull Mont- 
 faucon. The brilliant sketch of Gibbon (Decl. 
 and Fall, c. xxxii.) must not be omitted. 
 Neander's Life of St. Chrysostom is a work 
 of much value, more for the account of Chry- 
 sostom's opinions and words than for the 
 actual life. Amadee Thierry's biographical 
 articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes describe 
 Chrysostom's fall and exile most graphically, 
 though with the licence of an artist. The 
 most satisfactorv biography is bv Rev. 
 W. R. W. Stephens (Lond. 1872), to which the 
 foregoing article is largely indebted. Trans- 
 lations of several of his works are contained 
 in the Post-Xicene Fathers, edited by SchafE 
 and Wace. S.P.C.K. publishes cheaply St. 
 Chrys. On the Priesthood, by T. A. Moxon, and 
 extracts from his writing in St. Chrysostom's 
 Picture of his Age and Picture of the Religion 
 of his Age. [e.v.] 
 
 Claudius (1), a.d. 4:I-54- The reign of this 
 emperor has special interest in being that to 
 which we must refer the earliest distinct traces 
 of the origines of the church of Rome. Even 
 before his accession, the new faith may have 
 found its way there. The " strangers of 
 Rome, Jews and proselytes " (Actsii. 10), who 
 were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or 
 some of the " synagogue of the Libertines " 
 (Acts vi. 9), yielding to the arguments of 
 Stephen, may have brought it thither. " An- 
 dronicus and Junia or Junias," who were " in 
 Christ " before the conversion of St. Paul 
 (Rom. xvi. 7), and at Rome when that apostle 
 wrote to the church there, may have been 
 among those earlier converts. When Herod 
 Antipas and Herodias came to court the ■ 
 favour of Caligula (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 7) 
 and gain for the former the title of king, they ■ 
 must have had some in their train who had 
 known — ^perhaps those who bad reported to 
 
CLEMENS, FLAVIUS 
 
 him (Matt. xiv. i, 2) — the " mighty works " 
 of the prophet of Nazareth. The frequent 
 visits of Herod Agrippa would make events in 
 Judaea common topics at Rome. His pre- 
 sence there when Claudius came to the throne 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xix. 4, 3) may reasonably be 
 connected with the indulgence then extended 
 to the Jews by that emperor {ib. xix. 5). The 
 decree mentioned in Acts xviii. 2, and by 
 Suetonius {Claudius, c. 25), indicates a change 
 of policv, and the account of Suetonius prob- 
 ably tells the cause of the change, " Judaeos 
 impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma 
 expulit." * He does not give the date of 
 the expulsion, but it was probably between 
 A.D. 43, when Agrippa left Rome, and a.d. 
 51, when St. Paul arrived at Corinth, and 
 when the decree is mentioned as recent. The 
 explanation turns upon the interpretation of 
 the words " impulsore Chresto." We know 
 from Tertullian (A/yol. c. 3) that " Christi- 
 anus " was commonly pronounced " Chresti- 
 anus " by those ignorant of its derivation ; and 
 that the name of Christ was for long similarly 
 mispronounced we learn from Lactantius 
 (" immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere," 
 Ver. Sap. iv. 7). It seems legitimate, there- 
 fore, to assume that the name " Christ " had 
 been heard in the disputings of Jews and 
 Christians, and that the prefects and Roman 
 population, ignorant of its true significance, 
 conceived it to be the name of some local ring- 
 leader in a seditious riot. Many indications 
 in Acts and Romans imply a considerable 
 growth of the Christian community before the 
 accession of Nero. 
 
 It is obvious further, (i) that the expulsion 
 of Christians who had been Jews or proselytes 
 would leave a certain proportion of purely 
 Gentile Christians whom the edict would not 
 touch ; and {2) that those who returned would 
 naturally settle, not in the Jewish trans- 
 Tiberine quarter of the city, but in some safer 
 locality, and that thus the church at Rome, 
 at or soon after the death of Claudius, would 
 gradually become more and more free from 
 Jewish or Judaizing influences. (On other 
 points connected with the rise and progress of 
 Christianity at Rome under Claudius see 
 " Aquila and Priscilla," and the " Proto- 
 mart\T Stephen," in the writer's Biblical 
 Studies.) [E.H.P.] 
 
 Clemens (1 ), FlaviUS, son of Sabinus. brother 
 of the emperor Vespasian, and therefore first 
 cousin to Domitian, whose niece Havia Domi- 
 tilla was his wife. Domitian regarded his 
 kinsman with great favour, and placed his two 
 sons, whom he caused to be named after him- 
 self and his brother, Vespasianus and Domi- 
 tianus. under the tuition of Quintilian as 
 his destined successors. Flavius Clemens was 
 consul in a.d. 93, and had only just resigned 
 the office when he and his wife Domitilla were 
 suddenly arrested and convicted on the charge 
 of " atheism," bv which there is no reasonable 
 doubt that Christianity is intended. The 
 
 • Dio Cassius (Ix. p. 669) speaks of Claudius as not 
 expelling the Jews, but only forbidding them to as- 
 semble. Probably this was an earlier measure not 
 found sufficiently effective. The expulsion of the 
 "Mathematici" about the same time (Tacitus, 
 Ann. xii. 52) implies a general alarm as to the spread 
 of "Eastern superstitions," 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 171 
 
 crime on which they were condemned was, 
 according to Dio Cassius, that of " Judaizing," 
 from which in the popular mind Christianity 
 was hardly distinguishable. The religious 
 charge was' regarded by Suetonius as a most 
 trivial one, the object of suspicion rather than 
 of proof — " tenuissima ex suspicione " — but 
 it was strengthened by a neglect of the ordi- 
 nary usages of Roman social and political life, 
 almost unavoidable by a Christian, which was 
 regarded as a " most contemptible indolence " 
 meriting severe animadversion. Clemens suf- 
 fered death ; his wife Domitilla was banished 
 to an island off the W. coast of Italy. [Do.vii- 
 TiANUS, (i).] Sueton. Domit- § 15 ; Dio Cassius, 
 Hist. Ixvii. 14; Tillem. tom. ii. p. 124; Merivale, 
 Rmna-.'.s under the Enipire,\o\.\\i.c. Ixii. p. 383. 
 LiKhtfont, Phtlipt'iau-i, p. 22. I'e.v.] 
 
 Clemens Romanus. According to common 
 tradition, one of the first, if not the first, bp. 
 of Rome after the apostles, and certainly a 
 leading member of that church towards the 
 end of the ist cent. 
 
 (i) Among the most authentic proofs of the 
 connexion of Clement with the Roman church 
 is the mention of his name in its liturgy. The 
 early Christians on the death of a bishop did 
 not discontinue the mention of his name in 
 their public prayers. Now the Roman Canon 
 of the Mass to this day, next after the names 
 of the apostles, recites the names of Linus, 
 Cletus, Clemens ; and there is some evidence 
 that the liturgy contained the same names 
 in the same order as early as the 2nd cent; 
 Probably, then, this commemoration dates 
 from Clement's own time. 
 
 (2) An independent proof that Clement 
 held high position in the church of Rome is 
 afforded by the Shepherd of Hernias, a work 
 not later than the episcopate of Pius (a.d. 
 141-156), the writer of which claims to have 
 been contemporary w th Clement. He repre- 
 sents himself as commissioned to write for 
 Clement the book of his Visions in order that 
 Clement might send it to foreign cities, that 
 being his function ; while Hermas himself was 
 to read the Vision at Rome with the elders 
 who presided over the church. Thus Clement 
 is recognized as the organ by which the church 
 of Rome communicated with foreign churches ; 
 but the passage does not decide whether or 
 not Clement was superior to other presbyters 
 in the domestic government of the church. 
 
 (3) Next in antiquity among the notices of 
 Clement is the general ascription to him of the 
 Epistle to the Church of Corinth, commonly 
 known as Clement's first epistle. This is 
 written in the name of the church of Rome, 
 and neither in the address nor in the body of 
 the letter contains Clement's name, yet he 
 seems to have been from the first everywhere 
 recognized as its author. We may not un- 
 reasonably infer from the passage just cited 
 from Hermas that the letter was even then 
 celebrated. About a.d. 170 it is expressly 
 mentioned by Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, who, 
 acknowledging another letter written from the 
 church of Rome to the church of Corinth by 
 their then bp. Soter, states that their former 
 letter written by Clement was still read from 
 time to time in their Sunday assemblies. 
 Eusebius (//. E. iii. 16) speaks of this public 
 reading of Clement's epistle as the ancient 
 
172 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 custom of very many churches down to his 
 own time. In the same place (and in H. E. 
 iv. 22) he reports that Hegesippus, whose 
 historical work was written in the episcopate 
 next after Soter's, and who had previously 
 visited both Rome and Corinth, gives parti- 
 culars concerning the epistle of Clement, and 
 concerning the dissensions in the Corinthian 
 church which had given rise to it. The 
 epistle is cited as Clement's by Irenaeus {adv. 
 Haer. iii. 3), several times by Clement of 
 Alex., who in one place gives his namesake 
 the title of Apostle (Strom, i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, 
 vi. 8) ; by Origen {de Princip. ii. 3, in Ezech. 
 8, in Joan. i. 29) ; and in fact on this subject 
 the testimony of antiquity is unanimous. A 
 letter which did not bear Clement's name, and 
 which merely purported to come from the 
 church of Rome, could scarcely have been 
 generally known as Clement's, if Clement had 
 not been known at the time as holding the 
 chief position in the church of Rome. 
 
 (4) Last among those notices of Clement 
 which may be relied on as historical, we place 
 the statement of Irenaeus (I.e.) that Clement 
 was third bp. of Rome after the apostles, his 
 account being that the apostles Peter and Paul, 
 having founded and built up that church, 
 committed the charge of it to Linus ; that 
 Linus was succeeded by Anencletus, and he 
 by Clement. This order is adopted by Euse- 
 bius, by Jerome in his Chronicle, and by 
 Eastern chronologers generally. 
 
 A different order of placing these bishops can 
 also, however, lay claim to high antiquity. The 
 ancient catalogue known as the Liberian, be- 
 cause ending with the episcopate of Liberius, 
 gives the order and duration of the first Roman 
 episcopates : Peter 25 years, i month, 9 
 days ; Linus 12 years, 4 months, 12 days ; 
 Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days ; Cletus 
 6 years, 2 months, 10 days ; Anacletus 12 
 years, 10 months, 3 days : thus Anacletus, 
 who in the earlier list comes before Clement, 
 is replaced by two bishops, Cletus and Ana- 
 cletus, who come after him ; and this account 
 is repeated in other derived catalogues. Ire- 
 naeus himself is not consistent in reckoning 
 the Roman bishops. [Cerdc] The order, 
 Peter, Linus, Clemens, is adopted by Augus- 
 tine (Ep. 53 ad Generosum) and bv O'ptatus of 
 Milevis (de Schism. Donatist. ii. '2). Tertul- 
 lian (de Praescrip. c. 32) states that the church 
 of Rome held Clement to have been ordained 
 by Peter; and Jerome (Cat. Scr. Ecc. 15), 
 while adopting the order of Irenaeus, mentions 
 that most Latins then counted Clement to 
 have been second after Peter, and himself 
 seems to adopt this reckoning in his commen- 
 tary on Isaiah (c. 52). The Apostolic Constitu- 
 tions (vii. 46) represent Linus to have been 
 first ordained by Paul, and afterwards, on the 
 death of Linus, Clement by Peter. Epipha- 
 nius (Haer. xxvii. 6) suggests that Linus and 
 Cletus held office during the lifetime of Pet 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 that Clement, after having been ordained by 
 Peter, withdrew from his office and did not 
 resume it until after the death of Linus and 
 Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile 
 these accounts is Cave's hypothesis that Linus 
 and after him Cletus had been appointed by 
 Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gen- 
 tile Christians ; Clement by Peter over a 
 church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately 
 Clement was bishop over the whole Roman 
 chiu-ch. Still later it has been argued that 
 the uncertainty of order may mean that during 
 the ist cent, there was no bishop in the church 
 of Rome, and that the names of three of the 
 leading presbyters have been handed down by 
 some in one order, by others in another. The 
 authorities, however, which differ from the 
 account of Irenaeus, ultimately reduce them- 
 selves to two. Perhaps the parent of the rest 
 is the letter of Clement to James [Clementine 
 Literature] giving an account of Clement's 
 ordination by Peter ; for it seems to have 
 been plainh- the acceptance of this ordination 
 as historical which inspired the desire to cor- 
 rect a list of bishops which placed Clement at 
 a distance of three from Peter. The other 
 authority is the Chronicle of Hippolytus, 
 pub. A.D. 235 fsee Chronicon Canisianum 
 in D. C. B. 4- vol. ed.), and the memoir of 
 Mommsen there cited), for it has been satis- 
 factorily shewn that the earlier part of the 
 Liberian catalogue is derived from the list of 
 Roman bishops in this work. The confusion 
 of later \vTiters arises from attempts to re- 
 concile conflicting authorities, all of which 
 seemed deserving of confidence : viz. (i) the 
 list of Irenaeus, and probably of Hegesippus, 
 giving merely a succession of Roman bishops ; 
 (2) the list of Hippolytus giving a succession 
 in somewhat different order and also the years 
 of the duration of the episcopates ; and (3) the 
 letter to James relating the ordination of 
 Clement by Peter. The main question, then, 
 is, which is more entitled to confidence, the 
 order of Irenaeus or of Hippolytus ? and we 
 have no hesitation in accepting the former. ■ 
 First, because it is distinctly the more an- 
 cient ; secondly, because if the earlier tradi- 
 tion had not placed the undistinguished name 
 Cletus before the well-known Clement, no later 
 writer would have reversed its order ; thirdly, 
 because of the testimony of the liturgy. 
 Hippolytus being apparently the first scientific 
 chronologer in the Roman church, his author- 
 ity there naturally ranked very high, and his 
 order of the succession seems to have been ' 
 generally accepted in the West for a consider- ' 
 able time. Any commemoration, therefore, 
 introduced into the liturgy after his time 
 would have followed his order, Linus, Clemens, ; 
 Cletus, or, if of very late introduction, would 
 have left out the obsciure name Cletus alto- ' 
 gather. We conclude, then, that the commem- 
 oration in the order, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, 
 had been introduced before the time of Hip- 
 
 and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from ' polytus, and was by then so firmly established 
 Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the j that even the contradictory result arrived at 
 charge of the church to others. This solution ] by Hippolytus (because he accepted as histor- 
 is adopted by Rufinus in the preface to his j icallv true'the ordination of Clement by Peter 
 translation of the Recognitions. Epiphanius j as related in the Ep. to James) could not alter 
 has an alternative solution, founded on a ' it. The Recognitions are cited by Origen,' 
 conjecture which he tries to support by a re- I the contemporary of Hippolytus ; and the 
 ference to a passage in Clement's epistle, viz. | account which their preface gives of Clement's 
 
CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 ordination seems to have been fulh- believed 
 by the Roman church. The death of Clement 
 and the consequent accession of Evaristus is 
 dated by Eusebius in his Chronicle a.u. 95, 
 and in his Church History the third year of 
 Trajan, a.d. 100. According to the chrono- 
 logy of the Liberian Catalogue, the accession 
 of Evaristus is dated a.d. 95. Now no one 
 dates the death of Peter later than the per- 
 secution of Nero, a.d. 67. If, therefore, 
 Clement was ordained by Peter, and if we 
 retain the order of Irenaeus, Clement had an 
 episcopate of about 30 years, a length far 
 greater than any tradition suggests. Hippo- 
 lytus, probably following the then received 
 account of the length of Clement's episcopate, 
 has placed it a.d. 67-76 ; and, seeing the above 
 ditficulty, has filled the space between Clement 
 and Evaristus by transposing Cletus and, as 
 the gap seemed too large to be filled by one 
 episcopate, by counting as distinct the Cletus 
 of the liturgy and the Anacletus of the earlier 
 catalogue. Apparently it was Hippolytus 
 who devised the theory stated in the Apostolic 
 Constitutions, that Linus held the bishopric 
 during the lifetime of Peter ; for this seems to 
 be the interpretation of the dates assigned in 
 the Liberian Catalogue, Peter 30-55, Linus 
 55-67. But the whole ground of these specula- 
 tions is removed if we reject the tale of Clem- 
 ent's ordination by Peter ; if for no other 
 reason, on account of the chronological con- 
 fusion which it causes. Thus we retain the 
 order of Irenaeus, accounting that of Hippo- 
 htus as an arbitrary transposition to meet a 
 chronological difficulty. The time that we are 
 thus led to assign to the activity of Clement, 
 viz. the end of Domitian's reign, coincides 
 with that which Eusebius, apparently on the 
 authority of Hegesippus, assigns to Clement's 
 epistle, and with that which an examination 
 of the letter itself suggests (see below). 
 
 The result thus arrived at casts great doubt 
 on the identification of the Roman Clement 
 with the Clement named Phil. iv. 3. This 
 identification is unhesitatingly made by Origen 
 {in Joann. i. 29) and a host of later' writers. 
 Irenaeus also may have had this passage in 
 mind when he speaks of Clement as a hearer 
 of the apostles, though probably he was 
 principally influenced by the work which 
 afterwards grew into the Recognitions. But 
 though it is not actually impossible that the 
 Clement who held a leading position in the 
 church of Philippi during Paul's imprisonment 
 might thirty years afterwards have presided 
 oyer the church of Rome, yet the difference of 
 time and place deprives of all likelihood an 
 identification merely based upon a very com- 
 mon name. Lightfoot has remarked that 
 Tacitus, for instance, mentions five Clements 
 (Ann. i. 23, ii. 39, xv. 73 ; Hist. i. 86, iv. 68). 
 Far more plausibly it has been proposed to 
 identify the author of the epistle with another 
 Clement, who was almost certainly at the time 
 a distinguished member of the Roman church. 
 We learn from Suetonius [Domit. 15) and from 
 Dio Cassius, Ixvii. 14, that in 95, the very year 
 fixed by some for the death of bp. Clement, 
 death or banishment was inflicted by Domitian 
 on several persons addicted to Jewish customs, 
 and amongst them Flavins Clemens, a relation 
 of his own, whose consulship had but just 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 173 
 
 expired, was put to death on a charge of 
 atheism, while his wife Domitilla, also a 
 member of the emperor's family, was banished. 
 The language is such as heathen writers might 
 naturally use to describe a persecution of 
 Christians ; but Eusebius (H. E. iii. 13) ex- 
 pressly claims one Domitilla, a niece of the 
 consul's, as a sufferer for Christ ; and (Chron. 
 sub anno 95) cites the heathen historian Brut- 
 tius as stating that several Christians suffered 
 martyrdom at this time. If, then, the consul 
 Clement was a Christian martyr, his rank 
 would give him during his life a foremost posi- 
 tion in the Roman church. It is natural to 
 think that the writer of the epistle may have 
 been either the consul or a member of his 
 family. Yet if so, the traditions of the Roman 
 church must have been singularly defective. 
 No writer before Rufinus speaks of bp. Clement 
 as a martyr ; nor does any ancient writer in 
 any way connect him with the consul. In the 
 Recognitions Clement is represented as a rela- 
 tion of the emperor ; not, however, of Domi- 
 tian, but of Tiberius. A fabulous account 
 of Clement's martyrdom, probably of no ear- 
 lier origin than the 9th cent., tells how Clement 
 was first banished to the Crimea, worked there 
 such miracles as converted the whole district, 
 and was thereupon by Trajan's order cast into 
 the sea with an anchor round his neck, an 
 event followed by new prodigies. 
 
 The only genuine work of Clement is the 
 Ep. to the Corinthians already mentioned. 
 Its main object is to restore harmony to the 
 Corinthian church, which had been disturbed 
 by questions apparently concerning discipline 
 rather than doctrine. The bulk of the letter 
 is taken up in enforcing the duties of meekness, 
 humility, submission to lawful authority, and 
 but little attempt is made at the refutation of 
 doctrinal error. Some pains, it is true, are 
 taken to establish the doctrine of the Resurrec- 
 tion ; but this subject is not connected by the 
 writer with the disputes, and so much use is 
 made of Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians that we 
 cannot lay much stress on the fact that one 
 of the topics of that epistle is fully treated. 
 The dissensions are said to have been caused 
 by the arrogance of a few self-willed persons 
 who led a revolt against the authority of the 
 presbyters. Their pride probably rested on 
 their possession of spiritual gifts, and perhaps 
 on the chastity which they practised. Though 
 pains are taken to shew the necessity of a 
 distinction of orders, we cannot infer that this 
 was really questioned by the revolters ; for the 
 charge against them, that they had unwarrant- 
 ably deposed from the office of presbyter 
 certain who had filled it blamelessly, implies 
 that the office continued to be recognized by 
 them. But this unauthorized deposition 
 naturally led to a schism, and representations 
 made at Rome by some of the persons ill- 
 treated may have led to the letter of Clement. 
 It is just possible that we can name one of 
 these persons. At the end of the letter a wish 
 is expressed that the messengers of the Roman 
 church, Ephebus and Bito, with Fortunatus 
 also, might be sent back speedily with tidings 
 of restored harmony. The form of expression 
 distinguishing Fortunatus from the Roman 
 delegates favours the supposition that he was 
 a Corinthian, and as Clement urges on those 
 
174 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 who had been the cause of dissension to with- 
 draw for peace' sake, it is possible that For- 
 tunatus might have so withdrawn and found 
 a welcome at Rome. Another conjecture 
 identifies him with the Fortunatus mentioned 
 in St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians. 
 
 However precarious this identification may 
 be, internal evidence shews that the epistle is 
 not so far from apostolic times as to make it 
 impossible. None of the apostles are spoken 
 of as living, but the deaths of Peter and Paul, 
 described as men of their own generation, are 
 referred to as then recent, and some of the 
 presbyters appointed by the apostles are 
 spoken of as still surviving. The early date 
 thus indicated is confirmed by the absence of 
 allusion to controversial topics of the 2nd 
 cent., and by the immaturity of doctrinal de- 
 velopment on certain points. Thus " bishop " 
 and " presbyter " are, as in N.T., used con- 
 vertibly, and there is no trace that in the 
 church of Corinth one presbyter had any very 
 pronounced authority over the rest. The de- 
 position of certain presbyters is not spoken of 
 as usurpation of the authority of any single 
 person, but of that of the whole body of 
 presbyters. Again, to the writer the " Scrip- 
 tures " are the books of the O.T. ; these he 
 cites most copiously and uses to enforce his 
 arguments. He expressly mentions St. Paul's 
 Ep. to the Corinthians ; and twice reminds his 
 hearers of words of our Lord. The way in 
 which he uses the quotations implies the exist- 
 ence of written records recognized by both 
 parties. Besides these, without any formal 
 citation he makes unmistakable use of other 
 N.T. books, chiefly of Heb., but also of Rom. 
 and other Pauline, including the Pastoral, 
 epistles. Acts, James, and I. Peter. Still, 
 their authority is not appealed to in the same 
 manner as is that of the O.T. It may be 
 mentioned here that Clement's epistle contains 
 the earliest recognition of the Book of Judith. 
 He quotes also from O.T. apocryphal books or 
 interpolations not now extant. 
 
 To fix more closely the date of the epistle, 
 the principal fact available is, that in the 
 opening an apology is made that the church of 
 Rome had not been able to give earlier atten- 
 tion to the Corinthian disputes, owing to the 
 sudden and repeated calamities which had 
 befallen it. It is generally agreed that this 
 must refer to the persecution under either 
 Nero or Domitian. A date about midway 
 between these is that to which the phenomena 
 of the epistle would have inclined us ; but 
 having to choose between these two we have 
 no hesitation in preferring the latter. The 
 main argument in favour of the earlier date, 
 that the temple service is spoken of as being 
 still offered, is satisfactorily met by the occur- 
 rence of a quite similar use of the present tense 
 in Josephus. Indeed the passage, carefully 
 considered, suggests the opposite inference ; 
 for Clement would Judaize to an extent of 
 which there is no sign elsewhere in the epistle, 
 if, in case the temple rites were being still 
 celebrated, he were to speak of them as the 
 appointed and acceptable way of serving God. 
 All the other notes of time are difficult to 
 reconcile with a date so close to the apostles 
 as the reign of Nero. 
 
 As to whether the writer was a Jew or a | 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 Gentile, the arguments are not absolutely 
 decisive ; but it seems more conceivable that 
 a Hellenistic Jew resident at Rome could have 
 acquired the knowledge i>f Roman history and 
 heathen literature exhibited in the epistle, 
 than that one not familiar from his childhood 
 with the O.T. could possess so intimate an 
 acquaintance with it. This consideration, of 
 course, bears on the question whether Flavius 
 Clemens could have written the letter. 
 
 The letter does not yield any support to the 
 theory of ist cent, disputes between a Pauline 
 and an anti-Pauline party in the church. 
 No such disputes appear in the dissensions at 
 Corinth ; and at Rome the Gentile and Jewish 
 sections of the church seem in Clement's time 
 to be completely fused. The obligation on 
 Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law does not 
 seem a matter of concern. The whole Chris- 
 tian community is regarded as the inheritor of 
 the promises to the Jewish people. Clement 
 holds both SS. Peter and Paul in the highest 
 (and equal) honour. 
 
 The epistle was known until 1875 only 
 through a single MS., the great Alexandrian 
 MS. brought to England in 1628, of which an 
 account is given in all works on the criticism 
 of the N.T. One leaf, containing about the 
 tenth part of the whole letter, has been lost. 
 In this Greek Bible of the 5th cent, the two 
 letters of Clement to the Corinthians are books 
 enumerated among N.T., not with the apostolic 
 epistles, but after the Apocalypse. Hence the 
 ecclesiastical use of Clement's letter had prob- 
 ablynot ceased when this MS. wascopied. The 
 ep. was first ed. by Patrick Young (Oxf. 1633), 
 and often since, among the most important edd. 
 being Cotelier's in his Apostolic Fathers {Paris, 
 1672); Jacobson's; Hilgenfeld's in his N.T. 
 extra Canonem Receptum ; Lightfoot's (Camb. 
 1869, and in his great ed. of the Apostolic 
 Fathers. 1890); Tischendorf's (Leipz. 1873); 
 and Gebhardt and Harnack's (Leipz. 1875). A 
 photograph of this portion of the MS. was 
 pub. by Sir. F. Madden in 1856. An Eng. 
 trans, of the ep. (and of thos? on Virginity) is 
 in the Lib. of Anle-Xiceue Fathers. 
 
 An entirely new authority for the text of 
 the epistle was gained by the discovery in the 
 library of the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in 
 Constantinople, of a MS. containing an unmuti- 
 lated text of the two epistles ascribed to 
 Clement.'* The new authority was announced, 
 and first used in establishing the text, in a very 
 careful and able ed. of the epp. by Bryennius, 
 metropolitan of Serrae, pub. in Constantinople 
 at the end of 1875. The MS., which is 
 cursive and dated a.d. 1056, is contained in a 
 small octavo volume, 7 J inches by 6, which 
 has, besides the Epp. of Clement, Chrysos- 
 tom's synopsis of the O.T., the Ep. of 
 Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apos- 
 tles (occupying in the MS. less space by one- 
 fourth than the second Ep. of Clement), and 
 a collection of Ignatian epistles. It gives a 
 very good text of the Clementine letters, in- 
 dependent of the Alexandrian MS., but, on the 
 whole, in tolerably close agreement with it, 
 even in passages where the best critics had 
 
 * still later a Syriac MS. purchased for the Univer- 
 sity of Cambridge was found to contain a trans, of 
 these two epistles. This has been ed. with notes and a 
 facsim'le plate by R. I,. Bensley (Camb. Univ. Press). 
 
CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 suspected error. Besides filling up small 
 lacunae in the text of the older MS., it supplies 
 the contents of the entire leaf which had been 
 lost. This part contains a passage quoted by 
 Basil, but not another quoted by Pseudo- 
 Justin, confirmed in some degree by Irenaeus, 
 which had been referred to this place (see 
 Lightfoot, p. i66). Except for trifling omis- 
 sions we must have the letter now as complete 
 as it was originally in the Alexandrian MS. 
 For Harnack, on counting the letters in the 
 recovered portion, found that they amounted 
 almost exactlv to the average contents of a 
 leaf of the older MS. Lightfoot has pointed 
 out that by a small change in the text of Ps.- 
 Justin, his reference is satisfied by a passage 
 in the newly discovered conclusion of the 
 second epistle. The new portion of the first 
 principally consists of a prayer, possibly 
 founded on the liturgical use of the Roman 
 church. What has been said in the beginning 
 of the letter as to the calamities under which 
 that church had suffered is illustrated by some 
 of the petitions, and prayer is made for their 
 earthly rulers and that they themselves might 
 submit to them, recognizing the honour given 
 them by God, and not opposing His will. 
 Very noticeable in this new part of the letter 
 is the tone of authority used in making an 
 unsolicited interference with the affairs of 
 another church. " If any disobey the words 
 spoken by God through us, let them know that 
 they will'entangle themselves in transgression, 
 and no small danger, but we shall be clear 
 from this sin." " You will cause us joy and 
 exultation if, obeying the things written by us 
 through the Holy Spirit, you cut out the law- 
 less passion of your jealousy according to the 
 intercession which we have made for peace and 
 concord in this letter. But we have sent 
 faithful and discreet men who have walked 
 from youth to old age unblameably amongst us, 
 who shall be witnesses between us and you. 
 This have we done that you may know that 
 all our care has been and is that you may 
 speedily be at peace." It remains open for 
 controversy how far the expressions quoted 
 indicate official superiority of the Roman 
 church, or only the writer's conviction of the 
 goodness of their cause. We may add that 
 the epithet applied by Irenaeus to the epistle 
 iKaviirrdTTj proves to have been suggested by a 
 phrase in the letter itself, 'iKavQs eTredTeiXafxev. 
 
 Lightfoot gives references to a succession of 
 writers who have quoted the epistle. Poly- 
 carp, though not formally quoting Clement's 
 epistle, gives in several passages clear proof of 
 acquaintance with it. A passage in Ignatius's 
 epistle to Polycarp, c. 5, may also be set down 
 as derived from Clement, but other parallels 
 collected by Hilgenfeld are extremely doubt- 
 ful. The epistle does not seem to have been 
 translated into Latin, and was consequently 
 little known in the West. 
 
 For some of the spurious works ascribed to 
 Clement see Clementine Literature. 
 
 The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. — This 
 letter also formed part of the Alexandrian MS., 
 but its conclusion had been lost by mutilation. 
 We now have it complete in the edition of 
 Bryennius. In the list of contents of the older 
 MS. it is marked as Clement's second epistle, 
 but not expressly described as to the Corin- 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 175 
 
 thians. It is so described in the later MS. It 
 is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius, 
 and the language used by some of them is 
 inconsistent with their having accepted it. 
 Eusebius mentions it as a second letter ascribed 
 to Clement, but not, like the former, used by 
 the older writers, and he only speaks of one as 
 the acknowledged epistle of Clement. The two 
 epistles are placed among the books of the 
 N.T., in the 8th book of the Apostolic Consti- 
 tutions, which probably belongs to the 6th 
 cent. The second epistle is first expressly cited 
 as to the Corinthians by Sevcrus of Antioch 
 early in the same cent. Internal evidence, 
 though adverse to Clementine authorship, 
 assigns to the work a date not later than the 2nd 
 cent., and probably the first half of it. The 
 writer is distinctly a Gentile, and contrasts 
 himself and his readers with the Jewish nation 
 in a manner quite unlike the genuine Clement ; 
 and his quotations are not, like Clement's, 
 almost exclusively from O.T. ; the gospel 
 history is largely cited, and once under the 
 name of Scripture. Many of the quotations, 
 however, differ from our canonical gospels, and 
 since one of them agrees with a passage re- 
 ferred by Clement of Alexandria to the gospel 
 of the Egyptians, this was probably the source 
 of other quotations also. The epistle would 
 seem from this to be earlier than the close of 
 the and cent., at which time our four gospels 
 were in a position of exclusive authority. The 
 controversies with which the writer deals are 
 those of the early part of the 2nd cent. In 
 language suggested by the Ep. to the 
 Ephesians, the spiritual church is described as 
 created before the sun and moon, as the female 
 of whom Christ is the male, the body of which 
 he is the soul. It seems likely that a work 
 using such language had gained its acceptance 
 with the church before Gnostic theories con- 
 cerning the Aeons Christus and Ecclesia had 
 brought discredit upon such speculations. The 
 doctrine of the pre-existence of the church is, 
 as Harnack noted, one of several points of 
 contact between this work and the Shepherd 
 of Hennas, making it probable that both 
 emanate from the same age and the same 
 circle. We therefore refer the place of com- 
 position to Rome, notwithstanding an appar- 
 ent reference to the Isthmian games which 
 favours a connexion with Corinth. The de- 
 scription of the work as an Ep. to the 
 Corinthians, never strongly supported by ex- 
 ternal evidence, is disproved by the newly 
 discovered conclusion, whence it clearly ap- 
 pears that the work is, as Dodwell and others 
 had supposed, no epistle, but a homily. It 
 professes, and there seems no reason to doubt 
 it, to have been composed to be publicly read 
 in church, and therefore the writer's position 
 in the church was one which would secure that 
 use of his work. But he does not claim any 
 position of superiority, and the foremost place 
 in ruling and teaching the church is attributed 
 to the body of presbyters. He nowhere 
 claims to be Clement. But it is not strange 
 that an anonymous, but undoubtedly early 
 document of the Roman church should come 
 to be ascribed to the universally acknow- 
 ledged author of the earliest document of that 
 church ; nor that when both had come to be 
 received as Clement's, the second should come 
 
176 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS 
 
 to be regarded as, like the first, an epistle to 
 the Corinthians. 
 
 The Two Epistles on Virginity.— These are 
 extant only in Syriac, and only in a single MS. 
 purchased at Aleppo c. a.d. 1750, for Wetstein. 
 He had commissioned a copy of the Philo.x- 
 enian version of the N.T. to be bought, and this 
 MS. proved to be only a copy of the well- 
 known Peshito. But the disappointment was 
 compensated by the unexpected discovery of 
 these letters, till then absolutely unknown in 
 the West. After the Ep. to the Hebrews, the 
 last in the Peshitta canon, the scribe adds a 
 doxology, and a note with personal details by 
 which we can date the MS. a.d. 1470, and then 
 proceeds, " We subjoin to the epistles of Paul 
 those epistles of the apostles, which are not 
 found in all the copies," on which follow II. 
 Peter, II., III. John, and Jude, from the Phi- 
 loxenian version, and then, without any break, 
 these letters, with the titles : " The first 
 epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of 
 Peter the apostle," and " The second epistle 
 of the same Clement." The MS. is now pre- 
 served in the library of the Seminary of the 
 Remonstrants at Amsterdam. The letters 
 were published, as an appendix to his Greek 
 Testament, by Wetstein, who also defended 
 their authenticity. The last editor is Beelen 
 (Louvain, 1856). The letters, though now only 
 extant in Syriac, are proved by their Graecisms 
 to be a translation from the Greek, and 
 by the existence of a fragment containing an 
 apparently different Syriac translation of one 
 passage in them. This fragment is contained 
 in a MS. bearing the date a.d. 562. The 
 earliest writer who quotes these letters is Epi- 
 phanius. In a passage, which until the dis- 
 covery of the Syriac letters had been felt as 
 perplexing, he describes Clement as " in the 
 encyclical letters which he wrote, and which 
 are read in the holy churches," having taught 
 virginity, and praised Elias and David and 
 Samson, and all the prophets. The letters to 
 the Corinthians cannot be described as ency- 
 clical ; and the topics specified are not treated 
 of in them, while they are dwelt on in the 
 Syriac letters. St. Jerome, though in his 
 catalogue of ecclesiastical writers he follows 
 Eusebius in mentioning only the two letters 
 to the Corinthians as ascribed to Clement, yet 
 must be understood as referring to the letters 
 on virginity in his treatise against Jovinian 
 where he speaks of Clement as composing 
 almost his entire discourse concerning the 
 purity of virginity. He may have become 
 acquainted with these letters during his resi- 
 dence in Palestine. The presumption against 
 their genuineness, arising from the absence of 
 notice of them by Eusebius and every other 
 writer anterior to Epiphanius, and from the 
 limited circulation which they appear ever to 
 have attained in the church, is absolutely con- 
 firmed by internal evidence. Their style and 
 whole colouring are utterly unlike those of the 
 genuine epistle ; and the writer is evidently 
 one whose thoughts and language have been 
 moulded by long and early acquaintance with 
 N.T., in the same manner as those of the real 
 Clement are by his acquaintance with the Old. 
 The Gospel of St. John is more than once 
 cited, but not any apocryphal N.T. book. 
 Competent judges have assigned these epistles 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 to the middle of the 2nd cent., but their argu- 
 ments hardly suffice to exclude a somewhat 
 later date. 
 
 The Epistles to James our Lord's Brother. — In 
 the article Clementine Literature is given 
 an account of the letter to James by Clement, 
 which relates how Peter, in immediate anti- 
 cipation of death, ordained Clement as his 
 successor, and gave him charge concerning his 
 ministry. After the trans, of this letter by 
 Rufinus, some Latin writer added a second, 
 giving instruction as to the administration of 
 the Eucharist and church discipline. These two 
 letters had considerable currency in the West. 
 In the forged decretals both were much enlarged, 
 and 3 new letters purporting to be Clement's 
 added. James is in the original Clementines 
 the head of the church, but in the later epistle 
 receives instruction and commands from Peter's 
 successor Clement. There must have been yet 
 other letters ascribed to Clement in the East 
 if there be no error in the MS. of Leontius (Mai, 
 Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii. 84), who cites a pas- 
 sage not elsewhere extant as from the ninth 
 letter of Clement. Discourses concerning 
 Providence and the righteous judgment of 
 God are cited by Anastasius of Antioch ; 
 and a i3th-cent. writer (Spicilegium Ache- 
 rianum, viii. 382) reports having seen in a 
 Saracen MS. a book of Revelations of Peter, 
 compiled by Clement. The highest, and pro- 
 bably the final, authority on St. Clement of 
 Rome is now the great work of Bp. Lightfoot, 
 forming, in 2 parts, pub. 1890, voL i. of his 
 ed. of the .Apostolic Fathers. See also Harnack, ; 
 Chronol. der Altchr. Lit., 1897, pp. 251 fi., 
 438 ff. ; an ed. by A. Jacobson of Clement's 
 works in 2 vols, in Apost. Patr. (Clar. Press); 
 an Eng. trans, of the Epistle of Clement, 
 by J. A. F. Gregg (S.P.C.K.). [g.s.] : 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, i. Life. — His full ; 
 name, Titus Flavins Clemens, is given by • 
 Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13) and Photius (Cod. iii) 
 in the title of the Stromateis {'\Itov <t>\au;ou . 
 \\\rjixevTo^ [Photius adds wpia^vripov 'A\e^a>'- ■ 
 Spei'as] tC}v Karo-Triv aXtjOr] cpiXoaocpiav yvtvariKUV ' 
 uirofivrmoLTuiv (XTpw/xaTe'is). The remarkable, 
 coincidence of the name with that of the 
 nephew of Vespasian and consul in 95 cannot 
 have been accidental, but we have no direct 
 evidence of Clement's connexion with the 
 imperial Flavian family. Perhaps he was 
 descended from a freedman of the consul ; 
 his wide and varied learning indicates that 
 he had received a liberal education, and sO' 
 far suggests that his parents occupied a good' 
 social position. The place of his birth is not 
 certainly known. Epiphanius, the earliest 
 authority on the question, observes that twO; 
 opinions were held in his time, " some saying 
 that he was an Alexandrian, others that he 
 was an Athenian" {dv 4>aal rivei 'AXf^avSpia 
 'irepoL SyAdrjvaiov. Haer. xxxii. 6). Alexandria 
 was the principal scene of his labours ; but 
 there was no apparent reason for connecting 
 him with Athens by mere conjecture. The 
 statement that he was an Athenian must there' 
 fore have rested upon some direct tradition 
 Moreover, in recounting his wanderings hi 
 makes Greece the starting-point and Alex 
 andria the goal of his search (Strom, i, § i} 
 p. 322) ; and in the 2nd cent. Athens was stil 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 the centre of the literary and spiritual life of 
 Greece. We may then with reasonable proba- 
 bility conclude that Clement was an Athenian 
 by training if not by origin, and the fact that 
 he was at the head of the catechetical school 
 of Alexandria towards the close of the century 
 fixes the date of his birth c. a.d. 150-160. 
 Nothing is recorded of his parentage ; but his 
 own language seems to imply that he embraced 
 Christianity by a personal act, as in some sense 
 a convert [Paed. i. § i, p. 97, ras TraXaids 
 a.iroiJLVviJ.tvoi dd^as ; cf. Paed. ii. § 62, p. 206, 
 SdKpvd ffffjLfv . . . ol eh avrbi' TreTTLcrTevKdres), 
 and this is directly affirmed by Eusebius 
 (Praep. Ev. ii. 2 f.), though perhaps simply by 
 inference from Clement's words. Such a con- 
 version would not be irreconcilable with the 
 belief that Clement, like Augustine, was of 
 Christian parentage at least on one side ; but 
 whether Clement's parents were Christians or 
 heathens it is evident that heathenism at- 
 tracted him for a time ; and though he soon 
 overcame its attractions, his inquisitive spirit 
 did not at once find rest in Christianity. He 
 enumerates six illustrious teachers under 
 whom he studied the " true tradition of the 
 blessed doctrine of the holy apostles." His 
 trst teacher in Greece was an Ionian (Athen- 
 agoras ?) ; others he heard in Magna Graecia ; 
 others in the East ; and at last he found in 
 Egypt the true master for whom he had 
 sought (Strom, i. § ir, p. 322). There can be 
 no doubt that this master was Pantaenus, to 
 whom he is said to have expressed his obliga- 
 tions in his Hypotyposes (Eus. H. E. vi. 13, 
 V. 11). Pantaenus was then chief of the 
 catechetical school, and though the accounts 
 of Eusebius and Jerome (Eus. H. E. v. 10 ; 
 Hieron. de Vir. III. 36, 38) are irreconcilable 
 in their details and chronology, it is certain 
 that on the death or retirement of Pantaenus, 
 Clement succeeded to his office, and it is not 
 unlikely that he had acted as his colleague 
 before. The period during which Clement 
 presided over the catechetical school (c. a.d. 
 190-203) seems to have been the season of his 
 greatest literary activity. He was now a 
 presbyter of the church {Paed. i. § 37, p. 120) 
 and had the glory of reckoning Origen among 
 his scholars. On the outbreak of the perse- 
 cution under Severus (a.d. 202, 203) in which 
 Leonidas, the father of Origen, perished, 
 Cjement retired from Alexandria (Eus. H. E. 
 yi. 3), never, as it seems, to return. Nothing 
 is directly stated as to the place of his with- 
 drawal. There are some indications of a visit 
 to Syria (Eus. H. E. vi. 11, Sj- Lcrre) ; and, 
 later, we find him in the companv of an old 
 pupil, Alexander, aftenvards bp. of Jerusalem, 
 and at that time a bp. of Cappadocia, who was 
 m prison for the faith. If therefore Clement 
 had before withdrawn from danger, it was 
 through wisdom and not through fear. Alex- 
 ander regarded his presence as due to " a 
 special providence " (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 14), and 
 charged him, in most honourable terms, with 
 a letter of congratulation to ihe church of 
 Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades to 
 the bishopric of that citv, a.d. 311 (Eus. H. E. 
 ^'-.ii)- This is the last mention of Clement 
 which has been preserved. The time and the 
 place of his death are alike unknown. Popu- 
 lar opinion reckoned him among the saints of 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 177 
 
 the church ; and he was commemorated in the 
 early Western martyrologies on Dec. 4. His 
 name, however, was omitted in the martyr- 
 ology issued by Clement 'VIII. after the cor- 
 rections of Baronius ; and Benedict XIV. 
 elaborately defended the omission in a letter 
 to John V. of Portugal, dated 1748. Benedict 
 argued that the teaching of Clement was at 
 least open to suspicion, and that private usage 
 would not entitle him to a place in the calen- 
 dar (Benedicti XIV. Opera, vi. pp. 119 ff. ed. 
 1842, where the evidence is given in detail ; 
 cf. Cognat, Clement d'Alexandrie, pp. 451 fi.). 
 
 ii. Works. — Eusebius, whom Jerome follows 
 closely with some mistakes (de Vir. III. 38) 
 has given a list of the works of Clement (H. E. 
 vi. 13) : (i) '^Tpwuarfh, libb. viii. ; (2) 
 'TTTOTHTraKrets, libb. viii. ; (3) \\pb% "E/\X7;;'as 
 \6705 TTpoTpewTiKoi (adversus Gentes, Jerome) ; 
 (4) WaL^a-ywyo's, libb. iii. ; (5) T/s o <Tw^6txevoi 
 7r,\oi''(Ttos ; (6) lltpi Tov Trdtr^a ; (7) AtaX^^fis 
 Trepi vrjartlas ; (8) Ilnpl KaraXaXlas ; (9) 
 llporpewTiKos eh {nrop.ovqv ^ irpbs roi)^ veioarl 
 (SejSaTTTKr/j.ei'ovi (omitted by Jerome) ; (10) 
 Kayiic iKKXijo'LacrTLKds fi wpbf tovs lovSat ^ovrai 
 (de Canonibus Ecclesiasticis et adversum eos 
 qui Judaeormn sequuntur errorem, Jerome). 
 Photius (Bibl. Codd. 109-111) mentions that 
 he read the first five works on the list, and 
 knew by report 6, 7, 8 (Trepi KaKoKoyiai) ; 
 10 (Trepi Kavbvwv eKKXrjaiacTTLKicv) ; from the 
 variations in the titles and the omission of 9, 
 it is evident that he derived his knowledge of 
 these simply from the secondary Greek version 
 of Jerome's list. Nos. i, 3, 4, 5 are still 
 preserved almost entire. Of 2 considerable 
 fragments remain ; and of 6, 8, 10 a few frag- 
 ments are preserved in express quotations. 
 
 Quotations are also found from a treatise 
 Trepi irpovoias, and from another Trepi ^vxn^, 
 to which Clement himself refers (Strom, iii. 13, 
 p. 516; v. 88, p. 699). Elsewhere Clement 
 speaks of his intention to write On First Prin- 
 ciples (wepi dpxi^v, Strom, iii. 13, p. 516 ; id. 21, 
 p. 520 ; cf. iv. 2, p. 564) ; On Prophecy (Strom. 
 V. 88, p. 699 ; id. iv. 93, p. 605) ; Against Here- 
 sies (Strom, iv. 92, p. 604) ; On the Resurrection 
 (Paed. i. 6, p. 125) ; On Marriage (Paed. iii. 8, 
 p. 278). But the references may be partly 
 to sections of his greater works, and partly to 
 designs never carried out (cf. Strom, iv. 1-3, 
 pp. 563 f.). No doubt has been raised as to 
 the genuineness of the Address, the Tutor, and 
 the Miscellanies. Internal evidence shews 
 them all the work of one writer (cf. Reinkens, 
 de Clemente, cap. ii. § 4), and they have been 
 quoted as Clement's by a continuous succes- 
 sion of Fathers even from the time of Origen 
 (Comm. in Joh. ii. 3, p. 52 b ; Strom. ; anony- 
 mous). These three principal extant works 
 form a connected series. The first is aa 
 exhortation to the heathen to embrace 
 Christianity, based on an exposition of the 
 comparative character of heathenism and 
 Christianity ; the second offers a system of 
 training for the new convert, with a view to 
 the regulation of his conduct as a Christian ; 
 the third is an introduction to Christian philo- 
 sophy. The series wil further continued 
 in the lost Outlines (inroTvinbaeLs), in which 
 Clement laid the foundation of his philosophic 
 structure in an investigation of the canonical 
 
 12 
 
178 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 writings. The mutual relations of these 
 writings shew that Clement intended them 
 as a complete system of Christian teaching, 
 corresponding with the " whole economy of 
 the gracious Word, Who first addresses, then 
 trains, and then teaches " {Paed. i. i), bringing 
 to man in due succession conviction, discipline, 
 wisdom. The first three books correspond 
 in a remarkable degree, as has frequently been 
 remarked (Potter, ad Protrept. i.), with the 
 stages of the neo- Platonic course, the Puri- 
 fication {aTTOKadapffis), the Initiation (jxv-r)(jLs), 
 and the Vision (iwoTTTeLa). The fourth book 
 was probably designed to give a solid basis to 
 the truths which were fleeting and unreal in 
 systems of philosophy. Though his style is 
 generally deficient in terseness and elegance, 
 his method desultory, his learning undigested ; 
 yet we can still thankfully admire his richness 
 of information, his breadth of reading, his 
 largeness of sympathy, his lofty aspirations, 
 his noble conception of the office and capacities 
 of the Faith. 
 
 I. The Address to the Greeks (A670S irpoTpeir- 
 TiKos Trpdi'aWTji'as : cf. Strom, vii. § 22, p. 421, 
 eV Ti2 TrpoTpewTiKif) iwLypa4>ofxev(j) TjiMy A67(f)).' — 
 The works of Clement were composed in the 
 order in which they have been mentioned. 
 The Tutor contains a reference to the Address 
 in the first section (6 \6yos bnrivlKa jxev enl 
 a-wrrtpiaf wapfKciXei, wpOTpewTLKbs 6vofia aiVoj 
 fjv: cf. Strom, vii. § 22 ; Pott. p. 841) ; and, 
 if we can trust the assertion of Eusebius 
 (//. E. V. 28), some of Clement's works were 
 composed before the accession of Victor (a.d. 
 192). Putting these two facts together, we 
 may reasonably suppose the Address written 
 c. A.D. 190. It was addressed to Greeks and 
 not to Gentiles generally, as Jerome under- 
 stood the word (" adversus gentes," de Vir. III. 
 38). It deals almost exclusively with Greek 
 mythology and Greek speculation. 
 
 Its general aim is to prove the superiority of 
 Christianity to the religions and the philo- 
 sophies of heathendom, while it satisfies the 
 cravings of humanity to which thev bore wit- 
 ness. The gospel is, as Clement shews with 
 consummate eloquence, the New Song more 
 powerful than that of Orpheus or Arion, new 
 and yet older than the creation (c. 1), pure and 
 spiritual as contrasted with the sensuality and 
 idolatry of the pagan rites, clear and substan- 
 tial as compared with the vague hopes of poets 
 and philosophers (2-9). In such a case, he 
 argues, custom cannot be pleaded against the 
 duty of conversion. Man is born for God, and 
 is bound to obey the call of God, Who through 
 the Word is waiting to make him like unto 
 Himself. The choice is between judgment 
 and grace, between destruction and life : can 
 the issue then be doubtful (10-12) ? 
 
 It is not difficult to point out errors in taste, 
 fact, and argument throughout Clement's 
 appeal ; but it would be perhaps impossible 
 to shew in any earlier work passages equal to 
 those in which he describes the mission of the 
 Word, the Light of men (p. 88), and pictures 
 the true destiny of man (pp. 92 ff.). 
 
 II. The Tutor (6 Tlaidaytoyds: cf. Hos. v. 2, 
 quoted in Paed. i. 7, p. 129).— The Tutor was 
 written before the Miscellanies, in which the 
 Tutor is described generaUy (Strom, vi. § i, 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 P- 736) — i.e. c. A.D. 190-195. The writer's de- 
 sign was " to prepare from early years, that is 
 from the beginning of elementary instruction 
 (e\- KarTjx'/o-eaJs), a rule of life growing with the 
 increase of faith, and fitting the souls of those 
 just on the verge of manhood with virtue so 
 as to enable them to receive the higher know- 
 ledge of philosophy " {els €in<7Ti]ij.-qi yvoianicrj: 
 wapaSoxv'^, Strom. I.e.). 
 
 The main scope of the Tutor is therefore 
 practical : the aim is action and not know- 
 ledge ; but still action as preparatory to 
 knowledge, and resting upon conviction. It 
 is divided into three books. The first gives a 
 general description of the Tutor, Who is the 
 Word Himself (1-3) ; of the " children " whom 
 He trains. Christian men and women alike 
 (46) ; and of His general method, using both 
 chastisements and love (7-12). The second 
 and third books deal with special precepts de- 
 signed to meet the actual difficulties of con- 
 temporary life and not to offer a theory of 
 morals. It would not be easy to find else- 
 where, even in the Roman satirists, an equally , 
 vivid and detailed picture of heathen manners. : 
 The second book contains general directions as 
 to eating and drinking (i f.), furniture (3), 
 entertainments (4-8), sleep (9), the relations of : 
 men and women (10), the use of jewellery ' 
 (11 f.). The third book opens with an inquiry : 
 into the nature of true beauty (c. i). This j 
 leads to a condemnation of extravagance in : 
 dress both in men and in women (2 ff.), of ' 
 luxurious establishments (4 f.), of the misuse 
 of wealth (6 f.). Frugality and exercise are | 
 recommended (8-10) ; and many minute di- 
 rections are added — often curiously sugges- ' 
 tive in the present times — as to dress and ' 
 behaviour(ii f.). General instructions from' 
 Holy Scripture as to the various duties and ; 
 offices of life lead up to the prayer to the Tutor | 
 — the Word — with which tlie work closes. 
 Immediately after the Tutor are printed in the 
 editions of Clement two short poems, which, 
 have been attributed to him. The first, , 
 written in an anapaestic measure, is A Hymn' 
 of the Saviour Christ [v/jLvoi tou ^uTrjpos[ 
 Xpiarov), and the second, written in trimeter; 
 iambics, is addressed To the Tutor (eis tov 
 UaiSaywydv). The first is said to be 
 "Saint Clement's" (tov ayiov KxrtpievTos) in 
 those MSS. which contain it ; but it may be 
 a work of primitive date, like the Morning 
 Hymn which has been preserved in our Com- 
 munion Office as the Gloria in Excelsis. If, 
 it were Clement's, and designed to occupy its. 
 present place, it is scarcely possible that it 
 would have been omitted in any MS. ; while 
 it makes an appropriate and natural addition, 
 if taken from some other source. There is no' 
 evidence to shew that the second is Clement'si 
 work ; it is doubtless an effusion of some pious 
 scholar of a later date. 
 
 III. The Miscellanies ('ZTpuixaTeh).*—1h(. 
 title, patchwork (or rather bags for holding ihi 
 bedclothes, like arpw/uaTodecrfioL), suggests a truf 
 idea of the character of the work. It is de- 
 signedly immethodical, a kind of meadow, ai' 
 Clement describes it, or rather a woodec 
 
 • The full title is given at the close of Books i. iii 
 
 V, ; TWK Kara. Tr]V a\rf$rj <j)iKotTo<jiiav yvui(TTiKOiV VWO; 
 fxyriixdroiv (TTptit/iareis. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 ; mountain (vii. § in), studded irregularly with 
 I various growths, and so fitted to exercise the 
 ' ingenuity and labour of those likely to profit 
 by it (vi. § 2, p. 736, Pott.)- But yet the book 
 is'inspired by one thought. It is an endeavour 
 to claim for' the gospel the power of fulfilling 
 all the desires of men and of raising to a 
 I supreme unity all the objects of knowledge, 
 ; in the soul of the true gnostic — the perfect 
 Christian philosopher. The first book, which 
 is mutilated at the beginning, treats in the 
 main of the office and the origin of Greek 
 philosophy in relation to Christianity and 
 Judaism. Clement shews that Greek philo- 
 sophy was part of the Divine education of men, 
 subordinate to the training of the law and the 
 prophets, but yet really from God (§§ 1-58 ; 
 91-100). In his anxiety to establish this 
 cardinal proposition he is not content with 
 shewing that the books of O.T. are older than 
 f those of the philosophers (59-65 ; 101-164 ; 
 180-182) ; but endeavours to prove also that 
 the philosophers borrowed from the Jews 
 {66-90 ; 165 f.). After this he vindicates the 
 character and explains the general scope of the 
 law — "the philosophy of Moses" (167-179). 
 The main object of the second book lies in the 
 more detailed exposition of the originality and 
 superiority of the moral teaching of revelation 
 as compared with that of Cireek philosophy 
 which was in part derived from it (§§ i ff. ; 
 20-24; 78-96). The argument includes an 
 examination of the nature of faith (4-19 ; 
 25-31), resting on a godly fear and perfected by 
 love (32-55) ; and of repentance (56-71). He 
 discusses the sense in which human affections 
 are ascribed to God (72-75) ; and shews that 
 the conception of the ideal Christian is that 
 of a man made like to God (97-126), in accord- 
 ance with the noblest aspirations of philosophy 
 (127-136). The book closes with a prelimin- 
 ary discussion of marriage. The third book 
 investigates the true doctrine of marriage 
 (§§ 57-60) as against those who indulged in 
 every license on the ground that bodily actions 
 are indifferent (i-ii ; 25-44) ; and, on the 
 other hand, those who abstained from marriage 
 from hatred of the Creator (12-24 ; 45-46). 
 Various passages of Scripture wrongly inter- 
 preted by heretics are examined (61-101) ; and 
 the two main errors are shewn to be inconsis- 
 tent with Christianity (102-110). The fourth 
 book opens with a very interesting outline of 
 the whole plan of the comprehensive apology 
 for Christianity on which he had entered 
 (§§ 1-3)- The work evidently grew under his 
 I hands, and he implies that he could hardly 
 expect to accomplish the complete design. 
 He then adds fresh traits to his portrait of the 
 true " gnostic." Self-sacrifice, martyrdom, 
 lie at the root of his nature (8-56 ; 72-77), 
 virtues within the reach of all states and of 
 both sexes (57-71), though even this required 
 to be guarded against fanaticism and mis- 
 understanding (78-96). Other virtues, as love 
 and endurance, are touched upon (97-119) ; 
 and then Clement gives a picture of a godly 
 woman (120- 131), and of the gnostic, who 
 rises above fear and hope to that perfection 
 which rests in the knowledge and love of God 
 (132-174). In the fifth book Clement, fol- 
 lowing the outline laid down (iv. i), discusses 
 laith and hope (§§ 1-18), and then passes to 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 179 
 
 the principle of enigmatic teaching. This, he 
 argues, was followed by heathen and Jewish 
 masters alike (19-26) ; by Pythagoras (27-31); 
 bv Moses, in the ordinances of the tabernacle 
 (32-41) ; by the Acgyptians (42-44) ; and by 
 many others (45-56). The princii)le itself is, 
 he maintains, defensible on intelligible grounds 
 (57-60), and supported by the authority of the 
 apostles (61-67). ^'or in fact the knowledge of 
 God can be gained only through serious effort 
 and by divine help (68-89). This review of the 
 character and sources of the highest knowledge 
 leads Clement back to his characteristic pro- 
 position that the Cireeks borrowed from the 
 Jews the noblest truths of their own philo- 
 sophy. The sixth and seventh books are 
 designed, as Clement states (vi. § i) to shew 
 the character of the Christian philosopher (the 
 gnostic), and so to make it clear that he alone 
 is the true worshipper of God. By way of 
 prelude Clement repeats and enforces (§§ 4-38) 
 what he had said on Greek plagiarisms, yet 
 admitting that the Greeks had some true 
 knowledge of God (39-43), and affirming that 
 the gospel was preached in Hades to those of 
 them who had lived according to their light 
 (44-53), though that was feeble compared with 
 the glory of the gospel (54-70). He then 
 sketches the lineaments of the Christian philo- 
 sopher, who attains to a perfectly passionless 
 state (71-79) and masters for the service of the 
 faith all forms of knowledge, including various 
 mysteries open to him only (80-114). The 
 reward of this true philosopher is proportioned 
 to his attainments (115-148). These are prac- 
 tically unlimited in range, for Greek philo- 
 sophy, though a gift of God for the training of 
 the nations, is only a recreation for the Chris- 
 tian philosopher in comparison with the serious 
 objects of his study (149-168). In the 
 seventh book Clement regards the Christian 
 philosopher as the one true worshipper of God 
 (§§ 1-5), striving to become like the Son of God 
 (5-21), even as the heathen conversely made 
 their gods like themselves (22-27). The soul 
 is his temple ; prayers and thanksgivings, his 
 sacrifice ; truth, the law of his life (28-54). 
 Other traits are added to the portraiture of 
 " the gnostic " (55-88) ; and Clement then 
 meets the general objection urged against 
 Christianity from the conflict of rival sects 
 (89-92). Heresy, he replies, can be detected 
 by two tests. It is opposed to the testimony 
 of Scripture (93-105) ; and it is of recent 
 origin (106-108). At the close of the seventh 
 book Clement remarks that he " shall proceed 
 with his argument from a fresh beginning " 
 (ruii' f^T/s ttTT ciXXijs apx^s Troir]ff6fJ.e0a rbv 
 \6yov). The phrase may mean that he pro- 
 poses to enter upon a new division of the Mis- 
 cellanies, or that he will now pass to another 
 portion of the great system of writings 
 sketched out in Strom, iv. 1-3. In favour of 
 the first opinion it may be urged that Eusebius 
 (H. E. vi. 13) and Photius {Cod. 109) expressly 
 mention eight books of the Miscellanies ; 
 while on the other hand the words themselves, 
 taken in connexion with vii. i, point rather 
 to the commencement of a new book. The 
 fragment which bears the title of the eighth 
 book in the one remaining MS. is in fact a 
 piece of a treatise on logic. It may naturally 
 have served as an introduction to the examina- 
 
180 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 tion of the opinions of Greek philosophers, 
 the interpretation of Scripture, and the re- 
 futation of heresies which were the general 
 topics of the second principal member of 
 Clement's plan (iv. 2) ; but it is not easy to 
 see how it could have formed the close of the 
 Miscellanies. It is " a fresh beginning " and 
 nothing more. In the time of Photius 
 (f. A.D. 850) the present fragment was reck- 
 oned as the eighth book in some copies, and 
 in others the tract. On the Rich Man that js 
 Saved (Bibl. in). Still further confusion is 
 indicated by the fact that passages from the 
 Extracts from the Prophetical Writings are 
 quoted from " the eighth book of the Mts- 
 cellanies" (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. 1. 288 f.), 
 and also from " the eighth book of the Out- 
 lines " {id. 285) ; while the discussion of pro- 
 phecy was postponed from the Miscellanies 
 to some later opportunity {Strom, vii. i, cf. 
 iv. 2). Perhaps the simplest solution is to 
 
 suppose that at a very early date the logical 
 introduction to the Outlines was separated 
 from the remainder of the work, and added to 
 MSS. of the Miscellanies. In this way the 
 opinion would arise that there were 8 books of 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 remark (oi dwb (JvaXevrivov, §§ 2,6 
 
 24- 
 
 16, 23, 25; 
 37 ; (is (prjaiv ( 
 
 oi Oi<a\€i>Tii>i.a.voi, __ 
 ee65oros, §§ 22, 26, 30 ; (p-^ai, §§ 41, 67 ; (paal, 
 §§ 33, 35 ; \€yoi"Tcv, § 43)- It follows that in 
 some cases it is uncertain whether Clemen'. 
 quotes a Valentinian author by way of ex- 
 position, or adopts the opinion which he 
 quotes. The same ambiguity appears to have 
 existed in the original work ; and it is easy to 
 see how Photius, rapidly perusing the treatise, 
 may have attributed to Clement doctrines 
 which he simply recited without approval and 
 without examination. Thus, in the frag- 
 ments which remain, occasion might be given 
 to charge Clement with false opinions on the 
 nature of the Son (§ 19)- on the creation of 
 Eve {§ 21), on the two Words (§§ 6, 7, 19), on 
 Fate (§§ 75 ff.), on the Incarnation (§ i). 
 There is no perceptible order or connexion m 
 the series of extracts. The beginning and end ; 
 i are equally corrupt. Some sections are quite 
 detached '{e.g. §§ 9> 18, 21, 28, 66, etc.).; 
 ' others give a more or less continuous exposi- 
 tion of some mystery : e.g. §§ 10-16 (the nature 
 of spiritual existences) ; 39-65 (the relations 
 of wisdom, Jesus, the Christ, the demiurge; 
 
 the Miscellanies, and scribes supplied the place \ ^j^g material, the animal, the spiritual) ; 67-86 
 of bk. viii. according to their pleasure. 
 
 IV. The Outlines {'TTroTvirwffeis) probably 
 grew out of the Miscellanies. Several express 
 
 (birth, fate, baptism). ^ : 
 
 {b) The prophetic selections {iK tojc 7rpo0ir"-; 
 kQv iK\oyai) are for the most part scarcely less 
 desultory and disconnected than the Sum- 
 maries, but far simpler in style and substance. 
 They commence with remarks on the symbol- 
 ism of the elements, and mainly of water 
 Then follow fragmentary reflections; 
 
 quotations from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th 
 books of the Outlines have been preserved ; 
 but the fragments are too few and Clement's 
 method too desultory to allow these to furnish 
 
 a certain plan of the arrangement of the work. _^ 
 
 Thev agree, however, fairly with the summary ; ^^ discipline (9-1 1^ on knowledge, faith, ore- 
 description of Photius, and probably books ! ^^.^^^ the new creation (12-24). fire (25 f.), on 
 i.-iii. contained the general introduction, with , ^^.^.j^j' ^^d preaching (27), on traits of the 
 notes on the O.T. (" Genesis, Exodus, and the 1 ^^^^ gnostic (28-37). A long and misceUane- 
 Psalms") ; booksiv.-vi., noteson the Epp. of I ^^^ series of observations, some of them 
 St. Paul; books vii. viii., on the Catholic Epp. | physiological succeeds (38-50), and the collec- 
 In addition to the detached quotations, 1 t'.^^ closes wi'th a fairly continuous exposition' 
 
 (§§ i-S 
 
 there can be no reasonable doubt that the , ^^ p^ 
 
 three series of extracts, (a) The summaries 
 from the expositions of Theodotus and the so- 
 
 (xix.). 
 
 Theo-. 
 
 Manuscript.— The summaries from 
 dolus and the prophetic selections are at present^ 
 
 called Western school, (b) The selections from ; ^^^^ ^^j^, ^^ ^^^ p,^^ (L_). The text giver 
 the comments on the prophets, and {c) 1 he - 
 
 outlines on the Catholic_ Epistles, were taken 
 from the Outlines. 
 
 the edd. of Clement is most corrupt. The 
 conjectural emendations and Latin trans, o: 
 
 But partly from the ^ernays given by Bunsen in his ed. of the 
 method of compilation, partly from the manner jfji^gj^ents of The Outlines (A nal. Ante-Ntc. i.) 
 in which they have been preserved in a single ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^j. ^^^^ valuable help for th< 
 
 MS., these fragments, though of the deepest 
 interest, are at present only imperfectly in- 
 telligible. 
 
 (a) The summaries from Theodotus {iK tQjv 
 QeodoTOV Kal ttjs avaroXiKT]'! KaXovfx^vrjs 5i8acr- 
 KttXias Kara rovi OvaXevrivov xp<5»'0i'S iirtTOf-iai) 
 are at once the most corrupt and the most 
 intrinsically difficult of the extracts. It 
 
 understanding of the text. Dindorf, in hi: 
 ed., has overlooked these. 
 
 (c) The third important fragment of thi 
 Outlines consists of a Latin version of notes 01, 
 detached verses of I. Peter, Jude, and I., IL 
 John, with several insertions, probably due 11 
 some' cases to transpositions in the MS. {e.g 
 I. John ii. I, hae namque primitivae, virtute. 
 
 appears as if the compiler set down hastily the j — audita est, Pott. p. 1009. stands properly ii 
 
 passages which contained the interpretations 
 of the school which he wished to collect, with- 
 out regard to the context, and often in an 
 imperfect form. Sometimes he adds the 
 criticism of Clement {r)ij.fh 54, § 8 ; 'E/J.0I Si, 
 § 17 ; 6 rjixhepos [\6705], § 33) ; but generally 
 the Valentinian comment is given without 
 • Bunsen (Anal. Ante-Nic. i. pp. 163 f.) arranges 
 the contents of the books very differently. The 
 evidence is slight ; but it does not appear from 
 Photius that the Gospels formed the subject of 
 special annotation, and Bunsen makes the third 
 book Commeniarius in Evangelia. 
 
 connexion with the line of speculation on Jud' 
 9) ; and in others to a marginal illustratio: 
 drawn from some other part of the work {e.i 
 Jude 24, cum dicit Daniel— confusus est 
 Cassiodorus says {Inst. Div. Litt. 8) that Clea 
 ent wrote some remarks on I. Peter 1., IL Joni 
 and James, which were generally subtle, bt 
 at times rash ; and that he himself translate 
 them into Latin, with such revision as renc 
 ered their teaching more safe. It has generaU' 
 been supposed, in spite of the difference < 
 range {James for Jude) that these Latin note 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 are the version of Cassiodorus. It seems, 
 however, more probable that the printed notes 
 are mere glosses taken from a Catena, and not 
 a substantial work. The Adumhrationes 
 were published by de la Eigne in his Biblio- 
 theca Patrum, Par. i575 (and in later editions); 
 but he gives no account of the MS. or MSS. 
 from which the text was taken. Ph. Labbe, 
 however, states {de Scriptt. Eccles. 1660, i. p. 
 230) that he saw an ancient parchment MS., 
 " qui fuit olim Coenobii S. Mariae Montis 
 Dei," which contained these Adumbrationes, 
 under that title, together with Didymus's com- 
 montarv on the Catholic Epistles. De la 
 Pigne then, probably, found the notes of 
 Clement in the " very ancient but somewhat 
 illegible MS." from w'hich he took his text of 
 Didymus, which follows the Adumbrationes 
 [Bibl. vi. p. 676 n.). 
 
 V. The remaining extant work of Clement, 
 Who is the Rich Man that is Saved ? (rh 6 crcuj'6- 
 fifvoi ir\oi>cnos :) is apparentlva popular address 
 based upon Mark x. 17-31- The teaching 
 is simple, eloquent, and just ; and the tract 
 closes with the exquisite " story, which is no 
 story" of St. John and the young robber, 
 which Eusebius relates in his History (iii. 23). 
 iii. Clements' Position and Influence as a 
 Christian Teacher. — In order to understand 
 Clement rightly, it is necessary to bear in mind 
 that he laboured in a crisis of transition. This 
 gives his writings their peculiar interest in all 
 times of change. The transition was three- 
 fold, affecting doctrine, thought, and life. 
 Doctrine was passing frt^m the stage of oral 
 tradition to written definition (i). Thought 
 was passing from the immediate circle of the 
 Christian revelation to the whole domain of 
 human experience (2). Life in its fulness was 
 coming to be apprehended as the object of 
 Christian discipline (3). A few suggestions 
 will be offered upon the first two of these 
 heads. (i) Clement repeatedly affirms 
 that even when he sets forth the deepest 
 my-steries, he is simply reproducing an original 
 unwritten tradition. This had been com- 
 mitted by the Lord to the apostles Peter, 
 James, John, and Paul, and handed down 
 I from father to son, till at length he set forth 
 j accurately in wxiting what had been delivered 
 I in word {Strom, i. § 11, p. 322 ; cf. vi. 68, 
 j p. 774 ; and fragm. ap. Eus. H. E. ii. i). But 
 this tradition was, as he held it, not an inde- 
 pendent source of doctrine, but a guide to 
 the apprehension of doctrine. It was not 
 co-ordinate with Scripture, but interpretative 
 of Scripture {Strotn. vi. 124 f., pp. 802 f. ; de 
 Div. Sal. § 5, p. 938). It was the help to the 
 training of the Christian philosopher (6 yvwa- 
 WKOJ), and not part of the heritage of the 
 simple believer. Tradition in this aspect 
 preserved the clue to the right understanding 
 of the hidden sense, the underlying harmonies, 
 the manifold unity of revelation. More par- 
 I ticularly the philosopher was able to obtain 
 j through tradition the general principles of 
 I interpreting the records of revelation and 
 i significant illustrations of their application. 
 I In this way the true " gnostic " was saved 
 j from the errors of the false " gnostic " or 
 heretic, who interpreted Scripture without re- 
 j gard to " the ecclesiastical rule " {Strom, vi. 
 . l?5, p. 803, Kavwv iKKX-qaiaffTiKdt : 6 ^kk\. k. 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 181 
 
 ib. vi. 165, p. 826 ; vii. 41, p. 855 ; cf. 6 Kavihv 
 TTJs d\iit>(ias, ib. vi. 124, p. 802 ; 131, p. 806; 
 vii. 94, p. 890 ; 6 Kavwu ttjs iKK\ria-La^, ib. i. 96, 
 P- 375 ; vii. 105, p. 897). The examples of 
 spiritual interpretation which Clement gives 
 in accordance with this traditional " rule " 
 are frequently visionary and puerile {e.g. 
 Strom, vi. 133 ff. pp. 807 ff.). But none the 
 less the rule itself witnessed to a vital truth, 
 the continuity and permanent value of the 
 books of Holy Scripture. This truth was an 
 essential part of the inheritance of the Catholic 
 church ; and Clement, however faulty in de- 
 tail, did good service in maintaining it {id. vii. 
 96, p. 891). As yet, however, the contents 
 of the Christian Bible were imperfectly de- 
 fined. Clement, like the other Fathers who 
 habitually used the Alexandrine O.T., quotes 
 the books of the Apocrypha without distin- 
 guishing them in any way from the books of 
 the Hebrew canon, and he appears to regard 
 the current Greek Bible as answering to the 
 Hebrew Scriptures restored by Ezra {Strom. 
 i. 124, p. 392 ; id. 148, p. 409). There is the 
 same laxity of usage in Clement with regard 
 to the N.T. He ascribes great weight to the 
 Ep. 0/ Barnabas {Strom, ii. 31, p. 445 ; id. 116, 
 p. 489) ; and makes frequent use of the 
 Preaching of Peter (Strom, i. 182, p. 427, etc.) ; 
 and quotes the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews 
 (Strom, ii. 45, p. 453). Eusebius further adds 
 that he wrote notes on the Revelation 0/ Peter, 
 which is in fact quoted in the Extracts from the 
 Prophets (§§ 41, 48, 49). The text of his 
 quotations is evidently given from memory 
 {e.g. Matt. V. 45, vi. 26, etc.). But as the 
 earliest Greek writer who largely and expressly 
 quotes the N.T. (for the Greek fragments of 
 Irenaeus are of comparatively small compass), 
 his evidence as to the primitive form of the 
 apostolic writings is of the highest value. Not 
 unfrequently he is one of a very small group 
 of witnesses who have preserved an original 
 reading {e.g. I. Cor. ii. 13, vii. 3, 5, 35, 39, 
 etc.). In other cases his readings, even when 
 presumably wrong, are shewn by other evid- 
 ence to have been widely spread at a very 
 early date {e.g. Matt. vi. 33). 
 
 It is impossible here to follow in detail 
 Clement's opinions on special points of doc- 
 trine. The contrast which he draws between 
 the gnostic (the philosophic Christian) and the 
 ordinary believer is of more general interest. 
 This contrast underlies the whole plan of his 
 Miscellanies, and explains the different aspects 
 in which doctrine, according to his view, might 
 be regarded as an object of faith and as an 
 object of knowledge. Faith is the foundation ; 
 knowledge the superstructure {Strom, vi. 26, 
 p. 660). By knowledge faith is perfected {id. 
 vii. 55, p. 864), for to know is more than to 
 believe {id. vi. 109, p. 794). Faith is a sum- 
 mary knowledge of urgent truths : knowledge 
 a sure demonstration of what has been received 
 through faith, being itself reared upon faith 
 through the teaching of the Lord {id. vii. 57, 
 p. 865). Thus the gnostic grasps the complete 
 truth of all revelation from the beginning of 
 the world to the end, piercing to the depths 
 of Scripture, of which the believer tastes the 
 surface only {id. vi. 78, p. 779 ; 131, p. 806 ; 
 vii. 95, p. 891). As a consequence of this 
 intelligent sympathy with the Divine Will, the 
 
182 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 gnostic becomes in perfect unity in himself 
 i/xovaSiKds), and as far as possible like God 
 itd. iv. 154, p. 633 ; vii. 13, p. 835). Definite 
 outward observances cease to have any value 
 for one whose whole being is brought into an 
 abiding harmony with that which is eternal : 
 he has no wants, no passions ; he rests in the 
 contemplation of God, which is and will be 
 his unfailing blessedness (id. vii. 35, p. 851, 
 84, p. 883 ; vi. 71, p. 776 ; vii. 56, p. 865). 
 In this outline it is easy to see the noblest 
 traits of later mysticism ; and if some of 
 Clement's statements go beyond subjects 
 which lie within the powers of man, still he 
 bears impressive testimony to two essential 
 truths, that the aim of faith through knowledge 
 perfected by love is the present recovery of the 
 divine likeness; and that formulated doctrine 
 is not an end in itself, but a means whereby 
 we rise through fragmentary propositions to 
 knowledge which is immediate and one. 
 
 (2) The character of the gnostic, the ideal 
 Christian, the perfect philosopher, represents 
 the link between man, in his earthly conflict, 
 and God : it represents also the link between 
 man and men. The gnostic fulfils through the 
 gospel the destiny and nature of mankind, and 
 gathers together the fruit of their varied ex- 
 perience. This thought of the Incarnation as 
 the crown and consummation of the whole 
 history of the world is perhaps that which is 
 most characteristic of Clement's office as an 
 interpreter of the faith. It rests upon his 
 view of human nature, of the providential 
 government of God, of the finality of the 
 Christian dispensation. Man, according to 
 Clement, is born for the service of God. His 
 soul {\f/vxv) is a gift sent down to him from 
 heaven by God {Strom, iv. 169, p. 640), and 
 strains to return thither {id. 9, p. 567). For 
 this end there is need of painful training 
 {Strom, i. 33, P- 335 ; vi. 78, p. 779) ; and 
 the various partial sciences are helps towards 
 the attainment of the true destiny of existence 
 {Strom, vi. 80 ff. pp. 780 ff.). The " image " 
 of God which man receives at his birth is 
 slowly completed in the " likeness " of God 
 {Strom, ii. 131, p. 499 ; cf. Paed. i. 98, p. 156). 
 The inspiration of the divine breath by which 
 he is distinguished from other creatures (Gen. 
 ii. 7) is fulfilled by the gift of the Holy Spirit 
 to the believer, which that original constitu- 
 tion makes possible {Strom, v. 87 f. ; p. 698 : 
 cf. Strom, iv. 150, p. 632). The image of God, 
 Clement says elsewhere, is the Word (Logos), 
 and the true image of the Word is man, that 
 is, the reason in man {Cohort. 98, p. 79). It 
 
 follows necessarily from this view of humanity, 
 as essentially related to God through the 
 Word, that Clement acknowledged a provi- 
 dential purpose m the development of Gentile 
 life. He recognized in the bright side of 
 Gentile speculation many divine elements. 
 These he regarded as partly borrowed from 
 Jewish revelation, and partly derived from 
 reason illuminated by the Word (A670S), the 
 final source of reason. Some truths, he says, 
 the Greek philosophers stole and disfigured ; 
 some they overlaid with restless and foolish 
 speculations ; others they discovered, for they 
 also perhaps had " a spirit of wisdom " (Ex. 
 xxviii. 3) {Strom, i. 87, p. 369). He dis- 
 tinctly recognized the ofiice which Greek philo- 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 sophy fulfilled for the Greeks as a guide to 
 righteousness, and a work of divine providence 
 {Strom, i. 176 ff. pp. 425 ff. ; 91 ff. pp. 372 ff.). 
 He regarded it as a preparation for justifying 
 faith {Strom, i. 99, p. 377 ; vi. 44, p. 762 ; i.i. 
 47 ff. pp. 764 ff.), and in a true sense a dispeii- 
 sation, a covenant {Strom, vi. 42, p. 761 ; ii. 
 67, P- 773 ; id. 159, p. 823 ; i. 28, p. 331). 
 
 The training of Jews and of the Greeks was 
 thus in different ways designed to fit men for 
 the final manifestation of the Christ. The 
 systems were partial in their essence, and by 
 human imperfection were made still more so. 
 The various schools of philosophy, Jewish and 
 heathen, are described by Clement under a 
 memorable image, as rending in pieces the one 
 truth like the Bacchants who rent the body of 
 Pentheus, and bore about the fragments in 
 triumph. Each, he says, boasts that the 
 morsel which it has had the good fortune to, 
 gain is all the truth. Yet by the rising of the 
 light all things are lightened, and he who again 
 combines the divided parts and unites the ex- 
 position fX67os) in a perfect whole will look upon 
 the truth without peril {Strom, i. 57, p. 349). 
 
 Towards this great unity of all science and' 
 all life Clement himself strove ; and by the 
 influence of his writings kept others alive to; 
 the import of the magnificent promises in the, 
 teaching of St. Paul and St. John. He af-! 
 firmed, once for all, upon the threshold of thei 
 new age, that Christianity is the heir of all' 
 past time, and the interpreter of the future. Six-' 
 teen centuries have confirmed the truth of his 
 principle, and left its application still fruitful. • 
 
 Clement of Alexandria's works are in Migne's' 
 Pair. Gk. vols. viii. ix. ; and an ed. of his' 
 Opera ex rec. Guil. Dindorfii in 4 vols, witl' 
 Latin notes is pub. by the Clarendon Press: 
 A full enumeration of the MSS. of Clement's 
 works will be found in D. C. B. (4 -vol. ed.). 
 
 Besides the chief Church Histories, the fol. 
 lowing works are important for the study o 
 Clement : Le Nourry, Appar. ad Bibliolhecan] 
 Patrum, lib. iii. (reprinted in Dindorf's edi' 
 tion) ; Moehler, Patrologie, 1840 ; Mansel, Th>' 
 Gnostic Heresies, lect. xvi. ; and the historic 
 of the Alexandrine School, by Guericke, Matter 
 J. Simon, Vacherot. Interesting summaries o 
 Clement's teaching, besides those in the genera 
 works of Lumper, Marechal, and Schramm 
 are given by bp. Kaye {Some Account of th 
 Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexan 
 dria, Lond. 1835) ; abbe Freppel {Cletner 
 d'Alexandrie, coiirs a la Sorbonne, Paris, 1866) • 
 Ch. Bigg {The Christian Platonists of Alex' 
 andria, Oxf. 1886); F. J. A. Hort {Six Lecture 
 on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Lond. 1895). i 
 cheap popular Life is pub. by S.P.C.K. i 
 their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; an Eng. trans 
 of the Homily on the Rich Man by P. M. Bai 
 nard (S.P.C.K.), text by the same in Texts an 
 Studies, vol. v. No. 2 (Camb. Univ-. Press), wb 
 has also collected Clement's Biblical text fc 
 the gospel and Acts {ib. vol. v. No. 4). A vah 
 able ed. of the 7th book of the Miscellanies,vi'\t 
 translation, introduction and notes, was pal 
 in 1902 at Cambridge by the late Prof. Hoi 
 and Prof. J. B. Mayor. Translations of moi! 
 of his works are contained in the Ante-Nicei 
 Lib. vol. ii. (T. & T. Clark). [b.f.w.] 
 
 Clementine Literature. Among the spuriov 
 writings attributed to Clement of Rome, tl 
 
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 chief is one which purported to contain a re- 
 cord made by Clement of discourses of the 
 apostle Peter, together with an account of the 
 circumstances under which Clement came to 
 be Peter's travelling companion, and of other 
 details of Clement's family history. This work 
 assumed a variety of forms. The Ebionitism 
 with which the original work had been strongly 
 coloured was first softened, then removed. 
 Changes were also made with a view to im- 
 provement of the story ; and as time went on 
 far more interest was felt in the framework of 
 narrative than in the discourses themselves. 
 In the latest forms of the work, several of the 
 discourses are omitted, and the rest greatly 
 abridged. In early times, even when the 
 work was rejected as heretical, it yet seems to 
 have been supposed to rest on a groundwork 
 of fact, and several statements passed into 
 church tradition which appear primarily to rest 
 on its authority. Afterwards, in its orthodox 
 ioTin, it was accepted as a genuine work of 
 Clement and atrustworthyhistoricalauthority. 
 On the revival of learning the disposition was 
 to disregard the book as a heretical figment 
 quite worthless to the student of church his- 
 tory. Later it was seen that even if no more 
 than a historical novel composed with a 
 controversial object towards the end of the ' 
 2nd cent., such a document must be most I 
 valuable in shewing the opinions of the school ! 
 from which it emanated ; and accordingly the 1 
 Clementine writings play an important part ! 
 in all modern discussions concernmg the 
 history of the early ages of the church. 
 
 The work has come down to us in three 
 principal forms. I. Tlu Homilies (in the MSS. 
 TO. K\riij.(vna), first printed by Cotelier in his 
 edition of the Apostolic Fathers 1672, from one 
 of the Colbertine MSS. in the Paris Library. 
 This manuscript is both corrupt and defec- 
 tive, breaking off in the middle of the 19th 
 of the 20 homilies of which the entire work 
 consists. The complete work was first pub. 
 by Dressel, 1853, from a MS. which he foimd 
 in the Ottobonian Library in the Vatican. 
 Notes on the homilies by Wieseler, which were 
 intended to have formed part of this publica- 
 tion, only appeared in 1859 as an appendix to 
 Dressel's ed. of the Epitomes (see below). The 
 two MSS. mentioned are the only ones now 
 known to exist. 
 
 II. The Recognitions {dvayviixreis, dvayvupi<r- 
 fiol) bears in the MSS. a great variety of titles, 
 the most common being Itinerarium S. dem- 
 entis (corresponding probably to TrepioSoi 
 K\ri/jievTos or wepiodoi. Tlerpov). The ori- 
 ginal is lost, but the work is preserved in a 
 translation by Rufinus, of which many MSS. 
 are extant. Rufinus states in his preface that 
 there were then extant two forms differing in 
 many respects. He adds that he had omitted 
 certain passages common to both, one of 
 which he specifies, as being, to say the least, 
 unintelligible to him ; and elsewhere expresses 
 his opinion that those passages had been inter- 
 polated by heretics. He claims to have aimed 
 at giving rather a literal than an elegant trans- 
 lation ; and there seems reason to regard this 
 translation as more faithful than some others 
 by him. We can test his work in the case of 
 fragments of the original preserved by quota- 
 tion, and, moreover, we have a Syriac trans. 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 183 
 
 of the first three books, which is in the 
 main in fair agreement with the Latin. For 
 one of the most important variations see 
 Lightfoot On the Galatians, 4th ed. p. 316. The 
 trans, of Rufinus was first pub. by Sich.irdus 
 (Basle, 1526). The most important later edd. 
 are by Cotelier in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 
 1672) and by Gersdorf (Leipz. 1838). A new 
 ed., founded on a better collation of MSS., is 
 much to be wished for. The Syriac trans., an 
 ed. of which was pub. by de Lagarde, i86r, 
 is preserved in two MSS. in the British Mu- 
 seum. The older of these claims to have been 
 written at Edessa, a.d. 411, and exhibits errors 
 of transcription, which shew that it was taken 
 from a still earlier MS. It contains the books 
 i. ii. and iii. of the Recognitions and part of 
 c. i. of book iv., at the end of which is marked 
 " the end of the first discourse of Clemens." 
 Then follow the loth homily headed " the 
 third against the Gentiles " ; the nth homily 
 headed " the fourth " ; the 12th and 13th 
 homilies, the former only as far as c. xxiv., 
 with the heading " from Tripoli in Phoe- 
 nicia " ; and the 14th homily headed " book 
 xiv.," after which is marked " the end of the 
 discourses of Clemens." The other MS. is 
 some four centuries later, and contains only 
 the first three books of the Recognitions, the 
 note at the end being " the ninth of Clemens 
 who accompanied Simon Cephas is ended." 
 Eng. trans, of both the Homilies and the Recog- 
 nitions are given in the A nte-Nicene Lib. (T. & 
 T. Clark). 
 
 III. The Epitome, first pub. by Turnebus, 
 1555, is an abridgment of the first form {i.e. 
 the Homilies), and contains also a continu- 
 ation of the story, use being made therein of 
 the martyrdom of Clement by Simeon Meta- 
 phrastes, and of a tale by Ephraim, bp. of 
 Chersonesus, of a miracle performed at the 
 tomb of Clement. The Epitome is given in 
 forms of varying fulness in different MSS. 
 The edition by Dressel (Leipz. 1859), besides 
 giving a fuller version of the Epitome as pre- 
 viously pub., contains also a second form con- 
 siderably different. There must have been at 
 least one other form not now extant, called by 
 Uhlhorn the orthodox Clementines, which re- 
 tained the discourses, but completely expur- 
 gated the heresy contained in them. This is 
 inferred from the citations of the late Greek 
 writers (Nicephorus Callisti, Cedrenus, and 
 Michael Glycas) ; and the Clementines so 
 amended were so entirely accepted by the later 
 Greek church, that a Scholiast on Eusebius is 
 quite unable to understand the charge of 
 heresy which his author brings against them. 
 In what follows we set aside the Epitomes as 
 being manifestly a late form, and confine our 
 attention to the other two forms, viz. the 
 Homilies and Recognitions, to which, or to 
 their writers, we shall refer as H. and R. Of 
 these the Homilies contain all the character- 
 1 istics of Ebionitism in much the harsher form ; 
 1 but before discussing the doctrine, we will 
 compare the narratives as told in either form. 
 '; The following is an abstract of the Recogni- 
 tions. The form is that of an autobiography 
 addressed by Clement to James, bp. of Jeru- 
 i salem. The work divides itself into three 
 portions, probably of different dates. 
 i I. Clement, having stated that he was born 
 
184 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 at Rome and from early years a lover of 
 chastity, gives a lively description of the per- 
 plexity caused him by his anxiety to solve the 
 problems, what had been the origin and what 
 would be the future of the world, and whether 
 he himself might look fonvard to a future life. 
 He seeks in vain for knowledge in the schools 
 of the philosophers, finding nothing but dis- 
 putings, contradiction, and uncertainty. At 
 length a rumour that therehad arisen in Judaea 
 a preacher of truth possessed of miraculous 
 power is confirmed by the arrival of Barnabas 
 in Rome, who declares that the Son of God was 
 even then preaching in Judaea, and promising 
 eternal life to His disciples. Barnabas is 
 rudely received by the Roman rabble, and 
 returns to his own country in haste tobe present 
 at a Jewish feast. Clement, though desirous 
 to accompany him for further instruction, is 
 detained by the necessity of collecting money 
 due to him ; but sails shortly after for Pales- 
 tine, and after a fifteen days' voyage arrives at 
 Caesarea. There he finds Barnabas again and 
 is introduced by him to Peter, who had arrived 
 at Caesarea on the same day, and who was on 
 the next to hold a discussion with Simon the 
 Samaritan. Peter forthwith frees Clement 
 from his perplexities, bv instructing him in the 
 doctrine of the " true prophet." For one who 
 has received the true prophet's credentials 
 there is an end of uncertainty ; faith in Him 
 can never be withdrawn, nor can anything 
 which He teaches admit of doubt or question. 
 Clement by Peter's orders committed his 
 teaching to wTiting, and sent the book to 
 James, to whom Peter had been commanded 
 annually to transmit an account of his doings. 
 We are next told that Simon postponed the 
 appointed discussion with Peter, who uses the 
 interval thus gained to give Clement a con- 
 tinuous exposition of the faith, in which God's 
 dealings are declared from the commencement 
 of the world to the then present time. This 
 section includes an account of a disputation 
 held on the temple steps between the apostles 
 and the various sects of the Jews, viz. the 
 priests, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the 
 Scribes and Pharisees, and the disciples of 
 John. When the apostles are on the point of 
 success the disputation is broken off by a 
 tumult raised by an unnamed enemy, who is 
 unmistakably Saul, who flings James down 
 the temple steps, leaving him for dead, and 
 disperses the assembly. The disciples flv to 
 Jericho, and the enemy hastens to Damascus, 
 whither he supposes Peter to have fled, in 
 order there to make havoc of the faithful. At 
 Jericho, James hears from Zacchaeus of the 
 mischief being done by Simon at Caesarea, and 
 sends Peter thither to refute him, ordering him 
 to report to him annually, but more particu- 
 larly every seven years. In the section just 
 described there are some things which do not 
 harmonize with what has gone before. The 
 date of the events related is given as seven 
 years after our Lord's passion, although the 
 previous story implies that Clement's vovage 
 had been made in the very year that ended our 
 Lord's ministry. Also in one place (L 71) 
 Peter is mentioned in the third person, though 
 he is himself the speaker. These facts prove 
 that the story of Clement has been added on 
 to an older document. It has been conjec- 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 tured that this document was an Ebionite work 
 'Avai3afffj.ol 'lo/cw/Son. the contents of which, as 
 described by Epiphanius (xxx. 16), well cor- 
 respond with those of this section, and the 
 title of which might be explained as referring 
 to discourses on the temple steps. But this 
 conjecture encounters the difficulty that the 
 author himself indicates a different source for 
 this part of his work. 
 
 We are next introduced to two disciples of 
 Peter, Nicetas and Aquila, who had been dis- 
 ciples of Simon. These give an account of the 
 history of Simon and of his magical powers, 
 stating that Simon supposed himself to per- 
 form his wonders by the aid of the soul of a 
 murdered boy, whose likeness was preserved 
 in Simon's bed-chamber. Prepared with this 
 ; information, Peter enters into a public discus- 
 sion with Simon which lasts for three days, the 
 main subject in debate being whether the 
 difficulty of reconciling the existence of evil 
 with the goodness and power of the Creator 
 does not force us to believe in the existence of a 
 God different from the Creator of the world. 
 The question of the immortality of the soul is 
 also treated of, and this brings the discussion 
 to a dramatic close. For Peter offers to settle 
 the question by proceeding to Simon's bed- 
 chamber, and interrogating the soul of the 
 murdered boy, whose likeness was there pre- 
 served. On finding his secret known to Peter, 
 Simon humbles himself, but retracts his re- 
 pentance on Peter's acknowledging that he had 
 this knowledge, not by prophetic power, but 
 from associates of Simon. The multitude, 
 however, are filled with indignation, and drive 
 Simon away in disgrace. Simon departs, in- 
 forming his disciples that divine honoiurs await 
 him at Rome. Peter resolves to follow him 
 among the Gentiles and expose his wickedness; 
 and having remained three months at Caesarea 
 for the establishment of the church, he ordains 
 Zacchaeus as its bishop, and sets out for Tri- 
 polis, now the centre of Simon's operations. 
 This brings the third book of the Recognitions 
 to a close ; and here we are told that Clement 
 sent to James an account in ten books of 
 Peter's discourses, of which the author gives 
 the contents in detail, from which we may 
 conclude that they formed a work really in 
 existence previous to his own composition. 
 These contents can scarcely be described as an 
 abstract of the three books of the Recognitions; 
 for though the same topics are more or less 
 touched on, the order and proportion of treat- 
 ment are different. One of the books is de- 
 scribed as treating of the Apostles' disputatioQ 
 at the temple ; and therefore it seems needless 
 to look for the original of this part in the 
 Ascents of James or elsewhere. 
 
 II. On Peter's arrival at Tripolis he finds 
 that Simon, hearing of his coming, had fied 
 by night to Syria. Peter proceeds to instruct 
 the people ; and his discourses, containing a 
 polemic against heathenism, occupy the next 
 three books of R. Bk. vi. terminates with 
 the baptism of Clement and the ordination of 
 a bishop, after which Peter sets out for Antioch, 
 having spent 3 months at Tripolis. 
 
 III. With bk. vii. the story of Clement's 
 recognition of his family begins. We shall 
 presently discuss how an occasion is skilfully 
 presented for Clement's relating his family 
 
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 history to Peter. That liistory is as follows : 
 Clement's father, Faust inianus, was a member 
 of the emperor's family, and married by liim 
 to a lady of noble birth, uaiued Mattidia. By 
 her he had twin sons, Faustiis and Faustinus, 
 and afterwards Clement. When Clement was 
 five years old, .Mattidia told her husband that 
 she had seen a vision warning her that unless 
 she and her twin sons speedily left Rome and 
 remained absent for ten years, all must perish 
 miserably. Thereupon the father sent his 
 wife and children with suitable provision of 
 money and attendance to Athens, in order to 
 educate them there. But after her departure 
 no tidings reached Rome, and Faustinianus, 
 having in vain sent others to inquire for them, 
 at length left Clement under guardianship at 
 Rome, and departed himself in search of them. 
 But he too disappeared, and Clement, now 
 aged thirty-two, had never since heard of 
 father, mother, or brothers. The story pro- 
 ceeds to tell how Peter and Clement on their 
 way to Ant inch go over to the island of Aradus 
 to see the wonders of a celebrated temple there. 
 While Clement and his party are admiring 
 works of Phidias preserved in the temple, 
 Peter converses with a beggar woman outside, 
 and the story she tells of her life is in such 
 agreement with that previously told him by 
 Clement, that Peter is able to unite mother 
 and son. The vision which she had related j 
 had been feigned in order to escape from the 
 incestuous addresses of her husband's brother, j 
 without causing family discord by revealing 
 his wickedness. On her voyage to Athens she 
 had been shipwrecked, and cast on shore by 
 the waves, without being able to tell what had 
 become of her children. All now return to the 
 main land, and on telling the story to their 
 companions who had been left behind, Nicetas 
 and Aquila recognize their own story and de- 
 clare themselves" to be the twin sons, who had 
 been saved from the wreck and sold into 
 slavery by their rescuers. Mattidia is bap- 
 tized. After the baptism Peter and the three 
 brothers, having bathed in the sea, withdraw 
 to a retired place for prayer. An old man in a 
 workman's dress accosts them and undertakes 
 to prove to them that prayer is useless, and 
 that there is neither (.od nor Providence, but 
 that all things are governed by astrological fate 
 (genesis). A set disputation takes place and 
 occupies bks. viii. i.x. ; the 3 brothers, being 
 well trained in Grecian philosophy, successively 
 argue on the side of Providence, and discuss 
 the evidence for astrology. The discussion is 
 closed by a dramatic surprise. When all the 
 old man's other difficulties have been solved, 
 he undertakes to produce a conclusive argu- 
 ment from his own experience. His own wife 
 liad been born under a horoscope which com- 
 pelled her to commit adultery, and to end her 
 days by water in foreign travel. And so it 
 turned out. She had been guilty of adultery 
 with a slave, as he had learned on his brother's 
 testimony, and afterwards leaving Rome with 
 her twin sons on account of a pretended vision, 
 had perished miserably by shipwreck. Peter 
 has now the triumph of fully reuniting the 
 family and gaining a victory in the discussion, 
 by shewing the complete falsification of the 
 astrological prediction. From the account 
 given by Rufinus, it would seem that one of 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 185 
 
 the forms of the Rfcoi^ntlionx known to him 
 closed here ; but in the tenth book as we have 
 it, the story is prolonged by discourses in- 
 tended to bring Faustinianus to a hearty re- 
 ception of Christianity. After this Simon is 
 again brought on the stage. Ho li.is been very 
 successful at Antioch in shewing wonilers to 
 the people and stirring up their hatred against 
 Peter. One of Peter's emissaries, in order to 
 drive him to flight, prevails on Cornelius the 
 centurion, who had been sent on public busi- 
 ness to Caesarea, to gi%e out that he had been 
 commissioned to seek out and destroy Simon, 
 in accordance with an edict of the empcmr for 
 the destruction of sorcerers at Rome and iti 
 the provinces. Tidings of this are brought to 
 Simon by a pretended friend, who is in reality 
 a Christian spy. Simr)n, in alarm, flees to 
 Laodicea, and there meeting Faustinianus, 
 who had come to visit their common friends, 
 Apion (or, as our author spells it, Ajipion) and 
 Anubion, transforms bv his magic the features 
 of Faustinianus into his own, that Faustinian- 
 us may be arrested in his stead. But Peter, 
 not being deceived by the transformation, 
 turns it to the greater discomfiture of Simon. 
 For he sends Faustinianus to Antioch, who, 
 pretending to be Simon, whose form he bore, 
 makes a public confession of imposture, and 
 testifies to the divme mission of Peter. After 
 this, when Simon attempts again to get a 
 hearing in Antioch, he is driven away in 
 disgrace. Peter is received then with the 
 greatest honour and baptizes Faustinianus, 
 who has meanwhile recovered his own fi)rni. 
 We turn now to the story as told in the 
 Homilies. The opening is identical with that 
 of the Recognitions, except for one small varia- 
 tion. Clement, instead of meeting Barnabas 
 in Rome, has been induced by an anonymous 
 Christian teacher to sail for Palestine ; but 
 being driven by storms to Alexandria, there 
 encounters Barnabas. It is not easy to say 
 which form is the original. On the one hand, 
 the account that Clement is delayed from fol- 
 lowing Barnabas by the necessity of collecting 
 money due to him is perfectly in place if the 
 scene is laid at Rome, but not so if Clement is a 
 stranger driven by stress of weather to Alex- 
 andria. The author, who elsewhere shews 
 Alexandrian proclivities, may have wished to 
 honour that city by connecting Barnabas with 
 it ; or was perhaps unwilling that Peter should 
 be preceded by another ajiostle at Rome. On 
 the other hand, the rabble which assails Bar- 
 nabas is in both versions described as a mob of 
 Greeks, and the fifteen days' voyage to Pales- 
 tine corresponds better with Alexandria than 
 with Rome. The narrative proceeds as in R. 
 as far as the end of Peter's disputation with 
 Simon at Caesarea ; but both Peter's prelim- 
 inary instructions to Clement and the disputa- 
 tion itself are different. In H. Peter prepares 
 Clement by teaching him his set ret doctrine 
 concerning difficulties likely to be raised by 
 Simon, the true solution of which he could not 
 produce before the multitude. Simon would 
 bring forward texts which seemed to speak of 
 a plurality of Gods, or which imputed imper- 
 fection to God, or spoke of Him as changing 
 His purpose or hardening men's hearts and 
 so forth ; or, again, which laid crimes to the 
 charge of the just men of the law, Adam and 
 
186 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. In public 
 it would be inexpedient to question the author- 
 ity of these passages of Scripture, and the 
 difficulty must be met in some other way. 
 But the true solution is that the Scriptures 
 have been corrupted ; and all those passages 
 which speak against God are to be rejected as 
 spurious additions. Although this doctrine is 
 represented as strictly esoteric, it is reproduced 
 in the public discussion with Simon which 
 immediately follows. This disputation in H. 
 is very short, the main conflict between Peter 
 and Simon being reserved for a later stage of 
 the story. It is here stated, however, that 
 this disputation at Caesarea lasted three days, 
 although only the subjects treated on the first 
 day are mentioned. We have next a great 
 variation between H. and R. According to H., 
 Simon, vanquished in the disputation, flies to 
 Tyre, and Nicetas, Aquila, and Clement are 
 sent forward by Peter to prepare the way for 
 him. There they meet Apion, and a public 
 disputation on heathen mythology is held be- 
 tween Clement and Apion, the debate going 
 over many of the topics treated of in the tenth 
 book of R. On Peter's arrival at Tyre, Simon 
 flies on to Tripolis, and thence also to Syria on 
 Peter's continuing the pursuit. We have, as 
 in R., discourses delivered to the heathen at 
 Tripolis, and the story of the discovery of 
 Clement's family is in the main told as in R., 
 with differences in detail to be noticed pre- 
 sently. In H., the main disputation between 
 Peter and Simon takes place after the recog- 
 nitions, and is held at Laodicea, Clement's 
 father (whose name according to H. is Faustus) 
 acting as judge. The last homily contains ex- 
 planations given by Peter to his company after 
 the flight of Simon ; and concludes with an 
 account similar to that in R., of the transfor- 
 mation of Clement's father. 
 
 To this analysis must be added an account 
 of the prefatory matter. Neither the Latin 
 nor Syriac version of the Recognitions trans- 
 lates any preface ; but Rufinus mentions 
 having found in his original a letter of Clement 
 to James, which he does not prefix, because, as 
 he says, it is of later date and he had trans- 
 lated it elsewhere. The remark about later 
 date need not imply any doubt of its genuine- 
 ness, but merely that the letter, which pur- 
 ports to have been written after the death of 
 Peter, is not rightly prefixed to discourses 
 which claim to have been written some years 
 previously. The letter itself is preserved in 
 the MSS. of the Homilies, and gives an ac- 
 count of Peter's ordination of Clement as his 
 successor at Rome, and closes with instruc- 
 tions to Clement to send to James an abstract 
 of Peter's discourses. The work that follows 
 purports to contain an abridgment of dis- 
 courses already more fully sent to James ; and 
 is given the title : " An epitome by Clement 
 of Peter's discourses during his sojournings " 
 {iwiSrj/j.iwv Ki)pvyixa.Tuv). The Homilies con- 
 tain another preface in the form of a letter 
 from Peter himself to James. In this no 
 mention is made of Clement, but Peter himself 
 sends his discourses to James, strictly for- 
 bidding their indiscriminate publication, and 
 charging him not to communicate them to any 
 Gentile, nor even to any of the circumcised, 
 except after a long probation, and the later 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 ones only after such an one had been tried 
 and found faithful with regard to the earlier. 
 Subjoined is an oath of secrecy to be taken by 
 those to whom the writings shall be communi- 
 cated. Examination shews that the letter of 
 Clement cannot belong to the Homilies ; for 
 its account of Clement's deprecation of the 
 dignity of the episcopate, and of the charges 
 given to him on his admission to it, are in great 
 measure identical with what is related in the 
 5th homily, in the case of the ordination of 
 Zacchaeus at Caesarea. These are omitted 
 from the story as told in the Recognitions. The 
 inference follows that the letter of Clement is 
 the preface to the Recognitions. Thus, accord- 
 ing to the conclusion we form on other grounds 
 as to the relative priority of the two forms, 
 either R., when prefixing his account of Clem- 
 ent's ordination, transposed matter which the 
 older document had contained in connexion 
 with Zacchaeus, or H., when substituting for 
 the letter of Clement a letter in the name of 
 Peter himself, found in Clement's letter matter 
 which seemed too valuable to be wasted, and 
 therefore worked it into the account of the 
 first ordination related in the story, that of 
 Zacchaeus. The letter of Peter thus remains 
 as the preface either to the Homilies or to the 
 earlier form of the work before the name of 
 Clement had been introduced. On the ques- 
 tion of relative priority it may be urged that 
 it is more likely that a later writer would 
 remove a preface written in the name of Clem- 
 ent, in order to give his work the higher author- 
 ity of Peter, than that the converse change 
 should be made ; and also that the strong 
 charges to secrecy and to the communication 
 of the work in successive instalments would be 
 accounted for, if we suppose that at the time of 
 the publication of the Homilies another version 
 of Peter's discourses had been in circulation, 
 and that the writer was anxious to offer some 
 account why what he produced as the genuine 
 form of the discourses should not have been 
 earlier made known. Respecting this rela- 
 
 tive priority there has been great diversity of 
 opinion among critics : Baur, Schliemann, 
 Schwegler, and Uhlhorn give the priority to 
 H., Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to R. ; Lehmann 
 holds R. to be the original for the first three 
 books, H. in the later part. Lipsius regards 
 both as independent modifications of a com- 
 mon original. Without speaking over-con- 
 fidently, our own conclusion is, that while 
 neither of the existing documents can claim 
 to be the original form, they are not independ- 
 ent ; that H. is the later and in all that relates 
 to Clement's family history has borrowed from 
 R. Probably the original form contained 
 little but discourses, and was probably an 
 esoteric document, in use only among the 
 Ebionites ; and the author of R. may have 
 added to it the whole story of Clement's re- 
 covery of his parents, at the same time fitting 
 the work for popular use by omitting or 
 softening down the harshest parts of its Ebion- 
 itism ; and finally, H., a strong Ebionite, may 
 have restored some of the original discourses, 
 retaining the little romance which no doubt 
 had been found to add much to the popularity 
 and attractiveness of the volume. The follow- 
 ing are some of the arguments which prove 
 that H. is not an original. 
 
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 (i) The story of Clement's first recognition 
 of his family is told in exactly the same way 
 in R. book 7, and in H. book 12. Clement, 
 anxious to be permitted to join himself per- 
 manently as travelling companion to Peter, 
 reminds him of wonls used at Caesarea : how 
 Peter had there invited those to travel with 
 him who could do so with piety, that is, with- 
 out deserting wife, parents, or other relations 
 whom thev could not properly leave. Clement 
 states that he is himself one thus untrammelled, 
 and ho is thus led to tell the story of his life. 
 These words of Peter, to which both K. and 
 H. refer, are to be found only in R. (iii. 71), 
 not in H. It has been stated that the ordin- 
 ation of Zacchaeus at Caesarea is told fully in 
 H., and only briefly in R. In recompense R. 
 has a long section describing the grief of the 
 disciples at Peter's departure and the consola- 
 tions which he addressed to them ; all this 
 is compressed into a line nr two in H. It is 
 matter which any one revising R. would most 
 naturally cut out as unimportant and unin- 
 teresting ; but we see that it contains words 
 essential in the interests of the story, and 
 can hardly doubt that these words were intro- 
 duced with a view to the use subsequently 
 made of them. This instance not only shews, 
 as Lehmann admits, that H. is not original in 
 respect of the Caesarean sections, but still 
 more decisively refutes Lehmann's own hypo- 
 thesis that it was H. who ornamented an 
 originally simpler story with the romance of 
 the recognitions. Either the author of that 
 romance, as is most probable, was also the 
 author of Peter's Caesarean speech, which has 
 little use except as a preparation for what 
 follows ; or else, finding that speech in an 
 earlier document, used it as a connecting link 
 to join on his own addition. In either case he 
 must have been fully alive to its importance, 
 and it is quite impossible that he could have 
 left it out from his version of the story. 
 Moreover, of the two writers H. and R., H. is 
 the one infinitely less capable of inventing a 
 romance. Looking at the whole work as a 
 contro\ersial novel, it is apparent all through 
 that H. feels most interest in the controversy, 
 R. in the novel. 
 
 (2) Further, in the same section in the 
 passage common to H. and R., Peter sends on 
 Nicetas and Aquila to prepare the way for his 
 coming. He apologizes for parting company 
 with them, and they express grief at the sepa- 
 ration, but console themselves that is it only 
 for two days. On their departure Clement 
 says, " I thank Gf)d that it was not I whom 
 you sent away, as I should have died of grief." 
 Then follows the request that Peter would 
 accept him as his inseparable companion. 
 This is all consistent as told by R. ; for these 
 regrets are expressed on the first occasion that 
 any of the three brothers is removed from 
 personal attendance on Peter. But as H. 
 tells the story, Peter had already sent on 
 Clement, while still unbaptized, together with 
 Nicetas and Aquila, to Tyre, where they hold 
 a disputation with Apion. There is not a 
 word of grief or remonstrance at the separation 
 for more than a week, and it is therefore 
 strange that subsequently there should be so 
 much regret at a two days' ]>arting. It is 
 plain that H. has interpolated the mission to 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE IS7 
 
 iTyre; but failed to notice that lie .Might in 
 consistency to have modified some of the next 
 portion of R. which he retained. This dis- 
 putation with .Xpion has been alleged as a 
 proof of the priority of M., for Apion is intro- 
 duced also into K., but only as a silent char- 
 acter ; and it is urged that the original fcmn 
 is more likely to be that in whi< h this 
 well-known adversarv of Judaism conducts a 
 disputation, than that in which he is but an 
 insignificant companion of Simon. But this 
 argument does not affect the relative priority 
 of H. and R., whatever weight it mav have 
 in proving R. not original. Eusebius (iii. 38) 
 mentions a long work ascribed to Clement, 
 and then but recently composed fas he infers 
 from not having seen it quoted by any earlier 
 writer), containing dialogues of Peter and 
 Apion. This description may be intended for 
 the Homilies ; but may refer to a still earlier 
 work. There are expressions in R. which 
 seem to imply that the writer believed himself 
 to be making an im|irovemcnt in substituting 
 for Peter as a disputant against heathenism, 
 persons whose early training had been such as 
 to gi\e them better knowledge of heathen 
 mythology and philosophy. 
 
 (3) The story of Clement's recognition of 
 his brothers contains plain marks that H. has 
 abridged R. According to R., Nicetas and 
 Aquila, seeing a strange woman return with 
 Peter and Clement, ask for an explanation. 
 Peter then repeats fully the story of the ad- 
 ventures of Clement's mother. Nicetas and 
 Aquila listen in silence until Peter describes 
 the shipwrecked mother searching for her 
 children and crying, " Where are my Faustus 
 and Faustinus ? " then, hearing their own 
 names mentioned, they start up in amaze and 
 say, " We suspected at the first that what you 
 were saying might relate to us ; but yet as 
 many like things happen in different persons' 
 lives, we kept silence ; but when you came to 
 the end and it was entirely manifest that your 
 statements referred to us, then we confessed who 
 we were." H. avoids what seems the needless 
 repetition of an already-told story, and only 
 states in general terms that Peter recounted 
 Mattidia's history ; but the amazed starting- 
 up of the brothers, and their words, are the 
 same as in R. ; while, as the incident of the 
 mention of their former names is omitted, it 
 is in this version not apparent why the con- 
 clusion of Peter's speech brought conviction 
 to their minds. Evidently H., in trying to 
 shorten the narrative by clearing it of repeti- 
 tion, has missed a point in the story. 
 
 (4) As told above, in R. the recognition of 
 Clement's father crowns a disputation on 
 astrological fate. In H. the whole story is 
 spoiled. An old man accosts Peter, as in R., 
 and promises to prove from his personal 
 history that all things are ruled by the stars ; 
 but nothing turns on this. The recognition 
 takes place in consequence of a chance meeting 
 of Faustinianus with his wife, and has no 
 relation to the subject he undertakes to discuss 
 with Peter. The obvious explanation is, that 
 H. has copied the introduction from R. ; but 
 omits the disputation because he has already 
 anticipated it, having put the argument for 
 heathenism into the mouth of the eminent 
 rhetorician Apion, who seemed a fitter char- 
 
188 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 acter to conduct the disputation than the 
 unknown Faustinianus. Further H. (xx. 15) 
 and R. (x. 57) both state that the magical 
 transformation of Clement's father takes place 
 on the same day that he had been recognized 
 by his family. This agrees with the story as 
 told by R. ; but H. had made five days' 
 disputation intervene between the recognition 
 and the transformation. Thus in the account 
 of each of the three sets of recognitions there 
 is evidence that H. copied either from R. or 
 from a writer who tells the story exactly as R. 
 does ; and the former hypothesis is to be pre- 
 ferred because there is no evidence whatever of 
 R.'s non-originality in this part of his task. 
 
 (5) We have seen that in H. there are two 
 disputations of Simon with Peter, viz. at 
 Caesarea and at Laodicea. There is decisive 
 proof that in this H. has varied from the 
 original form, which, as R. does, laid the scene 
 of the entire disputation at Caesarea. The 
 indications here, however, point to a borrowing 
 not from R. but from a common original. H. 
 does relate a disputation at Caesarea, but evi- 
 dently reserves his materials for use further on, 
 giving but a meagre sketch of part of one day's 
 dispute, while he conscientiously follows his 
 authority and relates that the dispute lasted 
 three days. Afterwards at Laodicea the 
 topics brought forward in the earlier discussion 
 are produced as if new. Simon, e.g., expresses 
 the greatest surprise at Peter's manner of 
 disposing of the alleged spurious passages of 
 the Pentateuch, although exactly the same line 
 of argument had been used by Peter on the 
 former occasion. The phenomenon again 
 presents itself (H. xviii. 21) of a reference to 
 former words of Peter which are not to be 
 found in H. itself, but are found in R. ii. 45. 
 Lastly, in the disputation at Laodicea, the 
 office of summoning Peter to the conflict is 
 ascribed to Zacchaeus, in flagrant contradic- 
 tion of the previous story, according to which 
 Zacchaeus was the leading man of the church 
 at Caesarea before Peter's arrival, and had 
 been left behind as its bishop on Peter's de- 
 parture. This alone is enough to shew that 
 H. is copying from an original, in which the 
 scene is laid at Caesarea. It may be added 
 that the Apostolic Constitutions make mention 
 only of a Caesarean disputation. 
 
 (6) It has been stated that the last homily 
 contains private expositions by Peter to his 
 disciples, and these can clearly be proved to 
 be an interpolation. In R., after the disputa- 
 tion on " genesis " in which Clement's father is 
 convinced, the party having returned home and 
 being about to sit down to meat, news comes 
 of the arrival of Apion and Anubion and 
 Faustinianus goes to salute them. In H. the 
 party have retired to rest, and Peter wakes 
 them up in the middle of the night to receive 
 his instructions ; yet in the middle of this 
 midnight discourse we have an account, almost 
 verbally agreeing with R., of the news of the 
 arrival of Apion coming just as they were 
 about to sit down to meat, and the consequent 
 departure of Clement's father. The discourse, 
 thus clearly shewn to be an interpolation, con- 
 tains H.'s doctrine concerning the devil, and 
 is in such close connexion with the preceding 
 homily (which relates how Peter, in his Laodi- 
 cean disputation, dealt with the problem of 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 the permission of evil in the universe) that this 
 also must be set down as an addition made by 
 H. to the original story. We can see why H. 
 altered the original account of a Caesarean 
 disputation — namely, that he wished to re- 
 serve as the climax of his story, the solutions 
 which he put into Peter's mouth of the great 
 controversy of his own day. 
 
 (7) In section H. ii. 19-32, which contains 
 the information given by Nicetas and Aquila 
 concerning Simon, there are plain marks that 
 H. is not original. Nicetas, in repeating a con- 
 versation with Simon, speaks of himself in the 
 third person : " Nicetas answered," instead of 
 " I answered." In the corresponding section 
 of R., Aquila is the speaker, and the use of the 
 third person is correct. Yet this matter, in 
 which H. is clearly not original, is so different 
 from R., that we conclude that both copied 
 from a common original. One instance in 
 this section, however, deserves to be men- 
 tioned as an apparent case of direct copying 
 from R. In H. ii. 22, Simon is represented as 
 teaching that the dead shall not rise, and as 
 rejecting Jerusalem and substituting Mount 
 Gerizim for it ; but nowhere else is there a 
 trace of such doctrine being ascribed to Simon ; 
 and no controversy on these subjects is re- 
 ported in the Homilies. There is strong reason 
 for suspecting that H. has here blundered in 
 copying R. i. 57, where a Samaritan, whom 
 there is no ground for identifying with Simon, 
 is introduced as teaching these doctrines of 
 the non-resurrection of the dead, and of the 
 sanctity of Mount Gerizim. 
 
 We turn to some of the reasons why R. 
 must also be regarded as the retoucher of a 
 previously existing story. The work itself 
 recognizes former records of the things which 
 it relates. In the preface it purports to be an 
 account written after the death of Peter of 
 discourses, some of which had by Peter's com- 
 mand been written down and sent to James 
 during his own lifetime. R. iii. 75 contains 
 an abstract of the contents of ten books of 
 these previously-sent reports. Again, R. v. 
 36, we are told of the dispatch to James of a 
 further instalment. Everything confirms the 
 conclusion that R. is here using the credit 
 which an existing narrative had gained, in 
 order to obtain acceptance for his own addi- 
 tions to the story. Moreover, as we have seen, 
 there are instances in the first division of the 
 work where H. is clearly not original, and yet 
 has not copied from R. ; whence we infer the 
 existence of an independent authority, at least 
 for the earlier portion, employed by both 
 writers. There are places where H. and R. 
 seem to supplement one another, each supply- 
 ing details omitted by the other ; other places 
 where it would seem as if an obscure passage 
 in the common original had been differently 
 understood by each ; and in the discourses 
 common to both, there are places where the 
 version presented by H. preserves so much 
 better the sequence of ideas and the cogency 
 of argument that it is scarcely possible to think 
 the form in R. the original (cf. esp. H. ix. 9, 
 10, R. iv. 15, 16). There are places, again, 
 where both seem to have abridged the common 
 original. Thus R. mentions concerning an 
 early conversation, that none of the women 
 were present. There is no further mention of 
 
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 woiueii in tlio iiarty until quite late in tliosturv 
 both H. and R. incidentally speak of Peter's 
 wife as being in the company. In may be 
 noted in passing that they do not represent 
 Peter and his wife as living together as married 
 people ; but Peter always sleeps in the same 
 room with his disciples. We may conjecture 
 that the original contained a formal account 
 of the women who travelled with Peter, and 
 this is contirmed bv St. Jerome, who refers to 
 a work called the circuits of Peter {TrepioSoi) 
 as mentioning not only Peter's wife, but his 
 daughter, of whom nothing is said either by 
 H. or R. The work cited bv Jerome contained 
 a statement that Peter was bald, which is not 
 found either in H. or R. In like manner we 
 may infer that the original contained a formal 
 account of the appointment of 12 precursors 
 (TrpooSoi) who were to go before Peter to the 
 different cities which he meant to visit. H. 
 several times speaks of the precursors, assum- 
 ing the office to be known to the reader, but 
 without ever recording its appointment. R. 
 does give an account of its appointment, but 
 onewhich implies that Peter had come attended 
 by 12 companions, of whom Clement was 
 already one. We have already mentioned in- 
 consistencies in this first section from which 
 we infer, that though the original form of the 
 story mentioned the name of Clement, the 
 introduction containing the account of Clem- 
 ent's journey from Rome is a later addition. 
 
 We conclude that the work cited by Jerome 
 is the common original of H. and R. ; and a 
 comparison of the matter common to the two 
 shews that both pretty freely modified the 
 original to their own uses. From what has 
 been said concerning H. under No. 7, we infer 
 that the original contained mention both of 
 Clement and of Nicetas and Aquila, and it is 
 likely that Clement was there too represented 
 as the recorder of the discourses. The original 
 must have contained an account of a three 
 days' disputation with Simon held at Cae- 
 sarea ; it also included the polemic against 
 heathenism contained in the Tripolis dis- 
 courses, as may be inferred both from R. v. 36 
 and also from a comparison of the two records 
 of these discourses. It is likely that the same 
 work contained the disputation of Peter and 
 Apion referred to by Eusebius, and that H. 
 followed the original in making Apion a speak- 
 ing character, although he has been involved 
 in confusion in trying to combine this with the 
 additional matter imported by R. We may 
 conjecture too (see R. x. 52) that it also con- 
 tained a disputation by Anubion on the 
 subject of " genesis." On the other hand, 
 there is no evidence that the original contained 
 anything concerning the recognitions by Clem- 
 ent of the members of his family. In this part 
 of the story R. makes no acknowledgment of 
 previous accounts sent to James ; and he 
 shews every sign of originality and of having 
 carefully gone over the old story, skilfully 
 adapting it so as to join on his own additions. 
 It appears from H. ii. 22, 26, that in quite an 
 early part of the history the original intro- 
 duced Nicetas and Aquila as addressing their 
 fellow-disciple Clement as " dearest brother," 
 and this probably gave R. the hint (see R. 
 viii. 8) of representing them as natural broth- 
 ers. R. omits these expressions in the place 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE IS!) 
 
 where they are inappropriate. A qurstiun 
 may be raised whether the document referrctl 
 to in R. iii. 75, and which contained an ac- 
 count of th'^ disput.it ion with Simon, was part 
 of the same work as that referred to in v. 36, 
 which contain. 'd the disputation against the 
 heathen. We have marked them as probably 
 dilftrent. It mav be remarked that Peter's 
 daily bath, carefully recorded in the later books, 
 is not mentioned in the three earlier. A ques- 
 tion may be raised whether the original did not 
 contain an account of a meeting of Simon and 
 Peter at Rome ; and it is not impossible that 
 such an account may have been originally de- 
 signed by the author; as one or two references 
 to Rome as well as the choice of Clement as the 
 narrator give cause to suspect. But that in 
 any case the design was not executed appears 
 both from the absence of any early reference 
 to a Roman contest between Simon and Peter ; 
 and also from the diversity of the accounts 
 given as to the manner of Simon's death, since 
 we may believe that if the document we are 
 considering had related the story, its version 
 would have superseded all others. 
 
 Quite a different impression as to relative 
 originality is produced when we compare the 
 doctrine of H. and R., and when we com- 
 pare their narratives. The doctrine of H. 
 is very peculiar, and, for the most part, con- 
 sistently carried through the whole work ; in 
 R. the deviations from ordinary church teach- 
 ing are far less striking, yet there are passages 
 in which the ideas of H. can be traced, and 
 which present the appearance of an imperfect 
 expurgation of offensive doctrine. In H., 
 Judaisni and Christianity are represented as 
 identical, and it is taught to be enough if a 
 man recognize the authority either of Christ 
 or of Moses ; in R. he is required to acknow- 
 ledge both. On this point, however, H. is not 
 consistent ; for in several places he agrees 
 with R. in teaching the absolute necessity of 
 baptism to salvation. H. rejects the rite of 
 sacrifice altogether ; according to R. the rite 
 was divinely permitted for a time until the 
 true prophet should come, who was to replace 
 it by baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins. 
 With respect to the authority of O.T. alleged 
 for the rite of sacrifice, and for certain erro- 
 neous doctrines, H. rejects the alleged pas- 
 sages as falsified ; R. regards them merely as 
 obscure, and liable to be misunderstood by one 
 who reads them without the guidance of tra- 
 dition. The inspiration of the prophets later 
 than Moses is denied by H. and admitted by 
 R., though quotations from their writings are 
 alike rare in both forms. According to H., the 
 true prophet has presented himself in various 
 incarnations, Adam, who is regarded as being 
 identical with Christ, being the first and Jesus 
 the last ; and the history of Adam's sin is 
 rejected as spurious ; according to R., Christ 
 has but revealed Himself to and inspired 
 various holy men of old. And, in general, 
 concerning the dignity and work of our Lord, 
 the doctrine of R., though short of orthodox 
 teaching, is far higher than that of H. The 
 history of the fall, as far, at least, as regards 
 the temptation of Eve, is referred to by R. as 
 historical ; but concerning Adam there are 
 intimations of an esoteric doctrine not fully 
 explained. H. gives what may be called a 
 
190 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 physical theory of the injury done by demons. 
 They are represented as having sensual desires, 
 which, being spirits, they can gratify only by 
 incorporation with human bodies. They use 
 therefore the permission which the divine law 
 grants them, of entering into the bodies of 
 men who partake of forbidden food, or who, by 
 worshipping them, subject themselves to their 
 power ; and with these the union is so close, 
 that after death, when the demons descend to 
 their natural regions of tire, the souls united 
 to them are forced to accompany them, though 
 grievously tormented by the element in which 
 the demon feels pleasure. The opposition 
 between fire and light is much dwelt on ; and 
 again, the water of baptism and other ablu- 
 tions is represented as having a kind of phy- 
 sical efficacy in quenching the demonic fire. 
 AH this doctrine concerning demons shews 
 itself comparatively faintly in R. ; yet there 
 seem indications that the doctrine as ex- 
 pounded in H. was contained in the original 
 on which R. worked. It is natural to think 
 that the earlier form is that one of which the 
 doctrine is most peculiar ; the later, that in 
 which the divergences from orthodox teaching 
 are smoothed away. Yet it is not always true 
 that originality implies priority; and the 
 application of this principle has caused some 
 of the parts of H. which can be shewn to be 
 the most recent, to be accepted as belonging 
 to the original. For instance, we have seen 
 that the private conversation between Peter 
 and his disciples in the 20th homily bears on 
 the face of it marks of interpolation ; yet the 
 clearness and peculiarity of its doctrine have 
 caused it to be set down as belonging to the 
 most ancient part of the work. The same may 
 be said of the section concerning philanthropy 
 at the end of the 12th homily, which, however, 
 is wanting in the Syriac, and may be reason- 
 ably set down as one of the most modern parts. 
 For it is an addition made by H. to the story 
 of the recognitions as told by R. ; and we 
 have already shewn that in all that relates to 
 the recognitions H. is more recent than R. 
 We arrive at more certain results, if, examining 
 the sections we have named, and for which H. 
 is most responsible, we try to discover his 
 favourite thoughts and forms of expression, 
 and so to recognize the hand of the latest 
 reviser in other parts of the work. Space will 
 not permit such an examination here ; but we 
 may notice the fondness of H. for discovering 
 a male and female element in things, and for 
 contrasting things under the names of male 
 and female. The ahnost total absence of the 
 idea from R. makes it unlikely that it could 
 have had any great prominence in the original 
 document. The idea, however, became very 
 popular in the sect to which H. belonged ; and 
 is noticed by a writer of the loth cent, as a 
 characteristic of some Ebionites then still re- 
 maining (see Hilgenteld,N.T. Extra Can.Recept. 
 iii. 156). The germ, however, of the distinc- 
 tion between male and female prophecy, on 
 which H. lays so much stress, was apparently 
 in the original document, which disposed of 
 the testimony borne by our Lord to John the 
 Baptist by the distinction that John was the 
 greatest of the prophets born of women, but 
 not on the level of the Son of Man. The 
 general result of an attempt to discriminate 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 what belongs to H. and R. respectively, from 
 what they found in their common original, 
 leads to the belief that H., far more nearly 
 than R., represents the doctrinal aspect of the 
 original, from which the teaching of H. differs 
 only by legitimate development. 
 
 The Clementines are unmistakably a pro- 
 duction of that sect of Ebionites which held 
 the book of Elkesai as sacred. For an ac- 
 count of the sources whence our knowledge of 
 this book is derived, and for the connexion of 
 the sect with Essenism, see Elkesai in 
 D. C. B. {4-V0I. ed.). Almost all the doc- 
 trines ascribed to them are to be found in the 
 Clementines — e.g. the doctrine of successive 
 incarnations of Christ, and in particular the 
 identification of Christ with Adam, the re- 
 quirement of the obligations of the Mosaic 
 Law, the rejection however of the rite of 
 sacrifice, the rejection of certain passages both 
 of O.T. and N.T., hostility to St. Paul, ab- 
 stinence from flesh (H. viii. 15, xii. 6, xv. 7), 
 the inculcation of repeated washing, discour- 
 agement of virginity, concealment of their 
 sacred books from all but approved persons, 
 form of adjuration by appeal to the seven 
 witnesses, ascription of gigantic stature to the 
 angels (H. viii. 15), permission to dissemble 
 the faith in time of persecution (R. i. 65, x. 
 55) ; while again the supposed derivation of 
 the book of Elkesai from the Seres is ex- 
 plained by R. viii. 48, where the Seres are 
 described as a nation by whom all the ob- 
 servances on which the Ebionites laid stress 
 were naturally kept, and who were con- 
 sequently exempt from the penalties of sick- 
 ness and premature death which attended 
 their neglect. Ritschl regards the book of 
 Elkesai as an exposition of these doctrines 
 later than the Homilies ; but we are disposed 
 to look on it as earlier than the work which 
 formed the common basis of H. and R. A 
 recognition of this book is not improbably 
 contained in a passage which is important 
 in reference to the use made by H. and R. of 
 their common original. The date which the 
 book of Elkesai claimed for itself was the 
 third year of Trajan. Whether it actually 
 were so old need not here be inquired, but the 
 fact that it was confessedly no older might 
 seem to put it at a disadvantage in comparison 
 with the Pauline system which it rejected. 
 But its adherents defended their position by 
 their doctrine of pairs — viz. that it has been 
 ever God's method to pair good and evil to- 
 gether, sending forth first the evil, then the 
 countervailing good. Thus Cain was followed 
 by Abel, Ishmael by Isaac, Esau by Jacob, so 
 now, Simon Magus by Peter ; and at the end of 
 the world Antichrist will be followed by Christ. 
 The penultimate pair enumerated takes, in 
 the translation of Rufinus, a form scarcely 
 intelligible ; but the Syriac shews that the 
 version given by R. did not essentially differ 
 from that of H. ; and that the contrasted pairs 
 predicted by Peter are a false gospel sent 
 abroad by a deceiver, and a true gospel secretly 
 disseminated after the destruction of the holy 
 place, for the rectification of the then existing 
 heresies. It seems most probable that we are 
 here to understand the doctrine of Paul and 
 of Elkesai ; and it may be noted that the fact, 
 that, in this pair, gospels, not persons, are con- 
 
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 trasted, favours the coiiclusiuii that Hippo- 
 lytus was mistaken in supposing Elkesai to 
 be the name of a person. Two other of the 
 contrasted pairs deserve notice : H. contrasts 
 Aaron and Moses, R. the masJcians and 
 Moses. Again, H. contrasts John the Baptist 
 and our Saviour, R. the tempter and our 
 Saviour. In both cases the version of H. 
 seems to be the original, since in that the law 
 of the pairs is strictly observed that an elder 
 is followed by a better younger ; and we can 
 understand R.'s motive for alteration if he did 
 not share that absolute horror of the rite of 
 sacrifice which ranked Aaron on the side of 
 evil, or that hostility to John the Baptist 
 which shews itself elsewhere in H., as, for 
 example, in ranking Simon Magus among his 
 disciples. There are passages in R. which 
 would give rise to the suspicion that he held 
 the same doctrines as H., but concealed the 
 expression of them in a book intended for the 
 uninitiated, for though in H. the principle of 
 an esoteric doctrine is strongly asserted, the 
 book seems to have been written at a later 
 period, when concealment had been aban- 
 doned. However, the instance last considered 
 is one of several, where R.'s suppression of 
 the doctrinal teaching of his original seems to 
 imply an actual rejection of it. 
 
 It remains to speak of that part of the Cle- 
 mentines to which attention has been most 
 strongly directed by modern students of the 
 early history of the church — their assault on 
 St. Paul under the mask of Simon Magus. In 
 the first place it may be remarked that the 
 school hostile to St. Paul which found expres- 
 sion in these Clementines cannot be regarded 
 as the representative or continuation of the 
 body of adversaries with whom he had to 
 contend in his lifetime. Their connexion was 
 with the Essenes, not the Pharisees ; and they 
 themselves claimed no earlier origin than a 
 date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 an event which would seem to have induced 
 many of the Essenes in some sort to accept 
 Christianity. We have seen that a theory 
 was devised to account for the lateness of the 
 period when what professed to be the true 
 gospel opposed to St. Paul's was published. It 
 follows that whatever results can be obtained 
 from the Clementines belong to the history of 
 the 2nd cent., not the first. The name of Paul 
 is mentioned neither by H. nor R. Hostility 
 to him appears in R. in a milder form ; R., 
 plainly following his original, ignores St. 
 Paul's labours among the heathen, and makes 
 St. Peter the apostle of the Gentiles; and in 
 one passage common to H. and R., and there- 
 fore probably belonging to the earlier docu- 
 ment, a warning is given that the tempter who 
 had contended in vain with our Lord would 
 afterwards send apostles of deceit, and there- 
 fore the converts are cautioned against receiv- 
 ing any teacher who had not first compared his 
 doctrine with that of James, lest the devil 
 should send a preacher of error to them, even 
 as he had raised up Simon as an opponent to 
 Peter. It need not be disputed that in this 
 passage, as well as in that concerning the 
 pairs already quoted, Paul is referred to, his 
 preaching being spoken of in the future tense 
 as dramatic propriety required, since the 
 action of the story is laid at a time before his 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE lit I 
 
 conversion. In both places Paul, if i'aul be 
 meant, is expressly distinguished from Simon. 
 In the letter of Peter prefixed to the Homilies, 
 we cannot doubt that Paul is assailed as the 
 enemy who taught that the obligations of 
 the Mosaic law were not iierpetual, and who 
 unwarrantably represented Peter himself as 
 concurring in teaching which he entirely 
 repudiated. There remains a single passage 
 as the foundation of the Simon- Paulus theory. 
 In the Laodicean disputation which H. makes 
 the climax of his story, a new topic is suddenly 
 introduced (xvii. 13-20), whether the evidence 
 of the senses or that of supernatural vision be 
 more trustworthy ; and it is made to appear 
 that Simon claims to have obtained, by means 
 of a vision of Jesus, knowledge of Him superior 
 to that which Peter had gained during his year 
 of personal converse with Him. In this section 
 phrases are introduced which occur in the 
 notice of the dispute at Antioch, between Peter 
 and Paul, contained in the Ep. to the Gala- 
 tians. It need not be doubted, then, that in 
 this section of the Homilies the arguments 
 nominally directed against Simon are really 
 intended to depreciate the claims of Paul. 
 Since von Colin and Baur first took notice of 
 the concealed object of this section, specula- 
 tion in Germany has run wild on the identifica- 
 tion of Paul and Simon. The theory in the 
 form now most approved will be found in the 
 article on Simon Magus in Schenkel's Bibel- 
 Lexikou. It has been inferred that Simon was 
 in Jewish circles a pseudonym for Paul, and 
 that all related of him is but a parody of the 
 life of Paul. Simon as a historical character 
 almost entirely disappears. Even the story 
 told in the Acts of the Apostles has been held 
 to be but a caricature of the story of Paul's 
 bringing up to Jerusalem the collection he 
 had made, and hoping by this gift of money 
 to bribe the apostles to admit him to equal 
 dignity. In order to account for the author 
 of the Acts admitting into his narrative the 
 section concerning Simon, explanations have 
 been given which certainly have not the ad- 
 vantage in simplicity over that suggested by 
 the work itself — viz. that the author having 
 spent seven days in Philip's house had learned 
 from him interesting particulars of his early 
 evangelical work, which he naturally inserted 
 in his history. The Simon- Paulus theory has 
 been particularly misleading in speculations 
 as to the literary history of the tales con- 
 cerning Simon. Lipsius, for instance, has set 
 himself to consider in what way the history 
 of Simon could be told, so as best to serve the 
 purpose of a libel on Paul ; and having thus 
 constructed a more ingenious parody of Paul's 
 life than any which documentary evidence 
 shews to have been ever in circulation, he asks 
 us to accept this as the original form of the 
 story of Simon. It becomes necessary, there- 
 fore, to point out on how narrow a basis of fact 
 these speculations rest. To R., anti-Pauline 
 though he is, the idea of identifying Simon 
 with St. Paul seems never to have occurred. 
 All through his book Paul is Paul, and Simon 
 Simon. The same may be said of the whole 
 of the Homilies, except this Latxliccan dis- 
 putation, which is the part in which the latest 
 writer has taken the greatest liberties with his 
 original. Before any inference can be drawn 
 
192 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 from this section as to an early identification 
 ot Simon and Paul, it must be shewn that it 
 belongs to the original document, and is not 
 an addition of the last reviser only. The 
 object of the latter may be inferred from what 
 he states in the form of a prediction (xvi. 21), 
 that other heretics would arise who should 
 assert the same blasphemies against God as 
 Simon ; which we may take as implying that 
 the wTiter has put into the mouth of Simon 
 doctrines similar to those held by later heretics 
 against whom he had himself to contend. In 
 particular, this Laodicean section is strongly 
 anti-Marcionite ; and it is just possible that 
 this section may have been elicited by Mar- 
 cionite exaggeration of the claims of Paul. 
 But we own, it seems to us far more probable 
 that H. has here preserved a fragment of an 
 earlier document, the full force of which it is 
 even possible he did not himself understand. 
 Further, it is altogether unproved that in this 
 earlier document this particular disputation 
 was directed against Simon. The original work 
 may well have included conflicts of St. Peter 
 with other adversaries, and in another instance 
 we have seen reason to think that H. has 
 made a mistake in transferring to Simon words 
 which in the earlier document referred to 
 another. Again, even if the earlier writer 
 did put Pauline features into his picture of 
 Simon, it no more follows that he identified 
 Simon with St. Paul than that the later writer 
 identified him with Marcion. The action of 
 the story being laid at a date antecedent to 
 St. Paul's conversion, it was a literary necessity 
 that if Pauline pretensions were to be refuted, 
 they must be put into the mouth of another. 
 At the present day history is often written 
 with a view to its bearing on the controversies 
 of our own time ; but we do not imagine that 
 a vvriter doubts Julius Caesar to be a historical 
 character, even though in speaking of him he 
 may have Napoleon Bonaparte in his mind. 
 Now, though the author of the Clementines 
 has put his own words into the mouth both of 
 Simon and Peter, it is manifest that he no 
 more doubted of the historical character of one 
 than of the other. For Simon, his authorities 
 were — (i) the account given in Acts viii. which 
 furnished the conception of Simon as possessed 
 of magical powers ; (2) in all probability the 
 account given by Justin Mart\Tr of honours 
 paid to Simon at Rome ; and (3) since R. 
 refers to the writings of Simon, it can scarcely 
 be doubted that the author used the work 
 ascribed to Simon called the Great Announce- 
 ment, some of the language of which, quoted 
 by Hippolytus, is in the Clementines put into 
 the mouth of Simon. Hence has resulted some 
 little confusion, for the heresy of the Great 
 Announcement appears to have been akin to 
 the Valentinian ; but what the Clementine 
 author has added of his own is Marcionite. 
 
 Quotations from N.T. in the Clementines.- — 
 All the four gospels are quoted ; for since the 
 publication of the conclusion of the Homilies by 
 Dressel, it is impossible to deny that St. John's 
 gospel was employed. Epiphanius tells us 
 that a Hebrew translation of St. John's gospel 
 was in use among the Ebionites. The quota- 
 tions are principally from St. Matthew, but 
 often with considerable verbal differences from 
 our present text ; and there are a few passages 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 quoted which are not found in any of our 
 present gospels. The deviations from the 
 existing text are much smaller in R. than in 
 H., and it may be asserted that R. always 
 conforms to our present gospels in his own 
 added matter. Since it is known that the 
 Ebionites used an Aramaic gospel, which in 
 the main agreed with St. Matthew but with 
 considerable variations, we may conclude that 
 this was the source principally employed by 
 the author of the original. H. seems to have 
 used the same sources as the original ; but yet 
 two things must be borne in mind before we 
 assert that variations in H. from our existing 
 texts prove that he had a different text before 
 him : one is the laxity with which he cites 
 the O.T. ; the other, the fact that the story 
 demands that Peter should be represented as 
 quoting our Lord's discourses from memory 
 and not from any written source ; and the 
 author would naturally feel himself entitled to 
 a certain amount of licence in quotations of 
 such a kind.* 
 
 Place and Time of Composition of the Clemen- 
 tine Writings. — The use made of the name of 
 Clement had caused Rome to be accepted as 
 the place of composition by the majority of 
 critics, but the opposite arguments urged by 
 Uhlhorn appear conclusive, and to, at least, 
 the original document an Eastern origin must 
 be assigned. Hippolytus mentions the arrival 
 in Rome of an Elkesaite teacher c. a.d. 220, 
 whose doctrines would seem to have been then 
 quite novel at Rome, and not to have taken 
 root there. The scene of the story is all 
 laid in the East, and the writings shew no 
 familiarity with the Roman church. The 
 ranking Clement among the disciples of Peter 
 may be even said to be opposed to the earliest 
 traditions of the Roman church, which placed 
 Clement third from the apostles ; but it is 
 quite intelligible that in foreign churches, where 
 the epistle of Clement was habitually publicly 
 read in the same manner as the apostolic 
 epistles, Clement and the apostles might come 
 to be regarded as contemporaries. Clement 
 might naturally be chosen as a typical repre- 
 sentative of the Gentile converts by an Ebion- 
 ite who desired by his example to enforce on 
 the Gentile churches the duty of obedience 
 to the church of the circumcision. For all 
 through it is James of Jerusalem, not Peter, 
 who is represented as the supreme ruler of the 
 churches. The author of the original docu- 
 ment habitually used an Aramaic version of 
 N.T. ; and there are a few phenomena which 
 make it seem not incredible that the original 
 document itself may have been written in 
 the same language. Uhlhorn's conjecture of 
 Eastern S^Tia as the place of composition 
 seems not improbable. The Recognitions with 
 the prefatory letter relating the ordination of 
 Clement as bp. of Rome may, however, have 
 been a version designed for Roman circulation. 
 The data for fixing the time of composition 
 are but scanty. The Recognitions are quoted 
 by Origen (with, however, a division of books 
 differing from the present form) c. a.d. 230. 
 
 • In one place (xix. 3) H., having quoted some 
 sayings of our I,ord, makes the slip of referring to 
 these as " Scripture." It thus clearly appears that 
 the author used written gospels to which he ascribed 
 the authority of Scripture. 
 
CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 
 
 This gives the latest limit iov the publication 
 of K. We may infer that the chronicle of 
 Hippolytus A.D. 235 recognizes the Ep. of 
 Clement to James, since it counts Peter as 
 first bp. of Rome, and places the episcopate 
 of Clement at a time so early as to make his 
 ordination by Peter possible. [Clemens Kom- 
 ANUS.] It is not unreasonable to date the 
 Ep. of Clement to James at least a quarter 
 of a cent, earlier, in order to allow time for its 
 ideas to gain such complete acceptance at 
 Rome. Irenaeus is ignorant of the episcopate 
 of Peter, but ranks Clement as a contemporary 
 of the apostles. It is likely, therefore, that 
 he knew the work on which the Recognitions 
 were founded, but not this later version. As 
 a limit in the other direction we have the use 
 of the name Faustus for one represented as a 
 member of the imperial family, which points 
 to a date later than the reign of Antoninus, 
 whose wife, and whose daughter married to 
 Marcus Aurelius, both bore the name of 
 Faustina. A section (R. ix. 17-29) is identical 
 with a passage quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 
 6, 10, as from the dialogues of Bardesanes. 
 But the date of Bardesanes himself is uncer- 
 tain. [Bardesanes.] The date assigned by 
 Eusebius in his chronicle for his activity, a.d. 
 173, seems to need to be put later, because 
 an authority likely to be better informed, the 
 Chronicle of Edessa, with great particularity 
 assigns for the date of his birth July 11, a.d. 
 154. Further, the dialogue cited by Eusebius 
 and by R. has been now recovered from the 
 S\Tiac, and has been published in Cureton's 
 Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). From this it 
 appears that the dialogue does not purport 
 to be WTitten by Bardesanes himself, but by 
 a scholar of his, Philippus, who addresses him 
 as father and is addressed by him as son. This 
 forbids us to put the dialogue at a very early 
 period of the life of Bardesanes, and R. may 
 have been the earlier. Merx (Bardesanes von 
 Edessa) tries to shew that other sections also 
 in R. were later interpolations from Barde- 
 sanes ; but his arguments have quite failed 
 to convince us. On the whole, a.d. 200 seems 
 as near an approximation as we can make to 
 the probable date of R. The form H. must 
 be dated later, possibly a.d. 218, the time 
 when, according to Hippolytus, the Elkesaite 
 Alcibiades came from Apamea to Rome. 
 There is little to determine very closely the 
 date of the original document. If we could lay 
 stress on a passage which speaks of there being 
 one Caesar (R. v. 19, H. x. 14), we should date 
 it before a.d. i6r, when Marcus Aurelius shared 
 the empire with Verus; and though this argu- 
 ment is very far from decisive, there is nothing 
 that actually forbids so early a date, though 
 we could not safely name one much earlier. 
 
 The prolegomena of the earlier editors of the 
 Clementines are collected in Migne's Palro- 
 logia. The most important monographs are 
 von Colln's article in Ersch and Grujjer (1828), 
 Schliemann, Die Clementinen (Hamburg, 1844) ; 
 Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Recogttitionen 
 vnd Homilien (Jena, 1848); Uhlhorn, Die 
 Homilien und Recognitionen des Clemens Rom- 
 anus {Gott'mgen, 1854) ; Lehmann, Die clement- 
 inische Schriften (Gotha, 1867). In these works 
 will be found references to other sources of 
 information. Baur has treated of the Clem- 
 
 CLOVIS 
 
 lit:) 
 
 entines in several works : tlie section in Die 
 christlichc Gnosis, pp. 300-414, may especially 
 bo mentioned. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der 
 aUkatholischen Kirche, enters more largely into 
 the subject of the Clementines in his first ed. 
 See also Li)is,ius, QHcUcnkntik des Epiphanioa 
 and Die Qucllen dcr Rumischcn I'elnissage, and 
 an interesting review by Lipsius of Lchmann's 
 work in the Protestaniische Kirchenzeitung 
 (1869), pp. 477-482. Cf. Lightfoot's Clement 
 of Rome, part i. pp. 99 ff. and 406 ff. ; and 
 Harnack, Gescl:. der All.-Ch. Lit. p. 212 flf. [o.s.] 
 
 CletUS or Anacletus, " le meme que .St. Clet, 
 comnie les savants en conviennent " (L'Art de 
 verif. les dates, i. 218). Eusebius calls him 
 Anencletus, and says that he was succeeded in 
 the see of Rome by Clement in the twelfth 
 year of Domitian, having himself sat there 
 twelve years. According to this, his own con- 
 secration would have fallen in the first vear of 
 Domitian, or a.d. 81 ; but it is variously dated 
 by others (cf. Gieseler, E. H. § 32 with note 4, 
 Eng. tr.). Eusebius indeed nowhere says that 
 he succeeded Linus, or was the second bp. of 
 Rome : yet he places him between Linus, 
 whom he calls the first bishop, and Clement, 
 whom he calls third. Other ancient author- 
 ities make Clement the first bishop (see Clinton, 
 F. R. ii. 399). Rohrbacher, on the strength 
 of a list attributed to pope Liberius, places 
 Clement after Linus, Cletus after Clement, and 
 another pope named Anencletus after Cletus 
 (E. H. iv. 450). This Gieseler calls " the 
 modern Roman view." [But for this question 
 of the succession of the Roman bishops, see 
 Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 201- 
 345 ; of which Bp. Westcott says (Preface to 
 Lightfoot), " Perhaps it is not too much to say 
 that the question of the order of the first five 
 bps. of Rome is now finally settled."] Three 
 spurious epistles have the name of Anacletus 
 affixed to them in the Pseudo-Isidorian collec- 
 tion (Migne, Patr. cxxx. 59 and seq.). [e.s.ff.] 
 
 Clovis (in the chroniclers Chlodovechus, etc., 
 modern German Lndwig, modern French 
 Louis), son of Childeric, one of the kings of 
 the Salian Franks, born a.d. 466, succeeded 
 his father in 481 (Greg. Tur. ii. 43). As soon 
 as he reached manhood (486) he attacked 
 Syagrius, " rex Romanorum " (Greg. ii. 23), 
 son of Aegidius, the isolated and independent 
 representative of the Roman power in Gaul 
 (J unghans, pp. 22, 23). Syagrius was defeated, 
 and Clovis advanced his territory from the 
 Somme to the Seine, and afterwards to the 
 Loire (Gcsla Francorum, 14), was recognized 
 as king by the former subjects of Syagrius 
 (Greg. ii. 27), and transferred his capital from 
 Tournai to Soissons (Vita S. Remigii, ap. 
 Bouquet, iii. 377 e). Waitz (ii. 60 «.) doubts 
 this (see J unghans, p. 34, n. 3). Many 
 wars and conquests followed (Greg. ii. 27). 
 
 About A.D. 492 Clovis married the Burgundian 
 princess Clotilda, a Christian and a Catholic, 
 and she is said to have made many attempts 
 to convert her husband from idolatry (Greg, 
 ii. 29 ; Riickert, Culturgeschichte, i pp. 316, 
 317 ; Binding, Das Burgundisch-Romanische 
 Reich, Leipz. 1868, pp. 111-114, doubts the 
 value of Clotilda's work ; Bornhak, Gesch- 
 ichte der Franken unter den Merovingern, 
 Greifswald, 1863, pp. 207, 208, magnifies it). 
 What her entreaties could not effect the crisis 
 13 
 
194 
 
 CLOVIS 
 
 of war brought about. During a battle against 
 the Alaniauni (whether at Tolbiac or else- 
 where, see Bonihak, p. 209, note 2 ; Waitz, 
 ii. 65, note 2) the Franks were hard pressed, 
 and beginning to yield. Clovis raised his eyes 
 to heaven and invoked the aid of Christ. 
 Forthwith the tide of battle turned, and the 
 Alamanni fled. Remigius, at the instance of 
 Clotilda, called on Clovis to fulfil his vow. 
 " Gladly," replied the king, " but I must first 
 obtain the consent of my own people." His 
 warriors signified their assent in the well- 
 known words, " Gods that die we cast away 
 from us ; the god that dies not, whom Remi- 
 gius preaches, we are prepared to follow." On 
 Christmas Day, 496, Clovis, with his sisters 
 Albofleda, a heathen, and Lantechild, an 
 Arian, was baptized by Remigius at Rheims. 
 " Gently, Sicambrian, bow down thy head, 
 worship what thou hast hitherto destroyed, 
 destroy what thou hast hitherto worshipped," 
 were the apt words of Remigius (Greg. ii. 30, 
 31; Vita Rem. ap.Boaquet). How important 
 this conversion was in the eyes of the Catholic 
 world of the day may be seen from the letters 
 of congratulation addressed to Clovis by 
 Avitus, bp. of Vienne (Bouquet, iv. 49), and 
 by pope Anastasius, who wrote both to the 
 king and to the bishops of Gaul (Thiel, Ep. 
 Rom. Pont. pp. 624 and 634). Theodoric. the 
 Ostrogothic king of Italy, was an Arian, 
 though a tolerant one, but Euric, the Visigoth, 
 had proclaimed himself militant and prose- 
 lytizing (Fauriel, ii. 28) ; the Burgundian and 
 Vandal princes were also Arian. The majority 
 of the population of Gaul was Catholic, and 
 Clovis was the only Catholic prince. (On the 
 relation of these Arian princes to their Catholic 
 subjects, see Binding, pp. 125 ff.) Whatever 
 may have been his motives, and every variety 
 has been attributed to him, from direct inspir- 
 ation of the Holy Ghost (Rettberg, Kirchen- 
 geschichte, i. pp. 274, 275) to the coldest political 
 calculation (Binding, pp. 111-114), Clovis must 
 have been aware that by his conversion to the 
 Catholic faith he would make the majority of 
 his own subjects firm in their allegiance, and 
 the Roman subjects of the Arian princes in the 
 south ill-affected towards their rulers. (An 
 instance of such disaffection may be found in 
 Greg. ii. 36.) Nor can he have been ignorant 
 of the political importance of the aid which 
 he would get from the Catholic priesthood 
 throughout Gaul. From this point, there- 
 fore, dates an increase of influence among the 
 Roman population, the foundations were laid 
 of a Roman nobility of office and intellect 
 capable of superseding the old Teutonic no 
 bility of race (Bornhak, pp. 219-221). Thus, 
 whilst from one point of view this was the 
 " first step towards the world-historical union 
 of Teutonic civilization with the Roman 
 church " (Richter, p. 36, note 6), on the other 
 hand, a reaction of Roman civihzation against 
 its Teutonic conquerors now set in, and 
 modern Latin France became possible. As an 
 immediate consequence of the conversion, a 
 body of Frankish warriors not yet converted 
 joined Rachnachar (Vita Rem. ap. Bouquet, 
 iii. p. 377 c, d). Whether this was also a 
 desertion of Clovis is doubtful (see Junghans, 
 p. 59). The conversion of the nation was not 
 completed till long afterwards (see Waitz, 
 
 CLOVIS 
 
 ii. 85, note i ; and Rettberg, pp. 285-287). 
 All questions connected with the conversion of 
 Clovis are fully treated by Riickert, Cultur- 
 geschichte des Deutschen Volkes in der Zeit des 
 Uebergangs aus dem Heidenthum in das Chris- 
 tenthum (I.eipz. 1853-1854). 
 
 The next war of Clovis was with Burgundy, 
 A.D. 500. (lUndobald, the uncle of Clotilda 
 and murderer of her parents, was defeated at 
 Dijon. Clovis annexed part of the Burgun- 
 dian dominion, and gave the rest to Godegisel, 
 another brother. Shortly afterwards Gundo- 
 bald returned, expelled Godegisel, and appar- 
 ently became reconciled to Clovis, for in 507 
 the Burgundians helped Clovis in his expe- 
 dition against the Visigoths. (This alliance is 
 not mentioned by Gregory, but see Binding, 
 p. 194, note 659 ; and Richter, p. 41, note e.) 
 Between 505 and 507 Clovis is said to have 
 been inflicted with tedious illness (Vita Sever- 
 ini, Bouquet, iii. 392 b) ; on his recovery he 
 immediately issued his famous declaration of 
 war against the Visigoths : " Verily it grieves 
 my soul that these Arians should hold a part 
 of Gaul ; with God's help let us go and con- 
 quer them, and reduce their territory into our 
 hands " (Greg. ii. 37). From Paris Clovis 
 marched through Orleans to Tours, gave strict 
 orders for the protection of the Catholic church 
 and its property (Ep. ap. Bouquet, iv. 54), 
 met and defeated the Visigoths at Voullon or 
 Vougle near Poictiers, and slew king Alaric 
 with his own hand (Richter, p. 40 notes and 
 reff.). The winter of 507-508 Clovis spent at 
 Bordeaux, carried off the Visigothic treasure 
 from Toulouse, and reduced Angouleme and 
 the surrounding territory before his return to 
 Paris, which city henceforward he made his 
 capital (Greg. ii. 38). That the religious ele- 
 ment was very powerful in this war (Riickert, 
 i. 324) is evident from the letter of Clovis to 
 the bishops (Bouquet, I.e.), from the vain 
 attempts which Alaric had made to confirm 
 the allegiance of his Catholic and Roman sub- 
 jects (Richter, p. 39, note 2), and from what 
 Cassiodorus (Var. iii. Ep. 1-4) tells us of 
 the negotiations before the war. Theodoric 
 the Ostrogoth had proposed an alliance of the 
 Arian German kings for the maintenance of 
 peace ; and when the Franks began to pursue 
 their victories in a fresh campaign and laid 
 siege to Aries, Theodoric interfered, sent an 
 army under Ibbas, which defeated the Franks 
 and relieved Aries, and eventually agreed to a 
 peace, by which Provence was annexed by the 
 Ostrogothic power, Septimania adhered to the- 
 Visigothic kingdom of Spain, and Clovis's 
 conquest of Aquitaine was acknowledged 
 (Binding, p. 212 and note 731). We do not 
 know whether Clovis joined personally in this 
 Rhone campaign. No mention of it is made 
 by Gregory. It was at Tours, on his return 
 from Bordeaux in 508, that Clovis received a 
 letter from the emperor Anastasius, " confer- 
 ring upon him the consular dignity, from 
 which time he was habitually called consul and 
 Augustus " (" ab Anastatio Imperatore codi- 
 cillos de consulatu accepit, et in basilica beati 
 Martini tunica blatea indutus est et chlamyde, 
 imponens vertice diadema, . . . et ab ea die 
 tanquam consul et (al. ' aut ') Augustus est 
 vocitatus," Greg. ii. 38). Much discussion 
 has taken place as to the exact meaning of 
 
CLOVIS 
 
 this passage. The name of Clovis does not 
 appear in the consular Fasti, but in the pro- 
 logue to the Lex Salia he is entitled " procon- 
 sul " (Sybel, Jahrb. d. Alt. in Rheinl. iv. p. 86). 
 Again, the chlaniys and the diadem are the 
 insignia of the patriciate. Hence it has been 
 assumed by many that what was conferred on 
 Clovis was the proconsulate and the patriciate 
 (V'alesius, i. 299 ; Kichter, pp. 40, 41 ; Jung- 
 hans, pp. 126-128). On the contrary, Waitz 
 (ii. 59-61) and others {e.g. Petigny, ii. 533 ; 
 and Bornhak, pp. 234, 235), adhering to the 
 exact words of Gregory, maintain that it was 
 the title of consul that was conferred on Clovis. 
 The significance of the event itself is plain. 
 Anastasius saw the value to the empire of the 
 Prankish power as a counterpoise to the Ostro- 
 gothic. Clovis willingly accepted any title of 
 honour by which he obtained a quasi-legal 
 title in the eyes of his Roman subjects (cf. 
 Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. i. note 3 on c. i.). 
 
 The well-known story of the vase of Soissons 
 (Greg. ii. 27) not only shews how ill Clovis 
 brooked the liberty and equality of the other 
 Prankish chiefs, but reveals the most unfavour- 
 able side of his character — his deceitfulness. 
 " Dolus," however, if on the right side, is 
 seldom an attribute of blame with the mediae- 
 val chroniclers. The most discreditable deeds 
 of this character attributed to Clovis are the 
 machinations by which he subjected the other 
 Prankish chiefs originally his equals, and 
 brought about the unification of the Prankish 
 empire. Thus he suggested the murder of his 
 father to Sigebert, king of the Ripuarian 
 Pranks, and when the deed was done, himself 
 took possession of the kingdom (Greg. ii. 40). 
 King Chararich was tirst imprisoned, and then 
 put to death (ib. 41 ; cf. c. 27 clam feriri, of 
 Syagrius), and likewise king Rachnachar of 
 Cambrai and his two brothers (ib. 42). 
 
 Early in 511 Clovis summoned a council of 
 32 bishops to Orleans (see Decrees ap. Sirmondi, 
 Cone. Gall. i. 177). Before the close of the 
 year he died at the age of 45, and was buried 
 at Paris in the church of the Apostles (after- 
 wards St. Genevieve's) which he and Clotilda 
 had built. He left four sons, Theodoric the 
 eldest (illegitimate) ; Clodomir, Childebert, 
 and Lothar, by Clotilda. 
 
 The only first-class original authority for the 
 reign of Clovis is Gregory of Tours, Historia 
 Francorum, ii. 27-43, contained in the collec- 
 tions of Duchesne, vol. i. ; and Bouquet, 
 Recueil des Historiens, etc., vol. ii. (in the 3rd 
 vol. of Bouquet are extracts from the lives of 
 the saints relating to this reign. On the 
 authority of (iregory see Lobell, Gregor von 
 Tours und seine Zeit, pp. 320 ff. ; Monod, in 
 the Bibliotheque de VEcole des hautes Etudes, 
 part viii. (1872); andWattenbach,£>eM/sc/i/aMds 
 Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (3rd ed. 1873), 
 vol. i. pp. 76-83. The best monograph on the 
 subject of Clovis is Junghans, Geschichte der 
 Frankischen Konige Childerich und Chlodovech 
 (Giittingen, 1857). Cf. also G. Kurth, Hist. 
 Poet, des Meroving. (Paris 1893) ; Prou, La 
 Gaule Meroving. On the constitution of the 
 kingdom of Clovis and its constitutional 
 history, see Waitz, Deutsche Ver/assungs- 
 geschichte, ii. pp. 51-71 ; and G. Richter, An- 
 nalen d. Deutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter, i. 
 
 pp. 27-32 (1873). [T.R.B.] 
 
 COELESTINUS 
 
 195 
 
 Coelestinus.i-omnionly called Celestlne, 4 ind 
 
 bp. of Rome, succeeded Boiiifacf I. i<i\ Sunday, 
 Sept. 10, 422, without any dclav or contest. 
 He was of Roman birth, the son of Priscus. 
 In early life he had visited Milan during the 
 episcopate of St. Ambrose. While deacon to 
 Innocent, he had written a cordial letter to 
 St. Augustine, who returned a suitable rei)ly 
 (.\ug. Ep. 192). Soon after his accession to 
 the see of Rome, Celestine received a letter 
 from Augustine {Ep. 209) on the case of one 
 Antony, bp. of Fussala, 40 miles from Hippo, 
 who had gravely misconducted himself in his 
 office, been compelled by a synod of bishops 
 to leave Pussala, and had afterwards applied 
 to Boniface for restoration. Augustine en- 
 treated Celestine not to impose on the people 
 of Pussala, by aid of secular power, a prelate 
 so unworthy. After this, the African bishops 
 resolved no longer to allow appeals to Rome 
 from their country ; and when Celestine, 
 apparently in 426, wrote to them in behalf of 
 the priest Apiarius, a general council of Africa 
 sent a reply begging Celestine to observe 
 the Nicene rule (can. 5) and not receive to 
 communion those excommunicated by them. 
 The African church thus claimed its right to 
 decide its own causes. They pointed out that 
 the Nicene council had ordered that all causes 
 should be decided where they arose ; nor could 
 anyone " believe that our God will inspire a 
 single individual with justice, and deny it to 
 a large number of bishops sitting in council." 
 That persons should be sent from Rome to 
 decide causes in Africa had been " ordained by 
 no synod " ; and they had proved toCelestine's 
 predecessor, by authentic copies of Nicene 
 canons, that such a claim was wholly baseless 
 {Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. ad. fin. ; Galland, Bibl. 
 Patr. ix. 289). 
 
 Celestine was zealous against Pelagianism, 
 and constrained Coelestius, the companion of 
 Pelagius, to leave Italy. 
 
 The affairs of eastern Illyricum occupied 
 the attention of Celestine, as of his predeces- 
 sors. This civil " diocese " was attached, 
 politically, to the eastern empire ; but the see 
 of Rome had kept a hold over its churches by 
 committing a sort of vicarial authority to the 
 see of Thessalonica, which was its head. Thus 
 Damasus is said to have made the bps. of 
 Thessalonica his representatives. See Pleury, 
 b. xviii. c. 22. Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 9, 
 thinks this an over-statement ; but at any 
 rate, he observes, Siricius (who succeeded 
 Damasus), and afterwards Innocent, gave a 
 delegated authority to Anysius of Thessa- 
 lonica. In A.D. 421 a collision took place 
 between the Roman bp. Boniface and Theo- 
 dosius II., who " claimed the power of trans- 
 ferring to the bp. of Constantinople that 
 superintendence over the bps. of Illyricum " 
 which Rome had entrusted to Thessalonica 
 (Pleury, xxiv. 31). But Theodosius appears 
 to have yielded thr- point ; and Celestine 
 having already " interposed " in behalf of an 
 lUyrian bishop named Felix, who was " in 
 peril of being crushed by factious accusers," 
 afterwards wrote (Cel. Ep. 3) to Perigenes of 
 Corinth and eight other prelates of eastern 
 Illyricum, asserting his right, as successor of 
 St. Peter, to a general oversight (" necessita- 
 tem de omnibus tractandi "), and directing bis 
 
196 
 
 COELESTINUS 
 
 " beloved brethren " to refer all causes to 
 his deputy, Rufus of Thessalonica, and not to 
 consecrate bishops, nor hold councils, without 
 the sanction of that bishop. " Dominentur 
 nobis regulae," writes Celestine, " non regulis 
 dominemur ; simus subjecti canonibus," etc. 
 But, says Tillemont significantly, " it is 
 difficult to see how he practised this excellent 
 maxim " ; for by the sixth Nicene canon the 
 Illyrian bishops would be subject to their 
 several metropolitans and provincial synods 
 (xiv. 150). 
 
 Another letter from Celestine {Ep. 4) was 
 addressed, July 25, 428, " to the bishops of the 
 provinces of Vienne and Narbonne, for the 
 purpose of correcting several abuses " (Fleury, 
 xxiv. 56). Some bishops, he had learned, 
 " surreptitiously " wore the philosophic " pal- 
 lium," with a girdle, by way of carrymg out 
 Luke xii. 35. " Why not," asks Celestine, 
 " also hold lighted lamps and staves ? " The 
 text is to be understood spiritually. This sort 
 of dress, he adds, may be retained by those 
 who dwell apart (monks), but there is no pre- 
 cedent for it in the case of bishops. " We 
 ought to be distinguished from the people, not 
 by dress, but by teaching ; not by attire, but 
 by conduct." On other matters he comments. 
 Some refuse to give absolution to penitents 
 even at the hour of death : this is a barbarous 
 " killing of the soul." Some consecrate lay- 
 men to the episcopate. Let no one be con- 
 secrated until he has gone through all degrees 
 of the ministry : he who would be a teacher 
 must first be a disciple. In the appointment 
 of bishops he said that the wishes of the 
 flock must be respected : NuUus invitis detur 
 episcopus. These words became the recognized 
 expression of a great principle of church law. 
 
 With this letter may be compared a short 
 one (Ep. 5), written in 429, to urge the Apulian 
 and Calabrian bishops to observe the canons, 
 and not to gratify any popular wish for the 
 consecration of a person who had not served in 
 the ministry. (On this subject of per saltum 
 consecrations, see Bingham, ii. 10, 4 seq.) 
 
 In the same year (429) Germanus bp. of 
 Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes were sent into 
 Britain to repress Pelagianism. Prosper, in 
 his Chronicle, says that Celestine sent German 
 to guide the Britons to Catholic faith. Con- 
 stantius of Lyons, the biographer of German, 
 whom Bede follows (H. E. i. 17), says that 
 German and Lupus were sent by a larg:e synod 
 of Gallic bishops. (Prosper was then in Gaul, 
 and ere long became Celestine's secretary : 
 Constantius wrote some sixty years later, but 
 with full access to local information.) The 
 accounts may be reasonably harmonized. In 
 German's case there was probably a special 
 commission from Celestine, in addition to that 
 which emanated from the Galilean synod. In 
 this way, apparently, Celestine, as Prosper 
 afterwards wrote in another work (C. Colla- 
 torem, 21, al. 24), " took pains to keep the 
 Roman island Catholic." It will be natural 
 to consider next Celestine's proceedings in 
 regard to Ireland, which, says Prosper, in the 
 same sentence, he " made Christian." Two 
 years after the expedition of German he con- 
 secrated Palladius, and sent him to " the 
 Scots, who believed in Christ," i.e. to the Irish, 
 •' as their fii-st bishop." Such is Prosper's 
 
 COELESTINUS 
 
 statement in his Chronicle. Palladius had but 
 little success, and stayed in Ireland but a 
 short time ; and there is no sufficient evidence 
 for associating the mission of his great succes- 
 sor, St. Patrick, with Celestine or with the see 
 of Rome. (See Todd's Life of St. Patrick, pp. 
 309 seq., 352, 387, etc.) 
 
 We now turn to the part which Celestine 
 took in the great doctrinal controversy raised 
 by Nestor ius at Constantinople at the end of 
 428. Celestine (Ep. 13) early in 429 received 
 copies of controversial discourses said to be 
 by Nestorius, and wTote on his own behalf, and 
 on that of other Italian bishops, to Cyril of 
 Alexandria, asking for information. [Cyril.] 
 C>Til purposely kept silence for a year ; and 
 before he wrote, Celestine had received from 
 Nestorius himself, by the hands of a man of 
 high rank, named Antiochus, copies of his 
 discourses, with a letter, in which Nestorius 
 speaks of certain exiled Pelagians resident in 
 Constantinople ; and then passes on to the 
 controversy about the Incarnation, and de- 
 scribes his opponents as Apollinarians, etc. 
 He wrote more than once again (Mansi, iv. 
 1023), and another extant letter resumes the 
 same topic. 
 
 Celestine caused the Nestorian discourses to 
 be rendered into Latin ; and meanwhile re- 
 ceived a letter from Cyril, accompanied by 
 other translations of these documents, made 
 at Alexandria. Thus aided, Celestine formed 
 his own opinion on their theological character, 
 and summoned a synod of bishops at the 
 beginning of Aug. 430. We possess an inter- 
 esting fragment of his speech on this occasion. 
 " I remember that Ambrose of blessed 
 memory, on the day of the Nativity of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, made the whole people sing 
 to God with one voice — 
 
 ' Veni, Rederaptor gentium, 
 Ostende partuni Virginis ; 
 Miretiir omne saeculum ; 
 Talis decet partus Deum ' " 
 
 (Ambros. Hymn 12 ; in Brev. Ambros. first 
 vespers of Nativ.). " Did he say, ' Talis decet 
 partus hominem ' ? So, the meaning of our 
 brother C>Til, in that he calls Mary ' Theoto- 
 kos,' entirely agrees with ' Talis decet partus 
 Deum.' It was God Whom the Virgin, by her 
 child-bearing, brought forth, through His 
 power Who is full of omnipotence." He pro- 
 ceeded to quote a passage from Hilary, and 
 two shorter ones from Damasus (Mansi, iv. 
 550 ; Galland, ix. 304). The council's reso- 
 lutions were expressed by Celestine in letters 
 to C\Til and to Nestorius. The former (Ep. 
 11) commends CjTil's zeal in a cause v/hich is, 
 in truth, that of " Christ our God " ; and con- 
 cludes by saying that unless Nestorius should, 
 within ten days, condemn his own wicked doc- 
 trines by a written profession of the same faith, 
 as to " the birth of Christ our God," which is 
 held by the Roman, by the Alexandrian, by 
 the entire church, provision must be made for 
 the see of Constantinople as if vacant, and 
 Nestorius must be treated as one " separate 
 from our body." This letter was dated Aug. 
 II, 430. Celestine wrote also to John, bp. of 
 Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Flavian of 
 Philippi, and Rufus of Thessalonica (Ep. 12). 
 His meaning is evident : he is not professing 
 
COELESTINUS 
 
 to act as the sole supreine judge and oracle 
 of Christendom, or as the mouthpiece of the 
 Catholic cliurch ; he announces his resolution, 
 in concert with the Alexandrian church, to 
 break off all communion with the bp. of Con- 
 stantinople, unless the latter retracted his 
 heretical sentiments. Another letter was 
 addressed to Nestorius himself {Ep. 13) : 
 its point is contained in the observation, 
 " You have been warned once, twice — I now 
 give you the third warning;, according to the 
 rule of St. Paul : if you wish to retain com- 
 munion with myself and with the bp. of 
 Alexandria, affirm what he affirms — confess 
 our faith." Celestine also wrote {Ep. 14) to 
 the clergy and laity of Constantinople, exhort- 
 ing the orthodox clergy to endure manfully, 
 and to take example from St. Chrysostom and 
 St. Athanasius. 
 
 For the events which followed the council of 
 Rome, see Cyril. In Nov. 430, when Theo- 
 dosius had summoned an oecumenical council 
 to meet at Ephesus at the coming Whitsun- 
 tide, and before the Roman and Alexandrian 
 resolutions had been communicated to Nes- 
 torius, the latter wrote to Celestine that the 
 best solution would be the adoption of the 
 word " Christotokos," although he did not 
 object to " Theotokos," if it were used so as 
 not to imply " a confusion of natures." In 
 the spring of 431 C\Til wrote again to Celestine, 
 asking what should be done if Nestorius — 
 having refused to retract at the summons of 
 Rome and Alexandria — were to retract at the 
 coming synod. Celestine answered. May 7 
 {Ep. 16), in a tone which exhibits him in a 
 more favourable light than his great Alexan- 
 drian colleague, " I am anxious for the salva- 
 tion of him who is perishing, provided that he 
 is willing to own himself sick : if not, let our 
 previous decisions stand." Next day. May 8, 
 Celestine wrote instructions for the three per- 
 sons whom he was sending to represent him 
 at the council {Ep. 17). The substance was, 
 " When you reach Ephesus, consult Cyril in 
 everything, and do what he thinks best. But 
 if the council should be over when you arrive, 
 and Cyril gone to Constantinople {i.e. to con- 
 secrate a new bishop), you must go thither 
 also, and present to the emperor the letter 
 which you will be charged with for him. If 
 you find matters still unsettled, you will be 
 guided by circumstances as to the course 
 wliich, in conjunction with Cyril, you shoukl 
 take." On the same day Celestine wrote the 
 most remarkable of his letters, that addressed 
 to the council of Ephesus {Ep. 18), which was 
 aftenvards read, first in Latin, then in a Oreek 
 translation, at the second sitting of the (council 
 (see Mansi, iv. 1283). Celestine, citing Matt, 
 xviii. 20, adds, " Christ was present in the 
 company of apostles when they taught what 
 He had taught them. This duty of preaching 
 has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in 
 common, for by right of inheritance are we 
 bound to undertake this solicitude. Let us 
 act now with a common exertion, that we may 
 preserve what was entrusted to us and has 
 been retained through succession from the 
 apostles {per apostolicam successionem) to this 
 very day." Celestine then insists on those 
 recollections of the pastoral epistles which the 
 place of the council's meeting should inspire. 
 
 COELESTINUS 
 
 107 
 
 " Idem locus, cadem causa. . . ." " Let us 
 be imanimous, let us do nothing l)V strife or 
 vainglory." He reminds th(un of the words of 
 St. I'aul to the " cpiscopi " of Ephesus. .\cts 
 XX. 28. It was on July 10 that the three 
 deputies appeared in the council, Nestorius 
 having been deposed on June 22 ; the council, 
 as Firmus of Caesarea told the deputies, had 
 " followed in the track " of Celestinc's previous 
 decision ; but, it must be observed, after a full 
 and independent examination of the evidence. 
 The deputies on the next day heard the " acts " 
 of the first session read, and then affirmed the 
 sentence passed on Nestorius in that session, 
 taking care to dwell on the dignity of the see 
 of St. Peter, while Cyril was not less careful to 
 refer to them as representing " the apostolic 
 chair and the council of Western bishops." 
 The council wrote to Celestine as their " fellow- 
 minister " {Ep. 20), giving a narrative of 
 events, and saying that they had read and 
 affirmed the sentences formerly pronounced 
 by him against the Pelagian heretics. They 
 evidently regarded him as first in dignity 
 among all bishops, but not as master or ruler 
 of all; they " admire him for his far-reaching 
 solicitude as to the interests of religion." 
 " It is your habit, great as you are, to approve 
 yourself in regard to all things, and to take 
 a personal interest in the defence of the 
 churches." 
 
 Nestorius, though sent away from Ephesus, 
 had been allowed to live at his old home near 
 Antioch. Celestine objected strongly to this, 
 and thought that Nestorius ought to be placed 
 where he could have no opportunity of spread- 
 ing his opinions. The birthplace of the 
 Christian name is beset by a pestilent " di- 
 sease." As for Nestorius's adherents, he 
 thinks, there are many points for consideration, 
 and that a distinction should be drawn between 
 heresiarchs and their followers. The latter 
 " should have opportunity of recovering their 
 position on repentance." The consecrators of 
 Maximian appeared to him to have passed a 
 too indiscriminating sentence against all Nes- 
 torianizing bishops, and Celestine wished to 
 moderate their zeal. He also wrote {Ep. 23) 
 to Theodosius, extravagantly lauding his acts 
 in behalf of orthodoxy, speaking highly of 
 Maximian, and hinting that Nestorius ought 
 to be sent into distant exile. 
 
 " One of Celestinc's last actions," says Tille- 
 mont, xiv. 156, " was his defence of the 
 memory of St. Augustine as a teacher, against 
 the semi- Pelagians of Caul. He wrote to 
 Vcnerius, bp. of Marseilles, and five other 
 Gallic prelates, urging them not to be silent. 
 When presbyters spoke rashly and conten- 
 tiously, it was not seemly that bishops should 
 allow their subordinates ' to claim the first 
 place in teaching,' especially when they raised 
 their voices against ' Augustine of holy mem- 
 ory ' " (Ep. 21). The nine articles on the 
 doctrine of grace appended to this letter are 
 not by Celestine (see note to Oxf. ed. of Fleury, 
 iii. p. 143). 
 
 Celestine is described by Socrates (vii. 11) as 
 having treated the Novatianists of Rome with 
 harshness, taken away their churches, and 
 obliged their bishop Rusticola to hold his 
 services in private houses. Celestine died 
 on or about July 26, 432 (TiUemont, xiv. 738). 
 
198 
 
 COELESTIUS 
 
 and was succeeded by Sixtus III. Hefele, 
 Cone. Gesch. ed. 2, pp. 164 ff. [w.b.] 
 
 Coelestius occupies a unique position among 
 the Hibernian Scots, as he taught not the faith, 
 but heresy. The general belief is that be was 
 a native of Ireland, of noble birth, and, in early 
 years, of singular piety. About a.d. 40.5 he is 
 found attached to Pelagius at Rome, and the 
 names of these two figure largely in the history 
 of the church, till they are finally condemned 
 in the Ephesine council, a.d. 431. Coelestius 
 had for some time studied law, and then 
 become a monk, when his speculations upon 
 the conditions of grace and nature attracted 
 attention, as he affirmed the leading points of 
 what were afterwards known as the Pelagian 
 heresy upon the fall of man and the need of 
 supernatural assistance, in effect denying both. 
 These errors he had partly learned, as he said, 
 from a holy presbyter, Rufinus, of whom 
 nothing else is known. From Rome, on the 
 approach of the Goths, he passed to Sicily, 
 and thence to Carthage ; by a council at Car- 
 thage, under Aurelius the bishop, his teaching 
 was condemned, a.d. 412, though St. Augus- 
 tine of Hippo had not yet taken up the contro- 
 versy against him. He soon after retired to 
 Ephesus, where he obtained the priesthood 
 which he had sought in vain at Carthage. On 
 an appeal to pope Zosimus, a.d. 417, he pre- 
 sented his teaching in such a light as to procure 
 acquittal before the pope, who, however, in the 
 following year saw good reason to condemn 
 him. At Carthage he always met with a deter- 
 mined opposition, and at Constantinople and 
 Rome both the imperial and the ecclesiastical 
 powers were finally arrayed against him. 
 After the condemnation of the doctrines of 
 Pelagius by the oecumenical council at Ephe- 
 sus, Coelestius passed from sight. His chief 
 opponents were St. Augustine and St. Jerome 
 Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. i. cent. v. c. 23 seq. ; 
 Gennadius, de Script. Eccl. c. 44 ; Robertson, 
 Ch. Hist. i. B. ii. c. 8 ; O'Conor, Rer. Hib. 
 Scrip, iv. 97 n. ; Gieseler, i. 2 ; Dupin, Htst. Ch. 
 cent. V. c. 2. [Pelagius ; Zosimus.] [j.g.] 
 
 CoeliCOlae. The death of Julian (a.d. 363) 
 was followed by a reaction in favour of the 
 Christians and against the Jews. The fierce 
 bitterness of the edicts of Constantine and 
 Constantius was never perhaps renewed, but 
 the decrees of Theodosius the Great (379-395) 
 and his son Honorius (395-423) were suffi- 
 ciently strong and cruel to make it evident 
 how the Roman emperors were influenced, 
 both theologically and politically. The 
 Christians convinced themselves that a stand 
 must be made more earnestly than ever against 
 any heresy which would seduce their members 
 in the direction of either Judaism or paganism. 
 The possible confusion of Christianity with 
 either was by all means to be avoided. Most 
 especially should this be the case as regarded 
 Judaism. The scandal at Antinch which roused 
 "the holy indignation of St. Chrysostom — 
 Christian ladies frequenting the synagogues 
 and observing the Jewish festivals,' Christian 
 men bringing their lawsuits by preference 
 before the judges of Israel (Gratz, Gesch. d. 
 Juden, iv. 315) — found its reflection in many 
 of the chief centres of the Eastern and Western 
 empires. Hence the effort became more and 
 more strenuous to suppress not only such open 
 
 COLLUTHUS 
 
 approximation of the two religious bodies, but 
 also such sects as indicated, by their forms and 
 doctrines, the intention of presenting a com- 
 promise with the truth. St. Augustine 
 {Op. ii. Ep. xliv. cap. vi. § 13, ed. Migne) wrote 
 to the "Elder" of one of these sects, the 
 Coelicolae, inviting him to a conference. 
 Edicts of Theodosius and Honorius denounced 
 the " new doctrine " of the sect, which was 
 said to be marked by " new and unwonted 
 audacity," and to be nothing else than a " new 
 crime of superstition " {Cod. Theod. xvi. t. v. 
 viii. X. Cod. Justin, i. tit. ix.). Happily there 
 is reason to believe that kinder counsels mod- 
 erated the severity of such intolerance (Gratz, 
 p. 386 seq. ; Levysohn, Diss. Inauguralis de 
 Jud. sub Caesar Conditione, pp. 4 seq.). 
 
 It is difficult to ascertain precisely the views 
 of the Coelicolae. In one edict they are 
 classed v/ith the Jews and the Samaritans, in 
 a second with the Jews only. But it would be 
 a mistake to consider them simply Jews. The 
 Romans, it is well known, called the Jews 
 worshippers of idols through a mistaken notion 
 that the Jewish use of the word " Heaven " for 
 "God" (Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s.v. Q'pt;', p. 
 2440 ; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 303) 
 indicated the worship of some created embodi- 
 ment of heaven (Vitringa, de Synag. i. 229). 
 The Coelicolae proper would therefore be easily 
 included by the Romans under the one general 
 title " Jews." From St. Augustine's letter it 
 would seem that the Coelicolae used a baptism 
 which he counted sacrilege — i.e. they probably 
 combined a Christian form of baptism with the 
 Jewish rite of circumcision. Such a compro- 
 mise would appear most objectionable and 
 dangerous to St. Augustine. If, moreover, as 
 their name may indicate, the Coelicolae openly 
 professed their adhesion to the Jewish worship 
 of the One God and rejected the Christian 
 doctrine of the Trinity, this would be an error 
 for which their abhorrence of pagan forms of 
 idolatry would not compensate. 
 
 More than this it seems impossible to ascer- 
 tain. The Coelicolae of Africa, like their 
 congeners the BeoaejSels of Phoenicia and 
 Palestine, and the Hypsistarii of Cappadocia, 
 were soon stamped or died out. J. A. Schmid, 
 Hist. Coelicolarum ; C. G. F. Walrh, Hist. 
 Patriarcharum Jud. pp. 5-8 ; Bingham, Orig. 
 Eccles. vii. 271; Niedner, A". G. p. 321 n. (1866) ; 
 Hase, K. G. p. 121 ; Hasse-Kohler, K. G. i. 103 ; 
 Herzog, R. E. s.v. " Himmelsanbeter." [j.m.f.] 
 
 Colluthus (2), presbyter and founder of a sect 
 at Alexandria early in the 4th cent. He claimed 
 (on what grounds it is unknown) to exercise 
 episcopal functions ; but the council of Alex- 
 andria under Hosius (a.d. 324) decided that he 
 was only a presbyter, from which it was held 
 to follow necessarily that Ischvras and others 
 ordained by him were only laymen (Ath. 
 Apol. cont. Arian. 12, 75-77, 80, pp. 106, 152). 
 The passages cited mention also a sect of 
 Colluthians. Bp. Alexander, in a letter pre- 
 served by Theodoret {Ecc. Hist. i. 4), seem': to 
 imply that Colluthus commenced his schis- 
 matical proceedings before Arius had separated 
 from the church. A phrase used by Alexander 
 {XpL<TTefjLTrop€ia) has been understood by Vale- 
 sius to charge Colluthus with taking money 
 for conferring orders. Valesius also infers 
 that the cause of CoUuthus's separation was 
 
COLLYRIDIANS 
 
 impatience that Alexaiulor had not taken 
 stronger measures against Arianism. The 
 name Colluthus is the first among those pres- 
 byters who subscribed to Alexander's condem- 
 nation of Arius (tlclas. Cyzic. ii. 3). These 
 authorities accuse Colluthus of schism, not 
 heresy ; as is also indicated by the mildness 
 of the action of the council, which would prob- 
 ably have excommunicated him had he been 
 deeply tainted with erroneous doctrine. 
 Epiphanius mentions in general terms (Haer. 
 69, 728) that Colluthus taught some perverse 
 things, and founded a sect, which was soon 
 dispersed. The first to give Colluthus a 
 separate heading in heretical lists is Philas- 
 trius (79), followed by Augustine and later 
 heresiologists. Philastrius charges him with 
 contradicting Is. xlv. 7, by teaching that God 
 did not make evil. Tillemont, vi. 231 ; Walch, 
 Hist, der Ketz. iv. 502 ; Harnack, Alt. Chr. Lit. 
 i. 480. [G.S.] 
 
 Collyridians. Under this name Epiphanius 
 (Haer. 70) assails certain women who had 
 brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice 
 of performing on certain days rites in honour 
 of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offer- 
 ing of a cake (wWi/p/j), and the partaking of it 
 by the worshippers. Epiphanius condemns 
 their conduct because (a) women ought not to 
 offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, 
 God only to be worshipped. The name Colly- 
 ris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the 
 LXX translation of Lev. vii. 12, viii. 26 ; 2 
 Sam. vi. 19, xiii. 68 ; and the word passed 
 thence into the Latin versions. [g.s.] 
 
 Columba (1) Columcille, June 9. The life, 
 character, and work of this saint have been 
 exhaustively treated by an Irish and a French 
 author, Reeves and Montalembert. St. Columba 
 was the son of Fedhlimidh, son of Fergus 
 Cennfada, and thus descended from Niall of the 
 Nine Hostages, monarch of Ireland, his great- 
 great-grandfather. Born at Gartan, a wild 
 district in co. Donegal, on Dec. 7, most probably 
 in 521, he was baptized at Tulach-Dubhglaise 
 (now Temple-Douglas, about halfway between 
 Gartan and Letterkenny), under the name, first, 
 of Crimthann (wolf), and then of Colum (dove), 
 to which was afterwards added the suffix cille, 
 as some say, from his close attendance at the 
 church of his youthful sojourn, and as others, 
 from the many communities founded and 
 governed by him. His chief instructor was 
 bp. Finnian of Moville (by whom he was or- 
 dained deacon). While at Clonard with St. 
 Finnian he was ordained to the priesthood by 
 bp. Etchen of Clonfad, to whom he was sent 
 by St. Finnian for that purpose. Why he was 
 never raised to the episcopate is a matter of 
 speculation : in the Scholia on the Felire of 
 St. Aengus the Culdee there is a legend relating 
 how the order of the priesthood was conferred 
 bv mistake in place of that of the episcopate 
 (Todd, St. Patrick, 70-71 ; Book of Obits of 
 C. C. Dublin, Dubl. 1844, p. liv. ; Colgan, Acta 
 SS. 306 n'''). Bp. Lloyd supposes a political 
 reason, and Lanigan thinks he applied only for 
 the office of chorepiscopus. But Dr. Reeves 
 is of opinion that he really shrank from the 
 responsibilities and many obligations of the 
 highest ecclesiastical rank. In and about a.d. 
 544 we have probably to place the many 
 ecclesiastical and monastic foundations attri- 
 
 COLUMBA COLUMCILLE 
 
 199 
 
 buted to him in Irci.uui, liis rliicf favourites 
 being Durrow and Derry. The reasons usually 
 given for his afterwards leaving Ireland are 
 various. But whatever they may have been, 
 he is said to have used his influence to excite 
 a quarrel between the families of the north 
 and south HyNeill, and the consequence was 
 the battle fought in the barony of Carberry, 
 between Druiiulilf .uid Sligo, on the borders of 
 Ulster and Conuaiight. a.d. 561, and gained 
 by the Neills of the North, the party of St. 
 Columba. In consequence of St. Columba's 
 participation in this quarrel, a synod was 
 assembled at Teltown in Meath to excommu- 
 nicate him for his share in shedding Christian 
 blood, and if the sentence of excommunication 
 was not actually pronounced, it was owing to 
 the exertions of St. Brendan of Birr and bp. 
 Finnian of Moville on his behalf. Whether by 
 the charge of the synod of Teltown, that he 
 must win as many souls to Christ by his preach- 
 ing as lives were lost at Cul-Dreimhne, or 
 through his own feeling of remorse, or his 
 great desire for the conversion of the heathen 
 he left Ireland in 563, being 42 years old, and, 
 traversing the sea in a currach of wickerwork 
 covered with hides, landed with his 12 com- 
 panions on the small island of I, Hy, I-colm- 
 kille, lova, or lona, situated about 2 miles 
 off the S.W. extremity of Mull in Argyllshire. 
 There, on the border land between the Picts 
 and Scots, and favoured by both, St. Columba 
 founded his monastery, the centre from which 
 he and his followers evangelized the Picts and 
 taught more carefully the Scots, who were 
 already Christians at least in name. Hy was 
 henceforth his chief abode, but he frequently 
 left it for Scotland, where he founded many 
 churches, penetrating N. even to Inverness, and 
 probably farther, and E. into Buchan, Aber- 
 deenshire, sending his disciples where he him- 
 self had not leisure to go. His connexion with 
 Ireland was not broken ; and in 575 he 
 attended the synod of Drumceatt, with his 
 cousin king Aidan of Dalriada, whom he had 
 crowned in lona in 574. From lona as a 
 centre he established Christianity on a firm 
 basis to the N. of the Tay and Clyde. Unfor- 
 tunately, valuable as St. Adamnan's Life of 
 St. Columba is, it is written rather to extol its 
 subject than to present a picture of the time, 
 and so gives little chronological sequence to 
 the events of the thirty years and upwards of 
 his sojourn in lona. We gather, however, 
 that in his monastery he was indefatigable in 
 prayer, teaching, study, and transcription of 
 the Scriptures ; people came to him from all 
 quarters, some for bodily aid, but most for 
 spiritual needs ; and soon smaller societies 
 had to be formed, as at Hinba (one of the 
 Garveloch Islands), Tyree, etc., for the re- 
 quirements of the monastery. He visited 
 king Bruide at Craig-Phadrick, beside Inver- 
 ness, and established the monastery of Deer 
 in the N.E. corner of Aberdeenshire, where he 
 left St. Drostan, so that his churches are traced 
 all over the N. of Scotland {Book of Deer, pref.). 
 He also frequently visited Ireland on matters 
 connected with his monasteries, the superin- 
 tendence of which he retained to the last. He 
 manifested the greatest favour for the bards 
 and national poetry of his country, being him- 
 self accounted one of the poets of Ireland, and 
 
200 
 
 COLUMBANUS 
 
 poems attributed to him are preserved and 
 quoted by Dr. Reeves and Montalembert (see 
 also Misc. Arch. Soc. i seq.)- In a.d. 593 he 
 seems to have been visited by sickness, and 
 the angels sent for his soul were stayed but for 
 a time. As the time approached, and the 
 infirmities of age were weighing upon him, he 
 made aU preparations for his departure, bless- 
 ing his monastery, visiting the old scenes, and 
 taking his farewell of even the brute beasts 
 about" the monastery. On a Sat. afternoon he 
 was transcribing the 34th Psalm (Ps. xxxiii. 
 E.V.), and coming to the verse, " They who 
 seek the Lord shall want no manner of thing 
 that is good," he said, " Here I must stop — 
 at the end of this page ; what follows let 
 Baithen write." He then left his cell to at- 
 tend vespers, and, returning at their close, lay 
 down on his couch of stone, and gave his last 
 injunctions to Baithen, till the bell at mid- 
 night called them to the nocturnal office. St. 
 Coluraba was the first to enter the oratory, 
 and when the brethren followed with lights 
 they found the saint prostrate before the altar, 
 and he soon passed away, with a sweet smile 
 upon his face, as though he had merely fallen 
 into a gentle sleep. This, according to Dr. 
 Reeves's computation, was early in the morn- 
 ing of Sun. June 9, 597. Ireland justly 
 mourned for one of the best of her sons ; Scot- 
 land for one of her greatest benefactors. The 
 Life of St. Columba, written by Adamnan, 
 ninth Ahhat of that Monastery, by W. Reeves, 
 D.D. (Dubl. 1857) ; a more modern ed. giving 
 Lat. text ed. with intro., notes, glossarv, and 
 trans, by Dr. J. T. Fowler (Oxf. Univ. Press) ; 
 Les Moines d'Occident, par le Comte de Monta- 
 lembert, vol. iii. (Paris, 1868). See also The 
 Life of St. Columba, ed. by John Smith, D.D. 
 (Edinb. 1798). In his preface Dr. Reeves gives 
 a full bibliographical account of the Irish and 
 Latin Acts and Life of St. Columba, with a 
 notice of the MSS., codices, authors, and edd. 
 Cf. Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. 107. fj.c] 
 
 Columba occupies in missionary history the 
 entire generation preceding the arrival of 
 Augustine (a.d. 597). The Celtic apostle of 
 Caledonia died the very year in which the 
 Roman mission set foot in the south of Britain. 
 The first abbat of lona laboured much longer, 
 in a far wider sphere, and personally with 
 more success, as well as prodigiously more 
 romance, than the first archbp. of Canterbury. 
 [Adamnan.] [c.h.] 
 
 Columbanus, abbat of Luxeuil and Bobbio, 
 Nov. 21. On this day, in the Mart. Doneg. 
 (by Todd and Reeves, 315), is the entry | 
 " Columban, abbat, who was in Italy." Thus 
 simply does the Irish calendar refer to an Irish- 
 man famous in France, Switzerland, and Italy, 
 the great champion of public morals at a cruel 
 and profligate court, the zealous preacher of 
 the Gospel in lands where it had been all but 
 forgotten, and the pious founder of monas- 
 teries. His life, written with great care and 
 minuteness by Jonas, of Susa in Piedmont, a 
 monk of his m.onastery at Bobbio, in the time 
 of Attala and Eustace, his immediate succes- 
 sors, is now pub. by Mabillon (in Acta SS. 
 Ord. St. Bened. tom ii. sec. ii. 2-26), and by 
 Messingham (Flor. Ins. Sand. 219-239), who 
 appends the account of miracles omitted by 
 Jonas, and other additions {ib. 239-254), also 
 
 COLUMBANUS 
 
 adding the Rule of St. Columbanus in ten 
 chaps., a short Homily by the saint on the 
 fallaciousness of human life, and some car- 
 mina {ib. 403-414). The fullest account of his 
 life, works, and writings is in Fleming's Col- 
 lectanea Sacra (fol. Lovan. 1667), which in- 
 cludes Jonas's Life and St. Columbanus's 
 writings. His writings are also in Bibl. Mag. 
 Vet. Pat. vol. viii. (Paris, 1644), and Bibl. Max. 
 Vet. Pat. vol. xii. (Lyons, 1677). His poems 
 were first printed by Goldastus {Paraen. Vet. 
 pars. i. 1604). Wright {Biog. Brit. Lit. 157 
 seq.) gives useful particulars of the editions of 
 his uTitings. 
 
 St. Columbanus was born in Leinster in or 
 about A.D. 543, the year in which Benedict, 
 his great monastic predecessor, died at Monte 
 Cassino. His chief training was in the monas- 
 tery of Bangor, on the coast of Down, under 
 the eye of St. Comgall, where he accepted the 
 monastic vows and habit. At the age, most 
 probably, of a little over forty, he was seized 
 with a desire to preach the Gospel beyond 
 the limits of Ireland, and with 12 companions 
 crossed over to France, c. a.d. 585, making a 
 short visit to Britain as he went. For several 
 years he traversed the country, teaching the 
 faith, but apparently without building any 
 monastery, till, coming to Burgundy at the 
 solicitations of Gontran the king, he took up 
 his abode in a deserted part of the Vosges 
 mountains. He first chose the ruined Roman 
 fort of Anagrates, now Annegray, a hamlet of 
 the commune of Faucogney (Haute-Saone) ; 
 then, needing a larger foundation, removed, 
 A.D. 590 or 5QI, to the ruins of the ancient 
 Luxovium, about 8 miles from Annegray, 
 and established his celebrated monastery of 
 Luxeuil, on the confines of Burgundy and 
 Austrasia. But soon he had to erect another 
 monastic establishment at Fontaines, or Fon- 
 tenay, and divide his monks among these 
 houses. Over each house he placed a superior, 
 who yet was subordinate to himself, and for 
 their management he drew up his well-known 
 Rule, derived no doubt in great measure from 
 his master St. Comgall, and perhaps to some 
 extent from St. Benedict of Munte Cassino. 
 The great principle of this Rule was obedience, 
 absolute and unreserved ; and the next was 
 constant and severe labour, to subdue the 
 flesh, exercise the wiU in daily self-denial, and 
 set an example of industry in cultivation of 
 the soil. The least deviation from the Rule 
 entailed a definite corporal punishment, or a 
 severer form of fast as laid down in the Peni- 
 tential (see the Rule in Messingham, u.s., 
 Fleming, M.S., and Max Bibl. Vet. Patr. tom. 
 xii. Lyons, 1677 ; and on it see Montalembert, 
 Monks of the West, ii. 447 seq. ; Lanigan, 
 Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. 267-269 ; Neander, Gen. Ch. 
 Hist. v. 36, 37; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. 
 vi. 484 seq. ; Mabillon, Ann. Bened. lib. viii. 
 sect. 17). For 20 years in the wooded and all 
 but inaccessible defiles of the Vosges moun- 
 tains St. Columbanus laboured with his 
 monks, and all classes of men gathered round 
 him, notwithstanding the severe discipline. 
 His own inclination was always to retire into 
 the wood and caves and hold unrestrained 
 communion with God ; but besides the claims 
 of his monasteries. Christian zeal and charity 
 drew him forth. He excited against himself 
 
COLUMBANUS 
 
 strong feeling among the Ciallican clergy and 
 in the Burgundian court. A worldly priest- 
 hood felt the reproach of his exceeding earnest- 
 ness and self-denial, and his pure severity was 
 a constant accusation of loss of love and truth 
 in them. Moreover, he carried with him the 
 peculiar rites and usages of his Irish mother- 
 church ; the Irish mode of computing Easter, 
 the Irish tonsure, and the " Ciu-sus Scot- 
 orum " which he had received from St. Com- 
 gall. This gave great offence to the Gallo- 
 Frank clergy, and in 602 he was arraigned 
 before a synod, where he defended himself 1 
 boldly, pleading that if error there was it was 
 not his, but had been received from his fathers, 
 and he asked but the licence " to live in silence, 
 in peace and in charity, as I have lived for 12 
 years, beside the bones of my 17 departed 
 brethren." At the same time he wrote to 
 pope Gregory the Great several letters on the 
 subject, as afterwards to pope Boniface IV., 
 but with what immediate result we know not, 
 though the haughty bearing and generally 
 independent tone, in words and letters, of 
 " Columbanus the sinner " were little calcu- 
 lated to propitiate the favour of bishops or 
 popes ; while Gregory's very friendly con- 
 nexion with queen Brunehault would make 
 that pope give little heed to the appeals of the 
 stranger whom she disliked. But he received 
 great opposition from the Burgundian court. 
 Thierry II., called also Tlieodoric, was under 
 age, and his grandmother Brunehault ruled in 
 violent and arbitrary fashion, and encouraged 
 the young king in every form of vice, that she 
 might retain the control of the kingdom. 
 This open profligacy St. Columbanus reproved 
 by word and \vriting, and thus incurred the 
 bitterest enmity of the king, and specially of the 
 queen-mother. Gifts and flattery proving in 
 vain, he was first carried prisoner to Besangon, 
 and finally banished from the kingdom, a.d. 
 610. He departed from Luxeuil after 20 
 years' labour there, never to return. With 
 his Irish monks he eventually arrived at the 
 Lake of Constance. First he came to Arbon 
 on its W. coast ; then, hearing of the ruins of 
 Bregentium, now Bregenz, at its S.E. corner, 
 he went thither with St. Gall and his other 
 monks, and spent three years preaching to 
 the people, and contending with privation and 
 difficulty. When Bregenz was brought under 
 the power of Burgundy, St. Columbanus had 
 again to flee, and leaving St. Gall at Bregenz 
 he himself, with only one disciple, passed 
 S. across the Alps into Lombardy, where he 
 was honourably received by king Agilulf. At 
 Milan he was soon engaged in a controversy 
 with the many Arians of Lombardy, and about 
 this time wrote to the pope Boniface IV. at the 
 suggestion of king Agilulf and his queen Theo- 
 delind. Agilulf, in 613, presented Colum- 
 banus with a district in the wild gorges of the 
 Apennines, between Genoa and Milan, not far 
 from the Trebbia, and there he built his celc- ! 
 brated monastery of Bobbio, and there, Nov. 21, | 
 615, calmly resigned his spirit. For his life j 
 and times, see Lanigan, Ecd. Hist. Ir. ii. c. 
 13 ; Ussher, Ecd. Ant. cc. xv. xvii. ; Ind. Chron. 
 A.D. 589, 614 ; Montalembert, Monks nf the 
 West, ii. bk. vii. ; Butler, Lives of the SS. xi. 
 435 seq. ; Neander, Gen. Ch. Hist. v. 35 seq. ; 
 Milman, Hist. Lat. Christ, ii. bk. iv. c. 5. In 
 
 COMGALL 
 
 201 
 
 his writings St. Columbainis everywhere shews 
 sound judgment, solid ecclesiastical learning, 
 elegant taste, and deep spiritual discernment, 
 which says much for the man and for the 
 school in which ho was educated. This is well 
 pointed out by Moore in his Htst. of Ireland 
 (i. p. 267). [j.c] 
 
 It is the great distinction of Columbanus, as 
 Neander has observed, that he set the example 
 at the end of the 6th cent, nf that missionary 
 enterprise in remote countries of Europe 
 which was afterwards so largely followed up 
 from England and Ireland, as tlie names of 
 Cilian, \Vilfrid, Willebrord, Boniface, Willi- 
 bald, Willehad, remind us. Colonies of pious 
 monlss journeyed forth under the leadership of 
 able abbats, carrying the light of Christianity 
 through the dangerous wilds of continental 
 heathendom. It was about 12 years before 
 the arrival of the Roman mission in England 
 (a.d. 597), and the same length of time before 
 the death of Columba the apostle of Caledonia, 
 that Columbanus, fired perhaps by the example 
 of this energetic missionary, passed over into 
 Gaul. 
 
 Columbanus's foundation of Luxeuil 
 achieved as great a celebrity as his Rule, and 
 a more enduring one. It became the parent 
 of numerous streams of monastic colonies, 
 which spread through both Burgundies, Raur- 
 acia (the ancient bishopric of Basel), Neustria, 
 Champagne, Ponthieu, and the Morini. Lux- 
 euil was, in short, as Montalembert expresses 
 it, the monastic capital of Gaul, as well as 
 the first school in Christendom, a nursery of 
 bishops and saints ; while Bobbio, although 
 for so brief a period under the government of 
 its founder, became a stronghold of orthodoxy 
 against the Arians, and long remained a school 
 of learning for North Italy. 
 
 The works of Columbanus contained in 
 Fleming's Collectanea Sacra (Lovanii, 1667) 
 are as follows. Prose : — I. Regula Monastica, 
 in 10 short chaps. II. Regula Coenobialis 
 Fratrnm, sive Liber de Quotidianis Poenitentiis 
 Monachorum, in 15 chaps. III. Sermones sive 
 Instructiones Variae, 17 discourses, the first 
 being " de Deo Uno et Trino," and the last, 
 " Quod per Viam Humilitatis et Obedicntiae 
 Deus quaerendus et sequendus sit." IV. Liber 
 sett Tractatus de Modo seu Mensura Poeni- 
 tentiarum, the second title being de Poeniten- 
 tiarum Mensura Taxanda. It prescribes pen- 
 ances for various sins. V. Instructio de Octo 
 Vitiis Principalibus, less than a column in 
 length. The vitia are gula, fornicatio, cupid- 
 itas, ira, tristitia, acedia, vana gloria, superbia. 
 VI. Five Epistolae Aliquot ad Diversos : (i) 
 " ad Bonifacium IV." ; (2) " ad Patres 
 Svnodi cujusdam Gallicanae super Quaestione 
 Paschae Congregatae " ; (3) "ad Discipulos 
 et Monachos suos " ; (4) "ad Bonifacium 
 Papam"; (5) "ad S. (ircgorium Papam." 
 These are especially interesting for the infor- 
 mation they give on the dispute between the 
 Roman and Irish churches. In reference to 
 (i), see BoNiFACius IV. The poetical works, 
 PoemataQuaedam, occupy ahowi 8 pp. fol., rang- 
 ing in length from 4 lines to 164. The metres 
 are both classical and medieval. [ch.] 
 
 Comgall,one of tiie most prominent leaders 
 of monasticisra in Ireland, said to have had 
 as many as 3,000 monks under him at one 
 
202 
 
 COMMODIANUS 
 
 time in Bangor and affiliated houses. He 
 was a native of Mourne, now Magheraraonie, 
 in the co. of Antrim, and on the shore of 
 Lough Larne. He was probably born a. d. 5 1 7 
 (Reeves). After teaching for some years 
 he founded in 558 his great monastery at 
 Bangor, in the Ards of Ulster and co. of 
 Down. Hither multitudes flocked from all 
 quarters, and for it and kindred institutions 
 he drew up a Rule which was considered one 
 of the chief ones of Ireland. His most noted 
 disciples at Bangor were Cormac, son of Diar- 
 maid and king of South Leinster, who in his 
 old age abdicated and became a monk, as is 
 related in the Life of St. Fintan ; and St. 
 Columbanus, abbot of Luxeuil and Bobbio. 
 [CoLUMBANUs.] After ruling the monastery 
 of Bangor and its dependencies for " 10 days, 
 3 months and 50 years," as the calendars say, 
 but about 44 years according to computation, 
 St. Comgall died at Bangor on May 10, a.d. 
 602, aged 85, having received his viaticum 
 from St. Fiachra (Feb. 8) of Congbail. He is 
 justly reckoned among the Fathers of the Irish 
 church. He was biuried at Bangor. See 
 further Lanigan, Eccl Hist. Ir. ii. c. 10 ; 
 Reeves, Adamnan, pass, and Eccl. Ant. pass. ; 
 Ussher, Eccl. Ant. cc. 13-17, wks. v. vi., Ind. 
 Chr. a.d. 456, 516; Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. 
 Saints, 108- no. His dedications in Scotland 
 were at Durris, Kincardineshire, and possibly 
 Dercongal, or Drumcongal, now Holywood, in 
 Galloway (Forbes, M.5.). [j-c] 
 
 Cotnmodianus, the author of two Latin 
 poems, Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos 
 pro Christiana Disciplina, and Carmen Apolo- 
 geticum adversus Judaeos et Gentes. His In- 
 structions are included " inter apocrypha " in 
 a synodal decree of Gelasius (Concil. tom. iv.), 
 probably because of certain heterodox state- 
 ments respecting Antichrist, the Millennium, 
 and the First Resurrection. In what age he 
 lived has been much disputed. Internal evi- 
 dence in the poem shews that the author lived 
 in days of persecution. The style of the 
 Instructions points to the age of Cyprian, with 
 whose works they have more than once been 
 edited. There is an allusion to the Novatian 
 Schism (§ xlvii. ad tin.), and the language of 
 § lii. seems to be aimed against the " Thurifi- 
 cati " and " Libellatici " of the 3rd cent. In 
 § Ixvi. 12 a " subdola pax " is mentioned, 
 which Cave refers to the temporary quiet en- 
 joyed by the Christians under Gallienus, after 
 the Decian and before the Aurelian persecu- 
 tion. Other expressions (e.g. agonia propin- 
 qua, § liii. 10) clearly point to the expectation 
 of fresh suffering. But the most important 
 passage as affecting the date of the poem is 
 one in which the author upbraids the Gentiles 
 for perseverance in unbelief, though Christian- 
 ity has prevailed for 200 years (§ vi. 2), and 
 this, which, singularly enough, seems to have 
 escaped the notice of the earlier critics, must 
 be held to fix the date of Commodian as ap- 
 proximately A.D. 250. The barbarity of his 
 style, and the peculiarity of certain words (e.g. 
 Zabulo, Zacones), led Rigault to infer that he 
 was of African extraction. He applies to him- 
 self the epithet " Gazaeus," but this probably 
 refers to his dependence upon the treasury of 
 the church (gazophylacium) for support, and 
 not to any connexion with Gaza. Originally 
 
 COMMODUS 
 
 a heathen (Instruct. Praef. 5, § xxvi. 24), he 
 was converted by the perusal of the Scriptures 
 (Praef. 6), and if the words " Explicit tractatus 
 sancti Episcopi . . ." discovered on the MS. 
 of the Carmen Apologeticum by Pitra, may be 
 taken to refer to the author of the poem, who, 
 from internal evidence, is conclusively proved 
 to have been Commodian, it would seem that 
 he ultimately became a bishop. 
 
 His works (a trans, of which is given in the 
 Ante-Nicene Lib.), though utterly valueless as 
 literature, are of considerable interest in the 
 history of the Latin language as showing that 
 the change had already commenced which 
 resulted in the formation of the Romance lan- 
 guages. 
 
 The Instructions are in Migne's Patr. Lat. 
 vol. V. ; the Apology in Pitra's Spicilegium 
 Solismense, vol. i. [e.m.y.] 
 
 Commodus, a.d. 180-193. The monstrous 
 vices of this degenerate son of Marcus Aurelius 
 brought at least one counterbalancing advan- 
 tage. The persecutions of his father's reign 
 ceased for a time in his. The popular feeling 
 against the Christians, thougla it still con- 
 tinued, was no longer heightened and directed 
 by the action of the Imperial government, and 
 the result was a marked increase of numbers. 
 Many rich and noble, with their households and 
 kindred, professed themselves Christians (Ens. 
 H. E. V. 21), even in the emperor's palace, 
 but it is uncertain whether they were officers, 
 freedmen, or slaves (Iren. adv. Haer. iv. 30). 
 Marcia, the favourite mistress of the emperor, 
 is said by Dio Cassius (Ixxii. 4) or Xiphilinus 
 writing in his name, to have used her influence 
 with Commodus in their favour and to have 
 done them much good service. The strange 
 history of Callistus in the Refutation of all 
 Heresies attributed to Hippolytus (ix. 6) 
 throws fresh light on Marcia's connexion with 
 the Christian church at Rome. The epithet 
 by which he describes her as a " God-loving 
 woman " may be, as Dr. Wordsworth sug- 
 gested, ironical ; but it is clear that she 
 was in frequent communication with the 
 officers of the church. Callistus had been 
 brought before Fuscianus, the city prefect, 
 charged with disturbing a synagogue of the 
 Jews, and was sentenced to hard labour in the 
 mines of Sardinia. Marcia sent for Victor, a 
 bishop of the church, asked what Christians 
 were suffering for their faith in Sardinia, and 
 obtained from Commodus an order of release. 
 The order was given to an eunuch, Hyacinth- 
 us, who carried it to Sardinia, and obtained 
 the liberation of Callistus and others, alleging 
 his own influence with Marcia as his warrant, 
 though the name of Callistus had not been 
 included in the list. The narrative clearly 
 implies that Hyacinthus was a Christian. 
 
 Thus some Christians had, as such, been 
 condemned to exile ; and persecutions, though 
 less frequent, had not altogether ceased. One 
 sufferer of the time takes his place in the list 
 of martjTS. Apollonius, a Roman citizen of 
 distinction, perhaps a senator, of high repute 
 for philosophical culture, was accused before 
 Perennius, the prefect of the city, by one of 
 his own slaves. In accordance with an 
 imperial edict sentencing informers, in such 
 cases, to death even when the accused was 
 found guilty, the slave bad his legs brokeij. 
 
CONSTANS I. 
 
 Apollonius delivered before the senate an 
 elaborate Apologia for his faith. By what 
 Eusebius speaks of as an ancient law (possibly 
 the edict of Trajan) he was beheaded {H. E. 
 V. 21). [E.n.p.] 
 
 Constans I., the youngest of the three sons 
 of Constantine the Great, was born c. 320 and 
 made Caesar in 333 ; he reigned as Augustus 
 337-350, when he was killed by the conspiracy 
 of Ma'gnentius. [Constantius II.] De Broglie 
 (iii.pp. 58. 59) inhischaracterof him remarks: 
 "As far as we can discriminate between the 
 contradictory estimates of different historians, 
 Constans was of a simple, somewhat coarse, 
 nature, and one without high aims though 
 without malice. As regards the inheritance of 
 his father's qualities, while Constantius seemed 
 to have taken for his share his political know- 
 ledge, his military skill, and his eloquence 
 (thoughreproducingaveryfaintimageof them), 
 Constans had only received great personal cour- 
 age and a straightforwardness that did him 
 honour. He was, besides, a lover of pleasure : 
 he was suspected of the gravest moral irregu- 
 larities. . . . Hehad firm, though certainly un- 
 enlightened, faith, and frequently gave proofs of 
 it by distributing largesses to the churches and 
 favours to the Christians " (cf. Eutrop. Brev. x. 
 9, Vict. Cues. 41, Epit. 41). Zosimus (ii. 42) 
 gives him a worse character than do the others. 
 Libanius in 348 delivered a panegyric on Con- 
 stans and Constantius, called /iJacnXtvds \6yos, 
 vol. iii. ed. Reiske, pp. 272-332. St. Chrysostom 
 in the difficult and probably corrupt passage of 
 his 15th Homily on the Phi'lippians, p. 363, ed. 
 Gaume, speaks of him as having children and 
 as committing suicide, statements elsewhere 
 unsupported. The most favourable evidence 
 for Constans is the praise of St. Athanasius 
 (Apol. ad Constantium, 4 sqq. ; cf. the letter 
 of Hosius in Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, 44). His 
 conduct with respect to the Arian and Donat- 
 ist controversies gained him the esteem of 
 Catholics. He was a baptized Christian ; his 
 baptism is referred to in Ap. ad C. 7. [j.w.] 
 
 Constantinus I. — I. A. Ancient Authorities 
 (Heathen). — Eutropius, Breviarium, Hist. Rom., 
 end of gth and beginning of loth book. This 
 historian was secretary to the emperor, and 
 his short account is therefore valuable. The 
 Caesares and the Epitome, current under the 
 name of Aurelius Victor, were doubtless the 
 work of different authors. The first, who wrote 
 under Constantius, was a friend of Ammianus, 
 and praefectus urbi towards the close of the 
 cent. ; the second, who excerpted from the first, 
 lived a generation later, and continued his 
 compilation down to the death of Theodosius 
 the Great. They seem to have used the same 
 sources as Zosimus, whom they supplement. 
 The Paneg\Tists, as contemporary writers, 
 deserve more attention than has been given 
 them, allowance being made for the defects 
 incident to their style of writing. Those re- 
 lating to our subject — Anon. Panegyr. Maxi- 
 miano et Constantino (a.d. 307), Eumenii Con- 
 stantino in natalihiis urb. Trevir. (310), and 
 Gratiarum actio Flaviensium nomine (311), 
 Anon, de Victoria adv. Maxentium (313), and 
 Nazarii Paneg. Constantino (321) — are all the 
 product of Gallic rhetoricians. The Scriptores 
 Hist. Augustae contain several contemporary 
 references to Constantine; those in Julian's 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 203 
 
 Caesars are, as might be expected, unfriendly 
 and satirical. The first vol. of the Bonn ed. 
 of the Byzantine historians contains the frag- 
 ments of Eunapius, Priscus, Uexippus, etc., 
 but these are of little moment, as are the 
 extracts from Praxagoras in Photius, Cod. 62. 
 Indirectly it is supposed that we have more of 
 the matter of these earlier writers in Zosimus's 
 laropia via, bk. ii. This historian lived 
 probably c. 450. He was a bitter enemy of 
 Constantine, whom he accuses of various 
 crimes and cruelties, and blames for the novel- 
 ties of his policy, shewing a particular dislike 
 of his conversion. He falls into several his- 
 torical blunders. The part of Ammianus's 
 Histories relating to this reign is unfortunately 
 lost. Some remarks on it occur in the part 
 preserved, from which we gather his general 
 agreement with his friend and contemporary 
 Victor. The text of Ammianus, pub. by 
 Gardthausen (Teubncr, 1874), may be recom- 
 mended. He has also given a revised text 
 from the MSS. of the anonymous excerpts 
 generally cited as A nonymus Valesii, Excerpta 
 Valesiana. They received this name from 
 being first printed by H. Valois, at the end of 
 his ed. of Ammianus. Some of these extracts 
 may be traced word for word in Eutropius and 
 Orosius ; hence their author did not live ear- 
 lier than the 5th cent. Others are valuable as 
 coming from sources elsewhere unrepresented. 
 (Christian.) The earliest contemporary 
 authority is Lactautius, de Mortibus Persecut- 
 orum, a tract pub. after the defeat of Max- 
 entius and before Constantine had declared 
 himself the enemy of Licinius — i.e. probably 
 313 or 314. His bitterness is unpleasant, and 
 his language exaggerated and somewhat ob- 
 scure, but his facts are generally confirmed by 
 other authors, where we can test them. The 
 most important is Eusebius. Three of his 
 works especially treat of Constantine, Hist. 
 Eccl. ix. and x., down to 324, and probably 
 pub. before the death of Crispus in 326 ; de 
 Vita Constantini, in four books, with a trans- 
 lation of Constantine's Orafio ad Sanctorum 
 Coetum as an appendix, pub. after his death ; 
 and, thirdly, TpiaKovTaerijpiKds, or Laudes 
 Constantini, a panegyric at his tricennalia, 
 containing little but rhetoric. To harmonize 
 Eusebius and Zosimus is difficult. Fleury's 
 dictum, " On ne se trompera sur Constantin 
 en croyant tout le mal qu'en dit Euscbe, et 
 tout le bien qu'en dit Zosime," may be per- 
 fectly true, but Zosimus says very little good 
 of him and Eusebius very little harm. Euse- 
 bius has great weight as a contemporary and 
 as giving documents, which have not for the 
 most part been seriously challenged ; but he 
 is discredited by fulsomeness and bad taste in 
 his later works, and bv inconsistencies of tone 
 between them and his history. He announces, 
 however, that he will only recount those 
 actions of the emperor which belong to his 
 religious life {V. C. i. 11 : M'^''^ ^« ^P^^ "^^^ 
 deo<pi\fi (TwrdvovTa ftlov), and is open to the 
 criticism of Socrates (H. E.\. 1) as tQiv iiralvwu 
 Tov fiaaiXfm Kal ttjj iravnyvpiK^i v^prjyopla^ 
 TWf Xoywv fMciWov w$ iv (yKui/xiif) (fipovTiaa.^ fj 
 TTfpi TOV CLKpi^Cis TrepiXajiftv to. yivd/xtfa. We 
 must allow for the natural exultation of Chris- 
 tians over the emperor who had done so much 
 
204 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 for them and openly professed himself an in- 
 stniment of Providence for the advancement 
 of Christianity. Neither in the case of Euse- 
 biu5 nor of Zosimus must we push our distrust 
 too far. The best ed. of the historical works 
 of Eusebius is by F. A. Heinichen, repub. and 
 enlarged (Leipz. 1S6S-1S70, 3 vols.).* The 
 laws issued by Constantine (after 312) in the 
 Theodosian and Justinian Codes are very im- 
 portant contemporary documents. The first 
 are in a purer state, and may be consulted in 
 the excellent ed. of Hanel (Bonn. 1S42-1S44), 
 or in the older standard folios of Godefroi, with 
 their valuable historical notes. Both codes 
 are arranged chronologically in Migne's Pat- 
 rohgia. Opera Constantini, which also contains 
 the Paneg>Tists and documents relating to the 
 early history of the Donatists. 
 
 Socrates, H. E. i., and Sozomen, H. E. i. and 
 ii. labout a cent, later), give an account of the 
 last period of his reign ; Socrates being gener- 
 ally the safer guide. On his relations with 
 Arianism much is found in the treatises and 
 epp. of St. Athanasius, and occasional facts 
 may be gleaned from other Fathers. As a hero 
 of Byzantine history and tVaTio-ToXo?. Con- 
 stantine has become clothed in a mist of fiction. 
 Something may be gathered from Joannes 
 Lydus, de Ma gist rat. P. R., and among the 
 fables of Cedrenus and Zonaras may be foimd 
 some facts from more trustworthy sources. 
 
 B. Modern A uthorities. — It will be unneces- 
 sary to enumerate the well-known wTiters of 
 church history and the multitude of minor 
 essays on separate points of Constantine's life. 
 As early as 1720 Vogt {Hist. Lit. Const. Mag. 
 Hamburg) gave a list of more than 150 
 authors, ancient and modem, and the number 
 has since infinitely increased. The first critical 
 life of importance is by J. C. F. Manso {Lehen 
 Constantins des Grosseij. Wien, 1S19, etc.), but 
 it is hard and one-sided, unchristian, if not 
 antichrist ian. Jacob Burckhardt largely fol- 
 lows Manso, but is much more interestinir and 
 popular {Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. Basel, 
 1853), though not always fair. Some mis- 
 statements in it are noticed below. He views 
 the emperor merely as a great politician, and 
 shews much bitterness against Eusebius. 
 Theodore Keim's Der Uebertritt Const, des Gr. 
 (Ziirich, 1S62) is in many points a good refuta- 
 tion of Burckhardt, as well as being a fair 
 statement from one not disposed to be credu- 
 lous. The first two volumes of L'EgUse et 
 PEmpire au IV^ Steele, by A. de Broglie> Paris, 
 1S55, etc.), give the views of a learned Roman 
 Catholic, generally based on original author- 
 ities, and this is perhaps the most useful book 
 upon the subject. The section (134) in Dr. P. 
 Schafi's Gesch. der Alten Kirche (Leipz. 1867, 
 also trans.) is as good a short accoimt of Con- 
 stantme as can be named. In English we 
 have a short life by a Nonconformist, Mr. 
 Joseph Fletcher (Lond. 1852, i6mo), but no 
 standard work of importance. The brilliant 
 sketch by Dean Stanley in his Eastern Church 
 is probably the fairest picture of Constantine 
 in our language. For his relations with Arian- 
 ism we may refer to Ne^raian's Arians of the 
 
 • For a careful judgment of Eusebius "s Life of 
 Constantine, Heinichen 's 23rd Mdetema may be con- 
 sulted (vol. iiL p. 754). a. also de Broglie,' L'Eglise 
 ft I Empire, vol. iii. p. 39. 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 Fourth Cent, (ist ed. 1833 ; 3rd ed. 1871) ; 
 Neale's Eastern Church, Patriarchate of Alex- 
 andria; Bright's History of the Church, a.d. 
 313-451, 2nd ed. 1869; and Gwatkin's Arian 
 Controversy A simple monograph on Con- 
 stantine by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
 
 II. Life. — Period i. To 312. — Flavins Val- 
 erius Aurelius Constantinus, stimamed Magnus 
 or the Great, was bomFeb. 27, probably in 274, 
 at NaIssu3(Nissa),inDardaniaorUpperMoesia, 
 where his family had for some time been settled. 
 His father. Constantins Chlorus, was still 
 young at the time of his son's birth. He was 
 of a good family, being nephew by the mother's 
 side of the emperor Claudius. A few years 
 later we find him high in favour with Carus, 
 who intended, it was said, to make him Caesar. 
 Constantine's mother Helena, on the other 
 hand, was of mean position, and apparently 
 was married after her son's birth. Constantine 
 was brought up at Drepanum in Cicilia, his 
 mother's birthplace (Procop. deAedif. Justin. 
 v. 2). His father, on becoming Caesar and 
 taking another wife, sent him, when about 16 
 years old, cis a sort of hostage to Diocletian at 
 Nicomedia, who treated him with kindness. 
 His first military service was to accompany 
 that emperor against AchiUaeus in 296, and 
 Eusebius saw him as a young and handsome 
 man passing through Palestine into Eg%TDt 
 (F. C. i. 19). In 297 he took part in the suc- 
 cessful war of Galerius against the Persians ; 
 and about this time married Minervina. 
 Constantine continued in the East while his 
 father was fighting in Gaul and Britain. In 
 303 he was present when the edict of persecu- 
 tion against the Christians was promulgated 
 at Nicomedia and the palace soon after struck 
 by lightning. The concurrence of these two 
 events made a strong impression upon him 
 {Orat. ad Sanct. Corf. 25). He also witnessed 
 in 305 the abdication of the two Augusti, Dio- 
 cletian and Maximian. 
 
 A higher destiny awaited him in another 
 part of the empire.' His father insisted upon 
 his return, and Galerius at length was per- 
 suaded to give permission and the seal neces- 
 sary for the public posts, ordering him not to 
 start before receiving his last instructions on 
 the morrow. Constantine took flight in the 
 night. He had probably good reasons for his 
 mistrust, and to stop pursuit maimed the 
 public horses at many stations on his road 
 (Zos. ii. 8 ; Anon. Val. 4 ; Victor, Caes. 21), 
 which lay partly through countries where 
 the persecution was raging. He arrived at 
 Gesoriacura (Boulogne) just in time to accom- 
 pany his father to Britain on his last expedi- 
 tion against the Picts (Eumen. in Nat. Urb. 
 Trev. vii.). Constantins died at York, July 
 306, in the presence of his sons, after declaring 
 Constantine his successor (de ^L P. xxiv.). 
 He was almost immediately proclaimed 
 Augustus by the soldiers CZtSaarbs wpbs tOsv 
 STparowedwi' dvayopevdeis. Eus. H. E. viii. 13). 
 Almost at the same time another claimant of 
 imperial power appeared at Rome in Maxen- 
 tius, son of the retired Maximian, who now 
 came forward again to assist his son. Con- 
 stantine's first act was to shew favotir to the 
 Christians (de M. P. xxiv.), who had been 
 exposed to little of the violence of persecution 
 under the mild rule of Constantins. (F. C. i. 
 
I 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 13-17. Eusebiiis seems here t ■ exaggerate. 
 Cf. Episcopor. partis Majonnt prcccs ad Con- 
 stantinum, in Op. Const. Migne, col. 747.) 
 Constantine had at once to defend Gaul against 
 the Frank? and German tribes, who had risen 
 during the absence of Constantius in Britain 
 (Eumen. ib. x-). In 307 Maximian, who had 
 quarrelled with his son, crossed the .\lps and 
 allied himself with the Caesar of the West. 
 Constantine received as wife his daughter 
 Fausta. and with her the title of .Augustus 
 (Pan. Max. et Const, v.). For three years after 
 marriage he found sufficient emplo>Tnent in 
 consolidating his government in the West, and 
 in wars upon the frontier of the Rhine, over 
 which he began to build a bridge at Cologne. 
 The seat of his court was Treves, which he 
 embellished with many buildings, including 
 several temples and basilicas, and the forum. 
 Meanwhile Galerius was seized with a painful 
 illness, and on April 30. 311, shortly before his 
 death, issued his haughty edict of toleration, 
 the first of the series, to which the names of 
 Constantine and Licinius were also affixed. 
 Constantine remained in the West engaged in 
 wars with the .AJemanni and Cherusci, and in 
 restoring the cities of Gaul (cf. Eumen. Graii- 
 arum actio Flaviensium Somine, on the restor- 
 ation of the schfX)ls of Autim). He is said to 
 have interfered by letter on behalf of the 
 Eastern Christians whom Maximinus Daza 
 now began to molest, and this is in itself prob- 
 able tde M. P. xxxvii.). We must remem- 
 ber that there were now four Augusti. Licinius , 
 and Maximinus in the East ; Maxentius and j 
 Constantine in the West. The two latter had ; 
 for some time acknowledged one another (see ! 
 below, § VI. Coins), and probably by tacit ! 
 consent the four restricted themselves pretty 
 nearly to the limits which afterwards bounded 
 the four great prefectures. But there was 
 little united action between them, and sole 
 empire was perhaps the secret aim of each. 
 Maxentius now felt himself strong enough to 
 break with Constantine, and declared war 
 against him. The latter determined tn take 
 the initative, and crossed the Cottian Alps, by 
 the pass of Mont Gene\Te, with a force much 
 smaller than that of his opponent. Later 
 historians afcrm that the Romans besought 
 him by an embassy to free them from the 
 t\Tant (Zon. .4nn. xi;i. ; Cedrenus, § 270), and 
 this is probable, for Maxentius, by folly, 
 insolence, and brutality had greatly alienated 
 his subjects. Constantine had allied himself 
 with one of the Eastern Augusti, Licinius, 
 whom he engaged in marriage with his sister 
 Constantia, but had to proceed against the 
 counsels and wishes of his generals and the 
 advice of the augurs iPan. de Vict. adv. Maxent. 
 ii.). After taking Turin, he rested some days 
 at Milan, where he was received in triumph, 
 and gave audience to all who desired it (ib. 
 vii.). We may assume that at the same place 
 and time, the spring or summer of 312, oc- 
 curred also the betrothal of Constantia with 
 Licinius, and the issue of a second edict of 
 toleration to the Christians, that somewhat 
 hard edict to which the emperors refer in the 
 more celebrated announcement of 313 (see 
 below § III. B. Religious Policy, and cf. Keim, 
 Uebertritt, note 11 ». After taking Verona, 
 Constantine apparently met with little resist* 
 
 CONSTANTINUS L 
 
 205 
 
 ance till within a few uiiles of Rome, though 
 this is not quite consistent with the statement 
 of Lactantius (d£ M. P. xliv.). He had 
 turned the advanced guard of the enemy at 
 Saxa Rubra, close to the Cremera, and then 
 pressed forward along the Flaminian road to 
 the walls of the city itself. With great rash- 
 ness Maxentius had determined to give battle 
 exactly in front of the Tiber, with the Milvian 
 bridge behind him, about a mile from the 
 gates of Rome. It was Oct. 26, and during the 
 night, according to our earliest authoritv, 
 Constantine was warned in a dream to draw 
 
 the monogram of Christ, the S/, upon the 
 
 shields of his soldiers, and now, if not before, 
 learnt to invoke the name of Christ to help his 
 arms (H. E. ix. 9, 12). For the different 
 accounts of the vision see below, § V. Max- 
 entius, meanwhile, spent the night in sacri- 
 fices and divination (Zos. ii. 16, etc.). Next 
 morning the two armies met. That of Max- 
 entius was totally routed, although the prae- 
 torians \'igorously resisted. The fugitives 
 crowded upon the bridge, and upon the 
 pontoons at its side which Maxentius had 
 devised, according to an almost incredible 
 statement, so as to give way beneath his 
 opponent (Eus. H. E. ix. 9 ; 5, 6 ; V. C. i. 38 ; 
 Zos. ii. 15). He was himself precipitated into 
 the river, where his body was found the next 
 day. The victor entered Rome in triumph, 
 and was received with great joy (Pan. de Vict, 
 adv. M. xix.). He used his victory on the 
 whole with moderation. Eusebius tells us 
 that he set up a statue of himself with a spear 
 terminating in a cross in his right hand, and 
 an inscription to the effect that by this salut- 
 ary sign (or standard) he had restored the 
 Roman senate and people to their ancient 
 glory and freedom (H. E. ix. 9 ; cf. V. C. i. 40). 
 He now enlarged and endowed many churches 
 in and near Rome (V. C. i. 42), and wTote 
 the letters to Anulinus in behalf of the Catholic 
 church in Africa which led to such important 
 consequences (ap. Eus. H. E. x. 5. 7). From 
 these documents it is evident that Constantine 
 had already a strong disp-^sition to favour the 
 Christians, especially the Catholic body. The 
 answers to one of them brought the case of 
 Caecilian and the Donatists to his notice, and 
 involved him in the affairs of the African 
 i church. He accepted the title and insignia of 
 Pontifex Maximus. and both were borne by 
 his successors till Gratian (Zos. iv. 36). 
 j Period ii. 312-324. Commencement of the 
 ' cycle of Indiciions, Sept. i, 312. Constantine 
 (sole emperor of the West. — Constantine at 
 the age of about 3C was now sole Augustus 
 of the West. Having settled the affairs of 
 Rome, he proceeded early in 313 to meet 
 Licinius at Milan. There the marriage of the 
 latter with Constantia was consummated, and 
 the full edict of toleration, the Edict of .^tilan, 
 was promulgated. The emperors then sep- 
 arated, Licinius to defend himself against 
 Maximinus Daza, Constantine to guard the 
 Rhine. Both were victorious. Licinius soon 
 after became sole master of the East by the 
 death of Maximus at Tarsus (Zos. li. 17 ; de 
 I M. P. xlix.). The latter had followed the 
 edict of Milan, at the behest of the other 
 , emperors, by an act of toleration of bis own. 
 
 k 
 
206 
 
 CONSTANTINUS 1. 
 
 but of a less full and generous nature. This 
 did not prevent him from taking advantage of 
 the absence of Licinius to invade his territory, 
 who had in consequence to tight Maximinus 
 at Adrianople with a force half as large as that 
 opposed to him. The battle was in many 
 details like that against Maxentius — Licinius 
 was favoured with a mysterious dream, and 
 solemnly put his army under the protection 
 of the God of the Christians, and on the 
 morning of the battle repeated aloud three 
 times with his officers a prayer to the holy and 
 supreme God {de M. P. xlvi.). After his 
 victory he entered Nicomedia in triumph, pro- 
 claimed the edict of Milan, June 13, and then 
 pursued Maximinus into Cilicia, where he 
 found that last of the persecutors dying a 
 horrible and painful death {de M. P. xlix. ; Eus. 
 H. E. ix. 10, 14). The brothers-in-law were 
 thus raised to an equality of power, and were 
 not likely to remain long at peace. The oc- 
 casion of their quarrel is obscure. Constan- 
 tine accused Licinius of fomenting a conspiracy 
 against him. Licinius was defeated and 
 made peace by the cession of lUyricum — i.e. 
 of the whole peninsula of which Greece is the 
 extremity. Constantine was not too busy 
 during ttiis campaign to attend to the arrange- 
 ment of the council of Aries, and to interest 
 himself vehemently in the Donatist disputes. 
 Peace followed for nine years, during which 
 the emperor employed himself with barbarian 
 wars, and with legislation civil and religious, 
 as detailed below. His Decennalia were cele- 
 brated at Rome 315, 316, and the triumphal 
 arch dedicated. Two years later his son 
 Crispus, now a young man, and his infant son 
 and nephew Constantine and Licinianus, were 
 raised to the rank of Caesar at Aries (Zos. ii. 
 20, etc.). His other sons by Fausta were 
 born also in this period, Constantius in 
 317 and Constans in 323. Licinius mean- 
 while began to oppress his subjects, especially 
 the Christians. He forbade the synods of 
 bishops, interfered with their worship, and in 
 many cases destroyed their churches (even 
 Julian, Cues. p. 315, is unfavourable to 
 Licinius). Constantine was engaged in de- 
 fending his Danubian frontier from Goths and 
 Sarmatians, and took the Scirmatian king 
 Rausimodes prisoner (Zos. ii. 21). In some of 
 these expeditions he had trespassed across 
 the boundaries of Licinius, and this was the 
 pretext for a quarrel, which was increased by 
 the expostulations of Constantine against the 
 treatment of the Christians, and after some 
 changes of temper on the part of Licinius, an 
 open rupture took place. 
 
 The character of the former war was am- 
 biguous. This one was in great measure a 
 religious war or crusade (Eus. H. E. x. 9). 
 Before any conflict was fought (it was 
 said) the subjects of Licinius thought they 
 saw the victorious legions of Constantine 
 marching through their streets at midday 
 {V. C. ii. 6). The monogram of Christ was now 
 stamped on almost all his coinage {infra, § VL). 
 The labarum became a talisman of victory 
 (olovei TL vuTjTi/cof dXe^LcpdpnaKOv, V. C. 
 ii. 7). The emperor surrounded himself with 
 Christian priests, and believed himself fav- 
 oured with visions as he prayed in the tent 
 containing the standard of the cross, and 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 leapt up as if inspired to victory {ib. 12). The 
 sentiment of a divine vocation was probably 
 a real one to him, and was fostered by the 
 approbation of the Christians. Licinius, on 
 the very scene of his conflict as a Christian 
 champion with Maximinus, prepared for 
 battle by sacrifice and worship of the gods, 
 against whom he had then fought, and Con- 
 stantine prepared by prayer and by giving 
 the watchword Gei; aoirrip {V. C. ii. 5 and 6 ; 
 cf. Soz. H. E. i. 7 on the perversion of Licinius). 
 The battle of Adrianople, July 3, 323, was a 
 second victory for the Christian arms. Con- 
 stantine pursued his opponent to Byzantium. 
 Meanwhile Crispus, who had already won his 
 youthful laurels against the Franks, shewed 
 himself most active in command of the fleet, 
 and defeated the admiral Amandus in the 
 Hellespont. This caused Licinius to quit 
 Byzantium for Chalcedon, where he appointed 
 one of his chief officers, Martinianus, as Caesar. 
 Constantine pursued him, and on Sept. 10, 
 after some negotiations, achieved a final vic- 
 tory at Chrysopolis. Licinius, on the entreaty 
 of Constantia, was permitted to retire to 
 Thessalonica ; but was not allowed to live 
 above a year longer. Socrates relates that 
 after remaining quiet a short time, " he col- 
 lected some barbarians, and attempted to 
 repair his defeat " {H. £. i. 4 ; so Zonaras and 
 Niceph. Call.), and Eusebius justifies his exe- 
 cution by the law of war (F. C. ii. 19). Zosi- 
 mus and the heathen historians make it an 
 instance of the emperor's faithlessness (Zos. 
 ii. 28 ; Victor, Epit. I.e. ; Eutrop. Brev. x. 6), 
 as does also the chronicle of Jerome (ann. 2339, 
 " Licinius Thessalonicae contra jus sacramenti 
 privatus occiditur"). Yet apparently Con- 
 stantia did not resent the execution of her 
 husband, nor Fausta the death of her father. 
 Constantine was thus master of the whole 
 empire, and his first act was to issue edicts of 
 toleration and favour to the Christians of the 
 East {V. C. ii. 24 seq., cited as Provincialibus 
 Palestinae and 48 seq. Prov. Orientis). He 
 now specially assumed the title of Victor 
 {viKriTrjs) {V. C. ii. 19). He had won it by his 
 constant successes against barbarians on the 
 Rhine and Danube and rival emperors from 
 the Tiber to the Bosphorus : his twenty years 
 of empire had brought him from London in the 
 far West to Byzantium, the centre of the 
 Eastern world, and had been years of unin- 
 terrupted conquest. He was not unthankful 
 to the Providence which had guided him, nor 
 indisposed to acknowledge that something was 
 due from him in return {Prov. Pal. V. C. ii. 
 28, 29). But his progress had not led him to 
 a victory over himself, or rather his success 
 made him forget his own liability to crime. 
 
 Period iii. 324-337. Constantine sole em- 
 peror. — The history of the last twelve years 
 of Constantine's reign is of a very different 
 character from that of preceding periods. As 
 sole emperor he loses rather than gains in our 
 estimation. He had no longer a religious 
 cause to fight for nor a dangerous rival to over- 
 throw. The hardness of his character fitted him 
 for a life of strong excitement, but not for the 
 intrigues of an Eastern court and the subtle 
 questions of Eastern theology. His immoder- 
 ate profusion in building and other expensive 
 operations gained him the name of " spend- 
 
CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 thrift," and his liberality towards the clmrcli 
 was by no means free from the evils that at- 
 tend prodigal benevolence. But he had no 
 less a providential part to play in the internal 
 history of that church than he had had uji to 
 this time in the destruction of her iiersecutors. 
 As emperor of the West he had been led to 
 interfere in her councils by the African schism, 
 on which his decision was desired by both 
 parties. As monarch also of the East he was 
 brought directly into contact with specula- 
 tions on points of Christian doctrine which 
 had their origin and home there. He again 
 attempted to realize his idea of unity. Taking 
 as precedent the great council of Western 
 bishops he had summoned at Aries (.Aug. 314) 
 in the case of Caecilian, he determined to call 
 together representatives of the whole empire 
 to decide on the doctrines of Arius and the 
 Paschal controversy (see below, § III. 2). To 
 Constantine is due in great measure the hold- 
 ing of the council of Nicaea (June and July, 
 323). But the success of that great meeting 
 unfortunately filled him with overweening 
 pride. The conclusion of their session fell at 
 the beginning of the 20th year of his reign, and 
 he celebrated the condemnation of Arius as a 
 second triumph (V. C. iii. 14). He enter- 
 tained all the bishops at his table. " The 
 guards," says Eusebius, " kept watch with 
 drawn sn-ords round the vestibule of the 
 palace ; the men of God passed through their 
 midst without fear, and entered the inmost 
 parts of the royal dwelling. Some of them 
 reclined by his side, and others w-ere placed 
 on couches on either hand. One might have 
 seemed to picture to oneself an image of 
 Christ's kingdom ; the whole thing was more 
 like a dream than a reality " (ib. 15). The same 
 writer suggests that the church of the Anas- 
 tasis, built by Constantine, fulfilled the pro- 
 phecies about the New Jerusalem {V. C. iii. 
 33). Constantino's interest in the success of 
 the council did not end with its dispersion. 
 He wrote to those concerned in its decrees, 
 strongly enforcing conformity with them. 1 h > 
 same feelings led him to compose and deliver 
 theological declamations, and to attempt the 
 conversion of his courtiers. Large crowds 
 attended to listen to the philosophizing prince, 
 who did not spare their faults. But the 
 matter was not one merely of philosophy. It 
 may be, as Burckhardt suggests (p. 454), that 
 he took such opportunities of seriously warning 
 or even denouncing those of his " companions " 
 and "palatines" whose presumption on his 
 favour had become intolerable. The passion- 
 ate and almost eloquent law of this year, pro- 
 mulgated at Nicomedia, calls upon any one 
 who feels wTonged by such officials to declare 
 their grievances freely, and promises personal 
 vengeance on those " who up to this time have 
 deceived us by simulated integrity " ; and 
 when Constantine felt himself wronged he did 
 not hesitate to strike {Cod. Th. ix. i, 4 in 325). 
 After a prolonged sojourn in the East his 
 presence was now required in Rome. He 
 advanced thither by slow stages, arriving 
 about July 8, in time to celebrate the com- 
 pletion of his 2oth year of empire, July 25, 
 326. He left it certainly before the end of 
 Sept. ; but in that short space of time all that 
 was tragical in his life seems to have reached 
 
 CONSTANTINUS 
 
 207 
 
 its clima.x. Tlierc was nun h in tin- city itself 
 to irritate and disturb him. Ihe ancient 
 aristocracy, in the absence of a resident 
 emperor, preserved many of its old heathen 
 traditions. Though he came determined to 
 be tolerant {Cod. Th. xv. i, 3) and desirous of 
 gaining the favour of the senate (id. xv. 14 ; 
 3, 4), it soon became evident that he was out 
 of harmony with Home. He would not join 
 in the solemn review of the knights held on 
 July 15, and in their procession and sacrifice 
 to Jupiter Capitolinus ; but viewed it con- 
 temptuously from the Palatine and ridiculed 
 it to those around him (Zos. ii. 29). Such an 
 action, joined with his Oriental dress and 
 general bearing, seems to have aroused 
 popular indignation against him. Though 
 tempted to revenge himself by force, he was 
 wise enough to refrain. (See esp. de Broglie, 
 I.e. ii. c. 5, for the events of this year. He 
 puts together Liban. Or. 12, p. 393 ; Or. 15, 
 p. 412, and Chrys. Or. ad Pop. Anlioch. 21.) 
 But this outburst was followed by far heavier 
 tragedies within his own household. In 
 relating them we have to rely on the vague 
 and inconsistent talcs of later writers, those 
 nearest the emperor, Eutropius and Eusebius, 
 being markedly silent. They seem to have 
 originated with divisions, such as easily arose 
 in a family composed of so many different 
 elements. The half-brothers of Constantine, 
 the sons of Constantius and Theodora, natur- 
 ally took part with their mother's half-sister, 
 Fausta, and her sons. On the other hand, 
 Helena had reason to sympathize with her 
 grandson Crispus, the son of Minervina. Prob- 
 ably it was in connexion with these divisions 
 that Crispus was suddenly arrested and con- 
 veyed to an unknown death at Pola in Istria 
 (Amm. Marc. xiv. 11). Niebuhr thought it 
 probable that the accusation of treason against 
 his father, reported by Gregory of Tours {Hist. 
 Franc, i. 36), had some foundation of truth. 
 Another, but not an early account, represents 
 Fausta as playing to Crispus the part of Phae- 
 dra towards Hippolytus (Zos. ii. 29), and other 
 authors name her as his accuser without 
 specifying the nature of the charge (Vict. 
 Epit. 41, Philostorgius, ii. 4. Sozomen, H. E. 
 i. 5, implies that the death of Crispus was 
 required of Constantine by others). The 
 young and promising Caesar Licinianus was 
 at the same time unjustifiably put to death 
 (Eutrop. X. 6; Hieron. Chron. Ann. 2342). 
 The following satirical distich, attributed to 
 the city prefect Ablavius, was found on the 
 palace doors after the death of Crispus (Sidon. 
 Apollin. Ep. v. 8) :— 
 
 " .Saturni aurea saecla quLs rcquirat ? 
 Sunt haec gemniea, scd N'croniaiia." 
 
 But he was avenged much more tragically, and 
 at no distant date. (Jerome puts it three 
 years later, the others connect the two events.) 
 Fausta herself was executed in as sudden and 
 as dark a way as Crispus. The complaints of 
 Helena seemed to have aroused her son to this 
 dire act of retribution (Zos. ii. 29 ; Vict. Epit. 
 41). Later writers represent the empress as 
 guilty of adultery (Philcjst. ii. 4 ; Sidon. 
 Apoll. I.e. ; Greg, turon. H. F. i. 34), and her 
 punishment is said to have been suflocation ia 
 the steam of a hot bath. 
 
208 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 There cannot, we think, despite the doubts ' 
 raised by Gibbon, be any real doubt that [ 
 Crispus and Fausta perished, both probably in | 
 328, by the orders of Constantine, acting as the 
 instrument of family jealousies. The death 
 of Fausta was followed by the execution of I 
 many of her friends, presumablv those who had i 
 taken part against Crispus (Eutrop. x. 4). 
 Popular traditions represent Constantine as 
 tormented by remorse after his delirium of 
 cruelty had passed, and as seeking everywhere 
 the means of expiation ; and nothing can be 
 more in harmony with the character of Con- [ 
 stantine and of the age than to suppose this, j 
 Christian bishops could only urge him to re- 
 pentance to be followed by baptism. But for 
 reasons which we do not thoroughly know, 
 Constantine put off this important step, and 
 also the baptism of his sons. That he be- 
 stowed some possessions on the church at this 
 time, and built or handed over basilicas to it, is 
 very probable. Among the many which claim 
 foundation at his hand we may name the 
 Vatican, which was destroyed to make room 
 for the modern St. Peter's ; St. Agnes, which 
 has an inscription referring to his daughter 
 Constantina ; and the Lateran, once the 
 palace of Fausta and the seat of the first 
 council about the Donatists, and still the real 
 cathedral of the pope. Probably the pilgrim- 
 age of Helena to Palestine in pursuance of a 
 vow, and the " Invention of the Cross," is to 
 be assigned to the time that immediately 
 follows. Constantine gave her every assist- 
 ance, and authorized her to spend money 
 freely both in alms and buildings (Paulinus 
 of Nola, Ep. II, ad Sulpic. Sever. ; cf. V. C. 
 iii. 47, 3). Possibly he delayed his own Bap- 
 tism in the hope that he might soon follow her 
 example and be washed in the holy waters of 
 Jordan {V. C. iv. 63). He now left Rome 
 never to return, but with the project of found- 
 ing a new Rome in the East, which should 
 equal if not surpass the old. 
 
 The beauty and convenience of the site of 
 Byzantiumhadlong beennoticed (cf. Herod, iv. 
 144) ; it was the birthplace of Fausta, and its 
 immediate neighbourhood had seen the final 
 defeat of Licinius. The emperor had perhajis 
 already formed the idea of embellishing it and 
 calling it by his own name. He had probably 
 moved a mint thither as early as 325, and used 
 the name (Constantinopolis) upon his coins. 
 But now his intention may have been strength- 
 ened by his distaste for Rome, and by a super- 
 stition that Rome's fall from power was at 
 hand (Chron. Pasch. ed. Bonn, p. 517). Other 
 cities had attracted his attention ; his final 
 choice was Byzantium. Many stories are told 
 of the ceremonies with which he laid out the 
 plan of the new Rome, enclosing like its proto- 
 type the tops of seven hills. De Broglie places 
 the foundation in 328 or 329 il.cAl 441). The 
 Christian historians assert that the absence of 
 heathenism from the city was the express desire 
 of the emperor (e.g. V. C. iii. 48). 
 
 The removal of Sopater perhaps gave room 
 for the power of Helena to reassert itself. She 
 communicated to her son the success of her 
 pilgrimage, and forwarded him certain relics, 
 which he received with great joy. [Helena.] 
 The death about the same time of his sister 
 Constantia had important consequences. She 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 was much under the influence of Eusebius of 
 Nicomedia, and had in her household an Arian 
 priest, who persuaded her that Arius had been 
 most unjustly treated. She had not courage 
 to speak on the subject herself to her brother, 
 but on her deathbed strongly recommended 
 this priest to him, and he was taken into the 
 imperial family, soon gaining influence over 
 the emperor. The result, it is said, was Con- 
 stan tine's gradual alienationfrom the Catholics 
 (Socr. i. 25 ; see de Broglie, c. v., at the end). 
 Meanwhile the building of the new capital went 
 on with great vigour, temples and cities, especi- 
 ally in Greece and Asia Minor, being despoiled 
 to beautify it and to fit it for the residence of 
 a new nobility, some created, and others trans- 
 ferred from Rome. Of the population that 
 gathered into it ahnost all thepagans and many 
 of the Jews became Christians. The city was 
 solemnly consecrated on May 11, 330, followed 
 by a feast of forty days (Idatius, fasti, Chron. 
 Pasch. A.D. 330), and the anniversary was 
 long kept as the nativity of Constantinople. 
 It is indeed a very important era, marking 
 the greatest political transformation that the 
 Roman empire underwent. With it were con- 
 nected the great constitutional changes detailed 
 below, § III. I, under which grew up the 
 Byzantine spirit with its peculiar character, 
 turbulent, slavish, and unimaginative, but yet 
 capable of endurance tempered with a certain 
 kind of morality. 
 
 The years that followed brought Constan- 
 tine more than ever into the debates of the 
 church. The emperor recalled Arius, but 
 Athanasius, now bp. of Alexandria, refused to 
 receive him. In the middle of his 30th year, 
 333, Constantine distributed the territories 
 under his dominion between his three sons and 
 two nephews. The eldest, Constantine, received 
 the provinces of his grandfather, Britain, 
 Spain, and Gaul ; Constantius, Asia, Syria, 
 and Egypt ; Constans, Italy and Africa. 
 Dalmatius, with the title of Caesar, had the 
 large province of Illyricum ; and Hannibal- 
 lian, Armenia and Pontus, with the extra- 
 ordinary name of kin^. The evidence of coins 
 would lead us to see in this measure a recon- 
 ciliation of the two branches of the family. 
 The end of Constantine's eventful life was now 
 at hand, and as some of his first military ser- 
 vices had been against the Persians, so now 
 he was obliged at its close to prepare for war 
 against that people, though he never actually 
 engaged in it {V. C. iv. 57). The labarum had 
 now been for many years the recognized stan- 
 dard of the empire, wherever the emperor was 
 present ; and as in the time of the war with 
 Licinius, the monogram of Christ was in these 
 last years largely stamped upon its coins (see 
 § VI.). Constantine made also other prepar- 
 ations for the use of religious service in war, 
 especially of a tent for his own chapel {V. C. 
 iv. 56 ; Socr. i. 18), and he had some time 
 before taught his soldiers, heathen as well as 
 Christian, a common daily prayer, and ordered 
 Sunday to be kept as a holy day {V. C. iv. 19 
 and 20 ; L. C. ix. 10 ; cf. Cod. Th. II. 8, i, in 
 321). At Easter 337 he completed and dedi- 
 cated his great church of the Holy Apostles, 
 in which he desired to be buried. In the week 
 that followed, his health, hitherto extremely 
 good, gave way, and he sought relief in the 
 
CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 warm baths at Hclenoiiolis. Feeling his 
 death approaching, he confessed his sins in the 
 church of the martyrs (of the martyr Lucian- 
 us ?), and now first received imposition of j 
 hands as a catechumen. Then he moved back [ 
 to the villa Ancyrona, a suburb of Nicomedia ; 
 (Eutrop. X. 8; Vict. Caex. 41), and desired 
 Baptism of the bishops whom he there as- 
 sembled {V. C. iv. 61). He had wished once, 
 he said, to be baptized in Jordan, but God ! 
 had decided otherwise. He felt that now the 
 blessing he had so long hoped for was otTered \ 
 him. " Let there be no doubt about it," he 
 added, " I have determined once for all, if the 
 Disposer of life and death sees fit to raise me 
 up again to fellowship with His people, to 
 impose upon myself rules of life such as He 
 would approve " (F. C. iv. 62, see Heinichen's 
 note). Baptism was administered to him by 
 the Arian prelate Eusebius of Nicomedia 
 (Hieron. Chron. ann. 2353). From that mo- 
 ment he laid aside the purple robe, and wore 
 only the white garment of a neophyte. He 
 died on Whitsunday 3^7, in the 31st year of 
 his reign, dating from July 25, 306. 
 
 ni. Religious Policy. — The great change 
 which makes the reign of Constantine an epoch 
 in church history is the union between church 
 and state, and the introduction of the per- 
 sonal interference of the emperor. The proxi- 
 mate cause of his great influence was the re- 
 action of feeling which took place, when the 
 civil governor, from being a persecutor or an 
 instrument of persecution, became a promoter 
 of Christianity. Something, no doubt, was 
 owing to the teaching of Christian moralists 
 as to submission to the powers that be, and 
 to the general tendency towards a system of 
 official subordination, of which the political 
 constitution of Constantine is the great ex- 
 ample. His success in establishing that con- 
 stitution, without any serious opposition, 
 seems to shew the temper of men's minds at 
 the time, and the absence of individual pro- 
 minence or independence of thought amongst 
 either followers or opponents. This was true 
 as well of the church as of the state. The 
 great men who have left their mark on church 
 organization and policy had either passed 
 away, like St. Cyprian, or had not yet attained 
 their full powers. The two seeming excep- 
 tions are Hosius bp. of Cordova and St. 
 Athanasius. The first had great influence 
 over the emperor, but probably lacked genius, 
 and is but obscurely known to us. Athanasius, 
 though he might have sympathized with some 
 of the wide conceptions of Constantine, never 
 came sufficiently into contact with him to 
 overcome the prejudices raised against him by 
 the courtiers ; and the emperor could not 
 really comprehend the importance of the [ 
 points for which Athanasius was contending. , 
 The period, too, of Athanassiu's greatest 1 
 activity was in the succeeding reign. 
 
 Constantine, therefore, was left very much 
 to make his own way, and to be guided by his 
 own principles or impulses. With regard to | 
 his religious policy we have an expression of j 
 his own, in his letter to Alexander and Arius, ' 
 which may help us in our judgment of its 
 merits (Eus. V. C. ii. 65). Two principles, he 
 said, had guided his actions ; the first to unify 
 the belief of all nations with regard to the , 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 201) 
 
 Divinity into one consistent form, the second 
 to set in order the body of the world wine h was 
 labouring as it were under a grievous sickness. 
 Such, no doubt, were the real desires of Con- 
 stantine, but he was too impulsive, too rude m 
 intellect, too credulous of his own strength, to 
 carry them out with patience, wisdom, and 
 justice. We shall arrange the details of this 
 policy under three heads : 
 
 (i) Acts of Toleration. — During the first 
 period of his reign it is jirobablc that Constan- 
 tine as well as Constantius Chlorus prevented 
 any violent persecution. His first public act 
 of toleration, of which we have any certain 
 record, was to join together with Licinius in 
 the edict issued by Galerius in 311 (given in 
 de M. P. 34 and more diffusely by Eus. H. E. 
 viii. 17). The edict acknowledged that per- 
 secution had failed, and gave permission to 
 Christians to worship their own God and re- 
 build their places of meeting, provided they 
 did nothing contrary to good order (contra 
 disciplinam, misrendered tVwTTju?/ in Eus.). 
 The death of Galerius followed almost directly, 
 and in the spring or summer of 312 Constan- 
 tine and Licinius promulgated another edict 
 perhaps not very different from that of (laler- 
 ius. The text of it is lost. It allowed liberty 
 of worship, but specified certain hard condi- 
 tions ; amongst others that no converts should 
 be made from heathenism ; that no sect out- 
 side " the body of Christians, the Catholic 
 Church," should be tolerated ; that confiscat- 
 ed property should not be restored, except, 
 perhaps, the sites of churches. This edict, 
 issued before the conflict with Maxentius, con- 
 trasts strikingly with the much more liberal 
 edict of Milan issued in the spring of 313, 
 which gave free toleration to every religious 
 body. The purport of this edict may be 
 summed up thus : " We have sometime per- 
 ceived that liberty of worship must not be 
 denied to Christians and to all other men, but 
 whereas in our former edict divers conditions 
 were added, which perhaps have been the 
 cause of the defection of many from that 
 observance, we Constantine and Licinms, 
 Augusti, meeting in Milan, decree that both 
 Christians and all other men soever should 
 have free liberty to choose that form of wor- 
 ship which they consider most suitable to 
 themselves in order that the Divinity may be 
 able to give us and our subjects His accus- 
 tomed goodwill and favour. We abolish all 
 those conditions entirely. Further for the 
 body of the Christians in ]iarticular, all places 
 of meeting which belonged to them, and have 
 since been bought by or granted to others, are 
 to be restored ; and an indemnity may be 
 claimed by the buyers or grantees fnnu our 
 treasury ; and the same we decree concerning 
 the other corporate property of the Christians. 
 The execution of the law is committed to the 
 civil magistrates, and it is everywhere to be 
 made public." The change of feeling here 
 evinced was more strongly marked in other 
 documents that followed, which more peculi- 
 arly expressed the mind of Constantine. The 
 first in order is a letter to Anulinus, proconsul 
 of Africa, giving directions for the execution 
 of the edict, in which the term " Catholic 
 Church" is substituted for that of "body of 
 Christians " (Eus. H. E. x. 5, 15). Then follows 
 
210 
 
 CONSTANTINUS 
 
 another addressed to the same official liber- 
 ating the clergy " in the Catholic church of 
 which Caecilian is president " from the pres- 
 sure of public burdens. This concession, at 
 first apparently made to Africa alone, was 
 extended to the whole church in 319 (C. Th. 
 xvi. 2, 2). The description of Christianity in 
 the privilege granted to the African church is 
 remarkable " as the religion in which the 
 crowning reverence is observed towards the 
 holiest powers of heaven " (H. E. x. 7). The 
 mention of Caecilian and this definition of the 
 Catholic church in the same document was 
 not allowed to pass unchallenged by the 
 Donatists. They presented to Anulinus an 
 appeal, Libellus Ecdesiae Catholicae criminmn 
 Caeciliani, and a request for a commission of 
 inquiry, both of which he forwarded to the 
 emperor (Aug. Ep. 88 (68), 2 ; Migne, Const. 
 Mag. col. 479). 
 
 (2) The Donatist Schism. — The appeal of 
 the Donatists brought Constantine directly 
 into the heart of church controversies, and 
 was the first occasion of his gradually growing 
 interference. Though his relations with this 
 schism form only an episode in its history, 
 their consequences were important. [Dona- 
 tists.] The results were such a mixture of 
 good and evil as seems inseparable from the 
 union of church and state. The church profited 
 by the development of her system of councils, 
 and a general growth in organization and polit v ; 
 the emperor gained a nearer insight into the 
 feeling of the church ; and the state obtained a 
 most important support. On the other hand 
 must be set the identification of the Catholic 
 with the dominant and worldly church, and the 
 precedent allowed of imperial interference in 
 questions of schism. From the banishment 
 of the Donatists for schism it was no great step 
 to the persecutions of Arians and Cathohcs for 
 heresy, and not much further to the execution 
 of the Priscilhanists by Magnus Maximus. 
 
 (3) The Arian Controversy. — The relation 
 of the emperor to this great controversy was 
 the result of his last achievement of power. 
 His complete victory over Licinius in 323 
 brought him into contact with the controver- 
 sies of his new dominions in the East, just as 
 his victory over Maxentius had led to the Don- 
 atist appeals in the West. The first document 
 which connects him with this controversy is a 
 letter to Alexander and Arius (Eus. V. C. ii. 
 64-72 ; Socr. i. 7 gives only the latter half of 
 it). He expresses his longing for " calm days 
 and careless nights," and exhorts the oppo- 
 nents to reconciliation. The whole had arisen 
 from an unpractical question stirred by Alex- 
 ander, and from an inconsiderate opinion 
 expressed by Arius. Again and again he 
 insists on the insignificance of the dispute 
 {inrkp fiLKpwv Kal \iav iXaxL(TTUv (ptXoveiKOvv- 
 Ttxiu - v-rrkp tQv eXaxiimav tovtuiu fijTTjo-ew;/ 
 6.Kpi^o\oyu(Tdf, etc.), shewing in a remarkable 
 manner his own ignorance and self-confidence. 
 This letter was sent by Hosius, but naturally 
 had no effect : though we are ignorant of his 
 proceedings at Alexandria, except that he 
 combated Sabellianism (Socr. iii. 8, p. 394 
 Migne ; Hefele, § 22). Arius seems to have 
 now written a letter of remonstrance, to which 
 Constantine, who was under other influences 
 or in a different mood, replied in an extra- 
 
 CONSTANTINUS I. 
 
 ordinary letter of violent invective. The de- 
 tailed history of this time is involved in diffi- 
 culty, but the expedient of a general council 
 was a natural one both to the emperor and to 
 the church at large. The Meletian schism in 
 Egypt and the Paschal controversy required 
 settlement, and in Constantine's mind the 
 latter was equally important with Arianism. 
 The idea and its execution are ascribed to Con- 
 stantine without any mention of suggestions 
 from others, except perhaps from Hosius 
 (Sulpic. Sever. Chron. ii.40, "S.NicaenaSynod- 
 us auctoreilloconfectahabebatur "). He sent 
 complimentary letters in every direction, and 
 gave the use of public carriages and litters to 
 the bishops. The year of the council is al- 
 lowed to be 325, but the day is much debated. 
 Hefele discusses the various dates, and places 
 the solemn opening on June 14 (Councils, § 26). 
 The bishops were arranged round a great hall 
 in the middle of the palace, when Constantine 
 entered to open the proceedings, dressed mag- 
 nificently, and making a great impression by 
 his stately presence, lofty stature, and gentle 
 and even modest demeanour. This is not the 
 place to trace the course of the discussions that 
 followed. [Arius.] Two points are deserving 
 of note — first, the story of his burning the 
 memorials and recriminations of the different 
 parties addressed to him ; secondly, his relation 
 to the bfioovffiov. As to the first, it is said that 
 Constantine brought them into the synod in a 
 sealed packet and threw them into the fire, say- 
 ing to the bishops : " You cannot be judged by 
 a man like myself : such things as these must 
 wait till the great day of God's judgment," add- 
 ing, according to Socrates, " Christ has advised 
 us to pardon our brother if we wish to obtain 
 pardon ourselves " (Socr. i. 8, p. 63 Migne ; Soz. 
 i. 17). His relation to the o/xoovaiov rests on the 
 Ep. of Eusebius to his own church, in which he 
 gives an account of the synod to his own ad- 
 vantage (Socr. i. 8 ; Theod. i. 12; Athan. Decret. 
 Synod. Nic. 4). He gives the text of the creed 
 which he proposed to the council ; and tells us 
 that after it was read no one got up to speak 
 against it, but, on the contrary, the emperor 
 praised it very highly and exhorted everyone to 
 embrace it with the addition only of one word 
 — " consubstantial." He then proceeded to 
 comment on it, declaring that the word implied 
 neither a corporeal substance nor a division of 
 the divine substance between the Father and 
 the Son, but was to be understood in a divine 
 and mysterious sense. Though it is pretty 
 clear that the word bixooixrios was in the minds 
 of the orthodox party throughout, they may 
 have hesitated to propose it at first, as its 
 association with Paul of Samosata was pro- 
 vocative of much disputation. Hosius, it 
 may be, suggested to the emperor that the 
 proposition should come from his lips. He 
 must have had some tuition in theological 
 language from an orthodox theologian before 
 he could give the interpretation with which 
 Eusebius credits him. When the creed was 
 finally drawn up, the emperor accepted it as 
 inspired, and with his usual vehemence in the 
 cause of peace proceeded to inflict penalties 
 upon the few who still refused to sign it. He 
 wished even to abolish the name of Arians 
 and to change it into Porphyriaus (Ep. ad 
 Ecclesias, Migne, p. 506 ; Socr. i. 9). Later 
 
CONST ANTIN us I. 
 
 Euscbiiis i>f N'icomodiaaiul Thcopnisof Nicaca 
 were cleposeil and banished, as they had nut 
 recogiii/ed the depositiun of Arius, thougli 
 they had been brouglU to sign the creed. Con- 
 stantine intiulged particularly in invectives 
 against Ivusebius oi Xir.iinedia, accusing him 
 of ha\ing stirred iipperseciition under Licinius, 
 and of deceiving himself at Nicaea (£/>. ad 
 Xicomediensesc. Eus. ei Theognium, Migne, pp. 
 519 f., from Gelasius, iii. 2, and the collections 
 of councils). Constantino expressed an im- 
 moderate joy at the success of the council, 
 considering it a personal triumph. Eusebius 
 has preserved the letter the emperor then wrote 
 to all the churches (V. C. iii. 17-20). 
 
 Constantine in his relations to Arianism 
 was obviously the instrument for good as well 
 as for evil. "On the one hand, he acted with 
 good intentions, and was able by the superior- 
 ity of his position to take a wide view of the 
 needs of the church ; on the other he was 
 very ignorant, self-confident, credulous, and 
 violent. We know too little of the influences 
 by which he was swayed : how, for instance, 
 Hosius acquired and' lost his ascendancy ; 
 what Eusebius of Caesarea really did ; how 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia obtained influence 
 with the emperor in the last period of his life. 
 We only know that the emperor, in his anxiety 
 above all things for peace, was led to do violent 
 acts of an inconsistent character that made 
 peace impossible ; but we must remember 
 that he was living in an age of violent men. 
 
 For details of Constantine's relations with 
 heathenism see especially : A. Beugnot, Hist, de 
 la destruction du Paganisme en Occident, 2 vols. 
 (Paris, 1835), an important and thoughtful 
 book, unfortunately scarce ; and E. Chastel, 
 Hist, de la destruction du Paganisme dans 
 V Empire d'Orient (Paris, 1850) — both crowned 
 by the .\cademy. Less important is Der Unter- 
 gang des Hellenismus und die Entziehung seiner 
 Tempelguter durch die Christlichen Kaiser, by 
 Ernst von Lasaulx (Miinchen, 1854). 
 
 IV. Character. — Constantine deserves the 
 name of Great, whether we consider the poli- 
 tical or the religious change that he effected, 
 but he belongs to the second, rather than the 
 lirst, order of great men. Notwithstanding 
 his wide successes, and his tenacious grasp 
 over the empire in which he worked such 
 revolutions, notwithstanding his high sense of 
 his own vocation and the grandeur of some of 
 his conceptions, his personal character does 
 not inspire us with admiration. With many 
 of the impulses of greatness it remained to the 
 last unformed and uncertain, and never lost 
 a tinge of barbarism. He was wanting in the 
 best heathen and Christian virtues ; he had 
 little of dignity, cultivation, depth, or tender- 
 ness. If we compared him with any great man 
 of modern times it would rather be with Peter 
 of Russia than with Napoleon. 
 
 p 
 
 V. Vision of the A\- — The question of the 
 reality of this vision is perhaps the most un- 
 satisfactory of the many problems in the life 
 of Constantine. The almost contemporary 
 account of Lactantius has been already men- 
 tioned ; Life, period i. ; from de M. P. 44 : 
 " Comraonitus est in quiete Constantinus ut 
 caeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis atque 
 
 CONSTANTINUS 
 
 211 
 
 ita proelium connnittcrct. Fecit ut jnssus est 
 et tranversa X littera, summo capite circuni- 
 flexo, Christum in scutis notat." This took 
 place on the night before the battle of the 
 Milvian bridge. Ensebius's narrative (V. C. 
 i. 27-32) contrasts very strikingly with this. 
 He represents Constantine as looking about 
 for some god to whom he should appeal for 
 assistance in his cami^aign against Maxcntius, 
 and as thinking of the god of his father Con- 
 stantius. He besought him in prayer to re- 
 veal himself, and received a sign, wliich the 
 historian could not distrust on the word and 
 oath of the emperor given to himself many 
 years later. About the middle of the after- 
 noon (for so the words seem to be best inter- 
 pretecl), he saw with his own eyes the trophy 
 of the cross figured in light standing above the 
 sun, and with the letters rovTifj Wxa attached 
 to it. He and his army were seized with 
 amazement, and he himself was in doubt as 
 to the meaning of the appearance. .As he was 
 long considering it night came on, and in sleep 
 Christ appeared to him with the sign that ap- 
 peared in heaven, and ordered him to make a 
 standard of the same pattern. The next day 
 he gave directions to artificers how to prepare 
 the labarum, which was adorned with gold 
 and precious stones. Eusebius describes it 
 as he afterwards himself saw it. It consisted 
 of a tall spear with a bar crossing it, on the 
 
 p 
 highest point of which was a y^ encircled 
 with a crown, while a square banner gorgeously 
 embroidered hung from the cross bar, on the 
 upper part of which were the busts of the 
 emperor and his sons. Constantine immediate 
 ly made inquiries of the priests as to the figure 
 seen in his vision, and determined with good 
 hope to proceed under that protection. 
 
 Eusebius nowhere states exactly where or 
 when this took place ; his vague expressions 
 seem to place it near the beginning of the 
 campaign. The senate acknowledged an 
 instinctus divinitatis and the contemporary 
 panegyrist refers to divina praecepia in the 
 campaign with Maxentius. 
 
 Another sort of divine encouragement is 
 recorded later by the heathen panegyrist 
 Nazarius in 321, c. 14. " All (iaul," he says, 
 " speaks of the heavenly armies who pro- 
 claimed that they were sent to succ(jur the 
 emperor against Maxentius." " Flagrabant 
 verendum nescio quid umbone corusci et 
 caelestium armorum lux terribilis ardebat . . . 
 Haec ipsorum sermocinatio, hoc inter audi- 
 entes ferebant ' Constantinum petimus, Con- 
 stantino imus auxilio.' " A distinct incident 
 is added by the late and antagonistic Zosimus, 
 but he tells us nothing of what hapjjened to 
 Constantine, only of a prodigious number of 
 owls which flocked to the walls of Rome when 
 Maxentius crossed the Tiber (ii. 16). 
 
 On the Christian side the only independent 
 account of later date seems U) bo that of Sozo- 
 men, i. 3, who afterwards gives the acc.omit of 
 Eusebius. " Having determined to make an 
 expedition against Maxentius, ho was natur- 
 ally doubtful of the event of the conflict and 
 of the assistance he should have. While he 
 was in this anxiety he saw in a dream the sign 
 of the cross flashing in the sky, and as he was 
 
212 
 
 CONST ANTINUSn 
 
 amazed at the sight, angels of God stood by 
 him and said, ' O Constantine, in this con- 
 quer ! ' It is said too that Christ appeared 
 to him and shewed him the symbol of the 
 cross, and ordered him to make one like it, 
 and to use it in his wars as a mainstay and 
 pledge of victory. Eusebius Pamphili, how- 
 ever," etc. Rufinus also gives both accounts. 
 Later writers repeat one or other of these nar- 
 ratives, adding details of time and place, for 
 which there is no warrant. 
 
 That something took place during the cam- 
 paign with Maxentius which fixed Constan- 
 tine's mind upon Christ as his protector and 
 upon the cross as his standard, no unpreju- 
 diced person can deny. It is equally certain 
 that he believed he had received this intima- 
 tion by divine favour and as a divine call. 
 Those who give him credit for inventing the 
 whole story out of political considerations 
 totally misapprehend his character. But two 
 questions obviously remain to be discussed : 
 (i) Which account is to be preferred, that of 
 Eusebius or Sozomen ? (2) Can we speak of 
 the circumstance as a miracle ? 
 
 (i) Eusebius's account, being the most 
 striking and resting on the authoritv of the 
 emperor, has been most popularly received. 
 It is open to obvious difficulties, arising from 
 the silence of contemporaries and the lateness 
 of the testimony. Dr. J. H. Newman, in his 
 Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles, has said per- 
 haps all that can be said for Eusebius. He 
 thinks it probable that the panegyrist of 313 
 refers to this vision as the adverse omen which 
 he will pass over and not raise unpleasant re- 
 collections by repeating (cap. 2) — for the cross 
 would be to Romans generally a sign of dis- 
 may, and Constantine (says Eusebius) was at 
 first much distressed in mind with regard to 
 it. The panegyrist also praises Constantine 
 for proceeding " contra haruspicum monita," 
 and asserts " habes profecto aliquod cum ilia 
 mente divina, Constantine, secretum, quae, 
 delegata nostri diis minoribus cura, uni se tibi 
 dignetur ostendere ? " Optatian also, writing 
 c. 326, though he does not mention the vision, 
 speaks of the cross as " caeleste signum." 
 Those modern writers too, who think of a 
 solar halo or parhelion as an explanation, pre- 
 fer the account of Eusebius. J. A. Fahricius 
 was perhaps the first to offer this explanation 
 {Exercitatio Critica de Cruce Const. Mag. in his 
 BibliothecaGraeca, vol. vi.), which is followed 
 by Manso, Milman, Stanlev, Heinichen, and 
 others.* The latter in his 24th Meletema gives 
 a useful resume of the literature of the subject. 
 Few historians adopt the alternative, which 
 Schaff accepts, of a providential dream (§ 134). 
 It IS difificult in fact to resist the impression 
 that there was some objective sign visible in 
 daylight, such as Eusebius describes, notwith- 
 standmg the omission of it bv Lactantius. 
 
 (2) Can this sign be considered a miracle ? 
 The arguments for this conclusion are well put 
 by Newman. He shews that little or nothing 
 IS gamed by explaining the circumstances as a 
 natural phenomenon or a subjective vision if 
 once we allow it to be providential ; and that 
 * Mr. Whymper has given a good picture of such 
 a phenomenon, observed by him after the fatal 
 accident on the first ascent of the Matterhorn 
 (bcrambles amongst the Alps, I,ondon, 1871, p. 399) 
 
 CONSTANTIUS I. 
 
 a priori this seems a fitting juncture for a 
 miracle to have been worked. " It was first 
 a fitting rite of inauguration when Christianity 
 was about to take its place among the powers 
 to whom God has given rule over the earth ; 
 next it was an encouragement and direction 
 to Constantine himself and to the Christians 
 who marched with him ; but it neither seems 
 to have been intended nor to have operated 
 as a display of divine power to the confusion 
 of infidelity or error " (§ 155). Newman 
 seems to be right in arguing that nothing is 
 gained — in regard to difficulties like this — by 
 transferring the event from the category of 
 miracle to that of special Providence, [j.w.] 
 
 Constantinus II., the eldest son of Constan- 
 tine the Great by Fausta, born a.d. 312, was 
 made Caesar in 316 together with Crispus, and 
 his quinquennalia were celebrated by the 
 panegyric of Nazarius in 321. At the death 
 of his father, the empire being redivided, 
 Constantine as the eldest son seems to have 
 claimed Constantinople, but this was over- 
 ruled, and he was placed over the West. 
 Constantine thus came into contact with St. 
 Athanasius in his exile at Treves, and at once 
 took him under his protection. [Athana- 
 sius. 1 In 340 Constantine invaded the 
 dominions of Constans and penetrated into 
 Lombardv, where he was killed in a small 
 engagement. His dominions then went to 
 Constans, who thus ruled the entire West. Of 
 his character we know little or nothing. He 
 appears to have been a staunch Catholic, but 
 his attack upon the dominions of his brother 
 Constans does not put his character in a 
 favourable light. His short reign makes him 
 very unimportant. [j-w.] 
 
 Constantlus I. Flavius Valerius, surnamed 
 
 Chlorus (6 XXiopos, " the pale "), Roman 
 emperor, a.d. 305, 306, father of Constantine 
 the Great, son of Eutropius, of a noble Dar- 
 danian family, by Claudia, daughter of Crisp- 
 us, brother of the emperors Claudius II. and 
 Quintilius. Born c. a.d. 250. Distinguished 
 by ability, valour, and virtue, Constantius 
 became governor of Dalmatia under the 
 emperor Cams, who was prevented by death 
 from making him his successor. Diocletian 
 (emperor, a.d. 284-305), to lighten the cares 
 of empire, associated Maximian with himself ; 
 and arranged that each emperor should 
 appoint a co-regent caesar. Constantius was 
 thus adopted by Maximian, and Galerius by 
 Diocletian (Mar. i, a.d. 292). Each being 
 obliged to repudiate his wife and marry the 
 daughter of his adopted father, Constantius 
 separated from Helena, the daughter of an 
 innkeeper, who was not his legal wife but was 
 mother of Constantine the Great, and married 
 Theodora, stepdaughter of Maximian, by 
 whom he had six children. As his share of the 
 empire, Constantius received the provinces 
 Gaul, Spain, and Britain. In a.d. 296 he re- 
 united Britain to the empire, after the rebel- 
 lion of Carausius, and an independence of ten 
 years. In a.d. 305, after the abdication of 
 Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and Con- 
 stantius became Augusti, and ruled together. 
 As the health of Constantius began to fail, he 
 sent for his son Constantine, who was already 
 exceedingly popular, and who was jealously 
 kept by Galerius at his own court. Constan- 
 
CONST ANTI us II. 
 
 tine escaped, and arrived at his father's camp 
 at Gcssoriacum (Bouldgne-sur-Mer) before ! 
 embarking on another expedition to Britain. 
 In A.D. 306 Constantins died in the imperial 
 palace at Eboracum (\'<)rk). He is described 
 as one of the most excellent characters among j 
 the later Romans. He took the keenest in- 
 terest in the welfare of his people, and limited I 
 his personal expenses to the verge of affecta- 
 tion, declaring that " his most valued treasure 1 
 was in the hearts of his people." The Ciauls 
 delighted to contrast his gentleness and 
 moderation with the haughty sternness of 
 (.ialerius. His internal administration was as 
 honourable as his success in war. The Chris- 
 tians always praised his tolerance and impar- 
 tiality. Theophanes calls him XpicrTiav6<ppuM', 
 a man of Christian principles. He had Chris- 
 tians at his court, .\lthough a pagan, he 
 disapproved of the persecution of Diocletian, 
 and contented himself by closing a few 
 rluirches and overthrowing some dilapidated 
 buildings, respecting (as the author of the de 
 Morte Persecuiorum says) the true ietnple of 
 God. Christianity spread in Gaul under his 
 peaceful rule, and at the end of the 4th cent, 
 that province had more than 20 bishops. 
 Eiitrop. ix. ; Aurel. Vict. Caes. 39, etc. ; 
 Theoph. pp. 4-8, ed. Paris ; Bus. Vit. Const. 
 i. 13-21 ; Lactantius, dc Morte Persecutorum, 15; 
 Smith, D. of G. and R. Biog. ; Ccillier, iii. 48, 
 140. 570- [w.M.s.] 
 
 Constantius II., son of Constantius the 
 Great, was the second of the sons of Fausta, 
 born at Sirmium Aug. 6, 317, and emperor 
 337-36I. De Broglie remarks of him (iii. pp. 
 7, 8), " Of the sons of Constantine he was the 
 one who seemed best to reproduce the quali- 
 ties of his father. Although very small in 
 stature, and rendered almost deformed by his 
 short and crooked legs, he had the same ad- 
 dress as his father in military exercises, the 
 same patience under fatigue, the same sobriety 
 in diet, the same exemplary severity in all that 
 had regard to continence. He put forward 
 also, with the same love for uncontrolled pre- 
 eminence, the same literary and theological 
 pretensions : he loved to shew off his elo- 
 quence and to harangue his courtiers." Victor, 
 Qaes. 42, speaks well of Constantius: the writer 
 of the Epitome credits him with some virtues 
 but speaksof theeunuchs,etc.,whosurrounded 
 him, and of the adverse influence of his wife 
 Eusebia. Ammianus (xxi. 16) gives an elab- 
 orate and balanced character of Constantius 
 which seems to be fair. The Christian writers 
 were naturally not partial to an emperor who 
 leaned so constantly towards Arianism and 
 was such a bitter persecutor of the Nicene 
 faith, and did not scruple to call him Ahab, 
 Pilate, and Judas. St. Athanasius neverthe- 
 less addressed him in \'ery complimentary 
 terms in the apology which he composed as 
 late as 356. Constantius was not baptized 
 till his last year, yet interfered in church 
 matters with the most arrogant pretensions. 
 
 Period i., 337-350. — Constantine II., Con- 
 stans, Constantius II., Augusti. — On the death 
 of Constantine, Constantius hurried to Con- 
 stantinople for the funeral of his father. The 
 armies, says Eusebiiis, declared unanimously 
 that they would have none but his sons to 
 succeed him (F. C. iv. 68) — to the exclusion, 
 
 CONSTANTIUS II. 
 
 21.1 
 
 therefore, of his nephews Dalmalius and Han- 
 nibalian. There followed shortly after a 
 general massacre of the family of Constantius 
 Chlorus and Theodora. Many writers, and 
 those of such distinct views as St. Athanasius, 
 Ammianus, and Zosimus as well as Julian, 
 openly charge Constantius with being the 
 author of this great crime, others imply only 
 that he allowed it. Constantine and Constans 
 are in no way implicated in it. A new divi- 
 sion of empire followed ; for which purpose 
 the brothers met at Sirmium. Speaking 
 generally, Constantine had the west, Constans 
 the centre, and Constantius the East. 
 
 From the division of empire between Con- 
 stans and Constantius we must date the 
 beginnings of separation of the churches. The 
 Eastern church recovered indeed at length 
 from Arian and semi-.Arian influences, but the 
 habit of division had been formed and varie- 
 ties of theological c<'nception became accen- 
 tuated ; then the Roman church grew rapidly 
 in power and independence, having no rival 
 (>{ any jiretcnsions in the VVest, while in the 
 East the older apostolic sees were gradually 
 subordinated to that of Constantinople, and 
 the whole church w.is constantly distracted by 
 imperial interference. 
 
 Constantius was especially ready to inter- 
 vene. In 341, in deference to the Dedication 
 Council of Antioch, he forcibly intruded one 
 Gregorius into the see of Alexandria ; in 342 
 he sent his magister equitum, Hermogenes, to 
 drive Paulus from Constantinople, but he did 
 not confirm Macedonius, the rival claimant 
 (Socr. ii. 13). These events took place while 
 St. Athanasius was received with honour at 
 the court of Constans, for whose use he had 
 prepared some books of Holy Scripture 
 (Athan. Apolog. ad Const. 4). Constans deter- 
 mined to convoke another oecumenical coun- 
 cil, and obtained his brother's concurrence. 
 The place fixed upon was Sardica, on the 
 frontier of the Easfcrn and Western empires, 
 where about 170 bishops met in 343. Then 
 occurred the first great open rupture between 
 East and West, the minority consisting of 
 W'estern bishops siding with St. Athanasius, 
 while the Eastern or Eusebian faction seceded 
 to Philippopolis across the border. After the 
 dissolution of the council Constans still at- 
 tempted to enforce the decrees of Sardica, by 
 requiring of his brother the restoration of 
 Athanasius and Paulus, threatening force if 
 it was refused (Socr. ii. 22 ; Soz. iii. 20). The 
 shameful i)l'its of the Arian bp. of Antioch, 
 Stephen, against the messengers of Constans 
 were happily discovered, and the faith of 
 Constantius ' in the party was somewhat 
 shaken (St. Athan. Htst. Arian. ad num. 20; 
 Theod. ii. 9, 10). The pressure of the war 
 with Persia no doubt inclined him to avoid 
 anything like a civil war, and he put a stop to 
 some of the Arian persecutions. Ten months 
 later — after the death of the intruded Gregory 
 —he invited St. Athanasius to return to his 
 see, which Athanasius did in 346, after a 
 curious interview with the empenr at Anticch 
 (see the letters in Socr. ii. 23 from Athan. 
 \Apol. c. Arianos, 54 f.). Other exiled bishops 
 :were likewise restored. In the West, 
 
 meanwhile, Constans was occupied with the 
 , Donatists, whose case had been one of the 
 
214 
 
 CONSTANTIUS II. 
 
 elements of division at Sardica. He sent a 
 conciliatory mission to Africa, but his bounty 
 was rudely refused by that Donatus who was 
 now at the head of the sect — himself a secret 
 Arian as well as a violent schismatic — with the 
 famous phrase, " Quid est imperatori cum 
 ecclesia ? " The turbulence of the Circum- 
 cellions provoked the so-called " Macarian 
 Persecution " ; some of the schismatics were 
 put to death, others committed suicide, others 
 were exiled, and so for a time union seemed to 
 be produced. (Bright, pp. 58-60 ; Hefele, 
 § 70, Synod of Carthage. The history is in 
 Optatus Milev. iii. i, 2.) Early in the 3'ear 
 350 Constans was put to death, or rather forced 
 to commit suicide, by the partisans of the 
 usurper Magnentius. His death was a great 
 loss to the orthodox party, whose sufferings 
 durmg the next ten years were most intense. 
 Period ii., 350-361. Constantitis sole Augus- 
 tus. — The usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul 
 seems to have been largely a movement of 
 paganism against Christianity and of the 
 provincial army against the court. It was 
 closely followed by another, that of Vetranio 
 in IlhTia. We need not follow the strange 
 history of these civil wars, nor recount in 
 detail how Vetranio was overcome by the 
 eloquence of Constantius in 350, and Magnen- 
 tius beaten in the bloody battle of Mursa, 
 Sept. 351, that cost the Roman empire 50,000 
 men. Between these two events Constantius 
 named his cousin, Gallus, caesar and attended 
 the first council of Sirmium. Some time be- 
 fore the battle he must have received the letter 
 from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, describing a cross 
 of light which appeared " on May 7, about the 
 third hour," " above the holy Golgotha and 
 stretching as far as the holy mount of Olives," 
 and seen by the whole city. St. Cyril praises 
 Constantius and reports this marvel as an 
 encouragement to him in his campaign. The 
 genuineness of the letter has however been 
 doubted, especially from the word " consub- 
 stantial " appearing in the doxology at the 
 end. At the time of the battle of Mursa 
 Constantius came much under the influence of 
 Valens, the temporizing bishop of the place, 
 who pretended that the victory was revealed 
 to him by an angel, and from this time he 
 appears more distinctly as a persecutor of the 
 Nicene faith, which he endeavoured to crush 
 in the West. His general character also under- 
 went a change for the worse after the un- 
 expected suicide of Magnentius, which put 
 him in sole possession of the empire. It is 
 difficult to say whether he appears to least 
 advantage in the pages of Ammianus or of St. 
 Athanasius. It would take too long to re- 
 count the disgraceful proceedings at the coun- 
 cil of Aries in 353. where the legates of the new 
 Pope Liberius were misled, or at Milan in 355, 
 when Constantius declared that his own will 
 should serve the Westerns for a canon as it 
 had served the Syrian bishops, and proceeded 
 to banish and imprison no less than 147 of the 
 chief orthodox clergy and laity (Hist. Ar. ad 
 Man. 33, etc. ; see De Broglie, iii. p. 263). The 
 most important sufferers were Eusebius of 
 Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionvsius 
 of Milan. Soon after followed the exile of 
 Liberius, and in 355 that of Hosius. All this 
 was intended to lead up to the final overthrow 
 
 CONSTANTIUS H. 
 
 of Athanasius. Early in 356 Syrianus, the 
 duke of Egypt, began the open persecution of 
 the Catholics at Alexandria, and Constantius, 
 when appealed to, confirmed his actions and 
 sent Heraclius to hand over all the churches 
 to the Arians, which was done with great 
 violence and cruelty (Hist. Ar. 54). George 
 of Cappadocia was intruded into the see, and 
 Athanasius was forced to hide in the desert. 
 In the same year Hilary of Poictiers was 
 banished to Phrygia. 
 
 Meanwhile Constantius had been carrying 
 on a persecution of even greater rigour against 
 the adherents of Magnentius, which is de- 
 scribed by Ammianus (xiv. 5), whose history 
 begins at this period. His suspicions were 
 also aroused against his cousin Gallus, whose 
 violence and misgovernment in the East, 
 especially in Antioch, were notorious. The 
 means by which Constantius lured him into 
 his power and then beheaded him are very 
 characteristic (Amm. xiv. 11). At the end of 
 the same year, 355, he determined to make his 
 younger brother, Julian, caesar in his place, 
 putting him over the provinces of Gaul, and 
 marrying him to his sister Helena. 
 
 In the church worse things were yet to 
 come : the fall of Hosius, who accepted the creed 
 of the second council of Sirmium, then that 
 of Liberius, the first after torture and severe 
 imprisonment, the second after two years of 
 melancholy exile, both in 357. Of the numer- 
 ous councils and synods at this time, the most 
 famous and important was that of Rimini in 
 359, in conjunction with one in the East at 
 Seleucia, when the political bishops succeeded 
 in carrying an equivocal creed approved by 
 the emperor, and omitting the homoousion. 
 Constantius, tired of the long controversy, at- 
 tempted to enforce unity by imposing the for- 
 mula of Rimini everywhere, and a number of 
 bishops of various parties were deposed (Soz. 
 iv. 23, 24). In 360 Julian was proclaimed 
 Augustus by his army, and proposed a division 
 of the empire, which Constantius did not 
 accept (Amm. xx. 8). A civil war was impend- 
 ing : Constantius was at first contemptuous, 
 but ere long began to be haunted with fears of 
 death, and caused himself to be baptized by 
 Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch. He 
 expired, after a painful illness, at Mopsucrene 
 at the foot of mount Taurus, Nov. 4, 361 
 (Socr. ii. 47 ; Amm. xxi. 15). He was at 
 least three times married : in 352 or 353, after 
 the successful issue of the civil war, to Aurelia 
 Eusebia, a very beautiful, accomplished, and 
 gentle lady, but an Arian, who had great in- 
 fluence with him. She died some time before 
 the usurpation of Julian. Besides his wives, 
 on whom he was accustomed to lean, his chief 
 adviser was the eunuch Eusebius, of whom 
 Ammianus says so sarcastically, " apud quem, 
 si vere dici debet, multum Constantius pot- 
 uit." He also trusted much to a detestable 
 man the notary Paulus, nicknamed Catena. 
 Another of the same class was Mercurius, 
 called Comes Somniorum. These men, with 
 an army of spies (curiosi), organized a reign of 
 terror for three years after the overthrow of 
 Magnentius, especially in Britain, acting par- 
 ticularly on the laws against sacrifice and 
 magic (cf. Liban. pro Aristophane, i. p. 430). 
 Laws in Favour of Christianity. — These will 
 
CORNELIUS 
 
 be found chiefly in the second title of book xvi. 
 of the Theodosian code, headed tic e-f^iscof'is 
 ecclcsiis ft dericis. In 337 the emperor eon- 
 firmed all the privileges granted to the church 
 of Rome, at that time under the emperor's 
 nominee, Felix, whilst Liberius was in exile. 
 Another rescript of the same year is addressed 
 to Felix, more explicitly guaranteeing the im- 
 munity from taxation and forced service. The 
 next law (a.d. 360) refers to the synod of 
 Rimini, and the opinion expressed by various 
 bishops from different parts of Italy, and from 
 Spain and Africa. The last law in the series 
 (in 361) is remarkable, as the heading gives 
 Julian the title of Augustus. 
 
 Relations to Heathenism. — The state of things 
 that we have seen in the last years of Constan- 
 tine continued during his son's reign. There 
 was the same disposition on the part of the 
 empire to put down paganism and the same 
 elements of reaction. In the West, especially 
 in Rome, real heathenism still retained much 
 of its vitality and still swayed the minds of 
 the aristocracy and the populace ; in the East 
 the supporters of the old religion were the 
 philosophers and rhetoricians, men more at- 
 tached to its literary and artistic associations 
 than prepared to defend polytheism as a 
 creed. They were mixed up with another 
 class, the theurgists, practisers of a higher kind 
 of magic which was particularly attractive to 
 Julian. The following laws from the tenth 
 title of book xvi. of the Theodosian code 
 relate distinctly to heathen sacrifice. Sec. 2, 
 in 341, issued by Constantius, says : " Cesset 
 superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania," 
 and refers to the law of Constantine noticed 
 above. A year or two later (the date is un- 
 certain and wrongly given in the code), Con- 
 stantius and Constans ordered the temples in 
 Roman territory to be kept intact for the 
 pleasure of the Roman people, though all 
 " superstition " is to be eradicated ; almost 
 at the same time they issued a law to the prae- 
 torian prefect inflicting death and confiscation 
 on persons sacrificing. In 353 Constantius 
 forbade the " nocturna sacrificia " permitted 
 by Magnentius : in 356 he and Julian made it 
 capital to sacrifice or worship images, [j-w.] 
 
 Cornelius (2), bp. of Rome, successor of 
 Fabianus, said to have been son of Castinus. 
 After the martyrdom of Fabianus in Jan. 250. 
 in the Decian persecution, the see remained 
 vacant for a year and a half. In June, a.d. 251, 
 Cornelius was elected to the vacant post ; and, 
 although very reluctantly, he accepted an 
 election almost unanimously made by both 
 orders, during the life of a tyrant who had 
 declared that he would rather' see a new pre- 
 tender to the empire than a new bishop of 
 Rome (Cyprian, Ep. iii.). Decius was at that 
 time absent from Rome, prosecuting the 
 Gothic war which ended in his death in the 
 winter of the same year. The persecution of 
 the Christians thus came to an end ; but then 
 arose the difficult question of how tf) treat the 
 libellatici. Christians who had bought their life 
 by the acceptance of false certificates of having 
 sacrificed to heathen gods. Cornelius took a 
 line at variance with that of Cyprian and the 
 church of Carthage, which required rigorous 
 penance as the price of readmission, while 
 Ronie prescribed milder terms. The diffcr- 
 
 COSMAS 
 
 215 
 
 ence was kept alive bv the discontent of the 
 minority within both the chun hes. This 
 was represented at Carthage bv Nnvatus, who 
 separated from the church when unable to 
 obtain less harsh terms ; in Rome by a man 
 of similar name, Novatian, who was in favour 
 of greater rigour than the church would allow. 
 Novatus crossed the sea to aid Novatian in 
 designs at Rome which must have been 
 directly opposed to his own at Carthage. 
 Mainly by his influence Novatian was conse- 
 crated a bishop, and thus constituted the head 
 of a schismatic body in Rome. Eusebius 
 (Hist. Eccl. vi. 43) quotes from a letter of bp. 
 Cornelius to bp. Fabius of Antioch, in which 
 he gives an account of his rival, with statistics 
 as to the number of Roman clergy in his day. 
 These were 46 i^riests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 
 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, 32 readers and 
 ostiarii ; 1,300 widows and orphans were pro- 
 vided for by the church. 
 
 The Novatianist heresy gave rise to a cor- 
 respondence between Cyprian and Cornelius. 
 Persecution was revived in Rome by Gallus, 
 and Cornelius, followed by almost the whole 
 church (among whom were many restored 
 libellatics), took refuge at Centumcellae in 
 Etruria. There Cornelius died, and another 
 bishop, Lucius, was at the head of the church 
 when it returned. It is doubtful whether 
 Cornelius died a violent death. Cyprian and 
 Jerome both speak of him as a martyr. He 
 died Sept. 14, 252. His name as a martyr has 
 been found in the Catacombs at some little 
 distance from those of other popes, and in a 
 cemetery apparently devoted almost exclu- 
 sively to the gens Cornelia, whence De Rossi 
 argues that he probably belonged to that 
 patrician gens (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote 
 and Brownlow, pp. 177-183). [g.h.m.] 
 
 Cosmas (1) and Damianus, brothers, phy- 
 sicians, " silverless " mart>rs. They became 
 types of a class, the avdp-yvpoi, " silverless " 
 martyrs, i.e. physicians who took no fees, but 
 went about curing people gratis, and claiming 
 as their reward that those whom they bene- 
 fited should believe in Christ. They were 
 certainly not earlier than the last quarter of 
 the 3rd cent., and the legendsof martyrs of that 
 time, whose fame is known only by popular 
 tradition, seem in many cases to succeed natur- 
 ally to the place of those heathen myths that 
 were slowest to die. For Hercules, Christopher; 
 for Apollo, Sebastian; for Diana, Ursula; for 
 Proserpine, Agnes. Cosmas and Uamian take 
 the place of Aesculapius, in whose story 
 heathenism made the nearest approach to 
 Christianity. The Greeks distinguished three 
 pairs of these brothers, (i) July i, in the time 
 of Carinus ; (2) Oct. 27. Arabs, with their 
 brothers, Anthimus, Leontius, and Euprepius, 
 martvred under Diocletian ; (3) Nov. i, sons 
 of Theodote. (Meiwl.) For the legends con- 
 nected with them see I). C. 13. (4-vol. ed.). The 
 names were early inserted in the Canon of the 
 Mass. fi:. H.H.I 
 
 Cosmas (3), surnamed Indicopleustes (In- 
 dian navigator), a native of Egypt, probably 
 of Alexandria (lib. ii. 114, vi. 264), originally 
 a merchant (lib. ii. 132, iii. 178, xi. ^^(^), who 
 flourished about the middle of the 6th cent. 
 In pursuit of his mercantile business he navi- 
 gated the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Persian 
 
216 
 
 COSMAS 
 
 Gulf, also visiting India and Ceylon. His 
 travels enabled Cosmas to collect a large store 
 of information respecting not only the coun- 
 tries he visited, but also the more remote lands 
 whose merchants he met. Weary of the world 
 and its gains, he resigned his occupation as a 
 merchant, and, embracing a monastic life, 
 devoted his leisure to authorship, enriching 
 his writings with descriptions of the countries 
 he had vis'ited and with facts he had observed 
 or learned from others. He was no retailer of 
 travellers' wonders, and later researches have 
 proved that his descriptions are as faithful as 
 his philosophy is absurd. 
 
 His Christian Topography (12 books) is his 
 only work which has survived ; the last book 
 is deficient in the Vatican MS. and imperfect 
 in the Medicean. The work was not all pub- 
 lished at one time, nor indeed originally 
 planned in its present extent ; but gradually 
 grew as book after book was added by him 
 at the request of his friends, or to meet the 
 objections of the opponents of his theory. 
 
 The proximate date, a.d. 547, for the earlier 
 books is afforded by the statement (lib. ii. 140) 
 that, when he wrote, 25 years had elapsed since 
 the expedition of Elesbaon, king of the Axiom- 
 itae, against the Homeritae, which Pagi ad 
 ann. dates a.d. 522. The later works were 
 written about 13 years subsequently. Near 
 the end of lib. x. he speaks of the recent death 
 of Timotheus, patriarch of Alexandria, a.d. 
 536, and mentions his heretical successor 
 Theodosius, a.d. 537. 
 
 The chief design of the Christian Topography 
 is " to confute the impious heresy of those who 
 maintain that the earth is a globe, and not a 
 flat oblong table, as is represented in the 
 Scriptures" (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. 
 xlvii. § i. note i.). The old objections of the 
 Epicvureans are revived, and the plane surface 
 is not circular as with Thales, but a parallelo- 
 gram twice as long as broad, surrounded by 
 the ocean. Its length from E. to W. is 12,000 
 miles ; its breadth from N. to S. 6,000. The 
 parallelogram is symmetrically divided by 
 four gulfs ; the Caspian (which joins the 
 Ocean), the Arabian (Red Sea), the Persian, 
 and that of the Romans (Mediterranean). Be- 
 yond the ocean, on each side of the interior 
 continent, lies another land, in which is the 
 Garden of Eden. Here men lived till the 
 Deluge, when Noah and his family crossed 
 the intervening flood in the Ark, and peopled 
 the present world. The rivers of Paradise he 
 supposes to run under the sea, Alpheus-like, 
 and to reappear in our earth. The Nile is the 
 Gihon of Eden. The whole area is surrounded 
 by lofty perpendicular walls, from the summit 
 of which the sky stretches from N. to S. in a 
 cylindrical vault, meeting similar vaults at 
 either extremity (lib. iv. 186, 187). Our author 
 divides this huge vaulted chamber into lower, 
 second, and third stories. The dead occupy the 
 nethermost division ; the middle compartment 
 is the home of the living ; the uppermost, that 
 of the blessed. Heaven is divided from the 
 lower regions by a solid firmament, through 
 which Christ penetrated — and that is the 
 Kingdom of Heaven (lib. iv. 186-188). The 
 vicissitudes of day and night are caused by a 
 mountain of enormous bulk, rising at the N. 
 extremity of the oblong area. Behind this 
 
 COSMAS 
 
 the sun passes in the evening, and reappears 
 on the other side in the morning. The 
 conical shape of the mountain produces the 
 variation in the length of the night ; as the 
 sun rises higher above, or sinks down towards 
 the level of the earth. Eclipses are due to 
 the same cause. The round shadow on the 
 moon's disk is cast by the domical summit of 
 the mountain (lib. iv. 188). 
 
 The views on cosmography thus propounded, 
 absurd and irrational as they appear to us, 
 were those generally entertained by the Fathers 
 of the church. Pinning their faith on the 
 literal meaning of the words of Scripture ac- 
 cording to its traditional interpretation, they 
 deduced a system which had for them all the 
 authority of a divine revelation, any depar- 
 ture from which was regarded as impious and 
 heretical. The arguments by which Cosmas 
 supports his theory are chiefly built on isolated 
 passages of Scripture, as interpreted by the 
 early Fathers. Some, however, are drawn from 
 reason and the nature of the case — e.g. the 
 absurdity of the supposition of the existence 
 of antipodean regions, inasmuch as the beings 
 on the other side of the world must drop off, 
 and the rain would fall upwards instead of 
 downwards ; while the supposed rotatory 
 motion of the universe is disproved by the 
 disturbance that would be caused to the repose 
 of the blessed in heaven by their being per- 
 petually whirled through space. Cosmas de- 
 nounces as heretics those who, following the 
 false lights of science, venture to maintain 
 opposite views, and speaks in terms of strong- 
 est condemnation of " men who assume the 
 name of Christians, and yet in contempt of 
 Holy Scripture join with the pagans in assert- 
 ing that the heavens are spherical. Such 
 assertions are among the weapons hurled at 
 the church. Inflamed by pride as if they were 
 wiser than others, they profess to explain the 
 movements of the heavens by geometrical and 
 astronomical calculations " (lib. i. Prolog.). 
 One of his strongest arguments in support of 
 his plan of the universe is drawn from the form 
 of the Tabernacle of Witness, which the words 
 iiyiov KOdfj.iKov (Heb. ix. i) warrant him in 
 considering to have been like Noah's Ark, ex- 
 pressly constructed as an image of the world. 
 
 The subjects of the 12 books are : (i ) Against 
 those who claim to be Christians, and assert 
 with pagans that the earth is spherical. (2) 
 The Christian hypothesis as to the figure and 
 position of the universe proved from Scripture. 
 (3) The agreement on these points of the O.T. 
 and N.T. (4) A brief recapitulation, and a 
 description of the figure of the universe accord- 
 ing to Scripture, and a confutation of the 
 sphere. (5) A description of the Tabernacle 
 and the agreement of the Prophets and 
 Apostles. (6) The magnitude of the sun. (7) 
 The duration of the heavens. (8) Hezekiah's 
 song, and the retrogression of the sun. (9) 
 The course of the stars. (10) Testimonies of 
 the Fathers, including 11 citations from the 
 Festal Epistles of Athanasins, and other im- 
 portant Patristic fragments. (11) A descrip- 
 tion of the animals of India, and of the island 
 of Ceylon. (12) Testimonies of heathen writers 
 to the antiquity of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Setting aside the absurdities of his cosmo- 
 graphical system, Cosmas is one of the most 
 
COSMAS 
 
 valuable geographical writers of antiquity. 
 His errors were those of his age, and rest 
 chiefly on his reverence for the traditional 
 interpretation of the Bible. But he was an 
 acute observer and vivid describer, and his 
 good faith is unquestionable. He seems well 
 acquainted with the Indian peninsula, and 
 names several places on its coast. He de- 
 scribes it as the chief seat of the pepper trade, 
 of which he gives a very rational account, and 
 mentions Mali, in which Montfaucon recog- 
 nizes the origin of Malabar, as much fre- 
 quented by traflickers in that spice. He fur- 
 nishes a detailed account of the island of Tap- 
 )i'!\via (Ceylon), which he calls Sieliiiiba, then 
 tlu- priiiciinil centre of trade between China 
 [he calls the Chinese Tfd'irj'aO and the Persian 
 Gulf and Red Sea, where the merchants ex- 
 changed their costly wares, and the nations of 
 the East obtained the advantages of commer- 
 cial intercourse, which rapidly increased and 
 had in his time assumed considerable import- 
 ance. The connexion between Persia and 
 India was at that time evidenced by the exist- 
 fiicc of a large number of Christian churches, 
 b'ltli on the coast of India and the islands of 
 Socotra and Ceylnn, served by priests and 
 deacons ordained by the Persian archbp. of 
 Seleucia and subject to his jurisdiction, which 
 had produced multitudes of faithful martyrs 
 and monks (lib. iii. 170). These congregations 
 appear to be identical with the Malabar Chris- 
 tians of St. Thomas. His nth book contains 
 a very graphic and faithful description of the 
 more remarkable animal and vegetable pro- 
 ductions of India and Ceylon, the rhinoceros, 
 elephant, giraffe, hippopotamus, etc., the 
 cocoa-nut tree, pepper tree, etc. 
 
 His remarks on Scripture manifest a not 
 altogether uncommon mixture of credulity 
 and good sense. He mentions that, to the 
 discomfiture of unbelievers, the marks of the 
 chariot wheels of the Egyptians were still 
 visible at Clysma, where the Israelites crossed 
 the Red Sea (v. 194) ; but he explains the 
 supposed miraculous preservation of the gar- 
 ments of the Israelites (Deut. xxix. 5) as 
 meaning no more than that they lacked 
 nothing, since merchants visited them from 
 adjacent countries with clothing and with the 
 wheat of which the shewbread was made (v. 
 205). The catholic epistles he plainly relegates 
 to the " Amphilegomena," making the errone- 
 ous statement that such was the universal 
 ancient tradition and that no early expositor 
 comments upon them. The Ep. to the Hebrews 
 he ascribes to St. Paul, and asserts that it, as 
 well as the Gospel of St. Matt., was rendered 
 into Gk. by St. Luke or St. Clement. Cosmas 
 preserves a monument of very considerable 
 historical value, consisting of two inscriptions 
 relating to Ptolemy Euergetes, B.C. 247-222, 
 and an unnamed king of the Axumitae, of 
 later date. These were copied by him from 
 the originals at the entrance of the city of 
 Adule, an Aethiopian port on the Red Sea ; the 
 former from a wedge-shaped bluck of basanite 
 or touch-stone, standing behind a white marble 
 chair, dedicated to Mars and ornamented with 
 the figures of Hercules and Mercury, on 
 which the latter inscription was engraved. 
 Notwithstanding the different localities of the 
 inscriptions and the fact that the third person 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 217 
 
 is used in the former, the first in the l.itt.r, the 
 two have been carelcsslv printed ccintinni'uslv 
 and regarded as both reiatiuR to the conquests 
 of Ptolemy, who has been thus accredited with 
 fabulous Aethiopian conquests. (So in Fabri- 
 cius, Bibl. Grace, lib. iii. 25 ; cf. Vincent, 
 Commerce, ii. 533-58<).) They were first dis- 
 tinguished innn each other by Mr. Salt (Tor- 
 ages and J'ravfls to India, etc., 1809, vol. iii. 
 192 ; Travels in Abyssinia, 1814, p. 412), and 
 are printed with full comments bv liickh 
 (Corpii.'! Inscript. Graec. 1848, vol. iii. fasc. 
 ii. 50S-314). The inscription relating to 
 Ptolemy describes his ci>iiquest of nearlv the 
 whole of the empire of the Seleucidae, in Asia, 
 which, says Dean Vincent (Aneient Commerce, 
 ii- 53i)> " was scarcely discovered in historv 
 till this monument prompted the inquirv, and 
 was then established on proofs undeniable." 
 Cf. Chishull, Autiq. Asiat. p. 76; Niebuhr, 
 Vermischte Schriften, p. 401 ; Letronne, 
 Materiaux pour Vhist. du Ckrislianisme en 
 Egypte, etc. {1832), p. 401 ; Buttmann, Mus. 
 der Altcrthumsw. ii. i, p. 105. 
 
 A full account of this work is given by 
 Photius (Cod. xxxvi.), under the inappropriate 
 title ' Kpfxrjveio. eis \>K7dT(Vxoi>, but without 
 the author's name. From this, Fabricius very 
 needlessly questions whether the author was 
 really named Cosmas, or whether that was an 
 appellation coined to suit the subject of the 
 work, like that of Joannes Climacus. Photiiis 
 censures the homeliness f)f the style, which he 
 considers hardly to approach mediocrity. But 
 elegance or refinement of diction is not to be 
 expected from a writer, who, in his own words 
 (lib. ii. 124), destitute of literary training and 
 entangled in business, had devoted his whole 
 life to mercantile pursuits, and had to contend 
 against the disadvantages of very infirm health 
 and weak eyesight, incapacitating him for 
 lengthened study. We learn from his own 
 writings that Cosmas also wrote : 
 
 (i) A Cosmographia Universalis, dedicated 
 to a certain Constantine (lib. i. 113), the loss of 
 which is lamented with tears by Montfaucon. 
 
 (2) A work on the motions of the universe 
 and the heavenly bodies, dedicated to the 
 deacon Homologus (lib. i. 114, vii. 274). 
 
 (3) 'TTro/j.vrj/j.aTa on the Canticles, dedicated 
 to Theophilus (lib. vii. 300). 
 
 (4) Exposition of the more difficult parts of 
 the Psalms (Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. s.v. 'Ii'- 
 diKonXevffTrji ; Bibl. CoiMin. p. 244). 
 
 (.Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. Pal. Gk. (Paris, 
 1706), vol. ii. 113-346; Gallandi, Bibl. I'el. 
 Patr. (Ven. 1765), vol. ix. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 
 515 ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. iii. 25 ; Vincent, 
 Commerce, ii. 505-5". 533-537, 5^7 ; Bredow. 
 Strabo, ii. 786-797 ; Thevcnfit, Coll. des voy- 
 ages, vol. i. ; Gosselin, Geogr. syst. des Grecs, iii. 
 274 ; Manncrt, Kinleil. in der Geogr. d. Allen, 
 188-192; Chartoii, r'.\(/;,',s, vol. ii.) fic.v.] 
 
 Cyprlanus (l) Thasclus Caeclllus. Name. — 
 He is styled Thascius Cyprianus by the jiro- 
 consul [Vit. Pontii), and styles himself " Cyjiri- 
 anus qui et Thascius" in the singular heading 
 of Ep. 66. He took the name Caecilius, 
 according to Jerome (Cat. III. Vir. v.), from 
 the presbyter who converted him, and is 
 called Caecilius Cyprianus in the proscription 
 (Ep. 66). 
 
 Cyprian was an orator, and afterwards even 
 
218 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 a teacher of rhetoric (" in tantam gloriam 
 venit eloquentiae ut oratoriam quoque doceret 
 Carthagini," Hieron. Comtn. Jon. c. 3, and cf. 
 Aug. Serm. 312, § 4). It is not quite clear 
 what is meant by Jerome in speaking of 
 him as a former " adsertor idololatriae," 
 and Augustine as " having decorated the 
 crumbling doctrines of demons." His style 
 is very polished, and, as Augustine points out, 
 became more simple and beautiful with time, 
 and (as his critic believed) with the purer taste 
 of Christianity. He edited for Christians the 
 phraseological dictionary of Cicero (see Har- 
 tel's praef. ad fin.). His systematic habits and 
 powers of business contributed greatly to his 
 success as the first of church organizers. His 
 address was dignified, conciliatory, affection- 
 ate ; his looks attractive by their grave 
 joyousness. He never assumed the philo- 
 sopher's pall, which Tertullian his " master " 
 maintained to be the only dress for Christians ; 
 he thought its plainness pretentious. Augus- 
 tine speaks of the tradition of his gentleness, 
 and he never lost the friendship of heathens of 
 high rank (Pont. 14). He was wealthy, his 
 landed property considerable, and his house 
 and gardens beautiful (Pont. Vit. ad Don. 
 i. XV. xvi.). 
 
 His conversion was then important in the 
 series of men of letters and law who were at 
 this time added to the church, and who so 
 markedly surpass in style and culture their 
 heathen contemporaries. Pearson rightly sets 
 aside the inference of Baronius (from De Dei 
 gratia) that Cyprian was old at his conversion, 
 but that he was so seems to be stated, however 
 obscurely, by Pontius (c. 2, " adhuc rudis fidei 
 et cui nondum forsitan crederetur supergressus 
 vetustatis actatem "). Christian doctrines, 
 especially that of regeneration, had previously 
 excited his wonder, but not his derision {ad 
 Don. iii. iv.). He was converted by an aged 
 presbyter, Caecilian. During his catechesis 
 he analysed and conversed with the circle 
 about him on Scripture Lives, devoted him- 
 self to chastity, and sold some estates and 
 distributed the proceeds to the poor. He 
 composed, in his Quod Idola dii non sint, a 
 Christian assault on Polytheism, freely com- 
 piling the ist and and sections of his tract from 
 Minucius, § 20-27, § 18, § 32, and his 3rd section 
 from Tertullian's Apology, § 21-23, with some 
 traces of Tert. de Anima naturaliter Christiana. 
 A comparison of this pamphlet with the ori- 
 ginals well illustrates his ideal of style. He 
 mainly retains the very language, but erases 
 whatever seemed rugged, ambiguous, or 
 strained. He maintains a historical kernel of 
 mythology, points out the low character of 
 indigenous Roman worship ; illustrates the 
 activity of deluding daemons from the scenes 
 at exorcisms, of which, however, he scarcely 
 seems (as Tertullian does) to have been an eye- 
 witness. He contrasts this with the doctrine 
 of Divine unity, which he describes nobly, 
 but illustrates infelicitously. The history of 
 Judaism, its rejection of its Messiah, and the 
 effects which Christianity is producing in the 
 individual and commencing on society bring 
 him to his new standpoint. He is perhaps the 
 first writer who uses the continuous sufferings 
 of believers as evidence of their credibility. 
 This restatement and co-ordination of previous 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 arguments was probably not ineffective, but 
 as yet Cyprian exhibits no conception that 
 Christianity is to be a world-regenerating 
 power. He deliberately excludes providence 
 from history (Quod Id. v.). 
 
 At the Easter following, the season most 
 observed in Africa for this purpose, he was 
 probably baptized, and to the autumn after 
 we refer the ad Donatmn, a monologue, a brief 
 Tusculan held in his own villa, on The Grace of 
 God. It already exhibits Cyprian not as a 
 spiritual analyst or subtle theologian, but ir- 
 refragable in his appeals to the distinctly New 
 Life which has appeared in the world, amid 
 the contemporary degradations — the repudia- 
 tion of the responsibility of wealth, the dis- 
 ruption of the client-bond, the aspect of the 
 criminal classes, the pauperization of the mass, 
 and the systematic corruption by theatre and 
 arena. For the present, however, withdrawal 
 from the world into Christian circles is the only 
 remedy in which he can hope. " Divine Grace " 
 is an ascertained psychological fact, and this, 
 though as yet narrow in application, is the 
 subject of the treatise. 
 
 He soon after sold, for the benefit of the 
 poor, his horti, which some wealthy friends 
 Ijought up afterwards and presented to him 
 again. Meantime he resided with Caecilian. 
 We can only understand the expression of 
 Pontius (who lived similarly as a deacon with 
 Cyprian), " erat sane illi etiam de nobis con- 
 tubernium . . . Caeciliani," to mean that he 
 was at that time " of our body," the diaconate. 
 We find other instances of the closeness of this 
 bond. Baronius and Bp. Fell are equally in- 
 excusable in understanding what is said of 
 Caecilian's family and of Job's wife as having 
 any bearing upon the question of Cyprian's 
 celibacy There is no indication of his having 
 been married. Caecilian at his death com- 
 mended his family to him, although not as 
 officially curator or tutor, which would have 
 contradicted both Christian and Roman usage. 
 
 His Ordination. — His activity while a mem- 
 ber of the ordo or concessus of presbyters is 
 noticed, but he was yet a neophyte when he 
 became bishop. The step was justified on the 
 ground of his exceptional character, but the 
 opposition organized by five presbyters was 
 now and always a serious difficulty to him. 
 The Plebes would listen to no refusal, and 
 frustrated an attempt to escape. He subse- 
 quently rests his title {Ep. 43, Ep. 66, Vit.) on 
 their suffrages, and on the " judicium Dei," 
 with the consensus of his fellow bishops. In 
 ordinary cases he treats the election by neigh- 
 bour bishops as necessary to a valid episcopate 
 (Ep. 57, V. ; Ep. 59, vii. ; Ep. 66). From this 
 time Cyprian is usually addressed both by 
 others and by the Roman clergy as Papa, 
 though the title is not attributed to the bp. 
 of Rome until long after. An earlier instance 
 of the use of the name occurs at Alexandria, 
 but probably the fi;rst application of the 
 name is traceable to Carthage. Some time 
 between July 248 and April 249 Cyprian be- 
 came bishop, a few months before the close of 
 the " thirty years' peace " of the church. 
 
 His Theory of the Episcopal Office seems to 
 have been his own already, and as it supplies 
 the key to his conception of church govern- 
 ment may be stated at once. The episcopate 
 
CYPRIANUS 
 
 succeededtothe Jewish priesthood ♦ (Efi>. 8, !.; 
 69, viii. ; 65 ; 67, i. ; Testim.'xu. 85) ; the bishop 
 was the instructor (£/>. 50. xi. ; Unit, x.) and 
 the judge (£/>. 17, ii.)- In this latter capacity 
 he does nothing without the information and 
 advice of presbyters, deacon, and laity. He 
 is the apostle of his flock (Ep. 3, iii. ; 45 ; 66, 
 iv.) by direct succession, and the diaconatc is 
 the creation of his predecessors. The usual 
 parallel between the three orders of the Chris- 
 tian and Jewish ministry differs entirely from 
 that drawn by Cyprian. 
 
 The stress laid on the responsibility of the 
 laity is very great. Though the virtue of the 
 office is transmitted by another channel, it is 
 they who, by the " aspiration of God," ad- 
 dress to each bishop his call to enter on that 
 " priesthood " and its grace, and it is their 
 duty to withdraw from bis administration if 
 he is a "sinner" (Ep. 67). The bishops do not 
 co-opt into or enlarge their own college. Each 
 is elected by his own Plebes. Hence he is the 
 embodiment of it. " The bishop is in the 
 church and the church in the bishop." They 
 have no other representatives in councils ; he 
 is naturally their " member." These views 
 appear fully developed in his first epistle, and 
 in the application of texts in his early Testi- 
 monia ; it is incredible that they should have 
 been borrowed from paganism, and unhis- 
 torical to connect them with J udaizers. They 
 are (although Cyprian does not dwell on this 
 aspect) not incompatible with a recognition 
 of the priesthood of the laity as full as that 
 of Tertullian. The African episcopate had 
 declined in character during the long peace ; 
 many bishops were engaged in trade, agricul- 
 ture, or usury, some were conspicuously 
 fraudulent or immoral or too ignorant to 
 instruct catechumens and avoid using here- 
 tical compositions in public prayers (de Laps. 
 4 ; Ep. 65, iii. ; Auct. de Rebapt. ix. ; Aug. 
 c. Don. vii. 45 ; Resp. ad Epp. [Sedatus]). 
 Similarly among the presbyters strange occu- 
 pations were possible (Tert. de Idol. cc. 7-9) 
 and unmarried deacons shared their chambers 
 with spiritual sisters who maintained their 
 chastity to be unimpaired. The effect of the 
 persecution was salutary on this state of 
 things, and was felt to be so. To the eighteen 
 months of " peace " which remained belong 
 his Epp. 1-4, and the treatise on the dress of 
 virgins, which answers to his description of his 
 employment as " serving discipline " during 
 that interval. In three of the letters his 
 authority is invoked beyond his diocese, and 
 wears something of a metropolitan aspect. 
 Otherwise it is to be noticed that the African 
 bishops rank by seniority. To these letters 
 Mr. Shepherd has taken objections, which, if 
 valid, would be fatal to the genuineness of 
 much of the Cyprianic cf)rrespondence ; but a 
 rigorous investigation of those objections is 
 conclusive in favour of the epistles. 
 
 De Habitu Virginum. — Many Christian 
 women lived, as a " work of piety," the self- 
 dedicated life of virgins in their own homes. 
 Tertullian had killed the fashion of going un- 
 veiled, which some had claimed as symbolic 
 
 • The bishop alone i,s called sacerdos throughout 
 the Cyprianic correspondence. The presbyter also 
 answers to the Levitic tribe ; each congregation 
 (diocese) to " the congregation of Israel." 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 210 
 
 of childlike innocence, yet with the avowed 
 object of rendering their order attractive. 
 Vanity, sentiment, and the sense of security 
 were still mischievous elements, and Cvprian 
 writes mainly against the extravagant fashions, 
 half Roman, half Tyrian, in which the wealth- 
 ier sisters appeared. His book, though in 
 language drawing largely from Tertullian's 
 treatise of similar title, resembles much nmre 
 in matter and aim his Cullus Feminarum. 
 Cyprian is here so minute and fastidious in his 
 reduction of the violent rhetoric of Tertullian 
 that this might almost pass for a masterly 
 study of writing ; and Augustine regards it as 
 a very perfect wi^rk, drawing from it illustra- 
 tions both of the " grand " and of the " tem- 
 perate " style (Aug. de Doctrina Christiana, 
 bk. iv. pp. 78, 86). In estimating the prob- 
 able influence of this booklet on ascetic life, 
 it is not satisfactory to find that the incentives 
 used are partly low and partly overstrained — 
 the escape from married troubles, espousals 
 with Christ, higher rank in the resurrection ; 
 while efficiency in works of charity, the power 
 of purity, self-sacrifice and intercession, are 
 not dwelt upon. 
 
 Testimonia ad Quirinum, libb. iii. — These, 
 though not certainly belonging to this time, 
 are more like his work now than afterwards. 
 They are texts compiled for a layman (filius). 
 I. in 24 heads on the succession of the Gentile 
 to the Jewish church. II. 30 heads on the 
 Deity, Messiahship, and salvation of Christ. 
 III. 120 on Christian duty. The skill and toil 
 of such a selection are admirable. The im- 
 portance of the text in elucidation of the Latin 
 versions then afloat is immense, and Hartel is 
 quite dissatisfied with what he has been able 
 to contribute to this object (Hartel, Praefat. 
 Cyp. p. xxiii.). 
 
 Decian Persecution. — Cyprian's conviction 
 of the need of external chastisements for the 
 worldliness of the church was supported by 
 intimations which he felt to be supernatural. 
 The edict which began to fulfil them in the end 
 of A.D. 249 aimed at effecting its work by the 
 removal of leaders, and at first fixed capital 
 penalties on the bishops only (Rettberg, p. 54 ; 
 Ep. 66, vii.). Monotheism, even when licensed 
 (like Judaism), had an anti-national aspect, 
 and Christianity could not be a licita religio, 
 simply because it was not the established wor- 
 ship of any locality or race. In this, and in 
 the fact that torture was applied to procure 
 not (as in other accusations) confession but 
 denial of the charge (Apol. ii. ; Cyp. ad Detnet. 
 xii. 11), in the encouragement of delation as to 
 private meetings {Dig. xlviii. 4 ; Cod. ix. 8, 
 iv. vi. vii.), and in the power given to magis- 
 trates under standing edicts to apply the test 
 of sacrifice at any moment to a neighbourhood 
 or a person, lay the various unfairnesses of 
 which Tertullian and Cyprian complain. Dio- 
 nysius of Alexandria, and with him Origen, 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Maximus of Nola, 
 Babylas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, 
 Fabian of Rome, were all attacked, the last 
 three martyred. There was no fanaticism of 
 martyrdom as yet. It seemed wrong to ex- 
 pose a successor to instant death, and no 
 bishop was elected for 16 months at Rome. 
 Like the former three, Cyprian placed himself 
 (before the end of Jan. ; Lipsius, Rom. Bisch. 
 
220 
 
 CYPRIAN US 
 
 Chronol. p. 200) out of reach, and, with the 
 same determination with which he afterwards 
 pronounced that his time was come, refused 
 conceahnent. The grounds for his retirement, 
 consistently stated by himself, are the neces- 
 sity of continuing the administration {Ep. 12, 
 i. V. vi.), the danger which at Carthage he 
 would have attracted to others {Epp. 7, 14), 
 the riots it would have aroused {Ep. 43), and 
 the insistence of Tertullus (Epp. 12, 14). The 
 Cyprianic epistles of this period, passing be- 
 tween the Roman presbyters, the Carthaginian 
 bishop and certain imprisoned presbyters 
 (Moyses, Maximus), deacons (Rutinus and 
 Nicostratus), laymen, and particularly an 
 imperfectly educated Carthaginian confessor 
 Celerinus (whose ill-spelt letters Epp. 21 and 
 22 are extant), present, when worked out, a 
 tesselated coherence with each other and with 
 slight notices in Eusebius (vi. 43), which is 
 absolutely convincing as to the originality and 
 genuineness of the documents. 
 
 The Lapsi. — Five commissioners in each 
 town and the proconsul on circuit [Epp. 43, iii. ; 
 10; 56) administered the Decian edict. The 
 sufferings by torture, stifling imprisonments, 
 and even fire (14, 21) were very severe 
 (Ep. 22). Women and boys were among the 
 victims. Exile and confiscation were em- 
 ployed. In the first terror there was a large 
 voluntary abjuration of Christianity, whether 
 literally by " the majority of his flock " (Ep. 
 11) may be uncertain, but Cyprian felt himself 
 " seated in the ruins of his house." Scenes of 
 painful vividness are touched in, but these 
 must be passed by. Many of the clergy fell 
 or fled, leaving scarcely enough for the daily 
 duty of the city (Epp. 34, iv. ; 40 ; 29), as 
 did many provincial bishops (Epp. 11, 59). 
 Different classes of those who conformed were 
 the Thurificati, Sacrificati (the more heinous) 
 (Ep. 59), and Libellatici (q.v. in D. C. A., 
 as also LiBELLi), whose self-excision was less 
 palpable. Of this class there were some 
 thousands (Ep. 24). 
 
 Formation of a General Policy. — Cyprian 
 from his retirement guided the policy of the 
 whole West upon the tremendous questions 
 of church communion which now arose, (i) 
 Indifferentism offered the lapsed an easy re- 
 turn by means of indulgences from, or in the 
 names of, martyrs. (2) Puritanism barred all 
 return. The Roman clergy first essayed to deal 
 with the questioninconjunction with the clergy 
 of Carthage independently of Cyprian, whose 
 absence they invidiously deplore (Ep. viii.). 
 Their letter was returned to them by Cyprian 
 himself, with some caustic remarks on its style 
 (which are singularly incorrect ; see Hartel's 
 Praefatio, xlviii.) as well as on the irregularity 
 of the step. After this an altered tone, and 
 Novatian's marked style, is discernible in their 
 letters (Epp. 30 and ? 36). 
 
 The granting of indulgences (not by that 
 name) to lapsed persons, by confessors and 
 martyrs, which had been first questioned and 
 then sharply criticised by Tertullian (ad Mart. 
 1 ; de Pudic. 22), grew very quickly under the 
 influence of some of those clergy who had 
 opposed Cyprian's election. The veneration 
 for sufferers who seemed actually to be the 
 saviours of Christianity was intense, and many 
 heads were turned by the adulatory language 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 of their greatest chiefs (cf. Ep. x. 24). Their 
 libelli would presently have superseded all 
 other terms of communion. 
 
 A strange document (Ep. 23) is extant in the 
 form of an absolution to " all the lapsed " from 
 " all the confessors," which the bishops are 
 desired to promulgate. Rioters in some of the 
 provincial towns extorted communion from 
 their presbyters (Ep. 27, iii.). At Rome itself 
 the influence of Novatian with the confessors 
 created a tendency to strictness rather than 
 indulgence, and there were no such disorders, 
 but they prevailed elsewhere (Epp. 27, 31, 
 32 ; Ep. 30, iv. 4 ; 30, vii.). Cyprian at once 
 proposed by separate letters to his clergy and 
 laity (to whom he writes with warm confidence), 
 to various bishops, and to the Roman con- 
 fessors and clergy (Epp. 15, 16, 17, 26), one 
 general course of action : to reserve all cases 
 of lapsed, without regard to the confessors' 
 libelli, until episcopal councils at Rome and 
 Carthage should lay down terms of readmis- 
 sion for the deserving (Ep. 20 ; 55, iv.) ; then 
 the bishops, with clergy and laity (Ep. 17, iv.; 
 Ep. 31) assisting, to investigate each case ; 
 public acknowledgment to be made, readmis- 
 sion to be by imposition of hands by bishop 
 and clergy. Meantime the arts of the con- 
 fessors to be recognized (Ep. 20, iii.) so far 
 as that persons in danger, who might hold a 
 libellus, should be readmitted by any presby- 
 ter, or in extremis by a deacon (Epp. 18, ig). 
 All others to be exhorted to repentance, and 
 commended with prayer to God at their 
 deaths. The grounds he urged were — (i) the 
 wideness of the question, which was too large 
 for individual discretion (totius orbis, Ep. 19, 
 iii. cf. 30, vi.). (2) That if restored at once the 
 lapsed would have fared better than those who 
 had borne the loss of all for Christ. These 
 principles are developed also in the de Lapsis, 
 which, however, is not quite as M. Freppel de- 
 scribes it, " a resume of the letters," but a 
 resume of the modified views of Cyprian a little 
 later. In M. Freppel's Sorbonne Lectures (St. 
 Cyprien, pp. 195-221) may be studied with 
 profit the Ultramontane representation of this 
 scheme as equivalent to the modern indulgence 
 system, backed by assertions that the Roman 
 church " indicated to Carthage the only 
 course," which Cyprian "fully adopted." All, 
 however, that the Roman clergy had recom- 
 mended was mere readmission of sick peni- 
 tents, without any conception of a policy, or 
 of the method by which it could be worked. 
 These are developed step by step in Epp. 17, 
 18, 19, and communicated to the Roman 
 church (Ep. 20). In replying through Nova- 
 tian (Ep. 30, see 55 V.) the Roman presbyters 
 re-state and adopt them (pf. Ep. 31, vi. 41). 
 
 Temper in Carthage. — Through the earlier 
 part of the above section of correspondence is 
 perceptible a reliance on the laity. The clergy 
 do not reply to his letters (Ep. 18), they defer 
 to the libelli, or use them against him (Ep. 27). 
 In Ep. 17 he entreats the aid of the laity 
 against them. When the concurrence of the 
 African and Italian episcopate is obtained 
 (Ep. 43, iii.), and that of Novatian and the 
 Roman clergy and confessors (Epp. 30, 31), 
 assuming a stronger tone (Ep. 32) with his 
 own clergy, he requires them to circulate the 
 whole correspondence, which is done (Ep. 55. 
 
CYPRIANUS 
 
 iv.), and excoiuimiiiicatioii is aiiiioimccd 
 against any who should allow communion 
 except on the agreed terms. 
 
 About Nov. 250, persecution relaxed (pos- 
 sibly owing to the Gothic advance in Thrace), 
 and though it was still unsafe for Cyprian to 
 return, he endeavoured to deal with the dis- 
 tress of sufferers who had lost their all, and 
 to recruit the ranks of the clergy and allay 
 tlie excitement among the lapsed, by a com- 
 mission (vicarii) of three bishops, Caldonius, 
 Herculanus, \'ictor, and two presbyters, Numi- 
 dicus and Rogatian (Epp. 41, 26). 
 
 Dtxlaration of Parties. — The excitement on 
 the question of the lapsed is evinced by two 
 classes of stories then afloat as to judgments 
 following on unreconciled otTences and on pre- 
 sumptuous communion {dc Lapsis, 24, 25, 26). 
 Cvprian employed both to urge delay, but they 
 d) not emanate from his party of moderation. 
 At Carthage the party of laxity became promi- 
 nent ; at Rome, that of exclusiveness. 
 
 (i) The party of laxity was composed of 
 ( uifessors, spoiled by flattery (de Laps. 20), 
 i.i>hionable lapsi, who declined all penance 
 [Laps. 30), influential ones, who had forced 
 certain clergy to receive them, but also some 
 clergy who united against Cyprian's policy 
 with the five presbyters who had from the 
 ♦irst resisted him. Of these, three were un- 
 lihtedly Donatus, Gordius, Fortunatus 
 I iran. Vit. Cyp. § xvii. ; Rettberg, pp. 
 ,, 112). That the fourth was Gaius of r)idda, 
 or Augendus, is but a guess. The principal in 
 position and ability was the presbyter Novatus 
 (Pearson's Jovinus and Maxiraus, and Pame- 
 lius's Repostus and Felix are impossible). That 
 Cyprian's five original opponents still acted 
 against him is shewn by " olim secundum 
 vestrasuflragia" {Ep. 43, v.), though in 43, ii. 
 he seems only to conjecture their complicity 
 with Felicissimus, whom Novatus had asso- 
 ciated with himself as deacon in managing a 
 district called Mons (possibly the Bozra itself) 
 (Epp. 52, 50, 36). Cyprian complains of not 
 having been consulted in this appointment, 
 which, owing to the then position of the 
 deacons, gave the party control of consider- 
 able funds. All the arrangements hitherto 
 agreed on were disregarded by them, Cyprian's 
 missives unanswered, and his commission of 
 relief treated as an invasion of the diaconal 
 office of Felicissimus, who announced, while 
 other lapsi were at once received into com- 
 munion, that whoe\'er held communications 
 with or accepted aid from the commission 
 would be excluded from communion (jr relief 
 from the Mons {Ep. 43, ii. ; Ep. 41, where the 
 conjecture in morle, or references to Monte in 
 Numidia, or to the Montenses at Rome, who 
 were Donatists, and were never (anciently) 
 confused with the Novatianists or called Mon- 
 tanistae, are absurd ; though Hefele, Nova- 
 tianischer Schisma, ap. Wetzer and Welte, K. 
 Lexik. and Candles, t. ii. p. 232, countenances 
 these confusions). It is with the name of 
 Felicissimus that the lax party is generally 
 connected (Ep. 43, iii. v. vii.), and he, with a 
 fellow-deacon Augendus, a renegade bishop 
 Repostus, and certain others, the five presby- 
 ters not among them, was presently excom- 
 municated. There is no evidence, nor any 
 contemporary instance, to warrant the belief 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 221 
 
 that Novatus ordained I-'clicissinnis deacon 
 (see the MSS. reading Ep. S2. " satellitem 
 suum diaconum constituit," which Ilartel has 
 unwanantably departed from), nor is there 
 any such appearance of presbvterian principles 
 in this party, as divines of anti-episcopal 
 churches, Neander, Rettberg, d'Aubignf-, 
 Keyscr, have freely assumed. The partv were 
 in episcopal communion, took part in the 
 episcopal election at Carthage, presently 
 elected a new bishop for themselves, and pro- 
 cured episcopal consecration for him. When 
 Novatus visited Rome, he threw himself into 
 the election then jiroceeding, and, after op- 
 posing the candidate who was chosen, pro- 
 cured episcopal consecration for his nominee 
 there also. Felicissimus too must have been 
 a deacon already, or he could not have in- 
 volved himself and Novatus in the charge of 
 defrauding the church (Epp. 52, i. ; 50, i.). 
 
 (2) The Puritan Party. — The strength of 
 the Puritans, on the other hand, was in Rome. 
 A group of confessors there, of whom the 
 presbyters Moyses and Maximus were the 
 chief, united with Novatian and the clergy in 
 approving Cyprian's proposals. The modifi- 
 cation of discipline by mart>Ts' merits was 
 never countenanced here (Ep.'2S, ii.) ; never- 
 theless, Moyses, before his death (which prob- 
 ably happened on the last day of 250), had 
 condemned the extreme tendencies of No\a- 
 tian towards the non-reconcilement of peni- 
 tents (see Valesius's correct interpretation of 
 Eus. vi. 43, and Routh, R. S. iii. p. 81). 
 While Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian were 
 moving towards greater leniency than their 
 resolutions had embodied, Novatian, without 
 questioning the hope of salvation for the 
 lapsed, was now for making their exclusion 
 perpetual, and teaching that the purity of the 
 church could not otherwise be maintained. 
 
 The earthly conditions of the invisible and 
 visible church had not yet been discussed as 
 the Donatists compelled them to be, and Nova- 
 tian's growing error, though in the present 
 application it completely severed him from 
 Cyprian and the church, was not in principle 
 different from that which Cyprian (though 
 without producing a schism) held in relation 
 to Baptism. Early in a.d. 251 the Roman 
 confessors were liberated ; they lost whatever 
 influence Moyses had exercised on them ; 
 they had been drawn towards Novatian, and 
 when Novatus, arriving from Carthage, 
 attached himself to this party, because, though 
 its Puritanism was alien to his own practices 
 at home, it was the only opposition existing 
 in the capital which threatened to overthrow 
 the Cyprianic side, they were at once organized 
 into a party to secure the election of a bp. 
 of Rome who would break with Cyprian. 
 The moment for election was given by the 
 absence of Decius and his leading officers on 
 the frontier or in lUyria on account of the base 
 alliance of Priscus with Cniva, and the revolt 
 of V'alens. The party of moderation, however, 
 prevailed and secured the election of Cr>rnelius, 
 and consecrated him in spite of himself by 16 
 bishops • (" vim " Ep. 55, vii.). 
 
 • I,ipsius has shewn conclusively that the conse- 
 cration of Cornelius was about Mar. 5 {Chronol. d. 
 romischen Bischu/e, p. 18) ; the usual stattiucnt that 
 it was in June introduces endless contradictions into 
 
222 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 First Council. — Cyprian returned to Car- 
 thage after Easter (Mar. 23) from his 14 
 months' absence (biennium), which seems to 
 have been prolonged by a fear of the " faction" 
 (Ep. 43, i.) rekindling persecution (Ep. 55, v.) 
 by some demonstration. The bishops of the 
 province met in April for the first council, 
 held in Carthage, for half a century [Agrip- 
 PiNus], but the discussion on the lapsed was 
 postponed by letters from Rome, which 
 Cyprian laid before them, viz. Cornelius's an- 
 nouncement of his election (Ep. 45, ii.) and a 
 temperate protest against it from Novatian 
 (45, iv.) (Maran, p. Ix. misinterprets this 
 against the sense of Baluze, whom he edits). 
 The protest was soon followed by a mass of 
 charges, which Cyprian declined to submit to 
 the council. This was excellent policy, but 
 at the same time a curious exercise of personal 
 authority in that earliest type of returning 
 freedom — the church council. At the same 
 time he made them dispatch two of their 
 number, Caldonius and Fortunatus, to Rome, 
 to report. Caldonius was instructed to pro- 
 cure attestations of the regularity of the 
 ordination of Cornelius from bishops who had 
 attended it (Ep. 44 and cf. 45, i.). Meantime, 
 communications with the Roman church were 
 to be addressed only to the clergy and not to 
 Cornelius. (The statement of Lipsius, p. 204, 
 on Ep. 45, v., is too strong.) He was also to 
 lay before the clergy and laity, so as to guard 
 them against clandestine influence, the whole 
 correspondence about Felicissimus (Epp. 41, 
 43. 45. v.). The council, then reverting to its 
 programme, was obliged to dispatch first the 
 question of Felicissimus, since, if he were 
 justified in his reception of the lapsed, no 
 terms of communion need be discussed ; but 
 if the main issue went against him they could 
 not on such ex post facto ground deal with 
 him disciplinarily. His offence consisted not 
 in his theory, which might conceivably be 
 correct, but in his readmitting people whose 
 cases had been by due notice reserved. Cyp- 
 rian, to his honour and like a good lawyer, 
 was not present during the trial of his oppon- 
 ent, who was condemned. He does not em- 
 ploy the first person in relating it (Ep. 45, v.), 
 as he always does of councils which he at- 
 tended, and from Ep. 48 we must conclude 
 that he was at Hadrumetum at that very time.* 
 The programme of the council was again inter- 
 rupted still more seriously. Two African 
 
 the commoa account, and has obliged even Pearson 
 to resort to unmanageable hj-potheses of long re- 
 cesses in the first council of Carthage and of several 
 journeys of Xovatus to Rome. 
 
 • This absence of CjTjrian from the trial of his 
 opponent solves difficulties otherwise insoluble. 
 Pearson and Tillemont attribute to the council vari- 
 ous adjournments, partly to dispose of the long 
 period required by their false date for Cornelius's 
 election, and partly to give room for the visit to 
 Hadrumetum. Frequenter ado {Ep. 59, xvi.) means 
 largely attended, not, as Pearson and Tillemont, as- 
 sembled again and again. I^ipsius has ingeniously 
 conjectured, to meet the second difficulty, that the 
 council empowered Cyprian to recognize Cornelius 
 after their dissolution, if he were satisfied. But the 
 council, before breaking up, were abimdantly satis- 
 fied, and directed him to be acknowledged (Ep. 45). 
 So that it is out of the question that afterwards 
 Cyprian should have gone to Hadrumetum and sus- 
 pended its correspondence with Cornelius. 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 bishops fresh from Rome, Stephanus and 
 Pompeius, had brought evidence of the 
 regularity of Cornelius's ordination (Ep. 55, 
 vii.) as conclusive as the commissioners could 
 have obtained, and the coimcil had expressed 
 itself as formally satisfied (Ep. 45, i.) when 
 four new delegates from Rome (Maximus, not 
 the confessor ; Augendus, etc.) announced 
 the consecration of Novatian to the Roman 
 see. This surprise (for fuller details of 
 which see Novatian) was prepared by the 
 party of severity, who were disappointed 
 by the election of Cornelius, stimulated by 
 Evaristus, whom Cyprian regarded as the 
 author of the movement (Ep. 50), and directed 
 in their action by Novatus, who, possibly with- 
 out being a mere adventurer, nor on the other 
 hand at all deserving Neander's characteristic 
 exculpations, had no doctrine of his own to 
 maintain, but came to Rome simply to endeav- 
 our to promote a supposed independence by 
 frustrating the arrangements made by the 
 bishops as to the reception or exclusion of the 
 lapsed. At Carthage therefore he belonged to 
 the broad party, at Rome to the narrow.* 
 It is a mistake to suppose that his change of 
 party was unnoted ; cf. Ep. 52, iii. (4), " dam- 
 nare nunc audet sacrificantium manus," with 
 Ep. 43, iii., " nunc se ad perniciem lapsorura 
 verterunt," i.e. by indulgence. It is also a 
 mistake (though Lipsius falls into it, and it is 
 universal with the earlier writers) and intro- 
 duces confusion into the history to assume 
 that Novatus made several voyages to and 
 fro. If his arrival be fixed soon after Mar. 5, 
 A.D. 251, it will be found to solve the various 
 problems. Their embassy to Carthage, re- 
 jected by the council (" expulsi," Ep. 50, not 
 from Africa, as Pearson), appealed to Cyprian 
 (Ep. 44). They were not prepared to find 
 that he had moved towards leniency as much 
 as Novatian to severity from their late common 
 standpoint ; and they are told plainly that 
 their position must now be considered as ex- 
 ternal to the church. Accepting this, they 
 proceed to construct a schismatic episcopal 
 body with wide alliances. Somewhere close 
 to this point the treatise de Unitate, or the 
 germ of it, was first delivered in the form of a 
 speech, or a read pamphlet, to the council. 
 We give an outline of it later. Messengers to 
 Cornelius (Primitivus, Mettius, Nicephorus, 
 an acolyte) then convey full accounts of the 
 procedure, and inform him of his general 
 recognition as bishop, t Simultaneously, 
 
 • It may here clear some difficulties in Cyprian's 
 letters which Maran and others have confused, if we 
 observe that Stephen and Pompey left Rome before 
 Novatian's consecration. It is clear from the sen- 
 sation they produced that the Novatianist embassy 
 brought the first news of it. The council could 
 " refute and repel " its charges, because, though they 
 had not received (expectavimus) their own commis- 
 sioner's report (as Maran, V. Cyp. l.xi., erroneously), 
 they had been satisfied by Stephen's. Hence super- 
 venerunt, 44 i. (i), means " came on the top of our ex- 
 pectancy," not "cameafter the Novatianist embassy." 
 The council could not, as they did, have excommu- 
 nicated the embassy at once, if up till then they had 
 only received Cornelius's letters, of which they were 
 seeking ratification. 
 
 t There is no reason to suppose with I,ipsius (p. 
 204, n.) that any correspondence is lost, except the 
 synodic epistle about Felicissimus, for Ep. 44 says 
 expressly that the details will be given vivd voce. 
 
CYPRIANUS 
 
 appeals, which were ultimately successful, 
 were addressed by Cyprian to' the Roman 
 confessors to detach themselves fn-m the 
 schism in which they found themselves in- 
 volved. The orijiinal work before the council, 
 the restoration of the lapsed, had been facili- 
 tated by the two episodes, which had cleared 
 <)(T the extreme parties on cither side. They 
 now listened to Cyprian's treatise on the 
 lapsed ; but they inclined to a course even 
 milder than he suggested, while they were less 
 disposed than he to give the " Martyrcs " any 
 \oice ill the decisions.* Their encyclical 
 is lost, but the particulars are extricable from 
 his Letter to Atitonian {Ep. 55), which, since 
 it treats only of the restoration of the libel- 
 latici, not of the lapsed, must be earlier than 
 the second council, a.d. 252, and from the 
 verbal resemblance of Ep. 54 (3) to 55 (v.) 
 must be very near the event. We thence 
 gather that they resolved — (i) On an indi- 
 vidual examination of the libellatici ; (2) 
 Episcopal restoration of non-sacrificers after 
 penance (Ep. 55, v.) ; {3) Of sacrificers if 
 penitents at death (55, xiv.) ; (4) No restora- 
 tion of those who deferred penance till death 
 (55, xix.). A Roman synod was held in 
 June or July t by 60 bishops of Italy, who 
 accepted these decisions, and excommunicated 
 Novatian. Cornelius announced the facts in 
 four (so Tillemont correctly) Greek (so Valois 
 correctly) letters to Antioch (Eus. vi. 43), 
 with two (non-extant) of Cyprian. Briefly 
 tosum up the constitutional results of this first 
 council of Carthage : i. The views of the 
 primate are submitted to those of the council ; 
 he admits the change (Ep. 55, iii.). 2. The 
 intercession and merits of the martyrs, as 
 affecting the conditions of restoration, are set 
 aside entirely. 3. On the other hand (as 
 against Novatian), no offences are considered 
 to be beyond the regular power of the church 
 to remit. 4 (against Felicissimus). No power 
 except that of the authentic organization can 
 fix terms of communion. It will be at once 
 seen that the free council of bishops had taken 
 position as a Christian institution, exercising 
 supreme governmental functions, and had 
 laid clear lines as to where church authority 
 resided. They further ruled that there could 
 be no subsequent canvassing of the claims 
 of a bishop once ordained. The resolutions 
 were issued in the name of the bishops only. 
 
 The Reconciliation of the Novatianist Con- 
 fessors at Rome. — A second embassy of Nova- 
 tianists followed the report of the first, in 
 order to press Cyprian home — Primus, Diony- 
 sius, Nicostratus, Evaristus, and above all, 
 NovATUs ; to whose leaving Rome Cyprian 
 does not hesitate partly to ascribe his own 
 
 • Ep. 54, iii. 55 V. 3. To postpone the appearance 
 of the de Lapsis to Nov., as Pearson does, or to any 
 moment after the council was over, is to attribute to 
 Cyprian a publication quite out of date and recom- 
 mendations already disposed of. Therefore, if 
 " ultio," c. 1. is to be pressed to mean the death of 
 Decius (which is not necessary, in spite of the consen- 
 sus for it), it only shews that ours is a second ed. 
 
 t The old date, Oct., Ls due to the mistake as to 
 Cornelius's election. Jerome calls this synod " Rom- 
 ana Italica Africana," as if it were one with the 
 Carthaginian Synod [de Scr. lice. 66, Labbe, i. pp. 
 865-868), and from this phrase Baronius has imagined 
 three coimcils. 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 223 
 
 next success (Ep. 52 (2), ii.). Cyprian's 
 letters to the Novatianist confessors are 
 among the most beautiful and skilful in the 
 collection ; and Augustine cites no less than 
 three times a passage from the letter on their 
 return as embodying the absolute siriptural 
 answer to puritan separations. It is the first 
 exposition of the parable of the Tares, and St. 
 Paul's image of the Great House. I'revailed 
 on by the arguments used to them, and 
 shocked by the consequences of their action, 
 the whole party, with numtrniis adherents, 
 returned to the Catholic side, and were i)Mblicly 
 and magnanimously received, like the leaders 
 of the same sect at Nicaea, and the Donatists 
 at Carthage, and the Arians at Alexandria, 
 without forfeit of dignity (Epp. 49, 52, 53, 46, 
 
 54, 51). To Cyprian this was more than an 
 occasion of Christian joy. It was the triumph 
 of his theory (Ep. 51 ad fin.). The date of 
 this event may be accurately determined as 
 being after the Carthaginian council (since 
 Cyprian does not mention this as sitting, in 
 his letters on the confessors, and he read the 
 account of their recantation to the church, Ep. 
 51, not to the bishops), but prior to the R(^)man 
 council, or else they would have been excom- 
 municated by it, which they evidently were 
 not ; and since Cyprian says they recanted 
 on the departure of Novatus, it was after the 
 second embassy had left Rome. 
 
 Treatise on Unity. — The principles of this 
 treatise, read in the council, and sent to the 
 Roman confessors (Ep. 54), so shape all Cyp- 
 rian's policy, that it is best to notice it here. 
 It indicates its date minutely by allusions to 
 the severe party (Novatian's) (iii. ministros, 
 etc., viii. uno in loco, etc., ix. feritas, x. con- 
 fessor, xi. episcopi nomen, xiii. aemuli), and by 
 the absence of allusion to the lax party (Feli- 
 cissimus), whose schism must have been 
 noticed in such a paper if the question had not 
 been concluded. In c. v. its original form as 
 an address to bishops is traceable. The first 
 appearance of Cyprian's characteristic error 
 about baptism occurs in c. xi. Its first 
 
 problem is the existence of schism (as distinct 
 from heresy), " altar against altar," with 
 freedom from corrupt doctrines and lives. 
 The sole security is the ascertainment of the 
 seat of authority and bond of unity. This is 
 indicated by Christ's commission given once 
 to Peter alone, yet again to all the apostles in 
 the same terms. The oneness of the commis- 
 sion and the equality of the commissioned 
 were thus emphasized. The apostleship, con- 
 tinued for ever in the episcopate, is thus uni- 
 versal, yet one : each bishop's authority per- 
 fect and independent, yet not forming with 
 the others a mere agglomerate, but being a full 
 tenure on a totality, like that of a shareholder 
 in a joint-stock property. " Episcopatus 
 unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars 
 tenetur." It is in the above definition, c. iv., 
 that the famous interpolation has been made, 
 which Roman authorities (Mgr. Freppel, late 
 Professor at the Sorbonne, S. Cyprien et I'Egl. 
 d'Afr. lect. 12; Prof. Hurter, of Innspruck, 
 
 55. PP. Opuscula, v. i. p. 72) even now fee! 
 it important to retain. The loss of it sug- 
 gested the endeavour to make up for it by 
 weaving together other texts from Cyprian to 
 prove that this one after all represented his 
 
224 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 doctrine — an attempt which would certainly 
 never have been dreamed of if this spurious 
 passage had not seemed to make him so strong 
 a support. Such special pleading is performed 
 with fullest ability by P. Ballerini (a.d. 1756, 
 de Vi ac Primatu Romm. Pontiff, xiii. § iii. ed. 
 Westhoff, 1845). The MS. history is to be 
 found fully in Hartel's preface, p. ix. p. xliii. 
 It was rejected by Baluze (p. xiii. p. 397, p. 
 409, and Latini, Bib. S. p. 179 and praef.) and 
 inserted by authority in the editions by Manu- 
 tius and the Benedictines. The actual origin 
 of the interpolation is partly in marginal 
 glosses (as Latini proved) and partly in an 
 Ep. of Pelagius, ii. (a.d. 854 ; Pelag. ii. Ep. 6 ; 
 Labbe, vol. vi. p. 627 ; ed. Ven. 1729), who 
 produces as " terrible testimonies of the 
 Fathers" a passage of Augustine nowhere else 
 found, as well as this one four centuries before 
 it made its way into a manuscript. Its in- 
 troduction of the primacy of Peter as the 
 centre of unity is a clumsy interruption of the 
 argument and an overthrowal of Cyprian's 
 universal principle of the " copiosum corpus 
 Episcoporum " (Ep. 68, iii. ; 55, xx.) as the core 
 of the visible unity of the church. The rest of 
 the treatise is the development in beautiful 
 language, and the illustration from nature and 
 scripture, of his principle. Schism is a divine 
 test and prejudicial separation of unbelievers 
 in principle. Lastly, unity in the visible 
 church must mirror the unity of God and the 
 faith, and separations are due, not so much to 
 individual teachings as to a radical selfishness 
 commonly sanctioned in religious, no less than 
 in secular, life. 
 
 The Working of the Legislation. — The legis- 
 lation had been brought out by the clergy — 
 naturally the austerer class ; the one which 
 had most inducements not to fall. It was too 
 severe. The approach of the great plague 
 evoked edicts for sacrifice and roused super- 
 stitions which renewed the popular feeling 
 against Christians, and led to the magisterial 
 and popular outbreak of a.d. 252, which is too 
 formally called the Persecution of Gallus (Ep. 
 59, viii.), and which supernatural presages, 
 not justified by the event, foreshewed as more 
 cruel than that of Decius (Epp. 57, vi. ; 58, i.). 
 Of the libellatics some rigorously tried to 
 follow, others openly defied the conciliar en- 
 actments (Epp. 57; 65, iii.; 68, ii.). Many 
 palliations appeared on examination. A 
 second council of 42 bishops at Carthage, held 
 on May 15, 252 (Ep. 59, xiii.), determined to 
 readmit without exception or postponement 
 all who had continued penitent. Their 
 synodic letter (Ep. 57), by Cyprian's hand, is 
 a complete answer to his former sterner 
 strain. The motive cause is the necessity of 
 strengthening by communion those who will 
 shortly be called to suffer.* The Nova- 
 
 * Ep. 64. The synodic letter of the third council 
 characterizes the ground for readmissioa accepted 
 by the second council as necessitate cogente, and that 
 of the first as infirmitate urgente, and blames bp. 
 Therapius for having neglected both. Ep. 64, 
 therefore, cannot, with Mr. Shepherd (Letter ii. p. 10, 
 following I^ombert ap. Pearson, Ann. Cyp. p. 456), be 
 dated before Ep. 57, nor (as Maran) synchronize with 
 it ; for they could not censiu-e the neglect of a rule 
 they were in the act of making ; and why should only 
 42 bishops have issued letter 57, out of 66 who issued 
 Ep. 64 ? Add to which that 64 is written in a peace- 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 tianists having attracted converts from 
 heathenism and now given up hope of Cyprian, 
 consecrated their legate Maximus to be (anti-) 
 bishop of Carthage.* The lapsed of the lax 
 party, not being penitents, were not admissible 
 on the new conditions ; the party had in- 
 creased to a number reckoned scarcely smaller 
 than the Catholics (Ep. 59, xxi. 17), but the 
 milder terms now offered would diminish 
 them. The leaders therefore needed a more 
 positive basis (Ep. 59, xv. xvi. [14]), and being 
 taunted as the only unepiscopal body among^ 
 Christians (Ep. 43, v.), procured the adhesion 
 of Privatus, a deposed bishop (Ep. 59, xiii.), 
 and consecrated Fortunatus a second anti- 
 bishop in Carthage f by the hands of five 
 bishops, t This fact was immensely exagger- 
 ated (59, xiv. 11), and Felicissimus sailed to 
 Rome as legate of his new chief, hoping that 
 a recognition might be procured for numbers 
 which would be useful against Novatianism. 
 They reported the unpopularity of Cyprian at 
 Carthage, and threatened to appeal, if rejected, 
 to the Roman laity (Ep. 59, ii. iii. xxv.). 
 Cornelius was disconcerted. Cyprian's ob- 
 servations on this, which begin in a half sar- 
 castic tone (Ep. 59, ii.), rise to glowing indig- 
 nation, as he narrates the overwhelming work 
 at this moment entailed on him by the ex- 
 amination in presence of the plebes of the 
 returning schismatics and libellatics. The 
 demand for strictness in readmission comes 
 (as usual after times of trial) from the mass.§ 
 
 The leniency of the bishop and council, the 
 gross mistake of a rival episcopacy, and the 
 popular claim for discipHne, rapidly broke up 
 the party (59, xxi.) and reduced its congrega- 
 tion to a handful. 
 
 Clerical Appeals under the Same Regulations. 
 — It is not safe to assert that the terms of re- 
 admission for clerics were considered separ- 
 ately at the second council, but immediately 
 after it is accepted that lapsed bishops and 
 clerks could never resume orders (Ep. 55, ix.). 
 
 ful time, such as began with Aemilian Ap. 253. See 
 fuither Pearson's arguments, of which one is good, 
 one inadequate. 
 
 * Not earlier. Ep. 52 ii. Novatus has not yet made 
 a bishop in Carthage. Ep. 59 xi. Maximus is spoken 
 of as sent nuper (a.d. 251) consecrated nunc (the Ep. 
 being subsequent to Id. Mai. a.d. 252). From Ep. 
 55 X. we find they had bishops in many places before 
 Council II. The step, then, had been delayed in 
 Carthage, and this must have been becaitse they still 
 had hopes of Cyprian, which, though misplaced, seem 
 to me not unnatural. 
 
 t Dean Milman (Lai. Chr. vol. i. p. 48) apparently 
 missed the fact that there were two anti-bishops, one 
 of each extreme ; and also fell into the error of 
 making Fortunatus a Novatianist. 
 
 X These were Privatus of I^ambaese, condemned 
 by a council of 90 bishops, under Donatus, C>'prian's 
 predecessor; Felix, a pseudo-bishop of Privatus's 
 making ; Repostus, a lapsed bishop ; Maximus and 
 Jovinus, Sacrificati, whom, from their having been 
 condemned by nine bishops, and then by the first 
 council. I conclude to have been bishops. 
 
 § Socrates's (v. 19) statement that this was the 
 occasion on which Poenitentiaries were first appointed 
 to hear private confession, seems counter to the whole 
 spirit of the time. Sozomen (vii. 6) represents the 
 Roman mode of penance much later, when the bishop 
 is himself the fellow penitent and the absolver. This 
 contradiction of his statement thrt Poenitentiaries 
 were an institution in the West as well as the East 
 shews how little was known of the origin or date of 
 the otHce. 
 
CYPRIAN us 
 
 In Ep. 65 Cyprian rests this on the Levitical 
 institution and on his own visions. In Ep. 
 67, vi., however, he speaks of all bishops being 
 agreed on this. In Ep. 72, iii., four years 
 later, the principle extends to presbyters and 
 deacons who had taken part in a heresy or 
 schism. And at first sight it presents a 
 singularly contradictory appearance of laxity 
 that only Novatianists and Donatists held 
 the indelibility of orders to be such that their 
 recanting bishops resumed their functions 
 (Optatus, i. p. 27). There are three cases : 
 (I) Therapius, bp. of Bulla, admits Victor, a 
 lapsed presbyter, without due penance. 
 Fidus, bp., reports this to the third council of 
 67 bishops (.\.D. 253), considering that Victor 
 should be re-excomniunicated. The council 
 decline to rescind the boon of " God's priest," 
 but censure Therapius, apparently in his place 
 [Ep. 6+ — objurgare et instruxisse), for neglect- 
 ing the terms of the second council without 
 any consultation of the laity. The same 
 letter {ad Fidum, 64) contains an important 
 decision as to age of baptism. [Fidus.] (2) 
 Fortunatus, bp. of Assurae, lapsed, and in his 
 place was elected Epictetus ; but the lapsed 
 party {Ep. 65, v. iii.) on their return claimed 
 for him the function and emoluments. The 
 ground of order would have been sufficient ; 
 but Cyprian, with his characteristic error, 
 urges the vitiation of any church function dis- 
 charged by an unworthy minister, and recom- 
 mends individual canvassing, if necessary, to 
 unite the flock under Epictetus. (3) The 
 most important case is that of Basilides and 
 Martial, m .\.d. 254, when the Spanish churches 
 of Leon, Astorga, and Merida appeal to Cyp- 
 rian against the negligent decision of Steph- 
 anus, now bp. of Rome, in favour of the 
 restoration of their lapsed bishops. The 
 letter of the Carthaginian council of 37 bishops, 
 A.D. 254 {Ep. 67), penned by Cyprian, declares 
 the verdict of the bp. of Rome mistaken and 
 to be disregarded. This letter also insists 
 on the duty of a laity to withdraw from com- 
 munion with a " sacrilegious " or " sinful " 
 bishop, and marks the universal sense that 
 there resided in a congregation no power to 
 make valid the sacramental acts of a nominee 
 who lacked the note of true orders {Ep. 67, 
 iii. ; cf. Routh, vol. iii. p. 152). 
 
 Practical Organizations and Christian Culture. 
 — (a) Captivity. — During the session of the 
 council an extensive raid was executed by the 
 Berbers, who, severely ruled as they were 
 without any attempt to civilize them, were 
 beginning that steady advance on Numidia 
 which in a few years replaced the whole range 
 of Ferratus in their possession. In 252 their 
 front line reached from Thubunae on the salt- 
 marsh to the terebinth forests of Tucca, and 
 they deported large numbers of the Christians 
 of no less than eight sees. Several inscriptions 
 relate to this invasion (see Revue Afric. vols. 
 iv. vii. viii.). About £800 were subscribed 
 by the 60 bishops and Carthaginian com- 
 munity {Ep. 62), and sent to them. 
 
 (6) Plague. — But the great field on which 
 the expanding powers of humanity were 
 gathered up and animated by the church was 
 opened by the great plague which reached 
 Carthage in a.d. 252, having travelled two 
 years from Ethiopia through Egypt. Great 
 
 CYPRIANUS 225 
 
 physical disturbances had precedt d it {ad 
 Dem. ii. i, vii. 5). The eruption and the 
 brain affection which marked the plague of 
 Athens are not recorded of this ; nor yet the 
 pulmonary symptoms, which, perhaps, were 
 not developed in the African climate. The 
 other svmptoms seem to be identical, and the 
 devastation far more awful, extensive, and 
 enduring. It lasted 20 years ; reduced the 
 population of Alexandria by half ; destroyed 
 the armies of Valerian before Sapor ; kept the 
 Goths off the Thracian border, and for some 
 time killed 5,000 persons daily in Rome 
 (Eutrop. ix. v.; Hist. Aug. Galli, v. p. 177; 
 Dionys. ap. Ens. vii. 22 ; Greg. Nys. Vit. 
 Greg. Thaiim. § 12). The efforts of the Em- 
 perors Gallus and Valerian in burying the 
 dead were appreciated, otherwise their efforts 
 were confined to supplications to Saturn and 
 .\polIo. (See three types of coins of Gallus in 
 British Museum, and see Cohen, Medailles 
 Imper. vol. iv. p. 270 ; Bandusi, vol. i. p. 58.) 
 Horrible scenes of desertion and spoliation 
 ensued in Carthage as in Athens {Pontii Vit. 
 Cyp. and Cyp. ad Dem. 10 [8], 11 [9]), when 
 universal physical terror or audacity over- 
 powered all other sentiments. As in Neo- 
 Caesarea and Alexandria so in Carthage, the 
 Christian clergy stood out as the first cham- 
 pions of life, health, and feeling. Cyprian 
 addressed his community in a speech, which 
 it was wished could have been delivered to 
 the city from the rostrum, on the duty and 
 divineness of prayer and help to the perse- 
 cutors {Respondere Natalibus was his watch- 
 word), and then proposed and carried a 
 scheme for the systematic care of the city. 
 Filled with his motives and under his influence 
 rich and poor undertook the parts he assigned, 
 raised a large fund, formed a nursing staff 
 and burial staff, and allowed no religious dis- 
 tinction in their ministrations. But their 
 abstinence from religious processions and 
 sacrifices marked the Christians as enemies of 
 God and man, and the " Overseer of the Chris- 
 tians " was demanded by name for a contest 
 with a lion {Epp. 59, viii. ; 66, 44). The 
 terrible work lasted on till his exile five years 
 later, as we must conclude from Pontius's 
 juxtaposition of the events, with his remark 
 that exile was the reward for " withdrawmg 
 from human sight a horror like hell." 
 
 {€) Ad Demetrianum. — Their chief foe was 
 an aged magistrate (sub ipso exitu Dem. 25 
 [22]), not the pro-consul (Pearson), but per- 
 haps one of the five primores, formerly an 
 inquirer into the truth of Christianity, in 
 Cyprian's own friendship (i.), now himself an 
 inventor of accusations (c. 2) and tortures, 
 xii. (10). The pamphlet in which Cyprian 
 assails him is much wider in its aim than Ter- 
 tullian's ad Scapulam ; both have the rcmon- 
 strailce against the suppression of the one 
 natural worship, the appeal to the demeanour 
 of the now prevalent sect ([jars paene major 
 cujusque civitatis), to the effects of exorcism, 
 and the influence through suffering of the 
 Christians. But while Tertuilian for once re- 
 frains from denunciation, and is almost gentle 
 in his examples of warning, Cyprian's object is 
 wider ; he answers the question, " W hence 
 all this political and this physical misery ? " 
 The heathen answer attributed it to the divine 
 10 
 
226 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 displeasure at toleration. Cyprian accepts 
 also a certain theory of mundane decrepitude, 
 but bases his real reply on the general disso- 
 lution of the bonds of society ; an important 
 passage, perhaps the very earliest on slavery 
 (viii. [6]), marks the exact stage reached by 
 the Christian consciousness on this subject. 
 So also the theory of Resentment is exhibited in 
 a certain stage of purification, though some of 
 the language would be intolerable now. The 
 eternal conservation of beings for eternal 
 suffering is laid down (xxiv. 21). The most 
 original part of the essay is the development 
 for the first time of the theory of Probation 
 (already struck out in his slightly earlier 
 epistle 58 to Thibaris) as grouping the pheno- 
 mena of humanity. Jerome hastily (Ep. 
 83 ad Magn. ; Lact. Inst. 5, 4) criticizes 
 Cyprian for advancing scriptural proofs to a 
 heathen. But (i) Deraetrian ab-eady knew 
 something of Christianity; {2) Cyprian does 
 not quote authors' names, as to one familiar ; 
 (3) he quotes nothing but plainly fulfilled pre- 
 dictions. All which (as well as the classical 
 tone and quotations) fits the case exactly, and 
 answers Rettberg's incompetent conjecture 
 that Demetrian is a fancy figure. 
 
 ((/) On the Mortality. — This treatise, or 
 epistle as Augustine calls it (he quotes it no 
 less than six times), presents to the Christians 
 the consolatory primitive view of the topics 
 set threateningly before Demetrian. It is 
 meant to elevate their view of both the per- 
 secution and the plague, from which some 
 expected providential exemptions, while others 
 hated it only as an interference with martyr- 
 dom ; he explains his theory of probation and 
 of predictions as evidencing a divine plan. 
 He cannot reject, but he gives a Christian 
 turn to the general belief in the world's decay ; 
 urges organizations for relief of suffering ; 
 treats moral causes in society as affecting 
 general and even physical phenomena. In 
 c. xxvi. occurs what seems more than a coin- 
 cidence with phrases in the Te Deum. In 
 c. XX. he condemns the use of black for 
 mourners. 
 
 [e] On Work and Alms. — A pastoral, which 
 may indeed be connected with the incidents of 
 Ep. 62, but more probably has a wider refer- 
 ence to the demands made by the plague and 
 coincident troubles on the exertions and 
 liberality of the Christians. Among circum- 
 stances known to us directly it would be more 
 natural to link it to the great speech which 
 Pontius mentions as having been delivered at 
 that time to the community. Here again we 
 find Cyprian working out the new faith into 
 a life-system ; philosophically (as in a kind of 
 Tusculan) adjusting moral feeling and practice 
 to the newly gained higher facts about God 
 and Man. See cc. ix. x. xi. practically develop- 
 ing that " loss is gain," and " gain is loss," to 
 those who are within the care of Christ, xvi. 
 Christianity becomes a social element which up- 
 lifts the poor : their claims take precedence of 
 family claims; the possession of a family only 
 increases the obligation to Christ's poor. — In 
 xxii. is a bold passage, almost Goethesque, 
 in which Satan apostrophizes Christ on the 
 superior liberality of his own school. — The 
 doctrine of the first part i-vii. develops the 
 unfortunate conception (roundly stated in Ep. 
 
 CYPMANUS 
 
 55, xviii. [14]) of good works acting on sins 
 done after baptism, as baptism acts to remit 
 former sin. Neander [Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 391, 
 Bohn) remarks that while this same thought 
 appears in TertuUian (de Poenit.), yet no one 
 person can be regarded as the author of it. 
 It is a natural and popular materialistic germ 
 of the doctrines of Rome on penance. 
 
 if) The Exhortation to Confessorship is a 
 practical manual of Scripture passages, con- 
 nected by brief remarks, under 13 heads of 
 reflection ; compiled at the request of a lay- 
 man, Fortunatus. Its existence sufficiently 
 indicates the extent of suffering which a per- 
 secution developed. A more sober tone as to 
 the perfections of the martyrs is perceptible. 
 The introduction of the seven Maccabees not 
 only as examples, but as a type of unity {ad 
 Fort, xi.), dates this as later than de Unitate, 
 where every other possible type is accumulated 
 but not this one. The teaching on probation 
 also marks the stage of his thoughts. He 
 computes the world to be near 6,000 years 
 old {ad Fort. ii. ; cf. Tert. de V. V. I). 
 
 (g) On the Lord's Prayer. — To promote intel- 
 ligent devotion was his next aim. This treat- 
 ise is written with precision and with visible 
 delight. The time is clearly shewn by his 
 deductions on unity (xxiv. ; cf. de Unit. xiv. 
 [12]) ; on the danger of withholding commu- 
 nion from penitents {de Or. xviii.), and on the 
 confessor's temptations to arrogance (xxiv.). 
 Cyprian follows TertuUian freely, not tran- 
 scribing as before ; adopts the African " ne nos 
 patiaris induci " without remark (cf. Aug. de 
 Dono Persev. vi. 12), and " fiat in caelo " {id. 
 iii. 6) ; illustrates more fully from Scripture, 
 and uses a different version. His silence prob- 
 ably evinces Tertullian's success in remon- 
 strating against superstitious observances in 
 praying (Tert. Deor. xi. xvi.), and he does not, 
 like his " master," hail the " confusion of 
 nations " as a mark of the kingdom ; but in 
 his expansion of the symbolism of praying 
 thrice a day we have the earliest use of Trinitas 
 in Latin as a name of Deity (in Tert. adv. 
 Prax. 3, it is not exactly this). In a.d. 427 
 Augustine {Ep. ccxv.) used the treatise suc- 
 cessfully with the monks of Adrumetum to 
 prove the Pelagian errors contrary to the 
 Cyprianic doctrine. He quotes this short 
 treatise of " victoriosissimus Cyprianiis " else- 
 where 13 times to the same effect. Yet not 
 one term occurs in it which became technical 
 in that controversy — a fact which would alone 
 evince its early date. Mr. Shepherd, however 
 (Fourth Letter to Dr. Maitland, 1853), has 
 undertaken to prove that its writer was ac- 
 quainted with the work of Chromatius {d. a.d. 
 406) and is more "sacramental" than that 
 author, Gregory Nyssen, or Chrysostom, and 
 than Augustine's doubt as to the application of 
 the " daily bread " allows ; he observes that 
 Venantius (6th cent.) does not use it, though 
 his predecessor, Hilary, refers the readers of 
 his commentary to it in preference to com- 
 menting himself ; having thus satisfied him- 
 self of the lateness of the Cyprianic treatise, 
 Mr. Shepherd therefore asperses the genuine- 
 ness of the great Augustinian works which 
 cite it. A critical comparison with Chro- 
 matius would require a minuteness and 
 space here inadmissible, but the result of such 
 
CYPRIANUS 
 
 investigation leaves no doubt that Cyprian is 
 the middle term between Tertullian and Chro- 
 matins. Briefly, Chromatins knows no argu- 
 ment or illustration of TertuUian's which 
 Cyprian has not employed ; almost every one 
 of these has in Chromatins (though a most 
 condensed prosaic writer) some additional 
 Cyprianic touch or colour adhering to it. 
 Observe too Chromatius's insertion of the 
 negative, in his qui necdmn crediderunt (§ iv.), 
 in mistaken elucidation of Cyprian's obscure 
 in illis credcntibus {§ xvii.) precisely as later 
 MSS. and editors have altered it. As to the 
 Eucharistic language about daily bread, it is 
 admittedly not more strong than in other 
 Cyprianic treatises, nor visibly stronger than 
 Chromatins. The Antiochene Fathers of course 
 are not Eucharistic in this clause, because they 
 followed Origen's interpretation of eiriovcno's. 
 Augustine will not strictly limit the petition 
 to the Eucharist (though for singular reasons. 
 Serin. 56, 57, 58), but his more analytical, yet 
 more mystical treatment of it is distinctly in 
 a later mood than the simply moral handling 
 of Cyprian. That Venantius does not men- 
 tion Cyprian in his unfinished treatise surely 
 demands no explanation. His aim is more 
 theological and his language very compressed. 
 But tinges of Cyprian are perceptible in the 
 passages on Sonship ; perseverance ; reigning 
 with Christ ; resistance to God's will, and our- 
 selves being made heavenly to do it ; but we 
 may add that Ambrose's omission to comment 
 on vv. 1-5 of c. xi. is inexplicable, except for 
 the existence of some standard treatise, such 
 as is mentioned by Hilary (Mt. V.) : " De 
 orationis sacramento necessitate nos com- 
 mentandi Cyprianus liberavit." 
 
 I nterval.—Covnelms' s exile, with others, to 
 Civita Vecchia, his decease in June 253, as a 
 martyr, in the then sense of the word, the short 
 episcopate of Lucius, his exile, speedy return, 
 and death, not later than Mar. 5, a.d. 254 (Cyp. 
 Epp. 60, 61, 67, 68), find place in Cyprian's 
 correspondence,* not without some undue 
 exaggerations, as when he compares the re- 
 appearance of Lucius to that of John Baptist, 
 as heralding the advent. Not later than this 
 we place the epistle (63) to bp. Caecilius, re- 
 proving the omission of wine in the chalice, 
 and distinctly indicating the symbolical im- 
 portance of a mixed cup ; the necessity of a 
 Congregation to constitute a sacrament ; the 
 irregularity of evening communion. To 
 Sept. 253, and its council of 66 bishops, be- 
 longs the condemnation of the postponing for 
 even a few days, on ritual grounds, the admin- 
 istration of the other sacrament to infants. 
 To it belongs the affair of Therapius, as above. 
 
 Changed Relations with Rome, and Cyprian's 
 Error of Rebaptism. — In a.d. 254 Easter was 
 on April 23 ; Stephanus was made bp. of 
 Rome May 12 ; the Carthaginian council 
 met towards autumn (September ?). It had 
 seemed to Cyprian a token of divine displeas- 
 ure with the Novatianists that they did not 
 suffer with the church ; and their prosperity 
 might have seemed to form Stephen's policy in 
 
 • On the death of Cornelius and his sepulture, see 
 Mommsen, Chronog. vom Jahre 354, p. 631 ; de 
 Rossi, Roma Salt. vol. ii. pp. 66-08 ; and on the true 
 date of his death, as distinct from his festival, Lip- 
 »ius, Chron. d. Pap. p. 192. 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 227 
 
 so anti-puritan a mould, except for his over- 
 indulgence to Marcion, the Novatianist bp. 
 of Aries {Ep. 68) ; but his was rather a policy 
 of general resistance to the spiritual power 
 compacted by Cyprian and Cornelius ; a policy 
 of the widest comprehension on the one basis of 
 submissiveness to his see. The cases of Basil- 
 ides and Martial have been mentioned. Cyp- 
 rian's tone to him is one of both compassion 
 and dictation (Ep. 68), and from his letter to 
 Florentius Pupienus (66) it is plain that 
 others besides Stephen felt, rightly or wrongly, 
 more than aversion to tiie inunense influence 
 of Cyprian. And, although the whole church 
 has decided that Stephen was right in the 
 great controversy which arose, it was long 
 before his character recovered the shock of his 
 impetuous collision with Cyprian, and grew 
 capable of his fictitious crown of martyrdom. 
 The next group of documents belongs to a.d. 
 255 and 256, and is occupied with the contro- 
 versy on rebaptism {Epp. 69-75, Senit. Epp. 
 Ixxxvii.). For though Cyprian objects to that 
 term (Ep. y^, i.), catholic doctrine insists on 
 the assertion it involves. Notwithstanding 
 the council of Agrippinus, and the reception of 
 thousands of heretics by rebaptism in the 
 .\frican church (Ep. 73, iii.), numbers had been 
 readmitted without it (Ep. 73, xxiii. ; Aug. 
 says the practice had fallen off). On the other 
 hand, though Stephen appeals to the constant 
 tradition of his church against rebaptizing, 
 this is simply to ignore the action of Callistus 
 (Hippolytus, p. 291, a passage which is against 
 the idea of that author's Novatianism, but 
 which Hefele monstrously wants to apply to 
 Agrippinus [Hist, des Conciles, vol. i. p. 87, 
 Paris]). An allusion to Stephen (Ep. 69, x.) 
 seems to imply that Stephen stirred the ques- 
 tion first. Rettberg considers, after Maran, 
 that his Oriental dispute had already occurred 
 (p. 170). So Hefele. But this is not neces- 
 sary. Cyprian (de Un. xi.) early committed 
 himself to language as strong as he ever used 
 again. The original inquiry is whether the 
 non-heretical Novatianists, baptized as such, 
 can be received to catholic communion. It 
 extended itself (73, iv.), until the cases of 
 Marcionites and even Ophites were debated ; 
 Stephen would include, and Cyprian exclude, 
 all. At first the difficulty was only " Is not 
 the exclusive African practice itself a Nova- 
 tianist mark — being otherwise used only in 
 that sect ? " Our briefest method will be 
 first to enumerate the documents, and then to 
 classify their often repeated arguments. 
 
 (i) Magnus, a layman, makes the first ap- 
 plication, and is replied to by Cyprian with 
 affectionate respect (Ep. 69). (2) The bishops 
 of Numidia, who, though without formal vote, 
 had adopted the practice, apply next ; the 
 reply is from 33 bishops of Africa, with the 
 presbyters of Carthage (Ep. 71). This is 
 Cyprian's 5//; Council and ist on Baptism. 
 Ep. 70 is their conciliar declaration of the 
 necessity of (rc)baptism. (3) A Mauritaniau 
 bishop, Quintus, is answered in Ep. 71, 
 enclosing £/>. 70, now widely circulated (71, 
 iv.), breathing an injured tone as towards 
 Stephen, and indicating that the council had 
 not been unanimous (Ep. 71, i., plurimi . . . 
 nescic qua praesumpticme quidani). (4) 
 The de Bono Palientiae was published abouC 
 
228 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 this time, to be, without one word upon the 
 subject matter of the controversy, a calming 
 voice in the rising storm. The de Zelo el 
 Livore is generally (and probably) thought to 
 be a very little later in date, and similar in 
 piurpose. It is equally reticent on passing 
 events, unless (in vi. 5) there may be an allu- 
 sion to Novatian. There are a few close verbal 
 resemblances between the two treatises, es- 
 pecially in de Pat. xix. (11) and de Zelo, iv. 
 and v. (5) Next year, a.d. 256, the 6th 
 Council under Cyprian and 2nd on Baptism, 
 composed of 71 bishops, Numidian and Afri- 
 can,* unanimously reaffirm the opinion in an 
 unconciliatory synodical epistle to Stephen, 
 conscious of the offence they will give, and 
 enclosing Epp. 70 and 71. This epistle is 
 mentioned by Jerome, adv. Lucif. But 
 Augustine {Resp. ad Epp. 15) seems not to 
 have seen it, which is strange. (6) Jubaian, 
 a bp. of Mauritania, forwards to Cyprian a 
 copy of a paper there circulating, with some 
 authority, which recognizes even Marcion's 
 baptism {Ep. 73, iv.). It may have been 
 issued by one of those native bishops who 
 dissented {Sentt. Epp. 59, 38, and cf. Aug. 
 Resp. ad Epp. 52, con. Donat. vii. 16, 6). Rett- 
 berg agrees with " Constant. Ep. Ponttf. p. 
 226," that it was Stephen's letter to the East. 
 Cyprian sent J ubaian a reply so elaborate that, 
 at the final council, he read it aloud as his own 
 best exposition of his views, with Jubaian's 
 convinced answer. Cyprian's letter was 
 accompanied with all the documents sent to 
 Stephen, and a copy of his Patience. (7) A 
 deputation of bishops waited on Stephen but 
 were not received [Ep. 75, xxv.) ; the letter 
 which they bore was answered (74, i.) in terms 
 appreciative of the greatness of the question 
 (75, xvii.) but not arguing it, charitable to the 
 separatists, af&rming the tradition (75, v. ; 73, 
 xiii.), resting on the authority of the see (75, 
 xvii.), and styling Cyprian " a pseudo-Christ, 
 a pseudo-apostle and treacherous worker." It 
 would be unfair not to recognize anxiety under 
 the word " treacherous," while Fabian of 
 Antioch, by dallying with Novatianism, was 
 complicating Stephen's position ; and Cyp- 
 rian's own language as to " favourers of 
 Antichrist " (69, x.) had exposed him to re- 
 taliation. Stephen had circulated in the East 
 a paper which awakened " lites et dissensiones 
 per ecclesias totius mundi " (75, xxiv.), declar- 
 ing he would hold no communion with bishops 
 who used second baptism [Ep. 75, xxiv. ; 74, 
 viii. ; Dionys. Al. ap. Eus. vii. 5).t The 
 natural reply of the metropolitan of Cappa- 
 docia was " Thou hast excommunicated thy- 
 self." The general history of rebaptism 
 must be read elsewhere, but it was held in 
 Cappadocia, Pamphylia, and other regions of 
 Asia Minor as a practice received from " Christ 
 and from the apostle " (75, xix.), and it had 
 been confirmed by the councils of Synnada and 
 Iconium.J Dionysius the Great recom- 
 
 • A.D. 312. The relations of Numidia with Carth- 
 age seem unsettled (Hefele, Conciles, vol. i. p. 170). 
 
 t H. Valois is right, I believe, in thmking this a 
 threat. Routh thinks it was actual excommunica- 
 tion, and lyipsius that he excommunicated Cypr an. 
 Several bishops of the seventh council were very 
 early in the Roman calendar for iv. Id. Sep. 
 
 X I,ipsius's reasons (pp. 219, 220) for datmg Ico- 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 mended forbearance to Stephen, and to the 
 eminent Roman presbyters Dionysius and 
 Philemon.* (8) Pompey, bp. of Sabrata on 
 the Syrtis, was the next inquirer, asking for 
 Stephen's reply (Ep. 74). Cyprian sends it 
 with the antidote, a fine letter, though not 
 moderate, closing with an amendment on the 
 canon of Stephen. Pompey was convinced if 
 he had wavered, and his proxy at the council 
 was presented by his neighbour the bp. of 
 Oea. (9) The 7th council of Carthage, or 
 3rd on baptism, held Sept. i, a.d. 256. Eighty- 
 seven bishops of all the three provinces, with 
 presbyters and deacons, met in the presence of 
 a vast laity, t The council opened with the 
 reading of the Jubaian correspondence, and 
 the letter to Stephen [Sent. 8), and with a brief 
 speech from Cyprian, large and pacific (Aug. 
 R. Epp.). Each bishop then by seniority 
 delivered his opinion, of which we have a 
 verbal report : from some a good argument, 
 from some a text, an antithesis, an analogy, 
 or a fancy : here a rhetorical sentence, there 
 a solecism or an unfinished clause ; a simple 
 restatement, a personality, a fanaticism ; two 
 of the juniors vote with the majority on the 
 ground of inexperience. But on the whole 
 we must admire the temper and the ability of 
 so large a number of speakers. The council 
 had a great moral effect. It kept Roman 
 influence at bay for a long time. Jerome is 
 mistaken in asserting, in his youthful contra 
 Lucif erianos, that these Fathers recanted. The 
 custom was not specifically repealed till the 
 synod of Aries, nor for Asia Minor till the first 
 of Constantinople. But, from peculiar cir- 
 cumstances, it was specially accepted in the 
 East, and is the basis now of the rebaptism by 
 the Jacobites, not only of heretics and Nestor- 
 ians, but of orthodox Christians. J Before 
 
 nium so late as a.d. 255 are surely quite insulBcient. 
 Eusebius (vii. 3) says Cyprian was Trpwro? Ttoi/ xore to 
 ] hold lebaptism, which is a most accurate expression. 
 I He has already said that it had been held in very 
 populous churches, and has told us of the old council 
 of Agrippinta which declared it. Asia had quietly 
 continued, Africa had mostly dropped the practice, 
 I and CjTjrian was the first Twr Tore to revive it. I,ip- 
 j sius is actually driven by his own special pleading to 
 I say there were two synods of Iconium " which must 
 1 not be confounded," one named by Firmilian, and one 
 ! by Dionysius— about the baptism of heretics— at 
 I the same place— at a very considerable interval — 
 both making exactly the same declaration. 
 
 * Jerome (Script. Ecc.) says Dionysius took the 
 strict view. He himself seems (Eus. vii. 9) to say 
 the opposite, and cf. vii. 7. 
 
 t I believe this to be a simple and sufficient 
 accotmt of the circimistances of the correspondence, 
 and Mosheim's and Rettberg's little amusement of 
 inventing lost docmnents is unnecessary. The letter 
 of Stephanus shewn to Pompeius is the same which 
 Firmilian saw. The legation of course presented the 
 synodal letter, which was meant to be final : accord- 
 ingly Ci.'prian (in Senit. Ep.) speaks of the question 
 as resting henceforth with individual bishops. 
 
 X Of the seventh coimcil Mr. Shepherd saj'S, 
 " M'onderful to say, it has a date." So has the 
 second (Ep. 59, xlii.). Of another event he remarks, 
 " It would have been far more natural to have said 
 a.d. 180, or some such date." It would have been 
 an excessively interesting use of the Christian era, 
 and Mr. Shepherd has doubtless noted the careful 
 dates of other documents, TertuUian's historical 
 allusions, Augustine's letters. The paucity of dates 
 is, however, singular. It may have some connexion 
 with the Airjcan hostility, even to civil usages de- 
 pendent on heathenism. The DonatisU at Carthage, 
 
CYPRIANUS 
 
 the winter of 256* Cyprian's messengers to 
 Firmilian returned with (10) his reply, the 
 most enthusiastic letter of the series. We 
 have it in Cyprian's translation from the 
 Greek. t It has points of great interest ; 
 compares the bp. of Rome to Judas ; shews 
 the antiquity of rebaptism in Asia ; touches 
 on their annual synods ; the fixed and extem- 
 pore portions of the liturgy ; the quasi-supre- 
 macy of Jerusalem ; the unity under wide 
 divisions. For arguments to the point it relies 
 on Cyprian's letters. 
 
 We will now briefly classify Cyprian's argu- 
 ments and the answers to them, avoiding the 
 niaking him responsible for his partisans, 
 whose judgment in council (vii.) differs mucli 
 from his. Firmilian, on the other hand, 
 summarizes sensibly. Cyprian then urges for 
 rebaptism (A), Objective grounds. (a) The 
 unity of the church, viz. that in the critical 
 point of " church and non-church," schism 
 does not differ from heresy (69, iii.) : the 
 representation of sacred acts outside not 
 equivalent to sacred acts within : " one Lord, 
 one faith," there may be, but not " one 
 baptism," for this implies " one church," 
 which the schismatic renounces. (6) Unity of 
 Belief. In its African form the creed ran, 
 " Dost thou believe the remission of sins and 
 life everlasting through holy church ? " and was 
 accordingly null at the moment of baptism 
 away from the church, (c) Baptism is a 
 function of holy orders on account of its remis- 
 sory virtue in respect of sin (not Tertnllian's 
 doctrine [de Bap. xvii.]), and holy orders have 
 no being outside the church (73, vii.), so that 
 the whole question of episcopal authority as 
 the bond of unity and divine organization is 
 
 A.D. 411, treat the fact that the .Acts of the council 
 of Cirta, a.d. 305, commence with the consular date 
 as an evidence against their genuineness. The Cath- 
 olics reply, that though the Donatists avoid dates, 
 the Catholic- use them. But it may be that the 
 Donatists preserve the old puritanic tradition. Cf. 
 Aug. Brev. Coll. c. Don. p. 569, aii. diei, cap. xv. § 26, 
 27. (Athanasius's objection to the date in the creed 
 of Sirmio is of another colour.) For an account of 
 the Romanist assaults on it, see Rettberg, pp. 189, 
 190. Augustine accepted it, when some wished to 
 make it of Donatist origin, on the ground of its con- 
 taining so much against Donatism. 
 
 * Stephen died, and Cyprian was exiled before the 
 winter of 257. 
 
 t It is impossible not to recognize Cyprian's style 
 in it ; efjually impossible not to see the Gk. [.\] in 
 some of its compound phrases and coupled epithets 
 {e.g. i. magnam voluntatis caritatem in unum con- 
 venire ; iii. velociter currentes, iv. quoniam sermo 
 . . . distribuatur, etc.). [B] In the literal (sometimes 
 awkward) rendering of words : iv. seniores et prae- 
 positi (= prcsbyteri et epicopi) for Trpetrffurepoi xai 
 rpottTTw-f? ; vii. praesident majores nalu, where 
 Cyprian could not have used prcsbyteri, and yet age 
 is not to the point ; fratribus tam longe positis 
 (naxpii' Kf.^fi'oi?) ; V. inexcusabilem ; vi. cos qui 
 Romae sunt ; aequaliter quae ; vii. po%side>U potcs- 
 tatem ; x. nee ve-xari in aliquo ; quamvis ad imagin- 
 em veritatis tamen ; xxiii. volentibus vivcre ; xii. 
 Nos etiam illos quos hi qui. [C] Instances where the 
 Gk. is not thoroughly mastered : viii. nisi si his 
 episcopis quihus nunc minor fuit Paulus (? riii/ vin) ; 
 xii. ut per cos qui cum ipsi, etc. ; cum unmeaning— 
 observe in ix. patriae of local persecutions in .isia 
 Minor. The remarkable translation of Lph. 4, 3, in 
 xxiv. is in the same words as in three other places of 
 CjTJrian, and differs from every other known render- 
 ing ; even the .\frican Nemesianus in this councD 
 uses curantes instead of salisagentes. 
 
 CYPRIANUS 220 
 
 involved ♦ {Ep. 72, i.), and if external baptism 
 is true, the church has manv centres ; not one 
 foundation rock, but several (75, xvii.). The 
 separatist teacher surrenders (70, ii.) the ani- 
 mating, unifying Spirit, and cannot through 
 his personal earnestness convey that Spirit to 
 followers by baptizing them t (P.p. 60). (d) 
 The imposition of hands on the readmitted 
 separatist expresses that he has not, but needs 
 to receive, the Holy Ghost ; Stephen's party 
 use this rite, and quote the apostles at Samaria 
 as an example. But without that Spirit how 
 could the separatist consecrate even the water 
 or the unction of confirmation ? {Ep. 70, i. ; 
 cf. Sentt. Epp. i8 ; on the significance of this 
 "royal " oil, see Bunsen ; and on the Nova- 
 tianist disuse of it, Routh, vol. iii. pp. 69, 70). 
 Above all, how give the New Birth which, as 
 the essence of the sacrament, is essentially 
 the Spirit's act (Ep. 74, v. vi. etc.) ? (e) 
 Baptism in the absence of the Spirit is a Judaic, 
 a carnal rite : a defilement ; more than a de- 
 ceiving semblance, a material pollution (Ep. 
 75, xiii. ; 72, i. ; 73, xxi. ; 69, xvi. ; cf. Seda- 
 tus, Sentt. Epp. i8 ; Victor Gordub. Sent., 
 whom Augustine criticizes as going to lengths 
 beyond Cyprian ; still the frightful expression 
 of de Unit. xi. involves all this). The pre- 
 tender can " neither justify nor sanctify " 
 (69, x.), who but the holy can hallow (69, ii.) ? 
 who but the living give life (71, i.) ? (/) Christ 
 not present to make up for the umvorthiness of 
 the minister. For if so His Spirit could not be 
 absent (75, xii.), and that He is absent is ad- 
 mitted by the necessity for imposition of 
 hands (id. xiii.). 
 
 (B) Subjective Grounds, {a) Faith of re- 
 cipient insufficient [Epp. 73, 75, ix.) : to be 
 effective must be true ; but is deficient in a 
 cardinal point, viz. the remission of sins by the 
 church ; even if not false and, as often, blas- 
 phemous (73, iv. V ; 74). (b) Not secured by the 
 formxtla. In the Roman church there was 
 still such absence of rigidity that it was argued 
 that without the Trinal form baptism into 
 Christ's name sufficed (Ep. 74, v.). Cyprian 
 however points to the clear words of institu- 
 tion, and appeals to common reason to decide 
 whether one is truly baptized into the Son 
 who deniestHis Humanitv (Ep. 73, v.),t or 
 treats the God of the O. t. as evil (74, iii.) : 
 even if the genuine formula be used, still the 
 rite is no question of words ; the absent Christ 
 and Spirit are not bound by them as a spell. 
 (c) Incapable of definition. It is not the 
 church's part to graduate departures from the 
 faith. Even death in behalf of a heresy can- 
 not restore to the church. If what is univer- 
 sallv accepted as ipso facto baptism (in blood) 
 is iinavailing, how can ordinary extraneous 
 baptism be more (Ep. 73. xxi. ; de Unit. xiv. 
 (12) xix. ; or Dom. xxiv.) ? 
 
 (C) The historical argument is handled by 
 Cyprian in the most masterly way. (a) Usage 
 is not worth considering as more than an 
 apology for ignorance ; cannot be matched 
 
 • This view becomes " ChrLslus baptizandi poles- 
 tatem ei)Lscopis dedit " in Uic mouth of one of the 
 bishops {Senlt. Ep. 17). 
 
 t " Qui non habct (iuomo<lo dat ? " became a 
 catchword of the Donatists. The reply of the Cath- 
 olics was " Deum esse datorem " (Optat. p. 103). 
 
 X The basis of this is Terl. de Bapt. xv. 
 
230 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 against reason (71, iii. 73) ; (b) is not universal 
 on side of Stephen {Ep. 71) ; (c) cannot be 
 inferred from the non-baptism of restored 
 perverts : their case differs from that of 
 heathens, who had (to begin with) been made 
 heretics, not Christians, {d) The practice of 
 heretical bodies, which had always recognized 
 any previous baptism, was no example to the 
 church (74, iv.) ; nor could the Novatianist 
 practice of rebaptism be a warning against it 
 (73, ii.) ; it was either accidental coincidence 
 or imitation {simiaruni more), and, if the latter, 
 it was evidence, (e) Casuistic difficulties upon 
 the necessity of " regeneration within the 
 church " as to the position of unbaptized mar- 
 tyrs {73, xxii.), heretics hitherto readmitted 
 and deceased (xxiv.), cases of rebaptism where 
 baptism had been \'alid, baptism by a de- 
 moniac, are met by Cyprian with a breadth of 
 which St. Augustine [contra Crescon. ii. 41) 
 says, in the midst of his refutation, " such 
 simplicity is enough for me." 
 
 (D) Biblical Arguments. — The familiar ones 
 need no more than enumeration : the one 
 loaf ; one cup ; the ark ; the schismatic (not 
 heretical) gainsaying of Korah ; the apostles' 
 baptism of men who had already received the 
 Spirit, a fortiori needed for those who con- 
 fessedly had not. We may admire the in- 
 genuity with which he treats such passages as 
 Acts ii. 38, in Ep. 73, xvii., or Phil. i. 18, in 
 Ep. 74, 75, 73, xiv. ; but about many Cyprian 
 might fairly be addressed in the words which 
 Optatus (b. iv. p. 96) uses to Parmenian : 
 " You batter the law to such purpose that 
 wherever you find the word Water there you 
 conjure out of it some sense to our disadvan- 
 tage." He probably originated the applica- 
 tion of Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, " Qui baptizatur a 
 mortuo quid proficit lavatio ejus," which the 
 Donatists constantly quote against Augustine, 
 and which Augustine answers only by referring 
 mortuus to a heathen priest or vicious Chris- 
 tian instead of a heretic. He quotes several 
 times the LXX addition to Prov. ix. 19, 
 " Drink not of the strange font," and Jer. xv. 
 18, ii. 13, " deceiving waters," " broken 
 cisterns." In some of these applications there 
 is poetical force, as of his favourite " garden 
 enclosed and fountain sealed," and of the 
 doctrines of New Birth and Sonship {Ep. 74, 
 V. vi.) ; in Heresy who was never the Spotless 
 Spouse we can never find a mother (Ep. 75). 
 To this Stephen finely answers that she was 
 an unnatural mother indeed (75, xiv.) who ex- 
 posed her children so soon as they were born, 
 but that the church's part was to seek them 
 and bring them home and rear them for Christ. 
 Dispersed as this system of Cyprian's lies, 
 through his correspondence and tracts, it will 
 be seen that in his mind it was not fragmen- 
 tary, but logical and coherent. Over the 
 theory promulgated by one of his powers and 
 character, backed by an army of bishops,* 
 moving as one man under him', yet indepen- 
 dent enough each to find their own telling 
 arguments (Cone. III.), Stephen's triumph 
 without a council, against remonstrances 
 from the East, and hindered by his own pre- 
 
 • Some required exorcism (Sentt. 7, 8, 31) ; some 
 declared heretics worse than heathens — a painfully 
 early development. 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 tentiousness and uncharitableness, * was great. 
 It was deserved also, for Rome represented 
 freedom, comprehensiveness, and safe latitude. 
 She decided upon one grand principle, the 
 same on which Jerome afterwards decided the 
 analogous question of reordination {adv. 
 Lucif.). Cyprian's principle was the same 
 which blinded TertuUian {de Bapt. xv.) ; which 
 was extended by the Donatists to make moral 
 defects in the minister debar grace ; f which 
 led Knox and Calvin to deny baptism to the 
 infant children of " papists," and the Genevan 
 divines to allow it, on the hope that " the 
 grace which had adopted " the great-grand- 
 fathers might not yet be so " wholly extinct 
 that the infants should have lost their right 
 to the common seal " (Hooker, iii. i, 12). 
 Augustine {Resp. ad Episcopos) developed the 
 categorical answer to each separate argument 
 of Cyprian and his bishops, but the true solu- 
 tion was applied at once by Stephen. The 
 grace of baptism is of Christ, not of the human 
 baptizer. J He who baptizes does not " give 
 being or add force " to the sacrament. Cyp- 
 rian's language about " justifying and sanc- 
 tifying " may well have shocked the church of 
 Rome, and makes Stephen's anger partly in- 
 telligible. The child or heathen who learns 
 Christ through the teaching of the heretic 
 cannot be charged with " defect or disorder," 
 in the reception of a sacrament, to which he 
 comes with purest faith, and which it is the 
 will of God to impart to all. Though excluded 
 " from fellowship in holy duties with the 
 visible church," he is still a member of such 
 visible church. (Ep. 73, xvi. We must take 
 the fragmentary quotation, 75, i., " Si qu's 
 ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit " with the 
 other, " In nomine Christi baptizatus," and 
 cf. Routh, R. S. vol. iii. p. 183.) The only 
 real blot which Cyprian struck was the vulgar 
 explanation of the laying on of hands at re- 
 admission. Upon that hypothesis his own 
 view was justifiable. But the act was not 
 really understood by the intelligent to be the 
 imparting of the Spirit for the first time to 
 those who had it not ; it was the renewing by 
 the Spirit, and introducing to communion of a 
 repentant and now enlightened child of God.§ 
 " A son of God " in spite of any theological 
 error, Stephen declares him in the fullest sense 
 to be (Ep. 74, vi. ; 75, xvii.). The expression 
 seems to have been much cavilled at in Car- 
 thage, and is mentioned even in Ep. 72, after 
 the second council. And now it ought to 
 
 * Animosus, iracundus ; again, audacia, insolentia, 
 iiihumanitas are some of the sins charged to him. 
 
 t Of the use thej^ made of Cyprian himself see Aug. 
 contra Crescon. II. xxiii. 40 : " Scripta Cv-priani nobis 
 tanquam firmamenta canonicae auctoritatis op- 
 ponitis." Cf. Ep. 93, ad Vincent. ; Epp. 108, 9, 
 ad Macrob. 
 
 X Optatus, b. V. p. 99, well expresses it : " Has 
 res unicuique non ejusdem rei operarius sed credentis 
 fides et Trinitas praestat." By implication he an- 
 swers many of the detailed difficulties, but the great 
 name of Cj^prian visibly lestrains him. Again, p. 
 103 : " Omnes qui baptizant operarios esse non 
 dominos et sacramenta per se sancta esse non per 
 homines." 
 
 § Besides its use in ordination the imposition of 
 hands had three intentions: (i) Confirmation. (2) 
 Reception of penitents. (3) Exorcism. The 2nd is 
 what .Stephen applies here. The 3rd was desired by 
 some extreme partisans. 
 
CYPRIANUS 
 
 be noticed that (as the Novatianists saw) 
 Cyprian had a real point of contact with Nova- 
 tianism. In the instance of Lapse he dis- 
 covered its fallacy. In the instance of Heresy 
 he fell into it. The visible church, according 
 to him, included the worst moral sinner in 
 expectation of his penitence ; it excluded the 
 most virtuous and orthodox baptized Christian 
 who had not been baptized by a catholic min- 
 ister.* Nevertheless, although the Roman 
 church then took a wider view than Cyprian 
 as to the sonship of man to God, Cyprian was 
 much greater (and this is the true church- 
 moral of this part of his history) upon the 
 possibility and duty of union in diversity. 
 Augustine well draws out the independence of 
 thought and action which Cyprian wished to 
 be maintained without exclusiveness, and 
 tells us (Aug. V. de Bapt. 17) how he was 
 never weary of reading the conclusion of the 
 Ep. to Quintus. Every bishop was free to 
 judge for himself, none to be persecuted for 
 his views, and therefore every one to be tender 
 of the bonds of peace : " Salvo jure commu- 
 nionis diversa sentire." The unanimity of 
 such early councils and their erroneousness 
 are a remarkable monition. Not packed, not 
 pressed ; the question broad ; no attack on 
 an individual ; only a principle sought ; the 
 assembly representative ; each bishop the 
 elect of his flock ; and all " men of the world," 
 often christianized, generally ordained late in 
 life ; converted against their interests by con- 
 viction formed in an age of freest discussion ; 
 their Chief one in Whom were rarely blended 
 intellectual and political ability, with holiness, 
 sweetness, and self-discipline. The conclu- 
 sion reached by such an assembly uncharitable, 
 unscriptural, uncatholic, and unanimous. 
 The consolation as strange as the disappoint- 
 ment. The mischief silently and perfectly 
 healed by the simple working of the Christian 
 society. Life corrected the error of thought. 
 Augustine beautifully writes : " It is of no 
 light moment that though the question was 
 agitated among bishops of an age anterior to 
 the faction of Donatus, and although opinions 
 differed without the unity of the colleagues 
 being marred, still this our present use has 
 been settled to be observed throughout the 
 whole Catholic church diffused throughout 
 the world " (contra Crescon. i. xxxii. 38). The 
 disappearance of the Cyprianic decisions has 
 its hope for us when we look on bonds seem- 
 ingly inextricable, and steps as yet irre- 
 trievable. It may be noted, as affording 
 some clue to the one-sided decisions, that the 
 laity were silent, though Cyprian seemed 
 pledged to some consultation with them. 
 (See esp. Ep. 31 and 19, ii.) It must have 
 been among them that there were in existence 
 and at work those very principles which so 
 soon not only rose to the surface, but over- 
 powered the voices of her bishops for the 
 general good. It was a parliament of 
 officials, provincial governors. That it did 
 not represent church opinion (that, namely, 
 which we now accept as church doctrine), may 
 
 • Thus the extreme of sacerdotalism was a fixed 
 tenet with our own Puritan divines, who held the 
 minister " to be of the substance of the sacrament." 
 Cf. Hooker, Ec. Pol. V. Ixi. 5 ; Neander, vol. i. p. 
 540, Bohn tr. 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 2ni 
 
 be inferred — (i) from the absolute unanimity 
 of the 87 utterances ; (2) from the stranRC 
 avowal of two, that, being incompetent to give 
 an opniion, they vote with the majoritv ; 
 (3) from the very important and powerful 
 contemporary work of the " Auctor de Ke- 
 baptismate " ; (4) from the silent reversal of 
 the decision. 
 
 The Last Persecution. — Of the 31 Numidian 
 bishops who sat in the great council, the next 
 glimpse of church offices shews q as convicts • 
 in the mines metallum Siguense (? Siga, where 
 there were copper-mines in Mauritania, or 
 Siguita in Numidia itself) and in two other 
 places, t A subdeacon and four acolvtes were 
 commissioned bv the metropolitan' (already 
 himself an exile) and his friend Quirinus to 
 visit them, and supply them with necessaries 
 {Epp. 77-79)- Cyprian had been apprehended, 
 as perhajis the first African prisoner (Epp. 
 77-78), in Aug. A.D. 257. Valerian's first edict 
 (Acta Proconsulis. and Acta Praef. Atiptistalis) 
 had then been issued on the suggestion of 
 Macrianus, a principal patron of the Egvptian 
 " Magi," after a long administration of fairness 
 to the Christians. The " eighth " persecution 
 lasted the Apocalyptic 42 months until his 
 death in 260. (Dion. Al. ap. Pearson, Ann. 
 Cyp- p- 59 ; Eus. vii. 10, v. ii. 70.) On Aug. 2, 
 257, before the exile of Cyprian, Stephen died. 
 His reputation as a martyr, dating from the 
 6th cent., is due to a transference to him of 
 incidents from the death of Xystus. of which 
 the singular history is traced by de Rossi, 
 Roma Sott. Cr. vol. ii. p. 85, etc. He was 
 succeeded on Aug. 25 by Xystus, J whom, not 
 without a stroke at the dead lion, Pontius 
 calls " a good pacific high-jiriest." No 
 "state enemy" could be treated with more 
 consideration than Cyprian rccei\-ed. Aspasius 
 Paternus, the proconsul, heard him in secre- 
 tario, and without confiscation or personal 
 restraint simply required his retirement to 
 Curubis, a free town, near the sea iin deserto 
 loco), lonely, but pleasant, and well supplied 
 (Pontius ; cf. Gibbon, vol. ii. 248, Smith's ed.). 
 It was at the same time that the withdrawal 
 of Dionysius was ordered and performed (Eus. 
 vii. 11). On Sept. 14 a dream, related at once 
 to his friends, was found after his martyrdom 
 to have foretold it for that day year. Attend- 
 ed by his deacon, and allowed the presence of 
 friends, and " oilfering," no doubt, as in his 
 former banishment, " his daily sacrifice," he 
 actively organized relief for more helpless 
 sufferers and subsidized them largely himself.§ 
 After II months spent thus, the new proconsul 
 Galerius Maximus, already a dying man, re- 
 called him to his home in Carthage (horti). 
 When a rumour arrived that Marcianus, 
 * Morcclli, Africa Christiana, vol. i. p. 21, questions 
 whether the separate Pracscs X\miidiac was con- 
 tinued long after Scptimius, apparently not noticiuR 
 (Cyp. Ep. 77, ii.) that these confessors were tried 
 isefore the Praeses. 
 
 t Pearson supposes a marble-quarry to be their 
 work-place — tenehrae and teter odor fumi indicate 
 mining and smelting rather. 
 
 t See these calculations in Lipsius, Chron. d. Rom. 
 Bisch. p. 213. 
 
 § Gibbon strangely seems to have understood the 
 words documentum pro/essionis dedit {i.e. taught how 
 to hold fast our profession) to mean "an accotmt of 
 his behaviour was published for the edification of the 
 Christian world" (Ep. 77). 
 
232 CYPRIANUS 
 
 "entrusted with the whole republic" by 
 Valerian, now on his last march to Persia, was 
 determined to carry things to an extremity 
 with Christians, Cyprian was probably the 
 first African who procured a copy of the tre- 
 mendous rescript, and of the letter which was 
 about to be issued to the Praesides (Ep. 80). 
 The proconsul in Cyprian's trial mentions both 
 the extension of capital penalties to presbyters, 
 and the new prohibition of the use of ceme- 
 teries for worship. His messenger returned 
 with the full intelligence of sweeping measures 
 before their publication, and with news that 
 Xystus had been beheaded (Pont. Vit. Cyp. 
 xii. ; Leon. Sacr. Muratori, vol. i. p. 391) on 
 Sunday, Aug. 5, in the cemetery of Praetex- 
 tatus * when actually " teaching " in his 
 episcopal chair, and with him four of the great 
 Roman deacons. f It may be taken as 
 historical fact that on Wed. the 2C)th of the 
 previous June, Xystus had translated the 
 supposed remains of St. Peter to the cemetery 
 known as Cata Cumbas, on the Appian Way, 
 and those of St. Paul to the Ostian Way. It 
 is possible that this increasing reverence to 
 two malefactors executed two centuries before 
 both shewed the magistrates that the spirit of 
 the sect was becoming more dangerous and 
 determined them to withdraw from Christians 
 the protection which the burial laws hitherto 
 accorded to rites celebrated in connexion with 
 places of sepulture ; and further, that this 
 occasioned a withdrawal from the better- 
 known cemetery of Callistus to the more ob- 
 scure one of Praetextatus (see de Rossi, Rom. 
 Soil. vol. ii. p. 41 ; and Lips, ll.cc), and the 
 death of Xystus in that place. The news of it 
 had scarcely reached Carthage when Galerius, 
 now in residence at Utica, summoned Cyprian 
 thither in honourable form {Ep. 81). Having 
 previously refused offers of a retreat, urged on 
 him even by heathens, he now said he was re- 
 solved not to die, or utter the dying prophecy 
 with which he apparently expected to be in- 
 spired, away from his people. Accordingly, 
 informed of the dispatch before it came, he 
 went into hiding in Carthage, there to await 
 the proconsul's return. On his return, he 
 reappeared and reoccupied his own house, t 
 The details of the trial are too numerous to 
 repeat and too remarkable to abridge. They 
 are found not only in the narrative of Pontius, 
 but also in a " Passion of Cyprian," which we 
 have in different forms, and which from its 
 simplicity, provinciality, and minute topo- 
 graphy, must be contemporary. § Cyprian 
 
 * Afta- II months and 12 (6 ?) davs' episcopate. 
 Eusebius, by an error, in which he indulges in other 
 instances, ascribes to him years for months both in 
 chronicle and historj- ; and Jerome repeats it from 
 him. So in vii. 15 he seems to speak of him as alive 
 after the edict of restoration. See Lipsius, I.e. 
 
 t Sic lege " cum eo diacones quattuor." 
 
 I Nothing is more self-consistent than the lan- 
 guage of Ep. 83, or more inconsistent with Gibbon's 
 " recovering that fortitude which his character re- 
 quired." 
 
 § They are entitled Ada Proconsularia, and so 
 accepted by Pearson and Gibbon. Aug. Serm. 309 
 seems to quote either this Passio or some earlier 
 document which is now embedded in it. Ep. 77, ii. 
 refers to Cyprian's confession " Apud Acta procon- 
 sulis " just after it was made. Does Acta mean 
 merely " trial before " ? (Cf. Optat. B. iii. p. 68, 
 apud acta locuti sunt.) If it means " official report," 
 
 CYPRIANUS 
 
 was removed from his home on Aug. 13 ; the 
 magistrate's broken health prolonged the ex- 
 amination ; but the prisoner's rank shielded 
 him from suffering or indignity. Though the 
 language of the judge was stern, the Christians 
 confessed the reluctance with which he gave 
 sentence. In them sense of triumph in the 
 possession of such a martyr is dwelt on with 
 almost as much force as the sense of loss. 
 With a strange mingled feeling, characteristic 
 of the vividness with which in intense moments 
 circumstances are apprehended which would 
 at other times be trivial, they marked how 
 little incidents combined to do him honour. 
 The seat he rested on for the last time hap- 
 pened to be covered with a white cloth, the 
 episcopal emblem. The trees were climbed, 
 as he passed, by many a Zacchaeus. The eve 
 and vigil of his martyrdom were kept by all 
 his flock, watching through the night in the 
 streets before his house, when as yet the only 
 vigil of the Christian year was that which 
 preceded the day of Christ's own Passion. 
 The idea of this parallel took such hold that 
 Augustine carries it to a painful pitch (Serm. 
 309). The two officers between whom Cyp- 
 rian rode are compared to the two male- 
 factors between whom our Lord went to His 
 Passion. Pontius compares the words of the 
 sentence to the prophecy of Caiaphas. Cyp- 
 rian received no dying prophecy, nor uttered 
 any, though his time was ample. His words 
 were very few, and no exhortation could have 
 been so eloquent as the " Thanks be to God " 
 with which he answered the Judgment : " Our 
 pleasure is that Thascius Cyprianus be exe- 
 cuted by the sword." 
 
 Personal. Theological, and Political Effective- 
 ness. — To sum up the effect of Cyprian's 13 
 years' episcopate in briefest terms. Over and 
 above, ( i) the social impressiveness for the time 
 of a convert with such culture and such mental 
 habits, and of that perfect i-n-ielKfia and ■wpq.bT-qs 
 to which Augustine constantly reverts with 
 delight, comes (2) his Philosophy. It is usual 
 to expand the fact that he was no philosopher. 
 Nevertheless his writings on Resentment, 
 Patience, Probation, Envy, Self-devotion, are 
 most able essays towards establishing a new 
 Christian basis of Morals, and have a per- 
 manent place in the series. (3) Evidences. As 
 against both contemporary Judaism and 
 contemporary paganism his collections have 
 a distinct worth. (4) Interpretation. He has 
 a free ideal scheme before him (Ep. 64), but 
 in detail falls from, it, and makes mere riddles 
 of texts. (5) Organization. This is the real 
 epigraph of his career. The magnitude of the 
 effect he produced is incomparably greater 
 than that of any other person, not excepting 
 Hildebrand. (a) The Church Council, a local 
 and doubtful institution before, became 
 through his management a necessary insti- 
 tution and the imperial power of the church, 
 and, with its system of representation by a 
 hfe-aristocracy popularly elected, and its free 
 discussionary scheme, exercised an important 
 
 how could a Christian report be so styled, or how 
 could a heathen one give the details with such advan- 
 tage to the prisoners ? Dionysius Alex, refers a 
 carping adversary to the record of his own trial 
 before Aemilian, then prefect of Egypt (Eus. vol. i, 
 p. 384, notes on virefxyr^ixcnicrBTi), 
 
CYPRIANUS 
 
 function in the regeneration of liberty, (b) 
 Episcopacy grew silently into an institution of 
 the Roman empire, strong with the lasting 
 virtues of Roman institutions, and only biding 
 its time for recognition. (6) The Individual 
 Independence, as he sketches it, of elected 
 bishops preserved, while it remained, a grand 
 democratic strength to what after a time sank 
 to an oligarchic, and under the papacy to an 
 administrative, magistracy. This must again 
 be the key of church governments in states 
 which have not that intimate union with the 
 church which the ideal of a Christian nation 
 requires. We here give references on the 
 subject of this Independence, which to the 
 policy of Cyprian's time was so essential (Ep. 
 55. xvii. ; actum suum, etc.. 72, iv. ; quando 
 habet, etc., 73, xxxvi. ; nemini praescribentes, 
 etc., 57, vi. ; si de collegis, etc., 69, xvii. ; 
 statuat. Sentt. Epp. Praef. 6). There exists 
 what may be called " resistance to Roman 
 claims"; but Cyprian is totally unconscious 
 of any claims made by the see, and resists 
 Stephen purely as an arrogant individual. 
 
 Culliis. — There were two famous basilicas 
 erected, one on the place of his martyrdom (in 
 a^ro sexti). where was the Mensa Cypriani, 
 from which Augustine often preached ; the 
 other on the shore (Aug. Conf. v. ; ad Map- 
 palia. Aug. vol. vii. App. p. 37 ; ad Piscinas, 
 \'ictor Vitens. i. v. iv.). In this Monica spent 
 the night of her son's departure for Italy, 
 praying and weeping. In Sulpicius Severiis 
 [Dial. i. 3) his friend comes hither to pray on 
 his way from Narbonne to Egypt. The ador- 
 ation reached such a height that Gibbon is 
 charmed to call him " almost a local deity." 
 His feast and the gales which blew then were 
 called Cypriani (Procop. Vand. i. 20, 21 ; 
 Greg. Xaz. Or. 18, ap. Ducange, s.v.). There 
 are still on the " brink of the shore " the 
 massive ruins of a church which must be St. 
 Cyprian's. Davis (Carthage and her Remains, 
 p. 389) describes them fully, and it is not hard 
 to see how he has misled himself into not 
 recognizing what they are. The relics of 
 Cyprian were given (strange conjunction) by 
 Haroun al Raschid to Charlemagne. The 
 sequel may be seen in Ruinart, Acta Mm. 
 Cypr. § 17, and in the epistle of J. de la Haye, 
 prefixed to Pamelius's Cyprian, fol. b. 3. 
 
 Texts. — Of the MSS. and their connexions, 
 and also of the edd., a good account is given by 
 Hartel in his preface; cf. D. C. B. (4- vol. ed.). 
 Besides the ed. in Patr. Lat may be men- 
 tioned one by D. J. H. Goldhorn (Leipz. 
 1838), a useful text-book, well emended. But 
 the best ed. now is by J. Hartel (3 vols. 8vo, 
 1868-1871), in the Vienna Corpus Scriptt. Eccll. 
 Latt, which omtains all the works attributed 
 to Cyprian, with the ad Novatianum. Auctor 
 de Rebaptismate, Pontii Vita, etc., and Indices. 
 It is a new recension, for which above 40 MSS. 
 have been studied, classified, valued, and re- 
 duced to a most clear apparatus criticus, with 
 keen attention to orthography, and almost 
 always a judicious discrimination of the 
 preferable readings ; a valuable preface on 
 the principles and history of the text- 
 formation, [e.w.b.] 
 [The authoritative work on St. Cyprian is by 
 the writer of this art. English trans, of several 
 of Cyprian's works and his Epp. are given in 
 
 CYRIACUS 
 
 233 
 
 the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. \- T. Cl.irk). A 
 simple monograph on his Life and Times is 
 pub. in the cheap A. and M. Theol. Lth. 
 (Griffith) ; and an Eng. trans, of his treatise 
 On the Lord's Prayer by T. H. Bindley is pub. 
 byS.P.C.K.; the text, with trans., has been 
 ed. bv Rev. H. Gee (Bell). J 
 
 Cyra. [Marana.1 
 
 Cyriacus (19), 30'th patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, A.D. 595. He was previously presbyter 
 and steward, < Uoi^ojuos. of the great church at 
 Constantinople (Chronicon Paschale, p. 378). 
 Gregory the Great received the legates bearing 
 the synodal letters which announced his conse- 
 cration, partly from a desire not to disturb the 
 peace of the church, and partly from the per- 
 sonal respect which he entertained for Cyriac; 
 but in his reply he warned him against the 
 sin of causing divisions in the church, clearly 
 alluding to the use of the term oecumenical 
 bishop (Gregorii Ep. lib. vii. 4, Patr. Lat. 
 Ixxvii. 853). The personal feelings of Gregory 
 towards C>Tiac appear most friendly. 
 
 Cyriac did not attend to the entreaties of 
 Gregory that he would abstain from using the 
 title, for Gregory wrote afterwards both to him 
 and to the emperor Maurice, declaring that he 
 could not allow his legates to remain in com- 
 munion with Cyriac as long as he retained it. 
 In the latter of these letters he compares the 
 assumption of the title to the sin of Anti- 
 christ, since both exhibit a spirit of lawless 
 pride. " Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem 
 vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elationc sua 
 Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se 
 ceteris praeponit" (Greg.£/>.28, 30). Inalettcr 
 to Anastasius of Antioch, who had written to 
 him to remonstrate against disturbing the 
 peace of the church, Gregory defends his con- 
 duct on the ground of the injury which Cyriac 
 had done to all other patriarchs by the assump- 
 tion of the title, and reminds Anastasius that 
 not only heretics but heresiarchs had before 
 this been patriarchs of Constantinople. He 
 also deprecates the use of the term on more 
 general grounds (Ep. 24). In spite of all 
 this Cyriac was firm in his retention of the 
 title, and appears to have summoned, or to 
 have meditated summoning, a council to 
 authorize its use. For in a.d. 599 Gregory 
 wrote to Eusebius of Thcssakmica and some 
 other bishops, stating that he had heard they 
 were about to be summoned to a council at 
 Constantinople, and most urgently entreating 
 them to yield neither to force nor to persua- 
 sion, but to be steadfast in their refusal to 
 1 recognize the offensive title (ib. lib. ix. 68 in 
 Patr. Lat.). Cyriac appears to have shared in 
 that unpopularity of the emperor Maurice 
 which caused his deposition and death (Thco- 
 phan. Chron. p. 242, a.m. 6094 ; Niccph. 
 Callis. H. E. xviii. 40 ; Thcophylact. Hist. 
 viii. 9). He still, however, had influence 
 enough to exact from Phocas at his coronation 
 a confession of the orthodox faith and a pledge 
 not to disturb the church (Theoph. Chron. 
 p. 243, A.M. 6094). He also nobly resisted the 
 attempt of Phocas to drag the empress Con- 
 stantia and her daughters from their sanctuary 
 in a church of Constantinople (ib. p. 246, a.m. 
 6098). Perhaps some resentment at this op- 
 position to his will may have induced Phocas 
 to accede more readily to the claims of Boni- 
 
234 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 face III. that Rome should be considered to 
 be the head of all the church, in exclusion of 
 the claims of Constantinople to the oecumeni- 
 cal bishopric {Vita Bonifacii III. apud Labbe, 
 Acta Concil. t. v. 1615). Cyriacdied in 606, and 
 was interred in the church of the Holy Apostles 
 (Chronicon Paschale, p. 381). He appears to 
 have been a man of remarkable piety and 
 earnestness, able to win the esteem of all 
 parties. He built a church dedicated to the 
 Oeor6/fof in a street of Constantinople called 
 Diaconissa (Theoph. Chron. 233, a.m. 6090 ; 
 Niceph. Callis. H. E. xviii. 42). Fp-o.] 
 
 Cyrillus (2), KvpiWos, bp. of Jerusalem, was 
 probably born in Jerusalem or its immediate 
 neighbourhood, c. 315. His writings prove 
 that his education was liberal, and embraced 
 a large variety of subjects. Touttee has 
 laboriously collected evidences (c. ii.) of his 
 acquaintance with physics, dialectics, phy- 
 siology, mythology, etc. That he was a 
 diligent student of Holy Scripture is certain, 
 from the intimate knowledge, at least of the 
 text, shewn in his Catecheses. But he was 
 only acquainted with the LXX. His know- 
 ledge of Hebrew was only second-hand, and 
 often incorrect. He was ordained deacon 
 probably by Macarius bp. of Jerusalem, c. 335 
 (Soz. //. £.'iv. 20, where the "text is doubtful), 
 and priest by his successor Maximus, c. 345. 
 Maximus, notwithstanding Cyril's youth, en- 
 trusted him with the responsible duty of 
 instructing catechumens, and preparing them 
 for baptism. He also allowed him the ex- 
 ceptional privilege, sometimes granted by 
 bishops to presbyters of eminent ability (e.s- 
 to Chrysostom by Flavian of Antioch, and to 
 Augustine by Valerius of Hippo), of preaching 
 to the people in full church on the Lord's 
 Day. In his office of catechist, c. 347, C\Til 
 delivered the catechetical lectures by which 
 his name is chiefly known (Hieron. de Vir. 
 Illusi. § 12). These lectures were preached 
 without book on the evenings of the weeks of 
 Lent, in the basilica of the Holy Cross, or 
 Martyrium, erected on Calvary by St. Helena. 
 His references to the locality are numerous and 
 interesting (e.?. iv. 10-14, x. 19, xiii. 4, 22, 39, 
 xviii. 33). The five mystagogical lectures 
 were addressed during Easter-week at noon to 
 those baptized on Easter-eve in the Anastasis, 
 or church of the Holy Sepulchre. 
 
 The episcopate of Maximus terminated at 
 the close of 350 or the beginning of 351, and 
 Cyril was chosen to fill the episcopal chair of 
 Jerusalem. A cloud of doubt and difficulty 
 hangs over his elevation to the episcopate. 
 Jerome can hardly have been mistaken as to 
 the main fact, though theological prejudice 
 and personal dislike may have warped his 
 judgment and caused him to represent the 
 case in the least favourable light. On some 
 leading questions Cyril and Jerome were 
 decidedly opposed. In the great controversy 
 of the day C\Til belonged to the Asiatic partv, 
 Jerome to that of Rome. In the Meletian 
 schism at Antioch also they took opposite 
 sides : Cyril supporting ISIeletius, Jerome be- 
 ing a warm adherent of Paulinus. Jerome 
 asserts [Chronicon ad ann. 349) that on the 
 death of Maximus the Arians invaded the 
 church of Jerusalem and promised to appoint 
 C)Til to the vacant throne if he would re- 
 
 CYMLLUS 
 
 pudiate his ordination by Maximus ; that 
 C\Til consented to the humiliating terms, 
 served some time in the church as a deacon, 
 and was then rewarded with the episcopate 
 by Acacius, the semi-Arian bp. of Caesarea, 
 and according to the seventh Nicene canon 
 metropolitan of Palestine ; that Cyril then 
 dishonourably persecuted Heraclius, whom 
 Maximus, on his deathbed, had nominated his 
 successor, and degraded him to the prcsbyter- 
 ate. This account is supported by Ruiinus 
 [H. E. i. 23, " Sacerdotio, confusa jam or- 
 dinatione, suscepto "). Socrates and Sozo- 
 men, though they say nothing of CyTil's re- 
 pudiation of his orders, are almost equally 
 unfavourable to his orthodoxy, identifying 
 him with the semi-.Arian party of Acacius and 
 Patrophilus. They also introduce a new 
 element of confusion by the statement that 
 the see of Jerusalem was vacant not by death, 
 but by Maximus's deposition and expulsion 
 by the semi- Arians (Socr. ii. 38 ; Soz. iv. 20 ; 
 Theophan. Chronograph, p. 34). This may 
 safely be rejected. In refutation of Jerome's 
 account, Cyril's advocates triumphantly point 
 to the synodical letter to pope Damasus of the 
 bishops assembled at Constantinople, the year 
 after the second oecumenical synod, a.d. 
 382, which speaks of C>Til in terms of high 
 eulogy, as a champion of the orthodox faith 
 against Arian heresy, and affirms his canonical 
 election to the see of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. 
 V. 9). But this does not touch the point 
 at issue. Acacius was the metropolitan of 
 C\Tirs province. He and his fellow-bishops 
 were, notwithstanding their heretical bias, 
 the legitimate authorities for conferring the 
 episcopate. C>Tirs election and consecration 
 was therefore strictly canonical. Besides, the 
 silence of the members of the synod as to facts 
 occurring 30 years before does not disprove 
 them. Whatever might have been Cyril's 
 earlier heretical failings, he was on the ortho- 
 dox side then (cf- Socr. v. 8, and Soz. vii. 7). 
 His adhesion was valuable, and it would have 
 been as impolitic as it was needless to revive 
 an almost forgotten scandal. Yet CjTil's 
 own writings quite forbid us to follow Jerome's 
 authority in classing him with the Arians, or 
 charging him with heretical tenets. Circum- 
 stances might render his orthodoxy equivocal. 
 His early patron, Maximus, was somewhat of 
 a waverer. His friends and associates were 
 semi- Arians, and he was chosen to the episco- 
 pate by them, with the hope of his supporting 
 their cause. But no error of doctrine is to be 
 discovered in his wTitings, though he avoids 
 the test word " horaoousion " in his cate- 
 cheses. He is well characterized by the Due 
 de Broglie (VEglise et V Empire, iii. 402) as 
 " formant Fextremite de I'aile droite du Semi- 
 arianisme touchant a I'orthodoxie, ou de I'aile 
 gauche de I'orthodoxie touchant au Semi- 
 arianisme," and may be regarded, certainly 
 in the later part of his life, as one of those of 
 whom Athanasius speaks {de Synod. 41) as 
 " brothers who mean what we mean, and only 
 differ about the word." The first year of 
 Cvril's episcopate was rendered memorable by 
 the appearance. May 7, 35 1, of a remarkable 
 parhelion, or other atmospheric phenomenon, 
 over Jerusalem, which was regarded as a 
 miraculous manifestation of the symbol of 
 
CYRILLUS 
 
 redemption intended to establish the faith and 
 confute gainsayers, and produced great excite- 
 ment in the city. The churches were thronged 
 with worshippers, and many Jews and Gen- 
 tiles were converted to the faith. So important 
 did the phenomenon appear to Cyril that he 
 wrote to the emperor Constantius describing 
 it. This letter has been jircscrved. Its 
 authenticity has been called in question by 
 Rivet, but the internal evidence from the 
 similarity of style is strong, and it is accepted 
 by Blondel. The occurrence of the word 
 " homoousion " at the close of the letter is, 
 however, suspicious, and leads us to question 
 whether the prayer for the emperor in which 
 it stands is not a later addition (Soz. iv. 3 ; 
 Philostorg. iii. 26; Chron. Alex. p. 678; 
 Theophan. p. 35 a). If Acacius had reck- 
 oned on Cyril as a faithful adherent and ready 
 instrument in carrying out his plans, the fal- 
 lacy of his expectations was very soon shewn. 
 Scarcely had Cyril established himself in his 
 see when a distressing controversy, which be- 
 came the source of much evil to the church, 
 arose as to the claim to priority of their re- 
 spective sees (Theod. ii. 25 ; Soz. iv. 25). 
 Cyril grounded his claim on the apostolical 
 rank of his see, Acacius on the decision of the 
 council of Nice (Can. vii.), which placed the 
 bp. of Aelia — i.e. Jerusalem — under the bp. 
 of Caesarea as metropolitan. This contest 
 for pre-eminence was speedily embittered by 
 mutual accusations of heterodoxy (Soz. iv. 
 25). For two years Acacius continued vainly 
 summoning Cyril to his tribunal, and at last 
 cut the controversy short by deposing him 
 from his see (Soz. u.s., 357 or 358) at a small 
 packed synod of his own adherents. The 
 ostensible grounds were very trivial : con- 
 tumacy in refusing to appear, and the charge 
 — afterwards brought against Ambrose by the 
 Arians — of having sold some of the church 
 ornaments during a prevailing scarcity to 
 supply the wants of the poor (Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. 
 iv. 25 ; Theod. ii. 26 ; Epiphan. Haeres. Ixxiii. 
 §§ 23-27), and also of having held communion 
 with Eustathius and Elpidius after their de- 
 position by the synod of Melitina, in Lesser 
 Armenia (Soz. m.s. ; Basil. Ep. 253 [74]). 
 Cyril was forced to yield. He left his see, not, 
 however, without an appeal to a larger council, 
 the justice of which was allowed by Constan- 
 tius. This is noted by Socrates (ii. 40) as the 
 first instance of an appeal against the decision 
 of an ecclesiastical synod. On leaving Jeru- 
 salem Cyril first retired to Antioch and 
 thence to Tarsus, where he was hospitably 
 received by the bp. Silvanus, one of the best 
 of the semi-Arians, who availed himself of 
 Cvril's powers as a preacher. We find him 
 also here in communion and friendship with 
 other leading members of the same party, 
 Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and 
 George of Laodicea (Soz. iv. 25 ; Philost. iv. 
 12). The enmity of Acacius pursued his rival. 
 Silvanus was warned against holding com- 
 munion with one who had been deposed for 
 contumacy and other crimes. But Cyril had 
 gained great popularity at Tarsus by his 
 sermons, the people would not hear of his 
 leaving them, and Silvanus declined to attend 
 to the admonition (Theod. M.S.). Nearly 
 two years after his deposition, Sept. 359, Cyril 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 235 
 
 laid his appeal before the coimcil of Seleucia, 
 at which he took his place among the semi- 
 Arians. Acacius vehemently protested against 
 his admission to the council. " If Cyril did 
 not leave the synod, he must." Some of the 
 bishops, in the cause of peace, begged Cyril 
 to yield, at least temporarily, till his appeal 
 had been heard. Cyril refused, and Acacius 
 quitted the council, but soon returned, and 
 took a leading part in the subsequent stormy 
 debates. The semi-Arians who were opposed 
 to Acacius were in the ascendant. Acacius 
 was himself deposed, and Cyril restored 
 (Theod. ii. 26 ; Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. iv. 22 ; 
 Philost. iv. 12). Acacius and his friends at 
 once started for the capital, where they easily 
 persuaded the weak Constantius to summon a 
 fresh council. Fresh accusations were added 
 to those formerly adduced. The charge of 
 sacrilegiously disposing of the church goods 
 was revived, and the emperor's indignation 
 was excited by hearing that a baptismal robe 
 of gold brocade, presented by his father Con- 
 stantine to Macarius, which had been sold, had 
 unfortunately found its way into the ward- 
 robe of a theatre, and been recognized on the 
 stage. Acacius's arts prevailed, and Cyril was 
 a second time banished (Socr. ii. 42 ; Soz. iv. 
 25 ; Theod. ii. 27). 
 
 On the accession of Julian, 361, Cyril was 
 reinstated, together with all the exiled bishops 
 (Socr. iv. I ; Soz. u.s. ; Theod. iii. 4 ; Amm. 
 Marcell. xxii. 5). At Jerusalem Cyril calmly 
 watched the attempts of Julian to rebuild the 
 Temple, and foretold that it must fail (Socr. 
 iii. 20 ; Rufinus, i. 37). 
 
 During the reign of the orthodox Jovian 
 Cyril's episcopate was undisturbed, and the 
 accession of Valens and Valentinian found 
 him in quiet possession of his see, 364. In 
 366 Acacius died, and Cyril immediately 
 claimed the nomination to the see of Caesarea, 
 and appointed Philomenus. Philomenus was 
 deposed by the Eutychian faction, and another 
 Cyril substituted. He, in return, was deposed 
 by Cyril of Jerusalem, who consecrated his 
 sister's son Gelasius in his room, a.d. 367 
 (Epiphan. Haer. Ixxiii. 37). In 367 Cyril 
 was a third time deposed and exiled, with all 
 the prelates recalled by Julian, by the edict of 
 the Arian Valens (Socr. ii. 45 ; Soz. iv. 30 ; 
 Epiph. Haer. Ixvi. 20). His banishment 
 lasted till Valens died and Theodosius suc- 
 ceeded, Jan. 19, 370, when he reoccupied his 
 see, which he retained quietly for the 8 
 remaining years of his life (Hieron. Vir. III. 
 c. 112; Socr. V. 3 ; Soz. vii. 2). On his return 
 he found Jerusalem rent with schisms, infested 
 with almost every form of heresy, and polluted 
 bv the most flagrant crimes. To combat these 
 evils he appealed to the council held at An- 
 tioch, 379, which dispatched Gregory Nyssen 
 to his aid. But the disease was too deeply 
 seated to admit of an easy or speedy remedy. 
 Gregory departed hopeless of a cure, and in 
 his Warning against Pilgrimages drew a dark 
 picture of the de|)ravation of morals in the 
 Holv City (de Euntibus Hieros. p. 636). In 
 381 Cvrilwas present at the second oecumeni- 
 cal council held at Constantinni)le, when he 
 took rank with the chief metropolitans, the 
 bps. of Alexandria and Antioch. He there 
 declared his full adhesion to the Nicene faith. 
 
236 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 and his acceptance of the test word " homo- 
 ousion " (Socr. iv. 8 ; Soz. iv. 7). 
 
 Cyril died Mar. 18, 386 (Socr. v. 15 ; Soz. 
 vii. 14 ; Bolland. Mar. 18, p. 625 b). He was 
 bp. of Jerusalem for 35 years, 16 of which he 
 passed in exile. 
 
 His works consist of 18 " Catechetical lec- 
 tures " addressed to catechumens {KaTvxvo^^'-^ 
 (purr L ^o fie vwv), and 5 "Mystagogical lectures" to 
 the newly baptized If^varayoyyiKal Karrixvc'd-^ 
 irpoi rev's vfofpuricrrovi)- These were com- 
 posed in his youth (a? ff rrj veoTijTL avvera^fv, 
 Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 112), c. 347, while still 
 a presbyter. The " Catechetical lectures " 
 possess considerable interest as the earliest 
 example extant of a formal system of theo- 
 logy ; from their testimony to the canon of 
 Scripture, the teaching of the church on the 
 chief articles of the creed, and on the sacra- 
 ments ; and from the light they throw on the 
 ritual of the 4th cent. The perfect agreement 
 of his teaching, as Dr. Newman remarks (Lib. 
 of the Fathers, vol. ii. part i. pp. ix.-x.), as 
 regards the Trinity, with the divines of the 
 Athanasian school, is of great weight in deter- 
 mining the true doctrine of the early church on 
 that fundamental question, and relieves Cyril 
 from all suspicion of heterodoxy. But his 
 Catecheses do not rank high as argumentative 
 or expository work, nor has C^Til any claim 
 to a place among the masters of Christian 
 thought, whose uTitings form the permanent 
 riches of the church. 
 
 All previous editions of his works were sur- 
 passed by the Benedictine ed. of A. A. Touttee 
 (Paris, 1720, fol., and Venice, 1761, fol.). The 
 introduction contains very elaborate and 
 exhaustive dissertations on his life, wTitings, 
 and doctrines. These are reprinted in Migne's 
 Patrologia, vol. xxxiii. 
 
 The chief modern authorities for CvtH's life 
 and doctrines are Touttee, u.s. ; Till'em. Me- 
 moires Eccles. vol. viii. ; Cave, Historia Lit. i. 
 211, 212 ; Schrockh, Kirchengeschichte, xii. 
 343 seq. ; Newman, preface to the Oxf. trans.. 
 Lib. of the Fathers, ii. i. Newman's trans, 
 was carefully revised by Dr. E. H. Gifford in 
 the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 
 (1894), and furnished with a very important 
 introduction. [e.v.] 
 
 Cyrillus (7), St., archbp. of Alexandria. He 
 was a native of Alexandria, and had learned 
 theology under monastic discipline in " the 
 desert." During this period he had been re- 
 proved by Isidore of Pelusium, who was for years 
 his venerated monitor, for occupving himself, 
 even in " solitude," with worldlv thoughts and 
 interests (Isid. Ep. i. 25) ; and it is evident 
 from his whole career that so strong a will and 
 so vehement a nature could never be thor- 
 oughly satisfied with a life of contemplation. 
 After five years' abode in mount Nitria, his 
 uncle, the then archbp. Theophilus, summoned 
 him to Alexandria, where he was ordained, 
 and expounded and preached with great 
 reputation (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 226). Theo- 
 philus died Oct. 15, a.d. 412. Cxxil was put 
 forward for the vacant chair ; and after a 
 tumultuous contest was enthroned, three days 
 after his uncle's death. (See his first Paschal 
 homily.) His episcopate, begun in trouble 
 and discord, seemed at first to forebode 
 nothing better than a course of violent and 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 untempered zeal, as if the fierce spirit cf 
 Theophilus were governing his conduct. He 
 shut up the chamberof the Novatianists, took 
 away their " sacred treasure," and deprived 
 their bishop, Theopemptus, of all his property 
 (Socr. vii. 7). He then made an attack upon 
 the large body of Jewish residents. They 
 had provoked him by implacable hostility. 
 One Hierax, a schoolmaster, always foremost 
 in applauding Cyril's sermons, was denounced 
 by the Jews as an encourager of sedition when 
 he was in the theatre at the promulgation of 
 a prefectorial edict. Orestes, the prefect, who 
 hated Cyril as a formidable rival potentate, 
 had Hierax publicly tortured in the theatre. 
 Cyril thereupon tried the effect of menaces on 
 the principal Jews of Alexandria. This only 
 increased their bitterness ; they began to 
 organize plots against the Christians ; and 
 one night a cry rang through the streets that 
 " Alexander's ' church was on fire." The 
 Christians rushed to save their sanctuary : 
 the Jews, recognizing each other, as pre- 
 arranged, by rings made from the bark of 
 palm branches, slew the Christians whom they 
 met. At daybreak C>Til, at the head of an 
 immense crowd, took forcible possession of 
 the s\Tiagogues, expelled the Jews from the 
 city and abandoned their property to plunder. 
 Orestes, naturally indignant, complained to 
 the emperor, Theodosius II., then a boy of 
 fourteen. C\Til addressed to the court an 
 account of the Jewish outrages, and, at the 
 suggestion of the people, endeavoured to 
 pacify the prefect. Orestes would not listen. 
 Cyril extended to him, as a form of solemn 
 appeal, the book of the Gospels ; it might well 
 have occurred to Orestes that the archbishop 
 had forgotten some of its precepts when he 
 in person led a multitude of Christian zealots 
 to revenge one violence by another. The 
 gifted female philosopher, Hypatia, the boast 
 of Alexandrian paganism, was dragged from 
 her carriage into the great Caesarean church, 
 where her body was torn to pieces. This 
 hideous crime, done in a sacred place and in 
 a sacred season — it was the Lent of 415 — 
 brought, as Socrates expresses it (vii. 15), "no 
 small reproach on CtoI and the church of the 
 Alexandrians." Was this foul murder 
 what Gibbon calls it, an " exploit of C^Til's " ? 
 Did he take any part in it, or approve it ex 
 post facto ? It has been said that " Cvnril was 
 suspected, even by the orthodox, of comphcity 
 in the murder" (Stanley's Led. on East. Ch. 
 293). Socrates, as sympathizing with the 
 Novatianists, has been considered to do C3Til 
 less than justice ; but he does not suggest 
 such a suspicion against him, or against the 
 whole church of Alexandria. He says, fairly, 
 that this church and its chief pastor were to 
 some extent disgraced by such a deed of 
 members of it. As for Damascius's assertion 
 that Cyril really prompted the murder (Suidas, 
 p. 1059), we cannot consider as evidence the 
 statement of a pagan philosopher who lived 
 about 130 years after the event, and was a 
 thorough hater of Christianity. We are 
 justified in regarding it, with Canon Robertson 
 {Hist. Ch. i. 401), as " an unsupported 
 calumny " ; but, as he adds, " the perpetrators 
 were mostly officers of his church, and had 
 unquestionably derived encouragement from 
 
CYRILLUS 
 
 Cyril's earlier proceedings ; and his character 
 deservedly sutlered in consequence." The 
 turbulent and furious " parabolani " and 
 others, who shed Hypatia's blood at the foot 
 of the altar, were but " bettering the instruc- 
 tion " which had let them loose upon the 
 synagogues. Cyril's name has paid dearly 
 for the error, and the great doctrinal cause 
 which he upheld so stoutly in after-years has 
 suffered for the faults of his earlier life. 
 
 It was but natural that the government 
 should the next year restrain the clergy from 
 pohtical action, especially by restrictions on 
 the number and conduct of the parabolani. 
 
 Cyril had inherited his uncle's animosity 
 against John Chrysostom, who, in his opinion, 
 had been canonically deposed ; he rejected 
 with bitterness the advice of Atticus of Con- 
 stantinople to place " John's " name on his 
 church diptychs (Ep. p. 204) ; and it was not 
 until after the memory of that persecuted 
 saint had been rehabilitated at Constantinople 
 as well as at Antioch that the archbp. of 
 Alexandria, urged by Isidore of Pelusium 
 (Isid. i. 370), consented in 417 to follow these 
 precedents. (See Tillemont, xiv. 281.) 
 
 We pass over several uneventful years, 
 during which C>Ti] doubtless occupied him- 
 self in ordinary church affairs and in theo- 
 logical literature, and come to the great con- 
 troversy with which his name is pre-eminently 
 associated. In the end of 428 he became 
 aware of the excitement caused in Constan- 
 tinople by the preaching of archbp. Nestorius. 
 The hne of thought which Nestorius had 
 entered upon (under the influence, as it seems, 
 of Theodore of Mopsuestia) led him to ex- 
 plain away the mystery of the Incarnation by 
 reducing it to a mere association between the 
 Eternal Word and a human Christ. The 
 Alexandrian see had agents at Constantinople, 
 and the denial, by Nestorius and his supporters, 
 of the strict personal oneness between " Ciod 
 the Word " and the Son of Mary — expressed 
 by the formula, " Let no one call Mary Theo- 
 tokos " — was an event which was certain to 
 excite the vigilant zeal of a prelate like Cyril, 
 opposed, alike by temperament and ante- 
 cedents, to whatever undermined the myste- 
 rious majesty of the Christian faith. Very 
 early in Jan. 429 Cyril dealt with the subject 
 in his Paschal letter or homily, the 17th of the 
 series ; in which, while affirming with great 
 vividness and emphasis the reality and per- 
 manence of Christ's manhood, he enforced the 
 singleness of his Divine Personality, and 
 applied to His human mother, in two distinct 
 passages, a phrase even stronger than "Theo- 
 tokos " — MTTTip HeoD. About the end of Apr. 
 429, when the controversial sermons of Nes- 
 torius — exhibiting no little confusion of 
 thought, but clearly indicating a disbelief in 
 what is theologically termed the Personal 
 Union — had reached Egyptian monks, Cyril 
 wrote to all who within his jurisdiction were 
 " practising the solitary life," a long letter, 
 upholding the term "Theotokos" in its true 
 sense, as not meaning " mother of the God- 
 head," but niuther, as regarded the manhood, 
 of Him Wlio, being in the form of God, as- 
 sumed the form of a servant, and, being the 
 Lord of Glory, condescended to suffer the 
 death of the cross. If it was true, Cyril 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 237 
 
 argued, that Jesus Christ was God, it was by 
 consequence not less true that His mother 
 was "Theotokos.'' If she was not rightly so 
 called, her Son was a human individual ex- 
 ternal to the divine nature, and not in a true 
 sense Emmanuel. This letter cites at length 
 the Nicene Creed in its original form, ignoring 
 the alterations made by the council of Con- 
 stantinople, and insisting that the creed 
 identified Jesus Christ with the Divine Co- 
 essential Son. Nestorius was much dis- 
 pleased at the reception given to this letter by 
 some official persons at Constantinople. He 
 ordered one Photius to answer it, and en- 
 couraged some Alexandrians residing at the 
 imperial city, who had been rebuked by Cyril 
 for gross offences, to prefer complaints against 
 him (Mansi, iv. 1003, 887). On the other 
 hand, Cyril, having also been interrogated by 
 Celestine of Rome as to the genuineness of 
 Nestorius's sermons, wrote his first letter to 
 Nestorius (Cyr. Ep. p. 19 ; Mansi, iv. 883), 
 the point of which was that the prevailing 
 excitement had been caused, not by the letter 
 to the monks of Egypt, but by Nestorius's 
 own refusal to allow to Christ's mother a title 
 which was the symbol of her Son's real 
 Divinity. Cyril also referred to a work On 
 the Holy and Co-essential Trinity, which he 
 himself had written in the lifetime of Nes- 
 torius's predecessor Atticus, and in which he 
 had used language on the Incarnation which 
 harmonized with his letter to the monks. 
 Nestorius replied very briefly, and in a 
 courteous tone ; although he intimated dislike 
 of what he deemed harsh in Cyril's letter (Cyr. 
 Ep. p. 21 ; Mansi, iv. 885). He evidently did 
 not wish to quarrel with the see of Alexandria, 
 although he practised considerable severities 
 on monks of his own city who withstood him 
 to the face. Cyril, too, was not forward to 
 press the controversy to extremes. During 
 the latter part of 429 he was even blamed 
 by some for inactivity. But he may have 
 written at this period, as Garnier thinks, his 
 " Scholia," or " Notes," on the Incarnation of 
 the Only-begotten (Mar. Merc. ii. 216), and in 
 Feb. 430 (probably after hearing how Nestor- 
 ius had upheld a bishop named Dorotheus in 
 his anathema against the word "Theotokos") 
 he wrote, in synod, a second Ep. to Nes- 
 torius — the letter which became a symbolic 
 treatise sanctioned by general councils. (See 
 it in Cyr. Ep. p. 22 ; Mansi, iv. 887 ; of. 
 Tillemont, xiv. 338). Nothing can be more 
 definite and luminous than his disclaimer of 
 all Apollinarian notions, which had been 
 imputed by Nestorius to those who confessed 
 the " Theotokos " ; his explanation of the 
 idea intended by that phrase ; his peremptory 
 exclusion of the theory of a mere association 
 as distinct frcjin a hypostatic or personal union, 
 and his not less emphatic assertion of the dis- 
 tinctness of the natures thus brought together 
 in the one Christ. " Not that the difference 
 of the natures was annulled by the union, but 
 rather that one Godhead and Manhood con- 
 stituted the one Lord Jesus Christ, by their 
 ineffable concurrence into unity. . . . Thus 
 we confess one Christ and Lord." The answer 
 of Nestorius was characterized by ignoratio 
 elenchi, and could not be regarded as a satis- 
 factory statement of belief (Cyr. Ep. p. 25 ; 
 
238 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 Mansi, iv. 891). Cyril wrote another letter to 
 some of his own clergy resident at Constanti- 
 nople ; the Nestorian argument from the im- 
 passibility of the Godhead he put aside as not 
 to the purpose ; and charged Nestorianism 
 with making two Christs and two Sons (Cyr. 
 Ep. p. 32 ; Mansi, iv. 1003). This letter re- 
 cognizes the proverbial eloquence of " John " 
 Chrysostom, and expresses the writer's desire 
 for peace, if peace could be had without a 
 sacrifice of truth. He disapproved of a draft 
 petition to the emperor, sent him by these 
 clerics, as too vehement. In a similar strain 
 he wrote to a common friend of Nestorius and 
 himself, declaring earnestly that he cared for 
 nothing so much as the faith, and desired that 
 Nestorius might be preserved from the charge 
 of heresy (Cyr. Ep. p. 31 ; Mansi, iv. 899). A 
 long letter " On the Right Faith," which he 
 wrote about the same time to the emperor 
 Theodosius, contained an elaborate survey of 
 former heresies, and of the error now spreading 
 in the church (Cyr. tom. v. par. 2 ; Mansi, 
 iv. 617). Cyril's keen-eyed speculative ortho- 
 doxy did not stand coldly apart from all care 
 for practical religion. He felt the vital im- 
 portance of his cherished doctrme in its 
 bearings on the Christian life ; he urged in 
 this treatise that if the Word were not per- 
 sonally incarnate, i.e. if the human Teacher 
 and Sufferer were not really one with the 
 eternal Son of God, the faith of Christian men 
 would be made void, the work of their salva- 
 tion annihilated, and the cross lose its virtue. 
 For the very principle of Christian redemption 
 lay in this, that it was one and the same " Ego" 
 Who, possessing, by virtue of His incarnation, 
 at once a divine and a human sphere of exist- 
 ence, could be at once the God of mankind 
 and the Saviour Who died for them. In 
 c. 21 he dwells, in pursuance of this idea, 
 on the death of Christ as being a full 
 satisfaction (b^fjov d\)]6wt olvtcl^iov). This 
 treatise contains an argument on which Cyril 
 was never weary of insisting : it was particu- 
 larly congenial to the depth and awe, the 
 richness and the tenderness, of his thoughts 
 on the great mystery of incorporation into 
 Christ. From the admitted truth that the 
 flesh of Christ was received in the Eucharist 
 as life-giving, he argued that it must be, in a 
 real sense, the flesh of God. In c. 6 of the 
 treatise, he says that Nestorians would not 
 have erred by dwelling simply on the differ- 
 ence between the natures of " God " and 
 " flesh " — that difference was undeniable ; 
 but they went on to assert an individual and 
 separate being for the man Jesus as apart 
 from the Divine Word, and this was the very 
 point of their heresy. In c. 27 he rises to 
 almost Chrysostomic eloquence when he sets 
 forth the superangelic greatness involved in 
 the idea of " the Lord of Glory." Another 
 treatise, in two books, was addressed to the 
 princesses, Pulcheria, the gifted sister of the 
 feeble emperor, Arcadia, and Marina (Cyr. 
 tom. V. par. 2 ; Mansi, iv. 679 seq.). In bk. i. 
 he argued at length from Scripture for the 
 oneness and Divinity of Christ, for His position 
 as the true object of faith, and for His office 
 as life-giver and atoner ; and among the 
 texts he urged were Heb. i. 3, 6, xiii. 8 ; Tit. 
 ii. 13 : I. Cor. ii. 8 ; II. Cor. viii. 9 ; Eph. iii. 
 
 CYMLLUS 
 
 17 ; Gal. i. i ; Phil. ii. 6 ; Matt. xi. 28, xvi. 
 16, 20 ; John i. 14, xvii. 3 ; I. John v. 5 (with- 
 out the words about the " heavenly wit- 
 nesses "). He laid great stress on the vastness 
 of the claim advanced by and for Christ in 
 Scripture, and on the unreasonableness of 
 demanding so absolute an obedience if He 
 were not personally Divine. He asked how 
 the death of a mere man could be of such 
 importance for the race ? Many a saint had 
 lived and died, but not one by dying had 
 become the saviour of his fellows. He quoted 
 nine passages from earlier writers in support 
 of the term " Theotokos," or of the doctrine 
 which it guarded. In bk. ii. he explained 
 texts relied on by Nestorians, including parts 
 of Heb. ii. and Matt, xxvii. 46, Luke ii. 40, 52, 
 John iv. 22, Mark xii. 32 ; in the last text 
 seeming to recognize, as he does elsewhere 
 (though sometimes favouring a different view), 
 a limitation of knowledge in Christ's manhood, 
 analogous to His submission, in His human 
 sphere, to pain and want, and consistent with 
 a perpetual omniscience in His Divine consci- 
 ousness (ad Regin. ii. 17). In accordance 
 with the emphatic assertion (ii. 7) of the value 
 imparted to Christ's death by His Divinity, 
 the work concludes with " for all our hope is 
 in Christ, by Whom and with Whom," etc. 
 
 In these treatises, if some texts are strained 
 beyond their natural meaning, there is yet a 
 remarkable exhibition of acuteness and' fer- 
 tility of thought, pervaded and quickened by 
 what Dorner calls Cyril's " warm interest " 
 in Christianity as a religion. Probably c. 
 Apr. 430 Cyril answered the letter of the 
 Roman bishop, received a year before (Ep. 
 p. 26) ; he informed him that the main body 
 of the faithful of Constantinople (acting on 
 the principle fully recognized in the ancient 
 church, that loyalty to the faith was a higher 
 duty than ecclesiastical subordination) were 
 holding off from the communion of Nestorius, 
 but greatly needed support and countenance ; 
 and in very deferential terms asked Celestine 
 to say whether any fellowship could be 
 maintained by orthodox bishops with one 
 who was disseminating heresy (Mansi, iv. 
 ion). With this letter he sent a series of 
 passages illustrative of what Nestorius held 
 and of what church-writers had taught, trans- 
 lated into Latin " as well as Alexandrians 
 could " perform such a task, and to be shewn 
 by his messenger Posidonius to Celestine, if 
 the latter had received anything from Nes- 
 torius. One other letter of Cyril's belongs to 
 the summer of 430 : he addressed himself to 
 the aged Acacius, bp. of Berrhoea, who com- 
 municated the letter to John, patriarch of 
 Antioch, but informed Cyril that many who 
 had come to Syria, fresh from the preaching 
 of Nestorius, were disposed to think him not 
 committed to heresy. It is observable that 
 Cyril tells Acacius that some had been led on 
 by Nestorianism into an express denial that 
 Christ was God (see Mansi, iv. 1053). 
 
 We now reach a landmark in the story. On 
 Aug. II, 430, Celestme, having held a synod 
 which pronounced Nestorius heretical, gave 
 Cyril a stringent commission (see this letter in 
 Mansi, iv. 1017) to " join the authority of the 
 Roman see to his own " in warning Nestorius 
 that unless a wTitten retractation were exe- 
 
CYRILLUS 
 
 cutcd within ten days, giving assurance of his 
 accepting the faith as to " Christ our Clod," 
 which was held by the churches of Koine and 
 Alexandria, he would be excluded from the 
 communion of those churches, and " i>n>vi- 
 sion " would be made by them for tlu- churdi 
 of Constantinople, i.e. by the appointment of 
 an orthodox bishop. Had Cyril been as vio- 
 lent and imperious as he is often said to have 
 been, he would not have deferred by a single 
 day the carrying out of these instructions. 
 But he took time to assemble, at Alexandria, 
 a " council of all Egypt," and then, probably 
 on Mon. Nov. 3, 430, wrote his third Letter to 
 Nestorius {Ep. p. 57 ; Mansi, iv. 1067 ; Routh, 
 .Scr. Op. ii. 17), in which he required him to 
 anathematize his errors, and added a long 
 dogmatic exposition of the true sense of the 
 Nicene Creed, with a careful disclaimer of all 
 confusion between Godhead and manhood. 
 To this letter were appended 12 " articles," or 
 " chapters," anathematizing the various 
 points of the Nestorian theory — e.g. that 
 Emmanuel is not really God, and Mary not 
 Theotokos ; that the Word was not personally 
 joined to fiesh ; that there was a " connexion " 
 of two persons ; that Christ is a " God-bearing 
 man " ; that He was a separate individual 
 acted on by the Word, and called " God " 
 along with Him ; that His Flesh was not the 
 Word's own ; that the Word did not suffer 
 death in the flesh. These propositions were 
 not well calculated to reclaim Nestorius ; nor 
 were they, indeed, so worded throughout as to 
 approve themselves to all who essentially 
 agreed with Cyril as to the Personal Deity of 
 Christ, and he' was afterwards obliged to put 
 forth explanations of their meaning. Cyril 
 WTote two other letters to the clergy, laity, and 
 monks of Constantinople, urging them to con- 
 tend, or praising them for having already 
 contended, for that faith in Christ's true God- 
 head of which " Theotokos " was the recog- 
 nized expression (Mansi, iv. 1094). Four 
 bishops were sent from Alexandria to bear the 
 synodal documents to Constantinople and 
 deliver the anathemas to Nestorius in his 
 palace, after the conclusion of the Eucharistic 
 service, either on Sun. Nov. 30, 430, or Sun. 
 Dec. 7. Nestorius met the denunciations of 
 the Alexandrian synod by enlisting several 
 Eastern bishops in his cause, including John 
 of Antioch, and Theodoret, who accused Cyril 
 of Apollinarianism ; by preaching in an ortho- 
 dox strain to his own people, and by framing 
 12 anathemas of his own, some of which 
 betrayed confusion of thought, while some 
 tended directly to confirm the charges against 
 his teaching — e.g. he would not allow Em- 
 manuel to be called Very God. Theodoret, 
 whose views on the subject were not as yet 
 clear or consistent, composed a reply to Cyril. 
 Andrew of Samosata, in the name of the 
 " Eastern " bishops properly so called, also 
 entered the lists against the great theologian 
 of Egypt, who answered both his new antag- 
 onists in an Apology for the 12 articles (Mansi, 
 V. 19), and a Defence of them against Theo- 
 doret's objections, the latter addressed to a 
 bishop named Euoptius (Mansi. v. 81). These 
 treatises threw light on the state of mind to 
 which Cyril's anathemas had seemed so offen- 
 sive. The Easterns, or Andrew speaking in 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 239 
 
 their name, exhibit some reniark.d>le misron- 
 ceptions of Cyril's meaning— »•.«. they tax him 
 with denying Christ's flesh to be of real human 
 derivation ; but they absolutely disclaim the 
 view which would make Jesus merely a prc- 
 enunent saint, and thev speak of "worship 
 being due to the One Son. Theodoret uses 
 nmch language which is prinui facie Nestorian ; 
 his t)bjections are pervaded by an ie.noratio 
 elenchi, and his language is repeatedly illogical 
 and inconsistent ; but he and Cvril were 
 essentially nearer in belief than, at the time, 
 they would have admitted (Hooker, v. 53, 4), 
 for Theodoret virtually owns the personal 
 oneness, and explains the phrase " God as- 
 sumed man " by " He assumed manhood." 
 Both writers speak severely of each other : 
 Theodoret calls Cyril a wolf, and Cyril treats 
 Theodoret as a calumniator. Cyril, in his 
 Reply to the Easterns and in his letter to Euop- 
 tius, earnestly disclaims both forms of Apollin- 
 arianism — the notion of a mindless manhood 
 in Christ, and the notion of a body formed out 
 of Godhead. The latter, he says', is excluded 
 by John i. 14. In the reply (on art. 4) he 
 admits " the language appropriate to each 
 nature." Cyril points out the confusions of 
 thought which had misled Theodoret as to 
 " God " and " Godhead " ; insists that the 
 eternal Son, retaining His divine dignity and 
 perfections, condescended to assume the limita- 
 tions of manhood ; and so {ad Eiiopt. 4, as in 
 ad Regin. ii. 17, etc.) explains Mark xii. 32, 
 and says, with a touch of devotional tender- 
 ness particularly refreshing amid the clash of 
 polemics, " He wept as man, that He might 
 stop thee from weeping. He is said to have 
 been weak as to His manhood, that He might 
 put an end to thy weakness " (ad Euopt. 10). 
 He adhered with characteristic definiteness 
 to the point really involved — the question 
 whether Jesus were a human individual (to be 
 viewed iotvtD?, as he repeatedly says), or 
 whether He were the Divine Son Himself 
 appearing in human form and occupying, 
 without prejudice to His inalienable and pre- 
 existent majesty, a human sphere of existence. 
 In the former case, the Son of Mary must be 
 regarded simply as a very highly favoured 
 saint, and Christianity loses its distinctive 
 power and preciousness ; in the latter case, 
 He is a Divine Redeemer, and Christianity is 
 a Gospel worthy of the name. " Let us all 
 acknowledge as Saviour the Word of Ciod, Who 
 remained impassible in the nature of the God- 
 head, but suffered, as Peter said, in the flesh. 
 For, by a true union, that body which tasted 
 death was His very own. Else, how was 
 "Christ from the Jews according to the 
 flesh," and " God over all, and blessed for 
 ever, amen " ? and into Whose death have we 
 been baptized, and by confessing Whose resur- 
 rection are we justified ? . . . The death of a 
 mere man," etc., " or do we, as is indeed the 
 case, proclaim the death of God Who became 
 man and suffered for us in flesh, and confessing 
 His resurrection, put away the burden of 
 sin ? " (ad Euopt.) To this same period or 
 the preceding year (420) may be assigned 
 Cyril's five bi^oks Against Nestorius. In 
 these he comments on passages in Nestorius'i 
 sermons, and by all forms of argument and 
 illustration sets forth the question really at 
 
240 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 stake — Had the Divine Son Himself become 
 incarnate, or had He closely allied Himself to 
 a man ? 
 
 We must now return to the events of Nov. 
 430. Before the Egyptian deputies could 
 reach Constantinople, Theodosius II. issued 
 letters to the metropolitans of his empire, 
 simimoning them to meet at Ephesus in the 
 Pentecost of 431, with such bishops as each 
 might select, to hold a general council. This 
 resolution, taken at the instance of Nestorius, 
 had the effect of suspending all hostile action 
 on the part of any individual bishop or pro- 
 vincial synod. Theodosius, who was pre- 
 judiced against Cyril, wrote sharply to him, 
 censuring his " meddlesomeness " and " rash- 
 ness," and complaining of his having written 
 separately to the princesses. In compliance 
 with the imperial order, Cyril arrived at 
 Ephesus with 50 bishops, about June 2, 431. 
 For the details of the history of the Ephesine 
 Council, or third oecumenical synod, see art. 
 "Ephesus, Councils of," in D. C. A. It is 
 enough here to specify the occasions on which 
 Cyril came prominently forward. A fortnight 
 elapsed before the council was opened : Cyril, 
 like other prelates, employed himself in 
 strengthening the cause he had at heart by 
 earnest addresses. After waiting long for the 
 arrival of John of Antioch and his attendant 
 bishops, Cyril received a cordial letter from his 
 brother patriarch, announcing that he had 
 been travelling incessantly for a month, and 
 hoped to " embrace C\Tril " in five or six days 
 more {Ep. p. 83). There also arrived two 
 metropolitans, who bore from him a message 
 to the bishops requesting them to proceed 
 with business if he were delayed. The ques- 
 tion at once arose^" Should the bishops wait 
 any longer ? " It would have been clearly 
 better, even as a matter of policy, to wait a 
 few days for John's arrival. The cause of 
 orthodoxy could never be aided by its being 
 associated with, to say the least, the appear- 
 ance of unfairness or impatience. But Cyril 
 and his suffragans were probably not at aU 
 desirous of John's presence, for they knew he 
 would be hostile to the C>Trilline articles : they 
 encouraged the idea that he was purposely 
 loitering from reluctance to join in measures 
 against Nestorius (an idea which appears to 
 have been unfounded, Evagr. i. 3), and took 
 advantage of the fact that other bishops were 
 weary of waiting, the rather that illness, and 
 even death, had occurred among them. So 
 the council was opened on June 22, 431 ; and 
 John's message, which evidently referred to a 
 possible delay beyond the six days specified, 
 was unjustifiably quoted to defend a refusal 
 to wait even that period. In this it is im- 
 possible to acquit Cyril of blame ; and the fault 
 "brought its own punishment in the confusions 
 that ensued " (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 259). 
 
 Cyril presided in the assembly ; not in 
 virtue of the commission from Celestine to act 
 in his stead — which had been already acted 
 upon in the Alexandrian council of Nov. 430 
 — but as the prelate of highest dignity then 
 present, and as holding the proxy and repre- 
 senting the mind of the Roman bishop, until 
 the Roman legates should arrive (see TiUem. 
 xiv. 393)' Cyril called on the council to judge 
 between himself and Nestorius : the main 
 
 CYMLLUS 
 
 facts were stated by his secretary ; when Nes- 
 torius refused to appear, Cyril's second letter 
 to him was read, and at C>Trirs request the 
 bishops pronounced upon its orthodoxy, de- 
 claring it in entire accordance with the faith. 
 His third letter was received merely with a 
 tacit assent, which might be held to extend to 
 the " articles." (The council professed, after- 
 wards, that it had approved Cyril's epistles ; 
 Mansi, iv. 1237.) After evidence as to Nes- 
 torius's opinions and the mind of orthodox 
 Fathers had been laid before the council (great 
 stress being doubtless laid on Nestorius' s re- 
 cent avowal, " 1 never will admit that a child 
 of two or three months old was God," Mansi, 
 iv. 1 181, 1239), his deposition and excommuni- 
 cation were resolved on by the assembled 
 bishops ; and Cyril signed the sentence before 
 his brethren in these words : " I, Cyril, bp. of 
 Alexandria, sign, giving my judgment together 
 with the council." 
 
 When the patriarch of Antioch, with a few 
 bishops, arrived on June 26 or 27, in vexation 
 at the course taken by the majority, they held 
 a "council" or their own, and "deposed" 
 Cyril, and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, imputing 
 to the former not only Apollinarianism, but 
 also the heresy of the ultra-Arian rationalist 
 Eunomius. On the other hand, the council 
 of Ephesus, now reinforced by the Roman 
 legates, treated Cyril and Celestine as one in 
 faith, and proceeded to summon John — Cyril 
 being disposed, had not the bp. of Jeru- 
 salem prevented it, to move for a sentence of 
 deposition on the patriarch of Antioch, after 
 the first summons (see Mansi, iv. 13 11). Cyril 
 repudiated and anathematized the heresies 
 imputed to him, and coupled with them the 
 Pelagian errors and those of Nestorius. John 
 of Antioch, having disowned the council's 
 summons, was excommunicated, with his ad- 
 herents. Late in July count John, the im- 
 perial high treasurer, was sent by Theodosius 
 to Ephesus, with a letter in which Cj'ril, 
 Memnon, and Nestorius were treated as 
 deposed. Accordingly all three were arrested, 
 and guards slept at Cyril's chamber door. His 
 opponents induced Isidore of Pelusium to write 
 to him, exhorting him to avoid the bad pre- 
 cedents of his uncle's violent conduct, and not 
 to give occasion for the charge of personal 
 animosity {Ep. i. 310). Cyril, for his part, 
 spoke, in a letter to three of his suffragans then 
 at Constantinople {Ep. p. 91), of infamous 
 falsehoods circulated against him, but detected 
 by count John. He thanked God for having 
 been counted worthy to suffer, for His Name's 
 sake, not only bonds but other indignities. 
 He received from a priest named Alypius a 
 letter describing him in glowing terms as an 
 imitator of Athanasius. While the two rival 
 assemblies of bishops, the council and the 
 " conciliabulum," sent deputies to the court 
 of Theodosius, Cyril wrote an " Explanation " 
 of his " articles," vindicating them against the 
 charge of a confusion between the Godhead 
 and the Manhood, or of teaching inconsistent 
 with the distinct existence of the latter, in the 
 one Divine Person of the Incarnate Lord. 
 Theodosius finally ordered Cyril and his friends 
 to return home, but abstained from condemn- 
 ing the " Eastern " bishops, who on their side 
 complained of his partiality to their opponents. 
 
CYRILLUS 
 
 On Oct. 30, 431, Cyril returned to Alexandria ; 
 and shortly afterwards Maximian, a pious and 
 simple-hearted man, who by virtue of an 
 imperial mandate had been amsccratcd to the 
 see of Constantinople in the room of Nestorius, 
 announced his accession to Cyril, who in his 
 reply compared him to the faithful Eliakim, 
 invested with the stewardship of llezekiah's 
 household on the deprivation of the unworthy 
 Shebna. This letter contained a statement of 
 orthodox doctrine, and a disclaimer of all 
 ideas of " confusion " or " alteration " in the 
 divine nature of the Word {Ep. p. 94 seq. ; 
 Mansi, v. 257 seq.). Cyril next began a 
 vindication of his conduct to be laid before the 
 emperor (Mansi, v. 225). Theodosius, hoping 
 for a reconciliation, endeavoured to arrange 
 a meeting between John and Cyril at Nico- 
 media. Cyril was now disposed to moderation, 
 and resolved to insist only upon the condem- 
 nation of Nestorius and the recognititu of 
 Maximian. The meeting, it was found, could 
 not take place ; but a council at Antioch 
 framed six articles, expressly rejecting those 
 of CntII, while accepting Athanasius's letter 
 to Epictetus as an exposition of Nicene 
 orthodoxy. Cyril's reply shewed that he had 
 mastered his tendency to vehement and un- 
 yielding self-assertion. He WTote to Acacius 
 of Berrhoea, the oldest bp. in S>Tia, who had 
 forwarded to him the six articles by the hands 
 of the " tribune and notary " Aristolaus. 
 CjTil's letter (preserved, in a Lat. version, in 
 the " Synodicon," Mansi, v. 831) is worth at- 
 tention : he represented the impossibility of 
 withdrawing what he had written against 
 Nestorius — it would be easy to come to a good 
 understanding about the " articles " of the 
 Alexandrian synod if only the Easterns would 
 accept the deposition of Nestorius. " Those 
 who anathematize them will see that the 
 meaning of the articles is directed solely 
 against his blasphemies." For himself, Cyril 
 disavowed and condemned once more the 
 heresies imputed to him, and asserted the 
 impassibility of the divine nature in Christ, 
 while insisting that He, the Only-begotten Son, 
 Himself " suffered for us in the flesh," accord- 
 ing to the words of St. Peter. This letter 
 (referred to by Cyril in subsequent letters, Ep. 
 pp. no, 152, 153) opened the way to his re- 
 conciUation with John. The latter, although 
 in his recent council he had bound himself to 
 demand a recantation of the Cyrilline articles, 
 now declared that Cyril had fully cleared 
 himself from all heretical opinions. After a 
 conference with Acacius of Berrhoea, John 
 sent to Alexandria, Paul bp. of Emesa, a man 
 of experience whom they both could trust, to 
 confer with Cyxil (see Cyril's letters to Acacius 
 and Donatus, Ep. pp. in, 156). When Paul 
 reached Alexandria, Cyril was laid up with ill- 
 ness (Mansi, v. 987), but, when able, received 
 him, as Paul himself said, kindly and pacifically 
 (Mansi, v. 288). They began their conference : 
 Paul presented to Cyril a confession of faith as 
 exhibiting the mind of John of Antioch (Ep. 
 p. 103) ; it had been originally written at 
 EphesusbyTheodoret (Tillem. xiv. 531). " We 
 confess," so ran this fornmlary, " our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, to 
 be perfect God and perfect Man, of a reason- 
 able soul and a body, before the ages begotten 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 of the Father according to Godhead, but in the 
 last days Himself the solf-samc, for us and for 
 our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary accord- 
 ing to Manhood ; of one essence with the 
 Father as to Godhead, of one essence with us 
 as to Manhood. For there took place an union 
 of two natures ; wherefore we confess one 
 Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this 
 idea of an union without confusion, we ct)nfess 
 the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because God 
 the Word was incarnate and made Man, and 
 from His very conception united to Himself 
 the temple assumed from her." The formu- 
 lary, although it dwelt more than Cyril had 
 been wont to do on the double aspect of the 
 Incarnation, was accepted by Cyril as repre- 
 senting Paul's own faith, and he placed a 
 corresponding statement in the hands of Paul. 
 The latter asked whether he would stand by 
 Athanasius's letter to Epictetus. " Certaiidy ; 
 but is your copy of it free of corruption ? " 
 Paul produced his copy ; Cyril, comparing it 
 with the authentic text, found that it had been 
 tampered with (Mansi, v. 325). After further 
 conversation the two bishops agrecti to " for- 
 get " the troubles of Ephesus. Paul gave 
 Cyril a letter from John, which, though gentle 
 and dignified in tone, referred to the " arti- 
 cles " in language which annoyed Cyril, and 
 he spoke of the letter as " insulting." Paul 
 soothed him with courteous assurances, but 
 Cyril proceeded to the point which John had 
 ignored— the recognition of the deposition of 
 Nestorius, and the condemnation of his heresy. 
 Paul offered to make such a declaration in 
 John's name, but Cyril promptly and keenly 
 insisted that John himself should make it 
 [ib. 313). Just as little could Cyril give way 
 as to the four Nestoriauizing metropolitans 
 deposed by the new archbp. of Constantinople: 
 that sentence, he insisted, must stand good 
 [ib. 349). Paul then, in writing, satisfied C>Til 
 as to his own orthodoxy, and Cyril allowed 
 him to join in the church-service of Alex- 
 andria, even inviting him to preach on Christ- 
 mas Day, 432, in the great church (ib. 293). 
 The bp. of Emesa began with the angelic 
 hymn, proceeded to the prophecy of Emma- 
 nuel, and then said, " Thus Mary, Mother of 
 God, brings forth Emmanuel." A character- 
 istic outbreak of orthodox joy interrupted the 
 discourse. The people cried out, " This is the 
 faith ! 'Tis God's own gift, O orthodox Cyril ! 
 This is what we wanted to hear." Paul then 
 went on to say that a combination of two per- 
 fect natures, the Godhead and Manhood, 
 constituted " for us " the one Son, the one 
 Christ, the one Lord. Again the cry arose, 
 " Welcome, orthod(jx bishop ! " Paul re- 
 sumed his discom-se, and explained St. Peter's 
 confession as implying a duality of nature and 
 an unity of person in Christ. On New Year's 
 Uay, 433, after alluding to Cyril as a kind- 
 hearted trainer who had smiled upon his per- 
 formance, he preached at greater length on the 
 unity of the Person and the distinctness of the 
 natures, as being co-ordinate and harmonious 
 truths ; and his teaching was heartily en- 
 dorsed by Cyril, who sent two of his own clergy 
 to accompany him and Aristolaus, the em- 
 peror's secretary, who was very zealous for the 
 reunion, to Antioch, with a paper for John to 
 sign, and a letter of communion to be given 
 lU 
 
242 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 him when he had signed it. But Cynril con- 
 sidered Maximian also languid in the cause, 
 and he wrote many letters to persons con- 
 nected with the imperial court, including the 
 " Augusta " Pulcheria, to bring their influence 
 to bear upon John and separate him definitely 
 and finally from Nestorius (Mansi, v. 988). 
 These letters were backed up by presents 
 euphemistically called " blessings " (eulogiae), 
 which were employed by CntII as a matter of 
 course, for he knew but little of delicacy and 
 scrupulosity as to the means to be used in 
 gaining a court to the church's interests. 
 Cyril also assured Theognostus, Charmosynus, 
 and Leontius, his " apocrisiarii " or church 
 agents at Constantinople {Ep. p. 152) that this 
 peace with John implied no retractation of his 
 old principles. In the spring of 433 John 
 of Antioch wrote to C^Til, reciting the formu- 
 lary of reunion, abandoning Nestorius, and 
 condemning Nestorianism (Mansi, v. 290). In 
 another letter John entreated C\Til in a tone 
 of warm friendship to believe that he was 
 " the same that he had known in former 
 days" {Ep. p. 154). On Apr. 23 (Pharmuthi 
 8) Cyril announced this reconciliation in a 
 sermon (Mansi, v. 310, 289), and began his 
 reply to John, " Let the heavens rejoice and 
 the earth be glad " {Ep. p. 104 ; Mansi, v. 
 301). In this letter (afterwards approved by 
 the council of Chalcedon) he cited the text, 
 " One Lord, one faith, one baptism," as ex- 
 pressing the happiness of the restored peace ; 
 and added his usual disclaimers of all opinions 
 inconsistent with the reaUty of Christ's man- 
 hood. He commented on John iii. 13, I. Cor. 
 XV. 47, I. Pet. iv. I. He also sent to John a 
 copy of the genuine text of Athanasius's 
 letter to Epictetus. John himself became 
 an object of suspicion and animosity to the 
 thoroughgoing Nestorians ; and even Theo- 
 doret, though he admitted that CntH's recent 
 language was orthodox, would not abandon 
 Nestorius's cause. In another direction 
 doubts and anxieties were excited by the 
 language now sanctioned by C\Til. Isidore, 
 to whom C>Til had always allowed great free- 
 dom of admonitory speech, and who had 
 blamed him for unyieldingness, now expressed 
 a fear that he had made too great concessions 
 {Ep. i. 324). Other friends of his were scan- 
 dalized by his acceptance of the phrase " two 
 natures." Was not this, they began to ask, 
 equivalent to a sanction of Nestorianism ? 
 To vindicate his orthodoxv herein, C\Til \vrote 
 a long letter to Acacius of Meliten'e {Ep. p. 
 109 ; Mansi, v. 309), who had signified to him 
 that some disquietude was felt. ' He narrated 
 the recent transactions ; and after insisting 
 that the formulary was not (as some had re- 
 presented it) a new creed, but simply a state- 
 ment called forth by a special emergency (as 
 those who signed it had been accused of 
 rejecting the Nicene faith, and were therefore 
 constrained to clear themselves), he proceeded 
 to exhibit the essential difference between the 
 formulary and the Nestorian error. Nestor- 
 ius, in fact, asserted two Christs : the formu- 
 lary confessed one, both divine and human. 
 Then C^tII added that the two natures spoken 
 of in the formulary were indeed separate in 
 mental conception, i.e. considered apart from 
 Christ, but that " after their union " in Christ 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 " the nature of the Son was but one, as belonging 
 to one, but to One as made man and incar- 
 nate." Again, " The nature of the Word is 
 confessedly one, but has become incarnate," 
 for " the Word took the form of a servant," 
 and " in this sense only could a diversity of 
 natures be recognized, for Godhead and ^tan- 
 hood are not the same in natural quality." 
 Thus, in regard to the Incarnation, " the mind 
 sees two things united without confusion, and 
 nowise regards them, when thus united, as 
 separable, but confesses Him Who is from both, 
 God, Son, and Christ, to be one." " Two 
 natures," in Nestorius's mouth, meant two 
 natures existing separately, in One Who was 
 God and in One Who was Man ; John of 
 Antioch and his brethren, while admitting that 
 Godhead and Manhood in Christ might be 
 regarded as intrinsically different, yet un- 
 equivocally acknowledged His Person to be 
 one. The phrase " one incarnate nature " 
 of God the Word, or " one nature, but that 
 incarnate," had been already {ad Regin. i. 9) 
 quoted by C>Til as Athanasian : although it 
 is very doubtful whether the short tract On 
 the Incarnation of God the Word, in which it 
 is found, was really written by Athanasius. 
 But, as now used by Cyril in his vindication 
 of the formulary from Nestorianism, it became 
 in after-days a stumbling-block, and was quoted 
 in support of Monophysitism (Hooker, v. 52, 
 4). Did, then, Cyril in fact hold what was 
 condemned in 451 by the council of Chalce- 
 don ? Would he have denied the distinct 
 co-existence of Godhead and Manhood in the 
 one incarnate Saviour ? Were the Fathers of 
 Chalcedon wrong when they proclaimed C>Til 
 and Leo to be essentially one in faith ? What 
 has been already quoted from the letter to 
 Acacius of Melitene seems to warrant a nega- 
 tive answer to these questions. What Cyril 
 meant by " one nature incarnate " was simply, 
 " Christ is one." He was referring to " nature " 
 as existing in Christ's single Divine Personality 
 (cf. adv. Nest. ii. ; cf. note in Athan. Treatises, 
 Lib. Path. i. 155). When he denounced the 
 idea of the separation of the natures after the 
 union, he was in fact denouncing the idea of 
 a mere connexion or association between a 
 human individual Jesus and the Divine Word. 
 Therefore, when he maintained the nature to 
 be one, he was speaking in a sense quite dis- 
 tinct from the Eutychian heresy, and quite 
 consistent with the theology of Chalcedon. 
 Other letters, written by C\Til under the same 
 circumstances, throw light on his true mean- 
 ing. Successus, an Isaurian bishop, had" 
 asked him whether the phrase " two natures " 
 were admissible {Ep. p. 135 ; Mansi, v. 999). 
 Cyril wrote two letters to him in reply. In 
 the first, after strongly asserting the unitv of 
 the Son both before and since the Incarnation, 
 he quoted the " one nature incarnate " as 
 a phrase of the Fathers, and employed the 
 illustration from soul and body, " two na- 
 tures " being united in one man in order to 
 set forth the combination of Godhead and 
 Manhood in one Christ (cf. his Scholia de Inc. 
 8). There was, he added, neither a conversion 
 of Godhead into flesh nor a change of flesh 
 into Godhead. In other words, Christ's bod}^ 
 though glorified, and existing as God's body, 
 was not deprived of its human reahty. In the 
 
CYRILLUS 
 
 second letter, replying to objections made by 
 Successus to statements in the first, CjTil fully 
 admitted that Christ " arrayed Himself with 
 our nature," so that in Him both Clodhead and 
 Manhood, in Christ, retained their natural 
 distinctness (cf. p. 143), and that the human 
 nature was neither diminished nor subtracted. 
 Further on he repeated the phrase " one 
 nature, but that incarnate," in the sense (as 
 the context shews) of " One Who in His original 
 nature was God, by incarnation becoming 
 man." In another letter he gave, to a priest 
 named Eulogius, a similar account of the 
 phrase, and obviously viewed it as guarding 
 the truth of the Personal Union (Ep. p. 133). 
 In another, addressed to a bishop named 
 Valerian (and remarkable for the emphasis 
 with which the Divinitv of Christ is exhibited 
 as bearing on His Atonement), the word 
 " nature," in this connexion, is evidently used 
 as synonymous with " person " or hypostasis ; 
 and as if specially anxious to exclude all possible 
 misconception, he wrote : " He, being by nature 
 God, became flesh, that is, perfect man. . . . 
 As man He was partaker of our nature." 
 This language agrees with that of his 17th 
 Paschal Homily (Cyr. v. ii. 226). Cf. also his 
 statement in adv. Nest. ii. t. vi. 50, that while 
 the divine and the human natures are different 
 things, as all right-thinking men must know, 
 yet after the Incarnation they must not be 
 divided, for there is but one Christ. Again 
 (ib. p. 45) that Christ is not twofold is explained 
 by the context to mean that Christ before and 
 since the Incarnation is one and the same 
 Person ; and {ib. p. 48). the reason for calling 
 Christ's Godhead the cpvais is explained by the 
 consideration that He was originally God, 
 while in the fifth book (ib. p. 139) He is said 
 to have given up His body to the laws of its 
 own nature (ttjs idias (pvaews). In the ninth 
 book, de S. Trinitate (dial, quod unus est 
 Christus), he denies all transmutation or con- 
 fusion of the natures, asserts the distinctnes<^ of 
 Godhead and Manhood, adding that "the bush 
 burning yet unoonsumed was a type of the non- 
 consumption of the Manhood of Christ in its 
 contact with His Divinity " (cf. Scholia, 2, 9). 
 To return to the history. Maximian, dying 
 in Apr. 434, was succeeded by Proclus, whose 
 glowing sermon on the Incarnation had been 
 among the earliest expressions of orthodox zeal 
 against the Nestorian theory, and who de- 
 serves to be remembered as a very signal 
 example of the compatibility of orthodox zeal 
 with charitable tenderness (Socr. vii. 41). 
 Soon after his accession the imperial court 
 resolved to enforce on all Eastern bishojis 
 the acceptance of the concordat which had 
 reconciled John of Antioch with Cyril, upon 
 pain of expulsion from their dioceses. The 
 Xestorians, on their side, were indefatigable 
 in circulating the works of Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, who had formed the theological mind 
 of Nest(.rius ; and Cyril, who was informed of 
 this during a visit to Jerusalem, was stirred to 
 new energy by the evident vitality of the 
 theory which he so earnestly abhorred. He 
 wrote to the " tribune " Aristolaus, and to 
 John of Antioch, complaining that, as he was 
 informed, some bishops were repudiating 
 Nestorianism insincerely or inadequately, and 
 were declaring that its author had been con- 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 243 
 
 demned merely for denying the " Theotokos " 
 (Mansi, v. 996, cf. ib. 970). He urged that the 
 bisliops siiould anathematize Nestorianism 
 in detail. John wislied nr) new test to be 
 imposed ; and Cyril found he had gone tt)o 
 far (ib. 969, 972, 996). John was much 
 annoyed at Theodoret's pertinacious refusal to 
 anathematize Nestorius — a refusal in which 
 Theodoret persisted until the eighth session of 
 the council of Chalcedon (ib. 997). As the 
 Nestorianizers professed entire adhesion to the 
 Nicene Creed, Cyril drew up an exposition 
 of it (Ep. p. 174, Mansi, v. 383, cf. ib. 975) 
 addressed to certain " fathers of monks," in 
 which he urged the incompatibility of that 
 " venerable and oecumenical symbol of faith " 
 with the denial of the personal unity of the 
 Saviour. In this tract, a copy of which he 
 sent to Thcodosius, he disclaimed, as usual, 
 any " fusion, commixture, or so-called con- 
 substantiation " (crvvovaiwaiv] of the Godhead 
 with the flesh. He drew up a short treatise in 
 three books to prove that Mary was Theotokos, 
 that Christ was one and not two, and that 
 while He was impassible as God, He suffered 
 for us m flesh that was His own. This he 
 intended as an antidote to the Nestorian argu- 
 ments which, as he learned, were rife in Syria 
 (Mansi, v. 995). The name of Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia was at this time a watchword of 
 eager controversy. Proclus of Constantinople, 
 in his " Tome " addressed to the Armenian 
 clergy, in which he spoke of " one incarnate 
 person" (not "nature") of God the Word, 
 had condemned Theodore's opinions without 
 naming him (ib. 421) : the messengers who 
 carried this document to John of Antioch in- 
 serted Theodore's name, without authority 
 from Proclus, as the author of certain passages 
 selected for censure. John and his suffragans 
 accepted the Tome, but declined to condemn 
 Theodore by name. Proclus rejoined that he 
 had never wished them to go beyond a Cf)n- 
 demnation of the extracts. Cyril, so far from 
 feeling any tenderness towards Theodore, 
 traced Nestorianism to his teaching and to 
 that of Diodore of Tarsus (ib. 974) a'"^' \vrote 
 vigorously in support of this thesis (ib. 992). 
 A synodal letter from John and his suffragans, 
 stating their objections to Theodore's name 
 being anathematized on the score of expres- 
 sions which, they urged, could be taken in a 
 sense accordant with the language of eminent 
 Fathers, drew forth from Cyril a somewhat in- 
 dignant replv. Theodore, he said (Ep. p. 195), 
 had " borne down full sail against the glory of 
 Christ " ; it was intolerable that any parallel 
 should be drawn between his language and 
 that of Athanasius or Basil : he insisted that 
 no one should be allowed to preach Theodore's 
 opinions ; but he did not urge any condem- 
 nation of his memory, and even dwelt on the 
 dutv of welcoming all converts from Nestor- 
 ianism without a word of reproach as to the 
 past. He saw that it would be imprudent to 
 proceed publicly against the memory of a 
 theologian so highly esteemed that the people 
 cried out in some liastern churches, " We be- 
 lieve as Theodore did," and would rather bo 
 " burnt " than disown him ; and he wrote to 
 Proclus advising that no further stepsshould be 
 taken in the matter (Ep. p. 199)- The remam- 
 ing events of Cyril's long episcopate may be 
 
244 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 told briefly. Rewrote to Domnus, the successor 
 of John in the see of Antioch (and afterwards 
 unhappily conspicuous in the Eutychian con- 
 troversy) , in behalf of Athanasius sometime bp. 
 of Perrha, who described himself, falsely it 
 appears, as sorely wronged by some of his own 
 clergy {Ep. p. 208). In another letter to Dom- 
 nus, peremptory in style, he took up the cause 
 of another aged bishop named Peter, who 
 professed to have been expelled and plundered 
 of his property on the pretext of a renunciation 
 of his see, which after all had been extorted 
 from him {Ep. p. 209). In both these cases 
 Cyril shewed a somewhat impulsive readiness 
 to beheve the story of a petitioner, and a some- 
 what dictatorial temper in regard to the affairs 
 of another patriarchate. He wrote also a 
 work against the Anthropomorphites, whose 
 wild fancies about the Divine nature (as being 
 limited and corporeal) had given such trouble 
 in the days of his predecessor ; and in a letter 
 on this subject to Calosirius, bp. of Arsinoe, 
 he added a caution against the false mysticism 
 which insisted on prayer to the exclusion of all 
 labour, and on the " senseless " opinion that 
 the Eucharistic consecration lost its efficacy 
 if the sacrament was reserved until the follow- 
 ing day. " Christ's holy Body," wrote Cyril, 
 " is not changed ; but the power of consecra- 
 tion and the life-giving grace still remain in it " 
 {Op. vi. 365). In the last year of his life he 
 wrote to Leo, then bp. of Rome (to whom, as 
 archdeacon of Rome, he had written in 431 
 against the ambitious schemes, as he regarded 
 them, of Juvenal bp. of Jerusalem [Leon. Ep. 
 119, 4]) on the right calculation of Easter for 
 A.D. 444, which, according to the Alexandrian 
 cycle of 19 3'ears, he fixed for April 23. In 
 444, on June 9 or 27, his eventful life ended. 
 Cyril's character is not, of cnurse, to be 
 judged by the coarse and ferocious invective 
 against his memory, quoted as Theodoret's in 
 the fifth general council (Theod. Ep. 180 ; see 
 Tillem. xiv. 784). If this were indeed the 
 production of Theodoret, the reputation to 
 suffer would assuredly be that writer's. What 
 Cyril was, in his strength and in his weak- 
 ness — in his high-souled struggle for doctrines 
 which were to him, as to all thoughtful 
 believers in Christ's Divinity, the expres- 
 sions of essential Christian belief ; or in the 
 moments when his old faults of vehemence and 
 impatience reappeared in his conduct — we 
 have akeady seen. He started in public hfe, 
 so to speak, with dangerous tendencies to 
 vehemence and imperiousness which were 
 fostered by the bad traditions of his uncle's 
 episcopate and by the ample powers of his see. 
 It would be impossible to maintain that these 
 evils were wholly exhausted by the grave 
 errors which — exaggerations and false impu- 
 tations set aside — distinguished his conduct in 
 the feud with the Jews and with Orestes; 
 when, although guiltless of the blood of Hy- 
 patia, he must have felt that his previous 
 violence had been taken as an encouragement 
 by her fanatical murderers. The old impa- 
 tience and absolutism were all too prominent 
 at certain points of the Nestorian struggle ; 
 although on other occasions, as must be ad- 
 mitted by all fair judges, influences of a soften- 
 ing and chastening character had abated the 
 turbid impetus of his zeal and had taught him 
 
 CYRILLUS 
 
 to be moderate and patient. " We may," 
 says Dr. Newman {Hist. Sketches, iii. 342), 
 " hold St. Cyril a great servant of God, without 
 considering ourselves obliged to defend certain 
 passages of his ecclesiastical career. . . . Cyril's 
 faults were not inconsistent with great and 
 heroic virtues, faith, firmness, intrepidity, 
 fortitude, endurance, perseverance." Those 
 who begin by condemning dogmatic zeal as a 
 fierce and misplaced chivalry for a phantom, 
 will find it most difficult to be just to a man 
 like Cyril. But if his point of view, which was 
 indeed that of many great religious heroes, and 
 eminently of Athanasius, be fully understood 
 and appreciated, it ought not to be difficult to 
 do justice to his memory. The issue raised 
 by Nestorianism was to Cyril a very plain one, 
 involving the very essence of Apostolic 
 Christianity. Whatever ambiguities might be 
 raised by a Nestorian use of the word Trpdawirov, 
 it was clear to Cyril that the new theory 
 amounted to a denial of the Word Incarnate. 
 Nor was it a mere theory of the schools. Its 
 promulgator held the great see of the Eastern 
 capital, involving a central position and strong 
 court influence, and was no mere amiable 
 dreamer or scholastic pedant, whose fancies 
 might die away if left to themselves. He has 
 in modern times been spoken of as " the 
 blameless Nestorius " : he was in his own 
 times spoken of as " the incendiary " on ac- 
 count of a zeal against other forms of heresy 
 which impelled him to take strong measures 
 against opponents of his own. This was the 
 enemy against whom Cyril did battle for the 
 doctrine of a real Incarnation and a really 
 Divine Christ. He had to reckon on opposi- 
 tion, not only from Nestorius himself, but from 
 large numbers — a miscellaneous company, 
 including civil functionaries as well as prelates 
 — who accepted the Nestorian theology, or 
 who thought strong language against it un- 
 called-for and offensive. He might have to 
 encounter the displeasure of an absolute 
 government — he certainly had for some time 
 the prospect of that displeasure, and of all its 
 consequences ; he had the burden of ill-health, 
 of ever-present intense anxiety, of roughly 
 expressed censure, of reiterated imputations 
 affecting his own orthodoxy, of misconcep- 
 tions and suspicions which hardly left him a 
 moment's rest. Whatever faults there were 
 in his conduct of the controversy, this at least 
 must be said — not only by mere eulogists of a 
 canonized saint, but by those who care for the 
 truth of history — that the thought as well as 
 the heart of Christendom has for ages accept- 
 ed, as the expression of Christian truth, the 
 principle upheld by Cyril against Nestorius. 
 A real and profound question divided the 
 disputants ; and that stanza of Charles Wes- 
 ley's Christmas hymn which begins, 
 
 " Christ, by highest heaven adored," 
 
 conveys the C>Tilline or Ephesine answer to that 
 question in a form which exhibits its close con- 
 nexion with the deepest exigencies of spiritual 
 life. Cyril, as a theological writer, has greater 
 merits than are sometimes allowed by writers 
 defective in a spirit ot equity. His style, 
 as Cave admits, may be deficient in elegance 
 and in eloquence ; he may be often tedious, 
 
CYRILLUS 
 
 and sometimes obscure, although, as Photius 
 says {Cod. 136), his Thesaurus is remarkable 
 for its lucidity. His couiments on Scripture 
 may be charged with excessive mysticism, or 
 with a perpetual tendency to bring forward 
 his favourite theological idea. There may be 
 weak points in his argument — e.g. undue 
 pressing of texts, and fallacious inferences, 
 several of which might be cited from the 
 treatise To the Princesses. But any one who 
 consults, e.g., the Thesaurus, will acknowledge 
 the ability with which Cyril follows up the 
 theological line of Athanasius (see pp. 12, 23, 
 27, 30, 50), and applies the Athanasian mode 
 of thought to the treatment of Eunomian 
 rationalism (p. 263), and the vividness with 
 which, in this and in other works, he brings 
 out the Catholic interpretation of cardinal 
 texts in N.T. His acquaintance with Greek 
 literature and philosophy is evident from 
 the work against Julian ; but he speaks quite 
 in the tone of Hippolytus's "Little Laby- 
 rinth" (Eus. v. 28^ when he deprecates an 
 undue reliance on Aristotelian dialectics and 
 a priori assumption on mysteries transcend- 
 ing human thought [Thesaur. 87, de recta 
 fide 16, 17). 
 
 Fragments of CjTrilline treatises not other- 
 wise extant are preserved in synodal acts and 
 elsewhere, and other works, as his Paschal 
 Cycles and The Failure of the Synagogue, are 
 mentioned by Sigebert and Gennadius. The 
 Monophysites used on festivals a " Liturgy of 
 St. Cyril," which is substantially identical with 
 the Gk. " Liturgy of St. Mark " (see Palmer's 
 Orig. Liturg. i. 86, and Neale's Inlrod. East. 
 Ch. i. 324), and their traditionary belief, ex- 
 pressed in a passage cited from Abu'lberkat 
 by Renaudot, Lit. Orient, i. 171, is that Cyril 
 " completed " St. Mark's Liturgy. " It 
 seems highly probable," says Dr. Neale, 
 quoting this, " that the liturgy of St. Mark 
 came, as we have it now, from the hands of St. 
 Cyril " ; although, as Palmer says, the ortho- 
 dox Alexandrians preferred to call it by the 
 name of the Evangelist founder of their see. 
 The Coptic Cyrilline Liturgy is of somewhat 
 later date, and more diffuse in character. It 
 seems not improbable that the majestic in- 
 vocation of the Holy Spirit which is one of the 
 distinctive ornaments of St. Mark's Liturgy, 
 if it was not composed during the Macedonian 
 controversy in the 4th cent., represents to us 
 the lively zeal of the great upholder of the 
 Hypostatic Union for the essential Divinity 
 of the Third Person in the Godhead. 
 
 CntH's works were well edited by John 
 Aubert (1658) in six volumes, an edition not 
 yet superseded ; there is no Benedictine St. 
 Cyril. In 1859 Dr. Payne Smith pub. Cyril's 
 Commentary on St. Luke's (iospel, trans, from 
 a Svriac version. An elaborate edition by 
 P. E. Pusey, M.A., of Christ Church, of the 
 Commentary on the Minor Prophets [2 vols.) 
 and the Commentary on S. John's Gospel 
 (3 vols.) is pub. by the Clarendon Press, as is 
 also the text and trans, with Lat. notes of 
 the Comm. in Luc. ed. by R. P. Smith. An 
 important work has recently been published 
 bv Dr. Bethune Baker, of Cambridge, entitled 
 Nestorius and his Teaching, a Fresh Examina- 
 tion of the Evidence, which adduces much, from 
 new discoveries, in vindication of Nestorius 
 
 DALMATIUS 
 
 245 
 
 from the heresy attributed to him. See also 
 CuRisToLOGV, in I). C. li. (4-V0I. ed.). [w.h ] 
 Cyrlilus (13) of S. vlhopolis (Bethshan). so 
 called from his birthplace, a hagiologist, fl. c. 
 555. His father, John, was famous for his rc- 
 ligiinis life. Cyril commenced an ascetic career 
 at the age of 16. On leaving his monastery to 
 visit Jerusalem and the holy places, his mother 
 bid him put himself under the instruction of 
 John the Silentiary, by whom he was com- 
 mended to Leontius, abbat of the monastery of 
 St. Euthymius, who adnutted him as a monk 
 in 522. Thence C\Til passed to the Laura of St. 
 Saba, where he commenced his sacred bio- 
 graphies with the Lives of St. Euthvmius and 
 St. Saba, deriving his information' from the 
 elder monks who had known those saints. He 
 also wrote the Life of St. John the Silentiarv 
 and other biographies, affording a valuable 
 picture of the inner life of the Eastern church 
 in the 6th cent. They have been unfortunate- 
 ly largely interpolated by Metaphrastes. The 
 following biographies are attributed to Cvril 
 by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 41, x. 155): 
 (i) S. Joannes Silentiarius (ap. Surium, May 
 13) ; (2) S. Euthymius (Cotelerius, Eccl. 
 Graec. Monutn. ii. 200) ; (3) S. Sabas. (ib. iii. 
 220); (4) Theodosius the Archimandrite (only 
 found in Latin, of doubtful authenticit>^ ; (5) 
 Cyriacus the Anchoret; (6) S. Theognius the 
 Ascetic, bp. of Cyprus (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. 
 U.S. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. p. i. 529). [e.v.] 
 
 Dalmatius (4), monk and abbat, near Con- 
 stantinople at the time of the council of 
 Ephesus (a.d. 431). His influence arose from 
 his eminent piety, strength of character, and 
 fiery zeal. Under Theodosius the (ircat he had 
 served in the 2nd company of Guards, married, 
 had children, and led a virtuous life. Feeling 
 a call to a monastic life, he left his wife and 
 children, except a son Faustus, and went to be 
 instructed by abbat Isaac, who had dwelt in 
 the desert since his infancy. Isaac at his death 
 made him Hegumenus, superior of the monas- 
 tery, under the patriarch Atticus. Consulted 
 by councils, patriarchs, and emperors, he re- 
 mained in his cell 48 years without quitting 
 it. He is sr>metimes addressed as chief of 
 the monasteries of Constantinople ; but it is 
 uncertain whether this was a complimentary 
 or official title. He is not to be confounded 
 with Dalmatius, monk at Constantinople, bp. 
 of Cyzicus ; because the latter was present at 
 the council of Ephesus in that capacity. 
 
 During the supremacy of the Nestorian 
 party at Ephesus, letters were conveyed by a 
 beggar in the hollow of a cane from Cyril and 
 the Athanasian or Catholic bishops to the 
 emperor Theodosius II., the clergy and people 
 at Constantinople complaining that they had 
 been imprisoned three months, that the Nes- 
 torians had deposed Cyril and Menmon bp. of 
 Ephesus, and that they were all in the greatest 
 distress. A short memf)rial was added to the 
 letter of the bishops, i.robably for Dalm.itius. 
 Dalmatius was greatly moved, and believed 
 himself summoned to go forth at length from 
 his retreat in the interests of truth. Accom- 
 panied by the monks of all the monasteries, 
 
246 
 
 DAM ASUS 
 
 led by their abbats, he went to the palace in 
 a long procession, divided into two companies, 
 and singing alternately ; a vast crowd of 
 sympathizers followed. The abbats were 
 admitted to the emperor's presence ; and the 
 monks remained outside chanting. Return- 
 ing to the people, the abbats asked them to go 
 to the church of St. Mocius to hear the letter 
 of the council and the emperor's reply. They 
 went through the city, the monks chanting 
 and carrving wax tapers. Great enthusiasm 
 was excited against Nestorius. At the 
 church the abbats read the letter of the 
 bishops, which produced high excitement. 
 Dalmatius, who was a presbyter, then mount- 
 ed the pulpit, begged them to be patient, and 
 in temperate and modest terms related his 
 conversation with the emperor, and its satis- 
 factory result. The emperor then wrote to 
 Ephesus, ordering a deputation of each party 
 to arrive at Constantinople. In a letter to 
 Dalmatius the council acknowledged that to 
 him only was owing the emperor's knowledge 
 of the truth. Cyril, Ep. 23, etc., Patr. Gk. 
 Ixxvii. ; Concil. Gen. i. ; Dalmatii Apol. p. 477 ; 
 St. Procl. CP. Episc. Ep. iii. ; Patr. Gk. Ixv. 
 p. 876, Ixxxv. col. 1707-1802; Ceillier, viii. 290, 
 395. 396. 407> 594 ; Fleury, bk. xxvi. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Damasus, pope, said to have been a Span- 
 iard, the son of Antonius. On the death of 
 Liberius (Sept. a.d. 366) the factions which 
 had disgraced his election broke out with re- 
 doubled violence. The original root of bitter- 
 ness had been .Arianism ; and Felix the Arian 
 antipope [Felix II.] had been expelled by 
 Liberius. Seven days after the death of 
 Liberius, Felix's partisans met and proclaimed 
 Damasus pope in the Lucina [qy. the crypt of 
 St. Lucina in the catacomb of Callistus ?]. 
 Damasus had previously taken up a middle 
 position between the contending parties, which 
 may have specially recommended him to the 
 electors, who could not hope to carry an ex- 
 treme man. Yet, about the same time appar- 
 ently the party of Liberius met in the Julian 
 basilica and elected Ursicinus or Ursinus. 
 
 It is difficult to ascertain the truth with 
 regard to the strife between the rival popes. 
 Our most detailed account is by personal 
 enemies of Damasus. and the incidents of the 
 struggle are recorded under Ursinus. 
 
 Damasus used his success well, and the 
 chair of St. Peter, even if, as his enemies 
 alleged, acquired by violent means, was never 
 more respected nor vigorous than during his 
 bishopric. He appears as a principal oppo- 
 nent of .\rian and other heretics. Bp. Peter of 
 Alexandria was his firm friend all along ; and 
 was associated with him in the condemnation 
 of ApoUinaris (Soz. vi. 25), and in affixing the 
 stigma of Arianism to Meletius of Antioch and 
 Eusebius, who were upheld by Basil (Basil, 
 Ep. cclxvi. iii. 597, ed. Bened.). On ^leletius's 
 death Damasus struggled hard to gain the 
 • chair of Antioch for Paulinus, and to exclude 
 Flavianus ; nor was he reconciled to the latter 
 till some time later (Socr. v. 15). 
 
 His correspondence with Jerome, his at- 
 tached friend and secretary, begins a.d. 376, 
 and closes only with his death a.d. 384. Six 
 of Jerome's letters to him are preserved, two 
 being expositions of difficult passages of Scrip- 
 ture elicited by letters of Damasus asking the 
 
 DANIEL 
 
 aid of his learning. J erome's desire to dedicate 
 to him a translation of Didymus's work on the 
 Holy Ghost was only stopped by his death. In 
 later letters Jerome speaks in high terms of 
 Damasus ; calls him " that illustrious man, 
 that virgin doctor of the virgin church," 
 " eager to catch the first sound of the preach- 
 ing of continence " ; who " wrote both verse 
 and prose in favour of virginity " {Epp. 
 Hieron. 22, 48). From this Milman {Latin 
 Christ, i. 69) conjectures that Damasus was 
 a patron of the growing monastic party — a 
 not improbable conjecture, rendered more 
 likely by the ardent attachment of Jerome, 
 and the veneration in which the memory of 
 pope Damasus was held by later times, when 
 monasticism had taken firm root in the 
 Roman church. But the best-known record of 
 Damasus will always be his labour of love in 
 the catacombs of Rome. Here he searched 
 ardently and devotedly for the tombs of the 
 mart},TS, which had been blocked up and 
 hidden by the Christians during the last per- 
 secution. He " removed the earth, widened 
 the passages, so as to make them more service- 
 able for the crowd of pilgrims, constructed 
 flights of stairs leading to the more illustrious 
 shrines, and adorned the chambers with 
 marbles, opening shafts to admit air and light 
 where practicable, and supporting the friable 
 tufa walls and galleries wherever it was neces- 
 sary with arches of brick and stone work. 
 Alraost all the catacombs bear traces of his 
 labours, and modern discovery is continually 
 bringing to light fragments of the inscriptions 
 which he composed in honour of the martyrs, 
 and caused to be engraved on marble slabs, in 
 a peculiarly beautiful character, by a very able 
 artist, Furius Dionysius Filocalus. It is a 
 singular fact that no original inscription of 
 pope Damasus has ever yet been found exe- 
 cuted by any other hand ; nor have any in- 
 scriptions been found, excepting those of 
 Damasus, in precisely the same form of letters. 
 Hence the type is well known to students of 
 Christian epigraphy as the ' Damasine char- 
 acter ' " {Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and 
 Brownlow, p. 97). Damasus also laid down 
 a marble pavement in the basilica of St. 
 Sebastian, recording by an inscription the 
 temporary burial in that church of SS. Peter 
 and Paul '{ib. p. 1 14). He built the baptistery 
 at the Vatican in honour of St. Peter, where 
 de Rossi thinks, from an inscription in the 
 Damasine character, was an actual chair which 
 went by the name of St. Peter's seat [ih. p. 
 393), and he drained the crypts of the Vatican, 
 that the bodies buried there might not be 
 disturbed bv the overflow of water {ib. p. 334). 
 He died in Dec. 384, after a pontificate of 18 
 years. Before his death he had prepared his 
 own tomb above the catacomb of Callistus, 
 giving his reason in an inscription in what is 
 called the Papal crypt of that catacomb : 
 
 " Hie fateor Damasus volui mea condere membra, 
 Sed timui sanctos cineres vexare priorum " 
 
 {ib. p. 102). Cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 
 vols. i. and ii. [g.h.m.] 
 
 Damianus (2), M. [Cosmas.] 
 
 Daniel (9) the Styhte, of the 5th cent., was a 
 Mesopotamian by birth, and in his youth had 
 visited Symeon' the Stylite. After having 
 
DATIVUS 
 
 lived a monastic life in convents for several 
 years, at the age of 47 he received as a legacy 
 the cowl of Symeon, and established his pillar 
 4 miles N. of Constantinople. The patriarch 
 Gennadius ordained him presbyter against his 
 will, standing at the foot of his column. Then 
 the patriarch, by means of a ladder, adminis- 
 tered the Eucharist, and received it in turn 
 from the Stylite. He lived on his pillar for 
 33 years, and died at the age of 80. He was 
 visited with reverence by kings and emperors 
 as an oracle ; but discouraged all who brought 
 complaints against their bishops. Towards 
 the end of his life, solicited eagerly by both 
 sides, he took part in the dispute between the 
 emperor Basiliscus, a IMonophysite, and Aca- 
 cius patriarch of Constantinople. Descending 
 from his pillar, he appeared in the city, de- 
 nounced Basiliscus, and inflamed the people 
 with such zeal that Basiliscus published an 
 orthodox edict. The following is his prayer 
 before he began his life on the pillar : " I yield 
 Thee glory, Jesus Christ my God, for all the 
 blessings which Thou hast heaped upon me, 
 and for the grace which Thou hast given me 
 that I should embrace this manner of life. 
 But Thou knowest that in ascending this 
 pillar I lean on thee alone, and that to Thee 
 alone I look for the happy issue of mine under- 
 taking. Accept, then, my object ; strengthen 
 me that I finish this painful course ; give me 
 grace to end it in holiness." In his last will 
 to his disciples, after commending them to the 
 common Father of all, and to the Saviour Who 
 died for them, Daniel bade them " hold fast 
 humility, practise obedience, exercise hospital- 
 ity, keep the fasts, observe the vigils, love 
 poverty, and above all maintain charity, 
 which is the first and great commandment ; 
 avoid the tares of the heretics ; separate never 
 from the church your mother : if you do these 
 things your righteousness shall he perfect." 
 Baronius places his death in a.d. 489. Vita 
 S. Daniel, ap. Surium, ad diem ii. decemb. cap. 
 xli. xlii. xliii. ; Robertson, Ch. Hist. ii. 41-43, 
 274 ; Ceillier, x. 344, 403, 485. Baronius, ed. 
 Theiner, vol. viii. ad an. 460, § 20 ; 464, § 2 ; 
 465, § 3- 12, 13; 476, § 48, 50, 51, 53; 489, 
 
 § 4. [W.M.S.] 
 
 Dativus (3), celebrated senator, martyred 
 under Diocletian Feb. 11, a.d. 304. In spite 
 of orders to the contrary, a company of the 
 faithful met in the town of Abitina, in the 
 proconsulate of Africa, to celebrate Christian 
 worship and communion, at the house of one 
 Felix Octavius. Forty-nine men and women 
 were surprised by the official and magistrates 
 of the town. They marched cheerfully to 
 their destination, chanting hymns and can- 
 ticles, having at their head Dativus the sena- 
 tor and Saturninus the presbyter. They 
 confessed Jesus Christ, were chained, and sent 
 to Carthage. There the proconsul Anulinus 
 examined them. Dativus, refusing to say 
 who was the chief of their company, was tor- 
 tured. As he lay under the iron, at a second 
 examination, Dativus was accused by For- 
 tunatianus, advocate, brother of the martyr 
 Victoria, one of the arrested, of enticing her 
 and other young girls to Abitina. Victoria, 
 however, indignantly denied that she had 
 gone there but of her own accord. The exe- 
 cutioners continued tormenting Dativus, till 
 
 DAVID 
 
 47 
 
 the interior of his breast could be sefu. He 
 went on praving and begging Jesus Christ for 
 patience. The proconsul, stopping the tor- 
 ture, asked him again if he had been present. 
 " I was in the assembly," he answered, " and 
 celebrated the Lord's Supper with the breth- 
 ren." They again thrust the irons into his 
 side ; and Dativus, repeating his prayer, 
 continued to say, " O Christ, I pray Thee let 
 me not be confounded." And he added, 
 " What have I done ? Saturninus is our 
 presbyter." Dativus was carried to gaol. Here 
 he soon afterwards died. Many of his com- 
 panions were also tortured, and most of them 
 were starved to death in prison. Kuinart, 
 Acta Sine. Mart. p. 382; Ceillier, iii. 20, etc.; 
 AA. SS. Bolland. Feb. ii. p. 513. fw.M.s.] 
 
 David (5), St. (Dcgiii ; Welsh, Dewi), the 
 most eminent Welsh saint. 
 
 His Period. — The Annales Cambriae, our 
 earliest authority for his existence, date his 
 death a.d. 601 ; and one reading, which the 
 Monumenta only gives in brackets, under a.d. 
 458, is : " St. Dewi nascitur anno tricesimo 
 post discessum Patricii de Menevia " (M. H. B. 
 830, 831). Geoffrey of Monmouth dates his 
 death a.d. 542, and William of Malmesbury 
 A.D. 546. Ussher argues that he died a.d. 544, 
 at the age of 82 {Brit. Eccl. Ant. Works, 1847 ; 
 vi. 43, 44, Chron. Index, ad ann. 544) ; but 
 Rice Rees, who has followed him in his com- 
 putations, places his birth 20 years later, and 
 fixes A.D. 366 as the last date possible for his 
 death. The a.d. 601 of the Ann. Camb. is the 
 date adopted by Haddan and Stubbs {Coun- 
 cils, i. 121, 143, 148), who remark that David 
 would thus come into view just as the history 
 of Wales emerges from the darkness that 
 conceals it for a century after the departure 
 of the Romans. 
 
 A resume of authorities for his Life is given 
 by Jones and Freeman {Hist, of St. David's, 
 240), and a full and careful list of all known 
 materials, manuscript and printed, by Hardy 
 {Descr. Catal. i. 766). 
 
 The Story of his Life. — The asserted facts of 
 St. David's life, omitting such as are clearly 
 legendarv, meet with various degrees of cre- 
 dence from authors of repute. Rees, in his 
 Essav on Welsh Saints, while rejecting several 
 circumstances as manifestly fabulous or in- 
 credible, such as his going to Jerusalem to be 
 consecrated, is disposed to accept enough to 
 make a biographical narrative. 
 
 His father was (in medieval Latin) Xantus 
 or Sanctus, prince of Kerctica — ie. modern 
 Cardiganshire. David is said to have been 
 educated first under St. Iltutus in his college 
 (afterwards called from him Llanilltyd Fawr, 
 or Lanwit Major), and subseciuently in the 
 college of PauUnus (a pupil of (lermanus and 
 one of the great teachers of the age), at Ty- 
 gwvn ar Daf (Rees, Welsh Saints. 178), or at 
 Whitland in Carmarthenshire (Jones and 
 Freeman) ; and here he spent ten years in the 
 study of Holy Scripture. In course of time 
 David became head of a society of his own, 
 founding or restoring a monastery or college 
 at a spot which Giraldus calls Vallis Hosma 
 (derived, as is generally supposed, from a con- 
 fusion between Rhos, a swamp, and Khosyn, a 
 rose), near Hen-Meneu, and this institution 
 was subsequently named, out of respect to his 
 
248 
 
 DAVID 
 
 memory, Ty Dewi, House of David, or St. 
 David's. In those days, remarks Rees, abbats 
 of monasteries were looked upon in their own 
 neighbourhoods as bishops, and were styled 
 such, while it is probable that they also exer- 
 cised chorepiscopal rights in their societies 
 {Welsh Saints, 182, 266; cf. Haddan and 
 Stubbs, i. 142, 143). Such dignity David 
 enjo^-ed before his elevation to the arch- 
 bishopric of the Cambrian church. It was 
 the Pelagian controversy that occasioned his 
 advancement. To pronounce upon the great 
 heresy then troubling the church, archbp. 
 Dubricius convened a synod at Breti, and 
 David, whose eloquence put the troublers to 
 confusion, made such an impression that the 
 synod at once elected him archbp. of Caerleon 
 and primate of the Cambrian church, Du- 
 bricius himself resigning in his favour. The 
 locality of this synod, which holds a marked 
 place in Welsh ecclesiastical traditions, was 
 on the banks of the Brefi, a tributary of the 
 T eifi ; Llanddewi Brefi it was afterwards 
 called, from the dedication of its church to St. 
 David. It is 8 miles from Lampeter, and from 
 recent archaeological discoveries has been 
 identified with an important Roman station, 
 the Loventium of the itineraries (Lewis, Top. 
 Diet, of Wales ; cf. Haddan and Stubbs, 
 Councils, i. 117). The Pelagian heresy, how- 
 ever, still survived, and the new archbishop 
 convened another synod, the issue of which 
 was so decided as to gain it the name of the 
 Synod of Victory. It is entered in the /In^ato 
 Cambriae, " Synodus Victoriae apud Britones 
 congregatur," under a.d. 569, but not with full 
 confidence (M. H. B. 831). It is also men- 
 tioned, without a date, in the Aitnales Mene- 
 venses (Wharton, Angl. Sac. ii. 648). After 
 residing for a while at Caerleon on Usk, where 
 the seat of the primate was then established, 
 David, by permission of king Arthur, removed 
 to Menevia, the Menapia of the Itineraries, 
 one of the ports for Ireland (Wright, Celt, 
 Roman, and Saxon, 13S). The Roman road 
 Via Julia led to it ; the voyage across was 45 
 miles ; the Menapii, one of the tribes which 
 held the E. coast of Ireland, were no doubt a 
 colony from the opposite shore of Britain {ib. 
 43) ; David's baptism by the bp. of Munster 
 indicates a religious connexion between Men- 
 evia and Ireland. The tradition of a mission 
 of the British church to Ireland to restore the 
 faith there, under the auspices of David, 
 Gildas, and Cadoc (Haddan and Stubbs, 
 Councils, i. 115) points the same way. May 
 we not, therefore, assume that the see was 
 removed because the tide of Saxon conquest 
 drove the British church to cultivate closer 
 relations with their Celtic brethren opposite ? 
 As primate, David distinguished himself by 
 saintly character and apostolic zeal, a glowing, 
 not to say an overcharged, description of which 
 is given in Giraldus. It is generally agreed that 
 Wales was divided into dioceses' in his time. 
 Rees, in his learned essay on the Welsh saints, 
 shews that of the dedications and localities of 
 the churches of the principality, a large num- 
 ber terminate in David's native name, ddewi, 
 or are otherwise connected with his memory 
 ( Welsh Saints, p. 52). These instances, more- 
 over, abound in a well-defined district ; and 
 Rees has ingeniously used these circumstances 
 
 DECIUS 
 
 as indicating the limits of the diocese of arch- 
 bp. David's immediate jurisdiction (ib. pp. 
 197-19Q). David's successor was Cynog. 
 
 Jones and Freeman [St. David's,' 246 seq.) 
 conclude that we may safely accept as his- 
 torical facts : that St. David established a see 
 and monastery at Menevia early in the 7th 
 cent., the site being chosen for the sake of 
 retirement ; that his diocese was co-extensive 
 with the Demetae ; that he had no archiepis- 
 copal jurisdiction ; that a synod was held at 
 Brefi, in which he probably played a conspic- 
 uous part, but that its objects are unknown ; 
 and finally that of his immediate successors 
 nothing is recorded {ib. 257). These writers 
 convey a vivid impression of the " strange and 
 desolate scenery " of the spot now named after 
 St. David, and give some curious antiquarian 
 details. Haddan and Stubbs {Councils, i. 115- 
 120) give dates to the synod of Brefi and the 
 synod of Victory, a little before 569 and in 
 569, later than Rees's latest possible date for 
 David's death ; and they regard the accounts 
 given of the synods by Ricemarchus, and 
 Giraldus after him, as purely fabulous, and 
 directed to the establishment of the apocryphal 
 supremacy of St. David and his see over the en- 
 tire British church. They express much doubt 
 as to the purpose of those assemblies being 
 to crush Pelagianism. Valuable documentary 
 information and references as to the whole 
 subject of the early Welsh episcopate are given 
 in Appendix C {op. cit.), and it is maintained 
 that " there is no real evidence of the existence 
 of any archiepiscopate at all in Wales during 
 the VVelsh period, if the term is held to imply 
 jurisdiction admitted or even claimed (until 
 the 12th cent.) by one see over another." 
 
 David was canonized by pope Calixtus c. 
 A.D. 1 1 20, and commemorated on Mar. i 
 (Rees, op. cit. 201). [c.h.] 
 
 Decius. The reign of this emperor, though 
 among the shortest in the Roman annals (a.d. 
 249-251), has gained a pre-eminence in eccle- 
 siastical history altogether disproportioned to 
 its place in general history. It was burnt in 
 on the memories of men as a fiery trial, and 
 occasioned many memorable controversies. 
 
 When Cn. Messius Decius Trajanus first 
 appears in history it is with a grown-up son, 
 himself between fifty and sixty, as a member 
 of the Roman senate, in the last year of the 
 reign of Philip the Arabian. The army elected 
 him as emperor, and forced him to lead them 
 into Italy. Near Verona they encountered 
 Philip, who was defeated and slain (June 17, 
 A.D. 249), and Decius began to reign. He 
 associated his own son and Annius Maximus 
 Gratus with him as Caesars. 
 
 The edict which made his name a byword of 
 reproach may have been due to a desire to 
 restore the rigorous morahty of the old Roman 
 life, and the old rehgion which gave that 
 morality its sanctions. If we may judge by 
 the confessions of the great Christian teachers, 
 who owned that the church deserved its 
 sufferings, the lives of its members did not 
 then present a very lovely aspect. Christian 
 men were effeminate and self-indulgent, trim- 
 ming their beard and dyeing their hair ; 
 Christian women painted their faces, and 
 brightened their eyes with cosmetics. The 
 clergy were covetous and ambitious, looking 
 
DECIUS 
 
 on their profession as a path to wealth and 
 influence. In addition to these evils they 
 presented, even more than they had done in 
 the days of the Antonines, the aspect of a secret 
 society with a highly compact organization. 
 That the late emperor had been supposed to 
 favour it or even to have been secretly a mem- 
 ber of it was enough to add another element 
 to the policy which Decius now adopted. 
 
 That policy was opened early in a.d. 250 by 
 an edict no longer extant,* of which we can 
 form a fair estimate, partly from an account 
 given by Gregory of Nyssa ( Vit. Greg. Thaum.), 
 and partly from the history of the persecution, 
 as traced by Cyprian, in his epistles and the 
 treatise de Lapsis. and by Dionysius of 
 Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 40-42). It did 
 not order any sharp measures of extermina- 
 tion. Magistrates throughout the empire 
 were ordered, under heavy penalties, to put 
 pressure upon the worshippers of Christ to ab- 
 jure Christianity. Fear did its work on many 
 whose faith had never had any real ground- 
 work in conviction. The seats of the magis- 
 trates were thronged with apostates, some 
 rushing eagerly to be conspicuous among the 
 first to offer sacrifice and sprinkle incense on 
 the altar ; some pale and trembling, as if 
 about to be themselves sacrificial victims. In 
 that crowd of renegades were, too, not a few 
 base and feeble-hearted priests of the church. 
 Others found an ingenious way of satisfying 
 their conscience, and securing their position 
 and life. The magistrates were not above 
 accepting bribes, and for a reasonable money 
 payment would give a certificate {libellus) that 
 sacrifice had been duly offered, without mak- 
 ing the actual performance of the rite com- 
 pulsory. The libellatici were rightly branded 
 by Christian feeling with a double note of 
 infamy. They added dishonesty and false- 
 hood to cowardice and denial. Bad as the 
 sacrificati, the thiirificati, might be, they were 
 not so contemptible as these. Next, severe 
 measures were brought to bear on the faithful. 
 They were dragged before the prefects and 
 other magistrates, questioned as to their faith, 
 required to sacrifice, exposed to insults and 
 outrages if they refused, thrust into prison, 
 and, in many instances, ill-treated till they 
 died. The wiser and mnre prudent bishops, 
 such as Dionysius of Alexandria and Cyprian 
 of Carthage, followed the counsel of their 
 Lord (Matt. x. 23), and the example of Poly- 
 carp, fled from the storm themselves, and 
 exhorted their followers to do the same. 
 Some, who thus withdrew from the common 
 life of men, never returned to it (e.g. Paul, the 
 hermit of the Thebaid, and Maximus of Nice), 
 and the Decian period has been commonly 
 regarded, though with some exaggeration, as 
 the starting-point of the anchorctic life. The 
 wiser pastors continued, as far as they could, 
 to watch over their flocks and keep them 
 steadfast in the faith, even while exposed to 
 taunts and suspicionsof cowardiceordeception. 
 Others languished in prison, like the sufferers 
 at Rome, of whom Cyprian tells, " sine solatto 
 mortis." Some courted death not in vain, or 
 met it bravely. 
 
 • A document purporting to give the text of the 
 edict was published at Toulouse a.d. 1664, but is 
 universally acknowledged to be spurious. 
 
 DECIUS 
 
 249 
 
 The persecution of Decius (commonly 
 reckoned as the seventh) may fairly be meas- 
 ured as to its extent, if not its actual severity, 
 by the list of martyrs under it still found in the 
 calendar of the Western church. It was more 
 extensive and more systematic than anv that 
 had preceded it. Fai)ian, bp. of Rome, was 
 among the foremost of the victims ; Babylas 
 of Antioch, Pionius of Smyrna (seized, it was 
 said, while celebrating the anniversary of the 
 martyrdom of Polycarp), Agatha of Sicily, 
 Polyeuctcs of Armenia, Carpus and his deacon 
 of Thyatira, Maximus (a layman) of Asia, 
 Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, Acacius of the 
 Phrygian Antioch, Itinmachtis and Nemesius 
 of Alexandria, Peter and his companions of 
 Lampsacus, Irenaeus of Neo-Cacsarea, Martial 
 of Limoges, Abdon and Sennen (Persians then 
 at Rome),Cassian of Imola, Lucian aThracian, 
 Trypho and Respicius of Bithynia, the Ten 
 Martyrs of Crete, have all found a place in the 
 martyrologies of this period, and, after allow- 
 ing uncertainty to some of the names, the list 
 is enough to shew that there was hardly a 
 province of the empire where the persecu- 
 tion was not felt. Among " confessors " (a 
 title which seems to have been then, for 
 the first time, used in this sense) were 
 Origen, who was tortured on the rack, and 
 the boy Dioscorus who, at the age of 15, 
 offered himself for the crown of martyrdom, 
 but was spared by the Alexandrian prefect in 
 pity for his youth. To this reign belongs the 
 well-known legend of the Seven Sleepers of 
 Ephesus, told for the first time by Gregory of 
 Tours {cic Glor. Martyr, c. 95). Confessing the 
 faith, like Dioscorus, in the prime of early 
 manhood, they were, it was said, walled up in 
 a cave, and left to die. They fell asleep, and 
 the place acquired a local fame for its sanctity. 
 In the reign of Theodosius (a.d. 447) the cave 
 was opened, and the sleepers awoke, went 
 forth, and were startled at the changes which 
 they witnessed, temples destroyed and 
 churches standing in their place. Their 
 second life was, however, of short duration. 
 They again lay down together and fell asleep, 
 this time not to wake again. 
 
 Happily, the persecution was as short as it 
 was severe. The attacks of the Goths (or the 
 Carpi, probably a Gothic tribe) drew Decius 
 and his son into Pannonia, where they fell in 
 battle. In some respects the after-effects of 
 the Decian persecution were more important 
 than its direct results. It cleared off the 
 crowd of half-hearted Christians, and left 
 behind those who were prepared by its dis- 
 cipline for the severer struggles that were to 
 come under Valerian and Dindetian. (Jues- 
 tions arose as to the treatment of those 
 who had apostatized (the lapsi of Cyprian's 
 treatise). Were the libellatici to be dealt 
 with on the same footing as the t'lurificatt ? 
 Were either capable of readmission into the 
 fold of Christ ? Was that readmission to be 
 conditional upon the church's normal disci- 
 pline, or were the confessors to be allowed to 
 give a certificate of absolution (the libellus 
 pads) to those whose weakness or repentance 
 was sufficient reason for indulgence ? Some 
 of those who prided themselves, like many of 
 the Roman confessors, on their constancy, 
 looked down with scorn on the indulgence 
 
250 
 
 DEMETRIAS 
 
 shewn by Cyprian and Cornelius to the 
 lapsi, and even taunted the latter with having 
 been a Hbellattcus. The tendency to ascetic 
 rigorism of discipline would doubtless have 
 shewn itself sooner or later in any case, but 
 historically the Novatianist schisms had 
 their beginning in the Decian persecution. Cf. 
 Eus. H. E. vi. 39-45 ; Cyprian, de Laps., and 
 Epp. passim ; the articles in this diet, on the 
 persons named above ; and an excellent paper 
 on Decius by Hefele in Wetzer and Welte's 
 Kirchen Lexicon. For the general history of 
 the reign, see Gibbon (c. x.), whose narrative 
 is based on Zosimus and Zonaras. [e.h.p.] 
 
 Demetrias, a Roman virgin to whom 
 Jerome wrote his treatise {Ep. 130, ed. Vail.) 
 on the keeping of virginity. Her family was 
 illustrious at Rome, her grandmother Proba 
 (who is much praised by Jerome) having had 
 three sons, all consuls. Demetrias had in 
 early life wished to take the vow of virginity, 
 but feared her parents' opposition. They, 
 however, fully approved, and it gladdened all 
 the churches of Italy. Her father having 
 died just before the sack of Rome by Alaric, 
 the family sold their property and set sail for 
 Africa, witnessing the burning of Rome as 
 they left Italy ; and, arriving in Africa, fell 
 into the hands of the rapacious count Herac- 
 lian, who took away a large part of their 
 property. Jerome exhorts Demetrias to a 
 life of study and fasting ; care in the selection 
 of companions ; consecration of her wealth 
 to Christ's service ; and to working with her 
 own hands. He warns her not to perplex 
 herself with difficult questions introduced by 
 the Origenists ; and recommends the study 
 of Scripture. He exhorts her to prefer the 
 coenobitic to the hermit life, and bears testi- 
 mony, as he had done 30 years before to 
 Eustochium, to the excellence of the virgin- 
 state, notwithstanding the attacks made 
 upon it. [w.H.F.] 
 
 Demetrius (2) succeeded Julianus a.d. 189, 
 as nth bp. of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. v. 22). 
 He presided over the see for 43 years, and 
 died A.D. 231-232 {ib. vi. 26). He appears to 
 have been of an energetic and imperious 
 nature. He took an active interest in the 
 Catechetical School, and is said to have sent 
 one of its early chiefs, Pantaenus, on a 
 [second ?] mission " to the Indians " on their 
 own request (Hieron. de Vir. III. 36). After 
 Clement had left Alexandria, he placed Origcn 
 at its head, c. 203 (Eus. H. E. vi. 5), and 
 strenuously encouraged him to continue his 
 work, when his indiscreet zeal had exposed 
 him to misrepresentation (ib. vi. 8). Later 
 (a.d. 217), he sent Origen to the Roman 
 governor of Arabia, at the governor's earnest 
 invitation (ib. vi. 19). Origen fulfilled his 
 mission satisfactorily, but not long afterwards 
 Demetrius's friendship for him was inter- 
 rupted. [Origen.] According to a late, and 
 not verv trustworthy, authority, Demetrius is 
 reported to have written letters on the keeping 
 of Easter, maintaining the view adopted at 
 Nicaea (Eutychius, Ann. pp. 363 ff. ; Migne, 
 Patrol, vol. cxi.). Other legendary stories of 
 his life are given in the Chronicon Orientale 
 (pp. 72 f. ed. 1685), and more briefly by 
 Tillemont (Memoires, Origene, art .vii. tom. 
 iii. p. 225, ed. Bruxelles). 
 
 DIANIUS 
 
 The statement that Demetrius first changed 
 the singular ecclesiastical arrangement of 
 Egypt, by appointing three bishops in ad- 
 dition to the bp. of Alexandria, who had 
 formerly governed the whole province, is 
 probably correct, though the only direct 
 authority for it is that of Eutychius, patriarch 
 of Alexandria, in the loth cent. (cf. Lightfoot, 
 Phihppians, p. 230). Possibly this change was 
 due to special views on church government, 
 which may have influenced Demetrius in his 
 harsh judgment on the ordination of Origen be- 
 yond the limits of his jurisdiction. [b.f.w.] 
 
 Demophilus, bp. of Constantinople, a.d. 
 370 ; expelled 380 ; died 386 ; formerly bp. 
 of Berea ; born of good family in Thessalonica 
 (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 14). On the death of 
 Eudoxius in 370 he was elected by the Arians 
 to the bishopric of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. 
 iv. 14 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 13). The people, how- 
 ever, were much divided (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 
 10). The orthodox party chose Evagrius for 
 their bishop, and he was ordained by Eusta- 
 thius, the deposed bp. of Antioch. This was 
 the signal for an outburst of fury on the part 
 of the Arians. Eustathius and Evagrius 
 were banished by Valens, and their followers 
 bitterly persecuted (Socr. H. E. iv. 14, 16 ; 
 Soz. H. E. vi. 13, 14). Demophilus, soon 
 after his accession, went to Cyzicus in con- 
 junction with Dorotheus, or Theodorus, of 
 Heraclea, to procure the election of an Arian 
 bishop, that see having been vacant since the 
 banishment of Eunomius. But the people of 
 Cyzicus refused to acknowledge them till they 
 had anathematized Aetius, Eunomius, and 
 their followers. They were then permitted 
 to ordain a bishop chosen by the people. The 
 bishop who was ordained straightway and 
 clearly taught the consubstantial faith (Philo- 
 storg. H. E. ix. 13). 
 
 In 380 changed times came and made the 
 reign of Theodosius I. and the patriarchate of 
 Demophilus memorable. The emperor Theo- 
 dosius offered to confirm him in his see, if he 
 would subscribe the Nicene Creed. Demo- 
 philus refused, and was immediately ordered 
 to give up his churches. He then called his 
 followers together, and retired, with Lucius of 
 Alexandria and others, to a place of worship 
 without the walls (Socr. H. E. v. 7). The 
 churches of Constantinople, which had for 
 forty years been in Arian hands, were now 
 restored to the orthodox ; and similarly in 
 other cities. It was, in fact, a general dis- 
 establishment of Arianism and re-establish- 
 ment of Catholicism. Philostorgius (H. E. 
 ix. 19) adds that Demophilus went to his own 
 city, Berea. But this must have been some 
 time afterwards, or he must have returned 
 from exile, for he represented the Arian party 
 at the synod held in Constantinople, a.d. 383 
 (Socr. H. E. V. 10 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 12). The 
 same writer says that Demophilus was wont 
 to throw everything into confusion, especially 
 the doctrines of the church, and quotes from 
 a sermon at Constantinople, in which he 
 spoke of the human nature of the Saviour as 
 lost in the divine, as a glass of milk when 
 poured into the sea. Philostorg. Patrol. Gk. 
 Ixv. ; Soz. and Socr. Patrol. Gk. Ixvii. [p.c] 
 
 Dianius or Dianaeus, for more than 20 years 
 bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a saintly man 
 
DroYMUS 
 
 much venerated in the early ehurrh, notwith- 
 standing his somewhat doubtful orthodoxy. 
 He was almost certainly the bishop who 
 baptized Basil the Great on his return from 
 Athens, and ordained him lector (Basil, de 
 Sp. Sancto, 29, p. 357). Basil speaks of him 
 in terms of most affectionate respect, describ- 
 ing him as remarkable for his virtues, frank, 
 generous, and attractive from his amiability, 
 venerable both in aspect and in character 
 {Ep. 31 [84]). We see him, however, in 
 these troubled times weak and undecided, led 
 by his peaceful disposition to deprecate con- 
 troversy, and by his feebleness to side with 
 the strongest ; destitute of strong theological 
 convictions, and wanting the clearness of 
 thought to appreciate subtleties of doctrine. 
 He was, therefore, too often found on the 
 semi-Arian side of the church. If, as Tille- 
 mont holds, he is the Danius who heads the 
 list of bishops to whom pope Julius directed 
 his dignified reply to the insolent letter ad- 
 dressed to him from Antioch, he took a leading 
 part in the synod held at that city in the 
 early months of a.d. 340, by which the de- 
 position of Athanasius was confirmed, and 
 r.eorge of Cappadocia placed on the throne of 
 Alexandria (Epistola Julii, apud Athanas. 
 Apolog. ii. p. 239). He also took part in 
 
 the famous synod of Antioch, in Encaeniis, 
 A.D. 341, and was present at Sardica, a.d. 347, 
 where, according to Hilary (p. 29), he joined 
 in the anathema against Julius and Athan- 
 asius. His weakness of character was still 
 more fatally shewn when, after the council 
 of Constantinople, a.d. 359, the formula of 
 Rimini was sought to be imposed on the 
 church by the authority of the emperor. To 
 the intense grief of Basil, Dianius yielded to 
 pressure and signed the heretical document. 
 Basil could not hold communion with one who 
 had so far compromised his faith, and fled to 
 Xazianzum. It was reported that he had 
 anathematized his bishop, but this he indig- 
 nantly denies (Basil, Ep. 51 [84]). Dianius 
 keenly felt the absence of his eloquent and 
 able young counsellor, especially when Julian 
 endeavoured to re-establish paganism. After 
 two years he recalled Basil, and declared that 
 he had signed the creed of Rimini in the 
 simplicity of his heart, hoping to restore peace 
 to the distracted church, with no idea of im- 
 pugning the faith of Nicaea. Basil, satisfied 
 with Dianius's explanations, returned to his 
 former post of adviser of the bishop till his 
 death, which occurred soon after, probably 
 a.d. 362. [Basilius of Caesarea.] [e.v.] 
 
 DIdymus, head of the Catechetical School of 
 Alexandria in the 4th cent., born a.d. 309 or 
 314 (Tillemont, Mem. x. 387). When only 
 four years old he lost his sight from disease ; 
 and consequently was never taught, as he 
 himself declared, even the usual rudiments of 
 learning. But his extraordinary force of 
 character and intense thirst for knowledge tri- 
 umphed over all disadvantages. He prayed for 
 inward light, " but added studies to prayers" 
 (Rutin, ii. 7). He learned the alphabet by 
 touch from engraved wooden tablets, and 
 words and syllables by attentive listening. 
 Thus he became master of various sciences 
 (Socr. iv. 25 ; Soz. iii. 15 ; Theod. iv. 26), and 
 attained a truly wonderful familiarity with 
 
 DIDYMUS 
 
 251 
 
 the Scriptures. Athanasius made the blind 
 scholar head of the Catechetical Srhnf.l, as a 
 fitting successor to Pantaenus and Clement. 
 He was the twelfth who occupied that chair. 
 In his earlier manhood, Anthony, visiting 
 Alexandria to support the Catholic cause 
 against the Arians. entered Didymus's cell, 
 and despite his modest reluctance obliged him 
 to offer up prayers (Rosweyd. Vit. Pair. 044, 
 539, ed. 1617), and asked Didynius whether 
 he was sad on account of his blindness. After 
 the question had been twice repeated, Didy- 
 mus owned that he did feel the affliction pain- 
 fully. " Do not be distressed," rejoined the 
 saintly hermit, " for the loss of a faculty 
 enjoyed by gnats and flies, when you have 
 that inward evesight which is the privilege of 
 none but saints." Jerome (£/>. 68 ; cf. Socr. 
 iv. 29) stayed for a month at Alexandria in 
 386, mainly (see Prnlog. in Eph.) to see 
 Didymus and have Scripture difficulties ex- 
 plained bv him (Soz. I.e.). " In many points," 
 wrote Jerome in a.d. 400 (Ep. 84)!^ " I give 
 him thanks. I learned from him things which 
 I had not known ; what I did know, his 
 teaching has helped me to retain." Rufinus 
 was also, for a much longer time, a pupil 
 of Didymus. Palladius (Rosweyd. I.e.), who 
 visited him four times, states that he had a 
 dream of the emperor Julian's death at the 
 exact time it occurred in his Persianexpedition. 
 Sozomen says that in arguing for the Nicene 
 faith, Didymus was successful by his extreme 
 persuasiveness — he seemed to make every one 
 a judge of the points in dispute (iii. 15) ; and 
 Isidore of Pelusium [Ep. i. 331) and Libanius 
 (Ep. 321) speak of his great ability. 
 
 Our fullest information about him is derived 
 from Jerome, who frequently refers to him as 
 his old teacher, and affectionately describes 
 him as " my seer," in allusion to the contrast 
 between his physical blindness and his keen- 
 ness of spiritual and intellectual perception. 
 Jerome translated into Latin Didymus's 
 treatise On the Holy Spirit, and prefixed a 
 preface, in which he spoke of the author as 
 having " eyes like the spouse in the Song of 
 Songs," as " unskilled in speech but not in 
 knowledge, exhibiting in his very speech the 
 character of an apostolic man,' as well by 
 luminous thought as by simplicity of words." 
 Writing in 392 (de Viris Illustr. 109), Jerome 
 gives a short biographical account of Didymus. 
 
 The extent to which Didymus may be called 
 an Origenizer has been discussed. See Min- 
 garelli's " Commentarius " prefixed to his 
 edition of Didymus's de Trinitate (Bologna, 
 1769). In his extant writings there is no 
 assertion of Origenian views as to the pre- 
 existence of souls, and he afflrms, more than 
 once, the endless nature of future punishment ; 
 but seems to have believed that some of the 
 fallen angels occupied a midway position 
 between angels and demons, and would be 
 ultimately forgiven. Neither Kpiphanius nor 
 Theophilus, nor indeed any one before the 
 6th cent, except Jerf>me, laid Origenism to 
 his charge ; and with regard to the alleged 
 condemnation of his memory by the 5th 
 general council, as he is never named in the 
 Acts, the utmost that can be made of such a 
 statement is, that the condemnation of Origen 
 in that synod's nth anathema (Mansi, ix. 383) 
 
252 
 
 DIDYMUS 
 
 was somewhat largely construed as carrying 
 with it, by implication, the condemnation of 
 other writers more or less identified with his 
 school of thought. See Tillemont's " com- 
 parison of Didymus with St. Gregory of Nyssa" 
 (x. 396). Didymus's work On the Holy 
 Spirit was clearly a protest against Mace- 
 donianism (see Tillemont, x. 393). 
 
 His comments on the Catholic Epistles are 
 extant, as translated by Epiphanius Scholas- 
 ticus (see Galland. Bib. Vet. Pair. u.). His 
 notes on I. Peter shew a dislike of Chiliasm, as 
 a carnal and frivolous theory ; he asserts free 
 will, opposes Manicheans, admits the possi- 
 bility of faults on the part of angels being 
 cleansed through Christ ; and in words very 
 characteristic of the indomitable student and 
 teacher, rebukes Christians who neglect sacred 
 studies and attend only to practical life (on 
 I. Peter iii. 13). He comments briefly on II. 
 Peter, but sets it aside as spurious and " not 
 in the canon," although (see infra) in the de 
 Trinitate he cites it as Petrine. The chief 
 features of his remarks on St. John's three 
 Epistles are, (i) the earnestness against Docet- 
 ism, Valentinianism, all speculations injurious 
 to the Maker of the world, (2) the assertion 
 that a true knowledge of God is possible with- 
 out a knowledge of His essence, (3) care to 
 urge the necessity of combining orthodoxy 
 with right action. In the notes on Jude, he 
 says that Christ is called the only Sovereign 
 because He is the only true God. He speaks 
 of the doom of those who turn away absolutely 
 to evil as hopeless. 
 
 His treatise Against the Manicheans (pub. 
 by Combefis in his Auctarium Novum, 1672) 
 begins with logical formulae, intended to 
 disprove the existence of two unoriginated 
 Principles. From the blame and punishment 
 attached to evil, he infers that Satan and his 
 followers are not evil by nature ; he discusses 
 the terms " by nature children of wrath " 
 (which he understands to mean " really 
 children of wrath"), "children of this 
 world," " son of perdition," " generation of 
 vipers," with the aim of shewing that they do 
 not contravene the great moral facts of free 
 will and responsibility. The devil, he urges, 
 was created good, and became a devil by his 
 own free will. If it be objected, why then 
 did God make a being who was to become so 
 pestilent ? the objection really lies against the 
 whole plan of God's moral government, which 
 intends His rational creatures to become good 
 by choosing goodness, and therefore leaves 
 them capable of choosing evil, and drawing on 
 themselves the result of such a choice. He 
 also asserts the transmission of original sin : 
 a Saviour born by ordinary generation would 
 have incurred the sin entailed on Adam's 
 whole posterity. His three books On the 
 Trinity have not reached us in a perfect 
 state. They are interesting as exhibiting the 
 Athanasian character, so to speak, of his 
 thought in presence of Anomoeans and of 
 Macedonians. He admits II. Peter as genuine : 
 perhaps the opinion he had formerly held as 
 to its non-canonicity had been reconsidered. 
 He is very earnest, almost in the style of the 
 " Athanasian Creed," on the co-equality of 
 the Divine Hypostases (he uses that term in 
 the sense which the younger generation of 
 
 DINOOTH 
 
 Catholics had adopted since the earlier days 
 of the Arian strife). He enforces the per- 
 petuity of Christ's kingdom (as if in con- 
 troversy with Marcellians), and speaks of the 
 Virgin Mother as Theotokos (ii. 4). He be- 
 stows much time and pains on the Macedonian 
 controversy. Occasionally he kindles and 
 glows with strong devotional fervour, and 
 concludes an eloquent passage on the glory of 
 the Holy Trinity with a thrice-repeated Amen. 
 Shortly before this passage he invokes the 
 archangels, and expresses his belief in the 
 intercession of the saints (ii. 7). [w.b.] 
 
 Dimoeritae, another name for the followers 
 of ApoUinarius, probably to be explained by 
 a passagein aletterof Gregoryof Nazianzum to 
 Nectarius of Constantinople {Ep. 202, al. Or. 
 46). Gregory says that ApoUinarius's book 
 affirmed that He Who had come down from 
 above had no I'oPs, but that ti]v dedrrjTa rod 
 Movoyevovs ttjv tou vou 4'V(Jiv avairX^Tpujcraffav . 
 Hence, as the Apollinarians maintained that 
 our Lord assumed only (dL/xoipla) two of the 
 three parts ( (ru'^,a, ^vxv, rors) of which perfect 
 humanity consists, they were called Dimoeritae 
 by Epiphanius, who says (Haer. Ixxvii.) that 
 "some denied especially the perfect Incarna- 
 tion of Christ ; some asserted His body 
 consubstantial with His divinity ; some em- 
 phatically denied that He had ever taken 
 a soul ; others not less emphatically refused 
 to Him a mind." 
 
 Among the leaders of the Dimoeritae wasone 
 ViTALius. Both Gregory of Nazianzum and 
 Epiphanius came in contact with him ; the 
 former while Vitalius was, it would seem, a 
 presbyter, the latter when he had been made 
 a bishop of the sect. Epiphanius at Antioch, 
 in a long discussion with Vitalius, put the 
 crucial question : " You admit the Incarna- 
 tion, do you also admit that Christ took a mind 
 (I'oO;')?" The answer was, "No." Epiphanius 
 persisted : " In what sense then do you call 
 Christ 7-<\eios ? " The point was debated with- 
 out results. Epiphanius urged that not only 
 was nothing gained by excluding mind, as we 
 understand it, from the nature of Christ ; but 
 also that by such exclusion much was lost 
 which made His nature, character, and actions 
 intelligible. Vitalius and his followers avoided 
 Epiphanius's arguments by reverting to their 
 favourite texts, e.g. " We have the mind of 
 Christ " (I. Cor. ii. 16), etc. 
 
 The Dimoeritae probably existed, as a sect, 
 for a few years only, either under that name 
 or as Vitalians, Synusiasts, Polemians, Valen- 
 tinians, after some favourite leader or opinion. 
 Then they died out, or merged themselves into 
 other bodies holding similar views, or were 
 brought back to tlie church. The books, 
 psalteries, and hymns composed and issued by 
 ApoUinarius and his principal followers were 
 met, and their effects counteracted, by books 
 and hymns such as have given to Gregory of 
 Nazianzum a name among ecclesiastical song- 
 writers. Epiphanius, Panaria, iii. 11 ; Haer. 
 Ixxvii. (ed. Dindorf, iii. 1, p. 454) ; Oehler, 
 Corpus Haereseolog. ii. 330, etc. ; and the 
 usual Church histories, e.g. Neander, Niedner, 
 Hase, Robertson, s.v. " Apollinarianism," 
 should be consulted. [j.m.f.] 
 
 Dinooth, Dinothus, abbat of Bangor Iscoed, 
 
DINOOTH 
 
 a Welsh saint, placed by Rees between a.d. 500 
 and 542. Originally a North British chieftain, 
 reverses drove him into Wales, where he fonnel 
 a protector in Cyngen, prince of Powys. I. ike 
 I lany other British chieftains who lost their 
 l.uuls in the Saxon conquest (Rees, Welsh 
 S.iinis, 207), Dinooth embraced a life of re- 
 ligion, and, under Cyngen, founded, in con- 
 junction with his sons, Deiniol, Cynwyl, and 
 (Iwarthan, the monastery of Bangor on the 
 i )ee, of which he was the first abbat. Bede 
 mentions his name in his narrative of the 
 second conference at Augustine's Oak {H. E. 
 ii. 2), but merely says, cautiously, "Tempore 
 illo Dinoot abbas praefuisse narratur." Bede, 
 who wTote a century and a quarter after 
 Augustine's time, shews no special acquaint- 
 ance with the internal affairs of the Britons, 
 and we cannot help suspecting that the pre- 
 sent uncertainty as to the chronology of Welsh 
 hagiology existed when Bede WTOte. A later 
 statement makes the founder of Bangor alive 
 in A.D. 602 or 603, and brings him to the 
 conference, though he must have been in ex- 
 tremest old age, and would have had a moun- 
 tain journey from the Uee to the lower Severn 
 (see D. C. A. "Augustine's Oak"; also Haddan 
 andStubbs, iii. 40, 41, onAugustine's journey); 
 it even reports the speech he is said to have 
 made in the name of the British church in 
 answer to Augustine. For this document see 
 Haddan and Stubbs {Couucils. i. 122), where 
 the answer is quoted in the original Welsh with 
 Spelman's Latin translation. Two copies of 
 the original MS. exist in the Cottonian collec- 
 tion. It is accepted as genuine by Leland 
 (Tanner, Biblioth. 1748, art. " Dinotus," p. 
 228), Stillingfleet (Orig. Brit. i. 536), Lappen- 
 berg (Hist, of Eng. i. 135). On the other hand, 
 the document does not mention the name of 
 .Augustine, nor allude to one subject of the con- 
 ference which is markedly noted by Bede, the 
 evangelization of the Anglo-Saxons. In fact 
 it contains no name whatever, but is a firm 
 and temperate repudiation of papal authority, 
 and an assertion of the supremacy of " the 
 bp. of Caerleon upon Usk " over the British 
 church. For any internal evidence to the con- 
 trary, the " Answer " might have been penned 
 in reply to some demand made upon the 
 British church by the see of Canterbury 
 centuries after Dinooth. It bears upon that 
 subject, and that alone. 
 
 We know less about Dinooth than about his 
 famous monastery upon the right bank of the 
 Dee, 10 or 12 miles from Chester. The name 
 of Bangor ys y coed (Bangor under the wood) 
 distinguishes it from other Bangors, especially 
 that of Carnarvonshire, where Deiniol, the 
 son of Dinooth, founded another monastery, 
 which was soon afterwards made the seat of 
 a bishopric. So numerous were the monks 
 of Bangor Iscoed that, as Bede puts it, on their 
 being divided into seven parts with a ruler over 
 each, none of those parts consisted of less than 
 300 men, who all lived by the labour of their 
 hands. It thus rivalled the Irish Bangor 
 [Comgall], and, from the learned men men- 
 tioned by Bede as residing there, must have 
 been as much a college as a monastery. Au- 
 gustine's prediction was levelled, not against 
 this institution in particular, but the British 
 church and people at large ; " if they would 
 
 DIOCLETIAN 
 
 253 
 
 notproach thowavol \\U- to the i:nKlish nation, 
 they should at their hands undirgo the ven- 
 geance of diath." The conjunction desired 
 by Augustine (" una cum nobis," Bede) in- 
 volved their ecclesiastical submission. " Di- 
 not)th's Answer," in recognizing this, may have 
 appeared to some one in after-times a sufficient 
 ground to assign the document to this occa- 
 sion. The judgment came about 10 years 
 afterwards, a.d. 613 (.4>i>i. Cambr. and Ann. 
 Tighern., preferable to earlier dates, as 603 of 
 Flor. Wig. and 606 or 607 of A . S. C. ; cf. Had- 
 dan and Stubbs, i. 123), when Ethelfrid, the 
 pagan king of Northumbria, invaded the 
 Britons at Chester. Being about to give 
 battle, he observed their " priests," who were 
 there to pray for the soldiers, drawn up apart 
 in a place of greater safety, and under the mili- 
 tary protection of prince IJrocmail. They had 
 come chiefly from Bangor, after a three days' 
 fast. The invader, regarding them as a con- 
 tingent of his enemy, attacked them first and 
 slew about 1,200, only 50 escaping. Bede 
 either here uses the term " sacerdotes " and 
 " monachi " as synonymous, or the priests 
 were in charge of the monks, leading their de- 
 votions. It was a disastrous blow to Bangor, 
 and was naturally handed down as a fulfilment 
 of Augustine's words; but we do not hear that 
 the monastery itself was attacked. Some 60 
 years later the annalists record " Combustio 
 Bennchoriae Brittonum " (Hadd. and St. i. 
 125), probably referring to this Bangor of the 
 Dee. Malmesbury (G. R. ed. Hardy, i. 66) de- 
 scribes the extensive ruins of the place in his 
 day — " tot semiruti parietes ecclesiarum, tot 
 anfractus porticuum, tanta turba ruderum, 
 quantum vix ahbi cernas " ; the credibility of 
 which description has been almost destroyed 
 by sometimes translating the first clause, " the 
 ruined walls of so many churches." The re- 
 mains had nearly disappeared in the time of 
 Camden. (Camd. ed. Gough, ii. 422, 429 ; 
 Smith, ad. Bed. E. H. ii. 2 ; Tanner, Nottt. ed. 
 Nasmith, Flint, ii.) The site is on the road 
 between Wrexham and Whitchurch, about 
 5 miles from each. Its modem state and 
 surviving vestiges are described in Lewis 
 (Topog. Diet, of Wales, art. " Bangor "). Le- 
 land's description is in his Itinerary (vol. v. 
 p. 30, 2nd ed. Hearne). [ch.] 
 
 Diocletian (Docles, Diodes, Caius Vale- 
 rius Diocletianus Jovius), a.d. 284-305. The 
 acts that make the reign of this emperor 
 memorable in the history of the church be- 
 long to its closing years. Had he died before 
 a.d. 303 he would have taken his place among 
 the rulers whose general tolerance helped 
 Christianity to obtain its victory. As it is, his 
 name is identified with the most terrible of its 
 persecutions. For three centuries men reck- 
 oned from the commencement of his reign as 
 from the era of martyrs ; and the date is still 
 recognized in the Coptic Chun h as the basis of 
 its chronologv. 
 
 The earlier years of Difxletian concern us 
 onlv in connexion with the struggle which 
 came to a head when his work srinied nearly 
 over. Elected by the soldiers in Bithynia at 
 the age of 39, after the murder of Numerian, 
 he was formally installed at Niconiedia. In 
 A.D. 286 he chose Maximian as his cfilleague, 
 gave him the title first of Caesar and then ol 
 
254 
 
 DIOCLETIAN 
 
 Augustus, and sent him to command in the 
 West, while he remained in the East, chiefly at 
 Nicomedia, which he tried to make, by lavish 
 outlay on its buildings, a new capital for the 
 empire. It indicates his intention to uphold 
 the religion of the state that he assumed the 
 surname of Jovius, and gave to his colleague 
 that of Herculius. Among the buildings with 
 which he embellished the various provinces 
 were temples of Zeus, Apollo, Nemesis, Hecate, 
 at Antioch, of Isis and Serapis at Rome, of Isis 
 at Phylae, of Mithras at Vindobona. He con- 
 sulted haruspices and augurs as to the success 
 of his enterprises, and in more difficult emer- 
 gencies the oracle of the Milesian Apollo at 
 Branchidae(Lactant. de A/oft Pers. cc. lo, ii). 
 The appointment of Constantius Chlorus and 
 Galerius in a.d. 293 as Caesars under the two 
 August! introduced new elements. Each was 
 called on to prove his loyalty to the system in- 
 to which he was adopted by a new marriage. 
 Constantius divorced Helena and married 
 Theodora, the step-daughter of Maximian. 
 Galerius, also repudiating his former wife, 
 received the hand of Valeria, the daughter of 
 Diocletian and Prisca. To Constantius was 
 entrusted the government of Gaul and Britain, 
 to Galerius the provinces between the Adriatic 
 and the Euxine. Diocletian kept the pro- 
 vinces of Asia under his own control. Maxi- 
 mian had those of Africa and Italy. The edict 
 of Gallienus, a.d. 259, had placed Christianity 
 in the number of religiones licitae, and there 
 had been no formal persecution since. Dio- 
 cletian and Maximian began by adopting the 
 same policy ; and the martyrdoms which are 
 referred to the earlier years of their reign, like 
 those of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion at 
 Martigny (Octodurum), of St. Victor at Mar- 
 seilles, of SS. Cosmas and Damian and others 
 in Cilicia, if more than legendary, must be re- 
 ferred to special causes, and not to a general 
 policy of persecution. The somewhat cloudy 
 rhetoric of Eusebius in describing the condi- 
 tion of the church of this time indicates that 
 the last struggle with the old religion could not 
 long be averted. The most trusted and in- 
 fluential eunuchs of the household, Dorotheus 
 and Gorgonius, were avowedly Christians and 
 excused from attending at heathen sacrifices 
 (Eus. viii. i). Prisca the wife, and Valeria the 
 daughter, of Diocletian were kept back from 
 an open profession of faith ; but their absence 
 from all sacrifices made men look on them with 
 suspicion (Lactant. de Mort. Persec. c. 15). 
 The church of Nicomedia was the most con- 
 spicuous edifice in the city. The adherents of 
 the old system had good reason for alarm. 
 They saw in every part of the empire an or- 
 ganized society that threatened it with de- 
 struction. Symptoms of the coming conflict 
 began before long to shew themselves. Mal- 
 chus, the disciple of Plotinus (better known as 
 Porphyry), wrote against the religion of the 
 Christians while maintaining a tone of rever- 
 ence towards Christ Himself, and so became 
 in their eyes their most formidable opponent. 
 Hierocles, first as Vicarius of Bithynia and 
 afterwards, probably, as prefect of Egypt, 
 fought against them with pen and sword, and 
 published Words of a Truth-lover to the Chris- 
 tians, in which Christ was compared with 
 Apollonius of Tyana. Within the imperial 
 
 DIOCLETIAN 
 
 circle itself some were impatient of the toler- 
 ance of Diocletian. The mother of Galerius, 
 who gave sacrificial banquets almost daily, 
 was annoyed because Christian officers and 
 soldiers refused to come to them. The cases of 
 Maximilian of Theveste, in proconsular Africa, 
 who (a.d. 295) had refused to serve as a soldier 
 and take the military oath, as incompatible 
 with his allegiance to Christ, and of Marcellus 
 (a.d. 298), who at TingisiniMauritania solemnly 
 renounced his allegiance to the emperor rather 
 than take part in idolatrous festivals, had 
 probably alarmed Galerius himself (Ruinart, 
 Acta Sincera, pp. 309, 312). 
 
 Occasions for decisive measures were soon 
 found. Diocletian, who seems to have had a 
 devout belief in divination, had offered sacri- 
 fice, and the haruspices were inspecting the 
 entrails of the victim to see what omens were 
 to be found there. The Christian officers and 
 servants of the emperor were present as part 
 of their duty, and satisfied their conscience by 
 making the sign of the cross upon their fore- 
 heads. The diviners were, or pretended to be, 
 struck with amazement at the absence, despite 
 repeated sacrifices, of the expected signs. At 
 last they declared their work hindered by the 
 presence of profane persons. The emperor's 
 rage was roused. His personal attendants and 
 the officials in his palace were ordered to sacri- 
 fice under penalty of being scourged. Letters 
 were sent to military officers bidding them to 
 compel their soldiers to a like conformity under 
 pain of dismissal. The mother of Galerius 
 urged the emperor on, and found but a feeble 
 resistance. He deprecated the slaughter and 
 wished to confine the edict to servants of his 
 household and soldiers. He would take coun- 
 sel with his friends and consult the gods. One 
 of the haruspices was accordingly sent to the 
 oracle of the Milesian Apollo at Branchidae. 
 The answer came, not from the priestess only, 
 but, as it were, from the god himself speaking 
 from the recesses of his cave, telling him that 
 the presence of the self-styled " just ones " on 
 the earth made it impossible for the oracles to 
 speak the truth. This turned the scale and 
 the emperor gave way. All he asked for was 
 that bloodshed might, if possible, be avoided. 
 Galerius had wished to condemn to the flames 
 all who refused to sacrifice. After many 
 divinations, the Feast of the Terminalia (Feb. 
 23) of A.D. 303 was chosen as the fit day for 
 issuing the edict against the new society. At 
 break of day the prefect, attended by officers 
 and secretaries, went to the church of Nico- 
 media while Diocletian and Galerius watched 
 the proceedings from the palace. The doors 
 were broken open. Search was made for the 
 image of the Christian's God, which they ex- 
 pected to find there. The books were burned, 
 the church sacked. Fear of the fire spreading 
 made Diocletian shrink from burning the 
 church, but a body of pioneers with axes and 
 crowbars razed it in a few hours. Next morn- 
 ing an edict ordained that (i) all churches were 
 to be demolished ; (2) all sacred books burnt ; 
 (3) all Christian officials stripped of their dig- ,, 
 
 nities, and deprived of civil rights, and there- 
 fore rendered liable to torture and other out- 
 rages ; while Christian men who were not 
 officials were to be reduced to slavery. A 
 Christian who tore it down, with the sarcastic 
 
DIOCLETIAN 
 
 exclamation, " More triumphs of Goths and 
 Sarmatians ! " was seized, tortured, and 
 burnt alive at a slow fire. Shortly after, a fire 
 broke out in the palace and suspicion fell upon 
 the Christians, notably upon the palace 
 eunuchs. The use made of the occurrence to 
 work upon Diocletian's fears justified the im- 
 pression of Christian wTitcrs that it was a de- 
 vice contrived by Galerius and executed by his 
 slaves. All who were suspected were examined 
 bv torture ; within a fortnight there was 
 another similar alarm, and now there was no 
 limit to the old man's fury. His wife and 
 daughter were compelled to free themselves 
 from suspicion by joining in sacrifice. The 
 eunuchs of his household, before so trusted, 
 Dorotheus, Gorgonius, Petrus, were put to 
 death. The persecution raged throughout the 
 province. Some were burnt, some drowned, 
 some thrust into dungeons. Altars were set 
 up in every court of justice, and both parties 
 to suits compelled to sacrifice. A second edict 
 ordered that all the clergy, without option of 
 sacrifice, should be imprisoned. Anthimus 
 bp. of Nicomedia was beheaded (Eus. H. E. 
 viii. 6). Hierocles as author and magistrate 
 silenced by torture those whom he failed to con- 
 vince. Letters were sent to Maximian and 
 Constantius in the West, urging them to adopt 
 like measures. The former was but too will- 
 ing an instrument. The latter, more humane 
 and disposed to a policy of toleration, was com- 
 pelled to join in destroying the buildings of the 
 Christians, and was glad if he could save their 
 lives (Lactant. de Mart. Persec. cc. 12-16). 
 
 Individual mart>Tdoms may be found with 
 more or less fulness in the Acta Sincera of 
 Ruinart, in the Annals of Baronius, in most 
 Church Histories, notably in Fleury, viii. and 
 ix. Here we merely note the extent, con- 
 tinuance, and ferocity which distinguished 
 this persecution from all others. In Syria, 
 Palestine, Egypt, Western Africa, Italy, and 
 Spain the passions of men were let loose, and 
 raged without restraint. In Gaul and Britain 
 only was there any safety. Constantius was 
 said (Eus. Vii. Const, i. 16) to have shewn a 
 marked preference for those who were true to 
 their religion, and refused to sacrifice. Else- 
 where every town in the empire witnessed acts 
 of incredible cruelty. The wish to destroy all 
 the sacred books of the Christians, and all the 
 accessories of their worship, led men to seize 
 on the deacons, readers, and others connected 
 with the churches, and to torture them till 
 they gave them up. In Dec. 303, Dio- 
 cletian went to Rome to celebrate with Max- 
 imian the 20th anniversary of his accession. 
 At the Vicennalia the licence of the people 
 offended him, and he left after two weeks for 
 Ravenna. There he was attacked by a severe 
 illness, which detained him for some months. 
 Slowly he made his way to Nicomedia, where 
 he became worse. Prayers were offered for 
 his recovery in all the temples. It was ru- 
 moured that his death was concealed till the 
 arrival of Galerius. When he appeared to con- 
 tradict the rumour, he was so altered that he 
 could hardly be recognized. His mind, it was 
 said, was seriously affected. Galerius came, 
 but it was to press on the emperor the duty and 
 expediency of resigning. Maximian had been 
 already persuaded to do so. After a feeble re- 
 
 DIODORUS 
 
 2r)r. 
 
 sistance Diocletian yielded. The two Caesars 
 were to become .^ugusti. He would fain liave 
 named Maxentius the son of Maximian and 
 Constantine the son of Constantius to take 
 their place ; but tlalcrius coerced or persuaded 
 him to appoint Maximin and Severus, in whom 
 he hoped to find more submissive instruments. 
 When the formal acts had been completed, the 
 emperor laid aside his official names Dioch- 
 tianus and Jovius, and returned to the simple 
 Diodes of his youth. For the history of the 
 
 following year see Galerius and Constan- 
 tine. The retired emperor settled at Salona, 
 on the coast of Dalmatia, and occupied him- 
 self with building and gardening, and refused 
 to abandon his cabbages for the cares of the 
 state. In 310 Maximian, after vainly strug- 
 gling against the growing power of Constan- 
 tine, who had succeeded Constantius, was com- 
 pelled to end his life by his own hands. In 31 1 
 Galerius died in the agonies of a loathsome and 
 horrible disease, and before his death con- 
 fessed, by an edict of toleration, that the at- 
 tempt which he had made to crush Christianity 
 had failed. Diocletian survived to witness 
 the alliance between Constantine and Licinius, 
 to receive and decline an invitation to a con- 
 ference with them at Milan, to hear that Con- 
 stantine had charged him with conspiring first 
 with Maxentius and then with Maximian, and 
 had ordered his statue and that of Maximian 
 to be thrown down in every part of the empire. 
 In A.D. 313 the end came, some said through 
 poison (Aurel. Vict. Episl. 39), to avoid a 
 worse fate at the hands of Constantine and 
 Licinius. It was characteristic of his fate as 
 representing the close of pagan imperialism, 
 that he was the last emperor who celebrated a 
 triumph at Rome, and the last to receive the 
 honour of apotheosis from the Roman senate 
 (Preuss, p. i6q). [e.h.p.] 
 
 Diodorus (3), presbyter of Antioch, and c. 
 A.D. 379 bp. of Tarsus, of a noble family of 
 .■\ntioch, where he passed nearly the whole of 
 his life until he became a bishop (Theod. H. E. 
 iv. 24). He studied philosophy or secular 
 learning at Athens, where he jirobably was 
 an associate of Basil and Julian, the future 
 emperor (Facund. lib. iv. c. 2, p. 59). On his 
 return to his native city, Diodorus and his 
 friend Flavian, also of noble birth (subse- 
 quently bp. of Antioch), embraced a religious 
 life. Here, while still laymen, during the 
 reign of Constantius, they exerted themselves 
 energetically for the defence of the orthodox 
 faith against the Arians, who were covertly 
 supported by bp. Leontius, c. 350. They gath- 
 ered the orthodox laity even by night around 
 the tombs of the martyrs, to join in the anti- 
 phonal chanting of the Psalms, which, Theod- 
 oret tells us, was first instituted or revived by 
 them, as a means of kindling religious zeal, 
 after the model ascribed by tradition to the 
 martvred bishop of their church, the holy 
 Ignatius (Sf.cr. H. E. vi. 8 ; Theod. H. E. ii. 24). 
 These services strengthened the faithful to 
 meet the persecutions. The weight of Dio- 
 dorus and Flavian at Antioch was proved 
 when in 350 their threat of withdrawal from 
 communion induced Leontius to susi)cnd 
 Aetius from the diaconate (Theod. u.s.). On 
 the accession of Julian, his attempt to re- 
 kindle an expiring paganism provided a new 
 
256 
 
 DIODORUS 
 
 field for the energies of Diodorus. With pen 
 and tongue he denounced the folly of a return 
 to an exploded superstition, and so called 
 forth the scurrilous jests of Julian. 
 
 The persecution of the Catholic cause by the 
 Arian Valens recalled Diodorus, now a pres- 
 byter, to his former championship of the 
 Nicene faith. During the frequent banish- 
 ments of Meletius, the spiritual instruction of 
 his diocese was chiefly entrusted to him and 
 Flavian, and Diodorus saved the barque of 
 the church from being " submerged by the 
 waves of misbelief " (Theod. H. E. v. 4). 
 Valens having forbidden the Catholics to meet 
 within the walls of cities, Diodorus gathered 
 his congregation in the church in the old town 
 S. of the Orontes. Immense numbers were 
 there " fed by him with sound doctrine " 
 (Chrys. Laus Diodori, § 4, t. iii. p. 749). 
 When forcibly driven out of this church, he 
 gathered his congregation in the soldiers' 
 exercising ground, or " gymnasium," and ex- 
 horted them from house to house. The texts 
 and arguments of his discourses were chiefly 
 furnished by Flavian, and clothed by Diodorus 
 in a rhetorical dress. His oratory is compared 
 by Chrysostom to " a l>Te " for melody, and 
 to " a trumpet " for the power with which, 
 like Joshua at Jericho, he broke down the 
 strongholds of his heretical opponents. He 
 also held private assemblies at his own house 
 to expound the faith and refute heresy 
 (Theod. H. E. iv. 25 ; Chrys. I.e. ; Facund. 
 iv. 22). Such dauntless championship of the 
 faith failed not to provoke persecution. His 
 life was more than once in danger, and he was 
 forced to seek safety in flight (Chrys. I.e.). 
 Once at least when driven from Antioch he 
 joined his spiritual father Meletius in exile at 
 Getasa in Armenia, where, in 372, he met Basil 
 theGreat (Basil, £/7. 187). The intimate terms 
 of Diodorus and Basil are seen from the tone 
 of Basil's correspondence. 
 
 Even more than for his undaunted defence 
 of the catholic faith Diodorus deserves the 
 gratitude of the church as head of the theo- 
 logical school at Antioch. He pvursued a 
 healthy common-sense principle of exposition 
 of Holy Scripture, which, discarding alike 
 allegorism and coarse literalism, sought by the 
 help of criticism, philology, history, and other 
 external resources, to develop the true meaning 
 of the text, as intended by the authors (Socr. 
 H. E. vi. 3 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 2 ; Hieron. de 
 Vir. Illust. No. 119). 
 
 Meletius, on beingrestored to Antioch in 378, 
 appointed Diodorus bp. of Tarsus and metro- 
 politan of the then undivided province of 
 Cilicia (Facundus, viii. 5). His career as 
 bishop, according to Jerome {I.e.), was less dis- 
 tinguished than as presbyter. He took part in 
 the great council of Antioch a.d. 379, which 
 failed to put an end to the Antiochene schism, 
 as well as in the 2nd oecumenical council at 
 Constantinople a.d. 381. By the decree of the 
 emperor Theodosius, July 30, 381, Diodorus 
 was named as one of the orthodox Eastern 
 prelates, communion with whom was the test 
 of orthodoxy (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. i. 3 ; 
 t. vi. p. 9). Meletius having died during the 
 session of the council, Diodorus, violating the 
 compact made to heal the schism, united with 
 Acacius of Beroea in consecrating Flavian as 1 
 
 DIODORUS 
 
 bp. of Antioch, for which both the consecrating 
 prelates were excommunicated by the bishops 
 of the West (Soz. H. E. vii. 11). As Phalerius 
 was bp. of Tarsus at a council at Constantino- 
 ple in 394, the date of Diodorus's death is ap- 
 proximately fixed. Facundus and others tell 
 us that he died full of days and glory, revered 
 by the whole church and honoured by its chief 
 doctors, by Basil, Meletius, Theodoret, Domnus 
 of Antioch, and even by the chief impugner of 
 the soundness of his faith, Cyril of Alexandria. 
 This high credit was disturbed by the Nes- 
 torian controversies of the next cent. His 
 rationalizing spirit had led him to use language 
 about the Incarnation containing the principles 
 of that heresy afterwards more fully devel- 
 oped by his disciple Theodorus. Thus, not 
 without justice, he has been deemed the virtual 
 parent of Nestorianism and called " a Nestor- 
 ian before Nestorius." It was his repugnance 
 to the errors of Apollinarianism which led him 
 to the opposite errors of Nestorianism. His 
 sense of the importance of the truth of Christ's 
 manhood caused him to insist on Its distinct- 
 ness from His Godhead in a manner which 
 gradually led to Its being represented as a 
 separate personality. He drew a distinction 
 between Him Who according to His essence 
 was Son of God — the eternal Logos — and Him 
 Who through divine decree and adoption be- 
 came Son of God. The one was Son of God 
 by nature, the other by grace. The son of 
 man became Son of God because chosen to be 
 the receptacle or temple of God the Word. It 
 followed that Mary could not be properly 
 termed the " mother of God," nor God the 
 Word be strictly called the Son of David, that 
 designation belonging, according to human 
 descent, to the temple in which the Divine Son 
 tabernacled. Diodorus therefore distinguished 
 two Sons, the Son of God and the son of Mary, 
 combined in the person of Christ. When, 
 then, the great Nestorian controversy set in, 
 Cyril clearly saw that, apart from the watch- 
 word 6eor6vos, which had not arisen in the 
 days of Diodorus, what men called Nestorian- 
 ism was substantially the doctrine of Diodor- 
 us as developed by Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
 and that Nestorianism could only be fully 
 crushed by a condemnation of the doctrines of 
 Diodorus as the foimtain head. This con- 
 demnation was most difficult to obtain. No 
 name was held in so much reverence through- 
 out the East. Cyril, however, was of far too 
 determined a spirit to hesitate. If orthodox 
 views of the Incarnation were to be established, 
 the authority of Diodorus must, at any cost 
 of enmity and unpopularity, be destroyed. 
 Every means was therefore taken to enforce, 
 by the aid of the emperor and the patriarch 
 Proclus, his condemnation, together with that 
 of his still more heretical pupil Theodorus. 
 Cyril himself, in a letter to the emperor, de- 
 scribed them in the harshest terms as the 
 fathers of the blasphemies of Nestorius (Theo- 
 doret, t. V. p. 854), and in a letter to John of 
 Antioch denounced them as " going full sail, as 
 it were, against the glory of Christ." It is not 
 surprising that Diodorus began to be looked 
 upon with suspicion by those who had been 
 accustomed to regard him as a bulwark of the 
 faith, insomuch that Theodoret, when himself 
 accused of Nestorian leanings, did not venture 
 
DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 to quote the words of Diodorus in his defence, i 
 though he regarded him with reverence (<rf^a)), j 
 as " a holy and blessed father " (Theod. Ep. i 
 i6). In the hope of rehabilitating his credit, j 
 Theodoret wrote a treatise to prove the ortho- l 
 doxy of Diodorus, which led Cyril to peruse 
 them and to pronounce them categorically i 
 heretical (ib. Epp. 38, 52). All attempts, 
 however, to depreciate the authority of 
 Diodorus, both by C>ril and Rabbulas of 
 Eilessa, only exalted him in the estimation of 
 the Xestorian party, and the opposition con- 
 tributed to the formation of the independent 
 and still existing Nestorian church, which 
 looks upon Diodorus and Theodorus with 
 deepest veneration as its founders. The 
 presbyter Maris of Hardaschir, in Persia, 
 translated the works of Diodorus into Persian, 
 and they, together with those of Theodorus, 
 were also translated into Armenian, Syriac, 
 and other Oriental tongues (Neander, Ch. Hist. 
 vol. iv. pp. 209, 284 ; Clark's trans. Liberat. 
 Breviar. c. 10). Diodorus was naturally 
 anathematized by Eutyches and his followers. 
 Flavian III., also bp. of Antioch, was com- 
 pelled by the Monophysites to pass an ana- 
 thema on the writings of Diodorus and Theo- 
 dorus in A.D. 499. The controversy respecting 
 the orthodoxy of Diodorus was revived in the 
 6th cent, by the interminable disputes about 
 " the Three Articles." There is a full defence 
 of his orthodoxy by Facundus in his Defensio 
 Trium Capitulorum " (lib. iv. c. 2). Photius 
 asserts that Diodorus was formally condemned 
 by the fifth oecumenical council held at Con- 
 stantinople A.D. 553, but it does not appear in 
 the acts of that council. Diodorus was a very 
 copious author, the titles of between 20 and 30 
 distinct works being enumerated in various 
 catalogues. The whole have perished, except 
 some fragments, no less than 60 having been 
 burnt, according to Ebed-Jesu, by the Arians. 
 His writings were partly exegetical, mainly 
 controversial. He wrote comments on all the 
 books of O. and N. T., except the Ep. to the 
 Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles (I. John how- 
 ever being commented on), and the Apoca- 
 lypse. In these, according to Jerome (de Vir. 
 Illust. No. 1 19), he imitated the line of thought 
 of Eusebius of Emesa, but fell below him in 
 eloquence and refinement. [e-v.] 
 
 Diognetus, Epistle to. The Greek writing 
 known under this name was first printed in 
 1592 by Henricus Stephanus, along with a 
 companion piece To Greeks, as hitherto un- 
 known writings of Justin Martyr, taken by 
 him from a single faded exemplar. 
 
 In his edition, as in the transcript in his 
 own handwriting extant at Leydcn, the writing 
 To Greeks was not prefixed, but appended to 
 the writing To Diugnetus ; but in the MS. 
 from which he took the pieces (identified by 
 Gebhardt with that collated by Cunitz at 
 Strasburg, where it perished in 1870) three 
 works, each ascribed by name to Justin, were 
 followed by the two pieces Of the Same to 
 Greeks and Of the Same to Diognetus. The 
 correctness of the ascription of each of these 
 two pieces to Justin was separately called in 
 question by subsequent critics ; but the con- 
 nexion between the two pieces, the contrast 
 in style presented by both alike to the spurious 
 or dubious works of Justin to which in the MS. 
 
 DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 257 
 
 they were appended, and the fact that it was 
 not directly to Justin Martvr, but to the 
 author of the atldress To Greeks that the 
 address To Diognetus was in the MS. ascribed, 
 were forgotten. 
 
 In the .MS., again, the text given under the 
 headmg I o Diognetus was broken into three 
 fragments by two clear breaks with marginal 
 imtes from the old i3th-ccnt. scribe, saying. 
 " Thus I found a break in the copy before me 
 also, it being very ancient." Of these two 
 breaks the former, occurring near the end of 
 c. vii., is ignored by Stephanus in his division 
 of the writing into chapters. Whether more 
 or less be missing, the writing comprised in 
 cc. vii.-x. is plainly the continuation of the 
 writing commenced in cc. i.-vii. In the con- 
 cluding fragment (cc. xi. xii.), appended after 
 the second break, the writer calls himself 
 " disciple of apostles," and on this ground the 
 writer I'o Diognetus has been included among 
 the apostolic Fathers. But the contrast be- 
 tween cc. i.-x. and cc. xi. xii. is so great that 
 critics have concluded the final appended 
 fragment to be no part of the writing to 
 Diognetus, but the peroration of another 
 treatise by another writer. 
 
 No other ancient copy of the Greek of any 
 of the writings published in 1592 has been 
 found ; but the writer To Greeks, with whom 
 the writer To Diognetus was in the MS. im- 
 mediately identified, has been plainly distin- 
 guished from Justin by the discovery and 
 publication by Cureton in his Spicilegium 
 Syriaciim from a 6th or 7th cent. MS. of a 
 Syriac version of an almost identical dis- 
 course ascribed to one " Anibrosius, a chief 
 man of Greece, who became a Christian, and 
 all his fellow-councillors raised a clamour 
 against him." We may thus say that the true 
 traditional writer To Greeks and To Diognetus 
 is a certain otherwise unknown Ambrosius, 
 convert like Justin from Hellenism to Chris- 
 tianity — the reply To Greeks, the assailants of 
 the writer, being naturally followed by the 
 response To Diognetus, the inquirer. 
 
 This conclusion is confirmed by internal 
 evidence. The style of the two writings is 
 identical. In each there is the same Attic 
 diction joined with the same Roman dignity. 
 Nay, in each there is the same occurrence of 
 two contrasted styles, the same passage from 
 the scornful vigour of the satirist to the joyous 
 sweetness of the es'angelist. 
 
 " Come, be taught," says the writer To 
 Greeks (c. v.) ; and it seems that Diognetus 
 came. Common as the name was, the only 
 Diognetus known to us after Christ was a 
 painting master who c. 133 had charge of the 
 young Marcus Aurelius. Whether this was tlie 
 Diognetus who came to the Christian teacher 
 we do not know. The writing addressed to 
 him is not in form an eiiistle, it seems 
 rather to be a discourse delivered in a Christian 
 .Assembly into which the eminent inquirer had 
 found his way. His coming implied a triple 
 question: (i) " On what God relying, Christians 
 despise death and neither reckon those gods 
 who are so accounted by the Clrecks, nor ob- 
 serve any superstition of Jews"; (ii) "What 
 the kindly affection is that they have one for 
 another " ; and (iii) " What, in short, this nfw 
 race or practice might be that has invaded 
 
 17 
 
258 DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 society now and no earlier." To (i) the writer 
 replies in cc. i.-vii., first bidding the Greek look 
 at his manufactured gods (c. i i.) , and convicting 
 the J ews of vain oblations (c. iii.) and ungrateful 
 service (c. iv.) to the Giver of all to all, then 
 (c. v.) portraying the wondrous life of Chris- 
 tians, at home yet strangers everywhere, like 
 the soul in the body of the world (c. vi.), and 
 so (c. vii.) passing from the earthly things to the 
 heavenly to tell how it was God Who implanted 
 the Word by the mission of the Maker of all, 
 sent as an imperial Son, in love, to be sent 
 again as Judge. So the inquirer is answered 
 that the reasons for non-compliance with 
 Hellenism and Judaism are obvious, but the 
 Christians' God is the one God of the J ews, and 
 their religion consists of purity and charity, and 
 was founded by the mission of the Son, Whom 
 God will send again. At this point something 
 has dropped out. The argument may be 
 surmised to have continued after this fashion : 
 " An end of all things is the doctrine of your 
 Greek sages; but the Jews looked for a per- 
 petual earthly kingdom, and when Christ pro- 
 claimed a kingdom not of this world, they 
 slew Him, and yet He is not dead, and Chris- 
 tian worship is not to deny Him." For as 
 resumed (c. vii.) after a break in the middle of 
 a sentence, the discourse points to martyr- 
 doms as " signs," not of the return but " of 
 the presence " of the Lord, as though saying, 
 " You see. He is still with us." Then pro- 
 ceeding (c. viii.) to contrast the follies of 
 philosophy with the assurance wrought by the 
 Father's revelation of Himself to faith, he 
 explains (c. ix.) how God waited to shew forth 
 what He had prepared till unrighteousness had 
 been made manifest, and then, when the time 
 came, Himself took our sins and gave His own 
 Son for us and would have us trust Him. So 
 (c. X.) he passes from expounding " on what 
 God Christians rely" to expound "what the 
 love is that they bear one to another," the out- 
 come of their love to Him Who first loved them. 
 The first two questions of the inquirer are 
 thus answered, and in answering them com- 
 pletely the third question, " What the new 
 institution might be," would be answered 
 along with them ; but that answer seems not 
 to be completed before the second break. It 
 could not be complete till it had been carried 
 further than merely saying that " it was God 
 Who implanted the Word," and that He did so 
 " when the time came." " The Word that 
 appeared new " must have been " found old " ; 
 and this is the answer that we find in the final 
 fragment (cc. xi. xii.) after the second break. 
 The style has become different. We find 
 ourselves listening to the peroration of a 
 homily, before the withdrawal of the cate- 
 chumens and the celebration of the mysteries. 
 It does not follow that the final fragment does 
 not belong to the preceding discourse. If 
 Diognetus had shewn his desire for instruction 
 by coming into a Christian assembly, the whole 
 discourse may have been delivered before 
 such an audience as is addressed in the per- 
 oration at the close. We are brought into a 
 new region. The satirist of superstition and 
 evangelist of atoning, justifying mercy is 
 succeeded by a mystical behever in a Christ 
 born anew in hearts of saints. The new thing 
 is portrayed as " that which was from the 
 
 DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 
 
 beginning," yet ever new. " This is He that 
 is ever reckoned a Son to-day." But what it 
 is can be known only by taking up the cross 
 and so coming to be with Christ in Paradise, 
 " Whose tree if thou bearest fruit and if thou 
 choosest thou shaft eat those things that with 
 God are desired." 
 
 The loss of intervening matter makes the 
 transition to the new region abrupt and 
 the contrast patent. " The Lord's Passover 
 Cometh forth, and, teaching saints, the Word 
 is gladdened." But the course is still straight- 
 forward and the guide is not diverse. The 
 style is different only so far as is necessitated 
 by the difference of subject. It exhibits the 
 same anarthrous use of nouns, the same ac- 
 cumulation of clause on clause, not pursued 
 too far ; the same unexpected turns at the 
 close of the sentences ; the same union of 
 dignity with sweetness, the same blending of 
 Pauline with Johannine teaching ; the same 
 persistent subordination of doctrine to life. 
 On these grounds we may venture to differ 
 from the wide consent of critics in imagining 
 a second nameless author. 
 
 It is worth noting that an Ambrose, of the 
 consecration of Antioch, is said in a Syriac 
 tradition to have been the third primate of 
 Edessa and the East (Burkitt, Early Eastern 
 Christianity, p. 29). The writer To Greeks and 
 To Diognetus may have been this bringer of 
 Greek Pauline Christianity to the regions be- 
 yond Euphrates conquered by Trajan and 
 abandoned by Hadrian, and have been an- 
 cestor of the friend of Origen and of the great 
 Milanese archbp. and of the legendary father 
 of King Arthur. 
 
 Probably an old copy exhibited three works 
 of Ambrosius — an avowal of Christianity, and 
 answers To Greeks and To Diognetus, each a 
 brave act as well as a solid work, the first now 
 lost, the second a fine sample of a class of 
 controversial works of which samples are 
 numerous, the third, To Diognetus, preserved 
 in fragments only, but unique, not apologetic 
 merely, but catechetical, a portraiture of early 
 Christianity not in its manifestation only, but 
 in its springs, bringing us to the gates of the 
 Paradise of God. 
 
 In free allied states like Antioch and Athens 
 avowal of Christianity may have been toler- 
 ated when not suffered in Roman or subject 
 regions. In the 2nd cent, the world was not 
 yet all Roman. 
 
 The date of the writings may be determined 
 with great probability, not with absolute 
 certainty, except that, if genuine, they cannot 
 be post-Nicene. The picture of the church 
 presented to Diognetus pretty plainly belongs 
 to a date earlier than the accession of Com- 
 raodus. The chief school of Christian thought 
 would seem still to be at Athens, though on 
 the eve of its transference to Alexandria by 
 Athenagoras. It is among the writings of 
 
 Tatian, Melito, and Theophilus and the frag- 
 ments of ApoUinaris, Abercius, etc., that these 
 pieces seem most at home. The writer seems 
 to appear in his freshness beside Justin in his 
 ripeness, and to be the meeting-point of the 
 teachings of Justin and Marcion, as he is at 
 the point of departure of Irenaeus, Tertullian, 
 Hippolytus, and Origen on the one hand, and 
 Praxeas, Noetus, and SabeUius on the other. 
 
DIONYSIA 
 
 Ldst in the i'i\)\vd of predecessors whom 
 Irenaeus and Clement hardly ever name and 
 merged in Justin's shadow, convinced that 
 God alone can reveal Himself, and content to 
 be hidden in his Saviour's righteousness, the 
 old writer has gradually emerged by virtue of 
 an inborn lustre, at once the obscurest and 
 most brilliant of his contemporaries, and has 
 cast a glory on the early church while remain- 
 ing himself unknown. 
 
 Authorities. — Gallandi, ap. Migne, Patr. Gk. 
 ii. ii59ff. ; Bickersteth, Christian Fathers, 
 (1838) ; Dorncr, Person of Christ, i. 260 ff. ; 
 Hefele, Patres Apostolici (Tubingen, 1842) ; 
 Neander. Church History, ii. 420, 425 (Bohn) ; 
 Westcott, Canon (ed. 1875), pp. 85 ff. ; Bunsen, 
 Hippolytus, i. 1S7 ff., Analecla Antenicaena, i. 
 103 ff. ; Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. ii. 126 
 tf. ; Davidson, Intro, to N. T. ii. 399 ; Har- 
 uack, Patres Apostolici. i. 205 ff. (Leipz. 1875, 
 2nded. 1878) ; Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum 
 (I.ond. 1834) ; Ceillier, Autcurssacres,\. 412 (ed. 
 1865) ; Bigg, Origins 0/ Christianity ; Lightfoot 
 andHarmtr, .Apost. Fathers, p. 487. An Eng. 
 trans, of the Ep. to Diognetus is included in 
 the A nte-Nicene Lib. andanother by L. B. Rad- 
 ford is pub. cheaply by S.P.C.K. [e.e.b.] 
 
 Dionysia (1), virgin martyr at Lampsacus, 
 A.D. 250. Seeing Nicomachus suddenly seized 
 with madness and dying in horror, after having 
 denied the faith under torture, and sacrificed 
 to the heathen gods, Dionysia cried out, " Mis- 
 erable and most wretched man ! Why, for one 
 hour's respite, didst thou take to thyself un- 
 ceasing and indescribable punishment ! " The 
 proconsul Optimus hearing her, asked if she 
 were a Christian. " Yes," she answered, " and 
 that is why I weep for this unhappy man, who 
 loses eternal rest by not being able to suffer a 
 moment's pain." The proconsul dismissed 
 her with a brutal order. Next day, having 
 succeeded in maintaining her chastity, she 
 escaped, and joined Andrew and Paul, two 
 Christians who were being stoned to death. 
 " I wish to die with you here," she said, " that 
 I may live with you in heaven ! " Optimus 
 ordered her to be taken from Andrew and 
 Paul, and beheaded. May 15, 250, the 2nd year 
 of Decius. Ruinart, Act. Sine. Mart. p. 159 ; 
 Ceillier, ii. 118. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Dionysia (2), at Alexandria, a.d. 251, mother 
 of many children, who, loving her Lord more 
 than her children, died by the sword, along 
 with the venerable lady Mercuria, without 
 being tried by torture, as the prefect had 
 succeeded so ill with .A.mmonarion that he was 
 ashamed to go on torturing and being defeated 
 by women (Dion. Alex, ad Fab. ap. Eus. H. E. 
 
 Vi. 41). [E.B.B.] 
 
 Dionysia (3), St., a Christian martyr in the 
 5th cent. According to the narrative of Victor 
 V'itensis, her contemporary, she was a lady of 
 rare beauty in Africa, who preferred tortures, 
 shameful indignities, and death to renouncing 
 her faith ; a victim of the persecution of the 
 (orthodox or Catholic Christians by Hunneric, 
 king of the Vandals. The date assigned for 
 her martyrdom is 484. 
 
 See Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Afri- 
 cand, V. c. i ; ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. Ivii. ; 
 Tillem., Memoires, t. xvi. (Paris, 1701, 4to) ; 
 Baronius, Annates Ecclesiastici, t. viii. p. 463 
 (Lucae, 1741, fol.). [i.c.s.] 
 
 DIONYSIUS 
 
 2r.o 
 
 Dionysius (i), Pseudo-Areopagita. Under 
 
 the name of Dionysius the .AiC'^pagite there 
 has passeil current a h"d\ .>( remarkable 
 writings. Before sheuing that the author of 
 these writings was not the Dionysius converted 
 by St. Paul (Acts xvii. 34), we must dis- 
 criminate both of them from a third Dionysius, 
 the St. Denys of Prance. The identity of all 
 three was popularly believed for many ccn 
 turies, and even yet is maintained by some. 
 
 Was, then, the convert of St. Paul at Athens 
 the first apostle of Prance ? The answer 
 would not seem doubtful from the statement 
 of Sulpitius Severus, that the earliest martyrs 
 in Gaul were under the reign of Aurelius (Sacr. 
 Hist. ii. 46), i.e. after a.d. 160 ; and from the 
 circumstance that neither the old martyro- 
 logies nor the old French chroniclers contain 
 any hint of the identity of the two. Greg( ry 
 of Tours {Hist. Franc, i. 30) fixes the coming 
 of St. Denys into France as late as the reign of 
 Decius, i.e. after a.d. 250 ; while Usuardus, 
 who wrote his Martyrologinm for Charlemagne, 
 assigned Oct. 3 to the memory of the Areopa- 
 gite, and Oct. 9 to that of the patron saint of 
 France. The reasons for believing St. Denys 
 of France to be the author of these writings 
 are equally slight. Their style and subject- 
 matter all betoken a philosophic leisure, not 
 the active life of a missionary in a barbarous 
 country ; and a residence in the East is implied 
 in the very titles of those to whom they are 
 addressed. It is the opinion of Bardenhtwer 
 {Patrol, p. 538) that the writings of Stigl- 
 niayr and Koch (see under Authorities, infra) 
 have proved " that the Areopagitica were no- 
 thing more than a composition written under 
 an assumed name, and in reality dating from 
 about the end of the fifth century." 
 
 We may deal with the writings under: (i) 
 External History ; (2) Nature and Contents. 
 
 (i) It is generally admitted that the first 
 unequivocal mention of them is in the records 
 of the conference at Constantinople in 532. 
 The emperor Justinian invited Hypatius of 
 Ephesus, and other bishops of the orthodox 
 side, to meet in his palace the leaders of the 
 Severians. During the debate, these alleged 
 writings of the Areopagite were brought for- 
 ward by the latter in support of their Mono- 
 physite views ; and the objections of Hypatius 
 have been preserved. H genuine, he asked, 
 how could they have escaped the notice of 
 Cyril and others ? (Mansi, viii. col. 821) ; and 
 this question has never been satisfactorily 
 answered. Supposed traces of them have 
 been pointed out in Origen ; and other in- 
 genious reasons, explaining their concealment 
 for five centuries, have been confuted again 
 and again. Still, whatever their parentage, 
 thev are henceforward never lost sight <>f. 
 Writers of the school which l>ad at first ob- 
 jected to them soon found how serviceable to 
 their own cause they might be made. Thus a 
 chain of testimony begins to be attached to 
 them in unbroken continuitv. 
 
 In the Western church we first find them 
 mentioned by pope Gregory the Great {c. 590) ; 
 but his manner of citing them makes it 
 probable that he only knew th<'ni by report. 
 In any case, thev did not become generally 
 known in the West till after a.d. 827, when 
 Michael the Stammerer sent a copy to Louii 
 
260 
 
 mONYSlUS 
 
 le Ddbonnaire, son of Charlemagne. The 
 abbey of St. Denys, near Paris, was thought 
 the most fitting receptacle for such a treasure ; 
 and its abbat, the superstitious and unprin- 
 cipled Hilduin, compiled a collection of Areo- 
 pagilica in honour of the event. This work 
 professes to be based on documents then ex- 
 tant, but is described in equally unfavourable 
 terms by Sirmond and by Cave. In the next 
 reign, that of Charles the Bald, a Latin trans, 
 of all the Dionysian writings was made by the 
 great scholar Joannes Erigena. It is first 
 publicly mentioned by pope Nicholas I., in a 
 letter to Charles in 86i, and is warmly praised 
 by Anastasius Bibliothecarius in 865. 
 
 (2) The Dionysian writings consist of four 
 extant treatises : On the Heavenly Hierarchy ; 
 On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ; On the Names 
 of God ; On Mystic Theology ; after which 
 come ten letters or fragments of letters. 
 
 This list, from one point of view, is com- 
 plete as an exposition of the Dionysian system, 
 and is also in its proper order. For we may 
 take as its epitome the words of St. Paul with 
 which the first sentence in the volume con- 
 cludes : " For of Him and to Him are all 
 things " (Rom. xi. 36). God, the centre to- 
 wards which all tend, and at the same time 
 the all-embracing circumference within which 
 all are included ; the constant streaming forth 
 from Him, like rays from the visible sun, of 
 divine influences whereby men are purified, 
 illumined, and drawn upwards to Himself ; 
 man's powerlessness to know the real nature 
 and being of God, while yet he may be drawn 
 near to Him, in the mystic communion of a 
 loving faith : such is, very briefly, the burden 
 of the Dionysian strain. And if we take the 
 de Divinis Nominibus as the central portion 
 of the writings, and recognize the two Hier- 
 archies as one consecutive whole, we have 
 enough to fill up the outline sketched above. 
 In the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, 
 with their ninefold orders of heavenly and of 
 earthly ministrations, we have the means, the 
 machinery (so to speak), whereby God com- 
 municates Himself to man. In the Divina 
 Nomina we have disclosed to us, so far as 
 can be seen through veils and shadows, the 
 Fountain-head of all light and being, the object 
 of all thought and desire. In the Mystic 
 Theology we have the converse of the path 
 marked out in the Hierarchies, the ascent of 
 the human soul to mystic union with God. 
 The three great sections of the Dionysian 
 writings thus answer very strikingly to the 
 three elements of which he makes his hierarchy 
 to consist : rd^is, eTTKrrjj/x?;, and ip^pyeia wpos 
 rb OeofLdis atpoiovixevq (Eccl. Hier. iii. § i). 
 
 Yet the author refers to a series of treatises, 
 still more numerous than the preceding, as if 
 he thought them necessary for the completion 
 of his design. These are :' On Divine Hymns ; 
 Symbolic Theology ; On the Objects of Intellect 
 and Sense; Theological Outlines ; On the Soul ; 
 On the Just Judgment of God. To these are 
 added by Sixtus Senensis and others : On the 
 Properties and Orders of Angels ; The Legal 
 Hierarchy. 
 
 The question of these missing treatises is 
 most perplexing. Did they ever exist ? If 
 so, what has become of them ? Are they mere 
 inventions of the author, designed to parry 
 
 DIONYSIUS 
 
 attacks on his own weak points, and to suggest 
 the filling up of deficiencies which in reality 
 he left unsupplied ? This last seems very 
 probable. But, if true, while our respect for 
 the intellectual completeness of the author's 
 mind is increased, our opinion of his moral 
 straightforwardness must be diminished. 
 However, he is certainly entitled to the credit 
 of his conception of such a theological system, 
 whether all the parts be duly filled in or not. 
 Limits of space do not here allow a minute 
 analysis of the extant works. The Heavenly 
 Hierarchy opens with what sounds almost like 
 the keynote of the whole, the text Trficra 
 o6ffis dyaOr;, k.t.\. of J as. i. 17. The lan- 
 guage, in which the simple words of these 
 Apostles are expanded and paraphrased, will 
 convey no bad idea of the generally turgid 
 style. To bring us to Himself, God graciously 
 makes use of signs and symbols, and of inter- 
 vening orders of ministers, by whose means 
 we may be gradually raised to nearer com- 
 munion with Him. Such an organization he 
 calls a Hierarchy — " a sacred order, and 
 science, and activity, assimilated as far as 
 possible to the godlike, and elevated to the 
 imitation of God proportionately to the Divine 
 illuminations conceded to it " {Cel. Hier. iii. 
 § I, tr. by Westcott). The members of the 
 Heavenly' Hierarchy are the nine orders of 
 Angels — the term Angel being sometimes used 
 alike of all the orders, and sometimes, in a 
 more proper and restricted sense, of the lowest 
 of the nine. The names of the nine orders 
 appear to be obtained by combining with the 
 more obvious Seraphim, Cherubim, Arch- 
 angels, and Angels, five deduced from two 
 passages of St. Paul, Eph. i. 21 and Col. i. 16. 
 In each of these passages four names are men- 
 tioned, of which three (apxM- e^ovaiai, Kvpio- 
 TTjTes) are common to both, while one is pecu- 
 liar to each, Si'va/jieii to the former, dpuvoi to 
 the latter. The nine are subdivided into 
 triads, ranged thus in descending order : 
 
 1. Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones. 
 
 2. Dominations, Virtues, Powers. 
 
 3. Principalities, Archangels, Angels. 
 
 The long and important treatise On the 
 Names of God (Ilepi diiojv ovopLaroov) has been 
 shewn by Stiglmayr and Koch to contain an 
 extract from Proclus's treatise de Malorum 
 Siibstitentia ; which has reached us in a Latin 
 trans. It is an inquiry into the being and 
 attributes of God as indicated by the Divine 
 Names in Holy Scripture. These Names, like 
 all outward channels of spiritual knowledge, 
 can reveal His real nature but very imper- 
 fectly ; and even so, not without prayer, 
 which, like the golden chain of Homer, lifts 
 us up to Heaven while we seem to be drawing 
 it down to earth ; or like the rope thrown 
 out to mariners from a rock, which enables 
 them to draw their ship nearer to the rock, 
 while they pull as if they would draw the 
 rock to them (Div. Nom. iii. § i). The first 
 thing thus revealed is God's goodness, the 
 far-reaching effulgence of His being, which 
 streams forth upon all, like the rays of the sun 
 {ib. iv. § i). Evil is nothing real and positive, 
 but a defect, a negation only : '^reprjcns &pa 
 icrrl rb KaKbv, Kai iWfiipis, Kal dcrdevfia, Kal 
 davfip-eTpia, K.T.\. {ib. iv. § 32). As what we 
 
DIONYSIUS 
 
 call cold is but a deficiency of heat ; or 
 darkness, of light ; so what wc call evil is a 
 deficiency of goodness. V\'hen the sky grows 
 dark, as evening sets in, that darkness is no- 
 thing positive, superadded to what existed be- 
 fore : we are conscious of gloom merely from 
 the disappearance of the light, which was the 
 true existence {ib. iv. § 24). This subject is 
 pursued in a very noble train of thought to 
 some length, and is followed by a discussion of 
 still other names and titles, adapted to the 
 infirmity of human understanding, under 
 which God's attributes are made intelligible to 
 us. That the author is conscious of his theory 
 of evil not being logically complete appears 
 from his briefly referring to another supposed 
 treatise, llepi SLKaiov Kal Of'iov UKaiwr-qriov 
 (ib. iv. § 35), for a settlement of the question 
 how far evil, being such as is described, de- 
 serves punishment at the hands of God. 
 
 Of two legends, widely known in connexion 
 with the name of Dionysius, from their inser- 
 tion in the Breviary of the Latin church, one 
 must be noticed here, as found in the present 
 work. When Dionysius was present with 
 Timothy, to whom he is writing, and James, 
 6 a.de\<p6deo^, and Peter, v Kopvipala Kai vpea- 
 ^iTo-TT) tQ)v OfoXoywu aKporri^, and other dis- 
 ciples, " for the spectacle of the body which 
 was the beginning of life and the recipient of 
 God " (eTTi Ti-jv Oeap tov i^o.'apxiKOu Kai OfoSoxov 
 — al. (ftcoToooxov — (TciA'aTos {tb. iii. § 2) ), no one 
 but the apostles surpassed Hierotheus, his 
 preceptor, in the inspired hymns and praises 
 which he uttered. This is generally consid- 
 ered to refer to a gathering of the apostles 
 round the deathbed of the Holy Virgin. The 
 language is vague, and the passage comes in 
 with singular abruptness, as a sequel to one 
 on the power of prayer. In the paraphrase of 
 Pachynieres, the names of the apostles are 
 omitted. The explanation of Barradas 
 (quoted by Hipler, ubi inf. p. 48 n.) is that the 
 gathering round the Oeorduos really repre- 
 sents the assembly of believers for the recep- 
 tion of the Holy Eucharist, bending (as the 
 words of one liturgy express it) " ante splen- 
 dida et theodocha signa cum timore inclinati." 
 
 The short treatise on Mystic Theology in- 
 dicates the means of approaching more nearly 
 to God, previously set forth under the Divine 
 Names, by reversing the procedure adopted in 
 the Hierarchies. He who would aspire to a truer 
 and more intimate knowledge of God must 
 rise above signs and symbols, above earthly 
 conceptions and definitions of God, and thus 
 advance by negation, rather than by affirma- 
 tion, kut' a<paipc<jLV, not Kara Ofaiv. Even in 
 the Hierarchies (Cel. Hier. ii. § 3) Dionysius 
 had spoken of dirufpacni as a surer way of 
 penetrating the divine mystery than KaTa.(t>aai%, 
 and now enforces the same truth by an illus- 
 tration which, if not taken directly from 
 Plotinus, presents a striking parallel to one 
 used by him — that of the sculptor, who, 
 striving to fashion a beautiful statue, chips 
 away the outer marble, and removes what 
 was in fact an obstruction to his own ideal 
 [Myst. Theol. c. ii. ; cf. Plotinus, de Pulchri- 
 tudine, ed. Creuzer, 1814, p. 62). 
 
 Of the Letters, the first two are little more 
 than detached notes on points of the Mystic 
 
 DIONYSIUS 
 
 201 
 
 Theology — on our dyvwcria of God, and His 
 transcendent nature. The third is a short 
 fragment on the meaning of the word l^al<f>vn% 
 in Mai. iii. i, " The Lord . . . shall suddenly 
 come to His temple," and its aiij)licati<)n to 
 the Incarnation. The fourth, addressed, like 
 the three previous ones, to the monk Cains, 
 treats briefly of the Incarnation, and the 
 nature of that human body with which Christ 
 could walk upon the waters (cf. Dii<. Nom. ii. 
 9). The fifth, to Dorotheus, is on the meaning 
 of the divine darkness (6 ^eFo? -yvofpo^) spoken of 
 in the Mystic Theology. The sixth, to Sosi- 
 pater, teaches that labour is better spent in 
 establishing truth than in confuting error. 
 The se\-enth is a much longer letter, addressed 
 to Polycarp, in which he bids him answer the 
 taunts of the Sophist Apollophancs, by recall- 
 ing the days when he and Dionysius were 
 fellow-students at Hicrapojis, and his own 
 remark when they beheld the darkness of the 
 Crucifixion : TaOra. w naXi AiomVi^. Otiwv dfioi- 
 :Sal wpayj-uiTUji'. The exclamation attributed to 
 Dionysius himself, as it appears in the Latin 
 Breviary, Aid Deus naturae palitur, aut mundi 
 machina dissolvitur, or, as it is given by Syn- 
 gelusinhisZ.j7tf,'()iS7i'a-a-Tos iv (rapKi irdo-xf i Heoj, 
 K.T.X., is not found in the Dionysian writings. 
 The eighth letter, to a monk, Demophilus, is 
 on gentleness and forbearance, and the topic 
 is illustrated by a dream which St. Carpus had 
 in Crete. The ninth, also a long letter, ad- 
 dressed to Titus, bp. of Crete, refers to matters 
 treated in the Symbolic Theology. Many 
 points are discussed in what to some would 
 appear a strangely neologic spirit. The 
 anthropomorphism of O.T., the bold meta- 
 phors of the Song of Songs (rdj tuv <j.andTU3v 
 TTpocrvXovs Kai iratpiKdi woXv-jraPeias), and the 
 like, can only be understood, he savs, by true 
 lovers of holiness, who come to the study of 
 divine wisdom divested of every childish 
 imagination {ndaav ttji' TraiRaptuiori (f>avTaffiai> 
 ini Tu)v iepQi' ffv/xlioXuJV dTroaKevat^oi'fvoti)- In 
 this letter we seem to see before us a disciple 
 of Philo. The tenth, and last, is a mere 
 fragment, addressed to St. John the Divine, 
 an exile in Patmos, foretelling his approaching 
 release from confinement. 
 
 Authorities. — Isaac Casaubon, de Rebus 
 sacris Eccl. Exercitt. xxi. (1615) ; Jean 
 Launov, Varia de duobus Dionysiis (1660) ; 
 J. Dallaeus, de Scriptis quae . . . circumfer- 
 unter (1666) ; P. F. Chifflet, Opuscula quatuor 
 (1679) ; Vsshcr, Disserlalio de Scriptis . . . ap- 
 pended to his Historia Dogmatica (1600) ; 
 M. Lequien, Dissertatio Secunda. prefixed to 
 tom. i. oi Joannis DamasceniOp. (171 2); Cave, 
 Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit. (1740) ; Brncker, Hist. 
 Crit. tom. iii. (1766) ; J. L. Mosheim, Com- 
 mentatio de Turhata per Recentiorcs I'lalonicos 
 Ecclesia (1767); J. A. Fabririus, litblioth. 
 Graeca, tom. vii. (1801) ; I. G. Engelhardt, de 
 Dionvsio Areop. Plotinizante (1820) ; Milman, 
 I.at. Christ. v>\. vi. (iK.s?) ; Dr. Franz Hipler, 
 Dionysius der Arenpagite (Regensburp, 1861) ; 
 B. F. Westcotl, Essay on Dionysius the 
 Areopagite in the Contemp. Rev. May iSfi; ; 
 Dean Colet, On the Hierarchies of Dionysius 
 (1869) ; J. Fowler, Essay on the works of St. 
 Dionvsius the Areopagite, in relation to Chris- 
 tian art, in the Sacristy, Feb. 1872 ; H. Koch, 
 
262 
 
 DIONYSIUS 
 
 in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1895 and 1898 ; 
 Stistlmayr in Hist. Jahrbiicher (1895). [j.h.l.] 
 
 Dionysius (2), St., apostle of France, and 
 first bp. of Paris. Concerning his identity and 
 era there are three principal opinions. 
 
 (r) That he was Dionysius the Areopagite, 
 formerly bp. of Athens, who came to Rome 
 and was sent by Clement, bp. of Rome, to 
 preach in Gaul. This is the tradition of the 
 Greek church, and of those of Gaul, Germany, 
 Spain, and Italy. The corresponding legend, 
 shortly narrated in the Paris Martyrology, states 
 that his companions were Rusticus, a presbyter, 
 and Eleutherus, a deacon, and that all three 
 were put to death by the sword under Sisinnius 
 Fescenninus, prefect of Gaul. This is the 
 opinion of Flavins Lucius Dexter, d. 444 
 {Chronicon. Patr. Lat. xxxi. 270). 
 
 (2) That, although not the Areopagite, he 
 was sent by Clement or the successors of the 
 apostles. This is held in a poem in honour of 
 Dionysius, attributed with some probability 
 to Venantius Fortunatus of Poitiers, who had 
 written a poem on the same subject commit- 
 ting himself to no opinion [Patr. Lat. Ixxxviii. 
 72, 98). It is also supported by Pagius in his 
 notes on Baronius. 
 
 ^3) That he was sent from Rome in the 3rd 
 cent., and suffered martyrdom c. a.d. 250. 
 This is held by Sulpicius Severus, d. a.d. 410, 
 and Gregory of Tours, d. 595. Sulpicius says, 
 " Under Aurelius, son of Antoninus, raged the 
 fifth persecution. Then first were martyr- 
 doms seen in Gaul, for the religion of God was 
 late in coming over the Alps " (Severi, Chroni- 
 con, ii. 32, Patr. Lat. xx. 147). Gregory (Hist, 
 of the Fm;t^s,bk. i.e. 28), speaking of the Decian 
 persecution, quotes the Hist. Passionis S. M. 
 Saturnini : " Under the consulship of Decius 
 and Gratus, as is held in faithful recollection, 
 the state of Toulouse began to have a bishop, 
 St. Saturninus, her first and chief. These were 
 the men sent : to Tours, Gatianus the bishop ; 
 to Aries, Trophimus the bishop ; to Toulouse, 
 Saturninus the bishop ; to Paris, Dionysius 
 the bishop, etc. Of these the blessed Diony- 
 sius, bishop of the Parisians, afflicted with 
 many pains for the name of Christ, ended this 
 present life under the sword." Probably, 
 therefore, he died under the emperor Aurelian 
 in A.D. 272 (cf. Gall. Christ, vii. 4). [w.m.s.] 
 
 Dionysius (3), bp. of Corinth, probably the 
 successor of Primus, placed bv Eusebius in his 
 Chronicle under a.d. 171 (see also Bus. H. E. 
 ii. 25, iii. 4, iv. 21, 23, 35 ; Hieron. Catal. 27). 
 He was the writer of certain pastoral letters, 
 which gained so much authority in his own 
 lifetime that heretics (probably the followers of 
 Marcion) found it worth while, as he complains, 
 to circulate copies falsified by interpolations 
 and omissions. Eusebius mentions having 
 met with 8 of these letters — viz. seven which 
 he calls " Catholic Epistles," addressed to 
 Lacedemon, Athens, Nicomedia, Gortyna and 
 other churches in Crete, Amastris and other 
 churches in Pontus, Cnossus, and Rome ; and 
 one to " his most faithful sister Chrysophora." 
 Probably the letters were already collected 
 into a volume and enumerated by Eusebius in 
 the order they occurred there, or he would 
 probably have mentioned the two Cretan 
 letters consecutively. Nothing remains of 
 tliem, except the short account of their con- 
 
 DIONYSIUS 
 
 tents given by Eusebius, and a few fragments 
 of the letter to the Roman church which, 
 though very scanty, throw considerable light 
 on the state of the church at the time. 
 Eusebius praises Dionysius for having given 
 a share in his " inspired industry " to those 
 in foreign lands. A bp. of Corinth might 
 consider Lacedaemon and Athens as under his 
 metropolitan superintendence, but that he 
 should send letters of admonition to Crete, 
 Bithynia, and Paphlagonia not only proves 
 the reputation of the writer, but indicates the 
 unity of the Christian community. A still 
 more interesting proof of this is furnished by 
 the letter to the Roman church, which would 
 seem to be one of thanks for a gift of money, 
 and in which he speaks of it as a custom of that 
 church from the earliest times to send supplies 
 to churches in every city to relieve poverty, 
 and to support the brethren condemned to 
 work in the mines, " a custom not only pre- 
 served, but increased by the blessed bp. 
 Soter, who administered their bounty to the 
 saints, and with blessed words exhorted the 
 brethren that came up as an affectionate father 
 his children." The epithet here applied to 
 Soter is usually used of those deceased in 
 Christ ; but there are instances of its applica- 
 tion to living persons, and Eusebius speaks of 
 him as still bishop when the letter of Diony- 
 sius was written. This letter is remarkable 
 also as containing the earliest testimony that 
 St. Peter suffered martyrdom in Italy at the 
 same time as St. Paul. The letters indicate 
 the general prevalence of episcopal govern- 
 ment when they were written. In most of 
 them the bishop of the church addressed is 
 mentioned with honour ; Palmas in Pontus, 
 Philip and Pinytus in Crete, Soter at Rome. 
 That to the Athenians reminds them of a 
 former bp. Publius, who had suffered martyr- 
 dom during persecutions which reduced that 
 church very low, from which condition it was 
 revived by the zeal of Quadratus, the success- 
 or of Publius. This form of government was 
 then supposed to date from apostolic times, 
 for in the same letter Dionysius the Areopagite 
 is counted as the first bp. of Athens ; but the 
 importance of the bishop seems to be still 
 subordinate to that of his church. The letters, 
 including that to Rome, are each addressed to 
 the church, not to the bishop ; andSoter's own 
 letter, like Clement's former one, was written 
 not in his own name, but that of his church 
 (iVaJf rqv iTnaTo\T)v). The letters, indeed, of 
 Dionysius himself were writ ten in his own name, 
 and he uses the ist pers. sing, in speaking of 
 them, but adds that they were written at the 
 request of brethren. Eusebius mentions two, 
 Bacchylides and Elpistus, at whose instance 
 that to the churches of Pontus was written. 
 
 The letters also illustrate the value attached 
 by Christians to their sacred literature. 
 Dionysius informs the church of Rome that 
 the day on which he wrote, being the Lord's 
 day, had been kept holy, and that they had 
 then read the letter of the Roman church, and 
 would continue from time to time to read it for 
 their instruction, as they were in the habit of 
 reading the letter formerly written from the 
 same church by the hand of Clement ; and 
 speaking of the falsification of his own letters, 
 he adds, " No marvel, then, that some have 
 
DIONYSIUS 
 
 attempted to tamper with the Scriptures of the 
 Lord, since they have attempted it on writings 
 not comparable to them {ov roiavrai^)." Thus 
 we learn that it was then customary to read 
 sacred books in the Christian assemblies ; that 
 this practice was not limited to our canonical 
 books ; that attempts were made by men re- 
 garded as heretics to corrupt these' writings, 
 and that such attempts were jealously guarded 
 against. The value attached by Christians to 
 writings was regulated rather by the character 
 of their contents than by the dignity of the 
 writer ; for while there is no trace that the 
 letter of Soter thus honoured at Corinth passed 
 beyond that church, the letter of Dionysius 
 himself became the property of the whole 
 Christian community. But we learn the pre- 
 eminent authority enjoyed by certain books, 
 called the Scriptures of the Lord, which we 
 cannot be wrong in identifying with some of 
 the wTitings of our N.T. Dionysius, in the 
 very brief fragments remaining, shews signs 
 of acquaintance with the St. Matt., the Acts, 
 I. Thess., and the Apocalypse. There is, there- 
 fore, no reason for limiting to the O.T. the 
 " expositions of the divine Scriptures," which 
 Eusebius tells us were contained in the letter 
 of Dionysius to the churches of Pontus. In 
 
 speaking of attempts to corrupt the Scriptures, 
 Dionysius probably refers to the heresy of 
 Marcion, against which, we are told, he wrote 
 in his letter to the church of Nicomedia, " de- 
 fending the rule of truth." We cannot lay 
 much stress on a rhetorical passage where 
 Jerome (Ep. ad Magnum, 83) includes Diony- 
 sius among those who had applied secular 
 learning to the refutation of heresy, tracing 
 each heresy to its source in the writings of the 
 philosophers. Dionysius had probably also 
 Marcionism in view, when he exhorted the 
 church of Gortyna " to beware of the perver- 
 sion of heretics," for we are told that its bp. 
 Philip had found it necessary to compose a 
 treatise against Marcion. We may see traces 
 of the same heresy in the subjects treated of 
 in the letter to the churches of Pontus (the 
 home of Marcion), to which Dionysius gave 
 instructions concerning marriage and chastity 
 (marriage having been proscribed by Marcion), 
 and which he also exhorted to receive back 
 those who returned after any fall, whether into 
 irregularity of living or into heretical error. 
 But the rigorist tendencies here combated 
 were exhibited also, not only among the then 
 rising sects of the Encratites and Montan- 
 ists, but by men of undoubted orthodoxy. 
 Writing to the Cnossians Dionysius exhorts 
 Pinytus the bp., a man highly commended 
 by Eusebius for piety, orthodoxy, and learn- 
 ing, not to impose on the brethren too heavy 
 a burden of chastity, but to regard the weak- 
 ness of the many. Eusebius reports Pinytus 
 as replying with expressions of high respect 
 for Dionysius, which were understood by 
 Rufinus to imply an adoption of his views. 
 But he apparently persevered in his own 
 opinion, for he exhorts Dionysius to impart 
 to his people some more advanced instruction, 
 lest if he fed them always with milk instead of 
 with more solid food, they should continue in 
 the state of children. 
 
 We are not told anything of the time or 
 manner of the death of Dionysius. It must 
 
 DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 203 
 
 have been before the Paschal disputes in a.p. 
 108, when we find Palmas of Pontus still 
 alive, but a new bishoj) (Hacchvlus) at Corinth. 
 The Cireck church counts Dionysius among 
 martyrs, and the Menaea name the sword as 
 the instrument of his death ; but there is no 
 authority for his martyrdom earlier than 
 Cedrenus, i.e. the end of the nth cent. The 
 Roman church only counts him among con- 
 fessors. The abbey of St. Denis in France 
 claimed to be in possession of the body of 
 Dionysius of Corinth, alleged to have been 
 brought from tirecce to Rome, and given them 
 in 121=, by Innocent III. Tiie pope's bull is 
 riven bv the Bnllandists under April 8. See 
 Routh, Rt'l. Sac. (_mk1 ,•.!.), i. 178-201. [g.s.] 
 
 Dionysius (6) of Alexandria. This " great 
 
 bishop of Alexaiuhia" (Hns. H. E. vi. Praef.) 
 and " teacher of the catholic church " (Athan. 
 lie Sent. Dion. 6), was born, apparently, of a 
 wealthy and honourable family (Ens. H. E. 
 vii. II, and Valesms ad loc). He was an old 
 man in a.d. 265 (Eus. H. E. vii. 27), and a 
 presbyter in a.d. 233 (Hieron. de Vir. III. 69). 
 His parents were Gentiles, and he was led to 
 examine the claims of Christianity by private 
 study {Ep. Dion. ap. Eus. H. E. vii. '7). His 
 conversion cost him the sacrifice of " worldly 
 glory " (Eus. H. E. vii. 11) ; but he found in 
 Origenan able teacher {ib. vi. 29) ; and Dionysius 
 remained faithful to his master to the last. 
 In the persecutions of Decius he addressed a 
 letter to him On Persecution [ib. vi. 46), doubt- 
 less as an expression of sympathy with his 
 sufferings (c. a.d. 259), and on the death of 
 Origen (a.d. 253) wrote to Theotecnus bp. of 
 Caesarea in his praise (Steph. Gob. ap. Phot. 
 Cod. 232). Dionysius, then a presbyter, 
 succeeded Heraclas as head of the Catechetical 
 School, at the time, as the words of Eusebius 
 imply, when Heraclas was made bp. of Alex- 
 andria, A.D. 232-233 (Eus. I.e.). He held this 
 office till he was raised to the bishopric, on the 
 death of Heraclas, a.d. 247-248, and perhaps 
 retained it till his death, a.d. 265. His epis- 
 copate was in troubled times. A popular out- 
 break at Alexandria (a.d. 248-249) anticipated 
 by about a year (Eus. H. E. vi. 41) the perse- 
 cution under Decius (a.d. 249-251). Diony- 
 sius fled from Alexandria, and, being after- 
 wards taken by some soldiers, was rescued by 
 a friend, escaping in an obscure retirement 
 from further attacks. In the persecution of 
 Valerian, a.d. 257, he was banished, but con- 
 tinued to direct and animate the Alexandrian 
 church from the successive places of his exile. 
 His conduct on these occasions exposed him to 
 ungenerous criticism, and Eusebius has pre- 
 served several interesting passages of a letter 
 (c. A.D. 258-259), in which he defends himself 
 with great spirit against the accusations of 
 a bp. Germanus (ib. vi. 40, vii. 11). On the 
 accession of Gallienus. a.d. 260. Dionysius was 
 allowed to return to Alexandria (ib. vii. 13, 21). 
 where he had to face war, famine, and pestil- 
 ence (tb. vii. 22). In a.d. 264-265 he was 
 invited to the synod at Antioch which met to 
 consider the opinions of Paul of Samosata. 
 His age and infirmities did not allow him to 
 go, and he died shortly afterwards (a.d. 265) 
 (ib. vii. 27, 28 ; Hieron. de Vtr. Ill- 69). 
 
 Dionysius was active in controversy, but 
 always bore himself with prudence. In this 
 
264 DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDMA 
 
 spirit he was anxious to deal gently with I 
 the " lapsed " (Ens. H. E. vi. 42) ; he pressed | 
 upon Novatian the duty of self-restraint, for 
 the sake of the peace of the church, a.d. 251 
 (ib. vii. 45 ; Hieron. I.e.) ; and with better 
 results counselled moderation in dealing with 
 the rebaptism of heretics, in a correspondence 
 with popes Stephen and Sixtus (a.d. 256-257) 
 {Eus. H. E. vii. 5, 7, 9). His last letter (or 
 letters) regarding Paul of Samosata seem to 
 have been written in a similar strain. He 
 charged the assembled bishops to do their 
 duty, but did not shrink from appealing to 
 Paul also, as still fairly within the reach of 
 honest argument (Theod. Haer. Fab. ii. 8). In 
 one instance Dionysius met with immediate 
 success. In a discussion with a party of Chili- 
 asts he brought his opponents to abandon their 
 error (Eus. H. E. vii. 24). His own orthodoxy, 
 however, did not always remain imimpeached. 
 When controverting the false teaching of Sa- 
 bellius, the charge of tritheism was brought 
 against him by some Sabellian adversaries, 
 and entertained at first by his namesake 
 Dionysius of Rome. Discussion shewed that 
 one ground of the misunderstanding was the 
 ambiguity of the words used to describe 
 " essence " and " person," which the two 
 bishops took in different senses. Dionysius of 
 Rome regarded inroaTauts as expressing the 
 essence of the divine nature ; Dionysius of 
 Alexandria as expressing the essence of each 
 divine person. The former therefore affirmed 
 that to divide the v-n-oaTaais was to make sep- 
 arate gods ; the latter affirmed with equal 
 justice that there could be no Trinity unless 
 each iiTToo-TacTis was distinct. The Alexandrine 
 bishop had, however, used other phrases, 
 which were claimed by Arians at a later time 
 as favouring their views. Basil, on hearsay, 
 as it has been supposed (Lumper, Hist. Pat- 
 rum, xiii. 86 f.), admitted that Dionysius 
 sowed the seeds of the Anomoean heresy [Ep. 
 i. 9), but Athanasius with fuller knowledge 
 vindicated his perfect orthodoxy. Dionysius 
 has been represented as recognizing the supre- 
 macy of Rome in the defence which he made. 
 But the fragments of his answer to his name- 
 sake (Athan. de Sent. Dionysii, fTr^oreiXe 
 AiovvffLLp 5r]\u!aai • • • for the use of eincrTeWw 
 see Eus. H. E. vi. 46, etc.) shew the most com- 
 plete and resolute independence ; and there 
 is nothing in the narrative of Athanasius which 
 implies that the Alexandrine bishop recog- 
 nized, or that the Roman bishop claimed, any 
 dogmatic authority as belonging to the im- 
 perial see. To say that a synod was held upon 
 the subject at Rome is an incorrect interpreta- 
 tion of the facts. 
 
 Dionysius was a prolific writer. Jerome 
 (I.e.) has preserved a long but not exhaustive 
 catalogue of his books. Some important frag- 
 ments remain of his treatises On Nature (Eus. 
 Praep. Ev. xiv. 23 ff.), and On the Promises, in 
 refutation of the Chiliastic views of Nepos 
 (Eus. H. E. iii. 28, vii. 24, 25) ; of his Refuta- 
 tion and Defence, addressed to Dionysius of 
 Rome, in reply to the accusation of false teach- 
 ing on the Holy Trinity (Athan. de Sent. 
 Dionysii ; de Svnodis, c. 44 ; de Deer. Syn. 
 Nic. c. 25) ; of his Commentaries on Ecde- 
 siastes and on St. Luke, and of his books 
 Against Sabellius (Eus. Praep. Ev. vii. 19). 
 
 DIONYSIUS 
 
 The fragments of his letters are, however, 
 the most interesting extant memorials of his 
 work and character and of his time ; and 
 Eusebius, with a true historical instinct, has 
 made them the basis of the sixth and seventh 
 books of his history. The following will 
 shew the wide ground covered : 
 
 A.D. 251. — To Domitius and Didymus. Per- 
 sonal experiences during persecution (Eus. 
 H.E. vii. II). 
 
 A.D. 251-252. — To Novatian, to the Roman 
 Confessors, to Cornelius of Rome, Fabius of 
 Antioch, Conon of Hermopolis ; and to 
 Christians in Alexandria, Egypt, Laodicaea, 
 Armenia, on discipline and repentance, with 
 pictures from contemporary history (ib. vi. 
 41, and vii. 45). 
 
 A.D. 253-257. — To Stephen of Rome, the 
 Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon, 
 Sixtus II. of Rome on Rebaptism {ib. vii. 
 4, 5, 7, 9)- 
 
 A.D. 258-263. — To Germanus : incidents in 
 persecution. Against SabeUians. A series of 
 festal letters, with pictures of contemporary 
 history {ib. vii. 11, 22 ff., 26). 
 
 A.D. 264. — To Paul of Samosata (vi. 40). 
 
 To these, of some of which only the titles 
 remain, must be added an important canonical 
 letter to Basilides, of uncertain date, discussing 
 various questions of discipline, and especially 
 points connected with the Lenten fast fcf. 
 Dittrich, pp. 46 ff.). All the fragments repay 
 careful study. They are uniformly inspired by 
 sympathy and large-heartedness. His criti- 
 cism on the style of the Apocalypse is perhaps 
 unique among early waitings for clearness and 
 scholarly precision (Eus. H. E. vii. 25). 
 
 The most accessible and complete collection 
 of his remains is in Migne's Patr. Gk. x. pp. 
 1233 ff., 1575 ff., to which must be added 
 Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. i. 15 ff. A full mono- 
 graph on Dionysius by Dittrich (Freiburg, 
 1867) supplements the arts, in Tillemont, 
 Marechal, Lumper, Moehler. An Eng. trans, 
 of his works is in the Ante-Nicene Lrb.. and his 
 Letters, etc., have been ed. by Dr. Feltoe for 
 the Carnb. Patristic Texts (iqo4). [r.f.w.] 
 
 Dionysius (7), bp. of Rome; a Greek by 
 birth, consecrated July 22, a.d. 259, on the 
 death of Xystus, in the persecution of Vale- 
 rian. His efforts against heresy are re- 
 corded. When Dionysius of Alexandria {q.v.) 
 was accused of holding doctrines akin to those 
 of Sabellius, the Roman Dionysius wrote to 
 him, and extracted so satisfactory a defence 
 that he declared him purged of suspicion 
 (Athan. Ep. de Sent. Dionvs. 0pp. i. 252 ; see 
 an Eng. trans, of the Fragm. against Sabellius 
 in Ante-Nicene Lib.). In 264 the Alexandrian 
 and Roman Dionysii acted together with the 
 council of Antioch in condemning and degrad- 
 ing Paul of Samosata. Dionysius of Rome 
 died Dec. 26, 269. [g.h.m.] 
 
 Dionysius (19), surnamed Exiguus because 
 of his humbleness of heart, was a Scythian by 
 birth, and a monk in the Western chinrch under 
 the emperors Justin and Justinian. To him 
 we owe the custom of dating events from the 
 birth of our Saviour, though he is now acknow- 
 ledged to have placed the era four years too 
 late. His collection of canons laid the foun- 
 dation of canon law. He knew Latin and 
 Greek fairly ; though it is obvious that neither 
 
DIONYSIUS 
 
 was his vernacular. His Latin translations 
 form the bulk of his extant works. Cassio- 
 dorus speaks of his moral and intellectual 
 qualities with well-deserved praise. His per- 
 formances were not original discoveries, but 
 improvements on those of others. 
 
 I. The period called after him was borrowed 
 from Victorius of Aquitaine, who flourished 
 loo years earlier, and is said to have invented 
 it. It is a revolution of 532 years, produced 
 by multiplying the solar cycle of 28 by the 
 liinar of iq years. It is called sometimes 
 " recapitulatio Dionysii." A note to § 13 of 
 the preliminary dissertation to I' Art de vcrif. 
 les dales shews how he improved on his pre- 
 decessor. His cycle was published in the 
 last year of the emperor Justin, a.d. 527. It 
 began with March 25, now kept as the festival 
 of the Annunciation ; and from this epoch all 
 the dates of bulls and briefs of the court of 
 Rome are supposed to run (Butler's Lives of 
 the Saints, Oct. 15 : note to the Life of St. 
 Teresa). His first year had for its characters 
 the solar cycle 10, the lunar 2, and the Roman 
 indiction 4, thereby proclaiming its identity 
 with the year 4714 of the Julian period, which 
 again coincided with the 4th year of the 194th 
 Olympiad, and the 753rd of the building of 
 Rome. It was adopted in Italy soon after its 
 publication ; in France perhaps a century later. 
 In England it was ordained a.d. 816, at the 
 synod of Chelsea, that all bishops should date 
 their acts from the Incarnation. 
 
 II. In his letter to bp. Stephen, to whom 
 he dedicates his collection of Canons, he admits 
 the existence of an earlier, but defective, Latin 
 translation, of which copies have been 
 printed and named, after his naming of it, 
 Prisca Versio by Justellus and others. His 
 own was a corrected edition of that earlier 
 version, so far as regards the canons of 
 Nicaea, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, An- 
 tioch, Laodicea, and Constantinople — 165 in 
 all — together with 27 of Chalcedon : all 
 originally published in Greek, and all, except 
 the Laodicean, already translated in the Prisca 
 Versio. The Laodicean, unlike the rest, are 
 given in an abbreviated form, and the chrono- 
 logical order is interrupted to place the 
 Xicene canons first. He specifies as having 
 been translated by himself the 50 so-called 
 canons of the Apostles, which stand at the 
 head of his collection, which he admits were 
 not then universally received ; and, as having 
 been appended by himself, the Sardican and 
 African canons, which he says were published 
 in Latin, and with which his collection ends. 
 His collection speedily displaced that of the 
 Prisca. Cassiodorus, his friend and patron, 
 writes of it within a few years of his decease, 
 " Quos hodie usu ecclesia Romana complec- 
 titur " ; and adds, " Alia quoque multa ex 
 (iraeco transtulit in Latinam, quae utilitati 
 possunt ecclesiasticae convenire " (de Inst. 
 Div. Lilt. c. 23). It seems certain, from what 
 Cassiodorus says, that Dionysius either trans- 
 lated or revised an earlier translation of the 
 official documents of the 3rd and 4th councils, 
 as well as the canons of the ist and 2nd. 
 
 III. He published all the decretal epistles 
 of the popes he could discover from Siricius, 
 who succeeded Damasus, a.d. 384, to Anas- 
 tasius II., who succeeded Gelasius, a.d. 496. 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 2rt5 
 
 Gelasius, he says himself, he had never seen in 
 life ; in other words, he had never been at 
 Rome up to Gelasius's death. By this pub- 
 lication a death-blow was given to the false 
 decretals of the Pseudo- Isidore, centuries 
 before their appearance. His attestation 
 of the true text and consequent rendering of 
 the 6th Nicene canon, his translating the gth 
 of Chalcedon into plain Latin, after suppress- 
 ing the 28th, which, as it was not passed in 
 full council he could omit with perfect hf nest v, 
 and, most of all, the publicity which he first 
 gave to the canons against transmarine ap- 
 peals in the .\frican code and to the stand 
 made by the African bishops against the en- 
 croachments of pope Zosimus and his succes- 
 sors in the matter of Apiarius, are historical 
 stumbling-blocks which are fatal to the papal 
 claims. Misquotations of the Sardican canons, 
 by which those claims were supported, are, 
 moreover, exposed by his preservation of them 
 in the language in which he avers they were 
 published. Aloisius Vincenzi, writing on 
 papal infallibility (de Sacra Monarchid, etc. 
 1875^ is quite willing to abandon the Sardican 
 canons in order to get rid also of the African 
 coif", which is a thcrn in his side. fr.s.FF.l 
 
 Dioscorus (1), patriarch of Alexandria, suc- 
 ceeded Cyril about midsummer 444, receiving 
 consecration, according to one report (Mansi, 
 vii. 603), from two bishops only. He had served 
 as Cyril's archdeacon. Liberatus says that he 
 had never been married. It is difficult to har- 
 monize the accounts of hischaracter. Theodoret, 
 whose testimonv in his favour cannot be sus- 
 pected, declared in a letter to Dioscorus, soon 
 after his consecration, that the fame of his 
 virtues, and particularly of his modesty and 
 humility, was widely spread (Ep. 60) ; on the 
 other hand, after he had involved himself in 
 the Monophysite heresy, he was accused of 
 having gravely misconducted himself in the 
 first vears of his episcopate (Mansi, vi. 1008). 
 According toadeacon.Ischyrion, Dioscorus had 
 laid waste propertv, inflicted fines and exile, 
 bought up and sold at a high price the wheat 
 sent by the government to Libya, appropriated 
 and grossly misspent money left by a lady 
 named Peristeria for religious and charitable 
 purposes, received women of notorious char- 
 acter into his house, persecuted Ischyrion as 
 a favourite of Cyril's, ruined the little estate 
 which was his only support, sent a " phalanx 
 of ecclesiastics, or rather of ruffians," to put 
 him to death, and, after his escape, again 
 sought to murder him in a hospital ; in proof, 
 Ischvrion appealed to six persons, one of 
 whom was bath-keeper to Dioscorus (ib. 1012). 
 According to a priest named Athanasius, 
 Cyril's nephew, Dioscorus, from the outset of 
 his episcopate (" which he obtained one knows 
 not how," savs the petitioner), harassed hun 
 and his brother by using influence with the 
 court, so that the brother died ..f distress, and 
 Athanasius. with his aunts, sist< r-in-law, and 
 nephews, were bereft of their homes by the 
 patriarch's malignitv. He himself was dc- 
 I)osed, without any trial, fr-)m the priesthood, 
 and became, perforce, a wanderer for years. 
 According to a layman named Sophronius, 
 Dioscorus hindered the execution of an im- 
 perial order which Sophronius had obtained 
 for the redress of a grievous wrong. " '^^'' 
 
 The 
 
266 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 country," he said, " belonged to him rather 
 than to the sovereigns " {tQv KparovvToiv). 
 Sophronius averred that legal evidence was 
 forthcoming to prove that Dioscorus had 
 usurped, in Egypt, the authority belonging to 
 the emperor. He added that Dioscorus had 
 taken away his clothes and property, and 
 compelled him to flee for his life ; and he 
 charged him, further, with adultery and blas- 
 phemy (ib. 1029). Such accusations were then 
 so readily made — as the life of St. Athanasius 
 himself shews — that some deduction must be 
 made from charges brought against Dioscorus 
 in the hour of his adversity ; and wrongs done 
 by his agents may have been in some cases 
 unfairly called his acts. Still, it is but too 
 likely that there was sufficient truth in them 
 to demonstrate the evil effects on his character 
 of elevation to a post of almost absolute 
 power ; for such, in those days, was the great 
 " evangelical throne." We find him, before 
 the end of his first year, in correspondence 
 with pope Leo the Great, who gave directions, as 
 from the see of St. Peter, to the new successor 
 of St. Mark; writing, on June 21, 445, that 
 " it would be shocking (nefas) to believe that 
 St. Mark formed his rules for Alexandria 
 otherwise than on the Petrine model " {Ep. 
 11). In 447 Dioscorus appears among those 
 who expressed suspicion of the theological 
 character of Theodoret, who had been much 
 mixed up with the party of Nestorius. It was 
 rumoured that, preaching at Antioch, he 
 had practically taught Nestorianism ; and 
 Dioscorus, hearing this, wrote to Domnus, bp. 
 of Antioch, Theodoret's patriarch ; whereupon 
 Theodoret wrote a denial (Ep. 83) ending with 
 an anathema against all who should deny the 
 holy Virgin to be Theotokos, call Jesus a mere 
 man, or divide the one Son into two. Dios- 
 corus still assumed the truth of the charge 
 (Theod. Ep. 86), allowed Theodoret to be 
 anathematized in church, and even rose from 
 his throne to echo the malediction, and sent 
 some bishops to Constantinople to support 
 him against Theodoret. 
 
 Then, in Nov. 448, the aged Eutyches, 
 archimandrite of Constantinople and a ve- 
 hement enemy of Nestorianizers, was accused 
 by Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, before a 
 council of which Flavian was president, with 
 an opposite error. He clung tenaciously to 
 the phrase, " one incarnate nature of God the 
 Word," which Cyril had used on the authority 
 of St. Athanasius ; but neglected the qualifica- 
 tions and explanations by which Cyril had 
 guarded his meaning. Thus, by refusing to 
 admit that Christ, as incarnate, had " two 
 natures," Eutyches appeared to his judges to 
 have revived, in effect, the Apollinarian heresy 
 — to have denied the distinctness and verity 
 of Christ's manhood ; and he was deprived 
 of his priestly office, and excommunicated. 
 His patron, the chamberlain Chrysaphius, 
 applied to Dioscorus for aid, promising to 
 support him in all his designs if he would 
 take up the cause of Eutyches against Flavian 
 (Niceph. xiv. 47). Eutyches himself wrote 
 to Dioscorus, asking him " to examine his 
 cause " (Liberat. c. 12), and Dioscorus, 
 zealous against all anti-Cyrilline tendencies in 
 theology, wrote to the emperor, urging him 
 to call a general council to review Flavian's 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 judgment. Theodosius, influenced by his wife 
 and his chamberlain, issued letters (Mar. 30, 
 449), ordering the chief prelates (patriarchs, 
 as we may call them, and exarchs) to repair, 
 with some of their bishops, to Ephesus by 
 Aug. I, 449 (Mansi, vi. 587). 
 
 This council of evil memory — on which Leo 
 afterwards fastened the name of " Latrocin- 
 ium," or gang of robbers — met on Aug. 8, 449, 
 in St. Mary's church at Ephesus, the scene of 
 the third general council's meeting in 431 ; 
 150 bishops being present. Dioscorus pre- 
 sided, and next to him Julian, or Julius, the 
 representative of the " most holy bishop of the 
 Roman church," then Juvenal of Jerusalem, 
 Domnus of Antioch, and — his lowered position 
 indicating what was to come — Flavian of Con- 
 stantinople {ib. 607). The archbp. of Alex- 
 andria shewed himself a partisan throughout. 
 He did indeed propose the acceptance of Leo's 
 letter to the council, a letter written at the 
 same time as, and expressly referring to, the 
 famous " Tome" ; but it was only handed in, 
 not read, Juvenal moving that another im- 
 perial letter should be read and recorded. 
 The president then intimated that the council's 
 business was not to frame a new doctrinal 
 formulary, but to inquire whether what had 
 lately appeared — meaning, the statements of 
 Flavian and bp. Eusebius on the one hand, 
 those of Eutyches on the other — were accord- 
 ant with the decisions of the councils of Nicaea 
 and Ephesus — " two councils in name," said 
 he, "but one in faith" (ib. 628). Eutyches 
 was then introduced, and made his statement, 
 beginning, " I commend myself to the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the true 
 verdict of your justice." After he had finished 
 his address, Flavian desired that Eusebius, 
 who had been his accuser, should be called in 
 and heard. Elpidius, the imperial commis- 
 sioner, vetoed this proposal on the ground that 
 the judges of Eutyches were now to be judged, 
 and that his accuser had already fulfilled his 
 task, " and, as he thought, successfully " : to 
 let him speak now would be a cause of mere 
 disturbance (ib. 645). This unjudicial view 
 of the case was supported by Dioscorus. 
 Flavian was baffled, and the council resolved 
 to hear the acts of the synod of Constantinople 
 which had condemned Eutyches. The epis- 
 copal deputy of Leo, with his companion the 
 deacon Hilarus, urged that " the pope's 
 letter " (probably including the " Tome " in 
 this proposal) should be read first, but this 
 was overruled ; Dioscorus moved that the 
 "acts" should be first read, and then the 
 letter of the bp. of Rome. The reading 
 began (ib. 649). When the passage was 
 reached in which Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus 
 of Amasia had said that the one Christ was in 
 two natiu'es after the incarnation, a storm of 
 wrath broke out. " Let no one call the Lord 
 ' two ' after the union ! Do not divide 
 the undivided ! Seleucus was not bp. of 
 Amasia ! This is Nestorianism." " Be quiet 
 for a little," said Dioscorus ; " let us hear some 
 more blasphemies. Why are we to blame 
 Nestorius only ? There are many Nestorius- 
 es " (ib. 685). The reading proceeded as far 
 as Eusebius's question to Eutyches, " Do you 
 own two natures after the incarnation ? " 
 Then arose another storm : " The holy synod 
 
DIOSCORUS 
 
 exclaimed, ' Away with Eusebius, burn him, 
 let him be burnt' alive ! Let him be cut in 
 two — be divided, even as he divided ! ' " 
 " Can you endure," asked Dioscorus, " to hear 
 of two natures after the incarnation ? " 
 " Anathema to him that says it ! " was the 
 reply. " I have need of your voices and your 
 hands too," rejoined Dioscorus ; " if any one 
 cannot shout, let him stretch out his hand." 
 Another anathema rang out {ib. 737). An- 
 other passage, containing a statement of belief 
 by Eutyches, was heard with applause. " We 
 accept this statement," said Dioscorus. "This 
 is the faith of the Fathers," exclaimed the 
 bishops. " Of what faith do you say this ? " 
 asked Dioscorus. " Of Eutychcs's : for Euse- 
 bius is impious " {daefiris. ib. 740). Similar 
 approbation was given to another passage 
 containing the characteristic formula of Euty- 
 chianism : "I confess that our Lord was of 
 two natures before the incarnation ; but after 
 the incarnation [i.e. in Him as incarnate] I 
 confess one nature." " We all agree to this," 
 said Dioscorus. " We agree," said the coun- 
 cil (ib. 744). Presently came a sentence in 
 which Basil of Seleucia had denounced the 
 denial of two natures after the incarnation as 
 equivalent to the assertion of a commixture 
 and a fusion. This aroused once more the 
 zealots of the Alexandrian party ; one bishop 
 sprang forward, shouting, " This upsets the 
 whole church ! " The Egyptians and the 
 monks, led by Barsumas, cried out, " Cut him 
 in two, who says two natures ! He is a Nes- 
 torian ! " Basil's nerves gave way ; he lost, 
 as he afterwards said, his perceptions, bodily 
 and mental {ib. 636). He began to say that 
 he did not remember whether he had uttered 
 the obnoxious words, but that he had meant 
 to say, " If you do not add the word ' incar- 
 nate ' to ' nature,' as Cyril did, the phrase ' one 
 nature' implies a fusion." Juvenal asked 
 whether his words had been wrongly reported ; 
 he answered helplessly, " I do not recollect " 
 {ib. 748). He seems to have been coerced into 
 a formal retractation of the phrase " two 
 natures " ; but he added " hypostases " as 
 explanatory of " natures," and professed to 
 " adore the one nature of the Godhead of the 
 Only-begotten, who was made man and in- 
 carnate " {ib. 828). Eutyches declared that 
 the acts of the Constantinopolitan synod had 
 been tampered with. " It is false," said 
 Flavian. " If Flavian," said Dioscorus, 
 " knows anything which supports his opinion, 
 let him put it in writing . . . No one hinders 
 you, and the council knows it." Flavian then 
 said that the acts had been scrutinized, and 
 no falsification had been found in them ; that, 
 for himself, he had always glorified God by 
 holding what he then held. Dioscorus called 
 on the bishops to give their verdict as to the 
 theological statements of Eutyches. They 
 acquitted him of all unsoundness, as faithful 
 to Nicene and Ephesian teaching. Domnus 
 expressed regret for having mistakenly con- 
 demned hira {ib. 836). Basil of Seleucia spoke 
 like the rest. Flavian, of course, was silent. 
 Dioscorus spoke last, affirming the judgments 
 of the council, and " adding his own opinion." 
 Eutyches was " restored " to his presbytcrial 
 rank and his abbatial dignity {ib. 861). His 
 monks were then released from the excom- 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 207 
 
 munication incurred at Constantinniile. The 
 doctrinal decisions of the Ephesian council of 
 431. in its first and sixth sessions, were then 
 read. Dioscorus proposed that these de- 
 cisions, with those of Nicaea, should be re- 
 cognized as an unalterable standard of ortho- 
 doxy ; that whoever should say or think 
 otherwise, or should unsettle theni, should be 
 put under censure. " Let each one of you 
 speak his mind on this." Several bishops 
 assented. Hilarvis, the Roman deacon, testi- 
 fied that the apostolic see reverenced those 
 decisions, and that its letter, if read, would 
 prove this. Dioscorus called in some secre- 
 taries, who brought forward a draft sentence 
 of deposition against Flavian and Eusebius, 
 on the ground that the Ephesian council had 
 enacted severe penalties against any who 
 should frame or propose any other creed than 
 the Nicene. Flavian and Eusebius were de- 
 clared to have constructively committed this 
 offence by " unsettling almost everything, and 
 causing scandal and confusion throughout the 
 churches." Their deposition was decided up- 
 on {ib. 907). Onesiphorus, bp. of Iconium, 
 with some others, went up to Dioscorus, 
 clasped his feet and knees, and passionately 
 entreated him not to go to such extremities. 
 " He has done nothing worthy of deposition 
 . ... if he deserves condemnation, let him be 
 condemned." " It must be," said Dioscorus 
 in answer ; " if my tongue were to be cut out 
 for it, 1 would still say so." They persisted, 
 and he, starting from his throne, stood up on 
 the footstool and exclaimed, " Are you get- 
 ting up a sedition ? Where are the counts ? " 
 Military officers, soldiers with swords and 
 sticks, even the proconsul with chains, entered 
 at his call. He peremptorily commanded the 
 bishops to sign the sentence, and with a fierce 
 gesture of the hand exclaimed, " He that does 
 not choose to sign must reckon with tne." A 
 scene of terrorism followed. Those prelates 
 who were reluctant to take part in the de- 
 position were threatened with exile, beaten 
 by the soldiers, denounced as heretics by the 
 partisans of Dioscorus, and by the crowd of 
 fanatical monks {ib. vii. 68) who accompanied 
 Barsumas, until they put their names to a 
 blank paper on which the sentence was to be 
 written {ib. vi. 601 seq. 625, 637, 988). They 
 afterwards protested that they had signed 
 under compulsion. Basil of Seleucia declared 
 that he had given way because he was " given 
 over to the judgment of 120 or 130 bishops ; 
 had he been dealing with magistrates, he would 
 have suffered martyrdom." " The Egyp- 
 tians," says Tillemont, "who signed willingly 
 enough, did so after the others had been made 
 to sign " (xv. 571 ; cf. Mansi, vi. 601). 
 
 Flavian's own fate was the special tragedy 
 of the Latrocinium. He had lodged in the 
 hands of the Roman delegates a formal appeal 
 to the pope and the Western bishops (not to 
 the pope alone ; see Leo, Ep. 43, Tillemont, 
 XV. 374). It was nearly his last act. He was 
 brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the 
 agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by 
 Dioscorus himself (see Evagr. i. i ; Niceph. 
 xiv. 47^. He was then imprisoned, and soon 
 exiled, but died in the hands of his guards, 
 from the effect of his injuries, three days after 
 his deposition (Liberatus, Brev. 19), Aug. 11, 
 
268 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 449. He was regarded as a martyr for the 
 doctrine of " the two natures in the one 
 person " of Christ. Anatolius, who had been 
 the agent [apocrisiarius] of Dioscorus at Con- 
 stantinople, was appointed his successor. 
 
 Dioscorus and his council — as we may well 
 call it — proceeded to depose Theodoret and 
 several other bishops ; " many," says Leo, 
 " were expelled from their sees, and banished, 
 because they would not accept heresy " (Ep. 
 93). Theodoret was put under a special ban. 
 " They ordered me," he writes [Ep. 140), " to 
 be excluded from shelter, from water, from 
 everything." 
 
 Confusion now pervaded the Eastern 
 churches. It was impossible to acquiesce in 
 the proceedings of the " Latrocinium." Leo 
 bestirred himself to get a new oecumenical 
 council held in Italy : the imperial family in 
 the West supported this, but Theodosius II. 
 persisted in upholding the late council. In 
 the spring of 450 Dioscorus took a new and 
 exceptionally audacious step. At Nicaea, on 
 his way to the court, he caused ten bishops 
 whom he had brought from Egypt to sign a 
 document excommunicating pope Leo (Mansi, 
 vi. 1009, 1148; vii. 104), doubtless on the 
 ground that Leo was endeavouring to quash 
 the canonical decisions of a legitimate council. 
 His cause, however, was ruined when the 
 orthodox Pulcheria succeeded to the empire, 
 and gave her hand to Marcian, this event 
 leading to a new council at Chalcedon on 
 Oct. 8, 451, which Dioscorus attended. The 
 deputies of Leo come first, then Anatolius, 
 Dioscorus, Maximus, Juvenal. At first Dios- 
 corus sat among those bishops who were on 
 the right of the chancel [ib- vi. 580). The 
 Roman deputies on the opposite side desired, 
 in the name of Leo, that Dioscorus should 
 not sit in the council. The magistrates, who 
 acted as imperial commissioners (and were 
 the effective presidents), asked what was 
 charged against him ? Paschasinus, the chief 
 Roman delegate, answered, " When he comes 
 in " (i.e. after having first gone out) " it will 
 be necessary to state objections against him." 
 The magistrates desired again to hear the 
 charge. Lucentius, another delegate, said, 
 " He has presumed to hold a synod without 
 leave of the apostolic see, which has never 
 been done." (Rome did not recognize the 
 "second general council" of 381 ; which, in 
 fact, was not then owned as general.) " We 
 cannot," said Paschasinus, " transgress the 
 apostolic pope's orders." " We cannot," 
 added Lucentius, " allow such a wrong as that 
 this man should sit in the council, who is come 
 to be judged." " If you claim to judge," 
 replied the magistrates sharply, " do not be 
 accuser too." They bade Dioscorus sit in the 
 middle by himself, and the Roman deputies 
 sat down and said no more. Eusebius of 
 Dorylaeum asked to be heard against Dios- 
 corus. " I have been injured by him ; the 
 faith has been injured ; Flavian was killed, 
 after he and I had been unjustly deposed by 
 Dioscorus. Command my petition to the 
 emperors to be read." It was read by Bero- 
 nicianus, the secretary of the imperial con- 
 sistory, and stated that " at the recent council 
 at Ephesus. this good {xpt]<^t6s) Dioscorus, dis- 
 regarding justice, and supporting Eutyches in 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 heresy — having also gained power by bribes, 
 and assembled a disorderly multitude — did all 
 he could to ruin the Catholic faith, and to 
 establish the heresy of Eutyches, and con- 
 demned us : I desire, therefore, that he be 
 called to account, and that the records of his 
 proceedings against us be examined." Dios- 
 corus, preserving his self-possession, answered, 
 " The synod was held by the emperor's order ; 
 I too desire that its acts against Flavian may 
 be read " ; but added, " I beg that the 
 doctrinal question be first considered." 
 " No," said the magistrates, " the charge 
 against you must first be met ; wait until the 
 acts have been read, as you yourself desired." 
 The letter of Theodosius, convoking the late 
 council, was read. The magistrates then or- 
 dered that Theodoret should be brought in, 
 because Leo had " restored to him his epis- 
 copate," and the emperor had ordered him to 
 attend the council. He entered accordingly. 
 The Egyptians and some other bishops shout- 
 ed, " Turn out the teacher of Nestorius ! " 
 Others rejoined, " We signed a blank paper ; 
 we were beaten, and so made to sign. Turn 
 out the enemies of Flavian and of the faith ! " 
 " Why," asked Dioscorus, " should Cyril be 
 ejected ? " {i.e. virtually, by the admission of 
 Theodoret). His adversaries turned fiercely 
 upon him : " Turn out Dioscorus the homi- 
 cide ! " Ultimately the magistrates ruled 
 that Theodoret should sit down, but in the 
 middle of the assembly, and that his admission 
 should not prejudice any charge against him 
 [ib. 592). The reading went on ; at the letter 
 giving Dioscorus the presidency, he remarked 
 that Juvenal, and Thalassius of Caesarea, were 
 associated with him, that the synod had gone 
 with him, and that Theodosius had confirmed 
 its decrees. Forthwith, a cry arose from the 
 bishops whom he had intimidated at Ephesus. 
 " Not one of us signed voluntarily. We were 
 overawed by soldiers." Dioscorus coolly said 
 that if the bishops had not understood the 
 merits of the case, they ought not to have 
 signed. The reading was resumed. Flavian 
 being named, his friends asked why he had 
 been degraded to the fifth place ? The next 
 interruption was in reference to the sup- 
 pression, at the Latrocinium, of Leo's letter. 
 Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, said it 
 had not even been " received." " But," said 
 Dioscorus, " the acts shew that I proposed 
 that it should be read. Let others say why it 
 was not read." " What others ? " " Juvenal 
 and Thalassius." Juvenal, on being ques- 
 tioned, said, " The chief notary told us that 
 he had an imperial letter ; I answered that it 
 ought to come first ; no one afterwards said 
 that he had in his hands a letter from Leo." 
 Thalassius (evidently a weak man, though 
 holding the great see of St. Basil) said that he 
 had not power, of himself, to order the reading 
 of the letter (ib. 617). At another point the 
 " Orientals," the opponents of Dioscorus, ob- 
 jected that the acts of Ephesus misrepresented 
 their words. Dioscorus replied, " Each bishop 
 had his own secretaries . . . taking down the 
 speeches." Stephen of Ephesus then narrated 
 the violence done to his secretaries : Acacias 
 of Arianathia described the coercion scene. 
 When the reader came to Dioscorus's words, 
 " I examine the decrees of the Fathers " 
 
DIOSCORUS 
 
 (councils), Eiisebius said, " See, he said, ' I 
 examine ' ; and / do tlie same." Dioscorus 
 caught him up : " I said ' examine,' not ' in- 
 novate.' Our Saviour bade us examine the 
 Scriptures ; that is not innovating." " He 
 said, Seek, and ye shall find," retorted Euse- 
 bius (ib. 629). One bishop objected to the 
 record of " Guardian of the faith " as an 
 acclamation in honour of Dioscorus, " No one 
 said that." " They want to deny all that is 
 confessed to be the fact," said Dioscorus ; 
 " let them next say they were not there." At 
 the words of Eutyches, " I have observed the 
 definitions of the council," i.e. the Ephesian 
 decree against adding to the Nicene faith, 
 Eusebius broke in, " He lied ! There is no 
 such definition, no canon prescribing this." 
 " There are four copies," said Dioscorus calm- 
 ly, " which contain it. What bishops have 
 defined, is it not a definition ? It is not a 
 canon : a canon is a different thing." The 
 bp. of Cyzicus referred to the additions made 
 in the council of 381 to the original Nicene 
 creed {e.g. " of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin 
 Mary "). The Egyptians disclaimed all such 
 additions. (Cyril, in fact, had never acknow- 
 ledged that revised version of the Nicene 
 formulary.) There was some further criticism 
 of the profession of faith made by Eutyches ; 
 whereupon Dioscorus said, " If Eutyches has 
 any heterodox opinion, he deserves not only 
 to be punished, but to be burnt ! My only 
 object is to preserve the Catholic faith, not 
 that of any man. I look to God, and not to 
 any individual ; I care for nothing but my 
 own soul and the right faith " (ib. 633). Basil 
 of Seleucia described what had taken place as 
 regarded his own statements. " If you taught 
 in such a Catholic tone," said the magistrates, 
 " why did you sign the deposition of Flavian?" 
 Basil pleaded the compulsory authority of a 
 council of bishops. " On your own shewing," 
 said Dioscorus, " you betrayed the faith for 
 fear of men." Others who had given way with 
 Basil cried, " We all sinned ; we all ask par- 
 don." " But," said the magistrates, " you 
 said at first that you had been forced to sign 
 a blank paper." The " peccavimus " was 
 reiterated (ib. 639). When the reader came 
 to the failure of Flavian's attempt to get 
 Eusebius a hearing, Dioscorus threw the 
 responsibility on Elpidius ; so did Juvenal. 
 Thalassius only said, " It was not my doing." 
 " Such a defence," said the magistrates, "is 
 no defence when the faith is concerned." 
 " If," said Dioscorus, " you blame me for 
 obeying Elpidius, were no rules broken when 
 Theodoret was brought in ? " "He came in 
 as accuser." " Why then does he now sit in 
 the rank of a bishop ? " " He and Eusebius 
 sit as accusers," was the answer ; " and you 
 sit as accused " {ib. 649). Afterwards the 
 magistrates recurred to this topic : " Euse- 
 bius, at Constantinople, when accusing Euty- 
 ches, himself asked that Eutyches should be 
 present. Why was not a like course taken at 
 Ephesus ? " No one answered {ib. 656). 
 Cyril's letter to John of Antioch, " Lae- 
 tentur coeli," was read as part of the acts of 
 Ephesus. Theodoret, by way of clearing 
 himself, anathematized the assertion of " two 
 Sons." All the bishops — so the acts of Chal- 
 cedon say expressly — cried out, " We believe 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 269 
 
 as did Cyril ; we did si> believe, and we </... 
 .\nathenia to whoever docs not so believe." 
 The opponents of Dioscorus then claimed 
 Flavian as in fact of one mind with Cyril, 
 as clear of Nestorianism. The " Easterns " 
 added, " Leo believes so, Anatolius believes 
 so." There was universal protestation of 
 agreement with Cyril, including even the 
 magistrates, who answered, as it wire, for 
 Marcian and Pulcheria. Then came a fierce 
 outcry against Dioscorus. " Out with the 
 murderer of Flavian — the parricide ! " The 
 magistrates asked, " Why did you receive to 
 coinnmnion Eutyches, who holds the opposite 
 to this belief ? Why condemn Flavian and 
 Eusebius who agree with it ? " " The re- 
 cords," answered Dioscorus, " will shew the 
 truth." Presently, in regard to some words 
 of Eustathius of Berytus, adopting Cyril's 
 phrase, " one incarnate nature," as Atha- 
 nasian, the Easterns cried, " Eutyches thinks 
 thus, so does Dioscorus." Dioscorus shewed 
 that he was careful to disclaim, even with 
 anathema, all notions of a " confusion, or 
 commixture," of Godhead and manhood in 
 Christ. The magistrates asked whether the 
 canonical letters of Cyril, recently read {i.e. 
 his second letter to Nestorius, Mansi, vi. 660, 
 and his letter to John, ib. 665, not including 
 the third letter to Nestorius, to which the 12 
 anathemas were annexed) bore out the lan- 
 guage as cited from Eustathius. Eustathius 
 held up the book from which he had taken 
 CvTil's language. " If I spoke amiss, here is 
 the manuscript : let it be anathematized with 
 me ! " He repeated Cyril's letter to Acacius 
 by heart, and then explained : " One nature " 
 did not exclude the flesh of Christ, which was 
 co-essential with us ; and " two natures " 
 was a heterodox phrase if {i.e. only if) it was 
 used for a " division " of His person. " Why 
 then did you depose Flavian ? " "I erred " 
 {ib. V. 677). Flavian's own statement, that 
 Christ was of two natures after the incarna- 
 tion, in one hypostasis and one person, etc., 
 was then considered ; several bishops, in turn, 
 approved of it, including I'aschasinus, Ana- 
 tolius, Maximus, Thalassius, Eustathius. The 
 Easterns called " archbp. Flavian " a martyr. 
 " Let his next words be read," said Dioscorus ; 
 " you will find that he is inconsistent with 
 himself." Juvenal, who had been sitting on 
 the right, now went over to the left, and the 
 Easterns welcomed him. Peter of Corinth, 
 a young bishop, did the same, owning that 
 Flavian held with Cyril ; the Easterns ex- 
 claimed, " Peter thinks as does" (St.) "Peter." 
 Other bishops spoke similarly. Dioscorus, 
 still undaunted, said, " The reason why 
 F"lavian was condemned was plainly this, that 
 he asserted two natures after the incarnation. 
 I have passages from the F'athers, Athanasius, 
 Gregory, Cyril, to the effect that after the 
 incarnation there were not two natures, but 
 one incarnate nature of the Word. If 1 am to 
 be expelled, the Fathers will be expelled with 
 me. I am defending tlieir doctrine ; I do not 
 deviate from them at all ; I have not got these 
 extracts carelessly, I have verified them " {ib. 
 vi. 684 ; see note in Oxf. ed. of Fleury, vol. 
 iii. p. 348). After more reading, he said, " I 
 accept the phrase ' of two natures,' but I do 
 not accept ' two ' " (i.e. he would not say, 
 
210 
 
 DIOSCORUS 
 
 " Christ has now two natures "). " I am 
 obliged to speak boldly idvai(Txi'VTf'iv) ; I am 
 speaking for my own soul." " Was Flavian," 
 asked Paschasinus, " allowed such freedom of 
 speech as this man takes ? " " No," said the 
 magistrates significantly ; " but then this 
 council is being carried on with justice " (ib. 
 692). Some time later the Easterns denied 
 that the whole council at Ephesus had assented 
 to Eutyches's language ; it was the language 
 of " that Pharaoh, Dioscorus the homicide." 
 Eustathius, wishing, he said, to promote a good 
 understanding, asked whether " two natures " 
 meant " two divided natures." " No," said 
 Basil, " neither divided nor confused " (ib. 
 744). Basil afterwards, with Onesiphorus, 
 described the coercion used as to the signa- 
 tures [ib. 827). The reading went on until it 
 was necessary to light the candles (ib. 901). At 
 last they came to the signatures ; then the 
 magistrates proposed that as the deposition 
 had been proved unjust, Dioscorus, Juvenal, 
 Thalassius, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius, 
 and Basil, as leaders in the late synod, should 
 be deposed ; but this, it appears (ib. 976, 
 1041), was a provisional sentence, to be 
 further considered by the council. It was 
 received with applause, " A just sentence ! 
 Christ has deposed Dioscorus ! God has 
 vindicated the martyrs ! " The magistrates 
 desired that each bishop should give in a 
 carefully framed statement of belief con- 
 formable to the Nicene " exposition," to that 
 of the 150 Fathers (of Constantinople, in 381), 
 to the canonical epistles and expositions of the 
 Fathers, Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, 
 Ambrose, and Cyril's two canonical epistles 
 published and confirmed in the first Ephesian 
 council, adding that Leo had written a letter 
 to Flavian against Eutyches. So ended the 
 first session (ib. 935). 
 
 The second session was held Oct. 10 (ib. 
 937) ; Dioscorus was absent. After some dis- 
 cussion as to making an exposition of faith, 
 which led to the reading of the creed in its two 
 forms — both of which were accepted — and of 
 Cyril's " two canonical epistles," and of Leo's 
 letter to Flavian (the Tome), which was 
 greeted with " Peter has spoken by Leo ; 
 Cyril taught thus ; Leo and Cyril have taught 
 alike," but to parts of which some objection 
 was taken by one bishop, and time given for 
 consideration, the usual exclamations were 
 made, among which we find that of the 
 Illyrians, " Restore Dioscorus to the synod, to 
 the churches ! We have all offended, let all 
 be forgiven ! " while the enemies of Dioscorus 
 called for his banishment, and the clerics of 
 Constantinople said that he who communicat- 
 ed with him was a Jew (ib. 976). In the third 
 session. Sat. Oct. 13, the magistrates not being 
 present, a memorial to the council from Euse- 
 bius of Dorylaeum, setting forth charges 
 against Dioscorus, was read (ib. 985). It then 
 appeared that Dioscorus had been summoned, 
 like other bishops, to the session, and in- 
 timated his willingness to come ; but his 
 guards prevented him. Two priests, sent to 
 search for him, could not find him in the pre- 
 cincts of the church. Three bishops, sent with 
 a notary, found him, and said, " The holy 
 coimcil begs your Holiness to attend its 
 meeting." " I am under guard," said he ; 
 
 moscoRUs 
 
 " I am hindered by the officers" (nmgistriani, 
 the subordinates of the " master of the offices," 
 or " supreme magistrate of the palace," see 
 Gibbon, ii. 326) ; and, after two other sum- 
 monses, positively and finally refused to come. 
 He had nothing more to say than he had said 
 to former envoys. They begged him to recon- 
 sider it. " If your Holiness knows that you 
 are falsely accused, the council is not far off ; 
 do take the trouble to come and refute the 
 falsehood." " What I have said, I have said ; 
 it is enough." They desisted, and reported 
 their failure. " Do you order that we proceed 
 to ecclesiastical penalties against him ? " 
 asked Paschasinus, addressing the council. 
 " Yes, we agree." One bishop said bittterly, 
 " When he murdered holy Flavian, he did not 
 adduce canons, nor proceed by church forms." 
 The Roman delegates proposed a sentence, to 
 this effect : " Dioscorus has received Euty- 
 ches, though duly condemned by Flavian, 
 into communion. The apostolic see excuses 
 those who were coerced by Dioscorus at 
 Ephesus, but who are obedient to archbp. 
 Leo " (as president) " and the council ; but 
 this man glories in his crime. He prevented 
 Leo's letter to Flavian " (the acts of Ephesus 
 say the letter to the council, v. supra) "from 
 being read. He has presumed to excom- 
 municate Leo. He has thrice refused to come 
 and answer to charges. Therefore Leo, by us 
 and the council, together with St. Peter, the 
 rock of the church, deprives him of episcopal 
 and sacerdotal dignity " (ib. 1045). A letter 
 was written to Dioscorus, announcing that he 
 was deposed for disregarding the canons and 
 disobeying the council. Dioscorus at first 
 made light of the sentence, and said that he 
 should soon be restored ; the council wrote to 
 the two emperors, reciting his misdeeds, as 
 before, and adding that he had restored the 
 heterodox and justly-deposed Eutyches to his 
 office, in contempt of Leo's letter, had done 
 injury to Eusebius, and had received to com- 
 munion persons lawfully condemned (ih. 1097). 
 The deposition of Dioscorus was confirmed by 
 the emperor ; he was banished to Gangra in 
 Paphlagonia, and died there in 454. Pro- 
 terius, archpriest of Alexandria, who adhered 
 to the council of Chalcedon, was placed in the 
 see of St. Mark, but never gained the goodwill 
 of his people as a body ; they regarded Dios- 
 corus, though de facto deposed, as their legiti- 
 mate patriarch ; and his deposition inaugur- 
 ated the schism which to this day has divided 
 the Christians of Egypt, the majority of whom, 
 bearing the name of Jacobites, have always 
 disowned the council of Chalcedon, and ven- 
 erated Dioscorus as " their teacher " (Lit. 
 Copt. St. Basil), and as a persecuted saint (see 
 Neale, Hist. Alex. ii. 6). As to his theological 
 position, there is, perhaps, little or nothing in 
 his own words which might not be interpreted 
 consistently with orthodoxy. Even as to his 
 conduct, the charges brought by the Alex- 
 andrian petitioners at Chalcedon are too deep- 
 ly coloured by passion to command our full 
 belief ; and a mere profligate oppressor would 
 not have secured so largely the loyalty of 
 Alexandrian churchmen. But his public acts 
 in 449 exhibit the perversion of considerable 
 abilities — of courage, resolution, clear-headed- 
 ness — under the temptations of excessive 
 
DIOSCORUS 
 
 power and the promptings of a tyrannous 
 self-will. The brutal treatment of Flavian, 
 which he practically sanctioned, in which 
 perhaps he personally took part, has made 
 his memory specially odious ; and his name 
 is conspicuous among the " violent men " of 
 church history. [MoNorHVSiTisM.] |w.n.] 
 
 DioscoruS (4), the eldest of four Nitrian 
 monks, Dioscorus, Ammonil's, Euscbius, and 
 Euthymius, known from their stature as the 
 " Tall Brethren," who became conspicuous in 
 Chrysostom's early troubles. They were re- 
 luctantly induced by Thcophilus, patriarch of 
 Alexandria, to leave the desert and to submit 
 to ordination. Eusebius and Euthymius be- 
 came presbyters, and Dioscorus was consecrat- 
 ed bp. of Hermopolis. Weary of city life and 
 uncongenial duties, and shocked by the avarice 
 and other vices of Theophilus, Dioscorus and 
 his brethren returned to their solitudes, though 
 the indignant patriarch tried to deter them by 
 violent menaces (Socr. H. E. viii. 12). As de- 
 positaries of dangerous secrets, they had be- 
 come f'Tmidable to Theopliilus, who resolved 
 to wreak vengeance upon them. On the pre- 
 text of their adherence to the mystic views of 
 Origen on the Person of the Deity, and their 
 decided opposition to Anthropomorphism, 
 which Theophilus had originally shared with 
 them, Theophilus had them ejected from their 
 monasteries and treated them with the utmost 
 contumely and violence when they went to 
 Alexandria to appeal (Pallad. p. 54). Having 
 procured their condemnation at a packed 
 synod at Alexandria, a.d. 401, Theophilus 
 personally headed a night attack on their 
 monastery, which was burnt and pillaged, and 
 Dioscorus himself treated with violence and 
 indignity (ib. p. 57). Driven from Egypt, 
 the " Tall Brethren " took refuge in Palestine, 
 but later resolved to appeal for protection to 
 the emperor and to Chrysostom in person. 
 Chrysostom manifested much sympathy, but 
 contented himself with WTiting to Theophilus, 
 urging his reconciliation with them. Theo- 
 philus's only reply was an angry remonstrance 
 against his harbouring heretics and interfering 
 with another see. He sent emissaries to 
 Constantinople to denounce the brethren as 
 magicians, heretics, and rebels. The monks 
 then announced their intention of appealing 
 to the secular power for a judicial investiga- 
 tion of the charges against them, and demand- 
 ed that Theophilus should be summoned to 
 answer for his conduct before a council. The 
 superstitious reverence of the empress Eudoxia, 
 all-powerful with the feeble Arcadius, secured 
 them their desire, and Theophilus was ordered 
 to appear at Constantinople. This appeal to 
 the civil authority displeased Chrysostom, 
 who declined to interfere further in the con- 
 troversy. For the manner in which Thcophilus 
 turned the tables on Chrysostom, becoming 
 the accuser instead of the accused, and secur- 
 ing his deposition, see Chrysostom ; Theo- 
 philus (8). His main object having been 
 accomplished in the overthrow of his great 
 rival, Theophilus now made no difficulty about 
 reconciliation with the Nitrian monks, whom 
 he publicly restored to communion on their 
 simplepetition. Dioscorus and Ammonius had, 
 however, died not long before. Socr. H. E. vi. 
 16 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 17; Pallad. p. 157. [e.v.] 
 
 DOCETISM 
 
 271 
 
 Docetism, tli<- very early iuresv tli.il our 
 blessed Lord had a body like uurs, unly in 
 appearance, not in reality. St. Jeronir scarce- 
 ly exaggerates wlien he says (adv. I.iicif. 23) : 
 " While the apostles were still surviving, while 
 Christ's blood was still fresh in Judea, the 
 Lord's b(-dy was asserted to be but a phan- 
 tasm." Apart from N.T. passages, e.f,. Ej)h. 
 ii. 9, Heb. ii. 14, which confute this assertion, 
 but do not bear clear marks of having been 
 written with a controversial jnirpose, it aji- 
 IH'arsfrc.m L John iv. 2, IL John 7, that when 
 these epistles were written there were teachers, 
 stigmatised by the writer as prompted by the 
 spirit of Antichrist, who denied that Jesus 
 Christ had come in the flesh, a form of exjires- 
 sion implying a Docetic theory. Those who 
 held that evil resulted from the inherent fault 
 of matter found it impossible to believe that 
 the Saviour could be Himself under the do- 
 minion of that evil from which He came to 
 deliver men, and they therefore rejected the 
 Church's doctrine of a real union of the divine 
 and human natures in the person (>f our Lord, 
 but our Lc rd's pre-existence and superhuman 
 nature was regarded as so essential a part of 
 Christianity that with two exceptions, or per- 
 haps even only one {i.e. Ji'stinu's and perhaps 
 Cakpocratks), all the sects known as (inostic 
 ascribed to the Saviour a superhuman nature, 
 some however separating the personality of 
 that nature from His human personality, others 
 reducing our Lord's earthly part to mere 
 appearance. It is even doubtful whether we 
 are not to understand in a technical sense the 
 statement that he taught that " power " from 
 the Father had descended on our Lord ; that 
 is to say, whether it was not his doctrine that 
 one of the heavenly powers had united itself 
 to the man Jesus. Teaching of this kind is 
 unequivocally attributed to Ckki.nthls, whose 
 other doctrines, as rejiorted by Irenaeus, have 
 great resemblance to those of Carpocrates. It 
 is in opposition to the theory which makes our 
 Lord's claim to be Christ date, not from his 
 birth, but from some later period, that Iren- 
 aeus (iii. 16) uses the argument, shewing his 
 belief in the inspiration of the gospels, that 
 Matthew might have said, " the birth of Jesus 
 was in this wise," but that the Holy Spirit, 
 foreseeing and guarding against the deprava- 
 tion of the truth, said by Matthew " the birth 
 of Christ was on this wise." Baur (Christltche 
 Gnosis, p. 258) makes Docetism common to all 
 the Gnostics, hoUiing that the theory which 
 has just been described is in a certain sense 
 Docetic ; inasmuch as while hokling Jesus to 
 be a real man, visibly active in the work of 
 redemption, it teaches that this is but decep- 
 tive appearance, the work being actually i)er- 
 formed by a distinct personality, Christ. But 
 it is more usual and more natural to use the 
 word Docetism only with reference to those 
 other theories which refuse to acknowledge 
 the true manhood of the Kedeenier. For ex- 
 ample, we are told (Iren- i. 23) that, according 
 to the system of Simon, the Kedeenier (who, 
 however, is not Jesus,* but Simon himself) 
 
 • Perhaps it is not correct to say " not Jesus," for 
 Simon held a theory of the transmiRratlon of souls, 
 and may have claimed to be identical with Jesus. If 
 this were so, however, he must have been later than 
 the Simon of the Acts. 
 
2?2 
 
 DOCETISM 
 
 " had appeared among men as man, though 
 he was not a man, and was thought to have 
 suffered in Judea, though he did not suffer." 
 According to the system of Saturninus (Iren. 
 i. 24), the Saviour was without birth, without 
 body, and without figure, and appeared a man 
 in phantasm, not in truth. According to 
 Basilides, as reported by Irenaeus (i. 24), 
 Christ or Nous is not distinguished from Jesus, 
 but is said to be an incorporeal power, who 
 transfigured Himself as He willed ; that He 
 appeared on earth as man and worked mir- 
 acles, but that He did not suffer ; that it was 
 Simon of Cyrene, who, being transfigured into 
 the form of Jesus, was crucified, while Jesus 
 Himself, in the form of Simon standing by, 
 laughed at His persecutors, and then, incapable 
 of being held by them, ascended up to Him 
 Who had sent Him, invisible to them all. The 
 Docetism here described is strenuously com- 
 bated in the Ignatian Epistles in their Greek 
 form, esp. in ad Trail. 9, 10, and ad Smyrn. 2. 
 In these the writer emphasises the statements 
 that our Lord was truly born, did eat and 
 drink, was truly persecuted under Pontius 
 Pilate, was truly crucified, and truly rose from 
 the dead ; and he expressly declares that these 
 statements were made in contradiction of the 
 doctrine of certain unbelievers, or rafher 
 atheists, who asserted His sufferings to be but 
 seeming. This polemic is absent frrm the 
 S\Tiac Ignatius, and an argument has hence 
 been derived against the genuineness of the 
 Greek form. But in order to make the argu- 
 ment valid, there ought to be proof that the 
 rise of Docetism was probably later than the 
 age of Ignatius, whereas the probability seems 
 to be quite the other way. Saturninus holds 
 such a place in all heretical lists, that he must 
 be referred to the very beginning of the and 
 cent., and, as he taught in Antioch, may very 
 possibly have been encountered by Ignatius. 
 Polycarp also {Ep. 7) uses the words of I. John 
 iv. 3 in such a way as to shew that Docetism 
 was in his time troublesome. 
 
 In the forms of Docetism thus far described 
 there is no evidence that there was involved 
 any more subtle theory than that the senses 
 of the spectators of our Lord's earthly life 
 were deceived. The Docetism of Valentinus 
 was exhibited in a more artificial theory, which 
 is fully set forth in our art. s.v. It appears 
 that Valentinus was only partly docetic. He 
 conceded to Jesus the possession of a real body 
 capable uf really affecting the senses, but held 
 that that body was made of a different sub- 
 stance from ours and was peculiar as regards 
 its sustenance by earthly nutriment (Letter to 
 Agathopus, ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 7, 451). 
 Irenaeus, however (v. i, 2, and more fully iii. 
 22), insists that the Valentinian doctrine did 
 not practically differ from pure Docetism ; for 
 that if our Lord had not taken substance of 
 flesh in the womb of the Virgin He could not 
 have been the real man Who suffered hunger 
 and thirst and weariness, Who wept at the 
 grave of Lazarus, Who sweat drops of blood, 
 from Whose woimded side came forth blood 
 and water. 
 
 The Docetism of Marcion differed from that 
 of preceding Gnostics. With them the great 
 stumbling-block had been the sufferings oj 
 Christ, and accordingly it is the reality 01 
 
 DOCETISM 
 
 Christ's passion and death that their antagon- 
 ists sought to establish. Marcion, on the 
 contrary, was quite willing to acknowledge 
 the proof of our Lord's love exhibited in His 
 sufferings and death, but it was repulsive to 
 him to own His human birth, which according 
 to his view would have made our Lord the 
 debtor and the subject of the Creator of the 
 world. Accordingly, while Basilides had ad- 
 mitted a real birth of the man Jesus, Valen- 
 tinus at least a seeming birth in which the 
 bodj- elsewhere prepared was ushered into the 
 world, Marcion would own no birth at all, and 
 began his gospel with the sudden announce- 
 ment that in the 15th year of Tiberius Christ * 
 came down (by which we are to understand 
 came down from heaven) to Capernaum, a city 
 of Galilee (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 7). Marcion's 
 disciple Apelles so far modified his master's 
 doctrine that he was willing to ov.'n that Jesus 
 had a solid body, but denied that there had 
 been a birth in which He had assumed it (Tert. 
 de C. C. 6] ; and he held that of this body our 
 Lord made only a temporary use, and that 
 when He had shewn it to His disciples after His 
 resurrection He gave it back to the elements 
 from which He had received it (Hipp. Ref. vii. 
 38, 260). Something of this kind seems to 
 have been also the view of the sect known as 
 Docetae. 
 
 The fourth book of the dialogue against the 
 Marcionites (Origen, i. 853) contains a polemic 
 against Docetism which is represented as de- 
 fended by Marinus the disciple of Bardesanes, 
 who adopts the Valentinian notion that our 
 Lord had come dia Mapias, not iK Maptas, 
 and who maintains that His earthly body was 
 only such as the angels had temporarily as- 
 sumed who ate and drank with Abraham. 
 One argument on the orthodox side is used by 
 several Fathers, and the form of words in 
 which each has expressed himself has been 
 much discussed in modern controversy. It 
 occurs here in the form "If Christ were with- 
 out flesh and blood, of what sort of flesh and 
 blood are the bread and wine, the images 
 (dKOfas) with which He commanded that the 
 memorial of Him should be made ? " (cf. Ign. 
 ad. Smyrn. 7 ; Iren. iv. 18, v. 2 ; Tert. adv. Mar- 
 cion. iv. 40). Of later heretics, the most con- 
 siderable who maintained a Docetic theory 
 are the Manicheans. In the controversy with 
 them the orthodox had exactly the same points 
 to establish as in the controversy with Mar- 
 cion, viz. that Christ had come into the world, 
 not merely as sent by the Father, but as really 
 born of the Virgin ; that He was truly incar- 
 nate, and did not assume the form of a body 
 merely as did the angels whose appearances 
 have been recorded ; that He was circumcised, 
 baptized, tempted ; that His death was a real 
 one, as was necessary in order that His resur- 
 rection also should be real (see in particular 
 the disputation between Augustine and 
 Faustus). With regard to the disputes in the 
 6th cent, concenung our Lord's body, see 
 JuLiANUS (47) of Halicarnassus, and D. C. B. 
 (4-V0I. ed.) under Corrupticolae and Phan- 
 TASiASTAE. It is well known that Mahommed 
 
 * There is a well-recommended various reading, 
 " Deum "instead of " eum " ; butEpiplianius(//a«r. 
 42, p. 312) would scarcely have passed this over in 
 silence had he found it in his Marcion. 
 
 J 
 
DOMITIANUS 
 
 also adopted the Docctic account of our Lord's 
 crucitixii>u. 
 
 Besides formal heresies which have beeu 
 tainted with Docetism, the same imputation 
 has beeu cast on more than one of the Fathers. 
 It is very strongly brought by Photius (Btbi. 
 109) against the hypotyposes of CLEMtNT oi 
 Alexan'ukia. This book has not survived, 
 but there is no doubt from his extant writuigs 
 that Clement ascribed 10 our Lord a real booy. 
 in a fragment probably from the lost Hypo- 
 typoses preserved in a Latin trans, (p. 1009), 
 he quotes from " the traaitions " that when 
 St. John handled the body of our Lord tlie 
 flesh otlered no resistance, but yielded place 
 to the disciple's hand, fvedepenning's con- 
 clusion (Ongenes, ii. 391) is that Clement's 
 doctrine deviated from that subsequently 
 recognised as orthodox, not in respect of our 
 Lora's body, the reality of which he acknow- 
 ledged, but in holding that His body was 
 directly united to the Divine Logos without the 
 intervention of a human soul capable of feeling 
 pain or suflering. Ixedepennmg (I.e.) also 
 discusses how far Origen is chargeable with 
 Docetism, on which also consult Huet's 
 Origentana, ii. Qu. iii. 10, 11. 
 
 The traditions referred to by Clement have 
 been identified with the contents of a work of 
 Leucius Charinus, purporting to relate travels 
 ot the apostles, of which an account is given 
 by Photius [Bibl. 114), and from which ex- 
 tracts are also quoted in the Acts of the second 
 council of Nicaea [.-ictio v.). In this work, 
 which Grabe seems to have correctly regarded 
 as Marciouite, it was taught that the Sun was 
 not man, but only seemed to be so ; that He 
 shewed Himself to His disciples sometimes 
 young, sometimes old ; sometimes a child, 
 sometimes an old man ; sometimes great, 
 sometimes small ; sometimes so great as to 
 touch the heavens with His head , that Plis 
 footsteps left no trace ; and that He was not 
 really crucified, but, according to Photius, 
 another person in His place. The account 
 given in the ^.icene extracts of a vision seen 
 by St. John on the mount of Olives, at the 
 time of the crucitixion, teaches that the form 
 crucified was not really our Lord, but does 
 Hot suggest that it was any other person. [g.s.J 
 
 Domitianus (1), a.d. 81-96. This emperor, 
 though placed by Lactantius [de Mori. Fcrse- 
 cut. c. 3) and others among the persecutors of 
 the church, can hardly be considered as having 
 made any systematic effort to crush Christi- 
 anity as such. Through the greater part of the 
 empire the Christians seem to have been un- 
 molested. The traces of persecution, such as 
 they are, seem rather to belong to his general 
 poUcy of suspicion and cruelty. Indirectly 
 they are of interest in shewing how the new 
 religion was attracting notice and spreading. 
 
 (I) Vespasian, before his death, had given 
 orders (Lus. H. E. iii. 12) that inquiry should 
 be made for all who claimed to be descendants 
 of the house of David, seeking thus to cut oil 
 all who might incite the Jews to a fresh revolt. 
 The fears of Domitian led him to continue the 
 search, and Hegesippus (in Lus. H. t. 111. 19, 
 20) records one striking incident connected 
 with it. The grandchildren of Judas, the 
 brother of the Lord, were taken to Kome 
 and brought into the emperor's presence. 
 
 DOMITIANUS 
 
 273 
 
 They acknowledged that tin y were ^'i the 
 kingly line, but slated that tlie only kmgdutu 
 they looked lor was one spiritual and angelic, 
 to be manilested at the end ot the world. Ihc 
 emperor, Hegesippus tells us, thought them 
 beneath his notice, released them, and allowed 
 them to go back to J udea, and put a slop to 
 the persecution agamit the church which he had 
 begun. This persecution was probably the lu- 
 quury itself, 'ihej udeaufolloweriol the Christ, 
 whom they habitually spoke ol as the seed of 
 David, would inevitably be suspected of being 
 likely to appeal to the hopes ol the conquered 
 population. 
 
 j {2) Towards the close of Doinitian's reign a 
 domestic tragedy occurred which there is good 
 reason for connecting with the progress of 
 Christianity. The emperor had a cousin 
 named Llavius Clemens, whom at one time he 
 held in high favour. He gave him his niece 
 Flavia Domitilla in marriage, changed the 
 names of his sons to Vespasiau and Doinitiau 
 and designated them as heirs to the empire, 
 and nommated Clemens as his colleague m the 
 consulship. Suddenly, ahnost within the year 
 ot his consulship, he put Clemens to death, 
 banished his wile to Paudatana, and his 
 daughter (or niece), who was also called Domi- 
 tilla, to Pontia. Keveuge lor these acts had 
 apparently no small share in the emperor's 
 assassination. Uue ol the most proimnent 
 conspirators concerned was Stephanus, an 
 agent and Ireedinan ot the banished widow of 
 Llemens. Thus the story is told by Suetonius 
 (Domit. cc. 15, 17). It remains to see on 
 what grounds chmch writers like Lusebius 
 [H. E. ill. 18) claim the three members of the 
 Flavian house as among the first illustrious 
 martyrs of royal rank, (i) Flavins Clemens 
 IS described by Suetonius (i.e.) as " contemp- 
 tissimae inertiae." A Christian would natur- 
 ally be so described by men of his own rank 
 and by the outer world, just as TcrtuUiau 
 complains that the Christians of his tnue were 
 stigmatized, when other charges lailed, as 
 " inlructuosi negotiis " [Apoi. c. 42). (li) 
 The specific charge agahist Clemens and the 
 two DomitiUae is reported by Dio Cassius 
 (Ixvii. 14) and Xiphilmus (p. 700) to have been 
 atheism. The same accusation, the latter 
 adds, was brought agahist many others who 
 shewed a bias towards J ewish customs. This 
 again agrees with the general leehug of the 
 Roman world towards the Christians at a later 
 period, and may be regarded as the first in- 
 stance of that feeling, (in) Later tradition 
 confirms these inferences. Jerome tells us 
 (Ep. 27) how Paula visited Poutia on her way 
 to Jerusalem, as akeady an object ol rever- 
 ence, and saw the three cells in which Domi- 
 tilla and her two eunuchs Achilleus and Ne- 
 reus had lived during their exile. They were 
 said to have returned to Koine and sullered 
 martyrdom under I'rajan. A church on the 
 Coehan Hill at Koine dedicated to S. Clement, 
 in which a tablet was discovered in 1725 t" the 
 memory of Flavius Clemens, martyr, and de- 
 scribed by Cardmal Albiani (7 . tlavii Ltemen- 
 lis Viri Cunsularts ei Murlyris Tumulus iUus- 
 iralua, 1727), seems therefore to have com- 
 memorated the consul and not the writer of 
 that name. The name of Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Titus Flavius Clemens, may be re- 
 18 
 
274 
 
 DOMITILLA FLAVIA 
 
 garded as an indication of the honour in which 
 the martyr's memory was held. On the whole, 
 everything seems to indicate that the received 
 tradition is true, and that the Christian church 
 was almost on the point, even before the close 
 of the ist cent., of furnishing a successor to 
 the imperial throne. 
 
 (3) With the reign of Domitian is also con- 
 nected the legend of St. John's presence at 
 Rome, and of his being thrown, before the 
 Porta Latina, at the command of the emperor, 
 into a cauldron of boiling oil, and then ban- 
 ished to Patmos. Tertullian (de Praescript. 
 c. 36) is the first writer who mentions it. The 
 apostle, as the chosen friend of the Son of 
 David, may have been pointed out by the 
 delatores of Ephesus as the descendants of 
 Judas were in Judea. TertuUian, in speaking 
 elsewhere (Apol. c. 5) of Domitian's conduct 
 towards the church, describes him as only 
 attempting a persecution, and then, thinking 
 better of it, recalling those whom he had 
 condemned to exile. In other accounts (Eus. 
 H. E. iii. 20) the decree of recall was connected 
 with the accession of Nerva. [e.h.p.] 
 
 Domitilla Flavia. [Domitianus (i).] 
 
 Domnus I. (2), bp. of Antioch, appointed 
 A.D. 269 on the deposition of Paul of Samosata, 
 by the sole authority of the council, without 
 any reference to the clergy and people, the 
 bishops evidently fearing thev might re-elect 
 Paul (Eus. H. E. vii. 30). Paul, relying on 
 the support of Zenobia, retained for two years 
 the episcopal residence and its church. The 
 orthodox section appealed to Aurelian after 
 he had conquered Zenobia and taken Antioch, 
 A.D. 272. The emperor decided that the right 
 of occupation should belong to the party in 
 communion with the bishops of Italy and the 
 see of Rome. This decision was enforced by 
 the civil power, and Paul was compelled to 
 leave the palace in disgrace (Eus. u.s.). 
 Domnus died a.d. 274, and was succeeded by 
 Timaeus (Till. Mem. eccl. t. iv. p. 302 ; 
 Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 193, Clark's trans. ; 
 Neale, Patr. of Antioch, pp. 52-57). [e.v.] 
 
 Domnus 11. (4), bp. of Antioch, a friend of 
 Theodoret. He was nephew of John, bp. of 
 Antioch, brought up under Euthymius the 
 famous anchoret of Palestine. He was ordained 
 deacon by Juvenal of Jerusalem on his visit 
 to the Laura of Euthymus in a.d. 429. Two 
 years afterwards, learning that his uncle the 
 bp. of Antioch had become entangled in the 
 Nestorian heresy, he besought Euthymius to 
 allow him to go and extricate him. Euthy- 
 mius counselled him to remain where he was, 
 telling him that God could take care of his 
 uncle without him ; that solitude was safer 
 for him than the world ; that his design would 
 not turn out to his ultimate advantage ; that 
 he might not improbably succeed to his uncle's 
 dignity, but would become the victim of clever 
 and unprincipled men, who would avail them- 
 selves of his simplicity, and then accomplish 
 his ruin ; but the old man's counsels were 
 thrown away. Domnus left the Laura with- 
 out even saying fareweU to Euthymius (Vita 
 S. Euthymii, cc. 42, 56, 57). He obtained 
 such popularity at Antioch that on the death 
 of his uncle, a.d. 441, he was appointed his 
 successor, and at once ranked as the chief 
 bishop of the Eastern world. In 445 he sum 
 
 DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 moned a synod of Syrian bishops which con- 
 firmed the deposition of Athanasius of Perrha. 
 In 447 he consecrated Irenaeus to the see of 
 Tyre (Theod. Ep. no; Labbe, Concil. t. iii. 
 coL 1275); but Theodosius II., having com- 
 manded that the appointment should be 
 annulled, Irenaeus being both a digamiis and 
 a favourer of the Nestorian heresy, Domnus, 
 despite Theodoret's remonstrances, yielded to 
 the imperial will (Theod. u.s. ; Ep. 80). Ibas, 
 bp. of Edessa, being charged with promulgating 
 Nestorian doctrines (Labbe, ih. t. iv. col. 658), 
 Domnus summoned a council at Antioch (a.d. 
 448), which decided in favour of Ibas and 
 deposed his accusers (ib. 639 seq.). Domnus's 
 sentence, though revoked by Flavian, bp. 
 of Constantinople, was confirmed by three 
 episcopal commissioners to whom he and 
 the emperor Theodosius had committed the 
 matter. Domnus was one of the earliest im- 
 peachers of the orthodoxy of Eutyches, in 
 a synodical letter to Theodosius, c. 447 
 (Facundus, viii. 5 ; xii. 5). At the Latrocinium, 
 held at Ephesus, Aug. 8, 449, on this matter, 
 Domnus, in virtue of an imperial rescript, found 
 himself deprived of his presidential seat, which 
 was occupied by Dioscorus, while precedence 
 over the patriarch of Antioch was given to 
 Juvenal of Jerusalem (Labbe, ib. 115, p. 251). 
 Cowed by the dictatorial spirit of Dioscorus, 
 and unnerved by the violence of Barsumas and 
 his monks, Domnus revoked his former con- 
 demnation of Eutyches, and voted for his 
 restoration (ib. col. 258) and for the con- 
 demnation of Flavian (ib. col. 306). Domnus 
 was, nevertheless, deposed and banished by 
 Dioscorus. The charges against him were, 
 approval of a Nestorian sermon preached 
 before him at Antioch by Theodoret on the 
 death of C\Til (Mercator, t. i. p. 276), and 
 some expressions in letters written by him to 
 Dioscorus condemning the perplexed and 
 obscure character of Cyril's anathemas 
 (Liberatus, c. 11, p. 74). He was the only 
 bishop then deposed and banished who was 
 not reinstated after the council of Chalcedon. 
 At that council Maximus, his successor in the 
 see of Antioch, obtained permission to assign 
 Domnus a pension from the revenues of the 
 church (Labbe, ib.coX. 681 ; append, col. 770). 
 Finally, on his recall from exile Domnus re- 
 turned to the monastic home of his youth, and 
 ended his days in the Laura of St. Euthymius, 
 where in 452, according to Theophanes, he 
 afforded a refuge to J uvenal of J erusalem when 
 driven from his see (Theoph. p. 92). [e.v.] 
 
 Donatus and Donatism. The Donatists 
 were the first Christians who separated from 
 the church on the ground of discipline, though 
 the church had already been torn by heresies, 
 such as Gnosticism and Manicheism, which 
 had affected doctrines. It is important to 
 remember that Donatism was not heresy, as 
 the word is ordinarily understood. All here- 
 tics are, in one sense, schismatics, but all 
 schismatics are not heretics ; and the Dona- 
 tists themselves protested, with justice, 
 against being considered heretics. 
 
 Mensurius was bp. of Carthage during and 
 after Diocletian's persecution (a.d. 303). 
 Having been required by consul Anulinus to 
 give up any copies of Holy Scripture in his 
 possession, he had hid them, and passed off 
 
DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 heretical works in their stead. The consul, 
 learning the " pious fraud," declined to take 
 further action. Mensurius felt it his duty to 
 check the growing and inordinate reverence 
 for niart>Tdom. He saw that there were too 
 many would-be martyrs whose character 
 would not bear close scrutiny, and, together 
 with his archdeacon Caecilian, did his best to 
 discountenance the reverence of good but 
 mistaken Christians for these imdescrving 
 men. This naturally brought him into odium 
 with those to whom martyrdom was the be- 
 coming conclusion of the Christian life. 
 
 During his lifetime the storm was brewing, 
 and it fairly broke out when Caecilian suc- 
 ceeded him (a.d. 311). That appointment 
 was felt to be a blow to all who magnified 
 martyrdom. His opponents rested their 
 principal objection on the fact that he had 
 been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga ; 
 and proceeded to elect Majorinus as successor 
 to Mensurius. The charge was a strange one 
 to be made by Caecilian's chief opponent, 
 Secun'dus. bp. of Tigisis, for documents exist 
 which prove Secundus himself a traditor, in 
 spite of his boast to Mensurius. From that 
 date Donatism, as it was afterwards called, 
 had a separate and schismatical existence. 
 Both sides appealed to Constantine, and the 
 emperor at once subjected the alleged traditor- 
 ship of Felix to a thorough examination by a 
 council at Rome {a.d. 313), which decided in 
 favour of Felix, cleared his character, and 
 consequently declared the ordination of Cae- 
 cilian valid. The subject was again exhaus- 
 tively discussed before the consul Aelianus, 
 who,' at the bidding of Constantine, gave the 
 Donatists another opportunity (a.d. 314), at 
 Carthage, of proving their charge against 
 FeUx. The finding of the tribunal was un- 
 animous: "Nemo in eum (Felicem) aliquid 
 probare potuerit quod religiosissimas scrip- 
 turas tradiderit vel exusserit." 
 
 Bp. Majorinus died a.d. 315, but had been 
 a leader of httle consequence. His followers 
 had called themselves, for convenience' sake, 
 the party of Majorinus ; but after his death, 
 if not before, they took the name — Donatists 
 — by which they are best known. There were 
 perhaps 2 bishops named Donatus ; (i) of 
 Casae Nigrae, who, before Caecilian's eleva- 
 tion, had shewn his schismatical tendencies ; 
 (2) the successor of Majorinus and surnamed 
 " the Great." But this distinction has lately 
 been questioned ; see Sparrow Simpson, St. 
 Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p. 31; 
 -Monccaux, Revue del' Hist, de Religion (1909). 
 
 In Donatus the Great personal hostility to 
 Mensurius and Caecilian, and irritation 
 against the decisions of Rome and Aries 
 [Caecilian], of Aelianus and Constantine, led 
 to a defiant attitude against both Church and 
 State. The dissentients to Caecilian had, 
 consistently enough, refused to his church the 
 title of the Church of God, and approjiriated 
 that distinction to themselves. The Caecil- 
 ianist clergy were condemned for their league 
 with a traditor and their acts repudiated as 
 invalid ; hence those who followed Majorinus 
 were rebaptized. But Constantine's edict 
 (a.d. 316) took away from them their churches, 
 and the heavy hand of Ursacius deprived them 
 of their lives. The sectarians found in Donatus 
 
 DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 'J7r. 
 
 a man boKl enough to denouiue the jiiip<Tial 
 power and to infuse vigour into tiuir strife 
 against the C.iecilianists. H<; w.is neither 
 " the angel " his followers called him nor " the 
 fiend " his opponents described hinj. He was 
 a man of unquestionable ability, eloquence, 
 and thoroughness — the Cyprian of his party, 
 as St. Augustine called him ; but also hard 
 and unloving to foe, proud and overbearing 
 to friend. Optatus and St. Augustine were 
 justified in comparing with the proud " prince 
 of Tyre " (Ezek. xxviii. 2) the man who in liis 
 lifetime permitted his followers to swear by 
 his name and by his grey hairs, and coukl ask 
 of the menial bishops, " What do you say to 
 my party ? " and who, after his death, was 
 described by Donatists at the conference of 
 Carthage as the miracle-worker, " the pride 
 of the church of Carthage, the man with the 
 reputation of a martyr." 
 
 When the soldiers of Ursacius appeared in 
 N. Africa, Donatus was ready to resist them, 
 and his courage infected the timid people and 
 prelates. His name became the rallying-point 
 for every man who had real or imaginary 
 grievances against existing ecclesiastical, civil, 
 and social powers, amongst others the Circum- 
 cellions. " They were a class of men," says 
 St. Augustine, " who followed no kind of 
 useful occupation, held their own lives in 
 fanatical contempt, and thought no death too 
 cruel for those who differed from them ; they 
 wandered about from place to place, chiefly in 
 the country districts, and haunted the cells 
 of the peasants for the purpose of obtaining 
 food. Hence they were called ' Circumcel- 
 liones.' " The better class of Donatists 
 turned away in horror from fanatics who 
 imbrued their hands with the blood of the 
 innocent as well as of the guilty ; but the offer 
 of partisanship having been once accepted, it 
 was impossible to withdraw it altogether. 
 Donatus, Parmenian, I'etilian, and Cresconius 
 in turn were forced to palliate as much as they 
 could the actions of these allies, who preferred 
 to be called Agonistici, Champions of Christ, 
 and who rushed into the battle with " Deo 
 laudes " as their war-cry, and with a weapon 
 dubbed " Israelite " as their war-club. 
 
 Constantine soon found that Donatism was 
 not to be put down by the sword. In a.p. 317 
 Ursacius was bidden hold his hand, and Cae- 
 cilian was exhorted to treat his opponents 
 kindly, and leave vengeance to God. The 
 emperor's letter was a mixture of truth and 
 sarcasm : "All schisms," he wrote, " are from 
 the devil ; and these Separatists proceed from 
 him. What good can you expect from those 
 who are the adversaries of God and the enemies 
 of the holy church ? Such men must split off 
 from the church, and attach themselves to the 
 devil. Surely we act most wisely, if we leave 
 to them what they have wrenched from us. 
 By patience and kindness we may hope to gain 
 them. Let us leave vengeance to God. 1 re- 
 joice to think that vou meet their brutality 
 with gentleness and good temper. As I under- 
 stand that these men have destroyed a church 
 in Constantinople, I have ordered my finance- 
 minister to build you a new one. God grant 
 that these mistaken Separatists may at last 
 see their error and turn to the one true (iod ! " 
 It was not a letter calculated to soothe the 
 
276 DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 Donatists. They presently replied to the 
 emperor that he' must distinctly understand 
 that they would have nothing to do with his 
 " fool of a bishop " (i.e. Caecilian), and that he 
 might do his worst. With this mutual con- 
 tempt and recrimination matters ended for 
 the time. Constantine during the remainder 
 of his life ignored the Donatists ; but they 
 increased largely in numbers in their own 
 districts — in a.d. 330 they held a synod at- 
 tended by 270 bishops — and established a few 
 insignificant stations elsewhere. 
 
 Constans, son of Constantine, succeeded to 
 his father's N. African possessions ; and, at 
 first, endeavoured to conciliate the Donatists 
 by kindness. He pubhshed (a.d. 340) an 
 edict requiring the Donatists to return to the 
 church, urging that " unity must now exist, 
 because Christ was a lover of unity," and in- 
 structed his commissioners Ursacius (probably 
 not the Ursacius already mentioned) and 
 Leontius to distribute money, as alms, in 
 Donatist as well as in Catholic churches. The 
 Donatists spurned it as gold offered by the 
 devil to seduce men from their faith. The 
 sword of persecution was then unsheathed to 
 deprive the Donatists of their churches ; and 
 the survivors regarded the victims as martyrs 
 and their graves as platforms for preaching 
 resistance. In a.d. 345 Gregorius travelled 
 through the province, offeringnot only alms but 
 valuable church plate to all who would accept 
 the imperial invitation to submit. Donatus 
 sent circular letters through all the provmces, 
 forbidding the acceptance of any presents ; 
 and wrote to Gregorius in a scurrilous style. 
 In A.D. 347 a third commission, composed of 
 Paul, Macarius, andTaurinus, came to Donatus 
 himself, with gold in their hands. The bishop 
 listened impatiently, and at length broke out, 
 " What has the emperor to do with the 
 church ? " They were words which meant 
 much at the time, but have meant more since. 
 
 The language of Donatus was repeated from 
 every Donatistic pulpit by preachers pro- 
 claiming the duty of separation from a church 
 " which committed fornication with the 
 princes of this world," and whose prelates were 
 mere tools of an emperor. Such obloquy 
 served to madden the fanatics, even though 
 it brought upon them furious persecution. 
 The Circumcellions rose, and frightful blood- 
 shed followed. These ' ' Christian champions ' ' 
 traversed the country, subverting everything. 
 Slaves and debtors were deemed brothers ; 
 masters and creditors t>Tants. The excesses 
 of the Circumcellions were so great that 
 Donatus and his brother-bishops were forced 
 to appeal to Taurinus to check them. The 
 Circumcellions kissed the hands which be- 
 trayed them, and turned their fury upon 
 themselves. They longed for martyrdom. 
 They invaded pagan temples that death might 
 be found from the sword of some infuriated 
 idolator ; they entered comrts of justice and 
 frightened judges ordered their instant exe- 
 cution ; travellers were stopped and threat- 
 ened with instant death if they did not slay 
 the suppliants. Days, hours, and places were 
 named that an admiring crowd might witness 
 them cast themselves headlong from some rock 
 into the graves which their posterity would 
 reverence as those of the martjTS. Mac- 
 
 DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 arius did not discriminate between moderate 
 Donatist and extreme Circumcellionist. With 
 an iron hand he crushed both. Donatus was 
 banished, and died in exile. The church 
 was triumphant. Optatus saluted Constans 
 as the servant of God who had been privileged 
 to restore unity ; but many regretted that 
 unity had been won at such a price. When 
 Donatists afterwards called Christians " Mac- 
 arians," in scornful allusion to the persecutor 
 of their sect, St. Augustine replied : " Yes, 
 we are Macarians, for that name means 
 ' blessed,' and who is more blessed than Christ 
 to Whom we belong ? " but it was natural to 
 him and worthy of him to add, " Don't let us 
 call one another names. Don't cast at me 
 the times of Macarius, and I won't remind you 
 of the madness of the Circumcellions. Let 
 us, as far as possible, work together, because 
 we are all orphans." 
 
 It was probably soon after the cessation of 
 the persecution that Gratus, Caecilian's suc- 
 cessor, summoned a synod at Carthage, which 
 established (i) the non-iteration of baptism, 
 when duly administered in the name of the 
 Trinity ; (2) the necessary restrictions on 
 reverence for martvrs, and on the assignment 
 of that title. 
 
 In A.D. 361 Julian became emperor. His 
 edict " recalled all the bishops and clergy 
 banished in the reign of Constantius, and 
 granted equal freedom to all parties of the 
 Christian church." The Donatists were not 
 included in this. Two of their bishops, 
 Rogatian and Pontus, waited on the emperor ; 
 and left with full permission to return to 
 their country. The return was marked by 
 violence and murder. The Donatists treated 
 the churches as places which had been pro- 
 faned, washed the walls and altars, tore the 
 vestments to pieces, threw the holy vessels 
 outside and the sacred elements to the dogs. 
 Then they reintroduced their rigorous dis- 
 cipline. Apostates were received only after 
 most humiliating penance, laymen were re- 
 baptized, and clerics reordained. For two 
 years Donatism was in the ascendant and 
 basked in the imperial sunshine. But the 
 cry which went up from the dying Julian's 
 lip's (a.d. 363), " Galilean, Thou hast con- 
 quered," was also the cry which told the 
 Donatist that his day of triumph had ended. 
 Donatus had been succeeded by Parmenian, 
 perhaps the ablest and least prejudiced of the 
 Donatist episcopacy. A foreigner by birth, 
 1 and actually ignorant of many of the saddest 
 I and cruellest episodes of Donatist history, he 
 entered upon his duties at Carthage free from 
 the passionate views which marked so many 
 of his followers, and disposed to rate lightly 
 much that to them was of great importance. 
 His literary merit was great and excited the 
 admiration of Optatus, bp. of Milevi, and of St. 
 Augustine, each of whom has left a statement 
 of the current Donatist opinions. The theo- 
 logical disputations between Optatus and 
 Parmenian are preserved in the great work of 
 the former, and evidently Parmenian's opin- 
 ions are honestly given. Optatus was a man 
 of unquestioned piety, dialectical skill, and 
 orthodoxy ; perfectly indifferent to Circum- 
 cellion threats, bribery, or corruption ; earn- 
 estly desirous for unity, if it could be obtained 
 
DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 without sacrifice of principle ; and he sought 
 as much common ground as possible, before 
 stating unhesitatingly where he and his 
 opponent must part. If the usual tone of 
 kindliness and courtesy is occasionally for- j 
 gotten, if the title " brother " given to Par- i 
 menian is replaced by " Antichrist " when j 
 Donatus is mentioned, if cool, argumentative 
 reasoning is sometimes dropped for defiant { 
 passionate utterance, the difference is intel- 
 ligible in a character so full of both charity 
 and zeal that St. Augustine called him " a 
 second Ambrose of Milan." 
 
 There were two points about which, theor- 
 etically, both men were agreed : (i) That tlicre 
 was only one church ; and (2) that in that 
 one church there was only one baptism, and 
 this not to be repeated. But disagreement 
 soon began. " A church," said the Donatist. 
 '• in which traditors both existed and dis- 
 pensed the sacraments was no church, and 
 baptism administered, by traditors was no 
 baptism." Where, then, was the pure church? 
 with the Catholic or Donatist ? How far was 
 the validity of the sacraments dependent upon 
 the purity of the church and the personal char- 
 a( ter of those who dispensed them ? These 
 were old questions, but discussed between 
 Optatus and Parmenian as they had never 
 been before. [Optatus (6) ; Parmenianus.] 
 The existence of Donatism was next threat- 
 ened by divisions within. " As Donatus," 
 says St. Augustine, " sought to divide Christ, 
 so was Donatus di\ided by the divisions which 
 arose daily amongst his own followers." Rog- 
 atists and Maximianists, or individuals like 
 Tichonius, arose to contest or moderate the 
 views of the founders of the sect. [Tichonius.] 
 The fiercest blow to Donatism was, however, 
 given by the Maximianist schism. [Maximi- 
 ANus (2).] Parmenian died a.d. 392, and was 
 succeeded by Primian. Primian imposed a 
 penance on one of his deacons, Maximian ; the 
 deacon protested, was excommunicated, and 
 appealed to some neighbouring bishops, who 
 took up his cause and respectfully solicited 
 Primian to give them a hearing or to meet 
 them. Primian declined. In a.d. 393 more 
 than 100 malcontent bishops assembled in 
 synod at Cabarsussis, summoned Primian 
 before them, and, on his again refusing to 
 notice them, recited his misdeeds in an 
 elaborate document, excommunicated him, 
 and elected Maximian, procuring his consecra- 
 tion at Carthage. The Donatists of Carthage, 
 now divided into Primianists and Maximian- 
 ists, had, in their turn, to experience the 
 misery of altar set up against altar. " God," 
 says St. Augustine, " was repaying to them 
 the measure they had paid to Caecilian." 
 Primian and his party were, however, much 
 the stronger. The bj^s. of Numidia and 
 Mauritania to the number of 310 sided with 
 him ; and at the council of Bagai (a.d. 394), 
 presided over by Primian himself, Maximian 
 was exconnnunicated, and his ordainers and 
 coadjuti-)rs commanded to repent and return 
 to the Primianist party before a certain date. 
 The Maximianists shewed little disposition to 
 acquiesce in this decision, and persecution 
 began. Maximian's church was levelled to 
 the ground and his house handed over to a 
 heathen priest. The proconsul Seranus was 
 
 DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 1!77 
 
 asked to assist in carrying out the judgment 
 of the council on the rcfractnrv. The .Maxim- 
 ianists were hunted from jilace to plarr, and 
 the treatment of the aged and beloved bp. of 
 Membrcsa, Salvius, was scandalous and cruel 
 beyond measure. But few Maximianists, 
 ho\vever, returned to the main bodv ; the 
 majority struggled on as martyrs, rebaptizing 
 and reordaining those who' joined them. 
 Donatism had received a mortal wound. 
 
 The action of the Catholic church and the 
 state during this period further helped to 
 check the extension of Donatism. Manv 
 Donatists, priests as well as laymen, disgusted 
 with party squabbles and cruel excesses, 
 turned their eyes to the church. Thcv were 
 met with kindness. In a.d. 393 a council met 
 at Hippo under the presidency of Aurelius. 
 bp. of Carthage. The measures passed were 
 liberal in spirit and intention. They allowed 
 returning Donatist clergy to retain their 
 clerical position and functions, if they had not 
 rebaptized, and if they brought tlieir congre- 
 gations with them ; and decided that children 
 of Donatists, even if they had received Donatist 
 baptism, should not be excluded from the 
 service of the altar. 
 
 The action of the state had varied according 
 as political events had directed imperial atten- 
 tion to Donatists or removed it from them. 
 Valentinian's edict (a.d. 373) deposing any 
 clerical person who rebaptized, and Gratian's 
 successive decrees — the first (a.d. 375) com- 
 manding the surrender of their churches ; the 
 second (a.d. 377) issued to tlu; Donatist, 
 Flavian, the imperial representative in Africa, 
 enjoining further the confiscation of houses 
 used by them ; the third (a.d. 378) command- 
 ing the expulsion from Rome of one Claudian, 
 who had gone there to propagate Donatist 
 opinions — produced a good deal of misery ; 
 but the political disquiet connected with the 
 murder of Gratian (a.d. 383), the wars between 
 Maximus and Theodosius, the depcsition of 
 Maximus and restoration of Valentinian (a.d. 
 388), made it impossible to enforce these or 
 similar injunctions, and for the time the 
 Donatists enjoyed a comparative freedom from 
 interference. In a.d. 392 Theodosius issued 
 his laws against heretics generally, fining all 
 such who performed priestly functions. This 
 was not directed against the Donatists par- 
 ticularly, and was probably not enforced 
 against them previous to the death of Theo- 
 dosius (a.d. 395). That event was followed 
 by Gildo's usurpation of power in Africa, and 
 his alliance with one of the cruellest Donatist 
 bishops, Optatus of Thamugas. The ravages 
 committed were only stayed by Honorius's 
 victory over Gildo (a.d. 398) ; and Theo- 
 dosius's penalty was enforced by Seranus 
 against Optatus and his followers. An edict 
 i of Honorius (a.d. 398) decreeing the punisli- 
 I mcnt of death to all who dared to violate 
 j churches and maltreat the clergy was evident- 
 ly directed against the Circumcellions. 
 
 Yet the position of the Donatist body was 
 better than that of the Catholic church. The 
 greater part of Africa was Donatist, the 
 church lay crushed and oppressed. Towards 
 the end of the 4th cent, it seemed almost as if 
 the place of the ancient. Catholic, and Apos- 
 . tolic church would be taken by the new usurp- 
 
278 
 
 DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 ing sect. Then the good providence of God 
 raisedupSt. Augustine, whose piety andability 
 shielded then and since the true church of 
 Christ. In a.d. 391 he came to Hippo, and the 
 popular vote at once pointed him out as the 
 future successor of the aged Valerius. In a.d. 
 395 he was consecrated coadjutor-bishop. 
 Hippo was a hot-bed of Donatism. In a letter 
 (Ep. 33) to Proculeianus the Donatist bp. of 
 Hippo, St. Augustine pathetically asks, "What 
 has Christ done to us, that we rend His mem- 
 bers asunder ? Consider how sad a division 
 reigns in Christian households and families. 
 Husband and wife, who — in their married life 
 — know no division, separate themselves at 
 the altar of Christ ! Children live with their 
 parents in the same dwelling, but that dwelling 
 is not also God's dwelling." Full of zeal, St. 
 Augustine threw himself into the thick of the 
 fight. His sermons attracted Donatists as 
 well as Catholics, and the sectarians threat- 
 ened his life ; but his works had great effect. 
 Men like Petilian were silenced ; priests, lay- 
 men, and even whole communities came back 
 to the church. Twice in 401 a council met at 
 Carthage to deal with the supply of Catholic 
 clergy ; Donatist enticement or persecution 
 ha\ing so reduced their number that many 
 churches had no deacons and therefore no 
 future means for supplying the higher offices. ! 
 The council at Hippo had imposed restrictions 
 upon Donatist clergy, who returned to the | 
 church, exercising their office. An appeal to : 
 pope Anastasius to remove these restrictions ' 
 was allowed. St. Augustine set the example 
 of receiving Donatist-ordained deacons, though 
 apparently he declined to receive again — in 
 an official capacity — those who had previously 
 passed from the' church to the sectarians. 
 These measures, though accompanied by 
 loving words of greeting, roused the Donatists. 
 They were still a majority, powerful and per- 
 sistent. They called to their aid the brutal 
 fanaticism of the Circumcellions, especially 
 against apostate Donatists and the Catholic ', 
 clergy. Once again fire and sword levelled 
 churches and destroyed altars. St. Augustine 
 was threatened, tracked, and surrounded ; 
 Catholic priests were stopped in the road, and 
 the choice offered them : " Promise to preach 
 no more, or prepare for ill-treatment." Moder- 
 ate-minded men among the Donatists looked 
 on in horror, but were powerless to check the i 
 barbarities. The Catholics, before appealing j 
 to the state, desired (a.d. 403) a conference. 
 The Donatist bishop, Primian, repelled their 
 advances with insult, saying, "The sons of 
 the martyrs and the brood of traditors can 
 never meet." Equally unsuccessful were 
 attempts of St. Augustine and Possidius to 
 confer with leading Donatist bishops. At last 
 a council at Carthage (a.d. 404) determined to 
 appeal to Honorius to enforce the laws of 
 Theodosius against the Donatists and restrict 
 the excesses of the Circumcellions. But before 
 the deputation reached the emperor, his anger I 
 was kindled bv accounts from his own officers. { 
 The cruelty of the Donatists to two Catholic 
 bishops, Servus and Maximinian of Bagai, 
 made him little disposed to accept the gentler 
 measures proposed by the council of Carth- 
 age ; and in 405 he issued an edict, fining 
 those who had inflicted ill-usage, and | 
 
 DONATUS and DONATISM 
 
 threatening the Donatist bishops and clergy 
 with banishment. In the same year imperial 
 laws forbade rebaptism, condemned the Don- 
 atists as heretics, confiscated their meeting- 
 houses and the goods of those who rebaptized, 
 excluded them from testamentary inheritance, 
 and proclaimed to all " that the one and true 
 Catholic faith of Almighty God was to be 
 received." These and similar imperial 
 edicts brought to the church many who had 
 been wavering. The Catholics received them 
 ! with love and forgiveness ; and in some cities, 
 as in Carthage, union between Catholics and 
 Donatists was openly asserted and celebrated. 
 But these edicts exasperated still further the 
 more extreme Donatists. St. Augustine's own 
 city, Hippo, and its neighbourhood suffered 
 fearfully from the Circumcellions. In a.d. 
 409 St. Augustine complained bitterly (Ep. 
 Ill) of their plundering and ravages, their 
 revengeful acts and cruelties to the Catholic 
 bishops and laity. Letters to Donatist 
 bishops or to imperial commissioners were of 
 little use when the men to whom they referred 
 would slay themselves if balked of their prey, 
 or cast themselves into the fires they them- 
 selves had kindled. They heard of Stilicho's 
 death (a.d. 408). Rightly or \\Tongly they 
 had considered him the originator of the stern 
 decrees lately issued, and hailed the news by 
 joining with heathen in slaying, ill-using, or 
 putting to flight the hated Catholic bishops. 
 Fresh deputations went to Rome ; St. Augus- 
 tine wrote letters to the chief minister Olympius; 
 and fresh edicts, enforcing previous laws, fines, 
 and punishments, were sent to Africa. 
 
 About this time St. Augustine issued other 
 works which throw much light on the Donatist 
 controversy : (a) On the One Baptism, written 
 between a.d. 406 and 411, an answer to a 
 tract of Petilian's bearing the same title. 
 (6) Against Cresconius, written a.d. 409. 
 Cresconius objected to his party being called 
 Donatists: "Not Donatus, but Christ was 
 their founder. It was not heresy but schism 
 which separated them and the Catholic 
 church " ; and Cresconius claimed that it was 
 not they who were in schism, but the Catholics, 
 who thereby had lost church and baptism. 
 
 The invasion of Rome by Alaric king of the 
 Goths took place A.D. 408, and it was rumoured 
 that the Donatists of Africa were ready to 
 support the invader. The emperor Honorius 
 rescinded his extreme decrees against heathen 
 and schismatic ; but in 410 a deputation of 4 
 bishops from Carthage again brought com- 
 plaints against the Donatists to him. The 
 deputation was charged to petition for a con- 
 ference of Catholics and Donatists under im- 
 perial presidency. In Oct. 410 Honorius 
 instructed the proconsul of Africa, Marcellinus, 
 to make all necessary preparations and act as 
 president at the debates. He issued an edict 
 (Jan. 411) inviting Catholic and Donatist 
 bishops to meet in June at Carthage and elect 
 representatives, promising safe-conduct and 
 suspending meanwhile all processes against 
 Donatists. Both parties entered eagerly into 
 the scheme : 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist 
 bishops came to Carthage in May ; and, after 
 great difficulty in bringing the Donatists to 
 the point, the president pronounced sentence. 
 The ofiicial Acts and the testimony of Holy 
 
DONATDS and DONATISM 
 
 Scripture were taken to have proved the un- 
 soundness of the accusations against Caecilian, 
 and of the view that one man, through the 
 sinfulness of another, became therefore a par- 
 taker in that other's guilt. " I therefore," 
 said Marcellinus, " warn all men . . . to hinder 
 the assembling of Donatists in towns and 
 villages, and to restore the churches to the 
 Catholics. Every bishop of the community 
 of Donatus must, on his return to his home, 
 return to the one true church, or at least not 
 impede the faithful execution of the law. If 
 they have Circumcellions about them, and do 
 not restrain and repress the excesses of these 
 men, they shall be deprived of their places in 
 the state." 
 
 The condemned Donatists, among whom 
 were the principal bishops, smarting at their 
 defeat, reviled Marcellinus and appealed to the 
 emperor. The reply came (a. d. 412), terse and 
 stern, and classed them as heretics. It bade 
 them return to the church, fined them accord- 
 ing to their rank and station, and in the event 
 of contumacy confiscated their houses and 
 goods. Many Donatists obeyed the edict, 
 others scorned it. Whole communities, as at 
 Cirta, bishops and laymen everywhere, re- 
 turned to the church ; some from conviction, 
 others for reasons of expediency and comfort. 
 The CircumccUions broke out afresh, fired 
 churches, destroyed houses, cast into the 
 flames those Scriptures which had been found 
 to tell against them, and cruelly maltreated 
 and even murdered ecclesiastics who expound- 
 ed them. The less violent proclaimed with a 
 sneer that the church chests and imperial 
 coffers were enriched with the gold of the 
 Separatists, and pointed to the death of 
 Marcellinus (a.d. 413) as a divine judgment 
 upon their unrighteous judge. In a.d. 414 a 
 yet sterner decree announced that all Donatist 
 church-buildings were to become the property 
 of the Catholic church, and all Donatist clergy 
 to be suspended and banished. Fines were 
 doubled ; confiscation and banishment stared 
 the Separatists in the face ; their testimony in 
 courts of law was disallowed ; their social 
 condition was degraded to the lowest ; that 
 the penalties stopped short of death was owing 
 chiefly to St. Augustine, who strove success- 
 fully to prevent others from imbruing their 
 hands with the blood of mistaken fanatics. 
 The church, to its credit be it recorded, by 
 kindness and gentleness made the pain of 
 defeat less bitter to its foes, while it did not 
 neglect to avail itself of the advantages result- 
 ing from victory. As the Catholic bishops 
 returned to their homes they spread every- 
 where the news of the victory, and in the 
 following Lent publicly proclaimed it in their 
 churches. Short summaries of the acts and 
 judgment of the conference were circulated, 
 one being by St. Augustine himself. These 
 were intended principally for Catholics ; 
 others, as St. Augustine's "ad Donatislas post 
 collectionem," were addressed to the sectarians 
 who might be swayed by one-sided reports 
 circulated by Donatist bishops, or by their 
 slanderous abuse of Marcellinus aiid the 
 Catholics. In 418 a council at Carthage passed 
 resolutions regulating the proceedings, when 
 Donatist bishops, clergy, and congregations 
 came back to the church. Nothing could 
 
 DONATUS and DONATISM 270 
 
 prove more clearly to what a large extent tliis 
 had taken place. The church was no longer 
 suppliant, but triuniiihant ; and the change 
 is observable also in some letters and acts 
 of St. Augustine at this period, which may 
 be said to be his last words on tlie great 
 Donatist controversy. His work de Correc- 
 done Doiiatistarum is addressed to a soldier, 
 Bonifacius, and is WTittcn in a style and lan- 
 guage almost military in its stern enforcement 
 of disciiiline. Bonifacius had asked the 
 difference between the Arians and Donatists. 
 St. Augustine, after answering the question, 
 went on to speak of Donatists as " rebels 
 against the unity of the church of Christ." 
 The conference at Carthage and the emperor 
 had laid down laws which they disobeyed, 
 and thus deserved punishment (Dan. iii. 29). 
 The Lord had commanded His disciples to 
 compel the resisting to come to the marriage- 
 feast, and that marriage- feast was the unity 
 of the Body of Christ. The church was that 
 Body; so long as a man lived, God in His 
 goodness would bring him to repentance, and 
 lead him to that church, which was the temple 
 of the Holy Ghost ; but outside that Body, the 
 Church, the Holy Ghost gave no man life. 
 The same strong statement recurs in his 
 exhortation to Emeritus, the Donatist bp. of 
 Caesarea. The majority of Emeritus's con- 
 gregation had returned to the church. St. 
 Augustine pleaded with the bishop : " Outside 
 the church you may have everything except 
 salvation. Vou mav have offices. Sacraments, 
 Liturgy, Gospel, belief, and preaching, in the 
 name of the Trinity ; but you can only find 
 salvation in the Catholic Church." 
 
 The last letters of St. Augustine were ad- 
 dressed to a Donatist bishop Gaudentius. 
 Marcellinus had been succeeded by Dulcitius, 
 who endeavoured to carry out the strong laws 
 against the Donatists with all possible mild- 
 ness, and speciallv interested himself in re- 
 straining the fanaticism of the Circumcellions. 
 Unfortunately, some words of his were taken 
 to mean that he would punish them with death 
 unless they returned to the church. Gaud- 
 entius and his congregation assembled in their 
 church, determined to set fire to it and perish 
 in the flames. Dulcitius contrived to stop 
 this bv a letter to Gaudentius, who in two 
 letters defended his proposed action and the 
 views of his party. Dulcitius appealed to St. 
 Augustine, who answered Gaudentius's argu- 
 ments. His work, contra Gaudentium, in two 
 books, goes over the old ground, also exposing 
 the folly and crime of suicide. 
 
 Donatism had now lived its life. No new 
 champions appeared to defend it, and once 
 again onlv did the schism lift up its head. 
 Towards the end of the 6th cent, there was a 
 momentarv revival of energy and proselytisni ; 
 but popes such as Leo and Gregorv the Great 
 and imperial laws were irresistible. The 
 movement died out. The Donatists lingered 
 on till the invasion of Africa by the Mahom- 
 medans swept them away or merged them into 
 some other schismatical body. 
 
 See Optatus, ed. Alba Spinaeus (Par. 163'). 
 or ed. Dupin (Antw. 1702) ; S. Auguslini. Oprra. 
 vol. vii. (Par. ed. 1635) ; Vogel. " Donatisten 
 in Herzog's Real-Encyclop.; Hefele. do in 
 Wetzcr's Kirchenlexicon aadConctl-ueschtchif ; 
 
280 
 
 DOROTHEA 
 
 Neander, Church History, iii. 258, etc. ed. 
 Bohn ; Niedner, Lehrbuch d. ChristHchen Kirch- 
 engeschichte, 324 ; Robertson, Hist, of the 
 Christian Church, i. I75, etc. ; Hagenbach, 
 Kirchengeschichte, i. 547 ; Ribbeck, Donatus 
 und Augustinus (1858) ; M. Deutsch, Drei 
 Actenstilcke zur Geschichte der Donatismus (Ber- 
 lin, 1875); Harnack, Dog. Gesch. {3rd. ed.) iii. 
 36 ff. ; Thomasius, Dog. Gesch. (2nded.) i. 606 
 
 ff. [J.M.F.] 
 
 Dorothea, virgin, martyred with Theo- 
 philus the Advocate, and two other women, 
 Christa and Callista, at Caesarea, in Cappa- 
 docia. Some doubt is entertained about these 
 names, as they occur in no Greek menology or 
 mart>Tologv ; but they are found in ancient 
 Roman accounts ; and details are given by 
 the monk Usuard, bp. Ado, and Rabanus. 
 They are celebrated on Feb. 6. Baronius, 
 Bollandus, and Tillemont all place the death 
 of Dorothea in the persecution of Diocletian. 
 
 She was a young girl of Caesarea in Cappa- 
 docia, famed so widely for Christian piety that 
 when the governor Fabricius, Sapricius, or 
 Apricius arrived he had her brought before 
 him and tortured. Unable to persuade her 
 to marrv, he sent her to Christa and Callista 
 that they might induce her to give up her faith. 
 She converted them ; whereupon the governor 
 put them to death in a boihng cauldron. 
 
 Dorothea was again tortured, and shewed 
 her joy for the martyrdom of Christa and 
 Callista and for her own sufferings. The 
 governor, insulted and enraged, ordered her 
 head to be cut off. On her way to execution 
 an advocate named Theophilus laughingly 
 asked her to send him some apples and roses 
 from the paradise of her heavenly bridegroom. 
 The legend states that these were miracu- 
 lously conveyed to him, although Cappadocia 
 was then covered with snow. Theophilus was 
 converted, tortured, and decapitated. 
 
 Dorothea's body is said to have been taken 
 to Rome, and preserved in the church across 
 the Tiber which bears her name. On her 
 festival there is a ceremony of blessing roses 
 and apples. Migne, Diet. Hagiograph. i. 779 ; 
 Bollandus, .Acta Sand. Feb. i. p. 771 ; Tillem. 
 Hist. eccl. p. 497 (Paris, 1702). [w.m.s.] 
 
 Dorotheus (3), a presbyter of Antioch, or- 
 dained bv Cyril of Antioch (Hieron. Chron.) 
 c. A.D. 290, who with his contemporary Lucian 
 may be regarded as the progenitor of the 
 sound and healthy school of scriptural her- 
 meneutics which distinguished the interpre- 
 ters of Antioch from those of Alexandria. 
 Eusebius speaks of him with high commenda- 
 tion, as distinguished by a pure taste and 
 sound learning, of a wide and liberal education, 
 well acquainted not only with the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, which Eusebius says he had heard 
 him expounding in the church at Antioch, 
 with moderation (yuerpi'ws), but also with 
 classical literature. He was a congenital 
 eunuch, which commended him to the notice 
 of the emperor Constantine, who placed him 
 at the head of the purple-dye-house at Tvre 
 Eus. H. E. vii. 32 ; Neander, Eccl. Hist, vol.' ii. 
 p. 528, Clark's trans. ; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. 
 vol. i. p. 247, Clark's trans. [e-v.] 
 
 Dorotheus (7) , bp. of Martianopolis in Moesia 
 Secunda, and metropolitan ; a zealous supporter 
 of the doctrines of Nesturios, and a determined 
 
 DOROTHEUS 
 
 enemy of the title deoroKOi. Preaching in 
 Constantinople not long before the council of 
 Ephesus, he declared that " if any one asserted 
 that Mary was the mother of God he was 
 anathema " {Ep. Cyrill. ap. Baluz. Concil. col. 
 402). He attended that council, a.d. 431, 
 signing the appeal to the emperor against the 
 dominant party (Baluz. 701), and joining in 
 the documents warning the clergy and people 
 of Hierapolis and Constantinople against the 
 errors of Cyril, and announcing Cyril's excom- 
 munication {ib. 706, 725). He was deposed 
 and excommunicated by C^Til and his friends. 
 This deposition being confirmed by the im- 
 perial power, he was ordered by Maximinian's 
 synod at Constantinople to be ejected from 
 his city and throne. His influence, however, 
 with his people was so great that they refused 
 to receive his successor Secundianus, and drove 
 him from the city (Ep. Doroth. ad Cyrill. 
 Baluz. 750), whereupon Dorotheus was ban- 
 ished by the emperor to Caesarea in Cappa- 
 docia. Two letters of his to John of Antioch 
 are preserved in the Synodicon (Nos. 78, 115 ; 
 Baluz. 781, 816), expressing his anxiety at 
 Paul's setting out to Egypt and his distress 
 at hearing that terms had been come to with 
 Cyril, and a third (No. 137 ; Baluz. 840) to 
 Alexander of Hierapolis and Theodoret, pro- 
 posing a joint appeal to the emperor, [e.v.] 
 
 Dorotheus (10), bp. of Thessalonica 515- 
 520. He wrote on April 28, 515, to pope 
 Hormisdas, urging him to labour for the peace 
 of the church. He testifies respect for the see 
 of Rome, and wishes to see the heresies of Nes- 
 torius and Eutyches everywhere condemned. 
 
 But in the spring of 517 we find him a 
 Eutychian schismatic, seeking to exercise over 
 the province of Thessalonica the rights which 
 belonged to its metropolis when in com- 
 munion with the Catholic church. He per- 
 secuted John bp. of Nicopolis, employing the 
 secular arm and persuading the emperor 
 Anastasius to support his faction. Com- 
 plaints were brought to pope Hormisdas, who 
 pointed out that he might regain his rights if 
 he rejoined the Catholic church ; but the papal 
 legates Ennodius and Peregrinus were to bring 
 the affair before the emperor, if bp. Dorotheus 
 should persist. The emperor Anastasius re- 
 fused the message of the legates, tried to 
 corrupt them, and wrote to the pope saying 
 that he could suffer insults, but not commands 
 (July II, 517). The death of the emperor 
 almost exactly a year afterwards altered the 
 balance against the Eutychians. Justin I., 
 the Thracian, wrote, on his accession, to the 
 pope, expressing his own wish and that of the 
 principal Eastern bishops for the restoration 
 of peace between East and West. Hormisdas, 
 with the advice of king Theodoric, sent a third 
 legation to Constantinople, Germanus bp. of 
 Capua, John a bishop, Blandus a presbyter, 
 and others. To these men at Constantinople 
 Hormisdas wrote to inquire personally into 
 the doings of the Eutychians at Thessalonica, 
 and to cite bp. Dorotheus and his abettor 
 Aristides the presbyter to Rome, that they 
 might give account of their faith and receive 
 resolution of their doubts. Two days before 
 the arrival of the legates, Dorotheus baptized 
 more than 2,000 people, and distributed the- 
 Eucharistic bread ia large baskets, so t^at 
 
DOSITHEUS 
 
 multitudes could keep it by them. On their 
 arrival, the populace of Thcssalonica, excited, 
 as the legates thought, by Dorotheus, fell 
 upon them, and killed John, a Catholic, who 
 had received tliem in his house. News of 
 these outrages arriving at Constantinople, the 
 emperor Justin promised to summon Doro- 
 theus before him. The pope wrote to his 
 legates, saying that they must see Dorotheus 
 deposed, and take care that Aristides should 
 not be his successor. Dorotheus was cited 
 before the emperor at Heraclea ; he appealed 
 to Rome, but the emperor thought it unad- 
 visable to send him there, as his accusers 
 would not be present. He was suddenly sent 
 away from Heraclea. and the pope's legates, 
 bp. John and the presbyter Epiphanius, who 
 had remained at Thessalonica in his absence, 
 wrote in alarm to the remaining legates at 
 Constantinople lest Dorotheus and others 
 should re-establish themselves in their sees by 
 liberal use of money. 
 
 Dorotheus was now obliged by the emperor 
 to send deputies to Rome to satisfy the pope. 
 He accordingly wrote an agreeable letter, say- 
 ing that he had exposed his life in defence of 
 bp. John, when the populace had fallen upon 
 him. Pope Hormisdas wrote back, saying 
 that the crime was known to all the world, and 
 required clearer defence ; he remitted its ex- 
 amination to the patriarch of Constantinople. 
 Hormisd. Epp., Pair. I. at. Ixiii. pp. 371, 372, 
 408. 445, 446, 452, 468, 473, 481, 499, etc. ; 
 Ceillier, x. 616, 618, 619, 625 626, 628, 632, 
 
 633. [W.M.S.] 
 
 Dositheus (1). The earliest ecclesiastical 
 writers speak of a sect of Dositheans, which, 
 though it ne\er spread far outside Samaria, 
 seems to have had some considerable duration 
 in that quarter. It was rather a Jewish sect 
 than a Christian heresy, for Dositheus was re- 
 garded rather as a rival than as a disciple of 
 our Lord, but trustworthy information as to 
 his history and his doctrines is very scanty. 
 Only the name of himself and his sect occurs 
 in Hegesippus's list of heresies, preserved by 
 Eusebius {H. E. iv. 22). He is there placed 
 next after Simon and Cleobius. The earliest 
 detailed account of him is given in the Clem- 
 entine \\Titings, and it is not unlikely that 
 their account was derived from the treatise on 
 heresies of Justin Martyr. The Recognitions 
 (ii. 8) and Homilies (ii. 24) agree in making 
 Simon Magus a disciple of Dositheus, and the 
 Recognitions would lead us to suppose that 
 Dositheus was clearly the elder. They repre- 
 sent him as already recognised as the prophet 
 like unto Moses, whom Jehovah was to raise 
 up ; when Simon with ditficulty and entreaty 
 obtained election among his 30 disciples. The 
 Homilies make Simon and l)ositheus fellow- 
 disciples of John the Baptist, to whom in 
 several places the author shews hostility. As 
 our Lord, the Sun, had 12 apostles, so John, 
 the Moon, had 30 disciples, or even more 
 accurately answering to the days of a lunation, 
 29A, for one of them was a woman. On John's 
 death Simon was absent studying magic in 
 Egypt, and so Dositheus was put over his head 
 into the chief place, an arrangement in which 
 Simon on his return thought it prudent to 
 acquiesce. Origen, who was acquainted with 
 the Recognitions, probably had in his mind the 
 
 DOSITHEUS 
 
 281 
 
 story of the 30 disciples of Dositheus. when he 
 says (contra Cdsum. vi. 11) that he doubts 
 whether there were then 30 Dositheans in the 
 world (//). i. 57) or 30 Simonians. Recogni- 
 tions and Homilies agree tliat Simon after his 
 enrolment among the disciples of Dositheus 
 
 bv 
 
 riplr. nt 
 n..Mtllru 
 tlin.ll:;!, 
 
 his b(Klv 
 
 uagement among his feilow-dis- 
 ir master's pretensions, provoked 
 > smite him with a staff, which 
 ion's magical art passed through 
 if it had been smoke. Dositheus 
 in amazement thereat, and conscious that he 
 himself was not the Standing one as he pre- 
 tended to be, inquired if Simon claimed that 
 dignity for himself, and, being answered in the 
 aflirmative, resigned his chief place to him and 
 I became his worshipper. Soon after he died. 
 l^'lsewhere (i. 54) tlie Recognitions represent 
 Dositheus as the founder of the sect <>f the 
 Sadducees, a sect which, according to their 
 account, had its commencement only in the 
 days of John the Baptist. 
 
 Next in order of the early witnesses to the 
 activity of Dositheus is Hippolytus, who, as wc 
 learn from Photius (Cod. 121), commenred his 
 shorter treatise on heresies with a section on 
 the Dositheans. We gather the contents of 
 this treatise from Epiphanius {Haer. 13), 
 Philaster (4), and Pseudo-Tertullian. and the 
 opening sentence of the latter, which relates 
 to the Dositheans, is almost exactly repro- 
 duced by St. Jerome {adv. Luciferianos, iv. 
 304). The first section of the work of Hip- 
 polytus apparently contained a brief notice 
 of pre-Christian sects, the foremost place being 
 given to the Dositheans. Hippolytus seems 
 to hav'e adopted the account of the Recogni- 
 tions as to the origin of the sect of the Sad- 
 ducees, and to have also charged Dositheus 
 with rejecting the inspiration of the prophets. 
 A statement that Dositheus was a Jew by 
 birth was understood by Epiphanius to mean 
 that he had deserted from the Jews to the 
 Samaritans, a change which Epiphanius attri- 
 butes to disappointed ambition. Origen men- 
 tions Dositheus in several places {cont. Celsum 
 U.S., tract 27 in Matt. vol. iii. 851 ; in Luc. iii. 
 962 ; in Johann. iv. vol. iv. p. 237 ; de Princ. 
 iv. 1-17) ; but only in the last two passages 
 makes any statement which clearly shews that 
 he had sources of information independent 
 of the Clementine Recognitions ; viz. in the 
 commentary on John he speaks of books 
 ascril)ed to Dositheus as being then current 
 among his disciples, and of their belief that 
 their master had not really died ; and in de 
 Princ. he asserts that Dositheus expounded 
 Exod. xvi. 29 so as to teach that persons were 
 bound to remain to the end of the sabbath as 
 thev found themselves at the beginning of it ; 
 if sitting, sitting to the end ; if lying, lying, 
 Epiphanius, who may have read Dosithean 
 books, adds, from his personal investigations, 
 to the details which he found in Hippolytus. 
 He describes the sect as still existing, observ- 
 ing the Sabbath, circumcision, and other 
 Jewish ordinances, abstaining from animal 
 food, and many of them from sexual inter- 
 course either altogether, or at least after 
 having had children ; but the reading here is 
 uncertain. They are said to have admitted 
 the resurrection of the body, the denial of 
 which is represented as an addition made by 
 
282 
 
 DOSITHEUS 
 
 the Sadducees to the original teaching of 
 Dositheus. Epiphanius adds a story that 
 Dositheus retired to a cave, and there, under 
 a show of piety, practised such abstinence 
 from food and drink as to bring his life to a 
 voluntary end. This story appears, in a 
 slightly different shape, in a Samaritan 
 chronicle, of which an account is given by 
 Abraham Ecchellensis ad Hehed J esu, Catal. 
 lib. Chald. p. 162, Rom. 1653, the story there 
 being that it was the measures taken by the 
 Samaritan high-priest against the new sect, 
 especially because of their use of a book of the 
 law falsified by Dositheus (there called Dou- 
 sis), which compelled Dositheus to flee to a 
 mountain, where he died from want of food in 
 a cave. The notes of Ecchellensis are not 
 given in Assemani's republication of Hebed 
 Jesu (Bibl. Or. iii.). This account is taken 
 from Mosheim (v. infra), and from De Sacy's 
 Chrestomathie Arabe, i. 337. 
 
 It appears that the sect of Dositheans long 
 maintained a local existence. In Hebed Jesu's 
 catalogue of Chaldee books (Assemani, Bibl. 
 Or. iii. 42) we read that Theophilus of Persia, 
 who was later than the council of Ephesus, 
 wrote against Dositheus. And Photius (Cod. 
 230) reports that he read among the works of 
 Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria [d. a.d. 608), 
 one entitled Definition against the Samaritans, 
 the argument of which is that the people of 
 Samaria being divided in opinion as to 
 whether the " prophet like unto Moses " was 
 Joshua or Dositheus, Eulogius held a synod 
 there (in the 7th year of Marcianus according 
 to the MSS. ; if we correct this to the 7th year 
 of Maurice, it gives a.d. 588) and taught them 
 the divinity of our Lord. The independent 
 notices of the continued existence of the sect 
 make it not incredible that Eulogius may have 
 encountered it. He appears to have really 
 used Dosithean books, and reports that Dosi- 
 theus exhibited particular hostility to the 
 patriarch Judah, and if he claimed to be 
 himself the prophet who was to come, he 
 would naturally be anxious to exclude the 
 belief that that prophet must be of the tribe 
 of Judah. The form (Dosthes) given by 
 Eulogius for his name is a closer approach 
 than Dositheus to the Hebrew Dosthai, which 
 it probably really represents. Drusius {de 
 Sectis Hebraeorum, iii. 4, 6) and Lightfoot 
 (Disquis. Chorograph. in Johann. iv.) shew that 
 this was, according to Jewish tradition, the 
 name of one of the priests who was sent (II. 
 Kings xvii. 27) to teach the manner of the God 
 of the land, and that the same name was borne 
 by other Samaritans. 
 
 There seems no ground for Reland's con- 
 jecture {de Samaritanis, v.) that Dositheus 
 was the author of the Samaritan book of 
 Joshua, since published by Juynboll (Leyden, 
 1848). Juynboll, p. 113, quotes the testimony 
 of an Arabic writer, Aboulfatah (given more 
 fully, De Sacy, p. 335), that the sect still 
 existed in the 14th cent. This writer places 
 Dositheus in the time of John Hyrcanus, i.e. 
 more than a hundred years before Christ. 
 Jost {Gesch. des Judenthums, i. 66) refers to 
 Beer {Buck der Jubilden) as giving evidence 
 that the sect left traces in Abyssinia. Sev- 
 eral critics who have wished to accept all the 
 statements of the above-mentioned authorities, 
 
 DUBRICIUS, DUBRIC 
 
 and who have felt the difficulty of making the 
 founder of the sect of the Sadducees contem- 
 porary with John the Baptist, have adopted 
 the solution that there must have been two 
 Dosithei, both founders of Samaritan sects. 
 But we may safely say that there was but one 
 sect of Dositheans, and that there is no evid- 
 ence that any ancient wTiter believed that it 
 had at different times two heads bearing the 
 same name. Considering that the sect 
 claimed to have been more than a century old 
 when our earliest informants tried to get in- 
 formation about its founder, we need not be 
 surprised if the stories which they collected 
 contain many things legendary, and which 
 do not harmonise. Probably the Dositheans 
 were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic sect, 
 something akin to the Essenes, existing from 
 before our Lord's time, and the stories con- 
 necting their founder with Simon Magus and 
 with John the Baptist may be dismissed as 
 merely mythical. The fullest and ablest dis- 
 sertation on the Dositheans is that by Mosheim 
 {Institutiones Historiae Christianae majores, 
 1739, i- 376). Cf. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.- 
 Chr. Lit. Theol. pp. 152 f. [g.s.] 
 
 Dubhthach {Duach) (3), Mac Ui Lugair. 
 When St. Patrick had come to Tara and was 
 preaching before king Leogaire, we are told 
 that the only one who rose on the saint's 
 approach and respectfully saluted him was 
 Dubhthach, the king's poet, who was the first 
 to embrace the Christian faith in that place ; 
 and as Joceline says, " being baptized and 
 confirmed in the faith, he turned his poetry, 
 which in the flower and prime of his studies 
 he employed in praise of false gods, to a much 
 better use ; changing his mind and style, he 
 composed more elegant poems in praise of the 
 Almighty Creator and His holy preachers." 
 This was Dubhthach Mac Ui Lugair, descended 
 from Cormach Caech, son of Cucorb, in Lein- 
 ster. His name occupies a large space in 
 ancient Irish hagiology as a famous poet and 
 the ancestor of many well-known saints. He 
 was the teacher of St. Fiacc (Oct. 12) of Sletty, 
 and recommended him to St. Patrick for the 
 episcopate. [Fiacc] In the compilation of 
 the Seanchus Mor, said to have been carried 
 on under the auspices of St. Patrick, St. Dubh- 
 thach was one of the nine appointed to revise 
 the ancient laws. Colgan says he had in his 
 possession some of the poems of St. Dubhthach 
 {Tr. Thaum. 8 ns.) : the Poems of St. Dubhthach 
 are given in O'Donovan's Book of Rights, and 
 with translations and notes in Shearman's 
 Loca Patriciana. His dates are uncertain, 
 but his birth is placed after 370, his conversion 
 in 433, and his death perhaps after 479. See 
 Loca Patriciana, by the Rev. J. F. Shearman, 
 in Journ. Roy. Hist, and Arch. Assoc. Ir. 4 ser. 
 vols. ii. iii., with Mr. R. R. Brash's papers in 
 the same Journal, traversing several of Shear- 
 man's assertions ; Ware, Irish Writers, i ; 
 Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. vi. 409-412, and 
 Ind. Chron. a.d. 433 ; Todd, St. Patrick, 130, 
 
 424, 446. [j.G.] 
 
 Dubriclus, DubriO {Dibric, Dyfrig), arch-bp. 
 of Caerleon, one of the most distinguished 
 names in the story of king Arthur as related 
 by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Arthur makes 
 him archbp. of the city of Legions (Galf. Mon. 
 Hist. viii. 12) ; he crowns king Arthur (ix. i) ; 
 
DUBRICIUS, DUBRIC 
 
 makes an oration to the British army prior 
 to the battle of Badon (ix. 4) ; and is tlie 
 director of all the ecclesiastical pomp of the 
 court. He was grandson of Brychan kinp of 
 Brecknockshire, and two localities, vaguely 
 described as the banks of the (Iwain near 
 Fishguard and the banks of the Wye in Here- 
 fordshire, are claimed for his birthplace. 
 Rees decides in favour of the latter for the 
 following reasons. In the district of Erchen- 
 field, in the county of Hereford, are a church 
 (Whitchurch) and two chapels (Ballingham 
 and Hentland, subject to Lugwardine) dedi- 
 cated to Dubricius, and all of them near the 
 Wye. At Henllan (i.e. Old-church, now Hent- 
 land) he is said to have founded a college, and 
 to have remained seven years before removing 
 to Mochros much farther up the Wye, sup- 
 posed to be the present Moccas. In corrobo- 
 ration of this tradition there were lately re- 
 maining, says Rees, on a farm called Lanfrother 
 in Hentland, traces of former importance. 
 This author further suggests that St. Devereux, 
 seven miles to the west of Hereford, might 
 be a Norman rendering of Dubricius. Rees 
 grants, in support of Ussher, that he may have 
 been appointed bp. of Llandaff about a.d. 470, 
 and that he was raised by Ambrosius Aurehus, 
 the brother of Uther and uncle of Arthur, to 
 the archbishopric of Caerleon on the death of 
 Tremounos or Tremorius, a.d. 490. It does 
 not appear that Wales was then divided into 
 dioceses, or that there were any established 
 bishops' sees except Caerleon. The jurisdic- 
 tion of its archbishop, according to the rule 
 observable elsewhere in the empire, would be 
 co-extensive with the Roman province of 
 Britannia Secunda, and his suffragans were 
 so many chorepiscopi, without any settled 
 places of residence. The influence of Dub- 
 ricius and the liberality of Meurig ab Tewdrig 
 king of Glamorgan made the see of Llandaff 
 permanent ; whence Dubricius is said to have 
 been its first bishop. It appears, however, 
 that after promotion to the archbishopric of 
 Caerleon he still retained the bishopric of 
 Llandaff, where he mostly resided, and from 
 which he is called archbishop of Llandaff ; 
 but that the title belonged rather to Caerleon 
 is clear since upon his resignation David 
 became archbp. of Caerleon and Teilo bp. of 
 Llandaff. Dubricius is distinguished as the 
 founder of colleges ; and besides those on the 
 banks of the Wye already mentioned he 
 founded, or concurred in founding, the col- 
 legiate monasteries of Llancarvan, Caergor- 
 worn, and Caerleon. In his time the Pelagian 
 heresy, which had been once suppressed by 
 St. Germanus, had increased again to such a 
 degree as to require extraordinary efforts for 
 its eradication, and a synod of the whole 
 clergy of Wales was convened at Brcfi in 
 Card.iganshire. The distinction earned by 
 David on that occasion gave Dubricius an 
 excuse for laying down his office, and, worn 
 with years and longing for retirement, he 
 withdrew to a monastery in the island of 
 Enlli or Bardsey, where he died. Rees, who 
 puts the chronology of Dubricius and David 
 early, gives a.d. 522 for the date. He was 
 buried in the island, where his remains lay 
 undisturbed till a.d. 1120, when they were 
 removed by Urban bp. of Llandaff and in- 
 
 EBIONISM and EBIONITES 28.1 
 
 terred with great pomji in the new r.(the<lr.i! 
 which hari been rebuilt a short time before. 
 His death was commemorated on Nov. 4, and 
 his translation on May 29. The bones of the 
 saint were with great difTicultv discovered at 
 Bardsey, the oldest WTitings having to h« 
 searched, as recorded in the Liber Latulavemts 
 (ed. Rees, 1840, p. 320). Such in the main is 
 Rees's account of Dubricius (Essav on Ihe 
 Welsh Saints, 171-193). Of ancient materials 
 an anonymous \'ila in Wharton {Aupl. Sac. ii. 
 667) is important as having been evidently 
 compiled from earlier sources before the fables 
 of Geoffrey of Monmouth appeared. Bene- 
 dict of (;ioucester wrote his Vila (Anf;l. Sac. ii. 
 636) after Geoffrey. Capgrave has also a Life 
 {N. L. A. {. 87). For others see Hardv, Des. 
 Cat. i. 40-44. Haddan and Stubbs, Counctls, 
 i. 146, 147, should be consulted on Dubricius's 
 Llandaff bishopric, and on his connexion with 
 Archenfield or Hrchenfield ; likewise Stubbs 
 [Registrum, 154, 155) for the early and legend- 
 ary successions to Llandaff and Caerleon. Sec 
 also Ussher, Brit. Eccl. Antiq. Works, t. v. 
 510; Chron. Index, sub ann. 490, 512, 520- 
 522. In regard to the period of Dubricius, 
 
 authorities differ within limits similar to those 
 assigned to St. David. The A nnales Cambrtae 
 under a.d. 612 give the obit of Conthigirnus 
 and bp. Dibric, whom the editors of the Monu- 
 menta, with an " ut videtur," name bps. 
 Kentigern and Dubricius (M. H. B. 831). The 
 Liber Landavensis also (80) gives this date, 
 and it is adopted in Haddan and Stubbs (i. 
 146). Hardy (Des. Cat. i. 41) refers to Alford's 
 Annates, a.d. 436, ss. 2, 3, 4, for some critical 
 remarks on the probable chronology of the 
 life of Dubricius. [c.n.] 
 
 E 
 
 Ebionism and Ebionltes. The name Ebion- 
 ite first occurs in Irenaeus (c. 180-190). It 
 was repeated, probably from him, by Hippo- 
 lytus (c. 223-235) and Origen (t a.d. 234), who 
 first introduced an explanation of the name. 
 Others offered different explanations (.-./?. Eus. 
 fc. 340); while other writers fabricated a 
 leader, " Ebion," after whom the sect was 
 called (cf. Philastrius, Pseudo-Tertullian, 
 Pseudo- Jerome, Isidore of Spain, etc.). 
 
 These explanations owe their origin to the 
 tendency to carry back Ebionism, or the date 
 of its founder, as far as pcjssible. Thus the 
 " Ebionite " was (according to his own state- 
 ment) the " poor " man (P'??S), he who 
 voluntarily strove to practise the Master's 
 precept (Matt. x. 9) in Apostolic times (Acts 
 iv. 34-37 ; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. 17) ; 
 and the correctness of the etymology is not 
 shaken by the Patristic scorn which derived 
 the name from " poverty of intellect," or from 
 " low and mean opinions of Christ " (see Eus. 
 H. E. iii. 27 ; Origen, de Princ, and contr. Cel. 
 ii. c. 4 ; Ignat., l-.p- ad Philadelph. c. 6, longer 
 recension). " Ebion," first personified by Ter- 
 tuUian, was said to have been a pupil of 
 I Cerinthus, and the Gospel of St. John to have 
 j been directed against them both. St. Paul 
 and St. Luke were asserted to have spoken 
 I and written against Ebionites. The " Apos- 
 
284 
 
 EBIONISM and EBIONITES 
 
 tolical Constitutions " (vi. c. 6) traced them 
 back to Apostolic times ; Theodoret [Haer. 
 Fab. ii. c. 2) assigned them to the reign of 
 Domitian (a.d. 81-96). The existence of an 
 " Ebion " is, however, now surrendered. 
 Ebionism, like Gnosticism, had no special 
 founder ; but that its birthplace was the Holy 
 Land, and its existence contemporary with the 
 beginning of the Christian Church, is, with 
 certain reservations, probably correct. A ten- 
 dency to Ebionism existed from the first ; 
 gradually it assumed shape, and as gradually 
 developed into the two special forms presently 
 to be noticed. 
 
 The records of the church of Jerusalem con- 
 tained in Acts prove how strong was the zeal 
 for the Law of Moses among the Jewish con- 
 verts to Christianity. After the fall of Jeru- 
 salem (a.d. 70), the church was formed at Pella 
 under Symeon, and the Jewish Christians were 
 brought face to face with two leading facts : 
 firstly, that the temple being destroyed, and 
 the observance of the Law and its ordinances 
 possible only in part, there was valid reason 
 for doubting the necessity of retaining the 
 rest ; secondly, that if they adopted this 
 view, they must expect to find in the Jews 
 their most uncompromising enemies. As 
 Christians they had expected a judgment 
 predicted by Christ, and, following His advice, 
 had fled from the city. Both prediction and 
 act were resented by the Jews, as is shewn not 
 only by the contemptuous term (Minim) they 
 applied to the Jewish Christians (Gratz, 
 Gesch. d. Juden. iv. p. 89, etc.), but by the 
 share they took in the death of the aged bp. 
 Svmeon (a.d. 106). The breach was further 
 widened by the refusal of the Jewish Christians 
 to take part in the national struggles — notably 
 that of Bar-Cocheba (a.d. 132) — against the 
 Romans, by the tortures they suffered for 
 their refusal, and lastly, by the erection of 
 Aelia Capitolina (a.d. 138) on the ruins of 
 Jerusalem. The Jews were forbidden to enter 
 it, while the Jewish and Gentile Christians who 
 crowded there read in Hadrian's imperial de- 
 cree the abolition of the most distinctively 
 Jewish rites, and practically signified their 
 "assent by electing as their bishop a Gentile 
 and uncircumcised man — Mark (Eus. H. E. 
 iv. 6). Changes hitherto working gradually 
 now rapidly developed. Jewish Christians, 
 with predilections ftr Gentile Christianity and 
 its comparative freedom, found the way made 
 clear to them ; others, attempting to be both 
 Jews and Christians, ended in being neither, 
 and exposed themselves to the contempt of 
 Rabbin as well as Christian (Griitz, p. 433) ; 
 others receded farther from Christianity, and 
 approximated more and more closely to pure 
 Judaism. The Ebionites are to be ranked 
 among the last. By the time of Trajan (q6- 
 117) political events had given them a definite 
 organization, and their position as a sect op- 
 posed to Gentile Christianity became fixed b}' 
 the acts which culminated in the erection of 
 Aelia Capitolina. 
 
 The Ebionites were known by other names, 
 such as " Homuncionites " (Gk. " Anthro- 
 pians " or " Anthropolatrians ") from their 
 Christological views, " Peratici " from their 
 settlement at Peraea, and " Symmachians " 
 from the one able literary man among them 
 
 EBIONISM and EBIONITES 
 
 whose name has reached us. [Sy.mmachus (2).] 
 Acquaintance with Hebrew was then confined 
 to a few, and his Greek version of O.T. was 
 produced for the benefit of those who declined 
 the LXX adopted by the orthodox Christians, 
 or the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodo- 
 tion accepted by the Jews. Many, if not 
 most, of the improvements made by the Vul- 
 gate on the LXX are due to the Ebionite 
 version (Field, Origenis Hexaplarum quae 
 supersxmt, Preface). 
 
 Ebionism presents itself under two principal 
 types, an earlier and a later, the former usually 
 designated Ebionism proper or Pharisaic 
 Ebionism, the latter, Essene or Gnostic Ebion- 
 ism. The earlier type is to be traced in the 
 writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippo- 
 lytus, Tertuilian, etc. ; the latter in those of 
 Epiphanius especially. 
 
 (a) Ebionism Proper. — The term expresses 
 
 ; conveniently the opinions and practices of the 
 descendants of the Judaizers of the Apostolic 
 
 I age, and is very little removed from Judaism. 
 Judaism was to them not so much a prepara- 
 tion for Christianity as an institution eternally 
 good in itself, and but slightly modified in 
 Christianity. Whatever merit Christianity 
 had, it possessed as the continuation and 
 supplement of Judaism. The divinity of the 
 Old Covenant was the only valid guarantee 
 for the truth of the New. Hence such Ebion- 
 ites tended to exalt the Old at the expense of 
 the New, to magnify Moses and the Prophets, 
 and to allow Jesus Christ to be " nothing more 
 than a Solomon or a Jonas " (Tertull. de Came 
 Christi, c. 18). Legal righteousness was to 
 them the highest type of perfection ; the 
 earthly Jerusalem, in spite of its destruction, 
 was an object of adoration " as if it were the 
 house of God " (Iren. adv. Haer. i. c. 22 [al. 
 c. 26]) ; its restoration would take place in the 
 millennial kingdom of Messiah, and the Jews 
 would return there as the manifestly chosen 
 people of God. The Ebionites divided the 
 life of Jesus Christ into two parts — one 
 preceding, the other following. His Baptism. 
 In common with Cerinthus and Carpocrates, 
 they represented Him to have been " the 
 Son of Joseph and .Mary according to the 
 ordinary course of human generation " (Iren. 
 I.e.). They denied His birth of a Virgin, 
 translating the original word in Isa. vii. 14 not 
 ■jrapOei'os, but fedvLs. He was " a mere man, 
 nothing more than a descendant of David, and 
 not also the Son of God " (Tert. c. 14). But 
 at His Baptism a great change took place. The 
 event is described in the " Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews " current among them, and the 
 description is an altered expansion of the 
 record of St. Matthew (iii. 13, 14). The Voice 
 from heaven spake not only the words recorded 
 by the Evangelist, but also the words, " This 
 day have I begotten Thee " (Ps. ii. 7). A 
 great light suddenly filled the place. John 
 the Baptist asked, " Who art Thou, I,ord ? " 
 and the Voice answered as before. John 
 prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus, " I 
 pray Thee, Lord, baptize me," but Jesus for- 
 bade him, saying, "Suffer it to be so," etc., etc. 
 (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13). The day of Baptism 
 was thus the day of His " anointing by election 
 and then becoming Christ " (cf. Justin Martyr. 
 Dial. c. Try ph. c. xlix.), it was the turning- 
 
EBIONISM and EBIONITES 
 
 pi)iiit iu the lid' of Jesus : from that moment 
 He was endued with iiower necessary to fill 
 His mission as Messiah ; but He was still 
 man. The Ebionites knew nothing of either 
 pre-existence or divinity in connexion with 
 Him. They are said to have freed themselves 
 from the common Jewish notion that the 
 Messiah was to be an earthly king ; they were 
 not shocked, as were so many of the Jews, at 
 the humbleness of the birth, the sufferings, and 
 crucifixion of Jesus; but they agreed with 
 them in looking upon the advent of Messiah 
 as future, and in deferring the restitution of 
 all thuigs to the millennium. The Ebionites 
 proper insisted that the Law should be strictly 
 observed not only by themselves but by all. 
 They quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. v. 17), 
 and pointed to His practice (cf. Matt. xxvi. 
 55 ; John vii. 14, etc.). It was the natural 
 tendency of this view to diminish the value of 
 faith in Christ and a corresponding life. Of 
 far greater moment to them, and as necessary 
 to salvation, was the due observance of cir- 
 cumcision, the sabbath, the distinction be- 
 tween clean and unclean food, the sacrificial 
 offerings — probably with the later Pharisaic 
 additions (cf. Eus. H.E. vi. 17) — and the 
 refusal of fellowship or hospitality to the 
 Gentiles (cf. Justin, c. xlvii.). They even 
 quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. x. 24, 25) 
 as their warrant, and affirmed their motto to 
 be : " We also would be imitators of Christ " 
 (Origen, quoted by Schliemann). Jesus, they 
 asserted, " was justified by fulfilling the Law. 
 He was the Christ of God, since not one of the 
 rest of mankind had observed the Law com- 
 pletely. Had any one else fulfilled the com- 
 mandments of the Law, he would have been 
 the Christ." Hence " when Ebionites thus 
 fulfil the law, they are able to become Christs " 
 (Hippolytus, Rejiit. Omn. Haer. vii. 34). 
 
 As might be expected, the Apostle Paul was 
 especially hateful to them. They repudiated 
 his official character, they reviled him person- 
 ally. In language which recalls that of the 
 Judaizers alluded to in Corinthians and Gala- 
 tians, they represented him as a teacher 
 directly opposed to SS. Peter, James, and 
 J ohn ; they repudiated his Apostolical author- 
 ity because (as they affirmed) he had not been 
 " called of Jesus Christ Himself," nor trained 
 in the Church of Jerusalem. They twisted 
 into a defamatory application to himself his 
 employment of the term " deceiver" (H. Cor. 
 vi. 8) ; he was himself one of the " many 
 which corrupted the word of God" (ii. 17) ; 
 he proclaimed " deliverance from the Law " 
 only "to please men" (GaL i. 10) and "com- 
 mend himself " (IL Cor. iii. i). His personal 
 character was held up to reproach as that of 
 one who " walked according to the flesh " 
 (x. 2), puffed up with pride, marked by levity 
 of purpose (iii. i) and even by dishonesty (vii. 
 2). They rejected his epistles, not on the 
 ground of authenticity, but as the work of an 
 " apostate from the Law " (Eus. iii. c. 27 ; 
 Iren. I.e.). They even asserted that by birth 
 he was not a Jew, but a Gentile (wresting his 
 words in Acts xxi. 39) who had become a 
 proselyte in the hope of marrying the High 
 Priest's daughter, but that having failed in 
 this he had severed himself from the Jews and 
 occupied himself in writing against circum- 
 
 EBIONISM and EBIONITES 285 
 
 cisioii and the observance of the sabbath 
 (Epiph. adv. Haer. \. xxx. 16, 25). 
 
 In common with the Nazarcnes and the 
 Gnostic-Ebionitcs, the Pharisaic libionitts 
 used a recension of the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
 which they termed the " gospel according to 
 the Hebrews." It was a Chaldec version 
 written in Hebrew letters, afterwards trans- 
 lated into Clreek and Latin by Jerome, who 
 declared it identical with the " gosjiel of the 
 Twelve Apostles " and the " gospel of the 
 Nazarenes " (see Herzog, Real-Encyklopddie, 
 " Apokryphen d. N. Test." p. 520, ed. 1877). 
 In the Ebionitc " gospel " the section corre- 
 sponding to the first two chapters of St. Matt, 
 was omitted, the supernatural character of 
 the narrative being contradictory to their 
 views about the person of Jesus Christ. It is 
 difficult to say with certainty what other 
 books of the N.T. were known to them ; but 
 there is reason to believe that they (as also 
 the Gnostic-Ebionites) were familiar with the 
 Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke. The exist- 
 ence among them of the " Protevangelium 
 Jacobi" and the Wefiodoi too 1 If rpoe indicates 
 their respect for those Apostles. 
 
 (b) Essene or Gnostic Ebiouisni. — This, as the 
 name indicates, was a type of Ebionism affect- 
 ed by external influences. The characteristic 
 features of the ascetic Essenes were reproduced 
 in its practices, and the traces of influences 
 more directly mystical and oriental were 
 evident in its doctrines. The different phases 
 through which Ebionism passed at different 
 times render it, however, difticult to distin- 
 guish clearly in every case between Gnostic 
 and Pharisaic Ebionism. Epiphanius (adv. 
 Haer. xxx.) is the chief authority on the 
 Gnostic Ebionites. He met them in Cyprus, 
 and personallv obtained information about 
 them (cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik 
 d. Epiphanios, pp. 138, 143, 150 etc.). 
 
 Their principal tenets were as follows : 
 Christianity they identified with primitive re- 
 ligion or genuine Mosaism, as distinguished 
 from what they termed accretions to Mosaism, 
 or the post-Mosaic developments described in 
 the later books of O.T. To carry out this 
 distinction they fabricated two classes of 
 " prophets," Tr/JO^T/Tai dXrjtkiai, and irpo(pr,Tai 
 (TiWo-ews oi'K dXTjOeias- In the former class 
 they placed Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, 
 Jacob, Aaron, Moses, and Jesus ; in the latter 
 David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. In 
 the same spirit they accepted the Pentateuch 
 alone among the O.T. writings, and emascu- 
 lated it ; rejecting whatever reflected ques- 
 tionably upon their favourites. They held 
 that there were two antagonistic powers ap- 
 pointed by God — Christ and devil; to the 
 former was allotted the world to come, to 
 the latter the present world. The conception 
 of Christ was variously entertained. Some 
 affirmed that He was created (not born) of the 
 Father, a Spirit, and higher than the angels ; 
 that He had the power of coming to this earth 
 when He .would, and in various modes of 
 manifestation ; that He had been incarnate 
 in Adam, and had appeared to the patriarchs 
 in bodilv shape ; others identified Adam and 
 Christ. In these last days He had come in 
 the person of Jesus. Jesus was therefore to 
 them a successor of Moses, and not of higher 
 
286 
 
 EBtONiSM and EBIONITES 
 
 authority. They quoted from their gospel a 
 saying attributed to Him, " I am He concern- 
 ing Whom Moses prophesied, saying, A pro- 
 phet shall the Lord God raise unto you like 
 unto me," etc. {Clem. Horn. iii. c. 53), and this 
 was enough to identify His teaching with that 
 of genuine Mosaism. But by declining to fix 
 the precise moment of the union of the Christ 
 with the man Jesus — a union assigned by 
 Pharisaic Ebionites to the hour of Baptism — 
 they admitted His miraculous origin. 
 
 In pursuance of their conception that the 
 devil was the " prince of this world " they 
 were strict ascetics. They abjured flesh-meat, 
 repudiating passages {e.g. Gen. xviii. 8) which 
 contradicted their view ; they refused to taste 
 wine, and communicated with unleavened 
 bread and water. Water was to them " in 
 the place of a god " ; ablutions and lustra- 
 tions were imperative and frequent. But they 
 held the married life in honour, and recom- 
 mended early marriages. To the observance 
 of the Jewish sabbath they added that of 
 the Christian Lord's day. Circumcision was 
 sacred to them from the practice of the patri- 
 archs and of Jesus Christ ; and thev declined 
 all fellowship with the uncircumcised, but 
 repudiated the sacrifices of the altar and the 
 reverence of the Jew for the Temple. In 
 common with the Ebionites proper, they 
 detested St. Paul, rejected his epistles, and 
 circulated stories discreditable to him. The 
 other Apostles were known to them by their 
 writings, which they regarded as inferior to 
 their own gospel. 
 
 The conjecture appears not improbable that 
 as the siege of Jerusalem under Titus gave an 
 impetus to Ebionism proper, so the ruin under 
 Hadrian developed Gnostic Ebionism. Not 
 that Gnosticism began then to affect it for the 
 first time, but that Gnostic ideas hitherto held 
 in solution were precipitated and found a 
 congenial home among men who through 
 contact with oriental systems in Svria were 
 already predisposed to accept them (cf. 
 Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, lect. viii.). 
 This is further evident from the book of El- 
 chasai and the Clementine literature. These 
 works are the production of the Essene Ebion- 
 ites ; and where they speak of Jesus Christ 
 and His Apostles, His sayings and their lives, 
 they do so, not in the words of the canonical 
 Gospels and Epistles, but with additions or 
 omissions, and a colouring which transforms 
 {e.g.) St. Peter, St. Matthew, and St. James 
 the Just into Essenes, and yet with that 
 Gnostic tendency of thought which makes 
 them lineal descendants of the Judaizers who 
 imperilled the church at Colossae. (See 
 Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 73, etc., znd Essenism 
 and Christianity, p. 397, etc.) 
 
 The Essene or Gnostic-Ebionites differed 
 from the Pharisaic Ebionites in another re- 
 spect. By missionary zeal, as well as by 
 hterary activity, they sought to obtain con- 
 verts to their views. In the earlier part 
 of the 3rd cent, the Ebionite Alcibiades of 
 Apamea (Syria) repaired to Rome. He 
 brought with him the book of Elchasai, and 
 " preached unto men a new remission of sins 
 (proclaimed) in the third year of Trajan's 
 reign " (a.d. ioi). Hippolytus, who gives an 
 account of the matter [Haer. ix. c. viii. etc., 
 
 EBIONISM and EBIONITES 
 
 ed. Clark), exposed the decided antinomianism 
 which penetrated the teaching of the mythical 
 teacher and of the pupil, but it is evident that 
 many " became victims of the delusion." The 
 immorality which the book — in imitation of 
 the teaching of Callistus — indirectly encour- 
 aged probably attracted some, but would dis- 
 credit the dogmatic views of the missionary. 
 
 Ebionite Christianity did not, however, last 
 very long, neither did it exercise much influ- 
 ence west of Syria while it lasted. In Pales- 
 tine the discomfiture accorded to " a certain 
 one " (probably Alcibiades) who came to 
 Caesarea c. a.d. 247 maintaining the " ungodly 
 and wicked error of the Elkesaites " (Eus. 
 vi. 38 ; cf. Redepenning, Origines, ii. p. 72) 
 was in keeping with the reception accorded to 
 less extreme Ebionite views from the time of 
 the reconstitution of the mother-church at 
 Aelia Capitolina. Judaism of every kind 
 gradually passed out of favour. The attitude 
 of the bishops of Palestine in the Paschal con- 
 troversy of the 2nd cent, was that of men who 
 wished to stand clear of any sympathy with 
 Jewish customs; the language of Justin 
 Mart>T and of Hegesippus was the language 
 of the representatives of the Samaritan and 
 the Hebrew Christianity of the day, not of the 
 Ebionite. Outside of Palestine Ebionism had 
 even less chance of survival. From the very 
 first, the instructions and memories of St. Paul 
 and St. John excluded it from Asia Minor ; in 
 Antioch the names of Ignatius, Theophilus, 
 and Serapion were vouchers for Catholic doc- 
 trine and practice ; and the daughter-churches 
 of Gaul and Alexandria naturally preferred 
 doctrine supplied to them by teachers trained 
 in the school of these Apostles. Even in the 
 church of Rome, whatever tendency existed 
 in Apostolic times towards Ebionism, the 
 separation — also in Apostolic times— of the 
 Judaizers was the beginning of the end which 
 no after-amalgamation under Clement could 
 retard. The tone of the Shepherd of Hernias 
 — a work which emanated from the Roman 
 church during the first half of the 2nd cent. 
 (see Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 99, n. 3) — however 
 different from the tone of Clement and St. Paul, 
 is not Ebionite, as a comparison with another 
 so-called Roman and certainly later Ebionite 
 work — the Clementine writings — shews. The 
 end of Ebionism had actually ccme in the 
 Roman church when in the 2nd cent. Jewish 
 practices — notably as regards the observance 
 of Easter — were unhesitatingly rejected. The 
 creed of the Christian in Rome was the creed 
 which he held from Irenaeus in Gaul and 
 Polycarp in Asia Minor, and not from the 
 Ebionite. When the above-named Alcibiades 
 appeared in Rome (a.d. 219), Hippolytus de- 
 nounced his teaching (that of Elchasai) as that 
 of " a wolf risen up against many wandering 
 sheep, whom Callistus had scattered abroad " : 
 it came upon him as a novelty ; it had " risen 
 up," he says, " in our own day " {Haer. ix. 
 cc. 8, 12). This language is a proof of the 
 oblivion which had certainly befallen any 
 previous propagation of Ebionism in Rome. 
 
 For 200 years more Ebionism — especially 
 of the Essene form — lingered on. A few 
 Ebionites were left in the time of Theodoret, 
 about the middle of 5th cent. ; the rest had 
 returned to strict Judaism and the utter re- 
 
EDESIUS 
 
 jection of Christianity, or to a puror Cbris- 
 tianity than that which Ebionism favouroci. 
 
 The Patristic notices on the Ebionites will 
 be found in the works referred to (cf. on their 
 value, R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen d. altestcn 
 Ketzergeschichte, 1875). The literature on the 
 subject is further collected by {int. al.) Schlie- 
 mann, Die Clementinen (1844) ; Ritschl, Die 
 Entstehung d. alt-katholischen Kirche (1857) ; 
 Lightfoot. Galatians, Dissertation III. St. Paul 
 and the' Three (1876). [j.m.f.] 
 
 Edesius (3) shared the romantic fortunes of 
 his brother Frumentius, the first bp. of Aiix- 
 lunis (Axuni), in the 4th cent. Tlie bio- 
 grai^hical details at our disposal consist of a 
 lengthy narrative, introduced, on the authority 
 of Edesius, by Rutinus into his Ecclesiastical 
 History (lib. i. 9). This narrative has been 
 copied, with slight deviations, by Socrates 
 (//. E. i. 19), Sozomen (ii 24), and Theodoret 
 (i. 23, 24). Cf. also Baronias {Ann. 327, 
 viii. ix. X.). Frumentius and Edesius, the 
 young relatives of Meropius, a Syrian philo- 
 sopher (merchant), accompanied him on a 
 voyage of adventure to India. On their re- 
 turn to Phoenicia by way of the Red Sea, they 
 landed " at a certain port," where there was 
 " a safe haven," and there suffered from the 
 barbarous assault of the " Indians," who 
 murdered all the ship's company except the 
 two youths, who were conveyed as prizes to 
 the king. He appointed F'rumcntius and 
 Edesius as his treasurer and cup-bearer re- 
 spectively. By their means Christianity was 
 introduced among " the Indians." Their 
 names in Ethiopian documents given by Lu- 
 dolf {Hist. Eth. iii. 2) are Fremonatos and Syd- 
 vacus (cf. (iesenius, Aethiop. Kirche in Ersch 
 and Gruber, and Hoffmann in Herzog's 
 Encyc). The word " India" is used with the 
 same indefiniteness as are Ethiopia and Libya 
 elsewhere. From the times of Aristotle to 
 those of Eratosthenes and of Hipparchus, 
 India and Africa were believed to unite at 
 some unknown point S. of the Indian Ocean 
 {Diet. Aiic. Geogr. vol. ii. p. 4.5, art. "India " ; 
 Pliny, vi. 22-24). These " Indians " were 
 Abyssinians, as we see from the subsequent 
 career of Frumentius. The king, according 
 to Ludolf's Ethiopian Codex, was called 
 Abreha, and on drawing near his end, offered 
 their liberty to the two youths. The queen - 
 mother earnestly besought them to remain, to 
 undertake the education of the young prince 
 Erazanes, and to assist her in the regency 
 during his minority. They consented, and 
 lost no opportunity of diffusing a knowledge 
 of Christ. They sought out Christian mer- 
 chants trading in the country, gathered 
 Christian disciples, and built houses of prayer, 
 " that worship might be offered, and the 
 Roman ecclesiastical routine observed " (Soz. 
 I.e.). They were not in orders, and Frumen- 
 tius went to Alexandria and asked for a bishop 
 to be sent to .Abyssinia. Athanasius conse- 
 crated Frumentius himself. Edesius remained 
 at T\Te and became a presbyter of the church 
 there, where Rufinus met him. [ii.r.r.] 
 
 Elagabalus. The short reign of this feeble 
 and profligate emperor, though not coming 
 into direct contact with the history of the 
 Christian church, is not without interest as a 
 phase of the religious condition of the empire. 
 
 ELESBAAN 
 
 287 
 
 \'arius Avitus Bassianus, as he was named 
 at his birth, was of Phoenician descent, and 
 born at Eniesa, in Syria, c. a.d. 205. His 
 mother, Julia Soemia, and aunt, Julia Mani- 
 maea, were devoted to the worship of El-gahal 
 ( = r.od the Creator, or, according to li-ss 
 probable etymology, God of the Mountains), 
 and he and his cousin Alexander Severus were 
 in early childhood consecrated as priests of 
 that deity, and the young Bassianus took the 
 name of the god to whom he ministered. 
 
 J ulia Mammaea had eclectic tendencies, and 
 by her invitation the great Origm came to 
 .\ntioch (iirobably, lu)wever, after the death 
 of Elagabalus), and was received with many 
 marks of honour. Eusebius, whii relates the 
 fact {H. E. vi. 21), speaks of her as a woman 
 of exceptional piety (-yecTj Ofo<T(ti«TTdTri t'. Kai 
 Tis dWi) yfyovvia), and we may trace her 
 influence in the character of her son Alexander 
 Severus. [Severus (2).] After spending 
 some time at Nicomedia, where he entered on 
 his second consulship, Elagabalus proceeded 
 in A.D. 219 (the year in which Callistus suc- 
 ceeded Zephyrinus as bp. of Rome) to the 
 capital. His short reign there was a frenzy 
 of idolatrous impurity. His jealousy and 
 suspicion led him to imprison Alexander 
 Severus, whose virtue attracted the admira- 
 tion both of soldiers and people, and whom, 
 at his mother's advice, he had adojUed and 
 proclaimed as Caesar soon after arriving in 
 Rome. The troops rose and rescued their 
 favourite. The two sisters, each with her 
 son, appeared at the head of their supporters, 
 and the followers of Severus were victorious. 
 Soemia and the boy-emperor were thrown into 
 the Tiber (hence the epithet Tiberinus after- 
 wards attached to him in derision), and the 
 senate branded his name with eternal infamy. 
 Dio. Cass. Ixxvii. 30-41, Ixxix. ; Herodian, 
 v. 4-23 ; Lamprid. Elagab. ; Capitt>lin. 
 Macrinus ; Eutrop. viii. 13 ; Aurel. Victor, 
 de Caes. xxiii., Epit. xxiii.) [e.ii.p.] 
 
 Elesbaan, a king, hermit, and saint of 
 Ethiopia during the 6th cent. (Rome, Oct. 27 ; 
 Ethiopia, Ginbot, xx. May 15 ; cf. Ludolphus, 
 p. 415), whose exact story is difficult to trace. 
 (Cf. Ludolphus, History of Ethiopia, ed. 1684, 
 p. 167 ; Lebeau, Histoire du lias Empire, ed. 
 1827 viii. 47, note 4; Walch, in Novi Cotn- 
 mentarii Soe. Reg. Gottingeu. t. iv. ; Histurta 
 Rerum in Homeritide Saec. vi. Gestarum, p. 4.) 
 The importance of the crusades on which his 
 fame rests is attested by tlibbon, who asserts 
 that, had their purpose been attained, " Ma- 
 homet must have been crushed in his cradle, 
 and Abyssinia would have prevented a re- 
 volution which has changed the civil and re- 
 ligious state of the world " {Decline and Eall, 
 c. xlii. sub fin.). The details of the saint's 
 wars and character are drawn from the Acta 
 S. Arethae, extant in two forms: the earlier 
 and more authentic, found by Lequien in the 
 Colbert Library (Oriens Christianus, ii. 428), 
 is referred by the Jesuit author of the Ada 
 Sanctorum to the 7th cent, at latest ; the 
 later is, at best, but the recension of Simeon 
 Metaphrastes, in the loth cent. 
 
 It was probably during the later years of 
 Anastasius's reign that Elesbaan succeeded 
 his father Tazena on the throne of Ethiopia. 
 His kingdom was greatly dependent for its 
 
288 
 
 elesbaan 
 
 welfare upon the goodwill and good order of 
 the people of Yemen, the Homeritae, from 
 whom it was separated by the narrow strait 
 of Bab-el-Mandeb : for though the territory 
 of the Homeritae the merchants of Syria and 
 of Rome came to the great port of Adulis (cf. 
 Assemani Bibl. Orientalis, i. p. 360), near 
 whose ruins in Annesley Bay the Arabian 
 traders still unlade their ships (cf. Henry Salt, 
 A Voyage to Abyssinia, c. ix. p. 451)- When 
 Elesbaan succeeded, the Homeritae had great- 
 ly obscured the Christianity which they had 
 received in the reign of Constantius, but the 
 language of Cosraas Indicopleustes (Migne, 
 Patr. Gk. vol. Ixxxviii. p. 170) shews that it 
 was not wholly extinct. The name of their 
 king is variously written Dunaan and Dhu 
 Nowas ; by John of Asia as Dimion ; by 
 Theophanes as Damian. He had been made 
 king c. 490, by the people whom he had freed 
 from their gross tjTant Laknia Dhu Sjenatir ; 
 and having shortly after his accession forsworn 
 idolatry and embraced Judaism, determined 
 to enforce his new creed with the sword (cf. 
 Acta Sanctorum, Oct. vol. x. p. 693). In 
 retaliation for the sufferings of the Jews 
 throughout the Christian empire, he exacted 
 heavy tolls from all Christian merchants who 
 came through his territory to the port of Aden 
 and the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, and, 
 according to John of Asia (cf. Assemani, Bibl. 
 Orientalis, i. 360), put many Christians to death. 
 Such action was injurious to the commerce 
 of all the neighbouring peoples, but especially 
 of Ethiopia ; and Elesbaan soon after his 
 accession sent a useless remonstrance, and then 
 prepared for war. About a.d. 519 he crossed 
 the straits, utterly defeated the Arabian 
 forces, and driving the Jew to refuge in the 
 hills, left a viceroy to bear Christian rule over 
 the Homeritae and returned to Ethiopia 
 (ib. p. 362). The time of this expedition is 
 incidentally and approximately marked by 
 Cosmas Indicopleustes, who tells us that he 
 was at Adulis " iv ry dpxv rfjs [iaffLXeias 'lovcr- 
 TLVov Tov 'Piiifiaiwv jiacxiXeuis" (a.d. 518-527), 
 when the king of the people of Axum, being 
 about to war against the Homeritae, sent to 
 ask the governor of Adulis for a copy of a 
 certain inscription ; which copj' Cosmas and 
 another monk were charged to make (Migne, 
 Patr. Gk. vol. Ixxxviii. p. 102). 
 
 The death of the viceroy, probably in a.d. 
 522 or 523, whom Elesbaan had left in Yemen, 
 encouraged Dhu Nowas to come down from 
 his hiding-place in the hills (" tanquam 
 daemon carne indutus," Acta Sanctorum, Oct. 
 xii. 316), and reassert himself as king of the 
 Homeritae and champion of J udaism. Choos- 
 ing a season when the Arabian Gulf would be 
 an impassable barrier to the inter%-ention of 
 Elesbaan, he gathered a force which presently 
 numbered 120,000 men and, having put to 
 death all Christians whom he could find and 
 turned their church into a synagogue, pressed 
 on to Negran, the head-quarters of the 
 Ethiopian vice-royalty, then held by Arethas 
 the phylarch. He found the garrison fore- 
 warned and the gates closed ; nor were they 
 opened at his threats, when coming to the 
 wall and holding up a wooden cross he swore 
 that all who would not blaspheme the Crucified 
 and insult the sign of His suffering should die. 
 
 ELESBAAN 
 
 .\i last by treachery Dhu Nowas won an 
 ■ entrance, promising to hurt none of the 
 citizens and only demanding an exorbitant 
 i tribute; but having entered, he began at once 
 I the reckless massacre which has left its mark 
 I even in the Koran (cf. Walch's paper in the 
 Gottingen Commentarii, p. 25). Arethas and 
 1 Ruma his wife died with a defiant confession 
 ' on their lips ; more than 4,000 Christian men, 
 ! women, and children were killed (commem- 
 I orated in the Roman calendar on Oct. 24) ; 
 and from the fiery dyke into which the victims 
 ; were thrown, Dhu Nowas received the name 
 ! Saheb-el-Okhdud (" Lord of the Trench "). At 
 this time, probably in Jan. 524, Simeon, bp. 
 of Beth-Arsam, had been sent by the emperor 
 i Justin, together with Abraham, a priest of 
 I Constantinople, to gain the alliance of Mund- 
 hir III., king of the Arabians of Hira, a friend 
 valuable alike for reasons of commerce and in 
 regard to the war with Persia. As the ambas- 
 sadors drew near the king (the story is told by 
 Simeon in a letter to the abbat of Gabula), 
 I they were met by a crowd of Arabs crying that 
 Christ was driven out of Rome and Persia and 
 i Homeritis ; and they learnt that messengers 
 were present from Dhu Nowas with letters to 
 king Mundhir, in which they heard the long 
 ! recital of the treachery by which Negran had 
 been taken, of the insult to the bishop's tomb, 
 of the slaughter of the Christians and the 
 triumph of Judaism, the confession of the 
 martvr Arethas, and the speech of Ruma 
 urging the women of Negran to follow her to 
 the abiding city of the divine Bridegroom, 
 praying that the blood of the mart\T:s might 
 be the wall of Negran while it continued in the 
 faith, and that she might be forgiven for that 
 Arethas had died first. They heard of her 
 ( brutal murder, and the appeal of Dhu Nowas 
 i that Mundhir should at once enact a like 
 massacre throughout his kingdom. Their 
 1 own end must have seemed very near ; but 
 1 the courage of a soldier who stood forth as 
 I spokesman of the many Christians in Mund- 
 I hir's army decided the hesitation of the king, 
 and the ambassadors went away unhurt (but 
 apparentlv unanswered) to Naaman, a port in 
 the Arabian Gulf. There they heard more 
 fully the story of the massacre, and especially 
 of the constancy of a boy, who was afterwards 
 known to the bp. of Asia at Justinian's 
 court. Simeon of Beth-Arsam thus closes his 
 letter, praying that the news may be spread 
 throughout the church and the martyrs re- 
 ceive the honour of commemoration, and that 
 the king of Ethiopia may be urged to help 
 the Homeritae against the oppression of the 
 Jew (cf. Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 364-379)- 
 When this message reached Elesbaan, it was 
 reinforced by a letter from Justin, elicited by 
 the entreaties of Dous Ibn Dzi Thaleban, one 
 of the few Christians who had escaped Dhu 
 Nowas (cf. Wright, Early Christianity in 
 Arabia, p. 56). This letter is given in the 
 Acta S. Arethae ; where also it is told how the 
 patriarch of Alexandria, at the request of 
 Justin, urged Elesbaan to invade Yemen, 
 offering up a litanv and appointing a vigil on 
 his behalf, and sending to him the Eucharist 
 in a silver vessel. Without delay Elesbaan 
 collected a great army, which he divided into 
 two parts ; 15,000 men he sent southwards 
 
ELESBAAN 
 
 to cross at Bab-el-M.iiuK'b aiul, niarrliinp 
 through Yemen, di%'crt the strength of Dhii 
 Nowas's forces from the main body of the 
 Ethiopians, which Elesbaan intended to semi 
 by sea to some place on the S. coast of Arabia. 
 For the transport of these latter he appro- 
 priated 60 merchant vessels then anchored in 
 his ports, adding ten more, built after the 
 native fashion, the planks being held together 
 by ropes. On the eve of the enterprise he 
 went in procession to the great church of 
 Axum, and there, laying aside his royalty, 
 sued in forma paufycris for the favour of Him 
 Whose war he dared to wage ; praying that 
 his sins might be visited on himself, and not 
 on his peojUe. Then he sought the blessing, 
 counsel, and prayers of St. I'antaleon ; and 
 received from within the doorless and window- 
 less tower, where the hermit had lived for 45 
 years, the answer: "'Earu) avv coi 6 (yvfj.- 
 paoiXevwt' aoi." Thus the army was sent on 
 its twofold route. 
 
 For the 15,000 Bab-el-Mandeb was indeed 
 a gate of tears : they died of hunger, wander- 
 ing in the desert. The main body was safely 
 embarked, and sailed S. down the Gulf of 
 Arabia towards the straits ; which Dhu Nowas 
 had barred by a huge chain, stretched across 
 the space of two furlongs from side to side. 
 Over this, however, first ten ships and then 
 seven more, including that of the Ethiopian 
 admiral, were lifted by the wa\es ; the rest 
 were driven back by stress of weather, but 
 presently, the chain being, according to one 
 account, broken, forced the passage, and 
 passing the other seventeen, cast anchor 
 farther along the coast. Meanwhile Dhu 
 Nowas, ha\'ing first encamped on the W. shore, 
 where he thought his chain would force the 
 Ethiopians to land, hurried from his position, 
 and leaving but a few men to resist the 
 smaller fleet, watched with his main army 
 the movements of the rest. Those on the 
 17 ships under the Ethiopian admiral easily 
 effected a landing near Aden, and defeating the 
 troops opposed to them, pressed on to the 
 chief city, Taphar, or Taphran, which sur- 
 rendered immediately (cf. Wright, op. cit. 
 58-60). Discouraged by this disaster, the 
 main body of the Arabians offered a feeble 
 resistance ; and Dhu Nowas saw that his 
 downfall was very near. According to the 
 Arabian historians, he threw himself from the 
 cliff and died in the waves ; according to the 
 Acta S. Arethae, he bound his seven kinsmen 
 in chains, and fastened them to his throne, 
 lest they should fail to share his fate ; and so 
 awaited death at Elcsbaan's own hand. The 
 Arabic writers are unsupported in their story 
 of the useless resistance of a successor Dhu 
 Ciadan ; it was probably at the death of Dhu 
 Nowas that the kingdom of the Homeritae 
 ended, and Yemen became a province of 
 Ethiopia. At Taphar Elesbaan is said to have 
 built a church, digging the foundations for 
 seven days with his own hands ; and from 
 Taphar he wrote of his victory to the patriarch 
 of Alexandria. A bishop was sent from 
 Alexandria and appointed to the see of Ne- 
 gran, but there are doubts as to both the 
 orthodoxy and identity of this bishop. The 
 king restored Negran, entrusting it to Are- 
 tbas's son, rebuilding and endowing the 
 
 ELESBAAN 2S0 
 
 great chur» li, and granting i..r|utii.il ri^;ht of 
 asylum to the jilare where the bodies «>( the 
 martyrs had lain, and then returned to Ethionia 
 (Boll. .-ff/aSi.Oct.xii. 322), leaving a Christian 
 Arab nametl Esimiphacus or .-Vriathus, to be 
 his viceroy over the conquered pcojile. A part 
 of Elcsbaan's army, however, refused to leave 
 the luxury of Arabia Felix, and not long 
 after set up as rival to lisimiphaeus one 
 Abrahah or Abraham, the Christian slave of a 
 Roman merchant, who was strong enough to 
 shut up the viceroy in a ft)rt and seize the 
 throne of Yemen. A fttrce of 3,000 men was 
 sent by Elesbaan, under a prince of his house, 
 wjiom some call Aryates or Arethas, to depose 
 the usurper ; and it seems that Abrahah, like 
 Dim Nowas, sought safety among the moun- 
 tains. But he soon (c. 540) came down and 
 confronted the representative of Elesbaan ; 
 and at the critical moment the Ethiopian 
 troops deserted and murdered their general. 
 To maintain his supremacy and avenge his 
 kinsman, Elesbaan sent a second army ; but 
 this, loyally fighting with Abrahah, was 
 utterly defeated, and only a handful of men 
 returned to Ethiopia. The Arabic historians 
 record that Elesbaan swore to yet lay hold of 
 the land of the Homeritae, both mountain 
 and plain, pluck the forelock from the rebel's 
 head, and take his blood as the price of Ary- 
 ates's death ; and they tell of the mixed 
 cunning and cowardice by which Abrahah 
 satisfied the Ethiopian's oath, and evaded his 
 anger, winning at last a recognition of his 
 dignity. Procopius adds that Abrahah paid 
 tribute to Elcsbaan's successor ; and the 
 Homeritae remained in free subjection to 
 Ethiopia almost to the end of the century. 
 
 Records are extant, almost in the very words 
 of the ambassadors, of two embassies from 
 Justinian to Elesbaan. Joannes Malala, in 
 writing of the first, had the autograph of the 
 env.oy whom Proco]iius (de Bello Persico, i. 20) 
 calls Julian ; Photius has preserved, in the 
 third codex of his Bibliotheca, Noimosus's story 
 of his experience in the second mission. Julian 
 must have been sent before 531, for Cabades 
 was still living, and, according to Procopius, 
 Esimiphaeus was viceroy of Homeritis. He 
 was received by Elesbaan, according to his 
 own account, with the silence of an intense 
 joy ; for the alliance of Rome had long been 
 the great desire of the Ethiopians. The king 
 was seated on a high chariot, drawn by four 
 elephants caparisoned with gold ; he wore a 
 loose robe studded with pearls, and round his 
 loins a covering of linen embroidered with 
 gold. He received Justinian's letter with 
 every sign of respect, and began to prepare his 
 forces to take part in the Persian war even 
 before Julian was dismissed from his court 
 with the kiss of peace (Johannis Malalae, 
 Chronographia, xviii. Bonn. ed. pp. 457, 458). 
 Malala records no secjuel of these preparations ; 
 Proc(jpius comi)lains that none occurred. 
 
 The second embassy was sent i)rimarily to 
 Kaisus or Imrulcays, the prince of the Chindini 
 and Maaddeni, and only serond.irily to the 
 Homeritae and Ethiopians, probably in the last 
 yearsof Elcsbaan's reign. Nonnosus theenvoy 
 belonged to a family of diplomatists. But 
 Photius does not state the purpose or result 
 of this journey ; only teUing of the great herd 
 19 
 
290 
 
 ELEUSIUS 
 
 of 5,000 elephants which Nonnosus saw be- 
 tween Adulis and Axum, and the pigmy 
 negroes who met him on an island as he sailed 
 away from Pharsan (Photii, Biblioiheca, 
 Bekker's ed. pp. 2, 3). 
 
 The story of Elesbaan's abdication and se- 
 clusion is told in the Acta S. Arethae. Having 
 accepted the fealty and recognized the royalty 
 of Abrahah, and having confirmed the faith 
 of Christ in Homeritis, he laid aside his crown 
 and assmned the garb of a solitary. His cell 
 is still shewn to the traveller ; it was visited 
 in 1805 by Henry Salt, and has been elaborate- 
 ly described by Mendez and Lefevre. There 
 the king remained in solitude and great 
 asceticism ; and the year of his death is un- 
 known. His crown he sent to Jerusalem, 
 praying that it might be hung " in conspectu 
 januae vivifici sepulchri." [f-p-] 
 
 Eleuslus (2), bp. of Cyzicus, a prominent 
 semi-Arian in the 2nd half of the 4th cent., 
 intimately connected with Basil of Ancyra, 
 Eustathius of Sebaste, Sophronius of Pom- 
 peiopolis, and other leaders of the Macedonian 
 party. He is uniformly described as of high 
 personal character, holy in life, rigid in self- 
 discipline, untiring in his exertions for what 
 he deemed truth, and, according to St. Hilary, 
 more nearly orthodox than most of his 
 associates (Hilar, de Synod, p. 133). The 
 people of his diocese are described by Theo- 
 doret as zealous for the orthodox faith, and 
 well instructed in the Holy Scriptures and in 
 church doctrines, and he himself as a man 
 worthy of all praise (Theod. H. E. ii. 25 ; 
 Haer. Fab. iv. 3). Though usually found 
 acting with the tyrannical and unscrupulous 
 party, of which Macedonius was the original 
 leader, and sharing in the discredit of their 
 measures against the holders of the Homo- 
 ousian faith, Eleusius was uncompromising 
 in opposing the pronounced Arians, by whom 
 he was persecuted and deposed. He held 
 office in the Imperial household when sud- 
 denly elevated to the see of Cyzicus by 
 Macedonius, bp. of Constantinople, c. 356 (Soz. 
 H. E. iv. 20; Suidas, s.v. 'EXeiytrtos). He 
 signalized his entrance on his office by a vehe- 
 ment outburst of zeal against the relics of 
 paganism at Cyzicus. He shewed no less de- 
 cision in dealing with the Novatianists, with 
 whom a community of persecution had caused 
 the Catholics to unite. He destroyed their 
 church, and forbade their assemblies for wor- 
 ship (Socr. H. E. ii. 38 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 21; v. 
 15). He soon acquired great influence over 
 his people by his religious zeal and the gravity 
 of his manners. He established in his diocese 
 a large number of monasteries, both for males 
 and females (Suidas, M.S.). He took part in 
 the semi-Arian council at Ancyra 358 a.d. 
 (Hilar, de Synod, p. 127), and was one of the 
 members deputed to lay before Constantius at 
 Sirmium the decrees they had passed, con- 
 demnatory of the Anomoeans (Hilar, m.s. ; 
 Soz. H. E. iv. 13; Labbe, Concil. ii. 790). 
 At the council of Seleucia, a.d. 359, he replied 
 to the proposition of the Acacians to draw 
 up a new confession of faith, by asserting 
 that they had not met to receive a new faith, 
 but to pledge themselves for death to that 
 of the fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 39, 40). Being 
 commissioned with Eustathius of Sebaste, 
 
 ELEUTHERUS 
 
 Basil of Ancyra, and others, to communicate 
 the result of the synod to Constantius, Eleusius 
 denounced the blasphemies attributed to 
 Eudoxius so vigorously that the latter was 
 compelled by the emperor's threats to re- 
 tract (Theod. H. E. ii. 23). [Eudoxius ; 
 Eustathius of Sebaste.] The wily Acacians, 
 however, speedily gained the ear of Constan- 
 tius, and secured the deposition of their semi- 
 Arian rivals, including Eleusius, a.d. 360. 
 The nominal charge against him was that he 
 had baptized and ordained one Heraclius of 
 Tyre, who, being accused of magic, had fled 
 to Cyzicus, and whom, when the facts came 
 to his knowledge, he had refused to depose. 
 He was also charged with having admitted to 
 holy orders persons condemned by his neigh- 
 bour. Maris of Chalcedon (Soz. H. E. iv. 24 ; 
 Socr. H. E. ii. 42). His old patron, Mace- 
 donius of Constantinople, who had been got 
 rid of at the same time, wrote to encourage 
 him and the other deposed prelates in their 
 adherence to the Antiochene formula and to 
 the " Homoiousian " as the watchword of 
 their party (Socr. H. E. ii. 45 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 
 27). The subtle Anomoean Eunomius was 
 intruded into the see of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, 
 who had succeeded Macedonius (Socr. H. E. 
 iv. 7 ; Philost. H. E. v. 3). Eunomius failed 
 to secure the goodwill of the people who re- 
 fused to attend where he officiated, and built 
 a church for themselves outside the town. 
 On the accession of Julian, a.d. 361, Eleusius, 
 with the other deposed prelates, returned to 
 his see, but was soon expelled a second time 
 by J ulian, on the representation of the heathen 
 inhabitants of Cyzicus, for his zeal against 
 paganism (Soz. H. E.v. 15). At Julian's death 
 Eleusius regained possession. He took the 
 lead at the Macedonian council of Lampsacus, 
 a.d. 365 (Socr. H. E. iv. 4). At Nicomedia, 
 A.D. 366, he weakly succumbed to Valens's 
 threats of banishment and confiscation, and 
 accepted the Arian creed. Full of remorse, he 
 assembled his people on his return to Cyzicus, 
 confessed and deplored his crime, and desired, 
 since he had denied his faith, to resign his 
 charge to a worthier. The people, devotedly 
 attached to him, refused to accept his re- 
 signation (ib. 6; Philost. H. E. ix. 13). In 
 381 Eleusius was the chief of 36 bishops of 
 Macedonian tenets summoned by Theodosius 
 to the oecumenical council of Constantinople 
 in the hope of bringing them back to Catholic 
 doctrine. This anticipation proved nugatory ; 
 Eleusius and his adherents obstinately refused 
 all reconciliation, maintaining their heretical 
 views on the Divinitv of the Holy Ghost (Socr. 
 H. E. V. 8 ; Soz. H'. E. vii. 7). Similarly at 
 the conference of bishops of all parties in 383, 
 to which Eleusius was also invited as chief of 
 the Macedonians, the differences proved irre- 
 concilable, and the emperor manifested his 
 disappointment by severe edicts directed 
 against the Macedonians, Eunomians, Arians, 
 and other heretics (Tillem. Mem. Eccl. vol. vi. 
 passim). [e.v.] 
 
 Eleutherus (1), bp. of Rome in the reigns 
 of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, during 
 15 years, 6 months, and 5 days, according to 
 the Liberian catalogue. Eusebius {H. E. v. 
 prooem.) places his accession in the 17th year 
 of Antoninus Verus [i.e. Marcus Aurelius), viz. 
 
ELEUTHERUS 
 
 A.D. 177 ; whicli wiuikl make 192 the date 
 of his death. But the consuls given in the 
 Liberian catalogue as contemporary with his 
 election and death are those of 171 and 185. 
 
 Hegesippus, quoted by Husebius (//. E. iv. 
 22), states that when he himself arrived in 
 Kome, Eleutherus was deacon of Anicetus, who 
 was then bishop, and became bishop on the 
 death of Soter, the successor of Anicetus (cf. 
 Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 3, and Jerome, de V'ir. 
 lllu^tr. c. 22). 
 
 Eleutherus was contemporary with the 
 Aurelian persecution ; and after the death of 
 Aurelius the Christians had peace, in conse- 
 quence, it is said, of the favour of Marcia, the 
 concubine of C\>mmodus ; the only recorded 
 exception in Rt)me being the martyrdom of 
 ApoUonius in the reign of Commodus (Eus. 
 H. E. V. 21 ; Jerome, Catal. c. 42). The chief 
 sufferers under Aurelius were the churches of 
 Asia Minor and those of Lyons and Vieune 
 in Southern Gaul, a.d. 177. In letters to 
 Eleutherus by the hand of Irenaeus the latter 
 churches made known, " for the sake of the 
 peace of the churches " (H. E. v. 3), their 
 own judgment, with that of their martyrs 
 while in prison, respecting the claims of 
 Montanus to inspiration. 
 
 The fact of the bp. of Rome having been 
 especially addressed on this occasion has been 
 adduced as an acknowledgment in that early 
 age of his supreme authority. But the letters 
 of the martyrs to Eleutherus do not appear, 
 from Eusebius, to have had any different 
 purport from those sent also to the churches 
 of .^sia and Phrygia, nor does their object 
 seem to have been to seek a judgment, but 
 rather to express one, in virtue, we may 
 suppose, of the weight carried in those days 
 by the utterances of martyrs. Their having 
 addressed Eleutherus, as well as the churches 
 where Montanus himself was teaching, is suffi- 
 ciently accounted for by the prominence of the 
 Roman bishop's position in the West, about 
 which there is no dispute. Of the course taken 
 by Eleutherus with respect to Montanus no- 
 thing can be alleged with certainty. 
 
 Besides the heresy of Montanus, those of 
 Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, and Marcion 
 were then at their height, and gained many 
 adherents in Rome. V'alentinus and Cerdo 
 had ctJine there between 138 and 142 ; Mar- 
 ci.jn a little later. There is, however, some 
 difficulty in placing the sojourn in Rome of 
 these heresiarchs in the episcopate of Eleu- 
 therus ; Valentinus, according to other ac- 
 counts, having died previously (see Tillem. On 
 Eleutherus). Florinus and Blastus also, 
 two degraded presbyters of Rome, broached 
 during the episcopate of Eleutherus certain 
 heresies, of which nothing is known except 
 what may be gathered from the titles of certain 
 lost treatises written against them by Ire- 
 naeus (Eus. H. E. V. 14, 15, 20, Pacian, Ep. i.). 
 The visit of Irenaeus to Eleutherus gave the 
 latter opportunity to become acquainted with 
 the prevalent heresies, against which he be- 
 came the most distinguished champion. 
 
 Especially interesting to Englishmen is the 
 story connecting Eleutherus with the origin 
 of British Christianity (Bede, H. E. c. iv.). 
 [Lucius (16)]. This account, written some 
 500 years after the event, is the earliest men- 
 
 ELIAS 
 
 291 
 
 tion of it in any historian. It mchis pretty 
 certain that it was from a Roman catalogue 
 that Bede got his information, (iildas, his 
 usual authority, being silent on the subject. 
 In the hands of chroniclers after Bede the 
 story receives several and growing additions. 
 The story is first found in its simplest form 
 in the Pontifical annals at Rome, in the Oth 
 cent. ; is introduced into Britain by Bede in 
 the 8th ; grows into the conversion of the 
 whole of Britain in the 9th ; and appears 
 full-fledged, enriched with details, and con- 
 nected with both Llandaff and (Wastonbury, 
 in the 12th. There is, however, nothing 
 improbable in the original story itself, and it 
 is more likely to have had some fact than pure 
 invention for its origin, and the Welsh tradi- 
 tions about Lleirwg, though unnoticed by 
 Gildas, may have been ancient and genuine 
 ones, independent of Bede's account. Lin- 
 gard takes this view, laying stress on the 
 dedication of churches in the diocese of Llan- 
 daff to Lleirwg and the saints associated with 
 him, and supposing him to have been an 
 independent British prince outside the 
 Roman pale. In confirmation of the story 
 is alleged further the fact that, shortly after 
 the time of Eleutherus writers first begin to 
 speak of British Christianity. For Tertullian, 
 Origen, and .\rnobius are the first to allude 
 to the triumphs of the Gospel, though partial, 
 in this remote island. What they say, how- 
 ever, is quite consistent with the earlier, and 
 other than Roman, origin of the British 
 church ; and it may be that it was the very 
 fact of their having borne this testimony that 
 suggested Eleutherus, a pope shortly anterior 
 to their date, as one to whom the mission 
 might be assigned. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Ellas (1) I., bp. of Jerusalem, a.d. 494-^13 ; 
 an Arab by birth who was educated with 
 Martyrius, in one of the Nitrian monasteries. 
 Driven from Egypt by Timothy Aelurus, 
 the two friends took refuge, a.d. 457, in 
 the laura of St. Euthymius, who received 
 them with great favour, and predicted that 
 they would both be bishops of Jerusalem. 
 After a time they quitted the laura, and Elias 
 constructed a cell at Jericho. In 478 Martyr- 
 ius succeeded Anastasius as bp. of Jerusalem, 
 and was followed by Sallustius in 486, and in 
 494 by Elias. Moschus records that Elias 
 practised total abstinence from wine both as 
 monk and bishop {Frat. Spiritual, c. 25). His 
 residence became the nucleus of a collection 
 of cells of ascetics, which de\eloped into a 
 monastery adjacent to the church of the 
 Anastasis (Cyril. Scythop. \'il. S. Sabae, c. 31). 
 When Elias succeeded to the patriarchate, the 
 Christian world exhibited a melancholy spec- 
 tacle of discord. There were at least four 
 great parties anathematizing one another. 
 When the Monophysitcs (.Acephali) in Syria, 
 under the leadershij) of Xenaias of Hierapolis, 
 broke into open insurrection, treating as 
 heretics all who acknowledged the two natures, 
 Elias was one of the diief objects of their 
 attack. In 509 they demanded a confession 
 of his faith, and Anastasius required him to 
 convene a council to repudiate the decrees of 
 Chalcedon. Elias declined, but drew up a 
 letter to the emperor, containing a statenunt 
 of his belief, accompanied by anathemas ul 
 
292 
 
 ELKESAl, ELKESAITES 
 
 Nestorius, Eutvches, Diodorus, and Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia. This was entrusted to 
 members of the AcephaH to convey to Con- 
 stantinople. When opened, it was found to 
 contain an anathema against the two natures. 
 Elias reproached the bearers with having 
 falsified the document and thus laid him open 
 to the charge, which he found it very hard to 
 refute, of having condemned the council of 
 Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii. 31 ; Theod. Led. 
 p. 561 ; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 129, 130). 
 Macedonius having been deposed A. D. 511, and 
 Timotheus, an unscrupulous Monophysite 
 monk, appointed to the see of Constantinople, 
 Elias, whose principle appears to have been 
 to accept the inevitable and to go the ut- 
 most possible length in obedience to the ruling 
 powers, seized on the fact that he had ab- 
 stained at first from anathematizing the coun- 
 cil of Chalcedon, as a warrant for joining com- 
 munion with him and receiving his synodical 
 letter. Elias could not contend against his 
 many unscrupulous enemies, and in 513 was 
 driven from his see, dying in 518 in banish- 
 ment at Aila on the Red Sea shore, aet. 88. 
 Tillem. Metn. Eccl. xvi. ; Cyril. Scythop. Vita 
 S. Euthymii ; and other authorities cited 
 above. [e.v.] 
 
 Elkesai, Elkesaites (HXxao-a/, Hippolytus ; 
 HXfa/, 'EXK-fo-fforoi, Epiphanius ; 'EXAecraiTa/, 
 Origen). A book bearing the name of Elkesai 
 and purporting to contain angelic revelations, 
 was, at the end of the 2nd cent., in high repute 
 among certain Ebionite sectaries, who were 
 most numerous in the district E. of the lower 
 Jordan and the Dead Sea. This book first 
 became known to orthodox writers in the 3rd 
 cent., and we have accounts of it from three 
 independent primarv sources, Hippolytus, 
 Origen, and Epiphanius. Hippolytus (Ref. ix. 
 12, p. 292) gives severalextracts, and statesthat 
 it was brought to Rome by a certain Alcibiades, 
 a native of Apameia in Syria, and indicates 
 that the time was during, or immediately after, 
 the episcopate of Callistus— i.e. c. a.d. 222. 
 The great controversy then agitating the 
 church of Rome was whether, and with what 
 limitations, forgiveness might be bestowed on 
 grievous post-baptismal sin. Hippolytus took 
 the side of rigour and Callistus of leniency. 
 This book of Elkesai announced a new method 
 of forgiveness of sin, asserted to have been 
 revealed in the third year of Trajan, by which 
 any person, no matter of what sins he might 
 have been guilty (some of the very grossest 
 are expressly mentioned), might obtain for- 
 giveness by submitting to a new baptism with 
 the use of a certain formula of which we shall 
 speak presently. A similar baptism was 
 prescribed as a remedy for the bite of a mad 
 dog or a serpent or for disease. Hippolytus 
 takes credit for resisting the teaching of Alci- 
 biades, and blames Callistus for having, by 
 the laxity of his doctrine and practice con- 
 cerning church discipline, pre-disposed men's 
 minds to the easv methods of forgiveness 
 expounded in this' book. Origen, in a frag- 
 ment of a homily on the 82nd Psalm, pre- 
 served by Eusebius {H. E. vi. 38) and assigned 
 by Redepenning to a.d. 247, speaks of the 
 teaching of the Helcesaites, some specimens 
 of which he gives, as having then but lately 
 troubled the churches, Epiphanius, though 
 
 ELKESAI, ELKESAITES 
 
 a later witness, professes to speak from per- 
 sonal acquaintance with the book, and this 
 is confirmed by his coincidence in a number of 
 details with the other authorities. We may 
 count the Pseudo-Clementine writings as a 
 fourth source of information concerning the 
 books of Elkesai. Hippolytus states that the 
 book, according to its own account, had been 
 obtained from Seres, in Parthia, by a righteous 
 man named Elkesai ; that its contents had 
 been revealed by an angel 96 miles high, 
 accompanied by a female of corresponding 
 size ; that the male was Son of God, and the 
 female was called Holy Spirit. Epiphanius 
 speaks of Elkesai as a false prophet. Pro- 
 bably this Elkesai was an imaginary person- 
 age, and we must reject the account of 
 Epiphanius who assigns to him a certain part 
 in the history of the Ebionite sects. 
 
 The book is evidently of Jewish origin. 
 Jerusalem is made the centre of the world's 
 devotion, and the right rule of prayer is to 
 turn not necessarily to the East, but towards 
 Jerusalem. The names of the book are formed 
 from Hebrew roots. A further mark of 
 Aramaic origin is the representation of the 
 Holy Spirit as a female. The book ordered 
 compliance with ordinances of the Jewish 
 law, but condemned the rite of sacrifice, so 
 involving the rejection of parts of O.T., and 
 of the eating of flesh. The superiority of the 
 forgiveness of sinsby the washing of water over 
 that by the fire of sacrifice is based on the 
 superiority of water to fire (Hipp.ix. 14; Epiph. 
 Haer. 19, p. 42 ; Clem. Rec. i. 48 ; Horn. xi. 
 26). It is taught that Christ is but a created 
 being, but the greatest of creatures, being 
 Lord over angels as well as over every other 
 created thing. The name Great King is 
 applied to Him (Epiph. Haer. 19, p. 41 ; Hipp, 
 ix. 15 ; Horn. viii. 21). The formula of 
 baptism runs. In the name of the Most High 
 God and of His Son, the Great King ; but this 
 Great King is not exclusively identified with 
 Jesus of Nazareth, for He appeared in the world 
 in successive incarnations, Adam being the 
 first. The book agreed with the Clementines 
 in complete rejection of St. Paul. It taught 
 the lawfulness of denying the faith under per- 
 secution (Eus. vi. 38 ; Epiph. 19), thus getting 
 rid of the class of offences as to the forgiveness 
 of which there was then most controversy. 
 
 The statement of the book that the revela- 
 tion was made in the 3rd year of Trajan is of 
 no historic value. The work, however, which 
 was the common groundwork of the Clement- 
 ine Recognitions and Homilies [Clementine 
 Literature] asserts that a new gospel was 
 published (the Homilies add " secretly ") after 
 the destruction of the Holy Place ; and it 
 seems on other grounds probable that a number 
 of Essenes, who had always held the Temple 
 sacrifices in abomination, were brought to 
 recognize Jesus as the true Pro])het when the 
 destruction of the Temple and the abolition 
 of its sacrifices fulfilled His prediction. At 
 this time, then, probably arose those Ebionite 
 sects which combined a certain reverence for 
 our Lord's utterances, and an acknowledgment 
 of Him as a divine prophet, with the retention 
 of a host of Essene usages and doctrines. 
 Hence the book of Elkesai may have been, as 
 it professed to be, a considerable time in secret 
 
ELPIDIUS 
 
 circulation among the Ebionite sects before 
 Alcibiades brought it to Rome, though it is 
 also possible that it may have been then of 
 quite recent manufacture. 
 
 It would seem to be long before the sect of 
 Elkesaites disappeared. En-hedim, an Arabic 
 author (c. a.d. 987) quoted by Chwolson (Die 
 Sabier. i. 112, ii. 543), tells of a sect of Sabeans 
 of the Desert who practised frequent religious 
 washings, and who counted one El-Chasaiach 
 as their founder. See Ritschl, Zcitschrift fur 
 histor. Theol. (1853), pp.573 sqq., E^/x/Wnoigrftfr 
 altkatholischenKirche,-pY'-2},A?'(\q-\ Hilgenfeld, 
 Nov. Test, extra Canonem Receptum, iii. 153, 
 where all the fragments of the book are col- 
 lected; Uhlhorn, Horn. u. Ki'cog. dcs Clem. Rom. 
 p. 392 ; and Lightfoot's Dissertation on the 
 Essenes. "Hp. to Colossians."pp. iiSsqq. [r,.s.| 
 
 Elpidlus (8), bp. of Laodicea in Syria at the 
 close of the 4th cent, and opening of the 5th. 
 He was originally a priest of Antioch under 
 Meletius, whose confidence he enjoyed and 
 with whom he resided {ffvaK■l^l'os) (Theod. 
 H. E. V. 27). He shared in his master's suffer- 
 ings under Valens, and accompanied by Fla- 
 vian, attended him at the council of Con- 
 stantinople A.D. 381 (Labbe, ii. 955)- We 
 next find him as bishop at a council at Con- 
 stantinople A.D. 394 (Labbe, ii. 1151), 'ind 
 again at Constantinople at the close of a.d. 
 403, as a member of the council summoned 
 by Chrysostom's enemies, and issuing in his 
 deposition. Elpidius had been an intimate 
 friend of Chrysostom at Antioch, and now- 
 lent the weight of his age and well-deserved 
 reputation to the defence of his old associate. 
 When the validity of the canons of the council 
 of .\ntioch, of suspected orthodoxy, used by 
 Chrysostom's enemies as an instrument to 
 secure their object, came into question before 
 the emperor, Elpidius adroitly turned the 
 tables on Acacius and his party by proposing 
 that the advocates of the canons should de- 
 clare themselves of the same faith with those 
 who had promulgated them (Pallad. Dial. c. 9, 
 p. 80). After Chrysostom's deposition and 
 exile, Elpidius exerted himself strenuously in 
 his behalf, dispatching letters to bishops and 
 faithful laity in all parts of the world, exhort- 
 ing them to remain true to Chrysostom, and 
 encouraging them to bear up against perse- 
 cution. Chrysostom wrote to Elpidius shortly 
 after his arrival at Cucusus in 404, thanking 
 him most warmly, and giving him information 
 concerning the place of his banishment, his 
 companions, and his health (Chrys. Ep. 114). 
 Four other letters from Chrysostom to El- 
 pidius are extant, all written from Cucusus 
 (Epp. 25, 138, A.D. 405 ; Ep. 131, A.D. 406; 
 Ep. 142, A.D. 407). 
 
 Elpidius suffered for his fidelity to his friend 
 in the persecution against the Joannite party 
 under Atticus and Porphyry. In 406 he was 
 deposed from his see, and was closely im- 
 prisoned in his house for three years (Pallad. 
 Dial. p. 195). In 414 Alexander, succeeding 
 Porphyry as bp. of Antioch, restored Elpidius 
 to his see in a manner which testified deep 
 reverence for his character, and pope Innocent 
 heard of it with extreme satisfaction (Baron. 
 408, §§ 35, 37 : Tillem. xi. 274)- [k.v.j 
 
 Emllianus (8) {.Aemilianus, San Millan), 
 solitary ; claimed by the Spanish Benedictines 
 
 ENCRATITES 
 
 203 
 
 as joint patron of Sjiain with St. James (San- 
 doval. Fundaciones de San Benito en Espana, 
 Madrid, 1601). The onlv original smirre of 
 information about liim is his Life by St. Braulio 
 bp. of Saragossa, written abo»it 50 years after 
 his death, on the testimony of four of his 
 disciples. St. Braulio gives no dates and 
 no names of parents, but the common tradi- 
 tion is that St. Emilianus was born c. 473, and 
 died c. 572. His birthplace and the site of 
 his oratory have caused much controversy, 
 Castile claiming him as born at Berceo, close 
 to the existing monastery of San Millan, while 
 Aragon urges V'erdeyo, near Calatayud. 
 
 He began life as a shepherd, and while 
 following his flock over the mountains had 
 the dream which caused his conversion. He 
 betook himself to St. F"elix, a neighbouring 
 hermit, for instruction in Catholic belief and 
 practice. He soon left Verdejo for the 
 mountains, wandering N.VV. into the remotest 
 parts between Burgos and Logrono. For 40 
 years he lived a hermit's life there, mostly on 
 or near the peak of La CogoUa (according to 
 the tradition of the monastery ; there is no 
 mention of the Cogolla of St. Braulio's life), 
 whence the after-name of the monastery which 
 commemorated him — San Millan de la Co- 
 golla. Didymus, bp. of Tarrazona (Turiasso), 
 much against the saint's will, ordained him 
 presbyter, and gave him the cure of Vergegitmi. 
 Here his entire unworldliness drew upon him 
 the hatred of his brother clergy. He was 
 accused before Didymus of wasting the goods 
 of the church, and deprived of his cure. Thus 
 released from an unwelcome oflficc, Emilianus 
 passed the rest of his life at an oratory near 
 Vergegium. During this second retirement, 
 although his personal asceticism increased 
 rather than diminished, he allowed himself to 
 be surrounded by a small circle of disciples, 
 and became widely famed for charity and 
 tenderness towards the poor. St. Braulio no 
 where speaks of him as monachus, but only 
 as presbyter. Tamayo de Salazar, Martyr. 
 Hisp. vi. 109 ; Esp. Sagrada, 1. 2 ; Mabillon, 
 saec. i. ; Yepes, Chron. Beuedictin. i. ann. 
 572 ; Sanchez, Poesias Cast. ant. al Siglo XV. 
 vol. ii. [M.A.W.] 
 
 Encratites ('¥.-yKpaT(h, Ircnaeus ; 'V.-^Kparv 
 Tai, Clem. Alex. ; 'EyxpaTiTai, Hippol.), heretics 
 who abstained from flesh, wine, and the mar- 
 riage bed, believing them essentiallv impure. 
 Persons who so abstained called themselves 
 continent {iyKpareU, Iren. i. 28, p. 107) ; and 
 the slightly modified form, Encratites, soon 
 became a technical name to denote those 
 whose asceticism was regarded as of a heretical 
 character (Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 2, p. 182 ; 
 Strom, i. i-j, p. 3S9. vii. 17, P- 9oo ; Hippol. 
 Ref. viii. 20, p. 276). We are not bound to 
 suppose that all who were known by the name 
 formed a single united sect. Irenaeus, e.g. 
 (I.e.), savs that some of the earliest of them 
 were followers f>f Saturninus and Marcion ; 
 and it is reasonable to understand by this, not 
 that they united in a single heretical body, but 
 that, independently using the same mode of life 
 and making the same boast of continence, they 
 were known to the orthodox by the same name. 
 The practice of such abstinence was older than 
 Christianity. Not to speak of the Indian 
 ascetics (to whom Clement of .Mexandria refers 
 
294 
 
 ENCRATITES 
 
 as predecessors of the Encratites), the ab- 
 stinence of the Essenes, both in respect of food 
 and of marriage, is notorious. Josephus's 
 account of the Essenes is referred to by Por- 
 phyry, who, like them, objected both to the 
 use of animal food and to animal sacrifices. 
 An interesting specimen of Pythagorean 
 doctrine on this subject is his work irepi dtroxv^ 
 T'2'v efi\pvx'^v, addressed to a friend who after 
 trial of abstinence had wickedly relapsed into 
 the use of flesh diet. He insists on the im- 
 portance of keeping the soul, as far as possible, 
 free from the bonds of matter, to which 
 animal food tends to enslave it ; on the 
 wisdom of avoiding everything over which 
 evil demons have power, viz. all material 
 things, and especially animal food ; and 
 on the injustice of depriving of life for our 
 pleasure animals akin to ourselves, having 
 reason, emotions, sentiments, completely like 
 ours. 
 
 The account given by Hegesippus of James 
 the Just (Eus. H. E. ii. 23) shews that right- 
 eousness of the Essene type was clearly held 
 in admiration in the Christian church'; and 
 I. Tim. iv. 3-6 shews that teachers had already 
 arisen who inculcated such abstinence as a 
 duty. But it does not appear that they held 
 the Gnostic doctrine, that matter is essentiallv 
 evil, and its creation the work of a being in- 
 ferior or hostile to the Supreme ; for the 
 apostle's argument assumes as common ground 
 that the things they rejected were creatures 
 of the good God. We find from the Clemen- 
 tines that the Ebionite sects which arose out 
 of Essenism permitted marriage, but dis- 
 allowed flesh meat and wine ; and that their 
 doctrine respecting God's work of creation 
 was quite orthodox. Hippolytus, too, who 
 takes his account of the Encratites from his 
 own acquaintance with them as a then existing 
 sect, describes them as orthodox in doctrine 
 concerning God and Christ; and differing from 
 the church only in their manner of life. But 
 the Gnostic teachers named by Irenaeus (I.e.) 
 undoubtedly based their asceticism on the 
 doctrine of the evil of matter, denying it to 
 be the work of God, and consequently deemed 
 it wrong, by generation, to bring new souls 
 under the dominion of death, and expose them 
 to the miseries of this hfe. A full discussion 
 of their arguments occurs in the third book 
 of Clement's Stromateis (though the name 
 Encratites does not occur here), the principal 
 writers whom he combats being Marcion, 
 Tatian, already mentioned by Irenaeus as a 
 leader of that sect, and Julius Cassianus. 
 The Gospel according to the Egyptians con- 
 tained alleged sayings of our Lord, which they 
 used in support of their doctrines. Epipha- 
 nius mentions that thev used other apocrvphal 
 writings, such as the Acts of Andrew, John, 
 and Thomas. This controversy seems to have 
 been activelv carried on in the last quarter 
 of the 2nd cent. Eusebius [H. E. iv. 28) 
 relates that Musanus, a writer early in that 
 period, addressed a very effective dissuasive 
 argument to certain brethren who had turned 
 aside to that sect, then newly come into exist- 
 ence ; and Theodoret {Haer. Fab. i. 21) men- 
 tions that another writer of the same date, 
 Apollinaris, wrote against the Severian En- 
 cratites. Eusebius (iv. 29) derives this name 
 
 ENCRATITES 
 
 Severians from a certain Severus, who became 
 an Encratite leader shortly after Tatian. He 
 adds that these Severians received the O.T. 
 and the Gospels, only putting their peculiar 
 interpretations on them, but reviled Paul, 
 rejecting his epistles and also Acts. This 
 shews Ebionite features, and these Severians 
 may have been of Ebionite origin, for great 
 diversity probably existed between the teach- 
 ing of persons classed together as Encratites. 
 The Severians are described by Epiphanius 
 {Haer. 45) with all the features of an Ophite 
 sect ; but evidently from hearsay only, as 
 he speaks of the sect as having almost died 
 out ; and Lipsius (Q.-K. des Epiph. 215) gives 
 good reason for thinking that he found no 
 article on them in previous heretical treatises. 
 Epiphanius describes {Haer. 48) the Encratites 
 as widely spread, enumerating seven different 
 countries where they were then to be found. 
 Evidently, therefore, there were in these 
 countries heretics leading an ascetic life, 
 though it would be unsafe to assert an absolute 
 identity in their teaching. We may con- 
 clude Epiphanius mistaken in placing the 
 Encratites after the Tatianites, as if they 
 were a branch of the latter sect, the true 
 relation being just the opposite. Some 
 additional information about the Encratites 
 is in the work of Macarius Magnes, pub. in 
 Paris, 1876. He wrote c. 400, and enumerates 
 (iii. 43, p. 151) some countries where the 
 Encratites (whom he also called Apotactites 
 and Eremites) were to be found. He was 
 thus, probably, acquainted with the work of 
 Epiphanius. But he adds that a defence of 
 their doctrines in eight books had been pub- 
 lished by a leader of theirs, Dositheus, a Cili- 
 cian, in which he inveighed against marriage 
 and the tasting of wine or partaking of flesh 
 meat. In his account of the Samaritan 
 Dositheus, Epiphaniusintroducessome Encra- 
 tite features not attested by other authorities, 
 and may have allowed his knowledge of the 
 doctrine of the one Dositheus to affect his 
 account of the other. We cannot give much 
 weight to the account of Philaster, who (72) 
 assigns the name and doctrine of the Encra- 
 tites to the followers of Aerius ; and we may 
 wholly disregard the inventive " Praedestin- 
 atus " (who represents the Encratites as 
 refuted by an Epiphanius, bp. of Ancyra), 
 except to repeat his distinction between 
 Encratite and Catholic abstainers — viz. the 
 former asserted the food they rejected to be 
 evil ; the latter owned it to be good, too 
 good for them. Canons of St. Basil on En- 
 cratite baptism (clxxxviii. can. i ; cxcix. can. 
 47) have given rise to some dispute, but it 
 seems clear that St. Basil wished to reject the 
 baptism of these Encratites, not because the 
 orthodox formula of baptism was lacking, but 
 because, regarding them as tainted with 
 Marcionite error, he could not accept the 
 verbal acknowledgment of the Father in the 
 baptismal formula as atonement for the insult 
 offered to the Creator, Whose work they looked 
 on as evil. For a reference to these canons, 
 as well as to the law of the Theodosian code 
 (a.d. 381) against the Manicheans, who 
 sheltered themselves under the name of 
 Encratites, see Apostolici. Not many years 
 I earlier the Encratites were an existing sect in 
 
ENNODIUS MAGNUS FELIX 
 
 Galatia ; for Sozonuni (v. ii) reconls the 
 siirterinfjs of Busiris, at that time one of tliom, 
 in the persecution under luliau. [c.s.] 
 
 Ennodius (1) Magnus Felix, bp. of Tavia, 
 born at Aries (Ennod. Ef>. lib. vii. 8) c. 473 ; 
 connected with Romans of distinction (ib. iv. 
 25). The invasion of the Visigoths, and tlie 
 consequent loss of his patrimony, caused him 
 to migrate at an early age to Milan, where he 
 was educated in the house of an aunt. In 
 480. the year in which Theodoric invaded 
 Italy, his aunt died, and he was saved from 
 beggary by marriage (Eucharist, de Vit.). A 
 dangerous sickness (£/>. viii. 2^) led him to 
 serious thought and suggested the compt>sition 
 of his Eucharisticon. in which he reviews with 
 penitence his past life. He was subsequently 
 ordained deacon by Epiphanius bp. of Pavia, 
 whose exhortations determined him to re- 
 nounce his marriage, with the consent of his 
 wife, who retired into a convent. In 494 he 
 accompanied Epiphanius {Ennod. Vit. Epi- 
 phan. 234 a) on a mission to Gundebaud, king 
 of the Burgundians, to procure the ransom of 
 certain Ligurian prisoners. Upon the death 
 of Epiphanius two years later he visited Rome, 
 and gained reputation by composing an 
 apology for pope Symmachus and the synod 
 which acquitted him, as well as by a public 
 panegyric in honour of Theodoric. The 
 former of these was inserted in the Acta Con- 
 ciliorum ; the latter is generally included in 
 collections of the Panegvrici Veteres. Under 
 the next pope, Hormisdas, he succeeded Maxi- 
 mus II. in the see of Pavia, and was sent in 
 515, and again in 517, on an embassy to the 
 emperor Anastasius to oppose the spread of 
 the Eutychian heresy. Both embassies were 
 unsuccessful. Anastasius, failing to corrupt 
 or bend the bishop, had him placed on 
 board an unseaworthy vessel. Ennodius, 
 however, arrived safely in his diocese, which 
 he continued to administer for four years. 
 He died at the age of 48, and was buried in 
 the church of St. Michael at Pavia, July 17, 
 
 521. 
 
 His writings exempUfy throughout a pro- 
 fane tendency of thought and expression 
 which Christian writers in Gaul were slow to 
 abandon. Many of his letters suit the pen of 
 a heathen rhetorician rather than of a Chris- 
 tian bishop. His illustrations arc commonly 
 drawn from (ireek mythology. He speaks of 
 divine grace as descending " de Superis," and 
 sets the Fates side by side with Jesus Christ. 
 His style is turgid, involved, and affected. He 
 seems to shrink from making himself intel- 
 ligible lest he should be thought commonplace, 
 and the result is unattractive. His works 
 are reprinted with notes in Migne's Patr. 
 vol. Ixiii. For his Life see Sirmond's ed. ; 
 Ceillier, Auteurs sacr. et eccles. x. 569 ; for a 
 just estimate of his literary merits. Ampere, 
 Hixi. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. vii. [e.m.y.] 
 
 Ephraim (4) the Syrian, usually called 
 
 Ephrem Syrus, from the Syriac form of his 
 name .\phrem. was born in Mesopotamia, for 
 he describes his home as lying between the 
 Tigris and the Euphrates {Opp- Syr. i. 23), 
 probably at Kisibis. As Edcssa became the 
 chief scene of his labours, he is generally 
 styled the Edessene. It is comparatively 
 certain that he died, as stated by St. Jerome, 
 
 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 
 
 2\K: 
 
 " in oxtroine old age." t. a.h. 37 i, .ukI there- 
 fore was probably born c. a.d. 3()N.» 
 
 The story of iiis parents seeking to tiain 
 him in idolatry is at variance with his own 
 statements. In his Confession (Opp. dr. i. 
 129) he says, " When I sinned, I was alre.idy 
 a partaker of grace : I hafl been earlv taught 
 about Christ i)y my parcMits ; they who had 
 begotten me after the flesh had trained nie in 
 the fear of the l.onl. I had seen my neigh- 
 bours living jiiously ; I had heard of many 
 sulTering hiv Christ. My own parents were 
 confessors before the Judge: yea, I am the 
 kindred of martyrs." Or again, in his Syriac 
 works (Opp. Syr. ii. 499) : " I was b.irn in the 
 way of truth ; and though my boyhootl under- 
 stood not the greatness of the benefit, I knew 
 it when trial came." 
 
 In 337 Constantine the Great died, and Sa- 
 por, king of Persia, seized the opportunity of 
 invading Mesopotamia. He commenced the 
 siege of Nisibis m 338, and in 70 days had 
 brought it to the verge of surrender. But 
 Ephrem induced the aged bishop James to 
 mount the walls and pray for the Divine suc- 
 cour. Shortly afterwards swarms of mos- 
 quitoes and horse-flies made the horses and 
 elephants unmanageable, anil Sajior withdrew 
 his forces lest he should bring upon himself 
 heavier chastisement. Before the end of 338 
 St. James died, when Ephrem probably left 
 Nisibis, and after a short stay at Amid, to 
 which city his mother is said to have belonged, 
 travelled towards Edessa, the chief seat both 
 of Christianity and of learning in Mesopotamia. 
 
 Knowing no handicraft and having no 
 means of living, Ephrem there entered the 
 service of a bath-keeper, but devoted his spare 
 time to teaching and reasoning with the 
 natives. While so engaged one day his words 
 were overheard by an aged monk who had 
 descended from his hermitage into the city, 
 and being rebuked by him for still mingling 
 with the world, Ephrem withdrew into a 
 cavern among the mountains, adopted the 
 monastic dress, and commenced a life of ex- 
 treme asceticism, giving himself up to study 
 and to writing. His works were widely 
 diffused, and disciples gathered round him, of 
 whom many rose to eminence as teachers, and 
 several of whom he commemorates in his 
 Testament. The growing fame of Basil, 
 bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, inspired 
 Ephrem with a strong desire to visit one who 
 had been shewn him in a dream as a column 
 of fire reaching from earth to heaven. 
 
 His journey to Caesarea is vouched for by 
 Basil's brother Gregory, and by Ephrem him- 
 self in his Encomium on Basil, t Accompanied 
 bv an interpreter, he arrived on the eve of the 
 Epiphanv, and spent the night in the streets. 
 The next morning they took their place in an 
 obscure corner of the church, and Ejihrem 
 groaned in spirit as he saw Basil seated in a 
 magnificent pulpit, arraved in shining gar- 
 ments, with a mitre sparkling with jewels on 
 his head, and surrounded by a multitude of 
 clergy adorned with almost equal splendour. 
 " Alas ! " he said to his interpreter, " I fear 
 
 • St. Jerome's expression must not be forced too 
 much. 
 
 t On the authenticity of this piece, which exists 
 only in Greek, sec Prolcg. to Kphr. Opp. Cr. II. Ii. 
 
296 
 
 EPHRAIM THE SYMAN 
 
 our labour is in vain. For if we, who have 
 given up the world, have advanced so little 
 in holiness, what spiritual gifts can we expect 
 to find in one surrounded by so great pomp 
 and glory ? " But when Basil began to 
 preach, it seemed to Ephrem as though the 
 Holy Ghost, in shape like a dove, sat upon his 
 shoulder, and suggested to him the words. 
 From time to time the people murmured their 
 applause, and Ephrem twice repeated sent- 
 ences which had fallen from the preacher's 
 lips. Upon this Basil sent his archdeacon to 
 invite him into his presence, which, offended 
 at the saint's ragged attire, he did reluctantly, 
 and only after he had been twice bidden to 
 summon him. After embracing one another, 
 with many florid compliments, Basil asked 
 him how it was that, knowing no Greek, he 
 had twice cheered the sermon, and repeated 
 sentences of it to the multitude ? And 
 Ephrem answered, " It was not I who praised 
 and repeated, but the Holy Ghost by my 
 mouth." Under pressure from St. Basil, 
 Ephrem consented to be ordained deacon. 
 When Basil had laid his hands upon him, 
 being suddenly endowed with the knowledge 
 of Syriac, he said to Ephrem in that tongue, 
 " O Lord, bid him arise," upon which Ephrem 
 answered in Greek, " Save me, and raise me 
 up, O God, by Thy grace." Doubtless 
 Ephrem, travelling about with an educated 
 companion, and having been an eminent 
 teacher at Edessa, a place famous for its 
 schools, had picked up some knowledge of 
 Greek and Hebrew, some evidence of which 
 we shall later gather from his own writings. 
 Two instances are given in the Acta of the 
 influence of Ephrem's teaching on St. Basil. 
 It had been usual at Caesarea in the Doxology 
 to say, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, 
 to the Holy Ghost ; but after Ephrem's visit 
 Basil inserted and before the third clause. 
 Whereat the people in church murmured, and 
 Basil defended himself by saying that his 
 Syrian visitor had taught him that the inser- 
 tion of the conjunction was necessary for the 
 more clear manifestation of the doctrine of 
 the Holy Trinity. The other instance is as 
 follows : In Gen. i. 2 the LXX renders 
 " The Spirit of God was borne upon the surface 
 of the water." So St. Basil had understood 
 it, but the Peshitta-SATriac version renders it, 
 " The Spirit of God brooded upon the face of 
 the waters," which Ephrem explained of the 
 Spirit resting upon them with a warm and 
 fostering influence as of a hen sitting upon her 
 nest, and so endowing them with the power 
 of bringing forth the moving creature that 
 hath life. St. Basil gives two reasons for 
 trusting his Syrian friend. First, that 
 Ephrem led a very ascetic life ; " for in pro- 
 portion as a man abandons the love of the 
 world, so does he excel in that perfection 
 which rises above the world." Secondly, that 
 " Ephrem is an acute thinker, and has a 
 thorough knowledge of the divine philosophy," 
 i.e. of the general sense of Holy Scripture. 
 There is nothing to suggest that any appeal 
 was made to the Hebrew, as Benedict sug- 
 gests, though, in fact, the S\Tiac and Hebrew 
 words are the same ; and, curiously enough, 
 in his own exposition {0pp. Syr. i. 8), Ephrem 
 says that the words simply mean that a wind 
 
 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 
 
 was in motion ; for the waters were instinct, 
 he argues, with no creative energy till the 
 fourth day. From Caesarea, Ephrem 
 
 was recalled to Edessa by the news that the 
 city was assailed by numerous heresies. On 
 his journey he rescued the people of Samosata 
 from the influence of false teaching by a 
 miracle, and on reaching home sought to 
 counteract heresy by teaching orthodoxy in 
 hymns. The fatalistic tenets of Bardesan, a 
 Gnostic who flourished at the end of the 2nd 
 cent., had been embodied in 150 psalms, a 
 number fixed upon in irreverent imitation of 
 the Psalter of David. His son Honorius had 
 set these hymns to music, and so sweet were 
 both the words and tunes that they were 
 known by heart even by children and sung 
 to the guitar. To combat their influence 
 Ephrem composed numerous hymns himself, 
 and trained young women, who were aspir- 
 ants after the conventual life, to sing them 
 in chorus. These hymns have no rhyme, nor 
 do they scan, but are simply arranged in 
 parallel lines, containing each, as a rule, seven 
 syllables. Their poetry consists in their ele- 
 vated sentiments and richness of metaphor, 
 but their regular form was an aid to the 
 memory, and rendered them capable of being 
 set to music. The subjects of these hymns 
 were the Life of our Lord, including His 
 Nativity, Baptism, Fasting, and chief incidents 
 of his ministry. His Passion, Resurrection, 
 and Ascension. He wrote also on Repent- 
 ance, on the Dead, and on Martyrs. Upon 
 the Festivals of our Lord, we read, on the first 
 days of the week, and on the days of martyrs, 
 Ephrem gathered round him his choirs, and 
 the whole city flocked to hear them, and the 
 poems of Bardesan lost their influence. While 
 thus occupied Basil endeavoured to persuade 
 him to visit Caesarea again, intending to make 
 him a bishop, but the saint even feigned 
 madness rather than consent. Meanwhile he 
 wrote upon the devastation committed by the 
 Persians, the Maccabean martyrs, the Life of 
 Constantine, and so on, until the accession of 
 Julian rudely distiurbed his studies. On his 
 expedition against the Persians Julian had 
 advanced as far as Haran, a town so famous 
 for obstinate adherence to heathenism that 
 Haranite in Syriac is equivalent to pagan, and 
 there determined to hold a great sacrifice, to 
 which he commanded the Edessenes to send 
 chosen citizens to do him homage, and to 
 grace by their presence his restoration of the 
 old cult. But this met with such fierce 
 opposition on the part of the people, and such 
 an eager desire for martyrdom, that the 
 embassy withdrew in haste, and Julian 
 threatened Edessa with bitter vengeance upon 
 his return. Ephrem, who had exerted him- 
 self to the utmost in this crisis, resumed his 
 hermit life, quitting the mountains only for 
 controversy with heretics or for charitable 
 services. As a controversialist, Gregory of 
 Nyssa relates of him with great approbation 
 an act contrary to modern views of morality : 
 The " insane and irrational ApoUinaris " had 
 written a treatise in two volumes containing 
 much that was contrary to Scripture. Tliese 
 he had given in charge of a lady at Edessa, 
 from whom Ephrem borrowed them, pretend- 
 ing that he was a disciple of ApoUinaris and 
 
EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 
 
 was preparing to defend his views. Before 
 returning them he glued the leaves together, 
 and then challenged the heretic to a public 
 disputation. Apollinaris accepted the chal- 
 lenge so far as to consent to read from these 
 hooks what he had written, declining more 
 on account of his great age ; but he found the 
 leaves so firmly fastened together that he 
 could not open them, and withdrew, deeply 
 mortified by his opponent's unworthy victory. 
 
 Far more creditable is the last act recorded 
 of Ephrem. While withdrawn in his rocky 
 cavern he heard that Edessa had been visited 
 by a severe famine. He came down to the 
 city, and induced the richer citizens- to 
 bring out their secret stores of food, on con- 
 dition, however, that Ephrem should himself 
 take charge of them. He managed them with 
 such skill, pr\idenee, and honesty that they 
 sufficed for the Edessencs and for numerous 
 strangers also. The next year was one of 
 great plenty, and Ephrem resumed his solitary 
 life amidst the prayers and gratitude of all 
 classes. 
 
 His death followed shortly afterwards, fully 
 foreseen by himself, as his Testament proves. 
 In this hvmn, written in heptasyllabic metre, 
 after playing upon his own name and pro- 
 fessing his faith, he commands his disciples not 
 to bury him beneath the altar, nor in a church, 
 nor amongst the martyrs, but in the common 
 burying-ground of strangers, in his gown and 
 cowl, with no spices nor waxlights, but with 
 their prayers. It ends with an account of 
 Lamprotata, daughter of the prefect of 
 Edessa, who earnestly soiight permission to 
 be buried in due time at Ephrem's feet. 
 
 The works of Ephrem were most volumin- 
 ous. Sozomen {Ecd. Hist. iii. i6) says that 
 he wrote three million lines, but a large pro- 
 portion has perished. What remains is said 
 by Bellarmine to be " pious rather than 
 learned." The great edition of his works is 
 that in six vols, fol., pub. at Rome in 1732-1743, 
 under the editorship of the Maronite Peter 
 Mobarek, better known by the Latin transla- 
 tion of his surname Benedict, and completed 
 after his death by J. S. E. Asseman, titular 
 bp. of Apamaea, who is answerable, however, 
 for the translation of only vol. vi. pp. 425-687. 
 The first three vols, consist of sermons and 
 discourses in Greek with a Latin translation. 
 Many of these are probably genuine, for Sozo- 
 men says that already in his lifetime works of 
 Ephrem were translated into Greek, and as 
 both Chrysostom and Jerome were acquainted 
 with them, and Gregory of Nyssa quotes his 
 Testament, it is certain that several of his 
 writings were very soon thus made available 
 for general use. But some pieces must be re- 
 ceived with caution, and one {0pp. Gr. ii. 356 
 seq.) is almost certainly not genuine. 
 
 The other three vols, contain his Syriac 
 works, the most important being his Exposi- 
 tion of O.T. Of the commentary upon the 
 (iospels few traces remain, but Dionysius 
 Barsalibi, bp. of Amid, says that Ephrem had 
 followed the order of the Diatcssaron of 
 Tatian. As copies of Dionysius's own com- 
 mentary exist in the British Museum, the 
 Bodleian Library, and elsewhere, some por- 
 tions of Ephrem's work, as well as some idea 
 of Tatian's arrangement, might be obtained 
 
 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 
 
 2I»7 
 
 from it. A cnlUction of Armenian trans- 
 lations of Ephrem's works, pub. in 4 vols. 
 8vo by the Merhitarists at Venice in 1836, 
 includes one (in vol. iii.) of his commentary 
 on St. Paul's epistles. 
 
 Following upon the commentary arc 12 
 metrical expositions of portions of Scripture, 
 such as the creation of man in God's image, 
 the temptation of Eve, the translation of 
 Enoch, etc., occupying pp. 316-310. Some 
 <if these, esi^ecially that upon the mission of 
 Jonah and the repentance of the Ninevites, 
 have been translated into English by the Kev. 
 H. Burgess (l.ond. 1856), the author also 
 of Select Metrical Hymns and Hotnilics of 
 Ephraem Synis (two vols. Lond. 1853). These 
 expositions are followed by 13 metrical homi- 
 lies upon the Nativity, pp. 3(16-436. Next 
 come 56 homilies against false doctrines (pp. 
 437-560) ; chiefly against Bardesan, Marcion, 
 and Manes. 
 
 In vol. iii., after the Acta S. Ephracmt 
 (i.-lxiii.), the first place is held by 87 homilies 
 on the Faith, in answer to freethinkers. The 
 last seven of these are called sermons upon the 
 Pearl, which Ephrem takes as an emblem of 
 the Christian faith, working out the idea with 
 great beauty, though with that difluseness 
 which is the common fault of his writings. 
 Three very long controversial homilies (pp. 
 164-208) follow, repeating many of the same 
 thoughts. 
 
 A sermon against the Jews, preached on 
 Palm Sundav (pp. 209-224), has been trans- 
 lated bvthe Rev. J. B. Morris into English.* 
 Then follow 85 hvmns (pp. 225-359) to be 
 used at the burial of bishops, presbyters, 
 deacons, monks, princes, rich men, strangers, 
 matrons, women, youths, children, in time of 
 plague, and for general use. These are trans, 
 into Eng. in Burgess's Select Metrical Hymns. 
 
 Next come four short homilies on Free-will 
 (PP- 359-366), partly following the order of the 
 Svriac alphabet ; then 76 homilies on Repent- 
 ance (pp. 367-561). Next, 12 sermons on the 
 Paradise of Eden (pp. 562-598) ; and finally, 
 18 sermons on miscellaneous subjects (pp. 
 599-687). Considerable activity has been 
 displaved in editing other Svriac works of 
 Ephrem— <>.?. bv Dr. J. J. Overbeck, in S. 
 Ephraemi Svri. Rabulae, Balaci, ahorumque 
 Opera Selecta (Oxf., Clarendon Press, 1865). 
 Almost more important is " S. Ephraemi Syri 
 Carmina Nisibena, ed. bv Dr. G. Bickell, 
 Lipsiae, 1866." Of these hymns, the first 
 21 treat of the long struggle between Sapor 
 and the Romans for the possession of Nisibis, 
 from its siege in 350 to just before its miserable 
 surrender bv Jovian in 363. The next 5 
 hvmns have perished ; in Nos. 26-30 the scene 
 is Edessa, and the subject the schism there m 
 the bishopric of Barses, A.n. 361-370. Bickell 
 thinks these were writt. 11 c. 370, towards the 
 close of Ejihrem's life. Hymns 31-34 treat of 
 Haran and the man v troubles its bishop, Vitus, 
 endured from the pagans there. The other 
 hvnuis (35-77) treat of the Overthrow of Death 
 and Satan bv our Lord, of the Resurrection of 
 the Body in refutation of Bardesan and Manes, 
 
 • Morris (Select H'ofAs 0/ Ephr. Syrus. Oxf. 1847) 
 translated i ;? rhvthms on the Nativity, this nRnmst 
 the Jews, the 80 rhythms on the I-aith, 7 on the 
 Pearl, and 3 long controversial homiliw. 
 
298 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 
 
 of Dialogues between Death, Satan, and 
 Man, and of Hymns upon the Resurrection, 
 not of a controversial but of a consolatory 
 character. From the directions for singing 
 given with each hymn, and the existence in 
 most of them of a response or refrain noted 
 in the MS. in red, the collection was evidently 
 for liturgical use. 
 
 Bertheau edited a Syriac homily of St. 
 Ephrem from a MS. at Rome (Gottingen, 1837), 
 and another from the Museum Borghianum was 
 pub. by Zingerle and Mosinger in Monumenta 
 $yriaca (Innsbruck, 1869), vol. i. pp. 4-12 ; 
 in vol. ii. (pub. 1878) numerous fragments from 
 MSS. at Rome are found, pp. 33-51. In most 
 Chrestomathies specimens of Ephrem's writ- 
 ings are given, and that by Hahn and Sieffert 
 consists entirely of them. 
 
 As a commentator Ephrem holds a middle 
 place between the literal interpretation of 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia and the allegorical 
 method of Origen. As Basil and Gregory 
 were both strongly influenced by Origen, 
 Ephrem's independence is the more remark- 
 able. In commenting on Is. xxv. 7 (vol. ii. 
 61), he gives a statement of his method as 
 follows : " Though the prophet is speaking 
 of Sennacherib he has a covert reference to 
 Satan. For the spiritual sense is usually the 
 same as the ecclesiastical. The words there- 
 fore of the prophets concerning those things 
 which have happened or were about to happen 
 to the Jews are mystically to be referred to 
 the future propagation of the church, and the 
 providence of God and His judgments upon 
 the just and upon evil-doers." Benedict, 
 followed by Lengerke, instead of ecclesiastical 
 translates historical ; what Ephrem really 
 says is that there is first the literal interpre- 
 tation, and secondly a spiritual one, which 
 generally refers to the church. 
 
 The question has often been asked whether 
 he really possessed any competent acquaint- 
 ance with Hebrew and Greek. He had not 
 had a learned education, but nevertheless 
 displays considerable knowledge, including 
 some of physical science, and in his discourses 
 on fate, freewill, etc., he manifests, without 
 parade, a sufficient mastery of Greek philo- 
 sophy to refute the Gnostic errors prevalent 
 in the East. We need not be surprised, 
 therefore, that Sozomen says (H. E. iii. 16) 
 that Basil wondered at his learning. 
 
 The chief places which suggest some know- 
 ledge of Hebrew are as follow. Commenting 
 on the creation of whales in Gen. i. 21 (Opp. 
 Syr. i. 18), he says that they and leviathan 
 inhabit the waters, behemoth the land ; 
 quoting not only Job xl. 15, but Ps. 1. 10, 
 which he translates, " And behemoth upon a 
 thousand hills." Ephrem's rendering is 
 perfectly possible, and must have been ob- 
 tained from some Jewish source. 
 
 On I. Sam. iii. ir he rightly says that both 
 the Syr. and Heb. names for cymbal resemble 
 the verb so translated. In I. Sam. xxi. 7 
 he correctly explains the word " detained " by 
 noting that the Heb. word fieasar signified 
 pressed or bidden awav. In II. Kings iii. 4 
 he rightlv says that the Syr. nokdo is really 
 a Heb. word, and means " head shepherd." 
 
 These points might have been picked up 
 from conversation with others, and there is a 
 
 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 
 
 marked absence of acquaintance with the 
 language in his commentary as a whole. 
 
 Of Greek he also shews but a very moderate 
 knowledge, though a more real acquaintance 
 with it than with Hebrew. His own words 
 in Opp. Syr. ii. 317 are to the point: " Not 
 from the rivulet of my own thought have I 
 opened these things for thy drinking, for I am 
 poor and destitute alike of meat and drink; 
 but, like a bottle from the sea or drops from 
 a caldron, I have begged these things from 
 just men, who were lords of the fountain." 
 
 An example will shew him much more at 
 home in Greek than in Hebrew. In I. Kings 
 xiv. 3 lOpp. Syr. i. 480) the Syriac version has, 
 instead of cracknels, a rare word signifying 
 sweetmeats. Ephrem notices that the Greek 
 has grapes, and gives this as an explanation of 
 the Syriac ; but makes no reference to the 
 Hebrew word, which certainly signifies some 
 kind of cakes, such as might rightly be called 
 sweetmeats, but certainly is no kind of fruit. 
 
 From his intense devotion and piety, his 
 hymns were largely adopted into the services 
 of the church, and prayers also composed by 
 him are found in most Oriental liturgies. His 
 personal character deserves high praise. He 
 was an extreme ascetic, passing his whole life 
 in poverty, raggedness, humility, and gentle- 
 ness. His gentleness has been denied on 
 account of the fierce language sometimes used 
 in controversial writings. We may, however, 
 take his words in his Testament as literally 
 true (Opp. Gr. ii. 396) : " Throughout my 
 whole life, neither by night nor day, have I 
 reviled any one, nor striven with any one ; 
 but in their assemblies I have disputed with 
 those who denv the faith. For if a wolf is 
 entering the fold, and the dog goes not out 
 and barks, the master beats the dog. But a 
 wise man hates no one, or if he hates at all, 
 he hates only a fool." 
 
 "His words reach the heart, for they treat 
 powerfully of human joys and cares ; they 
 depict the struggles and storms of life, and 
 sometimes its calm rest. He knows how to 
 awaken terror and alarm, as he sets forth be- 
 fore the sinner his punishment, God's right- 
 eous judgment, his destined condemnation ; 
 he knows, too, how to build up and comfort, 
 where he proclaims the hopes of the faithful 
 and the bliss of eternal happiness. His words 
 ring in mild, soft tones when he paints the 
 happy rest of the pious, the peace of soul 
 enjoyed by those who cleave to the Christian 
 faith ; they thunder and rage like a storm 
 wind when he scourges heretics, or chastises 
 pride and folly. Ephraim was an orator 
 possessed of spirit and taste, and his poetical 
 gifts were exactly those calculated to give 
 weight and influence to his authority as a 
 teacher among his countrymen " (Roediger). 
 As such they venerated him, giving him 
 especially the title of Malphono, the teacher; 
 but one of his greatest services to the church 
 was the marvellous variety and richness which 
 he gave to its public worship. Ephraim's 
 quotations from the Gospels have been col- 
 lected by F. C. Burkitt {Texts and Studies, vol. 
 vii. No. 2, Camb. Univ. Press). His Com- 
 mentary on the Diatessaron was trans, 
 into Latin by J. B. Aucher, and pub. in this 
 form by G. Mosinger (Venice, 1876). See 
 
EPHRAIM 
 
 also J. H. Hill, A Dis.u-rtdlioit oti the Gosfyell 
 Commentary of S. Ef^hraim (Edinburgh. 1896). 
 The Fragments of S. Ephraim luu e been ed. 
 bv I. K. Harris for the (Cainb. Univ. 
 Press). [R.P.S.] 
 
 Ephraim (6) (Ephrem, Ephraemius, or, as 
 Theophaiies gives the name, Euphraimius), 
 bp. of Autioch and patriarch, a.d. 527-545. 
 The title, 6 "A/ui5ios. given him bvTheophancs, 
 indicates that he was a native of Amida in 
 Armenia. He devoted the early part of his 
 life to civil employments, and became Count 
 of the East in the reign of Justin I. The city 
 of Antioch having been nearly destroyed in 
 A.D. 525 and 526 by earthquake and conflag- 
 ration, Ephraim was sent by Justin as com- 
 missioner to relieve the sufferers and restore 
 the city. The high qualities manifested in 
 the fulfilment of these duties gained the 
 affection and respect of the people of Antioch, 
 who unanimously chose hiiu bishop on the 
 death of Euphrasius (Evagr. H. E. iv. 5, 6). 
 His consecration is placed in a.d. 357. As 
 bishop he exhibited an unwavering firmness 
 against the heretical tendencies of his day. 
 Theophanes says that he shewed " a divine 
 zeal against schismatics" {Chronogr. p. 118). 
 Moschus tells a story of his encounter near 
 Hierapolis with one of the pillar ascetics, 
 a follower of Severus and the Acephali (Prat. 
 Spiritual, c. 36). Ephraim examined synod- 
 ically the tenets of Syncleticus, metropolitan 
 of Tarsus, who was suspected of Eutychian 
 leanings but was acquitted (Phot. Cod. 228). 
 In 537, at the bidding of Justinian, he repaired 
 with Hypatius of Ephesus and Peter of Jeru- 
 salem to (iaza to hold a council in the matter 
 of Paul the patriarch of Alexandria, who had 
 been banished to that city and there deposed. 
 In obedience to the emperor Justinian, 
 Ephraim held a synod at Antioch, which re- 
 pudiated the doctrines of Origen as heretical 
 (Liberat. c. 23, apud Labbe, Concil. v. yyy 
 seq. ; Baronius, Annul. 537, 538). He was 
 the author of a large number of theological 
 treatises directed against Nestorius, Eutyches, 
 Severus, and the Acephali, and in defence of 
 the decrees of Chalcedon. In 546, yielding to 
 severe pressure, he subscribed the edict Jus- 
 tinian had put forth condemning " the three 
 chapters" (Facund. Pro Defens. Trium Capit. 
 iv. 4). He did not survive the disgrace of this 
 concession, and died in 547. 
 
 His copious theological works have almost 
 entirely perished, and we have little know- 
 ledge of them save through Ph<itius (Biblioth. 
 Cod. 228, 229), who speaks of having read 
 three of the volumes, but gives particulars of 
 two only. Some few fragments of his defence 
 of the council of Chalcedon, and of the third 
 book against Severus, and other works, are 
 given by Mai (Bibl. Nov. iv. 63, vii. 204) and 
 are printed by Migne (Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. par. 2, 
 pp. 2099 seq.). Theophanes, Chronogr. ad 
 ann. 519, p. 118 d ; Moschus, Prat. Spiritual. 
 cc. 36, 37; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 507; Fabric. 
 Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 38 ; Le Quien, Oriens 
 Christ, ii. 733). [e-v.] 
 
 Epiphanes, a Gnostic writer about the 
 middle 'if the 2nd cent., or earlier. Clement 
 of Alexandria (Strom, iii. p. 511) gives the 
 following account of him. He was the son of 
 Carpocrates, by a mother named Alexandria, 
 
 EPIPHANES 
 
 209 
 
 a native of Cephallenia. He died at the ago 
 of 17, and at Same, a city of Cephallenia, 
 a liandsome temple and other buildings 
 were raised in his memory; and at the new 
 moon the Cephallenians were wont t<> cele- 
 brate his apotheosis as a god by sacrifices, 
 libations, banquets, and the singing of hymns. 
 He had been instructed by his father in the 
 ordinary circle of arts and sciences, and in the 
 Platonic philosophy. He was the founder of 
 the " Monadic Gnosis," and from him flowed 
 the heresy of those afterwards known as Car- 
 pocratians. He was the author of a work on 
 Justice, which he made to consist in equality. 
 He taught that, God having given His benefits 
 to all alike and in common, human laws are 
 censurable which instituted the distinction of 
 mcum and tuum, and which secure to one as 
 his peculiar possession that to which all have 
 an equal right. This connuunistic doctrine 
 he extended to the sexual relations. What- 
 ever may have been the origin of the jihrase 
 " Monadic Gnosis," the doctrine here described 
 seems the direct opposite of Dualism. In- 
 stead of accounting for the existence of evil 
 as the work of a hostile principle, this theory 
 would represent moral evil as a mere fiction 
 of human laws, perversely instituted in op- 
 position to the will of the Creator. 
 
 There is a passage in Irenaeu= (I. xi. 3, p. 54) 
 which, it has been contended, gives us another 
 specimen of the teaching of Epiphanes. In 
 giving an account of the doctrines of some 
 followers of Valentinus, after stating the 
 theory of Secundus, he goes on to mention the 
 description which another " illustrious teacher 
 of theirs " (clarus magister) gives of the origin 
 of the primary Tetrad. In this the first prin- 
 ciple is stated to be one existing before all 
 things, surpassing all thought and speech, 
 which the author calls Oneliness (ixovdr-ni). 
 With this Monotes co-existed a power which 
 he calls Unity (ivdrTjs). This Monotes and 
 Henotes constituting absolute unity (t6 ty 
 ovcrai) emitted (though not in any proper 
 sense of that word) a principle the object of 
 thought onlv, which reason calls Monad. And 
 with this Monad co-existed a power consubstan- 
 tial with it, which the author calls Unit (rd h). 
 From this Tetrad came all the rest of the 
 Aeons. Pearson conjectured (see Dodwell, 
 Dissert, in Iren. iv. §§ 25) that the " clarus 
 magister" of the old Latin translation re))re- 
 sented lin(t>o.vr)% 5iS(i<rKa\os, and that this 
 Epiphanes was a proper name, or at least that 
 there was a play upon words referring to that 
 name. The doctrine of the extract, then, 
 which seems an attempt to reconcile the theory 
 of a Tetrad with strong belief in the unity of 
 the First Principle, might well be a part of the 
 Monadic Gnosis, of which Ejiiphanes was said 
 to be the author. Pearson's restoration of 
 the (Ireek has since been pretty nearly verified 
 by the recovery <4 the passage as reproduced 
 by Hippolvtus (Ref. vi. 38). where it runs 
 &X\o^ bi Ti% (Tri(t>avr]f St5daKa\of ai'Twi-. 
 Here the word in question is plainly an ad- 
 jective, and Tertullian so understood it. who 
 translates (adv. Valent. 37) " insignioris apud 
 eos magistri." On the other hand, Epiphanius 
 understood the passage of Epiphanes. On 
 examining what he tells of that heretic (Haer. 
 
300 
 
 EPIPHANIUS 
 
 32), it is plain that Epiphanius has been follow- ' 
 ing Irenaeus until, on coming to the words 
 iiTKpai'rjs diddaKaXos, he goes off to Clement of 
 Alexandria, and puts in what he there found 
 about Epiphanes. But Neander has made it 
 almost certain that the person to whom Iren- 
 aeus really refers is Marcus (17). He points 
 out that these four names for the members of 
 the primary Tetrad, Monotes, Henotes, Monas, 
 and Hen, which the " illustrious teacher " 
 (c. 11) speaks of as names of his own giving, 
 occur again with a Kad' & irpodp-qTai in a pas- 
 sage cited from Marcus by name (Iren. i. 15, 
 P- 74)- [G.S.] 
 
 Epiphanius (1), bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, 
 zealous champion of orthodox faith and 
 monastic piety, was born at Besanduke, a 
 village near Eleutheropolis in Palestine. As 
 in 392, twelve years before his death, he was 
 an aged man, we mav conjecturallv date his 
 birth between 310 and 320. Much of his early 
 lifetime was spent with the monks of Egypt, 
 among whom he not only acquired a burning 
 zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy and the forms 
 of ascetic life then coming into favour, but 
 also first came in contact with various kinds 
 of heretics. When twenty years old he re- 
 turned home and built a monastery near 
 Besanduke, of which he undertook the direc- 
 tion. He was ordained presbyter by Eutv- 
 chius, then bp. of Eleutheropolis. With St. 
 Hilarion, the founder of Palestinian mon- 
 asticism, Epiphanius early stood in intimate 
 relation, and at a time when the great majority 
 of Oriental bishops favoured Arian or semi- 
 Arian views, he adhered with unshaken 
 fidelity to the Nicene faith, and its persecuted 
 champions, Eusebius of Vercelli and Paulinus 
 of Antioch, whom Constantius had banished 
 from their sees. In 367 he was elected bp. of 
 Constantia, the ancient Salamis, in Cyprus, 
 where for 36 years he discharged the episcopal 
 office with the zeal he had shewn in his monas- 
 tery. The whole island was soon covered with 
 monastic institutions. With the monks of 
 Palestine, and especially of his own monastery 
 at Eleutheropolis, he continued as bishop to 
 hold uninterrupted communication. People 
 consulted him on every important question. 
 Some years after his elevation to the episco- 
 pate, he addressed a letter to the faithful in 
 Arabia, in defence of the perpetual virginity 
 of Mary, afterwards incorporated in his great 
 work. Against all Heresies {Haer. Ixxviii.). 
 Soon after, several presbyters of Suedra in 
 Pamphylia invoked his assistance in their 
 controversy with Arians and Macedonians. 
 Similar applications came from other quarters ; 
 e.g. by an Egyptian Christian named Hypa- 
 tius, and by a presbyter, Conops, apparently 
 a Pisidian, who, with his co-presbyters, sought 
 instruction in a long series of disputed doc- 
 trines. This was the origin of his AyKvpuiros 
 (Ancoratus) in 374, an exposition of the faith, 
 which, anchor-like, might fix the mind when 
 tossed by the waves of heresy. A similar 
 occasion produced his great heresiologicalwork, 
 written in the years 374-377, the so-called 
 Ylavapi.ov, on which his fame chiefly rests. He 
 wrote this at the request of Acacius and 
 Paulus, two presbyters and heads of monas- 
 teries in Coele-SvTia, and in it attacks the 
 Gnostic sects of the 2nd and 3rd cents., 
 
 EPIPHANIUS 
 
 and the Arians, semi-Arians, Macedonians, 
 Apollinarians, Origenists, of his own time. 
 About 376 he was taking an active part in the 
 Apollinarian controversies. Vitalis, a pres- 
 byter of Antioch, had been consecrated bishop 
 by Apollinaris himself ; whereupon Epipha- 
 nius undertook a journey to Antioch to recall 
 Vitalis from his error and reconcile him to 
 the orthodox bp. Paulinus. His efforts, how- 
 ever, proved unsuccessful. Though not him- 
 self present at the oecumenical council of 
 Constantinople, 381, which ensured the 
 triumph of the Nicene doctrine in the Oriental 
 churches, his shorter confession of faith, which 
 is found at the end of his Ancoratus (c. 120) 
 and seems to have been the baptismal creed of 
 the church of Salamis, agrees almost word for 
 word with the Constantinopolitan formula. 
 He took no part in the synod held at Con- 
 stantinople in 382 ; but towards the end of 
 that year we find him associated with St. 
 Jerome, Paulinus of Antioch, and the three 
 legates of that synod, at a council held under 
 bp. Damasus at Rome, which appears to have 
 dealt with the Meletian and Apollinarian con- 
 troversies. At Rome he was domiciled in the 
 house of the elder Paula, who, under the 
 spiritual guidance of St. J erome, had dedicated 
 her ample fortune to the poor and sick, and 
 Epiphanius seems to have strengthened her 
 in a resolution to forsake home and children 
 for an ascetic life at a great distance from 
 Rome. Early in 383, when the bishops were 
 returning to their sees, Paula went on pilgrim- 
 age to the Holy Land. She stayed with 
 Epiphanius in Salamis about 10 days. Some- 
 what later St. Jerome also visited Epiphanius, 
 on his way to Bethlehem, bringing a train of 
 monks to Cyprus, to salute " the father of 
 almost the whole episcopate, the last relic 
 of ancient piety." Thenceforward we find 
 Epiphanius in almost unbroken intercourse 
 with Jerome, in alliance with whom he began 
 his Origenistic controversies. He had indeed 
 already, in his Ancoratus (c. 54) and still more 
 in his Panarion, attacked Origen as the 
 ancestor of the Arian heresy. 
 
 On hearing that Origenism had appeared in 
 Palestine, he hastened thither, in old age (a.d. 
 394), to crush it. His appearance sufficed to 
 drive the ci-devant Origenist Jerome into the 
 bitterest enmity with his former friends, who 
 refused to repudiate their old attachment. 
 Epiphanius, received with all honours by the 
 bp. of Jerusalem, preached in the most violent 
 manner in the church of the Resurrection. 
 Bp. John, after expressing his disapproval by 
 gestures only for a time, sent his archdeacon 
 to beg him to abstain from speaking further 
 on these topics. The sermon being over, 
 Epiphanius, as he walked by the side of John 
 to the church of the Holy Cross, was pressed 
 upon by the people, as Jerome tells us, from all 
 sides with tokens of veneration. Bp. John, 
 irritated by the sermon, evidently preached 
 against himself, took the next opportunity to 
 preach against certain simple and uneducated 
 persons who represented God to themselves 
 in human form and corporeity. Whereupon 
 Epiphanius rose, and expressing his full con- 
 currence with this, declared that it was quite 
 as necessary to repudiate the heresies of 
 Origen as of the Anthropomorphists. He then 
 
EPIPHANIUS 
 
 hastened to join Jerome at Bothlehoni, and 
 required the monks there to renounce at once 
 all church fellowship with the bp. of Jeru- 
 salem ; but they entreated him to return to 
 John. Epiphanius went back to Jerusalem 
 the same evening, but immediately regretting 
 the step, and without so much as speaking to 
 the bishop, left Jerusalem again at midnight 
 for his old monastery of Eleutiieropolis. From 
 tlure he continued to press the monks of 
 Bethlehem to renounce church fellowship with 
 the Origenist bp. John, and finally availed 
 himself of the occasion provided by a depu- 
 tation from Bethlehem, to ordain as jiresbyter 
 Jerome's brother Paulinianus, and impose 
 him on the community, as one who should 
 administer the sacraments among them. This 
 intrusion into the rights of another bishop 
 Epiphanius endeavoured subsequently to 
 e-xcuse in a letter to John. His excuses were 
 far from satisfying the bishop, who reported 
 to other bishops this violation of the canons, 
 and threatened the monks of Bethlehem with 
 ecclesiastical penalties so long as they should 
 recognize Paulinianus or persist in separation. 
 Epiphanius and Jerome, continuing to insist 
 on J ohn publicly purging himself of Origenistic 
 heresy, proceeded to invoke the mediation of 
 Theophilus bp. of Alexandria. Thcophilus's 
 legate, a presbyter named Isidore, openly sided 
 with John, and Theophilus himself, who at 
 that time was reckoned an Origenist, desig- 
 nated Epiphanius, in a letter to the bp. of 
 Rome, a heretic and schismatic. 
 
 According to another account, Theophilus 
 accused him, as well as John, of Anthropo- 
 morphism. Epiphanius certainly received in 
 this controversy little or no support from other 
 bishops. He returned to his diocese, followed 
 by Paulinianus. In this w^ay the chief source 
 of dispute between John and the monks of 
 Jerusalem was removed, and Jerome pro- 
 visionally renewed communion with the bp. 
 of Jerusalem, as well as with his old friend 
 Rufinus. A few years after the close of this 
 first Origenist controversy, Epiphanius found 
 himself involved in much more unpleasant 
 transactions. Among the monks of Egypt 
 the controversy between Anthroponiorphists 
 and Origenists continued to rage. Theophilus 
 of Alexandria having in 398 directed a paschal 
 epistle against the Anthroponiorphists, a wild 
 army of monks from the wilderness of Scete 
 rushed into Alexandria, and so frightened 
 the bishop that he thought his life depended 
 on immediate concession. From that time 
 Theophilus appears as a strong opponent of 
 Origenism. In his paschal epistle of 399 he 
 opposes the heresies of Origeu in the most 
 violent manner. [Tiieophii-us (9)] 
 
 Great joy was expressed by Ejuiihanius. 
 " Know, my beloved son," he writes to Jer- 
 ome, " that -Amalek is destroyed to the very 
 root ; on the hill of Rephidim has been erected 
 the banner of the cross. God has strength- 
 ened the hands of His servant Theophilus as 
 once He did those of Moses." Epiphanius 
 was soon drawn yet more deeply into these 
 transactions. The bishops began on all sides 
 to speak against the heresies of Origen. 
 
 Theophilus having involved himself in a 
 separate conflict of his own with Chrysostom 
 at Constantinople and finding his cause there 
 
 EPIPHANIUS 
 
 301 
 
 opposed by the "Long Brotlurs" fmrn 
 Egypt [Chkysostom], made strenuous efforts 
 to gain the assistance of I'pijihanius against 
 the ac tion of those Origenistic monks, calliuR 
 upon him to pass judgment upon Origen and 
 his heresy by means of a Cypriote syniKi. 
 Epiphanius assembled a synod,' prohibited the 
 works of Origen. and called on Chrysostom to 
 do the same. He was then moved by Theo- 
 philus to a|)i)ear personally, as an ancient 
 combatant of heresy, at Constantinople. In 
 the winter of 402 Epiphanius set sail, con- 
 vinced that only his appearance was required 
 to destroy the last remains of the Origenistic 
 poison. Accompanied by several of his cli rgy, 
 he landed near Constantiufiple. Chrysustom 
 sent his clergy to give him honourable recep- 
 tion at the gates of the city, with a friendly 
 invitation to take up his abode in the episcopal 
 residence. This was rudely refused by the 
 passionate old man, who declared himself 
 unable to hold church connnunion with Chry- 
 sostom until he had expelled the " Loiig 
 Brothers," and had subscribed a condemna- 
 tion of the writings of Origen. This Chrysos- 
 tom gently declined, with a reference to the 
 synod about to be holden ; whereupon 
 Eiiiphanius at once assembled the many 
 bishops already gathered at Constantinople, 
 and required them all to subscribe the decrees 
 of his own provincial council against the 
 writings of Origen. Some consented willingly, 
 others refused. Whereupon the opponents of 
 Chrysostom urged Epiphanius to come forward 
 at the service in the church of the Apostles, 
 and openly preach against the Origenists 
 and their protector Chrysostom. Chrysostom 
 warned Epiphanius to abstain, and the latter 
 may by this time have begun to suspect that 
 he was but a tool in the hands of others. On 
 his way to the church he turned back, and soon 
 after, at a meeting with the " Long Brothers," 
 confessed that he had passed judgment upon 
 them on hearsay only, and, growing weary of the 
 miserable business, determined to return home, 
 but died on board ship in the spring of 403. 
 
 His story shews him as an lu)nest, but credu- 
 lous and narrow-minded, zealot for church 
 orthodoxy. His frequentjourneysandex tensive 
 reading enabled him to collect a large store of 
 historical information, and this he used with 
 much ingenuity in defending the church 
 orthodoxy of his time. But he exercised 
 really very small influence on dogmatic theo- 
 logy, and his theological polemics were more 
 distinguished by pious zeal than by penetrat- 
 ing intelligence. His refutation of the doc- 
 trine of Origen is astoundingly superficial, a 
 few meagre utterances detached from th»'ir 
 context being all he gives us, and yet he 
 boasted of having read 6,000 of Origen's works, 
 a much larger number, as Rufinus remarks, 
 than Origen had written. 
 
 Those of his time regarded Epiphanius as 
 a saint ; wherever he appeared, he was sur- 
 rounded by admiring disciples, and crowds 
 waited for hours to hear him preach. His 
 
 biography, written in the name of I'olybius, 
 ] an alleged companion of the saint (printed in 
 the edd. of Petavius and Dindorf), is little 
 ' more than a collection of legends. 
 I Among his writings the most important are 
 the Ancoratus and Panarion. The Ancoralus 
 
302 
 
 EPIPHANIUS 
 
 comprises in 121 sections a prolix exposition, 
 f uUof repetitions, of thedoctrinesof the Trinity, 
 the true humanity of Christ and the resurrec- 
 tion of the body, with a constant polemic 
 against Origen and the heresiarchs of his own 
 time, especially Arians, Sabellians, Pneuma- 
 tomachi, and Dimoirites (ApoUinarians). The 
 whole concludes with the Nicene creed in a 
 twofold form with various additions. This 
 work is chiefly of interest as a witness to the 
 orthodoxy of its time. The Panarion is of 
 much greater importance. It deals in three 
 books with 80 heresies. The catalogue is 
 essentially that already given in his Ancoratus 
 (cc. II and 12). He begins with heresies 
 existing at the time of our Lord's birth — 
 Barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism, 
 Samaritanism. The last three are sub- 
 divided ; Hellenism and Samaritanism into 
 four each, Judaism into seven. Then follow 
 60 heresies after the birth of Christ, from the 
 Simonians to the Massalians, including some 
 which, as Epiphanius acknowledges, were 
 rather acts of schism than heresies. The extra- 
 ordinary division of pre-Christian heresies is 
 founded on a passage he often quotes (Col. 
 iii. 11). Barbarism lasted from Adam to 
 Noah, Scythianism from Noah to the migra- 
 tion of Peleg and Reu to Scythia. Hellenism, 
 he thinks, sprang up under Serug, understand- 
 ing thereby idolatry proper. Of the various 
 Greek schools of philosophy, which he regards 
 as particular heresies belonging to Hellenism 
 and offers a complete list of them in the con- 
 clusion of his work, he shews himself but 
 poorly informed. His communications con- 
 cerning the various Jewish sects are for the 
 most part worthless ; and what he says of the 
 Nasarenes and Ossenes (Haer. xviii. and xix.) 
 is derived purely from respectable but mis- 
 understood narratives concerning the Ebion- 
 ites and Elkesaites. His accounts of the 
 Jewish-Christian and Gnostic sects of the 2nd 
 and 3rd cents, mingle valuable traditions 
 with misunderstandings and fancies of his 
 own. His pious zeal to excel all previous 
 heresiologers by completing the list of heretics 
 led him into strange misunderstandings, 
 adventurous combinations, and arbitrary 
 assertions. He often frames long narratives 
 out of very meagre hints. The strangest 
 phenomena are combined with a total absence 
 of criticism, and cognate matters are arbitrar- 
 ily separated. Yet he often copies his author- 
 ities with slavish dependence, and so enables 
 critical commentators to collect a rich abund- 
 ance of genuine traditions from his works. 
 For the section from Dositheus to Noetus 
 {Haer. xiii.-lvii.) he used a writing now lost, 
 but of very great importance, which is also 
 used by a contemporary writer, Philastrius of 
 Brixia — viz. the work of Hippolytus, Against 
 all Heresies. Besides this he used the well- 
 known work of Irenaeus of Lyons. These 
 narratives are often pieced together in very 
 mechanical fashion, resulting in frequent re- 
 petitions and contradictory statements. 
 
 Besides these two, he had access to many 
 original works of heretics themselves and 
 numerous trustworthy oral traditions. Very 
 valuable are his extracts (Haer. xxxi.) from an 
 old Valentinian work, the Ep. of Ptolemaeus to 
 Flora, which is quoted entire (xxxiii.), and the 
 
 EPIPHANIUS 
 
 copious extracts from Marcion's gospel (xlii.). 
 Against the Montanists (xlviii.) he uses an 
 anonymous controversial work of great anti- 
 quity, from which Eusebius also (H. E. v. 17) 
 gives large extracts ; in his article on the Alogi 
 (Haer. li.) he probably uses the work of 
 Porphyry against the Christians. In the sec- 
 tion against Origen (xliv.) copious extracts are 
 introduced from Methodius, irepl d^ao-rdo-ewj. 
 Several notices of heresies existing in Epi- 
 phanius's own time are derived from his 
 own observation. The last main division 
 of the Panarion (Haer. Ixv.-lxxx.), where 
 he carefully notes the different opinions of 
 Arians, semi- Arians, Photinians, Marcellians, 
 Pneumatomachi, Aerians, Aetians, Apollinar- 
 ists, or Dimoirites, is one of the most important 
 contemporary authorities for the Trinitarian 
 and Christological controversies since the 
 beginning of the 4th cent. Although a fana- 
 tical partisan, and therefore not always to be 
 relied on, Epiphanius speaks almost every- 
 where from his own knowledge and enhances 
 the value of his work by the literal transcrip- 
 tion of important documents. Of far inferior 
 value are his attempted refutations, which 
 are further marred by fanatical abuse, mis- 
 representation of opinions, and attacks on 
 character. He takes particular pleasure in 
 describing real or alleged licentious excesses 
 on the part of heretics ; his refutations proper 
 contain sometimes really successful argument, 
 but are generally weak and unhappy. The 
 work concludes with the section irtpl Tr/trTewr, 
 a glorifying description of the Holy Catholic 
 Church, its faith, its manners, and its ordin- 
 ances, of great and manifold significance for 
 the history of the church at that time. Each 
 section is preceded by a short summary. An 
 'ApaKe(f>a\aiioffis, probably the work of Epi- 
 phanius himself (preceded by a short extract 
 from an epistle of Epiphanius to Acacius and 
 Paulus, and followed by an extract from the 
 section setting forth the Catholic faith), almost 
 literally repeats the contents of these sum- 
 maries. This 'AvaKf<pa\aLw(m, a work used 
 by St. Augustine and St. John Damascene, 
 apparently circulated as an independent 
 writing, as did bk. x. of the Philosophumena 
 and the summary added to Hippolytus's 
 ffvvrayfxa against all heresies and preserved 
 in a Latin translation in the Praescriptiones of 
 Tertullian. Of another more copious epitome- 
 midway between the brevity of the '\vaK€(pa, 
 Xaiuaii and the details of the Panarion, a large 
 fragment was pub. by Dindorf from a Paris 
 MS., No. 854, in his ed. of Epiphanius, vol. i. 
 PP- 339-369. from a transcript made by Fr. 
 Duebners (cf. also the various readings given 
 by Dindorf from a Cod. Cryptoferrar. vol. iii. 
 p. 2, praef. pp. iv.-xii.). 
 
 The best ed., that of W. Dindorf (Leipz. 
 1859-1862, 5 vols. sm. 8vo), contains all the 
 genuine writings (the Ancoratus, Anacepha- 
 laeosis, Panarion, and deMensuriset Ponderibus 
 in the Gk. text, de Gemmis in all three text 
 forms, and the two epistles in Jerome's 
 trans.), and also the spurious homilies, the 
 epitome, and the Vita Epiphanii of Polybius. 
 Of works and treatises concerning Epipha- 
 nius may be mentioned the book attributed to 
 the abbe Gervais, L'Hisloire et la vie de St. 
 
I 
 
 EPIPHANIUS 
 
 Epiphane (Paris, 1738) ; TilloiiKnit, Mitnoires, 
 t. X. pp. 484 scq., 822 seq. ; Fabricius, Bibl. 
 Graec. cd. Harl. viii. pp. 261 seq. ; Schrockh, 
 Christlichc Kirchengeschichte, t. x. pp. 3 iT. ; 
 liberharcl. Die Betheiligintg ties Epiphunius an 
 dem Streilc iibe-r Origenes (Trier, 1850) ; I.ip- 
 sius, Zur Qtiellenkritik des Epiphanios (Wien, 
 
 1805). [R.A.I..] 
 
 Eplphanlus (17), i6th bp., 5th patriarch 
 of Constantinople, a.d. 520-535, succeeding I 
 John 11. I 
 
 The eastern empire was now rising to great 
 splemiour through the victories of its generals, 
 Beiisarius and Narses. Idolatry was univer- 
 sally suppressed, heathen books were burnt, 
 pagan images destroyed, the professors of the 
 old religion imprisoned and flogged. At 
 Constantinople the zeal of Justinian for a 
 church policy was shewn during the patri- 
 archate of Epiphanius by laws {e.g. in 528 and 
 529) regulating episcopal electit'ns and duties. 
 These enactments, and the passivity of Epi- 
 phanius and his clergy, are remarkable proofs 
 of the entire absence as yet of any claims such 
 as the clergy later asserted for exclusively 
 clerical legislation for the spirituality. 
 
 The ftrst conspicuous office of Epiphanius 
 was the charge of the catechumens at Con- 
 stantinople. In 519, the year before his 
 election, he was sent with bp. John and count 
 Licinius to Macedonia to receive the docu- 
 ments " libellos," or subscriptions of those 
 who wished reunion with the Catholic church, 
 at the request of the apocrisiarius of Dorotheus 
 bp. of Thessalonica. On Feb. 25, 520, he 
 was elected bishop by the emperor Justin, 
 with the consent of bishops, monks, and 
 people. He is described in the letter of the 
 synod of Constantinople to pope Hormisdas 
 as "holding the right faith, and maintaining 
 a fatherly care for orphans" (Patr. Lat. Ixiii. 
 483). He accepted the conditions of peace 
 between East and West concluded by his 
 predecessor, the patriarch John, with pope 
 Hormisdas ; ratifying them at a council at 
 Constantinople, where he accepted also the 
 decrees of Chalcedon. Dioscorus, agent of 
 Hormisdas at Constantinople, writes of his 
 fair promises, but adds, " What he can fulfil 
 we don't know. He has not yet asked us to 
 communion" (ib. 482). Four letters remain 
 of Epiphanius to Hormisdas, telling him of 
 his election, sending him his creed, and de- 
 claring that he condemned all those whose 
 name the pope had forbidden to be recited in 
 the diptychs. Epijihanius adopts the symbf)l 
 of Nicaea, the decrees of Ephesus, Constanti- 
 nople, and Chalcedon, and the letters of pope 
 Leo in defence of the faith. His second letter 
 was accompanied by a chalice of gold sur- 
 rounded with precious stones, a patina of gold, 
 a chalice of silver, and two veils of silk, which 
 he presented to the Roman church. In order 
 to make the peace general, he advises the pope 
 not to be too rigorous in exacting the extrusion 
 of the names of former bishops from diptychs. 
 His excuse for the bishops of Pontus, Asia, 
 and the East is composed in very beautiful 
 language. The answers of Hormisdas are 
 given in the Acts of the Council of Constanti- 
 nople held under Mennas. He trusts to the 
 prudence and experience of Epiphanius, and 
 recommends lenity towards the returning. 
 
 EPIPHANIUS SCHOLASTICUS 303 
 
 severity to the ol),liirat<-. Epii'h.mius is to 
 complete the reunion himself. (I. abbe, ConciL 
 >^'- I53-). 1537. 1545. I54<>, 1555. fd. 1671 ; 
 Patr. Lat. Ixiii. 407, 507, 523.) The severe 
 
 measures by which I ustin was establishing the 
 supremacy of the Catholics in the East were 
 arousing theodoric. the Arian master of Italy, 
 to retaliation in tin- West. Pope John I., the 
 successor of Hormisdas, becanu- thoroujihly 
 alarmed ; and in 525, at the demand of 
 Theodoric, proceeded to Constantinople to 
 obtain the revocation of the edict against the 
 Arians and get their churches restored to them 
 (Marcellin. Chron. ann. 525 ; Labbe, Conctl. 
 iv. 1600). (ireat honour was paid to pope 
 John in the eastern capital. The people went 
 out twelve miles to receive him, bearing 
 cereiuonial tapers and crosses. The enii)eror 
 Justin prostrated himself before him, and 
 wished to be crowned by his hand. The patri- 
 arch Epiphanius invited him to perform Mass; 
 but the pope, mindful of the traditional policy 
 of encroachment, refused to do so until they 
 had offered him the first seat. With high 
 solemnity he said the office in Latin on 
 Easter Day, communicating with all the 
 bishops of the East except Timothy of Alex- 
 andria, the declared eneiuy of Chalcedon 
 (Baron. 525, 8, 10; Pagi, ix. 349, 351 ; AA. 
 SS. May 27 ; Schrockh, xvi. 102, xviii. 214- 
 216 ; Gibbon, iii. 473 ; Milman, Lat. Christ. 
 i. 302). In 531 the dispute between Rome 
 
 and Constantinople was re\ived by the appeal 
 of Stephen, metropolitan of Larissa, to pope 
 Boniface, against the sentence of Epiphanius. 
 Stephen was eventually deposed, notwith- 
 standing his appeal. On June 5, 535, Epi- 
 phanius died, after an episcopate of 14 years 
 and 3 months (Theojih. a.d. 529 in Pair. 
 Gk. cviii. 477). All that is known of him is to 
 his advantage. 
 
 Besides his letters to Hormisdas. we have 
 the sentence of his council against Severus and 
 Peter (Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 783-786). Forty-five 
 canons are attributed to him (Assemani, Bibl. 
 Orient. 619). [w.m.s.] 
 
 Epiphanius (39) SohoIastiOUS, an ecclesiastic 
 c. A.D. 510, of whom we know scarcely any- 
 thing except tiiat he was the friend of Cassio- 
 DORUS, the celebrated head of the Monaslertum 
 Vivariense. He api)arently bore the name 
 Scholasticus, not so much because of any 
 devotion to literature or theology, but in the 
 sense that word frequently had in the middle 
 ages, meaning a chaplain, amanuensis, or 
 general assistant of any dignitary of the 
 church (Du Cange. Glossariutn, s.v.). In this 
 relationship, in all probability. Epiphanius 
 stood to his distinguished master, by whom 
 he was summf)ned to take a part in urging his 
 monks to classical and sacred studies, and 
 especially to the transcription of nianusc ripts. 
 To Epiphanius was assigned the translation 
 into Latin of the histories of Socrates. S020- 
 men, and Theodoret. Cassiodorus revised the 
 work, corrected faults of style, abridged it, 
 and arranged it into one continuous history 
 of the church. He then published it for the 
 use of the clergy. The book attained a high 
 reputation. It was known as the Tripartite 
 History; and. along with the translation of 
 Eusebius by Rufinus, it became the manual of 
 church history for the clergy of the West for 
 
304 
 
 ERACLIUS 
 
 many centuries. The book is generally pub. 
 as if Cassiodorus were its author, under the title 
 of Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae Epitome. 
 
 Epiphanius translated several additional 
 works, such as the commentaries of Didymus 
 upon the Proverbs of Solomon and the seven 
 Catholic Epistles, those of Epiphanius bp. of 
 Cyprus upon the Canticles, and perhaps others, 
 of which one survives, and may be found in 
 Labbe(Co«c.t. v.), namely, his Co(/M.E«cydtcw5, 
 a work to which he was also urged by Cassio- 
 dorus. It is a collection of letters addressed 
 by different synods to the emperor Leo in de- 
 fence of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon 
 against Timotheus Aelurus. [w.m.] 
 
 Eraclius (1) {Hemclius, in the older edi- 
 tions Eradius), deacon of the church of Hippo 
 A.D. 425, had inherited considerable property, 
 part of which he spent in raising a " memoria " 
 of the martyr [Stephen] ; the rest he offered 
 as a gift to the church. St. Augustine, fearing 
 that the absolute acceptance of such a gift 
 from so young a man might be the subject of 
 future reproval or regret, caused Eraclius first 
 to invest the money in land, which might be 
 given back to him should any unforeseen 
 reason for restitution arise. On becoming one 
 of Augustine's clergy, Eraclius made his 
 poverty complete by setting free a few slaves 
 whom he had retained (Aug. Servi. 356, vol. 
 V. 1387). In 426 .\ugustine was summoned 
 to Milevis, to obviate some threatened dis- 
 sensions. Severus, the late bishop, had 
 designated his successor in his lifetime, but 
 had made his choice known to his clergy only. 
 This caused discontent, and the interference 
 of Augustine was judged necessary to secure 
 the unanimous acceptance of the bishop so 
 chosen. Augustine, then in his 72nd year, 
 was thus reminded of the expedience of 
 securing his own church from similar trouble 
 at his death, and he made choice of Eraclius, 
 then apparently the junior presbyter of the 
 church, to be his coadjutor and designate 
 successor (D. C. A. i. 228). Only, though he 
 had himself been ordained bishop in the life- 
 time of his predecessor, Valerius, he now held 
 that this had been an unconscious violation 
 of the Nicene canon against having two 
 bishops in the same church, and therefore 
 resolved that Eraclius, while discharging all 
 the secular duties of the see, should remain a 
 presbyter until his own death. To obviate 
 future dispute, he assembled his people (Sept. 
 26, 426) to obtain their consent to the arrange- 
 ment, having the notaries of the church in 
 attendance to draw up regular " gesta " of the 
 proceedings, which those present were asked 
 to subscribe [Ep. 213, vol. ii. p. 788). 
 
 The capture of Hippo by the Vandals pre- 
 vented the arrangements from taking effect, 
 and Augustine does not appear to have had 
 any successor in his see. Eraclius, in 427, 
 held a private discussion with Maximinus, the 
 Arian bishop, which led to a public disputation 
 between Maximinus and Augustine (Coll. cum 
 Max. viii. 650). Two sermons by Eraclius 
 are preserved, the first of which, preached in 
 Augustine's presence, is almost all taken up 
 with compliments and apologies (v. 1523 and 
 72, Append, p. 131). [g.s.] 
 
 Ethelbert (1) I. (properly Aethelberht or 
 Aethelbriht; Bede, Aedilberct), king of Kent, 
 
 ETHELBERT [I. 
 
 son of Irminric, and great-grandson of Oeric, 
 surnamed Oisc, the son of Hengist, suc- 
 ceeded ^to the kingdom of the Kentishmen 
 as the heir of the " Aescingas " in 560 (the 
 date, 565, in the Chronicle is inconsistent with 
 Bede's reckoning given below). Some years 
 after his accession he provoked a conflict with 
 Ceawhn, the West Saxon king, and Cutha, 
 his brother, was defeated at Wimbledon with 
 the loss of two ealdormen and driven back 
 into Kent (Sax. Chron. a. 658). Ethelbert had 
 already married Bertha or Berhte, daughter of 
 Charibert, king of Paris, on the understanding 
 that she should be free to practise " the rites 
 of her own Christian religion," under a bishop 
 named Liudhard, chosen by her parents (Bede, 
 i. 25). Ethelbert faithfully observed this 
 compact, but shewed no curiosity about his 
 wife's creed. She and her episcopal chaplain 
 worshipped undisturbed in the old Roman- 
 British church of St. Martin, on a hill E. of 
 Ethelbert's city of Canterbury (Bede, i. 26). 
 Ethelbert succeeded, on the death of Ceawlin 
 in 593. to that i>re-eminence among the Saxon 
 and Anglican kings usually described as the 
 Bretwaldadom (see Freeman, Norm. Conq. i. 
 542). Four years later, in the spring of 597, 
 he was brought face to face with a band of 
 Christian missionaries, headed by Augustine, 
 whom pope Gregory the Great had sent to 
 " bring him the best of all messages, which 
 would ensure to all who received it eternal life 
 and an endless kingdom with the true and 
 living God " (Bede, i. 29). Ethelbert had sent 
 word to the foreigners to remain in the Isle of 
 Thanet, where they had landed, and " supplied 
 them with all necessaries until he should see 
 what to do with them." He soon came into 
 the isle, and sitting down with his " gesiths " 
 or attendant thanes in the open air (for he 
 feared the effect of spells under a roof) listened 
 attentively to the speech of Augustine. [Aug- 
 GUSTiNUS.] Then he spoke in some such 
 words as Bede has rendered immortal. " Your 
 words and your promises are fair ; but seeing 
 they are new and uncertain, I cannot give in 
 to them, and leave the rites which I, with the 
 whole race of the Angles, have so long observed. 
 But since you are strangers who have come 
 from afar, and, as I think I have observed, 
 have desired to make us share in what you 
 beUeve to be true and thoroughly good, we 
 do not mean to hurt you, but rather shall take 
 care to receive you with kindly hospitality, 
 and to afford you what you need for your 
 support ; nor do we forbid you to win over 
 to your faith, by preaching, as many as 3'ou 
 can." He gave them a dwelling in Canter- 
 bury, N.W. of the present cathedral precinct. 
 They began to make converts, as Bede tells 
 us, through the charm of their preaching, and 
 the still more powerful influence of consistent 
 lives. Shortly afterwards Ethelbert expressed 
 his belief in the truth of those promises which 
 he had described as unheard-of, and was 
 baptized ; the time, according to Canterbury 
 tradition, was June i, the Whitsun-eve of 
 597, the place, undoubtedly, was St. Martin's. 
 The king proved one of the truest and noblest 
 of royal converts. He built a new palace at 
 Regulbium or Reculver, abandoning his old 
 abode to Augustine, now consecrated as 
 archbishop, and adding the gift of various 
 
ETHERIA 
 
 "needful possessions" (Hcde, i. 26). He 
 assisted Ausustineinconvertinfjanold Koinan- 
 built church into " the cathedral church of 
 the Holy Saviour," and also built, " after 
 exhortation," a monastery outside the E. wall 
 of the city, dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul, 
 but afterwards known as " St Aupustine's." 
 He received by the hands of Mellitus, who, 
 with others, joined the mission in 601, a letter 
 of congratulation and exhortation from pope 
 Gregory ; and lent his aid as Bretwalda to 
 arrangements for a conference, near the Bristol 
 Channel, between his archbishop and some 
 bishops of the ancient British church. Among 
 the many " good services which he rendered 
 to his people," Bede reckons those " dooms " 
 or decrees which, " after the example of the 
 Romans, he framed with the consent of his 
 wise men," and among which he first of all 
 set down what satisfaction {bot) was to be 
 made by any one who robbed the church, tlic 
 bishop, or the clergy. For he was " minded 
 to afford his protection to those whose doc- 
 trine he had received " (Bede, ii. 5). For 
 these doonis, 90 in number, extant in the 
 Textus Roffensis, see Th(jrpe's Ancient Laws 
 and Institutes of England, p. i. Ethelbert's 
 nephew Sabert, the son of his sister Ricula, 
 held the dependent kingship of the East 
 Saxons, and embraced the faith under the 
 persuasion of his uncle and overlord, who 
 built a church of St. Paul in London for 
 Mellitus as bishop of that kingdom. He also 
 built at " Hrof's Castle," i.e. Rochester, a 
 church of St. Andrew for a bishop named 
 Justus ; " gave many gifts to both prelates, 
 and added lands and possessions for the use 
 of those who were with them." It was doubt- 
 less in Ethelbert's reign and under his influence 
 that Redwald, king of the East Angles, while 
 visiting Kent, received baptism, although, as 
 his after-conduct shewed, his convictions were 
 not deep (Bede, ii. 19). After Bertha's death, 
 Ethelbert married a young wife whose name 
 is unknown. His last days must have been 
 saddened by anxiety as to the future reign of 
 his son Eadbald, who refused to receive the 
 faith of Christ. Ethelbert died, after what 
 Bede describes as a most glorious reign of 56 
 years, on Feb. 24, a.d. 616, and was buried 
 beside his first wife in the " porticus " or 
 transept of St. Martin, within the church of 
 SS. Peter and Paul, leaving behind a memory 
 held in grateful reverence as that of the first 
 English Christian king (Hardy, Cat. Mat. i. 
 176, 214-216, 259). Cf. The Mission of St. 
 Augustine, according to the Original Documents, 
 by A. J. Mason, D.D. (Camb. 1897). [w.b.] 
 
 Etheria. [Sylvia.] 
 
 Eucherius (1), St., bp. of Lyons, prob. born 
 late in 4th cent. ; except perhaps St. Irenaeus 
 the most distinguished occupant of that see. 
 
 Authorities. — Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. lib. 
 iii. 8. ; St. Isidorus, de Ecclesiasticis Scriptori- 
 bus, cap. XV. i Gennadius, de Illustribus Eccle- 
 siae Scriptoribus, cap. Ixiii. ; Cassianus, some 
 of whose Collationes (xi.-xvii.) are addressed to 
 Eucherius and Honoratus. [Cassianus (It).] 
 
 Born in a high social position, he married 
 Galla, a lady of his own station. Their two 
 sons, Salonius and Veranius, received an 
 ecclesiastical education in the monastery of 
 Lerinum under St. Honoratus and Salvanius ; 
 
 EUCHERIUS 
 
 30.1 
 
 and both appear, from the title of the com- 
 mentary on Kings, falsely ascribed to Eucher- 
 ius, to have become bishops during the lifctiuie 
 of their father. 
 
 The civic duties of Eucherius (whatever they 
 were) appear to have been discharged con- 
 scientiously and vigoroiLsly. Sidonius Apol- 
 linaris is loud in the [iraise of his friend as a 
 layman, and compares him {Ep. viii.) to the 
 Bruti and Torquati of old. But the world, 
 then in a very turbulent and unsettled con- 
 dition, palled upon Eucherius, and while still 
 in the vigour of life he sought a retreat from 
 its cares and temptations on the island of 
 Leriniun, the smaller of the two isles now 
 known as the l.erins, oO Antibes ; and sub- 
 sequently on the larger one of Lero, now 
 called Sainte Marguerite. Here he pursued 
 an ascetic life of study and worship, devoting 
 himself also to the education of his children. 
 During this period he composed the two un- 
 doubtedly genuine works which we possess. 
 
 Intercourse, both personal and by corre- 
 spondence, with eminent ecclesiastics tended 
 to make widely known his deserved reputation 
 for sanctity and for a varied and considerable 
 learning, and c. 434 the church of Lyons 
 unanimously, unsought, elected him bishop. 
 He brought to the discharge of this office the 
 influence and experience acquired in lay 
 government, as well as the spiritual training 
 and erudition won in his retirenit iit. He was 
 bishop some 16 years, the remainder of his life, 
 and Claudianus Mamertus speaks of him as 
 " magnorum sui saeculi pontificum longe 
 maximus." He was succeeded by his son 
 Veranius, while Geneva became the see of his 
 other son Salonius. 
 
 Works. — I. Epistola, seu Libellus, de laude 
 Eretni. This short treatise, addressed to 
 St. Hilary of Aries, is assigned, with proba- 
 bility, to A.D. 428. The Collationes of Cassian, 
 composed at the request of Eucherius, had 
 given so vivid a picture of the hermits of the 
 Thebaid as to call forth this epistle. The 
 author calls attention to the blessings recorded 
 in Holy Scripture as connected with lonely 
 spots {e.g. the law was givt-n in the wilderness 
 and the chosen race fed with bread from 
 heaven) and to the sanction given to retire- 
 ment bv the examples of Moses, Elijah, St. 
 John Baptist, and our Lord Himself. In re- 
 ference to this last he exclaims, " O laus 
 magna deserti, ut diabolus, qui vicerat in 
 Paradiso, in Eremo vinceretur " ; and notices 
 the withdrawal of Christ to solitude for 
 prayer, and the fact of the Transfiguration 
 taking place on a mountain. 
 
 2. Epistola Paraenetica ad Valenanum cog- 
 natum. " De contemptu tnundi et saeculans 
 philosophiae." Its date is probably c. a.I). 
 432. Eucherius evidently desires his highly- 
 placed and wealthv kinsman to follow him m 
 retirement from the world. Valerian is re- 
 minded of the many saintly doctors of the 
 church who had once occupied an exalted 
 secular position ; e.g. Clement of Rome, 
 Gregorv Thaumaturgus, (.regory Nazianzen, 
 Basil. Paulinus of Nola, Ambrose, etc. The 
 Latin of this epistle won the approbation of 
 Erasmus, who published an edition, accom- 
 panied by scholia, at Basle, a.d. 1520. 
 
 3. Liber jormularum spintalts inlelltgenttat 
 
 20 
 
306 
 
 EUCHITE3 
 
 [al. de formd spiritalis intellectus] ad Veranium 
 filium. This is a defence of the lavvfuhiess of 
 the allegorical sense of Scripture, pleading the 
 testimony of Scripture itself ; e.g. Ps. Ixxvii. 
 [Ixxviii. A. v.] 2, and the use of such phrases 
 as " the hand of God," " the eyes of the I.ord," 
 etc., which cannot be taken ad literam. It 
 displays a very extensive acquaintance with 
 the Bible and anticipates many favourite 
 usages of mediaeval mystics and hymn- 
 writers ; such as the term anagoge (avayoo'^i]) 
 for the application of Scripture to the heavenly 
 Jerusalem, identification of the digitus Dei 
 with the Holy Spirit (St. Luke xi. 20, with 
 St. Matt. xii. 28) and the like. 
 
 4. Instruciionum Libri Duo ad Saloninm 
 filium. Of this treatise, the former book dis- 
 cusses difficulties in the O. and N.T., such as 
 the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the 
 Holy Trinity ; the permission of polygamy to 
 the patriarchs ; the existence of evil, which 
 (with many other divines) he makes simply 
 the privation of good, etc. The second book 
 deals with Hebrew names, but does not 
 display a very profound acquaintance with 
 Hebrew. Eucherius quotes with much re- 
 spect the version of the O.T. by Aquila. 
 
 There are also Homilies by him, and some 
 other works are ascribed to him of doubtful 
 authenticity. 
 
 Editions. — There is no complete edition of 
 the writings of Eucherius. For this art. the 
 Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (Lugduni), a.d. 
 1677 (t. vi. p. 822), has been used. Cf. A. 
 Gouillond, 5^ Eucher. Lerins et V Eglise de 
 Lyon au V' Siecle (Lyons, 1881). [j.g.c] 
 
 Euohites. Doctrines and Practices. — At the 
 beginning of the last quarter of the 4th cent, 
 or a little earlier, fanatics made their appear- 
 ance in Syria, whose manner of life was said 
 to have been introduced from Mesopotamia, 
 and who were known by the SjTriac name of 
 
 Messalians or Massalians (V^^'O), praying 
 people. X^y oravit is found in the Chaldee 
 (Dan. vi. n ; Ezra vi. 10). Epiphanius, 
 whose account of them is the last article (80) 
 of his work on heresies, translates the name 
 (ei)x<5M«i'oi), but in the next generation the 
 Messalians had obtained a technical name in 
 Greek also, and were known as Euchites 
 {evxnTai or evxirai). They professed to give 
 themselves entirely to prayer, refusing to 
 work and living by begging ; thus differing 
 from the Christian monks, who supported 
 themselves by their labour. They were of 
 both sexes, went about together, and in 
 summer weather slept in the streets pro- 
 miscuously, as persons who had renounced the 
 world and had no possession or habitation of 
 their own. Epiphanius dates the commence- 
 ment of this sect from the reign of Constantius 
 {d. A.D. 361). Theodoret (H. E. iv. 11 ; Haer. 
 Fab. iv. 10 ; Rel. Hist, iii., Vit. Marcian. vol. 
 iii. 1 146) dates its beginning a few years later 
 under Valentinian. There seems no founda- 
 tion for the charge that the Euchites were 
 derived from the Manichees. Epiphanius con- 
 nects them with heathen devotees whom he 
 calls Euphemites, and who it seems had also 
 been known as Messalians. The Euchites 
 appear never to have made any entrance into 
 
 EUCHITES 
 
 the West, but in the East, though probably 
 at no time very numerous, they are heard of 
 for centuries ; and when the Bogomiles of the 
 i2th cent, appeared, the name Messalian still 
 survived, and the new heretics were accounted 
 descendants of the ancient sect. 
 
 In the time of Epiphanius the Messalians 
 scarcely were a sect, having no settled system 
 nor recognized leader ; and Epiphanius im- 
 putes to them no error of doctrine, but only 
 criticizes their manner of life. 
 
 Two accounts of Euchite doctrine are 
 apparently of greater antiquity than the 
 authors who preserve them. One is given by 
 Timotheus (de Receptione Haer. in Cotelier's 
 Mon. Ecc. Gr. iii. 400). This writer was a 
 presbyter of Constantinople in the 6th cent. 
 His coincidences with Theodoret are too 
 numerous to be well explained except on the 
 supposition of common sources. These 
 sources probably were the Acts of the councils 
 of Antioch and Side, which contained sum- 
 maries of Messalian doctrine. Theodoret may 
 possibly also have used a Messalian book 
 called Asceticus, the doctrines of which, 
 Photius tells us, had been exposed and 
 anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 
 431. Probably that book furnished the 
 " heads of the impious doctrine of the Mes- 
 salians taken from their own book " given by 
 Joannes Damascenus {de Haer. ap. Cotelier, 
 Mott. Ecc. Gr. i. 302, and 0pp. Le Quien, i. 95), 
 but which would seem also (see Wolf, Hist. 
 Bogomil. p. 11) to have been separately pre- 
 served in two MSS. at Leipzig {.Acta Erudit- 
 orum, 1696, p. 299 ; 1699, p. 157 ; and in the 
 Bodleian, Cod. Barocc. 185). 
 
 They held that in consequence of Adam's 
 sin every one had from his birth a demon, 
 substantially united to his soul, which incited 
 him to sin, and which baptism was ineffectual to 
 expel. Dealing only with past sin, baptism did 
 but shear off the surface growth, and did not 
 touch the root of the evil. The true remedy 
 was intense, concentrated prayer, continued 
 till it produced a state from which all affections 
 and volitions were banished {airdtleia). In this 
 the soul felt as sensible a consciousness of 
 union with its heavenly bridegroom as an 
 earthly bride in the embraces of her husband. 
 Then the demon went out in the spittle or in 
 the mucus of the nose, or was seen to depart 
 in smoke or in the form of a serpent, and there 
 was in like manner sensible evidence of the 
 entrance of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine 
 {Haer. 57), who had some source of information 
 independent of Epiphanius, ascribes to them a 
 fancy that the Holy Spirit might be seen to 
 enter in the appearance of innocuous fire, and 
 the demon to pass out of the man's mouth in 
 the form of a sow with her farrow. Possibly 
 language intended by them metaphorically 
 was misunderstood ; for they described the 
 soul of him who had not Christ in him as the 
 abode of serpents and venomous beasts. They 
 further thought that he who had arrived at 
 the passionless state could see the Holy Trinity 
 with his bodily eyes ; that the three hypos- 
 tases of the Trinity coalesced into one, which 
 united itself with worthy souls. This doctrine 
 no doubt furnishes the key to the account 
 given by Epiphanius of the effacement of the 
 sense of distinct personality in members of this 
 
EUCHITES 
 
 sect. Theyheldthepossibilityiu the passionless 
 state of a perfection ill which sin was impossible; 
 such a man needed neither instruction for his 
 soul nor fasting to discipline his body, for 
 delicate food and luxurious living could stir 
 no evil desire in him. It is probably a mis- 
 conception to suppose that they claimed that 
 he could be guilty of licentious conduct with- 
 out falling from perfection. The soul of him 
 who was " spiritual," as they boasted them- 
 selves to be, was changed into the divine 
 nature ; he could see things invisible to 
 ordinary men ; and so some of them used to 
 dance by way of trampling on the demons 
 which they saw, a practice from which they 
 were called Choreutac. The things they saw 
 in their dreams they took for realities, and 
 boasted that they then acquired a knowledge 
 of future events, could see the condition of 
 departed souls, and could read men's hearts. 
 Both sexes might partake of this divine il- 
 lumination, and they had female teachers, 
 whom they honoured more than the clergy. 
 The use of the Lord's Supper they regarded 
 as a thing indifferent : it could neither benefit 
 the worthy nor harm the unworthy receiver ; 
 but there was no reason for separating from 
 the church by refusing it. They disparaged 
 all the ordinary forms of Christian charity as 
 compared with the merit of bestowing alms 
 on one of their members. They had specula- 
 tions about our Lord's humanity, of which the 
 most intelligible is that the body which He 
 assumed had been full of demons wlji.ch it 
 was necessary for Him to expel. 
 
 History. — The first whom we read of as a 
 leader of the sect is .\delphius ; hence " Adel- 
 phians " was one of their many names. He 
 was a layman of Mesopotamia. Epiphanius 
 speaks of them in his time as having no recog- 
 nized leader. Theodoret tells that Flavian 
 bp. of Antioch sent monks to bring the 
 Messalian teachers at Edessa to Antioch. 
 They denied their doctrines, and charged their 
 accusers with calumny. Flavian then used 
 an artifice afterwards repeated by Alexius 
 Comnenus in the case of the Bogomiles. He 
 atTected to take their part, treated the aged 
 Adelphius with great respect, and led him to 
 believe that he would find in an aged bishop 
 one able to understand and sympathize with 
 views which younger men rejected only from 
 want of experience. Adelphius, having been 
 thus enticed into a full disclosure of his senti- 
 ments, was rebuked in the words addressed by 
 Daniel to the wicked elder (Susaima, 52) and 
 punished as onvicted out of his own mouth. 
 He and his party were beaten, excommunicat- 
 ed, and banished, and were not allowed, as 
 they wished, the alternative of recantation, 
 no confidence being felt in their sincerity, 
 especially as they were found communicating 
 in friendly terms with Messaliaiis whom they 
 bad anathematized. Probably it was on this 
 occasion that Flavian held a synod against 
 them (Photius, 52), attended by three other 
 bishops (Bizus of Seleucia, a Mesopotamian 
 bishop, Alaruthas, described by Pliotius as 
 bp. of the Supharenians, and Samus) and by 
 about 30 clergy. With Adelphius there were 
 condemned two persons named Sabas, one of 
 them a monk and a eunuch, Eustathius of 
 Edessa, Dadoes, Hermas, Symeon, and others. 
 
 EUCHITES 
 
 :ju7 
 
 Flavian informed the bishops of Edessa and 
 neighbourhood what had been done, and 
 received an approving reply. The Messalians 
 banished from Syria went to Pamphylia, and 
 there n\et new antagt)nists. They were also 
 condemned by a council of 25 bishops held at 
 Side and presided over by Ampiiii.ociiii's of 
 Iconium, which sent a synodical letter to 
 Flavian, informing him of their proceedings. 
 In their Acts .Vmphilnchius gave a full state- 
 ment of the Messalian tenets expresseil in their 
 own words. Photius reprtsents the synod at 
 Antioch just mentioneil as having been called 
 in conse(]uence of the synodical letter from 
 Side, but this is more than doubtful, though 
 Theodoret also, in his Eccl. Hist., mentions the 
 proceedings in Pamphylia before mentioning 
 those which resulted in the banishment of the 
 Messalians to Pamphylia. We cannot fix the 
 year of these proceedings, but c. 390 will 
 probably not be far wrong. Measures were 
 taken against the Messalians in Armenia also. 
 Letoius bp. of Melitene obtained information 
 from Flavian as to the i>roceedings in Antioch. 
 Finding some mr>nasteries in his diocese in- 
 fected by this heresy, he set fire to them, and 
 hunted the wohes from his sheepfold. A less 
 zealous Armenian bishop was rebuked by 
 Flavian for favour shewn to these heretics. 
 In Pamphylia the contest lasted for several 
 years. The orthodox leaders were another 
 Amphilochius, bp. of Side, and Verinianus bp. 
 of Perga, who were stimulated by energetic 
 letters from Atticus bp. of Constantinople, and 
 later, in a.d. 426, from the synod held for the 
 consecration of Sisinnius, the successor of 
 Atticus, in which Theodotus of Antioch and a 
 bishop named Neon are mentioned by Photius 
 as taking active parts. Messalianism had 
 probably at that time given some trouble in 
 Constantinople itself. Nilus (de Vol. Paup. 
 ad Magnam, 21) couples with Adelphius of 
 Mesopotamia, Alexander, who polluted Con- 
 stantinople with like teaching, and against 
 whom he contends that their idleness, instead 
 of aiding devotion, gave scope to evil thoughts 
 and passions and was inimical to the true 
 spirit of praver. Tillemont has conjectured 
 that this was the .Alexander who about this 
 time founded the order of the Acoimetae (see 
 D. C. A. S.V.), but the identification is far from 
 certain. There is no evidence that the latter 
 was a heretic save that his name has not 
 been honoured with the prefix of saint ; and 
 his institution would scarcely have met with 
 the success it did if it could have been repre- 
 sented as devised by a notorious Messalian 
 to carry out the notions of his sect as to the 
 duty of incessant prayer. 
 
 Between the accession of Sisinnius and the 
 council of Ephesus in 431. J^^hn of Antioch 
 wrote to Nestorius about the Messalians, and 
 Theodosius legislated against them (xvi. Cod. 
 Tbeod. deHaer. vol. vi. p. 187)- At Ephesus 
 Valerian of Iconium, and Amphilochius of 
 Side, in the name of the bps. of Lycaonia 
 and Pamphvlia, obtained from the council a 
 confirmation of the decrees made against the 
 Euchites at Constantinople in 426 and the 
 anathematization of the Messalian book. 
 Asceticus, passages from which Valerian laid 
 bef.jre the svnod (Mansi, iv. 14 77)- Fabritius 
 names Agapius, and Wakh Adeli)hius, as the 
 
308 EUCHITES 
 
 author of this book, but the writer is really 
 unknown. These proceedings at Ephesus 
 were unknown to Gregory the Great (Ep. vi. 
 14, ad Narsem, vol. vii. p. 361), but are men- 
 tioned by Photius, and the decree was read at 
 the second council of Nicaea (Mansi, xii. 1025). 
 The cause of Gregory's oversight may have 
 been that his correspondent cited to him as 
 Ephesine the Acts of the council of Antioch. 
 We learn from the Ephesine decree that Mes- 
 salianism had also been condemned at Alex- 
 andria, and Timotheus mentions Cyril as an 
 antagonist of these heretics. In the Ep. ad 
 Calosyrium (prefixed to the tract adv. A nthro- 
 pomorph. vii. 363) Cyril rebukes certain monks 
 who made piety a cloak for laziness, but there 
 is no evidence that they were Euchites. The 
 articles of the Asceticus were the subject of 
 24 anathemas by Archelaus (bp. of Cae- 
 sarea in Cappadocia some time between the 
 two Ephesine synods of 431 and 449), and of 
 two letters by Heracleidas of Nyssa (c. 440). 
 The next Euchite leader of whom we read is 
 Lampetius, after whom his followers were 
 called Lampetians, and who is said to have 
 been the first of the sect to attain the dignity 
 of priesthood. He had been ordained by 
 Alypius, bp. of Caesarea (Cappadocia) in 458. 
 He was accused to Alypius by the presbvter 
 Gerontius, superior of the monks at Glitis, 
 of undue familiarity with women, unseemly 
 language, scoffing at those who took part in 
 the musical services of the church as being 
 still under the law when they ought to make 
 melody only in their hearts, and of other 
 Euchite doctrines and practices. The exam- 
 ination of the charges was delegated by Aly- 
 pius to Hormisdas bp. of Comana, and Lam- 
 petius was degraded from the priesthood. He 
 wrote a work called the Testament, answered 
 by the Monophysite Severus, afterwards bp. 
 of Antioch. A fragment of this answer is 
 preserved in a catena belonging to New Col- 
 lege, Oxford (Wolf, Anecdnta Graeca, in. 182). 
 It insists on the duty of praising God both 
 with heart and voice. The same catena con- 
 tains an extract from another work of Severus 
 against the Euchites, an epistle to a bp. Solon. 
 Photius tells that in Rhinocorura two persons 
 named Alpheus, one of them a bishop, de- 
 fended the orthodoxy of Lampetius, and were 
 in consequence deposed. He learned this from 
 a letter written by Ptolemv, another bishop of 
 the same district, to Timotheus of Alexandria. 
 There have been at Alexandria several bishops 
 of that name, but probably the Timotheus in- 
 tended is the one contemporary with Lam- 
 petius (460-482). 
 
 The next Messalian leader of whom we read 
 (in Timotheus) is Marcian, a money-changer, 
 who lived in the middle of the 6th cent., and 
 from whom these sectaries came to be called 
 Marcianists. The correspondence of Gregory 
 the Great, akeady referred to, arose out of the 
 condemnation under this name, unknown in 
 the West, in 595, of one John, a presbvter of 
 Chalcedon. He appealed to the pope, who 
 pronounced him orthodox, complaining that 
 he had not even been able to make out from 
 his accusers what the heresv of Marcianism 
 was. In the 7th cent. Maximus, in his 
 
 scholia on the Pseudo-Dionysius (II. 88), 
 charges those whom he calls indifferently 
 
 EUDOXIUS 
 
 Lampetians, Messalians, Adelphians, or Mar- 
 cianists, with giving but three years to ascetic 
 life and the rest of their life to all manner of 
 debauchery. 
 
 We hear no more of the Messalians till the 
 Bogomile heresy arose in the 12th cent. 
 
 Of modern writers, the most useful are 
 Tillemont, viii. 530 ; Walch, Hist, der Ketz. 
 iii. 418 ; and Neander, Ch. Hist. iii. 323. [g.s.] 
 
 Eudoxius (2), 8th bp. of Constantinople 
 (360-370), previously bp. of Germanicia and 
 of Antioch, one of the most influential Arians. 
 Between 324 and 331 St. Eustathius was bp. 
 of Antioch. Eudoxius came to him seeking 
 holy orders. Eustathius found his doctrine 
 unsound and refused him. But when Eusta- 
 thius was deposed, the Arians or Eusebians 
 had everything their own way, and admitted 
 Eudoxius to orders and made him bp. of 
 Germanicia, on the confines of Syria, Cilicia, 
 and Cappadocia. This bishopric he held at 
 least 17 years, the dark period of the principal 
 intrigues against Athanasius, and of the reigns 
 of the sons of Constantine. In 34 1 was held, 
 at Antioch, the council of the Dedication or 
 Encaenia, under Placillus. Eudoxius of Ger- 
 manicia attended. He was an Arian pure 
 and simple, a disciple of Aetius, a friend of 
 Eunomius. The council produced four creeds, 
 in which the Eusebian party succeeded in 
 making their doctrine as plausible as might 
 be, and the second of these became known as 
 the " Creed of the Dedication." Athanasius 
 says that Eudoxius was sent with Martyrius 
 and Macedonius to take the new creed of 
 Antioch to Italy. This new creed may, how- 
 ever, have been the Macrostich, or Long 
 Formula, drawn up at a later council of 
 Antioch. In 343 or 347 the rival councils 
 of Sardica and Philippopolis were held. At 
 the latter was drawn up a creed more Arian 
 than those of Antioch, and it was signed by 
 Eudoxius. At the end of 347 Eudoxius was 
 in attendance on the emperor in the West, 
 when news came of the death of Leontius of 
 Antioch. Excusing himself on the plea that 
 the affairs of Germanicia required his presence, 
 he hastened to Antioch, and, representing 
 himself as nominated by the emperor, got 
 himself made bishop, and sent Asphalus, a 
 presbyter of Antioch, to make the best of the 
 case at court. Constantius wrote to the 
 church of Antioch : " Eudoxius went to seek 
 you without my sending him. ... To what 
 restraint will men be amenable, who impu- 
 dently pass from city to city, seeking with a 
 most unlawful appetite every occasion to 
 enrich themselves ? " Meanwhile the new 
 prelate was preaching open Arianism and 
 persecuting the orthodox. In the first year 
 of his episcopate at Antioch he held a council, 
 which received the creed of Sirmium. An 
 idea may be formed of his sermons from three 
 different sources. Hilary of Poictiers, then 
 in the East, heard Eudoxius in his cathedral, 
 and wished his ears had been deaf, so horribly 
 blasphemous was the language. Theodoret 
 and Epiphanius report him as boasting that 
 he had the same knowledge about God as 
 God had about Himself. 
 
 A council was held at Seleucia in Sept. 359, 
 the orthodox forming a very small minority. 
 The majority signed the " Creed of the Dedi- 
 
EULALIUS 
 
 cation " ; Eudoxius, who was present, was 
 deposed by the less heretical party, and ap- 
 pears to have soupht the shelter of the court 
 at Constantinople. Here, by the aid of the 
 Acacians, he secured his appointment as patri- 
 arch on the deposition of Macedonius, and on 
 Jan. 2 7, 360, took possession ol his throne in 
 the presence of 72 bishops. On Feb. 15 
 the great church of Constantinople, St. Sophia, 
 begun in 342 by the emperor Constantius, was 
 dedicated. Eudoxius, mounting his episcopal 
 throne before the expectant multitude of 
 courtiers, ecclesiastics, and citizens, began 
 with the words : " The Father is a<Tt^r)$, the 
 Son is eiVe/ijjs." A great tumult of indigna- 
 tion arose on all sides in St. Sophia. The 
 orator, unabashed, explained : " The Father 
 is aa(}ir)% because He honours nobody ; the 
 Son is eiVff^;;? because He honours the 
 Father." The new cathedral echoed with 
 peals of uncontrollable laughter. Thus, says 
 Socrates (ii. 43), these heresiarchs tore the 
 church to pieces by their captious subtilties. 
 
 Eudoxius consecrated his friend Eunomius 
 to the see of Cyzicus ; but such complaints 
 were brought to the emperor that he ordered 
 Eudoxius to depose him. Eudoxius, terrified 
 by menaces, persuaded him quietly to retire. 
 
 In 365 an attack was made on Eudoxius by 
 the semi-.\rians, now called Macedonians. 
 Holding a meeting at Lampsacus, they signed 
 the " Creed of the Dedication," cited E;udoxius 
 and his party before them, and, as they did not 
 come, sentenced them to deprivation ; but 
 Valens refused to confirm the proceedings. 
 In 367 Valens, as he was setting out for the 
 Gothic war, was induced by his wife to receive 
 baptism from Eudoxius. In the same year 
 he issued, doubtless under the advice of 
 Eudoxius. an order that such bishops as had 
 been banished bv Constantius and had re- 
 turned under Julian should again be exiled. 
 
 The years during which Eudoxius and 
 Valens acted together were troubled by por- 
 tents, which many attributed to the anger of 
 Heaven at the cruelty of Valens in banishing 
 bishops who would not admit Eudoxius to \ 
 their communion. Eudoxius died in 370. He 
 well deserves the character given him by 
 Baronius, " the worst of all the Arians." Soz. 
 H. E. iv. 26 ; Socr. H. E. ii. iq, 37, 40, 43 ; 
 Theoph. Chronogr. ^ 38 ; Niceph. Callist. 
 H. E. xi. 4 : Theod. H. E. ii. 25 ; Haer. 
 Fab. iv. 3 ; Epiph. de Haeres. Ixxiii. 2 ; Athan. 
 ad Solit. in Patr. Gk. xxvi. 572, 219, 589, 274, 
 580, 713, 601 ; Hilarius, de Synod., Patr. Lai. 
 X. 471, etc. ; Liber contr. Const. Imp. §§ 665, 
 680, 573. etc. [w.M.s.] 
 
 EulaliUS fl), an antipope, elected and or- 
 dained as bp. of Rome after the death of 
 Zosimus at the close of 418, in opposition to 
 Boniface I., who was finally established in the 
 see, Eulalius being expelled from Rome by 
 the emperor Honorius in April 419. The 
 official letters which passed have been pre- 
 served in the Vatican, and are quoted at length 
 bv Baronius (A. E. ann. 418, Ixxix. 419, ii.- 
 xxxii.). They throw light on the conflicts 
 attending the election of bishops, and on the 
 powers exercised by the emperors in connexion 
 therewith. First we have a letter (Dec. 29, 
 418) to Honorius at Ravenna from Symmachus 
 the Praefectus Urbis, stating that, after he 
 
 EULALIUS 
 
 309 
 
 had warned the people to proceed to a new 
 election without disturbance, Eulalius the 
 archileacon had been taken to the I.atrran 
 church bv the clergv and people, duly elected, 
 and ordaineil ; while certain presbyters, ac- 
 companied by a crowd, had gone with Moni- 
 facius, a presbyter, to the church of Theodora, 
 and, though warned t<i do nothing rashly, had 
 ordained him in the church of St. Marcellus, 
 and thence took him to St. Peter's basilica. 
 He requests the instructions of the emperor, 
 with whom, he says, it rests to give judgment 
 in such a case. Honorius replies (Jan. 3, 419) 
 by ordering Boniface to be expelled from the 
 city, and the authors of the sedition in his 
 favour punished, Eulalius having been duly 
 appointed according to the rule of Catholic 
 discipline (conipetens numerus ordinantium, 
 solemnitas tem;»>ris, locique qualitas) and the 
 rival electinn being deficient in these respects. 
 Symmachus replies (Jan. 8) that he has carried 
 out the emperor's order, not without resistance 
 on the part of Boniface, who had caused a 
 messenger sent to forbid a procession to be 
 beaten by the people ; had held the proces- 
 sion ; and had forcibly entered the city, but 
 had been expelled by an opj^osing mob ; while 
 Eulalius had celebrated service in the basilica 
 of St. Peter amid the acclamations of almost 
 the whole city. 
 
 Meantime the presbyters who supported 
 Boniface had sent a different account. They 
 had been unable, they say, to assemble in the 
 customary jilace, the Lateran church, because 
 of its being occupied by Eulalius with a very 
 small number of presbyters and an excited 
 mob ; they were the great majority of the 
 clergy, supported by the better part of the 
 laity ; amid general acclamation they had 
 elected Boniface, in whose ordination 70 
 priests and 9 bishops of divers provinces had 
 concurred ; whereas the bp. of Ostia, a sick 
 old man almost at the point of death, had been 
 brought against his will to assist in the ordina- 
 tion of Boniface's rival. 
 
 Having received this counter-statement, 
 Honorius writes to Symmachus (Jan. 15), 
 revoking his former edict ; commanding the 
 attendance at Ravenna (Feb. 8) of Boniface 
 and Eulalius, with their respective supporters, 
 before a svnod. 
 
 The documents shew that the members of 
 this svnod were divided, and unable to come 
 to a decision before Easter (Mar. 30), when 
 custom required a bishop to celebrate in Rome. 
 Honorius therefore decided to refer the case 
 after Easter to a fuller synod, and commis- 
 sioned Achilleus bp. of Spoleto to celebrate 
 Easter in Rome, forbidding both claimants to 
 be present there. He exacts obedience in a 
 high tone of authority, and threatens with 
 summarv punishment all disturbers of the 
 peace. The synod was to be held at Spoletuni 
 on June 13. Honorius sent private letters to 
 several of the more important prelates. t.R. 
 Paulinns of Nola, Augustine, and Aurelius <>f 
 Carthage, and circular letters to the bishops 
 of Africa and (iaul. The proposed assend>ly. 
 I however, never took place. Eulalius and his 
 '• party, disregarding the imperial orders, en- 
 i tered Rome at mid-day. Mar. 18, and came 
 into violent collision with Achilleus and his 
 I supporters, Symmachus and the Vicarius 
 
310 
 
 EULOGIUS 
 
 Urbis narrowly escaping with their lives. 
 Thereupon the emperor ordered (Mar. 25) 
 Eulalius to be immediately expelled from the 
 city. Eulalius refused to comply, and took 
 violent possession of the Lateran church, but 
 was eventually dislodged thence and expelled 
 from Rome, an imperial edict (Apr. 3) exclud- 
 ing him from the see and confirming Boniface 
 as bp. of Rome. The latter was welcomed as 
 bishop by the whole population with joy and 
 gratitude to the emperor. 
 
 Eulalius retired to Antium, near Rome, 
 expecting the death of Boniface, who fell sick 
 after his accession, but this hope failing, he 
 made no further attempt to recover the see, 
 though invited to do so by his partisans in 
 Rome on the death of Boniface in 423. Ac- 
 cording to the Liber Pontificalis, he afterwards 
 became bp. of Nepete. 
 
 From this account, extracted from contem- 
 porary documents, the following facts are 
 evident. First, that with the ancient custom 
 of election of a new bishop by the clergy, with 
 the assent of the laity, and confirmation by 
 provincial bishops, there was no desire on the 
 part of the civil power to interfere. Secondly, 
 that elections had come to be conducted in an 
 irregular and tumultuous manner, giving rise 
 [Damasus] to violent conflicts, with blood- 
 shed even in the churches. Thirdly, that it 
 was the necessity of restoring order, and 
 adjudicating between rival claims, that led to 
 the interposition of the emperor. Fourthly, 
 that in this case the emperor did not insist 
 on a right to decide on the validity of either 
 election without first submitting the question 
 to an episcopal synod. Fifthly, eventually, 
 serious provocation being given, he settled the 
 question on his own authority, without the 
 sanction of a synod or regard to the canoni- 
 city of the original election. A statement in 
 the Liber Pontificalis that Eulalius was de- 
 posed by a synod of 252 bishops is inconsistent 
 with the contemporary evidence given above, 
 and, as such, Baronius rejects it. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Eulogius (4), bp. of Edessa. When a pres- 
 byter there he suffered in the persecution by 
 Valens. Barses the bishop having been 
 deposed and exiled, the orthodox refused to 
 communicate with an Arian prelate, intruded 
 into the see. Modestus the prefect com- 
 manded the leading ecclesiastics to obey the 
 emperor and communicate with the new 
 prelate. The whole body, led by Eulogius, 
 offered so firm a resistance that Modestus 
 sentenced them, 80 in number, to transporta- 
 tion to Thrace. The confessors received so 
 much honour there that Valens relegated 
 them, two and two, to distant localities, 
 Eulogius with a presbyter Protogenes being 
 sent to Antinous in the Thebaid. Though 
 there was a Catholic bishop here the popu- 
 lation was almost entirely pagan, and the 
 two presbyters commenced missionary work 
 among them. On the cessation of the perse- 
 cution Eulogius and Protogenes returned to 
 Edessa, where, Barses being dead, Eulogius 
 was consecrated bishop bv Eusebius of Samo- 
 sata (Theod. H. E. iv. 18, v. 4). He attended 
 the councils held at Rome in 369 (Labbe, ii. 
 894), Antioch in 379, and Constantinople in 
 381 (ib. 955). See Soz. vi. 34; and Migne's 
 note 61, Patr. Gk. Ixvii. 1394. [e.v.] 
 
 EUNOMIUS 
 
 Eunomius (3) of Cappadocia, bp. of Cyzicus 
 (360-364) after the expulsion of Eleusius. As 
 the pupil and secretary of Aetius, he formu- 
 lated his master's system with a preciseness 
 which stamped the name of Eunomians instead 
 of that of Aetians on the Anomoean heretics. 
 He was distinguished by " a faculty of subtle 
 disputation and hard mechanical reasoning " 
 (Newman, Avians, c. iv. § 4), which subjected 
 the Christian verities to strict logical pro- 
 cesses, and rejected every doctrine that could 
 not be shewn to be consistent with human 
 reason. Neander further describes him as 
 the decided enemy of asceticism, and of the 
 growing disposition to worship saints and 
 relics — in fact, the " Rationalist " of the 4th 
 cent. (Ch. Hist. iv. p. 78, Clark's trans.). 
 
 The name of his birthplace is given as 
 Dacora by Sozomen and Philostorgius, and as 
 Oltiseris by Gregory Nyssen, who correctly 
 places it on the confines of Cappadocia and 
 Galatia (Soz. H. E. vii. 17 ; Philost. H. E. x. 
 6, xi. 5). Eunomius came of an honest, in- 
 dustrious stock. His father, an unpretending, 
 hard-working man, supported his family by 
 the produce of his land and by teaching a few 
 neighbours' children in the winter evenings 
 (Greg. Nys. in Eunoni. i. p. 291). Eunomius 
 inherited his father's independent spirit. He 
 learnt shorthand, and became amanuensis to 
 a kinsman and tutor to his children. The 
 country becoming distasteful to him, he went 
 to Constantinople, hoping to study rhetoric. 
 Gregory Nyssen, who endeavours to blacken 
 his character as much as possible, hints 
 that his life there was not very reputable, but 
 specifies no charges. It was reported that he 
 worked as a tailor, making clothes and girdles. 
 Before very long he returned to Cappadocia. 
 
 The fame of Aetius, then teaching at Alex- 
 andria, reaching Eunomius, he proceeded 
 thither c. 356, and placed himself under his in- 
 struction, acting also as his amanuensis (Socr. 
 H. E. ii. 35, iv. 7 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 27 ; Philost. 
 H. E. iii. 20 ; Greg. Nys. in Eunnm. i. p. 290). 
 He accompanied Aetius to Antioch at the 
 beginning of 358, to attend the Arian council 
 summoned by Eudoxius, who had through 
 court favour succeeded to the see of Antioch. 
 
 The bold front displayed by the Arians at 
 this council, and the favour shewn to the 
 flagrant blasphemies of Aetius and Eunomius, 
 who did not scruple to assert the absolute 
 unlikeness {avotioiov) of the Son to the 
 Father, excited the strong opposition of the 
 semi-Arian party, of which George of Laodi- 
 cea, Basil of Ancyra. and Macedonius of 
 Constantinople, were the highly respectable 
 leaders. Under colour of the dedication of a 
 church, a council was speedily held by them at 
 Ancyra at which the Anomoean doctrines and 
 their authors were condemned. A synodical 
 letter was sent to the emperor denouncing the 
 teaching of Eunomius and his master and 
 charging the latter with being privy to the 
 conspiracy of Gallus (Philost. H. E. iv. 8). 
 These proceedings struck dismay into the 
 Arian clique at Antioch, and Eunomius, now 
 a deacon, was sent to Constantinople as their 
 advocate. But, apprehended in Asia Minor 
 by some imperial officers, he was banished by 
 the emperor's orders to Midaeus or Migde in 
 Phrygia ; Aetius to Pepuza. Eudoxius found 
 
EUNOMIDS 
 
 it prudent to retire to his native Armenia till 
 the storm had blown over (Greg. Nys. ih. p. 
 291), but found means to reinstate himself in j 
 the emperor's favour, and at the close of 359 
 was chosen successor of Macedonius in the 
 imperial see. Constantius hail the utmost | 
 abhorrence of the Anomoeans aiid their teach- 
 ing. Aetius was therefore sacrificed by the 
 Arians as a scapegoat, while Eunoniius was 
 persuaded to separate himself reluctantly from 
 his old teacher and conceal his heterodoxy, 
 that he might secure a position of influence 
 from which to secretly disseminate his views. 
 Eudoxius procured for him from the emperor 
 the bishopric of Cyzicus, vacant by the de- 
 position of the semi-Arian Elf.usius ; but after 
 a while, weary of dissimulation, he began to 
 propound his doctrines, at first privately, and 
 then in public assemblies. Complaints of his 
 heterodoxy were laid before Eudoxius, who, 
 forced by Constantius. summoned Eunomius 
 before a council of bishops at Constantinople, 
 but sent him a secret message counselling 
 flight. Eunomius, not appearing, was con- 
 demned in his absence, deposed, and banished 
 (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv. 3 ; H. E. ii. 29 ; Phil- 
 ost. H. E. vi. i). On this he broke altogether 
 with his former associates, and headed a party 
 of his own, called after him Eunomians, pro- 
 fessing the extreme Anomoean doctrines of 
 the general comprehensibleness of the Divine 
 Essence, and the absolute unlikeness of the 
 Son to the Father. The accession of Julian 
 in 361 recalled Eunomius and Aetius among 
 the other bishops banished by Constantius. 
 They both settled in Constantinople during 
 the reigns of Julian and his successor Jovian 
 (Philost. H. E. vi. 7, vii. 6). The growing 
 popularity of Eunomianism at Constantinople 
 caused jealousy in Eudoxius, who took advan- 
 tage of the commotions caused by the rebel- 
 lion of Procopius on the accession of Valens 
 in 364 to expel Eunomius and Aetius from the 
 city. Eunomius retired to his country house 
 near Chalcedon. Procopius having also taken 
 refuge there in Eunomius's absence, Euno- 
 mius was accused of favouring his designs, and 
 was in danger of being capitally condemned. 
 Sentence of banishment to Mauritania was 
 actually passed upon him, a.d. 367. But on 
 his way thither, passing through Mursa, the 
 Arian bishop Valens, by personal applica- 
 tion to the emperor Valens, obtained the repeal 
 of his sentence {ib. iv. 4-8). He was, the 
 same year, again sentenced to banishment by 
 Modestus, the prefect of the Praetorian 
 guards, as a disturber of the public peace (ib. 
 ix. 11). But he was again at Constantinople, 
 or at least at Chalcedon, early in the reign of 
 Theodosius, a.d. 379, to whom in 383 he, with 
 other bishops, presented a confession of faith 
 which is still extant. The next year Theodosius, 
 finding some officers of the court infected with 
 Eunomian views, expelled them from the 
 palace, and having seized Eunomius at Chalce- 
 don, banished him to Halmyris in Moesia, on 
 the Danube. Halmyris being captured by 
 the Goths, who had crossed the frozen river, 
 Eunomius was transported to Caesarea in 
 Cappadocia. The fact that he had attacked 
 their late venerated bishop, Basil the (Jreat, 
 in his writings, made him so unpopular there 
 that his life was hardly safe. He was there- 
 
 EUNOMIUS 
 
 nil 
 
 fore permitted to retire to his pat.m.il .st.itr 
 at Dac.nra, where he died in extreme old aRe 
 soon after a.d. 392, when, according to Jerome 
 (Fir. Illust. c. 120), he was still living, and 
 writing much against the church. His body 
 was buried there, but transferred to Tyana, 
 by order of Eutrojiius, c. 396, and there care- 
 fully guarded by the monks — to prevent its 
 being carried by his adherents to Constanti- 
 nople and buried beside his master Aetius. to 
 whom he had himself given a siilendid funeral 
 (Soz. H. E. vii. 17 ; Philost. H. E. ix. 6. xi. s). 
 
 Eunomianism, a cold, logical svstem, lacked 
 elements of vitality, and notwithstanding its 
 popularity at first, did not long survive its 
 authors. In the following century, when 
 Theodoret wr(He, the body had dwindled to 
 a scanty remnant, compelled to conceal them- 
 selves and hold their meetings in such obscure 
 corners that thev had gained the name of 
 "Troglodytes" (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv. 3). 
 St. Augustine r'Miiarked that in his time the 
 few Anomoeans existing were all in the East 
 and that there were none in Africa (Aug. de 
 Past. Cur. c. 8, p. 278). 
 
 Eunomius endeavoured to develop Arianism 
 as a formal doctrinal system ; starting with 
 the conception of God as the absolute simple 
 Being, of Whom neither self-communication 
 nor generation can be predicated. His es- 
 sence is in this, that He is what He is of Him- 
 self alone, underived, unbcgotten — and as 
 being the only unbegotten One, the Father, 
 in the strict sense of Deity, is alone God ; and 
 as He is unbegotten, inasmuch as begetting 
 necessarily involves the division and impar- 
 tation of being, so it is impossible for Him to 
 beget. If that which was begotten shared in 
 the Hf6T7)s of the Deity, God would not be 
 the absolute unbegotten One, but would be 
 divided into a begotten and an unbegotten 
 God. A communication of the essence of 
 God, such as that in\olved in the idea of 
 generation, would transfer to the Absolute 
 Deity the notions of time and sense. An 
 eternal generation was to Eunomius a thing 
 absolutely inconceivable. A begetting, a 
 bringing forth, could not be imagined as with- 
 out beginning and end. The generation of 
 the Son of God must therefore have had its 
 beginning, as it must have had its termination, 
 at a definite point of time. It is, therefore, 
 incompatible with the predicate of eternity. 
 If that can be rightly asserted of the Son, He 
 must equally, with the Father, be unbegotten. 
 This denial of the eternal generation of the 
 Son involved also the denial of the likeness 
 of His essence to that of the Father, from 
 which the designation of the party, " Ano- 
 moean," was derived. That which is be- 
 gotten,' he asserted, cannot possibly resemble 
 the essence of that which is unbegotten ; 
 hence, equality of essence, " Homoousian,'' 
 or even similarity of essence, " Honioiousian.' 
 is untenable. Were the begotten to resemble 
 the unbegotten in its essence, it must cease 
 I to be unbegotten. Were the Father and the 
 I Son equal, the Son must also be unbegotten, 
 a consequence utterlv destructive of the fun- 
 damental doctrine of g<neration and subordin- 
 1 ation. Such generation, moreover, Eunomius 
 ; held to be essentially impossible. If then. 
 i according to the teaching of the church, the 
 
312 
 
 EUNOMIUS 
 
 Son, Who is begotten, were of the same essence 
 as the Father Who begets, there must be both 
 an unbegotten and a begotten element in 
 God. The essence of the Father and of the 
 Son must therefore be absolutely dissimilar. 
 And as Their essence, so also is Their knowledge 
 of Themselves different. Each knows Himself 
 as He is, and not as the other. The one knows 
 Himself as unbegotten, the other as begotten. 
 Since, therefore, the Son did not share in any 
 way the essence of the Father, what is His 
 relation to God, and to what does He owe His 
 origin ? Eunomius's answer lay in a dis- 
 tinction between the essence {ovaia) and the 
 energy [ivepyeia) of God. Neither movement 
 nor self-communication being predicable of 
 the Divine Essence, it is to the Divine Energy, 
 conceived as separable from the Oe^rTj?, that 
 we must ascribe the calling into existence out 
 of nothing of all that is. In virtue of this 
 ivepyeia only can God be called Father, as it 
 is by this that all that is, besides Himself, has 
 come into being. Of these creations of the 
 Divine Energy the Son or Logos holds the first 
 place, as the instrumental creator of the world. 
 In this relation likeness to the Father is pre- 
 dicable of the Son. The Son may in this sense 
 be regarded as the express image and likeness 
 of the evepyela of the Father, as He conferred 
 on Him divine dignity in the power of creation. 
 This made the immeasurable difference between 
 the Son and all other created beings. He was 
 produced by the Father, as an alone Being, 
 the first or most perfect of all Beings, to be, 
 by His will, His instrument in the creation of 
 ail other existences. God called Him into 
 being immediately, but all other creatures 
 mediately throua;h Him. This teaching in- 
 troduced a dualism into the essence of God 
 Himself, when it drew a distinction between 
 His essence and His will — the one being in- 
 finite and absolute, and the other relative and 
 limited to finite objects. On the ground of 
 this dualism Eunomius is charged by Gregory 
 Nyssen with Manicheism. Eunomius regarded 
 the Paraclete as sharing in the Divine nature in 
 a still more secondary and derived sense, as 
 no more than the highest and noblest produc- 
 tion of the Only-begotten Son, given to be 
 the source of all light and sanctification. 
 
 The entire want of spiritual depth and life 
 in Eunomius is shewn by his maintaining that 
 the Divine nature is perfectly comprehensible 
 by the human intellect, and charging those 
 who denied this with an utter ignorance of the 
 first principles of Christianity. He accused 
 them of preaching an unknown God, and even 
 denied their right to be called Christians at all, 
 since without knowledge of God there could 
 be no Christianity ; while he denied to those 
 who did not hold his views as to the nature of 
 God and the generation of the Son the pos- 
 session of any true knowledge of the Divine 
 Being. He held that Christ had been sent to 
 lead other creatures up to God, the primal 
 source of all existence, as a Being external to 
 Himself, and that believers should not stop at 
 the generation of the Son, but having followed 
 Him as far as He was able to lead them, should 
 soar above Him, as above all created beings, 
 whether material or spiritual, to God Himself, 
 the One Absolute Being, as their final aim,' 
 that in the knowledge of Him they might 
 
 EUNOMIUS 
 
 obtain eternal life. Eunomius's poor and low 
 idea of the knowledge of God placed it merely 
 in a formal illumination of the understanding 
 and a theoretical knowledge of God and 
 spiritual truth, instead of in that fellowship 
 with God as made known to us in Christ and 
 that knowledge which comes from love, which 
 the church has ever held to be the true life 
 of the soul. In harmony with this formal, 
 intellectual idea of knowledge, as the source 
 of Christian life, Eunomius assigned a lower 
 place to the sacraments than to the teaching 
 of the word, depreciating the liturgical, as 
 compared with the doctrinal, element of 
 Christianity. As quoted by Gregory Nyssen, 
 he asserted that "the essence of Christianity 
 did not depend for its ratification on sacred 
 terms, on the special virtue of customs and 
 mystic symbols, but on accuracy of doctrine " 
 (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 704). For fuller 
 statements of the doctrinal system of Euno- 
 mius, see Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of 
 Christ, div. i. vol. ii. pp. 264 ff., Clark's trans. ; 
 Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 77 ff., Clark's 
 trans. ; Herzog, Real-Encycl. " Eunomius und 
 Eunomianer " (from which works the fore- 
 going account has been derived) ; Klose, 
 Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomius (1833) ; 
 Bauer, Dreieinigkeit, i. pp. 365-387 ; Meyer, 
 Trinitdtslehre, pp. 175 ff. • Lange, Ariamsmus 
 in seiner weileren Entwickelung. 
 
 Eunomius, as a writer, was more copious 
 than elegant. Photius speaks very depre- 
 ciatingly of his studied obscurity, the weakness 
 of his arguments, and his logical power. Soc- 
 rates estimates his style no less unfavourably 
 {H. E. iv. 7). Notwithstanding these alleged 
 defects, his writings, which Rufinus states 
 were very numerous and directed against the 
 Christian faith (H. E. i. 25), were much es- 
 teemed by his followers, who, according to 
 Jerome, valued their authority more highly 
 than that of the Gospels (Hieron. adv. Vigil. 
 t. ii. p. 123). The bold blasphemies in these 
 books caused their destruction. Successive 
 imperial edicts, one of Arcadius, dated not 
 more than four years after his death a.d. 398 
 [Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 152 ; lib. xvi. 34), com- 
 manded that his books should be burnt, and 
 made the possession of any of his writings a 
 capital crime. Little of his writing remains, 
 save some few fragments preserved in the 
 works of his theological adversaries. His 
 Exposition of Faith and his Apologeticus are 
 the only pieces extant of any length. 
 
 (i) eKdeais Tricrrews, Fidei libellus. A con- 
 fession of faith presented to Tbeodosius, a.d. 
 383 (Socr. H. E. vii. 12), first printed by 
 Valesius in his notes to Socrates, afterwards 
 by Baluze in Conciliorum Nov. Collect, i. 89, 
 and in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca, v. 23. 
 
 (2) Apologeticus, in 28 sections. This is his, 
 most famous work, in which, with much 
 subtlety, he seeks to refute the Nicene doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, especially the co-eternal 
 and consubstantial divinity of Christ. Basil 
 the Great thought the book worth an 
 elaborate refutation, in five books, adversus 
 Eunomium (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxx. 835). 
 An English trans, was pub. by Whiston in 
 his Eunomianismus Redivivus (Lond. 1711, 
 8vo). 
 
 Cave, Hist. Lit, h p. 219; Fab. Bibl. Graeca,^ 
 
^ 
 
 EUPHEMITAE 
 
 viii. p. 26r; Phot. Cod. 137. 138; Tillcm. 
 Mem. Eccl. vi. 501 ff. [e.v.1 
 
 Euphemitae, also known as Messalians, 
 " prayins people." and therefore reckoned by 
 Epiphanius (Haer. So) as predecessors of the 
 Christian sect so called. Epiphanius, our sole 
 informant, tells us that they were neither 
 Christians, Jews, nor Samaritans, but heathen, 
 believing in a plurality of gods, but offering 
 worship only to one whom they called the 
 Almi£;hty. They built oratories, some of 
 which exactly resembled Christian churches ; 
 in these they met at evening and early morn, 
 with many lights, to join in hymns and prayer. 
 We learn from Epiphanius with some surprise 
 that some of the magistrates put several of 
 these people to death for per\-ersion of the 
 truth and luiwarranted imitation of church 
 customs, and that in particular I.upicianiis, 
 having thus pimished some of them, gave 
 occasion to a new error, for they buried the 
 bodies, held services at the spot, and called 
 themselves martyriani. Epiphanius also 
 charges a section of the Eupheniites with 
 calling themselves Sataniaiii and worshipping 
 Satan, thinking that by such service they 
 might disarm his hostility. It does not ap- 
 pear that Epiphanius means to assert that 
 the Christian Euchites were historically de- 
 rived from these heathen Euphemites, but 
 merely that there was a general resemblance 
 of practices between them. Tillemont conjec- 
 tured (viii. 320) that the Euphemites of Epi- 
 phaniusmight be identical with the Hypsistarii 
 of Greg. Naz., or less probably with the 
 CoELTCoi.AE of Africa. [Euchites.] [g.s.] 
 
 Euphemius (4), 3rd patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, succeeding Fravitta and followed by 
 Macedonius II. He ruled six years and three 
 months, A.D. ^?,c)-^<)6, and died in 515. Theo- 
 phanes calls him Euthymius. He was a pres- 
 byter of Constantinople, administrator of a 
 hospital for the poor at Ncapolis, untinged 
 with any suspicion of Eutychian leanings, and 
 is described as learned and very virtuous. 
 Finding that Peter Mongus, the patriarch of 
 Alexandria, anathematized the council of 
 Chalcedon, he was so indignant that before he 
 took his seat on the patriarchal throne he 
 solemnly separated from all communion with 
 him, and with his own hands effaced his name 
 from the diptychs, placing in its stead that of 
 Felix III. of Rome. For a year the strife 
 between Mongus and Euphemius was bitter. 
 Each summoned councils against the other ; 
 Euphemius even thought of persuading a 
 council to depose Mongus ; but at the end of 
 Oct. 490 Mongus died. 
 
 To pope Felix the patriarch sent letters, as 
 was usual, to announce his election, but re- 
 ceived the reply that he might be admitted 
 as a private member of the church Catholic, 
 but could not be received in communion as a 
 bishop, because he had not removed from 
 the diptychs the names of his predecessors, 
 Acacius and Fravitta. 
 
 At the death (probably in 489) of Daniel the 
 Stylite on the pillar where he had lived for 
 33 vears, Euphemius came with others to the 
 foot of the pillar to attend his last moments. 
 Anastasius, the future emperor, then an aged 
 officer of the emperor Zeno, held Eutychian 
 views, and, according to Suidas, formed a sect 
 
 EUPHEMIUS 
 
 313 
 
 ■ which met in some dnir. h ..f CnsLintinopir-. 
 j The patriarch appeared before the convrntirje 
 j with menacing gestures and drove them from 
 the spot. " If you must frequent the church." 
 he exclaimed, " agree with her ! or else no 
 more enter into her gates to pervert men more 
 I simple than yourself." Hencefijrth, savs the 
 I annalist, Anastasitis kept quiet, for the sake 
 [ of the glory that he coveted. As the emperor 
 Zeno died in 491, this must have occurred 
 within two years after the consecralif)n of 
 Eui^hemius, and it witnesses alike to his 
 intrepidity and his influence. After the 
 death of Zeno, the empress Ariadne procured 
 the election of Anastasius, on the understand- 
 ing that he was to marry her. The patriarch 
 ' openly called him a heretic, unworthy of reign- 
 ing over Christians, and refused to crown him, 
 despite the entreaties of the empress and the 
 senate, until Anastasius would give a written 
 profession of his creed, promise under his hand 
 to keep the Catholic faith intact, make no 
 innovation in the church, and follow as his 
 rule of belief the decrees of Chalcedon. Anas- 
 tasius gave the writing under most solemn 
 oaths, and Euphemius put it in charge of the 
 saintly Macedonius, chancellor and treasurer 
 of the church of Constantinople, to be stewed 
 ; in the archives of the cathedral (Evagr. iii. 32). 
 ! At the end of 491, or on Feb. 23, 492, pope 
 Felix died. HissuccessorGelasius immediate- 
 ly announced his elevation to the emperor 
 Anastasius, but took no notice of Euphemius, 
 who had written at once to express his con- 
 gratulations, and his desire for peace and for 
 the reunion of the churches. Not obtaining 
 an answer, he wrote a second time. Neither 
 1 letter remains, but the reply of Gelasius shews 
 j that Euphemius, in congratulating the Roman 
 j church on its pontiff, added that he himself 
 I was not sufficiently his own master to do what 
 he wished ; that the people of Constantinople 
 would never agree to disgrace the memory of 
 their late patriarch Acacius ; that if that were 
 t necessary, the pope had better write to the 
 people about it himself, and send someone 
 to try and persuade them ; that .Acacius had 
 never said anything against the faith, and that 
 if he was in communion with Mongus, it was 
 I when Mongus had given a satisfactory account 
 of his creed. Euphemius subjoined his own 
 I confession, rejecting Eutyches and accepting 
 Chalcedon. It seems also that Hiupheniius 
 spoke of those who had been baptized and 
 ordained by Acacius since the sentence |)ro- 
 nounced against him at Rome, and pointed 
 out how embarrassing it would be if the 
 memory of Acacius must be condemned 
 (Ceillier, x. 486). Replying to these tem- 
 
 perate counsels, Gelasius allows that in other 
 circumstances he would have written to an- 
 nounce his election, but sourly observes that 
 the custom existed only among those bishops 
 who were imited in communion, and was not 
 to be extended to those who, like I'uphemius, 
 preferred a strange alliance to that f>f St. 
 Peter. He allows the necessity of gentleness 
 and tenderness, but remarks that there is no 
 need to throw yourself into the tlitch when 
 you are helping fithers out. As a mark < f 
 , condescension he willingly grants the canonical 
 remedy to all who had been baptized and or- 
 ' dained by Acacius. Can Euphemius possibly 
 
314 
 
 EUPHEMIUS 
 
 wish him to allow the names of condemned | 
 heretics and their successors to be recited in 
 the sacred diptychs ? Euphemius professed 
 to reject Eutyches ; let him reject also those 
 who have communicated with the successors 
 of Eutyches. Was it not even worse for 
 Acacius to know the truth and yet communi- 
 cate with its enemies ? The condemnation of 
 Acacius was ipso facto according to the decrees 
 of ancient councils. If Peter Mongus did i 
 purge himself, why did not Euphemius send ' 
 proofs of it ? He is much vexed with Euphe- 
 mius for saying that he is constrained to do 
 things which he does not wish ; no bishop I 
 should talk so about that truth for which 
 he ought to lay down his life. He refuses | 
 to send a mission to Constantinople, for it i 
 is the pastor's duty to convince his own 
 flock. At the tribunal of Jesus Christ it will 
 be seen which of the two is bitter and hard. 
 The high spirit of the orthodox patriarch was 
 fired by this dictatorial interference. He even | 
 thought of summoning the pope himself to , 
 account ; and as Gelasius was certainly even 
 more suspicious of the emperor Anastasius, 
 who was, despite the recantation which 
 Euphemius had enforced, a real Eutychian 
 at heart, it is very likely that, as Baronius 
 asserts, the patriarch did not attempt to 
 conceal the pope's antipathy to the emperor. ] 
 Nothing cooled the zeal of Euphemius for 
 the council of Chalcedon. Anastasius har- 
 boured designs against its supporters ; the 
 patriarch gathered together the bishops who 
 were at Constantinople, and invited them to 
 confirm its decrees. According to Theophanes 
 and Victor of Tunis, this occurred in -(92 (Vict. 
 Tun. Chron. p. 5) ; but in Mansi (vii. 1180) 
 the event is placed at the beginning of the 
 patriarchate of Euphemius, and the decrees 
 are said to have been sent by the bishops to 
 pope Felix III. Various jars shewed the 
 continued rupture with Rome. Theodoric 
 had become master of Italy, and in 493 sent 
 Faustus and Irenaeus to the emperor Anas- 
 tasius to ask to peace. During their sojourn 
 at Constantinople the envoys received com- 
 plaints from the Greeks against the Roman 
 church, which they reported to the pope. 
 Euphemius urged that the condemnation of 
 Acacius by one prelate only was invalid ; 
 to excommunicate a metropolitan of Con- 
 stantinople a general council was necessary 
 {ib. viii. 16). Now occurred that imprudence 
 which unhappily cost Euphemius his throne. 
 Anastasius, tired of war against the Isaurians, 
 was seeking an honourable way of stopping 
 it. He asked Euphemius in confidence to beg 
 the bishops at Constantinople (there were 
 always bishops coming and going to and from 
 the metropolis) to pray for peace and thus 
 furnish him with an opportunity of entering 
 on negotiations. Euphemius betrayed the 
 secret to John the patrician, father-in-law of 
 Athenodorus, one of the chiefs of the Isaurians. 
 John hurried to the emperor to inform him 
 of the patriarch's indiscretion. Anastasius 
 was deeply offended, and thenceforth never 
 ceased to persecute his old opponent. He 
 accused him of helping the Isaurians against 
 him, and of corresponding with them (Theoph. 
 Chronog. a.d. 488). An assassin, either by 
 Anastasius's own order or to gain his favour, 
 
 EUPREPIUS 
 
 drew his sword on Euphemius at the door of the 
 sacristy, but was struck down by an attendant. 
 Anastasius sought other means to get rid of 
 Euphemius. Theodorus speaks of the vio- 
 lence with which he demanded back the pro- 
 fession of faith on which his coronation had 
 depended (Theod. Lect. ii. 8, 572 seq. in Patr. 
 Gk. Ixxxvi.). He assembled the bishops who 
 were in the capital and preferred charges 
 
 i against their metropolitan, whom they ob- 
 
 ' sequiously declared excommunicated and de- 
 posed. The people loyally refused to surrender 
 him, but had soon to yield to the emperor. 
 
 I Meanwhile Euphemius, fearing for his life, 
 retired to the baptistery, and refused to go out 
 
 I until Macedonius had promised on the word 
 
 i of the emperor that no violence should be done 
 him when they conducted him to exile. With 
 a proper feeling of respect for the fallen great- 
 ness and unconquerable dignity of his prede- 
 cessor, Macedonius, on coming to find him in 
 
 I the baptistery, made the attendant deacon 
 take off the newly-given pallium and clothed 
 himself in the dress of a simple presbyter, 
 " not daring to wear " his insignia before their 
 canonical owner. After some conversation, 
 Macedonius (himself to follow Euphemius to 
 the very same place of exile under the same 
 emperor) handed to him the proceeds of a loan 
 
 1 he had raised for his expenses. Euphemius 
 was taken to Eucaites in 495, the fifth year of 
 
 ] Anastasius. His death occurred 20 years 
 later at Ancyra, whither, it is thought, the 
 
 j Hunnish invasion had made him retire. 
 Elias, metropolitan of Jerusalem, himself 
 afterwards expelled from his see by Anasta- 
 sius, stood stoutly by Euphemius at the time 
 of his exile, declaring against the legality of 
 his sentence (Cyrillus, \'ita S. Sabae, c. 69, 
 apud Sur. t. vi.). In the East Euphemius 
 was always honoured as the defender of the 
 Catholic faith and of Chalcedon, and as a man 
 of the highest holiness and orthodoxy. Great 
 
 I efforts were made at the fifth general council 
 to get his name put solemnly back in the 
 diptychs (Mansi, viii. 1061 e)." The authori- 
 
 I ties for his Life are. Marcel. Chron. a.d. 491- 
 495 in Patr. Lat. li. p. 933 ; Theod. Lect. 
 
 } Eccl. Hist. ii. 6-15 in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. pt. i. 
 185-189; Theoph. Chronog. a.d. 481-489 in 
 Patr. Gk. cviii. 324-337 ; St. Niceph. Constant. 
 Chronog. Brev. 45 in Patr. Gk. c. p. 1046 ; 
 Baronius, a.d. 489-495 ; Gelas. Pap. Ep. et 
 Decret. i. in Patr. Lat. lix. 13. [w.m.s.] 
 
 ! Euprepius (4), bp. of Bizya in Thrace ; one 
 of 68 bishops who demanded that the opening 
 of the council of Ephesus should be postponed 
 until the arrival of John of Antioch. He 
 
 J signed on this occasion also for Fritilas bp. 
 
 ! of Heraclea (Synod, adv. Tragoed. cap. 7, in 
 Theod. 0pp. t. v. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxiv. 591). 
 He nevertheless attended the council when it 
 opened, signed the sentence against Nestorius 
 and the " decretum de fide " (Mansi, iv. 
 1225 c, 1364 e). Euprepius is chiefly of 
 interest from the memorial termed " Supplex 
 libellus," which he and Cyril, bp. of Coele in 
 the same province, jointly addressed to the 
 fathers of the council {ib. 1478), stating that 
 by an ancient custom in the European pro- 
 vinces a bishop sometimes had more bishoprics 
 than one under his charge ; that Euprepius 
 was then administering the see of Arcadiopolis 
 
EURIG 
 
 in addition to that of Bizya, while Cyril was I 
 actins similarly. The council was requested 
 to rule that this custom might not he dis- 
 turbed, and that Fritilas, bp. of Heraclea. 
 might be forbidden to appoint bishops in those 
 cities of Thrace which were then without 
 bishops of their own. The prayer was granted, 
 and it was decreed that the custom of the 
 cities in question should be respected (Le 
 Quien, Or. Chr. i. 1136, 114 5). [e.v.] 
 
 EUTlc (1) (F.varich, Evorich, Euthonk, 
 Evarix), king of the \'isigothic kingdom of 
 Toulouse from 466 to 484, and from 477 on- 
 wards master of almost the whole of Spain. 
 Under him the \'isigoth power reached its 
 highest point. In the reign of his successor it 
 was curtailed by the Franks, while in that of 
 his father, Theodoric or Theodored I. {d. 431) 
 and his brothers, Thorismund and Theodoric 
 II.. the country occupied by the Goths had 
 still been reckoned as an integral part of the 
 empire {" auxiliamini reipublicae," says Aetius 
 to the Goths before the battle of Chalons, 
 " cujus membrum tenetis," Jord. c. 36), while 
 the Gothic state had found it necessary to 
 submit again and again to the foedus with 
 Rome. " Euric, therefore, king of the Visi- 
 goths," says Jord. c. 45, " seeing the frequent 
 changes of the Roman princes " (and the 
 weakness of the Roman kingdom, " Romani 
 regni vacillationem," as he says in c. 46), 
 " attempted to occupy the Gauls in his own 
 right, sun jure.'" And again, " Totas His- 
 panias Galliasque sibi jam proprio jure tenens." 
 Thus the pretence of the foedus was finally set 
 aside, and in the interval between the fall of 
 the western empire and the rise of the Ostro- 
 goths and Franks, Euric appears as the most 
 powerful sovereign of the West (Dahn, v. 100). 
 In 466, the year of his accession, Euric sent 
 legates to the Eastern emperor Leo, perhaps 
 with a last thought of renewing the foedus. 
 The negotiations came to nothing, and in 4.67 
 the Goths and \'andals made a defensive 
 league against Leo, Anthemius, and Rikimir, 
 who were about to attack Genseric. Beside 
 his Vandalicau.xiliaries in Gaul, Euric also had 
 the support of a certain party among the 
 provincials themselves, as is shewn by the 
 evidence given at the trial of Arvandus, pre- 
 fect of the Gauls, for treasonable correspond- 
 ence with the (ioths fSidon. Apoll. i. 7), and 
 in 468 he attacked the newly made Western 
 emperor Anthemius simultaneously in Gaul 
 and Spain, with the result that by 474 the 
 Gothic dominion in (iaul would have extended 
 from the Atlantic to the Rhone and Mediter- 
 ranean, and from the Pyrenees to the Loire, 
 but for one obstacle — the vigorous defence of 
 Auvergne by Ecdicius, son of the emperor 
 Avitus, and the famous bp. of Clermont, 
 Sidonius Apollinaris (Sid. Apoll. vii. i). The 
 history of this dramatic struggle, preserved in 
 the letters of Sidonius, throws valuable light 
 on the politics of the 5th cent. It is the last 
 desperate efTort of the provincial nobility to 
 avoid barbarian masters, and it is a fight, too, 
 of Catholicism against Arianism. But it was 
 unsuccessful. After besieging Clermont in 
 474, Euric withdrew into winter quarters, 
 while Sidonius and Ecdicius, in the midst of a 
 devastated country, organized fresh resistance. 
 But with the spring diplomacy intervened. 
 
 EURIC 
 
 3IS 
 
 Glycerins, fearful fur Italv, and hoping to 
 purchase a renewal of the foedus. had in 473 
 formally ceded the country to Euric, a com- 
 pact rejected by Ecdicius and Sidonius; and 
 now \epos, for the same reasons, sent legates 
 to Euric, amongst them tlie famous Epipha- 
 nius of Pavia (lumod. Vita S. Ef^iph. A A. SS. 
 Jan. ii. p. 36()), to treat for peace. Euric 
 persisted in the demand for Auvergne. and 
 accordingly, in return for a rcne\\al of the 
 f<)edus (" tidelibus aniinis foederal)Untur," 
 Sid. Apoll. ix. 5), Ecdicius and Sidonius were 
 ordered to submit, and the district was given 
 over to the revenge of the (;oths. Ecdicius 
 fled to the Burgundians, while Sidonius (see 
 Ep. vii. 7, for his invectives against the peace 
 — " Pudeat vos hujus foederis, nee utilis nee 
 decori ! "), having vainlv attempted to make 
 favourable terms for the'Catholics with Euric, 
 was banished to Livia, near Narbonne (Sid! 
 Apoll. viii. 3). By the influence of Euric's 
 minister, Leo, he was released after a vear's 
 imjirisonment, and appeared at the Gothic 
 court at Bordeaux, where, during a stay of 
 two months, he succeeded in obtaining only 
 one audience of the king, so great was the 
 crowd of ambassadors, and the pressure of 
 important business awaiting the decision of 
 Euric and his minister. In Epp. viii. 9, Sidon- 
 ius has left us a brilliant picture of the Gothic 
 king, surrounded by barbarian envoys, Roman 
 legates, and even Persian ambassadors. The 
 Gothic territory in Gaul was now bounded by 
 the Loire, the Rhone, and the two seas, while 
 in Spain a great many towns were already 
 held by Gothic garrisons. Euric's troops 
 easily overran the whole country at their next 
 great advance. In 475 came the fall of Nepos 
 and Augustulus, and tlie suspension of the 
 empire of the West. The news aroused all 
 the barbarian races in Gaul and Spain. 
 Euric, with an Ostrogothic reinforcement 
 under Widimer, crossed the Pyrenees in 
 477, took Pampelona and Saragossa, and 
 annihilated the resistance of the Roman 
 nobility in Tarraconensis. By 478 the 
 whole peninsula had fallen to the Goths, 
 except a mountainous strip in the N.W., 
 relinquished probably by treaty to the Suevi. 
 By this complete conquest of the peninsula, 
 " a place of refuge was provided for the Goths 
 . . . destined in the following generation to 
 fall back before the young and all-subduing 
 power of the Franks, called to a greater work 
 than they " (Dahn, Ktniige der Gfrmanen, v. 
 98). Fresh successes in (iaul followed close 
 upf)n the Si)anish campaign. Aries was taken, 
 480, I^Larseilles, 481, and ultimately the whole 
 of Provence up to the Maritime Alps (Prf)c. 
 b. G. i. I, quoted by Dahn, I.e.), and the exiled 
 Nepos, indeed, seems to ha\'e formally sur- 
 rendered almost the whole of southern Roman 
 Gaul to Euric. Ivuric was now sovereign from 
 the Loire to the Straits of (libraltar. and 
 appears as the jirotector of the neighbouring 
 barbarian races against the encroaching 
 Franks (Cass. Var. iii. 3), taking the same 
 position towards them as Theodoric the Great 
 took later in the reign of Euric's son Alaric, 
 Theo(lr)ric's son-in-law. Euric survived the 
 accession of Chlodwig (Clovis) three years, 
 dying before Sept. 485. 
 
 Euric's Personal Character, and his Persecu- 
 
316 
 
 EURIC 
 
 iions of the Catholics. — His commanding gifts 
 and personality cannot be doubted. Even his 
 bitterest enemy, Sidonius, speaks of his cour- 
 age and capacity with unwilling admiration. 
 " Pre-eminent in war, of fiery courage and 
 vigorous youth," says Sidonius (" armis po- 
 tens, acer animis, aiacer annis," Ep. vii. 6), 
 " he makes but one mistake — that of suppos- 
 ing that his successes are due to the correctness 
 of his religion, when he owes them rather to a 
 stroke of earthly good fortune." Euric was 
 much interested in religious matters and a 
 passionate Arian, not merely apparently from 
 political motives, though his persecution of the 
 Catholic bishops was dictated by sufficient 
 political reasons. The letter of Sidonius quoted 
 above throws great light upon Euric's relation 
 to the Catholic church, and upon the state of 
 the church under his government. "It must 
 be confessed," he says, " that although this 
 king of the Goths is terrible because of his 
 power, I fear his attacks upon the Christian 
 laws more than I dread his blows for the 
 Roman walls. The mere name of Catholic, 
 they say, curdles his countenance and heart. 
 like vinegar, so that you might almost doubt 
 whether he was more the king of his people 
 or of his sect. Lose no time," he adds, ad- 
 dressing his correspondent Basilius, bp. of .-Xix, 
 " in ascertaining the hidden weakness of the 
 Catholic state, that you may be able to apply 
 prompt and public remedy. Bordeaux. Peri- 
 gueux, Rodez, Limoges, Gabale, Eause, Bazas, 
 Comminges, Auch, and many other towns, 
 where death has cut off the bishops [" summis 
 sacerdotibus ipsorum morte truncatis," a 
 passage misunderstood later by Gregory of 
 Tours, who speaks of the execution of bishops, 
 Hist. Franc, ii. 25], and no new bishops have 
 been appointed in their places . . . mark the 
 wide boundary of spiritual ruin. The evil 
 grows every day with the successive deaths of 
 the bishops, and the heretics, both of the 
 present and the past, might be moved by the 
 suffering of congregations deprived of their 
 bishops, and in despair for their lost faith." 
 The churches were crumbling ; thorns filled 
 the open doorways ; cattle browsed in the 
 porches and on the grass round the altar. 
 Even in town churches services were rare, and 
 " when a priest dies, and no episcopal bene- 
 diction gives him a successor in that church, 
 not only the priest but the priest's office dies " 
 (" sacerdotium moritur, non sacerdos "). Not 
 only are vacancies caused by death : two 
 bishops. Crocus and Simplicius, are mentioned 
 as deposed and exiled by Euric. Finally, 
 Sidonius implores the aid of Basilius, the 
 position of whose bishopric made him dip- 
 lomatically important (" per vos mala foed- 
 erum currunt, per vos regni utriusque pacta 
 conditionesque portantur ") towards obtain- 
 ing for the Catholics from the Gothic govern- 
 ment the right of ordaining bishops, that " so 
 we may keep our hold upon the people of 
 the Gauls, if not ex foedere, at least ex fide." 
 
 Gregory of Tours in the next cent, echoed 
 and exaggerated the account of Sidonius, and 
 all succeeding Catholic writers have accused 
 Euric of the same intolerant persecution of 
 the church. The persecution must be looked 
 upon, to a great extent, as political. The 
 Catholic bishops and the provincial nobility 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 were the natural leaders of the Romanized 
 populations. The ecclesiastical organization 
 made the bishops specially formidable (see 
 Dahn's remarks on the Vandal king Huneric's 
 persecutions, op. cit. i. 250). Their opposition 
 threatened the work of Euric's life, and did, 
 in fact, with the aid of the orthodox Franks, 
 destroy it in the reign of his successor. But 
 the persecution has a special interest as one 
 of the earliest instances of that oppression in 
 the name of religion, of which the later history 
 of the Goths in conquered Spain is every- 
 where full (Dahn, v. loi). Euric, however, 
 did not oppress the Romans as such. His 
 minister Leo (Sid. Apoll. viii. 3), and count 
 Victorius, to whom was entrusted the govern- 
 ment of Auvergne after its surrender {ih. vii. 
 17; Greg.Tiu". ii. 35), were of illustrious Roman 
 families. It was probably by Leo's help that 
 Euric drew up the code of laws of which Isidore 
 and others speak {Hist. Goth, apud Esp. Sagr. 
 vi. 486); Dahn, Konige der Gernianen, VteAbth. 
 pp. 88-ior, see list of sources and literature 
 prefixed. For the ultra-Catholic view of the 
 persecution, see Gams's Kirchengesch. von 
 Spanien. ii. i, 484. [m.a.w.] 
 
 Eusebius (1), succeeded Marrellus as bp. of 
 Rome, A.D. 309 or 310. He was banished by 
 Maxentius to Sicily, where he died after a 
 pontificate of four months (Apr. 18 to Aug. 
 17). His body was brought back to Rome, 
 and buried in the cemetery of Callistus on the 
 Appian Way. Hardly anything was known 
 with certainty about this bishop till the dis- 
 coveries of de Rossi in the catacombs. That 
 he was buried in the cemetery of Callistus 
 rested on the authority of the Liberian De- 
 posit. Episc. and the Felician catalogue. But 
 ancient itineraries, written by persons who 
 had visited these tombs, described his resting- 
 place as not being the papal crypt in that 
 cemetery, where all the popes (with two excep- 
 tions) since Pontianus had been laid, but in 
 a separate one some distance from it. De 
 Rossi found this crypt, and therein discovered, 
 in 1852 and 1856, fragments of the inscription 
 placed by pope Damasus over the grave, and 
 known from copies taken before the closing of 
 the catacombs. But it was previously uncer- 
 tain whether it referred to Eusebius the pope 
 or to some other Eusebius. All such doubt 
 was now set at rest by the discovery, in the 
 crypt referred to, of 46 fragments of a slab 
 bearing a copy of the original inscription, and 
 of the original slab, identified by the peculiar 
 characters of Damasine inscriptions. The 
 inscription is as follows : — 
 
 " Damasus Episcopus feci. 
 Heraclius vetuit lapses peccata dolere 
 Eusebius miseros docuit sua crimina flere 
 Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore 
 Seditio caedes bellum discordia lites 
 Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni 
 Integra cum rector servaret foedera pacis 
 Pertulit exilium domino sub iudice laetus 
 Litore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit. 
 Eusebio Episcopo et martyri." 
 
 We thus have revealed a state of things at 
 I Rome of which no other record has been pre- 
 I served. It would seem that, on the cessation 
 I of Diocletian's persecution, the church there 
 
 was rent into two parties on the subject of 
 I the terms of readmission of the lapsed to 
 
EUSEBIUS 
 
 coiuinuriion : that one Horaclius headed a 
 party who were for readinission without tlie 
 penitential discipline insisteil on by Eusebius ; 
 that the consequent tumults and bloodshed 
 caused " the tyrant " Maxentius to interpose 
 and banish the leaders of both factions ; and 
 that Eusebius, dying during his exile in Sicily, 
 thus obtained tlie name of martyr. It ap- 
 
 pears further, from the similar Damasinc 
 inscription on Marcellus, that tiie contest had 
 begun before the accession of Eusebius, who, 
 like Marcellus, had required penance horn the 
 laf>si. [Marcellus (3).] The way in which 
 the name of Heraclius occurs in the inscription 
 on Eusebius suggests that he may have been 
 elected as an antipope (so Lipsius, Chronologic 
 der romischen Bischofe). At any rate, the 
 subject of dispute was the same as had led to 
 the tirst election of an antipope, viz. Novatian, 
 after the Decian persecution, some 50 years 
 before ; though on the earlier occasion the 
 question was whether the lapsi were to be re- 
 admitted to communion at all or not, the 
 schismatics being on the side of severity ; on 
 the later occasion the question was only about 
 the conditions of their readinission, the dis- 
 sentients being on the side of laxity. In both 
 instances the church of Rome, as represented 
 by her lawful bishops, seems to have held a 
 consistent and judicious course, [j.b — y.] 
 
 Eusebius (5), of Alexandria, a writer of 
 sermons, about whom Galland says "all is 
 uncertain ; nothing can be affirmed on good 
 grounds as to his age or as to his bishopric " 
 (Bibl. Pair. viii. p. xxiii.). It isuncertainwhether 
 he belongs to the 5th or the 6th cent. A com- 
 plete list of sermons is given by Mai, as follows : 
 I. On Fasting. 2. On Love. 3. On the Incar- 
 nation and its Causes. 4. On Thankfulness in 
 Sickness. 5. On Imparting Grace to him that 
 Lacks it. 6. On Sudden Death, or. Those that 
 Die by Snares. 7. On New .\Ioon, Sabbath, 
 and on not Observing the Voices of Birds. 8. 
 On Commemoration of Saints. 9. On Meals, 
 at such festivals. lo. On the Nativity, n. 
 On the Baptism of Christ. 12. On " Art thou 
 He that should come ?" 13. On the Coming of 
 John into Hades, and on the Devil. 14. On 
 the Treason of Judas. 15. On the Devil and 
 Hades. 16. On the Lord's Day. 17. On the 
 Passion, for the Preparation Day. 18. On the 
 Resurrection. 19. On the Ascension. 20. On 
 the Second Advent. 21. On " Astronomers." 
 22. On Almsgiving, and on the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus. He adheres to the Catholic doc- 
 trines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. He 
 uses the ordinary Eastern phrase, " Christ our 
 God," speaks of Him as Maker of the world, 
 as Master of the creation, as present from the 
 beginning with the prophets, and as the Lord 
 of Isaiah's vision. He calls the Holy Spirit 
 consubstantial with the Father and the Son ; 
 in the sermon on Almsgiving he calls the 
 Virgin Mother " Ever- Virgin," " Theotokos," 
 and " our undefiled Lady." He insists on 
 free will and responsibility. " God . . . saith, 
 ' If you do not choose to hear Me, I do not 
 compel you.' God could make thee good 
 against thy will, but what is involuntary is 
 unrewarded. ... If He wrote it down that I 
 was to commit sin, and I do commit it, why 
 does He judge me ? " If a man means to 
 please God, " God holds out a hand to him 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 317 
 
 straightway," etc. Hef^ire a man rrni>unrr» 
 the worUl (by a monastic vow), let him try 
 himself, know his own soul. He who fasts 
 must fast with " tongue, eyes, hands, feci " ; 
 his whole " body, soul, and spirit " must be 
 restrained from all sinful indulgence. " Fast, 
 as the Lord said, in cheerfiilness, with sincere 
 love to all men. Hut when you have d>Mie all 
 this, do not think v>)u are better than A. <>r M. 
 Say you are uni>ri>htal)lc servants." IVople 
 are not t(j blame wine, but those who drink 
 it to excess ; nor riches, but the man who 
 administers them ill. Abraham had riches, 
 but they harmed him not, etc. Some sen- 
 tences shew a true spiritual insight : " What 
 sort of righteousness exceeds the rest ? Love, 
 for without it no good comes of any other. 
 What sin is worst ? All sin is dreadful, but 
 none is worse than covetousncss and remem- 
 brance of injuries " (Serm. On Love). He has 
 humour, too, which must have told : " On 
 Sundavs the herald calls people to church ; 
 e\erybody says he is sleepy, or unwell. Hark ! 
 a sound of harp or pipe, a noise of dancing : 
 all hasten that wav as if on wings " (How. on 
 the Lord's Day, Galland. viii. 253)- He depicts 
 vividly the extravagance of Alexandrian 
 wealth ; the splendid houses glistening with 
 marble, beds and carpets wrought with gold 
 and pearls, horses with golden bridles and 
 saddles, the crowds of servants of various 
 classes— some to attend the great man when 
 he rides out, some to manage his lands or his 
 house, building, or his kitchen, some to fan 
 him at his meals, to keep the house quiet 
 during his slumber:— the varieties of white 
 bread, the pheasants, geese, peacocks, hares, 
 etc., served up at his table. The Christian 
 should look forward to Sunday, not simply as 
 a day of rest fr(jm labour, but as a day of 
 prayer and Communion. Let him come in 
 early morning to church for the Eucharistic 
 service (the features of it are enumerated : the 
 psalmodv, the reading of Prophets, of St. Paul, 
 of the Gospels, the Angelic and Seraphic 
 hymns, the ceaseless Alleluia, the exhortations 
 of bishops and presbyters, the presence of 
 Christ " on the sacred table." the " coming 
 of the Spirit). " If thy conscience is clear 
 approach, and receive the Body and Bh^od of 
 the Lord. If it condemns thee in regard to 
 wicked deeds, decline the Communion until 
 thou hast corrected it by repentance, but 
 stav through the prayers [i.e. the communion 
 service], and do not go out of the church unless 
 thou art dismissed " ; or again. " before the 
 dismissal." He severely blames a layman who 
 tastes food before the Liturgy is over, whether 
 he communicates or not ; but denounces those 
 who communicate after eating (as many do 
 on Easter Day itself) as if guilty of a heinous 
 sin. (In this case, as in regard to premature 
 departure from church, he does not scruple to 
 refer to Judas.) He blames th-se wh<. do not 
 cnrnmunicate when a priest, km.wn to be ol 
 ! bad life, is the celebrant ; for " G..d lurneth 
 not away, and the bread becomes the Body. 
 He reproves those who arc disorderly at the 
 I vigil services of a saint's festival, and at day- 
 break rise and cause great disturbances. 
 i " Inside the church, the priest is presenting the 
 supplication . . . having set forth {irpoTi Otmwf) 
 I the Body and the Blood ... for the salvatiou 
 
318 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 of the world : while, outside, amusements go 
 on." He refers to the different functions of 
 priest, deacon, reader, chanter, and sub- 
 deacon {vwripirris)- He encourages invoca- 
 tion of saints. 
 
 Mai calls him a writer delightful from his 
 " ingenuitas," his "Christian ac pastoralis 
 simplicitas," and his " nativum dicendi 
 genus" (Patrum Nov. Biblioth. ii. 499). [w.b.] 
 
 Euseblus (23) of Caesarea, also known as 
 
 Eusebius Pamphili. Of extant sources of our 
 knowledge of Eusebius the most important are 
 the scattered notices in writers of the same or 
 immediately succeeding ages, e.g. Athanasius, 
 Jerome, Socrates, Sozomen, andTheodoret. At 
 a later date some valuable information is con- 
 tained in the proceedings of the second council 
 of Nicaea (Labbe, Cone. viii. 1144 seq. ed. 
 Colet.), and in the Antirrhetica of the patriarch 
 Nicephorus {Spicil. Solesm. i. pp. 371 seq.) like- 
 wise connected with the Iconoclastic contro- 
 versy. The primary sources of information, 
 however, for the career of one who was above 
 all a literary man must be sought in his own 
 works. The only edition of them which aims 
 at completeness is in Migne's Pair. Gk. vols. 
 xix.-xxiv. See also the standard works of Cave 
 (Hist. Lit. i. pp. 175 seq.), Tillemont [Hist. Eccl. 
 vii. pp. 39 seq., 659 seq., together with scattered 
 notices in his account of the Arians and of the 
 Nicene council in vol. vi.), and Fabricius (Bibl. 
 Graec. vii. pp. 335 seq. ed. Harles). The 
 most complete monograph is Stein's Eusebius 
 Bischof von Cdsarea (Wiirzburg, 1852). There 
 is a useful English trans, of the History in 
 the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, by Mr. 
 Giffert; cf. A. C. Headlam, The Editions or 
 MSS. of Eusebius, in Journal of Theol. 
 Studies, 1902, iii. 93-102. 
 
 The references in his own works will hardly 
 allow us to place his birth much later than 
 A.D. 260, so that he would be nearly 80 at his 
 death. All notices of his early life are con- 
 nected with Caesarea ; and as it was then usual 
 to prefer a native as bishop, everything 
 favours this as the city of his birth. 
 
 Of his parentage and relationships absolute- 
 ly nothing is known, but here, as a child, he 
 was catechized in that declaration of belief 
 which years afterwards was laid by him before 
 the great council of Nicaea, and adopted by 
 the assembled Fathers as a basis for the 
 creed of the universal church. Here he 
 listened to the Biblical expositions of the 
 learned Dorotheus, thoroughly versed in 
 the Hebrew Scriptures and not unacquainted 
 with Greek literature and philosophy, once 
 the superintendent of the emperor's purple 
 factory at Tyre, but now a presbyter in the 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 giving freely to all in want ; he multiplied 
 copies of the Scriptures, which he distributed 
 gratuitously (Eus. in Hieron. c. Rufin. i. 9, 
 Of), ii. 465) ; and to the sympathy of the 
 friend he united the courage of the hero. He 
 had also the power of impressing his own 
 strong convictions on others. Hence, when 
 the great trial of faith came, his house was 
 found to be not only the home of students but 
 the nursery of martyrs. To one like Eusebius, 
 who owed his strength and his weakness alike 
 to a ready susceptibility of impression from 
 those about him, such a friendship was an 
 inestimable blessing. He expressed the 
 strength of his devotion to this friend by 
 adopting his name, being known as " Eusebius 
 of Pamphilus." 
 
 Eusebius was in middle life when the last 
 and fiercest persecution broke out. For 
 nearly half a century — a longer period than 
 at any other time since its foundation — the 
 church had enjoyed uninterrupted peace as 
 regards attacks from without. Suddenly and 
 unexpectedly all was changed. The city of 
 Caesarea became a chief centre of persecution. 
 Eusebius tells how he saw the houses of prayer 
 razed to the ground, the holy Scriptures com- 
 mitted to the flames in the market-places, the 
 pastors hiding themselves, and shamefully 
 jeered at when caught by their persecutors 
 [H. E. viii. 2). For seven years the attacks 
 continued. At Tyre also Eusebius saw several 
 Christians torn by wild beasts in the amphi- 
 theatre [ib. 7, 8). Leaving Palestine, he visited 
 Egypt. In no country did the persecution 
 rage more fiercely. Here, in the Thebaid, they 
 perished, ten, twenty, even sixty or a hundred 
 at a time. Eusebius tells how he in these 
 parts witnessed numerous martyrdoms in a 
 single day, some by beheading, others by fire ; 
 the executioners relieving each other by relays 
 and the victims eagerly pressing forward to 
 be tortured, clamouring for the honour of 
 martyrdom, and receiving their sentence with 
 joy and laughter {ib. 9). This visit to Egypt 
 was apparently after the imprisonment and 
 martyrdom of Pamphilus, in the latest and 
 fiercest days of the persecution. It was prob- 
 ably now that Eusebius was imprisoned for 
 his faith. If so, we have the less difficulty 
 in explaining his release, without any stain 
 left on his integrity or his courage. 
 
 Not long after the restoration of peace (a.d. 
 313) Eusebius was unanimously elected to the 
 vacant see of Caesarea. Among the earliest 
 results of the peace was the erection of a 
 magnificent basilica at Tyre under the direc- 
 tion of his friend Paulinus, the bishop. Euse- 
 bius was invited to deliver the inaugural 
 
 church of Caesarea (H. E. vii. 32)'. Here, in address. This address he has preserved and 
 due time, he was himself ordained a presbyter, I inserted in his History, where, though not 
 probably by that bp. Agapius whose wise fore- mentioned, the orator's name is but thinly 
 thought and untiring assiduitv and open- ' concealed (H.E. ix. 4). This oration is a 
 handed benevolence he himself has recorded paean of thanksgiving over the restitution of 
 {ib.). Here, above all, he contracted with I the Church, of which the splendid buildmg 
 the saintly student Pamphilus that friend- at Tyre was at once the firstfruit and the 
 ship which was the crown and glory of his life, ! type. The incident must have taken place 
 and which martyrdom itself could not sever. ' not later than a.d. 315. For more than 25 
 Eusebius owed far more to Pamphilus than ' years he presided over the church of Caesarea, 
 the impulse and direction given to his studies, winning the respect and affection of all. He 
 Pamphilus, no mere student recluse, was a died bp. of Caesarea. 
 
 man of large heart and bountiful hand, above | When the Arian controversy broke out, the 
 all things helpful to his friends {Mart. Pal. 11), , sympathies of Eusebius were early enlisted on 
 
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 the side of Arius. If his naiuosako of Nico- 
 inedia may be trusted, he was especially 
 zealous on behalf of the Arian doctrine at this 
 time (Eus. Nicom. in Theod. //. E. i. 5. v tov 
 5((nr6rov /xov Ki'cre/itoi' ffwovdij 17 virip a.\r]Oovs 
 \6yov). But the testimony of this strong 
 partisan may well be suspected ; and the 
 attitude of Eusebius of Caesarea throughout 
 suggests that he was influenced rather by 
 personal associations and the desire to secure 
 liberal treatment for the heresiarch than by 
 any real accordance with his views. What- 
 ever his motives, he wrote to Alexander, 
 bp. of Alexandria, remonstrating with him for 
 deposing Arius and urging that he had mis- 
 represented the opinions of the latter (Labbe, 
 Cone. viii. 1 14S, ed. Colet). The cause of Arius 
 was taken up also by two neighbouring 
 bishops, Theodotus of Laodicea and Paulinus 
 of Tyre. In a letter addressed to his name- 
 sake of Constantinople, Alexander complains 
 of three Syrian bishops, " ajipointed he knows 
 not how," as having fanned the flame of sedi- 
 tion (Theod. H. E. i. 3) ; while .\rius himself 
 claims"all thebishopsintheEast," mentioning 
 by name Eusebius of Caesarea with others, as 
 on his side {ib. i. 4). Accordingly, when he was 
 deposed by a synod convened at Alexandria 
 by Alexander, Arius appealed to Eusebius 
 and others to interpose. A meeting of Syrian 
 bishops decided for his restoration, though 
 wording the decision cautiously. The synod 
 thought that .\rius should be allowed to gather 
 his congregation about him as heretofore, 
 but added that he must render obedience 
 to Alexander and entreat to be admitted to 
 communion with him (Soz. H. E. i. 15). 
 
 At the council of Xicaea (a.d. 325) Eusebius 
 took a leading part. This prominencehe cannot 
 liave owed to his bishopric, which, though 
 important, did not rank with the great sees, 
 "the apostolic thrones" {ib. 17) of Rome, 
 .•\ntioch, and .Alexandria. But that he was 
 beyond question the most learned man and 
 most famous living writer in the church at this 
 time would suffice to secure him a hearing. 
 Probably, however, his importance was due 
 even more to his close relations with the great 
 emperor, whose entire confidence he enjoyed. 
 He occupied the first seat to the emperor's 
 right (V. C. iii. 11), and delivered the opening 
 address to Constantine when he took his seat 
 in the council-chamber {ib. i. prooem., iii. 11 ; 
 Soz. H. E. i. 19). The speech is unfortunately 
 not preserved. 
 
 Eusebius himself has left us an account of 
 his doings with regard to the main object of 
 the council in a letter of explanation to his 
 church at Caesarea. He laid before the 
 council the creed in use in the Caesarean 
 church, which had been handed down from 
 the bishops who preceded him, which he him- 
 self had been taught at his baptism, and in 
 which, both as a presbyter and bishop, he had 
 instructed others. The emperor was satisfied 
 with the orthodoxy of this creed, inserting 
 however the single word o/xoovaiov, and giving 
 explanations as to its meaning which set the 
 scruples of Eusebius at rest. The assembled 
 Fathers, taking this as their starting-point, 
 made other important insertions and altera- 
 tions. Moreover, an anathema was appended 
 directly condemning .'^rian doctrines. Euse- 
 
 EUSEBIUS OP CAESAREA 
 
 SIO 
 
 bins took time to consider b< (..r.- sulismbinR 
 to this revised formula. The three expres- 
 sions which caused dillicultv were: (i) "of 
 the substance of the Father " (e\ t>> oi'vias roi 
 TorpAs) ; (2) "begotten, not made" {ytyrtt- 
 Oivra. ov TTM-qdh'Ta) ; (3) " of the same sub- 
 stance " (o^ooi'-trtoi-) ; and <if these he de- 
 manded explanations. The explanations were 
 so far satisfactory that for the sake of peace he 
 subscribed to the creed. He had the less 
 scruple in assenting to the final anathema, 
 because the Arian expressions which it con- 
 demned were not scriptural, and he considered 
 that " almost all the confusion and disturb- 
 ance of the churches " had arisen from the 
 use of unscriptural phrases. This letter, he 
 concludes, is written to the Caesareans to ex- 
 plain that he would resist to the last anv vital 
 change in the traditional creed of his church, 
 but had subscribed to these alterations, when 
 assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing 
 contentious (d(^i\o«'*uws). See Hort's Two 
 Dissertations, pp. 55 seq. 
 
 The settlement i>f the dispute respecting the 
 time of observing I'laster was another import- 
 ant work undertaken by the council. In this 
 also a leading part has been assigned to Euse- 
 bius by some modern writers {e.g. Stanley, 
 Eastern Church, p. 182, following Tillemont, 
 H. E. vi. p. 668). 
 
 The hopes which Eusebius with others had 
 built upon the decisions of the Nicene council 
 were soon dashed. The final peace of the 
 church seemed as far distant as ever. In three 
 controversies with three distinguished antago- 
 nists, Eusebius took a more or less prominent 
 part ; and his reputation, whether justly 1 ir not, 
 has suffered greatlv in consequence. 
 
 (i) Synod of Antioch. — Eustathius, bp. of 
 .\ntioch, was a staunch advocate of the Nicene 
 doctrine and a determined foe of the Arians. 
 He had assailed the tenets of Origen (Socr. 
 H. E. vi. 13), of whom Eusebius was an ardent 
 champion, and had charged Eiusebius himself 
 with faithlessness to the doctrines of Nicaea. 
 He was accused in turn of Sabellianism by Euse- 
 bius (rt.i. 23; Soz. //.£. ii. 19)- Tothehistorian 
 Socrates the doctrines of the two antagonists 
 seemed practically identical. Nevertheless 
 they were regarded as the two principals in the 
 quarrel (Soz. H. E. ii. 18). A synod, mainly 
 composed of bishops with .\rian or semi-Arian 
 sympathies, was assembled at .Antioch, a.d. 
 330, to consider the charge of Sabellianism 
 brought against Eustathius, who was deposed. 
 The see of .Antioch thus became vacant. The 
 assembled bishops proposed Eusebius of 
 Caesarea as his successor, and wrote to the 
 emperor on his behalf, but Flusebius declined 
 the honour, alleging the rule of the Church, 
 regarded as an " apostolic tradition," which 
 forbade translations from one see to another ; 
 and liuphronius was elected. 
 
 (ii) Synods of Caesarea, Tyre, and Jerusalem. — 
 The next stage of the Arian controversy ex- 
 hibits Eusebius in conflict with a greater than 
 Eustathius. The disgraceful intrigues of the 
 Arians and Meletians against Athanasius, 
 which led to his first exile, are related in our 
 art. Athanasius. It is suflicient to say here 
 that the emperor summoned .Athanasius to 
 appear before a gathering of bishops at 
 Caesarea, to meet the charges brought against 
 
320 
 
 EUSEBiUS OJ" CAESAREA 
 
 him. It is stated by Theodoret (H. E. i. 26) 
 that Constantine was induced to name 
 Caesarea by the Arian party, who selected it 
 because the enemies of Athanasius were in a 
 majority there {(vOa 5?; 7r\eioi;s fjaav oi dvff/jLeyeis) , 
 but the emperor may have given the prefer- 
 ence to Caesarea because he reposed the 
 greatest confidence in the moderation (e■7^^e/^•ela) 
 of its bishop. Athanasius excused himself 
 from attending, believing that there was a 
 conspiracy against him, and that he would not 
 have fair play there (Festal Letters, p. xvii, 
 Oxf. trans. ; Theod. H. E. i. 26 ; Soz. H. E. 
 11.25). This was in 334. Athanasius does not 
 mention this synod in his Apology. 
 
 The next year (a.d. 335) Athanasius re- 
 ceived a peremptory and angry summons from 
 Constantine to appear before a synod of 
 bishops at Tyre. Theodoret (I.e.) conjectures 
 (ws oluaL) that the place of meeting was 
 changed by the emperor out of deference to 
 the fears of Athanasius, who " looked with 
 suspicion on Caesarea on account of its ruler." 
 Athanasius, or his friends, may indeed have 
 objected to Eusebius as a partisan ; for the 
 Egyptian bishops who espoused the cause of 
 Athanasius, addressing the synod of Tyre, 
 allege " the law of God " as forbidding " an 
 enemy to be witness or judge," and shortly 
 afterwards add mysteriously, " ye know why 
 Eusebius of Caesarea has become an enemy 
 since last year" (Athan. Ap. c. Arian. 77, 
 Op. i. p. 153). The scenes at the synod of 
 Tyre form the most picturesque and the most 
 shameful chapter in the Arian controversy. 
 After all allowance for the exaggerations of 
 the Athanasian party, from whom our know- 
 ledge is chiefly derived, the proceedings will 
 still remain an undying shame to Eusebius of 
 Nicomedia and his fellow-intriguers. But 
 there is no reason for supposing that Eusebius 
 of Caesarea took any active part in these 
 plots. Athanasius mentions him rarelv, and 
 then without any special bitterness.' The 
 " Eusebians" [oi nepl Eiiaejiiof) are always the 
 adherents of his Nicomedian namesake. But, 
 though probably not participating in, and 
 possibly ignorant of their plots, Eusebius of 
 Caesarea was certainlv used as a tool by the 
 more unscrupulous and violent partisans of 
 Anus, and must bear the reproach of a 
 too easy compliance with their actions. The 
 proceedings were cut short bv the withdrawal 
 of Athanasius, who suddenly sailed to Con- 
 stantinople, and appealed in person to the 
 emperor. The svnod condemned him by 
 default. 
 
 While the bishops at Tyre were in the midst 
 of their session, an urgent summons from the 
 emperor called them to take part in the ap- 
 proaching festival at Jerusalem (Eus. V. C. 
 ly. 41 seq. ; Socr. H. E. i. 33 seq. ; Soz. H. E. 
 11. 26 ; Theod. H. E. i. 29). It was the tricen- 
 nalia of Constantine. No previous sovereign 
 after Augustus, the founder of the empire, had 
 reigned for thirty years. Constantine had a 
 fondness for magnificent ceremonial, and here 
 was a noble opportunity (V. C. iv. 40, Kaipbs 
 fvKaipos). The occasion was marked by the 
 dedication of Constantine's new and splendid 
 basilica, built on the site of Calvary. The 
 festival was graced by a series of orations from 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 ] the principal persons present. In these Euse- 
 bius bore a conspicuous part, finding in this 
 dedication festival a far more congenial at- 
 mosphere than in the intrigues of the synod 
 at Tyre. He speaks of the assemblage at Tyre 
 as a mere episode of the festival at Jerusalem 
 (65o0 5rj Trdpfpyof). The emperor, he says, 
 preparing for the celebration of this festival, 
 was anxious to end the quarrels which rent the 
 church. In doing so he was obeying the 
 Lord's injunction, " Be reconciled to thy 
 brother, and then go and offer thy gift " (cf. 
 Soz. i. 26). This view of the emperor's motive 
 is entirely borne out by Constantine's own 
 letter to the synod at Tyre. Eusebius was 
 greatly impressed by the celebration ; but 
 Tillemont, who shews strong prejudice against 
 Eusebius throughout, altogether misstates 
 the case in saying that he " compares or 
 even prefers this assembly to the council of 
 Nicaea, striving to exalt it as much as he can, 
 for the sake of effacing the glory of that great 
 council," etc. (vi. p. 284). But Eusebius says 
 distinctly that " after that first council " this 
 was the greatest synod assembled by Con- 
 stantine (F. C. iv. 47) ; and so far from shewing 
 any desire to depreciate the council of Nicaea, 
 he cannot find language magnificent enough to 
 sing its glories (iii. 6 seq.). 
 
 Arius and Euzoius had presented a confession 
 of faith to the emperor, seeking readmission to 
 the church. The emperor was satisfied that 
 this document was in harmony with the faith 
 of Nicaea, and sent Arius and Euzoius to 
 Jerusalem, requesting the synod to consider 
 their confession of faith and restore them 
 to communion. Arius and his followers were 
 accordingly readmitted at Jerusalem. Of 
 the bishops responsible for this act, some were 
 hostile to Athanasius, others would regard it 
 as an act of pacification. The stress which 
 Eusebius lays on Constantine's desire to secure 
 peace on this, as on all other occasions, 
 suggests that that was a predominant idea in 
 the writer's own mind, though perhaps not 
 unmixed with other influences. 
 
 (iii) Synod of Constantinople. — Athanasius 
 had not fled to Constantinople in vain. Con- 
 stantine desired pacification but was not 
 insensible to justice ; and the personal plead- 
 ings of Athanasius convinced him that justice 
 had been outraged (A p. c. Arian. 86). The 
 bishops at the dedication festival had scarcely 
 executed the request, or command, of the 
 emperor's first letter, when they received 
 another written in a very different temper 
 [ib. ; Socr. H. E. i. 34 ; Soz. H. E. ii. 27). It was 
 addressed " to the bishops that had assembled 
 at Tyre " ; described their proceedings as 
 "tumultuous and stormy"; and summoned 
 them without delay to Constantinople. The 
 leaders of the Eusebian party alone obeyed ; the 
 rest retired to their homes. Among those who 
 obeyed was Eusebius of Caesarea. Of the 
 principal events which occurred at Constanti- 
 nople, the banishment of Athanasius and the 
 death of Arius, we need not speak here. But 
 the proceedings of the synod then held there 
 (a.d. 336) have an important bearing on the 
 literary history of Eusebius. The chief work of 
 the synod was the condemnation of Marcellus, 
 bp. of AncjTa, an uncompromising opponent of 
 the Arians. He had written a book in reply to 
 
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 the Arian Asterivis " tho soi>hist," in wliicli Ins 
 zeal against Arian tenets goatlcd him into ex- 
 pressions that had a rank savour of Sabellianisni. 
 The proceedinss ac:aiiist iiiin had commenced 
 at Jerusalem and were continued at Constanti- 
 nople, where he was condemned of Sabellianism, 
 and deposed from his bishopric (Socr. H. E. i. 
 36 ; Soz. H. E. ii. 33). Eusebius is especially 
 mentioned as taking part in this synod (Athan. 
 Al>. c. Arian. 87 ; cf. Eus. c. Marc. ii. 4, p. 
 115). Not satisfied with this, the doniinant 
 party urged Eusebius to undertake a refuta- 
 tion of the heretic. Two works against Mar- 
 cellus were his response. Ivuscbius foimd 
 also more congenial employment during his 
 sojourn at Constantinople. The celebration 
 of the emperor's tricennalia had not yet ended, 
 and Eusebius delivered a panegyric which he 
 afterwards appended to his Life of Constaittine. 
 The delivery of this oration may have been the 
 chief motive which induced Eusebius to ac- 
 company the Arian bishops to Constantinople. 
 It must have been during this same visit, 
 though on an earlier day, that he delivered 
 before the emperor his discourse on the church 
 of the Holy Sepulchre, probably previously 
 spoken also at the dedication itself. This ora- 
 tion has unfortunately not survived. It does 
 not appear that Eusebius had any personal 
 interview with Constantine before the council 
 of Xicaea. Here, however, he stood high in the 
 emperor's favour, as the prominent position 
 assigned to him shews ; and there seems 
 thenceforward no interruption in their cordial 
 relations. The emperor used to enter into 
 familiar conversation with him, relating the 
 most remarkable incidents in his career, such 
 as the miraculous appearance of the cross in the 
 skies (V. C. i. 28), and the protection afforded 
 by that emblem in battle (ii. 9). He corre- 
 sponded with him on various subjects, on one 
 occasion asking him to see to the execution of 
 fifty copies of the Scriptures for his new capital, 
 and supplying him with the necessary means 
 (iv. 36) ; and he listened with patience, and 
 even with delight, to the lengthy and elaborate 
 orations which Eusebius delivered from time to 
 time in his presence. Constantine praises his 
 eulogist's gentleness or moderation (iii. 60). 
 NorwasConstantine theonlymemberof the im- 
 perial family with whom Eusebius had friendly 
 relations. The empress Constantia, the sister 
 of Constantine and wife of Licinius, wrote to 
 him on a matter of religious interest. In his 
 reply we are especially struck with the frank- 
 ness of expostulation, almost of rebuke, with 
 which he addresses her (Spicil. Solesm. i. 383). 
 The great emperor breathed his last on May 
 22, A.D. 337 ; and Eusebius died not later than 
 the close of 339 or the begirming of 340. In 
 Wright's Ancient Syrian Martyrology, which 
 cannot date later than half a century after 
 the event, " the commemoration of Eusebius 
 bp. of Palestine " is pla( ed on May 30. If this 
 represents the day of his death, as probably it 
 does, he must have died in 339, for the notices 
 will hardly allow so late a date in the following 
 year. His literary activity was unabated to 
 the end. Four years at most can have elapsed 
 between his last visit to Constantinople and 
 his death. He must have been nearly 80 years 
 old when the end came. Yet at this advanced 
 age, and within this short period, he composed 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA :i2l 
 
 the Piini-);yric. the l.t/f of t .iiisUmliiir. th.- 
 treatise Af^aittst Maridlus. and the romp.ini..M 
 treatise On the Theoloj^v 0/ the ( hiirch; pli- 
 ably he had in hand at the same tune othir 
 unfinished works, such as the Theophanta. 
 There are no signs of failing mental vigour m 
 these works. The two doctrinal treatises arc 
 perhaps his most forcil)le and lucid writings. 
 The Panegyric and the Life of Constantine are 
 disfigured by a too luxuriant rhetoric, but in 
 vigour equal any of his earlier works. Of his 
 death itself no record is left. Acacius, his 
 successor, had been his pupil. Though more 
 decidedly Arian in bias, he was a devoted 
 admirer of his master (Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He 
 wrote a Life of Eusebius, and apparently edited 
 some of his works. 
 
 Literary Works. — The literary remains of 
 Eusebius are a rich and, excepting the Chrnttn tc 
 and the Ecclesiastical History, a comparatively 
 unexplored mine of study. They may be ( l.iss.d 
 as : A. Historical ; 13. .4 polo^etic ; C. Critical and 
 Exegetical; D. Doctrinal; E Orations; F. Letters. 
 
 A. Historical. — (i) Life of Pamphilus. — 
 Eusebius {Mart. Pal. 11), speaking of his 
 friend's martyrdom, refers to this work as 
 follows : " Tiie rest of the triumphs of his 
 virtue, requiring a longer narration, we have 
 already before this given to the world in a 
 separate work in three books, of which bis life 
 is the subject." He also refers to it 3 times 
 in his History (//. E. vi. 32, vii. 32, v'iii. 13). 
 The Life of Pamphilus was thus written before 
 the History, and before the shorter ed. of — 
 
 (2) The Martyrs of Palestine. — This work is 
 extant in two forms, a shorter and a longer. 
 The shorter is attached to the History, com- 
 monly between the 8th and 9th books. 
 
 The longer form is not extant entire in the 
 original Greek. In the BoUandist Acta 
 Sanctorum (Jun. t. i. p. 64) Papebroch pub. 
 for the first time in Greek, from a Paris 
 MS. of the Metaphrast, an account of the 
 martyrdom of Pamphilus and others, pro- 
 fessedly " composed by Eusebius Painphili." 
 It had appeared in a Latin version before. 
 The Greek was reprinted by Fabricius, Hippo- 
 lytus, ii. p. 217. This is a fuller account of the 
 incidents related in the Mart. Pal. 11 attached 
 to the History. Their common matter is ex- 
 pressed in the same words, or nearly so. Hence 
 one must have been an enlargement or an 
 abridgment of the other. 
 
 Nor can it reasonably be doubted that the 
 shorter form of the Palestinian Martyrs is 
 Eusebius's own. It retains those notices of 
 the longer form in which ICusebius speaks in 
 his own person ; and, moreover, in the pas- 
 sages peculiar to this shorter form, Eusebius 
 is evidently the sjieaker. Thus (c. 11) lie 
 mentions having alreaily written a s()ecial 
 work in three books on the life of Pamphilus ; 
 and when recording the death of Silvanus, who 
 had had his lyes i)ut out (c. 13), inentions his 
 own astciiiishinciit when he once heard him 
 reading the Scriptures, as he supposed, from 
 a book in church, but was told that he was 
 blind and was repeating them by heart. 
 Moreover, other incidental notices, inserted 
 from time to time and having no place in the 
 longer form, shew the knowledge of a contem- 
 porary and eyewitness. 
 
 The longer edition seems to be the original 
 
 21 
 
322 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 form. It is an independent work, apparently 
 written not very long after the events. It 
 betrays no other motive than to inform and 
 edify the readers, more especially the Chris- 
 tians of Caesarea and Palestine, to whom it is 
 immediately addressed. " Our city of Cae- 
 sarea " is an expression occurring several 
 times (pp. 4 twice, 25, 30). " This our 
 country," " this our city," are analogous 
 phrases (pp. 8, 13). 
 
 In the shorter form the case is different. 
 The writer does not localize himself in the 
 same way. It is always " the city," never 
 " this city," of Caesarea. The appeal to the 
 Caesareans in recounting the miracle is left 
 out (c. 4). The hortatory beginning and 
 ending are omitted, and the didactic portions 
 abridged or excised. The shorter form thus 
 appears to be part of a larger work, in which 
 the sufferings of themartyrs were set off against 
 the deaths of the persecutors. The object 
 would thus be the vindication of God's right- 
 eousness. This idea appears several times 
 elsewhere in Eusebius, and he mayhave desired 
 to embody it in a separate treatise. 
 
 (3) Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms. — Of 
 this work Eusebius was not the author, but 
 merely, as the title suggests and as the notices 
 require, the compiler and editor. The nar- 
 ratives of martyrdoms were, in the eyes of 
 Eusebius, not only valuable as history but 
 instructive as lessons {H. E. v. praef.). Hence 
 he took pains to preserve authentic records of 
 them, himself undertaking to record those of 
 his own country, Palestine, at this time; while 
 he left to others in different parts of the world 
 to relate those " quae ipsi miserrima vider- 
 unt," declaring that only thus could strict 
 accuracy be attained {H. E. viii. 13, with the 
 whole context). But he was anxious also to 
 preserve the records of past persecutions. 
 Hence this collection of Martyrologies. The 
 epithet " ancient " (apxa-la) must be regarded 
 as relative, applying to all prior to the " per- 
 secution of his own time " (6 KaD' ^)/j.ds 5iu)y/j.6s, 
 according to his favourite expression). He 
 himself refers to this collection for the martyr- 
 dom of Polycarp and others at Smvrna under 
 Antoninus Pius a.d. 155 or 156 (iv. 15), for the 
 documents relating to the sufferers in Gaul 
 imder M. Aurelius a.d. 177 (v. i, seq.), and for 
 the defence of Apollonius under Commodus 
 A.D. 180-185 (v. 21). But it would probably 
 comprise any martyrdoms which occurred 
 before the long peace that preceded the out- 
 break of the last persecution under Diocletian. 
 
 [(4) Chronicle.— This work mav be described 
 in words suggested by the author's own ac- 
 count of it at the beginning of his Eclogue 
 Propheticae, as " chronological tables, to which 
 is prefixed an epitome of universal history 
 drawn from various sources." The epitome 
 occupies the first book, the tables the second. 
 The tables exhibit in parallel columns the 
 successions of the rulers of different nations, 
 so that contemporary monarchs can be seen 
 at a glance. Notes mark the years of the 
 more remarkable historical events, these notes 
 constituting an epitome of history. The in- 
 terest which Christians felt in the study of 
 comparative chronology arose from heathen 
 opponents contrasting the antiquity of their 
 rites with the novelty of the Christian religion. 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 Christian apologists retorted by proving that 
 the Grecian legislators and philosophers were 
 very much later than the Hebrew legislator and 
 later than the prophets who had testified of 
 Christ and taught a religion of which Christi- 
 anity was the legitimate continuation. In the 
 Praeparatio Evangelica (x. 9) Eusebius urges 
 this, quoting largely from preceding writers 
 who had proved the antiquity of the Jews, e.g. 
 Josephus, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and 
 especially Africanus. This last writer had 
 made the synchronisms between sacred and 
 profane history his special study, and his 
 chronological work, now lost, gave Eusebius 
 the model and, to a great extent, the materials 
 for his own Chronicle. 
 
 The Greek of Eusebius's own work has been 
 lost, and until recent times it was only known 
 through the use made of it by successors, par- 
 ticularly Jerome, who translated it into Latin, 
 enlarging the notices of Roman history and 
 continuing it to his own time. In 1606 Scaliger 
 published an edition of the Chronicle, in which 
 he attempted to restore the Greek of Eusebius, 
 collecting from Syncellus, Cedrenus, and other 
 Greek chronologers, notices which he believed 
 himself able, mainly by the help of Jerome's 
 translation, to identify as copied from Euse- 
 bius ; but his restoration of the first book, 
 where he had but little guidance from Jerome, 
 did not inspire confidence, and has been 
 proved untrustworthy. An Armenian trans, 
 of the Chronicle, pub. in 181 8, enables us now 
 to state the contents of bk. i. 
 
 After pleading that early Greek and even 
 Hebrew chronology present many difficulties, 
 Eusebius, in the first section, gives a sketch of 
 Chaldee and Assyrian history, subjoining a 
 table of Assyrian, Median, Lydian, and Per- 
 sian kings, ending with the Darius conquered 
 by Alexander. The authors he uses are 
 Alexander Polyhistor, and, as known through 
 hmi, Berosus ; Abydenus, Josephus, Castor, 
 Diodorus, and Cephalion. He notes the coin- 
 cidences of these writers with Hebrew history 
 and suggests that the incredible lengths as- 
 signed to reigns in the early Chaldee history 
 may be reduced if the " sari," said to be 
 periods of 3,600 years, were in reality far 
 shorter periods, and in like manner, following 
 Africanus, that the Egyptian years may be 
 in reality but months. An alternative sug- 
 gestion in this first book is that some Egyptian 
 dynasties may have been, not consecutive, 
 but synchronous. The second section treats 
 of Hebrew chronology, the secular authorities 
 used being Josephus and Africanus. Eusebius 
 notices the chronological difference between 
 the Heb., LXX., and Samaritan texts, and 
 conjectures that the Hebrews, to justify by 
 patriarchal example their love of early mar- 
 riages, systematically shortened the intervals 
 between the birth of each patriarch and that 
 of his first son. He gives other arguments 
 which decide him in favour of the LXX, 
 especially as it was the version used by our 
 Lord and the apostles. In the period from 
 the Deluge to the birth of Abraham, which 
 Eusebius makes the initial point of his own 
 tables, he follows the LXX, except that he 
 omits the second Cainan, making 942 years ; 
 and thus placing the birth of Abraham in the 
 year from the Creation 3184. He reckons 480 
 
EOSEBIUS Of CAESAREA 
 
 years bi'twoeii tlie Ilxi'diis ami Snl.nnon s : 
 temple, as in I. Kiti^s. In the pit faee to his i 
 second book, he states that his predecessors 
 had made Moses contemporary with Inachus, | 
 and 700 years earlier than tlie Troj.m War. 
 His own computation made Inaclnis contem- 
 porary with Jacob, and Moses with (.■e('ro|>s. 
 but he contends that this leaves Moses still 
 nearly 400 years older than the capture of 
 Troy, and older than Deucalion's Deluge, 
 Phaethon's Conflagration, Bacchus, Aescu- 
 lapius, Castor and I'ollux, Hercules, Homer 
 and the Seven Wise Men of Greece, and Pytha- 
 goras the first philosopher. Eusebius counts 
 442 years from the foundation of Solomon's 
 temple to its destruction under Zedekiah. 
 He reckons two prophetic periods of 70 years 
 of captivity. One begins with the destruction 
 of the temple, and ends with the 2nd year of 
 Darius Hystaspis and the rebuilding of the 
 temple under Zerubbabel. The other is from 
 the first prophesying of Jeremiah in the 13th 
 year of Josiah to the ist year of Cyrus, when 
 an altar was set up at Jerusalem and the 
 foundations of the temple laid. In the tables 
 Eusebius gives an alternative for this period, 
 viz. from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the 19th 
 of CvTus. From the 2nd year of Darius, which 
 he counts as the ist year of the 65th olympiad, 
 Eusebius counts 548 years to the preaching 
 of our Lord and the '15th year of Tiberius, 
 which he reckons as the 4th year of the 201st 
 olympiad, and as the year' 5228 from the 
 creation of the world. There is every reason 
 for thinking that more editions of the Chronicle 
 than one were published by Eusebius in his 
 lifetima. In its latest form it terminates with 
 the Viceunalia of Constantine. Jerome says 
 in his preface that as far as the taking of Troy 
 his work was a mere translation of that of 
 Eusebius ; that from that date to the point 
 at which the work of Eusebius closes, he added 
 notices, from Suetonius and others, relating 
 to Roman history ; and that the conclusion 
 from where Eusebius breaks off to his own 
 time was entirely his own. c.s.] 
 
 (5) Ecclesiastical History. — From many 
 considerations it seems clear that the History 
 was finished some time in a.d. 324 or 325 — 
 before midsummer in the latter year, and 
 probably some months earlier ; and the earlier 
 books even some years before this. 
 
 The work contains no indications that it was 
 due to any suggestion from without, as some 
 have supposed. If the author had been 
 prompted to it byConstantine, he would hardly 
 have been silent about the fact, for he is only 
 too ready elsewhere to parade the flatteries of 
 his imperial patron. Moreover, it was pro- 
 bably written in great measure, or at least the 
 materials for it collected, before his relations 
 with Constantine began. His own language 
 rather suggests that it grew out of a previous 
 work, the Chronicle. 
 
 He begins by enumerating the topics with 
 which it is intended to deal : (i) the succes- 
 sions of the apostles with continuous chrono- 
 logical data from the Christian era to his own 
 time ; (2) the events of ecclesiastical history ; 
 (3) the most distinguished rulers, preachers, 
 and writers in the church ; (4) the teachers of 
 heresy who, like " grievous wolves," have 
 ravaged the flock of Christ; (5) the rctribu- 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 323 
 
 tion which li.id Ixf.dl.-ii the |.wish race; (0) 
 the persecutions of the church and the vic- 
 tories of the martyrs and <-i>n(<ssi>rs, cnti- 
 eluding with the great and final di-liverance 
 wrought by the S.iviour in the author's own 
 ilay. He prays for guidance, since he is 
 entering upon an untroilden way, where he 
 will lind no ft>otpriiits, though the works of 
 predecessors may serve as beacon-lights here 
 and there through the waste. He considers 
 it absolutely necessary (d>'07\oi6rara) to 
 undertake the task, because no one else before 
 him had done so. The work, he concludes, 
 must of necessity commence with the Incar- 
 nation and Divinity {oUovofilat rt koI 0fo\o-)lat) 
 of Christ, because from Him we all derive our 
 name. Accordingly he proceeds to shew that 
 Christianity is no new thing, but has its roots 
 in the eternal past. The VV<jrd was with (khI 
 before the beginning of creation. He was 
 recognized and known by righteous men in all 
 ages, especially among the Hebrews ; His 
 advent, even His very names, were foretold 
 and glorified ; His society — the Christian 
 church— was the subject of prophecy, while 
 the Christian type of life was never without 
 e.xamples since the race began (i. 4, cf. ii. i). 
 " After this necessary preparation " {nfrd ttjc 
 Shi'iTav TTponaTajKeniy, i. 5), he proceeds to 
 speak of the Incarnation, its chronology and 
 synchronisms in external history, the Herodian 
 kingdom, the Roman empire, the Jewish 
 priesthood, including a discussion of the 
 Saviour's genealogy ; thus shewing that it 
 came in the fulness of time as a realization of 
 prophecy (cc. 5-10). A chapter is devoted to 
 the Baptist as the first herald (c. 11), another 
 to the appointment of the Twelve and the 
 Seventy (c. 12) ; a third to the mission sent 
 by Christ Himself to Edessa, as recorded in 
 the archives of that city (c. 13). We are thus 
 brought to the time of the Ascension, and the 
 first book ends. The second comjirises the 
 preaching of the apostles to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, the writer's aim being not to repeat 
 the accounts in the N.T., but to supplement 
 them from external sources. The third book 
 extends to the reign of Trajan, and covers the 
 sub-apostolic age, ending with notices of 
 Ignatius, Clement, and Papias. The fourth 
 and fifth carry us to the close of the 2nd cent., 
 including the Montanist, Quartodeciman, and 
 Monarchian disputes. The sixth contains the 
 period from the persecution of Severus (a.d. 
 203) to that of Decius (a.d. 250), the central 
 figure being Origen, of whom a full account is 
 given. The seventh continues the narrative 
 to th • outbreak of the great persecution under 
 Diocletian, and is largely composed of quota- 
 tions from Dionysius of Alexandria, as the 
 preface states, it is significant that the last 
 forty years of this period, though contem- 
 porary with the historian, arc dismissed in a 
 single long cha|)ter. It was a period of very 
 rapid but silent progress. wh«n the church ft)r 
 the first time was in the h.ippv ondilii'ii of 
 having no history. The eighth book gives the 
 history of the persecution of Diocletian till the 
 "palinode," the edict of (.alerius (a.d. 3«")- 
 The ninth relates the sufferings of the ll.istern 
 Christians until the victorv over .Maxentius at 
 the Milvian bridge in the West, and the d.ath 
 1 of Maxiinin in the East, left Constantine and 
 
324 EUSEBIUS OF CAESARfiA 
 
 Licinius sole emperors. The tenth and last 
 book, dedicated to Paulinus, gives an account 
 of the rebuilding of the churches, the imperial 
 decrees favourable to the Christians, the sub- 
 sequent rebellion of Licinius, and the victory 
 of Constantine by which he was left sole 
 master of the Roman world. A panegyric of 
 Constantine closes the whole. 
 
 Eusebius thus had a truly noble conception 
 of the work which he had undertaken. It was 
 nothing less than the history of a society 
 which stood in an intimate relation to the 
 Divine Logos Himself, a society whose roots 
 struck down into the remotest past and whose 
 destinies soared into the eternal future. He 
 felt, moreover, that he himself lived at the 
 great crisis in its history. Now at length it 
 seemed to have conquered the powers of this 
 world. This was the very time, therefore, to 
 place on record the incidents of its past career. 
 Moreover, he had great opportunities, such as 
 were not likely to fall to another. In his own 
 episcopal city, perhaps in his own official 
 residence, Pamphilus had got together the 
 largest Christian library yet collected. Not 
 far off, at Jerusalem, was another valuable 
 library, collected a century earlier by the 
 bp. Alexander, and especially rich in the 
 correspondence of men of letters and rulers 
 in the church, " from which library," writes 
 Eusebius, " we too have been able to collect 
 together the materials for this undertaking 
 which we have in hand " {H. E. vi. 20). 
 Moreover, he had been trained in a highly 
 efficient school of literary industry under 
 Pamphilus, while his passion for learning has 
 rarely been equalled, perhaps never surpassed. 
 
 The execution of his work, however, falls 
 far short of the conception. The faults indeed 
 are so patent as to have unjustly obscured the 
 merits, for it is withal a noble monument of 
 literary labour. We must remember his plea 
 for indulgence, as one setting foot upon new 
 ground, " nuUius ante trita solo " ; and as he 
 had no predecessor, so he had no successor. 
 Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, all 
 commenced where he ended. The most bitter 
 of his theological adversaries were forced to 
 confess their obligations to him, and to speak 
 of his work with respect. If we reflect what 
 a blank would be left in our knowledge of this 
 important chapter in history if the narrative 
 of Eusebius were blotted out, we shall appreci- 
 ate our enormous debt of gratitude to him. 
 
 Two points require consideration : (i) the 
 range and adequacy of his materials, and (2) 
 the use made of them. 
 
 (i) The range of materials is astonishing 
 when we consider that Eusebius was a pioneer. 
 Some hundred works, several of them very 
 lengthy, are either directly cited or referred 
 to as read. In many instances he would read 
 an entire treatise for the sake of one or two 
 historical notices, and must have searched 
 many others without finding anything to serve 
 his purpose, thus involving enormous labour. 
 This then is his strongest point. Yet even 
 here deficiencies may be noted. He very 
 rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs them- 
 selves, being content to give their opinions 
 through the medium of their opponents' 
 refutations. A still greater defect is his 
 considerable ignorance of Latin literature and 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAE3AREA 
 
 of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he 
 knows nothing of TertuUian's works, except 
 the Apologeticum, which he quotes (ii. 2, 25, 
 iii. 20, 33, V. 5) from a bad Greek translation 
 (e.g. ii. 25, where the translator, being ignorant 
 of the Latin idiom cum maxime, destroys the 
 sense). Of Tertullian himself he gives no 
 account, but calls him a " Roman." Pliny's 
 letter he only knows through Tertullian (iii. 
 33) and he is unacquainted with the name 
 of the province which Pliny governed. Of 
 Hippolytus again he has very little informa- 
 tion to communicate, and cannot even tell the 
 name of his see (vi. 20, 22). His account of 
 Cyprian, too, is extremely meagre (vi. 43, vii. 
 3), though Cyprian was for some years the most 
 conspicuous figure in Western Christendom, 
 and died (a.d. 258) not very long before his 
 own birth. He betrays the same ignorance 
 with regard to the bps. of Rome. His dates 
 here, strangely enough, are widest of the mark 
 when close upon his own time. Thus he 
 assigns to XystusII. (fA.D. 258) eleven years 
 (vii. 27) instead of months ; to Eutychianus 
 (fA.D. 283) ten months (vii. 32) instead of 
 nearly nine years ; to Gains, whom he calls 
 his own contemporary, and who died long 
 after he had arrived at manhood (a.d. 296), 
 " about fifteen years " (vii. 32) instead of 
 twelve. He seems to have had a corrupt list 
 and did not possess the knowledge necessary 
 to correct it. With the Latin language he 
 appears to have had no thorough acquaintance, 
 though he sometimes ventured to translate 
 Latin documents (iv. 8, 9 ; cf. viii. 17). But 
 he must not be held responsible for the 
 blunders in the versions of others, e.g. of 
 TertuUian's Apologeticum. The translations 
 of state documents in the later books may be 
 the semi-official Greek versions such as Con- 
 stantine was in the habit of employing persons 
 to make [V. C. iv. 32). See on this subject 
 Heinichen's note on H. E. iv. 8. 
 
 (2) Under the second head the most vital 
 question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he 
 tamper with his materials or not ? The sar- 
 casm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi.) is 
 well known : " The gravest of the ecclesias- 
 tical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly 
 confesses that he has related whatever might 
 redound to the glory, and that he has sup- 
 pressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of 
 religion." The passages to which he refers 
 (H. E. viii. 2 ; Mart. Pal. 12) do not bear out 
 this imputation. There is no indirectness 
 about them, but on the contrary they deplore, 
 in the most emphatic terms, the evils which 
 disgraced the church, and they represent the 
 persecution under Diocletian as a just retri- 
 bution for these wrongdoings. The ambi- 
 tions, intriguing for office, factious quarrels, 
 cowardly denials and shipwrecks of the faith 
 — " evil piled upon evil " (KaKO. xaKoh 
 fTTiTeixi-^ovTes) — are denounced in no meas- 
 ured language. Eusebius contents himself 
 with condemning these sins and shortcomings 
 in general terms, without entering into de- 
 tails ; declaring his intention of confining 
 himself to topics profitable (irpbi w^eXei'ar) to 
 his own and future generations. This treat- 
 ment may be regarded as too great a sacrifice 
 to edification ; but it leaves no imputation 
 on his honesty. Nor again can the special 
 
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 charges against his honour as a narrator be 
 sustained. There is no ground wliatever for 
 the surmise that Eusebius forged or inter- 
 polated the passage from Josephus relating to 
 our Lord, quoted in H. E. i. ii, though Heini- 
 chen (iii. pp. 623 seq., Melet. ii.) is disposed to 
 entertain the charge. The passage is con- 
 tained in all our extant MSS., and there is 
 sufficient evidence that other interpolations 
 (though not this) were introduced into the 
 text of Josephus long before this time (See 
 Orig. c. Cels. i. 47, Dclarue's note). Another 
 interpolation in Josephus which Eusebius 
 quotes (ii. 23) was certainly known to Origcn 
 (I.e.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl 
 in the account of Herod Agrippa's death (H. E. 
 ii. 10) was already in some texts of Josephus 
 (.-Itit. xix. 8, 2). The manner in which Euse- 
 bius deals with his very numerous quotations 
 elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, suffi- 
 ciently vindicates him from this unjust charge. 
 Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful to 
 collect the best evidence accessible, and also 
 to distinguish between different kinds of 
 evidence. " Almost every page witnesses to 
 the zeal with which he collected testimonies 
 from writers who lived at the time of the 
 events which he describes. For the sixth and 
 seventh books he evidently rejoices to be able 
 to use for the foundation of his narrative the 
 contemporary letters of Dionysius ; ' Diony- 
 sius, our great bp. of Alexandria,' he writes, 
 ' will again help me by his own words in 
 the composition of my seventh book of the 
 history, since he relates in order the events of 
 his own time in the letters which he has left ' 
 (vii. praef.). ... In accordance with this in- 
 stinctive desire for original testimony, Euse- 
 bius scrupulously distinguishes facts which 
 rest on documentary from those which rest 
 on oral evidence. Some things he relates on 
 the authority of a 'general' (iii. 11, 36) or 
 ' old report ' (iii. 19, 20) or from tradition 
 (i. 7, ii. 9, vi.2, etc.). In the lists of successions 
 he is careful to notice where written records 
 failed him. ' I could not,' he says, ' by any 
 means find the chronology of the bps. of 
 Jerusalem preserved in writing ; thus much 
 only I received from written sources, that 
 there were fifteen bishops in succession up to 
 the date of the siege under Hadrian, etc' (iv. 
 5)." [w.] " There is nothing like hearing the 
 actual words " of the writer, he says again 
 and again (i. 23, iii. 32, vii. 23 ; cf.' iv. 23), 
 when introducing a quotation. His general 
 sincerity and good faith seem, therefore, clear. 
 But his intellectual qualifications were in 
 many respects defective. His credulity, in- 
 deed, has frequently been much exaggerated. 
 " Undoubtedly he relates many incidents 
 which may seem to us incredible, but, when 
 he does so, he gives the evidence on which 
 they are recommended to him. At one time 
 it is the express testimony of some well-known 
 writer, at another a general belief, at another 
 an old tradition, at another his own observa- 
 tion (v. 7, vi. g. vii. 17, 18)." [w.] In the 
 most remarkable passage bearing on the 
 question he recounts his own experience 
 during the last persecution in Palestine {Mart. 
 Pal. 9). " There can be no doubt about the 
 occurrence which Eusebius here describes, and 
 it does not appear that he can be reproached 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 325 
 
 for adiliiig the interpretation which his 
 countrymen placed upon it. Wh.it he 
 vouches for we ran accept as truth ; wh.it he 
 records as a popular comment leavfs Ins histori- 
 cal veracity and judgment unimpaired." [w.) 
 Even Gibbon (c. xvi.) describes the rhararter 
 of Eusebius as " less tinctured with credulitv. 
 and more practised in the arts of courts, than 
 that of almost any of his contemporaries." 
 A far more serious drawback is the h)ose and 
 uncritical spirit in whi( h he sometimes deals 
 with his materials. This shews itself in 
 diverse ways, (a) He is not always to be 
 trusted in his discrimination of genuine and 
 spurious documents. As regards the canon 
 of Scripture indeed he takes special pains; 
 lays down certain principles which shall guide 
 him in the production of testimonies ; and on 
 the whole adheres to these principles with 
 fidelity (see Contemp. Rev. Jan. 1875, pp. 169 
 seq.). Yet elsewhere he adduces as genuine 
 the correspondence of Christ and Abgarus 
 (i. 13), though never treating it as canonical 
 Scripture. The unworthy suspicion that 
 Eusebius forged this correspondence which he 
 asserted to be a translation of a S\Tiac original 
 found in the archives of Edessa has been re- 
 futed by the discovery and publication of the 
 original Syriac {The Doctrine of Aiidai the 
 Apostle with an English Translation and Kotes 
 by G. Phillips, Lond. 1876 ; see Zahn, dotting. 
 Gel. Am. Feb. 6, 1877, pp. 161 seq. ; Contemp. 
 Rev. May 1877, p. 1137; a portion of this 
 work had been published some time before in 
 Cureton's .A ncient Syriac Documents, pp. 6 seq., 
 Lond. 1864). Not his honesty, but his critical 
 discernment was at fault. Yet we cannot be 
 severe upon him for maintaining a position 
 which, however untenable, has commended 
 itself to Cave {H. L. i. p. 2), Grabe {Spic. Patr. 
 i. pp. I seq.), and other writers of this stamp, 
 as defensible. This, moreover, is the most 
 flagrant instance of misappreciation. On the 
 whole, considerine the great mass of spurious 
 documents current in his age, we may well 
 admire his discrimination, as e.g. in the case 
 of the numerous Clementine writings (iii. 16, 
 38), alleging the presence or absence of «x- 
 ternal testimony for his decisions. Pearsf>n's 
 eulogy {Vind. Ign. i. 8) on Eusebius, though 
 exaggerated, is not undeserved. He is gener- 
 ally a safe guide in discriminating bet\yeen the 
 genuine and the spurious, {b) He is often 
 careless in his manner of quoting. His quo- 
 tations from Irenaeus, for instance, lose much 
 of their significance, even for his own purpose, 
 by abstraction from their context (v. 8). His 
 quotations from Papias (iii. 39) and fronj 
 Hegesippus (iii. 32, iv. 22) are tantalizing by 
 their brevity, for the exact bearing of the 
 words could only have been learnt from th<ir 
 context. But, except in the passages from 
 Josephus (where the blame, as we have seen, 
 belongs elsewhere), the quotations themselves 
 are given with fair accuracv. (c) He <lraws 
 hasty and unwarranted inferences from his 
 authorities, and is loose in interpreting their 
 bearing. This is his weakest point as a 
 critical historian. Thus he quotes Josephus 
 respecting the census of Qiiiriniis and the 
 insurrections of Theudas and of Judas the 
 Galilean, as if he agreed in all respects with 
 the accounts in St. Luke, and dots not notire 
 
326 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 the chronological difficulties (i. 5, 9 ; ii. 11). 
 He adduces the Jewish historian as a witness 
 to the assignment of a tetrarchy to Lysanias 
 (i. 9), though in fact Josephus says nothing 
 about this Lysanias in the passage in question, 
 but elsewhere mentions an earlier person 
 bearing the name as ruler of Abilene (Ant. xx. 
 7.1; 5. /. ii. II. 5). He represents this same 
 writer as stating that Herod Antipas was 
 banished to Vienne (i. 11), whereas Josephus 
 sends Archelaus to Vienne {H. J. ii. 7. 3) and 
 Herod Antipas to Lyons {Ant. xviii. 7. 2) or 
 Spain {B. J. ii. 9. 6). He quotes Philo's 
 description of the Jewish Therapeutae, as if 
 it related to Christian ascetics (ii. 17). He 
 gives, side by side, the contradictory accounts 
 of the death of James the Just in Josephus 
 and Hegesippus, as if they tallied (ii. 23). 
 He hopelessly confuses the brothers M. Aure- 
 lius and L. Verus (v. prooem., 4, 5) from a 
 misunderstanding of his documents, though 
 in the Chronicle (ii. p. 170) he is substantially 
 correct with regard to these emperors. INIany 
 other examples of such carelessness might be 
 produced, {d) He is very desultory in his 
 treatment, placing in different parts of his 
 work notices bearing on the same subject. He 
 relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing 
 upon it, in season or out of season, according 
 as it is recalled to his memory by some 
 accidental connexion. " Nothing can illus- 
 trate this characteristic better than the 
 manner in which he deals with the canon of 
 the N.T. After mentioning the martyrdom 
 of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, he proceeds 
 at once (iii. 3) without any further preface to 
 enumerate the writings attributed to them 
 respectively, distinguishing those which were 
 generally received by ancient tradition from 
 those which were disputed. At the same time 
 he adds a notice of the Shepherd, because it 
 had been attributed by some to the Hermas 
 mentioned by St. Paul.' After this he resumes 
 his narrative, and then having related the last 
 labours of St. John, he gives an account of the 
 writings attributed to him liii. 24), promising 
 a further discussion of the Apocalypse, which, 
 however, does not appear. This catalogue is 
 followed by some fragmentary discussions on 
 the Gospels, to which a general classification 
 of all the books claiming to have apostolic 
 authority is added. When this is ended, the 
 history suddenly goes back to a point in the 
 middle of the former book (ii. 15). Elsewhere 
 he repeats the notice of an incident for the 
 sake of adding some new detail, yet so as to 
 mar the symmetry of his work." [w.] Ex- 
 amples of this fault occur in the accounts of 
 the first preaching at Edessa (i. 13, ii. i), of the 
 writings of Clement of Rome (iii. 16, 38 ; iv. 
 22, 23, etc.), of the daughters of Philip (iii. 
 30, 39 ; cf. V. 17, 24), etc. 
 
 (6) Life of Constantine, in four books.— The 
 date of this work is fixed within narrow limits. 
 It was written after the death of the great 
 emperor (May 337) and after his three sons had 
 been declared Augusti (Sept. 337I — see iv. 68 ; 
 and Eusebius himself died not later than a.d. 
 340. Though not professing to be such, it is 
 to some extent a continuation of the Eccle- 
 siastical Historv. As such it is mentioned bv 
 Socrates (H. E. i. i), to whom, as to other 
 historians, it fiurnishes important materials 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 for the period. For the council of Nicaea 
 especially, and for some portions of the Arian 
 controversy, it is a primary source of infor- 
 mation of the highest value. As regards the 
 emperor himself, it is notoriously one-sided. 
 The verdict of Socrates will not be disputed. 
 The author, he says, " has devoted more 
 thought to the praises of the emperor and to 
 the grandiloquence of language befitting a 
 paneg^Tic, as if he were pronouncing an 
 encomium, than to the accurate narrative of 
 the events which took place." But there is 
 no ground for suspecting him of misrepresent- 
 ing the facts given, and with the qualification 
 stated above, his biography has the highest 
 value. It is a vivid picture of certain aspects 
 of a great personality, painted by one familiar- 
 ly acquainted with him, who had access to 
 important documents. It may even be set 
 down to the credit of Eusebius that his praises 
 of Constantine are much louder after his death 
 than during his lifetime. In this respect he 
 contrasts favourably with Seneca. Nor shall 
 we do justice to Eusebius unless we bear in 
 mind the extravagant praises which even 
 heathen panegyrists lavished on the great 
 Christian emperfir before his face, as an in- 
 dication of the spirit of the age. But after 
 all excuses made, this indiscriminate praise of 
 Constantine is a reproach from which we 
 should gladly have held Eusebius free. 
 
 B. Apologetic — (7) Against Hierocles. — 
 Hicrocles was governor in Bithynia, and used 
 his power ruthlessly to embitter the persecution 
 which he is thought to have instigated (Lactant. 
 Div. Inst. v. 2 ; Mort. Pers. 16 ; see Mason, 
 Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 58, 108). Not 
 satisfied with assailing the Christians from 
 the tribunal, he attacked them also with bis 
 pen. The title of his work seems to have been 
 6 ^CKa\ri0-r)$, The Lover of Truth. It was a 
 ruthless assault on Christianity, written in 
 a biting style. Its main object was to expose 
 the contradictions of the Christian records. 
 Eusebius, however, confines himself to one 
 point — the comparison of Apollonius, as de- 
 scribed in his Life by Philostratus, with our 
 Saviour, to the disparagement of the latter. 
 There is much difference of opinion whether 
 Philostratus himself intended to set up Apol- 
 lonius as a rival to the Christ of the Gospels 
 [Apollonius of Tyana], but Hierocles at all 
 events turned his romance to this use. 
 
 Eusebius refutes his opponent with great 
 moderation, and generally with good effect. 
 He allows that Apollonius was a wise and 
 virtuous man, but refuses to concede the 
 higher claims advanced on his behalf. He 
 shews that the work of Philostratus was not 
 based on satisfactory evidence ; that the 
 narrative is full of absurdities and contra- 
 dictions ; and that the moral character of 
 Apollonius as therein portrayed is far from 
 perfect. He maintains that the supernatural 
 incidents, if they actually occurred, might 
 have been the work of demons. In conclu- 
 sion (§§ 46-48) he refutes and denounces the 
 fatalism of Apollonius, as alone sufficient to 
 discredit his wisdom. 
 
 (8) Against Porphyry, an elaborate work in 
 25 books : Hieron. Ep. 70 ad Magn. § 3 (i. 
 p. 427, Vallarsi) ; Vir. III. 81.— No part of 
 this elaborate refutation has survived. Yet 
 
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 we may form stniie notion of its contents 
 from the Praeparatio and Demonstratio F.van- 
 gelica, in considerable portions of which 
 Eusebius obviously has Porphyry in view, 
 even where he does not name him. To 
 Jerome and Socrates the refutation seemed 
 satisfactory. Philostorgius (//. E. viii. 14) 
 preferred the similar work of Ajiollinaris to 
 it, as also to the earlier refutation of Method- 
 ius, but himself added another replv to 
 Porphyry (//. E. x. 10). All the four refuta- 
 tions have alike perished, with the work which 
 gave rise to them. 
 
 (9) Praeparatio F.vangelica. — So Eusebius 
 himself calls a treatise, which more strictly 
 ought to have been called Praeparatio Demon- 
 strationis Evangelicae. for it is an introductory 
 treatise leading up to — 
 
 (10) The Demonstratio Evangelica. — These 
 two treatises, in fact, are parts of one great 
 work. They are both dedicated to Theodotus, 
 an adherent of the Arian party, who was bp. 
 of Laodicea for some thirty years. 
 
 In the absence of more direct testimony, 
 we may infer that these works were begun 
 during the persecution, but not concluded till 
 S'une time after. Tiie Preparation is extant 
 entire, and comprises 15 books. Tiie Demonstra- 
 tion, on the other hand, is incomplite. It con- 
 sisted <if 20 books.of which only the first ten are 
 extant in the MSS. The Preparation sketches 
 briefly what the Gospel is, and then adverts 
 to the common taunt that the Christians 
 accept their religion by faith without investi- 
 gation. The whole work is an answer to this 
 taunt. The object of the Preparation is to 
 justify the Christians in transferring their 
 allegiance from the religion and philosophy of 
 the Greeks to the sacred books of the Hebrews. 
 The object of the Demonstration is to shew 
 from those sacred books themselves that 
 Christians did right in not stopping short at 
 the religious practices and beliefs of the Jews, 
 but in adopting a different mode of life. Thus 
 the Preparation is an apology for Christianity 
 as against the Gentiles, while the Demonstra- 
 tion defends it as against the Jews, and " yet 
 not," he adds, " against the Jews, nay, far 
 from it, but rather /or the Jews, if they would 
 learn wisdom." 
 
 In the first three books of the Preparation 
 he attacks the mythology of the heathen, 
 exposing its absurdity, and refutes the physio- 
 logical interpretations put upon the myths ; 
 in the next three he discusses the oracles, 
 and as connected therewith the sacrifices 
 to demons and the doctrine of fate ; in the 
 third three explains the bearing of " the 
 Hebrew Oracles," and adduces the testimony 
 of heathen writers in their favour ; in bks. 
 X. xi. xii. and xiii. he remarks on the plagiar- 
 isms of the (ireek philosophers from the 
 Hebrews, dwelling on the priority of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, and shews liow all that is 
 best in (ireek teaching and speculation agrees 
 with them ; in bk. xiv. he points to the cfin- 
 tradictions among (ireck philosophers, shewing 
 how the systems opposi-d to Christian belief 
 have been condemned by the wisest (jentile 
 philosophers themselves ; and lastly, in bk. 
 XV., he exposes the falsehoods and errors of 
 the Greek systems of philosophy, more 
 especially of the Peripatetics, Stoics, and 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 327 
 
 materialists of M schools. Ilr cl.iims t.. Ii.ive 
 thus given a complete answer tn those who 
 charge Christians with transferring thrir 
 allegiance from Hellenism to Hebraism blindly 
 and without knowledge. In the Demon- 
 
 stralion, bks. i. and ii. arc introductory (iii. i. 
 I, Tu;v TTfioXiyofiivwv). In bk. i. a sketch is 
 given of the G(^si>el teaching and reasons 
 alleged why Christians, while adopting the 
 Hebrew Oracles, should depart from the Jew- 
 ish mode of life ; a distinction b<ing drawn 
 between Hebraism, the religion of all godly 
 men from the beginning, and Judaism, the 
 temporary and special system of the lews, so 
 that Christianity is a continuation of the 
 former, but a departure froni the latter. In 
 bk. ii. testimonies from the prophets shew that 
 the two great phenomena of the Christian 
 Church had been long foretold — the general 
 ingathering of the Gentiles and the general 
 falling away of the Jews — so that the Chris- 
 tians " were only laying claim to their own " 
 (iii. I. i). Bk. iii. begins the main subject of 
 the treatise. He promises to speak of the 
 humanity of Christ, as corresponding to the 
 predictions of the prophets ; but the tf>pics 
 are introduced in a desultory way {e.g. that 
 Christ was not a sorcerer, that the Apostles 
 were not deceivers, etc.) without any very 
 obvious connexion with the main theme. 
 Bks. iv. and v. pass on to the divinitv of 
 Christ, both as the Son and as the Logos (sec 
 V. prooem. i. 2), this likewise having been 
 announced by the prophets. From bk. vi. 
 onward to the end he treats of the Incarnation 
 andlife {^ iTLdvuia) oi our Lord as a fulfilment of 
 prophecy, andof the manner of Christ's appear- 
 ing, the place of His birth, His parentage and 
 genealogv, the time of His advent and His 
 works as in like manner foretold. In bk. x., 
 the last which is extant, he reaches the Pas- 
 sion, treating of the traitor Judas and the 
 incidents of the Crucifixion. What were the 
 topics of the remaining ten books we have no 
 data for determining, but mav conj.M ture with 
 Stein (p. 102) that they dealt with th«' burial. 
 resurrection, and ascension, and perhaps also 
 with the foundation of the Christian church 
 and the Second Advent. The extant fragmt nt 
 of bk. XV. relates to the four kingdoms of 
 Daniel ii. Jerome (Comm. in Hos. Praef. Op. 
 vi. p. 18) speaks of Eusebius as " discussing 
 some matters respecting the prophet Hosea " 
 in bk. xviii. This great apologetic work ex- 
 hibits the merits and defects which we find 
 elsewhere in Eusebius ; the same greatness of 
 conception marred by inadequacy of execu- 
 tion, the same profusion of learning combined 
 with inability to control his materials, which 
 we have seen in his History. The topics arc 
 not kept distinct; vet this is probablv the most 
 important apologetic work of the early church. 
 Its frequent, forcible, and true conceptions, 
 more especially on the theme of "God in 
 history," arrest our attention now. and must 
 have impressed his contemporaries still more 
 strongly ; while in learning and comprehen- 
 siveness it is without a rival. It exhibits the 
 same wide acquaintance with (Ireek profane 
 writers which the History exhibits with Chris- 
 tian literature. The number of writers <|iiotrd 
 or referred to is astonishing (see Fabric. lUbt. 
 Grace, vii. p. 346), the names of some bcmg 
 
328 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 only known to us through Eusebius, while of 
 several others he has preserved large portions 
 not otherwise extant. He quotes not less 
 than 21 works of Plato, and gives more 
 than 50 quotations from the Laws alone. The 
 impression produced by this mass of learning 
 led Scaliger to call the work " divini com- 
 mentarii," and Cave " opus profecto nobilis- 
 simum " (H. L. i. p. 178). An admirable ed. 
 oiihQ PreparatiowAs-pnh. in 1903 at the Oxford 
 Press under the learned and accurate editorship 
 of the late Dr. Gifford, with trans, and notes. 
 (11) The Praeparatio Ecclesiastica ('E\-kX7;- 
 uiaaTCKT) UpoTrapatTKevrj) is not extant, nor 
 is (12) the bemonstratio Ecclesiastica ('EvkXt;- 
 a-iaaTLKT} 'A-rrodeL^is), but both are mentioned 
 by Photius {Bibl. ir, 12.) The names suggest 
 that these two works aimed at doing for the 
 society what the Praeparatio and Demonstratio 
 Evangelica do for the doctrines of which the 
 society is the depositary. 
 
 (13) Two Books of Objectionand Defence, only 
 known from Photius {Bibl. 13). 
 
 (14) The Divine Manifestation (0eo'/>dveia). 
 in five books, was long supposed to be lost, 
 but fragments of the Greek original were 
 published by Mai from Vatican MSS. in his 
 Script. Vet. 'Nov. Coll. i. (1831), viii. (1833), 
 and in 1842 the work was printed entire in a 
 Syriac version by Dr. S. Lee, who in 1843 
 pub. an Eng. trans, with intro. and notes {Euse- 
 bius, bp. of Caesarea, on the Theophania, etc., 
 Camb. 1843). By the aid of this version Mai 
 (a.d. 1847) in his Bibl. Nov. Patr. iv. p. 310 
 (cf. p. no) rearranged his Greek fragments. 
 
 The subject is, as the name Theophania 
 suggests, the manifestation of God in the 
 Incarnation of the Divine Word. The con- 
 tents are : (i) An account of the subject and 
 the recipients of the revelation. The doctrine 
 of the Word of God is insisted upon. His 
 person and working set forth. Polytheist 
 and pantheist are alike at fault. The Word 
 is essentially one. His relation to creation, 
 and especially to man, and the pre-eminence, 
 characteristics, destiny, and fall of man are 
 dealt with, (ii) The necessity of the revelation. 
 The human race was degraded by gross 
 idolatry with its accompanying immoralities. 
 The philosophers could not rescue it. Plato 
 had the clearest sense of the truth, yet even 
 he was greatly at fault. Meanwhile the 
 demons of polytheism had maddened man- 
 kind, as shewn by human sacrifices and the 
 prevalence of wars. The demons, too, had 
 shewn their powerlessness ; they could not 
 defend their temples or foresee their over- 
 throw, (iii) The proof of the revelation. Its 
 excellency and power is seen in its effects. 
 For this it was necessary that the Word should 
 be incarnate, put to death, and rise again. 
 The change which has come over mankind in 
 consequence is set forth, (iv) The proof of the 
 revelation, from the fulfilment of Christ's words 
 — His prophecies respecting the extension of 
 His kingdom, the trials of His church, the 
 destinies of His servants, and the fate of 
 the Jews, (v) The common heathen 06/ec/ton 
 that Christ was a sorcerer and a deceiv^er, 
 achieving His results by magic, is answered. 
 
 The place of writing of the Theophania is 
 Caesarea (iv. 6), and it was plainly \vritten 
 after the triumph of Constantine and the 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 restoration of peace to the church. The 
 persecution is over, and the persecutors have 
 met with their punishment (iii. 20, v. 52). 
 Polytheism is fast waning, and Christianity is 
 spreading everywhere (ii. 76, iii. 79). 
 
 (15) On the Numerous Progeny of the An- 
 cients. — This lost treatise is mentionedin Praep. 
 Ev. vii. 8. 29. It is doubtless the same work 
 to which St. Basil refers {de Spir. Sanct. 29, 
 Op. iii. p. 61) as Difficulties respecting the 
 Polygamy of the Ancients. It would seem to 
 have been an apologetic work, as it seems to 
 have aimed at accoimting for the polygamy 
 of the patriarchs and the Jews generally, and 
 reconciling it with the ascetic life, which in 
 his own time was regarded as the true ideal 
 of Christian teaching. This problem occurs 
 again and again in his extant apologetic 
 writings. In the reference in the Praeparatio 
 Eusebius speaks of having discussed in this 
 work the notices of the lives of the patriarchs 
 and " their philosophic endurance and self- 
 discipline," whether by way of direct narrative 
 or of allegorical suggestion. 
 
 C. Critical and Exegetical — i.e. all works 
 directed primarily to the criticism and eluci- 
 dation of the Scriptures. 
 
 (16) Biblical Texts. — In his earlier years 
 Eusebius was occupied in conjunction with 
 Pamphilus in the production of correct Greek 
 texts of the O.T. A notice of his later years 
 shews him engaged in a similar work {V. C. 
 iv. 36, 37). The emperor writes to Eusebius, 
 asking him to provide 50 copies of the Scrip- 
 tures for use in the churches of Constantinople, 
 where the Christian population had largely 
 multiplied. The manuscripts must be easily 
 legible and handy for use, written on carefully 
 prepared parchment, and transcribed by skil- 
 ful caligraphers. He has already written, he 
 adds, to the procurator-general {Kaflo\iK6s) of 
 the district {rrjs 8i.oiKri(X€io^), charging him to 
 furnish Eusebius with the necessary appli- 
 ances and has placed at his disposal two 
 public waggons to convey the manuscripts, 
 when complete, to the new metropolis. Euse- 
 bius executes the commission. The manu- 
 scripts were arranged, he tells us, in ternions 
 and quaternions {Tpiaaa nal rerpaffad) and care- 
 fully prepared at great cost. The emperor 
 wrote expressing his satisfaction with them. 
 
 (17) Sections and Canons, with the Letter to 
 Carpianus prefixed. — Eusebius explains the 
 origin and method of these sections and 
 canons in the prefatory letter. Ammonius of 
 .Alexandria (c. 220) had constructed a Har- 
 mony or Diatessaron of the Gospels. He 
 took St. Matthew as his standard, and placed 
 side by side with it the parallel passages from 
 the other three. The work of Ammonius 
 suggested to Eusebius the plan which he 
 adopted, but Eusebius desired to preserve the 
 continuity of all the narratives. He therefore 
 divided each gospel separately into sections, 
 which he numbered continuously, and con- 
 structed a table of ten canons, containing lists 
 of passages : canon i, common to all the 
 four evangelists ; canon ii, common to Mat- 
 thew, Mark, Luke ; canon iii, common to 
 Matthew, Luke, John ; canon iv, common to 
 Matthew, Mark, John; canon v, common 
 to Matthew and Luke ; canon vi, common to 
 Matthew and Mark ; canon vii, common to 
 
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 Matthew and John ; cannn viii, rommon to 
 Luke and Mark ; canon ix, common to Luke 
 and John; canon x, passaa;cs peculiar to a 
 single evangelist, so that this last canon con- 
 tains four separate lists. The sections of the 
 several gospels were numhcred in black, and 
 beneath each such number was a second number 
 in vermilion, specifying the canon to which the 
 section belonged. By turning to the canon 
 so specified, the reader would see the numbers 
 of the parallel sections in the other evangelists. 
 For the history of the sections and canons 
 in the MSS. see Scrivener's Inirod. to the 
 Criticism of the N.T., pp. 34 seq. and passim. 
 The sections and canons arc marked in many 
 editions of the Gk. Test., e.g. those of Tischen- 
 dorf and Tregelles. 
 
 (iS) Under the head of Biblical exegesis 
 may be ranged several togographical works 
 undertaken at the instance of Paulinus, bp. 
 of Tyre. — (a) Interpretation of the Ethno- 
 logical Terms in the Hebreiv Scriptures ; {b) 
 Chorography of Ancient Judaea, with the 
 Inheritances of the Ten Tribes ; (c) A Plan 
 of Jerusalem and of the Temple. This was 
 accompanied with memoirs relating to the 
 different localities, (d) On the Names of 
 Places in Holy Scripture, entitled in the head 
 of Jerome's version de Situ et Nominibus 
 Locorum Hebraicorum. but elsewhere (Vir. 
 III. 81) Topica. The first tliree, which perhaps 
 should be regarded as parts of the same work, 
 are mentioned in the preface to the fourth, 
 which alone is extant. All were written at the 
 instance of Paulinus, to whom {d) is dedicated. 
 This last professes to give alphabetically " the 
 designations of thecities and villagesmentioned 
 in Holy Scripture in their original language," 
 with adescriptionof thelocalityandthemodern 
 names. The names are transliterated with 
 various success from the Hebrew. The value of 
 this treatise arises from the close acquaintance 
 which Eusebius had with the geography of 
 Palestine in his own day. The work had 
 already been translated into Latin by some 
 unskilful hand before Jerome's time, but so 
 unsatisfactorily that he undertook a new ver- 
 sion. He omitted some important notices and 
 made several changes, justified by his personal 
 knowledge of Palestine. 
 
 (19) On the Nomenclature of the Book of the 
 Prophets. — This work contains a brief account 
 of the several prophets and the subjects of 
 their prophecies, beginning with the minor 
 prophets and following the order of the LXX. 
 
 (20) In Psalmos. a continuous commentary 
 on the Psalms, which stands in antiquity and 
 intrinsic merit in the first rank of patristic 
 commentaries. The historical bearing of the 
 several psalms is generally treated sensibly ; 
 the theological and mystical interpretations 
 betray the extravagance common to patristic 
 exegesis. The value of the work is largely 
 increased by frequent extracts frf)m the 
 Hexaplaric versions and by notices respecting 
 the text and history of the Psalter. The 
 avithor possessed some acquaintance with 
 Hebrew, though not always sufficient to 
 prevent mistakes. This commentary had a 
 great reputation, and was translated into 
 Latin within a very few years of its iiublication 
 by Eusebius of Vercellae. 
 
 (21) Commentary on Isaiah. — This work 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 320 
 
 exhibits the same cliar.x tcristics as tlir Com- 
 mentary on the Psalms. Jemmc is largely 
 indebted to Eusebius, whom he smnctimcs 
 translates almost word for word without 
 acknowledgment. Eusebius occasionally in- 
 serts interesting traditions on the authority 
 of a Hebrew teacher : e.g. that Shebna be^ 
 came high-priest and betrayed the people to 
 Sennacherib ; that Hezekiah was seized with 
 sickness for not singing (iod's praises, like 
 Moses and Deborah, after his victory. 
 Sometimes he gives Christian traditions : e.g. 
 that Judas Iscariot was of the tribe of 
 Ephraim. This commentary is mentioned by 
 Procopius in his preface, and is freely used by 
 him and by later (Ireek commentators. 
 
 (22) Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. — Not 
 mentioned bv Jerome or Photius. Some 
 extracts remain. 
 
 {23) Commentary on I. Corinthians. — Such 
 a work seems to be implied by Jerome's 
 language, Ep. xlix., though he does not men- 
 tion it in his Catalogue. 
 
 (24) Commentaries on other Books of Scrip- 
 ture. — Extracts are given from, or mention is 
 made of, commentaries on Proverbs. Song of 
 Songs. Daniel, Hebrews, and several other books 
 (see~ Fabric, op. cit. p. 399). It is doubtful, 
 however, whether such extracts (even when 
 genuine) are from continuous commentaries 
 or from exegetical or dogmatical wf>rks. 
 
 (23) On the Discrepancies of the Gospels. — 
 This work consists of two parts, really separate 
 works, and quoted as such : (i) Questions 
 and Solutions on the Genealogy of the Saviour, 
 addressed to Siephanus ; (ii) Questions and 
 Solutions concerning the Passion and Resur- 
 rection of the Saviour, addressed to .Marinus. 
 The difficulties do not always turn upon 
 discrepancies — e.g. he discusses the question 
 why Thamar is mentioned, and difficulties 
 with respect to Bathsheba and Ruth. But 
 the discrepancies occupy a sufficiently large 
 space to give the name to the whole. The 
 work exhibits the characteristic hesitation of 
 Eusebius in a somewhat aggravated form. 
 Alternative solutions are frequently offered, 
 and he does not decide between them. But it 
 is suggestive and full of interest. It is valuable 
 also as i-'reserving large fragments of Africaiuis, 
 besides some important notices, such as the 
 absence of Mark xvi. 9-16 from the most 
 numerous and best MSS. Frf>m this st«irehousc 
 of information later harmonists plundere<l 
 freelv, often without acknowledgment. 
 
 D.' Doctrinal.— (26) General Elementary 
 Introduction.— Five fragments of this work 
 have been published by Mai. All deal with 
 analogous topics, having reference to general 
 principles of ethics, etc. It seems to have 
 been a general introduction to theology, and 
 its contents were very miscellaneous, as the 
 extant remains shew. 
 
 (27) Prophetical Extracts.— Thif. work ron- 
 tains prophetical passages from OT. relating 
 to our Lord's person and work, with explan- 
 atory comments, and emprises f<.ur books, 
 of which the first is devoted to the historical 
 books, the second to the Psalms, the third 
 to the remaining poetical books and the other 
 prophets, the fourth to Isaiah. The author 
 explains that his main object is to shew that 
 the prophets spoke of Jesus Christ as the pre- 
 
330 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 existent Word, Who is "a second cause of the j Scripture is against him. Having done this, 
 universe and God and Lord," and that they he will expound the true theology respecting 
 predicted His two advents. Thus the per- our Saviour, as it has been handed down in 
 sonality of the Logos is here the leading idea the church from the beginning. Thus, as ex- 
 in his treatment of the prophecies. plained by its author, the aim of this second 
 
 (28) Defence of Origen. — This was the Joint treatise is refutation, as that of the first was 
 workof PamphilusandEusebius. The original exposure. The first was mainly /^ersona/, the 
 has perished, but the first book survives in second is chiefly dogmatical. 
 the translation of Rufinus (printed in Origen, The two treatises were first edited by bp. 
 Op. iv. App. pp. 17 seq. Delarue). Eusebius ! R. Montague (Montacutius) with trans, and 
 (H.E. v-i. 3) says that the work was undertaken j notes (Paris, 1628) at the end of the Demon- 
 to refute " captious detractors " ; probably stratio, and this ed. was reprinted(I.ips. 16S8). 
 
 referring especially to Methodius, who had 
 written two works against Origen (Hieron. Vir. 
 III. 93 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 13) and was attacked by 
 name in the sixth book (Hieron. c. Riifin. i. 11). 
 It was dedicated to the confessors of Palestine, 
 especially Patermuthius (Phot. Bibl. 118), who 
 was martyred the year after Paraphilus (Eus. 
 Mart. Pal. 13). The first book contains an 
 exposition of Origen's principles, especially 
 of his doctrines respecting the Trinity and the 
 Incarnation ; then nine special charges against 
 him are refuted, relating to the nature of 
 Christ, the resurrection of the dead, metem- 
 psychosis, etc. In one of the later books the 
 doctrine of fatalism was discussed (Rutin. 
 Apol. i. II, in Hieron. Op. ii. p. 582). Else- 
 where also it was shewn that Origen in his 
 mystical explanation of Adam and Eve, as 
 referring to Christ and the church, only fol- 
 lowed the traditional interpretation (Socr. H. 
 E. iii. 7). In the same spirit precedents were 
 quoted for his doctrines of the pre-existence 
 of the soul and the restitution of all things 
 (Anon. Synod. Ep. ig8). The Apology also 
 contained a full account of the life of Origen 
 (Phot. Bihl. 118). Eusebius himself refers to 
 bk. ii. for accounts of the controversy about 
 Origen's ordination to the priesthood and his 
 contributions to sacred letters (H. E. vi. 23), 
 and to bk. vi. for the letters which Origen 
 \vrote to Fabianus and others in defence of his 
 orthodoxy (ib. 36), and to the work generally 
 for thp part taken by Origen in theological 
 controversy (ib. 33). Socrates (H. E. iv. 27) 
 states that the panegyric of Gregory Thauma- 
 turgus on Origen was given in this .Apology. 
 
 (29) Against Marcellus, bp. of .4ncyra, in 
 two books. — The occasion of writing is ex- 
 plained by Eusebius himself (c. Marc. ii. 4, 
 pp. 55 seq.). Marcellus had been condemned 
 for Sabellianism, and deposed by a synod of 
 Constantinople (a.d. 336), composed chieflv 
 of the Arian friends of Eusebius. This work 
 was undertaken at the wish of these friends to 
 justify the decision. Certain persons con- 
 sidered that Marcellus had been unfairlv 
 
 The best ed. is that of Gaisford (Oxf. 1852), 
 where they are in the same vol. with the work 
 .i gainst Hierocles. He revised the text and 
 reprinted the trans, and notes of Montague. 
 The fragments of Marcellus are collected by 
 Rettberg [Marcelliana, Getting. 1794). The 
 monographs on Marcellus. especially Zahn's 
 M. von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867), are useful aids. 
 
 (31) On the Paschal Festival. — Eusebius {V'it. 
 Const, iv. 35, 36) states that he addressed to 
 Constantine " a mystical explanation of the 
 significance of the festival," upon which the 
 emperor wrote (c. 335), expressing himself 
 greatly delighted, and saying that it was a 
 difficult undertaking " to expound in a be- 
 coming way the reason and origin of the 
 Paschal festival, as well as its profitable and 
 painful consummation." A long fragment of 
 this treatise was discovered and published by 
 Mai. The recovered fragment contains: (i) 
 A declaration of the figurative character of the 
 Jewish Passover. (2) An account of its in- 
 stitution and of the ceremonial itself. (3) An 
 explanation of the typical significance of the 
 different parts of the ceremonial, with refer- 
 ence to their Christian counterparts. (4) A 
 brief statement of the settlement of the ques- 
 tion at Nicaea. (5) An argument that Chris- 
 tians are not bound to observe the time of the 
 Jewish festival, mainly because it was not the 
 Jewish Passover which our Lord Himself kept. 
 
 E. Oratio.vs and Sermons. — (32) At the 
 Dedication of the Church in Tyre. — This oration 
 is inserted by Eusebius in his History (x. 4.) 
 The new basilica at Tyre was a splendid 
 building, and Eusebius addresses Paulinus, the 
 bishop, as a Bezaleel, a Solomon, a Zerubbabel, 
 a new Aaron or Melchizedek. He applies to 
 the occasion the predictions of the Jewish 
 prophets foretelling the rebuilding of the 
 temple and the restoration of the polity. He 
 gives thanks for the triumph of Christ, the 
 Word of God, Who has proved mightier than 
 the mightiest of kings. This magnificent 
 temple, which has arisen from the ruins of its 
 predecessor, is a token of His power. Then 
 
 treated, and Eusebius, being partly respon- j follows an elaborate description of the building, 
 sible for the decision, felt bound to uphold its j which, continues the orator, is a symbol of the 
 justice. The work aims simply at exposing j spiritual church of Tyre, of the spiritual 
 the views of Marcellus. [Marcellus (4).] 
 (30) On the Theology of the Church, a Refu 
 
 tation of Marcellus, in three books. — Eusebius 
 had at first thought it sufficient merely to expose 
 the opinions of Marcellus, leaving them to con- 
 demn themselves. But on reflection, fearing 
 lest some might be drawn away " from the 
 theology of the chtirch " by their very length 
 and pretentiousness, he undertook to refute 
 them, and to shew that no single Scripture 
 favours the view of Marcellus, but that, 
 
 church throughout the world, in its history, 
 its overthrow, its desolation, its re-erection 
 on a more splendid scale, and in the arrange- 
 ment of its several parts. But the spiritual 
 church on earth is itself only a faint image of 
 the heavenly Zion, where adoring hosts un- 
 ceasingly sing the praises of their King. 
 
 (33) .At the Vicennalia of Constantine, a.d. 
 325. — This oration, which is not extant, is 
 mentioned Vit. Const, prooem. iii. 11. It 
 seems to have been the opening address at the 
 
 according to the approved interpretations, all council of Nicaea, see supra. 
 
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 (34) On the Sfpiilchn- of tin- Saviour, a.d. 
 335. — This is mentioned V'it. Const, iv. 33, 
 46 seq. The circumstances of its delivery have 
 been already described. It has been lost. 
 
 (35) At the Tricennalia of Constantine, a.d. 
 335 <'r 336. — This oration is commonly called 
 de Laudibus Constantini. The orator, taking 
 occasion from the festival, speaks of the 
 Almighty Sovereign, and the Divine Word 
 through Whom He administers the universe 
 (§ i). The emperor is a sort of reflection of 
 the Supreme W<^rd. The monarchy on earth 
 is the counterpart of that in heaven (§§ 2, 3). 
 The Word is the interpreter of the Invisible 
 (iod in all things (§ 4). An emperor who, 
 like Constantine, is sensible of his depend- 
 ence on God. is alone tit to rule (§ 3). Periods 
 and divisions of time are from God, as 
 is all order throughout the universe. The 
 number thirty {3 \ 10) has a special symbolic 
 significance, reminding us of the kingdom of 
 glory (§6). The i^owers of wickedness and the 
 sufferings of the saints were ended by Con- 
 stantine, the champion and representative of 
 God (§ 7). He waged war against idolatry, 
 profligacy, and superstition (§ 8). What a 
 change has been suddenly wrought ! The 
 false gods did not foresee their fate. The 
 emperor, armed with piety, overthrew them. 
 Churches rise from the ground everywhere 
 (§ 8). The truth is proclaimed far and wide 
 (§ 9). " Come now, most mighty victor 
 Constantine," says the orator, " let me lay 
 before thee the mysteries of sacred doctrines 
 in this royal discourse concerning the Supreme 
 King of the Universe." Accordingly he speaks 
 of the person and working of the Divine Word, 
 as mediator in the creation and government of 
 the universe. Polytheism is condemned. As 
 (iod is one, so His Word is one (§§ 11, 12). 
 Humanity, led astray by demons and steeped 
 in ignorance and sin, needed the advent of the 
 Word (§ 13). It was necessary too that He 
 should come clothed in a body {§ 14). His 
 death and resurrection also were indispensable 
 for the redemption of men (§ 15). The power 
 of the Divine Word was evinced by the 
 establishment of the church and the spread of 
 the gospel (§ 16). It was manifested in our 
 own time by the faith of the martyrs, by the 
 triumph of the church over oppression, and 
 by the punishment of the persecutors (§ 17). 
 We have evidence of the divine origin of our 
 faith in the prophetic announcements of 
 Christ's coming, and in the fulfilment of His 
 own predictions ; more especially in the 
 coincidence in time between the establishment 
 of the Roman empire and the publication of 
 the (;ospel (§ 18). 
 
 (36) In Praise of the Martyrs. — This discourse 
 is short and of little value ; but the orator 
 mentions, among thcjse whom he invites his 
 hearers to commemorate, almost every bishop 
 of .•\ntioch frf)m the end of the 2nd cent, to 
 his own time, so that it would seem to have 
 been delivered at Antioch. 
 
 (37) On the Failure of Rain, mentioned by 
 Ebedjesu, but apparently not elsewhere. 
 
 F. Letters. — (38) To Alexander, bp. of 
 Alexandria, on behalf of Arius and his 
 friends, complaining that they have been 
 misrepresented. 
 
 (39) To Euphration (sometimes written in- 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 331 
 
 correctly Euphrasion), bp. of M.il.im -a in Syri-i, 
 a strong opponent of the Arians (Athan. de 
 hug. 3, Op. i. p. 254 ; Hist. Ar. ad Mon. s, *h. 
 p. 274), who was present at the council of 
 Nicaea. Athanasius refers to this letter as 
 declaring plainly that Christ is not true C(h.\ 
 {de Synod. 17, Op. i. p. 584). An extract (con- 
 taining the passage to which doubtless Athan- 
 asius refers) is quoted at the s<'cond council 
 of Nicaea {I.e.). It insists strongly on the 
 subordination of the Son. 
 
 (40) To Constantia Augusta {Op. ii. 1545), 
 the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, 
 who was closely allied with the Arians. Con- 
 stantia had asked Husebius to send her a 
 certain likeness of Christ, of which she had 
 
 I heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying 
 that such representations are inadequate in 
 themselves and tend to idolatry. He states 
 that a foolish woman had brought him two 
 likenesses, which might be philosophers, but 
 were alleged bv her to represent St. Paul and 
 the Saviour. He had detained them lest thev 
 should prove a stumbling-block to her or to 
 others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul 
 declares his intention of " knowing Christ no 
 longer after the flesh." This letter was 
 quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their 
 opponents to rake up all the questionable 
 expressions in his writings, that they might 
 blacken his character for orthodoxy. 
 
 (41) To the Church of Caesarea, written from 
 Nicaea (a.d. 325) during or immediately after 
 the council to vindicate his conduct. This 
 letter is preserved by Athanasius as an 
 appendix to the de Dccret. Svn. Nic. {Op. i. 
 p. 187 ; cf. § 3, ib. p. 166) ;■ in Socr. H. E. 
 i. 8 ; in Theod. H. E. i. 11 ; in Gelasius Cyz. 
 Hist. Cone. Nic. ii. 34 seq. (Labbe, Cone. ii. 
 264 seq. ed. Colet.) ; in the Historia Tripar- 
 tita, ii. II ; and in Niceph. H. E. viii. 22. A 
 passage towards the end (§§ 9, 10) which 
 savours strongly of Arianism is wanting in 
 Socrates and in the Historia Tripartita, but 
 appears in the other authorities, and seems 
 certainly to be referred to by Athanasius in 
 two places {de Deer. Syn. Nic. 3, I.e. ; de 
 Synod. 13, Op. i. p. 581). It is condenmed, 
 however, by Bull {Def. Fid. Nic. iii. g. 3) and 
 Cave {Diss. Tert. in Joh. Cleric, p. 58, printed 
 at the end of his Hist. Lit. vol. ii.) as a spurious 
 addition, probably inserted by some Arian. 
 The letter is translated and annotated by 
 Newman in Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, 
 pp. 59 seq. (Oxf. 1833). 
 
 In reviewing the literary history of Eusc- 
 bius, we are struck first of all with the range 
 and extent of his labours. His extant works, 
 voluminous as they are, must have formed 
 somewhat less than half his actual writings. 
 No field of theological learning is untouched. 
 He is historian, apologist, topographer, exe- 
 gete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn, 
 and, if permanent utility may be taken as a 
 test of literary ex< ellence, Eusebius will hold 
 a very high i>lace indeed. The EcclestaUical 
 History is absolutely unique and indispens- 
 able. The Chronicle is a vast storehouse «t 
 informatiffU as to ancient monarchies. The 
 Preparation and Demonstration are the most 
 important contributions to theology in their 
 own province. Even minor works, such as 
 the Martyrs of Palestine, the Ltfe of Constan- 
 
332 EUSEBIDS OF CAESAREA 
 
 Hne, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and 
 to Marinus, and others, would leave an ir- 
 reparable blank if they were obliterated. 
 His more technical treatises have the same 
 permanent value. The Canons and Sections 
 have not been superseded for their particular 
 purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the 
 most important contribution to our knowledge 
 in its own department. In short, no ancient 
 ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under 
 heavier obligations than has Eusebius by his 
 great erudition. In the History, Chronicle, 
 and Preparation, he has preserved a vast 
 amount of early literature in three several 
 spheres, which would otherwise have been 
 irrecoverably lost. Moreover, he deserves the 
 highest credit for his keen insight as to what 
 would have permanent interest. He, and he 
 only, has preserved the past in all its phases, 
 in history, in doctrine, in criticism, even in 
 topography, for the instruction of the future. 
 
 This is his real title to greatness. As an 
 expositor of facts, an abstract thinker, or a 
 master of style, it would be absurd to compare 
 him with the great names of classical anti- 
 quity. His merits and his faults have been 
 already indicated. His gigantic learning was 
 his master rather than his slave. He had 
 great conceptions, which he was unable 
 adequately to carry out. He had valuable 
 detached thoughts, but fails in continuity of 
 argument. He was most laborious, yet most 
 desultory. He accumulated materials with 
 great diligence ; but was loose, perfunctory, 
 and uncritical in their use. His style is 
 especially vicious. When his theme seems to 
 him to demand a lofty flight of rhetoric, as in 
 his Life of Constantine, his language becomes 
 turgid and unnatural. 
 
 He is before all things an apologist. His 
 great services in this respect are emphasized 
 by Evagrius (H. E. i. i, ireideiv oUs re dvai 
 Toi)s evTvyxdvofras dprjiXKevdi' ret Tj/xirepa) ; 
 and doubtless his directly apologetic writings 
 were much more effective than at this distance 
 of time we can realize. Whatever subject he 
 touches, his thoughts seem to pour instinctive- 
 ly into this same channel. If he treats of 
 chronology, a main purpose is to shew the 
 superior antiquity of the Hebrew oracles to 
 the wisdom of the Greeks. If he writes a 
 history of the church, it is because he sees in 
 the course of events a vindication of the 
 Divine Word. Even in an encomium of a 
 sovereign, he soars aloft at once into the region 
 of theology, for he sees in the subject of his 
 paneg^Tic the instrument of a higher power 
 for the fulfilment of a divine economy. In 
 so essentially technical a task as the division 
 of the Gospels into sections, his underlying 
 desire is to vindicate the essential unity of the 
 evangelical narratives against gainsayers. 
 This character as an apologist was due partly 
 to the epoch in which he lived, and partly to 
 his individual temper and circumstances. 
 He stood, as it were, on the frontier line 
 between two ages, with one foot in the Hel- 
 lenism of the past and the other in the 
 Christianity of the future, and by his very 
 position was constrained to discuss their 
 mutual relations. He was equally learned in 
 the wisdom of the Greeks and in the Scrip- 
 tures, while his breadth of sympathy and 
 
 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 moderation of temper fitted him beyond most 
 of his contemporaries for tracing their con- 
 flicts and coincidences. Like St. Paul on 
 Mars' Hill, he sought the elements of truth in 
 pre-existing philosophical systems or popular 
 religions ; and thus obtaining a foothold, 
 worked onward in his assault upon paganism. 
 The Greek apologists of the 2nd and 3rd 
 cents, all, without exception, took up this 
 position. Eusebius, through his illustrious 
 spiritual ancestors, Origen and Pamphilus, 
 had inherited this tradition from Alexandria. 
 It was the only method which could achieve 
 success in apologetics while Christianity stood 
 face to face with still powerful forms of 
 heathen worship. It is the only method which 
 can hope for victory now, when once again 
 the Gospel is confronted with the widespread 
 religions of India and the farther East. 
 
 If we may judge from the silence of his 
 contemporaries — and silence in this case is 
 an important witness — Eusebius commanded 
 general respect by his personal character. 
 With the single exception of the taunt of 
 Potammon, mentioned already, not a word of 
 accusation is levelled against him in an age 
 when theological controversy was peculiarly 
 reckless and acrimonious. His relations to 
 Pamphilusshew a strongly affectionate disposi- 
 tion ; and it is more than probable that he was 
 drawn into those public acts from which his re- 
 putation has suffered most by the loyalty of 
 private friendship. His moderation is especially 
 praised by the emperor Constantine ; and his 
 speculative opinions, as well as his personal 
 acts, bear out this commendation. His was a 
 life which was before all things laborious and 
 self-denying. He was not only the most learned 
 and prolific writer of his age ; but he adminis- 
 tered the affairs of an important diocese, and 
 took an active part in all great questions which 
 agitated the church. 
 
 His admiration for Constantine may be 
 excessive, but is not difficult to understand. 
 Constantine was unquestionably one of the 
 very greatest emperors of Rome. His com- 
 manding personality must have been irresist- 
 ible ; and is enhanced by his deference to- 
 wards the leading Christian bishops. He 
 carried out a change in the relations between 
 the church and the state incomparably great- 
 er than any before or after. Eusebius de- 
 lighted to place Augustus and Constantine in 
 juxtaposition. During the one reign the Word 
 had appeared in the flesh ; during the other 
 He had triumphed over the world. The one 
 reign was the counterpart and complement of 
 the other. 
 
 A discussion of the theological opinions of 
 Eusebius is impossible within our limits. 
 Readers are referred to Baronius {ad ann. 340, 
 c. 38 seq.), Petavius [Dogm. Thenl. de Trin 
 lib. i. cap. xi. seq.), Montfaucon (Praelim. in 
 Comm. ad Psalm, c. vi.), and Tillemont (H. E. 
 vii. pp. 67 seq.) among those who have assailed, 
 and Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 9. 20, iii. 9. 3, 11), 
 Cave (Hist. Lit. ii. app. pp. 42 seq.), and Lee 
 (Theophania, pp. xxiv. seq.) among those who 
 have defended his opinions, from the orthodox 
 point of view. A convenient summary of the 
 controversy will be found in Stein, pp. 117 seq. 
 His orthodoxy cannot be hastily denied. Dr. 
 Newman, who cannot be accused of unduly 
 
EUSEBlUS OF CAESAREA 
 
 favouring Eusebius, says that " in liis own 
 writings, numerous as they are. there is very 
 little which fixes on Eusebius any charge, 
 beyond that of attachment to the Platonic 
 phraseology. Had he not connected himself 
 with the Arian party, it would have been un- 
 just to have suspected him of heresy " (A rians, 
 p. 262). If we except the works written before 
 the council of Nicaea, in which there is oc- 
 casionally much looseness of expression, his 
 language'is for the most part strictly orthodox, 
 or at least capable of explanation in an 
 orthodox sense. Against the two main theses 
 of Arius, (i) that the Word was a creature 
 (Kri<r/ua) like other creatures, and (2) that there 
 was a time when He was not, Eusebius is 
 explicit on the orthodox side (e.g. c. Marc. i. 4, 
 p. 22, de Eccl. Theol. i. 2, 3, pp. 61 seq., ih. i. 
 8, 9, 10, pp. 66 seq.). He states in direct lan- 
 guage that the Word had no beginning 
 [Theoph. ii. 3, cf. de Laud. Const. 2). If 
 elsewhere he represents the Father as prior to 
 the Son (e.g. Dem. Ev. iv. 3. 5, 6 6e irarr)p 
 ■jr poi'wdpxei- tov vloO Kal tt)s yevecrewi avrou 
 irpov<pe<TTTji;€i>), this priority is not necessarily 
 intended to be temporal, and his meaning 
 must be interpreted by his language in other 
 passages. Nor, again, do such expressions as 
 " second existence," " second cause," neces- 
 sarily bear an .\rian sense ; for they may be 
 taken to imply that subordination which has 
 ever been recognized by the orthodox. But 
 though his language might pass muster, " his 
 acts," it is said, " are his confession." This 
 is the strongest point in the indictment. His 
 alliance with the Arian party is indisputable ; 
 but the inference drawn from it may be 
 questioned. He may have made too great 
 concessions to friendship. His natural temper 
 suggested toleration, and the cause of the 
 Arians was, or seemed to be, the cause of 
 comprehension, and he had a profound and 
 rooted aversion to the Sabellianism of Marcellus 
 and others, who were acting with Athanasius. 
 Where we have no certain information as to 
 motives, it seems only fair to accept his own 
 statements with respect to his opinions.* 
 
 ,* " The remark has been made," writes Dr. New- 
 man {Arians, p. 263), "that throughout his Eccle- 
 siastical History, no instance occurs of his expressing 
 abhorrence of the superstitions of Paganism, " and 
 that his custom is either to praise, or not to blame, 
 such heretical writers as fall under his notice. 
 
 Nothing could be more erroneous as a statement 
 of facts than Dr. Newman's language here. Even if 
 it had been true, that there is no abhorrence of 
 paganism expressed in the History, great parts of the 
 F'raeparatio and Theophaiiia, the Tricennial Oration 
 and the Life of Constatitine, are an elaborate indict- 
 ment of the superstitions and horrors of heathendom ; 
 so that the comparative silence in the History must 
 be explained by the fact that this was not, except 
 incidentally, his theme. On the attitude of ICusebius 
 towards heresies, Newman's statement is still wider 
 of the mark. It is difficult to see how language could 
 surpass such expressions as, «.?. , i. i ; ii. i, 13 ; iii. 
 26, 27, 28, 29, 32; iv. 7, 29, 30; V. 13, J4, 16-20, 
 etc. , " grievous wolves," " most abominable heresy," 
 "like a pestilent and scabby disease," "incurable 
 and dangerous poison," " most foul heresy, over- 
 shooting anything that could exist or be conceived, 
 mure abominable than all shame," " double-mouthed 
 and two-headed serpent," "like venomous reptiles," 
 "loathsome evil-deeds " : these and similar expres- 
 sions form the staple of his language when he comes 
 athwart a heresy. 
 
 EUSEBIUS OP CAESAREA 333 
 
 While tlie .Vri.ui conlruvrrsv w.is still fresh, 
 the part taken bv Ilusebius was remembered 
 against him in the Creek church, and the 
 orthodox Fathers are generally depreciatory. 
 But as the direct interest of the dispute wore 
 out, the tide turned and set in Ins favour. 
 Hence from the 5th cent, onwards we find a 
 disposition to clear him of any complicity in 
 Arian doctrine. Thus Socrates {H. E. ii. 21) 
 is at some pains to prove him orthodox ; and 
 I r.elasius of Cyzicus (H. 5. A', ii. i) stoutly 
 [ defends this " most noble tiller of ecclesiastical 
 I husbandry," this "strict lover of truth" 6 
 (pi\a\rjO((TTaTos), and says that if there be any 
 suggestion, however faint, of Arian heresy 
 (niKpJy Ti rd 'Apeiov inrovovfieua) in his sayings 
 or writings, it was due to " the inadvertence of 
 simplicity," and that Eusebius himself pleaded 
 this excuse in self-defence. Accordingly he 
 represents him as a champion of orthodoxy 
 against Arian ojiponcnts. The tide turned 
 again at the second council of Nicaea. As 
 the Iconoclasts alleged his authority for their 
 views, the opposite party sought to disparage 
 him. " His own books," says Photius, " cry 
 aloud that he is convicted of .\rianism " {Ep. 
 73). A lasting injury was inflicted on his 
 reputation by dragging him into the Icono- 
 clastic dispute. In the Latin church he 
 fared somewhat better. Jerome indeed 
 stigmatizes the teacher to whom he was more 
 largclv indebted than perhaps to any other 
 as " the chief of the Arians," " the standard- 
 bearer of the Arian faction," " the most 
 flagrant champion of the impiety of .\rius." 
 But the eminent services of Eusebius to 
 Christian literature carried the day in the 
 western church. Two popes successively 
 vindicated his reputation. Gelasius declined 
 to place his History and Chronicle on the list 
 of proscribed works (Decret. de Libr. Apocr. 4). 
 Pelagius II., when defending him, says: 
 " Holy Church weigheth the hearts of her 
 faithful ones with kindliness rather than their 
 words with rigour" (Ep. 5. 921). Neither 
 Gelasius nor Pelagius refers directly to the 
 charge of Arianism. The offence which 
 seemed to them to require apology was his 
 defence of the heretic Origen. 
 
 A more remarkable fact still is the canon- 
 ization of Eusebius, notwithstanding his real 
 or supposed Arian opinions. In an ancient 
 Svrian Martvrology, translated from the 
 Greek, and already referred to, he takes his 
 rank among the honoured martyrs and con- 
 fessors of the church. Nor was it only in the 
 East that this honour awaited him. In the 
 Martyrologtum Hieronymiamim for xi. Kal. 
 Jul. we find the entry " In Caesarea Cappa- 
 dociae depositio sancti Eusebii " (Hieron. Op. 
 xi. 578). The person intended was Eusebius, 
 the predecessor of St. Basil [Eisebius (24)], 
 as the addition " Cappadociae " shews, but 
 the transcendent fame of the Eusebius of the 
 other Caesarea eclipsed this comparatively 
 obscure person and finally obliterated his 
 name from the Latin calendars. The word 
 " Cappadociae " disappeared. In Usuard the 
 notice becomes " In Caesarea Palestinae sancti 
 Etisebii historiographi " (with a v. I.) ; and in 
 old Latin martyrologies, where he is not dis- 
 tinctly specified, the historian Eusebius is 
 I doubtless understood. Accordingly, in several 
 
334 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 Gallican service-books the historian is com- 
 memorated as a saint (see Valois, Testimonia 
 pro Eusebio) ; and in the Martyrologium 
 Romanum itself he held his place for many 
 centuries. In the revision of this Martyrology 
 under Gregory XIII. his name was struck out, 
 and Eusebius of Samosata substituted, under 
 the mistaken idea that Caesarea had been 
 substituted for Samosata by a mistake. The 
 Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which con- 
 tained the true key to the error, had not then 
 been discovered. The Eccl. Hist., according 
 to the text of Burton, with intro. by Dr. 
 Bright, is pub. by Oxf. Univ. Press, and a 
 valuable Eng. trans, both of the History and of 
 the Life of Constantine by Dr. McGiffert is in 
 the Post-Nicene Lib. of the Fathers. A cheap 
 trans, with life, notes, chronol. table, etc., is in 
 Bohn's Library (Bell). The works of Eusebius 
 have been ed. by T. Gaisford (Clar. Press, 
 9 vols.); and a revised text of the Evang. 
 Prep, with notes and Eng. trans, by E. H. 
 Gifford (Clar. Press, 4 vols.). The Bodleian MS. 
 of Jerome's version of the Chronicle oi Eusebius 
 has been reproduced in collotype with intro. by 
 J. K. Fotheringham (Clar. Pressj [l.] 
 
 Eusebius (24), bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 
 by whom Basil the Great was ordained to the 
 presbyterate. Eusebius was a layman, and 
 unbaptized at the time of his elevation to the 
 episcopate, A.D. 362. On the death of Dianius, 
 the church of Caesarea was divided into two 
 nearly equal factions, and the choice of a lay- 
 man universally known and respected was the 
 readiest way out of the dilemma. Military 
 force had to be employed to overcome his 
 reluctance and to compel the prelates to 
 consecrate. No sooner were they free than 
 the bishops endeavoured to declare their 
 consecration of Eusebius void. But the 
 counsels of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus 
 prevailed (Greg. Naz. Orat. xix. 36, pp. 308, 
 309). Eusebius proved a very respectable 
 prelate, but quite unequal to the circumstances 
 of severe trial in which he soon found himself. 
 One of the earliest acts of his episcopate was 
 to ordain Basil priest. A coldness grew up 
 between Eusebius and Basil, leading to Basil's 
 three years' retirement to Pontus. [Basilius 
 OF Caesarea.] (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 31-53 ; 
 Ep. 19, 20, 169, 170.) In 366 Basil returned 
 to Caesarea. Each had learnt wisdom from 
 the past (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 57-59), and 
 harmonious relations existed unbroken to the 
 death of Eusebius, a.d. 370. 
 
 Fleury states that Eusebius is reckoned by 
 some as a martyr (Fleury, xv. 13, 14 ; xvi. 9, 
 14, 17), but Usuard probablv confounds Euse- 
 bius of Cappadocia with Eusebius the historian. 
 See Papebrochius in A A. SS. Boll. Jun. iv. 
 75 ; and on the other side, Tillem. Mem. vii. 39. 
 [Eusebius of Caesarea.] [e.v.] 
 
 Eusebius (34), bp. of Dorylaeumin Phrvgia 
 Salutaris, the constant supporter of orthodoxy 
 against Nestorius and Eutyches alike. About 
 Christmas a.d. 428, when Nestorius was assert- 
 ing his heresy in a sermon at Constantinople, 
 there stood up in church a layman of excellent 
 character, distinguished for erudition and 
 orthodox zeal, who asserted in opposition to 
 Nestorius that the " eternal Word begotten 
 before the ages had submitted also to be born 
 a second time " {i.e. according to the flesh of 
 
 Eusebius 
 
 the Virgin). This bold assertion of the faith 
 caused great excitement in the church. 
 (Cyril. Alex. adv. Nestor, i. 20 in Migne, vol. 
 ix. p. 41 D ; Marius Mercator, pars ii. lib. i. ; 
 Pair. Lat. xlviii. p. 769 b.) This was certainly, 
 as Theophanes [Chron. p. 76) expressly says, 
 our Eusebius, who thus was the first to oppose 
 the Nestorian heresy (Evagr. Hist. i. 9 in 
 Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 2445). He was also the first 
 to protest against the heretical utterances of 
 Anastasius, the syncellus of Nestorius (Theo- 
 phan. Chron. p. 76). He was a "rhetor" 
 (Evagr. I.e.) distinguished in legal practice 
 (Leont. Byzant. cont. Nestor, et Eutych. lib. 
 iii. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 1389) and an " agens 
 in rebus " to the court [Gesta de Nom. Acacii, 
 cap. i. in Galland. Biblioth. x. 667 ; cf. Tillem. 
 xiv. n. xi. on Cyril of Alex.). Theophanes [I.e.) 
 calls him a axo\oi<TTiKo% of the empress. 
 
 After the sermon of St. Proclus against 
 Nestorius, and before the orthodox had 
 separated from the communion of Nestorius, 
 in consequence of the council of Ephesus, 
 there appeared, fixed in a public place, a 
 document exposing the identity of Nestorius's 
 doctrine with that of Paul of Samosata. This 
 document common opinion attributed to 
 Eusebius (Leont. Byzant. M.S.). It begins by 
 conjuring its readers to make its contents 
 known or give a copy of it to all bishops, 
 clergy, and laity in Constantinople. It draws 
 out the parallel between the doctrines of 
 Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who both 
 deny that the child born of Mary was the 
 Eternal Word ; and ends with an anathema 
 on him who denies the identity of the Only- 
 begotten of the Father and the child of Mary. 
 Eusebius must have been a priest at the time 
 when St. Cyril wrote his five books against 
 Nestorius (Cyril. Alex. u.s. — so much is implied 
 in the reXuiv ^ti iv XatAots), i.e. c. 430. He 
 was certainly bp. of Dorylaeum in 448. He 
 himself states that hewaspoor (Labbe, Cone. iv. 
 221 D.). Common hostility to Nestorius had 
 hitherto united Eusebius and Eutyches ; but 
 about this time Eusebius, perceiving the hereti- 
 cal tendencies of his friend, frequently visited 
 him, and exhorted him to reconsider his ways 
 (ib. 154 d). Finding him immovable, Eusebius 
 presented a " libellus " against Eutyches at a 
 council at- Constantinople under Flavian, 
 Nov. 8, 448 (ib. 151). He deplores the persist- 
 ency of Eutyches in error, and demands that 
 he should be summoned before the council 
 to answer charges of heresy. His petition 
 was granted, though with unwillingness. At 
 the second session of the council (Nov. 12), 
 Eusebius requested that the second letter of 
 St. Cyril to Nestorius and his letter to John of 
 Antioch should be read as representing the 
 standard of orthodoxy. This led to a pro- 
 fession of the orthodox faith from Flavian, 
 assented to by the other bishops. At the 
 third session (Nov. 15) Eusebius found that 
 Eutyches had refused to come, alleging a 
 determination never to quit his monastery, 
 and saying that Eusebius had been for some 
 time (TrdXai) his enemy. [Eutyches (4).] 
 Only on the third summons was he induced 
 to appear. Meanwhile Eusebius pressed his 
 point persistently and even harshly, behaving 
 with such warmth that, as Flavian said, " fire 
 itself seemed cold to him, in his zeal for 
 
EUSEBIUS 
 
 orthodoxy." Finding that Eutyches had 
 attempted to secure the adhesion of the otlier 
 arrliiiii.uulrites to his views [Fai'stvs (2811, 
 Husehius uri^cd that he sliould be iiniiicdiattly 
 treated witli the rigour he deserved (Labbe, 
 iv. 211). Flavian still urged patience and 
 moderation. At last, on Nov. 22, Eutyches 
 appeared with a large monastic and imperial 
 escort, and was examined. Eusebius said of 
 Eutyches : " I am poor, he threatens me with 
 exile ; he has wealth, he is already depicting 
 (d»'aj"arypa0et) the oasis for me." He feared also 
 lest Eutyches should turn round and assent to 
 the orthodox faith — thus causing him to be sus- 
 pected of making calumnious charges (ib. 221, 
 C, D, e). The crucial question he put to 
 Eutyches was : " My lord archimandrite, do 
 you confess two natures after the Incarnation, 
 and do you say that Christ is consubstantial 
 with us according to the flesh or not ? " To 
 the first part Eutyches would not assent; he 
 was condemned by all the bishops, and 
 sentence of deposition was passed. He at 
 once wrote to pojie Leo I. in his own defence 
 (l.eo Mag. Ep. xxi. 739), complaining of the 
 "machinations" of Eusebius. 
 
 We next hear of Eusebius in Apr. 449 at 
 the examination of the .\cts of the council of 
 Constantinople, which Eutyches had declared 
 to have been falsified. With him were 14 of 
 the 34 bishops who had condemned Eutyches 
 (Labbe, iv. 235). Eutyches was represented 
 by three delegates ; Eusebius and others 
 remonstrated against his absence, but the 
 emperor's orders overruled them. Eusebius 
 insisted that all examination into the case of 
 Eutyches, and into any question other than 
 the authenticity of the .\cts, should be referred 
 to a general council [ib. 268). The examina- 
 tion of the Acts does not seem to have brought 
 to light any inaccuracy of importance. When 
 Eusebius arrived in Ephesus early in Aug. 449, 
 toattend the council, he apparentlylodged with 
 Stephen of Ephesus {ib. in d,'e), but was 
 not permitted to attend the meetings of the 
 council, on the ground that the emperor had 
 forbidden it (ib. 145 a, b). Flavian urged 
 that he should be admitted and heard, but 
 Elpidius, one of the imperial commissioners, 
 opposed it (Hefele, Concil. ii. 355), and 
 the same wish or command of the emperor 
 was urged by Dioscorus at the council of 
 Chalcedon also. When the passage in the 
 acts of Constantinople was read where Euse- 
 bius pressed Eutyches to acknowledge the 
 two natures after the Incarnation, the council 
 burst forth, " Off with Eusebius ! burn him ! " 
 (Labbe, iv. 224 a). Sentence of deposition 
 was pronounced against Flavian and Eusebius, 
 and they were imprisoned (l.iberat. cap. xii. ; 
 (ialland, xii. p. 140) and tlien sent into exile 
 (Gest. de Xom. Acac. Galland, x. 668). Euse- 
 bius escaped to Rome, where Leo welcomed 
 him and granted him communion. He was 
 there till Apr. 481 (Leo Mag. Ep. Ixxix. Ixxx. 
 1037, 1041). Leo commends him to the care 
 of Anatolius of Constantinople, the successor 
 of Flavian, as one who had suffered much for 
 the faith. Eusebius left Rome to attend the 
 council of Chalcedon. He had addressed a 
 formal petition to the emperor Marcian against 
 Dioscorus, and appears in the council as his 
 accuser. He complains more than once of the 
 
 EUSEBIUS EMESENUS 
 
 335 
 
 conduct of Hicscrus in . X. hidii.n him from 
 the c.iuncil uf Ephesus (L.ibl).-, iv. 14s, 156). 
 His innoience, with that of St. Flavian, was 
 fully recogiii/td at the close of the ist session 
 of the couu( il of Chalcedon (16. 322. 323) ; but 
 at the 3rd session, on Oct. 13, he presented a 
 further petition against Dioscorus, on behalf 
 of himself, of Flavian {rov ty d-)/«j). and of the 
 orthodox faith. He urges the iniciuities of 
 Dioscorus at Ephesus, and begs for coniplete 
 exculpation for himself and condemnation for 
 Dioscorus (1^. 381). In the 4th session Eusebius 
 took part in thecaseof certain Egyptian bishops 
 who declined to condemn Eutvches. alleging 
 that they were bound to follow their patriarch 
 {i.e. Dioscorus), in accordance with the council 
 of Nicaea. Eusebius has but one word to 
 say, " ^ei'Sovrat" {ib. 513 a). Wc find him 
 later (5th session, Oct. 22) siding at first 
 against the imperial officers, and the wishes 
 of the Roman legates for making no addition 
 to the council's definition of faith ((6. s.^H d; 
 cf. Bright, Hint, of the Church, p. 409). After- 
 wards, however, he assisted at the revision 
 which made that definition a completer ex- 
 pression of the doctrine of Leo's tome. In the 
 nth session he (Labbe, iv. 699 a) voted for 
 the deposition of both claimants to the see 
 of Ephesus, Bassian and Stephen, as being 
 both alike irregularly consecrated. In the 15th 
 session (Oct. 23) he signed the much-contested 
 28th canon of the council on the position to be 
 held by the see of Constantinople. [Leo I.] 
 The last time his name appears is in the 
 rescript of the emperor Marcian, June 452, 
 which had for its special object to rehabilitate 
 the memory of Flavian, but which secured also 
 that the condcnmation of the robber council 
 should in no way injure the reputation of 
 Eusebius and The'odoret {ib. 866). His name 
 appears in the list of bishops signing the decrees 
 of the council at Rome in 503, but this 
 list certainly belongs to some earlier council 
 (cf. Baron, ann. 503, ix.). Comparing him with 
 Flavian, we cannot but feel his want of gener- 
 osity in his treatment of Eutyches, whose 
 supericr in logical power and theological per- 
 ception he undoubtedly was. But none cm 
 deny him the credit of having been a watchful 
 guardian of the doctrine of the Incarnation 
 all through his life, and a keen-sighted and 
 persistent antagonist of error, whether on the 
 one side or the other, who by his sufferings 
 for the orthodox f.iitli im rits the title of ron- 
 fessor. [cc] 
 
 Eusebius (35) Emesenus, bp. of Emcsa, now 
 
 Hems, in Svria, c. 341-359- He was born at 
 Edessa, of a noble family, of Christian parents, 
 and from his earliest years was taught the 
 Holv Scriptures. His education was contin- 
 ued in Palestine and subsequently at Alex- 
 andria. In Palestine he studied theology 
 under Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus 
 of Scythopolis, from whom he contracted the 
 Arian leanings which distinguished him to the 
 end of his life. Jerome terms him " signifcr 
 Arianae factionis " {Chron. sub. ann. x. Con- 
 stantii), and his Arian tenets are spoken of by 
 Theodoret as too well known to admit question 
 (Theod. Eranist. Dial. iii. p. 257. ^d. Schuize). 
 About A.D. 331 he visited Antioch. Eusta- 
 thius had been recently banished, and the sec 
 was occupied by one of the short-lived .Arian 
 
336 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 intruders, Euphronius, with whom Eusebius I Valerian, when Alexandria was in revolt, a.D. 
 lived on terms of intimacy. Eusebius's high ' 262, Aemilianus, who had assumed the purple, 
 personal character and reputation for learning | was driven into the strong quarter of the city 
 marked him out for the episcopate, and to 1 called Bruchium, and besieged. Eusebius 
 avoid the office he repaired to Alexandria, ' without, and his friend Anatolius within, the 
 where he devoted himself to philosophy, besieged quarter secured escape for all useless 
 Returning to Antioch, Flaccillus (otherwise i hands, including a large number of Christians, 
 Placillus), the Arian bishop, received him into I whom Eusebius received kindly, supplying 
 his episcopal residence and admitted him to I them with food and medicine, and carefully 
 his confidence. The Arian synod which met I tending the sick. Tothesynodof Antioch, a. d. 
 at Antioch a.d. 340, under the predominant [ 264, summoned to deal with Paul of Samo- 
 influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to nomin- I sata, Dionysius bp. of Alexandria, being 
 ate a successor to the newly deposed Athan- j unable to be present through age, sent Euse- 
 asius offered the vacant throne to Eusebius, bius as his representative. The see of 
 who, well knowing how Athanasius was be- Laodicea was then vacant, and the Laodiceans 
 loved by the Alexandrians, resolutely declined, demanded Eusebius for their bishop, taking 
 and Gregory was chosen in his stead. Euse- ! no refusal. As bp. of Laodicea he sat at the 
 bius however, allowed himself to be created | synod when Paul of Samosata was deposed, 
 bp. of Emesa. This city, on the Orontes to ; a.d. 270. He was succeeded by his old friend 
 the N.E. of the Libanus range, some distance I Anatolius. Ens. H. E. vii. 11, 32; Tillem. 
 
 N. of Laodicea, was famous for its magnificent 
 temple of Elagabalus, the Syrophoenician 
 sun-god. A report, based on Eusebius's 
 astronomical studies, had reached the excit- 
 able inhabitants that their new bishop was a 
 sorcerer, addicted to judicial astrology. His 
 
 Mem. Eccl. iv. 304 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 
 792 ; Neale, Patriarchate of Alex. i. 77. [e.v.] 
 Eusebius (60), bp. of Nicomedia. Our 
 knowledge of his character is derived almost 
 exclusively from the bitter language of his theo- 
 logical antagonists. He wielded an extraordin- 
 
 approach aroused a violent popular commo- I ary influence over the fortunes of some of the 
 tion before which he fled to his friend and | great partyleaders of the4th cent. Thefasciua- 
 futu're panegyrist, George, bp. of Laodicea. j tion he exercised over the minds of Constantine 
 By George's exertions, and the influence of j and Constantius, his dexterity in utihzing both 
 Flaccillus of Antioch and Narcissus of Nero- secular andecclesiastical law topunish his theo- 
 the Emesenes were convinced of^ the logical enemies, his ingenuity in bhnding the 
 
 judgment of those not alive to the magnitude of 
 the problem, and in persuading the unwary of 
 the practical identity of his own views with 
 those of the Catholic church, together with the 
 political and personal ascendancy he achieved, 
 reveal mental capacity and diplomatic skill 
 worthy of a better cause. During 20 years his 
 shadow haunts the pages of the ecclesiastical 
 historians, though they seldom bring us face to 
 face with the man or preserve his words. Even 
 the chronology of his life is singularly uncertain. 
 It is difficult to understand the pertinacity 
 and even ferocity with which Eusebius and 
 his party pursued the Homoousian leaders, 
 and to reconcile this with their well-accredited 
 compromises, shiftings of front, and theo- 
 Newman (Arians of 
 
 groundlessness of their suspicions, and Euse- 
 bius obtained quiet possession. He was a 
 great favourite with Constantius, who took 
 him on several expeditions, especially those 
 against Sapor II., king of Persia. It is 
 singular that the charge, which Sozomen 
 attributes to mere malevolence, of Sabellian- 
 ism was brought against one whose Arian 
 leanings were so pronounced. Eusebius died 
 before the end of a.d. 359- He was buried at 
 Antioch (Hieron. de Vir. III. loi), and his 
 funeral oration by George of Laodicea ascribed 
 to him miraculous powers. 
 
 He was a very copious writer. Jerome, 
 who speaks somewhat contemptuously of his 
 productions, particularizes treatises against the 
 
 Jews the Gentiles, and the Novatianists, an logical evasions. Dr 
 
 exposition of Gfl/a<Ja«s in ten books, and a large Fourth Cent. p. 272) admits their consistency 
 number of very brief homilies on the Gospels, in one thing, " their hatred of the sacred 
 The greater part of his works is lost. Theo- mystery." He thinks that this mystery, 
 doret quotes with high commendation in his " like a spectre, was haunting the field and 
 £mnf's/es (Dial. iii. p. 258, ed. Schulze) two pas- [ disturbing the complacency of their intellec- 
 sages on the impassibility of the Son of God, a ; tual investigations." Their consciences did 
 truth for which he says Eusebius endured many not scruple to " find evasions of a test." They 
 and severe struggles." Theodoret also speaks of j undoubtedly compromised themselves by 
 works of his against Apelles [Haer. Fab. i. 25) | signature ; yet they did not treat as unim- 
 
 - • ' portant that which they were wont to declare 
 
 such but set all the machinery of church and 
 empirein motion toenforce their latitudinarian 
 view on the conscience of the church. 
 
 The Arian and the orthodox agreed as to 
 the unique and exalted dignity of the Son of 
 God; both alike described the relation between 
 the first and second hypostasis in the Godhead 
 as that which is imaged to us in the paternal 
 and filial relation. They even agreed that the 
 Son was " begotten of His Father before all 
 worlds" — before the commencement of time, 
 in an ineffable manner — that the Son was the 
 originator of the categories of time and place, 
 
 and Manes [ib. 26). All the extant remains 
 of Eusebius are printed bv Migne, Pair. t. 
 Ixxxvi. i. pp. 461 ff. Socr. H. E. 11. 9 ; Soz. 
 H. E. iii. 6; Niceph. H. E. ix. 5 ; Tillem. Mem. 
 Eccl. t. vi. p. 313 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 
 207 ; Oudin, t. i. p. 389-) t^.v.] 
 
 Eusebius (48), bp. of Laodicea, in Syria 
 Prima ; a native and deacon of Alexandria. In 
 the persecution under Valerian, a.d. 257, when 
 the venerable bp. Dionysius had been banished 
 from Alexandria, Eusebius remained, minister- 
 ing to those in prison and burying the martyrs, 
 a faithful service gratefully commemorated 
 in a letter of Dionysius (apud Eus. H. E. " 
 II) 
 
 During the civil strife at the death of that " by His own will and counsel He has 
 
EUSEBIUS 
 
 subsisted before time and before ages, as 
 perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable" 
 {Letter of Arius to Eus. of Nic. preserved by 
 Theodoret, i. 3). They agreed that He was 
 " God of God," " Light of Light," and worthy 
 of all honour and worship. The orthodox 
 went further, and in order to aftirm that the 
 Deity of the Son of God was absolute and not 
 relative, intinite and not finite, asserted that 
 He was of the same ovaia with the Father. 
 There Arius and Eusebius stopped, and, press- 
 ing the significance of the image of Father and 
 Son by materialistic analogies into logical 
 conclusions, argued that " generation " im- 
 plied that " there was [a period, rather than 
 a ' time '] when He was not," that " He was 
 not before He was begotten." The one 
 element, said they, which the Son did not 
 possess by His generation was the eternal, 
 absolute oiV/a of the Father. "We affirm," 
 said Eusebius, in his one extant authentic 
 letter, addressed to Pauliiuis of Tyre (Theod. 
 i. 6), that " there is One Who is unbegotten, 
 and that there also exists Another, Who did 
 in truth proceed from Him, yet Who was not 
 made out of His substance, and Who dues not 
 at all participate in the nature or substance 
 of Him Who is unbegotten." * 
 
 H we follow out the logical conclusions 
 involved in the denial of the orthodox state- 
 ment on this transcendental theme, it is 
 more easy to understand the abhorrence with 
 which the dogmatic negations of the Arians 
 were regarded by the Catholic church. The 
 position of Arius and Eusebius involved a 
 virtual Ditheism, and opened the door to a 
 novel Polytheism. After Christianity had 
 triumphed over the gods of heathendom, 
 Arius seemed to be reintroducing them under 
 other names. The numerical unity of God 
 was at stake ; and a schism, or at least a 
 divarication of interests in the Godhead, 
 shewn to be possible. Moreover, the " Div- 
 inity " of the Incarnate Word was on this 
 hypothesis less than God ; and so behind the 
 Deity which He claimed there loomed another 
 Godhead, between Whom and Himself anta- 
 gonism might easily be predicated. The 
 Gnosticism of Marcion had already drawn such 
 antagonism into sharp outline, and the entire 
 view of the person of the Lord, thus suggested, 
 rapidly degenerated into a cold and un- 
 christian humanitarianism. 
 
 The exigencies of historic criticism and of 
 the exegesis of the N.T. compelled the Arian 
 party to discriminate between the Word, the 
 power, the wisdom of God, and the Son. They 
 could not deny, since God could never have 
 been without His " Logos," that the Logos was 
 in some sense eternal. So they took advan- 
 tage of the distinction drawn in the Greek 
 schools between X.yot (voidOtTos, identifiable 
 with the wisdom, reason, and self-conscious- 
 ness of God, and \070s irpo(f>opiKus, the 
 setting forth and going out at a particular 
 epoch of the divine energy. The latter they 
 regarded as the X670S which was made flesh 
 and might be equated with the Son. " The 
 external (prophoric) word was a created Being 
 made in the beginning of all things as the 
 
 • This phrase seems to class him with Heter- 
 ousians or even Anomoeaas, at that early period. 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 XM 
 
 visible emblem of the internal (endiathrtic) 
 word, and (used as) the instrument «>» Goti's 
 purposes towards His creation" (Ni-wmaii, 
 I.e. 199; cf. Athan. Hist. Cone. Artm. et 
 Seleuc. cap. ii. § 18). 
 
 The orthodox partv admitted the double use 
 of the word \(i-)oj, allowed that it answered 
 to the eternal wisdom and also to the clcrn.il 
 manifestation of God, and disc arduif^ the 
 trammels of the figurative exi'r<ssi..n bv wInc h 
 the internal relations of the Cindhead can al.ine 
 be represented to us, tleclared that they ( ould 
 not carry the matcriali^lii- i>r temporal accom- 
 paniments of our idea of Father and Son into 
 this " generation," and boldly accepted the 
 sublime paradox with which Origen had refu- 
 ted Sabellianism — viz. the "eternal generation 
 of the Son." To suppose the relation between 
 the Father and Son other than eternal was to 
 be involved in the toils of a polytheistic ema- 
 nation and Gnostic speculation. Compelled 
 to formulate expressions about the infinite and 
 eternal God, they concluded that any formula 
 which divided the essence of God left infinity 
 on the one side, and the finite on the other, 
 i.e. that there would be, on this hypt)tliesis, an 
 infinite difference even in majesty and glory 
 between the Father and the Son. This was 
 blasphemy in the eyes of those who held the 
 Divinity of the Son of God. 
 
 The controversy was embittered by the 
 method in which Arius and Eusebius appealed 
 to Holy Scripture. They urged that Godhead 
 and participation in the divine nature were 
 attributed to Christ in the same terms in which 
 similar distinctions are yielded by God to other 
 creatures, angelic, human, or physical (Theod. 
 H. E. i. 6, 8). Thus Christ's rank in the 
 universe might be indefinitely reduced, and 
 all confidence in Him ultimately proved an 
 illusion. The argument had a tone of gross 
 irreverence, even if the leaders can be quite 
 acquitted of blasphemous levity or intentional 
 abuse. 
 
 One of the tactics of the Arian or Eusebian 
 party was to accuse of Sabellianism those, like 
 Athanasius, Eustathius, and Marcellus of 
 Ancyra, who refused their interpretation of 
 the relation between the Father and the Son. 
 Doubtless many not versed in philosophical 
 discussion were incapable of discrimin.iting 
 between the views of Sabellius and an 
 orthodoxy which vehemently or unguardedly 
 condemned the Arian position. Eusebius re- 
 pudiated violently the Pantheistic tendency of 
 the Sabellian doctrine. He is the most promi- 
 nent and most distinguished man of the entire 
 movement, and it has been plausibly argued 
 that he was the teacher rather than the dis- 
 ciple of Arius. Athanasius himself made the 
 suggestion. We learn on good authority, that 
 of Arius himself, that they were f. llowdisciples 
 of Lucian of Antioch (ib. 5). Lucian after- 
 wards modified his views and became a martyr 
 for the faith, but his rationalizing S|)irit had 
 had a great effect on the schools of .Antioch. 
 According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius 
 was a distant relative of the emperor Julian, 
 and therefore possibly of Constantine. 
 
 It may have been through the wife of 
 
 Licinius and sister of Constantine that he 
 
 received his first ecclesiastical ap|. ointment. 
 
 This was the bishopric of Berytus (Beirout) in 
 
 22 
 
338 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 Syria. We cannot say under what pretext 
 he was translated to the see of Nicomedia, a 
 city which was still the principal seat of the 
 imperial court. In Nicomedia his ambitious 
 spirit and personal relations with the imperial 
 family gave him much influence. " He was," 
 says Sozomen (//. E. i. 15), " a man of con- 
 siderable learning, and held in high repute at 
 the palace." Here were spun the webs by 
 which the Arian conspiracy for a while pre- 
 vailed over the faith and discipline of the 
 church. One of the most authoritative docu- 
 ments of Arianism is a letter sent by Arius to 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, after his first suspen- 
 sion from presbyteral functions at Baukalis, 
 Alexandria, in which he reminds Eusebius 
 of their ancient friendship and briefly 
 states his own views. [Arius.] Arius boasts 
 that Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of 
 Laodicea, Paulinus of T>Te, Athanasius of 
 Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, Aetius of 
 Lydda, and all the bishops of the East, if he is 
 condemned, must be condemned with him 
 (Theod. H. E. i. 5). The alarm created by the 
 conduct of Arius and his numerous friends in 
 high quarters induced Alexander of Alexandria 
 to indite his famous letter to Alexander of 
 Constantinople, which is of an encyclical 
 character and was sent in some form to 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia and other prelates. 
 Exasperated by its tone, Eusebius called a 
 council in Bithynia (probably at Nicomedia 
 itself) of the friends of Arius, who addressed 
 numerous bishops, desiring them to grant 
 communion to the Arians and requiring, 
 Alexander to do the like (Soz. i. 15). These 
 proceedings drew from Eusebius a written 
 expression of his views, in a letter to Paulinus 
 of Tyre, preserved by Theodoret (i. 6). Euse- 
 bius believed Alexander of Alexandria to be 
 in doctrinal error, but not yet so far gone but 
 that Paulinus might put him right. He 
 tacitly assumed that the party of Alexandria 
 asserted " two unbegotten beings," a position 
 utterly denied by themselves. He repudiated 
 strongly the idea that the Son was made in any 
 sense out of the substance of God ; declaring 
 the Son " to be entirely distinct in nature and 
 power," the method of His origination being 
 known only to God, not even to the Son 
 Himself. The verb " created," in Prov. viii. 
 22-26, could not, Eusebius said, have been 
 used if the " wisdom " of which the prophet 
 was speaking was i^ dnoppolat rrji oiVt'as : 
 " For that which proceeds from Him Who is 
 unbegotten cannot be said to have been 
 created or founded either bv Him or bv 
 another." The effect of the word " begotten " 
 is reduced to a minimum by saying that the 
 term is used of " things " and of persons 
 entirely different in nature from God. " Men," 
 " Israel," and " drops of dew " are in different 
 scriptures said to be " begotten " of God. 
 Therefore, Eusebius argued, the term cannot 
 and does not carry similarity, still less identity 
 of nature. At first the emperor Constantine 
 treated the conflict as if capable of easy 
 adjustment by a wise exercise of Christian 
 temper. In 324 he wrote a joint letter, which 
 he entrusted to Hosius of Cordova (Soz. H. E. 
 i. 16), in which he called upon Alexander and 
 Arius, for the sake of peace, to terminate their 
 controversy. The dispute was a " trifling and 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 foolish verbal dispute," and differenceof judg- 
 ment was, he urged, compatible with union and 
 communion. Constantine had probably been led 
 to this step by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the 
 strong pressure put upon Alexander to receive 
 Arius into communion corresponds with the 
 subsequent persistent demand of the Euse- 
 bians. The effort at mediation failed, al- 
 though conducted with skilful diplomacy and 
 tact by the venerable Hosius. As the dispute 
 was no mere verbal quibble, but did in reality 
 touch the very object of divine worship, the 
 ground of religious hope, and the unity of 
 the Godhead, the well-meant interference of 
 the emperor merely augmented the acrimony 
 of the disputants. Arius was again condemned 
 by a council at Alexandria, and the entire 
 East was disturbed. The angry letter of 
 Constantine to .\rius, which must have been 
 written after his condemnation by the Alex- 
 andrian council and before the council of 
 Nicaea, shews that the influence of Eusebius 
 must now have been in abeyance.* Constan- 
 tine was no theologian, but hated a recalcitrant 
 subordinate in church or state, and hence the 
 undoubted vacillation of his mind towards 
 Alexander, Arius, Eusebius, and Athanasius. 
 At the oecumenical council of Nicaea in 325, 
 Eusebius defended the excommunicated pres- 
 byter and was the advocate and interpreter of 
 his opinions before the council. We must give 
 him credit for moral courage in risking his 
 position as bishop and as court favourite for 
 the sake of his theological views, and opposing 
 himself almost single-handed to the nearly 
 unanimous judgment of the first representative 
 assembly of the Christian episcopate — a judg- 
 ment fanned into enthusiasm by martyrs and 
 monks from the African monasteries and 
 accepted hurriedly but passionately by the 
 emperor. The courage was of short duration, 
 and made way for disingenuous wiles. Euse- 
 bius soon displayed an inconsistent and 
 temporizing spirit. Whether or no they still 
 held that the difference was merely verbal, 
 when the Arian bishops in the council found 
 that the Godhead of the Redeemer was de- 
 clared by the vast majority to be of the very 
 essence of Christian doctrine, they made every 
 effort to accept the terms in which that God- 
 head was being expressed by the council, 
 making signs to each other that term after 
 term, such as " Power of God," " Wisdom of 
 God," " Image of God," " Very God of very 
 God," might be accepted because they could 
 use them of such divinity as was " made " or 
 constituted as such by the divine appoint- 
 ment. Thus they were becoming parties to 
 a test, which they were intending to evade. 
 The term Homoousion, as applied to the Son 
 of God, rallied for a while their conscience, and 
 Eusebius declared it to be untenable. Ac- 
 cording to Theodoret (i. 8), the " formulary 
 propounded by Eusebius contained undis- 
 guised evidence of his blasphemy ; the reading 
 of it occasioned great grief to the audience on 
 account of the depravity of the doctrines ; 
 the writer was covered with shame, and the 
 impious writing was torn to pieces." The 
 
 • Tillemont, ies .4r!>us, note 5. The letter is pre- 
 served by Gelasius of Cyziciis (iii. i) in Greek, and 
 given by Baronius in I^atin from a MS. in the Vatican. 
 Bar. Ann. 319, vi. 
 
EUSEBIUS 
 
 inconsistency of the Arian party is exaggerated 
 by Theodoret, for he adds, " the Arians 
 unanimously signed the confession of faith 
 adopted by the council." This is not precisely 
 the case. There were 17 bishops (Soz. i. 20) ♦ 
 who at first refused tiieir signatures, among 
 them both the Eusehii, Theognis of Nicaea, 
 Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of 
 Ptolemais, Theonas, I'atrophihis, Narcissus, 
 Maris, and others, luisebius of Caesarea, 
 after long discussion, signed the symbol, which 
 was in fact an enlargement of a formal creed 
 that he had himself presented to the council, 
 on the ground that the negative dogmata of 
 the .\rian party which were anathematized by 
 the council could not be found in Scripture. 
 Others of his party followed. According to 
 Theodoret (i. 9). all, except Secundus and 
 Theonas, joined in the condemnation of Arius ; 
 and Sozomen (i. 21) declares explicitly that 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia, with others, " sanc- 
 tioned " the decision of the synod as to the 
 consubstantiality of the Son, and the excom- 
 munication of those who held the Arian 
 formulae ; but Sozomen goes on to say that 
 " it ought to be known that Eusebius and 
 Theognis, although they assented to the 
 exposition of faith set forth by the council, 
 neither agreed nor subscribed to the deposition 
 of Arius." Sozomen, apparently, makes this 
 refusal to sign, on the part of Eusebius and 
 Theognis, to have been the reason or occasion 
 of their own exile, and of the filling up by 
 Constantine of their respective sees with 
 Amphion and Chrestus. Philostorgius admits 
 that the whole .A.rian party, except Secundus 
 and Theonas, signed the symbol, but that they 
 did it deceitfully [ev SuXw), with the mental 
 reservation of huoiovcriov (of similar substance) 
 for b^oov<nov (of the same substance). He 
 adds, according to his editor, that they did 
 this under the direction of Constantina, the 
 sister of Constantine ; and fiu-ther he relates 
 that " Secundus, when sent into exile, re- 
 proached Eusebius for having signed, saying 
 that he did so in order to avoid going into 
 exile, and that Secundus expressed a confident 
 hope that Eusebius would shortly be exiled, an 
 event which took place three months after the 
 council." Moreover, Athanasius (de Decretis 
 Syn. Nic. cc. 3, 18) expressly says that Euse- 
 bius signed the formulary. 
 
 Notwithstanding their signature, for some 
 reason Eusebius and Theognis were banished 
 for nearly three years from their respective 
 sees. Theodoret (H. E. i. 20) preserves a 
 portion of a letter written by Constantine 
 against Eusebius and Theognis, and addressed 
 to the Nicomedians. The document displays 
 bitter animosity, and, for so astute a prince, 
 a curious simplicity. Constantine reveals a 
 private grudge against Eusebius for his con- 
 duct when I.icinius was contending with him, 
 and professes to have seized the ai (omplicfs 
 of Eusebius and to have possessed himself of 
 damaging papers and trustworthy evidence 
 against him. He reproaches Eusebius with 
 having been the first defender of Arius and 
 with having deceived him in hope of retaining 
 his benefice. He refers angrily to the conduct 
 of Eusebius in urging Alexandrians and others 
 
 • Philostorgius mentions 22 names, but Hefele, 
 following Socrates and Sozomen, limits them to 17. 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 S39 
 
 to communicate witii the Arians. This pi-r- 
 tinacity is suggested by Constantim- as the 
 actuating cause and occasion of his exile. 
 
 Epiphanius (Haer. Ixviii.) details the cir- 
 cumstances of the union of the Mdetian 
 schismatics with the Arians. and the disin- 
 genuous part taken by ICusebius in promisinK 
 his good offices with the emperor, if they in 
 their turn would promote the return of .Arius 
 to Alexandri.i, .ind would promise inter-coin- 
 munion with him and his party. 
 
 The terms of hatred and disgust with which 
 Constantine speaks of Eusebius render his 
 early return to Nicomedia very puzzling. 
 Sozomen (ii. 16) and Socrates (i. i.() both 
 record a letter (a.d. 328) from Eusebius and 
 Theognis to " the Bishops," explaining their 
 views, in which they say, " We hold the same 
 faith that you do, and after a diligent exam- 
 ination of the word onooiaioi, are wholly intent 
 upon preserving peace, and arc seduced by no 
 heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the 
 church such suggestions as occurred to us, and 
 having certified what we deemed requisite, we 
 signed the confession of faith. We did nut 
 certainly sign the anathemas — not because we 
 impugned the confession of faith, but because 
 we did not believe the accused to be what he 
 was represented to us. . . . So far from opposing 
 any of the decrees enacted in your holy synod, 
 we assent to all of them — not because we are 
 wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert 
 all suspicion of heresy. . . . The accused having 
 justified himself and having been recalled frotri 
 exile, . . . we beseech you to make our 
 supplications known to our most godly em- 
 peror, and that you immediately direct us to 
 act according to your will." If this letter is 
 genuine, it demonstrates the fact of their 
 partial and incomjilete signature of the symbol 
 of Nicaea, and that the incompleteness turned 
 on personal and not on doctrinal grounds. 
 Other statements of Sozomen (ii. 27) are in 
 harmony with it, but there are reasons for 
 hesitating to receive these statements, and 
 the letter itself is in obvious contradiction 
 with the evidence of Phihjstorcius (i. 9) and 
 Epiphanius (Ixviii. 5) that Eusebius and 
 Theognis signed the symbol, anathemas and 
 all. .\re we to believe these writers against 
 the testimony of Sozomen and Socrates, who 
 expressly give a consistent representation 
 undoubtedly more favourable to Eusebius ? 
 
 The most powerful argument of Ue Broglie 
 and others against the genuineness of the 
 letter, as being written from the exile of 
 Eusebius, is the silence of Athanasius, who 
 never uses it to shew the identity of the 
 position and sentiments of .\rius and Euse- 
 bius. Philostorgius recounts a rumour that 
 after the council Eusebius desired to have his 
 name expunged from the list oi signatures, and 
 a similar statement is repeated by Sozoiiieu 
 (ii. 21) as the possible cause of the banishment 
 of Eusebius. The fact may, notwithstanding 
 the adverse judgment of many historians, have 
 been that Eusebius signed the formulary, ex- 
 pressing the view he took of its meaning, and 
 discriminating between an anathema of eertain 
 positions and the persec ution of an individual. 
 A signature, thus qualified, may have saved hini 
 I from immediate banishment. In the (nurse of 
 I three months his sympathy with Anus and his 
 
340 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 underhand proceeding with the Meletians may 
 have roused the emperor's indignation and 
 led to his banishment. The probability that 
 Arius was recalled first, as positively stated in 
 what purports to be a contemporary docu- 
 ment, is certainly greater than that merely d 
 priori probability on which De Broglie insists. 
 Moreover, if Arius had been restored to 
 favour, the vacillating mind of Constantine 
 may have been moved to recall the two 
 bishops. At all events, c. 329, we find Euse- 
 bius once more in high favour with Constantine 
 (Socr. H. E. i. 23), discharging his episcopal 
 functions and persuadiiig Constantine that 
 he and Arius held substantially the creed of 
 Nicaea. Thenceforward Eusebius used his 
 great power at court and his ascendancy over 
 the mind of Constantine to blast the character 
 and quench the influence of the most distin- 
 guished advocates of anti-Arian views. He 
 put all the machinery of church and state into 
 operation to unseat Athanasius, Eustathius, 
 Marcellus, and others ; and, by means open 
 to the severest reprehension, steadily and un- 
 scrupulously strove to enforce his latitudin- 
 arian compromise on the Catholic church. It 
 is not diflScult to trace his hand in the letter of 
 Constantine threatening Athanasius, now 
 archbp. of Alexandria, with deposition if he 
 did not admit those anxious for communion. 
 Moreover, .A.thanasius assures us that Eusebius 
 wrote to him personally with the same object. 
 The answers Athanasius gave to Eusebius and 
 the emperor madeit clearthat the project could 
 never succeed so long as Athanasius remained 
 at Alexandria. 
 
 Meanwhile, considerable controversy had 
 occurred between Eusebius of Caesarea and 
 Eustathius of Antioch on the true meaning 
 of the term Homoousios. Eustathius [Eus- 
 tathius (3)], in his zeal for the Nicene faith, 
 had strenuously refused to admit Arians into 
 communion, and laid himself open, in the 
 opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea, to the charge 
 of Sabellianism (Soz. ii. 18). This provided 
 the opportunity for Eusebius of Nicomedia to j 
 strike a blow at Eustathius, and nothing can 1 
 exceed the treachery shewn by Eusebius on 
 this occasion. His apparently friendly visit 
 to Eustathius on his way to Jerusalem (Soz. 
 ii. 19 ; Theod. i. 21), the gathering of his Arian 
 supporters on his return to Antioch, shew the 
 scheme to have been deeplv laid. Here, a.d. ' 
 330 or beginning of 331, the council of his 
 friends was held, at which the charge of 
 Sabelhanism was, according to Theodoret 
 (i. 21) and Philostorgius (li. 7), aggravated bv 
 the accusation brought by a woman, that 
 Eustathius was the father of her child — a not 
 uncommon device of the enemies of eccle- , 
 siastics. The upshot was that through this, 
 and other vamped-up charges of disrespect to 
 the emperor's mother, Eustathius was deposed 
 and exiled by the Eusebians. The letter of 
 Constantine upon the affair, and against 
 heretics generally, brought the controversy to 
 a lull, until the first attack upon Athanasius. 
 The career of Eusebius of Nicomedia during j 
 the remaining ten vears of his life is so closelv i 
 mtertwined with the romantic sufierings of 
 Athanasius that it is difficult to indicate the 
 part he took in the persecution of Athanasius j 
 without reproducing the story of this great I 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 hero of the Catholic faith. The first charge 
 which Eusebius encouraged the Meletians to 
 bring against Athanasius concerned his taxing 
 the people of Egypt for linen vestments, 
 and turned upon the supposed violence of 
 Macarius, the representative of Athanasius, 
 in overthrowing the altar and the chalice, 
 when reproving (for uncanonical proceedings) 
 Ischyras, a priest of the Colluthian sect. These 
 charges were all absolutely disproved by 
 Athanasius before Constantine at Nicomedia. 
 On his return to Alexandria, Athanasius had 
 to encounter fresh opposition. The prepos- 
 terous story of the murder of Arsenius, with 
 its grotesque accompaniments, was gravely 
 laid at his door. [Athanasius.] To this, at 
 first, he disdained to reply. Eusebius de- 
 clared even this to be a serious charge, and 
 made much capital out of the refusal of 
 Athanasius to attend the council at Caesarea, 
 which was summoned, among other causes, 
 to investigate it (Theod. i. 28). In 335, the 
 partisan council of Tyre passed a sentence of 
 deposition upon Athanasius, who had fled to 
 Constantinople to appeal to the emperor, who 
 summoned the whole synod of T>Te before 
 I him. Eusebius and a few of his party, Theog- 
 nis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius, obeyed 
 the summons, and confronted Athanasius ; 
 but abandoning the disproved charges upon 
 which the sentence of deposition rested, they 
 met him with new accusations likely to 
 damage him in the view of the emperor. 
 Constantine yielded to the malicious inven- 
 tions of Eusebius, and banished Athanasius to 
 Treves, in Feb. 336. The cause of banishment 
 is obscure, but twice over {Ap. § 87, Hist. Ar. 
 § 50) Athanasius declares that Constantine 
 sent him to Gaul to deliver him from the fury 
 of his enemies. While Athanasius was in 
 I exile, Eusebius and his party impeached Mar- 
 ! cellus of Anc\Ta for refusing to appear at the 
 I council of Dedication at Jerusalem, a.d. 335, 
 and for Sabellianism, an implication of heresy 
 j to which he exposed himself while zealously 
 ; vindicating his refusal to hold communion 
 [With Arians. [Asterius (1); Marcellus.] 
 Marcellus was deposed by the Eusebians, and 
 not restored till the council of Sardica. At 
 the council of Dedication at Jerusalem, Arius 
 propounded a view of his faith which was 
 I satisfactory to the council, was received into 
 j communion there, and sent by Eusebius to 
 Alexandria, whence, as his presence created 
 great disturbance, he was summoned to Con- 
 stantinople. There Arius died tragically on the 
 eve of the public reception which Eusebius 
 had planned. The death of Alexander of Con- 
 stantinople followed very shortly, and the 
 effort to elect Paul [Paulus (18)] in his place 
 (without the consent of the bp. of Nicomedia) 
 roused the ire of Eusebius, who intrigued to 
 secure his first deposition. Eusebius musi 
 still have retained the favour of Constantine, 
 as he appears to have administered baptism 
 to the dying emperor, May 337. Jerome says 
 that by this act Constantine avowed himself 
 an Arian. " But all history protests against 
 the severity of this sentence " (de Broglie). 
 Hefele supposes that Constantine regarded 
 Eusebius as the great advocate of Christian 
 unity. Moreover, in the eyes of Constantine, 
 Eusebius was one who had signed the Nicene 
 
EUSEBIUS 
 
 symbol, and had reiiouiiccd the negations of 
 Arius. The ecclesiastical historians give 
 divergent statements as to when Eusebius 
 was raised to the episcopate of Constantinople. 
 Theodoret (i. 19) accuses Husebiiis of unlawful 
 translation from Nicomedia to Constantinople, 
 " in direct violation of that canon which pro- 
 hibits bishops and presbyters from going from 
 one city to another," and asserts that this 
 took place on the death of Alexander. There 
 is, however, proof that Paul, who was twice 
 banished through the influence of Eusebius, 
 was the immediate successor of Alexander. 
 Paul was nominated by .-Mexandcr, but the 
 Eusebian party put forward Macedunius (Soz. 
 iii. 4), and were defeated. The dispute roused 
 ■ ' the indignation of Constautius, and " through 
 
 the machination of the enemies of Paul a 
 synod was convened, and he was expelled from 
 the church, and Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, 
 was installed in the bishopric of Constanti- 
 nople " ; with this statement Socrates (ii. 7) 
 agrees. For a while the education of Julian 
 was entrusted to Eusebius, who had unbounded 
 influence over Constautius. 
 
 In 340 the Eusebians held a synod at An- 
 tioch, at which Athanasius was once more 
 condemned. In 341 (.May) the council 
 developed into the celebrated council in 
 Encacniis, held also at .A.ntioch, at which, 
 under the presidency of Eusebius or Placetus 
 of Antioch, and with the assent and presence 
 of Constantius, divers canons were passed, 
 which are esteemed of authority by later 
 oecumenical councils. These two councils are 
 confounded and identified by Socrates (ii. 2) 
 and Sozomen. 
 
 The cruel injustice to which Athanasius was 
 subjected by long exile is freely attributed to 
 Eusebius, as its mainspring and constant 
 instigator. Nevertheless the last thing we 
 are told about Eusebius by Socrates (ii. 13) is 
 that he appealed from the council of Antioch 
 to Julius, bp. of Rome, to give definite sen- 
 tence as to Athanasius, but that before the 
 sentence of Julius reached him, " immediately 
 after the council broke up, breath went out 
 of his body, and so he died," a.d. 342. 
 
 In addition to authors already cited, the 
 following may be consulted : The Orations of 
 St. Athanasius against the Arians, according to 
 the Benedictine Text, with an Account of his 
 Life, by William Bright, D.D. ; Hefcle, His- 
 tory of the Christian Councils, translated by 
 Prebendary Clark and Mr. Oxenham, vols. i. 
 and ii. ; Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und 
 die Kirche seiner Zeit (1844) ; William Bright, 
 D.D., History of the Church from 313 to 451 
 (1869) ; Albert de Broglie, L'Egliseet I' Empire 
 (1856), t. ii. ; The Arians of the Fourth Cenlurv, 
 by J. H. Newman (4th ed. 1876). Fh.r.r.] ' 
 
 Eusebius (71), bp. of Pelusium, between 
 .A.mmonius and Georgius. He was present at the 
 council of Ephesus in 431 (.Mansi, iv. 1127 a, 
 1 2 19 B, 1366 D ; v. 615 c). His contemporary 
 Isidore, abbat of Pelusium, depicts him in the 
 darkest colours, as a man of some taste and 
 some ability, an " agreeable " preacher (£/>. i. 
 112 ; of. v. 301), but hot-tempered (v. 196; cf. 
 iii. 44) and easily swayed by men worse than 
 himself (ii. 127 ; v. '451) ;' his hands were 
 not clear of simoniacal gain, which he cm- 
 ployed in building a splendid church (i. 37 ; 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 nn 
 
 11. 246); he "eiitiustid til.- flork to d'.KS, 
 wolves, foxes" (v. 147), "the nionastcrirs to 
 herdsmen and runaway sl.ives " (i. 262) ; he 
 was forgetful of the po..r. and inaccessible to 
 remonstrance (iii. 260). His confidants w«tc 
 Lucius the archdeacon, who was said to take 
 money for ordinations (i. 29) ; Zosimus a 
 priest, who disgraced his grey hairs by vices 
 (i. 140 ; ii. 73. 205, etc.) and retained contri- 
 butions meant for the poor (v. 210) ; and three 
 deacons, Eustathius, Anatolius, and Maron 
 (i. 223 ; ii. 28, 29, etc.), with whom (iotthius (ii. 
 10), Simon, and Chaeremon (v. 48, 373) are 
 associated. The greediness of those who ad- 
 ministered the church property was insatiable 
 (v. 79). The offences of these men, or of some 
 of them, were so gross that men cried out against 
 them as effective advocates of Epicureanism (li, 
 153. 230), and Isidore had to tell his corre- 
 spondents that he had done his best (as, 
 indeed, many of his letters shew, e.g. i. 140, 
 436 ; ii. 28, 39, etc.) to reclaim the offenders, 
 but that the physician could not compel the 
 patient to follow his advice, that " God the 
 Word Himself " could not save J udas (iv. 205.) 
 that a good man should not soil his lips by de- 
 nouncing their conduct (iii. 229 ; v. 116), and 
 that nothing remained but to pray for their 
 conversion (v. 2, 103, etc.), and in the mean- 
 time to distinguish between the man and the 
 office (ii. 52), and toremember that the unworthi- 
 ness of the minister hindered not the effect of 
 the sacraments (ii. 32). But the fullest account 
 of the misgovernmen toft he church i>f Pelusium 
 is given in the story of Martinianus (ii. 127), 
 whom Eusebius had ordained, and made 
 " oeconomus " or church steward. He played 
 the knave and tvTant, treated the bishops as his 
 tool, was more than once in peril of his life from 
 the indignation of the citizens, went to Alex- 
 andria, was menaced by archbp. Cyril with ex- 
 communication, but returned and imputed to 
 Cyril himself a participation in simony. Such 
 things ind\iced many to leave Pelusium in 
 disgust ; " the altar lacked ministers " (i. 38) ; a 
 pious deacon, such as Eutonius, was oppressed 
 by Zosimus (ii. 131) and attacked by the 
 whole clergy, to some extent out of sub- 
 serviency to the bishop (v. 564). Eusebius 
 is not mentioned among the Fathers of the 
 council of Chalcedon in 451. In 457 he and 
 Peter, bp.of .Majiima, assisted at thcrdinatiin 
 of Timotheus Aelurus to the see of .Alexandria 
 (Evagr. H. E. ii. 8), and those who were parties 
 to that proceeding are stated by Theodorus 
 Lector (//. E. i. 9) to have been deposed 
 bishops. The epistle of the ER>T)tian bishops 
 to Anatolius {Cod. Encyc. in Mansi, vii. 533 a) 
 represents the two bishops (here unnamed) 
 who ordained Timotheus as having no com- 
 munion with the Cathnlic church. Le (Juien. 
 Or. Chr. ii. 533 ; Tillem. AUm. xv. 747. 748, 
 
 782-788. [W.n. A.ND C.H.] 
 
 Eusebius (77), bp. of Samosata (360-373). the 
 friend alike of Basil the (Ireat, Mclriius, and 
 Gregory Nazianzen. All that isihlinitrlykiinwn 
 of Eusebiusis gathered from the epistles o( Basil 
 and of Gregory, and from some im idents in 
 the Ecclesiastical History of Thcixloret. 1 Jic 
 fervent and laudatory phrases applied to him 
 might suggest hyperbole if they were not so 
 constant {Epp. xxviii. xxix. Greg. Naz. Opp. 
 ed. Prunaeus. Colon, vol. i. 792 ; Ep. xxiiv. 
 
342 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 Basilii opera, ed. Par. t. iii.)- As bp. of Samo- 
 sata in 361, he took part in the consecration 
 of Meletius to the see of Antioch. Meletius 
 was then in communion with the Arians, and 
 a coalition of bishops of both parties placed 
 the document affirming the consecration in 
 the hands of Eusebius. Meletius soon pro- 
 claimed explicitly his Nicene Trinitarianism, 
 and was banished by Constantius on the 
 charge of Sabellianism. Meanwhile Eusebius 
 had returned to Samosata with the written 
 record of the appointment of Meletius to 
 Antioch. The Arians, anxious to destroy this 
 proof of their complicity, persuaded Constan- 
 tius to demand, by a public functionary, the 
 reddition of the document. Eusebius rephed, 
 " I cannot consent to restore the public de- 
 posit, except at the command of the whole 
 assembly of bishops by whom it was com- 
 mitted to my care." This reply incensed the 
 emperor, who wrote to Eusebius ordering him 
 to deliver the decree on pain of amputation of 
 his right hand. Theodoret says the threat was 
 only meant to intimidate the bishop ; if so, 
 it failed, for Eusebius stretched out both hands, 
 exclaiming, " I am willing to suffer the loss 
 of both hands rather than resign a document 
 which contains so manifest a demonstration 
 of the impiety of the Arians." 
 
 Tillemont hesitates to claim for Eusebius, as 
 many writers have done, the honour of being 
 the Christian confessor in the persecutions 
 under Julian. According to Greg. Naz. 
 (Oral. c. Julianum, i. p. 133 B.C.), when suffer- 
 ing on the rack and finding one part of his 
 body not as yet tortured, Eusebius complained 
 to the executioners for not conferring equal 
 honour on his entire frame. The death of 
 Julian and the accession of Jovian gave 
 liberty to the church. 
 
 During and after this temporary lull in the 
 imperial patronage of the Arian party, the 
 great exertions of Eusebius probably took 
 place. He is represented as travelling in the 
 guise of a soldier (Theod. iv. 13) through 
 Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining presbyters 
 and deacons, and must thus have become 
 known to Basil, who on the death of Eusebius 
 of Caesarea wrote to Gregory (Bas. Ep. xlvii. 
 Paris ed.), the father of Gregory of Nazianzus, 
 advising the selection of Eusebius of Samosata 
 for the vacant bishopric. The Paris editors of 
 Basil plausibly suggest that the letter thus 
 numbered was written by Gregory to Eusebius 
 concerning Basil, rather than by Basil concern- 
 ing Eusebius. The part which Eusebius did 
 take in the election of Basil is well known. 
 Basil's appointment gave Gregory extreme 
 satisfaction (Greg. Naz. Ejy. xxix.). He dilates 
 on the delight which the visit of Eusebius to 
 Caesarea had given the community. The bed- 
 ridden had sprung from their couches, and all 
 kinds of moral miracles had been wrought by 
 his presence. Thereafter the correspondence 
 between Basil and Eusebius reveals the pro- 
 gress of their joint lives, and throws some light 
 upon the history of the church. The two 
 ecclesiastics were passionately eager for one 
 another's st^iety, and appear to have formed 
 numerous designs, all falling through, for an 
 interchange of visits. 
 
 In 372 Eusebius signed, with Meletius. Basil, 
 and 29 others, a letter to the Western bishops, 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 in view of their common troubles from Arian 
 opponents. The letter (Basil, Ep. xcii. Paris 
 ed.), a melancholy Jeremiad, recounts disaster 
 and disorder, uncanonical proceedings and 
 Arian heresy. The Eastern bishops look to 
 their brethren in Italy and Gaul for sympathy 
 and advice, paying a tribute to the pristine 
 purity which the Western churches had pre- 
 served intact while the Eastern churches had 
 been lacerated, undermined, and divided by 
 heretics and unconstitutional acts. Later in 
 372 Basil entreats Eusebius to meet him at 
 Phargamon in Armenia, at an assembly of 
 bishops {Ep. xcv.). If Eusebius will not or 
 cannot attend the conference, neither will 
 Basil ; and (xcviii.) he passionately urges him 
 to visit him at Caesarea. Letters from Eusebius 
 appear to havebeen received by Basil, who once 
 more (c.) begs a visit at the time of the festival 
 of the martyr Eupsychius, since many things 
 demanded mutual consideration. At the end 
 of 372 Basil (cv.) managed the laborious 
 journey to Samosata, and secured from his 
 friend the promise of a return visit. This 
 promise, said he, had ravished the church with 
 joy. In 373 Basil urged Eusebius to fulfil 
 his promise, and (cxxvii.) assured him that 
 Jovinus had answered his expectations as bp. 
 of Nicopolis. Jovinus was a worthy pupil of 
 Eusebius, and gratified Basil by his canonical 
 proprieties. Everywhere the 6pe/jLfiara of 
 Eusebius exhibit the image of his sanctity. 
 Other authorities (Tillem. Art. iii.) record that 
 Jovinus relapsed afterwards into Arianism. 
 The good offices of Eusebius were solicited by 
 Eustathius of Sebaste, who had quarrelled 
 with Basil. Basil's principle of " purity be- 
 fore reconciliation " convinced Eusebius of his 
 wisdom and moderation. At the council of 
 Gangra, probably in 372 or 373, Eustathius of 
 Sebaste was condemned for Arian tendencies 
 and hyperascetic practices. There is a difficulty 
 in deciding who was the Eusebius mentioned 
 prima loco without a see in the synodal letter. 
 It may have been the bp. of Samosata, and as 
 Basil entreated his advice as to Eustathius, he 
 may have joined him, Hypatius, Gregory, and 
 other friends whose names occur in this pro- 
 nunciamiento. His age and moral eminence 
 wouldgivehimthisprominent position. The 20 
 canons of Gangra are detailed with interesting 
 comment by Hefele, who thinks the chronology 
 entirely uncertain. We venture the above sug- 
 gestion, which would throw considerable light 
 on thepracticalcharacterofthebp. of Samosata. 
 In 373 a letter of Basil {Ep. cxxxvi.) shews that 
 EusebiushadsuccessfuUysecuredtheelectionof 
 a Catholic bishop at Tarsus. In consequence, he 
 was eagerly entreated to visit Basil at Caesarea. 
 He may have done so, and presided at the 
 council of Gangra. An encyclical which 
 Eusebius proposed to send to Italy was not 
 prepared, but Dorotheus and Gregory of 
 Nyssa were induced to visit Rome in 374. The 
 Paris editors assign to 368 or 369 Basil's 
 letters (xxvii. xxxi.) descriptive of his illness, 
 and the famine that arrested his movements, 
 but whensoever written, they reveal the extra- 
 ordinary confidence put by Basil in his brother 
 bishop. He had been healed by the intercessions 
 of Eusebius, and now, all medical aid having 
 failed Hypatius his brother, he sends him to 
 Samosata to be under the care and prayers of 
 
EUSEBIUS 
 
 Euscbius and his brethren. It is remarkable 
 that Eusebiiis was left undisturbed during the 
 bitter jiersecutions of the orthodox by the 
 emperor Valens. At length his hour came. 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 .113 
 
 nous hints are n..t unfre.|uentlvdr.>i>pr-d as to 
 the sentiment entirtained at Rome with refer- 
 ence to himself, Ivusebius, and Meletius. In 
 377 porotheus foun<l that the two latter were. 
 
 and few pages in the history of the time are 1 to the horror of Basil, reckoned at Konic ,s 
 
 more vivid than those which portray the cir 
 cuinstances of his exile. Valens promised 
 the Arian bp. Eudoxius, who had baptized 
 him, that he would banish all who held con- 
 trary opinions. Thus Eusebius was expelled 
 from Samosata (Theod. iv. 13). The imperial 
 sentence ordered his instant dejiarture to 
 Thrace {ib. i.\). Ceillier (v. 3) places this 
 in 374. The officer who served the sum- 
 mons was bidden by Eusebius to conceal the 
 cause of his journey. " For if the multitude 
 (said Eusebius), who are all imbued with 
 divine zeal, should learn your design, they 
 would drown you, and I should have to answer 
 for your death." After conducting worship, 
 he took one domestic servant, a " pillow, and 
 a book," and departed in the dead of night. 
 The effect of his departure upon his flock 
 is graphically described by Theodorct. The 
 clamour, the weeping, the pursuit, the entreat- 
 ies to return to Samosata and brave the wrath 
 of the emperor, the humble submission of the 
 bishop to the will of the prince on the ground 
 of the authority of St. Paul, the refusal of 
 costly gifts, the parting of the old man from 
 his people, and the disappearance of the ven- 
 erable confessor on his long and perilous 
 journey to the Danube, are all told in a few 
 striking sentences. Eusebius had excited a 
 persistent and intense antagonism to the views 
 of the Arians which assumed very practical 
 forms. The .Arian bp. Eunomius was avoided 
 as if smitten with deadly and contagious pest. 
 The very water he used in the public bath was 
 wasted by the populace as contaminated. The 
 repugnance being invincible, the poor man, 
 inoffensive and gentle in spirit, retired from 
 the unequal contest. His successor, Lucius, 
 " a wolf and a deceiver of the flock," was 
 received with scant courtesy. The children 
 spontaneously burned a ball upon which the 
 ass on which the Arian bishop rode had acci- 
 dentally trodden. Lucius was not conquered 
 by such manifestations, and took counsel with 
 the Roman magistracy to banish all the 
 Catholic clergy. Meanwhile Eusebius by 
 slow stages reached the Danube when " the 
 Goths were ravaging Thrace and besieging 
 many cities." The most vigorous eulogium is 
 passed upon his power to console others. At 
 this dark time his faithfulness was a joy to 
 the P'astern bishops. Basil congratulated 
 Antiochus, a nephew of Euscbius, on the privi- 
 lege of having seen and talked with such 
 
 Arians. Euscbius suffered less fmrn the b.ir- 
 barian ravages nl the (^.tlis than from this 
 momentary assault on his honour. In 378 
 the persecuting policy of Valens was rli>sed 
 by his death. C.ratian recalled the banished 
 prelates, and gave peace to the ICastern chnrch. 
 Theodorct (//. /C. v. 4, ^] expressly mentions 
 the permission to luisebius to return. Not- 
 withstanding the apparently non-canonir.il 
 character of the proceeding. Eusebius ordaitud 
 numerous bishops on his way from Thrace to 
 the Euphrates, including Acacius at Beroea. 
 Theodotus at Hierapolis, Isidore at Cyrus, and 
 Eulogius at Edessa. All these names were 
 appended to the creed of Constantinople. 
 
 When taking part in the ordination of Maris 
 at the little town of Dolica (Theod. H. E. v. 4). 
 a woman charged with Arian passion hurled 
 at Eusebius a brick, which ff^ll \ipon his head, 
 and wounded him fatally. Theodorct records 
 that the aged bi«hop, in the spirit r)f the proto- 
 martyr and his Divine Lord, extorted promises 
 from his attendants that they would make no 
 search for his murderess. On June 22 the 
 Eastern churches commemorate his Sf>-caUed 
 martyrdom. His nephew Antiochus probably 
 succeeded to the bishopric of Samosata. 
 Tillem. viii. 326 ; Ceillier, v. 5. fH.R.R.] 
 
 Eusebfus '93), St., bp. of Vercellae (Vercelli), 
 known for his zeal and sufferings in the cause 
 of orthodoxy. He was born in Sardinia, or- 
 dained a " reader" at Rome, and in 340 con- 
 secrated bp. of Vercelli. St. Ambrose, in a 
 letter to the church there iEp. 63), especially 
 commends him as the first Western bishop 
 who joined monastic discipline with the dis- 
 charge of episcopal duties. He took several of 
 his clergy to live with him, and adopted a kind 
 of monastic rule for their daily life. In 354 
 (Jaffe, RcR. Pontif. p. 15) he was asked by 
 Liberius, bp. of Rome, to go with Lucifer of 
 Cagliari and others to Constantius, to suggest 
 the summoning of a council on the disputes 
 between the Arians and the orthodox. The 
 council was held in the next year at Milan. 
 At first Eusebius absented himself, but ulti- 
 mately yielded to the united solicitations of 
 the Arian party, of Lucifer and I'ancratius, the 
 orthodox delegates of Liberius, and of the 
 emperor. The proceedings were somewhat 
 disorderly, and the action of the bp. of Milan 
 was undecided. The practical question was 
 whether the bishops present should sign a 
 condemnation of Athanasius. Eusebius was 
 
 man (Ep. clxviii.), and Gregory thought his 1 so peremptory m refusing as to excite the anger 
 pravers for their welfare must be as efficacious ! of the Arianizing emperor, who banished \ 
 as those of a martyr. For Eusebius, concealed together with some priests an 
 
 in exile, Basil contrived means of communica 
 tion with his old flock. Numerous letters passed 
 between the two, more in the tone of young 
 lovers than of old bishops, and some interesting 
 hints are given as to difficulty of communica- 
 tion. Eusebius was eagerly longing for letters, 
 
 while Basil protested that he had written no „ -in • 11 
 
 fewer than four, which never reacherl their treatment at S< vthopolis. Me was a trouni 
 destination. To Eusebius (ccxxxix.) Basil some prisoner, having twice all but starved 
 complains bitterly of the lack of fair dealing , himself to death because he would not .iccept 
 on the part of the Western church, and payste- 1 provisions from Anan hands. Alter a whii'- lie 
 
 and deacons, to 
 ScVthopolis in Syria. I'atrophilus. a leading 
 Arian, was bp. there, and Eusebius calls him 
 his " jailer." During his confinement here, 
 two messengers arrived with money and 
 assurances of goodwill from the churches of 
 Vercelli and n.ighbourhood. In his reply 
 Eusebius gave full particulars of his annoying 
 
344 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 was removed to Cappadocia, and thence to 
 Egypt. From theThebaid in Eg^-pt he wrote 
 to Gregory, bp. of Elvira in Spain, praising his 
 anti-Arian constancy. Julian, succeeding 
 Constantius in 361, permitted all banished 
 bishops to return. Eusebius went to Alex- 
 andria to consult with Athanasius. The two 
 bishops convoked a council in 362 at Alexand- 
 ria. One of its objects was to end a schism 
 at Antioch, and after it was over Eusebius 
 went thither to bear a synodal letter or 
 " tome " from the council to the Antiochenes. 
 But Lucifer of Cagliari had preceded him and 
 aggravated the schism by the hasty consecra- 
 tion of Paulinus as a rival bishop ; and 
 Eusebius immediately withdrew from Antioch. 
 [Meletius : Paulinus (6).] Lucifer re- 
 nounced communion with Eusebius and with 
 all who, in accordance with the decree of the 
 Alexandrian council, were willing to receive 
 back bishops who repented their connexion 
 with Arian heresy. Leaving Antioch, 
 Eusebius visited Eastern churches to confirm 
 them in the orthodox faith. Thence he 
 passed into lUyria, and so to Italy, which, in 
 the words of Jerome, " put off its mourning 
 on Eusebius's return." He now joined the 
 zealous Hilary of Poictiers in endeavours to 
 re-establish orthodoxy in the West. With 
 this view they stirred up opposition to the 
 Arianizing Auxentius, bp. of Milan, but were 
 foiled by his profession of orthodoxy. This 
 was in 364 ; nothing more is recorded of Euse- 
 bius until his death, placed by Jerome in 371. 
 His extant wTitinss are three letters : one 
 a brief reply to Constantius, that he would 
 attend the council at Milan, but would do 
 there whatever should seem to him right and 
 according to the will of God ; and the two 
 to the church at Vercelli and to Gregory of 
 Elvira. They are in Galland, Bibl. Patrum, 
 and Migne, Pair. Lat. t. xii. Jerome savs that 
 Eusebius translated, omitting what was hetero- 
 dox, the commentaries on the Psalms by his 
 namesake of Caesarea ; and also names him, 
 with Hilary of Poictiers, as atranslator of Origen 
 and the same Eusebius; but nothing further is 
 known of these translations. A famous Codex 
 Vercellensis is thus described by Tregelles : 
 " A MS. of the 4th cent., said to have been 
 written by the hand of Eusebius bp. of 
 Vercelli, where the codex is now preserved. 
 The text is defective in several places, as 
 might be supposed from its very great age. 
 It was transcribed and pub. by Irici, at 
 Milan, in 1748. . . . This MS. is probably the 
 most valuable exemplar of the old Latin in its 
 unaltered state." The chief authority for 
 his Life is St. Jerome, who places him amongst 
 his Viri Illtistres, and alludes to him in his 
 letters and elsewhere. There are several 
 letters addressed to him by Liberius, and 
 allusions to him in .\thanasius. He is men- 
 tioned also by Rufinus, Theodoret. Sozomen, 
 and Socrates. The Sermones relating to him 
 among the works of Ambrose are admittedly 
 spurious. In the Journ. of Theol. Studies, vol. 
 i. p. 126, Mr. C. H. Turner raised the two 
 questions whether Eusebius of Vercelli was 
 the author of the Seven Books on the Trinity 
 by the Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, and 
 whether he could have been the author of Qui- 
 cunque Vult ; and subsequently in the same 
 
 EUSEBIUS 
 
 vol. the Rev. A. E. Burn offered proof that 
 Eusebius was the author of the work of Pseudo- 
 Vigilius, but that there are strong reasons 
 against supposing that he could have written 
 Quicunque, although he says the latter theory 
 throws new light on the history of the theo- 
 logical terms used in the creed. [j.ll.d.] 
 
 Eusebius (96), Aug. 14, presbyter, confessor 
 at Rome a.d. 358. and by some styled martyr. 
 From the earliest times his fame has been every- 
 where celebrated. A church dedicated to him 
 is mentioned in the first council held at Rome 
 under pope Symmachus, a.d. 498 (Mansi, viii. 
 236, 237). It was rebuilt by pope Zacharias, 
 c. 742 (Anastas. Lib. Pontif. art. "Zacharias," 
 No. 226). The facts of his history are very ob- 
 scure. His Acts (Baluz. A/j'scf//. t. ii. p.'i4i) 
 relate that upon the recall of pope Liberius 
 by Constantius, Eusebius preached against 
 them both as Arians ; and since the orthodox 
 party, who now supported Felix, were ex- 
 cluded from all the churches, he continued 
 to hold divine service in his own house. For 
 this he was brought before Constantius and 
 Liberius, when he boldly reproved the pope 
 for falling away from Catholic truth. Con- 
 stantius thereupon consigned him to a dungeon 
 four feet wide, where he continued to languish 
 for seven months and then died. He was 
 buried b}- his friends and co-presbyters Orosius 
 and Gregory, in the cemeter}' of Callistus, with 
 the simple inscription " Eusebio Homini Dei." 
 Constantius arrested Gregory for this, and 
 consigned him to the same dungeon, where he 
 also died, and was in turn buried by Orosius, 
 by whom the Acts of Eusebius profess to have 
 been written. The BoUandist and Tillemont 
 point out grave historical difificulties in this 
 narration, especially that Constantius, Libe- 
 rius, and Eusebius never could have been in 
 the city together. The whole matter is a 
 source of trouble to Roman Catholic writers, 
 because the saintly character of St. Eusebius, 
 guaranteed by the Roman martyrology as 
 revised by pope Gregory XIII., seems neces- 
 sarily to involve the condemnation of Liberius. 
 The Bollandists at great length vindicate the 
 catholicity of Felix II., and are equally zealous 
 champions of St. Eusebius. Tillemont and 
 Hefele (Hist, of Councils, ii. § 81, " Pope Libe- 
 rius and the Third Sirmian Formula ") are 
 equally decided opponents of Felix, [g.t.s.] 
 
 Eusebius (99), of Cremona, presbyter, a friend 
 of St. Jerome, through whose writings he is 
 known. He was with Jerome at Bethlehem in 
 393, and became the unconscious means of ex- 
 tending into Italy the strife concerning Origen- 
 ism which had begun at J erusalem. Epiphanius 
 had written to John, bp. of Jerusalem, in vindi- 
 cation of his conduct on his recent visit to- 
 Palestine, .\.d. 394. Eusebius, not knowing 
 Greek, begged Jerome to translate it. This 
 Jerome did in a ciursory manner [ad Pammach- 
 ium, Ep. 57, § 2, ed. Vail.), and the document 
 was stolen from the cell of Eusebius by one 
 whom Jerome believed to be in the service of 
 Rufinus (cont. Ruf. iii. 4). Rufinus apparently 
 sent the translated letter to Rome, accusing 
 Jerome of having falsified the original. Euse- 
 bius remained at Bethlehem till Easter, 39S, 
 when he was obliged to return hastily to Italy. 
 On arriving in Rome, he became an agent of 
 Jerome's party ia the Origenistic controversy. 
 
EUSEBIUS 
 
 He lived at first on good torms with Ktifiiuis, 
 who, however, afterwards accused him of 
 having come to Rome " to bark against him." 
 Rufinus was then engaged in translating the 
 wepi apx'^v of Origen for the use of his friends, 
 leaving out some of the most objectionable 
 passages. Eusebius sent a copy of this to 
 Bethlehem, where Jerome denounced it as a 
 mistranslation. Rufinus replied that Eusebius 
 had obtained an imperfect copy, either by 
 bribing the copyist or by otlier wrcMig means, 
 and had also tampered with the MS. St. 
 Jerome, however, vehemently defemis his 
 friend from these accusations {c'ont. Ruf. iii. 5). 
 Pope Anastasius being entirely ignorant of 
 Origen and his teaching, Eusebiiis, together 
 with Marcella and Pammachius, brought be- 
 fore him certain passages from Origen's 
 writings (.\nastasius ad Simplicianum in 
 Jerome, Ep. 95, ed. Vail.), which so moved 
 him that he at once condemned Origen and all 
 his works. Eusebius being about to return to 
 Cremona in 400, the pope charged him in 
 the letter just quoted to Simpliciauus, bp. of 
 Milan, and he there set forth the same passages 
 of Origen which he had laid before the pope. 
 He was confronted, however, by Rufinus, who 
 declared these passages to be false ; and 
 Eusebius continued his journey without 
 having induced Simplicianus to condemn 
 Origen. After this we hear nothing of 
 Eusebius for some 20 years. He appears to 
 have remained in Italy supporting Jerome's 
 interests and corresponding wuth him. At the 
 extreme end of Jerome's life we still find Euse- 
 bius writing to him and sending him books 
 relating to the Pelagian heresy (ad Alyp. et 
 .A.ug. Ep. 143), and receiving from Jerome the 
 last of his Commentaries, that on Jeremiah 
 (Prol. to Cnmm. on Jer. in vol. iv. 833). [w.h.f.1 
 Eus:)bius (126), eunuch, and grand chamber- 
 lain under Constantius II. Socrates (ii. 2, ift) 
 relates that, after the death of Constantine in 
 3^7, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of 
 Nicaea, bestirring themselves on behalf of the 
 Arians, made use of a certain presbyter in high 
 favour with Constantius, who had before been 
 instrumental in recalling Arius from exile. 
 He persuaded Eusebius the head chamberlain 
 to adopt Arian opinions, and the rest of the 
 chamberlains followed, and prevailed on the 
 empress also. In 359 Eusebius was the 
 mainspring of the plan of Eudoxius and others 
 for dividing the council to be held on the sub- 
 ject of Arianism, making the Western bishops 
 sit at Rimini, the Eastern at Seleucia ; part 
 of those in the secret were to sit at each 
 council, and try to gain over their opponents 
 to Arian views. Laymen of influence favoured 
 the plan in order to please the chamberlain 
 (Soz. H. E. iv. 16). On the death of Constantius 
 in 361 Eusebius tried to curry favour with 
 Julian by assuring him of the'loyalty of the 
 East (.A.mm. xxi. 15, § 4) ; but was unable to 
 avert what Ammianus and Philostorgius re- 
 present as the just reward of his deeds. One 
 of the first acts of Julian was to condemn 
 him to death {ib. xxii. 3, § 12). Ammianus 
 describes him as the prime mover of all the 
 court intrigues of his day, and sarcastically 
 calls the emperor one of his favourites {ib. 
 
 Xviii. 4, § 33). fw.M.S. AND M.r.A.] 
 
 Eustathius (3), bp. of Berrhoea in Syria, 
 
 EUSTATHIUS 
 
 3(5 
 
 then of .Vntioch, c. a.d. 324-331, designated by 
 j Theodoret (//. E. i. 7) " the Great," one ,,{ the 
 earliest and most vigorous opponents of Arian- 
 j ism, venerated for his learning, virtues, and 
 I eloquence (Soz. H. E. i. 2, ii. 19; Thc.Kl. 
 , H. L. I. 20), recognized by Athanasius as a 
 worthy fellow-labourer for the orth(Klox faith 
 (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). He was a native of 
 Side in Pamphylia (llieron. de Vir. JUus. c. 
 85). The title of " confessor" given him by 
 Athanasius more than once (t. i. pp. 702, 812) 
 indicates that he svilTered in the i>ersecution of 
 Diocletian. As bi^. of IJerrhoea he was one of 
 the orthodox prelates to whom Alexander of 
 Alexandria sent a cojiy of his letter to Alex- 
 ander of Constantinople, concerning Arius and 
 his errors (Thcod. H. E. i. 4). His translation 
 from Berrhoea is placed bv Sozomen after the 
 council of Nicaea (Si>z. H. E. i. 2). Theodoret 
 states more correctly that he sat at that 
 council as bp. of Antioch, and that his election 
 to that see was the unanimous act of the 
 I bishops, presbyters, and faithful laitv of the 
 city and province (Theod. H.E. i. 7). 'Accord- 
 I ing to Theodoret he was the immediate suc- 
 cessor of Philogonius ; but, according to the 
 Chronicle of Jerome, Theophanes, and others, a 
 I certain Paulinus, not the Paulinusof Tntc, in- 
 tervened for a short time (Tillem. vol.vii'. p.' 22, 
 n. i. p. 646). At thecouncilof NicaeaEustathius 
 occupied one of the first, if not the very first 
 place among the assembled prelates (Facund. 
 viii. 4). That he occupied the seat ol honour 
 at the emperor's right hand and pronounced 
 the panegyrical address to Constantine is 
 asserted by Theodoret (H. E. i. 7), but ctmtra- 
 dicted by Sozomen (//. E. i. 19)! who assigns 
 the dignity to Eusebius of Caesarea. Euse- 
 bius himself maintains a discreet silence, but 
 he evidently wishes it to be inferred that the 
 place of honour was his own (Eus. de V'tt. 
 Const, iii. 11). On his return to Antioch 
 Eustathius banished those of his clersy sus- 
 pected of Arian tenets and resolutely rejected 
 all ambiguous submissions. Among those 
 whom he refused to receive were Stephen, 
 I.eontius, 6 ciTrovon-os, and Eudoxius (who 
 successively occupied his episcopal seat after 
 his deposition), George of Laotlicea, Theo- 
 dosius of Tripolis, and Eustathius of Sebaste 
 (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). In his writings and 
 sermons he lost no opportunity of declaring 
 the Nicene faith, and shewing its agreement 
 with Holy Scripture. Theodoret (//. E. i. 8) 
 specially mentions one of his sermons on Prov. 
 viii. 22, and gives a long extract. The 
 troubled relations of Eustathius with the two 
 Eusebii may be dated from the council of 
 Nicaea. At this syn(jd Eusebius of Caesarea 
 and Eustathius were rivals both in theological 
 views and for favour with the emperor. To 
 one of Eustathius's uncompromising ortho- 
 doxy, Eusebius appeared a foe to the truth, 
 the mrjre dangerous on account of his ability 
 and the subtlety which veiled his heretical 
 proclivities. Eustathius denounced him as 
 departing from the Nicene faith. Eusebius 
 retorted with the charge of Sabellianism. 
 accusing Eustathius of holding one only per, 
 sonality in the Deitv (Socr. H. E. i. 23 ; Soz- 
 H. E. ii. 18 ; Theotl. H. E. i. 21). Eusebius 
 of Nicomedia anrl Theognis of Nicaea, in their 
 progress of almost royal magnificence to 
 
346 
 
 EUSTATHIUS 
 
 Jerusalem, passed through Antioch, and had 
 a fraternal reception from Eustathius, and 
 left with every appearance of friendship. 
 Their inspection of the sacred buildings over, 
 Eusebius returned to Antioch with a large 
 cortege of partisan bishops — Aetius of Lydda, 
 Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theodotus of 
 Laodicea, and Eusebius of Caesarea. The 
 cabal entered Antioch with the air of masters. 
 The plot had been maturing in their absence. 
 Witnesses were prepared with charges against 
 the bishop of incontinency and other gross 
 crimes. Eustathius was summoned before 
 this self-constituted tribunal, and, despite the 
 opposition of the better-minded bishops and 
 the absence of trustworthy evidence, was 
 condemned for heresy, profligacy, and tyran- 
 nical conduct, and deposed from his bishopric. 
 This aroused the indignation of the people of 
 Antioch, who took up arms in defence of their 
 beloved bishop. Some of the magistrates and 
 other officials headed the movement. An 
 artfuUv coloured account of these disturbances 
 and Eustathius's comphcity in them was 
 transmitted to Constantine. A count was 
 dispatched to quell the sedition and to put the 
 sentence of the council into execution. Eus- 
 tathius submitted to constituted authority. 
 Accompanied bv many of his clergy, he left 
 Antioch without resistance or manifesting any 
 resentment (Socr. H. E. i. 24 ; Soz. H. E. ii'. 
 iQ ; Theod. H. E. i. 21 ; Philost. H. E. ii. 7 ; 
 Eus. Vit. Const, iii. 59). He appears to have 
 spent the larger part of his exile at Philippi, 
 where he died, c. 337. The date of his de- 
 position was probably at the end of 330 or 
 beginning of 331 (Tillem. Mem. eccl. vol. vii. 
 note 3, sur Saint Eustathe ; Wetter, Resti- 
 tutio verae Chronolog. rerum contra A rian. Gest. ; 
 de BTnp,\ie, L'Eglise et I' Empire, c. vii.). The 
 deposition of Eustathius led to a lamentable 
 schism in the church of Antioch, which lasted 
 nearly a century, not being completely healed 
 till the episcopate of Alexander, a.d. 413-420. 
 
 Eustathius was a copious writer, and is 
 much praised by early authorities (Soz. H. E. 
 ii. 19 ; Hieron'. Ep. 70 [84], ad Magnum). 
 We possess only scattered fragments and one 
 entire work, named by Jerome de Engas- 
 trimytho adv. Origenem. In this he attacks 
 Origen with great vehemence, ridicules him as 
 a TToKvtcTTwp, and controverts his idea that the 
 prophet Samuel was actually called up bv the 
 witch of Endor (Gall. Vet. Patr. Bihl. vol. iv., 
 and Migne, Patr. vol. xviii. pp. 614 ff.). In 
 Texte und Untersiichungen{iS86), ii. 4, a new ed. 
 of this treatise was edited by A. Zahn. Fabr. 
 Bibl. Grace, vol. ix. pp. 131 ff. ed. Harles ; Cave, 
 Hist. Lit. i. 187 ; Migne, Patr. t. ix. pp. 131 ff. ; 
 Tillem. u.s. pp. 21 ff. ; De Broglie, op. cit. t. ii. 
 pp. 294 ff- [E-v.l 
 
 Eustathius (4), bp. of Sebaste (the modern 
 Siwas) in Pontus, on the N. bank of the Halys, 
 the capital of Armenia Minor (c. a.d. 357-380). j 
 Eustathius occupies a place more conspicuous 
 than honourable in the unhappy dissensions 
 between the adherents of the orthodox faith 
 and the various shades of Arian. semi-Arian, 
 and Anomoean heresy during the middle of 
 the 4th cent. Originally a disciple of Arius, 
 after repeated approaches to the Nicene faith, j 
 with occasional professions of accepting it, he 
 probaby ended his days as a Eunomian I 
 
 EUSTATHIUS 
 
 heretic (Basil. Ep. 244 [82], § 9). Few in that 
 epoch of conflicting creeds and formularies 
 ever signed more various documents. Basil 
 enumerates his signature of the formularies of 
 Ancyra, Seleucia, Constantinople, Lampsacus, 
 Nice in Thrace, and Cyzicus, which are 
 sufficiently diverse to indicate the vagueness 
 of his theology (Basil. I.e.). Eustathius thus 
 naturally forfeited the confidence of all schools 
 of theology. His personal character appears 
 to have been high. There must have been 
 something more than common in a man who 
 could secure the affection and respect for many 
 years of Basil the Great, as, in Basil's own 
 strong language, " exhibiting something more 
 than man" (£^ 212 [370I, § 2). As bishop 
 he manifested his care for the sick and needy, 
 and was unwearied in the fulfilment of duty. 
 The system of coenobitic monasticism intro- 
 duced by him into Asia Basil took as his model 
 (Soz. H. E. iii. 14 ; Basil. Ep. 223 [79], § 3). 
 
 Eustathius was born in the Cappodocian 
 Caesarea towards the beginning of the 4th 
 cent. He studied at Alexandria under the 
 heresiarch Arius (c. a.d. 320) (Basil. Ep. 223 
 [79]. § 3 : 244 [82], § 9 ; 263 [74l. § 3). On 
 leaving Alexandria he repaired to Antioch, 
 where he was refused ordination on account 
 of his Arian tenets by his orthodox namesake 
 (Athan. Solit. p. 812). He was afterwards 
 ordained by Eulalius (c. 331), but very speed- 
 ily degraded by him for refusing to wear the 
 clerical dress (Socr. H. E. ii. 43, Soz. H. E. 
 iv. 24). From Antioch Eustathius returned 
 to Caesarea, where he obtained ordination 
 from the orthodox bp. Hermogenes, on de- 
 claring his unqualified adhesion to the Nicene 
 faith (Basil. Ep. 244 [82], § 9 ; 263 [74I, § 3)- 
 On the death of Hermogenes, Eustathius 
 repaired to Constantinople and attached him- 
 self to Eusebius, the bishop there, " the Cory- 
 phaeus of the Arian party" (Basil, ll.cc.). 
 By him he was a second time deposed (c. a.d. 
 342) on the ground of some unspecified act of 
 unfaithfulness to duty (Soz. H. E. iv. 24). 
 He retired again to Caesarea, where, carefully 
 concealing his Arian proclivities, he sought 
 to commend himself to the bishop, Dianius. 
 His subsequent history till he became bp. of 
 Sebaste is almost a blank. We must, how- 
 ever, assign to it the theological argument held 
 by him and Basil of Ancyra with the audacious 
 Anomoean, Aetius, who is regarded by Basil 
 as in some sense Eustathius's pupil (Basil. 
 Ep. 123, § 5). It was certainly during this 
 period that Eustathius and his early friend 
 the presbyter Aerius founded coenobitic 
 monachism in Armenia and the adjacent 
 provinces (Epiphan. Haer. 75, § 2). The rule 
 laid down by him for the government of his 
 religious communities of both sexes contained 
 extravagances alluded to by Socrates and 
 Sozomen, which are not unlikely to have been 
 the cause, otherwise unknown, of his excom- 
 munication by the council of Neo-Caesarea 
 (Socr. H. E. ii. 43 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 24K While 
 Eustathius was regulating his coenobitic foun- 
 dations (c. 358) he was visited by Basil, who 
 records the delight with which he saw the 
 coarse garments, the girdle, the sandals of 
 undressed hide, and witnessed the self-denying 
 and laborious lives of Eustathius and his fol- 
 lowers. His admiration for such a victory 
 
EDSTATHIUS 
 
 over the world and the flesh dispelled all 
 suspicions of Arian sentiments, and the desire 
 to spread them secretly, which had heen 
 rumoured (Basil. Ep. 223 [79], § 3)- After 
 Basil had retired to the banks of the Iris and 
 commenced his own monastic life, he and his 
 brother (iregory received frequent visits from 
 Eustathius, who, with them, would visit An- 
 nesi, the residence of their mother Macrina, and 
 spend there whole days and nights in friendly 
 theological discussion (ib. § 3). 
 
 Eustathius's episcopate must have begun 
 before 357, when Athanasius speaks of him 
 as a bishop (Athan. Orat. in Arian. i. p. 200 ; 
 Solit. p. 812). He was made bp. of Sebaste, 
 according to the same authority, by the Arian 
 party, who hoped to find him an able and 
 facile instrument. His early companion Aerius 
 was a candidate for the bishopric, and felt very 
 mortified by his failure. Eustathius shewed 
 him the utmost consideration, ordained him 
 presbyter, and appointed him manager of a 
 refuge for the poor, the foundation of which 
 was one of the first acts of his episcopate. 
 The final rupture between them is detailed 
 under Aerius. Somewhere about this time 
 we may place Eustathius's conviction of 
 perjury in the council of Antioch (see Socr. 
 H. E. iv. 24). and his deposition by the 
 obscure council of Melitcne in Armenia c. a.d. 
 357 (Basil. Ep. 263 [74])- Neither of these 
 events appears to have entailed any lasting 
 consequences. Eustathius was one of the 
 prelates at the semi-Arian synod summoned 
 at Ancyra by George of Laodicea, before 
 Easter a.d. 358. to check the alarming spread 
 of Anomoean doctrines, and he, with Basil of 
 Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus, conveyed the 
 synodal letter, equally repudiating the Ano- 
 moean and Homoousian doctrines, and de- 
 claring for the Homoiousion, to Constantius 
 at Sirmium (Soz. H. E. iv. 13, 14 ; Basil. Ep. 
 263 [74], § 3). When the council met at 
 Seleucia on Sept. 27, 339, Eustathius occupied 
 a prominent place in its tumultuous and in- 
 decisive proceedings, and was the head of the 
 ten episcopal deputies, Basil of Ancyra, Sil- 
 vanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicus being 
 other chief members, sent to Constantinople 
 to lay their report before Constantius. Stormy 
 discussions followed, in which Eustathius led 
 the semi-Arians as against the pure Arians. 
 He vehemently denounced the blasphemies of 
 the bold Anf)moean, Eudoxius. bp. of Antioch, 
 and produced a ff)rmulary of faith declaring the 
 dissimilarity rif the Father and the Son, which 
 he asserted to be by liudoxius. All seemed 
 to augur the triumph of orthodoxy when the 
 arrival of Valens and Ursacius from Ariminum 
 announcing the subjugation of the Western 
 bishops and the general proscription of the 
 Homoousi'^)n suddenly changed the scene. 
 Constantius was overjoyed at the unexpected 
 success, and after a protracted discussion, 
 compelled Eustathius and the other Seleucian 
 deputies to sign the fatal formulary. It was 
 then, in Jerfime's words, " ingemuit totus 
 orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est " (Hieron. 
 in Lucif. 19). This base concession profited 
 the recreants little. The emperor summoned 
 a svnod, of which Acacius was the ruling spirit, 
 at Constantinople in Jan. 360. Eustathius was 
 deposed in a tyrannical manner, with Cyril of 
 
 EUSTATHIUS 
 
 347 
 
 J erusnlem, Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cvzirus, 
 and other imix.rtant prelates. Eustathius was 
 not even allowed to defend himself. His former 
 deposition by Eulalius was held sufTicirnt (Sort. 
 H. /•:. ii. 41-43 ; Soz. H. /•.". iv. 24). Cnstan- 
 tius confirmetl the sentence, exiled the bishops, 
 and gave their sees to otliers. The death of 
 Constantius in 361 and the accession of Julian 
 witnessedtherecallof Ilustathius with the other 
 banished bishops. He immediately repudiated 
 his signature to the creed of .Arimiiium, and did 
 all he cmild ti>shew his horror of pure Arianism. 
 Sozomen tells list hat, withlMeusi us, Sophronius, 
 and (Jthers of like mind, he held several svno<ls, 
 condemning the partisans of Acaci>is, denounc- 
 ing the creed of Ariniintnn, and asserting the 
 Homoiousion as the true mean betwfen the 
 Homoousion of the West and the Anomoe..n of 
 Aetiusand his followers (//. E. v. 14). With the 
 accession of Valens in 364, Arianism once more 
 assumed ascendancy in the East. The semi- 
 .\rian party, or Macedonians as they now began 
 tobecallcd, met by imperial permission in coun- 
 cil at I.ampsacus A.D. 363, untler the presidency 
 of Eleusius and repudiated the .Acacian council 
 of Constantinople (360) and the creed of Ari- 
 minum, renewed the confession of Antioch (In 
 Encaeniis), and pronounced sentence of de- 
 position on Eudoxius and Acacius (Socr. H. E. 
 iv. 2-4 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 7). These proceedings 
 irritated \'alens, who required them to hold 
 commmiion with Eudoxius, and, on their 
 refusal, sentenced them to fine and banish- 
 ment, giving their sees to others. To escaj>e 
 annihilation, the Macedonians sent deputies, 
 Eustathius being one, to the Western emperor 
 Valentinian and Liberius, bp. of Rf)me, who 
 had repented his lapse in a.d. 337, offerinc to 
 unite with them in faith. Before they ar- 
 rived, Valentinian had left ft)r Gaul, and 
 Liberius, at first looking coldly on them as 
 Arians, refusedtoreceisethem. On theirpiving 
 a written adhesion to tlie Nicene Creed and the 
 Homoousion, he received them in to communion, 
 and gave them letters in his name and that of 
 the Western church to the prelates of the Ivast, 
 expressing his satisfaction at the proof he had 
 receivedof the identitvofdoctrinebetween East 
 and West (Socr. //. £.'iv. 12; Soz.//. E. vi. 11). 
 No mention was made of the new Macedonian 
 heresy concerning the Holy Spirit, now in- 
 fecting the Eastern church, of which Eustathius 
 and the other deputies were among the chief 
 l^romulgators. Eustathius and his companions 
 at once repaired to Sicily, where a synod of 
 ' bishops, on their profession of orthf>doxy, gave 
 themlettersof communion. Theythenreturned 
 to their own country. A synod of orth<KU)X 
 , bishops was assembled in 367 at Tyana. to re- 
 ; ceive the letters of communion from the West 
 and other documents (Soz. I.e. ; Basil. Ep. 244 
 [82!, § 3). Eustathius and his fellow-<leleKatcs, 
 now recognized as true Catholics, were ac- 
 knowledged as the rightful bishops of their 
 sees. A council sununoned at Tarsus to con- 
 solidate this happy reunion was prohibited by 
 Valens, who, having committed himself to the 
 : Arian party, issued an edict expelling all bishops 
 restored by Julian. Eustathius, tosave himself, 
 signed a formula at Cyzicus of Homoiousian 
 I character, which also denied the divinity of the 
 I Holy Spirit. Basil says tersely of Eustathius 
 ; and his party, "they saw Cyzicus and returned 
 
348 
 
 EUSTATHIUS 
 
 with a different creed" (Basil, ii.s. and § 9; 
 
 226 [73l)- ... 
 
 On Basil's elevation to the episcopate in 
 370 Eustathius exhibited great joy, and pro- 
 fessed an earnest desire to be of service to his 
 friend. He recommended persons as fellow- 
 helpers who, as Basilbitterly complains, turned 
 out to be spies of his actions and words, inter- 
 preting all in a malevolent sense and reporting 
 to their chief {ib. 223 [79], § 3)- For their 
 subsequent bitter relations, see Basilius 
 OF Caesarea. Eustathius heaped calumnies 
 on the head of his former associate, openly 
 charging him with ApoUinarian and other 
 heretical views, and encouraged the clergy 
 of his diocese and province to form a rival 
 communion. Demosthenes, the Vicar of the 
 Prefect, an old enemy of Basil, strenuously 
 forwarded this object. In 376 he visited 
 Sebaste and other chief places in the province, 
 oppressing Basil's adherents, whom he com- 
 pelled to undertake onerous and costly public 
 duties, and loading the followers of Eustathius 
 with the highest honours {ib. 237 [264], § 2). 
 Eustathius, seeing Arianism in the ascendant, 
 openlv sought communion with those whom he 
 had repeatedly denounced. His deposition at 
 Constantinoplewas not forgottenby the Arians, 
 who had not hitherto recognized him as a canon- 
 ical bishop. He now sought their goodwill by 
 humiliating concessions. He had overthrown 
 thealtarsofBasilides,bp.ofGangra,asanArian, 
 but now begged admission to his communion. 
 He hadtreatedthepeople of Amasea as heretics, 
 excommunicating Elpidius for holding inter- 
 course with them, and now earnestly sought 
 their recognition. At Ancyra, the Arians 
 refusing him public recognition, he submitted 
 to communicate with them in private houses. 
 When the Arian bishops met in synod at Nyssa 
 he sent a deputation of his clergy to invite them 
 to Sebaste, conducted them through the pro- 
 vince with every mark of honour, allowed them 
 to preach and celebrate the Eucharist in his 
 churches, and withheld no mark of the most 
 intimate communion {ib. 257 [72], § 3)- These 
 humiliations had but tardy and partial success 
 in obtaining his public acknowledgment by the 
 dominant ecclesiastics. His efforts to secure 
 Arian favour and his effrontery in trading upon 
 his former recognition by Liberius extorted 
 from Basil a vehement letter of remonstrance, 
 addressed to the bp. of Rome and the other 
 Western bishops, depicting the evils inflicted 
 on the Eastern church by the wolves in sheep's 
 clothing, and requesting Liberius to declare 
 publicly the terms on which Eustathiushadbeen 
 admitted to communion {ib. 263 [74!- § 3)- All 
 Basil's efforts to obtain this mark of sympathy 
 and brotherlv recognition from the West were 
 fruitless. He continued to be harassed by the 
 unscrupulous attacks of Eustathius till his 
 death in 379. If the see was vacated by his 
 death, and not, as Hefele holds, with much 
 probability.byhis deposition at Gangra, Eusta- 
 thius died soon after. In 380 Peter became bp. 
 of Sebaste, and thus Basil's brother replaced 
 Basil's most dangerous enemy. 
 
 The svnod of Gangra, of uncertain date 
 [D. C. A., S.V.], is intimately connected with 
 the name of Eustathius. The identity of the 
 Eustathius there condemned with the bp. of 
 Sebaste, though affirmed by every ancient 
 
 EUSTATHIUS 
 
 authority, has been denied by Blondel {De la 
 primaute, p. 138), Baronius {Anna!, iii. ann. 
 361, n. 53), Du Pin {Nouvelle bibliotheque, ii. 
 339), and called in question by Tillemont 
 {Mem. eccl. ix. note 28, S. Basile) ; but on 
 careful investigation Hefele {Hist, of the Church 
 Councils, ii. 325 ff. Engl, trans.) scouts the 
 idea that another Eustathius is intended. C. 
 F. Loots, Bust, of Seb., Halle, 1898. [e.v.] 
 
 Eustathius (22), bp. of Berytus (Beyrout), a 
 time-serving prelate attached to the court, who 
 kept steadily in view the aggrandizement and 
 independence of his see of Berytus, then 
 suffragan to Tyre. As a bishop of some 
 consideration for theological knowledge, he 
 was appointed commissioner, with Photius of 
 Tyre and LTranius of Himera, by Theodosius 
 II., A.D. 448, to examine the tenets of Ibas of 
 Edessa, charged by the monastic party with 
 favouring the Nestorian heresy. This com- 
 mission, dated Oct. 26, 448, and addressed to 
 Damasus, the secretary of state (Labbe, Cone. 
 iv. 638), was opened at Berytus, Feb. i, a.d. 
 449, in the residence of Eustathius, recently 
 erected by him near his magnificent new 
 church. Ibas indignantly disclaimed the 
 blasphemies attributed to him, and produced 
 a protest, signed by a large number of his 
 clergy, that they had never heard him utter 
 words contrary to the faith {ib. p. 637). The 
 accusation broke down. But the investiga- 
 tion was revived a week or two afterwards at 
 Tyre {ib. 635). Eustathius and his brother 
 commissioners drew up a concordat, which 
 was signed, Feb. 25, by Ibas and his accusers, 
 and countersigned by Eustathius and Photius 
 {ib. 632). At the second council of Ephesus, 
 the disgraceful " Robbers' Synod," Aug. 8, 
 449, Eustathius, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil 
 of Seleucia were the imperial commissioners 
 {ib. 1079). Eustathius lent all his influence to 
 Dioscorus and the dominant party against the 
 venerable Flavian, voting for the rehabilita- 
 tion of Eutyches and declaring that he had 
 stated the true faith in perfect conformity to 
 the doctrine of godliness {ib. 262). In 450, 
 through the influence of pope Leo and his 
 legates at Constantinople, Eustathius's name 
 was erased from the diptychs of the church as 
 an accomplice in Flavian's violent death. He 
 and his associates, however, were allowed to re- 
 tain their sees, in the hope that this leniency 
 might lead them to repent (Leo Magn. Ep. 60). 
 The feebleTheodosius II. being nowreplaced by 
 the orthodox and vigorous Marcian, Eustathius 
 found it politic to change bis camp, and at the 
 council of Chalcedon promptly abandoned Dios- 
 corus, declaring his agreement in faith with 
 Flavian, and with exaggerated expressions of 
 penitence asking pardon for his share in the acts 
 of the recent synod (Labbe, iv. 141, 176, 177). 
 The abject humiliation of Eustathius and his 
 party prevailed with the orthodox bishops, who 
 acquitted them as mere tools of Dioscorus and 
 received them as brothers (ib. 508-509). At 
 a later session of the council, Oct. 20, the issue 
 between Eustathius and Photius of Tyre was 
 discussed {ib. 539). As a reward for his sup- 
 port of the court party at the " Latrocinium," 
 Eustathius had obtained from Theodosius a 
 decree giving metropolitical rank to Berytus 
 (Lupus, in Canon. 950). Flavian's successor 
 Anatolius, together with Maximus of Antioch 
 
EUSTOCmUM 
 
 and other court bishops, luul consequently, at 
 the close of 440, dismenibered the diocese of 
 Tyre and assigned live churches to the for- 
 merly suffragan see of Berytus (l.abbe, iv. 
 542-546). Photius, disregarding this, and 
 continuing to consecrate l>ishops for these 
 churches, was exconiinuiiicateil by Anatolius, 
 and the prelates he had consecrated were 
 deposed and degraded by Eustathius («6. 530). 
 Photius submitted to this interference on the 
 threat of deposition, protesting that he did so 
 by constraint. The council supjiorted hin\, 
 maintained the ancient prerogatives of the 
 metropolitical see of Tyre, and pronounced the 
 acts of Eustathius void. 
 
 When in 457 the emperor Leo, anxious to 
 give peace to the church of Alexandria, dealt 
 with the intrusion of Timothy Aelurus, 
 Eustathius was consulted, and joined in tlie 
 condemnation of that intruding patriarch (ift. 
 8<)o). The church built by Eustathius at 
 Herytus is described by Zacharias Scholasticus 
 as lie mundiopificio. Tillem. Mem. eccl. xv. ; Le 
 guien, Orieiis Christ, ii. 818 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. 
 i. 440. [E.V.] 
 
 Eustochium, 3rd daughter of Paui.a, the 
 friend of Jerome, from whose writings all that 
 is known of her is gathered. Born probably 
 c. 370, she had shared from her earliest days the 
 ascetic views of her mother, and was confirmed 
 in them by frequenting the house of Marcella 
 (Hieron. i.952,ed. Vallarsi). Her uncle Hymet- 
 tius, with his wife Praetextata (see Thierry's 
 St. Jerome, i. 161), endeavoured to wean her 
 from these by inviting her to their house, 
 changing her attire, and placing her among the 
 mirrors and the flattery of a patrician recep- 
 tion-room (Hieron. i. 394, 683) ; but she re- 
 sisted their seductions and took the vow of per- 
 petual virginity, being the first Roman lady of 
 noble birth to do so (i. 394). Jerome addressed 
 to her his celebrated treatise de Virginitate Ser- 
 vanda (i. 88), in which vivid pictures of Roman 
 society enforce the superior sanctity of the 
 state of virginity. This treatise excited great 
 animosity against Jerome, and was one cause 
 of his leaving Rome and returning to Pales- 
 tine. Paula and Eustochium resolving to go 
 there also, embarked in 385 at Portus. At 
 Bethlehem they built and managed the hospice 
 and convent, and from her mother's death in 
 404 Eustochium was its head till her own death 
 in 418, two years before that of Jerome. Many 
 passages in Jerome's writings give a picture of 
 her character and manner of life. Small in 
 stature (i. 290), she had great courage and de- 
 cisis in of character (i. 394). and followed the 
 ascetic teaching of Jerome and her mother with 
 unwavering confidence and enthusiasm (i. 402, 
 403). She spoke Greek and Latin with equal 
 facility, and learnt Hebrew to sing the Psalms 
 in the original (i. 720). Jerome praises her 
 skill in the training of virgins, whom she led 
 in all acts of devotion (i. 290) and to whom she 
 set an example by undertaking all menial 
 offices (i. 403). She was eager to increase her 
 knowledge of the Scriptures, and to her im- 
 portunity Jerome ascribes the writing of many 
 of his commentaries, which were dedicated to 
 her and her mother, and afterwards to her and 
 her niece the younger Paula, who, with the | 
 younger Melania, was her coadjutor in her 1 
 convent work and her study of Scripture. She I 
 
 EUTHAUUS 
 
 S49 
 
 is reckoned a saint in the Roman church, her 
 festival being Sept. 28. (w.m.f.1 
 
 EustOOhiuS (6), patriarch of Jerusalem, in 
 succession to Peter, and, according to Papc- 
 broch, from a.d. 544 to 556. On the death of 
 Peter, Eustochius, oecononius of the church 
 of Alexandria but residing at Constantinople, 
 was favoured by the eniixror Justinian in 
 preference to Macarius, an Origenist, who 
 had been first elected. At the synod of Con- 
 stantinople, 553, Eustochius was represented 
 by three legates, Stephanus bp. of Raphia. 
 Georgius bp. of Tiberias, Damasus bp. of 
 Sozusa or Sozytana (Mansi, ix. 173 c.) ; and 
 when the acts in condemnation of Origenism 
 were sent by the emperor to Jerusalem, all the 
 bishops of Palestine except Alexander of Abila 
 confirmed them. But in the monasteries of 
 that province, and especially in that named 
 the New Laura, the partisans of the proscribed 
 opinions grew daily more powerful, notwith- 
 standing the resolute efforts of the patriart h 
 against them. In 555, after eight months <>f 
 persistent admonition, Eustochius went in 
 person, with the dux AnastasiuF, to the New 
 Laura, and forcibly expelled the whole body, 
 replacing them by 60 monks from the prin- 
 cipal laura and 60 from other orthodox mon- 
 asteries of the desert, under the prior Joannes. 
 Origenism was thus rooted out of Palestine. 
 According to Victor Tununensis, Eustochius 
 was removed from the patriarchate, and 
 Macarius restored. Cyrillus Scythopol. in 
 Coteler. Monum. Eccles. Graec. iii. 373 ; Evagr. 
 H. E. iv. 37, 38 ; Victor Tunun. in Patr. Lat. 
 Ixviii. 962 A ; Theoph. Chronog. a..m. 6060 ; 
 Papebroch, Patriarch. Hierosol. in Boll. Acta 
 SS. Intro, to vol. iii. of May, p. xxvii. ; Le 
 Quien, Or. Chr. iii. 210. Pagi (ann. 561 iii.) 
 discusses the chronology. See also Clinton, 
 F. R. 5 37. 557- [cn.l 
 
 Euthalius (5), a deacon of Alexandria, after- 
 wards bp. of Sulca ; fl. a.d. 459. This date is 
 confirmed by the fact that his works are 
 dedicated to Athanasius the Younger, who was 
 bp. of Alexandria about that time. Euthalius 
 appears to have been then a deacon, devoted 
 to the study of the N.T. text. He is now best 
 known as the author of the Euthalian Sections. 
 
 The books of N.T. were written without any 
 division into chapters, verses, or words. The 
 first steps towards such a convenient di\ ision 
 seem to have proceeded from the wish for easy 
 reference to parallel passages. This was done 
 bv what are known as the Ammonian Sections, 
 together with the EusebianCanons. [ErstBirs 
 OF Caesarea.] Annnonius of Alexandria, in 
 the 3rd cent., is generally credited with divid- 
 ing the gospels into sections, but the principle 
 had not been applied to other books of N.T. 
 Euthalius introduced a system of division 
 into all those not yet divided, except the 
 Apocalvpse.whichspread rapidly over the whole 
 (;reek church and has become, by its presence 
 or absence, a valuable test of the antiquity of a 
 MS. In the Epp. of St. Paul, Euthalius tells us. 
 he adopted the scheme of a certain " lather," 
 whose name is nowhere given. But by his 
 other labours, and the further critical appar- 
 atus which he supplied, Euthalius procured 
 for it the acceptance it so<.n obtained. In 
 Romans there were 19 capitula; in Galattans, 
 12; in Ephesians, 10 ; in /. Thessalontans, 7 ; 
 
^5ft 
 
 EUTHALIUS 
 
 in //. Thessalonians, 6 ; in Hebrews, 22 ; in 
 Philemon, 2 ; and so on. 
 
 Three points in connexion with the text 
 especially occupied Euthalius. 
 
 (i) The Larger Sections or Lessons. Fixed 
 lessons for public worship no doubt passed 
 from the synagogue into the Christian church, 
 at least as soon as the canon was settled. But 
 there seems to have been little or no uniformity 
 in them. Individual churches had divisions 
 of their own. The scheme proposed by 
 Euthalius, however, speedily became general 
 in all Greek-speaking churches. The whole 
 N.T., except the Gospels and Apocalypse, was 
 divided into 57 portions of very varying length 
 (in /I c/s there were 16; in the Pauline Epp. 31 ; 
 5 in Rom. ; 5 in /. Cor. ; 4 in //. Cor. ; in the 
 Catholic Epp. 10; 2 in James; 2 in/. Pe.; i in 
 //. Pe., etc.) Of these, 53 were for Sundays, 
 which seem alone to have been provided for in 
 the Alexandrian Syntaxes, and Millsupposes that 
 the other 4 were for Christmas, Good Friday, 
 Easter, and Epiphany (Proleg. in N.T. p. 90). 
 
 (2) The smaller divisions were the well- 
 known cTTixoi. — i.e. " lines " (Lat. versus), each 
 containing either a few words complete in 
 themselves, or as much as it was possible to 
 read without effort at one breath. Like that 
 of the capitula formerly spoken of, the plan of 
 these " verses" was not introduced by Eutha- 
 lius. It had already been adopted in some of 
 the poetical books, and in poetical parts of the 
 prose books of the O.T. The LXX had 
 occasionally employed it. It had been sanc- 
 tioned by Origen. The Vulgate had used it, 
 and it is found in the psalms of the Vatican 
 and Sinaitic MSS. It had been partially 
 applied to N.T., for Origen speaks of the 100 
 ffrlxoL of //. and ///. John, of a few in St. 
 Paul's Epistles, and very few in /. John ; while 
 Eustathius of Antioch, in the 4th cent., is said 
 to reckon 135 from John viii. 59 to x. 31 
 (Scrivener, Intro, to Codex D, p. 17). But 
 these figures shew that many of these divisions 
 cannot have been (ttLxoi in the strict sense, but 
 of very unequal length, and generally much 
 larger. What was before partially and im- 
 perfectly done Euthalius extended upon better 
 principles and with greater care. In Rom. he 
 made 920 such a-rixoi. ; in Gal. 293 ; in Eph. 
 312 ; in /. Thess. 193 ; in //. Thess. 106 ; in 
 Heb. 703 ; in Philemon, 37 ; and so on. 
 
 (3) The third part of his labour was an 
 enumeration of all the quotations from O.T., 
 and even from profane writers, found in those 
 books of N.T. of which he treated. These 
 he numbered in one catalogue ; assigned to the 
 various books whence they were taken in a 
 second ; and quoted at length in a third. If 
 we may look upon the Argumenta as really 
 the work of Euthalius, and not, as Zacagnius 
 argues [Praef. p. 60), as the production of a 
 later hand, he went also into the substance and 
 meaningof thebookseditedbyhim, asthe.^ygjt- 
 wenia contain short and excellent summaries of 
 them. Euthalius also wrote a short Life of St. 
 Paul, prefixed to his work on the 14 epistles of 
 that apostle, but it is bald and meagre. It has 
 been said that he also wrote comments on 
 Acts and Luke ; and that in an ancient catena 
 on Romans there were fragments of his 
 writings; but these statements seem to be 
 ncorrect [ib. p. 71). 
 
 EUfttERlUS 
 
 In later life he became a bishop, and was 
 known as EpiscopusSulcensis. Scrivener sug- 
 gests Sulci in Sardinia as the only see of that 
 name (Intr. p. 53, n. i), but so distant a place 
 is unlikely. Zacagnius thinks that Sulca may 
 represent Psilca, a city of the Thebaid near 
 Syene ; but Galland throws doubt on this, and 
 the point must be left unsolved. 
 
 His works remained long unknown, but in 
 1698 they were ed. andpub.at RomebyLauren- 
 tius Alexander Zacagnius, praefect of the 
 Vatican Library, in vol. i. of his Collectanea 
 Monumeniorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac 
 Latinae, in the long preface of which different 
 questions relating to Euthalius are discussed 
 with much care. This ed. has been printed in 
 Galland (Biblioth. Pat. x. 197) and in Migne 
 {Patr.Gk.\x\xv.62i). Noticesof Euthaliusmay 
 be found in the Prolegomena of N. T. of Wetstein 
 and Mill, and in Scrivener ' s Intro, to the Criticism 
 of N.T. But much light has recently been 
 thrown on Euthalius by Dean Armitage Rob- 
 inson in his " Euthaliana " {Texts and Stud. 
 iii. 3), and in an article "Recent Work on Eutha- 
 lius " in the Journ. of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. p. 
 87, Oct. 1904. In the latter art. the recent work 
 on the subject by Von Soden and Zahn is 
 noticed. [w.m.] 
 
 Eutherius (2), bp. of Tyana, a leader of the 
 Nestorians at the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431, 
 and for some time afterwards. Beff)re the 
 council he was in active correspondence with 
 John of Antioch, about the alleged Apollin- 
 arianism of Cyril of Alexandria and his 
 adherents (Theod. Ep. 112 ; Migne, Patr. Gk. 
 Ixxxiii. 1310). His name occurs in the various 
 documents addressed to, and issued by, the 
 members of his party collectively at this 
 council. On July 18 John and his adherents 
 were deposed and excommunicated, and 
 Eutherius among them {Act. Co. Eph. acta 
 V. 654) ; his sentence being confirmed at 
 Constantinople before the end of the year. 
 After his return home we find him in friendly 
 correspondence with Firmus of Caesarea, 
 notwithstanding the part Firmus had taken 
 in his excommunication (Firm. Ep. 23 ; Pair. 
 Gk. Ixxvii. 1498). Firmus was sent to Tyana 
 to ordain a successor to Eutherius, and 
 met with great opposition from the citizens, 
 who were much attached to their bishop. 
 Longras also, the imperial officer in command 
 of the Isaurian troops there, interfered ; 
 and both Firmus and the person whom he 
 had ordained were compelled to flee. The 
 newly ordained bishop renounced his orders, 
 and seems to have returned to lay life (Theod. 
 Ep. Hypomnesticon Alex. Hierapolis Synodi- 
 con, c. 45). After the reconciliation of 
 Cyril and John of Antioch, Eutherius wrote to 
 John to remonstrate with him on his incon- 
 sistency and want of loyalty to what he once 
 contended for (/'ft. c.73, u.s. 681) ; to Alexander 
 of Hierapolis, who was opposed to the recon- 
 ciliation, a long letter ablv defending the posi- 
 tion which thev and others were still determined 
 to maintain {ib. c. 201, u.s. 815) ; and to 
 Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who had also written 
 to Alexander, to encourage him in his oppo- 
 sition, expressinggreat joy at what he had done 
 {ib.c. 74, U.S. 684). Eutherius was ultimately 
 banished to Scythopolis, and from thence to 
 Tyre, where he died {ib. c. 190, M.S.). 
 
EUTHYMIUS 
 
 He is the author of a treatise in 17 chapters, 
 with a prefatory letter addresseil to livista- 
 thius bp. of I'aruassus, which Photius ascribed 
 to Theodoret (Phot. Bihlioth. c. xlvi. Migne, 
 Patr. Gk. ciii. 79), and which has since been 
 attributed by some to Maxinius the Martyr, 
 and by others to Athanasius (darner's notes 
 on Marius Mercator in Patr. Lat. xlviii. 759, 
 1086, 1087 ; F^abricius, Biblioth. Grace, ed. 
 Harles, viii. 304), in which he subjects the 
 " Scholia" of Cyril of Alexandria, " de Incar- 
 natione Unigeniti " (Mar. iMerc. u.s. 1066) to 
 elaborate and searching criticism, [t.w.d.] 
 
 Euthymius (4), abbat in Palestine, born in 
 377, at Melitene in Armenia, and placed at an 
 early age under the direction of its bishop, 
 Otreius. After his ordination as priest he was 
 placed in charge of all the monasteries in and 
 near the place. Finding this too great an 
 interruption to his meditations, in his 29th 
 year he escaped to Jerusalem to visit the holy 
 places, and found a home with a community 
 of separate monks at Pharan, 6 miles from 
 Jerusalem. With another hermit. Theoc- 
 tistus, he used to take long walks into the 
 desert of Cutila at sacred seasons. On one of 
 these occasions, in the 5th year of his stay at 
 Pharan, they came to a tremendous torrent 
 with a cavern on one of its banks. Here they 
 determined to live, lost to the world. They 
 were, however, discovered by some shepherds, 
 who sent them gifts. The fathers of Pharan 
 also found them out, and came at times to 
 see them. About 411 Euthymius began to 
 receive disciples. They turned the cavern 
 into a church, and built a monastery on the 
 side of the ravine. Theoctistus had charge 
 of it. In 420 Euthymius erected a laura, like 
 that of Pharan, on the road from Jerusalem to 
 Jericho, where he would see inquirers on 
 Saturdays and Sundays, and his advice was 
 always given with captivating sweetness and 
 humility. In 428 the church of his laura was 
 consecrated by Juvenal, the first patriarch of 
 Jerusalem, accompanied by the presbyter 
 Hesychius and the celebrated Passarion, 
 governor of a monastery in Jerusalem. 
 
 A new turn was given to thelife of Euthymius 
 by a cure which he effected for Terebon, son of 
 Aspebetus, prince of the Saracens, who, hear- 
 ing of his fame, brought the afflicted boy to his 
 gloomy retreat with a large train of followers. 
 The prayers of Euthymius are said to have 
 rest'Ted health to the patient, and the whole 
 company believed on the Lord Jesus. Euthy- 
 mius ordered a little recess for water to be 
 hollowed out in the side of the cave, and baj)- 
 tized them on the spot, the father taking the 
 name of Peter. His brother-in-law Maris 
 joined the community of anchorets, bestowing 
 all his wealth for the enlargement of the build- 
 ings. The st<jry spread over Palestine and the 
 neighbouring countries, and Euthymius was 
 besieged with applications for medical assist- 
 ance and prayer. 
 
 Peter, bp. of the Saracens, on his way to 
 the council at Ephesus, a.d. 431, visited 
 Euthymius, who exhorted him to unite with 
 Cyril'of Alexandria and Acacius of Melitene, 
 and to do in regard to the creed whatever 
 seemed right to those prelates. When the 
 council of Chalcedon issued its decrees (451). 
 two of his disciples, Stephen and John, who 
 
 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 3.M 
 
 had been pr.s.iit, l>r..iiKlit tli.iii t.> their 
 master. The report of his approval spread 
 through the desert, and all the recluses w..uld 
 have shared it but for the influence of the 
 monk Theodosius, whose life and dortrinc 
 ajijiear to have been equally unsatisfactorv, 
 who even tried hard to jiersuade Euthymius 
 to reject Chalcedon, but without success. 
 
 The empress Ihidoxia. an energetic Euty- 
 chian, after the death of her husband in 450, 
 went to Jerusalem, and being urged by her 
 brother Valerius to become reconciled to the 
 Catholic church, determined to consult 
 Euthymius. She built a tower about 4 milis 
 S. of his laura, and sent to him Cosnias, 
 guarclian of the so-called True Cross at Con- 
 stantinople, and Anastasius, a bishop. Euthy- 
 mius came ; and after giving his blessing to 
 the empress, advised her that the violent 
 death of her son-in-law, Valentinian, the 
 irruption of the Vandals, the captivity of her 
 daughter Eudoxia and of her grandchildren, 
 might all be attributed to her Eutychian 
 opinions. She should abjure her schism, and 
 embrace the communion of Juvenal, patriarch 
 of Jerusalem. The empress obeyed, and her 
 example was followed by a multitude of monks 
 and laymen. A celebrated anchoret also, 
 tlerasimus, owed his separation from Euty- 
 chianism to Euthymius. Euthymius died 
 in 473 ; his obsequies were celebrated by the 
 patriarch Anastatius and a large number of 
 clergy, among whom are mentioned Chrysip- 
 pus, guardian of the Cross, and a deacon named 
 Fidus. See Cotelier's ed. of the Vita Euthymii 
 by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus (Cot. Eccl. Graec. 
 .Monum. iv. i, Paris, if^tz). [w.M.s.j 
 
 Eutyohes (4) and Eutychianism. Eutyches 
 was arciiimandrite of a monastery near Con- 
 stantinople. For 70 years (as he told pope 
 Leo) he had lived a nionastic life, and during 
 30 out of them had presided over his 300 
 monks. He was a staunch upholder of the 
 views and conduct of Cyril of Alexandria, 
 who had even sent him,' as a special mark 
 of favour, a copy of the Acts of the council of 
 Ephesus, A.D. 431. By whom he was first 
 accused, whether by Theodoret in his Eran- 
 istes, or by his former friend, Eusebius of 
 Dorylaeum, or by Domnus of Antioch, it 
 seems difficult to decide (cf. Hefele. ii. 319; 
 Martin, 75-78) ; but it is clear that to Eusebius 
 are due the definite charges first brought 
 against him at Constantinople in 448. 
 
 Flavian, who succeeded Proelus in 447 as 
 archbishop, convened a synod in Constanti- 
 nople on Nov. 8, 448, to consider some ques- 
 tions between the metropolitan of Sardis and 
 two of his suffragan bishops. Eusebius ()f 
 Dorvlaeum was present, and at its conclusion 
 complained that Eutyches defamed " the holy 
 F"athers and himself, a man who had never 
 been suspected of heresy." alleging himself 
 prepared to convict Eutyches of being untrue 
 to the orthodox faith. Flavian listened in 
 astonishment, and suggested that Eusebius 
 should first privately discuss with Eutyches 
 the points in dispute. Eusebius retorted that 
 he had already done this unsuccessfully ; he, 
 therefore, implored the synod to summon 
 Eutyches before them, not only to induce him 
 to give up his views, but to prevent infection 
 spreading further. Two deputies, a priest 
 
352 EUTYCHES, EUTYCfflANISM 
 
 and a deacon, were instructed to read to 
 Eutyches the complaint, and to invite him to 
 attend the synod, which met again on Nov. 12. 
 Eusebius asked first for the recital of (a) 
 Cyril's first letter to Nestorius, lb) the appro- 
 bation of that letter by the council of Ephesus, 
 and (c) Cyril's letter to John of Antioch ; 
 secondly, that all present should express 
 acceptance of these documents as true exposi- 
 tions of the Nicene Creed. Flavian and the 
 bishops present accepted these propositions, 
 and a resolution to the same effect was sent to 
 the absentees for their approval and signature. 
 The synod professed its belief in " Jesus Christ 
 the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God 
 and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body 
 subsisting, begotten before all ages, without j 
 beginning ; of the Father according to the 
 Godhead, but in these last davs for our sake 
 and for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary, 
 according to the manhood ; consubstantial 
 with the Father, as touching His Godhead, and ' 
 consubstantial with the mother, as touching 
 His manhood." " We confess that Jesus Christ, 
 after the Incarnation, was of two natures in 
 one Hypostasis and in one Person; one Christ, 
 one Son, one Lord. Whosoever asserts other- 
 wise, him we exclude from the clergy and 
 the church " (Mansi, vi. 679). At the third 
 session, Nov. 15, the deputies announced that 
 Eutyches refused to appear before the synod, 
 alleging that Eusebius had long been his 
 enemy, and had grossly slandered him, for he 
 (Eutyches) was ready to assent to and subscribe 
 the statements of the holy F'athers at Nicaea 
 and Ephesus. Certain expressions used by them : 
 were, in his opinion, mistakes ; in such cases 
 he turned to Holy Scripture, as a safer guide 
 than the Fathers. He worshipped one nature, 
 and that the nature of God incarnate. Read- 
 ing from a little book which he fetched, 
 Eutyches then, according to the deputies, 
 first protested against a statement falselv 
 ascribed to him — viz. that the Logos had 
 brought His body from heaven — and next 
 asserted his inability to find in the writings of 
 the Fathers their belief that our Lord Jesus 
 Christ subsisted of two Persons united in one 
 Hypostasis ; adding, that even if he did find 
 such a statement, he must decline to accept 
 it, as not being in Holy Scripture. In his 
 belief. He Who was born of the Virgin Mary 
 was very God and very man, but His body 
 was not of like substance with ours. Eusebius 
 struck in, " This is quite enough to enable us 
 to take action against Eutyches ; but let him 
 be summoned a second time." Two priests 
 were now sent to tell Eutyches that his replies 
 had given great offence ; he must come and 
 explain them, as well as meet the charges 
 originally brought against him. They took 
 with them a note saying that if he still refused 
 to appear, it might be necessary to deal with 
 him according to canonical law', and that his 
 determination not to leave his cell was simply 
 an evasion. During their absence, Eusebius 
 brought forward a further charge. Eutyches, 
 he asserted, had written and circulated among 
 the monks a little book on the faith, to which 
 he had requested their signatures. The state- 
 ment was evidently an exaggeration, but was 
 of sufficient importance for priests and deacons 
 to be at once sent to the neighbouring mon- 
 
 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 
 
 asteries to make inquiries. Meanwhile Mamas 
 and Theophilus returned. They reported that 
 they had encountered many obstacles. The 
 monks round the door of the monastery had 
 affirmed the archimandrite to be ill ; one 
 Eleusinius had presented himself as represent- 
 ing Eutyches ; and it was only on the assur- 
 ance that the letter, of which they were the 
 bearers, contained neither hard "nor secret 
 messages that they at last procured an 
 audience. To the letter Eutyches replied that 
 nothing but death should make him leave his 
 monastery, and that the archbishop and the 
 synod might do what they pleased. In his 
 turn, he wished them to take a letter ; and 
 on their refusal announced his intention of 
 sending it to the synod. Eusebius at once 
 broke out, " Guilty men have always some 
 excuse ready ; we must bring Eutyches here 
 against his will." But at the desire of Flavian, 
 two priests (Memnon and Epiphanius) and a 
 deacon (Germanus) were sent to make another 
 effort. They took a letter exhorting Eutyches 
 not to compel the synod to put in force 
 canonical censure, and summoning him before 
 them two days later (Nov. 17). The synod 
 met on Nov. 16. During the session, infor- 
 mation was brought to Flavian that certain 
 monks and deacons, friends of Eutyches, and 
 Abraham, archimandrite of a neighbouring 
 monastery, requested an audience. They 
 were at once admitted. Abraham informed 
 the archbishop that Eutyches was ill, and had 
 deputed him to speak for him. Flavian's 
 reply was paternal and conciliatory. He re- 
 ; gretted the illness of Eutyches, and, on behalf 
 of those present, expressed their willingness to 
 wait till he was restored. " Let him remem- 
 ber," he continued, " that he is not coming 
 among strangers, but among men who would 
 receive him with fatherly and brotherly 
 affection, and many of whom have hitherto 
 been his friends. He has pained many, and 
 must defend himself. Surely if he could leave 
 his retirement when the error of Nestorius 
 imperilled the faith, he should do as much 
 ; when his own orthodoxy is in question. He 
 has but to acknowledge and anathematize his 
 error, and the past shall be forgiven. As 
 regards the future, he must give assurance to 
 us that he will only teach conformably to the 
 doctrines of the Fathers." The archbishop 
 closed with significant words : " You (monks) 
 know the zeal of the accuser of Eutyches. 
 Fire itself seems to him cold in comparison 
 with his burning zeal for religion. God knows 
 I have besought him to desist ; but, as he 
 persisted, what could I do ? Do you suppose 
 that I have any wish to destroy you, and not 
 rather gather you together ? It is the act of 
 an enemy to scatter, but the act of a father 
 to gather." 
 
 \ The fifth session opened on Wed. Nov. 17, 
 ■ and as the result of its deliberations, Eutyches 
 ' was informed that he would be expected on 
 Nov. 22, and, if he failed to appear, would be 
 deprived of his clerical functions and monastic 
 dignity. A sixth session met on Sat. Nov. 
 20, and agreed that Eutyches might be 
 accompanied on the Monday following by 
 four friends. Eusebius said that when Mamas 
 and Theophilus had visited Eutyches, the 
 I archimandrite used expressions not reported 
 
eutycheJs, eutychianism 
 
 to the synod, but whicli throw ciriMt lij^lit on 
 his opinions. At the request o£ tlie bishops, 
 Theophilus narrated wliat had occurred. 
 Eut>-ches, he said, had wished to argue with 
 them, and in the presence of several of his 
 monks had put these questions : " Where, in 
 Holy Scripture, is there any mention of two 
 natures ? Which of the Fathers has declared 
 that God the Word has two natures ? " 
 Mamas had replied that the argument from 
 silence was insufficient. " The word ofioovaioi 
 does not occur in Holy Scripture ; we owe it 
 to the definitions of the Fathers. And simi- 
 larly we owe to them the affirmation of the two 
 natures." Theophilus had then asked if Euty- 
 ches believed that God the Word was " perfect 
 (r^Xftos) in Christ," and " Do you believe that 
 the man made flesh was also perfect (in Him) ? " 
 He answered "Yes" to both questions, where- 
 upon Theophilus urged, " If in Christ be perfect 
 God and perfect man, then do these perfect 
 (natures) form the one Son. Why will you 
 not allow that the one Son consists of two 
 natures ? " Eutyches replied : " God forbid 
 that I should say that Christ consists of two 
 natures, or dispute about the nature of God. 
 Let the synod depose me, or do what they 
 please. I will hold fast by the faith which I 
 have received." Mamas substantiated the 
 truth of this report, adding that what led to 
 the discussion was a remark of Eutyches : 
 " God the Word became flesh to restore fallen 
 human nature," and the question which he 
 (Mamas) had put : " By what nature, then, 
 is this human nature taken up and restored ? " 
 Flavian naturally asked why this conversation 
 had not been reported before : it was a lame 
 but thoroughly Oriental answer to reply : 
 " Because we had been sent, not to question 
 Eutvches about his faith, but to summon him 
 to the synod. We gave you his answer to the 
 latter point. No one asked us about the 
 former, and therefore we held our peace." 
 
 The seventh, last, and weightiest session 
 met on Mon. Nov. 22. Eutyches at last pre- 
 sented himself, accompanied by a multitude 
 of soldiers, monks, and others, who refused to 
 allow him to enter till assured that he should 
 depart as free as he entered. A letter from the 
 emperor (Theodosius II.) was presented. " I 
 wish," it said, " for the peace of the church, 
 and steadfast adherence to the orthodox 
 doctrinesof the Fathers at Nicaeaand Ephesus. 
 And because I know that Florentius the 
 patrician is a man approved in the faith, I 
 desire that he should be present at the sessions 
 of a synod which has to deal with matters of 
 faith." The synod received the letter with 
 shouts, " Long live the emperor ! His faith 
 is great ! Long live our pious, orthodox, high- 
 priest and emperor {riii apxiffxi /iao-iXerj." 
 Florentius was conducted to his seat, the 
 accuser (Eusebius) and the accused (Eutyches) 
 took their places, and the session began by the 
 recital of all the papers bearing on the point 
 at issue. Cyril's letter to John of .^ntioch 
 was again read, in which occurred the follow- 
 ing : " We confess our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 
 consubstantial with the F'ather, according to 
 the Godhead, and consubstantial with us 
 according to the manhood ; for a union of the 
 two natures was made ; wherefore we confess 
 one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And in accord- 
 
 EUTYCHE5, EUTYCHIANISM 353 
 
 ance with the i)cricptiMii ,,f the uncunfusod 
 union (Ti)v TTJt liavfXiTov •Vwufoit /»Koio»), 
 we confess the Holy Virgin tf,ord»ot, because 
 t.od the Word was made flesh, and became 
 man and uniteil to Himself by conception the 
 teinple t.iken from her." Eusebius ex. I.iinjcd, 
 " Certainly luityches does not acknowledne 
 this ; he has never believed it, but taujjhl the 
 very opposite to every one who came to him." 
 Florentius desired that liutyches should be 
 asked if he assented to these documents or 
 not. Eutyches was interrogated ; and when 
 the archbishop put the plain question : " Oo 
 you confess that Christ is of two natures? " 
 I Eutyches answered, " I have never yet pre- 
 sumed to dispute about the nature of my God ; 
 that He is consubstantial with us have I never 
 j said. I readily admit that the Holy Virgin is 
 consubstantial with us, and that our God was 
 born of her flesh." Flavian, Florentius, Basil 
 of Seleucia, and others, pressed upon him : 
 " If you admit that Mary is consubstantial 
 with us, and that Christ took His manhood 
 from her, it naturally follows that He, accord- 
 ing to His manhood, is consubstantial with us." 
 Eutyches answered : " I do not say that 
 the body of man has become the bodv of GckI ; 
 but in speaking of a human bodv of (khI I sav 
 that the Lord became flesh of the Virgin. If 
 you wish me to add that His bodv is consub- 
 j stantial with ours, I will do so ; but I cannot 
 use the word consubstantial in such a manner 
 as to deny that He is the Son of C.od." Fla- 
 I vian's retort was just : " You will then admit 
 this from compulsion, and not because it is 
 your belief." Finally, the synod desired 
 Eutyches to make a full explanation, and to 
 pronounce an anathema on opinions opposed 
 to the documents which had been recited. 
 Eutyches replied that he would, if the synod 
 desired it, make use of language (viz. consub- 
 stantial with us, and of two natures) which, 
 in his opinion, was very much open to ques- 
 j tion ; " but," he added, " inasmuch as I do 
 not find such language either in Holy Scripture 
 or in the writings of the Fathers, I must decline 
 to pronounce an anathema on those who do 
 not accept it, lest — in so doing — I should be 
 [anathematizing the Fathers." F'lorenlius 
 ! asked : " Do you acknowledge two natures in 
 j Christ, and His consubstantiality with us ? " 
 " Cyril and Athanasius," answered Eutyches, 
 j " speak of two natures beft)re the union, but 
 of one nature after the union." " If you do 
 not acknowledge two natures after the union," 
 said Florentius, " you will be condemned. 
 Whosoever refuses the formula ' of two 
 I natures ' and the expression ' two natures ' is 
 unorthodox ; " to which the synod responded 
 1 with the cry, " And to receive this under com- 
 I pulsion (as would Eutyches) is not to believe 
 I in it. Long live the emperor ! " The scn- 
 ( fence was pronounced : " Eutyches, formerly 
 priest and archimandrite, hath proved himself 
 affected by the heresy of \'alentinus and 
 Apollinaris, and hath refused — in spite of our 
 admonition — to accept the true faith. There- 
 fore we, lamenting his perverseness, have 
 decreed, through our Lord Jesus Christ, blas- 
 phemed by him, that he be excluded from all 
 priestly functions, from our communion, and 
 from his primacy in his monastery." Ex- 
 communication was pronounced upon all wlig 
 
 23 
 
354 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 
 
 should consort with and abet him, and the 
 sentence was signed by 32 (? 28) bishops, and 
 23 archimandrites. Eutyches left the council- 
 chamber muttering an appeal to Rome. 
 
 The monks rallied round Eutyches, and 
 the influence of the minister Chrysaphius, his 
 godson, was exerted in his behalf. Eutyches 
 himself wrote to the emperor and to many of 
 the bishops, and placarded notices about Con- 
 stantinople, protesting against his sentence 
 and justifying his teaching. Of his letters the 
 most important is to pope Leo. In it he ac- 
 cuses Eusebius of acting at Satan's bidding, 
 not in the interests of orthodoxy, but with the 
 intention of destroying him. He repeats that 
 he could not accede to the demands of the 
 synod, acknowledge two natures in Christ, and 
 anathematize all who opposed this doctrine, 
 because Athanasius, Gregory, Julius, and 
 Felix had rejected the expression " two 
 natures," he himself having no wish to add 
 to the creed of Nicaea and Ephesus, nor to 
 define too particularly the nature of God the 
 Word. He adds that he had desired the synod 
 to lay the matter before the pope, promising 
 to abide by his decision ; but this not having 
 been granted, he, being in great danger, now 
 implored the pope to give an unprejudiced 
 judgment, and to protect him. 
 
 Flavian, on his part, circulated the decree 
 of excommunication. He charged the monks 
 to obey it, and communicated it to the em- 
 peror, the pope, and provincial bishops. His 
 interviews with the emperor were marked by 
 great suspicion on the part of the latter ; 
 and his letter to Leo was forestalled by that 
 of Eutyches and a second was required before 
 the pope was satisfied. Leo eventually gave 
 Eutyches his answer in the celebrated Epistola 
 Dogmatica ad Flavianum. 
 
 Court favour inclined to Eutyches ; and 
 early in 449 the emperor appointed a commis- 
 sion to examine a charge of falsification of the 
 acts of the late synod of Constantinople, 
 proffered by Eutyches against Flavian. No 
 such falsification was proved, and the com- 
 mission had no choice but to confirm the sen- 
 tence pronounced by the synod ; but an 
 agitation was thereby advanced, which was 
 productive of the greatest misery. 
 
 A council had already been summoned by 
 the emperor to meet at Ephesus. Eutyches 
 and Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, had 
 demanded it, and their position had been 
 supported by Chrysaphius. The imperial sum- 
 mons was in the names of Theodosius II. and 
 Valentinian III., and was dated May 30, 449. 
 It stated the cause of the summons to be the 
 doubts and disputes which had arisen concern- 
 ing the faith ; it invited Dioscorus to present 
 himself with ten metropolitans and ten bishops 
 at Ephesus on Aug. i ; and it extended the 
 invitation to other bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus 
 (Kars) being exempted unless specially sum- 
 moned by the council. 
 
 The synod — the " Latrocinium," or " Rob- 
 ber Synod," as posterity was taught to call it 
 by Leo — first met on Aug. 8, 449. " Flavian 
 was presented as an oppressor and Eutyches 
 as a victim, and terrible was the day on which 
 it opened. The true faith received in the East 
 a shock from which it has never completely 
 recovered since. The church witnessed the 
 
 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 
 
 separation from herself of nations which have 
 never returned to her, and perhaps never will " 
 (Martin). Leo was not present except by 
 his legates, who brought the famous tome, or 
 doctrinal letter, to Flavian, and letters to the 
 emperor, the archimandrites, the council, and 
 others. In his letter to Theodosius (June 13, 
 449) Leo expresses his regret that " the foolish 
 old man " (Eutyches) had not given up 
 opinions condemned by the synod of Con- 
 stantinople, and intimates his wish that the 
 archimandrite should be received again if he 
 would keep his promise to the pope, and amend 
 what was erroneous in his views. In the 
 letter to Pulcheria (same date), the pope con- 
 siders Eutyches to have fallen into his error 
 " through want of knowledge rather than 
 through wickedness " ; to the archimandrites 
 of Constantinople he states his conviction that 
 they do not share the views of Eutyches, and 
 exhorts them to deal tenderly with him should 
 he renounce his error ; and to the synod he 
 quotes the confession of St. Peter, " Thou art 
 the Christ, the Son of the living God " 
 (Matt. xvi. 16) as embodying belief in the two 
 natures, and argues that if Eutyches had 
 rightly understood these words, he would 
 not have swerved from the path of truth. 
 In most of these Leo refers to the tome as 
 containing the true teaching of the church. 
 
 A synod stigmatized as " a gang of robbers " 
 was not likely to permit the recital of a 
 document condemnatory of Eutyches, the 
 man they were pledged to acquit. It was 
 presented, but shelved. 
 
 For the history of the synod, in its relation 
 to Eutyches, see Dioscorus. The Christian 
 world was rent in pieces by its proceedings. 
 Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine ranged them- 
 selves with Dioscorus and the emperor ; Syria, 
 Pontus, Asia, Rome, protested against the 
 treatment of Flavian and the acquittal of 
 Eutyches. Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, 
 Leo Dioscorus. Theodosius applauded and 
 confirmed the decisions of the synod in a 
 decree which denounced Flavian, Eusebius, 
 and others as Nestorians, forbad the elevation 
 of their followers to episcopal rank, deposed 
 them if already bishops, and expelled them 
 from the country. Leo wrote to the emperor 
 Theodosius, to the church at Constantinople, 
 and to the anti-Eutychian archimandrites. 
 He asked for a general council. 
 
 The wrangle was suddenly silenced by the 
 death of Theodosius (July 450). Under Mar- 
 cian orthodoxy triumphed again : " Euty- 
 chianism, as well as Nestorianism, was 
 conquered " (Leo). Marcian assented at once 
 and cordially to the pope's request for a 
 council. Anatolius convened a synod of such 
 bishops, archimandrites, priests, and deacons 
 as were at Constantinople, and in the presence 
 of the Roman legates subscribed the tome, 
 and, together with the whole assembly, 
 anathematized Eutyches, Nestorius, and their 
 followers. Leo's wish for a council was not 
 now so urgent. The danger had passed away. 
 Eutychianism and Nestorianism had been 
 anathematized ; his own tome had been 
 everywhere accepted ; of more immediate 
 importance, in his opinion, was the practical 
 question, how best and most speedily to 
 reconcile the penitent and to punish the 
 
EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 
 
 obstinate. The war in the West, the invasion 
 of Gaul by Attila, would prevent the bishops 
 of the West from attending a council in Italy, 
 where he wished it to be. Nestorianisni was 
 still powerful among the bishops of Syria, and 
 would unquestionably bias the views of many, 
 should a council be called in the East, as the 
 emperor desired. He feared that the men 
 who would unite for the condemnation of 
 Eutychianism would find means for a triumph 
 of Nestorianism over orthodoxy. But, in 
 deference to the emperor's convictions, he 
 consented to send representatives to the future 
 council, while he ursed that no fresh discus- 
 sion should be allowed whether Eutyches was 
 heretical or not, or whether Dioscorus had ' 
 judged rightly or not, but that debate should 
 turn upon the best means of reconciling and 
 dealing mercifully with those who had gone 
 wrong. For a similar reason he urged the 
 emperor's wife, Pulcheria, to cause the remo- 
 val of Eutyches from the neighbourhood of 
 Constantinople, and to place an orthodox 
 abbat at the head of his monastery. 
 
 The fourth great council of the church met 
 at Chalcedon on Oct. 8, 451. For its general 
 history see Dioscori's. During the first session 
 the secretaries read the documents descriptive 
 of the introduction of Eutyches at the synod of 
 Ephesus (the Latrocinium) and the reading of 
 his paper. .\t words attributing to Eutyches the 
 statement, " The third general ct)uncil (that 
 of Ephesus, 431) hath directly forbidden any 
 addition to the Nicene Creed," Eusebius f)f 
 Dorylaeum exclaimed, " That is untrue." 
 "You will find it in four copies," retorted 
 Dioscorus. Diogenes of Cyzicus urged that 
 Eutyches had not repeated the Nicene Creed 
 as it then stood ; for the second general 
 council (Constantinople, 381) had certainly 
 appended (against Apollinaris and Macedo- 
 nius) to the words " He was incarnate," the 
 words " by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin 
 Mary," though he considered this an explan- 
 ation rather than an addition ; but the 
 Egyptian bishops present disclaimed (as Cyril 
 had previously done) any such revised version 
 of the Nicene confession and greeted the words 
 of Diogenes with loud disapproval. Angry 
 words were again interchanged when the 
 reader continued : " I (Eutyches) anathema- 
 tize all who say that the flesh of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ came down from heaven." 
 " True," interrupted Eusebius, " but Euty- 
 ches has never told us whence Christ did take 
 His manhood ; " and Diogenes and Basil of 
 Seleucia affirmed that Eutyches, though 
 pressed upon this point at Constantinople, had 
 refused to speak out. Dioscorus now, and to 
 his honour, protested : " Let Eutyches be not 
 only punished, but burnt, if he holds heterodox 
 opinions. I only care to preserve the Catholic 
 faith, not that of any individual man " ; and 
 then he turned upon Basil for having said one 
 thing at Constantinople and another at Ephe- 
 sus. " I did so," pleaded Basil, " out of fear 
 of the majority. Before a tribunal of magis- 
 trates I would have remained firm even to 
 martyrdom ; but I did not dare oppose (a 
 tribunal of) the Fathers (or bishops)." This 
 plea for pardon was adopted by the others. 
 " Yes, we all sinned (at Ephesus) ; we all 
 implore forgiveness." 
 
 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 3.-.5 
 
 At Ih.' 4th scsMoii ((), t. i7t 18 .inti-Futv- 
 chian priests and archimandrites, headed by 
 Faustus, were admitted. They were qurs- 
 tioned about a petition addressed to M.»rcian 
 previous to the opening of the council, by 
 Carosus and other Eutychians, who styled 
 themselves archimandrit<'s. Faustus replied 
 that only two of the petitioners (Carosus and 
 Dorotheus) were archimandrites, the rest were 
 men who lived in martyries or were unknown 
 to them. The imperial conuuissioners cm- 
 manded that Carosus and the others should be 
 summoned. Twenty came, and then the 
 petition was read. It was an impassi(.n.-d 
 appeal to the emperor to prevent an outbn-.ik 
 of schism, to summon a council, and im an- 
 while forbid the expulsion of any man Ir.mi 
 his church, monastery, or martyry. In a 
 second document the Eutychians excused 
 themselves for not having previously attended, 
 on the ground that the emperor had forbidden 
 it. " The emp.eror," it proceeded, " had 
 assured them that at the council the creed of 
 Nicaea only should be established, and that 
 nothing should be undertaken previous to 
 this." It urged that the condemnati<in of 
 Dioscorus was inconsistent with the imperial 
 promise ; he and his bishops should therefore 
 be again called to the council, and the present 
 schism would be removed. If not, they de- 
 clared that they would hold no communion 
 with men who opposed the creed of the 318 
 Fathers at Nicaea. To prove their own ortho- 
 doxy they appended their signatures to that 
 creed and to the Ephesian canon which con- 
 firmed it. .A.etius, archdeacon of Constanti- 
 nople, reminded these petitioners that church 
 discipline required monks to accept from the 
 bishops instructions in matters of faith. In 
 the name of the council he demanded, " Do 
 you assent to their decision or not ? " "I 
 abide by the creed of Nicaea," answered 
 Carosus ; " condemn me and send me into 
 exile. . . . If Eutyches doth not believe what 
 the Catholic church believes, let him be 
 anathema." The appeal of Faustus and 
 other anti-Eutychian archimandrites to the 
 emperor was now ordered to be read. The 
 Eutychian archimandrite Dorotheus imme- 
 diately asserted the orthodoxy of luityches. 
 The commissioners retorted, " Eutyches 
 teaches that the body of the Redeemer is not 
 of like substant e to ours. What say you to 
 that ? " Dorotheus avoided a direct answer 
 by quoting the language of the Constantino- 
 politan creed in this form, " Incarnate of the 
 Virgin and made man," and interpreting it in 
 an anti-Nestorian sense ; but he declined to 
 attest the language used on this jxiint by I.eo 
 in his tome. The commissioners were now on 
 the point of passing judgment, when the 
 Eutychians asserted that the emperor had 
 promised them an opportunity of fair debate 
 with their opponents in his presence. It was 
 necessary to ascertain the truth of this, and 
 the sitting of Oct. 17 ended. On 0<t. 20 
 the council met again. .Mixander, the priest 
 and periodeutes (" visitor," see Suicer, J he- 
 saur. i. n.), who had been deputed to see the 
 emperor, informed the coun< ii that he and the 
 decurion John had been sent by the emperiT 
 to the monks, with a message to the eflect that 
 had he (the emperor) considered hims. If ablo 
 
356 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 
 
 to decide the point in dispute, he would not 
 have convened a council. " I now charge 
 you," continued the emperor, " to attend the 
 council and learn from them what you do not 
 yet know. For what the holy general council 
 determines, that I follow, that I rest in, and 
 that I believe." The imperial language was 
 greeted with loud acclamations. The Euty- 
 chians were granted 30 days' consideration, 
 after which, should they remain contumacious, 
 they would be deprived of ecclesiastical rank 
 and office. From Leo's correspondence (Epp. 
 136, 141, 142) it would seem that Carosus and 
 Dorotheus persisted in their views and were 
 ejected by Marcian from their monastery. 
 On Oct. 22, in the 5th session, the memorable 
 " Definition of faith agreed upon at the council 
 of Chalcedon " was recited and received with 
 the unanimous cry, " This is the faith of the 
 Fathers ; this is the faith of the Apostles. 
 We all assent to it. We all think thus." It 
 was signed by the metropolitan and by the 
 imperial commissioners. After declaring 
 " the sufficiency of the wise and saving 
 creed " of Nicaea and Constantinople, inas- 
 much as that creed taught " completely the 
 perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, and fully explained 
 the Incarnation of the Lord to those who 
 received it faithfully," it goes on to admit that 
 some " dare to corrupt the mystery of the 
 Lord's Incarnation, others (i.e. the Euty- 
 chians) bring in a confusion and mixture 
 (cr 1/7 x; ''<'■"' xo-'- KpaaLv), and absurdly imagine 
 the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead to 
 be one, and teach the monstrous doctrine that 
 the Divine nature of the Only-begotten was a 
 commixture capable of suffering . . . Therefore 
 the present holy, great, and oecumenical 
 council . . . has added for the confirmation of 
 the orthodox doctrines, the letter of Leo 
 written to Flavian for the removal of the evil 
 opinions (KaKovola) of Eutyches. For it is 
 directed against those who attempt to rend 
 the mystery of the Incarnation into a duad of 
 Sons ;' it repels from the sacred congregation 
 those who dare to say that the Divinity of the 
 Only-begotten is capable of suffering ; it is 
 opposed to those who imagine a mixture or 
 confusion of the two natures of Christ ; it 
 drives away those who fancy that the form of 
 a servant which was taken by Him of us is 
 of an heavenly or any other substance ; and 
 it condemns those who speak of two natures 
 of the Lord before the union, and feign one 
 after the union. . . . We then," was the con- 
 clusion, " following the holy Fathers, all with 
 one consent teach men to confess one and the 
 same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ ; the same 
 perfect in Godhead and also perfect in man- 
 hood : truly God and truly man, of a reason- 
 able soul and body ; consubstantial with the 
 Father according to the Godhead, and con- 
 substantial with us according to the manhood ; 
 in all things like unto us without sin ; begotten 
 before all ages of the Father according to the 
 Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and 
 for our salvation, born of Mary, the Virgin 
 Mother of God, according to the Manhood ; 
 one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only- 
 begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, 
 inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, in- 
 separably (iy 5vo (pvatai-v d(n'7xi'''"'<'S; drpeirTus. 
 
 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 
 
 dSiatp^Tcoj, i\ix}plcrrci]i yvcopi^ofievov), the dis- 
 tinction of natures being by no means taken 
 away by the union, but rather the property 
 of each nature being preserved, and concurring 
 in one person and one hypostasis, not parted 
 or divided into two persons, but one and the 
 same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from 
 the beginning have declared concerning Him, 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught 
 us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has 
 delivered to us." " Writing, composing, 
 devising, or teaching any other creed " was 
 declared unlawful, with penalties : " bishops 
 and clergy were to be deposed, monks and 
 laymen anathematized." 
 
 On Oct. 25 Marcian, accompanied by Pul- 
 cheria and the court, opened and closed the 
 sixth session. In his address he explained 
 that he appeared in person, as Constantine 
 had done before him, not to overawe and co- 
 erce any, but to strengthen and confirm the 
 faith : his efforts and prayers were alike 
 directed to one end, that all might be one in 
 true doctrine, hold the same religion, and 
 honour the true Catholic faith. The arch- 
 deacon Aetius recited in his presence the 
 confession of faith approved at the previous 
 session, and when the emperor asked if it 
 expressed the opinion of all, shouts arose from 
 all sides, " This is the belief of us all ! We are 
 unanimous, and have signed it unanimously ! 
 We are all orthodox ! This is the belief of the 
 Fathers ; this is the belief of the Apostles ; 
 this is the belief of the orthodox ; this belief 
 hath saved the world ! Long live Marcian, 
 the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new 
 David ! Long live Pulcheria, the new 
 Helena ! " 
 
 Imperial edicts speedily followed the close 
 of the council (Nov. i). One, dated Mar. 13, 
 452, was especially directed against the Euty- 
 chians. They had persisted in disseminating 
 their " foolishness " in spite of the council and 
 the emperor. Marcian warned them that 
 their contumacy would be sharply punished ; 
 and on July 28, Eutychians and Apollinarians 
 were deprived of their priests and forbidden 
 to hold meetings or live together in monas- 
 teries ; they were to be considered incapable 
 of inheriting property under a will or devising 
 property to their co-sympathizers ; and were 
 to be reckoned unfit for military service. 
 Eutychian priests who had seceded from their 
 post in the church and the monks from Euty- 
 ches's own monastery were banished from 
 Roman territory. Their writings were to be 
 burnt, and the composer and circulator of such 
 works was to be punished with confiscation of 
 goods and with exile. Dioscorus and Eutyches 
 were exiled, but the latter died probably be- 
 fore the sentence was carried into effect. 
 
 " With none of those who have been the 
 authors of heresies among Christians was blas- 
 phemy the first intention ; nor did they fall 
 from the truth in a desire to dishonour the 
 Deity, but rather from an idea which each 
 entertained, that he should improve upon his 
 predecessors by upholding such and such 
 doctrines." These words of the church his- 
 torian Evagrius (i. 11) follow his account of 
 the second (i.e. the Robber) synod of Ephesus, 
 which restored Eutyches. They express the 
 
EUTYCHIANUS 
 
 belief of a judicially-trained mind within little 
 more than loo years after the events in ques- 
 tion, and are in substance reproduced by 
 "judicious" Hooker {Eccl. Pol. v. c. 52). 
 Cyril " had given instance in the body and 
 soul of man no farther than only to enforce 
 by example against Nestorius, that a visible 
 and invisible, a mortal and an immortal 
 substance, may united make one person." 
 Eutyches and his followers took those words 
 of CvTil " as though it had been his drift to 
 teach, that even as in us the body and the 
 soul, so in Christ God and man make but one 
 nature. . . . He became unsound (in belief) by 
 denying the difference which still continueth 
 between the one and the other nature." It 
 was " real, though erring reverence " which 
 led him, in the first instance, to broach his 
 opinions. His " narrow mind, stiffened by 
 seclusion, and bewildered by harassing excite- 
 ment " (Bright) was in no state in the day of 
 his trial before the synod of Constantinople 
 to perceive to what his teaching logically 
 conducted, nor to accept the qualifications or 
 paraphrases kindly offered. He passed away, 
 but Eutychianism exists still (Pusey, Councils 
 of the Church, p. 25). It never has and never 
 will yield to edicts like those of Marcian. The 
 right faith has been defined by the great 
 council which opposed both it and Nestorian- 
 ism. " We must keep warily a middle course, 
 shunning both that distraction of Persons, 
 wherein Nestorius went away, and also this 
 latter confusion of natures, which deceived 
 Eutyches " (Hooker). [mongphvsitism.] { 
 
 Consult Mansi, Sacr. Cone. CoUectio, vi. vii.; j 
 Tillem. Memoires, etc. xv. ; Bright, History of ■ 
 the Church (313-451) ; and other works men- 
 tioned above. fj.M.F.'! 
 
 Eutyohlanus (3). bp. of Rome from Jan. 
 275 to Dec. 283. during a period of 8 years, j 
 II months and 3 days, and buried in the: 
 cemetery of Callistus. The truth of the record 
 in the Liberian Catalogue has been confirmed 1 
 by the disco%^ery by De Rossi {Rom. Sot. ii. 
 70), in the papal crvpt of the cemeterv, of 
 fragments of a slab inscribed EYTYXIANOC 
 E n I C (Eutychianus episcopus). Ten decreta I 
 appear as his in the collections of Gratian, { 
 Ivo, and others. [j.b — v.] i 
 
 Eutyohlus (18), St., patriarch of Constan- I 
 tinople. His biography, composed by his 
 chaplain Eustathius, has been preserved entire. 
 Eutychius was born at Theium in Phrvgia 
 c. 512. His father .-Mexander was a general 
 under Belisarius. Eutychius took the monastic \ 
 habit at Amasea at the age of 30, c. 542. j 
 
 As an archimandrite at Constantinf)ple he ! 
 stood high in favour with the patriarch Men- 
 nas, at whose death in 552 he was nominated 
 by Justinian to the vacant chair. 
 
 At the beginning of 553 Eutychius wrote to 
 pope Vigilius, making his profession of the 
 Catholic faith, declaring his acceptance of the 
 four councils and the letters of St. Leo, and 
 requesting Vigilius to preside over the council 
 that was to be held on the question of the j 
 Three Chapters. Vigilius refused, and Euty- ' 
 chius shared the first place in the assembly 
 with the patriarchs .^pollinarius of Alexandria 
 and Domninus of Antioch. At the second 
 session the pope excused himself again, on the 
 ground of ill-health. The subscription of 
 
 EUTYCHIUS 
 
 357 
 
 Eutychius to the Acts ..f this svn<Kl. which s.it 
 from May 5 to June 2, 5^^, is a sumn^ry of 
 the decrees against the Three Chapters. 
 
 Eutychius came into vi..lcnt collisinn with 
 Justinian in ■;(>.(, when the emperor adopted 
 the tenets of the Aphlhartodocelae. Euty- 
 chius, in a long address, demonstrated the 
 incompatihiiitv of that theorv with Srripturr ; 
 but Justinian insisted on his subscribing to 
 it, and finding him uncompromising, ordered 
 his arrest. On Jan. 22. .«i6.s, Eutvrhius 
 was at the holy table celebrating the feast-dav 
 of St. Timotheus in the church adjoining the 
 Horrnisdas palace (cf. du Cange, Cpolts. Chr. 
 lib. ii. p. 96, lib. iv. p. 93, cd. 1729), when 
 soldiers broke into the patriarchal resid<iire, 
 entered the church, and carried the patriarch 
 away, first toamonastervcalledChoracudis, and 
 thenextdaytothat ofSt.OsiasnearChaice<ion. 
 The 8th day after this outrage Justinian called 
 an assembly of princes and prelates, to which 
 he summoned Eutychius. The charges against 
 him were trifling and absurd: that he used oint- 
 ments, ate delicate meats, and praved long. 
 Cited thrice, Eutychius replied that he wf>uld 
 only come if he were to be judged canonicallv, 
 in his own dignity, and in command of his 
 clergy. Condemned by default, he was sent 
 to an island in the Propontis named Prinripus, 
 and afterwards to his old monastery at 
 Amasea, where he spent 12 years and 5 
 months. On the death of Joaimes Sch<v 
 lasticus, whom Justinian had put in the pat- 
 riarchal chair, the people of Constantinople 
 loudly demanded the return of Eutychius. 
 Justin II. had succeeded Justinian, and had 
 associated with himself the young Tiberius. 
 The emperors immediately sent an honourable 
 deputation to .Amasea to bring back Eutv- 
 chius, who returned with great joy to Con- 
 stantinople in Oct. 577. An immense con- 
 course met him, shouting aloud, " Blessed is 
 he that cometh in the name of the Lord," and 
 " Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace." 
 In questionable imitation of our Lord he 
 entered on an ass's colt, over garments spread 
 on the ground, the crowd carrying palms, 
 dancing, and singing. The whole city was 
 illuminated, public banquets were held, new- 
 buildings inaugurated. Next day he was met 
 by the two emperors with conspicuous honour 
 at the church of the Virgin in Blachernae. He 
 then proceeded to the great church, which 
 was filled from end to end, mounted the 
 pulpit, and blessed the multitude. He was 
 six hours distributing the communion, as all 
 wished to receive from his own hands. 
 
 Towards the end of his life Eutychius main- 
 tained that after the resurrection the body 
 will be more subtle than air, and no longer 
 palpable. Gregorv the Great, then residing 
 at Constantinojile as delegate of the Roni.in 
 church, felt himself bound to oppose this 
 opinion. The emi)eror Tiberius talked to the 
 disputants separately, and tried to reconcile 
 them ; but the breach was persistent. Eutv- 
 chius breathed his last quietly on Sundav 
 after Easter Dav, Apr. s, S«2, age<l 70 years. 
 Some of his friends told Gregorv that, a few 
 minutes before his end, he touched the skin 
 of his hand, saving, " I confess that in this 
 flesh we shall rise again" (Paul. Piac. Vtt. 
 Greg. Mag. lib. i. capp. 9, 27-30 ; f'«'- f"*^- 
 
358 
 
 EUZOIUS 
 
 ex ejus Script, lib. i. cap. 5, §§ 6-8 ; Greg. 
 Mag. Moral, xiv. §§ 72-74)- 
 
 The chronology of his life here followed is 
 that fixed by Henschen in his introductory 
 argument to the Life by Eustathius (Boll. Acta 
 SS. 6 Ap. i. 550). His literary remains are 
 his letter to pope Vigilius already mentioned, 
 printed in Greek and Latin by Mansi (ix. 186), 
 and by Migne (Patr. Lat. Ixix. 63 ; Patr. Gk. 
 Ixxxvi. 2401), and some fragments of a Dis- 
 course on Easter and the Holy Eucharist (Migne, 
 Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 2391). In this treatise 
 Eutychius argues against the Quartodeci- 
 mans, against the Hydroparastatae who used 
 water instead of wine at communion (he says 
 that the only apostolic tradition is the mixture 
 of both), against certain schismatic Arme- 
 nians who used only wine, and against some 
 Greeks and Armenians who adored the 
 elements as soon as they were offered and 
 before consecration. The lost work of Euty- 
 chius was a discourse on the manner of exist- 
 ence of reasonable natures in space, a sort of 
 physical theory of the future life. Pair. Gk. 
 Ixxxix. §§ 2270-2389; Holland. AA. SS. Ap. 
 i. 548 ; ib. App. p. lix. in Greek ; Surius, de 
 Prob. Hist. SS. Apr. p. 82 ; Evagr. iv. 37 ; 
 Theoph. Chronogr. 193, 201, 202, 203, 210, 
 211, 212, 213 ; Cave, i. 527. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Euzolus (1), Arian bp. of Antioch, the com- 
 panion and intimate friend of Arius from an 
 early age. He was one of 11 presbyters and 
 deacons of that church, deposed together with 
 Arius by Alexander bp. of Alexandria, c. 320 
 (Socr. H. E. i. 6; Soz. H. E. i. 15 ; Theod. 
 H. E. i. 4, ii. 311 ; Athan. de Syn. p. 907). 
 He was again condemned and banished, with 
 Arius, by the council of Nicaca, a.d. 325. 
 When Arius was recalled from banishment, 
 and summoned to the emperor's side in 330, 
 he was accompanied by Euzoius, by this time 
 a priest. Both regained the emperor's con- 
 fidence by an evasive declaration of their faith 
 and a professed acceptance of the creed of 
 Nicaea (Socr. H. E. i. 2.'i, 26 ; Soz. H. E. ii. 
 27). He accompanied Arius to Jerusalem at 
 the great gathering of Eusebian bishops for 
 the dedication of the church of the Anastasis, 
 Sept. 13, 335, and with him was received into 
 communion by the council then held (Soz. I.e. ; 
 Athan. de Synod, p. 891). In 361 Constantius, 
 having banished Meletius, bp. of Antioch, 
 summoned Euzoius from Alexandria, and com- 
 manded the bishops of the province to conse- 
 crate him. A few months later Constantius, 
 being seized with a fatal fever, summoned the 
 newly appointed bishop, Euzoius, to his bedside 
 on Nov. 3, 361, and received from him the 
 sacrament of baptism. Whether this was at 
 Antioch or Mopsucrene in Cilicia is uncertain 
 (Athan. ib. 907 ; Philost. H. E. vi. 5). On the 
 accession of Valens, Euzoius was urged by 
 Eudoxius to convene a synod of bishops at 
 Antioch to take off Aetius's sentence, and this 
 he ultimately did, c. 364 {ib. vii. 3). On the 
 death of Athanasius in 373, Euzoius was. at 
 his own petition, dispatched by Valens, with 
 Magnus the imperial treasurer and troops, to 
 instal the imperial nominee, the Arian Lucius 
 of Samosata, instead of Peter the duly elected 
 and enthroned bishop. This commission was 
 carried out with shameless brutality and per- 
 secution of the orthodox (Socr. H. E. iv. 21 ; 
 
 EVAGRIUS 
 
 Theod. iv. 21, 22). EuzoTus's death is placed 
 by Socrates in 376 at Constantinople {H. E. 
 iv. 35). Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 713 ; Baron. 
 Ann. ad ann. 325, Ixxix. ; 335, xlix. [e.v.] 
 
 Evagrius (5), known as Evagrius of Antioch, 
 was consecrated bishop over one of the parties 
 in Antioch in 388 or 389, and must have lived 
 until at least 392. Socr. H. E. v. 15 ; Soz. 
 H. E. vii. 15 ; Theod. H. E. v. 23 ; Hieron. 
 de Vir. III. cap. 25 ; Ambrose, Ep. Ivi. 
 
 Evagrius belonged to the Eustathian divi- 
 sion of the orthodox church at Antioch, of 
 which he became a presbyter. After the 
 schism at Antioch caused by Lucifer's con- 
 secration of Paulinus, Evagrius left Antioch, 
 and accompanied Eusebius of Vercelli to 
 Italy in 363 or 364. Here he zealously 
 co-operated with Eusebius in restoring peace 
 to the churches distracted by the results of 
 the council of Ariminum, and re-establishing 
 orthodoxy on the terms laid down by the 
 synod of Alexandria in 362. He also afforded 
 pope Damasus important aid against Ursicius 
 and his faction, a.d. 367. At Milan he re- 
 solutely withstood the Arian bp. Auxentius. 
 After nine or ten years he returned to the 
 East, with Jerome, with the view of healing 
 the schism that still divided the church of 
 Antioch. He called at Caesarea to visit Basil 
 in the autumn of 373, and found him suffering 
 from ague. He was commissioned by the 
 Western bishops to return to Basil the letters 
 he had sent them, probably relating to the 
 Meletian schism, as unsatisfactory, and to 
 convey terms dictated by them, which he was 
 to embody in a fresh letter to be sent into 
 the West by some duly authorized commis- 
 sioners. Only thus would the Western pre- 
 lates feel warranted in interfering in the 
 Eastern church, and making a personal visit 
 (Basil. Ep. 138 [8]). On his return to Antioch, 
 Evagrius wrote in harsh terms to Basil, 
 accusing him of a love of controversy and of 
 being unduly swayed by personal partialities. 
 If he really desired peace, let him come himself 
 to Antioch and endeavour to re-unite the 
 Catholics, or at least write to them and use 
 his influence with Meletius to put an end to 
 the dissensions. Basil's reply is a model of 
 courteous sarcasm. If Evagrius was so great 
 a lover of peace, why had he not fulfilled his 
 promise of communicating with Dorotheus, 
 the head of the Meletian party ? It would 
 be far better for Evagrius to depute some one 
 from Antioch, who would know the parties to 
 be approached and the form the letters should 
 take {ib. 156 [342]). On the death of Paulinus. 
 A.D. 388, Evagrius manifested the hollowness 
 of his professed desire for peace by becoming 
 himself the instrument of prolonging the 
 schism. He was ordained by the dying bp. 
 Paulinus, in his sick-chamber, without the 
 presence or consent of any assisting bishops, 
 in direct violation of the canons. Flavian had 
 been consecrated by the other party on the 
 death of Meletius, a.d. 381. Thus the hope of 
 healing the schism was again frustrated (Socr. 
 H. E. V. 15 ; Theod. H. E. v. 23). A coimcil 
 was summoned at Capua, a.d. 390, to deter- 
 mine whether Flavian or Evagrius was lawful 
 bp. of Antioch, but found the question too 
 knotty, and relegated the decision to Theo- 
 philus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops. 
 
EVAGRIUS PONTIC US 
 
 The death of Evagrius deprived Flavian of liis 
 rival. This was not before 39::, in wiiich year 
 Jerome speaks of him as still alive {de I'ir. III. 
 c. 123). Jerome praises treatises on various 
 subjects which he heard Evagrius read while 
 still a presbyter, but which he had not yet 
 published. He translated into Latin the Life 
 of St. .\nthony by St. .\thanasius (Migne, Pair. 
 Gk. xxvi. 835-076). Its genuineness has been 
 much disputed, but the balance of critical judg- 
 ment seems in its favour. [j.c.g. and f.v.1 
 
 Evagrius (12) Pontious, anchoret and 
 writer, born at Ibora in Pontus t'.alaticus. 
 according to Tilleinont, in 345. He was 
 ordained reader by Basil, and deacon by Gre- 
 gory Nyssen, who took him to the council 
 of Constantinople, a.d. 381, Irstc his pupil 
 Palladius (Hist. Lausiac. c. 86, p. loio). 
 Gregory Nyssen thought so highly of Evagrius 
 as a theologian and dialectician that he left 
 him behind in Constantinople to aid the newly 
 appointed bishop, Nectarius (who, before his 
 consecration, was a layman destitute of theo- 
 logical training) in dealing with heretics. 
 The imperial city proved a dangerous home 
 for the young deacon. The wife of an ex- 
 prefect conceived a guilty passion for him, 
 which he returned. The husband's jealousy 
 was awakened, and Evagrius only escaped 
 assassination by a timely flight, being warned 
 of his peril by a dream (Soz. H. E. vi. 30). 
 Jerusalem was the place of his retreat. Here 
 he was hospitably received by Melania the 
 elder, by whom he was nursed during a severe 
 attack of fever, and who, perceiving the 
 weakness of his disposition, led him to embrace 
 an ascetic life as the only safeguard against 
 the temptations of the flesh. Evagrius went 
 to Egypt, where, after two years spent in 
 great austerities in the Nitrian desert, he 
 plunged still deeper into the solitude, and 
 practised severer mortifications in the cells of 
 Scetis. Here the two Macarii were his in- 
 structors and models in the ascetic life. After 
 enduring many terrible temptations, recorded 
 by Palladius, and having obtained mastery 
 over his bodily passions, he became qualified 
 to instruct others in asceticism. Palladius 
 became his companion and disciple in 391. 
 Among his other disciples were Rufinus, and 
 Heraclides of Cvprus, afterwards bp. of 
 Ephesus (ib. viii. 6). Palladius gives several 
 anecdotes illustrative of the height of ascetic 
 virtue attained by Evagrius and his fellow- 
 hermits. On one occasion he threw into the 
 fire a packet of letters from his parents and 
 other near friends lest their perusal should 
 re-entangle him in worldly thoughts (Cassian, 
 v. 32 ; Tillem. x. 376). Theophilus, the 
 metropolitan of Alexandria, desired to make 
 him a bishop, and Evagrius fled to resist his 
 importunities (Socr. H. E. iv. 23). Evagrius 
 remained in the cells of Scetis until he died, 
 worn out with austerities, in the 17th year of 
 his recluse life, a.d. 398, at the age of 54, 
 " signis et prodigiis pollens " (Gcnnad. Illust. 
 Vir. c. xi.). He was a zealous champion of 
 the doctrines of Origen, for which he fell under 
 the lash of Jerome, whose enmity had also 
 been aroused by his having been the instructor 
 of Rufinus during his sojourn in Egypt and 
 having enjoyed the patronage of Melania. 
 Jerome speaks in contemptuous terms of his 
 
 EVAGRIUS 
 
 3r.9 
 
 writings {ad CUstph.), especially of bis bo.,k 
 TTifi oTro^'fiaj, when coinb.itiiig the teiirl 
 ascribed to the Origenists that a man rould 
 raise himself to a superiority t<i temptation (i.e. 
 as Jerome says, *' becoming either a stone or 
 god ") and live without sin. He also charges 
 him with being a precursor of Pela^ius (in 
 Pelafi. p. 260), and including in his book de 
 Motiachis many who never were monks at all, 
 and also Origenists who had been condemned 
 by their bishops. The existing remains of 
 his writings are printed by (.alland. liihl. 
 Pair. vii. 551-381, and Migne, Pair. vol. R6. 
 Socrates, Gennadius, Palladius, and Suidas, 
 sub voc. " Macarius," mention as bv him : 
 (i) Monachus, on " active virtue," in loo 
 chapters. (2) Gnosticus. (3) .inttrrheticus. a 
 collection of passages of Scripture against the 
 eight divisions of evil thoughts. (4) A Century 
 of Prayers. (5) 600 Gnostic Problems. (6) A 
 Letter to Melania. (7) A book, irtpl awa»tia%. 
 (8) 100 Sentences for the Use of .-inchnrets living 
 simply. (9) Short Sentences. (10) ^nxvpii, 
 in two books, one addressed to monks, and the 
 other to a virgin dedicated to Gr)d. (11) l.iber 
 de rerum monaclialium rationibus. (12) Scho- 
 lion de tctragrammato Dei nomine. Oudin. i. 
 8S3 ; Tillem. Man. cccl. x. pp. 36". ff. ; Fabr. 
 Bibl. Grace, ix. 284, ed. Harles ; Hupin, Hist. 
 Feci. iii. I ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 275 ; cf. 
 O. Zickler, F.vai;rius Ponticus (Munich, 1893) ; 
 J. Draseke, "Zu Evag. -Pont." in Z<-i7sf /in// /ur 
 wissensch Theol. 1894, xxxvii. 125 ff. [e.v.1 
 
 Evagrius (17), an ecclesiastical historian, 
 who wrote six books, embracing a period of 
 163 years, from the council of Ephesus a.d. 
 431 to the i2th year of the emperor Mauricius 
 Tiberius, a.d. 594. He was born at Epiphania 
 in Coelesyria a.d. 536 or 537, but accompa- 
 nied his parents to Apamea for his education, 
 and from Apamea seems to have gone to 
 Antioch, the capital of Svria, and entered the 
 profession of the law. He received the sur- 
 name of Scholasticus, a term then applied to 
 lawyers (Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v.j, gained 
 great favour with Gregory bp- of .■\ntioch, and 
 was chosen by him to assist in his judgments. 
 He seems to have won general esteem and 
 goodwill, for on his second marriage the city 
 was filled with rejoicing, and great honours 
 were paid him by the citizens. He accom- 
 panied Gregory to Constantinople, and suc- 
 cessfully advocated his cause when he was 
 summoned to answer there for heinous crimes. 
 He also wrote for him a book containing 
 " reports, epistles, derrees, oratifins, disi'Uta- 
 tions, with sundry other matters." whi< h led 
 to his appointment as quaestor bv Tiberius 
 Constantinus and by Mauricius Tiberius as 
 master of the rolls, " where the lieutenants 
 and magistrates with their monuments are 
 registered " (Evagr. vi. 23). This is his own 
 account of his promotion. 
 
 His death must have occurred after 504. in 
 which year he wrote his history at the age of 
 58 (iv. 28). His other works have perished. 
 The historv was intended as a continuation of 
 those of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and 
 Theodoret. He sought all sf)urces of informa- 
 tion at his command — the writings of Eusta- 
 thius the Syrian, Zosimus. Priscus, Joannes 
 Rhetor, Procopius of Caesarea. Agathus, and 
 other good authors— and resolved to bring 
 
360 EVARISTUS 
 
 their scattered information together " that 
 the famous deeds which slumbered in the dust 
 of forgetfulness might be revived ; that they 
 might be stirred with his pen, and presented 
 for immortal memory" (Pref. to his Hist.). 
 
 Despite his unnecessarily inflated style, he 
 largely attained his end. He is a warm, often 
 an enthusiastic writer, orthodox in his 
 sentiments, and eager in his denunciations 
 of prevailing heresies- Jortin indeed has 
 condemned him as "in points of theological 
 controversy an injudicious prejudiced zealot " 
 {Remarks on Eccl. Hist. ii. p. 120) ; but 
 Evagrius was a lawyer, not a theologian, and 
 we must look to him for the popular rather 
 than the learned estimate of the theological 
 controversies of his time. His credulous 
 enthusiasm led him to accept too easily the 
 legends of the saints, but in other respects he 
 shews many of the best qualities of an historian. 
 Not a few original documents, decrees of 
 councils, supplications to emperors, letters of 
 emperors and bishops, etc., are preserved in 
 his pages, forming most important authorities 
 for the events to which they relate. Goss (in 
 Herzog) especially praises his defence of Con- 
 stantine against the slanders of Zosimus. In 
 his general arrangement he follows the reigns 
 of the emperors of the East from Theodosius 
 the Younger to Maurice ; but the arrangement 
 of details is faulty. There is often great spirit 
 in the narrative, an excellent specimen of 
 which is his account of the council of Chalce- 
 don (ii. 18). The work is chiefly valuable in 
 relation to the Nestorian and Eutychian 
 heresies, and the councils of Ephesus and 
 Chalcedon. The first ed. of the History is 
 that of Valesius, with notes (Paris, 1673) re- 
 printed at Camb. in Hist. Eccl. Scriptorcs cum 
 notis Valesii et Reading, and repub. by the 
 Clar. Press. The latest and best ed. is by Bidez 
 and Parmentier (Lond. 1849) in Byzantine 
 Texts edited by J. B. Bury. See also Krum- 
 bacher's Gesch. der Byz. Lit. and ed. p. 246. 
 There is a fair Eng. trans, by Meredith 
 Hanmer (Lond. 1619) along with a trans, of 
 Eusebius and Socrates, and more recent ones 
 pub. by Bagster in 1847 and in Bohn's Lib. 
 (Bell). [w.M.l 
 
 EvaristUS (called Aristus in the Liberian 
 Catalogue), bp. of Rome at the beginning of 
 the 2nd cent. With respect to the exact date 
 and duration of his episcopate, as well as the 
 names and order of succession of his prede- 
 cessors [Linus; Cletus; Clement], ancient 
 accounts are greatly at variance. Eusebius 
 {H. E. iii. 34, iv. i) gives Clemens as his 
 immediate predecessor, the third year of 
 Trajan (loi) as the date of his accession, and 
 9 years as the duration of his episcopate ; but 
 in his Chronicle he makes the latter 7 years 
 (Chron. iv. i). Irenaeus, an older authority, 
 who probably got his information when at 
 Rome in the time of Eleutherus towards the 
 end of the cent., also makes Clemens his 
 predecessor, but gives no dates (adv. Haeres. 
 iii. 3, 3). The Liberian (a.d 354) and sub- 
 sequent Roman Catalogues, as well as 
 Augustin and Optatus, represent him as 
 succeeding Anacletus, and the former author- 
 ities give A.D. 96 as the commencement of his 
 episcopate, and between 13 and 14 years as 
 its duration. The best and probably final 
 
 EZNIK 
 
 authority on the order and dates of the early 
 era of Rome is Bp. Lightfoot's Apostolical 
 Fathers, part i. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Evodius (1), according to early tradition, 
 first bp. of Antioch (Eus. Chron. ann. Abr. 
 2058 ; H. E. iii. 22). His episcopate has 
 indirectly the older testimony of Origen, who 
 speaks of Ignatius as the second bishop after 
 Peter {in Luc. Horn. 6, vol. iii. p. 938 ; see also 
 Eus. Quaest. ad Steph. ap Mai, Scr. Vet. i. p. 2). 
 This tradition has all the appearance of being 
 historical. Ignatius early acquired such 
 celebrity that it is not likely the name of an 
 undistinguished person would have been 
 placed before his, if the facts did not require 
 this arrangement. The language used about 
 episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles agrees with 
 the conclusion that Ignatius was not the first 
 at Antioch to hold the office. As time went 
 on, the fitness of things seemed to demand 
 that Ignatius should not be separated from 
 the Apostles. Athanasius [Ep. de Synodis, i. 
 607) speaks of Ignatius as coming after the 
 Apostles without mention of any one inter- 
 vening ; Chrysostom makes him contemporary 
 with the Apostles {Horn, in Ignat. vol. ii. p. 
 593) ; the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) 
 have- recourse to the expedient adopted in the 
 parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypo- 
 thesis of a double ordination, Evodius being 
 said to have been ordained by Peter, Ignatius 
 by Paul. Theodoret {Dial. I. Immutab. iv. 
 82, Migne) and others represent Ignatius as 
 ordained by Peter. The authorities are given 
 at length by Zahn {Patres Apostol. ii. 327). 
 
 There is reason to believe that the earliest 
 tradition did not include an ordination even 
 of Evodius by Peter ; for the chronicle of 
 Eusebius places the departure of Peter from 
 Antioch three years, or, according to St. 
 Jerome's version, two years before the ordi- 
 nation of Evodius. The chronology of the 
 early bishops of Antioch has been investigated 
 by Harnack {Die Zeit des Ignatius). He in- 
 fers that the earliest list must have contained 
 only names of bishops of Antioch without any 
 note of lengths of episcopates, but still that 
 Eusebius must have had the work of some 
 preceding chronologer to guide him. We may 
 well believe, as Harnack suggests, that Euse- 
 bius got his chronology of early bishops of 
 Antioch from Africanus, to whom he acknow- 
 ledges his obligation, and whose chronicle has 
 generally been believed to be the basis of that 
 of Eusebius. If the belief had been enter- 
 tained at the beginning of the 3rd cent, that 
 Evodius had been ordained by Peter, it is 
 incredible that Africanus would have assigned 
 a date which absolutely excludes an ordina- 
 tion by Peter. The date assigned by the 
 chronicle of Eusebius to the accession of 
 Evodius appears to have no historic valu(?, 
 and tlius, while we accept the episcopate of 
 Evodius as an historic fact, we have no data 
 for fixing his accession, but may safely place 
 it considerably later than a.d. 42. [g.s.] 
 
 Eznik {Eznig, Esnig), an Armenian doctor 
 of the church in the 5th cent. His native 
 place was Koghb or Kolp (whence he was 
 called the Kolpensian), and he was a disciple 
 of the patriarch Sahak (Isaac) and Mjesrop, 
 the praeceptor Armeniae. Besides his mother 
 tongue he understood Persian, Greek, and 
 
FABIANUS 
 
 S>Tiac. During long journeys through Syria, 
 Mesopotamia, and Greece he added to his 
 theological learning, becoming thoroughly 
 acquainted with ecclesiastical literature. 
 Later he was made a bishop, and as such took 
 part in the synod of Artashast, a.d. .jso, 
 which repelled the demands of the Persian 
 viceroy, Mihr-Nersh, that the Armenians 
 should adopt Zoroastrianism, in an epistle 
 marked with dignity, courage, and faith. 
 
 He died an aged man, as bp. of Bagrewand 
 (Pakrewand) in the province of Airerat (cf. 
 Neumann, Geschichte der Armenischcn Lite- 
 ratur, pp. 42 seq.). His main work is The 
 Destruction of False Doctrines, still preserved 
 in the .Armenian original (pub. by the Mechit- 
 arists of St. Lazarus in the collection of 
 Armenian classics, Venice, 1826). There is a 
 good German trans, by J. M. Schmid (Leipz. 
 iqoo), Biblioth. der alten armen. Lit. i. 
 The whole is divided into 4 books — the ist 
 combats the Gentile doctrine of the eternity 
 of matter, the 2nd the Zoroastrian religion, 
 the 3rd Greek philosophy, the 4th the Gnostic | 
 sect of the Marcionites. The immediate , 
 occasion of the work was the conflict between [ 
 Armenian Christianity and Parsism. The 4th : 
 book is of value for the history of heresy. 
 The representation given of the Marcionitc 
 doctrine of Prinoipias, and the various myths i 
 concerning the origin of the human race, its 
 corruption by matter, the mission of Christ, \ 
 His crucifixion, descent into hell, and victory j 
 over the Demiurge, contain much peculiar and [ 
 characteristic, but much also belonging to 
 the later developments, not the original forms 
 of Marcionitism. fR.A.L.] 
 
 FABIOLA 
 
 3tU 
 
 Fabianus (1) (called bv the Greeks and in 
 the Liberian Catalogue Fabius. by Eutychius 
 and in the Alexandrian Chronicle Flavianus), 
 bp. of Rome from early in Feb. 236 to Jan. 20, 
 250, and a martyr. Eusebius relates that, 
 the brethren being assembled in the church to 
 choose a successor to Anteros, Fabianus, a 
 layman lately come from the country, being 
 indicated as the chosen of Heaven by a dove 
 settling on his head, the people acclaimed him 
 as worthy and placed him on the episcopal 
 throne (H. E. vi. 20). That the choice proved a 
 good one is witnessed by Cyprian, who rejoices 
 that " his honourable consummation had 
 corresponded to the integrity of his adminis- 
 tration " iEp. 39, cf. 30). 
 
 In the Liberian Catalogue (a.d. 354) he is 
 said to have divided the regions of the city 
 among the deacons, and to have been mar- 
 tyred Jan. 20, 250. In the Felician Catalogue 
 (a.d. 530) and in later editions of the Liber 
 Pontificalis it is added that he made also 
 seven subdeacons to superintend the seven 
 notaries appointed to record faithfully the 
 acts of the martyrs ; also that he caused to 
 be brought to Rome by sea the body of Pon- 
 tianus (the predecessor of his predecessor 
 Anteros), martyred in Sardinia, and buried it 
 in the cemetery of Callixtus on the Appian 
 Way ; in which cemetery he too was buried. 
 It is remarkable that, though the Roman 
 
 calendar designates all the first 30 bislmp* of 
 Rome except two as saints and martyrs, 
 Fabianus is the first, except Telesphorns and 
 Pontianus, whose martvrdom rests on any 
 good authority (cf. also Ens. H. E. vi. 3.,; 
 Hieron. de 111. Vir. c. ^4 ; Cypr. Epp 30, 
 30). Fabianus was among the earliest victims 
 of the Decian persecution. Fragments <>f a 
 slab bearing the inscription «^AtJlANOC-» 
 Em + VP (Fabianus episcopus niartvr), to- 
 gether with others inscribed with the names 
 of .Anteros, Lucius, and Eutychiantis, Roman 
 bishops of the same period, have been found in 
 what is called the papal crypt of the cemetery 
 i of Callixtus, tiius attesting the accounts given 
 of the place of his burial (A'oma Sntterranea, 
 by Northcote and Brownlow). 
 
 Fabianus is specially named by Eusebius 
 (//. E. vi. 36) as one among many bishops to 
 whom Origen wrote in defence of his own 
 orthodoxy. Cyprian mentions him {Ep. 50) 
 as having, with Donatus bp. of Carthage, 
 written a letter severely censuring one Pri- 
 vatus, an heretical bp. of Lambaesa in 
 Numidia, who had been condemned by a synod 
 of go bishops at Lambaesa for " many and 
 grievous faults." Nothing more is known 
 about Fabianus with certainty. Great doubt 
 rests on the story (accepted by Andreas du 
 Chesne, in V'it. Pontif., and in the main by 
 the liollandists) of his having been the founder 
 of the seven Gallic churches of Toulouse, Aries, 
 Tours, Paris, Narbonne, Clermont, Limoges ; 
 to which he is said to have sent respectively 
 Saturninus, Trophimus, Gratianus, Diunysius, 
 Paulus, -Astremonius, and Martialis as mis- 
 sionary bishops. The story is absent from 
 early records, and is disputable also on other 
 grounds. Still more improbable is the story, 
 accepted by the Bollandists and Baronius, and 
 resting mainly on the authority of the Acts of 
 St. Pontius, that the emperor Philip and his 
 son became Christians, and were baptized by 
 Fabianus. [Philippvs (5).] Three spurious 
 decretals are attributed to Fabianus. There 
 are also ten decreta assigned to him by Gratian 
 and others, on matters of discipline, [j.b — v.l 
 Fabiola (1), a noble Roman lady, a friend 
 of St. Jerome, who wrote for her two disser- 
 tations (Ep. Ixiv. and Ixxviii. ed. Vail.) on the 
 dress of the high priest, and on the stations of 
 the Israelites in the desert ; and also a memoir 
 of her in his touching letter to Occanus (Ep. 
 Ixxvii. ed. Vail.) in the vear of her death, 300- 
 Thierrv (St. Jerome, ii. 11) has worked up the 
 intimations about her into an interesting and 
 dramatic storv. She was descended from 
 Julius Maximus and extremely wealthy; a 
 woman of a livelv and passionate nature, 
 married to a man whose vires romi>elled ht-r 
 to divorce him. She then ai repte<l a seconil 
 husband, the first being still alive. It is prob- 
 able that this step separated her from Paula 
 and the other friends of Jerome, and from 
 church connnunion, and may account for the 
 fact that we hear nothing of her during 
 Jerome's stay at Rome. Aft<r the death of 
 her second htisband she voluntarily went 
 through a public penance. Having publicly 
 renewed her communion with the church, she 
 sold all her possessions, and determined to 
 administer the vast sums thus acnuired for the 
 good of the poor. She supported monasteries 
 
362 
 
 FAUSTUS 
 
 in various parts of Italy and the adjacent 
 islands, and joined Pammachius in the insti- 
 tution of a hospital {I'ocoKO/j.floi'), where she 
 gathered in the sick and outcasts, and tended 
 them with her own hands. In 395 she 
 suddenly appeared at Bethlehem, making the 
 journey with her kinsman Oceanus. Several 
 causes prevented Bethlehem from becoming 
 her home. The Origenistic strife divided 
 Jerome and his friends from Rufinus and 
 Melania, and the new-comers did not escape 
 the discord. Oceanus warmly espoused the 
 side of Jerome ; Fabiola seems to have stood 
 aloof. But efforts were made, if we may 
 believe Jerome {coni. Ruf. iii. 14), to draw 
 them into the camp of the adversary. Letters 
 in which Rufinus was praised, fraudulently 
 taken from the cell of Jerome's friend Euse- 
 bius, were found in the rooms of Fabiola and 
 Oceanus. But this proceeding failed to cause 
 a breach between Fabiola and Jerome. 
 Jerome bears witness to the earnestness with 
 which she attached herself to his teaching. 
 The two treatises above mentioned are the 
 results of her importunity (Ep. xiv. ed. Vail.). 
 
 Jerome was seeking a suitable dwelling-place 
 for her, and engaged in writing his treatise on 
 the mystical meaning of the high priest's 
 garments, when the inroad of the Huns caused 
 a panic in Palestine. Jerome and his friends 
 hurried to the sea-coast at Joppa, and had 
 hired vessels for flight, when the Huns aban- 
 doned their purpose and turned back. Jer- 
 ome, with Paula and F;ustochium, returned 
 to Bethlehem ; but Fabiola went on to Rome. 
 
 The last three years of her life were occupied 
 with incessant activity in good works. In 
 conjunction with Pammachius she instituted 
 at Portus a hospice (xenodochium), perhaps 
 taking her model from that established by 
 Jerome at Bethlehem ; and it was so success- 
 ful that, as Jerome says, in one year it become 
 known from Parthia to Britain. But to the 
 last her disposition was restless. She found 
 Rome and Italy too small for her charities, 
 and was purposing some long journey or 
 change of habitation when death overtook her 
 A.D. 399. Her funeral was celebrated as a 
 Christian triumph. The streets were crowded, 
 the hallelujahs reached the golden roof of the 
 temples. Jerome's book on the 42 stations 
 (mansiones) of the Israelites in the desert was 
 dedicated to her memory. [w.h.f.] 
 
 Faustus (11), sometimes called " the 
 Breton," from having been born in Brittany, 
 or (as Tillemont thinks) in Britain, but more 
 generally known as Faustus of Riez from the 
 name of his see. Born towards the close of 
 the 4th cent., he may have lost his father while 
 he was young, for we only hear of his mother, 
 whose fervid piety made a great impression 
 on all who saw her. Faustus studied Greek 
 philosophy, but in a Christian spirit ; mas- 
 tered the principles of rhetoric, and may have 
 pleaded for a time at the bar. 
 
 While still youthful (probably c. 426 or 
 a little later) he entered the famous mon- 
 astery of Lerins, then presided over by St. 
 Maximus. Here he became a thorough 
 ascetic and a great student of Holy Scripture, 
 without, however, giving up his philosophic 
 pursuits. Here he probably acquired the 
 reputation, assigned to him by Gennadius, of 
 
 FAUSTUS 
 
 an illustrious extempore preacher. He be- 
 came a presbyter, and c. 432 or 433 succeeded 
 Maximus as abbat of Lerins. His tenure 
 was marked by a dispute with his diocesan 
 Theodore, bp. of Frejus, concerning their 
 respective rights. The third council of Aries 
 was convened by Ravennius, bp. of Aries, for 
 the sole purpose of settling this controversy. 
 The decision left considerable ecclesiastical 
 power in the hands of the abbat. The epistle 
 of Faustus to a deacon named Gratus (al. 
 Gratius or Gregorius), who was heretical on the 
 union of the two natures in the Person of 
 Christ, belongs also to this period. 
 
 Faustus next succeeded St. Maximus in the 
 episcopate of Riez in Provence. Baronius 
 places this as late as 472, but Tillemont 
 (Mem. vi. p. 775) as early as 462 or even 456. 
 Faustus continued as bishop the stern self- 
 discipline which he had practised as monk and 
 abbat. He often retired to Lerins, becoming 
 known throughout and beyond his diocese as 
 one who gave succour to those sick whether 
 in body or mind. He seems to have taken a 
 stern view of late repentances, like those so 
 prevalent at an earlier period in the church 
 of N. Africa. In the councils of Aries and of 
 Lyons a presbyter named Lucidus, accused 
 of having taught fatalism through misunder- 
 standing Augustine, was induced to retract ; 
 and Leontius, bp. of Aries, invited Faustus to 
 compose a treatise on grace and free choice. 
 
 Faustus appears from Sidonius to have had 
 some share in the treaty of 475 between the 
 emperor Nepos and Euric king of the Visi- 
 goths, which Tillemont and Gibbon agree in 
 regarding as discreditable to the Roman 
 empire. It wrested Auvergne and subse- 
 quently Provence from an orthodox sovereign, 
 and gave them to an Arian. This was 
 unfortunate for Faustus, who c. 481 was 
 banished, probably because of his writings 
 against Arianism. His banishment is natur- 
 ally attributed to king Euric, on whose death 
 in 483 he returned to Riez. His life was 
 prolonged until at least a.d. 492, possibly for 
 some years later. 
 
 His writings have not come down to us in 
 a complete and satisfactory condition. The 
 following are still accessible : — 
 
 (i) Professio Fidei. — He opens with a severe 
 attack on the teaching of Pelagius as heretical, 
 but expresses a fear of the opposite extreme, 
 of such a denial of man's power as a free agent 
 as would virtually amount to fatalism. 
 
 (2) Epistolaad Lucidum Presbyterum. — Here, 
 too, he anathematizes the error of Pelagius ; 
 but also any who shall have declared that 
 Christ did not die for all men, or willeth not 
 that all should be saved. 
 
 (3) De Gratia Dei et Humanae Mentis libera 
 Arbitrio. — After again censuring Pelagius, the 
 writer argues strongly on behalf of the need of 
 human endeavour and co-operation with the 
 Divine aid. In his interpretation of passages 
 of Holy Scripture {e.g. Exod. iv. 21, vii. 13 ; 
 Rom. ix. 11-26) which favour most Augus- 
 tinianism, he is most extreme and least success- 
 ful. Many passages might almost have come 
 from the pen of some Arminian controversial- 
 ist at the synod of Dort. In cap. x. of bk. ii., 
 which is entitled Gentes Deum Naturaliter 
 Sapuisse, Faustus calls attention to the Ian- 
 
FELICISSIMUS 
 
 guage of Maniel towards N'clnicliadnozzar and 
 his censure of Belshazzar, as a heathen recogni- 
 tion of God (Dan. iv. and v.). He also appeals 
 for the same purpose to the first chapter of 
 Jonah, the repentance of the Ninevites (Jon. 
 iii.) and the language of Jeremiah (xviii. 7-10). 
 Perhaps the famous expression in the apology 
 of Tertullian, O testimonium animae naturaliter 
 Christianae, might be considered to favour the 
 view of heathendom here taken by Faustus. 
 
 (4) Ad Monachos Scrmo. — The tone of this 
 short letter resembles that of his other 
 writings. He refers to excommunication as 
 a terrible weapon only to be used in the last 
 resort. It is sad to see monks go back to the 
 world, especially if. after doing so, they retain 
 their monastic dress. As usual, he is energetic 
 in his appeals to the human element in religion. 
 " Use your will. Resist the devil. Cherish all 
 graces, especially obedience and humility." 
 
 (5) DeRatione Fidei Catholicae. — Theformer 
 part is a brief statement of the case against 
 Arianism. It explains the distinction between 
 Persona and Xatura in reference to our Lord's 
 Incarnation, and appears to be addressed to 
 an orthodox but perplexed friend, whom the 
 author treats as a superior. The second 
 portion is metaphysical, and discusses the 
 nature of the soul, which Faustus seems to 
 pronounce material. Claudius Mamertus, in 
 his de Statu Animae, wrote against Faustus 
 on this point. F'austus may, however, not 
 have meant to do more than draw a marked 
 distinction between the Creator and the 
 creature ; arguing, as he does, nihil credendum 
 incorporeum praeter Deum. 
 
 (6) Homilia de S. Maximi Laudibus. — A 
 eulogy of his predecessor. 
 
 I7) Epislolae. — Two have already been 
 described. The other 17 epistles touch upon 
 problems of metaphysics and theology. 
 
 Faustus was of unimpeachably good char- 
 acter : of an earnest, active, ascetic life ; 
 orthodox on the central doctrine of the 
 Christian faith and suffering exile for it as a 
 confessor ; but stigmatized as a semi- Pelagian, 
 and consequently by manv authorities, both 
 ancient and modern, denied the title of saint. 
 But his own flock at Riez. deeply moved by 
 his life and preaching, and warmlv attached 
 to his memory, insisted on giving him a local 
 canonization as Sanctus Faustus Reiensis ; 
 they erected a basilica, dedicated in his name, 
 and kept Jan. 18 as his festival. The first 
 complete ed. of his works was pub. by A. 
 Engelbrecht in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. vol. 
 xxi. ; cf. other publications of Engelbrecht on 
 the same subject. [j.o.c.] 
 
 FeliclSSlmus (1), deacon of Carthage, whom 
 N'ovatus associated with himself in the man- 
 agement of a district called Mons (Cyp. Ep. 
 41). He was the chief agent {signifer sedi- 
 tionis, Ep. 50) of the anti-Cvprianic partv, 
 which combined the five presbyters originally 
 opposed to Cyprian's election with the later- 
 formed party for the easv readmission of the 
 lapsed {Epp. 43, 43). Cyprian {Ep. 52) de- 
 finitely states that Felicissimus had been, when 
 the persecution arose, on the point of being 
 tried before the presbytery on charges of 
 homicidal cruelty to his father and wife. Like 
 other African and Spanish deacons (Neander, 
 vol. i. p. 324, ed. Bohn), he acquired influence 
 
 FELICITAS 
 
 303 
 
 through his .idministr.ilii'H of churcii property 
 and was able to threaten with rxc<inuiumira> 
 tion any who accepted rtlirf or ofTuc from 
 Cyprian's commissioners. The latter rxrom- 
 municated him (Ep. 42) with Cyprian's consent. 
 The mild resolution of the council of j^j, 
 making easy the readmissi<>n of the lapsed on 
 earnest repentance [CvPRiANrs], destroyed hi» 
 locus standi. The party then cn.ilcsced with 
 that of pRivATi'S (2), wiio consecrated F<>rtu- 
 natus anti-bishop; and Fclicissinuis sailed for 
 Rome to conciliate or intimidate Curnelius into 
 recognizing him {Ep. y}). Failing here, the 
 partv melted quietly awav. [f.w.b.i 
 
 Felicitas (1), commemorated on Nov. 23 ; 
 martvr at Rome with her seven sons, under 
 .Antoninus Pius, and, according to their Acts, 
 at his personal command, Publius being pre- 
 fect of the city, c. a.d. iso. It is almost 
 certain that there was no authorized persecu- 
 tion under Antoninis Pus, but public 
 I calamities stirred up the mob to seek for the 
 I favour of the gods bv shedding Christian 
 blood (Julii Capitolini, \'ita Aninnint Pti, c.q). 
 Doubtless, in some stich way, Feliritas and her 
 children suffered. In her Acts Publius the 
 Prefect is represented as conmianded by 
 Antoninus to compel her to sacrifice, but in 
 vain, though he appeals to her maternal 
 affection as well as her fears. He then calls 
 upon each of her sons, Januarius, Felix, 
 Philippus, Svlvanus, Alexander, Vitalis, Mar- 
 tialis, with a similar want of success, the 
 mother exhorting them, " Behold, my sons, 
 heaven, and look upwards, whence you expect 
 Christ with His saints." The prefect, having 
 tortured some of them, reported to the 
 emperor, at whose command they were be- 
 headed. Their martyrdom is commemorated 
 by Gregory the Great, in Horn. 3 super Evang. 
 where, preaching in a chtirch dedicated to her, 
 he lauds Felicitas as " Plus quam martyr quae 
 septem pignoribus ad regnum praemissis, 
 toties ante sc mortua est. Ad poenas prima 
 venit sed pervenit octava " {Mart. Vet. Rom. 
 Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). [o.t.s.) 
 
 Felicitas (2), Mar. 7 ; martyr at Carthage 
 with IVrpetua, Revocatus, Saturninus, and 
 Secundinus, all catechumens, and baptized 
 after their arrest. Felicitas and her com- 
 panions having been interrogated by Hila- 
 rianus, the proconsul, and remaining steadfast, 
 were condemned to be thrown to the beasts 
 on the anniversary of the young (ieta's 
 accession. Felicitas, being in the eighth 
 month of her pregnancy, and the law not 
 permitting women in fier condition to be 
 executed, was greatlv distressed at the delay 
 of her martvrdom. Prayer was therefore 
 made that God might grant her an earlier 
 deliverv, and this accordingly took place a 
 few davs after. While the pangs of labour 
 were upon her, the jailer, hearing some ex- 
 clamations of pain, said, " If thy present 
 sufferings are so great, what wilt thon do when 
 thou art thrown to the wild beasts ? This 
 thou didst not consider when thou refuscdst 
 to sacrifice." Whereupon she answered, 
 " What I now suffer I suffer myself, but then 
 there will be another Who will sufier for me 
 because I also shall suffer f«jr Him." They 
 I were all put to death together in a. p. 202 or 
 I 203, during the reign of Sevcrus, whose latter 
 
364 
 
 FELIX I. 
 
 years were marked by a very rigorous perse- 
 cution (Ael. Spart. Sever. Imp. § 27 in Hist. 
 August. Scriptt.). Few martyrdoms are 
 better attested than this. The ancient 
 Roman calendar, pub. by Bucherius, and 
 dating from c. 360, mentions only three 
 African martyrs, viz. Felicitas, Perpetua, and 
 Cyprian. Their names are in the canon of the 
 Roman Mass, which mentions none but really 
 primitive martyrs. Their martyrdom is 
 mentioned byTertuUian in de Anima, Iv., and 
 treated at length in three sermons (280, 281, 
 282) by St. Augustine, while their burial at 
 Carthage, in the Basilica Major, is asserted by 
 Victor Vitensis, lib. i. de Pers. Vandal. There 
 are three texts of these Acts — the original Lat. 
 text, an ancient Gk. version, and a shorter Lat. 
 text, probably an excerpt from the Gk. version. 
 For all three texts see the ed. of Dean J. A. 
 Robinson in Texts and Studies, i. 2 ; cf. also 
 von Gebhardt's Acta. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Felix (1) I., bp. of Rome, probably from 
 Jan. 5, 269, to Dec. 30, 274, in the reigns of 
 Claudius and Aurelian. The Liberian Cata- 
 logue (354) names the consuls of the years 
 above mentioned as those contemporary with 
 his accession and death, and gives 5 years, 11 
 months, and 25 days as the duration of his 
 episcopate ; while the Liberian Depositio 
 Episcoporum gives Dec. 30 as the date of his 
 death. Later and less trustworthy author- 
 ities, including the Liber Pontificalis, differ as 
 to the date and duration of his episcopate. 
 He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint 
 and martyr, his day being May 30. His 
 martyrdom is asserted, not only in the later 
 editions of the Liber Pontificalis, but also in 
 the early recension of 530, known as the 
 Felician Catalogue. Notwithstanding this 
 testimony, his martyrdom seems inconsistent 
 with the silence of the Liberian Catalogue, and 
 with his name appearing in the Depositio 
 Episcoporum, not the Depositio Martyrum of 
 the same date. 
 
 Nothing is known with certainty of his acts, 
 except the part he took in the deposition of 
 Paul of Samosata from the see of Antioch. 
 A synod at Antioch (a.d. 290) having deposed 
 this heretical bishop and appointed Domnus 
 in his place, announced these facts in letters 
 addressed to Maximus and Dionysius, bps. of 
 Alexandria and Rome, and to other Catholic 
 bishops. Felix, who had in the meantime 
 succeeded Dionysius, addressed a letter on the 
 subject to Maximus and to the clergy of An- 
 tioch, fragments of which are preserved in the 
 Apologeticus of C\'ril of Alexandria, and in the 
 Acts of the council of Ephesus, and which is 
 also alluded to by Marius Mercator, and by 
 Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium ; cf . 
 Harnack, Gesch. der alt. Ch. Lit. i. 659. Three 
 decretals, undoubtedly spurious, are assigned 
 to him (Harduin, Concil.). [J-b.] 
 
 Follx (2) II., bp. of Rome after the exile of 
 pope Liberius (a.d. 355). He has a place in 
 the Roman calendar as a saint and martyr, 
 and in the Pontifical and in the Acts of 
 St. Felix and St. Eusebius as a legitimately 
 elected and orthodox pope, persecuted by the 
 emperor and the Arian faction. Contem- 
 porary and other ancient writers (Faustus and 
 Marcellinus, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Ru- 
 finus, Sozomen, and Theodoret) linanimouslv 
 
 FELIX II. 
 
 represent him, on the contrary, as an inter- 
 loper placed in the see violently and irregularly 
 by the emperor and the Arians, and do not 
 allude to his martyrdom. The following is the 
 account given by Marcellinus and Faustus, 
 two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of 
 Rome, who must have had good opportunity 
 of knowing the truth. It occurs in the preface 
 to their Libellus Preciim addressed to the 
 emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arca- 
 dius during the pontificate of Damasus, who 
 succeeded Liberius, and by whom the writers 
 complain of being persecuted. Immediately 
 on the banishment of Liberius all the clergy, 
 including the archdeacon Felix, swore to ac- 
 cept no other bishop during the life of the 
 exiled pope. Notwithstanding, the clergy 
 afterwards ordained this Felix, though the 
 people were displeased and abstained from 
 taking part. Damasus, pope after Liberius, 
 was among his perjured supporters. In 357 
 the emperor visited Rome, and, being solicited 
 by the people for the return of Liberius, 
 consented on condition of his complying with 
 the imperial requirements, but with the 
 intention of his ruling the church jointly with 
 Felix. In the third year Liberius returned, 
 and the people met him with joy. Felix was 
 driven from the city, but soon after, at the 
 instigation of the clergy who had perjured 
 themselves in his election, burst into it again, 
 taking his position in the basilica of Julius 
 beyond the Tiber. The faithful and the 
 nobles again expelled him with great ignominy. 
 After 8 years, during the consulship of Valeii- 
 tinianus and Valens {i.e. a.d. 365), on the loth 
 of the Calends of Dec. (Nov. 22), Felix died, 
 leaving Liberius without a rival as bp. of 
 Rome till his own death on the 8th of the 
 Calends of Oct. (Sept. 24), 366. The other 
 writers mentioned tell us that the election 
 and consecration of Felix took place in the 
 imperial palace, since the people debarred 
 the Arians from their churches ; that three of 
 the emperor's eunuchs represented the people, 
 the consecrators being three heretical bishops, 
 Epictetus of Centumellae, Acacius of Caesarea, 
 and Basil of Ancyra ; and it was only the 
 Arian section of the clergy, though apparently 
 a large one, that supported Felix. 
 
 A very different account is given in the 
 Pontifical and in the Acts of St. Felix and 
 of St. Eusebius ; the former account is un- 
 doubtedly to be preferred. But though Felix, 
 as well as Liberius, has obtained a place in 
 the list of lawful popes, and has even been 
 canonized, it is thus evident that his claim 
 is more than doubtful. Accordingly, Augus- 
 tine, Optatus, and Eutychius (as did 
 Athanasius, Jerome, and Rulinus) exclude 
 him from their lists of popes. In the Roman 
 church, however, his claim to the position 
 appears to have remained unquestioned till the 
 14th cent., when, an emendation of the Roman 
 Mart\Tology having been undertaken in 1582, 
 under pope Gregory XIII., the question was 
 raised and discussed. Baronius at first op- 
 posed the claims of Felix ; a cardinal, Sanc- 
 torius, defended them. The question was 
 decided by the accidental discovery, in the 
 church of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the 
 forum, of a coffin bearing the inscription, 
 " Corpus S. Felicis papae et martyris, qui 
 
PEUx m. 
 
 damnavit Constantium." In the face of this, 
 Baronius was convinced, and retracted all he 
 had written (Baron, ad Liberium, c. Ixii.). 
 Accordingly Felix retained his place in the 
 Martyrology, though the title of pope was 
 afterwards expunged from the oratio for his 
 day in the breviary. What became of the 
 inscribed slab is not known, and in the ab- 
 sence of any knowledge of its date, its 
 testimonv is valueless. Tj.b — v.] 
 
 Felix (3) III. (otherwise II.), bp. of Rome 
 from .Mar. 483 to Feb. 492. The clergy having 
 met in St. Peter's church to elect a successor to 
 Simplicius, Basilius (Praefectus Praetorio and 
 Patrician) interposed in the name of his master 
 Odoacer the Herulian, who since 476 had ruled 
 the West as king of Italy, alleging, as a fact 
 known to his hearers, that Simplicius before 
 his death had conjured the king to allow no 
 election of a successor without his consent ; 
 and this to avoid the turmoil and detriment 
 to the church that was likely to ensue. Basilius 
 expressing surprise that the clergy, knowing 
 this, had taken independent action, proceeded 
 in the king's name to propound a law pro- 
 hibiting the pope then to be elected and all 
 future popes from alienating any farms or 
 other church possessions ; declaring invalid 
 the titles of any who might thus receive 
 ecclesiastical property ; requiring the resti- 
 tution of alienated farms with their proceeds, 
 or the sale for religious uses of gold, silver, 
 jewels, and clothes unfitted for church pur- 
 poses ; and subjecting all donors and recip- 
 ients of church property to anathema. The 
 assembled clergy seem to have assented to 
 this, and to have been then allowed to proceed 
 with their election, their choice falling on 
 Caelius Felix, the son of a presbyter also 
 called Felix. The Roman synod under pope 
 Symmachus (498-514) protested against this 
 interference of laymen with the election of a 
 pope, and Symmachus consented to declare it 
 void, but required the re-enaction of the law 
 against the alienation of farms, etc. 
 
 The pontificate of this Felix was chiefly 
 remarkable for the commencement of the 
 schism of 35 years between Rome and the 
 Eastern patriarchates. In 451 the council 
 of Chalcedon had condemned the Monophy- 
 site or Eutychian heresy, adopting the de- 
 finition of faith contained in the famous 
 letter of pope Leo I. to Flavian, patriarch 
 of Constantinople. The council had also 
 enacted canons of discipline, the Qth and 
 the 17th giving to the patriarchal throne of 
 Constantinople the final determination of 
 causes against metropolitans in the East ; and 
 the 28th assigning to the most holy throne of 
 Constantinople, or new Rome, equal privileges 
 with the elder Rome in ecclesiastical matters, 
 as being the second after her, with the right 
 of ordaining metropolitans in the Pontic and 
 Asian and Thracian dioceses, and bishops 
 among the barbarians therein. This last canon 
 the legates of pope Leo had protested against 
 at the council, and Leo himself had afterwards 
 repudiated it, as contrary (so he expressed 
 himself) to the Nicene canons, and an undue 
 usurpation on the part of Constantinople. In 
 connexion with the heresy condemned by the 
 council of Chalcedon and with the privileges 
 assigned by its canons to Constantinople, the 
 
 FELIX in. 
 
 305 
 
 schism between the ICist .iiul West ensued 
 
 I durmg the pontificate t.f Felix. 
 
 The condemnation of Monophvsitism at 
 Chalcedon by no means silenced its abettors, 
 who in the church of .\lcxandria were cspeti- 
 ally strong and resolute. They supported 
 I'eter Mongus as patriarch ; the orthiniox 
 supporting first Timotheus Solofacialus. and 
 on his death Jt)hn Talaia. [Acacids (7); 
 JOAN.VES (11).] Felix, in a synod at kome. 
 renewed his predecessor's excommunication <>f 
 Peter Mongus, addressed letters to the emperor 
 Zenoand .\cacius, patriarch of Constantinople. 
 Acacius is urged to renounce Peter Monnus. 
 and induce the emperor to do the same. Felix 
 sent also a formal summons for Acacius to 
 appear at Rome and answer the charge of 
 having disregarded the injunctions of Sim- 
 plicius. The letter to Zeno implored the 
 emperor to refrain from rending the seamless 
 garment of Christ, and to renew his support of 
 the one faith which had raised him to the 
 imperial dignity, the faith of the Roman 
 church, against which the Lord had said that 
 the gates of hell should not prevail ; but both 
 the emperor and .Acacius c>intiinied to support 
 Peter. The papal legates having returned to 
 Rome, Felix convened a synod of 67 Italian 
 bishops, in which he renewed the excommu- 
 nication of Peter Mongus, and published an 
 irrevocable sentence of deposition and ex- 
 communication against Acacius himself. The 
 sentence of excommunication was served on 
 Acacius by one of those zealous champions of 
 Felix, the Sleepless Monks (" Acoemetae "), 
 who fastened it to the robe of the patriarch 
 when about to officiate in church. The 
 patriarch discovered it, but proceeded with the 
 service, and then, in a calm, clear voice, 
 ordered the name of Felix, bp. of Rome, to 
 be erased from the diptychs t)f the church. 
 This was on Aug. i, 484. Thus the two chief 
 bishops of Christendom stood mutually 
 excommunicated, and the first great schism 
 between the East and West began. The 
 emperor and the great majority of the prelates 
 of the East supported Acacius ; and thus the 
 patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and 
 Jerusalem, as well as Constantinople, remained 
 out of communion with Rome. 
 
 Another noted Monophysite, called Peter 
 Fullo (i.e. the Fuller), had excited the orthodox 
 zeal of Felix, patriarch of Antioch. He had 
 added to theTersanctus the clause, " Who wast 
 crucified for us," and was charged with thus 
 attributing passibility to the Godhead. To 
 him, therefore, from a Roman symxl, Felix 
 addressed a synodical letter in which, in the 
 name of Peter, the chief of the apostles and 
 
 1 the head of all sees, he pronounced his de- 
 position and excommunication. 
 
 j In 489 .Acacius died, and was succeeded by 
 
 I Flavitas, or Fravitas. Felix, on hearing of 
 the vacancy of the see, wrote t(J Thalasius, an 
 archimandrite of Constantinople, warning him 
 and his monks (who appear throughout to 
 have espoused the cause of Rome) to commu- 
 nicate with no successor till Rome had been 
 fully apprised of all proceedings and had 
 declared the church of Constantinople restored 
 to its communion. Flavitas having died 
 within four months after his accession, the 
 
 popes' letter to him was received by hi* 
 
366 
 
 FELIX IV. 
 
 successor Euphemius. Felix, though satisfied 
 as to the faith of Euphemius, insisted on the 
 erasure of the name of Acacius, which condi- 
 tion being demurred to, the breach continued. 
 
 After his rupture with the East, Felix helped 
 to reconstitute the African church, which had 
 cruelly suffered at the hands of the Arian 
 Vandals. This persecution, which had raged 
 under king Hunneric, who died in 484, ceased 
 under his successor Gundamund, when a 
 number of apostates sought readmission to 
 catholic communion. A synod of 38 bishops 
 held at Rome under Felix in 488 issued a 
 synodical letter dated Mar. 15, laying down 
 terms of readmission. Felix died Feb. 24, 492. 
 
 His extant works are 15 letters {Migne, 
 Pair. Lat. Iviii. 893 ff.). Gratian gives also a 
 decretum as his, to the effect that the royal 
 will should yield to priests in ecclesiastical 
 causes. The ancient authorities for his Life 
 are his letters and those of his successor 
 Gelasius, the Breviarium of Liberatus Diaconus, 
 and the Histories of Evagrius and Nicephorus 
 Callistus. [j.B — Y.] 
 
 Felix (4) IV. (otherwise III. ; see Felix II.), 
 bp. of Rome (July 526 — Oct. 530) during 4 
 years, 2 months, and 14 or 18 days (Anastas. 
 Biblioth.). The same authority states that he 
 built the basilica of SS. Cosmas and Damian, 
 restored that of the martyr St. Saturninus, and 
 was buried, on Oct. 12, in the basilica of St. 
 Peter. There is little to be told of him, except 
 the circumstances of his appointment. His 
 predecessor, John I., had died in prison at 
 Ravenna, into which he had been thrown by 
 Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who then ruled the 
 West as king of Italy. Theodoric took the 
 unprecedented step of appointing his successor 
 on his own authority, without waiting for the 
 customary election by clergy and people. 
 This high-handed proceeding seems to have 
 been at length acquiesced in. No subsequent 
 king or emperor laid claim to a like power of 
 interference in the appointment of popes, 
 though the confirmation of elections by the 
 civil power was insisted on, and continued till 
 the election of Zachary in 752, when the con- 
 firmation of the exarch of Ravenna, as repre- 
 senting the Eastern emperor, was first dis- 
 pensed with under the Carlovingian empire. 
 The same freedom of election by clergy and 
 people continued to be the theory till the 
 appointment was given to the College of 
 Cardinals during the pontificate of Nicholas II., 
 A.D. 1059. For previous interventions of the 
 civil power see Bonifaciiis II., Eulalius (1), 
 Felix III., Svmmachus, Laurentius (10). 
 The only further event known as marking the 
 pontificate of Felix is the issue of an edict by 
 Athalaric, the successor of Theodoric, requir- 
 ing all civil suits against ecclesiastics to be 
 preferred before the bishop and not the secular 
 judge. The edict was called forth by Felix, 
 with the Roman clergy, having complained to 
 the king that the Goths had invaded the rights 
 of churches and dragged the clergy before lay 
 tribunals. It extended only to the Roman 
 clergy, "in honour of the Apostolic see" 
 (Cassiodor. lib. 8, c. 24). Justinian I. after- 
 wards extended it, though with an appeal to 
 the civil tribunal, to all ecclesiastics (Justin. 
 Novel. S3, 123). 
 
 For this pope's letter, esp. letter to Caesarius 
 
 FELIX. 
 
 of Aries, requiring probation from candidates 
 for the priesthood before their ordination, 
 see Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixv., An important 
 decretum of this pope was made known by 
 Amelli in 1882, and edited by Mommsen in 
 Neuer Archiv fur alter deulsch. Gesch. Kunde, 
 1886. See Duchesne, La Succession du pape 
 Felix IV. (Rome, 1883). [j.b— v.] 
 
 Felix (26) L, bp. of Aptunga, in proconsular 
 Africa. Felix was one of those who laid 
 hands on Caecilian as bp. of Carthage, if not 
 the sole officiating bishop, a.d. 311 (Aug. 
 Brevie. Coll. iii. 14, 26; 16, 29). The Donatist 
 party, having failed in the Court of Inquiry 
 at Rome, under Melchiades, Oct. 2, 313, to 
 establish their case against Caecilian, turned 
 their attack on Felix, whom they sought to 
 convict of the infamous crime of " tradition " 
 in the persecution of Maximus, a.d. 303. The 
 emperor gave orders to Aelianus, the procon- 
 sul of Africa, to hold an inquiry on the spot, 
 which took place on Feb. 15, 314 (Aug. Post. 
 Coll. 38, 56 ; Ep. 43, 3-14 ; 88 ; c. Cresc. iii. 
 61) at Carthage, in the presence of many who 
 had held municipal offices at the time of the 
 persecution. In vain the prosecution relied 
 on a chain of fraudulent evidence elaborately 
 concocted. The proconsul pronounced the 
 complete acquittal of Felix, which was con- 
 firmed by the emperor, and repeated in a 
 letter to Verinus, or Valerius, the vicar of 
 Africa, a.d. 321. The whole case was brought 
 up again at Carth. Conf., a.d. 411, when 
 Augustine argued that there was no doubt of 
 the completeness of the imperial decision. 
 Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 81, iv. 79 ; de Unic. Bapt. 
 28 ; Brev. Coll. 41, 42 ; Post. Coll. 56 ; Mon. 
 Vet. Don. iii. pp. 160-167 and 341-343, ed. 
 Oberthiir ; Bruns. Concil. i. 108 ; Routh, Rel. 
 Sacr. iv. 92. [h.w.p.] 
 
 Felix (174), bp. of Tubzoca (perhaps Thibaris 
 in Numidia). His story illustrates the first 
 edict of persecution issued by Diocletian in 
 Feb. 303, and the special severity with which 
 it was worked in the West under the emperor 
 Maximian. This edict did not authorize death 
 as a punishment, but simply prohibited the 
 assembly of Christians for religious worship ; 
 ordered the destruction of churches and sacred 
 documents, and authorized torture. Official 
 notice of its publication arrived at Tubzoca on 
 June 5, and the overseer of the city, Magnel- 
 lianus, summoned first the clergy and then 
 the bishop, and demanded the sacred writings. 
 Felix replied, " It is better that I should be 
 burned rather than the Holy Scriptures, since 
 it is better to obey God rather than man." 
 Three days were given him for reconsidera- 
 tion, during which time he was committed to 
 the private custody of Vincentius Celsinus, a 
 leading citizen. Upon his continued refusal 
 he was sent to the proconsul Anulinus at 
 Carthage, June 24. By him the bishop was 
 twice examined. With the edict there seems 
 to have been sent by Maximian the praetorian 
 prefect or commander of the emperor's guard, 
 to secure its due execution. To him, upon his 
 final refusal, Felix and his companions were 
 delivered for transporation into Italy, arriving 
 after four days' sail in Sicily. At Agrigentum, 
 Catana, Messana, and Taurominium they were 
 received with great honour by the Christians. 
 Thence they were carried by the prefect to 
 
FELIX OF NOLA 
 
 W'luisia, in Apulia, wlu-rc, having again callod 
 upon Felix to surrender the sacred writings, 
 he condemned him to death for disobedience. ' 
 Felix suffered by beheading, Aug. 30, on which j 
 day he is commemoratetl by Bede. There is 
 considerable confusion as to tletails in different ' 
 versions of the Acts, which dWchery and 
 Baluze have in vain endeavoured to remedy. I 
 .\[urtvr. ]'ft. Roman. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi ; 1 
 B.ironius, Annul, a.d. 302, cxvii.-cxxiii. ; 
 Ruin.irt, Ada Sinccra; Surius ; d'Acherii 
 S/iai/i'i,'. t. xii.634 ; Baluz. Miscell. t. ii. p. 77 ; 
 Tlllein. v. 202. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Felix (186) of Nola. [P.\ulinus (8).] 
 Felix 1212). [SciLLiTAN Martyrs.] 
 Firniilianus(l),St.,bp.ofCaesareainCappa- 
 docia, one of the greatest prelates of his time. 
 In 232 lie already occupied his see (Eus. vi. 
 26, 27), though Cave (Hist. i. p. 123) speaks 
 of 233 as the year of his elevation. When 
 Origen soon after left Egypt, Firmilian induced 
 him to visit Cappadocia ; subsequently he 
 paid Origen long visits in Judaea to advance 
 his own knowledge of theology (Eus. I.e.). 
 He urged Dionysius of Alexandria to attend 
 the councilof Antioch, held to repudiate Nova- 
 tianism (ib. vi. 46 ; cf. Routh, R. S. iii. 31). 
 
 In 256 he is addressed by Cyprian in a 
 letter now lost as to the Asiatic practice of 
 rebaptizing those baptized by heretics. In 
 his long reply (Cyp. Ep. 75) Firmilian describes 
 it as impossible to add much to the strength 
 of Cyprian's arguments. He is clear as to the 
 antiquity of the practice in Asia, which he 
 regards as ratified by the action of the council 
 of Iconium in the case of the Montanists. He 
 speaks of several meetings of the Cappadocian 
 bishops, one immediately before his writing. 
 Baronius, Labbe, and other Roman writers 
 have been anxious to prove that the baptismal 
 dispute originated with Firmilian and the 
 East, but the attempt is against the whole 
 tenor of Cyprianic correspondence as well as 
 the express statement of Eusebius (vii. 3). 
 To Firmilian the see of Jerusalem appears to 
 be the central see, so far as such an idea arises. 
 He presided at Antioch, a.d. 266, in the first 
 synod held to try Paul of Samosata, and visit- 
 ed Antioch twice on this business (Concil. 
 Antioch. contr. Paul. Samos. in Routh, R. S. 
 iii. 304; Eus. vii. 30). Imposed upon by 
 Paul's promises, he procured the postponement 
 of a decision against him. But when it was 
 necessary to convene another synod in 272, 
 Firmilian, who was to have again presided, 
 died on his journey, at Tarsus. To his 
 contemporaries his 40 years of influential 
 episcopate, his friendship with Origen and 
 Dionysius, the appeal to him of Cyprian, and 
 his censure of Stephanus might well make him 
 seem the most conspicuous figure of his time. 
 
 Routh (vol. iii. p. 149) points to him as one 
 of the oldest authorities who states with pre- 
 cision the anti-Pelagian doctrine. Basil {de 
 Spiritu Sancto, xxix.) speaks of his discourses 
 as early testimonies to the exactness of his 
 own doctrine, and quotes his agreement with 
 Cyprian on baptism in the epistle to Amphi- 
 lochius lEp. 188). [e.w.b.1 
 
 Flavlanus (4) I., bp. of Antioch, 381-404. 
 Born at .-Vntioch, of a distinguished family, he 
 was still very young when his father's death 
 left him heir of his considerable property. As 
 
 FLAVIANUS 
 
 807 
 
 bishop hi- continued to ..ccupv tin- (.iinilv 
 mansion at Antioch, whi< h he d.vtited to th«r 
 reception of the sick and distressed ^>l his no< k. 
 Chrysostoni, in his highly coloured oiiloRium 
 pronounced on receiving jiricst's orders at hi» 
 hands, records that ho was remarkable from 
 his earliest ve.irs for temiieraiice and contempt 
 of luxury, alth-uigh earlv deprived ..( parental 
 control and exposed to t.nipt.itiMiis in< ideiit 
 to youth, wealth, and good birth. The.KlMrrt 
 (//. E. ii. 24) relates that, when a half-con( ealed 
 Arianisni was triumjihing, Flavian, with his 
 friend Diodorus (afterwards bp. of Tarsus), 
 left his home and adopted the life of a solitary. 
 The necessities of the times soon recalled them 
 to Antioch, where as laymen thev kept alive 
 an orthodox remnant. I.eontius was then the 
 intruding bp. of Antioch, and, while a Eusc- 
 bian at heart, sought by temporizing to pre- 
 serve a hollow peace in his church. The 
 counsel of the orthodox bp. Eustathius. before 
 he was expelled frdii .Antioch (f. 328). was that 
 his adherents should maintain the unity of the 
 church and continue in communion with his 
 successors in the see ; but there was no small 
 risk of their being thus gradually absorbed by 
 the Eusebians and losing hold of the Catholic 
 faith. This danger was strenuously met by 
 Flavian and Diodorus. They rallied the faith- 
 ful about them, accustomed them to assemble 
 round the tombs of the martyrs, and exhorted 
 them to adhere steadfastly to the faith. They 
 are said byTheodoret to have revived the anti- 
 phonal chanting of the Psalms, which tradition 
 ascribed to Ignatius {ib. ii. 24 ; Socr. H. E. 
 vi. 8). I.eontius endeavoured to check the 
 growing influence of these gatherings by 
 causing them to be transferred from the 
 martyries without the walls to the chure hes of 
 the city, but this only increased their popu- 
 larity and strengthened the cause of ortho- 
 doxy. Flavian and Diodorus became all- 
 powerful at Antioch ; Leontius, being unable 
 to resist them, was compelled to retrace his 
 steps (Theod. ii. 24). 
 
 Leontius was succeeded by Eudoxiiis. then 
 by the excellent Meletius, who was depi sed, 
 and in 361 by Euzoius, the old comrade of 
 Arius. Euzoius was repudiated with horror 
 by all the orthodox. Those who had till now 
 remained in communion with the bishops re- 
 cognized by the state, separated themselves 
 and recognized Meletius as their l)isl)op. The 
 old Catholic body, however, who b..re the 
 name of Eustathians, would not submit to a 
 bishop, however (orthodox, consecrated by 
 Arians. and continued to worship apart from 
 their Meletian brethren, as well as from Euzo- 
 ius, having as leader Paulinus, a presbvter 
 highly esteemed by all parties. This schism 
 between two orthodox bodies caused much 
 pain to Athanasius and others. A council at 
 Alexandria, early in 362, wisely advised that 
 Paulinus and his flock should unite with 
 Meletius, who hail now retiirnetl from exile ; 
 but the precipitant y of I.uc ifer of Caitliari per- 
 petuated the schism by ordaining Paulinus 
 ' bishoj). The .Arian emperor Valens came to 
 I reside at .Antioch in June 370; and this was 
 j the signal for a violent persecution of the 
 I orthodox. .Meletius was banished a third 
 I time, and the duty of ministering to the 
 i faithful under their prolonged trials devol\ td 
 
368 FLAVIANUS I. 
 
 on Flavian and Diodorus. The Catholics, 
 having been deprived of their churches, took 
 refuge among ravines and caverns in the 
 abrupt mountain ranges overhanging the city. 
 Here they worshipped, exposed to the assaults 
 of a rude soldiery, by whom they were re- 
 peatedly dislodged. The persecution ceased 
 with the death of Valens in 378. The exiles 
 were recalled, and Meletius resumed charge of 
 his flock. His ofticial recognition as the 
 Catholic bp. of Antioch was more tardy. 
 Gratian had commanded that the churches 
 should be given up to prelates in communion 
 with Damasus, bp. of Rome, and that Arian 
 intruders should be expelled. But here were 
 two bishops with equal claims to orthodoxy, 
 Paulinus and Meletius, and a third, Vitaliaii, 
 who held Apollinarian views. Sapor, a high 
 military officer, to whom Gratian had com- 
 mitted the execution of the edict, was much 
 perplexed. Flavian convinced him that the 
 right lay with Meletius. The separation, 
 however, still continued. Paulinus declined 
 the proposal of Meletius that they should be 
 recognized as of equal authority and that the 
 survivor should be sole bishop. The Oriental 
 churches recognized Meletius, the West and 
 Egypt Paulinus {ib. v. 1-3). In 381 Flavian 
 accompanied Meletius to the council of 
 Constantinople, during the session of which 
 Meletius died. Gregory of Nazianzus entreat- 
 ed his brother-bishops to heal the schism by 
 recognizing Paulinus as orthodox bp. of 
 Antioch (Greg. Naz. de Vita Sac. v. 1572 seq. 
 p. 757). But this, however right in itself, 
 would have been a triumph for the Westerns. 
 The council was composed of Oriental bishops, 
 and, in spite of the remonstrances of Gregory, 
 Flavian was elected to succeed Meletius. 
 Flavian cannot be altogether excused for this 
 continuance of the schism ; and the less so if, 
 as Socrates (v. 5) and Sozomen (vii. 3, 11) 
 state, he was one of the six leading clergy of 
 Antioch who had sworn not to seek the 
 bishopric themselves at the death of Meletius 
 or Paulinus, but to acknowledge the survivor. 
 This charge, however, is rendered very doubt- 
 ful by the absence of reference to it in the 
 letters of Ambrose or any contemporary 
 documents published by adherents of Paulinus 
 during the controversy. Flavian was con- 
 secrated by Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius 
 of Beroea with the ratification of the council. 
 Paulinus remonstrated in vain (Theod. v. 23), 
 but his cause was maintained by Damasus and 
 the Western bishops and those of Egypt ; 
 while even at Antioch, though most of the 
 Meletians welcomed Flavian with joy (Chrys. 
 Horn, cum Preshyt. fuit ordinatus, § 4), some, 
 indignant at his breaking an engagement, real 
 or implied, separated from his communion 
 and joined Paulinus (Soz. vii. 11). The West 
 refused all intercourse with Flavian, and the 
 council at Aquileia in Sept. 381 wrote to ! 
 Theodosius in favour of Paulinus, and re- | 
 quested him to summon a council at Alex- [ 
 andria to decide that and other questions. 
 Theodosius acquiesced, but selected Rome. 
 The Eastern prelates declined to attend, and 
 held a synod of their own at Constantinople ; 
 in 382. Even here the bishops of Egypt, j 
 Cyprus, and Arabia recognized Paulinus, and i 
 demanded the banishment of Flavian, who was 
 
 FLAVIANUS I. 
 
 supported by the bishops of Palestine, Phoe- 
 nicia, and Syria (Socr. v. 10). A synodal letter 
 was, however, dispatched to Damasus and the 
 Western bishops, recognizing Flavian's con- 
 secration as legitimate (Theod. v. 9). Paulinus 
 himself attended the council at Rome, accom- 
 panied by Epiphanius and his ardent supporter 
 Jerome. At this council the West refused to 
 acknowledge Flavian as canonically elected. 
 It is said that they even excommunicated him 
 and his two consecrators (Soz. vii. 11). The 
 two rivals continued to exercise episcopal 
 functions for their respective flocks. Conse- 
 quently church discipline became impossible. 
 Early in his episcopate Flavian exercised his 
 authority against the Syrian sect of perfec- 
 tionists known as Euchites or ]\Jessalians, and to 
 make himself acquainted with their doctrines, 
 which it was their habit to conceal, he con- 
 descended to an unworthy act of deception. 
 
 In 386 Flavian ordained Chrysostom pres- 
 byter, and Chrysostom preached a eulogistic 
 inaugural discourse (Chrys. u.s. §§ 3, 4). The 
 sedition at Antioch and the destruction of 
 the Imperial Statues, 387, shewed Flavian at 
 his best. When the brief tit of popular mad- 
 ness was over and the Antiochenes awoke to 
 their danger, Flavian at their entreaty became 
 their advocate with the emperor, starting 
 immediately on his errand of mercy (Chrys. 
 de Statuts, iii. i, xxi. 3). The success of his 
 mission was complete. Though Paulinus died 
 in 388, the schism continued ; for on his death- 
 bed he had consecrated Evagrius, a presbyter 
 of his church, as his successor (Socr. v. 15 ; 
 Soz. vii. 15 ; Theod. v. 23). Theodosius sum- 
 moned Flavian to meet him at a synod at 
 Capua. Flavian excused himself as winter was 
 setting in, but promised to obey the emperor's 
 bidding in the spring (Theod. v. 23). Ambrose 
 i and the other leading Western prelates urged 
 Theodosius to compel Flavian to come to Rome 
 and submit to the judgment of the church. 
 Flavian replied to the emperor that if his 
 episcopal seat only was the object of attack, 
 he would prefer to resign it altogether. The 
 knot was before long cut by the death of 
 Evagrius. Flavian's influence prevented the 
 election of a successor. The Eustathians, 
 however, still refused to acknowledge Flavian, 
 and continued to hold their assemblies apart 
 (Soz. vii. 15, viii. 3 ; Socr. v. 15). This 
 separation lasted till the episcopate of 
 .Alexander, 414 or 415. The division between 
 Flavian and Egypt and the West was finally 
 healed by Chrysostom, who took the oppor- 
 tunity of the presence of Theophilus, patriarch 
 of Alexandria, at Constantinople for his con- 
 secration in 398, to induce him to become 
 reconciled with Flavian, and to join in 
 dispatching an embassy to Rome to supplicate 
 Siricius to recognize Flavian as canonical 
 bishop of Antioch. Their mission was entirely 
 successful (Socr. v. 15 ; Soz. viii. 3 ; Theod. 
 V. 23). To shew that all angry feeling had 
 ceased, and to conciliate his opponents, Flavian 
 put the names of Paulinus and Evagrius on 
 the diptychs (Cyril. Alex. Ep. 56, p. 203). 
 Flavian lived long enough to see the deposition 
 and exile of Chrysostom, against which he 
 protested with his last breath. His death 
 probably occurred in 404 (Pallad. Dial. p. 144 ; 
 Soz. viii. 24 ; Theophan. p. 68). He governed 
 
PLAVIANUS 
 
 the church of Antioch for 23 years ; and 
 Tillemont thinks it probable that he lived 
 to the age of 95. The Greek church com- 
 memorates him on Sept. 26. 
 
 He left behind certain homilies, of which a 
 few fragments are preserved. Theodoret, in 
 his Erauistfs, quotes i>ne on John i. 14 {Dial. i. 
 p. 46), another on St. John the Baptist {ih. 
 p. 66), on Easter, and the treachery of Judas 
 {Dial. iii. p. 250) or the Theophania, and a 
 passage from his commentary on St. Luke 
 (Dial. ii. p. 160). [e.v.I 
 
 Flavianus (8), i8th bp. of Constantinople, 
 between Proclus and Anatolius, for about two 
 or three years. He is described by Niceph- 
 orus as being at his election guardian of the 
 sacred vessels of the great church of Constan- 
 tinople, with a reputation for a heavenly life. 
 At the time of his consecration Theodosius II. 
 was staying at Chalcedon. Chrysaphius his 
 minister immediately plotted against the new 
 patriarch. Foiled in an attempt to extort a 
 present of gold to the emperor for acknow- 
 ledging his elevation, Chrysaphius, with the 
 empress Eudocia for an ally, planned two 
 methods of attack against Flavian — the direct 
 subversion of the authority of the emperor's 
 sister Pulcheria ; and the support of Eutyches, 
 to whom the archbishop was opposed. Pul- 
 cheria had devoted herself to a religious life ; 
 let the emperor order the prelate to ordain 
 her a deaconess. Flavian, receiving the 
 emperor's command to this effect, and beyond 
 measure grieved, sent a private message to 
 Pulcheria, who divined the scheme, and to 
 avoid a struggle retired to Hebdomum, where 
 for a time she led a private life (Theoph. 
 u. infr.). 
 
 Flavian having assembled a council of 40 
 bishops at Constantinople Nov. 8, 448, to 
 compose a difference between the metropolitan 
 bp. of Sardis and two bishops of his province, 
 Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, appeared and 
 presented his indictment against Eutyches. 
 The speech of Flavian remains, concluding 
 with this appeal to the bp. of Dorylaeum : 
 " Let your reverence condescend to visit him 
 and argue with him about the true faith, and 
 if he shall be found in very truth to err, then 
 he shall be called to our holy assembly, and 
 shall answer for himself." For the particulars 
 of this great controversy see Dioscorus and 
 Eutyches. When, on Aug. 8, 449, the Latro- 
 cinium assembled at Ephesus, Eutyches 
 violently attacked the archbishop. 
 
 On Aug. II, 449, Flavian expired at Hypepe 
 in Lydia from the effects of the barbarous 
 ill-usage which resulted from this attack. 
 When Pulcheria returned to power, after her 
 brother's death, she had Flavian's remains, 
 which had been buried obscurely, brought with 
 great pomp to Constantinople. It was more 
 like a triumph, says the chronicler, than a 
 funeral procession. 
 
 Among the documents which touch on the 
 career of Flavian are the reply of Petrus 
 Chrysologus, archbp. of Ravenna, to a circular 
 appeal of Eutyches, and various letters of 
 Theodoret. Leo wrote Flavian a beautiful 
 letter before hearing that he was dead. 
 
 Leo. Mag. Epp. 23, 26, 27, 28, 44 ; Facund, 
 Pro Trib. Capit. viii. 5 ; xii. 5 ; Flvagr. ii. 2. 
 etc. ; Liberatus Diac. Breviar. xi. xii. ; Soz. 
 
 FLAVIANUS n. 
 
 309 
 
 >lian. Chfonogr. pp. 84-88, 
 (w. - 
 
 H. F. ix. I : The. 
 
 etc.; Nil. ph. Constant, xiv. 47. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Flavianus (16) II., bp. of Anti<»ch. 408-512, 
 previ.iuslv a monk in the monastery of Til- 
 mognon, in CocKsyria (Ivvagr. H. E. iii. 32J, 
 and at tiie time of his consci-ration " aporri»i- 
 arius " or nuncio of the church of Antioch at 
 the court of Constantinople (Vict. Tiuiun. 
 Chron. ; Theoplian. Chronogr. p. I2i). Be- 
 fore his consecration Flavian passed for an 
 opponent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and on 
 his appointment he sent to annoimce the (act 
 to John Haemula, bp. of Alexandria, with 
 letters of commimion, and a request for the 
 same in return (Evagr. iii. 23). He sp<edily, 
 however, withdrew from intercourse with the 
 patriarchs of Alexandria, and joined the 
 opposite party, uniting with Elias of Jeru- 
 salem and Nlacedonius of Constantinople 
 (Liberat. c. 18, p. 12S). Flavian soon found 
 a bitter enemv in the turbulent Monophysite 
 Xenaias or Philoxenus, bp. of Hierapolis. On 
 Flavian's declaring for the c<iuncil of Chalce- 
 don, Xenaias denounced his patri.irch as a 
 concealed Nestorian. Flavian made no diffi- 
 culty in anathematizing Nestorius and his 
 doctrines. Xenaias demanded that he should 
 anathematize Diodorus, Theodore, Theodoret, 
 and others, as necessary to completely prove 
 that he was not a Nestorian. On his refusing, 
 -Xenaias stirred up against him the party of 
 Dioscorus in Egypt, and charged Flavian 
 before Anastasius with being a Nestorian 
 (Evagr. iii. 31 ; Theophan. p. 128). Anastasius 
 used pressure, to which Flavian yielded par- 
 tially, trusting by concessions to satisfy his 
 enemies. He convened a synod of the pre- 
 lates of his patriarchate which drew up a 
 letter to Anastasius confirming the first three 
 councils, passing over that of Chalcedon in 
 silence, and anathematizing Diodorus, Theo- 
 dore, and the others. Xenaias, seeking 
 Flavian's overthrow, required of him further 
 a formal anathema of the council of Chalcedon 
 and of all who admitted the two natures. On 
 his refusal, Xenaias again denounced him to 
 the emperor. Flavian declared his acceptance 
 of the decrees of Chalcedon in condemning 
 Nestorius and Eutyches, but not as a rule of 
 faith. Xenaias having gathered the bishops 
 of Isauria and others, induced them to draw up 
 a formula anathematizing Chalcedon and the 
 two natures, and Flavian and Macedonius, 
 refusing to sign this, were declared excom- 
 municate, A.D. 509 (Evagr. U.S. ; Theophan. 
 p. 131). The next year the vacillating Havian 
 
 ! received letters from Severus, the uncompri>- 
 mising antagonist of Macedonius, on the sub- 
 ject of anathematizing Chalcedon, and the 
 reunion of the Acephali with the church 
 (Liberat. c. 19, P- I35)- This so irritated 
 Macedonius that he anathemati/«(l his former 
 friend, and drove with indignation from his 
 presence the apocrisiariiof Antioch (Theo|)han. 
 p. 131). On the expulsion of Macedonius. 
 A.D. 511, Flavian obeyed the emperor in re- 
 
 1 cognizing his successor Tiinotheus, on beiiiu 
 convinced of his orthodoxy, but without dis- 
 
 j guising his displeasure at the vi<ilent and un- 
 canonical measures bv which Macedonius had 
 been depr>sed. This exasperated An.aslasius. 
 
 1 who readilv acceded to the request of Xenaias 
 and Soterichus that a council should be con- 
 24 
 
370 
 
 FLORENTIUS 
 
 vened, ostensibly for the more precise declara- 
 tion of thefaith on the points at issue, but really 
 to depose Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem ; but 
 it was broken up by the emperor's mandate, to 
 the extreme vexation of Soterichus and Xenaias, 
 without pronouncing any sentence (Labbe, Con- 
 di, iv. 1414, vii. 88 ; Theophan. u.s. ; Coteler. 
 Monum. Eccl. Graec. iii. 298). Flavian's per- 
 plexities were increased by the inroad of a 
 tumultuous body of monks from Syria Prima, 
 clamouring for the anathematization of 
 Nestorius and all supposed favourers of his 
 doctrines. The citizens rose against them, 
 slew many, and threw their bodies into 
 the Orontes. A rival body of monks poured 
 down from the mountain ranges of Coele- 
 syria, eager to do battle in defence of their 
 metropolitan and former associate. Flavian 
 was completely unnerved, and, yielding to the 
 stronger party, pronounced a public anathema 
 in his cathedral on the decrees of Chalcedon 
 and the four so-called heretical doctors. His 
 enemies, determined to obtain his patriarchate 
 for one of their own party, accused him to the 
 emperor of condemning with his lips what he 
 still held in his heart. The recent disturb- 
 ances at Antioch were attributed to him, and 
 afforded the civil authorities a pretext for 
 desiring him to leave Antioch for a time. His 
 quitting Antioch was seized on by the emperor 
 as an acknowledgment of guilt. Anastasus 
 declared the see vacant, sent Severus to 
 occupy it, and banished Flavian to Petra in 
 Arabia, where he died in 518. Eutych. Alex. 
 Annul. Eccl. p. 140 ; Marcell. Chron. ; Theo- 
 phan. p. 134 ; Evagr. H. E. iii. 32. [e.v.] 
 
 Florentius (50), a chief minister of state at 
 Constantinople under Theodosius II. and 
 Marcian, a man of the highest reputation for 
 soundness of faith, purity of life, and states- 
 manlike wisdom (Labbe, Concil. iv. 220). He 
 was consul in a.d. 429, patrician in 448, pre- 
 fect of the praetorian guards, and the high 
 dignity of prefect of the East was bestowed 
 on him a seventh time by Marcian in 450. 
 
 In 448, when Flavian had resolved to put 
 Eutyches on his trial for heretical doctrine, 
 Theodosius demanded that Florentius should 
 have a seat at the synod as his representative. 
 Hitherto the ostensible reason for the presence 
 of imperial officers at ecclesiastical synods was 
 the preservation of order. The ground ex- 
 pressly assigned by the emperor for requiring 
 the admission of Florentius, viz. that the 
 matters under discussion concerned the faith, 
 was a startling innovation which Flavian 
 withstood as long as he dared (Acac. Hist. 
 Brevicul. p. 112; Liberat. Breviar. c. xi. ; 
 Labbe, Concil. iv. 247). On the opening of 
 the trial Florentius took his seat among the 
 metropolitans, next to Seleucus, bp. of Amasea 
 (Labbe, 238 ; Liberat. p. 60), and disclaimed 
 all desire to dogmatize, or to forget his posi- 
 tion as a layman ; but he took a very leading 
 and authoritative part in the discussion, and 
 manifested a strong leaning towards the 
 acquittal of Eutyches. But his efforts to 
 induce Eutyches to acknowledge the two 
 natures in Christ or to adopt language which 
 might satisfy the council were fruitless, and 
 the interests of orthodoxy compelled him to 
 assent to his condemnation (Labbe, 507, 517). 
 As Eutyches left the hall he lodged with 
 
 FORTUNATUS 
 
 Florentius an appeal against his condemnation 
 to the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and 
 Jerusalem. The bishop availed himself of 
 the plea that the trial was closed to exclude 
 the registration of the appeal [ih. 244). When 
 the council of Chalcedon met, Florentius was 
 present with other high civil dignitaries ; but 
 there is no record of the part he took. We 
 have letters to Florentius from Theodoret 
 (Ep. 89), Isidore of Pelusium {Ep. lib. i. 486), 
 and Firmus of Caesarea (Ep. 29). [e.v.] 
 
 Florinus (l), for some time in the latter half 
 of the 2nd cent, a presbyter at Rome, deprived 
 for falling into heresy. He is known from two 
 notices (v. 15, 20) in Eusebius, taken from 
 writings of Irenaeus against Florinus. One is 
 an interesting fragment of a letter to Florinus, 
 in which Irenaeus records his youthful recol- 
 lections of Polycarp, representing how that 
 bishop, whose good opinion Florinus had once 
 been anxious to gain, would have been shocked 
 at his present opinions. The fragment con- 
 tains unmistakable internal evidence of 
 genuineness. The title of the letter to Flor- 
 inus was On Monarchy, or that God is not the 
 Author of Evil, and Eusebius remarks that 
 Florinus seems to have maintained the op- 
 posite opinion. Later writers have naturally 
 followed the report of Eusebius. Philaster 
 (79) refers to an unnamed heretic, who taught 
 that things which God made were in their own 
 nature evil. Augustine (66) calls the anony- 
 mous heretic Florinus and, with little prob- 
 ability, makes him the founder of a sect of 
 Floriniani. He probably arrived at this re- 
 sult by combining the notice in Eusebius with 
 Philaster's mention in another place of 
 Floriani. The work of Irenaeus which we 
 possess does not mention Florinus, and has no 
 trace of the letter, nor does Tertullian, in 
 dealing with the same subject, employ the 
 i letter to Florinus. If Florinus ever in a 
 j heretical sense made God the author of evil, 
 his errors afterwards took the opposite direc- 
 1 tion, and he became a Valentinian. In reply 
 ' to him Irenaeus composed his work On the 
 Ogdoad. If the controversy of Irenaeus with 
 Florinus was earlier than the publication of the 
 treatise on heresies, we should expect some 
 trace of it therein ; and the fact that, after 
 the publication of a treatise dealing so fully 
 with Valentinianism, a separate treatise on 
 the Ogdoad was necessary, may point to the 
 controversv having arisen later. In favour 
 of the later date is also the fact that there 
 is extant a S\Tiac fragment (Harvey, ii. 457), 
 purporting to be an extract from a letter 
 of Irenaeus to Victor of Rome concerning 
 Florinus, a presbyter, who was a partisan of 
 the error of \'alentinus, and had published an 
 abominable book. Florinus is not named 
 by Epiphanius, Philaster, or Pseudo-Tertulhan 
 who has so manv notices of Roman heretics ; 
 and it is likely,' therefore, that he was not 
 named in the earlier work of Hippolytus, nor 
 in the lectures of Irenaeus, on which that 
 work was founded ; he is not named in the 
 later work of Hippolytus, nor by Tertullian. 
 This silence is not easily explained if either 
 Florinus or any school of Floriniani were any 
 source of danger after his exposure by Irenaeus 
 (cf. Zahn, Forschiingen, iv. 28^^08). [o.s.] 
 
 Fortunatus (17), Venantius Honorlus Cle- 
 
FORTUNATUS 
 
 mantianus, bii- of Poictiers, ami thelastrcpre- 
 seiitative of Latin poetry in tiaul, was burn 
 c. 330 at Ceneta, the modern Ceneda, near 
 Tarvisium (Treviso) (I'it. Sauct. Martin, lib. 
 iv. 668). He seems to have resided at an 
 early age at Aquileia, where he came under the 
 influence of one Paulus, who was instrumental 
 in his conversion. Paulus Diaconus {Hisl. 
 Langobard. lib. ii. 23) relates that he studied 
 grammar, rhetoric, and poetry at Ravenna. 
 In gratitude for his recovery from blindness, 
 he set out on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. 
 Martin of Tours c. 565. Crossing the .\lps and 
 passing into Austrasia, he visited king Sieg- 
 bert, for whom he composed an epithalamium 
 on his marriage with Brunehault, couched in 
 terms of extravagant flattery. Euphronius bp. 
 of Tours and Fortunatus became close friends 
 {Miscell. iii. 1-3). After completing his pil- 
 grimage, he continued to travel in Gaul, 
 because of the disturbed state of Italy, due to 
 the incursions of the Lombards, but finding 
 an additional inducement in the society of 
 Rhadegund of Poictiers, for whom he conceived 
 a Platonic attachment. She was the daughter 
 of Bertharius, king of the Thuringians, and 
 had been espoused against her will to Lothair I., 
 king of Xeustria, but had separated from 
 him, and retired in 550 to Poictiers, where she 
 founded the convent of St. Croix, more for 
 literary than for religious seclusion, appointing 
 her own domestic Agnes the first abbess. At 
 what date Fortunatus visited Poictiers is 
 uncertain, but he was induced to become 
 chaplain and almoner to the convent. Rha- 
 degund employed her poet-chaplain in corre- 
 spondence with the prelates of Gaul, and 
 despatched him from time to time on delicate 
 missions. He thus became intimate with 
 Gregory of Tours, Syagrius of Autun, Felix of 
 Nantes, (iermanus oi Paris, Avitus of Cler- 
 mont, and many others, to whom his poems 
 are addressed. He also composed Lives of 
 the saints, theological treatises, and hymns, 
 including the famous Vexilla Regis, composed 
 for a religious ceremony at Poictiers. The 
 Pange Lingua, though generally ascribed to 
 his pen, was more probably composed, as 
 Sirmond has shewn (in Notis ad Epist. Sidon. 
 Apollin. lib. iii. Ep. 4), by Claudianus Mamer- 
 tus. Fortunatus was ordained priest, and, 
 subsequently to the death of Rhadegund in 
 597, succeeded Plato in the bishopric of 
 Poictiers ; but died early in the 7th cent. 
 
 His works comprise : (i) Eleven Books of 
 Miscellanies, chiefly in elegiac verse, interest- 
 ing for the light they throw upon the manners 
 of the time and the history of art {Miscell. i. 
 12 ; iii. 13), but as literature all but worthless. 
 
 (2) The l.ife of St. Martin of Tours in four 
 books, consisting of 2,245 hexameter lines, 
 hastily composed, and little more than a 
 metrical version of Severus Sulpicius's incom- 
 parably better prose. 
 
 (3) .A.n elegiac poem in three cantos, written 
 in the character, and evidently under the 
 inspiration, of Rhadegund. The first, de 
 Excidio Thuringiae, is dedicated to her cousin 
 Amalfred (or Hermanfred) ; the second is a 
 panegyric of Justin II. and his empress Sophia, 
 who had presented Rhadegund with a piece 
 of the true cross. 
 
 (4) A collection of 150 elegiac verses ad- | 
 
 FORTY MARTYRS, THE 371 
 
 dressed to Rh.idegund and Agnes, and a sh..rt 
 epigram ad Theuchildem. 
 
 (5) The Lives of eleven saints— Hilary «>( 
 Poitiers, Germain of Paris, Aubin of AuKcrs, 
 Paternusof .Vvranrhcs, Rhadegundof Poictnrs. 
 Amant of Rodez, Medard of Novon. Ri-mv ..( 
 Rheims, I.nbin of Chartres. Mauri! of AnK'<-rs, 
 and Marcel of Paris— but the first book of tlic 
 Life of Hilary and the Lives of the three l.isl- 
 namcd saints ought probably to be attributed 
 to another Fortunatus. To these must be 
 added an account of the martyrdom at Paris 
 of St. Denys, St. Rusticus, and St. ICIeuthenus. 
 His style is pedantic, his taste bad, his 
 grammar and prosody seldom correct for many 
 lines together, but two of his longer poems 
 display a simplicity and path<is foreign to his 
 usual style — viz. that on the marriage of 
 Galesuintha, sister of Brunehaut, with Chil- 
 peric, and his Elegy upon the Fall of Thuringia. 
 The latest and best ed. of his works is by 
 Leo and Krusch {Berlin, 1881-1S85). A good 
 earlier ed. by Luchi is reprinted in Migne's 
 Pair. /.at. Ixxxviii. .\ugustin Thierry, H^ctt.t 
 merovingiens, t. ii. Rccit. vi. ; and .\mpere. 
 Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. 13. [e.m.v.] 
 
 Fortunatus (18), a bp. who has been con- 
 founded with Vfuaiitius Fortunatus, bp. of 
 Poictiers. B<irn at NiTicllae, he migrated into 
 Gaul, and bccanut intimate with St. Germanus, 
 who induced him to write the Life of St. 
 Marcellus. He was probablv the author of 
 bk. i. of the Life of St. Hilary of Poictiers, 
 and of three other Lives of saints ascribed to 
 his more distinguished namesake. He died at 
 Celles, in the diocese of Sens, c. 569. Rivet, 
 Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii. p. 298. [e.m.y.] 
 
 Forty Martyrs, The. Three groups occur 
 as such : — 
 
 (i) Forty soldiers, who suffered under 
 Licinius, 320, at Sebaste in Armenia. A list 
 of their names is given in the martyrology of 
 Ado under March 11. [See Sebaste, Forty 
 Martyrs of, in D. C. A.] They were young, 
 brave, and noted for their services. The 
 emperor having ordained that the military 
 police of the cities should offer sacrifices, the 
 governor called upon these forty to comply. 
 They refused, and withstood both bribes and 
 threats. Thereupon a new punishment was 
 devised. They were immersed for a whole 
 night in a frozen pond, a hot bath being placed 
 within sight for any who might choose to avail 
 themselves of it, their doing so, however, being 
 the sign of apostasv. The trial was too great 
 for one. He left the pond and flmig himself 
 into the bath, but as soon as he touched the hot 
 water he died. The number of forty was not, 
 however, broken. The sentinel who watched 
 the bath saw in a vision angels descend and 
 distribute rewards to all in the pond. The 
 guard at once stripped of! his clothing and 
 took the vacant place in the pond. Next 
 morning they were all flung into fires. There 
 was one Meiito, younger and more vigorous 
 than the rest, whose reS(jlution they thought 
 they might shake. His mother, however, who 
 was present, herself placed him in the exoiij. 
 tioner's cart, saying : " Go, my son, finish this 
 happy voyage with thy comrades, that thoii 
 mayst not be the last presented to (iod." 
 Their relics were carefully preserved and 
 carried to various cities, where many churchet 
 
372 
 
 FRAVITTA 
 
 were built in their honour. The mother 
 Emmelia, and the sister Macrina, of St. Basil 
 obtained some for their monastery near the 
 village of Annesi in Pontus, where already a 
 church had been built in their honour (Greg. 
 Nys. Vit. S. Macrin.). Sozomen (H. E. ix. 2) 
 tells a strange story about another set of their 
 relics. In addition to the authorities quoted, 
 consult Pitra, Analect. Sacr. t. i. p. 599, in 
 Spicil. Solesmense. Their popularity through- 
 out the entire East has ever been very great 
 (cf. Dr. Zirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren). In 
 Burton's Unexplored Syria, App. ii., a church 
 in their honour is noted at Huns, near Dam- 
 a,scus ; cf. also Melchior de Voglie, Les 
 Eglises de la terre sainte, p. 367. 
 
 (2) Another set of Forty Martyrs in Persia, 
 375, is commemorated on May 20 (Assemani, 
 Mart. Orient, i. 141). Among them were the 
 bishops Abdas and Ebed-Jesu. Ceillier, iii. 82, 
 336 ; Bas. Menol. 
 
 (3) Under Dec. 24 Forty Virgin Martyrs 
 under Decius at Antioch in Syria are noted in 
 Mart. Hieron., Adon., Usuard. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Fravltta, 23rd bp. of Constantinople a. p. 
 489. Our chief authority is Nicephorus Callis- 
 tus, who relates that on the death of .\cacius, 
 the emperor Zeno placed on the altar of tht- 
 great church of Constantinople two sheets of 
 paper. On one was written a prayer that 
 God would send an angel to inscribe on the 
 blank sheet the name of him whom He wished 
 to be the patriarch. A fast of 40 days with 
 prayer was ordered. T^he church was given 
 into the custody of a confidential eunuch, the 
 imperial chamberlain, and the imperial seal set 
 on the casket containing the papers. A pres- 
 byter named Fravitta was in charge of the 
 suburban churcli of St. Thecla. Fired with 
 ambition, he paid the eunuch large suras, and 
 promised him more, to write his name on the 
 blank sheet. .\i the end of the 40 days the 
 casket was opened ; the name of Fravitta was 
 found, and he was enthroned amid universal 
 acclamations. Within 4 months he died, and 
 the powerful eunuch was pressing his executors 
 for the promised gold. They revealed the 
 odious tale to the emperor. The forger was 
 turned out of all his employments and driven 
 from the city. Zeno, ashamed of his failure, 
 entrusted the election of the new patriarch to 
 the clergy. 
 
 Such is the account of Nicephorus Callistus. 
 In the correspondence between Zeno, Fravitta, 
 and pope Felix on the appointment there is no 
 trace of this story. 
 
 Fravitta at one and the same time wrote let- 
 ters to Peter Mongus asking for his communion, 
 and a synodal to pope Felix begging his sanc- 
 tion and co-operation. This document was 
 carried to Rome by Catholic monks of Constan- 
 tinople who had always kept separate from 
 Acacius and his friend Mongus. An accom- 
 panying letter of Zeno showed great affection 
 for Fravitta; Zeno had only laboured for his 
 appointment because he thought him worthy 
 and to restore peace and unity to the churches. 
 Pope Felix, delighted with the letters, had 
 Zeno's read aloud to the deputation and all 
 the clergy of Rome, who expressed loud ap- 
 proval. When the pope, however, wished the 
 monks from Constantinople to undertake that 
 the names of Acacius and Mongus should be 
 
 PRUCTUOSUS 
 
 rejected from the diptychs, they replied that 
 they had no instructions on that point. The 
 joy of the pope was finally destroyed by the 
 arrival at Rome of a copy of the letter which 
 Fravitta had sent to Mongus. Directly con- 
 trary to that which Felix had received, it actu- 
 ally denied all communion with Rome. The 
 pope would not hear a word more from the 
 nionks. Whether the story of Nicephorus 
 Callistus be true or not, Fravitta stands dis- 
 graced by this duplicity. Niceph. Callist. 
 xvi. 10, Pair. Gk. cxlvii. § 684. p. 152 ; Joann. 
 Zonar. Annul, xiv. iii. Patr. Gk. cxxxiv. § 53, 
 p. 12 14 ; Liberat. Diac. Brev. xviii. Patr. Lat. 
 Ixyiii. ; Felicis Pap. Ep. xii. and xiii. Patr. Lat. 
 Iviii. p. 971 ; Evagr. iii. 23, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 
 part ii. ; Theoph. Chronogr. 114, Patr. Gk. 
 cviii. p. 324. [w.M.s.] 
 
 Fructuosus (1), M., bp. of Tarragona in the 
 3rd cent. The Acta of his martyrdom and of 
 his two deacons and fellow-sufferers, Eulogius 
 and Augurius, are the most ancient Spanish 
 Acta, and marked by a realistic simplicity 
 which contrasts very favourably with many 
 of the Acta of Diocletian's persecution. Pru- 
 dentius made use of them in his hymn to the 
 martyrs {Felix Tarraco Fructuose vestris, etc., 
 Peristeph. vi.), and they are largely quoted 
 by St. Augustine (Serm. 273, Migne, Patr. 
 Lat. xxxviii.). Under Valerian and Gallienus 
 in the consulate of Aemilianus and Bassus 
 (a.d. 259), Aemilianus Praeses of Tarragona 
 issued an edict against the Christians, com- 
 pelling all to sacrifice to the gods. Hearing 
 this, bp. Fructuosus and the whole church 
 of Tarragona gave themselves to unceasing 
 prayer. One night, after Fructuosus had 
 retired, four apparitores appeared at his gate 
 and summoned him and his deacons before the 
 Praeses. This was Sunday, and they remained 
 in prison till Friday, enjoying, however, some 
 intercourse with the brethren outside. Fruc- 
 tuosus even baptized a catechumen within the 
 prison. Appearing before the Praeses, all 
 three simply and steadfastly avowed their 
 faith. Finally the Praeses asked Fructuosus, 
 " Art thou the bishop of the Christians ? " 
 He answered, " I am." The Praeses retorted, 
 " Thou wast," and gave orders for them to be 
 scourged and burnt alive. On their way to 
 the amphitheatre Christians and heathens 
 alike crowded around in sympathy. Some 
 offered Fructuosus a cup of aromatic strength- 
 ening drink. He refused, saying, " It is not 
 yet time to break the fast " (it being Friday, 
 and ten o'clock ; the Friday fast lasting till 
 three). At the gate of the amphitheatre 
 Fructuosus addressed the people. "Be of 
 good cheer ; a pastor shall not be wanting to 
 you, nor shall the love and promise of God 
 fail you, either here or hereafter. For this 
 which you behold is but the infirmity of an 
 hour." After the flames were kindled, the 
 ligatures binding their hands were quickly 
 burnt ; then Fructuosus, consuetudinis memor, 
 fell on his knees and so passed away. 
 
 This is the account of the Acta printed by 
 Tamayo in the Martyr. Hisp. (vol. i. Jan. 21) 
 from a i4th-cent. calendar in the library of the 
 cathedral of Astorga. It omits important points 
 contained in the Bollandist Acta (A.A. S.S. 
 Jan. ii.), which are the same as those printed 
 by Florez (Esp. Sag. xxv.). [m.a.w.] 
 
FRUMENTIUS 
 
 Frumentlus. [Edesius, 3.] 
 
 Fulgentius (3), Fabius Claudius Gordianus, 
 
 bp. of Ruspe, b. 468, d. 533. His life was 
 mostly spent in the provinres of N.W. Africa 
 ruled by the Vandal kings, Genseric, Hunnorir, 
 and Thrasimund, and he suffered from their 
 persecutions. The writings of Fulgentius 
 himself, a biographical memoir prefixed to his 
 works and addressed to bp. Felicianus, his 
 successor, supposed to be by Ferrandus, a 
 deacon of Carthage, and a treatise de Perse- 
 cutione Vandalica, by Victor X'itensis in 487 
 (Migne, Pair. Lot. t. Iviii.), are the principal 
 sources of information for the Vandal perse- 
 cution in Africa. Every refinement of cruelty 
 seems to have been visited upon the presby- 
 ters, bishops, and virgins of the N. African 
 church during the reigns of Genseric and 
 Hunneric. At the first incursion of the 
 Vandals the whole country was desolated, 
 houses of prayer and basilicas razed, neither 
 age nor sex spared, the tombs of the martyrs 
 rifled for treasure, bishops banished from their 
 sees, virgins basely used, and every effort made 
 to alienate the people from the Catholic faith. 
 At the commencement of Hunneric's reign 
 (Victor, lib. ii.) a gleam of sunshine cheered 
 the church, during which the vacant see of 
 Carthage was filled by Eugenius, whose 
 extraordinary virtues are duly recorded by 
 his biographers. His popularity excited the 
 rage and animosity of the conquerors, who 
 forbade their own people to enter his church. 
 Those who disobeyed were submitted to 
 torture ; some were blinded, and many died 
 of the inhuman treatment. Women were 
 scalped, stripped, and paraded through the 
 streets. Victor says, " We knew many of 
 these." Nor did the orthodox alone suffer. 
 Jocundus, the Arian patriarch, was burned 
 alive, and Manicheans were hunted down like 
 wild beasts. At the end of his 2nd year 
 Hunneric refused all position in the court or 
 executive to any but Arians, and banished to 
 Sardinia all who refused to conform ; heavy 
 pecuniary fines were imposed whenever a 
 bishop was ordained ; many Christian women 
 died under inhuman cruelties, and many were 
 crippled for life. In 486 the bishops and priests 
 were exiled into the desert, and in his 8th year 
 Hunneric issued an edict, still preserved (ib. 
 iii.), summoning the Homoousians to renounce 
 their faith, fixing a date for their submission 
 and for their churches to be destroyed, books 
 burned, and pastors banished. The conse- 
 quences of this edict are detailed with hor- 
 rible circumstantiality by Victor, and even 
 Gibbon considers them inhumanly severe. The 
 cruelties of the Diocletian persecution were 
 equalled, if not surpassed, by these efforts to 
 extirpate the Homoousian faith, (iordian, 
 the grandfather of Fulgentius, a senator of 
 Carthage, was exiled by (ienseric. His two 
 sons returned home during an interval of 
 grace to find their property in the hands of 
 Arian priests. Not being allowed to remain 
 at Carthage, they settled at Telepte in the 
 province of Byzacene. One of them, Claudius, 
 married Maria Anna, a Christian lady, who 
 gave birth in 468 to Fulgentius. His mother 
 was careful that he should study the Greek 
 language, and would not allow him to read 
 Roman literature until he had committed 
 
 FULGENTIUS 
 
 373 
 
 to memory the greater part of the pfwms o( 
 Homer and of the plays of Menandcr. He 
 displayed great talent for busirirss and much 
 versatility. His fine rhararter riToninirndrd 
 him to the court, and he was appointrd fisi al 
 procurator of the province. Hut after perus- 
 ing Augustine's comment on I's. xxxvi. 
 (xxxvii. Heb.), he was attracted bv the " plea- 
 sures of a mind at peace with (i<Kl, which 
 fears nothing but sin." Hunneric h.iving ban- 
 ished the bishops to the neighbouring deserts, 
 young Fulgentius began to retire from s<>rietv 
 and devote himself io prayer and various 
 austerities. One of these exiled bishops, 
 Faustus, had formed a little monastery not 
 far from Telepte, to which Fulgentius bet(K«k 
 himself. Owing to the persecution, and at 
 the advice of Faustus, Fulgentius removed to 
 another small monastery, under abbat Felix, 
 between whom and Fulgentius sprang up an 
 enduring friendship. They divided the super- 
 intendence of the monastery between them, 
 Fulgentius undertaking the duties of teacher. 
 Troubles from an incursion of the Nuniidians 
 compelled them to settle at Sicca \ lui ria or 
 Siccensis {Vita. c. ix.). An Arian presbyter 
 in the neichbourhood, alarmed at the influence 
 exercised by the saintly Felix and Fulgentius. 
 laid a plot to rob and torture them. The 
 little company again migrated to Ididi in 
 Mauritania, and here Fulgentius, reading the 
 Institutinnes Cassiani, resolved to go to Egypt 
 and the Thebaid to follow a more severe rule 
 of mortification. At Syracuse he was kindly 
 received by bp. Eulalius, who discouraged his 
 going to the Thebaid, as it was separated by a 
 " perfidious heresy and schism from the com- 
 munion of St. Peter," i.e. the Monophysite 
 doctrine and the schism to which that led 
 in the Egvptian church after the council of 
 Chalcedon', a.d. 451- The advice was followed, 
 and for some months he resided near Syracuse. 
 In 500 he visited Rome, was present at the 
 gorgeous reception given to Theodoric, and 
 that vear returned to .\frica. He received 
 from Sylvester, primarius of Byzacene, a site 
 for a spacious monastery which was at once 
 crowded ; thence he retired to a lonely island, 
 which la( ked wood, drinkable water, and access 
 to the mainland. Here he occupied himself 
 with manual toil and spiritual exercises. 
 Felix, having discovered his retreat, persuaded 
 Faustus to ordain Fulgentius a presbyter, and, 
 under pain of excommunication, to compel a 
 return to his monastery. This was shortly 
 after the death of Hunneric and accession 
 of Thrasimund, who, though an Arian, was 
 more liberal than his predecessors (Gibbon, 
 Smith's ed. vol. iv. c. 37). The little seaport of 
 Ruspe, on a projecting spur of the co.nst near 
 the Syrtis Parva, had remained without a 
 bishop, and desired Fulgentius. who was taken 
 by force from his cell to Victor the prunate 
 of Byzacene and consecrated as its bishop m 
 508. when 40 years old. He made n<> change 
 in his costume or daily regimen. His first 
 demand from his people was a site for a monas- 
 tery, and his old friend Felix was summoned 
 to preside over it. But Thrasimund dismissed 
 Fulgentius and other newly electe.l bishops 
 to Sardinia. Here, in the name of the 60 
 exiles, he wrote important letters on questions 
 of theological and ecclesiastical importance. 
 
374 
 
 FULGENTIUS 
 
 His literary faculty, knowledge of Scripture, 
 and repute as a theologian, probably induced 
 Thrasimund to summon him to Carthage, and 
 ten objections to the Catholic faith were pre- 
 sented to him. His reply was his earliest 
 treatise, viz. One Book against the Arians, Ten 
 A nswers to Ten Gbjections. The third objection 
 resembles a common argument of the earlier 
 Arians, viz. that Prov. viii. 22, John xvi. 29, 
 Ps. ii. 7, and other passages imply that the 
 Son is " created," " generated in time," and 
 therefore not of the same substance with the 
 Father, to which Fulgentius replied that 
 they all refer to the Incarnation, and not to 
 the essence of the Son of God. He used the 
 argument of Athanasius, which makes the 
 customary worship of the Son of God verge 
 either on Polytheism or Sabellianism if we do 
 not at the same time recognize the consub- 
 stantiality of the Son. To deny, said Fulgen- 
 tius, the Catholic position, produces the 
 dilemma that the Son of God was either from 
 something or from nothing. To suppose that 
 He was made " out of nothing " reduces Him 
 to the rank of a creature ; while to suppose 
 that He was made " from something," in 
 essence different from God, involves a co- 
 eternal Being, and some form of Manichean 
 dualism. Fulgentius laid the greatest empha- 
 sis on the unity of God's essence, and assumed, 
 as a point not in dispute, that Christ was the 
 object of Divine worship. This throws some 
 light upon the later Arianism. The reply was 
 not considered satisfactory by Thrasimund, 
 who sent another group of objections, which 
 were to be read to Fulgentius. No copy was 
 to be left with him, but he was expected 
 to return categorical answers : a statement 
 vouched for by the opening chapters of the 
 ad Trasimundum Regem Vandalorum Libri 
 tres (cf. Schroeckh, Christliche Kirchenge 
 schtchte, xviii. 108). Bk. i. treats " of the 
 Mystery of the Mediator, Christ, having two 
 natures in one person " ; bk. ii. " of the 
 Immensity of the Divinity of the Son of God " ; 
 bk. iii. " of the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Passion." In bk. i. Fulgentius displays great 
 familiarity with Scripture, and endeavours to 
 establish the eternal generation of the Logos, 
 and the birth in time of the Christ, when the 
 Logos took flesh, and endeavours to shew that 
 by " flesh " is meant the whole of humanity, 
 body and reasonable soul, just as occasionally 
 by " soul " is denoted not only reasonable soul 
 but body as well. In bk. i. he shews that the 
 whole of humanity needed redemption, and 
 was taken into union with the Eternal Word ; 
 in bk. ii. that nothing less than Deity in His 
 supreme wisdom and power could effect the 
 redemption. In many ways he argues the 
 immensity of the Son and of the Spirit of God. 
 In bk. iii. he opposes strongly not only 
 Patripassianism, but all theopathia, Qeoiraax^- 
 Tia-fx6t and the supposition that the Deity of 
 Christ felt substantialiter the sorrows of the 
 Cross. The dyophysite position is urged with 
 remarkable earnestness, and held to be com- 
 pletely compatible with the unity of the person 
 of Christ. The personality of the Christ the 
 Son of God is distinguished from the person- 
 ality of the Father, with an almost semi-Arian 
 force, while he holds that the nature and sub- 
 stance of the Father and the Son are one and 
 
 FULGENTIUS 
 
 the same. " Sicut inseparabilis est unitate 
 naturae sic inconfusibilis permanet proprietate 
 personae" (lib. iii. c. 3). (Cf. " unus omnino; 
 non confusione substantiae ; sed unitate per- 
 sonae," of the Athanasian Creed.) Yet though 
 Christ emptied Himself of His glory. He was 
 full of grace and truth. The two natures were 
 united, not confused, in Christ. But as there 
 was taken up into His one personality the 
 reasonable soul and flesh of man, not a human 
 personality, but human nature, He could weep 
 at the grave of Lazarus and die upon the 
 Cross. Chap. 20 shews conclusively that Ful- 
 gentius must have read as the text of Heb. 
 ii. 9, x'^P^^ ^f°^ rather than xap'^' BeoO, as he 
 lays repeated emphasis on the sine Deo. The 
 author of the Vita assures us that Thrasimund 
 secured the assistance of an Arian bishop, Pint a, 
 to repl)' to these three books, and that Ful- 
 gentius rejoined. The existing work entitled 
 Pro Fide Catholica adv. Pintam Episcopum 
 Arianum, liber unus (0pp. Migne's ed. pp. 
 708-720) cannot be the work of Fulgentius. 
 The indignation of the Arian party at Carthage 
 led to what is called his second exile. In the 
 dead of night Fulgentius was hurried on board 
 a vessel bound for Sardinia. On reaching 
 Calaris (Cagliari) in Sardinia, he was received 
 by the exiles with great enthusiasm and rever- 
 ence. Here he remained until the king died 
 in 523, and displayed extraordinary energy in 
 literary, polemical, and monastic work. With 
 the assistance of Brumasius, the " antistes " 
 of the city, he built another monastery, where 
 more than 40 monks lived under a strict 
 rule of community of property. The equity, 
 benevolence, and self-abnegation of these 
 coenobites are extolled in high terms, and 
 Fulgentius is especially commended for his 
 sweetness and gentleness to the youngest and 
 weakest, which was never disturbed except 
 when bound by his office and vows to act with 
 severity towards insubordination or sin. 
 Symmachus, bp. of Rome, wrote a letter of 
 congratulation to these valiant champions of 
 Christ (Anast. in Symmacho, Baron, ann. 504). 
 During this period the majority of his extant 
 letters were penned, for the most part in 
 answer to difficult theological questions, and 
 then also Fulgentius revealed his strong agree- 
 ment with Augustine on predestination, grace, 
 and remission of sin, at a time when these 
 doctrines were being called in question by the 
 semi- Pelagians of S. Gaul and N. Africa. Cf. 
 Neander, General Church History, Clark's 
 trans, vol. iv. 417 fi. ; Shedd, Hist, of 
 Christian Doctrine, vol. ii. 104 ff. ; Wiggers, 
 Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, II. Theil, 
 369-393 ; Schroeckh, xviii. 
 
 The most extended of these dissertations is 
 ad Monimum, libri tres. I. De duplice prae- 
 destinatione Dei. II. Complectens tres quaes- 
 tiones. III. De vera expositione illius dicti : 
 et verbmn erat apud Deum. Monimus was an 
 intimate friend of Fulgentius, and, on perusing 
 Augustine's de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, 
 had thought that that Father taught pre- 
 destination to sin as well as to virtue. 
 Fulgentius assured Monimus that God does 
 not predestinate men to sin, but only to the 
 punishment merited by sin, quoting Ezk. xviii. 
 30. " Sin," said he, " is not in Him, so sin is 
 not from Him. That which is not His work 
 
rULOENTIUS 
 
 FULGENTIUS 
 
 375 
 
 cannot be His predestination." No constraint entire deferent 
 
 of the will is meant by predestination, but the the hnnibhst 
 
 disposition of Divine grace by which (.od 
 
 pardons one, though He may punish another, 
 
 gives grace to one who is unworthy of it, even 
 
 if He find another worthy of His anger. Hk. 
 
 ii. is occupied with Arian questions as to the 
 
 Trinity, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The rigidity of his ecclesiastical theory is here [ but confirmed bv 
 
 ' IrUx, tc.k Ihr p.vMt,,,,, of 
 phvte, and nnjy StiftKeMrd 
 nmre vi>;iir<«us wcrk f>>T thr rlerirs, m.-n- frr- 
 quent fasting for the m.-nks. In si^ a r..un< il 
 was held at J <niccnsis, apparcntlv t<> «-nfi>rre 
 a more rigid attention t<> the canons, l-ulgrn- 
 tius was called to preside. His preredmce 
 was disputed by a bishop called <Jnc>dvultdcu», 
 his brethren. After the 
 
 conspicuous. The charity, the sacrifices, the council, Fulgentius besought out r.f rharity 
 services of heretics are of no avail, since they I that his brethren would transfer this nominal 
 are separated from the Catholic Church. Bk. | precedence to his rival, thus heaping on his 
 iii. replies to the Arian interpretation of head coals of fire. The primate of Carthage, 
 " apud Deum " in John i. i ; to their theory Boniface, sought the jiresence r>f Fulgiiums at 
 that if it had been said " verbum est in Deo," the dedication of a new church, and wept tear* 
 we might have thence deduced the identitv of joy under his powerful discourse. During 
 of the two natures, that "apud" imiilies this period Fulgentius wrote his great work 
 separation and dissimilarity. His argument- against Fabianus, fragments onlv of which 
 um ad homiitem is very ingenious ; the exe- i remain. They discuss a varietv of interestmg 
 getical argument which follows is feeble. I problems bearing on the Divinity of the 
 During this period Fulgentius wrote the ] Holy Spirit and other elements of Trini- 
 Liber ad Donatum de Fide Orthodoxa et Diversis 1 tarian doctrine. The Sermones which remain, 
 Erroribus Haereticorum (Ep. viii. Migne), else- by their flowing eloquence, antithetic style 
 where described as a letter to the Cartha- I and tender sensibility, attest the power of 
 ginians. His object was succinctly to char- | Fulgentius. He powerfully discriminates be- 
 acterize Sabellian, Arian, Macedonian, and tween the Son and the Trinity, and clearly 
 Manichean heresy; he condemns Photinus, implies the double procession of the Holv 
 and the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius by i Spirit. He claims that the Father had created 
 name, declaring that the true doctrine of the , everything by the Son. Men are only wound- 
 church was to assert the two natures, as 1 ed by the poison and malice of creatures by 
 against Eutyches, and to repudiate the two reason of their sins. The mightiest beings are 
 persons, against Nestorius. During his resi- submitted to man. There is no evil in nature, 
 dence in Sardinia an important letter was \ He draws weighty distinctions between the 
 written to Euthymius, de Remissione Pecca- sins of the just and the wicked. 
 
 torum (§ xiv. Ceillier, p. 527, Mignc). The 
 question was asked by Euthymius, a devout 
 laic, whether remission of sins was possible 
 after death. After a broad description of 
 
 Ferrandus the deacon asked whether be 
 might count upon the salvation of an Ethio- 
 pian, who had come as a catechumen eagerly 
 desiring baptism, but had died at the moment 
 
 what remission of sin is, Fulgentius declares | of baptism. Fulgentius starts with the thesis 
 the human conditions to be "faith," "good that faith is the indispensable condition of 
 works," and "time," but it can only be ' ' " 
 
 secured in the Catholic church, w-hich has 
 power to remit all sin except the sin against 
 
 the Holy Ghost, which he declares to be " final 
 
 salvation, baptism or no baptism. Heretics 
 and enemies of the church will not be saved 
 bv baptism. The Ethiopian had given evid- 
 ence of faith, and was baptized, though then 
 
 impenitence." The utmost stress is laid upon I unconscious, both conditions beinc indispens 
 
 ... ^jjjg ^1^ salvation. He is therefore saved. 
 
 But he reprobates baptism of the really dead. 
 for baptism removes the stain and curse of 
 original sin, the seat of which is the soul. H 
 the soul is severed from the body, baptism is 
 worthless. He decides that the benefits of 
 the Eucharist are contained in baptism, and 
 hence, he savs, for many centuries past, 
 infants are not fed with the Eucharist after 
 their baptism. 
 
 In another correspondence Fulgentius 
 
 argues that the passion was Christ's qud His 
 
 whole person, but qua nature it was the 
 
 of His flesh onlv. His soul and 
 
 the irreversible condition of the soul at death. 
 All merits are attributed to Divine grace 
 (Wiggers, op. cit. p. 382). 
 
 The 3 books, de Veritate Praedesiinaiioms 
 et Gratia Det (Migne, p. 604), are addressed to 
 John and V'enerius, to whom other letters were 
 also sent during the 2nd exile (Ep. xv. Ceillier, 
 § x.) on the doctrines of Faustus of Rhegium 
 (de Riez, Riji, sometimes Galliarum). 
 
 Fulgentius lays down, in opposition to 
 Faustus, that grace can neither be known nor 
 appreciated until given ; that so long as man 
 is without it, he resists it by word or deed. 
 Faustus had spoken of an imperishable grain experience 
 
 of good in everv man which is nourished by bodv were separated at de.ath. His smil went 
 grace. Free will is this spark of heavenlv fire, 1 to Hades, His body to the gr.ive b'jt "•* 
 not obliterated bv the fall. Fulgentius urged Divine nature at that very moment M\v<.\ jx\\ 
 that there mav be free will, but not free will space and time, tr.gethcr with the Father and 
 to that which is good. the Holy Spirit. „„,,„^ 
 
 In 523 Thrasimund died, and his successor, Many of th«f me arguments are rrpe.^^^^^^^ 
 Hilderic. allowed the return of the Catholic in the LW/.r ^rf<r«s*rfro /A<r A^.HA5o^VA,«, 
 bishops, and the election of new ones in the who accepted al the rf*''-'*";"^ "' V'-;^' •'!'"• 
 churches still vacant. The bishops were anathematized » >'^^r' .^ .1 ?" li T. Th? 
 received at Carthage with transports of joy, Faustus and asked '"«■ '"'■'•'•■'^,, '^'''•. . ,^" 
 and none with greater enthusiasm than Ful- ■ reply of Fulgentius an.l S otb. r b shop> 
 gentius. who was welcomed with triumphal consists of 67 chapters. .T'"*' P" " * ' J^^c 
 Irches. lamps, torches, and banners. On I interest are that Fulgentms denied that th. 
 arriving at Ruspe. he yielded in the monastery i Virgin was conceived immaculate, and that 
 
376 FULGENTIUS FERRANDUS 
 
 when speaking of the eternal generation of the 
 Son, he used the bold expression, "ex utero 
 Patris." He laid the strongest emphasis on 
 the Monergistic hypothesis of regeneration, 
 and weakened the universalism of God's love 
 by declaring that " all " does not mean " all 
 men," but "all kinds of men." 
 
 While pursuing his literary work with such 
 industry, Fulgentius retired from his monas- 
 tery at Ruspe to another on the island of 
 Circina, and redoubled his self-mortifications. 
 Here his health gave way. When told that a 
 bath was absolutely necessary to prolong his 
 life, he obstinately refused to break his rule. 
 He died in Jan. 533, in his 65th year and the 
 25th of his episcopate, and Felicianus was 
 elected his successor the same day. 
 
 The most complete ed. of his works wasissued 
 in Paris (1684) by L. Mangeant. The whole, 
 with many letters to which he replied, is in 
 Migne, Pair. Lai. t. Ixv. ; Schroeckh, Kirchen- 
 geschichte, xvii. xviii. 108 ff. [h.r.r.] 
 
 Fulgentius (4) Ferrandus, a disciple and 
 companion of Fulgentius of Ruspe (3) ; shar- 
 ing his exile to Sardinia during the persecution 
 by the Arian kings of the Vandals. Ferrandus 
 received the hospitality of St. Saturninus at 
 Cagliari, and on the death of Thrasimund, 
 A.D. 523, returned to Carthage, where he be- 
 came a deacon. In all probability he was the 
 author of the Vita prefixed to the works of 
 Fulgentius of Ruspe, and dedicated to Felici- 
 anus. Hoffmann, Lex. s.n. ; Herzog, Encycl. 
 art. by Wagenmann ; Petrus Pithaeus, in 
 preface Lectori, prefixed to Breviatio Canonum 
 Ferrandi, Cod. Canonum, p. 303. 
 
 Two letters of Ferrandus to Fulgentius are 
 extant (Migne, Patr. Ixv. pp. 378-435), with 
 the lengthy and careful replies of the latter. 
 For the former see Fulgentius (3). The 
 second asked concerning : — i. The Separa- 
 bility of the Persons of the Trinity. 2. 
 Whether the Divinity of the Christ suffered 
 on the cross, or the Divine Person suffered 
 only in the flesh. The fifth question con- 
 cerned the double gift of the cup to the 
 apostles, as mentioned in St. Luke's gospel. 
 Ferrandus was often appealed to for his own 
 theological judgment. His collected writings 
 {Biblioth. Patr. Chiffietius, 1649) preserve one 
 entitled de Dttahus in Christo naturis, and an 
 Episiola Anatolio de qiiaestione an aliquis ex 
 Trinitate passus est. He is also the author of 
 a Breviatio canonum ecclesiasticorum {Codex 
 Canonum, F. Pithaeus, and Miscellanea Eccle- 
 siastica, Petrus Pithaeus, pp. 303 ff.), a collec- 
 tion and digest of 232 canons of the earliest 
 councils, Nicaea, Laodicea, Sardica, Constanti- 
 nople, Carthage, etc., chiefly appertaining to 
 the election, ordination, and character of 
 bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; the feasts 
 of the church ; the duties of virgins, cate- 
 chumens, etc. It is thought to have been 
 compiled during the reign of Anastasius 
 (d. 518). Ferrandus appears to have had his 
 knowledge of the Greek councils through a 
 translation and digest of such canons as had 
 been previously in use in Spain. The mention 
 of later synods and writings has led others 
 to believe that the Breviatio was compiled c. 
 547. [Canon Law, D. C. A.] Ferrandus took 
 a not unimportant part in the violent dis- 
 cussions produced by the edict of Justinian I. | 
 
 GALERIUS 
 
 (the Capitula Tria), which condemned cer- 
 tain passages from Theodoret, Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, and Ibas of Edessa. Ferrandus 
 was backed by the vehemently orthodox and 
 dyophysite spirit of the N. African church, and 
 in a letter (546) to Anatolius and Pelagius, two 
 deacons of the Roman church, whom Vigilius 
 instructed to communicate with him, declared 
 against the reception of the edict of Justinian. 
 The most complete ed. of his works is by 
 Chiffletius (Dijon, 1649). The two letters to 
 Fulgentius of Ruspe are in Sirmond's and 
 Migne's edd. of Fulgentii 0pp. [h.r.r.1 
 
 Fundanus (1) Minucius, proconsul of Asia 
 in the reign of Hadrian. He received the 
 imperial instructions applied for by his pre- 
 decessor Granianus as to how Christians were 
 to be dealt with (Justin. Mart. Apol. i. § 69 ; 
 Bus. H. E. iv. 9). [Hadrianus (l).] This 
 rescript seems to shew that a Christian was 
 not to be tried merely for being a Christian, 
 but only for some definite breach of the law. 
 As this might be due to principles, Christianity 
 would remain still punishable, but only in 
 overt act. [ch.] 
 
 Galenus, Claudius, physician, born a.d. 130 
 at Pergamus, flourished chiefly at Rome under 
 the Antonines, and died in 200 or 201. For a 
 full account see D. of G. and R. Biogr. He 
 belongs to church history only because of a 
 few incidental words referring to Christianity 
 that occur in his voluminous writings. Thus 
 in his de Pulsuum Differentiis (lib. iii. cap. 3, 
 suh. fin. in 0pp. t. viii. p. 657, ed. Kiihn) he 
 writes : " It is easier to convince the disciples 
 of Moses and Christ than physicians and 
 philosophers who are addicted to particular 
 sects" ; and (lib. ii. cap. 4, p. 579) he condemns 
 the method of Archigenes, who requires bis 
 dicta to be received absolutely and without 
 demonstration, " as though we were come to 
 the school of Moses and of Christ." In the 
 de Renum Affectuum Dignotione (Kiihn, t. 
 xix.) there are other references, but that 
 treatise is spurious. An Arabic writer has 
 preserved a fragment of Galen's lost work, 
 de Republicd Platonis, which reads : " We 
 know that the people called Christians have 
 founded a religion in parables and miracles. 
 In moral training we see them in nowise in- 
 ferior to philosopiiers ; they practise celibacy, 
 as do many of their women ; in diet they are 
 abstemious, in fastings and prayers assiduous ; 
 they injure no one. In the practice of virtue 
 they surpass philosophers ; in probity, in 
 continence, in the genuine performance of 
 miracles (vera miraculorum patratione — does 
 he mean the Scripture miracles, on which their 
 religion was based ?) they infinitely excel 
 them " (Casiri, Biblioth. Arabico-Hispatia, vol. 
 •• P- 253). For apologetic remarks on Galen's 
 testimony see Lardner's Credibility {Works, 
 vol. vii. p. 300, ed. 1838). [ch.] 
 
 Galerius, emperor. (Gaiv.s Galerius Valerius 
 Maximianus on his coinage ; called Maximus 
 in some Acts of martyrs, that having appar- 
 ently been his name until Diocletian changed 
 it ; see Lact. Mart. 18 ; nicknamed Armen- 
 tarius from his original occupation.) He was 
 a native of New Pa;cia, on the S, of the 
 
GALERIUS 
 
 Danube. His mother Romula had fled thither 
 for refuge from the predatory Carpi, who 
 pillaged her own country on the N. side (Lact. 
 Mort. q ; Aur. Vict. Eptt. xl. 17). As a youth 
 he was a neatherd, but soon joined the armv 
 under Aurelian and Probus. Without 
 education or virtues, he raised himself bv 
 undoubted military gifts, until he was selected 
 (together with Constantius) by Diocletian to 
 fill the office of Caesar of the East in Diocle- 
 tian's famous scheme for the reorganizati<n\ 
 of the empire, a.d. 292. He married Valeria, 
 the Christian daughter of Diocletian. There 
 were no children of the marriage, which was 
 anything but happy, but the gentle Valeria 
 adopted her husband's bastard son Candidian. 
 Galerius had none of the gifts of a ruler, nor 
 any appreciation of his father-in-law's policy, 
 but his authority with the army made him a 
 useful coadjutor. Five years after his call to 
 the Caesarship (a.d. 297) he was sent to con- 
 duct the chief war of the reign of Diocletian, 
 the last which ever gave the Capitol a triumph, 
 against Narses, king of Persia. After an im- 
 successful first campaign, he utterly routed 
 Narses, and forced him to purchase peace at 
 the cost of five provinces near the source of 
 the Tigris. 
 
 The year 303 brought Galerius prominently 
 into contact with the church. He had con- 
 ceived a hatred for the Christians, originating 
 (so far as we can see) almost whollv in his 
 fanatical superstition and aversion to Chris- 
 tian morality. His mother was a noted 
 votaress of the Phrygian orgies, and plied her 
 son continually with entreaties to demolish 
 Christianity. She was supported by the 
 magician and so-called Platonist Theo- 
 TECNUS (Cedr. vol. i. p. 47, ed. Bonn), who had 
 also acquired an ascendancy over Galerius. 
 The winter of 302-303 was spent by Galerius 
 at Xicomedia. where he used every effort to 
 compel the reluctant Diocletian to annul the 
 legislation of Gallienus, to break the forty 
 years' amity between the empire and the 
 church, and to crush Christianity. Step by 
 step he gained his points, until Diocletian 
 consented to proscribe the open profession of 
 Christianity and to take all measures to sup- 
 press it, short of bloodshed (Lact. Mort. 11, 
 " rem sine sanguine transigi "). The first 
 edict of Diocletian, however, was not strong 
 enough to content Galerius. The demolition 
 of buildings which proclaimed the power of the 
 church, the prohibition of synaxis, the burning 
 of the books used in the Christian ritual, the 
 civic, social, and military degradation of 
 Christians, were too slow ways of abolishing 
 it. His one desire was to remove Diocletian's 
 expressive clause, that " no blood was to be 
 shed in the transaction." A fire broke out 
 in the part of the palace where Diocletian 
 lived. Lactantius, then resident at Nice- 
 media, asserts that it was set alight by 
 Galerius, whose object was to persuade the 
 Augustus that his trusty Christian chamber- 
 lains were conspiring against him ; but on 
 application of torture to the wh(jle household, 
 they were acquitted. A fortnight later an- 
 other occurred, and Galerius (who, ostensibly 
 to escape assassination, perhaps really to avoid 
 discovery, immediately departed) convinced 
 Diocletian of the existence of a Christian plot, 
 
 GALERIUS 
 
 377 
 
 and the empcrcr si^ncl his scmnd rdic t, 
 ordering the mcarceralmn of the fnltre clrrgy, 
 though even now there w;is to be no bl<MKl<thrd. 
 I In putting these edicts into rxrruti<«n 
 I Galerius shews occasional signs of a reluctant 
 intention to adhere to the principles of Dn>- 
 I cletian's legislation. His return tc. his own 
 province in 304 was marked by a sudden cr<>wd 
 ■ of martyrdoms where the edicts had before 
 I not even been published, but his condurt in 
 the case of St. Komams shews that, when 
 directly appealed to, he felt bound to forbid 
 I the capital punishment of even obstreperous 
 Christians (Eus. Mart. Pal. ii.). The time 
 I was coming, however, when (lalerius was to 
 have more liberty of action. In 304, probably 
 j during a total collapse of Diocletian's health, 
 i the so-called Fourth Edict was issued bv 
 I Maximian, no doubt in conjunction with 
 I Galerius, making death the penalty of Chris- 
 j tianity. Diocletian began to recover in Marrh 
 I 305, and abandoned his long-held intention 
 j of abdicating on May i in that year, not 
 I improbably because of the commotion which 
 j had been caused by the Fourth Edict. Gal- 
 erius, who had long coveted the promised 
 diadem, would brook no more delav. and 
 with much violence compelled the enfrebUd 
 Augustus to retire, leaving himself nominally 
 second to Constantius, whose death in July 
 306 left Galerius supreme. 
 
 Political troubles which followed did not 
 divert Galerius from persecution. On Mar . 
 31, 308. he issued, in conjunction with his 
 nephew Maximin, a bloody edict against the 
 I Manicheans ICod. Greg. ed. Hiinel, lib. xiv. 
 p. 44*). For the date see the present wTiter's 
 essay on The Persecution of Diocletian, p. 279. 
 The same year saw an order to substitute 
 mutilation for death in cases of Christianity ; 
 as Euscbius says (Mart. Pal. ix ), " The con- 
 flagration subsided, as if quenched with the 
 streams of sacred blood." But the relaxation 
 was only for a few months. The autumn of 
 308 saw a new edict issued, which began a 
 perfect reign of terror for two full vears, the 
 most prolific in bloodshed of any in the history 
 of Roman persecutions ; and the vast major- 
 ity of persons who in the East (for the perse- 
 cution in the West had ceased with the 
 accession of Constantine and usurpation of 
 Maxentius) are celebrated as " martyrs under 
 Diocletian " really suffered between 308 and 
 311. This part of the persecution bears 
 marks, however, of the influence of .Maxiniin 
 Daza rather than of (Jalerius. Towards the 
 close of 310 Galerius was seized with an incur 
 able malady, partially caused by his vicious 
 life. This gradually developed into the 
 frightful disease vulgarly known as being 
 " eaten of worms." The fact rests not onlv 
 on the authority of the church historians (Eus. 
 H. E. viii., xvi. 3 flf. ; Lact. Mnrt. 33). but 
 also upon that of the pagan Aurdius Victor 
 {Eptt. xl. 4) and the fragment known as 
 Anonymous Valesii. (ialeriiis. face to (ace 
 with so awful a death, thought (apparently) 
 that a compromise might be efle( te<l with the 
 God of the Christians, whom he undoubtedly 
 recognized as an active and hostile power. 
 From his dving-bed was issued his famous 
 Edict of Toleration, bearing the signatures also 
 of Constantine and of Licinius, which virtually 
 
378 
 
 GALLA PLACIDIA 
 
 put an end to the " Persecution of Diocletian." 
 This most extraordinary document may be 
 read in full in Eus. H. E. viii. 17, and Lact. 
 Mort. 34. The origin of the persecution is 
 ascribed to the fact that the Christians had 
 wilfully departed from the " institutions of the 
 ancients which had peradventure been first set 
 on foot by their own forefathers," and had 
 formed schismatical assemblies on their own 
 private judgment. Primitive Christianity is 
 here meant by the phrase institutaveterum, and 
 the edicts were asserted to have had no object 
 but to bring the Christians back to it. But 
 Galerius was now determined, under certain 
 unspecified conditions, to allow Christianity 
 once more and to permit the building of 
 churches. In return, the Christians are told to 
 pray to their God for the recovery of Galerius. 
 
 Thus did the dying persecutor try to pose 
 as a kind reformer, and to lead the God of the 
 Christians to remit his temporal punishment. 
 " The Unknown God to Whom he had at last 
 betaken himself gave no answer to his insolent 
 and tardy invocation " (De Broglie, i. 207). 
 The edict was posted at Nicomedia on April 30; 
 he died on May 5 or 13, 311. [a.j.m.] 
 
 Galla (5) Plaoidia, daughter of Theodosius 
 I., by his second wife Galla. When in 410 
 Rome was captured by Alaric, Placidia was 
 taken prisoner, but was treated with great 
 respect (Olympiod. ap. Phot. Biblioth. Ixxx. ; 
 Zos. Hist. vi. 12), and in Jan. 414, at Narbona 
 in Gaul, married Ataulphus, who had suc- 
 ceeded his uncle Alaric. After the death of 
 Ataulphus, Placidia returned to Italy, a.d. 416, 
 and dwelt with her paternal uncle Honorius, 
 at Ravenna. In Jan. 417 she married Constan- 
 tius. By him she had two children, Valentinian 
 and Honoria (Olympiod. ti.s.) Her influence 
 over Constantius was soon shewn in his active 
 persecution of the Pelagians (Prosp. Chron. s.a. 
 418), when, in Feb. 421, Honorius admitted 
 Constantius to a share of the empire. On 
 Sept. II, 421, Constantius died. Placidia again 
 took up her abode with Honorius at Ravenna, 
 but their mutual affection being replaced by 
 bitter hate, which occasioned serious disturb- 
 ances in the city, she and her children were 
 sent to Theodosius II. at Constantinople 
 (Olympiod. m.s.). On the death of Honorius in 
 Aug. 423, Theodosius declared for Valentinian. 
 Valentinian being but a child, the author- 
 ity of Placidia was now supreme, and among 
 her first acts was the issue of three edicts in 
 rapid succession for the banishment of all 
 " Manicheans, heretics, and schismatics, and 
 everv sect opposed to the Catholic faith " {Cod. 
 Theod. XVI. v. 62, July 17 ; ib. 63, Aug. 4 ; 
 ib. 64, Aug. 6, 425, all dated from Aquileia), 
 meaning especially the adherents of the anti- 
 pope Eulalius, who were still numerous in 
 Rome. These edicts were soon followed by an- 
 other of great severitv, directed against apos- 
 tates {Cod. Theod. XVI. vii. 8, Apr. 7, 426). 
 
 In 427 the machinations of Aetius put 
 Placidia in conflict with her tried friend Boni- 
 face, count of Africa, who, in despair, ap- 
 pealed for help to the Vandals, and Africa 
 was overrun by their forces. Placidia ex- 
 plained matters to Boniface, and urged him 
 to do his best to repair the injury which the 
 empire had sustained. But it was too late ; 
 the Vandals were masters of the country, and 
 
 GALLIENUS 
 
 Africa was lost (Procop. Bell. Vandal, i. 4 ; 
 Augustine, Ep. 220 ; Gibbon, c. xxxiii.). 
 
 In 449 Placidia was at Rome with Valen- 
 tinian. The legates of Leo had just returned 
 from the Robber Council of Ephesus. Leo 
 bitterly bewailed the doings of that assembly 
 to Placidia, who immediately wrote to Theo- 
 dosius and his sister Pulcheria, intreating them 
 to interfere in defence of the faith of their 
 ancestors and to procure the restoration of 
 Flavian, the deposed bp. of Constantinople 
 (Cone. Chalced. pt. i. Ep. 26, 28, 30 ; Labbe, 
 iv. 53, 55, 58). She died soon afterwards at 
 Rome, and was buried at Ravenna (Idatius, 
 Chr. s.a. ; Gibbon, M.S.). [t.w.d.] 
 
 Gallienus, P. Licinius, emperor, son of 
 Valerian, appointed by the senate coadjutor 
 to his father very shortly after Valerian's suc- 
 cession in Aug. 253. In 260 his father's 
 captivity in Persia left him politically irre- 
 sponsible. 
 
 One great act brings him into church history. 
 On his father's fall, he was legally bound to 
 put every clergyman to death wherever found, 
 and to deal in almost as summary a fashion 
 with all other Christians. [Valerian.] Gal- 
 lienus had had three years' experience of the 
 difficulty and wearisomeness of this task. 
 The " Thirty Tyrants," moreover, were foes 
 formidable enough to attract what little 
 attention could be spared from pleasure. 
 Accordingly, in 261 he issued a public edict, 
 by which Christianity was for the first time 
 put on a clearly legal footing as a religio licita. 
 This edict is the most marked epoch in the 
 history of the church's relation to the state 
 since the rescript of Trajan to Pliny, which had 
 made Christianity distinctly a religio illicita. 
 The words in which Eusebius describes the 
 edict (the text of which is lost) imply no more 
 than that actual persecution was stopped 
 {H. E. vii. 13), which might have been done 
 without a legal recognition of Christianity ; 
 but Eusebius has preserved a copy of the 
 encyclical rescript which the emperor ad- 
 dressed to the Christian bishops of the Egyp- 
 tian province, which shews that the position of 
 " the bishops " is perfectly recognized by the 
 pagan government. The rescript informs the 
 bishops that orders have been issued to the 
 pagan officials to evacuate the consecrated 
 places ; the bishops' copies of the rescript 
 will serve as a warrant against all interference 
 in reoccupying. Thus formally, universally, 
 and deliberately was done what Alexander 
 Severus had done in an isolated case in a freak 
 of generosity — i.e. the right of the Corpus 
 Christianorum to hold property was fully 
 recognized. If Christianity had not been 
 explicitly made a religio licita, this would have 
 been impossible. The great proof, however, 
 of the footing gained by the church through 
 Gallienus's edict lies in the action of his suc- 
 cessor Aurelian in the matter of Paul of 
 Samosata. Though Aurelian's bigoted sun- 
 worship and hatred of the church were well 
 known, and his death alone prevented a great 
 rupture, the Catholics were so secure of their 
 legal position as actually to appeal to the 
 emperor in person to decide their dispute ; 
 and Aurelian, as the law then stood, not only 
 recognized the right of the church to hold 
 property, but also to decide internal disputes 
 
GALLUS CAESAR 
 
 (though they rdiirerned pruporty) according 
 to her own nictliods. [a.j.m.] 
 
 Gallus (1) Caesar, son of Julius Constantius 
 (youngest brother oi Constantino the tlreat) 
 and his first wife Galla ; born a.d. 325 at 
 Massa X'eternensis near Siena in Tuscany 
 (Amm. xiv. 11, 27). In the general massacre 
 of the younger branches of the imperial family 
 on the death of Constantine in 337, two young 
 brothers were alone preservecl — (".alius wiio 
 wa* ill of a sickness which seemed likely to be 
 mortal, and Julian a child of seven. 
 
 Both were brought up as Christians, and 
 entered with apparent zeal into the externals 
 of the Christian life. In 350 dallus received 
 the dignity of Caesar, which the childless 1 
 Constantius bestowed upon him on succeed- 
 ing to the sole government of the empire by 
 the death of his brother Constans. In the 
 West Constantius was distracted by the 
 usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul, while in 
 the East the Persians were a perpetual source ' 
 of alarm. Callus had to make a solemn I 
 oath upon the Ciospels not to undertake any- \ 
 thing against the rights of his cousin, who 
 similarly pledged himself to Ciallus. He 
 received at the same time the strong-minded \ 
 and unfeminine Constantina as his wife, and 
 Lucilianus, the count of the East, as his 
 general (Zos. 2, 45. Philost. iv. i refers to 
 the oath between Constantius and Gallus; cf. 
 Chron. Pasch. p. 540 ; Zonaras, xiii. 8). | 
 
 The records of his short reign at Antioch j 
 come to us chiefly from Ammianus flib. xiv.). ' 
 They arc almost entirely unfavourable to him. 
 His defence of the frontier against the Per- 
 sians was indeed successful (Zos. 3, i ; Philost. 
 iii. 28, speaks strongly on this point), but 
 his internal policy was disastrous. 
 
 Besides the report of his harsh and open 
 misgovernment, accounts of secret treason 
 meditated by him were conveyed to Constan- 
 tius. The emperor, with his usual craft, sent 
 an affectionate letter and desired his presence, 
 as he wished to consult him on urgent public 
 business (.Amm. xiv. 11, i). When he arrived 
 at Petovio in Noricum, he was seized by the 
 count Barbatio, deprived of his imperial 
 insignia, and conveyed, with many protesta- 
 tions that his life was safe, to Flanon in Dal- 
 matia, where he was closely guarded. The 
 all-powerful eunuch Eusebiiis was then sent 
 to interrogate him upon his various crimes, 
 (iallus did not deny them, but blamed his 
 wife. Constantius ordered his execution, 
 which took place towards the close of 354. 
 
 His instruction had been Arian under the 
 direction f>i Constantius. and he seems to have 
 been influenced not a little by the Anomoean 
 Aetius. This nf)torious man had been sent 
 to him to be put to death as a heretic. Gallus 
 spared him on the intercession of Leontius, 
 bp. of Antioch, and became very friendly with 
 him. According to Philostorgius, he made 
 him his religious instructor, and attempted 
 by his means to recall Julian to the faith, when 
 he heard that he was wavering (Philost. H. E. 
 iii. 27). There is no reason to df)ubt that the 
 young Caesar was a zealous Christian after 
 a sort, and that he was distressed by his 
 brother's danger of apfistasy. fj-^^'-l 
 
 Gallus (11), abbat, the apostle of Switzer- 
 land. One primary authority is the Vita S. 
 
 GAUDENTIUS 
 
 379 
 
 Gain, compiled bv Walafrid Slrabo, abbat of 
 Reichenau (a.d. 842-840). and pub. bv Suriu* 
 iV'itae Sand. Oct. 16. t. iv. jsj spq.. Colon. 
 161 7), by Mabillon (Acta SS. O.S.B. ii. 215 
 seq.), and Migne {I'atr. I.at. rxiii. 075 scq.). 
 Another Vtia >. (,alU. .x .MS. St. (.,<ll. 55 ?. 
 is published bv l'..rt/ {Mon. C.erm. Hiit. {i 
 iSo). The original donnncnts are to hr found 
 in Wartmann's Strkundfnhuch Jcr Ablet St. 
 Gallm, vols, i.-iii. iHOs-i^.'^z. 
 
 He undoubtedly was of Irish birth, and his 
 original name was Cellach. Calech, or Caillerh. 
 Trained at Bangor, in the famous sch<K>l of Si. 
 Comgall. he accompanied Colunibanus into 
 Gaul. A.D. 585, and in his exile from I.uxcuil 
 along the Rhine into Switzerland, and, ap- 
 parently from his aptness at learning the 
 languages, proved a most useful assistant 
 in preaching to the Suevi, Helvetii, and 
 neighbouring tribes. [Colimbants.) When 
 Colunibanus in 612 left Switzerland to escape 
 the persecution of the Burgundian court, 
 (iallus was detained at Bregenz by a fever, but 
 as soon as he couUl, returned to his friend the 
 priest Willimar, at Arbona on the S. shore of 
 the Lake of Constance, and devoted his re- 
 maining years to the conversion of the wild 
 tribes inhabiting this eastern frontier of 
 Austrasia. On the banks of the Steinaha or 
 Steinach he built his cell and oratory, in the 
 midst of a thick forest. Twelve others 
 accompanied him. His collection of rude 
 huts determined the site of the town and 
 monastery of St. Gall. When the see of 
 Constance became vacant in 616, the epis- 
 copate was urgently pressed upon him, and 
 again in 625, but he declined, and was allowed 
 to nominate his deacon John, a native of the 
 place. The sermon he preached at John's 
 I consecration is extant in Latin — a wonderful 
 specimen of Irish erudition, simple yet full of 
 vigour, learned and devout, giving an abstract 
 I of the history of God's dealings from the 
 j creation, of the fall and redemption, of the 
 mission of the apostles and calling of the Gen- 
 tiles, and ending with a powerful appeal to 
 I Christian faith and life, which gives some 
 idea of the state of the corrupt and barbarous 
 society he was seeking to leaven. Beyond 
 these few incidents we know little. He died 
 Oct. 16, 645 or 646, at .\rbona. aged 95, but 
 ; some propose an earlier date. 
 
 The oratorv of St. Gall gave rise to one of 
 ■ the most celebrated monasteries of the middle 
 ages, and its library to this day stands un- 
 rivalled in the wealth and variety of its ancient 
 manuscripts. (For an account of the schf>o| 
 of St. Gall and its cultivation of the fine arts, 
 see Htst. lit. de la France, iv. 243-246.) [j.r,.] 
 
 GaudentiUS, bp. of Brescia (Brixia), suc- 
 cessor of I'uii. ASTER (Philastrius) c. a.d. 387, 
 Of the early life t.f Gaudentius nothing i* 
 known for certain. He was probably a native 
 of Brescia ; at any rate, he was well known 
 there in his youth. From the language which 
 ' he uses in reference to his predecessor he 
 \ appears to have been intimately acquainted 
 j with him (though Tillemont is wrong in hi* 
 I interpretation of the words "ego . . . minima 
 ejus pars "). He had a brother Paul, in <lpa- 
 con's orders (" fraler carnis et spiritus ger- 
 I manitate carissime" — though hismetaphoric-al 
 I use of similar language in speaking of St. 
 
380 
 
 GAUDENTIUS 
 
 Peter and St. Paul as " vere consanguinei 
 fratres, . . . sanguinis communione germanos " 
 makes the point somewhat doubtful). While 
 still a young man he went on pilgrimage to 
 the Holy Land, as many of his contempor- 
 aries did (cf. Hieron. Epp. 44, 48). His way 
 lay through Cappadocia. At Caesarea he 
 made the acquaintance of two nieces of St. 
 Basil, " mothers " of a convent there, who 
 gave him some ashes of the famous Forty of 
 Sebastia, which had been given to them by 
 their uncle. These ashes, or rather the Forty 
 themselves, he says, were his " faithful com- 
 panions " on the rest of the journey ; and at a 
 later time he deposited them, with other relics 
 which he had collected, in a basilica which he 
 built at Brescia and called the Concilium 
 Sanctorum. At Antioch, probably, he became 
 acquainted with St. John Chrysostom, who 
 never forgot the warmth of affection which 
 he then shewed. Gaudentius was in the East 
 when Philaster of Brescia died. The people 
 of Brescia elected him to be their bishop. 
 They were rash enough to bind themselves 
 with an oath, so Gaudentius says, that they 
 would have him and no other. A deputation 
 of them was sent out to him, reinforced by 
 urgent letters from St. Ambrose and other 
 bishops of the province. Gaudentius resisted, 
 but the Eastern bishops among whom he was 
 sojourning went so far as to threaten to ex- 
 communicate him if he would not comply. At 
 last his resistance broke down. He returned, 
 and was consecrated to the vacant see, pre- 
 sumably by St. Ambrose himself. The address 
 which was delivered on that day, according to 
 custom, by the newly consecrated bishop has 
 been preserved (Serm. xvi.). St. Ambrose was 
 present at the delivery of it, and was expected 
 to follow it up with an address of his own. 
 
 The episcopate of Gaudentius was not, so 
 far as we know, eventful. But there was one 
 remarkable adventure in the course of it. In 
 the year 404 or 405 he was chosen, along with 
 two other bishops and two Roman priests, to 
 bear to the Eastern emperor Arcadius an 
 epistle from his Western colleague Honorius. 
 and from Innocent I. of Rome and the Italian 
 bishops, urging that an oecumenical council 
 should be convened, to examine the case of 
 St. John Chrysostom, who had been deposed 
 and banished from Constantinople. Palla- 
 dius (Dial. c. 4\ who accompanied the envoys 
 and who gives us this information, does not, 
 indeed, mention the see of the envoy Gaud- 
 entius ; but no other bearer of the name is so 
 likely to have been chosen as the bp. of 
 Brescia. The mission was ineffectual, and 
 such sufferings were inflicted upon the envoys 
 as might well earn for Gaudentius his title of 
 " Confessor." He received a warm letter of 
 thanks from St. Chrysostom {Ep. 184) for his 
 exertions on his behalf. The letter probably 
 refers to exertions preparatory to the mission, 
 or the reference to the fate of the mission 
 would have been more explicit. 
 
 How long Gaudentius held his see is not 
 certain. In his sermon on Philaster he men- 
 tions that it is the fourteenth time that he 
 has pronounced his yearly paneg>Tic ; but as 
 the date of his consecration to the episcopate 
 is conjectural, this indication is not decisive. 
 That he was still bishop in 410 appears from 
 
 GAUDENTIUS 
 
 the fact that the learned Rufinus dedicated to 
 him, in or about that year, his trans, of the 
 Clementine Recognitions, in which he describes 
 him as " nostrorum decus insigne doctorum," 
 and says that every word that fell from him 
 deserved to be taken down for the benefit of 
 posterity. Rufinus refers particularly to his 
 knowledge of Greek ; and though he does not 
 directly name the see which he held, the 
 identification is aided by his statement that 
 the Gaudentius to whom his work was dedi- 
 cated was heir to the virgin Silvia — probably 
 the Silvia, sister-in-law of Rufinus the well- 
 known praefectus orientis, to whom Gamur- 
 rini attributes, though probably without 
 good reason, the Peregrinatio he discovered 
 in 1884. This Silvia is known to have been 
 buried at Brescia (Gamurrini, Peregrinatio, 
 p. xxxvi ; Butler, Lansiac Hist. i. p. 296, ii. 
 pp. 148, 229). Gaudentius was buried in a 
 church at Brescia, which is thought to be the 
 same as his own Concilium Sanctorum. 
 
 Gaudentius was not a writer. The most 
 modest of men, he thought it enough if he 
 might instruct the flock committed to him 
 by word of mouth (Praefatio ad Benivolum). 
 But there was a leading magistrate of Brescia 
 named Benivolus, who had formerly (in 386) 
 thrown up his situation in the imperial service 
 rather than abet the attacks of Justina upon 
 St. Ambrose. This man, one year, was 
 hindered by sickness from attending the 
 Easter services. He begged Gaudentius to 
 wTite down for him the addresses which he 
 had failed to hear. Gaudentius complied. 
 In addition to the eight discourses on the 
 directions in Exodus concerning the Passover 
 and two on the Marriage at Cana, which had 
 been delivered during that Eastertide, he sent 
 also four on various Gospel texts, and a fifth 
 on the Maccabean martyrs. Besides these 
 fifteen sermons sent to Benivolus, four occa- 
 sional sermons of his are in existence, taken 
 down in shorthand and published (apparently) 
 without his consent. They were delivered re- 
 spectively on the day of his own consecration, 
 at the dedication of his new basilica, at Milan 
 by desire of St. Ambrose on the feast of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul, and on the anniversary 
 of his predecessor's death. To these sermons 
 are added two expository letters, one to a man 
 named Serminius on the Unjust Steward, 
 the other to his brother Paul on the text "My 
 Father is greater than I." 
 
 Gaudentius felt himself bound, like others 
 of his time, to give "spiritual," i.e. allegorical, 
 interpretations of his texts. These are often 
 in the highest degree fantastic, and have 
 drawn upon their author the severe criticism 
 of Du Pin (Bibl. eccl. siecle v. pt. i.). But 
 Gaudentius generally prepares for them by a 
 literal interpretation, and when he does so, 
 the exegesis is usually marked by good sense. 
 Gaudentius is interested in textual criticism, 
 and more than once remarks on the corre- 
 spondence or conflict between the Latin text, 
 as he knows it, and the Greek. He is an 
 independent interpreter himself {Serm. xix., 
 " Ego tamen pro libertate fidei opportunitatem 
 dictorum secretus traxi ad." etc.), and vin- 
 dicates the like freedom for others {Serm. 
 xviii. " Nulli praejudicaturus, qualiter inter- 
 pretari voluerit "). When dealing with moral 
 
GAUDENTIUS 
 
 subjects there is a line elevation in his utter- 
 ance. As a theologian he has a firm grasp on 
 the Nicene doctrine as taught by St. Ambrose. 
 Arianism is a defeated foe (Serm. xxi. " Fur- 
 entein eo tempore Ari.iu.mi pertidiam "), but 
 one that still needs \igorous refutation. In 
 regard to other doctrinal points, it may be 
 observed that, however strongly (.iaudentius 
 expresses himself about the Holy Eucharist '. 
 in the terms of his age (Serm. ii. 244), he insists | 
 chiuracteristically that the Flesh and Blood of i 
 Christ are to be spiritn.illy understood {ib. 
 .141, " Agni carnes, id est, doctrinae ejus 
 viscera "). He puts much faith in the inter- 
 cessions of the saints, though he does not 
 directly speak of invoking them (Serm. xvii. 
 XX. xxi. ad fin.). He dwells with emphasis 
 on the supernatural character of our Lord's 
 birth, not only of His conception {e.g. Serm. 
 viii. 270, ix. 281). His style is easy ; his sen- 
 tences often admirably terse and pointed {e.g. 
 Pnief. 227, "Si autem Justus es, nomen quidem 
 justi praesumcre uon audebis ; Serm. vii. 265, 
 " Quod Deus majorem causara tunc ulcis- 
 cendi habeat, si in exiguis rebus, ubi nulla 
 difficultas est observandi, pervicaci tantum 
 spiritu contemnatur "). His sermons pre- 
 serve a good many interesting notes of the 
 life of the time {e.g. Serm. xiii., the beggars at 
 the church door, the dread of the barbarian 
 invasions, the landowner who leaves his 
 labourers to be supported by the church, the 
 horses and mules adorned with gold and silver, 
 the heathen altar allowed to remain on a 
 Christian man's estate). His vocabulary is 
 rather interesting ; he uses popular words 
 (e.g. brodium) on the one hand, and recherche 
 words {e.g. peccamen, victorialis) on the other. 
 It has been made the subject of a special 
 study by Paucker {Zeitschr. f. d. osterreich. 
 Gymnasien, xxxii. pp. 481 ff.). 
 
 The chief ed. of his works is that of Paolo 
 Gagliardi (Galeardus), canon of Brescia, pub. 
 at Padua in 1720, or rather the second and 
 improved ed. of 1738, printed at Brescia. 
 This is reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. xx. 
 Accounts of Gaudentius and his works will 
 be found in Tillemont, t. x. pt. 2 ; in Nirschl, 
 Lehrbuch d. Patrologie (Mainz, 1883), ii. pp. 
 488 ff. ; in Hauck-Herzog Realencycl. vi. (by 
 Leimbach); and in VVetzer and Welte, Kirchen- 
 lex. v. (bv Hefele). [a.j.m.1 
 
 Gaudentius (7), Donatist bp. of Thamugada 
 (Temugadi), a town of Numidia, about 14 
 Roman miles N.E. of Lambesa (Ant. Itin. 34, 
 2), one of the seven managers on the Donatist 
 side in Carth. Conf., a.d. 411 (Mon. Vet. Don. 
 pp. 288, 408, ed. Oberthiir). His name 
 is chiefly known by his controversy with 
 St. Augustine, c. 420. Dulcitius had informed 
 him what was the course intended by the. 
 imperial government towards the Donatists. 
 Gaudentius replied in two letters, which Dul- 
 citius sent to Augustine, whose reply to them 
 in two books entitled contra Gaudentium (Aug. 
 0pp. vol. ix. 707-751, ed. Migne) may be 
 regarded as representing the close of the 
 Donatist controversy (vol. i. p. 895). The 
 Donatist cause, already languishing, from this 
 time fell into a decay, to which these trea- 
 tises of St. Augustine materially contributed. 
 Sparrow Simpson, S. Aug. and African Ch. 
 Divisions (1910), pp. i33-i37- [h.w.p.] 
 
 GELASIUS 
 
 381 
 
 Gelasius (l) I., bp. of Rome after Felix III. 
 (or II.) from Mar. 4<)2 to Nov. 496, during 
 about 4i years. M the time of his accession 
 the schism between the Western and Eastern 
 churches, which had begun under his prede- 
 cessor, had lasted more than 7 years. Its 
 occasion had been the excommunication, by 
 pope Felix, of Acacius, patriarch of Constan- 
 tinojile, for supporting and communicatinn; 
 with Peter Mongus, the once Monophysite 
 patriarch of .\lexandria, who had, however, 
 satislied .\cacius by subscribing the Henoticon, 
 and afterwards the Nicene creed. There had 
 been other grounds of complaint against 
 Acacius, notably his disregard of the authority 
 of the Roman see ; but the above had been 
 the original cause of quarrel. [Felix III. ; 
 Acacius (7).] 
 
 .\cacius being now dead, the dispute con- 
 cerned only the retention of his name in the 
 diptychs of the Eastern church. Felix had 
 demanded its erasure as a condition of inter- 
 communion with his successors, but they had 
 refused to comply. The patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople was now Euphemius ; the emperor 
 Anastasius. On his accession Gelasius wrote 
 a respectful letter to the emperor, who did not 
 reply. To Euphemius the new pope did not 
 write, as was usual, to inform him of his 
 accession. Euphemius, however, wrote twice 
 to Gelasius, expressing a strong desire for 
 reconciliation between the churches, and a 
 hope that Gelasius would, through condescen- 
 sion and a spirit of charity, be able to restore 
 concord. He insisted that Acacius himself 
 had been no heretic, and that before he 
 communicated with Peter Mongus the latter 
 had been purged of heresy. He asked by 
 what synodical auth(jrity Acacius had been 
 condemned ; and alleged that the people of 
 Constantinople would never allow his name to 
 be erased ; but suggested that the pope might 
 send an embassy to Constantinople to treat 
 on the subject. Gelasius, in his reply, 
 couched in a tone of imperious humility, 
 utterly refuses any compromise. He speaks 
 of the custom of the bishops of the apostolic 
 see notifying their elevation to inferior bishops 
 as a condescension rather than an obligation, 
 and one certainly not due to such as chose to 
 cast in their lot with heretics. He treats with 
 contempt the plea of the determined attitude 
 of the people of Constantinople. The shep- 
 herd ought, he says, to lead the flock, not the 
 flock control the shepherd. The letter thus 
 asserts in no measured terms the supremacy 
 of the see of Rome, and the necessity of sub- 
 mitting to it. " We shall come," he con- 
 cludes, " brother Euphemius, without doubt 
 to that tremendous tribunal of Christ, with 
 those standing round by whom the faith has 
 been defended. There it will be proved 
 whether the glorious confession of St. Peter 
 has left anything short for the salvation of 
 those given to him to rule, or whether there 
 has been rebellious and pernicious obstinacy 
 in those who were unwilling to obey him." 
 
 In 493 Gelasius wrote a long letter to the 
 Eastern bishops. Its main drift was to justify 
 the excommunication of .Acacius by asserting 
 that he had exceeded his powers in absolving 
 Peter Mongus without the authority of the 
 Roman see, and plainly asserts the supremacy 
 
382 
 
 GELASttIS 
 
 of the apostolic see over the whole church as 
 due to the original commission of Christ to 
 St. Peter, and as having always existed prior 
 to, and independent of, all synods and canons. 
 He speaks of " the apostolical judgment, 
 which the voice of Christ, the tradition of 
 the elders, and the authority of canons had 
 supported, that it should itself always deter- 
 mine questions throughout the church." As 
 to the possibility of Acacius being absolved 
 now, having died excommunicate, he says that 
 Christ Himself, Who raised the dead, is never 
 said to have absolved those who died in error, 
 and that even to St. Peter it was on earth only 
 that the power of binding and loosing had 
 been given. Such a tone was not calculated 
 to conciliate. The name of Gelasius himself 
 was therefore removed from the diptychs of 
 the Constantinopolitan church. Gelasius 
 wrote a long letter to the emperor in a similar 
 vein, and exhorted him to use his temporal 
 power to control his people in spiritual as well 
 as mundane matters. This letter is note- 
 worthy as containing a distinct expression of 
 the view taken by Gelasius of the relations 
 between the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdic- 
 tions. Each he regards as separate and 
 supreme in its own sphere. As in secular 
 things priests are bound to obey princes, so 
 in spiritual things all the faithful, including 
 princes, ought to submit their hearts to 
 priests ; and, if to priests generally, much 
 more to the prelate of that see which even 
 supreme Divinity has willed should be over all 
 priests, and to which the subsequent piety of 
 the general church has perpetually accorded 
 such pre-eminence. Gelasi\is also wrote on 
 the same subjects to the bishops of various 
 provinces, including those of East lUyricura 
 and Dardania. In his address to the last he 
 enlarges on its being the function of the 
 Roman see, ncjt only to carry out the decisions 
 of synods, but even to give to such decisions 
 their whole authority. Nay, the purpose of 
 synods is spoken of as being simply to express 
 the assent of the church at large to what the 
 pope had already decreed and what was 
 therefore already binding. This, he says, had 
 been the case in the instance of the council of 
 Chalcedon. Further, instances are alleged of 
 popes having on their own mere authority 
 reversed the decisions of synods, absolved 
 those whom synods had condemned, and 
 condemned those whom synods had absolved. 
 The cases of Athanasius and Chrysostom are 
 cited as examples. Lastly, any claim of 
 Constantinople (contemptuously spoken of as 
 in the diocese of Heraclea) to be exempt from 
 the judgment of " the first see " is put aside 
 as absurd, since " the power of a secular 
 kingdom is one thing, the distribution of 
 ecclesiastical dignities another." 
 
 In 495 Gelasius convened a synod of 46 
 bishops at Rome to absolve and restore to his 
 see Misenus of Cumae, one of the bishops sent 
 by pope Felix to Constantinople in the affair 
 of Acacius, who had been then won over, and 
 in consequence excommunicated. Before re- 
 ceiving absolution this prelate was required 
 to declare that he " condemned, anathema- 
 tized, abhorred, and for ever execrated Dios- 
 corus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter Fullo, 
 Acacius, and all their successors, accomplices, 
 
 GELASIUS 
 
 abettors, and all who communicated with 
 them." Gelasius died in Nov. 496. 
 
 A curious treatise of his called Totnus de 
 Anathematis Vinculo refers to those canons of 
 the council of Chalcedon, giving independent 
 authority to the see of Constantinople, of 
 which pope Leo had disapproved, setting forth 
 that the fact of this council having done some- 
 thing wrongly did not impair the validity of 
 what it had rightly done, and that the ap- 
 proval of the see of Rome was the sole test of 
 what was right. The tract contains further 
 arguments as to Rome alone having been 
 competent to reconcile Peter Mongus or to 
 absolve Acacius, and in reference to the idea 
 of the emperor having had power in the latter 
 case without the leave of Rome, the same 
 distinction between the spheres of the ecclesi- 
 astical and civil jurisdictions is drawn as in the 
 letter to the emperor. Melchizedek is referred 
 to as having in old times been both priest and 
 king ; the devil, it is said, in imitation of him, 
 had induced the emperors to assume the 
 supreme pontificate ; but since Christianity 
 had revealed the truth to the world, the union 
 of the two powers had ceased to be lawful : 
 Christ, in consideration of human frailty, had 
 now for ever separated them, leaving the 
 emperors dependent on the pontiffs for their 
 everlasting salvation, the pontiffs on the 
 emperors for the administration of all tem- 
 poral affairs. Milman {Lat. Christ.) remarks 
 on the contrast between the interpretation of 
 the type of Melchizedek and that given in the 
 13th cent, by pope Innocent IV., who takes 
 Melchizedek as prefiguring the union in the 
 pope of the sacerdotal and royal powers. 
 
 Two other works are attributed to Gelasius 
 in which views are expressed not easily recon- 
 ciled with those of his successors. One is a 
 tract, the authenticity of which has not been 
 questioned, against the Manicheans at Rome, 
 in which the practice, adopted by that sect, of 
 communion in one kind is strongly condemned. 
 His words are, " We find that some, taking 
 only the portion of the sacred body, abstain 
 from the cup of the sacred blood. Let these 
 (since I know not by what superstition they 
 are actuated) either receive the entire sacra- 
 ments or be debarred from them altogether ; 
 because a division of one and the same 
 mystery cannot take place without great 
 sacrilege." Baronius evades the obviously 
 general application of these words by saying 
 that they refer only to the Manicheans. 
 
 The treatise de Duabus Naturis. arguing 
 against the Eutychian position that the union 
 of the human and divine natures in Christ 
 implies the absorption of the human into the 
 divine, adduces the Eucharist as the image, 
 similitude, and representation of the same 
 mystery, the point being that as, after conse- 
 cration, the natural substance of the bread and 
 wine remains unchanged, so the human nature 
 of Christ remained unchanged notwithstand- 
 ing its union with divinity. His words are : 
 " The sacraments of the body and blood of 
 Christ which we take are a divine thing, inas- 
 much as through them we are made partakers 
 of the divine nature ; and yet the substance or 
 nature of bread and wine ceases not to be." 
 This language being inconsistent with the 
 I doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius first 
 
GELASIUS 
 
 disputes the authorship of the treatise, and 
 secondly, seeks to explain iht- words away. 
 But if the authoritatively enunciated views of 
 Gelasius on the relations between civil and 
 ecclesiastical authority, on communion in one 
 kind and on transubstantiation, are incon- 
 sistent with those subsequently endorsed by 
 Rome, yet, on the other hand, few, if any, of 
 his successors have gone beyond him in their 
 claims of supreme and universal authority be- 
 longing by divine institution to the Roman see. 
 
 Among iiis works is a treatise Decretum de 
 Libris Rcci[^iendis, fixing the canonical books 
 of Scripture, and distinguishing between 
 ancient ecclesiastical writers to be received or 
 rejected. It bears signs of a later date, 
 having been tirst assigned to Gelasius by 
 Hincmar of Rheims in the 7th cent. The 
 most memorable of the works attributed to 
 him is the Gelasian Sacramentary, which was 
 that in use till Clregory the Great revised and 
 abbreviated it. A new ed. was edited bv H. 
 A. Wilson (Oxf. 1894). See also C. H. Turner, 
 in the ]l. of Theol. Studies (igoo-iqoi), i. 
 556 ft. [Sacramentary in D. C. A.] A 
 Sacramentary in several books found in the 
 queen of Sweden's library, and published by 
 Thomasius in 1680, is supposed to be the 
 Gelasian one. The main authorities for his 
 Ijfe, besides the Liber Pontificalis, are the 
 letters of himself and his contemporaries, and 
 his other extant writings. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Gelasius (13) of Cyzicus, in 2nd half of the 
 5th cent., author of a work on the history of 
 the council of Nicaea, entitled by Photius 
 The Acts of the First Council in Three Books. 
 Our only knowledge of the author is derived 
 from himself. Photius acknowledges his 
 inability to determine who he was. We learn 
 from Gelasius's own words that he was the 
 son of a presbyter of Cyzicus, and, while still 
 residing in his father's house, fell in with an 
 old parchment volume which had belonged to 
 Dalmatius, bp. of Cyzicus, containing a long 
 account of the proceedings of the council of 
 Nicaea. This document not supplying all the 
 information he desired, Gelasius examined the 
 works of other writers, from which he hlled 
 up the gaps. He mentions the work of an 
 ancient writer named John, a presbyter other- 
 wise unknown, the works of Eusebius of 
 Caesarea and Rutinus (whom he calls a Roman 
 presbyter), who were both eye-witnesses, and 
 many others. From these and other sources 
 Gelasius compiled his history of the Nicene 
 council. It is sometimes taken for granted 
 that it contains a complete collection of the 
 synodal acts of the council. There is, how- 
 ever, no evidence of the existence of such a 
 collection, or of any one having seen or used 
 it. Athanasius had none such to refer to (cf. 
 Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic. I. 2), and cer- 
 tainly we do not possess it in Gelasius (cf. 
 Hefele, Hist, tf Councils, Eng. trans. 263, 264). 
 From the work itself we learn that it was 
 composed in Bithynia. As an historical 
 authority it is alin<ist worthless. Its prolix 
 disputations and lengthy orations are, as Cave 
 has justly remarked, evidently the writer's own 
 composition. Uupin's verdict is still more 
 severe. " There is neither order in his narra- 
 tive, nor exactness in his observations, nor 
 elegance in his language, nor judgment in his 
 
 CENNADIUS 
 
 SAS 
 
 selection of facts, n..r g.uKl s.nso in his judg. 
 ments." Instances <.J his untrustwi.rthinr»i 
 are seen in his statements that thr mnnnl wjt 
 summoned by pope Svlvister. ami that Mosiii* 
 of Cordova presided as his drh-Kate ; and he 
 devotes many chapters (ii. 11-24) t« disputa- 
 tions on the divinity <>f the H..lv Spirit, which 
 had not then come into controversy at j||. 
 The work is in vol. ii. cif I. abbe's colirrti..n 
 (col. 103-286) and in those <.f Harduin and 
 Mansi. Phot. Biblioth. Codd. 15, «8, 8q ; 
 Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. v. 24. vi. 4 ; Cave' 
 Hist. Lit. i. 454 : Dupin. iv. 1H7 ; Le yuien' 
 Or. Christ, iii. s68. ft. v.) 
 
 Gennadlus (10), 21st bp. of Constantuu.i.lr. 
 45''<-47i. between .Anatolius and Aca< uis. His 
 first public appearance was in an attack on 
 Cyril, in two works, c. 431 or 432. Against the 
 A nathemas of Cyril, and Two Books to Parthe- 
 nius. In the latter he exclaims, " Mow nianv 
 times have I heard blasphemies fmm Cvnl ..f 
 Egypt ? Woe to the scourge ..f Alexandria ! " 
 In 433 Gennadius was probablv one of th»»se 
 who became reconciled with Cvril. 
 
 In 458 he was a presbyter at Coiistanlinoplr 
 and designated by I.eo to fill the see as a man 
 of spotless reputation, on whom no suspim.n 
 had ever breathed, and of holy life and con- 
 spicuous learning. From the beginning of his 
 episcopate Clennadius proved his zeal for the 
 Catholic faith and the maintenance of dis- 
 cipline. His discretion was before h>ng tested. 
 Timothy Aelurus, chased from the see of 
 Alexandria by order of the emperor, had 
 obtained leave to come to Constantinople, 
 intending, by a pretence of Catholic ism, to 
 re-establish himself on his throne. Gennadins, 
 urged by I.eo, bp. of Rome, June 17, 460, did 
 his utmost to prevent the voyage of Timothy, 
 and to secure the immediate C4)nse< ration 
 of an orthodox prelate for Alexandria. .Ml 
 happened as Leo desired ; Timothy .Aelurus 
 was banished to the Chersonese, and Timothy 
 Solofaciolus was chosen bp. of Alexandria in 
 his stead. An appointment which Ciennadius 
 made about this time, that of Marcian, who 
 had been a Novatianist, but had come tiver 
 to the orthodox church, to the important post 
 of chancellor of the goods of the church of 
 Constantinople, shewed his liberality, pene- 
 tration, and desiri- for order. Two Egyptian 
 solitaries told John Mos( hus a story whiih is 
 also told by Theodorus Lector. The chur< h ol 
 St. Eleuthirius at Constantinople w.ts served 
 by a reader named Carisius, wholeda disorderlv 
 life. Gennadius severely reprimanded hini in 
 vain. According to the rules of the church, 
 the patriarch had him flogged, which was also 
 ineffectual. The patriarch sent one of his 
 officers to the church of St. Eleutherus to beg 
 'that holy martyr either to correct the un- 
 I worthy reader or to take him from the w..rld. 
 j Next day Carisius was found deati, to the 
 terror of the whole town. TheiKlorus also 
 relates how a painter, presuming to deout the 
 Saviour under the form of Jupiter, had his 
 hand withered, but was healed by the prayers 
 of Ciennadius. 
 
 (Jennadius ordained Daniel the Stylite 
 presbyter, as related in that saint's life, at 
 the request of the emperor Leo, standing at 
 the foot of the Fhan^ and performing the 
 ceremonies there. The buying and selling ol 
 
384 GENNADIUS MASSILIENSIS 
 
 holy orders was a crying scandal of the age. 
 Measures had been taken against simony by 
 the council of Chalcedon. In 459 or 460 
 Gennadius, finding the evil practice unabated, 
 held a council at Constantinople to consider 
 it. An encyclical was issued, adding ana- 
 thema to the former sentence. 
 
 Gennadius died in 471, and stands out as 
 an able and successful administrator, for 
 whom no historian has anything but praise, if 
 we except the criticism naturally aroused by 
 his attack in his younger days against Cyril 
 of Alexandria, an attack which the un- 
 measured language of Cyril perhaps excuses. 
 
 Gennadius wrote a commentary on Daniel 
 and many other parts of O.T. and on all the 
 epistles of St. Paul, and a great number of 
 homilies. Of these only a few fragments 
 remain. The principal are on Gen., Ex., Ps., 
 Rom., I. and II. Cor., Gal., and Heb., and are 
 interesting specimens of 5th-cent. exegesis. 
 That on Romans, a series of explanatory re- 
 marks on isolated texts, is the most important. 
 He fails to grasp the great central doctrine of 
 the epistle, but shews thought and spiritual 
 life. Gennadius, CP. Patr., Patr. Gk. Ixxxv. 
 p. 1611, etc. ; BoUand. AA. SS. Aug. 25, 
 p. 148 ; Ceillier, x. 343. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Gennadius (11) Massiliensis, presbyter of 
 Marseilles, who died in 496. 
 
 If we accept his de Viris Illustribus as it is 
 commonly pubhshed, we are warranted in 
 classing Gennadius of Marseilles with the 
 semi- Pelagians, as he censures Augustine and 
 Prosper and praises Faustus. Moreover, the 
 very laudatory account of St. Jerome at the 
 commencement of the book seems inconsistent 
 with the hostile reference to that father under 
 the art. Rufinus in the same catalogue. 
 
 The de Viris Illustribus in its most common- 
 ly accepted form was probably published c. 
 495, and contains, in some ten folio pages, 
 short biographies of ecclesiastics between 392 
 and 495. .Although lacking the lively touches 
 of his great predecessor, Jerome, the catalogue 
 of Gennadius exhibits a real sense of propor- 
 tion. The greater men stand out in its pages, 
 and it conveys much real and valuable infor- 
 mation. With due allowance for the bias 
 referred to, it may be regarded as a trust- 
 worthy compilation. 
 
 His other treatise, entitled Epistola de Fide 
 med, or de Ecdesiasticis Dogmatibus Liber, 
 begins with a profession of faith in the three 
 creeds, interwoven with the names of those 
 who are considered by the writer (with 
 occasionally questionable accuracy) to have 
 impugned this or that article of belief. Gen- 
 nadius considers (like later writers, e.g. 
 Aquinas) that all men, even those alive at the 
 second Advent, will have to die (7). But this 
 conviction, though derived from a widespread 
 patristic tradition, is, he admits, rejected by 
 equally catholic and learned Fathers. Of the 
 theories concerning the soul of man subse- 
 quently known as the creationist and the 
 traducianist views, he espouses the creationist. 
 He will not allow the existence of the spirit 
 as a third element in man besides the body 
 and the soul, but regards it as only another 
 name for the soul (19). Heretical baptism is 
 not to be repeated, unless it has been admin- 
 istered by heretics who would have declined 
 
 GENOVEPA 
 
 to employ the invocation of the Holy Trinity 
 (52). He recommends weekly reception of the 
 Eucharist by all not under the burden of 
 mortal sin. Such as are should have recourse 
 to public penitence. He will not deny that 
 private penance may suffice ; but even here 
 outward manifestation, such as change of 
 dress, is desirable. Daily reception of holy 
 communion he will neither praise nor blame 
 (53). Evil was invented by Satan (57). 
 Though celibacy is rated above matrimony, 
 to condemn marriage is Manichean (67). A 
 twice-married Christian should not be or- 
 dained (72). Churches should be called after 
 martyrs, and the relics of martyrs honoured 
 (73). None but the baptized attain eternal 
 life ; not even catechumens, unless they suffer 
 martyrdom (74). Penitence thoroughly avails 
 to Christians even at their latest breath (80). 
 The Creator alone knows our secret thoughts. 
 Satan can learn them only by our motions and 
 manifestations (81). Marvels may be wrought 
 in the Lord's name even by bad men (84). 
 Men can become holy without such marks (85). 
 The freedom of man's will is strongly asserted 
 in this short treatise, but the commencement 
 of all goodness is assigned to divine grace. 
 The language of Gennadius is here not quite 
 Augustinian ; but neither is it Pelagian, and 
 the work was long included among those of 
 St. Augustine. 
 
 The de Viris Illustribus is given in most good 
 edd. of the works of St. Jerome, and is ed. by 
 Dr. Richardson in the Lib. of Nicene and Post- 
 Nicene Fathers ; the Liber de Ecdesiasticis 
 Dogmatibus is in the .\ppendix to t. viii. of 
 the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine (p. 75). 
 Cf. C. H. Turner in /. of Theol. Studies (1905), 
 vii. 78-99, who prints a new text of the Liber 
 de Eccl. Dogm. [j.g.c] 
 
 Genovefa [Genevih'e), patron saint of Paris 
 and of France. The most ancient records 
 tell the story of her life as follows : About 
 A.D. 430 St. Germanus of Auxerre and St. 
 Lupus of Troyes, proceeding to England to 
 combat the Pelagian heresy, stayed one 
 evening at Nanterre, then a village, about 7 
 miles from Paris. The villagers assembled to 
 see the two renowned prelates, and a little girl 
 attracted the notice of St. Germanus. He 
 learnt that her name was Genovefa, her 
 parents' names Severus and Gerontia. The 
 parents were summoned, and bidden rejoice 
 in the sanctity of their daughter, who would 
 be the means of saving many. Addressing 
 himself to the child, he dwelt on the high state 
 of virginity, and engaged her to consecrate 
 herself. Before departing St. Germanus 
 reminded her of her promise, and gave her a 
 brazen coin marked with the cross, to wear as 
 her only ornament. Henceforth miracles 
 marked her out as the spouse of Christ. When 
 St. Germanus arrived in Paris on a second 
 journey to Britain, he asked tidings of St. 
 Genovefa, and was met with the murmurs of 
 her detractors. Disregarding their tales, he 
 sought her dwelling, hiunbly saluted her, 
 shewed the people the floor of her chamber 
 wet with her secret tears, and commended her 
 to their love. When the rumour of Attila's 
 merciless and irresistible progress reached 
 Paris, the terrified citizens were for fleeing 
 with their families and goods. But Genovefa 
 
6ENSER1C 
 
 assembled the matrons and bade theni srck 
 deliverance by prayer and fasting rather tlian 
 by flight. The Huns were diverted through 
 the ethcacy of her prayers, as after-ages be- 
 lieved (c. 448). Her abstinence and self-in- 
 flicted privations were notable. From her 15th 
 to her 50th year she ate but twice a week, and 
 then only bread of barley or beans. Thereafter, 
 by command of her bishops, she added a little 
 fish and milk. Every Saturday she kept a 
 vigil in her church of St. Denys, and from 
 Epiphany till Easter remained immured in her 
 cell. Before her death Clovis, of whose con- 
 version a later legend has made her the joint 
 author with Clotilda, began to build for her 
 the church which later bore her name. Un- 
 finished at his death, it was completed by 
 Clotilda, and dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul. 
 Upon Genovefa's death (Jan. 3, 512) she was 
 buried in it. 
 
 The chief authority for her history is an 
 anonymous author, who asserts that he wrote 
 18 years after her death, therefore c. a.d. 530. 
 This life was first published by Jean Ravisi, 
 of Nevers, in his Des Femmes illustres (Paris, 
 1521), and then by Surius, with corrections in 
 the style (Jan. 3); again, by the Bollandists, 
 in 1643, from better MSS., together with an- 
 other Life differing only in unimportant par- 
 ticulars (Acta SS. Jan. i, 138 seq.). The Life 
 of St. Germanus of Auxerre by Constantius 
 (c. 3, Boll. ActaSS. Jul. vii. 211), and that part 
 of St. Genovefa's which relates to him, almost 
 certainly have a common source, or else one is 
 taken from the other, with slight alterations. 
 That episode being subtracted, there is nothing 
 in the remainder which might not be the work 
 of a later age. The history, therefore, must 
 be accepted with great doubt. Innumerable 
 Lives of St. Genovefa have appeared in France 
 in modern times, mostly of a devotional 
 character, and useless for critical or historical 
 purposes. Saintyves, Vie de Ste. Genevieve ; 
 Baillet, Vies des saints, Jan. 3, t. ii. 417 ; 
 BOdouet, Hist, el culte de Ste. G. (Paris, 1866) ; 
 Lefeuve, Hist, de Ste. G. c. xiii. (Paris, 1842) ; 
 Fleury, Hint, eccles. Ixix. 22, Ixxiv. 39 ; Uulaure, 
 Hist, dc Paris, i. 240-241. [s.a.b.1 
 
 Genseric, king of the Vandals, the illegiti- 
 mate son of king Godigiselus, reigned in Spain 
 jointly with his legitimate brother Gu.vderic, 
 and on the death of the latter, a.d. 428, became 
 sole sovereign. He is said to have been 
 originally a Catholic, but early in life em- 
 braced the .\rian heresy. 
 
 Before the death of Gunderic, Boniface, 
 count of .\frica, forced to seek safety in revolt, 
 invited the Vandals to invade Africa. Gen- 
 seric readily accepted, and in May 429, 
 according to Idatius (in 427 according to 
 Prosper), crossed into Africa with 50,000 
 warriors, who poured over the fertile and 
 defenceless provinces. Carthage, Cirta, and 
 Hippo Regius alone withstood the tide of 
 invasion. The Vandals especially ravaged 
 the churches, basilicas, cemeteries, and mon- 
 asteries. Bishops and priests were tortured 
 to compel them to disclose the church trea- 
 sures. Victor mentions two who were burnt 
 alive — the venerable Papinian, one of his 
 predecessors in the see of Vita, and Man- 
 suetus, bp. of Urci. Hippo was besieged, but 
 through the efforts oi count Boniface, who had 
 
 GENSERIC 
 
 38& 
 
 returned to his allegiance, supported by an 
 army of allied (.oths, the Vandals were obiijird 
 by famine, after a siege of 14 months, lo 
 aband.in tiie attempt. St. AuKustine died m 
 .Aug. A.D. 430, in the 3r(l month of the sirRo 
 (Possidius, Life of St. Aug. in Migne, I'atr. 
 Lilt, xxxii. 59). Soon afterwards Bnnifaee, 
 defeated with great loss, returned to Italy. 
 Genseric concluded at Hippo, on Feb. 10, 43<i, 
 a peace with Valentinian, undertaking to pay 
 a tribute for the territories he had conquered, 
 and to leave unmolested those still held by 
 Valentinian, sending his son Hnnnerir as a 
 hostage. In 437 Cienseric began to perse- 
 cute the Catholic bishops in the ceded terri- 
 tories, of whom Possidius Novatus and 
 Severianus were the most illustrious, and not 
 oniv took their chunhes from them, but 
 banished tiiem from tiuir sees. Four Span- 
 iards, Arcadius, Pmbus, I'aschasius, and 
 Eutychius, who were faithful servants of 
 Genseric, but who refused at his command to 
 embrace Arianism, were tortured and put to 
 death. Paulillus, a younger brother of 
 Paschasius and Eutychius, was cruelly 
 scourged and reduced to slavery. 
 
 Genseric, after procuring the restoration of 
 his son, took Carthage by surprise, Oct. 19, 
 439. The bishops and noble laity were 
 stripped of their possessions and offered the 
 alternative of slavery or exile. Ouodvultdeus, 
 bp. of Cartilage, and a number of his clergy 
 were compelled to embark in unseawortliy 
 ships, but reached Naples in safety. All the 
 churches within the walls of Carthage were 
 handed over from the Catholics to the Arians, 
 and also many of those outside, especially two 
 dedicated to St. Cyprian. The Arians in this 
 were, however, only meting out to the Cath- 
 olics treatment such as they received where 
 the latter party was the stronger. Genseric 
 ordered funeral processions of the Catholics to 
 be conducted in silence and sent the remainder 
 of the clergy into exile. Some of the most 
 distinguished clergy and laity of these pro- 
 vinces petitioned the king to be allowed to live 
 in peace under the Vandals. He replied, " I 
 have resolved to let none of your race and 
 name escape. How then do you dare to 
 make such a demand ? " and was with diffi- 
 culty restrained by the entreaties of his 
 attendants from drowning the petitioners in 
 the adjoining sea. The Catholics, deprived 
 of their churches, were obliged to celebrate the 
 divine mysteries where and as best they could. 
 In 440 Genseric equipped a fleet, with which 
 he ravaged Sicily and besieged Palermo. At 
 the instigation of Maximus, the leader of the 
 .\rians in Sicily, he persecuted the Catholics, 
 some of whom suffered martyrdom. Accord- 
 ing to Prosper, he was recalled by news of the 
 arrival in Africa of count Sebastian, son-in-law 
 of count Boniface, but Idatius places his 
 arrival ten vears later. Sebastian had come 
 as a friend to take refuge at his c<»urt, but 
 Genseric, wiio feared his renown as a statesman 
 and general, tried to convert him to Arianism, 
 that his refusal might supply a pretext fc.r 
 putting him to death. Sebastian evaded his 
 demands by a dexterous reply, which Gen- 
 seric was unable to answer, but some other 
 excuse for his execution was shortly found, 
 lu A.D. 441 a new peace was concluded, by 
 
386 
 
 6ENSERIC 
 
 which Valentinian retained the three Mauri- ] 
 tanias and part of Numidia, and ceded the 
 remainder of his African dominions to Gen- 
 seric, who divided the Zeugitane or procon- 
 sular province, in which was Carthage, among 
 the Vandals and kept the rest in his own j 
 possession. Universal oppression of the 1 
 
 natives followed. Then Genseric discovered 
 a plot among his nobles against himself, and 
 tortured and executed many of them. Prob- 
 ably from alarm at this conspiracy, he began 
 a new and severer persecution. The Cath- 
 olics were allowed no place for prayer or the 
 ministration of the sacraments. Every allu- 
 sion in a sermon to Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, 
 or Holofernes was regarded as aimed at the 
 king, and the preacher punished with exile. 
 Among the bishops now banished, Victor 
 mentions Urbanus of Girba, Crescius, a metro- 
 politan who presided over 120 bishops, Habet- 
 deus of Teudela, and Eustratius of Suffectum. 
 Felix of Adrumetum was banished for receiv- 
 ing a foreign monk. Genseric prohibited the 
 consecration of new bishops in place of those 
 banished. In 454, however, he yielded to 
 Valentinian's requests so far as to allow Deo- 
 gratias to be consecrated for Carthage. The 
 see had remained vacant since the banishment 
 of Quodvultdeus 15 years before. In 455 
 Genseric, at the invitation of Eudoxia, 
 Valentinian's widow, sailed to Italy, and took 
 Rome without a blow. At the intercession 
 of Leo the Great, he abstained from torturing 
 or massacring the inhabitants and burning 
 the city, but gave it up to systematic 
 plunder. For 14 days and nights the work of 
 pillage continued, the city was ransacked of 
 its remaining treasures, and Genseric then 
 returned unmolested to Africa, carrying much 
 booty and many thousand captives, including 
 the empress Eudoxia and her two daughters. 
 The elder became the wife of his son Hun- 
 neric ; the younger, with her mother, was 
 eventually surrendered to the emperor Leo. 
 The whole of Africa now fell into the hands 
 of Genseric, and also Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, 
 and the Balearic Islands. His fleets yearly 
 sailed from Carthage in the early spring, and 
 ravaged all the Mediterranean coasts. When 
 leaving Carthage on one of these expeditions, 
 the helmsman asked Genseric whither he 
 should steer. " Against those," he replied, 
 " who have incurred the wrath of God." His 
 object was not only to plunder, but to per- 
 secute. Spain, Italy, Dalmatia, Campania, 
 Calabria, Apulia, Bruttium, Venetia, Lucania, 
 Epirus, and the Peloponnese all suffered from 
 his ravages. After the death of Deogratias, 
 A.D. 457, Genseric did not allow any more 
 bishops to be consecrated in the proconsular 
 ■province, the peculiar domain of the Vandals, 
 so that of the original number of 164 only 
 three were left in Victor's time. One Pro- 
 culus was sent to compel the bishops to give 
 up all their books and the sacramental vessels. 
 When they refused, they were seized by force 
 and the altar-cloths made into shirts for 
 the soldiers. St. Valerian, bp. of Abbenza, 
 was expelled from that town. No one was 
 allowed to receive him into their house or 
 permit him to remain on their land, and he 
 was long obhged to lie by the roadside. At 
 Kegia the Catholics had ventured at Easter 
 
 GENSERIC 
 
 to take possession of their church. The 
 
 Arians, headed by a priest named Adduit, 
 attacked the church, part forcing an entrance 
 with drawn swords and part shooting arrows 
 through the windows. The reader was killed 
 in the pulpit by an arrow, and many wor- 
 shippers slain on the altar-steps. Most of the 
 survivors were executed by Genseric's orders. 
 Genseric, by the advice of the Arian bishops, 
 commanded all officials of his court to embrace 
 Arianism. According to Victor's account, 
 Armogast, one of the number, refused, and was 
 tightly bound with cords, but they broke like 
 a spider's web ; and when he was hung head 
 downwards by one foot, he seemed to sleep 
 as peacefully as if in his bed. His persecutors, 
 unable to overcome his resolution, were about 
 to kill him, but were dissuaded by an Arian 
 priest, lest he should be reverenced as a 
 martyr. He was accordingly compelled to 
 labour in the fields and afterwards to tend 
 cattle near Carthage. 
 
 The emperor Majorian in 460 assembled a 
 fleet of 300 vessels at Carthagena to recover 
 Africa. His plans were betrayed to the 
 Vandals, who surprised and carried off the 
 greater part of his ships. Genseric, however, 
 in alarm, concluded peace with Majorian. In 
 468 Leo collected a mighty armament of 1,113 
 ships, each containing 100 men (Cedrenus, 
 350, ed. Dindorf.), under the command of his 
 brother-in-law Basiliscus. The main arma- 
 ment landed at the Hermaean promontory 
 (Cape Bon), about 40 miles from Carthage. 
 Genseric, by means, it was generally believed, 
 of a large bride, induced Basiliscus to grant a 
 truce for five days. He used this time to 
 man all the ships he could, and, the wind 
 becoming favourable, attacked the Romans 
 and sent fire-ships among their crowded 
 vessels. Panic and confusion spread through 
 the vast multitude, most of whom tried to fly, 
 but a few fell fighting gallantly to the last. 
 After this victory Genseric regained Sardinia 
 and Tripoli, where the Roman arms had met 
 with success, and ravaged the Mediterranean 
 coasts more cruelly than before, till a peace 
 was concluded between him and the emperor 
 Zeno. Genseric, at the request of the em- 
 peror's ambassador Severus, released those 
 prisoners who had fallen to his own or his 
 sons' lot, and allowed him to ransom as many 
 others as he could (Malchus, de Legationibus, 3, 
 ed. Dindorf), and, at Leo's entreaty, allowed 
 the churches of Carthage to be reopened and 
 the exiled bishops and clergy to return. Soon 
 afterwards he died, on Jan. 24, 477. 
 
 According to the description of Jornandes 
 {de Gothorum Origine, c. 33, in Cassiodorus, i. 
 412, in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixix. 1274), Genseric 
 was of moderate stature and lame from a fall 
 from his horse. He was a man of few words, 
 and thus better able to conceal the deep 
 designs he had conceived. He scorned 
 luxury, was greedy of empire, passionate, 
 skilful in intrigue, and cruel ; but it must be 
 remembered that all our informants are writers 
 who hated and dreaded himself and his nation 
 both as heretics and enemies. With every 
 allowance for Salvian's rhetoric {de Guber- 
 natione Dei, vii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. liii.), it 
 must be admitted that his description of 
 the morals of the Vandals and those of the 
 
GEORGIUS 
 
 dissolute Cartliafjinians slmw tlio foruuT in a 
 more favourable light than the latter. 
 
 Geiiseric's name is variously spelt Ciizericus, 
 Gaisericus, Geisericus, and Zinzirichus. The 
 sources for the above account are the Chron- 
 icles of Prosper and Idatius (in Migne, Fair. 
 Lat. li.) ; Procopius, de Bi-llo \'audalico, i. 3-7 ; 
 Isidorus, de Regibus Gotltorum (Isid. Oft^- ^'i- 
 130-133. i" -Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxxiii. 1076) ; 
 and Victor Vitensis, de Persecutiom- I'audalica, 
 i. (in Migne, Pair. Lat. Iviii.)- Gibbim, cc. 
 xxxiii. xxxvi. and xxxvii., may also be con- 
 sulted ; and Ruinarfs dissertation in his 
 appendix to Victor V'itensis, and Ceillier, 
 Histoire des auteurs sacri's, x. c. 28. [fd.] 
 
 Georgius (3), bp. of Laodicea ad mare in 
 Syria Prima (335-347), who took part in the 
 Trinitarian controversies of the 4th cent. At 
 tirst an ardent admirer of the teaching of 
 Arius and associated with Eusebius of Nico- 
 media, he subsequently became a semi-Arian, 
 but seems ultimately to have united with the 
 Aiiomoeans, whose uncompromising opponent 
 he had once been, and to have died professing 
 their tenets (Newman, .4rians, pt. ii. p. 275). 
 He was a native of Alexandria. In early life 
 he devoted himself with considerable distinc- 
 tion to the study of philosophy (Philost. H. E. 
 viii. 17). He was ordained presbyter by 
 Alexander, bp. of Alexandria («b. ; Eus. Vil. 
 Const, iii. 62). Having gone to Antioch, he 
 endeavoured to mediate between Arius and 
 the Catholic body. To the Arians he shewed 
 how, by a sophistical evasion based on I. Cor. 
 xi. 12 [to. de Trdvra fV rod BeoC), they might 
 acc,;pt the orthodox test Qeof eK HfoD 
 (Socr. H. E. ii. 45 ; Athan. de Synod, p. 887). 
 The attempt at reconciliation completely 
 failed, and resulted in his deposition and ex- 
 communication by Alexander, on the ground 
 of false doctrine and of the oiien and habitual 
 irregularities of his life (Athan. ib. p. 886 ; 
 .■ipol. ii. p. 728 ; de Fug. p. 718 ; Theod. H. E. 
 ii. 9). Athanasius styles him " the most 
 wicked of all the Arians," reprobated even 
 bv his own party (de Fug. 7x8). After his 
 excommunication at Alexandria, he sought 
 admission among the clergy of Antioch, but 
 was steadily rejected by Jiustathius (Athan. 
 Hist. Arian. p. 812). On this he retired to 
 Arethusa, where he acted as presbyter, and, 
 on the expulsion of Eustathius, was wel- 
 comed back to Antioch by the dominant 
 .\riati faction. He was a[)pointed bp. of 
 I.aodicea on the death of the Arian Theo- 
 doius (Athan. de Synod, p. 886 ; Or. i. p. 290 ; 
 Soz. H. E. vi. 25). As bishop he took a 
 leading part in the successive synods sum- 
 moned by the Arian faction against Athan- 
 asius. He was at the councils of Tyre and 
 Jerusalem in 335 (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 728 ; 
 Eus. Vil. Const, iv. 43), and that of the 
 Dedication at Antioch in 341 (Soz. H. E. iii. 
 5). Fear kept him from the council of Sardica 
 in 347, where the bishops unanimously de- 
 posed him and many others as having been 
 previously condemned by Alexander, and as 
 holding Arian opinions (Theod. H. E. iii. 9 ; 
 Labbe, Concil. ii. 678 ; Athan. Apol. ii. p. 
 765 ; de Fug. p. 718). Of this deposition 
 George took no heed, and in 358, when Eudox- 
 ius, the newly appointed b[). of Antioch, 
 openly sided with Aetius and the Anomoeans, 
 
 GEORGIUS 
 
 387 
 
 George carmslly appcil.il t.. .M.i< cdouius of 
 Constantinople and other bishops, who were 
 visiting H.isil at Ancyra to ronsccratc a 
 newly tret t.d rhurc h, to lose no time in sum- 
 moning a ouncil to (cndtnin tlie .\nc>in>H-.in 
 heresy and eject Aetius. His letter is pre- 
 served by Sozomon (//. /•.". iv. 13; l.alil>e. 
 Concil. ii. 790). At Sehiu ia, in 350, when the 
 semi-Arian party was split into two, George 
 headed the more numerous faction opposed to 
 that of Acacius and luidoxius, whom, with 
 their adherents, they deposed (Swr. H. E. ii. 
 40). On the expulsion of Anianus from the 
 see of Antioch, George was mainly responsible 
 for the election of Meletius, believing him to 
 hold the same opinions as himself. He was 
 speedily undeceived, for on his first entry intt) 
 Antioch Meletius startled his hearers by an 
 unetpiivocal declaration of the truth as laid 
 down at Nicaca. Indignant at being thus 
 entrapped, (ieorgc and his fellows lost no time 
 in securing the deposition and expulsion of a 
 bishop of such uncompromising orthodoxy 
 (Theod. H. E. ii. 31 ; Philost. H. E. v. i ; 
 Socr. H. E. ii. 44 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 28). (ireg- 
 ory Nyssen mentions a letter by George 
 relating to Arius (in Eunotn. i. 28). and Soc- 
 rates quotes a panegyric composed by him 
 on the Arian Eusebius of Emesa, who was his 
 intimate friend and resided with him at 
 Laodicea after his expulsion from Emesa and 
 by whose intervention at Anti<Kh he was 
 restored to his see (Socr. H. E. i. 24, ii. 9)- 
 He was also the author of some treatises 
 against heresv, especially that of the Mani- 
 cheans (Theod. Haer. Fab. i. 28 ; Phot. Bibl. 
 c. 85 ; Niceph. H. E. vi. 32). [k.v.] 
 
 Georgius (4), c(jnimonly called of Cappa- 
 docia (Athan. Ep. ad Episc. 7) ; .\rian 
 intruding bp. of Alexandria (356-361). He 
 was born, according to Anunianus Marcellinus, 
 at Epiphania in Cilicia (xxii. 11, 3), and, if so, 
 must have been Cappadocian only by descent. 
 Gregory Nazianzen describes him as not purely 
 free-born {Oral. xxi. 16), and as " unlearned," 
 but he undoubtedly collected a library which 
 Julian, no bad judge, describes as " very large 
 and ample," richly stored with philosophical, 
 rhetorical, and historical authors, and with 
 various works of " (ialilean " or Christian 
 theology {Epp. 9, .^f>)- •" ^-Vb. 356, after 
 Athanasius had retired from .Alexandria in 
 consequence of the attack on his church, which 
 all but ended in his seizure, he heard that 
 lieorge was to be intruded into his throne, as 
 Gregory had been 16 years previously, lieorge 
 arrived in Alexandria, escorted by soldiers, 
 during Lent 356 (de Fug. 6). His installati<.n 
 was a signal for new inflictions on Alexandrian 
 church-people. " After Easter week," says 
 Athanasius (ib.). "virgins were imprisoned. 
 bishops led away in chains" (some 26 are 
 named in Hist. Arian. 72); "attacks made 
 on houses " ; and on tin' first Sunday 
 evening after Pentecost a number of people 
 who had met f.)r prayer in a se( luded place 
 were cruelly maltreated by the commander, 
 Sebastian, ai " pitiless Manicluan," for refusing 
 to communicate with George. 
 
 The intruding bishop was a man of resolu- 
 tion and action (Soz. iii. 7)- (ifegorv of 
 Nazianzus, who disparages his abilities, admits 
 that he was like a " hand " to the Arians, while 
 
S88 
 
 6E0RG1US 
 
 he employed an eloquent prelate — probably 
 Acacius — ^^as a " tongue." He belonged to the 
 Acacian section of the party, and was con- 
 sequently obnoxious to the semi-Arians, who 
 " deposed him " in the council of Seleucia. He 
 allowed the notorious adventurer Aetius, 
 founder of the Anomoeans or ultra- Arians, to 
 officiate as deacon at Alexandria, after having 
 been ordained, as Athanasius tells us (de 
 Synod. 38), bv Leontius of Antioch, although 
 he afterwards " compelled " the Arian bishops 
 of Egypt to sign the decree of the Acacian 
 svnod of Constantinople of 360 against Aetius 
 (Philost. iii. 2). He induced Theodore, bp. 
 of Oxyrynch\is, to submit to degradation from 
 the ministry and to be reordained by him as 
 an Arian bishop (Lib. Marcell. et FaiLstini, 
 Sirmond. i. 135)- He managed to keep the 
 confidence of Constantius, who congratulated 
 the Alexandrians on having abandoned such 
 "grovelling teachers" as Athanasius and 
 entrusted their " heavenward aspirations " to 
 the guidance of " the most venerable George " 
 (Athan. Apol. to Const. 30, 31). But George 
 was far from recommending his form of 
 Christianity either to the orthodox or to the 
 pagans of Alexandria. " He was severe," 
 savs Sozomen, " to the adherents of Athan- 
 asius," not onlv forbidding the exercise of their 
 worship, but " inflicting imprisonment and 
 scourges on men and women after the fashion 
 of a tyrant " ; while, towards all alike, " he 
 wielded his authority with more violence than 
 belonged to the episcopal rank and character." 
 He was " hated by the magistrates for his 
 supercilious demeanour, by the people for his 
 tvranny" (Soz. iv. 10, 30). He stood well 
 with Constantius, who was guided theologic- 
 ally by the Acacians; and it was easy for 
 the " pope " of Alexandria to embitter his 
 sovereign (as Julian says he did, Ep. 10) 
 against the Alexandrian community, to name 
 several of its members as disobedient subjects, 
 and to suggest that its grand public buildings 
 ought by rights to pay tax to the treasury 
 (Ammian. etc.). He shewed himself a keen 
 man of business, " buying up the nitre- works, 
 the marshes of papyrus and reed, and the salt 
 lakes " (Epiph. Haey. Ixxvi.). He manifested 
 his anti-pagan zeal by arbitrary acts and 
 insulting speeches, procured the banishment 
 of Zeno, a prominent pagan physician (Julian, 
 Ep. 45), prevented the pagans from offering 
 sacrifices and celebrating their national feasts 
 (Soz. iv. 30), brought Artemius, " duke " of 
 Egypt, much given to the destruction of idols 
 (Tlieod. iii. 18), with an armed force into the 
 superb temple of Serapis at Alexandria, which 
 was forthwith stripped of images, votive 
 offerings, and ornaments (Julian, I.e. ; Soz. 
 I.e.). On Aug. 29, 358, the people broke into 
 the church of St. Dionysius, where George was 
 then residing, and the soldiers rescued him 
 from their hands with difficulty and after 
 hard fighting. On Oct. 2 he was obliged to 
 leave the city ; and the " Athanasians " 
 occupied the churches from Oct. 11 to 
 Dec. 24, when they were again ejected by 
 Sebastian. Probably George returned soon 
 after he had quitted the Seleucian council, i.e. 
 in Nov. 359. The news of Julian's accession 
 arrived at Alexandria Nov. 30, 361. George 
 was in the height of his pride and power : 
 
 GEORGIUS 
 
 he had persecuted and mocked the pagans 
 (Socr. iii. 2 ; Maff. Frag. ; Ammian.), who 
 now, being officially informed that there was 
 an emperor who worshipped the gods, felt that 
 the gods could at last be avenged. The shout 
 arose, " Away with George ! " and "in a 
 moment," says the Fragmentist, they threw 
 him into prison, with Diodorus and Dracon- 
 tius, the master of the mint, who had over- 
 thrown a pagan altar which he found standing 
 there (Ammian.). The captives were kept 
 in irons until the morning of Dec. 24. Then 
 the pagan mob again assembled, dragged them 
 forth with " horrible shouts " of triumph, and 
 kicked them to death. They flung the 
 mangled body of George on a camel, which 
 they led through every part of the city, 
 dragging the two other corpses along with 
 ropes, and eventually burned the remains on 
 the shore, casting the ashes into the sea. 
 
 The Arians, of course, regarded George as 
 a martyr ; and Gibbon took an evident 
 pleasure in representing " the renowned St. 
 George of England " as the Alexandrian 
 usurper " transformed " into a heroic soldier- 
 saint ; but bp. Milner (Hist. Inquiry into the 
 Existenee and Character of St. George, 1792) 
 and others have shewn that this assumption 
 of identity is manifestly false, the St. George 
 who is patron saint of England being of an 
 earlier date, though of that saint's life, 
 country, or date we have no certain informa- 
 tion, such traditions as we possess being given 
 in the next art. [w.b.] 
 
 GeorgiUS (43), M., Apr. 23 (Sle'yaXoiudpTvs, 
 Bas. Men.) ; traditionally the patron saint of 
 England, a military tribune and martyr under 
 Diocletian at Nicomedia, a.d. 303. He was a 
 native of Cappadocia and of good birth. Some 
 time before the outbreak of the great perse- 
 cution he accompanied his mother to Lydda, 
 in Palestine, where she possessed property. 
 As soon, however, as he heard of the publica- 
 tion of the first edict (Feb. 23, 303), he re- 
 turned to Nicomedia, where, as some think, 
 he was the celebrated person who tore down 
 the imperial proclamation, and then suffered 
 death by roasting over a slow fire (Eus. H. E. 
 viii.5). [Diocletian.] The earliest historical 
 testimony to the existence and martyrdom 
 of St. George is an inscription in a church at 
 Ezr'a or Edhr'a, in S. Syria, copied by Burck- 
 hardt and Porter, and discussed by Mr. Hogg 
 in two papers before the Royal Society of 
 Literature (Transactions, vi. 292, vii. 106). 
 This inscription states that the building had 
 been a heathen temple, but was dedicated as 
 a church in honour of the great martyr St. 
 George, in a year which Hogg, by an acute 
 argument, fixes as 346. (For another view, 
 however, which assigns the inscription to 499, 
 see Bockh's Corp. Inscript. Graee. ed. Kirch- 
 hoff, t. iv. No. 8627.) His name occurs again 
 in another inscription in the church of Shaka, 
 20 miles E. of Ezr'a, which Hogg dates 
 A.D. 367. (Bockh, I.e. No. 8609, cf. 8630 ; for 
 other instances of transformations of heathen 
 temples into churches and hospitals in the 
 4th and 5th cent., see Bockh, I.e. 8645, 
 8647.) The council assembled at Rome by 
 pope Gelasius, a.d. 494 or 496 (Hefele, 
 Concil. i. 610, iii. 219, ed. Paris, 1869), con- 
 demned the Acts of St. George, together with 
 
OEORGIUS 
 
 those of Cyricus and Julitta, as oorruptcd 
 by heretics, but expressly asserted that the 
 saints themselves were real martyrs and 
 worthy of all reverence (cf. IMtra^ S/>»ci7. 
 SoUsmen. iv. jgi, for a repetition, three cen- 
 turies later in the East, of this condemnation 
 by the patriarch Nicephorus, in his Constil. 
 Eccl.). Thenceforward the testimonies to liis 
 existence rapidly thicken, but decrease in i 
 value. Gregory of Tours in the 6th cent. ^ 
 mentions him as highly celebrated in France, i 
 while in the East his cultus became universally j 
 established (cf. Fleury, H. E. xxxiv. 46) and 
 churches were erected in all directions in his I 
 honour, one of the most celebrated beinp that 
 built, probably by Justinian, over his tomb at 
 Lydda, whither his relics had been transfern d 
 after his mart\Tdom. This church still ; 
 exists. (For an engraving of it, see Thom- 1 
 son's Land and Book, ii. 292 ; cf. Robinson's ! 
 Biblical Researches, iii. 51-55, \vith I,e Quicn, [ 
 Oriens Christian, iii. 1271, for full particulars 
 of St. George's connexion with Lydda.) j 
 .Another is at Thessalonica ; described in , 
 Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture,] 
 pp. 132-142, where strong reasons are given 
 for assigning its erection to Constantine (cf. 
 Procopius, de Aedif. iii. 4, ed. Bonn). 
 
 The Medieval Legends. — The .\rians of 
 the 5th cent, seem to have corrupted his 
 acts for their own purposes. Their story is 
 that he was arrested by Datianus, emperor 
 of Rome, or, according to others, of Persia, 
 by whom he was in vain ordered to sacrifice 
 to .\pollo. The magician Athanasius under- 
 took to confound the saint. After various 
 attempts the magician was converted and 
 baptized, as well as the queen Alexandra. 
 .A.fter many miracles and various tortures, St. 
 George was beheaded. It is strange that, 
 notwithstanding the decrees of Rome and 
 Constantinople, this .A.rian corruption became 
 the basis of all subsequent legends, and even 
 found its way into the hymns of St. John 
 Damascene in honour of St. George (Mai. 
 Spicil. Rom. t. ix. p. 729 ; Ceillier, xii. 89). 
 The addition of a horse and a dragon to the 
 story arose out of the imaginations of medie- 
 val writers. The dragon represents the devil, 
 suggested by St. George's triumph over him 
 at his martyrdom (cf. Bus. Vita Constant, iii. 
 3). When the race of the Bagratides as- 
 cended the throne of Georgia at the end of 
 the 6th cent., they adopted St. George slaying 
 the Dragon as part of their arms (Malan, 
 Wis/, of Georgian Ch. pp. 15, 29). The 
 horse was added during the Frankish occupa- 
 tion of Constantinople as suitable, according 
 to medieval ideas, to his rank and character 
 as a military martyr. St. George was de- 
 picted on a horse as early as 1227, according 
 to Nicephorus Gregoras (Hist. Byzant. viii. 5), 
 where will be found a curious story concerning 
 a picture in the imperial palace at Constan- 
 tinople, of St. George mounted upon a horse, 
 which neighed in the most violent style when- 
 ever an enemy was about to make a successful 
 assault upon the city. The earliest trace we 
 can now find of the full-grown legend of St. 
 George and the dragon, and the king's daugh- 
 ter Sabra, whom he delivered, is in the 
 Historia Lombardica, popularly called the 
 Golden Legend, of Jacobus de Voragine, arch- 
 
 OEOROIUS 
 
 SAO 
 
 bp. of Genn.i, ^.,^. liS... .md in the brrvl.iry 
 service for St. (.eorKc's Dav. til! rrviv.l by 
 pope Clement VIII. Thrnrr it brr.imr lUr 
 foundation of the slorv as told in J->hnson'« 
 Historie of the Seven ( hamf^ions of ( hnslrndnm. 
 and the old ballad of St. (renrge and the DraRnn, 
 reprinted in the third volume of IVr< v'» 
 Reliques, manv features of which Sprnsrr 
 reproduces in his I'afrv Queen. Miisbrrq in 
 the i6th cent, found in the heart of Asia Minor 
 a legend of the Turkish hero Chcdorlr*. to 
 whom were ascribed ex|>loits similar to those 
 of St. George (/•/>. i, pp. 03, 05, cd. 1633). and 
 hefotmd Georgian Christ i.ins venerating above 
 every image that of St. George on horseback. 
 regarding him as having conquered the evil 
 one {Efy. 3, p. 209). 
 
 Connexion with England. — St. (ieorge's story 
 was well known in England from the 7th cent., 
 most probably through the Roman mission- 
 aries sent by Gregorv. .ArcuK, the early 
 traveller, when returning to his bishopric in 
 France, was carried northward to lona, c. 600, 
 where he told the monks the storv of St. 
 (ieorge, whence, through Adamnan and Medr, 
 it became widely known in Britain. St. Ger.rcp 
 has a place in the .\nglo-Saxon ritual of Dur- 
 ham assigned to the early part of the nth rent., 
 pub. by the Surtees Society a.d. 1840, and 
 among the publications of the Percy Society 
 we have an Anglo-Saxon Passion of St. George, 
 the work of Aelfric. archbp. of York a. p. 1020- 
 1051, ed. by Hardwick a.d. 1850, in whose 
 preface is much interesting information on 
 this point. His special fame, however, in this 
 country arose immediately out of the early 
 Crusades. William of Malmesbury {Gesia 
 Reg. Angl. ed. Sir T. D. Hardy, ii. 559) tells us 
 that, when the Crusaders were hard pressed 
 by the Saracens at the battle of Antioch, J une 
 28, 1089, the soldiers were encouraged bv 
 seeing " the martyrs George and Demetrius 
 hastily approaching from the mountainous 
 districts, hurling darts against the enemy, but 
 assisting the Franks" (cf. Gibbon, cap. I\iii. ; 
 Michaud's Hist. 0/ Crusades, i. 173, cd. I.ond. ; 
 on the military fame of St. Demetrius see 
 Bockh, Corp. Inscrip. iv. 8642 ; Du Cange. 
 Gloss, i. 974 ; Texier, op. cit. pp. 123-132). 
 This timely apparition at the very crisis of 
 the campaign led the Crusaders, among whom 
 were a large contingent of Normans under 
 Robert, son of William the Conqueror, t<> 
 adopt St. George as their patron. During 
 the campaigns of Richard I. in Palestine. St. 
 George appeared to him .ind so became a 
 special favourite with the Normans and 
 English (Itin. of Richard I. in Chron. of 
 Crusades, ed. Bohn, p. 239). In 1222 a 
 national council at Oxford ordered his feast 
 to be kept as a lesser holiday throughout 
 England. He was not, however, formally 
 adopted as patron saint of llngland till the 
 time of Edward III., who foundeil St. Ge. rge's 
 chapel at Windsor in 1348- In 1340 Edward 
 joined battle with the French near Calais, 
 when, " moved bv a sudden impulse." savs 
 Thomas of Walsingham. " he drew his sword 
 with the exclamation. Ha ! St. Edward. Ma ! 
 St. George, and muted th<- French " (c(. Smith's 
 Student's Hume, cip. x. § H). From that time 
 St. George replaced St. lulward the Con(«-ssor 
 as patron of England. In 1350, according to 
 
390 
 
 GERMANUS 
 
 some authorities, the order of the Garter was 
 instituted under his patronage, and in 1415, 
 according to the Constitutions of archbp. 
 Chichely, St. George's Day was made a major 
 double feast, and ordered to be observed like 
 Christmas Day. In the first Prayer Book of 
 Edward VI. St. George's feast was a red-letter 
 day, and had a special epistle and gospel. 
 This was changed in the next revision (Ash- 
 mole, Order of the Garter • Anstis, Register ; 
 Pott, Antiquities of Windsor and History of 
 Order of Garter, a.d. 1749). The influence of 
 the Crusades also led to St. George becoming 
 the patron of the republic of Genoa, the king- 
 doms of Aragon and Valencia, and to the 
 institutions of orders of knighthood under his 
 name all over Europe (cf. A A. SS. Boll. Apr. 
 iii. 160). In N. Svria his day is still observed 
 as a great festival (Lyde, Secret Sects of N. 
 Syria, Lond. 1853, p. 19). 
 
 Controversy- — ^The consentient testimonv of 
 all Christendom till the Reformation attested 
 the existence of St. George. Calvin first 
 questioned it. In his Institutes, lib. iii. cap. 
 20, § 27, when arguing against invocation of 
 saints, he ridiculed those who esteem Christ's 
 intercession as of no value unless " accedant 
 Georgius aut Hippolytus aut similes larvae," 
 where, unfortunately for himself, he places 
 Hippolytus in the class of ghosts or phantoms 
 together with St. George. Dr. Reynolds, 
 early in the 17th cent., was the first to confuse 
 the orthodox martyr of Lydda with the Arian 
 bp. of Alexandria. [Georgius (4).] Against 
 him Dr. Heylin argued in an exhaustive 
 treatise (Hist, of St. George of Cappadocia). 
 giving (pp. 164-166) a very full list of all 
 earlier authors who had referred to St. George, 
 including a quotation from a reputed treatise 
 by St. Ambrose, Liber Praefationuni, which is 
 not now extant. The controversy was con- 
 tinued during the i8th cent. Dr. Milner wrote 
 in defence of the historical reality of St. 
 George, provoked doubtless by Gibbon's well- 
 known sneer in c. xxiii. of his history. See 
 further Mart. Vet. Rom., Mart. Adon., Mart. 
 Usuard., which all fix his martyrdom at Dios- 
 polis in Persia (cf. Herod, ed. Rawlinson, i. 72, 
 V. 49, vii. 72) ; Hogg, however, well suggests 
 the Bithynian town of that name, which was 
 in the Persian empire under C>tus (Pasch. 
 Chron. ed. Bonn, p. 510; Sym. Metaphrast. ; 
 Magdeburg. Centtir. cent, iv.'cap. xii. ; Ceillier, 
 xi. 404, xii. 58, 89, 297 ; Alban-Butler, Lives 
 of Saints ; Malan, Hist, of the Georgian Church, 
 pp. 28, 5t, 54, 72 ; E. A. Wallis Budge, The 
 Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cap- 
 padocia : the Coptic texts ed. with an Eng. 
 trans., Lond. 1888). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Germanus (8), St., bp. of Auxerre, born 
 probably c. 378, at Auxerre, near the S. border 
 of what was afterwards Champagne. The 
 parents of German caused him to be baptized 
 and well educated. He went to Rome, 
 studied for the bar, practised as an advocate 
 before the tribunal of the prefect, on his return 
 married a lady named Eustachia, and rose to 
 be one of the six dukes of Gaul, each of whom 
 governed a number of provinces (Gibbon, ii. 
 320), Auxerre being included in German's 
 district. German, having been ordained and 
 nominated as his successor by Amator, bp. of 
 Auxerre, was, on the latter's death, unan- 
 
 GERMANUS 
 
 imously elected, and consecrated on Sun. July 
 7, 418. His wife became to him as a sister ; 
 he distributed his property to the poor ; he 
 became a severe ascetic, and, as his biographer 
 Constantius says, a " persecutor of his body," 
 abstaining from salt, oil, and even from 
 vegetables, from wine, excepting a small 
 quantity much diluted on Christmas Day or 
 Easter Day, and from wheat bread, instead 
 of which he ate barley bread with a prelimin- 
 ary taste of ashes (cinerem praelibavit). He 
 wore the same hood and tunic in all seasons, 
 and slept on ashes in a framework of boards. 
 " Let any one speak his mind," says Constan- 
 tius, to whom some details of German's life 
 must have come down not free from exag- 
 geration, " but I positively assert that the 
 blessed German endured a long mart>Tdom." 
 Withal he was hospitable, and gave his guests 
 a good meal, though he would not share it. 
 He founded a monastery outside Auxerre, on 
 the opposite bank of the Yonne, often crossing 
 in a boat to visit the abbat and brethren. 
 
 Pelagianism had been rife in its founder's 
 native island of Britain ; and the British 
 clergy, unable to refute the heretics, requested 
 help from the church, we may say from their 
 mother church, of Gaul. Accordingly a 
 numerous synod unanimously sent to Britain 
 German and Lupus, bp. of Troyes, both going 
 the more readily because of the labour involved. 
 So says Constantius, who is followed closely by 
 Bede (i. 17). But Prosper of Aquitaine, a con- 
 temporary, in his Chronicle for a.d. 429, says 
 that pope Celestine, " at the suggestion of the 
 deacon Palladius, sent German as his repre- 
 sentative " (vice sua) into Britain ; and in his 
 contra Collatorem, written c. 432, speaks of 
 Celestine as " taking pains to keep the Roman 
 island " (Britain) "Catholic" (c. 21 or 24). 
 The truth probably lies in a combination of 
 the pope's action with the councils, at any 
 rate as regards German. Lupus is not in- 
 cluded by Prosper — of him evidently Celes- 
 tine took no thought, but, we may reasonably 
 believe, gave some special commission to 
 German either before (so Tillemont, Memoites, 
 xiv. 154) or at the time of the Gallic synod : 
 it is not probable that, as Lingard supposes, 
 the synod's commission was only to Lupus 
 and German " sent " by the pope alone (Angl. 
 Sax. Ch. i. 8). 
 
 When the two prelates reached Nanterre 
 near Paris, German saw in the crowd which 
 met them the girl Genovefa, whom he bade 
 live as one espoused to Christ, and who became 
 " St. Genevieve of Paris." Arrived in Britain, 
 the bishops preached the doctrines of grace in 
 churches and on the country roads with great 
 effect ; till the Pelagian leaders challenged 
 them to a discussion, apparently near Veru- 
 1am. A great multitude assembled : the two 
 bishops, appealing to Scripture in support of 
 the Catholic position, silenced their opponents, 
 and the shouts of the audience hailed their 
 victory. German and Lupus then visited the 
 reputed tomb of the British protomartyr 
 Alban ; and Constantius adds the famous tale 
 of the Alleluia Victory. The Britons were 
 menaced by Picts and Saxons ; German and 
 Lupus encouraged them to resist, catechized 
 and baptized the still heathen majority in their 
 army, and then, shortly after Easter 430, 
 
I 
 
 GERM ANUS 
 
 stationing them in a narrow plen, bade them at 
 the invaders' approach rejioat thrice the 
 Paschal Alleluia. The Britons sent the shout 
 ringing through the defile ; the enemy was 
 seized with panic, and " faith without the 
 sword won a bloodless victory." I 
 
 In 447 German was again entreated by ] 
 British churchmen to aid them against ' 
 Pelagianism. He took with him Severus, bji. 
 of Treves, a disciple of Lupus, and having on 
 his way vindicated Genovefa against calum- 
 niators, landed in Britain, triumphed again \ 
 over the Pelagians, and procured their 
 banishment from the island. Welsh tradi- , 
 tions record his manv activities on behalf of | 
 the British church. They lay the scene of the I 
 .\lleluia victory at Maes-garmon near Mold ; I 
 they speak of colleges founded by German, of 
 national customs traced to his authority ; and 
 although much of this is legendary and the 
 stories in Nennius about his relations with 1 
 king Vortigem apocryphal, he probably did 
 more for Briti-ih Christianity than Constantius 
 records. He had no sooner returned home 
 than another occasion for his himiane inter- 
 vention arose. The Armoricans, whose 
 country had not yet acquired (through British 
 immigration) the name of Brittany, were in 
 chronic revolt against the empire, hoping to 
 obtain favourable terms for Armorica. Ger- 
 man set forth at once for Italy, and on June 
 iq, 44S, reached Milan ; proceeding to 
 Ravenna, he obtained pardon for the Armori- 
 cans, but unfortunately news came that they 
 had again revolted, and his mission proved in 
 vain. German was soon afterwards taken ill. 
 His lodging overflowed with visitors ; a choir 
 kept up ceaseless psalmody by his bedside. 
 He died July 31, 448, having been bishop 30 
 years and 25 davs. His body was embalmed, 
 and a magnificent funeral journey to Gaul 
 attested the reverence of the court. He was 
 buried in a chapel near Auxerre on Oct. i. 
 Constantius's Life is in Surius, d'e Prnhafis 
 Sanctorum Htstnriis, vol. iv. A metrical Life 
 and a prose account of his " miracles," both 
 bv a monk named Hereric, are in Ada Sanc- 
 torum. Julv 31. [W.B.] 
 
 Germanus (18) {Germain), St., 20th bp. of 
 Paris, born at Autun of parents of rank named 
 Eleutherius and Eusebia (r. 496), and educated 
 at Avalon and Luzy (Lausia). In due time 
 he was ordained deacon, and three years later 
 priest. He was next made abbat of the 
 monastery of St. Symphorian at Autun, by 
 bp. Nectarius. In 555, being present at Paris 
 r)n some mission to Childebert, when that see 
 was vacant by the death of Eusebius. he was 
 raised to the archbishopric. His great object 
 seems to have been to check the unbriilled 
 licence of the Frank kings, and to ameliorate 
 the misery produced by constant ci\il war. 
 In 557 he was present at the third council of 
 Paris, and appears to have exercised consider- 
 able influence over Childebert, whose edict 
 against pagan revelry on holy days may have 
 been due to St. Germanus (Migne, Patr. Lat. 
 Ixxii. 1 121), and likewise the building by 
 Childebert of the church of St. Vincent to 
 receive the stole of that martyr which he had 
 broueht from Spain. (See the charter given 
 by Aimoin, de Gest. Franc, ii. 20, cd. Jac du 
 Brcvi, Paris, 1602, and cf. Hist. Lilt, de la 
 
 GERVASIDS 
 
 v^\ 
 
 France, iii. 270). This churdi was said toli.ivr 
 been consecrated bv St. <;ernianus on tlir dav 
 Childebert died (Dec. 23. 5!SR). Childrberf-i 
 successor Clotairewas. according to Wnantitis 
 Forlunatus, at first not equallv amenable, but 
 a sickness changed his disposition. Grr- 
 manus'sdeath is variously dated S7's, ^76, and 
 577- He was buried in an oratoritim near the 
 vestibule of the church of St. Vincent ; and 
 in 754 his bodv was removed with Kr»-,it 
 ceremony into the church itself, in the 
 presence of Pipjnn and his son Charles the 
 Great, then a child. The church hrn<rf<rlh 
 was called St. Germain des Pr^s. 
 
 There is extant by St. Germanus a treatise 
 on the Mass, or exposition of the old Gallic 
 Liturgy {Pair. Lat. Ixxii. Ro ; cf. Ceilli.r, xi. 
 30R seq., for the reasons for ascribing it to 
 him). Among his writings is also generally 
 counted the privilege which he granted to his 
 monastery exempting it from all episcopal 
 jurisdiction (r. .sft-i). Its authenticity has 
 been vehemently attacked and defended (see 
 Migne. Patr. Ln/. Ixxii. 81 w. and the authorities 
 there referred to). St. Germanus's Life was 
 written by Venantius Fortunatus. his cr>n- 
 temporary and friend, but the work is little 
 else than a string of miracles. It niav be 
 found in Mabillon's Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. 
 i. 234-245 (Paris, 166R-1701). See also Boll. 
 Acta SS. Mai. vi. 774 sqq. ; Gall. Christ, vii. 
 18-21 ; Mansi, ix. 747, 805, 867. 860: and, for 
 the monastery, the Dissertatio of Ruinartins, 
 in Bouquet, ii. 722. fs.A.n.l 
 
 GervaslUS (1), June 10 (Us.) ; Oct. 14 (Bas. 
 Menol.). Martvr with Protasius at Milan, 
 under Nero. These two brothers were sons 
 of Vitalis, whose martyrdom at Ravenna and 
 mythical acts are recorded in Mart. Adon. 
 Apr. 28. After 300 years, and when their 
 memory had entirely faded, God is said to have 
 revealed their place of burial to St. Ambrose 
 in a dream. [Ambrosus.] The empress 
 Justina was striving to obtain one of the 
 churches of Milan for Arian worship, and help 
 was needed to sustain the orthodox in their 
 opposition to the imperial authority. Just at 
 this time a new and splendid basilica was 
 awaiting consecration. The people, as a kind 
 of orthodox demonstration, wished it (<>nse- 
 crated with the same pomp and ceremonial as 
 had been used for another new church near 
 the Roman Gate. Ambrose consented, if he 
 should have some new relics to place therein. 
 He therefore ordered excavations t<> be made 
 in the church of St. Nabor and St. Felix, nr.ir 
 the rails which enclosed their tomb. The 
 search was rewarded by the dis< nvcrv "f the 
 bodies of " two men of wondp'US size, such as 
 ancient times produced " (Anib. Fp. xxii. § 2). 
 with all their bones entire and very much 
 blood. They were removed to the church of 
 St. Fausta, and the next day t<> the new 
 Ambrosian church, where they were duly 
 enshrined. At each different stage St. Am- 
 brose delivered impassioned and fanciful 
 harangues. In that on their enshrinenient he 
 claims that they had already expelled demons, 
 and restored to sight a blind butcher, one 
 Severus, who was cured bv touching the pall 
 that covered the relics. The Arians ridi< ul< <l 
 the matter, asserting that Ambrose had hired 
 persons to feign themselves demoniacs. The 
 
392 
 
 GILDAS 
 
 whole story has afforded copious matter for 
 criticism. Mosheim (cent. iv. pt. ii. c. 3, § 8), 
 Gibbon (c. xxvii.), Isaac Taylor {Ancient 
 Christianity, vol. ii. 242-272), consider the 
 thing a trick got up by the contrivance and 
 at the expense of St. Ambrose himself. Two 
 distinct points demand attention : ist, the 
 finding of the bodies ; 2nd, the reputed 
 miracles. The discovery of the bodies may 
 have been neither a miracle nor a trick. 
 Churches were frequently built in cemeteries, 
 and excavation might easily chance upon 
 bodies. Some, moreover, have fixed Diocle- 
 tian's persecution as the time of their martyr- 
 dom, and St. .\mbrose, as the official custodian 
 of the church records, might therefore have 
 some knowledge of their resting-place, and in 
 times of intense theological excitement men 
 have often imputed to dreams or supernatural 
 assistance that for which, under calmer cir- 
 cumstances, they would account in a more 
 commonplace way. It is hardly possible to 
 read through the epistle of St. Ambrose to his 
 sister Marcellina {Ep. xxii.), in which he gives 
 an account of the discovery, and still imagine 
 that such genuine enthusiasm could go hand 
 in hand with conscious knavery and deceit. 
 There remains the question of the miracles to 
 which St. Ambrose and St. Augustine testify 
 (de Civit. Dei. xxii. 8 ; Confess, ix. 7 ; Ser. 2 86 
 and 318). These were of two kinds : the 
 restoration of demoniacs and the healing of a 
 blind man. As to the demoniacs, we cannot 
 decide. At times of religious excitement such 
 cases have occurred, and can be accounted for 
 on purely natural grounds. They belong to 
 an obscure region of psychological phenomena. 
 The case of the blind man, whose cure is 
 reported by St. Augustine, then resident at 
 Milan, as well as by St. Ambrose, stands on a 
 different footing, and is the one really import- 
 ant point of the narrative with which Taylor 
 fails effectively to grapple. We must observe, 
 also, in favour of the miracle that St. Ambrose 
 called immediate attention to it, and that no 
 one seems to have challenged the fact of the 
 blindness or the reality of restoration to 
 sight ; and further Severus devoted himself 
 in consequence as a servant of the church 
 wherein the relics were placed, and continued 
 such for more than 20 years. On the other 
 hand, we have no means of judging as to the 
 nature of the disease in the man's eves. He 
 was not born blind, but had contracted the 
 disease, being a butcher by trade. He might 
 therefore have only been affected in some such 
 way as powerful nervous excitement might 
 cure, but for which he and St. Ambrose would 
 naturally account by the miraculous power of 
 the martyrs. In the Criterion of Miracles, by 
 bp. Douglas (pp. 130-160, ed. 1803), there are 
 many acute observations on similar reputed 
 miracles in the i8th cent. Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Adon., Bedae, Usuard. ; Kal. Carthag. ; Kal. 
 Front. ; Tillem. Mem. ii. 78, 498 ; Fleurv, 
 H. E. viii. 49, xviii. 47 ; CeiU. v. 386, 490, ix. 
 
 340. [G.T.S.] 
 
 Gildas (Gildasius, Gildus, Gillas). com- 
 memorated Jan. 29. In medieval Lives 
 Gildas appears in a well-defined individuahtv, 
 but a more critical view detects so many 
 anachronisms and historical defects that it 
 has been questioned, first, whether he ever 
 
 GILDAS 
 
 lived, and secondly, whether there were more 
 Gildases than one. Though he is mentioned 
 by name, and his writings quoted from by 
 Bede, Alcuin, William of Newburgh, Geoffrey 
 of Monmouth, and Giraldus Cambrensis, there 
 is no memoir of him written within se\-eral 
 centuries of his supposed date, and the two 
 oldest, on which the others are based, are 
 ordinary specimens of the unhistorical tone of 
 mind of the nth and 12th cents. Tosurmount 
 the chronological and historical difficulties, 
 Ussher, Ware. Bale, Pitseus, Golgan, and 
 O'Conor have imagined at least two of the 
 name, perhaps even four or six, about the 5th 
 and 6th cents. These have received distin- 
 guishing designations, and thus have obtained 
 a recognized position in history. But the 
 more probable and more generally received 
 opinion is that there is but one Gildas, who 
 could not have lived earlier than about the 
 end of the 5th cent, or later than that of the 
 
 I 6th. The oldest authority is Vita Gildae, 
 auctore monacho Rttyensi anonytno, ed. by the 
 Bollandists {Acta SS. Jan. 29, iii. 573 seq.), 
 and attributed to the nth cent, or earlier. 
 The other was wxitten by Caradoc of Llan- 
 carvan in the 12th cent. (Engl. Hist. Soc. 
 1838). (For pub. and MS. Lives see Hardy's 
 Descript. Cat. i. pt. i. 151-156, pt. ii. 799.) 
 With what seems more or less a common 
 groundwork of fact, these Lives have much 
 that is irreconcilable. " Nor need this seem 
 so very strange," says O'Hanlon {Irish Saints, 
 i. 473-474), " when both accounts had been 
 drawn up several centuries after the life- 
 
 , time of Gildas, and when they had been 
 written in different centuries and in separate 
 countries. The diversities of chronological 
 events, and of persons hardly contempora- 
 neous, will only enable us to infer that the 
 sources of information were occasionally 
 doubtful, while the various coincidences of 
 narrative seem to warrant a conclusion that 
 both tracts were intended to chronicle the life 
 of one and the same person. It deserves 
 remark, however, that " (quoting from Mon. 
 Hist. Brit. i. pt. i. 59, n.) " both are said to 
 have been born in Scotland. One was the 
 son of N'au, the other of Cau : the eldest son 
 f? brother] of one was Huel, of the other Cuil. 
 iBoth lives have stories of a bell, both Gildases 
 
 I go to Ireland, both go to Rome, and both 
 
 I build churches. The monk of Ruys quotes 
 several passages from Gildas's de Excidio, and 
 assigns it to him : and Caradoc calls him 
 ' Historiographus Britonum,' and say that he 
 wrote Historiae de Regibus Britonum." Bp. 
 Nicolson {Eng. Hist. Libr. 32, 3rd ed.) con- 
 cludes that Gildas " was monk of Bangor 
 about the middle of the 6th cent. ; a sorrowful 
 spectator of the miseries and almost utter ruin 
 of his countrymen by a people under whose 
 banner they had hoped for peace." Those 
 who believe there was only one Gildas do not 
 entirely agree as to his dates, one for his birth 
 being sought between a.d. 484 and 520, and 
 one for his death between a.d. 565 and 602. 
 In his de Excidio Britanniae he says he was 
 born in the year of " obsessionis Badonici 
 montis " (c. 26). The Annates Cambriae place 
 the " bellum B adonis " in 516, and the An- 
 nates Tigerna^hi Gildas's death in 570 : these 
 dates are probably nearest the truth. By 
 
GLYCERIUS 
 
 those who suppose there were two or more 
 bearing the same name, " Albaniiis " is placed 
 in the .sth cent. (425-512, Ussher), and " Ba- 
 donicus " in the 6th (520-570, Ussher). 
 
 The writing ascribed to Ciildas was long 
 regarded as one treatise, </«• Exciilio Brilan- 
 niae ; but is now usually divided into the 
 Historia Gildae and EpistoUi Gildae. The 
 former is a bare recital of the events of British 
 history under the Rmnans. and between their 
 withdrawal and his own time ; the latter a 
 querulous, confused, and lengthy series of 
 bitter inxectives in the form of a declamatory 
 epistle addressed to the Britons, and relating 
 specially to fixe kings, " reges sed t>Tannos," 
 named Coustantinus, Aiirelius, Conan, \'orti- 
 porus, Cuneglasus and Maglocunus.* Many, 
 though probably without quite sufficient 
 reason, regard the latter as the work of a later 
 writer, and as intended in the ecclesiastical 
 differences of the 7th and Sth cents, for purely 
 polemical purposes, while others would place 
 it even later still. See useful notes on both 
 sides in Xotcs and Queries, 4th ser. i. 171, 271, 
 511, and on the side of genuineness and 
 authenticity. Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii. 
 280 seq. Holland. Acta SS. Jan. 29, iii. 566- 
 582; Colgan, Acta SS. 176-203, 226-228; 
 Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. i. c. 9 ; Ussher, Brit. 
 Reel. Ant. cc. 13-17, and Ind. Chron. ; Wright, 
 Biog. Brit. Lit. Ang.-Sax. per. 1 15-135. See 
 Haddon and Stubbs, Councils, etc. vol. i. pp. 
 44-107 ; Th. Mommsen {Mon. Get.) ; Did. of 
 Xat. Bioi:. vol. xxi. An Eng. trans, of Gildas's 
 work is in Bohn's Lib. (O. E. Chronicles). [].€..] 
 
 Glyoerius (5), a deacon in Cappadocia, who 
 caused Basil much annoyance by his extra- 
 vagant and disorderly proceedings c. 374. 
 Being a vigorous young man, well fitted for the 
 humbler offices of the church, and having 
 adopted the ascetic life, he was ordained 
 deacon by Basil, though to what church is 
 doubtful. It is variously given ^s Venesa, 
 Veesa, Venata, and Synnasa. His elevation 
 turned the young man's head. He at once 
 began to neglect the duties of his office, and 
 gathered about him a number of young women, 
 partly by persuasion, partly by force, of whom 
 he took the direction, styling himself their 
 patriarch, and adopting a dress in keeping 
 with his pretensions. He was supported by 
 the offerings of his female followers, and Basil 
 charges him with adopting this spiritual 
 directorship in order to get his living without 
 work. The wild and disorderly proceedings 
 of Glycerius and his deluded adherents created 
 great scandal and caused him to be gravely 
 admonished by his own presbvter, his rhorein- 
 scopus, and finally by Basil himself. Gly- 
 cerins turned a deaf ear, and having swelled 
 his fanatical band by a number of young men, 
 he one night hastily left the city with his whole 
 troop against the will of many of the girls. 
 The scandal of such a band wandering about 
 under pretence of religion, singing hymns, and 
 leaping and dancing in a disorderly fashion, 
 was increased by the fact that a fair was going 
 on, and the young women were exposed to the 
 rude jests of the rabble. Fathers who came 
 
 • Skene [Four Anc. Books of Wales, i. 63, 64) re- 
 gards them as contemporary rulers, living, one in 
 Devon and Cornwall, two in Walts, and two probably 
 }n the N, or Ireland, 
 
 GLYCERIUS 
 
 303 
 
 to rescue their dauglitirs (ri'in s»irh cli<if;r.ire 
 were driven awav by Givrcrius with roiittinir- 
 ly, and he carried off his whole band «<• .1 
 neighbouring town, of which an uni.lrntifi. <1 
 Gregory was bishop. Several of Basil's Irtlrrs 
 turned on this matter, the further insur ot 
 which is not known. [fv.] 
 
 Glycerius (8), emperor of the West, after- 
 wards bp. of Salona. In Mar. 473, bring th«n 
 comes domesticorum. he assinnrd tlic iinprri.il 
 title at Ravenna in succession to Olybrius; 
 but the emperor of the Mast, I.eo 1. the 
 Thracian. set up Julius Nep< s, who was pro- 
 claimed at Ravenna late in 473 or earlv in 
 474, and marched against GIvcerins and took 
 him prisoner at Portus. (See art. Gi.vfrmts 
 in D. of G. and A'. Biogr.) Glycerius has been 
 reckoned bp. of Portus, of Milan, and of 
 Salona. The Chronicon of Marrellinus Comes 
 under a.d. 474 states that G.lycerius " imperto 
 expulsus, in portu urbis Romae ex Caesare 
 episcopus ordinatus est, et obiit " {Patr. Lot. 
 li. 931) ; on the strength of which he has been 
 named bp. of P<irtus, as by Paulus Diacnmis, 
 who writes : " Portuensis episcf>i>us ordina- 
 tur " (Hist. Misc. lib. xv. in Patr. Lot. xrv. 
 973 b). Cappelletti and Ughelli (who rails 
 him (iulcerius) assign him to that see between 
 Petrus and Herennius (Ug. Hal. Sac. i. iii ; 
 Capp. Le Chiese d' Hal. i. 497)- Evagrius, on 
 the other hand, relates (//. E. ii. 16) that 
 Nepos appointed Glycerius bp. of the Romans 
 ^s SdXwj'a?, scarcely, however, intending to 
 say, as Canisius understands him, that Glv- 
 cerius was made bp. of Rome. He must mean 
 (writing as a Greek) that Glycerius was <r- 
 dained bp. for Salona by the Roman ecrli- 
 siastical authorities, and that his see belonged 
 to the Roman or western part of the empire 
 and to that patriarchate rather than the 
 Byzantine. Jornandes likewise states that 
 Nepos " Glycerium ab imperio expellens, in 
 Salona Dalmatiae episcoptmi fecit " (jorn. de 
 Reg. Succ. in Muratori. Rer. Hal. Script. X. i. p. 
 239 b). It is therefore best to miderstand 
 with Canisius (note on the passage in Evag- 
 rius, vid. Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. pt. 2, p. 2546) that 
 the deposition of Glycerius took place at 
 Portus, where at the same time he was ap- 
 pointed to Salona. Thus also Farlati (///vr. 
 Sac. ii. 117-120). The principality of Dal- 
 matia belonged to Nepos independently of the 
 imperial title. Thither he retired before his 
 successful competitor Orestes, and was 
 brought into contact once m< re with (llvre- 
 rius. Photius (Bihlioth. Cod. 7H) m<-ntions the 
 now lost Byzantine History of Malchus the 
 Sophist as stating that Nep<«. having divi-str<l 
 (ilycerius of his Caesarian authority and 
 invaded " the empire of the Romans." or- 
 dained him, made him a bishop, and finally 
 perished by his machinations (in.wrfii? f'eltlus), 
 not " was assassinated," as stated by Gibbcin. 
 Farlati assigns six years to his episcopate, 
 placing his death in 480. 
 
 The supposition that he was bp. of Mil.in 
 rests on verv slender ground. Enn<Klius, bp. 
 of Pavia, who dedicates short poems to several 
 successive bishops of Milan, mscribes our to 
 (ilycerius, whom he places bitwien Mar- 
 tinianus and I.azarus (carm. Ki, in Patr. l.al. 
 Ixiii. 349) ; but there is nothing in the verses 
 to identify him with the cx-emperor. Eono- 
 
394 
 
 GNOSTICISM 
 
 dius, in his Life of Epiphanius, bp. of Pavia, 
 mentions the emperor Glycerins as shewing so 
 much veneration for that saint as to accept his 
 intercession for some people in the diocese of 
 Pavia, who had incurred the imperial dis- 
 pleasure (Ennod. Vit. Epiphan. in Patr. Lat. 
 Ixiii. 219 a). These are the sole grounds on 
 which Gibbon hazards, doubtfully, the state- 
 ment (Decl. and Fall, vol. iv. p. 295, ed. Smith) 
 that Glycerins was promoted bv Orestes from 
 Salona to the archbishopric of Milan in reward 
 for his assassination of Nepos. [c.h.] 
 
 Gnosticism. The zeal with which a learner 
 commences the studv of ecclesiastical history 
 is not unfrequently damped at an early stage, 
 when he finds that, in order to know the 
 history of religious thought in the 2nd cent., 
 he must make himself acquainted with specu- 
 lations so wild and so baseless that it is irksome 
 to read them and difficult to believe that time 
 was when acquaintance with them was count- 
 ed as what alone deserved the name of " know- 
 ledge." But it would be a mistake to think 
 too disdainfully of those early heretics who go 
 by the common name of Gnostics. In the 
 first place, it may be said in their excuse that 
 the problems which they imdertook to solve 
 were among the most difficult with which the 
 human intellect has ever grappled — namely, to 
 explain the origin of evil, and to make it con- 
 ceivable how the multiplicity of finite existence 
 can all have been derived from a single abso- 
 lute unconditioned principle. And besides, 
 these speculators onlv did what learned 
 theologians have constantly since endeavoured 
 to do — namelv, combine the doctrines which 
 they learned from revelation with the results 
 of what they regarded as the best philosophv 
 of their own day, so as to obtain what seemed 
 to them the most satisfactory account and 
 explanation of the facts of the universe. 
 Everv union of philosophy and religion is the 
 marriage of a mortal with an immortal : the 
 religion lives ; the philosophy grows old and 
 dies. When the philosophic element of a 
 theological system becomes antiquated, its 
 explanations which contented one age become 
 unsatisfactory to the next, and there ensues 
 what is spoken of as a conflict between religion 
 and science ; whereas, in reality, it is a conflict 
 between the science of one generation and that 
 of a succeeding one. If the religious specula- 
 tions of the 2nd cent, appear to us peculiarly 
 unreasonable, it is because the philosophy 
 incorporated with them is completely alien 
 ti modern thought. That philosophy gave 
 unlimited licence to the framing of hypotheses, 
 and provided that the results were in tolerable 
 accordance with the facts, no other proof was 
 required that the causes which these hypo- 
 theses assumed were reallv in operation. The 
 Timaeus of Plato is a favourable specimen 
 of the philosophic writings which moulded the 
 Gnostic speculations ; and the interval be- 
 tween that and a modern treatise on physics 
 is fully as wide as between Gnosticism and 
 modern scientific theology. So it has hap- 
 pened that modern thought has less sympathy 
 with heretical theories deeply coloured by the 
 philosophy of their own time than with the 
 plain common sense of a church writer such 
 as Irenaeus, which led him to proceed by the 
 positive historical method, and reject what 
 
 GNOSTICISM 
 
 was merely fanciful and speculative. And it 
 may be said that deeply important as were 
 some of the particular questions discussed in 
 the conflict between the church and Gnos- 
 ticism, an even more important issue of that 
 conflict was the decision of the method by 
 which religious knowledge was to be arrived 
 at. The Gnostics generally held that the 
 Saviour effected redemption by making a 
 revelation of knowledge, yet they but feebly 
 attempted to connect historically their teach- 
 ing with his ; what was derived from Him was 
 buried under elements taken freely from 
 heathen mythologies and philosophies, or 
 springing from the mere fancy of the specula- 
 tor, so that, if Gnosticism had triumphed, all 
 that is distinctively Christian would have 
 disappeared. In opposition to them, church 
 writers were led to emphasize the principle 
 that that alone is to be accounted true know- 
 ledge of things divine which can be shewn by 
 historical tradition, written or oral, to have 
 been derived from the teaching of Christ and 
 His apostles, a principle the philosophic 
 justice of which must be admitted if Christ be 
 owned as having filled the part in the enlight- 
 enment of the world which orthodox and 
 Gnostics alike attributed to Him. Thus, by 
 the conflict with Gnosticism reverence in the 
 church was deepened for the authority of 
 revelation as restraining the licence of human 
 speculation, and so the channel was marked 
 out within the bounds of which religious 
 thought continued for centuries to flow. 
 
 We deal here with some general aspects of 
 the subject, referring to the articles on the 
 chief Gnostic teachers for details as to the 
 special tenets of the different Gnostic sects. 
 
 Use of the Word Gnosticism. — In logical 
 order we ought to begin by defining Gnostic- 
 ism, and so fixing what extension is to be 
 given to the application of the term, a point 
 on which writers are not agreed. Baur, for 
 instance, reckons among Gnostics the sectaries 
 from whom the Clementine writings emanated, 
 although on some of the most fundamental 
 points their doctrines are diametrically op- 
 posed to those commonly reckoned as Gnostic. 
 We conform to more ordinary usage in giving 
 to the word a narrower sense, but this is a 
 matter on which controversy would be only 
 verbal. Gnosticism not being a word which has 
 in its own nature a definite meaning. There 
 is no difficulty in naming common character- 
 istics of the sects commonly called Gnostic, 
 though perhaps none of them is distinctive 
 enough to be made the basis of a logical 
 definition. They professed to be able to 
 trace their doctrine to the apostles. Basilides 
 was said to have learned from a companion of 
 St. Peter ; gospels were in circulation among 
 them which purported to have been written 
 by Philip, Thomas, and other apostles ; and 
 they professed to be able to find their doctrines 
 in the canonical scriptures by methods of 
 allegorical interpretation which, however 
 forced, could easily be paralleled in the pro- 
 cedure of orthodox writers. If we made our 
 definition turn on the claim to the possession 
 of such a Gnosis and to the title of Gnostic, we 
 should have to count Clement of Alexandria 
 among Gnostics and /. Timothy among Gnostic 
 writings ; for the church writers refused to 
 
GNOSTICISM 
 
 surrender these titles to tlie lieretirs and, 
 claiming to be the true linostirs, branded the 
 heretical Gnosis as " falsely so called." If we 
 fix our attention on the predominance of the 
 speculative over the practical in (inosticism, 
 which, as Baur truly remarks, led men to 
 regard Christianity less as a means of salvation 
 than as furnishing the principles of a philo- 
 sophy of the universe, we must allow that since 
 their time very many orthod<ix writings have 
 been open to the same criticism. We come 
 very close to a detinition if we make the 
 criterion of Gnosticism to be the establishment 
 of a dualism between spirit and matter ; and, 
 springing out of this, the doctrine that the 
 world was created by some power dilTerent 
 from the supreme God, yet we might not be 
 able to establish that this characteristic be- 
 longs to every sect which we count as tlnostic ; 
 and if we are asked why we do not count such 
 sects as the Mauicheans among the (inostics, 
 the best answer is that usage contines the word 
 to those sects which arose in the ferment of 
 thought when Christianity first came into 
 contact with heathen philosophy, excluding 
 those which clearly began later. A title of 
 honour claimed by these sectaries for them- 
 selves, and at first refused them by their 
 opponents, was afterwards adopted as the 
 most convenient way of designating them. 
 
 We have no reason to think that the earliest 
 Gnostics intended to found sects separated 
 from the church and called after their own 
 names. Their disciples were to be Christians, 
 only elevated above the rest as acquainted 
 with deeper mysteries, and called yva'aTiKoi, 
 because possessed of a Gnosis superior to the 
 simple faith of the multitude. Probably the 
 earliest instance of the use of the word is by 
 Celsus, quoted by Origen. v. 6i, where, speak- 
 ing of the multiplicity of Christian sects, he 
 says that there were some who professed to 
 be Gnostics. Irenaeus (i. xxv. 5, p. 104), 
 speaking of the Carpocratians and in particular 
 of that school of them which Marcellina 
 established at Rome, says that they called 
 themselves Gnostics. It is doubtless on the 
 strength of this passage that Eusebius (//. E. 
 iv. 7), quoting Irenaeus in the same context, 
 calls Carpocrates the father of the sect called 
 that of the Gnostics. In the habitual use of 
 the word by Irenaeus himself it does not occur 
 as limited to Carpocratians. Irenaeus, in his 
 first bo(jk, when he has gone through the sects 
 called after the names of heretical teachers, 
 gives in a kind of appendix an account of a 
 number of sects in their general characteris- 
 tics Ophite, but he does not himself use that 
 name. He calls them " multitudo Gnostic- 
 orum," tracing their origin to Simon Magus, 
 and counting them as progenitors of the 
 Valentinians. And constantly we have the 
 expression Basilidians, Valentinians, etc., " et 
 reliqui Gnostici," where, by the latter appella- 
 tion, the Ophite sects are specially intended. 
 The form of expression does not exclude from 
 the title of Gnostic the sects named after their 
 founders ; and the doctrine of the Valentin- 
 ians is all through the work of Irenaeus a 
 branch of " (inosis falsely so called " ; yet it 
 is usually spoken of less as Gnosticism than 
 as a development of Gnosticism, and the 
 Valentinians are described as more Gnostic 
 
 GNOSTICISM 
 
 39S 
 
 than the Gnosti.s. nii-.iiiiiit; h\ tli.- l.ittrr w..rd 
 the Ophite sects alre.i.lv nirntionrd. In the 
 work of Hippolytus against hrrt-sics, the nainr 
 is almost exclusively found in ronmxion with 
 the sect of the Naassenes or Ophites, and thrre 
 or four times it is repeated (v. 2. p. 0^; 4. 
 p. 04 ; II, p. 12.^) that these people call them- 
 selves Gnostics, claiming that thrv alone 
 " knew the depths." The common soiinr of 
 Epiphanius and I'hilastcr had an article on 
 the N'icolaitancs, tracing the origin i>l the 
 Gnostics to Nicolas the Deacon (see also 
 Hippolytus, vii. ;^f), p. 258, and the statement 
 of Irenaeus [II. ii. p. 188] that Nirolaitanism 
 was a branch of Gnosis). Epiphanius divide* 
 this article into two, making the (inostics a 
 separate heresy (Haer. 26). Hence ancient 
 usage leaves a good deal of latitude to modem 
 writers in deciding which of the znd-cent. sects 
 they will count as Gnostic. 
 
 Classification 0/ Gnostic Sects. — Some general 
 principles of philosophic classification may be 
 easily agreed on, but when they come to be 
 applied, it is found that there are some sects 
 to which it is mU obvious where to assign a 
 place, and that some sects are separated whose 
 affinities are closer than those of others which 
 are classed together. A very important, 
 though not a complete, division is that made 
 by Clement of Alexandria {Strom, iii. 5) into 
 the ascetic and licentious sects : both parties 
 agreeing in holding the essential evil of matter ; 
 the one endeavouring bv rigorous abstinence 
 to free as much as possible man's soul from the 
 bondage to which it is subjected by union with 
 his material part, and refusing to marry and 
 so enthral new souls in the prisons of bodies ; 
 the other abandoning as desperate any 
 attempt to purify the hopelessly corrupt bodv. 
 and teaching that the instructed soul ought 
 to hold itself unaffected by the deeds of the 
 body. All actions were to it indifferent. The 
 division of Neander is intended to embrace a 
 wider range than that just described. Taking 
 the common doctrine of the Gnostic sects that 
 the world was made by a Being different from 
 the supreme God, he distinguishes whether 
 that Being was held to have acted in subor- 
 dination to the Supreme, and on the whole to 
 have carried out his intentions, or to have been 
 absolutelv hostile to the su|'rc-me God. Tak- 
 ing into account the generally ac knowledged 
 principle that the Creator of the world was the 
 same as the God worshipped by the Jews, we 
 see that C.nostics of the second class would be 
 absolutelv hostile to Judaism, which thc«e of 
 the former class might accept as one of the 
 stages ordained bv the Sui'reme in the enlight- 
 enment of the world. Thus Neander's divi- 
 sion classifies sects as not unfriendly to 
 Judaism or as hostile to it ; the former class 
 taking its origin in those Alexandrian sch<«>ls 
 where the authoritv of such teachers as I'hilo 
 had weight, the latter among Christian con- 
 verts from Oriental philosophy whose early 
 education had given them no j.rejudices in 
 favour of Judaism. Gieseler divides into 
 Alexandrian (.nostics. whf«e teaching was 
 mainlv influenced bv the Platonic phih-sophv. 
 and S'vrian strongly affected by Parsism. In 
 the former the emanation doctrine was pre- 
 dominant, in the latter dualism. rnd.iiMed- 
 ly the most satisfactory classification w.-uld 
 
396 
 
 GNOSTICISM 
 
 be if it were possible, as Matter suggested, to 1 
 have one founded on the history of the genera- [ 
 tion of the sects, distinguishing the school 
 where Gnosticism had its beginning, and 
 naming the schools which successively in 
 different places altered in different directions 
 the original scheme. But a good classification 
 of this kind is rendered impossible by the 
 scantiness of our materials for the history of 
 Gnosticism. Irenaeus is the first to give any 
 full details, and he may be counted two 
 generations later than Valentinus ; for Mar- 
 cus, the disciple of Valentinus, was resisted by 
 one whom Irenaeus looked up to with respect 
 as belonging to the generation above his own. 
 The interval between Valentinus and the i 
 beginning of Gnosticism was, moreover, prob- 
 ably quite as great as that between Valen- ; 
 tinus and Irenaeus. The phrase used by I 
 Hippolytus in telling us that the Naassenes 
 boasted that they alone " knew the depths" ; 
 was also a watchword of the false teachers 
 reprobated in the Apocalypse (Rev. ii. 24). 
 We can hardly avoid the inference that these I 
 Naassenes inherited a phrase continuously in 
 use among heretical teachers since before the 
 publication of the Revelation. Of the writers 
 who would deny the pastoral epistles to be 
 St. Paul's, a large proportion date the Rd'ela- 
 tion only 2 or 3 years after St. Paul's death ; 
 therefore, whether or not it was St. Paul who 
 wrote of the " falsely called knowledge," it 
 remains probable that heretical pretenders to 
 Gnosis had arisen in his lifetime. If the 
 beginnings of Gnosticism were thus in apos- 
 tolic times, we need not be surprised that the 
 notices of its origin given by Irenaeus more 
 than a century afterwards are so scanty ; and 
 that the teachers to whom its origin has been 
 ascribed, Simon, Menander, Nicolas, Cerin- 
 thus, remain shadowy or legendary characters. 
 It follows that conclusions as to the order of 
 succession of the early Gnostic sects and their 
 obligations one to another are very insecure. 
 Still, some general facts in the history of the 
 ev'olution of Gnosticism may be considered 
 fairly certain ; and we are disposed to accept 
 the classification of Lipsius and count three 
 stages in the progress of Gnosticism, even 
 though there may be doubt to what place a 
 particular sect is to be assigned. The birth- 
 place of Gnosticism may be said to be Syria, 
 if we include in that Palestine and Samaria, 
 where church tradition places the activity of 
 those whom it regards as its founders, Simon 
 and Menander. It may also be inferred from 
 the use made of O.T. and of Hebrew words 
 that Gnosticism sprang out of Judaism. The 
 false teaching combated in Colossians. which 
 has several Gnostic features, is also distinctly 
 Jewish, insisting on the observance of sabbath's 
 and new moons. The Epp. to Timothy and 
 Titus, dealing with a somewhat later develop- 
 ment of Gnosticism, describe the false teachers 
 as " of the circumcision," " professing to be 
 teachers of the law" and propounders of 
 " Jewish fables." It is not unlikely that what 
 these epistles characterize as "profane and 
 old wives' fables " may be some of the Jewish 
 Haggadah of which the early stages of Gnos- 
 ticism are full. The story of laldahaoth, e.?., 
 told by Irenaeus (i. 30), we hold to date from 
 the very beginning of Gnosticism, if not in its 
 
 GNOSTICISM 
 
 present shape, at least in some rudimentary 
 form, as fragments of it appear in different 
 Gnostic systems, especially the representation 
 of the work of Creation as performed by an 
 inferior being, who still fully believed him- 
 self to be the Supreme, saying, " I am God, 
 and there is none beside me," until, after this 
 boast, his ignorance was enlightened. The 
 Jewish CablDala has been asserted to be the 
 parent of Gnosticism ; but the records of 
 Cabbalistic doctrine are quite modern, and 
 any attempt to pick out the really ancient 
 parts must be attended with uncertainty. 
 Lipsius (p. 270, and Gratz, referred to by him) 
 shews that the Cabbala is certainly not older 
 than Gnosticism, its relation to it being not 
 that of a parent, but of a younger brother. 
 If there be direct obligation, the Cabbala is the 
 borrower, but many common features are to 
 be explained by regarding both as branches 
 from the same root, and as alike springing from 
 the contact of Judaism with the religious 
 beliefs of the farther East. Jewish Essenism 
 especially furnished a soil favourable to the 
 growth of Gnosticism, with which it seems to 
 have had in common the doctrine of the 
 essential evil of matter, as appears from the 
 denial by the Essenes of the resurrection of 
 the body and from their inculcation of a 
 disciplining of man's material part by very 
 severe asceticism. (See Lightfoot, Colossians, 
 119 seq.) Further, the Ebionite sects which 
 sprang out of Essenism, while they professed 
 the strongest attachment to the Mosaic law, 
 not only rejected the authority of the pro- 
 phetical writings, but dealt in a very arbitrary 
 manner with those parts of the Pentateuch 
 which conflicted with their peculiar doctrines. 
 We have parallels to this in theories of some 
 of the early Gnostic sects which referred the 
 Jewish prophetical books to the inspiration of 
 beings inferior to Him by Whom the law was 
 given, as well as in the arbitrary modes of 
 criticism applied by some of the later sects to 
 the books of Scripture. A form of Gnosticism 
 thus developed from Judaism when the latter 
 was brought into contact with the mystic 
 speculations of the East, whether we suppose 
 Essenism to have been a stage in the process 
 of growth or both to have been independent 
 growths under similar circumstances of 
 development. Lipsius notes as the char- 
 acteristics of those sects which he counts as 
 belonging to the first stage of Gnosticism that 
 they still move almost or altogether within the 
 circle of the Jewish religious history, and that 
 the chief problem they set themselves is the 
 defining the relation between Christianity and 
 Judaism. The solutions at which they arrive 
 are very various. Those Jewish sects whose 
 Essenism passed into the Ebionitism of the 
 Clementines regarded Christianity as essen- 
 tially identical with Judaism, either religion 
 being sufficient for salvation. These sects are 
 quite orthodox as to the Creation, their utmost 
 deviation (if it can be called so) from the 
 received belief being the ascription of Creation 
 to the immanent wisdom of God. Other 
 Jewish speculators came to think of the form- 
 ation of matter as accomplished by a sub- 
 ordinate being, carrying out, it may be, the 
 will of the Supreme, but owing to his finiteness 
 and ignorance doing the work with many 
 
GNOSTICISM 
 
 imperfections. Tluii ( amc tlio theory that 
 this subordinate lieinj; was the Ciuil of tlie 
 Jews, to wliich nation he liaii issued many 
 commandments that were not good, though 
 overruled by the Supreme so as to carry out 
 His ends. Lastly came the theory of the 
 Cainites and other extreme Ophite sects, which 
 represented the (.lod of the Jews as the deter- 
 mined enemy of the Supreme, and as one 
 whose commands it was tiie duty of every 
 enlightened tlnostic to disobey. With all their 
 variety of results, these sects agreed in the 
 importance attached to the problem of the 
 true relations of Judaism to Christianity. 
 They do make use of certain heathen prin- 
 ciples of cosmogony, but these such as already 
 had become familiar to Syriac Judaism, and 
 introduced not so much to elTect a reconcilia- 
 tion between Christianity and heathenism as 
 to give an explanation of the service rendered 
 to the world by the publication of Christianity, 
 the absolute religion. This is made mainly 
 to consist in the aid given to the soul in its 
 struggles to escape the bonds of tiniteness and 
 darkness, by making known to it the super- 
 sensual world and awaking it to the conscious- 
 ness of its spiritual origin. Regarding this 
 knowledge as the common privilege of Chris- 
 tians, the first speculators would count their 
 own possession of it as differing rather in 
 degree than in kind ; and so it is not easy to 
 draw a sharp line of distinction between their 
 doctrine on the subject of Gnosis and that 
 admitted as orthodox. Our Lord had de- 
 scribed it as the privilege of His disciples to 
 know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven ; 
 later when His follcnvcrs learned of a suffering 
 Messiah, and of the fulfilment in Jesus of the 
 types of the Mosaic law, they felt that the veil 
 had been removed for them, and that they 
 enjoyed a knowledge of the meaning of the 
 O.T. Scriptures to which their unconverted 
 brethren were strangers. This feeling per- 
 vades the Ep. to the Hebrews, and still more 
 that of Barnabas. Another doctrine which 
 St. Paul describes aS a mystery formerly kept 
 secret, but now revealed through his gospel, is 
 the admission of the Gentiles on equal terms 
 with the Jews to the inheritance of the king- 
 dom of Christ. It w-as no part of orthodox 
 Christian doctrine that all Christians [Jossessed 
 the true Gnosis in equal degree. Some re- 
 quired to be fed with milk, not with strong 
 meat, and had not their senses exercised by 
 reason of use to discern between good and 
 evil. Clement of Alexandria distinguished 
 between faith and knowledge. The difference, 
 therefore, between the Gnostic doctrine and 
 that of the church mainly depends on the 
 character of what was accounted knowledge, 
 much of the Gnostic so-called knowledge 
 consisting in acquaintance with the names of 
 a host of invisible beings and with the for- 
 mulae which could gain their favour. 
 
 Gnosticism, in its first stage, did not 
 proceed far outside the limits of Syria. What 
 Lipsius counts as the second stage dates from 
 the migration of Gnostic systems to Alex- 
 andria, where the myths of Syriac Gnosis came 
 to be united to principles of Grecian philo- 
 sophy. Different Gnostic systems resulted 
 according as the principles of this or that 
 Grecian school were adopted. Thus, in the 
 
 GNOSTICISM 
 
 397 
 
 system of \,il.iitmiis, tin- rythagorran Pla- 
 tonic phildsiiphy predommalis, the Slur in 
 that of the Hasilidians as prcsfuled bv Hip- 
 polytus. In these systems, tinRfd with 
 Hellenism, the Jewish religion is not so nuu h 
 controverted or disparaged as iRiiorrd. The 
 mythological personages among whom in the 
 older Gnosis the work of creation was distri- 
 buted are in these Hellenic systems replai ed 
 by a kind of abstract beings (of wlioin the 
 Valentinian aeons are an example) whi( h 
 personify the dilferent stages of the priKcss 
 by which the One Infinite Spirit comnuinicates 
 and reveals itself to derived existences. The 
 distinction between faith and knowledge 
 becomes sharpened, the persons to whom 
 faith and knowledge respectively are to serve 
 as guides being represented as essentially 
 different in nature. The most obvious divi- 
 sion of men is into a kingdom of light and a 
 kingdom of darkness. The need of a third 
 class may have first made itself fell from the 
 necessity t)f finding a place for members of the 
 Jewish religion, who stood so far above 
 heathenism, so far below Christianity. The 
 Platonic trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit 
 afTorded a principle of threefold classification, 
 and men are divided into earthly (v\tkoi or 
 Xo'inoi), animal (ifvxtKoi), and spiritual (wvti- 
 fxnriKoi). In these Hellenic Gnostic systems 
 the second class represents not Jews but 
 ordinary Christians, and the distinction be- 
 tween them and the Gnostics themselves (who 
 are the spiritual) rests on an assumed differ- 
 ence of nature which leaves little room for 
 human free will. Salvation by faith and 
 corresponding works is disparaged as suitable 
 only for the psychical, the better sort of whipni 
 may, by this means, be brought to as high a 
 position in the order of the universe as their 
 nature is capable of ; but the really sjnritual 
 need not these lower methods of salvation. It 
 suffices for them to have the knowledge of 
 their true nature revealed for them to become 
 certain of shaking off all imprisoning bonds 
 and soaring to the highest region of all. Thus 
 ordinary historical Christianity runs the risk 
 of meeting the same fate in the later Gnostic 
 i systems that befell J udaism in the earlier. The 
 I doctrines and facts of the religion are only 
 I valued so far as they can be made subservient 
 to the peculiar notions of Gnosticism ; and 
 I the method of allegorical interpretation was 
 I so freely applied to both Testaments that all 
 the solid parts of the religion were in danger 
 of being volatilized away. 
 
 The natural consequence of this weakening 
 of the historic side of Christianity was the 
 removal of all sufficient barrier against the 
 intrusion of heathen elements into the sys- 
 tems ; while their moral teaching was in- 
 ! juriously affected by the doctrine that the 
 spiritual were secure of salvation by necessity 
 of their nature and irrespectively of their 
 conduct. Gnosticism, in its third stage, 
 struggles in various w ays to avoid these faults, 
 and so again draws nearer to the teaching 
 of the Catholic cliun h. Thus the Docetaic 
 of Hippolytus allow of immense variety of 
 classes, corresponding to the diversity of 
 ideas derived fr<»m the world of aeons, which 
 each has received ; while again they deny to 
 none a share in our Lord's redemption, but 
 
398 GNOSTICISM 
 
 own that members of different sects are en- 
 titled, each in his degree, to claim kinship with 
 Jesus and to obtain forgiveness of sins through 
 Him. So again in one of the latest of the 
 Gnostic systems, that of Pistis Sophia, there 
 is no assertion of an essential diversity of 
 nature among men, but the immense develop- 
 ment of ranks and degrees in the spiritual 
 world, which that work professes to reveal, is 
 used so as to provide for every man a place 
 according to his works. In the system of 
 Marcion, too, the theory of essentially different 
 classes is abandoned ; the great boast of 
 Christianity is its universality ; and the 
 redemption of the Gospel is represented, not 
 as the mere rousing of the pneumatic soul to 
 consciousness of privileges all along possessed, 
 but as the introduction of a real principle of 
 moral life through the revelation of a God of 
 love forgiving sins through Christ. 
 
 We add brief notes on a few main points 
 of the Gnostic systems. 
 
 Creation and Cosmogony. — Philo (de Op. 
 Miind.) had inferred from the expression, " Let 
 MS make man," of Genesis that God had used 
 other beings as assistants in the creation of 
 man, and he explains in this way why man is 
 capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the 
 origin of the latter to God, of the former to 
 His helpers in the work of creation. The 
 earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of 
 creation to angels, some of them using the 
 same passage in Genesis (Justin. Dial, cum 
 Try ph. c. 67). 
 
 Doctrine with respect to Judaism. — The doc- 
 trine that the Creator of the world is not the 
 supreme God leads at once to the question, 
 What then is to be thought of the God of the 
 Jews, who certainly claimed to have created 
 the world ? This question is most distinctly 
 answered in the doctrine of the Ophite system 
 (Iren. i. 30). According to it he who claimed 
 to be a jealous God, acknowledging none other, 
 was led by sheer ignorance to make a false 
 pretension. He was in truth none other than 
 the chief of the creative angels, holding but a 
 subordinate place in the constitution of the 
 universe. It was he who forbad to Adam and 
 Eve that knowledge by which they might be 
 informed that he had superiors, and who on 
 their disobedience cast them out of Paradise. 
 
 Doctrine concerning the Nature of Man. — 
 With the myth, told by Saturninus, of the 
 animation of a previously lifeless man by a 
 spark of light from above, he connected the 
 doctrine, in wliich he was followed by almost 
 all Gnostic sects, that there would be no 
 resurrection of the body, the spark of light 
 being taken back on death to the place whence 
 it had come, and man's material part being 
 resolved into its elements. Saturninus is said 
 to have taught the doctrine, antagonistic to 
 that of man's free will, that there were classes 
 of men by nature essentially different, and of 
 these he counted two — the good and the 
 wicked. The doctrine became common to 
 many Gnostic systems that the human frame 
 contained a heavenly element struggling to 
 return to its native place. 
 
 Redemption and Christology. — The Gnostic 
 systems generally represent man's spirit as 
 imprisoned in matter, and needing release. 
 The majority recognize the coming of Christ 
 
 GORDIANUS 
 
 as a turning-point in human affairs, but almost 
 all reduce the Redeemer's work to the impar- 
 tation of knowledge and the disclosure of 
 mysteries. With regard to the nature of 
 Christ, the lowest view is held by Justinus, 
 who describes Jesus but as a shepherd boy 
 commissioned by an angel to be the bearer of 
 a divine revelation, and who attributes to Him 
 at no time any higher character. Carpo- 
 I crates makes Jesus a man like others, only of 
 more than ordinary steadfastness and purity 
 of soul, possessing no prerogatives which other 
 men may not attain in the same or even higher 
 degree if they follow, or surpass, His example. 
 Besides furnishing an example. He was also 
 supposed to have made a revelation of truth, 
 to secret traditions of which the followers of 
 Carpocrates appealed. At the opposite pole 
 from those who see in the Saviour a mere man 
 are those who deny His humanity altogether. 
 We know from St. John's epistle that the 
 doctrine that our Lord had not really come in 
 the flesh was one which at an early time 
 troubled the church. 
 
 Authorities. — The great work of Irenaeus 
 against heresies is the chief storehouse whence 
 writers, both ancient and modern, have drawn 
 their accounts of the Gnostic sects. It was 
 primarily directed against the then most 
 popular form of the heresy of Valentinus, and 
 hence this form of Gnosticism has thrown all 
 others into the shade, andmany modern writers 
 when professing to describe Gnosticism really 
 describe Valentinianism. Irenaeus was largely 
 copied by Tertullian, who, however, was an 
 independent authority on Marcionism ; by 
 Hippolytus, who in his work against heresies 
 adds, however, large extracts from his in- 
 dependent reading of Gnostic works; and by 
 Epiphanius, who also gives a few valuable 
 additions from other sources. The Stromateis 
 of Clement of Alexandria, though provokingly 
 desultory and unsystematic, furnish much 
 valuable information about Gnosticism, which 
 was still a living foe of the church. The 
 writings of Origen also yield much important 
 information. The matter, not borrowed from 
 Irenaeus, to be gleaned from later heresiolo- 
 gists is scanty and of doubtful value. 
 
 Modern works which have made valuable 
 contributions to the knowledge of Gnosticism 
 include Neander, Genetische Entwickelung 
 (1818), and Church Hist. vol. ii. (1825 and 2nd 
 ed. 1843, trans, in Clarke's series) ; Burton, 
 Bampton Lectures (1829) ; Baur, Christliche 
 Gnosis (1835) ; Die christliche Kirche der drei 
 j ersten Jahrhunderte (1853, and ed. i860) ; and 
 Mansel. The Gnostic Heresies (1875). [g.s.] 
 
 GordianuS (7), father of pope Gregory the 
 Great, was a noble Roman of senatorial rank, 
 and descended from a pope Felix (Joann. 
 Diac. in Vit. S. Gregorii ; Greg. Dialog. 1. 4, 
 c. 16). John the Deacon says that Felix IV. 
 (ace. 523) was his ancestor ; but this pope 
 being described as a Samnite, whereas Gregory 
 is always spoken of as of Roman descent, 
 Felix III. (ace. 467) is more probable. A 
 large property accrued to Gregory on his 
 father's death. Gordianus is described as a 
 religious man, and thus contributing to the 
 eminently religious training of his son, though 
 not canonized after death, as were his wife 
 Silvia, and his two sisters, Tarsilla and 
 
GRATIANUS 
 
 Aemiliana. John the deacon (op. cil. 1. 4. 
 c. 83) describes two pictures of him and liis 
 wife Silvia remaining to tlie writer's time (ytli 
 cent.) in the Alrium of St. .\ndrew's monas- 
 tery, where tliey liad been placed by St. 
 Gregory himself, the founder of the nioii.istery. 
 Gordianus is represented as standint^ before a 
 seated figure of St. I'eter (who holds his right 
 hand) and as clothed in a chestnut-coloured 
 pianela over a dalmatic, and with caligae on 
 his feet. Gordianus is designated " Region- 
 arius," from which, as well as from his dress, 
 Baronius supposes that he was one of the 
 seven cardinal deacons of Rome, it having 
 been not uncommon, he says, for married men, 
 with the consent of their wives, to embrace 
 clerical or monastic life. As to the dress, he 
 adduces two of St. Gregory's epistles (£/>. 113, 
 
 1. i. ind. 2. and £/>. -28, 1. 7, ind. i) to shew that 
 the dalmatic and caligae were then part of the 
 costume of Roman deacons. But the meaning 
 of the title " regionarius " is uncertain. It 
 occurs in St. Ciregory's Efy. 5, 1. 7, ind. i, in 
 Ep. 2 of pope Honorius I. (regionarius nostrae 
 sedis) ; in .\imoiniis, de Gestis Francorum, pt. 
 
 2, p. 247 (regionarius primae sedis) ; in I'it. 
 Ludovici Pit, anu. 835 (regionarius Romanae 
 urbis) ; and in Anastasius, On Constantine 
 (Theophanes regionarius). In two of these 
 instances, those from Honorius and Aimoinus, 
 the persons so designated are expressly said to 
 be subdeacons. It seems to have denoted an 
 office connected with the city of Rome and 
 the apostolic see, but certainly not one con- 
 lined to deacons. As to the dress, it is merely 
 originally ordinary lay costume, the planeta, 
 rather than the casula, having been worn by 
 persons of rank. St. Gregory himself, in his 
 portrait in the same monastery described by 
 John the deacon, wears precisely the same 
 dress, even to the colour of the planeta, only 
 having the pallium over it, to mark his 
 ecclesiastical rank. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Gratianus (5) {Flavins Gtatiaiius Augustus), 
 emperor 375-383, son of Valentinian, was 
 born at Sirmium in 359, while his father 
 was still an officer in the army. When 
 Valentinian was chosen emperor by the 
 soldiers in 364, Gratian was not five years old. 
 On Aug. 24, 367, Valentinian, at Amiens, 
 declared him " Augustus." 
 
 When Valentinian died in 375, the infant 
 child of his second wife Justina (Valentinian 
 II.) was proclaimed Augustus by his principal 
 officers (.•Kmm. xxx. 10), in reliance u[)on the 
 youth and good nature of tlratian, who was at 
 Treves, and who recognized his young brother 
 almost immediately. Justina fixed licr court 
 at Sirmium ; and the Western empire was 
 perhaps nominally divided between the two 
 brothers, Gratian having Gaul, Spain, and 
 Britain, and Valentinian, Italy, Illyricum, and 
 Africa (Zos. iv. 19). But this division must 
 have been simply nominal, as Gratian con- 
 stantly acted in the latter provinces (see 
 Tillem. Emp. v. p. 140, and cf. the laws quoted 
 infra). For the first years of his reign, till 
 the death of his uncle Valens, Gratian resided 
 chiefly at Treves, whence most of his laws 
 are dated. His first acts were to punish with 
 death some of the prominent instruments of the 
 cruelties committed in the name of justice and 
 discipline, which had disgraced his father's 
 
 GRATIANUS 
 
 309 
 
 later years, especially the hatc.l .Maximinut. 
 .Anollur ait, doubtless at tin- b.-gMinniK of 
 his reign, shewed his determination to brr.ik 
 with paganism more etiectually than his pre- 
 decessors had done. This was his refusal «.| 
 the robe of pontifex maximus, when it was 
 brought to him according to cusl>.m by the 
 ptmtifices ; thinking (as the heathen historian 
 tells us) that it was unlawful for a Christi.ui 
 (Zos. iv. 36). The title appears iiidieil toMunc 
 extent on coins and inscriptions, but it is not 
 easy to fix their ilate. 
 
 The Eastern empire was, meanwhile, in 
 the hands of the incompetent Valens, in great 
 danger from Goths. In 378 the Alainanni 
 Lentienses passed the Rhine in great fi>rce and 
 threatened the Western empire, but were 
 heavily defeated by Gratian at Argentana, 
 near Colmar (.\iiini. xxxi. 10). This set him 
 free to move towards the Mast ; and .«t 
 Sirmium he heard of the defeat of his uiu le 
 at Adrianople, Aug. 7, and of his ignoble death 
 (i/j. 11,6; 12,10). ihesituation wasextreiiuly 
 critical for an eiiH)eror not 20 years of age. The 
 barbarians were in motion on all the frontiers. 
 The internal condition of the West was in- 
 secure, from the tacit antagonism between the 
 two courts, and the East was now suddenly 
 thrown upon his hands, as Valens had left no 
 children. Gratian shewed his judgment by 
 sending for the younger Theodosius, son of the 
 late count Theodosius and about 13 years 
 older than himself, who after his father's 
 execution was living in retirement upon his 
 estates in Spain (Victor, Ep. 72, 74, etc. ; 
 cf. Themist. Orat. 14, p. 183 a). Theodosius, 
 loyal and fearless like his father, was at once 
 entrusted with command of the troops as 
 magister militum. His successes over the 
 barbarians (probably Sarniatians) encouraged 
 Gratian to ajipoint him emperor of the East 
 with general applause (Theod. v. 5, 0). 
 
 Gratian returned frt)m Sirmium by way of 
 Aquileia and Milan, at which i)la( es he passed 
 some parts of July and Aug. 379. He had 
 previously been brought into contact with 
 St. Ambrose, and had received from him the 
 two first books of his treatise de Fide, intended 
 speciallv to preserve him against Arianism. 
 This teaching had its due effect ; and he now 
 addressed a letter to the bp. of Milan (sec 
 infra). St. .Ambrose sent him two more 
 books of his treatise, and probably had i>er- 
 sonal intercourse with him. Gratian thni 
 went on to his usual residtnce at Treves, but 
 during the following years resided inu( h more 
 frecjuentlv at and n.ar .Milan, especially in 
 winter; his intercourse with St. Ambr<-se 
 resulting in his confirmation in the Catholic 
 faith. There was. however, another side to 
 this !)ra( tical neglect of the (lallic provinces. 
 The Western provincials — never very con- 
 tented—felt the absence of the imperial court. 
 If Gratian had continued to reside at Treves, 
 the rebellion of .Magnus Maximus might never 
 have taken place, and certainly would not 
 have grown so formidable. 
 
 The influence of St. Ambrt>sc is shewn by 
 the ecclesiastical laws (see xnfra), and in 
 the removal of the altar of Victory from the 
 senate-house at Rome in a.u. 3H1 (St. Ambr. 
 Ep. 17, 5 ; Svmiii. Ep. 61. ad init. et ad 
 finem). The heathen senators, though m the 
 
400 
 
 GRATIANUS 
 
 minority, were accustomed to offer incense on 
 this altar, and to touch it in taking solemn 
 oaths (Ambr. £/>. 17,9). It had been removed 
 or covered up during the visit of Constantius, 
 but was again restored under Julian, and 
 Valentinian's policy had been against inter- 
 ference with such matters (Symm. I.e.). Its 
 removal now caused great distress to the 
 heathen party, who met in the senate-house 
 and petitioned Gratian for its restoration. 
 But the Christians, who had absented them- 
 selves from the curia, met privately, and sent 
 a counter-petition through pope Damasus to 
 Ambrose, who presented it to the emperor 
 (Ambr. I.e.). The weight of this document 
 enabled the advisers of Gratian to prevent his 
 giving the heathen party a hearing. This blow 
 was soon followed by another even more telling 
 — the confiscation of the revenues of the temple 
 of Victory, and the abolition of the privileges 
 of the pontiffs and vestals, a measure ex- 
 tended to other heathen institutions {ib. 3-5 ; 
 18, II f. ; Cod. Theod. xv. 10, 20). 
 
 These laws were followed by a famine in 
 Italy, especially in Rome, which the pagans 
 naturally ascribed to sacrilege (Symm. I.e.). 
 
 A much more serious danger was the revolt 
 of Magnus Maximus, a former comrade of 
 Theodosius in Britain, who was probably 
 jealous of his honours, and was now put for- 
 ward as emperor by thesoldiers. [Maximus (2|.] 
 This rising took place a.d. 383 in Britain, 
 whence the usurper passed over to the mouth 
 of the Rhine, gathering large bodies of men as 
 he went. Gratian set out to meet him, with 
 his two generals Balio and Merobaudes, the 
 latter a Frank by birth. The two armies 
 met near Paris, and Gratian was deserted by 
 nearly all his troops (Zos. iv. 35 ; Ambr. in 
 Ps. 61, 17). Only 300 horse remained faithful. 
 With these he fled at full speed to Lyons. The 
 governor received him with protestations of 
 loyalty, and took a solemn oath on the Gospels 
 not to hurt him. Gratian, deceived by his 
 assurances, took his place in his imperial robes 
 at a feast, during or soon after which he was 
 basely assassinated (Aug. 25) at the age of 24, 
 leaving no children. The traitor even denied 
 his body burial (Ambr. I.e., and 23 f. ; Marcell. 
 sub anno). 
 
 Gratian was amiable and modest — in fact, 
 too modest to be a good governor in these 
 rough times. He was generous and kind- 
 hearted, of an attractive disposition and 
 beautiful person. His tutor Ausonius had 
 taken pains to inspire him with tastes for 
 rhetoric and versification. He was chaste and 
 temperate, careful in religious conduct, and 
 zealous for the faith. His great fault was a 
 neglect of public business through devotion 
 to sport, especially to shooting wild beasts 
 with bow and arrows in his parks and preserves 
 (Amm. I.e. ; Victor, Ep. 73). He once killed 
 a lion with a single arrow (Aus. Epig. 6) ; and 
 St. Ambrose alludes to his prowess in the 
 chase, adopting the language of David's elegy 
 over Jonathan — " Gratiani sagitta non est 
 reversa retro " {de Obitu Valent. 73 ; cf. the 
 old Latin of II. Sam. i. 22). 
 
 The ecclesiastical policy of Gratian was 1 
 more important than his civil or military i 
 government. His reign, coinciding with that | 
 of Theodosius, saw orthodox Christianity for 
 
 GRATIANUS 
 
 j the first time dominant throughout the 
 empire. His measures in behalf of the church 
 I were often tainted with injustice towards the 
 sects. But it is probable that the laws were 
 ' very imperfectly carried out (see Richter, p. 
 327). His first general law against heretical 
 sects is dated from Treves, May i, 376, and 
 speaks of a previous law of the same kind [Cod. 
 Theod. xvi. 5, 4), which may, however, be one 
 of Valens (and Valentinian). 
 
 In 377, shortly before the death of Valens, 
 he condemned rebaptism, and ordered the 
 I Donatist churches to be restored to the 
 Catholics and their private meeting-houses 
 confiscated (Cod. Theod. xvi. 6, 2). The 
 death of Valens was naturally the signal for 
 I the disciple of St. Ambrose to restore the 
 I Catholics of the East to their possessions. He 
 recalled all those whom his uncle had ban- 
 ished, and further issued an edict of toleration 
 [ for all Christian sects, except the Eunomians 
 (extreme Arians, see Soz. vi. 26), Photinians, 
 I and Manicheans (Socr. v. 2; Soz. vii. i). 
 Theodoret (v. 2) appears to confuse this with 
 i the later edict of Gratian and Theodosius. 
 I On the strong representations of Idacius of 
 ' Merida, the Priscillianists, an enthusiastic sect 
 of Gnostics numerous in Spain (Sulpicius 
 Severus, Chron. ii. 47, 6), were also excepted. 
 ] On his return from Sirmium, Gratian wrote 
 ' the following affectionate and interesting auto- 
 graph (Ambr. Ep. i, 3) letter to St. Ambrose : 
 "I desire much to enjoy the bodily presence 
 I of him whose recollection I carry with me, and 
 I with whom I am present in spirit. Therefore, 
 [ hasten to me, religious priest of God, to teach 
 me the doctrine of the true faith. Not that 
 I I am anxious for argument, or wish to know 
 ; God in words rather than in spirit ; but that 
 my heart may be opened more fully to receive 
 the abiding revelation of the divinity. For 
 He will teach me, Whom I do not deny. Whom 
 I confess to be my God and my Lord, not 
 raising as an objection against His divinity 
 that He took upon Himself a created nature 
 I like my own [non ei obiciens, quam in me 
 video, creaturam]. I confess that I can add 
 nothing to the glory of Christ ; but I should 
 , wish to commend myself to the Father in 
 ' glorifying the Son. I will not fear a grudging 
 spirit on the part of God. I shall not suppose 
 myself such an encomiast as to increase His 
 divinity by my praises. In my weakness and 
 frailty I utter what I can, not what is adequate 
 to His divinity. I desire you to send me a 
 copy of the same treatise, which you sent 
 before [de Fide, i. ii.], enlarging it by a faithful 
 dissertation on the Holy Spirit : prove that 
 He is God by arguments of Scripture and 
 reason. May the Deity keep you for many 
 years, my father, and worshipper of the 
 eternal God, Jesus Christ, Whom we worship." 
 St. Ambrose replies, excusing his non-attend- 
 ance upon the emperor, praising the expres- 
 sions of his faith, and sending two fresh books 
 of his treatise. For the new book, de Sptritu 
 Saneto, he asks time, knowing (as he says) 
 what a critic will read them. The subject was 
 at this moment being largely discussed in the 
 Eastern church. 
 
 It is assumed by De Broglie that the bishop 
 and the emperor did not meet at this time, but 
 St. Ambrose writes in the letter just quoted, 
 
GRATIANUS 
 
 § 7, " veniam plane et fcstinabo ut jubes," and 
 two laws of Ciratian's are dated from Milan in 
 July and Aug. 370 {Cod. Just. vi. 3::, 4, July 
 29, and Cod. Theod. xvi. 3, 5, Aug. 3, to 
 Hesperius Pf. Praet. de haeretiris), the 
 second of which may shew the influence of 
 St. Ambrose. It forbids the heresies against 
 which former imperial edicts had been di- 
 rected, and especially that of rebaptism (the 
 Donatists), and revokes the recent tolerant 
 edict of Sirmiuni. 
 
 About this time must be dated the occur- 
 rences mentioned by St. .\mbrose in de Spiritu 
 Sancto, i. §§ 10-21- The empress Justina, an 
 Arian, had obtained from tiratian a basilica 
 for the worship of her sect, to the great dis- 
 tress of the Catholics. He restored it, how- 
 ever, apparently of his own motion, to their 
 equal surprise and delight, perhaps a.d. 380 
 (cf. Kichter, n. 30, p. 692 ; de Spiritu Sancto. 
 § 20, neque enim aliud possumus dicere, nisi 
 sancti Spiritus banc priore gratiam, quod j 
 ignorantibus omnibus subito Basilicam red- | 
 didisti). St. Ambrose also obtained another [ 
 victory over the Arians in 380 in his journey 
 to Sirmium, where Justina apparently also 
 went. In spite of her vehement opposition, 
 he succeeded in consecrating an orthodox 
 bishop to the metropolitan see of Illyria, and 
 thus laid the foundation for the suppression 
 of heresy in that quarter of the empire (Paul- 
 inus, V'ita Ambrosii, 11). 
 
 Gratian evidently agreed in the important 
 edict issued by his colleague Theodosius on 
 Feb. 27, 380, from Thessalonica to the people 
 of Constantinople. This remarkable docu- 
 ment declared the desire of the emperors that 
 all their subjects should profess the religion 
 given by St. Peter to the Romans and now 
 held by the pontiff Damasus, and Peter, bp. 
 of .Alexandria — that is to say, should confess 
 the one deity and equal majesty of the three 
 persons of the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit ; and further, that they alone 
 who hold this faith are to be called Catholics, 
 and their places of meeting churches ; while the 
 rest are branded as heretics, and are threat- 
 ened with an indefinite punishment (Cod. 
 Theod. xvi. 1,2; cf. the law of the next year, 
 which mentions various Catholic bishops of 
 the East, whose communion was to be the test 
 of orthodoxy, including Nectarius of Con- 
 stantinople-^perhaps the reference to Dam- 
 asus had given offence). De Broglie says of 
 these laws, " It was impossible to abjure more 
 decidedly the pretension of dogmatizing from 
 the elevation of the throne, which had been 
 since Constantine the mania of all the em- 
 perors and the scourge of the empire " (vol. v. 
 p. 365). But correct dogmatism is still 
 dogmatism, and the definition of truth by 
 good emperors kept up the delusion that the 
 right of perpetual interference with religion ' 
 was inherent in their office. j 
 
 In May 383, at Padua, Gratian issued a penal 
 law against apostates, and those who try to 
 make others apostatize from Christianity. 
 
 In 381 hf summoned the council of .Aquihia 
 (which met on Sept. 5) to decide the cases 
 of the Illyrian bishops Palladius and Securi- 
 dianus, who were accused of Arianism. Their 
 condemnation put an end to the official 
 life of Arianism in that important district | 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 401 
 
 (Ambr. £/>. 9). The records of (liis rounril 
 are preserved bv St. Ambrose, ((oIIowihk hU 
 8th epistle in the Memdirtine ed.). who t<><.k 
 the chief part in it. though he did a-.t 
 technically preside. The same council t.n.k up 
 the case of pt.pe Damasus ami besought the 
 emperor to interfere against the j>artis.uis o( 
 the antipope I'rsinus (1/). 11). liic relatii.n* 
 of Gratian with the see of Rome are som.wh.it 
 obscure, but some extension of its privilrgi* 
 and pretensions dates from this reign. Ac- 
 cording to the documents first published bv 
 Sirmond, a synod held in Rome s>>on after 
 Gratian's accession made large demands for 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction and particularly 
 asked that the bp. of Rome should only 
 be judged by a council of bishops or by the 
 emperor in person, (iratian in his rescript 
 to .\quilinus the vicar (of Rome ?) grants and 
 confirms several privileges, but savs nothing 
 of the latter request. Some doubt hangs over 
 the whole of these documents. (See lnHlcfroy, 
 Cod. Theod. vol. vi. appendix, pp. 17. iH; 
 Baron. Annals, sub anno 381, §§ i. 2 ; Tillcm. 
 Datnase, arts. 10 and 11. Grcenwo«Kl, Cathe- 
 dra Petri, vol. i. pp. 239-242 ; Hefele. Councils. 
 § 91, does not even hint at their existence.) 
 
 In consequence of the success of the council 
 of Aquileia St. Ambrose was anxi<jus to call 
 together an oecumenical assembly at Rome to 
 settle the dispute between Nectarius and 
 .Maximus, who both claimed the see of Con- 
 stantinople, and pressed the emperor Theo- 
 dosius on the point {Epp. 13 and 14), who, 
 however, naturally viewed this interference 
 with coldness (Theod. v. 8, 9). A council, 
 ne\ ertheless, met at Rome, but without doing 
 much beyond condenuiing the ApoUinarians. 
 
 Returning to Milan, St. Ambrose took leave 
 of the young emperor for the last time. Their 
 intercourse had always been tender and 
 affectionate, and was the last thought of the 
 emperor before his death. 
 
 We may here mention an instance of their 
 relations, which may have been at this or at 
 any other period of their friendship (de 
 Broglie, to make a point, puts it here. vol. vi. 
 p. 45, but neither Paulinus. § 37, nor Sozomcn, 
 vii. 25, gives any hint of date). A heathen of 
 quality was condenmed to death for abusing 
 Ciratian and calling him an unworthy son of 
 Valentinian. As he was being led to execu- 
 tion. .Ambrose hurried to the palace to inter- 
 cede for him. One Macedonius. master of the 
 offices, it would seem, ordered the servants to 
 refuse him admittance, astiratian was engaged 
 in his favourite sport. Ambrose went round 
 to the park gates, entered unperceived bv the 
 huntsmen, and never left Gratian till he had 
 overcome his arguments and those of his 
 courtiers and obtained remission of the s«-n- 
 fence. "The time will come." he said to 
 Macedonius, " when you will fly for asylum to 
 the church, but the chun h doors will be shut 
 against you." The anecdote of the criminal is 
 told by Sozomeii. I.e. ; the words to Mace- 
 donius are given bv I'aulinus. u.s. (jw.) 
 
 GregoriUS (3). surnamed I haumaturgus. 
 bp. of Ncoraesarea in Pontus. c. 233-270; 
 born c. 210 at Neocaesarca on the Lycus. the 
 modern Niksar ; the son of wealthy and noble 
 heathen parents. Christianity had as ycl 
 made little progress in that neighbourhood, 
 26 
 
402 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 there being only 17 Christians in the whole 
 region (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum. ; Migne, Patr. 
 Gk. xlvi. 954). The extraordinary success of 
 the episcopal labours of the young missionary 
 and the romantic details with which later 
 hands embellished them secured for hirn the 
 well-known title of Thaumaturgus. This re- 
 pute cannot be set down as exclusively due to 
 the credulousness of the age, for as Lardner 
 {Cred. ii. 42, § 5) remarked, besides Gregory of 
 Nyssa, such writers as Basil, Jerome, and 
 Theodoret distinguished him, as above others, 
 " a man of apostolic signs and wonders " (cf. 
 Dr. J. H. Newman, Essays on Miracles, p. 
 263). No light is thrown upon his thauma- 
 turgic renown by his extant writings, which 
 are conspicuous for their philosophic tone, 
 humility, self-distrust, and practical sense. 
 He must have been a man of singular force of 
 character and weighty judgment. Heretics 
 claimed the sanction of his name for their 
 speculations, thus indirectly revealing the 
 confidence in which he was held by all parties. 
 Gregory (originally Theodorus) stated that 
 his father died and he himself passed through 
 a remarkable spiritual crisis in his 14th year. 
 He attributed the change of sentiment to " the 
 Divine Logos, the Angel of the counsel of God, 
 and the common Saviour of all." He left it, 
 however, doubtful in what precisely the change 
 consisted. His mother having suggested the 
 pursuit of rhetoric, he was advised to study 
 specially Roman law and become an alumnus 
 of the celebrated school of jurisprudence at 
 Berytus in Syria. His sister needed an escort 
 to Palestine to join her husband in his high 
 position under the Roman governor at 
 Caesarea. The young Gregory and his brother 
 Athenodorus took this opportunity to travel. 
 " My guardian angel " (says he) " on our 
 arrival at Caesarea handed us over to the care 
 and tuition of Origen," and the brothers, 
 abandoning their journey, remained there 
 under the personal spell of the teacher for live 
 years. The mental processes by which Gregory 
 was led to Christ throw considerable light on 
 the mind of Origen and the methods of Chris- 
 tian education in the 3rd cent. These details 
 are preserved in a panegyric on Origen, which 
 before leaving Caesarea the young student 
 pronounced to a great assembly in the presence 
 of his master. They differ in several particu- 
 lars from the account of Gregory of Nyssa 
 (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum. ; Migne, Patr. Gk. 
 vol. xlvi. pp. 893-958). According to Gre- 
 gory's own statements (Orat. de Orig. c. vi.), 
 Origen enticed his pupils first to the study of 
 philosophy, which he recommended as a duty 
 to the Lord of all, " since man alone of all 
 creatures is deemed by his Creator as worthy 
 to pursue it." " A thoughtful man, if pious, 
 must philosophize," says he, so " at length, 
 like some spark lighting on our soul, love was 
 kindled and burst into flame within us, a love 
 to the Holy Logos, the most lovely object of 
 all. Who attracts all to Himself by His unutter- 
 able beauty." " Only one object seemed 
 worthy of pursuit, philosophy and the master 
 of philosophy, this divine (dflos:) man." His 
 love to Origen was like that of Jonathan for 
 David. Gregory praises Origen for his 
 Socratic discipline, and for the way in which 
 his teacher probed his inmost soul with 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 questions, pruned his native wildness and 
 repressed his exuberance. He was taught to 
 interrogate his consciousness, and critically 
 to investigate reasonings and the meanings of 
 words. Origen accustomed his pupils first to 
 the dialectic method of inquiry, and then, in 
 Aristotelian fashion, fed them to contemplate 
 the " magnitude, the wondrousness, the mag- 
 nificent, and absolutely wise construction of 
 the world." He seems to have followed 
 (strangely enough) the order of the sciences 
 in Comte's classification of the branches of 
 human knowledge. Thus, he began with 
 " the immutable foundation of all, geometry, 
 and then " (says Gregory) " by astronomy he 
 lifted us up to the things highest above us." 
 He reduced things to their " pristine ele- 
 ments," " going over the nature of the whole 
 and of each several section," " he filled our 
 minds with a rational, instead of an irrational, 
 wonder at the sacred oeconomy of the universe 
 and the irreprovable constitution of all 
 things." These words and much more that 
 might be quoted from the Panegyric are a 
 strange comment on the thaumaturgic actions 
 freely attributed to Gregory. Morals followed 
 physics, and emphasis is laid by Gregory on 
 the practical experience by which Origen 
 desired his pupils to verify all theories, " stim- 
 ulating us by the deeds lie did more than by 
 the doctrines he taught." He urged the study 
 of Grecian philosophy for the direct culture of 
 their moral nature. The end of the entire 
 discipline was " nothing but this : By the 
 pure mind make thyself like to God, that thou 
 mayest draw near to Him and abide in Him." 
 Origen advised Gregory to study all the 
 writings of the philosophers and poets of old, 
 except the Atheists, and gave reasons for a 
 catholic and liberal eclecticism, and, with a 
 modern spirit, disclaimed the force of pre- 
 judice and the misery of half-truths and of 
 fixed ideas, and the advantage of " selecting 
 all that was useful and true in all the various 
 philosophers, and putting aside all that was 
 false." Gregory says of his master : " That 
 leader of all {dpxv~tos iravruv) who speaks in 
 undertones (l'ttijxwj') to God's dear prophets 
 and suggests to them all their prophecy and 
 their mystic and divine word, has so honoured 
 this man Origen as a friend as to appoint him 
 to be their interpreter." Evidently to Gre- 
 gory the gift of interpretation was as much a 
 divine charisma as prophecy itself. So great 
 were the joys thus placed within his reach that 
 he adds with rapture, " He was truly a 
 paradise to us, after the similitude of the 
 Paradise of God." He regrets his departure 
 from Caesarea, as Adam might bewail his 
 expulsion from Eden, having to eat of the soil, 
 to contend with thorns and thistles, and dwell 
 in darkness, weeping and mourning. He says, 
 " I go away of my own will, and not by con- 
 straint, and by my own act I am dispossessed, 
 when it is in my option to remain." 
 
 The influence of Origen's teaching upon 
 Gregory and Athenodorus is confirmed by 
 Eusebius {H. E. vi. 30), who adds that " they 
 made such improvement that both, though 
 very young, were honoured with the episco- 
 pate in the churches of Pontus." 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa describes Gregory of Neo- 
 caesarea as spending much time in Alexandria, 
 
GREGORIUS 
 
 and says that before his baptism, while resi- 
 dent there, he displayed a hish tone of moral 
 propriety. A residence in Alexandria may 
 have occurred in the five years that tiregory 
 and his brother were under the direction of 
 Origen. These years were probably inter- 
 rupted by the persecution uiuhr Maxiniinus 
 Thrax (reigned July 2,15 to May 238), which 
 was aimed especially at the leaders of the 
 church. Origen may then have gone into 
 retirement and left his pupils at liberty to 
 travel into Egypt. If (.iregory's ba]>tism was 
 deferred until Origen could return to Caesarea, 
 it must have taken place at the close of their 
 intercourse after the death of Maximin and 
 the accession of Gordian in 238. Reckoning 
 backwards the five years, Gregory did not 
 reach Caesarea before 233, and probably later; 
 and did not leave the " Paradise " until 238 
 at the earliest, when he pronounced his Pane- 
 gyric. This document is of interest from the 
 testimony it bears to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity and the light it throws upon the faith 
 i>f llregory. Bp. Bull has laid great emphasis 
 upon the passage {Oral, de Origine, cap. iv.) 
 in which Gregory offers his praise to the 
 Father, and then to " the Champion and 
 Saviour of t)ur souls, His first-born Word, the 
 Creator and Governor of all things, . . . being 
 the truth, the wisdom, the power of the 
 Father Himself of all things, and besides being 
 both in Him and absolutely united to Him 
 {cLTix^uii i]Vil)aivoz), the most perfect and 
 living and animate word of the primal mind." 
 Bp. Bull rightly calls attention to the prae- 
 Nicene character of these phrases, which yet 
 substantially agree with the deliverance of the 
 Nicene Fathers (Def. Nic. Creed, vol. i. p. 331). 
 They are of importance in estimating the authen- 
 ticity and significance of other documents. 
 
 Immediately on his return to Neocaesarea 
 Gregory received a letter from Origen (Philo- \ 
 calia, c. 13), revealing the teacher's extra- i 
 ordinary regard for his pupil, whom he de- 
 scribes as " my most excellent lord and 
 venerable son." Gregory is exhorted to study 
 all philosophies, as a preparation for Christian- 
 ity and to aid the interpretation of Holy 
 Scripture. He is thus to spoil the Egyptian's 
 of their fine gold, in order to make vessels for 
 the sanctuary, and not idols of his own. He 
 is then urged with some passion to study the 
 Scriptures, and to seek from God by prayer 
 the light he needs (see Ante-Nic. Library, 
 Origen's works, vol. i. 388-390, for a transla- 
 tion of this letter). Shortly after his return 
 Gregory became bishop of his native city, and 
 one of the most celebrated (5iafil>rfTo%) bishops 
 of the age (Eus. H. E. vi. 30, and vii. 14). 
 The curious details of his ordination are 
 referred to in Basil's Me>wl. Graec. (Nov. 17), 
 where it is stated that he was ordained by j 
 Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, when the two i 
 were at a distance from each other. Our only j 
 guide f<jr the subsequent details of his life is 
 Gregory of Nyssa. Some of that writer's 
 most extraordinary statements are in a ; 
 measure vouched for by his brother Basil the j 
 Great, and by Rufinus in his expansion of the \ 
 history of Eusebius. As the later father tells 
 the story, the young and saintly student, on 
 reaching home, was entreated by the entire ; 
 population to remain as their magistrate and 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 4i):i 
 
 legislator. Like Moses, he li>ok counicl of 
 God, and retired into the wildrrn«ii«. hut, 
 unlike Moses, he married n(» wife, and had 
 virtue only for his spouse. Then wc are t.-ld 
 that Phaedinnis, bp. of Amasea, sought l.» 
 consecrate him bv guile, but failed, and 
 adopted the expedient of electing .md ..rd.ini- 
 iiig him by praver when he was distant a 
 journey of three davs. We are assured tli.it 
 this induced (.regory to vield to the summons, 
 and to submit afterwards to the customary 
 rites. (Iregory onlv demanded time for 
 meditation on the truths of the Christian faith 
 before accepting the commission. This medi- 
 tation issued in the supposed divine revelation 
 to him in the dead of the night of one of the 
 most explicit formularies of the creed of the 
 church of the 3rd cent., " after he had been 
 deeply considering the reason of the faith, and 
 sifting disputations of all sorts." (;reKory 
 saw a vision of St. John and the mother of the 
 Lord, and the latter conunanded the former 
 to lay before Gregory the true faith. Apart 
 from this romance, the formulary attributed 
 to Gregory is undoubtedly of high antiquity, 
 and Larduer (Credihiltty, vol. ii. p. 2()) diK-s 
 not argue with his wonted candour in his 
 endeavour to fasten upon it signs of later 
 origin.* It is singularly free from the peculiar 
 phrases which acquired technical significance 
 in the 4th cent., and yet maintains a most 
 uncompromising antagonism to Sabellian and 
 Unitarian heresy. .Moreover, Gregory of 
 Nyssa asserts that when he uttered his 
 encomium, theautograidi .MS. of this creed was 
 in possession of the church at .Veocaesarea. 
 He adds that the church had been continually 
 initiated (^iv.iTay(i};dTai) by means of this 
 confession of (Iregory's faith. This statement 
 Basil confirmed (Ep. 204, Bas. 0pp. Paris ed. 
 t. iii. p. 303), saying that in his tender age, 
 when residing in Neocaesarea, he had been 
 taught the words of tiregory by his sainted 
 grandmother Macrina, and (de Spir. Sanclo, 
 c. 29, ib. p. 62) he declared the tenacity with 
 which the ways and words of (iregory had 
 been preserved by that church, even to the 
 mode of reciting the doxology. Moreover, 
 Basil attributed to his influence the orthotloxy 
 of a whf)le succession of bishops from Gregory 
 to the Musonius of his own day {Ep. 204). In 
 addressing the Neocaesareans {Ep. 207. ib. 
 p. 311), he warns them against twisting the 
 words of Gregory. The formulary must be 
 * The Creed is as follow* in Hulfs trarj'*. : - 
 " There isoneC.od, Father of Him Who in the hvinu 
 Word, subsisting Wis<loin and I'owcr and ICtcmal Im- 
 press (xaptt/tT>)po« aiiiou), I'crfcct HcKCtl" "' Uic 
 Perfect, Father of Ihc onl>-bcj{ottcn Son. Tlicrc is 
 one I,ord, Alone of the alone, Oo<l of Crtxl. ImprcM 
 and Image of the <".odhcad, the operative Word ; 
 Wisdom comprehen^ivf of the system of the univcrte. 
 and Power productive of the whole creation ; true 
 Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Ini-or- 
 ruptibkof Incornipliblcanil Immortal o( ImmoftuI, 
 and litcrnal of i:ternal. And there is one Holy l'.h«»t. 
 Who hath His luinK of God, Who liuth appeared 
 (that is to mankind, cr|AiiJn '•>'* ii-^pwirox. a clause 
 which f.reg. of Nvs^a gives, but which is not found 
 in some of the codices) through the Son. Im.ige o( the 
 Son, I'erfett of the Perfect ; I,i(e, the Cause of uU 
 them that live: Holy Fountaui, lloline^^. the llc- 
 stowtr of s;inclilication,in Whom is manilestetl God 
 the Father Who is over all and in all, an<l C.ix\ the 
 S<jn, Who is through all. A perfect Trinity, not 
 divided nor alien in glory and eternity and dominion." 
 
404 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 distinguished from the ^Kdeati ttjs Kara /x^pos 
 TTterreajs, which is now found among the dubious 
 writings of Gregory, and which even Labbe 
 confounded with it. A very important sen- 
 tence which has been variously attributed to 
 the saint and his biographer follows the 
 formula as given in the Life. Dr. Burton 
 referred it to Gregory of Nyssa. Modern 
 editors call attention to the fact that Gregory 
 of Nazianzus {Orat. lo) refers to the closing 
 sentences as the substance of the formula it- 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 burner, as bishop over the neighbouring city 
 of Comana. He was preferred to men of 
 eloquence and station by reason of his humble 
 self-consecration to God, and justified the 
 choice by reason of his excellent discourse, 
 holy living, and martyr death. 
 
 The great missionary success of Gregory and 
 the rapid growth of "the Church must have 
 preceded the persecution under Decius, which 
 began in 250 and 251. The edict was fero- 
 cious, and, in the hands of sympathetic 
 self. It runs as follows : " There is therefore ; governors, cruelly carried out. [Decius.] 
 nothing created or servile in the Trinity ; nor I Gregory advised those who could do so to save 
 anything superinduced, as though previously themselves and their faith by flight and 
 non-existing and introduced afterwards, concealment. His enemies pursued him into 
 Never therefore was the Son wanting to the | his retreat, but Gregory of Nyssa says that they 
 Father, nor the Spirit to the Son ; but there 1 found in place of the bishop and his deacon two 
 is ever the same Trinity, unchangeable and trees. This " prodigy " differs so profoundly 
 unalterable " (cf. Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. x. I (as do others in the same writer) from the N.T. 
 p. 988). Great difference of opinion has miracles, both in character and motive, that 
 prevailed as to the genuineness of this docu- they form an instructive hint as to the ethnic 
 ment ; thus Bingham, Bull, Cave, Tillemont and imaginative source of the whole cycle, 
 (iv. 327), Ceillier, Hahn (cf. Dorner's Person In 257 Gregory returned to Neocaesarea, 
 of Christ, A. ii. 482), Mohler {Athan. i. 105), and when, in 258, peace was restored to the 
 have defended it, and Lardner, Whiston, church, he ordered annual feasts in commem- 
 Miinscher, Gieseler, Herzog {A brtss der Kir- \ oration of the martyrs. He is credited by his 
 chengesch.i. 122), contest it. Neander divided ! biographer with the doubtful wisdom of hoping 
 it into two parts, the one genuine revealing its ' to secure the allegiance of those who had been 
 Origenistic source, and the other of later in the habit of worshipping idols, by arranging 
 growth. Dr. Caspari has, in an appendix to : ceremonials in honour of the martyrs re- 
 his great work, Alte und neiie Quellen zur i sembling that to which they had been accus- 
 Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubens- ! tomed. This time-serving is an unfavourable 
 regel (1879), defended it with great erudition, indication of character, and does something 
 and concludes that there is nothing in the | to explain the melancholy defection from 
 formula incompatible with its being the | moral uprightness and honour of many of his 
 production of a pupil of Origen. He shews, I supposed converts. The conversion of the 
 moreover, that it must have been produced heathen is said to have been greatly quickened 
 between a.d. 260 and 265. by a fearful plague which was partly, at least, 
 
 There can be little doubt that the missionary due to Gregory's miraculous powers, 
 labourof Gregory was great and successful, and At his death the number of heathen who 
 that his personal influence was extraordinary, now remained in his diocese is said to have 
 A few of the marvellous occurrences detailedby dwindled to 17, the exact number of Christians 
 Gregory of Nyssa are referred to by Basil and ! found there when Phaedimus consecrated him 
 Rufinus. Basil tells us (de Spir. Sancto, I.e.) \ (Vit. Thaum. I.e. p. 954). But the Christianity 
 " that Gregory was a great and conspicuous ' of the Neocaesareans must have been in many 
 lamp, illuminating the church of God, and ' cases of a very imperfect kind, if we may 
 that he possessed, from the co-operation of the ; judge from one of the most authentic docu- 
 Spirit, a formidable power against the demons; ; ments referred to his pen, and entitled Epis- 
 that he turned the course of rivers by giving i tola Canoniea S. Gregorii . . . de iis qui in 
 them orders in the name of Christ ; that he ; harbarorum incursione idolothyta comederant, et 
 dried up a lake, which was the cause of strife alia quaedam peccata comrniserant. Numerous 
 to two brothers ; and that his predictions of , authorities, Dodwell (Dissertationes in Cypri- 
 the future made him the equal of the other anunt), Ceillier (vol. ii. p. 444). question the 
 prophets; . . . that by friends and enemies of j genuineness of the last, the eleventh, of 
 the truth he was regarded, in virtue of his canons, but the conviction widely prevails that 
 
 ■ "" the previous ten are genuine. They refer to 
 the circumstances which followed the ravages 
 of the Goths and Boradi in Pontus, and Asia 
 Minor generally, during the reign of Gallienus. 
 The prevailing disorder tempted numerous 
 Christians in Pontus to flagrant acts of impiety 
 and disloyalty. Some took possession of the 
 goods of those who had been dragged into 
 
 signs and prodigies, as another Moses." But 
 Gregory of Nyssa expands into voluminous 
 legend the record of these deeds. With the 
 exception of a reference to the river Lycus, 
 the Panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa contains 
 no verifying element, giving neither names, 
 dates, nor places for these astounding por- 
 tents. They were, as Dr. Newman observes, ,^ 
 
 wrought at such times and seasons as to lead I bondage. Others identified themselves with 
 to numerous conversions. They were de- I the barbarians, actually helping the heathen 
 scribed as well-known facts in a hortatory in their uttermost cruelty towards their 
 address and in ecclesiastical style. But they brethren. These facts are gathered from 
 contrast very forcibly with the philosophical the "canons" in which Gregory denounced 
 bias of Gregory's mind, and they are not re- strenuously the commission of such crimes, 
 ferred to until a century after their occurrence, and assigned to them their ecclesiastical 
 One of the most interesting facts introduced i penalty. The bishop does not linger over the 
 by his panegyrist refers to Gregory's selection i mere ceremonial uncleanness that might 
 of an obscure person, Alexander the charcoal | follow from enforced consumption of meat 
 
GREGORIUS 
 
 offered to idols, and exonerates from blame I 
 or any ecclesiastical anathema women who I 
 had, against their will, lost their chastity : [ 
 but he lays great emphasis on the vices and i 
 greed of those who had violated Christian ' 
 morality for gain and personal advantage. ' 
 Different degrees of penalty and exclusion 
 from church privilege were assigned, and those 
 were argued on ground of Scripture alone. 
 The epistle containing these canons was ad- 
 dressed tt> an anonymous bp. of Pontus, who 
 had asked his advice, c. 238, towards the end 
 of his episcopate. It reveals the imperfect 
 character of the wholesale conversions that 
 had followed his remarkable ministry. 
 
 Other works have been wrongly attributed 
 to Gregory ; e.g. (udean rrjs Kara fifpos 
 irioTfws, which Vossius published in Latin in 
 1662, among the works of Gregory, and which 
 Cardinal Mai (Scrip. I'et. vii. p. 170) has pre- 
 sented in Greek from the Codex Vaticanus. 
 It is given by Migne (I.e. pp. 1103-1123). The 
 best interpretation of the title is, " A creed 
 not of all the dogmas of the church, but only 
 of some, in opposition to the heretics who deny 
 them " (.4)tte-Xicene Library, vol. xx. p. 81). 
 It differs from the former confession in its 
 obvious and technical repudiation of Arianism, 
 and its distinct references to the later Nestor- 
 ian,andEutychianheresies. Othertreatisesand 
 fragments given in edd. of his works, and also 
 trans, in .-l.-.V. Z,., are: Capitula duodecim de 
 fiitf, with interpretation, attributed by Gretser 
 to Gregory (ed. Ratisbon. 1741). Ad Tatianum 
 Disputatio de Atiimd, which must have been 
 written by a medieval philosopher when the 
 philosophy of Aristotle was beginning to exert 
 a new influence (Ceillier). Four Homiliae. pre- 
 served by \'ossius,on "the Annunciation to the 
 Holy Virgin Mary," and on "Christ'sBaptism," 
 are totally unlike the genuine writing of Gre- 
 gory; they are surcharged with the peculiar 
 reverence paid to the Mother of our Lord after 
 the controversy between Xestorius and Cyril, j 
 and they adopt thetest-wordsof orthodoxycur- 
 rent in the Arian disputes. Two brief fragments 1 
 remain to be added, one a comment on ^Iatt. vi. j 
 22-23, from a Catena, Cod. MS. and pub. by ; 
 Galland. Vet. Pair. Bibl. xiv. 119. and a dis- 
 course, in Omnes Sanclos, preserved with a long 
 Epistola praevia by Mingarelli. j 
 
 Gregory was present at the first council at | 
 Antioch (264) to try Paul of Samosata. His 
 brother Athenodorus accompanied him, and 
 they are named among the most eminent 
 members of the council (Eus. //. E. vii. 28). 
 
 Gregory was buried in the church he had 
 built in Xeocaesarea, and commemorated on 
 Nov. 17 (Cal. Ethiop.) and Nov. 23 (Cal. Arm.). 
 
 Editions of his Works. — The most noted 
 have been those of Gerard Vossius, 1640, in 
 4to, and in 1622, in folio. They had been 
 published in Bibl. Patr. Cologne in 1618. The 
 Panegyric on Origen by Sirmond, 1605, 4to. 
 De la Rue included it in his ed. of OrigoisJsO^^ra, 
 vol. iv. The various fragments attributed to 
 Gregory are all pub. by Migne (Pair. Gk. vol. 
 X.). See esp. Rvssel, Gregonus Thaumaturgus 
 (Leipz. 1880). His Address to Origen and Ori- 
 gen's Letter to Gregory have been trans, with 
 intro. and notes by W. Metcalfe (S.P.C.K.). 
 There are also translations of his works in the 
 Ante-\ic. Lib. vol. vi. [h.r.R.] 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 405 
 
 GregorlUS(7), St., ••tl..- Illiin.in,it..r" {Gr<gor 
 /,M,s<H()ri/fy:),"th.sun<.«.Arnii-nia."thpapf.»tlr. 
 first i)atriarch and patron saint of Armenia, 
 f- 302-331. Of his life and time* thr br»l 
 
 if not the only authorities are AgathanKrlcs, 
 who was secret ary to Tiridatrs king u( Annrnia, 
 the persecutor .md afterwards the mnvrrl o( 
 Gregory, and Simeon Metaphrastcs. A I-'renrh 
 trans, of the former was printed in vol. i. <>( the 
 Histonens del' Armi'nu (1H67), bv Victor I.ang- 
 lois. The Life of St. (;regorv bv Metaphrasl.-s 
 (Migne, Patr. Gk. cxv. <>4i-o<)6) is evidently 
 drawn from Agathangelos. The sihiKr of all 
 Greek writers about Gregory isremarkable. The 
 Rev. S. C. Malan trans, the Life and Times of 
 St. Gregory the Illuminator from the .Armenian 
 work of the \artabed .Matthew, which is the 
 main source of the following sketch. 
 
 Gregory was born c. 257 i» Valarshabad. the 
 capital of the province of Ararat in Armenia. 
 His father Anak. or .Anag. a Parthian .-Xrsacid. 
 of the province of Balkh. murdered, c. 2.S.S, 
 Chosroes 1. of Armenia. The dying king com- 
 manded the whole family of .Anak to be slain, 
 but an infant was saved, carried to the Cappa- 
 docian Carsarea, there brought up in the 
 Christian faith, and baptized Gregorius. 
 
 Tiridates III., son of Cht)sroes. recovered 
 the kingdom c. 284 by the help of Diocletian, 
 whose favour he had gained and whose hatred 
 of Christianity he had imbibed. Gregory 
 became his servant, and was raised to the rank 
 of a noble. In the first year of his reign 
 Tiridates went to the town of Hrez (Erzenga) 
 in Higher Armenia, to make offerings to Ana- 
 hid, the patron-goddess of Armenia ; but 
 Gregory, refusing to take any part in this 
 idolatry, endeavoured to turn the kiiig from 
 his idols, and spoke to him of Christ as the 
 judge of quick and dead. Then followed what 
 are known as " the twelve tortures of St. 
 Gregory," borne with unsurpassed fiTtitudc 
 (but see Dowling's Arwentan t7ii<rc/i. S.P.t .K. 
 1910). After two years Tiridates ordered the 
 saint to be thrown into a muddy pit infested 
 with creeping creatures, into which malefactors 
 were wont to be hurled, in the city of Ardashat, 
 and there he lived for 14 years, being fed by 
 a Christian woman named Anna. This is one 
 of several traces in the story of an already- 
 existing Christianity in Armenia. 
 
 The king's barbarous treatment of a com- 
 munity of religious women, who c. 300 t<M)k 
 refuge within his domains and built a convent 
 outside the city of \'alarshabad, brought a 
 plague upon him and his people, whit h was 
 only relieved when Gregory was fetched from 
 the pit. Gregory instructed the peoplr. and 
 at his order they built three churches where 
 the King's criiiies had been perpetrated, and \\r 
 called the place Etchniiadzin (the descent ' (the 
 Onlv-begotten), its Turkish name iM-ing Utch- 
 Kilise (Three Churches). Gregory w.is conse- 
 crated bp. for Armenia c. 302. by I.eontius. bp. 
 
 i of CacsareainCappadocia. Hiscathedral wasin 
 Valarshabad. He destroyed the idol temples, 
 "conquering the devils who inhabited them " — 
 i.e. the pritsts and supporters of th<- old reli- 
 gion — and baptized the king and his court 
 in the Euphrates. This national coiivrrsif>n 
 
 ' occurred before Cf>nstantine had established 
 the church in the Roman empire, and .Armenia 
 
 , was thus the first kiiigdf.ni to adopt t hnslian- 
 
406 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 ity as the religion of the state. ^ Gregory 
 encouraged the reading of the Holy Scriptures, 
 both of the O. and N. T. He wrote letters to 
 St. James of Nisibis, requesting him to com- 
 pose homilies on faith, love, and other virtues. 
 In 325 Gregory is said to have been summoned 
 to the council of Nicaea, but, being himself 
 unable to go, sent his son, who brought back [ 
 the decrees for the Armenian church. The 
 venerable patriarch greatly rejoiced on reading 
 them, and exclaimed, " Now let us praise Him 
 Who was before the worlds, worshipping the 
 most Holy Trinitv and the Godhead of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and ever, 
 world without end. Amen," which words are 
 said after the Nicene Creed in the Armenian 
 church (Malan. p. 327, n.). After filling the 
 country with churches and ministers, schools 
 and convents, he retired in 33 1 to lead a solitary 
 life among the caves of Manyea in the province 
 of Taran, having previouslyconsecrated his son 
 Arisdages bishop in his stead. Gregory died in 
 the wilderness a.d. 332, and the shepherds, 
 finding his dead body without knowing whose 
 it was, erected over it a cairn of stones. 
 
 The Bollandists have printed Agathangelos 
 andother Lives of Gregory. ActaSS. viii.Sept. 
 pp. 295-413; Basil. Men. Sept. 30, in Migne, 
 Patr. Gk. cxvii. ; Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 1355, 
 1371. In honour of her founder the Arme- 
 nian church has been called the Armeno- 
 Gregorian. Saint-Martin (Mem. siir VArmenie, 
 i. 436) and Langlois (Historiens, ii. 387) date 
 his consecration a.d. 276. [l.d.] 
 
 Gregorius (8), the Cappadocian, appointed 
 by Arianizing bishops at Antioch in the 
 beginning of 340 — not, apparently, of 339, as 
 the Festal Index says, and clearly not at the 
 Dedication Festival in 341 as Socrates says 
 (ii. 20) — to supersede Athanasius in the see of 
 Alexandria. As a student in the schools of 
 Alexandria he had received kindness from 
 Athanasius (Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 15)- He 
 arrived on Mar. 23 (cf. Fest. Ind.), Athanasius 
 having retired into concealment. That Gre- 
 gory was an Arian may be inferred from his 
 appointment. Athanasius says, in an en- 
 cyclical letter of the time, that his sympathy 
 with the heresy was proved by the fact that 
 only its supporters had demanded him, and 
 that he employed as secretary one Ammon, 
 who had been long before excommunicated by 
 bp. Alexander for his impiety (Encycl. c 7). 
 Athanasius tells us that on Good Friday, 
 Gregory having entered a church, the people 
 shewed their abhorrence, whereupon he 
 caused the prefect Philagrius publicly to 
 scourge 34 virgins and married women and 
 men of rank, and to imprison them. After 
 Athanasius fled to Rome, Gregory became 
 still more bitter (Athan. Hist. Ar. 13). We 
 hear of him as " oppressing the city" in 341 
 [Fest. Ind.). Auxentius, afterwards Arian bp. 
 of Milan, was ordained priest by him (Hilar. 
 in Aux. 8). The council of Sardica, at the 
 end of A.D. 343, pronounced him never to have 
 been, in the church's eyes, a bishop {Hist. 
 Ar. 17). He died, not by murder, as Theo- 
 doret says (ii. 4) through a confusion with 
 George, but after a long illness (Fest. Ind.), 
 about ten months after the exposure of the 
 Arian plot against bp. Euphrates — i.e. c. Feb. 
 A.D. 345. This date, gathered from Athanasius 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 (Hist. Ar. 21) is preferable to that of the 
 Index, Epiphi 2 = June 26, 346. [w.b.] 
 
 Gregorius (12) Baeticus, St., bp. of Eliberi, 
 
 Elvira, or Granada, c. 357-384 ; first men- 
 tioned as resisting the famous Hosius of Cor- 
 dova, when under the persecution of Constan- 
 tius Hosius gave way so far as to admit Arian 
 bishops to communion with him. This must 
 have been in or before a.d. 357, the year of 
 Hosius's death. At the council of Ariminum 
 Gregorius was one of the few bishops who 
 adhered to the creed of Nicaea, and refused 
 to hold communion with the Arian Valens, 
 Ursacius, and their followers. Our authority 
 for this is a letter to Gregorius by Eusebius of 
 Vercellae from his exile in the Thebaid 
 (printed among the works of St. Hilary of 
 Poitiers, ii. 700, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 713). 
 Eusebius there acknowledges letters he had 
 received from Gregorius, giving an account 
 of his conduct, and commends him highly for 
 having acted as became a bishop. Gams, 
 however (Kirchengesch. ii. 256-259, 279-282), 
 maintains that Gregorius was one of the 
 bishops who fell into heresy at Ariminum, 
 and further identifies him with the Gregorius 
 in the deputation sent by the council to Con- 
 stantius and headed by Restitutusof Carthage, 
 who assented to and subscribed an Arian 
 formula of belief at Nice, in Thrace, Oct. 10, 
 359, and held communion with the Arian 
 leaders, Valens, Ursacius, and others (St. 
 Hilary of Poitiers, ex Opere Historico Frag- 
 mentum 8, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 702). 
 
 Gregorius is generally supposed to have 
 been one of the leaders of the schism origin- 
 ated by Lucifer of Cagliari. This theory is 
 supported by the terms of praise applied to 
 him by the Luciferians Faustinus and Mar- 
 cellus in their Libelltis Precum ad Imperatores 
 (c. 9, 10, 20, 25, 27, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. 
 89, 90, 97, 100, 102) ; and also by the way St. 
 Jerome, inhis Chrotiicle under the date 374 = 
 A.D. 370 (in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii. 695), 
 couples him with Lucifer of Cagliari, saying 
 that the latter with Gregorius a Spanish, and 
 Philo a Libyan, bishop, " nunquam se Arianae 
 miscuit pravitati." Florez, however (Esp. 
 Sagr. xii. 121), maintains that no certain proof 
 of this theory exists. Gams, on the other 
 hand (op. cit. ii. 310-314), maintains that even 
 before the death of Lucifer, Gregorius was the 
 recognized head of the sect. On the authority 
 of the Libellus Precum, c. 25, he considers that 
 Gregorius, after Lucifer's return from exile in 
 362, visited him in Sardinia ; and he identifies 
 with Gregorius the bishop mentioned in c. 63 as 
 at Rome under the assumed name of Taorgius, 
 and as having consecrated one Ephesius as 
 bp. of the Luciferians there, an event which 
 he dates between 366 and 371. From the 
 Libellus Precum and the Rescript of Theodosius 
 in reply addressed to Cynegius, Gregorius was 
 apparently alive in 384. In none of the above 
 passages is his see mentioned, as he is called 
 only episcopus Hispaniarum or Hispaniensis, 
 but it is supplied by St. Jerome, de Vir. Illust. 
 c. 105 (Hieron. Op. ii. 937, in Migne, Pair. Lat. 
 xxiii. 703). Opinions have been much divided 
 as to the book de Fide, attributed to him by 
 Jerome. The Bollandists (Acta SS. Ap. iii. 
 270) say " etiamnum latet." It was formerly 
 supposed to be the de Trinitate now ascribed 
 
GREGORIUS 
 
 to Faustinus. Gams (p. 314) thinks that this, 
 though really written by Faustinus, is the work 
 to which St. Jerome alludes. 
 
 The materials for a Life of C.reporius are thus 
 scanty, the LibellusPrecum bcingof verydoubt- 
 ful authority, and widely dirterent estimates 
 have been formed of him. But the two charges 
 of .-Vrianism and I.uciferianism seem mutually 
 destructive. [r-D-] 
 
 Gregorlus (13) I., bp. of Nazianzus in Cap- 
 padocia, fatlier of C.regorius Nazianzcnus. 
 [(Iregorius (14).] Originally a member of the 
 Hypsistarii, a sect numerous in Capi^adocia, 
 he was converted to the Catholic faith, married 
 a lady named Nonna, and was soon afterwards 
 consecrated bp. of Nazianzus, c. 320. He 
 was a pillar of the orthodox partv, though 
 weak enough to sign the creed of Arimiiium in 
 deference to Constantius, a.d. 360. He took 
 part in the ordination of Basil to the sec of 
 Caesarea [BasiliusI ; he opposed the attempts 
 of the emperor Valcns, a.d. 371, to overthrow 
 the Catholic faith ; yet he, as well as Basil, 
 was spared the banishment inflicted on many 
 bishops (Socr. iv. 11). After an episcopate of 
 45 years, he died a.d. 374. His son frequently 
 mentions his good father, both in his sermons 
 and his verses, and pronounced a funeral 
 oration over him. Greg. Naz. Oratio xviii. 
 in Migne, Pair. Gk. xxxv. 330 ; Le Quien, 
 Oriens Christ, i. 411. [l.d.] 
 
 Gregorlus (14) Nazianzenus, bp. (370-390) of 
 
 Sasima and of Constantinople, has been 
 fortunate in his biographers. He left them 
 abundant materials in his works, especially in 
 a large collection of letters and a long auto- 
 biographical poem. 
 
 St. Gregory takes his distinctive title from 
 Nazianzus, a small town in S.W. Cappadocia, 
 near which, in a district known as the Tibcrinc 
 (Ep. ii. Op. ii. 2 ; Basil, Ep. iv.), at a village 
 called Ariaiizus, where his father had an estate, 
 he was born. Both his parents are known to 
 us. His father bore the same name [(iRE- 
 coRius (13)] and belonged in early life to the 
 sect of the Hvpsistarii {Oral, xviii. 5 ; Op. i. 
 333). His mother's name was Nonna, a child of 
 Christian parents (Philtatius and Gorgonia), 
 and is praised by her son as a model of Chris- 
 tian virtues. To her life and prayers he attri- 
 butes his father's conversion. 
 
 The date of his birth we may reasonably 
 fix from his own words in 325-329. 
 
 Nonna, in fulfilment of a vow, dedicated 
 him to the Lord, but not by baptism. She 
 taught him to read the Scriptures, and led 
 him to regard himself as an Isaac offered in 
 sacrifice to (iod, Who had given him to another 
 Abraham and Sarah. He, as anf)ther Isaac, 
 dedicated himself. He rejoices to tell of the 
 examples set him at home and of the bent 
 given to his studies by companionship with 
 good men. The tutor to whose care the 
 brothers were committed was Carterius, 
 perhaps the same who was afterwards head of 
 the monasteries of Antioch and instructor of 
 Chrysostom (Tillem. Memoires, ix. 370). 
 
 At Caesarea in Cappadocia probably was 
 commenced Gregory's friendship with Basil, 
 which, tried by many a shock, survived them 
 all, and was the chief infliifnrc which 
 moulded not only the life of both friends, but 
 also the theology of the Christian church. 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 407 
 
 Gregory and his bmiher w.nt tn ( ae*.ir.M in 
 Palestine to pursu<- the study of i.r.itnrv (Or.i/. 
 vii.6. Op. ii. 201) ; CarsariusdrpartinR thrncr 
 toAlex.mdria, and (iregorv remaining to study 
 m the school made famous bv OriKru. I'am- 
 philus, and Fusebius. Thesprsius was Ihm the 
 master of greatest renown, an<l liuzolus was .i 
 fellow-pupil with Gregr.ry (Hirron. de Frctef. 
 Script, c. 113). From Palestine (Irrgorv wrnt 
 to .Alexandria (Ora/. I.e.). Here Didvnius filli-d 
 the chair of Pantaenus, Clement, and OriKm. 
 and Athanasitis the episcopal throne, though 
 probably an exile at the time. Gregory pre»sr<| 
 on to Athens. A ship of Aegina oflrrrd him 
 passage {Oral, xviii. ^i. Op. i. 351). ()([ 
 Cyprus a fierce st..rm struck her. The thund.r, 
 lightning, darkness, creaking of (he var<ls. 
 shaking of the masts, criis of tluMrrw. apprals 
 for help to Christ, even by those who l». f<irr 
 had not known liirii, all added to the trrror 
 of the scene. The storm continued 22 d.tvs, 
 during which t hey saw no chance of deli vrr.inre. 
 (Iregory's chief fear was lest he should di<- with- 
 out baptism. In prayer he dedicated himself 
 again to (lod, and sought for help. The prayer 
 was answered, and the rescued crew were so 
 affected that they all accepted C.rcgorv's Gr>d. 
 
 Among the Athenian sophists of the dav, 
 none were more famous than Himerius and 
 Proaeresius, with whom Gregory continued 
 the study of oratory. At Athens Ctregory ami 
 Basil were together again (Oral, xliii. 15 ; Op. 
 i. 7S1) ; (Iregory rendering the freshman Basil 
 various friendly offices, such as exempting 
 him from the rough practical joking whi< h 
 all who joined the Athenian classes had to 
 pass through. [Basii.u's.] The .Armenians, 
 jealous of the newcomer, whose fame had pre- 
 ceded him, and with some of the old feeling 
 of antagonism against Cappadocia, tried to 
 entrap him in sophistical debates. When they 
 were being defeated, Gregfiry, feeling the 
 honour of Athens at stake, came to the rescue, 
 but soon saw their real object, and left them 
 to join his friend {Oral, xliii. 16, 17 ; ib. 7>*2. 
 783). These things are trifles, but had impor- 
 tant effects. The two friends, rendered 
 obnoxious to their companions, were bound 
 the more closely to each other. Their fellow- 
 students, for various reasons, bore various 
 names and surnames. The two friends were, 
 and desired to be called. Christians ; they had 
 all things in common, and " became as one 
 mind possessing two bodies" {Oral, xliii. 20, 
 21; ib. 785, 786; Carm. xi. 221-235; Ot'. 
 ii. 687). Among other students then at the 
 university was Julian the Apt>state. Gregory 
 claims that he had even then disremed his 
 character in his very looks ; and that he used 
 to warn their fellow-students that Rome was 
 cherishing a serpent (Or«r. v. 2.\.Op. i. ih2). 
 
 Gregory must have spent at Athens prob- 
 ably not less than ten years. He went there 
 a beardless youth ; he left about his 30th year. 
 To the effect of those years the matter and 
 form alike of his work bear witness. 
 
 Leaving probably about the begmninR "I 
 356, Gregory went first to Constantinoplr. 
 wishing to see the new Kome before his return 
 to Asia. Here he uiiexpertedly met Ins 
 brother Caesarius, journeying to Nazian/iis 
 from Alexandria. The mother had long.d 
 to see both her sons return together, and 
 
408 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 Gregory has left a touching account of their 
 meeting ; and at this point some of the 
 biographers fix his baptism. Gregory himself 
 tells us that he now laid down the plan of his 
 life. Every power he possessed was to be 
 devoted to God ; but the way seemed divided 
 into two, and he knew not which to take. 
 Elias, the sons of Jonadab, the Baptist, were 
 types of the life that attracted him ; but on 
 the other hand was the study of the Scriptures, 
 for which the desert offered no opportunities ; 
 and the advanced age of his parents presented 
 claims which seemed to be imperative duties. 
 He resolved to live the strict life of an 
 ascetic and yet perform the duties of society 
 (Carm. i. de Rebus suis, 1. 65 seq. ; Op. ii. 635), 
 but denying himself even the pleasure of 
 music (ib. 1. 69). 
 
 But in the midst of various trifling irrita- 
 tions of domestic duty, which went far to mar 
 the life he had marked out for himself, Gregory 
 heard from Basil, who had resolved to found 
 a coenobitic system in Pontus, and asked his 
 friend to join him. Gregory answered by 
 proposing to Basil to join them' at the Tiberine, 
 where the ascetic life in common could be 
 followed and the duties of home performed 
 {Ep. i. Op. ii. i). Basil did visit Arianzus, 
 but remained only a short time. From 
 Caesarea he again wTote to Gregory, after 
 which Gregory set out for Pontus. One sub- 
 stantial result of their joint labours is pre- 
 served in the Philocalia, a series of extracts 
 from the exegetical works of Origen. Gregory 
 himself speaks of this work, which he sent as 
 a present to his friend Theodosius of Tyana 
 (Ep. cxv. Op. ii. 103). We know ifrom 
 Gregory's own words also that he took part in ! 
 composing the famous " Rules " of Basil. It is , 
 not clear how long he remained in Pontus. 
 Clemencet thinks two or three years, and the 
 supposition agrees with Gregory's regret that 
 he had but tasted enough of the lifethere to 
 excite his longing for more (Orat. ii. 6, Op. , 
 i. 14). The silence of Gregory with regard to 
 his retiurn may be due to another cause, j 
 Constantius had required the bishops through- ! 
 out the empire to accept the creed of Rimini \ 
 (a.d. 359-360), and the bp. of Nazianzus, 
 though hitherto faithful to the Nicene doc- , 
 trine, did so. The monks of his diocese were , 
 devoted to Athanasius, and there followed a 
 division in the church, which Gregory alone 
 could heal. He induced the bishop to make 
 a public confession of orthodoxy, and deliv- : 
 ered a sermon on the occasion [Orat. vi. Op. 
 i. 179 seq.). If this division at Nazianzus 
 occurred in 360, we have the reason of 
 Gregory's return (Tillem. Mem. ix. 345 ; 
 Schrockh, Kirchengesch. xiii. 287 ; UUmann. 
 Gregorius von Nazianz. s. 41). If with 
 Clemencet and others {Op. i. pp. xciv. seq.) 
 it is assigned to 363-364, we must suppose that 
 the return was due to the general claim of filial 
 duty. In any case he came to Nazianzus, and 
 received letters from Basil asking him to 
 return to Pontus (Ep. vi. ad fin.. Op. ii. p. 6). 
 The aged bishop felt the need of support and 
 help, and resolved to overrule the scruples 
 which made Gregory shrink from the respon- 
 sibilities of the priesthood. The ordination 
 occurred on one of the high festivals, probably 
 at Christmas, a.d. 361 (Nicetas, ii. 1021 ; , 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 Tillem. Mem. ix. 352^. Nicetas assumes that 
 the congregation compelled Gregory to accept 
 ordination (cf. Carm. xi. de Vitd sua, 345-348, 
 Op. ii.) Such forced ordinations were not 
 unknown (Bingham, Orig. Eccles. iv. 2-5 andix. 
 7, i). Basil was in the same way made priest. 
 Gregory preached in the church at Nazian- 
 zus on the Easter Day following his ordination, 
 and had expected that a crowded church 
 would have welcomed his return and have 
 applauded his first sermon ; but the church 
 was almost deserted. Gregory could not be 
 ignorant of the cause of this' estrangement. 
 His flight from the work of the priesthood 
 demanded an explanation, and Gregory deter- 
 mined to give an answer worthy of the 
 question and of himself. It is contained in 
 the second oration (Op. i. ii. 65). In no 
 part of his writings do we find proof of greater 
 study. It is practically a treatise on the 
 pastoral office, and forms the foundation of 
 Chrysostom's de Sacerdotio and of the Cura 
 Pastoralis of Gregory the Great, while writers 
 in all ages have directly or indirectly drawn 
 largely from it. The earlier part treats of the 
 reasons for his flight : (i) he was whoUv un- 
 prepared for the ordination ; (2) he' had 
 j always been attracted by the monastic life ; 
 I (3) he was ashamed of the life and character 
 I of the mass of the clergy ; (4) he did not at 
 that time, he did not now — and this reason 
 weighed with him most of all — think himself 
 fit to rule the flock of Christ and govern the 
 minds of men " (Orat. ii.g). He then discusses 
 for 40 sections the duties and difficulties of 
 the true pastor (ib. 10-49). " His first dutyis 
 to preach the word, and this is so difficult that 
 to fulfil it ideally would require universal 
 knowledge. Theological knowledge is abso- 
 lutely necessary, especially of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, lest he fall into the Atheism of 
 SabelHus, or the Judaism of Arius, or the 
 Polytheism too common among the orthodox. 
 It is necessary to hold to the truth that there 
 is one God, and to confess that there are three 
 persons, and attributes proper to each ; but 
 for this there is need of the Spirit's help. 
 Much more is it difficult to expound it to a 
 popular audience, both from the preacher's 
 imperfection and the people's want of pre- 
 paration. Zeal not according to knowledge 
 leads men away from the truth. Then, there 
 is the desire of vainglory, with inexperience, 
 and her constant attendant, rashness, incon- 
 stancy, based on ignorance of the Scripture ; 
 and a subjective eclecticism which ends in an 
 uncertain creed, and leads men to doubt of 
 truth, as if a blind or deaf man were to place 
 the evil not in himself but in the light of the 
 sun or the voice of his friend. It is more easy 
 to instruct minds wholly ignorant than those 
 which have received false teaching ; but the 
 work of weeding, as well as that of sowing, 
 must be done. The work of a spiritual ruler 
 is like that of a man trying to manage a herd 
 of beasts, old and young, wild and tame. He 
 must, therefore, be single in will to rule the 
 whole body, manifold to govern each member 
 of it. Some must be fed with milk ; some 
 with more solid food. For all this who is 
 sufficient ? There are spiritual hucksters who 
 adulterate the word of truth ; but it is better 
 to be led thau to lead others, and to learn than 
 
GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 attempt to tearli wliat one does not know. 
 Men are foolish if they do not know their own 
 iRnorance ; rash, if they know it, and vet 
 lightly undertake this work. The Jews did not 
 allow young men to read all parts of the 
 Scriptures ; but in the church there is no such 
 bound placed between teaching and learning. 
 A mere boy, who does not know the verv 
 names of the sacred writings, if he can babble 
 a few pious words, and these caught by hear- 
 ing, not by reading, becomes a teacher! Men 
 spend more time and jiains in learning to 
 dance or play the flute than teachers of things 
 divine and human spend in studying them. 
 The love of vainglory is at the root of this evil. 
 The true ideal is to be found in the lives of 
 discijiles like Peter or Paul, who became all 
 things to all men that they might gain some. 
 The false teachers incur great danger, and the 
 pastor's sin causes the public woe. The 
 prophets dwelt on the fearful position of the 
 shepherds who feed themselves ; the apostles 
 and Christ Himself taught what the true 
 shepherds should be ; and His condemnation 
 of Scribes and Pharisees includes all false 
 teachers." Day and night did these thoughts 
 possess Gregory. He was aware of the objec- 
 tions of priests that the candle should be 
 placed on the candlestick, and the talent not 
 hidden ; but no time of preparation for the 
 priesthood can be too long, and haste is full 
 of danger. He dreaded both its duties and 
 its dignity. " He who has not learned to 
 speak the hidden wisdom of God, and to bear 
 the cross of Christ, should not enter upon the 
 priesthood. For himself, he would prefer a 
 private life. A great man ought to undertake 
 great things ; a small man small things. Only 
 that man can build the tower who has where- 
 with to build it." Such are the reasons 
 Gregory gives for his flight. He adds those 
 which led to his return. " (i) The longing 
 he had for them and which he saw they 
 had for him ; (2) the white hairs and feeble 
 limbs of his holy parents — the father who was 
 to him as an angel, and the mother to whom 
 he owed also his spiritual birth. There is a 
 time for yielding as for everything else ; (3) 
 the example of the prophet Jonah — and this 
 weighed most with him, for every letter of 
 Scripture is inspired for our use — who deserved 
 pardon, but he himself would not if he still 
 refused. The denunciations of disobedience 
 in Holy Scripture are no less severe than those 
 against the unworthy pastor. On either side 
 is danger. The middle is the only safe course 
 —not to seek the priesthood, nor yet to refuse 
 it. There is a merit in obedience ; but for 
 disobedience there is hardly any remedy. 
 Some holy men are more, others less, forward 
 to undertake rule. Neither are to be blamed." 
 Such is the general character of the famous 
 Tofi AiVoO 'AiroXoyriTLKOi. Did it alone remain 
 to us, Gregory must still have been thf)Ught 
 of as one of the four pillars of the Greek 
 church, and we should still read the chief 
 traits of his personal character. It was writ- 
 ten in 362. Julian the Apostate had entered 
 Constantinople on Dec. 11, 361, and persuaded 
 Gregory's brother Caesarius to remain at 
 court. Gregory was then with Basil, who had 
 indignantly rejected like advances, and he 
 blushes that the son of a bishop should accept 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 400 
 
 them. It m.ulr thnr (..Ih. i wr.,rv..f iifr. .iml 
 had to be iiiildcn fr..Mi thnr in..lli<r il-:f>. vil. 
 Op. ii. 7). I he .•Ifert ..« this l.tt.r up.-n Car- 
 sarins we may judge from his dr. |.irati<m 
 before Julian : " In a w.-rd. I am a ( hrntian, 
 and I m.-an to be om-," and from th<- rxrla- 
 mation of the emperor : " O happy f.iihrr <>f 
 such unhappy children!" {Oral. vii. i^, 
 Op. i. 206 ; cf. He Hroglif. Con\lanrt. ii. 
 207). Gregory esteemed the victory of 
 Caesarius as a more precious gift than the half 
 of the emi>ire {Oral. vii. 14, nd intl.). But 
 Julian had bitter revengi- in store. Mr 
 ijrdered that no Christian should teach profane 
 literature. This c.iuscd (in-gorv to coniposr 
 many of the poems now r\t.uit, prof), 
 ably as rea'ling-l)o..ks for I hristian schools. 
 Towards the end of 36^ or the beginning of 
 364 he wrote two Invectives against Julian 
 (Oral. iv. Op. i. 7'<-H7 ; Oral. v. tb. 147-17.O. 
 The emperor had fallen, pierced by an arrow, 
 in the iirevious June. The orator in ihvsr 
 philippics held him up as the sum of all that 
 was vile. In the first sentence he is called 
 " the dragon, the apostate, the Assyrian, the 
 common enemy, the great mind " (Is. x. la, 
 LX\) ; and this sentence is typical. Thes* 
 orations, looked at dispassionately, remind us 
 rather of Demosthenes or Cicero than of a 
 Christian bishop. The admirers of the saint 
 find it still more difficult to explain the 
 panegyric on the Arian Constantius, which 
 these discourses contain. He is " the nmst 
 divine and Christ-lo\ ine of emperors, and his 
 great soul is summoned from heaven. The 
 sin of his life was the inhuman humanity 
 which spared Julian" {Oral. iv. 34 seq.. Op. 
 i. 03 seq.). Gregory, indeed, speaks elsewhere 
 of three things of which Constantius repented 
 when dying : (il the murder of his relations ; 
 (2) that he had named Julian Caesar ; (3) that 
 he had given himself to the dogma of the 
 newer creed {Oral. xxi. 26, Op. i. 403 a). 
 Yet he knew that the emperor gave his 
 support to impictv, and framed laws against 
 the orthodox doctrine lOral. xxv. 0. Op. i. 
 461 a) ; nor could he have been ignorant that 
 it was by Euzolus that baptism was admin- 
 istered to the penitent. The character of 
 Constantius is clearly used as an oratorical 
 contrast to that of Julian. 
 
 While Gregory was thus employed at 
 Nazianzus, Basil returned from Ponlus to 
 Caesarea, where Eusebius had been made 
 bishop, and was ordained against his will. 
 He informed his friend of this, and GrcRory 
 replied in a letter which is important as shew- 
 ing his thoughts about the p<«itioii in which 
 both he and Basil had been placed. " .Now 
 the thing is done it is necessary to fulfil one's 
 (l„tv— such at least is the wav in wliich I l.w.k 
 at it — especially in the present ilistress, whrn 
 many tongues of heretics are raiseel against n«. 
 and not to disappoint the hopes of th<«r who 
 have put their faith in us and in our past 
 life" {F.p. viii. Op. ii. 8). A difference arose 
 ere long between Eusebius and Basil. It» 
 origin is not known, and (.reg.ry thought it 
 better that it should not be lOral. xliii. 28. 
 Op. i. 702). It shews (Iregory in the character 
 of peacemaker. The warm friend of Basil, he 
 was no less an admirer of the bishop, .md an 
 advocate for the rights ol authority. Invited 
 
410 fiREGORlUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 by the bishop to fill the place vacated by 
 Basil's retirement to Pontiis, he does not 
 hesitate to assert that the treatment of Basil 
 was unjust and to demand reconciliation with 
 his friend as the price of his own influence 
 {Epp. xvi.-xx. Op. ii. i6). An indignant reply 
 from Eusebius only called forth stronger 
 letters from the same standpoint [Epp. xvii. 
 and xviii. Op. ii. 17. 18), and an equally plain 
 letter to Basil, telling him that Eusebius was 
 disposed to be reconciled to him, and urging 
 him to be first in the victory of submission 
 (Ep. xix. ib.). Hereupon Basil returned to 
 Caesarea, and gave his powerful aid to the 
 bishop in the dangers threatening the church, 
 or rather became bishop in reality, while 
 Eusebius was still so in name — " the keeper 
 of the lion, the leader of the leader " (Oral. 
 xliii. 33, Op. i. 796). When peace was thus 
 established, Gregory returned again to Nazian- 
 zus. Here new troubles awaited him. Cae 
 sarius had been chosen by Valens to be 
 treasurer of Bithynia, and once more his 
 brother was distressed at seeing him among 
 the servants of an adversary of the true faith. 
 On Oct. II, 368, Nicaea was almost destroyed 
 by an earthquake. Gregory made this the 
 ground of an earnest appeal to Caesarius to 
 abandon his office (Ep. xx. Op. ii. p. ig). He 
 was on the point of yielding when he suddenly 
 died. The funeral oration delivered by 
 Gregory is placed by Jerome first in the list of 
 the orator's celebrated works [Catal. Scrip. 
 Eccles. 117). It narrates, in the language of 
 fraternal love, the deeds of a noble life, and 
 seeks in that of Christian submission to con- 
 sole his parents and his friends [Orat. vii. Op. 
 198, et seq.). Sixteen epitaphs remain to 
 shew how often Gregory mourned his loss 
 [Ep. vi.-xxi. Op. ii. 1111-1115). The death 
 of Caesarius brought trouble to Gregory from 
 the administration of his estate which had been 
 left to the poor. Against extortioners who 
 tried to seize it he appealed to his friend 
 Sophronius, prefect of Constantinople [Ep. 
 xxix. Op. ii. 24) ; and his troubles called forth 
 the kind offices of Basil. He himself tells us 
 plaintively how he would gladly have fled 
 these business worries, but felt it his duty to 
 share the burden with his father [Carm'. xi. 
 375-380, Op. ii. 695). About the same time 
 another loss befell the house of Nazianzus in 
 the death of Gorgonia, and once again Gregory 
 delivered a funeral discourse of most touching 
 gracefulness (Orat. viii. Op. i. 218 et seq.). 
 These sorrows weighed heavily on Gregory's 
 spirit ; and while in public discourses he 
 sought to console others, his private poems 
 shew how hard he found it to console himself. 
 " Already his whitening hairs shew his grief, 
 and his stiffening limbs are inclining to the 
 evening of a sad day " (Carm. de Rebus suis, 
 i. 177-306, Op. ii. 641 sqq.). In 370 Eusebius 
 died in the arms of Basil, who at once invited 
 Gregory to Caesarea on the plea that he was 
 himself in extremis. The latter regarded this 
 as a pretext, and in a tone of mingled affection 
 and reproach declined to go until after the 
 election of the archbishop (Ep. xl. Op. ii. 34). 
 The invitation to the bp. of Nazianzus to be 
 present at the election was answered, as all the 
 editors with almost certainty judge, by the 
 hands of the son. He dwells upon the import- 
 
 GREGORiUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 ance of the position and the special qualifica- 
 tions for it possessed by Basil, and promises 
 his assistance if they propose to elect him 
 (Ep. xli. Op. ii. 35). He wrote also to 
 Eusebius of Samosata by the hands of the 
 deacon Eustathius, urging him to go to 
 Caesarea and promote Basil's election (Ep. 
 xlii. Op. ii. 37). Eusebius yielded to this 
 request, but the vote of the aged bp. of 
 Nazianzus was also needed. An illness he had 
 disappeared as soon as he started. The son 
 thought it prudent to remain at home, but 
 sent by his father's hands a letter to Eusebius, 
 expressing his esteem and excusing his ab- 
 sence, and referring to the miracle of his 
 father's restored health (Ep. xliv. Op. ii. 39). 
 He did not go even after the election, but 
 contented himself at first with writing letters 
 which witness to his wisdom and affection 
 (Epp. xlv. and xlvi. Op. ii. 40, 41). When the 
 storm had subsided he went in person, but 
 declined the position of first among the 
 presbyters, or probably that of coadjutor 
 bishop (rrivde ti]s Kadedpas riytti/i', Orat, xliii. 
 39, Op. i. 801), which Basil offered him. But 
 in the opposition caused by the bishops 
 defeated in the election, and in the persecution 
 organized by the prefect Modestius at the 
 command of Valens, Gregory was foremost 
 as a personal friend and as a defender of the 
 faith (Socr. iv. 11). 
 
 In 370 Valens made a civil division of 
 Cappadocia into two provinces, and in 372 
 Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, claimed equal rights 
 with the bp. of Caesarea — i.e. the rights of 
 metropolitan of Cappadocia Secunda, of which 
 Tyana was the capital. Basil resisted this 
 claim, and Gregory, who had returned to 
 Nazianzus, offered, in a letter full of affection- 
 ate admiration (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii. 40), to visit 
 and support his friend and went to Caesarea. 
 Thence they proceeded together to the foot of 
 Mount Taurus in Cappadocia Secunda, where 
 was a chapel dedicated to St. Orestes, and 
 where the people were accustomed to pay 
 their tithes in kind. On their return they 
 found the mountain-passes at Sasima guarded 
 by followers of Anthimus. A struggle took 
 place, and Gregory implies that he was 
 personally injured (Carm. xi. 453, Op. ii. 699). 
 He seems soon afterwards to have returned to 
 Nazianzus, whither he was followed by Basil, 
 who had resolved (by way of securing his own 
 rights) to make Sasima a bishopric, and 
 Gregory the first bishop. In this he was 
 aided by the elder Gregory, and the son yielded 
 against his own will (Orat. ix. Op. i. 234-238). 
 At the last moment he fled, but was pursued 
 by Basil, and at length consecrated (Orat. x. 
 Op. i. 239-241). But he still put off the duties 
 of his see, until Basil sent Gregory of Nyssa 
 to remonstrate. But Anthimus was again 
 prepared to resist by armed force, and Gregory 
 finally abandoned duties which he had never 
 willingly accepted. Basil wrote reproaching 
 him, and he replied in the same tone. " He 
 would not fight with the warlike Anthimus, 
 for he was himself little experienced in war, 
 and liable to be wounded, and one, moreover, 
 who preferred repose. Why should he fight 
 for sucking-pigs and chickens, which after all 
 were not his own, as if it were a question of 
 souls and of canons ? And why should he rob 
 
GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 the metropolis of the illustrious Sasima ? " 
 (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii. 44). The " illustrious 
 Sasima " must be described in the words of the 
 poem, de Vitd sua : " On a murh frequented 
 road of Cappadocia, at a point where it is 
 divided into tliree, is a halting-place, where is 
 neither water nor grass, nor any mark of 
 civilization. It is a frightful and detestable 
 little village. Everywhere you meet nothing 
 but dust, noises, waggons, howls, groans, petty 
 officials, instruments of torture, chains. The 
 whole population consists of foreigners and 
 travellers. Such was my church of Sasima " 
 {Carm. xi. 439-446, Op. ii. 696). Other letters 
 were exchanged, but nothing could change his 
 determination. He was at length iirevailed 
 upon by his father to leave the mountains, 
 whither he had fled ior refuge, and to become 
 coadjutor at Nazianzus. This did not deliver 
 him from the quarrel between Basil and 
 Anthimus, for Nazianzus was in the new 
 province of Cappadocia Secunda, and the bp. 
 of Tyana soon visited the Gregories and 
 sought to gain them to his cause. They held 
 firm to Basil, but /\nthinms then asked the 
 son to interfere between Basil and himself, and 
 to seek a conference. The option of having 
 one at all, its time and place if resolved upon, 
 all was left to Basil's will, and yet he felt 
 injured and expressed his dissatisfaction at 
 Gregory's conduct. The latter felt and said, 
 in plain terms, " that his friend was puffed 
 up by his new dignity, and unmindful of what 
 was due to others. He had himself offended 
 Anthimus by his firm Basilism (/io^tXiffyuor). 
 Was it just that Basil should be offended for 
 the same reason ? " (£/>. 1. Op. ii. 44). He 
 soon gave further proof of affection by taking 
 an active part in the election of Euialius as 
 bp. of Doaris, and by a remonstrance on the 
 subject of Basil's teaching, which he felt was 
 due from his friendship. He had heard men 
 cavil at Basil's orthodoxy, and assert that he 
 did not hold the Divinity of the Third Person 
 in the Trinity ; and humbly asked him, for 
 the sake of silencing his detractors — he him- 
 self had no doubt — to express in definite words 
 what he held as the true doctrine {Ep. Iviii. 
 Op. ii. 50). Basil did not accept the friendly 
 letter in the same spirit. Gregory saw from 
 his reply that it had given pain, in'spite of his 
 care. Yet he submits, and will place himself 
 entirely in Basil's hands (Ep. lix. Op. ii. 53). 
 
 The year 373 was an " annus mirabilis " for 
 Nazianzus. and called forth two remarkable 
 discourses from (iregory. An epidemic among 
 their cattle, a season of drought, and a de- 
 structive tempest in harvest reduced the 
 people to absolute poverty. They turned in 
 their need to the church, and compelled Gre- 
 gory to address them. The discourse seems 
 to have been impromptu. Gregory " regrets 
 that he is the constrained speaker rather than 
 his father — that the stream is made to flow 
 while the fountain is dry — and then urges that 
 divine punishments are all in mercy, and that 
 human sins are the ordinary causes of public 
 woes " ; then plainly puts before his hearers 
 the special sins of their city and invites them 
 to penitence and change of'life {Oral. xvi. Op. 
 i. 299). The inability of the inhabitants to 
 pay the imperial taxes led to an insurrection. 
 At the approach of the prefect with a body of 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 411 
 
 troops they took refuge in the c hunb. and he 
 consented to hear Gregory's pl.a. While ih« 
 Invective against Julian renunds us <>i (he 
 I'hilippics or the ilf ( orotui, wi- have here an 
 oration which h.is borne without injury com- 
 parison witii the pro Ltf^ano or pro MarceUo, 
 or C lirysostom's plea for Mutropius or Havi.in 
 (Briioit, p. 355). The first part p<.ints the al- 
 tlicted people to the true source of comfort; the 
 second is addressed to princes and magistrates. 
 " Tile pr<f<( t was subj.rt to the authority of 
 the teacher, which was liigh.r than his own. 
 Did he wield the sword ? it was for ( hrist. 
 Was he God's image ? so were the pm.r 
 suffering people. The most divine thing wa» 
 to do good ; let him not lose the opportunity. 
 Did he see the white hair t-f the aged bishoji, 
 and think of his long, unblemished pri«'stho<Kl. 
 whom, it may be, the very angels found worthy 
 of homage (Xar/.«iaj), and did not that movr 
 him ? " "I adjure you by the name of 
 Christ, by Christ's emptying Himself for us, 
 by the sufferings of Him Who cannot suffer, 
 by His cross, by the nails which have delivered 
 me from sin, by His death and burial, resur- 
 rection and ascension ; and lastly, by this 
 common table where we sit together, and by 
 these symbols of my salvation, which I con- 
 sccrate with the same mouth that addresses 
 to you this prayer— in the name, I say, of this 
 sacred mystery which lifts us up to heaven ! " 
 He concluded by praying " that the prefect 
 may find for himself such a judge as he should 
 be for them, and that all meet with merciful 
 judgment here and hereafter " (Oral. xvii. Op. 
 i. 317 et seq.) Early in 374 the elder Gregory 
 died, and the son delivered a discourse, at 
 which his mother Nonna and his friend Basil 
 1 were present, and wiiicii was an eulogy of both 
 I his parents and of his friend (Oral, xviii. Op. 
 I i. 327). Nonna survived her husband only a 
 I few months, and died as she knelt at the Holy 
 Table (Epil. Ixv.-c. Op. ii. 1133-1149). The 
 brother and sister were already dead. Gre- 
 gory was left alone. His first care was to 
 devote his large fortune wholly to the poor, 
 rescr\ing only a small i>lot of land at Arianzus; 
 and then to invite the bishops to elect a suc- 
 cessor to the see. Fear lest the church should 
 be rent by heresy induced him to exercise the 
 [ office temporarily. Two reasons determined 
 j him not to preach at Nazianzus again — fi) 
 that he may cause them to elect a bishop to 
 I succeed his father ; {2) that his silence may 
 1 check the mania for theological discussion 
 j which was spreading through the Eastern 
 church and leading everybody to teach the 
 things of the Spirit without the Spirit. 
 
 For two years after the bishoji's death 
 I Gregory in vain pressed for the election of a 
 I successor. His love of retirement was now, 
 as all through life, a powerful influence, and 
 I towards the end of 375 he disappeared »ud- 
 I denly, and found refuge f<'r 3 years at Sclrucia 
 i in Isauria, at a monastery devoted to the 
 j virgin Thecia (Carm. xi. 549. f>P- ii- 7oO- 
 j In the beginning of 37o Basil died, and 
 Gregory wrote to comfort his brother <.regory 
 of Nyssa. He could neither visit Basil in 
 1 illness nor bi- present at his funeral, for he 
 was himself then dangerously ill (/■/>. Ixxvi. 
 I Op. ii. 65), but he expressed his love in 12 
 ! epitaphs. A letter from Gregory to Eudocius 
 
412 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 the rhetorician, written soon after, speaks of 
 the loss which made him regard death as " the 
 only deliverance from the ills which weighed 
 upon him " (Ep. Ixxx. Op. ii. 72). 
 
 But the chief work of his life yet lay before 
 him. At the Nicaean council, Alexander, 
 then bp. of Constantinople, signed the decrees 
 which condemned Arius. He was succeeded 
 by Paul, who was devoted to the true faith, 
 and suffered martyrdom in a.d. 351. For 
 30 years after the death of Paul, Constanti- 
 nople was the battle-ground of a constant war 
 with heresy. The followers of Manes and 
 Novatus, Photinus and Marcellus, Sabellius 
 and ApoUinaris, were numerous there ; and 
 the adherents of the Nicene faith, few in 
 number, humiliated, crushed, having neither 
 church nor pastor, were obliged to conceal 
 themselves in remote quarters of the city 
 (Benoit, Greg, de Naz. p. 397)- They applied 
 to Gregory to help them, and many bishops 
 urged their plea. For a long time he was 
 unwilling to leave his retirement, but then 
 came the conviction that he dared not refuse 
 this summons. The date of his arrival at 
 Constantinople is not certain, but was pro- 
 bably before Easter, 379 (Tillem. Mem. ix. 
 799). A prayer, in the form of a poem, 
 indicates the spirit with which he entered upon 
 his new work (Carm. iii. Op. ii. 667), and 
 another poem shews what that work involved. 
 New Rome " had passed through the death of 
 infidelity ; there was left but one last breath 
 of life. He had come to this city to defend 
 the faith. What they needed was solid 
 teaching to deliver them from the spider-webs 
 of subtleties in which they had been taken " 
 (Carm. xi. 562-611, Op. ii. 705. 6). In a pri- 
 vate house, where he himself was lodged by 
 relations, his work was begun. It was to him 
 " an Anastasia, the scene of the resurrection 
 of the faith " [Oral. xlii. 26, Carm. xi. 1079, 
 Op. ii. 731) ; the house was too small for the 
 multitudes that flocked to it, and a church 
 was built in its place. His fame, as a theo- 
 logian, rests chiefly on the discourses delivered 
 at the Anastasia. ' His first work was to gather 
 the scattered members of the flock and 
 instruct them in the practical duties of 
 Christianity and the danger of empty theo- 
 logical discussions (Carm. xi. 1210-1231, Op. 
 ii. 737-739). Again and again in the early 
 discourses does he dwell on the truth that only 
 through personal holiness can a man grasp any 
 idea of the Holy One [Oral. xx. and Orat. xxii. 
 Op. i. 376-384 and 597-603). Gregory was 
 exposed to the attacks of all parties. His 
 origin, person, clothing, were made objects 
 of ridicule. They would have welcomed a 
 polished orator with external graces ; but his 
 manner of life had made him prematurely old, 
 and his gifts to the poor had made him in 
 appearance and reality a poor man. One 
 night, a mob, led by monks, broke into the 
 place of meeting and profaned the altar and 
 sacred elements. Gregory escaped, but was 
 taken before the judges as a homicide ; " but 
 He Who knew how to save from the lions was 
 present to deliver him" (Carm. xi. 665-678, 
 Op. ii. 709). " He cared not that they 
 attacked him — the stones were his delight ; 
 he cared only for the flock who were thus 
 injured" [ib. 725 et seq.). His chief sorrow 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 was to come from a division in the flock itself. 
 This started from the schism of Antioch, which 
 had spread through the whole church ; but 
 the immediate question was one of competi- 
 tion for the bishopric. Gregory had kept 
 aloof from this quarrel, but some of his 
 followers took an active part in it, and endea- 
 voured to draw from him a decision for one or 
 other of the rivals. Some seem to have 
 favoured Paulinus, some Meletius. Gregory 
 preached a sermon on Peace (Oral. xxii. Op. 
 i. 414-425), dwelling " on its blessings, and the 
 inconsistency of their faith, servants of the 
 God of peace as they claimed to be, and their 
 practice. Their duty was to remain united 
 when the faith was not in question ; to weaken 
 the present struggle by keeping out of it, and 
 thus to do the rivals a greater service than 
 by fighting for them " (ih. 14, p. 423). Soon 
 afterwards the news of the establishment of 
 peace reached Constantinople, and was fol- 
 lowed by peace in the little church of the 
 Anastasia. Gregory, though ill, preached 
 almost certainly on this occasion another 
 sermon on Peace [Orat. xxiii. Op. i. 425-434), 
 I thankfully celebrating its return, and urging 
 I those present who were divided from them by 
 ; heresy " to be at peace with them by accept- 
 ance of the true faith. It was the work of the 
 j sacred Trinity to give the faithful peace among 
 ' themselves. The sacred Trinity would heal 
 also this wider breach." At the close of this 
 sermon he promises to deal more fully with the 
 questions -it issue between the followers of the 
 Nicene faith and their opponents. This he did 
 in the five theological discourses which soon 
 followed (Orat. xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i. 487-577 ; 
 vide infra). Other important discourses be- 
 long to the same period, of which the most 
 remarkable are a second on the Divinity of 
 the Holy Spirit, preached at Whitsuntide 
 1 381 (?) (Orat. xli. Op. ii. 731-744), and one on 
 Moderation in Discussions — a frequent subject 
 I with Gregory — in which heresy is traced to its 
 I absence (Orat. xxxii. Op. ii. 579-601). He 
 i delivered also three (?) panegyrics, the subjects 
 of which were Cyprian, whose name was held 
 in deserved honour in Constantinople (Orat. 
 xxiv. Op. i. 437-450) ; Athanasius, whose 
 memory was specially dear to Gregory as the 
 champion of Nicene orthodoxy, and who had 
 died but a few years before (a.p. 373) (Orat. 
 xxi. Op. i. 3H6-411) ; and the MaccalDees (?), 
 whose heroism might well have been specially 
 intended for an example in the present struggle 
 (Orat. XV. Op. i. 287-298). The last two, 
 especially that on Athanasius, are counted by 
 all judges, from Jerome downwards, among 
 Gregory's noblest works [Script. Eccles. 117). 
 
 Jerome became about this time a disciple 
 of Gregory and loved to tell how much he 
 had learned from his teacher. 
 
 Another stranger who came to Constanti- 
 nople professed himself a disciple of the now 
 I famous theologian. He bore the name of 
 Maximus, and represented himself as descend- 
 ed from a line of martyrs, and as having 
 suffered much through his adherence to the 
 Nicene faith. Professing himself an ardent 
 admirer of Gregory's sermons, this man was 
 planning the overthrow of his teacher, and 
 hoped even to establish himself in the epis- 
 copal chair. He had an important ally in 
 
GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 Peter, bp. of Alexandria, wlui had recognized 
 Gregory as practically bp. of the ortht>dox in 
 Constantinople {('arm. xi. SsS-q^i), bnt now- 
 joined in the plot against him. Gregory was 
 ill in bed, when one night Maxiinns with his 
 followers went to the chnrch to be consecrated 
 by 5 suffragans sent from Alexandria for the 
 purpose. While they were jireparing for the 
 ceremony, day began to dawn, and a mob, 
 excited by the sudden news, rushed in, drove 
 them from the ciiurch, and compelled Maximus 
 to tlee from Constantinople. Retiring to Alex- 
 andria, he demanded that Peter should find him 
 another bishoi)ric or relinquish his own. He 
 was silenced by the prefect and banished. 
 
 In connexion with the story of Maximus, 
 Gregory tells us that he one day uttered the 
 words, " My beloved children, keep intact this 
 Trinity which I, your most happy father, have 
 delivered to you, and preserve some memorial 
 of my labours." One of the hearers saw the 
 hint, and people of all ages, conditions, and 
 ranks vied with each other in cries of affection 
 for him and hatred for his foes (Carm. xi. 1037- 
 II 13, Op. ii. 729-731), and one cried, " If you 
 go, you will banish the doctrine of the Trinity 
 as well as yourself" {ib. iioo). At this 
 Gregory promised to remain until the arrival 
 of some bishops who were expected at the 
 council, but retired for a while to the country 
 to recruit his shattered health. 
 
 On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his 
 formal entrv into Constantinople. One of his 
 first cares was to restore to the orthodox the 
 churches of which they had been deprived by 
 the .\rians. Gregory was summoned, and 
 early on the morning of Nov. 26, in the pre- 
 sence of an immense crowd, Theodosius and 
 Ciregory entered the church of the Holy 
 Apostles. A thick fog enveloped the building, 
 but at the first accents of the chants the rays 
 of the sun fell ujion the vestments of the 
 priests and the swords of the soldiers, and 
 brought to Gregory's mind the glory of the 
 Tabernacle of old. At the same time there 
 arose a cry like thunder demanding that he 
 should be bishop. " Silence ! — silence ! " he 
 cried. " This is the time to give thanks to 
 God. It will be time enough, hereafter, to 
 settle other things." The service was con- 
 tinued without further interruption. Only 
 one sword was drawn, and that was put back 
 unstained into its sheath (Carm. xi. 1325-1390). 
 In no part of Gregory's life is his true excellence 
 of character more clearly seen than here ; to 
 his spirit oi moderation and forgiveness is 
 it to be attributed that this great religious 
 revolution was effected without shedding one 
 drop of blood. He tells one incident which 
 reveals his spirit towards his foes. While he 
 was ill in bed an assassin who had attempted 
 his life entered his room, and, stung by con- 
 science, fell weeping and speechless at his feet. 
 Gregory said to him, " May God preserve 
 you ! It is nothing wonderful that I whom 
 He hath saved should be merciful to you. 
 Your bold deed has made you mine. Take 
 care to walk, henceforth, worthy of God and 
 of me." (Iregfiry adds that this deed softened 
 the feeling of the citizens towards hirn. 
 
 Not long after the entry into the metro- 
 political church — perhaps the very next day 
 — the enthusiasm of the multitude led them 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 4 I.I 
 
 to attem|>t to place Gregory by force in the 
 episcopal chair. Yet there were irares o( 
 jealousy, and false motives were freely attri- 
 buted to him. ,\lways sensitive, he delivrrr<l 
 in the presence of TheiMlosius a srrnwin 
 " concerning hinis<-lf, and to thi>»e who k^id 
 that he wished to be bp. of Constantinople, 
 anil concerning the favours which tin- pe«iplc 
 had shewn towards him " {Oral, xxxvi. ()/>. 
 '• 633-643). It is a forcible .-tpologta pro Vtid 
 suti. " He would have been ashamed to seek 
 that bishopric, bowed down as he was by old 
 age and physical weakness. Thev s.iid th.it 
 he had sought another's bride (Constantino- 
 ple) : he had really refused his own (Sasinia) " 
 {ih. vi. 638, 630). The emperor and the 
 court were present ; <iuestions greater than 
 personal ones arose to Gregory's mintl, and 
 the discourse became an eloquent appeal to 
 princes, sages, philosophers, |>rofess<irs, philo- 
 logists, orators, to weigh their responsibiliti<-s 
 and fulfil their duties. 
 
 Another discourse preacheil before Theo- 
 dosius is the only one of Gregory's extant 
 discourses which is a homily in the narrower 
 sense of a definite ex)>osition and application 
 of a passage of Scripture {Oral, xxxvii. Op. 
 i. 644-660). The text was .Matt. xix. 1-12. 
 Gregory first shews that " the reason why 
 Christ moved from place to place was that He 
 might heal the more persons. For the salva- 
 tion of the world He had moved from heaven 
 to earth. This was the cause of His voluntary 
 humiliation, which men who understood it not 
 had dwelt upon as contradicting His divinity, 
 though divine names and attributes are 
 apjilied to Him. Christ answered some ques- 
 tions (.Matt. xix. 3, 4) ; others He did not 
 answer (Luke xx. 2, 4)- The preacher would 
 follow Christ's examj)le " (16. v. 648, 64Q). 
 " Christ answered fully their question about 
 divorce. The preacher applying the teaching 
 of Christ protests against the injustice of the 
 Roman law, which distinguished between the 
 adulterv of the woman and that of the man. 
 Men made it, and therefore it w.as directed 
 against women (16. vi. 649). Marriage for the 
 first time is lawful, the second time an indul- 
 gence ; more than the second, sinful ; but 
 virginitv is a higher state (16. v. iii.-x. 6.so-6.<2). 
 Husbands, wives, virgins, eunuchs, priests, 
 lavmen, all ha%e their duties." He exhorts 
 them to fulfil these, and, as in alnK>st every 
 discourse, passes on to the duty of believing 
 in the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Three other important discourses of Gregory, 
 which belong also to the ministry at Constan- 
 tinople, can onlv be nientii^ned. (i) On the 
 Nativity [Dec. 2'i, 3«o ?] {Oral, xxxviii. Op. i. 
 661-675' ; (2) On the lipjphanv [Jan. 6. 381 ?] 
 (Ora/. xxxiv. 16. 676-691) ; (3) On Holy Bap- 
 tism {Oral. xl. ib. 691-729). 
 
 Theodosius had long intended to summon a 
 general council, and in Mav, a.o. 3H1.thesvn.Kl 
 of the ISO bishops who formed the second 
 oecumenical council was hehl in the capital 
 of the F.ast. Socrates tells us that the object 
 of the council was to confirm the Nicene 
 faith and to appoint a bishop (or Constanti- 
 nople {Hist. Eccl. v. 8 ; cf. Soz. vii. 7 ; The.Kl. 
 V. 7; Mansi, Collect. Concil. iii. 52^)- ^'^ 
 Western bishop is mentioned as present, and 
 the attempt to shew that Damasus of Rome 
 
4i4 6REG0RIDS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 was either consulted or represented is futile ; 
 but 36 bishops who were followers of Mace- 
 donius were present, and every effort was 
 made to induce them to accept the Nicene 
 faith. Meletius, the venerable bp. of Antioch, 
 was at first president. The consecration of 
 Maximus was at once pronounced void. The 
 wish of Theodosius that Gregory should be 
 chosen for the vacant see was well known ; 
 and the only bishop who opposed it was 
 Gregory himself. He was by force placed in 
 the episcopal chair. But he had this hope — 
 alas ! a vain one— that, " as position gives 
 influence, he should be able, like a choragus 
 who leads two choirs, to produce harmony 
 between opposing parties" (Carnt. xi. 1525- 
 1545. Op- ii- 755)- Meletius dying, the new 
 archbishop naturally succeeded him as pre- 
 sident of the council, but who should succeed 
 him as bp. of Antioch ? It is said that the 
 two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, had 
 agreed that the survivor should be the sole 
 bishop, and that to this agreement the chief 
 clergy and laity of both parties were sworn. 
 Meletius himself expressed an earnest wish for 
 it from his death-bed, but a strong party, both 
 within and without the council, was soon 
 organized against it. Clregory has given us, 
 in the poem de Vita sua, a resume of his own 
 speech on the question (Carm. xi. 1591-1679, 
 Op. ii. 759-763). " Now God had given the 
 means of peace, let them confirm Paulinus in 
 the episcopal office, and when the two should 
 pass away, let them elect a new bishop. . . . For 
 himself, he sought their permission to resign 
 the office which they had x:onferred upon him, 
 and he would gladly retire to some desert far 
 away from evil men." He could scarcely have 
 expected that this address would be received 
 with favour, for the Meletian party was over- 
 poweringly strong in the synod, and Paulinus 
 had not been invited ; but he was not pre- 
 pared for the storm which followed. " There 
 arose a cry like that of a number of jackdaws, 
 and the younger members attacked him like 
 a swarm of wasps" (ib. 1680-1690). He left 
 the synod never to return to it. For a while 
 illness was opportunely (koKCos) the reason of 
 his absence (ib. 1743), but the council pro- 
 ceeded to name Flavian as successor of 
 Meletius; and Gregory, finding that his 
 opinion had little weight, withdrew altogether 
 and left the official residence, which was close 
 to the church of the Holy Apostles (Carm. xi. 
 1778, Op. ii. 769). This led to earnest en- 
 treaties from the people that he would not 
 desert his flock (ib. 1785-1795). Moved for a 
 while by these prayers, he yet persisted in his 
 determination, which was strengthened by the 
 arrival of bishops from Egypt and Macedonia. 
 The East and the West were now opposed to 
 each other, and " prepared for the battle like 
 wild boars, sharpening their terrible tusks " 
 (ib. 1804). The new members of the svnod 
 did not object to Gregory personally ; but his 
 election was probably in itself obnoxious as 
 an act of Meletius. It was clearly opposed, 
 they urged, to the 15th canon of the Nicene 
 council, which forbad any bishop, presbyter, 
 or deacon to pass from one city to another. 
 By that canon he ought to be sent back to 
 Sasima. Gregory's party urged that he was 
 released from that obligation by an equal 
 
 6REG6RIUS NAZIAK2ENUS 
 
 authority, as another general council had 
 elected him bp. of Constantinople ; but it 
 could not be expected that this plea would be 
 accepted by bishops who were not a party to 
 that act, nor was Gregory himself justified in 
 speaking of the Nicene canons as obsolete. 
 Gregory exhorted the council to think of 
 higher things and mutual harmony. " He 
 would be another Jonah to pacify the angry 
 waves. Gladly would he find retirement and 
 rest. He had but one anxiety, and that was 
 for his beloved doctrine of the Trinity (ib. 
 1828-1855). He left the synod, glad at the 
 thought of rest from his labours ; sorrowful 
 as one who is robbed of his children." The 
 synod received his resignation with satisfac- 
 tion, as removing a chief ground of dissension, 
 and probably of jealousy also (ib. 1869 ; 
 Carm. xii. 145-148, Op. ii. 787). Gregory 
 went from the assembly to the emperor, who 
 unwillingly consented. Gregory's only remain- 
 ing care was to reconcile those who had been 
 opposed to him and to bid farewell to his 
 friends. He delivered a public statement of 
 his position and a public farewell to the council 
 and his church towards the end of June, 381 
 (Orat. xlii. Op. i. 748-768), before the synod 
 and in the presence of a congregation which 
 filled every corner of the church, and among 
 whom no eye was dry. " Was there needed 
 proof of his right to the bishopric ? He would 
 render his accounts. Let his work answer. 
 He found them a rude flock, without a pastor, 
 scattered, persecuted, robbed. Let them look 
 round and see the wreath which had been 
 woven — priests, deacons, readers, holy men 
 and women. That wreath he had helped to 
 weave. Was it a great thing to have estab- 
 lished sound doctrine in a city which was the 
 centre of the world ? In that, too, he had 
 done his part. Had he ever sought to promote 
 his own interests ? He could appeal like 
 another Samuel. No ; he had lived for God 
 and the church, and kept the vows of his 
 priesthood. All this he had done through the 
 Holy Trinity and by the help of the Spirit. 
 He would present to the synod his church as 
 the most precious offering. The reward he 
 asked was that they would appoint some one 
 with pure hands and prudent tongue to watch 
 over it ; and that to the white hairs and 
 worn-out frame of an old man, who could 
 hardly then preach to them, they would allow 
 the longed-for rest. Let them learn to prove 
 these his last words — bishops to see the evil 
 of the contentions which were among them ; 
 people to disregard externals and love priests 
 rather than orators, men who cared for their 
 souls rather than rich men." He then pro- 
 nounced his lengthened farewell " to the 
 beloved Anastasia, to the large temple, to the 
 churches throughout the city, to the apostles 
 who inhabited the temple, to the episcopal 
 throne, to the clergy of all degrees, to all who. 
 helped at the holy table, to the choruses of 
 Nazareans, to the virgins, wives, widows, 
 orphans, poor ; to the hospitable houses, to 
 the crowds of hearers ; to prince and palace 
 and their inhabitants ; to the Christ-loving 
 city, to Eastern and Western lands; above 
 all, to angels, protectors of the church and of 
 himself ; to the Holy Trinity, his only thought 
 and treasure." With this pathetic climax, 
 
GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 unsurpassed elsewhere even by Gregory him- | 
 self, he concludod his last discourse in Con- I 
 stantinople. He left the city and retired to 
 Nazianzus. Hero he receivetl a letter from I 
 Pliilagrius, an old friend of Caesarius and 
 himself, animadverting upon his retirement, j 
 His answer breathes the same spirit as tlie > 
 poem lU Vitii sua and the farewell sermon. 
 " He was tired of fighting against envy and 
 against venerable bishops, who destroyed the 
 peace and put their personal squabbles before j 
 questions of faith " {Hf'. Ixxxvii. 0/>. ii. 76). \ 
 Among the letters belonging to this peric>d, 1 
 two addressed to Noctarius, who was chosen 
 to succeed Clregory at Constantinople, deserve 
 special note, as shewing that he cherished for j 
 him and the ciiurch nothing but the most 
 entire goodwill {Epp. Ixxxviii. and xci. Op. 
 >•• 77, 78). Gregory's difficulties were not 
 yet at an end. On his return to Nazianzus he 
 found that church in confusion, chiefly through 
 the teaching of the Apollinarians {Carni. xxxi. 
 Op. ii. 870-877). He tried to find a bishop 
 who would stem the evil, but was thwarted 
 by the presbyters and by the desertion of 
 seven bishops who had promised to support 
 him. His candidate had been hitherto 
 engaged in secular affairs, but he thought him 
 the most promising. He seems to have suc- 
 ceeded in naming another as bishop, and then 
 to have retired to Arianzus. But very shortly 
 he was again urged to take the governance of 
 the church at Nazianzus and check the 
 rapidly spreading .\pollinarianism, and, in 
 spite of his own strong disinclination, he 
 agreed to do so. During this second admin- 
 istration the prefect Olympius threatened to 
 destroy the city in consequence of a seditious 
 attack, and it was saved onlv by a pacific 
 letter from the bishop {Ep. cxli. Op. ii. 118- 
 120). Other letters of the same kind shew 
 Gregory as the father of the city, watching 
 over all its interests with loving care. 
 
 But he felt that his constant illness unfitted 
 him for his duties, and we find him writing to 
 the archbp. of Tyana earnestly beseeching him 
 to take steps to appoint another bishop. " If ; 
 this letter did not affect its purpose, he would 
 publicly proclaim the bishopric vacant rather { 
 than that the church should hmger suffer from 
 his own infirmity" (Ep. clii. Op. ii. 128). 
 Hulalius, Gregory's colleague and relation, ' 
 and the man of his r hnice, was elected in his I 
 stead. Gregory's satisfaction is expressed in I 
 a letter to Gregory of Nvssa {Ep. clxxxii. Op. j 
 ii. 149). Gregory withdrew to Arianzus, and 
 spent in retirement the six remaining years of | 
 life. To this period belong certainly a large 1 
 number of poems and letters ; and probably 1 
 two discourses, one on the Festival of St. 1 
 Mamas, which was kept with special honour 
 around Nazianzus on the first Sun. after Easter 
 (•ran'i) KvpiaK-ij), and one on the Holy Pass- 
 over {Oral. xliv. and xlv. Op. i. 834-868). ! 
 
 Gregory at first retired to the little plot at 
 Arianzus which he had retained when all his 
 other property was given to the poor. Here 
 a shady walk with a fountain was his favourite 
 resort (Tarm. xliv. 1-24, O/). ii. 915-917). But 
 even this peaceful spot was denied him, and 
 he was "driven forth without city, throne, or 
 children, but always full of cares for them, 
 as a wanderer upon the earth " (Cartn. xliii. 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 4\:> 
 
 1-12, Op. qi3-oi.S)- He found a temporary 
 resting-|>lace at a ti>mb cnsecratrtl to niart\T» 
 at Carbala. a place of whic !i nothing is known, 
 and which the IJoIlandists sup|>.*r (Mai. ii. 
 424 f) to be another name for the plot at 
 Arianzus. He was driven tlieiue bv a rela- 
 tive nanud Valentinian, who settled near with 
 the female members of his family, as from 
 another Paradise by another live. i)/«a^x'<><( 
 Srj yt'VCUKil'y oPrwt t''iroxu^>^<'o/i(i>. uawip 
 (XiSmlMi iirtS,>ouaU {Ep. cciii. ();.. ii. 169). 
 The poems antl letters of this period speak of 
 constant illness and suffering, with but short 
 intervals of relief. A franu- mver strong had 
 given way under the severe asc<tirism of the 
 earlier and the burden of the later life. " I 
 suffer," he says in one of the letters, " and 
 am content, not because I suffer, but because 
 I am for others an example of patience. If I 
 have no means to overcoiue any |>ain, I gain 
 from it at least the power to bear it, and to be 
 thankful as well in sorrowful circmnstanres as 
 in joyous ; for I am convinced that, althoUKli 
 it seems to us the contrary, there is in the ryi-s 
 of the Sovereign Reason nothing oppirsed to 
 reason, in all which happens to us " {Ep. 
 xxxvi. Op. ii. 32). Besides phvsical suffer- 
 ings he had to bear intense spiritual agony, 
 which at times took from him all hope either 
 in this world or the next. In the thirk of the 
 spiritual cond)at he, like other great souls, 
 learnt the lessons he was to teach to the world. 
 His death must be assigned to about the nth 
 year of Theodosius, i.e. a.d. 389 or 390. 
 
 Gregory's extant works are contained in two 
 fol. vols, of the Benedictine edition. Vol. i. 
 consists of 45 sernu)ns, of which some have 
 been noticed in this article. \'ol. ii. in< hides 
 243 letters — theological, pastoral, political, 
 domestic ; the will of (iregory, taken from the 
 archives of the church of Nazianzus, and the 
 poems arranged in two books. The dogmatic 
 poems are 38 in number. No. 10(74 iambics) 
 is on the Incarnation, against Apollinaris. 
 No. II (16 hexameters and pentameters) is 
 also on the Incarnation. Nos. 12-29 are 
 mnemonic verses on the facts of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, a|>parently meant for school use. Nos. 
 29-38 are prayers or hynms addr<'ssed totltnl. 
 Tlie moral jioems are 40 in number. No. 
 I (732 htxaiiiettrs) is a eulogy of virginity. 
 Nos. 2-7 in various metres, deal with kiiidnd 
 subjects, exhortations and counsels to virgins 
 and monks, and the superiority of the single 
 life. Nos. 8- 1 1 are on the secular and religious 
 life, and exhortations to virtue; Nos. 12 and 13 
 on the frailty of the human nature. No. 14 
 is a meditation on human nature in 132 hexa- 
 meters and pentameters. It ranks with No. i 
 among the most beautiful of Gregory's |><>«iii5. 
 The remainder of the poems in this st-rtion are 
 on such subjects as the baseness of the ouli-r 
 man ; the blessedness of the C hristiaii life ; 
 the sin of frequent oaths and of anger; the 
 loss of dear fri<'nds ; the misery of falsr lririiil>. 
 Four are satires a;,'ainst a bad-maiiiMH«l 
 nobleman (26 and 27) ; misers (2«) ; leminiiir 
 luxury (29). There are i)9 P'Min* re- 
 lating to his own lif<-. One of them (No. 11. 
 Je \ilii siui) is an autobiography extendiiiR 
 to 1,949 lines, to which another (No. 12. Je 
 Seipso et Je Episcopis) adds 8^6 lines more. 
 Among the historical poems is an epistle to 
 
416 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 Nemesius, an eminent public man, shewing 
 him the errors of paganism, and urging him to 
 accept Christianity. These poetic epistles are 
 of considerable length, and shew the varied 
 interests and practical wisdom of the writer. 
 There are 129 epitaphs and 94 epigrams, 
 most of which are short poems, with little in 
 them of the modern epigram, though some 
 shew {e.g. 10-14, E'S 'Ayainp-ovs) that the pen 
 of Gregory could, when occasion required, be 
 pointed with adamant. No less than 64 (31- 
 94), belonging probably to the writer's youth, 
 are upon the spoilers of tombs. If the state- 
 ment of J erome and Suidas, that Gregory wrote 
 30,000 verses, is to be understood literally, 
 more than a third of them are now unknown. 
 In forming an estimate of Gregory's 
 literary position, we have to consider (i) his 
 poems, (2) his letters, and (3) his orations. 
 Of each kind of writing there are abundant 
 materials to form a judgment, (i) Two 
 criticisms of the poems from very different 
 standpoints may help us to arrive at the true 
 mean. To Dr. Ullmann (Gregorius, ss. 200- 
 202) they are " inferior to the letters, the 
 product of old age, whereas the true vein of 
 poetry must have shewn itself in earlier life ; 
 cramped by their subject-matters, which did 
 not admit of originality ; prosaic thoughts 
 wrapped in poetic forms ; involved and 
 diffusive " ; though he admits that some of the 
 short pieces are poetry of a high order, and 
 that the didactic aim of Gregory is to be taken 
 into account. " Still they could never be 
 more than a poor substitute for the older 
 poetry of Greece." Villemain considers the 
 poems the finest of all Gregory's works. He 
 instances one especially (de Humand naturd), 
 " the severe charm of which seems to have 
 anticipated the finest inspirations of our 
 melancholy age, while it preserves the impress 
 of a faith still fresh and honest, even in its 
 trouble. . . . His funeral eulogies are hymns ; 
 his invectives against Julian have something 
 of the malediction of the prophets. He has 
 been called the ' Theologian of the East.' He 
 ought to have been called rather ' the Poet of 
 Eastern Christendom ' " [Tableau de V eloquence 
 chretienne an 4'"'' Steele, p. 133). (2) Gregory's 
 extant letters, though upon very various sub- 
 jects, and often written under the pressure of 
 immediate necessity, are almost invariably 
 finished compositions. (3) A higher place has 
 been claimed in this article for Gregory's ora- 
 tions than for his poems. He is now held to be 
 greater than Basil, or even Chrysostom, and 
 to have combined " the invincible logic of 
 Bourdaloue ; the unction, colour, and harmony 
 of Massillon ; the flexibility, poetic grace, and 
 vivacity of Fenelon ; the force, grandeur, and 
 sublimity of Bossuet. . . . The Eagle of 
 Meaux has been especially inspired by him 
 in his funeral orations ; the Swan of Cambrai 
 has followed him in his treatise on The 
 Existence of God" (Benoit, p. 721). He was 
 an orator by training and profession. For 
 this he studied at Caesarea, Alexandria, and 
 Athens, and was the acknowledged chief in the 
 schools of the rhetoricians. The oratory of the 
 Christian pulpit was the creation of Gregory 
 and Basil. It was based on the ancient 
 models, and was akin, therefore, to the 
 speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero, rather 
 
 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 than to the modern sermon. It has been 
 charged against the sermons of Gregory that 
 they are not expositions of Scripture. As 
 compared with the homilies of Chrysostom, 
 for example, they certainly are not (except 
 one : Oral, xxxvii. Op. i. 644-660) ; the 
 nature of the case made it impossible that they 
 should be. But the margin of every page 
 abounds with references to Scripture, and no 
 reader can fail to see with Bossuet that 
 " Gregory's whole discourse is nothing but a 
 judicious weaving of Scripture, and that he 
 manifests everywhere a profound acquaint- 
 ance with it " {Defense de la tradition, etc., 
 iv. 2 ; Benoit, p. 723). 
 
 Great as was the position of Gregory as a 
 writer, he left his chief mark upon history as 
 a theologian. He alone beyond the apostolic 
 circle has been thought worthy to bear the 
 name " Theologus " which had been appro- 
 priated to St. John. Ullmann {Gregorius, 
 etc. ss. 209-352), following Clemencet {Op. i. 
 xlix.-lxxviii.), has arranged under their 
 separate headings his views on the articles of 
 faith. Within our present limits we can only 
 refer to them as contained in the five famous 
 j theological discourses at Constantinople ( Orat. 
 i xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i. 487-579). 
 
 (i) The first, Kara Vjvvotiiivwv, urges that 
 i " to discourse about God is a task of the 
 ! greatest difficulty, not fitted for all times or 
 all persons, nor to be undertaken in the pre- 
 sence of all persons. . . . The teacher of theology 
 , ought first to practise virtue. There is 
 abundant scope for work to refute the older 
 teaching of the pagan philosophers, or to 
 discuss simpler questions of science and theo- 
 logy ; but as to the nature of God our words 
 should be few, for we can know but little in 
 this life." 
 
 (2) llepi 6eo\oylai. Gregory reasserts here 
 his favourite position, that " it is the pure 
 
 mind only that can know God The 
 
 theologian beholds part of God, but the divine 
 nature he can neither express in words nor 
 comprehend in thought. The higher intelli- 
 gence of angels even cannot know Him as He 
 is. That there is a creating and preserving 
 [ cause, we can know, as the sound of an instru- 
 i ment bears witness to its maker and player ; 
 : that God is, we know, but what He is, and of 
 what nature He is, and where He is, and where 
 I He was before the foundation of the world, we 
 cannot know. The Infinite cannot be defined. 
 We can only predicate negative attributes, for 
 the nature of the divine essence is beyond all 
 human conception." 
 
 I (3) Wepl Tiou. The two previous discourses 
 ! were introductory. He now passes to the next 
 [subject. "The three earliest opinions con- 
 I cerning God were anarchia, polyarchia, and 
 I monarchia. The two former could not stand, 
 I as leading to confusion rather than the order 
 I of the universe. We hold that there is a 
 ; monarchia, but that God is not limited to one 
 ! person. If unity is divided, it becomes 
 ] plurality. But if there is equal dignity of 
 nature, and agreement of will, and identity of 
 movement, and convergence to unity of those 
 I things which are of unity (and this cannot be 
 1 the case in created things), there may be dis- 
 1 tinction in number without by any means 
 1 involving distinction in essence and nature. 
 
GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 
 
 Unity, therefore {fiovdt), from the beginning 
 going forth to duality {<ij SvdSa), constituted a 
 Trinity (/.Uxpt rptdSos). Human words fail to 
 express the generation and procession, and it 
 is better to keep to scriptural terms ; but the 
 writer has in his thoughts an overflowing of 
 goodness, and the Platonic simile of an over- 
 flowing cup applied to first and second causes. 
 The generation and procession are eternal, and 
 all questions as to time are inai>plicable." 
 Gregory then proceeds to state and answer the 
 common objections of his adversaries. 
 
 (4) llfpi TioC'. .A-nother discourse on the 
 same subject. (Iregory has already answered 
 the objection, that some passages of Scrijiture 
 speak of the Son as human. He here exhaus- 
 tively examines, under ten objections, the 
 scriptural language applied to our Lord, and 
 then passes to an exposition of the names (a) 
 common to the Deitv, (6) peculiar to the Son, 
 (c) peculiar to the Son as man. 
 
 (5) Ufpi rov ' Ay'iov Trvf c/xarof. Gregory 
 commences this oration by referring to the 
 difficulties arising because many who admitted 
 the divinity of the Son regarded that of the 
 Holy Ghost as a new doctrine not found in 
 Holy Scripture. He expresses, in the strong- 
 est terms, his own belief in the divinity of 
 the Third Person. "The Holy Spirit is holi- 
 ness. Had the Spirit been wanting to the 
 divine Trinity, the Father and the Son would 
 have been imperfect." The most eminent 
 pagan philosophers had had a glimpse of the 
 truth, for they spoke of the " Mind of the 
 Universe," the " Mind without," etc. 
 
 No conception of the subtlety of thought or 
 beauty of expression in these discourses of 
 Gregory can be given in an outline. Critics 
 have rivalled each other in their praise, and 
 many theologians have found in them their 
 own best thoughts. A critic who cannot be 
 accused of partiality towards Gregory has 
 given perhaps the truest estimate of them. 
 " A substance of thought, the concentration of 
 all that is spread through the writings of \ 
 Hilary, Basil, and Athanasius ; a flow of 
 softened eloquence which does not halt or lose 
 itself for a moment ; an argument nervous 
 without dryness on the one hand, and without ] 
 useless ornament on the other, gives these five 1 
 discourses a place to themselves among the 
 monuments of this fine genius, who was nut j 
 always in the same degree free from grandilo- 
 quence and affectation. In a few pages and 
 in a few hours Gregory has summed up and 
 closed the controversy of a whole century." 
 De Broglie, L'Eglise et I'empire, v. 385 ; 
 Benoit, Gregoire, etc. 435, 436. 
 
 Little is needed for the study of Gregory's 
 life and works beyond the admirable Bene- 
 dictine ed. referred to above (.Mignc, Pair. Gk. 
 xxxv.-xxxviii.), and the Lives by Ullmann 
 {Greg, von Naz. der Theologe, 2. Aufl., Gotha, 
 1867 ; pt. i. of earlier ed. trans, by Cox, Oxf. ' 
 1855) and Benoit (St. Greg, de Naz., Paris, 1 
 1876). For a well-known comparison of j 
 Gregory and Basil see Newman's Church \ 
 of the Fathers, pp. 116-145, 551. Gregory's! 
 Five Theol. Orations have been ed. by A. J. I 
 Mason (Carab. Univ. Press, 1899). See also 
 Duchesne, Histoire de I'Egl. vol. ii. ch. xii. [ 
 Some of his works are trans, into Eng. in the 
 Post-Ntc. Fathers. [h.w.w.] 
 
 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 41? 
 
 Gregorlus (15) Nyssenus. i.p- of Nv»^a m 
 Cappadocia {^7i■^',',). yMU.,^;.r br-thcr ol 
 Basil the t.reat, and a Icadii.K the,.|.,m.m ..f 
 the hastern church. He and his hr..thrr and 
 their common friend tlreg.-ry Nan.uiz<Mi were 
 the chief champions of the orthodox Nurne 
 faith in the struggle against An.inisni and 
 Apollinananisin, and by their disiTfcl uaI 
 independency of spirit, and nuKlrrntion of 
 temper, contributed chiefly to its victory in 
 the East. He was one of ten children of Basil 
 an advocate and rhetorician of eminence, and 
 his wife Emmelia ((ireg. Nvs. de i'tl. S. Matr. 
 0pp. ed. Morel, t. ii. pp. i8i-i86). \Vc may 
 place Gregory's birth c. 335 or 336, probably 
 at Caesarca. He did not share his eldest 
 brother's advantage of a university training 
 but was probably brought up in the schools of 
 his native city. That no very special pains 
 had been devoted to his education we may 
 gather from the words of his sister Macidora 
 on her deathbed, in which she ascribed the 
 high reputation he had gained to the prayers 
 of his parents, since " he had little or no 
 assistance towards it from home " (ib. iii. 192). 
 A feeble constitution and natural shyness 
 disposed him to a literary retirement. His 
 considerable intellectual powers had been im- 
 proved by diligent private study ; but he 
 shrank from a public career, and appears after 
 his father's death to have lived upon his in- 
 heritance, without any profession. That his 
 religious instincts did not develop early 
 appears from his account of his reluctant at- 
 tendance at the ceremonial held by his mother 
 Emmelia in honour of the " Forty Martyrs." 
 .\ terrifying dream, which seemed to reproach 
 him with neglect, led him to become a 
 " lector " and as such read the Bible lections 
 in the congregation (Greg. Naz. Lp. 43, t. i. 
 p. 804). He Would seem, however, to have 
 soon deserted this vocation for that of a 
 professor of rhetoric. This backsliding caused 
 great pain to his friends and gave occasion to 
 the enemies of religion to suspect his motives 
 and bring unfounded accusations against him. 
 Gregory Nazianzen, whose aftection for him 
 was warm and sincere, strongly remonstrated 
 with him, expressing the grief felt by himself 
 and others at his falling away from his first 
 love. The date of this temporary desertion 
 must be placed either before 361 or after 303, 
 about the same time as his marriage, l^lis 
 wife was named Theosebeia, and her character 
 answered to her name. She died s.unc time 
 after Gregory had become a bishoj), and, 
 according to Tillemont, subsequently to the 
 council of Constantinople, a.d. 381. Im- 
 pressions in (iregory Nazianzen's letter would 
 lead us to believe that both himself and his 
 friend were then somewhat advanced in life ; 
 and from Theosebeia being styled Grcgi^ry 
 Nyssen's "sister" we may gather that they 
 had ceased to cohabit, probably on his becom- 
 ing a bishop (lireg. Naz. Ep. 95, t. i. p. 846 ; 
 Niceph. H. E. xi. 19). 
 
 (Jregory soon abandoned his profession of 
 a teacher of rhetoric. The urgent remon- 
 strances of his friend tlregory Nazianzen would 
 have an earnest supporter in his elder sister, 
 the holy recluse Macrina, who doubtless used 
 the same powerful arguments which had in- 
 duced Basil to give up all prospect of worldly 
 
 27 
 
418 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 
 
 fame for the service of Christ. Probably also 
 the profession he had undertaken proved 
 increasingly distasteful to one of Gregory's 
 sensitive and retiring disposition, and he may 
 have been further discouraged by the small 
 results of his exertions to inspire a literary 
 taste among youths who, as he complains in 
 letters to his brother Basil's tutor Libanius, 
 written while practising as a rhetorician (Greg. 
 Nys. Ep. 13, 14), were much more ready to 
 enter the army than to follow rhetorical 
 studies. He retired to a monastery in Pontus, 
 almost certainly that on the river Iris presided 
 over by his brother Basil, and in close vicinity 
 to Annesi, where was the female convent of 
 which his sister Macrina was the superior. In 
 this congenial retreat he passed several years, 
 devoting himself to the study of the Scriptures 
 and the works of Christian commentators. 
 Among these it is certain that Origen had a 
 high place, the influence of that writer being 
 evident in Gregory's own theological works. 
 At Pontus, c. 371, he composed his work de 
 Virginitate, in which, while extolling virginity 
 as the highest perfection of Christian life, he 
 laments that he had separated himself from 
 that state (de Virg. lib. iii. t. iii. pp. 116 seq.). 
 Towards the close of his residence in Pontus, 
 A.D. 371, circumstances occurred displaying 
 Gregory's want of judgment in a striking 
 manner. An estrangement had arisen be- 
 tween Basil and his aged uncle, the bp. 
 Gregory, whom the family deservedly re- 
 garded as their second father. The younger 
 Gregory took on himself the office of mediator. 
 Straightforward methods having failed, he 
 adopted crooked ones, and forged letters to his 
 brother in their uncle's name desiring recon- 
 ciliation. The letters were indignantly re- 
 pudiated by the justly offended bishop, and 
 reconciliation became increasingly hopeless. 
 Basil addressed a letter to his brother, which 
 is a model of dignified rebuke. He first 
 ridicules him with his simplicity, unworthy of 
 a Christian, reproaches him for endeavouring 
 to serve the cause of truth by deception, and 
 charges him with unbrotherly conduct in 
 adding affliction to one already pressed out of 
 measure (Basil. Ep. 58 [44]). 
 
 In 372 (the year Gregory Nazianzen was 
 consecrated to the see of Sasima) Gregory was 
 forced by his brother Basil to accept reluctantly 
 theseeof Nyssa.an obscuretown of Cappadocia 
 Prima, about ten miles from the capital, 
 Caesarea. Their common friend, Eusebius of 
 Samosata, wrote to Basil to remonstrate on 
 his burying so distinguished a man in so 
 unworthy a see. Basil replied that his 
 brother's merits made him worthy to govern 
 the whole church gathered into one, but he 
 desired that the see should be made famous by 
 its bishop, not the bishop by his see {ib. 98 
 [259]). These words have proved prophetic. 
 
 Gregory's episcopate fell in troublous times. 
 Valens, a zealous Arian, being on the throne, 
 lost no opportunity of forwarding his own 
 tenets and vexing the orthodox. The miser- 
 able Demosthenes fBASiLius] had been re- 
 cently appointed vicar of Pontus to do all in 
 his power to crush the adherents of the Nicene 
 faith. After petty acts of persecution, in 
 which the semi-Arian prelates joined with 
 high satisfaction, as a means of retaliating on 
 
 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 
 
 Basil, a synod was summoned at Ancyra at 
 the close of 375, to examine some alleged 
 canonical irregularities in Gregory's consecra- 
 tion, and to investigate a frivolous charge 
 brought against him by a certain Philocharis 
 of having made away with church funds left 
 by his predecessor. A band of soldiers was 
 sent to arrest Gregory and conduct him to the 
 place of hearing. A chill on his journey 
 brought on a pleuritic seizure and aggravated 
 a painful malady to which he was subject. 
 His entreaties to be allowed to halt for medical 
 treatment were disregarded, but he managed 
 to elude the vigilance of the soldiers and to 
 escape to some place of concealment where his 
 maladies could be cared for. Basil collected 
 a synod of orthodox Cappadocian bishops, in 
 whose name he addressed a dignified but 
 courteous letter to Demosthenes, apologizing 
 for his brother's non-appearance at Ancyra, 
 and stating that the charge of embezzlement 
 could be shewn to be false by the books of 
 the treasurers of the church ; while, if any 
 canonical defect in his ordination could be 
 proved, the ordainers were those who should 
 be called to account, an account which they 
 were ready to render (ib. 225 [385]). Basil 
 wrote also to a man of distinction named 
 Aburgius, begging him to use his influence to 
 save Gregory from the misery of being dragged 
 into court and implicated in judicial business 
 from which his peaceful disposition shrank 
 {ib. 33 [358]). Another synod was summoned 
 at Nyssa by Demosthenes a.d. 376, through 
 the instrumentality of Eustathius of Sebaste. 
 Still (Jregory refused to appear. He was 
 pronounced contumacious and deposed by the 
 assembled bishops, of whom Anysius and 
 Ecdicius of Parnasse were the leaders, and they 
 consecrated a successor, whom Basil spoke of 
 with scorn as a miserable slave who could be 
 bought for a few oboli (ib. 237 [264], 239 [10]). 
 Gregory's deposition was followed by his 
 banishment by Valens (Greg. Nys. de Vit. 
 Macr. t. ii. p. 192). These accumulated 
 troubles utterly crushed his gentle spirit. In 
 his letters he bewails the cruel necessity which 
 had compelled him to desert his spiritual 
 children, and driven him from his home and 
 friends to dwell among malicious enemies 
 who scrutinized every look and gesture, nay 
 his very dress, and made them grounds of 
 accusation. He dwells with tender recollec- 
 tion on the home he had lost — his fireside, his 
 table, his pantry, his bed, his bench, his 
 sackcloth — and contrasts it with the stifling 
 hole in which he was forced to dwell, of which 
 the only furniture was straitness, darkness, 
 and cold. His only consolation is in the 
 assurance that his brethren would remember 
 him in their prayers (Greg. Nys. Epp. 18, 22). 
 His letters to Gregory Nazianzen have unfor- 
 tunately perished, but his deep despondency 
 is shewn by the replies. After his expulsion 
 from his see his namesake wrote that, though 
 denied his wish to accompany him in his 
 banishment, he went with him in spirit, and 
 trusted in God that the storm would soon blow 
 over, and he get the better of all his enemies, 
 as a recompense for his strict orthodoxy 
 (Greg. Naz. Ep. 142, t. i. p. 866). Driven from 
 place to place to avoid his enemies, he had 
 compared himself to a stick carried aimlessly 
 
tCREGORIUS NysSENUS 
 hither and thither <mi the surface of a stream ; 
 his friend replies tliat liis nu>veinenls were 
 rather lilic those of the sun, which brin^js life 
 to all things, or of the planets, whose apparent 
 irregularities are subject to a fixed law ( ib. ^4 
 [32], p. 798)- Out of heart at the apparent 
 triumph of Arianism, Gregory bids iiim be of 
 good cheer, for the enemies of the truth Nvere 
 like serpents, creeping from their holes in the 
 sunshine of imperial favour, who, however 
 alarming their hissing, would be driven back 
 into the earth by time and truth. All would 
 come right if they left all to Cod {ib. 33 [33], 
 p. 799). This trust in Clod proved well 
 
 »i founded. On the death of V'alens in 378 the 
 
 I youthfulCiratianrecalled the banished bishops, 
 
 I and, to the joy of the faithful, Gregory was 
 
 restored to Is^yssa. In one of his letters he 
 describes with graphic power his return. The 
 latter half of his journey was a triumphal 
 progress, the inhabitants pouring out to meet 
 him, and escorting him with acclamations and 
 tears of joy (Greg. Nys. Ep. 3, Zacagni ; 
 No. 6, Mignej. On Jan. i, 379, Basil, whoni he 
 loved as a brother and revered as a spiritual 
 father, died. Gregory certainly attended his 
 funeral, delivering his funeral oration, to 
 which we are indebted for many particulars 
 of Basil's life. In common with Gregory's 
 compositions generally, it offends by the 
 extravagance of its language and turgid 
 oratory (Greg. Nys. in Laud. Pair. Bas. t. iii. 
 pp. 479 seq.). Gregory Nazianzen, who was 
 prevented from being present by illness, wrote 
 a consolatory letter, praising his namesake 
 very highly, and saving that his chief comfort 
 now was to see all Basil's virtues reflected in 
 him, as in a mirror (Greg. Naz. Ep. 37 [35], 
 p. 799). One sorrow followed close upon 
 another in Gregory's life. The confusion in 
 the churches after the long Arian supremacy 
 entailed severe labours and anxieties upon 
 him for the defence of the truth and the 
 reformation of the erring {de Vit. Macr. t. ii. 
 p. 192). In Sept. 379 he took part in the 
 council held at Antioch for the double purpose 
 of healing the Antiochene schism (which it 
 failed to effect) and of taking measures for 
 securing the church's victory over the lately 
 dominant .\rianism (Labbe, Concil. ii. 910; 
 Baluz. Xov. Concil. Coll. p. 78). On his way 
 back to his diocese, Gregory visited the 
 monastery at Annesi, over which his sister 
 Macrina presided. He found her dying, and 
 she expired the next evening. A full account 
 of her last hours, with a detailed biography, 
 is given by him in a letter to the monk Olym- 
 pius [de I'it. S. Macriuae Virg. t. ii. pp. 177 
 seq.). In his treatise de Anima el Resurrec- 
 ttone (entitled, in honour of his sister, rd 
 "SlaKplvia) we have another account of her 
 deathbed, in which he puts long speeches into 
 her mouth, as part (jf a dialogue held with 
 him on the proofs of the immortality of the 
 soul and the resurrection of the body, the 
 object of which was to mitigate his grief for 
 Basil's death (t. iii. pp. 181 seq.). iMackina 
 THE Younger.] After celebrating his sister's 
 funeral, Gregory continued his journey to his 
 diocese, where an unbroken series of caiaruities 
 awaited him. The (ialatians had been sowing 
 their heresies. The people at Ibora on the 
 borders of Pontus, having lost their bishop 
 
 OREGORIUS NYSSENUS 410 
 
 by death, elet t.-d (.r.g..rv t.. the va. ant vr. 
 Ihis, in some unexplained w.iv, rau»rd 
 troubles calliuR for the int.rventi.m ..I (he 
 military. These difli< ulties beiiiK settled, he 
 set out on a long and toilsnme journey, in 
 fulhlment of a commission from the rounril 
 of .A.ntioch " to visit and reform the church 
 of .\rabia " (t. iii. p. 653)—!.^, of Uabvlon. 
 He found the state of the church there even 
 1 worse than had been represented. The people 
 had grown hardened in heresv. and were as 
 brutish and barbarous in their lives as in their 
 I tongue. From his despairing tone we jud^e 
 i that the mission met with but little success. 
 I At its termination, being near the Holv Land, 
 he visited the spots consecrated bv the life 
 I and death of Christ. The emperor put a 
 I public chariot at his disposal, which served 
 him and his retinue " both for a monastery and 
 a church," fasting, psalmody, and the hour* 
 I of prayer being regularly observed all throuKh 
 the journey (t. iii. j). 6sH). He visited 
 Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, and 
 the Anastasis. But the result of this pil- 
 grimage was disappointment. His faith 
 received no contirmation, and his religiou* 
 j sense was scandalized by the gross immorality 
 , prevailing in the Holy City, which he describes 
 , as a sink of all initjuity. The church there 
 was in an almost equally unsatisfactory state. 
 j Cyril, after his repeated depositions by Arian 
 influence, had finally returned, but had failed 
 to heal the dissensions of the Christians or 
 bring them back to unity of faith. Gregory's 
 efforts were equally ineffectual, and he re- 
 turned to Cappadocia depressed and saddened. 
 In two letters, one to three ladies resident at 
 Jerusalem, Eustathia, .-Vmbrosia, and Basilissa 
 (t- iii. pp. 659 seq.), the other the celebrated 
 one de Eunlibus Hierosolytna, he declares his 
 conviction not of the uselessness tmly but of 
 the evil of pilgrimages. " He urges . . . the 
 dangers of robbery and violence in the Holy 
 Landitself, of themoralstate of which he draws 
 a fearful picture. He asserts the religioussupen- 
 ority of Cappadocia, which had nn.re churches 
 than any part of the world, and inquires in plain 
 terms whether a man will believe the virgin 
 birth of Christ the more by seeing Bethlehem. 
 or His resurrection by visiting His t< mb. or 
 His ascension by standing on the Mount of 
 Olives " (Milman, Hist, of Chrtsttatitl\, bk. in. 
 c. II, vol. iii. p. 192, note). There is no 
 sufficient reason for questioning the genuine- 
 ness of this letter. VVe next hear of Gregory 
 at the second general council, that of Con- 
 stantinople, AD. 381 (I.abbe, Conctl. ii. ^55), 
 accompanied by his deac<.n Evagrius. 1 here 
 he held a principal place as a recognized 
 theological leader, r^t ^KnXTciat t6 Kotri* 
 fpetafia as his friend Gregory Nazianzen had 
 at an earlier period termed him. 1 hat he was 
 the author of the clauses then added to the 
 Nicene symbol is an unverified assertion ol 
 Nicephorus Callistus (//. /■.. xii. M). It was 
 probably on this occasion that he read t<» 
 Gregory Nazianzen and to Jirome his w< rk 
 against I--unomius. or the iinTe imp<Tt.>nt 
 parts of it {HkTi<ii. de Vtr. 111. «. 12.H). t.re({- 
 ory Nazianzen having been reluctantly c< m- 
 pelled to ascend the episcopal throne o( 
 Constantinople. Gregory Nyssen delivered an 
 inaugural oration now lost, and, toon aftir, 
 
420 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 
 
 a funeral oration on the venerable Meletius of 
 Antioch, which has been preserved (Socr. H. E. 
 iv. 26 ; Oratio in funere Magni Meletii, t. iii. 
 pp. 587 seq.)- Before the close of the council 
 the emperor Theodosius issued a decree from 
 Heraclea, July 30, 381, containing the names 
 of the bishops who were to be regarded as 
 centres of orthodox communion in their 
 respective districts. Among these Gregory 
 Nyssen appears, together with his metro- 
 politan Helladius of Caesarea and Otreius of 
 Melitene, for the diocese of Pontus (Cod. 
 Theod. 1. iii. de Fide Catholica, t. vi. p. 9 ; 
 Socr. H. E. V. 8). Gregory, however, was not 
 made for the delicate and dif&cult business of 
 restoring the unity of the faith. He was more 
 a student than a man of action. His sim- 
 plicity was easily imposed upon. Open to 
 flattery, he became the dupe of designing men. 
 His colleague Helladius was in every way his 
 inferior, and if (iregory took as little pains to 
 conceal his sense of this in his personal inter- 
 course as in his correspondence with Flavian, 
 we cannot be surprised at the metropolitan's 
 dignity being severely wounded. Helladius 
 revenged himself by gross rudeness to Gregory. 
 Having turned out of his way to pay his 
 respects to his metropolitan, Gregory was kept 
 standing at the door under the mi'ddav sun, 
 and when at last admitted to Helladius's 
 presence, his complimentary speeches were 
 received with chilling silence. When he mild- 
 ly remonstrated, Helladius broke into cutting 
 reproaches, and rudely drove him from his 
 presence (Ep. ad Flavian, t. iii. pp. 645 seq.). 
 Gregory was present at the synod at Constan- 
 tinople in 383, when he delivered his discourse 
 on the Godhead of the Second and Third 
 Persons of the Trinity {de Abraham, t. iii. 
 pp. 464 seq. ; cf. Tillem. Mem. eccles. ix. p. 
 586, S. Greg, de Nysse, art. x.), and again at 
 Constantinople in A. D. 385, when he pronounced ' 
 the funeral oration over the little princess 
 Pulcheria, and shortly afterwards over her ! 
 mother the empress Flaccilla. Both orations 
 are extant (t. iii. pp. 514 seq., 527 seq.). 
 During these visits to Constantinople, Gregorv 
 obtained the friendship of Olympias, the 
 celebrated deaconess and correspondent of 
 Chrysostom, at whose instance he undertook i 
 an exposition of the Canticles, a portion of 
 which, containing 15 homilies, he completed j 
 and sent her {in Cant. Cantic. t. i. pp. 468 seq.). 
 Gregory was present at the synod at Constan- 
 tinople A.D. 394, under the presidency of 
 Nectarius, to decide between the claim's of 
 Bagadius and Agapius to the see of Bostra in 
 Arabia (Labbe, Concil. ii. 1151). At the 
 request of Nectarius Gregory delivered the 
 homily bearing the erroneous title, de Ordina- 
 tione, which is evidently a production of his 
 old age (t. ii. pp. 40 seq.). His architectural 
 taste appears in this homily. It is probable 
 that he did not long survive this synod. The 
 date of his death was perhaps a.d. 395. I 
 
 Gregory Nyssen was a very copious writer, ! 
 and the greater part of his recorded works 
 have been preserved. They mav be divided 
 into five classes: (r) Exegetical ; (2) Dog- 
 matical : (3) Ascetic ; (4) Funeral Orations 
 and Panegyrical Discourses ; (5) Letters. ) 
 
 (i) Exegetical. — What exegesis of Holy j 
 Scripture he has left is of no high value, his 
 
 GRECJORIUS NYSSENUS 
 
 I system of interpretation being almost entirely 
 ' allegorical. To this class belong his works on 
 the Creation, written chiefly to supplement and 
 defend the great work of his brother Basil on 
 ' the Hexaemeron. These include (i) irtpi riji 
 €^arjfj.epov, dedicated to his youngest brother 
 Peter, bp. of Sebaste. It is also called 
 '. Apologeticus, as it contains a defence of the 
 I actions of Moses and of some points in Basil's 
 work, (ii) A treatise on the creation of man, 
 written as a supplement to Basil's treatise 
 j (vol. i. p. 45 ; Socr. H. E. iv. 26), the funda- 
 mental idea of which is the unity of the human 
 race — that humanity before God is to be 
 J considered as one man. It is called by Suidas 
 ; revxos davixdaiov. (iii) Also two homilies 
 [ on the same subject (Gen. i. 26), frequently 
 j appended to Basil's Hexaemeron, and erro- 
 j neously assigned to him by Combefis and 
 j others. There is also a discourse (t. ii. pp. 
 I 22-34) on the meaning of the image and 
 ; likeness of God in which man was created. 
 (iv) A treatise on the Life of Moses as exhib- 
 iting a pattern of a perfect Christian life ; 
 i dedicated to Caesarius. (v) Two books on the 
 Superscriptions of the Psalms, in which he 
 i endeavours to shew that the five books of the 
 Psalter are intended to lead men upward, as 
 by five steps, to moral perfection, (vi) Eight 
 homilies expository of Ecclesiastes, ending 
 with c. vii. 13, " less forced, more useful, and 
 more natural " (Dupin). (vii) Fifteen hom- 
 ilies on the Canticles, ending with c. vi. 9 ; 
 dedicated to Olympias. (viii) Five homilies 
 I on the Lord's Prayer, " lectu dignissimae " 
 ; (Fabric), (ix) Eight homilies on the Beati- 
 tudes, (x) A discourse on i Cor. xv. 28, in 
 which he combats the Arian perversion of the 
 j passage as to the subjection of the Son. (xi) 
 ' A short treatise on the witch of Endor, 
 'E-yyaarplixvOo^, to prove that the apparition 
 : was a demon in the shape of Samuel ; ad- 
 dressed to a bishop named Theodosius. 
 I (2) Dogmatical. — These are deservedly re- 
 garded as among the most important patristic 
 contributions towards a true view of the 
 mystery of the Trinity, hardly, if at all, 
 inferior to the writings of Basil, (i) Chief, 
 both in size and importance, is his great work 
 Against Eunomius, written after Basil's death, 
 to refute the reply of Eunomius to Basil's 
 attack upon his teaching, and to vindicate his 
 brother from the calumnious charges of his 
 adversary. (ii) Almost equally important 
 are the replies to Apollinaris, especially the 
 Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem. These 
 are not only valuable as giving the most 
 weighty answer on the orthodox side to this 
 heresy, but their numerous extracts from 
 Apollinarian writings are really the chief 
 sources of our acquaintance with those doc- 
 trines. The same subjects are treated with 
 great accuracy of thought and spiritual in- 
 sight in (iii) Sermo Catecheticus Magnus, a 
 work in 40 chapters, containing a systematized 
 course of theological teaching for catechists, 
 proving, for the benefit of those who did not 
 accept the authority of Holy Scripture, the 
 harmony of the chief doctrines of the faith 
 with the instincts of the human heart. This 
 work contains passages asserting the annihila- 
 tion of evil, the restitution of all things, and 
 the final restoration of evil men and evil 
 
GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 
 
 spirits to the blessedness of union with ("lod, 
 so that He may be " all in all," embracing all 
 things endued with sense and reas<in — 
 doctrines derived by Gregory from Origen. It 
 has been asserted from the time of C.emianus 
 of Constantinople that these passages were 
 foisted in by heretical writers (Phot. Cod. 233. 
 pp. 004 sqq.) ; but there is no foundation for 
 this hypothesis. The concluding section of 
 the work, which speaks of the errors of 
 Severus, a century posterior to (^iregory, is 
 evidently an addition of some blundering 
 copyist. It must be acknowledged that in his 
 desire to exalt the divine nature Gregory came 
 dangerously near the doctrines afterwards 
 developed by Eutyches and the Monothelitos, 
 if he did not actually enunciate them. While 
 he rightly held that the infinite Logos was not 
 imprisoned in Christ's human soul and body, 
 he do?s not assign the pro;ier independence to 
 this human soul and will. Hooker quotes 
 some words of his as to the entire extinction 
 of all distinction between the two natures of 
 Christ, as a drop of vinegar is lost in the 
 ocean {Eccl. Pol. t. ii. 697), which he deems so 
 plain and direct for Eutyches that he " stands 
 in doubt they are not his whose name they 
 carry " {ib. bk. v. c. iii. § 2 ; cf. Neander, 
 Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p. 115, Clark's trans.). 
 
 (3) The class of his Ascelical Writings is 
 small. To it belong his early work de Virgini- 
 tate ; his Canonical Epistles to Letoius, bp. of 
 Melitene, classifying sins, and the penances 
 due to each ; etc. 
 
 (4) The chief Funeral Orations are those on 
 his brother Basil, on Meletius, on the empress 
 Flaccilla, and on the young princess Pulcheria. ; 
 We have also several panegyrical discourses 
 and some homilies. 
 
 (5) The extant Epistles are not numerous. 
 The chief are that to Flavian, complaining of 
 contumelious treatment by Helladius, and the 
 two on Pilgrimages to Jerusalem. 1 
 
 All previous edd. of his collected works ; 
 trans, into Latin were greatly surpassed in 
 elegance and accuracy by that of Paris, 
 1603, under the superintendence of Front du 
 Due. The first ed. of the Greek text with 
 a Latin trans, appeared from .Morel's press at 
 Paris in 1615 in two vols, fol., also ed. by ^ 
 Du Due. Other complete reprints, including 
 his epistles and other additamcnta. are by 
 Galland (Bihl. Vet. Patr. t. vi.) and Migne 
 (Patr. Gk. xliv.-xlvi.). A good critical ed. of 
 his works is, however, much wanted. Such an 
 ed. was commenced by horbes and Oehler in 
 1855, but very little has appeared. In the 
 Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1002, is an art. by J. H. 
 Srawley on the text of the Orat. Cat., and in 
 1903 the same writer ed. it for the Camb. Vmv. 
 Texts. Another useful ed. of it was pub. in 
 1909 in Gk. and French by Mcridier in 
 Texles et Documents of Hcmmer and Lejay. 
 An Eng. trans, is in the Post-Nic. Fathers. 
 The familiar letters published by Zacagni and 
 Caraccioli are very helpful towards forming 
 an estimate of Gregory's character. They > 
 shew us a man of great refinement, with a love 
 for natural beautv and a lively appreciation of 
 the picturesque in scenery and of elegance in 
 architecture. Of the latter art the detailed 1 
 description given in his letter to Amphilochius | 
 {Ep. 25) of an octagonal " martyrium " sur- I 
 
 GREGORIUS 
 
 421 
 
 mounted by a conii.il spire, rising from • 
 clerestory supported on right roluiiuis. provn 
 him to have possessed ron*idrral)|r t.-rhnical 
 knowledge. It is perhaps the i l.-.irrst and 
 most detailed description of an rrrlrsiasniral 
 building of the 4th cent, remaining to us. His 
 letter to Adelphius (/•/>. 20) furnishes a 
 charming description of a country villa, and 
 its groves and ornamental buildings. CA\r, 
 Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 244 sqq- ; CeilluT. .Aulfuri 
 fcclt's. t. vii. pp. 320 sqq. ; Oudin. I. diss. iv. ; 
 Srhrockh, Kirchengesch. Md. xiv. 1-147; Tillem. 
 Mem. eccUs. t. ix. ; Dupin, cent. iv. ; Fabric. 
 IhM. Cftaec. t. ix. pp. oS sqq. (^.v.) 
 
 Gregorlus (16). bp. of Merida from c. 402 ; 
 kn.wii t.. usonlv from the decretal of IiuxTrnt 
 1. addressed ad unnersos eptscopos in Tolosa 
 (should be <;"« »»» Tolelo congregatt iuni). 
 Innocent's letter (which Jaff^- dates 404) is 
 concerned partly with the schism of those 
 bishops of Baetica and Carthaginensis who 
 refused to acknowledge the authority of the 
 council held at Toledo a.d. 400. wliich re- 
 admitted to communion the once Prisrillianist 
 bishops, Symphosius and Dirtinius. and 
 partly with certain irn-gularities in the 
 manner of ordination then j^nvalent in Spain. 
 The pope lays down that although, strictly 
 speaking, the illegal ordinations already made 
 ought to be cancelled, yet, for the sake of 
 peace and to avoid tumults, what is past is 
 to be condoned. The number of canonically 
 invalid ordinations recently made is, he savs, 
 so great that otherwise the existing rcnfusi'on 
 would be made worse instead of better. 
 " How many have been admitted to the 
 priesthood who, like Kufinus and Gregrry. 
 have after baptism practised in the law 
 courts ? How many soldiers who, in obedi- 
 ence to authority, have been obliged to execute 
 harsh orders (severa praecepta) ? How many 
 curialcs who, in obedience also, have done 
 whatever was commanded them ? H'>w 
 many who have given amusements and spec- 
 tacles to the people (vohiptates et editionrs 
 populo celcbrarunt) have become bishops ? *' 
 (See Gams's comments on Can. 2 of council r>f 
 Eliberi. ii. i, 53.) " Quorum omnium neminrm 
 ne ad societatem quidem ordinis clericorum, 
 oportucrat pervenire " (see Decret. rap. iv. 
 Tejada y Ramiro ; Col. de Can. ii.). In rap. 
 v. we have the second mention of Gregory. 
 " Let the complaint, if any, of (.regory. bp. 
 of Merida, ordained in place of I'atruinus [who 
 presided at C. Tol. I.] be heard, and if he has 
 suffered injury contra merttum suum, let those 
 who are envious of another's oflicr be pun- 
 ished, lest in future the spirit of f.icti'n should 
 again inconvenience good men." 
 
 From these notices it appears that r.rr(f<TV 
 succeeded Patruinus in the metropolitan see 
 of Merida shortiv after the council of Toledo 
 in 400, that in his youth and after baptism he 
 had practised as an advocate; that his 
 election to the bishopric was Ihereforr. strictly 
 speaking, illegal, and that his api'ointmrnt 
 had met with great oppositi^'U. Innorrnt's 
 letter would naturally confirm him in his see 
 and discre<lit the party of oppi>sition. It was 
 probably during (.regorv's pontifiratr thai the 
 irruption of Vandals. Alani, and Survi into 
 Spain twjk place (in the autumn of 400, Id.it. 
 ap. Esp. Sagr. iv. 353), and those scene* of 
 
422 GREGORIUS THEOPOLITANUS 
 
 horror and cruelty took place of which Idatius 
 has left us a vivid, though possibly exagger- 
 ated, picture. After a first period of indiscri- 
 minate devastation and plunder, the invaders, 
 settling down, divided the provinces among 
 themselves by lot (Idat. I.e. ann. 411). In this 
 division Lusitania and Carthaginensis fell to 
 the Alani, themselves to be shortly destroved 
 by the Goths under Walga (418), and Merida 
 with its splendid buildings and Roman 
 prestige, with all the other great cities of 
 S. Spain, " submitted to the rule of the bar- 
 barians who lorded it over the Roman prov- 
 inces." Innocent's letter concerning Gregory 
 is extremely valuable for Spanish church 
 history at the time. Esp. Sagr. xiii. 163 ; 
 Gams, Kirchengesch. ii. i, 420. [m.a.w.1 
 
 Gregorius (31) TheopoUtanus, bp. of Antioch 
 
 A.D. 569-594. In his earliest youth he devoted 
 himself to a monastic life, and became so 
 celebrated for his austerities that when scarce- 
 ly past boyhood he was chosen superior of the 
 Syrian laura of Pharon or Pharan (Moschus), 
 called by Evagrius the monastery of the 
 Byzantines. Sergius the Armenian in the 
 monastery of the Eunuchs near the Jordan 
 was earnestly importuned by Gregory to 
 conduct him to his venerable master, another 
 Sergius, dwelling by the Dead Sea. When the 
 latter saw Gregory approach, he cordially 
 saluted him, brought water, washed his feet, 
 and conversed with him upon spiritual 
 subjects the whole day. Sergius the disciple 
 afterwards reminded his master that he had 
 never treated other visitors, although some 
 had been bishops and presbvters, as he had 
 treated father Gregory. " Who father Gre- 
 gory may be," the old man replied, " I know 
 not ; but this I know, I have entertained a 
 patriarch in my cave, and I have seen him 
 carry the sacred pallium and the Gospels " 
 (Joann. Mosch. Prat. Spirit, c. 139, 140, in 
 Patr. Lat. Ixxiv. 189). From Pharan Gregory 
 was summoned by Justin II. to preside over 
 the monastery of Mount Sinai (Evagr. H. E. 
 v. 6). On the expulsion of Anastasius, bp. 
 of Antioch. by Justin in 569, Gregory was 
 appointed his successor. Theophanes (Chron. 
 A.D. 562, p. 206) makes his promotion take 
 place from the SvTian monastery. His 
 administration is highly praised by Evagrius, 
 who ascribes to him almost every possible 
 excellence. When Chosroes I. invaded the 
 Roman territory, a.d. 572, Gregorv, who was 
 kept informed of the real state of affairs by his 
 friend the bp. of Nisibis, then besieged by the 
 Roman forces, vainly endeavoured to rouse 
 the feeble emperor by representations of the 
 successes of the Persian forces and the incom- 
 petence of the imperial commanders. An 
 earthquake compelled Gregory to flee with the 
 treasures of the church, and he had the 
 mortification of seeing Antioch occupied by 
 the troops of Adaormanes, the general of 
 Chosroes (Evagr. H. E. v. 9). The latter years 
 of his episcopate were clouded by extreme 
 unpopularity and embittered by grave 
 accusations (ib. c. 18). In the reign of 
 Maurice, a.d. 588, a quarrel with Asterius, the 
 popular Count of the East, again aroused the 
 passions of the excitable Antiochenes against 
 their bishop. He was openly reviled by the 
 mob, and turned into ridicule on the stage. 
 
 GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 
 
 On the removal of Asterius, his successor, J ohn, 
 was commissioned by the emperor to inquire 
 into the charges against Gregory, who pro- 
 ceeded to Constantinople, accompanied by 
 Evagrius as his legal adviser, c. 589, and 
 received a triumphal acquittal (ib. vi. 7). He 
 returned to Antioch to witness its almost total 
 destruction by earthquake, a.d. 589, barely 
 escaping with'his life {ib. c. 8). In the wide- 
 spread discontent of the imperial forces, the 
 troops in Syria on the Persian frontier broke 
 out into open mutiny. Gregory, who by his 
 largesses had made himself very popular with 
 the troops, was dispatched to bring them back 
 to their allegiance. He was suffering severely 
 from gout, and had to be conveyed in a litter, 
 from which he addressed the army so eloquent- 
 ly that they at once consented to accept the 
 emperor's nominee, Philippicus, as their com- 
 mander. His harangue is preserved by his 
 grateful friend Evagrius (ib. c. 11- 13). Soon 
 after, his diplomatic skill caused him to be 
 selected by Maurice as an ambassador to the 
 younger Chosroes, when compelled by his 
 disasters to take refuge in the imperial 
 territory, a.d. 590 or 591, and Gregory's advice 
 was instrumental in the recovery of his throne, 
 for which the grateful monarch sent him some 
 gold and jewelled crosses and other valuable 
 presents (ib. c. 18-21). In spite of his age 
 and infirmities, Gregory conducted a visitation 
 of the remoter portions of his patriarchate, 
 which were much infected with the doctrines 
 of Severus, and succeeded in bringing back 
 whole tribes, as well as many separate villages 
 and monasteries, into union with the catholic 
 church (ib. c. 22). After this he paid a visit 
 to Simeon Stylites the vounger, who was 
 suffering from a mortal disease iih. c. 23). 
 Soon after he appears to have resigned his see 
 into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anas- 
 tasius, who resumed his patriarchal authority 
 in 594, in which year Gregory died (ib. c. 24). 
 His extant works consist of a homily in 
 Mulieres unguentiferas found in Galland and 
 Migne (Patr. Gh. Ixxxviii. p. 1847), and two 
 sermons on the Baptism of Christ, which have 
 been erroneously ascribed to Chrysostom. 
 Evagrius (vi. 24) also attributes to Gregory a 
 volume of historical collections, now lost. 
 Fabric. Bibl. Graec. xi. 102 ; Cave, Hist. Lat. 
 i. 534. Cf. Huidacher in Zeitschr. fur Kathol. 
 Thenl. iqoi, xxv. 367. [e.V.] 
 
 Gregorius (32) turonensis, bp. of Tours (c. 
 573-594). His life we know chiefly from his 
 own writings. The Vita per Odonem Abbatem, 
 generally pub. with his works, is almost en- 
 tirely based upon what he says of himself. 
 
 Gregory himself gives a list of his works. 
 At the end of his History he says, "Decern 
 libros historiarum. septem miraculorum, uniun 
 de vitis Patrum scripsi : in Psalterii tractatum 
 librum unum commentatus sum : de cursibus 
 etiam ecclesiasticis unum librum condidi " 
 (bk. x. 31, sub fin.). Of these all are extant 
 except the commentary on the Psalms, of 
 which only fragments exist, collected in vol. 
 iii. of Bordier's ed. pp. 401 sqq. His History 
 is in vol. ii. of Bouquet, and in the collections 
 of La Eigne, Duchesne, and Migne. There are 
 valuable edd. bv the Societe de I'Histoire de 
 France, with French trans, and notes, viz. 
 the Hist. eccl. des Francs, edited by MM. 
 
GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 
 
 Guadct et Taraiine (4 vtils. iSih-iS^S), and ' 
 Les Livres ties miracles et autrcs opuscules, in- 
 cluding the I'lla, extracts from Fortunatus, ■ 
 etc., by M. H. L. Bordier (4 vols. 1857-1864). 
 But the best and most recent cd. is that of 
 W. .Arndt and Br. Krusch in Mon. Germ. Hist. 
 Script Rez. Mfrov. i. This contains an Imlex. , 
 Orthographicd, Lextca et Grammatica. Of 1 
 the commentaries and works bearing on his 
 life and writings, tlie most important and 
 thorough are Lobell's Gregor vnii Tours utui 
 seine Zeit (znd cd. i86q), and Gabriel Monod's 
 Etudes critiques sur Vi-poque mcrovtngienne. 
 pt. i. 1872, being fasc. No. 9 of the Bihliotheque 
 de I'ecole des hautes etudes. 
 
 Georgius Florentius (subsequently called 
 Gregorius, after his great-grandfather) was 
 born Nov. 30, 538. Previous authorities have 
 generallv given the year 543. from the passage 
 in the I'ita which states that he was 30 years 
 old at the time of his consecration, i.e. in 573. 
 
 Members of both parents' families had held 
 high office in church and state. His paternal 
 grandfather Gec^rgius and his maternal great- 
 grandfather Florentius (T. P. 8, i) had been 
 senators at Clermont. Gallus, son of Cieor- 
 gius and uncle of Gregory, was bp. of 
 Auvergne ; another uncle, Nicetius or Nizier, 
 bp. of Lyons (H. v. 5 ; V. P. 8) ; another, 
 Gundulf, had risen to ducal rank (//. vi. 11). 
 Gregory, bp. of Langrcs, and originally count 
 of Autun, was his great-grandfather, and all 
 the previous bishops of Tours, except five, had 
 been of his family (v. 50). It is with justifi- 
 able pride, therefore, that he asserts (F. P. 6) 
 that none in (iaul could boast of purer and 
 nobler blood than himself. His father appears 
 to have died early, and Gregory received most 
 of his education from his uncle Gallus, bp. of 
 Auvergne. Being sick of a fever in his youth, 
 he found relief by visiting the shrine of St. 
 Illidius, the patron saint of Clermont. The 
 fever returned, and Gregory's life was despaired 
 of. Being again carried to St. Illidius's shrine, 
 he vowed to dedicate himself to the ministry 
 if he recovered, nor would he quit the shrine 
 till his prayer was granted (V. P. 2, 2). 
 
 .\rmentaria, Gregory's mother, returned to 
 Burgundy, her native country, and Clregory 
 apparently lived with Avitus, at first arch- 
 deacon, afterwards bp. of Auvergne, who 
 carried on his education, directing his pupil 
 rather to the study of ecclesiastical than of 
 secular works. Gregory looked upon Avitus 
 as in the fullest sense his spiritual father. 
 " It was his teaching and preaching that, next 
 to the Psalms of David, led me to recognize 
 that Jesus Christ the Son of (iod had come 
 into the world to save sinners, and caused me 
 to reverence and honour those as the friends 
 and disciples of Christ who take up His cross 
 and follow in His steps" {V. P. 2, Intro.). 
 By Avitus he was ordained deacon, probably 
 c. 563 (Monod. 29). 
 
 Of Gregory's life before he became bp. of 
 Tours few details are known. He appears to 
 have been well known at Tours {Mir. Mart. 
 i. 32, Vita, c. ii.), for it was in consequence 
 of the expressed wish of the whole people 
 of Tours, clergy and laity, that Sigebert 
 appointed him, in 573, to the see. He was 
 consecrated by Egidius of Rheims. He was 
 known to and favoured by Radegund the 
 
 GREGORIUS TURONENSIS I'JS 
 
 widow ..f C|ot.iir<> 1., foiin.lrrss i.f St. ( r.>ft^ at 
 Poictiers, who. arcrding to Fortunatus. hrlpi <l 
 to procure his election {(arm. v. 3). 
 
 The elevation of (;reK<.rv was n.ntpnipnrarv 
 with the renewed outbreak of civil war b.twr. n 
 Sigebert and Chilperir, the fonnir ..( wh. ni 
 had inherited the Austrasian, the l.iller llir 
 Neustrian, possessions of their fatli.r Cl..l.urr 
 I. (d. 561). The possession of Toiir.iinr and 
 Poitouwas in some sort the occasion oft hrw.ir. 
 and these countries suffered from the ravages of 
 both parties. Gregory's sympathies were natu- 
 rally with Sigebert (Ti/a 5. Greg.^ 11). and tho 
 peopleof Tours weregenerally(//.i v. so), though 
 not unanim()usly (iv. 46), on the same side. 
 Chilperic, according to Gregory, was even ni«rp 
 cruel and regardless of human life than the 
 other Mero\ ingian princes ; he was the " Nero 
 and Herod nf his age " (vi. 46) ; he not only 
 plundered and burned throughout the country, 
 but specially destroyed churches and mon- 
 asteries, slew priests and monks, and paid no 
 regard to the pfissessions of St. Martin (iv. 4H). 
 Tours remained under Chilperic till his death 
 in 384, and some of the best traits in Gregory's 
 character appear in his resistance to the 
 murderous violence of the king and the 
 truculent treachery of Fredegund. Thus he 
 braved their wratli, and refused to surrender 
 their rebellious son Meroveus (v. 14). and 
 their enemy (iuntram Boso who had defeated 
 and killed Thendebert (v. 4), both of wh<>m 
 had taken sanctuary at the shrine of St. 
 .Martin ; and Gregory alone of the bishops 
 dared to rebuke Chilperic for his unjust 
 conduct towards Praetextatus, and to protect 
 Praetextatus from the vengeance of Frede- 
 gund (v. 19) ; and when Chilperic wanted to 
 force on his people his views of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, Gregory withstood him. Chil- 
 peric recited to Gregory what he had written 
 on the subject, saying, " 1 will that such shall 
 be your belief and that of all the other doctors 
 of the church." " Do not deceive vourself. 
 mv lord king." Gregory replied; " yf>u must 
 follow in this matter the teaching of the 
 apostles and doctors of the church, the teac h- 
 ing of Hilary and Kusebius, the confession 
 that vou made at baptism." " It appears 
 then," angrily exclaimed the king. " that 
 Hilary and Eusebius are mv declared enemies 
 in this matter." " No," said (.regorv ; 
 "neither God nor His saints are yourenemirs," 
 and he proceeded to expound the orthodox doc- 
 trine of the Trinity. Chilperic was very angrv. 
 " I shall set forth mv ideas to those who are 
 wiser than you, and they will approve of 
 them." " Never," was the answer, " it would 
 be no wise man, but a lunati< , that would 
 adopt such views as yours " (v. 45). 
 
 Gregorv had a persistent enemy in I cud- 
 astes, count of Tours (v. 4c,). When removed 
 from office because of his misdeeds, he endrav- 
 oured to take revenge on Gregory by maligning 
 him tr) the king, that he was going to deliver 
 over the citv to Childcbert. Sigebert'* son. and 
 finally that (Iregory had spread a report of 
 Frcdegund's adultery. Chilperic summoned 
 a council of the bishops of the kingdom at 
 Braine, near Soissons. to investigate the 
 charge, and it was found that the arcusation 
 rested solelv on the evidence of I.eudastrs and 
 Riculfus. All agreed that the witness of an 
 
424 GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 
 
 inferior was not to be believed against a priest 
 and his superior, and Gregory was acquitted 
 on condition of solemnly disclaiming on oath 
 all cognizance of the charge. Leudastes fled ; 
 Riculfus was condemned to death : at Gre- 
 gory's intercession he was spared death, but 
 not horrible torture (v. 48-50 ; Gregmre de 
 Tours au concile de Braine, par S. Prioux, 
 Paris, 1847, is a mere rechauffe of Gregory's 
 own account of these proceedings, and of no 
 independent critical value). The subsequent 
 fate of Leudastes illustrates the best side of 
 Gregory's character. After being a fugitive 
 in different parts of Gaul, Leudastes presented 
 himself at Tours to have his excommunication 
 removed with a view to marrying and settling 
 there. He brought letters from several 
 bishops, but none from queen Fredegund, his 
 principal enemy, and when Gregory wrote to 
 her, she asked Gregory to postpone receiving 
 back Leudastes into communion till further in- 
 quiry had been made. Gregory, suspicious of 
 Fredegund's design, warned Leudastes's father- 
 in-law, and besought him to induce Leudastes 
 to keep quiet till Fredegund's anger was ap- 
 peased. "This advice," says Gregorv, " I gave 
 sincerely, and for the love of God, but Leud- 
 astes suspected treachery, and refused to take 
 it : so the proverb was fulfilled which I once 
 heard an old man tell, ' Always give good 
 counsel to friend and foe ; the friend will take 
 it, the foe will despise it.' " Leudastes went 
 to the king to get his pardon ; Chilperic was 
 willing, but warned him to be careful till the 
 queen's wrath was appeased. Leudastes rashly 
 tried to force forgiveness from the queen. 
 Fredegund was implacable and furious, and 
 Leudastes was put to death with great crueltv. 
 " He deserved his death," says Gregory, " for 
 he had ever led a wicked life " {H. vi. 32). 
 
 During the wars that followed the death of 
 Chilperic in 584, Touraine and Poitou desired 
 to be subject to Childebert, Sigebert's son, 
 i.e. to resume their allegiance to the Austra- 
 sian king, but were compelled to submit 
 to Guntram, king of Orleans and Burgundy 
 (vii. 12, 13), and under his power they re- 
 mained till restored to Childebert bv the treaty 
 of Andelot in =187, in concluding which Gregory 
 was one of Childebert's commissioners (iv. 20). 
 Guntram died in 593. Childebert succeeded 
 him as the treaty had provided, and the latest 
 notice in Gregorv's writings is the visit of 
 Childebert to Orleans after Guntram's death 
 (Mir. S. Martin, iv. 37). Gregory himself 
 died Nov. 17, 594. 
 
 His activity was not confined to the general 
 affairs of the kingdom. He was even more 
 zealous for the welfare of his own and neigh- 
 bouring dioceses. His later years were much 
 occupied with the disturbances caused bv 
 Chrodieldis in the nunnery at Poictiers which 
 had been founded by Gregory's friend St. 
 Radegund. His first interference was in- 
 effectual (ix. 39 sqq.), but the disturbance 
 having increased, Guntram and Childebert 
 appointed a joint commission of bishops to 
 inquire into the matter. Gregory was one of 
 Childebert's commissioners, but refused to 
 enter upon the work until the civil disturbance 
 had been actually repressed (x. 15, 16). He 
 had a great deal of trouble also with another 
 rebellious nun, Berthegunda (ix. 33, x. 12). 
 
 GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 
 
 Gregory magnifies the sanctity and power 
 of Tours's great patron St. Martin. He main- 
 tained the rights of sanctuary of the shrine in 
 favour of the most powerful offenders, and in 
 spite of the wrath of Chilperic and Fredegund 
 (e.^. Meroveus, Guntram Boso, Ebrulfus, vii. 
 22, 29). He was a builder of churches in the 
 city and see, and especially a rebuilder of the 
 great church of St. Martin (x. 31). He did 
 his best to arbitrate in and appease the bloody 
 feuds of private or political partisanship (vii. 
 47) and was a rigorous and effectual defender 
 of the exemption of the city from increased 
 taxation (ix. 20). Evidently a man of 
 unselfish earnestness and energy, he was 
 popular with all in the city. 
 
 Gregory began to write first as bishop, his 
 subject being the Miracles of St. Martin. 
 Venantius Fortunatus in 576 alludes to the 
 work, probably to the first two books, which, 
 however, were not completed till 583, the 
 third book not before 587, and the fourth was 
 still incomplete at Gregory's death. The 
 Gloria Martyrum was composed c. 585. Gre- 
 gory wrote also the Gloria Confessorttm (com- 
 pleted 388) and the Vitae Patruni, the latter 
 being continued till the time of his death. 
 
 The History appears to have been written 
 contemporaneously with the Miracles of the 
 Saints, most probably in several divisions 
 and at different times. Giesebrecht, who has 
 carefully investigated the internal evidence, 
 comes to the following conclusions. The 
 History was originally written at three separ- 
 ate periods, and falls into three separate 
 divisions. Bks. i.-iv. and the first half of bk. 
 V. were probably composed c. 577 ; from the 
 middle of bk. v. to the end of the 37th chapter 
 of bk. viii. in 584 and 585 ; the remainder in 
 590 and 591. The last chapter of the last 
 book is an epilogue, separately composed ; for 
 the history as a history is unfinished. Gre- 
 gory would probably have carried it on at 
 least to the death of Guntram in Mar. 593. 
 As in the case of the books of the Miracles, 
 Gregory appears to have revised his History, 
 and we find in the earlier books insertions and 
 references to Gregory's other works and to 
 events of later date. This revision does not 
 appear to have reached further than the end 
 of bk. vi. ; hence several MSS., and these the 
 most ancient, contain only the first six books, 
 and the authors of the Hist. Epit. and of the 
 Gesta Re^. Franc, appear to have known only 
 these. Monod substantially agrees with 
 Giesebrecht as to the dates. 
 
 Gregory begins his History with the Crea- 
 tion, and his first book consists largely of 
 extracts from Eusebius, Jerome, and Orosius 
 {Hist. i. Prol. sub fin. cc. 34, 37)- In bk. ii., 
 which treats of the Frankish conquests, he 
 still owes much to Orosius and to the Lives of 
 the Saints, and quotes from Renatus Frigide- 
 rius and Sulpicius Alexander (ii. 9), two 5th- 
 cent. writers, whose works are not extant. 
 Thereafter he writes directly from oral tradi- 
 tion and authorities. Bks. iii. and iv., dealing 
 with events down to 575, are, compared with 
 those which follow, meagre and unchrono- 
 logically arranged, giving prominence to 
 events in Auvergne and Burgundy (Monod, 
 p. 102). From 575 the narrative becomes 
 fuller and more systematic, the intervals of 
 
GREGORIUS TURONENSIS 
 
 time being resuUirly marked, (('.iesebrei lit, 
 pp. 32-34. Moiiod, in his 4th chap., investi- 
 gates the comparative value in ditTerent parts 
 of the work of the documentary and oral 
 sources of the History.) ' 
 
 tiregory apologizes more than once for the 
 rudeness of his style. But rough though this 
 might be, he was far from lacking learning or 
 culture such as his age could afford. Though 
 igiiorant of Greek, he had a fair acquaintance 
 with Latin authors, quoting or referring to 
 Livy, Pliny, Cicero, Aulus (iellius, etc. (Moiiod, 
 112). He does not attempt to make his 
 
 History a consistent and well-balanced wlmle, 
 nor to subordinate local to general interests. 
 The fullness of his recital of particular events 
 depends not upon intrinsic importance but 
 upon the amount of information he has at 
 command. So too he follows the dramatic 
 
 method, putting speeches into the mouths of 
 individuals which are the composition of the 
 author. Even where he depends upon 
 written authorities he is, in detail, untrust- 
 worthy. Where he can be compared with 
 writers now extant, as in the first two books 
 of the History, his inaccuracy is seen to be 
 considerable. He transcribes carelessly, and 
 often cites from memory, giving the substance 
 of that which he has read, and that not cor- 
 rectly (see instances ap. Mnnnd, pp. 80 sqq.). i 
 Little confidence can be placed in his narrative 
 of events outside of (iaul, and the less the 
 farther the scene of action is removed from 
 Gaul. His sincerity and impartialitv have 
 been attacked on various grounds : that he 
 unduly favours the church, or that he traduces 
 the church in his accounts of the wickedness | 
 of the bishops of the time, or that he traduces - 
 the character of the Franks (Kries, de Gregorii ' 
 Turonensis episcopi vita et scriptis, Breslau, ; 
 1859), whether from motives of race-jealousy 
 or any other. Gregory looks upon history 
 as a struggle of the church against unbelief 
 in heathen and heretics and worldlv-minded- 
 ness in professing Christians. Hence he begins 
 his History with a confession of the orthodox 
 faith. The epithet ecclesiastica apjilied to the 
 History from Ruinart's time is a misnomer in 
 the modern sense, for Gregory sj^iecially 
 defends his method of mixing things secular 
 and religious. With a man so passionate and 
 impressionable as Gregory, the fact of his 
 being a priest and the bishop of the see of St. 
 Martin, the ecclesiastical and religious centre 
 of Gaul, does influence his feelings and actions 
 towards individuals. But ecclesiastical pre- 
 judices did not prevent him recording events 
 as related to him. He shews no rancour in 
 treating of the Frankish conquerors, such as 
 would be natural in the victim of an op- 
 pressed nationality. After the first days of 
 the conquest there was no political subjection 
 of Roman to Teuton as such ; Romans were 
 not excluded from offices and dignities because 
 of their birth (pp. 101-118). 
 
 Gregory's work remains, despite all, as the 
 great and in many respects the only authority 
 for the history of the 6th cent., and his fresh 
 and simple, though not unbiassed, narrative 
 is of the greatest value. He tells us exactly 
 what the Franks were like, and what life in 
 (iaul was like ; and he gives us the evidence 
 upon which his judgment is founded, [t.r.b.] 
 
 GREGORIUS I. 
 
 4-J5 
 
 Gregorlus (51) I. [Ihf (.mit). bi- ..( Rome 
 from Sept. \. sf>o, to M.ir. 12, (^,n^ ; born at 
 Rome prob,il>|v c. s\o. of a wealthy srnnt<.ri.il 
 fainilv. The familv was a rrligiciun <inr ; hi% 
 mother Silvia, and Tarsilla and Armilian.!. \\\n 
 two sisters of his father (iordianus, have brrn 
 canonized. Under such influences hi* rdura- 
 tion is spoken of bv his biographer, John the 
 deacon, as having been that of a saint among 
 saints. Gregorv of Tours, his contetufxrarv, 
 says that in grammar, rhetoric, and lo^ir he 
 was accounted second to nonp in Rome {Htit. 
 X. i). He studied law, distinKuishi-<l himself 
 in the senate, and at an earlv age (errtainlv 
 before 573) was recommended bv the » niprror 
 Justin IL for the post of praetor urbis. .After 
 a public career of credit, his deep reliRions 
 ideas suggested a higher vi>ration ; and on his 
 father's death he kept but a small share of the 
 great wealth that came to him, emploving the 
 rest in charitable uses, and esprriallv in 
 founding monasteries, of which he endowed 
 six in Sicily, and one, dedicated to St. Andrew, 
 on the site of his own house near the rhurrh 
 of SS. John and Paul at Rome. Here he 
 himself became a monk. The date of his first 
 retirement from the world, and its duration, 
 are uncertain, as are also the exact dates of 
 subsequent events previous to his accession 
 to his see ; but the most probable order <>( 
 events is here followed. Inuring his seclusion 
 his asceticism is said to have been such as to 
 endanger his life had he not been prevailed on 
 by friends to abate its rigour ; and it mav have 
 partly laid the foundation of his bad health in 
 later life, (iregory Turonensis speaks of his 
 stomach at this time being so enfeebletl bv f.ist 
 and vigil that he could hardly stand. Bene- 
 dict L, having ordained him one of the seven 
 deacons (r,-oionarii) of Rome, sent him as his 
 apocrisiarius to Constantinople, and he was 
 similarly emploved in 570 bv Benedict's suc- 
 cessor Pelagius 11. After this Gregorv resided 
 three years in Constantinople, where two 
 noteworthv events occurred : his controversy 
 with Eutychius, the patriarch, about the 
 nature of the resurrection body ; and the 
 commencement of his famous work Maf^na 
 Moralia. Recalled by Pelaqius to Rome, he 
 was allowed to return to his monastery, but 
 was still employed as the pope's secretary. 
 During his renewed monastic life and in his 
 capacitvof abbat he was distinRuished for the 
 strictness of his own life and the rik'our of his 
 discipline. One story which he tells leaves 
 an impression of zeal carried to almost in- 
 human harshness. A monk, Julius, who had 
 been a phvsician and ha<l attended Gregorv 
 himself, night and day, during a hmg illness, 
 being himself dangerously ill, confided to a 
 brother that, in violation of monastic rule, he 
 had three pieces of gold concealed in his rrll. 
 This confession was overheard, the e,-l| 
 searched, and the pieces found, (.regory 
 forbade all to approach the r, (Tender, even in 
 the agonies of death, and after death raiivd 
 his bodv to be thrown on a dunghill with the 
 pieces of gold, the monks crving aloud. " Thy 
 monev perish with thee " ((.reg. Ihal. iv. S5). 
 
 On Feb. R, SQO, Pela»rius II. die.l, Rome 
 being then in great straits. The Lombards 
 were ravaging the country and threatening 
 the city, aid being craved in vain from the 
 
426 
 
 GREGORIUS I. 
 
 distant emperor ; within famine and plague 
 were raging. Gregory was at once unanimous- 
 ly chosen by senate, clergy, and people to 
 succeed Pelagius ; but to him his election was 
 distressing, and he wrote to the emperor 
 Mauricius imploring him not to confirm it. 
 His letter was intercepted by the prefect of 
 Rome, and another sent, in the name of 
 senate, clergy, and people, earnestly request- 
 ing confirmation. Before the reply of the 
 emperor reached Rome, Gregory aroused the 
 people to repentance by his sermons, and 
 instituted the famous processional litany, 
 called Litania septiformis. The emperor con- 
 firmed the election of Gregory, who fled in 
 disguise, was brought back in triumph, con- 
 ducted to the church of St. Peter, and im- 
 mediately ordained on Sept. 3, 590 (Anastas. 
 Bibliothec. and Mortyrol. Roman.). 
 
 After his accession he continued in heart a 
 monk, surrounding himself with ecclesiastics 
 instead of laymen, and living with them 
 according to monastic rule. In accordance 
 with this plan a synodal decree was made 
 under him in 595, substituting clergy or monks 
 for the boys and secular persons who had 
 formerly waited on the pope in his chamber 
 (Ep. iv. 44). Yet he rose at once to his new 
 position. The church shared in the distress 
 and disorganization of the time. The fires of 
 controversy of the last two centuries still 
 raged in the East. In Istria and Gaul the 
 schism on the question of the Three Chapters 
 continued ; in Africa the Donatists once more 
 became aggressive against the Catholics. 
 Spain had but just, and as yet imperfectly, 
 recovered from Arianism. In Gaul the church 
 was oppressed under its barbarian rulers ; in 
 Italy, under the Arian Lombards, the clergy 
 were infected with the demoralization of the 
 day. The monastic system was suffering 
 declension and was now notoriously corrupt. 
 Literature and learning had almost died with 
 Boethius ; and all these causes combined 
 with temporal calamities led to a prevalent 
 belief, which Gregory shared, that the end of 
 all things was at hand. Nor was the position 
 of the papacy encouraging to one who, like 
 Gregory, took a high view of the prerogatives 
 of St. Peter's chair. Since the recovery of 
 Italy by Justinian (after the capture of Rome 
 by Belisarius in 536) the popes had been far 
 less independent than even under the Gothic 
 kings. Justinian regarded the bishops of 
 Rome as his creatures, to be appointed, 
 summoned to court, and deposed at his pleas- 
 ure, and subject to the commands of his exarch 
 at Ravenna. No reigns of popes had been so 
 inglorious as those of Gregory's immediate 
 predecessors, Vigilius, Pelagius I., Benedict, 
 and Pelagius II. He himself describes the 
 Roman church as " like an old and violently 
 shattered ship, admitting the waters on all 
 sides, its timbers rotten, shaken by daily 
 storms, and sounding of wreck " {Ep. i.). 
 
 Gregory may be regarded, first, as a spiritual 
 ruler ; secondly, as a temporal administrator 
 and potentate ; lastly, as to his personal 
 character and as a doctor of the church. 
 
 Immediately after his accession he sent, 
 according to custom, a confession of his faith 
 to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexan- 
 dria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which he 
 
 GREGORIUS I. 
 
 declared his reception of the first four general 
 councils, as of the four gospels, and his 
 condemnation of the Three Chapters — i.e. the 
 writings of three deceased prelates, Theodorus, 
 Theodoret, and Ibas, supposed to savour of 
 heresy, and already condemned by Justinian 
 and by the fifth council called oecumenical. 
 The strong language in which he exalts the 
 authority of the four councils as " the square 
 stone on which rests the structure of the faith, 
 the rule of every man's actions and life, which 
 foundation whoever does not hold is out of the 
 building," is significant of his views on the 
 authority of the church at large, while his 
 recognition of the four patriarchs as co- 
 ordinate potentates, to whom he sends an 
 account of his own faith, expresses one aspect 
 of the relation to the Eastern churches which 
 then satisfied the Roman pontiffs. He lost 
 no time in taking measures for the restoration 
 of discipline, the reform of abuses, the repres- 
 sion of heresy, and the establishment of the 
 authority of the Roman see, both in his own 
 metropoiitan province and wherever his 
 influence extended. That jurisdiction was 
 threefold — episcopal, metropolitan, and patri- 
 archal. As bishop he had the oversight of the 
 city ; as metropolitan of the seven suffragan, 
 afterwards called cardinal, bishops of the 
 Roman territory, i.e. of Ostia, Portus, Silva 
 Candida, Sabina, Praeneste, Tusculum, and 
 Albanum ; while his patriarchate seems to 
 have originally extended (according to 
 Rufinus, H. E. i. [x.] 6) over the suburban 
 provinces under the civil jurisdiction of the 
 vicarius urbis, including LTpper Italy, Sicily, 
 Sardinia, and Corsica. But being the only 
 patriarch in the West, he had in fact claimed 
 and exercised jurisdiction beyond these original 
 limits, including the three other vicariates 
 into which the prefecture of Italy was 
 politically divided: N. Italv, with its centre 
 at Milan, W. lUyricum, with its capital at 
 Sirmium, and VV. Africa, with its capital at 
 Carthage. Before his accession a still wider 
 authority had been claimed and in part 
 acknowledged. As bishops of the old im- 
 perial city, with an acknowledged primacy of 
 honour among the patriarchs, still more as 
 occupants of St. Peter's chair and conservators 
 of his doctrine, and as such consulted and 
 appealed to by various Western churches, the 
 popes had come to exercise a more or less 
 defined jurisdiction over them all. The power 
 of sending judges to hear the appeals of con- 
 demned bishops, which had been accorded to 
 pope Juhus by the Western council of Sardica 
 in 343, had been claimed by his successors as 
 perpetually belonging to the Roman see and 
 extended so as to involve the summoning of 
 cases to be heard at Rome ; and a law had 
 been obtained by Leo I. from Valentinian 
 (445) by which the pope was made supreme 
 head of the whole Western church, with the 
 power of summoning prelates from all pro- 
 vinces to abide his judgment. On the as- 
 sumption of such authority Gregory acted, 
 being determined to abate none of the rights 
 claimed by his predecessors. 
 
 In the year of his accession (590) he endea- 
 voured, though without result, to bring over 
 the Istrian bishops, who still refused to con- 
 demn the Three Chapters. With this view 
 
OREGORIUS I. 
 
 he appointed a counril to moot at Rome, and 
 obtained an order from the emperor for the 
 attendance of these bishops. They petitioned 
 for exemption, saying that their faith was that 
 formerly taught them by pope Vigilius, and 
 protesting against submission to the bp. of 
 Rome as their judge. The emperor counter- 
 manded the onlor, and Gregory acquiesced. 
 
 In SOI his orthodox zeal was directed with 
 more success against the African Donatists. 
 It was the custi>m in Numidia for the senior 
 bishop, whether Donatist or Catholic, to 
 exercise metropolitan authoritv over the other 
 bishops. Such senior now happened to bo a 
 Donatist, and he assumed the customary 
 authority. Gregory wrote to the Catholic 
 bishops of Numidia, and to Gennadius, exarch 
 of Africa, urging them to resist such a claim 
 {Ep. i. 74, 73), and the Donatist bishop was de- 
 posed, but the sect continued in .\frica as long 
 as Christianity did. This is not the only in- 
 stance of Gregory, like others of his age, not 
 being averse to persecution as a means of con- 
 version. InSicilyheenjoinedrigorousmeasures 
 {summofyert' persequi) for the recovery of the 
 Manicheans to the church {Ep. iv. 6) ; there, 
 and in Corsica, Sardinia, and Campania, the 
 heathen peasants and slaves on the papal 
 estates were by his order compelled to con- 
 form, not only by exactions on such as refused, 
 but also by the imprisonment of freemen, and 
 the corporal castigation {verberibus et cruci- 
 aiibiis) of slaves (Ep. iii. 26 ; vii. ind. ii. 67), 
 and in France he exhorted queen Brunichild 
 to similar measures of coercion {Ep. vii. 3). 
 On the other hand, there are three letters of 
 his, written in the same year as those about 
 the African Donatists, which evince a spirit of 
 unusual toleration towards Jews. They are 
 addressed to three bishops, Peter of Tarracina, 
 Virgilius of .\rles, and Theodorus of Marseilles. 
 The first had driven the Jews from their 
 synagogues, and the last two had converted a 
 number by offering them the choice of bajnism 
 or exile. Gregory strongly condemns such 
 proceedings, " because conversions wrought 
 by force are never sincere, and those thus 
 converted seldom fail to return to their vomit 
 when the force is removed." {Ep. i. 34, i. 45 ; 
 of. Ep. vii. ind. i. 26, vii. ind. ii. 5, vii. 2, 39.) 
 Yet he had no objection to luring them into 
 the fold by the prospect of advantage, for 
 in a letter to a deacon Cyprian, who was 
 steward of the papal patrimony in Sicily, he 
 directs him to offer tlie Jews a remission of 
 one-third of the taxes due to the Roman 
 church if they bee ime Christians, saying, in 
 justification, that though such conversions 
 might be insincere, their children would be 
 brought up in the bosom of the church {Ep. 
 iv. 6, cf. Ep. xii. 30). In such apparent in- 
 consistencies we may see his good sense and 
 Christian benevolence in conflict with the 
 impulses of zeal and the notions of his age. 
 
 Gregory was no less active in reforming the 
 church itself. Great laxity was prevalent 
 among the monks, of which the life of Bene- 
 dict, the founder of the Benedictine order, 
 affords ample evidence. Several of Gregory's 
 letters are addressed to monks who had left 
 their monasteries for the world and marriage. 
 He issued the following regulations for the 
 restoration of monastic discipline : no monk 
 
 GREGORIUS I. 
 
 427 
 
 sh<Mil(l bo ro< oivod under iR vear* of »f-r. n.,r 
 any husband with<<ut his wife's ronsrnt (m 
 one case he orders a husband who had rntrrrd 
 a monastery to be rostorrd to his wifr \hp. u. 
 44]) ; two years of probatii.n should aUav* 
 be required, and three in the rase <.f sxidirrs ; 
 a professed monk leaving his order should hr 
 imnnnod for life ; n<i m.mk, though an abbat, 
 should leave the prerinrts of his monastrrv. 
 except on urgent occasions ; under no prrtrxt 
 should anv monk leave his nionastrrv alonr. 
 on the ground that " niii sine irste nnibulat 
 non recto vivit." He provided for the more 
 complete separation of the monastic and 
 clerical orders, forbidding anv monk to rrmain 
 in his monastery after ordination, and anv 
 priest to enter a monasterv except to rxerrise 
 clerical functions, or to become a monk with- 
 out giving up his clerical office ; and further 
 exempting some monasteries from the juris- 
 diction of bishops. This last important 
 provision was extended to all monasteries by 
 the Lateran synod, held under him in hoi. 
 
 He was no loss zealous in his correrti>>n of 
 the clergy. Several bishops under his imme- 
 diate metropolitan jurisdiction and elsewhere 
 he rebuked or deposed for incontinenrv and 
 other crimes. His own nuncio at Constanti- 
 nople, Laurentius the archdeacon, he recallod 
 and deposed. From the clergv generallv he 
 required strict chastity, forbidding them to 
 retain in their houses any women but their 
 mothers, sisters, or wives married before 
 ordination, and with these last prohibiting 
 conjugal intercourse {Ep. i. 50, ix. 64). 
 Bishops he recommends to imitate St. Augus- 
 tine in banishing from their houses even surh 
 female relatives as the canons allow {Ep. vii. 
 ind. ii. 30 ; xi. 42, 43). In Sicily the obliga- 
 tion to celibacv had, in 388, been extended to 
 subdeacons. This rule he upheld bv directing 
 the bishops to require a vow of relibacv from 
 all who should in future be ordained sub- 
 deacons, but acknowledging its hardship on 
 such as had made no such vow on their 
 ordination, he contented himself with for- 
 bidding the advancement to the diaconate of 
 I existing subdeacons who had continued ron- 
 j jugal intercourse after the intrcnluetion of the 
 : rule {Ep. i. ind. ix. 42). 
 
 He also set himself resolutelv against the 
 prevalent simony, forbidding all bishops and 
 I clergv to exact or accept fee or reward (of 
 ! the functions of their office ; and he set the 
 example himself bv refusing the annual pre- 
 ' sents which it had been customary for the 
 bishops of Koine t>> receive from their suffra- 
 gans, or payment for th<- pallium sent to 
 metropolitans, which pavment was forbidden 
 to all future popes by a Roman svnod in J9S. 
 In 392 began a struggle in reference to 
 discipline with certain bishops of The*salv and 
 Dalmatia, in the province of Illvnruro. 
 Hadrianus of Thebes had been deposed bv a 
 provincial svni>d under his metropolitan the 
 bp. of I.arissa, and the sentence had been 
 confirmed bv John of Jiistiniana I*riina. the 
 primate of Illvricum. The deposed prelate 
 api'eaUd toC.regorv, who. after examining the 
 whole rase, ordered the primate to reinstate 
 Hadrianus {Ep. ii. ind. xi. f>. 7)- "•■ *'*" 
 I ordered Natalis. bp. of Sah.na in DaUnatia and 
 I metropolitan, under pain of cxcommunicalloo. 
 
428 
 
 GREGORIUS I. 
 
 GREGORIUS I. 
 
 to reinstate his archdeacon Honoratus whom I sending her also a copy of his four books of 
 he had deposed (Ep. ii. ind. x. 14, 15, 16). In dialogues. 
 
 both instances he appears to have been 1 Over the church in Ireland, then bound by 
 obeyed. Not so, however, in the case of I no close tie of allegiance to the see of Rome, 
 Maximus, who succeeded Natalis as bp. of | he endeavoured to extend his influence, 
 Salona and metropolitan in the same year, writing in 592 a long letter to the bishops. 
 Maximus having been elected in opposition to [ Not content with thus influencing, con- 
 Honoratus, whom Gregory had recommended, , solidating, and reforming the existing churches 
 
 the latter disallowed the election, and wrote to 
 the clergy of Salona forbidding them to choose ' 
 a bishop without the consent of the apostolic 
 see. Meanwhile the emperor had confirmed I 
 the election. After protracted negotiations. 
 
 throughout the West, he was also a zealous 
 missionary, and as such the founder of our 
 English, as distinct from the more ancient 
 British, Christianity. [Augustine.] 
 
 Of his relations with Constantinople and the 
 
 lasting 7 years, during which 17 letters were j Eastern church, the year 593 affords the first 
 written by Gregory, the emperor committed l example. Having heard of two presbyters, 
 the settlement of the dispute to Maximianus, John of Chalcedon and Anastasius of Isauria, 
 bp. of Ravenna, with the result that Maximus, ' being beaten with cudgels, after conviction on 
 having publicly begged pardon of the pope and ', a charge of heresy, under J ohn the Faster, then 
 cleared himself from the charge of simony by patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory wrote 
 an oath of purgation at the tomb of St. Apoi- | twice to the patriarch, remonstrating with him 
 linaris, was at last acknowledged as lawful bp. ] for introducing a new and uncanonical 
 of Salona {Ep_. iii. ind. xii. 15, 20 ; iv. ind. xiii. \ punishment, exhorting him to restore the two 
 34 ; V. ind. xiv. 3 ; vi. ind. xv. 17 ; vii. ind. i. 1 presbyters or to judge them canonically, and 
 I ; vii. ind. ii. 81, 82, 83). In the West I expressing his own readiness to receive them 
 beyond the limits of the empire Gregory also : at Rome. Notwithstanding the patriarch's 
 lost no opportunity of extending the influence j protest, the presbyters thereupon withdrew 
 of his see and of advancing and consolidating I to Rome and were received and absolved by 
 the church. Reccared, the Visigothic king of j Gregory after examination {Ep. ii. 52, v. 64). 
 Spain, renounced Arianism for Catholicism at [ In other letters we find him saying, " With 
 the council of Toledo in 589, and Gregory ; respect to the Constantinopolitan church, who 
 heard of this from Leander, bp. of Seville, ! doubts that it is subject to the apostolical 
 whom he exhorted to watch over the royal : see ? " and " I know not what bishop is not 
 convert. He sent Leander a pallium to be ! subject to it, if fault is found in him "(£/>. vii. 
 used at mass only. He wrote to Reccared [ ind. ii. 64, 65). But the most memorable 
 in warm congratulation, exhorting him to incidents in this connexion are his remon- 
 humility, chastity, and mercy ; thanking him strances against the assumption by John the 
 for presents received, and sending in return a j Faster of the title of oecumenical or universal 
 key from the body of St. Peter, in which was ; bishop. They began in 595, being provoked 
 some iron from the chain that had bound him, \ by the repeated occurrence of the title in a 
 and a cross containing a piece of the true cross, | judgment against an heretical presbyter which 
 and some hairs of John the Baptist (Canones I had been sent to Rome. The title was not 
 Eccles. Hispan.). There is no distinct as- | new. Patriarchs had been so styled by the 
 sumption, in these letters, of jurisdiction over j emperors Leo and Justinian, and it had been 
 the Spanish church, and this is the only known [ confirmed to John the Faster and his succes- 
 instanceof a pallium having been sent to Spain ! sors by a general Eastern synod at Constan- 
 previously to the Saracen invasion. The | tinople in 588, pope Pelagius protesting against 
 ancient Spanish church does not seem to have ! it. Gregory now wrote to Sabinianus, his 
 been noted for its dependence on the Roman j apocrisiarius at Constantinople, desiring him 
 see (see Geddes, Tracts, vol. ii. pp. 25, 49 ; j to use his utmost endeavours with the patri- 
 Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 188). With I arch, the emperor, and the empress, to procure 
 the Frank rulers of Gaul Gregory carefully | the renunciation of the title ; and when this 
 cultivated friendly relations. In 595, at the j failed, he himself wrote to all these in peculiar- 
 request of king Childeric, he conferred the 
 pallium on Virgilius of Aries, the ancient 
 
 metropolitan see, whose bishop pope Zosimus 
 had confirmed in his metropolitan right, and 
 made vicar as early as 417. Not long after 
 Gregory began a correspondence with queen 
 Brunichild, in which he exhorts her to use 
 her power for the correction of the vices of 
 the clergy and the conversion of the heathen. 
 Another royal female correspondent, culti- 
 vated and flattered with a similar purpose, and 
 one more worthy of the praise conferred, was 
 Theodelinda the Lombard queen. To 599 
 is assigned the extensive conversion of the 
 
 ly strong language. The title he called foolish, 
 proud, pestiferous, profane, wicked, a diaboli- 
 cal usurpation ; the ambition of any who 
 assumed it was like that of Lucifer, and its 
 assumption a sign of the approach of the king 
 of pride, i.e. Antichrist. His arguments are 
 such as to preclude himself as well as others 
 from assuming the title, though he implies 
 that if any could claim it it would be St. 
 Peter's successors. Peter, he says, was the 
 first of the apostles, yet neither he nor any of 
 the others would assume the title universal, 
 being all members of the church under one 
 head, Christ. He also states (probably in 
 
 Lombards to Catholicism, brought about after I error) that the title had been offered to the 
 
 the death of king Antharis through the mar- 
 riage of this Theodelinda, his widow, with 
 Agilulph duke of Turin, who consequently 
 succeeded to the throne. With this pious 
 lady, a zealous Catholic, Gregory kept up 
 a highly complimentary correspondence, 
 
 bp. of Rome at the council of Chalcedon, and 
 refused. Failing entirely to make an impres- 
 sion at Constantinople, he addressed himself 
 to the Eastern patriarchs. He wrote to 
 Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of 
 Antioch, representing the purpose of their 
 
GREGORIUS I. 
 
 brother of Constantinople as being that of 
 degrading them, and usurping to himself all 
 ecclesiastical power. They, however, were 
 not thus moved to action ; they seem to have 
 regarded the title as one of honour only, 
 suitable to the patriarch of the imperial city ; 
 and one of them, Anastasius. wrote in reply 
 that the matter seemed to him of little mo- 
 ment. The controversy continued after the 
 death of John the F"aster. Gregory instructed 
 his apocrisiarius at Constantinople to demand 
 from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a con- ; 
 dition of intercommunion, the renunciation 
 of the proud and impious title which his 
 predecessor had wickedly assumed. In vain 
 did C\Tiacus send a nuncio to Rt)me in the 
 hope of arranging matters : Gregory was 
 resolute, and wrote, " I confidently say that 
 whosoever calls himself universal priest, or 
 desires to be so called in his elation, is the fore- 
 runner of .\ntichrist." At this time he seems , 
 to have gained a supporter, if n<U to his : 
 protest, at any rate to the paramount dignity 
 of his own see, in Eulogius of .Alexandria, 
 whom he had before addressed without result. , 
 For in answering a letter from that patriarch, 
 he acknowledges with approval the dignity 
 assigned by him to the see of St. Peter, and 
 expresses adroitly a curious view of his cor- 
 respondent, as well as the patriarch of Antioch, 
 being a sharer in it. " Who does not know," 
 he says, " that the church was built and 
 established on the firmness of the prince of 
 the apostles, by whose very name is implied 
 a rock ? Hence, though there were several 
 apostles, there is but one apostolic see, that of : 
 the prince of the apostles, which has acquired 
 great authority ; and that sec is in three ! 
 places, in Rome where he died, in Alexandria I 
 where it was founded by his disciple St. Mark, 
 and in Antioch where he himself lived seven 
 years. These three, therefore, are but one 
 see, and on that one see sit three bishops, who 
 are but one in Him Who said, I am in My 
 Father, and you in Me, and I in you." But 
 when Eulogius in a second letter styled the 
 bp. of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly 
 rejected such a title, saying, " If you give 
 more to me than is due to me, you rob yourself 
 of what is due to you. Nothing can redound 
 to my honour that redounds to the dishonour 
 of my brethren. If you call me universal 
 pope, you thereby own yourself to be no pope. 
 Let no such titles be mentioned or ever heard 
 among us." Gregory was obliged at last to 
 acquiesce in the assumption of the obnoxious 
 title by the Constantinopolitan patriarch ; and 
 it may have been by way of contrast that he 
 usually styled himself in his own letters by the 
 title since borne by the bps. of Rome, " Servus 
 servorum Dei." Evidently Gregf>ry and his 
 opponents took different views of the import of 
 the title contended for. They represented it 
 as one simply of honour and dignity, while he 
 regarded it as involving the assumi'tion of 
 supreme authority over the church at large, 
 and especially over the see of St. Peter, whence 
 probably in a great measure the vehemence 
 of his remonstrance. In the different views 
 taken appears the difference of principle on 
 which pre-eminence was in that age thought 
 assignable to sees in the East and West 
 respectively. In the East the dignity of a 
 
 OREGORIUS I. 
 
 429 
 
 see was regarded as an .ipi.uiaKc of a .itv'» 
 civil importanc.-, on whirli urniind .il..nr ...nl.l 
 any pre-emineiire !><• » l.nnied for Coiim.,i,ii 
 nople. In the West it w.is the at-st. li, .,1 
 origin of the see, and the purely crrlrMustn j1 
 pre-eminence belonging to it from aii< imt 
 
 , times, to which especial rrgard wa» paid. 
 Thus viewed, the struggle of Gregory f<.r the 
 dignity of his own see against that i>l C.-n- 
 stantinople assumes importance as a prolrtt 
 against the Erastianisin of the East. It 
 certainly would not have been well f.r the 
 church had the spiritual authority ..( the 
 bps. of Rome accrued to the subser\i.iit 
 patriarchs of the Eastern caj>ital. 
 
 Asa temporal administrator and potentate 
 Gregory evinced equally great vigour, ability, 
 and zeal, guided by address and judgment. 
 The see of Rome had large possessions, in- 
 stituting what was called the patrimony o( 
 
 , St. Peter, in Italy, Sardinia, and Ct.rsira, and 
 also in more remote parts, f.g. Dalmatia, 
 Illyricum, Gaul, and even Africa and the East. 
 Over these estates Gregory exercised a 
 vigilant superintendence by means of officers 
 called " rectores patrimonii " and " defcn- 
 sores," to whom his letters remain, prescribing 
 minute regulations for the management of the 
 lands, and guarding especially against any 
 oppression of the peasants. The resenucs 
 accruing to the see, thus carefully secured, 
 though with every possible regard to humanity 
 and justice, were expended according to the 
 fourfold division then prevalent in the West — 
 viz. in equal parts for the bishop, the clergy, 
 the fabric and services of the church, and the 
 poor. This distribution, publicly made four 
 times a year, Gregory perst)nally superin- 
 tended. His own charities were immense, a 
 large portion of the population of Rome being 
 dependent on them : every day, before his 
 own meal, a portion was sent to the poor at 
 his door ; the sick and infirm in every street 
 were sought out ; and a large volume was 
 kept containing the names, ages, and dwell- 
 ings of the objects of his bounty. 
 
 A field for the exercise of his political 
 abilities was afforded by his position as virtual 
 ruler of Rome at that critical time. His 
 letters and homilies gave a lamentable 
 account of the miseries of the country, and he 
 endeavoured to conclude a peace brlwerii 
 Agilulph, the Lombard king, who was hims« If 
 disposed to come to terms, and the cxan h 
 Romanus. These endeavours were frustratrd 
 by the opposition of Romanus, who represent- 
 ed Gregory to the enipenr as having been 
 overreached by the crafty enemy. The 
 emperor believed his exarch, and wrote to 
 Gregory in condemnation of his conduit. In 
 vain did Gregory remonstrate in letters IhAU 
 to the emperor and to thf empress Con»tan- 
 tina, complaining to the latter nut so mui h 
 of the ravages of the Lombards as ■ t t!.'- 
 cruelty and exactions of the imperial oii;, . f. , 
 but though small success crowned his rii. rl^, 
 whatever mitigation of distress was accom- 
 plished was due to him. 
 
 In 6oi an event occurred which »hc^»-» 
 Gregory in a less favourable light, with respect 
 to his relations to thepowersof the w. .rid than 
 anything else during his career. Ph<KJ». a 
 centurion, was made cuipcror by the army. 
 
430 
 
 CREGORIUS 1. 
 
 He secured his throne by the murder of 
 Mauricius, whose six sons had been first 
 cruelly executed before their father's eyes. 
 He afterwards put to death the empress 
 Constantina and her three daughters, who 
 had been lured out of the asylum of a church 
 under a promise of safety. Numerous persons 
 of all ranks and in various parts of the empire 
 are also said to have been put to death with 
 unusual cruelty. To Phocas and his consort 
 Leontia, who is spoken of as Uttle better than 
 her husband, (iregory wrote congratulatory 
 letters in a style of flattery beyond even what 
 was usual with him in addressing great poten- 
 tates (Ep. xi. ind. vi. 38, 45, 46). His motive 
 was doubtless largely the hope of obtaining 
 from the new powers the support which 
 Mauricius had not accorded him in his dispute 
 with the Eastern patriarch. This motive 
 appears plainly in one of his letters to Leontia, 
 to whom, rather than to the emperor, with 
 characteristic tact, he intimates his hopes of 
 support to the church of St. Peter, endeavour- 
 ing to work upon her religious fears. 
 
 Gregory lived only 16 months after the 
 accession of Phocas, dying after protracted 
 suffering froni gout on Mar. 12, 604. He was 
 buried in the basilica of St. Peter. 
 
 Immediately after his death a famine 
 occurred, which the starving multitude attri- 
 buted to his prodigal expenditure, and his 
 library was only saved from destruction by the 
 interposition of the archdeacon Peter. 
 
 The pontificate of Gregory the Great is 
 rightly regarded as secGnd to none in its 
 influence on the future form of Western 
 Christianity. He lived in the period of tran- 
 sition from Christendom under imperial rule 
 to the medieval papacy, and he laid or 
 consolidated the foundation of the latter. He 
 advanced, indeed, no claims to authority 
 beyond what had been asserted by his pre- 
 decessors ; yet the consistency, firmness, 
 conscientious zeal, as well as address and 
 judgment, with which he maintained it, and 
 the waning of the power of the Eastern empire, 
 left him virtual ruler of Rome and the sole 
 power to whom the Western church turned 
 for support, and whom the Christianized 
 barbarians, founders of the new kingdom of 
 Europe, regarded with reverence. Thus he 
 payed the way for the system of papal abso- 
 lutism that culminated under Gregory VII. 
 and Innocent III. 
 
 As a writer he was intellectually eminent ; 
 and deserves his place among the doctors of 
 the church, though his learning and mental 
 attitude were those of his age. As a critic, an 
 expositor, an original thinker, he may not 
 stand high ; he knew neither Greek nor 
 Hebrew, and had no deep acquaintance with 
 the Christian Fathers ; literature for its own 
 sake he set little store by ; classical literature, 
 as being heathen, he repudiated. Yet as a 
 clear and powerful exponent of the received 
 orthodox doctrine, especially in its practical 
 aspect, as well as of the system of hagiology, 
 demonology, and monastic asceticism, which 
 then formed part of the religion of Christen- 
 dom, he spoke with a loud and influential voice 
 to many ages after his own, and contributed 
 more than any one person to fix the form 
 and tone of medieval religious thought. 
 
 6REG0RIUS I. 
 
 He was also influential as a preacher, and 
 no less famous for his influence on the music 
 and liturgy of the church ; whence he is 
 called " magister caeremoniarum." To cul- 
 tivate church singing he instituted a song- 
 school in Rome, called Orphanotrophium, the 
 name of which implies also a charitable pur- 
 pose. Of it, John the deacon, after speaking 
 of the cento of antiphons which Gregory had 
 carefully compiled, says : "He founded a 
 school of singers, endowed it with some farms, 
 and built for it two habitations, one under the 
 steps of the basilica of St. Peter the Apostle, 
 the other under the houses of the Lateran 
 Palace. There to the present day his couch 
 on which he used to recline when singing, and 
 his whip with which he menaced the boys, 
 together with his original antiphonary, are 
 preserved with fitting reverence" (Vit. Greg. 
 ii. 6). It is generally alleged that, whereas 
 St. Ambrose had in the latter part of the 4th 
 cent, introduced at Milan the four authentic 
 modes or scales, called, after those of the 
 ancient Greek music, Dorian, Phrygian, Lyd- 
 ian, Mixo-Lydian, St. flregory added to them 
 the four plagal, or subsidiary, modes called 
 Hypo-Dorian, Hypo- Phrygian, Hypo-Lydian, 
 and Hypo-Mixo-Lydian, thus enlarging the 
 allowed range of ecclesiastical melody. 
 
 His Septiform litany was so called from being 
 appointed by him to be sung by the inhabitants 
 of Rome divided into seven companies, viz. 
 of clergy, laymen, monks, virgins, matrons, 
 widows, and of poor people and children. 
 These, starting from 7 different churches, were 
 to chant through the streets of Rome, and 
 meet for common supplication in the church of 
 the Blessed Virgin. He also appointed " the 
 stations " — churches at which were to be held 
 solemn services in Lent and at the four great 
 festivals ; visiting the churches in person, and 
 being received with stately ceremonial. 
 
 His extant works of undoubted genuineness 
 are : (i) Expositio in heatum Job, seu Moralium 
 lib. XXXV. In this celebrated work (begun at 
 Constantinople before he was pope and 
 finished afterwards) " the book of Job is 
 expounded in a threefold manner, according 
 to its historic, its moral, and its allegorical 
 meaning. The moral interpretation may still 
 be read with profit, though rather for the 
 loftiness and purity of its tone than for the 
 justness of the exposition." As to the alle- 
 gorical interpretation, " names of persons, 
 numbers, words, even syllables, are made 
 pregnant with all kinds of mysterious mean- 
 ings " (Milman, Hist, of Latin Christianity). 
 (2) Libri duo in Ezechielem : viz. 22 homilies 
 on Ezekiel, delivered at Rome during its siege 
 by Agilulph. (3) Libri duo in Evangelia: viz. 
 40 homilies on the gospels for the day, 
 preached at various times. (4) Liber Regulae 
 Pastoralis, in 4 parts ; a treatise on the 
 pastoral office, addressed to a bp. John to 
 explain and justify the writer's former reluct- 
 ance to undertake the burden of the popedom. 
 This work was long held in the highest esteem. 
 Leander of Seville circulated it in Spain ; the 
 emperor Mamricius had it translated into 
 Greek ; Alfred the Great translated it into 
 English ; a succession of synods in Gaul en- 
 joined a knowledge of it on all bishops ; and 
 Hincmar, archbp. of Rheims in the 9th cent., 
 
GREGORIUS I. 
 
 says that a ci>py of it was delivered, to- 
 gether with the book of canons, to bisliops 
 at their ordination, with a charge to them to 
 frame their lives according to its precepts 
 {in Prae/tttioiie Of^usculi 55 Cafyitulorutn). 
 (5) Dialogorum libri IV. de vita el miriKulis 
 patrum Italicorum, et de aeternitate animae. 
 The authenticity of this work has been doubt- 
 ed ; apparently without adequate grounds. 
 It is written in the form of dialogues with the 
 archdeacon Peter, and contains accounts of 
 saintly persons, prominent among whom is 
 Benedict of Nursia, the contemporary founder 
 of the Benedictine order. It abounds in 
 marvels, and relates visions of the state of 
 departed souls, which have been a main I 
 support, if not a principal foundation, of the j 
 medieval doctrine about purgatory. The ' 
 Dialogues were translated into Anj^lo-Saxon , 
 bv order of Alfred (Asser. Gest. A If. in Mon. ! 
 Hist. Brit. 486 e). (6) Registrum Epistolarum, 
 in 14 books, of which the 13th is wanting; j 
 a very varied collection of 83S letters to 
 persons of all ranks, which gives a vivid ' 
 idea of his unwearied activity, the multi- ! 
 fariousness of his engagements and inter- j 
 ests, his address, judgment, and versatility. ] 
 (7) Liber Sacrameittorum. This, the famous 
 Gregorian Sacramentary, was an abbreviated 
 arrangement in one vol., with some alterations 
 and additii>ns, of the sacramentary of pope 
 Gelasius, which again had been founded on an , 
 older one attributed to pope Leo I. John the 
 deacon says of Gregory's work, " Sed et 
 Gelasianum codicem, de Missarum soleniniis 
 multa subtrahens, pauca convertens, nonnuUa | 
 superadjiciens, in unius libelli volumine 
 coarctavit " (Joann. Diac. in Vtt. Greg. ii. 17 ; 
 cf. Bede, H. E. ii. i). The changes made by [ 
 Gregory were principally in the Missae, or 
 variable offices for particular days ; in the 
 Ordo Missae itself only two alterations are 
 spoken of as made by him, viz. to the part 
 of the canon beginning, " Hanc igitur obla- ' 
 tionem," he added the words, " Diesque 
 nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna 
 damnatione eripi et in electorum tuorum 
 jubeas grege numerari " ; and the trans- 
 ference of the Lord's Prayer from after the 
 breaking of bread to its present place in 
 the canon {Ep. ad Joann. Syrac. lib. ix. Ep. 
 12). Whatever uncertainty there may be as 
 to the original text of Gregory's sacramentary 
 as a whole, it is considered certain that the 
 present Roman canon and, except for certain 
 subsequent additions, the ordinarium are the 
 same as what he left. [Sacramentary in 
 D. C. A.] (8) Liber Antiphonarius. a collec- 
 tion of antiphons for mass. To what extent 
 this was original, or how far it may have been 
 altered since Gregory's time, is uncertain. 
 
 Of the following works attributed to Greg- 
 ory, the genuineness is doubtful: (i) Liber 
 benedictionum ; (2) Liber Responsalis sen 
 Antiphonarius ; (3) Expositiones in librum I. 
 Regum ; (4) Expositiones super Canticum 
 Canticorum ; (5) Exposilio in vii. Pss. Paeni- 
 tentiales ; (6) Concordia quorundam lestimoni- 
 orum sacrae Scriptiirae. There are also 9 
 hymns attributed to him with probability. 
 
 Of his personal appearance an idea may be 
 formed from a description given by John the 
 deacon of a portrait preserved to his own day 
 
 GREGORIUS I. 
 
 431 
 
 (oth rent.) in St. Amlr.w's mon.nlrrv. "in 
 absiilirula post fr.uruni r.llarium " ; ' whi( h 
 he concludes to have been p.iintrd durnic the 
 pope's life and bv his order. That this wa» 
 the case is iiiferr.-d from the head brniK' sur- 
 mounted, not bv a corona, but bv a labuU 
 ("tabulae sinuiitudincni *'), which John »av» 
 is the m.jrk of a living person, and by the 
 appended inscription : 
 
 "Christe potcn* Dominc. ncwirl Urgitor honorU 
 Indultum utiicium solila pirtalc gubcrna " 
 
 The figure is oi ordinary si/e, and well formed ; 
 the face " most becomingly prolon^;cd with a 
 certain rotundity " ; the beard of moderate 
 size and somewliat tawny; in the middle of 
 his otherwise bald forehead are two neat little 
 curls twisting towards the right ; the crown 
 of the head is round and large ; dark hair, 
 decently curled, hangs under the middle of the 
 ear ; he has a line foreliead ; his evcbrows arc 
 long and elevated, but slmder ; thi- pupils of 
 the eyes are of a yellow tinge, not large, but 
 open, and the umlcr-eyelids are full ; the nose 
 is slender as it curves down from the eyebrows, 
 broader about the middle, then slightly curved, 
 and expanding at the nostrils ; the motith is 
 ruddy ; the lips thick and subdivided ; the 
 cheeks regular (" compositae ") ; the chin 
 rather prominent from the confines of the 
 jaws ; the complexion was " aquilinus et 
 lividus " (al. " vividus "), not " cardiacus," 
 as it became afterwards, i.e. he had in the 
 picture a dark but fresh complexion, though 
 in later life it acquired an unhealthy hue. 
 (See Du Gauge f>>r the probable meaning of 
 the words.) His countenance is mild ; his 
 hands good, with taper fingers, well adapted 
 for writing. The dress he wears is of in- 
 terest — a chestnut-coloured planeta over a 
 dahnatica, which is precisely the same dress 
 as that in which his father is depicted, and 
 therefore not then a peculiarly sacerdotal 
 costume. [Gordianus.] He is distinguished 
 from his father by the pallium, thr then form 
 and mode of wearing which are intimatrd bv 
 the description. It is brought from the Uft 
 shoulder so as to hang carelessly under the 
 breast, and, passing over the right shoulder, 
 is deposited behind the back, the other end 
 being carried straight behind the neck also 
 to the right shouldi-r, from which it hangs 
 down the side. In the left hand is a book of 
 the Gospels; the right is in the attitude of 
 making the sign of the cross (Joann. Diar. in 
 Vil. Greg. 1. 4, c. 83). John describes also his 
 pallium, woven of white linen and with no 
 marks of the needle in it ; his phylacterv ( i>r 
 case for nlirs), of thin silver, and hung from 
 the neck by crimson cloth, and hi* bell 
 (" baltheus "), only a thumb's breadth wide — 
 which, he says, were preserved and venerated 
 on the saint's anniversary, and which he 
 refers to as shewing the monastic siinplirity 
 of Gregorv's attire (16. c. 8). 
 
 Our chief authorities for the I ifeof (Iregory 
 are his own writings, especially his letters, 
 of which a trans. {SeUcla hpp.) is m /.16. 0/ 
 Post.- Sic. Eatherr,. Among ancient writer* 
 (iregorv of Tours (his contemporary). Hrde, 
 Paul Warnefried (73"). Ado Trcviren»is 
 (1070,, Simeon Metaphrastes (noo). Isidorus 
 Hispalensis, have detailed notices of him. 
 
432 
 
 GUNDOBALD 
 
 Paul the deacon in the 8th cent., and John 
 the deacon, a monk of Cassino, in the gth cent., 
 wrote Lives of him (Greg. Op. ed. Benedict). 
 The Benedictine ed. of his works has a fuller 
 Life, using additional sources. An important 
 work on Gregory the Great, his Place in 
 Thought and History, was pub. by the Rev. 
 F. H. Dudden, in two vols. 4to, 1905 
 (Lond., Longmans). A cheap popular Life by 
 the author of this art. is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
 in their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; see also a 
 monograph on Pope Gregory the Great and 
 his Relation with Gaul, by F. W. Kellett 
 (Camb. Univ. Press). [j.b— v.] 
 
 Gundobald, 4th king of the Burgundians 
 (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, ii. 28). The kingdom 
 of the Burgundians, which extended from the 
 Vosges to the Durance and from the Alps to 
 the Loire, was divided between Gundobald and 
 his surviving brother Godegiselus, the former 
 having Lyons for his capital, the latter Geneva 
 (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, ii. 32 ; Ennodius, 
 Vita S. Epiphanii, 50-54 ; Boll. Jan. ii. 
 374-375 ; cf. Mascou, Hist, of the Ancient 
 Germans, xi. 10, 31, and Annotation iv.). In 
 500 Clovis, who had married Gundobald's 
 niece, defeated Gundobald at Dijon, with the 
 aid of Godegiselus who fought against his 
 brother, and imposed a tribute. But on 
 Clovis's departure he renounced his allegiance, 
 and besieged and killed his brother, who had 
 triumphantly entered Vienne. Henceforth 
 till his death he ruled the whole Burgundian 
 territory (Marius Avent. Chron., Migne, Patr. 
 Lat. Ixxii. 795, 796 ; Greg. Tur. li. 32, 33; 
 Epiiomata, xxii.-xxiv. ; Richter, Annalen, 
 37, 38). About this time was held under his 
 presidency at Lyons a conference between the 
 Catholics, led by Avitus, and the Arians, led by 
 Boniface. According to the Catholic account 
 of it which survives, the heretics were utterly 
 confounded. The narrative is in the Spicile- 
 giuni, iii. 304 (Paris, 1723). Mansi, viii. 242, 
 and excerpta from it in Patr. Lat. Ixxi. 1154. 
 Gundobald died in 516, leaving his son, the 
 Catholic Sigismund, as his successor. 
 
 In spite of the unfavourable testimony of 
 Catholic writers, there are many indications 
 that Gundobald was for his time an enlight- 
 ened and humane king. The wisdom and 
 equity of his government are evidenced by the 
 Loi Gombette, the Burgundian code, called 
 after him, which, though probably not taking 
 its present shape entirely till his son's reign, 
 was enacted by him. Its provisions in favour 
 of the Roman, or old Gallic inhabitants, whom 
 in most respects it put on an equality with 
 the conquerors, entitles it to be called the 
 best barbarian code which had yet appeared 
 (Greg. Tur. ii. 33 ; Hist. lit. de la France, iii. 
 83 sqq. ; L'Art de verifier les dates, x. 365, 
 Paris, 1818). For the code see Bouquet, iv. 
 257 seq., and Pertz, Leges, iii. 497 seq. 
 
 Though he professed Arianism, Gundobald 
 did not persecute, but secured the Catholics 
 in the possession of their endowments, as 
 Avitus testifies [Ep. xxxix. Patr. Lat. lix. 
 256). The circumstances relied on by 
 Revillout [De V Arianisme des peuples ger- 
 maniques, 180, 181), who takes the opposite 
 view, are trivial, compared with the testimony 
 of Avitus and the silence of Gregory. Gun- 
 dobald's whole correspondence with Avitus 
 
 GUNTRAMNUS 
 
 and the conference of Lyons demonstrate the 
 interest he took in religious subjects and his 
 tolerance of orthodoxy. Several of the 
 bishop's letters survive, answering inquiries 
 on various points of doctrine, e.g. the Euty- 
 chian heresy (Epp. 3 and 4), repentance in 
 articulo mortis, and justification by faith or 
 works [Ep. 5). One only of Gundobald's 
 remains [Ep. 19), asking an explanation of 
 Is. ii. 3-5, and Mic. iv. 4. These letters are 
 in Migne, Patr. Lat. lix. 199, 202, 210, 219, 
 
 223, 236, 244, 255, and commented on in 
 Ceillier's Hist, generate des auteurs sacres, x. 
 554 sqq. He probably died an Arian. Ac- 
 cording to Gregory, he was convinced and 
 begged Avitus to baptize him in secret, fearing 
 his subjects ; but Avitus refused, and he 
 perished in his heresy (Hist. Franc, ii. 34, cf. 
 iii. prologue). But there are two passages in 
 Avitus's letters {Ep. v. sub fin. Patr. Lat. lix. 
 
 224, " Unde cum laetitiam — orbitatem," and 
 Ep. ii. sub init. Patr. Lat. lix. 202, " Unicum 
 simul — principaliter de tuenda catholicae 
 partis veritate curetis ") which seem almost 
 to imply that he was then a Catholic. See 
 too Gregory's story of the piety of his queen 
 {de Mirac. S. Juliani, ii. 8). [s.a.b.] 
 
 Guntramnus (2) {Guntchramnus, Gunthran- 
 nus, Gontran), St., king of Burgundy, son of 
 Clotaire I. and Ingundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. 
 Franc, iv. 3). Upon his father's death in 
 561, the kingdom was divided by lot between 
 the three sons. Guntram had the kingdom 
 of Burgundy, which then extended from the 
 Vosges to the Durance, and from the Alps to 
 the Loire. Orleans was his nominal capital, 
 but his ordinary residence was at Ch^lon-sur- 
 Saone (iv. 21, 22). His pacific and unenter- 
 prising disposition made his reign uneventful. 
 He died in 593, in the 33rd year of his reign, 
 on Mar. 28, on which day the martyrologies 
 commemorate him as a saint, and was buried 
 in the monastery church of St. Marcellus, 
 his own foundation at Chalons. 
 
 Though the church has canonized Guntram, 
 it is perhaps doubtful whether his virtues 
 would stand out brightly on any other back- 
 ground than the utter darkness of Merovingian 
 times. His chief merit seems to have been the 
 avoidance of the terrible excesses which 
 characterized some of his family, and this was 
 perhaps as much due to the feebleness of his 
 nature as to any positive inclination towards 
 well-doing. Even his clerical eulogists admit 
 that as regards women his morals were by no 
 means scrupulous (Almoin, iii. 3, Patr. Lat. 
 cxxxix. 693). When provocation or panic was 
 absent he was mild, and even merciful, but on 
 occasion he readily committed the barbarities 
 of his age. The merest suspicion or accusation 
 connected with his personal safety sufficed 
 to throw him into a panic, when torture was 
 freely applied to obtain confessions. Assas- 
 sination was the haunting fear of his life, and 
 he always wore arms and continually strength- 
 ened the escort which attended him every- 
 where, except in church (vii. 8, 18, viii. 11, 
 44). His apprehension at times was almost 
 comic. Gregory tells us that one Sunday at 
 church in Paris, when the deacon had enjoined 
 silence for the mass, Guntram turned to the 
 people and said, " I beseech you, men and 
 j women who are present, do not break your 
 
HABIBUS 
 
 faith to me, but forbear to kill mc as vou 
 killed my brothers. At least let mc live three 
 years, that I may rear up the nephews whom 
 i have adopted, lest mayhap, which Ciod for- 
 bid, you perish together with those little ones 
 when I am dead, and tliere is no strong man 
 of our race to defend you " (vii. 8, cf. Michelet, 
 Hist, de France, i. 231, " Ce bon homme 
 semble charge de la partie comique dans le 
 drame terrible de I'histoire mtl^rovnigienne "). 
 
 On the other hand, mere abstinence from 
 wanton wrong-doing and aggression must be 
 counted for a virtue in his family and age. 
 For the crowning evil of the time, the incessant 
 civil wars which devastated France, he was 
 in no way responsible. Though frequently in 
 combat, it was always to repel the aggression 
 of others, except in his Gothic wars, which he 
 probably regarded as crusades against heretics. 
 The profuse almsgiving which he practised 
 {e.g. vii. 40) shewed a real, if mistaken, desire 
 for the good of his subjects. 
 
 But it was his warm friendship to the 
 church and clergy which procured him the 
 rank of a saint. St. Benignus of Dijon, St. 
 Symphorian of .^utun, and St. Marcellus of 
 Chalon-sur-Saone were founded or enriched 
 by him, and in the last he established and 
 provided for perpetual psalmody after the 
 model of St. Sigismund's foundation at St. 
 Maurice (Fredegar. Chron. xv. ; Almoin, Hist. 
 Franc, iii. 81, Pair. Lat. cxxxix. 751). Bishops 
 were his constant advisers, and his favourite 
 solution of all complications was an episcopal 
 council (Greg. Tur. v. 28; vii. 16; viii. 13, 20, 
 27). He commended himself to them also by 
 his respect for church ceremonies and his 
 frequent and regular attendance at religious 
 services, and especially by his freedom and 
 condescension in eating, drinking, and con- 
 versing with them (vii. 29 ; viii. 1-7, 9, 10 ; 
 ix. 3, 20, 21 ; X. 28). Gregory says, " You 
 woi>ld have thought him a priest as well as a 
 king " (ix. 21). " With priests he was like a 
 priest," says Fredegarius (Chron. i.), and " he 
 shewed himself humble to the priests of 
 Christ," says .Airaoin (u.s.). Chilperic once 
 intercepted the letter of a bishop, in which it 
 was written that the transition from Guntram's 
 sway to his was like passing from paradise 
 to hell (Greg. Tur. vi. 22). In estimating 
 Guntram's character, therefore, we must 
 always remember that our information 
 comes from this favoured class. Especially 
 does this apply to Gregory of Tours, who was 
 on very friendly terms with him (viii. 2-7, 13 ; 
 ix. 20, 21), and who ascribes miracles to his 
 sanctity during his lifetime (ix. 21 ; cf. too 
 Paulus Diaconus, de Gest. Langob. iii. 33, 
 Migne, Pair. Lat. xcv. 535, and Aimoiii. iii. 3, 
 Patr. Lat. cxxxix. 693). There is extant an 
 edict of Guntrain addressed to the bishops and 
 judges commanding the observance of the 
 Sabbath and holy days, in conformity with 
 the canon of the 2nd council of .Macon. It is 
 dated Nov. 10, 585, and is in Mansi, ix. 962, 
 and Boll. Acta SS. Mar. iii. 720; cf. Hist, 
 lit. de la France, iii. 369 seq.). [s.a.b.J 
 
 H 
 
 Habibus (2) {Abibus), deacon, martyr at 
 Edessa in the reign of Licinius ; mentioned in 
 
 HABIBUS 
 
 433 
 
 the Basilian Mcni>logium ^ ■ ■ 'if 
 
 martyrs (iurias and S.un 
 
 i he was laid ; at Dec. 2 he 1 
 
 j Simeon Metaphrasti-s in 
 count of those two martyrs iih. 1 .it. m .muu.». 
 de Prob. Wis/. SS. Nov. is, p. ^42, thr I at. aiul 
 Gk. in Patr. Gk. rxvi. i.,i) siinilarlv <nib«Hlirt 
 the history of Mabib. Assini.un n..tic.» hiin 
 in his Bibl. Orient, (i. 3^0. Ui) Ir-ni Mrt.i- 
 
 1 phrastes, but not in his Acta .Mattvrum. The 
 
 ' original Syriac accoimt >>f Habib wlii« li Mrta- 
 phrastes abridged has been (ii>.r,.vir«cl, and 
 was ed. in 1864 by Dr. Wright with a traim. 
 by Dr. Cureton (.Ancient .Syria. '• '•■■■ 
 
 j p. 72. notes p. i«7). The S' : 
 whose name was Thoophilus. 
 have been an eyewitness of th- 
 (which he places on .Sept. 2) and a i.,i.\».jl. 
 The ancient Syrian Martyrologv, another 
 discovery trans, by Dr. Wright (Journ. Sac. 
 
 ' Lit. 1866, p. 429), likewise coinnu-moralrs 
 Habib on Sept. 2. Theopliihis say* that 
 
 ■in the month Ab (i.e. Aug.) in the yi .ir 6ao 
 of the kingdom of .Mcxander of Mandon. in 
 the consulate of I.icinius and C'i>nstantmr, 
 in the days of Conon, bp. of lidessa, the 
 emperor commanded the altars of the g<xls 
 to be everywhere repaired, sarrifircs ami 
 libations offered and incense burnt to Jupiter. 
 Habib, a deacon of the village of TeUeha, 
 went privately among the churches and 
 villages encouraging the Christians n«>t to 
 comply. The Christians were more numerous 
 than their persecutors, and wi>rd reached 
 Edessa that even Constanline " in Gaul and 
 Spain" had become Christian and did not 
 sacrifice. Habib's iiroceedings were reported 
 to Licinius, who sentenced him to die by fire. 
 When this news reached Ildessa, Habib was 
 some 50 miles off at Zeugma, sec n tlv enc<iurag- 
 ing the Christians there, and his family and 
 friends at Telzeha were arrested. Hereupon, 
 Habib went to Edessa and presented him- 
 self privately to Theotecnus, the head of the 
 governor's household. This official desireil 
 to save Habib and pressed him to depart 
 secretly, assuring him that his friends would 
 soon be released. Habib, believing that 
 cowardice would endanger his eternal salva- 
 tion, persisted in surrender, and was led before 
 the governor. On refusing to sacritice, he was 
 imprisoned, tortured, and then burnetl. alter 
 he had at great length uncompr.iinisinKly 
 exposed the sin and folly <if idolatry. The 
 day of his imprisonment was the emperor's 
 festival, and on the 2nd of Ilul (Sept.) he 
 suffered. His dving praver was, " O king 
 Christ, for Thine is this world and Thine is the 
 world to come, behold and sec that while I 
 might have been able to flee fr.mi thc*e 
 afflictions 1 did not flee, in order that I iuirUI 
 not fall into the hands of Thy justice. I.el 
 therefore this fire in whi. h 1 am to be l>urnrd 
 be for a recompense before Thee. »o that 1 may 
 be delivered from that fire which is not 
 quenched; and receive Thou my spirit into 
 Thy presence thr-. ugh the Spirit "i Ihy (.ikI- 
 he.-irl. O glorious Son of the adorable Father." 
 The vear is given bv Haroiuus, who had only 
 Metaphrastes to guide him. as a.k. 316 {A. h. 
 ann. 316, xlviii.). Assemani (liibt. Or. i. 331) 
 with the same materials decides for 32 1. 1 h« 
 details of Thcophilus might seem to settle the 
 2tt 
 
434 HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS 
 
 point ; but if his era is that of the Seleucidae, 
 Ilul 2, 620 was Sept. 2, 309, and Licinius 
 only became master of the East in 313. The 
 date therefore is still a difficulty. [c.h.] 
 
 Hadrianus (i), Publius Aelius, emperor 
 1 17-137. Born in 76, and placed, at the age 
 of ten, on his father's death, under the guar- 
 dianship of his cousin, Ulpius Trajanus, after- 
 wards emperor, Hadrian was in his youth a 
 diligent student of Greek literature, and 
 entered on his career as military tribune in 
 Lower Moesia in 95. On the death of Nerva 
 in 97, Trajan became emperor, and Hadrian, 
 on whom he bestowed such favours that men 
 looked for a formal adoption, served in the 
 wars with the Dacians, Pannonians, Sarma- 
 tians, and Parthians. During the campaign 
 against the last-named, Trajan, leaving 
 Hadrian in command of the army and of the 
 province of Syria, started for Rome, but died 
 at Selinus in Cilicia in 117. Hadrian had 
 himself proclaimed emperor by the army, 
 communicated the election to the senate, and 
 received their formal sanction. His external 
 policy was marked by the abandonment of 
 any idea of extending the eastern frontier of 
 the empire beyond the Euphrates. Having 
 gained popular favour by gladiatorial games, 
 large donations, and the remission of arrears 
 of taxes, Hadrian devoted himself for several 
 years from 120 to a personal inspection of the 
 provinces. In 120-121 he visited Gaul, Ger- 
 many, and Britain, erecting fortresses and 
 strengthening the frontier defences, of which 
 an example is his Roman wall from the Solway 
 to the mouth of the Tyne. We may find traces, 
 perhaps, of the eclectic tendency of his mind 
 in the altars dedicated to Mithras and to an 
 otherwise unknown goddess named Coventina 
 or Conventina, found near the wall not far from 
 Hexham.* In 122 he came to Athens, which 
 became his favourite residence, and the same 
 eclectic tendency led him to seek initiation in 
 the Eleusinian mysteries (a.d. 125). On the 
 death, probably self-sought, of his favourite 
 Antinous, a Bithynian page of great beauty 
 and genius, Hadrian paid his memory the 
 divine honours given to emperors. Constella- 
 tions were named after him, cities dedicated 
 to him, incense burnt in his honour, and the 
 art market flooded with statues and busts 
 representing his exceeding beauty. The 
 apotheosis of Antinous was the rednctio at once 
 ad absurdum and ad horribile of the decayed 
 polytheism of the empire (Eus. H. E. iv. 8 ; 
 Justin, Apol. i. 39). In 131 the emperor 
 began to execute the plan, conceived earlier 
 in his reign, of making Jerusalem a Roman 
 colonia, and rebuilding it as Aelia Capitolma, 
 thus commemorating both the gens to which 
 the emperor belonged and its consecration to 
 the Capitolian Jupiter. At first the proposal 
 was received tranquilly. The work of rebuild- 
 ing was placed in the hands of a Jew, Aquila 
 of Pontus, and the Jews petitioned for per- 
 mission to rebuild their temple. They were 
 * See a paper by Mr. Clayton in the Transactions 
 of the Nencastle Archaeological Society for 1875. 
 Some archaeologists consider Conventina a Latinized 
 form of the name of some British goddess. The fact 
 that Hadrian when in Spain summoned a conventus 
 of all Romans resident there suggests that the 
 goddess was perhaps the personified guardian of 
 such a conventus held in Britain. 
 
 HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS 
 
 met with studied indignity, and a plough was 
 drawn over the site of the sacred place in token 
 of its desecration. The city was filled with 
 Roman emigrants, the Jews were forbidden to 
 enter the city, but allowed, as if in bitter 
 irony, on the anniversary of its capture by 
 Titus to bewail their fate within its gates. 
 On one of the gates a marble statue of the 
 unclean beast was a direct insult to Jewish 
 feeling, while Christian feeling was outraged 
 by a statue of Jupiter on the site of the 
 resurrection and of Venus on that of the 
 crucifixion. Trees and statues were placed on 
 the platform of the temple, and a grove to 
 Adonis near the cave of the nativity at Beth- 
 lehem. Such persistent defiance of national 
 feeling roused widespread indignation, which 
 burst out under a leader whom we know by his 
 assumed name of Bar-Cocheba ("the son of a 
 star") — a name probably suggested by the 
 imagery of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 17), possibly 
 also by the recollection of the " star in the 
 east " of Matt. ii. 2. He is described by 
 Eusebius {H. E. iv. 3) as a murderer and a 
 robber (cpovLKbs Kai \7i(TTpiKbs) of the Barab- 
 bas type, but was recognized by Akiba, the 
 leading rabbi of the time, as the Messiah, 
 seized 50 fortresses and 985 villages, and 
 established himself in the stronghold of 
 Bethera, between Caesarea and Lydda (rebuilt 
 by Hadrian and renamed Diospolis). The 
 Christians of Palestine, true to the apostolic 
 precept of submission to the powers that be, 
 took no part in the insurrection, and were 
 accordingly persecuted by the rebel leader and 
 offered the alternative of denying the Messiah- 
 ship of Jesus or the penalty of torture and 
 death {ib. iv. 8). Severus was recalled from 
 Britain, the rebellion suppressed with a strong 
 hand, and edicts of extreme stringency issued 
 against the Jews, forbidding them to circum- 
 cise their children, keep the Sabbath, or 
 educate their youth in the Law. Akiba died 
 under torture, and a secret school for in- 
 struction in the Law, continuing the rabbinic 
 traditions, was formed at Lydda(Jost, Juden- 
 thum, ii. 7). To the Christian church in 
 Judaea the suppression of the revolt and the 
 tolerant spirit of the emperor brought relief. 
 They left Pella, where they had taken refuge 
 during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and 
 returned to the holy city. Its 15 successive 
 bishops had all been Hebrews, but now the 
 mother-church of the world first came under 
 the care of a gentile bishop (Eus. H. E. iv. 5). 
 In his general treatment of Christians, 
 Hadrian followed in the footsteps of Trajan. 
 The more cultivated members of the church 
 felt that in addressing the tolerant, eclectic 
 emperor, " curiositatum omnium explorator," 
 as Tertullian calls him (Apol. c. 5), they had 
 a chance of a favourable hearing, and the age 
 of apologists began. Quadratus presented 
 his Apologia, laying stress on the publicity of 
 the works of Christ, and appealing to still 
 surviving eye-witnesses. Aristides ad- 
 dressed to the emperor (a.d. 133) a treatise, 
 extant and admired in the time of Jerome, in 
 defence of the Christians, and was said even 
 to have been admitted to a personal hearing. 
 Early in his reign, but probably a little later, 
 an Asiatic official of high character, Serenius 
 Granianus, applied to Hadrian for instructions 
 
HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS 
 
 as to the treatment of Christians, complaining 
 that their enemies expected him to condenui 
 them without a trial. The emperor thereupon 
 addressed an official letter to Minucius Fun- 
 danus, proconsul of Asia, regulating the mode 
 of procedure against the persecuted sect. No 
 encouragement was to be given to common 
 informers {jvnoipdyrai) or to popular clamour. 
 If the officials of the district {iirapxiuiTat) were 
 contident that they could sustain a prosecu- 
 tion, the matter was to be investigated in due 
 course. Offenders against the laws were to 
 be j>unished ; but, above all things, the trade 
 of the informer was to be checked (Eus. H. E. 
 iv. 8, q). The character of Hadrian may be 
 inferred from his policy. He had not the zeal 
 of a persecutor nor the fear that leads to 
 cruelty. His philosophy and his religion did 
 not keep him from the infamy of an impure 
 passion of the basest type. He adapted him- 
 self without difficulty to the worship of the 
 place in which he was. At Rome he main- 
 tained the traditional sacred rites which had 
 originated under the republic, and posed as the 
 patron of Epictetus and the Stoicism identified 
 with his name. At Athens he was initiated 
 in the Eleusinian mysteries, and rose to the 
 dignity of an Epoptes in the order, as one in 
 the circle of its most esoteric teaching. He 
 became an expert in the secrets of magic and 
 astrology. To him, as he says in his letter to 
 Servianus, the worshippers of Serapis and 
 of Christ stood on the same footing. Rulers 
 of synagogues, Christian bishops, Samaritan 
 teachers, were all alike tradingon the credulity 
 of the multitude (Flavius Vopiscus, Saturn. 
 cc. 7. 8). According to a later writer, Lam- 
 pridius (»>i Alex. Sev. c. 43), his wide eclec- 
 ticism led him at one time to erect temples 
 without statues, which he intended to dedi- 
 cate to Christ. He was restrained, it was 
 reported, by oracles, which declared that, if 
 this were done, all other temples would be de- 
 serted and the religion of the empire subverted. 
 But the absence of contemporary evidence uf 
 such an intention, on whicli Christian apolo- 
 gists would naturally have hiii stress, k .ids us 
 to reject Lampridius's explanation of these 
 temples as an unauthenticated conjecture. 
 More probably, as Casaubon suggests (.4nnot. 
 in Lamprid. c. 43), they were intended ulti- 
 mately to be consecrated to Hadrian himself. 
 So the imperial Sophist — the term is used of 
 Hadrian by Julian (Caeara. p. 28, ed. 1583) 
 — passed through life, " holding no form of 
 creed and contemplating all," and the well- 
 known lines — 
 
 "Animula, vai?ula, blandula, 
 Hospes, comesque corporis, 
 Quae nunc abibis in loca, 
 Pa'.lidula, rigida, nudula ? 
 Ncc, ut soles, dabU jocos " 
 
 (SparlLm. VU. Hadr.) 
 
 shew a like dilettantcism in him to the last. 
 A reign like that of Hadrian naturally, on 
 the whole, favoured the growth of the church. 
 The popular cry, " Christianos ad loenes," was 
 hushed. Apologetic literature was an appeal 
 to the intellect and judgment of mankind. 
 The frivolous eclecticism of the emperor and 
 yet more his deification of Antinous were 
 enough to shake the allegiance of serious 
 minds to the older system. Tolerance was, 
 
 HEDIBIA 
 
 4S5 
 
 however, eaually favourable t«> the (crowih o| 
 \ heresy ; and to this reiK'n wc trace lhrri*r and 
 growth of the rlinf (.m^tir scc\% i>| ihr md 
 cent., the fnllowersof SATUHNisrii in Svria, i>( 
 Uasilides. I aki'ocratks. and VAirsTiNi > in 
 Egypt, of .Makcion ni r..ntu<i (Eu*. //. >.. 
 iy. 7, 8). Cf., bisidrs the authentic-* ntrd. 
 : (iibbon. Decline and Fall, c. in. ; Milnian 
 Hist, of Christ, bk. ii. ( . VI. ; l.ardnrr. Jfvnk 
 and Hfitlhen I e\t\m<nte\. ^ . xi. [K.H.r.] 
 
 Hecebolius or Heceboitu, a rhetor at Con- 
 stantiiii.ple in the r.inn of Conitantum, who 
 professed himself a " f.-rvrnt " Chrmtian. and 
 was therefore selected bv that eniprri^r a» one 
 of the teachers of Julian (Sorr. 111. 1, ij). 
 After the death of Constantius, howrvrr, 
 Hecebolius followed the example of hi» (ornirr 
 pupil and became a " fierce pagan " ("yo^^t 
 ' K\\»;i' ; Socr. u.a. 13). He was in great favour 
 with Julian, and appears to have brni one cif 
 his familiar correspondents (Julian, h.p. iq, 
 ed. Heyler, p. 23 ; "KxTi.-iiXi^), and seem* to 
 have had some civil office at Edc*s.-». The 
 Arians of that city, " in the insolence of 
 wealth," had violentlv attacked the Valen- 
 tinians. Julian wrote to Hecebolius to say 
 that, " since they had done what could not 
 be allowed in any well-governed city," " in 
 order to help the men the more easily to enter 
 the kingdom of heaven as it was pr«-scribed " 
 bv their " most wonderful law, he had com- 
 manded all moneys to be taken away from the 
 church of the Edessenes, that they might be 
 distributed among the soldiers, and that it» 
 propertv should be confiscated to his private 
 treasurv ; that being poor they might become 
 wise and not lose the kingdom of heaven which 
 thev hoped for" (Julian. Ep. 43- ^d- Heyler. 
 p. 82; Baron, s.a. 362, xiii. : Soz. vi. 1). 
 Such appropriation of church property wai 
 one of the crimes of which Julian was accused 
 after his death (Greg. Naz. adv. Jul. Oral. lii). 
 The emperor adds that he had charged the 
 inhabitants of Edessa to abstain from " riot 
 and strife," lest " they themselves " should 
 suffer " the sword, exile, and fire." The last 
 sentence in the letter appears to intimate that 
 he would hold Hecebolius personally respon- 
 sible for the future go.^l conduct of the city. 
 After the death of Julian and the reversal of 
 the imperial policy, Hecebolius t«tentatiously 
 professed extreme penitence (or his apostasy 
 j and pri>strated himself at the church door, 
 i crying to all that entered, "Trample upon nie — 
 I the salt that has l<^t its savour " (S.n^r 111. 1 3 ; 
 Baron. M.s. = Matt. v. 13) Bar.>nius assume* 
 the identitv of the magistrate of hikssa with 
 ; the "rhetor" of Con-itantmople da. 362. 
 xiii. xiv.), but Tilleinont regards tlimi at 
 different persons {.\fim. vii. 331. 3J't- l-'*'*" 
 nius mentions a Hecebolius. but give* u» no 
 ! clue to his history {Ep. 309)- _ j'-r'"'. 
 
 Hedlbit (Edibia), a lady in <.aul. who 
 corresponded with St. Jer<.me (then at Beth- 
 lehem) c. 405- She was descended from the 
 Druids, and held the hrre<litary oftue ..I 
 priests of Belen ( - Apollo) at Bavrux. Hcf 
 grandfather and father (if maforei is to be 
 taken stricllv) Patera and Driphidius (the 
 names being in each case derived (roiu their 
 office) were remarkable men. (H I »»««. 
 Jerome savs in his (hromcle. under a.D. 339. 
 •' Patera rhetor Komae gl.jrio»u»injc docel. 
 
436 
 
 HEOESIPPUS 
 
 Delphidius was a writer in prose and verse and 
 a celebrated advocate. Aramianus Marcel- 
 linus (xviii. i) tells of his pleading before the 
 emperor Julian. Both became professors at 
 Bordeaux (Ausonius, Carmen, Prof. Burd. iv. 
 and v.). The wife and daughter of Delphidius 
 became entangled in the Zoroastrian teaching 
 of Priscillian, and suffered death in the per- 
 secution of his followers (Sulp. Sev. Hist. Sac. 
 ii. 63, 64 ; Prosper Aquit. Chron. ; Auson. 
 Carmen, v.). Hedibia was a diligent 
 student of Scripture, and, finding no one to 
 assist her, sent, by her friend Apodemius, a 
 list of questions to J erome. He answered them 
 in a long letter {Ep. 120, ed. Vail.). We 
 hear of her again as a friend of Artemia, wife 
 of Rusticus, on whose account she again wrote 
 to Jerome {Ep. 122, ed. Vail.). [w.h.f.] 
 
 Hegesippus (1), commonly known as the 
 father of church history, although his works, 
 except a few fragments which will be found in 
 Routh (Rel. Sacr. i. pp. 207-219) and in Grabe 
 (Spicil. ii. 203-214), have perished. Nothing 
 positive is known of his birth or early circum- 
 stances. From his use of the Gospel according 
 to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic 
 language of Palestine, his insertion in his 
 history of words in the Hebrew dialect, and 
 his mention of unwritten traditions of the 
 Jews, Eusebius infers that he was a Hebrew 
 (H. E. iv. 22), but possibly, as conjectured by 
 Weizsacker (Herzog, Encyc. v. 647), Eusebius 
 knew this as a fact from other sources 
 also. We owe our only information as to his 
 date to a statement of his own, preserved 
 by Eusebius (iv. 22), which is understood to 
 mean that at Rome he compiled a succession of 
 the bishops of the Roman see to the time of 
 Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After 
 this statement Hegesippus is represented as 
 adding, " and to Anicetus succeeds Soter, after 
 whom Eleutherus." Much as the interpreta- 
 tion of these words has been disputed, it does 
 not seem difficult to gather that Hegesippus 
 means that the list of bishops compiled by 
 him at Rome was drawn from the authentic 
 records of the church there. That list closed 
 with Anicetus. He was afterwards able to 
 add the names of Soter and Eleutherus. It 
 thus appears that he was at Rome in the days 
 of .\nicetus and made his inquiries then, but 
 did not publish them till considerably later. 
 But Anicetus, according to Lipsius (Chrono- 
 logte der romischen Bischofe), was bp. of Rome 
 156-167, and Eleutherus 175-189. Hegesip- 
 pus had thus written much of his historv 
 previous to a.d. 167, and published it in the 
 time of Eleutherus, perhaps early in his 
 episcopate. Any difficulty in accepting these 
 dates has been occasioned by the rendering 
 given to another passage of Eusebius (iv. 8), 
 where he quotes Hegesippus as speaking of 
 certain games {dyu)v) instituted in honour of 
 Antinous, a slave of Hadrian, of which he 
 says e^' r]iuQu yevdneuos (a better established 
 reading than yiv6(j.evui). But these words 
 seem simply to mean that the games had been 
 instituted in his own time, thus illustrating 
 the fiexpi vvv of the preceding sentence. 
 Hadrian reigned 11 7- 138, so that if Hegesippus 
 published c. 180, being then well advanced in 
 life, he might well remember the times of that 
 emperor. This derives confirmation from a 
 
 HEGESIPPUS 
 
 statement of Jerome, generally regarded as 
 somewhat extravagant, that the life of Hege- 
 sippus had bordered on the apostolic age 
 ("vicinus apostolicorum temporum," de Vir. 
 III. c. 22). But there is no extravagance in 
 the remark. H Hegesippus was born c. 120 
 or earlier, he may well be described as having 
 lived near the times of St. John. We may, 
 therefore, fix the bloom of Hegesippus's life 
 about the middle of the 2nd cent. 
 
 His history embraced, so far as we may- 
 judge from its fragments, numerous miscel- 
 laneous observations, recollections, and tra- 
 ditions, jotted down without regard to order, 
 as they occurred to the author or came under 
 his notice during his travels. Jerome tells us 
 that the work contained the events of the 
 church from Palestine to Rome, and from the 
 death of Christ to the writer's own day. It is 
 not a regular history of the church, Weiz- 
 sacker well remarking that, in that case, the 
 story of James the Just ought to have been 
 found in the first book, not in the last. 
 
 Its general style was thought plain and 
 unpretending, says Jerome, and with this 
 description what remains sufficiently agrees. 
 The question of its trustworthiness is of 
 greater moment. The account given in it 
 of James the head of the church in Jeru- 
 salem has led to many charges against Hege- 
 sippus of not having been careful enough to 
 prove what he relates. He has been thought 
 to be contradicted by Josephus, who tells 
 us that " Ananus, the high-priest, assem- 
 bled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought 
 before them the brother of Jesus Who was 
 called Christ, whose name was James, and 
 some others. And, when he had formed an 
 accusation against them, he delivered them 
 to be stoned" {.4tit. xx. 9, i). We may be 
 permitted to doubt, however, whether the 
 sentence thus referred to was carried out, for 
 not only was it unlawful for the Sanhedrin to 
 punish by death without consent of the Roman 
 authorities, but Josephus informs us imme- 
 diately after that the charge of the citizens 
 against Ananus was, that it was not lawful for 
 him to assemble a Sanhedrin without the 
 procurator's assent, nothing being said of 
 the stoning to death. Further, Eusebius, 
 who has preserved the narrative of Hegesippus, 
 and the early Fathers who allude to it, appear 
 to have placed in it implicit confidence ; and 
 there is nothing improbable in most, if not 
 even in all, of the particulars mentioned. 
 Eusebius speaks of him in the most commend- 
 atory terms, and quotes him on numerous 
 occasions (see H. E. ii. 23 ; iii. 11, 16, 20, 32 ; 
 iv. 8, II, 22), illustrating his own words in iv. 
 8, TrXetcrraiy KexpVl^f^"- (pijivcus. Such con- 
 fidence appears to have been deserved. Hege- 
 sippus had an inquiring mind, and had 
 travelled much ; he endeavoured to learn all 
 he could of the past and present state of the 
 churches that he visited : at Corinth the first 
 epistle of Clement excited his curiosity ; at 
 Rome the history of its early bishops. All 
 this, and his unpretending and unexaggerated 
 style, shows him as very far from being either 
 a hasty observer or a credulous chronicler. 
 
 An ' important question remains : Was 
 Hegesippus of the Judaizing Christian party ? 
 I Baur looks upon him as representing the 
 
HEGESIPPUS 
 
 narrowest section of the Jewish Christians, 
 even as a most declared enemy of St. Paul, 
 travelling like a commissioned ajs;ent in the 
 interests of the Judaizers (A'. G. i. p. 84 ; so 
 also Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit, i. p. 342, etc.)- 
 This view is founded mainly ujion an extract 
 from his works, preserved in Photius (see in 
 Routh, R. S. i. p. 219), where Hegesippus 
 comments on the words, " Eye hath not seen, 
 nor ear heard, neither have entered into the 
 heart of man the things which God hath 
 prepared for the just," " Such words are 
 spoken in vain, and those who use them lie 
 against the Holy Scriptures and the Lord 
 Who says, ' Blessed are your eyes for thev see. 
 and your ears for they hear.' " It is argued 
 that Hegesippus is here directly attacking 
 St. Paul's words in I. Cor. ii. 9 ; and the infer- 
 ence is that Hegesippus was keenly Judaic. 
 We know that the Gnostics were in the habit 
 of so using the words in question, and that they 
 described bv means of them the very essence 
 of that spiritual insight which the neophyte 
 who had just sworn the oath of allegiance to 
 them received, " And when he [i.e. he wlio is 
 about to be initiated] has sworn this oath, he 
 goes on to the Good One, and beholds ' what- 
 ever things eye hath not seen, and car hath not 
 heard, and which have not entered into the 
 heart of man " (Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, 
 i. p. 193, T. & T. Clark). It is much the 
 more probable inference, therefore, that Hege- 
 sippus refers to this Gnostic misinterpretation 
 of the words and not to St. Paul (cf. Routh, 
 R. S. i. p. 281 ; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der 
 Altk. Kirche, p. 267 ; Hilgenfeld, Die A post. 
 Voter, p. 102). Further, Hegesippus must 
 have known that Clement, whose epistle he 
 approved, quotes in c. xxxiv., for a purpose 
 precisely similar to that of the apostle, the 
 very passage in question, though with a slight 
 variation in the words. How, then, can he 
 have held the contrary opinion as to the use 
 made of it by St. Paul ? It is obviously a 
 particular application of the passage, different 
 from that of the apostle, that he has in view. 
 In the light of these considerations, 
 Hegesippus appears to have been not a 
 Judaizing but a Catholic Christian; and, if 
 so, he becomes a witness not only for the 
 catholicity in the main of the Christian church 
 of the 2nd cent., but for the extent to which 
 Catholic truth prevailed in it, for his evidence, 
 whatever its purport, has reference to the 
 condition of the church upon a large scale. 
 Either, therefore, over this wide extent the 
 church was as a whole marked by a narrow 
 Judaic spirit, or over the same wide extent it ' 
 was catholic in spirit, with heretical sects 
 struggling to corrupt its faith. If our verdict 
 be in favour of the latter view, it becoriifs 
 impossible to look at Hegesippus in the light 
 in which he has been presented by the Tiibin- 
 gen school. We must regard him as a Cath- 
 olic, not as a Judaizing Christian, and his 
 statements as to the condition of the church 
 in his day become a powerful argument 
 against, rather than in favour of, the conclu- 
 sions of that school. Cf Zahn, Forschungen 
 
 noo. Vi. 22S-27V [W.M.] 
 
 Hegesippus (2) (Egesippus), the alleged 
 author of a work of which a translation from 
 Greek into Latin, or what purported to be 
 
 HELENA 437 
 
 such, appeared c. 400, and is romnu-nly 
 referred to as tU Hello Judaun <.r a« 4$ 
 Excidia Urhis Hierofntynulanaf. It in inainlv 
 taken from the Wars o| Josrphus. The 
 translator freely adds to his author, somrtiinrt 
 from the later books of the Anttquilies of 
 Josephus, sometimes from Roman hiilorun* 
 and other sources, and also freely comport 
 speeches for the actors. 
 
 The work is that of an earnest defender of 
 the Christian faith. An approximation to 
 his date is supplied by several passage* ; as 
 when he spe.iks of Constantinople havniK Iohk 
 become the second city of the Roman empire 
 (iii. 5, p. 179), and of Antioch, once the nirir'v 
 polis of the Persians, being in his tmie the 
 defence of the Bvzantines against that prople. 
 He also speaks of the triumphs of the Romans 
 in " Scotia " and in " Saxonia." uMng lan- 
 guage strikingly similar to that f.f I laudian 
 (c. 398) (v. 1 8, p. 200; Claud. tU tv. Com. 
 Honor. 31-34). The work early acquired 
 a considerable reputation. Some have av- 
 cribed the translation to Ambrose. Thr 
 Benedictines, however, strongly reject the 
 .\mbrosian authorship, asserting that it con- 
 tains nothing whatever in Ambrose's style ; 
 while Galland earnestly contends lor it, and 
 reprints an elaborate dissertation of .Maz'K hius 
 which he regarils as conclusive (Galland. 
 Biblioth. Pair. vii. prolegom. p. xxix.). The 
 editors of the Patrolof^ta incline to reject the 
 Ambrosian authorship, though they print it 
 among his writings (xv. 1962). The mf>sl 
 correct edition (Marburg, 1858, 1864, 4to) was 
 commenced by Prof. C. F. VVeber of Marburg, 
 and completed after his death by Prof. Julius 
 Caesar, who elaborately discussed the author- 
 ship and d.it<' (pp. 3S'>-3f^9)-. <-"'• ^'- Land«raf. 
 "Die Hegesippus Frage " in .\rchii. f. l.alin 
 Li'xicof;r. (1902). xii. 465-472, whi> decides in 
 favour .>f the Ambrosian authorship, [t.w.d.) 
 
 Helena (1), said to have been the cf)mpanion 
 of SiMO.v Magus. According to Justin 
 Martyr (Apol. i. 26) and Irenaeus (i. 23. p. 
 99), who jjossibly makes use of a lost work <>( 
 Justin's, she was a prostitute whom Simon 
 had purchased from a brothel at Tyre and 
 led about, holding her up to the veneration of 
 his disciples, (iiving himself out to be the 
 Supreme Power and the Father above all. he 
 taught, says Irenaeus, that " she was the first 
 conception of his mind, the mother o( all 
 things, by whom in the beginning he conceived 
 the thought of making the angels and arch- 
 angels ; for that this Conception procrrded 
 forth from him and, knowing her (4thrr"<i 
 wishes, descended to the lower world, ami 
 produced the angels and powers, by whom 
 also he said that this world was ina<le. But 
 after she had produced them, she was detained 
 by them through envy . . . and . . . confuirtl 
 in a human body, and for ages paswd into 
 other female bodies, as if from one v«-s»rl into 
 another. He said, also, that she was that 
 Helen on account of whom the Trojan war 
 was fought ; . . . that after passing from '-nr 
 br)dy to another, and constantly meriinR with 
 insult, at last she became a public i>ri-%titutr. 
 and that she was ' the l.rst shrry. On this 
 account he had rome that he migfit first of all 
 reclaim her and free her from her chains, and 
 then give salvation to men through the know- 
 
438 
 
 HELENA 
 
 ledge of himself." The same story is told by 
 Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 19, p. 174), Tertullian 
 (de Anima, 34), Epiphanius {Haer. 21), 
 Philaster (Haer. 29), Theodoret [Haer. Fab. i. 
 i). Tertullian evidently knows no more than 
 he read in Irenaeus; but Hippolytus, who 
 had read the Me^dX^ 'Aworpdai.^, gives some 
 additional particulars, e.g. that Simon allegor- 
 ized the story of the wooden horse and of 
 Helen and her torch. The wooden horse must 
 also have been mentioned in the earlier treatise 
 against heresies, used by Epiphanius and 
 Philaster, both of whom state that Simon 
 expounded it as representing the ignorance 
 of the nations. Epiphanius, then, it mav be 
 believed, did not invent some other particu- 
 lars, in which he differs from or goes be- 
 yond Irenaeus. He states that Simon called 
 this conception (Ennoea) Prunicus and HoJv 
 Spirit ; and he gives a different account, in 
 some respects, of the reasons for her descent 
 into the lower world. According to this 
 account, she was sent in order to rob the 
 Archons, the framers of this world, of their 
 power, by enticing them to desire her beauty, 
 and setting them in hostility to one another. 
 
 The honour paid to Helena by the followers 
 of Simon was known to Celsus, who says (v. 62) 
 that certain Simonians were also called 
 Heleniani, from Helena, or else from a teacher 
 Helenus. We are told also by Irenaeus and 
 Hippolytus that the Simonians had images of 
 Simon as Jupiter and of Helen as Minerva, 
 which thev honoured, calling the former lord, 
 the latter lady. This adaptation of the myth 
 of Athene springing from the head of Zeus to 
 the alleged relation of Ennoea to the first 
 Father is of a piece with the appropriation of 
 other Grecian myths by these heretics. 
 
 The doctrine thus attributed to Simon has 
 close affinity with that of other Gnostic 
 systems, more especially that of the Ophites, 
 described at the end of bk. i. of Irenaeus, 
 except that in the Simonian system one 
 female personage fills parts which in other 
 systems are distributed among more than one. 
 But in several systems we have the association 
 with the First Cause of a female principle, his 
 thought or conception ; and we have the 
 myth of the descent of a Sophia into the lower 
 material regions, her sufferings from the hos- 
 tility of the powers who rule there, her 
 struggles with them, and her ultimate re- 
 demption. Peculiar to Simon is his doctrine 
 of the transmigration of souls and his identi- 
 fication, by means of it, of himself and his 
 female companion with the two principal 
 personages of the Gnostic mythology. Simon, 
 moreover, persuaded his followers not only to 
 condone his connexion with a degraded person, 
 but to accept the fact of her degradation fully 
 admitted as only a greater proof of his re- 
 demptive power. We find it easier to believe, 
 therefore, that the story had a foundation in 
 fact than that it was imagined without any. 
 On the other hand, it does not seem likely 
 that Simon could have been the first Gnostic, 
 it being more credible that he turned to his 
 account a mythology already current than 
 that he could' have obtained acceptance for 
 his tale of Ennoea, if invented for the first 
 time for his own justification. 
 
 Baur has suggested [Christliche Gnosis, p. 
 
 HELENA 
 
 j 308) that Justin in his account of the honours 
 j paid at Samaria to Simon and Helena may 
 have been misled by the honours there paid 
 ' to Phoenician sun and moon divinities of 
 similar names. On this and other cognate 
 questions see Simon. Suffice it here to say 
 that one strong fact in support of his theory, 
 viz. that in the Clementine Recognitions (ii. 14, 
 preserved in the Latin of Rufinus) the com- 
 panion of Simon is called Luna, may have 
 originated in an early error of transcription. 
 She is Helena in the corresponding passage 
 , of the Clementine Homilies, ii. 23 ; and we find 
 j elsewhere the false reading Selene for Helene, 
 e.g. in Augustine {de Haer. 1). [g.s.1 
 
 1 Helena (2). St., or Flavia Julia Helena 
 
 I Augusta, first wife of Constantius Chlorus, 
 and mother of Constantine the Great, born 
 c. 248, died c. 327. 
 
 Little is known for certain of her life, except 
 that she was mother of Constantine the Great 
 and when about 80 years old undertook a 
 remarkable pilgrimage to Palestine, which 
 resulted in the adornment and increased 
 veneration of the holy places. 
 
 She was doubtless of humble parentage, 
 being, according to one story, the daughter 
 of an innkeeper (Anon. Valesii 2, 2, " matre 
 vilissima," Ambrose, de Obitu Theodosii, 
 , § 42, p. 295). Constantius when he made her 
 acquaintance was a young officer in the army, 
 of good family and position, nearly related, 
 by the female line, to the emperor Claudius, 
 and appears to have at first united her to 
 himself by the looser tie then customary 
 between persons of such different conditions 
 (Hieron. Chron. anno. 2322 ; Orosius, vii. 25; 
 Chron. Pasch. a.d. 304, vol. i. p. 516, ed. 
 Bonn ; Zos. ii. 8). The relation of " concu- 
 binatus " might be a lifelong one and did not 
 necessarily imply immorality. In outward 
 appearance it differed nothing from the 
 ordinary civil marriage by mutual consent, 
 and was sometimes called " conjugium in- 
 aequale." Her son Constantine, apparently 
 her only child, was born probably in 274, at 
 Naissus in Dardania, the country where his 
 father's family had for some time been settled. 
 After his birth Constantius probably advanced 
 Helena to the position of a lawful wife. That 
 she had this position is expressly stated by 
 some of our authorities, but the very emphasis 
 of their assertion implies that there was some- 
 thing peculiar about the case (Eus. H. E. viii. 
 13, 12, TraiSa yyrjaiov . . . haTa\i.!rdiv and the 
 inscription from Salerno given below). Respect 
 for Constantine would naturally prevent 
 writers in his reign from stating the circum- 
 stances in detail. It may be, however, that 
 his law to legitimatize the children of a 
 concubine " per subsequens matrimonium " 
 was suggested by his mother's experience. 
 
 After living with Constantius some 20 years 
 Helena was divorced on the occasion of his 
 elevation to the dignity of Caesar in 292 ; the 
 Augustus Maximian, in choosing him for his 
 colleague, requiring this, as a matter of poHcy, 
 in order that Constantius might marry his 
 own step-daughter. Theodora (Eutrop. Brev. 
 ix. 22 ; Victor, de Caesaribus, 39 ; Epitome, 
 54) — a proceeding which has parallels in 
 Roman history. The looseness of the marriage 
 tie among the Romans is a quite sufficient 
 
HELENA 
 
 HELENA 
 
 •I3',t 
 
 explanation of those arts, witliout siipposiiiR from exile (ift. 44). She was .1 (rr.iiirnl uttrn 
 any otTence or misconduct on the part of the daiit at tlie rhiirrh sit\ ires and ad-rnrd ihr 
 wife, or any special heartlessness on that of hiiiidinRS with r..stlv onmnRs itb ^^) Mrr 
 
 the husband. We know nothing of her lif 
 during the remainder of her husband's reign. 
 When Constantine succeeded in 306, he prob- 
 ably recalled his mother to the court, but 
 direct proof of this is wanting. We have 
 a coin stamped Helena, n.f. i.e. twbilissima 
 femina. with a head on one side and a star in a 
 laurel crown upon the other, jierhaps struck in 
 her honour whilst Constantine was still Caesar. 
 The statement of Eusebius that Constantine 
 paid his mother great honours, and caused her 
 to be proclaimed Augusta to all the troops, and 
 struck her image on gold coins, is no doubt 
 correct, but is unfortunately unaccompanied 
 by dates (Fi/aCoxs/. iii. 47). Silver and copper 
 coins are found with the name Flavin Helena 
 Augusta, struck in her lifetime. Others with 
 the remarkable epigraph Fl. Jul. Helenae A ug. 
 were struck at Constantinople and Treves as 
 memorials after her death, and Theodora was 
 also similarly commemorated, to mark the 
 reconciliation of the two branches of the 
 family. Helena is styled Augusta in inscrip- 
 tions, but in none necessarily earlier than 320 
 (Mommsen, Itiscr. Neap. 106, given below ; 
 litscr. Urbis Romae, C. I. L. v. 1134-1136). 
 
 Eusebius also tells us that through Con- 
 stantine she became a Christian (!'. C. iii. 57), 
 and is supported (whatever the support may 
 be worth) by the probably spurious letters 
 preserved in the Acts of St. Silvester. [Con- 
 stantine.] We must therefore reject the 
 story which ascribes his conversion to his 
 mother's influence (Theod. i. 18, and the late 
 and fabulous Eutychius Alexandrinus, pp. 
 408, 456, ed. Oxon!). 
 
 The following inscription from Salerno 
 marks the power of Helena in her son's court : 
 " To our sovereign lady Flavia Augusta 
 Helena, the most chaste wife of the divine 
 Constantius, the mother of our Lord Con- 
 stantine, the greatest, most pious and vic- 
 torious .\ugustus, the grandmother of our 
 Lords Crisf>us and Constantine and Constan- 
 tius, the most blessed and fortunate Caesars, 
 this is erected by Alpiiiius Magnus, vir claris- 
 simus, corrector of Lucania and Bruttii, de- 
 voted to her excellence and piety " (Mommsen, 
 ».?. Orell. 1074, Wilmanns 1079). 
 
 In 326 Crispus was put to death on an 
 
 death cannot have ti.rii rarli.-r th.in ,^7 
 because she did not inakr licr pll^:^lnl.^^:r until 
 after the death of Crispus. TilUniont puts it 
 in 328, and it may have l>crn lalrr. i<<rr 
 further, Clinton, /•". R. ii. Ho. «i.) Hrr t. ..tv 
 was carried with great pomp to •• the irn) . nil 
 city." i.e. probably. Constantinoplr (i.„s. 
 V. C. iii. 47; Socr. i. 17. thus kIossps the 
 phrase — d% tt]v (iaaiKtvowav k/o* l'w/i»>r). 
 It was believed, however, in the West that shr 
 was buried at Rome, and there is a traditi<-n 
 that in 4S0 her body was stolen thrnrr liv a 
 inonk Theogisus and brought to Mautvillirr* 
 in the diocese of Rheims. Others sav that 
 it is still in the porphyrv vase in the rhurrh 
 of AraCoeli (Tillem. .uV»m. t. vii. n. 7). The 
 place too of her death is strangely unrcrtain. 
 Eusebius's silence would imply that she died 
 in Palestine ; but if the traditions of hrr 
 bounty to the people and church of Cvpru* 
 on her way home are of any value, it must 
 have been somewhere nearer Rome or Con- 
 stantinople. These traditions may be seen in 
 M. dc Mas Letrie's Hist, de Vile de Chvptg 
 sous les Lusignan (Paris. 1852- 1861) ; Church 
 Qtly. Rev. vol. vii. pp. 186 f. [j-w.] 
 
 invention of the Cross. — It is in connexion 
 with this famous story that the name of 
 Helena is especially interesting to the student 
 of church history. Its truth has been much 
 discussed, and we will briefly summarize the 
 evidence of the ancient authorities. 
 
 (i) In the very interesting itinerary of the 
 anonymous Pilgrim from Bordeaux to Jeru- 
 salem, generally referred to a.d. 333, seven 
 years after the date assigned to the finding of 
 the cross (Migne. Patr. Lat. xiii. 771). we have 
 a description of the city, and many tradition.d 
 sites of events both in O. and N. T. are men- 
 tioned. Among these are the house of 
 Caiaphas with the pillar at which our Lord 
 was scourged, the praetorium of Pontius 
 Pilate, the little hill (morUiculus) of Golgotha, 
 and, a stone's thro\v from it, the cave of the 
 resurrection. On the latter spot a beautiful 
 basilica erected by Constantine is noticed, as 
 also on Mount Olivet and at Bethlehem. Vet 
 there is no allusion to the cross, nor is the 
 name of Helena mentioned. 
 
 (2) The Life of Constantine by Eusebius was 
 
 obscure charge bv his father's orders. Tra- written probably in 3.^R. five years after the 
 dition attributes this dark act to Fausta ; and visit of the Bordeaux Pilgrim. He records the 
 Helena's bitter complaints about her grand- 
 
 son's death are said to have irritated Constan 
 tine to execute his wife by way of retribution 
 (Vict. Epit. 41, Fausta conjuge ut putant sug 
 
 visit of Helena to Jerusalem, but does ni>t 
 connect her name with the place of Crurifixi..n 
 nor with the Holy Sepulchre. He tells us 
 that Constantine built a house of pravrr on 
 gerente Crispum filium necari jussit. Dehine i the site of the Resurrection .ind b.-aiitifird the 
 uxorem suam Faustam in balneas ardentes I caves connected with our Lord s Hirtti and 
 conjectam interemit, cum eum mater Helena Ascension, and that he did s.. m memor> ..i 
 dolore nimie nepotis increparet). his mother, who had built two ehurrhrs. one 
 
 Eusebius speaks strongly of her youthful at Bethlehem the other -n the Mount of 
 spirit when she, in fulfilment of a vow, made Ascension. Thus of the three •;'""'»»'"••/';*• 
 her pilgrimage to the Holv Land, notwith- Eusebius connects He ena n-.t with that oi the 
 standing her great age, nearlv 80 years (V. C. \ Resurrection, but on y with the^ ..tier t* o. 
 iii. 42, cf. 46). She received almost ""- He indeed sa>;s that these were not the only 
 limited supplies of money from her son and churches she built but ",» ^Ifj"- 'Zih; 
 spent it in roval charities to the poor and able that he should have left the '"^ "n t r 
 bounties to the soldiery ; as well as using her site of the »<"»"«-^'':'" Z'"*''?;/';,*:. ll. 
 power to free prisoners and criminals con- original motive of h« iourne> ''f »»>•• *" 
 deraned to the mines and to recall persons ' to return thanks to God for His peculiar 
 
440 
 
 HELENA 
 
 mercies to her familv and to inquire as to the 
 welfare of the people of the country. His 
 account of the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre 
 by Constantine is not free from difficulty. It 
 is' not easy to say whether he represents its 
 discovery as being before or after the death of 
 Helena. His language is general, but the pre- 
 sumption is that, if it had been before, her name 
 would have been connected with the event. 
 He does not implv that any difficulty was ex- 
 perienced in finding the site of the tomb, but 
 there is nothing as to the cross. All his words 
 bear upon the Resurrection, not the Passion, 
 of our" Lord. But in Constantine's letter to 
 Macarius, bp. of Jerusalem, which he inserts, 
 there are one or two expressions of which the 
 same cannot be said. Allowing for the excesses 
 of hyperbolical language, it is still hard to 
 understand the words, " When the cave was 
 opened, the sight which met the eyes ex- 
 celled all possible eulogy, as much as heavenly 
 things excel earthly," unless some kind of 
 memorial other than the tomb itself was 
 discovered ; and immediately afterwards we 
 have two expressions referring definitely to 
 our Lord's Passion. The first is, to yap 
 yvibpLfffia. Tov aynoTaTov eKfivov irdOovs vvb tt, 
 777 TrdXat KpvTrro/xevov ; and the second, o.<p ov 
 (since) tov (noTr)piov irdOov^ iriTTtv eis (puis 
 irpo-qyayev (sc. the tomb). At the same time 
 it is difficult to believe that, had the cross or 
 any part of it been discovered, it should not 
 have been more exactly described, and the 
 most probable explanation is that Trd^os is 
 used to describe the whole scene of Redemp- 
 tion, of which the Resurrection was a part 
 (Eus. Vit. Const, iii. 26-42, Patr.Gk. xx. 1086). 
 That the place was very early venerated is 
 proved by Eusebius's statement (Comm. on 
 Ps. Ixxxvii. 18) that marvels {OavfiaTa) were 
 even then wrought at the tomb of Christ. 
 
 (3) Cyril of Jerusalem, whose catechetical 
 lectures were delivered, he says, upon the very 
 spot where our Lord was crucified, and, as we 
 know from other sources, not more than 20 
 years after the alleged discovery (viz. in 346), 
 has three allusions to the wood of the cross 
 (iv. 10, X. 19, xiii. 4). The most definite is in 
 X. 19, where he describes it as " until to-day 
 visible amongst us " ("fXP' crjuepov irap' tjimv 
 (paivofxei'oi'), " and now filling nearly the 
 whole world by means of those who in faith 
 take from it." In his letter to Constantius, 
 which, however, is of doubtful authenticity 
 [Cyril], it is distinctly stated that the cross 
 was discovered in the reign of Constantine 
 (c. 3). The first quotations prove that it was 
 believed in his day that the real wood of our 
 Lord's cross had been discovered, but do not 
 give the grounds of the belief. Nor, though 
 he speaks of the cross, does he connect it with 
 St. Helena. Thus none of our three earliest 
 authorities speak of her as the discoverer. 
 
 (4) St. Chrysostom, wTiting probably before 
 387, speaks of the wood of the true cross IPatr. 
 Gk. xlviii. 826). 
 
 (5) Sulpicius Severus (c. 395) tells us that 
 Helena built three basilicas (not two, as in 
 Eusebius), one on each of the sites of the 
 Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. The 
 site of the Passion, he says, was discovered by 
 Helena, but he does not add that it was bv I 
 
 HELENA 
 
 supernatural help. Three crosses were dis- 
 covered, and the right one ascertained by the 
 miraculous restoration to life of a dead body 
 {Hist. Sacr. i. 33, Pair. Gk. xx. 148). 
 
 (6) St. Ambrose, writing in 395, says that 
 Helena was inspired by the Spirit with the 
 desire to search for the cross, that she dis- 
 tinguished the true cross by its title (thus 
 differing from Sulpicius and all later writers), 
 that two of the nails were used by the emperor, 
 one being fixed in his crown and the other 
 employed as a bit for his bridle {de Obitu 
 Theodosii, c. 41 ff., Patr. Gk. xvi. 1399).' 
 
 (7) Rufinus (writing in 400, according to the 
 Life in Migne's ed.) tells us further that not 
 only was the journey inspired by God, but 
 that the place of the Passion was miraculously 
 revealed ; that the three crosses were found 
 " confuso ordine," and the title separately ; 
 that the true cross was discovered by the 
 miraculous healing of a sick lady (not the 
 revival of a corpse, as above) ; that part of the 
 wood was sent to Constantine, and part left at 
 Jerusalem in a silver casket (cf. fj-ixpl arifiEpov 
 ipaivoixevov in Cvril's description above). 
 [H. E. i. 7. 8, Pair. Gk. xxi. 475.) 
 
 (8) Paulinus of Nola, writing (c. 403) to 
 Sulpicius Severus, and sending him a piece, as 
 he says, of the true cross brought from Jeru- 
 salem by Benedicta Melanius, adds an account 
 of its original discovery, because, as he says, it 
 is so difficult to credit. He says that Helena 
 went to rescue the holy places, adorned the site 
 of our Lord's Birth in addition to the other 
 three sites, and discovered the place of the 
 Passion by the concurrent testimony of many 
 Jews and Christians in the city. He adds 
 that, though pieces were frequently taken from 
 the cross, its original bulk was miraculously 
 preserved {Ep. xxxi. 4, Patr. Gk. Ixi. 325). 
 
 (9) St. Jerome, in his Comm. on Zech. xiv. 
 20 (Patr. Lat. xxv. 1540), probably written 
 A.D. 406, mentions the nail from the cross 
 which was used for the emperor's bridle, 
 as related in many other writers, and in Ep. 
 Iviii. (ib. xxii. 581) speaks of the images of 
 Jove and Venus which stood until the time of 
 Constantine on the sites of the Resurrection 
 and of the Passion respectively. 
 
 (10) St. Cyril of Alexandria [c. 420) men- 
 tions as a report {(paal) that the wood of the 
 cross had been found at different times (Arard 
 Kaipovs) with the nails still fixed in it {Comm. 
 on Zech. xiv. 20, Patr. Gk. Ixxii. 271). 
 
 (11) Socrates (c. 430) informs us that Helena 
 was told in a night vision to go to Jerusalem ; 
 that she found the site of the Passion with 
 difficulty, though he alludes to no supernatural 
 aid ; that Macarius suggested the means of 
 distinguishing the true cross, viz. by applying 
 it to a woman on the point of death ; that the 
 empress erected " new Jerusalem " on the site 
 (a phrase evidently taken from Eusebius) ; and 
 that the emperor put one of the nails on his 
 statue at Constantinople, as many inhabitants 
 testified {H. E. i. 17, Patr. Gk. Ixvii. 118). 
 
 (12) Sozomen (c. 430) claims good authority 
 for his account, and states that Constantine, 
 in gratitude for the council of Nicaea, wished 
 to build a church on Golgotha ; that Helena 
 about the same time went to Palestine to pray 
 and to look for the sacred sites. He does not, 
 however, mention any di\ine impulse. The 
 
HELIODORUS 
 
 difficulty of discovery was caused, he savs, bv 
 the Greeks having defiled them to stop the 
 growing Opr^ffKila ; the site of the Sepulchre 
 was made known, as some say, by a Hebrew 
 living in the East, from documentary evidence, 
 but more probably by signs and dreams from 
 God. He says that the crosses were found 
 near the same spot (eTfpu-(fi Trepi t6v avrdv 
 rdroy) as they had been left by the soldiers in 
 confused order, the inscription still remaining 
 on the tablet. He mentions two miracles : 
 the healing of a woman with an inciu-ablo 
 disease and the raising of a corpse, combining 
 the other accounts; and adds that the greater 
 part of the cross was still preserved at Jeru- 
 salem (//. E. ii. I, 2, Patr. Gk. Ixvii. 929). 
 
 (13) Theodoret (c. 448) inserts the letter of 
 Constantine to Macarius, and follows the order 
 of Eusebius. representing, however, Helena's 
 journey, more definitely than Eusebius does, as 
 consequent upon the finding of the Sepulchre 
 by Constantine. But his account semis incon- 
 sistent. The crosses, he says, were found near 
 the Lord's tomb — napa to ixvrm.a rb Afffiro-riKOV 
 (H. E. i. 16, 17, Patr. Gk. Ixxxii. 955). 
 
 (14) St. Leo (454), in writing to Juvenal, bp. 
 of Jerusalem, speaks of the constant witness 
 borne at Jerusalem to the reality of Christ's 
 Passion by the existence of the cross (£^. 
 cxxxix. 2, Patr. liv. iio6). 
 
 (15) St. Gregory of Tours (d. 595) adds that 
 discovery was made on May 3, 326; that, 
 during a great storm which occurred soon after, 
 Helena put one of the nails into the sea, which 
 was at once calmed ; that two more were used 
 for the emperor's bridle, and the fourth placed 
 on the head of his statue ; that the lance, 
 crown of thorns, and pillar of scourging were 
 preserved and worked miracles {Lib. Mirac. i. 
 5, Patr. Lai. Ixxi. 709}, and the cross found by 
 the aid of a Jew, afterwards baptized as Quiri- 
 acus (Hist. Franc, i. 34, Pair. Lat. Ixxi. 179). 
 
 Thus no detailed story is found until nearly 
 70 years after the event, and then in the West 
 only. The vagueness of St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria is particularly observable. Small differ- 
 ences of detail occur ; the last author cited 
 adds several particulars not included in the 
 other accounts, and there are features in the 
 story which look like invention or exaggera- 
 tion. On the whole, considering that our 
 earliest aiithorities do not represent Helena 
 as the discoverer and that the story gradually 
 develops, it seems probable that she had no 
 part in the discovery of the cross, even if it 
 took place, which itself seems exceedingly 
 doubtful. That the site of the Holy Sepulchre 
 was discovered, or supposed to be discovered, 
 in the reign of Constantine, there seems every 
 reason to believe ; and it is easy to understand 
 how marvels would grow up around it. [m.f.a.] 
 
 Heliodorus (7), bp. of .A.ltinum near Aquileia, 
 c. 400, had served originally as a soldier, but 
 had been ordained before we first hear of him. 
 He belonged to a band of friends drawn to- 
 gether at Aquileia, c. 372, for the study of 
 Scripture and the practice of asceticism, which 
 included St. Jerume, Evagrius afterwards bp. 
 of Antioch, Rufinus. B(>nf)sus, and Chromatins \ 
 afterwards bp. of .Aquileia. The passion fnr 1 
 asceticism and the troubles which arf>se about , 
 Jerome made the companions resolve, under 
 the guidance of Evagrius. to go to SyTia and I 
 
 HELLADIUS 
 
 441 
 
 Antioch. Heh.xl.Ttis went on to Jrrunalrm, 
 where he enjoyed the h.^spiinlitv of l-|.Trntiu*. 
 who, having devoted himsrU to the avrtic 
 life, employed his wealth in the rntrriainnirnt 
 of pilgrims (Hieron. Ep. iv. cd. Vail.). Kr- 
 turning to Antioch. he found Jrromr rruolvrd 
 to go into the solitude of the drsrrt of Chalri*. 
 Heliodorus felt that he himself had a rail to 
 the pastor.il life, having a sister and a nephew 
 deiMMKieiit on him (Hieron. Ep. \x. 0. rd. V.1II). 
 He therefore returned to his native Aquilru, 
 holding out to his friend some hopes that 
 he might rejoin him one dav in the dr^rrt 
 (i6.)- Jerome wrote to him on his return to 
 Italy a letter, reproaching him for turninic 
 back from the m.^re perfect servirr. which 
 afterwards had a great effect in furthrrinR 
 asceticism and herame so celebrated that a 
 Roman ladv. Fabiola. knew it bv heart 
 (Hieron. £•;>. Ixxvii. q, rd. Vail. ; Ep. xiv. 11). 
 But their friendship was never broken. \\r. 
 liodorus continufd in the pastoral ofTirr, and 
 not long afterwards became bp. of Altiniim. 
 He was present in 3S1 as a bishop at therounril 
 of Aquileia. In after-vears he was rl-^rlv 
 allied with Chromatins, bp. of Aquileia, and 
 they both kept up communirations with 
 Jerome, then residing at Bethlehem. They 
 took a warm inttrest in Jerome's translation 
 of the Scriptures, and frequently wrote to 
 him, exhorting him to complete the long- 
 delayed work. Thev supported amanuenses 
 to assist him ; and by the grateful mention of 
 their aid in the prefaces to the books last 
 translated, their names are for ever associated 
 with the great work of the Vulgate (" F*re- 
 face to the Books of Solomon and to Tobit," 
 Jerome's UVir*5, vol. ix. 1305, x. 26: Migne's 
 ed. of Vallarsi's Jerome). Cappelletti [Li 
 Chiese d' Italia, v. 516, 610) reckons his suc- 
 cessor in the see of Altinum to have been 
 .\mbrnsius. a.d. 407. [w.h.p.] 
 
 Helladilis (4). bp. of Tarsus c. 430. a disciple 
 of St. Thcodosiiis of Antioch, after whose 
 death {c. 412) he presided over the monastery 
 he had founded near Rhostis in Cilicia. HavinK 
 spent 60 years in monastic life, he succeeded 
 Marianus, bp. of the metropolitan see of 
 Tarsus (Theod. I'lV. Pair. c. 10). His episro. 
 pate illustrates the stormy period cf the 
 council of Ephesus. He was one of those who 
 protested against commencing the council 
 before the arrival of John of Antioch and the 
 Oriental bishops (Bahiz. A'or. Con(tl. Coll. 
 p. 697), and he joined the opposition council 
 {concili<ibulum) presided over by John upon 
 his arrival. He supported the counter-remon- 
 strances addressed to the emperors by Ne*- 
 torius (ifc. 703), and his name is appended to 
 the svnodal letter to the clergy and laitv of 
 Hierapolis (tb. 705) and to that to jf.hn of 
 Antioch and Theodoret and the other mem- 
 bers of the Oriental deputation to Thr.^|.-im« 
 {ib. 725). Helladius ste.ndily igip rrd tlir <lr- 
 position of Nestorius and \si;> t 1 ! .1! r. - r 
 nition of Maximian as hi-^ 
 Antioch wrote, commrmli 
 c. 4S). When the rival !■ 
 
 Helladius kept aloof. an<l ■ 11 tn- f ■ 1, 1 • 
 
 six articles drawn up by John at a munril 
 at Antioch, which ullimatelv opened the way 
 for reconcilation, he and Alexander of 
 Hierapolis rejected the terms and all ci>m- 
 
442 
 
 HELLADIUS 
 
 munion with Cyril. He wrote to Alexander 
 that, wearied by the struggle and sick at 
 heart at the defection of his fellow-combat- 
 ants, he longed to retire to a monastery, 
 and was only restrained by his care for 
 his flock (ib. 770, c. 68). The year 433 saw 
 the concordat between Cyril and John con- 
 firmed, to the indignation of the irreconcilable 
 party. A synod held by Helladius at Tarsus 
 indignantly repudiated the "execrable agree- 
 ment," and declared that the condemnation 
 could not be removed from " the Egyptian " 
 until he had " anathematized his own anathe- 
 matisms." The firmness of Helladius rejoiced 
 Alexander, who wrote that he intended to 
 hold a synod himself, begging Helladius, whom 
 he regarded as his leader, to attend it and sign 
 its decrees {ib. 713, c. no ; 814, c. iir ; 815, 
 c. 114). Helladius with Eutherius of Tyana 
 next drew up a long letter to pope Sixtus, 
 giving their account of the council of Ephesus 
 and begging him as a new Moses to save the 
 true Israel from the persecution of the Egyp- 
 tians. This was sent round to obtain the 
 signatures of other bishops {ib. 817 sqq. c. 117). 
 At this period we have a letter from Theodoret, 
 complaining that Helladius refused to answer 
 him and seemed to regard him as a deserter. 
 Theodoret had accepted Cyril's letter because 
 he found it orthodox, but he would never 
 desert Nestorius {ib. 813, c. no). The resolu- 
 tion of Helladius now began to break down. 
 The concordat was accepted by an increasing 
 number of Oriental prelates and he was left 
 more and more alone. John wrote to com- 
 plain of his obstinacy {ib. 842, c 140). Theo- 
 dosius threatened to put the civil power in 
 motion against him and the other recusants. 
 He, Alexander, Theodoret, and Maximian 
 were ordered to accept the concordat or resign 
 their sees. All eventually yielded except 
 Alexander. The quaestor Domitian and 
 Theodoret both urged Helladius to submit 
 {ib. 829, c. 125 ; 859, c. 160), and this was 
 made easier by the death of Maximian, Apr. 
 12, 434, and the succession of the saintly 
 Proclus (Socr. H. E. vii. 41). The orthodoxy 
 of the new bishop was readily acknowledged 
 by Helladius (Baluz. 850, c. 148), who, having 
 determined on yielding, wrote to Alexander 
 to explain his conduct {ib. 862, c. 164). 
 Alexander bitterly reproached him with his 
 weakness {ib. 863, c. 164), but the latter 
 convoked the bishops of his province, whose 
 synodical letters to Theodosius declared their 
 complete acceptance of all required of them : 
 admission of the decrees of the council of 
 Ephesus, communion with Cyril, the rati- 
 fication of Nestorius's sentence of deposition, 
 and the anathematization of him and his ad- 
 herents {ib. 887, c. 192). Helladius thus saved 
 himself from deposition and exile at the ex- 
 pense of consistency. He had now to justify 
 his conduct to Nestorius, whom he had re- 
 peatedly promised never to forsake. The 
 task was no easy one ; nor can we say that 
 he fulfilled it with any honour to himself. He 
 wrote Nestorius that though through men's 
 evil deeds everything had turned out directly 
 contrary to his prayers, his feeling towards 
 him remained unchanged, and that, as he 
 knew he was still struggling for true piety, he 
 believed that he would joyfully endure all 
 
 HELVIOIUS 
 
 laid upon him, and that he hoped he might 
 be reckoned with him at the last judgment, 
 when his soul, tried by so many and great 
 temptations, would shine forth. He excuses 
 himself for joining Theodoret and those who 
 had accepted the concordat, as the letters 
 produced from Cyril were in perfect harmony 
 with apostohcal traditions (ib. 888, c. 193). 
 Then Helladius passes from the history. The 
 letters are printed by Chr. Lupus (Ep. Ephe- 
 sinae, Nos. 68, in, 114, 144, 154, 193) and by 
 Baluze, Concil. Nov. Collect, in the Tragoedia 
 Irenaei, cc 68, in, 114, 117, 130, 164, 192, 193. 
 Tillem. Mem. t. xiv. ; Le Quien, Or. Christ. 
 t. ii. p. 874 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 418. [e.v.] 
 HelvidiUS, a Western writer who, like 
 Novatian and Pelagius, Jovinian and Vigi- 
 lantius, put forward opinions on anthropo- 
 logical subjects opposed to the generally 
 received teaching of the church in their day. 
 The only extant contemporary notice of 
 him is the short tract against' him by St. 
 Jerome {0pp. ii. p. 203-230, ed. Vail.), written 
 when they were both at Rome, while pope 
 Damasus ivas alive. It appeared, according 
 to Vallarsius, a.d. 383. St. Jerome says he 
 had put off answering him for some time : 
 " Ne respondendo dignus fieret, qui vincere- 
 tur " ; and he describes him throughout as 
 " hominem rusticanum, et vix primis quoque 
 imbutum Uteris " (§ i) ; besides being wholly 
 unknown to him : " Ego ipse, qui contra te 
 scribo, quum in eadem urbe consistam, albus, 
 ut aiunt, aterve sis, nescio." St. Jerome 
 speaks of his own work in writing to Pam- 
 machius as " librum contra Helvidium de 
 beatae Mariae virginitate perpetud " {Ep. xlviii. 
 § 17), this being what his opponent had denied 
 in the first instance, though the outcome of 
 his opinions had been to rank virginity below 
 matrimony. Helvidius sought countenance 
 for his first point in the writings of TertuUian 
 and Victorinus. St. Jerome shews (§ 17) he 
 had misrepresented the latter ; of Tertulhan, 
 whose writings may still speak for themselves, 
 he merely says, " Ecclesiae hominem non 
 fuisse." But, in any case, he retorts with 
 much force : What avail straggUng opinions 
 against primitive truth ? " Numquid non 
 possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem 
 commovere : Ignatium, Polycarpum, Ire- 
 naeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios 
 apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus 
 Ebionem, et Theodotum Byzantium, Valen- 
 tinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae 
 volumina conscripserunt. Quae si legisses 
 aliquando, plus saperes." This argument is 
 just as suitable to our own as it was to 
 patristic times, never losing anything by 
 repetition. What had Helvidius to oppose 
 to it in this case ? Nothing, unless his ad- 
 versary misrepresents him, but novel inter- 
 pretations of Scripture by himself. St. 
 Jerome therefore refutes him only so far as 
 to point out that there is no necessity for 
 understanding any of the passages adduced 
 by him otherwise than the church had under- 
 stood them hitherto ; but that, in any case, the 
 interpretations of them offered by Helvidius 
 were delusive. For the application of the 
 views of Helvidius to the question of the 
 perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother see 
 Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 247-282, andMurray's 
 
HENOTICON, THE 
 
 Illus. B. D. (190S), art. James. As Jerome 
 nowhrre charges Helvidiiis with having been 
 " a disciple of Auxentius," the Arian bp. 
 of Milan, or " an imitator of Symniachus," 
 the champion of idolatry, we may well ask 
 with Vallarsius where (".ennadius. who wrote 
 more than a century later, got authority fur 
 both statements (de Script. Eccl. c. 33) which 
 Cave repeats in part {Hist. Lit. i. 278). Neither 
 St. Ambrose nor St. Augustine mentions him 
 when, in writing on I'irgimty, they join 
 St. Jerome in condemning his views. His 
 followers constitute the 84th of the heresies 
 enumerated by the latter. [e.s.ff.] 
 
 Henoticon, The, or Iiuitniwefit of Union, 
 a document owing its existence to Acacius, 
 the patriarch of Constantinople, and probably 
 the production of his pen, put forth by 
 the emperor Zeno, a.d. 482, on his restora- 
 tion to the throne, after the discomfiture of 
 the usurper Basiliscus, with the view of 
 putting an end to the dissensions caused by 
 what Gibbon calls " the obstinate and san- 
 guinary zeal of the Monophysites." Like 
 every endeavour, however well meant, to 
 cover radical differences bv a vague compre- 
 hensiveness, it n(5t only failed to secure union 
 but aggravated the divisions it was intended to 
 cure, and created a schism which divided the 
 East and West for nearly 40 years, lasting 
 down to the reign of Justinian and the pope- 
 dom of Hormisdas. 
 
 The immediate cause of its issue was the 
 dissension between the rival occupants of the 
 patriarchal see of .\lexandria. On the death 
 of Timotheus Salofaciolus in 482, John 
 Talaia, the oeconomus of the Alexandrian 
 church, was elected by the orthodox party. 
 He at once, according to custom, dispatched 
 synodical letters to the chief bishops of 
 Christendom, to notify his election. Those 
 addressed to Simplicius of Rome and Calan- 
 dion of .A-ntioch were duly received ; but the 
 letters for Acacius and Zeno were delayed, and 
 Acacius heard of John's appointment from 
 another quarter. Thinking the seeming neg- 
 lect a studied insult, Acacius and Gennadius, 
 bp. of Hermopolis Minor, a relation of Timo- 
 theus Salofaciolus, and " apocrisiarius " or 
 legate of the see of Alexandria, who conceived 
 that he too had been slighted by the new 
 patriarch, determined to compass his over- 
 throw. They represented to Zeno that Talaia 
 was unworthy of the patriarchate, both as 
 having replaced the name of Dioscorus on the 
 diptychs, and as having perjured himself by 
 accepting the see of .'\lexandria, after having, 
 as was asserted, taken an oath that he would 
 not seek for it. Zeno readily gave credence 
 to these charges, and when it was further 
 represented that, if he recognized Peter Mon- 
 gus, the deposed patriarch, peace would be 
 restored, he wrote to Simplicius, stating his 
 grounds for hesitating to sanction the appoint- 
 ment of John, and urging the restoration of 
 Peter .Mongus to put an end to the distractions 
 of the church. Simplicius replied, June 482, 
 that he would delay recognizing John as 
 patriarch until the grave charges brought by 
 Zeno could be investigated ; but he utterly 
 refused to allow the elevation f>f a convicted 
 heretic such as Peter Mongus to the patriarchal 
 see. His return to the true faith might restore 
 
 HENOTICON. THE HI 
 
 him to commimion, but r,<\\U\ n.-t rrn.lrr him 
 worthvtobeachiefrulrrof the church (I ihrrat. 
 Diac. Breviar. re. 16, 17 ; Kvagr. //. f. 111. n). 
 This opposition roused the indiRnation o| 
 Zeno, who issued imperative rommaiuik to 
 Pergamius, the new prefect «t Kgvpt, then 
 about to sail for Alexandri.i, and to Apr.|l<,niu» 
 the gnverimr. to expel John Talaia and seat 
 Peter Mongus in his I'lace. Acacius persuadrd 
 Zeno to present hims<lf to the Wf>rld in the 
 j novel character of an expounder of the faith 
 of the Catholic church. The " Hrnotircn " 
 was drawn up, and as it did not dirrrtly 
 i mention the coiuk il of Chaleedon and a 
 ^ hypothetical allusion in it was capable of bring 
 I construed in a deprecialorv sense, it could be 
 accepted by those who, like Mongus, had 
 hitherto rejected that council's decrees. The 
 friends of .Mongus undertook that he would 
 adopt it. and on thi> he was recognized by 
 Zeno and .Acacius as the canonical patriarch 
 and his name inserted in the diptychs. 
 
 The "Henoticon" was directed to the 
 bishops and people in Alexandria, Egvpt. 
 Libya, and Pentapolis ; but, as Tillemont has 
 remarked (Mim. eccl. xvi. 327), it was really 
 addressed only to those who had separated 
 themselves from the church, i.e. to the Mono- 
 , physites or semi-Eutychians. The original 
 j document is given by Evagrius (H. E. iii. 14) 
 and in a not very clear Latin translati«>n by 
 Liberatus {Breviar. c. 18 ; Labbe, Conctl. 
 j V. 767). It commences by stating that 
 1 " certain abbats, hermits, and other reverend 
 ; persons had presented to the emperor a 
 ; petition, supplicating him to restore the unity 
 j of the ciiurches, and enlarging on the lament- 
 ' able results of the late divisions." On this 
 I account, and knowing also that the strength 
 and shield of the empire rested in the one true 
 I faith declared by the holy Fathers gathered at 
 [ Nicaea, confirmed by those who met at Con- 
 stantinople and followed by those who had 
 condemned Nestorius at the council of 
 Ephesus, the emperor declares that " the 
 creed so made and confirmed is the one only 
 I symbol of faith, and that he has held, holds, 
 and will hold no other, and will regard all who 
 hold another as aliens, and that in this alone 
 those who desire saving baptism must be 
 i baptized." All who hold other views he 
 J anathematizes, and recognizes the twelve 
 chapters of C>Til as a symbolical book. The 
 ! document then proceeds to declare the ortho- 
 I dox faith, viz. " that our Lord Jesus Christ is 
 I the only-begotten Son of <.f.d, and HimsrU 
 I (iod, incarnate, consubstantial with the Father 
 according to His (;()dhead, and consubstantial 
 with us according to His manh<MKl, that Ha 
 came down from heaven, and was incarnate 
 bv the Holv (Ihost of the Virgin .Mary, Mother 
 of God, and that He is One Son, not two." 
 That " it was this one and the same Son of 
 (;od Who wrought miracles, and endured the 
 sufferings which He underwent voluntarily in 
 His flesh." Those " who divide <»r confound 
 the natures, or admit only a phantastical 
 incarnation," are to be rejected, "since the 
 incarnation without sin of the .Mother of God 
 did not cause the addition of a Son, f<ir the 
 Trinity remained even when one Person of the 
 Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate." 
 I It asserts that this is no new form of faith. 
 
444 
 
 HENOTICON, THE 
 
 and anathematizes all who have ever thought, 
 or do think, " anything to the contrary, either 
 now or at any other time, either at Chalcedon 
 or in any other synod," especially Nestorius 
 and Eutyches and their followers. It closes 
 with an earnest appeal to all to return to the 
 church which, " as a loving mother, opens her 
 longing arms to receive them." 
 
 Such was the document which was to 
 " combine all the churches in one harmonious 
 confederacy." It was " a work of some skill, 
 of some adroitness, in attempting to reconcile, 
 in eluding, evading difficulties ; it is subtle to 
 escape subtleties " (Milman, Hist, of I.at. 
 Christ, bk. iii. c. i. vol. i. p. 248). The crucial 
 test of the unity or duality of the natures of 
 the Incarnate Word is left an open question, 
 on which a difference of opinion might be 
 lawfully permitted. Gibbon's verdict is by 
 no means an unfair one, that " it accurately 
 represents the Catholic faith of the incarnation 
 without adopting or disclaiming the peculiar 
 terms of the hostile sects" (vol. vi. p. 44, c. 
 xlvii.). But its fatal error was its feebleness, 
 and that it endeavoured to substitute for real 
 unity of doctrine a fictitious cohesion of dis- 
 cordant elements. The Monophysites who 
 subscribed were to be admitted into com- 
 munion without being required to give up 
 their distinctive doctrines ; while their 
 opponents were left free to maintain the 
 authority of the decrees of Chalcedon and the 
 tome of Leo. The resulting peace was natur- 
 ally more apparent than real and satisfied no 
 one. The Catholic party, zealous in their 
 advocacy of the council of Chalcedon, had no 
 liking for a document which disparaged its 
 authority and suggested the possible erro- 
 neousness of its decisions. The 5lonophysites, 
 on the other hand, clamoured for a' more 
 definite condemnation of a council which they 
 regarded as heretical. The high Chalcedonian 
 party, chiefly consisting of the monastic 
 orders, condemned the " Henoticon " as 
 tainted with Eutychianism, and, on the other 
 hand, the Eutychians or Monophysites, 
 indignant with Mongus for turning traitor to 
 their cause, separated themselves, and, form- 
 ing a distinct body without any chief leader 
 and not holding communion with the patri- 
 arch, were designated " the headless sect," 
 " Acephali." A third body of dissidents was 
 formed by the high ecclesiastical party, who 
 were offended at the presumption of the 
 emperor in assuming a right to issue decrees 
 on spiritual matters, " aright," writes Milman, 
 (n.s. p. 235), " complacently admitted when 
 ratifying or compulsorily enforcing ecclesias- 
 tical decrees, and usually adopted without 
 scruple on other occasions by the party with 
 which the court happened to side." A fourth 
 party was that of the centre or moderates, who 
 were weary of strife, or too loyal or too 
 cowardly to resist the imperial power. This 
 party of the centre was in communion with 
 Peter Mongus, who had at once signed the 
 " Henoticon," and had had it read in church 
 at a public festival and openly commended 
 it to the adoption of the faithful. Violence 
 and falsehood characterized the conduct of 
 Mongus. As soon as he felt himself safe in his 
 seat, his overbearing temper knew no bounds. 
 He removed from the diptychs the names of 
 
 HENOTICON, THE 
 
 Proterius and Timotheus Salofaciolus, dis- 
 I interring the remains of the latter and casting 
 ; them out of the church ; inserted the names 
 I of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus ; and 
 anathematized the council of Chalcedon and 
 1 the tome of Leo. When called to account by 
 Acacius, he coolly denied the anathemas, and 
 professed his acceptance of the faith as declared 
 at Chalcedon. He wrote to the same effect to 
 Simplicius, expressing a desire to be received 
 into communion by him (Evagr. H. E. iii. 17 ; 
 ' Liberat. Breviar. c. 18). Such double-dealing 
 
 ■ estranged many of his own party, and the dis- 
 cussions of which the unhappy " instrument 
 of union " was the parent were still further 
 aggravated by the cruel persecution of the 
 
 I orthodox throughout the whole of Egypt by 
 I the new patriarch. In bold defiance of the 
 ! prohibitions of the emperor, all, whether 
 I clerics, monks, or laymen, who refused to 
 [ accept the " Henoticon " were subjected to 
 expulsion and serious maltreatment (Evagr. 
 H. E. iii. 22). At this crisis Simplicius died, 
 A.D. 483. The first act of his successor, Felix 
 II., was an indignant rejection of the " Heno- 
 ; ticon," as an insult to the council of Chalcedon, 
 j as an audacious act of the emperor Zeno, who 
 dared to dictate articles of faith, and as a seed- 
 plot of impiety (Theod. Lect. ap. Milman, u.s. 
 p. 236). He also anathematized all bishops 
 who had subscribed this edict. This anathema 
 included nearly all the bishops of the East. A 
 strong admonitory letter was addressed by 
 Felix to Acacius, and another in milder terms 
 to Zeno, the authors of the " Henoticon." All 
 remonstrance proving vain, Felix fulminated 
 an anathema against Acacius, deposing and 
 excommunicating him, July 28, a.d. 484 
 (Liberat. c. 18 ; Lablje, Concil. iv. 1072). 
 This anathema severed the whole of the 
 ; Eastern church from the West for nearly 40 
 
 ■ years. [Acacius.] Neither emperor nor 
 : patriarch took much heed of the condemnation 
 
 of the Roman see, and continued to press the 
 j " Henoticon " everywhere, ejecting bishops 
 who withheld their signatures and refused to 
 communicate with Peter Mongus (Theoph. 
 ■p. 114 ; Liberat. c. 18 ; Vict. Tunun. Chron. ; 
 j Tillem. Mem. eccl. xvi. p. 168; Aece, Art. 
 |xcv.). Calandion, patriarch of Antioch, was 
 j deposed, and Peter the Fuller reinstated. 
 JThus the three chief sees of the East were in 
 constrained communion and nearly all the 
 suffragan bishops had been silenced or de- 
 posed. Zeno and Acacius had "made a 
 solitude and called it peace." It would be 
 tedious to narrate in detail the subsequent 
 issues of this unhappy attempt to force dis- 
 cordant elements into external union which 
 continued under Acacius's successors and 
 under the emperor Anastasius. Anastasius 
 required toleration of the bishops who were 
 forbidden to force the decrees of Chalcedon on 
 a reluctant diocese or to compel one which had 
 ' accepted that council to abandon it. Those 
 I who violated this law of toleration were 
 : deposed with impartial severity (Evagr. H. E. 
 iii. 30). Euphemius was deposed from 
 Constantinople a.d. 495. Macedonius, his 
 successor, began by subscribing the " Heno- 
 ticon," but overawed by the obstinate 
 orthodoxy of the " Acoemetae " and other 
 I monastic bodies of Constantinople, whom he 
 
HENOTICON, THE 
 
 had undertaken to reconcile to that instru- 
 ment, he became an ardent partisan of the 
 council of Chalcedon, and, after having headed 
 the religious tumults in the city which at one 
 time threatened Anastasius's throne, was in 
 his turn deposed and succeetled by Timotheus, 
 AD. 511. The new patriarch not only signed 
 the " Henoticon," but pronounced an ana- 
 thema on the council of Chalcedon. Flavian- 
 us, accused of being a concealed Nestorian, 
 was ejected from .\ntioch in a.d. 512, where 
 the .Monophysite Severus, who had raised 
 religious riots in the streets of .Alexandria and 
 Constantinople, reigned supreme. Elias of 
 Jerusalem, though making large concessions 
 to the Catholic party, refused to go all lengths 
 with them, and was deposed in 513. 
 '• Throughout Asiatic Christendom it was the 
 same wild struggle. Bishops deposed quietly, 
 or, where resistance was made, the two fac- 
 tions fighting in the streets, in the churches. 
 Cities, even the holiest places, ran with 
 blood " (Milman, u.s. p. 245). 
 
 The " Henoticon," so fruitful a source of 
 dissension in the East, became also the watch- 
 word of rival parties in the West. Gelasius, 
 succeeding .\nastasius II., sought to re-unite 
 the churches by the proposal, couched in the 
 very spirit of the " Henoticon," that .\cacius's 
 name should be quietly left on the diptychs. 
 On his death in 498 a contested election 
 ensued, exasperated by differences of opinion 
 on the " Henoticon " and the schisms in the 
 East. Two rival pontiffs were consecrated on 
 Dec. 22, A.D. 499 — Laurentius an advocate of 
 union, and Symmachus its uncompromising 
 opponent. Theodoric decided in favour of 
 Symmachus, who had received the largest 
 number of votes. This choice was fatal to the 
 restoration of peace in the East on the terms 
 of the " Henoticon." Pope and emperor 
 hurled at one another charges of heresy and 
 messages of defiance. The turbulent orthodox 
 party at Constantinople was supported in its 
 obstinate resistance to the emperor by the 
 Roman see. The rebellion of Vitalian, 
 characterized by Ciibbon as " the first of the 
 religious wars," whose battle-cry was the 
 council of Chalcedon, was countenanced by 
 Symmachus's still more haughty successor, 
 Horraisdas, who reaped the fruits of the 
 humiliation of the aged Anastasius and became 
 '• the dictator of the religion of the world." 
 The demand of Hormisdas for the public 
 anathematization of the authors and main- 
 tainers of the " Henoticon" was indignantly 
 rejected by Anastasius. The conflict only 
 ended with the life of Anastasius, who died 
 worn out by strife at the age of nearly 90 
 years, a.d. 518. His successor, Justin, was 
 an unlettered soldier of unbending orthodoxy. 
 The new patriarch, John of Cappadoria, " a 
 man of servile mind though unnieasured 
 ambition," was prepared to adopt any course 
 which would secure his power. He had 
 seconded all the measures of Anastasius, but 
 at the demand of the mob he now hastily 
 assembled a synod of 40 bishops, which 
 anathematized all upholders of the " Heno- 
 ticon," recalled the banished bishops, and 
 deposed the so-called usurpers. All heretics, 
 i.e. those who refused the council of Chalcedon, 
 were made incapable of civil or military office. 
 
 HERACLBON 
 
 446 
 
 Hormisdas profited by the (avourable opjx*. 
 tunity to press his drmand», which were 
 admitted without qursti<>n. The nainr* <.J th« 
 patriarchs Acacius, Fravitta, luiphmmit, and 
 .Macodonius, together wilh lh<>w o( the rin- 
 pemr Zeiio and .Anastasius, were rr.iird fr> in 
 the <li|>tvchs, and .\rai ius wa» |irjiidr<| wilh 
 a special anathema. Fresh disturb-im r\ wrrp 
 created when it was found that n<>rnii»<l4» 
 demanded the condemnation of dll who hjil 
 communicated with .\rarius. and turned a 
 deaf ear to the repeated applications of both 
 emperor and patriarch for some rrlaiation o| 
 these terms (Evagr. H. E. iv. 4 ; I.abbr. 
 Conctl. iv. 1542 ; Natal. Alrxand. Hut. F.c<l. 
 t. ii. p. 448). Hormisdas at last rontrntrd 
 that Epiphanius, John's surressor. should act 
 for him in receiving churches into cotnniunioii. 
 Some honoured names were allowed to rrniain 
 on the diptychs, and eventually Fuphemiut. 
 Macedonius, Flavian of Antiorh. Flia» of 
 Jerusalem and some others who had died 
 during the separation, were admitted to the 
 Roman Calendars ( Tillem. Mim. €ccl. t. xvi. 
 p. 697 ; Bolland. .\pr. 25. p. 373). 
 
 Thus ended the unhappy schism. The 
 " Henoticon," without being formally r^• 
 pealed, was allowed to sink into oblivion. The 
 four oecumenical councils, iiu ludin^c Chalce- 
 don, were everywhere received, save in EKypt, 
 and one common creed expressed the religious 
 faith of the Christian w<irld. dibbMH, 
 Decline and Fall, c. xlvii. ; Tillem. Mim. 
 eccl. vol. xvi. " Acace " ; SehriKkh, Air- 
 chengesch. vol. xviii. ; Migne. I'atr. t. Iviii. ; 
 Evagr. H. E. libb. iii. iv. ; liberal, lirniar. ; 
 Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. vi. ; Flrury, Htst. 
 eccl. t. vi. vii. ; Neander, Ch. //uT vi.l. iv. 
 pp. 253 ff. (Clarke's trans.) ; I )orncr, i'rfiyn, 
 div. ii. vol. i. pp. 123 fl. ; .Milman, H»sl. of I. at. 
 Christ, vol. i. bk. iii. cc. i. iii. ft. v.] 
 
 Heraoles, patriarch of .Alexandria, a.d. 233- 
 249 ; brother of the martyr I'lutarch, «>ne of 
 Origen's converts (Eus. //. E. vi. 3). From 
 being a pupil he became an assistant in 
 teachijig to Origen, who left the schiM>l to him 
 when he retired from .Alexandria to Caesarea 
 (lb. 15, 26). Heradas retained the S( htx^l but 
 a short time, for on the death .f Ucmetrius 
 he was elected to the archiepiscopal throne. 
 Heraclas did not adopt any of his teacher's 
 peculiar views, but voted for his deprivation 
 both from his office as teacher and from his 
 orders and for his excommunication at the two 
 synods held by Demetrius, nor when elected 
 bishopdid he attempt torescindthev- sentence*. 
 Eusebius (16. 31) narratesavisit paid to Heraclas 
 by Africanus the annalist on hearing of hi* great 
 learning, and (16. vii. 7), on the auth.-ntvof his 
 successor Dionysius, gives his rule respectinK 
 the treatment of heretics, l-c Ouien, Ori/fu 
 Chrtst. ii. 302 ; I'hot. Cod. 1 18 ; Acta SS. Holl. 
 Jul. V 6.IV647- . J ''-"l 
 
 Heracleon (1). a (.n.-stir dc»crihr,i l.v 
 Clement of Alexandria (Strom. Iv. q. r« s ,• ••» 
 the most esteemed (Jotim^rorof) "' the \. 1. I 
 of Valentinus ; and, arr..r«lini{ to oriiim 
 (Comm. m .S. Joann. t. ii J 8. Opp. \. iv y. 6(, . 
 said to have been in personal contact {•,r,^,tu'-t) 
 with Valentinus himself. He is barely men- 
 tioned bv Ircnaeus (li. 41) »n<\ by TertuUun 
 (adv. I'alenl. ^). The coininou source of 
 Fhilaster and I'seudo-TcrtulUan (t.e. probably 
 
446 HERACLEON 
 
 the earlier treatise of Hippolytus) contained 
 an article on Heracleon between those on 
 Ptolemaeus and Secundus, and on Marcus and 
 Colarbasus. 
 
 The chief interest that now attaches to 
 Heracleon is that he is the earliest commen- 
 tator on the N.T. of whom we have know- 
 ledge. Origen, in the still extant portion of 
 his commentary on St. John, quotes Heracleon 
 nearly 50 times, usually controverting, occa- 
 sionally accepting his expositions. We thus 
 recover large sections of Heracleon's com- 
 mentary on cc. i. ii. iv. and viii. of St John. 
 There is reason to think that he wrote com- 
 mentaries on St. Luke also. Clement of 
 Alexandria {Strom, iv. 9) expressly quotes from 
 Heracleon's exposition of Luke xii. 8 ; and 
 another reference (25 Eclog. ex Script. Proph. 
 p. 995) is in connexion with Luke iii. 16, 17, 
 and so probably from an exposition of these 
 verses. The fragments of Heracleon were 
 collected by Grabe (Spicileg. ii. 85, etc.), and 
 reprinted as an appendix to Massuet's, 
 Stieren's, and Migne's editions of Irenaeus. 
 
 The first passage quoted by Clement bears 
 on an accusation brought against some of the 
 Gnostic sects, that they taught that it was 
 no sin to avoid martyrdom by denying the 
 faith. No exception can be taken to what 
 Heracleon says on this subject. " Men mis- 
 take in thinking that the only confession is 
 that made with the voice before the magis- 
 trates ; there is another confession made in 
 the life and conversation, by faith and works 
 corresponding to the faith. The first con- 
 fession may be made by a hypocrite : and it 
 is one not required of all ; there are many 
 who have never been called on to make it, 
 as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, 
 Levi [Lebbaeus] ; the other confession must 
 be made by all. He who has first confessed 
 in his disposition of heart will confess with the 
 voice also when need shall arise and reason 
 require. Well did Christ use concerning 
 confession the phrase 'in Me ' (tav 6ij.o\oy7]crr) 
 eV e.uot), concerning denial the phrase ' Me.' 
 A man may confess ' Him ' with the voice 
 who really denies Him, if he does not confess 
 Him also in action ; but those only confess 
 ' in Him ' who live in the confession and in 
 corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom 
 they embrace and Who dwells in them Who 
 makes confession ' in them ' ; for ' He cannot 
 deny Himself.' But concerning denial. He 
 did not say whosoever shall deny ' in Me,' 
 but whosoever shall deny ' Me ' ; for no one 
 that is ' in Him ' can deny Him. And the 
 words ' before men ' do not mean before 
 unbelievers only, but before Christians and 
 unbelievers alike ; before the one by their 
 life and conversation, before the others in 
 words." In this exposition every word in 
 the sacred text assumes significance ; and 
 this characteristic runs equally through the 
 fragments of Heracleon's commentary on St. 
 John, whether the words commented on be 
 our Lord's own or only those of the Evangelist. 
 Thus he calls attention to the facts that in the 
 statement " all things were made by Him," 
 the preposition used is 5id ; that Jesus is said 
 to have gone down to Capernaum and gone 
 up to Jerusalem ; that He found the buyers and 
 sellers (v t(^ iepip, not iv t<j5 ^'ay ; that He said 
 
 HERACLEON 
 
 salvation is of the Jews not in them, and again 
 (iv. 40) that our Lord tarried with the Samari- 
 tans, not in them ; notice is taken of the 
 point in our Lord's discourse with the woman 
 of Samaria, where He first emphasizes His 
 assertion with " Woman, believe Me " ; and 
 though Origen occasionally accuses Heracleon 
 of deficient accuracy, for instance in taking 
 the prophet (i. 21) as meaning no more than 
 a prophet ; " in three days " (ii. 19) as meaning 
 no more than "on the third day"; yet on 
 the whole Heracleon's examination of the 
 words is exceedingly minute. He attempts 
 to reconcile differences between the Evan- 
 gelists, e.g. our Lord's ascription to the 
 Baptist of the titles " Elias " and " prophet " 
 with John's own disclaimer of these titles. 
 He finds mysteries in the numbers in the 
 narrative — in the 46 years which the temple 
 was in building, the 6 husbands of the woman 
 of Samaria (for such was his reading), the 2 
 days our Lord abode with the people of the 
 city, the 7th hour at which the nobleman's son 
 was healed. He thinks it necessary to reconcile 
 his own doctrine with that of the sacred 
 writer, even at the cost of some violence of 
 interpretation. Thus he declares that the 
 Evangelist's assertion that all things were 
 made by the Logos must be understood only 
 of the things of the visible creation, his own 
 doctrine being that the higher aeon world was 
 not so made, but that the lower creation was 
 made by the Logos through the instrumen- 
 tality of the Demiurge. Instances of this 
 kind where the interpreter is forced to reject 
 the most obvious meaning of the text are 
 sufficiently numerous to shew that the gospel 
 was not written in the interests of Valentin- 
 ianism ; but it is a book which Heracleon 
 evidently recognized as of such authority 
 that he must perforce have it on his side. 
 
 He strives to find Valentinianism in the 
 Gospel by a method of spiritual interpreta- 
 tion. Thus the nobleman (jiauiXiKos, iv. 47) 
 is the Demiurge, a petty prince, his kingdom 
 being limited and temporary, the servants 
 are his angels, the son is the man who belongs 
 to the Demiurge. As he finds the \Pvx^kol 
 represented in the nobleman's son, so again 
 he finds the TrveufxaTLnoi in the woman of 
 Samaria. The water of Jacob's well which 
 she rejected is Judaism ; the husband whom 
 she is to call is no earthly husband, but her 
 spiritual bridegroom from the Pleroma ; the 
 other husbands with whom she previously 
 had committed fornication represent the 
 matter with which the spiritual have been 
 entangled ; that she is no longer to worship 
 either in " this mountain " or in " Jerusa- 
 j lem " means that she is not, like the heathen, 
 to worship the visible creation, the Hyle, or 
 kingdom of the devil, nor like the Jews to 
 worship the creator or Demiurge ; her 
 I watering-pot is her good disposition for re- 
 i ceiving life from the Saviour. Though the 
 ' results of Heracleon's metnod are heretical, 
 the method itself is one commonly used by 
 orthodox Fathers, especially by Origen. Many 
 I orthodox parallels to Heracleon's exposition 
 could be adduced, e.g. that the cords with 
 which our Lord drove the traffickers from the 
 temple represent the power of the Holy 
 Spirit ; the wood to which He assumes they 
 
HERACLEON 
 
 were attached, the wood of the cross. Origen I 
 even occasionally blames Heracleon for being 
 too easily content with more obvious inter- ; 
 pretations. Herarleon at first is satisfied to 
 take " whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to 
 loose" as meaning no more than " for whom 
 I am not worthy to perform menial olhccs." 
 and he has Origen's approbation when he 
 tries, however unsurcessfully, to investigate 
 what the slioe represented. It does not ; 
 appear that Heracleon used his method of 
 interpretation controversially to establish ; 
 Valentinian doctrine, but, being a V'alentinian, i 
 readily found those doctrines indicated in the i 
 passages on which he commented. 
 
 One other of his interpretations deserves 
 mention. The meaning which the Greek of 
 John viii. 44 most naturally conveys is that 
 of the pre-Hieronymian translation " mendax 
 est sicut et pater ejus," and so it is gener- 
 ally understood by Greek Fathers, though in 
 various ways they escape attributing a father 
 to the devil. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar con- 
 sider that the Evangelist shews that he em- 
 braced the opinion of the V'alontinians and 
 some earlier Cinostic sects that the father of 
 the devil was the Demiurge or God (..f the 
 Jews. But this idea was unknown to Hera- 
 cleon, who here interprets the father of the 
 devil as his essentially evil nature ; to which 
 Origen objects that if the devil be evil by the 
 necessity of his nature, he ought rather to be 
 pitied tiian blamed. 
 
 To judge from the fragments we have, 
 Heracleon's bent was rather practical than 
 speculative. He says nothing of the Gnostic 
 theories as to stages in the origin of the uni- j 
 verse; the prologue of St. John does not 
 tempt him into mention of the Valentinian [ 
 Aeonology. In fact he does not use the word 
 aeon in the sense employed by other Valen- 
 tinian writers, but rather where according 
 to their use we sliould expect the word 
 Pleroma ; and this last word he uses in a J 
 special sense, describing the spiritual husband 
 of the Samaritan woman as her Pleroma— that 
 is, the complement which supplies what was 
 lacking to perfection. We find in his system ' 
 only two beings unknown to orthodox j 
 theology, the Demiurge, and apparently a | 
 second Son of Man ; for on John iv. 37 he 
 distinguishes a higher Son of Man who sows 
 from the Saviour Who reaps. Heracleon gives 
 as great prominence as any orthodox writer 
 to Christ and His redeeming work. But all 
 mankind are not alike in a condition to profit 
 bv His redemption. There is a threefold order 
 of creatures : First, the Hylic or material, 
 formed of the u\r], whi( h is the substam e 
 of the devil, incapable of immortality. 
 Secondly, the psychic or animal belonging to 
 the kingdom of the Demiurge ; their i/^i'X') '^ 
 naturally mortal, but capable of being clothed 
 with immortality, and it depends on their I 
 disposition (O^an) whether they become sons 
 of God or children of the devil ; and, thirdly, 
 the pneumatic or spiritual, who are by nature 
 of the divine essence, though entangled with 
 matter and needing redemption to be delivered 
 from it. These are the special creation of the 
 Logos ; they live in Him, and become one 
 with Him. In the second class Heracleon 
 seems to have had the Jews specially in mind 
 
 HERACLIDES CYPRIUS 447 
 
 and to have regarded ihen* with a g.^nl deal 
 of tenderness. Thry are the childrrn of 
 Abraham who, if thev do not lovr (.tid at 
 least do not hate Mini. Their kinR. the 
 Demiurge, is rcpresentrd as not h<>»ulr to the 
 Supreme, and thonj;h shortsightrd and lienor- 
 ant, yet as well disposed to (.nth .ind ready 
 to im])lore the Saviour's help lor hi» «iib|rrlt 
 whom he had not himself bmi ablr t<> driivi r. 
 When his ignorance is ninovrd. he and hi* 
 redeemed subjects will enjoy inimort.dll y in 
 a place raised above the material worhl. 
 
 Besides the passages on whir h he rommrntt 
 Heracleon refers to Gen. vi. ; Isa. i. 2 ; Matt. 
 viii. 2. ix. 37 ; xviii. 11 ; Koin. i. i^. xii. i ; 
 I. Cor. XV. 54 ; II. Tim. ii. i v Nrander an<l 
 Cave have suggestetl Alexandria as the plare 
 where Heracleon taught ; but t leinrnt'* lan- 
 guage suggests Some distance either of time 
 or of place ; for he would si arcelv have 
 thought it necessary to explain that Herarleon 
 was the most in repute of the Valentinian* i( 
 he were at the time the head of a rival »< h<Mil 
 in the same city. Hippolytus makes Hera- 
 cleon one of the Italian schiM.l of Valentinians ; 
 but the silence of all the authorities makes it 
 unlikely that he taught at Koine. It se^Ill^. 
 therefore, most likely that he taught in one of 
 the cities of S. Italy ; or " I*raedestinatus " 
 may be right in making Sicily the scene of his 
 inventions about Heracleon. 
 
 The date of Heracleon is of interest on 
 account of his use of St. John's Gospel, which 
 clearly had attained high authority when 
 he wrote. The mere fact, however, that a 
 book was held in equal honour by the Valen- 
 tinians and the orth<xlox seems to prove that 
 it must have attained its position before the 
 separation of the V'aliiillni.ms from the 
 church ; and, if so, it is of less importance to 
 determine the exact date of Herai leoii. The 
 decade 170-180 may probably be hxed for the 
 centre of his activity. This would not be 
 inconsistent with his having been personally 
 instructed by Valentinus, who rontintied to 
 teach as late as 160, and would allow time for 
 Heracleon to have gained celebrity before 
 Clement wrote, one of whose references to 
 Heracleon is in what was probably one of hi* 
 earliest works. He had evidently long passed 
 from the scene when Origen wrote. (Neandrr. 
 Gen. Entwick. 143, and (7i. //is/, ii. ij\; 
 Heinrici, la/. f7»iosi<, 127. Westrott. .V. 7. 
 Canon. 2.)<).) Hie <.k. text o( Th* Fragmtnli 
 .(/ Heradeon Ij.i^ been nl with iiitro. and n«>lr* 
 bv A. H. Bro..k.- (I ami. Vuw. Pn-ss). |t..9.1 
 
 Heraclides (6) Cyprlus, bp. oi Kphr»u« , a 
 
 native of Cyprus, who had received a liberal 
 education, was versed in the Smptures, and 
 had passed some years in asretic trainiiiK m 
 the desert of Sretis under Kvagrius. He th«n 
 became deacon to Chrysostoiii. and wa* in 
 immediate attendance on him. On the de- 
 privation of Antoninus, bp. of Kphe*u<.. ad. 
 401, there being a deadlock in the election 
 through the number of rival candidate* and 
 the violence of the opp.^ing (artions. ( hryv«- 
 tcjm brought llera.lides forward, and he wa« 
 elected bv the votc-s of M-veiitV bl*hop% to the 
 vacant see. The electi.-n at hr^l onlv in- 
 creased the disturbance, and h'Ud cinplaint* 
 were made ol the unfitnc-s> of Hera« lide* for 
 the office, which detained Cbr>»o»toin in A*u 
 
448 
 
 HERMAS 
 
 (Socr. H. E. vi. II ; Soz. H. E. viii. 6 ; Pallad. 
 p. 139). At the assembling of the synod of 
 the Oak, a.d. 403, Heraclides was summoned 
 to answer certain specified charges brought 
 against him by Macarius, bp. of Magnesia, a 
 bishop named Isaac, and a monk named John. 
 Among these charges was one of holding 
 Origenizing views. The urgency with which 
 the condemnation of Chrysostom was pressed 
 forward retarded the suit against Heraclides, 
 which had come to no issue when his great 
 master was deposed and banished. After 
 Chrysostora's second and final exile in 404, 
 Heraclides was his fellow-sufferer. He was 
 deposed by the party in power, and put in 
 prison at Nicomedia, where, when Palladius 
 wrote, he had been ahready languishing for 
 years. A eunuch who, according to Palladius, 
 was stained with the grossest vices, was con- 
 secrated bp. of Ephesus in his room (Pallad. 
 Dial. ed. Bigot, p. 139). On the ascription 
 to this Heraclides of the Lausiac History of 
 Palladius, under the name of Paradisus 
 Heraclidis, see Palladius (7) ; also Fabricius, 
 Bibl. Graec. x. 117 ; Ceillier, vii. 487. [e.v.] 
 
 Hermas (2). in the latter half of the 2nd 
 cent, there was in circulation a book of visions 
 and allegories, purporting to be written by one 
 Hermas and commonly known as The Shep- 
 herd. This book was treated with respect 
 bordering on that paid to the canonical 
 Scriptures of N.T., and was publicly read in 
 some churches. A passage from it is quoted 
 by Irenaeus (iv. 20, p. 253) with the words, 
 " Well said the Scripture," a fact which 
 Eusebius notes {H. E. v. 8). Probably in the 
 time of Irenaeus the work was publicly read 
 in the Galilean churches. The mutilated 
 commencement of the Stromateis of Clement 
 of Alexandria opens in the middle of a quota- 
 tion from The Shepherd, and about ten times 
 elsewhere he cites the book, always with a 
 complete acceptance of the reality and divine 
 character of the revelations made to Hermas, 
 but without suggesting who Hermas was or 
 when he lived. Origen, who frequently cites 
 the book {in Rom. xvi. 14, vol. iv. p. 683), 
 considered it divinely inspired. He suggests, 
 as do others after him, but apparently on no 
 earlier authority, that it was written by the 
 Hermas mentioned in Rom. xvi. 14. His other 
 quotations shew that less favourable views 
 of the book were current in his time. They 
 are carefully separated from quotations from 
 the canonical books, and he generally adds a 
 saying clause, giving the reader permission to 
 reject them ; he speaks of it {in Matt. xix. 7, 
 vol. iii. p. 644) as a book current in the 
 church but not acknowledged by all, and {de 
 Princ. iv. 11) as despised by some. Eusebius 
 (iii. 25) places the book among the orthodox 
 v6da with the Acts of Paul, Revelation of 
 Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, etc. Elsewhere 
 (iii. 3), while unable to place it among the 
 6/j.o\oyoviJ.(va because rejected by some, he 
 records its public use in churches and by some 
 most eminent writers, and that it was judged 
 by some most necessary for elementary in- 
 struction in the faith. Athanasius {Ep. Fest. 
 39, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 963) classes it with some of 
 the deutero-canonical books of O.T. and with 
 The Teaching of the Apostles as not canon- 
 ical, but useful for catechetical instruction. 
 
 HERMAS 
 
 It is found in the Sinaitic MS. following the 
 Ep. of Barnabas, as an appendix to the N.T. 
 After the 4th cent, it rapidly passed out of 
 ecclesiastical use in the East. 
 
 The Western tradition deserves more atten- 
 tion, as internal evidence shews the book to 
 have been composed at Rome. The Mura- 
 TORiAN Fragment on the Canon tells us that 
 it had been written during the episcopate of 
 Pius by his brother Hermas, a period which 
 the writer speaks of as within then living 
 memory. He concludes that the book ought 
 to be read but not publicly in the church 
 among the prophetic writings, the number of 
 which was complete, nor among the apostolic. 
 The statement that the book not only might 
 but ought to be read is a high recognition of 
 the value attributed to it by the writer, and 
 we gather that at least in some places its 
 use in church was then such as to lead some 
 to regard it as on a level with the canonical 
 Scriptures. Tertullian, in one of his earliest 
 treatises, de Oratione, has a reference to its 
 influence on the practice of churches which 
 shews it to have enjoyed high authority at the 
 time, an authority which Tertullian's argu- 
 ment does not dispute. It had probably been 
 used in church reading and translated into 
 Latin, since Tertullian describes it by the 
 Latin title Pastor, and not by a Greek title, as 
 he usually does in the case of Greek writings. 
 Some ten years later, after Tertullian had 
 become a Montanist, and the authority of The 
 Shepherd is urged in behalf of readmitting 
 adulterers to commimion, he rejects the book 
 as not counted worthy of inclusion in the 
 canon, but placed by every council, even those 
 of the Catholic party, among false and apo- 
 cryphal writings {de Pudic. c. 10). Quoting 
 Hebrews, he says that this is at least more 
 received than that apocryphal Shepherd of 
 the adulterers (c. 20). The phrase " more 
 received " warns us to take cttm grano Ter- 
 tullian's assertion as to the universal rejection 
 of The Shepherd ; but doubtless the distinc- 
 tion between apostolic and later writings was 
 then drawn more sharply, and in the interval 
 between Tertullian's two writings The Shep- 
 herd may have been excluded from public 
 reading in many churches which before had 
 admitted it. The Liberian papal catalogue 
 (probably here, as elsewhere, following the 
 catalogue of Hippolytus) states that under the 
 episcopate of Pius his brother Ermas wrote a 
 book in which the commands and precepts 
 were contained which the angel gave him when 
 he came to him in the habit of a shepherd. 
 Yet, while refusing to assign the book to 
 apostolic times, it makes no doubt of the 
 reality of the angelic appearance to Hermas. 
 Later biographical notices of popes state that 
 the message given to Hermas was that Easter 
 should always be celebrated on a Sunday., 
 These clearly shew that by then all knowledge 
 of the book had been lost ; and further notices 
 shew a confusion between the name of Hennas 
 and that of his book, which imply that the 
 book was no longer in use. Jerome, when 
 quoting Eusebius about the book {de Vir. III. 
 10, vol. ii. 845), adds that among the Latins 
 it was almost unknown. He speaks contemp- 
 tuously of it {in Habac. i. 14, vol. vi. 604), 
 for it seems certain that the book of Hermas 
 
HERMAS 
 
 is here referred to. It is marked in the 
 Gclasian decree as apocryphal. Notwith- 
 staiidiiit;, there are indications that some use 
 of the book continued in the West, e.g. the ' 
 fact being that there still exist some 20 MSS. 
 of the Latin version. In the African church 
 of the 4th cent, we find from the list in the 
 Coiiex Claromotitanus (Westcott, Canon N. T. \ 
 p. 337) that it was placed with the .\cts of Taul 
 and the Revelation of St. Peter as an appendix 
 to the N.T. books ; and it occupies a similar 
 place in the Sinaitic MS., the only Creek Bible j 
 known to have contained it. But in some I 
 existing Latin MSS. it is placed with the I 
 apocryphal books of O.T. I 
 
 The book is in three parts. The first 
 part consists of visions. Hennas tells that j 
 he who had brought him up had s<ild him ! 
 to Rome to a lady named Rhoda ; that 
 after a considerable time he renewed his j 
 acquaintance with her and began to love her 
 as a sister ; that he saw her one dav bathing 
 in the Tiber and assisted her out of the water ; 
 that admiring her beauty he thought how 
 happy he should be if he had a wife like her 
 in person and disposition. Further than this 
 his thought did not go. But a little time 
 after he had a vision. He fell asleep, and in 
 his dream was walking and struggling on 
 ground so rugged and broken that it was 
 impossible to pass. At length he succeeded ' 
 in crossing the water by which his path had j 
 been washed away, and coming into smooth 
 ground knelt to confess his sins to God. Then ! 
 the heavens were opened and he saw Rhoda ' 
 saluting him from the sky. On his asking her 1 
 what she did there, she told him that she had 
 been taken up to accuse him, because God was 
 angry with him for having sinned in thought 
 against her. Then Hernias was overwhelmed 
 with horror and fear, not knowing how he 
 could abide the severity of God's judgment, if 
 such a thought as his was marked as sin. 
 Rhoda now passes out of his dream and he 
 sees a venerable aged lady clad in shining 
 garments sitting on a great white chair and 
 holding a book in her hand. She asks why 
 he, usually so cheerful, is now so sad. On 
 telling her, she owns what a sin any impure 
 thought would be in one so chaste, so single- 
 minded and so innocent as he ; but tells him 
 that this is not why God is displeased with 
 him, but because of the sins of his children, 
 whom he, through false indulgence, had 
 allowed to corrupt themselves, but to whom 
 repentance was open if he would warn them. 
 Then she reads to him out of her bofik, but 
 of all she reads he can remember nothing 
 save the last comforting sentence, and that 
 all which preceded was terrible and threaten- 
 ing. She parted from him with the words, 
 " Flay the man, Hermas." Hernias was an 
 elderly man with a grown-up family, and 
 Rhoda must have been at least as old as hini- 
 self. If the tale is an invented one, this is 
 certainly an incongruity ; but if it be a true 
 story, it is quite conceivable that the thought 
 may have occurred to Hermas, who seiins to 
 have been not happy in his family relations, 
 how much happier it would have been fur 
 him if Rhoda had been his wife ; and that 
 afterwards, in a dream, this thought may 
 have recurred to his memory as a siu to be 
 
 HERMAS 44tf 
 
 repented of. The visi..n prrvnt« all ihp 
 characteristics of a real drr.im ; the want o| 
 logical connexion bet wren the j«arl». the 
 changes of scene, the f.idinK "»it of Khi«U at 
 principal figure and the appraranrc ..( the 
 aged ladv in her rcnmi ; the tuh<ititution o| 
 quite a dillerent olience for the sinful thouKht 
 which weighed on his cons< iencr at the beKin- 
 ning ; the physical distress in hi» %\cry at 
 first presenting the idea of walking on and on 
 without being able to find an outlet, after- 
 wards of mental grief at words spoken to 
 him ; the long reading of which onlv the wordt 
 spoken immediately before awaking are re- 
 membered, — all these indicate that we are 
 reading not a literary invention like the dream 
 of the Pilgrim's Progreas, but the rental, a 
 little dr<sS(il up it may be, of a dream which 
 the n.irralor really had. In another vision, 
 a year after, he saw again the lady and her 
 book, and received the biH.k to copy, but still 
 it conveyed no idea to his mind, lie then set 
 himself by fasting and prayer to h-am itt 
 meaning, and after about a fortnight wat 
 gratified. He learns, t«M>, that the lady is 
 not, as he had imagined, the sibyl, but the 
 church, and that she appearetl as oUl because 
 she was created first of all, and for her »akc 
 the world was made. Ephesians, which prob- 
 ably suggested this doctrine of the pre- 
 existence of the church, is one t>f the N.T. 
 books of whose use by Hermas there arc clear 
 traces. In subsequent visions we have a 
 different account of the matter ; he sei-s in 
 each a woman more and more youthful in 
 appearance, whom he is taught to identify 
 with the church of his former vision ; and it 
 is explained that he saw her old at first be- 
 cause the spirit of Christians had been broken 
 by infirmity and doubt, and afterwards more 
 youthful as by the revelations inaile him 
 their spirit had been renewed. After his 
 first two visions Hermas watched eagerly for 
 new revelations, and set himself to obtain them 
 by fasting and prayer. In those later visions, 
 while the pictures presented to his mind arc 
 such as we can well believe to have been 
 dream representations, the explanations given 
 of them have a coherence only to be found 
 in the thoughts of a waking man. This is 
 still more true of the second and third parts 
 of the work. At the end of the first part he 
 has the vision in which he sees a man dressed 
 like a shepherd, who tells him that he is the 
 angel of repentance and the guardian It) whi>*« 
 j care he had been entrusted. From this 
 1 shepherd he receives, for his instruction and 
 ' that of the church, the " Comiiiandmenls." 
 j which form the second, and the " Similitudes," 
 which form the third, part of the work. The 
 Similitudes were probably suggested by N.T. 
 I parables, though the frigid comp<isition» ol 
 ; Hermas fall infinitely below these. 
 
 The liter.irv merits of the work of Merinas 
 are of little importance compared with the 
 I fundamental question .is to the date of the 
 ! book and whether it claims to be an inspired 
 document, the writer ol which aspires tt. no 
 I literary merit, save that of faithfullv r- r. rrfing 
 Uhe revelations made him. An . 
 that Hermas in relating his w 
 no more than to present rdifvin, 
 allegorical fotm, aud that it wis m'lri, j« 
 2U 
 
450 
 
 HERMAS 
 
 an instructive fiction that the book was re- 
 garded when it was introduced into public 
 reading in the church ? Donaldson says : 
 "If the book be not inspired, then either the 
 writer fancied he had seen these visions, or 
 tried to make other people fancy this, or he 
 clothed the work in a fictitious form designedly 
 and undisguisedly. If he did the first, he 
 must have been silly. If he did the second, 
 he must have been an impostor." But as he 
 believes the author to have been " an honest, 
 upright, and thoughtful man," he concludes 
 that he did the third, " as multitudes of 
 others have done after him, with John 
 Bunyan at their head." H we took this view 
 we could lay no stress on anything the author 
 tells us about himself and his family. These 
 details might be fictitious, as the angels, the 
 towers, and the beasts of the visions. We could 
 not even assume that his name was Hermas, 
 for the narrator of the visions, who bears this 
 name, might be an imaginary personage. 
 But we ourselves feel bound to reject this as 
 altogether mistaken criticism, and as an 
 application to the 2nd cent, of the standards 
 of to-day. To us it seems plain that, what- 
 ever the author intended, the first readers of 
 Hermas did not receive the book as mere 
 allegorical fiction. Bunsen (Hippolytus and 
 his Age, i. 315) tells us that Niebuhr used to 
 pity the Athenian (sic, Qu. Roman r) Chris- 
 tians for being obliged to listen to this " good 
 but dull novel." If the authorities of the 
 church regarded it merely as a novel, would 
 they have appointed it for public reading ? 
 At the end of the century Clement and others 
 shew no doubt of the reality of the visions. 
 Were the men of a couple of generations 
 earlier likely to have been more severe in their 
 judgments, and would an angelic appearance 
 seem to them so incredible that one who 
 related it would be regarded as the narrator 
 of a fiction that he did not intend to be be- 
 lieved ? The book itself contains directions 
 to the rulers of the Roman church to send the 
 volume to foreign churches. If we suppose 
 it really was sent to them stamped as a pro- 
 phetic writing by the authority of the Roman 
 church, we have an explanation of the con- 
 sideration, only second to that of the canonical 
 Scriptures, which it enjoyed in so many dis- 
 tant churches. A man at the present day 
 might publish a story of visions, and be per- 
 suaded that his readers would not take him 
 seriously, but no one in the 2nd cent, would 
 be entitled to hold such a persuasion, and if 
 the book of Hermas was accepted as inspired, 
 the writer cannot be acquitted of the respon- 
 sibility of having foreseen and intended this 
 result. Mosheim, de Rebus Christ, ante Const. 
 163, 166, holds that the writer must either 
 have been " mente captus et fanaticus," or 
 else " scientem volentemque fefelhsse," the 
 latter being the opinion to which he inclines, 
 believing that the lawfulness of pious frauds 
 was a fixed opinion with many Christians at 
 the date of the composition we are discussing. 
 We maintain, however, that it is possible to 
 disbelieve in the inspiration of Hermas 
 without imputing folly either to him who 
 made the claim or to those who admitted it. 
 We must not regard the men of the 2nd cent, 
 as fools because their views as to God's manner 
 
 HERMAS 
 
 of teaching His church were different from 
 those which the experience of so many follow- 
 ing centuries has taught us. A Christian 
 cannot regard them as fools for believing that 
 in the time of our Lord and His apostles a 
 great manifestation of the supernatural was 
 made to the world. How long and to what 
 extent similar manifestations would present 
 themselves in the ordinary hfe of the church 
 only experience could shew, and they are not 
 to be scorned if their expectations have not 
 been borne out by later experience. In par- 
 ticular, if we are to set down as fools all who 
 have believed that supernatural intimations 
 may be given in dreams, our list would be a 
 long one, and would include many eminent 
 names ; and though modern science may re- 
 gard visions as phenomena admitting a natural 
 explanation, it is not reasonable to expect 
 such a view from the science of the 2nd cent. 
 What Hermas tells of his personal history 
 and of the times and circumstances of his 
 visions conveys to us the impression of artless 
 truth. His information about himself is 
 contained in incidental allusions, not very 
 easy to piece together ; and the author of a 
 fictitious narrative would not have conveyed 
 so obscurely what he tells about his hero. 
 He would probably also have made him a 
 man of some eminence, holding high church 
 office, whereas Hermas always speaks of the 
 presbyters as if he were not one of them, 
 and could have no motive for making his 
 hero one engaged in trade unsuccessfully and 
 not very honestly, and an elderly man with 
 a termagant wife and ill brought-up children. 
 On the other hand, if the book be true history, 
 it is very much to the point that Hermas 
 should get a revelation, directing his wife to 
 keep her tongue in better order, and his 
 children to pay more respect to their parents ; 
 nor need we suppose Hermas guilty of dis- 
 honesty in thus turning his gift of prophecy 
 to the advantage of his family comfort ; for 
 nothing can be more natural than that the 
 thoughts which troubled his waking moments 
 should present themselves in his visions. 
 There is nothing incredible in the supposition 
 that the pictures of the first vision did present 
 themselves to the mind of Hermas as he re- 
 lates them. They must have been very vivid, 
 and have impressed him strongly. Still, it is 
 a year before he has another vision. After 
 this he begins to fast and pray and look out 
 eagerly for more revelations. Finally he 
 comes to believe himself to be under the 
 constant guardianship of the shepherd angel 
 of repentance, and he ascribes all the lessons 
 he desires to teach to the inspiration of this 
 heavenly monitor. But perhaps his language 
 expresses no more than his belief in the divine 
 inspiration under which he wrote, for else- 
 where he states that he does not regard the 
 personages of his visions as having objective 
 reality, and those things which in the earlier 
 part are represented as spoken to him by the 
 church are afterwards said to have been 
 spoken by God's Spirit under the form of 
 the church. That he sincerely believed him- 
 self to be the bearer of a divine message 
 appears to be the case. A summary of his 
 convictions would serve also for those of a 
 man in many respects very unlike, Savon- 
 
HERMAS 
 
 RBRMAS 
 
 4ftl 
 
 arol.i. (a) that the church of his tune li;'.d as in tin- i:.ist iliil Ou.ulratun ami AmmU ol 
 
 corniiU.a itself, ami had be.ome deeplv l'hil.idol|<hia (Huv H. E. v. ift). and that he 
 
 tainted with worldlmess ; [h) that a time ..f reallv did public Iv deliver \u\ mr»*aicr in 
 
 great tribulatiou was at hand, in whi< li the ■ •■ 
 dross should be pureed away ; (c) that there 
 was still an intervening time, during which 
 
 repentance was possible and would be ac- 
 cepted : (d) that he was himself divinely 
 commissioned to preach that repentance. 
 
 Date and Authorship. — Antiquity furnishes 
 authority for three suppositions : (a) the 
 author was the Hernias to whom a salutation 
 is sent in Kom. xvi. 14 ; or (6^ brother to I'ius, 
 bp. of Rome at the middle of the 2nd cent. ; 
 or (c) contemporary with Clement who was 
 bishop at the very beginning of that century 
 
 tile < liur< h assemblv. A* the 2iid rent, wrnl 
 in, the pul>lic cxen isr ..| prophriii pi.wrr* m 
 
 the chur« li seems to h.ive rcuril. and whrn 
 revived by .Montanus and his (Kllowrr* had 
 to encounter much opi>..siii..n. Thr rn»umi{ 
 controversy led the church t» iiiMtt in. .re 
 strongly on the distinction brlwrrn the uc 
 spiration of the canonical writers and that of 
 holy men of later times, and the Muratorian 
 fragment exhibits the feeling ent<rt.uiird to- 
 wards the end of the cent, that the litt of 
 prophetic writings had been cl.*«-d and that 
 priKluction of the later years of the church 
 
 or the end of the preceding. The first inav | could be admitted, 
 be set aside as a highly improbable guess of Hut if, as we think, the Hernia* of r*# 
 Origen. The author shews no wisii to be taken ' S/i,'/i;i<-r,/ is not a hctitious character, but a 
 for the apostolic Hennas, but distinctly speaks real person known in the chunh of Komr in 
 of the apostles as all dead. A forger could ' the jiul cc nt., we incline to follow Zahn in 
 have found many more suitable names than J relying more on his connexion with (."leinmt 
 Hermas, one of the least prominent in NM"., 1 than with I'ius. Zahn places Tht Skephnd 
 and of which, except in connexion with this , c 97 ; but if we assign that date to the epistle 
 book, there is no trace in ecclesiastical tra- j of Clement we ought to allow a few yean ft* 
 dition. \l our view of the book be correct. 1 that letter to have obtained the c<li brity and 
 
 the author had no motive for antedating it. 
 His prophecy announced tribulation close at 
 hand and only a short intervening period for 
 repentance. To represent such a prophecy 
 as being already 50 or 100 years old would be 
 to represent it as having failed, and in fact 
 The Shepherd did lose credit wlien it had been 
 so long in existence. Hermas seems to have 
 thought that, if the worldliness of the church 
 could be repented of and reformed, it would 
 be possible to keep it pure during the brief 
 remainder of its existence. He announced 
 therefore forgiveness on repentance for sins 
 of old Christians prior to the date of his reve- 
 lation, but none for those of new converts, 
 or for sins subsequent to his revelation. To 
 date his revelation 50 years back would have 
 defeated his own purpose and made his 
 message inapplicable to those whom he ad- 
 dressed. Again the acceptance of the book 
 by the church of Rome is inexplicable if it 
 were introduced by no known person, con- 
 taining, as it does, revelations purporting to 
 have been given among themselves and to a 
 leading member of their church. If the first 
 readers of the work of Elchesai or of the 
 
 success which the notice in Hernias implies. 
 That notice need not necessarily have been 
 published in the lifetime of Clement, for Her- 
 mas is not instructed to deliver his mcsMge 
 immediately, but only after the completion 
 of his revelations, and this may have been 
 after Clement's death. 
 
 Are, then, any indications of date in the 
 book inconsistent with sue li an early date ? 
 
 There is inuc h affinity between the hading 
 ideas of .Montaiiism and of the book of Hernias, 
 especiallv as to the fall of many in the church 
 from the ideal of holiness. The qu«-stion wa» 
 asked. Was it possible to renew such again to 
 repentance ? In both our Lord's second 
 coming was eagerly looked forward to. and a 
 knowledge of (Uid's coming dealings with Hit 
 church sought for from visions and revelations. 
 But the teaching of Hennas is less rigorous 
 than the Montanistic. and all that is special 
 to Montanism is unknown to him. 
 
 Hermas directs his efforts aliiicKit exclusively 
 to combating the relaxation of morality in the 
 church ; he scarcely notices diK triiial error*, 
 and no reference to (Gnostic doctrines ran be 
 found in his book, unless it be a statement 
 
 Clementine homilies asked. Why did we never {Sim. v. 7) that there were some who to«>k 
 hear of these things before? these books had licence to misuse the flesh on account ui a 
 provided an answer in the fiction that the | denial of the resurrection of the b-Kly. But 
 alleged authors had only communicated them 
 under a pledge of strict secrecy ; in this book, 
 on the contrary, Hermas is directed ( I'is. iii. 8) 
 to go after three days and speak in the hearing 
 of all the saints the words he had heard in his 
 vision. Elsewhere he enables us to under- 
 stand how this direction could be carried 
 
 these false teachers seem to have been all in 
 the church, not separate from it. In the 
 passage which seems most disiinttiv to refer 
 to Gnostics (16. ix. 22). thev are described a* 
 " wishing to know cvervthing and knowing 
 nothing," as " praising themsrlvc* that thry 
 
 „ have understanding, and wishmg •" '"^ 
 
 We learn {.Mand. 11) that certain persons ' teachers, though thev were really f.-U." 
 
 were then recognized in the church as having I Yet. he adds. " to these repmtame »"!►«•«», 
 
 ^ ■ - k.d, but rather silly and 
 
 prophetic gifts, and that at the Christian for they were not w 
 meetings for worsiiip, if after prayer ended I without understanding 
 one of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, 
 he might speak unto the pecjple as the Lord 
 willed. The simplest explanation how the 
 Roman Church came to believe in its inspira- 
 tion seems, then, to be that it had previously 
 admitted the inspiration of its author, that 
 
 1 he seeds of lin'*- 
 ticism had begun to spring up even in a|H». 
 tolic times ; but we cannot think that Hf rmat 
 would have wriltm thus after (.n-islirUni had 
 become dangerous to the Roman • hurch. 
 
 Hennas rebukes the strifes for i-rrcedeoce 
 among Christians I I'u. iii >) , .Vanrf. ix ; Sim. 
 
 be held the position of a recognized prophet I viii. 7). and it is difhcult to hnd In his U^ok 
 
452 
 
 HERMAS 
 
 evidence of the existence of the episcopal form 
 of government or of resistance to its intro- 
 duction. He appears to use iirlaKoiros as 
 synonymous with irpfalBvrepoi and always 
 speaks of the government of the church as in 
 the hands of the elders, without hinting that 
 one elder enjoyed authority over others. 
 Clement, indeed, is recognized as the organ by 
 which the church of Rome communicated 
 with foreign churches ; but we are not told 
 that implied a pre-eminence in domestic rule. 
 Similarly, though we infer that the presbyters 
 had seats of honour in the church assemblies, 
 we are not told that one had a seat higher than 
 the rest. Either it was not the case or it was 
 too much a matter of course to be mentioned. 
 But a message regarding dissensions is sent 
 TO?^ Trpo-qyov/xevois ti)s €KK\7)alas Kai to'ls wpuro- 
 Kadei)pLTais. It is a very forced explanation 
 of the last plural noun to suppose it means 
 some one of the irporiyovixevoL who desired to 
 make himself the first, nor have we reason 
 to think that the word implies any sarcasm. 
 It is more natural to understand that besides 
 the presbyters there were others, such as the 
 teachers and prophets (Mand. xi.), who in 
 church assemblies were given seats of honour. 
 
 The church had at the time of this writing 
 enjoyed a good deal of quiet, but this had 
 evidently been broken by many harassing 
 persecutions, in which some had apostatized. 
 Usually their danger is described as no more 
 than of loss of goods and of injury to worldly 
 business ; but there had been (though perhaps 
 not recently) martyrs who had given their 
 lives and endured crosses and wild beasts for 
 the Name of the Son of God. They could have 
 saved themselves by denial or by committing 
 idolatry. Thus they suffered as Christians, 
 and it has been inferred that the date must 
 be later than the well-known letter of Trajan 
 to Pliny which first made the profession of 
 Christianity unlawful. Yet it seems possible 
 to assign an earlier date to The Shepherd, and 
 to /. Peter which is affected by the same 
 argument, when we remember that Trajan 
 only gave imperial sanction to the rule on 
 which Pliny had been acting already, and on 
 which others had probably been acting pre- 
 viously ; for Pliny implies that trials of 
 Christians were then well known. And it 
 may be argued that after the edict of Trajan 
 obstinate profession of Christianity was liable 
 to be punished with death, whereas in the 
 time of Hennas it seems to have been punished 
 only by fine or imprisonment. Hermas lost 
 his business in the persecution, having been be- 
 trayed, it seems, by his children. At the time 
 of the visions he was apparently farming. Zahn, 
 who places the persecution under Domitian, 
 ingeniously conjectures (p. 133) that Hermas 
 was one of those to whom, as Dion Cassius 
 tells (68, 2), Nerva made restitution by giving 
 land instead of the goods of which they had 
 been despoiled by Domitian. 
 
 It is disappointing to have to add that an 
 ordinary Christian of to-day would find in the 
 book neither much interest nor edification, and 
 that the historical student finds in it much less 
 help than he might expect. Hermas is absorbed 
 in trying to bring about a practical reform ; he 
 shews much less interest in doctrine, in which 
 possibly as a layman he was perhaps not ac- 
 
 HERMAS 
 
 curately instructed ; he never quotes either 
 
 0. or N. T., nor is his language much influenced 
 by Scripture phraseology, and some would 
 describehimashaving preached not the Gospel, 
 but merely a dry morality. The inference was 
 natural, if Pauline Christianity is so much in 
 the background in Hermas, that he must have 
 been an anti-Pauline Jewish Christian; and 
 this may seem confirmed by the fact that the 
 N.T. book which has most stamped itself on his 
 mind is the Ep. of St. J ames. Yet a closer ex- 
 amination finds no real trace of J udaism in him. 
 It is scarcely credible that one brought up a J ew 
 should seem so unfamiliar with O.T.* The 
 J ewish nation and its privileges are not even 
 mentioned, nor the distinction between Jew 
 and Gentile. Michael is not the guardian angel 
 of the nation, but of the Christian church. 
 
 The only express quotation is from the lost 
 apocryphal book of Eldad and Modad. His 
 use of either O. or N. T. not being indicated 
 by formal quotation, but only by coincidences 
 of language or thought, there is room for 
 difference of opinion as to his use of particular 
 books. The proofs of the use of the Epp. of 
 J ames and of Ephesians seem decisive, and only 
 a little less strong in the case of I. Peter and 
 
 1. Cor. Of his use of the Gospel and Revelation 
 of St. John we are persuaded, though we admit 
 that the evidence is not conclusive. We believe 
 also that the knowledge of sayings of our Lord 
 which Hermas unmistakably exhibits was ob- 
 tained from our Synoptic Gospels, the coin- 
 cidences with St. Mark (see Zahn, p. 457) being 
 most striking. 
 
 Where Hermas had lived before he was sold 
 to Rome we can only conjecture. According 
 to a reading which there seems no good ground 
 to question, he supposes himself in one of his 
 visions to have been transported to Arcadia, 
 and Mahaffy savs (Rambles in Greece, p. 330, 
 2nd ed.) that the scenery he describes suits 
 that in Arcadia, and does not suit the neigh- 
 bourhood of Rome. Zahn conjectures that 
 Hermas was born in Egypt because the archi- 
 tecture of the tower of Hermas's visions 
 resembles the description in Josephus of the 
 Jewish temple in the Egyptian Heliopolis. 
 
 The Shepherd has been edited by Hilgenfeld 
 (Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec. 1866) and Gebhardt 
 and Harnack (Patres Apostolici, 1877). The 
 latter ed. is indispensable, and contains a full 
 list of editions, and of works treating of 
 Hermas. Some interesting discussion is to 
 be found in the reviews of Gebhardt's ed. by 
 Overbeck (Schurer, Theol. Literaturzeitiing, 
 1878), Donaldson in Theological Review (1878), 
 and Zahn, Gottingen gelehrte Anzeigen (1878). 
 Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868), is the work 
 from which we have learned most. Another 
 ed. is by Funk (Pat. Apost. Tiibingen, 1878). 
 A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd 
 with intro. by Dr. Lambros, trans, and ed. 
 with preface and appendices by Dr. J. A. 
 Robinson, has been pub. by Camb. Univ. 
 Press ; a cheap Eng. trans, of The Shepherd by 
 Dr. C. Taylor (2 vols.) by S.P.C.K. ; and in 
 
 * The contrast is striking if we compare the full- 
 ness of O.T. quotation in Clement's ep. with the 
 scantiness in Hermas. Harnack noted seven pas- 
 sages which seem to shew acquaintance with O.T. 
 Fotir of these relate to passages quoted in N.T. 
 books which seem to have been read by Hermas ; 
 the other three are doubtful. 
 
HERMENIGILD 
 
 HERMES TRISMEGISTUS 4AS 
 
 AnU-\ic. Fallu-r<. v.A. It. Sec .ils<^ F. Spitta. | The name " H.rin.s TriMiir^c '■ 
 Ziir Gfsch. utul Lit. Ji:r i'rchriilenthutm:, \Q\.ii. bvUmtird to aiiv siii^lc wrilrr 
 (Gottingcn, 1808), and Funk, in Theol. ! at the bi'Kinninc "( hi* trrjiis. 
 Quartalschr. \\\\i. aiuWkkw. [r,.s.] | tolls us that " Hrrinr*. wh-> ; 
 
 Hermeniglld {f'nnmiiiild), St., Visigoth speech, is, arcordins t<> anrirm 
 
 Catholic prince in Spain, son of the Arian king 
 Leovipilil. HcnneniRild and Rcccarcd were 
 
 sons of Lcovipild's first wife (I oh. Bid. amid 
 Esp. Sagr. vi. 378). who was dead in 560. The 
 dates of their births arc unknown (? 560-562), 
 but Hernienisild was the elder. In 573 both 
 sonswereniade "consortes regni" (ib.). Most 
 probably between 573 and 575 (ef. Greg. Tur. 
 iv. 38) Hermenigild was betrothed to theCath< 
 
 U4liU)> II, 
 
 common to all priest* ; he i( i* who r«i*t» in 
 all of them. That is whv our anr«-*t>T« 
 attributed all discoveries to him, and i*Mir«J 
 their works undir the name <>i Hrrmr*/* 
 There was, in fact, a longconlin»if-d <!'-ri<-. 'I 
 books called " hermitii," i\' ' 
 several centuries. Tertullian, ' 
 I'alenl. c. 15), speaks of llrrni' 
 as a master in philosophy; ,»i,.. , •„ 
 
 lie Prankish princess Ingunthis, the daughter hermetic books have, whatever thrir dale. 
 of Sigibert of Rheims. In 570 (Joh. Bid. I.e. phil>>sophiral and spiritual rrLitions o| j vrrv 
 381) Ingunthis.thenia yearsold,reachedSpain, interesting kind. Thev bdMiiLv .1, is i. w 
 and, owing to dissensions between her and her ] generally agreed, to the neo-I'l i- 
 .\rian grandmother, Leovigild sent the newly | and gather up in a svnthrsis. 1' 
 married pair to a distance, assigning to Her- of which is not at first sight .1; 
 menigild the government of Baetica, or part of! elements of all the different f.irti.r "I i« !i. 1 ns 
 it, with Seville for a capital (ib.). Here later in I belief in the koinan world or thr jiul ami ud 
 570 (of. Gorres, Kritische Untersuch. iVftrr </<•« cents. The two principal are the \\m^Athpyj% 
 Aufstand und das Martyrium des \Vesigoth.\(K\w "Shepherd of Men"), and the Sh'iot 
 KdnigsohnesHermenigild.mZiitschri/t/iir Htsl.l r^Xtios (or " Discourse of Initiation"), other- 
 Thfol. 1873, i. n. 83 ; Dahn, Knu. der Germ. v. | wise called " Asclepins." These tw<i w-rk*, 
 137, gives 580 as the year) Herinenigild re- together with a variety of fragments, ha\e 
 nounced.\rianisni,wasconfirmedintheCatholic been translated into French by M. I uni* 
 faith by Leander the Catholic metropolitan of Menard (Paris, 1867), and accomp.inn-d with 
 Seville, and took the name of Joannes (Greg. ^ a preliminary essay of much inter«-st on thr 
 Tur. V. 39; Greg. Magn. Dial. iii. 31 ; Paul. 1 hermetic writings and their afTinities genrr.illv. 
 Diac. iii. 21). This was immediately followed His most important fragments are from a work 
 bytherebellionof Hermenigiid (Joh. Bid. /.c), I entitled K6p>j kixxfiov (the "Virgin of the 
 who shortly afterwards formed a close alliance j World "), a dialogue between Isis and her son 
 with the Byzantines in the s<nith, and with the Horus on the origin of nature and of anmiaird 
 recentlycatholicizedSucvi in the north, ».«. with ! beings, including man. Other less notirrable 
 the two most formidable enemies of his father's ; works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus are 
 state and power (cf. Dahn, v. 138). Thus the { named in D. of (,. and R. Rtogr. (s.r.). 
 struggleshapeditsdf as a conflict of confessions! It is not to be assumed that these, the 
 and nationalities, of Arianism and Catholicism, 
 of Goth and Roman, although I.eovigild had 
 adherents among the provincials, and Hermeni- 
 giid counted some Gothic partisans (f'<. 140). 
 
 It was not till the end of 582 that Leovigild 
 felt himself strong enough to attack his son. 
 Seville fell in 5S4 (Joh. Bid. I.e. 383), and 
 shortly afterw.^rds Hermenigiid was captured 
 
 in or near Cordova (»V).; Greg. Tur. V. 39, vi. 43), ! when Lactantius died. The I 
 deprived of the government of Baetica, and i sions in the Asdepius distinctly 
 
 bv th 
 
 \\oLHavbpr)%, and .\6-)o^ tA»io?. 
 author; but from their great siiml.irit v ^f 
 tone and thought, this is possible. I'"th 
 works are quoted by I.actantius (who ascrilwd 
 to them the fabulous antiquitv and high 
 authority which the earlv lathers were 
 wont to attribute to the Sibvllinc b.x-ks) ; 
 and must have been written befiire c. \\n, 
 ...I allti- 
 !<• a time 
 exiled to Valencia. In 585 Hermenigiid was put [ when heathenisiii was about to perish hrhtc 
 todeath(Joh. Bicl. 384). Isidore does not men- j the increasing power of Christianity. Mrn.r 
 tion her death at all. (Gregory of Tours men- j both these works were probably written 
 tions it in passing (Hist. Fr. viii. 28). Upon | towards the close of the 3rd cent, 
 the account given bv (Gregory the Great a/()M<r Three motives are disrrrnible in thrm. 
 (Dial. iii. 31) rests the claim of Hermenigiid [ First, the endeavour to take an int-II'Mti.^! 
 to be considered not as a rebel suffering ; survey of the whole spiritual um 
 the penalty of a political crime, but as a ; marking any points where th> 
 mart>T for the Catholic faith. According to ' nf man fails and has to retire im 
 the pope, Hermenigiid. after a painful ini- is a disposition which, n- ' • 
 prisonment, was beheaded on the night of and at dilfereiit time' 
 
 theism f)r diiostn ism Ml 
 of an evil element in 1 re. 
 in these treatises). Th 
 
 F.aster Sunday, bv his father's apparttores, 
 because he had refused to receive the sa( ra- 
 
 ment from the hands of an Arian bishop, in these treatises). The idi.is .1 ll.' 
 After the execution, miracles were not wanting [ arc presented with a Rorgrou* i; 
 to substantiate his claim to veneration. In his 1 imagery ; and, speakinK grnrrallv. hr : 
 grave, according to Gregory, were laid the foun- the material world as Intrrprneiratr.l b 
 dations of Visigothic Catholicism; (or. after spiritual, and alm<«t idenlihrtl with II. The 
 Leovigild's death, his son Reccared was con- power and divine charartrr whidi Vf 
 verted bv I.eander and led the whole people of butes to the sun and otli- 1 
 the Visigoths to the true faith. [m.a.w.1 peculiarly Kgvplian. t!i 
 
 Hermes (l) Trismegistus. I'nder this title him into aihnity with 
 we have a variety f)f writings of uncertain date , Platonic, view*. Seroiifli>. w.i-. •••■■■ 
 and unknown authorship originating in Kgypt.' or Gnosticism is mtxilhed by 
 
 Om 
 
 m^ri- 
 
 m<ira> ar 
 
454 
 
 HERMIAS 
 
 religious elements which certainly might to 
 some degree be paralleled in Plato, but to 
 which it is difficult to avoid ascribing a Jewish 
 and even a Christian origin. Great stress is 
 laid on the unity, the creative power, the 
 fatherhood and goodness of God. " The argu- 
 ment from design also appears (Poemander, 
 c. 5). Even the well-known terms of baptism 
 and regeneration occur, though in different 
 connexions, and the former in a metaphorical 
 sense. One of the chapters of the Poemander 
 is entitled " The Secret Sermon on the Moun- 
 tain." The future punishments for wrong- 
 doing are described with emphasis, but there 
 is no moral teaching in detail. Thirdly, these 
 intellectual and religious elements are asso- 
 ciated with a passionate and vigorous defence 
 of the heathen religion, including idol worship, 
 and a prophecy of the evils which will come 
 on the earth from the loss of piety. They are 
 thus the only extant lamentation of expiring 
 heathenism, and one that is not without 
 pathos. But for the most part the style is 
 hierophantic, pretentious, and diffuse. See 
 further Fabric. Bibl. Grace vol. i. pp. 46-94 ; 
 Baumgarten Crusius, de Lib. Hermeticorum 
 Origins atque Indole (Jena, 1827) ; and 
 Chambers, The Theol. and Philos. Works of 
 Her. Tris. (Edin. 1882). [j.r.m.] 
 
 Hermias (5). a Christian philosopher, author 
 of the Irrisio Geutilium Philosophorum, 
 annexed in all Bibliothecae Patrum to the 
 works of Athenagoras (Migne, Patr. Gk. vi. 
 1167). It was published in Greek and Latin 
 at Basle in 1553. It consists of satirical re- 
 flections on the opinions of the philosophers, 
 shewing how Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Pvtha- 
 goras, Epicurus, etc. agree only in repelling 
 and refuting one another. Who the author 
 was seems to have baffled all inquiries. Some 
 identify him with Hermias Sozomen the eccle- 
 siastical historian. Even the martyr of May 
 31 has been suggested (Ceillier, vi. 332). Cave 
 (i. 81) attributes the work to the 2nd cent. 
 As it was plainly written when heathenism 
 was triumphant, Ceillier {ii.s.) places it 
 under Julian. Neander (H. E. ii. 429, ed. 
 Bohn) regards Hermias as " one of those 
 bitter enemies of the Greek philosophy whom 
 Clement of Alexandria thought it neccssarv 
 to censure, and who. following the idle Jewish 
 legend, pretended that the Greek philosophy 
 had been derived from fallen angels. In the 
 title of his book he is called the philosopher ; 
 perhaps he wore the philosopher's mantle 
 before his conversion, and after it passed at 
 once from an enthusiastic admiration of the 
 Greek pilosophv to extreme abhorrence of it " 
 (Du Pin, H. E. t. i. p. 69, ed. 1723). The 
 latest ed. is bv H. Diel?, in Doxographi Graeci 
 (Berlin. 1879). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Hermogenes (l), a teacher of heretical 
 doctrine towards the close of 2nd cent., the 
 chief error ascribed to him being the doctrine 
 that God had formed the world, not out of 
 nothing, but out of previously existing un- 
 created matter. Tertullian wrote two tracts 
 in answer, one of which is extant, and is our 
 chief source of information about Hermogenes. 
 The minuteness with which his arguments are 
 answered indicates that Tertullian is replying 
 to a published work of Hermogenes, apparent- 
 ly written in Latin. Another doctrine of 
 
 HERMOGENES 
 
 Hermogenes preserved by Clement of Alex- 
 andria (Eclog. ex Script. Proph. 56, p. 1002), 
 being unlike anything told of him by Tertul- 
 lian, was conjectured by Mosheim {de Rebus 
 Christ, ante Const, p. 435), to belong to some 
 different Hermogenes. But the since recov- 
 ered treatise on heresies by Hippolytus 
 combines in its account of Hermogenes (viii. 
 17, P- 273) the doctrines attributed to him by 
 Clement and by Tertullian. Probably Clem- 
 ent and Hippolytus drew from a common 
 source, namely, the work " against the heresy 
 of Hermogenes," which, Eusebius tells us 
 {H. E. iv. 24), was written by Theophilus of 
 Antioch, and which is mentioned also by 
 Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 19), who probably 
 drew from it his account of Hermogenes, in 
 which he clearly employs some authority 
 different from the tenth book, or summary, of 
 Hippolytus, of which he makes large use of 
 elsewhere. Theodoret adds that Hermogenes 
 was also answered by Origen, from which it 
 has been supposed that he refers under this 
 name to the summary now ascribed to Hippo- 
 lytus ; but there is no evidence that Theodoret 
 regarded this work as Origen's (see Volkmar, 
 Hippolytus und die romischen Zeitgenossen, 
 p. .'14), so that some lost work of Origen's must 
 be presumed. The passages cited are all our 
 primary authorities about Hermogenes, except 
 some statements of Philaster (see below). 
 
 A considerable distance of time and place 
 separates the notices by Theophilus and Ter- 
 tullian. Theophilus survived the accession 
 of Commodus in 180, but probably not more 
 than two years. Hence 180 would be our 
 latest date for the teaching of Hermogenes, 
 which may have been earlier. He probably had 
 disciples at Antioch, and therefore must have 
 taught at or near there, and any writing of 
 his answered by Theophilus must have been 
 written in Greek. Tertullian's tract against 
 Hermogenes is assigned by Uhlhorn (Funda- 
 menta Chron. Tert. p. 60) to a.d. 206 or 207. 
 In it Hermogenes is spoken of as still living 
 ("ad hodiernum homo in saeculo") and 
 coupled with one Nigidius in the work on Pre- 
 scription, c. 30. as among theheretics "who still 
 walk perverting the ways of God." There are 
 indications that the work to which Tertullian 
 replies was in Latin, and every reason to think 
 that Hermogenes (though probably, as his 
 name indicates, of Greek descent) was then 
 living in Carthage, for Tertullian assails his 
 private character, entering into details in a 
 way which would not be intelligible unless 
 both were inhabitants of the same city. The 
 same inference may be drawn from the fre- 
 quency of Tertullian's references to Hermo- 
 genes in works of which his errors are not the 
 subject [de Monog. 16 ; de Praescrip. 30, 33 ; 
 adv. Valent. 16 ; de Animd, i, 11, 21, 22, 24) ; 
 for apparently proximity gave this heretic an 
 j importance in his eves greater than was other- 
 wise warranted. Tertullian describes him as 
 a turbulent man, who took loquacity for 
 eloquence and impudence for firmness. Two 
 things in particular are shocking to his then 
 Montanist principles, that Hermogenes was 
 a painter, and that he had married frequently. 
 Neander and others have supposed that the 
 offence of Hermogenes was that he painted 
 mythological subjects. But there is no trace 
 
HERMOGENES 
 
 of this limitation in TcrtuUian's treatise, 
 which shews all thrini^;h a dislike of tlie pic- 
 torial art, and Tortiillian seems to have con- 
 sidered the representation of the human form 
 absolutely forbidden by the 2nd command- 
 ment. As for the charge of frequent mar- 
 riages, if Hermogenes. who in 207 would be 
 advanced in life, was then married to a third 
 wife, a writer so fond of rhetorical exaggera- 
 tion as Tertullian might describe him as one 
 who had formed a practice of marrying {nubil 
 asstdue), or who liad " married more women 
 than he had painted." Tertullian's language 
 may imply that Hermogenes had also endea- 
 voured to prove from Scripture that a second 
 marriage was not unlawful. 
 
 With regard to the doctrines of Hermogenes, 
 the language of Hippolytus suggests that he 
 denied the physical possibility of creation 
 from nothing; but in the representation of 
 Tertullian no stress is laid on the philosophic 
 maxim, " Nihil ex nihilo," and the eternal 
 existence of matter seems only assumed to 
 account for the origin of evil. The argument 
 of Hermogenes was, either God made the 
 world out of His own substance, or out of 
 nothing, or out of previously existing matter. 
 The first or emanation hypothesis is rejected, 
 since He Who is indivisible and immutable 
 could not separate Himself into parts, or 
 make Himself other than He had ever been. 
 The second is disproved by the existence of 
 evil, for if God made all things out of nothing 
 unrestrained by any condition, His work 
 would have been all good and perfect like 
 Hin;self. It remained, therefore, that God 
 must have formed the world out of iirevit)usly 
 existent matter, through the fault of which 
 evil was possible. F'urther, God must have 
 been always God and I.orci, therefore there 
 must always have existed something of which 
 He was God and Lord. Tertullian replies that 
 God was always God but not always Lord, and 
 appeals to Genesis, where the title God is 
 given to the Creator from the first, but the 
 title Lord not till after the creation of man. 
 Concerning Tertullian's assertion that God 
 was not always Father, see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. 
 iii. 10. From'the assertion of Hermogenes that 
 God was always Lord of matter, Neander in- 
 ferred that he must have denied any creation 
 in time, and held that God had been from 
 eternity operating in a formative manner on 
 matter. Tertullian does not appear to have 
 drawn this consequence, and (c. 44) assumes as 
 undisputed some definite epoch of creation. 
 But the account of Hippolytus shews Neander 
 to have been right. With regard to the 
 general argument, Tertullian shews that the 
 hypothesis of the eternity of matter relieves 
 none of the difficulties of reconciling the 
 existence of evil with the attributes of God. 
 H God exercised lordship over matter, why 
 did He not clear it of evil before He employed 
 it in the work of creation ? Or why did He 
 emplov in His work that which He knew to 
 be evil ? It would really, he says, be more 
 honourable to (iod to make Him the free and 
 voluntary author of evil than to make him 
 the slave of matter, compelled to use it in 
 His work, though knowing it to be evil. He 
 contends that the hypothesis of Hermogenes 
 amounts to Ditheism, since, though he does 
 
 HERMOGENES 
 
 456 
 
 not give to malt. I tl„- n.imr of G.kI. he 
 ascribes t.. it (....is .ss.nti.il 4((ribtilr of 
 eternitv. Me asks what just rl.iim of lonUhip 
 God could have over inatlrr as rlrrnal a& 
 Himself; nay, which nuKht claim to hr ihr 
 superior; for matter rould do wiihout C.>h\, 
 but (Iod. it would seem, rould not ,.irrv out 
 His work without coming to matter l.-r 
 assistance. In the discussion every word in 
 the Mosaic account of creation rrrrivrn miiiutr 
 examination and there is a rckkI deal of 
 strained verbal interpretation i>n both sidr^. 
 But the authority, and apparentiv the canon, 
 of Scripture were subje( ts on which both wrrr 
 agreed. Tertullian holds Scripture so rxrhi»ivr 
 an authority that its mere silence is drnsivr. 
 and, since it do«s not mention pre-rxistrnt 
 matter, that those who assert its rxistrnir 
 incur the woe denounced against those who 
 add to that whii h is written. 
 
 Though the word " materialist " is first 
 heard of in this controversv. the views of 
 Hermogenes were verv unlike those now- 
 known by that name, and it is doul>t(ul 
 whether oiu" word matter exactly corre*i>onds 
 to the hyle of Hermogenes. This apparently 
 included the ideas of shapelessness and dis- 
 orderly motion, so that all the sensible world 
 could not, as in our modern language, br 
 described as material. That which be< .unr 
 K6anoi ceased to be hyU, and, in fart, Ter- 
 tullian does not admit the existent e of matter 
 in the sense of Hermogenes. Hermop.ne^ 
 held matter to be infinite and refused to apply 
 to it any predii ate. It is without form, and 
 is described as in a perpetual state of turbulent 
 restless motion, like water boiling in a pot. 
 It is not to be called good, since it needed the 
 Deitv to fashion it ; nor bad, since it was 
 capable of being reduced to order. It is not 
 to be called corporeal, because motion, one 
 of its essential attributes, is incorporeal, nor 
 incorporeal because out of it bodies .ire made. 
 Hermogenes repudiated the Stoic notion that 
 God pervades matter, or is in it like honey in 
 a honeycomb ; his idea was that the Deitv, 
 without intermixing with matter, operated 
 on it bv His mere approach and by shewing 
 Himself, just as beauty aflects the mind l>y 
 the mere sight of it (a very appropriate illus- 
 tration for a painter) or as a magnet causes 
 motion without contact merely on being 
 brought near. By this approach part of 
 matter was reduced to order and be( ante 
 the Kbano^, but part remains unsubdued ; 
 and this, it is to be suj^posed, was in the theory 
 of Hermogenes the source of evil. Tertullian 
 acutely remarks that this language about 
 God's drawing near to matter as well as tlir 
 use of the words above and below with refer- 
 ence to the relative position of (,.«i and 
 matter cannot be reconciled with the do< trine 
 of Hermogenes as to the infinitv of matter. 
 
 The l<*t tract of Tertullian against Merm.|- 
 genes dis( iissed the origin of the s.-ul. which 
 Hermogenes ascribed to matter. Tertullian to 
 the breath «f life inspired by (.<kI at the 
 formati.m of man (Gen. ii. 7)- Trrtullun 
 accuses his opponent of mistranslation in 
 substituting " Spirit " for "breath, appar- 
 ently in order to ex. hide the p.«sibilily of 
 interpreting this part .'f the verse .• the 
 communication of the s.^ul. since the Dimiic 
 
456 
 
 HERMOGENES 
 
 Spirit could not be supposed capable of falling 
 into sin. This supplies one indication that 
 the tract to which Tertullian replies was in 
 Latin ; and Hermogenes, as a Greek by birth, 
 would probably not use the current Latin 
 translation of the Bible, but render for himself. 
 
 The opinion of Hermogenes (not mentioned 
 by Tertullian, but recorded by Clement, 
 Hippolytus, and Theodoret) is that our Lord 
 on His ascension left His bodv in the sun 
 and Himself ascended to the Father, a doc- 
 trine which he derived or confirmed from 
 Ps. xix., " He hath placed his tabernacle in 
 the sun." (Theodoret adds that Hermogenes 
 taught that the devil and the demons would 
 be resolved into hyle. This agrees very well 
 with the doctrine that the soul derived its 
 origin from matter.) It is a common point of 
 Gnostic doctrine that our Lord's nature was 
 after the passion resolved into its elements 
 and that only the purely spiritual part as- 
 cended to the Father. But on no other point 
 does Hermogenes approach Gnostic teaching ; 
 in his theory of creation, he recognizes neither 
 emanation from God nor anvthing inter- 
 vening between God and matter; his general 
 doctrine was confessedly orthodox and he 
 would seem to have no wish to separate 
 from the church nor to consider himself as 
 transgressing the limits of Christian philo- 
 sophic speculations. 
 
 It remains to notice Philaster's confused 
 account of Hermogenes. It would not cause 
 much difficulty that he counts (Haer. 53) the 
 Hermogenians as a school of Sabellians^ called 
 after Hermogenes as the Praxeani were after 
 Praxeas. Though the silence of Tertullian 
 leads us to believe that Hermogenes himself 
 was orthodox on this point, his followers mav 
 very possibly have allied themselves with 
 those of Praxeas against their common 
 opponent. But in the next section Philaster 
 tells of Galatian heretics, Seleucus and 
 Hermias, and attributes to them the very 
 doctrines of Hermogenes that matter was 
 co-eternal with God, that man's soul was from 
 matter, and that our Lord deposited His 
 body in the sun in accordance with the Psalm 
 already quoted. It is beyond all probability 
 that such a combination of doctrines could 
 have been taught independentlv by two 
 heretics and it is not likely that Hermogenes 
 had disciples in Galatia ; we may therefore 
 reasonably believe that Philaster's Hermias is 
 Hermogenes. Philaster, however, attributes 
 to his heretics other doctrines which we have 
 no reason to think were held by Hermogenes : 
 that evil proceeded sometimes from God, 
 sometimes from matter ; that there was no 
 visible Paradise ; that water-baptism was not 
 to be used, seeing that souls had been formed 
 from wind and fire, and that the Baptist had 
 said that Christ should baptize with the Holy 
 Ghost and with fire ; that angels, not Christ, 
 had created men's souls ; that this world was 
 the only " internum," and that the only 
 resurrection is that of the human race occur- 
 ring daily in the procreation of children. 
 Philaster may have read tracts not now extant, 
 in which Tertullian made mention of Hermo- 
 genes, and possiblv if we had the lost tract 
 de Paradise it might throw light on Philaster's 
 statements. But we may safely reject his 
 
 HESYCHIUS 
 
 account as untrustworthy, even though we 
 cannot now trace the origin of his confusion. 
 
 The tract against Hermogenes has been 
 analysed by writers on Tertullian ; e.g. 
 Neander, Antignosticus, p. 448, Bohn's trans. ; 
 Kaye, Terttdlian, p. 532 ; Hauck, Tertullian, 
 p. 240. Consult also arts. s.v. in Tillemont, 
 iii. and Walch, Hist, der Ketz. i. 576 ; and E. 
 Heintzel, Hermogenes {P.er\\n, 1902). [cs.] 
 
 Hesychlus (3) (Hcsechius), bp. of an 
 Egyptian see, mentioned as the author, with 
 Phileas, Theodorus, and Pachumius, of a 
 letter to Meletius, schismatic bp. of Lycopolis 
 in Egypt. The letter, given in a Latin version 
 in Gailandius, Bihl. Patrunt, iv. 67, is a remon- 
 strance to Meletius on his irregular ordina- 
 tions in other dioceses, and was written (c. 
 296) when the authors were in prison and 
 Peter of Alexandria alive. The martjTdom of 
 Hesychius under Galerius, with Phileas, 
 Pachumius, and Theodorus, is recorded in 
 Eus. Hist. Eccl. viii. 13. This Hesvchius has 
 been usually identified with the reviser of the 
 text of the LXX, and of N.T., or at least of 
 the Gospels, which obtained extensive cur- 
 rency in Egypt. There are no grounds for 
 questioning the truth of this conjecture. 
 This Hesychian recension is mentioned more 
 than once by Jerome, who states that it was 
 generally accepted in Egypt, as that of his 
 fellow-martyr, Lucian of Antioch, was in 
 Asia Minor and the East (Hieron. Praef. in 
 Paralipom. ad Chromat. Ep. 107, repeated in 
 Apologia II. adv. Rufin. vol. i. p. 763, Paris, 
 i6og). Jerome also refers to it as" exemplaria 
 Alexandrina" [in Esai. Iviii. 11). We know 
 little or nothing more of this edition of the 
 LXX. It was doubtless an attempt, like that 
 of Lucian, to purify the text in use in Egypt, 
 by collating various manuscripts and by re- 
 course to other means of assistance at hand. 
 Jerome speaks with some contempt of his 
 labours in the field of O.T. recension, and still 
 more of his and Lucian's recension of the 
 Gospels. If we interpret his words strictly, 
 Hesychius, as well as Lucian, added so much 
 to the text as to lay them open to the charge 
 of falsifying the Gospels and rendering their 
 work "apocryphal" (Hieron. Praef. in 
 Evang. ad Damasum). The words of the 
 famous Decretal of Gelasius (c. 500) " On 
 ecclesiastical books," which are, however, 
 regarded by Credner {Zur Gesch. d. K. p. 216) 
 as additions to the original decree " made at 
 the time it was republished in Spain under 
 the name of Hormisdas, c. 700-800 " (West- 
 cott, Hist, of Can. p. 448, n. i), are equally 
 condemnatory : " Evangelia quae falsavit 
 Isicius [Hesychius] — Apocrypha " (Labbe, 
 Cone. iv. 126). Westcott pronounces Hug's 
 speculations as to the influence of this recen- 
 sion, " of which nothing is certainly known," 
 " quite unsatisfactory" (ib.). [e-v.J 
 
 Hesychius (25), presbyter of Jerusalem in 
 the first half of 5th cent., a copious and learned 
 writer whose comments on Holy Scripture 
 and other works gained a great reputation. 
 Considerable confusion exists as to the 
 authorship of several of the treatises as- 
 cribed to him — a confusion which it is hope- 
 less entirely to remove. It is possible that 
 some were written by the bp. of Salona. 
 [Hesychius (6)] It is altogether a mistake 
 
HESTCHIUS 
 
 to speak of Hesychius as bp. of Jonisalcm. 
 According to the Greok Menolopy, Mar. 28, 
 he was born and educated at Jerusalem, where 
 " by meditating on the Scriptures he obtained 
 a deep acquaintance with divine things." 
 On reaching manhood he loft hmiie and 
 devoted himself to a solitary life in the 
 desert, where he " with bee-like industry 
 gathered the flowers of virtue from the holy 
 Fathers there." He was ordained presbvter 
 against his will by the patriarch of Jerusalem, 
 and spent the rest of his life there or at other 
 sacred places. Hesychius the presbyter is 
 mentioned by Theophanes, who, in 412, speaks 
 of him as " the presbyter of Jerusalem," and 
 in 413 records his celebrity for theological 
 learning. He is mentioned in the Life of 
 St. Euthymius by Cyril of Scvthopolis (Cote- 
 ler. Eccl. Graec. Monum. t. ii. p. 233, § 42), 
 as accompanying Juvenal, patriarch of Jeru- 
 salem, to the consecration of the church of 
 the " laura " of St. Euthymius, a.d. 428 or 
 420. and as received with much honour by the 
 abbat. He is said bv .\llatius (Diatriba de 
 Simeonibus, p. 100) to have been Chartophylax 
 or Keeper of the Records of the church of the 
 Anastasis at Jerusalem. His death can only 
 be placed approximately c. 438. He is twice 
 mentioned by Photius, who shares to some 
 extent in the confusion as to the Hesychii, 
 and assigns him no date. In Cod. 275 Photius 
 quotes a rhetorical passage from a sermon 
 on James the Lord's brother and David 
 l6(oirdTiijp), evidently delivered at Jerusalem. 
 Hesychius compares Bethlehem and Sion, to 
 the great advantage of the latter, and, in a 
 manner very natural in a presbyter of Jeru- 
 salem, elevates St. James's authority above 
 that of St. Peter in the council of Jerusalem. 
 
 Of several of the numerous works attributed 
 to this author, all we can say is that they bear 
 the name of Hesychius in one of its forms, but 
 whether actually the compositi'm of the pres- 
 byter of Jerusalem or of some other Hesychius 
 it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. 
 Tillemont feels no insuperable difficulty in 
 assigning them all to the same author, but 
 confesses that fuller light might lead to a 
 different conclusion. 
 
 (i) In Leviticum Libri VII. Explanaiionum 
 AUegoricarum sive Cnmmentarius, dedicated to 
 the deacon Eutychianus, is the most extensive 
 work extant under the name of Hesychius. 
 It has frequently been printed. The earliest 
 editions are those of Basle (1527, fol.) and Paris 
 (1581, 8vo). It is in the various Bibliothecae 
 Patrum. as that of Lvons, t. xii. p. 52, and th«- 
 Vet. Pair. Bibl. of (ialland. t. xi. 
 
 (2) Commentan'es nn the Psalms. — Harles and 
 Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 540, speak of 
 many portions of this work existing in MS., 
 especially one in the University Library of 
 Cambridge containing P>s. Ixxvii.-cvii. Thf 
 only portions printed are the Frapmenia in 
 Psalmos, extracted from the (ireek ( alena in 
 Psalmos, with a Latin trans, by Balthazar 
 Corderius. These arc very sensible and useful, 
 and lead us to wish for the publication of the 
 whole. See Faulhalxr, Hesych. Hiernsol. In- 
 ierpr. Is. Proph. iqoo sqq. ; att. to F;iiilli.ib<T 
 in Theol. Quartalschr. igoi. The Conunentary 
 on the Psalms att. to Athanasius (Mignc, 
 Pair. Gk. xxvii.) is by Hesychius. 
 
 HESYCHIUS ILLUSTRIS 
 
 457 
 
 (3) IVixr^iAf sivr ^/.,•'.<^\a<a in XII. Pro- 
 phetas el Fsatam. an rpitMmr of the 12 Mtn-* 
 Proj>het>i and Isaiah, sr. tmu bv wcliim. 
 
 (4) Franmenls of ( ommenlarus en l-.ik-, 
 Dan., Acts, lames. I. Petrr. and ludr. 
 
 (5) Difficullatum el Solulionum ( oltedio- A 
 harmonising of 61 discrrpant p.iMaKr» in thr 
 Gospel history, grnrr.dlv rhararirri/rd bv 
 sound common sense and a rrlurtancc lo t«trf 
 an unreal agreement. 
 
 (6) Eight Sermons, or Fragments of Serm«n*. 
 
 (7) 'AvTtppjp-ifii xal Kr'«Ti«(i. Two ( enlHftft 
 of Moral Maxims on Temperance and \'irlue 
 and Instructions on Prayer, addressed to i.nr 
 Theodotus. 
 
 (8) The Martyrdom of Longinus the Centu- 
 rion. — The author, according to Fabrinut, 
 belonged to a much later period than tlir one 
 who wrote the works previf)usly rnumrralrd. 
 
 (0) .in Fcclesiastical History, of whu h a 
 fragment is given in the Arts r.( the rounril of 
 Constantinople, a.d. 3^3, Collat. Quinta. c« n- 
 demnatorv of The<xlore of Mopsurstia. 
 
 Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 570 ; Fabrinu*, 
 Bibl. Graec. ed. Harles. t. vii. pp. ^4«-^^l ; 
 C.alland, Vet. Pair. Bibl. t. xi. ; Mignr. Pair. 
 Gk. vol. xciii. pp. 781-1S60. ff v ' 
 
 Hesychius (27) Illustris, a copious luvi it. .1 
 
 and biopraphiral writer, the son of an ad\ ■ ■ it'- 
 and born at Miletus. His distinctive nm r 
 ('IXXoiVt/)iot) was the official title conferred bv 
 Constantine the dreat on the highest rank of 
 state officers. Nothing is known of liim 
 except that he lived in the reigns of Anastasius. 
 Justin, and Justinian, and that his literarv 
 labours were cut short by grief at the pre- 
 mature death of a son named John. Suidas 
 doubts whether he was a Christian on the 
 somewhat precarious ground of his oinisvi' n 
 of all ecclesiastical writers in his work on men 
 of learning. But very substantial reason* 
 have been produced on the other side bv Cave 
 {Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 518) and accepted bv Fabri- 
 cius. His chief work was a I'nitersal History 
 in six books and in a synoptical form throuKh 
 a period of 1020 years, reaching from Belus. 
 the reputed founder of the .Assyrian empire, 
 to the death of Anastasius I., a.d. .m8. Thr 
 whole has perished except the initial ]« rti n 
 of bk. vi., whi( h has been several tiim- ; 
 under the title of Cnnstantinof>ohs On. :• 
 \ .4nli<iuitates. It was published bv ■ 
 Dousa. and .ascribe«l ti> (.e..rgius i.-.i....- 
 (Heidelberg, iV)f>). and subsequriitiv bv .Meur- 
 sius, under the name of its real auth.T. ap- 
 pended to his de \'iris ( lans (I ug«l. Bat. 
 1613). It was followed bv a siipplniirnl. 
 recording the reign of Justin, and the rarlv 
 years of Justinian. This, as thr work <f .1 
 contemporary whose official pi*itioii rii.iM..I 
 him to obtain accurate information, iniisi \> >•■•• 
 been of great historical \ alur. an.! it^ ! 
 very mu< h to be regretted. II 
 wrote a series of biographi 
 learned men, whit h, going over 
 samegrouiul as the work of Pin. i . 
 has been supposed to be an epiti 
 Vilae Philnsophorum. A rompari 
 two will shew that the diflerrncrs are (.. .1. >t 
 to admit this idea. This work h . 
 printed bv Meursiiis (I iigd. Bat 
 Without sufficient grounds Hesvrhiu^ I 
 bas been identified with the le»icoprapliri t 
 
 .1 Ihr 
 I Ihr 
 
458 
 
 HIERACAS 
 
 Alexandria. Cave, I.e. ; Suidas, s.v. ; Photius, 
 Cod. 69 ; Fabr. Bibl. Graec. t. vii. p. 544 ; 
 Thorschmidius, de Hesychio Illustri, ap. 
 Orellium Hesychii Opera. [e.v.] 
 
 HieracaS (Hiemx), an Egyptian teacher, 
 from whom the sect of Hieracitae took their 
 name. Our knowledge of him is almost 
 entirely derived from Epiphanius {Haer. 67, 
 p. 709), who states that he was contemporary 
 with the Egyptian bp. Meletius and Peter of 
 Alexandria, and lived under Diocletian's 
 persecution. This agrees very well with the 
 notice of him by Arius (vide infra), so that he 
 may be placed at the very beginning of the 
 4th cent. Epiphanius treats him with more 
 respect than other founders of heretical sects, 
 and is willing to believe that he practised 
 asceticism bond fide, which, in the case of his 
 followers, he counts but as hypocrisy. Ac- 
 cording to Epiphanius, Hieracas lived at 
 Leontopolis, in Egypt, abstaining from wine 
 and animal food ; and by his severity of life 
 and the weight of his personal character did 
 much to gain reception for his doctrines, 
 especially among other Egyptian ascetics. 
 He had great ability and learning, being well 
 trained in Greek and Egyptian literature and 
 science, and wrote several works in both 
 languages. Epiphanius ascribes to him a 
 good knowledge of medicine, and, with more 
 hesitation, of astronomy and magic. He 
 practised the art of calligraphy, and is said to 
 have lived to 90 years of age, and to have 
 retained such perfect eyesight as to be able to 
 continue the practice of his art to the time of 
 his death. Besides composing hymns, he 
 wrote several expository works on Scripture, 
 of which one on the Hexaemeron is particular- 
 ly mentioned. It was, doubtless, in this work 
 that he put forward a doctrine censured by 
 Epiphanius, viz. the denial of a material 
 Paradise. Mosheim connects this with his 
 reprobation of marriage, imagining that it 
 arose from the necessity of replying to the 
 objection that marriage was a state ordained 
 by God in Paradise. Neander, with more 
 probability, conceives that the notion of the 
 essential evil of matter was at the bottom of 
 this as well as of other doctrines of Hieracas. 
 This would lead him to allegorize the Paradise 
 of Genesis, interpreting it of that higher 
 spiritual world from which the heavenly spirit 
 fell by an inclination to earthly matter. This 
 notion would also account for a second doc- 
 trine, which, according to Epiphanius, he held 
 in common with Origen, viz. that the future 
 resurrection would be of the soul only, not of 
 the material body ; for all who counted it a 
 gain to the soul to be liberated by death from 
 the bonds of matter found it hard to believe 
 that it could be again imprisoned in a body 
 at the resurrection. The same notion would 
 explain the prominence which the mortifica- 
 tion of the body held in his practical teaching ; 
 so that, according to this view, Hieracas would 
 be referred to the class of (inostic Encratites. 
 The most salient point in his practical teaching 
 was, that he absolutely condemned marriage, 
 holding that, though permitted under the old 
 dispensation, since the coming of Christ no 
 married person could inherit the kingdom of 
 heaven, li it was objected that the apostle 
 had said, " marriage is honourable in all," he 
 
 HIEROCLES 
 
 appealed to what the same apostle had said 
 " a little further on" (I. Cor. vii.), when he 
 wished all to be as himself and only tolerated 
 marriage " because of fornication," i.e. as the 
 lesser of two evils. Thus it appears that 
 Hieracas believed in the Pauline origin of 
 Hebrews, and his language seems to indicate 
 that in his sacred volume that epistle pre- 
 ceded I. Corinthians. He received also the 
 pastoral epistles of St. Paul, for he appeals 
 to I. Tim. ii. 11 in support of another of his 
 doctrines, viz. that children dying before the 
 use of reason cannot inherit the kingdom of 
 heaven ; and asks if he who strives cannot be 
 crowned unless he strive lawfully, how can he 
 be crowned who has never striven at all ? 
 Arius, in his letter to Alexander in defence of 
 his views concerning our Lord's Person 
 (Epiph. Haer. 69, 7, p. 732 ; Athan. de Syn. 
 i. 583 ; Hilar, de Trin. vi. 5, 12), contrasts his 
 own doctrine with that of Valentinus, of 
 Manichaeus, of Sabellius, of Hieracas ; and 
 presumably all these teachers, by rejection of 
 whom he hopes to establish his own orthodoxy, 
 were reputed as heretics. Hieracas, according 
 to Arius, illustrated the relation between the 
 first two Persons of the Godhead by the 
 comparison of a light kindled from another, 
 or of a torch divided into two, or, as Hilary 
 understands it, of a lamp with two wicks 
 burning in the same oil. 
 
 His doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is 
 more questionable. He was influenced by the 
 book of the Ascension of Isaiah, which he 
 received as authoritative. In it Isaiah is 
 represented as seeing in the seventh Heaven, 
 on the right and left hand of God respectively, 
 two Beings like each other, one being the Son, 
 the other the angel of the Holy Spirit Who 
 spake by the prophets. Hieracas inferred 
 that the latter Being, Who makes priestly 
 intercession with groanings that cannot be 
 uttered, must be the same as Melchisedek, who 
 also was " made like unto the Son of God," 
 and " who remaineth a priest for ever." 
 These tenets are ascribed to Hieracas by 
 Epiphanius, whose account is abridged by 
 .\ugustine (Haer. 47), by Joannes Damascenus 
 (66), and by " Praedestinatus " (47). The 
 continued existence of the sect is assumed in 
 a story told by Rufinus (Hist. Mon. 28, p. 196) 
 of Macarius, who, when he had failed to 
 confute the cunning arguments of a Hieracite 
 heretic to the satisfaction of his hearers, van- 
 quished him by successfully challenging him 
 to a contest as to which could raise a dead 
 bodv. Rufinus does not make the story turn 
 on the fact that Hieracas denied the resur- 
 rection of the flesh. [g.s.] 
 
 Hierocles (1), a native of a small town in 
 Caria, born at latest c. 273. He was a Neo- 
 platonic philosopher, to be distinguished from 
 the 5th-cent. philosopher Hierocles (2). 
 Lactantius supposed him to have been in early 
 life a Christian, as he displayed in his writings 
 suchintimateknowlcdge of Scripture andChris- 
 tian teaching. He must have been an active 
 and able administrator, as he seems to have 
 risen rapidly by his own exertions. In an in- 
 scription at Palmyra (Corp. Inscript. Lat. t. iii. 
 no. 133) his name occurs as ruler of that city 
 under Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and 
 Constantius being Caesars. Here he probably 
 
HIEROCLES 
 
 came in contact with t.alerius and impressed 1 
 the Caesar with a respect for his abilities on 1 
 his famous Persian expedition, when the first [ 
 seeds of the persecution were sown, 297-302. , 
 The expression reiterated by l.actantius, that ! 
 he was the " author and adviser of the per- 
 secution." lends support to this view. He 
 was translated as prefect in 304 or 305 to ' 
 Bithynia after the persecution broke out, and j 
 in 305 or 306 was pronioteil to the povernnn'nt 
 of .Alexandria, as is proved by the fact that 
 Eusebius records the martyrdom of Aedesius 
 at .\lexandria as occurring by his orders a 
 short time after that of .\pphianus, which he 
 dates Apr. 2. 306 (cf. Eus. Marl. Pal. cc. iv. 
 V. ; Epiphanius, Haet. Ixviii. ; Assem. Mart. 
 Orient, ii. 195). Hierocles seems to have 
 there displayed the same bloodthirsty cruelty 
 as marked another philosophic persecutor, 
 Theotecnus. He wrote a book against Chris- 
 tianity, entitled Ad>os (f)i\a\-f)6ri^ irp6i tov^ 
 XpitrTiavvi'S, in which he brought forward 
 various scriptural difficulties and alleged 
 contradictions and instituted comparisons ^ 
 between the life and miracles of Jesus Christ 1 
 and of .\pollonius of Tyana. To this Eusebius 
 replied in a treatise yet extant, Ltber contra 
 Hieroclem. wherein he shews that .\pollonius 
 was " so far fr<im being comparable to Jesus 
 Christ that he did not deserve to be ranked 
 among the philosophers " (Du Pin, H. E. i. 
 155, art. "Eusebiu? "). Duchesne, in an acute 
 treatise on the then lately discovered works 
 of Macarius Magnes (Paris, Klinksieck, 1877), 
 suggests that the work of Hierocles em- 
 b'idied the objections drawn by Porphyry 
 from Holy Scripture, and that the work of 
 Macarius was a reply to them, and suggests 
 that Hierocles wrote his book while ruling at 
 Palmyra before the persecution. Coming 
 from a man in his position, it would carry 
 great weight in the region of the Euphrates. 
 Macarius, therefore, as a dweller in that 
 region (Duchesne, p. 11), and Eusebius, re- 
 plied. Fleury, H. E. t. ii. 1. viii. § 30: Tillem. 
 Mim. xiii. 333; Hist, des Emp. iv. 307; 
 Neander, H. E. t. i. pp. 201, 240, ed. Bohn ; 
 Macar. Mag. ed. Blondel ; Mas'm, Dioclet. 
 Persec. pp. 58, 108 ; Herzog, Real-Encvc 
 art. "Hierocles." Dr. C.aisford, of Oxford, 
 pub. in 1852 the treatises of Eusebius against 
 Hierocles and against Marcellus. [g.t.s.I 
 
 Hierocles (2). a philosopher, generally 
 classed among theneo-Platonists, who lived at 
 Alexandria in the first half <.f sth cent., and 
 delivered lectures of considerable merit. His 
 character is spoken of by Daniasrius (quoted 
 by Suidas) in hit;h terms. When sojourning 
 at Constantino{>le he came into collision with 
 the government (or. as Kust<r interprets it, 
 with the Christian authorities) and was severe- 
 ly beaten in the court of justice, possibly (as 
 Zeller conjectures) for his adherence to the 
 old religion. He was then banished, and 
 retired to Alexandria. His teacher in phil<»- 
 sophy was Pltitarch thf neo-I'latonist ; Thco- 
 sebius is mentioned as his disciple. 
 
 His principal extant work is a commentary 
 on the Goldfn Verses attributed to Pythagoras. 
 His entire remains have been ed. bv bp. 
 Pearson, P. Needham (Camb. 1709). Oaisf'-rd 
 (1850). and Mullach (18^3). See the last vol. 
 of Zeller's Greek Philosophy, pp. 681-687. 
 
 HIEROCLES 
 
 450 
 
 Hierocles appr.irs to have brm a reconrjlrr 
 between the old and the nrw. pouMIrM « 
 sincere adherent of the hrathrn rrlicfti. iU 
 distinctive features njrit away in h\\ har.U 
 and his soft and tender tone rrrjll 
 of Christian piety, e.g. in thr ( 
 sages from his conunentarv oi. 
 I'erses " No proper <.iuse l^ asM^n oif i r 
 (iod to have create*! the world but Hi« 
 essential g'XHlness. He i'* rimkI bv nature ; 
 and the roihI envii-s none in anvthinK " (p. 
 20, ed. Nee<lhanO- " What offrring ran vou 
 make to ('.(kI. out of matrnal thing*, (bat 
 shall be lik.-ned unto or siinable to Him > 
 . . . For. as the Pythagoreans sav, U'xl ha* n'» 
 place in the world more fittetJ fur Hint than 
 a pure soul " (p. 24). " ' Strength dwell* 
 near necessity.' Our author adds thi* t>' »hew 
 that we must not measure our ability to 
 tolerate our friend bv mrre choice, but by our 
 real strength, whirh is discovered onlv bv 
 actual necessity. We have .ill in time of need 
 more strength than we < oininonly think " 
 (p. 52). " We must love the iinw.irthv («r the 
 sake of their partnership in the same nature 
 with us " (p. .s6). " We must be gentle to 
 those who speak falsely, knowing from what 
 evils we ourselves have been cleansed. . . . And 
 gentleness is much aided bv the confidrnre 
 which comes from real knowledge " l^. no). 
 " Let us unite prayer with work. \Ne must 
 pray for the end for which we work, and work 
 for the end for which we prav ; to trarh us 
 this our author says, ' <;o to your w..rk. having 
 prayed the gods to accomplish it " " (p. I72>- 
 
 The reasons adduced bv Hierocles for briiel 
 in a future state are strictiv moral, and ipiitr 
 remote from subtlety: " Except s'ime part 
 of us subsists after death, capable o| rrrriMng 
 the ornaments of truth and g<M><lness (and the 
 rational soul has bevond doubt this capa- 
 bility), there cannot exist in us the pure desire 
 for honourable actions. The suspicion that 
 we may suffer annihilation destroys our c«in- 
 cern for such matters " (p. 76)- 
 
 Not less n<jteworthy are his views rrspectinu 
 Providence. ("kkI, he savs. is the sole eternal 
 author of all things ; thos«- Platonisis who »av 
 that (Iod could ordv make the iiniversr bv 
 the aid of eternal matter are in error (p. 24h, 
 from the treatis'- wtpi w/wwai). Man has 
 free will; but since thr thoughts o| man 
 vacillate and soniefinn-s forgrt (.-xl. man i» 
 liable to sin : what we call fate is the just and 
 necessary retribution inad«* bv ••"xl. "T bv 
 lh(«e powers who do {,<m\'s will. f'T man'* 
 actions, whether f<T merit or demerit (p. 2S*>: 
 cf. p. 02)- Henrr the inequality in the |ol» 
 of men. Pain is the result of anir. r.l. nt mh . 
 those who know this kn-.w th- 
 thev will henceforward avoid ui 
 will not accuse ( .od as if Mr u .t 
 cause of their suffering (j ; 
 
 The ai>proximation ■•( ^•^phy 
 
 to Christianity is the m--.! '"• •" 
 
 be noticed in ronm xion »nn n "" 
 
 nrvc-r, in his <xt.int works, dur 
 Christianity ; what degree of l.i 
 is implied in his phil'-sophv i ' 
 
 ijucsti.-n. His phil.^ophv has i...(i.u nt.^r 
 »periallv chararteristir of Platofusm and 
 neo-i'lat-mism. tg. hi* \»-Urt in the pre- 
 I existence o( man and in tbc iran*niicralli« 
 
460 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 of souls. With Porphyry and Jamblichus, 
 however, he denied that the souls of men could 
 migrate into the bodies of animals. 
 
 We conclude by quoting a passage on 
 Marriage ; shewing the singularly modern and 
 Christian type of his mind. " Marriage is 
 expedient, first, because it produces a truly 
 divine fruit, namely children, our helpers 
 alike when we are young and strong, and 
 when we are old and worn. . . . But even 
 apart from this, wedded life is a happy lot. 
 A wife by her tender offices refreshes 
 those who are wearied with external toil ; she 
 makes her husband forget those troubles 
 which are never so active and aggressive as 
 in the midst of a solitary and unfriended 
 life; sometimes questioning him on his 
 business pursuits, or referring some domestic 
 matter to his judgment, and taking counsel 
 with him upon it : giving a savour and 
 pleasure to life by her unstrained cheerfulness 
 and alacrity. Then again in the united 
 exercise of religious sacrifice, in her conduct 
 as mistress of the house in the absence of 
 her husband, when the family has to be held 
 in order not without a certain ruling spirit, 
 in her care for her servants, in her careful 
 tending of the sick, in these and other things 
 too many to be recounted, her influence is 
 notable. . . . Splendid dwellings, marbles and 
 precious stones and myrtle groves are but 
 poor ornaments to a family. But the heaven- 
 blessed union of a husband and wife, who 
 have all, even their bodies and souls, in 
 conimon, who rule their house and bring up 
 their children well, is a more noble and ex- 
 cellent ornament ; as indeed Homer said. . . . 
 Nothing is so burdensome but that a husband 
 and wife can easily bear it when they are in 
 harmony together, and willing to give their 
 common strength to the task." [j.r.m.J 
 
 Hieronymus (4) (Jerome), St. The full 
 name is Eusebius Hieronymus. 
 
 Among the best accounts of St. Jerome are : 
 Saint Jerome, la Societe chretienne d Rome 
 et V emigration romaine en Terre Sainte, par 
 M. Amedee Thierry (Paris, 1867), and Hier- 
 onymus sein Lehen unci Werken von Dr. Otto 
 Zockler (Gotha, 1865) ; the former gives a 
 vivid, artistic, and, on the whole, accurate 
 picture of his life, with large extracts in the 
 original from his writings, the latter a critical 
 and comprehensive view of both. These con- 
 tain all that is best in previous biographers, 
 such as the Benedictine Martianay (Paris, 
 1706), Sebastian Dolci (Ancona, 1750), Engel- 
 stoft (Copenhagen, i797) ; to which may be 
 added notices of Jerome in the Acta Sanctorum, 
 Bihlia Sacra, Du Pin's and Ceillier's Histories 
 of Ecclesiastical Writers, the excellent article 
 in the D. of G. and R. Biogr., the Life of 
 Jerome prefixed to Vallarsi's ed. of his works, 
 which has a singular value from its succinct 
 narrative and careful investigation of dates. 
 
 He was born c. 346 at Stridon, a town near 
 Aquileia, of Catholic Christian parents (Pref. 
 to Job), who, according to the custom then 
 common, did not have him baptized in 
 infancy. They were not very wealthy, but 
 possessed houses {Ep. Ixvi. 4) and slaves 
 (cont. Ruf. i. c. 30), and lived in close intimacy 
 with the richer family of Bonosus, Jerome's 
 foster-brother (Ep. iii. 5). They were living 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 in 373, when Jerome first went to the East 
 (xxii. 30), but, since he never mentions them 
 later, they probably died in the Gothic invasion 
 (377) when Stridon was destroyed. He had 
 a brother Paulinian, some 20 years younger 
 (Ixxxii. 8), who from 385 lived constantly with 
 him. He was brought up in comfort, if not 
 in luxury (xxii. 30) and received a good 
 education. He was in a grammar school, 
 probably at Rome, and about 17 years old, 
 when the death of the emperor Julian (363) 
 was announced (Comm. on Habakkuk, i. loj. 
 Certainly it was not much later than this 
 that he was sent with his friend Bonosus 
 to complete his education at Rome, and they 
 probably lived together there. The chief 
 study of those days was rhetoric, to which 
 Jerome applied himself diligently, attending 
 the law courts and hearing the best pleaders 
 (Comm. on Gal. ii. 13). Early in his stay at 
 Rome he lived irregularly and fell into sin 
 (Ep. vi. 4, xiv. 6, xlviii. 20). But he was 
 drawn back, and finally cast in his lot with 
 the Christian church. He describes how on 
 Sundays he used to visit, with other young 
 men of like age and mind, the tombs of the 
 martyrs in the Catacombs (Comm. in Ezek. c. 
 40, p. 468) ; and this indicates a serious bent, 
 which culminated in his baptism at Rome 
 while Liberius was pope, i.e. before 366. 
 While there he acquired a considerable library 
 (Ep. xxii. 30) which he afterwards carried 
 wherever he went. On the termination of 
 his studies in Rome he determined to go with 
 Bonosus into Gaul, for what purpose is un- 
 known. They probably first returned home 
 and lived together for a time in Aquileia, 
 or some other town in N. Italy. Certainly 
 they at this time made the acquaintance of 
 Rufinus (iii. 3) and that friendship began 
 between him and Jerome which afterwards 
 turned out so disastrously to both (see 
 Augustine to Jerome, Ep. ex.). Hearing that 
 they were going into Gaul, the country of 
 Hilary, Rufinus begged Jerome to copy for 
 him Hilary's commentary on the Psalms and 
 his book upon the Councils (Ep. v. 2) ; and 
 this may have fostered Jerome's tendency 
 towards ecclesiastical literature, which was 
 henceforward the main pursuit of his life. 
 This vocation declared itself during his stay 
 in Gaul. He went with his friend to several 
 parts of Gaul, staying longest at Treves, then 
 the seat of government. But his mind was 
 occupied with scriptural studies, and he made 
 his first attempt at a commentary. It was 
 on the prophet Obadiah, which he interpreted 
 mystically (pref. to Comm. on Obadiah). 
 
 The friends returned to Italy. Eusebius, 
 bp. of Vercellae, had a few years before re- 
 turned from banishment in the East, bringing 
 with him Evagrius, a presbyter (afterwards 
 bp.) of Antioch, who during his stay in Italy 
 had played a considerable part in chiurch 
 affairs (Ep. i. 15). He seems to have had a 
 great influence over Jerome at this time ; and 
 either with him or about the same time he 
 settled at Aquileia, and from 370 to 373 the 
 chief scene of interest lies there, where a com- 
 pany of young men devoted themselves to 
 sacred studies and the ascetic life. It included 
 the presbyter Chromatins (afterwards bp. of 
 Aquileia), his brother Eusebius, with Jovinus 
 
HIERONYMUS 
 
 the arclulcacuu ; Kuruiiis, Monnsus, Heliodorus 
 (afterwards bp. <■( Altimmi). the iiionk Chrvs«)- 
 goiius, tlie sidHle.K-oa Niceas, and Hvlas'the 
 fr.edmaii .>f the wealthy Konian hidv Melania; 
 all of whom are met with later in Jert)nie's his- 
 tory. Thev were knit tosethor by close friend- 
 ship and common pursuits ; and the presence 
 of Evagrius, who knew the holy places and 
 hermitages of the East, gave a special direc- 
 tion to their ascetic tendencies. For a time 
 all went well. The baptism of Rutinus took 
 place now (Kuf. Af>ol. i. 4). It wasjerome's 
 fortune to become, wherever he lived, the 
 object of great affection, and also of great ani- 
 mosity. Whatever was the cause (£/>. iii. 3), 
 the society at Aquileia suddenly dispersed. 
 
 The frientls went (probably early in 373) in 
 different directions. Bonosus retired to an 
 island in the Adriatic and lived as a hermit I 
 (vii. 3). Rutinus went to the East in the 
 train of Melania. Jerome, with Heliodorus. 
 Innocentius, and Hylas, accompanied Eva- j 
 grius to Palestine. Leaving his parents, 
 sister, relations and home comforts (xxii. 
 30), but taking his library, he travelled 
 through Thrace, Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia, I 
 Cappadocia and Cilicia, to Antioch. The , 
 journey was exhausting, and Jerome had a ] 
 long period of ill-health, culminating in a 
 fever. Innocentius and Hylas died from the j 
 same fever. Heliodorus went to Jerusalem. ' 
 During his illness (ih.) Jerome had his bent ' 
 towards scriptural studies and asceticism con- ; 
 firmed. While his friends stood by his bed 
 expecting his death, he felt himself, in a 
 trance, carried before the throne of dod, ! 
 and condemned as being no Christian but a 
 Ciceronian, who preferred worldly literature 
 to Christ. From this time, though he con- 
 tinued to quote the classics profusely, his 
 literary interest was wholly with the Bible and 
 church writings. It seems likely that, as 
 soon as his health was restored, he determined 
 to embrace the solitary life. He wrote to 
 Theodosius (ii.), who was apparently a kind of 
 chief of the hermits in the desert of Chalcis, 
 asking to be received among them, and thither 
 he proceeded about the autumn of 374. 
 
 He was now about 28 years old. The desert 
 of Chalcis, where he lived f^ir .\ or 5 years 
 (374-379), was in the country of the Saracens, 
 in the E. of Syria (v.). It was peojiled by 
 hermits, who lived mainly in solitude, but had 
 frequent intercourse among themselves and a 
 little with the world. They lived under some 
 kind of disciphne, with a ruling presbyter 
 named Marcus (xvii.). Jerome lived in a 
 cell, and gained his own living (xvii. 3) ; 
 probably, according to the recommendation 
 he gives later to Rusticus (cxxv.), cultivat- 
 ing a garden, and making baskets of rushes, 
 or, more congenially, copying books. He 
 describes his life in writing to Eustochium 
 (xxii. 7), or 10 years later, as one of 
 spiritual struggles. "I sat alone; I was 
 filled with bitterness : my limbs were un- 
 comely and rough with sackcloth, and my 
 squalid skin became as black as an Ethiopian's. 
 Every day I was in tears and groans ; an(l if 
 ever the sleep which hung upon my eyelids 
 overcame my resistance, 1 knocked against the 
 ground my bare bones, which scarce clung 
 together. I say nothing of my meat and 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 401 
 
 drmk. SHUT the niMnks iv. n whrn \uk um 
 cold water, ami it is thought a luxury || ihry 
 ever partake of . .K.ked (.hhI. ThrouKh lat „| 
 hell, I had condemned mv»rl| to priKm ; I 
 hatl scorpions and wild bra»t» fur my only 
 comiianioiis." Mis litrr.irv talmt wa» hy no 
 means idle dwrmg this prrml. He wrote 
 letters to his friends in It.dv, t.. Flormtm* at 
 Jerusaleni (v. -xvii.). and to Hrli.xloru* (xiv.) 
 on the Praises of the Des.rt. rhiduiK him (..r 
 not having embraced the perfect lilr i.f u>U- 
 tude. A Jew who had betonic a Chrutun 
 was his instructor in Hebrew (xviii. m), 
 and Jerome obtained from one of thr 
 sect of the Nazarenes at Ber-K-a the <...*pr| 
 according to the Hebrews, which hr ropirti, 
 and afterwards translated into (.rrrk and 
 Latin (de I'ir. ///. 2, 3). He was frequently 
 visited by Evagrius (/■->. vii. 1), wh<i al»o 
 acted as the intermediary of his rommunira- 
 tion with his friends in Aquileia, and later with 
 Damasus at Rome (xv. 5). Uiit aKam. 
 
 owing chiefly to his vehement feeling* and 
 expressi' 'ns, he made enemi<-s. He was driven 
 away by the ill-will of his brother-monks. At 
 tirst, as we see from his letter t<i Hrlii>d<>rus. 
 he was satisfied with his condition ; but 
 his last years in the desert were embittrrrd 
 by theological strife, relating to the conflicts 
 in the church at Antioch, from which he was 
 glad to escape. The sec of Antioch was 
 claimed by three bishops, Vitalis the Arian, 
 .MeUtius, acknowledged by Basil and the 
 orthodox bishops of the East (Basil, Ff>. 156, 
 to Evagrius), and Paulinus, supported by pope 
 Damasus and the stronger anti-.Arian party i>( 
 Rome. Between Meletius and Paiihnus the 
 dispute was mainly verbal, but none the less 
 bitter. Jerome complains that the .Meletians, 
 not content with his htUding the truth, treated 
 him as a heretic if he did not do so in thrir 
 words {Ep. xv. 3). He appealed to Damasus, 
 strongly protesting his submission to Rome 
 (xv. xvi.). Finding his position more and more 
 difficult, he wrote to Marcus, the chief presby- 
 ter of the monks of C hah is(.\\ n.), in the winter 
 of 378, professing his souiidin-ss in the faith, 
 declaring that he was ready, but fi>r illness, to 
 depart, and begging thehospitality of thedrsrrt 
 till the winter was past. Pr'K-«T<liiiK in the 
 spring of 379 to Antioch. he staved there till 
 380, uniting himself to the party of Paulinus, 
 and by him was ordained presbyter a^'ainst hu 
 will. He never celebrated the luuhartsl or 
 officiated as presbyter, as appear* from many 
 passages in iiis works. I here are extant no 
 letters and only one work of this prri<Ki. the 
 dialogue of an orthodox man with a l.ui ifrrian. 
 Lucifer of Cagliari having taken part in the 
 appointinent of Paulinus, a corrrriivr was 
 needed for the more extreme aiiiunK the 
 Western party at .AntKHh , and this was 
 given in Jerome's dialogiir, which Is rlear, 
 moderate, and free from tlir violrmr •>! hU 
 later controversial works. It rxhibitt a 
 c<jnsiderablc knowle<lge of church hitlory, and 
 contains the account of the counril of Arum* 
 num. with the famous words (c. i<>) : " In- 
 geiiiuit totu* orbis et Arianuin sc esse tniralu* 
 jest." In 380 Jrruine went to CUnslanll- 
 
 noplc until the end of jHi. He totiKhl the 
 instruction of tiregory N'a/ian/en. who had 
 taken charge of the orthodox church thrrt 
 
462 
 
 HIERONVMUS 
 
 HIER0N1?MUS 
 
 in 379, and frequent allusions in his works pref. to vol. x. ; also Murray's Illiis. B. D. 
 witness to his profiting greatly from his mas- j (1908), art. Vulgate). He also, at the request 
 ter's mode of interpreting Scripture. He , of Damasus and others, wrote many short 
 calls him " praeceptor mens " {de Vir. III. 117) } exegetical treatises, included among his letters 
 and appeals to his authority in his comment- : {on Hosanna, xix. xx. ; Prodigal Son, xxi.; O.T. 
 aries and letters {Contm. on Ephes. v. 3 ; Epp. 1 Xaines of God, xxv. ; Halleluia and Amen, 
 1. I, lii. 8, etc.). He was also acquainted with | xxvi.; Sela and Diapsalma, xxviii.; Ephodand 
 Gregory of Nyssa (de Vir. III. 128). He was Seraphim, xxix.; Alphabetical Psalms, xxx. ; 
 attacked, while at Constantinople, with al "The Bread of Carefulness," xxxiw). Hebegan 
 complaint in the eyes, arising from overwork, I also his studies on the original of O.T. by collat- 
 which caused him to dictate the works he now | ing the Gk. versions of Aquila and the LXX 
 wrote. This practice afterwards became ' with the Heb. (xxxii., xxxvi. 12), and was thus 
 habitual to him (pref. to Comm. on Ga/. | further confirmed in the convictions which led 
 iii.), though he did not wholly give up writing ' to the Vulgate version. He translated for Da- 
 with his own hand ; and he contrasts the i masus the Commentary of Origen on the Song 
 imperfections of the works which he dictated of Songs (vol. x. p. 500), and began his trans- 
 with the greater elaboration he could give lation of the work of Didymus, the blind 
 those he himself wrote. He wrote no letters , Origenistic teacher of Alexandria, on the Holy 
 here ; but his literary activity was great. He : Spirit, which he did not complete till after his 
 translated the Chronicle of Eusebius, a large settlement at Bethlehem, probably because of 
 work, which embraces the chronology from } the increasing suspicions and enmity of clergy 
 the creation to a.d. 330, Jerome adding the and people, whom he speaks of as the senate of 
 events of the next 50 years. He translated : the Pharisees, against all that had any con- 
 the Homilies of Origen on Jer. and Ezk., pos- ! nexion with Origen (pref. to Didymus on the 
 sibly also on Isa., and wrote a short treatise for I //o/y Spirit, vol. ii. 105), which cause also 
 Damasusontheinterpretationsof theSeraphim ' prevented him continuing the translation of 
 in Isa. vi., which is improperly placed among Origen's Commentaries, begun at Constanti- 
 the letters (fJ/). x\iii.). These works mark the nople. Jerome was Origen's vehement cham- 
 epoch when he began to feel the importance of pion and the contemptuous opponent of his 
 Origen as a church-writer, though daring even I irapugners. "The city of Rome," he says, 
 then to differ from him in doctrine, and also | " consents to his condemnation . . . not be- 
 to realize the imperfections of the existing cause of the novelty of his doctrines, not 
 versions of the Scriptures. In the treatise on because of heresy, as the dogs who are mad 
 the Seraphim, and again in the preface to the | against him now pretend ; but because they 
 Chronicle, we find him contrast the various i could not bear the glory of his eloquence and 
 Gk. versions of O.T. .studies which eventually 1 his knowledge, and because, when he spoke, 
 forced on him the necessity of a translation they were all thought to be dumb " (Ep. 
 
 direct from the Hebrew. What were his 
 relations to the council of Constantinople in 
 381 we do not know. It is certain, however, 
 that pope Damasus desired his presence in 
 Rome at the council of 382, which reviewed the 
 Acts of that coimcil, and that he went in the 
 train of bps. Paulinus of Antioch and Epipha- 
 nius of Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus (cxxiii. 
 10 ; cxxvii. 7). 
 
 Bible Work. — His stay in Rome, from the 
 
 xxxiii. 4). 
 
 Asceticism. — The other chief object of his 
 life increased this enmity, although it also 
 made great advances during his stay at Rome. 
 Nearly fifty years before, Athanasius and the 
 monk Peter (334) had sown the seeds of 
 asceticism at Rome by their accounts of the 
 monasteries of Nitria and the Thebaid. The 
 declining state of the empire had mean- 
 while predisposed men either to selfish luxury 
 
 spring of 382 to Aug. 385, was a very eventful ^ or monasticism. Epiphanius, with whom 
 and decisive period in his life. He made many [ Jerome now came to Rome, had been trained 
 friends and many enemies ; his knowledge and | by the hermits Hilarion and Hesvchas ; 
 reputation as a scholar greatly increased, and j he was, with Paulinus, the guest of the 
 his experience of Rome determined him to t wealthy and noble Paula (cviii. 5), the heiress 
 give himself irrevocably and exclusively to his j of the Aemilian race ; and thus Jerome was 
 two great interests, scriptural study and the j introduced to one who became his life-long 
 promotion of asceticism. He undertook, at the friend and his chief support in his labours 
 request of Damasus, a revision of the version j She had three daughters : Blessila, whose 
 of the Psalms (vol. x. col. 121). He translated death, after a short and austere widowhood, 
 from the LXX; and his new version was used ! was so eventful to Jerome himself; Juha 
 in the Roman church till the pontificate of , Eustochium, who first among the Roman 
 Pius V. He, also at the request of Damasus, nobility took the virgin's vow ; and Paulina, 
 revised the X.T., of which the old Versio Itala I who married Jerome's friend Pammachius. 
 was very defective. The preface addressed to , These formed part of a circle of ladies who 
 Damasus {ib. col. 557) is a good critical docu- 1 gradually gathered round the ascetic teacher 
 ment, pointing out that the old version had | of scriptural lore. Among them were Mar- 
 been varied by transcribers, and asking, " If cella, whose house on the Aventine was their 
 any one has the right version, which is it?" It j meeting-place ; her young friend Principia 
 was intended as a preface to the Gospels only; (cxxvii.) ; her sister the recluse Asella, the 
 but from the record of his works in the list of | confidant of Jerome's complaints on leaving 
 ecclesiastical writers {de Vir. III. 135), which | Rome (xlv.) ; Lea, already the head of a 
 states that he had restored the N.T. according j kind of convent, whose sudden death was 
 to the original Greek, as well as from other ! announced whilst the friends were reading 
 passages {e.g. Ep. xxvii. 3), we infer that the; the Psalms (xxiii.) ; Furia, the descendant of 
 whole version was completed (see Vallarsi's 1 Camillas, sister-in-law to Blesilla, and her 
 
HIERONYMUS 
 
 niotlier Titiana ; Marci lima ami Fclicitas, to' 
 wliKin Jornine's last adieus wore s<Mit i>n ' 
 leaving Roiiu- (xlv.) ; perliaps also, though | 
 she is not iiaiiu-il till later, the enthusiastic 
 Fabiola, less steady, but iiu)re eas«r than the 
 rest (ixxvii.). These ladies, all of the highest 
 patriiian families, were already disposed to , 
 the ascetic life. Contact with the Kastern 
 bishops added a special interest in Palestine ; 
 and the presence of Jerome confirmed both 
 these tendencies. He became the centre of 
 a band of friends who. withdrawn from a | 
 
 Ki>litical and social life which they regarded as j 
 opelessly corrupt, gave themselves to the i 
 Study of Scripture and to works of charity.' 
 They knew (Ireek ; learned Hebrew that they j 
 might sing the Fsalms in the original ; learned , 
 by heart the writings of their teacher (Ixxvii. 
 9); held daily meetings whereat he expoundetl j 
 the Scriptures (xxiii. i), and for them he wrote | 
 many of his exegotical treatises. Theprinciples 1 
 heiiistillediiiti)tluirMiiiulsinavbeseeninmany | 
 of his letters of this pirixl, which were at once ; 
 copied and eagerly seized both by friindsand | 
 enemies. The treatise which espec i.dly illus- j 
 trates his teaching at this time is addressed to [ 
 Eustochium on the Preservation of \ irginity | 
 (xxii.). Jerome's own experience in the desert, 1 
 his anti-Ciceronian dream at .Antit)ch, his 
 knowledge of the desert monks, of whom he , 
 gives a valuable description, were here used 
 in favour of the virgin and ascetic life ; the 
 extreme fear of impurity contrasts strangely 
 with the gross suggestions in every page ; it 
 contains such a depreciation of the married 
 State, the vexations of whicii ("uteri tumentes, 
 infantium vagitus") are only relieved by I 
 vulgar andseltish luxury, that almost the only 
 advantage allowed it is that by it virgins are 
 brought into the world ; and the vivid 
 descriptions of Roman life — the pretended 
 virgins, the avaricious and self-indulgent 
 matrons, the dainty, luxurious, and rapacious 
 clergy — forcible as they are, lose some of their 
 value by their appearance of caricature. .An- 
 other treatise written during this peri.Kl, 
 against the layman Helvidius, the pupil of 
 Auxentius of .Milan, on the perpetual virginity 
 of Mary, though its main points are well 
 argued, exhibits the same fanatical aversion 
 to marriage, combined with a supercilious 
 disregard of his opponent which was habitual 
 to Jerome. [Helvidus.] 
 
 A crisis in Jerome's fortunes came with the 
 end of 384. Damasus, who had been pope for 
 nearly 20 years, was dying, and amongst his 
 possible successors Jerome could not escape 
 mention. He had, as he tells us, on first 
 coming to Rome, been pointed out as the 
 future pope (xlv. 3). But he was entirely 
 unfitted by character and habit of mind for 
 an office which has always required the 
 talents of the statesman and man of the world, 
 rather than those of the student, and he had 
 offended every part of the community. The 
 general lav feeling was strongly oppiised to 
 asceticism (xxvii. 2). .At the funeral of HIesilla 
 (xxxix. 4) the rumour was spread that she had 
 been killed by the excessive austeritiesenjoinrd 
 upon her ; the violent grief of her mother was 
 taken as a reproach to the ascetic system, and 
 the cry was heard, "The monks to the Tiber!" 
 Jerome, though cautioned by his friends to 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 463 
 
 .- < "tlllll 
 
 tird to 
 
 
 :« All 
 
 
 .1 the 
 
 
 Mil- 
 
 I iM.lnr 1 
 
 ini»rlf 
 
 mixlerate his l.uitjii.ij;.- t^xx\ 
 use the m.«t insultniK rxji 
 whoopptised him. It i*n>i 
 Roman chunh should hav 
 htted to be its head, and tli 
 should, in his calmer rrflrrtii.n». haxr lr|i that 
 Rome was dl-stutrd to hmi, and that tn 
 attempting, with his trmprr and ha)>it%. to 
 carry out his cmrrption of ( hn«iiaiiilv in 
 Rome he h.id been vainlv Irving " t" »inK the 
 l.ord'ssong inaslrangrlaiul '(xlv.d). Siri<iii». 
 the successor of l>ainasu<«. had iio <iviiipalhv 
 with Jerome either then or in the 4ub«ri|Uriit 
 Origenistic controversv. The partv <•( friends 
 on the .■Vventiiie was broken up. Jrromen.un- 
 sels Marcella (xliv.) to leave Romr and u-rk 
 religious s<-clusion in the counlrv. Paula and 
 Mustochium preferretl to go with him l<> Pali~»- 
 tine. In .Aug. 385 Jerome embarked, nith all 
 that was dearest to him, at Portu«. aii<l in hit 
 touching and instructive letter to A^rlla (\\\ ) 
 bade a linal farewell to Rome. .An ••inpaiiird 
 bv his brother Paulinian and hi<< iiimd \ inrrii- 
 tius(r(»i/. A'li/. iii..:jKhesaileddirr< t to.Ahliot h. 
 Paula and luistochium (l-^P- r\ui . where all 
 these incidents are narratedl. Ira\ing Paulina, 
 then of marriageable age. and hrr vounK 
 brother Toxotius, embarked at thi- same tinir, 
 but visited Hpiphanius in t yprus on thrir way. 
 The friends were reunited at .Antmch, a« 
 winter was setting in. Paula woiiUI l>r.>«>k no 
 delay, and, despite the iiu lemeiii v of the 
 season, they started at once for Palestine. 
 Thev visited Sarepta, .Acre, t aesarea. J«'ppa. 
 Lydda, and llmmaus, arriving at Jerusalem 
 early in 3S6. The city was moved at thnr 
 coming, and the proconsul i«rep.ire«l a 
 splendid reception for them in the Prart'Tiuni ; 
 but they onlv stayed to see the holv place*, 
 and, after visiting spots of spe( iai interest in 
 the S. of Pah'Stine. journeyetl on into Kgypt. 
 There the time w.is divided between the two 
 great objects «>f Jerome's life, the study o| 
 
 i Scripture and the promotion of astriirisin. 
 
 '.At .Alexandria he sat. though alreadv grrx- 
 haired (Ixxxiv. 3). at the feet of Didvinuv 
 
 I the great Origenistic teai her. wh<.iii. in ro«i- 
 trast to his blindii.-ss. Jerome delight* to 
 
 I speak of as " the seer." (See III his praisr« 
 
 ' the preface to the commentary on I- phrMant.) 
 Jerome had alreadv. a* we have seen, iranv 
 lated in part his b-K-k on the Holy Spirit , and 
 
 ; now, at the re.|ue5i of his disiinguishrd pupil, 
 
 J)idyiiius r p.r,eil his (oiiinirnlary «'0 
 
 H.^ea and Ze. hariah (Hier.^n pr. I lo Hottm. 
 and df I'lr III. io.,|. Pausing at Alrxandru 
 
 only 30 days, they turned to the nioiiatlerit-* 
 of Nitria, where they were re«r|\r«l with ifrral 
 
 ; honour. At one time ihrv wf «!»>•-»« |>rr 
 fuaded to remain in the I , 
 
 , the attractions of the h-'h 
 prevailed ; and sailing 1. 
 Slajoma, they M-tlled at I 
 autumn of 3^6. There 
 remaining t4 years of 
 unreinittinglv ami with t' '^ru 
 
 the two great object* of hi* life 
 
 Hflhtehftn. hitit I'ftiod. \Mrv,2. Momu* 
 /,,„,. —Their timt Work was t ■ rNi^l.tut, thrni' 
 selves at lirthleheni. A o.d I 
 
 c<invenl were built, «vrt and 
 
 Paula re«pertlvelv prr»i<lr; » iq) 
 
 There was a church tn wi.i. 1. \i.-^ • n.rt uc 
 
 but 
 
 (IIIV 
 I to 
 the 
 Ihr 
 .tun 
 
464 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 Sundays, and perhaps oftener (cxlvii.) ; and 
 a hospice for pilgrims, of whom a vast number 
 came from all parts to visit the holy places 
 (Epp. xlvi. Ixvi. ; cont. Vigilantium, 13, 14). 
 These institutions were mainly supported by 
 Paula, though, towards the end of her life, 
 when she by her profusion had become poor, 
 their support fell upon Jerome, who, for this 
 purpose, sold his estate in Pannonia (Ep. 
 Ixvi.). He lived in a cell (cv. and cont. 
 Joan. Jems.), in or close to the monastery, 
 surrounded by his library, to which he con- 
 tinually added, as is shewn by his constant 
 reference to a great variety of authors, sacred 
 and profane, and by his account of obtaining a 
 copy of the Hexapla from the library at 
 Caesarea (Comm. on Titus, c. 3, p. 734). He 
 describes himself as living very moderately 
 on bread and vegetables (Ep. Ixxix. 4) ; he 
 was not neglectful of his person, but recom- 
 mended a moderate neatness of dress (Hi. 
 9, Ix. 10). We do not read of any special 
 austerities beyond the fact of his seclusion 
 from the world, which he speaks of as a 
 living in the fields and in solidude, that he 
 might mourn for his sins and gain Christ's 
 mercy (coyit. Joan. Jerus. 41). He did not 
 officiate in the services, but his time was 
 greatly absorbed by the cares (Ep. cxiv. i) and 
 discipline (cxlvii.) of the monastery and by the 
 crowds of monks and pilgrims who flocked to 
 the hospice (Ixvi. 14; adv. Ruf. i. 31). He ex- 
 pounded the Scriptures daily to the brethren 
 in the monastery. Sacred studies were his 
 main pursuit, and his diligence is almost incred- 
 ible. "He is wholly absorbed in reading," says 
 Sulpicius ; " he takes no rest by day or by 
 night ; he is ever reading or writing something." 
 He wrote, or rather dictated, with great rapidity. 
 He was believed at times to have composed 
 i.ooolines of his commentaries in a day (pref. to 
 bk. ii. of Comm. on Ephes. in vol. vii. col. 507). 
 He wrote almost daily to Paula and Eusto- 
 chium (de Vir. III. 135) ; and, though many of 
 his letters were mere messages, yet almost 
 all were at once published (Ep. xlix. 2), either 
 by friends or enemies. There were many in- 
 terruptions. Besides the excessive number of 
 ordinary pilgrims, persons came from all parts, 
 and needed special entertainment. The agi- 
 tated state of the empire also was felt in the 
 hermitage of Bethlehem. The successive in- 
 vasions of the Huns (Ep. Ixxvii. 8) and the 
 Isaurians (cxiv.) created a panic in Palestine, 
 so that, in 395, ships had been provided at 
 Joppa to carry away the virgins of Bethlehem, 
 who hurried to the coast to embark, when the 
 danger passed away. These invasions caused 
 great lack of means' at Bethlehem (cxiv. i), so 
 that Jerome and his friends had to sell all to 
 continue the work. Amidst such difficulties his 
 great literary works were accomplished. Im- 
 mediately on settling at Bethlehem, he set to 
 work to perfect his knowledge of Hebrew with 
 the aid of a Jew named Bar Anina (called Bar- 
 abbas by Jerome's adversaries, who conceived 
 that through this teacher his version was tainted 
 with Judaism ; see Ruf. Apol. ii. 12). Their 
 interviews took place at night (Ep. Ixxxiv.), 
 each being afraid of the suspicions their inter- 
 course might cause. He also learned Chaldee, 
 but less thoroughly (pref. to Daniel, vol. ix. 
 col. 1358). When any unusual difficulty 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 occurred in translation or exposition, he 
 obtained further aid. For the book of Job 
 he paid a teacher to come to him from Lydda 
 (pref. to Job, vol. ix. col. 1140) ; for the 
 Chaldee of Tobit he had a rabbi from Tiberias 
 (pref. to Tobit, vol. x.). The Chronicles 
 he went over word by word with a doctor 
 of law from Tiberias (pref. to Chron.). 
 The great expense entailed was no doubt in 
 part defrayed by Paula. At a later time, 
 when his resources failed, Chromatins of 
 Aquileia, and Heliodorus of Altinum, sup- 
 ported the scribes who assisted him (pref. to 
 Esther, addressed to Chrom. and Hel.). 
 
 Bible Work. — The results of his first six 
 years' labours may be thus summed up. The 
 commentary on Eccles. and the translation of 
 Didymus on the Holy Spirit were completed ; 
 commentaries were written on Gal. Eph. Tit. 
 and Philemon ; the version of N.T. begun in 
 Rome was revised ; a treatise on Pss. x.-xvi. 
 was written; and translations made of Origen's 
 Commentaries on St. Luke and the Psalms. 
 Jerome, who had long before felt the great 
 importance for scriptural studies of a know- 
 ledge of the localities (pref. to Chron.), 
 turned to account his travels in Palestine 
 in his work on the names of Hebrew places, 
 mainly translated from Eusebius, and gave 
 to the world what may be called " Chips from 
 his Workshop," in the book on Hebrew proper 
 names and the Hebrew questions on Gen., 
 a work which he seems to have intended to 
 carry on in the other books as a pendant to 
 his translations. Further, as a preparatory 
 work to the Vulg., he had revised the Latin 
 version of O.T. then current (which was 
 imperfectly made from the LXX), by a com- 
 parison of Origen's Hexapla (pref. to Joshua, 
 vol. ix. 356 ; pref. to Chron. vol. ix. col. 1394 ; 
 pref. to Job, vol. ix. col. 1142 ; Ep. Ixxi. ad 
 Lucinium). This work, though not mentioned 
 in the Catalogue (de Vir. III. 135), certainly 
 existed. Jerome used it in his familiar 
 expositions each day (cont. Ruf. ii. 24). Au- 
 gustine had heard of it and asked to see it 
 (Ep. cxxxiv., end), but it had, through fraud 
 or neglect, been lost ; and all that remains of 
 it is Job, the Psalms, and the preface to the 
 books of Solomon (voL x.). The Vulgate 
 itself was in preparation, as we find from the 
 Catalogue ; but as it was not produced for 
 some years, what had been done thus far was 
 evidently only preliminary and imperfect work. 
 
 Besides his work on the Scriptures, Jerome 
 had designed a vast scheme of church history, 
 from the beginning to his own time, giving 
 the lives of all the most eminent men ; and 
 as a preliminary to this, and in furtherance 
 of asceticism, he wrote Lives of Malchus 
 and HiLARioN. The minuteness of detail in 
 these works would have made a church 
 history on such a scale impossible ; and the 
 credulity they shew throws doubt on Jerome's 
 capacity for such work. 
 
 A far more important work for the purposes 
 of the church historian is the book which is 
 variously called the " Catalogue of Chiurch 
 Writers," the " Book on Illustrious Men," or 
 the "Epitaphion" (though it includes men 
 then living). Some portions are taken from 
 Eusebius, but the design and most of the 
 details are original. It includes the writers of 
 
HIERONYMUS 
 
 N.T., and church teachers of East and West 
 up to Jerome's own time, and even men 
 accounted heretics and non-Christians like 
 Seneca, whose works were of importance to 
 the progress of human thouglit. 
 
 The letter which Jerome wrote in the name 
 of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella at 
 Rome (Ep. xlvi.), the only letter preserved 
 from these first six years, expresses an en- 
 thusiastic view of their privileges in reading 
 the Scriptures in the tongue and country 
 in which they were written. The crowds who 
 came from all parts seem to them to be so 
 many choirs, engaged in services of praise, 
 each in their own tongue. The very plough- 
 men chant Hallelujahs. Far from the Baby- 
 lon of Rome, they associate with the saints 
 of Scripture and find in the holy places the 
 gate of heaven. This view of Palestine is 
 always present to Jerome, however much he 
 has to confess the actual secularization of 
 Jerusalem (Iviii. 4) ; and it makes his Biblical 
 work not merely one of learning but of piety. 
 
 Second Period, 393-404. — Private letters of 
 Jerome abound during this period, and illus- 
 trate his personal history. 
 
 To this period belong the many external 
 difficulties at Bethlehem already mentioned. 
 During almost the whole of 398 Jerome was 
 ill, and again in 404-405 (Ixxiv. 6, cxiv. i). 
 He was disturbed also by the controversy or 
 schism between the monks of Bethlehem and 
 the bp. of Jerusalem ; and an injury to his 
 hand prevented his writing. Poverty was 
 also overtaking him. Paula had spent her 
 fortune in lavish charity, and Jerome sent his 
 brother Paulinianus to their former home to 
 sell the remains of their property to support 
 the monasteries (Ixvi. 14). The sad quarrel 
 between Jerome and Rutinus began in 394 ; 
 see under the controversies {infra) which oc- 
 cupied so much of this period. 
 
 Commentaries. — Jerome had begun his com- 
 mentaries on the Minor Prophets in 391 {de 
 Vir. III. 135) ; they form four books, and were 
 published at long intervals up to 406. In 
 397 he wrote his commentary on Matthew, 
 the last on the N.T. It was finished, with 
 great haste and eagerness {Ep. Ixxiii. 10), in 
 Lent 398, as he was recovering from an illness. 
 After a long interval the commentary on 
 Isaiah followed, and thereafter he wrote upon 
 the Great Prophets only. 
 
 The Vulgate. — That which we now call the 
 Vulgate, and which is in the main the work of 
 Jerome, was during his life the Bible of the 
 learned and only by degrees won general 
 acceptance. The' editio vulgata in previous 
 use was a loose translation from the L.XX, 
 almost every copy varying. J erome had begun 
 very early to read the O.T. in Gk. Here the 
 same difficulty met him. The LXX version 
 was confronted, in Origen's Hexapla, with 
 those of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmaclius, 
 and with two others called (Juinta and Sexta. 
 Where they differed, who was to decide ? 
 This question is asked by Jerome as early as 
 the preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (381) 
 and was constantly repeated in defence of 
 his translation. He seems to have distinctly 
 contemplated this work fr(jm the moment of 
 his settlement at Bethlehem, and a great deal 
 of the labour of his first years there may be ; 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 405 
 
 regarded as preliminary to it. It was begim 
 within the first few years. But, in so elabor- 
 ate a work, it was impossible that tlic first 
 copies should be perfect. It is probable that 
 the whole, or larger part, was gone tlirough 
 at an early date and given to his friends or 
 the public after a more mature revision, 
 according as his health or courage allowed. 
 He distinctly purjiosed to publish it from the 
 first. Vet the actual publication was made 
 in a fragmentary and hesitating manner. 
 At times he speaks of portions as extorted 
 from him by the earnest requests of his friends 
 (pref. to Gen. vol. ix. etc.). Some parts he 
 represents as done in extreme haste ; the 
 books of Solomon as the work of three days 
 (pref. in vol. ix. col. 1307) ; Tobit and Judith 
 were each that of a single day. He shews 
 in his prefaces extreme sensitiveness to attacks 
 upon his work, and speaks of it often as an 
 ungrateful task. Of the Apocrypha he trans- 
 lated only parts, and these very cursorily 
 (pref. to Tobit, vol. x.), doubtless because of 
 his comparative indifference to the Apocrypha, 
 his opinion of which is quoted in Art. vi. of 
 the 39 Articles, from the preface to the Bt)oks 
 of Solomon (vol. ix. ed. 1308). Samuel and 
 Kings were published first, then Job and the 
 Prophets, then Ezra, Nehcmiah and Genesis. 
 All these were finished in or before 393 ; but 
 here occurred a break, due partly, no doubt, 
 to unsettlement and panic caused by the 
 invasion of the Huns in 395. In 396 the work 
 was resumed at the entreaty of Chromatins 
 and Heliodorus, who sent him money to sup- 
 port the necessary helpers (pref. to Books of 
 Solomon). The Books of Solomon were then 
 completed (398) and the preface indicates an 
 intention to continue the work more system- 
 atically. But the ill-feeling excited by his 
 translation made him unwilling to continue, 
 and his long illness in 398 intervened. He 
 tells Lucinius that he had then given his ser- 
 vants the whole except the Octateuch to copy 
 {Ep. xlix. 4). But, from whatever cause, the 
 work was nut resumed till 403-404, in which 
 years the remainder was completed, namely, 
 the last four books of Moses, Joshua and 
 Judges, Ruth and Esther. His friends col- 
 lected the translations into one volume, and 
 the title of Vulgate, which had hitherto 
 applied to the version before in use (pref. to 
 Ezk. vol. ix. col. 995, pref. to Esther, vo|. ix. 
 1503), in time came to belong to an edition 
 which is in the main the work of Jerome. 
 
 Controversies. — Controversial works at this 
 period occupied a share of Jerome's energies 
 out of all proportion to their importance. 
 
 Against Jovinian. — Jovi.nian was a Roman 
 monk, originally distinguished by extreme 
 asceticism, who had adopted freer opinions. 
 He put off the monastic dress and lived like 
 other men. The b(jok of Jovinian was sent 
 to Jerome about the end of 393. a"d he at 
 once answered it in two books. He warmly 
 attacks Jovinian as a renegade and as a dog 
 who has returned to his vomit. 
 
 Origenism. — The second great controversy 
 in which Jerome was now engaged arose about 
 Origenism, which embraces in its wide sweep 
 Epiphanius, bp. of Cyprus, John, bp. of Jeru- 
 salem, Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, St. John 
 Chrysostoni, the pope Anastasius, and above 
 3U 
 
466 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 all Jerome's former friend Rufinus — a con- 
 troversy by which the churches of the East 
 and the West were long and deeply agitated. 
 It divides itself, as far as Jerome is concerned, 
 into two distinct parts : "the first represented 
 by his writing against John of Jerusalem, and 
 extending from 494-499, when peace was made 
 between them ; the second represented bv 
 three books directed against Rufinus, the first 
 two written in 401, the third in 402. 
 
 Jerome's own relation to Origen is not 
 difficult to understand, though it laid him 
 open to the charge of inconsistencv. He had 
 become acquainted with his works during 
 his first enthusiasm for Greek ecclesiastical 
 learning and had recognized his as the greatest 
 name in Christian literature, worthv of com- 
 parison with the greatest of classical times 
 (see esp. Ep. xxxiii.). The literarv interest 
 was to Jerome, then as at all times, more than 
 the dogmatic ; deeply impressed bv the genius 
 and learning of the great Alexandrine, his 
 praise, like his subsequent blame, was without 
 reason or rnoderation. He spoke with entire 
 commendation of his commentaries, and even 
 of the T6/iot, or Chapters, which included the 
 book irepl ' Kox^v (which may be translated 
 either On First Principh-s or On the Powers 
 on which the chief controversy afterwards 
 turned). "In his work," he says (pref. to trans, 
 of Origen on Jer. vol. v. col. 611), "he gave 
 all the sails of his genius to the free breath 
 of the winds, and receding from the shore, 
 went forth into the open sea." It was not 
 the peculiarities of Origen's dogmatic system, 
 but the boldness of his genius, that appealed to 
 the mind of Jerome. From the first he shewed 
 a certain independence, nor did he ever give 
 his adherence to Origen's peculiar system. 
 He quoted without blame even such theories 
 as the possible restoration of Satan, but never 
 gave his personal assent to them. Even when, 
 afterwards, he became a violent opponent of 
 Origenism, he shewed discrimination. He 
 continued to use Origen's commentaries, and 
 even in some points ofdoctrine commended his 
 exposition. His vehement language, how- 
 ever, makes him appear first a violent partisan 
 of Origen, and later an equally violent op- 
 ponent. The change, moreover, has the 
 appearance of being the result, not so much 
 of a great con\-iction, as of a fear of the sus- 
 picion of heresy. 
 
 John, bp. of Jerusalem, and Rufinus. — 
 During the first year of Jerome's stay at 
 Bethlehem he was on good terms with both 
 John the bp. and Rufinus, who had been 
 established with Melania on Mount Olives 
 since 377. John, who succeeded C>Til a few 
 months before Jerome and Paula arrived in 
 386, was on familiar terms with Rufinus whom 
 he ordained, and there is no sign that he was 
 ill-disposed towards Jerome. The troubles 
 originated in the visit to Jerusalem of a certain 
 Aterbius, otherwise unknown {cant. Ruf. iii. 
 33), who scattered accusations of Origenistic 
 heresy among the foremost persons at Jeru- 
 salem, and joining Jerome with Rufinus on 
 account of their friendship, charged them both 
 with heresy. Jerome made a confession of 
 his faith which satisfied this self-appointed 
 inqmsitor ; but Rufinus refused to see him, 
 and with threats bade him begone. This was 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 apparently in 393. In 394 Epiphanius, bp. 
 of Salamis in Cyprus, who in his book on 
 heresies had formally included the doctrines 
 of Origen, visited Jerusalem, and strife broke 
 out in the church of the Resurrection, where 
 Epiphanius's pointed sermon against Origen- 
 ism was taken as reflecting so directly upon 
 John that the bishop sent his archdeacon to 
 remonstrate and stop him. John, after he 
 had delivered a long sermon against Anthro- 
 pornorphisrn, was requested by Epiphanius, 
 amidst the ironical applause of the people, to 
 condemn Origenism with the same earnest- 
 ness ; and then Epiphanius came to the 
 monastery at Bethlehem declaring John a 
 heretic, and, after attempting to elicit some 
 anti-Origenistic confession from the bishop, 
 finally at night left his house, where he had 
 been a guest, for the monastery. Epiphanius, 
 convinced that John was on the verge of 
 heresy, advised Jerome and his friends to 
 separate themselves from their bishop ; and 
 provided for the ministrations of their church 
 by ordaining Jerome's brother Paulinian. 
 
 Johnnowappealedto.\lexandriaandtoRome 
 against Jerome and his friends as schismatics. 
 Theophilus of Alexandria at once took John's 
 side, but, becoming an anti-Origenist later, 
 opened communication with Jerome, of which 
 the latter gladly availed himself. J erome was 
 thenceforward the minister of Theophilus in his 
 communicationwith the West in the war against 
 Origen; andthus completely unitedhimseff with 
 the anti-Origenistic party. Rufinus, when he 
 arrived in Rome with Melania in 397, found 
 the contest about Origenism at its height, but 
 ignorance on the subject was so great that 
 pope Anastasius, even though induced to 
 condemn Origen, plainly admitted in his 
 letter to John of Jerusalem (Hieron. ii. 677, 
 Vallarsi's Rufinus [Migne's Pair, xxi.] 408) 
 that he neither knew who Origen was nor what 
 he had wxitten. Rufinus being asked by a 
 pious man named Macarius to give an exposi- 
 tion of Origen's tenets, made the translation 
 of the neftl 'kpx^v which is now published in 
 Origen's works and is the only extant version. 
 This translation was at once the subject of 
 dispute. Jerome's friends complained that 
 Rufinus had given a falsely favourable \ersion. 
 Rufinus declared that he had only used the 
 just freedom of a critic and translator in 
 omitting passages interpolated by heretics, 
 who wished to make Origen speak their views, 
 and in translating Eastern thoughts into 
 Western idioms. But the real complaint 
 against Rufinus rested on personal grounds. In 
 his preface he had seemed to associate Jerome, 
 as the translator of Origen, witli Origen's 
 work, and to shield himself under Jerome's 
 authority. Jerome and his friends, extremely 
 sensitive of the least reproach of heresy and 
 having already taken a strong part against 
 Origen, trembled for his reputation. Rufin- 
 us's preface was sent to him by Pammachius 
 and Oceanus, with the request (Ep. Ixxxii.) 
 that he would point out the truth, and would 
 translate the irepi 'Apx^v as Origen had 
 wxitten it. Jerome did so, and with his new 
 translation sent a long letter (Ixxxiv.) to his 
 two friends, which, though making too little of 
 his former admiration for Origen, in the main 
 states the case fairly and without asperity 
 
HIERONYMUS 
 
 towards Rufinus. The same may be said of 
 his letter (Ixxxi.) to Rutinus himself, possibly 
 in answer to one from Rufinus {" diu te Romae 
 moratum sermo proprius indicavit "), which 
 speaks of their reconciliation and remonstrates, 
 as a friend with a friend, against the mention 
 Rufinus had made of him. " There are not 
 many," he says, " who can be pleased with 
 feigned praise" ("fictis laudibus "). This 
 letter, unfortunately, did not reach Rufinus. 
 He had gone to Aquileia with the ordinary 
 commendation (" literae formatae ") from the 
 pope. Siricius had died ; his successor, 
 Auastasius, was in the hands of Pammachius 
 and Marcella (cxxvii.), who were moving him 
 to condemn Origen. Anastasius, though 
 ignorant on the whole subject, was struck by 
 passages shewn him by Eusebius in Jerome's 
 translation of the irepl Apx*^", which had been 
 given him by Marcella (Rufin. Apol. ii.), and 
 proceeded to condemn Origen. He also was 
 persuaded to summon Rufinus (Rufinus 
 [Migne's Patr. Lat. xxi.] 403) to Rome to make 
 a confession of his faith ; and wrote to John of 
 Jerusalem, expressing his fear as to Rufinus's 
 intentions and his faith (sec the letter in 
 Jerome's Works, ii. 677, Rufinus, 408). Jer- 
 ome's friends kept his letter to Rufinus, so 
 that Rufinus was prevented from learning 
 Jerome's actual dispositions towards him. 
 He only knew that the hitter's friends were in 
 some way involving him in the condemnation 
 they had procured against Origen and which 
 the emperors themselves had now ratified 
 (.\nastasius to John, «/.s.). To Anastasius, 
 therefore, he replied in a short letter, ex- 
 cusing himself from coming to Rome, but 
 giving an explicit declaration of his faith. 
 But from Jerome he was wholly alienated. 
 His friend Apronianus at Rome having sent 
 him the letter of Jerome to Pammachius and 
 Oceanus, he replied in the document which is 
 called his Apology, with bitter feelings against 
 his former friend. He did not scruple to use 
 against him the facts known to him through 
 their former intimacy, such as the vows made 
 in consequence of his anti-Ciceronian dream, 
 which he declared Jerome to have broken, and 
 he allowed himself to join in the carping spirit 
 in which Jerome's enemies spoke against his 
 translation of the Scriptures. This document 
 was privately circulated among Rufinus's 
 friends at Rome. It became partly known 
 to Pammachius and Marcella, who, not being 
 able to obtain a copy, sent him a description 
 of its contents, with such quotations as they 
 could procure. Jerome at once composed the 
 two first books of his Apology in the form of a 
 letter to his Roman friends. Its tone is that 
 of one not quite willing to break through an 
 old friendship, but its language is strong and 
 at times contemptuous. It was brought to 
 Rufinus at Aquileia, who answered in a letter 
 meant for Jerome's eyes alone, which has not | 
 come down to us. From Jerome's rejily we 
 know that it was sharp and bitter, and 
 declared his ability to produce facts which if 
 known to the world would blast Jerome's 
 character for ever. Jerome was estranged 
 by extracts from Rufinus's Apology- Then 1 
 Rufinus himself sent him a true copy, and the 
 result was a final rupture. Augustine, to 
 whom Jerome sent his book, writes (Hieron. 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 4(17 
 
 Ep. ex. 6) with the utmost sorrow at the 
 scandal ; he declares that he was cast dowQ 
 by the thought that " persons so dear and so 
 familiar, united by a chain of friendship which 
 had been known to all the church," should 
 now be publicly tearing each otiier to pieces. 
 He writes like one who has an equal esteem for 
 both the combatants, and only desiris their 
 reconciliation. Hut Jerome never ceased to 
 speak of his former frientl with passionate 
 condemnation and contempt. When Rufinus 
 died in Sicily in 410 he wrote : " The scorpion 
 lies undergr<iund between Enceladus and 
 Porphyrion, and the hydra of many heads has 
 at last ceaseil to hiss against me " (pref. to 
 Comm. on Ezk.). In later years he sees the 
 spirit of Rufinus revived in Pelagius (pref. to 
 Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), and even in letters of 
 edification he cannot refrain from bitter re- 
 marks on his memory (Ep. cxxv. 18, cxxxiii. 3). 
 Vigilantius. — A fourth controversy was with 
 Vigilantius (cont. V'ig. liber unus), a Spanish 
 monk, into whom, as Jerome says, the soul of 
 his former ojiponent Jovinian had passed, a 
 controversy further embittered by mutual 
 accusations of Origenism, and in which 
 Jerome's violence and contcmptuousness 
 passes all bounds. Vigilantius had stayed at 
 the monastery at Bethlehem in 306, on the 
 introduction of Paulinus. In a letter to 
 Vigilantius in 396, Jerome accuses him of 
 blasphemous interpretations of Scripture 
 derived from Origen. He treats him as a 
 vulgar fool, without the least claim to know- 
 ledge or letters. He applies to him the 
 proverb 'Oroj \vpa, turns his name to Dormi- 
 tantius, and ends by saying he hopes he may 
 find pardon when, as Origen holds, the devil 
 will find it. Vigilantius is said by Gennadius 
 {de Scr. Red. 35) to have been an ignorant 
 man, though polished in words. But he was 
 as far in advance of Jerome in his views of the 
 Christian life as he was behind him in literary 
 power. His book, written in 404, was sent 
 by Riparius to Jerome, who replied [Ep. cix.), 
 dismissing the matter with contempt. After- 
 wards, probably finding the opinions of Vigilan- 
 tius gaining ground, he, at the request of certain 
 presbyters, wrote his treatise against him. It 
 is a short book, dictated, he states, unius 
 noctis lucubration e; his friend Sisinnius, who 
 was to take it, being greatly hurried. Vigilan- 
 tius maintained that the honour paid to the 
 martvrs' tombs was excessive, that watching 
 in ttieir basilicas was to be deprecated, that the 
 alleged miracles done there were false; that the 
 money collected for the " poor saints at Jeru- 
 salem" had better be kept at home; that the 
 hermit life was cowardice ; and, lastly, that it 
 would be well that presbyters should be married 
 before ordination. Jerome speaks of these ac- 
 cusations as being so openly blasphi-mous as 
 to require neither argument nor the pri aluction 
 of testimonies against them, but merely the 
 expression of the writer'sindignation. He does 
 not admit even a grain of truth in them. " If 
 you do not honour the tombs of the martyrs," 
 he says, " you assert that they were not wrong 
 in burning the martyrs." He himself believes 
 the miracles, and values the intercession of the 
 saints. This is the treatise in which Jerome 
 felt most sure he was in the right, and the only 
 one in which he was wholly in the wrong. 
 
468 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 Augustine. — The exchange of letters be- 
 tween Jerome and Augustine, though begun 
 with something of asperity, ended in edifica- 
 tion. Jerome heard of Augustine soon after 
 his conversion (386) ; and Augustine, eight 
 years his junior, had a great respect (which 
 did not prevent criticism) for Jerome and his 
 work. Augustine's friend Alypius stayed with 
 Jerome in 393, and Jerome heard with satis- 
 faction of the great African's zeal for the study 
 of Scripture and of his rising fame. In 394 
 Augustine, then coadjutor bp. of Hippo 
 (succeeding in 395), having had his attention 
 no doubt called to Jerome's works by Alypius, 
 wrote the letter (among Jerome's, Ivi.) which 
 originated the controversy. It related to the 
 interpretation of the dispute of St. Paul and 
 St. Peter at Antioch, recorded in Gal. ii. The 
 letter is written in a grave tone, but perhaps 
 with something of assumption, considering the 
 great position of Jerome. Augustine com- 
 mends him for translating Greek commen- 
 taries into Latin, and wishes that in his trans- 
 lations of O.T. he would note very carefully 
 the places in which he diverges from the LXX. 
 He then notes that Jerome, in his Commentary 
 on the Galatians, had maintained that the 
 dispute was merely feigned, that Peter had 
 pretended to act so as to incur Paul's rebuke, 
 in order to set before the church the incon- 
 gruity of a Christian continuing under Mosaic 
 law. This appeared to Augustine to impute 
 to the apostles an acted lie. This letter was 
 committed, together with other works of 
 Augustine on which Jerome's opinion was 
 desired, to Profuturus, a presbyter, who being, 
 before he sailed, elected to a bishopric in N. 
 Africa, turned back, and soon after died. He 
 had neither transmitted the letter to Jerome 
 nor returned it to Augustine ; but it was seen 
 by others and copied, so that the attack on 
 Jerome was widely known in the West while 
 entirely unknown to Jerome at Bethlehem. 
 Augustine, discovering that his letter had not 
 reached Jerome, wrote a second (among 
 Jerome's, Ixvii.), again entering into the 
 question, asking Jerome to confess his error 
 and to sing a palinode for the injury done to 
 Christian truth. Paulus, to whom this letter 
 was committed, proved untrustworthy, and let 
 it be circulated without being transmitted to 
 Jerome. It was seen by a deacon, Sisinnius, 
 who, coming to Bethlehem some five years 
 afterwards, either brought a copy or described 
 its contents to Jerome. Meanwhile Augustine 
 heard, through pilgrims returning from Pales- 
 tine, the state of the facts and the feelings 
 aroused by them. He wrote a short letter to 
 excuse himself (among Jerome's, ci.), point- 
 ing out that what he had written was not, as 
 seemed to be supposed, a book for publication, 
 but a personal letter expressing to a friend a 
 difference of opinion. He begged Jerome to 
 point out similarly any points of his writings 
 he might think wrong, and concluded with an 
 earnest wish for some personal converse with 
 the great teacher of Bethlehem. Jerome 
 replied in a letter (cii.) in which friendship 
 struggled with suspicion and resentment. He 
 sent some of his works, including those last 
 written, against Rufinus. As to Augustine's 
 works, he says he knows little of them, but 
 intimates that he might have much to say in 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 criticism. He insinuates that Augustine 
 might be seeking honour by attacking him, 
 but warns him that he too can strike hard. 
 Augustine replied in a letter (among Jerome's, 
 civ.) written with demonstrations of profound 
 respect, but in which, after explaining how 
 his first letter had miscarried, he again enters 
 into questions of Biblical literature. He 
 commends Jerome's new translations of N.T., 
 but begs him not to translate O.T. from the 
 Heb., enforcing his wish by the story of a 
 parish in Africa being scandalized and almost 
 broken up by its bishop reading Jonah in 
 Jerome's new version. In this version as then 
 read, ivy was substituted for gourd in c. iv. 
 When the bishop read " ivy " the people 
 rose and cried out " gourd," till he was 
 obliged to resort to the received version, lest 
 he should be left without any followers. 
 Augustine recommends Jerome to translate 
 from the LXX, with notes where his version 
 deviates from the received text. Jerome 
 answers that he has never received Augustine's 
 original letter, but has only seen what pur- 
 ports to be a copy. " Send me," he says, 
 " your letter signed by yourself, or else cease 
 from attacking me. As to your writings, which 
 you put forward so much, I have only read 
 the Soliloquies and the Commentary on the 
 Psalms, and will only say that in this last there 
 are things disagreeing with the best Greek 
 commentaries. Let me beg you in future, if 
 you write to me, to take care that I am the 
 first whom your letter reaches." Augustine 
 now (in 404) sent by a presbyter Praesidius 
 authentic copies of his two original letters 
 (written nine or ten years before), accompanied 
 by one in which he begged that the matter 
 might be treated as between friends, and not 
 grow into a feud like that of Jerome and 
 Rufinus, which hedeeplylamented. Onreceipt 
 of this Jerome at once wrote {Ep. civ.) a full 
 answer to Augustine's principal letters (in 
 Hieron. Ivi. Ixvii. civ. ex.), and on the question 
 of St. Peter at Antioch appealed to the great 
 Eastern expositors of Scripture. Augustine 
 replied in a long letter (in Jerome's, cxvi.) on 
 the chief question, adding many expressions 
 tending to satisfy Jerome as to their personal 
 relations. Jerome appears to have been more 
 than satisfied ; perhaps even to have been 
 convinced. The only allusions in his later 
 writings to this controversy seem to favour 
 Augustine's view. Augustine wrote two 
 letters to him a few years later on the origin 
 of souls (cxxxi.), and on the meaning of the 
 words, " He that offends in one point is guilty 
 of all" (cxxxii.). Jerome's reply (cxxxiv.) 
 is wholly friendly. He refers to a request 
 in one of Augustine's former letters (civ.) 
 for translations from the LXX, saying that 
 these had been stolen from him, and adds, 
 " Each of us has his gift ; there is nothing in 
 your letters but what I admire ; and I wish 
 to be understood as assenting to all you say, 
 for we must be united in order to withstand 
 Pelagianism." Augustine, on his part, shewed 
 a remarkable deference to Jerome's opinion 
 on the origin of souls, as to which after five 
 year she still hesitated (Hieron. Ep. cxliv.) to 
 give a definite answer to his friend Optatus 
 because he had not received one from Jerome ; 
 and he sent Orosius, probably referring to this 
 
HIERONYMUS 
 
 verv question, to sit, as Orosius himself says, 
 at the feet of Jerome (de Lib. Arb. 3). The 
 remaining letters shew a constant increase of 
 friendship. The two preat teachers, though 
 from somewhat different points of view, 
 laboured together in combating Pelagianism ; 
 and, having been to each other for a while 
 almost as heretics, stand justly side by side 
 as canonized doctors of Latin Christianity. 
 
 Last Period. 405-420. Old Age and Troubles. 
 — This last period of Jerome's life was full of 
 external dangers and towards its close agitated 
 by controversy. In 403 the Isaurians devas- 
 tated the N. of Palestine, the monasteries of 
 Bethlehem were beset with fugiti\es, and 
 Jerome and his friends were brought into 
 great straits for the means of living. The 
 winter was extremely cold, and Jerome was 
 laid low by a severe illness in Lent 406 [Ep. 
 cxiv.) which left him weak for a long time. The 
 barbarian invasions culminated in the sack of 
 Rome by Alaric in 410. In this last calamity, 
 which seemed to be ushering in the end of the 
 world (cxxiii.), Panimachius and Marcella 
 died. Emigration from Italy to Africa and 
 Syria set in, and the more religious among the 
 fugitives flocked to Jerusalem and Bethlehem 
 (pref. to bks. iii. and vii. of Comin. on Ezk.). 
 Jerome was not unaffected by the evil political 
 influences of the time. He represents himself 
 as watched by enemies, who made it danger- 
 ous for him even to express his sense of the 
 miseries of the empire. In his Commentary on 
 the Monarchies in Daniel he reflects on the 
 low state to which the Roman emiiire had 
 fallen and its need of support from barbarians ; 
 and these words were taken as reflecting on 
 Stilicho, the great half-V'andal general, the 
 father-in-law and minister of Honorius, and 
 the real ruler of the empire. Stilicho, whom 
 Jerome afterwards speaks of {Ep. cxxiii. 17) 
 as " the half-barbarian traitor who armed the 
 enemy against us with our own resources," 
 appears to have heard of Jerome's expressions 
 in his commentar\' and to have taken great 
 offence, and Jerome believed that he was 
 meditating some revenge against him when 
 he was put to death (" Dei judicio," pref. to 
 bk. xi. of Comm. on Is.) by order of his imperial 
 relative. In the year following the sack of 
 Rome Palestine suffered from an incursion of 
 barbarians from which Jerome barely escaped 
 (Ep. cxxvi. 2). He was very poor (pref. to 
 Comm. on Ezk. bk. viii.), but made no com- 
 plaint of this. His best friends had passed 
 away — Paula in 403, Pammachius and Mar- 
 cella in 410 (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. i.). 
 Of his Roman friends, Oceanus, Principia, and 
 the younger Fabiola alone remained {Epp. 
 exx. cxxvii.) ; Eustochium had very possibly 
 (as Thierry supposes) less authority than her 
 mother in the management of the convent, 
 and this left room for irregularities like those 
 related in J erome'sletter (cxlvii.) to Sabinianus. 
 Eustochium died in 418 (pref. to Comm. on Jer. 
 bk. i.). Jerome's days were taken up by the 
 monastery and the hospice (pref. to Comm. on 
 £zft. bk. viii.) and he could only dictate his com- 
 mentaries at night ; he was even glad when 
 winter came and gave him longer nights for this 
 purpose [ib.). He was growing weak with age 
 and frequent illnesses, and his eyesight, which 
 had originally failed nearly 40 years before 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 4 CO 
 
 (Constantinople, 380), was so weak that he 
 could hardly decipher Hrb. letters at night («6.). 
 Controversy arose again with IVIagius (pref. 
 to Comm. on Jer. bks. i.-iv.), and Jerome's re- 
 lations with the bp. of Jerusalem can hardlv 
 have been smooth (Ep. cxxxvii.). On the other 
 hand, his brother Paulinian was still with him ; 
 the younger Paula, daughter of Toxotius and 
 Laeta (evil, cxxxiv.), survived him and re- 
 placed her aunt Eustochium in managing the 
 monasteries. .Mbina, and the younger .Melania 
 with her husband Pinianus (cxli\-.), came to 
 live with him ; he had kindly relations with 
 persons in many countries ; and the onlv 
 leading man of the Western church was his 
 friend. Amidst all discouragements, he con- 
 tinued his Biblical studies and writings with 
 no sign of weakness to the end. 
 
 Pelagianism. — The Pelagian controversy 
 was forced upon his notice. He had not ante- 
 cedently formed any strong opinion i>n it, and 
 had been connected in early life with some of 
 the leading supporters of Pelagius (pref. to 
 Comm. on Jer. hk. iv.). But no great question 
 could now arise in the church without an appeal 
 to Jerome, and his correspondence necessarily 
 embraced this subject (/s/i/'. cxxxiii.cxxxviii.j. 
 Orosius, the friend of Augustine, came to re- 
 side at Bethlehem in 414, full of the council 
 of Carthage and of the thoughts and doings 
 of his teacher ; and when in 415 Pelagius and 
 Coelestius came to Palestine, Jerome was in 
 the very centre of the controversy. A 
 synod was held under John of Jerusalem 
 [Joannes (216)1 i'^ July 4^5 with no result ; 
 and at a synod at Diospolis in 416 Pelagius 
 was acquitted, partly, it was believed, because 
 the Eastern bishops could not see their way 
 in matters of Western theology and in judging 
 of Latin expressions. But the mind of the 
 church generally was against him, and Jerome 
 ! was called upon to give expression to it. 
 [ Ctesiphon from Rome wrote to him directly on 
 i the subject and drew a long reply (cxxxiii.). 
 I Augustine addressed to him two letters on 
 I points bearing upon the subject (cxxxi. 
 ] cxxxii.), and in his letter on the origin of 
 j souls insinuated that Jerome's creationism 
 j might identify him with Pelagius's denial of 
 I the transmission of Adam's sin (cxxx. 6). 
 Pelagius sometimes quoted Jerome as agree- 
 ing with him (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), 
 sometimes attacked passages in his conmien- 
 I taries (id. bk. iv.) and depreciated his transla- 
 tion of the Scriptures (pref. to Dial, against 
 1 Pelag.). Orosius, who withstood Pelagius in 
 the svnod of Jerusalem with little success, 
 appealed (de Libero Arbitrio contra Pelagium) 
 to Jerome asarhampion of the faith. Jerome 
 wrote, therefore, in 3 books, the dialogue 
 against the Pelagians, an amplificalion of his 
 letter to Ctesiphon, in which Alliens (the 
 Augustinian) and Critobulus (the Pelagian) 
 maintain the argument. It turns ni)on the 
 question whether a man can be without sin 
 if he so wills. Its tone is much milder than 
 that of Jerome's other controversial writings, 
 with the single exception of the dialogue 
 against the Luriferians. But still he is deal- 
 ing with a heretic, and herisy is under the ban 
 of the church and of heaven. This terrible 
 doom contrasts somewhat sharply with the 
 balanced argument, in which Jerome appears 
 
470 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 not as a thorough-going predestinarian, but 
 a " synergist," maintaining the coexistence 
 of the free will, and reducing predestination 
 to God's foreknowledge of human determina- 
 tion (see the Dialogue, esp. i. 5, ii. 6, iii. 18). 
 Nevertheless, the partisans of Pelagius were 
 irritated to bitterness and violence. A crowd 
 of Pelagian monks attacked, partly threw 
 down, and partly burned the monasteries 
 of Bethlehem, some of the inmates were 
 slaughtered, and Jerome only escaped by 
 taking refuge in a tower stronger than the 
 rest. This violence, however, was their last 
 effort. A strong letter from pope Innocentius 
 (cxxxvii.) to J ohn of J erusalem (who died soon 
 after, 418) warned him that he would be held 
 accountable for any future violence, and J erome 
 received a letter (cxxxvi.) assuring him of the 
 pope's protection. J erome's letters to Riparius 
 (cxxxviii.), Apronius (cxxxix.), and Augustine 
 (cxli. cxliii.), speak of the cause of Augustine 
 as triumphant, and of Pelagius, who is com- 
 pared to Catiline, leaving Palestine, though 
 Jerusalem is still held by some powerful 
 adversary, who is compared to Nebuchad- 
 nezzar (cxliv.). There was, however, in 
 the East no strong feeling against Pelagius. 
 His cause was upheld by Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, who in a work, of which parts are 
 extant (in Hieron. vol. ii. pp. 807-814), argues 
 against Augustine and Jerome (whom he 
 calls " Aram "), as " those who say that men 
 sin by nature and not by will." In the West 
 a work was written by Anianus, a deacon of 
 Celeda, of which a copy was sent to Jerome 
 (cxliii. 2) by Eusebius of Cremona, but to 
 which he was never able to reply. 
 
 Letters. — The letters of this period of 
 Jerome's life are mostly ones of counsel to 
 those who asked his advice. Among these 
 maybe mentioned that to Ageruchia (cxxiii.), 
 exhorting her to persevere in her estate as 
 a widow, and giving as deterrents from a 
 second marriage some touches of Roman 
 manners and a remarkable account of the 
 sack of Rome ; to the virgin Demetrias (cxxx.), 
 who had escaped from the burning of Rome 
 and fallen into the hands of count Heraclian in 
 Africa ; and to Sabinianus (cxlvii.) the lapsed 
 deacon, who had brought disorder into the 
 monasteries, and from which letter a whole 
 romance of monastic life might be constructed. 
 Jerome wrote also the Memoir of Marcella 
 (cxxvii.), who died from ill-treatment in the 
 sack of Rome, addressing his letter to her 
 friend Principia ; but he was too dejected 
 and infirm to write the Epitaphium of 
 Eustochium, who died two years before him 
 (cdxviii.). Other letters relate to scriptural 
 studies ; cxix., to Minucius and Alexander, 
 learned presbyters of the diocese of Toulouse, 
 on the interpretation of the words, " We shall 
 not all sleep, but we shall all be changed " ; 
 cxx., to Hebidia, a lady of a remarkable family 
 whose father and grandfather were orators, 
 poets, professors, and priests of Apollo Belen 
 at Bayeux ; cxl., to the presbyter Cyprian, an 
 exposition of Ps. xc. ; cxxiv., to Avitus, on the 
 TTfpi 'Apx^^ ; cxxix., on how Palestine could 
 be called the Promised Land; and cxlvi., to 
 Evangelus an African presbyter, containing the 
 well-known theory of Jerome on the relative 
 positions of bishops, priests, and deacons. 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 Commentaries on Greater Prophets. — Of 
 Bible work in his later years we have only the 
 Commentaries on the Greater Prophets : on 
 Daniel in 407 ; on Isaiah in 16 books, written 
 in the intervals of business and illness, and 
 issued at various times from 408-410 ; on 
 Ezekiel, from 410-414 ; and on Jeremiah, 
 cut short at c. xxxii. by Jerome's last illness. 
 The prefaces to these are remarkable docu- 
 ments and very serviceable for the chronology 
 of Jerome's life. Those on Ezekiel record the 
 sack of Rome, the death of Rufinus (bk. i.), 
 the immigration from Rome (bks. iii. and vii.), 
 the rise of Pelagianism (bk. vi.) ; and bk. ix. 
 of the commentary speaks of the invasion of 
 Rome by count Heraclian. Jerome was 
 prevented from taking up the commentary 
 on Jeremiah till after the death of Eustochium 
 (418), and thus his last work was written in 
 the year (419) which intervened between 
 Eustochium's death and his own. Yet not 
 only is the work full of vigour, but the pre- 
 faces shew a renewal of controversial ardour 
 against Pelagius, whom he speaks of as 
 " Scotorum pultibus praegravatus " (bks. i. 
 and iii.). That controversy and the business 
 of the pilgrims (bk. iv.) shortened his time for 
 the commentary (bk. iii.), which, though in- 
 tended to be short (bk. i.), required his excuses 
 inthelast preface (bk.vi.)foritsgrowinglength. 
 
 Death. — It is generally believed that a long 
 sickness preceded the death of Jerome, that 
 after 419 he was unable to work at all, that 
 he was attended in this illness by the 
 younger Paula and Melania ; that he died, 
 according to the Chronicle of Prosper of 
 Aquitania, on Sept. 20, 420, and that he was 
 buried beside Paula and Eustochium near the 
 grotto of the Nativity. His body was be- 
 lieved to have been subsequently carried to 
 Rome and placed in the church of Sta. Maria 
 Maggiore on the Esquiline. Legends, such 
 as that, immortahzed by the etching of 
 Albert Diirer, of the lion which constantly 
 attended him, and of the miracles at his grave, 
 are innumerable. 
 
 Writings now Extant. — Vallarsi's ed. con- 
 tains a complete table of contents which may 
 be usefully consulted. In our list the date 
 of time and place at which each was composed, 
 and the volume in Vallarsi's ed., are added. 
 
 I. Bible Translations : — 
 
 (i) From the Hebrew.— The Vulgate of O.T., 
 written at Bethlehem, begun 391, finished 
 404, vol. ix. 
 
 (2) From the LA'J^.— The Psalms as used 
 at Rome, written in Rome 383 ; and as used 
 in Gaul, written at Bethlehem c. 388. The 
 book of Job, being part of the translation of 
 LXX made between 386 and 392 at Bethle- 
 hem, the rest being lost (Ep. cxxxiv.), vol. x. 
 
 (3) From the Chaldee.—Tohh and Judith, 
 Bethlehem, a.d. 398. 
 
 (4) From the Greek. — The Vulgate version of 
 N.T., made at Rome between 382 and 385. 
 
 II. Commentaries : — 
 
 (i) Original. — Ecclesiastes, vol. iii. a.d. 388 ; 
 Isaiah, vol. iv. 410; Jeremiah, i. -xxxii. 41, 
 vol. iv. 419 ; Ezekiel, vol. v. 410-414 ; Daniel, 
 vol. V. 407 ; Minor Prophets, vol. vi. at 
 various times between 391 and 406 ; Matthew, 
 vol. vii. 387 ; Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, 
 Philemon, vol. vii. 388 : all at Bethlehem. 
 
HIERONYMUS 
 
 (2) Translated from Oripen. — Homilies on 
 Jer.andEziv., vol. v. Bethlehem, date doubtful; 
 on Ltike, vol. vii. Bethlehem, j^Sq ; Canticles, 
 vol. iii. Rome and Bethlehem, 385-3S7. 
 
 There is also a commentary on job, and a 
 specimen of one on the Psalms, vol. vii. ; 
 and the translation of Origen's Homilies on 
 Isaiah, all attributed to Jerome, vol. iv. 
 
 III. Books illustrating Scripture : — 
 
 (1) Book of Hebrew Names, or Glossary 
 of Proper Names in O.T. ; Bethlehem, 388'; 
 vol. iii. I. 
 
 (2) Book of Questions on Genesis, Bethle- 
 hem, 3S8 ; vol. iii. 301. 
 
 (3) A translation of Eusebius's book on the 
 Sites and Names of Hebrew Places, Bethle- 
 hem, 388 ; vol. iii. 121. 
 
 (4) Translation of Didymus on the Holy 
 Spirit, Koine and Bethlehem, 385-387 ; vol. 
 ii. 105. 
 
 IV. Books on Church History and Con- 
 troversy (all in vol. ii.) : — 
 
 (i) Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue 
 of Ecclesiastical Writers, Bethlehem, a.d. 392. 
 
 (2) Dialogue with a Luciferian, Antioch, 
 37Q- 
 
 (3) Lives of the Hermits : Paulus, Desert, 
 374 ; Malchus and Hilarion, Bethlehem, 390. 
 
 (4) Translation of the Rule of Pachomius ; 
 Bethlehem, 404. 
 
 (5) Books of ascetic controversy : against 
 Helvidius, Rome, 383 ; against Jovinian, 
 Bethlehem, 393 ; against Vigilantius, Beth- 
 lehem, 406. 
 
 (6) Books of personal controversy : against 
 John, bp. of lerusalem, Bethlehem, 398 or 
 399 ; against Rufinus, i. and ii. 402, iii. 404. 
 
 (7) Dialogue with a Pelagian, Bethlehem, 
 416. 
 
 V. General History : — Translation of the 
 Chronicle of EUsebius, with Jerome's addi- 
 tions, vol. viii., Constantinople, 382. 
 
 VI. Letters : — The series of letters, vol. i. 
 Ep. i. Aquileia, 371 ; ii.-iv. Antioch, 374 ; v.- 
 xvii. Desert, 374-379 ; xviii. Constantinople, 
 381 ; xix.-xlv. Rome, 382-385 ; xlvi.-cxlviii. 
 Bethlehem, 386-418. 
 
 The works attributed to Jerome but not 
 genuine, which are given in Vallarsi's ed., are : 
 A Breviary, Commentary, and I'reface on the 
 Psalms, vol. vii. ; some Greek fragments, and 
 a Lexicon of Hebrew Names, the Names of 
 Places in the Acts, the Ten Names of God, 
 the Benedictions of the Patriarchs, the Ten 
 Temptations in the Desert, a Commentary on 
 the Song of Deborah, Hebrew Questions in 
 Kings and Chronicles, an Exposition of Job, 
 vol. iii., three letters in vol. i., and 51 in 
 vol. xi., and several miscellaneous writings in 
 vol. xi., most of which are by Pelagius. 
 
 Criticism. — (i) As a Bible translator, 
 Jerome deserves the highest place for his 
 clear conviction of the importance of his task 
 and his perseverance against great obstacles. 
 This is shewn especially in his prefaces, which 
 are of great value as shewing his system. He 
 took very great pains, but not with all alike. 
 The Chronicles he went over w(jrd by word 
 with his Hebrew teacher ; Tobit he translated 
 in a single day- His method was, first, never 
 to swerve needlessly from the original ; 
 second, to avoid solecisms ; third, at all risks, 
 even that of introducing solecisms, to give the 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 471 
 
 true sense. These principles are not always 
 consistently carried out. There is sometimes 
 undue laxity, which is defended in the de 
 Optimo Generc Interpretandi ; sometimes an 
 unnecessary literalism, arising from a notion 
 that some hidd.n sense li.s h.hind the words, 
 but really d<i)riviii^; the w^rds of sense. His 
 versions were during his lif.time both highly 
 prized and greatly condemned. His friend 
 Sophnniius translated a great part of them 
 into Greek and they were read in inanv East- 
 ern churches in Jerome's lifetime. After his 
 death they gradually won universal accept- 
 ance in the West, and were finally, with some 
 alterations (mostly for the worse), stamped 
 with the authority of the Roman church at 
 the council of Trent. See Vallarsi's preface 
 to vol. ix., and Zockler, pt. II. ii. Hieronymus 
 als Bibel Uebersetzer. 
 
 (2) As an expositor, Jerome lacks origin- 
 ality. His Commentaries are mostly com- 
 pilations from others, whose views he gives 
 at times without any opinion of his own. 
 This, however, makes them of special value as 
 the record of the thoughts of distinguished 
 men, such as Origen. His derivations arc 
 puerile. His interpretation of prophecy is 
 the merest literal application of it to events 
 in the church. He is often inconsistent, and 
 at times seems to veil his own opinion under 
 that of another. His allusions to the events 
 of his own time as illustrations of Scripture 
 are often of great interest. His great haste 
 in writing (pref. to bk. ii. of Comm. on Eph. 
 and pref. to bk. iii. of Comm. on Gal.), his 
 frequent weak health and weak eyes, and his 
 great self-confidence caused him to trust his 
 memory too much. 
 
 (3) The books on Hebrew Names, Questions 
 on Genesis, and the Site and Names of Hebrew 
 places shew a wide range of interest and are 
 useful contributions to Biblical knowledge, 
 especially the last-named, which is often 
 appealed to in the present day. But even 
 here he was too ready to accept Jewish tales 
 rather than to exercise independent judgment. 
 
 In theology, properly so called, he is weak. 
 His first letter to Damasus on the Trinitarian 
 controversies at Antioch shews a clear per- 
 ception of what the church taught, but also 
 a shrinking from dogmatic questions and a 
 servile submission to episcopal authority. 
 He accepted without question the damnation 
 of all the heathen. His dealings with Origen 
 shew his weakness ; he surrendered his im- 
 partial judgment as soon as Origen's works 
 were condemned. In the Pelagian con- 
 troversy his slight realization of the importance 
 of the questions contrasts markedly with the 
 deep conviction of the writings of Augustine. 
 In some matters, which had not been dealt 
 with by church authority, he held his own ; 
 e.g. as to the origin of souls he is decided as 
 a creationist. He puts aside purgatory and 
 [scoffs at millenarianism. His views on the 
 Apocrypha and on the orders of the Christian 
 ministry have become classical. 
 1 (4) For church history he had some con- 
 ; siderable faculty, as is shewn by the dialogue 
 with a Luciferian. His knowledge was great 
 and his sympathies large, when there was no 
 
 Suestion of church condemnations. His book 
 e Vim lllHitribus is especially valuable and 
 
472 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 his defence of it against Augustine's criticism 
 shews hina to have the wider culture and 
 greater knowledge. But the lives of the 
 hermits incorporate legend with history. In 
 controversy his ordinary method is to take as 
 absolute truth the decisions of bishops and 
 even the popular feeling in the church and to 
 use all his powers in enforcing these. His 
 own life and documents which give its details 
 are his best contributions to church history. 
 (5) His knowledge of and sympathy with 
 human history generally was very like that of 
 monks of later times. He had much curiosity 
 and considerable knowledge. His translation 
 of the Chronicle of Eusebius shews his interest 
 in history, but is very uncritical. The mis- 
 takes of Eusebius are not corrected but 
 aggravated by the translator ; his own addi- 
 tions shew that his critical faculty was not 
 such as to guard against the admission of 
 considerable errors ; and his credulity con- 
 stantly reveals itself. He nowhere shews even 
 the rudiments of a philosophy of history. He 
 knew both the events of his time and facts 
 lying beyond the usual range. He was 
 acquainted with the routes to India, and 
 mentions the Brahmans {Epp. xxii. Ixx. etc.) 
 and Buddha {adv. Jov. i. 42). Events like the 
 fall of Rome deeply impressed him ; but he 
 deals with these very much as the monks of the 
 middle ages dealt with the events of their time. 
 He is a recluse, with no political sagacity and 
 no sense of human progress. 
 
 (6) His letters are the most interesting part 
 of his writings. They are very various ; vixad 
 in feeling and graphic in their pictures of 
 life. The letters to Heliodorus (xiv.) on the 
 praise of hermit life ; to Eustochium (xxii.) on 
 the preservation of virginity in the mixed life 
 of the Roman church and world ; to Asella 
 (xlv.) on his departure from Rome ; to Nepo- 
 tian (Hi.) on the duties of the presbvters and 
 monks of his day ; to Marcella from Paula and 
 Eustochium (xivi.), giving the enthusiastic 
 description of monastic life among the holy 
 places of Palestine ; to Laeta (cvii.) on the 
 education of a child whose grandfather was a 
 heathen priest, whose parents were Christians, 
 and who was herself to be a nun ; to Rusticus 
 (cxxv.), giving rules which shew the character 
 of the monastic life in those days. — all these are 
 literary gems ; and the Epitaphia of Blesilla 
 (xxxix.), Fabiola (Ixxvii.), Nepotianus (Ix.), 
 Paula (cviii.), and Marcella (cxxvii.) form a 
 hagiography of the best and most attractive 
 kind. 
 
 Style. — His style is excellent, and he was 
 rightly praised as the Christian Cicero by 
 Erasrnus, who contrasts his writings with 
 rnonkish and scholastic literature. It is 
 vivid, full of illustrations, with happv turns, 
 such as " lucus a non lucendo," Oy \vpa, 
 " fac de necessitate virtutem," " Ingemuit 
 tot us orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est." 
 The scriptural quotations and allusions are 
 often overdone and forced, but with no un- 
 reality or cant ; and he never loses his dignity 
 except in some controversial personalities. 
 
 Character. — He was vain, and unable to 
 bear rivals ; extremely sensitive as to the 
 estimation of his contemporaries, especially 
 the bishops ; passionate and resentful, but 
 at times suddenly placable ; scornful and I 
 
 HIERONYMUS 
 
 violent in controversy ; kind to the weak and 
 poor ; respectful in dealing with women ; 
 entirely without avarice ; extraordinarily 
 diligent, and nobly tenacious of the main 
 objects of his life. 
 
 Influence. — His influence grew through his 
 life and increased after his death. " He lived 
 and reigned for a thousand years." His 
 wTitings contain the whole spirit of the church 
 of the middle ages; its monasticism, its con- 
 trast of sacred things with profane, its credu- 
 lity and superstition, its deference to hier- 
 archical authority, its dread of heresy, its 
 passion for pilgrimages. To the society which 
 was thus in a great measure formed by him, his 
 Bible was the greatest boon which could have 
 been given. But he founded no school and 
 had no inspiring power ; there was not 
 sufficient courage or width of view in his 
 spiritual legacy. As Thierry says, " There is 
 no continuation of his work ; ' a few more 
 letters of Augustine and Paulinus, and night 
 falls over the West." A cheap popular Life of 
 St. Jerome by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
 in their Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans, of 
 his principal works is in the Lib. of Nic. and 
 Post.-Nic. Fathers. The Bp. of Albany has in 
 preparation (1911) a trans, of the Epistolae 
 Selectae (ed. Hurter). [w.h.f.] 
 
 Hlerotheus, a writer whose works are 
 quoted by the Pseudo-Dionysius, who styles 
 him his teacher. Two long extracts are 
 preserved in the de Divinis Nominibus of 
 the Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 2, §§ 9, 10 ; c. 4, 
 §§ 15-17), and there are incidental references 
 to him elsewhere. In the first extract (c. 2, 
 § 9 fin.) his Theological Institutes (deoXoyiKal 
 (TTotxeiwtrets) are cited ; in the second his 
 Amatory Hymns {ipuriKoi v/ulvoi). His writ- 
 ings most probably belong to the school of 
 Edessa, and should be dated about the middle 
 or end of 5th cent. In confirmation of this 
 view Dr. Westcott has noted a statement in 
 Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 290, 291) that 
 Stephen Bar-Sudaili, abbat of a monastery at 
 Edessa, published a book under the name of 
 Hierotheus to support his own mystic doc- 
 trines. Assemani says that this abbat held 
 the doctrine of final restoration as taught by 
 Origen, and was abused for it by Xenaias and 
 James of Sarug, bp. of Batnae (Bibl. Or. i. 
 303, ii. 30-33 ; Ceillier, x. 641 ; Westcott on 
 Dionys. Areop. in Contemporary Rev. May, 
 1867). The mystical views in the works of 
 Hierotheus and Dionysius easily lend them- 
 selves to the support of that theory. Accord- 
 ing to Assemani (ii. 291), Bar-Sudaili wrote 
 under the name of Hierotheus to prove 
 " finem poenarum aliquando futurum, nee 
 impios in saeculum saeculorum puniendos fore, 
 sed per ignem purgandos ; atque ita et malos 
 daemones misericordiam consequuturos esse, 
 et cuncta in divinam naturam transmutanda, 
 juxta illud Pauli, ut sit Deus omnia in omni- 
 bus." In Mai's Spicilegium Romanum (iii. 
 704-707) will be found other fragments of this 
 writer, translated from some Arabic MSS. 
 Their theology savours, however, more of the 
 4th and 5th cents, than of the ist. But see 
 .\. L. Frothingham, Stephen Bar-Sudaili and the 
 Book of Hierotheos (Levden. 1886). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Hilarianus (i), Quintus Julius {Hiiarion), 
 a Latin ChUiast writer, c. 397, author of twg 
 
HILARION 
 
 extant treatises. The first. Exposilum de Die 
 Paschae et Mensis, after haviiiR disappeared 
 for several centuries, was printed in 1712, with 
 a dissertation by Pfaffius to prove that it 
 was written a.d. 307- Hilarian supports the 
 Latins against the tireeks, in agreement with 
 pope \'ictor and the council of Nicaea. 
 
 The second treatise, Chronologia sive Libdlus 
 de Mundi Duralione. is founded on a dispute 
 about the date of the end of the world. The 
 author counts 5,530 years from the Creation 
 to the Passion ; gives the world 6,000 ; and 
 would therefore end it c. 498. 
 
 The following is a sketch of his chronology : 
 From the Creation to the DchiRe . . 2237 years. 
 ,, ., Dehigc to the Call of .\braham 10 12 „ 
 
 ,, thence to the Exodus 430 ,, 
 
 ,, ,, ,, Samuel 450 ,, 
 
 ,. Zedekiah 514 ,, 
 
 The Captivity lasted 7o „ 
 
 Thence to the Passion 887 ,, 
 
 He believes that after the close of the 
 apocalyptic thousand years will come the 
 loosing of Satan, the seducing of the nations 
 Gog and Magog, the descent of fire from 
 heaven upon their armies ; then the second 
 resurrection, the judgment, the passing away 
 of the old things and the bringing in of the 
 new heavens and new earth ; " impii in 
 ambustione aeterna ; justi autem cum Deo in 
 vita aeterna " fc. 19). His style is barbarous. 
 La Eigne, Biblioth. Vet. Pair. 1609, t. vii. ; 
 1618, t. V. pt. i. ; 1654, t. vii. ; 1677, t. vii. 
 Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. col. 1094-1114 ; Cave, i. 
 252 ; Ceillier, vi. 288. A new cd. of de Mundi 
 Duratione was pub. by C. Frisk in Chronica 
 Minora (Leipz. 1S92). [w.m.s. and j.g.] 
 
 Hilarlon (1), a hermit of Palestine (d. 371). 
 Jerome wrote his Life in 390, quoting Epi- 
 phanius, Hilarion's disciple. Jerome certainly 
 considered his Lives of the Hermits as historical 
 (Vit. Malchi, i.) ; but the marvels of the Life 
 of Hilarion have induced some to believe it 
 to be a mere romance (Israel in Hilgenfeld's j 
 Zeitschrift for 1880, p. 128, but see Zockler's | 
 Jerome, 179). No attempt is made in this 1 
 art. to separate fact from fiction. The Life of ! 
 Hilarion in any case shews the ideal on which 
 monasticism was nourished in the 4th cent. 
 
 Hilarion was born at Thabatha, 5 miles 
 S. of Gaza, c. 300, of heathen parents, who sent 
 him for education to Alexandria. There he 
 shewed great talents and proficiency in rhet- 
 oric, which then comprehended nearly the 
 whole of a liberal education. He was of a 
 disposition which made him beloved by all. 
 He became a Christian, and, turning from the 
 frivolous pleasures of the circus and theatre, 
 spent all his leisure in the assemblies of the 
 church. Hearing of the monastic retreat of j 
 Anthony, he became his disciple for a time, 
 but found that the multitude who resorted to 
 Anthony made life with him a city life rather, 
 than one of retirement. Though but fifteen 
 years old, he determined to become a hermit. 
 He returned to Palestine and foimd his parents ! 
 dead, gave away his goods to his brothers and 
 the poor, and went to live in a desert place 7 
 miles from the Christian city of Majoma near 
 Gaza. The boy hermit was clad in a sackcloth 
 shirt, which he never changed till it was worn 
 out, a cloak of skins which Anthony had given 
 him, and a blanket such as peasants wore. 
 
 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 473 
 
 His daily sustenance was is cari(i>s f.i sort of 
 figs). He cultivated a little p|.,i ,,f gr<,u,i<i 
 and macle baskets of rushes, so as not to be 
 idle. His disordered fancy summoned up a 
 thousand temptations of Satan, but he over- 
 came them all by calling on the name of 
 Christ. He dwelt 12 years in a little cabin 
 made by himself of woven reeds and rushes ; 
 after that in a hut only 5 feet high, still shewn 
 when Jerome was in Palestine, and more like 
 a sepulchre than a house. 
 
 The fame of his sanctity spread rapidly, and 
 he was reputed to l)e a worker of miracl.-s and 
 an exorcist. Men of all ranks (whose names 
 and abodes arc circumstantially recorded) 
 suffering from hysteric affections, then attri- 
 buted to demons, were healed. An officer of 
 Majoma, whose duty it was to rear horses 
 for the Circensian games and who had been 
 always beaten through a spell laid upon his 
 chariot by the votaries of Mamas, the idol of 
 Gaza, won the race when the saint had poured 
 water upon his chariot wheels. Hilarion had 
 many disciples, whom he formed into societies 
 and went on circuits to visit them ; and many 
 stories were told of his shrewdness and pene- 
 tration in rebuking their weaknesses. 
 
 But the crowds who flocked about him made 
 him feel no longer a hermit ; and in his 6^rd 
 year, the year of the death of Anthonv (which 
 was miraculously made known to him), he 
 resolved to set out on his wanderings. Men 
 crowded round him to the number of 10,000. 
 beseeching him not to depart. Business 
 ceased throughout Palestine, the minds of men 
 being wholly occupied with hopes and fears 
 about his departure ; but he left them, and 
 with a few monks, who seem soon to have left 
 him, he went his way, never to return. He 
 first turned towards i3abylon, then to Kgypt. 
 He fled to the Oasis, and afterwards sailed for 
 Sicily. There he lay hid for a time ; but his 
 disciple Hesychius at last discovered him. 
 He again set forth in search of solitude ; but 
 wherever he went his miracles betrayed him. 
 He at length arrived m Cyprus, the home of his 
 friend Epiphanius. There he found a solitary 
 and inaccessible place, still called bv his name, 
 where he lived the last three years of his life, 
 often in the company of Hesychius and 
 Epiphanius. His body was buried in the 
 grounds of a lady named Constantia, but 
 Hesychius disinterred it, and carried it to 
 Majoma in Palestine. Constantia died of 
 grief, but the translation caused jf)y through- 
 out Palestine, where its anniversary was 
 observed as a festival. Vita S. Htlarionis, in 
 Jerome's Works, vol. ii. 13-40, ed. Vail. ; Soz. 
 iii. 14, vi. 32 ; Vit. Patrum, lib. v. c. 4, § 15, p. 
 568, in.Migne's Prt/r. ^;a-. vol. Ixxiii. Hisname 
 occurs in the Hrzautine Calendar, Oct. 21, as 
 " Our Father Hil.iri-.,, th<- (;reat." [w.ii.f.I 
 
 Hilarius (7) Plotaviensis, St. {Hilary of 
 Poictiers), d. a.d. 368. 
 
 Authorities. — (i) His own writings. These 
 furnish so much information that the bio- 
 graphy in the Benedictine ed. of I Ijl.irv's works 
 is mainly drawn from them. (2) Hicnn. de 
 I'iris Illustribus {seu Scriptorum Eccles. Cata- 
 In^us), c. 100. Also in I'saiam, c. Ix., t» Psalm. 
 Iviii. {.\.\'. lix.), in the prooemiuni in lib. li. 
 Comm.adGal. {3) St. Augustine. </<■ '/riwi/rt/i-. 
 lib. X. c. 6, lib. xv. c. 2. (4) Cassian, de Incur- 
 
474 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 
 
 natione, lib. vii. (5) St. Gregory of Tours, de 
 Glortd Confessorum, c. 2. (6) Fortunatus, whose 
 identification is uncertain. [Fortunatus (17) 
 and {18).] (7) Cassiodorus, Institut. Divin. 
 lib. i. c. 16. 
 
 Life. — Hilary is believed to have been born 
 of illustrious stock in Poictiers. St. Jerome 
 (in Gal.) distinctly asserts this, but some 
 authorities name more vaguely the province 
 of Aquitaine, rather than the capital. He 
 enjoyed a good education in the Latin classics, 
 and evidently was specially fond of the 
 writings of Quintilian. 
 
 About A.D. 350, Hilary, then a married man 
 but, it would seem, still young, appears to have 
 become a Christian. He depicts himself as 
 gradually rising first above the attractions of 
 ease and plenty ; then aiming at knowledge 
 of truth and the practice of virtue. The 
 books of Moses and the Psalms gave him 
 abundant help in his desire to know God ; in 
 his consciousness of weakness the writings of 
 apostles and evangelists aided him, more espe- 
 cially the Gospel of St. John, with its clear and 
 emphatic teaching on the incarnation of the 
 co-eternal Son. His conversion was essentially 
 due to the study of Holy Scripture. 
 
 After his baptism he became an edifying 
 example of a good Christian layman. He 
 must have remained a layman for some few 
 years. His wife's name is unknown, but a 
 daughter, his only child, was called Abra {al. 
 Apra seu Afra). About 353 the see of 
 Poictiers became vacant by death. The 
 popular voice fixed upon Hilary as the new 
 ijishop, and he was raised per saltum to the 
 episcopate. He amply justified the choice. 
 
 Two years after his consecration a visit from 
 St. Martin, which was regarded as a compli- 
 ment to the orthodoxy and zeal of Hilary, 
 proved a prelude to an active struggle against 
 the Arian party in Gaul, then headed by 
 Ursacius, Valens, and Saturninus, of whom 
 Saturninus occupies, in the writings of the 
 orthodox, an evil pre-eminence, being repre- 
 sented as immoral, violent, and apt to seek the 
 aid of the civil power against the defenders 
 of the creed of Nicaea. Hilary unites with 
 Sulpicius Severus in censuring Saturninus 
 more than his comrades. The course pursued 
 by Ursacius and Valens, though less violent, 
 was extremely fitful and uncertain, and a 
 majority of the bishops of Gaul, led by Hilary, 
 formally separated themselves from the com- 
 munion of all three. Many even of those who 
 had leant towards Arianism now threw in their 
 lot with Hilary, who received them on condi- 
 tion that they should be approved by the 
 confessors then suffering exile. At a 
 council at Beziers, in Languedoc, Saturninus 
 probably presiding, Hilary (with some other 
 orthodox bishops) was present, but declares 
 that he was refused a hearing. The emperor 
 Constantius received from Saturninus an 
 account of this gathering, and at once resolved 
 to banish to Phrygia Hilary and one of his 
 allies, St. Rhodanus, bp. of Toulouse. Hilary 
 believed that the accusation laid against him 
 before the emperor involved a charge of gross 
 impropriety of conduct. As this event 
 occurred soon after the council of Beziers and 
 before that of Seleucia, its date is assigned to 
 the middle of 356. During this exile of 
 
 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 
 
 somewhat more than three years Hilary had a 
 good deal of liberty and much enforced leismre. 
 He employed it in examining the condition of 
 religion in Asia Minor, forming an exceedingly 
 unfavourable impression, especially as re- 
 garded his episcopate, and in composition and 
 an attempt to remove misunderstandings, 
 especially between the bishops of the East and 
 those of Gaul ; for the Galileans imagined all 
 in Asia to be sheer Arians, while the Orientals 
 supposed their brethren in Gaul to be lapsing 
 into Sabellianism. Hilary's treatise de Syn- 
 odis belongs to this period (358 or 359). and 
 also his great work de Trinitaie. 
 
 The fourth year (359) of Hilary's exile 
 witnessed the council of Rimini in the West 
 and that of Seleucia in the East. The em- 
 peror apparently intended the decisions of 
 these two assemblies, if accordant, to be 
 conjointly regarded as the decree of one 
 oecumenical council. Hilary was compelled 
 by the secular authorities to attend that of 
 Seleucia, Constantius himself having convoked 
 it. He found there three sections : the 
 orthodox, semi-Arian, and ultra-Arian or 
 Anomoean. Although his presence was of 
 great service in explaining the true state of 
 things in Gaul, the language of the Acacians 
 so shocked him that he retired from the 
 assembly- These Anomoeans were neverthe- 
 less condemned there. 
 
 From Seleucia Hilary went to Constanti- 
 nople and was granted an interview with the 
 emperor. Here the Arians, having joined the 
 Anomoeans, were in great force, and, having 
 gathered another council in the Eastern 
 capital, tried to reverse their failure at 
 Seleucia. A challenge from Hilary to discuss 
 the questions at issue publicly, in presence of 
 the emperor, on the evidence of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, was, as he informs us, declined ; and 
 Constantius sent his prisoner back to Gaul, 
 without formally annulling the sentence of 
 banishment or allowing him perfect liberty. 
 The energies of Hilary in Gaul were chiefly 
 concerned with the Arians, but his acts 
 (though bv no means all his writings) in 
 Phrygia with the semi-Arians. His attitude 
 towards these two forms of error was by no 
 means identical. Arianism he regarded as a 
 deadly heresy, with which anything like com- 
 promise was impossible. But with semi- 
 Arianism, or at any rate with certain leading 
 semi-Arians, he thought it quite possible to 
 come to an understanding ; and it will be seen 
 in the account of his works how earnestly he 
 strove to act as a peacemaker between them 
 and the supporters of the creed of Nicaea. 
 The three succeeding years (a.d. 360-362) were 
 partly occupied by his rather dilatory journey 
 homeward, and after his return by efforts 
 which, though of a conciliatory character, all 
 aimed at the restoration of the faith as set 
 forth at Nicaea. His joy at reaching Poictiers 
 (where he was warmly welcomed) and at 
 finding in health his wife, his daughter, and 
 his disciple St. Martin, was dashed by the 
 scenes witnessed during his progress. Con- 
 stantius had banished all bishops who had 
 refused to accept the formula promulgated at 
 Rimini (Socr. H. E. ii. 37 ; confirmed by Soz. 
 iv. 19, and by St. Jerome in his treatise adv. 
 Luciferianos). Hilary and his more ardent 
 
HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 
 
 friends were not prepared at once to refuse 
 communion to all who had been betrayed into 
 accepting the Riminian decrees. HcRathered 
 in dilTerent parts of Ciaul assemblies of bishops 
 for mutual exjilanation, apparently with fjreat 
 success. Hilary's former opponent, Saturniuus, 
 bp. of Aries, vainly attempted to thwart this 
 work, and Saturninus soon found himself de- 
 serted and practically, perhaps even formally, 
 excommunicated by the (lallican episcopate. 
 
 Hilary now ventured, despite the unre- 
 pealed sentence of banishment, to journey 
 into N. Italy and Illyria, to bring these pro- 
 vinces into spiritual conformity with Caul. 
 He arrived in Italy a.d. 362 and was greatly 
 encouraged and assisted by St. Eusebius of 
 Vercelli. These two friends, especially in 
 remote districts, into which a fair statement 
 of the points at issue had not penetrated, 
 created a considerable impression, though not 
 equal to that produced in (laul. Possibly 
 Lucifer of Cagliari proved an obstacle. That 
 this ardent and ultra-Athanasian supporter of 
 orthodoxy disapproved of one of the con- 
 ciliatory manifestos of Hilary will be seen 
 below ; and as on another ground he had 
 broken with Eusebius and was opposed to all 
 communion with any who had accepted the 
 decrees of Rimini, he could not have viewed 
 their career with satisfaction. 
 
 Hilary, nevertheless, remained in Italy until 
 the late autumn of 364. V'alentinian, who 
 became emperor in Feb. 364, found him at 
 Milan in November. A serious altercation 
 between Hilary and Auxentius, bp. of Milan, 
 attracted his attention. The generally charit- 
 able tone adopted by Hilary towards his 
 ecclesiastical opponents warrants our accept- 
 ing his unfavourable report of Auxentius. 
 According to Hilarv, the profession of the 
 creed of Xicaea made by Auxentius was 
 thoroughly insincere, though he persuaded 
 Valentinian that he was acting in good faith ; 
 and, as a natural result, Hilary was com- 
 manded to return to Gaul and at once obeyed, 
 but to the bishops and the church at large made 
 known his own convictions respecting the real 
 character of the bp. of Milan. 
 
 Hilary spent more than three years at 
 Poictiers after his return from Italy. These 
 years, especially the last two, were compara- 
 tively untroubled. He died calmly on Jan. 
 13, 368, though in the Roman service-books 
 his day is Jan. 14, so as not to interfere with 
 the octave of the Epiphany. 
 
 Writings. — I. Exegetical. — (i) Exposition 
 of the Psalms (Commentarii in Psalmos). — The 
 comments embrace Ps. i., ii. ; ix.-xiii. (and per- 
 haps xiv.) ; li.-lxix. ; xci.-cl. (The numbers are 
 the Vulgate reckoning, e.g. li. is lii., and Ixix. 
 is Ixx. in A.V.) The treatment is not critical, 
 but reveals a deeply sincere and high-toned 
 spirit. Jerome's translation was yet to come 
 when Hilary wrote. As was natural, he leant 
 mainly and somewhat too confidently upon 
 the LXX, but took full advantage of the 
 comments of Origen. He seeks a via media 
 between the literal sense, and that reference of 
 everything to Christ which marks some later 
 commentators, both patristic and medieval. 
 
 (2) Commentarii in Matthaeum. — This is the 
 earliest gospel commentary in the Western 
 church ; all previous ones being cither, like 
 
 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 475 
 
 that of Origen, in C.roek, or, if in Latin, only 
 partial, as some tra( tates of St. Cyprian. In 
 the next century the work of Hilary was some- 
 what overshadowed by the rommrntarirs 
 produced by the genius of St. Augustine and 
 the learning of St. Jerome in the West, and by 
 the <-loquence of St. Chrvsostom in the Hast. 
 Although he may have made some use of the 
 writings of Origen, there is much that is 
 curious and sometimes a( ute as well as devout 
 that seems to be really his own. Jerome and 
 Augustine frequently quote it. It was prob- 
 ably composed before his banishment to 
 Phrygia in 356. 
 
 Onthe expressions concerning divorce (Matt. 
 V. 31, 32), Hilary regards Christian marriaRc 
 as absolutely indissoluble. His endeavours 
 to solve difficulties, such as that of the gene- 
 alogies of our Lord, indicate a real willingness 
 to face them and are not devoid of acuteness. 
 On " the brethren of the Lortl " Hilary uses 
 the powerful argument that Christ would not 
 have conmiitted the Virgin Mother to the rare 
 of St. John if she had ha<l children of her 
 own, and he adopts the view, usually con- 
 nected with the name of Epiphanius, that they 
 were children of Joseph by a former wife. 
 
 Hilary's respect for the LXX led him to 
 embrace the Alexandrian rather than the 
 Palestinian canon of O.T. He occasionally 
 cites some portions of the Apocrypha (as 
 Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees) as Scripture. 
 He is earnest in lu-ging the study of Scripture, 
 and lays much stress on the need of humility 
 and reverence for reading them with profit. 
 Both the Word and the Sacraments become 
 spiritual food for the soul. 
 
 II. Dogmatical. — LibriXII.de Trinitate. — 
 For de Trinitate some copies read contra 
 Arianos, others de Fide, and others some 
 slight varieties of a like kind. But de Trini- 
 tate appears on the whole the most suitable ; 
 and as Hilary's is the most ancient extant 
 exposition of St. Matthew by a Latin father, 
 so the de Trinitate is the first great contri- 
 bution, in Latin, to the discussion of this great 
 dogma. Bk. i. treats of natural religion, 
 and how it leads up to revelation. Bk. ii. 
 especially discusses the baptismal formula 
 (Matt, xxviii. 19) ; bk. iii. the union of the 
 two natures in Christ ; bk. iv. that this co- 
 existence of two natures does not derogate 
 from the unity of His Divine Person. Bk. v. 
 urges, as against heretics, the testimony of 
 the prophets {ex auctoritatibus propheticts) in 
 favour of the propositions of bk. iv. Bk. vi. 
 is mainly occupied with refutations of 
 Sabellian and Manichean doctrines. Bk. vii. 
 shews how the errors of Ebionites, Arians, and 
 Sabellians overthrow each other, thus illus- 
 trating a principle asserted in bk. i. § 26 : 
 " Lis eorum est fides nostra." Bk. viij. 
 contains a demonstration of the unity of God, 
 and shews that it is nowise affected by the 
 Sonship of Christ. Bk. ix. replies to the Arian 
 appeal to certain texts, e.g. Mark xiv. 32, Luke 
 xviii. 19, John v. 19, xiv. 2H, xvii. 3. Bks. 
 x. and xi. similarly discuss, e.g., Matt. xxvi. 38, 
 39, 46, Luke xxiii. 46, John xx. 17, and i Cor. 
 XV. 27, 28. Bk. xii. is also exi>ressly written 
 against Arianism. 1 1 inrlutles a passageof much 
 beauty, which bi-ars a slight resembhuuc to 
 the devout and eloquent pleading of Wisd. ix. 
 
476 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 
 
 The work is a longer, more methodical, and 
 more consecutive anti-Arian argument than 
 Athanasius himself found time to indite. 
 Viewed intellectually, it must perhaps be 
 ranked above Hilary's commentary on Scrip- 
 ture. Its recognition of the rights of reason 
 as well as of faith, combined with its sense of 
 human ignorance and of our need of humility, 
 its explanation of many difficulties and of the 
 meaning of the terms employed ; the endea- 
 vour (though not always successful) to adapt 
 to his subject the imperfect medium of Latin, 
 its many felicitous descriptions, both of the 
 temper in which we ought, and the spirit in 
 which we ought not, to approach the study of 
 these mysteries ; the mode of his appeals to 
 Holy Scripture,— all form very strikmg 
 features. The book evidently produced a 
 great impression. A high compliment is paid 
 it by the historian Socrates : " Both [i.e. 
 Hilary and Eusebius of Vercelli] nobly con- 
 tended side by side for the faith. Hilary, who 
 was an eloquent man, set forth in his book the 
 dogmas of the Homoousion in the Latin tongue 
 . . . and powerfully confuted the Arian dog- 
 mas " (H. E. iii. 10). It marks an epoch in 
 the history of dogmatic theology in the Western 
 church. Its influence declined in the next 
 century and throughout the earlier and later 
 middle ages. About 416- some 56 years after 
 its publication, the 15 books de Trinitate 
 of the great bp. of Hippo appeared. St. 
 Augustine became the doctor par excellence 
 of the West, and the labours of Hilary, most 
 effective at their appearance, became some- 
 what neglected and obscured. The errors of 
 Pelagianism, perhaps some anticipations of 
 Nestorianism, had certainly by the time of 
 Augustine tended to bring into clearer relief 
 some particular phases and elements of 
 Christian doctrine. Development in this 
 sense is fully recognized by the Lutheran 
 Dorner and by the Anglican Prof. Hussey. 
 Nor can it be called a novel theory. " By the 
 very events," writes the historian Evagrius, 
 " by which the members of the church have 
 been rent asunder have the true and faultless 
 dogmas {to. 6p6a Kai dij.djiJ.VTa Soytxara) been 
 the more fully polished and set forth, and the 
 Catholic and apostolic church of God hath 
 gone on to increase and to a heavenward 
 ascent" (H. E. i. 11). "Many things," 
 says Augustine himself, " pertaining to the 
 Catholic faith, while in course of agitation 
 by the hot restlessness of heretics, are, with 
 a view to defence against them, weighed 
 more carefully, understood more clearly, and 
 preached more earnestly ; and the question 
 mooted by the adversary hath become an 
 occasion of our learning." * The intentions 
 of Hilary were so thoroughly good that both 
 his studies of Holy Scripture and the influence 
 of the three later oecumenical councils would 
 doubtless have saved him from some serious 
 mistakes, if he had lived to hear of their 
 decisions. It is true, as the Benedictine 
 editor points out, that Hilary's note upon 
 
 * Dean Hook, in his University Sermons preached 
 before 1838, called attention to this as a favourite 
 opinion of St. Augustine's. Bp. Moberly, in his 
 Discourses on the Great Forty Days (preface and dis- 
 course iv.) shewed the difference between this view 
 and the modern Roman theory of development. 
 
 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 
 
 Ps. liii. 8 condemns not only ApoUinaris, but 
 (by anticipation) Nestorius and Eutyches as 
 well. Nevertheless, such mistakes as Hilary 
 did make are all connected with the subject, 
 which has been summed up in so masterly a 
 manner by Hooker (£. P. bk. v. cc. lii.-liv., 
 esp. § 10 of liv.), viz. the union of the two 
 natures in the one divine personality of Christ. 
 The chief of these mistakes are as follows : In 
 de Trinitate, bk. x., Hilary seems to approach 
 to a denial of the truth that the Incarnate Lord 
 took man's nature from His Virgin Mother, 
 of her substance. This is probably only 
 an incautious over-statement of the article, 
 " He was conceived of the Holy Ghost." For 
 the language in other passages of this book and 
 on Pss. cxxxviii. and Ixv. implies a complete 
 acceptance of the Homo ex substantia Matris. 
 Some laxity of usage appears in regard to the 
 terms Verbum and Spiritus. Certainly the 
 former word seems necessary instead of 
 the latter in the phrase (bk. x.) " Spiritus 
 sanctus desuper veniens naturae se humanae 
 carne immiscuit." Dom Coutant points out 
 similar confusion of language in Tertullian and 
 Lactantius, and even in St. Irenaeus and St. 
 Cyprian. St. Gregory and St. Athanasius 
 seem inclined to palliate it. 
 
 A more serious error is Hilary's apparent 
 want of grasp of the truth of our Lord's 
 humanity in all things, sin alone excepted. 
 At times he seems to speak of our Lord's 
 natural body as if endued with impassibility 
 (indolentia), and of His soul as if not obnoxious 
 to the human affections of fear, grief, and the 
 like. This and the other mistakes of Hilary 
 are more or less palliated by Lanfranc, by the 
 two great schoolmen Peter Lombard and 
 Aquinas, and by Bonaventure. Hilary also 
 meets with indulgence from Natalis Alexander; 
 and, above all, is defended by his Benedictine 
 editor, Dom Coutant, who, as Cave justly re- 
 marks, " naevos explicare, emollire et vindicare 
 satagit." A sort of tradition was handed down 
 to Bonaventure by a schoolman, William of 
 Paris, that Hilary had made a formal retrac- 
 tation of his error concerning the indolentia, 
 which he had ascribed to our Lord. This 
 seems very doubtful ; nevertheless, the lan- 
 guage of his later books, e.g. on the Pss., 
 appears to recognize the reality of both the 
 mental and bodily sufferings of Christ. 
 
 III. Polemical. — (i) Ad Constantium 
 Augustum Liber Primus. — This address, prob- 
 ably Hilary's earliest extant composition, is 
 a petition to the emperor — evidently written 
 before Hilary's exile, at the close of 355 or 
 early in 356 — for toleration for the orthodox 
 inGaul against thepersecutionof Arianbishops 
 and laymen. These assaults Hilary represents 
 as both coarse and cruel. He names some sup- 
 porters of Arianism, both in the East and in 
 Gaul. Among the latter, Ursacius and Valens 
 occupy a painful prominence. He urges that 
 it is even on political grounds a mistake for the 
 emperor to allow such proceedings ; among his 
 Catholic subjects will be found the best de- 
 fenders of the realm against internal sedition 
 and barbarian invasion. The excellent tone 
 of this address is admitted on all sides. 
 
 (2) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Secun- 
 dus. — This second address is subsequent to 
 Hilary's exile, having been presented to the 
 
HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 
 
 emperor in 360. Hilary protests his innocence 
 of all charges brought against him. He is 
 still in effect a bishop in tlaul, ministering to 
 his flock through the clergy. He would gladly 
 meet the man whom he regards as the author 
 of his exile, Saturniiius, bp. of .\rles. He is 
 anxious to plead for the faith in the council 
 about to be summoned. He will argue from 
 Holy Scripture, but warns the emperor that 
 every heretic maintains his creed to be agree- 
 able to Scripture. He is deeply conscious of 
 the injury wrought to Christianity in the sight 
 of the outer world by the distractions of so 
 many rival councils and professions of faith. 
 
 {3) Contra Constantium Augustum Liber. — 
 This book is addressed to the bps. of Gaul. 
 Jerome is almost certainly mistaken in assert- 
 ing its composition to be later than the death 
 of Constantius. Internal evidence sufficiently 
 confutes the idea, though its existence prob- 
 ably did not become widely known until after 
 that event (361). Hilary's tone is now utterly 
 changed. He has given up all hope of 
 influencing Constantius. The emperor, too, on 
 his side, has altered the traditional line of 
 policy against opponents. He is here charged, 
 not with persecution, but with the enticements 
 of bribes, of good diimers. of flatteries and in- 
 vitations to court. Hilary appears to have 
 laid aside his usual self-restraint, perhaps to 
 have lost his temper, and to have forgotten his 
 usual respectfulness and charity of language. 
 Constantius has become, in his eyes, an Anti- 
 christ, who would fain make a present of the 
 world to Satan. The entire letter shews that 
 Hilary had lost all hope of any aid to the faith 
 being granted by Constantius, and it is at least 
 just to give its due weight to the remark of 
 Mohler that, " if we drive men to despair, we 
 ought to be prepared to hear them speak the 
 language of despair." 
 
 (4) De Synodis Fidei Catholicae contra 
 Arianos ei praevaricatores Arianis acquies- 
 centes ; also occasionally referred to as de Fide 
 Orientalium ; and sometimes, though less 
 frequently, as de Synodis Graeciae, or even 
 simply as Epistola. Internal evidence fur- 
 nishes a satisfactory approximation to the 
 date of its composition, viz. in 358 or very 
 early in 359. It is a letter from Hilary, an 
 exile in Phrygia, to his brother-bishops in Gaul, 
 who had asked for an explanation of the 
 numerous professions of faith which the 
 Orientals seemed to be putting forth. Hilary, 
 although (as we have seen from his subsequent 
 second letter to Constantius) deeply conscious 
 of the harm wrought by these proceedings, 
 wrote back a thorough' Irenicon, for such 
 must the de Synodis among all his writings 
 be especially considered. Praising his Gallic 
 brethren for firmness in opposing Saturninus 
 and for their just condemnation of the second 
 formula proposed at Sirmium. he desires that 
 they and their brethren in Britain {provinci- 
 arum Britanniarum cpiscopi) should come to 
 Ancyra or to Rimini in a conciliatory frame of 
 mind. J ust as the orthodox Homoousion may 
 be twisted into Sabellianism, even so may 
 the unorthodox Homoiousion be found patient 
 of a good interpretation. It may be shewn 
 to those well disposed that, rightly understood, 
 complete similarity in reality involves identity. 
 The faith professed at Sardica was, he main- 
 
 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 477 
 
 tains, substantially sound. It asscrtfd the 
 external origin of the Son from tin- subslan< e 
 of the Father, and condemned the heresy of 
 Photinus, " quae initium Dei filii ex partu 
 Virginis mentiebatur." Hilary appeals to the 
 more peace-loving among the seini-Arian 
 bishops to accept both terms in thrir true 
 sense. " Date veniam, Fratrts, <iuam fre- 
 quenter popos( i. A riani non eitts ; cur negando 
 homoousion censemini A riant?" (§ SS). Here 
 conu'S in that remarkable statement, that he 
 had never, before his exile, heard the Nicene 
 Creed, but had made it out for himself fron> 
 the Ciospels and other books of N.T. 
 
 A peacemaker is often suspected on one side, 
 sometimes upon both. His first letter to 
 Constantius, his commentary on St. Matthew, 
 his confessorship as shewn in his exile, did not 
 save Hilary from suspicion. By some he was 
 held to have conceded too much to the semi- 
 Arians. This opinion was voiced by Lucifer 
 of Cagliari, the earnest out somewhat harsh- 
 minded representative of that extreme wing 
 which might be called more Athanasian than 
 Athanasius. Some apologetic notes, shewing 
 much courtesy and gentleness, appended by 
 Hilary to a copy sent to Lucifer, were first 
 published in the Benedictine ed. (Paris. 1693). 
 
 (5) Liber contra Auxentium. — Written a.d. 
 365, under Valentinian, who had become 
 emperor in 366. Hilary was convinced that 
 the profession of orthodoxy made by Auxen- 
 tius was thoroughly insincere. The emperor 
 accepted the position avowed by Auxenlius, 
 entered into communit)n with him, and 
 ordered Hilary to leave Milan. Hilary obeyed 
 at once, but, as the sole resource left him, 
 published this address to the church at large. 
 Hence its other titles, viz. contra Arianos vel 
 Auxentium Mediolanensem, and Epistola ad 
 Catholicos et Auxentium. It forms a curious 
 commentary upon church history by bringing 
 into vivid relief the utterly changed character 
 of the temptations to which Christians were 
 now exposed as compared with those of the 
 ante-Nicene period. Hilary's view must be 
 considered a rather one-sided one. He sees 
 clearly the evils of his own day, but hardly 
 realizes what must have been the trials of the 
 times of Nero, Decius, and Galerius. The 
 concluding part makes out a strong case 
 against Auxentius. It is difficult to believe 
 that he was not an Arian at heart. Hilary, 
 like some of his contemporaries, declares that 
 the ears of the people have become purer than 
 the hearts of the bishops. He begs those who 
 shrink from breaking off communion with 
 Auxentius, whf)m he calls an angt-l of Satan, 
 not to let their love of mere walls and build- 
 ings seduce them into a false peace. Anti- 
 christ may seat himself within a church ; the 
 forests and mountains, lakes and prisons, are 
 safer. It must be remembered, in palliation 
 of Hilary's strong language respecting the bp. 
 of Milan, that he regarded him not as an open 
 foe, but as a betrayer of truth by false pre- 
 tences. Kufinus, who speaks «)f Hilary as a 
 " confessor fidei Catholicae," entities this work 
 " librum instructionis plenissimae." • 
 
 (6) Fragmenta Hilartt. — These fragments 
 were first published in 150H bv .N'icolaus Faber, 
 who got them from the library of Father 
 
 * Kufinus, Je Aiiulleraltone Ltbrorum Vrtfemi. 
 
il8 HILARIU3 PICTAVIENSIS 
 
 Pithou. They possess considerable value in 
 the elucidation of the history of the period 
 embraced by Hilary's episcopate. It is 
 claimed that they are the remnants of a book 
 by Hilary mentioned by Rufinus, and de- 
 scribed by Jerome as Liber contra Valentem et 
 Ursacium, which contained a history of the 
 councils of Rimhii and Seleucia. On this book 
 Hilary expended much labour, having begun 
 it in 360 and completed it in 366. The 15 
 fragments occupy some 80 folio pages. They 
 are, with one exception, recognized as genuine 
 by Tillemont and by Ceillier. Whether, 
 however, all the other documents cited in these 
 fragments can be depended upon has been 
 disputed. Respecting the genuineness of the 
 commentaries given by Dom Pitra, opinions 
 may fairly differ ; and happily there is in that 
 case no disturbing influence at work as there 
 is in the case of these fragments. If we accept 
 them as authentic, the case against Liberius 
 is certainly darkened. But this is precisely 
 the conclusion which certain modern critics 
 (such as, e.g., the anonymous editor of Dom 
 Ceillier) are for very obvious reasons most 
 anxious to avoid. 
 
 (7) Epistola ad Abram Filiam simtn (c. 
 358). — Hilary, during his exile, learnt that 
 there was some prospect of his daughter Abra, 
 though only in her 13th year, being sought in 
 marriage. He draws a mystic portrait of the 
 heavenly bridegroom, which is evidently 
 intended to suggest the superiority of a 
 religious celibacy, but leaves her an entirely 
 free choice, only desiring that the decision 
 should be really her own. He encloses a 
 morning and an evening hymn. On any 
 difficulties in the letter or the hymns, Abra is 
 to consult her mother. The Hymnus matuti- 
 nus, a very brief one, is still extant. The 
 Hymnus vespertmus is more disputed, but 
 Cardinal Mai makes a fair case for it, though 
 it does not satisfy Dom Coutant and Dom 
 Ceillier. Two other hymns by Hilary, com- 
 mencing respectively " Hymnum dicat turba 
 fratrum " (a hymn on the life of our Lord) and 
 " Jesus refulsit omnium" (on the Epiphany) 
 are given by Thomassy in his Hymnarium. 
 Dom Pitra gives some verses of considerable 
 beauty on our Lord's childhood, which seem 
 to be Hilary's. The letter to Abra is con- 
 
 sidered doubtful by some critics, and rejected 
 by Cave, but upon insufficient evidence. 
 
 The best ed. of Hilary is the Benedictine by 
 Coutant (Paris, 1693), or its reprint with a few 
 additions by Maffei (Verona, 1730). The de 
 Trinitate is in Hurter's Ss. Pat. Opusc. (Inns- 
 briick, 1888). 
 
 In conclusion, it must be observed that, 
 though Hilary in his de Trinitate (lib. vi. 36- 
 38) speaks of Peter's confession as the founda- 
 tion of the church, he, in other writings, more 
 especially in his commentary on the Psalms, 
 is inclined to make Peter himself, whom he 
 terms caelestis regni janitor em, the foundation. 
 In the fragmenta we find a letter from the 
 fathers of Sardica to pope Julius, which 
 certainly does refer to the Roman see as 
 the head see. If Hilary approved of this 
 document, he may very probably have allowed 
 to Rome a primacy, at any rate, in the West. 
 But this is a somewhat slender foundation to 
 build a superstructure upon ; and it is singular 
 
 HILARltJS ARELATEKStS 
 
 to find Ceillier's editor, in his anxiety to dam- 
 age the authority of the fragmenta, somewhat 
 injuring the credit of the only one brief 
 sentence in the extensive works of Hilary 
 which can be cited as a recognition, however 
 indirect, of the Roman primacy (Ceillier, iv. 
 p. 63, note). In practice Hilary did not 
 often take his stand upon authority. The 
 metropolitan see of Aries was in his time 
 
 j occupied by the Arian Saturninus, Hilary's 
 chief opponent in his earlier day. He had not 
 been long bishop when, by force of character, 
 
 ; will, intellect, and confessorship, he came into 
 the first rank of champions. The idea of con- 
 troversy being settled by the fiat of any one 
 bishop, whether of Rome or elsewhere, had 
 
 ; never dawned upon his mind. No leave was 
 
 j asked when he descended into Italy toconfront 
 
 I Auxentius. A cheap popular Life of Hilary of 
 Poictiers.by J. G.Cazenove, ispub.byS.P.C.K. 
 in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, and a selection 
 of his works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post- 
 Nic. Fathers. Cf. also an art. in Journ. of 
 Theol. Stud. Apr. 1904, by A. J. Mason on "The 
 First Latin Christian Poet." [j.G.c] 
 
 Hilarlus (17) Arelatensis {Hilary of Aries), 
 St., bp. of Aries and metropolitan. 
 
 Authorities. — (i) References to himself in 
 his biography of his predecessor, Honoratus of 
 Aries. (2) Vita Hilarii, usually assigned to 
 
 1 St. Honoratus, bp. of Marseilles, a disciple of 
 Hilary (Boll. Acta SS. 5; Mai. ii. 25). (3) 
 Gennadius, niust. Vir. Catal. § 67. (4) St. 
 
 [ Leo {Ep. 8g, al. 10). (5) Councils of Riez, 439, 
 Orange and Vaison, 442, Rome, 445 (Labbe, 
 Concil.t. i. pp. 1747, 1783), Vienne, 445 (Nata- 
 lis Alexander, Hist. Ecclesiastica, t. v. p. 168, 
 art. viii. de Concilio Romano in causa Hilarit 
 Arelatensis). (6) Notices of St. Hilary are 
 also to be found in the writings of St. Euche- 
 Rius (who dedicated to him his book de Laude 
 Eremi), of St. Isidore, of Sidonius Apollinaris, 
 and others ; and very specially in certain 
 writings of St. Prosper and St. Augustine, to 
 which references will be found below. 
 
 The place of his birth, probably in 401, 
 was apparently that part of Gallia Belgica 
 called later Austrasia. He was of noble 
 family. His education was, according to the 
 
 [ standard of the age, a thoroughly liberal 
 
 i one, including philosophy and rhetoric. That 
 in rhetoric he became no mean proficient is 
 proved by the graceful style of the one assured 
 
 S composition of his which is extant. 
 
 The early ambition of Hilary's mind lay 
 in the direction of secular greatness. Both 
 station and culture gave him every prospect 
 of success, and he appears to have ably dis- 
 charged the duties of some dignified offices in 
 the state, though we are not informed of their 
 precise nature. He must have been very 
 young when the example and the entreaties 
 of his friend and kinsman Honoratus of Aries 
 induced him to renounce all secular society for 
 the solitude of the isle of Lerins. He sold his 
 estates to his brother, and gave the proceeds 
 
 ' partly to the poor, partly to some monasteries 
 which needed aid. At Lerins he became a 
 model monk inthe very best and highest sense; 
 but after a period probably not exceeding 
 two years his friend Honoratus, being chosen 
 (a.d. 426) bp. of Aries, obtained the comfort 
 of Hilary's companionship in his new duties. 
 
HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 
 
 Honoratus died Jan. i6. ^2Q,aiuiHilaryatonce 
 prepared to return to Lerins, but tlie citizens 
 of Aries compelled hini to occupy the vacant 
 see. As bishop, he lived in many respects 
 like a monk, though by no means as a recluse. 
 Simply clad, he traversed on foot the whole 
 of his diocese and province. At home he 
 dwelt in a seminary with some of his clergy. 
 For the redemption of captives he earned 
 money by tilling the earth and planting vines, 
 and did not scruple to sell on emergencies 
 sacred church vessels, substituting others of 
 meaner material. He continued his studies, 
 was constant in meditation and prayer, and 
 as a preacher produced a great impression, 
 by his excellent matter and delivery. 
 
 The canons passed by the councils of Ricz 
 and of Orange, over which Hilary presided in 
 439 and 442 respectively, were in the main of 
 a disciplinary character ; at Riez a special 
 canon, the seventh, insisted strongly on the 
 rights of the metropolitan. It seems un- 
 deniable that Hilary was inclined to press the 
 claims of this ofSce to a degree which amounted 
 to usurpation ; partly, perhaps, in regard to 
 the geographical extent of the jurisdiction 
 claimed by him for the see of Aries, and cer- 
 tainly with respect to the rights of the clergy, 
 the laity, and the comprovincial bishops. 
 
 But before dealing with his important 
 contest with pope Leo, we must interpose a 
 few words on the semi-Pelagianism of which 
 he has been accused. In 429, the year in 
 which he became bishop, two letters (225 and 
 226 in the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine) 
 were addressed to the great bp. of Hippo, one 
 by Prosper, and one by another Hilary, a 
 layman. In the former, Prosper, after 
 recounting various shades of dissent mani- 
 fested in S. Gaul from the Augustinian teach- 
 ing on predestination, expressly names Hilary, 
 bp. of .A.rles, among the recalcitrants. Pros- 
 per refers in terms of high encomium to Hilary, 
 and intimates that in all other respects the 
 bp. of Aries was an admirer and supporter of 
 Augustine's teaching. He believed, indeed, 
 that Hilary had some intention of writing to 
 Augustine for explanation on the points at 
 issue. The epistle of Hilary the layman, 
 though its statement is more brief and general, 
 entirely confirms that of Pmsper. 
 
 If on this evidence, and also from the re- 
 spect shewn by him to Faustus of Riez, we are 
 compelled to class Hilary of Aries with the 
 semi- Pelagians, it must be recognized that he 
 is a supporter of their views in their very 
 mildest form. That Hilary had some grounds 
 for fearing that Augustine's teaching might 
 imperil the acknowledgment of man's free 
 agency is admitted by many of our historians, 
 e.g. Canons Bright (Hist, of Church, p. 307) 
 and Robertson (Hist, of Chr. Church, bk. iii. 
 cc. ii. and vii.). St. (lermain of Auxerre, who 
 went twice over to Britain to contend against 
 Pelagianism, was a companion of the bp. of 
 Aries on at least one of his tours througli (iqiul. 
 Out of this tour, undertaken by Hilary as 
 metropolitan, there arose the important con- 
 test between the bps. of Aries and Rome 
 which ended in procuring for the Roman see a 
 great increase of authority, both in respect of 
 territory and of power. The struggle is in 
 many respects a remarkable one. Each side 
 
 HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 47d 
 
 was well championed. I, to and Hilary were 
 men of saintly piety, earnrst and eiiiTgetic in 
 the discharge of their duties, l^ach con- 
 scientiously believed himsilf in the right ; 
 both were apt to be hasty and high-handed 
 in carrying out their views of ecclesiastic al 
 government. Hilary found at Besan^on 
 (Vesontio), or according to some at Vesoul, 
 a bp. named Chclidonius, the validity of 
 whose position was assailed on the two 
 grounds that he had married a widow while 
 yet a layman, and that he had previously, 
 as a lay magistrate, pronounced sentences of 
 capital punishment. Hilary held a council 
 at Vienne in 444, and we learn fmni his bii>- 
 grapher and from the testimony of I.eo that by 
 its sentence Chclidonius was deposed from the 
 episcopate and appealed to Rome in person. 
 Although it was now midwinter, Hilary went 
 on foot across the Alps. Presenting himself 
 to Leo, he respectfully requested him to act 
 in conformity with the canons and usages of 
 the universal church. Persons juridically 
 deposed were known to be serving the altar 
 in Rome. If Leo found this to be the case, 
 let him. as quietly and secretly as he pleased, 
 put a stop to such violation of the canons. If 
 Leo would not do this. Hilary would simply 
 return home, as he had not come to Rr)me to 
 bring any accusation. It seems probable, 
 however, that he would have listened if Leo 
 had been content with suggesting a rehearing 
 of the cause in Caul. Leo declined to take 
 
 this view. Although Gaul was not a portion 
 of the Roman patriarchate, the Roman pontiff 
 resolved to assert over that region a claim 
 similar to that which he had just failed to 
 establish in Africa. [Leo.] He summoned a 
 council or conference in which Hilary, for the 
 sake of peace, consented to take part. Several 
 bishops were present, including Chclidonius. 
 Hilarv, with much jilainness of speech, de- 
 fended his conduct. Leo had him put under 
 guard ; but Hilarv contrived to escape and 
 (apparentlv in Feb. 445) returned to Aries. 
 Leo found the charge of marriage with a 
 widow not proven against Chclidonius ; and 
 formally (as he had already done informally) 
 pronounced him restored to his rank of bishop 
 and to his see. Not content with the re- 
 versal of Hilary's sentence, Leo proceeded to 
 deprive the bp. of Aries of his rights as a 
 metropolitan, and to confer them on the bp. 
 of Vienne. He further charged Hilary with 
 having traversed Claul attended by a band of 
 armed men, and with hastily, without waiting 
 for election bv the clergy and laity.consecrating 
 a new bishop in place of Projectus, a bishop 
 (according to Hilary within his province) who 
 was at that time ill. Leo availed himself of his 
 great influence with Valentinian III. to obtain 
 an imperial rescript against Hilary, as one 
 who was injuring the peace of the church and 
 rebelling against the majesty of the empire. 
 This celebrated document, which virtually 
 promised the su|)port of the secular arm to the 
 claim of the Roman pontiff to be a universal 
 bislioji, was issued in 445, and was addressed 
 to the Roman general in Gaul, Aetius. 
 
 In this controversv Protestant historians, 
 as a rule, take the side of Hilary. But Roman 
 Catholics are much divided. Writers of the 
 ultramontane school, as Rohrbacher or the 
 
430 HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 
 
 Italian Gorini (cited in the recent edition of 
 Dom Ceillier), are severe upon Hilary and 
 profess to regard the emperor's rescript as 
 only stating explicitly a principle always 
 recognized. But the Galileans, as Quesnel and 
 Tillemont, strongly defend Hilary. 
 
 It must be said for him that his conviction, 
 that the see of Aries gave him metropolitical 
 power over the whole of Gaul, was based upon 
 no small amount of cogent testimony. The 
 case in favour of this has been ably summed 
 up by Natalis Alexander {H. E. § v. c. v. 
 art. 8), and by the Rev. W. Kay in a note to 
 the Oxf. trans, of Fleury (Lond. 1844). But 
 if it hold good for the case of Chelidonius, it 
 is not equally clear for that of Projectus. 
 That Hilary should escape from Rome, when 
 he found the secular authority employed to 
 detain him, was only natural and justifiable. 
 That he should take soldiers with him in 
 making his visitations may be reasonably 
 ascribed (as Fleury suggests) to the disturbed 
 state of the country. As regards Projectus, 
 he may have strayed beyond the ill-defined 
 limits of his province and most certainly 
 violated canonical rule. But there is no 
 reason to doubt that Hilary, in so acting, 
 really believed that Projectus would not 
 recover, and wished to provide against an 
 emergency. As for Hilary's exceeding freedom 
 of language in the presence of Leo, which 
 greatly shocked Leo and probably others 
 among the audience, it must be remembered 
 that the bp. of Aries was always wont to 
 speak very plainly. Moreover, as a friend of 
 Hilary, the prefect Auxiliaris subsequently 
 observed, " Roman ears were very delicate." 
 
 Those who are willing to accept pleas on 
 behalf of Hilary do not thereby commit them- 
 selves to unreserved censure on pope Leo. 
 The encouragement to interference in the 
 affairs of S. Gaul was undeniably very great. 
 Strong as was the case for the jurisdiction of 
 Aries over most of the Galilean sees, the 
 authority over Narbonensian Gaul had long 
 been claimed for the bp. of Vienne. A contest 
 between Patroclus of Aries and Proculus of 
 Marseilles had already been carried to a 
 former bp. of Rome, Zosimus, in 422 (some 22 
 years before the case of Hilary), though the 
 result had not been encouraging to the par- 
 tisans of Rome, since Zosimus misjudged it 
 and his successor Boniface referred it back to 
 the prelates of Gaul. But Leo, though at 
 times dwelling more upon St. Peter's confes- 
 sion of faith than on his personal position, in 
 all his letters bearing on the contest with 
 Hilary repeats continually the text (Matt. 
 xvL 18) on which other bishops of Rome had 
 dwelt so much, and appeals to it as if no other 
 interpretation had ever been heard of, and 
 as in itself his sole and sufficient justification. 
 
 Leo's recourse to the emperor's aid has been 
 severely censured ; and Tillemont declared 
 concerning the famous law of June 6, 445, that 
 " in the eyes of those who have any love for 
 the church's liberty or any knowledge of her 
 discipline, it will bring as little honour to him 
 whom it praises as of injury to him whom it 
 condemns" (Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. xv. art. xx. 
 p. 83). Baronius (as Tillemont naturally 
 adds) is fully justified in appealing to this 
 act of Valentinian as a proof of the powerful 
 
 HILARIUS 
 
 aid lent by the emperors towards establishing 
 the greatness and authority of the pope. 
 
 Of the remaining four years of Hilary's life, 
 after his return to Gaul, we know little more 
 than that they were incessantly occupied with 
 the discharge of his duties. Practically the 
 acts of Leo do not appear to have affected his 
 position (see Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. ii. 
 c. vii. pt. i. and Fleury), and Hilary never I 
 
 acknowledged their validity ; though an 
 appeal to Leo was made after Hilary's death 
 for the restoration of its ancient metropolitical 
 rights to Aries. The attempts of Hilary 
 through friends to conciliate Leo availed little. 
 But when, after the death of Hilary (May 5, 
 449), the prelates of the provinces announced I 
 
 to Leo that Ravennius had been elected and ' 
 
 duly consecrated, Leo wrote an acknowledg- 
 ment which sounds like a virtual retractation 
 of his imputations on the motives and charac- 
 ter of Hilary and most justly entitled him a 
 man " of holy memory." 
 
 Writings. — Waterland {Critical History of 
 the Athanasian Creed) argues that Hilary of 
 Aries was the author of the (so-called) Creed 
 of St. Athanasiiis, but this remains only an 
 ingenious conjecture. Among other doubt- 
 ful works assigned to Hilary must be classed 
 certain poems on sacred subjects : (i) Poema 
 de septem fratribus Maccabaeis ab Antiocho 
 Epiphane interfectis. (2) A poem, more fre- 
 quently attributed to Prosper Aquitanus and 
 generally included in his works, entitled 
 Carmen de Dei Providentid. (3) Carmen in 
 Genesim. This poem (which, like the two 
 preceding, is in hexameters) has been more 
 often ascribed to the earlier Hilary, bp. of 
 Poictiers. The Benedictine editors reject it 
 with some indignation from the genuine works 
 of Hilary of Poictiers ; remarking, however, 
 that this does not involve its attribution to 
 Hilary of Aries. But despite faults— theo- 
 logical, grammatical, and metrical — the poem 
 is curious as a real attempt at that blending 
 of the Christian and classic elements of litera- 
 ture displayed in after-ages so brilliantly, 
 though after all with questionable success, by 
 such able scholars as the Jesuit Casimir and 
 the Presbyterian Buchanan. 
 
 We have the authority of Hilary's bio- 
 grapher for asserting that he did compose some 
 poetry (versus), wrote many letters, an ex- 
 planation of the Creed (Symboli Expositio — 
 this is a main element in Waterland's argu- 
 ment) and sermons for all the church's festivals 
 (Homiliae in totius Anni Festivitates). These 
 were apparently extant when Honoratus 
 wrote. Two only survive : (i) Epistola ad 
 Eucherium Episcopum Lugdunensem. (2) Vita 
 Sancti Honorati Arelatensis Episcopi. This 
 may be read in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, 
 for Jan. 16. [j-G.c] 
 
 Hilarius (181 (Hilarus), bp. of Rome from 
 Nov. 19 (or 17, Holland.), 461, to Sept. 10, 467, 
 succeeding Leo I. after a vacancy of nine 
 days. He was a native of Sardinia and, when 
 elected pope, archdeacon of Rome. He had 
 been sent, when a deacon, as one of the legates 
 of pope Leo to the council at Ephesus called 
 Latrocinium (449), and is especially mentioned 
 in the Acts of the council as having protested 
 against the deposition of Flavian. After the 
 council, Flavian having died from the violent 
 
HILARIUS 
 
 treatment he had undergone, Hilarius, fearing 
 with reason the like usage, escaped from 
 Ephesus and travelled by by-roads to Italy. 
 A letter from Hilarius, addressed after his 
 return to the empress Pulcheria. gives an 
 account of these transactions (Baron, ad ann. 
 449, and Act. Concil. Chalccd.). His short 
 pontificate is chiefly memorable for his asser- 
 tion of the authority of the see of Rome in 
 Gaul and Spain. His predecessor Leo, during 
 his struggle with St. Hilary of Aries for 
 supremacy in Ciaul, had obtained from Valen- 
 tinian III. a famous rescript (445) confirming 
 such supremacy to the fullest extent both in 
 Gaul and elsewhere [Leg] ; and to such extent 
 it was accordingly claimed by Hilarius. Soon 
 after his accession he wrote (Jan. 25, 462) to 
 Leontius, bp. of Aries and exarch of the 
 provinces of Narbonensian Claul, announcing 
 the event and referring to the deference due 
 to the Roman see. In the same year he wrote 
 a second letter to Leontius, who had deferenti- 
 ally congratulated the pope on his accession, and 
 had begged him to continue the favour shewn 
 to the see of Aries against opponents of its 
 jurisdiction. The pope, in his reply, com- 
 mends his correspondent's deference to St. 
 Peter and desires that the discipline of the 
 Roman church should prevail in all churches. 
 Rusticus, metropolitan of Narbonne, had 
 nominated his archdeacon Hermes as his 
 successor, but had failed to obtain Leo's 
 approval. On the death of Rusticus, Hermes 
 had been accepted by the clergy and people 
 of Narbonne as their metropolitan bishop. On 
 this, Frederic, kingof the West (ioths, an Arian, 
 wrote to acquaint the pope with the " wicked 
 usurpation " and " execrable presumption " of 
 Hermes. Accordingly Hilarius wrote a third 
 letter to Leontius, in which he adopts the 
 language of Frederic, and requires Leontius 
 to send to Rome a statement of the affair, 
 signed by himself and other bishops (Hil. Ep. 
 vii. Labbe). The matter was now brought 
 before a synod at Rome (462), and Hermes 
 was declared degraded from the rank of 
 metropolitan, but allowed to retain his see. 
 Hilarius notified this decision in a letter dated 
 Dec. 3, 462, to the bishops of the provinces 
 of Vienne. Lyons, Narbonensis prima and 
 secunda, and the Pennine Alps, which letter 
 also contained regulations for the discipline 
 of the church in Gaul (Hil. Ep. viii. Labbe). 
 In 463 Hilarius again interposed in the affairs 
 of the church in Gaul ; and on this occasion 
 not only Leontius of .\rles but also Mamertus, 
 metropolitan of Vienne, fell under his dis- 
 pleasure. The city Diae Vocontiorum (Die 
 in Dauphine) had been assigned by pope Leo 
 to the jurisdiction of Aries ; but Mamertus 
 had, notwithstanding, ordained a bp. of that 
 see. Hilarius, again deriving his information 
 from an .\rian prince, Gundriac the Bur- 
 gundian king, wrote a severe letter to Leon- 
 tius, censuring him for not having apprized 
 the holy see, and charging him to investigate 
 the matter in a synod and then send to Roine 
 a synodal letter giving a true account of it. 
 Mamertus seems to have continued to assert 
 his claim to jurisdiction in spite of the pope ; 
 for in Feb. 464 we find two more letters from 
 Hilarius, a general one to the Gallican bishops, 
 and another to various bishops addressed by 
 
 HILARIUS 
 
 4.SI 
 
 name, in the former of which he accuses 
 Mamertus of presumption and prevarication, 
 threatens to deprive him of his metropolitan 
 rank and disallows the bishops whom he had 
 ordained till confirmed by Leontius. The 
 second letter is noteworthy in that the pope 
 rests his claim to supremacy over Gaul on 
 imperial as well as ecrlesiastiral law ; alluding 
 probably to the rescript of Valentinian III. 
 " He [i.e. Mamertus] could not abrogate any 
 portion of the right appointed to our brother 
 Leontius by my predecessor of holy memory ; 
 since it has been decreed by the law of Chris- 
 tian princes that whatsoever the prelate of the 
 apostolic see may, on his own judgment, have 
 pronounced to churches and their rulers . . . 
 is to be tenaciously observed ; nor can those 
 things ever be upset which shall be supported 
 by both ecclesiastical and royal injunction " 
 (Hil. Epp. ix. X. xi. Labbe). Baroimis 
 
 finds it needful to account for St. Leo and St. 
 Hilarius having so bitterly inveighed against 
 St. Hilary and St. Mamertus by saying that 
 popes may be deceived on matters of fact, and, 
 under the prepossession of false accusations, 
 persecute the innocent (Baron, ad ann. 464). 
 
 In 465 Hilary exercised over the Spanish 
 church the authority already brcjught to bear 
 on that of Gaul, but this time on appeal. Two 
 questions came before him. First, Silvanus, 
 bp. of Calchorra, had been guilty of offences 
 against the canons ; and his metropolitan, 
 Ascanius of Tarragona, had in 464 sent a 
 synodal letter on the subject to the pope, 
 requesting directions (Inter Hilar. Epp.. Ep. 
 ii. Labbe). Secondly, Nundinarius, bp. of 
 Barcelona, had nominated his successor, and 
 after his death the nomination was confirmed 
 by the metropolitan Ascanius and his suffra- 
 gans. But they wrote to the pope desiring 
 his concurrence and acknowledging the 
 primacy of St. Peter's see. Both these letters 
 were considered in a synod at Rome. On the 
 second case it was decided that Irenaeus, the 
 nominated bishop, should quit the see of Bar- 
 celona and return to his former one, while 
 the Spanish bishops were ordered to condone 
 the uncanonical acts of Silvanus (Hil. Epp. i. 
 ii. iii. and Concil. Rom. xlviii. Labbe). 
 
 In 467 the new emperor Anthemius was 
 induced by one Philotheus, a Macedonian 
 heretic whom he had brought with him, t<> 
 issue a general edict of toleration for heretics. 
 This was, however, revoked before coming 
 into effect, and pope Gelasius (Ep. ad Eptsc. 
 Dardan.) says that this was due to Hilarius 
 having in the church of St. Peter remonstrated 
 with the emperor and induced him to promise 
 on oath that he would allow no schisniatical 
 assemblies in Rome. In the same year 
 Hilarius died. He appears in the Roman 
 Calendar as a saint and confessor. In re- 
 membrance of his deliveran<e at I'phesus 
 from the trials that i)rocured him the title 
 of confessor, he built, after he bei anie pope, 
 in the baptistery of Constantine near the 
 Lateran, two chapels dedicated to St. John 
 Baptist and St. John the Fvangelist, to the 
 latter of whom he attributed his deliverance. 
 The chapel to the Evangelist bore the inscrip- 
 tion, " Liberatori suo Jobanni Evangelistae, 
 Hilarus famulus Christi " (BoUand. ciltng 
 Caesar Kasponus). 
 
482 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 The extant writings of Hilarius are his 
 letters referred to above. Anastasius Biblio- 
 thecarius mentions his decreta sent to various 
 parts, confirming the synods of Nice, Ephesus, 
 and Chalcedon. condemning Eutyches, Nes- 
 torius, and all heretics, and confirming the 
 domination and primacy of the holy Catholic 
 and apostolic see (Concil. Rom. us. ; Thiel. 
 Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.). [j.b— v.] 
 
 Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so 
 
 celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been 
 but obscurely known to the church of sub- 
 sequent times. He was at the beginning of 
 the 3rd cent, unquestionably the most learned 
 member of the Roman church, and a man of 
 very considerable literary activity ; his works 
 were very numerous, and their circulation 
 spread from Italy to the East, some having 
 been translated into Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, 
 Ethiopic, and perhaps other languages. His 
 name assumes various disguises, as Poltus in 
 the popular memory of Italy, in Egypt as 
 Abulides. There is evidence also that he took 
 a very active part in the affairs of his own 
 church ; but there are no contemporary wit- 
 nesses to inform us concerning his personal 
 history. A century after his death Eusebius 
 evidently knew nothing of him beyond what 
 he could infer from such works of his as had 
 reached him. These works were soon super- 
 seded by those of other more able and learned 
 writers. Scarcely one has come down to us 
 without mutilation, and the authenticity of 
 almost every work assigned to him has been 
 disputed. Yet his celebrity survived, and 
 various legends, not always carefully distin- 
 guished from the authentic history of the saint, 
 arose. It has been disputed whether Hippo- 
 lytus was a presbyter or a bishop ; and if a 
 bishop, of what see ; whether he laboured in 
 Italy or Arabia ; whether he was orthodox or 
 a schismatic ; whether he was a martyr, and 
 if so, by what death he died. At length the 
 recovery of the work on heresies, now by 
 general consent attributed to him, cleared 
 away some obscurities in his personal history, 
 though many questions can still receive only 
 doubtful answers. 
 
 The earliest notice of Hippolytus is by 
 Eusebius in two passages (//. E. vi. 20, 22). 
 In the first, speaking of ecclesiastical writers 
 of whom letters were then preserved in the 
 library at Jerusalem, Eusebius mentions 
 " likewise Hippolytus, who was bishop of 
 another church somewhere." In the second 
 he gives a list of the works of Hippolytus 
 which he had met with (not including any 
 letters), this being probably the list of those 
 in the library at Caesarea, but adds that many 
 other works by him might be found elsewhere. 
 
 If the earliest witnesses give no certain 
 information as to where Hippolytus laboured, 
 they enable us to determine when he lived. 
 Eusebius says that he wrote a work on the 
 Paschal feast, in which he gives a sixteen- 
 years' Easter table, and accompanies it with 
 a chronology, the boundary of his calculations 
 being the first year of the emperor Alexander, 
 i.e. A.D. 222. In 1551, in some excavations 
 made on the Via Tirburtina, near Rome, a 
 marble statue was found, representing a 
 venerable person sitting in a chair, clad in the 
 Greek pallium. The back and sides of the 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 chair contain Greek inscriptions. The back 
 has a list of works presumably written by the 
 person represented. One side has a sixteen- 
 years' cycle, exactly corresponding to the 
 description of Eusebius and beginning with 
 the first year of Alexander. Other evidence 
 makes it certain that this cycle is that of 
 Hippolytus. The works sufficiently agree 
 with those ascribed to Hippolytus by Eusebius 
 and Jerome ; and no doubt is entertained that 
 Hippolytus is the person commemorated. 
 The list of Paschal full moons in the cycle 
 gives accurately the astronomical full moons 
 for the years 217-223 inclusive. For the next 
 eight years the true full moons are a day or 
 two later than those given, and after that 
 deviate still further ; so that after two or 
 three revolutions of the cycle the table would 
 be useless. This table must, then, have been 
 framed about the time specified, a.d. 222, and 
 the chair must be a nearly contemporary 
 monument, for it is not conceivable that the 
 table would be put on record, to doits author 
 honour, after it had been tried long enough 
 to make its worthlessness apparent. Further, 
 the inscription is in Greek, and the earlv 
 Roman church contained a large section, if 
 not a majority, of foreigners, whose habitual 
 language was Greek. This inscription must 
 have been placed before that section had 
 disappeared and Latin had become the ex- 
 clusive language of the church. A further 
 proof of antiquity is furnished by the list of 
 writings, which is independent of those of 
 Eusebius and Jerome, and which no one in 
 the West could have drawn up long after the 
 death of Hippolytus. The date thus fixed 
 agrees with what we otherwise know, that 
 Hippolytus was a contemporary of Origen, 
 Jerome telling us that it appeared from a 
 homily of Hippolytus then extant that it had 
 been delivered in Origen's hearing. We know 
 from Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) that Origen 
 visited Rome in the reign of Caracalla and 
 episcopate of Zephyrinus, i.e. some time in the 
 years 211-217. In one of these years he might 
 thus have heard Hippolytus preach. We 
 must place the commencement of the activity 
 of Hippolytus as early as the 2nd cent. 
 Photius tells us that the treatise of Hippolytus 
 Against all the Heresies professed to be a syn- 
 opsis of lectures delivered by Irenaeus. The 
 simplest supposition seems to be that Hippo- 
 lytus heard Irenaeus lecture in Rome. Euse- 
 bius tells of one visit of Irenaeus to Rome c. 
 178. A note in a Moscow MS. of the martyr- 
 dom of Polycarp (Zahn's Ignatius, p. 167) 
 represents him as teaching at Rome several 
 years before. It is not unlikely that Irenaeus 
 came again to Rome and there delivered 
 lectures against heresies. The time could not 
 have been long after the beginning of the last 
 decade of the 2nd cent. It has been shewn 
 that the author of the cycle engraved on the 
 chair must also have been the author of a 
 chronicle, a Latin translation of which is 
 extant, the last event in which is the death 
 of the emperor Alexander (235). In that year 
 an entry in the Liberian Catalogue of bishops 
 of Rome records that Pontianus the bishop, 
 and Hippolytus the presbyter, were trans- 
 ported as exiles to the pestilent island of 
 Sardinia. It is difficult to believe that the 
 
HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 Hippolytus here discrihcd as piislntcr is not 
 our Hippolytus, and probably both he and 
 Poutianus gained the title of martyrs by 
 dying in the mines. From the " depositio 
 martNTum " of the Liberian Catalogue it 
 appears that the bodies of Pontianus and 
 Hippolytus were both deposited on the same 
 dav (Aug. is), the former in the cemetery of 
 Cailistus, the latter in that on the Via Tibur- 
 tina, and it is natural to think that both 
 bodies were brouijht from Sardinia to Rome. 
 The translation of Pontianus, we are told, was 
 effected by pope Fabianus, probably in 236 or 
 237- A very different account of the martyr- 
 dom of Hippolytus is given by l^rudeiitius 
 {Peristeph. 11), who wrote at the beginning of 
 the 3th cent. His story is that Hippolytus 
 had been a presbyter, who was torn in pieces 
 at Ostia by wild horses, like the Hippolytus 
 of mythology. Prudentius describes the 
 subterranean tomb of the saint and states that 
 he saw on the spot a picture representing this 
 execution, and that this martyrdom was 
 commemorated on Aug. 13. He gives an 
 account of the crowds who flocked to the 
 commemoration and a description of a stately 
 church, with a double row of pillars, which 
 Diillinger considers was the church of St. 
 Laurence (t 258), a saint whose cultus 
 attained much greater celebrity, and who was 
 also buried on the Via Tiburtina, his church 
 being adjacent to the tomb of Hippolytus. 
 
 The picture which Prudentius saw may well 
 have been originally intended to depict the 
 sufferings of the mythological Hippolytus, 
 and, being inscribed with that name, have 
 been ignorantly copied or transferred by 
 Christians to adorn the resting-place of the 
 mart>T of that name. The tale told by Pru- 
 dentius is plainly the offspring of the picture, 
 and the authentic evidence of the deposition, 
 on Aug. 13, on the Via Tiburtina of the remains 
 of a Hippolytus who is coupled with Pontianus 
 indicates the real owner of the tomb, of whom, 
 in the century and a half which passed before 
 Prudentius visited it, all but his name and the 
 day of his feast had been forgotten. 
 
 What light has been cast upon his history 
 by the recovery of the treatise against here- 
 sies ? The portion previously extant had 
 been known under the name of Origen's 
 Philosophumena. We make no scruple in 
 treating this as the work of Hippolytus, for 
 this is the nearly unanimous opininn of critics, 
 Lipsius alone hesitating and cautiously citing 
 the author as Pseudo-Origenes. From this 
 work it appears that he took an active part in 
 the affairs of the Roman church in the epis- 
 copates of Zephyrinus and Cailistus. Dol- 
 linger has shewn that, without imputing wilful 
 misstatement to Hipjjolytus, it is possible to 
 put on all that he relates about Callistus a 
 very much more favourable interpretation 
 than he has done ; and with regard to the 
 charge that Callistus in trying to steer a middle 
 course between Sabellianism and orthodoxy 
 had invented a new heresy, the retort may be 
 made that it was Hippolytus himself who in his 
 dread of Sabellianism had laid himself open to 
 the charge of Ditheism. But the point towhich 
 Dollinger called attention, with which we are 
 most concerned here, is that Hippolytus in this 
 work never recognizes Callistus as bp. of Rome 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 I S3 
 
 He says that Cillistus li.id .ispir.-d to the 
 episcopal throne and that on the death of 
 Zephyrinus " he supiiosed himself t<. have 
 obtained what he had been hunting for." Hut 
 Hippolytus treats him only as the founder of 
 a school (5i5acrKa\(iov) in opposition to the 
 Catholic church, using the same word with 
 regard to Noetus (cotil. Haer. S'oeti, I.agarde. 
 p. 44). "f whom he savs that when expelled 
 from the churcli he had the presumption to 
 set up " a school." Hippolvtus savs that 
 Callistus and his party claimed t<i be the 
 Catholic church and gloried in tlieir numbers, 
 though this multitude of adherents had been 
 gained by unworthy means, namely, by 
 improper laxity in receiving offenders. Cal- 
 listus had received into his communion per- 
 sons whom Hippolvtus had excommunicated. 
 He adds that this school of Callistus still con- 
 tinued when he wrote, which was plainly after 
 the death of Callistus, and he refuses to give 
 its members any name but Callistians. Evi- 
 dently the breach between Hippolytus and 
 Callistus had proceeded to open schism. But 
 if Hippolytus did not regard Callistus as bp. 
 of Rome, whom did he so regard ? To this 
 question it is difficult to give any answer but 
 Dollinger's : Hippolytus claimed to be bp. of 
 Rome himself. In the introduction to his 
 work, Hippolytus claims to hold the episcopal 
 office; he declares that the pains which he 
 took in the confutation of heresy were his duty 
 as successor of the apostles, partaker of the 
 grace of the Holy Spirit that had been given 
 to them and which they transmitted to those 
 of right faith, and as clad with the dignity of 
 the high priesthood and office of teaching and 
 guardian of the church, .\fterwards we find 
 him exercising the power of excommunication 
 upon persons, who thereupon joined the school 
 of Callistus. Thus we seem to have a key to 
 the difficulty that Hippolytus is described in 
 the Liberian Catalogue only as i)resbyter, and 
 yet was known in the East universally as 
 bishop, and very widely as bp. of Rome. His 
 claim to be bishop was not admitted by the 
 church of Rome, but was made in works of 
 his, written in Greek and circulating exten- 
 sively in the East, either by himself in the 
 works or more probably in titles prefixed to 
 them by his ardent followers. We have also 
 a key to the origin of the tradition that 
 Hippolytus had been a Novatianist. He had 
 been in separation from the church, and the 
 exact cause of difference had been forgotten. 
 ."Vgainst another hyjiothesis, that Hippolytus 
 was at the same time bp. of Portus and a 
 leading presbyter of Rome, Diillinger urges, 
 besides the weakness of the proof that Hippo- 
 lytus was bp. of Portus, that there is no 
 evidence that Portus had then a bishop, and 
 that, according to the then constitution of the 
 church, the offices of presbyter and bishop 
 could not be thus combined. Dollinger con- 
 tends that the schism could not have orrurr«-d 
 immediately on the election of Callistus ; but 
 there is exactly the same reason for saying 
 that Hippolytus refused to recognize Zephyr- 
 inus as bishop, as that he rejected Callistus ; 
 for he speaks of the former also as " imagin- 
 ing " that he governed the ( hurch. In con- 
 sistency, then. Diillinger ought to have made 
 the schism begin in the time of Zephyriiam, 
 
484 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANOS 
 
 and so de Rossi does, adding a conjecture of 
 his own, that the leader of the schism had been 
 Victor's archdeacon, and had in that capacity 
 obtained his knowledge of the early life of 
 Callistus, and that he was actuated by dis- 
 appointment at not having been made bishop 
 on Victor's death. On the other hand, to 
 make a schism of which no one in the East 
 seems to have ever heard begin so early 
 ascribes to it such long duration as to be quite 
 incredible. For it continued after the death 
 of Callistus, some time after which the account 
 in the treatise on heresies was plainly written, 
 and Dollinger thinks it even possible that it 
 may have continued up to the time of the 
 deportation of Pontianus and Hippolytus to 
 Sardinia. He regards with some favour the 
 hypothesis that this banishment might have 
 been designed to deliver the city from dissen- 
 sions and disputes for the possession of 
 churches between the adherents of the rival 
 leaders. It seems to us most likely that 
 Pontianus and Hippolytus were banished early 
 in the reign of Maximin as the two leading 
 members of the Christian community. We 
 find it hard to refuse the explanation of von 
 Dollinger, which makes Hippolytus the first 
 anti-pope ; but the difficulties arising from the 
 fact that the existence of so serious a schism 
 has been absolutely unknown to the church 
 from the 4th cent, to the 19th are so great, 
 that if we knew of any other way of satis- 
 factorily explaining the language of Hippoly- 
 tus we should adopt it in preference. We are 
 not told who consecrated Hippolytus asbishop, 
 but a schism in inaugurating which bishops thus 
 took the lead must have been a serious one ; 
 it lasted at least "5 or 6 years, and, if we make 
 it begin in the time of Zephyrinus as we seem 
 bound to do, perhaps 20 years, and it had as 
 its head the most learned man of the Roman 
 church and one whose name was most likely 
 to be known to foreign churches. Yet the 
 existence of this schism was absolutely un- 
 known abroad. All Greek lists of the popes, 
 as well as the Latin, include Callistus, and 
 make no mention of Hippolytus ; and the 
 confessed ignorance of Eusebius about the see 
 of Hippolytus is proof enough that he was not 
 in possession of the key to the difficulty. In 
 the Novatianist disputes which commenced 
 about 15 years after the death of Hippolytus, 
 when many would still be alive who could have 
 remembered the controversy between him and 
 Callistus, we find no allusion on either side to 
 any such comparatively recent schism of 
 which a man holding rigorist views resembling 
 those of Novatian was the head. Bearing in 
 mind the excitement caused in the case of 
 Novatian, we ask, Was the question who was 
 bp. of Rome regarded as a matter of such 
 purely local concern that controversy could 
 go on at Rome for years and the outside world 
 know nothing of it, and that although the 
 unsuccessful claimant was a person on other 
 grounds very widely known ? Is it conceiv- 
 able, if Hippolytus really set up a rival chair 
 to Callistus, that he, whose books and letters 
 widely circulated in the East, made no at- 
 tempt to enlist on his side the bishops of the 
 great Eastern sees ? Or is it likely, if Hippo- 
 lytus had started a long-continued and 
 dangerous schism at Rome, that the pre- 
 
 HlPPdLtTUS ftOMANtS 
 
 dominant party should have completely 
 condoned his offence, that he should have been 
 honoured for centuries as a saint and a martyr, 
 and that his name should have been handed 
 down with no hint of that schism until 
 words of his own came to light to suggest it ? 
 These improbabilities in the theory hitherto 
 most generally received, amount almost to 
 impossibilities, though we confess it difficult 
 to find a satisfactory substitute. We can only 
 suggest that if there were at the time, as there 
 are grounds for supposing, a Greek congrega- 
 tion at Rome, the head of it is very likely to 
 have been Hippolytus, and the head of such 
 a congregation might naturally be entrusted 
 with the episcopal power of admitting or 
 excluding members, since doubtful cases could 
 scarcely be investigated by a Latin-speaking 
 pope. The supposition that he may have 
 received episcopal consecration, besides ex- 
 plaining the enigmatical dignity idvQv IttIcxko- 
 TTo? ascribed by Photius to Caius, would give 
 a less violently improbable account of the 
 claim of Hippolytus to episcopal dignity than 
 the theory that he had been consecrated as 
 anti-pope. As he was probably the last holder 
 of his anomalous office, it is not surprising if 
 no remembrance was retained of its exact 
 constitution ; but it is in the nature of things 
 probable that the period when the church of 
 Rome was Greek and when it was Latin should 
 be separated by a bilingual period ; and it is 
 not unnatural that the arrangements made 
 during that interval should be forgotten when 
 the need for them had passed. The severity 
 of the persecutions at Rome under Decius and 
 Valerian seems to have obliterated much of 
 the recollections of the history of the early 
 part of the century. Whether Hippolytus 
 was bishop or presbyter, he wrote his attacks 
 on Callistus in Greek and addressed them to 
 Greek-speaking people, and there is no evi- 
 dence that he made any assault on the unity 
 of the Latin-speaking church. This rnay 
 account for the faintness of the impression 
 which his schismatic language produced and 
 for the facility with which it was pardoned. 
 That the arrogance and intemperance of 
 language which he displayed did not deprive 
 him of permanent honour in the Roman church 
 is to be accounted for by the leniency with 
 which men treat the faults of one who has real 
 claims to respect. Hippolytus was a man of 
 whose learning the whole Roman church must 
 have been proud ; he was of undoubted piety, 
 and of courage which he proved in his good 
 confession afterwards. The way of return 
 would not be made difficult for such a man 
 when he really wished all dissension to end. 
 
 The preceding discussions have told all that 
 is known of the life of Hippolytus. We now 
 proceed to enumerate his works ; acknow- 
 ledging the great help of the list of Caspari, 
 Tauf symbol und Glaubensregel, iii. 377- 
 
 (i) Most completely associated with his 
 name is the 16 years' cycle (mentioned by 
 Eusebius and Jerome, u.s.), and the little 
 treatise in which he explained it. This is 
 among the list of works on the statue, 'A irdSei^ii 
 Xpovwv ToO Trdcrxa Kal to, (v t(^ wivaKi. That 
 the cycle engraved on the statue is undoubted- 
 I ly that of Hippolytus is not only proved by 
 facts already pointed out and by its interpre- 
 
HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 tation of the 70 weeks of Daniel in the manner 
 peculiar to Hippolytus, but is placed beyond 
 doubt by its literal agreement with a S\Tiac 
 version of the cycle of Hippolytus jireserved 
 in a chronoloRical work by Elias of Nisibis 
 (Lagarde, AnaUcta Syriaca, p. 80). The cycle 
 of 8 years used by (ireek astronomers for 
 harmonizing lunar and solar years is much 
 older than Hippolytus. What was novel in 
 the scheme of Hippolytus was his putting two 
 eight-years' cycles together in order to exhibit 
 readily the days of the week on which the full 
 moons fell. The cycle of Hippolytus is not 
 astronomically correct, and, as the Syriac 
 writer correctly states, the error accumulates 
 at the rate of three days for every sixteen- 
 years' cycle. Of this Hippolytus has no 
 suspicion, and he supposed that he could by 
 means of his cycle determine all Paschal full 
 moons future or past. 
 
 (2) Eusebius, in the passage where he has 
 spoken of the work on the Paschal feast just 
 considered (t6 vepi tov ndaxa ffi^y^paMMa). 
 proceeds with a list of the other works of 
 Hippolytus he had met with, among which is 
 one wfpi TOV ndcrxo.- The use of the definite 
 article in the first case might suggest that 
 Eusebius only knew one such work, and men- 
 tions it the second time in its order in his 
 collection of works of Hippolytus. But it 
 may be considered certain that Hippolytus 
 treated doubly of the Paschal celebration : in 
 (i) giving rules for finding Easter ; in another ' 
 \vriting, which probably was an Eastor-day 
 sermon, treating of its doctrinal import. 
 
 (3) Among the works enumerated on the 
 statue is a chronicle. The list runs xpoj'i*.-uii' 
 TTpb-; "EWrjvai. and it has been questioned 
 whether this describes two separate works, or 
 a chronicle written with a controversial object; 
 but the remains of the chronicle itself shew it 
 to have been written for the instruction of 
 Christians and not as a polemic against 
 heathenism. The chronicle records the death 
 of the emperor .Alexander, and therefore the 
 deportation of Hippolytus and Pontianus to 
 Sardinia could not have taken place under 
 Alexander as the later Papal Catalogue has it, 
 but under Maximin. It follows, also, that 
 this chronicle is likely to be the latest work of 
 Hippolytus, and therefore that a passage 
 common to it and to the later treatise on 
 heresy was taken from an earlier work, a 
 supposition which presents no difficulty. 
 
 (4) We pass now from the chronological to 
 the anti-heretical writings ; first, the treatise 
 against all heresies, which may have been the 
 earliest work of Hippolytus. It is mentioned 
 in the lists of both Eusebius and Jerome, and 
 a passage is quoted from it in the Paschal 
 Chronicle, though it is not in thelistonthechair 
 as we have it, which shews that we cannot 
 build any conclusion on the absence of a name 
 therefrom. The fullest account of this treat- 
 ise is given by Photius {Cod. 121). He de- 
 scribes it as a small book, f^if-iXidaptou, against 
 32 heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and 
 ending with Xoetus and the Noetians ; that 
 it purported to be an abstract of discourses of 
 Irenaeus; was written in a clear, dignified 
 style, though not observant of Attic propriety. 
 It denied St. Paulv authorship of Hebrews. It 
 was probably published in the early years of 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 4S5 
 
 the episcopate (100-21 7) of Zephvrinus. (o 
 lead up to an assault on Noeliaiiisin, then the 
 most formidable heresy at Rome. 
 
 (5) A work, or rather a fragment, bearing in 
 the MS. the title of Homily of Hif>f>ohtus 
 at;ainst the Heresy of one Noelus, ap|>ears on 
 examination to be not a honiilv, but the con- 
 clusion of a treatise against more heresies than 
 one. It begins : " Certain others are privily 
 introducing another doctrine, having become 
 disciples of one Noetus." It jircneeds to 
 refute the Noetian objection that the assertion 
 of the distinct personality of our lord contra- 
 dicts those texts of Scripture which <le< lare 
 the absolute unity of Cod. .At the end of this 
 discussion he says, " Now that Noetus also 
 has been refuted, let us come to the setting 
 forth of the truth, that we may establish the 
 truth, against which all so great heresies have 
 arisen, without being able to say anything." 
 The orthodoxy of the tract seems unsuspected 
 by Tillemont! Ceillicr, Lumper, and others. 
 It was formally defended by bp. Bull, and was 
 published bv Kouth {Ecc. Script. Opiisc.) as a 
 lucid exposition of orthodox doctrine. When, 
 however, it came to light that the teaching of 
 Hippolytus had been censured bv pope 
 Callistiis, DoUinger had no difficulty in point- 
 ing out features in it open to censure. Though 
 Hippolytus acknowledges the Logos to have 
 been from eternity dwelling in (iod as His 
 intelligence, he yet appears to teach that there 
 was a definite epoch determined by the will of 
 (iod, prior no doubt to all creation, when that 
 Logos, which had previously dwelt imperson- 
 ally in God, assumed a separate hypostatic 
 existence, in order that by Him the world 
 should be framed and the Deity manifested 
 to it. Thus, beside God there appeared 
 another ; yet not two Gods, but only as light 
 from light; a ray from the sun. Hippolytus 
 also teaches that it was only at the Incarna- 
 tion that He Who before was the Logos 
 properly became Son. though previously He 
 might be called Son in reference to what He 
 was to be. Dollinger imagines that this 
 emanation doctrine of Hippolvtus may. in the 
 controversies of the time, have been stig- 
 matized as V'alentinian, and that thus we 
 may account for a late authority connecting 
 this heresy with his name. 
 
 (6) Refutation of all Heresies. — In 1842 
 Minoides Mynas brought to Paris from Mount 
 -Athos, besides other literary treasures, a 14th- 
 cent. MS. containing what purported to be a 
 refutation of all heresies, divided into 10 books. 
 Owing to mutilation, the MS. begins in the 
 middle of bk. iv. ; but from the numbering of 
 the leaves it is inferred that the MS. had never 
 contained anv of the first three books. Miller, 
 who publish, d it in 1851 for the I'niv. of 
 0.\ff>rd, p. n rived that it belonged to the work 
 published under the name of Origen's Phtloso- 
 phumena bv Gronovius, and afterwards in the 
 Benedictine ed. of Origen, though it had been 
 perceived that the ascription to Origen must 
 be erroneous, as the author claims the dignilv 
 of high priesthood, and refers to a former work 
 on heresies, while no such work is said to have 
 been crMuposed by Origen. Miller in his 
 edition reprinted the Philosnphumena as bk. i. 
 of the Elenchus. but ascribed the whole to 
 Origen, an ascription which was generally 
 
486 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 rejected. Jacobi, in a German periodical, 
 put forward the claims of Hippolytus, a theory 
 which was embraced by Bunsen (Hippolytus 
 and his Age, 1852 ; 2nd ed., Christianity and 
 Mankind, 1854) and Wordsworth (St. Hippol. 
 and the Ch. of Rome, 1853, 2nd ed. 1880), and 
 completely established by Dollinger (Hippoly- 
 tus und Kallistus, 1853). From the book itself 
 we infer that the author lived at Rome during 
 the episcopates of Zephyrinus and Callistus, 
 and for some time afterwards ; that he held 
 high ecclesiastical office, and enjoyed much 
 consideration, being not afraid to oppose his 
 opinion on a theological question to that of the 
 bishop, and able to persuade himself that fear 
 of him restrained the bishop from a course on 
 which he otherwise would have entered. Hip- 
 polytus satisfies these conditions better than 
 any one else for whom the authorship has been 
 claimed. Further, the hypothesis that Hip- 
 polytus was the author gives the explanation 
 of the prevalent Eastern belief that he was bp. 
 of Rome, of the tradition preserved by Pru- 
 dentius that he had been once in schism from 
 the church, and of the singular honour of a 
 statue done him ; for as the head of a party 
 his adherents would glorify his learning and 
 prolific industry. That the work on heresies 
 connects itself with six distinct works of Hip- 
 polytus makes the ascription certain. A trans, 
 of the Refutation and of other fragments is 
 in the vol. A post. Fathers in Ante-Nic. Lib. 
 (T. & T. Clark). 
 
 (a) The Treatise against the Thirty-two 
 Heresies. — The author begins by saying that 
 he had a long time before (TrdXat) published 
 another work against heresy, with less minute 
 exposure of the secret doctrines of the heretics 
 than that which he now proposes to make. 
 Of those for whom the authorship has been 
 claimed, Hippolytus is the only one whom we 
 know to have published a previous work on 
 heresies. The time between the two works 
 would be 20 years at least. 
 
 (b) The Treatise on the Universe. — At the end 
 of the Refutation (x. 32, p. 334, Plummer's 
 trans.) the author refers to a previous work 
 of his, TTfpi rrji rod iravros ovaias, and among 
 the works ascribed to Hippolytus on the statue 
 we read, 7rp6s "EWrivas Kai irpos XWaruiva y) Kai 
 TTfpi Tov Trai/T^s. Photius remarks that the 
 author of the work on the universe also wrote 
 the Labyrinth, according to a statement at the 
 end of that work. Now, bk. x. begins with 
 the words, " The labyrinth of heresies." We 
 may, then, reasonaljly conclude that what 
 Photius knew as the Labyrinth was our bk. x., 
 which was known by its first word. 
 
 (c) The Chronicle and the Treatise on the 
 Psalms. — The enumeration of the 72 nations 
 among whom the earth was divided (x. 30), 
 and which the author states that he had 
 previously given in other books, precisely 
 agrees with that in the Chronicle of Hippoly- 
 tus ; and though this chronicle was probably 
 later than the Refutation, Hippolytus wrote 
 commentaries on Genesis, where this enumera- 
 tion would naturally be given in treating of 
 c. X., and he appears to have been, like many 
 prolific writers, apt to repeat himself. This 
 same enumeration is given in his commentary 
 on the Psalms (No. 29 infra). 
 
 (d) The Tract against Noetus. — On compar- 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 ing this tract with the exposition of the truth 
 given at the end of the Refutation, the identity 
 of doctrine, and sometimes of form of expres- 
 sion, decisively proves common authorship. 
 The same doctrine is found, that the Logos, 
 Which had from eternity dwelt in the Deity 
 as His unspoken thought, afterwards assumed 
 a separate hypostatic existence, differing from 
 created things not only in priority but also 
 because they were out of nothing. He of the 
 substance of the Godhead ; and being the 
 framer of the universe according to the divine 
 ideas (in the Platonic sense of the word) which 
 had dwelt in Him from the first. That the 
 Son's personal divinity was not by the original 
 necessity of His nature, but given by an act 
 of the divine will, is stated more offensively 
 than in the earlier tract. He says to his 
 reader, " God has been pleased to make you 
 a man, not a god. If He had willed to make 
 you a god He could have done so ; you have 
 the example of the Logos." 
 
 (e) The Treatise on Antichrist. — In c. ii. of 
 this treatise (Lagarde, p. 2), when telling how 
 the prophets treated not only of the past but 
 of the present and the future, he uses language 
 in some respects verbally coinciding with what 
 is said in the Elenchtis (x. 33, p. 337). 
 
 The evidence which has been produced 
 amounts to a demonstration of the Hippoly- 
 tine authorship. The title of the work would 
 be <pL\o(TO<f>odiJLeva ^ Kara waaQv alpiffewv 
 eXeyXos ; the name Philosophumena properly 
 applying to the first 4 books, the Elenchus 
 to the last 6. Its chief value to us consists, 
 in addition to the light cast on the disputes in 
 the church of Rome at the beginning of the 
 3rd cent., in its extracts from otherwise un- 
 known Gnostic writings, inserted by the 
 author to shame these sects by an exposure of 
 their secret tenets. Its attack on the charac- 
 ter of pope Callistus was fatal to its circulation. 
 No doubt when a reconciliation was effected 
 at Rome all parties desired to suppress the 
 book. Bk. i. was preserved as containing a 
 harmless and useful account of the doctrines 
 of heathen philosophers ; and bk. x., which 
 presented no cause for offence (there being 
 nothing to indicate that the heretic Callistus 
 mentioned in it was intended for the bp. of 
 Rome), also had some circulation and was seen 
 by Theodoret and Photius. But these two 
 writers are the only ones in whom we can trace 
 any knowledge of'bk. x., which was certainly 
 not used by Epiphanius. The rest of the work 
 is mentioned by no extant writer, and but for 
 the chance preservation of a single copy in the 
 East would have altogether perished. 
 
 (7) The Little Labyrinth. — Eusebius (H. E. 
 V. 27) gives some long extracts from an anony- 
 mous work against the heresy of Artemon. 
 Internal evidence shews that the writer was a 
 member of the Roman church and speaks of 
 things that occurred in the episcopate of 
 Zephyrinus as having happened in his own 
 time. On the other hand, Zephyrinus is 
 described as Victor's successor, language not 
 likely to be used if Zephyrinus were at the time 
 bishop, or even the last preceding bishop. 
 The writer's recollection too does not appear 
 to go back to the episcopate of Victor. The 
 date would therefore be soon after the epis- 
 copate of Callistus. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 
 
HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 ii. 5) refers to the same work as known in his 
 time under the name of the Little Labyrinth 
 and attributed by some to Ori^en ; though 
 Theodoret considers this assumption disproved 
 by the difference of style. Photius {Cod. 48) 
 ascribes to Cains a book called the Labyrinth, 
 which we have identified with the summary 
 of the EUnchits. He does not mention the 
 Little Labyrinth, but adds that it was said that 
 Caius had c<imposed a special treatise against 
 the heresy of Artemon. We have no reason 
 to think that the Labyrinth of Photius and the 
 Little Labyrinth of Theodoret were the same ; 
 on the contrary, the latter was probably iden- 
 tical with the treatise against Artemon, which 
 Photius expressly distinguishes from his Laby- 
 rinth. Internal evidence, and the fact that 
 we have some external evidence for the author- 
 ship of Caius and none for that of Hippolytus, 
 cause us to give our verdict for Caius. 
 
 (8) The Work against Bero and Helix. — A 
 certain Anastasius of the 7th cent, is the 
 earliest authority for designating Hippolytus 
 as bp. of Portus. He so calls him in sending 
 to Rome extracts made by him at Constanti- 
 nople from what purported to be a treatise of 
 Hippolytus, TTfpi fleoXoyiai Kai aapKwa«ii$, 
 against the above-named heretics, his adver- 
 saries having hindered Anastasius from getting 
 possession of the entire work. Dollinger (p. 
 295) has given conclusive reasons for regarding ; 
 this as no work of Hippolytus, but as a forgery 
 not earlier than the 6th cent. The technical 
 language of these fragments is also that of the 
 controversies of the 5th cent., and quite unlike 
 that of the age of Hippolytus. It was doubt- 
 less Anastasius who supplied another passage 
 from the discourse wtpl 0eo\oyias produced at 
 the Lateran Council in 649. 
 
 (9) A Syriac list of the writings of Hippoly- 
 tus given by Ebed Jesu, a writer of the very 
 beginning of the 14th cent. (Assemani, Bibl. 
 Or. iii. I, p. 15), contains a work whose Syriac 
 title is translated by Ecchelensis de Regimine, 
 by Assemani de Dispensatione. Adopting 
 the latter rendering and taking " dispensatio " 
 to be equivalent to oiKOvofxLa. we should con- 
 clude its subject to be our Lord's Incarnation. 
 It may therefore be identical with (8). If the 
 other rendering be adopted, the work would 
 relate to church government, and might be 
 identical with some part of (21). 
 
 (10) The Treatise against Marcion. — Men- 
 tioned in the catalogues of Eusebius and 
 Jerome, but nothing of it remains. 
 
 (11) On the statue is enumerated a work 
 TTfpl rdyaOov Kal irbOev rb KaKbv. This may 
 well have been an anti-Marcionite composition, 
 and possiblvthat mentioned by Eusebius (10). 
 
 (12) Defence of the Gospel and .Apocalypse of 
 St. John. — We may probably class among 
 anti-heretical writings the work described on 
 the chair as inrip tov Kara 'Iwafvyj" (vayytXlov 
 Kal djrova\(''i/'(W5, and in the list of Ebed Jesu 
 as " a defence of the Apocalypse and Gospel 
 of the apostlf and evangelist John." The 
 work on the Apocalyi)se mentioned by Jerome 
 we take to be different, and we notice it among 
 the exegetical works. Hippolytus in his 
 extant remains constantly employs the Apoc- 
 alvpse, and his regard for it is appealed to by 
 .\ndrew of Cacsarea (Max. Bibl. Pair. v. 590). 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 •187 
 
 It has been supposed that Caius was the 
 writer, replied to by Hippolytus, who ascribes 
 the Apocalypse and the C.ospel to Cerinthus ; 
 but the arguments for supposing that Caius 
 rejected the Apocalypse are inconclusive, and 
 it is highly improbable that he, an orthodox 
 member of the Roman church, rejected the 
 Gospel of St. John. 
 
 (13) One argmnent in support of the view 
 just referred to is that Ivbed Jesu (m.s.) 
 enumerates among the works of Ilippolvtus 
 Chapters (or heads) against Caius, which, it 
 has been conjectured, were identical with (12). 
 But Ebed Jesu reckons the two works as dis- 
 tinct. What other heresy of Caius Hippolyttis 
 could have confuted i-^ unknown. 
 
 (14) It is hard to draw the line between 
 controversial and dogmatic books. Thus, 
 with regard to the treatise cited by Anastasius 
 Sinaita (Lagarde.No. 9, p. 90). irtpl avaaTd<Tfw\ 
 tiai 6.<p6ap(Tia%, which may be the same as that 
 described on the statue as irtpl Beoi" nal (rapxhi 
 ava<TTd<T(wi and by Jerome as de Resurrec- 
 tione, we cannot tell whether it was a simple 
 explanation of Christian doctrine or directed 
 against the errors of heretics or heathens. 
 
 (15) A controversial character more clearly 
 belongs to another work on the same subject, 
 a fragment of which is preserved in Syriac 
 (Lagarde, Anal Syr. p. 87), and contains what 
 Stephen Gobar (Photius, Cod. 232) noted as a 
 peculiarity of Hippolytus, found also in both 
 his treatises against heresy, viz. that he makes 
 Nicolas the deacon himself, and not any mis- 
 understood saying of his, the origin of the 
 errors of the Nicolaitanes. Here he is charged 
 with maintaining that the resurrection has 
 passed already and that Christians are to 
 expect none other than that which took place 
 when thev believed and were baptized. 
 
 (16) One work at least Hippolytus specially 
 directed to the heathen, and though this is not 
 included in the list of Jerome he probably 
 alludes to it {Ep. ad Magnum, i. 423) where 
 he classes Hippolvtus with others who wrote 
 " contra gentes." On the chair we read 
 XpofiKwi' irpbs'EW-nva^ Kai Trpdr IWdTwva ^ koI 
 irepi TOV Travrdt. We might take wpbt'EW^vat 
 as a distinct work, or with what precedes or 
 with what follows. That the last is the true 
 construction appears both from the title given 
 in one of the MSS., in which a fragment is 
 preserved, 6 \6yos Trp6s"EXX»?»'as 6 iiriytypa^i- 
 fiivot Kara IWdrujva irtpl r^s rov iracrif a/T/oj, 
 and from the fact that the same fragment 
 contains addresses to the Greeks. This, then, 
 is evidently the treatise irtpl t^j toi" ttoi-tAi 
 ovalai, mentioned at the end of the Elenchus, 
 and of which Photius speaks in a passage 
 alreadv referred to (Cod. 4ft)- He says that 
 
 1 the treatise was in two short books, that it 
 I shewed that Plato was inconsistent ; that the 
 I Platonic philosopher Alcinons had spoken 
 ' falselv and absurdly about the soul, matter, 
 and the resurrection; and that the Jewish 
 I nation wasmuch older than the Greek. The 
 theory of the universe embodied in tins work 
 made all things consist of the four elements. 
 I earth, air, fire, or water. Things formed of 
 ' more elements than one are subject to death 
 'by the dissolution of their comi^onent j'arts, 
 , but things formed of one element (e.g. angels, 
 
488 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 formed of fire alone) are indissoluble and 
 immortal. Angels also have no female, for 
 from water the generative principle is derived. 
 Man is made of all four elements, his soul 
 being formed of air and called ypvxv, because 
 this element is colder than the other three. 
 The principal extant fragment contains a 
 description of Hades as a place underground 
 where souls are detained until the judgment. 
 The gate is guarded by an archangel. When 
 the angels appointed to that service conduct 
 thither righteous souls, they proceed to the 
 right to a place of light called Abraham's 
 bosom, where they enjoy continued present 
 pleasures with the expectation of still greater 
 happiness in the future. The wicked, on the 
 other hand, are hurried down to the left into 
 a place of darkness where is the lake of fire, 
 into which no one has yet been cast, but which 
 is prepared for the future judgment. There 
 they not only suffer present temporary punish- 
 ments, but are tormented by the sight and 
 smoke of that burning lake and the horrible 
 expectation of the punishment to come. The 
 sight of the righteous also punishes them, 
 between whom and them a great gulf is fixed ; 
 and while the bodies of the righteous will rise 
 renewed and glorified, theirs will be raised 
 with all their diseases and decay. Bunsen 
 conjectures that Hippolytus may have taken 
 some points for which he has not Scripture 
 authority from the Apoalypse of Peter. 
 
 (17) The Demonstration against the Jews. — 
 The Greek text of a fragment of a work bearing 
 this title was first published by Fabricius (vol. 
 ii. i) from a copy supplied by Montfaucon from 
 a Vatican MS. There is no external evidence 
 to confirm the ascription in the MS. of this 
 work to Hippolytus. The mutilated list on 
 the chair begins -ovi ; but it is bare conjecture 
 which completes this into irpos '\ov5ai.ovs. 
 There is nothing in the fragment which forbids 
 us to suppose Hippolytus the writer. It shews 
 that the Jews have no reason to glory in the 
 sufferings they inflicted on Jesus of Nazareth, 
 for it had been foretold that the Messiah should 
 so suffer, and these sufferings had been the 
 cause of the misery afterwards endured by the 
 Jewish nation. 
 
 (18) We pass now to dogmatic writings. 
 Jerome, in his list of the writings of Hippoly- 
 tus, gives " UpodoiJLiXla de laude Domini sal- 
 vatoris." This is the homily delivered in the 
 presence of Origen. 
 
 (19) The Work on Antichrist.— Oi all the 
 writings of Hippolytus this is the only one 
 extant in a perfect state, or nearly so. It 
 appears in Jerome's list with the title de Anti- 
 christa ; Photius calls it irepi Xpiffrov Kal 
 avTixplcrrov ; and the title it bears in the MS. 
 from which the first printed edition was made 
 is Trepi ToD ffWTTJpos i]i.iQv 'Itjctou Xpiarov Kai wepl 
 Tov avTixpi-<'"^ov. The work is addressed to 
 one Theophilus, and the author cautions him 
 against communicating to unbelievers what 
 he was about to teach him, quoting Paul's 
 directions to Timothy, " the things thou hast 
 heard of me commit thou to faithful men." 
 The doctrine of the treatise as to the coming 
 overthrow of the Roman power would give 
 good reason for this caution. Jerome's title 
 best describes the treatise, of which, after some 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 I introductory remarks on prophetic inspiration. 
 
 Antichrist is almost exclusively the subject. 
 
 I The later title has some justification in the 
 
 ] parallel between Christ and Antichrist, with 
 
 which he begins, shewing how the deceiver had 
 
 sought in all things to liken himself to the Son 
 
 of God. He was to be, like Christ, a lion 
 
 (Deut. xxxiii. 22), a king, a lamb (Rev. xiii. 
 
 i 11), he was to come in the form of a man, and 
 
 ! to be of the circumcision ; he was to send out 
 
 false apostles and gather in a people, and as 
 
 the Lord had given a seal to those who believe 
 
 in Him, so should he, etc. The writer then 
 
 j quotes fully all the prophecies of Antichrist, 
 
 i and concludes that he shall be of the tribe of 
 
 \ Dan ; that Daniel's four kingdoms are the 
 
 Babylonian, Median, Grecian, and Roman ; 
 
 that' the ten toes of the image are ten kings 
 
 among whom the Roman empire should be 
 
 ' divided, that from among these Antichrist 
 
 ! should arise and overthrow three of the kings, 
 
 I viz. those of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, and 
 
 make an expedition against Tyre and Berytus, 
 
 I and then should gain the submission of the 
 
 I Jews, hoping to obtain vengeance by their 
 
 1 means ; that he should shew himself forth as 
 
 i God, and persecute to the death those who 
 
 j refuse to worship him ; that he should reign 
 
 i three years and a half and then that he and 
 
 I his kingdom should be destroyed by Christ's 
 
 ! second coming. For the problem of the num- 
 
 i ber of the beast, while other solutions men- 
 
 I tionedby Irenaeus are noticed, that of Aaruvoi 
 
 is preferred. This is one of many coincidences 
 
 shewing that Hippolytus used the treatise of 
 
 Irenaeus against heresies and enumerated 
 
 (§ iv.) by Overbeck in an able monograph on 
 
 this tract Quaestionum Hippol. specimen. 
 
 Overbeck discusses also the points of contact 
 
 between this tract and Origen, deciding that 
 
 these may be accounted for without supposing 
 
 either writer indebted to the other. 
 
 (20) The text of a homily on the Holy Theo- 
 phany was communicated to Fabricius by 
 Gale from a MS. still preserved at Cambridge. 
 There is also extant a Syriac translation of 
 great part of this homily, viz. to the end of 
 c. 7 (Wright, Catal. of Syr. MSS. of Brit. Mus. 
 ii. 842). The ascription of the MSS. is not 
 confirmed by any external evidence, nor is 
 this homily mentioned in any list of the 
 Hippolytine works, nor quoted by any ancient 
 author. We do not, however, see anything 
 in it which Hippolytus might not have 
 written, and Wordsworth has pointed out a 
 remarkable coincidence with the Refutation, 
 viz. that in both man is spoken of as becoming 
 a god by the gift of new birth and immortality. 
 j (21) On the chair is enumerated wipi 
 ■xa.pi<TfJ.aTii)v aTToaToKiKT} Trapd5<'ffi.s. It is 
 ! doubtful whether this is the title of one work 
 or two. For various speculations see Fabri- 
 cius, p. 83. The most probable theory is that 
 it treated of Montanist claims to inspiration. 
 I (22) On the chair we have words which 
 have been read ifiSal eis ndaas ras ypacpds. If 
 1 the line describes only a single work it may 
 j denote hymns, one in praise of each of the 
 books of Scripture and perhaps giving a 
 poetical account of its contents. 
 
 (23) On the Hexaemeron. — We now pass to 
 the exegetical writings. This work is given 
 in the lists of Eusebius and Jerome. The 
 
HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 latter states (£/>. liv., ad Pammach. et Ocean. 
 vol. i. p. 525) that Ainbr<ise had made use of 
 it in his work on the same subject. 
 
 (24) (h TO. fifTo, T1JV (iarif.L(f)ov (Eus.). In 
 Genesim (Hieroii.). From this we suppose the 
 account of the 72 nations to have been taken. 
 
 (25) On Exodus. — This we only know from 
 Jerome's list. No quotations have been pre- 
 served, though Magistris makes a doubtful 
 suggestion that Theodoret's citations fr<nn the 
 \6yot fis Trjf t^5r]v TT^v fj.(yd.\ijt> are from a 
 commentary on the Song of Moses (Ex. xv.). 
 
 (26) There is extant a fragment (Lagarde, 
 51) of a commentary on " the blessings of 
 fealaam " ; and Trithemius also ascribes to 
 Hippolytus a commentarv on Numbers. An 
 Arabic catena on the rentatcuch. of which a 
 portion was pub. by Fabricius, ii. 33-44. and 
 the whole of Gen. by Lagarde, Materialien ztir 
 KrUik und Geschichte des Petitateuchs, contains 
 numerous extracts from an Hippolytus whom 
 it describes as the expounder of the Targum. 
 It is generally admitted that the scholia do not 
 belong to our Hippolytus. 
 
 (27, 28) Theodoret cites several passages 
 from the Discourse on Elkanah and Hannah. 
 Another part of Samuel was the subject of a 
 special treatise called by Jerome de Saul et 
 Pythonissa, and in Gk. e/j ttjv iyyaffTpifivOov, 
 for so an imperfect line on the chair is gener- 
 ally, and, as we belie\e, correctly, completed. 
 
 (29) The Commentary on the Psalms. — The 
 eixstence of this work is testified by Jerome 
 and by the inscription on the chair. Yet 
 elsewhere when writing to Augustine Jerome 
 gives a list of commentators on the Psalms 
 {Ep. cxii., vol. i. p. 734). leaving out Hippoly- 
 tus and counting Eusebius as the next Greek 
 commentator after Origen, either through 
 mere forgetfulness or because Jerome had only 
 read, of Hippolytus, homilies on particular 
 Psalms and some general observations on 
 the whole book. Theodoret quotes from 
 the commentary on Pss. ii. xxiii. and xxiv., 
 and on the <^5>j fj.(yd\T}. which may mean Ps. 
 cxix. These quotations may be from separate 
 homilies, and not from the present work. A 
 fragment published by Bandini comments 
 on Ps. Ixxviii. Several other fragments of 
 doubtful genuineness are given by Magistris 
 (Migne, x. 722). Hippolytus classifies the 
 Psalms according to their authors and in- 
 scriptions, and explains that they are all 
 called David's because he originated the 
 institution of temple psalmody, as the book 
 of Esther is called after her, and not after 
 Mordecai, of whom it has much more to tell, 
 because Esther, by her act of self-sacrifice, was 
 the originator of the whole deliverance. 
 Hippolytus points out that the Psalms are not 
 in chronological order, and supposes that 
 Ezra did not find them all at once and 
 placed them in books as he found them. The 
 Cireek, on the contrary, supposes that the 
 chronological order was deranged to establish 
 a mystical connexion between the number of 
 a Psalm and its subject. Eusebius here 
 follows Hippolytus. 
 
 (3o> On Proverbs. Mentioned in Jerome's 
 list. Some fragments have been preserved in 
 catenae (Lagarde, pp. 196- iqq). Others pub. 
 by Mai {Bib. Xov. Pat. vii.) will be found in 
 Migne (p. 6). 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 4S() 
 
 (31. 32) Jerome eniunerates a rommentary 
 on Ecclesiastes ; both Eusebius an*l Jerome 
 one on the Snn^ 0/ Songs. Lagarde gives nno 
 fragment from the former (No. 136, p. 200) and 
 four frou) the latter (No. 3s, p. 2"o ; and Anal. 
 Syr. p. 87). One of these states that llezekiaii 
 suppressed the works of Solomon on natural 
 history, because the people sought in thcni fi^r 
 the rec<ivery of their diseases, instead of seeking 
 help from God. 
 
 (33. 34. 3.'i) Jerome enumerates a commen- 
 tary on Isaiah; Eusebius one on parts of 
 Ezekiel. Assemani states (Btbl. Or. i. 6r)7) 
 that there is Syriac testimony to the existence 
 of one on Jeremiah. 
 
 (36) 0/1 Daniel. — In Jerome's list. It is the 
 subject of an article by I'hotius ; is quoted by 
 several other writers, and large fragments of 
 it remain. In a most valuable contribution 
 to Hippolytine literature, Rardenhewer (I'rei- 
 burg, 1877) collects all the notices of this 
 work, discusses the different extant fragments, 
 and restores the original as far as possible. 
 Catenae quote passages from the commentary 
 of Hijiiiolytus on Susanna, but the early lists 
 do not mention this as a separate treatise, and 
 Bardeiihewer is probably right in thinking 
 that it was the commencement of the commen- 
 tary on Daniel, to which book that <>f Susanna 
 was then commonly prefixed. The list of 
 Ebed-Jesu attributes to Hijipolytus an exposi- 
 tion of Susanna and of Daniel the Little. 
 This writer's list of O.T. books includes 
 Daniel, Susanna, and Daniel the Little. There 
 is no evidence what is meant by the last. 
 Hippolytus supposes Susanna to have been the 
 daughter of the high-priest Hilkiah (II. Kings 
 xxii. 4) and sister to the prophet Jeremiah, 
 and he probably, like Africanus, identified 
 her husband with the Jehoiachin who was 
 kindly treated by Evil-Merodach. Hippolytus 
 thought, like so many of the Fathers, that the 
 persons, institutions, and events of O.T. in- 
 cluded, beside their literal meaning, a typical 
 representation of things corresponding in the 
 new dispensation. The remains of the 
 commentary on Daniel contain a theory at- 
 tested by Photius, that our Lord had come in 
 the year of the world 5500, and that its end 
 should be in the year 6000, that is, not initil 
 500 years after the Incarnation. In Scripture 
 proof of this calculation, Hippolytus apj)eals 
 to the 5i cubits which he finds in Ex. xxv. 10 ; 
 to the sixth hour, John xix. 14, which denotes 
 half a day or 500 years ; and to Kev. xvii. 
 10. This 5500 years must be understood as 
 round numbers, for the Chronicle of Hippoly- 
 tus counts the exact number of years as 5502. 
 
 (37) On Zechartah. — Known onlv from 
 Jerome's list and the prologue to his con>- 
 mentarv on Zechariah. 
 
 (38) On Matthew.— W'c know of this from 
 the prologue to Jerome's commentary on 
 Matthew ; and Theodoret quotes from a dis- 
 course on the parable of the talents, which, 
 however, mav have been a separate homily. 
 
 (39) On Luke. — Two fragments are given by 
 Mai (Lagarde, p. 202), and Theinlor<-t lias 
 preserved part of a homily on the two thieves. 
 
 (40) On the Apocalvpse.—]n the list of Jer- 
 ome, and mentioned bv Jacob of Edessa (Eph. 
 Syr. 0pp. Syr. i. 102) anrl Syncellus, 3.^8, 
 Some fragineuts are preserved in an Arabic 
 
490 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 
 
 Catena on the Apocalypse (Lagarde, Anal. 
 Syr. app. pp. 24-27). It appears that Hippo- 
 lytus (who is described as pope of Rome) 
 interpreted the woman (Rev. xii. i) to be the 
 church ; the sun with which she is clothed, our 
 Lord; the moon, John the Baptist; the 
 twelve stars, the twelve apostles ; the two 
 wings on which she was to fly, hope and love. 
 He understood xii. 10 to speak, not of an actual 
 swallowing up by the earth of the hostile 
 armies, but only that they wandered about in 
 despair. He understood by the wound of the 
 beast (xiii. 3) the contempt and refusal of 
 obedience with which Antichrist would be 
 received by many at first ; and by the healing 
 of it the subsequent submission of the nations. 
 The two horns (xiii. 11) are the law and the 
 prophets, for this beast will be a lamb out- 
 wardly, though inwardly a ravening wolf. 
 Of the number of the beast, beside the Ire- 
 naean solutions, Lateinos, Euanthas, and 
 Teitan, he gives one of his own, Dantialos, a 
 name possibly suggested by the theory that 
 Antichrist was to be of the tribe of Dan. The 
 kings of the East (xvi. 12) come to the support 
 of Antichrist. Armageddon is the valley of 
 Jehoshaphat. The five kings (xvii. 13) are 
 Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander 
 and his four successors. The next is the 
 Roman empire, whose time was not yet com- 
 pleted ; the seventh, who had not yet come, 
 was Antichrist. 
 
 This enumeration includes all the works for 
 which there is evidence of Hippolytine author- 
 ship, unless we add the letters with which 
 it would seem Eusebius was acquainted. The 
 list of genuine writings is quite enough to 
 establish the immense literary activity of 
 Hippolytus, especially as an interpreter of 
 Scripture ; and his labours must have given 
 a great impulse to the study of God's word. 
 As a writer he must be pronounced active 
 rather than able or painstaking. Yet he must 
 be admitted to deserve the reverence his 
 literary labours gained from his contempora- 
 ries and the honour paid him at his death. For 
 centuries afterwards his name was obscured ; 
 but his glory blazed out again when in the 
 time of Charlemagne his relics were trans- 
 ferred to France. For some interesting par- 
 ticulars of this translation see Benson, Journ. 
 of Classical and Sacred Philology, i. 190. We 
 quote his account of the visit of pope Alex- 
 ander III. to his shrine in the church of St. 
 Denys in 1159. " On the threshold of one of 
 the chapels he paused to ask, ' Whose relics 
 it contained ? ' ' Those of St. Hippolytus,' 
 was the answer. ' I don't believe it — I don't 
 believe it ' (' Non credo — non credo '), replied 
 the infallible authority. ' The bones of St. 
 Hippolytus were never removed from the holy 
 city.' But St. Hippolytus, whose dry bones 
 apparently had as little reverence for the 
 spiritual progeny of Zephyrinus and Callistus 
 as the ancient bishop's tongue and pen had 
 manifested towards these saints themselves, 
 was so very angry that he rumbled his bones 
 inside the reliquarv with a noise like thunder 
 (' ut rugitus tonitrui putaretur'). To what 
 lengths he might have gone if rattling had not 
 sufficed we dare not conjecture. But the 
 pope, falling on his knees, exclaimed in terror, 
 ' I believe, O my Lord Hippolytus — I believe ; 
 
 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 
 
 pray be quiet.' And he built an altar of 
 marble there to appease the disquieted saint." 
 
 Literature. — Arts, on Hippolytus are to be 
 found in Tillem. vol. iv. ; Ceillier, vol. i. ; 
 Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vii. 183, ed. Harles, where is 
 the best account of the older bibliography. 
 The discovery of the Refutation made a good 
 deal of the older literature antiquated. We 
 have already referred to some of the more im- 
 portant writings which that discovery elicited. 
 The more important special dissertations on 
 the other works have been referred to under 
 their respective sections. The most important 
 discussion on the life and works of Hippolytus 
 is that in vol. xi. of part i. of Bp. I.ightfoot's 
 Apost. Fathers, pp. 137-477- [g.S.] 
 
 Hippolytus (5) : Aug. 10 (Bas. Men.), Aug. 
 13 {Mart. Vet. Rom. Usuard.). An apocryphal 
 martyr, first mentioned in the 5th or 6th cent. 
 His story, as given in the martyrology of Ado, 
 is taken from the spurious acts of St. Lauren- 
 tius the Roman archdeacon, where we are told 
 that that saint, when arrested, was delivered 
 by the prefect Valerian into the custody of 
 Hippolytus, a high military officer, who was 
 converted and at once baptized by him, and 
 thereupon sentenced to be torn asunder by 
 wild horses. D5llinger, in Hippolytus and 
 Callistus (Plummer's trans.), pp. 28-39 and 
 51-60, discusses the rise and development of 
 this legend, which has largely helped to con- 
 fuse the story of the genuine Hippolytus, the 
 Roman presbyter and writer of the 3rd cent. 
 iq.v.) (cf. Bunsen's Christianity and Mankind, 
 i. 426). Dollinger fixes the composition of this 
 story between the time of pope I.iberius and 
 that of Leo the Great, a period of about 70 
 years. The whole subject is in a state of great 
 confusion in the martyrologies, which Dol- 
 linger has striven, with his usual critical power 
 and vast knowledge, to arrange in some con- 
 sistent order. Yet the impartial reader must 
 feel sorely perplexed between the opposing 
 theories of Dollinger and Bunsen. (Cf. for the 
 more modern traditions regarding this martyr, 
 Aug. Hare's Walks in Rome. ii. 139.) [g.t.s.] 
 
 Honorius (1), Flavlus Augustus, emperor, 
 b. 384, d. 423. A full account of him is given 
 in the Diet, of Classical Biogr. He was de- 
 clared emperor of the West in 394 at Milan, 
 where he remained almost uninterruptedly 
 till 399. He and his brother Arcadius seem 
 to have been only ill-informed spectators 
 of the tremendous events passing around 
 them. 
 
 There is an important enactment against 
 paganism in the first year of Honorius's reign 
 (Cod. Theod. XVI. x. 13) which forbids all 
 sacrifices and apparently all public assemblage 
 for pagan worship. The legislation against 
 heresy is varied and stringent. In XVI. v. 25 
 of the Theodosian Code all Theodosius's co- 
 ercive edicts were re-enacted in their sharpest 
 form and all concessions revoked. The Euno- 
 mians in particular were excluded from rights 
 of military service, legal testimony and in- 
 heritance, though this special severity was 
 relaxed soon after (v. 27), in accordance with 
 Theodosius's edicts (XVI. v. 22-24). All 
 heretical congregations were forbidden, and 
 their celebration of the holy mysteries, with 
 ordination either of bishops or presbyters, 
 altogether interdicted. Two more of the five 
 
HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 
 
 severe edicts of this year provided that slight 
 error or deviation (" vol levi arguinento a 
 tramite Catholica") shall be unsparingly 
 crushed. Penalties for neslcct of statutes on 
 heresy are made capital (\V1. v. 28), and c. 20 
 is inquisitorial and applies to all employes and 
 oflficials, civil or military. All found to be 
 " culpae hujus affines " are to be expelled 
 from the service and the city. This is dated 
 Nov. 23, Constantinople, so that .\rcadius, or 
 rather Eutropius, may be its author. 
 
 It is difficult to say how strictly the Hono- 
 rian edicts against heresy were carried out, but 
 no such persecution as that of St. Chrysostom 
 is laid to the account of the emperor of the 
 West. There is doubt, however, that the eccle- 
 siastical legislation of 306 and following years 
 was very severe. On March 2, 396 (t. C. 
 XVI. v. 30), all heretical places of assemblage 
 were confiscated and all meeting? interdicted. 
 By edicts 31 and 32 the Eunomian clergy were 
 banishedandinquirieswere directed to bemade 
 after their leaders. XVI. vii. 6 deprived all 
 apostates of testamentary power, their pro- 
 perty was to go to their natural heirs : and by 
 XVI. X. 14 all privileges of pagan priesthood 
 or ministry were done away. The Jews were 
 protected by three edicts (XVI. viii. 11-13). 
 
 The following edicts on church matters 
 
 extend over 397 and 308. The Apollinarians 
 
 were banished from Constantinople (7". C. 
 
 XVI. V. 33) on Apr. i, which was the only 
 
 coercive measure of the year, and does not 
 
 belong to Honorius. By XVI. ii. 30. Jan. 31, 
 
 all ancient privileges were confined to bishops 
 
 and clergy, with the proviso " Nihil extra- 
 
 ordinarii muneris ecclesiae, vel sordidae 
 
 functionis agnoscatur," repeated in XI. xvi. 
 
 1 22 (June 4). The Jews were protected from 
 
 f popular tumults (XVI. viii. 12, 13), and equal 
 
 ' privileges and respect shewn to high-priests 
 
 and patriarchs as to the higher Christian 
 
 ; clergy. In 398 there were severe statutes on 
 
 (heresy. By 7". C. XVI. v. 34 (Constantinople, 
 but in Honorius's fourth consulship) Euno- 
 mian and Montanist clergy were banished from 
 all cities and deprived of civic rights. If 
 detected performing their rites in the country 
 they were to be banished and the building 
 confiscated, their books seized and burned, 
 and keeping them was a capital offence. The 
 Manicheans were specially attacked a.d. 399 
 (c. 35), and those who harboured them were 
 threatened. C. 36 allowed testamentary 
 rights to the Eunomians, but forbad them 
 to assemble or to celebrate the mysteries. 
 Their clergy (" ministri sccleris, quos falso 
 nomine antistites vocant) were to be banished. 
 Clerical rights of sanctuary for criminals were 
 formally refused ide Poeiiis. ix. xl. 16), but 
 intercession was permitted. This claim seems 
 to have been pressed by the clerical and 
 monastic body by violent means, which the 
 authorities had difficulty in restraining. 
 Cases in which " tarita clericorum ac monarh- 
 orum audacia est, ut bellum velint potius 
 quam judicium " were to be referred to the 
 emperor for severer adjudication. Bishops 
 were to punish the offences of monks. Debt- 
 ors, public and private, including some un- 
 happy curiales, had claimed sanctuary in 
 churches (IX. xlv. 3). They were to be 
 removed " manu mox injecta." No cleric 
 
 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS JU 
 
 I or monk was to assert sanctuary by forcible 
 I defence for condemned criminals (.\I. xxx. 
 ; 7). Bishops were recommended to ordain 
 I clergy from the monastic orders (VI. ii. 32). 
 i .Anibri'sc had sucrtssfullv resisted the re- 
 iutrinluction of the altar or' statue of Victory 
 into the senatc-hfmse in 384 ; and by 399 it 
 may have appeared to Honorius's advisers 
 that the time was come when paganism niight 
 be hastened out of existence. The paganism 
 of the Roman senate and people was connected 
 with the proudest associations of their public 
 and domestic history, and it lingered long in 
 the old patrician houses of the metropolis and 
 among the rustic j^opulation. This was a 
 source of weakness in keeping Christian 
 emperors away frf>m Rome. It may have 
 been intended to end this division by direct 
 attempts at supi>ressing paganism. The 
 death-struggle of a i^aganism long fostered, and 
 quite without real devotion, contributed to the 
 final overthrow of Rome. Its immediate 
 result in the life of Honorius seems to have 
 been the undermining of Stilicho. The 
 eunuch influence in both Eastern and Western 
 courts had always been against him. There 
 seems no doubt that Stilicho was opposed to 
 anything which thinned his muster-rolls and 
 weakened the hearts of his followers. Athan- 
 asius had advised Jovian (Broglie, L'Eglise et 
 r Empire romain, vol. v. p. 362) to bear with 
 error ; to bear witness to truth as emperor, 
 but trust for its victory to the God of truth. 
 Stilicho hardly reacheci this, as is proved by 
 the many laws against heretics and idolaters 
 in the code ; but the accusations of Orosius 
 (vi. 37) and the hostility of Zosimus on the 
 pagan side seem to justify Gibbon's honour- 
 able estimate of him. In any case he had a 
 few years of glory to come, and his great 
 enemy was preparing for the defeats of Pf)l- 
 lentia and Verona. In 398-399 Alaric was 
 declared master-general of Eastern Illyricum 
 by Arcadius, and raised on barbarian bucklers 
 as king of Visigoths, with one man only be- 
 tween him and Rome {de Bella Getico, .S03). 
 Between 400 and 403 he had crossed Fannonia 
 to the Julian Alps, taken Aquileia, subdued 
 Istria and Venetia, and was threatening Milan. 
 Honorius, now in his 15th vear, thought only 
 of flight into Gaul ; but .\laric, overthr<iwn 
 by Stilicho at Pollentia and Verona, was 
 allowed or compelled to retreat, and Honorius 
 went with Stilicho to Rome to celebrate the 
 last triumph of the empire (a.d. 404). The 
 customary games took place with great 
 magnificence, and on this occasion St. Tele- 
 niachus sacrificed himself by attempting to 
 separate the gladiators. H<inorius seems not 
 to have prevented their exhibition, though 
 there are traces of an attempt to substitute 
 hunting scenes, races, and grand cavalry 
 displavs, among which seems to have been the 
 ancient game of Troy. After a stay of some 
 months at Rome, during which he appears to 
 have hoiK'Stly done all in his power to con- 
 ciliate the senate, clergy, and people, Honorius 
 determined (a.d. 404) to fix his residence in the 
 fortress of Ravenna, which was almost im- 
 pregnable on the land side and afforded easy 
 escape by sea. The Milanese entertained an 
 affection for Honorius, and desired his return ; 
 but he had soon good reason to feel that his 
 
492 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 
 
 choice of residence had been a wise one, both 
 strategically and for his own comfort. 
 
 The anti-pagan legislation of 399-400 ! 
 prepared for the consummating decree of 1 
 confiscation in 408. T. C. XVI. x. 15 pro- I 
 hibited sacrifice, but restrained the destruction 
 of temples, as monumental public works. In I 
 July there was an edict (c. 16) for the de- | 
 struction of rural temples (" sine turba ac 
 tumultu "). Some concession was found 
 necessary, for, in Sept., Tit. x. 17 allowed the j 
 usual civic festivals and days of enjoyment | 
 ("festoset communem laetitiam"),but strictly ! 
 without sacrifice. This is commented on by I 
 Gibbon in his 23rd chap., on the " Decay of 
 Paganism," vol. iii. p. 16, where he points 
 out how offerings of produce without sacrifice | 
 might be used, and the various evasions by [ 
 which absolutely pagan celebration might 
 elude Christian rule. Such usages might 
 remain for ages, and be carried bodily into ! 
 Christian country life by popular custom. 1 
 This is matter of historical experience in all 
 countries ; and the May or Beltane, and other j 
 strange rites of the Teutonic races, bear wit- 
 ness to it in our own day. There was a final 
 injunction this year (c. 18) against destroying 
 temples, if sacrifices in them had been thor- ' 
 oughly discontinued. XVI. v. 35 was a 1 
 
 severe edict against the Manicheans and their 
 harbourers in Africa (June). In July (c. 36) i 
 the Eunomians were released from intestacy ) 
 and allowed freedom of movement. Their 
 meetings were still forbidden and their profane 1 
 mysteries made a capital offence. As the j 
 crudest form of Arianism, this heresy seems 
 to have specially vexed Honorius and his 
 advisers. An edict {de Religione, XVI. xi. i) 
 gave bishops a claim to special authority in 
 causes involving religious questions. " Quoties 
 de religione agitur episcopos convenit agitare." 
 Ecclesiastics were to find substitutes in the 
 curiae, appeals being allowed (XI. xxx.58, 39). : 
 
 In A.D. 400 the games were forbidden during ! 
 Lent and the week before Easter, also on 
 Christmas Day and Epiphany. Civic banish- ' 
 ment and exclusion from society was decreed ' 
 on bishops and clergy deprived or degraded 
 by their fellow-clergy for seditious conduct 
 (XVI. ii. 35). Sons of priests were not to be 
 forced into the ministry (XII. i. 166). 
 
 The single edict of a.d. 401 on ecclesiastical 
 matters, addressed to Pompeianus, proconsul j 
 of Africa, excepted bishops and clergy actively 
 employed in sacred duties from the " auraria 
 pensio," apparently (see Brissonus, Diet.) a 
 tax on commercial men. 
 
 In 404 there were 14 decrees, chiefly on 
 religious matters. Of XVI. viii. 15, 16, 17, de 
 Judaeis, 15 renews the general privileges of their 
 patriarchs ; 16 deprives or exempts Samaritans 
 from military responsibilities; 17 withdraws 
 the prohibition of a.d. 400 as to collections 
 in the synagogues. XVI. ii. (37 Aug.) re- 
 leases from prison various clerical persons con- 
 cerned in popular tumults in Constantinople, 
 but expels them, with all other foreign bishops 
 and clergy, from the city. XVI. iv. 4, 5 [De 
 his qui super Religione contenduni) coerces "the 
 orthodox, who now forsake the holy churches, 
 and assemble elsewhere (' alio convcnire con- 
 antur '), and venture to dissent from the 
 religion of Acacius, Theophilus, and Porphy- 
 
 rius," now dominant in Constantinople — Nov. 
 Tillemont considers that all these edicts refer 
 to the tumults which took place in 404 on the 
 persecution of St. Chrysostom, except that 
 which refers to officials, issued in Jan. The 
 saint was not exiled till June. 
 
 There were 5 religious decrees out of 18 in 
 405. Two related to the Manichean and 
 Donatist heresies, former statutes being put 
 in force or threatened : " Una sit catholica 
 veneratio, una Salus sit, Trinitatis par sibique 
 congruens Sanctitas expetatur." XVI. vi. 3, 
 14 were against the repetition of baptism, 
 which some persons seem to have thought 
 might be repeated not only after heresy, but 
 for forgiveness of repeated sins. Persons 
 guilty of rebaptizing others were deprived of 
 all their property, which was, however, secured 
 to their heirs if orthodox. The contumacious 
 were threatened with loss of all civil rights, and 
 there was a heavy fine for connivance. 
 
 The irruption of the pagan and ferocious 
 Radagaisus is dated by Gibbon 406, by Tille- 
 mont 405. He had to capitulate and was be- 
 headed, and so many of his (iermans were sold 
 as slaves that their price fell to a single gold 
 piece. After this invasion and in his desper- 
 ate circumstances as the last general of Italy's 
 last army. Stilicho apparently turned towards 
 his worthiest enemy and felt the necessity of 
 making terms with Alaric. Stilicho was slain 
 at Ravenna Aug. 23, 408. 
 
 Alaric now (Oct. 408) crossed the Alps on 
 pretence of a large claim of money. Honorius 
 fled to Ravenna, and Alaric besieged Rome for 
 the first time, but accepted a large ransom 
 in 409 and withdrew into Tuscany. He re- 
 newed the siege in the same year, and Rome 
 submitted. Attains was proclaimed emperor 
 by him. In 410 the capture and sack of Rome 
 followed. x-Vlaric died before the end of the 
 year, and in 412 the Goths under Adolf with- 
 drew into Gaul, where Adolf remained until 
 driven into Spain about 3 years after. 
 
 A.D. 407. 408. T.C. XVi. V. 40, 41 included 
 the Manichean, Phrygian, and Priscillianist 
 sects in the liabilities of the Donatists, i.e. loss 
 of rights of property and succession, gift, sale, 
 contract, will, and right to restrain orthodox 
 slaves from worship. Heresy was expressly 
 made a public offence, because crimen in 
 religione divina in omnium fertur injuriam, 
 but by c. 41 simple" confessio " or acknow- 
 ledgment of error and return to orthodox 
 service sufficed for restoration to all rights, and 
 Honorius shewed genuine anxiety to recall his 
 people to the right path on easy terms. XVI. 
 ii. 38 enacted clerical immunities for Africa. 
 In 408, XVI. viii. 18 stated that at the feast 
 of Purim ( " .A.man ad recordationem") the Jews 
 were accustomed to burn or insult the cross. 
 j This was to cease, their other ceremonies were 
 j " infra contemptum Christianae legis," and 
 1 might continue. There were 6 statutes on 
 heretics and pagans— XVI. v. 42-45, with XVI. 
 X. ig, and V. xiv. 7 — and XVI. ii. 36, de Epis- 
 copis. Enemies to the Catholic faith were for- 
 bidden to serve in the emperor's palace guard. 
 ' All statutes against Donatists. Manicheans, and 
 I Priscillianists were to be fully enforced, and 
 a new sect called Caelicolae were, with them, 
 I to be deprived of all buildings for public 
 j assemblage. Donatists who had not yet con- 
 
HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 
 
 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 4'.i3 
 
 fessed their heresy, but only withdrawn from (W'l. vi. 6, 7) the settlement efferted by 
 Catholic service (" saevae relitjionis obtentu ") Marcellinus on Honnrius's i>art at Carthage, 
 were included. Certain Jews and Donatists between the orthodox and the Donatists, 
 had insulted the Sacraments, and were to be which, Tillemont says, brought the heresy to 
 punished; illegal assemblage for heretical wor- an end. Against any public assemblage for 
 ship was again prt)hibited. XV'I. ii. 39 provi- I heretical purposes, v. 56. Hy v. 57 Muntan- 
 ded that a degraded cleric who had renounced ist congregations were forbidden ; their clergy 
 clerical office should be at once made a curialis to be banished if tiiey attempted to ordain 
 and forbidden to resume his orders. others. Harbourers to be deprived of the 
 
 A.D. 4oq. De Haereticis, X\'I. v. 46, Jan., 47, house or property where the heretic rcmaim-d. 
 June. Two edicts to enforce laws on Jews, Their places of mei-ting, if any were Idt 
 Gentiles, or pagans, and heretics. Tillemont standing, to be the property of the cluinli. 
 says that the death of Stiiicho caused a general By c. 58 houses of Eunomian clergy were 
 outbreak of heretics, the Donatists of Africa in confiscated to the fise ; or any in which second 
 particular asserting that his laws against them 1 baptism has been administered. Their clergy 
 were now abrogated. Two edicts in March were exiled, and they were again deprived of 
 and July forbad amusements (" volujitates ") testamentary and military rights. Ail these, 
 on Sunday and exempted Jews from public except the last, were addressed to Africa. By 
 calls on their Sabbath (II. viii. 25, 26). ; III. xii. 4 marriage with a deceased wife's 
 
 In 410 there were 4 decrees (out of 19) on sister or husband's brother was forbidden, 
 heresy. The Montanists, Priscillianists, and XVI. x. 20. All pagan priests were required 
 others were forbidden military service, and to return to their native place. Confiscation 
 other means of exemption from curial burdens to the church or the emperor of lands and 
 (XVI. V. 48). To the intestacy of the Euno- grounds used for pagan purposes. To become 
 mians was added the reversion of bequests to a pagan was now a capital offence. In 416 
 the fisc, if no orthodox heir survive; c. 51 Gentiles, or persons guilty of participation in 
 altogether abrogated a former imperial ora- pagan rites, were excluded from the army and 
 culum or rescript, by which certain heretics from official or judicial positions. In 423 
 
 had been allowed to meet in secret. XVI. xi. 3 I Honorius renewed all his edicts against heresy, 
 confirmed all existing religious statutes. [ with special mention of Manicheans, Phry- 
 
 A.D. 411, 412. XVI. v. 52, Jan. Heavy ! gians, Priscillianists, Arians, Macedonians, 
 
 fines, or total confiscation of property, on 
 obstinate Donatists. Pressure was to be 
 
 Eunomians, Novatianists, and Sabbatiani. 
 XVI. V. 59, 60. He was able to say that he 
 
 exercised by masters on their slaves, and by believed there were very few pagans remain- 
 the local authorities on coloni. Heretical ing, and so far his persecution may seem to 
 clergv banished from Africa (c. 53). Jovinian s have been successful, as with the Donatists 
 and others, his followers, to 'be corporally I and others. Other and more powerful causes 
 punished and banished to island of Boas, were at work, and error and idolatry were 
 on coast of Dalraatia. XVI. ii. 40,41, d£ taking other forms. The remarkable statute 
 £/^i'sco^is. Church properties exempted from (.XVI. x. 22 and 23) ran thus: " Paganos, 
 fugatio (a kind of land-tax by acreage, Bris- si qui supersunt, quanquam jam nuUos esse 
 son), also from repairs of public roads and credamus, promulgatorum legum jam dudum 
 bridges. Bv c. 41 clergv were to be tried only praescripta compescant." The next (c. 23) 
 before their' bishops and unnecessary scandal \ stated that pagans caught in acts of idolatrous 
 avoided bv only bringing accusations which ; ceremonial ought to be capitally punished, 
 could be definitely proved. For perfect toler- j but are only subject to loss of property 
 ance towards the Jews, XVI. viii. 20, 21. and exile. He denounced the same sentence 
 
 In 418 Wallia and his Visigoths were settled in c. 24 on Manicheans and Pepuzitae, who 
 in the S.W. of France with Toulouse for their were worse than all other heretics, saying, 
 capital. Britain was entirely lost, and the " quod in venerabili die Paschatis ab omnibus 
 Armoricans were maintaining themselves in dissentiant." He ended with a strong 
 independence. A fresh revolt under another ; caution against any violence on Christian 
 Maximus seems not to have been suppressed pretences to pagans or Jews leading quiet and 
 till 422. Wallia, however, acted in Spain as a legal lives, with penalty of triple or fourfold 
 feudal ally of the empire, won a succession of restitution. Two more decrees this year 
 victories over the Alani, Vandals, and Suevi, restored all fabrics taken from the Jews, even 
 and restored great part of the peninsula to for church purposes ; or, in case the holy 
 Honorius, who is said bv Prosper's Chronicle mysteries had been celebrated in such build- 
 to have entered Rome in triumph a second ings, equal accommodation should be provided 
 time. The Burgundians occupied the two for the former holders. 
 
 provinces which still bear their name, and the j Honorius possessed no character except a 
 Franks were settled on the Rhine. All con- 1 timid docility, but with some natural goodness 
 tinued to acknowledge the title of Honorius, of heart or gentleness, otherwise he could 
 and to hold titles from the empire ; and all ; not have continued to reign so disastrously 
 accepted the civil law and magistracy of Rome, for 28 years. It must be remembered, in 
 Honorius himself had confirmed the independ- excuse of his coercive action, that persecu- 
 ence of Britain and Armorica c. 410, and died tion was no invention of his or Theodosius's, 
 of dropsy in his 40th vear (423), Aug. 27. but an inheritance of the empire. Sue h 
 
 His later legislation has little historical questions as the expediency or the possibility 
 interest, but the enactments on paganism and of perfic t toleration, the limits of pressure or 
 heresy from 413 to 423 were as follows : Two coercion, and what body in the state is to 
 against repetition of baptism, a.d. 413 ; two exercise it, have been debated in theory and 
 against Donatists, v, 54, 55. These comprise hewn out in practice, from the beginnings ol 
 
494 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 
 
 society, and are still unsettled. Nor can they 
 be solved, unless the relation of the individual 
 conscience to the public, and of the individual 
 soul to the church, were accurately known and 
 defined. That there is a point at which the 
 church militant must cease to strive with 
 invincible ignorance or determined error, 
 leaving them to the civil power, as civil 
 dangers or nuisances only, seems a rule which 
 the sad experience of 1800 years has but 
 imperfectly taught the Christian world. Only 
 the great spirit of .\thanasius seems to have 
 anticipated it in his day, though he did not 
 always act on it. The world knew no toler- 
 ance, and never had known it in Honorius's 
 time ; and his position as emperor com- 
 pelled him to do as other emperors had done 
 before him. The temptation to a Christian 
 emperor to hold heresy or paganism an 
 offence against the State, which he personified 
 (at least on earth, and in heathen theory in 
 heaven), was too much for man. Without 
 asserting that all the faults of the Christian 
 church may be traced to the fatal gift of 
 Constantine, we cannot doubt that her 
 alliance with the temporal power proved as 
 dangerous as her investiture with temporal 
 rule was fabulous. Pagan emperors had 
 claimed to rule as personal and present 
 divinity, and this claim had always specially 
 embittered their persecution of the Christian 
 faith. It was never, in fact, withdrawn ; the 
 ruler of Rome was invested with an awe 
 beyond man, and that, in fact, descended to 
 the mediaeval popedom. Constantine him- 
 self had allowed his statues to be worshipped 
 with incense and lights, and so most unhappily 
 encouraged the earlier iconodulism of half- 
 Christianized Greeks. But the connexion he 
 instituted between the temporal and spiritual 
 power tempted a Christian despot like Theo- 
 dosius, under guidance of a great representa- 
 tive of the church, to think that God was 
 surely with them in whatever persecuting 
 edict they set forth ; and thus Justinian's 
 words, " Sacrilegii instar est dubitare " {Cod. 
 IX. xxix. 3), were literally meant, and logic- 
 ally, if not conscientiously, believed. The 
 empire could not forget its traditions. Ex- 
 cuses which are admitted by Christians for 
 Aurelius or Diocletian ought to be considered 
 in behalf of Theodosius and his sons. The 
 fierceness and necessities of their age must be 
 allowed as palliations. 
 
 Theodosius's 15 edicts in 15 years, from 
 380-384, extend over the ministers, assem- 
 blies and persons of heretics, and make not 
 only the Manichean heresy punishable by 
 death, but the Quartodeciman error as to 
 keeping Easter. Ambrose, like other Church- 
 men, could not abstain from the use of the 
 mighty arm of flesh at his command, and the 
 institution of inquisitors must certainly have 
 been an ecclesiastical measure. It should be 
 remembered that the Christian faith had by its 
 own influences so elevated and organized the 
 influence of the human conscience as to have 
 become a temporal power by the nature of 
 things. The Christian spiritual power ruled 
 men's persons and fortunes ; the bishop was in 
 fact obeyed by his large share of the popula- 
 tion, and became a temporal magistrate be- 
 cause men made him arbitrate for them. (See 
 
 HORMISDAS 
 
 Guizot, Civ. in Europe, lect. ii. p. 34, ed. Bohn.) 
 He was consequently involved with the civil 
 power in coercive measures of all kinds and in 
 all directions. 
 
 Lastly, the empire was divided between 
 Rome and Constantinople, but Italy between 
 Rome and Milan or Ravenna. Ambrose must 
 have felt that the remaining paganism of Rome 
 was his chief difficulty, and his influence must 
 have been accordingly exerted on Honorius in 
 his first days. Hence, perhaps, his supine- 
 ness and indifference to the fate of Rome, and 
 perhaps, in a great degree, the paralysis of 
 Italian defence as soon as the barbaric genius 
 of Stilicho was withdrawn. 
 
 A coin of Honorius is figured in Smith's 
 Diet, of G. and R. Biogr. s.v. The counten- 
 ance has an inexpressiveness which may have 
 belonged to him in a special degree, but 
 extends to most portraiture after the 3rd 
 cent. Another represents the emperor in the 
 paludamentum, bearing a globe and the 
 labarum. On another, with Vota Publica, are 
 two emperors with nimbi, which is important 
 evidence of the derivation of that symbol from 
 imperial effigies (seeTyrwhitt, Art Teaching of 
 Prim. Ch.. Index" Nimbus"). [r.st.j.t.] 
 
 Hormisdas (3), bp. of Rome after Symma- 
 chus from July 26, 514, to Aug. 6, 523, Anasta- 
 sius and Justin being successively emperors of 
 the East and Theodoric ruling the West as 
 king of Italy. Hormisdas was a native of 
 Frusino in Campania. Pope Silverius [ace. 
 536) is said to have been his son (Liberat. 
 Breviar. 22). The memorable event of his 
 pontificate was the restoration of communion 
 between Rome and Constantinople, which had 
 been interrupted since 484, in connexion with 
 the Eutychian heresy. [Felix III. ; Aca- 
 cius.] The first overtures were made in 515 
 by the emperor Anastasius, being moved 
 thereto by \Mtalian, a Scythian, the command- 
 er of the imperial cavalry, who, having taken up 
 the cause of orthodoxy, made himself master of 
 Thrace, Scythia, and \lysia, and marched with 
 an army of Huns and Bulgarians to the gates 
 of Constantinople, .\nastasius had to pro- 
 I cure peace by assenting to 3 conditions, one 
 I being that he should summon a council at 
 Heraclea, the pope being in%-ited and free 
 discussion allowed (Theophan. Chron. ad an. 
 Imp. Anast. 23). In 515 the emperor wrote 
 to Hormisdas, desiring his concurrence in 
 ] restoring unity to the church by means of 
 j such acouncil; and Hormisdas, after a guarded 
 i reply, sent legates to Constantinople with 
 letters to the emperor and Vitalian, and a 
 statement of the necessary conditions for 
 union. These were : (i) The emperor should 
 issue to all bishops of his dominion a written 
 declaration accepting the council of Chalcedon 
 and the letters of pope Leo. (2) A like de- 
 claration should be publicly signed by the 
 Eastern bishops, who should also anathema- 
 tize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Aelurus, 
 Peter Mongus, Peter the Fuller, and Acacius, 
 with all their followers. (3) Persons exiled 
 for religion should be recalled and their 
 cases reserved for the judgment of the apos- 
 tolic see. (4) Such exiles as had been in 
 communion with Rome and professed the 
 catholic faith should first be recalled. (5) 
 Bishops accused of having persecuted the 
 
t 
 
 HORMISDAS 
 
 orthodox sliould be sent to Rome to be judned. 
 Thus the emperor proposed a free discussion 
 in council ; the pope required the uutiualilied 
 acceptance of orthodoxy, and submission to 
 himself as head of Christendom, before he 
 would treat at all. He did not reject the 
 idea of a council, but, from his point of view, 
 none was wanted. The Easterns had but to 
 renounce their errors and accept the terms of 
 reconciliation dictated by the apostolic see, 
 and peace would be at once restored. 
 
 This attempt failed, as .\nastasius, though 
 now professing orthodo.xy, demurred to eras- 
 ing the name of Acacius from the diptychs. 
 But he continued his overtures. In 516 he 
 sent two distinguished laymen to Rome with 
 a letter to Hormisdas. But Hiirmisdas con- 
 tinued resolute, and the emperor dismissed the 
 bishops already assembled at Heraclea for the 
 intended council. In a letter to Avitus of 
 Vienne (317) the pope, referring to this 
 embassy, complains of the fruitless and per- 
 fidious promises of the Greeks, but rejoices at 
 the faithfulness of the churches of Gaul, 
 Thrace, Dardania, and lUyricum, which had 
 stood firm against persecution in the com- 
 munion of Rome. It appears that 40 bishops 
 of Illyricum and Greece had renounced 
 obedience to their metropolitan of Thessa- 
 lonica and sent to Hormisdas to seek com- 
 munion with Rome (Theophan. Chron.). 
 
 Hormisdas, building on the emperor's 
 political necessities, sent in 517 a second 
 embassy to the East with increased demands. 
 They were charged with a rule of faith (regula 
 fidei) for the signature of all who desired 
 reconciliation with Rome which was more 
 exacting than any previous document. The 
 signers were to declare that, mindful of the 
 text "Thou art Peter," etc., the truth of which 
 has been proved by the immaculate religion 
 ever maintained by the apostolic see, they 
 profess in all things to follow that see, and to 
 desire communion with it. Accordingly they 
 were to accept the decrees of Chalcedon and 
 the " tome " of pope Leo, and also all letters on 
 religion he had ever written ; and not only to 
 anathematize Xestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, 
 Timothy .Belarus, Peter Fullo, and Acacius, 
 with all their followers, but also exclude from 
 their diptychs all who had been " sequestrated 
 from catholic communion," which is explained 
 to mean communion with the apostt)lic see. 
 Such demands ended the negotiations, and 
 Anastasius peremptorily dismissed the legates, 
 and sent a reply to Hormisdas (July 11, 317) 
 which ended : "We can bear to be injured 
 and set at naught ; we will not be commanded " 
 (Hormisd. Epp. post. Ep. xxii. Labbe). 
 
 Persecutions were now renewed in the East. 
 The monasteries of the orthodox in Syria 
 Secunda were burnt and 330 monks mas- 
 sacred. The survivors sent a deputation to 
 the pope, acknowledging in ample terms the 
 supremacy of " the most holy and blessed 
 patriarch of the whole world," " the successor 
 of the Prince of the .\postles," and " the Head 
 of all." They implore him to exercise his 
 power of binding and loosing in defence of the 
 true faith, and to anathematize all heretics, 
 including Acacius {ib.). To this appeal Hor- 
 misdas replied in a letter to all the orthodox in 
 the East, exhorting them to steadfastness in 
 
 HORMISDAS 
 
 495 
 
 the faith of Chalcedon, and to patience under 
 present straits (in A< t. V. i onctl. Conslanlin. 
 Labbe, vol. v. \k i i i i). 
 
 The death of .-Vnast.isius (July 0. 51S) ami 
 the accession of the orthodox Justin chanKeil 
 the aspect of affairs. During divine service at 
 Constantinople, while John the Cappadorian 
 (who had lately succeeded Timotheus as 
 patriarch) was officiating, the populace, who 
 had been all along on the orthodox side, seem 
 to have made a riot in the church in the 
 impatience of their orthodox zeal, crving, 
 " Long live the emperor ! " " Long live the 
 patriarch ! " They would not brook delay. 
 By continued cries, by closing the doors of 
 the church and saying they would not leave 
 it till he had done what they wanted, they 
 compelled him to i)ro(laim the acceptance of 
 the four gcncr.d (oiuk ils, including Chalcedon. 
 A synod, attetidcd liy some 40 bishops, ratified 
 what the patriarch liad done. Letters were 
 sent to various Eastern metropolitans, in- 
 cluding those of Jerusalem, Tyre, and Syria 
 Secunda, who forthwith reported to the synod 
 the full acceptance of orthodoxy by their 
 several churches (?6. p. ii3i,etc.). Coercive 
 measures were used by Justin. In two edicts 
 he ordered the restoration of the orthodox 
 exiled by Anastasius, the acknowledgment of 
 the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs of all 
 churches, and declared heretics incapable of 
 public offices, civil or nulitary. 
 
 The pope insisted upon the erasure of the 
 name of Acacius and the subscription of the 
 rule of faith rejected by Anastasius as the first 
 steps to restoration of communion. In 319 
 Hormisdas sent a legation to Constantino- 
 ple, charged with letters to the emperor and 
 patriarch, and also to the empress Euphemia 
 and other persons of distinction, including 
 three influential ladies. Anastasia, Palmatia, 
 and Anicia. They carried with them the 
 libellus described above, to be signed by all 
 who desired reconciliation. 
 
 At Constantinople they were met by 
 Vitalian, Justinian, and other senators, and 
 received by the emperor in the presence of the 
 senate and a deputation of four bishops to 
 represent the iiatriarch. The libellus was 
 read ; the bishops had nothing to say against 
 it, and the emperor and senators recommended 
 them to accept it. The patriarch proved 
 unwilling to sign it as it stootl ; but at length, 
 after much contention, it was agreed that he 
 might embody the libellus unaltered in a 
 letter, with his own preamble. This was 
 done, the names of Acacius and his successors 
 in the see, Fravitas, Euphemius, Macedonius, 
 and Timotheus, and of the emperors Zeiio and 
 Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs ; 
 the bishops of other cities, and the archi- 
 mandrites who had been jireviously reluctant, 
 now came to terms ; and the legates wrote to 
 the pope expressing thankfulness that so 
 complete a triumiih had been won without 
 sedition, tumult, or shedding of blood. The 
 patriarch's preamble was a protest against the 
 claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion 
 to Constantinople and an assertion of the 
 co-ordinate authority of his own see. He 
 says, " Know therefore, most holy one, that, 
 according to what 1 have written, agreeing in 
 the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, 
 
496 
 
 HORMISDAS 
 
 renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee : 
 for I hold the most holy churches of the elder 
 and of the new Rome to be one ; I define that 
 see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial 
 city to be one see." The same view of the 
 unity of the two sees is expressed in his letter 
 to Hormisdas. Even Justin, in his letter to 
 the pope, guards against implying that the 
 authority of Constantinople was inferior to 
 that of Rome, saying that " John, the prelate 
 of our new Rome, with his clergy, agrees with 
 you," and that " all concur in complying with 
 what is your wish, as well as that of the Con- 
 stantinopolitan see." Peace being thus 
 
 concluded at Constantinople, a deputation 
 was sent to Thessalonica, headed by bp. John, 
 the papal legate, to receive the submission of 
 that church. Dorotheus, bp. of Thessalonica, 
 tore the libellus in two before the people, and 
 declared that never would he sign it or assent 
 to such as did. Hormisdas, on hearing of this, 
 wrote to the emperor, requiring that Doro- 
 theus should be deposed. But Dorotheus 
 was summoned to Constantinople to be tried, 
 sent thence to Heraclea while his cause was 
 being heard, and eventually allowed to return 
 to his see. He and his church were now re- 
 stored to Catholic communion, and he wrote a 
 respectful letter to the pope (a.d. 520) express- 
 ing great regard for him personally and for the 
 apostolic see. Hormisdas replied that he was 
 anxious to believe in his innocence, and in his 
 being the author of the peace now concluded, 
 but expressed dissatisfaction that he " de- 
 layed even to follow those whom he ought to 
 have led," and hoped he would "repel from 
 himself the odium of so great a crime, and in 
 reconciliation to the faith would at length 
 follow the example of those who had returned." 
 It thus seems clear that Dorotheus, though 
 professing orthodoxy and restored by the em- 
 peror to his see, had not so far fully complied, 
 if he ever did, with the pope's terms {Inter 
 Epp. Hormisd. Ixii. Ixiii. Ixxii. Ixxiii.). 
 
 Notwithstanding the general triumph of 
 orthodoxy throughout the East, except at 
 Alexandria, the unbending pertinacity of 
 Hormisdas still caused difficulties. In 520 
 the emperor Justinian and Epiphanius (who 
 had succeeded John as patriarch) wrote urgent 
 letters to him on the subject. They alleged 
 that, though the condition was complied with 
 in the imperial city, yet no small part of the 
 Orientals, especially in the provinces of 
 Pontus, Asia, and Oriens, would not be com- 
 pelled by sword, fire, or torments to comply, 
 and they implored the pope not to be more 
 exacting than his predecessors. The pope 
 persisted in his demand, and urged Justin, as 
 a duty, not to shrink from coercion. He 
 authorized Epiphanius to deal at his dis- 
 cretion with various cases (ib. Ixxii. Concil. 
 Constant, act. V. Labbe, vol. v. p. 1119). 
 
 A nice question, arising out of the now 
 defined orthodox doctrine of One Person and 
 Two Natures in Christ, came before Hormisdas 
 for settlement. There being but one Person- 
 ality in the Incarnate Word, and that Divine, 
 it seemed correct to say that this Divine 
 Person suffered ; and yet to say this seemed 
 to attribute passibility to the Godhead. It 
 was undoubted Nestorian heresy to deny that 1 
 He Whom the Blessed Virgin brought forth 
 
 HORMISDAS 
 
 was God. But He Who was brought forth was 
 the same with Him Who suffered on the Cross. 
 On the other hand " God was crucified " had 
 been a favourite Monophysite formula, used 
 to emphasize their doctrine of the absorption 
 of the human nature into the divine ; and 
 great offence had formerly been given to the 
 orthodox by the addition of " Who wast 
 crucified for us " to the Trisagion by Peter 
 FuUo. The adoption of this addition at 
 Constantinople under Anastasius had caused 
 a popular tumult, and it was probably its 
 abrogation during the reaction under Justin 
 that caused certain Scythian monks to defend 
 the formula, and to maintain that " one of 
 the holy and undivided Trinity" suffered. 
 The question was laid before the legates of 
 Hormisdas, when in Constantinople, a.d. 519. 
 They decided against the Scythian monks, 
 arguing that the faith had been fully and 
 sufficiently defined at Chalcedon and in the 
 letter of pope Leo, and that the formula of the 
 monks was an unauthorized novelty, likely to 
 lead to serious heresy. The monks contended 
 that its adoption was necessary for rendering 
 the definitions of Chalcedon distinct against 
 Nestorianism. \'italian seems to have sup- 
 ported them. Justin and Justinian begged 
 the pope to settle the question. He wrote to 
 desire that the monks should be kept at Con- 
 stantinople ; but they managed to get to 
 Rome to lay their case before him {Ep. Ixxix. 
 Labbe). At length they left Rome, having 
 publicly proclaimed their views there. Hor- 
 misdas does not seem to have actually con- 
 demned the expression of the monks, though 
 annoyed by their propounding it, but spoke 
 strongly against it as an unnecessary novelty. 
 In the end, however, their view triumphed. 
 For in 533 the emperor Justinian issued an 
 edict asserting that " the sufferings and 
 miracles are of one and the same — for we do 
 not acknowledge God the Word to be one and 
 Christ another, but one and the same : for the 
 Trinity remained even after the Incarnation 
 of the One Word of God, Who was of the 
 Trinity ; for the Holy Trinity does not admit 
 of the addition of a fourth person. We 
 anathematize Nestorius the man-worshipper, 
 and those who think with him, who deny that 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our 
 God, Incarnate, made man, and crucified, was 
 One of the holy consubstantial Trinity " {Lex 
 Justinian, a.d. 533, Cod. I. i. 6 ; Joann. Pap. 
 ii. Epp. in Patr. Lat. Ixvi. 18 b), and it has 
 since been accounted orthodox to affirm that 
 God suffered in the flesh, though in His 
 assumed human, not in His original divine, 
 nature. (See Pearson On the Creed, art. iv.). 
 Hormisdas died early in Aug. 523, having 
 held the see 9 years and 11 days. He, as well 
 as all the popes during the schism with the 
 East, except the too conciliatory Anastasius, 
 has had his firmness acknowledged by canon- 
 ization, his day in the Roman Calendar being 
 Aug. 6. His extant writings consist of letters, 
 80 being attributed to him, one of which, to 
 St. Remigius (in which he gives him vicariate 
 jurisdiction over the kingdom of Clovis which 
 he had converted), is probably spurious, as it 
 implies that Clovis was still reigning, though 
 he had died in 5 1 1, more than two years before 
 the election of Hormisdas. Most of the 
 
HOSIUS 
 
 remaining 70 letters refer to the affairs of the 
 East, several to the metropolitan see of Nico- 
 polis in Epirus (Hormisd. vi.-ix., xvii.-xxii.). 
 
 Three letters of Hormisdas (xxiv.-xxvi.), to 
 John. bp. of Tarragona, Sallustius, bp. of 
 Seville, and the bishops of Spain in general, 
 give the two prelates vicariate jurisdiction 
 over E. and \V. Spain, exhort against simony 
 and other irregularities, and direct the regular 
 convention of synods. Cf. Thiel, Epp. Pontiff. 
 Kom. i. 
 
 Hormisdas had great administrative and 
 diplomatic abilities, was singularly uncom- 
 promising and tirm of purpose, and one of the 
 most strenuous and successful assertors of the 
 supremacy of the Roman see. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Hosius (1), (Osius), a confessor under Maxi- 
 mian, and bp. of Corduba, the capital of the 
 province of Baetica in Spain. He took a 
 leading part on the catholic side in the con- 
 troversies of the first half of the 4th cent. For 
 nearly 50 years he was the foremost bishop of 
 his time, held in universal esteem and enjoy- 
 ing unbounded influence. Eusebius says, " He 
 was approved for the sobriety and genuineness 
 of his faith, had distinguished himself by the 
 boldness of his religious profession, and his 
 fame was widely spread" (Vit. Cons. bk. ii. 
 cc 63, 73). Socrates calls him " the cele- 
 brated Hosius" (H. E. ii. 29). Sozomensays: 
 "He was honoured for his faith, virtuous life, 
 and steadfast confession of truth " (H. E. i. 
 16). Athanasius is never weary of repeating 
 his praises. " Of the great Hosius," he says, 
 " who answers to his name, that confessor of 
 a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to 
 speak, for he is not an obscure person, but of 
 all men the most illustrious " (Apol. de Fugd, 
 § 7). Considering his great renown and his 
 prominent part in affairs, it is remarkable how 
 very little is known of his personal history. 
 There seems no reason to doubt Eusebius, .ath- 
 anasius, and others, who make him a native 
 of Spain. Athanasius says {Hist. Ariau. § 45) 
 that when Hosius was more than 100 years 
 old, and had been more than 60 years a bishop, 
 he was summoned by Constantius from Spain 
 to Sirmium, and there subscribed an Arian 
 formula about the middle of a.d. 357. Soon 
 afterwards he returned to his native country 
 and died. We may probably, therefore, place 
 his birth c. 256, as Tillemont does [Mem. t. vii. 
 p. 302, 4to ed.). 
 
 The common view that he suffered for the 
 Christian faith in Diocletian's persecution 
 between 303 and 305 is more than doubtful. 
 We have his own testimony in his letter to 
 Constantius (the son of Constantine) preserved 
 by .\thanasius {Hist. Arian. § 44). " 1 was a 
 confessor at the first, when a persecution arose 
 in the time of your grandfather Maximian." 
 These words can hardly refer to the general 
 persecution enjoined by Diocletian. The 
 allusion seems to be to the persecution of 
 which the chief promoter was Maximian, the 
 Augustus and colleague, not the son-in-law, of 
 Diocletian. Maximianus Herculius was made 
 Caesar in 285, and Augustus in 286. as is shewn 
 by coins and inscriptions (cf. Clinton, Fasti 
 Romani, vol. i. p. 328), and for six years the 
 Roman empire was divided between these two 
 rulers, Diocletian having the East and Maxi- 
 mian the West. In 292 a further partition of 
 
 HOSIUS 
 
 497 
 
 the empire took i>lare hv the appointment o( 
 two Caesars, Constantius Chlorus (the father 
 of Constantine) and (ialerius Maximianus. 
 When Constantius was made Caesar in 292, 
 Maximian's half of the empire was subdivided. 
 *' Cuncta quae trans .Mpes (lalliae sunt Con- 
 stantiocommissa ; .Africa Italiaijue Herculio" 
 (Aur. Vict, de Caesar, xxxix. 30). On the 
 abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, 
 Gaul, with Italy and Africa, was given to Con- 
 stantius, and the rest of the empire toCalcrius. 
 But Constantius, content with the dignitv of 
 Augustus, refused to administer Italy and 
 Africa(Eutropius, X. i). Orosius similarly says 
 that Constantius. " Italiam, Africam, Hispani- 
 am et (lallias obtinuit. Sed, vir tranquillissi- 
 mus, (lallia tantuin Hispaniaque contentus, 
 Cialerio caeteris jiatribus cessit" {Hist. vii. 2f,). 
 Constantius, says Sozomen (//. E. i. 6), was 
 not willing that Christianity should be ac- 
 counted unlawful in the countries beyond the 
 confines of Italy, i.e. in Caul, Britain, or the 
 region of the Pyrenaean mountains as far as 
 the western ocean. These facts shew that in 
 the division of the empire Spain was always 
 an appendage of Gaul, and under the same 
 administration. If so, it was under the 
 jurisdiction of Constantius, and, as both 
 Lactantiusand Eusebius aftirm, that Constan- 
 tius took no part in the persecution of the 
 Christians, it could not have been in his 
 period that Hosius became a confessor. 
 When, then, did he suffer ? We have his own 
 testimony that he had been a confessor in the 
 time of Maximian. Probably it was in some 
 special and local persecution carried out under 
 the orders of Maximianus Herculius while he 
 was sole ruler of the West, before Constantius 
 was appointed Caesar in 292, and much be- 
 fore the general persecution authorized by 
 the edicts of Diocletian in 303. It is very 
 probable that between 286 and 292, while 
 Maximian was sole ruler of the West, there 
 were many martyrdoms in Spain as well as 
 in Gaul and Italy. Hosius would have been 
 then between 30 and 36 years old, and it is 
 far more likely that he suffered persecution 
 and witnessed a good confession then than 
 later under the mild rule of Constantius. 
 Beyond Hosius's own statement, we have no 
 contemporary evidence upon the subject. 
 
 As the bishops and officers of the church 
 generally suffered first in the outbreaks of 
 persecution, it is more than probable that 
 Hosius was already bp. of Corduba when he 
 became a confessor. His earliest public act 
 with which we are acquainted was his presence 
 as bp. of Corduba at the synod of Elvira, but 
 the date of this synod, like that of other events 
 in his history, is involved in much obscurity. 
 Mendoza, who has written more fully upon it 
 than any other author, is of opinion that it 
 should be placed in 300 or 301. Nineteen 
 
 bishops from difl.r<iit i)arts of Si>ain wire 
 present, hence it iiiav be regarded as represent- 
 ing the whole < hurcli iA Spain. The president 
 was Felix of Acci (Guadix) in Baetica, pro- 
 bably the oldest bishop present. The name 
 of Hosius comes next. As a rule the order of 
 signatures to the Acts of councils indicates the 
 order of precedence among the bishops, either 
 according to the date of their consecration <ir 
 the importance of their episcopal see* (Hefele, 
 32 
 
498 
 
 HOSIUS 
 
 Hist, of Councils, vol. i. 64, Eng. trans.)- As 
 Hosius was probably not over 45 years old, 
 his high position could not have been due to 
 his age, but must have been in right of his see. 
 We infer, therefore, that Corduba then held 
 the first place among the cities of Spain. 
 
 It is now very difficult to form a true con- 
 ception of Corduba in its ancient grandeur. 
 Tn the ist and the beginning of the 2nd cents. 
 Spain reached a very high development in 
 the social system of Rome. Roman influence 
 had so spread in Baetica that the natives had 
 forgotten their own language. Roman schools 
 were opened in the coloniae and municipia, the 
 most brilliant being at Corduba and Osca. 
 For nearly two centuries Spain produced men 
 remarkable in all kinds of culture. Lucan and 
 the two Senecas were born at Corduba, its 
 schools thus furnishing rivals even to Vergil 
 and Cicero. In the time of Hosius this 
 intellectual activity had considerably declined, 
 and pre-eminence in literary culture had 
 passed to the province of Africa. But Cor- 
 duba must still have retained a high place in 
 the social development of the time. A man 
 called to such an important see would most 
 probably be one of some personal distinction. 
 Baronius(adann. 57) attaches little importance 
 to this synod, which he suspects of Novatianist 
 tendencies. The very first canon, indeed, 
 decrees that adults who have sacrificed to idols 
 have committed a capital crime and can never 
 again be received into communion. Such a 
 denial of pardon to those who lapsed under 
 persecution was the chief error of Novatian 
 (Socr. H. E. iv. 28). The Novatianist dis- 
 cipline was very rigid in other respects also, 
 especially with reference to carnal sins, and 
 many of the canons of Elvira relate to such 
 offences, and their stern and austere spirit 
 shews how deeply the Fathers at Elvira were 
 influenced by Novatianist principles. Though 
 we cannot trace the hand of Hosius in the 
 composition of these canons, yet as he was a 
 leading member of the synod, its decrees would 
 doubtless be in harmony with his convictions. 
 
 For 12 or 13 years after this synod nothing 
 is known of his life. He then seems to have 
 been brought into close personal relations 
 with the emperor Constantine, and thence- 
 forward his acts form part of the history of his 
 time. It would be interesting to know how 
 Hosius acquired the great influence over Con- 
 stantine which it is believed he exercised up 
 to the time of the Nicene council. But there 
 is not a single passage in any ancient writer 
 which relates the origin of their connexion. 
 
 The absence of Hosius from the synod of 
 Aries, Aug. i, 314, the most numerously at- 
 tended council that had hitherto been held in 
 Christendom, is remarkable. Bishops from 
 Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Britain were assembled 
 as representatives of the whole Western 
 church. Constantine was absent, being en- 
 gaged in his first war with Licinius in Panno- 
 nia. Possibly Hosius may have been in 
 attendance upon the emperor, as we learn 
 from Eusebius (Vit. Const, ii. 4) that in 
 this campaign Constantine took with him 
 " the priests of God," for the benefit of their 
 prayers and " to have them constantly about 
 his person, as most trusty guardians of the 
 soul." Traces exist of the presence of 
 
 HOSIUS 
 
 Hosius at the imperial court in 316, when the 
 Donatists, having been condemned at the 
 council in Nov. at Milan by the emperor him- 
 self, spread abroad a report, as we learn from 
 Augustine {cont. Ep. Parmen. lib. i. c. 8, vol. 
 ix. p. 43, ed. Migne), that by the advice of 
 Hosius, a friend of Caecilian, the catholic bp. 
 of Carthage, they had been condemned. 
 
 In the relations between Christianity and 
 paganism there is ground for thinking that the 
 position of Hosius at this time must have been 
 somewhat of a representative one on the 
 Christian side ; otherwise it is difficult to 
 understand why the emperor should have 
 addressed to him a law declaring free such 
 slaves as were emancipated in the presence of 
 the bishops or clergy (a.d. 321 ; Cod. TJieod. 
 lib. iv. tit. 7, col. 379, Hand's ed.). By the 
 end of 323 Constantine had becomesole master 
 of the Roman empire in the East and West, 
 and took measures for the re-establishment 
 of religious concord throughout his dominions. 
 To this end, says Socrates (H. E. i. 7), " he 
 sent a letter to "Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, 
 and to Arius, by a trustworthy person named 
 Hosius, who was bp. of Corduba in Spain, whom 
 the emperor greatly loved and held in the 
 highest estimation," urging them not to con- 
 tend about matters of small importance (Eus. 
 Vit. Const, ii. 63). That Hosius, a bishop of 
 the Western church, and speaking only Latin, 
 should be sent to a city in the East in which 
 Greek civilization had reached its highest 
 development is a striking proof of the high 
 opinion that the emperorhad of him. Moreover, 
 his mission gave him precedence as an imperial 
 commissioner over the bp. of Alexandria, whose 
 see ranked next to that of Rome. It is not 
 very clear what Hosius did at Alexandria, the 
 accounts being very imperfect and confused. 
 He apparently devoted himself with great 
 earnestness to refuting the dogmas of Sabellius 
 (Socr. H. E. iii. 7), but as to his steps with 
 reference to Arius, history is silent. We know, 
 however, that he failed to extinguish the flame 
 which the Arians had lighted. Finding it im- 
 possible to terminate these controversies, he 
 had to return to Constantine and acknowledge 
 that his mission had failed. The emperor there- 
 upon, probably by his advice (Sulpit. Sever. 
 Hist. ii. 55, " Nicaena synodus auctore illo 
 [Hosio] confecta habebatur"), resolved to 
 convoke an oecumenical council and to invite 
 bishops from all quarters. The council was 
 held at Nicaea in 323. The part of Hosius in it 
 hasbeen much discussed, (i) Was he the presi- 
 dent of the council, and if so (2) did he preside 
 as legate of the pope ? There is no doubt of 
 his very prominent position. Unfortunately 
 no complete account of the acts of the synod 
 is extant, if such ever existed. 
 
 (i) Roman Catholic writers, such as Baro- 
 nius, Nat. Alexander (vol. vii. p. 390), Fleury, 
 Alzog, and Hefele [Cone. i. 39), maintain that 
 he was president, but as the legate of the pope. 
 They refer to Gelasius (lib. i. c. 5), who says, 
 " Osius ex Hispanis, . . . Silvestri Episcopi 
 maximae Romae locum obtinebat " — iwex'^'' 
 (cat rdv tottov. Mansi, ii. 806 d. There is a 
 little ambiguity in these words. A man may 
 occupy a place which rightl}^ belongs to an- 
 other, but it does not follow that he is his re- 
 presentative because he sits in his seat. At this 
 
HOSIUS 
 
 epoch, althougli the bp. of Koino held the first 
 place among all his brethren, partly because 
 Rome was the principal city in the world, yet 
 his ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not appear 
 to have extended beyond the churches of the 
 ten provinces of Italy, called in the versio 
 prisca of the 6th Nicene canon " suburbicaria 
 loca." The churches of the IZast were mainly 
 under the jurisdiction of the mctrojiolitans of 
 Alexandria or Antioch, and these great bishops 
 would not brook the interference of their 
 Western brethren. Moreover, the great 
 strength of Christianity lay then in the East. 
 The West was still imperfectly Christianized. 
 It is difficult, therefore, to believe that Hosius 
 presided at the council of Nicaea — an Eastern 
 synod — as legate of the pope. 
 
 (2) But when we inquire why the usual order 
 of precedence was departed from, we are a 
 little at a loss for a satisfactory answer. Du 
 Pin (Xouv. Bib. t. ii. pt. 2, p. 315) thought that 
 Hosius presided because already acquainted 
 with the question at issue and highly esteemed 
 by the emperor. Similarly Sclirockh (Kir- 
 cheugt'schiclite. Thl. v. § 336). This seems the 
 most probable explanation. It would be 
 difficult to understand how the bishop of a see 
 in Spain took precedence over the great patri- 
 archs of the East if he had not been appointed 
 by the emperor. Hosius was at the height of 
 his reputation and enjoying the fullest con- 
 fidence of his imperial master. He was, says 
 Dean Stanley (Eastern Church, lect. iii.), " as 
 the world-renowned Spaniard, an object of 
 deeper interest to Christendom than any bp. 
 of Rome could at that time have been." The 
 power of the p<-ipes of Rome was not yet 
 sufficiently consolidated for their claim to 
 preside to have been admitted. Eleven years 
 before, at the great council of the West at 
 Aries in 314, the emperor appointed Marinus, 
 bp. of Aries, to preside, while pope Silvester 
 was represented there, as at Nicaea, by two 
 presbyters and two deacons (cf. Hefele, Cone. 
 i. i8ij. The council of Nicaea was convoked 
 by Constantine, and there is good reason to 
 believe that Hosius held the foremost place by 
 his appointment. He is believed to have been 
 the emperor's adviser in ecclesiastical matters. 
 The part that Constantine, then only a cate- 
 chumen, took in the proceedings at Nicaea 
 shews that he must have received some instruc- 
 tion as to the debated questions from an 
 orthodox teacher. It is very unlikely that 
 he could have of himself given such a philo- 
 sophical explanation of the Hiimoousion as he 
 did (see the letter addressed by Kusebius to 
 the Christians at Caesarea and |)reserved by 
 Socrates, H. E. i. 8). Again, the emperor's 
 letter to the churches respecting the council 
 (Eus. Vit. Co«s/. iii. 17-20) bears unmistakable 
 traces of the hand of a theologian. Dean Mil- 
 man (Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 364, crown 
 8vo ed.) calls the letter of Constantine to Arius 
 and Alexander "in its spirit a model of temper 
 and conciliation. It is probable that the hand 
 of Hosius is to be traced in its composition. 
 His influence was uniformly exercised in this 
 manner. Wherever the edicts of the govern- 
 ment were mild, conciliating, and humane, 
 we find the bp. of Corduba." 
 
 At the conclusion of the council Hosius 
 seems to have returned to Corduba. For 
 
 HOSIUS 
 
 4(19 
 
 nearly 20 years he lived in retirement in his 
 own diocese. No trace of a return to the 
 court of Constantine reniains, ami it docs ui>t 
 appear that they ever met again. We must 
 look to the history of the time for some ex- 
 planation of the cause for these altert-d r«l.i- 
 tions. Constantine left Asia Minor for Kunie. 
 which he reached f. July 32(1. Mis brief 
 stay there was marked by deeds of cruelly. 
 In the midst of the Vicennalia the people of 
 Rome heard with regret that his son Crispus 
 had been put to death. Not long afterwards 
 the young Licinianus, his nephew, a btiy of 12, 
 was killed, at the suggestion, it is said, of 
 the empress Fausta, whom retribution soon 
 overtook. There followed a great number of 
 public executions. The true causes of these 
 events are involved in mystery, but Constan- 
 tine is said to have become a prey to remorse. 
 A great change certainly took place in his 
 character after he became sole master of the 
 Roman empire. He was spoiled by prosperity 
 (Eutropius, lib. x. cc. 4, 6). He became 
 arrogant and impatient of counsel, distrustful 
 and suspicious. This moral deterioration was 
 accompanied with great vacillation in his re- 
 ligious opinions. A few years after the coimcil 
 of Nicaea he fell under Arian influences. 
 .\rius was recalled ; and at the instigation of 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia and his adherents, 
 Athanasius was condemned upon a false charge 
 and banished to (iaul (a.d. 335). Not long 
 before his death, in 337, Constantine received 
 baptism from Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian 
 bishop. This change in the characterand opin- 
 ions of Constantine was the true cause of his 
 altered relations with Hosius. As the influence 
 of the Arians over his mind increased, that of 
 his old counsellor would of necessity decline. 
 
 Hosius does not appear to have been present 
 at any of the syn«nls between those of Nicaea 
 and Sardica, nor to have taken any public part 
 in the controversies between .\thanasius and 
 the Arians during 20 years. In 345 the 
 emperor Constans summoned .Athanasius to 
 Milan from Rome, and informed him that he 
 had been urged by certain bishops (believed 
 to have been pope' Julius, Hosius, and Maxi- 
 minus of Treves ; cf. Hilar. Frag. 2, p- 16) to 
 use his influence with his brother Constantius. 
 that a council might be called to settle the 
 questions concerning him, the place of meeting 
 to be Sardica. Athanasius while in Milan 
 was directed by Constans to go to Caul t«i meet 
 Hosius and travel with him to Sardica (.•Vthaii. 
 .Apol. ad Const, c. 4). Hosius was now 
 
 nearly 00 years old. So long a journey implii s 
 considerable vigour of body, and that age had 
 not changed his convictions nor impaired his 
 zeal. Nor had his long retirement lessened 
 his influence or the unbounded respect felt for 
 him by his contemporaries. In the encyclical 
 letter of the council of Sardica to be found 
 in Athanasius (.-Xpol. conir. .Arian. c. 44). 
 Hosius is spoken of as" one who on account 
 of his age, his confession, and the many labours 
 he had underg(ine, is worthy of all reverence." 
 His presidency in this case is affirmed in 
 express terms by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. c. 
 16) : " The great Hosius was president of the 
 council." The Acts shew him as the life and 
 soul of the synod, proposing most of the 
 canons and taking the foremost part in t he pro- 
 
500 
 
 HOSIUS 
 
 ceedings. The synod afforded a great oppor- 
 tunity for his wisdom and conciliatory spirit. 
 He specially sought to conciliate the Eusebian 
 party, of which he writes to Constantine {ib. 
 c. 44): "On my own account I challenged 
 the enemies of Athanasius, when they came to 
 the church where I generally was, to declare 
 what they had against him. This I did once 
 and again, requesting them if they were un- 
 willing to appear before the whole council, yet 
 to appear before me alone." The Eusebians, 
 however, rejecting all overtures, held a synod 
 of their own at Philippopolis, whence they sent 
 an encyclical letter to the churches, condemn- 
 ing Hosius, Julius, bp. of Rome, and others, 
 chiefly for holding communion with Athan- 
 asius. Hosius, they said, had also always been 
 a persecutor of a certain Marcus of blessed 
 memory, a strenuous defender of evil men, 
 and a companion of wicked and abandoned 
 persons in the East (Hilar. Frag. iii. t. ii. 
 col. 674, ed. Migne). 
 
 Until 354 we hear nothing further of him. 
 An extant letter written to him by pope Li- 
 berius, early in 354, shews the great respect in 
 which he was held. Liberius writes, full of 
 grief, because Vincentius of Capua, one of his 
 legates in whom he had placed great confidence, 
 at a synod consisting chief!}' of the Eusebian 
 party, held at Aries in 353, had consented 
 under constraint to give up communion with 
 Athanasius (j6. vi. t. ii. col. 688). 
 
 During his long life Hosius had preserved 
 an unblemished name and been a consistent 
 and uncompromising supporter of the Nicene 
 faith. At length, when 100 years old, he gave 
 way for a brief moment to the violence of his 
 persecutors, and consented under torture to 
 hold communion with Valens and Ursacius 
 (Athan. Hist. Avian. 45), a concession which 
 has been much magnified and misrepresented. 
 
 In 355 a synod was convoked by Constan- 
 tius at Milan, which deserved, says Tillemont 
 (Mem. i. vi. p. 362), the name of a robber 
 synod even more than did the false council of 
 Ephesus. At this synod the Eusebians first 
 openly declared in favour of the dogmas of 
 Arius, and endeavoured to secure their accept- 
 ance by the church. The emperor called upon 
 the orthodox bishops, under penalty of 
 banishment, to join in the condemnation of 
 Athanasius. Most of them gave way, and 
 consented to condemn Athanasius and to hold 
 communion with the Arians (Rufinus, lib. i. 
 c. 20). The few who stood firm were 
 banished, bound with chains, to distant pro- 
 vinces : Dionysius, exarch of Milan, to Cap- 
 padocia, or Armenia ; Lucifer to Syria ; 
 Eusebius of Vercelli into Palestine (cf. 
 Athan. Apol. Const. 27). In 366 Liberius, bp. 
 of Rome, was summoned to Milan, where 
 Constantius was residing, and allowed three 
 days to choose between signing the condemn- 
 ation of Athanasius or going into exile. He 
 chose the latter, and was banished to Beroea 
 in Thrace. From the first the object of the 
 Arians had been to gain the great Hosius. 
 " As long as he escaped their wicked machin- 
 ations they thought they had accomplished 
 nothing. We have done everything, they said 
 to Constantius. We have banished the bishop 
 of the Romans, and before him a very great 
 number of other bishops, and have filled every 
 
 HOSIUS 
 
 place with alarm. But these strong measures 
 are as nothing, nor is our success at all more 
 secure so long as Hosius remains. Begin then 
 to persecute him also, and spare him not, 
 ancient as he is. Our heresy knows not to 
 honour the hoary hairs of the aged " (Athan. 
 Hist. Arian. § 42). At their solicitation the 
 emperor had previously summoned Hosius to 
 Milan, c. a.d. 355. On his arrival he urged 
 him to subscribe against Athanasius and hold 
 communion with the Arians. The old man, full 
 of grief that such a proposal should have been 
 even made to him, would not for one moment 
 listen to it. Severely rebuking the emperor 
 and endeavouring to convince him of his error, 
 he withdrew from the court and returned to 
 his own country. Constantius wrote fre- 
 quently, sometimes flattering, sometimes 
 threatening him. " Be persuaded," he said, 
 " and subscribe against Athanasius, for who- 
 ever subscribes against him thereby embraces 
 with us the Arian cause." Hosius renvained 
 fearless and unmoved, and wrote a spirited 
 answer to Constantius, preserved by Athan- 
 asius, the only extant composition by Hosius 
 (ib. § 44). The emperor continued to 
 threaten him severely, intending either to 
 bring him over by force or to banish him, 
 for, says Socrates (H. E. ii. 31) the Arians 
 considered that this would give great authority 
 to their opinions. Finding that Hosius would 
 not subscribe, Constantius sent for him to Sir- 
 mium and detained him there a whole year. 
 " Unmindful," says Athanasius (I.e.), " of his 
 father's love for Hosius, without reverence for 
 his great age, for he was then 100 years old, 
 this patron of impiety and emperor of heresy 
 used such violence towards the old man that 
 at last, broken down by suffering, he was 
 brought, though with reluctance, to hold 
 communion with Valens and Ursacius, but 
 he would not subscribe against Athanasius " 
 (a.d. 357). He says elsewhere (Apol. pro Fug. 
 § 7) that Hosius " yielded for a time to the 
 Arians, as being old and infirm in body, and 
 after repeatedblows had been inflicted upon him 
 above measure, and conspiracies formed against 
 his kinsfolk." Socrates gives similar testi- 
 mony (I.e. ; cf. Newman, Arians, c. iv. § 3). 
 
 It is difficult to determine which of the 
 confessions of faith drawn up at Sirmium was 
 actually signed by Hosius. Whether there 
 was only one synod of Sirmium, or two or three 
 at intervals oif a few years, is also a question 
 upon which opinions have differed widely- The 
 predominant opinion is expressed by Valesius 
 in a note to Socrates (H. E. ii. 30), viz. that 
 there were three synods there, each issuing a 
 different creed. The first, in 351, at which Pho- 
 tinus was deposed, published a confession in 
 Greek. At the second, in 357, Hosius was com- 
 pelled to be present and his subscription was 
 obtained by force to a creed written in Latin, 
 called by Hilarius " blasphemia apud Sirmium 
 per Osium et Potamium conscripta " (0pp. ed. 
 Migne, t. ii. col. 487). The third Sirmian 
 creed, called the " Dated Creed " from its 
 naming the consuls, was agreed upon at a 
 convention of bishops in May 359. This was 
 the creed afterwards produced by Ursacius 
 and Valens at the synod of Ariminum (cf. 
 Athan. de Synod. 48). Socrates, indeed (H. E. 
 ii. 30), says that three creeds were drawn up 
 
HOSIUS 
 
 at the same synod of Sirmiuin as that which i 
 deposed Photinus (a.d. 351) — one inC.reekand | 
 two in Latin — neither of whirh apreed to- 1 
 gether. But this is clearly an error. Sozoinen 
 says (H.E.iv. 12) that "Hosius had certainly, 
 with the view of arresting the contention ex- 
 cited by Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, 
 consented, though by compulsion, with some 
 other bishops at Sirmium to refrain from the 
 use of the terms Homoousion and Homoiou- 
 sion, because such terms do not occur in the 
 Holy Scriptures and are beyond the under- 
 standing of men." These very expressions 
 occur in the creed set forth at Sirmium in 
 Latin, and afterwards translated into Clreek, 
 which Socrates gives {I.e.), and there is no 
 room to doubt that this was the confession 
 which Hosius signed. 
 
 It may be doubted, says Dean Stanley {East. 
 Ch. lect. vii. c. 3), " whether in his own age the 
 authority of Hosius in the theological world 
 was not even higher than that of .Athanasius." 
 The Arians, therefore, would naturally make 
 the most of the concessi'Mi wrung from him. 
 Those who constantly slandered .\thanasius 
 would not have many scruples about calum- 
 niating Hosius. Epiphanius {Haer. 73), about 
 20 years later, says that the Arians thought 
 they could condemn the teaching of the church 
 as to the Homoousion by producing letters 
 fraudulently procured from the venerable 
 Hosius, stating that the substance was dis- 
 similar. Sozomen says (//. E. iv. 12) that 
 Eudoxius, bp. of .Antioch, c. 358, upheld the 
 heresy of Aetius, that the Son is dissimilar to 
 the Father, and rejected the terms Homo- 
 ousion and Homoiousion. When he received 
 the letter of Hosius he spread a report that 
 Liberius had also made the same admission 
 (iv. 15). These letters were most probably 
 spurious. There is reason also t(i believe that 
 the creed actually signed by Hosius was inter- 
 polated and sent into the East in his name. 
 This may perhaps explain the expression of 
 Hilarius {contr. Constantium, c. 23, col. 580, 
 ed. Migne, vol. ii.) when he speaks of " delira- 
 menta Osii et incrementa Ursacii et Valentis " 
 (cf. Newman's notes to Athanasius, Eng. 
 trans, vol. i. p. 162). 
 
 Exaggerated reports of the fall of Hosius 
 were spread by the Arians far and wide. His 
 perversion was their strongest argument 
 against the Catholic party in daul. To this 
 a contemporary writer, Phoebadius, bp. of 
 Agennum, replies {Lib. contra Arian. c. 23, 
 Patr. Lat. ed. Migne, vol. xx. col. 30) : " Novit 
 enim mundus quae in banc tenuerit aetatem 
 qua constantia apud Sardicam et in Nicaeno 
 tractatu assensus sit et damnaverit Arianos. 
 ... Si nonaginta fere annis male credidit, post 
 nonaginta ilium recte sentire non credam." 
 The Donatists also, whose views Hosius had 
 opposed equally strongly, did not fail to 
 calumniate him. Augustine vindicates his 
 memory {Lib. contra Parmen. lib. i. c. 4, 
 § 7, ed. Migne, vol. ix. col. 38). Marcellus and 
 Faustinus, two presbyters who were followers 
 of Lucifer of Cagliari, relate {Ltbellum ad 
 Theodos. c. 383 or 384) that on the return of 
 Hosius to Spain, Gregory, bp. of Elvira, re- 
 fused to hold communion with him, and as 
 Hosius was in the act of pronouncing his 
 deposition be was struck dumb and fell from 
 
 HOSIUS 
 
 501 
 
 his seat. It is very possible that the first part 
 of the story may have had some foundation, 
 as a letter is extant (Hilar. Frag. xii. t. ii. 
 col. 713, ed. Migne) from Eusebiusof Vernlli 
 to Gregory of Spain (c. 360), congratulatiuR 
 hun on having withstood the transgrcss-.r 
 Hosius. Among ancient writers, no one 
 has referred to the lapse of Hosius s< . bitterly as 
 Hilary of Poictiers. This is the more remark- 
 able as he had never heard of the Nicenc Creed 
 until he went into exile (Hilar. </« Syn. c. 91, 
 ad fin. vol. ii. col. 545, ed. Migne). He charges 
 HosiusnndPotamius.bp. of Lisbon, with having 
 drawn up the second creed of Sirmium, which 
 he designates in one place {0pp. ed. Migne. 
 t. ii. col. 487) as the " blasphemia," in another 
 (col. 599) as " deliramenta Osii " ; and savs (col. 
 539) that his fall was due to his having been too 
 anxious to get away from Sirmium and die in 
 his own country. These hard savings occur in 
 Hilary's treatise de Synodis, written probably 
 in 358, a year after the second svnod of Sir- 
 mium, at which Hosius was forced to beprescnt. 
 Hilary himself tells us (de Syti. c. 6v f. ii. 
 col. 533) that the majority of those with whom 
 he was then living in exile had no true ac- 
 quaintance with God — in other words, held 
 .\rian opinions^— " Ex majori parte Asianae 
 decem provinciae intra quas consisto, vere 
 Deum nesciunt." Whatever tidings came to 
 him would therefore reach him through Arian 
 channels. His means of information are not 
 to be compared with those of .Athanasius. He 
 is, moreover, the only ancient writer who savs 
 that Hosius had any' hand in the composition 
 of the creed of the second council of Sirmium, 
 and any combination between Hosius aiul 
 Potamius, the reputed author with him of this 
 confession, isforothcrreasons most improbable. 
 The one had been all his life a consistent sup- 
 porter of the Nicene Creed, the other a rene- 
 gade. Moreover, Hosius at this time was 
 about 100 years old. At such an age men do 
 not willingly invent new creeds ; they are far 
 more likely to cling tenaciously to old ones. 
 
 Sulpicius Severus (c. 404 or 405) speaks of 
 the lapse of Hosius as resting on a popular 
 rumour which seemed quite incredible unless 
 extreme old age had enfeebled his powers and 
 made him childish {Hist. Sac. lib. 2). 
 
 To clear his memory from the charges of 
 Hilary it is sufficient to point out that the 
 synod of Sardica spoke of Hosius as a man of 
 a " happy <jld age, who, on account of his age, 
 his confession, and the many labours he has 
 undergone, is worthy of all reverence." So 
 public a testimony to his high character is 
 enough to silence all detraction, and the 
 affectionate and reverential language in which 
 the great Athanasius describes the passing 
 frailty of his venerable friend, the father of 
 the bishojis, is very different from the furious 
 and intemperate tone in which it is referred 
 to by Hilary. " This true Hosius, and his 
 blameless life," says Athanasius, " wire 
 known to all." As he relates the violence used 
 towards him, he expresses only the tenderest 
 commiseration for his friend ; but against 
 Constantius, his persecutor, his indignation 
 knows no bounds (Wis/. Arian. 46). 
 
 There is some doubt whether Hosius suc- 
 cumbed to the violence used against him at 
 Sirmium and died there in 357, or whether, 
 
502 
 
 HUNNERIC 
 
 after subscribing the Arian formula, he was 
 permitted to end his days in Spain. This 
 involves the further question — whether before 
 his death he recanted, and was readmitted 
 into the Catholic church, or retained his Arian 
 opinions to the last. The story told by the 
 Luciferians and the charges brought against 
 his memory by his old enemies the Donatists 
 serve at least to shew that, according to 
 ecclesiastical tradition, he died in Spain. The 
 question is fully examined by Baronius (sub 
 ann. 357,cc. xxx.-xxxvli.), whodoesnot believe 
 the story told by the Luciferians. The story of 
 the apostate Marcellinus is not confirmed by 
 any contemporary writer. Had it been true, 
 it must have been known to Athanasius, who 
 says distinctly that Hosius yielded to the 
 outrages of the Arians " for a time, as being 
 old and infirm in body " (Apol. pro Fug. § 5), 
 and that " at the approach of death, as it were 
 by his last testament, he bore witness to the 
 force which had been used towards him, and 
 abjured the Arian heresy and gave strict 
 charge that no one should receive it " {Hist. 
 Arian. 45). These words prove that his lapse 
 was but a temporary one, that he died in com- 
 munion with the church, and in the midst of his 
 friends. Hilary's words as to his anxiety to 
 leave Sirmium and be buried in his own country 
 iraplv that he obtained his wish to return to 
 Spain. The date of his death is a little uncer- 
 tain, but from Marcellinus we learn that it was 
 soon after his return to Spain and before the 
 concession he had made to the Arians had 
 become widely known. As the treatise of 
 Athanasius {Hist. Arian.) was written between 
 358 and 360, it must have been before that 
 period. Some writers favour the end of 357 ; 
 others think he lived till 359. 
 
 His profound acquaintance with Christian 
 doctrine was combined with a singularly 
 blameless and holy life. He seems to have 
 had great tact and judgment and a concilia- 
 tory disposition. The shadow cast upon his 
 name by the concession extorted from him by 
 the Arians must not be allowed to obscure the 
 rightful honour due to him for his labours and 
 sufferings on behalf of the Catholic faith. 
 " Even Christianity," says Dean Milman 
 {Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 427, ed. 1875), 
 " has no power over that mental imbecility 
 which accompanies the decay of physical 
 strength, and this act of feebleness ought not 
 for an instant to be set against the unblem- 
 ished virtue of a whole life." 
 
 A very full account of his life, and a dis- 
 cussion of various points in his history, will be 
 found in Gams {DieKirchengesch. von Spanien, 
 Bandii. pp. 1-309, Regensburg, 1864). Seealso 
 Hefele, Conciliengesch vols. i. andii., of which 
 there is an Eng. trans. ; Tillemont, Mem. t. vii. p. 
 300, 4to ed. ; Dom Ceillier, s.v. t. iii. 392, new 
 ed. ; Zahn, Const, der Gr. u. die Kirche, 1876 ; 
 Florez, EspanaSagrada, LaProvinciadeBetica, 
 vol. ix. and x. (Madrid, i754)- [t.d.c.m.] 
 
 HunneriC {Ugnericus, Hunerix, Hono- 
 richus). eldest son and successor (Jan. 24, 
 477) of Genseric, king of the Vandals. Sent 
 to Rome in his youth as a hostage for the 
 observance of the treaty his father had made 
 with Valentinian III., he married (462), after 
 the sack of Rome, the captive Eudocia, eldest 
 of the daughters of that emperor. Soon after 
 
 HUNNERIC 
 
 he ascended the throne he ordered diligent 
 search to be made for Manicheans, of whom 
 he burnt many and exiled more across the 
 sea, being commended for this by Victor. 
 His subjects were oppressed with taxes and 
 exactions, but he relaxed the strictness of his 
 father's laws against the orthodox, and, at 
 the intercession of his sister-in-law Placidia, 
 the widow of the emperor Olybrius, and the 
 emperor Zeno, allowed (a.d. 481) a bp. of 
 Carthage (Eugenius) to be elected, the see 
 having been vacant since the death of Deo- 
 gratias in 457. He made this concession upon 
 condition that a similar liberty should be 
 allowed the Arian bishops and laity in Zeno's 
 dominions, or else the newly elected bishops 
 and all other orthodox bishops with their 
 clergy would be banished to the Moors. 
 
 To secure the succession to his son, Hun- 
 neric sent his brother Theodoric into exile and 
 put to death his wife and children. The Arian 
 patriarch of Carthage, who was supposed to 
 favour Theodoric, was burnt alive, and many 
 of his clergy shared his fate or were thrown to 
 wild beasts ; nor did Hunneric spare the 
 friends his father had commended to him on 
 his death-bed if s^uspected of being inclined to 
 support his brother. Hunneric now took 
 measures against the orthodox. The influence 
 of Eugenius on the Vandals was especially 
 dreaded by the Arian clergy, at whose sug- 
 gestion the king forbade him to preach in 
 public or to allow persons in Vandal dress to 
 enter Catholic churches. The bishop replied 
 that the house of God was open to all. A 
 great number of Catholics, being the king's 
 servants, wore the Vandal dress. Men were 
 therefore posted at the church doors with long 
 rakes, with which any person entering in 
 Vandal dress was seized by the hair as so to 
 tear off hair and scalp together. Many died 
 in consequence. Hunneric next deprived 
 Catholics who held posts at the court or 
 belonged to the army of their offices and pay ; 
 many of the former were forced to work in the 
 fields near Utica and the latter were deprived 
 of their property and exiled to Sicily or Sar- 
 dinia. A law confiscating the property of 
 deceased bishops and imposing a fine of 500 
 solidi on each new bishop was contemplated, 
 but abandoned for fear of retaliatory measures 
 against the Arians in the Eastern empire. 
 Virgins were hung up naked with heavy 
 weights attached to their feet, and their 
 breasts and backs burnt with red-hot irons, to 
 extort, if possible, a confession of immorahty, 
 which might be used against the bishops and 
 clergy. Many expired under the torture and 
 the survivors were maimed for life. A body 
 of Catholic bishops, priests, deacons, and 
 laity, numbering 4,976, was sent into banish- 
 ment among the savage Moors of the desert. 
 Victor gives a touching description of their 
 sufferings during their marches by day and 
 in crowded dens at night. 
 
 These cruelties were only the prelude of a 
 more extensive and systematic persecution. 
 Hunneric, on Ascension Day, 483, published 
 an edict to Eugenius, and the other Catholic 
 or, as he termed them, Homoousian bishops, 
 ordering them to assemble at Carthage on 
 Feb. I, to meet the Arian bishops in conference 
 and decide the points in controversy between 
 
HUNNERIG 
 
 them, promising them a safe-conduct. Even 
 before the conference, however, tlie persecu- 
 tion began. Victor tells of various bishops 
 cruelly beaten and sent into c.xile, while on 
 Sept. 20, Laetus, bp. of Nopta, was burnt to 
 terrify the rest of the Catholic party. When 
 the meeting assembled, the Catholics were 
 indignant to find Cvrila. the Arian patriarch, 
 in th.' presidential chair. After mutual re- 
 criminations the orthodox presented a state- 
 ment of their belief and their arguments for 
 it. The .\rians received it with indignation, 
 as in it the orthodox claimed the name of 
 Catholics, and falsely suggested to the king 
 that the disturbance was the fault of their 
 opponents. Hunneric seized this pretext for 
 publishing, on Feb. 25, an edict he had 
 already prepared and distributed to the 
 magistrates throughout his dominions, order- 
 ing all churches of the orthodox party to be 
 handed over with their endrnvments to the 
 Arians. and further, after reciting the penalties 
 imposed on the Donatists in .ji^ and 414 by 
 edicts of Honorius {Codex Thcodosiamis, X\'\. 
 V. 52, 54), enacting that the Catholics should 
 be subject to the same penalties and disabili- 
 ties. Pardon was promised to those who 
 should renounce Catholicism before June i. 
 Persecution, however, began before the three 
 months' grace had expired. The first to 
 suffer were the bishops assembled at Carthage. 
 They were expelled from the town with no- 
 thing but the clothes they had on, and were 
 obliged to beg their bread. The inhabitants 
 were forbidden to give them shelter or food 
 under pain of being burnt alive with their 
 whole families. While outside the walls in 
 this miserable state, they were summoned to 
 meet at the Temple of Memory persons sent 
 by the king, and were required to take an oath 
 to support the succession of Hilderic, the 
 king's son, and to hold no correspondence 
 with countries beyond the sea. On these 
 conditions the king promised to restore them 
 their churches. Some took the oath, but 
 others refused, excusing themselves by the 
 precept " Swear not at all." They were then 
 told to separate, the names and sees of the 
 bishops of each party were taken down, and 
 they were all sent to prison. A few days 
 afterwards those who had taken the oath were 
 told that, as they had infringed the precept 
 of the Gospel, the king banished them to the 
 country, assigning them land to cultivate, on 
 condition that they should not chant, pray, 
 baptize, ordain, or receive any into the church. 
 To those who had refused was said, " You 
 refused to swear because you did not wish our 
 master's son to succeed him. Therefore you 
 are exiled to Corsica, where you shall cut 
 timber for our master's navy." Of the 466 
 attending the council, 88 fell away to Arian- 
 ism ; of the others one was a martyr, one a 
 confessor, 46 were banished toCf)rsica, and the 
 rest to the country parts of Africa. 
 
 Meanwhile throughout Africa a most cruel 
 persecution raged, neither age nor sex being 
 a protection ; some were cruelly beaten, others 
 hung, and some burnt alive. Noble ladies 
 were stripped naked and tortured in the public 
 streets. Victorian, a former proconsul of 
 Carthage, was the most illustrious victim 
 of the persecution. Victor's fifth book is full 
 
 HUNNERIC 
 
 .-iO.-l 
 
 of accounts of the constancy and suflerinK of 
 the Catholics. Eugenius was entrusted t<> the 
 custody of the cruel Antonius, the Arian bp. 
 of a city in Tripoli, where his hardships 
 brought on a stroke of paraJvsis. Hp. Habrt- 
 deus was bound and gagged bv Antonius and 
 forced to undergo the rite of a second baptism, 
 which was imposed also bv force or fraud upon 
 many of the orthodox. The Vandals, who 
 had renomiced .Vrianism, were treate<l with 
 peculiar crueltv. Som<- had their eyes put 
 out, others their hands, feet, nosi-s, or ears rut 
 off. Hunneric. t<i insult Urauius. and Zeno 
 who had sent him to intercede for the Cath- 
 olics, ordered son»e of the cruellest scenes of 
 torture to be enacted in the streets through 
 which he had to pass on his way to the palace. 
 The most celebrated event of the persecu- 
 tion occurred at Typasa, a seaport town of 
 Mauritania. A former notary of Cvrila's 
 having been consecrated as the Arian bishop 
 of that town, the greater part of the citizens 
 took ship to Spain. A few, not tindinR 
 room on board, remained, whom the Arian 
 bishop on his arrival endeavoured, first by 
 persuasion and then by threats, to induce 
 to become .\rians. They refused, and having 
 assembled in a house, began publicly to 
 celebrate the divine mysteries. The bishop 
 thereupon dispatched secretly to Carthage an 
 accusation against them to the king, who sent 
 an officer with orders to have their tongues 
 cut out and their right hands cut off before 
 the assembled province in the forum. This 
 was done, but they cimtinued to speak as 
 plainly as before. This is attested by Victor, 
 who was probably an eye-witness;' by the 
 eye-witnesses Aeneas of (iaza, the Platonic 
 philosopher {Theophraslus, in Migne, Pair. 
 Gk. Ixxxv. 1000), Justinian (('nd. i. 27), and 
 Marcellinus (Chron. in Migne, Pair. I.at. li. 
 933), all of whom had seen some of these 
 persons at Ccjiistantinople ; by Procopius {de 
 Bella Vandalico, i. 8) ; Victor Tununensis 
 (Chron. in Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixviii. 046) ; and 
 pope Gregory the Great (Dial. iii. 32 in Migne, 
 Pair. Lat. Ixxvii. 293), and has generally been 
 considered not only a miracle, but the most 
 remarkable one on record after apostolic times. 
 The variety of the witnesses and the consist- 
 ency of their testimony on all material points 
 give it claims to belief, such as few ajiparently 
 preternatural events possess. Dr. Middleton 
 was the first to suggest (Free Inquiry, 313-316) 
 that, assuming the account true, it by no 
 means follows that the event was miraculous, 
 a position he maintains by instances of a 
 person born without a tongue, and of another 
 who had lost it by disease, who were able to 
 speak. Mr. Twist leton (The Tongue not 
 Essential to Sf>eech) has shewn this explana- 
 tion probable. He gives numerous cases of 
 similarly mutilated persons in liastern coun- 
 tries, and of persons in England whose tongues 
 had been removed by surgical operations, who 
 could stillpronomicedislinctlyalllettersexccpt 
 d and / ; one of the latter he had actually seen 
 and conversed with. He sums up by saying : 
 " The final result s<ems to be that questions 
 connected with the phenomenon of speech in 
 the African ( onfessors are jiurely within tin- 
 domain of natural science, and that there is no 
 reason for asserting or suspecting any niiracu- 
 
504 
 
 HYGINUS 
 
 lous intervention in the matter." The perse- 
 cution continued to rage till Hunneric died, on 
 the following Dec. ii. Like the persecutor 
 Galerius his body mortified, and bred worms. 
 
 Sources. — Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione 
 Vandalica, ii. iv. and v. in Migne, Patr. Lat. 
 Iviii., with Ruinart's Appendix ; Procopius 
 de Bella Vandalico, i. 8 ; Appendix to Pros- 
 per's Citron, in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ii. 605 ; Chron. 
 of Victor Tununensis in tb. Ixviii. Gibbon 
 (c. xxxvii.) gives a good narrative of the perse- 
 cution, and Ceillier {Auteurs sacres, x. 452-462) 
 mav also be consulted. [f.d.] 
 
 Hyginus (1), bp. of Rome after Telesphorus, 
 probably from 137 to 141. Our early author- 
 ities for the dates and duration of his episco- 
 pate are confused, as in the case of other 
 bishops of that early period. Anastasius {Lib. 
 Pontif ) says that he was a Greek, son of an 
 Athenian philosopher, of unknown genealogy. 
 Several spurious decretals are assigned to him. 
 See Mart. Rom. under Jan. 11 ; also Lightfoot, 
 on the Early Roman successions, A post. Path. 
 part i. vol. 1. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Hypatia (1). Socrates {H. E. vii. 15) says : 
 " There was a lady in Alexandria, by name 
 Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon. 
 She advanced to such a point of mental culture 
 as to surpass all the philosophers of her age and 
 to receive the office of lecturer in the Platonic 
 school, of which Plotinus had been the 
 founder, and there expound all philosophic 
 learnmg to any desirous of it. Students of 
 philosophy came from all quarters to hear 
 her. The dignified freedom of speech, which 
 her training had implanted in her, enabled 
 her to appear even before the public magis- 
 trates with entire modesty ; none could feel 
 ashamed to see her take her station in the 
 midst of men. She was reverenced and 
 admired even the more for it, by reason of the 
 noble temperance of her disposition. This 
 then was the woman upon whom malicious 
 envy now made its attack. She was wont to 
 have frequent communications with Orestes 
 [the prefect] ; this aroused enmity against her 
 in the church community. The charge was 
 that it was through her that Orestes was 
 prevented from entering upon friendly rela- 
 tions with the bishop [Cyril]. Accordingly 
 some passionate fanatics, led by Peter the 
 Reader, conspired together and watched her 
 as she was returning home from some journey, 
 tore her from her chariot, and dragged her to 
 the church called Caesarium ; there they 
 stripped her and killed her with oyster shells', 
 and, having torn her in pieces, gathered to- 
 gether the limbs to a place called Cinaron, and 
 consumed them with fire. This deed oc- 
 casioned no small blame to Cyril and the 
 Alexandrian church ; for murders, fightings, 
 and the like are wholly alien to those who are 
 minded to follow the things of Christ. This 
 event happened in the fourth year of the 
 episcopate of C>T:il, in the consulships of 
 Honorius (for the tenth time) and Theodosius 
 (for the sixth time) in the month of March, at 
 the season of the fast " {i.e. Mar. 415). Little 
 can be added to this. Svnesius of Cvrene 
 (afterwards bp. of Ptolemais) was a devoted 
 disciple of hers. According to Suidas, she 
 married Isidorus. No trustworthyaccountcon- 
 uects Cyril directly with her murder, [j.k.m.] 
 
 IBAS 
 
 Hypatia (2). In the synodical book of the 
 council of Ephesus is given a letter, from its 
 style evidently the work of a female writer (un- 
 named), which is falsely attributed to Hypatia 
 ( 1 ) the philosopher of Alexandria. It complains 
 of the condemnation and banishment of 
 Nestorius, which took place 17 years after the 
 death of Hypatia. The writer is struck by 
 the teaching of the Christians that God died 
 for men ; she founds her plea for Nestorius 
 on an appeal to reason and Scripture. Baluze, 
 Concil. App. p. 837 (Paris, 1683, fol.) ; Ceillier, 
 viii. 387. [w.M.s.] 
 
 HypatiUS (19), presbyter and hegumenus in 
 the first half of the 5th cent, of the monastery 
 in Bithynia, once presided over and afterwards 
 abandonedby Rufinus. His Life, by Callinicus 
 his disciple (Boll. Acta SS. 17 Jun. iii. 303), 
 tells how his zeal brought him into collision 
 with his lukewarm bishop Eulalius of Chalce- 
 don. Understanding that Nestorius, before 
 his formal accusation, was broaching novel 
 opinions, Hypatius had the patriarch's name 
 removed from the office books of the church 
 adjoining his monastery (§§ 14, 38, 51, 53). 
 Eulalius, alarmed at this daring act, which 
 amounted to an excommunication of the all- 
 powerful patriarch, remonstrated and threat- 
 ened, but Hypatius undauntedly persisted. 
 Again, when Leontius, the prefect of Con- 
 stantinople, was about to re-establish at 
 Chalcedon the Olympic games abolished by 
 Constantine, Hypatius, finding that Eulalius 
 would do nothing, openly declared that he 
 would by main force defeat this restoration of 
 idolatry' at the head of his monks, though it 
 should cost him his life. Leontius, having 
 had warning of this opposition, relinquished 
 the project and returned to Constantinople 
 (§ 45). A certain ascetic archimandrite, 
 Alexander, from Asia Minor, having taken up 
 his abode in the capital with 100 monks, gained 
 muchreputationfor sanctity, but inconsequence 
 of his bold rebukes of the imperial household 
 was ordered to leave. The exiles betook them- 
 selves to the church of Hypatius, but Eulalius, 
 obeying orders from the palace, had them 
 beaten and expelled. Hypatius immediately 
 welcomed them into his monastery and 
 dressed their wounds. The bishop threatened 
 fresh violence, but the rustic neighbours 
 volunteered a defence, and a riot was im- 
 minent when a messenger from the empress 
 ordered that they should not be molested. 
 Alexander and his party retired in peace and 
 founded a monastery near, the inmates bearing 
 the name of Acoemetae, the Sleepless (§ 57 ; 
 AcoEMETAE in D. C. A., and the BoUandist 
 account of their founder in Acta SS. Jan. i. 
 1018). [C.H.J 
 
 Ibas, bp. of Edessa c a.d. 435-457, a Syrian 
 by birth. His name in Syriac is Ihiba or Hiba 
 = Donatus. He appears first as a presbyter 
 of the church of Edessa during the episcopate 
 of Rabbulas, and warmly espousing the theo- 
 logical views which his bishop uncompromis- 
 ingly opposed. He was an ardent admirer of 
 the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which 
 he translated into Syriac and diligently dis. 
 
IBAS 
 
 seminated through the East. The famous 
 theological school of Edessa, of which, accord- 
 ing to some accounts, Ibas was head, and to 
 which the Christian youtli from Persia and 
 adjacent lands resorted for education, offered 
 great facilities for this propagation of Theo- 
 dore's tenets. The growing popularity of 
 doctrines which appeared to him decidedly 
 heretical caused Rabbulas much alarm, and 
 he endeavoured to get Theodore's works 
 anathematized and burnt. The church of 
 Edessa was generally favourable to Theodore's 
 teaching, and Ibas was supported by the 
 majority against their bishop. He attended 
 the council of Ephesus in 431 as a presbyter, 
 was cognizant of Cyril's autocratic conduct 
 (Ep. ad Mar. ; I. abbe. Cone. iv. 662), and wrote 
 in 433 the letter to Maris, then or subsequently 
 bp. of Hardaschir in Persia, to which sub- 
 sequent events gave celebrity. Maris had 
 been at Edessa previous to the Nestorian 
 controversy, and Ibas wrote this letter to tell 
 him what had occurred since his visit. Though 
 evidently written under great exasperation, it 
 shews Ibas as a man of independent judgment, 
 free from party spirit. Nestorius is severely 
 censured in it for refusing the title OforoKos to 
 the \'irgin, and Ibas accuses Cyril of ApoUin- 
 arianism, and denounces the heresy of his 12 
 chapters, charging him with maintaining the 
 perfect identity of the manhood and Godhead 
 in Christ, and denying the Catholic doctrine of 
 the union of two Natures in One Person (Labbe, 
 iv. 661, V. 510). Rabbulas dying in 435 or 
 436, a reactionary wavemade Ibas hissuccessor. 
 This was very distasteful to those who held the 
 strong anti-Nestorian views of their latebishop, 
 and they speedily planned to secure his deposi- 
 tion, by spreading chargesagainst him of openly 
 preaching heretical doctrines. The accusa- 
 tions soon reached the ears of Theodosius II. 
 and Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople. To 
 Proclus the matter appeared so serious that 
 towards the close of 437 he wrote to John of 
 Antioch, as the leading prelate of the East, 
 though really having no canonical jurisdiction 
 over Osrhoene, begging him to persuade Ibas, 
 if innocent, to remove the scandal by con- 
 demning publicly certain propositions chiefly 
 drawn from Theodore's writings against the 
 errors of Nestorius. The same demand was 
 made by Proclus of all the Eastern bishops ; 
 but Ibas and the bishops generally refused 
 to condemn Theodore's propositions {ib. v. 
 511-514). Though foiled so far, the mal- 
 contents at Edessa maintained their hostile 
 attitude to their bishop. Their leaders were 
 four presbyters, Samuel, Cyrus, Eulogius, and 
 Maras, acting at the instigation of one of Ibas's 
 own suffragans, Uranius, bp. of Himeria, a 
 pronounced Eutychian. Domnus, who had 
 in 442 succeeded his uncle John as bp. of 
 Antioch, visiting Hierapolis for the enthroniza- 
 tion of the new bp. Stephen, the conspirators 
 chose that moment for action. Cyrus and 
 Eulogius formally laid before Domnus the 
 accusation against Ibas, signed by about 17 
 clergy of Edessa, and supported by 30 (ib. iv. 
 658). Ibas, when starting for Hierapolis to 
 pay his respects to Domnus, heard of the 
 accusation, and at once summoned his clergy, 
 pronounced excommunication on Cyrus and 
 Eulogius as calumniators, threatened the same 
 
 IBAS 
 
 )05 
 
 treatment to all who participated In their 
 proceedings. No immediate step seems to 
 : have foll.)wed the presentation of the libil. 
 In 445 Ibas was summoned bv Donuius to the 
 synod held at Antioch in the matter of Athan- 
 : asius of Perrha, but he excused himself bv 
 , letter (»7). iv. yy)). The sympathies of Dom- 
 nus inclined to Ibas, and he shewed no 
 readiness to entertain the charges brought 
 against him. At last, in Lent 448, tin- fonr 
 chief delators present<d tiicir indi( tni.iit 
 before Donuius and the council i>f the Last in 
 [ a manner too formal to be neglected. Dom- 
 [ nus consequently summoned Ibas to appear 
 ; before him after l-^aster to an.swer the charges. 
 The council was held at Antioch, and was 
 attended by only a few bishops. The existing 
 Acts bear only nine signatures (ift. iv. 64 i). 
 Ibas in person answered the iS charges, mostly 
 of a frivolous character and destitute of proof : 
 e.g. that he had appropriated a jewellid chalice 
 j to his own use ; that the wine at the Eucharist 
 1 was inferior in quality and quantity ; the 
 ' malversation of sums given for the ransom of 
 captives: simoniacal ordinations and the 
 admission of unfit persons to the ministry and 
 episcopate, especially his nephew Daniel, 
 stated to be a scandalous person, whom he 
 had made bp. of Charrae. The most weighty 
 charges were that he had anathematized Cyril 
 and charged him with heresy ; that he was a 
 I Nestorian ; and especially that at Easter 445, 
 in the presence of his clergy, he had spoken the 
 blasphemous words, " I do not envy Christ 
 His becoming (iod, for I can become (lod no 
 less than He." " This is the day that Jesus 
 Christ became (iod " (ih. iv. 647-654 ; Liberat. 
 c. 12). The first charge he acknowledged, the 
 others he indignantly repuiliated as base 
 slanders. Only two of the accusers appeared. 
 Samuel and Cyrus had gone to Constantinojile, 
 j in defiance of the terms on which the excom- 
 { munication had been taken off, to lay their 
 complaint before the emperor and patriarch, 
 the favourable feeling of Domnus towards the 
 accused being too evident for them to hope 
 for an impartial trial. Domnus and the 
 council declined to proceed in the absence of 
 the chief witnesses, and the case seemed tf) be 
 postponed indefinitely (Labbe, iv. 642 seq. ; 
 j Theod. Ep. in). Eulogius and Maras, there- 
 1 upon, hastened to join their fellow-conspirators 
 at Constantinople, where they found a power- 
 ful party strongly hostile to the Eastern 
 1 bishops, Theodoret in particular. Their 
 I faction was soon strengthened bv the arrival 
 I of Uranius, the prime mover of the whole 
 cabal, and half a dozen more Edessene clergy. 
 The emperor and Flavian, who had succeeded 
 Proclus as patriarch, listened to their com- 
 plaints, but declined to hear them officially. 
 . The case was remitted to the East, and by an 
 i imperial conunission, dated Oct. 26, 448, 
 Uranius of Himeria, Photius of Tyre, just 
 elected Sept. 0, 448, on the deposition of 
 Irenaeus, and F,ustathius of Berytus were 
 deputed to hear it, and Damascius. the tribune 
 and secretary of state, was dispatched as 
 imperial commissioner. The whole procee<l- 
 ing was manifestly illegal. It was contrary 
 to the canons that bishops should be subjected 
 to the judgment of other bishops, two belong- 
 ' ing to another province, on the strength of an 
 
506 
 
 IBAS 
 
 imperial decree. No one, however, protested. 
 The imperial power was regarded as absolute. 
 The tribunal also was grossly unfair. One of 
 the three judges, Uranius, was ringleader of 
 the movement against Ibas ; the other two 
 had obtained their sees by the instrumentality 
 of Uranius (Martin, Le Brigandage d'Ephese, 
 pp. 118-120). Tyre was named as the place of 
 trial. The exasperation stirred up there by the 
 blasphemies charged against Ibas was so great 
 that it was thought politic to remove the trial 
 to Berytus to avoid disturbances (Labbe, iv. 
 636). The court sat in the hall of Eustathius's 
 episcopal residence. The indictment was 
 produced by Ibas's accusers. Ibas laid before 
 his judges a memorial signed by many of his 
 clergy, denying that he had ever uttered the 
 alleged blasphemies (ib. iv. 667-671). Only 
 three witnesses supported the accusation, and 
 brought forward a copy of the celebrated letter 
 to Maris (j&. iv. 659-662). The commissioners, 
 avoiding any judicial decision, brought about a 
 friendly arrangement. His enemies agreed to 
 withdraw their accusations on Ibas promising 
 that he would forget the past, regard his accusers 
 as his children, and remit any fresh difficulty 
 for settlement to Domnus ; and that, to avoid 
 suspicion of malversation, the church revenues 
 of Edessa should be administered, like those 
 of Antioch, by oeconomi. Ibas gave equal 
 satisfaction on theological points. He en- 
 gaged to publicly anathematize Nestorius and 
 all who thought with him on his return, and 
 declared the identity of his doctrine with that 
 agreed upon by John and Cyril, and that he 
 accepted the decrees of Ephesus equally with 
 those of Nicaea as due to the inspiration of 
 the Holy Spirit. The concordat was signed, 
 Uranius alone dissenting, Feb. 25, 449 (ih. 
 iv. 630-648). The truce had no elements 
 of permanence, and a very few weeks saw it 
 broken. The Eutychian party, resolved on 
 the ruin of Ibas and irritated at their failure 
 at Berytus, left no stone unturned to over- 
 throw it. All-powerful at Constantinople 
 through the intrigues of Chrysaphius, Dios- 
 corusandhis partisans easily obtained from the 
 feeble emperor, indignant at the condemnation 
 of Eutyches, an edict summoning a general 
 council at Ephesus for Aug. i, 449. Reports 
 diligently spread in Edessa during his absence 
 of Ibas's heterodoxy made his reception so 
 unfavourable that he was obliged to leave the 
 town and call upon the " magister militiae " 
 for a guard to protect him. He soon dis- 
 covered that all appeal to the civil power was 
 idle ; he was regarded as a public enemy to 
 be crushed at all hazards. The count Chae- 
 reas as civil governor of Osrhoene, but with 
 secret instructions from Constantinople eman- 
 ating from Chrysaphius and Eutyches, was 
 deputed to arrest and imprison him and 
 reopen the suit. When Chaereas entered 
 Edessa, Apr. 12, 449, to commence the trial, 
 he was met by a turbulent body of abbats and 
 monks and their partisans, clamouring furious- 
 ly for the immediate expulsion and condemna- 
 tion of Ibas and his Nestorian crew. Ibas was 
 " a second Judas," " an adversary of Christ," 
 an " offshoot of Pharaoh." " To the fire with 
 him and all his race." Two days later the 
 inquiry began in the absence of Ibas amid 
 violent interruptions. All Edessa knew that 
 
 IBAS 
 
 Chaereas had come merely to ratify under 
 the colour of judicial proceedings a sentence 
 of condemnation already passed. Chaereas, 
 however, was moving too slowly for their 
 hatred, and on Sun. Apr. 17 the excitement 
 in church was so violent that the count was 
 compelled to promise that the verdict of the 
 synod of Berytus should be reviewed and a 
 new investigation commenced. This began 
 on Apr. 18 ; all the old charges were repro- 
 duced by the same accusers, amid wild yells 
 of " Ibas to the gallows, to the mines, to the 
 circus, to exile " drowning every attempt at 
 explanation or defence. Chaereas, as had 
 been predetermined, addressed a report to the 
 imperial government, declaring the charges 
 proved ; and on June 27 the emperor, acknow- 
 ledging the receipt of the document, ordered 
 that a bishop who would command the con- 
 fidence of the faithful should be substituted 
 for Ibas (Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus ; 
 Martin, u.s. t. ii. c. ix.). Only a legally consti- 
 tuted synod could depose him, but meanwhile 
 his enemies' malice could be gratified by his 
 maltreatment. He was forbidden to enter 
 Edessa, apprehended and treated as the vilest of 
 criminals, dragged about from province to pro- 
 vince, changing his quarters 40 times and being 
 in 20 different prisons ( Labbe, iv. 634 ; Liberat. 
 c. 12 ; Facund. lib. vi. c. i). The council of 
 Ephesus, so notorious for its scandalous vio- 
 lence, which gained for it, from Leo the Great 
 {Ep. 93), the title of the " Gang of Robbers," 
 opened on Aug. 3. One of its objects was to get 
 rid finally of Ibas. This was the work of the 
 second session, held on Aug. 22. Ibas was 
 not cited to appear, being then in prison at 
 Antioch (Labbe, iv. 626, 634). Before the 
 witnesses were allowed to enter, the three 
 bishops who had conducted the investigation 
 at Tyre and Berytus were asked for an account 
 of their proceedings. Instead of declaring the 
 fact that, after examination made, they had 
 acquitted Ibas, they made pitiful excuses as 
 to their inability to arrive at the truth from 
 the distance of the place of trial to Edessa, 
 and endeavoured to shift the burden by saying 
 that an investigation had subsequently been 
 held at Edessa itself, which had received the 
 approbation of the emperor, and that the 
 wisest course for the council would be to 
 inquire what was the decision there. This 
 advice was followed. The monks of Edessa 
 and the other parties to the indictment were 
 admitted, and the whole of the depositions and 
 correspondence read to the assembly. As the 
 reading of the document ended, wild male- 
 dictions burst forth, invoking every kind of 
 vengeance, temporal and eternal, on the head 
 of this " second Iscariot," this " veritable 
 Satan." " Nestorius and Ibas should be 
 burnt alive together. The destruction of the 
 two would be the deliverance of the world." 
 Eulogius, the presbyter of Edessa, who had 
 been one of the first accusers of Ibas before 
 Domnus, followed with a summary of the 
 proceedings from their commencement, speci- 
 fying all the real or supposed crimes laid to 
 his charge. The question of deposition was 
 put to the council, and carried nem. con. 
 Among those who voted for it were Eustathius 
 of Berytus and Photius of Tyre, who had 
 previously acquitted him ont he same evid- 
 
IBAS 
 
 ence. The sentence was that he should be 
 deposed from the episcopate and pricstliood, 
 deprived even of lay coininunion, and com- 
 pelled to restore the money of which it was 
 pretended he had robbed the poor. Ibas, 
 twice acquitted, was condemned without being 
 heard or even summoned ; and no protest was 
 raised in his favour, even by those who, a few 
 months before, had given him their suffrage 
 (Martin, u.s. t. iii. c. ii. p. i8i ; Labbe, iv. 
 674 ; Chron. Edess. anno 736 ; Assemani, 
 Bibl. Or. i. 202). We have no certain know- 
 ledge of what befel Ibas on his deposition. 
 At the beginning of 451 the deposed and 
 banished bishops were allowed to return from 
 exile, but the question of their restoration was 
 reserved for the fourth general council which 
 met at Chalcedon a.d. 451. In the oth session, 
 Oct. 26, the case of Ibas came before the 
 assembled bishops. On his demand to be 
 restored in accordance with the verdict of 
 Photius and Eustathiiis at Berytus and Tyre, 
 the Acts of that synod were read, and the next 
 day the pope's legates gave their opinion that 
 Ibas, being unlawfully deposed, should be at 
 once restored, .\fter much discussion this was 
 carried unanimously. The legates led the 
 way, declaring his letter to Maris orthodox, 
 and commanding his restitution. All the 
 prelates agreed in this verdict, the condition 
 being that he should anathematize Nestorius 
 and Eutyches and accept the tome of Leo. 
 Ibas consented without any difficulty. " He 
 had anathematized Nestorius already in his 
 writings, and would do so again ten thousand 
 times, together with Eutyches and all who 
 teach the One Nature, and would accept all 
 that the council holds as truth." On this he 
 was unanimously absolved, restored to his 
 episcopal dignity, and voted as bp. of Edessa 
 at the subsequent sessions (Labbe, iv. 793, 
 799 ; Facund. lib. v. c. 3). Nonnus, who had 
 been chosen bishop on his deposition, being 
 legitimately ordained, was allowed to retain 
 his episcopal rank, and on Ibas's death, Oct. 
 28, 457, quietly succeeded him as metropolitan 
 (Labbe, iv. 891, 917). The fiction that Ibas 
 had disowned the letter to Maris at Chalcedon 
 (Greg. Magn. lib. viii. Ep. 14), as he was 
 asserted by Justinian to have done before at 
 Berytus, as having been forged in his name, is 
 thoroughly disproved by Facundus (lib. v. 
 c. 2, lib. vii. c. 5). A controversy concerning 
 his letter to Maris arose in the next century, 
 in the notorious dispute about the " Three 
 Articles," when the letter was branded as 
 heterodox (together with the works of Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret's writings 
 in favour of Nestorius) in the edict of Justinian, 
 and was formally condemned in 553 by the 
 fifth general council, which pronounced an 
 anathema, in bold defiance of historical fact, 
 against all who should pretend that it and the 
 other documents impugned had been recog- 
 nized as orthodox by the council of Chalcedon 
 (Evagr. H. E. iv. '38 ; Labbe, v. 562-567). 
 Ibas is anathematized by the Jacobites as a 
 Nestorian (Assemani, t. i. p. 202). According 
 to the Chronicle of Edessa, Ibas, during his 
 episcopate, erected the new church of the 
 Apostles at Edessa, to which a senator gave 
 a silver table of 720 lb. weight, and Anatolius, 
 pracfectus militum, a silver cofifer to receive 
 
 IDATIUS 
 
 507 
 
 the rehcs of St. Thomas the Apostle, who was 
 said, after preaching in Parthia, to have been 
 buried there (Socr. H. E. iv. iH). 
 
 Ibas was a translator and disseminator of 
 the writmgs of others rather than an original 
 author. His translations of the thenlogiral 
 works of The.xlore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus 
 of Tarsus, Theodorct, and Nestorius, were 
 actively spread through Syria, Persia, and the 
 East, and were verv influential in fostering the 
 Nestorian tenets which have, even t.. the 
 present day, characterized the Christians of 
 those regions. His influence was permanent 
 in the celebrated theological school of Edessa. 
 in spite of the efforts of Nonnus to eradicate 
 it, until its final overthrow and the banishment 
 of its teachers to Persia. Tillem. .\Um. eccl. 
 t. XV.; .Assemani, B/ft/. Orient, t. i pp. 199 seq., 
 t. iii. pp. 70-74 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 426 ; 
 Facund. Defens. Trium. Capttul. ; Schrockh. 
 XV. 438, xviii. 307-311; Perrv. .4cts of the 
 Second Council of Ephcsus ; Abbe Martin, Actes 
 du Brigandage d'Ephi'se ; Le Pseudo-svnode 
 d'Ephi-se. [e.v.] 
 
 Idatlus (3) {Idacius ; surnamed Lemicen- 
 sis), bp. of Aquae Flaviac (Chaves or Chiaves) 
 in Gallicia, from c. 427 to 470, and author of a 
 well-known Chronicle which was one of the 
 various continuations of Jerome. Our only 
 sources for his life are notices in his own work, 
 for the meagre Life by Isidore in de Vir. III. 
 c. ix. is merely a summary of Idatius's own 
 prologue. The existing material was elabor- 
 ately sifted and put together bv Florez (Esp. 
 Sagr. iv., Madrid, 1749). and less completelv 
 by (larzon, whose ed. of Idatius was pub. at 
 Brussels in 1845 by P. F. X. de Kam. 
 
 Birthplace and Bishopric. — Idatius tells us 
 in the prologue to his Chronicle that he was 
 born " in Lemica civitate," " Leniica " being 
 a copyist's error for Limica in Portugal. He 
 was bom c. 388, shortly after the execution 
 of Priscillian and his companions at Treves, 
 and about the time when, as he tells us in his 
 Chronicle (ad. ann. 386), the Priscillianists. 
 falling back on Spain after the death of their 
 chief, took a special hold on the province of 
 Gallicia. About a.d. 400 he was in Egypt and 
 Palestine, where, as he says (Prolog, and Chron. 
 ad ann. 435), he, " et infantulus et pupillus," 
 saw St. Jerome at Bethlehem, John bp. of 
 Jerusalem, Eulogius of Caesarea, and Theo- 
 philus of Alexandria. His return to Gallifia 
 may be dated c. 402 (Florez, Esp. Sagr. iv. 
 301). In 416, seven years after the irruption 
 of the Suevi, Alani, and Vandals into the 
 peninsula, Idatius entered the ministry. f«r 
 so we must understand the entry in the Chron. 
 Parvtim (see below) under that year, " Idatii 
 conversio ad Doniinuin peccatoris " (cf. 
 Florez, I.e. p. 302), and in 427 he was made 
 bishop (see Prol. Esp. Sagr. iv. 348). In 431 
 the rule of the Suevi had become so intolerable 
 that Idatius was sent by the (iallician pro- 
 vincials to Aetius in Gaul to ask for help. He 
 returned in 432, accompanied by the legate 
 Censorius, after whose departure from Gallicia 
 the bishoi)S persuaded Hcrmeric, the Suevian 
 king, to make peace with the provincials. For 
 about 24 years Gallicia enjoyed tranquillity 
 compared with the rest of Spain, and the 
 Gallician bishops found themselves to some ex- 
 tent free to deal with the prevalent Priscillianist 
 
508 
 
 IDATIUS 
 
 and Manichean doctrines, which had even 
 infected some of the episcopate {Ep. Leo Magn. 
 ad Turribium ; Tejada y Ramiro, Cohcc. de 
 Can. etc. ii. p. 889). Between 441 and 447 
 must be placed the letter of Turribius to 
 Idatius and Ceponius (? bp. of Tuy) on the 
 Priscillianist apocryphal books {Esp. Sagr. xvi. 
 95 ; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. 887). In 444-445. 
 the confessions of certain Roman Manicheans 
 having disclosed the names of their co-be- 
 lievers in the provinces, letters were sent to 
 the provinces by pope Leo warning the 
 bishops (Prosper ad ann. 444; see Garzon's 
 note 6, ed. De Ram, p. 83). Accordingly we 
 find Idatius and Turribius in 445 holding a 
 trial of certain Manicheans discovered at 
 Astorga, no doubt by aid of the papal letters, 
 and forwarding a report of the trial to the 
 neighbouring metropolitan of Merida, evident- 
 ly to put him on his guard. In 447, in answer 
 to various documents from St. Turribius on 
 the Gallician heresies, Leo sent a long decretal 
 letter to Spain to be circulated by him, urging 
 the assembly of a national council, or at least 
 of a Gallician synod, in which, by the efforts 
 of Turribius and of Idatius and Ceponius, 
 " fratres vestri," a remedy might be devised 
 for the prevailing disorder. Probably the synod 
 never actually met, for Idatius's Chronicle, 
 which rarely omits any ecclesiastical news he 
 could give, does not mention it. 
 
 In the troubled times after the flight and 
 execution of Rekiar, Idatius fell a victim to 
 the disorders of the country. His capture at 
 Aquae Flaviae by Frumari (July 26, 460) was 
 owing mostly, no doubt, to his importance as 
 a leader and representative of the Roman 
 population, but partly, perhaps, as Florez 
 suggests, to the hatred of certain Galhcian 
 Priscillianist informers (their names are Latin ; 
 cf. Chron. ad ann.) who had felt the weight 
 of his authority. He was released in 3 months, 
 and after his return to Chiaves lived at least 
 8 years under the Suevian kingdom which he 
 had too hastily declared to be " destructum et 
 finitura " in 456 (? '' pene destructum," as 
 Isidore, his copyist in Hist. Suevorum, eod. 
 loc), but which took a new lease, on Frumari's 
 death (464), under Remismund. His Chron- 
 icle ends with 469, and he must have died before 
 474, the year of the emperor Leo's death, under 
 whom Isidore places that of Idatius [Esp. Sagr. 
 iv. 303, ed. De Ram, pp. 15, 39). 
 
 Chronicle. — The prologue to the Chronicle, 
 composed apparently after its completion, 
 at any rate in the extreme old age of its 
 author, gives a full account of its intention, 
 sources, and arrangement. It was intended 
 to continue the Chronicle of Eusebius and 
 Jerome, Idatius including his own works in 
 one vol. with theirs (ed. De Ram, p. 48, note 3, 
 and p. 59, note 4), and he divides it into two 
 parts, the first starting from 379, where 
 Jerome breaks off, and ending 427, when 
 Idatius was made bishop ; the second extend- 
 ing from 427 to the end. In the first division 
 Sulpicius and Orosius seem to have been his 
 main authorities, together with the works of 
 SS. Augustine and Jerome {Esp. Sagr. iv. 335, 
 356), and the lives and writings of certain 
 contemporary bishops (John of Jerusalem, I.e. 
 
 357, Paulinus of Beziers, ib., Paulinus of Nola, 
 
 358, etc.). " Thenceforward " {i.e. from 427), 
 
 IDATIUS 
 
 j he says, describing his second division, " I, 
 undeservedly chosen to the office of the 
 episcopate, and not ignorant of all the troubles 
 of this miserable time, have added both the 
 falling landmarks ('metas ruituras') of the 
 oppressed Roman empire, and also what is 
 more mournful still, the degenerate condition 
 of the church order within Gallicia, which is 
 the end of the world, the destruction of honest 
 liberty by indiscriminate appointments (to 
 bishoprics), and the almost universal decay 
 of the divine discipline of religion, evils 
 springing from the rule of furious men and the 
 tumults of hostile nations." This is the note 
 of the whole Chronicle, which gives a vivid 
 and invaluable picture of one most important 
 scene in the great drama of the fall of the 
 Western empire, and without which we should 
 be almost in the dark as to events of the first 
 half of the 5th cent, in Spain. Idatius de- 
 scribes the entry of the Vandals, Alani, and 
 Suevi into the Peninsula in Oct. 409, and the 
 two following years of indiscriminate pillage 
 and ruin before the division of the country by 
 lot amongst the invaders. 
 
 The Chronicle altogether embraces 91 years. 
 On the chronology of the last five years and 
 on possible interpolations of certain chrono- 
 logical notes by the copyist, see ed. De Ram, 
 p. 30, also Florez, iv. 310. 
 
 The Fasti Idatiani were first attributed to 
 Idatius by Sirmond, partly because in the 
 ancient MS. from which he printed the Chron- 
 icle the Fasti followed immediately, and 
 partly because he believed that there was 
 strong internal evidence for the Idatian 
 authorship {Op. 1728, ii. 287). This opinion 
 has been generally adopted, notably by Dr. 
 Mommsen {Corpus Inscr. Lai. i. 484). Florez 
 is an exception, but his grounds are extremely 
 j slight (see Esp. Sagr. iv. 457, and Garzon's 
 I answer, ed. De Ram, p. 41). The history of 
 ' the Fasti has now been cleared up with great 
 learning and acuteness by Holder-Egger in the 
 i Xeues Archil' der Gesellschaft fur dltere Deutsche 
 \ Geschichtskunde, ii. pp. 59-71- His general 
 conclusions are (i) that the Fasti Idatiani are 
 one of two derivatives of certain consular 
 Fasti put together at Constantinople in 4th 
 cent., the Chronicon Paschale (Migne, Patr. 
 Gk. xcii.) being the other. (2) That the 
 common source of the Fasti and of the Chron. 
 Pasch. was itself compiled at Constantinople 
 from older Roman Fasti, such as are still 
 preserved in the Chronographus of 354 
 (Mommsen, op. cit. i. 483 ; Wattenbach, 
 Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, p. 48), the 
 notices peculiar to Constantinople beginning 
 from 330. when Byzantium became the 
 second capital of the empire. (3) That after 
 390-395, when the Chron. Pasch. branches off 
 from the Fasti Idatiani, a copy of the Con- 
 stantinople Fasti came westward, received 
 certain additions in Italy and then reached 
 Spain, where a Spanish reviser and continuator 
 gave them the shape under which we now 
 know them as the Fasti Idatiani. That Ida- 
 tius the author of the Chromcle revised the 
 Fasti Holder-Egger does not believe, but is 
 inclined to hold that their agreement is best 
 explained by the theory that Idatius used but 
 did not compose the Fasti. His arguments 
 on this point seem scarcely conclusive, and he 
 
IGNATIUS 
 
 is indeed prepared to admit that certain 
 trifling additions to and alterations in the 
 Fasti were probably made by Idatius. For 
 the latter use of the Fasti Idaiiani, the East 
 Roman Fasti as the Ravenna annals are the 
 West Roman Fasti (Wattenbach, i. 40), see 
 Holder-Egger's art. Die Chronik ties Marcel- 
 limis Comes und der Ostromischen Fasten, 
 Neues Archiv, etc. ii. 44. 
 
 The Chronicon Parvum Idatii is the work 
 of an unskilful abbreviator of the larger 
 Chronicle, who adds a continuation to the time 
 of Justinian. It must not be confused with 
 the excerpta from Idatius made under Charles 
 the Great. 
 
 Besides the references already given see 
 Adolf Ebert, AUgemeiue Gesch. der Lift, des 
 Mittelalters im Abendlande, i. 1874; Teuilfel, 
 Gesch. der Rvmischen Litt. 1875. [m.a.w.] 
 
 Ignatius (1), St. (called Theophorus), Oct. 
 17, the 2nd bp. of Antioch (c. 70-c. 107), 
 between Evodius and Hero. He is sometimes 
 reckoned the 3rd bishop, St. Peter being 
 reckoned the first (Bosch, Pat. Ant. in Boll. 
 Acta SS. Jul. iv. introd. p. 8 ; Le Quien, Or. 
 Chr. ii. 700). 
 
 The question of the life and writings of 
 Ignatius, including the connected subject of 
 the Ep. of Polycarp to the Philippians, has 
 been described by M. Renan as the most 
 difficult in early Christian history next to 
 that of the foiurth gospel. 
 
 I. About 165 Lucian in his satire de Morte 
 Peregrini relates (cc. 14-41) that Peregrinus 
 was made a prisoner in Syria. The Christians 
 of Asia Minor sent messengers and money to 
 him according to their usual custom when 
 persons were imprisoned for their faith. 
 Peregrinus wrote letters to all the more 
 important cities, forwarding these by mes- 
 sengers whom he appointed (^x^'P"'^'^'")'''*) ^md 
 entitled veKpayyeXovs and f€pT(po5p6fj.ovs. 
 The coincidence of this story with that of 
 Ignatius, as told afterwards by Eusebius, 
 would be alone a strong evidence of connexion. 
 The similarity of the expressions with the 
 irp^TTd x^'-P°''^o^V'^o.^ ■'■'"'i Sj ovvTiiTeTai O(oop6/J.os 
 KaXuadai of ad Pol. vii. would, if the words 
 stood alone, make it almost certain that 
 Lucian was mimicking the words of the epistle. 
 These two probabilities lead us to believe that 
 the composition was by one acquainted with 
 the story and even some of the letters of 
 Ignatius. (Renan, i. 38; Zahn, i. 517; Pearson, 
 i. 2 ; Denzinger, 85 ; Lightfoot, ii. See Author- 
 ities at the foot of this art.) 
 
 Theophilus, bp. of Antioch (fl. before 167), 
 has a coincidence with Ignat. ad Eph. xix. i, 
 where the virginity of Mary is said to have 
 been concealed from the devil. Irenaeus, 
 c. 180 (adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4), bears witness that 
 Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, and (v. 28) 
 mentions how a Christian martyr said, " I am 
 the bread-corn of Christ, to be ground by the 
 teeth of beasts that I may be found pure 
 bread " — words found in Ignat. ad Rom. iv. i. 
 The passage of Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius 
 (//. E. iii. 36) as a testimony to Ignatius. 
 Origen, early in 3rd cent., Prol. in Cant. (Op. 
 ed. Delarue, iii. 30), writes, " I remember also 
 that one of the saints, by name Ignatius, said 
 of Christ, ' My love was crucified ' " — words 
 found in Ignat. ad Rom. vii. 2. Origen also 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 609 
 
 (Horn, in Luc. vol. iii. 938) says, " I find it 
 well written in one of the epistles t)f a certain 
 martyr, I mean Ignatius, 2nd bp. of Antio< h 
 after Peter, who in tlie persecution fought with 
 beasts at Rome, that the virginity i>( Marv 
 escaped the prince of this world" (Ignat. ad 
 Eph. xix. i). 
 
 Eusebius, early in 4th cent., gives a full 
 account which explains these fragmentary 
 allusions and quotations. In his Chrontcle he 
 twice names Ignatius as 2nd bp. of Antioch 
 aftir the apostles ; in one case adiling that he 
 was martyred. In his Ecclesiasttcal History, 
 besides less important notices of our saint and 
 of Polycarp, he relates (iii. 22, 37, 38, iv. 14, 
 15) how Ignatius, whom he calls very cele- 
 brated among the Christians, was sent from 
 Syria to Rome to be cast to the beasts for 
 Christ's sake. When journeying under guard 
 through Asia he addressed to the cities near 
 places of his sojourn exhortations and epistles. 
 Thus in Sm>Tna, the city of Polvcarp, he wrote 
 to Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles. He wrote 
 to the Romans, begging them not to impede 
 his martyrdom. Of this epistle Eusebius 
 appends § v. at length. Then he tells how 
 Ignatius, having left Smyrna and come to 
 Troas, wrote thence to the Philadelphians and 
 Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. One sentence 
 from Smyr. iii. Eusebius copies as containing 
 a saying of Christ not otherwise handed down. 
 The Apostolical Constitutions, in their uninter- 
 polated form as known to us through the 
 Syriac trans, of the Didascalia, in several 
 places coincide very strikingly with the 
 shorter Greek or 7 Vossian epistles. An 
 epistle which passes under the name of 
 Athanasius, and which if not by him is by a 
 contemporary writer, quotes a passage from 
 ad Eph. vii. 2, as written by Ignatius, who 
 after the apostles was bp. of Antioch and a 
 martyr of Christ. (See, as to the genuineness 
 of this epistle, Cureton, Ixviii. ; Zahn, i. 578.) 
 St. Basil (ed. Ben. ii. 598) quotes, without 
 naming Ignatius, the familiar sentence from 
 ad Eph. xix. i, concerning Satan's ignorance 
 of the virginity of Mary. St. Jerome's testi- 
 mony is dependent on that of Eusebius. St. 
 Chrysostom (Op. vol. ii. 592) has a homily on 
 St. Ignatius which relates that he was ap- 
 pointed by the apostles bp. of Antioch ; was 
 sent for to Rome in a time of persecution to 
 be there judged ; instructed and admonished 
 with wonderful power all the cities on the 
 way, and Rome itself when he arrived ; was 
 condemned and martyred in the Roman 
 theatre crying, 'K-)(1.tu«' Uriplwy ^t^dvui' dvalfirtv ; 
 and his remains were transferred after death 
 with great solemnity to Antioch. (Zahn [i. 
 33-49] does not believe that the genuine 
 writings of Chrysostom shew that he was 
 acquainted with the writings of Ignatius. 
 But see the other side powerfully argued by 
 Pearson, i. 9 ; Denzinger, 90 ; l.ipsius, ii. 
 21.) Theodnret freijuently cites the 7 
 Vossian epistles, and mentions Ignatius as 
 I ordained bv St. Peter and made the food of 
 I beasts for the testimony of Christ. Severus, 
 patriarch of Antioch (513-55'). has a long 
 catalogue of sayings from Ignatius, in which 
 every one of the 7 epistles is laid under con- 
 tribution. These are to be found in Syr. in 
 Cureton, in Gk. in Zahn (ii. 352). Cureton 
 
510 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 furnishes also a large collection of Syriac 
 fragments, in which passages taken from the 
 7 Vossian epistles are declared to have the 
 force of canons in the church. 
 
 II. We possess also a multitude of Acts of 
 the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, which, if we 
 could accept them, would supply very par- 
 ticular accounts of his life and death. Of 
 these Ussher published 3 in whole or part : 
 one in Lat. from two related MSS. ; another 
 in Lat. from the Cottonian library ; a third 
 in Gk. from a MS. at Oxford. The Bollandists 
 published a Latin martyrdom in the Acta SS. 
 for Feb. i ; Cotelerius a Gk. one by Symeon 
 Metaphrastes. Ruinart, and afterwards 
 Jacobson (Pat. Ap. ii.), printed a Gk. MS. 
 from the Colbertine collection (MS. Colb.) ; 
 J. S. Assemani found a Syriac one which may 
 be the same as that partly printed by Cureton 
 (i.). Aucher, and afterwards Petermann 
 (p. 496), published an Armenian one. Dressel 
 printed a Gk. version of the loth cent. (MS. 
 Vat.). The 9 are reducible to 5, possessing 
 each a certain independence. But of these MS. 
 Colb. and MS. Vat. are by far the most valu- 
 able, being completely independent, while the 
 remaining versions are mixtures of these two. 
 
 MS. Colb. (see Zahn, ii. p. 301) relates the 
 condemnation of Ignatius by Trajan in An- 
 tioch, and incorporates the Ep. to the Romans. 
 This MS. bears marks of interpolation, and its 
 chief value lies in its incorporation of the Ep. 
 to the Romans. The other epistles the author 
 of the MS. has not read carefully. We con- 
 clude that this martyrdom, written in the 4th 
 cent., assumed its present form after the first 
 half of the 5th. 
 
 MS. Vat. (Zahn, ii. 307) omits all judicial 
 proceedings in Antioch. Ignatius is sent for 
 by Trajan to Rome, as a teacher dangerous to 
 the state ; an argument takes place before the 
 senate between the emperor and the saint ; 
 the lions kill him, but leave the body un- 
 touched, and it remains as a sacred deposit at 
 Rome. Thus MS. Vat. seems to have arisen 
 on the basis of an account of the journey and 
 death of the saint, extant at the end of the 
 4th cent. On the whole, the martyrdoms are 
 late and untrustworthy compositions, wholly 
 useless as materials for determining the 
 question of the epistles ; we are thrown back 
 on Eusebius. 
 
 III. Eusebius in the Chronicle (ed.Schone, ii. 
 152, 158, 162) omits (contrary to his custom) 
 the durations of the episcopates of Antioch. 
 We can, therefore, place Ignatius's death any 
 time between Ab. 2123, Traj. 10, and 2132, 
 Traj. 19. In H. E. iii. 22, Eusebius, in a 
 general way, makes the episcopates uf Symeon 
 and Ignatius contemporary with the first 
 years of Trajan and the last of St. John and 
 (iii. 36) with Polycarp and Papias. We may 
 date his epistles,' journey, and death in any 
 year from 105 to 117. Funk fixes it at 107. 
 
 In 1878 Harnack published a tract {Die 
 Zeit des Ign. Leipz.) impugning the tradition 
 that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan. 
 The argument rests upon the acts of the 
 martyrdom being proved by Zahn, with the 
 general assent of all his critics, to be untrust- 
 worthy ; the date of the saint's death thus 
 resting wholly on the testimony of Eusebius, 
 who shews that he had no data except the 
 
 mMATlUS 
 
 untrustworthy information of Julius African- 
 us (Harnack, pp. 66 sqq.). But it is very 
 improbable that Eusebius had no tradition 
 save through Africanus, or the latter no 
 tradition save four names. 
 
 The theory of Volkmar, which the author of 
 Supernatural Religion (i. 268) regarded as 
 " demonstrated," was that the martyrdom of 
 Ignatius happened not in Rome but in 
 Antioch, upon Dec. 20, 115 (on which day his 
 ! feast was kept), in consequence of the excite- 
 ment produced by an earthquake a week 
 previously ; but it is now known from the 
 ancient Syriac Menologion, published by 
 Wright iJourn. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1866, p. 45), that 
 the feast was originally kept not upon Dec. 20, 
 but upon Oct. 17. (Zahn, i. 33, and Light- 
 foot, ii. 352, note §, are to be corrected in 
 accordance with this discovery.) 
 
 The other details in the martyrdoms and 
 elsewhere are but expansions from hints 
 supposed to be found in the letters, of which 
 we find an instance in the long dialogue 
 between Ignatius and Trajan upon the name 
 Qfo<p6pos. There is no reason to suspect the 
 genuineness of this addition to the saint's 
 name. It is given untranslated in the 4th- 
 cent. Syriac version. The interpolator found 
 it in his copy, for it stands in all his epistles 
 except that to Polycarp and in all the MSS. of 
 the shorter translation, both Greek and Latin. 
 The 4th-cent. writers, regarding it as a title of 
 honour, do not quote it ; in the 6th it came to 
 be regarded as a name. 
 
 The tradition that Ignatius was martyred 
 at Rome can be traced higher than the records 
 of Eusebius and Origen. The designation of 
 world-famed, which Eusebius gives him, 
 shews the general tradition ; and the words 
 of Origen are to the same effect. The testi- 
 mony of Irenaeus, which Eusebius adduces 
 as perfectly agreeing with the tradition known 
 to him, dates but 70 years after the fact. 
 True, these expressions come from writers who 
 knew the epistles ; but the mere existence of 
 the epistles at such a date, even if they were 
 spurious, would be sufficient proof of the 
 existence of the tradition ; and it is impossible 
 that such a story should have arisen so soon 
 after Trajan, if it had contradicted known 
 facts or prevalent customs of his reign. 
 
 Eusebius clearly wrote with the collection 
 of letters before him, and knew of no other 
 collection besides the 7 he mentions. These 
 he arranges according to place and time of 
 writing, gives his quotation from Romans as 
 out of " the Epistles," and cites Irenaeus's 
 quotation from Ignatius, as proof of that 
 writer's knowledge of them, although Irenaeus 
 did not mention the author's name. 
 
 IV. The gradual presentation of the various 
 Ignatian documents to the modern world is 
 related in the introduction to Cureton's Corpus 
 Ignatianum and is briefly as follows. Late in 
 the 15th and in the beginningof thei6th cents. 
 12 epistles, purporting to be by Ignatius, 
 were given to the world, first in Latin trans- 
 lations, then in the original Greek, together 
 with three others manifestly spurious, which 
 existed in Latin alone. The epistles which 
 bear non-Eusebian titles were soon suspected 
 of spuriousness, and it was proved that the 
 text of the Eusebian, as then known, was 
 
IGNATIUS 
 
 interpolated. Ussher first restored the Renu- 
 ine text by means of a Latin translatimi whith 
 he discovered, and his arguments (except as 
 to hisdonbt whether Ij^natins wrote separately 
 to I'olycarp) were confirmed by N'ussius's 
 publication of the Medicean MS. Thence- 
 forward we have had the longer and the 
 shorter (or Vossian) recensions, the former 
 containing the 7 Eusebian epistles in a longer 
 text and also epistles of Mary of Castabala to 
 Ignatius, with his reply, of Ignatius to the 
 Tarsians, Philippians, .\ntiochenes, and Hero, 
 his successor ; the Vossian comprising only 
 the Eusebian letters and those in a shorter 
 text. The longer recension has had few 
 defenders, while the shorter had many and 
 early assailants, moved especially by its 
 support of episcopacy. Of these Daille was 
 perhaps the ablest, but he was sufficiently 
 answered by bp. Pearson. The genuineness 
 of the longer recension as a whole is now 
 generally denied, the time and method of its 
 interpolations and additions being the only 
 points for consideration. 
 
 Cureton in 1839 transcribed from Syriac 
 MSS. in the Brit. Mus. a fragment of the 
 martyrdom of Ignatius and of the Ep. to the 
 Romans therein contained. In 1847 he dis- 
 covered, among Syriac MSS. acquired in the 
 meantime, three epistles of Ignatius, viz. to 
 Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the 
 Romans, transcribed in the 6th or 7th cent. 
 These epistles are in a form considerably 
 shorter even than the shorter recension of 
 the earlier time. Cureton believed tliis the 
 sole genuine text, and argued the point very 
 ably, but with a confidence whii^h in its 
 contrast with the present state of belief should 
 be a warning to all who are tempted to be too 
 positive on this difficult controversy. Many 
 scholars at the time accepted the Curetonian 
 theory, and Bunsen wrote a voluminous work 
 in its defence. The .Armenian version, first 
 printed, though very incorrectly, in 1783, is 
 mentioned by Cureton, who failed to perceive 
 the effect its testimony was to have upon his 
 own argument. The correct publication and 
 due estimate of the Arnit iiian version are due 
 to Petermann. According to him, it was 
 rendered out of S\Tiac in the 5th cent., and 
 agrees with Ussher's Latin MS. in that, while 
 it contains several post-Ivnsebian epistles 
 united with the Eusebian, the latter are free 
 from any systematic interpolations such as 
 are in the longer recension. 
 
 V. Date of the Longer Recension. — The latest 
 ancient writer who cites only the Eusebian 
 epistles in the uninterpolated text is the monk 
 Antonius in the early part of the 7th cent. 
 (Cureton, p. 176; Zahn, ii. 350). Severus of 
 Antioch, 6th cent. (Cureton, 212 ; Zahn, 352) 
 cites all the Eusebian epistles in a text free 
 from interpolations. 
 
 We cannot doubt that in Ussher's MS. and 
 in the Armenian translation we have (minute 
 textual criticism apart) the 7 epistles as the 
 Fathers from Eusebius to Severus of Antioch 
 and as the interpolator had them. The argu- 
 ments of Ussher upon this point remain un- 
 answered. But the .Armenian, with the 
 Syriac translation from which it sprang, 
 brings back the composition of the six ad- 
 ditional epistles to a. D. 400 at latest; and these 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 511 
 
 are undoubtedlv tiie w..rk ..f the same hand 
 which interpolated tlie ..thirs. t)n the other 
 liand, the interpolation cannot have been 
 before 325, or Eusebius would have cited or 
 alluded to it ; moreover, it shews undoubted 
 marks of dependence on his history. The 
 period of tiie interpolator is thus fixed at the 
 latter part of the 4th cent. His doctrine, as 
 Ussher shewed (p. 221). is stark .Arianisni. 
 I Several names in Pseudo-Ignatius are bor- 
 rowed from the period a.d. 360 to 380 (I'hilost. 
 j iii. 15 ; Theod. i. 5, v. 7 ; Socr. iii. 25, iv. 
 I 12). The titles of the new letters are also 
 I easily accounted for in the same period. 
 i Pseudo-Ignatius interests himself against the 
 ' Quartodecimans ; proving that they must 
 I have been still strong when he wrote, which 
 j was not the case at the conclusion of the 4th 
 ; cent. These oppositions point to the period 
 360-380. Thus all historical indications point 
 to the 2nd half of the 4th cent, as the date 
 of the interpolations. 
 
 Zahn conjectures the interpolator to have 
 been Acacius, the scholar, biographer, and 
 successor of Eusebius at Caesarea, who, as 
 Sozomen (iv. 23) informs us, was regarded as 
 heir to the learning as well as the position of 
 that divine. The roughness of the known 
 character of Acacius (c. 360) agrees with the 
 abusiveness of Pseudo-Ignatius. 
 
 Different Syriac translations of Creek works 
 give similar citations from Ignatius in some- 
 what varying language ; probably because the 
 authors cited from memory an existing Syria( 
 version. Zahn contends that the .\rmenian 
 version came frfun tiie one Syriac translation 
 in the 5th cent., and from it the extracts w<re 
 taken, perhaps somewhat later, which Cureton 
 mistook for the original epistles. The con- 
 nexion in which Cnreton's epistles were found 
 is that of a series of extracts from Fathers 
 whose remaining works are not to be supposed 
 rendered doubtful by their absence from this 
 Syriac MS., and Petermann (xxi.) has cor- 
 rected Bunsen's supposition that the conclud- 
 ing words of the MS. imply that the epistles of 
 Ignatius, as known to the writer, were all 
 comprised in what he copied. Zahn (pp. ir)<), 
 200) compares the Syriac extracts numbered 
 i. and ii. in Corp. Ignat., taken as they were, 
 beyond doubt, from the existing Syriac 
 translation, with S. Cur. {i.e. Cnreton's Syrtac 
 Kf>p.) ; and apparently succeeds in making 
 out that the same translator, whose work is 
 presented in a fragmentary form in S. Cur., 
 meets us in these extracts, h.g. the expres- 
 sion Oriinofiaxftv, and many other pe( uliar 
 words, are similarly rendered; though no. i. 
 seems sometimes to preserve belter the text 
 from which it was copied. We might ( ull 
 from S. Cur. itself certain proofs that it was 
 ! not the original. Moreover, there are 
 [certain passages in it which are plainlv not 
 ! complete in themselves. It is surtly a 
 [quite suflicient motive to supj>ose th.it the 
 epitoniator intended to make one of thi'Se 
 selections of the best parts of a good work, 
 which in all ages have been practised upon 
 the most eminent writers without disrespect. 
 Hefele (see Denzinger, pp. 8. 196) thinks he 
 can discern the practical ascetic purpose of the 
 selection, and we observe that very naturally 
 the abbreviator begins each epistle with a 
 
512 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 design of taking all that is most edifying ; but 
 his resolution or his space fails him before the 
 end, when he abridges far more than at the 
 beginning. His form of Ephesians has alone 
 an uniform character of epitome from the first; 
 but a number of personal names plainly lit 
 to be omitted come very early. Denzinger 
 powerfully urges(pp. ^^ seq.) the certainty that 
 the Monophysites would have complained 
 when the seven epistles were quoted against 
 them had these been spurious, and he and 
 Uhlhorn have fully shewn how entirely the 
 epitomator is committed to any doctrines in 
 the shorter recension which can be found 
 diiificult. What a useless and objectless task 
 then would any one have in interpolating and 
 extending Cureton's three into the seven ! 
 Upon the whole case we can pronounce with 
 much confidence that the Curetonian theory 
 is never likely to revive. 
 
 VI. The Ep. to the Romans differs from the 
 other six Eusebian letters in being used by 
 some authors who use no others and omitted 
 by some who cite the others. Zahn suggests 
 that it did not at first belong to the collection, 
 but was propounded by itself, with or without 
 a martyrdom. This seems supported by the 
 fact that it escaped the interpolations which 
 the other epistles suffered at the hand, prob- 
 ably, of Acacius. 
 
 VII. The circumstances of the journey and 
 martyrdom of Ignatius, gathered from the 
 seven epistles and from that of Polycarp, are 
 as follows : He suffers under a merely local 
 persecution. It is in progress at Antioch 
 while he is in Smyrna, whence he writes to the 
 Romans, Ephesians, Magnesians, and Tral- 
 lians. But Rome, Magnesia (xii.), and 
 Ephesus (xii.) are at peace, and in Troas he 
 learns that peace is restored to the church in 
 Antioch. Of the local causes of this Antioch- 
 ene persecution we are ignorant, but it is not 
 in the least difficult to credit. The imagined 
 meeting of the emperor and the saint is not 
 found in the epistles ; it is " the world " under 
 whose enmity the church is there said to suffer. 
 All now recognize that, according to the 
 testimony of the letters, Ignatius has been 
 condemned in Antioch to death, and journeys 
 with death by exposure to the beasts as the 
 settled fate before him. He deprecates inter- 
 position of the church at Rome (quite powerful 
 enough at the end of the ist cent, to be con- 
 ceivably successful in such a movement) for 
 the remission of a sentence already delivered. 
 The supposition of Hilgenfeld (i. 200) that 
 prayer to God for his martyrdom, or abstin- 
 ence from prayer against it, is what he asks of 
 the Romans seems quite inadmissible, and we 
 could not conceive him so assured of the 
 approach of death if the sentence had not 
 been already pronounced. The right of ap- 
 peal to the emperor was recognized, and could 
 be made without the consent of the criminal, 
 but not if the sentence had proceeded from the 
 emperor himself. Thus the Colbertine Mar- 
 tyrdom, which makes Trajan the judge at 
 Antioch, contradicts the epistles no less than 
 the Vatican which puts off the process to 
 Rome. MS. Colb. brings Ignatius by sea to 
 Srnyrna ; but Eusebius, who had read the 
 epistles, supposes the journey to be by land, 
 and he is clearly right. The journey " by 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 land and sea " {ad Rom. v.) may easily refer 
 to a voyage from Seleucia to some Cilician 
 port, and thence by road. The ordinary way 
 from Antioch to Ephesus was by land, and 
 Ignatius calls the messenger to be sent by the 
 Smyrnaeans to Antioch 6fo8p6/j.oi {Pol. vii.). 
 Ignatius did not, as was usual, pass through 
 Magnesia and Ephesus, but left the great road 
 at Sardis and came by Laodicea, Hierapolis, 
 Philadelphia, and perhaps Colossae, as he had 
 certainly visited Philadelphia and met there 
 the false teachers from Ephesus (Zahn, 258 
 seq. also 266 seq.). The churches written to 
 were not chosen at random, but were those 
 which had shewn their love by sending mes- 
 sengers to him. The replies were thus, primarily, 
 letters of thanks, quite naturally extending 
 into admonitions. 
 
 We find him in the enjoyment of much 
 freedom on his journey, though chained to a 
 soldier. In Philadelphia he preaches, not in 
 a church, but in a large assembly of Christians ; 
 in Smyrna he has intercourse with the Chris- 
 tians there and with messengers of other 
 churches. He has much speech with the 
 bishops concerning the state of the churches. 
 That of Ephesus he treats with special respect, 
 and anticipates writing a second letter {ad 
 Eph. XX.) ; that of Tralles he addresses in a 
 markedly different manner {ad. Tr. 2, 12). 
 He must, therefore, have had time in Sm\Tna 
 to acquaint himself with the condition of the 
 neighbouring churches. If the writing of 
 epistles under the circumstances of his cap- 
 tivity should cause surprise, it must be 
 remembered that they are only short letters, 
 not books. The expression j3(.l3\idiov, which 
 in Eph. XX. he applies to his intended second 
 missive, is often apphed to letters. He dic- 
 tated to a Christian, and thus might, as 
 Pearson remarks, have finished one of the 
 shorter letters in an hour, the longest in 
 three. Perpetua and Saturus wrote in prison 
 narratives as long as the epistles of Ignatius 
 {Acta SS. Perp. et Fel. Ruinart). A ten days' 
 sojourn would amply meet the necessities of 
 the case ; and there is nothing in the treat- 
 ment to which the letters witness inconsistent 
 with that used to other Christian prisoners, 
 e.g. St. Paul. The numberless lihelli pads, 
 written by martyrs in prison, and the celebra- 
 tions of the holy mysteries there with their 
 friends, shew that the liberty given Ignatius was 
 not extraordinary ; especially as the word 
 eL'fpyeToi'/jLfvoi which he applies to his guard 
 points, doubtless, to money given them by the 
 Christians. Ignatius is always eager to 
 know more Christians and to interest them in 
 each other. The news of the cessation of 
 persecution in Antioch stirs him to urge 
 Polycarp to take an interest in that church. 
 The great idea of the Catholic church is at work 
 in him. He does not deny that his request 
 that messengers should be sent to Antioch is 
 an unusual one, but dwells upon the great 
 benefit which will result {Pol. 7; Sm. 11; 
 Phil. 10). But when Polycarp, a few weeks 
 or months afterwards, writes to the Philip- 
 pians, the messenger had not yet been sent. 
 Ignatius had but lately passed through 
 Philippi, by the Via Egnatia to Neapolis. 
 The Philippians immediately' after wrote to 
 Polycarp, and forwarded a message to the 
 
IGNATIUS 
 
 Aiitiochcnes, expecting to be in time to catch 
 the messenger for Antioch before his depar- 
 ture. Ignatius had plainly been suggesting 
 the same thoughts to them as to Tolycarp ; 
 and this would be plainer still if the reading 
 in Kus. H. E. iii. 36, 14 (iypaxpaTi noi Kal vneis 
 Kol 'lyvdrioi) were more sure, and thus a 
 second letter had been received by Polycarp 
 from Ignatius. But this second epistle, if 
 written, has been lost. Polycarp wrote 
 immediately after receiving the epistle of the 
 Philippians. He speaks of the death of 
 Ignatius, knowing that the sentence in Antioch 
 made it certain ; probably knowing also the 
 date of the games at which he was to die. But 
 he is not acquainted with any particulars, 
 since he asks for news concerning the martyr 
 and those with him {Ep. Pol. xiii.), and at the 
 request of the Philippians forwards all the 
 epistles of Ignatius to which he had access, 
 viz. those to the Asiatic churches ; but not all 
 that he knew to have been written. 
 
 VIII. The chief difficulty in accepting the 
 epistles as genuine has always arisen from the 
 form of church government wiiich they record 
 as existing and support with great emphasis. 
 They display the threefold ministry estab- 
 lished in Asia Minor and Syria, and the terms 
 Ejrto-voTTos and Trpea^t'Tejos are applied to 
 perfectly distinct orders — a state of things and 
 use of language which are argued to be wholly 
 incompatible with a date early in the 2nd 
 cent. Hence Daille derived his " palmary 
 argument " (c. xxvi., answeredby Pears, ii. 13). 
 
 It is noteworthy that the testimony of the 
 epistles on this point extends no further than 
 the localities named. To the Romans Igna- 
 tius only once names the office of a bishop, and 
 that in reference to himself ; and in Poly- 
 carp's Ep. to the Philippians there is no 
 mention of anj- bishop, while the deacons and 
 presbyters are addressed at considerable 
 length. The standpoint of the epistles is 
 perfectly consistent with the supposition that 
 episcopacy existing from the times of the 
 apostles in Asia Minor and Syria and believed 
 by the Christians there to be a divinely or- 
 dained institution, made its way gradually 
 into other parts of the church, and that those 
 who most valued it might yet know that it 
 did not exist in churches to which they wrote, 
 or not be assured that it did, and might feel 
 it no part of their duty to enter upon a con- 
 troversy concerning it. 
 
 Zahn fairlyobserves that there is noattempt, 
 even in those epistles where obedience to the 
 bishop is most urged, to recommend it in 
 opposition to other forms of church govern- 
 ment. Not only is the supposition that 
 Ignatius was introducing episcopacy utterly 
 out of the question, but none of the epistles 
 bear the slightest trace of any recent intro- 
 duction of it in the places in which it exists. 
 The presbyterate is everywhere identified 
 with the episcopate in its claims to obedience, 
 and those who resist the one resist the other. 
 It is extremely hard to reconcile these char- 
 acteristics with the supposition that the letters 
 were forged to introduce the rule of bishops 
 or to uplift it to an unprecedented position 
 in order to resist the assaults of heresy. 
 
 A guod deal of uncertainty remains as to the 
 relations which the smaller congregations out- 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 513 
 
 I side the limits of the cities held in the Ignatian 
 church order to the bishops of the cities. No 
 
 1 provision api)ears for ejiiscopal rule over 
 country congregations whose pastors arc 
 
 I not in the " presbytery " — an uncommon 
 expression in antiquity, but used 13 times by 
 Ignatius. 
 
 The duties the eiustles ascribe to bishops are 
 very similar to those which St. Paul (Acts, xx.) 
 lays upon presbyters. Only in one place {Pol. 
 5) do they speak of the i>reaching of the 
 bishop ; and it is not peculiar to him, but 
 common with the presbyters. The deacons 
 have duties wholly distinct, concerned with 
 the meat and drink given to the poor and with 
 the distribution of the mysteries of the liu- 
 charist. But the presbyters are very closely 
 united with the bishop. They are not his 
 vicars, but his ffvu^Spiou {Phil. 8 ; Pol. 7), and 
 yet the bishop is by no means a mere president 
 of the college of presbyters. Zahn shews that 
 even though the development of episcopacy 
 were thought to have taken place through the 
 elevation of one of a college to a presidency 
 in those parts where it did not exist in the end 
 of the ist cent., it would still be impossible to 
 hold this of Asia. The youth of many of the 
 earliest .\siatic bishops puts this theory en- 
 tirely out of the question there. Whatever 
 development is implied in the passage from 
 the state of things represented in I. Pet. and 
 I. Tim. to organized episcopacy, took place, 
 according to the testiniony of all records both 
 of Scripture and tradition, in the 30 years 
 between the death of St. Paul and the time of 
 Domitian, had Asia Minor for its centre, and 
 was conducted under the influence of St. John 
 and apostolic men from Palestine, in which 
 country Jerusalem offers the records of a 
 succession of bishops more trustworthy per- 
 haps than that of any other see. Now the 
 Syrian churches were from the first in closest 
 union with Palestine. Thus all the most un- 
 doubted records of episcopacy in the sub- 
 apostolic age centre in the very quarters 
 in which our epistles exhibit it, a weighty 
 coincidence in determining their authenticity. 
 It is certainly somewhat startling to those 
 accustomed to regard bishops as the successors 
 of the apostles that Ignatius everywhere 
 speaks of the position of the apostles as cor- 
 responding to that of the existing pnsbyters, 
 while the prototype of the bishop is not the 
 apostles, but the Lord Himself. It would be 
 hasty, however, to infer that Ignatius denied 
 that the office and authority of the apostles 
 was represented and historically succeeded 
 by that of the bishops. The state of things 
 visibly displayed when the I.ord and His 
 apostles were on earth is for Ignatius the type 
 of church order for all time. (See Hp. Harold 
 Browne, The Strife and the Victory. 1H72, 
 p. 62.) If, however, the epistles had been 
 forged to support epis< opacy, they would not 
 have omitted an argument of such weight 
 as the apostolical authority and succession. 
 
 The duty of submission is with Ignatius the 
 tirst call upon each number of the church, and 
 exhortations to personal holiness go hand in 
 hand with admonitions to unity and obedience. 
 The word virordaataOai denotes the duty of 
 all, not (be it marked) ti>wards the bishop 
 alone, but towards authority in all its steps 
 311 
 
514 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 {Mgn. 13 and 7). But the bishop represents 
 the principle of unity in the church. 
 
 Sprintzl ingeniously argues (p. 67) that the 
 supremacy of the bp. of Rome is taught by 
 Ignatius, on the ground that, first, he teaches j 
 the supremacy of the Roman church over 
 others {Rom. prooem.), and secondly, the 
 supremacy of the bishop in every church. 
 But the explanation of the passage in Romans ', 
 is very doubtful, and the marked omission of 
 any mention of the bp. of Rome seems incon- 
 sistent with any supremacy apart from the 
 natural position of his church. ] 
 
 The emphatic terms in which these letters 
 propose the bishop as the representative of 
 Christ have always presented a stumbling- 
 block to many minds, even apart from the j 
 question of date. But before we pronounce 
 these expressions exaggerated, we must ! 
 remember that obedience to the bishop is 1 
 valued by the writer for the sake of unity, 
 while unity is for him the only fence against 1 
 the heresy to which small and disunited 1 
 bodies are subject {Phil. 4, 8 ; Mgn. i, etc). 
 Identification of the position of the church 
 ruler with that of the Lord would be more 
 easy to a writer of an age very close to Christ 
 than to one of later date. VVhen the divine 
 nature of the Lord and His elevation in heaven i 
 came through lapse of time to overshadow the 
 remembrance of His life on earth, it seemed a 
 superhuman claim on the part of any office to 
 say that it represented Him. But it would 
 naturally be otherwise when the recollection 
 of His human intercourse with men was fresh ; 
 for why should not men represent one so truly 
 man ? Thus the strong expressions may 
 really be a mark of early date. 
 
 IX. In Sw.Sisfirst found the phrase Catholic 
 church — an expression pronounced by Lipsius 
 (iii.) to prove of itself the later date of the 
 epistles. Such a decision is very precarious, 
 even if, with Lipsius, we reject the testimony 
 of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to the use of the 
 expression. Sprintzl remarks that the phrase 
 " Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic 
 church " naturally follows upon the preceding 
 statement of the relation of the bishop to the 
 particular church : what the bishop is to it, 
 that Christ is to the Catholic church at large. 
 Thus to Ignatius the church of each place is a 
 miniature of the church at large {Sm. 8) and 
 its unity is guarded by all the sanctions of the 
 Christian faith. The one faith is, in the 
 epistles, the bond of the church. " The 
 gospel " is that which the apostles proclaimed 
 (Phil. 5) ; not the four written gospels, but 
 the substance of the message of salvation. 
 We find in the epistles the germ of the great 
 ideas of worship afterwards developed in the 
 church. The altar-idea and the temple-idea 
 as applied to the church are there {Eph. 5 ; 
 Mgn. 7 ; Phil. 4). The Eucharist holds its 
 commanding place {Rom. 7 ; Phil. 4, and 
 probably Eph. 5), though what its rites were 
 at this early period is hard to answer from the 
 letters. 'Aydirr) (Sm. 8) is applied to the 
 Eucharist, and dyairdv (Sm. 7) means to 
 celebrate it. In Ignatian phraseology Ei^xap- 
 laria is used where the blessing of Holy Com- 
 munion is denoted, 'Aydirr) means the whole 
 service of which the consecration is only a 
 moment. In Sm. 7 those who speak against 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 the gifts of God are plainly those who deny tt^v 
 fvxa-puTTiav crdpKa elvai tov ffwr^poi T]fi.Cjv 'Itjo-oO 
 S.pi<7Tov. Christians observed the Lord's Day, 
 not the Jewish Sabbath (A/gn. 8, 9). 
 
 X. As to the theology of the epistles, 
 there have been great differences of opinion. 
 The more significant theological statements 
 are uncontroversial, though called out by 
 heresies to which the writer opposes his con- 
 ception of the nature of Christ. The origin- 
 ality and reality of the revelation in Christ is 
 the great point with him. Hence follows the 
 unreasonableness of Judaizing, which he some- 
 times presses in terms apparently inconsistent 
 with the recognition of Jewish Christians as 
 really believers. But probably, like St. Paul, 
 he is treating the question from the Gentile 
 standpoint alone. Prophets and the law are 
 worthy of all honour in Christ ; Trdvra bfiov 
 KttXd eanv idv ev dydTrjj Tri(XTevT]T€. The 
 prophets were Christians in spirit, and Christ 
 raised them from the dead (Mgn. 9). They 
 were believers in Christ ; yea, even the angels 
 must believe in His blood (Sm. 6). But for 
 this practical and real salvation finding its 
 expression in history the heretics would sub- 
 stitute a shadowy representation of religious 
 notions in a merely apparent and unreal life of 
 Christ. Therefore we find Ignatius constantly 
 adding the word dXTjduis to his records of the 
 acts of Christ (Sm. 3, 4; Tr. 10). 'Eu aapKiis an 
 equivalent phrase. The Blood is named with 
 or instead of the Flesh to shew that the Lord 
 had in death the same bodily constitution 
 as in life, of which the faithful partake in 
 the Eucharist. Being real flesh, Christ was the 
 New Man, and the revelation of God in the 
 earth (Eph. 18). He is an eternal Person, but 
 He is God's Son, as born of Mary and of God. 
 When the writer speaks of an outcoming of 
 Christ from God, he means the Incarnation, 
 and not anything previous. Though he uses 
 the epithet dtSios with A670S, yet he does not 
 seem to mean that it is as \6yos that the Lord 
 is eternal. It is as incarnate and as man that 
 He is the Logos of God. His twofold nature 
 I furnishes the explanation of the opposite 
 attributes ascribed to Him (Eph. 7 ; Pol. 3). 
 Baur and Lipsius have discovered Patripas- 
 sianism in the last-quoted passage. But this 
 accusation is inconsistent with all the rest of 
 the epistles, and seems, indeed, to have been 
 since abandoned by Lipsius. In opposition 
 to Baur's assertion that except in one suspect- 
 ed place there is no mention of Christ as Son 
 of God, Zahn finds himself able to enumerate 
 i 29 such cases. The epistles lay vast stress 
 1 upon the Godhead of the Lord ; it is because 
 of this that His birth is the entrance of the 
 New Man, and His death the resurrection of 
 the faithful. To them He stands in a personal 
 j and practical relation, which makes Him their 
 1 God. His present invisible relation to them 
 involves an increase of the activity of His 
 Godhead, and of its revelation to men (ad 
 Rom. 3; ad Eph. 15); but He was always 
 God. Therefore Ignatius can speak of the 
 blood and of the suffering of God (Eph. i ; 
 Rom. 6). The rpLa p.vaTy)pia Kpavyvj, the 
 three mvsteries loudest in proclamation of 
 truth to those who can hear, are the Incarna- 
 tion, Birth, and Death of Christ, hid in their 
 
I6NATIUS 
 
 real significance from the devil and from the 
 unbelieving. The terms Son and A6-yos are 
 not applied to express the relations of the 
 Divine Persons. Ignatius is rontent to main- 
 tain on the one hand the unity of God, on 
 the other the eternal personality of Christ. 
 
 XI. The question what special heresies arc 
 denounced in the epistles i^ossesses, in relation 
 to their date, an importance scarcely below 
 that of episcopacy. All. except Romans, 
 contain warnings against heresy, and the 
 exhortations to unity and submission to 
 authority derive their urgency from this 
 danger. It was long a question Whether two 
 forms of heresy, Judaic and Docetic, or only 
 one, Judaeo-docetic, were aimed at. But 
 already in 1856, despite the arguments of 
 Hilgenfeld (i. 230), it appeared to Lipsius (i. 
 31) that the question was decided in the latter 
 sense. The heretics were wandering teachers, 
 ever seeking proselytes {Eph. 7), and all the 
 denunciations of heresy are directed against 
 that mixture of Judaism with (Inosticism, 
 represented by some whom Ignatius met in his 
 journev {Mgn. 8, 10, 11 ; Tr. g ; Sm. i). The 
 idea of Ritschl {Entst. der altk. Kirche, p. 580) 
 that they were Montanist teachers met with 
 little favour. 
 
 Cureton and others have thought to find 
 direct allusions to the teaching of N'alentinus 
 in the epistles (but see Pearson II. vi.). But 
 the allusiiin Ai^os d7r6 L'ly^s wpoeXdwv (Mgn. 
 S) is nut applicable to Valenlinus. 
 
 Basilides is probably early enough, and 
 disciples of his might have been wandering in 
 Asia Minor ; Cerinthus too was of this age. 
 I. and II. John contain warnings against 
 Docetism, which Polycarp (Ep. 7) applies to 
 the heretics of his own time, which was also 
 that of Ignatius. Of all the heretics whom 
 Bunsen and others have supposed the epistles 
 to denounce, Saturninus alone can be proved 
 to have held the doctrines they condemn. 
 
 XII. From the epistles, as Hilgenfeld (i. 
 225-226) truly remarks, different critics, 
 according to their bias, have derived in some 
 cases the very highest, and in some the very 
 poorest, notion of the writer's character. The 
 letters are indeed more characteristic than any 
 we have between St. Paul and the great 
 Fathers of the 4th cent. ; but they give no 
 record of the writer's surroundings or of his 
 wavs in his diocese when the times were quiet. 
 His name is Latin ; his style very Semitic. 
 He had not seen the Lord or the apostles, and 
 was not, as MS. Colb. makes him, a fellow-pupil 
 with Polycarp of St. John. It is perhaps 
 somewhat precarious to infer with Zahn, from 
 his strong terms of self-reproach {Eph. 21 ; 
 .Mgn. 14), that he had led an un-Christian or 
 anti-Christian life in early years. His longing 
 for death is extreme, but is really for life under 
 another and better form. We do not know 
 that he courted martyrdom before his judges, 
 since we only meet him after he has been con- 
 demned and is well used to the idea. All his 
 exhortations have the one burden and object, 
 closer union with Christ. He bids others seek, 
 and seeks himself, that union in permanence 
 and perfection which the Holy Eucharist gives 
 here in part. He does not imagine death in 
 itself to have any value (Rom. 4 ; Tr. 3, 4 ; 
 Eph. 12 ; Sm. 4). The prayers he asks are 
 
 IGNATIUS 
 
 fii5 
 
 not for his death, but for his due preparation 
 {Eph. 21; Mgn. 14; Tr. 12, 13). For an 
 interesting sununary of the moral aspect of 
 the Ignatian epistles in resorct to the person- 
 ality of the writer and to the ideal which his 
 teachmg presents, see Sprintzl, pp. 244 s(|<i. 
 
 XIII. The great majority of critics, whether 
 adverse to the genuineness of the epistles or 
 not, have recognizctl that the seven epistles 
 professing to be of Ignatius, as shewn by the 
 individuality of the auth.T there displayed, 
 and the one of Polycarp. form an indivisible 
 whole. Romans, indeed, is the brightest and 
 most interesting of the letters. This is be- 
 cause its chief subject is his personal eagerness 
 for martyrdom ; he is writing to the place 
 where he expects to suffer, and to people who 
 can help or hinder his object. 
 
 The Ep. of Polycarp contains a witness for 
 the whole body of epistles, which (if it be 
 genuine) renders almost all others superfluous ; 
 since it mentions letters written to Smyrna by 
 Ignatius, and by Polv( arp collected and sent 
 to Philippi ; and intimates the existence of 
 others. Thus those who believe the Ignatian 
 letters to be a production late in the 2nd cent, 
 are forced to consider the Ep. of Polycarp a 
 fraud also, in whole or in part. For its satis- 
 factory defence see Lightfoot, Conl. Rev. 1875. 
 With it we may consider the genuineness of the 
 Ignatian epistles proved. For a forger late in 
 the 2nd cent., it would have been impossible to 
 avoid mentioning Polycarp's connexion with 
 the apostles, or alluding to the epistles to the 
 seven Asiatic churches in Revelation ; they are 
 never mentioned. In all historical fictions of 
 antiquity, reiterated pains are taken to make 
 the facts to be maintained understood. In 
 Ignatius they are hard to reach ; the writer is 
 not thinking of readers who have all to learn 
 from him. Lastly, no ancient fiction has 
 succeeded in individualizing character to the 
 degree here displayed ; e.g. in the picture of 
 the false teachers. The improbabilities on 
 which the author of Supernatural Rehgtun, and 
 even.thoughlessdecidedly, Hilgenfeldd;). rely 
 toprove the whole st<jry an undoubted fabrica- 
 tion, are recognized by M. Kenan as established 
 facts, even though he does not believe that the 
 epistles we possess are those to which the story 
 refers. Finally, by the great work of Bp. Light- 
 foot thegenuinenessofthesevenVossianepistles 
 may be regarded as completely established. 
 The Epp. of Ignatius in the longer and ^horter 
 recensions and the Syr. version were in Pair. 
 Aposl. ed. (i. Jacobson (Clar. Press); and a 
 trans, of the Epp. together with the .\tart\r- 
 dom and spurious Epp. are in the ArUe-\u. 
 Lib. 
 
 A uthorities. — Ussher, Disserlatio de Ig. et Pol. 
 (1644), in Works by Elringtim, vii. «7-2<>fi ; 
 Joannis Dallaei, de Scrtplts <;uae iub Dion. 
 Areop. et Ig. Ant. nomintbus ctrcumferunlur, 
 lib. ii. (Genev. 1O66); Pearson, V'lndiciae Igna- 
 tianae (ed. nov. Oxf. 1852) ; Zahn, 1. Ignatius 
 von Antiochien, p. 62<> (t.olha, i.h;j), ii. 
 Fatrum Apostolicorum Opera, fasc. ii. (I ips. 
 1876) ; Hilgenfeld, i. Die apostnlischen later 
 (Halle, 1853), ii.in Ins Zr»/.vfA. iH74.|>p-<i'>se.i. ; 
 Lightfoot, i. in Phil. pp. 20H-210, 11. in ( <'nl. 
 Rev. (Feb.1875) ; Peteriiiann,-S./^'M./-./>. (Lips. 
 1849) ; Harnack, Die Zettdes Ignatius (I np^. 
 1878) ; Cureton, Corpus l^naltanum (I > nd. 
 
616 
 
 INNOCENTIUS 1. 
 
 IKNOCEKTltJS 1. 
 
 1849) ; Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit der Ign. I divided between the two sons of Theodosius, 
 Briefe (Wiirzburg, 1849); Renan, i. L^s Arcadius and Honorius ; the latter, now 18 
 Evangiles (Paris, 1877), ii. in Journal des I years of age, under the control of the great 
 Savants (1874) ; Uhlhorn, i. in Zeitschrift fur general Stilicho, ruling in the West. Two 
 hist. Theol. (1851, 283), ii. in Herzogs Encyc. ; years after Innocent's accession (a.d. 404) he 
 Funk, Op. Pat. Ap. (ed. 5, Tiibing. 1878). fixed his residence at Ravenna. 
 
 Cureton {Corp. Ign.) or (better still, except I. West. (i) Illyria. — Immediately after 
 for Syriac scholars) Zahn (ii.) will furnish the his election Innocent wrote to Anysius, bp. of 
 student with all the documents and ancient | Thessalonica, informing him of the event and 
 testimonies. The special treatise of Zahn on 1 giving him the oversight of the churches of 
 Ignatius is, as Bp. Lightfoot remarks, little j eastern Illyria. The prefecture of Illyria had 
 known in England, and is of an exhaustive , been dismembered since 388, the Eastern part, 
 character. The reader will understand that, j including Dacia and Macedonia, being assigned 
 while we have not hesitated to dissent from it I to the Eastern empire, but popes Damasus and 
 where necessary, we have freely availed our- I Siricius had continued to claim ecclesiastical 
 
 jurisdiction over the separated portion, 
 delegating their authority to the bishops of 
 Thessalonica. Innocent thus made no new 
 claim, nor did he hereby assert any authority 
 over the East generally (Innoc.£^. i; Galland. 
 Bibl. Patr.). When Rufus, some years after, 
 succeeded Anysius as bp. of Thessalonica, a 
 letter was at once sent to him, reversing the 
 vicariate commission, defining its extent, and 
 reminding him that his jurisdiction was 
 
 selves of its pages. The Epistles of Ignatius 
 have been pub. in a cheap trans, by J. R. 
 Srawlev (S:P.C.K. 2 vols.) [r'.t.s.] 
 
 InnocentlUS (12) I., bp. of Rome, after 
 Anastasius, from May 402, to Mar. 12, 417. 
 
 The circumstances of his time and the 
 character and talents of Innocent render his 
 pontificate important. Christianity had now 
 for nearly a century been the religion of the 
 emperors ; paganism was fast becoming a 
 
 system of the past ; the capture of Rome by j derived from the favour of the apostolic see 
 Alaric during his pontificate, regarded as the I only. In 414 we find Innocent exercising 
 divine judgment on the heathen city and j authority of a summary kind, without the 
 causing the dispersion and ruin of the remains intervention of the bp. of Thessalonica, in 
 of the heathen nobility, completed the down- East Illyria. The bishops of Macedonia had 
 full of the ancient order. With the ascend- sent him a synodal letter, desiring directions 
 ancy of the church had grown that of the 1 as to : (i) Whether persons ordained by one 
 hierarchy, and especially of the head of that j Bonosus, a deceased heretical bishop, might 
 hierarchy in the West, the Roman bishop, i be admitted to the priesthood. (2) Whether 
 The need of centres of unity and seats of au- j persons who had married widows might be 
 thority to keep the church together amid ; ordained and made bishops, for which allow- 
 doctrinal conflicts ; the power and importance ■ ance they pleaded the custom of their church, 
 hence accruing to the patriarchal sees, and j (3) They had asked leave to raise to the 
 especially to Rome as the one great patriarch- episcopate one Photinus, who had been con- 
 ate of the West, the see of the old seat of I demned by Innocent's predecessors, and to 
 empire and the only Western one that claimed ] depose a deacon called Eustatius. Some at 
 apostolic origin ; the view now generally re- ! least of these questions had already been 
 ceived of the bp. of Rome as the successor of j decided by Innocent, for he expresses surprise 
 the prince of the apostles ; the removal of the j and displeasure at their being again mooted, 
 seat of empire to Constantinople, leaving the 1 He then authoritatively decides them. Those 
 pope, when there was but one emperor, the sole j who had married widows he debars from 
 Western potentate, and when there were two, j ordination, citing the prohibition of such 
 as in Innocent's time, the fixing of the imperial 1 marriages to the high-priest under the Mosaic 
 residence at Ravenna instead of Rome, — such : law. Those ordained by Bonosus are debarred 
 were among the causes of the aggrandizement [ the priesthood by the law of the Roman church 
 of the Roman see. The Western church had 1 (lex nostrae ecclesiae), which admitted to lay 
 been comparatively free from the controver- ! communion persons baptized by heretics, but 
 sies which had divided the East, nor had i did not recognize their orders. The Nicene 
 the popes taken much personal part in them ; j canon about the Novatianists, he says, applied 
 but they had almost invariably supported | to them only, and the condonation by Anysius 
 the orthodox cause, received and protected the j had only been a temporary expedient. The 
 orthodox under persecution, and, after watch- , question whether those who had married one 
 ing with quiet dignity the Eastern struggle, 1 wife before and another after baptism were 
 had accepted and confirmed the decisions of to be accounted deuterogamists, and so in- 
 orthodox councils. Hence Rome appeared ! capable of ordination, he discussed at length 
 as the bulwark of the cause of truth, and its | also in other epistles.* He decides that they 
 claim to be the unerring guardian of the apos- : are to be so accounted, for baptism is not the 
 folic faith and discipline gained extensive , commencement of a new life in such sort as 
 credence. Innocent himself was eminently i to relax the obligations of a previous marriage, 
 the man to enter into, and make the most of, j Though with hesitation and much anxiety, he 
 the position he was called to occupy. Un- | allows the promotion of Photinus, notwith- 
 stained in life, able and resolute, with a full 
 
 appreciation of the dignitv and prerogatives * Cf. Epp. ii. iii. Bibl. Patr. Galland. St. Jerome, 
 of his see, he lost no opportunitv of asserting | "» ^^^ of ^^ letters, strongly maintains the opposite 
 its claims, and under him the ide'a of universal j ^'^^^ ^° Innocent, and Jerome's view w^ probably 
 ^^„^i ^,,', tu u t u i. tlie prevalent one at the time, for he speaks of the 
 
 papal supremacy, though as vet somewhat „^j^^„ „f ^sons ordained, 4nd even advanced to 
 shadowy, was already takmg form. At his the episcopate, after marrying a second wife after 
 accession the empire had for seven years been baptism, being large enough to compose a council. 
 
INNOCENTIUS I. 
 
 standing the condemnation of him by previous 
 popes, on the prouiui that they had been 
 imposed on by false reports ; and he disalhnvs 
 the deposition of Eustatius{£^. xvii.r.alland.). 
 Another epistle, addressed to tiie bishops of 
 Macedonia, confirms the deposition of Babalius 
 and Taurianus, who had appealed to Ki>me 
 from the sentence of the bishops of their pro- 
 vince. This appeal the bishops seem to have 
 taken amiss, for Innocent presses ui^on them 
 the advantageof having their judgment revised 
 (Ep. xviii. Galland.). 
 
 (ii) Gaul. — Victricius, bp. of Rouen, having 
 been in Rome towards the end of 403 {Ep. ad 
 Victric. § 14, and Paul. Nolan. Ep. ad Victric. 
 xxxvii. i), applied to the pope soon after for 
 information as to the practice and discipline 
 of the Roman church. Innocent sent him a 
 letter containing 14 rules, of which he says 
 that they are no new ones, but derived by 
 tradition from the apostles and fathers, though 
 too generally unknown or disregarded. He 
 directs Victricius to communicate them to the 
 bishops and others, with a view to their future 
 observance. Among them were: (i) No bishop 
 may ordain without the knowledge of his 
 metropolitan and the assistance of other 
 bishops. (3) Ordinary causes against bishops 
 are to be determined by the other bishops of 
 the province, saving always the authority of 
 Rome. (4) Greater causes, after the judgment 
 of the bishops, are to be referred to the 
 apostolic see, " as the synod [referring, pro- 
 bably, to the canons of Sardica] has decreed." 
 (6, 7) No layman who has married a widow, 
 or been twice married, may be ordained. (8) 
 No bishop may ordain any one from another 
 diocese without leave of its bishop, (g) Con- 
 verts from Novatianism and Montanism are to 
 be received by imposition of hands only, without 
 iteration of baptism ; but such as, having left 
 the church, had been rebaptized by heretics, 
 are only to be received after long penance. (10) 
 Priests and Levites who have wives are not 
 to cohabit with them. This rule is supported 
 by argument, resting mainly on the prohibi- 
 tion of intercourse with their wives to priests 
 under the old law before officiating. Christian 
 priests and Levites, it is argued, ought always 
 to be prepared to otficiate. (11) Monks, taking 
 minor orders, may not marry. (12) Courtiers 
 and public functionaries are not to be admitted 
 to any clerical order ; for they might have to 
 exhibit or preside over entertainments un- 
 doubtedly invented by the devil, and were 
 liable to be recalled to his service by the em- 
 peror, so as to cause much " sadness and 
 anxiety." Victricius is reminded of painful 
 cases he had witnessed in Rome, when the pope 
 had with difficulty obtained from the emiieror 
 the exemption even of priests from being re- 
 called to his service. (13) Vfjiled virgins who 
 marry are not to be admitted even to penance 
 till the husband's death ; but (14) stichashave 
 promised virginity, but have not been" veiled 
 bythepriest," maybe reconciled after penance. 
 
 In 405 Innocent was similarly consulted by 
 another bp. of Gaul, Exsuperius of Toulouse, 
 whom he commends for referring doubtful 
 questions to the apostolic see, and gives him 
 the following directions: (i) Priests or dea- 
 cons who cohabit with their wives are to be 
 deprived, as pope Siricius had directed. The 
 
 INNOCENTIUS I. 
 
 r.iT 
 
 prohibition of conjugal intcnoiirsc to the 
 priests in O.T. before oth.iatmg is adduced 
 as before; also St. Paul's injmirtion to the 
 Corinthian laity to abstain for a time, that 
 they might give tliemselves unto prnver ; 
 whence it follows that the clergy, to whom 
 prayer and sacrifice is a continual dutv, ouj;ht 
 always to abstain. When St. Paul sai<l tliat 
 a bishop was to be the husband of one wife, 
 he did not mean that he was to live with her. 
 else he would not have said, " They that are 
 in the flesh cannot please God " ; and lie said 
 " having children," not " begetting " them. 
 The incontinence of clergy whom the injunr- 
 tiim of pope Siricius had not reached niav, 
 however, be condoned ; but they are not to 
 be promoted to any higher order. (2) To the 
 question whether such as had led continuallv 
 loose lives after baptism might be admitted 
 to penance and communion at the appr<ia( h 
 of death. Innocent replies that, though in 
 former times penance only and not communii 'H 
 was accorded in such cases, the strict rule may 
 now be relaxed, and both given. (3) Baptized 
 Christians are not precluded from inflicting 
 torture or condemning to death as judges, nor 
 from suing as advocates for judgment in a 
 capital case. Innocent, however, elsewhere 
 precludes Christians who had been so engaged 
 from ordination (Ep. xxvii. ad Felicem). (4) 
 To the question how it was that adultery in a 
 wife was more severely visited than in a 
 husband, it is replied that the cause was the 
 unwillingness f>f wives to accuse their hus- 
 bands, and the difficulty of convicting the 
 latter of transgression, not that adultery was 
 more criminal in one case than in the other. 
 (5) Divorced persons who marry again during 
 the life of their first consort and those who 
 marry them are adulterers, and to be excom- 
 municated, but not their parents or relations, 
 unless accessory. Lastly, a list is given of the 
 canonical books of Scripture, the same as are 
 now received by the church of Rome ; while 
 certain books, bearing the names of Matthias, 
 James the Less, Peter, John, and Thomas, arc 
 repudiated and condemned. 
 
 (iii) Spain. — In 400 had been held the first 
 council of Toledo, mainly to deal with Pris- 
 cillianists returning to the church. Two such 
 bishops, Svmphorius and Dichtynius. with 
 others, had been recei%-ed by the council ; but 
 certain bishop^s of Baetica still refused to 
 communicate with them. A Spanish bishop, 
 Hilary, who had subscribed the decree of the 
 council of Toledo, went with a priest, Elpidius 
 to Rome, to represent this to the pf>pe ; con>- 
 plaining also of two bishops, Rufinus and 
 Minicius, who had ordained other bishops otit 
 of their own province without the knowledge 
 of the metropolitan ; and of other prevalent 
 irregularities with respect to ordinations. 
 The complainants do not api)ear to have been 
 commissioned bv anv svnod, or other author- 
 ity of the Spanish church, tr> lay these matters 
 before the pope, but Innocent took the 
 opporfunitv to address a letter, after a synod 
 held at Riime, to the bishops of the Toledo 
 council, advising or directing them : though 
 without asserting, as he does to r.ther churches, 
 the authority of the Roman see. He con- 
 demns those who refused to communicate with 
 reconciled Priscillianists, and directs the 
 
518 
 
 INNOCENTIUS I. 
 
 bishops to inquire into the cases of Rufinus 
 and Minicius and to enforce the canons. As 
 to other prevalent irregularities — such as the 
 ordination of persons who had, after baptism, 
 pleaded as advocates, served in the army, or 
 as courtiers (curiales) been concerned in 
 objectionable ceremonies or entertainments — 
 he directs that such past irregularities should 
 be condoned for fear of scandal and disturb- 
 ance, but avoided in the future. He insists, 
 as so often in his letters, on the incapacity for 
 ordination of such as had married widows or 
 had married twice, and again protests that 
 baptism cannot annul the obligation of a 
 previous marriage. He supports these pro- 
 hibitions by arguments from O.T. and from 
 St. Paul, "Husband of one wife" (Ep. iii. 
 Bihl. Patr. Galland.). We do not know how 
 this admonitory letter was received in Spain, 
 (iv) Africa. — In 412 or 413 Innocent wrote 
 to Aurelius, bp. of Carthage, requesting him 
 to announce in synod the day for keeping 
 Easter in 414, with the view of its being 
 announced, as was then customarv, to the 
 church by the bp. of Rome (Ep. xiv. Galland.). 
 Towards the end of 416 he received synodal 
 letters from councils at Carthage and Milevis 
 in Numidia, and from St. Augustine (who had 
 taken part in the latter council), with four 
 other bishops, on the Pelagian controversy ; 
 to all of which he replied in Jan. 417. This 
 correspondence illustrates the relations then 
 subsisting between the West African church 
 and Rome. (For such relations at an early 
 period see Stephanus ; Cyprianus ; Sixtus 
 II.) The synodal letters inform Innocent of 
 the renewal of the condemnation of Pelagius 
 and Coelestius pronounced five years previous- 
 ly at Carthage, and very respectfully request 
 him to add the authority of the apostolical see 
 to the decrees of their mediocrity (" ut statutis 
 nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis 
 auctoritas adhibeatur") ; setting forth the 
 heresies condemned, and arguments against 
 them. They recognize the weight that the 
 pope's approval would carry, but do not at all 
 imply that the validity of their own condem- 
 nation depended on it. The five bishops imply 
 some doubt as to his probable action, having 
 heard that there were some in Rome who 
 favoured the heretic ; and thev await the 
 result with suspense, fear, and trembling. 
 Innocent, in replying, assumes much greater 
 dependence on the see of Rome on the part of 
 the Africans than their language had implied, 
 and asserts very large claims to general 
 authority. He commends the bishops of the 
 Carthaginian synod for referring the matter 
 to his judgment, as knowing what was due to 
 the see of the apostle from whom all episcopal 
 authority was derived ; and for having ob- 
 served the decrees of the Fathers, resting on 
 divine authority, according to which nothing 
 done, even in remote and separated provinces, 
 was to be considered settled till it had come to 
 the knowledge of the Roman see and been 
 confirmed by its authority, that all waters 
 proceeding from the fountain of their birth, the 
 pure streams of the uncorrupted head, might 
 flow through the different regions of the whole 
 world. The abundant stream of Rome, flow- 
 ing, the bishops hoped, from the same foun- 
 tain-head as the smaller stream of Africa, 
 
 INNOCENTIUS I. 
 
 becomes in Innocent the fountain-head from 
 which all streams must flow. He addresses 
 the bishops of the Milevetan synod in the same 
 strain. He then proceeds to condemn the 
 Pelagian heresy in strong terms and to ana- 
 thematize all its abettors and supporters. To 
 adduce proofs, he says, is unnecessary, since his 
 correspondents had said all that was wanted. 
 He declines to accede to their suggestion that 
 he should make overtures to Pelagius, or send 
 for him to Rome. It is for the heretical, he 
 says, to come to me of his own accord, if 
 ready to retract his errors ; if not ready, he 
 would not obey my summons ; if he should 
 come, repudiate his heresy, and ask pardon, 
 he will be received (Epp. Augustine, xc.-xcv. ; 
 Epp. Innoc. clxxxi.-clxxxiii. Galland.). 
 
 In a letter to Decentius, bp. of Eugubium in 
 Umbria (dated a.d. 416), the claims of the 
 Roman see are no less strongly asserted than 
 in the letters to the African bishops. Inno- 
 cent tells him that no one can be ignorant of 
 the obligation of all to observe the traditions, 
 and those alone, which the Roman church had 
 received from St. Peter, the prince of the 
 apostles, and which that church ever pre- 
 served — especially as no churches had been 
 founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, 
 or the interjacent islands, except by St. Peter 
 or his successors. The letter proceeds to 
 require observance of various Roman usages. 
 (i) The pax in the Eucharist must be given 
 after communion, not before. (2) The names 
 of such as offer oblations at the Eucharist are 
 not to be recited by the priest before the 
 sacrifice, or the canon. (3) Infants after 
 baptism may not be confirmed by unction 
 except by the bishop ; but priests may anoint 
 other parts of the body than the forehead, 
 using oil blessed by the bishop. (4) Saturday 
 as well as Friday in each week is to he observed 
 as a fast, in commemoration of the whole time 
 Christ was in the grave. (5) Demoniacs may 
 receive imposition of hands from priests or 
 other clergy commissioned by the bishop. (6) 
 St. James's direction that the sick are to call 
 for the elders of the church does not preclude 
 the bishop from administering the unction ; 
 but not only priests, but any Christian may 
 anoint, using chrism prepared by the bishop. 
 Penitents, however, to whom the other sacra- 
 ments are denied, may not receive unction, 
 " quia genus sacramenti est." It appears 
 plain from the way the unction of the sick is 
 spoken of that it was then used with a view 
 to recovery, not as a last rite. (7) One Roman 
 custom, that of sending, on the Lord's day, 
 the Eucharist consecrated by the bishop to the 
 presbyters throughout the city, that all on that 
 day at least may partake of one communion, 
 is not to be observed where it involved carry- 
 ing the sacrament to great distances. Even 
 in Rome it is not taken to the priests in the 
 various cemeteries {Epp. xxv. Galland.). 
 
 II. East. — In 404 Innocent began to inter- 
 vene in the affairs of the East in the matter of 
 St. Chrysostom, who had been deposed and 
 driven from Constantinople after the synod of 
 the Oak in 403, and finally expelled on June 
 20, 404. A letter reached Innocent from 
 Chrysostom himself, another from the 40 
 bishops who remained in his communion, a 
 third from his clergy. That from Chrysostom 
 
INNOCENTIUS I. 
 
 driven by Palladius in liis Dialof:u<; dr \'ita 
 S. Johan. Chrysost.) was addressed tn the 
 bps. of Rome, Aqiiileia, and Milan, as the three 
 great bishops of the West. It requests them 
 to protest against what had been done, and to 
 continueincommunion with the writer. To all 
 these letters Innoeent replied that, while still 
 in communion with both parties, he reprobated 
 the past proceedings as irregular, and proposed 
 a council of Easterns and Westerns, from 
 which avowed friends and enemies of the 
 accused should be excluded. A second letter 
 arrived from Theophilus, patriarch of Alex- 
 andria, with the Acts of the synod of the Oak, 
 shewing that Chrysostom had been condemned 
 by 36 bishops, of whom ::o were Egyptians. 
 Innocent's brief reply is that he cannot re- 
 nounce communion with Chrysostom on the 
 strength of the past futile proceedings and 
 demands that Theophilus should proffer his 
 charges before a proper council, according to 
 the Nicene canons. Communications from 
 Constantinople continued to reach Innocent, 
 one from about 25 bishops of Chrysostom's 
 party, informing him of Chrysostom's banish- 
 ment to Cucusus and the burning of his 
 cathedral church. To them and to the ban- 
 ished prelate the pope sent letters of com- 
 munion, being unable to render help. Cruel 
 persecution of the friends of Chrysostom, set 
 afoot by the Eastern emperor Arcadius, 
 brought a number of letters to Rome from 
 oppressed bishops and clergy, and the resort 
 thither of many in person, including Anysius 
 of Thessalonica, Palladius of Helenopolis (the 
 author of the Dialogus de Vit. S. Johan. 
 Chrysost.). and Cassianus, famous afterwards 
 as a monk and a writer. Innocent repre- 
 sented the matter to the emperor Honorius, 
 who wrote thrice to his brother Arcadius on 
 the subject. His third letter, sent under the 
 advice of a synod assembled by the pope at his 
 request, urged the assembling of a combined 
 council of Easterns and Westerns at Thessa- 
 lonica. He desired Innocent to appoint five 
 bishops, two priests, and one deacon as a 
 deputation from the Western church ; and 
 these he charged with this third letter, in which 
 he requested his brother to summon the 
 Oriental bishops. He also sent letters ad- 
 dressed to himself by the bishops of Rome and 
 Aquileia, as specimens of many so addressed, 
 and as representing the opinion of the Western 
 bishops on the question at issue (Innoc. Ep. 
 ix. Galland. ; Pallad. Dialog, c. iii.). The 
 deputation was accompanied by four Eastern 
 bishops who had fled to Rome. It failed 
 entirely. Persecution was continued in the 
 East ; Honorius contemplated a war against 
 his brother, but was deterred by a threatened 
 invasion of the Goths; and Innocent, failing 
 in his attempt to bring about an impartial 
 council, separated himself fmm the commu- 
 nion of Atticus, Theophilus, and Porphyrins. 
 
 This appeal of St. Chrysostom and his 
 friends involved no acknowledgment «f any 
 authority oi the Roman bishop over the 
 Eastern church. They apply to him nf)t as a 
 superior or a judge, but as a powerful friend 
 whose support they solicit. Chrysostf)m's 
 letter, which in Roman editions appears as 
 addressed to the pope alone, was really 
 written to the three principal bishops of the 
 
 INNOCENTIUS I. 
 
 519 
 
 West. Its contents le.ive no doubt of this. 
 Honorius, in his letters to his brother, speakt 
 of the Western bishops Ken«rallv having been 
 applied to, and quotes their views as of r<|ual 
 moment with that of the bishops of Rome. 
 Innoeent in his replies makes no claim to 
 adjudicate, nor does he make any assertion 
 of the universal stipremacv of his see, %\ich 
 as appears in his letters to the .Vfricans and 
 to Decentius, but recommends a crumril of 
 Easterns and Westerns as the j^roper authori- 
 tative tribunal. For a view f)f papal claims 
 over the East less than a centurv later see 
 Fkiix III. and AcACii's (7). 
 
 After the death of Chrvsostom the pope and 
 all the West remained for some time out of 
 communion with Constantinople. .Mexandria, 
 and Antioch. The church of .Antioi h was the 
 first to be reconciled, when bp. Alexander in 
 413 replaced the name of Chrysf)Slom in the 
 diptychs of his church, and sent a legation to 
 Rome to sue for restoration of communion. 
 This was cordially granted in a svnodal lettfr 
 signed by 20 Italian bishops. Innoeent wrote 
 to Alexander congratulating him warmly and 
 desiring a frequent interchange of letters. At 
 the same time Acacius of Beroea, one of 
 Chrysostom's bitterest opponents, was re- 
 ceived into conmiunion by Innocent through 
 Alexander, to whom the letter of conmiunion 
 was sent for transmission. Atticus of Con- 
 stantinople was reconciled a few years later. 
 Moved partly by the threatening attitude of 
 the populace, and partly by the advice of the 
 emperor, he consented, with a bad grace, to 
 place Chrysostom's name on the diptychs, and 
 was received into comnnmion. The church 
 of Alexandria was the last to come to terms. 
 Thcophilus's nephew Cyril, succeeding him 
 Oct. 18, 412, was urged by Atticus to yield, 
 and did so at last, though not till 417, ten 
 years afterthedcath of Chrysostom. Through- 
 out Innocent appears to have acted with 
 dignity, fairness, firmness, and moderation. 
 Alexander having, later, consulted the pope 
 as to the jurisdiction of his patriarchal see of 
 Antioch, Innocent replied that in accordance 
 with the canons of NMce {Can. vi.) the authority 
 of the bp. of Antioch extended over the whole 
 diocese, not only over one jirf)vince. Diocest 
 is here used, in its original sense, to denote a 
 civil divisi<m of the empire comprising many 
 proN-inces. The Oriental dii>cese here referred 
 to included 15 provinces, over the metrrw 
 politans of which the patriarchal jurisdiction 
 of Antioch is alleged to extend. 
 
 Two more letters, written in the last vear 
 of his life, further illustrate Innf)cent's attitude 
 towards the churches of the I-ast. St. lerome 
 had been attacked in his cell at Bethlehem by 
 a band of ruffians and had narrowly escaped ; 
 the two noble virgins, Eustochium and her 
 niece Paula, living in retirement under his 
 spiritual direction, had been <lriven from their 
 hruise, which had been burnt. an<l some of 
 their attendants kille«l. The party of Pelagius 
 was suspected. Innofent wrote to Jerome. 
 offering to exert " the whole authority <>f the 
 aiiostolic see" against the offenders, if they 
 could be discovered, and to appoint judges to 
 trv them ; and to John. bp. f>f jerusaleni. who 
 was no friend to Jerome, in an authoritative 
 tone, reproving him severely for allowing such 
 
520 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 atrocities within his jurisdiction {Epp. xxxiv. 
 XXXV. Galland.). 
 
 III. Alaric. — There were three Gothic in- 
 vasions of Italy — the first under Alaric, the 
 second under Radagaisus, the third led by 
 Alaric himself, who laid siege to Rome a.d. 
 408. Innocent was within the city, the 
 emperor at Ravenna. Famine and plague 
 having ensued during the siege, Zosimus, the 
 heathen historian, alleges that Pompeianus, 
 the prefect of the city, having been persuaded 
 by certain Etruscan diviners that their spells 
 and sacrifices, performed on the Capitol, could 
 draw down lightnings against the enemy. 
 Innocent was consulted and consented, but the 
 majority of the senators refused (\^ 40). Sozo- 
 men mentions the circumstance but does not 
 implicate Innocent (ix. 6). It seems highly 
 improbable that Innocent would sanction such 
 rites of heathenism. In 409 the offer of a ransom 
 led Alaric to raise the siege, and two deputations 
 were sent to the emperor at Ravenna to induce 
 him to sanction the terms agreed on. The first 
 having failed. Innocent accompanied the 
 second, and thus was not in the city when it 
 was finally taken on Aug. 24, 4io. Alaric's 
 invasion was regarded as a judgment on 
 heathen rather than Christian Rome, and as 
 a vindication of the church, the pope's 
 providential absence being compared by 
 Orosius to the saving of Lot from Sodom. 
 Undoubtedly the event was a marked one in 
 the supersession of heathenism by Christianity. 
 The destruction of the old temples, never 
 afterwards restored, the dispersion and ruin of 
 families which clung most to the old order, the 
 view that judgment had fallen on old heathen 
 Rome, which its deities had been powerless to 
 protect, all helped to complete the triumph 
 of the church and to add importance to the 
 reign of Innocent. Soon after this great event 
 Augustine (a.d. 413) began his famous work, 
 de Civitate Dei, though he took 13 years to 
 complete it, in which he sees a vision of the 
 kingdom of God rising on the ruins of the 
 kingdom of the world — a vision which grad- 
 ually took more distinct shane in the idea, 
 already more or less grasped by Innocent, of 
 a Catholic Christendom united under the 
 Roman see. 
 
 Innocent's Epistolae et Decreta are printed 
 in Galland's Bibl. Pat. t. viii. and in Migne, 
 Patr. Lat. t. xx. Cf. Innocent the Great bv 
 C. H. C. Pirie-Gordon (Longmans ; 4 maps and 
 8 genealogical tables). [j.b — ^y.] 
 
 Irenaeus (1), bp. of Lyons. Very little is 
 known of his personal history except that he 
 was a native of Asia Minor ; in early youth had 
 seen andheard bp. Polycarp at Sm^Tna ; after- 
 wards came into Gaul, and during the perse- 
 cution of 177 carried, as presbyter of Lyons, 
 a letter from the Gallican confessors to the 
 Roman bp. Eleutherus (174 or 175-189) ; after 
 the death of bp. Pothinus of Lyons (177) be- | 
 came his successor (Bus. H. E. v. 5), and was | 
 still bishop in the time of bp. Victor, who suc- 
 ceeded Eleutherus at Rome (189-198 or 199) ; 
 and that he took a leading part in all eccle- 
 siastical transactions and controversies of the 
 time. St. Jerome speaks of him (de Vir. III. 
 35) as having flourished in the reign of Corn- 
 modus (180-192). His birth is assigned to 
 widely distant epochs. The earliest and the 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 latest dates proposed are 50 years apart (97- 
 147). Various considerations lead us to fix on 
 c. 126, or possibly c. 136, as the latest admis- 
 sible date. 
 
 Of his youthful literary training and culture 
 we can only judge from his writings, which 
 shew some acquaintance with the Greek poets 
 and philosophers ; he cites Homer, Hesiod, 
 Pindar, and Plato. Of his Christian training 
 he tells us that, besides instructions from 
 Polycarp, he had other teachers, " Presbyters" 
 (of Asia Elinor), whom he designates as mediate 
 or immediate disciples of the apostles (//aer. ii. 
 22, 5 ; iv. 27, I ; 32, I ; v. 5, i ; 30, i ; 33, 3 ; 
 36, i). Whether he was personally acquaint- 
 ed with Papias, whom he mentions so frequent- 
 ly, is uncertain. If he was in Rome a.d. 156 
 he doubtless continued his studies there. The 
 time of his removal into Gaul is unknown, but 
 there were close ties between the missionary 
 church of Gaul and the mother-churches of 
 Asia Minor. At the time of the persecution, 
 to which the aged bp. Pothinus fell a victim 
 in the 17th year of Marcus Aurelius, a.d. 177 
 (cf. my Chronologie der rdmischen Bischofe, p. 
 185), irenaeus was a presbyter at Lugdunimi. 
 That Irenaeus wrote the epistle of the Gallican 
 confessors to the churches of Asia Minor and 
 Phrygia, which so vividly describes the perse- 
 cution (ap. Eus. H. E. V. i), is an uncertain 
 conjectiu-e. There is indeed a fragment pre- 
 served by Oecumenius and assigned to Irenaeus 
 (Fragm. Graec. xiii. ap. Harvey, ii. 482 seq.), 
 which really stands in very close connexion with 
 that epistle, mentioning' in a similar way the 
 calumny about " Thyestean banquets," which 
 rested on depositions wrung from tortured 
 slaves, the endeavours of the persecutors to 
 f orce the martyrs Sane tus and Blandina to make 
 alike confession, and Blandina'sanswer, which, 
 though not identical with that in the epistle, is 
 nearly related to it. Irenaeus's mission to Rome 
 was undertaken to intercede with bp. Eleutherus 
 for the Montanists of Asia Minor in the name 
 and on behalf of the Gallican confessors (Eus. 
 H. E. V. 3, 4). That another object of the 
 journey was that Irenaeus himself might 
 obtain episcopal consecration at Rome is an 
 unproved assertion of some Roman Catholic 
 authors. The common assumption that there 
 was then no episcopal see but Lyons in all 
 Gaul is hardly warranted by the fact that in 
 the narrative of the persecution at Vienne a 
 deacon only and no bishop is mentioned. A 
 better argument is that Eusebius [H. E. v. 23) 
 appears to speak of Irenaeus as bishop of all 
 the churches of Gaul. But neither can be 
 regarded as a sure proof. 
 
 As bp. of Lyons Irenaeus was distinguished 
 for his zeal for the conversion of the heathen 
 (cf. the Acts of St. Ferreolus and his com- 
 panions, Boll. Acta SS. 16 Jun. iii.), and yet 
 more by his conflicts with heretics and his 
 strenuous endeavours to maintain the peace 
 of the church, in true accord with his name 
 EipTjcaios (Peace-man). His great work 
 Against all Heresies was probably written 
 during his episcopate. The preface informs 
 us that he then first wrote as an ecclesiastical 
 v\Titer. We subsequently find him exerting 
 himself to protect the churches of his native 
 country (Asia Minor) from Roman pretensions 
 and aggression. The Roman bp. Victor was 
 
IRENAEUS 
 
 endeavouring to compel these churches, which 
 had hitherto kept Easter, with the Jews, on 
 Nisan 14, to conform to the practice of Rome. 
 On their refusal to abandon the custom of tlioir 
 forefathers, their reasons beiap (jivcn in a 
 letter addressed to Victor by Polyrratcs, bp. 
 of Ephesus, he had cut them off from his 
 communion. This Iiarsli treatment was 
 highly disapproved by many even of those 
 who, like the Roman bishoji, kept Easter on 
 theSundayfollowinp the equinoctial full-moon. 
 Among these was Irenaeus himself. In the 
 name of all the Gallican churches he remon- 
 strated with Victor, in a writing of which a 
 considerable fragment is extant, reminding 
 him of the example set by his predecessors, 
 who had found no occasion in these differences 
 of paschal observance for excommunicating 
 their brethren of .Asia Minor. Irenaeus (as 
 Euscbius further iuf'irms us. H. E. v. 23) also 
 appealed to other foreign bishops, but without 
 any effect on the harsh determination of the 
 Roman, .\nother writing of Irenaeus men- 
 tioned by Euscbius (H. E. v. 20), which scenis 
 to have referred to the same subject, was 
 entitled Trepi trxiV/uaros and addressed to 
 Blastus, head of the Roman Quartodecimans. 
 
 How long Irenaeus was bishop is uncertain. 
 His death is commonly assigned to 202 or 203. 
 This rests on the assumption that he was 
 martyred under Septimius Severus. But such 
 a martyrdom is by no means established. 
 TertuUian. Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, 
 Ephrem. Augustine, Theodoret, are silent. In 
 the Syriac fragments Irenaeus is frequently 
 spoken of as " a disciple of Polycarp, bishop 
 and mart>T," but not himself honoured with 
 the martyr's title either there or in any 
 quotations from his writings. The first wit- 
 ness for his martyrdom is found in Jerome's 
 commentary on Isaiah, written c. 410, where 
 (c. 64) Irenaeus is spoken of as vir apostolicus 
 episcopus et martyr ; but when elsewhere 
 treating ex professo of his life and writings 
 (de Vir. III. c. 35), Jerome is silent as to his 
 martyrdom. As Dodwell conjectures, the 
 words et martyr may be an interpolation. If 
 not, Jerome must have learnt the alleged fact 
 subsequently to 392, when the de Viris Illus- 
 tribus was written. There is no witness for it 
 earlier than the 5th cent. 
 
 Writings. — The chief was the great work in 
 five books against Gnosticism entitled'EXevx'*' 
 Kdl dvaTpoTTT] rfjs \l/fv8wi'vixov yvuiffdijs, Deteclio 
 et eversio false cognominatae agnitionis. (The 
 full Greek title is found in Eus. H. E. v. 7 ; 
 Phot. Bibl. Cod. 120 and elsewhere; cf. also 
 frequent references to it by Irenaeus in the 
 praefalioues to bks. ii. iv. v. and the conclu- 
 sion of bk. iv.) It is commonly cited under 
 the briefer title wpbs alp^aas (contra Haereses). 
 We possess it entire in the Latin version only, 
 which, however, must have been made from 
 the Greek original very soon after its com- 
 position, since the Latin was used by Tertul- 
 lian some ten years after, in his tractate adv. 
 Valentinianos. Its translator was a Celt 
 (witness the barbarous Latinity) ; probably 
 one of the clergy of Lyons. Most of the ori- 
 ginal work being now lost, the slavish literality 
 of the translator imparts to his version a very 
 high value. .Many obscurities of expression, 
 arising in part from a misunderstanding of the 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 )21 
 
 Greek idiom, admit an easy solution when 
 translated back into Greek. Beside this Latin 
 version, which appears to have soon super- 
 seded the Greek original in the Westernchurrh, 
 there was a Syriac translation, <>( which 
 numerous fragments arc extant and were 
 first put together by Harvey in his ed. of 
 Irenaeus (ii. 431 seq.). Thev are derived from 
 the Brit. Mus. collection of Nitrian MSS., some 
 of which arc as old as the 6th, 7th, and Stii 
 cents, (cf. Harvey, ii. 431, note). To these are 
 added (Nos. xxi. xxxi. and xxxii.) fragments 
 of an Armenian interpolated version first 
 published by Pitra in his Spicilegium Soles- 
 mense, t. i. (Paris, 1852). Of these No. xxi. 
 only is taken from the work Against Heresies. 
 The almost entire agreement between these 
 Syriac fragments and the Old Latin version 
 further witnesses its genuineness and fidelity. 
 The Greek original, said to have been still 
 extant in the i6th cent., was made great «isc 
 of by Hippolytus (or whoever wrote the 
 Philosiiphuvu-nci), Ei>iphanius, and Theodoret. 
 To the numerous extracts in these writers, 
 esp. the first two, we owe the greater part of 
 the original Greek of bk. i. — the preface and 
 cc. 1-2 1 entire, and numerous fragments 
 besides. Of the other books, the Greek has 
 come down to us in isf)latcd passages, mostly 
 through citations by Eusebius. The ed. of 
 Wigan Harvey (2 veils. Camb. 1857) is based 
 on a careful collation of the Codices Claro- 
 mont. and .\rundel. His Prolegomena con- 
 tain minute investigations into the origin, 
 characteristics and main phenomena of 
 (inosticism. as well as concerning the life 
 and writings of Irenaeus. 
 
 Against Heresies was written in Gaul. 
 (Irenaeus says so expressly, lib. i. praef. 3, 
 cf. i. 13, 7. We follow Massuet's division of 
 chapters.) The date of composition is deter- 
 mined iii. 3, 3, in which he speaks of Eleu- 
 therus as then twelfth in succession to the 
 apostles (m the episcopal chair of Rome (•■fi' 
 
 8ll3dendT(fl TOWLf) TOV T^S f Jr^<T^ OTT T;? d)r6 T^V 
 
 a.iro(TTo\u)v KaTtxti KKxipov 'V.\iv0fpo%). Ac- 
 cording to this, the third book was written at 
 the earliest a.d. 174 or 17?, at the latest a.d. 
 189 (cf. Chronologie der rom. Bischiife, pp. 184 
 sqq.). The commencement and completion 
 of the work were possibly some years apart, 
 but we cannot put the date of bks. iv. and v. 
 so late as the episcopate of Victor (189-198 or 
 199). We may tentatively assume 182, the 
 mid-period of Eleuthcrus's episcopate, or(since 
 the first two books alone appear to have been 
 written immediately after each other — cf. the 
 prefaces to bks. ii. and iii. -v.) we may pro- 
 pose from A.D. 180 to 185 as the date of the 
 whole work. To assign a more exact date is 
 hopeless. That Irenaeiis wrote as bishop, and 
 not earlier than 178 as presbyter, is by far 
 most probable, though it cannot be drawn 
 with absolute certaintv from the words of the 
 preface to bk. v. to whicii .Massuet appeals. 
 As the first external motive for its composi- 
 tion, Irenaeus himself mentions (lib. i. praef. ; 
 ii. 17, I ; iii. praef.) the request of a friend 
 for some instruction as to the heretical 
 opinions of the Valentinians and how to refute 
 them. The recent spread of the Valentinian 
 sect through the Rhone district had already 
 led Irenaeus to acquaint himself particularly 
 
522 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 with their writings and tenets. The danger- 
 ous character of their teaching had been fully 
 recognized by others, whom he modestly 
 designates as mitlto nobis meliores ; but these 
 had been (iv. praef.) unable through ignorance 
 of the Valentinian " rule " or system of doc- 
 trine to adequately refute it. That it was his 
 first object to refute Valentinianism, and only 
 in a secondary and occasional way to attack 
 other heresies, is evident from the whole 
 construction and arrangement of bk. i., which 
 is almost exclusively occupied with the 
 Valentinians, and in a great measure bk. ii. 
 also. Irenaeus repeatedly observes that he 
 who refutes the Valentinians at the same time 
 refutes all other heresies (cf. ii. 31, i) " de- 
 structis itaque his qui a Valentino sunt, omnis 
 haereticorum eversa est multitudo," an asser- 
 tion of which he proceeds (31, 1-33, 5) to give 
 detailed proof, in reference to various heretical 
 parties. Thus in the preface to bk. iv. he 
 speaks of the " doctrina eorum qui sunt a 
 Valentino" as a "recapitulatio omnium haere- 
 ticorum," and in bk. ii. of having taken them 
 as an example of the way in which all heretics 
 are toberefuted ( " tanquamspeculum habuimus 
 eos totius eversionis "). In bks. iii. iv. and v. 
 the circle of vision is enlarged. Taking the 
 Scriptures for his guide, he goes through in 
 order the fundamental doctrines of Gnosticism, 
 and besides Valentinian dogmas rexiews the 
 cognate onesof otherhereticalschools, specially 
 of the Marcionites, but nowhere gives such a 
 connected view and refutation of other Gnostic 
 systems as of the Valentinian in bk. ii. 
 
 His sources were primarily the writings of 
 the heretics themselves. In the preface of 
 bk. i. he speaks of the vTTonvqfxaTa of disciples 
 of Valentinus, and observes that he has been 
 in personal communication with some of them. 
 More particularly it is the school of Ptole- 
 maeus, an awAvdifffia ttjs Ova\€VTivov (j-xoXt)?, 
 whose dogmatic system he sets himself to 
 describe. The detailed account (c. Haer. i. 
 1-7) describes its development in the Western 
 or Italian form, and this from several writings, 
 one of which Clemens .\lexandrinus also made 
 use of in the excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti, cc. 
 44-65. From another source were derived 
 additional details, cc. ir and 12, of various 
 opinions within the Valentinian system and 
 of Valentinus himself, Secundus, Ptolemaeus, 
 and others; c. 13, 1-5, cc. 14 and 15 are 
 concerned with Marcus, his magic arts and 
 theories about the symbolism of letters and 
 numbers, concluding with a citation of some 
 Iambic Senarii, written against him by a 
 " Divinae aspirationis Senior et Praeco 
 veritatis " (6 deSirveixTTOs irpea^vrrji Kal K-qpv^ 
 Tris aXTjdeias). The same authority is further 
 designated, after the quotation, as " amator 
 Dei senior," which Epiphanius expresses by 
 6 0eo(pi\r]s TTpetr/Si'TT/s. 
 
 Two other sources, from which Irenaeus 
 may have derived acquaintance with Gnostic 
 opinions, have been conjectured by Harnack 
 {Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosti- 
 cismus, p. 56) for the information in bks. iii. -v. 
 concerning the details of Marcion's system, 
 which with the Valentinian is the heresy most 
 frequently referred to in that portion. These 
 were Marcion's own writings and a refutation 
 of Marcion by a presbyter of Asia Minor. 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 It would be of great interest to obtain more 
 exact impressions of those other presbyters to 
 whose words and writings Irenaeus makes 
 frequent reference. Besides the " God-loving 
 elder," from whom he borrows the Iambic 
 Senarii against Marcus, Irenaeus cites on 
 various occasions from " presbyters and 
 disciples of the apostles " ; under which title, 
 besides Polycarp, bp. Papias of Hierapolis 
 must certainly be included. From bk. iv. of 
 Papias's Ao7/a'i' KvpiaKCiv iirfy-qaei^ Irenaeus 
 cites the saying traditionally attributed to our 
 Lord on the alleged testimony of St. John 
 concerning the glories of His millennial king- 
 dom (v. 33, 3 sqq.). 
 
 Of the writings of Polycarp there is no 
 certain trace in Irenaeus, but he held in faithful 
 remembrance his oral utterances. He knows 
 indeed several writings of the bp. of Smyrna 
 {Ep. ad Florin, ap. Eus. v. 20) and specially 
 mentions Polycarp's Ep. to the Philippians 
 (Haer. iii. 3, 4) . Of the works of J ustin Martyr 
 Irenaeus knew and used — besides the Syn- 
 tagma against all Heresies, and the possibly 
 identical Syntagma against Marcion — the first 
 .\pologies, without, however, citing it (Quellen 
 der dltesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 63). From 
 which of Justin's works the citation, v. 26, 2, 
 is derived cannot be decided. With far 
 greater confidence we may assume Irenaeus 
 to have used the Memoirs of Hegesippus (iii. 
 3. 3 ; 4. 3. ci. Quellen der alt. Ketzergesch. p. y^), 
 and he makes one citation from the Ep. of 
 Ignatius to the Romans (v. 28, 4), but without 
 mentioning his name. 
 
 Irenaeus's great work is divided into five 
 books. Bk. i. contains a detailed account of 
 the Valentinian system, together with a 
 general v-iew of the opinions of the other sects. 
 Bk. ii. undertakes to exhibit the unreasonable- 
 ness and self-contradiction of the doctrines of 
 Valentinianism. His chief object here is to 
 combat the doctrine of the Demiurge or 
 Creator as a subordinate existence outside the 
 Pleroma, of limited power and insight, and 
 separated from the " Father " by an infinite 
 chasm. He also controverts the Valentinian 
 doctrine concerning the Pleroma and its 
 antithesis the Kenoma, the theory of Emana- 
 tions, of the Fall of Achamoth, and the forma- 
 tion of the lower world through the sufferings 
 of the Sophia ; and finally, at great length, 
 the Gnostic teaching concerning souls, and the 
 distinction between Psychici and Pneumatici. 
 Bks. iii. iv. and v. contain the refutation of 
 Gnostic doctrines from Holy Scripture, pre- 
 ceded by a short dissertation on the sources 
 of Christian truth. The one foundation of the 
 faith is the gospel transmitted first by oral 
 tradition and subsequently committed to 
 writing. The Gnostics allow neither the 
 refutation of their doctrines out of Scripture 
 nor disproof from tradition. Against the one 
 they appeal to a secret doctrine handed down 
 among themselves, against the other to their 
 own higher knowledge (gnosis). Irenaeus 
 meets them by stating the characteristics of 
 genuine apostolic tradition as ensuring the 
 right interpretation of Holy Scripture. The 
 chief media and transmitters of this tradition 
 are the apostolic churches and their episcopal 
 succession from the apostles themselves (Haer. 
 iii. 1-4). He proceeds to give the proof from 
 
IRENAEUS 
 
 Scripture — first, against the doctrine of the 
 Demiurge, then against the dnostic Christo- 
 logy. There is but one God, Creator of the 
 world and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 Who is the Son, the Eternal Cod-Logos, and 
 has truly been made Flesh in order to redeem 
 mankind from its fall in Adam. Under this 
 head he combats the errors of both Docetae 
 and Ebionites, and, returning to his main 
 purpose, attacks the chief Gnostic doctrine in 
 a refutation of Marcion's attempt to distin- 
 guish between the Good God and the Jt4st or 
 Judicial God. This occupies him at the close 
 of bk. iii. Bk. iv. is directed against the 
 
 same doctrine. Irenaeus now attacks the 
 distinction made between the lawgiver and 
 the Father, shewing the identity of the divine 
 revelation in O. and N. T., the close connexion 
 between law and gospel, and the typical pre- 
 announcement of the N.T. in the Old. He 
 shews that eternal happiness or endless misery 
 will befall men from the same (iod, as reward 
 or as punishment for their own free choice of 
 good or evil. Bk. v. gives a detailed proof of 
 the resurrection of the body and of the mil- 
 lennial kingdom. 
 
 Of other writings of Irenaeus, fragments 
 only, or bare names, have been preserved. 
 Whether he ever carried out the intention, 
 announced i. 27, 4 and iii. 12, 12, of writing a 
 special treatise against Marcion, cannt)t be 
 determined. Eusebius (H. E. v. 8) mentions 
 this intention, and elsewhere (//. E. iv. 25) 
 reckons Irenaeus, with Philip of Gortyna and 
 Modestus, among authors who had written 
 against Marcion. Of his Epistle to Floriuus, 
 Eusebius has preserved a considerable frag- 
 ment. Florinus was an older contempfirary 
 of Irenaeus and a disciple of Polycarp. He 
 was afterwards a presbyter at Rome, and was 
 deposed, apparently for heresy (Eus. H. E. 
 V. 15). The epistle of Irenaeus, addressed to 
 him, bore also, according to Eusebius {H. E. 
 V. 20), the title wept fxofapxias ^ irepi tov fxri 
 tlvai rbv Bebv iroLTtTriv KaKwv^ which implies 
 that he had adopted Gnostic opinions. The 
 " God " whom he apparently regarded as the 
 author of evil was the Gnostic Demiurge. 
 He afterwards, according to Eusebius, inclined 
 to Valentinianism ; whereupon Irenaeus 
 addressed him in another treatise, Trept 6y- 
 5od5iy, from which Eusebius quotes the con- 
 cluding words, conjuring the copyists to make 
 an accurate and faithful transcript of his 
 words. The epistle irepi ^ovapx^a^ is re- 
 garded by Leimbach (Zeitschrift fur lutherische 
 Theologie, 1873, pp. 626 seq.) and Lightfoot 
 {Contemp. Rev. 1875, May, p. 834) as one of 
 Irenaeus's earliest writings. Leimbach would 
 date it between 168 and 177, but his arguments 
 are trivial. Of far greater importance is 
 Lightfoot's argument that the treatise irtpl 
 dySodBos was probably written before the 
 great work Against Heresies, since its detailed 
 treatment of the V'alentinian system would 
 have made a special tractate on the Ogdoad 
 superfluous. But Lightfoot seems to have 
 overlooked the fragmentary portion of an 
 epistle to Victor f)f Rome, preserved among 
 the Syriac fragments of Irenaeus {Fragm. 
 xxviii. ap. Harvey, ii. p. 457). which is intro- 
 duced with the words, " .Xnd Irenaeus, bp. of 
 Lyons, to Victor, bp. of Rome, concerning 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 52S 
 
 Florinus, a presbvtcr who w.is a partisan of 
 the error of Valentinus, and published an 
 abominable book, thus wrote : " whrreupfm 
 follows the fragment itself. From these 
 words it apjiears that the epistle from which 
 the fragment was taken could not have been 
 written till after the first three books Agatnst 
 Heresies, probably i\ot till after the completion 
 of the whole, and, at the earliest, c. iqo. 
 
 If Eusebius is right in making the <leposition 
 of the Roman presbvter Blastus contempo- 
 raneous with that of Florinus .the epistle ad- 
 dressed to the former by Irenaeus and entitled 
 irept ffxlfffiaTos (Eus. H. E. v. 20) must belong 
 to the same period. Blastus was, according 
 to Eusebius, the head of the Roman Montan- 
 ists (//. E. V. 15) — cf. also Pacianus, Ep. ad 
 Svmpronian. c. i — and, acc<^rding to Pseudo- 
 Tertullian (Libell. adv. Omn. Haereses, 22), a 
 (.)uart<ideciman. Both are probably correct. 
 We know that the Montanists of Asia Minor 
 (like the Christians there) kept Easter on 
 Nisan 14 (cf. Schwegler, Monlanismus, p. 251) ; 
 it is therefore quite credible that Blastus, as a 
 Montanist, may have conformed to Quarto- 
 deciman practice, and, as a member of the 
 Roman presbytery, may have sought to intro- 
 duce it into Rome. But if Blastus be the one 
 referred to in another Syriac fragment (Fragm. 
 xxvii. ap. Harvey, ii. 456), he was not an 
 Asiatic but an Alexandrian ; and on this sup- 
 position his Quartodecimanism must have 
 come from his close connexion with the Mon- 
 tanists of Asia Minor, since the Paschal calen- 
 dar of Alexandria was the same as that of 
 Rome. One can, moreover, quite understand 
 bp. Victor's responding to any attempt on 
 Blastus's part to create a schism in the Roman 
 church by introducing the Asiatic custom, with 
 deposition from the presbyteral office. Such 
 a breach of discipline in his own diocese (the 
 actual spectacle of some Roman Christians 
 keeping Easter with the .\siaticson Nisan 14, 
 and in opposition to the ancestral custom 
 of the bps. of Rome) would naturally excite 
 him to uncompromising harshness towards 
 the brethren of Asia Minor generally ; so that 
 on these refusing to conform to the Rtmian 
 custom, he at once cut off the churches of 
 the Asiatic province and the neighbouring 
 dioceses from his church-communion (cf. my 
 art. in Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo- 
 logie, 1866, pp. 192 seq., and Chronologte der 
 rom. Bischofe, p. 174)- These ecclesiastical 
 troubles moved the man of peace, Irenaeus, to 
 send letters of remonstrance to both Blastus 
 and bp. Victor. To the former, which accord- 
 ing to Eusebius bore the title irtpl ax^of^o^-^o^^ 
 mav possiblv be assigned the Syriac fragment 
 (xxvii. ap. Harvey, ii. 456) introduced with the 
 following words : " Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, 
 who was a contemporary of Polycarp, disciple 
 of the apostle, bp. of Smyrna and martyr, and 
 for this reason is held in just estimation, wrote 
 to an Alexandrian that it is right, with respect 
 to the Feast of the Resurrection, that we 
 should celebrate it upon the first day of the 
 week." But inasmuch as we kn<iw from 
 Eusebius (//. E. v. 24) that Irenaeus wrote on 
 the same subject to several persons, it is 
 possible that this Alexandrian may have been 
 another than Bl.istus. Of the letter to Victor 
 Eusebius (ib.) has preserved a considerable 
 
524 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 extract showing that the current controversies 
 regarded also the mode and duration of the 
 antecedent Paschal fast. Some kept one day, 
 others two days, others several days ; some 
 again reckoned their fast-day at 40 hours 
 of day and night (oi 5^ reaaapaKOvra ibpas 
 rj/xepivas re /cat vvKTepivas ffv/j.fX€Tpovai rrjv 
 ilfj-epav auT^'v). But these differences of 
 practice resting on ancient custom — so Ire- 
 naeus proceeds to say — have never yet dis- 
 turbed the church's peace and unity of faith. 
 For although former bishops of Rome, from 
 Xystus to Soter, had never kept Nisan 14, 
 they had always maintained full communion 
 with any who came from dioceses where it was 
 observed ; e.g. Polycarp, whom Anicetus per- 
 mitted to celebrate in his own church, both 
 separating afterwards in peace. No title is 
 given by Eusebius to this epistle, but accord- 
 ing to the Quaestiones et Responsa ad Ortho- 
 doxos of Pseudo-Justin (c. 115) it was entitled 
 Trepi Tov Ildtrxa (cf. Fragm. Graec. vii. ap. 
 Harvey, ii. 478). In the same work Pseudo- 
 Justin tells us further that the old Christian 
 custom of refraining from kneeling on Easter 
 Day, as a sign of Christ's resurrection, is 
 carried back by Irenaeus to apostolic times, 
 and the observance of this custom continued 
 through the season of Pentecost, as the 
 whole period (of 50 davs after Easter) was 
 regarded as equal to Easter Day itself. 
 
 Of other writings of Irenaeus Eusebius men- 
 tions (H. E. v. 26) a short tractate, 7rp6! 
 "EW-qvas, which bore also the title Trept iwi- 
 ffTrmrji, an iwiSei^ii tov dTroaroXiKou Kripvyfia- 
 T01, addressed to a certain Marcian ; and a 
 ^L^\lov 5i.a\i^euv dia(p6pujv, in which he is 
 said to have cited Hebrews and the Wisdom of 
 Solomon. Jerome, apparently copying Euse- 
 bius, makes, however, a distinction (de Vir. 
 III. 35) between the X670S -nrpbs "¥.\\-qva% and 
 the Trepl €TnaTr)ixr\s ("scripsit . . . contra 
 Gentes volumen breve et de Disciplina aliud "). 
 The tractate on Apostolical Preaching ad- 
 dressed to Marcian appears to have been a 
 catechetical work on the Rule of Faith. The 
 fiipXlov SiaX^^iuiv Siaipopwi' appears, in ac- 
 cordance with the early usage of the word 
 diaX^^fis (cf. Harvey, i. p. clxvii. sqq.), to 
 have been a collection of homilies on various 
 Scripture texts. Rufinus incorrectly renders 
 diaX^^eis by Dialogus ; Jerome by fractatus. 
 From these homilies were probably taken the 
 numerous Gk. fragments found in various 
 catenae, containing expositions of various 
 passages of the Pentateuch and the historical 
 books of O.T. and of St. Matthew and St. 
 Luke {Fr. Graec. xv.-xxiii., xxv.-xxix., xxxi., 
 xxxiii., xxxiv., xxxix., xl., xlii.-xlvii.), as well 
 as the Syriac fragment of an exposition of the 
 Song of Solomon {Fr. Syr. xxvi. ap. Harvey, 
 ii. 455) and the Armenian homily on the Sons 
 of Zebedee {Fr. Syr. xxxii. ap. Harvey, ii. 464 
 sqq.). To the same collection would also 
 belong a tractate on the History of Elkanah 
 and Samuel, mentioned in a Syriac manuscript 
 (Harvey, ii. 507 note). 
 
 His Theology and Influence on Ecclesiastical 
 Development. — Irenaeus, with Tertullian, Hip- 
 polytus, Cyprian, on the one side, and Clemens 
 Alexandrinus and Origen on the other, was a 
 main founder of the ancient Catholic church. 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 as it rose amid conflicts with Gnosticism and 
 Montanism, out of the church of the post- 
 apostolic era. Baur and the Tiibingen school 
 were wrong in explaining the development of 
 primitive Catholic Christianity as the fruit of 
 a compromise effected by the Pauline and 
 Petrine parties soon after the middle of the 
 2nd cent, to overcome the new opposition. 
 The earliest post- apostolic form of Christianity 
 was no mere product of conflicting anti- 
 theses of the apostolic time, or of their re- 
 conciliation. The Jewish-Christian commu- 
 nities of Palestine and Syria formed, even 
 towards the end of the ist cent., a small and 
 vanishing minority as compared to the swell- 
 ing dimensions of the Gentile church. That 
 to some extent Jewish-Christian influences did 
 operate upon Gentile Christianity during the 
 former half of the 2nd cent, need not wholly 
 be denied ; yet the one feature in which we 
 are most tempted to trace them — the con- 
 ception of the gospel as a new law — is quite as 
 much the outcome of an internal development 
 within the Gentile church itself. The ul- 
 timate triumph of Christian universalism, and 
 the recognized equality between Jewish and 
 Gentile members of the church of the Messiah, 
 was a fruit of the life-long labours of St. Paul. 
 The new Christian community, largely Gen- 
 tile, regarded itself as the true people of God, 
 as the spiritual Israel, and as the genuine heir 
 of the church of the O.T., while the great mass 
 of Jewish unbelievers were, as a penalty for 
 their rejection of the true Messiah, excluded 
 from the blessings of the kingdom of God. 
 To this new spiritual Israel were speedily, in 
 part at least, transferred the forms of the 
 O.T. theocracy, and all the Jewish Scriptures 
 were received as divinely inspired documents 
 by the new church. But, whereas St. Paul 
 had emphasized the antithesis between law 
 and gospel, the Gentile churches after his 
 time attached themselves more closely to the 
 doctrinal norm of the older apostles, and laid 
 stress on the continued validity of the law 
 for Christians ; though, as it was impossible 
 to bind Gentiles to observe the ceremonial 
 law, its precepts were given, after the example 
 of the Jewish religious philosophy of Alex- 
 andria, a spiritual interpretation. Already, 
 in Hebrews, we find the relations between O. 
 and N. T. viewed under the aspect of Tvpe 
 and Anti-type, Prophecy and Fulfilment. The 
 later Gentile Christianity learned to see 
 everywhere in O.T. types of the gospel revela- 
 tion, and thus combined freedom from the 
 Mosaic ceremonial law with the maintenance 
 of the entire continuity of the O. and N. T. 
 revelation. The Moral Law, as the centre 
 and substance of the Mosaic revelation, re- 
 mained the obligatory norm of conduct for 
 Gentile Christians ; Christ had not abrogated 
 the law of Moses, but fulfilled and completed 
 it. The theological learning of the time con- 
 fines itself too exclusively to a typological 
 interpretation of O.T. So much the greater, 
 on the other hand, is the influence exercised 
 upon these writers by heathen philosophic 
 culture. In the Apologists of the middle 
 portion of the 2nd cent.— Justin, Tatian, 
 Theophilus, Athenagoras — this influence ap- 
 pears specially strong. Justin makes con- 
 stant endeavours to comprehend Christianity 
 
IRENAEOS 
 
 under the then generally accepted forms of 
 philosophical speculation, and to commend it 
 as a manifestation of the highest reason to 
 the cultured minds of his time. In this way 
 he became the first founder of a Catholic 
 system of theology. The doctrine of the 
 Divine Logos as the " Second Ciod," the 
 Mediator through Whom all divine revelation 
 is transmitted, was already for Justin an apo- 
 logetic weapon, remained ttu-nce forward a 
 standing basis for the piiilosophical defence of 
 Christianity, and proved in after-times the 
 strongest weapon in the church's armoury in 
 the conflict with Gnostic opinions. 
 
 The widespread appearance of the manifold 
 forms of Gnosticism in the 2nd cent, is a most 
 significant proof of the far-reaching influence 
 exercised by pagan thought and speculation 
 on the Gentile church of that age. The 
 danger from the influx on all sides of foreign 
 thought was all the greater because the 
 Gentile churches had as yet but a feeble 
 comprehension of the ideas specially belonging 
 to Christianity. The conflict with Gnosticism 
 gradually gave fresh vigour to that revival of 
 fundamental Christian and Pauline thought 
 which distinguishes the theology of Ircnaeus 
 and of other early " Catholic " doctors at the 
 end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd cent, 
 from the simpler and poorer view of Christian 
 truth presented in the works of the early 
 Apologists. The perils with which the 
 Gnostic speculation menaced the Christian 
 system were, on the one hand, concerned with 
 that which formed a common groundwork for 
 Christianity and Judaism — i.e. tirst and 
 specially the Monotheistic principle itself, and 
 then the doctrines of Divine Justice, Freedom 
 of the Will, and Future Retribution ; on the 
 other hand, they had regard to the traditions 
 peculiar to Christianity concerning the his- 
 torical person and work of Jesus Christ, the 
 genuine human realism of His life and suffer- 
 ings, the universal application of His redeem- 
 ing work to all believers, and the external and 
 historical character of that final restitution to 
 which Christians looked forward. The Mono- 
 theistic idea, the divine /JLovapxia, was assailed 
 by the Gnostic doctrine of the Demiurge, the 
 Pleroma, and the series of Aeons ; and the 
 universally accepted doctrine of our Lord's 
 Incarnation and Messiahship by the various 
 forms of Gnostic docetism. Further, the 
 whole ethical basis of Christian religion was 
 destroyed by the distinctions which Gnostic 
 teachers made between two or three separate 
 classes of mankind, and by their view of 
 redemption as a purely theoretical process, or 
 as the impartation of true knowledge (gnosis) 
 to those only who by their own originally 
 pneumatic nature had from the beginning 
 been predestined to reception into the heaven- 
 ly realm of light. Instead of the Christian 
 doctrine of Freewill and consequent respon- 
 sibility, they taught an iron heathenish meta- 
 physical Necessity, which arbitrarily deter- 
 mined the fortunes of men ; instead of a future 
 divine recompense according to the measure 
 of faith and works, a une-sidcd over-estiniation 
 of mere knowledge as the one condition of 
 ultimate salvation ; instead <>f the original 
 Christian notion of the final consummation as 
 a series of great outward visible occurrences. 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 62r. 
 
 the resurrection of the flesh, a dav of final 
 judgment, and the setting up on earth of a 
 millennial kingdom, they taught the spiritual- 
 istic conception of a saving delivcranrr ol 
 pneumatic souls and their translation into the 
 upper world; whereas for the I'sychtct was 
 reserved only a limited share in such know- 
 ledge and salvation, and for the material 
 (" hylic " or " choic ") man and for the earthly 
 bodies of men, nothing but an ultimate and 
 complete annihilation. It cannot be denied 
 
 that both the Gentile Cliristianitv of that era 
 and the Catholic theology of following times 
 appropriated various elements nearly related 
 to these tinostic speculations. A Catholic 
 gnosis also appeared, which diflercd essentially 
 from that heretical gnosis in intending to 
 maintain unimpaired the received foundations 
 of Christian faith. Yet, in truth, the idealistic 
 speculations of the Alexandrine school were 
 separated from those of the heretical gnosis 
 by very uncertain lines of demarcation, and 
 were afterwards, in some essential points, 
 rejected by the church. Irenaeus, in contra- 
 distinction to the Alexandrine doctors, ap- 
 pears to have been less concerned with setting 
 up a Catholic in opposition to the heretical 
 gnosis, than with securing the foundations of 
 the common Christian faith by strengthening 
 the bands of existing church untty. He recog- 
 nizes certain subjects which, as lying outside 
 the rule of faith delivered to all, might be 
 safely entrusted to the deeper and more 
 searching meditations and inquiries of the 
 more enlightened, but these related only to a 
 clearer understanding of the details of the 
 history of divine revelation, the right inter- 
 pretation of parables, insight into the divine 
 plan of human salvation (why God should 
 bear with such long-suffering the apostasy of 
 angels and the disobedience of man at the 
 Fall), the differences and unity of the two 
 Testaments, the necessity for the Incarnation 
 of the Logos, the second coming of Christ at 
 the end of time, the conversion of the heathen, 
 the resurrection of the body, etc. (Haer. i. 
 10, 3). These questions would arise in the 
 course of the Gnostic controversy, but the 
 form in which Irenaeus presents them assumes 
 everywhere a clear antithesis to Gnostic 
 speculation and a firm retention of the 
 Catholic rule of faith. Only in quite an 
 isolated form is once named the question why 
 one and the same God should have created 
 the temporal and the eternal, the earthly and 
 the heavenly ; while Irenaeus insists strongly 
 on the narrow bounds of human knowledge 
 and insight, and on the impossibility for n>or- 
 tal man to know the reasons for everything 
 (ii. 25, 3 ; 28, i), and is never weary of 
 chastising the arrogant presumption of the 
 I'neumatici wh<} exalt themselves above the 
 Creator, while their impotence in the presence 
 of His works is manifest to all (ii. 30, i sqq.). 
 His theoretical refutation of Cinostc 
 opinions, e.g. in bk. ii., is full of acute remarks. 
 His main purpose is to repel the Gnostic 
 assault on the divine monarchia. He shews 
 that by the separation of the Creator from the 
 highest God, the absolute being of t.od Him- 
 self is denied. Neither above nor beside the 
 Creator Himself can there be any other j^rni- 
 ciple, for so God Himself would cease to be the 
 
526 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 all-embracing Pleroma, and being limited 
 from without would cease to be infinite. And 
 so again, if the Pleroma be separated from all 
 beneath it by an immeasurable discrepancy, a 
 third principle is introduced, which limits the 
 other two, and is greater than both, and the 
 questions concerning the limiting and the 
 limited become boundlessly insoluble. He 
 urges similar arguments against the doctrine 
 of creative angels. If their creative energies 
 are independent of the Godhead, God ceases to 
 be God ; if dependent upon Him, He is repre- 
 sented as needing inferior assistants. Against 
 the assumption of a vacuum (K^vwfj.a, aKia 
 KfvJ)tj.aToi) outside the Divine Pleroma, he 
 remarks that, if the world be thought of as 
 produced out of this void and formless sub- 
 stratum without the knowledge of the irpo- 
 Traruip, then the attribute of omniscience is 
 denied Him. Nor can it be explained why for 
 such endless times He should have left that 
 space thus empty. Again, if God did actually 
 beforehand form this lower world for Himself 
 in thought, then was He its real creator. In 
 that case its mutability and transient diu-ation 
 must have been fore-willed by the Father 
 Himself, and not be due to any defect or 
 ignorance on the part of an inferior maker. 
 The origin of the x^cto/ua also is incomprehen- 
 sible. If it be an emanation from the Divine 
 Pleroma, that Pleroma itself must be burdened 
 with emptiness and imperfection. If it be self- 
 originated, it is really as absolute as the Father 
 of all Himself. Such a defect, again, in the 
 Pleroma, like a spot on a garment, would have 
 been at once removed, in the very beginning, 
 had the Divine Father been able to remove it ; 
 if otherwise, the blame of letting it remain so 
 long must fall upon Him, and He will have to 
 be accounted, like the heathen Jupiter, re- 
 pentant over His own ways. Nay, if He was 
 unable to remove this defect in the beginning. 
 He cannot remove it now. The imperfection 
 of this lower world leads back then to the 
 conclusion that there must have been some- 
 thing void or formless, dark or disorderly, an 
 element of error or infirmity in the Father 
 Himself or in His Pleroma. The like thought 
 recurs in the further argument that the tem- 
 poral and transient could not have been made 
 after the image of the unchangeable and 
 eternal without introducing into it an alien 
 element of mutability. The image must be 
 like its prototype, and not opposed to it, 
 and therefore the earthly material composite 
 cannot be the image of that which is spiritual 
 without drawing down the spiritual into its 
 own sphere of materialism. The same objec- 
 tion is made to the notion that the corporeal 
 may be an image or shadow of the spiritual 
 world. It is only something corporeal that can 
 cast a shadow. .A.gain, if it be maintained that 
 the Creator could not make the world out of 
 Himself, but only after a foreign archetype, the 
 same must be iriieoftheDivine Father. Healso 
 must have derived, from some other source, the 
 archetype of that higher world of which He was 
 the maker, and so on. The question about 
 type andarchetype wouldthusbedrawnout in- 
 to infinity (ii. i-8). But inasmuch as we must 
 stop at some original at last, it is far more 
 reasonable to believe that the Creator and the 
 OneonlyGodareoneandthesame(ii. i6, isqq.). 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 In the interest of the same absolute divine 
 Perfection and Unity, Irenaeus controverts 
 the Valentinian doctrine of the Aeons. Be- 
 sides noting the arbitrary way in which the 
 Pleroma is made to consist of 30 Aeons, neither 
 more nor less (ii. 12, i ; 15, i ; 16, i), he finds 
 fault with the anthropomorphic conceptions 
 behind the whole theory of emanations. The 
 fact that the Propator Himself is reckoned as 
 an Aeon, the unemanate, unborn, illimitable, 
 formless One placed in the same class with 
 emanations and births and limitations and 
 forms, destroys the absolute perfection of the 
 divine Nature (ii. 12, i). Again, the separa- 
 tion from the Godhead of its own indivisible 
 elements, the conception of the divine 'Ewoia, 
 the divine 'Sous, the divine Aoyos. etc., as so 
 many hypostases, which in various stages have 
 issued from its bosom, is an unwarrantable 
 transfer of human passions and affections to 
 the divine, which, on the contrary, is all "EfvoLa, 
 all NoOs, all A670?, and knows of no such divi- 
 sion from itself (ii. 13). He subjects to acute 
 criticism the manner in which each.-Veonissup- 
 posed to have been produced : was it without 
 substantial separation, as the ray proceeding 
 from the sun, or was it hypostatical, as one 
 human being is personally distinct from all 
 others, or was it by organic growth, as the 
 branch from the tree ? He asks whether these 
 emanations are all of the same substance with 
 those from which they proceed and con- 
 temporaneous with them, or have come forth 
 in different stages ? Whether they are all 
 simple and alike, as spirits and lights, or com- 
 posite and corporeal and of various forms ? 
 (ii. 17, I sqq.). He insists on carrying to their 
 literal consequences the mythological con- 
 ceptions which regarded the Valentinian Aeons 
 as so many distinct personalities, produced 
 according to human analogy among them- 
 selves; and he offers the alternative, that they 
 must either be like their original Parent the 
 Father and therefore impassible as He is (in 
 which case there could be no suffering Aeon 
 like the Valentinian Sophia), or different from 
 Him in substance and capable of suffering, 
 upon which the question arises, how such 
 differences of substance could come to exist 
 in the unchangeable Pleroma. 
 
 So acute a polemic must have equally 
 served the interests of philosophy by its 
 maintenance of the absolute character of the 
 divine idea and of religion by its assertion of 
 the divine monarchia. Irenaeus, like other 
 opponents of Gnosticism, was clearly con- 
 vinced that the whole system betrayed 
 influences of heathen thought. The theory 
 that everything must return to the originals 
 of its component parts, and that God Himself 
 is bound by this Necessity, so that even He 
 cannot impart to the mortal immortality, to 
 the corruptible incorruption, was derived by 
 the Gnostics from the Stoics ; the Valentinian 
 doctrine of the Soter as made up from all the 
 .\eons, each contributing thereto the flower 
 of his own essence, is nothing more than the 
 Hesiodic fable about Pandora. 
 
 Yet the Gnostics wished and meant to be 
 Christians, and indeed set up a claim to 
 possess a deeper knowledge of Christian truth 
 than the Psychici of the church. Like their 
 opponents, they appealed to Scripture in proof 
 
IRENAEUS 
 
 of their doctrines, and also bc^asted to be in 
 possession of genuine apostolical traditions, 
 deriving their doctrines, some from St. Paul, 
 others from St. Peter, otiiers from Judas, 
 Thomas, Philip, and Matthew. In addition 
 to the secret doctrine which tliey professed to 
 have received by oral tradition, they appealed 
 to alleged writings of the apostles or their 
 disciples. In conducting his controversy on 
 these lines with the V'alentinians, Irenaeus 
 remarks first on their arbitrary method of 
 dealing with Scripture ; and describes their 
 mode of drawing arguments from it as a 
 " twisting ropes of sand " (i. 8, i ; ii. lo, i). 
 They indulge in every kind of perverse inter- 
 pretation, and vii)len'tly wresting texts out of 
 their natural coniuxion put them arbitrarily 
 together again after the manner of the centos 
 made from Homer (i. 9, 4). He compares this 
 proceeding to that of a bungler who has broken 
 up a beautiful mosaic portrait of a king made 
 by skilful artists out of costly gems, and puts 
 the stones together again to form an ill- 
 executed image of a dog or fox, maintaining 
 that it is the same beautiful king's portrait as 
 before (i. 8, i). Since the dnostics specially 
 exercised their arts of interpretation on our 
 Lord's parables, Irenaeus repeatedly lays 
 down principles on which such interpretation 
 should be made (ii. 10, 2 ; 20, i sqq. ; 27, 
 I sqq.). Dark and ambiguous passages are not 
 to be cleared up by still darker interpretations 
 nor enigmas solved by greater enigmas ; but 
 that which is dark and ambiguous must be 
 illustrated by that which is consistent and 
 clear (ii, 10,' i). Irenaeus himself in inter- 
 preting Scripture, especially when he indulges 
 in allegory, is not free from forced and arbit- 
 rary methods of exposition (cf. e.g. the inter- 
 pretations of Judg. vi. 37, in Haer. iii. 17, 3 ; 
 Jon. ii. I sqq. Haer. iii. 20, i ; Dan. ii. 34, 
 Haer. iii. 21, 7) ; but in opposition to the 
 fantastic interpretations which characterize 
 the Valentinian school, he represents for the 
 most part the historical sense of the written 
 Word. His main purpose in the last three 
 books is to refute the Gnostics out of Scripture 
 itself. Irenaeus quotes as frequently from 
 N.T. as from O.T. Whereas formerly men 
 had been content with the authority of 
 O.T. as the documentary memorial of divine 
 revelation, or with the Lord's own words in 
 addition to the utterances of law and prophets, 
 they now felt more and more impelled, and 
 that by the very example of the Cinostics 
 themselves, to seek a fixed collection of N.T. 
 Scriptures and to extend to them the idea of 
 divine inspiration. The Gnostics in their 
 opposition to O.T., which they supposed to 
 have proceeded from the Demiurge or some 
 subordinate angelic agency, had appealed to 
 writings real or supposed of the apostles as 
 being a more perfect form of divine revelation, 
 and the first point to be established against 
 them was the essential unity of both revela- 
 tions — Old and New. Bk. iv. is almost wholly 
 devoted by Irenaeus to the proof of this point 
 against Marcion. It is one and the same 
 Divine Spirit that spake both in prophets and 
 apostles (iii. 21, 4), one and the same Divine 
 Authority from which both the law and its 
 fulfilment in Christ proceeds. The O.T. 
 contains presages and fore-types of Christian 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 627 
 
 Revelation (iv. 15; 15, i. ; iq, I. etc.); the 
 literal fulfilment of its prophecies proves that 
 it came from the same God as the N.T.. and 
 is therefore of the same nature (iv. 9, i). 
 The prophets and the gospels together makr 
 up the totality of Scripture C univcrs.ie S< rip- 
 turae," ii. 27. 2). That the MiMr is ..iir 
 divinely inspired whole is lliiis i Ic.irlv ( iiuii- 
 ciated. liven Justin Martyr seiiiis to ngard 
 the gospels rather as memoirs {dwofifij- 
 HOvd'uaTa) by apostles of the Lord's words and 
 actions than as canonical Scri|)lures ; but 
 Irenaeus cites passages from the gospels as 
 inspired words of the Holy Spirit, using the 
 same formulae of citation as for O.T (iii. 
 10, 4 ; 16, 2 ; cf. ii. 35, 4 and 5), and similarly 
 from the epistles and Apocalypse (iii. 16. t/; 
 V. 30, 4). The two main divisions of the NT. 
 cant)n are for him the gospels and the apostolic 
 writings (rd (vay,f\iKa Kai rd <i»-o<T7o\i<id. 
 i. 3, 6). These two already constitute a <.iin- 
 plete whole, like the Scriptures of the O.T., 
 and he therefore blames the Kbionites L.r 
 using only the gospel of St. Matthew, the 
 Docetae only that of St. Mark, Mardon St. 
 Luke's gospel only and the Pauline epistles, 
 and even these not unmutilated (iii. 11, 7 and 
 12, 12). He remarks that those " unhappy 
 ones" who reject the gospel of St. John cast 
 away also the divine prophetic spirit of which 
 it contains the promise (iii. 11, 9). But he 
 equally condemns the use of apocryphal 
 writings. The teachers of Alexandria, with 
 laxer notions about inspiration, made use of 
 such without scrupulosity. Irenaeus draws 
 a clear line of demarcation between canonical 
 Scriptures and apocryphal writings. He 
 blames the V'alentinians for boasting to 
 possess " more gospels than actually exist " 
 (iii. II, 9) and the Gnostic Marcus for having 
 used besides our Gospels " an infinite number 
 of apocryphal and spurious works " (i. 20, 1). 
 He considers himself able to prove that there 
 must be just four gospels, neither more nor 
 less. The proof is a somewhat singular one. 
 From the four regions of the earth, the four 
 principal winds, the fourfold form of the 
 cherubim, the four covenants made by God 
 with man, he deduces the necessity of one 
 fourfold gospel (iii. 11, 8). This gospel first 
 orally delivered, and then fixed in writing, 
 Irenaeus designates the fundamentum et 
 columna ftdei nostrae (iii. I, 1). The .N.T. 
 canon of Irenaeus embraces nearly all now 
 received; viz. the four gospels, twelve 
 epistles of St. Paul (the omission of PhtUtm^n 
 appears to be accidental), I. I'eter, I. and II. 
 John, the Acts. and the Revelation. The omis- 
 sion of III. John is most probably accidental 
 also. From St. James tlure is probably a 
 quotation at iv. 16, 2 (cf. J as. li. 23), and 
 the frequently recurring expression " lex 
 libertatis " appears to have been borrowed 
 from J as. i. 25. The possible references to 
 Hebrews are uncertain. Resemblances, per- 
 haps echoes, are found in several places (cf. 
 Harvev's Index), and Lusebius testifies [H. F. 
 V. 26) that both Hebrews and tlie Wisdom of 
 Solomon are mentioned by Irenaeus in his 
 5iaX^ffii Stdtpofioi. The epistle is cited as a 
 Pauline work in one fragment onlv. the 
 second Pfafhan {Fr. Graec. xxxvi. ap. Harvey.) 
 Irenaeus in his controversy with theGnostict 
 
528 
 
 IRENAEOS 
 
 assumes the possibility that we might have 
 had to be without N.T. Scriptures altogether. 
 In this case we should have to inquire of the 
 tradition left by the apostles of the churches 
 (iii. 4, i: "quid autem si nequeapostoli quidem 
 Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat 
 ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis 
 quibus committebant, ecclesias ? "). But the 
 Gnostics also appealed to an apostolical tra- 
 dition. Irenaeus complains that when one 
 would refute them from the Bible they accused 
 it of error, or declared the interpretation to 
 be doubtful. The truth can only be ascer- 
 tained, they said, by those who know the true 
 tradition (iii. 2, i). But this teaching is 
 identical with that of Irenaeus himself, and 
 he insists on finding this true tradition in the 
 rule of faith (xayui:' rifs d.\7jt?eia?, Regula 
 Fidei), as contained in the Baptismal Confes- 
 sion of the whole church (i. g, 4 ; cf. 22, i). 
 Irenaeus thus obtains a sure note or token 
 by which to distinguish the genuine apostolical 
 tradition (r; vird rrji inKXTjaias Krjpvaaou-lvr) 
 dXrideia. i. 9, 5 ; praeconiiim ecclesiae, v. 20, 2 ; 
 apostolica ecclesiae traditio, iii. 3, 3 ; or simply 
 TrapdSoo-is, traditio, i. 10, 2 ; iii. 2, 2 and fre- 
 quently) from the so-called apostolical secret 
 doctrine to which the Gnostics made their 
 appeal. The Baptismal Confession (or Credo) 
 acquired its complete form only through the 
 conflicts of the Gnostic controversy. In the 
 writings of Irenaeus, as in those of liis contem- 
 poraries, it is cited in various, now longer now 
 shorter, forms. This is no proof that one or 
 other of these was the actual form then used 
 in baptism. The probability is far greater that 
 the shorter form of the old Roman credo still 
 preserved to us was that already used in the 
 time of Irenaeus. (Caspari, Ungedruckte, etc. 
 Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der 
 Glaiibensregel, tom. iii. 1875, pp. 3 sqq.) The 
 variations as we find them in the creeds of 
 the Eastern churches appear to have been 
 introduced in order to express, with greater 
 distinctness, the antithesis of Christian belief 
 to Gnostic heresy. So here a special emphasis 
 is laid on the belief in " One God the Father 
 Almighty, Who made heaven and earth," and 
 in " one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who 
 became flesh for our salvation." This rule 
 of faith Irenaeus testifies that the church, 
 scattered over the whole oinova^pr), delivers 
 as with one mind and mouth, even as she has 
 herself received it from the apostles and their 
 disciples (i. 10, i and 2). A clear, determinate 
 note is thus given by which to distinguish 
 the genuine Christian tradition from that of 
 heresy. To the pretended secret doctrine of 
 the latter is opposed the public preaching 
 of the faith of the apostolic churches ; to the 
 mutability and endless varieties of Gnostic 
 doctrines the unity of the church's teaching ; 
 to their novelty her antiquity, and to their 
 endless subdivisions into schools and parties 
 the uniformity and universality of her tra- 
 ditional witness. That only which, from the 
 times of the apostles, has been handed down 
 in unbroken tradition by the elders of the 
 church and publicly and uniformly taught in 
 the churches, that doctrine which at all times 
 and in every place may be learned by inquiry 
 from the successors of the apostle in their 
 teaching office, that alone is the Christian 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 apostolic truth (i. 10, 2 ; iii. 2, 2 ; 3, i, 3, 4 ; 
 4, I seq. ; 24, i •; iv. 33, 7 seq. ; v. 20, i). 
 
 The learned church antiquarian Hegesippus 
 had, c. 170, undertaken long journeys to 
 assure himself of the general agreement of 
 Christian communities in their doctrinal tra- 
 ditions ; in each apostolic church he had set 
 himself to inquire for the unbroken succession 
 of its pastors and their teaching, and records 
 with satisfaction the result of his investiga- 
 tions : " In every succession in every city 
 it is still maintained as the law announces and 
 as the prophets and the Lord." And again, 
 " So long as the sacred choir of the apostles 
 still lived, the church was like a virgin un- 
 defiled and pure, and not till afterwards in the 
 times of Trajan did error, which so long had 
 crept in darkness, venture forth into the light 
 of day" (ap. Eus. H. E. iv. 22; iii. 32). 
 Irenaeus is specially emphatic in everywhere 
 contrasting the vacillation and variety of 
 heretical opinions with the uniform pro- 
 clamation of one and the same apostolic wit- 
 ness in all the churches of the world (i. 8, i ; 
 10, i). Truth, he remarks, can be but one ; 
 while each heretical teacher proclaims a 
 different doctrine of his own invention. How 
 impossible is it that truth can ha\'e remained 
 so long hidden from the church and been 
 handed down as secret doctrine in possession 
 of the few ! She is free and accessible to all, 
 both learned and ignorant, and all who 
 earnestly seek her find. With almost a shout 
 of triumph he opposes to the unstable, ever- 
 changing, many-headed doctrinal systems and 
 sects of Gnosticism, with their vain appeals 
 to obscure names of pretended disciples of the 
 apostles or to supposititious writings, the one 
 universal norm of truth which all the churches 
 recognise. " The church, though dispersed 
 through the whole world, is carefully guarding 
 the same faith as dwelling in one and the same 
 house ; these things she believes, in like 
 manner, as having one soul and the self-same 
 heart ; these, too, she accordantly proclaims, 
 and teaches, and delivers, as though possessing 
 but one mouth. The speeches of the world 
 are many and di\'ergent, but the force of our 
 tradition is one and the same." And again : 
 " The churches in Germany have no other 
 faith, no other tradition, than that which is 
 found in Spain, or among the Celts, in the 
 regions of the East, in Egypt and in Libya, 
 or in these mid parts of the earth." He com- 
 pares the church's proclamation of the truth 
 to the light of the sun, one and the same 
 throughout the universe and visible to all who 
 have eyes. " The mightiest in word among 
 the presidents of the churches teaches only 
 the same things as others (for no one here is 
 above the Master), and the weak in word 
 takes nothing away from what has been de- 
 livered him. The faith being always one and 
 the same, he that can say much about it doth 
 not exceed, he that can say but little doth 
 not diminish" (i. lo, 2). "The tradition of 
 the apostles made manifest, as it is, through 
 all the world can be recognized in every 
 church by all who wish to know the truth " 
 (iii. 3, i). But this light from God shines not 
 for heretics because they have dishonoured 
 and despised Him (iii. 24, 2). Cf. also the first 
 of Pfaffian fragments {Fr. Grace xxxv.). 
 
 I 
 
IRENAEUS 
 
 The argument from antiquity is also em- 
 ployed by Ireiiaeus on behalf of church tra- 
 dition, if controversies arise about matters 
 of faith, let recourse be had to the most 
 ancient cliurches in which the apostles them- 
 selves once resided and a decisive answer 
 will then be found. This oral apostolic tra- 
 dition exists even in the churches among 
 barbarous nati(Mis, in whose hearts the Spirit, 
 without ink or parchment, has written tiio old 
 and saving truth (iii. 4, i and 2). But while 
 thus the genuine traditiim may, in tiie apos- 
 tolic churches, be traced back through the 
 successions of the elders to the apostles them- 
 selves, the sects and their doctrines are all 
 of later origin. There were no Valentinians 
 before Valentinus, no Marcionites before 
 Marcion. \'alentinus himself and Kerdon 
 (Marcion's teacher) did not appear in Rome 
 till the time of Hyginus the ninth bishop after 
 the apostles, Valentinus flourished under Pius, 
 Marcion under Anicetus (iii. 4, 3). All these 
 founders of sects were much later than the 
 apostles (iii. 21, 3) and the first bishops to 
 whom they committed the care of the churches 
 (v. 20, i). In contradistinction to their 
 ypei'huivvpLOi yvuiati the true gnosis consists in 
 the doctrine of the apostles and the mainten- 
 ance of the pure and ancient constitution of 
 the church (to a.px<'-^ov t^s €KK\-i)<Tlas ctiVtjj^o) 
 throughout the world (iv. 33, 7). The main 
 point then, on which all turns, is the clear 
 proof of a pure transmission of apostolic teach- 
 ing through immediate disciples of the apostles 
 themselves and their disciples after them. 
 What is the tradition of the elders (TrpeajivTai, 
 vpea^vTepoi), i.e. the heads of apostolic 
 churches who stood in direct communication 
 with the apostles themselves or with their 
 disciples ? — is the question, therefore, which 
 Irenaeus is everywhere asking. These elders 
 are the guardians and transmitters of the 
 apostles' teaching. As in the preceding 
 generation Papias had collected the traditions 
 of " disciples of the Lord," so now Irenaeus is 
 collecting reminiscences of their disciples, 
 mediate or immediate, a Polycarp, a Papias, 
 etc., and as Hcgesippus had been careful to 
 inform himself as to the succession of pastors 
 from apostolic times, so Irenaeus, in opposi- 
 tion to the doctrines of the Gnostics, appeals 
 not only to the ancestral teaching maintained 
 in churches of apostolic foundation, such as 
 Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, but also to the lists 
 of those men who, since the apostles, had 
 presided over them (iii. 3). 
 
 The main representatives therefore of 
 genuine apostolical tradition are for Irenaeus 
 the bishops of the churches as successors of 
 the apostles and guardians of their doctrines. 
 In the episcopate, as a continuation of the 
 apostolic office, he finds the one sure pledge 
 of the church's unity and the maintenance 
 of her doctrine. Although the expression 
 iKK\ri<7ia KadoXiKT), which came into vogue to- 
 wards the end of the 2nd cent., does not occur 
 in his writings, the thing itself is constantly 
 before him, i.e. the conception of one true 
 church sj^read over the earth, and bound to- 
 gether by the one true Faith, in contrast to 
 the manifold and variegated and apostate 
 forms of " heresy." Its external bond of 
 unity is the episcopal office. The develop- 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 5l'y 
 
 ment of monarchical episcopacy was a primaty 
 consequence of the conflict with Gnosticism, 
 and its origination out of simpler constitu- 
 tional forms betrays itself in a mode of 
 expression derived indeed from earlier tinirs, 
 but still common to Irenaeus, with Tertulh.in, 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, Hippolytus, and 
 others, the use, namely, of the i>flicial titles, 
 vptafivTfpoi and iirlaKOwoi. to designate 
 alternately the same persons. WptafiintfXM, 
 in this context are, in the first place, " el- 
 ders," i.e. " ancients" or fathers, who repre- 
 sent the immediate connexion of the early 
 church with the apostolic time. This name 
 or title is then transferred to the heads of 
 churches, inasmuch as they in succession to 
 the apostles have been faithful transmitters 
 of what was handed down to them. The true 
 unbroken apostolical succession and prae- 
 conium ecclesiae is therefore attributed t<> the 
 same persons, now as Trpta.iiTipoi now as 
 eiriffKOTToi (iii. 3, 2, cf. iii. 2, 2 ; iv. 26, 2, 4, 5 ; 
 Ep. ad Victorem ap. Ens. H. E. v. 24) ; nay, 
 in so many words, the " succcssio episcopalis " 
 was assigned to the TptafiiTtpoi (iv. 26, 2). 
 By these " presbyters," however, we are 
 certainly to understand heads of churches 
 (especially those of apostolic foundation), 
 who alone were capable of acting as the guar- 
 dians and maintainers of church unity. The 
 episcopate is for Irenaeus no mere congre- 
 gational office, but one belonging to the whole 
 church ; the great inqK^rtance attac lied by 
 his contemporaries to the proofs of a genuine 
 apostolical succession rests on the assumption 
 that the episcopate was the guardian of the 
 church's unity of teaching, a continuation, in 
 fact, of the apostolic teaching-ofhce, ordained 
 for that purpose by the apostles themselves. 
 The bishop, in reference to any particular 
 congregation, is a representative of the whole 
 Catholic church, the very idea of catholicity 
 being indebted for its completion to this more 
 sharply defined conception of the episcopal 
 office. In the episcopate thus conq'lrt.iv 
 formed the Catholic church first manifested 
 herself in organic unity as " the body of 
 Christ." As formerly the apostles, so now 
 the bishops, their successors, are the " ecclesia 
 repraesentativa." Only through the epis- 
 copate as the faithful guardian and trans- 
 mitter of the apostolical tradition do such 
 congregations retain their hold on visible 
 church unity and their possession of the 
 truth (cf. iv. 33, 7)- The significance of the 
 episcopal office rests therefore on the fact of 
 an apostolical succession, and on this historical 
 connexion of the bishops with the apostolic 
 era depends the certainty of their being 
 possessed of the true tradili.m. That this 
 assurance is not illusory is proved by the 
 actual uniformity of church teaching through- 
 out the world, the agreement of all the apos- 
 tolic churches in the confession of the same 
 truth (iii. 3, 3). Beyond this historical proof 
 of the church's possession of the true teac hing 
 through her ei)iscoiiate, the argument is not 
 carried further by Irenaeus. The later dogma 
 of a conlinua successio Spiritus Sancli, t.e. of 
 an abiding special gift of the Holy Spirit 
 attached to the episcopate of apostolical suc- 
 cession, has nevertheless some precursive 
 traces in his writings. Though the Holy 
 31 
 
530 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 Spirit is a scala ascensionis ad Deutn, of which 
 all the faithful are partakers, yet the guidance 
 of the church by the Spirit is mediated by 
 apostles, prophets, and teachers, and they 
 who would have the guidance of the Spirit 
 must come to the church. " For, where the 
 church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where 
 the Spirit of God is, there is the church and 
 all grace — the Spirit, moreover, is the truth " 
 (iii. 24, i). Expressly therefore is the " char- 
 isma veritatis" attached to the episcopal 
 succession (iv. 26, 2), not as a gift of inspira- 
 tion enabling the bishops to discover fresh 
 truths, but rather as such guidance as enables 
 them to preserve the original truth. There- 
 fore it is more particularly the churches of 
 apostolical foundation, and in the West 
 specially the church of Rome, which can 
 give the surest warrant for the true and 
 incorrupt tradition. In this sense the much- 
 disputed passage is to be understood in which 
 some would find a witness for the primacy 
 of the Roman church : " For with this church 
 must, on account of her more excellent origin 
 ('propter potiorem principalitatem,' i.e. 5ta 
 TTjc 5ia(popujTipav dpxw), every church, that is, 
 all the faithful coming from all quarters, put 
 themselves in agreement, as being the church 
 in which at all times by those who come from 
 all quarters the tradition derived from the 
 apostles has been preserved " (iii. 3, 2). The 
 potentior principalitas denotes here not only 
 the superior antiquity of the Roman church 
 as the greatest, oldest, and most widely known 
 (i.e. in the West, where Irenaeus was writing), 
 but also her nobler origin as founded by those 
 " two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul." 
 The mention of the " faithful coming from all 
 quarters " points again to the position of the 
 great world's metropolis as a centre of inter- 
 course, and therefore the place in which 
 Christians could most easily convince them- 
 selves of the oneness of apostolical tradition 
 in the whole church. Obscurations and cor- 
 ruptions of that tradition, quite possible in 
 remoter churches, would at Rome be soonest 
 discovered and most easily removed. It is 
 not of any Roman lordship over other churches 
 or a primatial teaching-office committed to the 
 Roman bishop that Irenaeus is here speaking, 
 but only of the surer warrant offered by the 
 position of that church for the uncorrupt 
 maintenance of the apostolical traditions. 
 So, after reckoning the succession of Roman 
 bishops down to Eleutherus, his own contem- 
 porary, Irenaeus proceeds : r^ avrri tcl^h kuI 
 TV 01^7-77 diaSoxy, rj re awb tCov dwocTTdkoji' iv 
 Tj) iKK\r)aia TrapdSoais Kai rd tjjs dXrjdeias 
 K-fipvy/xa KaTTjVTijKCV eh ^/xaj (iii. 3, 3). 
 But just the same he savs of the church of 
 Ephesus founded by St. Paul, and till the times 
 of Trajan under the guidance of St. John: 
 dXXa Kai r; ev 'Ecp^ffu) iKKXijaia vnb YlavXov fxh 
 T€6e/j.e\Liop.ivr]. 'ludvyov 5^ Trapa^uivavros avroh 
 M^XP' Tuf Tpaiavov xp<5»'U)J', /ddprvs dXrjdris eari 
 TTJi dwoffToXtKyji Trapadhcreios (iii. 3, 4). 
 
 The unity of the Catholic church, thus 
 secured by the continuance of the apostolic 
 office, is regarded by Irenaeus as mainly a 
 doctrinal unity. Of her guardianship of 
 sacramental grace he gives hints only. Yet 
 he is certainly on the way to that conception 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 when he singles out the continuance of spirit- 
 ual gifts as a special note of the true church, 
 meaning thereby not merely the charisma 
 veritatis. but also the gifts of prophecy and 
 miracle (ii. 32, 4; cf. iii. 11, 9). He is not less 
 decided in opposing schismatics, who destroy 
 the church's unity (iv. 26, 2 ; 33, 7), than 
 heretics who corrupt her doctrine. In internal 
 divisions among the faithful he never wearies 
 in urging the interests of peace. Neither in 
 the Montanistic movement nor in the Paschal 
 controversy does he see grounds for the 
 severance of church communion. At the 
 same time he determinedly opposes that 
 separatist temper, which, denying the presence 
 of the Spirit in the church, would claim His 
 gifts exclusively for its own sect or party. 
 Even if we are not warranted in identifying 
 with the Montanists those " false prophets " 
 of whom he speaks (iv. 33, 6) as with lying lips 
 pretending to prophesy, any more than those 
 who (iii. II, g) deny the gospel of St. John — 
 all the more applicable to them is the following 
 description : " Men who bring about schisms, 
 devoid of true love to God, seeking their own 
 advantage rather than the unity of the church ; 
 wounding and dividing for petty reasons the 
 great and glorious body of Christ, and so far 
 as in them lies destroying it ; speaking peace, 
 but acting war, and in sober truth straining 
 out the gnat and swallowing the camel. For 
 no reformation which they could bring about 
 would outweigh the evils produced by their 
 schism " (iv. 33, 7). The great importance 
 attached by Irenaeus to the maintenance of 
 church unity rests for him on the assumption 
 that the church being sole depositary of 
 divine truth is the only trustworthy guarantee 
 of human salvation. While himself sharing, 
 with the Montanists, not only the hope of the 
 millennial kingdom but also the expectation of » 
 
 its outward visible glory (v. 32-36) and delight- | 
 
 ing in reminiscences of what the " elders " I 
 
 (Papias) have handed down concerning it as ' 
 
 from the lips of the apostle St. John (v. 33, 3), 
 Irenaeus does, on the other hand, with his 
 conception of the church as an outward visible 
 institution of prime necessity for human sal- 
 vation, pave the way for that catholic ideal, 
 which, in contrast to the dreams and aspira- 
 tions of Montanism, would substitute for a 
 glorious vision of the future the existing 
 church on earth as God's visible kingdom. 
 When the visible church as an outward insti- 
 tution comes to be regarded as the essential 
 medium of saving grace, all its forms and 
 ordinances at once acquire a quasi-legal or 
 sacramental character. The church is for 
 Irenaeus an earthly paradise, of the trees of 
 which every one may eat, while heresy has 
 only the forbidden tree of knowledge, whose • 
 
 fruits are death-bringing (v. 20, 2). As the | 
 
 church's faith is the only faith which is true 3 
 
 and saving (iii. praef.), so is he alone a Chris- 
 tian man who conforms to the church's insti- 
 tutions and laws (cf. iii. 15, 2 ; v. 20, 1). 
 The church's sacrifices, the church's prayers, 
 the church's works alone are holy (iv. 18, 
 I sqq. ; ii. 32, 5)- 
 
 This essentially legal conception of Chris- 
 tianity was also that of the generation which 
 followed the apostles. The great Catholic 
 doctors gave to this legal conception of the 
 
IRENAEUS 
 
 church a further development. For Tertul- 
 lian, Clement, and Origen the work of Christ 
 was primarily the promulgation of a new 
 divine law. Irenaeus calls indeed Christianity 
 the N.T. of freedom (iii. 12, lj ; iv. 16, 5; 
 34, 3 ; cf. iii. 10, 3), but simply in reference to 
 the exemption of Gentile Christians from 
 obedience to the Mosaic ceremonial law. In 
 antithesis to Marcion, who derived the Mosaic 
 law from the Demiurge, the gospel from the 
 good God, Irenaeus maintained the substan- 
 tial identity of both covenants {"unius et 
 ejusdem substantiae sunt," iv. q, 1 ; cf. 9, 2 ; 
 13, 3, etc.). When he appropriates the 
 Pauline antithesis of bondage and liberty (cf. 
 also iv. 0, I seq. ; 13, 2 ; 16, 3 ; 18, 2 ; 34, i 
 seq.,etc., etc.), the religious premises which led 
 up in St. Paul's mind to that antithesis are 
 perhaps wanting to Irenaeus. The N.T. 
 Ciinsists for him in a body of divine prescripts. 
 The bondsman and undisciplined has indeed 
 one law. the free, the justified by faith, another 
 (iv. g, i) ; but inasmuch as the nucleus of both 
 Testaments is one and the same — namely, those 
 natural precepts (naturalia praecepta) (iv. 13, 
 4 ; cf. 13, i) which have from the beginning 
 impressed themselves on the mind of man—it 
 follows that the evangelical law of liberty (iv. 
 34, 4) differs only quantitatively, not quali- 
 tatively, from that of Moses. This difference 
 consists on the one hand in the abolition of the 
 precepts of the ceremonial law, which for the 
 Israelites themselves had but a temporary 
 purpose and validity, to restrain from idol 
 worship, to uphold external discipline, or to 
 serve as precursors and symbols of spiritual 
 precepts (iv. 13, 2 ; 14, i sqq. ; 15, 1 ; 16, 
 3 sqq. ; 19, i ; 23, i seq. ; 24, i seq.), and on 
 the other in the reinforcement of those natural 
 precepts which have come down to us from 
 the beginning (iv. 9, 2 ; 13, i ; 16, 5). The 
 laws of liberty (decreta libertatis) do not annul 
 the duty of obedience ; the difference between 
 sons and servants from this point of view 
 consists in the sons having a larger faith (iv. 
 32, 2) and exhibiting a more ready obedience 
 (iv. II, 4). Accordingly, the antithesis be- 
 tween the two Testaments is not an antithesis 
 of fear and love. Love is the greatest com- 
 mandment under the O.T. (iv. 12, 3). Fear 
 continues as a precept under the New. Christ 
 has even enlarged the precept of fear — the 
 rhildren must fear as well as love more than 
 the servants (iv. 16, 3). On the one side the 
 children indeed are free, on the other they 
 are still servants (iv. 14, i). The two law- 
 givings differ only in the number and great- 
 ness (multitudine et magnitudine) of their 
 commandments. The law of liberty, being 
 the greater, is given not for Jews only, but 
 for all nations (iv. 9, 2) ; but the precepts of 
 a perfect life {consummatae vitae praecepta) 
 are for both Testaments the same (iv. 12, 3). 
 The new precepts which characterize Chris- 
 tianity are, in the first place, the ordinanres 
 and institutions of the church. Among other 
 distinguishing notes of the new law Irenaeus 
 further emphasizes that Christians believe not 
 in the Father only but also in the Son, that 
 they do as well as say, and that they abstain 
 from evil desires as well as from evil works 
 (iv. 13, i). Even while largely using Pauline 
 language in speaking of Justification by Faith 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 631 
 
 (iv. 3. 5 ; 0, I ; 16. 2 ; 21.1). J»is legal con- 
 ception is still there. Faith is opposed by 
 Irenaeus to the ^(i-Sun'i'^ot "fvdoix of the 
 heretics, an<l essentiallv consists in the recep- 
 tion of the Regula Fidei. the Rule >>f Faith ; it 
 is therefore simply definetl as obedience to the 
 will of God (iv. i6. 3), t.(. a moral duty, and 
 not, as for St. Paul, the subjective fi>rn» in 
 which a new religious life and relation is first 
 constituted. 
 
 This legal conception leads Irenaeus further 
 to insist on the freedom of the will, and on 
 salvation as conditioned by a man's own 
 ethical self-determination. All Catholir prac- 
 tical theology tends to limit the free forgive- 
 ness of sins to the moment of bajnism, and 
 after that to make salvation dei)endent on a 
 godly life and the performance of good works. 
 In tiie same spirit Irenaeus quite innocently 
 puts in juxtaposition justification byobedience 
 tothenaturalpreceptsandjustificationby faith: 
 " naturalia legis per quae homo justificatur 
 quae ctiam ante legislationem cust<xliebant 
 qui fide justificabantur et placebant Deo" (iv. 
 13, i). He is led thus strongly to insist on 
 the moral law by his o])positi«in to the Gnostic 
 teaching that the spiritual man is exempted 
 from it and obtains salvation through his 
 higher gnosis. His energetic assertion of the 
 freedom of the will has also a polemical (jbject 
 — to refute the Valentinian dualistic doctrine, 
 which made the salvation of the spiritual man 
 the result of his original pneumatic nature (cf. 
 esp. iv. 37). But this perfectly justifiable 
 opposition leads Irenaeus to put too much in 
 the background the doctrine of divine grace 
 as the only source of human salvation. He 
 even puts it as a divine requirement that in 
 order to the Spirit's resting upon them. Chris- 
 tians must, beside their baptismal vocation, 
 be also adorned with works of righteousness 
 (iv. 36, 6). This seems inconsistent with the 
 Pauline teaching that it is only by the gift of 
 the Spirit that Christians are enabled to do 
 good works at all. But, on the other hand, 
 he says that the Spirit dwells in men as God's 
 creation, working in them the will of the 
 Father and renovating into the newness of 
 Christ (iii. 17, i). As dry ground, without 
 dew from heaven, can bear no fruit, so neither 
 can the soul perform good works without the 
 irrigation of the water of life (iii. 17. 2). 
 
 If in his legal conception Irenaeus may be 
 said to anticipate the mode of thought which 
 characterizes the Catholicism of a later tmie, 
 the same cannot be said of his teaching on the 
 sacraments. Indeed the sacramental side of 
 Catholic theologv did not take shaju- till 
 through and after the Montanistic and Nova- 
 tianist controversies. Whereas both these 
 parties insisted on finding the church's sanc- 
 titv in the spiritual endowments and personal 
 holiness of individual members, "Catholics" 
 I sought for the note of holiness mainly m the 
 I church's sacramental ordinances, or in mar- 
 vellous operations of the Holy Spirit m certain 
 functions of her public lif<-. The chief organ 
 of these operations would be the episcopate, 
 which thus came to be viewed as not merely 
 the guardian of doctrinal purity, but also the 
 bearer of supernatural grace and powers, and 
 following the tvpe of the O.T. priesthood as a 
 kind of mediator between God and men. This 
 
532 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 side of the Catholic ideal of the church is not 
 yet developed in the writings of Irenaeus. On 
 the contrary, he insists on the original Chris- 
 tian conception of the universal priesthood 
 and outpouring of the Spirit on all believers 
 (iv. 20, 6 sqq. ; v. 6, i ; cf. iv. 13, 2 sqq. ; 33, 
 I sqq.), first, as against the Gnostics, and their 
 claims to an exclusive possession of the divine 
 irvfufia, and, secondly, against the false 
 prophets, and their denial of the presence of 
 the Spirit in the church (iii. 11, 9 ; iv. 33, 6). 
 The sacramental idea of grace imparted 
 through the church is for Irenaeus restricted 
 to baptism as a divine institution for the sal- 
 vation of man, the type of which is the ark 
 of Noah (iv. 36, 4). Of priestly absolution and 
 Its sacramental significance he nowhere 
 speaks ; on the contrary, he adopts the 
 saying of an elder which has a somewhat 
 Montanistic ring about it— that after baptism 
 there is no further forgiveness of sins (iv. 27, 
 2). This, as is clear from the epistle of the 
 Galilean confessors, is not meant to exclude 
 the possibility of indulgence being extended 
 to the fallen under any circumstances. The 
 familiar thought of the Ignatian epistles, that 
 separation from the episcopal altar is a separa- 
 tion from the church herself, also finds no 
 distinct utterance in the writings of Irenaeus. 
 But in his time the ministr.ition of the Euch- 
 arist by bishops and presbvters was undoubt- 
 edly a long-established custom. In regard to 
 the dogma of the Holy Communion Irenaeus, 
 like Justin Martyr, expresses the thought that 
 through the invocation of Christ's name over 
 the earthly elements the Divine Logos does 
 actually enter into such mysterious connexion 
 with the bread and wine as to constitute a 
 union of an earthlv and a heavenly irpdyfj.a 
 similar to that which took place at the Incar- 
 nation itself. In virtue of this union of the 
 Logos with the bread and wine those earthly 
 substances are made the flesh and blood of 
 Christ ; and it appears to have been with 
 Irenaeus a favourite thought, that through the 
 partaking of Christ's flesh and blood in the 
 Holy Communion our earthly bodies are made 
 partakers of immortality (iv. 18, 4 seq.; 33, 2; 
 V. 2, 2 seq. ; cf. also iv. 17, -s seq. ; 18, i sqq., 
 and the second Pfaffian fragment, Fr. Grace. 
 xxxvi. ap. Harvey). 
 
 The chief significance of Irenaeus as a theo- 
 logian consists in his doctrine concerning the 
 Person and Work 0/ Christ. The doctrine of 
 Christ's Godhead was for the Gentile Chris- 
 tianity of the post-apostolic age the theo- 
 logical expression of the absolute significance 
 of that divine revelation which was enshrined 
 in His person and work. While the Gnostics 
 regarded Christ as only one among numerous 
 eradiations of the divine essence, thereby 
 imperilling on the one hand the truth of the 
 divine monarchia, and on the other the abso- 
 lute and final character of the gospel revela- 
 tion, the opposing doctrine of the Godhead of 
 the Logos, and of His Incarnation in Jesus 
 Christ, provided the exact theological truth 
 and formula of which the Christian conscience 
 felt the need, in order to gather into one the 
 scattered elements which the multitude of 
 Gnostic Aeons were dividing. Following the 
 guidance of St. John's gospel, the more 
 philosophically cultured teachers of the church 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 — Justin, Theophilus, Tatian, Athenagoras, 
 the Alexandrine Clemens, Origen, Tertullian, 
 and Hippolytus — found in the doctrine of the 
 Divine Logos the classical expression which 
 they needed for the unique and absolute 
 character of the gospel revelations. It was 
 in antithesis both to the Gnostic doctrine of 
 Aeons and thepsilanthropism of the Ebionites 
 that the Divine Logos or Eternal Thought of 
 God Himself was conceived of as the personal 
 organ of all divine revelation Which had 
 issued from the inner life of the Divine Pater- 
 nity. His manifestation in the flesh is there- 
 fore the climax of all the revelations of God 
 in the world. This Logos-doctrine Irenaeus 
 adopted. The invisible Father is visible in 
 the Logos (iv. 20, 7). The divine " Pleroma " 
 (Irenaeus borrows the Gnostic term to express 
 the fulness of divine perfection, ii. 1, 3 seq.) is 
 revealed therein. God Himself is all Intelli- 
 gence, all Thought, all Logos ; what He thinks 
 He utters, what He utters He thinks ; the 
 all-embracing divine intelligence is the Father 
 Himself, Who has made Himself visible in the 
 Son (ii. 28, 5). The infinite, immeasurable 
 Father is, in the words of some old teacher of 
 the church, become measurable and compre- 
 hensible in the Son ("immensus Pater in Filio 
 mensuratus"), for the Son is the " measure of 
 the Father," the manifestation of the Infinite 
 in finite form (iv. 4, 2). In contrast with 
 Tertullian, Irenaeus's first great purpose and 
 object is to emphasize the absoluteness and 
 spirituality of God, and therefore to reject 
 anything like a physical emanation iprolatio) 
 of the Logos, lest God should be made into 
 something composite, and something other 
 than His own infinite thought {principalis 
 mens), or His own Logos (ii. 28, 5). The older 
 teachers of the Logos-doctrine conceived the 
 generation of the Logos after the analogy of 
 the temporal process from thinking to speak- 
 ing, and assumed that His issuing from the 
 Father as a distinct person, i.e. the out- 
 speaking of the inward divine thought, first 
 took place at the creation. Tertullian repre- 
 sented the same conception in a more sensuous 
 form. The Father is for him the whole 
 Godhead, the Son " portio totius " ; and on 
 this point he expressly recognizes the resem- 
 blance between his view and that of the 
 Gnostics {c. Drax. 8). Irenaeus, on the 
 other hand, is driven by his own opposition to 
 the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons to reject any- 
 thing like a irpojioXrj or prolatio from the God- 
 head as a limitation of His infinity or an 
 anthropomorphism. He is therefore the first 
 doctor of the church who maintained with the 
 utmost distinctness the eternal coexistence of 
 the Son with the Father ("semper coexistens 
 Filius Patri," ii. 30, 9; iii. 18, i). Hisfrequent 
 designation of the Son and Holy Spirit as the 
 " Hands of God " is a figurative expression to 
 denote Their being not so much emanations of 
 the Godhead as organs of its creative energy. 
 To presumptuous endeavours to comprehend 
 the way in which the Son comes from the 
 Father he opposes our human ignorance, and 
 mocks at the vain attempts of those who would 
 transfer human relations to the Infinite and 
 Unchangeable One (" quasi ipsi obstetricaverint 
 prolationem enunciant," ii. 28, 6). These 
 polemics, if directed primarily against the 
 
IRENAEUS 
 
 Gnostics, are not less applicable to the 
 emanistic theories of other teachers. On 
 the other hand, the clearly marked division 
 between the Logos-doctrine of an Hippolytus 
 and Tertullian and the Patripassian concep 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 533 
 
 distinguished from tlie I.n^;.,s as another divine 
 hypostasis, "proKenioset tigiiratio Dei" (iv. 7, 
 4 ; 20, I scq.) ; the latt.r, where the Spirit is 
 spoken of as '" the bread of iiiiniortalitv " (iv. 
 38, I) and the lifc-RivinK principle fr..m which 
 tion of it can hardly be said to exist for j endless life wells forth (v. t2, 2). It is with 
 
 Irenaeus, who often speaks as if the eternal 
 Logos were but the self-revealing side of the 
 otherwise invisible and hidden Godhead, 
 without one's being always able to see how 
 the personal distinction between the two can 
 be thus maintained. His doctrine of the 
 
 this latter meaning that Irenaeus, speaking <>( 
 the humanity of Jesus Christ, expresses a 
 thought, often recurred to by later the.>li>giaiis, 
 that the Spirit is the anointing (unclw, xp^oi^a.) 
 and bond of unity between the Father and the 
 Son. The Holy Spirit is in fact, for him. als<i 
 
 Logos was developed (unlike that of Tertullian 1 the uniting principle between God and man. 
 
 and Hippolytus) without any direct reference I God through the Spirit imparts Himself to 
 
 to Patripassianism (of which no mention is 
 
 made in his writings), while the true human 
 
 personality of the Son is maintained against 
 
 the Gnostics with as much decision as His true 
 
 Godhead against the Ebionitcs. 
 
 His conception of the L<igos as the one great 
 and absolute organ of all divine revelations 
 leads Irenaeus, as it did Justin Martyr and the 
 other Apologists, to refer back to His agency 
 all the pre-Christian manifestations of God (iv. 
 20, 7 seq.). But Irenaeus is the first Christian 
 doctor who expressly applies this thought, in 
 his conflict with the Gnostics, to the origina- 
 tion of the Mosaic law (iv. 9). " Both Testa- 
 ments proceeded from one and the same head 
 of the familv {paterfamilias), our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the Word of God, Who spake (of old) 
 to .\braham and to Moses" (cf. iv. 12, 4). 
 But Irenaeus nowhere maintains the precepts 
 of the old ceremonial law as obligatory upon 
 Christians. 
 
 The fulfilment of all previous revelations is 
 attained in the personal manifestation of the 
 Logos in the flesh. By the Incarnation of the 
 Son the divine purpose in creation, the union 
 {adunatio, communio, commixtio) of God and 
 man, has been accomplished, and the end is 
 brought back to the beginning (iv. 20, 2, 4 ; 
 33, 4 ; v. 2, I, et passim). 
 
 Together with the Logos the Spirit of God is 
 often spoken of as an organof divinerevelation. 
 It is not, however, easy to determine their 
 right relation one to the other. The designa- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit as Wisdom (Sapientia) 
 reminds us of the Alexandrine phraseology, in 
 which X670S and <yo<t>i<i are also distinguished 
 without the distinction being fully worked out 
 or consistently adhered to. Irenaeus uses the 
 term " Sapientia " of the Divine Spirit always. 
 But the comprehension of his meaning is made 
 somewhat difficult by his sometimes speaking 
 of our communion with the Son as mediated 
 by the Spirit (v. 36, 2), and sometimes of the 
 historical manifestation of the Logos as the 
 mean whereby men become partakers of the 
 Spirit of the Father (iv. 38, 2). The solution 
 probably is that Irenaeus uses the term 
 " Spirit of God " in now a narrower, now a 
 wider sense. In the narrower sense the Spirit 
 is the organ of Divine Revelation in the heart 
 and consciousness of man, and so distinguished 
 from the Logos as the universal organ of 
 Divine Revelation to all creatures and all 
 worlds (v. I, I ; cf. iii. 21. 4 ; iv. 33, i, 7, 
 etc.). In the wider sense the Spirit is the 
 inner Being of God Himself in contradistinc- 
 tion to the material universe and the ffdp^ 
 (caro) or human corporeity. The former sense 
 is always to be assumed where the Spirit is 
 
 man ; man through the Incarnation enters 
 into God (v. i, i). This last thought leads us 
 on to the grand conception which Irenaeus 
 entertains of the development of the whole 
 human race from Adam up to Christ. Man 
 was not from the first, according to Irenaeus, 
 made perfect and immortal, but designed, in 
 God's (lurpose concerning him, to become so. 
 But this can only be through the Spirit of 
 God. and in order that man mav be made 
 partaker of the Si>irit and thereby united to 
 (.iod. it was necessary that the Logos should 
 become incarnate (iv. 38, i sqq.). The image 
 of God (iiKwv rod Heoi"). for which man was 
 created, could not become visible before the 
 Incarnation, and so man lost this image, the 
 likeness of God, the possession of the Spirit 
 (v. 16, 2), falling into sin by his own fault, and 
 thereby coming not only under the power of 
 natural death, but rendered incapable of 
 exhibiting the image of God (v. 12. 2 ; 23, 
 I seq.). Thus though Irenaeus regards sin, 
 not like the Gnostics as a necessity of nature, 
 but as man's own free act, he yet works out 
 the thought that God has permitted the exist- 
 ence of evil because only by the contrast could 
 goodness be appreciated, like health after 
 sickness, light after darkness, life after death 
 (iv. 37, 7 ; 39, i). Without sin there would 
 have been no consciousness of need, no desire 
 for union with God, no thankfulness for His 
 mercy (iii. 20, i sqq.). The chief aim of 
 Irenaeus in these disquisitions is again his 
 C( nflict with Gnostic error, especially that of 
 Marcion, who explained the origin of evil in 
 the universe by the theory of two Gods — the 
 highest and an inferior one. Irenaeus appro- 
 priates the language of the prophet (Isa. xlv. 
 6, 7), / am the Lord: I make peace, and create 
 evil, and works out the thought that for the 
 very sake <if destroying evil a final recapttula- 
 tic totius iniquitatts may be necessary (v- 29, 
 2). Two equally significant thoughts must be 
 distinguished in the full doctrine of Irenaeus 
 concerning the Incarnation of the Logos and 
 the divine purpose in the Incarnation : the 
 idea of humanity being raised to perfection 
 in Christ through union with the divine nature, 
 and that of the victory gained by humanity 
 in the G(xi-man its Head over sin and the devil. 
 The Incarnation is for Irenaeus not merely 
 an historical fact, but has for its basis the 
 eternal divine i)re(listination of man. It was 
 only by God be( > niing man that man could 
 attain the predestined end of his original 
 creation. The perfecting of humanity in 
 Christ is also a realisation of the true idea of 
 humanity— the Logos first assimilating Him- 
 self to man, and then man to Hinisclf ("scmel 
 
534 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 ipsum homini et hominem sibimet ipsi assimi- 
 lans"). " In past times it was said indeed that 
 man had been made after God's image, but it 
 was not shewn. For the Logos was still 
 invisible after Whose image man had been 
 made. And on this verv account did man 
 also easily forfeit the likeness. But when 
 the Logos of God became flesh He established 
 both points : He truly exhibited the [divine] 
 image, by Himself becoming that which was 
 the image of Himself, and firmly restored the 
 likeness by making man to be like the unseen 
 Father " (v. i6, 2). Man's destination is to be 
 like God, and by the attainment of this like- 
 ness God's great purpose is accomplished of 
 indwelling in man, and so of uniting man to 
 Himself (iii. 20, 2). Hence follows the neces- 
 sity that He by Whom the perfecting of man 
 was accomplished should be Himself both God 
 and man. Irenaeus is therefore as strongly 
 opposed to the Ebionitic as to the Docetic 
 error. To the Ebionites he objects that they 
 do not receive the doctrine of the commixture 
 of the heavenly wine with the earthly water, 
 the union of God and man, but, retaining the 
 leaven of the old birth (after the flesh), abide 
 in mortal flesh and in that death which dis- 
 obedience has incurred (v. i, 3 ; iii. 19, i). 
 It was necessary that the Logos should be- 
 come man in order that man, receiving the 
 Logos and obtaining the sonship, might be- 
 come son of God. We could not obtain in- 
 corruption and immortality except by being 
 united to that which is incorruptible and im- 
 mortal. Only through the absorption of the 
 one by the other can we become partakers of 
 the divine Sonship (iii. 19, i ; cf. iii. 18, 7). 
 On the other hand, in opposition to Gnostic 
 Docetism, Irenaeus insists no less strongly on 
 the reality of the Incarnation of the Logos. 
 If this were but putative, salvation would be 
 putative also (iv. 33, 5). The mediator be- 
 tween God and man must belong to both in 
 order to unite both (iv. 18, 7). If we are 
 truly to know God and enter into fellowship 
 with the Divine Logos, our teacher must Him- 
 self have become man. We need a teacher 
 Whom we can see and hear, in order to be 
 followers of His deeds and doers of His words 
 (v. I, i). This fundamental thought — that 
 the divine nature of which we are to be par- 
 takers can be brought nigh to us only in the 
 form of a genuine human existence — is ex- 
 pressed elsewhere still more emphatically, 
 when Irenaeus insists that Christ, in order 
 to conduct the human race to its divine 
 destination, must Himself belong to it, and 
 take upon Him human flesh and all the char- 
 acteristics of humanity ; that if man is to be 
 raised to God, God must come down to man 
 (iv. 33, 4, ircDy AvOpuiro^ x'^PV'^^i- "'s Qeov, 
 fl fj.r] 6 Oeds exc^pv^V "5 SLvdpunrov). The 
 second Adam, the head of our spiritual hu- 
 manity, must Himself come of the race of 
 Adam in order to unite the end with the 
 beginning (iii. 22, 3 seq. ; 23, i ; iv. 34, 4 ; 
 V. I, 3 ; 16, I seq.). The profound conception 
 of a recapttulafio {avaKe(pa\aiw(n^) of human- 
 ity in Christ is one to which Irenaeus per- 
 petually recurs. (See iii. 18, i ; 22, i, 3 ; 
 23, I ; iv. 38, i; v. I, 2 seq. ; 14, i; 23, 2; 36, 
 3 ; cf. IV. 40, 3 ; V. 1 5, 2). It was needful 
 that Christ should recapitulate and pass 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 through all the stages of an ordinary human 
 life in order to consecrate each of them in us, 
 by a likeness to Himself in each (ii. 22, 4 ; iii. 
 18, 7), and that He should come at the end 
 of time in order to conduct all who from the 
 beginning had hoped in Him to eternal life 
 in fellowship with God (iv. 22, i seq. ; cf. 27, 
 i). As Christ was typically pre-formed in 
 Adam (iii. 22, 3), so was Adam's destiny ac- 
 complished in Christ (v. i, 3 ; 16, 2 seq.). The 
 Spirit of God descended on the Son of God 
 made man that in Him He might accustom 
 Himself to an indwelling in the human race 
 (iii. 17, i). Man was to grow used to receive 
 God, and God to indwell in man (ii. 20, 2). 
 
 With this thought of the recapitulatio of the 
 human race in Christ is combined another of 
 equal depth and significance — that of the vic- 
 tory over sin and deliverance of sin's captives 
 from the power of Satan by the obedience of 
 Christ. This deliverance or redemption was 
 necessary before the divine purpose of the 
 union of God and man could be accomplished. 
 For if man, created by God for life, but cor- 
 rupted by the serpent, had not returned to 
 life, but been wholly subjected to death's 
 power, God would then have been defeated, 
 and the devil's iniquity proved itself stronger 
 than His holy will. But God, triumphant and 
 magnanimous, has by the second Adam 
 (Christ) bound the strong man and spoiled his 
 goods, and deprived death of its prey, and 
 brought back man once slain to life. He who 
 by false promises of life and the likeness of 
 God had bound man in the chains of sin has 
 now been justly made captive in his turn, and 
 his prisoner, man, set free (iii. 23, i seq. ; cf. 
 18, 7 ; iv. 21, 3). The power of the devil over 
 man consisted in man's sin, and the apostasy 
 into which the devil had seduced him (v. 21, 3), 
 but now the disobedience of one man has been 
 repaired by one man's obedience (iii. 18, 7 ; 
 21, 10). The first .\dam was initium morien- 
 tium, the second Adam initium viventium, 
 Who needed to be both God and man, no less 
 in order to become the saviour than to be the 
 perfecter of mankind (iii. 22, 4 ; v. i, 3). 
 Only One Who was Himself man could over- 
 come man's enemy, and bind in his turn him 
 by whom man had been bound ; in this way 
 alone could the victory over the enemy be 
 altogether just. So, on the other hand, only 
 One Who was also God could accomplish a 
 redemption which should be stable and sure 
 (iii. 18, 7 ; V. 21, 3). Christ must be truly 
 man to be as man truly tempted, must be 
 born of a woman to deliver those who by a 
 woman had been brought under the devil's 
 power, and must truly live and suffer as a man 
 in order as man to fight and triumph. Again, 
 He must also be the Logos in order to be 
 glorified, in order as the strong one to over- 
 come the enemy in whose power the whole 
 human race found itself (iii. 18, 6, 7 ; 19, 3 ; 
 iv. 33, 4 ; v. 17, 3 ; 21, I ; 22, i) ; and finally, 
 that man might learn that it is not through 
 himself but only through God's mercy that 
 he obtains incorruption (v. 21, 3). The re- 
 capitulation of mankind in Christ consists 
 therefore not only in man's original destiny 
 being accomplished by the beginner of a new 
 humanity, but also in His taking up and 
 conducting to a triumphant issue, at the end 
 
IRENAEUS 
 
 of time, the r.outlirt wlioreiii. at the boginninp, 
 in.ui li.ul bcpii >nfrroino. Tlio victory of Ciod 
 made man is man's victory, since all humanity 
 is summed up (recapitulated) in Christ. Man 
 must himself leave the evil one bound with 
 the same chains wherewith he himself had 
 been bound — the chains of transgression (v. 
 21, 3) ; but the first man could not thus have 
 triumphed, having been by him seduced and 
 bound, but only the second man, the Son of 
 God, after Whose image Adam was created, and 
 Who has become man in order to take back 
 His old creation (" antiquam plasmationem ") 
 into Himself (iv. 33, 4). The devil had ob- 
 tained his dominion over the first man by 
 deceit and violence ; whereas the redemption 
 of the new race had taken place not with 
 violence but, as became (iod, by free persua- 
 sion ("secundum suadclam, quemadmodum 
 decebat Deum suadentem, non vim infer- 
 entein, accipere quae vellet," v. i, i). The 
 dominion of the devil is an unjust dominion, 
 for he, like a robber, has seized and taken to 
 himself what did not belong to him, estranged 
 us from our original godlike nature, and made 
 us into his own disciples. Divine justice de- 
 mands that what the devil has obtained by 
 conflict should in a lawful conflict be won back 
 from him. The Son of God deals, according 
 to His own sense of right, with the apostasy 
 itself, redeeming from it, at a price, that which 
 was His ownC'nondeticiensinsua justitia juste 
 etiam adversus ipsain conversus est aposta 
 siam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea," v. i 
 i; cf. 24, 4). Christ came not snatching with 
 deceit that which was another's, but justly and 
 graciously resuming that which was His own 
 justly in regard to the apostasy (the evil one) 
 from whose power He redeemed us with His 
 own blood, and graciously in reference to us 
 whom He so redeemed (v. 2, i). The per- 
 suasion (suadela) of which the Son of God made 
 use consisted, so far as the devil was con- 
 cerned, in his free consent to accept the re- 
 demption price of the Lord's death for his 
 prisoners ; and so the Lord redeemed us, 
 giving His soul for our souls and His flesh for 
 our flesh (v. i, i). Two thoughts are here to 
 be distinguished. The first is that of Christ's 
 victorious conflict with the evil one, maintain- 
 ing, spite of all his temptations, full and entire 
 obedience to the Father, unmasking Satan as 
 rebel and deceiver, and thereby proving Him- 
 self the strong one (v. 21, 2 seq.). The second 
 is that of redemption through Christ's blood, 
 which is expressly represented as a price paid 
 to the devil and by him voluntarily received. 
 The first thought is developed mainly with 
 reference to the temptation in the wilderness. 
 In the third temptation the evil one is com- 
 pletely exposed and called by his true name, 
 the Son of God appears as victor, and, by His 
 obedience to the divine command, absolves 
 the sin of Adam (v. 21, 2). With this chain 
 of thought, complete in itself, the other theory 
 of a redemption-price paid in the blood of 
 Christ, is placed in no coimexion. It is not 
 said that the devil, acting up to his rights, 
 caused the Saviour's death, which indeed is 
 represented from another point of view as a 
 price legitimately offered and paid down to 
 him (v. I, i). The thought, moreover, sub- 
 sequently worked out by Origen, that the 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 r>36 
 
 devil deceived hims. If with the liopo ..f brinR- 
 ing under his pow.r One \N honi he was t..„ 
 weak to hold, is not f.umd in Ironarus. Hut 
 along with this conception of the redeinption- 
 price offered to the devil appears another 
 thought, that man has been reconciled to (,»>d 
 by the sacrifice of the body of Christ and the 
 shedding of His blood (v. 14, 3). 
 
 It must be allowed that Irenaeus gives no 
 complete dogmatic theory with regard to the 
 nature of Christ's work of redemption, for 
 his theological speculations nowhere appear 
 as an independent system, hut are simply 
 developed in polemical contrast to those <i( 
 the heretical gnosis. By this conflict with 
 Gnosticism the currents of Christian religious 
 thought were once more put in rapid move- 
 ment and problems whic h had exercised St. 
 Paul were again before the church. 
 
 A new letter <if St. Iren.ieiis of considerable 
 importance was discovered in ii>o4 bv an 
 Armenian scholar in the Church of the V'lrgiu 
 at Erivan in Russian Armenia, and trans, into 
 German with notes by Dr. Harnack (1007). 
 It was written to his friend Marcian and pos- 
 sibly intended as a manual for c.itechising 
 (Drews, Der lit. Charakter der neuernt deck- 
 ten Schrift des Iren. \<)oy). For an account 
 of it see Fssay V'l. in Dr. Knowling's Messi- 
 anic Interpretation (S.P.C.K. 1911). 
 
 Literature. — The I'iia Ireiiaei of Feuardent 
 and that of I'eter Halloix ; the Disserlatmnes 
 in Irenaeumni Dodwell and those of MassiKt ; 
 the Prolegomena of Harvey (/V^/i»»iiN<»rv 
 Matter, I. Sources and Phenomena of (inosltc- 
 ism ; II. Life and Writings of St. Irenaeus) ; 
 Tillemont, Memoires, iii. 77 sqq. and f)io sqq. ; 
 Lipsius, Die Zeit des Irenaeus von Lyon und 
 die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche in 
 Sybel's Histor. Zeilschrift, xxviii. pp. 241 sijq.; 
 Lightfoot, The Churches of Gaul, in Contemp. 
 Review, Aug. 1876, jip. 405 sqq. ; the j>ost- 
 humous work of Dean Mansel, The Gnosltc 
 Heresies of the First and Second Centuries 
 (London, 1875). Some translations of Iren- 
 aeus are in the .Inle-Sic. Fathers, and bk. iii. 
 of adv. Haer. has been trans, by II. De.nie 
 with notes and glossary (Clar. Press). A 
 critical ed. of adv. Haer. is pub. bv the C.imb. 
 Univ. Press in 2 vols. [r.a.l.] 
 
 Irenaeus (7), count of the empire and sub- 
 sequentlv bp- of Tyre, while a layman took 
 a zealous interest in theological controversies 
 and was ardently attached to the cause of his 
 personal friend Nestorius. In 4.1 « Irenaeus 
 unofficially accompanied Nestorius to the 
 council of Kphesus (I. abbe. Concil. iii. 443). 
 employing his influence in behalf of his friend 
 to the great irritation of Cyril and his party 
 {ib. 749, 762 ; Baluze, 406. .^24)- When, five 
 days after Cvril had hastily secured the con- 
 demnation of Nestorius. the approach of John 
 of Anti<.ch and the Eastern bishops was an- 
 nounced, Irenaeus, accompanied by a guard of 
 soldiers, hurried out to apprise thein »)f the 
 high-handed proceedings of the council. Ho 
 was followed bv deputies from the council, 
 who, as Memnon relates, were at the count's 
 instigation maltreated by the soldiers, and 
 prevented from having an audience with John 
 (l.abbe, 16. 7f)4 . Mercalor. ii. praef. xxvii.). 
 To counteract the influence of Dalmatius and 
 the monastic party at Constantinople, the 
 
536 
 
 IRENAEUS 
 
 Eastern bishops deputed Irenaeus to proceed 
 thither with letters to the emperor and the 
 leading officers of state, narrating their side 
 (Labbe, ib. 717-720). Irenaeus obtained an 
 audience of Theodosius, and his statement of 
 the proceedings was so convincing that Theo- 
 dosius was on the point of pronouncing the 
 condemnation of Nestorius illegal, when the 
 arrival of John, the Syncellusof Cyril, entirely 
 frustrated his efforts. 
 
 The decree of Theodosius which banished 
 Nestorius, Aug. 435, pronounced the same 
 sentence against Irenaeus and a presbyter 
 named Photius, as propagators of his impiety. 
 Stripped of his honours, his property confis- 
 cated, he was deported to Petra (Baluz. p. 
 884, c. clxxxviii, clxxxix.), and passed 12 years 
 in his Arabian banishment without once par- 
 ticipating in Christian ordinances. His time 
 was spent in the preparation of a history of 
 the troubled scenes in which he had taken 
 part, known as the Tragoedia Irenaei. The 
 invectives in this work against Theodoret 
 Ibas, and all who had questioned Nestorius's 
 perfect orthodoxy, render it probable that it 
 was written early in his banishment, and that 
 the lapse of time brought calmer thoughts. 
 His doctrinal views seem also to have received 
 some modification during this period, for at 
 its close the banished heretic suddenly re- 
 appeared as the unanimous choice of the 
 bishops of the province of Phoenicia for the 
 vacant metropolitical see of Tyre, their choice 
 being ratified by the leading members of the 
 episcopate of Pontus and Palestine and ac- 
 cepted with warm commendation by Proclus of 
 Constantinople. The date of his ordination 
 as bp. of Tyre must have been before the end 
 of 446. Since the reconciliation of John of 
 Antioch and Cyril, a kind of truce had existed 
 between the two parties — the Egyptians and 
 Orientals — which this elevation of a leading 
 Nestorian sympathiser to the episcopate ren- 
 dered no longer possible. Irenaeus had been 
 consecrated by Domnus, the patriarch of 
 Antioch, who, therefore, was the first object 
 of attack. He was plied with missives from 
 the dominant clerical party at Constantinople, 
 asserting that the election of a convicted 
 heretic and a digamus was ipso facto null and 
 void and charging him under severe threats 
 to proceed to a fresh election. The emperor's 
 name was adroitly kept in the background ; 
 but it was implied that the malcontents were 
 acting with his sanction. Domnus turned for 
 counsel to Theodoret, who replied that " it 
 was better to fall under the ill-will of man than 
 to offend God and wound one's own con- 
 science." But the ruin of Irenaeus had been 
 resolved on, and Theodosius was compelled to 
 seal with his imperial authority the act of 
 deposition. An edict was issued (Feb. 17, 
 448), renewing those formerly published 
 against the Nestorians, and commanding that 
 Irenaeus should be deposed from his see, 
 deprived of the dress and title of priest, com- 
 pelled to live as a layman in his own country 
 and never set foot again in Tyre. Domnus, 
 unwilling to consecrate a successor, sought to 
 temporise, until fear of ulterior consequences 
 prevailed over his scruples, and Photius was 
 made bp. of Tyre, Sept. q, 448 (Actes du 
 Brigand, pp. 134, 143), and Irenaeusdisappears I 
 
 ISAACUS I. 
 
 entirely from the scene. The Latrocinium in 
 449 confirmed his deposition, after that of 
 Ibas and Daniel of Charrae, and passed an 
 anathema on him (Martin, A ctes du Brigandage, 
 pp. 82-86 ; Evagr. H. E. i. 10). As Irenaeus 
 is not mentioned at the council of Chalcedon, 
 he was probably no longer alive. 
 
 During the latter part of his career Irenaeus 
 enjoyed the friendship and confidence of 
 Theodoret, who speaks highly of his ortho- 
 doxy, magnanimity, liberality towards those 
 in adversity, especially those who had known 
 better times, and of his other virtues [Ep. 35, 
 no), and wrote him frequent letters. 
 
 Irenaeus's great historical work, the Tra- 
 goedia, has unfortunately perished and is only 
 known to us from an ill-executed Latin 
 translation of large portions of it, made sub- 
 sequently to the time of Justinian by a parti- 
 san of " the Three Chapters." The anonymous 
 translator, who has given very little more 
 than the letters and other documents, in- 
 valuable for the light thrown on the trans- 
 actions of the period, together with the 
 summaries of Irenaeus and some interpola- 
 tions and explanations of his own, sometimes 
 barely intelligible, entitled his work Synodicon. 
 
 Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. 606-608, 613, 614 
 et passim; xv. 264-266, 578, 579 et passim; 
 Cave, Htst. Lit. i. 437 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ. 
 ii. 807 ; Labbe, Concil. tom. iii. passim ; Bal- 
 uze, Nov. Coll. Concil. passim ; Abbe Martin, 
 Le Brigandage d'Ephdse, pp. 82-95, 183. [e.v.] 
 
 Isaacus (7) I., St. {Sahag the Great, 
 Parlhev the Parthian), catholicos of the 
 church of Greater Armenia for 40 or 51 years, 
 390-441. Moses of Khorene states that he 
 belonged to the house of the founder of the 
 Armenian church, Gregory the Illuminator. 
 His long patriarchate is remarkable for the 
 invention of the Armenian characters by 
 Mesrob, the translation of the Scriptures into 
 the Armenian language, and the commence- 
 ment of the golden age of Armenian literature ; 
 for the revision of the Armenian liturgy, first 
 translated from the Greek by Gregory, which 
 has continued unaltered ever since in the 
 Armeno-Gregorian church ; and for the 
 destruction of the independence of Armenia. 
 At the commencement of his patriarchate 
 Isaac visited the Persian king at Ctesiphon, 
 where, on behalf of his sovereign, he acknow- 
 ledged Armenia to be tributary to Persia. 
 Owng to the troubled state of the country he 
 was virtually ruler for several years. In 428, 
 from which date Armenian chronology be- 
 comes more certain (St. Martin, Mem. sur 
 VArmenie, i. 320, n.), the Persian king deposed 
 Ardaces IV., the last of the Armenian Arsaci- 
 dae, and Isaac retired into Western Armenia,^ 
 either by order of the Persian monarch or 
 through the enmity of the satraps of his own 
 country, whom it is said he had offended by 
 refusing to join in their plans. Whilst in 
 Western Armenia (428-439) he sent Mesrob to 
 Constantinople with letters to Theodosius II., 
 and the general Anatolius, who was com- 
 missioned by the emperor to build the city of 
 Theodosiopolis (called Garin by the Arme- 
 nians, Erzeroumby the Turks), near the sources 
 of the Euphrates, as a place of refuge for 
 Isaac. Meanwhile the Persian kings set up 
 others as patriarchs in his stead, but at length 
 
ISAACUS NINIVITA 
 
 the Armenian satraps repented and invited 
 Isaac to resume his throne. This he refused 
 to do, but appointed one administrator in his 
 stead, according to some Mastentzes, accord- 
 ing to Moses of Khorene Samuel, nominated 
 by the Persian king. After the death of his 
 vicar he seems to have partially resumed his 
 episcopal functions over the whole .\rmenian j 
 community. On account of the patriarch's 
 expulsion, the archbp. of Cajipadocian 
 Caesarea disallowed the ordination of bishops, j 
 which had been conceded to Isaac ; but by the 
 influence of the Persians all connexion between I 
 Armenia and Caesarea was from this time forth 
 broken off — a fact which tended towards the 
 isolation of the Arnienian church. Isaac did 
 not attend the general council of Ephesus. 
 He died at the age of no years, being the last 
 Armenian patriarch of the family of Gregory 
 the Illuminator ; he was followed to the grave 
 in six months by his friend Mcsrob. Moses 
 of Khorene, bk. iii. cc. xlix.-lxviii., in Langlois, 
 Hist, de I'Armenie, ii. 150-173 ; St. Martin, 
 Mem. sur I'Armenie, i. 437; (ialanus. Hist. 
 .Arm. c. vii. ; Le Quien, Oriens Christ, i. 1375 ; 
 Malan, Life of St. Gregorv, p. 28. [l.d.] 
 
 Isaacus (14) Ninivita, anchorite and bishop 
 towards the end of the 6th cent. An anony- 
 mous Life prefixed to his works states that he 
 was by birth a Syrian, and, with his brother 
 who became abbat, entered the great monas- 
 tery of St. Matthew at Nineveh. Afterwards 
 he retired to a lonely cell, where he long 
 remained. Isaac's fame as an anchorite be- 
 came so great that he was raised to the 
 bishopric of Nineveh, which, however, he 
 resigned on the very day of his consecration, 
 owing to an incident which convinced him 
 that his office was superfluous in a place where 
 the gospel was little esteemed. Feeling also 
 that episcopal functions interfered with the 
 ascetic life, he finally retired to the desert of 
 Scete or Scetis, where he died. Lambecius 
 {Comment, lib. v. pp. 74 sqq.). Cave {Hist. Lit. 
 i. 519) and others confuse him with another 
 Isaacus S>tus. 
 
 Works. — Ebedjesu {Cat. p. 63) writes that 
 " he composed seven tomes on spiritual guid- 
 ance, and on divine mysteries, judgments, 
 and government." A considerable number, 
 though not all, of these discourses are extant 
 in S\Tiac, Arabic, and (ireek MSS. in the 
 Vatican and other libraries. Fifty-three of 
 his homilies were rendered from Greek into 
 Latin, c. 1407, by a monk who freely abridged 
 and altered the order of his original. In this 
 form they appear in the various Bibliothecae 
 Patrum, as a continuous treatise entitled de 
 Contemptu Mundi, uniformly but wrongly 
 attributed to Isaacus .\ntiochenus. 
 
 He is much quoted by the old Syrian writers. 
 His style teems with metaphor ; his matter is 
 often interesting, both theologically and 
 historically. He treats mainly of the ascetic 
 life, its rules and spiritual experiences. 
 Watching, fasting, silence, and solitude are 
 means to self-mastery. There are three 
 grades of anchorites — novices, proficients, and 
 the perfect. The worth of actions is gauged 
 by the degree of the love of God which inspires 
 them. By the thoughts which stir within, a 
 man may learn to what grade of holiness he 
 has risen. There are three methods by which 
 
 ISAACUS 
 
 637 
 
 every rational soul can approach unto Got! — 
 viz. love, (ear, divine training. He who has 
 gotten love feeds on Christ at all times, and 
 becomes immortal (John vi. 52). Sermons 8, 
 47, 48 (B. M. cod. 694) treat of the alternati..ns 
 of light and darkness, the deep dejection and 
 sudden ecstasy to which anchorites were 
 subject. For the former Isaarus prescribes 
 holy reading and prayer — " infer tibi violcn- 
 tiam ad orandum, et praestolare auxiliuni, et 
 veniet tibi te ignorante." Serm. 23 is direc ted 
 against those who asked. If (H)d be good, why 
 did He create sin, Gehenna, Death, and Satan? 
 Elsewhere Isaacus says that there is a natural 
 faculty whereby we discern good from evil, to 
 lose which is to sink lower than one's natural 
 state ; and this faculty precedes faith, and 
 leads us thereto. There is also a faculty of 
 spiritual knowledge which is the oflspring of 
 faith. He explains the " many mansions " 
 of heaven as meaning the different capacities 
 of the souls abiding there — a difference not of 
 place but of grace. 
 
 Ziiigerle {Mon. Syr. i. 97 sqq.) has published 
 Serm. 31, On the natural offspring of the virtues, 
 and Serm. 43, On the various grades of know- 
 ledge and faith. Other titles are. On the differ- 
 ences of revelations and operations in holy tnen ; 
 In how many ways the perception of things 
 incorporeal is received by the nature of man 
 (B. M. cod. 694, 14 and 24) ; That it is wrong 
 without necessity to desire or expect any sign 
 manifested through us or to us (do. 695, 46). 
 
 A short tract, de Cogitationibus {irepl 
 XoyiffuCi'v), attributed to this Isaarus, is given 
 in Migne, vol. Ixxxvi., along with the de Con- 
 temptu Mundi. A book, de Causa Causarum 
 or Liber Generalis ad Omnes denies, treating of 
 God and the creation and government of the 
 universe, has been assigned to this Isaacus ; 
 it really belongs to Jacobus Edessenus (fl. 710), 
 see Pohlmann, Zeitschr. d. Morgenland. 
 Gesellsch. (1861), p. 648. 
 
 Cf. Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. 
 vol. ii. pp. 569-581 ; de Contemptu Mundi in 
 Migne, Patr. Curs. Gk. Ixxxvi. pp. 811-885; 
 Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. 444-463, iii. 104, etc. ; 
 Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 519 ; Fabric. Biblioth. 
 Graec. xi. 114-122 Harl. ; Casimir Oudin, 
 Comment, de Scriptor. Eccl. i. coll. 1400- 1405 ; 
 Ceillier, xii. 100. [c.j.b.] 
 
 Isaacus (21), a Donatist who, together with 
 Maximianus, met his death at Carthage in 
 consequence of the cruel punishment inflicted 
 bv order of the proconsul of Africa, a.d. 348. 
 The history is related by a fellow-Donatist 
 named Macrobius ; and though he does not 
 mention the name of the proconsul, doubtless 
 the tragedy took place in connexion with the 
 mission into Africa of Paulus and M.k arius. 
 The narrative is told in barbarous Latin and 
 a rhetorical style so turgid as to suggest the 
 suspicion of exaggeration in the details. Hut 
 these, horrible as they are, agree t.>o well with 
 what we know to have taken |)la( e in other 
 cases. Maximianus suffered first, but Isaac 
 provoked the anger of the judges by his 
 taunting exelamatioiis and was forthwith 
 compelled to und<-rgo a treatment no less 
 brutal. Having b.-en first scourged with 
 " plumbata," a whip armed with leadi n 
 bullets, and then beaten with sticks, they were 
 both cast into prison, but Isaac disappointed 
 
538 
 
 ISAACUS 
 
 the further violence of his tormentors by 
 death. This took place on a Saturday. 
 Crowds immediately flocked to the prison, 
 singing hymns as if it were the eve of Easter, 
 and they watched beside the corpse to ensure 
 it Christian burial. To disappoint this 
 intention, the proconsul on the day following 
 gave orders that both the living man and the 
 dead body should be cast together into the 
 sea. To execute this command, the soldiers 
 were obliged to clear the way from the prison 
 by force, and many persons were wounded in 
 the struggle. The two victims were thrown 
 into the "sea at some distance from each other 
 in baskets weighted with sand to ensure their 
 sinking. But the action of the waves, caused, 
 according to the writer's belief, by divine inter- 
 position, tore away the sand, and after six 
 days brought the two bodies together to shore, 
 where they were received with welcome by 
 their fellow-Christians on their way to the 
 churches and received Christian burial, the 
 malice of those who had sought to deprive 
 them of it being thus gloriously defeated. 
 
 Notwithstanding the inflated style of the 
 narrative (verv diflferent, as Mabillon remarks 
 trulv, from that of the existing accounts of the 
 deaths of true Catholic martyrs), and notwith- 
 standing the very slight notice St. Augustine 
 takes of the event, into which he acknowledges 
 that he had made very little inquiry, and also 
 despite his evident success in convicting some 
 accounts of Donatist martvTdoms of in- 
 accuracy, if not of direct falsehood, there 
 seems no reason for doubting the substantial 
 truth of this narrative, especially as Marculus, 
 in Dec. of the same year, suffered death for a 
 similar cause and with similar circumstances 
 of cruelty. Neither can we doubt that the 
 cause for which these men suffered was 
 essentially one of religion. True, St. Augus- 
 tine compares such cases to that of Hagar, and 
 elsewhere argues in favour of the duty of the 
 state as the guardian of truth to repress 
 heresy and insinuates that those guilty of this 
 offence are punished not so much on account 
 of religion as of treason or disloyalty ; but 
 we must bear in mind that (i) the proceedings 
 here related took place six years before St. 
 Augustine's birth, and had not been repeated 
 in his time, and that thus he was no witness 
 either to the truth or falsehood of the narra- 
 tives ; (2) the behaviour and language of 
 Isaac remind us more of an angry partisan 
 than a Christian martyr ; (3) the glaring faults 
 of the narrative in style and temper do not 
 extenuate the treatment which, after every 
 allowance for exaggeration, the sufferers must 
 have endured. Aug. Tr. in Joann. xi. 15 ; 
 c. Cresc. iii. 49, 54 ; Mabillon, Vet. Anal. 
 p. 185 ; Mon. Vet. Don. No. 29, pp. 237, 248, 
 ed. Oberthiir ; Ceillier, v. 106 ; Morcelli, 
 Africa Christiana, ii. 249. [h.w.p.] 
 
 IsaaCUS (28). Several eminent solitaries of 
 the Egyptian deserts in the 4th cent, bore this 
 name. The references are scattered up and 
 down in the Vitae Patrum, and it is not always 
 clear which Isaac is intended. The following 
 seem to be distinct persons. 
 
 (i) Abbat Isaaous, presbyter of the anchor- 
 ites in the Scetic desert (^ Sk^tis, Copt. 
 Schiet), S.W. of Lake Mareotis. At 7 years 
 of age he withdrew from the world, a.d. 
 
 ISAACUS 
 
 358, and attached himself to Macarius of 
 Alexandria, the disciple of St. Anthony. 
 Palladius relates of abbat Isaac that he knew 
 the Scriptures by heart, lived in utter purity, 
 and could handle deadly serpents (KfpdffTai.) 
 without harm. He lived in solitude for 50 
 years, his followers numbering 150. Certain 
 anecdotes in the A pophthegmata Patrum 
 appear to belong to him. " Abbat Isaac was 
 wont to say to the brethren, Our fathers and 
 abbat Pambo wore old bepatched raiment and 
 palm husks (ire/Sma) ; nowadays ye wear 
 costlv clothing. Hence ! It was ye who 
 desolated the district." (Scetis was overrun, 
 c- 395, by the Mazices, a horde of merciless 
 savages.) 
 
 Cassianus, who was in Scetis a.d. 398, con- 
 versed with Isaacus, to whom he assigns the 
 9th and loth of his Conferences (CoUationes) , 
 which treat of praver. In the former Isaacus 
 distinguishes four kinds of prayer, according 
 to I. Tim. ii. i (Collat. 9, cc. 9-14)- Then he 
 expounds at length the Lord's Prayer (cc. 
 18-23). The highest type, however, is 
 praver " unuttered, unexpressed," like that 
 of Christ on the mountain or in the garden 
 (c. 25, de qualitate sublimions orationis). In 
 c. 36 he advises short and frequent petitions 
 ("frequenter quidem sedbreviter"), lest, while 
 we linger, the foe suggest some evil thought. 
 The loth Conference begins by relating how 
 the patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria scan- 
 dalized the Scetic anchorites by his Paschal 
 Letter denouncing Anthropomorphism, and 
 how the aged abbat Serapion, though con- 
 vinced of his error, could not render thanks 
 with the rest, but fell a-weeping and crying, 
 " They have taken my God from me ! " 
 Cassianus and the other witnesses asked 
 Isaacus to account for the old man's heresy. 
 Isaacus made it a survival of heathen ideas of 
 Deity in a simple and unlettered mind (cc. 
 1-5). Isaacus proceeds to shew how to attain 
 to perfect and unceasing prayer. That will 
 be realized when all our love and desire, 
 everv aim, effort, thought, all that we con- 
 template, speak of, hope for, is God ; when we 
 are united with Him by an enduring and in- 
 dissoluble affection. C. 10 gives as a prayer 
 suited to all emergencies the verse Ps. Ixx. i. 
 Ill prays he who only prays when upon his 
 knees. ' He prays never, who even upon his 
 knees is distracted by wandering thoughts. 
 Such as we would be found when praying, such 
 should we be before we pray. 
 
 When 50 years old Isaacus was expelled 
 from his desert by Theophilus of Alexandria, 
 albeit that prelate had made bishops of seven 
 or eight of his anchorites. Isaacus turned for 
 succour to St. Chrysostom and Olympias. He 
 was still living in a.d. 408. 
 
 Sources. — Pallad. Dialog, de Vita Chrysost. 
 j in Patr. Gk. xlvii. 59, 60 ; Cassiani Massil. 
 I Collat. 9, 10, in Migne, xlix. 770 sqq. ; Apoph- 
 thegmata Patr. ib. Ixv. 223 ; a number of 
 I anecdotes headed -rrepl rov 'A^^d 'JffaaK tov 
 ! TTpta^vripov tC}v KeXXi'w*', but referring to 
 several persons, ci. de Vit.Patr. lib. iii. col. 752, 
 in Migne, Ixxiii. ; Tillem. Mem. viii. 650,617, 
 648, and 813, n. vi. ; Ceillier, viii. 174-177. 
 
 (ii) Isaacus, presbyter and abbat of the 
 Nitrian desert, sometimes called Presbyter of 
 the Cells (KeWla N. of Nitria). The chief 
 
ISAACUS 
 
 account of this Isaarus is also in Palladius I 
 (Dialog. Migne, xlvii. coll. 50, 60). He was 
 head of 210 recluses. His charity and humil- 
 ity were famous. He built a hospital fur the 
 sick and for the numerous visitors to his 
 community. Like Isaacus of Scetis, he was 
 an adept in the Scriptures. Like hint, too. 
 after 30 years in the desert, he was driven forth 
 c. 400 by the patriarch Theophilus, who had 
 chosen a number of his disciples to be bishops. 
 The Apophthes^mata Patrutn gives some stories 
 about Isaac of the Cells. " The abbat Isaac 
 said, In my youth I lived with abbat Cronius. 
 Old and trembling as he was, he would never 
 bid me do anything ; he would rise by him- 
 self, and hand the water-cruse (t6 fiavKaXtov) 
 to me and the rest. And abbat Theodore of 1 
 Pherme, with whom also I lived, would set out ' 
 the table by himself and say. ' Brother, if thou 
 wilt, come and eat.' I said, ' Father, I came 
 to thee to profit : why dost not bid me do 
 somewhat ? ' He answered never a word ; 
 but when the old men asked him the same 
 thing, he broke out with, ' Am I Coenobiarch, 
 that I should command him ? If he like, 
 what he sees me doing, he will himself do.' 
 Thenceforward I forestalled the old man's 
 purposes. And I had learned the lesson of 
 doing in silence." 
 
 It appears that, after the persecution of 
 Theophilus. Isaacus had returned to his 
 desert. In the Apoph. Pair.. Migne, t. Ixv. 
 223, 239, there are other anecdotes concerning 
 him fcf. Tillem. Mem. viii. 623-625). 
 
 (iii) Isaacus, railed Thebaous, an anchorite 
 of theThebaid. probably not identical with (ii), 
 although Cronius, the master of the Cellia, at 
 one time lived in theThebaid (Vit. Patr. lib. 
 vii. col. 1044, Migne, t. Ixxiii.). Alardus 
 Gazaeus, the Benedictine annotatorof Cassia- 
 nus, writes (Collat. 9 ad init.) that there were 
 two chief anchorites named Isaac; one who 
 lived in the Scetic desert, and another called 
 Thebaeus, often mentioned in the Vitae 
 Patrum and in Pratum Spirituals c. 161. 
 
 Once Isaac (" de Thebaida," Vit. Pair, v.) 
 had banished an offending brother from the 
 congregation. When he would have entered 
 his cell, an angel stood in the way. " God 
 sends me to learn where you wish Him to 
 bestow the solitary whom you have con- 
 demned." The abbat owned his fault and 
 was forgiven, but was warned not to rob (iod 
 of His prerogative by anticipating His judg- 
 ments. Isaac Thebaeus used to say to the 
 brethren, " Bring no children hither. Four 
 churches in Scetis have been desolated, owing 
 to children." 
 
 Sources. — Apoph. Patr. col. 240, in Migne, 
 Ixv. ; de Vit. Patr. lib. v. in Migne, Ixxiii. 
 (version of an unknown (ireek author by 
 Pelagius, c. 550), coll. 909, 918 ; de Vit. Pair. 
 iii. col. 786 fprob. by Rufinus). 
 
 (iv) IsaaCUSjdiscipleof St. ApoUos, probably 
 lived at Cellia. He was accomplished in every 
 good work. On his way to the church he 
 would hold no converse with any, and after 
 communion he would hurry back to his cell, 
 without waiting for the cup of wine and 
 the food (Trafa/idrrjs) usually handed round 
 among the brethren after service. " A lamp 
 goes out, if one hold it long in the open air ; 
 and if I, kindled by the holy oblation, linger 
 
 ISAACUS ANTIOCHENUS r.-lO 
 
 outside my cell, niv mind (.-rows <l.irk " 
 {Apnph. Pair. coj. 241). H J.H.') 
 
 Isaacus (29) Senior, inenti..nr<l in an anony- 
 mous I iff of Ljiliraim the Svrian amotig the 
 more distinguished disciples of Fuhraim who 
 were also Syriac writers. He is cited by 
 Joannes Maro [Trad, ad Xesl. et Eutvch.). hv 
 Bar-hebraeus {Hist. Dynast. ()i). and bv inanv 
 other Syriac and Arabic authors, most of 
 whom, however, confuse him with Isaac pres- 
 byter of Antioch (Assemani, H. O. i. 16.^). 
 Gennadius in his de Scriplor. F.ccl. c. 26, says : 
 " Isaac wrote, concerning the Three P«rson» 
 of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the 
 Lord, a book of very dark disputation and 
 involved discourse ; proving that there arc 
 three Persons in the one Godhead, each pos- 
 sessing a proprium peculiar to himself. The 
 proprium of the Father is that He is the origin 
 of the others, vet Himself without origin ; 
 that of the Son is that, though begotten. He is 
 not later than His begetter ; that of the Holy 
 Ghost is that It is neither made nor begotten, 
 and yet is from another. Of the Incarnation 
 he writes that two Natures abide in the one 
 Person of the Son of God." This chapter 
 precedes those about Marcarius and Evagrius 
 Pontinus, who lived ante 400. It is hence 
 inferred that Isaac flourished about the end 
 of the 4th cent. (Cave, i. 415, places him 
 c. 430 (?), but some put him a century earlier.) 
 The work of Isaac, not unfairly described 
 by Gennadius, is entitled Libellus Fidei SS. 
 Trinitatis et Incarnatiouis Domini. It is a 
 brief treatise, and is printed in Migne, Patr. 
 Gk. xxxiii. In a codex Pithoeanus, teste 
 Sirmond, the title is Fides Isaacis (or Isacis) 
 ex Judaeo. Hence Isaac Senior has been 
 identified by Tillemont (viii. 409) with Isaac 
 the converted Jew who calumniated pope 
 Damasus. Assemani thinks that the silence 
 of Gennadius and his epitomizer Honorius 
 renders it doubtful that Isaac Senior, the 
 author of the Libellus Fidei, was a Jew. Cf. 
 also Galland. vii. Prol. p. xxy. ; Ceillier, vi. 
 290 ; Mansi, iii. S04 b ; Pagi, Crit. ad aim. 
 
 378, XX. [C.J.B.] 
 
 Isaacus (31) Antiochenus, bom at Amid 
 (Diarbekir) in .M.sopotaiuia, called "the 
 Great " and " the Elder," a priest of Antioch 
 in Syria, said to have visited Rome. His 
 teaclier was Zenobius the disciple of St. 
 Ephraim, not (as Cave) Ephraim himself. 
 The Chronicle of Edessa speaks of him as an 
 archimandrite, without specifying his monas- 
 tery, which was at Gabala in Phoenicia. He 
 died c. 460. He is sometimes confused with 
 Isaacus of Nineveh. Bar-hebraeus (Hist. 
 Dynast, p. 91) unjustly brands him as a heretic 
 and a renegade. He was author of numerous 
 works in Svriac, of which the chief were 
 polemics against the Nestorians and Euty- 
 chians, and of a long elegy on the overthrow 
 of Antioch by the earttuiuake of 459. He 
 also wrote a poem on the Ludi Seculares, held 
 by Honorius in his sixth consulship (a.d. 404), 
 and another on the sack of K<>nie by Alanc 
 (a.d. 410). Jacobus of Edessa reckons him 
 among the best writers of S>Tiac. His poems 
 are extant in MSS. in the Vatican and other 
 European libraries. Many of theni are wrong- 
 ly ascribed to St. Ephraim, and included 
 amongst his works in the Roman edition. Iti 
 
540 
 
 ISCHTRAS 
 
 discourse No. 7 Isaacus speaks of relic- 
 worship and holy days. Besides Sunday, 
 many Christians observed Friday, the day of 
 the Passion. No. 9 attacks prevalent errors 
 on the Incarnation. Here Isaacus seems to 
 fall into the opposite heresies, failing to dis- 
 tinguish Nature from Person ; but elsewhere 
 he uses language unmistakably orthodox. 
 Assemani thinks his words have been tam- 
 pered with by Jacobite copyists. No. 24, 
 Christ suffered as man, not as God. No. 50 
 touches on future retribution : " The fault is 
 temporal, the punishment eternal." This 
 aims at those Syrian monks who had adopted 
 the opinion of Origen on this subject. No. 59 
 is a hymn asserting, against the Cathari or 
 Novatianists, that fallen man recovers inno- 
 cence not only by baptism, but also by peni- 
 tence. No. 62 is a hymn of supplication, 
 lamenting the disasters of the age, e.^. the 
 inroads of Huns and Arabs, famine, plague, 
 and earthquake. Johannes Maro quotes two 
 discourses not found in the Vatican MSS. 
 The first, on Ezekiel's chariot, clearly asserts 
 two natures and one person in Christ : " duo 
 aspectus, una persona ; duae naturae, unus 
 salvator." Similarly, the second, on the In- 
 carnation. Bickell printed both, so far as he 
 found them extant (S. Isaac. Op. i. 50, 52). 
 
 The library of the British Museum possesses 
 about 80 of the discourses, hymns, prayers, 
 etc., of St. Isaacus in MSS., ranging from the 
 6th to the i2th cent. Dr. Bickell, in the 
 preface to his edition of the works of Isaac, 
 gives a list of 178 entire poems, and of 13 
 others imperfect at the beginning or end (179- 
 191) ; three prose writings dealing with the 
 ascetic life (192-194) ; five sermons in Arabic, 
 on the Incarnation, etc. {195-199) ; andasermon 
 in Greek, on the Transfiguration, usually 
 assigned to St. Ephraim (200). 
 
 See S. Isaaci Antiocheni opera omnia ex 
 omnibus quotquot exstant codd. MSS. cum varia 
 lectione Syr. Arab, primus ed. G. Bickell, vol. 
 i. 1873, ii. 1877 ; Gennadius, Vir. lUustr. 66 ; 
 Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. 207-234 ; Cave, Hist. 
 Lit. i. 434 ; Ceillier, x. 578 ; Wright's Cat. Syr. 
 MSS. Brit. Mus. General Index, p. 1289. 
 
 The poems of Isaac are important for the 
 right understanding of the doctrines of the 
 Nestorians, Eutychians, Novatianists, Pela- 
 gians, and other sects ; besides being au- 
 thorities for the events, manners, and customs 
 of the writer's age. [c.j.b.] 
 
 IschyraS (2) (Ischyrion, Soz.), Egyptian 
 pseudo-presbyter and finally bishop ; a slan- 
 derer of Athanasius. His story, which begins 
 under the predecessor of Athanasius, is made 
 out from scattered passages in the Apol. c. 
 Arian., and a slight outline is given by So- 
 crates (i. 27). He belonged to a hamlet in the 
 Mareotis too small for a church of its own 
 (§ 85, ed. Migne) and there had a conventicle 
 attended by seven persons at most (77, 83). 
 He did not bear a good moral character (63) 
 and was once charged with insulting the 
 emperor's statues (vol. i. 185 b, n.). The 
 Alexandrian synod of 324 disallowed his 
 orders and pronounced him a layman (74, 75), 
 disproving his pretensions to have been or- 
 dained by bp. Meletius, in whose breviarium 
 his name did not appear (11, 28, 46, 71). He 
 had given out that he was a presbyter of the 
 
 ISDIGERDES I. 
 
 pseudo-bishop Colluthus (2), but no one out 
 of his own family believed him, as he never 
 had a church, and no one in the neighbourhood 
 looked on him as a clergyman (74, 75). He 
 never attended ecclesiastical assemblies as a 
 presbyter (28). In spite of the synod, he con- 
 tinued to act as a presbyter, and was doing 
 this in the cottage of Ision when Athanasius, 
 being on a visitation in the Mareotis, sent his 
 presbyter Macarius to bid him desist. When 
 Macarius reached the house, Ischyras was 
 reported ill in his cell or in a corner behind the 
 door {28, 63, 83), certainly not officiating at 
 the Eucharist (41). This occurrence may be 
 assigned to c. 329, between the latest date 
 (June 8, 328) possible for the consecration of 
 Athanasius and Nov. 330, when the troubles 
 broke out. Ischyras on his recovery went 
 over to the Meletians, in conjunction with 
 whom he framed his accusation against 
 Macarius (63), and through Macarius against 
 Athanasius. In the spring of 331 (see vol. i. 
 p. 184, and Hefele, ii. 13) the three Meletians 
 accused Macarius at Nicomedia of having 
 broken a chalice, overturned a holy table, 
 and burnt service books on the occasion of 
 his visit. As his friends became ashamed of 
 him (63), Ischyras confessed the fabrication to 
 the archbishop and implored forgiveness (16, 
 28, 63, 74). This would be in mid-Lent 332. 
 In the summer of 335 Ischyras, having mean- 
 while been gained over by the Eusebians, 
 revived the accusation before the council of 
 Tyre (13), and accompanied the synodal com- 
 mission to the Mareotis to investigate its 
 truth {27). For his reward his Eusebian 
 patrons procured (85) an imperial order for the 
 erection of a church for him at a place called 
 Pax Secontaruri, and the document recog- 
 nized him as a " presbyter." They after- 
 wards obtained for him the episcopal title {16, 
 41), and he figures as bp. of Mareotis among 
 the bishops assembled at Sardica in 343 (Socr. 
 ii. 20; Soz. iii. 12, here "Ischyrion"). He 
 afterwards withdrew to Philippopolis (Hilar. 
 Frag. iii. in Patr. Lat. x. 677 a ; Mansi, iii. 139), 
 at which synod his name is corruptly written 
 Quirius. No other instance of a bp. of Mare- 
 otis occurs. Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 530. [t.w.d.] 
 Isdigerdes {{) I. {Jezdedscherd, Yazde- 
 iirdus, Yezdegerdes; "laSiyepdrjs and' IffScj/epdris 
 by the Greeks; in Armenian Yazgerd; on 
 his coins, \~n3TT\ i-e. Izdikerti), king of 
 Persia, surnamed Al Aitham (the Wicked), 
 known in history as Isdigerd I., though 
 an obscure and uncertain predecessor of 
 the same name makes Mordtmann reckon 
 him as Isdigerd II. Rawlinson thinks the 
 best evidence favours 399 for the commence- 
 ment of his reign, and 419 or 420 for his death. 
 He was son of Sapor III., succeeding his 
 brother Vararanes IV., and succeeded by his 
 son Vararanes V. He reigned at Ctesiphon. 
 j With the Romans he appears to have lived in 
 I peace ; Agathias {Hist. iv. 26, p. 264, ed. Bonn, 
 1828) and Theophanes {Chron. i. 125, 128, p. 
 I 69, ed. Bonn, 1839) relate how the emperor 
 1 Arcadius on his death-bed directed his son 
 Theodosius to be put under Isdigerdes's tute- 
 lage. (Petavius, Rat. Temp. pt. i. 1. vi. c. 15, 
 p. 249, Lugd. 1710 ; Greg. Abul-Pharajius, 
 Hist. Comp. Dyn. i. p. 91, Oxf. 1663.) For 
 a time he was almost a Christian, and as 
 
ISDIGERDES II. 
 
 Socrates (H. E. vii. 8) says, gave every 
 facility for the propagation of the gospel, yet 
 probably closed his days in persecuting the 
 church. L'nder the example and influence of 
 Maruthas, bp. of Martyropolis in Mesopo- 
 tamia, who had been sent on an embassy from 
 the Romans early in his reign, he was very 
 favourably disposed tt>wards Christianity anil 
 the church in Persia had peace with full 
 liberty of worship and chiu-ch-building. He 
 overcame and exposed the impostures of the 
 magi, with the assistance of Maruthas and 
 other Christians, and miracles are said to 
 have been wrought before him for the con- 
 firmation of the gospel. A second visit of 
 Maruthas seems to have deepened the im- 
 pression (Socr. ib.), but the indiscreet and 
 impetuous zeal of one of Maruthas's com- 
 panions, Abdas bp. of Susa, lost this royal 
 convert to the faith. Abdas burned one of 
 the temples of fire (Theod. H. E. v. 39). This 
 offence Isdigerd was jirepared to overlook, if 
 Abdas would rebuild the burned pyreion ; 
 failing this, the king threatened to burn down 
 and destroy all Christian churches in Persia. 
 Abdas, esteeming it morally wrong to rebuild 
 the temple,refusedtocomply,and thechurches 
 were burned. Abdas was among the first 
 of the mart>TS, and a persecution commenced 
 in or towards the end of Isdigerd's reign, 
 which his son and successor Vararanes or 
 Bararanes carried on with most revolting 
 cruelty and which was only ended by the 
 presence of the Roman legions. From the 
 odium of this persecution the memory of 
 Isdigerd is specially shielded by Socrates (H. 
 E. vii. 18-21), who'throws it on his son; but 
 Theodoret (v. 39) probably gives the truer 
 account, though Isdigerd had probably 
 neither the time nor inclination to carry out 
 his edicts with severity. His character is 
 described as noble and generous, tarnished 
 only by this one dark spot in the last year of 
 his reign or in a brief period in the middle of 
 it. For the best modern literature of this 
 reign, see Isdigerdes (2). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Isdigerdes (2) II., king of Persia, the son 
 and successor of Vararanes V. All modern 
 writers place his death a.d. 457, but differ 
 somewhat as to the length of his reign. For 
 its commencement Rawlinson thinks the best 
 evidence is for 440. Soon after he declared 
 war against the Roman empire. Theodosius 
 II. shortly made peace with him, and Isdigerd 
 then undertook a war, which continued many 
 years (443-451), against the Tatars of Trans- 
 oxiana. He attempted to force the Zoroas- 
 trian religion on Christian Armenia. In this 
 he was ably seconded by his vizier Mihr-nerses, 
 whose proclamation, still extant, embodies 
 the Zoroastrian objection to Christian doc- 
 trine [Mesrobes]. It was answered in 
 a council of eighteen Armenian bishops, 
 headed by the patriarch Josejih, at Ardashad 
 in 450. This document, also extant, is a 
 lengthened apology for Christianity and con- 
 tains a detailed confession of faith, with a 
 resolution of adhering to it couched in these 
 terms : " Do thou therefore inquire of us no 
 further concerning these things, for our belief 
 originates not with man. We are not taught 
 like children ; but we are indissolubly bound 
 to God, from Whom nothing can detach us, 
 
 ISIDORUS 
 
 r>4i 
 
 neither now, nor hereafter, n<>r for ever, nf)r 
 for ever and ever " (Hist, of Vattan, tr. by 
 Neumann, 1830). Isdigerd's attempt to con- 
 vert Armenia to Zoroastrianisni was mani- 
 festly dictated by a desire to detach the 
 country from the Christian Roman empire. 
 In 451 he attacked the .\rinenians. They 
 endeavoured to secure the help of the emperor 
 Marcian, who was, however, paralysed through 
 
 j fear of Attila and the Huns. In 45.S or 456 
 
 I the Persians triumi>hed in a great battle, 
 wherein the patriarch Joseph and many 
 nobles were taken prison<rs and martyred. 
 Agathias, iv. 27 ; Tabari, Chronique. iii. 127 ; 
 Clinton, Fasti Rotnani, i. p. 546 ; Tilleni. Emp. 
 vi. 39 ; Saint-Martin, AUm. sur I'Arm^n. vol. 
 i. p. 322 ; Pathkanian, Histoire des Sasian. in 
 Journal Asiatique (1866), pp. 108-238 ; Mordt- 
 mann, Zeitschn/t der deutschen Slot^enlan- 
 dischen Gesellschaft, t. viii. 70 ; Rawlinson's 
 Seventh Or. Monarchy (1876), c. xv. p. 301, 
 where other authorities will be found. Path- 
 
 j kanian's article gives a list of writers who 
 have treated of this period. Isdigerd II. was 
 succeeded by Perozes. [g.t.s.] 
 
 IsidoruS (13), archbp. of Seville, 600-636. 
 Notwithstanding his prominent place in 
 Spanish ecclesiastical history, the known facts 
 of his life are few, and considerable uncertainty 
 attaches to many points. It appears certain 
 that his father was of the provmre of Carta- 
 gena, and that for some reason his parents hit 
 there for Seville either before or very shortly 
 after his birth. It is not certain, therefore, 
 whether Isidore was born at Seville or Carta- 
 gena, but probablv at the latter. Arevalo 
 (i. 122) decides for Seville; so Dupin : 
 Flf)rez {Esp. Sag. ix. 193, x. 120) is in favour 
 of Cartagena. All things tend to shew that 
 his parents died when he was very young. 
 He was the youngest of the family. Leander, 
 the eldest, was archbp. of Seville c. 579-599. 
 and Fulgentius was bp. of Astigi or Ecija in 
 the province of Seville. Isidore was archbp. 
 of Seville for nearly 40 years, and died in 636. 
 Leander received the pall from Gregory the 
 Great in 599. Gams fixes 600 as the year of 
 Leander's death, and consequently of Isidore's 
 succession (ii. 41). To date the birth of Isi- 
 dore c. 560 will not be far wrong. His early 
 manhood was probably passed in a monastery, 
 where he could pursue the studies which 
 afterwards made him famous. Most probably 
 he never belonged to a coenobite order. 
 
 We meet his name in connexion with the 
 so-called decree of Gunthimar, the Gothic 
 king, and a supposed synod of Toledo in 610 
 assigning metrojiolitan rank to the see of 
 Toledo. In the list of subscriptions appended 
 to the Decretum in the conciliar collections 
 (e.g. Mansi, x. 511) Isidore stands second, 
 following the king. He next appears as 
 presiding over the second council of Seville m 
 
 I Nov. 618 or 6i<), in the reign of king Siscbut 
 (Mansi, x. 555). The church <.f Seville is 
 si>oken of as the "holy Jerusalem. Ihc 
 governor of the city, Sisisdus, and the trea- 
 surer Suanilanus were present. The decrees 
 set forth fully the doctrine of the Person of 
 Christ against the Acephali, supporting it with 
 
 ' appeals to Scrii>ture, the Apostles' Creed, and 
 the Fathers. This document was signed by 
 
 i 8 bishops, of whom Isidore subscribed first as 
 
642 
 
 ISiDdRUS 
 
 metropolitan of Baetica. Some uncertainty 
 hangs over Isidore's presence at a council 
 held at Toledo c. 625. 
 
 The fourth council of Toledo was held in 
 633, in the extreme old age of Isidore and 
 shortly before his death, soon after Sisenand 
 came to the throne. It met in the basilica 
 of St. Leocadia, and was composed of pre- 
 lates from Gaul and Narbonne, and from all 
 the provinces of Spain. The king, with his 
 court magnates, was present, and threw him- 
 self on the earth before the bishops, and with 
 tears and sighs entreated their intercession 
 with God, and exhorted them to observe the 
 ancient decrees of the church and to reform 
 abuses. The council issued 75 decrees, for a 
 summary of which see D. C. A. ii. 1968. 
 They were signed by the six metropolitan 
 archbishops of Spain. This council was the 
 only one in which they were all present, and 
 was the most numerously attended of all 
 Spanish synods. Isidore signed first as the 
 oldest metropolitan and oldest bishop present 
 (Mansi, x. 641). The council probably ex- 
 pressed with tolerable accuracy the mind and 
 influence of Isidore. It presents a vivid pic- 
 ture of the church of Spain at that period. 
 The position and deference granted to the 
 king is remarkable, and nothing is said of 
 allegiance to Rome. The church is free and 
 independent, yet bound in solemn allegiance 
 to the acknowledged king. The relations of 
 the church to the Jews are striking, and the 
 canons shew that there were many Jews in 
 the Spanish community and that the Christian 
 church had not yet emancipated itself from 
 the intolerance of Judaism. This council 
 was the last great public event of Isidore's 
 life. He died three years afterwards. As he 
 felt his end approaching he distributed his 
 goods lavishly among the poor, and is said to 
 have spent the whole day for six months in 
 almsgiving. In his last illness he performed 
 public penance in the church of St. Vincentius 
 the martyr, gathered around him the bishops, 
 the religious orders, the clergy, and the poor, 
 then, as one bishop invested him with the peni- 
 tential girdle, and another strewed ashes on his 
 head, he made a pious and eloquent prayer, 
 translated in full by Gams, received the Body 
 and Blood of Christ in the sacrament, took 
 affectionate leave of all present, retired to his 
 cell, and in four days died. 
 
 Isidore was undoubtedly the greatest man 
 of his time in the church of Spain. He was 
 versed in all the learning of the age, and well 
 acquainted with Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. 
 His works shew him as a man of varied 
 accomplishments and great versatility of 
 niind ; and the prominent place he long filled 
 in his own country sufficiently indicates his 
 general ability and character. ' His eloquence 
 struck all who heard him with astonishment, 
 and he represented in himself all the science 
 of his time. His language is studiously 
 scriptural. He is quoted as holding pre- 
 destinarian views, but his language seems 
 hardly to go so far. At the 8th council of 
 Toledo, in 653, the epithet Egregius was 
 applied to him, and confirmed at the 15th 
 council of Toledo, 688. Popes and councils 
 vied in doing him honour, till Benedict XIV. 
 permitted the office of St. Isidore to be recited 
 
 ISlDORUS 
 
 with the antiphon " O doctor optime," and 
 the gospel, " Vos estis sal terrae." 
 
 His works are many and multifarious, (i) 
 His Etymologies or Origms was, according to 
 BrauHo and Ildefonsus, his last work. It is 
 in 20 books, and treats of the whole circle of 
 the sciences in a very concise, methodical, and 
 convenient manner. It is for the period a 
 really wonderful work, and the authors quoted 
 in it shew his wide classical reading. The 
 subjects of the books are : i. Grammar in 44 
 chapters, containing an immense amount of 
 information in a convenient form. ii. Rhet- 
 oric and dialectics, in 31 chapters, iii. The 
 four mathematical sciences : i.e. arithmetic, 
 9 chapters ; geometry, 5 chapters ; music, 9 
 chapters ; and astronomy, 48 chapters ; 
 algebra not being yet invented, iv. Medicine, 
 in 13 chapters, v. Laws, 27 chapters ; Times, 
 12 chapters, vi. Ecclesiastical books and 
 offices, 19 chapters, vii. Of God, angels, and 
 the orders of the faithful, 14 chapters, viii. 
 The church and divers sects, 11 chapters, 
 ix. Languages, nations, kingdoms, warfare, 
 citizens, and relationships, 7 chapters, x. 
 An alphabetical index and explanation of 
 certain words. A vast amount of erroneous 
 ingenuity is displayed in deriving all the 
 words of the Latin language from itself : e.g. 
 " Nox, a nocendo dicta, eo quod oculis noceat. 
 Niger, quasi nubiger, quia non serenus, sed 
 fusco opertus est. Unde et nubilum diem 
 tetrum dicimus. Prudens, quasi porro videns: 
 perspicax enim est, et incertorum praevidet 
 casus. Cauterium dictum quasi cauturium 
 quod urat," etc. xi. Of men and portents, in 
 4 chapters, xii. Animals, in 8. xiii. The 
 universe (tnundus), in 22. xiv. The earth and 
 its parts, in 9. xv. Buildings, land-surveying, 
 roads, etc., in 16. xvi. Mineralogy, stones, 
 weights, measures, and metals, in 27. xvii. 
 .\griculture, in 11. xviii. War and various 
 games, in 69. xix. Ships, architecture, 
 clothes of various kinds, in 34. xx. Food, 
 domestic and agricultural implements, car- 
 riages, harness, etc., in 16. The treatise, 
 which in the Roman edition occupies two 
 quarto vols., is a singular medley of informa- 
 tion and ignorance, and presents a remarkable 
 picture of the condition of life and knowledge 
 at the time. In bk. v., under the head of 
 " De discretione temporum," is a chrono- 
 logical summary of sacred and secular history 
 from Adam to Heraclius, concluding in these 
 striking words : " Eraclius xvii nunc agit 
 imperii annum: Judaei in Hispania Chris- 
 tiani efficiuntur. Residuum sextae aetatis 
 soli Deo est cognitum." The whole period 
 (after an idea common in Augustine) is divided 
 into six ages, ending with Noah, Abraham, 
 Samuel, Zedekiah, Juhus Caesar, Heraclius. 
 In bk. vi. is an introductory account of the 
 several books of the Bible. It is probably not 
 possible to overrate the value and the useful- 
 ness of this treatise to the age in which Isidore 
 lived, and indeed for many ages it was the 
 best available handbook. 
 
 (2) Libri Dtfferentiarum sive de Proprietate 
 Sermonum. — Bk. i. treats of the differences of 
 words, often with acuteness and accuracy. 
 Bk. ii. treats in 40 sections and 170 paragraphs 
 of the differences of things, e.g. between Deus 
 and Dominus, Substance and Essence, etc. 
 
ISIDORUS 
 
 This is, in fact, a brief theological treatise on 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, the power and 
 nature of Christ, Paradise, angels, and men. 
 He elaborately defines words denoting the 
 members of the body, sin, grace, freewill, the 
 law and the gospel, the active and con- 
 templative life, virtues, vices, anil the like. 
 
 '(3) AlUgoriae quaedam Sacrae Scrit^turae. — 
 A spiritual interpretation of the names of 
 Scripture characters: 129 from C). T. and 121 
 from N. T. ; the latter being often from our 
 Lord's parables, miracles, etc., as the ten 
 virgins, the woman with the lost piece of 
 money, the man who planted a vineyard, and 
 the like- The angered king who sent his 
 armies and destroyed those murderers and 
 burnt up their city is interpreted of tlod the 
 Father, who sent Vespasian Caesar to destroy 
 Jerusalem. He shews an intimate acquaint- 
 ance with Scripture and with the wonderful 
 way it had then permeated the teaciiing and 
 life of the church. The treatise is of intrinsic 
 interest. 
 
 (4) Somewhat similar to the last is de Ortu 
 et Obilu Patrum qui in Scriptura Laudibus 
 Etferuntur ; 64 chapters on O.T. characters 
 and 21 on New, from Adam to Maccabaeus 
 and from Zacharias to Titus. The genuine- 
 ness of this treatise has been much doubted. 
 
 (5) Proomeia in Libras Vet. et Nov. Test. — 
 Very brief introductions to the several books 
 of O. and N.T., including Tobias, Judith, 
 Esdras, and Maccabees, " ex quibus quidem 
 Tobiae, Judith, et Maccabaeorum, Hcbraei 
 non recipiunt. P!cclesia tamen eosdem intra 
 canonicas scripturas enunierat." 
 
 (6) Liber Nuinerurumqui in Sanctis Scripturis 
 occurrunt. — A mystical treatment of numbers 
 from one to sixty, omitting some after twenty. 
 
 (7) Quaestiones tarn de iXovo quam de I'eteri 
 Testamento. — A series of 41 questions on the 
 substanceandteaching(jf Scripture withappro- 
 priate answers. S'>me are very interesting. 
 
 (8) Secretorum Expositiones Sacranienturuni, 
 seu Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum. — A 
 mystical interpretation of the principal events 
 recorded in the books of Moses, Joshua, 
 Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Maccabees. 
 The preface states that he has gathered the 
 opinions of ancient ecclesiastical writers, viz. 
 Origen, Victorinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augus- 
 tine, Fulgentius, Cassianus, and poi)e (.regory 
 the Great. Gen. is treated of in 31 chapters 
 Ex. in 59, I-ev. in 17, Num. in 42, Deiit. in 
 32, Josh, in 18, Judg. in 9 (including i on 
 Kuth). I. Kings (i.e. Sam.) in 21, II. Kings 
 in 6, 111. Kings in 8, IV. Kings in 8, Ezra in 
 3, Mac. in i. The mystical method of inter- 
 pretation is pursued to an excessive degree. 
 
 (q) De Fide Catholica ex Veteri et Novo 
 Testamento contra Judaeos. — Addressed to his 
 sister Florentina and apparently written at 
 her request. It treats of the person of Christ 
 from His existence in the bosom of the Father 
 before the world was till His ascension and 
 return to judgment ; and the conseijuences of 
 the Incarnation, viz. the unbelief of the Jews, 
 the ingathering of the (ientiles, the conversion 
 of the Jews at the end of the world, and the 
 cessation of the Sabbath. 
 
 (10) Sententiarum Libri iii. — A kind of 
 manual of Christian faith and practice, treat- 
 ing of God and His attributes, it discourses 
 
 ISIDORUS 
 
 543 
 
 also upon the world, the ori({in «f evil, nnj-eU 
 man, the soul, and senses of the flesh. I hrist 
 and the Holy Spirit, th<- church and her.si.s. 
 the heathen nations, the law, seviti rules or 
 principles fnr the uudrrstandmg <>< S<ripture. 
 the dilTerenci- betwirn the Iw.. Testanirnls, 
 symbol and prayer, baptism and coininuninii, 
 martyrdom, the miracles wrought bv the 
 saints. Antichrist and his works, the rrsurni - 
 tion and judgment, hell, the pnnislinient of 
 the wicked, and the glorv of the jusl. (.re.it 
 use is made throughout of the works of 
 Augustine and Gregory. 
 
 (11) De Ecclesiasticis Officiis treats o( the 
 services of the church, and of clerics, their 
 rules and orders, the tonsure, the episcopal 
 office, vicars episcopal, presbyters, deacons, 
 sacristans and subdeacons, readers, psalmists, 
 exorcists, acolytes, porters, monks, penitents, 
 virgins, widows, the married, catechumens, 
 exorcism, salt, candidates for baptism, the 
 creed, the rule of faith, baptism, chrism, 
 imposition of hands, and i ondrmation. 
 
 (12) Synonymti de lamentattniie unitnae pecca- 
 tricis. — One of the most curious of Isidore's 
 works ; a kind of solilocpiy between Homo and 
 Ratio. Homo begins by lamenting his lost 
 and desperate condition in consequence of sin, 
 and Ratio undertakes to direct him aright to 
 a higher and holier condition issuing in the 
 bliss of eternal felicity. 
 
 (13) Regula Monachorum. — This treatise led 
 some to suppose Isidore a Benedictine monk, 
 the only order then establislied in the West ; 
 but Gams thinks the proof not sufficient. 
 
 (14) Tiiirteen short letters follow: to bp, 
 l.eudefred of Cordova ; to Braulio, to whom 
 he speaks of giving a ring and a pall ; to 
 Helladius of Toledo on the fall of a certain bp. 
 of Cordova ; to duke Claudius, whom he con- 
 gratulates on his victories ; to Massona, bp. of 
 Merida ; and to archdeacon Kedemptus. 
 
 (15) De Ordine Creaturarum. — This book has 
 been doubted by some, and, though Arevalo 
 maintains it to be genuine, he prints it in 
 smaller type. Gams reckons it as Isidore's. 
 It treats of faith in the Trinity, spiritual 
 creation, the waters above the firmament, the 
 firmament of heaven, the sun and moon, the 
 devil and the nature of demons, the nature 
 of waters and course of the oc ean, Paradise, 
 the nature c)f man after sin, the- diversity of 
 sinners and their place of punishment, pur- 
 gatorial fire and the future life. 
 
 (16) De Natura Rerum Liber. — One of the 
 most celebrated of Isidore's treatises, dedi- 
 cated to king Sisebut (ace. a.d. 612), oiiec>f ili«> 
 best kings of Spain, whose death was univer- 
 sally lamented by the (Joths. Isidore dis- 
 courses of the days, the night, the seasons, the 
 solstice and equinox, the world and its five 
 zc^ines, heaven and its name, the planets, the 
 waters, the heavens, the nature, sue, and 
 course of the sun, the light and course of the 
 moon, the eclipse of sun and moon, the course 
 of the stars, the position of the seven planets, 
 the light of the stars, falling stars, the names 
 iA the stars and whether they have any soiil. 
 thunder, lightning, the rainbow, clouds, 
 showers, snow, hail, the nature and names of 
 the winds, the signs of storms, pestilence, the 
 heat, size, and saltness of the ocean, the river 
 Nile, the names cif sea and rivers, the position 
 
644 
 
 ISIDORUS 
 
 and motion of the earth, mount Etna, and the 
 parts of the earth. He gives diagrams to 
 illustrate his meaning. For a full analysis of 
 the sources of this book see Gustavus Bekker's 
 ed. (Berlin, 1857). 
 
 (17) Chronicon. — A very brief summary of 
 the principal events from the creation of the 
 world to the reign of the emperor Heraclius 
 and of king Sisebut. Hertzberg gives an 
 elaborate analysis of the sources of Isidore's 
 two chronicles in the Forschungen zur deiti- 
 schen Gesch. xv. 289. 
 
 (18) Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandal- 
 ornm et Suevorum. — The Goths, according to 
 Isidore, were descended from Gog and Magog, 
 and of the same race as the Getae. They first 
 appeared in Thessaly in the time of Pompey, 
 and in that of Valerian devastated Macedonia, 
 Greece, Pontus, Asia, and Ill>Ticum. The 
 history is brought down to 621, the reign of 
 king Swintila. Isidore praises the Goths 
 highly ; and Spaniards of his time esteemed 
 it an honour to be reckoned Goths. This 
 brief sketch is invaluable as our chief author- 
 ity for the history of the West Goths. Of the 
 Vandals we learn less from him, and his 
 sketch of the Suevi is very brief, the former 
 compressing 123 years into a single page, and 
 the latter 177 in the same space. The Vandals 
 entered Spain under Gunderic and were 
 destroyed on the fall of Gelimer ; the Suevi 
 entered under Hermeric in 409 and became 
 incorporated with the Gothic nation in 585. 
 
 (19) De Viris Illustribus liber. — Many Greeks 
 and Latins had treated of the Christian writers 
 before Isidore, but he determined to give a 
 brief outline of those whom he had read him- 
 self. The list embraces 46 names, and Braulio 
 has added that of Isidore himself in the cele- 
 brated " Praenotatio librorum S. Isidori a 
 Braulione edita." Among the 46 are Xystus 
 the pope, Macrobius the deacon, Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of 
 Dor^'laeum, Chrysostom, Hilary of Aries, 
 Gregory the pope, Leander his own brother, 
 and Maximus of Saragossa. This is a valuable 
 summary of important facts in ecclesiastical 
 history, but too often disfigured by the fierce 
 and illiberal polemical spirit of the day — vide, 
 e.g., his remarks on the death of Hosius. 
 
 Other minor works assigned, some doubt- 
 fully, to Isidore need not be enumerated. 
 
 His Latin is not pure. He uses many 
 Spanish words, and Arevalo has collected no 
 fewer than 1,640 words which would not be 
 understood by the ordinary reader or would 
 strike him as strange. The style is feeble and 
 inflated, having all the marks of an age of 
 decadence. He was a voluminous wTiter of 
 great learning, well versed in Holy Scripture, 
 of which he manifests a remarkable know- 
 ledge, had a trained and cultivated mind, but 
 was rather a receptive and reproductive writer 
 than one of strong masculine and original 
 mind. He was a very conspicuous ornament 
 of the Spanish church and shed great glory on 
 the age he adorned. He did much to hand on 
 the light of Christianity and make it effectual 
 to the amelioration of a semi-barbarous nation, 
 and his character contrasts favourably with 
 those of a later period. 
 
 A full list of the Lives of Isidore up to his 
 time may be seen in Chevalier's Sources 
 
 ISIDORUS 
 
 historiques du Moyen-dge, p. 1127, including 
 those of Henschen in Boll. Acta SS. 4 Apr. 
 i. 327 ; Arevalo in his ed. of Isidore's Works ; 
 Florez, Esp. Sag. ix. 173 (ed. 1752) ; Dupin, 
 Eccl. Writ. t. ii. p. i (ed. 1724) ; Ceillier, xi. 
 710 ; Cave, i. 547 ; Gams, Kirchengeschichte 
 von Spanien (3 vols. 8vo, Regensburg, 1862- 
 1874 ; the great want of this excellent work 
 is an adequate index ; the first vol. alone has 
 a " Register "). Arevalo's ed. of Isidore's 
 works has been reprinted by the Abbe Migne 
 in his Patr. Lat. Ixxxi.-lxxx'iv., with the addi- 
 tion of an eighth vol., containing the Collectio 
 Canonum ascribed to Isidore ; vols. Ixxxv.- 
 Ixxxvi. of Migne contain Liturgia Mozarabica 
 secundum Regulam Beati Isidori. There is an 
 excellent ed. of the de Natura Reritm Liber by 
 G. Becker (Berhn 1857). Prof. J. E. B. Mayor 
 has given a list of editions and authorities 
 in his Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature, 
 p. 2X2. [s.L.] 
 
 De Reg. Gothoruni, Vandalorum, et Suev- 
 orum. — The histories, of all Isidore's works, 
 have the most practical value for the present 
 day. The Historia Gothorum is still to us, as 
 it was to Mariana, one of the main sources of 
 (iothic history. Upon the histories in general 
 was based all the later medieval history- 
 writing of Spain. A most valuable contribu- 
 tion was made to our knowledge of the exact 
 place of the histories in historical work by 
 Dr. Hugo Hertzberg (Gottingen, 1874) in his 
 Die Historien und die Chroniken des Isidorus 
 von Sevilla : Bine Quellenuntersuchung, Erster 
 Th., die Historien. Dr. Hertzberg's great 
 merit lies in the clearness with which he shews 
 exactly how Isidore worked, what were the 
 kind and amount of his material, and the 
 method employed in working it up. 
 
 Dr. Hertzberg's general conclusions are, 
 that Isidore neither possessed large material 
 nor used what he had well. In no case did 
 he take all that earlier chronicles offered him, 
 but only extracts ; his choice and arrangement 
 of statements are often bad, and the proper 
 chronological order frequently disregarded. 
 Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the perma- 
 nent historical value of certain portions of the 
 Hist. Goth, is very great. From the reign of 
 Euric, where Idatius breaks off, Isidore becomes 
 for a time our only informant. He alone pre- 
 serves the memory of Euric's legislation, while 
 our knowledge of Visigothic history under 
 Gesalic, Theudis, Theudigisel, Agi'la, and 
 Athanagild rests essentially on his testimony. 
 In the prominent reigns of Leovigild and 
 Recared, J oh. Biclarensis becomes our great 
 source, but Isidore's additions are important. 
 From Recared to Suinthila he is again our 
 best and sometimes our only source. The 
 Hist. Vand. is, however, historically valueless, 
 as we possess the sources from which it is a 
 mere extract, and the same may almost be 
 said of the Hist. Suev. Just where Isidore 
 might have drawn most from oral testimony 
 and thus supplied a real gap in our historical 
 knowledge, viz. in the 100 years of Suevian 
 history between Remismund and Theodernir, 
 he fails us most notably. The whole missing 
 cent, is dismissed in one vague sentence which 
 tells us nothing. 
 
 For a complete catalogue of the nine 
 MSS. of the longer form of the text, and the 
 
ISIDORUS 
 
 two ^iSS. of the shorter, as well as of the 
 editions of both texts, see Dr. Hertzberg's 
 Diss. S-i8. He gives a complete analysis of 
 both texts according to the sources. For 
 general references see Potthast, Bibl. Hisl. 
 Med. Devi. The longer text of the histories is 
 printed in Esp. Sagr. vi. with an introduction 
 and long notes bv Florez. [m.a.w.] 
 
 Isidorus (24). [Hasiudes.i 
 
 Isidorus (31) Pelusiota, an eminent ascetic, 
 theologian, and spiritual director in 5th cent., 
 born at Alexandria (I'hotius, Bibl. 22S). His 
 family was probably of high rank. The wide 
 range of his reading, as shewn by his famili- 
 arity with Greek poets, historians, orators, and 
 philosophers, witnesses to the best .Mexandrian 
 education. He also felt the full influence of 
 that great development of Egyptian monas- 
 ticism which was encouraged by the seclusion 
 of Athanasius during his third exile and by 
 the persecution of the " holy solitaries " after 
 his death, and which made so deep an impres- 
 sion on the as yet unconverted Augustine 
 {Confess, viii. 6 ; cf. Isid. Ep. i. 17^, alluding 
 to "the blessed Amnion"). Isidore re- 
 solved to adopt the monastic life in its 
 coenobitic form, as it had been organized by 
 Pachomius at Tabenna and was being ex- 
 hibited by various communities in the Upper 
 Thebaid which followed his rule, by others in 
 the Lower Thebaid, and the 5,000 inmates of 
 the cells of Nitria (cf. Fleury, bk. xx. c. 9). 
 The place he selected was near Pelusium, an 
 ancient border-town at one of the Nile mouths. 
 Jerome says it had "a very safe harbour " and 
 was a centre of all " business connected with 
 the sea " (Comm. in Ezech. ix. 30), but its in- 
 habitants were proverbial for dulness (Hieron. 
 Ep. Ixxxiv. 9). It was the capital of the pro- 
 vince of Augustamnica Prima, and as such the 
 seat of a " corrector " or governor. When Isi- 
 dore first knew it, it was " rich and populous " 
 (Ep. iii. 260). It suffered much from the 
 maladministration of a Cappadocian named 
 Gigantius. Believing that monastic life was 
 the " imitation and receptacle of all the Lord's 
 precepts" [Ep. i. 278), Isidore became a 
 thorough monk in his ascetic self-devotion. 
 Whether he became abbat Tillemont con- 
 siders uncertain (xv. roi). We know from 
 Facundus (Def. Tri. Capit. ii. 4), and, in- 
 deed, virtually from himself (Ep. i. 258), that 
 he was ordained a presbyter, very likely by 
 bp. Ammonius (Ep. ii. 127), clearly not by 
 his successor Eusebius, whom Isidore depicts 
 as the centre of an ecclesiastical scandal which 
 was to him a standing grief and offence. 
 
 Perhaps this ecclesiastical degeneracy near 
 his own home led Isidore to generalize some- 
 what too despondingly as to its prevalence 
 all around, .\lluding to Eusebius's love of 
 church-building lie says : " It was not for the 
 sake of walls, but of souls, that the King of 
 Heaven came to visit us." " Could I have 
 chosen, I would have rather lived in apostolic 
 times, when church buildings were not thus 
 adorned but the church was decked with 
 grace, than in these days, when the buildings 
 are ornamented with ail kinds of marble, and 
 the church is bare and void of spiritual gifts " 
 (Ep. ii. 2 16 ; cf. ii. 88). " Once pastors 
 would die for their flocks ; now they destroy 
 the sheep by causing the soul to stumble. , . . 
 
 ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 
 
 Mi 
 
 Once they distributed tlu-ir goods to the 
 needy ; now they appmi-riate what bclungs to 
 the poor. Once they practised virtue; now 
 they ostracize [a favourite phrase with Isidore) 
 those who do. ... I will not accuse all " (iii. 
 223). " Once men avoided the episcopate 
 because of the greatness of its authorilv ; now 
 they rush into it because of the greatness of 
 its luxury. . . . The dignity has lapsed fmm a 
 priesthood into a tyranny, from a stewardship 
 into a mastership [dtairoTtlay]. For ihcy 
 claim not to administer as stewards, but to 
 appropriate as masters" (v. 21, to a bishop). 
 " It is not long since the church had splendid 
 teachers and approved disciples ; " and it 
 might be so agam if bishops would " lay aside 
 their tyraiuiy and shew a fatherly interest in 
 their people . . . but until that foundation is 
 well laid, I think it idle to talk about the V>\>- 
 stone " (v. 126). He would say to worldly 
 and arrogant prelates, " Abate your pride, 
 relax your superciliousness, remember that 
 you are but ashes. . . . Do not use the arms of 
 the priesthood against the priesthood itself " 
 (v. 131). " When those who were crowned 
 with the priesthood led an evangelical and 
 apostolical life, the priesthood was naturally 
 dreaded by the sovereignty ; but now it is 
 the sovereignty which is dreaded by the priest- 
 hood, or rather by those who seem to dis- 
 charge it but by their conduct insult it " (v. 
 268, to C>Til). " Some . . . openly reproach 
 priests ; others pay them outward respect but 
 in secret revile them. . . . This does not sur- 
 prise me. As they do not act like those of old, 
 they are treated differently. Those of old 
 corrected kings when they sinned ; these do 
 not correct even rich subjects ; and if they 
 try to correct some poor man, they are re- 
 proached as having been convicted of the 
 same offences" (v. 278). So, speaking to an 
 ambitious deacon about I. Tim. iii. i, he cor- 
 rects a misapprehension. " Paul did not say, 
 ' Let every one desire the episcopate." ... It 
 is a work, not a relaxation ; a solicitude, not 
 a luxury ; a responsible ministration, not an 
 irresponsible dominion ; a fatherly supervision, 
 not a tyrannical autocracy " (iii. 216). Else- 
 where he complains that bishops would receive 
 persons excommunicated by other bishops, 
 to the ruin of the discipline of souls (iii. 259). 
 and that in their bitter contests these olluial 
 peacemakers would fain devour each other 
 (iv. 133). The secularization of the episcopal 
 character he traces in one letter to the exces- 
 sive honour paid by emperors to bishops, and 
 adds : " There are bishoj.s who take pains to 
 live up to the ap<>st(jlic standard ; if you say, 
 * V'ery few,' I do not deny it ; but . . . many 
 are called, few are ch..sen." Isidore exhibits 
 an intense habitual moral earnestness, vigilant 
 against all that inii)lied or might tend to sin 
 (v. 17, 208). His downright censures, de- 
 livered under a serious conviction that he was 
 specially appointed for the purpose (i. 389 ; 
 cf. Tillem. xv. 102), naturally made hiiii 
 enemies among the higher clergy, who tried 
 to put him under some s<irt of ban. and there- 
 by " unintentionally set a crown upon his 
 head" (Ep. v. 131)- Hut he was not less 
 stern to faults in other orders, such as the in- 
 hospitalitv (i. 50). gluttony (i. y)2), or " pug- 
 nacity " (i. 298) of monks ; their neRlect of 
 35 
 
646 
 
 ISIDOROS PELUSIOTA 
 
 manual labour (i. 49), the disorderliness of 
 those who haunted cities and frequented 
 public shows, as if all that " the angelic life " 
 required were " a cloak, a staff, and a beard " 
 (i. 92 ; cf. i. 220, and Chalcedon, can. 4). He 
 rebukes a physician who is morally diseased 
 {Ep. i. 391), denounces a homicide who went 
 "swaggering" through Pelusium (i. 297), 
 warns a wicked magistrate to flee from eternal 
 punishment (i. 31), remonstrates with a 
 soldier for invading the cells of monks and 
 teaching them false doctrine (i. 327), and with 
 a general for attempting to take away the 
 privilege of sanctuary (i. 174), etc. In a letter 
 probably addressed to Pulcheria he repro- 
 bates the conduct of some imperial envoys, 
 who had compromised their Christianity in 
 the negotiation of a peace (iv. 143). 
 
 The two great church questions in which 
 Isidore took a decided part brought him into 
 collision with his own patriarch, Cyril of 
 Alexandria. The first related to the recog- 
 nition of St. Chrysostom's memory as worthy 
 of the reverence of faithful Christians. Theo- 
 philus of Alexandria had practically procured 
 his deposition and exile ; the West had sup- 
 ported Chrysostom while he lived and after- 
 wards had suspended communion with 
 churches which would not insert his name in 
 their diptychs. Antioch had yielded ; even 
 Atticus of Constantinople had done so for 
 peace' sake. Cyril, the nephew and successor 
 of Theophilus, held fast to his uncle's position. 
 Isidore had loved and honoured " holy John," 
 if he had not, as Nicephorus says (xiv. 30), 
 been instructed by him. In a letter to a 
 grammarian he quotes Libanius's panegyric 
 on his oratory (Ep. ii. 42) ; to another Isidore 
 he specially recommends " the most wise 
 John's " commentary on the Romans (v. 32) ; 
 in another letter, recommending his treatise 
 " on the Priesthood," he calls him " the eye 
 of the Byzantine church, andof every church " 
 (i. 156) ; and he describes the " tragedy of 
 John" in the bitter words: "Theophilus, 
 who was building-mad, and worshipped gold, 
 and had a spite against my namesake " {see 
 Socr. vi. 9), was " put forward by Egypt to 
 persecute that pious man and true theologian " 
 {Ep. i. 152). Similarly he wrote to Cyril : 
 " Put a stop to these contentions : do not 
 involve the living Church in a private ven- 
 geance prosecuted out of duty to the dead, 
 nor entail on her a perpetual division [alwviov 
 dix^^'Oiav] under pretence of piety " (i. 570, 
 transl. by Facund.). Cyril took this advice, 
 and the " Joannite " quarrel came to an end, 
 probably in 417-418 (Tillem. xiv. 281 ; see 
 Photius, Bibl. 232). 
 
 The other matter was far more momentous. 
 When C^'ril was at the council of Ephesus 
 endeavouring to crush Nestorianism, Isidore 
 wrote to him : " Prejudice does not see 
 clearly ; antipathy does not see at all. If 
 you wish to be clear of both these affections 
 of the eyesight, do not pass violent sentences, 
 but commit causes to just judgment. God . . . 
 was pleased to ' come down and see ' the cry 
 of Sodom, thereby teaching us to inquire 
 accurately. For many of those at Ephesus 
 accuse you of pursuing a personal feud, in- 
 stead of seeking the things of Jesus Christ in 
 an orthodox way. ' He is,' they say, ' the 
 
 ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 
 
 nephew of Theophilus,' " etc. {Ep. i. 310 ; cf. 
 a Latin version, not quite accurate, by Facun- 
 dus, I.e.). He had, however, no sympathy 
 with Nestorius : in the close of the letter he 
 seems to contrast him with Chrysostom ; in 
 the next letter he urges Theodosius II. to 
 restrain his ministers from " dogmatizing " to 
 the council, the court being then favourable 
 to Nestorius. Isidore was, indeed, very 
 zealous against all tendencies to Apollinarian- 
 ism : he disliked the phrase, " God's Passion," 
 he insisted that the word " Incarnate " should 
 be added — it was the Passion of Christ {Ep. 
 i. 129) ; he urged on Cyril the authority of 
 Athanasiusfor the phrase," from two natures" 
 (i. 323), and he even usestheyet clearer phrase, 
 ultimately adopted by the council of Chal- 
 cedon, " in both natures " (i. 405) ; but he 
 repeatedly insists on the unity of the Person 
 of Christ, the God-Man, which was the point 
 at issue in the controversy (i. 23, 303, 405). 
 He says that " the Lamb of God," as the true 
 Paschal victim, " combined the fire of the 
 divine essence with the flesh that is now eaten 
 by us " (i. 219) ; in a letter to a Nestorianizing 
 " scholasticus " he calls the Virgin (not simply 
 Theotokos, but) " Mother of God Incarnate " 
 (BeoO aapKuid^vTos firiT^pa," i. 54). When 
 Cyril, two years later, came to an under- 
 standing with John of Antioch, Isidore ex- 
 horted him to be consistent and said that his 
 most recent writings shewed him to be " either 
 open to flattery or an agent of levity, swayed 
 by vainglory instead of imitating the great 
 athletes " of the faith, etc. (i. 324). Perhaps 
 these letters were "the treatise to" (or 
 against) Cyril, which Evagrius ascribes to 
 Isidore. Isidore was better employed when 
 he uttered warnings against the rising heresy 
 of Eutychianism : " To assert only one nature 
 of Christ after the Incarnation is to take away 
 both, either by a change of the divine or an 
 abatement of the human " (i. 102) ; among 
 various errors he mentions " a fusion and co- 
 mixture and abolition of the natures," urging 
 his correspondent, a presbyter, to cling to the 
 " inspired" Nicene faith (iv. 99). 
 
 His theology was generally characterized by 
 accuracy and moderation. In a truly Athana- 
 sian spirit (cf. Athan. de Deer. Wic. 22) he 
 writes, " We are bound to know and believe 
 that God is, not to busy ourselves as to what 
 He is " {i.e. attempt to comprehend His 
 essence; £^.11.299). He is emphatic against 
 the two extremes of Arianism and Sabellian- 
 ism. " If God was always like to Himself, 
 He must have been always Father ; there- 
 fore the Son is co-eternal " (i. 241, cf. i. 389) ; 
 and Eunomians exceed Arians in making the 
 Son a servant (i. 246). Sabellians misinter- 
 pret John X. 30, where ^v shews the one 
 essence, and the plural ea/aey the two hypo- 
 stases (i. 138). In the Trinity, the Godhead 
 is one, but the hypostases are three (i. 247). 
 In Heb. i. 3 the dTrai-yacr^a indicates the co- 
 eternity, the xa/'a/cTTjp the personahty ; it is 
 in things made that " before " and " after " 
 have place, not in " the dread and sovereign 
 Trinity " (iii. 18 ; cf. the Quicunque, ver. 25). 
 The belief in three Persons in one essence ex- 
 cludes alike Judaism and polytheism {Ep. iii. 
 112). Of John xiv. 28 he observes that 
 "greater" or "less than" implies identity 
 
ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 
 
 of nature (i. 422). On I'liil. ii. 6 seq. he argues 
 that, unless Christ was equal to the Father, 
 the illustration is irrelevant ; if He was equal, 
 then it is pertinent, (iv. 22. The i>assacc is 
 interesting as shewiufj that he, like St. 
 Chrysostoin, while interpreting oi"'x aiivay^dy 
 — 6t(j5 of the condescension, understood St. 
 Paul to mean, " Christ could afford to waive 
 the display of His co-equality, just because 
 He did not regard it as a thing to which He 
 had no right.") He explains Rom. iii. 25 : 
 when no other cure for a man's ills was 
 possible, " God brought in the Only-begotten 
 Son as a ransom ; one Victim, surpassing all 
 in worth, was offered up for all" (iv. 100). 
 He contends that the divinity of the Holy 
 Spirit — denied by Macedonians — is involved 
 in the divinity of the Son (i. 20). Against the 
 denial of the latter doctrine he cites a number 
 of texts and explains the " humble language " 
 used by Jesus as the result of the " economy " 
 of the Incarnation, whereas the " lofty langu- 
 age " also used by Him would be inexplicable 
 if He were a mere man (iv. 166). " Baptism," 
 he writes to a count, " does not only wash 
 away the uncleanness derived through Adam's 
 transgression, for that much were nothing, 
 but conveys a divine regeneration surpassing 
 all words — redemption, sanctification, adop- 
 tion, etc. ; and the baptized person, through 
 the reception of the sacred mysteries [of the 
 Eucharist : of. i. 228], becomes of one body 
 with the Only-begotten, and is united to Him 
 as the body to its head " (iii. 195). He cen- 
 sures such abstinence as proceeds from 
 " Manichean or Marcionite principles " (i. 
 52) ; notices the omissions in the Marcionite 
 gospel (i. 371) ; accuses Novatianists of self- 
 righteous assurance (i. 100), but is creduh^us 
 as to the scandalous imputations against 
 the .Montanists, much resembling the libels 
 which had been circulated against the early 
 Christians (i. 242). His letters illustrate the 
 activity of Jewish opposition to the Gospel. 
 They tell us of a few who cavilled at the sub- 
 stitution of bread for bloody sacrifices in the 
 Christian oblation (i. 401) ; of one who criti- 
 cized the " hyperbole " in John xxi. 25 (ii. 99) ; 
 of another who argued from Haggai ii. 9 that 
 the temple would yet be restored (iv. 17). 
 Although Paganism,'as a system and t)rganizcd 
 power, was defunct (i. 270), yet its adherents 
 were still voluble ; they called Christianity 
 " a new-fangled scheme of life " (ii. 46), con- 
 temned its principle of faith (v. loi), dis- 
 paraged Scripture on account of its " barbaric 
 diction " and its defects of style (iv. 28), 
 sneered at the " dead Jesus," the Cross, the 
 Sepulchre, and the " ignorance of the apostles" 
 (iv. 27), and Isidore heard one of them, a 
 clever rhetorician, bursting into " a broad 
 laugh " at the Passion, and presently put him 
 to silence (iv. 31). He wrote a " little 
 treatise " (\oyi5iov) to prove that there was 
 " no such thing as fate" (iii. 253), and a book 
 " against the Gentiles" to prove that divina- 
 tion was "nonsensical" (ii. 137, 228), thus 
 using in behalf of religion the " weapons and 
 svll ogisms of its opponents, to their confusion " 
 (iii. «7). Both are now lost. His familiarity 
 with heathen writers — among whom he 
 criticizes Galen (iv. 125)— gave him great 
 advantages iu discussion with unbelievers ; 
 
 ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 
 
 647 
 
 I and he tak.s 
 
 •'" 'r""i i •lucstion a» to 
 Origen s theory about the la|>se of s..ul» t.. 
 cite a variety of opinions still mrrc-nt appar- 
 ently among those who still rejrrird the 
 Gospel. "Some think that the soul ii ri- 
 tinguished with the b..dv . . . s..in.- have 
 imagmed that all is governed bv rhanre ■ 
 some have entrusted their lives to tMr 
 necessity, and fortune . . . some have s.iid th.it 
 heaven is ruled by providence, but the rarth 
 is not " (iv. 163). He si)caks <>f the harm donr 
 to the Christians' argument by Christians' mis- 
 conduct : " If we overcome heretics, pagans, 
 and Jews by our correct doctrine, we art- 
 bound also to overcome them by i>ur conduct, 
 lest, when worsted on the former ground' 
 they should think to overcome on the latter^ 
 and, after rejecting our faith, should adduce 
 against it our own lives" (iv. 226). 
 
 Very many of his letters are answers to 
 questions as to texts of Scripture. Like 
 Athanasius, he sometimes gives a ch<>ire of 
 explanations (e.g. i. 114) ; although a follower 
 of Chrysostom, he shews an Alexandrian 
 tendency to far-fetched and fantastic inter- 
 pretation, as when he explains the live coal 
 } and the tongs in Isa. vi. 7 to represent the 
 divine essence and the flesh of Christ (i. 42), 
 or the carcase and the eagles to mean human- 
 ity ruined by tasting the forbidden fruit and 
 lifted up by ascetic mortification (i. 282), or 
 when " he that is on the house-top " is made 
 to denote a man who despises the present life 
 (i. 210). He reproves a presbyter for critirir- 
 ing mystical interpreters (ii. 81), but savs also 
 that those who attempt to make the whole 
 of O.T. refer to Christ give an opening to 
 pagans and heretics, " for while they strain 
 the passages which do not refer to Him, they 
 awaken suspicion as to those which without 
 any straining do refer to Him " (ii. 195). 
 With similar good sense he remarks that St. 
 Paul's concessions to Jewish observance were 
 not a turning back to the law, but an " eon- 
 omy " for the sake of others who had not out- 
 grown it (i. 407)- Again, he observes that 
 church history should relieve despondency as 
 to existing evils, and that even the present 
 state of the church should remove mistrust 
 as to the future (ii. 5). Difficulties about the 
 resurrection of the body are met bv coiisidi-r- 
 ing that the future body will not be like the 
 present, but " ethereal and spiritual " (li. 43). 
 He admits that ambition is a natural motive 
 andean be turned to^ood (iii. 34). Ascetic as 
 he was, he dissuades from immoderate fasting, 
 lest an " immoderate reaction " ensue (ii. 45). 
 Obedience to the government, when it docs not 
 interfere with religion, is im ulcated, because 
 our Lord " was registered and paid tribute 
 to Caesar" (i. 48). But he exhorts The.Klo- 
 sius II. (probably soon after his accession) 
 to " combine mildness with authority" (i. 35), 
 intimating that his ears were too open to 
 malii ious representations (i. 275) ; and he 
 speaks to a " corre( tor " in the manly tones so 
 seldom heard in those days, exifpt from the 
 lips of typical C hrislians : " Me who has bren 
 invested with rule ought himself to br ruh-d 
 by the laws ; if Iw himself sets them aside, how 
 can he be a lawful ruler ? " (v. 3M3). Mr con- 
 siders that the K'-maloKV traced through 
 Joseph proves that Mary also sprang Ituin 
 
548 ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 
 
 David (i. 7) ; that the fourth beast in Daniel 
 meant the Roman empire (i. 218) ; that the 
 70 weeks extended from the 20th year of 
 Artaxerxes to the 8th of Claudius (iii. 89) ; 
 that Hebrews was by St. Paul (i. 7). He in- 
 terprets Mark xiii. 32 evasively (i. 117). He 
 corrects the confusion between the two 
 Philips (i. 447). His shrewdness and humour, 
 occasionally tinged with causticity, appear in 
 various letters. " I hear that you have 
 bought a great many books, and yet . . . know 
 nothing of their contents ; " take care lest 
 you be called " a book's-grave," or " moth- 
 feeder " ; then comes a serious allusion to the 
 buried talent (i. 127). He tells a bishop that 
 he trains the younger ministers well, but 
 spoils them by over-praising them (i. 202). 
 He hears that Zosimus can say by heart some 
 passages of St. Basil and suggests that he 
 should read a certain homily against drunkards 
 (i. 61). He asks an ascetic why he " abstains 
 from meat and feeds greedily on revilings " 
 (i. 446). His friend Harpocras, a good 
 " sophist " (whom he recommends for a 
 vacant mastership, v. 458, and urges to keep 
 his boys from the theatre and hippodrome, 
 v. 185), had written a sarcastic " monody," 
 or elegy, on Zosimus and his fellows, as al- 
 ready '' dead in sin " ; Isidore, whom he had 
 requested to forward it to them, defers doing 
 so, lest he should infuriate them against the 
 author ; however, he says in effect, if you 
 really mean it to go, send it yourself, and then, 
 if a feud arises, you will have no one else to 
 blame (v. 52). He remarks that " some 
 people are allowed to be tempted to cure them 
 of the notion that they are great and invincible 
 persons" (v. 39). He points out to a palace 
 chamberlain the inconsistence of being glib 
 at Scripture quotations and " mad after other 
 people's property" (i. 27). But for all this 
 keenness and didactic severity, and in spite 
 of his expressed approval of the use of torture 
 (i. 116), he impresses us as a man of kindly 
 disposition, warm in his friendships (see Epp. 
 i. 161, ii. 31, V. 125). He observes that 
 " God values nothing more than love, for the 
 sake of which He became man and obedient 
 unto death ; for on this account also the first- 
 called of His disciples were two brothers . . . 
 our Saviour thus intimating that He wills all 
 His disciples to be united fraternally " (i. 10). 
 In this spirit he says of slaves, " Prejudice or 
 fortune . . . has made them our property, but 
 we are all one by nature, by the faith, by the 
 judgment to come " (i. 471) ; and he tells how 
 a young man came to his cell, asked to see 
 him, was introduced by the porter, fell at his 
 feet in tears in silence, then, on being re- 
 assured, said that he was the servant of Iron 
 the barrister, and had offended his master in 
 ignorance, but too deeply for pardon. " I 
 cannot think," writes Isidore, " that the true 
 Christian Iron, who knows the grace that has 
 set all men free, can hold a slave " (olKir-qv 
 ixei-v. i. 142). This tenderness is in harmony 
 with the candour ("si sainte et si belle," says 
 Tillemont, xv. 104) with which he owns that 
 when he has tried to pray for them who have 
 deliberately injured him, he has found him- 
 self doing so " with his lips only." " Not 
 that I doubt that some have attained that 
 height of excellence : rather, I rejoice at 
 
 IVO 
 
 and rejoice with them, and would desire to 
 reach the same point " (v. 398). 
 
 Isidore's letters natiurally contain allusions 
 to the religious customs or opinions of his 
 age : such as pilgrimage to the shrines of the 
 saints, as of St. Peter (ii. 5 ; cf. i. 160 on that 
 of Thecla, and i. 226 on the martyrs who 
 "guard the city" of Pelusium) ; the bene- 
 diction given by the bishop " from his high 
 chair," and the response " And with thy 
 spirit " (i. 122) ; the deacon's linen garment, 
 and the bishop's woollen " omophorion " 
 which he took off when the gospel was read 
 (i. 136) ; the right of sanctuary (i. 174) ; the 
 wrongfulness of exacting an oath (i. 155). 
 
 His death cannot be placed later than 449 
 or 450 (see Tillem. xv. 116). 
 
 Two thousand letters of his, we are told, were 
 collected by the zealously anti-Monophysite 
 community of Acoemetae, or " sleepless " 
 monks, at Constantinople, and arranged in 
 4 vols, of 500 letters each. This collection 
 appears to be identical with the extant 2,012 
 letters, distributed, without regard to chron- 
 ology, into 5 books (see Tillem. xv. 117, 847), 
 of which the first three were edited by Billius, 
 the fourth by Rittershusius, and the fifth by 
 Andrew Schott, a Jesuit ; the whole being in- 
 cluded in the ed. pub. at Paris in 1638. Many 
 of the letters are, in effect, repetitions. See 
 Bouuy, De S. Isid. Pel. lib. iii. (Nimes, 1885) ; 
 also C. H. Turner and E. K. Lake in Journ. 
 of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. pp. 70, 270. [w.b.] 
 
 Ivo, St. [Yvo), June 10, a supposed Persian 
 bp. in Britain, after whom the town of St. 
 Ives in Hunts was named. His Life was 
 written by the monk Goscelin when resident 
 at Ramsey, towards the end of nth cent., 
 based on a more diffused account by a previous 
 abbat Andrew, who collected his information 
 while in the East on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem 
 in 1020. Goscelin's Life is printed in BolL 
 Acta SS. 10 June ii. 288. It describes Ivo as 
 a missionary bishop, a star of the East, a 
 messenger of the true Sun, divinely marked 
 out for work in Britain. Quitting Persia, he 
 passed through Asia and Illyricum to Rome, 
 enlightening every place he visited. From 
 Rome he proceeded to Gaul, where the ad- 
 miring king and nobles would have detained 
 him, but he pushed forward to Britain with 
 his three companions. There he rescued the 
 people from idolatry. The first-fruit of his 
 labours was " a youth of patrician dignity 
 named Patricius, the son of a Senator." 
 Passing into Mercia, Ivo settled at the vill of 
 Slepe, 3 English leucae (Gosc. c. 2, § 8) from 
 Huntedun. There he laboured many years, 
 died, and was buried. About 100 lustra (c. i, 
 § 4) had passed since the bishop's death, when 
 a peasant of Slepe struck with his plough a 
 stone sarcophagus, within which were found, 
 besides human remains, a silver chalice and 
 insignia of the episcopal rank. Slepe being 
 one of the estates of the abbey of Ramsey, 8 
 leucae (c. 2, § 8) distant, abbat Eadnoth was 
 informed of this. The same night a man of 
 Slepe saw in a vision one robed as a bishop, 
 with ornaments like those in the sarcophagus, 
 who said he was St. Ivo and wished to be 
 removed to the abbey, with two of his com- 
 panions, whose burial-places he described. 
 The translation was accordingly effected, and 
 
IVO 
 
 on the spot where the saint was found a church 
 was dedicated to him, connected with which 
 was a priory as a cell of the parent abbey. 
 The spot was thenceforth known as St. Ives. 
 A later hand adds that temp. Henry I. the 
 relics of the two companions were re- trans- 
 lated to St. Ives. As Ramsey abbey was 
 founded about 091 or a little earlier (Mon. 
 Hist. Brit. 580 d ; Monast. .-lugl. ii. 547), 
 Eadnoth the tirst abbat {Liber Elieits. cd. 
 Stewart, p. 188) would be livinj: c. 1000 (the 
 common date of the translation is looi). 
 Reckoning back too lustra or 400 years (com- 
 puting by the four- year lustrum), we arrive at 
 A.D. 600 as aboutthe perioil (if Ivo's death, and 
 this is the year given by Flnrcnre of Worcester 
 {Chron. in M. H. B. 526). His mission at 
 Slepe must thus be placed c. 5S0-600, which 
 nearly corresponds with the reign of the em- 
 peror Maurice, with whom Diceto (in Gale, iii. 
 559) makes him contemporary. Thus Ivo's 
 Mercian mission preceded the arrival of 
 Augustine by about half a generation and 
 anticipated by some 70 years the conversion 
 of Mercia as narrated in Bede. The obvious 
 improbability of this leaves the monks of 
 Ramsey responsible for the legend. 
 
 Possibly there may be here a lingering 
 tradition of old British Christianity and a 
 reminiscence of its Oriental origin^ leaving 
 the period out of the question. It would not 
 be surprising if a British remnant should have 
 survived in that locality as late as the Con- 
 quest. There are indications that Britons 
 did actually maintain themselves in E. 
 Mercia and the fastnesses of the fens long 
 after the conversion of the English race. 
 Moreover, the name of Patrick gives the story 
 a Celtic look, and the locality might have 
 been a sort of eastern Glastonbury. The 
 Celtic element in the first conversion of the 
 Mercian Angles was likely to prolong the 
 vitality of Celtic traditions. If there was 
 Celtic blood surviving in the fens when Ram- 
 sey was founded, the Oriental colouring of the 
 legend is accounted for. The stone sarco- 
 phagus may have been a genuine Roman 
 relic, furnishing a material basis for the story 
 and suggesting the occasion. If the above 
 inferences are not unreasonable, the legend of 
 St. Ivo contains a reminiscence that the Chris- 
 tian missionaries who reached Britain from 
 the East came by way of Gaul and of the 
 tradition of their having been sent from Rome. 
 
 Slepe is found in Domesday and is still the 
 name of one of the manors of St. Ives. 
 
 The priory of St. Ives, the ruins of which 
 survive, is described in Monast. Attgl. ii. 631. 
 In the time of Brompton (Twysd. p. 883) no 
 saint in England was so eminent as St. Ivo 
 at Ramsey for the cure of diseases. 
 
 The story was written again by John of 
 Tynemouth in 14th cent., in whose Sanctilo- 
 gium, before the MS. was burnt, it stood No. 
 70 (Smith, Cat. Cotton MSS. p. 29). It was 
 one of those adopted by Capgrave in 15th 
 cent, for his Nova Le^enda (ff. 199) and so is 
 preserved. This versujn states that the pope 
 commissioned him to Britain. The MS. Lives 
 of Ivo are mentioned by Hardy {Desc. Cat. i. 
 184-186), and the Life by Goscelin exists as a 
 Bodleian manuscript in a fuller form than the 
 recension given by the BoUandists, the Life 
 
 JACOBUS or JAMES 
 
 r49 
 
 in Capgrave luim: .in >thir .ibrid>;ni< nt. On** 
 of the MSS. nienlion.'d bv H.irdv purport, 
 to be the very Life by abbat Andrew referred 
 to bv Goscelin. fc.ii.l 
 
 Jacobus (4) or James, bp. of Nisibis in Mrso. 
 potamia, call«-d " the Mosi-s -if M.'so|...t.uni.»." 
 b<irn at Nisibis <>r .Antio< liia Mvgdoni.ir t.>. 
 warils the end of 3rd ci-nt. He is said to h.ivo 
 been nearly related to (ircgory the Illuminator, 
 the ai^ostle of Armenia. At an early a^c h<" 
 devoteil himself to the life of a solit.iry, and 
 the celebrity he acquired by his self-imposed 
 austerities caiised Theodorct to assign him 
 the first place in his Reltgiosa Htstoria <>r 
 Vitae Patrum — where he is entitlrd 6 /i/->at. 
 During this period he went to IVrsia for 
 intercourse with the Christians of that ( ouiilrv 
 and to contirm their faith uiuhr the prrserii- 
 tions of Sapor II. Gennadius (</<• Strtpt. Ilccl. 
 c. i) reports that James was a confessor in 
 the Maximinian persecution. On the vacancy 
 of the see of his native city he was compelled 
 by the popular demand to become bishop. 
 His episcopate, acc<irding to Theodoret, was 
 signalized by fresh miracles. 
 
 In 325 he was summoned to the coimcil of 
 Nicaea (Labbe, Concil. ii. 52. 76). A leading 
 part is ascribed to him by Theodoret in its 
 debates (Theod. u.s. p. 1114)- He is rom- 
 niended by .Athanasius, together with Hosius, 
 Alexander, Eustathius, and others {adv. .-irian. 
 t. i. p. 252). .\ccording to some Eastern ac- 
 counts, James was one whom the emperor 
 Constantine marked out for peculiar honour 
 (Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 203). His name 
 occurs among those who signed the decrees 
 of the council of ,\ntioch. in Encaeniis, a.d. 
 341, of more than doubtful orthodoxy (Labbe, 
 Concil. ii. 359), but no mention of his being 
 present at this council occurs elsewhere 
 (Tillem. Mem. ecd. t. vi. note 27, les .Arensi; 
 Hefele, Councils, ii. 58. Eng. tr.). That the 
 awfully sudden death of Arius at Constanti- 
 nople, on the eve of his anticipated triumph, 
 A.D. 336, was due to the prayers of James of 
 Nisibis, and that on this emergency he had 
 exhorted the faithful to devote a whole week 
 to uninterrupted fasting and public supplica- 
 tion in the churches, rests onlv on the au- 
 thority of one passage, in the Reltgiosa Hti- 
 toria of Theodoret. the spuriousness<>f which 
 is acknowledged bv all sound critics. The 
 gross blunders of making the death of the 
 heresiarch contemporaneous with the council 
 of Nicaea, and of confounding Alexander <>f 
 Alexandria with Alexander of Constantinople, 
 prove it an ignorant forgery. In the account 
 of the death of Arius obtained by ThecKloret 
 from Athanasius (Theod. //. /•. 1. 14; S-.f. 
 H. E. ii. 20) n>' mention is made <'f James, 
 nor in that given bv .Athanasius in his letter 
 to the bishops. As bp. <.f Nisibis J.inies was 
 the spiritual father of Ephrein Syrus. who 
 was baptized bv him and remained by hu 
 side as long as he lived. Milles. bp. of Susa. 
 visiting Nisibis to attend a syn<Kl for scttlinR 
 the differences between the bps. of Seleuria 
 and Ctesiphon. c. 34 «. found James busily 
 erecting his cathedral, towards which, on hi* 
 return, Milles sent a large quantity of silk 
 
550 
 
 JACOBUS SARUGENSIS 
 
 from Adiabene (Assemani, Bibl. Or. torn. i. p. 
 i86). On the attempt, three times renewed, 
 of Sapor II. to make himself master of Nisibis, 
 A.D. 338, 346, 350, James maintained the faith 
 of the inhabitants in the divine protection, 
 kindled their enthusiasm by his words and 
 example, and with great militarv genius and 
 administrative skill thwarted the measures 
 of the besiegers. For the tale of the final 
 siege of 350, which lasted three months, and 
 of the bishop's successful efforts to save his 
 city, see Gibbon, c. xviii. vol. ii. pp. 385 ff. 
 or De Broglie, L'Eglise et VEmpire, t. iii. 
 pp. 180-195. See also Theod. m.s. p. 1118; 
 H. E. ii. 26 ; Theophan. p. 32. Nisibis was 
 quickly relieved by Sapor being called away 
 to defend his kingdom against an inroad of 
 the MassaE;etae. James cannot have Jong 
 survived this deliverance. He was honourably 
 interred within the city, that his hallowed 
 remains might continue to defend it. When 
 in 363 Nisibis yielded to Persia, the Christians 
 carried the sacred talisman with them. 
 (Theod. U.S. p. 1119 ; Soz. H. E. v. 3 ; Gen- 
 nad. M.S. c. i.) 
 
 Gennadius speaks of James as a copious 
 writer, and gives the titles of 26 of his treat- 
 ises. Eighteen were found by Assemani in 
 the Armenian convent of St. Anthonv at 
 Venice, together with a request for some of 
 his works from a Gregorv and James's reply. 
 Their titles — de Fide, de Dilectione, de 
 Jejunio, de Oratione, de Bello, de Devotis, 
 de Poenitentia, de Resurrectione, etc. — corre- 
 spond generally with those given bv Genna- 
 dius, but the order is different. In the same 
 collection Assemani found the long letter of 
 Jamestothe bishops of Seleucia andCtesiphon, 
 on the Assyrian schism. It is in 31 sections, 
 lamenting the divisions of the church and 
 the pride and arrogance which caused them, 
 and exhorting them to seek peace and concord. 
 These were all published with a Latin trans- 
 lation, and a learned preface establishing their 
 authenticity, and notes bv Nicolas Maria 
 Antonelli in 1756; also in'the collection of 
 the Armenian Fathers, pub. at Venice in 1765, 
 and again at Constantinople in 1824. The 
 Latin translation is found in the Patres Apos- 
 tolici of Caillau, t. 25, pp. 254-543. The 
 liturgy bearing the name of James of Nisibis, 
 said to have been formerlv in use among the 
 Syrians (Abr. Ecchell. Not. in Caial. Ebed- 
 Jesu, p. 134 ; Bona, Liturg. i. 9) is certainlv 
 not his, but should be ascribed to James of 
 Sarug (Renaudot, Lit. Or. t. ii. p. 4). James 
 of Nisibis is commemorated in Wright's Syrian 
 Martyrology, and in the Roman martvrology, 
 July 15. Assemani. Bibl. Or. t. i. pp. '17 sqq., 
 186, 557, 652 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. vii. ; 
 Ceillier, Ant. eccl. t. iv. pp. 478 sqq. ; Fabri- 
 cius, Bibl. Graec. t. ix. p. 289 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. 
 
 t. i. p. 189. [E.V.] 
 
 Jacobus (13) Sarugensis, bp. of Batnae, a 
 little town in the district of Sarug in Osrhoene. 
 He enjoyed an extraordinary reputation for 
 learning and holiness and was sainted alike by 
 orthodox and heretics. The Syrian liturgies 
 commemorate him with St. Ephraim as " os 
 eloquentissimum et columnam ecclesiae." 
 
 Two Lives are extant in the Vatican and 
 one m the Brit. Mus. (Cod. dcccclx. 46, dated 
 A-P- 1197)- The oldest and best is the 
 
 JACOBUS SARUGENSIS 
 
 spirited eulogium by his disciple Georgius, 
 perhaps a bishop of the Arabs. The other 
 two, which are anonymous and later than 
 loth cent., are in close agreement with it. 
 According to them, Jacobus was born at Kur- 
 tom on the Euphrates, a.d. 452, and was taught 
 in one of the schools of Edessa (according to 
 Mares the Nestorian). 
 
 The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that 
 Jacobus was made bp. of Batnae (" urbis 
 Sarug") when 67J years old, a.d. 519, and 
 that he died 2\ years afterwards, i.e. a.d. 
 521. Before a.d. 503, JoshuaStylites tells us, 
 Jacobus was a periodeutes or visitor of the 
 district of Batnae, a middle rank between the 
 episcopate and the priesthood. Cf. Ep. 16 in 
 the Brit. Mus. Cod. dclxxii. The Stylite adds 
 that Jacobus composed many homilies on 
 Scripture, psalms, and hymns ; which proves 
 his fame already established in 503. 
 
 Renaudot (t. ii. Liturgg. Orientt.) has 
 charged Jacobus with RIonophysitism, a 
 charge which Assemani and Abbeloos shew to 
 be unwarranted. Timotheus of Constanti- 
 nople (fl. 6th cent, ad init.) calls him " ortho- 
 dox," Isaacus Ninivita and Joannes Maro 
 quote him as such, and Joshua the Stylite, his 
 contemporary, calls him venerable. The 
 Maronites, always hostile to Nestorians and 
 Jacobites, honour him as a saint. Further, 
 he began his episcopate under Justin, by whose 
 orders Sevcrus was driven from Antioch, 
 Philoxenos from Hicrapolis, and other heretics 
 from Mesopotamia and Syria. Had Jacobus 
 been a Monophysite, he would have shared 
 their fate. Not a single Catholic writer of the 
 5th, 6th, or 7th cent., says Assemani, has so 
 accused him. Bar-hebraeus and the Life in 
 the Brit. Mus., indeed, allege that he com- 
 municated with Severus, and Dionysius in his 
 Chronicon asserts that St. Jacobus of Sarug 
 would not communicate with Paul of Antioch, 
 because the latter confessed the two natures. 
 But Dionysius is contradictory in his dates. 
 Some passages of the extant hymns speak of 
 the single nature of Christ, but may be inter- 
 polated. There is direct evidence that after 
 the council of Chalcedon the Monophysites 
 began to tamper with texts (cf. Evagr. iii. 31). 
 They even attributed whole works, written in 
 their own interests, to such men as Athanasius 
 and Gregory Thaumaturgus. Jacobus Edes- 
 senus testifies that a certain poem was falsely 
 ascribed by the Jacobite sect to the bp. of 
 Batnae shortly after his decease (Bar-hebr. 
 Horr. Myst. ad Gen. vi.). A silly poem against 
 the council of Chalcedon {Cod. Nitr. 5 fol. 139) 
 is proved by internal evidence to be spurious. 
 His writings in general supply ample proof 
 of orthodoxy on the doctrines in question. 
 
 Works. — He was a very voluminous writer. 
 Bar-hebraeussays that he employed 70 amanu- 
 enses in writing his homiletic poems, of which 
 760 exist, besides expositions, epistles, hymns, 
 and psalms. Georgius, in his panegyric, gives 
 a list of his poetic writings which treat of the 
 great men of O.T., of angels, and of the 
 mysteries of the Son of God. The anonymous 
 Life (Vat.) states that his homilies (mim'ri) 
 numbered 763. Of these many may be lost ; 
 most of those which survive are unedited. 
 
 Prose Works. — (i) An anaphora or liturgy 
 (Renaud. Lit. Or. ii. 556-566) beginning D^ms 
 
JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 
 
 PaUr, qui rs tnutqutllttas .' also found in 
 Ethiopic (Brit. Miis. Cod. rclxi. ii. " Aiia- 
 phori of holy Mar Jacob the Doctor, of Batnaii 
 of Seng." Also Codd. cclxiii. and cdx.xiii.). 
 {2) An order of Baptism ; one of four used 
 by the Maronites (Assemani, Cod. Lit. ii. 300). 
 
 (3) '"-n order of Confirmation {ib. iii. 184). 
 
 (4) A number of epistles — the Brit. Mus. 
 Cod. dclxxii. (dated a.d. 603) contains 34 in a 
 more or less perfect state, includinp; (a) Ep. 
 to Samuel, abbat of St. Isaacus at Gabula ; on 
 the Trinity and Incarnation. " The Father 
 unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit pro- 
 ceeding from the Father, and receiving from 
 the Son." (ft) Ep. to the Himyarite Chris- 
 tians. (C) Ep. to Stephen bar-Sudail of 
 Edessa, proving from reason and Scripture 
 the eternity of heaven and hell. (</) Ep. to 
 Jacobus, an ibbat of Edessa, explaining Heb. 
 X. 26, I. John V. 16, etc. {e) Ep. to bp. 
 Eutychianus against the Nestorians. 
 
 (5) Six Homilies : on Nativity, Epiphany, 
 Lent, Palm Sunday. The Passion, The Resur- 
 rection (Zingerle, Seeks Homilien des heilig. 
 Jacob von Sarug, Bonn, 1867). 
 
 Poetic Works. — Assemani gives a catalogue 
 of 231, with headings and first words. Very 
 few have been printed. The subjects are 
 chiefly the personages and events of O. and 
 N. T., esp. the words and deeds of Christ. 
 Jacobus is very fond of an allegorical treat- 
 ment of O.T. themes. 
 
 Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS., pp. 502-525, gives 
 an account of upwards of 40 MSS. and fragments 
 of MSS., containing metrical discourses, and 
 letters and a few homilies in prose, by St. 
 Jacobus. Jacobus Edessenus classed the bp. 
 of Batnae with St. Ephraim, Isaacus Magnus, 
 and Xenaias Mabugensis, as a model writer of 
 SjTiac. Assem. Bibl. Or. i. 283-340 ; Cave, ii. 
 110; Abbeloos, de Vita et Scriptt. S. Jacobi 
 Bain. Sarugi in Mesop. Episc. (Lovan. 1867) ; 
 Matagne, Act. Sanct. xii. Oct. p. 824 ; Bickell, 
 Consp. Svr. 25, 26. [c.j.b.] 
 
 Jacobus (15) or James Baradaeus {Al 
 
 Baradai, Burdoho, Burdeotw, Burdeana, or 
 Btirdeaya, also Phaselila, or Zanzalus). or- 
 dained by the Monophysites bp. of Edessa 
 {c. A.D. 541), with oecumenical authority over 
 the members of their body throughout the 
 East. By his indomitable zeal and untiring 
 activity this remarkable man rescued the 
 Monophysite community from the extinction 
 with which persecution by the imperial power 
 threatened it, and breathed a new life into 
 what seemed little more than an expiring 
 faction, consecrating bishops, ordaining clergy, 
 and uniting its scattered elements in an 
 organization so well planned and so stable that 
 it has subsisted unharmed through all the 
 many political and dynastic storms in that 
 portion of the world, and preserves to the 
 present day the name of its founder as the 
 Jacobite church of the East. Materials for his 
 Life are furnished by two Syriac biographies 
 by his contemporary, John of Asia, the Mono- 
 physite bp. of Ephesus ordained by him, 
 printed by Land (.Anecdota Syriaca, \'o\. ii. 
 pp. 240-253, pp. 364-383), and by the third 
 part of the Eccles. History ot the same author 
 (Payne Smith's trans, pp. 273-278, 291). 
 
 The surname Baradaeus is derived from the 
 ragged mendicant's garb patched up out of 
 
 JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 5.M 
 
 "Id >.i(i(ll.(|Mtlis. in will. h. the b.llcr to dis. 
 guisr his spiritu.il fmirtions from the unfrirnd- 
 ly eyes of those in power, this indrf.itiKablr 
 propagator of his creed performed his swift and 
 secret journeys over Svria and Mesopotamia. 
 James Baradaeus is stated by John of 
 Ephesus to have been born at Tela Mau/alat, 
 otherwise called Constantina, a rity of Os- 
 rhocne, 55 miles due E. of Edessa, towards the 
 close of 5th rent. His father, Theophilus 
 Bar-Manu, was one of the clergy of the place. 
 In pursuance of a vow of his parents, James, 
 when two years old, was placed in that 
 monastery under the care of abbat Eustathius, 
 and trained in Greek and Syriac literature and 
 in the strictest asceticism (land, Anecdol. Syr. 
 t. ii. p. 364). He became remarkable for the 
 severity of his self-discipline. Having on the 
 death of his parents inherited their jiroperty, 
 including a couple of slaves, he manumitted 
 them, and made over the house and estate to 
 them, reserving nothing for himself (ift. 366). 
 He eventuallv became a presbvter. His fame 
 spread over the East and reached the empress 
 Theodora, who was eagerly desirous of seeing 
 him, as one of the chief saints of the Mono- 
 physite party of which she was a zealous 
 partisan. James was with much difficulty 
 induced to leave his monastery for the imperial 
 city. Arriving at Constantinople, he was re- 
 ceived with much honour by Theodora. But 
 the splendour of the court had no attrac- 
 tions for him. He retired to one of the 
 monasteries of the city, where he lived as a 
 complete recluse. The period spent by him 
 at Constantinople — 15 years, according to John 
 of Ephesus — was a disastrous one for the 
 Monophysite body. Justinian had resolved 
 to enforce the Chalcedonian decrees univer- 
 sally, and the bishops and clergy who refused 
 them were punished with imprisonment, 
 deprivation, and exile. Whole districts of 
 Syria and the adjacent countries were thus 
 deprived of their pastors, and the Monophy- 
 sites were threatened with gradual extinction. 
 For ten years many churches had been desti- 
 tute of the sacraments, which they refused to 
 receive from what were to them heretical 
 hands. The extreme peril of the Monophy- 
 sites was represented to Theodora by the 
 sheikh Harith, and by her instrumentality the 
 recluse James was drawn from his cell and 
 persuaded to accept the hazardous and 
 laborious post of the apostle of Monophvsitism 
 in the East. A considerable number of 
 Monophvsite bishops from all parts of the 
 East, including Theodosius of Alexandria, 
 Anthimus the deposed patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, Constantius of I.aodicea, John of 
 Egvpt, Peter, and others, who had come to 
 Constantinople in the hope of mitigatinK the 
 displeasure of the emperor and exciting the 
 sympathies r.f Theodora, were held bv Justin- 
 ian in one of the imperial castles in a kind of 
 honourable imprisonment. By them James 
 was consecrated to the episcopate, nominally 
 as bp. of Edessa but virtually as a metropoli- 
 tan with oecumenical authority. The date is 
 uncertain, but that given by Assemani (A. p. 
 541) is probablv correct. The result proved 
 the wisdom of the choice. Of the simplest 
 mode of life, inured to hardship from hi^ 
 earliest years, tolerant of the extremities of 
 
552 JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 
 
 hunger and fatigue, " a second Asahel for 
 fieetness of foot " (Abulpharagius), fired with 
 an unquenchable zeal for what he regarded 
 as the true faith, with a dauntless courage that 
 despised all dangers, James, in his tattered 
 beggar's disguise, traversed on foot the whole 
 of Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the 
 adjacent provinces, even to the borders of 
 Persia, everywhere ordaining bishops and 
 clergy, by his exhortations or his encyclical 
 letters encouraging his depressed co-religion- 
 ists to courageously maintain their faith 
 against the advocates of the two natures, and 
 organizing them into a compact spiritual body. 
 By his indefatigable labours " the expiring 
 faction was revived, and united and per- 
 petuated. . . . The speed of the zealousmission- 
 ary was promoted by the fleetest dromedaries 
 of a devout chief of the Arabs ; the doctrine 
 and discipline of the Jacobites were secretly 
 established in the dominions of Justinian, and 
 each Jacobite was compelled to violate the 
 laws and to hate the Roman legislator " 
 (Gibbon, vol. vi. p. 75, ed. 1838). He is stated 
 to have ordained the incredible number of 
 80,000 clergy. John of Ephesus says 100,000 
 (Land, Anecdot. Syr. ii. 251), including 89 
 bishops and two patriarchs. His wonderful 
 success in reviving the moribund Monophysite 
 church aroused the emperor and the Catholic 
 bishops. Orders were issued and rewards 
 offered for his apprehension. But, in his 
 beggar's garb, aided by the friendly Arab 
 tribes and the people of Syria and Asia, he 
 eluded all attempts to seize him, and lived 
 into the reign of Tiberius. The longer of the 
 twoLivesof James, by John of Ephesus (Land, 
 M.S. pp. 364-383), must be consulted for the 
 extent and variety of his missionary labours 
 and for the miracles which illustrated them. 
 
 James failed miserably when he attempted 
 to govern the vast and heterogeneous body he 
 had created and organized. The simplicity 
 and innocence of his character, as described 
 by his contemporary John of Ephesus [H. E. 
 iv. 15), disquahfied him for rule, and put him 
 in the power of " crafty and designing men 
 about him, who turned him every way they 
 chose, and used him as a means of establishing 
 their own powers." His unhappy dissensions 
 with the bishops he had ordained clouded the 
 closing portion of James's long life. The 
 internecine strife between the different sec- 
 tions of the Monophysite party is fully de- 
 tailed by John of Ephesus, who records with 
 bitter lamentation the blows, fighting, mur- 
 ders, and other deeds " so insensate and unre- 
 strained that Satan and his herds of demons 
 alone could rejoice in them, wrought on both 
 sides by the two factions with which the 
 believers — so unworthy of the name — were 
 rent," provoking " the contempt and ridicule 
 of heathens, Jews, and heretics" (H. E. iv. 
 30). For a full account see John of Ephesus, 
 op. cit. (Payne Smith's trans, pp. 48 sqq., 81 
 sqq., 274 sqq.). 
 
 One of these party squabbles was between 
 James and the bps. Con on and Eugenius, 
 whom he had ordained at Alexandria — the 
 former for the Isaurian Seleucia, the latter for 
 Tarsus — who became the founders of the 
 obscure and short-lived sect of the " Conon- 
 ites," or, from the monastery at Constanti- 
 
 JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 
 
 nople to which a section of them belonged, 
 " Condobandites " (John of Ephesus, H- E. 
 i. 31, v. 1-12 ; trans, u.s. pp. 49-65). Each 
 anathematized the other, James denoancing 
 Conon and his companion as "Tritheists," and 
 they retaliated by the stigma of " Sabellian." 
 A still longer and more widespreading 
 difference arose between James and Paul, 
 whom he had ordained patriarch of Antioch 
 (//. E. i. 41, p. 81). Paul and the other three 
 leading bishops of the Monophysiteshad been 
 summoned to Constantinople under colour of 
 taking measures for restoring unity to the 
 church, and, provingobstinatein the adherence 
 totheirowncreed,were thrown into prisonfor a 
 considerable time and subjected to the harsh- 
 est treatment. This prolonged persecution 
 broke their spirit, and one by one they all 
 yielded, accepting the communion of John the 
 patriarch of Constantinople and the " Synod- 
 ites," as the adherents of the Chalcedonian 
 decrees were contemptuously termed by their 
 opponents, " lapsing miserably into the 
 communion of the two natures " [ih. i. 41, ii. 
 1-9, iv. 15). Paul, stung with remorse for his 
 cowardice, escaped into Arabia, taking refuge 
 with Mondir, son and successor of Harith. 
 On hearing of his defection James at once cut 
 Paul off from communion ; but at the end of 
 three years, on receiving the assurance of his 
 contrition, his act of penitence was laid before 
 the synod of the Monophysite church of the 
 East, and he was duly and canonically restored 
 to communion by James, who notified the fact 
 by encyclic letters (ih. iv. 15). Paul's rehabi- 
 litation caused great indignation among the 
 Monophysites at Alexandria. They clam- 
 oured for his deposition, which was carried 
 into effect by Peter, the intruded patriarch, 
 in violation of all canonical order ; the patri- 
 arch of Antioch (Paul's position in the Mono- 
 physite communion) owning no allegiance 
 to the patriarch of Alexandria [ib. iv. 16). 
 James allowed himself to be persuaded that 
 if he were to visit Alexandria the veneration 
 felt for his age and services would bring to 
 an end the unhappy dissension between the 
 churches of Syria and Egypt, and though 
 he had denounced Peter, both orally and in 
 writing, he was induced not only to hold 
 communion with him but to draw up instru- 
 ments of concord and to give his formal assent 
 to the deposition of Paul, only stipulating that 
 it should not be accompanied by any excom- 
 munication (ib. 17). The intelligence was 
 received with indignation and dismay in Syria 
 on James's return. The schism which re- 
 sulted between the adherents of James and 
 Paul, A.D. 576, " spread like an ulcer " through 
 the whole of the East, especially in Constanti- 
 nople. In vain did Paul entreat James to 
 discuss the matters at issue between them 
 calmly, promising to abide by the issue. In 
 vain did Mondir put himself forward as a peace- 
 maker. James shrank from investigation, 
 and caused an obstinate refusal to be returned 
 to all overtures of accommodation (ib. 20, 
 21). Wearied out at last, and feeling the 
 necessity for putting an end to the violence 
 and bloodshed which was raging unchecked, 
 James suddenly set out for Alexandria, but 
 never reached it. On the arrival of his party, 
 including several bishops, at the monastery of 
 
JOANNES I. 
 
 Cassianus or Mar-Romamis on the Egyptian 
 frontier, a deadly sickness attacked them, and 
 James himself fell a victim to it, July 30, 578. 
 His episcopate is said to have lasted 37 years, 
 and his life, according to Renaudot (Lit. Or. 
 ij- 342). 73 years. 
 
 A liturgy bearing the name of "Jacobus 
 Bordayaeus " is given by Renaudot (Lit. Or. 
 t. ii. pp. 332-341), who confuses him, as Ba- 
 ronius does {ad attn. 535), with Jacobus Bara- 
 daeus. That this liturjjy is correctly assigned | 
 to the Jacobite church is proved by the sjiecial 
 memorial of their founder, " memento Dominc 
 omnium pastorum et doctorum ecclesiae 
 orthodoxae . . . praecipue vero Jacobi Hor- 
 daei," as well as by the special condemnation 
 of those who " impiously blasphemed the 
 Incarnation of the Word, and divided the 
 union in nature {uitionem in natura) with 
 the flesh taken from the holy mother of God" 
 («''■ 337. ^^^)- The Caicchesis, the chief dog- 
 matical formulary of the Jacobites, " totius 
 fidei Jacobiticae norma et fundamentum " 
 (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 524), though adjudged to 
 be his by Cave, Abraham Ecchellensis, and 
 others, together with the Encomium in Jaco- 
 bitas, and an Arabic Homily on the Annun- 
 ciation, are discredited by .Asscmani on philo- 
 logical and chronological grounds. [e.v.] 
 
 Joannes (11) I., surnamed Talaia, patri- 
 arch of Alexandria and afterwards bp. of 
 Nola. From having been a presbyter in the 
 monastery of the Tabennesians at Canopus 
 near Alexandria, he was known as Tabennesi- 
 otes (Pagi, Critic, s.a. 482, xix. ; Mansi, vii. 
 1178 b). Previous to the expulsion of Salo- 
 faciolus from his see of Alexandria, and after 
 his restoration, John held the office of oecono- 
 mus under him (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. Mansi, 
 vii. 1063 ; Liberat. Breviar. c. 16 in Migne, 
 Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 1020). Shortly afterwards 
 John was sent by the Catholics of Alexandria to 
 the emperor Zeno, to thank him for the restora- 
 tion of Salofaciolus, and to pray that when a 
 vacancy occurred in the see they might choose 
 his successor. He obtained an edict from the 
 emperor complying with this request (Evagr. 
 H. E. iii. 12), and after his return became 
 greatly distinguished as a preacher in Alex- 
 andria (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. u.s.). Salo- 
 faciolus died A.D. 482, and the Catholics then 
 elected John (16.). The Monophysites elected 
 Peter Mongus, then in exile (Liberat. c. 17 ; 
 Theophan. s.a. 476). John sent the usual 
 svnodic announcement of his election to 
 Simplicius, bp.of Rome, but neglected todirect 
 one to AcACius, bp. of Constantinople, only 
 sending one to his friend Illus, who was then 
 in that city, with instructions tf> make what 
 use of it he thought fit, and accompanying it 
 with a letter addressed to the empen ir. Wlien 
 the magistrianus whom John employed as his 
 messenger to Constantinople arrived there, he 
 found that Illus had gone to Antioch, whither 
 he followed him with the synodic. On receiv- 
 ing it at Antif>ch Illus delivered the synodic 
 to Calandio, then recently elected to the 
 patriarchate fif that see (Liberat. cc. 17, 18). 
 Acacius, taking offence at not receiving a 
 synodic from John, joined the Monophysites 
 in their appeal to the emperor against him, 
 and prevailed upon Zeno to write to Simpli- 
 cius, praying him not to acknowledge John 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 r.r,3 
 
 (Simplic. Et*. 17, July is, a.d. 482, in Mansi. 
 vii. 002). Without waitmg for the reply of 
 Simplicius, Zeno instructed the civil author- 
 ities to expel John. Thtis driven from 
 Alexandria, Talaia went to Illus at Antiorh, 
 and thence to Rome (Liberat. r. iK). There 
 he was favourably received by Simplirius, wh«» 
 at once wTote to Acacius on his behalf (Ep. 18, 
 Nov. 6, 482, in Mansi, vii. 90.S). Acarius 
 replied that he did not recognize John, but had 
 received Mongus into communion by command 
 of Zeno ; and Simplicius rejoined, blaming 
 Aca( ins in no measured terms (Liberat. c. iX). 
 Sinii>licius died March 2, 483, but John was 
 w. irmly supported by his successor Felix III., 
 who cited Acacius to answer certain charges 
 brought against him by Talaia, and wrote to 
 the emperor praying him to withdraw his 
 countenance from Mongus and restore John 
 (Libell. Citationis ad .4cac. Mansi, vii. 1108; 
 Felic. Ep. 2, A.D. 483, in ih. 1032). On the re- 
 turn of his legates from Constantinople, Felix 
 held a synod at Rome which exconmiunicated 
 Acacius for his persistent support of Mongus 
 (Ep. 6, July 28, 484, in tb. 1053). Felix wrote 
 to inform Zeno of this, and to let him know 
 that " the apostolic see would never consent 
 to communion with Peter of Alexandria, who 
 had been justly condenmed lf>ng since" [Ep. 
 9, Aug. I, 484, in ib. 1065). Felix did not 
 obtain his end, and John seems to have re- 
 mained at Rome until the death of Zeno and 
 the succession of Anastasius. a.d. 491, to 
 whom John had shewn kindness at Alexandria 
 after his shipwreck. Presuming that Anas- 
 tasius would not be unmindful of this, John 
 went to Constantinople to appeal to him. On 
 hearing of his arrival Anastasius at once 
 ordered him to be exiled, and lohn made his 
 escape and returned to Rome (Theophan. s.a. 
 484, p. 118 ; Victor Tunun. s.a. 494, in Migne, 
 Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 948). Felix died Feb. 25, 492, 
 but his successor, Cielasius I., equally interest- 
 ed himself in John (C.elas. Epp. 13. I5. 'n 
 Mansi, viii. 49 seq., c. 493-495)- 
 
 All these efforts to procure his reinstatement 
 were of no avail; John never returned to 
 Alexandria, but received, as some compensa- 
 tion, the see of Nola in Campania, where, after 
 many years, he died in peace (Liberat. c. 
 18). During his episcf>pate there he appar- 
 ently wrote an diroXo-jia to Gelasius, in which 
 he anathematized the Pelagian heresy, IVla- 
 gius himself, and Celestius, as well as Julia- 
 nusof Eclana. Phot. B16/10/A. Cod. liv. ; l.c 
 Ouien, Or. Christ, ii. 417, 419; Remondini, Del 
 Xolana Eccl. Storia. iii. 56-59 : Ughelli, Jtal. 
 .Sacr. vi. 2SI ; Tillem. Mim. xvi. 313 seq.; 
 Hefele. Concil. ii. ^o4 seq. [t.w.d.] 
 
 Joannes (31), bi). of Antioch (429-448). 
 Our knowledge of him commences with his 
 elfction as successor to Theodotus in the see 
 of Antioch. In 429 the bishops of the Fast. 
 according to the aged Aca(Uis of Heroea, 
 congratulated themselves on having such a 
 leader (Labbe, iii. 386) ; but the troubles 
 which rendered his episcopate so unhanpily 
 famous began immediately to shew them- 
 selves. His old companion and fellow-towns- 
 1 man Nestorius had just been appointed to the 
 see of Constantinople, and had inaugurated 
 his episcopate with a sermon in the metro- 
 prjlitan church repudiatmg the term " Mother 
 
554 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 of God," 6eor6Kos. Celestine, the Roman 
 pontiff, summoned a synod of Western bishops 
 in Aug. 430, which unanimously condemned 
 the tenets of Nestorius, and the name of John 
 of Antioch appears in the controversy. The 
 support of the Eastern prelates, of whom the 
 patriarch of Antioch was chief, being of great 
 importance, Celestine wrote to John, Juve- 
 nal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and 
 Flavian of Philippi, informing them of the 
 decree passed against Nestorius (Baluz. p. 438, 
 c. XV. ; Labbe, iii. 376). At the same time 
 Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, wrote to John 
 calling upon him, on pain of being separated 
 from the communion of the West, to accept 
 Celestine's decision and unite with him in 
 defending the faith against Nestorius (Baluz. 
 p. 442, c. xviii. ; Labbe, iii. 379). Such a 
 declaration of open hostility against an old 
 friend, of whose virtual orthodoxy he was 
 convinced, was very distasteful to John. He 
 dispatched a letter full of Christian persua- 
 siveness, by the count Irenaeus, to Nestorius, 
 in his own name, and that of his brother- 
 bishops Archelaus, Apringius, Theodoret, 
 Heliades, Melchius, and the newly appointed 
 bp. of Laodicea, Macarius, entreating him not 
 to plunge the church into discord on account 
 of a word to which the Christian ear had 
 become accustomed, and which was capable 
 of being interpreted in his own sense. He 
 enlarged on the danger of schism, warning 
 Nestorius that the East, Egypt, and Mace- 
 donia were about to separatefrom him, and ex- 
 horted him to follow the example of Theodorus 
 of Mopsuestia in retracting words which had 
 given pain to the orthodox, since he really 
 held the orthodox faith on these points (Baluz. 
 p. 445, c. xxi. ; Labbe, iii. 390 seq.). John 
 wrote also to count Irenaeus, Musaeus bp. of 
 Antarada, and Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who 
 were then at Constantinople, hoping to avail 
 himself of their influence with Nestorius 
 (Baluz. p. 688). Nestorius's reply indicated 
 no intention of following John's counsels. 
 He declared himself orthodox in the truest 
 sense. He had no rooted objection to the 
 term 0€ot6kos, but thought it unsafe, because 
 accepted by some in an Arian or Apollinarian 
 sense. He preferred Xpia-roTOKO^, as a middle 
 term between it and dvOpwrroTOKOs. He pro- 
 posed to defer the discussion to the general 
 council which he hoped for {ib. p. 688). 
 
 The divergence of the Antiochene and 
 Alexandrian schools of thought in their way 
 of regarding the mystery of the Incarnation 
 lay at the root of this controversy about the 
 term, and it was brought into open manifesta- 
 tion by the publication of Cyril's twelve 
 " anathematisms " on the teaching of Nesto- 
 rius. Nestorius, on receiving these fulmina- 
 tions at the end of 430, at once sent copies of 
 them to John, together with his two sermons 
 of Dec. 13 and 14, in which he professed to 
 have acknowledged Mary as the " Mother of 
 God " (ib. p. 691, c. iv.). John declared him- 
 self horror-stricken at the Apollinarian heresy 
 which characterized Cyril's articles. He made 
 them known far and wide, in Cappadocia, 
 Galatia, and through the East generally, 
 accompan>nng them with earnest appeals 
 to the bishops and the orthodox everywhere 
 to openly repudiate the grave errors they 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 contained (ib. p. 838, No. xxxvi. Ep. Alexandri 
 Episc). His letter to Firmus is preserved 
 (Baluz. p. 691, c. iv.), in which he expresses 
 abhorrence of the " capitula," which he con- 
 siders so unlike Cyril both in style and doctrine 
 that he cannot believe they are his, and calls 
 upon Firmus, if they reach Pontus, to get 
 them abjured by the bishops of the province, 
 without naming the supposed author. He 
 rejoices over Nestorius's public acceptance of 
 the test-word, in the two sermons he has sent 
 him, which has quieted the storm and restored 
 tranquillity to the church of Constantinople. 
 John was also careful to have Cyril's heretical 
 formularies refuted by able theologians. 
 [Andreas Samosatensis ; Theodoret.] 
 
 The breach between the two patriarchs was 
 complete. Each denounced the other as 
 heretical. A larger arena was supplied by the 
 general council summoned by Theodosius to 
 meet at Ephesus at Pentecost, 431. John's 
 arrival having been delayed more than a 
 fortnight beyond the time fixed for the 
 opening of the council, he wrote that Antioch 
 was 42 days' journey from Ephesus, at the 
 fastest. He had been travelling without 
 interruption for 30 days ; he was now within 
 five or six stages of Ephesus. If C>Til would 
 condescend to wait a little longer, he hoped 
 in a veryfewdays to arrive (^6.p. 451, cxxiii.). 
 Cyril would not delay. On Mon. June 22, 431, 
 198 bishops met in the church of St. Mary the 
 Virgin, and in one day Nestorius was tried, 
 condemned, sentenced, deposed, and excom- 
 municated. Five days later. Sat. June 27, 
 John arrived with 14 bishops. His reasons 
 for delay were quite sufficient. His patri- 
 archate was a very extensive one. His 
 attendant bishops could not leave their 
 churches before the octave of Easter, Apr. 26. 
 The distances some of them had to travel did 
 not allow them to reach Antioch before May 
 10. John's departure had been delayed by 
 a famine at Antioch and consequent outbreaks 
 of the populace ; their progress was impeded 
 by floods (Labbe, iii. 602) ; the transport broke 
 down ; many of the bishops were aged men, un- 
 fit for rapid travelling. There was nothing to 
 support Cyril's accusation that John's delay 
 was intentional. 
 
 Cyril sent a deputation of bishops and 
 ecclesiastics to welcome John, apprise him in 
 the name of the council of the deposition of 
 Nestorius and that he must no longer regard 
 him as a bishop (ib. iii. 761). John, who had 
 already heard from count Irenaeus of the 
 hastv decision of the council, refused to admit 
 the deputation, and they complained that they 
 were rudely treated by the guard whom 
 Irenaeus had sent to do honour to and protect 
 the Eastern bishops. The deputation were 
 compelled to wait for some hours at the door 
 of the house where John took up his quarters, 
 exposed to the insults of the soldiers and the 
 attendants of the Orientals (tb. 593, 764), 
 while a rival council was being held within. 
 The bishops who sided with John had hastened 
 to his lodgings, where, " before they had 
 shaken the dust off their feet, or taken off 
 their cloaks " (Cvril. Ep. ad Colest. Labbe, iii. 
 663), the small synod— the " conciliabulum " 
 their enemies tauntingly called it— of 43 
 bishops, passed a sentence of deposition on 
 
JOANNES 
 
 Cyril and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, and of 
 excommunication on all the other prelates of 
 the council, until they should have condenmed 
 CvTil's " capitula," which they declared 
 tainted not only with Apc^llinarian, but with 
 Arian and Eunomian heresy {ib. 506, 637, 657, 
 664 passim). The sentences of excommunica- 
 tion and deposition were posted up in the city. 
 There John vouchsafed an audience to the 
 deputies of the other council. They communi- 
 cated its decrees as to Nestorius. but received, 
 they asserted, no reply but insults and blows 
 («6. 764). Returning to Cyril they formally 
 complained of John's treatment, of which they 
 shewed marks on their persons. The council 
 iramediatelydeclaredjohnseparatedfrom their 
 communion until he explained this conduct. 
 
 John's attempts to reduce Cyril and his 
 adherents to submission by his own authority 
 proved fruitless, and he had recourse to the 
 emperor and the ecclesiastical power at Con- 
 stantinople. Several letters were written to 
 Theodosius, to the empresses Pulcheria and 
 Eudocia, the clergy, the senate, and the 
 people of that city (Labbe, iii. 6oi-6og ; 
 Liberal, c. vi.) to explain the tardiness of 
 John's arrival and to justify the sentence 
 pronounced on Cyril, Memnon, and the other 
 bishops. Theodosius wrote to the council, 
 declaring their decisions null (Labbe, iii. 704). 
 The letter reached Ephesus June 29. John 
 and his friends welcomed it with benedictions, 
 assuring the emperor that they had acted 
 from pure zeal for the faith which was im- 
 perilled by the Apollinarianism of Cyril's 
 " anathematisms." Relying on imperial 
 favour, John strove in vain to persuade the 
 Ephesians to demand a new bishop in the 
 place of Memnon. Meantime, the legates of 
 Celestine had arrived from Rome, and the 
 council, strengthened by their presence and 
 the approbation of the bp. of Rome, pro- 
 ceeded, July 16, to summon John before them. 
 Their deputation was informed that John 
 could hold no intercourse with excommuni- 
 cated persons {ib. 640). On this the council 
 declared null all the acts of John's " concili- 
 abulum," and, on his persisting, separated him 
 and the bishops who had joined him from the 
 communion of the church, pronounced them 
 disqualified for all episcopal functions, and 
 published their decree openly {ib. 302). 
 
 Two counter-deputations from the opposite 
 parties presented themselves to Theodosius 
 in the first week of September at Chalcedon. 
 John himself did not shrink from an open de- 
 fence of the orthodoxy of Nestorius, declaring 
 his deposition illegal and exposing the heresy 
 of Cyril's anathematisms (Baluz. pp. 837, 839). 
 To support their evidently failing cause, Jf>hn 
 and his fellow-deputies wrote to some leading 
 prelates of the West, the bps. of Milan, 
 Aquileia, and Ravenna, and Rufus of Thessa- 
 lonica, laying before them in earnest terms the 
 heretical character of Cyril's doctrines (Theod. 
 Ep. 112; Labbe, iii. 736), but apparently 
 without favourable result. The victory was 
 substantially with the Cyrillian party. After 
 six audiences the emperor, weary of the fruit- 
 less strife, declared his final resolve. Nes- 
 torius, generally abandoned by his supporters, 
 was permitted to retire to his former monas- 
 tery of St. Euprepius at Antioch. Maximian, 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 .%M 
 
 a presbyter of Constantinople. In defiance of 
 I the protest of John and his party, was ronse- 
 ; crated (Oct. 2.s) bp. «.f the imperial srr m his 
 room. Menuion and Cyril were reinstated : 
 the fornuT to remain at Ephesus as bishop ; 
 j Cyril and the other bishops t<i return home. 
 John and the Orientals were onlv ii<>l (orniallv 
 condemned because the dogmatic ipirstion 
 ! had not been discussed. Hefore he retired 
 vanquished. J.ihn delivered a final remon- 
 strance. The churches <if Chalcedon were 
 closed against the Oriental bishops, but Ihry 
 had obtained a spa< ions hall for public worship 
 and preaching. Large crowds assembled to 
 listen to the powerful sermons of Theodoret 
 and the milder exhortations of John. The 
 mortification with which John left Chalcedon 
 j was deepened by the events of his homeward 
 i journey. At Ancyra he found that letters 
 from its bp. Theodotus, who was one of the 
 eight deputies of the coimcil, as well as from 
 Firmus of Caesarea. and Maximian the newly 
 appointed bp. of Constantinople, had com- 
 manded that he and his companions shoidd be 
 regarded as excommunicate. 
 
 From Ancyra John proceeded to Tarsus. 
 I Here, in his own patriarchate, he immediately 
 j held a council, together with Alexander of 
 Hierapolis and the other deputies, at which 
 he confirmed the deposition of Cyril and his 
 brother-commissioners (Balu/. 840. 843, 847). 
 Theodoret and the others engaged never to 
 i consent to the deposition of Nestorius. On 
 [reaching Antioch, about the middle of Dec, 
 I John summoned a very numerously attended 
 council of bishops, which pronounced a fresh 
 sentence against Cyril and wrote to Theo- 
 dosius, calling upon him to take measures for 
 the general condetnnation of the doctrines of 
 Cyril, as contrary to the Nicene faith which 
 they were resolved to maintain to the death 
 (Socr. H. E. vii. 34 ; Liberat. c. vi. ; Baluz. 
 p. 741, c. xxxix.). Soon after his return to 
 Antioch John, accompanied by six bishops, 
 visited the venerable Acaciusof Beroea. whose 
 sympathy in the controversy had greatly 
 strengthened and consoled him. The old man 
 was deeply grieved to hear the untoward 
 result of their proceedings. 
 
 The battle was now over and the victory 
 remained with Cyril. His return to Alexan- 
 dria was a triumphal progress (I. abbe. iii. los). 
 But the victory had been pur( based by a 
 schism in the church. Alexandria and An- 
 tioch were two hostile camps. For three 
 years a bitter strife was maintained. The 
 issue, however, was never doubtful. John, 
 alarmed for his own safety, soon began to 
 shew symptoms of yielding. The emj)eror, 
 at the urgent demand of Celestine, had pro- 
 ! nounced the banishment of Nestorius. John 
 might not unreasonably fear a demand for his 
 own deposition. It was time he should make 
 it clear that he had no real sympathy with the 
 errors of the heresiarch. The pertinacity 
 with whii h Nestorius continued to promulgate 
 the tenets which had proved so ruinous to 
 the peace of the church irritated John. The 
 newly elected bp. of Rome. Sixtus. who had 
 warmly embraced Cvril's cause, in a lett«r 
 addressed to the prelates of the East in the 
 interests of reunion, a.d. 432. declared that 
 John might be received again into the Catholic 
 
556 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 church, provided he repudiated all whom the 
 council of Ephesus had deposed and proved 
 by his acts that he really deserved the name 
 of a Catholic bishop (Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. 
 i. 47). Cyril was disposed to limit his require- 
 ments to the condemnation of Nestorius and 
 the recognition of Maximian. John sum- 
 moned Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of 
 Samosata, Theodoret, and probably others, to 
 Antioch and held a conference to draw up 
 terms of peace. It was agreed that if Cyril 
 would reject his anathematisms they would 
 restore him to communion. Propositions for 
 union were dispatched by John to Cyril. 
 John and his fellow-bishops next sought the 
 intervention of Acacius of Beroea, who was 
 universqjly venerated, in the hope that his 
 influence might render Cyril more willing to 
 accept the terms (Baluz. 756, c. liii. ; Labbe, 
 iii. 1 1 14). Cyril, though naturally declining 
 to retract his condemnation of Nestorius's 
 tenets, opened the way for a reconciliation with 
 John. John, eager to come to terms with his 
 formidable foe, declared himself fully satisfied 
 of Cyril's orthodoxy ; his explanation had re- 
 moved all the doubt his former language had 
 raised (Labbe, iii. 757, 782). Paul, bp. of 
 Emesa, was dispatched bv John to Alexandria 
 to confer with Cyril and bring about the much- 
 desired restoration of communion {ib. 783). 
 These events took place in Dec. 432 and 
 Jan. 433. Cyril after some hesitation signed 
 a confession of faith sent him by John, de- 
 claring in express terms " the union of the two 
 natures without confusion in the One Christ, 
 One Son, One Lord," and confessing " the 
 Holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because 
 God the Word was incarnate and made man, 
 and from His very conception united to Him- 
 self the temple taken from her" (Labbe, iii. 
 1094 ; Baluz. pp. 800, 804 ; Liberat. 8, p. 30), 
 and gave Paul of Emesa an explanation of his 
 anathematisms which Paul approved (Labbe, 
 iii. 1090). CvTil then required acceptance of 
 thedepositionof Nestorius, recognition of Max- 
 imian, and acquiescence in the sentence passed 
 by him on the four metropolitans deposed as 
 Nestorians ; terms acceded to by Paul. Each 
 party was desirous of peace and disposed to 
 concessions. Paul, placing in Cyril's hand a 
 written consent to all his requirements, was 
 admitted to communion and allowed to preach 
 at the Feast of the Nativity (Cvril. Ep. 32, 40 ; 
 Labbe, iii. 1095 ; Liberat. 'c. 8', p. 32). John, 
 however, sent letters stating that neither he 
 nor the other Oriental bishops could consent 
 so hastily to the condemnation of Nestorius, 
 from whose writings he gave extracts to prove 
 their orthodoxy (Baluz. p. 908). Cyril and 
 the court began to weary of so much inde- 
 cision, and, to bring matters to a point, a 
 document drawn up by Cyril and Paul was 
 sent for John to sign (Cyril, Epp. 40, 42), 
 together with letters of communion to be 
 given him if he consented. Fresh delays 
 ensued, but at last, in Apr. 433, the act giving 
 peace to the Christian world was signed and 
 dispatched to Alexandria, where it was an- 
 nounced by Cyril in the cathedral on Apr. 23. 
 John, in a letter to Cyril, stated that in signing 
 this document he had no intention to derogate 
 from the authority of the Nicene Creed, and 
 expressly recognized Maximian as the lawful 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 bp. of Constantinople in place of Nestorius, 
 sometime bishop, but deposed for teaching 
 which merited anathema. He also wrote a 
 circular letter of communion addressed to pope 
 Sixtus, Cyril and Maximian (Labbe, iii. 1087, 
 1090, 1094, 1154; Cyril, Ep. 41). The East 
 and West were once more at one. Cyril tes- 
 tified his joy in the celebrated letter to John, 
 commencing " Let the heavens rejoice, and 
 let the earth be glad " (Labbe, iii. 1106-riii). 
 John wrote to Theodosius thanking him for 
 the peace which his efforts had procured, and 
 begged him to render it universal by restoring 
 the deposed bishops. 
 
 This accommodation was far from being 
 satisfactory to the extreme members of either 
 party. Isidore of Pelusium and other adher- 
 ents of Cyril expressed a fear that he had made 
 too large concessions; while John had given 
 great offence to many of his warmest sup- 
 porters, who accused him of truckling to 
 powerful advocates of a hollow peace to 
 secure his position as bishop. Theodoret 
 refused to abandon Nestorius. Alexander of 
 Hierapolis broke off communion with his 
 patriarch John (Baluz. pp. 799, 832). During 
 the next two years John sought to force the 
 bishops of his patriarchate to accept the terms 
 of peace. Thei)doret's unwillingness to aban- 
 don Nestorius and rooted dislike to Cyril's 
 articles raised a coldness between him and 
 John which was much strengthened by an 
 unwarrantable usurpation on John's part, 
 who at the close of 433 or beginning of 434 had 
 ordained bishops for Euphratesia. This ag- 
 gression caused serious irritation among the 
 bishops of the province, who, led by Theo- 
 doret, withdrew from communion with John. 
 John unhappily continuing his acts of usurpa- 
 tion, the disaffection spread. Nine provinces 
 subject to the patriarch of Antioch renounced 
 communion with John, who had at length 
 to request the imperial power to force them 
 into union by ejecting the bishops who 
 refused the agreement he had arranged with 
 Cyril. Theodoret, yielding to the entreaties 
 of James of Cyrus and other solitaries of his 
 diocese, consented to a conference with John 
 and was received by his old friend with great 
 cordiality. All reproaches were silenced, and 
 as John did not insist on his accepting the 
 sentence against Nestorius, he embraced the 
 concordat, and returned to communion with 
 John and Cyril {ib. pp. 834-836). The way 
 towards peace had been smoothed by the 
 death of Nestorius's successor, Maximian, 
 Apr. 12, 434, and the appointment as archbp. 
 of Constantinople of the saintly Proclus, who, 
 in the early part of the Nestorian controversy, 
 had preached the great sermon on the Theo- 
 tokos (Socr. H. E. vii. 40; Baluz. p. 851). 
 Proclus's influence was exerted in favour of 
 peace, and so successfully that all the remon- 
 strant bishops, except Alexander of Hierapolis 
 and five others, ultimately accepted the con- 
 cordat and retained their sees. Alexander 
 was ejected in Apr. 435. John made a strong 
 representation to Proclus in 436 that Nestorius 
 in his retirement was persisting in his blas- 
 phemies and perverting many in Antioch and 
 throughout the East (Baluz. p. 894), and form- 
 ally requested Theodosius to expel him from 
 the East and deprive him of the power of doing 
 
JOANNES 
 
 mischief (Evagr. H. E. i. 7 ; Theophan. p. 78). ' 
 An edict was accordingly issued that all the 
 heresiarch's books should be burnt, his f<il- 
 lowers called " Simonians " and their nieetinps 
 suppressed (Labbe, iii. 1209 ; Cod. Tlunnl. 
 XVI. V. 66). The property of Nestorius was 
 confiscated and he was banished to the remote 
 and terrible Egyptian oasis. 
 
 Nestorian doctrines were too deeply rooted 
 in the Eastern mind to be eradicated by 
 persecution. Cyril, suspecting tliat the union 
 was more apparent than real and that some of 
 the bishops who had verbally condemned Nes- 
 torius still in their hearts cherished his teach- 
 ing, procured orders from the Imperial 
 government that the bishops should severally 
 and explicitly repudiate Nestorianism. A 
 formula of CsTil's having been put into John's 
 hands for signature, John wrote in 436 or 437 
 to Proclus to remonstrate against this nmlti- 
 plicity of tests which distracted the attention 
 of bishops from the care of their dioceses 
 (Labbe, iii. 894). 
 
 Fresh troubles speedily broke out in the 
 East in connexion with the writings of the 
 greatly revered Theodore of Mopsuestia and 
 Diodorus of Tarsus, whose disciple Nestorius 
 had been. The bishops and clergy of Armenia 
 appealed to Proclus for his judgment on the 
 teaching of Theodore (ib. v. 463). Proclus 
 replied by the celebrated doctrinal epistle 
 known as the " Tome of St. Proclus." To this 
 were attached some passages selected from 
 Theodore's writings, which he deemed de- 
 serving of condemnation (ib. 511-513). This 
 letter he sent first to John requesting that he 
 and his council would sign it (Liberal, p. 46 ; 
 Facundus, lib. 8, c. i, 2). John assembled his 
 provincial bishops at Antioch. They ex- 
 pressed annoyance at being called on for 
 fresh signatures, as if their orthodoxy was 
 still questionable, but made no difficulty about 
 signing the " Tome," which they found worthy 
 of all admiration, both for beauty of style and 
 the dogmatic precision of its definitions. But 
 the demand for the condemnation of the ap- 
 pended extracts called forth indignant pro- 
 tests. They refused to condemn passages 
 divorced from their context, and capable, even 
 as they stood, of an orthodox interpretation. 
 A fresh schism threatened, but the letters of 
 remonstrance written by John and his council 
 to Proclus and Theodosius put a stop to the 
 whole matter. Even Cyril, who had striven 
 hard to procure the condemnation of The(;dore, 
 was compelled to desist by the resolute front 
 shewn by the Orientals, some of whom, John 
 told him, were ready to be burnt rather than 
 condemn the teaching of one they so deeply 
 revered (Cyril. Epp. 54, 199). Theodosius 
 wrote to the Oriental bishops that the church 
 must not be disturbed by fresh controversy 
 and that no one should presume to decide 
 anything unfavourable to those who had 
 died in the peace of the church (Baluz. p. 
 928, c. ccxix.). The date of this transaction 
 was prnbably 438. It is the last recorded 
 event in John's career. His death occurred 
 in 441 or 442. Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. xiv. xv.; 
 QeWhcT, Auteurs eccL; Cave, Hist. Lit.i. 412; 
 Neander, Church. Hist. vol. iv., Clarke's e<l. ; 
 Milinan, Latin Christ. V(j1. i. pp. 141- 177; 
 Bright, Hist, of Church, pp. 310-365. tt.v.j 
 
 JOANNES II. 
 
 657 
 
 Joannes (113), sumamrd StUtUiarius, bp. 
 of Colonia and afterwards one of the nxnt 
 celebrated of the monks. Mis Life wan written 
 by Cyril of Scythop..lis. He was b-rn in 4^. 
 at Nicupulis in Armenia. Mis father and 
 inother, noble and wealthy Christians, k,»v.? 
 him a Christian education. John conscrr.ncd 
 himself to God when 18 years old, built .1 
 church at Nicopolis in hi>noiir of the N'lrKin 
 Mary, and taking ten brethren set up a monas- 
 tery. In his 2Sth year (c. 4S1) ihe bp. <>f 
 Sebaslia, metropolitan of the district, at the 
 request of the people ,4 Cnl..nia. roiisecratrd 
 him bishop of that see against his will. Mc 
 continued his monastic life, specially avoiding 
 the baths. " He thought it the greatest of 
 all virtues never to be washed"; "detenninrd 
 never to be seen, even by his own eyes, without 
 his clothes." His character had the happiest 
 effect on his own family. 
 
 When he had been bp. ten years he went to 
 Constantinople with an appeal to the emperor. 
 Here he embarked on a ship unknown to his 
 friends, made his way to Jerusalem, and dwelt 
 there in a hospital for old men, whi-rein was 
 an oratory of (li-orge the Martyr, but was 
 supernaturally guided to the community of 
 St. Sabas, who presided over 150 aiu burets 
 and received John, and appointed him to some 
 petty office. A guest-house was being built ; 
 the former bp. of Colonia, the noble of the 
 Byzantine court, fetched water from a torrent, 
 cooked for the builders, brought stones and 
 other materials for the work. Next year the 
 steward appointed John to the humble duty 
 of presiding over the kitchen. At the end <>f 
 three years he was appointed steward. Sa- 
 bas, ignorant of his ecclesiastical rank, con- 
 sidering it high time for John to be ordained, 
 took him to Jerusalem, and introduced him 
 to archbp. Elias. John was obliged to con- 
 fess that he was a bishop. Archbp. Elias 
 wondered at his story, summoned Sabas, and 
 excused John from ordination, promising that 
 from that day he should be silent and nobody 
 should molest him. He never left his ceil 
 for four years afterwards, and was seen by 
 none but the brothers who served him, 
 except at the dedication of a church in the 
 community, when he was obliged to pay his 
 respects to archbp. Elias. The patriarch was 
 captivated with his conversation and held him 
 in lifelong honour. In 503 John went into 
 the desert of Kuba. Here he remained silent 
 about seven years, only leaving his cave every 
 third or fourth day to collect wild apples, the 
 usual food of the solitaries. 
 
 Sabas eventually persuaded John to return 
 to his old community when 56 years old. 
 A.D. 510. Here he continued to live a life 
 that seemed to the people of those days abso- 
 lutely angelical and many stories arc told ol 
 his miraculous endowments. He must have 
 died c. 558. Cyril. Mon. ap. .^.^. i.S. Uolland. 
 13 Mai. iii. 232 ; Baron. Atinal. ad aim. 457, 
 Iviii. etc. ; Ceillier, xi. 277- [w.m.s.1 
 
 Joannes (124) 1!., surnamed (appaJot, 
 27th bp. of Constantinople, 517-520, appoint- 
 ed by Anastasius after an enforced coiiilriniia- 
 tion of Chahedon. His short patrunhatr is 
 memorable for the rcli-lirated Ace laiiiations of 
 Constantinople, and the reunion of l.ast and 
 West alter a schism of 34 years. At the death 
 
658 
 
 JOANNES II. 
 
 of Timothy, Johnof Cappadocia, whom he had 
 designated his successor, was presbyter and 
 chancellor of the church of Constantinople. 
 
 On July 9, 518, the long reign of Anastasius 
 came to a close, the orthodox Justin succeed- 
 ing. On Sunday, July 15, the new emperor 
 entered the cathedral, and the archbishop, ac- 
 companied by twelve prelates, was making his 
 way through the throngs that crowded every 
 corner. As he came near the raised dais 
 where the pulpit stood shouts arose, " Long 
 live the patriarch ! Long live the emperor ! 
 Why do we remain excommunicated ? Why 
 have we not communicated these many years ? 
 You are Catholic, what do you fear, worthy 
 servant of the Trinity ? Cast out Severus the 
 Manichee ! O Justin, our emperor, you win ! 
 This instant proclaim the synod of Chalcedon, 
 because Justin reigns." These and other 
 cries continued. The procession passed into 
 the inclosure, but the excited congregation 
 went on shouting outside the gates of the 
 choir in similar strains : " You shall not 
 come out unless you anathematize Severus," 
 referring to the heretical patriarch of Antioch. 
 The patriarch John, having meanwhile gained 
 time for thought and consultation, came out 
 and mounted the pulpit, saying, " There is 
 no need of disturbance or tumult ; nothing 
 has been done against the faith ; we recognize 
 for orthodox all the councils which have con- 
 firmed the decrees of Nicaea, and principally 
 these three — Constantinople, Ephesus, and 
 the great council of Chalcedon." 
 
 The people were determined to have a more 
 formal decision, and continued shouting for 
 several hours, mingling with their former cries 
 such as these : " Fix a day for a festival in 
 honour of Chalcedon ! " " Commemorate 
 the holy synod this very morrow ! " The 
 people being thus firm, the deacon Samuel 
 was instructed toannounce the desiredfestival. 
 Still the people continued to shout with all 
 their might, " Severus is now to be anathe- 
 matized ; anathematize him this instant, or 
 there's nothing done! " The patriarch, seeing 
 that something must be settled, took counsel 
 with the twelve attendant prelates, who agreed 
 to the curse on Severus. This extemporaneous 
 and intimidated council then carried a decree 
 by acclamation : " It is plain to all that 
 Severus in separating himself from this church 
 condemned himself. Following, therefore, the 
 canons and the Fathers, we hold him alien and 
 condemned by reason of his blasphemies, and 
 we anathematize him." The domes of St. 
 Sophia rang with shouts of triumph and the 
 crowd dispersed. It was a day long remem- 
 bered in Constantinople. 
 
 The next day the promised commemoration 
 of Chalcedon took place. Again as the 
 patriarch made his processional entrance and 
 approached the pulpit clamours arose: " Re- 
 store the relics of Macedonius to the church ! 
 Restore those exiled for the faith ! Let the 
 bones of the Nestorians be dug up ! Let the 
 bones of the Eut^'chians be dug up ! Cast 
 out the Manichees ! Place the four councils 
 in the diptychs ! Place Leo, bp. of Rome, in 
 the diptychs ! Bring the diptychs to the 
 pulpit ! " This kind of cry continuing, the 
 patriarch replied, " Yesterday we did what 
 was enough to satisfy my dear people, and we 
 
 JOANNES II. 
 
 shall do the same to-day. We must take the 
 faith as our inviolable foundation; it will aid us 
 to reunite the churches. Let us then glorify 
 with one mouth the holy and consubstantial 
 Trinity." But the people went on crying 
 madly, " This instant, let none go out ! I 
 abjure you, shut the doors ! You no longer 
 fear Amantius the Manichee ! Justin reigns, 
 whyfearAmantius?" Sotheycontinued. The 
 patriarch tried in vain to bring them to reason. 
 It was the outburst of enthusiasm and excite- 
 ment long pent up under heterodox repression. 
 It bore all before it. The patriarch was at 
 last obliged to have inserted in the diptychs 
 the four councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, 
 Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the names of 
 Euphemius and Macedonius, patriarchs of 
 Constantinople, and Leo, bp. of Rome. Then 
 the multitude chanted for more than an hour, 
 " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He 
 hath visited and redeemed His people ! " 
 The choir assembled on the raised platform, 
 and, turning eastwards, sang the Trisagion, 
 the whole people listening in silence. When 
 the moment arrived for the recitation of the 
 names of the defunct bishops from the 
 diptychs, the multitude closed in silence about 
 the holy table; and when the deacon had read 
 the new insertions, a mightv shout arose, 
 " Glory be to Thee, O Lord ! " 
 
 To authenticate what had been done, John 
 assembled on July 20 a council of 40 bishops, 
 who happened to be at the capital. The four 
 general councils and the name of Leo, bp. of 
 Rome, were inscribed in the diptychs. Severus 
 of Antioch was anathematized after an ex- 
 amination of his works in which a distinct 
 condemnation of Chalcedon was discovered. 
 John wrote to John of Jerusalem and to 
 Epiphanius of Tyre, telling them the good 
 news of the acclamations and the synod. His 
 letters were accompanied by orders from 
 Justin to restore all who had been banished 
 by Anastasius, and to inscribe the council of 
 Chalcedon in the diptychs. At Jerusalem 
 and at Tyre there was great joy. Many other 
 churches declared for Chalcedon, and during 
 the reign of Justin 2,500 bishops gave their 
 adhesion and approval. Now came the re- 
 conciliation with Rome. The emperor Justin 
 wrote to the pope a fortnight after the scene 
 of the acclamations, begging him to further 
 the desires of the patriarch John for the 
 reunion of the churches. John wrote saying 
 that he received the four general councils, and 
 that the names of Leo and of Hormisdas him- 
 self had been put in the diptychs. A deputa- 
 tion was sent to Constantinople with instruc- 
 tions that Acacius was to be anathematized by 
 name, but that Euphemius and Macedonius 
 might be passed over in silence. 
 
 The deputies arrived at Constantinople on 
 Mar. 25, 519. Justin received the pope's 
 letters with great respect, and told the am- 
 bassadors to come to an explanation with the 
 patriarch, who at first wished to express his 
 adherence in the form of a letter, but agreed 
 to write a little preface and place after it the 
 words of Hormisdas, which he copied out in 
 his own handwriting. Two copies were sent 
 by the legates to Rome, one in Greek, the other 
 in Latin. Emperor, senate, and all present 
 were overjoyed at this ratification of peace. 
 
JOANNES III. 
 
 The sting of the transaction still remained ; 
 they had now to elTace from the diptychs the 
 names of five patriarchs and two emperors — 
 Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, Macedonius, 
 and Timotheus ; Zeno and Anastasius. All 
 the bishops at Constantinople pave their con- 
 sent in writing ; so did all the abbats, after 
 some had raised a difhrulty. On Easter Day 
 the pacification was proinvilgated. The court 
 and people, equally enthusiastic, surged into 
 St. Sophia. The vaults resounded with ac- 
 clamations in praise of God, the emperor, St. 
 Peter, and the bp. of Rome. Opponents, 
 who had prophesied sedition and tumult, were 
 signally disappointed. Never within memory 
 had so vast a number communicated. The 
 emperor sent an account of the proceedings 
 throughout the provinces and the ambassa- 
 dors forwarded their report to Rome, saying 
 that there only remained the negotiations with 
 Antioch. John wrote to Hormisdas to con- 
 gratulate him on the great work, and to offer 
 him the credit of its success. Soon after, 
 Jan. 19, 520, John died. 
 
 Baronius, ad ann. 518, x.-lxxvii. 520, vii. ; 
 Fleury, ii. 373 ; Acta SS. BoUand. 18 Aug. iii. 
 633;Theoph. Chronogr. § 140, Patr. Gk. cviii.; 
 Niceph. Callist. iii. 456, Patr. Gk. cxlvii.; Pho- 
 tius, iii. § 287 a, Patr. Gk. ciii. ; Avitus, Ep. vii. 
 Patr. Lat. lix. 227; Hormisdas, Epp., Patr. Lat. 
 Ixiii. p. 426, etc. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Joannes (125) III., surnamed Scholastjcus, 
 "The Lawyer," 32nd bp. of Constantinople 
 (.Apr. 12, 565-Aug. 31, 577), born at Sirimis, 
 in the region of Cynegia, near Antioch. There 
 was a flourishing college of lawyers at Antioch, 
 where he entered and did himself credit. 
 This was suppressed in 533 by Justinian. 
 John was ordained and became agent, and 
 secretary of his church. This would bring 
 him into touch with the court at Constanti- 
 nople. When Justinian, towards the close of 
 his life, tried to raise the sect of the .A.phthar- 
 todocetae to the rank of orthodoxy, and deter- 
 mined to expel the blameless Eutychius for 
 his opposition, the able lawyer-ecclesiastic of 
 Antioch, who had already distinguished him- 
 self by his great edition of the canons, was 
 chosen to carry out the imperial will. 
 
 Little is known of his episcopal career. 
 Seven months after his appointment Justinian 
 died. The new emperor, Justin II., was 
 crowned by the patriarch, Nov. 14, 565. 
 John himself died shortly before Justin. 
 
 One of the most useful works of that period 
 was the Digest of Canon Law formed by John 
 at Antioch. Following some older work 
 which he mentions in his preface, he aban- 
 doned the historical plan of giving the decrees 
 of each council in order and arranged them on 
 a philosophical principle, according to their 
 matter. The older writers had sixty heads. 
 He reduced them to fifty. To the canons of 
 the councils of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, 
 (iangra, Antioch, Ephesus, and Constanti- 
 nople, already collected and received in the 
 (ireek church, John added 89 " Apostolical 
 Canons," the 21 of Sardica, and the 68 of the 
 canonical letter of Basil. Writing to Photius, 
 pope Nicholas I. cites a harmony of the canons 
 which includes those of Sardica, which ci>uld 
 only be that of John the Lawyer. When John 
 came to Constantinople, he edited the Aumo- 
 
 JOANNES IV. 5^9 
 
 ca>wn, an abriilgment of his former work, with 
 the addition of a cmip.irison of the imperial 
 rescripts and civil laws (especially the Novels 
 of Justinian) under each head! Halsamon 
 cites this without naming the author, in his 
 notes on the first canon of the Trullan council 
 of Constantinople. In a MS. of the Paris 
 library the Nomocanon is attributed to Thei.- 
 doret, but in all others to John. Theodoret 
 would not have inserted the " apostolical 
 canons " and those of Sardica, and the style 
 has no resemblance to his. In i6(ii these 
 two works were printed at the beginning of 
 vol. ii. of the Bibliotheca Catumica of J ustel- 
 lus, at Paris. Photius (Cud. Ixxv.) mentions 
 his catechism, in which he established the 
 Catholicteachingof the consubstantial Trinity, 
 saying that he wrote it in 568, under J ustin 1 1., 
 and that it was afterwards attacked by the 
 impious Philoponus. Fabricius considers that 
 the Digest or Harmony and the Nomocanon 
 are probably rightly assigned to John the 
 Lawyer. Fabricius, xi. loi, xii. 146, 193, 
 201, 209 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 38, v. 13, Patr. Gk. 
 Ixxxvi. pt.2; Theoph. Chronogr. 204, etc., Patr. 
 Gk. cviii. ; Niceph. Callist. iii. 455, Patr. Gk. 
 cxlvii. ; Victor Tunun. Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 937 ; 
 Baronius, ad. ann. 564, xiv. xxix. ; "iOs, xvii. ; 
 57S, 5 ; Patr. Conslatit. in Ada SS. Bolland. 
 .\ug. i. p.* 67. [w.M.s.] 
 
 Joannes (126> IV. (surnamed The Easter, 
 Jejunator, sometimes also Cappadox, and 
 thus liable to be confused with the patriarch 
 John II.), 33rd bp. of Constantinople, from 
 Apr. II, 582 to Sept. 2, 595. He was born at 
 Constantinople of artisan parents, and was 
 a sculptor. In 587 or 588 he summoned 
 the bishops of the East in the name of " the 
 Oecumenical Patriarch " to decide the cause 
 of Gregory, archbp. of Antioch, who was ac- 
 quitted and returned to his see. Pelagius II., 
 bp. of Rome, solemnly annulled the acts of 
 this council. In 593 we find John severely 
 blamed by pope Gregory for having allowed an 
 Isaurian presbyter named Anastasius, accused 
 of heresy, to be beaten with ropes in the church 
 of Constantinople. 
 
 In 595 the controversy was again rife about 
 the title of universal bishop. Gregory the 
 Great wrote to his legate Sabinianus forbidding 
 him to communicate with John. In the case 
 of a presbyter named -Athanasius, accused of 
 being to some extent a Manichee, and con- 
 demned as such, tiregory shews that the 
 accuser was himself a Pelagian, and that by 
 the carelessness, ignorance, or fault of John 
 the Faster the Nestorian council of Ephesus 
 had actually been mistaken for the Catholic, 
 so that heretics would be taken for orthodox, 
 and orthodox condemned as heretics ! 
 
 His Writings. — Isidore of Seville [de Script. 
 Eccl. 26) attributes to him only a letter, not 
 now extant, on baptism addressed to St. 
 Leander. John, he says, " i)ropounds nothing 
 of his own, but only repeats the opinions of 
 the ancient Fathers on trine immersion." 
 
 But there are extant four works attributed 
 to John the Faster. (i) His Penitential, 
 Libellus Poenitentialis, or, as it is described 
 in bk. iii. of the work of Leo Allatius, de 
 Consensu Utriusque Ecclesiae (Rome, 1635, 
 4to), Praxis Graecis Praescrtpta in ( on/esswne 
 Peragenda. The Greeks of the middle ages 
 
560 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 always attributed this and (2) to John the 
 Faster. 
 
 (2) Instrudio, qua non niodo confitens de con- 
 fessions pie et integre edenda instituitur, sed 
 etiam sacerdos, qua ratione confessiones excipiai, 
 poenitentiam imponat et reconciliationem 
 praestet informatur. 
 
 (3) Homily on Penitence, Continence, and 
 Virginity. Often printed among Chrysostom's 
 homilies, but now agreed not to be Chrysos- 
 tom's. Montfaucon, Vossius, and Pearson 
 held it to be by John the Faster ; Morel and 
 Savile printed it among Chrysostom's works. 
 
 (4) Homily on False Prophets and False 
 Doctrine. Attributed occasionally to Chrysos- 
 tom, by Peter Wastel to John of Jerusalem, 
 but by Vossius, Petavius, and Cave to John 
 the Faster. 
 
 (5) A set of Precepts to a Monk, in a MS. at 
 the Paris library. 
 
 Migne reproduces the Penitential, the In- 
 structions for Confession, and the Homily on 
 Penitence in Patr. Gk. Ixxxviii. 1089. See 
 also Baronius, ad. ann. 588-593 ; A A. SS. 
 Bolland. Aug. i, p. 69 ; Fleury, ii. bk. xxxiv. 
 0. 44, etc. ; Ceillier, xi. 427, etc. ; Fabricius, 
 Bibl. Grace, xi. 108, xii. 239. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Joannes (160) (called of Asia and of 
 Ephesus), Monophysite bp. of Ephesus, born 
 c. 516, and living in 585, a SjTiac writer whose 
 chief work was his History of the Church, in 
 the extant portion of which he describes him- 
 self once as " John, who is called superin- 
 tendent of the heathen and Breaker of Idols " 
 (ii. 4), and twice as " John who is over the 
 heathen, who was bp. of Ephesus " (ii. 41 ; 
 iii. 15). Elsewhere he styles himself, " John 
 bp. of Ephesus" (iv. 45), or simply, "John 
 of Ephesus" (v. 1); and, lastly, "John of 
 Asia, that is, John of Ephesus " (v. 7). Hence 
 John of Ephesus is clearly the historian so 
 often mentioned by Syriac writers as John 
 bp. of Asia, " Asia" meaning the district of 
 which Ephesus was the capital. 
 
 Dr. Land (Johann von Ephesus der erste 
 syrische Kirchenhistoriker) discusses his identi- 
 fication with one or other of his numerous 
 namesakes who wrote during the same 
 period ; and has pronounced in the negative. 
 
 What we know of the personal history of 
 John of Ephesus is gathered from the meagre 
 extracts from pt. ii. of his great work, pre- 
 served in the Chronicon of Dionysius ; and 
 from the extant pt. iii., which is to some 
 extent an autobiography. Dionysius [ap. 
 Assemani, Bibl. Or. 83-90) tells us that John's 
 birthplace was Amid in N. Mesopotamia. He 
 stood high in the confidence of the emperor 
 Justinian, by whom he was commissioned in 
 542 as " Teacher of the heathen " in the four 
 provinces of Asia, Caria, Phrygia, and Lydia. 
 His success was such that in four years 70,000 
 persons adopted Christianity. In the third 
 part of his history (ii. 44) John mentions that 
 Deuteriuswas 35 years his fellow-labourer, and 
 his successor in Caria. Together they had 
 built 99 churches and 12 monasteries. John 
 tells (iii. 36-37) how the work began among 
 the mountains round Tralles. His chief 
 monastery, Darira, rose upon the site of a 
 famous temple which he had demolished. 
 
 In 546 he was entrusted with an inquiry 
 into the secret practice of pagan rites by pro- 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 fessing Christians. Members of all ranks were 
 inculpated : Phocas, prefect of the capital, 
 being informed against, poisoned himself. 
 John was appointed to instruct the accused 
 in Christian doctrine ; and an imperial edict 
 prescribed conversion within three months ! 
 Theophanes tells us that heathens and heretics 
 were to be excluded from public office. 
 
 From pt. iii. of John's history we learn that 
 in the 2nd year of Tiberius (a.d. 579), upon 
 the rumour of a heathen plot to destroy the 
 Christians of Baalbec, the emperor ordered 
 an officer named Theophilus to suppress 
 paganism in the East. Torture, crucifixion, 
 the sword, wild beasts, were among the means 
 employed. Numbers were accused ; the 
 prisons teemed with victims of every rank ; 
 and a permanent inquisition was established 
 for their trial. 
 
 As bp. of Ephesus or " Asia," John appears 
 to have supervised all the Monophysite con- 
 gregations of Asia Minor. His 30 years of 
 influence at the court of Justinian and his 
 high personal qualities gave him very con- 
 siderable authority among his own party- He 
 tells us (v. i) that in the reign of Justin II. 
 he " was dwelling in the royal city and con- 
 trolling all the revenues of all the congrega- 
 tions of the Faithful there and in every place." 
 In a chapter written a.d. 581 he mentions his 
 old intimacy with Tiberius at the court of 
 Justin : "He and I were often together, and 
 stood with the other courtiers before the 
 serene Justin" (iii. 22). 
 
 John suffered grievously in the persecution 
 instigated first by John Scholasticus, whom he 
 calls John of Sirmin, and afterwards by Euty- 
 chius. Together with Paul of Aphrodisias 
 (subsequently patriarch of Antioch), Stephen, 
 bp. of Cyprus, and the bp. Elisha, John of 
 Ephesus was imprisoned in the patriarch's 
 palace. In the heated debates which followed, 
 the four Monophysite bishops stoutly charged 
 John of Sirmin with breach of the canons in 
 annulling the orders of their clergy, and, when 
 the patriarch demanded of them " a union 
 such as that between Cyril of Alexandria and 
 John of Antioch," declared their willingness 
 provided they might drive out the council of 
 Chalcedon from the church, as Cyril had 
 driven out Nestorius. The vacillating em- 
 peror, of whom John testifies that for six 
 years he had been friendly to the " orthodox," 
 attempted to secure peace by drawing up a 
 dogmatic formula, in the shape of an imperial 
 edict, which he sent to the four captive bishops 
 for revision. Their changes were admitted, 
 but the " Nestorians and semi-Nestorians " of 
 the court— so John puts it — scared the timid 
 emperor into further alterations, of which the 
 chief was an inserted clause, " that the cus- 
 toms of the church were to be maintained," 
 which meant that the obnoxious council was 
 still to be proclaimed from the diptychs. 
 Weary of the dispute, and probably not under- 
 standing its grounds, Justin now signed the 
 document, and required the subscription of 
 John of Ephesus and his companions. They 
 declined, and 33 days passed in constant 
 wrangling between them and the patriarch. 
 Meanwhile they were kept under close guard ; 
 the patriarch's creatures stripped them of 
 everything ; friends were denied admittance 
 
JOANNES 
 
 to their prison ; and their personal followers 
 were also confined in the dungeons of the 
 palace. The misery of the four bishops was 
 aggravated by the reproaches of the leading 
 Alonophysite laymen, who supposed that their 
 obstinacy alone hindered a compromise which 
 would stop the persecution. The cunning 
 patriarch was careful to encourage this belief. 
 At last his victims gave way, the patriarch 
 promising upon oath that the council of 
 Chalcedon should be sacrificed. The four 
 bishops twice communicated with him ; but 
 when they reminded him of his promise, he 
 referred them to the ]iope ; he could not, for 
 their sakes, risk a schism from Rome. Our 
 historian touchingly describes the sorrow of 
 himself and his companions over this fraud ; 
 even their opponents pitied them, until they 
 once more faced them with galling taunts, 
 which led to a second imprisonment (i. 17-23). 
 The emperor made further fruitless attempts 
 at conciliation. The upshot of a discussion 
 before the senate was that the four bishops 
 boldly uttered their anathema " upon the 
 whole heresy of the two natures," and re- 
 nounced communion with their deceivers for 
 ever. Thereupon they were sentenced to 
 " banishment." The sentence was at once 
 carried out. They never saw each other again. 
 John of Ephesus was confined in the hospital 
 of Eubulus at Constantinople. Though help- 
 less from gout and exposed to swarms ol 
 vermin, he was denied all assistance. As he 
 lay in his filthy prison, it seemed to him that 
 his feverish thirst was slaked and his misery 
 comforted by a heavenly visitant, whose 
 coming he describes with much pathos and 
 simplicity. After a year he was removed to 
 an island, where he remained 18 months, 
 when the Caesar Tiberius ordered his release. 
 For three years, however, he was under sur- 
 veillance, until the patriarch died (a.d. 578). 
 Before the outbreak of this persecution, John 
 of Ephesus and Paul of Aphrodisias had 
 argued publicly with Conon and Eugenius, the 
 founders of the Cononites, nicknamed Tri- 
 theites, in the presence of the patriarch and 
 his synod, by command of Justin (v. 3). 
 Conon had vainly tried to win the support of 
 John, who proved to him that he was a 
 heretic and afterwards wrote him a letter ot 
 warning (v. 1-12). Eutychius, who, upon the 
 death of John of Sirmin, was restored to the 
 patriarchal throne, was hardly more tolerant 
 of Monophysites than its late occupant. Per- 
 secution was renewed, and John of Ephesus 
 again met with disgraceful injustice. By 
 another imprisonment Eutychius wrung from 
 him the resignation of a properly which 
 Callinicus, a chief officer of the court, had 
 bestowed, and which John had largely im- 
 proved and converted into a monastery. 
 After being further deprived of his right of 
 receiving five loaves at the public distribu- 
 tions, for which he had paid 300 darics, John 
 was released. 
 
 Tiberius, Justin's successor, though imwill- 
 ing to persecute, was overcome by popular 
 clamour. The mob of the capital groundlcssly 
 suspected their new emperor of Arian leanings 
 (iii. 13, 26). An edict was therefore published 
 ordering the arrest of .\rians, .Manirheans, etc. 
 Under cover of this, the " orthodox " were 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 finl 
 
 once more harried and plundered. The first 
 victim was John of ICphcsus (iii. is), who had 
 now lived manv vears and suffered much in 
 Constantinople. He and his friends were 
 incarcerated at Christmas in a miserable 
 prison called the Cancrllum (a.d. 578 ?) ; an<l 
 after much fruitless argument were finally 
 ordered to leave the city. 
 
 It is greatly to our historian's credit that. 
 during the bitter strife which raged long 
 among the Monophysites themselves, in the 
 matter of the double election of Thecnlore and 
 Peter to succeed Theodosius as their patriarch 
 of Alexandria, he maintained an honourable 
 neutrality, standing equally aloof from I'aul- 
 ites ancl Jacobites, although his sympathies 
 were with Theodore, the injured patri.iri h 
 (iv. Q-.t«). John wrote his account of this 
 pernicious quarrel in 583, the 2nd year of 
 Maurice ; for he says that it had already 
 lasted 8 years (iv. ii), and that he is 
 writing an outline of events from the year of 
 Alexander 886 (a.d. 573) onwards (iv. 13). 
 In his anxiety to heal the schism, John sent 
 10 epistles to " the blessed Jacob" [Jacoius 
 Baradaeus], protesting his own neutrality, 
 and urging reconciliation between the two 
 factions (iv. 46); and after Jacob's death 
 (a.d. 581) his party made overtures to John of 
 Ephesus, then living at the capital, to induce 
 him to recognize Peter of Callmicus as patri- 
 arch of Antioch in i)lace of Paul (iv. 45). In 
 reply the historian rebuked them for violating 
 the canons. John accuses both sides of an 
 utter want of mutual charity, and an entire 
 aversion to calm examination of the grounds 
 of their quarrel. He adds that he has briefly 
 recorded the main facts from the outset to 
 the current year, 896 (a.d. 585) — the latest 
 date observable in his work. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical History. — John states (pt. 
 iii. bk. i. c. 3) that he has already written 
 a history of the church, " beginning from the 
 times of Julius Caesar, as far as to the sixth 
 year of the reign of Justin II., son of the sister 
 of Justinian." If, as Dr. Payne Smith 
 assumes, pt. i. was a mere abridgment of 
 Euscbius, its loss is not a great one. The 
 disappearance of pt. ii. is more unfortunate, 
 as it would probably have furnished much 
 important matter for the reign of Justinian. 
 It brought the history down to 571. Pt. iii. 
 continues it to c. 583, thus covering the period 
 between the 6th year of Justin II. and the 4th 
 of Maurice. It was called forth by the per- 
 secution above mentioned, which broke out 
 in the 6th or 7th year of Justin, and the writer 
 often apologizes for want of chronological 
 order, occasional repetitions, and even 
 inconsistencies of statement (see csp. i. 3 ; ii. 
 50), as defects due to the stress of untoward 
 circumstances: "This should be known t(» 
 critics : many of these stories were penned in 
 time of persecution . . . j)eoi>le conveyed away 
 the pajiers inscribed with these < hapters, and 
 the other papers and writings, into divers 
 places, and in some instances they remained 
 hidden so long as two or three years in one 
 place or another" (ii. 50). John had no 
 memoranda of what he ha(l already written, 
 and never found opportunity for revisif>n. 
 With these drawbacks, the work possesses 
 special interest as an original account. John 
 3ii 
 
562 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 was contemporary with most of the characters 
 described ; he writes of what he himself saw 
 and heard and of doings in which he was 
 personally concerned. For 30 years he was 
 a trusted servant of Justinian; and Gibbon 
 would probably have recognized in the second 
 part of his history a valuable gauge of the 
 servility and the malice of Procopius. Had 
 Gibbon possessed the third part of John's 
 work, he would hardly have surmised that 
 " the sentiments of Justin II. were pure and 
 benevolent," or believed that the four last 
 years of that emperor " were passed in tranquil 
 obscurity" (cf. iii. 1-6) ; had he read what 
 John has to say of the worthless stepson of 
 Belisarius he might have rated " the gallant 
 Photius " less highly ; and he would have 
 learned that it was the thoughtless improvid- 
 ence of Tiberius which forced the unhappy 
 Maurice to appear a grasping niggard (ct. iii. 
 11; v. 20). As regards chronology, Assemani, 
 who did not love a Monophysite, accuses John 
 of inaccuracy, asserting that he used a pecu- 
 liar Greek era, making almost all Justinian's 
 acts and his death ten years later than the 
 dates assigned by Evagrius, Theophanes, and 
 Cedrenus. But in pt. iii. (v. 13) John gives 
 the usual date for Justinian's death— Nov. 14, 
 876 [565]. Of Theophanes Gibbon has said 
 that he is " full of strange blunders " and " his 
 chronology is loose and inaccurate " ; his 
 verdict in regard to John of Ephesus would 
 have been very different. 
 
 His attitude to the great controversy of his 
 day is that of one thoroughly convinced that 
 his own party holds exclusive possession of 
 the truth. The Mouophysites are " the 
 orthodox," " the faithful" ; their opponents 
 " Synodites," " Nestorians," or at least " half- 
 Nestorians " ; the synod of Chalcedon is " the 
 stumbling-block and source of confusion of the 
 whole church " ; " it sunders Christ our God 
 into two natures after the Union, and teaches 
 a Quaternity instead of the holy Trinity " (i. 
 10, 18) ; the four bishops taunt the patriarch 
 with " the heresy of the two natures, and the 
 blasphemies of the synod, and of the tome of 
 Leo" (1. 18). Yet John does not labour to 
 blacken the memory of his adversaries ; the 
 strong terms in which he speaks of the pride 
 of power and savage tyranny of John Scho- 
 lasticus are warranted or at least excused by 
 facts (1. 5, 12, 37) ; and Baronius denounces 
 John of Sirmin in language equally decided 
 (H. E. ad ann. 564). In regard to Eutvchius, 
 John protests his adherence to truth :' " Al- 
 though we declare ourselves opposed to the 
 excellent patriarch Eutychius, yet from the 
 truth we have not swerved in one thing out 
 of a hundred ; nor was it from eagerness to 
 revile and ridicule that we committed these 
 things to writing " (iii. 22). His impartiality 
 IS manifest in his description of the great 
 schism which rent asunder his own com- 
 munion ; unsparing in his censure of both 
 factions, he refers their wicked and worse 
 than heathenish rancour to the instigation of 
 devils (IV. 19, 22, 39). Credulous John was, 
 but credulity was a common attribute of his 
 age. More serious objection might be 
 taken to his approval of the cruelties connected 
 with the suppression of heathenism (iii. 34) 
 and his intolerance of " heresy " other than 
 
 JOANNES II. 
 
 his own. In 550 he dug up and burnt the 
 bones of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, 
 the false prophets of Montanism (Extr. ap. 
 Dionys.). Herein also he shared the temper 
 of his contemporaries. The spirit of persecu- 
 tion is not the peculiar mark of any age, 
 church, or sect. Apart from these blemishes 
 we may recognize in him an historian who sin- 
 cerely loved truth ; a bishop who was upright 
 and devoted ; and a man whose piety rested 
 upon a thorough knowledge of Scripture. 
 
 His style, like that of most Syriac writers, is 
 verbose and somewhat unwieldy, but has the 
 eloquence of simple truth and homely pathos. 
 
 The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of 
 John of Ephesus was first edited from the 
 unique MS. in the Brit. Mus. by Dr. Cureton 
 (Oxf. 1853) — a splendid reproduction of the 
 original — and translated into English by Dr. 
 Payne Smith (Oxf. i860) and into German by 
 Schonfelder (Miinchen, 1862). These ver- 
 sions are of great assistance, many chapters 
 being defective in the original. [c.j.b.] 
 
 Joannes (216) II., bp. of Jerusalem, 386-417, 
 in succession to Cyril ; a prelate known to 
 us chiefly through the invectives of Jerome, 
 and hence particularly difficult to estimate. 
 Imbued with that tendency of Eastern church 
 teachers which formed their chief difference 
 from those of the Western church, he with 
 difficulty brought himself to acquiesce in the 
 condemnation of Origenism or to take any 
 steps against Pelagius, with whom he was 
 brought in contact at the close of his epis- 
 copacy, and the presence of Jerome and other 
 immigrants from Italy, and the anti-Origen- 
 istic vehemence of Epiphanius of Salamis and 
 Theophilus of Alexandria, made it impossible 
 for him to escape the reproach of laxity and 
 even at times of heresy. 
 
 Born between 350 and 356 (Hieron. Ep. 
 Ixxxii. 8, ed. Vail.), he passed as a young man 
 some time among the monks of Nitria in 
 Egypt. There he, no doubt, imbibed his 
 affection for Origen's teaching, and probably 
 became acquainted with two persons who had 
 much to do with his own subsequent history 
 and with that of the Origenistic controversy — 
 the monk Isidore (one of the Long Monks) 
 and Rufinus. During the troublous times 
 before the accession of Theodosius, when 
 Arianism was in the ascendant, he declined, 
 teste Jerome (cont. Joan. Jents. 4), to commu- 
 nicate with the orthodox bishops exiled by 
 Valens. But no imputation of Arianism rests 
 upon him. He was evidently esteemed very 
 highly, and of great eloquence (ib. 41) and 
 subtlety of mind. His flatterers compared him 
 with Chrysippus, Plato, andDemosthenes (z6. 4) . 
 He was little more than 30 years old (Hieron. 
 Ep. Ixxxii. 8, ed. Vail.) when chosen to succeed 
 Cyril as bp. of Jerusalem. It was a see of 
 great importance, subject in certain respects 
 to the metropolitan at Caesarea, but acting 
 at times independently ; of great wealth 
 {cont. Joan. Jertis. 14), and of great interest 
 for its holy places, which were visited by 
 pilgrims from all parts. It had also a special 
 interest from the settlements of distinguished 
 persons from the West, which made it during 
 his episcopate a focus of Christian and literary 
 activity, and with two of which, that of 
 Rufinus and Melania on the Mount of Olives, 
 
JOANNES II. 
 
 and of Jerome and Paula at Bethlehem, he 
 was destined to have close but similar rela- 
 tions. Jerome accuses him of making a gain 
 of his bishopric and living in luxury (Comm. 
 in Joann.c. 14, and £/>. Ivii. 12) ; but this may 
 be only the common aninms of monk against 
 bishop, embittered by momentary resentment. 
 The clergy of Jerusalem were certainly at- 
 tached to him. Rufinus thought it a suflicient 
 defence of his own faith to say that it was that 
 preached at Jerusalem by the holy bp. John 
 (Ruf. Apol. i. 13). But the most' important 
 testimony is given by the pope Anastasius, in 
 a letter to him in 401, a time when the adver- 
 saries of John, Pammachius, and Marcella had 
 access to the pope, and only two or three years 
 after Jerome's Philippic was composed. 
 Anastasius speaks of the splendour of his 
 holiness and his divine virtues ; his eminenc e 
 and his praise are so conspicuous that he can- 
 not find words equal to his merits. He 
 accounts it an honour to have received praise 
 from one of so serene and heavenly a dis- 
 position, the splendour of whose episcopate 
 shines throughout the world (see Vallarsi's 
 Rufinus, pp. 408, 409 ; Migne's Pair. Lot. xxi.). 
 When John became bishop, Rufinus had 
 already been settled on the Mount of Olives 
 some nine years, and Jerome and his friends 
 were just entering on their work at Bethlehem. 
 At first he lived in impartial friendship with 
 them both, seeking out Jerome especially 
 (" nos suo arbitrio diligebat," Hieron. Ep. 
 Ixxxii. II, ed. Vail.), and making use of 
 Rufinus, whom he ordained, as a learned man, 
 in business which required his special talents. 
 After some six years their peace was disturbed. 
 A certain Aterbius (Hieron. cout. Ruf. iii. 33), 
 who by his officious insinuations and imputa- 
 tions of Origenistic heresy caused the first 
 breach between Jerome and Rufinus, had, no 
 doubt, some dealings with the bishop also ; 
 and, probably through him, the suspicions of 
 Epiphanius, the venerable bp. of Salamis, were 
 aroused. When Epiphanius came to Jeru- 
 salem in 394, the strife broke out. For the 
 controversy see Epiphanius (1) and Hierony- 
 Mus (2). During the dispute between Jerome 
 and Rufinus, John in no way intervened. 
 Zockler (Hieron. p. 249) thinks him to have 
 inclined rather to the side of Jerome. We 
 certainly find Jerome, in a letter to Theo- 
 philus, in commendation of his encyclical 
 (Ep. Ixxxvi., ed. Vail.), jileading for his bishop. 
 John had accepted a person under the ban of 
 Theophilus who had come from Jerusalem to 
 Alexandria, and thus had incurred the wrath 
 of that fierce prelate ; but Jerome repre- 
 sented that Theophilus had sent no letters 
 condemnati >ry of this person, and that it would 
 be rash to condemn John for a supposed fault 
 committed in ignorance. As regards Rufinus, 
 J ohn wrotea letter topope Anastasius, the ten< )r 
 of which can be only dimly inferred fr(jm the 
 pope's extant reply. ' John was apparently less 
 anxious todefendkufinusthantosecurehisown 
 freedom from implication in the charges made 
 against Rufinus by Jerome's friends at Rome. 
 The pope, with fulsomeexpressiunsof esteem for 
 John, bids him put such fears away and judge 
 Rufinus for himself. He professes to know 
 nothing about Origen, not even who he was, 
 while yet he has condemned his opinions ; and 
 
 JOANNES II. 
 
 '.(13 
 
 as to Rufinus, he only says that, if his trans- 
 lation of the works of Origen implies an accept- 
 ance of his opinions (a matter which ho leaves 
 to his own conscience), he nmst see where he 
 can iirocure absolution. That John was not 
 then in familiar conmiunication with Kuiirius, 
 but was with Jerome, may be inferred from 
 the fact that Jerome used this letter in his 
 controversy with Rufinus (cont. Ruf. ii. 14), 
 while Rufinus did not know of its existence, 
 and, when he heard of it, treated it as an 
 invention of Jerome (ib. iii. 20). The recon- 
 ciliation of John with the m.mks of Uethlihem 
 is further attested by Sulpicius Severus (Dtal. 
 i. 8), who had stayed six months at Bethlehem, 
 and says that John had entrusted to Jerome 
 and his brt>ther the charge of the parish of 
 Bethlehent. A letter from Chrysostoni to 
 John in 404 (Migne's Pair. Gk. vol! Iii.) shews 
 that he had taken Chrysostom's part ; then we 
 hear nothing more of John for 12 or 13 years, 
 when the Pelagian controversy brings him 
 forward once more. Pelagius and Coelestius, 
 having come in 415 to Jerusalem, were en- 
 countered by Orosius, the friend of Augustine, 
 who had come to visit Jerome, and afterwards 
 by the Gaulish bishops Heros and Lazarus. 
 Orosius, who recounts these transactions in the 
 first nine chaps, of his Liber de Arbitrii Ltber- 
 tate, addressed himself to John, as did also 
 I\'lagius ; but John was not willing to accept 
 without inquiry the decrees of the council of 
 Carthage and resented their being pressed 
 upon him by Orosius. The two parties were 
 in secret conflict for some time, till Jtjhn 
 determined on holding a synod to end the 
 strife, on July 28, 415. John was the only 
 bishop present ; the rest were presbyters and 
 laymen. He shewed some consideration 
 towards Pelagius, allowing him, though a 
 layman, to sit among the presbyters ; and 
 when there was a clamour against Pelagius 
 for shewing disresi)ect for the name and 
 authority of Augustine, John, by saying, " I 
 am Augustine," undertook both to ensure 
 respect to that great teacher and not to allow 
 his authority to be pressed too far against his 
 antagonist. " H," cried Orosius, " you repre- 
 sent .Augustine, follow Augustine's judgment." 
 John thereupon asked him if he was ready to 
 become the accuser of Pelagius; but Orosius 
 declined this duty, saying that Pelagius had 
 been condemned by the African bishops, wh(»se 
 decisions John ought to accept. The pro- 
 ceedings were somewhat confused from the 
 necessity of employing an interpreter. Final- 
 ly, it was determined to send a letter to pope 
 Innocentius and to abide by his judgment. 
 Meanwhile, John imposed silence upon both 
 parties. This satisfied neither. The opinions 
 of Pelagius continued to be spread by private 
 intercourse, and Augustine wrote to remon- 
 strate with John against the toleration of 
 heresy. On the arrival of the (laulish bishops 
 Heros and Lazarus, another synod was held 
 at Diospolis (416) under the presidency of 
 Euzoius, the metropolitan bp. of Caesarea, in 
 which John again took part. Augustine, in 
 his work against Julianus, records tjie decision 
 of this council, which was favourable to 
 Pelagius, but considers his acquittal due to 
 uncertainties occasioned by difference of 
 language, which enabled Pelagius to express 
 
564 
 
 JOANNES in. 
 
 himself in seemingly orthodox words ; and 
 both in this work and in his letter to John he 
 treats John as a brother-bishop whom he 
 holds in high esteem. Meanwhile, the more 
 intemperate partisans of Pelagius resorted 
 to open violence. The dialogue of Jerome 
 against the Pelagians, though mild compared 
 with his other controversial works, incensed 
 them, and they proceeded to burn the monas- 
 teries of Bethlehem. The attitude of John 
 at this time cannot be gathered with any 
 certainty. That he was in any way an 
 accomplice in such proceedings is incredible. 
 Nothing of the sort appears from the letters of 
 Jerome, though he speaks in a resigned 
 manner of his losses. Complaints, however, 
 of the ill-treatment of Jerome and the Roman 
 ladies at Bethlehem reached pope Innocent, who 
 wrote to John a letter (Hieron. Ep. cxxxvii., 
 ed. Vail.) of sharp rebuke. He does not imply 
 that John had been accessory to the violence ; 
 but, considering that a bishop ought to be 
 able to prevent such acts or at least relieve 
 their consequences, he bids him take care that 
 no further violence is done, on pain of the 
 laws of the church being put in force against 
 him. The view here taken of these transac- 
 tions, which is that of Zockler (Hieron. pp. 
 310-316), is opposed by Thierry (St. Jerome, 
 bk. xii. c. iii.), who looks upon John as a 
 partisan of Pelagius and as the enemy of 
 Jerome to the end. John was now at the 
 close of his career. Possibly the letter of 
 Innocentius never reached him, for it can 
 hardly have been written, as Vallarsi shews 
 (pref. to Hieron. sub. litt. cxxxv.-cxxxviii.), 
 before 417, and John died (see Ceillier, vii. 497, 
 etc.) on Jan. 10 in that year. After a troubled 
 episcopate of 30 years and a life of from 60 to 
 65 years, failing health may have prevented 
 his exercising full control in this last and most 
 painful episode of his career. 
 
 Several works are attributed to him (see 
 Ceillier, vii. 97, etc.). Gennadius (30) men- 
 tions one which he wrote in his own defence ; 
 but no work of his is extant. He must, 
 therefore, always be viewed through the 
 medium of other, mostly hostile, writers, and 
 through the mists of controversv. [w.h.f.] 
 
 Joannes (217) III., bp. of Jerusalem, 513- 
 524. On the banishment of Elias, bp. of 
 Jerusalem, by the emperor Anastasius, John, 
 deacon of the Anastasis, was forcibly thrust 
 into his episcopal seat by Olympius, prefect 
 of Palestine, on his engaging to receive Severus 
 of Antioch into communion and to anathema- 
 tize the decrees of Chalcedon (Cyrill. Scythop. 
 Vit. S. Sab. cc. 37, 56). Such an engagement 
 awoke the orthodox zeal of St. Sabas and the 
 other fathers of the desert, who successfully 
 used their influence with the new-made bishop 
 to prevent the fulfilment of the compact, 
 which Olympius lacked sufficient firmness to 
 enforce. Anastasius, recalling Olympius, dis- 
 patched in his room a name-sake of his own, 
 who had offered to forfeit 300 pounds of gold 
 if he failed to induce John to fulfil his agree- 
 ment, A.D. 517. The prefect Anastasius sur- 
 prised the unsuspicious bishop and threw him 
 into prison until he should fulfil his promise. 
 This step delighted the populace, who re- 
 garded John as having obtained Elias's seat 
 by fraud. Zacharias, one of the leading men 
 
 JOANNES 1. 
 
 of Caesarea, gaining a secret interview with 
 the imprisoned bishop, persuaded him to 
 feign assent to Anastasius's requirements and 
 promise, if he would release him from prison, 
 to publicly signify, on the following Sunday, 
 his agreement to the original conditions. 
 .Anastasius, believing John's professions, 
 liberated him. On the Sunday a vast con- 
 course assembled, including 10,000 monks. 
 Anastasius was present with his officials to 
 receive the expected submission. John, 
 having ascended the ambo, supported by 
 Theodosius and Sabas, the leaders of the 
 monastic party, was received with vociferous 
 shouts, " Anathematize the heretics ! " " Con- 
 firm the synod ! " When silence was secured, 
 John and his two companions pronounced a 
 joint anathema on Nestorius, Eutyches, 
 Soterichus of the Cappadocian Caesarea, and 
 all who rejected the decrees of Chalcedon. 
 Anastasius, utterly unprepared for this open 
 violation of the compact, was too much 
 terrified by the turbulent multitude, evidently 
 prepared for violence, and hastily escaped to 
 Caesarea. The emperor, though furious, had 
 too much on his hands to attend to ecclesias- 
 tical disputes at Jerusalem, and John was 
 allowed to go unpunished. The death of 
 Anastasius in 518, and the succession of 
 Justin, changed the whole situation. 
 Orthodoxy was now in the ascendant. The 
 whole East followed the example of the 
 capital, and John could, without fear of con- 
 sequences, summon his synod to make the 
 same profession of faith with his brother- 
 patriarch in the imperial city, and was 
 received into communion by pope Hormisdas, 
 at the request of Justin (ib. c. 60). John died 
 A.D. 524, after an episcopate of 11 years. 
 Theophan. Chronogr. p. 136 ; Tillem. Mem.eccl. 
 xvi. 721 ; Fleury, H. E. livre xxi. cc. 27, 28 ; 
 Le Quien, Or. Christ, iii. 185. [e-v.] 
 
 Joannes (346) I., bp. of Rome after 
 Hormisdas, Aug. 13, 523, to May 18, 526. 
 The emperor Justin, having during the 
 pontificate of Hormisdas restored the churches 
 in the East to orthodoxy and communion 
 with Rome, continued to shew his orthodox 
 zeal by the persecution of heretics. Having 
 already suppressed the Eutychians and 
 Nestorians, he issued in 523 a severe edict 
 against Manicheans, condemning them, where- 
 ever found, to banishment or death (Cod. 
 Justin, leg. 12). Justin's edict had debarred 
 other heretics from public offices, but had 
 excepted the Arian Goths because of his 
 league with Theodoric, the Gothic king of 
 Italy. Soon afterwards, however, he pro- 
 ceeded against the Arians also, ordering all 
 their churches to be consecrated anew for the 
 use of the Catholics. Theodoric, who, though 
 an Arian, had hitherto granted toleration to 
 Catholics in his own dominions, remonstrated 
 with the emperor by letter, but without effect. 
 He therefore applied to the bp. of Rome, 
 whom he sent for to Ravenna, desiring him to 
 go to Constantinople to use his influence with 
 the emperor, and threatening that, unless 
 toleration were conceded to Arians in the 
 East, he would himself withhold it from 
 Catholics in the West. John went (a.d. 525), 
 accompanied by five bishops and four sena- 
 tors. The unprecedented event of a visit by 
 
JOANNES II. 
 
 a bishop of Rome to Constantinople caused a 
 great sensation there. He was received with 
 the utmost respect by acclaiming crowds and 
 by the emperor. Invited by the patriarch 
 Epiphanius to celebrate Kaster with him in 
 the great church, he consented only if seated 
 on a throne above that of the patriarch. 
 He officiated in Latin and according to the 
 Latin rite. None were excluded from his 
 communion except Timotheus, patriarch of 
 Alexandria (Theophan. ; Marcellin. Ci>m.). 
 Anastasius {Lib. Poutif.) states that the 
 emperor, though now in the 8th year of his j 
 reign, bowing to the ground befure the vicar 
 of St. Peter, solicited and obtained the honour 
 of being crowned by him. There is con- 
 currence of testimony that John obtained a 
 cessation of Justin's' measures against the 
 Arians. Baronius and Binius, anxious to 
 clear a pope from tolerating heresy, insist that 
 John dissuaded the emperor from the conces- 
 sions demanded. Against this supposition 
 Pagi (Critic.) cites the following: "Justin, 
 having heard the legation, promised that he 
 would do all, except that those who had been 
 reconciled to the Catholic faith could by no 
 means be restored to the Arians" [Anonym. 
 Vales.) ; " The venerable pope and senators 
 returned with glory, having obtained all they 
 asked from Justin " (Anastasius) ; " Justinus 
 Augustus granted the whole petition, and 
 restored to the heretics their churches, accord- 
 ing to the wish of Theodoric the heretical 
 king, lest Christians, and especially priests, 
 should be put to the sword" {.4uctor. Chron. 
 Veterum Pontiftcum) ; " Having come to 
 Augustus, they requested him with many 
 tears to accept favourably the tenour of their 
 embassy, howev-er unjust ; and he, moved by 
 their tears, granted what they asked, and left 
 the Arians unmolested" (Miscell. lib. 15. 
 ad ami. vi. Justin). Whatever the cause, it is 
 certain that John and the legates were, on re- 
 turning, received with displeasure byTheodoric 
 and imprisoned at Ravenna, where the pope 
 died on May 18, 526. His body was buried in 
 St. Peter's at Rome on May 27, on which day 
 he appears in the Roman Martymlogy as a 
 saint and martyr. See also Fragm. Vales. Cireg. 
 Dial. i. iii. c. 2. [j.b — y.] 
 
 Joannes (347) II. (called Mercurius), bp. 
 of Rome after Boniface IL, Dec. 31, 532. to 
 May 27, 535, a Roman by birth who had been 
 a Roman presbyter (Anastas. Lib. Pont.) 
 The canvassings and contests then usual 
 delayed the election 11 weeks. Church funds 
 were used and sacred vessels publicly sold for 
 bribery (Ep. Athalaric. ad Joann. pap. ; Cassi- 
 odor. Variar. 1. ix. ; Ep. 15). 
 
 The most noteworthy incident of his brief 
 reign is a doctrinal decision, in which he 
 appears at first sight to differ from one of his 
 predecessors. Pope Hormisdas had in 522 
 written in strong condemnation of certain 
 Scythian monks who had upheld the statement 
 that " One of the Trinity " [Unus ex Trinitate) 
 " suffered in the flesh." His rejection of the 
 phrase had at the time been construed so as 
 to imply heresy (Ep. Maxent. ad Hormisd.), 
 and now the. 4 coemetae. or " Sleepless Monks," 
 of Constantinople argued from it in favour of 
 the Xestorian position that Mary was not 
 truly and properly the mother of God ; saying 
 
 JOANNES III. 
 
 605 
 
 with reason that, if He Who suffered in the 
 flesh was not of the Trinity, neither was ]lc 
 Who was born in the flesh. The rniprror 
 Justinian, supported by the patriarch Kpi- 
 phanius, havuiK condemned the position o( 
 the "Sleepless Monks," they sent a deputation 
 to Rome, urging the pope to support their 
 deduction from the suppose<l doctrine of his 
 predecessor. The emi>eror, having enib<Klied 
 his view of the true doctrine in an imperial 
 edict, sent it with an embassy to Rome and a 
 letter requesting the pope to signify in writing 
 to himself and tlie patriarch his acceptance of 
 the tloctrine of the t-dicl, whi( h he lays down 
 as intlubilably true, and assumes to be, as a 
 matter of course, the doctrine of the Roman 
 see (Inter. Epp. Joann. H. Labbe). Hut the 
 
 edict was a distinct assertion of the correctness 
 of the phrase contended f<ir by the Scythian 
 monks and so much objected to by Hormisdas. 
 Its words are, " The sufferings, as well as 
 miracles, which Christ of His own accord 
 endured in the flesh are of one and the same. 
 For we d<i not know dod the Word as one and 
 Christ as another, but one and the same " 
 (Lex. Justin. Cod. I, i. 6). In his letter 
 Justinian expresses himself similarly. 
 
 John, having received both deputations, 
 assembled the Roman clergy, who at first could 
 come to no agreement. But afterwards a 
 synod convened by the pope accepted and 
 confirmed Justinian's confession of faith. To 
 this effect he wrote to the emperor on Mar. 
 25. 534 (Joann. II. Ep. ii. ; Labbe) and to 
 the Roman senators, laying down tin- true 
 doctrine as the emperor had defined it, and 
 warning them not to communicate witii the 
 " Sleepless Monks." 
 
 It is true that we do not find in the letters 
 of Hormisdas any distinct condemnation of 
 the phrase itself, however strongly he in- 
 veighed against its upholders, as troublesome 
 and dangerous innovators. But the fact 
 remains that a doctrinal statement which one 
 pope strongly discountenanced, as at any rate 
 unnecessary and fraught with danger, was, 
 twelve years afterwards, at the instance of an 
 emperoi-, authoritatively propounded by an- 
 other. J ustinian's view, which J ohn accepted, 
 has ever since been received as orthodox. 
 
 In 534 John, being consulted by Caesarius of 
 Aries as to Contumeliosus, bp. of Riez in Ciaul, 
 wrote to Caesarius, to the bishops of Caul, and 
 to the clergy of Riez, directing the guilty bishop 
 to be confined in a monastery. 
 
 A letter assigned to this pope by the 
 Pseudo-Isidore, addressed to a bp. Valerius, 
 on the relation of the Son to the Father, is 
 spurious. [JB — v.] 
 
 Joannes (348) III., bp. of Rome, alter 
 Pelagius, July 18, 560, to July 12, !,7^, it- 
 dained after a vacancy of 4 months and 17 
 davs, was the son of a pirson of distincti<-n al 
 Rf.'me (Anastas. Lib. Pont.). Ther<- are two 
 incidents in which his name appears. Two 
 bishops in (iaul had been deposed by a synod 
 held bv order of king (iuntraui at Lyons under 
 the liietropolitan Nicetius. The deposed 
 prelates obtained the king's leave to appeal to 
 Rome, and John III. ordered their restoration 
 (dreg. Turon. //is/. I. v. cc. 20, 27). The 
 second incident is nHiitioued by Anastasius 
 (Lib. Pont, in lit. Juann. IIL), and by I'aulus 
 
666 
 
 JOANNES PRESBYTER 
 
 Diaconus (i. 5). The exarch Narses, having 
 retired to Naples, there invited the Lombards 
 to invade Italy. The pope went to him, and 
 persuaded him to return to Rome. This inci- 
 dent, discredited by Baronius (^nn. 567, Nos. 
 8-12) is credited by Pagi and Muratori (cf. 
 Gibbon, c. xlv.). [j.b — y.] 
 
 Joannes (444) Presbyter, a shadowy per- 
 sonage of the sub-apostolic age, the reasons 
 for belief in his existence being solely derived 
 from an inference drawn by Eusebius from 
 language used in a passage of Papias. In the 
 middle of the 3rd cent. Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25) had maintained on 
 critical grounds that the author of the fourth 
 gospel and of the Catholic epistle could not 
 also have been the author of the Apocalypse. 
 Dionysius takes for granted that the author 
 of the gospel was John the apostle, and has 
 no difficulty in conceding that the name of the 
 author of the Apocalypse was also John, since 
 the writer himself says so ; but urges that he 
 never claims to be the apostle. He calls 
 himself simply John, without adding that he 
 was the disciple whom Jesus loved, or who 
 leaned on our Lord's breast, or the brother of 
 James, or in any way forcing us to identify 
 him with the son of Zebedee. Now, there were 
 many Johns, and it is said that there were 
 two tombs in Ephesus, each called John's. 
 Except in the statement last made, Dionysius 
 does not pretend to have found any actual 
 trace of any John of the apostolic age besides 
 John the apostle and John Mark. His argu- 
 ment is merely that if we have good critical 
 reasons for believing the authors of the gospel 
 and of the Apocalypse to be distinct, the fact 
 that both bore the name John does not force 
 us to identify them. Some 75 years later 
 Eusebius found historic evidence for regarding 
 as a fact what Dionysius had suggested as a 
 possibility. He produces from the preface 
 to the work of Papias an extract, for a fuller 
 discussion of which see Papias. What con- 
 cerns us here is that Papias, speaking of his 
 care in collecting oral traditions of the apos- 
 tolic times, says, " On any occasion when a 
 person came in my way, who had been a fol- 
 lower of the elders, I would inquire about the 
 discourses of the elders — what was said by 
 Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by 
 Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or 
 any other of the Lord's disciples, and what 
 Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of 
 the Lord say " (Lightfoot's trans.). Eusebius 
 points out that as the name John occurs here 
 twice : the first time in a list of apostles, no 
 doubt representing John the apostle ; the 
 second time in a different list, after the name 
 of Aristion and with the title elder prefixed, 
 it must represent a different person. Thus 
 the John whose traditions Papias several 
 times records is the elder, not the apostle. 
 We find thus, remarks Eusebius, that " the 
 account of those is true who have stated that 
 two persons in Asia had the same name, and 
 that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each 
 of which, even to the present time, bears the 
 name of John." " It is likely that the second 
 (unless we allow that it was, as some would 
 have it, the first) beheld the revelation as- 
 cribed to John" (H. E. iii. 39). Although 
 Eusebius does not here name Dionysius of 
 
 JOANNES PRESBYTER 
 
 Alexandria, he plainly had in mind that 
 passage of his writings which he gives at length 
 elsewhere. The ambiguous way in which he 
 speaks of the Apocalypse shews that his 
 personal inclination was to pronounce it non- 
 apostolical, but that he was kept in check by 
 the weight of authority in its favour. The 
 silence of Eusebius indicates that the other 
 passages in Papias where John was mentioned 
 contained no decisive indications what John 
 was intended. 
 
 Modern writers have not been unanimous in 
 their judgment on this criticism of Eusebius. 
 Several reject it, judging Papias to be men- 
 tioning one John twice. So Milligan {Journal 
 Sac. Lit. Oct. 1867), Riggenbach {Jahrb. fiir 
 deutsche Theol. xiii. 319), Zahn {Stud, und 
 Knt. 1866, p. 650, Acta Johannis, 1880, p. 
 cliv.). But a far more powerful array of 
 critics endorses the conclusion of Eusebius — 
 e.g. Steitz {Stud, und Krit. 1868, p. 63), Light- 
 foot {Contemp. Rev. Aug. 1875, p. 379), West- 
 cott (A'. T. Canon, p. 69) ; while less orthodox 
 critics with one consent base their theories 
 with confidence on John the Elder being as 
 historical as SS. Peter or Paul. 
 
 The argument of Eusebius, on the other 
 hand, seems to have made little impression at 
 the time and his successors seem to know only 
 of one John and go on speaking of Papias as 
 the hearer of John the apostle. In this they 
 follow Irenaeus ; and it is an important fact 
 that Irenaeus, who was very familiar with the 
 work of Papias of which he made large use and 
 whose Eastern origin ought to have acquainted 
 him with the traditions of the Asiatic church, 
 shews no symptom of having heard of any 
 John but the apostle, and describes Papias 
 (v. 33, p. 333) as a hearer of John and a com- 
 panion of Polycarp. That Polycarp was a 
 hearer of John the apostle is stated explicitly 
 by Irenaeus in his letter to Victor (Eus. H. E. 
 v. 24 ; see also his letter to Florinus, v. 20). 
 That Polycarp was made bp. of Smyrna by 
 John the apostle is stated by Tertullian 
 {Praes. v. 30) and was never doubted by sub- 
 sequent writers. Polycrates, appealing to the 
 great lights of the church of Asia (Eus. v. 24), 
 names John, who leaned on our Lord's breast, 
 who sleeps at Ephesus, but says nothing about 
 any second John buried there or elsewhere. 
 The silence of Dionysius of Alexandria is 
 positive proof that no tradition of a second 
 John had reached him. If he knew and re- 
 membered the passage in Papias it did not 
 occur to him to draw from it the same infer- 
 ence as Eusebius. Neither, though he men- 
 tions the two monuments at Ephesus, both 
 bearing the name of John, does he say what 
 would have been very much to his purpose, 
 that he had heard that they were supposed to 
 commemorate different persons ; and in fact 
 Jerome, who in his " catalogue " repeats the 
 story, tells us that some held that the same 
 John was commemorated by both.* The 
 Acts of Leucius are notoriously the source 
 whence the Fathers, from the 4th cent., derived 
 J ohannine traditions. While disagreeing with 
 
 • Zahn {Acta Johannis, p. cliv. sqq.) tries to prove 
 that one memorial church was erected outside the 
 walls where John was buried ; the other inside on 
 the site of the house where he resided and had 
 celebrated his last communion. 
 
JOANNES PRESBYTER 
 
 Zahn's opinion that Lcucius was earlier than 
 Papias, it is hiRhly probable that he was a 
 full century earlier than Eusebius, and we can 
 assert, with as much confidence as such a 
 thing can be asserted of a book of which only 
 fragments remain, that Leucius mentioned no 
 John but the ap<istle. If when I.eurius put 
 his stories together any tradition had remained 
 of a second John, this would surely have been 
 among the Leucian names of the apostle's 
 disciples, so many of which we are able to 
 enumerate. Eusebius had not thought of his 
 theory at the time of his earlier work, the 
 Chronicle, in which he describes Papias as a 
 disciple of the evangelist. Jerome also is not 
 self-consistent, speaking in one way when 
 immediately under the influence of Eusebius, 
 at other times following the older tradition. 
 In the East the only trace of the theory of 
 Eusebius is that the Apostolic Consliluiiotis 
 (vii. 46) make John ordain another John, as 
 bp. of Epliesus in succession to Timothy. The 
 writers who used the work of Papias do not 
 seem to suspect that any John but the apostle 
 was the source of his information. One frag- 
 ment ((jebhardt and Harnack, 2nded. No. iii. 
 p. 93) was preserved by Apollinarius, who de- 
 scribes Papias as a disciple of John; some 
 authorities add " the apostle," but wherever 
 John is mentioned without addition no other 
 is meant. Anastasius of Sinai (Gebhardt, 
 No. vi.) describes Papias as 6 ^v t<^ (VtffTTj^iv 
 0o<r^cras and No. vii. as 6 'luidvi'ov toO evayye- 
 \i(TTOu <poiTi)Tr)s ; Maximus confessor (No. 
 ix.) describes him as cwaKfiaixavTa ri^ 6ti({j 
 fuo77e\i(rrjj lojavvr}. An anonymous but 
 ancient note even makes Papias the scribe 
 who wrote the gospel from the apostle's 
 dictation. Thus Eusebius stands completely 
 alone among ancient authorities, differing 
 alike from his predecessors and successors. 
 It by no means necessarily follows that he 
 was wrong. If he has correctly interpreted 
 the language of Papias, the authority of so 
 ancient a witness outweighs that of any num 
 ber of later writers. We can conceive either 
 that there were two Johns in Asia, and that 
 the latter's fame was so absorbed by the glnry 
 of his greater namesake that all remembrance 
 of him was lost ; or else we may imagine that 
 the second John, the source of apostolic tradi- 
 tions to the Asiatic churches, was held in such 
 high consideration that, though not really so, 
 he passed in common fame as the apostle. 
 
 The supposition that John the apostle was 
 never in Asia Minor has been embraced by 
 Keim (Jesu von Nazara), Scholten (Der A pastel 
 Johannes in Kleinasien) and others. But 
 except that the recognition of the residence 
 of a different John in Asia opens the possi- 
 bility of a confusion, their reasons for disbelief 
 in the apostle's residence in Asia are worthless. 
 There is an immense mass of patristic testi- 
 mony that John the apostle lived to a great age 
 and died in Asia in the reign of Trajan. 
 
 If, then, both J ohn the apostle and the elder 
 taught in Asia, can we transfer to the second 
 anything traditionally told of the first ? 
 Dionysius and Eusebius transfer to him the 
 authorship of the Apocalypse, but those who 
 now divide the Johanninc books between 
 these two Johns unanimf)usly give the Apoca- 
 lypse to the first. St. Jerome assigns to " the 
 
 JOANNES PRESBYTER 
 
 r.fl7 
 
 Elder " the two minor epistles, and this i» a 
 very natural inference from their inscription. 
 That is a UKulest <ine, if the writer could have 
 claimed the dignity of apostle; hut if not. it 
 seems arrogant to designate himself a* the 
 elder when there must have been elders in 
 every city. There is also a great assumption 
 of authority in the tone of the ud epistle. 
 The writer sends his legates to the rhurchc-s 
 of the district, is angry if these legates are 
 not respectfully received, and addresses the 
 churches in a tone of command. It may be 
 suggested as an explanation of this, that the 
 writer knew himself to be the sole survivor in 
 the district of the first Christian generation; 
 and it agrees with this that Papias desrnbrs 
 him as a disciple of our Lord, yet speaks of him 
 in the present tense while he speaks of the 
 apostles in the past. Hut this hypothesis 
 is scarcely tenable if we believe what is told 
 of the great age attained by the apostle John, 
 who is said to have lived to the reign of Trajan. 
 This hardly leaves room for any one who 
 could claim to have heard our Lord to acquire 
 celebrity after the apostle's decease. Further, 
 no one who used the fourth gospel only could 
 know that there had been an apf>stle named 
 John. Even our Lord's forerunner, called in 
 other gospels John the Baptist, in this is 
 simply John, as if there were no need to dis- 
 tinguish him from any other. The apostle 
 alone would not feel such need, therefore if 
 he were the author of the gospel, all is intel- 
 ligible ; but if the author were his disciple, 
 is it conceivable that he should thus suppress 
 the name of his great master and predecessor 
 in labour in Asia ; and if beside the apostle 
 there were in our Lord's circle another John, 
 is it conceivable that the writer should not 
 have distinguished between them ? 
 
 Thus the Eusebian interpretation of Papias 
 must stand on its own merits. It f)btains no 
 confirmation from independent testimony, nor 
 does it solve any perplexing problems. It is 
 certainly possible that we with our more 
 powerful instruments of criticism may be able 
 to resolve a double star which had appeared 
 to the early observers single. Yet con- 
 sidering how much closer and more favourably 
 circumstanced they were, we have need to 
 look well that the mistake is not our own. 
 One Eusebian argument must then be re- 
 jected, namelv, that by calling his second 
 John the elder, Papias meant to distinguish 
 him from the apostle. This would be so if 
 he had called the first John an apostle, but 
 actually he calls him an elder. If wc suppose, 
 as do I.ightfoot and others, that he uses the 
 word elder in two different senses, at least 
 the word cannot be used the second time to 
 distinguish him from those to whom U is 
 applied the first time. If it is to distinguish 
 him from any one it is from Arislion, to whom, 
 though also called a disciple of the Lord, this 
 name is not applied. Hence Eusebius's second 
 argument, that Papias by placing John alter 
 Aristion meant to assign to hiin a less honour- 
 able place, fails since John is given a title of 
 dignity which is refused to Aristion. Some 
 light is thrown on the sense in which the word 
 elder is applied to John by Papias in his 
 preface by the fact that one of his traditions 
 is told with the formula. " These things the 
 
568 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 elder used to say." This must surely mean 
 more than that the authority cited was one of 
 the many presbyters of the church and we 
 cannot help connecting with it the fact re- 
 vealed by the minor Johannine epistles, that 
 there was some one in the Asiatic church who 
 spoke of himself, and no doubt was habitually 
 spoken of by others, as " the Elder." 
 
 The only Eusebian argument then that 
 remains is that Papias mentions the name 
 John twice over and therefore may be pre- 
 sumed to speak of two Johns. But might he 
 not first enumerate John in his list of seven 
 apostles, concerning whom he had been able 
 to glean traditions, and a second time in his 
 shorter list of men of the first Christian genera- 
 tion who had survived to his own day ? Papias 
 wrote for the men of his time, to whom 
 the facts were well known, and the idea of 
 being misunderstood would no more occur to 
 him than it would to us, if we spoke of one 
 of our leading statesmen at one moment by 
 his surname only, the next with the addition 
 of his title or Christian name. The second 
 time the title " elder " is used it does not mean 
 " one of the first generation of Christians," 
 for Aristion to whom the title is refused was 
 that ; it does not mean merely one holding 
 the office of presbyter, for then the phrase 
 " the elder" would have no meaning. What 
 remains but that the second John had the 
 same right to the title as Andrew, Peter, and 
 the rest to whom it is given in the beginning 
 of the sentence ? 
 
 Hence while we own the Eusebian interpre- 
 tation of Papias to be a possible one, we are 
 unable to see that it is the only possible one ; 
 and therefore while willing to receive the 
 hypothesis of two Johns, if it will help to 
 explain any difficulty, we do not think the 
 evidence strong enough to establish it as an 
 historical fact : and we frankly own that 
 if it were not for deference to better judges, 
 we should unite with Keim in relegating, 
 though in a different way, this " Doppel- 
 ganger " of the apostle to the region of 
 ghostland. [g.s.] 
 
 Joannes (504), surnamed Climacus, Scho- 
 lasiicus, or Sinaita. At the age of i6 he 
 entered the monastery of Mount Sinai, sub- 
 sequently became an anchoret, and at 75 
 abbat of Mount Sinai. At the entreaty of 
 John abbat of Ralthu he now composed his 
 works, the Scala Paradisi and the Liber ad 
 Pastorem ; from the title (KKiixa^) of the first 
 of these he gained his name of Climacus 
 (Climakos). It contains his experiences in 
 the spiritual life, with instructions for the 
 attainment of a higher degree of holiness, and 
 is dedicated to the abbat of Raithu who after- 
 wards wrote a commentary upon it (Patr. 
 G^. Ixxxviii. 1211-1248). Returning into soli- 
 tude, John died at an advanced age early in 
 the 7th cent. Boll. Acta SS. Mart. iii. 834 : 
 Migne, m.s. 631-12 10 ; a new ed. of the Gk. text 
 of his works was pub. in 1883 at Constantinople 
 by Sophronius Eremites; Surius, de Probatis 
 Sanct. Historiis, Mar. 30. [i.g.s.] 
 
 Joannes (507) Saba, a native of Nineveh, 
 fl. in 6th cent. ; an orthodox monk of Dilaita 
 or Daliatha, a small town on the W. bank of 
 the Euphratrs. His works are 30 discourses 
 and 48 epistles, of which Syriac and Arabic 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 MSS. exist in the Roman libraries. Though 
 abounding in digressions, the style is marked 
 by persuasive eloquence. They are headed : 
 " On the divine gifts and spiritual solaces 
 vouchsafed to monks for their comfort and 
 delight." Assem. Bib. Or. i. 433-444, iii. i. 
 103, 4 ; Bickell, Consp. Syr. p. 26. [c.j.b.] 
 
 Joannes (509), called of BMh-Rabbdn or 
 Bethnarsi, disciple and successor in the 6th 
 cent, of Jacobus the founder of the monastery 
 of Beth-Haba. Jesujab, bp. of Nineveh, 
 stated that Joannes had been a monk 70 years 
 before his departure from Beth-Haba ; 30 
 years he had lived as a solitary, 40 with 
 Jacobus as a coenobite. Joannes was for 
 some time in the monastery of Beth-Rabban, 
 which was subject to the same abbat as Beth- 
 Haba. Ebedjesu (ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. in. 
 i. 72) states that he wrote a commentary on 
 Ex., Lev., Num., Job, Jer., Ezk., and Prov., 
 also certain tracts against Magi, Jews, and 
 heretics. He also wrote prayers for Rogation 
 days, a prayer on the death of Chosroes I. 
 (d. 579), and on a plague which befel Nisibis, 
 besides paracletic addresses for each order in 
 the church (i.e. metrical discourses read in the 
 office of the dead), a book of questions relating 
 to O. and N. T., psalms, hymns, and chants. 
 One of his hymns is in the Mosul Breviary, 
 p. 61, and in a MS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, 
 Cat. p. 135). Rosen and Forshall (Cat. MSS. 
 xii. 3 n.) mention another hymn of his. Cf. 
 also Lelong, Bibl. Sacr. ii. 794. [c.j.b.] 
 
 Joannes (520), surnamed Moschus and 
 Eucratas (also Everatas and Eviratus, cor- 
 ruptions of Eucratas as Fabricius remarks), a 
 monk, author of Pratum Spirifuale. c. 620. 
 The materials of his Life are to be collected 
 from his book (which exhibits no historical 
 arrangement), a brief notice by Photius (Cod. 
 199) and a Greek Vatican MS. of which Migne 
 has printed a Latin version entitled Elogium 
 A uctoris. This document extends the chrono- 
 logical material, and purports to have been 
 composed while the laura of St. Sabas in 
 Palestine was standing. 
 
 Photius states that Moschus commenced the 
 recluse life in the monastery of St. Theodosius, 
 perhaps c. 575. In the Pratum Moschus is 
 found at two monasteries named after two 
 Theodosii, near Antioch and Jerusalem re- 
 spectively. The one intended by Photius is a 
 laura founded c. 451 by the younger St. Theo- 
 dosius a little E. of Jerusalem (Boll. Acta SS. 
 J an. i. 683). The Pratum (c. 92) shews Moschus 
 at this spot, described as " in the desert of the 
 holy city," Gregorybeingarchimandrite. Inthe 
 reign of Tiberius (Prat. 112) John Moschus was 
 sent by his superior on monastic business with 
 a companion, Sophronius Sophista (said to 
 have been afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem), 
 to Egypt and Oasis. This circumstance, un- 
 noticed by Photius, is assigned by the Elogium 
 to the beginning of the reign of Tiberius (i.e. 
 578). The absence was perhaps temporary, 
 and Moschus's more protracted wanderings in 
 Egypt may be assigned to a much later day. 
 His Palestine life lasted more than 25 years, 
 and Sophronius Sophista is frequently 'men- 
 tioned as his companion, once with a remark 
 that it was " before he renounced the world." 
 Photius states that he began monastic life at 
 St. Theodosius, he afterwards resided with 
 
JOANNES 
 
 M\0 
 
 JOANNES 
 
 the monks of the Jordan desert and in the 
 
 new laura of St. Sabas. The Fralum fills up 
 
 this outline. The laura of Pharon (4>opu>i', 
 
 <PapQv. >i>apa, Pharan in the Latin version) 
 
 was his residence for ten years (40). It was 
 
 within burying distance of Jerusalem (42), 
 
 and near the laura of Calamon and that of 
 
 the Towers of Jordan (40). The laura of 
 
 Calamon where Moschus visited was near 
 
 Jordan (137. 163). Another ten years (67) he 
 
 resided at the laura i>f Aeliotae. This also 
 
 was near Jordan (134) and still under the rule 
 
 of its founder Antonius (06). Mosciius was at 
 
 Jerusalem at the consecration of the patriarch 
 
 .^mos {149), probably therefore .\.d. 594 (Le 
 
 Quien, Or. Clir. iii. 246) ; he records having 
 
 ascended from "holy tiethsemane " to the 
 
 "holy n\ount of Olives" (1S7). He resided 
 
 at the laura of St. Sabas, called New Laura 
 
 (3,128) near the Dead Sea (53), and a few miles ^ 
 
 E. of St. Theodosius (Bull. u.s.). He visited ; of his own time, as he states in his drdirat>>ry 
 
 the /uo*-^ of the eunuchs near " holy Jordan " address to Sophronius ; but some whose 
 
 (135-137), the xenodochium of the fathers at stories were related belonged to an earlier 
 
 Ascalon (189), and Scythopolis (50). That he period, e.g. John of Sapsas. The work is now 
 
 held the office of a Kavovapxos is a mistake of i distributed in 219 chapters, but was originally 
 
 Fabricius, citing Prat. 50, where it is a nar- ! comprised, says Photius, in 304 narrations 
 
 rator, not Moschus, who thus describes him- | (^iTjYTJ^ora). The discrepancy may be partly 
 
 self. From the wilderness of Jordan and 1 tlue to arrangement, as some chaps, (e.g. 5, 55, 
 
 the New Laura, says Photius, John went to ' 92, 95. 105) contain 2 or even 3 distinct narra- 
 
 Antioch and its neighbourhood, the Elogiuvi ' tions, introduced by the very word 5177717^0. 
 
 adding that this occurred when the Persians i Moschus (To 6'o/>/)ro«.) compares the character 
 
 attacked the Romans because of the murder | of his worthies to various flowers in a spring 
 
 assists the chronology ; for as the IVrsians 
 obtained possession of Jerusalem in 015 and 
 in 6i6 advanced from Palestine and took 
 Alexandria (Kawl. 503, 504). the rumour of 
 their approach would cause the retiremtnt of 
 Moschus in one of those years. The J'ralum 
 (i«5) records a visit to Samos. Tlie FloKium 
 relates how on his deathbed at Rome he 
 delivered his book to Sophronius, requesting 
 to be buried if possible at Mount Sinai or at 
 the laura of St. Theodosius. Sophronius and 
 12 fellow-discii>les sailed with tlie b<Klv to 
 Palestine, but, hearing at Asi alon tlut Sinai 
 was beset by .Arabs, took it up to Jerusalem 
 (in the beginning of the eighth indiction, i.e. 
 c. Sept. I. ()2u) and buried it in the cemetery 
 of St. Theod.'sius. 
 
 The work of Moschus c<insists of anec<lotes 
 and sayings collected in the various monas- 
 teries he visited, usually of eminent anchorets 
 
 (Nov. 27, 602) of the emperor Maurice and 
 his children. In 603 Chosrocs declared war 
 against Phocas. The Pratum shews Moschus 
 at Antioch or Theupolis (88, 89) and at 
 Seleucia while Theodorus was bp. (79) ; 
 but as this bp. is not otherwise known 
 we get no date (Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 780). 
 He visited the ixovaarripiov (also fjiOfij) of the 
 elder St. Theodosius, on the Rhosicus Scopu- 
 lus, a mountain promontory between Rhosus 
 in the gulf of Issus and Seleucia (80-86, 95, 
 99). At a village six miles from Rhosus, in 
 the seventh indiction {i.e. between Sept. i, 
 604, and Aug. 31, 605), he heard the story of 
 
 meadow, and names his work accordingly 
 Aei/ioiJ' (Pratum). In the time of Photius 
 some called it Neoc llapaSfiVioi' (Hmtulus 
 Noviis), and it has since been named Virt- 
 dariitm, "Seos Uapd5(i(Xos {\ovus Paradisus) and 
 Afinuivapiof. The title Pratum .^ffintuale ap- 
 parently originated with the first Latin trans- 
 lator, said by Possevinus to have been Am- 
 brosius Camaldulensis (oh. 1439), who trans- 
 lated numerous works of the (ircek Fathers 
 (Oudin. iii. 2437). Tlie Pratum in this version 
 forms lib. x. of Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum 
 (1615), which Migne reprinted in 1850 {Pat. 
 Lat. Ixxiv.), prefixing to the Pratum the Llo 
 
 Joannes Humilis. From those parts, says • ^tww Auctoris already described. In 1624 an 
 
 Photius, he went to .\lcxandria and Oasis and 
 the neighbouring deserts. This was his prin- 
 cipal visit to Egypt, the only one noticed by 
 Photius and the most prominent one in the 
 
 incomplete Greek text made its appearance, 
 accompanying the Latin, furnished by Fronto 
 Ducaeus in vol. ii. of the Auctarium to the 
 4th ed. of La Bigne's Magna Biblmtheca Pa- 
 
 Elogium, which states his reason for leaving \trum. In La Bigne's ed. of 1654 it stands in 
 Syria tohave been the invasion of the empire I voL xiii. p. 1057. In 1681 Cotelier {Pedes. 
 
 by the Persians, i.e. when Chosroes overran 
 N. Syria in and after 605 (as detailed by 
 Rawlinson, Seventh Monarchy, 501, 502). At 
 Alexandria Moschus remained eight years (as 
 the Latin version renders XP"^"*"'' 6stu}, Prat. 
 [3 fin.) in the pLovaarripiov of Palladius (69-73) 
 
 Gr. Mon. ii. 341) supplied more of the dretk 
 and gave an independent Latin translation of 
 some parts. In i860 Migne {Pat. tik. Ixxxvii. 
 2814) reprinted the thus augmented dreek, 
 leaving a gap of only three chaps. (121, 122, 
 32), retaining the Latin of Ambrosiust hrough- 
 
 The names of monastic localities in and about > out. Other bibliographi( al partii ulars, in- 
 Alexandria occur in Prat. 60, 105, no, iii, I eluding an account of tlie Italian and French 
 145, 146, 162, 177, 184, 195. There are re- versions, will be found in Fabricius (/ii6/. Gr. 
 corded also visits to the thebaid cities of I x. 124. ed. Harles). The authorship of the 
 
 Antinous and Lycus (44, 143, 161), to the 
 laura of Raythu (115, 116, 119) on the Red 
 Sea shore (120, 121), and to Mount Sinai (122, 
 [23). Photius states that from Egypt Mos- 
 
 Pratum used sometimes to be attributed to 
 Sophronius, in whose name it is cited by John 
 of Damascus (de Imagtn. orat. i. 328, Ii. 344, 
 352 in Patr. (ik. xciv. 1279, 131.S, 1335) ami 
 
 chus went to Rome, t<juching at some islands likewise in actio iv. of the seventh syiKKl in 
 en route, and at Rome composed his book. 787 (Mansi, xiii. 5<)). John Moschus and his 
 What drove him from Egypt appears in the book are treated by Cave (i. 581) and more 
 Elogium. The holy places had fallen into the fully by Ceillier (xi. 700). Dupin gives an 
 hands of the enemy and the subjects of 1 analysis of the Pratum for illustrations of 
 the empire were terror-stricken. This again church discii)lme (Lug. trans. 1722, 1. 11. ['. 11). 
 
570 
 
 JOANNES PHILOPONUS 
 
 Cf. S. Vailhe, Sf. Jean Mosch. in Echos 
 d'orient, igor. [c.h.] 
 
 Joannes (564) Phlloponus, a " grammati- 
 cus " of Alexandria ; a distinguished philo- 
 sopher, a voluminous writer (Suidas, s.v. 
 'Iwdt'vrjt Tp.), and one of the leaders of the 
 Tritheites of the 6th cent. (Sophron. Ep. 
 Synodic. Co. Const, a.d. 68o ; act. xi. in 
 Mansi, xi. 501 ; Leont. Byzant. de Sect. act. 
 V. in Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. i. 1232). From 
 his great industry he acquired the surname of 
 Philoponus. He was a native of Alexan- 
 dria. His earliest known appearance as an 
 author was in his irepl aioioTrp-o^, a reply to 
 Proclus Diadochus. It shows great dialectic 
 ability and learning, the quotations in it 
 covering the whole range of the literature of 
 his own and previous times (Fabricius, Bibl. 
 Gr. ed. Harles, x. 652-654), and is said by 
 Suidas to have been a complete refutation of 
 the great neo-Platonist and to have con- 
 victed him of gross ignorance (s. v. Up6K\o%). 
 
 Apparently about the same time Philoponus 
 was engaged in a controversy with Severus, 
 the deposed bp. of Antioch (Suidas, s.v. 'Iwac ; 
 Galland. Bihl. Vet. Patr. xii. 376 ; Cureton, 
 Fragments, 2 12, 245 seq.). To the same period 
 may be assigned a treatise de Universali et 
 Particulari, described by Assemani in his cata- 
 logue of Syriac MSS. (Bibl. Or. i. 613). 
 
 At the request of Sergius (ordained patriarch 
 of Antioch by the Monophysites c. 540) Philo- 
 ponus wrote his liaLTr]Ti)^, Arbiter, the Umpire. 
 It is an attempt to shew that the doctrine 
 which he and his followers held upon the 
 subject of the union of the two natures in the 
 person of our Lord was dialectically necessary. 
 The argument is admirably condensed by 
 Prof. Dorner in his History of the Development 
 of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Clark's 
 trans, ii. 1. 416). 
 
 At what period Philoponus distinctly 
 avowed what is known as Tritheism (Eulog. 
 Patr. Alex. Orat. Phot, ccxxx. ed. Schott. p. 
 879) does not clearly appear, but it must have 
 been before the middle of the 6th cent, as Mar 
 Abas, " Primas Orientis " (d. 552) was one of 
 his converts to that doctrine (Assem. Bibl. Or. 
 ii. 411). Notwithstanding this, if not because 
 of it, the emperor Justinian sent one of his 
 officers named Stephanus to Alexandria to 
 summon Philoponus to Constantinople " in 
 causa fidei," but he wrote excusing himself 
 because of age and infirmity. In his letter he 
 urged Justinian to issue an edict prohibiting 
 the discussion of the " two natures." 
 
 On the death of Joannes Ascusnaghes, the 
 founder of the Tritheites, his Demonstrationes 
 were sent to Philoponus at Alexandria. The 
 latter then wrote a treatise on the subject and 
 sent it to his friend at Constantinople. The 
 Monophysites, finding that this publication 
 brought them into great disrepute, appealed to 
 the emperor Justin 1 1., whohad married Sophia, 
 a granddaughter of the empress Theodora, and 
 was known to be favourable to their party. 
 He complied with their request, and the 
 matter was committed to Joannes Scholas- 
 ticus, who had succeeded Eutychius on his 
 refusal to subscribe the Julianist edict of Jus- 
 tinian, A.D. 565 (Greg. Bar-hebr. ; Asseman. 
 Bibl. Or. ii. 328). 
 
 We hear no more of Philoponus until 568, 
 
 JORDANIS 
 
 when, John, patriarch of Constantinople, 
 having delivered a catechetical discourse on 
 the \' Holy and consubstantial Trinity," he 
 published a treatise in reply to it. Photius is 
 unsparing in his criticism of this work, charg- 
 ing the author with having perverted the 
 authorities whom he quotes (Bibl. Ixxv.). 
 Philoponus must now have been very old, 
 but apparently lived some years longer. 
 
 During his lifetime the Tritheites appear 
 to have been united under his leadership (Tim. 
 Presb. Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. i. 62), 
 but after his decease they became divided 
 because of the opinions he had maintained on 
 the resurrection-body, both in his writings 
 against the heathen and in a special work on 
 this subject. This last was in several books, 
 of which Photius speaks in no respectful terms 
 (Bibl. xxi. xxiii.), though it found great favour 
 with that section of the Monophysites which 
 persevered in their adherence to Philoponus 
 and with Eutychius the Cathohc patriarch of 
 Constantinople. [Eutychius (18).] Those 
 Tritheites who still followed him were dis- 
 tinguished as Philoponiaci, or Athanasiani 
 because of Athanasius's prominence amongst 
 them (Schonfelder, Die Tritheiten, app. to his 
 German trans, of John of Ephesus, 269, 274, 
 297), while their opponents were called 
 Cononitae, after Conon of Tarsus who wrote 
 a reply to the Ilept avaffTdcxews. 
 
 Philoponus wrote numerous other works, 
 many of them non-theological. His work de 
 .Aeternitate Mundi has been ed. by Rabe 
 (Leipz. 1899) ; his de Opificis Mundi by 
 Reichardt (Leipz. 1897), and a Libellus de Pas- 
 chale by Walter (Jena, 1899). [t.w.d.] 
 
 Joannes (565) Scythopolita, a schoiasticus 
 
 of Scythopolis in Palestine. Photius had read 
 a work of his in 12 books, Against Separatists 
 from the Church or Against Eutyches and Dios- 
 corus, written at the request of a patriarch 
 Julianus, probably Julian patriarch of An- 
 tioch, A.D. 471-476 (Phot. Cod. 95, in Patr. Gk. 
 ciii. 339 n). John of Scythopolis was also the 
 author of wapaOea-eis or commentaries on the 
 Pseudo-Dionysius, which had a wide circu- 
 lation for some centuries. Among the Syriac 
 MSS. in the Brit. Mus. there is a Syriac trans, 
 of Dionysius, with an introduction and notes 
 by Phocas bar-Sergius of Edessa, a writer of 
 the 8th cent. The notes are largely a trans- 
 lation of the irapaBiaeis (Wright, Cat. Syr. 
 MSS. pt. ii. p. 493). Cf. Loofs, Leontius von 
 Byzanz. (T887). [t.w.d.] 
 
 JordaniS (Jomandes, the Gothic name, on 
 his becoming an ecclesiastic was changed to 
 Jordanis, Wattenbach, p. 62), historian of the 
 Goths (and probably bp. of Crotona, in Bru- 
 tium) in the middle of 6th cent. 
 
 I. Authorities. — Grimm, Kleinere Schriften, 
 iii. 171, etc. ; Ebert, Geschichte der Christlich 
 Lat. Lit. (Dahn, 1875) ; Die Konige der Ger- 
 manen, ii. 243-260, for Jordanis's use of words 
 of constitutional importance ; Anekdoton Hol- 
 deri (Hermann Usener, Bonn, 1877) ; and for 
 other authorities, Wattenbach, p. 55- 
 
 II. Writings. — His only works of which we 
 have certain knowledge are the de Brevia- 
 tione Chronicorum (more commonly but wrong- 
 ly called de Regnorum Successione) and the de 
 Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis. 
 
 (i) The de Breviatione Chronicorum (Mura- 
 
JORDANIS 
 
 tori, Scripfores Rerum Hal. i. 222-242) is a 
 compendium of the history of the world, of 
 littlo value, and only important as indicating 
 the strong feeling of the Goth Jordanis that 
 the power of the Roman empire was to last 
 to the end of time. 
 
 {2) The de Getarnm Origine et Rtbus Gfstis 
 is one of the most important works written 
 during the period of the Teutonic settlements 
 in Western Europe. In amount of matter it 
 may equal about 20 pages of this Diet. Its 
 contents are most conveniently arranged 
 under four heads (cf. Ebert. p. 532). 
 
 1 (c. i. 13). The work opens witii a geo- 
 graphical account of the world and in par- 
 ticular of N. Europe and the island " Scandza." 
 Jordanis then identifies the Goths with the 
 Scythians, whose country he describes, and 
 praises their learning and bravery. He then 
 recounts their wars with the Egyptians 
 and .Amazons, and. identifying the Goths with 
 the Getae, describes the deeds of Telephus 
 and Tom>Tis. Cyrus, Xerxes, Alexander the 
 Great, Caesar and Tiberius are mentioned. 
 With chap. 18 he suddenly passes to the de- 
 vastation of the banks of the Danube by the 
 Goths and their victory over the Romans. 
 He then pauses to give fuller details about 
 the royal Gothic race of the Amali. 
 
 2 (c' 14-23). He carries the genealogy of 
 the Amali down to Mathasuentha, the grand- 
 daughter of Theodoric and widow of Vitigis, 
 who had just married, as he tells us, Germanus 
 brother of Justinian. He then returns to the 
 Goths and their movement into ISIoesia and 
 Thracia. Claiming for the emperor Maximus 
 a Gothic father, he thus raises the Goths to 
 high honour. The deeds of Ostrogotha are 
 then related, the victory over the Ciepidae, the 
 expeditions to Asia Minor, and Geberich's 
 conquest of the Vandals. After Geberich 
 came Hermanaric conqueror of the Heneti and 
 many other tribes. 
 
 3 (c. 24-47). This division begins with an 
 account of the Huns, their victory over the 
 Goths, and the death of Hermanaric. He 
 traces the separation of the Visigoths from the 
 Ostrogoths, and follows their history. He 
 shortly recounts Alaric's invasion of' Italy, 
 and introduces the story of Attila's invasion 
 of Gaul and defeat. The battle of Chalons is 
 described at considerable length. At the close 
 of the section he describes the subjugation 
 of Italy by Odoacer and the deposition of 
 Augustidus. 
 
 4 (c. 48-60). Jordanis now returns to the 
 Ostrogoths, once more mentions the defeat 
 of Hermanaric, and this leads him to speak of 
 the death of Attila. He describes the move- 
 ment of the Ostrogoths into Pannonia, the 
 reign of Theodemir and the birth of Theodoric. 
 The dealings of Theodoric with Zeno, his en- 
 trance into Italy and his victory over Odoacer 
 are recounted. The outline of the fortunes 
 of the Goths in Italy is related very briefly, and 
 the work closes with the captivity of Vitigis, 
 and another mention of the marriage of 
 Mathasuentha with (iermanus. 
 
 His own words in the dedication of the de 
 Getarnm Origine or History of the (ioths, 
 convey an impression that he had written an 
 abstract from memory of a three days' reading 
 of the History of the Goths by Cassiodorius, 
 
 JORDANIS 
 
 iTI 
 
 adding extracts of his own from Latin and 
 
 Greek writers, and that the beginninff. middle, 
 
 and end of the work were his i>wn composition. 
 
 It might certainly have been supposed that 
 
 the preface at least was the composition o| 
 
 Jordanis himself. \\\\\. the most ronvin« inc 
 
 evidence of the writer's want of originality 
 
 : has been shewn by the discovery made bv Von 
 
 j Sybel with reference tr. this prefarp (Schmidt. 
 
 I Zeitschrift fur Geschichtc. vii. 2HK). It is l.irgily 
 
 ' a literal copy of the introducti.m bv Rnfinus 
 
 to his trans, of Origen's Comm. on Romans. 
 
 If the general view of the History of the (,oths 
 by Jordanis, first propounded bv Srhirren, and 
 afterwards worked out by Konke, Uessel, and 
 others, be true, the plate o| Jordanis as a 
 iiistorian is but low. He does not acknow- 
 ledge several authorities whom he largely 
 uses and disjilays an array of authorities 
 whom he only knows at second-hand. Hut 
 it must be remembered that Jordanis does not 
 claim originality, except under the clause in 
 the preface (" initium finemque et pliira in 
 medio mea dictione permiscens "). The sid>- 
 stratum of the whole work must still be 
 ascribed to Cassiodorius. Is it, then, possible 
 to disentangle the work of Cassiodr>rius from 
 the setting in which Jordanis has placed it? 
 A complete separation can, from the circum- 
 stances of the case, hardly be possible, ^'et 
 we may be tolerably sure that, though many 
 of the extracts bear the traces of the treat- 
 ment and colouring of Jordanis, enough re- 
 mains of the lost work to bring us in to close 
 contact with the mind and words of Cassio- 
 dorius, and, to a certain extent, to enable us 
 to understand his purpose in his great work. 
 The history of the Goths was certainly 
 completed before the death of Athalaric in 534 
 (Variae, ix. 23) ; Kopke and others suppose 
 c. 533. Since the discovery of the Anek- 
 doton Holdcri, however, it has become practi- 
 cally certain that the (iothic History of Cas- 
 siodorius was comiiosed some years before 
 533 ; probably not later than 521. 
 
 In two passages of his I'ariae Cassiodorius 
 refers to his (iothic History. By far the more 
 important passage, of which nearly every 
 word helps to shew his purj^ose, is in ix. 25, 
 where Cassiodorius describes his History in a 
 letter addressed nominally by king Athalaric 
 to the senate in 534. 
 
 Cassiodorius clearly shews that his primary 
 object was not literary, but political. He saw 
 the growing antagonism between (Ioths and 
 Romans and Theodoric's eflorts to lessen it. 
 He saw the king trying to combine the old 
 and the new elements and to form a kingdom 
 in which both could live with mutual respect. 
 He determined to assist by his writing his 
 master's plans. He would try to draw the 
 Goths and Romans togetlur by shewing that 
 both nations were alike honourable f> r the 
 antiquity of their race and the glorv of their 
 history. He would tell the (.oths .,( the 
 grealn<ss of the Roman empire, with whom 
 they fought in ancii-nt days, and would shew 
 the Romans that the kingly family of the 
 Amali was as noble as any Roman house. No 
 one was better fitted than he to write a history 
 of the Goths. His real knowledge of ancient 
 writers, his constant opportunities of con- 
 verse with the king and Gothic nobles, his 
 
572 
 
 JORDANIS 
 
 father's share and his own in all the later or 
 contemporary events, provided him with 
 ample material. In the earlier part of the 
 work we can clearly see from Jordanis how 
 the political theory of Cassiodorius was 
 worked out. He adopted the belief that the 
 Getae and the Goths were the same nation. 
 Further, he accepted the identity of the Goths 
 with the Scythians, a theory stated by several 
 Greek writers. Thus the Goths were brought 
 into contact or conflict with the great nations 
 of antiquity and even the Amazons appear as 
 Gothic women. Yet even with all the notices 
 he could collect from Greek or Roman authori- 
 ties and the stories and sagas he heard at the 
 court of Ravenna, his stock of accurate infor- 
 mation about the early history of the Goths 
 cannot have been large. The very theory 
 with which he wrote shews that much must 
 be accepted with reserve. 
 
 Thirty years later the Gothic bishop, in his 
 adaptation of the work, shewed that he rested 
 his hopes of the future quite as much on the 
 Roman empire as on the Gothic race itself. 
 However little individuality as a historian 
 Jordanis may have had, it lay with him to 
 choose and adapt his extracts from Cassio- 
 dorius in accordance with his own feelings, and 
 there is enough of himself in the work to 
 enable us to catch something of his spirit. 
 For him the end of the great struggle between 
 Goths and Romans had come ; the war 
 between Totila and Belisarius, or Narses, 
 which was yet going on, had no supreme 
 interest. The race of the Amali, with which 
 he was connected and on which all his hopes 
 were centred, had ceased to rule the Goths. 
 His desires for the future rested rather on the 
 union of the brother of the emperor with the 
 granddaughter of Theodoric than on the issue 
 of a struggle which he probably and rightly 
 thought hopeless. His Catholic sympathies, 
 rejecting the idea of an Arian ruler, and his 
 family pride, alike contributed to this result. 
 Three times he alludes to the marriage of 
 Mathasuentha, widow of Vitigis (with whom 
 she had been brought captive to Constanti- 
 nople), to Germanus, brother of the emperor 
 Justinian (cc. 14, 48, 60). In c. 60 he tells 
 how Germanus died, leaving an infant son : 
 " Item Germanus : in quo conjuncta Anici- 
 orum gens cum Amala stirpe spem adhuc utri- 
 usque generis Domino praestante promittit." 
 
 Jordanis was the first since Tacitus to 
 treat the history of the Teutonic nations from 
 their side. The eternity of the Roman empire 
 had impressed itself on the mind of Jordanis. 
 The idea, therefore, that the Goths were 
 equally learned and ancient must have been 
 a support to him (and others like him) 
 when Theodoric was ruling almost as a 
 miniature emperor in Italy. But the 
 thought of a union between the imperial 
 family and the Amali could alone satisfactorily 
 reconcile his hopes for the great family to 
 which he belonged and his belief in the church 
 and empire of Rome. This traditional belief 
 in the empire and church was destined never 
 to be altogether broken in Italy. After two 
 centuries of struggles between rival principles 
 in church and state the next Italian ecclesias- 
 tic who attained importance as a historian, 
 Paulus Diaconus, himself, like J ordanis, of j 
 
 JORDANIS 
 
 Teutonic race, was able to witness the return 
 of imperial power of old Rome and to have 
 friendly intercourse with the new Teutonic 
 emperor. To Jordanis the first Teutonic 
 historian of a Teutonic race such a possibility 
 was unknown, and he could only fix fruitless 
 hopes on a union of the Greek and the Goth 
 to solve his difficulties. For the spirit of the 
 age and times which we thus seem to gather 
 from Jordanis's work we owe him a debt of 
 gratitude, and also for his preservation, if only 
 in a broken form, of fragments from the 
 greatest work of Theodoric's great secretary. 
 
 The most important editions of the History 
 of the Goths are : Muratori, Scriptores Rev. 
 Ital. i. 187-241 (Medial. 1723). Migne, Pair. 
 Cursus, Ixix. Appendix to works of Cassio- 
 dorius. Jordanis, de Getarum Origme et 
 Rebus Gesiis, ed. C. A. Closs (Stuttg. 1861). 
 In the Monumenta Germaniae the two works 
 of Jordanis are undertaken by Mommsen 
 himself. Neues Archiv. D. G. F. dltere Deut- 
 schen Geschichtskunde, ii. 5. 
 
 III. Life. — Jordanis tells us that his grand- 
 father was notary to Candac, chief of the 
 Alani in iMoesia, that he himself was a notary 
 before becoming an ecclesiastic, that he was 
 of the Gothic race and apparently connected 
 with the royal family of the Amali. We know 
 from his own writings no more, and nothing 
 further can be absolutely certain. But a 
 discovery, first made by Cassel, has led to an 
 extremely important and very highly probable 
 conjecture about his identity. The name of 
 one Jordanes Crotonensis, bp. of Crotona (now 
 Cotrone) in Bruttium is found, with those of 
 several other bishops, appended to a document 
 sometimes called the Damnatio Theodori, 
 issued by pope Vigilius in Aug. 551 at Con- 
 stantinople. If this should be our Jordanis, 
 it becomes exceedingly probable that the 
 Vigilius to whom the Chronicle of Jordanis 
 is dedicated and sent, along with the History 
 of the Goths, is pope Vigilius. Vigilius was 
 pope from 537 to 555. He had been made 
 pope by the influence of Belisarius at Rome, 
 at the request of the empress Theodora. After 
 the issue of the Three Chapters by Justinian, 
 which Vigilius apparently dared not sign when 
 in Italy, the pope was summoned to Constan- 
 tinople, which he reached on Christmas Day, 
 547. He was retained at Constantinople, or 
 in the neighbourhood, for seven years, till he 
 at last obtained permission from Justinian to 
 return to Italy. At Constantinople he was 
 much persecuted by the emperor and his party, 
 who tried to force him to sign a confession of 
 faith in accordance with their views. He was 
 bold enough to excommunicate the bp. of 
 Caesarea, and then, fearing the emperor's 
 wrath, took sanctuary in the basilica of St. 
 Peter in Constantinople. While in this church 
 with his companions, and, among others, 
 several Italian bishops, he issued (Aug. 551) 
 the document in which the name of Jordanes, 
 bp. of Cotrona, is found. 
 
 Several considerations make it exceedingly 
 probable that Jordanis wrote his work at 
 Constantinople. His almost complete ignor- 
 ance of the later and contemporary events in 
 Italy is thus explained, and his detailed ac- 
 quaintance, shewn in several passages, with 
 the affairs of the empire accounted for. 
 
JOSEPHUS 
 
 The bp. of Cotrona lived not far from the 
 monastery in Bruttium (inonasterium Vivari- 
 ense) to which Cassiodorius had retired after 
 his active life as a statesman. Here Jordanis 
 first saw the 12 books of the Gothic history, 
 and was allowed by the steward of Cassio- 
 dorius a second perusal of the work. When he 
 was, as we presume, with the pope in Constan- 
 tinople he was suddenly called upon to write 
 his Gothic history, and, as he tells us, had to 
 make the best of what materials he had at 
 hand or could remember. The de Getarum Ori- 
 gi)ie et Rebus Gestis was the result, [a.h.d.a.] 
 
 JosephUS (2), catholicos of Armenia (Le 
 Quien, Or. Christ, i. 1079). St. Martin (Miv>. 
 stir I'Arm. i 437) places him between Mesrob 
 and Melidc, giving his dates as 441-432, but 
 these figures do not represent his place in the 
 series accurately. The Persian king contem- 
 porary with him was Isdigerd II., and the 
 governor of Armenia was an Armenian Chris- 
 tian Vasag, prince of the Siounians (442-432). 
 Joseph was one of the band of Armenian 
 scholars trained under Mesrob and Isaac the 
 Great and afterwards in the schools of Athens 
 and Constantinople. [Mesrobes.] He re- 
 turned to Armenia probably c. 434. His 
 patriarchate occurred at a most critical 
 period, when Isdigerd II. was endeavouring 
 to supplant the Christianity of Armenia by 
 Zoroastrianism. For a full contemporary ac- 
 count of this see Elisha V'artabed's Hist, of 
 Vartan, trans, from the Armenian by Neu- 
 mann and Langlois. Isdigerd issued a pro- 
 clamation to the Armenians — one of the 
 utmost valuable ancient Zoroastrian docu- 
 ments we possess. A reply was issued in 430 
 bv a synod of 17 bishops held at Ardashad. 
 The name of Joseph, bp. of Ararat, heads the 
 subscriptions (Neum. 13, 14, 87), the province 
 of Ararat being one of 15 into which Armenia 
 was divided. This seems J oseph's first appear- 
 ance in these events. The reply is given in full 
 by Elisha ; for the spirit of it see Isdigerd II. 
 Exasperated by that bold manifesto, the king 
 ordered the leading Armenian princes to 
 appear before him, and they, depositing a 
 confession of their faith with Joseph, obeyed 
 (ib. 21). In the royal capital on the feast of 
 Easter, 430, they were summoned into the 
 king's presence, and peremptorily ordered to 
 adore the sun on its rising the next day. 
 Finding Isdigerd inexorable, they feigned 
 compliance, and Isdigerd, accepting the act as 
 a formal submission of their country, sent 
 them home accompanied by a band of magi, 
 who, supported by a large military force, were 
 to instruct the Armenians in the Zoroastrian 
 religion and laws. On the appearance of this 
 armed mission the bisiiops went am<jng their 
 flocks exhorting them to resist. The people 
 were resolved, and a Holy League was formed. 
 On behalf of his distressed country Joseph 
 appealed to the emperor Theodosius II., but 
 shortly afterwards (July 28, 450) Theodosius 
 died, and Marcian his successor would not 
 help (ib. 36, 37). The Armenian Christians 
 nevertheless assembled in arms, 60,000 in 
 number, among them Joseph, Leontius the 
 priest, many other priests and a multitude of 
 deacons. On June 2, 431, at the Dekhmud, 
 a tributary of the .\raxes (St. Martin, i. 41), 
 led by their prince Vartan they were dis- 
 
 JOVIANUS FLAVIUS 
 
 C73 
 
 astrously defeated (Neum. si). A fortrrss 
 where the priests had tak.ii nfugf fell. 
 Joseph and Leontius, when about to he put 
 to death, asked to be sent to the king, hoping 
 to make terms for their people. Thev were 
 sent, but would not waver in their steadfast- 
 ness (tb. 63, 66). Thus much HIisha relates of 
 Joseph in his 7th chap., his last as Nemiiann 
 believes. In an 8th chap, added bv Langlois 
 in 1867, and in another Armenian writer, 
 Lazarus of Barb (c. 48 in Langlois, ii. 31 sK >t 
 IS stated that in the 6th vear of Isdigerd {i.e. 
 435) and on the 23th of the month Hroditz, 
 the patriarch Josei)h, Sahag, bp. of Kesch- 
 douni, the priests .Arsenius, Leontms, Mousch*^, 
 and the deacon Kadchadch were executed in 
 the province of Abar, near Kevan, a village 
 of the Moks. Lazarus (I.e.) records his dving 
 words. On the position of Abar see Langlois 
 (t. ii. p. 186, note i), and Neumann (p. 77, 
 note 18). [Leontius (74). | [o.t.s.1 
 
 Joshua (1) Stylites, a Syrian monk, a native 
 of Edessa, entered the monastery of Zuenin 
 near Amida in Mesopotamia. After some 
 vears he determined to imitate St. Simeon and 
 live the rest of his days on a column, from 
 which he derives his distinguishing name. 
 Before this he had written in 307 the history 
 of his times from 403, entitled, Htslorx of the 
 Calamities which befel Edessa, .i mi da, and all 
 Mesopotamia. A full description, with quota- 
 tions from the original Svriac, is given by 
 .A.ssemani (Bibl. Or. i. 260)'. It was published 
 at Leipzig in 1878, in the Abhandiungen fur dte 
 Kundedes Morgenlandes, in the original Svriac, 
 with a F'rench trans, by Abbe Paulin Martin. 
 The translator describes it as the most ancient 
 history extant in Syriac, and specially valu- 
 able because of Joshua's personal share in the 
 events. His text C(jrrects many omissions and 
 mistakes in Assemani's abstract. He fixes its 
 composition between 510-313, and classes 
 Joshua as a Monophysite, while Assemani re- 
 garded him as orthodox, [i.c.s. andc.t.s.] 
 
 Jovianus (l), Flavlus, Christian emperor 
 from June 27, 363, to Feb. 16, 364. The 
 authorities for the Life of Jovian are generally 
 the same as those for that of Julian. The 
 fifth oration of Themistius, and certain tracts 
 printed among the works of St. Athanasius, 
 are important for the special points of his 
 edict of toleration and dealings with the 
 Arians. There is a useful Life of Jovian bv 
 the Abbe J. K H. de la Bli-terie (Paris. 1748, 
 2 vols., and 1776, i vol.), containing also a 
 translation of some of Julian's works. 
 
 Life. — Jovian was born c. a.d. 331. His 
 father, the count Varronianus, was an inhabit- 
 ant of the territory of Singidunum (Belgrade) 
 in Moesia, the country which gave birth to s<» 
 many emperors (Victor, Epit. 68). At the 
 time of his unexpected elevation he was the 
 first of the imperial bodyguard, a position of 
 no very great distinction (Amm. xxv. 3, 4). 
 
 Julian diod of a wound at midnight, be- 
 tween June 26 and 27, 363, in the midst of his 
 retreat fn^m Persia, leaving his army sur- 
 rounded by active enemies. Early in the 
 morning the generals and chief officers met 
 to choose an emperor. Saturninus Secundus 
 Sallustius, the prefect of the East, a 
 moderate heathen, who was respected also 
 by Christians, was elected ; but he refused 
 
674 
 
 JOVIANUS FLAVIUS 
 
 the dangerous honour, and Jovian was 
 chosen. 
 
 The new emperor was a Christian and a firm 
 adherent of the Nicene faith. He had, indeed, 
 some claim to the honours of a confessor under 
 his predecessor, but Julian, it is said, did not 
 wish to part with so good an officer (Socr. iii. 
 22). He was in other respects a man of no 
 very marked ability (Amm. xxv. 5, 4 ; Eutro- 
 pius, X. 17). He was a generous, bluff, and 
 hearty soldier, popular with his companions, 
 fond of jest and merriment, and addicted to 
 the pleasures common in the camp (Vict. Epit. 
 6 ; Amm. xxv. 10, 15)- He had a bright and 
 open face, always cheerful, and lighted with 
 a pair of clear grey eyes. His figure was 
 extremely tall and his gait rather heavy, and 
 it was long before an imperial wreath could be 
 found to fit him. He was only a moderate 
 scholar, and in this and many other points 
 was a strong contrast to Julian (Amm. I.e.). 
 
 Though he was a sincere believer, we cannot 
 credit the statement of Rufinus that he would 
 not accept the empire till he had obliged all 
 his soldiers to become Christians [H. E. ii. i). 
 But the greater part of the army did, no doubt, 
 return without difficulty to the profession of 
 faith to which they had been accustomed 
 under Constantius. The labarum again be- 
 came their standard; and Jovian's coins 
 
 present, besides the 'j/, the new and striking 
 type (now so familiar) of the ball surmounted 
 by the cross, the symbol of the church domin- 
 ating the world (see Eckhel, Num. Vet. viii. 
 p. 147). Ammianus notes that sacrifices were 
 offered, and entrails of victims inspected on the 
 morning of Jovian's inauguration to decide on 
 the movements of the army (xxv. 6, i). But 
 directly the reins of power were in his hands 
 such things apparently ceased at once. 
 
 We need not describe at length the per- 
 plexities of the Roman generals in their 
 endeavours to escape from Persia, and the 
 protracted negotiations with Sapor, to whose 
 terms Jovian felt it imperative to submit 
 (Eutrop. Brev. x. 17 ; Amm. xxv. 7, 8). The 
 terms were ignoble and humiliating : the 
 cession of the five Mesopotamian provinces 
 which Galerius had added to the Roman 
 dominions, and of the fortresses of Nisibis and 
 Singara, the former of which had been the 
 bulwark of the empire since the reign of 
 Mithridates. No less disgraceful was the 
 sacrifice of Arsaces, king of Armenia, the firm 
 ally of the Romans and a Christian prince, 
 allied to the house of Constantine by his 
 marriage with Olympias (.\mm. ib. 9-12; cf. 
 Greg. Naz. Or. v. 15). But probably no better 
 terms could have been obtained without the 
 loss of nearly all the army. 
 
 After crossing the Tigris with difficulty, the 
 Roman forces marched for six days through 
 very desert country to the fortress of Ur, 
 where they were met by a convoy of provi- 
 sions (Amm. xxv. 8, 16). The scenes at 
 Nisibis were heartrending when the inhabit- 
 ants were bidden leave their homes. Jovian, 
 however, was firm (xxv. 9, 2). The Persian 
 standard was hoisted on the citadel, in token 
 of the change of ownership and the weeping 
 and broken-hearted people were settled in the 
 suburb of Amida. The emperor proceeded to 
 
 JOVIANUS FLAVIUS 
 
 Antioch. The remains of Julian were sent 
 to be buried at Tarsus, where he had in- 
 tended to reside on his return from the Persian 
 war. 
 
 The consternation of the pagans at the news 
 of the death of Julian and the accession of 
 Jovian was as sudden and as marvellous as 
 the triumph of the Christians. All Antioch 
 made holiday, churches, chapels, and even 
 theatres being filled with cries of joy, and 
 taunts at the discomfiture of the heathen 
 party. " Where are the prophecies and 
 foolish Maximus ? God has conquered and 
 His Christ " (Theod. iii. 28). St. Gregory was 
 writing his bitter and brilliant invectives at 
 Nazianzus, where but a few months before 
 the Christian population had trembled at 
 the approach of Julian (Orat. iv. and v., the 
 ffrrjXiTevTiKoi : they were probably 7iot de- 
 livered from the pulpit ; see p. 75 of the 
 Benedictine ed. Paris, 1778). Some acts of 
 violence were committed, especially in the 
 destruction of temples and altars, and more 
 were apprehended. At Constantinople a 
 prefect of Julian's appointment was in danger 
 of his life (Sievers, Libanius, p. 128 ; cf. 
 Lib. £/)/>. 1 1 79, 1 1 86, 1489). Heathen priests, 
 philosophers, rhetoricians, and magicians hid 
 themselves in fear, or were maltreated by 
 the populace. Libanius himself was in peril 
 at Babylon, and was accused before Jovian 
 of never ceasing his ill-omened lamentations 
 for his dead friend, instead of wishing good 
 fortune to the new reign (Liban. de Vita sua, 
 vol. i. pp. 93, 94, ed. Reiske ; cf. Sievers, 
 Libanius, pp. 128 ff. ; Chastel, Destruction Uu 
 Paganisme, pp. 154, 155, who, however, is 
 not accurate in all details). Libanius was 
 saved by the intervention of a Cappadocian 
 friend, who told the emperor that he would 
 gain nothing by putting him to death, as his 
 orations would survive him and become cur- 
 rent. This looks as if his Monody was already 
 written and known at least by report, though 
 probably only delivered to a select circle of 
 friends. The Epitaphius was probably not 
 completed and published till five or six years 
 later (Sievers, p. 132). 
 
 To appease this disturbed state of feeling 
 Jovian issued an edict that all his subjects 
 should enjoy full liberty of conscience, though 
 he forbade the practice of magic (Themistis 
 Oratio, v. pp. 68-70; cf. Chastel, p. 156). 
 This was probably one of the earliest of 
 his laws. It is impossible to reconcile the 
 positive statements of Themistius with that 
 of Sozomen, that Jovian ordered that Chris- 
 tianity should be the only religion of his 
 subjects (Soz. vi. 3) ; and Socrates, who quotes 
 the oration of Themistius, says that all the 
 temples were shut, and that the blood of 
 sacrifices ceased to flow (iii. 24). Jovian may 
 very probably have strongly recommended the 
 Christian faith in his edicts without pretending 
 to enforce it, and the cessation of sacrifice 
 seems to have been a popular rather than a 
 directly imperial movement (the passage in 
 Libanius's Monodia, vol. i. p. 509, appears to 
 refer to Constantius rather than Jovian ; and 
 that in the Epitaphius, pp. 619, 620, was 
 probably written later). Jovian allowed the 
 philosophers Maximus and Prisan, the intimate 
 friends of Julian, to enjoy the honours they 
 
JOVIANUS PLAVIUS 
 
 had received during 1 uliaiiS riit^ii (Hiis. Vila 
 Maximi, p. 38, ed. Boissonade, 1S22). 
 
 The reaction under Jovian, so far as it was 
 directed by his orders, consisted rather in 
 favours granted to Christians than in acts of 
 oppression towards paganism. The edict of 
 tok^ration was perhaps issued at Antioch, 
 which he reached some time in Oct., having 
 been at Edessa on Sept. 27 (Cod. Theod. vii. 
 4, g = Cod. Just. xii. 37, 2 ; it is omitted by 
 accident in Hanel'sSer/Vs Chronologia, p. 1654, 
 but is given by C.odefroy and Kruger). He 
 restored the immunities of the cK»rgy, and the 
 stipends paid to the virgins and widows oi the 
 churcli, and such part of the allowance of corn 
 which Julian had withdrawn as the state of 
 public finances allowed (Soz. vi. 3 ; Theod. 
 i. II, iv. 4). A count named Magnus, who 
 had burned the church of Berytus in the late 
 reign, was ordered to rebuild it, and nearly 
 lost his head (Theod. iv. 22, p. 180 b). At the 
 same time probably Jovian issued a law con- 
 demning to death those who solicited or forced 
 into marriage the virgins of the church (Cod. 
 Theod. ix. 25, 2, this law is addressed to 
 Secundus, prefect of the East, and is dated at 
 Antioch, Feb. 19, a day or two after Jovian's 
 death according to most accounts. Either 
 we must read Aucyrae or suppose the month 
 wrongly given, see the commentators ad loc). 
 
 Jovian is remembered in church history on 
 account of his connexion with St. Athanasius 
 more than any other of his actions. The 
 death of Julian was, it is said, revealed to his 
 companion Theodore of Tabenne, and the 
 bishop took courage to return to Alexandria. 
 Here he received a letter from the new em- 
 peror praising him for his constancy under all 
 persecutions, reinstating him in his functions, 
 and desiring his prayers (.\than. Op. i. 622 = 
 vol. ii. col. 8i2, ed. Migne). Jovian in another 
 letter (no longer extant) desired him to draw 
 up a statement of the Catholic faith. He 
 accordingly summoned a council, and wrote a 
 synodal letter, stating and confirming the 
 Nicene Creed (I.e. and Theod. iv. 3). Armed 
 with this, he set sail for .Antioch (Sept. 5, 363), 
 where he met with a most gracious reception. 
 The leaders of other ecclesiastical parties had 
 been able to gain little beyond expressions of 
 the emperor's desire for unity and toleration. 
 The Arians, and especially bp. Lucius, who 
 had been set up as a rival of Athanasius, 
 followed Jovian about in his daily rides in 
 hopes of prejudicing him against the champion 
 of Catholicity (I.e. pp. 624, 625 = vol. ii. col. 
 819 ff.). The bluff emperor reining up his 
 steed to receive their petitions, and his rough 
 and sensible answers mixed with Latin words 
 to their old and worn-out charges and irrele- 
 vant pleas, stand out with singular vividness. 
 We can almost hear him saying, " Feri, feri," 
 to his guard, in order to be rid of his trouble- 
 some suitors. 
 
 Little seems to have been effected by 
 Athanasius with the Arians at Antioch, and 
 Jovian was disappointed in his endeavour to | 
 terminate the schism between the Catholic , 
 bps. Meletius and Paulinus (Basil, Ep. 89, ' 
 vol.iii. p. 258, ed. (iaume). A coldness ensued 
 between Meletius and .\thanasius, and the 1 
 latter was led to recognize the bishop of the 
 Eustathians as the true head of the Antiochene 
 
 JOVINIANUS 
 
 r.75 
 
 church on his m.iking a d. cl.iration of ortho- 
 doxy. Soon after this he returned in triumph 
 to Alexandria. 
 
 Jovian quitted Antioch in Dec, and came 
 by forced inarches to Tarsus, where he 
 adorned the tomb of Julian. At Tvana, in 
 Cappadocia, he received the news that Mala- 
 rich had declined the charge of (laul, and that 
 Jovinus still continued in his own position, 
 but faithful to the new regime. Jovian also 
 learned that his father-in-law Lucilliantis had 
 been murdered at Rheiins in an accidental 
 mutiny of the Batavian cohorts (.\min. xxv. 
 10; Zos. iii. 35). The deputies of the 
 Western armies salutetl their new sovereign 
 as he descended from Mount Taurus. With 
 them was Valeiitinian, so soon to be his suc- 
 cessor, whom he appointed captain of the 
 second division of scutarii (Amm. xxv. 10, u). 
 
 Another and a heavier blow followed — the 
 news of the loss of his father Varronianus, 
 whom he had for some time hoped to associate 
 with himself in the consulship of the ensuing 
 year. The loss was softened by the arrival 
 of his wife Charito and infant son Varronianus, 
 who, it was determined, should fdl the place 
 destined for his grandfather. The inaugura- 
 tion of the new consuls took place on Jan. i at 
 Ancyra (.Amm. xxv. 10, 11 ; cf. Themist. Or. 
 V. p. 71). Zonaras (.4nnal. xiii. 14) says that 
 Charito never saw her husband after his 
 elevation, but this seems a mistake (see De 
 Broglie, iv. p. 483 n.). The oration of The- 
 mistius was, it seems, delivered at this time. 
 
 Jovian still pushed on, notwithstanding the 
 inclemency of the weather, and arrived at an 
 obscure place calKil Dadastane, about halfway 
 between Ancyra and Nicaea. About Feb. 16, 
 after a heavy supper, he went to bed in an 
 apartment recently built. The plaster being 
 still damp, a brazier of charcoal was brought 
 in to warm the air, and in the morning he was 
 found dead in his bed, after a short reign of 
 only 8 months. (.Amm. xxv. 10, 12, 13, de- 
 scribes his death ; the date is variously given 
 as Mar. 16, 17, and 18 ; see Clinton.) He was 
 buried at Constantinople, and after 10 days' 
 interval Valentinian succeeded. 
 
 Owing to the shortness of Jovian's reign, 
 inscriptions relating to him (other than those 
 on milestones) are very rare, but there is one 
 over the portal of the church of Panaghia at 
 Palaeopolis in Corfu. It may be found in 
 the Corpus Inscr. Graec. vol. iv. 8608, from 
 various authorities, and was also copied on the 
 spot by bp. Wordsworth of Lincoln in 1832, 
 who alone gives the first line: " aCrr) »i)\ij 
 
 ToO KVploV SiK€Ol €la(\lVUOVTt [i.e. SucMot 
 (lafXfvJovTai.^ (v avTT]. (j-W.) 
 
 Jovlnlanus (2), condemned as a heretic by 
 synods at Kome and Milan c. 390. Our fullest 
 inlormation about him is derived from St. 
 Jerome, who wrote two books, aJversus 
 Jovinianum. From these we learn that he 
 had been a monk, living austerely, but 
 adopted certain views which led him to sub- 
 stitute luxury in dress and personal habits and 
 food for the asc«'ticism of the convent, the 
 opinions ascribed to him by Jerome being : 
 (i) A virgin is no better as such than a wife 
 in the sight of (iod. (2) Abstinence is no 
 better than a thankful partaking of food. (3) 
 A person baptized with the Spirit as well as 
 
676 
 
 JULIANA 
 
 with water cannot sin. (4) All sins are equal. 
 (5) There is but one grade of punishment and 
 one of reward in the future world. We learn 
 further from St. Augustine (lib. i. contra 
 Julian, c. ii.), and from the letter of the 
 Milanese synod to Siricius (Ambros. Op. Ep. 
 42), that jovinian maintained tenets as to 
 the Virgin Mary's virginity in giving birth to 
 Jesus Christ in opposition to the orthodox 
 view. He was living at Rome (Hieron. 
 Prolog, adv. Pdag.), and wrote in Latin {ib. 
 lib. ii. adv. Jovin. § 37). Certain Christians 
 at Rome, amongst them Jerome's correspond- 
 ent Pammachius, brought the book to the 
 notice of Siricius, bp. of Rome, who called a 
 meeting of his clergy and condemned the new 
 heresy. Hoping for protection from Theo- 
 dosius, who was now at Milan, Jovinian and 
 his friends proceeded thither ; but Siricius 
 sent three of his presbyters with a letter of 
 warning to the church' at Milan. Ambrose 
 responded warmly to Siricius, and with eight 
 other bishops endorsed the sentence passed by 
 the Roman church. In a letter by Ambrose in 
 the name of the synod of Milan to Siricius 
 conveying this judgment, it is stated that the 
 emperor " execrated " the impiety of the 
 Jovinianists, and that all at Milan who had 
 seen them shunned them like a contagion. In 
 409 Jerome, writing against Vigilantius, refers 
 to Jovinian as having recently died. 
 
 The heresies of Jovinian would be especially 
 obnoxious to the great ecclesiastics of his 
 time, who were wont to insist strongly upon 
 the merit of virginity and of abstinence. 
 Jerome writes against Jovinian, he says, in 
 answer to an appeal made by holy brethren 
 at Rome who desired that he should crush the 
 Epicurus of the Christians with evangelical 
 and apostolic vigour. The vigour of the reply 
 was a little too much even for them (quod 
 nimius fuerim). His praise of virginity 
 seemed to do some wrong to marriage. Ac- 
 cordingly Pammachius (prudenter et amanter, 
 as Jerome acknowledges) thought it best to 
 suppress the copies of Jerome's answer. But 
 the books had already circulated too much to 
 be recalled. Whatever Jerome wrote was 
 seized upon by friends or enemies, and quickly 
 made public (£/>. 48, 49). Jovinian is not 
 accused of any worse immorality than an 
 indulgence in good living, which was probably 
 exaggerated rhetorically by Jerome. Augus- 
 tine reproaches him with having led conse- 
 crated virgins of advanced age to accept 
 husbands. He himself abstained from mar- 
 riage, merelv because of the troubles involved 
 in it. See Hieron. lib. i. adv. Jov. § 3 ; August. 
 de Haer. § 82, lib. ii. de Nupt. et Concep. § 23 ; 
 Retract, lib. ii. § 23 ; also Haller, Jovinianus 
 sein Leben und seine Lehre in Texte und Unter- 
 siich. xvii.new ser. (Leipz. 1S97). [j.ll.d.] 
 
 Juliana (8), mother of the virgin Demetrias, 
 to whom we have letters from Jerome, .Au- 
 gustine, pope Innocent, and Pelagius. She was 
 of noble birth, being connected through her 
 mother Proba and her husband Olybrius with 
 some of the greatest families of Rome, and was 
 possessed of great wealth. When her daugh- 
 ter proposed to take vows of virginity, she 
 refrained from influencing her ; but when 
 Demetrias appeared in the church clad in the 
 dress of a virgin she shewed her great delight 
 
 JULIANUS 
 
 at this step. She supported the cause of 
 Chrysostom at Rome and entertained his 
 messengers. His thanks were conveyed in a 
 letter from his place of exile (a.'d. 406), 
 exhorting her to hold fast and aid in allaying 
 the waves of controversy (Chrys. Ep. 169). 
 She fied with her daughter to Africa from 
 Rome when it was sacked by Alaric, but fell 
 into the rapacious hands of count Hera- 
 clion, who robbed her of half her property. 
 She was commended to the African churches 
 by pope Innocent in a laudatory letter (Ep. 
 15), which takes the rank of a decree in the 
 collection of papal rescripts by Dion. Exig. 
 (Coll. Dec. 39 ; Hieron. Ep. 130, ed. Vail.). 
 She became acquainted with Augustine while 
 in Africa, and she and her daughter had 
 relations with Pelagius, who wrote a long 
 letter to Demetrias (given among the Sup- 
 posititia of Jerome; ed. Vail. vol. xi.) vindi- 
 cating free will by her example. Augustine, 
 with Alypius, wrote to Juliana (.A-Ug. Ep. 188, 
 A.D. 418), arguing that all the virtues of Deme- 
 trias were from the grace of God. [w.h.f.] 
 
 Julianus (15) (Edanensis), bp. of Eclana 
 or Aeculanum (Noris, ad Hist. Pelag. in 0pp. 
 iv. 747, ed. 1729-1732), near Beneventum 
 (ib. i. 18, in 0pp. i. 178 ; Pagi, Critic, s.a. 419, 
 ix.), a distinguished leader of the Pelagians of 
 5th cent. A native of Apulia (.August. Opus 
 Imperf. vi. 18 in Pair. Lat. xlv. 1542), his 
 birth is assigned to c. 386 (Garner, Diss. i. 
 ad part. i. 0pp. Mar. Merc. c. 6, in Patr. Lat. 
 xlviii. 291). His father was an Italian bishop 
 named Memor or Memorius (Mar. Merc. 
 Subnot. iv. 4, Garner's n. g. u.s. p. 130 ; 
 Pagi, U.S.; Cappelletti, Chies. Ital. xx. 19) and 
 his mother a noble lady named Juliana (Mar. 
 Merc. U.S.). Augustine of Hippo was intimate 
 with the family, and wrote of them in terms 
 of great affection and respect, c. 410 (Ep. loi ; 
 Noris, 0pp. i. 422, iv. 747). Julian, c. 404, 
 became a "lector " in the church over which 
 his father presided, and while holding that 
 office married a lady named la. Paulinus, 
 afterwards bp. of Nola, composed an elaborate 
 Epithalamium, which represents him as on 
 terms of great intimacy with the family 
 (Poem. XXV. in Pali. Ixi. 633). By c. 410 
 Julian had become a deacon, but whether la 
 was then living does not appear. 
 
 He was consecrated to the episcopate by 
 Innocent I. c. 417 (Mar. Merc. Commonit. iii. 
 2), but the name of his see is variously given. 
 Marius Mercator, who was his contemporary, 
 distinctly speaks of him as " Episcopus 
 Eclanensis " (Nestor. Tract, praef. § i, Migne, 
 184; Theod. Mops, praef. § 2, Migne, 1043). 
 Innocent I. died Mar. 12, 417. Up to that 
 date Julian had maintained a high reputation 
 for ability, learning, and orthodoxy, and 
 Mercator concludes that he must have sym- 
 pathized with Innocent's condemnation of the 
 Pelagians (Commonit. iii. 2). Vet there is 
 reason to believe that even Innocent had 
 ground for at least suspecting his proclivities 
 (.August, cont. Julian, i. 13). When the cases 
 of Pelagius and Coelestius were reopened by 
 Zosimus, shortly after the death of Innocent, 
 Julian seems to have expressed himself strong- 
 ly in their favour in the hearing of Mercator 
 (Subnot. vii. 2 ; Noris, 0pp. i. 183) ; and when 
 Zosimus issued his Epistola Tractoria against 
 
JULIANUS 
 
 the Pelagians (a.d. 417; Jaffe, Reg. Pont., 
 Rom. 417) and sent it to the bishops of 
 the East and West for subscription, Julian 
 was among those who refused. He was \ 
 accordingly deposed, and afterwards exiled j 
 under the edicts issued by the emperor Honor- | 
 ius in Mar. 418 (Mar. Merc. Comttxonit. iii. i). 
 Julian now addressed two letters to Zosimus 
 (.■\ugust. O/). Imp. i. 18), one of which was very 
 generally circulated throughout Italy before 
 it reached the pontiff. Of this .Mercator has ! 
 preserved some fragments [Subnot. vi. 10-13, ' 
 ix. 3). Of the other we have no remahis (Pagi, 
 Critic. A.D. 418, Ivii.). 
 
 .•\bout the same time Julian addressed a 
 letter to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica (410-431), 
 on his own behalf and that of 18 fellow- 
 recusants. Rufus was vicarius of the Roman 
 see in llhTicum (Innocent's ep. to Rufus, 
 June 17, 412, in -Mansi, viii. 751) and just then 
 in serious collision with Atticus the patriarch 
 of Constantinople. As .\tticus was a strenu- 
 ous opponent of the Pelagians (Noris, 0pp. 
 iv. 884), Julian and his brethren perhaps 
 thought Rufus might be persuaded to favour 
 them [ib. i. 201, 202). Zosimus died Dec. 26, 
 418, and was succeeded by Boniface I., .\pr. 
 10, 419. The letter of Julian to Rufus, with 
 another to the clergy of Rome which he 
 denied to be his (.August. Op. Imp- i. 18), 
 were answered by Augustine in his contra 
 Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum. Julian avows 
 an earnest desire to gain the aid of the Oriental 
 bishops against the " profanity of .Mani- 
 cheans," for so he styles the Catholics (cont. 
 Duas. Ep. ii. i) ; accuses Zosimus of tergiver- 
 isation and the Roman clergy of having been 
 unduly influenced in their condemnation of 
 the Pelagians (ii. 3) ; charges both with 
 various heresies (ii. 2-5) ; and protests that 
 by their means the subscriptions of nearly all 
 the Western bishops had been uncanoni"ally 
 extorted to a dogma which he characterizes 
 as " non minus stultum quam impium " (iv. 
 8, § 20 init.). Garnier assigns the letter to 
 Rufus and the two to Zosimus to a.d. 418 
 [ad Primam Partem, diss. i. Migne, 292). 
 
 When Julian addressed his two letters to 
 Zosimus he was preparing a reply to the first 
 of Augustine's two books de Nuptiis el Con- 
 CHpiscentid (Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef. § 7), 
 which he addressed to a fellow-recusant 
 named Turbantius, whose prayers he earnestly 
 asks that the church may be delivered from 
 the defilement of .Manicheism {ib. iii.). He 
 sent some extracts from the work, which was 
 in four books, and apparently entitled Contra 
 eos qui nuptias damnant et fructus earum 
 diabolo assignant (.\ugust. de \uptiis et Con- 
 cupisc. ii. 4, § II), to Valerius, who forwarded 
 them to his friend .\ugustine. who at once 
 rejoined in a second book de Nuptiis et Con- 
 cupiscentid (.\ugust. Retract, ii. 53). When 
 Julian's work subsequently came into his 
 hands, Augustine (mblished a fuller rejoinder 
 in his contra Julianum Pelagianum. .Augus- 
 tine freely quotes his antagonist, and we see 
 that Julian again insisted upon the Mani- 
 cheism of his opponents (lib. ii. passim) ; 
 again charged Zosimus with prevarication 
 (iii. I, vi. 2), and elaborated the whole anthro- 
 pologv for which he contended. 
 
 When driven from the West, Julian and 
 
 JULIANUS 
 
 677 
 
 some of his fell..w-ixilrs went into Cilicia and 
 remained for a time witti Thcodorus, bp. o( 
 Mopsuestia (Mar. .Mere. I heod. .Mops, praef. 
 § 2), who is charged by Mercator with having 
 been one of the originators of Pelagianism 
 (Subnot. praef. § i, Symb. Theod. Mops, nracf. 
 § 2) and who wrote against .Vugustine (Phot. 
 Btbl. Cod. 177 ; Mar. Merc. C.arnier, ad Prim. 
 Partem, diss. vi.). .Meanwhile tlie rejoinder 
 of .\ugusline had reached Julian, who an- 
 swered it in 8 books, addressed to Florus, a 
 fellow-recusant (Co. F.ph. a.d. 4^1, actio v. 
 in Mansi, iv. 1337 ; Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef.). 
 Mercator has given various extracts (Subnot. 
 passim), but it is best known from .AuRustiive's 
 elaborate Opus Imperfcctum, whic li was 
 evoked by it (.August. Opp. t. x. in Patr. iMt. 
 xlv. 1050), but left incomplete. On the death 
 of Boniface I. and the succession of Celestine I. 
 in Sept. 422, Julian apparently left Cilicia 
 and returned to Italy, probably hoping that 
 the new pontiff might rec Misider the case of 
 the Pelagians, especially as a variance had 
 then arisen between the Roman see and the 
 .African bishops. Celestine repulsed him, and 
 caused him to be exiled a second time (Prosper. 
 contr. Collator, xxi. 2, in Patr. Lat. Ii. 271). 
 Julian was also condemned, in his absence, by 
 acouncil in Cilicia, Theodorus concurring in the 
 censure (.Mar. Merc. Symb. Theod. .Mop s. 
 praef. § 3 ; Garnier, ad Prim. Part. diss. ii. 
 Migne, 339). On this Julian went to Con- 
 stantinople, where tiie same fate awaited him 
 both from Atticus and his successor Sisinnius 
 (a.d. 426, 427) (Gamier, u.s. 361 ; Coelest. ad 
 Sestor. in Mansi, iv. 1025). On the accession 
 of Nestorius to the patriarchate (a.d. 428) the 
 expectations of Julian were again raised, and 
 he appealed b>th to Nestorius and to the 
 emperor Theodosius II. Both at first gave 
 him some encouragement (Mar. Merc. Sestor. 
 Tract, praef. § i), which may be why there is 
 no menti m of the Pelafiians in the celebrated 
 edict which the emjjeror issued against here- 
 sies at the instance of Nestorius (Cod. Theod. 
 XVI. v. 65, May 30, 428 ; Socr. H. E. 
 vii. 29). The patriarch wrote to Celestine 
 more than once in his behoof and that of his 
 friends (Nestor. Ep. to Celest. in .Mansi, iv. 
 1022, 1023), but the favour he shewed them 
 necessitated his defending himself in a public 
 discourse delivered in their presence, and 
 translated by .Mercator (u.s. .Mi«ne, 1H9 sei).). 
 In 429 Mercator presented his Commoni- 
 torium de Coelestio to the emperor, wherein he 
 carefully relates the proceedings against the 
 Pelagians and comments sevi-nlv upon th( ir 
 teaching. Julian and his frienils were then 
 driven fr. ra Constantino])le by an imperial 
 edict (Mar. Merc. Commonit. praef. § i). 
 I Towards the close of 430 Celestine c<mvened 
 acouncil at Rome, which condenmed Julian 
 ' and others once more (Garnier, u.s. diss. ii.). 
 I Whither he went from Constantinople does 
 not appear, but he with other PelaRJans s<"em 
 to have accomi)anie(l Nestorius to the convent 
 of liphesus, AD. 431, and to.ik part in the 
 " Conciliabulum " held by Joannes of .Antiixh 
 (Relat. ad Coel. in .Mansi, iv. I3V«)- Baronius 
 (s.a. 431 Ixxix.) infers from one t>f the letters of 
 Gregorv the (ireat (lib. ix. ind. ii. ep. 4r) in Pair. 
 Lat. XV. Ixxvii. 981) that the "Conciliabulum" 
 absolved Julian and his friends, but Cardinal 
 
 37 
 
578 
 
 JULIANUS 
 
 Noris (0pp. i. 362) has shewn that the council 
 repeat their condemnation of the Pelagians, 
 expressly mentioning Julian by name (Relat. 
 M.S. ; Mar. Merc. Nestor. Tract, praef. § 2). 
 
 Sixtus III., the successor of Celestine (July 
 31, 432), when a presbyter, had favoured the 
 Pelagians, much to the grief of Augustine 
 (Ep. 174). Julian attempted to recover his 
 lost position through him, but Sixtus evidently 
 treated him with severity, mainly at the 
 instigation of Leo, then a presbyter, who 
 became his successor, a.d. 440 (Prosper. 
 Chron. s.a. 439). When pontiff himself, Leo 
 shewed the same spirit toward the Pelagians, 
 especially toward Julian {de Promiss. Dei, pt. 
 iv. c. 6 in Patr. Lat. li. 843). We hear no more 
 of JuHan until his death in Sicily, c. 454 (Gen- 
 nad. Script. Eccl. xlv. in Patr. Lat. Iviii. 1084 ; 
 Gamier, u.s. diss. i. Migne, 297). 
 
 Some years after his death Julian was again 
 condemned by Joannes Talaia, formerly patri- 
 arch of Alexandria, but c. 484 bp. of Nola in 
 Italy (Phot. Bihl. Cod. liv. ; s.f. August. 0pp. 
 in Patr. Lat. xlv. 1684). 
 
 Julian was an able and a learned man. 
 Gennadius speaks of him as " vir acer ingenio, 
 in divinis Scripturis doctus, Graeca et Latina 
 lingua scholasticus " (u.s.). He was of high 
 character, and especially distinguished for 
 generous benevolence (Gennad. u.s.), and 
 seems actuated throughout the controversy by 
 a firm conviction that he was acting in the 
 interests of what he held to be the Christian 
 faith and of morahty itself. 
 
 Besides his works ahready mentioned, Bede 
 speaks of his Opuscula on the Canticles, and 
 among them of a " libellus " de A more, and a 
 "libellus" de Bono Constantiae, both of which 
 he charges with Pelagianism, giving from each 
 some extracts (in Cantica, praef. Migne, 1065- 
 1077). Garnier claims Julian as the translator 
 of the Libellus Fidei a Rufmo Palaestinae Pro- 
 vinciae Presbytero, which he has published in 
 his ed. of Marius Mercator (ad Pritnam Partem, 
 dissert, v. Migne, 449, dissert, vi. Migne, 623), 
 and as the author of the Liber Defmitionum 
 seu Rattocinationum, to which Augustine re- 
 plied in his de Perfectione Justitiae (note 6 in 
 Mar. Merc. Subnot. Migne, 145, 146). Cf. A. 
 Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum (Leipz. 1897) 
 in Texte und Untersuch. xv. 3. [t.w.d.] 
 
 Julianus (27), bp. of Cos, the friend and 
 frequent correspondent of Leo the Great. He 
 was by birth an Italian. Being educated at 
 Rome (Leo. Mag. Ep. Ixxxi. 1042 ; Migne, Ep. 
 cxiii. 1 190) he was acquainted with Latin as 
 well as Greek (Ep. cxiii. 1194) and was thus 
 useful to Leo, who was ignorant of Greek. 
 Leo found in him a man after his own heart. 
 He describes him as a " part of himself " (Ep. 
 cxxv. 1244). Long experience led him to put 
 the fullest confidence in his orthodoxy, erudi- 
 tion, watchfulness, and zeal (Ep. xxxv. 875, 
 xci. 1066). Nothing could exceed the value 
 of such a man to Leo to watch over the inter- 
 ests of the faith and the Roman see in the 
 East. Julian was present at the council of 
 Constantinople in 448 and professed his belief 
 in the " two natures in one Person " — an ex- 
 pression which Dioscorus could not tolerate 
 when he heard it read at Chalcedon— and sub- 
 scribed the condemnation of Eutyches (Labbe, 
 Concilia, iv. 188 b, 231 b). In Apr. 449 he 
 
 JULIANUS 
 
 was present at the synod in Constantinople, 
 granted by the emperor at the demand of 
 Eutyches to verify the records of the former 
 council. Here we find him disputing occa- 
 sionally the exact accuracy of the "Acta" 
 (Labbe, iv. 231 (2), c. 234 (2) b ; Tillem. xv. 
 511). He wrote to Leo a letter which pro- 
 duced two replies dated the same day, J une 13, 
 449, the first of a long series of letters from Leo 
 to Julian (Epp. xxxiv. xxxv.). The latter of 
 the two contains an elaborate dogmatic state- 
 ment against Eutyches. After this Julian 
 became one of the pope's chief mediums for 
 impressing his wishes and policy on the East. 
 [Leo.] Through the Eutychian troubles 
 Julian remained true to the faith and suffered 
 so much that, as he tells Leo, he thought of 
 retiring to Rome (Ep. Ixxxi. 1042). It was 
 Julius of Puteoli, however, not this Julian, 
 who was papal legate at the council of Ephesus. 
 Leo commended Julian to the favour of Pul- 
 cheria and Anatolius of Constantinople as one 
 who had always been faithful to St. Flavian 
 (Epp. Ixxix. Ixxx. 1037, 1041, dated Apr. 451). 
 In June 451 he begs him to associate himself 
 with his legates, Lucentius and Basil, to the 
 council of Chalcedon (Ep. Ixxxvi. 1063). He 
 is commended to Marcian the emperor as a 
 " particeps " with them (Ep. xc. 1065). His 
 exact position at that council appears some- 
 what ambiguous. He is not mentioned among 
 the legates in the letter of Leo to the council 
 (Ep. xciii. 1070), but in the Acts of the council 
 is always spoken of as holding that position 
 (Labbe, iv. 80 c, 852 c, 559 £)• In the list 
 of signatures he does not appear among the 
 legates of Rome, yet higher than his own 
 rank, as bp. of Cos, would entitle him to 
 appear, and among the metropolitans (cf. 
 Tillem. xv. 645, and note, 43). His condem- 
 nation of Dioscorus, with reasons assigned, 
 appears in the acta of the third session of the 
 council (Labbe, iv. 427 c). In the matter of 
 the claims of Bassian and Stephen to the see 
 of Ephesus, he gives his voice first for setting 
 both aside, then for allowing a local council 
 to choose (701 D, 703 d). He displeased Leo 
 by not resisting the 28th canon of the council 
 in favour of the claims of Constantinople 
 (Ep. xcviii. 1098), and by writing to Leo 
 begging him to give his assent to it (Ep. cvii. 
 1 1 72). After this, however, he is in as good 
 favour as ever. From Mar. 453 he was 
 apocrisiarius or deputy of the see of Rome at 
 the court of Constantinople. Leo requests 
 him to remain constantly at court, watching 
 zealously over the interests of the faith (Epp. 
 cxi. 1187, cxiii. 1190, "specularinon desinas"; 
 cf. Tillem. xv. 761). In Mar. 453 Leo re- 
 quested him to make a complete translation 
 of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon (Ep. 
 cxiii. 1194). Julian seems to have returned 
 to his diocese in 457 (cf. Tillem. xvii. 762, 791) 
 and wrote a reply, in his own name only, to 
 the circular letter of the emperor Leo on the 
 excesses of Timothy Aelurus and the authority 
 of the Chalcedonian council. [Leo, emperor.] 
 Julian lu^ges that Timotheus should be pun- 
 ished by the civil power and maintains 
 strongly the authority of the council. "For 
 where were assembled so many bishops, where 
 were present the holy Gospels, where was so 
 much united prayer, there, we believe, was 
 
JULIANUS 
 
 also present with invisible power the author of 
 all creation " (Labbe, iv. 942 ; Or. Chr. i. 935). 
 After this no morels known of him. [ccl 
 
 Jullanus (47). bp. of Halicarnassus in the 
 province of Caria ; a leader of the Mono- 
 physites. In 511 he was active in conjunction 
 with Severus and others in instigating the 
 emperor Anastasius to depose Macedonius, 
 patriarch of Constantinople (Theod. l.ect. ii. 
 26). Theophanes erroneously speaks of him 
 as bp. of Caria before he was bp. of Halicar- 
 nassus (Chron. \.c. 503, in Pair. G/;. cviii.362). 
 On the accession of Justin I. in 518, severe 
 measures were taken against the Monophvsites 
 and Julian was driven from his see. He went 
 to .Alexandria, followed quickly by Severus 
 on his expulsion from .\ntioch (Liberatus, 
 Brfv. c. 19 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 4 ; Vict. 
 Tunun. Chron. s.a. 539). Timotheus the 
 successor of Dioscorus the younger received 
 both kindly, and they settled near the city. 
 Shortly afterwards a monk appealed to 
 Severus as to whether the body of our Lord 
 should be called corruptible. He answered 
 that the " fathers " had declared that it 
 should. Some .\lexandrians hearing this 
 asked Julian, who said that the "fathers" 
 had declared the contrary. In the fierce con- 
 troversy thus evoked the Julianists charged 
 the Severians with being Phthartolatrae or 
 Corrupticolae, while the Severians charged 
 the Julianists with being Phantasiastae and 
 Manicheans (Liberatus, u.s. ; Tim. Presb. de 
 Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 58 ; Niceph. 
 Call. E. H. xviii. 45). The designation by 
 which the Julianists were more generally 
 known was .\phthartodocetae or Incorrup- 
 ticolae (Jo. Damasc. de Haer. §84). Much 
 was written on either side. The only writings 
 of Julian that remain are his Ten .-inathemas, 
 a S\Tiac version by Paulus, the deposed bp. 
 of Callinicus, being published by Assemani 
 {MSS. Cod. Biblioth. .Apost. Vatic. Catalog, iii. 
 230, 231). .\ Latin trans, of this valuable 
 document is given by Gieseler in his Commen- 
 tatio qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de 
 Christi persona opiniones imprimis ex ipsorum 
 effatis recens editis illustrantur (P. ii. p. 5). 
 Three letters from Julian to Severus, also 
 translated by Pauhis, and several fragments 
 are among the Syrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus. 
 (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. pt. ii. 554, 929, 960, 
 961, pt. iii. 1059). .\ssemani also gives three 
 letters of his to Severus from the Syriac MSS. 
 in the Vatican (u.s. iii. 223). 
 
 Leontius of Byzantium tells us that Julian 
 earnestly contended for the " Incorrupti- 
 bility," because he considered the view of 
 Severus made a distinction (bia0opav) be- 
 tween the body of our Lord and the Word of 
 God, to allow of which was to acknowledge 
 two natures in Him {de Sect, act v. 3, in Patr. 
 Gk. Ixxxvi. 1230). This explanation is also 
 given by Theodorus Khaituensis (de Incarnat. 
 in Patr. Gk. xci. 1498) and is fully sustained, 
 especially by the eighth Anathema as pub. 
 by Gieseler. He was certainly no Phan- 
 tasiast and far from being a Manichean ; 
 but, as Uorner justly observes, in asserting 
 " the supernatural character of our Lord's 
 body," Julian and his followers did not intend 
 to deny its "reality," but only aimed at 
 " giving greater prominence to Mis love by 
 
 JULIANUS 
 
 579 
 
 tracmg not merely His suflferinRs themselves, 
 but oven the possibility of suflcring " to Hii 
 self-sacrifice {Person of Christ, cd. Clark, ii. 
 i. 129). Jo. nam.vsc. Orlh. Fid. iii. 28 ; lius. 
 Thess. contr. .Andr.; Phot. lUhl. Cod. 162; 
 Thom. .\i]uin. Sum. p. iii. q. i. art. 5 concJ. 
 
 Julian by some means recovered his sec o( 
 Halicarnassus, but in the council of Constanti- 
 nople A.D. 536, under AK.inetus bp. of komr, 
 he was again deposed (Theoph. s.a. 529 • 
 Mansi, viii. 869 ; Libeil. S\n. in Labbc, v. 
 276). After this he disappears, but 'his 
 opinions continued to spread long afterwards 
 especially in the Hast ; where his followers 
 ultimately divided, one part holding " that 
 the body of our Lord was absolutely (aotA 
 irdcra TftiTov) incorruptible from the very 
 ' Unio ' itself " (^^ ai'T^t n/t tuixrtu^) ; 
 another, that it was not absolutely incur. 
 ruptible but potentially (Jii'd^fO the reverse, 
 yet could not become corruptible because the 
 Word prevented it; and a third that it was 
 not only incorruptible from the very " Unio," 
 but also increate (oi"' ix6vov AtpOaprof /f ai'-r^t 
 ^fuxreus, aWa nal AKTiffrov). These last were 
 distinguished as Actistitae. Tim. Presb. u.s. 
 43 : Leont. Bvzant. contr. Xestor. et Fulxch. 
 ii. in Patr. G*. Ixxxvi. 1315, 1358; Id. de Sect. 
 act X. ib. 1239; Anastas. Sinait. Viae Dux, 
 c. 23, in Patr. Gk. Ixxxix. 296; Isaac. .Arm. 
 Cath. Orat. contr. .irnien. c. i, in Patr. Gk. 
 cxxxii. 1155 ; Id. de Reb. Arm. ib. 1243. 
 
 Four scholastic! from Alexandria visited 
 Ephesus c. 549, and prevailed upon bp. 
 Procopius to avow himself a Julianist. In 
 560, immediately after his decease, seven of 
 his presbyters, who were also Julianists, are 
 said to have placed the hands of his corpse 
 on the head of a monk named Eutropius, and 
 then to have recited the consecration prayer 
 over him.* Eutropius afterwards ordained 
 ten Julianist bishops, and sent them as mis- 
 sionaries east and west, among other places to 
 Constantinople, .Antioch, and .■Mexaiidria, and 
 into Syria, Persia, Mesopotamia, and the 
 country of the Homeritt-s (.Asseman. litbl. 
 Or. i. 316, ii. 86, 88, iii. pt. ii.cccclv. ; Wright. 
 Cat. Syr. MSS. ii. 755). 
 
 By A.D. 565 the emperor Justinian had 
 become an Incorruptibilist. He issued an 
 edict avowing his change of opinion and gave 
 orders that " all bishops everywhere " should 
 be compelled to accept JuJianism (Evagr. 
 H. E. iv. 39 ; Theoph. s.a. 557 ; Cedrenus, 
 Comp. //is/, ed. Bonn. i. 680 ; Pagi, Critic. 
 s.a. 565, ii.). This naturally encountered 
 great opposition, especially, among others, 
 from .\nastasius patriarch of .Antioch (a.d. 
 559-569) and Nicetius bp. of Treves (527-566) 
 (Nicetius, Ep. 2 in Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 3H0). Hut 
 the (Jaianites of Alexandria took courage 
 from the edict to erect churches in that city, 
 and elected Helpidius, an archdeacon, as their 
 bishop (Theoph. u.s.). He almost immediately 
 incurred the displeasure of the emperor and 
 died on his way to Constantinople, whither he 
 had been summoned. They then united with 
 the Theodosians under Dorotheus. who, Theo- 
 phanes says, was one of that party, but who 
 
 • The corpse of J\ilLm Is »;il<l to h;ivc l)rcn trratcd 
 in the same manner by hb p<T»on;il (ollottct» (IttuiC. 
 Arm. Cath. tit Rtb. Arm. u.a. 1248). 
 
580 
 
 JULIANUS 
 
 both Sophronius of Jerusalem and John of 
 Ephesus, the latter of whom especially was 
 likely to be much better informed than the 
 Chronographer, say was a Julianist (Sophron. 
 Ep. Syn. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvii. 3191 ; Jo. v. 
 Eph. Kirchengesch. uebers, v. Schonfelder, i. 
 40, p. 47). Justinian died Nov. 565. 
 
 Tlie julianists were still numerous at Alex- 
 andria during the patriarchate of Eulogius 
 (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 227) and continued so still 
 later. Sophronius of Jerusalem speaks of 
 " Menas Alexandrinus, Gaianitarum propug- 
 nator " as his contemporary (u.s. 3194), and 
 Anastasius Sinaita relates a public disputation 
 with the Gaianites of that city in which he 
 took part (Viae Dux, u.s. 150 seq.). They 
 were known in the West as late as the com- 
 mencement of 7th cent. (Greg. I. Ep. lib. ix. 
 ind. ii. ep. 68, ad Eus. Thessal. in Patr. Lat. 
 Ixxvii. A.D. 601 ; Jaffe, Reg. Pont. 145 ; Eus. 
 Thessal. M.S.). In Armenia they were very 
 numerous in the time of Gregory Bar-heb- 
 raeus(Assemani. M.s.ii. 296; Dorner, «.s. 13 n.). 
 
 Julian achieved a very high reputation as a 
 commentator on the Scriptures. Nicetas bp. 
 of Heraclea, c. 1077, selected many of the 
 most striking passages in his Catena Graecorum 
 Patrum in Beatum Job from Julian's exe- 
 getical and other writings. This catena was 
 first published by Patricius Junius, with a 
 Latin trans. (London, 1637, fob), and after- 
 wards in Greek only at Venice (1792, fob). 
 The quotations from Julian are in the " Proe- 
 mium " and pp. 37, 45, 66, 93, 170, 178, 228, 
 230, 273, 437, 465, 480, 505, 539, 547-613, of 
 the former of these editions. Fabric. Bibl. 
 Or. ed. Harles, viii. 647, 650 ; Cave, i. 495 ; 
 Ceillier, xi. 344. Cf. Usener in Lietzmann's 
 Katenen, Freib. in Breisq (1897), p. 28, and 
 the Rhein Mur. f. Phil. 1900, iv. p. 321; also 
 Loots in Leont. von Byzanz. (Leipz. 1887), i. 
 p. 30. [t.w.d.] 
 
 Julianus (73), missionary priest to the 
 Nubians in the reign of Justinian. John of 
 Ephesus (R. Payne Smith's trans, pp. 251 seq.) 
 and Bar-hebraeus (in Asseman. Bibl. Or. ii. 
 330) give an account of him. He was an old 
 man of great worth, and one of the clergy in 
 attendance on Theodosius, the Monophysite 
 patriarch of Alexandria, then residing at Con- 
 stantinople. Julian had long desired to 
 Christianize the Nobadae or Nubians, a 
 wandering people E. of the Thebais and be- 
 yond the limits of the empire, which they 
 greatly harassed. The empress Theodora 
 warmly encouraged the undertaking and con- 
 sulted Justinian about it, who became inter- 
 ested but objected to Julian as a Monophysite, 
 and named another instead, whilst Theodora 
 persisted in favouring Julian. John of 
 Ephesus describes fully the rival missions and 
 the triumph of the empress's schemes. J ulian 
 reached the Nubian court first, won over the 
 king and secured the rejection of the emperor's 
 envoy when he arrived. Thus the Nubians 
 were gained to the Monophysite creed and to 
 the jurisdiction of Theodosius. After labour- 
 ing there two years Julian placed Theodore, a 
 Thebaid bishop, in charge and returned to Con- 
 stantinople, where he soon afterwards died. 
 For the subsequent history of the mission see 
 LoNGiNus. [t.w.d.] 
 
 Julianus (103), Flavlus Claudius, emperor, 
 
 JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 often called Julian the Apostate; born a.d. 
 331 ; appointed Caesar, Nov. 6, 355 ; pro- 
 claimed Augustus, Apr. 360 ; succeeded Con- 
 stantius as sole emperor, Nov. 3, 361 ; died 
 in Persia, June 27, 363. For the authorities 
 for Julian's life, see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v. 
 The first and still in some respects the 
 best English account of J ulian is to be found in 
 Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- 
 pire, cc. 19, 22-24 — a forcible and on the whole 
 very just picture. Like some other cold and 
 sceptical people (e.g. Strauss), Gibbon despised 
 Julian's superstitious enthusiasm, and, though 
 he cannot restrain some sneers at the church 
 and the orthodox faith, this part of his history 
 has generally met with comparative favour 
 at the hands of Christian critics. Mr. J. W. 
 Barlow on Gibbon and Jtilian in the Dublin 
 Hermathena for 1877 endeavours to shew that 
 Gibbon, in order to gain a reputation for 
 impartiality, is unfair to the emperor, whom 
 he thinks morally and intellectually the best 
 man " of the whole series." In the first three 
 quarters of the last century little or nothing 
 was published in England specially on this 
 subject. An interesting and valuable essay, 
 written for a Cambridge historical prize by 
 the Hon. Arthur Lyttelton, has been kindly 
 placed at the disposal of the writer of this 
 article, who owes to it several important 
 references. It is embodied in the Chtirch 
 Qtly. Rev. for Oct. 1880, vol. xi. pp. 24-58, 
 The Pagan Reaction under Julian, which gives 
 a fresh and vigorous view of the subject. 
 Mr. Gerald H. Rendall's Hulsean Essay for 
 1876, The Emperor Julian; Paganism and 
 Christianity is decidedly the best account of 
 Julian's religious position in English, perhaps 
 in any modern language. In French we have 
 the invaluable Tillemont and other writers of 
 church history. Besides the articles in vol. iv. 
 of the Empereurs there is a special treatise on 
 the Persecidion de VEglise par J . I'Apostat, in 
 vol. vii. of the Memoires. We miss, however, 
 a critical treatment of the authorities and wide 
 generalizations in Tillemont. He also seems 
 to exaggerate the scope of the law against 
 Christian professors. The fullest history of 
 Julian is that of Albert de Broglie in vols. 
 iii. and iv. of his L'Eglise et I'empire romain 
 au quatrieme siecle (Paris, 1866, etc.). This is 
 indispensable to the student of the period. Its 
 general attitude is that takenin this article, but 
 he is too anxious to make points to be careful 
 of minute accuracy, and therefore of entire 
 fairness, and his references often want cor- 
 rection. These volumes were reviewed by C. 
 Martha in the Revue des deux mondes for Mar. 
 1867, vol. Ixviii. pp. 137-169, who paints the 
 emperor more favourably. In German J. F. 
 A. Miicke, Flavius Claudius Julianus : nach 
 den Quellen (Gotha, 1867 and 1869, 2 parts) 
 is the most complete modern account. Fr. 
 Rode, Geschichte der Reaction Kaiser Julians 
 gegen die christliche Kirche (Jena, 1877) ; a 
 useful study, and generally very accurate, 
 paying proper attention to chronology. The 
 writer takes up something of the same position 
 as Keim does in his essay on Constantine's 
 conversion — striving after fairness towards 
 the church, without accepting its doctrines. 
 He admires Julian's books against the Chris- 
 tians as anticipating the line of modern critical 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS «RI 
 
 theology in many points, pp. lo^, loj ; cf. 
 p. 32, n. 10. 
 
 § I. Early years of Julian as a Christian 
 (a.d. 331-351)- § 2. Conversion to heathenism 
 35I-355- § 3- Julian as Caesar from Nov. 6, 
 355 to Nov. 3, 361. § 4. Residence at Con- 
 stantinople as Augustus, Nov. 3, 3(11 to May, 
 362. § 5. Journey through Asia Minor. May 
 to July, 362. § 6. Residence at Aniioch, 
 July, 362 to March 5, 363. § 7. Persian cam- 
 paign and death, March 5 to June 27, 363. 
 
 § I. Early Years of Julian as a Christian 
 (a.d. 331-351). — Flavius Claudius Julianus 
 was the youngest son of Julius Constantius, 
 the half-brother of Constantine the Great. 
 His mother, Basilina, was of the noble family 
 of the Anicii, and daughter of Julianus the 
 praetorian prefect, whose name was given to 
 her son. Julian was born at Constantinople 
 in the latter part of a.d. 331, the year after 
 the dedication of the new capital. 
 
 Upon the death of Constantine in May 337, 
 and the accession of his three sons, there was 
 a general massacre of the male branches of 
 the younger line of the Flavian family de- 
 scended from Constantius Chlorus and his 
 second wife Theodora. In this tragedy there 
 perished the father and eldest brother of 
 Julian, his paternal uncle, his cousins the 
 Caesars Delmatius and Hanniballian, and 
 four other members of the family. J ulian and 
 his elder half-brother Gallus, who was sick 
 of an illness which was expected to be mortal, 
 were alone preserved, by the compassion or 
 the policy of Constantius (cf. Socr. H. E. iii. 
 I ; Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 58 b. Julian, ad 
 S. P. Q. Athen. p. 270 c, gives the list of those 
 who perished, and ascribes their deaths to 
 Constantius, who he says wished at first to 
 slay both himself and Gallus). Julian is said 
 to have owed his life to the interference of 
 Mark, bp. of Arcthusa, who gave him sanc- 
 tuary in a church (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 80 c). 
 The boy was taken charge of by his mother's 
 family, and his education conducted under the 
 direction of the Arian Eusebius, bp. of Nico- 
 media, who was distantly related to him 
 (.\mm. xxii. 9. 4; cf. Soz. v. 2). When 
 Eusebius was translated in 388 to the see of 
 Constantinople Julian probably went with 
 him, and attended the schools of that city 
 (cf. Libanius, t7rtr(i</nos, ed. Reiske, i. p. 525 ; 
 Julian, Ep. 58; and Rode, Die Reaction 
 Julians, p. 22, n. 10). His constant attendant 
 and guardian was his mother's slave Mardonius, 
 wh'ise influence evidently had great power in 
 moulding the character and tastes of his 
 pupil, and who insisted strongly on a staid and 
 perhaps rather pedantic demeanour (Liban. 
 I.e.; Jul. MisopogoH, pp.351 seq. ; Miirke. 
 in his Julianus nach den Quellen. zweite Ab- 
 theilung, pp. 6 and 9, makes a curinus blunder 
 in supposing that Julian disliked .Mardonius). 
 Though educating him only for a private posi- 
 tion, he set before him a high standard, and 
 particular! V held up to his imitation the names 
 and characters of " Plato, Socrates. Aristotle, 
 and Theophrastus " l.Misop. p. 353 b). He 
 kept him from the theatre and the circus, and 
 taught him rather to love the Homeric de- 
 scriptions of Fhaeacia and Demodocus and 
 Calypso's isle, and the cave of Circe (i*. 35» »)• 
 
 Such tearhiiig doubtlrxs f,<l th.- n.itur.illy 
 dreamy temperanieiit of his i>ui>il. Julian 
 tells us that from a rliild he had a MranRe 
 desire of gazing at the sun, and that hr |ovr<l 
 to spend a clear night in looking fixe<llv at the 
 moon and stars, so that he almost gainrtl the 
 character of an astrologer (Jul. Or. iv. ad 
 regem Solem ad init. ; < f. th«- fahlr. Or. vii. 
 p. 229, in which he speaks of himself a» en- 
 trusted by Zeus to the sim's guardianship). 
 
 Th«'se pleasant days of freedom were 
 brought to an abrupt conclusion bv Ihr com- 
 mand of Constantius. The death of his rela- 
 tive Eusebius (in 342) deprived Juli.in of a 
 powerful protector, when he was about 11 
 years old ; and soon after (pmbablv in 34 x or 
 344) the emperor recalled Gallus ^nm exili-. 
 and sent the two brothers to the distant 
 palace of Macellum in Cappadoria. Here for 
 six years they were kept under surviillance. 
 with no lack of material comforts, but apart 
 from young men of their own age and with 
 only the S(>ciety of their slaves (Greg. Naz. Or. 
 iii. p. 58 B ; Julian, ad Ath, p. 271 c). Their 
 seclusion was only once broken bv a visit 
 from Constantius (Jul. ad .4th. p. 274. prob- 
 ably in 347, see laws of the Cnd. Theod. in 
 this year). Masters and teachers were not 
 wanting, especially of that fonn of Arianism 
 to which Constantius was devoted ; and 
 Julian now, if not before, made a considerable 
 verbal acquaintance with the Bible, an 
 acquaintance which frequently appears in 
 his writings. He and Gallus were admitted 
 to the office of Reader in the church — a proof 
 that he had been baptized, though no mention 
 of his baptism is recorded. They interested 
 themselves zealously in the buildinc of chapels 
 over the relics of certain martvrs (Greg. Naz. 
 Or. iii. p. 58 ; Soz. v. 2). The success of 
 Gallus in this building and the ill-success of 
 Julian was remarked at the time, and was 
 (afterwards, at any rate) considered as an 
 omen of his apostasy (Greg. Naz. I.e. p. 59). 
 
 In the spring of 351 Constantius felt himself 
 forced by the burden of empire to take a col- 
 league, and Gallus was appointed Caesar. 
 Julian with difficulty was permitted tf> leave 
 Macellum, and seems to have returned for a 
 short time to Constantinople ; there he studied 
 grammar with Nicocles, and rhetoric with 
 Hecebolius then a zealous Christian (Socr. 
 H. E. iii. i). Constantius, fearing lest his 
 presence in the capital might U-ad to his 
 becoming too popular, ordered him to remove 
 to Niconiedia (Liban. Epitaph, p. 526, wpra<f<u- 
 vfiTindi. p. 408). Hecebolius exacted a promise 
 from his pupil that he would not attend the 
 lectures of the famous heathen sophist I.i- 
 banius ; Julian kept his promise, perhaps 
 fearing to excite suspicion by outward inter- 
 ' course with a chief partisan of the old re- 
 ligion, but contented himself with a study of 
 the written lectures of the master (liban. /.c. 
 526 seq. Libanius does not name Hecebolius, 
 but the description seems to point to him : 
 , Sievcrs, Libanius, p. 54, n. 5. suppose* Nicocles 
 i to be meant). Others, however, in Nicomrtlia 
 besides Libanius attracted the attention of 
 ! the young prince. He here learnt to know 
 some of the more mystical of the heathen 
 j party, to whom paganism was still a reality 
 1 and the gods living beings, visions of whom 
 
682 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 were to be seen by night and whose power 
 still worked signs and wonders. " He is sent 
 to the city of Nicomcdes," says Libanius, 
 " as a place of less importance than Con- 
 stantinople. But this was the beginning 
 of the greatest blessings both to himself and 
 the world. For there was there a spark of the 
 m antic art still smouldering, which had with 
 difficulty escaped the hands of the impious. 
 By the' light of this" (turning to Julian) 
 " vou first tracked out what was obscure, and 
 learnt to curb vour vehement hatred of the 
 gods, being rendered gentle by the revelations 
 of divination" (Liban. Prosphonetictis, ed. 
 Reiske, i, p. 408). 
 
 While Julian was thus having his first ex- 
 perience of the inner circle of heathen life. 
 Callus met his brother for the last time as he 
 passed through Bithynia to undertake the 
 government of the East with which Constan- 
 tius had invested him (Liban. Epitaph, p. 527. 
 dta TTJs Bidwlas). The two brothers, ac- 
 cording to Julian's account, corresponded but 
 rarely after this, and on few subjects (Jul. ad 
 Aih. p. 273 ; Liban. Epitaph, p. 530). Callus, 
 it is said, having reason at a later date to 
 suspect his brother's change of belief, sent 
 the Arian Aetius to confer with him (Philo- 
 storgius, 3, 27). Julian, if we may believe 
 Libanus, sent Callus good advice on his political 
 conduct, which had he followed he might have 
 preserved both the empire and his life (Liban. 
 ad Jul. COS. p. 376, ed. Reiske). 
 
 § 2. Conversion to Heathenism (a.d. 351- 
 355). — The secret apostasy of Julian was 
 the result of his residence at Nicomedia, 
 though it was not completed there. The 
 chief agent in effecting it was the neo- 
 Platonist Maximus of Ephesus, a philosopher, 
 magician, and political schemer. The fame 
 of the wisdom of Aedesius first attracted J ulian 
 to Pergamus, but he, being old and infirm, 
 recommended him to his pupils, Chrysanthius 
 and Eusebius. The latter was, or pretended 
 to be, an adversary of the theurgic methods of 
 Maximus, and a follower of the higher and 
 more intellectual Platonism, and used to 
 finish every lecture by a general warning 
 against trickers' and charlatans. Juhan, 
 much struck with this, took the advice of 
 Chrvsanthius upon the point, and asked 
 Eusebius to explain what he meant. The 
 latter replied bv an account of Maximus, 
 which gave a new edge of the already keen 
 curiosity of Julian. "Some days ago" (he 
 went on) " he ran in and called our company 
 together to the temple of Hecate, thus making 
 a large body of witnesses against himself. . . . 
 When we came before the goddess and saluted 
 her, he cried, ' Sit down, dearest friends, and 
 see what will happen, and whether I am 
 superior to ordinary men.' We all sat down, 
 then he burnt a grain of frankincense, and as 
 he repeated some sort of chant to himself he 
 so far succeeded in the exhibition of his power 
 that first the image smiled and then even 
 appeared to laugh. We were confounded at 
 the sistht, but he said, ' Let none of you be 
 disturbed at this, for in a moment the torches 
 which the goddess has in her hands will be 
 lighted up ' — nnd before he had done speak- 
 ing light actually burned in the torches. We 
 then retired, being amazed and in doubt at 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 the wonder which had taken place. But do 
 not you wonder at anything of this kind, just 
 as I also through the purifying effects of 
 reason conceive it is nothing of great import- 
 ance." Julian (says Eunapius) hearing this, 
 exclaimed, " Farewell, and keep to your 
 books, if you will ; you have revealed to me 
 the man I was in search of " (Eunapius. 
 Vita Maximi, pp. 48-51, ed. Boissonade). 
 It is difficult to believe that Eusebius was not 
 in league with Chrysanthius to bring Julian 
 under the influence of Maximus. The young 
 prince hurried off to Ephesus, and there threw 
 himself with eagerness into the teaching of his 
 new master, which seems exactly to have 
 suited his fantastic temperament. Julian 
 had no practical Christianity to fall back 
 upon. The sense of being watched and sus- 
 pected had sunk deeply into his mind at 
 Macellum, and he had learnt to look upon 
 Constantius not only as his jailor, but as the 
 murderer of his nearest relations. This 
 naturally did not incline him to the religion 
 inculcated by Arian or semi-Arian court 
 bishops, who' probably laid stress upon their 
 peculiar points of divergence from the ortho- 
 dox faith, and neglected the rest of Christian 
 theolog}'. JuUan therefore conceived of 
 Christianity, not as a great body of truth 
 satisfying the whole man, but as a set of 
 formulas to be plausibly debated and distin- 
 guished. On the other hand, he had a real, 
 though pedantic, love of Hellenic authors and 
 literature, and a natural dislike to those who 
 destroyed the ancient monuments of the old 
 faith. His characteristic dreaminess and love 
 of mystery found satisfaction in the secret 
 cults to 'which men like Maximus were 
 addicted — all the more zealously as public 
 sacrifice was difficult or dangerous. He was 
 by nature ardent and superstitious, and 
 never fell into good hands. The pagan coterie 
 soon discovered the importance of their con- 
 vert, and imbued him with the notion that 
 he was the chosen servant of the gods to bring 
 back again Hellenic life and religion. By 
 the arts of divination a speedy call to the 
 throne was promised him, and he vowed to 
 restore to the temples if he became emperor. 
 (Libanius, Epitaph, pp. 529 and 565, who 
 agrees substantially with Socrates, iii. i, p. 
 168, and Sozomen, v. 2, p. 181 ; of. Theod. 
 iii. i). For the present, however, the ful- 
 filment of such hopes seemed distant, and 
 Julian for ten years pretended zeal for Chris- 
 tianity {Lihdin.' Epitaph, p. 528; Amm. xxii. 5, 
 I ; Socr. iii. i ; Soz. v. 2). He had, indeed, 
 good reason to fear the suspicions of his 
 cousin. In 354 Callus was craftily removed 
 from his government and executed [Callus], 
 and Juhan was apprehended, on obscure 
 charges (Amm. xv. 2, 7 — the charge of 
 leaving Macellum without pemiission seems 
 strange, since the brothers had been released 
 from their retirement some four years before). 
 For seven months he was confined in N. Italy 
 near the court, being removed from place to 
 place (Jul. ad Ath. p. 272 d ; Liban. Epitaph. 
 p. 530 ; cf. Jul. ad Themist. p. 260 a) — an 
 imprisonment brought to an end by the inter- 
 vention of the gentle empress Eusebia, who 
 procured for him an interview wth Constan- 
 tius, and leave to return to his studies (Jul. 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 ad Aih. pp. 272. z7-\\ Or. },. y. iiSn). At 
 first ho determined to retire tn his mother's 
 property in Bithynia, Constantius haviiip 
 confiscated all the estates of his father 
 (Jul. ad .nil. p. 273; Ff>. 40, p. 417 A, to 
 lamblichus — an interesting letter written 3 
 years later, and not concealing his religions 
 opinions). He had hardly arrived in Asia 
 Minor when the suspicions of Constantius 
 were aroused by two reports brought by 
 informers, one of treasonable proceedings at 
 a banquet given by Africanus, the governor 
 of Pannonia Secunda at Sirmium, the other 
 of the rising of Silvanus in Gaul (Jul. ad .Ath. 
 p. 273 c, d; cf. .\mm. xv. 3, 7 seq.). The 
 first was no doubt connected in his mind with 
 Julian, who had just passed through that 
 country, and whom he in consequence recalled, 
 but on his way back received permission, 
 or rather command, to turn aside into Greece, 
 a privilege which Eusebia had procured for 
 him (ad Ath. 273 d ; Or. 3, p. 118 c). He thus 
 could gratify a long-cherished wish of visiting 
 Athens. The young prince was naturally 
 well received by professors and sophists, such 
 as Prohaeresius and Himerius, then teaching 
 at Athens. He had a turn for philosophy, 
 and could discourse eagerly, in the modern 
 neo-Platonic fashion, about the descent and 
 the ascent of souls. He was surrounded by a 
 swarm of young and old men, philosophers and 
 rhetoricians, and (if we may believe Libanius) 
 gained favour as much by his modesty and 
 gentleness as by the qualities of his intelligence 
 (Liban. Epitaph, p. 532). Two of the most 
 distinguished of his familiars among his 
 fellow-students at this time were the future 
 bishops Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, then 
 as always close and intimate friends. Gre- 
 gory, however, seems to have detected some- 
 thing of his real character ; he noticed an air 
 of wildness and unsteadiness, a wandering 
 eye, an uneven gait, a nervous agitation of 
 the features, an unreasoning and disdainful 
 laugh, an abrupt, irregular way of talking, 
 which betrayed a mind ill at ease with itself, 
 and exclaimed, " What a plague the Roman 
 empire is breeding ! God grant I may be a 
 false prophet ! " (Or. pp. i6i, 162). Gre- 
 gory, who had many friends among the 
 professors, may well have been aware of the 
 real state of the young prince's mind, and of 
 his nightly visits to Eleusis, where he could 
 indulge his religious feelings without reserve. 
 Maximus had introduced him to the hiero- 
 phant there, a great miracle-worker wim was 
 in league with the heathen party in Asia Minor 
 (Eunapius, Vita Maximi, pp. 52, 53). 
 
 § 3. Julian as Caesar (from Nov. 6, 355, 
 to Nov. 3, 361 — death of Constantius). — 
 About May 355 Julian was permitted to 
 go to Athens, but a few months later was 
 summoned again to the court (Jul. ad Ath. 
 p. 273 d). He left the city in low spirits and 
 with many tears, and, stretching out his 
 hands to the Acropolis, besought Athena to 
 save her suppliant — an act which, he tells us, 
 many saw him perform (ib. p. 475 a). Those 
 who did so could hardly have doubted his 
 change of religion, and there were doubtless 
 many sympathizers who looked to him as 
 the future restorer of the old faith. He first 
 crossed the Aegean to Ilium Novum, where 
 
 JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS r.H.T 
 
 he visited the antiquities uiidir tlir KuidancA 
 of the then thristi.ui bp. rcg.isius, who 
 delighted him bv onuttiiig llie sign of the 
 cross in the tcinplcs, ami otherwise shewing 
 heathen sympathies (|iil. Ep. 7K - the 
 letter, first edited by C. Henning. in Urtmrs, 
 vol. ix.). On his arrival at Milan, Con- 
 stantius was absent, but Julian was well 
 received hy the eunuchs of the empress [ad 
 Ath. pp. 274, 275 n). His first impulse was 
 to write to his protectress and implore her 
 to obtain leave for him to return home ; but 
 on demanding a revelation from the gods, 
 he received an intimation of their displeasure 
 and a threat of disgraceful death if he did so, 
 and, in consequence, schooled himself to 
 yield his will to theirs, and to become their 
 instrument for whatever purposes they chose 
 (ib. pp. 275, 276 ; cf. I.iban. ad Jul. cnnsuUm, 
 t- I. P- 378)- Constantius soon returned, 
 and determined, under the persevering pres- 
 sure of his wife and notwithstanding stronK 
 opposition, to give the dignity of Caesar 
 to his sole remaining relative (Amni. xv. 8. 3 ; 
 Zos. 3, i). On Nov. 6, 355, Julian received 
 the insignia in the presence of the army at 
 Milan, and was given control of the prefec- 
 ture of Gaul (i.e. Spain. Gaul, Britain, and 
 Germany), and especially of the defence 
 of the frontiers (ad Ath. p. 277 a ; Amm. 
 I.e.). As he drew the unwonted garb around 
 him in place of his beloved pallium, he 
 was heard to mutter the line of Homer, to 
 which his wit gave a new shade of meaning : 
 
 "Him purple death and destiny embraced " 
 
 (Amm. XV. 8, 17). At the same time he 
 received, through the management of Eusebia, 
 the emperor's sister Helena as his bride, and 
 the gift of a library from the empress herself 
 (Or. iii. p. 123 d). Thus the reconciliation 
 of the cousins was apparently complete. 
 Julian produced a spirited panegyric upon the 
 reign and just actions of Constantius, which 
 it seems right to assign to this date (Or. i ; 
 cf. Spanheim's notes, p. 5). He set out, on 
 Dec. I, for his new duties with a small retinue, 
 from which almost all his personal followers 
 were carefully excluded (Amm. xv. 8, 17, 18 ; 
 Jul. ad Ath. p. 277 B, c). Of his four slaves, 
 one was his only confidant in religious matters, 
 an African named Euhemerus (ad Alh. p. 
 277 B ; Eunap. Vita .Maximi, p. 54). His 
 physician, Oribasius, who had charge of his 
 library, was only allowed to accomi>any him 
 through ignorance of their intimacy (ad Alh. 
 I.e. ; Eunap. Vita Oribasii, p. 104). He 
 entered Vienne with great popular rejoicing 
 (for the province was hard-pressed by the 
 barbarians) and possiblv with secret expecta- 
 tions amongst the heathen party, which had 
 been strong in the time of Magnentius. A 
 blind old woman, learning his name an«l office 
 as he passed, cried out, "There goes he who 
 will restore the temples of the gods I " (Amm. 
 xv. 8. 22). 
 
 During the next five years the young Caesar 
 api'ears as a strenuous and successful general 
 and a popular ruler. The details «>f his wars 
 with the Franks and Alamanns, the Salii 
 and Chamavi, will be found in Ammianus 
 and Zosimus. Perhaps we ought to recollect 
 that he was his own historian, writing "com- 
 
584 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 mentaries " (now no longer extant) which 
 were no doubt intended to rival those of the 
 author of the Gallic War. After an ex- 
 pedition against the Franks in the autumn of 
 357 he wintered for the first time at Paris, 
 which became a favourite abode of his. He 
 gives a well-known description of his ^^Xt; 
 AovKeria in the Misopogon (pp. 340 seq.). 
 His military successes endeared him to both 
 troops and people. His internal government, 
 particularly as lightening public burdens, was 
 equally popular. He had specially to contend 
 with the avarice of Florentius, the praetorian 
 prefect, who desired to increase the capitatio, 
 and who, on Julian's refusal to sign the 
 indiction, complained of him to Constantius 
 (Amm. xvii. 3, 2, and 5, in 357). Constantius, 
 while reproving him for discrediting his officer, 
 left him a practically free hand, and the tax, 
 which on his entering Gaul was 25 aurei a 
 head, had been reduced to 7 when he left 
 (Amm. xvi. 5, 14 ; cf. xvii. 3, 6). 
 
 His ambition was to imitate Marcus Aure- 
 lius as a philosopher upon the throne, and 
 Alexander the Great as a model in warfare 
 (ad Themist. p. 253). His table was very 
 plainly furnished, and he refused all the 
 luxuries which Constantius had written down 
 for him as proper for a Caesar's board (Amm. 
 xvi. 5, 3). His bed was a mat and a rug of 
 skins, from which he rose at midnight, and, 
 after secret prayer to Mercury, addressed him- 
 self first to public business and then to 
 literature. He studied philosophy first, then 
 poetry, rhetoric, and history, making himself 
 also fairly proficient in Latin. His chamber 
 was ordinarily never warmed ; and one very 
 cold night, at Paris, he was nearly suffocated 
 by some charcoal in a brazier, but erroneously 
 attributed it to the dampness of the room 
 (Misopogon, p. 341). All this attracted the 
 people, but was not agreeable to many of 
 the courtiers. Julian knew that he was 
 surrounded by disaffected officials and other 
 spies upon his conduct, and continued to 
 conceal his religious sentiments, and to act 
 cautiously towards his cousin. During his 
 administration of Gaul he produced another 
 panegyric upon Constantius, and one upon 
 Eusebia, though the exact occasion of neither 
 can be determined (Or. 2 and 3). In these 
 orations JuHan, though indulging to the full 
 in classical parallels and illustrations, takes 
 care to hide his change of religion. He speaks 
 even of his prayers to God for Constantius, 
 naturally indeed and not in a canting way 
 (Or. 3, p. 118 d). Nor did he hesitate to join 
 with him in issuing a law denouncing a capital 
 penalty against those who sacrifice to or wor- 
 ship idols (Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 6, Apr. 356), 
 in repressing magic and all kinds of divination 
 with very severe edicts (ib. ix. 16, 4-6, in 357 
 and 358), in punishing renegade Christians 
 who had become Jews (ib. xvi. 8, 7), and in 
 granting new privileges to the church and 
 clergy, and regulating those already given 
 (ib. xvi. 2, 13-16 ; the last as late as Mar. 
 361). To have hinted at dislike to any of these 
 measures would, indeed, have aroused at once 
 the strongest suspicions. One of the edicts 
 against magic, which threatens torture for 
 every kind of divination, seems almost person- 
 ally directed against Julian (Cod. Theod. ix. 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 16, 6, dated July 5, 358, from Ariminum). 
 The effect upon his conscience of condemning 
 as a public officer what he was secretly prac- 
 tising must have been hardening and demoraliz- 
 ing. For Julian was not without thought on 
 such subjects. At another time he declared he 
 would rather die than sign the oppressive edict 
 brought him by Florentius (Amm. xvii. 3, 2) ; 
 and in his later famous decree against Christian 
 professors he writes vehemently of the wicked- 
 ness of thinking one thing and teaching another 
 (Ep. 42). 
 
 In Apr. 360 Constantius ordered the flower 
 of the Gallic auxiliaries to be sent to aid him 
 in his expedition against the Persians (Amm. 
 XX. 4). This request produced great irritation 
 among men who had enlisted on the under- 
 standing that they were not to be required to 
 cross the Alps — an irritation fomented no 
 doubt by the friends of Julian, particularly, 
 it is said, by Oribasius (Eunap. Vita Oribasii, 
 p. 104). The troops surrounded the palace 
 at Paris and demanded that their favourite 
 should take the title of Augustus (ad Ath. 
 p. 284 ; Amm. xx. 4, 14). Julian, according 
 to his own account, was quite unprepared for 
 such a step, and would not accede till Jupiter 
 had given him a sign from heaven. This sign 
 was no doubt the vision of the Genius of the 
 Empire, who declared that he had long been 
 waiting on his threshold and was now unwill- 
 ing to be turned away from it. Yet he 
 warned him (so Julian told his intimates) that 
 his residence with him would in no case 
 be for long (Amm. xx. 5, 10 ; cf. Lib. ad Jul. 
 cos. p. 386). We have no reason, however, 
 to think that Julian had any real hesitation, 
 except as to the opportuneness of the moment. 
 When he came down to address the troops, he 
 still appeared reluctant, but the enthusiasm of 
 the soldiers would take no denial, and he was 
 raised in (iallic fashion upon a shield, and 
 hastily crowned with a gold chain which a 
 dragoon (draconarius) tore from his own 
 accoutrements. He promised the accustomed 
 donative (Amm. xx. 4, 18), which the friends 
 of Constantius, it would seem, secretly tried 
 to outdo by bribes (ad Ath. p. 285 a). The 
 discovery of their intrigue only raised the 
 popular enthusiasm to a higher pitch, and 
 Julian felt strong enough to treat with his 
 cousin. He dispatched an embassy with a 
 letter declining to send the Gallic troops, who 
 (he declared) positively refused to go, and 
 could not be spared with safety ; but he 
 offered some small corps of barbarian auxili- 
 aries. He related the action of the army in 
 proclaiming him Augustus, but said nothing 
 of his own wish to bear the title. As a com- 
 promise he proposed that Constantius should 
 still appoint the praetorian prefect, the chief 
 governor of that quarter of the empire, but 
 that all lesser offices should be under his 
 own administration (ib. D, and for particulars, 
 Amm. XX. 8, 5-17), who gives the substance of 
 the letter at length). But to these pubHc and 
 open requests he added a threatening and bitter 
 private missive, which had the effect, whether 
 intentionally or not, of rendering his negotia- 
 tions abortive (Amm. I.e.). 
 
 Such a state of things could only end in war, 
 but neither party was in a hurry to precipitate 
 it. In Vienne Julian celebrated the fifth 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 anniversary of his appointment, ami apjieared ' 
 for the tirst time in the jcwolleil iliacleni ; 
 which had become the symbol of imperial 
 dignity (Amni. xxi. i, 4). Meanwhile both ' 
 Eusebia and Helena had been removed by j 
 death, and with them almost the last links ! 
 which united the cousins. Julian still kept I 
 up the pretence of being a Christian. At ! 
 Epiphany, 361, he kept the festival solemnly 
 and even ostentatiously, joining in the public 
 prayers and devotions (tb. 2). He witnessed 
 calmly the triumphant return of St. Hilary 
 after his exile, and permitted the Gallic bishops 
 to hold a council at Paris (S. Hilarii, Frag. Hist. \ 
 pp. 1353. 1354)- His name also appears, after 
 that of Constantius, attached to a law issuetl 1 
 on Mar. t at Antioch, giving privileges to Chris- 
 tian ascetics. But all this was mere dissimula- | 
 tion for the sake of popularit v. In secret he was ' 
 anxiously trying, byallpossibleheathen means, I 
 to divine the future (Amm. xxi. i,6seq.). He I 
 sent in particular for the hierophant of Eleusis, I 
 with whose aid he performed rites known to 
 themselves alone (Eunap. Vila Maxim i, p. 53; ' 
 cf. Amm. xxi. 5, i, " placata ritu secretiori 
 Bellona"). . 
 
 The irritation against Constantius was I 
 further increased by an arrogant letter, [ 
 addressed of course to the Caesar Julian, 
 requiring his immediate submission and 
 merely promising him his life. Julian, on i 
 receiving this, uttered an exclamation which , 
 betrayed his religion : " He would rather , 
 commit himself and his life to the gods than 
 to Constantius " (Zos. iii. 9, 7). The 
 moment seemed now come for action. In a 
 speech to the soldiers in which he referred in 
 ambiguous language to the will of the God of 
 heaven — " arbitrium dei caelestis " — he called 
 upon them to take the oath of allegiance and 
 follow him across the Alps. He spoke in 
 general terms of occupying lUyricum and 
 Dacia, and then deciding what was to be 
 done (.Amm. xxi. 5). Having thus secured 
 the Western provinces, he made a rapid and 
 successful passage through X. Italy, receiving 
 its submission. He reached Sirmium without 
 opposition, having ordered the different divi- : 
 sions of his army to concentrate there. Then | 
 he took and garrisoned the important pass of [ 
 Succi (Ssulu Uerbend) on the Balkans, between 
 Sardica and Philippopolis, thus securing the 
 power to descend into Thrace. For the time 
 he established his quarters at Naissus (Nish), 
 and awaited further news. From there he 
 wrote to the senate of Rome against Constan- ; 
 tins, and in self-defence to the Athenians, 
 Lacedemonians, and Corinthians (Zos. iii. 10). > 
 
 The Athenian letter was possibly entrusted ' 
 to the Eleusinian hierophant, who returned 
 home about this time. It was perhaps also | 
 under his guidance that Julian underwent the | 
 secret ceremonies of initiati'jn described by 
 Gregory N'azianzen (Or. 4, 52-56, pp. 101-103). j 
 According to common report, he submitted to 
 the disgusting bath of blood, the taurobolium , 
 or criobolium, through which the worshippers : 
 of Mithra and Cybele soucht to procure eternal ! 
 life. Julian's object, it is said, was not only 1 
 to gain the favour of the gods, but also to ; 
 wash away all defilement from previous contact 
 with the Christian mysteries. This miserable 
 Story is yet a very credible one. Existing 
 
 JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS r.hS 
 
 monuments pr. .vrtii.it iii.mv |>agan>; ..f position 
 continued the taurob.ilium till the .-n.l ..f the 
 4th cent, (see the inscriptions in Wilmann*. 
 Exempla Inscr. luil. 107-126). 
 
 Such secret incidents preceded Julian's 
 public declaration of his change uf religion. 
 .At Naissus or Sirmium he threw ofl thr 
 mask, and professed himself opmlv a hralhrn. 
 Of his first public s.acrifirc he wrote with 
 exultation to his friend Maxitnus : " \Vr 
 worship the gods openly, and the greatest part 
 of the troops who accompanied me prof«-ss the 
 true religion. We have acknowledged our 
 gratitude to the gods in manv heratombs. 
 The gods command me to consecrate mvself 
 to their service with all my might, and most 
 readily do I obey them. They promise us 
 great returns for our toils if wc are not remiss " 
 (£/.. 38. p. 415 c). 
 
 Now came the news of hLs cousin's sudden 
 death at Mopsucrene, at the foot of Mount 
 Taurus, on Nov. 3. and Julian learnt that he 
 was accepted without opposition as the 
 successor designated by his dying breath, a 
 report of which we cannot guarantee the truth 
 (Amm. xxii. 2, 6). 
 
 § 4. Julian as Auguslus at Constantino pU 
 (from Nov. 3, 361, to May 362).— Julian 
 hastened to Constantinople, through the 
 pass of Succi and bv Philippopolis and 
 Heraclea, entering the Eastern capital amid 
 general rejoicings on Dec. 11. He conducte<l 
 the funeral of Constantius with the usual 
 honours ; laying aside all the imperial insignia, 
 except the purple, and marching in the pro- 
 cession, touching the bier with his hands 
 (I.iban. Epitaph, p. 512, cf. Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 
 16, 17, pp. 157, 158). Constantius was buried 
 near his father in the Church of the Apostles, 
 but whether Julian entered it is not stated. 
 
 Almost his next act was to appoint a special 
 commission under the presidency of Satur- 
 ninus Sallustius Secundus (to be distinguished 
 from the prefect of the Gaids) to bring to 
 justice the principal supporters of the late 
 government. Julian himself avoided taking 
 part in it, and allowed no appeal from its 
 decisions. The conuuission met at Chalcedon, 
 and acted with excessive rigour. 
 
 Julian next turned his attention to the 
 palace, with its swarm of neetlless and over- 
 paid officials, eunuchs, cooks, and barbers, 
 who battened on bribes and exactions. All 
 these he swept awav, to the genera I satisfaction 
 (Amm. xxii. 4 ; I.iban. Ilpit. p. 565). 
 
 Towards Christians he adopted a policy of 
 tolr-ration, though desiring nothing more 
 keenly than the humiliation of the Church. 
 His object was to set sect against sect by 
 extending equal licence to all (cf. Amm. xxii. 
 5). He issued an edict allowing all bishops 
 exiled luider Constantius to return, and 
 restoring their confiscated pr«>pertv (S<>rr. iii. 
 I, p. 171). On the other hand, the extreme 
 Arian, .Aetius, as a friend of Gallus, received 
 aspeci.al invitation to court (Ep. 31). .K letter 
 " to Basil," seemingly of the same date, and 
 of similar purpart, may possibly have been 
 addressed to St. Basil of Caesarea (Ep. 12 ; 
 He Broglie assumes this, t. iv. pp. ni, 23V •»•)• 
 To Caesarius, a court physician of lii^h repute 
 and the brother of (ireg-irv, Julian shewed 
 great attention, and strove for his ronveriion. 
 
586 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 He even entered into a public discussion on 
 religion with him, and was much mortified by 
 the ill success of his rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Ep. 
 6 ; Orat. vii. 11-14). The Donatists, Nova- 
 tianists, and perhaps some extreme Arians 
 were not loth to appear before the new 
 emperor, who sought to destroy unanimity by 
 extending free licence to all Christian sects, 
 but there is no trace of any important Catholic 
 leader falling into the snare. In the same spirit 
 he ordered Eleusius, Arian bp. of Cyzicus, to 
 restore the ruined church of the Novatianists 
 within two months (Socr. ii. 38, p. 147 ; iii. 
 II ; cf. Ep. 52, p. 436 a). Toleration was 
 also extended to the Jews, from a real though 
 imperfect sympathy. Their ritual seemed to 
 Julian a point of contact with Hellenism, and 
 with their rejection of an Incarnate Saviour 
 he was quite in harmony. He approved of 
 their worship of the Creator, but could not 
 tolerate their identification of Him with the 
 God Whose especial people they claimed to be 
 — and Whom he, in his polytheism, imagined to 
 be an inferior divinity (S. Cyril, in Jul. iv. pp. 
 115, 141, 201, 343, 354, ed. Spanheim). 
 
 The great task which lay nearest his heart 
 was the restoration of heathenism to its former 
 influence and power, and its rehabiUtation 
 both in theory and practice. He composed 
 an oration for the festival of the sun, no doubt 
 that celebrated on Dec. 25, as the " Natalis 
 Solis invicti," in connexion with the winter 
 solstice. Though Constantinople had never 
 been a heathen city, or polluted with public 
 heathen ceremonies, he called this " the 
 festival which the imperial city celebrates with 
 annual sacrifices " (Orat. 4, p. 131 d). The 
 main body of the oration is occupied with 
 the obscure theorj' of the triple hierarchy of 
 worlds: the k6<t/xos vo-qrbi or " intelligible 
 world," the K6crf.ios i'oep6i or " intelligent," 
 and the Kda/uot aiaffrjTos the " visible " or 
 " phenomenal." In each of these three worlds 
 there is a central principle, who is the chief 
 object of worship and the fountain of power ; 
 the Sun king being the centre of the inter- 
 mediate or " intelligent " world. This ideal 
 god was evidently a kind of counterpoise in 
 Julian's theology to the Word of God, the 
 mediator of the Christian Trinity (m^c'? th, 
 ovK dirb Twv &Kp(j3v KpaOficra, reXe/a 5^ Kal 
 d/xiyris a.<p' SXwv tQv deOiv ifj.(t>avC)v re Kal 
 dtpafQv Kal e.l<Tdy}TQiv Kal vorjrCjv, i] rov ^acriX^ccs 
 'HX/oi' voepd, Kal 7rdyKa\o^ ovcria. p. 139 b, and 
 tQv voepQv 0eu)v /x^aos iv /xiaoii Teray/x^vos 
 Karci TvavTolav fxi(jf}Tr)Ta. Cf. Naville, Jul. VA. 
 et sa philosophic du polythHsme, pp. 102 seq.). 
 This oration should be read in connexion with 
 the fifth oration " on the Mother of the Gods," 
 which he delivered at her festival, apparently 
 at the vernal equinox, and while still at Con- 
 stantinople. It is chiefly an allegorical 
 platonizing interpretation of the myth of Attis 
 and Cybele, very different from the modern 
 reference of it to the circle of the seasons. 
 
 In the practice of all superstitious cere- 
 monies, whether public or mystic, Julian was 
 enthusiastic to the point of ridiculous osten- 
 tation. He turned his palace into a temple. 
 Every day he knew better than the priests 
 themselves ^what festival was in the pagan 
 calendar, and what sacrifice was required. 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 He himself acted as attendant, slaughterer, 
 and priest, and had a passion for all the details 
 of heathen ritual (Liban. Epitaph, p. 564, ad 
 Jul. COS. pp. 394 seq. ; Greg. Orat. 5, 22, p. 161 ; 
 de Broglie, iv. pp. 126, 127). No previous 
 emperor had so highly prized his office of 
 pontifex maximus, which Julian valued as 
 equal to all the other imperial prerogatives 
 (xaipei KaXov/xevos lepeiis ovx ^tou ij /SatJ-tXeiyj, 
 Liban. ad Jul. cos. p. 394). In this 
 capacity he apparently attempted to introduce 
 something of the episcopal regimen into the 
 loose system of the heathen priesthood, him- 
 self occupying the papal or patriarchal chair 
 (cf. Greg. Or. 4, ii.p. 138). Thus he appointed 
 Theodorus chief priest of Asia and Arsacius 
 of Galatia, with control over inferior priests ; 
 the hierophant of Eleusis was set over Greece 
 and Lydia, and Callixene made high priestess 
 of Pessinus. {Ep. 63 Theodoro is early in his 
 reign, and the long Fragmentum Epistolae may 
 j be a sequel to it ; Ep. 49 Arsacio is later, as 
 is that to CalUxene, Ep. 21. The appoint- 
 ments of the hierophant and of Chrysanthius 
 are described by Eunapius, I'ita Maximi, 
 PP- 54. 57-) As chief pontiff he issued some 
 remarkable instructions to his subordinates, 
 some of which have been preserved. His 
 " pastoral letters," as they may properly be 
 called, to the chief priests of Asia and Galatia, 
 shew a striking insight into the defects of 
 heathenism considered as a religious ideal, and 
 a clear attempt to graft upon it the more 
 popular and attractive features of Christianity. 
 He regrets several times that Christians and 
 Jews are more zealous than Gentiles, espe- 
 cially in charity to the poor {Ep. 49, pp. 430, 
 431 ; in Frag. p. 305 he refers to the influence 
 of the Agape and similar institutions. In 
 Ep. 63, p. 453 D, he describes the persistency 
 of the Jews in abstaining from swine's flesh, 
 etc.). He promises large endowments of com 
 for distribution to the indigent and the sup- 
 port of the priesthood ; and orders the 
 establishment of guest-houses and hospitals 
 {^€vo5ox(ia, Karayibyia ^ivuv Kal tttwx^'v, 
 Soz. V. 16, Jul. Ep. 49, p. 430 c). In the very 
 spirit of the Gospel he insists on the duty of 
 giving clothing and food even to enemies and 
 prisoners {Frag. pp. 290-291). " Who was 
 ever impoverished," he writes, " by what he 
 gave to his neighbours ? I, for my part, as 
 often as I have been liberal to those in want, 
 have received back from them many times as 
 much, though I am but a bad man of business ; 
 and I never repented of my liberaUty " (Frag. 
 p. 290 c). Elsewhere he enters into minute 
 details on the conduct and habits of the 
 priesthood. He fixes the number of sacrifices 
 to be offered by day and night, the deportment 
 to be observed within and without the tem- 
 ples, the priest's dress, his visits to his friends, 
 his secret meditations and his private reading. 
 The priest must peruse nothing scurrilous or 
 indecent, such as Archilochus, Hipponax, or 
 the old comedy ; nothing sceptical like 
 Pyrrho and Epicurus ; no novels and love- 
 tales ; but history and sound philosophy like 
 Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics ; 
 and must learn by heart the hymns to the 
 gods, especially those sung in his own temple 
 , {Frag. pp. 300-301 ; cf. Ep. 56, to Ecdicius, 
 ordering him to train boys for the temple 
 
JDLIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 choirs). He must avuid theatres and taverns, 
 and all public resorts where he is likely to hear 
 or see auythiiic vulvar or indecent {Frai^. 
 p. 304 B, c ; Ep. 40, p. 430 b). Not only 
 ]iriests, but the sons of priests, are forbitlden to 
 attend the " venationcs " or spectacles of wild 
 beasts {Frag. p. 304 d). The true priest is to 
 be considered superior, at least in the temple, 
 to any public official, and to be honoured as the 
 intercessor between gods and men {Frag. 
 p. 296 B, c ; cf. the edict to the Byzantine 
 apainst applauding himself in the Tychacuni, 
 Ep. 64). He, however, who does not obey the I 
 rules laid down for his conduct, is to be ] 
 removed from his office (Frag. p. 297 ; Ep. j 
 49, p. 430 b) ; and we possess an edict of 
 Julian's suspending a priest for three months 
 for injury done to" a brother priest {Ep. 62). | 
 
 Further, " he intended," says Gregory {Or. \ 
 iv. Ill, p. 13S), "to establish schools in all : 
 cities, and professorial chairs of different 
 grades, and lectures on heathen doctrines, 
 both in their bearings on moral practice and 
 in explanation of their abstruser mysteries." 
 Of such lectures, no doubt, he wished his own , 
 orations on the Sun and the Mother of the 
 Gods to be examples. Besides this imitation 
 of Christian sermons and lectures, he desired to 
 set up religious communities of men and 
 women, vowed to chastity and meditation 
 {a'^/VevTripid re Kai Trap6ev(Vfj.aTa icai <ppovTi- 
 crrripia. cf. Soz. v. 1 61. These were institu- j 
 tions familiar to Oriental heathenism, but out ' 
 of harmony with the old Greek spirit of which J 
 Julian professed himself so ardent an admirer. ; 
 He was, indeed, unconsciously less a disciple j 
 of Socrates than of the Hindu philosophy, a 
 champion of Asian mysticism against Euro- 
 pean freedom of thought. 
 
 Julian used not only his literary and per- 
 sonal influence and pontifical authority in 
 favour of the worship of the gods, but also his 
 imperial power. The temples where stand- 
 ing wore reopened, or rebuilt at the expense 
 of those who had destroyed them, and received 
 back their estates, which had been to some 
 extent confiscated under Constantius (Amm. 
 xxii. 4, 3, " pasti ex his quidam templorum 
 spoliis " ; Liban. Epitaph, p. 564, describes the 
 general plan of restitution ; cf. his Ep. 624, 
 Tracrt Krjpi'^ai KOfU<^(<T0ai ra aiTuii'.) A friend of 
 the gods was as a friend of the emperor's, their 
 enemy became his (Liban. /.c. andmore strongly 
 p. 617). Yet direct persecution was forbidden 
 and milder means of conversion practised {Ep. 7 
 to Artabius ; Liban. 564). Julian even bore 
 with some patience the public attacks of the 
 blind and aged Maris, Arian bp. of Chalcedon, 
 who called him an " impious atheist," while he 
 was sacrificing in the Tychacum of Constanti- 
 nople. Julian replied only with a scoff at his 
 infirmitv : " Not even your Galilean God will heal 
 vou." Maris retorted, " I thank my God for my 
 blindness which prevents me from seeing your 
 apostasv," a rebuke which the emperor ignored 
 (Soz. v. '4, where we must of course read rvxalv 
 for r«x/w. cf. Jul. Ep. 64, liyzantinis). Not a 
 few persons of position apostatized, among 
 them JuHan's maternal uncle Julianus. his 
 former tutor Hecebolius, the officials Felix, 
 Modestus, and Elpidius, and the former bp. 
 of Ilium Novum, Pegasius, all of whom were 
 rewarded by promotion. (Philost. vu. 10; 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 587 
 
 So( r. iii. n ; I iban. /re Attstnphanr, pp. 435. 
 4 V>. and Ep. 17 ; Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 62, j>. lo.i : 
 Jul. F.p. 78; cf. Sievers, l.ihantus, p. 105. 
 On the readiness of many of thrsr ri>nvrrt« to 
 ret>iru to the church rf. Astrrius of .Aniava, 
 Horn, in At'aritiam, p. 227, and Hom. xix. in 
 Psalm. V. p. 433, Migne.) Hut the iiutnhrr 
 
 of these new converts was less than nuRht 
 perhaps have been exi^ected from the diviclrd 
 state of the church and the |i>w standard of 
 court Christianity under Constantius. It wa» 
 far less, no doubt, than Julian's sanguine 
 expectations. Caesarius, as wc have vrn, 
 stood firm, and so did three prominent officers 
 in the army, destined to be his successors in 
 the empire — Jovian, Valentinian, and Valrns 
 (Valentinian was banished, Soz. vi. 6 ; 
 Philost. vii. 7 ; cf. (Ireg. Or. iv. 6^, p. 106). 
 The steadfastness of the court and the army 
 was indeed sorely tried. The monogram of 
 Christ was removed from tlie I abaruin, and 
 rei^laccd hv the old S.P.O.F<. ; and heathen 
 svmbols again began t<i appear upon the coinage, 
 and upon statues and pictures of the emperor, 
 so that it was difficult to pay him respect 
 without appearing to bow to an idol. (Greg. 
 Or. iv. 80,81, pp. 116, 117; Sorr. vi. 17. Socrates 
 probably somewhat exaggerates. The ob- 
 scure letter of Julian to a painter, F.p. 65, 
 appears to reprimand him for painting him 
 without his customary images in his hands or 
 bv his side.) J ulian even condescended to a 
 trick to entrap a number of his soldiers, prob- 
 ably of the praetorian guard, by persuading 
 them to offer incense when receiving a dona- 
 ! five from his hands (Soz. v. 17 ; Greg. Or iv. 
 83, 84, pp. 118, no ; cf. Rode, p. 62). Some 
 of the s<tldicrs, on discovering the snare from 
 the jeers of their com])anions, protested loudly 
 and threw down their money ; and Julian, in 
 (■..iisequence, dismissed all Christians from his 
 liMdvguard (Greg. I.e.; Socr. iii. 13). Many 
 common soldiers were doubtless less firm, and 
 conformed, at least outwardly, but the sub- 
 sequent election of Jovian by the army of 
 ' Persia looks as if their cimviclion was not 
 deep). (Liban. ad Jul. cos. Jan. i, 363. P- 399 : 
 Greg. Or. iv. 64. <>.S, p. 106; St. Chr>-s. de 
 Babyla contra Jultanum, § 23, vol. ii. pp. 686. 
 687,' ed. Gaume ; cf. Sievers. Libamus, pp. 
 I 107-109). It was pretty well understood 
 
 ' that no Christian official would be promoted 
 to high civil functions, while converts like 
 Felix and Elpidius were. Julian is reportetl 
 to have stated in an edict that the Christian 
 law forbade its subjects to wield the sword of 
 justice and therefore he could not commit 
 the government of provinces to them. Such 
 a sentiment w-.uld be characteristic, and this 
 edict is probably an historical fact (Kufin. i. 
 32), but perhaps did not extend to persons 
 ;ilr< ady in office or in the army, unli-«* they 
 offered resistance to the course of events. 
 ' Other measures were aimed at the clergv as a 
 body, and intended to reduce the church 
 \ generally to the position which it held before 
 Constantine. The church surtrred as much 
 perhaps as private owners of proixrty by ttie 
 order to restore the temples aiul refund temple 
 lands. The clergy and widows who had re- 
 ceived grants from the municipal revenues 
 were deprived of them and obliged to repay 
 their previous receipts— an act of great in- 
 
688 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 justice (Soz. V. 5). The church lost its power 
 of inheritance, and its ministers the privileges 
 of making wills and of jurisdiction in certain 
 cases (Jul. Ep. 52, p. 437 a, Bostrenis). But 
 perhaps what was felt most of all was the loss 
 of immunity from personal taxation and from 
 the service of the curiae or municipal councils, 
 who were held responsible for the taxes of 
 their district. A short decree issued on Mar. 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 shewed a further advance in intolerance and in- 
 consistency. Julian determined to take the 
 control of education into the hands of the state. 
 On June 17, while e» rou^e between Constanti- 
 nople and Antioch, he issued an edict, promul- 
 gated at Spoleto, to the Western empire, on 
 June 28. This document said nothing about 
 Christian teachers, but required for all professors 
 and schoolmasters a diploma of approval from 
 
 13, 362, made all persons, formerly privileged 1 the municipal council in every city before they 
 as Christians, liable to the office of decurion | might teach. This was to be forwarded to 
 (Cod. Theod. xii. i, 50). We may readily j himself for counter-signature (Cod. Theod. 
 
 admit that the church would have been safer -■•" - -' -rt-:- ^ --^- -~ j„..v.4. 
 
 and holier without some of its privileges, 
 which bound it too closelv to the state. But 
 
 to abolish them all at once, without warning, 
 was a very harsh proceeding, which caused 
 much suffering, and Ammianus only spoke the 
 general opinion when he censured the conduct 
 of his hero (Amm. xxv. 4, 21, cf. xxii. 9, 12) 
 
 xiii. 3, 5). This power of veto was no doubt 
 aimed at Christian teachers ; and another edict, 
 supposed to have been issued soon after, struck 
 an open and violent blow at the church. This 
 may have been issued even earlier ; it can 
 hardly have been much later (Ep. 42, with no 
 title or date) . 1 1 declares that " only a cheat and 
 charlatan will teach one thing while he thinks 
 
 A Greek decree of apparently the same date, another. All teachers, especially those who in- 
 addressed to the Byzantines — i.e. the citizens of j struct the young, ought . . . not to oppose the 
 
 Constantinople — extended this measure to all 
 privileged persons whatsoever, except those who 
 had " done public service in the metropolis " — 
 i.e. probably, those who had as consuls or 
 praetors exhibited costly games for the public 
 amusement (Ep. 11) ; a later decree also 
 confirming the " chief physicians" in their im- 
 munities (Cod. Theod. xiii. 3-4, nearly equivalent 
 to Ep. 25*). 
 
 In the spring of this year, while he was still 
 at Constantinople, the affairs of the church of 
 Alexandria attracted Julian's attention, and 
 led to the first decided step which violated his 
 policy of personal toleration. The intruded 
 Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia, had made 
 himself equally detested by pagans and 
 Catholics. On Dec. 24 he was foully mur- 
 dered by the former (without any intervention 
 of Christians) in a riot. Dracontius, master 
 of the mint, who had overturned an altar 
 
 common belief and try to insinuate their own. 
 . . . Now Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Hero- 
 dotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias all 
 founded their learning upon the gods, and con- 
 sidered themselves dedicated to Hermes or the 
 Muses. It is monstrous, then, that those who 
 teach these writers should dishonour their gods. 
 I do not wish them to change their religion that 
 they may retain their offices, but I give them 
 the choice, either not to teach, or, if they 
 prefer to do so, to teach at the same time that 
 none of these authors is guilty of folly or 
 impiety in his doctrine about the gods. . . . 
 If teachers think these authors which they 
 expound wise, and draw philosophy from 
 them, let them emulate their religion. If they 
 think them in error, let them go to the 
 churches of the Galileans and expound Mat- 
 thew and Luke, who forbid our sacrifices. I 
 wish, however, the ears and tongues of you 
 
 recently set up in his office, and Diodorus, who { Christians may be ' regenerated,' as you would 
 
 wasbui'lding a church and gave offence to pagan 
 
 prejudices by cutting short the hair of some 
 
 boys employed under him, were both torn to 
 
 pieces in the same sedition (Amm. xxii. 11, 9). 
 
 Julian WTote an indignant reprimand to the 
 
 people, but inflicted no punishment (Ep. 10, 
 
 Amm. I.e. ; cf. Julian's letter to Zeno, Ep. 45). 
 
 On Feb. 22 St. Athanasius was again seatedupon 
 
 his throne amid the rejoicing of the people. 
 
 Julian saw in him an enemy he could not afford ] sons to such schools 
 
 to tolerate. He wrote to the Alexandrians (ap- [ Gregory, as if from th 
 
 sav, by these writings which I value so much.' 
 Christians considered the decree practically 
 to exclude them from the schools. For J ulian 
 expressly orders all teachers to insist on the 
 religious side of their authors. Grammar- 
 schools were to become seminaries of pagan- 
 ism. No indifferent or merely philological 
 teaching was to be allowed. No sincere 
 Christian parents therefore could send their 
 A quotation given by 
 decree, is not found in 
 
 parently at once), saying that one so often 
 banished by royal decree ought to have awaited 
 special permission to return ; that in allowing 
 the exiled bishops to come back he didnot mean 
 to restore them to their churches ; .\thanasius, 
 he feared, had resumed his " episcopal 
 throne," to the great disgust of " god-fearing 
 Alexandrians." He therefore ordered him to 
 leave the city at once, on pain of greater 
 punishment (Ep. 26). Athanasius braved the 
 emperor's wrath and did not leave Alexandria, 
 except, perhaps, for a time. Public feeling 
 was with him, and an appeal was apparently 
 forwarded to the emperor to reconsider his 
 sentence. (Ep. 51, written probably in Oct. 
 362, speaks of Athanasius as eTrifjjroiVfos 
 by the Alexandrians.) The sequel of this 
 appeal will appear later. 
 
 Another change of policy about this time 
 
 the text of the edict as we have it (Or. 4, 102, 
 p. 132). Perhaps he may be quoting some 
 other of J ulian's writings, e.g. the books against 
 the Christians. The words are characteristic : 
 " Literature and the Greek language are 
 naturally ours, who are worshippers of the 
 gods ; illiterate ignorance and rusticity are 
 yours, whose wisdom goes no further than to 
 say ' believe.' " The last taunt is borrowed 
 from Celsus (Origen, c. Celsum, i. 9). 
 
 Two celebrated men gave up their posts 
 rather than submit to this edict — Prohaeresius 
 of Athens, whom many thought superior to 
 Libanius, and C. Marius Victorinus of Rome. 
 Julian had already made overtures to the 
 former (Ep. 2), and even ofiered to except him 
 from the action of the edict ; but he refused 
 to be put in a better condition than his fellows 
 (Hieron. Chron. sub anno 2378 ; cf. Eunap. 
 
JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS. FLAVlUS CLAUDIUS 689 
 
 Prohaeresius, p. 92 ; Himerius, p. 95 ; and 
 Frag. 76, p. 544, ed. Boissonade). Victoriniis 
 was equally famous at Rome, and his con- 
 stancy was a subject of just glory to the 
 church (see the interesting account of his 
 conversion, etc. in August. Coiif. viii. 2-5)- 
 
 Attempts were made to supply the place of 
 classical literature by putting iiistorical and 
 doctrinal portions of Scripture into dreek 
 prose and verse. Thus the elder Apolmnakis 
 wrote 24 books in hexameters, which were to 
 form a substitute for Homer, on the Biblical 
 history up to the reign of Saul, and produced 
 tragedies, UtIcs, and even comedies on Bibli- 
 cal subjects (Soz. v. 18). The younger Apol- 
 linaris reduced the writings of the N.T. into 
 the form of Platonic dialogues (Socr. iii. 16) ; 
 and some of the works of Victorinus in Latin, 
 such as the poem on the seven Maccabean 
 brothers, and various hymns, may have been 
 written with the same aim (cf. Teuffel, Gesch. 
 der Rom. Lit. § 384, 7), as also the Greek 
 tragedy, still extant, of Christus patien.<;. 
 Whatever their merit, these books could not 
 properly supply the place of the classical 
 training; and if Julian had lived and this 
 edict had been put in force for any time, it 
 would have been a very dangerous injury to 
 the faith. (Socrates has some very good 
 remarks on this subject, iii. 16.) 
 
 § 5. Julian's Journey through Asia Minor — 
 (May to July 362). — After a sojourn of about 
 five months in Constantinople Julian began 
 to think of foreign affairs. Fears of internal 
 resistance were removed by the surrender of 
 Aquileia, which had been seized by some troops 
 of Constantius. He determined upon an expe- 
 dition against Persia, the only power he thought 
 worthy of his steel. Shortly after May 12 he 
 set out upon a progress through Asia Minor 
 to Antioch. He passed through Nicaea into 
 Galatia, apparently as far as Ancyra, from 
 which place, perhaps, he dispatched the edict 
 about education just described (.•Vmm. xxii. 9, 
 5. If the law. Cod. Just. i. 40, 5, is rightly 
 attributed to Julian, he was at Anc\Ta on 
 May 28, to which visit belongs a somewhat 
 hyperbolical inscription celebrating his tri- 
 umphant march from the Western Ocean to 
 the Tigris, beginning, do.mino totivs orbis 
 
 1 IVLIANO AVGVSTO EX OCEANO BRI | TAN- 
 
 Nico (C. /. L. iii. 247, Orell. 1109, Wilmanns 
 1089). From Ancyra he visited Pessinus in 
 Phrygia to pay homage to the famous sanc- 
 tuary of the Mother of the Gods, at which he 
 offered large and costly presents (.A.mm. I.e. ; 
 Liban. ad Jul. cos. p. 398). The oration in 
 honour of this deity, who, with the Sun-god, 
 was Julian's chief object of veneration, was 
 probably delivered earlier; but he took occasion 
 about this time to vindicate the doctrine of 
 Diogenes from the aspersions of false and luxu- 
 rious cynics {Or. vi. ets tous airaidfirroi'S AriVai, 
 delivered about the summer solstice, p. 181 a). 
 He was not satisfied with the progress of 
 heathenism amongst the people of the pilace 
 {Ep. 49, Arsacio pontifict Galatiae, ad fin.). 
 .\t Anc>Ta, according to the Acts of the 
 Martyrs, a presbyter named Basil was accused 
 of exciting the people against the gods and 
 speaking injuriously of the emperor and his 
 apostate courtiers. Basil was cruelly treated 
 in his presence, and, after a second trial, was 
 
 put to death by red-hot irons (Boll. Mar. as ; 
 also in Kuinart, Acta .Mart. Sincrra. p. 3^9; 
 Soz. n. 11). (Basimus or Ascyka.) Julian 
 left Ancyra, accordiuR to the same Act«, on 
 June 29, and soon after was met by a crowd 
 of litigants, some clamouring for a restoration 
 of their property, others complaining that thev 
 were unjustly forced into the curia, othrr» 
 accusing their neighbours of treason. Julian 
 shewed no leniency to the second riass, even 
 when they had a strung case, bring deter- 
 mined to allow as few imminiitics as possible. 
 To the rest he was just and fair, and an amusiuK 
 instance is recorded of the summary way he 
 disposed of a feeble charge of treason (Amin. 
 xxii. 9, 12 ; cf. XXV. 4, 21). 
 
 In Cappadixia his ill-humour was roused 
 by finding almost all the people Christian. 
 " Come, I beseech you," he writes to the 
 philosopher Aristoxenus, " and meet me at 
 Tyana, and shew us a genuine Greek amongst 
 these Cappadocians. As far as 1 have seen, 
 either the people will not sacrifice, or the very 
 few that are ready to do so are ignorant of 
 our ritual " (Ep. 4). He had already shewn 
 his anger against the people of Caesarca, the 
 capital of the jirovince, who had dared, after 
 his accession, to destroy the Temple of For- 
 tune, the last that remained standinn in their 
 city. According to Sozomen (v. 4), he erased 
 the city from the " list of the empire and 
 called it by its old name Mazaca." He fined 
 the Christians 300 pounds of gold, confiscated 
 church property, and enrolled the ecclesiastics 
 in themilitia of the province, besides imposing a 
 heavy poll-tax on the Christian laity. Hut either 
 these severe measures must have been justified 
 by great violence on the part of the Ciiristians 
 or Sozomen's account is exaggerated ; fi>r 
 Gregory Nazianzen says that it is perhaps nL>t 
 fair to reproach him with his violent conduct 
 to the Caesareans, and speaks of hini as 
 " justly indignant " {Or. 4, 92, p. 126). Such 
 mild language in this instance may well make 
 us attach more weight to Gregory's statements 
 astojulian'smisdoingsonother occasions. The 
 emperor was further incensed by the tumul- 
 tuous election of Eusebius to the bishopric of 
 Caesarea, in which the soldiers of the garrison 
 took part. This Eusebius was still a catechu- 
 men, but a man of official rank and influence, 
 known to be an enemy of the emperor (Greg. Or. 
 in Patrem, xviii. 33, p. 354)- The .Id.r Gr.gory 
 firmly resisted theremonstrancesoftheguverni>r 
 of the province, who was sent to him by J uhan, 
 and the storm passed awav {ib. 34, p. 355). 
 " Youknewus," cried (iregory, " y*)U knew Basil 
 and myself from the time of your soj.iurn in 
 Greece, and you paid us the compliment whii h 
 the Cvclops paid Ulysses, and kept us to l»c 
 swallowed last " {Or. '5, 39, p. 174)- The silence 
 of Gregory may be taken as clenching the 
 arguments from style against the genuineness 
 of the supposed correspondence between 
 Julian and St. Basil, which would otherwise 
 be assigned to this date (see pp. 4<>o f.). The 
 letters referred to are Epp. 40, 41. >" t*'* 
 editicms of St. Basil, the first of these- Jul. 
 Ep. 75 (77 Heyler) ; cf. Kode. p. «(>. note 11. 
 A more pleasant reception awaited lulian 
 in the neighbouring province, Cilicia. Enter- 
 ing it bv the famous pass of the Pylae Ciliciae, 
 he was met by the governor, his friend Cclsus, 
 
690 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 once his fellow-student, aad probably his 
 confidant at Athens, who greeted him with a 
 panegyric — a greeting more agreeable to 
 Julian than the customary presents made to 
 emperors in their progresses (Amm. xxii. 9, 
 13; Liban. £^f<. p. 575, and£/7. 648). Julian 
 shewed his high esteem for his encomiast by 
 taking him up into his chariot and entering 
 with him into Tarsus, a city which evidently 
 pleased him by its welcome. Celsus accom- 
 panied him to' the southern boundary of his 
 province, a few leagues N. of Antioch. Here 
 they were met by a large crowd, among whom 
 was Libanius (Liban. de Vita Sua, p. 81 ; 
 Ep. 648 ; see Sievers, Libanius, p. 91). He 
 reached Antioch before July 28, the date of a 
 law found in both the Codes, permitting pro- 
 vincial governors to appoint inferior judges 
 or judices pedanei (Cod. Theod. i. 68 = Corf. 
 Just. iii. 3- 5 ; cf. C. I. L. iii. 459)- 
 
 § 6. Julian's Residence at Antioch (July 362 
 to March 5, 363). — The eight months spent 
 at Antioch left Julian yet more bitter against 
 the church, and less careful to avoid injustice 
 to its members, in fact countenancing per- 
 secution even to death, though in word still 
 forbidding it and proclaiming toleration. 
 (Libanius says that Juhan spent nine months 
 at Antioch, Epit. p. 578, 15, but it is hard to 
 make more than eight.) The narrative of 
 this period may be divided into an account of 
 
 [a] his relations with the citizens of Antioch ; 
 
 (b) his relations to the church at large ; (c) 
 attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. 
 
 (a) Internal State of Antioch.— On. his en- 
 trance into the city Libanius greeted him in 
 a speech in which he congratulated him on 
 bringing back at once the ancient rites of 
 sacrifice and the honour to the profession 
 of rhetoric [Prosphoneticus Juliano, ed. Reiske, 
 i. p. 405). But other sounds saddened Julian 
 with a presage of his coming doom. It was 
 the festival of the lamentation for Adonis, and 
 the air resounded with shrieks for the lover of 
 Venus, cut down in his prime as the green corn 
 fails before the heat of the summer sun. This 
 ill-omened beginning was followed by other 
 equally unpropitious circumstances, and the 
 residence of Julian at Antioch was a dis- 
 appointment to himself and disagreeable to 
 almost all the inhabitants. He was impatient, 
 or soon became so, to engage upon his Persian 
 campaign ; but the difficulty of making the 
 necessary preparations in time determined 
 him to pass the winter at the Syrian capital 
 (Liban. Epit. p. 576 ; Aram. xxii. 10, i). He 
 had anticipated much more devotion on the 
 part of the pagans and much less resistance 
 on that of the Christians. He was disgusted 
 to find that both parties regretted the pre- 
 vious reign —" Neither the Chi nor the 
 Kappa" (i.e. neither Christ nor Constantius) 
 " did our city any harm " became a common 
 saying (Misopogon, p. 357 a). To the heathens 
 themselves the enthusiastic form of reUgion 
 to which Julian was devoted w.as little more 
 than an unpleasant and somewhat vulgar 
 anachronism. His cynic asceticism and 
 dislike of the theatre and the circus was 
 unpopular in a city particularly addicted to 
 public spectacles. His superstition was 
 equally unpalatable. The short, untidy, long- 
 bearded man, marching pompously in pro- 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 cession on the tips of his toes, and swaying his 
 shoulders from side to side, surrounded by a 
 crowd of abandoned characters, such as 
 formed the regular attendants upon many 
 heathen festivals, appeared seriously to com- 
 promise the dignity of the empire. The blood 
 of countless victims flowed everywhere, but 
 seemed to serve merely to gorge his foreign 
 soldiery, especially the semi-barbarous Gauls ; 
 and the streets of Antioch were disturbed 
 by their revels (Amm. xxii. 12, 6). Secret 
 rumours spread of horrid nocturnal sacrifices 
 and of the pursuit of arts of necromancy from 
 which the natural heathen conscience shrank 
 only less than the Christian. The wonder is, 
 not that Julian quarrelled with the Antioch- 
 enes, but that he left the city without a 
 greater explosion than actually took place. 
 
 Not a little of the irritation between the 
 emperor and the citizens was centred upon the 
 suburb of the city, called Daphne, a delicious 
 cool retreat in which, as it was fabled, the 
 nymph beloved by Apollo had been trans- 
 formed into a laurel. Here was a celebrated 
 temple of the god, and a spring that bore the 
 name of Castalian, in former days the favour- 
 ite haunt of the gay, the luxurious, and the 
 vicious. Gallus had counteracted the genius 
 loci by transposing to it the relics of the 
 martyr bp. Babylas, whose chapel was 
 erected opposite the temple of Apollo. The 
 worship of the latter had almost ceased, and 
 JuUan, going to Daphne in Aug. (Loiis), to 
 keep the annual festival of the Sun-god, was 
 surprised to find no gathering of worshippers. 
 He himself had returned for the purpose from 
 a visit to the temple of Zeus Casius, several 
 leagues distant. To his disgust the city had 
 provided no sacrifice, and only one poor priest 
 appeared, offering a single goose at his own 
 expense. Julian rated the town council 
 soundly (Misop. pp. 361 d, seq.). He took care 
 that in future sacrifices should not be wanting, 
 and eagerly consulted the oracle and un- 
 stopped the Castalian spring. After a long 
 silence he learnt that Apollo was disturbed by 
 the presence of the " dead man," i.e. Babylas. 
 " I am surrounded by corpses," said the voice, 
 " and I cannot speak till they are removed " 
 (Soz. V. 19 ; Chrys. de S. Bab. § 15, p. 669 ; 
 Liban. Monodia in Daphnen, vol. iii. p. 333). 
 All the corpses were cleared away, but espe- 
 cially that of the martyr (Amm. xxii. 12, 8 ; 
 Misop. p. 361 B). A remnant of religious awe 
 perhaps prevented Julian from destroying the 
 relics of which his actions practically acknow- 
 ledged the power, and they were eagerly 
 seized by the Christians and borne in triumph 
 to Antioch. The procession along the five 
 miles from Daphne to the city chanted aloud 
 Ps. xcvii. : " Confounded be all they that 
 worship carved images and that delight in 
 vain gods." Julian, incensed by this person- 
 ality, forced the prefect Sallustius, much 
 against his will, to inquire into it with 
 severity and punish those concerned. One 
 young man, Theodorus, was hung upon the 
 rack (e^juuleus) and cruelly scourged with iron 
 nails for a whole day, till he was supposed to 
 be dying. Rufinus, the church historian, who 
 met him in after-life, asked him how he bore 
 the pain. Theodorus replied that he had felt 
 but little, for a young man stood by him 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS C91 
 
 wiping ofi tlu> sweat of liis aj;»iiv and com- 
 forting liini all tin- time (Kntin. i. 33, 36, re- 
 ferred to by Soc. iii. 19, and given in kuinart, 
 Ada Martyrum, p. 604, ed. Kabisbou. iSso). 
 The anger of Julian was also braved by a 
 widow named Publia, the head of a small 
 community of Christian virgins, who sang in 
 his hearing the Psalms against idols and 
 against the enemies of God. She was brought 
 before a court and buffeted on the face with 
 severity, but dismissed (Theod. iii. 19). 
 
 Shortly after the translation of the relics of 
 St. Babylas to Antioch, on the night i^)f Oct. 22, 
 the temple of Daphne itself was burnt to the 
 ground. The heathens accused the Christians 
 of maliciously setting it on lire ; they attri- 
 buted it to fire from heaven and the prayers 
 of St. Babylas. A story also got about that 
 Asclepiades the cynic had left a number of 
 lighted candles burning in the shrine (.\uun. 
 xxii. 13 ; Soz. V. 20 ; Chrys. de S. Bab. § 17, 
 p. 674). Julian's wrath was intense. He 
 accused the Christians of the deed, and sus- 
 pected the priests of knowing about it {Misofy. 
 pp. 346 B, 361 B, c). As a punishment he 
 ordered the cathedral church of Antioch to 
 be closed, and confiscated its goods (Amm. 
 xxii. 13, 2 ; Soz. v. 8). The order was exe- 
 cuted by his uncle Julianus, now count of the 
 East, with all the zeal of a new convert and 
 with circumstances of disgusting profanity. 
 Theodorct, a presbyter, who still collected a 
 congregation of the fiiithful, was tortured and 
 beheaded (Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 605). The 
 Christian account tells us that Julian reproved 
 his uncle as having brought liim into disgrace, 
 but in the Misopugon he gives him nothing but 
 praise (»6. p. 607, Misop. p. 365 c). The count's 
 miserable death, which followed soon after, 
 was naturally treated as a judgment from 
 heaven (Soz. v. 8 ; Theod. iii. 12, etc.). That 
 of Felix, another renegade, had, a little earlier, 
 been equally remarkable for its suddenness. 
 The two were regarded as a presage of the 
 emperor's own doom, for now that Julianus 
 and Felix were gone, Augustus would soon 
 f'jllow, a play upon the imperial title Julianus 
 Felix .Augustus (.\mm. xxiii. i, 5). This was 
 a trivial saying, but calculated to disquiet and 
 irritate a mind like Julian's. 
 
 Antioch meanwhile was afflicted by a 
 dearth, which almost became a famine, and 
 the emperor's efforts to alleviate it failed. 
 He imported a large quantity of grain from 
 Egypt, and fixed the market price at a low 
 figure. Speculators bought up his importa- 
 tions, and would not sell their own stores, and 
 soon there was nothing in the markets. J ulian 
 declared that the fault was in the magistrates, 
 and tried in vain to infuse some of his own 
 public spirit into the farmers and merchants 
 (Liban. Lpit. p. 587). The town council were 
 sent to prison (Amm. xxii. 14, 2 ; Liban. Epil. 
 p. 588). Their confinement, however, did not 
 last a day, and they were released by the 
 intercession of Libanlus. who tells us that he 
 was not deterred from his petition by the 
 sarcastic hint that the Orontes was not far 
 off (de Vita Sua, vol. i. p. 85). The whole 
 winter, indeed, was clouded with misfortunes. 
 On Dec. 2 the rest of Nicomedia was des- 
 troyed by earthquake, and a large part of 
 Nicaea suffered with it (.\nim. xxii. 13, 5). 
 
 News was l.ioUf;ht tli.it Coii>t.iiitiuoi,|,. was 
 m danger from tin- s.mie c.iuse. ami some 
 suggested that the wrath of the carlh-shakfr 
 Poseidon must be appeased. This gave j ulian, 
 who had a real affection for the citv, an oppor- 
 tunity of showing his cnthusiasni. He stood 
 all day long in the open air, un<l.r rain and 
 storm, in a fixed ami rigid attitude, like an 
 Indian yogi, while his courtiers looked on in 
 amazement from under cover. It was calcu- 
 lated afterwards that the earthquake stopped 
 on the very dav of the imp.rial intercession, 
 and Julian, it is said, took no li.iriii from his 
 exposure (l.iban. Kpit. \k ySi). Hut this partial 
 success did not make him feel secure of the 
 favour of the gods. He was convinced that 
 Apollo had deserted Daphne and the other 
 deities were not propitious. Even the day 
 of his entering the consulship, J.m. i, ^h], 
 graced with an oration of I.ibanius (aJ Jul. imp. 
 consulem), was disfigured by a bad omen : a 
 priest fell dead on the steps of the temple of the 
 Genius. This was the more annoying, as he had 
 no doubt intended to make his fourth consul- 
 ship mark a new era by taking as his colleague 
 his old friend Sallustius prefect of the ( iauls, an 
 honour paid to no one outside the imperial 
 family since the days of Di.K-letian (Amm. 
 xxiii. I, i). At the same time too he received 
 news of the failure of the attempt (see (f), 
 infra) to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem 
 (Amm. xxiii. i, 3). 
 
 Meanwhile his designs for involving the 
 city in heathen rites caused considerable ex- 
 citement and odium. He profaned the 
 fountains of the city of Daphne according 
 to Christian ideas, and consecrated them 
 according to his own, by thr(jwing into them 
 a portion of his sacrifices, so that all who 
 used them might be partakers with the gods, 
 and for a similar reason ordered all things sold 
 in the market, such as bread, meat, and vege- 
 tables, to be sprinkled with lustral water. 
 The Christians complained but followed the 
 precept of the apostle in eating freely all 
 things sold in public, without inquiry (Theod. 
 iii. 15). Two young oflicers, Juventinus and 
 Maximinus, were one day lamenting this state 
 of things, and quoted the wonls from the 
 (ireek Daniel, c. iii. 32, " Thou hast delivered 
 us to a lawless king, to an apostate bevond all 
 the heathen that are in the earth." Their 
 words were repeated by an informer, and 
 they were ordered to appear before the 
 emperor. They declared the cause of their 
 complaint, the only one (as they said) which 
 they had to bring against his government. 
 They were thrown into prison, and friends 
 were sent to pnjinise them large rewards if 
 they would change their religion ; but they 
 stood firm, and were beheaded in the middle' 
 of the night, on the charge of having spoken 
 evil of the emperor (Chrvs. in Juvent. el Max. 
 3 ; cf. Theod. iii. 15). The date of this " mar- 
 tyrdom " may have been Jan. 25, as it appears 
 in Latin calendars (Boll. Jan. p. 61S). 
 
 Julian discharged his spleen upon the 
 Antiochenes by writing one of the most re- 
 markable satires ever published — the Misopu- 
 gon. " He had been insulted," says Gibbon, 
 "by satires and libels; in his turn hecomposed, 
 under the title of The Enemy of the Heard, 
 an ironical confession (^f his uwn faults .uid a 
 
592 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 severe satire on the licentious and effeminate 
 manners of Antioch. The imperial reply was 
 publicly exposed before the gates of the palace, 
 and the Misopogon still remains a singular 
 monument of the resentment, the wit, the 
 humanity, and the indiscretion of Julian " 
 {Decline and Fall, c. 24, vol. 3, p. 8, ed. Bohn). 
 Julian's own philosophic beard gives the title 
 to the pamphlet, which throws much light upon 
 the character of the emperor. In form it is a 
 dialogue between himself and the people, in 
 which he describes his own virtues under the 
 colour of vices, and their vices as if they were 
 virtues. Occasionally he lays aside his irony and 
 directly expresses his indignation against them, 
 and reveals his own character with a humorous 
 simplicity that in turn attracts and repels us. 
 This pamphlet was written in the seventh month 
 of his sojourn at Antioch, probably, that is, in 
 thelatter half of Jan. ; and he left the city in the 
 first week of March. " I turn my back upon 
 a city full of all vices, insolence, drunkenness, 
 incontinence, impiety, avarice, and impu- 
 dence," were his last words to Antioch (Liban. 
 Legatio ad Jul. pp. 469 seq.). 
 
 (b) Julian's Relation to the Church at Large 
 during his Residence at Antioch. — The general 
 object of the emperor's policy was to degrade 
 Christianity and to promote heathenism by 
 every means short of an edict of persecution 
 or the imposition of a general penalty on the 
 profession of the faith. 
 
 We do not possess the text of many of 
 Julian's edicts, a number of which were 
 naturally removed from the statute book. 
 We know that he ordered the temples to be 
 reopened and their estates to be restored, but 
 we do not know the terms in which this order 
 was couched. Probably he used bitter lan- 
 guage against the " atheists " and " Gali- 
 leans," ordering all chapels of mart>TS built 
 within the sacred precincts to be destroyed, 
 and all relics of " dead men " to be sum- 
 marily removed. Something of this kuid 
 must have been the awdT^fxa or " signal," of 
 which he speaks in the Misopogon as having 
 been followed by the neighbouring "holy cities" 
 of SvTia with a zeal and enthusiasm which 
 exceeded even his wishes {Misop. p. 361 a ; 
 Soz. p. 20, ad fin., mentions an order to 
 destroy two Christian chapels near the temple 
 of Apollo Didymaeus at Miletus). This con- 
 fession from his own mouth goes far to justify 
 the statements of his opponents. Riots oc- 
 curred in consequence of this " signal " in 
 many cities, particularly of Syria and the 
 East, where the Christians were numerous 
 and popular passion was strong. The details 
 of Julian's relation to some of these cases form 
 perhaps the gravest stains upon his character. 
 
 The earliest case after his entry into An- 
 tioch which can be dated exactly was that 
 of Titus, bp. of Bostra, in Arabia Auranitis. 
 Julian had informed Titus that he should be 
 held responsible for any breach of the peace 
 (Soz. V. 15, p. 102 b). The bishop answered 
 by a memorial, declaring that the Christian 
 population was equal in numbers to the 
 heathen but that under his influence and that 
 of their clergy they were careful to abstain 
 from sedition {ib.). Julian on Aug. i, 362, 
 replied by a public letter to the people of 
 Bostra, representing this language as an imper- 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 tinence, and calumniating Titus as the accuser 
 of the Christian body. After quoting the 
 memorial of Titus, he proceeds : " These are 
 the words of the bishop concerning you. Ob- 
 serve, he does not ascribe your regularity to 
 your own inclination ; unwillingly, he says, you 
 refrain ' by his exhortations.' Do you then use 
 your wills, and expel him as your accuser from 
 your city. . . . Such is their fate who turn 
 from the worship of the immortal gods to dead 
 men and relics " {Ep. 52). 
 
 A month or two later, probably in Oct., he 
 continued his attack upon Athana'sius, the first 
 acts of which have already been described. 
 The great champion had never left Alexandria, 
 or had soon returned. Julian was thoroughly 
 enraged to find his first order had not been 
 executed. He wrote angrily to the prefect 
 Ecdicius: " I swear by great Serapis if he does 
 not leave Alexandria and every part of 
 Egypt, by the ist of Dec, I will fine your 
 cohort a hundred pounds of gold. You know 
 that I am slow to condemn, but when I have 
 condemned much slower in pardoning," add- 
 ing in his own hand, " I am thoroughly pained 
 at being treated in this way with contempt. 
 By all the gods, no sight, or rather no news, 
 of your doings could give me greater pleasure 
 than that of Athanasius being driven from 
 Egypt, the scoundrel who in my reign has 
 dared to baptize Greek ladies of rank. Let 
 him be expelled " (Ep. 6). At the same time 
 he wrote to the people of Alexandria, mingling 
 personal abuse of their bishop with arguments 
 to enforce the worship of Serapis and the 
 visible gods, the sun and moon, and to de- 
 preciate the worship of " Jesus, Whom neither 
 you nor your fathers have seen," and " Whose 
 doctrine has done nothing for your city." 
 " We have long ago ordered him," he con- 
 cludes, " to leave the city, now we banish 
 him from the whole of Egypt " [Ep. 51). 
 The news of these decrees was brought to 
 Athanasius on Oct. 23, and he felt it time to 
 depart. " Be of good heart," he said to those 
 who clustered round him, " it is but a cloud ; 
 it will soon pass " (Ruf. i. 32 ; Festal Epistles, 
 Chronicle, p. 14, for the date). During the 
 rest of J ulian's reign he lived in retirement in 
 the monasteries of the Egyptian desert. 
 
 To Hecebolius (who was perhaps his old 
 master advanced to some place of authority) 
 he wrote concerning a sedition at Edessa, in 
 much the same terms as he had written to the 
 people of Bostra, but apparently with more 
 justice. " 1 have always used the Galileans 
 well, and abstained from violent measures of 
 conversion ; but the Arians, luxuriating in 
 their wealth, have treated the Valentinians in 
 a manner which cannot be tolerated in a well- 
 ordered city. In order, therefore, that they 
 may enter more easily into the kingdom of 
 Heaven in the way which their wonderful 
 law bids them, I have ordered all the money 
 of the church of Edessa to be seized for 
 division amongst the soldiers, and its estates 
 to be confiscated " {Ep. 43, cf. Rufin. i. 32 ; 
 Socr. iii. 13). This twisting of the gospel 
 precept against the church is a close parallel 
 to the alleged edict forbidding Christians to 
 exercise the sword of the magistrate, and sup- 
 ports its authenticity (so Rode, p. 85, n. 9, 
 see supra). Another disturbance was reported 
 
JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 as occurrini; botwooii ttu- cities of ("i.iza and 
 Maiuma in Palestine. The latter, originally a 
 suburb of Gaza, had been raised by Constantius 
 to the rank of an independent corporation. 
 The people of Gaza had successfully peti- 
 tioned the new emperor for a withdrawal of 
 these privileges, and now in their exultation 
 attacked their neighbours, and set fire to their 
 chapels, with other acts of violence. Three 
 brothers of a resi)ectable family named Euse- 
 bius, Nestabus, and Zeno, were murdered with 
 circumstances of great atrocity. The people 
 were considerably alarmed by fear of what the 
 emperor might do, and the governor arrested 
 some of the ringleaders, who were brought 
 to Antioch. In this case Julian's sense of 
 justice seems entirely to have deserted him. 
 Not only was no reprimand addressed to the 
 people of Gaza, but the governor was himself 
 put on his trial and deprived of his office. 
 " What great matter is it if one Greek hand 
 has slain ten Galileans ? " were words well 
 calculated to bear bitter Iruit wherever they 
 were repeated, and equivalent, as Gregory 
 argues, to an edict of persecution (Greg. Or. 4, 
 93, p. 127 ; Sozomen — a Gazene himself — v. 
 9). Rode accepts most of this story, but re- 
 jects without sufficient reason the words 
 attributed to Julian, p. 92, n. 12, who did and 
 said many things in a fit of passion, of which 
 his cooler judgment disapproved. Dis- 
 turbances against the Christians broke out in 
 many parts of Palestine. Holy places and 
 holy' things were profaned, and Christian 
 people maltreated, tortured, and destroyed, 
 sometimes in the most abominable manner 
 (Chron. Pasch. p. 546, ed. Bonn. ; Soz. v. 21 ; 
 Philost. vii. 4). 
 
 Meanwhile Mark, bp. of Arethusa, a small 
 town in Syria, who was said to have saved 
 the life of the infant Julian, had refused to 
 pay for the restoration of a temple which he 
 had destroyed in the preceding reign. He was 
 scourged in public, his beard was torn, his 
 naked body was smeared with honey and hung 
 up in a net exposed to the stings of insects 
 and the fierce rays of the Syrian sun. Nothing 
 could be wrung from him, and he was at last 
 set free, a conqueror (Greg. Or. 4, 88-91, pp. 
 122-125 ; Soz. V. 10). Wherever he went, he 
 was surrounded by admirers, and this case 
 became a warning to the more temperate and 
 cautious pagans not to proceed to extremities. 
 Libanius intercedes for an offender, lest he 
 should turn out another Mark {Ep. 730) ; and 
 Sallust, the prefect of the East, admonished 
 Julian for the disgrace this fruitless contest 
 with an old man brought upon the pagan 
 cause (Greg. I.e. ; Sallust's name is not men- 
 tioned, but his office and character are de- 
 scribed with sufficient clearness). 
 
 (c) .Attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusa- 
 lem. — Julian had apparently for some time 
 past wished to conciliate the Jewish people, 
 and was quite ready to grant Jehovah a place 
 amongst the other' local deities (cf. Frag. p. 
 295 c ; St. Cyril, in Spanheim's Julian, pp. 
 99, 100, and p. 305, on Sacrifice). It seems 
 probable, therefore, that his chief motive in 
 wishing to restore the temple at Jerusalem 
 was the desire to increase the number of 
 divinities who were propitious to him, and to 
 gain the favour of the Jewish God in the prose- 
 
 JULIANUS. PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 593 
 
 cution of his I'lisi.ui cami>.li^;n. This is 
 substantially the account given by Socrates, 
 who tells us that he summoned the Jews to 
 him and asked why they did not offer sacrifice. 
 They replied that it was not lawful for them 
 to do so, except at Jerusalem, and he there- 
 fore determined to rebuild the temple of 
 Solomon (Socr. iii. 20). This account agrees 
 best with the statements of the emperor him- 
 self in his epistles and in his books against the 
 Christians, and other motives attributed to 
 him may be considered as subordinate (cf. 
 Greg. Or. 5, 3, p. 149 ; Rufin. i. 37 ; Soz. v. 
 21). There is, however, an air of great prob* 
 ability in the statement of Philostorgius that 
 he wished to falsify the prediction of our 
 Blessed Lord as to the utter destruction of the 
 temple (vii. 9). Nor could the enmity of the 
 Jews against the Christians be otherwise than 
 very pleasing to him (Greg. I.e. iratpriKt koI 
 t6 'loi'Soiwi' (pvXov i^^itf). Julian provided 
 very large sums for the work, and entrusted 
 its execution to the oversight of Alypius of 
 .\ntioch, an officer who had been employed 
 by him in Britain and who was his intimate 
 persona! friend (.-Vrnm. xxiii. i. 2 ; Epp. 29 and 
 30 are addressed to him). The Jews were 
 exultant and eager to contribute their wealth 
 and their labour. The rubbish was cleared 
 away and the old foundations were laid bare. 
 But a stronger power intervened. To quote 
 the words of .A-mmianus: "Whilst Alypius 
 was strenuously forcing on the work, and the 
 governor of the province was lending his 
 assistance, fearful balls of flames, bursting 
 out with frequent assaults near the founda- 
 tions, and several times burning the workmen, 
 rendered access to the spot impossible ; and 
 in this way the attempt came to a standstill 
 through the determined obstinacy of the cle- 
 ment" (xxiii. I, 3). No doubt the Christians 
 saw in this defeat of their oppressor not 
 only a miracle of divine power, but a pecu- 
 lliariy striking fulfilment of the old prophecies 
 I in which fire is so often spoken of as the em- 
 blem and instrument of judgment {e.g. Ueut. 
 xxxii. 22, Jer. xxi. 14, and particularly, per- 
 ! haps, the historical description of Lam. iv. ir, 
 ' " The Lord hath accomplished His fury ; He 
 hath poured out His fierce anger, and hath 
 I kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured 
 I the foundations thereof"). They thought 
 ! also, of course, of our Lord's own words, now 
 i more completely verified than ever. Julian 
 retained his wide knowledge of the text of 
 Scripture, as we see by his writings, and these 
 prophecies doubtless irritated him by their 
 literal exactness. The " glot.i flammarum 
 prope fundavwnta erumpentes" of the heathen 
 I iiistorian are an undesigned coincidence with 
 the words of Hebrew prophecy. 
 
 From heathen testimonies, and from the 
 fathers and historians of the church, Dr. 
 Newman has put together the f.illowing de- 
 tailed account of the occurrence, in which he 
 chiefly follows Warburton. The order of the 
 ! incidents is, of course, not certain, but only 
 i a matter of probable inference ; nor can we 
 guarantee the details as they appear in the 
 later writers. "They declare as follows: 
 The work was interrupted bv a violent whirl- 
 wind, says Thcodoret, which scattered about 
 I vast quantities of lime, sand and other loose 
 38 
 
594 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 materials collected for the building. A storm 
 of thunder and lightning followed ; fire fell, 
 says Socrates, and the workmen's tools, the 
 spades, the axes, and the saws were melted 
 down. Then came an earthquake, which threw 
 up the stones of the old foundation, says 
 Socrates ; filled up the excavation, says 
 Theodoret, which had been made for the new 
 foundations; and, as Rufinus adds, threw 
 down the buildings in the neighbourhood, 
 and especially the public porticoes in which 
 were numbers of the Jews who had been 
 aiding in the undertaking, and who were 
 buried in the ruins. The workmen re- 
 turned to their work ; but from the re- 
 cesses, laid open by the earthquake, balls of 
 fire burst out, says Ammianus ; and that 
 again and again as often as they renewed the 
 attempt. The fiery mass, says Rufinus, raged 
 up and down the street for hours ; and St. 
 Gregory, that when some fled to a neighbour- 
 ing church for safety the fire met them at the 
 door and forced them back, with the loss either 
 of life or of their extremities. At length the 
 commotion ceased ; a calm succeeded ; and, 
 as St. Gregory adds, in the sky appeared a 
 luminous cross surrounded by a circle. Nay, 
 upon the garments and the bodies of the 
 persons present crosses were impressed, says 
 St. Gregory ; which were luminous by night, 
 says Rufinus ; and at other times of a dark 
 colour, says Theodoret ; and would not wash 
 out, adds Socrates. In consequence the 
 attempt was abandoned" (Newman, Essay 
 on Miracles in Early Ecd. Hist. p. clxxvii.). 
 All these incidents present a picture consistent 
 with the extraordinary operations of the 
 forces of nature. Even for the luminous 
 crosses there are curious parallels in the 
 history of storms of lightning and volcanic 
 eruptions (see those collected by VVarburton 
 and quoted by Newman, p. clxxxii. notes). 
 The cross in the sky has its likeness in the 
 effects of mock suns and parhelia. But even 
 so, a Christian may still fairly assert his right 
 to call the event a miraculous interposition 
 of God's providence. It fulfilled all the pur- 
 poses we can assign to the Scripture miracles. 
 It gave " an impression of the present agency 
 arid of the will of God." It seemed to shew 
 His severe disapproval of the attempt and 
 fulfilled the prophecy of Christ. It came, 
 like the vision of Constantine, at a critical 
 epoch in the world's history. It was, as the 
 heathen poet has it, a " dignus vindice nodus." 
 All who were present or heard of the event at 
 the time thought it, we may be sure, a sign 
 from God. As a miracle it ranges beside 
 those Biblical miracles in which, at some 
 critical moment, the forces of nature are seen 
 to work strikingly for God's people or against 
 their enemies. 
 
 § 7. Julian's Persian Campaign and Death 
 (Mar. 5 to June 27, 363). — Julian's route into 
 Persia is marked with considerable exactness ; 
 the first part of it by a letter which he wrote 
 to Libanius from Hierapolis (Ep. 27). At 
 Beroea, the modern Aleppo, he " conversed 
 with the senate on matters of religion — all 
 praised my discourse, but few only were con- 
 vinced by it " {Ep. 27, p. 399 d). 
 
 At Batnae (the scenery of which he com- 
 pared to that of Daphne) he found ostenta- 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 tious preparations for sacrifice upon the 
 public roads, but thought them too obviously 
 studied and too redolent of personal flattery. 
 Leaving Edessa on his left hand, probably as 
 a city too distinctly Christian to be visited 
 with comfort, he had reached Carrhae, a 
 place of vigorous pagan traditions, on Mar. 19. 
 At some distance from the town there was a 
 famous temple of the Moon, in which it was 
 worshipped both as a male and a female deity, 
 and near which the emperor Caracalla had 
 been murdered (Herodian. iv. 13, 3; Spartian. 
 Caracallus, 6, 6 ; 7, 3). Julian made a point 
 of visiting it and offered sacrifices " according 
 to the local rites." Of his secret doings in 
 this temple there are different accounts. 
 Ammianus had heard that he invested his 
 relative Procopius, who was his only com- 
 panion, with his paludamentum, and bid him 
 seize the empire in case he died in the cam- 
 paign on which they were engaged (Aram, 
 xxiii. 3, 2). Among Christians a report was 
 current that he offered a human sacrifice. 
 The story ran that he sealed up the temple 
 and ordered it not to be opened till his return : 
 and that after the news of his death people 
 entered it and found a woman hanging by the 
 hair of her head, and her body cut open as if 
 to search for omens (Theod. iii. 26). 
 
 On Mar. 27 he was at Callinicum and cele- 
 brated the festival of the Mother of the Gods 
 (Amm. xxiii. 3, 7). At the beginning of Apr. 
 he came to Circesium (Carchemish) at the 
 junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates. 
 Here he received distressing letters from his 
 friend Sallustius in Gaul, urging him to give 
 up his campaign as he felt sure that the gods 
 were unfavourable (Amm. xxiii. 5, 6). At 
 Zaitham (where Ammianus first begins to 
 speak in the first person) they saw the high 
 mound which marked the burial-place of the 
 emperor Gordian. The historian records 
 numerous portents on their march ; among 
 them, a lion which appeared at Dura gave rise 
 to a curious dispute between the Etruscan 
 augurs and the philosophers who followed in 
 his train. The former shewed from their 
 books that it was an ill omen ; the latter 
 (amongst whom were Maximus and Priscus) 
 had historical precedents to prove that it need 
 not be so regarded. A similar dispute 
 occurred next day as to the meaning of a 
 thunderstorm (xxiii. 5, 10 seq.). Such super- 
 stitious discussions were not likely to embolden 
 the soldiery ; but Julian decided in favour of 
 the philosophers, animated the army with 
 his own courage, and tried to dispel the pre- 
 judice that the Romans had never invaded 
 Persia with success. One of his most import- 
 ant officers, Hormisdas (elder brother of 
 Sapor, the reigning king of Persia), had angered 
 the nobles of his country by threats, had been 
 imprisoned by them, and escaped to the court 
 of Constantine. He became apparently a sin- 
 cere Christian, yet remained a useful and trusted 
 officer of Julian. By his intervention several 
 Assvrian towns opened their gates to the 
 invaders (xxiv. i, 6, etc.). The country was 
 ; inundated by the natives, and it required all 
 j Julian's inventive quickness and personal 
 example to carry the army through the 
 marshes. After various successes he arrived 
 at the bank of the Tigris, at the ruins of 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 the old Greek city of SoUnuia opposite 
 Ctesiphon. He forced the passage of the river 
 by a very vigorous and dangerous move- 
 ment in the face of the enemy, and foimd 
 himself under the walls of the capital (xxiv. 
 6, 4-14). But no threats or sarcasms could 
 draw the inhabitants fnnn their impregnable 
 defences, and Sapor himself made no a])- 
 pearance. Part of the Roman army had 
 been left in Mesopotamia, where the two 
 ambitious generals, Procopius and Sebastiau- 
 us, fell out, and the support expected from 
 Arsaces was not forthcoming. But though 
 Sapor did not appear to give battle, he sent a 
 secret ambassador with offers of an honourable 
 peace, the exact terms of which are unknown 
 to us (Liban. Epit. p. 608; Socr. iii. 21 ; 
 Ammianus is here defective). These Julian 
 declined, against the advice of Hormisdas. 
 He was fired with all sorts of vague and 
 enthusiastic projects ; he longed to visit the 
 plain of Arbela and to overrun the whole 
 Persian empire (Liban. Epit. p. 6og). These 
 ideas were kindled into action by the arts of 
 a certain Persian noble, who pretended to be 
 a deserter, indignant against his sovereign, 
 but who in reality played the part of a second 
 ZopvTus (Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 11, p. 154; cf. 
 Aurel. Victor. Epit. 67 ; Soz. vi. i, p. 218). 
 Julian's fleet presented a difficulty, and he 
 determined upon the hazardous measure of 
 burning it, except a very few vessels, which 
 were to be placed on wheels. This was done 
 at Abuzatha, where he halted five days 
 (Zos. iii. 26). A short time of reflection 
 and a discovery that his Persian informants 
 were deceiving him made him regret his 
 decision. He attempted too late to save some 
 of the ships. Only twelve out of some 1,100 
 were still uninjured. What had been intended 
 to be a triumphant progress almost insensibly 
 became a retreat. The Persian cavalry were 
 perpetually harassing the outskirts of the 
 army, and though beaten at close quarters 
 were continually appearing in fresh swarms. 
 The few ships that remained were insufficient 
 to build a bridge by which to open communica- 
 tions with Mesopotamia. Nothing was left 
 but to proceed along the E. bank of the Tigris 
 to the nearest friendly province, Corduene in 
 S. Armenia, as quickly as possible. This was 
 determined on lune 16, only ten days before 
 the death of Julian (.A.mm. xxiv. 8, 5). How 
 far he had previously penetrated into the 
 interior is not easy to determine. In the next 
 few days the Romans fought several battles 
 with success, but not such as to ensure them 
 a quiet march forwards. They suffered from 
 want of food, and Julian shared their priva- 
 tions on an equality with the commonest 
 soldier (Amm. xxv. 2, 2). On the night of 
 June 25, as he was studying some book of 
 philosophy in his tent, he had a vision (as he 
 told his intimates) of the Genius of the Re- 
 public leaving his tent in a mournful attitude, 
 with a veil over his head and over the cornu- 
 copia in his hand — reminding him by contrast 
 of his vision of the night before he was pro- 
 claimed Augustus. He shook off his natural 
 terror, and went out into the night air to offer 
 propitiatory sacrifices, when he received an- 
 other shock from the appearance of a brilliant 
 meteor, which he interpreted as a sign of the 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS r.Ort 
 
 wrath of M.irs. wh.-m |i,- li.i.l .i1i.m,|v on.-ii.lrj 
 (xxv. 2. 4 : (f. xxiv. (1, 17). When d.iy 
 dawned the Etruscan <liviners imi>lore«l him 
 to make no movement that day, or at least to 
 put off his march for some hours. Hut his 
 courage had returned with d.tvliKht, ami he 
 gave the <irder to adv.uico. Sudden att.ick* 
 of the enemy from different qu.irlirs ihrrw 
 the army into confusion, and Julian, ex- 
 cited by the danger, rushed forwanl without 
 his breastplate, catching up a shield as h« 
 went. As he raised his hands above his head 
 to urge his men to pursue, a cavalry spear 
 from an unknown hand grazed his arm and 
 lodged in his right side. He tried to draw 
 out the spear-head, but the sharp e<lgcs cut 
 his fingers. He threw up his hand with a con- 
 vulsive motion, and fell tainting fr'>m his ht>rsc 
 (xxv. 3, 7, compared with other accoimls), utter- 
 ing a cry which is differently reported. Some 
 said he threw his own blood towards heaven 
 with the bitter words, " O Galilean, Thou hast 
 conquered ! " (Theod. iii. 25). Others thought 
 they heard him reproach the gods, and 
 especially the Sun, his patron, for their 
 desertion (Philost. vii. 15 ; Soz. vi. 2). He 
 was borne to his tent and his wound dressed, 
 no doubt by his friend Oribasius. For a 
 moment he revived, and called for a horse and 
 arms, but a gush of blood sliewed how weak 
 he really was. On learning that the place was 
 called Phrygia he gave up all hope, having 
 been told by some diviner that he should ilie 
 in Phrygia. He addressed those who stood 
 
 around him in a highly philosophic speech in 
 the style of Socrates, of whii;h Ammianus has 
 preserved a report. He considered that 
 death was sent him as a gift from the gods. 
 He knew of no great faults he had committed 
 either in a private station or as Caesar. He 
 had always desired the good of his subjects, 
 and had endeavoured to be a faithful servant 
 of the republic. He had I<mg known the 
 decree of fate, that his death was impending, 
 and thanked the supreme God that it came, 
 not in a disgraceful or painful way, but in a 
 glorious form. He would not discuss the 
 appointment of his successor, lest he should 
 pass over one who was worthy, or eiulanger 
 the life of some one whom he thought fit, but 
 hoped that the republic woul<l find a good 
 ruler after him. He then distributed his 
 I>ersonal effects to his intimate friemls, and 
 asked among others for AnatoUus. the master 
 (.f the offices. Sallustius (the prefect of the 
 i East) replied that he was happy. Julian 
 I understood that he had f.illm, but lamented 
 j the death of his friend with a natur.il feeling 
 which he h.id restrained in thinkuig of his 
 I own. Those who stood round couhl no 
 i longer restrain their grief, but he still kept his 
 habit of command, and rebuked them for 
 their want of high feeling. " My life gives 
 ine confidence of being taken to the islands of 
 the blest, to have converse with he.iven and 
 the stars; it is me.-in to weep as if I had 
 ileserved to be condemned to Tartiriis " 
 (Liban. Epit. p. 614. i^triua roU r» 
 d\\o«t, irfi2 oiix fjAicra (roU 0i,\oa<S'^o<» ) tl tuk 
 
 ol a liij tt^/ut Taprdpov ti'/itUK^ra ianpi'-oytTty : 
 Amm. xxv. 1, 22, " humile esse caelo sidcri- 
 busque concUiatum iugeri principem dicens "). 
 
596 JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 His last moments were spent in a difficult 
 discussion with Maximus and Priscus on " the 
 sublimity of souls." In the midst of this 
 debate his wound burst afresh, and he called 
 for a cup of cold water, drank it, and passed 
 away quietly at midnight on the evening of 
 June 26, having not yet reached the age of 32 
 (Amm. XXV. 3, 23 ; 5, i ; Socr. iii. 21, etc.). 
 
 It was never found out who threw the fatal 
 spear, though the Persians offered a reward. 
 The suggestion of Libanius that it was a Chris- 
 tian was such as he would naturally make in 
 his bitterness [Epit. pp. 612, 614). Gregory, 
 Socrates, and Rufinus consider it uncertain 
 whether it was a Persian or one of his own 
 soldiers (Greg. Or. v. 13, p. 155 ; Ruf. i. 36 ; 
 Socr. iii. 21). Sozomen notices the suspicion 
 of Libanius, and defends it in a spirit which 
 cannot but be condemned (Soz. vi. i). 
 
 The news of Julian's death and that the 
 army had elected a Christian, Jovian, to 
 succeed him caused enormous rejoicings, 
 especially in Antioch. Jovian was obliged to 
 make peace by ceding the five Mesopotamian 
 provinces, including Nisibis, which had been 
 the bulwark of the empire in the East. Pro- 
 copius was ordered to carry back the body to 
 Tarsus, where it was interred with pagan 
 ceremonies opposite that of Maximinus Daia. 
 
 Character. — Julian's story leaves the im- 
 pression of a living man far more than that of 
 most historical personages. The most opposite 
 and unexpected estimates of him have been 
 formed. He has been admired and pitied 
 by religious-minded men, detested and satir- 
 ized by sceptics and atheists. His own 
 friend Ammianus despised his superstition, 
 and paints it in terms not much weaker than 
 the invectives of Gregory and Chrysostom ; 
 Gibbonsneers at him alternately with hisChris- 
 tian opponents. A. Comte wished to appoint 
 an annual day for execrating his memory in 
 company with that of Bonaparte, as one of the 
 " two principal opponents of progress," and 
 as the " more insensate " of the two (System 
 of Positive Polity, Eng. trans, vol. i. p. 82 ; 
 an ordinance afterwards withdrawn, ih. vol. iv. 
 p. 351). Strauss treats him as a vain, re- 
 actionary dreamer, comparable to medieval- 
 ists who tried to stay the march of modern 
 thought. On the other hand, pietistic his- 
 torians like Arnold, Neander, and even Ull- 
 mann, unlike the ancient writers of the 
 church, are tolerant and favourable. 
 
 The simple reason of this divergence is, of 
 course, that the strongest force working in 
 him was a self-confident religious enthusiasm, 
 disguised under the form of self-surrender to 
 a divine mission. Such a character constantly 
 appears in different lights, and some of those 
 who have judged him have looked chiefly 
 at the sentimental side of his life, without 
 considering his actions ; while others have 
 estimated him by his actions apart from his 
 principles — the more so because he was 
 inconsistent himself in his conduct, and some- 
 times acted with, sometimes against, his 
 principles ; and hence any one who chooses 
 to take a partial view may easily find a justi 
 fication in the positive statements of this or 
 that historian, or of Julian himself. 
 
 A Christian who attempts to judge Julian 
 without prejudice will probably go through 
 
 JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 several phases of opinion before he comes to 
 a final estimate. All but the cold-hearted 
 will sympathize, to some extent at least, with 
 his religious enthusiasm, and with the sacri- 
 fices which he was ready to make in its 
 behalf. It is impossible to doubt that he had 
 a vein of noble sentiment, and a lofty and, in 
 many ways, unselfish ambition. He had a 
 real love of ideal beauty, and of the literary 
 and artistic traditions of the past. There was 
 something even pathetic in his hero-worship 
 and his attachment to those whom he sup- 
 posed to be his friends. If he was often 
 pedantic and imitative, if he had a somewhat 
 shallow and conceited manner, yet we must 
 confess that much of this was the vice of the 
 age, and this pettiness was thrown off in 
 critical moments. Under strong excitement 
 he often became simple, great, and natural. 
 
 Or again, many persons will sympathize 
 with his conservative instincts, and his wish 
 to retain what was great in the culture and 
 art of past ages ; while others will be attracted 
 by his mystic speculations and ascetic prac- 
 tices, which were akin to much that has been 
 valued and admired in many great names in 
 the history of the church. But on reflection 
 we see that all this was combined with a 
 ruling spirit and view of things which was 
 essentially heathen, and therefore fundament- 
 ally defective, as well as antagonistic, to all 
 that we hold dearest and most vital. Julian 
 was at bottom thoroughly one-sided. He 
 was enthusiastic and even passionate in 
 his religion ; but it was the passion of the 
 intellect and senses rather than of the heart. 
 
 Much of his natural warmth of feeling had 
 been chilled and soured by the sense of in- 
 justice and secret enmity under which he so 
 long laboured. He could not forget the 
 murder of his nearest relations, nor the sus- 
 picions, intrigues, and actual personal indig- 
 nities of which he was the subject. What we 
 know of his early surroundings inclines us to 
 suppose that their influence for good was but 
 slight. His relation, Eusebius of Nicomedia, 
 does not bear ahigh character. His pedagogue 
 Mardonius was evidently more heathen than 
 Christian in his sympathies, and a time-serving 
 creature like Hecebolius was not likely to 
 make much impression upon his pupil. 
 
 We have endeavoured to give a fair general 
 estimate of this remarkable character, with 
 the full consciousness how hazardous such an 
 estimate is. If any one wishes for a catalogue 
 of qualities, which can, as it were, be ticketed 
 and labelled, he cannot do better than read 
 Ammianus's elaborate award (xxv. 4). The 
 historian takes the four cardinal virtues — 
 temperance, prudence, justice, and courage — 
 and gives a due amount of praise tempered 
 with some fault-finding under each head. 
 His chastity and abstinence were remarkable. 
 He aimed at justice, and to a great extent 
 earned a high reputation for it. He was 
 liberal to his friends, and careless of his own 
 comforts and conveniences in a very remark- 
 able degree ; while he did much to lighten and 
 equalize the burden of taxation upon his 
 subjects. His successes in Gaul gained him 
 the affection of the people, and his popularity 
 with the soldiers may be gathered from the 
 manner in which the dwellers in northern and 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 western lands followed him intn the midst of 
 Persia. He may be said to have quelled a 
 military tumult by the threat of retiring into 
 private life. The lighter qualities of his 
 character present him in rather a disagreeable 
 aspect. He was loquacious and inconsistent 
 in small things and in great. He was ex- 
 tremely superstitious, and even fanatical in 
 his observance of religious rites, to a degree 
 that made him appear trifling and undignified 
 even to his friends. His manner was obvious- 
 ly irritating, and such as could not inspire 
 respect in his subjects ; and, on the other 
 hand, he was too eager to gain popular 
 applause. No one can doubt his cleverness 
 and ability as a writer, but the greater number 
 of his writings do not shew method, and they 
 are often singularly deficient in judgment. 
 An exception, perhaps, may be made in respect 
 to the first oration to Constantius, the letter 
 to the .\thenians, and the Caesars. The 
 latter, however, was a strange performance 
 for one who was himself an emperor. 
 
 In person he was rather short, and awk- 
 wardly though very strongly built. His 
 features were fine and well-marked, and his 
 eyes very brilliant ; his mouth was rather 
 over-large and his lower lip inclined to droop. 
 As a young man he grew a beard, but was re- 
 quired to cut it off when he became Caesar, and 
 seems only to have grown it again after taking 
 possession of Constantinople. .\t .\ntioch it 
 was allowed to grow to a great size. His neck 
 was thick, and his head hung forward, and 
 was set on broad and thick shoulders. His 
 walk was ungraceful ; and he had an unsteady 
 motion of the limbs. There is a fine life-size 
 statue of Julian, of good and artistic work- 
 manship, in the ruined hall of his palace in the 
 garden of the Hotel Clugny at Paris. It is 
 figured as the frontispiece to E. Talbot's 
 translation of his works. 
 
 Theory of Religion.— Julian's theory was 
 too superficial and occasional to leave much 
 mark upon the history of thought. His 
 book against Christianity became indeed a 
 favourite weapon with infidels, but he never 
 founded a school of positive belief. He was, in 
 fact, an enthusiastic amateur, who employed 
 some of the nights of a laborious career of 
 public business in writing brilliant essays in 
 the neo-PIatonic manner. He tells us that the 
 oration in praise of the Sun took him three 
 nights (p. 157 c) ; that on the Mother of the 
 Gods was composed, "without taking breath, 
 in the short space of one night " (p. 178 d). 
 Such work may astonish us even now, but it 
 is not surprising that it should be incomplete, 
 rambling, and obscure. 
 
 There are, however, certain constantly 
 recurring thoughts which may be regarded 
 as established principles with Julian. Julian 
 forms one of that long line of remarkable men 
 in the first four centuries after Christ who 
 endeavoured to give a rational form to the 
 rel'gion and morality of the heathen world 
 in opposition to the growing power of Chris- 
 tianity — men whose ill-success is one of the 
 strongest proofs of the deadness of their own 
 cause, and the vitality of that against which 
 they strove. Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, 
 Marcus Aurelius, Celsus, Plotinus, Porph>Ty, 
 lamblichus, and Hierocles were in this sense 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS .107 
 
 prrcursurs ..( Juli.ui. Wi- mav d< linr thr ob- 
 jects of their efforts on behalf of paganism »%: 
 
 (1) To unite popular l>rlirfs in many Rods 
 with some conception of the unity of thr divinr 
 being, and to give some consistent, if nut 
 rational, account of the origin of the world 
 and of the course of human history. 
 
 (2) To defend the myths and legends of 
 heathenism, and generally to establish heathen 
 morals on a higher basis than mere custom. 
 
 (3) To satisfy the yearnings of ihc soul for 
 the knowledge of (iod, while rejicting thr 
 exclusive claims of the Jewish and Christian 
 revelation. 
 
 (I) Doctrine as lo the Xature of (ioJ.—Thc 
 birth of Christ took place in the fulness of 
 time, i.e. when mankind had been prepared 
 for it, by many influences bearing them to- 
 wards the acceptance of a revelation. One 
 of the most important of these preparations 
 was the movement towards monotheism. 
 The old simple belief in many gods living 
 together in a sort of upper world was g'>nr, 
 and thinking mm w^uid accept no systcni 
 which did not assume the supremacy of one 
 I divine principle, and in some degree "justify" 
 ! the action of Providence in dealing with man- 
 kind as a whole. But the worship of man v gods 
 had too deep a hold upon the fancy and affec- 
 tions, as well as the mind, of the people to 
 be surrendered without a long struggle, and 
 various methods were advanced to shelter and 
 protect the current belief. The systems 
 thus formed were naturally all more or less 
 pantheistic, finding unity in an infonnal 
 abstraction from the phenomena of nature. 
 But, as we should expect to be the case on 
 European soil, they were neither logically 
 pantheistic in the abstract way <>f the Hindu 
 philosophical sects nor sharply dualistic like 
 the speculations of the Gnostics and .Mani- 
 cheans. The more practical minds of the 
 Graeco- Roman world were satisfied to give an 
 account of things as they appeared without 
 overpowering and paralyzing themselves by 
 the insoluble question as to the existence and 
 potencies of matter ; and thus they were at 
 once more inconsistent and less absurd than 
 some of their contemporaries. While looking 
 upon matter as something degrading, and 
 upon contact with it as a thing to be avoided, 
 they nevertheless did not define matter to be 
 non-existent, or merely phenomenal, nor did 
 thev regard it as absolutely evil. In the same 
 wav, while they lost all true hold upon the 
 personalitv of God, and believed in the 
 eternity of the world {e.g. Jul. Or. iv. p. 112 c), 
 Ihev used the terms creation and providence, 
 and spoke of communion with and likeness to 
 God. Into an eclectic system of this kind 
 
 it was not difficult to incorporate the gods of 
 the heathen world, and to make them subserve 
 a sort of philosoi)hv of history. With Julian 
 they take a double position: (a) as inter- 
 mediate beings employed in creation who pro- 
 tect the Supreme Being from too intimate 
 contact with the world ; (b) as accounting for 
 the difference between nations, and so en- 
 abling men to uphold tr.iditional usages with- 
 , out ceasing to hold to one ideal law and one 
 truth (Jul. Or. vi. p. i«4 c. Cxrwtp yip iX^iffna 
 
 I The chief source of information on this part 
 
598 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 of Julian's theory is his Fourth Oration, in 
 praise of the Sovereign Sun. The most striking 
 feature of the theology proper of this system 
 is its triple hierarchy of deities and worlds. 
 Such a triple division was a common feature 
 of neo-Platonism and had its roots in thoughts 
 current before the Christian era ; but it was 
 no doubt emphasized by later theorists as a 
 counterpoise to the Christian doctrine of the 
 Trinity. That of Julian was probably bor- 
 rowed from lamblichus of Chalcis (uncle, it 
 has been supposed, of his correspondent), to 
 whom he frequently appeals in terms of the 
 highest veneration (e.g. Or. iv. p. 146 a, 150 d, 
 157 D ; see Ueberweg, Hist, of Philosophy, 
 § 69, vol. i. pp. 252-254, Eng. trans.). 
 
 According to this belief there are three 
 worlds informed and held together by three 
 classes of divine beings. The highest and 
 most spiritual is the Koa/xos voijrds, or 
 " intelligible world," the world of absolute 
 immaterial essences, the centre of which is the 
 One or the Good, who is the source of beings 
 and of all beauty and perfection to the gods 
 who surround him (p. 133 c). Between 
 this highly elevated region and the grosser 
 material world comes the K6<T/xoi foepds, or 
 " intelligent world," the centre of which is the 
 sovereign sun, the great object of JuHan's de- 
 votion. He receives his power from the Good, 
 and communicates it not only to the gods 
 around him, but also to the sensible world, 
 the K6<rfj.os alcrdr^rds, in which we live. In this 
 sphere the " visible disk " of the sun is the 
 source of light and life, as the invisible sun is 
 in the intelligible world. Any one who will 
 read this oration with care will be convinced 
 that Julian wished to find in his sovereign sun 
 a substitute for the Christian doctrine of the 
 second person of the blessed Trinity, and this 
 appears in particular on pp. 14T, 142 (cf. 
 Naville, p. 104 ; Lame, pp. 234 ff.). The 
 position specially given to the sun is a proof of 
 the advance of Oriental thought in the Roman 
 empire, and it was certainly no new idea of 
 Julian's. Amongst others, Aurelian and Ela- 
 gabalus had made him their chief divinity, and 
 Constantine himself had been specially de- 
 voted to the " Sol invictus." Julian, we have 
 seen, had from his childhood been fascinated 
 with the physical beauty of the light. To- 
 wards the close of the century we find Macro- 
 bius arguing somewhat in the spirit of some 
 modern inquirers that all heathen religion is 
 the product of solar myths. Yet it is curious 
 to observe the shifts to which Julian is put to 
 prove this doctrine out of Homer and Hesiod, 
 and from the customs of the ancient Greeks 
 and Romans (pp. 135-137 and 148 ff.). He 
 seems, indeed, conscious of the weakness of his 
 arguments from the poets, and dismisses them 
 with the remark that they have much that is 
 human in their inspiration, and appeals to the 
 directer revelations of the gods themselves — 
 we must suppose in the visions which he 
 claimed to receive (p. T37 c). 
 
 The connexion of this theory with the 
 national gods is nowhere distinctly worked 
 out. It is, in fact, part of the pantheistic 
 character of this belief that the idea of the 
 personahty of the gods recedes or becomes 
 prominent, like the figures in a magic lantern, 
 according to the subject under discussion, 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 without any shock to the dreamy neo- 
 Platonist. At one time they are mere es- 
 sences or principles, at another they are Zeus, 
 Apollo, Ares, etc., ruling and directing the 
 fortunes of nations, and imposing upon them 
 a peculiar type of character and special laws 
 and institutions. At one moment they are 
 little more than the ideas of Plato, at another 
 they are actual Sainovts, acting as lieutenants 
 of the Creator. This last view is in essentials 
 the same as that put forward by Celsus 
 (probably in the reign of Marcus AureUus) in 
 liis book, known to us from its refutation by 
 Origen (bk. v. cc. 25-33). It is the view as- 
 serted at length by J ulian in his books against 
 the Christians, especially as a defence of the 
 customs and institutions of antiquity against 
 the innovations of the religion which strove to 
 break down all prejudices of class and nation. 
 (St. Cyril, adv. Jul. iv. pp. 115, 116, 130, 
 141, 143, 14S, etc. ; cf. Fragmentum Epistolae, 
 p. 292 c, D, dvOpuTToi TOis yevedpxat-s Gfoh 
 avoKKripudivTCi, ol koL Trporiyayov avrovs, dtrd 
 Tov ST]/j.iovpyov ras ^t'xas irapaXafi^dvovTes i^ 
 aiQvos ; for the subject generally, see 
 Naville, c iii. " Les Dieux Nationaux.") It 
 is easy to see how fatal such a doctrine must 
 be to moral progress. If everything is as it 
 is by the will of the gods, no custom, how- 
 ever revolting, lacks defence. It is strange 
 that, after the refutation of this absurdity by 
 Origen, any one should have been bold enough 
 to put it forward as a serious theory (cf. Orig. 
 contra Celsum, v. cc. 25-28 and 34-39). 
 
 With regard to the relation of images and 
 sacrifices to the gods, who are worshipped by 
 these means, there is an interesting passage 
 in the Fragment of the Letter to a Priest (pp. 
 293 ff.). He warns his correspondent not to 
 consider images as actually receiving worship, 
 nor to suppose that the gods really need our 
 sacrifices. But he defends their use as 
 suitable to our own bodily condition (ivabrj 
 yap rj/jLcis fiirar ev cwjulolti adj/naTiKas ^5et iroietcr- 
 dat. To:s deoh Kai rets Xarpeias, dcrvb/uLaroi 54 
 ticTiv avToi, p. 293 d). "Just as earthly 
 kings desire to have honour paid them and 
 their statues without actually needing it, so 
 do the gods. The images of the gods are not 
 the gods, and yet more than mere wood and 
 stone. They ought to lead us up to the un- 
 seen. And yet being made by human art, 
 they are liable to injury at the hands of wicked 
 men, just as good men are unjustly put to 
 death like Socrates, and Dion, and Empedo- 
 timus. But their murderers afterwards were 
 punished by divine vengeance, and so have 
 sacrilegious persons manifestly received a due 
 reward in my reign" (pp. 294 c to 295 b). 
 
 (2) Defence of Pagan Morality. — We have 
 already described at some length Julian's 
 attempts to raise the morality of his heathen 
 subordinates, especially in the priesthood. 
 He was conscious of a defect, and strenuously 
 set himself to remedy it, though he could do 
 little more in the way of quotation of texts 
 than allege a few general maxims drawn from 
 ancient writings as to kindness to the poor, etc. 
 His strongest argument is one that might well 
 have made him hesitate — the shame of being 
 so much outdone by the " Galileans." An- 
 other branch of this subject was the relation of 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 morality tti Clreek mythology, .iiicl with this 
 he busied himself on two occasions, about the | 
 same time. The two orations, The Praise of 
 the Mother of the Goiis and Against the Cynic 
 Heraclius, were probably both lielivered about i 
 the time of the vernal equinox, wiiile he was ' 
 still at Constantinople, A.n. 36::. In the first ; 
 of these he gives an elaborate explanation f>f | 
 the story of Attis ; in the second he rebukes I 
 Heraclius for his immoral teaching in the form 
 of myths, and gives an example of one which 1 
 he thinks really edifying, which describes his 
 own youth under the protection of the gods. '. 
 The explanation of the myth of Attis is ; 
 important as a specimen of Julian's theology. I 
 According to modern interpreters, this myth, 
 as well as that of Adonis in its hundred forms, 
 describes merely the succession of the seasons ; 
 Julian adapts it to his speculations on the 
 triple hierarchy of worlds. With him the | 
 mother of the gods is the female principle of | 
 the highest and most spiritual world. He 1 
 calls her the lady of all life, the mother and 
 bride of great Zeus, the motherless virgin, she 
 who bears children without passion, and 
 creates things that are together with the 
 father (p. 166 a. b). Here we are landed into 
 the full obscurity of Gnostic principles and 
 emanations, and the whole story is evidently 
 only a kind of converse arrangement of that 
 which meets us in the Valentinian myth of 
 Achamoth (see Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 
 lects. II, 12). Attis is a principle of the 
 second or intelligent world, " the productive 
 and creative intelligence, the essence which 
 descends into the farthest ends of matter to 
 give birth to all things " (p. 161 c). It is 
 difficult to see how he is distinguished in his 
 functions with regard to creation from the 
 sovereign sun, but this is only one of the many 
 weak points of this fanciful exposition. His 
 material type in the lowest world is the Milky 
 Waj', in which philosophers say that the 
 impassible circumambient ether mingles with 
 the passible elements of the world (p. 165 c). 
 The mother of the gods engages Attis to 
 remain ever faithful to herself, that is, to look 
 always upward. Instead of this, he descends 
 into the cave, and has commerce with the 
 nymph, that is, produces the visible universe 
 out of matter. The sun, who is the principle 
 of harmony and restraint, something like the 
 Valentinian Horus (opos), sends the lion or 
 fiery principle to put a stop to this production 1 
 of visible forms. Then follows the ^tttomij of I 
 Attis, which is defined as thefiroxv ttjs direipLai, 
 the limit placed upon the process into infinity. 
 The part played by the sun is indicated by the 
 season at which the festival took place, the 
 vernal equinox, when he produces equality of 
 day and night (p. 168 c, d). All this is ex- 
 plained as a mere passionless eternal procedure 
 on the part of the supposed gods. A real 
 creation proceeding from God's love and good 
 pleasure was a thought far above the scope 
 of this philosophy, to which the world was as 
 personal as the so-called gods. 
 
 Enough has been said to shew how thor- 
 oughly pantheistic was Julian's interpreta- 
 tion of the mytiis ; how destructive of any true 
 conception of the divine nature, how thorough- 
 ly unmoral, how utterly incapable of touching 
 the heart, was his tbeology. Yet he felt the 
 
 JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 500 
 
 need of some person.il commercr wilh Cod, 
 however inconsistent such a wish w.i-. with 
 his intellectual view of divine things. 
 
 (3) Intercourse with r7o</. — When Julian w.m 
 in .-Vsia Minor under the influcnrr of the 
 philosophers ICusebius and ("hrvsanthius and 
 heard the details of the wonderful works of 
 Maximus, he said (according to i:imapiiis). 
 " E'"arewell, and keep to your books if vou will ; 
 you have revealed to me the man I w.is in 
 search of " (Eunap. I'lta Matimt, p. si). Thi< 
 story has been discredited by some, who think 
 it strange that so great a lover of books a» 
 Julian shonld speak slightingly of them. But 
 it is confirmed by his own language in his 
 Oration on the Sun (p. 137 c) : " I^t us sav 
 farewell to poetic descriptions ; for thcv have 
 much that is human mixed up with the divine. 
 But let us go on to declare what the god him- 
 self seems to teach us both about himself and 
 the other gods" (ix. ii, 5). Julian here 
 appeals from a book revelation, as it were, to 
 a direct instruction given him in the numerous 
 visions in which he was visited by the gods. 
 
 We have already noticed Julian's enthu- 
 siasm for the mysteries and his love of all 
 rites and practices which promised a closer 
 intercourse with the gods. He could never 
 bring himself to acquiesce in the colder 
 methods of some of the masters of the neo- 
 Platonic school. He was not satisfied with 
 the intellectual ecstasy described by Plotinus, 
 nor with the self-purification of Porphyry, who 
 generally rejected sacrifice and divination 
 (Ueberweg, Hist, of Philosophy, § 68, notes, 
 vol. i. p. 251, Ivng. tr.Tti-^.). The party of 
 lamblichus, to which Julian belonged, required 
 something approaching a conti'il of a god 
 ^,theurp,y), a quasi-mechanical methorl of com- 
 munication with him, which could be put in 
 force at will, and the result of which could 
 only be called a " Bacchic frenzy " (Or. vii. pp. 
 217 D and 221 D. etc.). Julian was duped by 
 men who were half deceivers and half deceived. 
 He is one among many who are forced by an 
 inward conviction to believe in supernatural 
 revelation, but who will <inly have it on their 
 own terms. I.ibanius tells us that Julian 
 knew the forms and lineaments of the gods 
 as familiarly as those of his friends, and we 
 have mentioned the visions which appeared 
 to him at great crises of his life. He himself 
 says, " .\esculapius often healed me, telling 
 me of remedies" (St. Cyril, adv. Jul. viii. 
 p. 234), and elsewhere he speaks of this 
 deity as a sort of incarnate Saviour (Or. iv. 
 p. 144 B, c). This temper of mind, while 
 it speaks in high-flown, positive language of 
 the knowledge of God and pours contempt on 
 the uninitiated, yet means something by 
 " knowledge " very different from the sober 
 .-ind bracing certainty attained by Christian 
 faith, hope, and love. Here, as elsewhere, the 
 pantheistic temper speaks grandly, but feels 
 meanly. Death indeed is looked forward 
 to with some composure as the emancipation 
 of the divine element in man from d.-u-kncss. 
 Julian several times prays for a happy death, 
 andexpected after it to be raised to communion 
 with the gods. His orations to the Sun and 
 the Mother of the Ciods both conclude with 
 such prayers, and we have seen how he 
 1 actually met his end (Liban. Ep. p. O14 ; Amin. 
 
600 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 XXV. 3, 22). But the doctrine of the ascent 
 [sublimitas) of souls, on which he was con- 
 versing with Maximus and Priscus when that 
 end came, was a very different thing from the 
 Christian's hope. It was, in fact, the same 
 in substance as the barren and deadening 
 Oriental doctrine of transmigration ; and it 
 is remarkable that Julian, who felt himself so 
 favoured by the heavenly powers, in one of his 
 most ardent prayers to the sun, looks forward 
 to a felicity which has no certainty of being 
 eternal i,Or. iv. p. 158 c ; see some good 
 remarks on the contrast between this and the 
 Christian doctrine in Naville, pp. 59 ff.). 
 
 Julian's Polemic against Christianity. — 
 How near measures against Christianity were 
 to his heart may be seen in his prayer to 
 the Mother of the Gods, where he speaks of 
 " cleansing the empire from the stain of 
 atheism " as the great wish of his life (Or. v. 
 p. 180 b). He preferred, however, the method 
 of persuasion to that of constraint, and his 
 books against the Christians are an evidence 
 of this temper. He begins by saying that 
 he wishes to give the reasons which have 
 convinced him that the Galilean doctrine 
 is a human invention (Cyr. ii. p. 39). He 
 then goes on to attack the narratives of 
 the Bible as fabulous. He allows that the 
 Greeks have monstrous fables likewise (p. 44), 
 but then they have philosophy, while Chris- 
 tians have nothing but the Bible, and are in 
 fact barbarians. If Christians attack the 
 idolatry of heathens, Julian retorts, "you 
 worship the wood of the cross, and refuse to 
 worship the ancile which came down from 
 heaven" (Cyr. vi. p. 194). On the whole, 
 he does not spend much time in such questions, 
 but accepts the Bible as a generally true 
 narrative, and rather attacks Christianity on 
 grounds of supposed reason, and in connexion 
 with and in contrast to Judaism. 
 
 We may follow Naville in considering the 
 main body of his works under three heads : 
 (i) his polemic against the monotheism of the 
 O.T. ; (2) his attack upon the novel and 
 aggressive character of Christian doctrine ; 
 (3) especially against the adoration of Christ 
 as God, and the worship of " dead men," such 
 as the martxTs (cf. Naville, pp. 175 ff.). 
 
 (i) Against the Monotheism of the O.T. — 
 Julian regarded the gods of polytheism as 
 links or intermediaries between the supreme 
 God and the material world, and so as render- 
 ing the conception of creation easier and more 
 philosophical. He contrasts Plato's doctrine 
 of creation in the Timaeus with the abrupt 
 statements of Moses, "God said," etc. (pp. 
 49-57)- One might almost suppose (he urges) 
 that Moses imagined God to have created 
 nothing incorporeal, no intermediate spiritual 
 or angelic beings, but to have Himself directly 
 organized matter (p. 49). He proceeds to argue 
 against the supposition that the supreme God 
 made choice of the Hebrew nation as a pecu- 
 liar people to the exclusion of others. " If 
 He is the God of all of us, and our common 
 creator, why has He abandoned us ? " (p. 
 106). Both in acts and morals the Hebrews 
 are inferior. They have been always in 
 slavery, and have invented nothing. As for 
 morality, the imitation of God amongst the 
 Jews is the imitation of a "jealous God," as 
 
 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 in the case of Phinehas (Cyr. v. pp. 160-171). 
 The worst of our generals never treated subject 
 nations so cruelly as Moses treated the 
 Canaanites (vi. p. 184). The only precepts in 
 the Decalogue not held in common by all 
 nations are the commandments against 
 idolatry and for the observance of the sabbath. 
 The true view, to his mind, was that the God 
 of the Jews was a local, national god, like 
 those of other peoples, far inferior to the 
 supreme God (iv. pp. 115, 116, 141, 148, etc.). 
 Sometimes he seems inclined to accept 
 Jehovah as the creator of the visible world, 
 while at other times he throws doubt upon this 
 assumption ; but in any case he considered 
 Him a true object of worship (Ep. 25, Judaeis. 
 But in Cyril, iv. p. 148 he blames Moses 
 for confounding a partial and national god 
 with the Creator). Further, the Jewish usages 
 of temples, altars, sacrifices, purifications, 
 circumcision, etc., were all observed to have 
 a close resemblance to those of heathenism, 
 and were a foundation for many reproaches 
 against the Galileans, who had abandoned so 
 much that was laudable and respectable (vi. 
 p. 202 ; vii. p. 238 ; ix. pp. 298, 299, 305, etc.). 
 (2) Julian's Attack upon Christianity as a 
 Novel and Revolutionary Religion. — In the 
 same spirit he puts Christianity much below 
 Judaism. " If you who have deserted us had 
 attached yourself to the doctrines of the 
 Hebrews, you would not have been in so 
 thoroughly bad a condition, though worse 
 than you were before when you were amongst 
 us. For you would have worshipped one God 
 instead of many gods, and not, as is now the 
 case, a man, or rather a number of miserable 
 men. You would have had a hard and stern 
 law, with much that is barbarous in it, instead 
 of our mild and gentle customs, and would 
 have been so far the losers ; but you would 
 have been purer and more holy in religious 
 rites. As it is, you are like the leeches, and 
 suck all the worst blood out of Hebraism and 
 leave the purer behind " (C>t. vi. pp. 201, 202). 
 It was thus natural that St.' Paul should be the 
 special object of his dislike. " He surpasses 
 all the impostors and charlatans who have 
 ever existed" (Cyr. iii. p. 100). Julian 
 accuses the Jewish Christians of having de- 
 serted a law which Moses declared to be 
 eternal (ix. p. 319). Even Jesus Himself said 
 that He came to fulfil the law. Peter declared 
 that he had a vision, in which God shewed him 
 that no animal was impure (p. 314), and Paul 
 boldly says, " Christ is the end of the law " ; 
 but Moses says, " Ye shall not add unto the 
 word which I command you, neither shall ye 
 diminish ought from it " ; and " Cursed is 
 every one that continueth not in all things " 
 (Cyr. ix. p. 320 = Deut. iv. 2, xxvii. 27 ; cf. 
 X. pp. 343. 351, 354, 356, 358, where he 
 attacks Christians for giving up sacrifice, 
 circumcision, and the sabbath, and asserts 
 that Abraham used divination and practised 
 astrology). He sneers at baptism, which 
 cannot cure any bodily infirmity, but is said 
 to remove all the transgressions of the soul — 
 adulteries, thefts, etc. — so great is its pene- 
 trating power ! (vii. p. 245). The argument 
 against the Christian interpretation of pro- 
 phecy is also remarkable. He comments 
 textually on the blessing of Judah, Gen. xlix. 
 
JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 
 
 10 ; on the prophecy of Hala.iin, Num. xxiv. 
 17 ; on that of Moses, Dcut. xviii. 15-18 ; and 
 on that of Emmanuel, Is. vii. 14 ; and tries 
 to shew that they have no reference outside 
 J udaism itself, though the last is evidently a 
 difficulty to him (pp. 253, 261. 262). 
 
 (3) The Worshif^ of Jesus as God and the 
 Adoration of the Martyrs are the great t)bjects 
 of Julian's attacks. His argument is partlv 
 concerned with the prophecies just quoted, 
 partly with the N-T. itself. He asserts 
 that Moses never speaks of " the first-born 
 Son of God," while he does speak of " the sons 
 of God," i.e. the angels, who have charge of 
 different nations (Gen. vi. 2). But Moses 
 says expressly, " Thou shalt worship the Lord 
 thy (iod, and Him onlv shalt thou serve " 
 (C>T. ix. p. 290). Even if the pro])hecy of 
 Emmanuel in Is. refers to Jesus, it gives you 
 no right to call His mother ^eor6(cos. How 
 could she bear God, being a human creature 
 like ourselves ? And how is her son the 
 Saviour when God savs, " I am, and there 
 is no Saviour beside Mc " ? (viii. p. 276). 
 
 " John began this evil. You have gone on 
 and added the worship of other dead men to 
 that of the first dead man. You have filled 
 all things with tombs and sepulchres ; though 
 Jesus speaks of ' whited sepulchres full of 
 dead men's bones and all uncleanness ' " (p. 
 335)- " Why, then, do vou bow before 
 tornbs ? The Jews did it, according to 
 Isaiah, to obtain visions in dreams, and four 
 apostles also probably did so after their 
 master's death " (p. 339). (The reference is 
 to Is. Ixv. 4, " which remain among the 
 graves and lodge among the monuments " : 
 the words di' euinrvia are added in the Greek 
 version.) In his letter to the .Alexandrians 
 
 he puts with equal force the folly of adoring a 
 man, and not adoring the sun and the moon, 
 especially the former, the great sun, the 
 living, animated, intelligent, and beneficent 
 image of the intelligible or spiritual Father 
 (Ep. 51, p. 434). It is strange to find this 
 slighting disregard for men as objects of wor- 
 ship in one who assumed that he was a 
 champion of pure Hellenism, especially in an 
 emperor who succeeded a long line of deified 
 emperors. A great deal of his dislike to what 
 he considered the Christian doctrine arose, 
 doubtless, from aristocratic pride. He looked 
 down upon Christ as a Galilean peasant, a 
 subject of Augustus Caesar (C>t. vi. p. 213). | 
 " It is hardly three hundred years since He 
 began to be talked about. During all His life [ 
 He did nothing worth recording, unless any 1 
 one reckons it among very great acts to have 
 cured halt and blind people, and to exorcize 
 demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and 
 Bethany " (vi. p. 191). He looked upon 
 Christians as parvenus who had assumed a [ 
 position of power for which they were not j 
 fitted, and exercised it wantonly in destroying 
 temples and prosecuting their own heretics, 
 etc. " Jesus and Paul never taught you 
 this. They never expected that Christians 
 would fill so important a place, and were 
 satisfied with converting a few maidservants j 
 and slaves, and by their means to get hold of ; 
 their mistresses, and men like Cornelius and 
 Sergius. If under the reigns of Tiberius and | 
 Claudius they have succeeded in convincing | 
 
 JULIANUS SABAS 
 
 AOl 
 
 , a single distinguislu-d p.rN.>u. vou m.w h<>ld 
 
 I me for a liar in every thiug " (vi. p. 2oh). 
 
 I It is remarkable that Julian shews pr.irtic 
 
 1 ally no appreciation of the need of r<-drn>ption 
 or of the contrast between Christian and 
 
 j heathen life. This we must ascribe in ktvaI 
 pleasure to the misfortime of his c-»rlv train- 
 ing, to the .\rianism of his teachers, and tho 
 unloveiincss and unlovingness of his early 
 surroundings. Some allowance must also 
 
 ' be made for the corruption and extravagance 
 of some f.)rms of popular religion, and for the 
 rash and violent arts of fanaticism comriiilted 
 by many Christians. The su|H'rstitious rultiis 
 of martyrs, for instance, was no doubt dis- 
 avowed by the highest minds of the 4th rent., 
 such as St. .\thanasius and St. Augustine. 
 But in the masses newly converted from 
 
 I paganism it formed a natural centre for much 
 
 j of the old superstition and fanaticism (.Vlhan. 
 
 \0r. conl. Arian. ii. 32; August, de Vera 
 
 I Relig- 55 : and esp. cont. Fauttum. xx. 21). 
 
 I But besides all this there was in the family 
 of Constantinc generally a hardness and self- 
 assertion, though acronipaiiied with strong 
 religious pressure, which made them inarres- 
 sible to Christian feditiu on the subject of sin. 
 The members of it believed strongly in their 
 providential vocation to take a great p.irl in re- 
 ligious questions, but were very rarely troubled 
 by scruples as to their personal unworthiness. 
 
 I Julian's own character, as we have seen, was 
 specially inconsistent, but its ruling element 
 was self-confidence, which he disguised to 
 himself as a reliance upon divine direction. 
 In conclusion, we may draw attention to some 
 of Julian's admissions. He accepts the 
 account of the tiospel miracles. He rejects 
 the Gnostic interpretation of St. John, which 
 separated the Word of God from the Christ. 
 He witnesses to the common use of the term 
 dfOT^KOi long before the Nestorian tnuibles. 
 His remarks about martyr-worship and the 
 adoration of the cross have some importance 
 as facts in the history of Christian worship. 
 
 On the Coins of Julian see D. C. B. (4- 
 vol. ed.) s.v. We conclude that from policy 
 J ulian did not make any general issue of coins 
 with heathen inscriptions or strongly marked 
 heathen symbols which would have shocked 
 his Christian subjects. The statements of 
 Socrates and Sozomen are in perfect harmony 
 with this conclusion. []■'*■'■] 
 
 Jullanus (105) Sabas, Oct. 18, an anchorite, 
 whose historv Theodoret tells. Sabas or 
 
 Sabbas, says theixloret, was a title of venera- 
 tion, meaning an elder, corresponding with 
 " abbas " or father, commonly applied to 
 anchorites in the East. His cave was in 
 Osrhocne ; he practised extraordinary ascetic 
 ism and endured extremes of heat and fatigue. 
 In 372, on the expulsion of Meletius. bp. of 
 Antioch, the triumphant Arian party gave 
 out that Julian had embraced their views; 
 whereupon Acacius (subsequently bp. o( 
 Berrhoea), accompanied by Asterius, went to 
 Julian and induced him to visit Antioch, 
 where his presence exposed the slander and 
 encouraged the Catholics. He returned to 
 his cave and there died. Theod. //. E. iii. 
 19, iv. 24 ; Hvil. ReliKio'i. No. ii. ; .Menol. 
 Grace. Sirlct. ; Ceillicr, viii. 238 ; Wright, Cat. 
 Syr. MSS. ii. 700, iii. 1084. »o9o- [c-h.J 
 
602 
 
 JULIUS 
 
 Julius (5), bp. of Rome after Marcus, 
 Feb. 6, 337, to Apr. 12, 352, elected after a 
 vacancv of four months. His pontificate is 
 specially notable for his defence of Athanasius, 
 and for the canons of Sardica enacted during 
 it. When Julius became pope, Athanasius 
 was in exile at Treves after his first deposition 
 by the council of Tyre, having been banished 
 by Constantine the Great in 336. Constan- 
 tine, dying on Whitsunday 337, was succeeded 
 by his three sons, by whose permission Athan- 
 asius returned to his see. But the Eusebians 
 continuing their machinations, the restoration 
 of Athanasius was declared invaUd ; and one 
 Pistus was set up as bp. of Alexandria in his 
 stead. A deputation was now sent to Rome 
 to induce Julius to declare against Athanasius 
 and acknowledge Pistus; but having failed 
 to convince the pope, desired him to convene 
 a general council at which he should adjudi- 
 cate upon the charges against Athanasius. 
 Socrates (H. E. ii. 11) and Sozomen (H. E. 
 iii. 7) state that Eusebius wrote to Julius 
 requesting him to judge the case. But this is 
 not asserted bv Julius, and is improbable. 
 Julius undertook to hold a council wherever 
 Athanasius chose, and seems to have sent a 
 synodical letter to the Eusebians apprising 
 them of his intention. The dates of the events 
 that followed are not without difficulty. 
 
 Early in 340 Pistus had been given up as 
 the rival bishop, and one Gregory, a Cappa- 
 docian, violently intruded by Philagrius the 
 prefect of Egypt into the see ; and the 
 Lenten services had been the occasion of 
 atrocious treatment of the Catholics of Alex- 
 andria. Athanasius, having concealed him- 
 self for a time in the neighbourhood and 
 prepared an encyclic in which he detailed the 
 proceedings, seems to have departed for Rome 
 about Easter 340, and to have been welcomed 
 there bv Julius, who, after his arrival, sent 
 two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenes, with 
 a letter to' Eusebius and his party fixing Dec. 
 340, at Rome, for the proposed synod. The 
 Eusebians refused to come, and detained the 
 envoys of Julius beyond the time fixed. 
 Elpidius and Philoxenes did not return to 
 Rome till Jan. 341, bringing then a letter, the 
 purport of which is gathered from the reply 
 of Julius to be mentioned presently. Julius 
 suppressed this letter for some time, hoping 
 that the arrival of some Eusebians in Rome 
 might spare him the pain of making it public, 
 and in this hope he also deferred the assem- 
 bling of the council. But no one came. The 
 Eusebians now shewed themselves by no 
 means prepared to submit to his adjudication, 
 but took advantage of the dedication of a new 
 cathedral at Antioch to hold a council of their 
 own there, known as the " Dedication coun- 
 cil " (probably in Aug. 341) and attended by 
 97 bishops. They prepared canons and three 
 creeds, designed to convince the Western 
 church of their orthodoxy, confirmed the 
 sentence of the council of Tyre against Athan- 
 asius, and endeavoured to prevent his restora- 
 tion by a canon with retrospective force, 
 debarring even from a hearing any bishop or 
 priest who should have officiated after a 
 canonical deposition. Julius meanwhile had 
 made public their letter, and, not yet knowing 
 of the proceedings at Antioch, assembled his 
 
 JULIUS 
 
 council in the church of the presbyter Vito at 
 Rome, apparently in Nov. 341, Athanasius 
 being stated to have been then a year and a 
 half in Rome. It was attended by more than 
 50 bishops. Old and new accusations were 
 considered ; the Acts of the council of Tyre, 
 and those of the inquiry in the Mareotis about 
 the broken chalice, which had been left at 
 Rome by the Eusebian envoys two years 
 before, were produced ; witnesses were heard 
 in disproof of the charges and in proof of 
 Eusebian atrocities ; and the result was the 
 complete acquittal of Athanasius and con- 
 firmation of the communion with him, which 
 had never been discontinued by the Roman 
 church. Marcellus of Ancyra, who had been 
 deposed and banished on a charge of heresy 
 by a Eusebian council at Constantinople in 
 336 and had been 15 months in Rome, was 
 declared orthodox on the strength of his 
 confession of faith which satisfied the council. 
 Other bishops and priests, from Thrace, 
 Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt, 
 are said by Julius in his subsequent synodal 
 letter to liave been present to complain of 
 injuries suffered from the Eusebian party. 
 Socrates (H. E. ii. 15) and Sozomen {//. E. 
 iii. 8) sav that all the deposed bishops were 
 reinstated by Julius in virtue of the preroga- 
 tive of the Roman see, and that he wrote 
 vigorous letters in their defence, reprehending 
 the Eastern bishops and summoning some of 
 the accusers to Rome. But there seems much 
 exaggeration here. Paul certainly, the de- 
 posed patriarch of Constantinople (whom 
 Eusebius had succeeded and who is mentioned 
 by Socrates and Sozomen among the successful 
 appellants), was not restored till the death of 
 Ills rival in 342, and then only for a time and 
 not through the action of Julius; nor did 
 Athanasius regain his see till 346. Indeed, 
 Sozomen himself acknowledges (iii. 10) that 
 Julius effected nothing at the time by his 
 letters in favour of Athanasius and Paul, and 
 consequently referred their cause to the 
 emperor Constans. Julius's real attitude and 
 action are best seen in the long letter he 
 addressed to the Easterns at the desire of the 
 Roman council, which has been preserved 
 entire by Athanasius {Apol. contra Arian. 
 21-36). He begins by animadverting strongly 
 on the tone of the letter brought to him by his 
 envoys, which was such, he says, that when 
 he had at last reluctantly shewn it to others 
 they could hardly believe it genuine. His 
 own action had been complained of in the 
 letter. He therefore both defends himself and 
 recriminates : " You object to having your 
 own synodal judgment [that of Tyre] ques- 
 tioned in a second council. But this is no 
 unprecedented proceeding. The council of 
 Nice permitted the re-examination of synod- 
 ical Acts. If your own judgment were right, 
 you should have rejoiced in the opportunity 
 of having it confirmed ; and how can you, of 
 all men, complain, when it was at the instance 
 of your own emissaries, when worsted by the 
 advocates of Athanasius, that the Roman 
 council was convened ? You certainly cannot 
 plead the irreversibility of a synodical de- 
 cision, having yourselves reversed even the 
 judgment of Nice in admitting Arians to 
 communion. If on this ground you complain 
 
JULIUS 
 
 of my receiving Athanasius, much more may j 
 I complain of your asking me to acknowledge j 
 Pistus, a man alleged by the envoys of Athan- ' 
 asius to have been condemned as an Arian at 
 Nice and admitted by your own representa- 
 tives to have been ordained by one Secundus, 
 who had been so condemned. It must have j 
 been from chagrin at being so utterly refuted i 
 in his advocacy of Pistus that your emissary ' 
 Macarius fled by night, though in weak health, 
 from Rome." He next refers sarcasticallv 
 to an allegation of his correspondents as to 
 the equality of all bishops, maile either in 
 justitication of their having judged a bp. of 
 .\lexandria or in deprecation of the case being 
 referred to Rome. " If, as you write, you 
 hold the honour of all bishops to be equal, and 
 unaffected by the greatness of their sees, this 
 view comes ill from those who have shewn 
 themselves so anxious to get translated from 
 their own small sees to greater ones." He 
 here alludes to Eusebius himself, who had 
 passed from Berytus to Nicomedia, and 
 thence to Constantinople. Having treated as 
 frivolous their plea of the short time allowed 
 them to get to the Roman council, he meets j 
 their further complaint that his letter of 
 summons had been addressed only to Eusebius 
 and his party, instead of the whole Eastern 
 episcopate. " I naturally wrote to those who | 
 had written to me." He adds emphatically, 
 " Though I alone wrote, I did so in the nanie 
 of, and as expressing the sentiments of, all 
 the Italian bishops." He then justifies at 
 length his action and that of the Roman 
 council. The letters of accusation against 
 Athanasius had been from strangers living at a 
 distance, and contradicted one another : the 
 testimonies in his favour from his own people, 
 who knew him well, had been clear and 
 consistent. He exposes the false charges 
 about the murder of .\rsenius and the broken 
 chalice, and the unfairness of the Mareotic 
 inquiry. He contrasts the conduct of Athan- i 
 asius, who had come of his ow-n accord to ', 
 Rome to court investigation, with the un- I 
 willingness of his accusers to appear against 
 him. He dwells on the uncanonical intrusion 
 of Gregory the Cappadocian by military force 
 into the Alexandrian see, and on the atrocities 
 committed to enforce acceptance of him. " It j 
 is you," he adds, " who have set at nought ! 
 the canons, and disturbed the church's peace ; 
 not we, as you allege, who have entertained a 
 just appeal, and acquitted the innocent." 
 After briefly justifying the acquittal of Mar- 
 cellus from the charge of heresy, he calls upon 
 those to whom he writes to repudiate the base 
 conspiracy of a few and so remedy the wrong 
 done. He points out what would have been 
 the proper course of procedure in case of any 
 just cause of suspicion against the bishops. 
 This part of his letter is important, as shewing 
 his own view of his position in relation to the 
 church at large. "If," he says, "they were 
 guilty, as you say they were, they ought to 
 have been judged canonically, not after your 
 method. All of us [i.e. the whole episcopate] 
 ought to have been written to, that so justice 
 might be done by all. For they were bishops 
 who suffered these things, and bishops of no 
 ordinary sees, but of such as were founded by 
 apostles personally. Why, then, were you 
 
 JULIUS 
 
 fiiM 
 
 unwilling to write to us [i.e. to thr Roman 
 church) fsi)eci.illv about thr Alexandrian srr ? 
 Can you be ijjnor.mt that this is the custom ; 
 that we sho\ild be written to in thr first place, 
 so that hence [i.e. from this church! what i-s 
 just may be defined ? Whrrrforr, if a sus- 
 picion against the bishop had arisrn thrrr 
 [t.e. in .Mexandria), it ought to have hrrn 
 referred hither to our church. Hut now, 
 having never informed us of the case, thry 
 wish us to accejit their condemnation, in 
 which we had no part. Not so do the ordin- 
 ances of St. Paul direct ; not so do thr Fathers 
 teach : this is pride, and a new ambition. I 
 beseech you. hear me gladlv. I write this for 
 the public good : for what we have received 
 from the blessed Peter I signifv to vou." 
 This language will hardlv bear the inferences 
 of Socrates (ii. 8, 17) and of Sozomen (iii. 10). 
 that, according to church law, enactments 
 made without the consent of the bp. of Koine 
 were held invalid. It certainlv implies no 
 claim to exclusive jurisdiction over all 
 churches. All that Julius insists on is th.it 
 charges as.unst the bishops of great sees ought. 
 arcording to apostolic tradition and canoniral 
 rule, to be referred to the whole episcopate ; 
 and that, in the case of a bp. of Alexandria at 
 least, custom gave the initiative of proceedings 
 to the b|i. of Rome. In this reference to 
 custom he probably has in view the case of 
 Dionysius of Al>xandria, the charges against 
 whom had been laid before Dionysius of Rome. 
 The allegation in the earlier part of his letter 
 of the fathers of Nice having sanctioned the 
 reconsideration of the decisions of synods is 
 more difficult to account for. He may be 
 alluding to the action of the Nicene council • 
 in entertaining the case of Arius after he had 
 been synodicallv condemned at Alexandria. 
 The action of pope Julius appears open to no 
 exception, for if the synod consisted of 
 Westerns only, that was becau'ie the Easterns 
 refused to attend it, though Julius had 
 convened it at the suggestion of their own 
 emissaries ; and, after all, the Roman synod 
 only confirmed the continuance of communion 
 with Eastern prelates whom it deemed un- 
 justly condemned. It had no power to do 
 more. Still, the action of Julius may have 
 served as a step towards subsequent papal 
 claims of a more advanced kind ; and it prob- 
 ably suggested the canons of Sardica. pregnant 
 with results, which will be noticed presently. 
 
 Athanasius remained still in Riune, till, in 
 his fourth year oi residence there — probablv 
 in the summer of 343 — he received a summons 
 from Constans, now sole emperor of the West, 
 to meet him at Milan (Athan. A pot. ad Imp. 
 Constantium, 4), about the holding of a new 
 council, at which both East and West should 
 be fully represented. With the conrurrrnce 
 of the Eastern emperor Constantius, this 
 council was summoned at the Morsian town 
 of Sardica on the confines of their empires, 
 probably towards the end of 343. The 
 scheme of united action failed, the Eastern 
 bishops holding a separate synod at Philip- 
 popolis. The rest met at Sardica under the 
 
 • Tills indeed wa.s one of the nurpo»en which the 
 emperor had at hnirl in conveninR it. Just n» the 
 synfKl of Aries hnd iiImi met by hU ordein to recon- 
 sider the ac<|iiittnl of St. Cnecillan, decrerd in the 
 1 previous synod of Rome under Melchiadcs.— B.s.rv. 
 
604 
 
 JULIUS 
 
 venerable Hosius of Cordova. In some 
 editions of the Acts of the council he is desig- 
 nated one of the legates of the Roman see. 
 But this designation seems due only to the 
 desire, which appears in other cases, of assign- 
 ing the presidency of all councils to the pope. 
 According to Athanasius {Apol. contra 
 Arian. 50), Julius was represented by two 
 presbyters, Archidamus and Philoxenes, whose 
 names appear in the signatures to the synodal 
 letter of the council after that of Hosius. 
 Hosius undoubtedly presided, and there is no 
 sign of his having done so as the pope's deputy 
 either in the Acts of the council or in the 
 letter sent to Julius at its close. Nor can the 
 initiative of the council be assigned to Julius, 
 for this is inconsistent with the statement of 
 Athanasius, who calls God to witness that 
 when summoned to Milan he was entirely 
 ignorant of the purpose of the summons, but 
 found that it was because " certain bishops " 
 there had been moving Constans to induce 
 Constantius to allow a general council to be 
 assembled {Apol. ad Imp. Consianttum, 4). 
 If Julius had been the mover, it is unlikely 
 that Athanasius, who was with him at Rome, 
 would have been ignorant of the purpose of 
 his summons or would have spoken only of 
 " certain bishops." The council was con- 
 vened by the emperors on their own authority, 
 to review the whole past proceedings, whether 
 at T>Te, Antioch, or Rome, without asking the 
 pope's leave or inviting him to take the lead. 
 It confirmed and promulgated anew all the 
 decisions of the Roman council, decreed the 
 restoration of the banished orthodox prelates, 
 and excommunicated the Eusebian intruders. 
 It also passed 21 canons of discipline, 3 
 being of special historic importance. The 
 extant Acts of the council give them thus. 
 Canon III. {al. III., IV.) " Bp. Osius said : 
 This also is necessary to be added, that 
 bishops pass not from their own province to 
 another in which there are bishops, imless 
 perhaps on the invitation of their brethren 
 there, that we may not seem to close the gate 
 of charity. And, if in any province a bishop 
 have a controversy against a brother bishop, 
 let neither of the two call upon a bishop from 
 another province to take cognizance of it. 
 But, should any one of the bishops have been 
 condemned in any case, and think that he 
 has good cause for a reconsideration of it, let 
 us (if it please you) honour the memory of the 
 blessed Apostle St. Peter, so that Julius, the 
 Roman bishop, be written to by those who 
 have examined the case ; and, if he should 
 judge that the trial ought to be renewed, let 
 it be renewed, and let him appoint judges. 
 But, if he should decide that the case is such 
 that what has been done ought not to be 
 reconsidered, what he thus decides shall be 
 confirmed. Si hoc omnibus placet ? The 
 synod replied, Placet." Canon IV. [al. V.) 
 " Bp. Gaudentius said : Let it, if it please you, 
 be added to this decree that when any bishop 
 has been deposed by the judgment of bishops 
 who dwell in neighbouring places, and he has 
 proclaimed his intention of taking his case to 
 Rome, no other bishop shall by any means be 
 ordained to his see till the cause has been 
 determined in the judgment of the Roman 
 bishop." Canon V. [at. VII.) " Bp. Osius 
 
 JULIUS 
 
 said : It has seemed good to us (placuit) that 
 if any bishop has been accused, and the 
 assembled bishops of his own region have 
 deposed him, and if he has appealed to the 
 bishop of the Roman church, and if the latter 
 is willing to hear him, and considers it just 
 that the inquiry should be renewed, let him 
 deign to write to the bishops of a neighbouring 
 province, that they may diligently inquire 
 into everything, and give their sentence 
 according to the truth. But if the appellant 
 in his supplication should have moved the 
 Roman bishop to send a presbyter [al. pres- 
 byters] 'de suo latere,' it shall be in his [i.e. 
 the Roman bishop's] power to do whatever he 
 thinks right. And if he should decide to send 
 persons having his own authority to sit in 
 judgment with the bishops, it shall be at his 
 option to do so. But if he should think the 
 bishops sufficient for terminating the business, 
 he shall do what approves itself to his most 
 wise judgment." * In these canons we notice, 
 firstly, they were designed to provide what 
 recent events had shewn the need of, and what 
 the existing church system did not adequately 
 furnish — a recognized court of appeal in 
 ecclesiastical causes. The canons of Nice had 
 provided none beyond the provincial synod, 
 for beyond that the only strictly canonical 
 appeal was to a general council, which could 
 j be but a rare event and was dependent on 
 ' the will of princes. The need was felt of a 
 readier remedy. Secondly, this remedy was 
 provided by giving the Roman bishop the 
 power to cause the judgment of provincial 
 synods to be reconsidered ; but only on the 
 appeal of the aggrieved party, and only in 
 certain prescribed ways. He might refuse to 
 interfere, thus confirming the decision of the 
 provincial synod ; or he might constitute the 
 bishops of a neighbouring province as a court 
 of appeal ; he might further, if requested and 
 if he thought it necessary, send one or more 
 presbyters as his legates to watch the pro- 
 ceedings, or appoint representatives of himself 
 to sit as assessors in the court. But he was 
 not empowered to interfere unless appealed 
 to, or to summon the case to Rome to be 
 heard before himself in synod ; still less, of 
 course, to adjudicate alone. Thirdly, it is 
 evident that this course was sanctioned for the 
 first time at Sardica. The canons, on the face 
 of them, were not a confirmation of a tradi- 
 tional prerogative of Rome. The words of 
 Hosius were, " Let us, if it please you, honour 
 the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter," 
 i.e. by conceding this power to the Roman 
 bishop. Fourthly, the power in question was 
 definitely given only to the then reigning 
 pope, Julius, who is mentioned by name ; and 
 it has hence been supposed that it was not 
 meant to be given his successors (cf. Richer. 
 Hist. Concil. General, t. i. c. 3, § 4). But the 
 arrangement was probably at any rate in- 
 tended to be permanent, since the need for it 
 and the grounds assigned for it were per- 
 manent. Fifthly, since it was the causes of 
 
 * The editions of these canons, extant in Greek and 
 Latin translations, vary in their wording and ar- 
 rangement of them, but all agree in the drift as given 
 above. Doubts have been entertained of their 
 authenticity, but they are generally accepted. See 
 Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. 2nd period, div. i, c. iii. note 7. 
 
JULIUS 
 
 Eastern bishops that led to the enactment, 
 the canons were probably meant to apply to 
 the whole cluirch, and not to the Western only. 
 The tireek canonists, Balsamon ami Zonar.is, 
 maintain their narrower scope ; and it is true 
 that, the council having consisted of Westerns 
 only, they were never accepted by the churches 
 of the East. But though the council of 
 Sardica was not in fact oecumenical, the 
 emperors had intended it to be so, and the 
 Roman canonists call it so in virtue of the 
 general summons. They, however, regard it 
 as an appendage to that of Nice ; and prob- 
 ably its canons were from the first added at 
 Rome to those of Nice as supplementary to 
 them, since in the well-known case of Apiarius, 
 the African presbyter (a.d. 417), pope Zosimus 
 quoted them as Nicene ; and pope Innocent 
 (a.d. 402) seems previously to have done the 
 same in defending his appellate jurisdiction 
 over Gaul. In the African case the error was 
 eventually exposed by reference to the copies 
 of the Nicene canons preserved at Constan- 
 tinople and Alexandria, and the Africans 
 thereupon distinctly repudiated the claims of 
 Rome which rested upon this false foundation. 
 But Boniface and Celestine, the successors of 
 Zosimus, refer to these canons as Nicene, as 
 did Leo I. in 449 ; and this continued to be 
 the Roman position. The persistence of the 
 popes in quoting them as Nicene after the 
 mistake had been discovered is an early 
 instance of Roman unfairness in support of 
 papal claims. It is further a significant fact 
 that in some Roman copies the name of 
 Sylvester was substituted for that of Julius, 
 as if with an intention of throwing their date 
 back to the Nicene period. The scope also of 
 the canons came in time to be unduly extend- 
 ed, being made to involve the power of the 
 pope to summon at his will all cases to be 
 heard before himself at Rome. Our proper 
 conclusion seems to be that, though probably 
 intended by their framers to bind the whole 
 church, their authority was not really ade- 
 quate to the purpose ; and that the popes 
 afterwards appealed to them unfairly in sup- 
 port of their claims by misrepresenting both 
 their authority and their scope. 
 
 At the close of its sittings the council of 
 Sardica addressed letters to the two emperors, 
 to Julius, to the church of .Alexandria, to the 
 bishops of Egypt and Libya, and an encyclic 
 "to all bishops." In that to Julius the 
 reason he alleged for not attending — viz. the 
 necessity of remaining in Rome to guard 
 against the schemes of heretics — is allowed as 
 sufficient ; and he is presimied to have been 
 present in spirit. The documents sent him 
 and the oral report of his emissaries would 
 inform him of what had been done, but it was 
 thought fit to send him also a brief summary : 
 The most religious emperors had permitted the 
 council to discuss anew all past proceedings, 
 and hence the following questions had been 
 considered: (i) The definition of the true 
 faith ; (2) The condemnation or acquittal of 
 those whom the Eusebians had deposed ; (3) 
 The charges against the Eusebians themselves 
 of having unjustly condemned and persecuted 
 the orthodox. For full information as to the 
 council's decisions he is referred to the letters 
 written to the emperors ; and he is directed, 
 
 JULIUS 
 
 608 
 
 rather than requested (" Ui.i autem excrllcn* 
 prudentiadisponere debet, ut per tua scripta," 
 etc.), to inform the bishops of Italy, Sardinia, 
 and Sicily of what had been done, that they 
 might know with wliom to hold coinniuiiion. 
 A list is appended of those excommunicatrd 
 by the synod. The whole drift of the letter 
 is inconsistent with the council having been 
 convened by the pope himself, or held in his 
 name, or considered dependent on him for 
 ratification of its decrees. He is not even 
 charged with the promulgation of them, 
 except to bishops immediately under his 
 jurisdiction. The only expression pointing 
 to his pre-eminent position is that it would 
 appear to be best and exceedingly fitting 
 ("optimum et valde congruentissimum") that 
 "the head, that is the see of St. Peter," 
 should be informed respecting every single 
 province. Nor is there in the letter to the 
 .Alexandrians, or in the encyclic to all bishops, 
 any reference to him as having initiated or 
 taken part in the council; only in the latter a 
 passing allusion to the previous council which 
 he ("comminister noster dilectissimus") had 
 convened at Rome. The letter to Julius is 
 signed, first by Hosius, and then by 58 other 
 bishops, being probably those present at the 
 close of the council. But as many as 284 are 
 given by Athanasius (Apol. contra A nan. 
 49, 50) as having assented to its decrees and 
 signed its encyclic letter. They include, from 
 various parts of the West with a few from the 
 East 78, from Gaul and Britain 34, from Africa 
 36, from Egypt 94, from Italy 15, from 
 Cyprus 12, from Palestine 15. 
 
 Not till Oct. 346, some three years after the 
 council, was Athanasius allowed to return to 
 his see. Before that he again visited Rome, 
 and was again cordially received by Julius, 
 who wrote a letter of congratulation to the 
 clergy and laity of Alexandria, remarkable for 
 its warmth of feeling and beauty of expression. 
 He regards the return at last of their beloved 
 bishop after such prolonged affliction as a 
 reward granted to their unwavering affection 
 for him, shewn by their continual prayers and 
 their letters of sympathy that had consoled 
 his exile, as well as to his own faithfulness. 
 He dwells on the holy character of .Athanasius, 
 his resoluteness in defence of the faith, his 
 endurance of persecution, his contempt of 
 death and danger. He congratulates them 
 on receiving him back all the more glorious 
 for his long trials and fully piroved innocence. 
 He pictures vividly his welcome home by 
 rejoicing crowds at Alexandria. The letter 
 is the more admirable for the absence of all 
 bitterness towards the persecutors. 
 
 The oidy further notice of Julius is of his 
 having received the recantation of Valens and 
 Ursacius, two notable opponents of Athan- 
 asius who had been condenmed at Sardica. 
 Thev had alreadv recanted before a syn»»d at 
 Milan, and written a pacific letter to .Athan- 
 asius ; but went also of their own accord, 
 I A.D. 347, to Rome, and presented a huuible 
 i apologetic letter to Julius, and were admitted 
 to communion (Athan. //u/. Arian. ad Mon- 
 achos,2h; HiUiT. Fragm. i.). Their profession 
 however (in which they owned the falsity 
 of their charges against Athanasius and 
 renounced Anan heresy), proved insincere. 
 
606 JULIUS 
 
 For when, after the defeat of Constans in 350 
 and the defeat of Maxentius in 351, the tide 
 of imperial favour began to turn, they recanted 
 their recantation, which they said had been 
 made only under fear of Constans. But 
 Julius, who died Apr. 12, 352, was spared the 
 troublous times which ensued. The fresh 
 charges now got up, and sent to him and the 
 emperor, arrived at Rome too late for him to 
 entertain them. [Liberius.] 
 
 His only extant writings are the two letters, 
 to the Eusebians andthe Alexandrians, referred 
 to above. Ten decreta are ascribed to him in 
 the collections of Gratian and Ivo. One is 
 interesting for its allusion to certain usages in 
 the celebration of the Eucharist — viz. using 
 milk, or the expressed juice of grapes, instead 
 of wine; administering the bread dipped in 
 the wine, after the manner of the Greeks at the 
 present day ; and using a linen cloth soaked 
 in must, reserved through the year and 
 moistened with water, for each celebration. 
 All these are condemned, except the use of 
 the unfermented juice of the grape, in which 
 (it is said) is the ef&cacy of wine, in case 
 of need, if mixed with water, which is declared 
 always necessary to represent the people, as 
 the wine represents the blood of Christ. 
 
 Julius was buried, according to the Liberian 
 and Felician Catalogues, "in coemeterio 
 Calepodii ad Callistum " on the Aurelian 
 Way, where he had built a basilica, [j.b — v.] 
 Julius (9) (Jiilianus), bp. of Puteoli (Gesta 
 de Nom. Acacii, in Labbe, iv. 1079 d), probably 
 the bp. Julius to whom, a.d. 448, Leo the 
 Great entrusted the execution of certain dis- 
 ciplinary measures in the church of Beneven- 
 tum (Leo Mag. Ep. xix. 736). Certainly he, 
 with Renatus the presbyter and Hilarus the 
 deacon, carried to Flavian of Constantinople 
 the famous "tome" of St. Leo in June 449, 
 ♦ and acted as his legate in the " Robber " 
 council of Ephesus (Leo Mag. Ep. xxxiii. 866, 
 Migne). The legates are described by Leo as 
 sent de latere rneo (Ep. xxxii. 859, xxxiv. 
 870. He was not the first pope to use this 
 phrase ; see the Ballerini in loc. Migne). 
 Because Julius appears in the " acta " of the 
 council most frequently as Julianus he has 
 been confused with Julian of Cos. That it 
 was our Julius who was the papal legate at 
 Ephesus is proved by Leo's letter to the latter 
 (xxxiv. 870) and by the fact that the legate 
 did not know Greek, which Julian of Cos 
 certainly did (see Julianus (27) ; Labbe, iv. 
 121 B ; Tillem. xv. note 21, pp. 901-902). 
 Evagrius (H. E. i. x.), Prosper (C^j^oh), and 
 Gesta de Noin. Acac. (in Labbe, iv. 1079 d), call 
 the papal legate Julius, not Julianus (see also 
 Marianus Scotus, Chron. ann. 450 in Pair. Lat. 
 cxlvii. 726). On Quesnel's hypothesis, that 
 Julius and not Renatus died on the road to 
 Ephesus, and that Julian took his place, cf, 
 Tillemont, I.e., and Hefele, Concil. ii. 368, 369. 
 On their arrival at Ephesus the legates lodged 
 with Flavian; on the ground that they had 
 lived with him and been tampered with by 
 him (<xvv€KpoTridr)aav, Lat. munerati), Euty- 
 ches took exception to their impartiality as 
 judges (Labbe, iv. 149 b). 
 
 The assertion of Liberatus {Breviarium, c. 
 xii.) that the Roman legates could not take 
 part in the council (" assidere non passi sunt " 
 
 JUNILIUS 
 
 are his words) because the precedence was not 
 given to them as representing Rome, and 
 because Leo's letter was not read, is not in 
 harmony with the acta of the council (see 
 Tillem. xv. notes 26 and 27, p. 904). They 
 undoubtedly did take part in the proceedings 
 of the council, and Julius ranked after Dios- 
 corus. His interpreter, as he could not speak 
 Greek, was Florentius, bp. of Sardis (Labbe, 
 iv. 122 b). We read that he made several 
 efforts to resist Dioscorus, especially urging 
 that Leo's letter should be read, but he does 
 not seem to have been so prominent in 
 opposition as Hilarus the deacon {ib. 128 b, 
 149 B, 302 d). Leo, however, expresses high 
 commendation of the conduct of his legates 
 generally. They protested in the council, he 
 says, and declared that no violence should 
 sever them from the truth {Ep. 45, 922). He 
 speaks to Theodosius, the emperor, of intelli- 
 gence having been brought him of the acts of 
 the synod by the bishop whom he had sent, 
 as well as by the deacon {Ep. xliii. 902) ; but 
 this in other letters (xliv. 911, xlv. 919) is 
 corrected by the statement that only Hilarus 
 escaped to Rome. What happened to Julius 
 we do not know, nor do we hear of him sub- 
 sequently (Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vi. 272). 
 Ughelli and Cappelletti (xix. 647, 669) name 
 him Julianus and make him 6th bp. of Puteoli 
 between Theodore and Stephen. [c.o.] 
 
 Junilius (ioiiyiXos. Junillus), an African 
 by birth, hence commonly known as Junilius 
 Africanus. He filled for seven years in the 
 court of Justinian the important office of 
 quaestor of the sacred palace, succeeding the 
 celebrated Tribonian (Procop. Anecd. c. 20). 
 Procopius tells us that Constantine, whom the 
 Acts of the 5th general council shew to have 
 held the office in 553, succeeded on the death 
 of Junilius, which may therefore be placed a 
 year or two earlier. Junilius, though a lay- 
 man, took great interest in theological studies. 
 A deputation of African bishops visiting 
 Constantinople, one of them, Pkimasius of 
 Adrumetum, inquired of his distinguished 
 countryman, Junilius, who among the Greeks 
 was distinguished as a theologian, to which 
 Junilius replied that he knew one Paul [Paul 
 OF NisiBis], a Persian by race, who had been 
 educated in the school of the Syrians at 
 Nisibis, where theology was taught by public 
 masters in the same systematic manner as the 
 secular studies of grammar and rhetoric else- 
 where. Junilius had an introduction to the 
 Scriptures by this Paul, which, on the soli- 
 citation of Primasius, he translated into Latin, 
 breaking it up into question and answer. 
 Kihn identifies this work of Paul with that 
 which Ebedjesu (Asseman. Bihl. Or. HI. i. 87 ; 
 Badger, Nestorians, ii. 369) calls Maschelmonu- 
 tho desurtho. The work of Junilius was called 
 " Instituta regularia divinae legis," but is 
 commonly known as " De partibus divinae 
 legis," a title which really belongs only to 
 chap. i. It has been often printed in libraries 
 of the Fathers {e.g. Galland, vol. xii. ; Migne, 
 vol. Ixviii.). The best ed., for which 13 MSS. 
 were collated, is by Prof. Kihn of Wiirzburg 
 (Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880), a 
 work admirable for its thorough investigations, 
 and throwing much light on JuniUus. 
 
 The introduction does not, as has beea 
 
JUNILIUS 
 
 often assumed, represent an African school of 
 theology, but the Syrian ; and Kilin conclu- 
 sively shews that (although possibly Junilius 
 was not aware of it himself) it is all founded 
 on the teaching of TnEODORE of Mopsuestia. 
 
 Junilius divides the books of Scripture into 
 two classes. The first, which alone he calls 
 Canonical Scripture, are of perfect authority ; 
 the second added by niany are of secondary 
 (trudiae) authority ; all other books are of no 
 authority. The first class consists of (i) His- 
 torical Books : Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., Ruth, 
 Sam., and Kings., and in N.T. tlie four Gospels 
 and Acts ; (2) Prof^helical (in which what is 
 evidently intended for a chronological arrange- 
 ment is substituted for that more usual) : 
 Ps., Hos., Is., Jl., Am., Ob., Jon., Mic, 
 •Nah., Hab., Zeph., Jer., Ezk., Dan., Hag., 
 Zech., and Mai. (he says that John's Apoca- 
 lypse is much doubted of amongst the 
 Easterns); (3) Proverbial or parabolic: the 
 Prov. of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the 
 Son of Sirach ; (4) Doctrinal: Eccles., the 14 
 epp. of St. Paul in the order now usual, 
 including Heb., I. Pet., and I. Jn. In his 
 second class he counts (1) Historical: Chron., 
 Job, Esdras (no doubt including Neh.), 
 Judith, Est., and Mace; {3) Proverbial: 
 \Visdom and Cant.; (4) Doctrinal: the Epp. 
 of Jas., II. Pet., Jude, II. III. Jn. Lam. 
 and Bar. were included in Jer. Tobit is not 
 mentioned, but is quoted in a later part of the 
 treatise. Kihn is no doubt right in regarding 
 its omission as due to the accidental error of 
 an early transcriber ; for no writer of the time 
 would have designedly refused to include 
 Tobit even in his list of deuterocanonical 
 books. Junilius gives as a reason for not 
 reckoning the books of the second class as 
 canonical that the Hebrews make this differ- 
 ence, as Jerome and others testify. This is 
 clearly incorrect with regard to several of 
 them, and one is tempted to think (pace Kihn) 
 that Junilius himself added this reference to 
 Jerome and did not find it in his Greek 
 original. The low place assigned to Job and 
 Cant, accords with the estimate formed by 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius quotes as 
 Peter's a passage from his second epistle, 
 which he had not admitted into his list of 
 canonical books. He describes Ps., Eccles., 
 and Job as written in metre (see Bickcll, 
 Metrices Biblicae Regulae). The work of 
 Junilius presents a great number of other 
 points of interest, e.g. his answer, ii. 29, to 
 the question how we prove the books of Scrip- 
 ture to have been written by divine inspiration. 
 
 The publication of the work Kihn assigns to 
 551, in which year the Chronicle of Victor 
 Tununensis records the presence at Constanti- 
 nople of the African bishops Reparatus, 
 Firmus, Primasius, and Verecundus. He 
 thinks that Junilius probably met Paul of 
 Nisibis there as early as 543. We do not 
 venture to oppose the judgment of one 
 entitled to speak with so high authority ; 
 but we should have thought that the intro- 
 duction into the West of this product of the 
 Nestorian school of theology took place at an 
 earlier period of the controversy about the 
 Three Chapters than 551. It is not unUkely 
 that Primasius paid earlier visits to Constan- 
 tinople than that of which we have evidence. 
 
 JOSTINIANUS I. 
 
 607 
 
 .\ commentary >>n *..». i. wron^'lv aM-rib<«d 
 to Junilius is now generally attributed to 
 Wede. [r,.s.] 
 
 Justlna (5), empress, second wife of Valen- 
 tinian 1., a Sicilian by birth, and, teste Zosinius 
 (iv. 19 and 43), the widow of M.iKnmtius, 
 killed in 353. Valentinian mav h.iv.- (livorced 
 his first wife (Chron. Pasch. \it2), and then 
 espoused Justina, probably in 3().H. 
 
 She was an Arian, but tluring her husband's 
 lifetime concealed her opinions (Ruf. //. /•.. 
 ii. 15, in Migne, I'atr. I.at. xxi. 523). She, 
 however, endeavoured to prevent him fr.mi 
 allowing St. Martin of Tours to enter his 
 presence (Snip. Sev. Dial. ii. in i/>. xx. 205). 
 After her husband's death she at once used 
 her influence as mother of the infant em- 
 peror Valentinian 11. to advance the inter- 
 ests of her sect, and soon came into collision 
 with St. Ambrose. Their first contest was 
 probably c. 380, when St. .Ambrose was sum- 
 moned to Sirmium to take part in the consecra- 
 tion of Anemius as bishop of that see. the 
 empress being desirous that the new bishop 
 should be consecrated by the Arians (Paulinus, 
 Vita S. Ambrosii, in ib. xiv. 30). 
 
 After the murder of Gratian and the seizure 
 by Maxiinus of Spain. Gaul, and Britain in 
 383, Justina (who, with her infant son, was 
 residing in the imperial palace at Milan) had 
 recourse to her former opponent St. Ambrose. 
 She placed her son in his hands, and induced 
 him to undertake the delicate task .)f going 
 as ambassador to Maximus, to pcrsuadi- him 
 to be contented with Gratian's provinr<-s anil 
 to leave Valentinian in undisturbi-d posstssion 
 of Italy, Africa, and Western lllyri< urn (St. 
 -Ambrose, Epp. 20, 21, 24 ; Id. de Obttu 
 Valentiniani, 1182 in Patr. Lat. xvi. looi, 
 1007, 1035, 1368). His mission was success- 
 ful, at any rate for a time ; but the ungrateful 
 Justina assailed him at Easter 385 with the 
 object of obtaining a church at Milan for the 
 use of her fellow-Arians. For an account of 
 this memorable struggle see Ambrosil'S. By 
 a constitution (Cod. Theod. xvi. i, 4), dated 
 Jan. 21, 386, and drawn up at her direction 
 (Soz. H. E. vii. 13), those whi> held the 
 opinions sanctioned by the council of Arimi- 
 num were granted the right of meeting for 
 public worship. Catholics being forbidden 
 under ])ain of death to offer opposition or to 
 endeavour to get the law repealed. 
 
 When danger again threatened, Justina 
 again had recourse to Ambrose's services. 
 After Easter 387 he was sent to Trier to ask 
 that the body of (Iratian should be restored 
 to his brother and to avert Maximus's threat- 
 ened invasion of Italy (Ep. 24). His mission 
 was unsuccessful ; Maximus crossed the Alps 
 in the auturnn and made himself master of 
 Italy without striking a blow. Valentinian 
 and his mother and sisters fled by sea to 
 Thessalonica, whence she sent to Theodosius 
 imploring his help. Zosimus (iv. 44) narrati>s 
 how she overcame his reluctance by the 
 charms of her daughter, the beautiful Galla, 
 whose hand pai<l for his assistance. (See Due 
 de Broglie, E'Egltse et I'emp. iii. 228.) In 3««, 
 the year of her son's restoration, Justina died 
 (Soz. H. E. vii. 14 ; Ruf. H. E. ii. 17). [f.d.] 
 
 Justinianus (6) I., Roman pmperor(275-5<J5)- 
 
 I. Life and (haracter. — Justwiian was born 
 
608 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 most probably in 483 at Tauresium, on the 
 borders of lUyricum and Macedonia, a spot 
 probably a little S. of Uskiub, the ancient 
 Scupi (see Procop. Aedif. iv. i, and Tozer, High- 
 lands of European Turkey, ii. p. 370). After his 
 accession he built at his birthplace a city which 
 he named Justiniana Prima and made the 
 capital of the province and seat of an arch- 
 bishop. [The tale regarding his Slavonic 
 origin started by Alemanni in his notes to the 
 Anecdota of Procopius seems to be baseless ; 
 see art. in Eng. Hist. Rev. Oct. 1887, by the 
 present writer.] Early in life he came to 
 Constantinople, and attached himself to his 
 uncle Justin, who, serving in the imperial 
 guards under the emperors Zeno and Anas- 
 tasius, had risen to high place. At Constan- 
 tinople Justinian dihgently studied law, theo- 
 logy, and general literature, and the influence 
 of his uncle doubtless procured him employ- 
 ment in the civil service of the state. When 
 Justinian was 35, the emperor Anastasius was 
 succeeded by Justin, an illiterate soldier, 
 weakened by age, to whom the help of his more 
 active nephew was almost indispensable. 
 Ecclesiastical affairs and the general adminis- 
 tration of the state fell under the control of 
 Justinian. He became co-emperor in 527, 
 and on Justin's death, a month later, assumed 
 without question the sole sovereignty of the 
 Roman world, retaining it till his death in 565, 
 at the age of 82, when he was peaceably suc- 
 ceeded by his nephew Justin II. 
 
 In 526 he married Theodora, a woman of 
 singular beauty, and still more remarkable 
 charms of manner and intellect, said to have 
 been a native of Cyprus and a comedian. The 
 gossip of the time, starting from this un- 
 doubted fact, has accumulated in the Anecdota, 
 or unpublished memoirs, ascribed to, and no 
 doubt written by (although there has been a 
 controversy on the point), Procopius, a variety 
 of scandalous tales regarding her earlier career. 
 [Theodora.] She soon acquired an almost 
 unbounded dominion over Justinian's mind, 
 and was commonly regarded as the source of 
 many of his schemes and enterprises. She died 
 in 548, and he did not marry again. 
 
 Most of what we know directly about 
 Justinian comes from Procopius, which does 
 not diminish the difficulty of forming a com- 
 prehensive and consistent view of his abilities 
 and character. For Procopius wTote of him 
 with servility in his lifetime, and reviled him 
 in the Anecdota, a singular book which did not 
 come to light till long afterwards. Setting 
 aside exaggerations in both directions, it may 
 be concluded that Justinian was a man of 
 considerable, if not first-rate, abilities. He 
 was well educated, according to the ideas and 
 customs of the time, and more or less conver- 
 sant with many branches of knowledge. 
 Procopius accuses him of being a barbarian 
 both in mind and speech, which probably 
 means only that he spoke Greek like an Illy- 
 rian provincial [Anecd. c. 14). His artistic 
 taste is shewn by the many beautiful buildings 
 which he erected, two among which — those of 
 St. Sophia at Constantinople and St. \'italis 
 at Ravenna (though it does not appear that he 
 had any share in designing this latter) — have 
 had the unique distinction of becoming archi- 
 tectural models for subsequent ages, the one 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 for the East and the other for the West. 
 Several hymns still used in the orthodox 
 Eastern church are ascribed to his pen, and 
 he is the author of a treatise against the 
 Monophysites, which Cardinal Mai has pub- 
 lished. The records of his government and 
 administration shew that he possessed great 
 ingenuity and enterprise ; but the enterprise 
 was often prompted more by vanity and lust 
 of power than by regard to the welfare of his 
 people, and his ingenuity was not guided by 
 prudence or by a solid knowledge of the 
 economical conditions of prosperity. There 
 was much more cleverness than wisdom about 
 him ; we see in his policy fevs- indications of 
 deep and statesmanlike foresight. The chief 
 feature of his character is his extraordinary 
 industry. He seemed to live for work, and 
 toiled harder than any of his own clerks. He 
 was naturally abstemious and regular in life, 
 observing the church fasts very strictly, able 
 to go long without food, taking little sleep, 
 and spending most of his time, when not 
 actually giving audiences, in pacing up and 
 down the rooms of the palace listening to 
 readers or dictating to an amanuensis. He 
 cared little for vulgar pleasures (though he 
 shewed an excessive partiality for the blue 
 faction, he does not appear to have been 
 personally addicted to the games of the circus), 
 and yielded to no influences except those of 
 his wife Theodora. We are told that he was 
 easy of access — a rare merit in the despotic 
 centre of a highly formal court — pleasant and 
 reassuring in manner, but also deceitful and 
 capable of treachery and ingratitude. How 
 far this ingratitude was in the most notable 
 case, that of Belisarius, excused by apprehen- 
 sions of danger, is a problem not wholly solved 
 or soluble. Wantonly cruel he does not seem 
 to have been, and on several occasions shewed 
 an unexpected clemency, but he shrank from 
 no severities that his intellect judged useful. 
 
 In person he was well formed, rather above 
 the middle height, with a ruddy and smiling 
 countenance. Besides his effigy on coins, we 
 have two probably contemporary portraits 
 among the mosaics of Ravenna — one in the 
 apse of the church of San Vitale, built in his 
 reign, in which he appears among a number of 
 other figures ; the other now preserved in the 
 noble church of Sant' Apollinare in Urbe. 
 
 II. The political events of his reign may be 
 read in Procopius, Agathias, Theophanes (all 
 three in the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine histo- 
 rians), in the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius, 
 in Gibbon (see cc. xl.-xliii. for a full and 
 brilliant picture of Justinian's times), and in 
 Le Beau (Histoire du bus empire, vols. viii. 
 and ix., with St. Martin's notes). Finlay 
 (Greece under the Romans, vol. i. of new ed.) 
 has some valuable remarks, as also Hertzberg, 
 Griechenland unter der Romer, vol. iii. ; see 
 also Dahn, Prokopios von Caesarea. At 
 Justinian's accession the empire was generally 
 at peace. An expedition was dispatched in 
 533, under Belisarius, which landed in Africa 
 without opposition and reduced the whole 
 Vandal kingdom to submission in little more 
 than three months. The Vandals who sur- 
 vived seem to have been rapidly absorbed into 
 the African population ; anyhow, we hear no 
 more of them. The fleet of BeUsarius received 
 
JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 in rapid succession the siihinission of Sardiiii.i, 
 Corsica, and the Balearic Isles. Orthodoxy , 
 was re-established there and in Africa, j 
 Justinian directed the laws against heretics 
 to be put in force against the Arians and 
 Donatists in Africa, and their meetings to be 
 altogether forbidden (Baron, ad aim. 535). 
 The orthodox bishops met in a council, at 
 which 207 prelates were present (Baron, ad 
 ann. 535). The orthodox churches of .-Vfrica 
 were restored to the full enjoyment of tlieir 
 rights, property, and privileges. But the 
 African church and province never regained 
 its former prosperity. The misgovcrnnicnt of 
 the imperial lieutenants completed the ruin 
 which the Vandals had begun, and the wild 
 Moorish tribes encroached in all directions on 
 the Roman population. Great part of the 
 country, once the most productive part of 
 the Roman dominions, relapsed into solitude 
 and neglect ; the Christians there were still 
 divided by the mutual jealousies of Donatists, 
 Arians, and orthodox. 
 
 The success of his enterprise against the 
 Vandals encouraged Justinian to attempt the 
 recovery of Italy from the Ostrogoths, who 
 had held it and Sicily since the invasion under 
 Theodoric in 493-494. The emperors at 
 
 Constantinople considered themselves, ever 
 since the extinction of the Western branch of 
 the empire in 476, de jure sovereigns of Italy 
 and the whole West, regarding the Ciothic 
 kings partly as their lieutenants, partly as 
 mere usurpers. Justinian dispatched Beli- 
 sarius from Constantinople with a fleet and 
 over 7,000 men in the autumn of 535. He 
 reduced Sicily easily in a few weeks. Then 
 he attacked Italy, occupying Rome in Dec. 
 536. The Ostrogoths had shortly before 
 risen against their king Theodahad, and 
 chosen Witigis, whom Belisarius took at 
 Ravenna and carried to Constantinople, 
 leaving the imperial power supreme in Italy. 
 Totila, whom the Goths chose in the room of 
 Witigis, recovered fortress after fortress from 
 the incompetent generals who succeeded 
 Belisarius, till he was master of most part of 
 Italy ; and at length restored the Ciothic 
 kingdom to a better position than it had held 
 since the death of Theodoric. But in 552 his 
 army was defeated, and himself slain by 
 Narses, and with him died the last hopes of 
 the Gothic kingdom of Italy. After Narses 
 had destroyed Butelin and his host in a great 
 battle near Casilinum in Campania, 544, the 
 small remains of the Gothic nation either 
 passed into Spain and Gaul to mingle with 
 other barbarians or were lost among the 
 Roman population of Italy, which now was 
 finally in Justinian's hands. It was, however, 
 a desolated and depopulated Italy. Nor was 
 it long left to his successors. 
 
 The third great struggle of Justinian's reign 
 was against the Persian empire, then under 
 Kobad and Chosroes Anushirvan in the zenith 
 of its power. After several campaigns Chos- 
 roes concluded in 533, on obtaining from the 
 emperor 11,000 pounds of gold, a peace which 
 gave rest to tiie eastern provinces. In 539 
 war broke out again, and also a revolt against 
 Justinian in Armenia, a part of whose people 
 appealed to the Persians for holi>. Chosrues 
 commanded a vast force, which the Roman 
 
 JUSTINIANUS 
 
 fl60 
 
 generals were quite unable to resist in the open 
 field. In 540 .\ntioc!i, far the greatest town 
 of the eastern part of the empire, was sacked 
 and many thousand inhabitants carried to a 
 new city, built for them near Ctesiphon his 
 own capital. Towards the end of Justinian's 
 reign the fighting slackened ; a peace for 50 
 years was conchided in 562 on terms humili- 
 ating to Justinian, wlio undertook to pay 
 yearly 30,000 gold pieces. This peace lasted 
 only 10 years ; but the war which began in 
 572 lies outside Justinian's reign. 
 
 Less famous, but perhaps even more ruinous, 
 were the contests which Justinian had to 
 maintain against the barbarians of Scythia 
 and the Danube. From the Alps to the Black 
 Sea, the N. border of the empire was the scene 
 of seldom intermitted warfare. The various 
 tribes whom the Roman historian calls Huns, 
 and who included the race subsequently dis- 
 tinguished as Bulgarians, poured from the S. 
 of what is now Russia down upon Thrace, 
 ravaged it and Macedonia, penetrated on one 
 occasion to the isthmus of Corinth, and six 
 years before Justinian's death, in '559, ap- 
 peared in great force under the walls of Con- 
 stantinople, from which they were repulsed 
 by the skill and vigour of Belisarius. In the 
 N.W. provinces villages were destroved, 
 cultivated land laid waste, and inunense 
 numbers of the inhabitants carried into 
 slavery. The only serious efforts the emperor 
 made against these enemies (besides the 
 building of fortresses) were by diplomacy. 
 His policy was to foment hostilities between 
 neighbouring tribes, taking sometimes one, 
 sometimes another, into alliance with the 
 empire, and offering large presents, often so 
 regular as to amount to a kind of blarkmail. 
 to buy them off for the moment or induce 
 them to turn their arms against some other 
 barbarian power. His activity as a negntiator 
 was unwearied. Embassies from all parts of 
 the barbarian world arrived at Constanti- 
 nople, excited the wonder of the people by 
 their strange garb and manners, and returned 
 home laden with gifts and j)romises. Even 
 the tribes of the Baltic and the Turks of Cen- 
 tral Asia seem t'l have thus come into relations 
 with him. His policy was much blamed in 
 his own time (see esp. Procop. A need.), and 
 may appear sh<irtsiglited as supi>lying fresh 
 inducements to the barbarians to remw their 
 attacks and letting them kmiw the wealth of 
 the capital ; but perhajis no other policy was 
 possible, and the incidental ailvantagcs of 
 Roman influence and culture upon the b.irder 
 tribes may have been considerable. 
 
 III. We possess no systematic account of 
 the internal state of the emjiire in Justinian's 
 time, and depend only upon occasional 
 notices by historians like f'rocopius and 
 Agathias, and a study of Justinian's legislative 
 measures. The civil service was, and had 
 long been, in a high state of efficiency. Such 
 alterations as Justinian made tended t<> perfect 
 this organization and t > render all its members 
 more comjiletely subservient to the crown. 
 He spent enormous sums not only on his wars 
 but in the erection of chiinhes. fortresses, and 
 public buildings of every kind (a list will be 
 fouiul in the df Afdiftcnt of I'rocopius), and 
 was therefore always in want of money. Op- 
 
 3U 
 
610 
 
 JUSTINIAKUS 
 
 pressive as taxation had been before, he seems 
 to have made it even more stringent ; and 
 when the land-tax and other ordinary sources 
 of revenue failed, he was driven to such ex- 
 pedients as the sale of public offices, and even 
 to the prostitution of justice and the confisca- 
 tion of the property of private persons. 
 Though the instances of this rest chiefly on 
 the untrustworthy authority of the Anecdota 
 of Procopius (who ascribes the worst to the 
 immediate action of the empress), stories in 
 other historians give some support to the 
 accusation. On one occasion he attempted 
 to debase the coin, but was checked by a 
 threatened insurrection in the capital. The 
 same charges of venaHty and extortion are 
 brought against Tribonian, John of Cappa- 
 docia, and others of Justinian's ministers. 
 The administration of justice must have been 
 greatly improved bv the promulgation of the 
 whole binding law in the Codex, Pandects, and 
 Institutes ; and great importance was evident- 
 ly attached to the maintenance of the law 
 schools of Berytus and Constantinople ; cor- 
 ruption may, however, have largely prevailed 
 among the judges. Brilliant as Justinian's 
 reign may appear to us, the sufferings endured 
 by the people from war, taxation, the per- 
 secution of heretics, the blows struck at the 
 privileges of various classes and professions, 
 as well as from the great plague and from 
 destructive earthquakes, made his rule un- 
 popular, as shewn by the rebellions in Africa 
 and the disaffection of the reconquered 
 Italians. In Constantinople, not to speak of 
 minor seditions, there occurred a tremendous 
 insurrection in Jan. 532, arising out of a 
 tumult in the hippodrome, and apparently 
 due, partly to resentment at the maladminis- 
 tration of John of Cappadocia, partly to the 
 presence in the city of a large number of 
 starving immigrants. The revolters held the 
 city for some days, set fire to some of 
 the finest buildings, drove Justinian into his 
 palace fortress, and proclaimed Hypatius, 
 nephew of the deceased emperor Anastasius, 
 emperor. Having no concerted plan of action, 
 part of them were induced to abandon the 
 rest, who were then surprised and slaughtered 
 by the imperial guards under the command of 
 Behsarius. It is said that 30,000 people 
 perished in this rising, which is known as the 
 Nika sedition, from the watchword used by 
 the rebels. (See an interesting account by 
 W. A. Schmidt, Der Auf stand in Constantinopel 
 unter Kaiser Justinian.) 
 
 He made efforts to open up new channels 
 for the traffic in silk, and ultimately suc- 
 ceeded, through the boldness of two Persian 
 monks, who conveyed the eggs of the worm 
 in a hollow cane from China to the empire. 
 The manufacture of silk was thus no longer 
 at the mercv of the Persians, who had stopped 
 the supply in time of war, and the culture of 
 the silk-worm became an important branch 
 of industrv in the Roman East. 
 
 As a whole, the faults of Justinian's domes- 
 tic government appear greatly to outweigh its 
 merits. His subjects had grown tired of him 
 long before his death ; but later ages looked 
 back to his reign as a period of conquest 
 abroad and magnificence at home, and accept- 
 ed the surname of the Great. 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 IV. Ecclesiastical policy occupied no small 
 share of Justinian's thoughts and care. 
 
 During the lifetime of Justin I., he sought 
 to re-establish the communion of the churches 
 of Constantinople and Rome, which had been 
 interrupted owing to the Monophysite contro- 
 versies. On his accession in 527 he professed 
 himself a zealous supporter of the Two Natures 
 and the decrees of Chalcedon, and the firmness 
 of his throne was no doubt partly due to this 
 C(uncidence of his theological views with those 
 of the bulk of his subjects in Constantinople, 
 Thrace, and Asia Minor. He had great con- 
 fidence in his own powers as a theologian, 
 and took an active part in all the current con- 
 troversies. A diligent student and having 
 some literary pretensions, he read and wrote 
 much on theological topics. His ecclesiastical 
 policy apparently had two main objects, not, 
 however, consistently pursued — the mainten- 
 ance of the orthodox doctrine of the Four Coun- 
 cils, and especially of Chalcedon, and the re- 
 conciliation of the Monophysites, or at least 
 the inducing by apparent concessions the more 
 moderate Monophysites to accept the decrees 
 of Chalcedon. There was in his court an 
 active, though probably concealed, Monophy- 
 site party, headed bv, and sheltering itself 
 under, the empress Theodora. One of the 
 emperor's first acts was to summon a confer- 
 ence of leading theologians on both sides, so 
 as to bring about a reconciliation. After 
 several sittings, however, in one of which 
 Justinian delivered a long allocution, vital 
 points were reached on which neither side 
 could yield, and the conference was dissolved. 
 Among the Monophysite leaders were Severus, 
 deposed from the patriarchate of Antioch in 
 the time of Justin, and Anthimus, bp. of 
 Trebizond. They seem to have acquired 
 much influence in Theodora's coterie, and, 
 probably owing to her, Anthimus was raised 
 in 535 to the patriarchate of Constantinople, 
 in spite of the doctrinal suspicions attaching 
 to him. Pope Agapetus, having heard of 
 these suspicions, and disapproving, as Rome 
 was wont to do, of translations from one 
 bishopric to another, refused to communicate 
 with the patriarch till he should have purged 
 himself from the charge of heresy, and insisted 
 that, when purged, Anthimus should return 
 to Trebizond. Justinian (perhaps owing to 
 the support which Theodora seems to have 
 given Anthimus) was at first displeased and 
 resisted, but Agapetus prevailed. Anthimus 
 was deposed, and Mennas, head of the hospi- 
 tium of Samson in Constantinople, appointed 
 in his place and consecrated by Agapetus, 
 who soon afterwards died. By the directions 
 of Justinian, Mennas called a local synod, 
 which met during May and June 536 (Mansi, 
 viii. ; cf. Hefele, Conciiiengeschichte, ii. pp. 742- 
 753), and deposed Anthimus from his see of 
 Trebizond. The synod anathematized Sever- 
 us, Peter of Apamea, and Zoaras as suspected 
 of Monophysitism. In Aug. 536 Justinian 
 issued an edict addressed to Mennas confirm- 
 ing all that the synod had done. 
 
 After this there appears to have been a 
 comparative calm in the ecclesiastical world 
 of Constantinople, till the emperor's attention 
 was called to the growth of Origenistic 
 opinions in the East, and especially in Syria. 
 
JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 About the boi^iiiiuui,' of the 6th cent, there 
 had been in the monasteries of Palestine, and , 
 particularly in that great one called the New 
 Laura, a considerable diffusion of Origen's 
 opinions, which excited the alarm of St. Sabas 
 and of the patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. The 
 latter in 543 induced I'elagius, apocrisiarius 
 of the Roman bishop, to make representations 
 to the emperor on the subject, and sent with 
 him four monks to accuse the followers of ; 
 Origen. The four monks were supported by 
 Mennas the patriarch. Two Origenist bishops, ; 
 Theodore Ascidas, archbp. of Caesarea in Cap- [ 
 padocia, and Domitian, bp. of .\ncyra, resided 1 
 usually at Constantinople and had much in- | 
 fluence with the emperor. Nevertheless they | 
 seem to have) feared the charge of heresy j 
 too much to resist the monks from Palestine, 1 
 and perhaps did not own their attachment j 
 to Origen's writings. Anyhow, the emperor 
 promptly condemned the accused opinions, 
 issuing a long edict addressed to the patriarch 
 Mennas, in which he classes Origen among the 
 heretics, and singles out for anathema ten 
 particular doctrines contained in his writings. 
 A local council, con\-oked by Mennas, dutifully 
 echoed the emperor's edict, publishing its 
 anathemas against 14 propositions drawn 
 from Origen, and condemning his person. 
 
 Theodore and Domitian had submitted, but 
 their mortification drove them to take action 
 in another way, and thus to awaken a long, 
 needless, and most mischievous controversy. 
 Justinian was at work upon a treatise on ttie 
 Incarnation, whereby he trusted to convince 
 and conciliate the stubborn .\cephali (or e.\- 
 tremer Monophysites) of Egypt. Theodore, 
 according to our authorities, suggested to him 
 that a simpler way of winning back those who 
 disliked the council of Chalcedon would be to 
 get certain writings condemned which that 
 council had approved, but which the Mono- 
 physites disliked as being of a distinctly Nes- 
 torian tendency. (See Liberatus ap. (ialland. 
 Bibl. Patr. .xii. 160, as to Theodore, and Facun- 
 dus, bk. i. c. 2, as to Domitian of Ancvra ; cf. 
 Evagr. H. E. iv. 38 ; Vita S. Sahae.) They 
 singled out 3 treatises for condenmation, 
 which soon became famous as the rpia 
 KecpaXaia (tria capitiila), which we usually 
 translate Three Chapters, but would be better 
 called the Three Articles, \'iz. the writings of 
 Theodore of .Mopsuestia, the treatise of Theo- 
 doret against Cyril and his twelve articles, and 
 the letter of (or attributed to) Ibas, bp. of 
 Edessa, to the Persian bp. .Maris. Later, the 
 term rp/a *.-f</)d,\oio came to mean both the 
 persons and writings impugned. This latter 
 is the usual sense in the authors of the time 
 (e.g. Facundus of Hermiane, whose treatise 
 is entitled Defensio pro Tribus Capitulis) and 
 in the protocols of the fifth general council. 
 The Nestorians still appealed to Theodore as 
 their highest authority, and triumphantly 
 pointed to the fact that he had never been 
 condemned. Against Theodoret and Ibas the 
 case was weaker. Both had joined in ana- 
 thematizing Nestorius at Chalcedon, and been 
 restored to their sees. But both had attacked 
 Cyril, who, though claimed by the .Mono- 
 physites, was also a bulwark of orthodoxy, 
 and the ep. to Maris was a violent assault on 
 the council of Ephesus. It might therefore be 
 
 JUSTINIANUS 
 
 611 
 
 with some show of pj.iusil.ilitv allr^rd that 
 the authority of tli.«t council was n».t estab- 
 lished while these assailants seemed to be 
 protected by the aegis of Chalcedon. 
 
 Seconded by Theodora (says I.ibrratus, 
 U.S.), Theodore Ascidas and Domitian per- 
 suaded Justinian to compose and issue a 
 treatise or edict against the Three Articles. 
 Desisting from his book against the .\cephali, 
 he forthwith composed the suggested edict, 
 which was issued between 543 and 545, prob- 
 ably in 545. It has perished, only three or 
 four short extracts being nreserved by Fa- 
 cundus. It was circulated through the church 
 for the signatures of the bishops. The four 
 Eastern patriarchs were naturally afraid of 
 reopening any question as to the authority 
 of Chalcedon. Mennas, after some hesitation, 
 signed, but subject to a promise given him on 
 oath, that he might withdraw his signature if 
 the bp. of Rome refused to agree. The other 
 three, Ephraini of .Antioch, Peter of Jerusa- 
 lem, Zoilus of Alexandria, under real or 
 imagined threats of deposition, obeyed and 
 signed, and after more or less intimidation and 
 the offer of various rewards, the great n>a- 
 jority of bishops through Syria, .\sia Minor, 
 Greece, and Macedonia signed also. In the 
 West, the bishops having less to lose and being 
 accustomed to face Arian potentates, Jus- 
 tinian found a less ready compliance. The 
 bishops of .Africa led the opposition, and were 
 largely supported by those of Italy, Caul, 
 Illyricum, and Dalmatia. In Rome much 
 alarm was produced by the arrival of the edict, 
 and by the emperor's command to X'igilius, 
 lately chosen pope, to repair to Constantinople. 
 Theodora enforced by terrible threats his 
 appearance. V'igilius, not venturing openly 
 to oppose the emperor, and fearing the anger 
 of Theodora, had also to reckon with the all 
 but universal loyalty to the council of Chalce- 
 don of the Roman church and of the Western 
 churches generally, and so temporized. He 
 arrived in Constantinople in 547, having 
 delayed nearly a year in Sicily. In 548 he 
 issued a document called the Judicalum, con- 
 demning the Three Articles, saving, however, 
 the authority of Chalcedon. In 548 Theo- 
 dora died, but Justinian was now thorouglily 
 committed against the Three Articles. He 
 continued to coerce the recalcitrant bishops 
 of .Africa, depri\irig some of their sees, and. 
 after various negotiations with X'igilius, issued 
 in 551 a second edict .ig.iiiist theThni- .ArtirUs 
 addressed to the wh(jle Cluisti.in world, which 
 has been preserved under the name of the Con- 
 fession of Faith, ofioXoyla vlarfwi ']oi-<TTifiai'oi' 
 avTOKfiaTopoi (.Mansi, ix. 537). This edict 
 is really a theological treatise, taking the 
 writings of the three impugned doctors and 
 discovering heresies in them by minute scru- 
 ! tiny and inference. V'igilius was required to 
 subscribe it, but refused, and took refuge in 
 the basilica of St. Peter at Constantinople, 
 j and afterwards in the church of St. Euphemia 
 I at Chalcedon. Here he remained, until the 
 ' emperor, anxious for his concurrence in sum- 
 moning a general council as the only solution 
 for the dissensions, induced him to withdraw 
 his censure of the edict. He then returned 
 to Constantinople to await the opening of the 
 I council. The first sitting was on May 5, 553. 
 
612 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 Eutychius, who, upon the death of Mennas in 
 Aug. 552, had become patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, presided. By hira sat Apollinaris of 
 Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch. Eus- 
 tochius of Jerusalem was represented by 3 
 bishops. Altogether 151 bishops were present 
 at the opening, while 164 signed at the end, 
 the very large majority belonging to the East. 
 Six from Africa attended, but more than 20 
 were kept away by Vigilius, who himself 
 refused to attend, but sent his views in writ- 
 ing in a document called the ConstHutum 
 (Mansi, ix. 61), presented, not to the council, 
 but to Justinian himself, who refused to 
 receive it. Justinian addressed a letter to the 
 fathers, reproaching Vigilius, and requiring 
 his name to be struck out of the diptychs, as 
 having by his defence of Theodoret and Ibas 
 excluded himself from the right to church- 
 fellowship. He also produced evidence that 
 the pope had solemnly promised, both to him- 
 self and Theodora, to procure the condemna- 
 tion of the Three Articles. Thereupon the 
 council, troubling no further about the pope, 
 proceeded to examine the writings impugned. 
 (Hefele, u.s. 267-274- For the Acta see 
 Mansi, vol. ix. and under Constantinople, 
 D. C.A.) Theodore of Mopsuestia was ana- 
 thematized absolutely, and anathema was 
 pronounced against Theodoret's treatise in 
 opposition to Cvril's Twelve Articles and 
 against the letter to Maris, which passed under 
 the name of Ibas. A series of 14 articles, or 
 anathemas, was prepared, most of them corre- 
 sponding closely with the articles of J ustinian's 
 o/xoXoyia irlcTTem, in which the orthodox faith 
 as to the Trinity and Incarnation was restated. 
 The first four general councils and their 
 decrees were formally accepted, and art. 11 
 anathematizes Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, 
 Apollinarius, Origen, Nestorius, Eutyches, 
 and their adherents. It has been often sup- 
 posed that the opinions of Origen and his 
 followers were formally condemned at this 
 council. (See Evagr. iv. 38 ; Theoph. 
 Chronogr. p. 354 of Bonn ed. vol. i.) But this 
 has arisen from confounding the former local 
 council under Mennas in 543 with this general 
 coimcil. Origen is only referred to in its 
 general anathema, and thus no particular 
 doctrines of his have ever been condemned by 
 the whole church. The 14 articles were sub- 
 scribed at the last sitting, on June 2, 553, "by 
 all the 164 bishops, headed bv Eutychms of 
 Constantinople. Eight African bishops signed. 
 Justinian sent the decrees all over the empire 
 for signature by the bishops. Little opposition 
 was experienced in the East. The monks of 
 the New Laura, who attacked the decrees, 
 were chased out bv the imperial general .\nas- 
 tasius. The council had threatened with de- 
 position any bishops or other clerics who 
 should teach or speak against it. We hear, 
 however, of only one bishop, Alexander of 
 Abydus, whi was deposed. Vigilius and the 
 Western ecclesiastics who had signed the 
 Constitutum appear to have held out for some 
 time, but in Dec. 553 Vigilius issued a letter 
 (Mansi, ix. 414), addressed to the patriarch 
 Eutychius, in which he owns that he was in 
 the wrong and is now glad to confess it. He 
 then anathematizes Theodore, Theodoret, 
 and the letter of Ibas, without prejudice to 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 the authority of the council of Chalcedon, 
 which of course never meant to approve these 
 heresies. Being then released by Justinian, 
 Vigilantius set off for Rome, but died in S>Ta- 
 cuse upon his way. A serious schism fol- 
 lowed in the West. The bishops of Dalmatia 
 and Illyricum were hottest in their opposition 
 to the anathemas of the fifth council, and 
 their archbp. Frontinus was taken to Con- 
 stantinople and thence banished to Upper 
 Egypt. A manifesto by Justinian, addressed 
 to some Western bishops {ib. 589), has been 
 supposed to be an answer to remonstrances 
 from these Illyrians. The resistance in Africa 
 was broken by similar violent means, a good 
 many bishops being deposed and imprisoned 
 in convents, under the auspices of the metro- 
 politan Primasius of Carthage, and by the 
 secular arm of the governor. In Gaul and 
 Spain there was great discontent, though not a 
 omplete breach with Rome ; while in N. Italy 
 the bishops of Tuscany, the province of Milan, 
 and Istria and Venetia, broke off communion 
 with the pope. The patriarchate of Aquileia, 
 afterwards removed to Grado, and finally 
 divided into the two small patriarchates of 
 Grado and Aquileia, arose out of this schism, 
 which did not end till the beginning of the 8th 
 cent. Ultimately the whole Western church 
 was brought by the efforts of the popes to re- 
 cognize the fifth general council. The effect, 
 however, which Justinian had been encouraged 
 to expect was not attained. Not a single 
 Monophysite seems to have returned to the 
 orthodox church. The Egyptian Acephali in 
 particular were as stubborn as ever. 
 
 Justinian in his last days himself lapsed 
 into heresy. The doctrine that the body of 
 Christ was insensible to fleshly passions and 
 weaknesses, was in fact incorruptible, and so 
 not ordinary flesh at all, had been broached 
 early in the century by bp. Julian of Hali- 
 carn'assus, a leading Monophysite, in opposi- 
 tion to the view of Severus, patriarch of 
 .A.ntioch, that Christ's body was corruptible 
 up to the resurrection, and only afterwards 
 ceased to be so. Justinian published an edict 
 declaring the doctrine of Julian orthodox and 
 requiring the assent of all patriarchs and 
 bishops to this new article. Eutychius of 
 Constantinople was deposed for rejecting the 
 edict. Before more could be done, Justinian 
 died (a.d. 565) and the controversy at once 
 collapsed, for his successor took comparatively 
 slight interest in theological questions. 
 
 The general character of Justinian's eccle- 
 siastical policy has been sufficiently indicated. 
 In spite of his protestations of respect for the 
 clergy, the important place they held at his 
 court, and the privileges which his legislation 
 gave them, he never hesitated to resort to 
 despotism and banishment to bend them to 
 his will. No previous Roman emperor had 
 been so much interested in theological dis- 
 putes, nor arrogated to himself so great a 
 right of interference even with the popes. 
 His control of the fifth council was much more 
 direct and considerable than his predecessors 
 exercised at Ephesus and Chalcedon. 
 
 Justinian was through his life a resolute, 
 though not always consistent, persecutor. 
 Nestorians and Eutychians were punished 
 with deposition from ecclesiastical office, ex- 
 
JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 communication, and occasionally with banish- 
 ment. Manichcans, (.Inostic^, and Montanists 
 were more severely dealt with, deprived of 
 all civil rights and forbidden to meet for 
 worship. These penalties were often enforced 
 with much cruelty and sometimes produced 
 sanguinary contests. The Montanists of 
 Phrypia, being required to undergo baptism, 
 shut themselves up in their churches, killed 
 their wives and children, and set fire to the 
 buildings. Similar rigours were inflicted on 
 Jews and Samaritans, though the Jews, as 
 a serviceable element in the population, 
 seem to have in practice fared somewhat 
 better than the others. It is not very easy 
 to determine precisely how far the laws 
 directed against heathenism were carried out. 
 They punish apostasy with death, require all 
 persons to undergo baptism, deprive pagans 
 of all civil rights and privileges, and forbid 
 any public pagan worship. In spite of this, a 
 great number of pagans continued to exist 
 even among the cultivated and wealthy classes 
 of the capital. An inquisition at Constanti- 
 nople in the 3rd year of Justinian's reign 
 (Theoph. Chron. p. 153) shewed a large ntmiber 
 of pagans in the higher official classes. An 
 ordinance was then issued, forbidding all civil 
 employment to persons not orthodox Chris- 
 tians and three months were allowed for con- 
 version. Not long before. Justinian had taken 
 away all the churches of the heretics, except 
 one of the Arians, and given them to the 
 orthodox f«6. 150). Energetic inquiries throuirh 
 W. Asia Minor are said to have led to the 
 enforced baptism of 70,000 persons. Among 
 the mountain tribes of Tavgetus paganism 
 survived till the days of Basil I. (867-886). 
 Only at Athens, however, did persons of 
 intellectual and social eminence continue to 
 openly avow themselves heathens. The pro- 
 fessors of its university, or at least the most 
 distinguished among them, were not Chris- 
 tians. Although speculative moralists and 
 mystics, making philosophy their rule of life, 
 rather than worshippers of the old deities of 
 Olympus, their influence was decidedly anti- 
 Christian. In 528, on the discovery of crypto- 
 paganism in his capital, Justinian issued 
 several stringent constitutions, one of which, 
 forbidding " persons persisting in the madness 
 of Hellenism to teach any branch of know- 
 ledge," struck directly at the Athenian pro- 
 fessors. In 529 he sent a copy of the Codex 
 Constitutionum, containing this ordinance, 
 to Athens, with a prohibition to teach law- 
 there, and shortly after the teaching of philo- 
 sophy was similarly forbidden, and th<' n- 
 maining property of the Platonic .-Academy was 
 seized for public purposes. This finally extin- j 
 guished the university. Its head, Damascius, a 1 
 neo-Platonistof Syrian birth, and byconviction 
 a resolute heathen, and six of his colleagues > 
 proceeded (in 532) to the court of Chosroes, 
 king of Persia, at Ctesiphon, but soon returned 
 to the Roman empire, in which Chosri>es ; 
 secured for them, by a treaty he negoti.ated : 
 with Justinian, the freedom to live unbaptized ! 
 and unmolested. They did not, however, 1 
 settle again in Athens, which rapidly became ; 
 a Christian city even in externals, its temples : 
 being turn^^d into churches. So one may , 
 ascribe to Justinian the extinction in the] 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 nin 
 
 Roman world of open and < nltiv.itcd paganism 
 as well as of the Pl.itonic philosophy. 
 
 y. Juslinian's Ugislalton falls under two 
 principal heads— his work as a rcxlifirr and 
 consolidator of jire-existing law ; and his own 
 new laws, some of which were incorporate*! in 
 the Codex Conslttulionum, while others. pti>»- 
 lished subse<iurntly, remain as dotache<l 
 statutes, and go hv the name of the Nt)Vrls 
 {\ovellae Conatiluliones). The vast change* 
 involved in tiu> establishment of Christianity 
 had rendered much of the <<\i\ l.iw. th'>UKli still 
 formally mirei^.iled, i>ractii.illv obsolete. 
 There was therefore overwhelming necessity 
 for sweeping reforms both in the substance 
 and in the outward form and expression of the 
 law. Such reforms had been attempte<l in 
 the time of Theodosius II., when the The'>- 
 dosian Codex, containing a collection of the 
 later constitutions, had been prepared and 
 published a.d. 438. This, however, dealt only 
 with the imperial constitutions, not with the 
 writings of the jurists ; and now, nearly a cen- 
 tury later, the old evils were found as serious 
 as ever, while the further changes in society 
 had made the necessity for abolishing anti- 
 quated enactments even great<-r. 
 
 Justinian set to work so iiromptlv after his 
 accession that he had probably meditated 
 already upon the measures which were called 
 for and fixed his eyes on the men to be used as 
 instruments. He began with the easier part 
 of the task, the codification of jtts novum, the 
 imperial constitutions of more recent date. A 
 commission was appointed in Feb. .'i28 to go 
 through the whole mass of constitutions and 
 select for preservation those still in force and 
 of practical importance. In Apr. 520 the 
 Codex Constitutionum was formally jiromnl- 
 gated, and cojues sent into every province of 
 the empire, with directions that it should 
 supersede all other constitutions previously 
 in force. (See Const. Summa Reipublicae 
 prefixed to the Codex.) 
 
 The next step was to deal with the jus velus, 
 the law contained in the writings of the 
 authorized jurists, which practically included 
 so much of the old leges, senatus consuUa, and 
 edicta as retained any practical importance. 
 But there were many clifTerenccs of opinion 
 among the jurists whose writings had legal 
 authority. Justinian accordingly issued a 
 series of 50 constitutions, known as the 
 Quinquaginta Decisiones, settling the dis- 
 puted points (see Const. Cordi Xobis pre- 
 fixed to the Codex). At the same time a 
 large number of other ordinances were pro- 
 mulgated, amending the laws and abolishinR 
 obsolete provisions. The ground being thus 
 cleared, he appointed a commission of 16 
 lawyers, under the presidency of Tribonian. 
 Their instructions were chiefly : to collect 
 into one body all best worth preserving in the 
 writings of the authorized jurists, making 
 extracts so as to avoid both repetition and 
 contradiction, and give one statement of the 
 law upon each of the many points where dis- 
 crepant views had formerly prevailed. He- 
 dundancies were to be cut off, errors in manu- 
 scripts or in expression set right, alteratif>ns 
 introduced where necessary, no nntinnmta 
 (contradiction) allowed to remain, nothing 
 repealed which had been already enacted in 
 
614 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 the Codex. Obsolete rules of law were to be 
 passed over. The work was to be distributed 
 into 50 books. The constitution containing 
 these directions is dated Dec. 530. The com- 
 missioners promptly set to work, reading no 
 less than 2,000 treatises for the purpose of 
 making extracts. The work, to which the 
 names of Digesta or Pandectae (UavS^KToi — 
 all receivers) are indifferentlv given by Justin- 
 ian, was completed in the autumn of 533 and 
 published with two prefatory constitutions on 
 Dec. 16. Each book is divided into titles, 
 each title into extracts. The total number 
 of titles is 432, and of extracts from 39 jurists 
 9,123. The whole book is published as an 
 imperial constitution, deriving its force from 
 the imperial sanction, which abrogated all 
 pre-existing law, except that contained in the 
 Codex and subsequently published constitu- 
 tions. No judge nor advocate might travel 
 out of the four corners of these two new 
 statutes, the Codex and the Digesta. 
 
 While the Digest was in progress, Justinian 
 directed three of the chief commissioners — 
 Tribonian, Theophilus professor of law in the 
 university of Constantinople, and Dorotheus 
 professor of law at Berytus (Beyrut in Syria, 
 the other great law-school of the empire)— to 
 prepare an elementary manual for educational 
 purposes, based on the existing treatises, and 
 especially on the deservedlv popular Institutes 
 of Gains, but brought up 'to the state of the 
 law as changed by recent emperors and by 
 Justinian himself. This treatise, dealing in 
 four books with the law of Persons, of Things, 
 and of Actions, was published shortly before 
 the Digest, not only as a text-book for teach- 
 ing, but also as a law, a constitution with full 
 imperial authority. It is the treatise now 
 known as Justinian's Institutiones. 
 
 On Nov. 16, 534, a revised Codex, including 
 constitutions published since 529, and omitting 
 laws that had been in the interval repealed or 
 become unnecessary, was issued with an in- 
 troductory constitution (now prefixed to it) 
 called Cordi nobis, abrogating the former 
 edition altogether. The Codex we now have 
 is this new one. It is divided into 12 books 
 and 765 titles, containing 4,652 constitutions, 
 the earliest dating from Hadrian, while far 
 the larger part of the constitutions in the 
 Codex were more recent, and perhaps half of 
 them the work of the Christian emperors. 
 
 Between 534 and the end of Justinian's 
 reign a large number of new laws appeared, 
 the majority during the lifetime of Tribonian 
 (d. 545). These are called Novellae Constitu- 
 Hones post Codicem (veapal Siard^eLs), or 
 shortly Novellae (vtapal). Novels. They 
 mostly have the form of edicts or general laws 
 rather than of the earlier rescripta. They do 
 not appear to have ever been gathered into 
 one officially sanctioned volume (although 
 this had originally been promised, see Const. 
 Cordi nobis), but several private collections 
 were made, from which our present text is 
 derived. (See as to the Novels Biener, Gesch. 
 der Novellen Justinians, and generally as to the 
 history and edd. of the Corpus Juris, Rudorff, 
 Romische Rechtsgeschichte, Leipz. 1857.) 
 
 The Corpus Juris Civilis, consisting of the 
 four parts already mentioned— the Codex, the 
 Digesta, the Institutiones, and the Novellae — 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 became under Justinian the sole law of the 
 Roman empire, was accepted in the early 
 Middle Ages as the law of Germany, S. France, 
 and Italy, and has exerted a great influence 
 on the jurisprudence even of countries which, 
 like England, repudiate (except in special 
 departments) its authority. As we now 
 understand by codification the reduction of 
 the whole law into one scientific system of 
 rules, new in form and expression though 
 mostly old in substance, the work of Justinian 
 would be better described as a Consolidation 
 than a Codification. On the whole, it may be 
 said that he exercised a wise discretion in 
 attempting no more, and many as are the 
 faults in the arrangement of his Codex and 
 Digest and in the occasional disproportion of 
 treatment, the work was done decidedly better 
 than other literary and scientific productions 
 of Justinian's age would have led us to expect. 
 The Corpus Juris held its ground as the 
 supreme law book of the empire for little more 
 than three centuries. Much of the earlier 
 law had then become obsolete, and something 
 shorter, less elaborate, more adapted to the 
 needs and lower capacities of the time was re- 
 ! quired. Accordingly the emperors, Basil the 
 Macedonian, Constantine, and Leo the philo- 
 sopher, directed the preparation of a new law 
 , book, which, revised and finally issued under 
 I Leo c. 890, received the name of the Basilica, 
 ' or Imperial Code. It contains, in 60 books, 
 a complete system of law for the Eastern 
 empire, retaining a great deal of the substance 
 of the Corpus Juris, but in a wholly altered 
 form ; the extracts from the Codex of con- 
 stitutions, and those from the Pandects and 
 Novels being all thrown into one new Codex, 
 and intermingled with later matter. It is in 
 Greek ; is much less bulky than the Corpus 
 Juris, and has come down to us imperfect. 
 The best ed. is Haimbach's (Leipz. 1833- 
 1851), with supplement by Zacharia (Leipz. 
 1846). The Codex is cited in Herzog. vol. ix. 
 (1901), according to the ed. of P. Krijger 
 (Berlin, 1877) ; the Novellae according to the 
 ed. of C. E. Zacharias a Lingenthal (2 vols. 
 Leipz. 1881). 
 
 The new legislation of Justinian is contained 
 partly in the Codex and partly in the Novels. 
 The legal changes made by the constitutions 
 of the first seven years of his reign, which 
 have been incorporated in the Codex, are often 
 merely solutions of problems, or settlements 
 of disputes which had perplexed or divided 
 the earlier jurists. These were promulgated 
 in the Quinquaginta Decisiones already men- 
 tioned. A considerable number more relate 
 to administrative subjects ; while the rest are 
 miscellaneous, running over the whole field of 
 law. For his ecclesiastical constitutions see 
 articles in D. C. A., to which this subject more 
 properly belongs. A few remarks may, how- 
 ever, be profitably made here on the emperor's 
 ecclesiastical laws as contained firstly in the 
 Codex Constitutionum, where they are abbre- 
 viated ; and, secondly, in the Novels, where 
 they appear at full and often wearisome 
 length. The earlier ones are in the Codex, 
 the Novels extend from 534 to 565. 
 
 In Justinian's Codex the first 13 titles of 
 bk. i. are occupied by laws relating to Christian 
 theology and doctrine. Title I., styled " De 
 
JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 Summa Trinitate ot Fide Cafholica et lit nemo j 
 de ea publice contendere audcat," contains i 
 (besides extracts from laws of earlier emperors) 
 four laws by Justinian, beginning with the 
 fifth, some of which have been taken into 
 the Codex from the ColUctio Conslitutionutn 
 Ecclesiasticaruttt. laying down the true ortho- ' 
 dox faith as defined by the first four general ^ 
 councils, and anathematizing " Xestorius the ; 
 man-worshipper, Eutyches the iii'^ane, Apol- 
 linaris the soul destroyer," and all who agree 
 with these heretics. One of these constitu- 
 tions is an edict addressed by Justinian to 
 pope John (as well as to Epiphanius, patriarch 
 of Constantinople), with the reply of the pope 
 confirming the edict as a declaration of the 
 faith. Title II., " De Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis 
 et de rebus et privilegiis earum," contains 
 eight laws by Justinian dealing chiefly with 
 legacies to churches or other charitable uses, 
 and with the management of church property. 
 Title III. is, " De Episcopis et clericis et 
 orphanotrophiis et xenodochiis et l>repho- 
 trophiis et ptochotrophiis et asceteriis et 
 monachis et privilegiis eorum et castrensi 
 peculio et de redimendis captivis et de nuptiis 
 clericorum vetitis seu permissis." Sixteen 
 laws in it (less than one-third in number, but 
 more than half in bulk) are by Justinian, and 
 treat of a great many topics, including the 
 election and qualifications of bishops and 
 priests, the choice of heads {qyovufvoi, at) of 
 monasteries and nunneries, the observance of 
 a pure and strict life in monasteries, the man- 
 agement of church property by the bishop and 
 steward, with various provisions relating to 
 charitable foundations, to the residence of the 
 clergy at their churches, the regular mainten- 
 ance of divine service there, and to wills of 
 property for church purposes. Title IV'., 
 " De Episcopali Audientia et do divorsis 
 capitulis quae ad jus curamque et reverentiam 
 pontificalem pertinent," is almost equally 
 miscellaneous in its contents. Fourteen Cfin- 
 stitutions in it are by Justinian. The fifth, 
 " De Haereticis et Manichaeis et Samaritis," 
 contains a selection of persecuting or disabling 
 laws from the time of Constantine down to and 
 including Justinian's own. The penalties 
 threatened, and the general severity of tone, 
 steadily increase as time goes on, and the 
 number of different kinds of heretics included 
 in the denunciations is enlarged. In one 
 case (c. 2i) a distinction is drawn by the 
 emperor between various degrees of heresy 
 and infidelity. " Manichaeis Borboritis et 
 paganis, necnon Samaritis et Montanistis et 
 Ascodrogitis et Ophitis omne testimonium 
 sicut et alias Icgitimas conversationes sanci- 
 mus esse interdictum. Aliis vero haereticis 
 tantum modo judicialia testimonia contra 
 orthodoxos, secimdum quod constitutum est, 
 volumus esse inhibita." Title VI., " Ne 
 sanctum baptisma iteretur " ; VII., " De 
 Apostatis " ; VIII., " Nemini licerc signum 
 Salvatoris, Christi humi vel in silicc vel in 
 marmore aut insculpcrc aut pingere " ; IX., 
 " De Judaeis et coelicolis " ; and X., " Ne 
 Christianum mancipium haereticus vel pagan- 
 us vel Judaeus habeat vel pnssideat vel cir- 
 cumcidat," are comparatively short and 
 contain only laws of earlier emperors. In XI., 
 " De Paganis Sacrificiis et Templis," is an 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 61S 
 
 intorcsting rolli(ti"ii <>f various rnartmrnts 
 against paganism from the f.iinoiis rdirt <>( 
 Constantius (a.p. ^vO onwards, rxm liidinR 
 with a general command to all heathrns t<> be 
 baptized forthwith, <>n P'^i" "f losing all thrir 
 property and all civic rights ; while dr.ith is 
 the pcn.ilty for any one who, having l)rrn 
 baptized, relapses into heathenism. All 
 sacrifices, or other acts of pagan worship, are 
 strictly forbidden and seveicly punishable ; 
 all gifts of property to any heathen temple or 
 purpose are confiscated, the temples bring 
 all destroyed or appropriated to other uses, 
 and the teaching of paganism, and indeed any 
 teaching bv anv pagan, is absolutelv pro- 
 hibited. Titles XII. and XI 11., " De his qui 
 ad ecclesias confugiunt vel ibi exrlamant," 
 and " De his qui in ecclesiis manumittuntur," 
 are less important. They illustrate the growth 
 of the right of sanctuary in churches, and the 
 practice of manimiission there. With title 
 XIV., " De I.egibus et Constitutionibus Prin- 
 ri]iuin et edictis," ordinary civil legislation 
 begins. A good many references to eccle- 
 siastical matters, and especially to the juris- 
 diction of the bishops, are scattered through 
 other parts of the Codex. It is clear fron> 
 this summary that neither Justinian nor his 
 predecessors intended to frame a complete 
 body of laws or rules for the government of 
 the church, its hierarchical constitution and 
 administration, much less for its internal 
 discipline or its ritual. These things had 
 been left to be settled by custom, by the 
 authoritv of patriarchs, metropolitans, and 
 bishops, bv the cinons of councils as occasion 
 arose. Not that the civil monarch supposed 
 such to lie bevond his scope, for in Constan- 
 tinopile the emperors, and Justinian most of 
 all, regarded themselves as clothed with a 
 supreme executive authority over the religious 
 no less than the secular society. The dis- 
 tinction afterwards asserted in the West 
 between the temporal and spiritual powers 
 had not then been imagined. No Eastern 
 ecclesiastic denied the emperor's right to 
 smnmon general councils, direct them, and 
 confirm their decrees. But the emperors had 
 been content to leave to churchmen the settling 
 of what were regarded as more or less technual 
 and professional matters, which thev wore 
 fittest to settle. The narrow and bigoted 
 spirit, which runs through the perse( uting 
 laws included in the Codex, is fully as con- 
 spicuous in Justinian's own as in those of any 
 of his predecessors. Moreover, by re-enactrng 
 them he made himself responsible for all that 
 thev contained. In that age of the world it 
 was believed possible to stamp out heresy by 
 ■ a sufficiently vigorous •■xercise of the arm of 
 flesh. Paganism was in fact thus stamped 
 ' out, though in one or two mountainous dis- 
 I tricts of Greece and perhaps of Asia Minor it 
 lingered secretly for 2 or ^ centuries more. 
 I The topics of the Novels, or constitutions 
 issued by Justinian from S^;s till his death in 
 
 565, are very vario 
 
 Of the IST to which 
 
 the 168 appearing in the largest collection may 
 be reduced, 3^ forming the largest group, 
 relate to ecclesi-^stical and religious matters. 
 Next in number come those dealing with 
 civil and military administration. Marriage 
 and the legal relations arising therefrom are 
 
616 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 dealt with in various Novels. Justinian was 
 fond of tinkering at this subject, and not 
 always successfully. The most remarkable 
 provisions are in Novels 117 (§§ 10 and 12) 
 and 134 (§ 11), in which he greatly limits the 
 freedom of divorce previously allowed, almost 
 indeed abolishing it. But this severity was 
 found unmaintainable : such complaints arose 
 that in 566, ten years after the 134th Novel 
 appeared, Justin 11., nephew and successor of 
 Justinian, repealed (Nov. cxl.) the penalties 
 provided by it and by the 117th, leaving the 
 law as it had stood under earlier sovereigns. 
 The Novels have a great many provisions 
 regarding dowries, simplifying a rather com- 
 plicated branch of the law and securing the 
 interests of the wife. Several constitutions, 
 prompted bv a desire for moral reforma- 
 tion, deal with criminal law, several relate to 
 guardianship, the position of freedmen, and 
 other parts of the law of persons, and nine 
 deal with the law of obligations ; none of them 
 of any great importance. Among the eccle- 
 siastical Novels, several groups may be dis- 
 tinguished. One group contains those which 
 deal with the temporal rights and relations 
 of the church and her ministers as holders of 
 property. Eight constitutions may be re- 
 ferred to it, most of which are occupied with 
 the length of time needed for a good title to 
 lands originally belonging to the church to 
 be acquired by adverse enjoyment ; and with 
 the conditions under which ecclesiastical 
 lands might be alienated for a term or in 
 perpetuity. Both topics gave Justinian much 
 trouble and he was sometimes obliged to 
 modify his enactments. A second group com- 
 prises constitutions merely local in application, 
 referring to a particular province (e.g. Nov. 37 
 to Africa), church {e.g. Nov. 3 to the Great 
 Church of Constantinople, Nov. 40 to the 
 Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem), or 
 see {e.g. Nov. 11 to the privileges of the 
 archiepiscopal chair of Justiniana Prima in 
 Illyricum). To a third and more important 
 group may be referred the 13 constitutions 
 dealing with ecclesiastical organization and 
 discipline, the mode of choosing bishops and 
 other clerics, their qualifications, the juris- 
 diction of bishops, the restrictions on the 
 jurisdiction of civil courts in causes where 
 clerics are concerned (a matter of great interest 
 in view of the questi'ins which were to occupy 
 medieval Europe), the rights, immunities, 
 and position generally of the clergy {e.g. the 
 exemption of a bishop from patna potestas, 
 Nov. 81, the devolution of the property of a 
 cleric dying intestate without legal heirs^ Nov. 
 131, § 13), the regulations under which a 
 church or oratory might be built, endowed, 
 and consecrated, the internal discipline of 
 monasteries and regulation of monastic life. 
 A fourth and last group includes four ordin- 
 ances levelled at heretics (a good many pro- 
 visions affecting whom incidentallv occur in 
 other Novels, especiallv in those oif the third 
 group). One of these four, called Edictura de 
 Fide, is a short appeal to heretics to return 
 to the safe teaching and anathematizings of 
 the Catholic church (Nov. 132) ; another is 
 directed against Jews and Samaritans, refusing 
 them immunities from public burdens such as 
 their exclusion from public offices and honours 
 
 JUSTINIANUS I. 
 
 might otherwise have appeared to imply (Nov. 
 45) ; a third deprives heretic women of the 
 privileges granted by Justinian's laws to 
 women in respect of their dowry ; and the 
 fourth is a sentence of deposition and anathe- 
 rna against Anthimus patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, Severus patriarch of Antioch, Peter 
 of Apamea, Zoaras, and others charged with 
 Monophysitism, issued in confirmation of the 
 sentence passed by the synod at Constanti- 
 nople under the patriarch Mennas in 536. 
 The most generally remarkable characteristics 
 of these ecclesiastical statutes, apart from their 
 spirit of bitter intolerance, are the strong dis- 
 position to favour the church, the clerical 
 order, and the monastic life ; and the assump- 
 tion throughout of a complete right of control 
 by the imperial legislator over all sorts of 
 ecclesiastical affairs and questions. Although 
 there are some matters, such as ritual, penance, 
 etc., touched not at all or very slightly, still 
 the impression conveyed here, as in the Codex, 
 is that the civil power claimed a universal and 
 paramount right of legislating for the church ; 
 nor is there any distinction laid down or 
 recognized between matters reserved for the 
 legislative action of the church in her synods 
 and those which the emperor may deal with. 
 He always speaks with the utmost respect of 
 the sacred canons, sometimes quotes them, 
 professes to confirm them, and (Nov. 131, § i) 
 expressly declares that all the canons of the 
 four great general councils are to have the 
 force and rank of laws {raS^iv vofjiwv iwix^iv). 
 But there is no admission of the exclusive 
 right of the church or of any ecclesiastical 
 dignitary or body to legislate on any particular 
 topics ; this is indeed implicitly excluded by 
 the laws, especially those in bk. i. of the 
 Codex, which deal with the most specially 
 spiritual of spiritual questions, the cardinal 
 doctrines of the Christian faith. It is therefore 
 not surprising that the African bishops who 
 wrote against him in the matter of the Three 
 .\rticles complain of his conduct as arrogating 
 to the magistrate what belonged of right to the 
 duly constituted officers of the church. Sub- 
 sequent history shows that the Eastern em- 
 peror always maintained his authority over the 
 church ; while different political conditions 
 enabled the Western patriarch and the 
 Western church generally to throw off the 
 control of the civil power and even extend its 
 own jurisdiction over civil causes. 
 
 These ecclesiastical Novels throw much 
 light on the state of the 6th-cent. Eastern 
 church, and the evils which it was thought 
 necessary to remedy. We hear once or twice 
 of the ignorance of the clergy, persons being 
 sometimes ordained who could not read the 
 prayers used in the sacramental services of the 
 Supper and Baptism (Novs. 6, 137). Irregu- 
 larities in monastic life were frequent, as 
 appears from the penalties threatened (Novs. 
 5, 133). Bishops too often resided away from 
 their sees, so that a prohibition to the admin- 
 istrator to send money to them while absent 
 was needed (Nov. 6, § 3 ; Nov. 123, § 9). 
 That a bishop must be unmarried, and a priest 
 either unmarried or married only once and 
 to a virgin, was insisted on. The habit of 
 building churches without funds sufficient for 
 their due maintenance and service is checked 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 (Novs. 57, 67). as also that of having private 
 chapels, or celebrating the sacred mysteries 
 in houses (Xovs. 58, 131). The often neg- 
 lected canonical direction to hold provincial 
 synods twice, or at least once, a year is re- 
 newed (Nov. 138). The substance of the 
 enactments contained in these Novels and in 
 the Codex, upon such matters as the election 
 of bishops, celibacy of clergy, permanency of 
 monastic vows, etc., will be found under the 
 appropriate heads in D. C. A. The regula- 
 tions regarding a monastic life have a special 
 interest as very shortly anterior to the creation 
 of the rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, who 
 was a contemporarv of Justinian. [J.b.] 
 
 Justinus (2) Martyr, St., son of Priscus, 
 
 grandson of Bacchius ; born at Flavia Nea- 
 polis, hard by the ruins of ancient Sychem 
 (now Nablous), in Palestine [Apol. i. i). He 
 calls himself a Samaritan (Dial. c. 120, § 349 
 c), so that his family had probably settled 
 there definitely ; but he is obviously not a 
 Samaritan by blood or religion ; nothing in 
 his writing would point to such an origin. 
 He has not heard, even, of Moses or of the 
 prophets until well on in life ; he classes him- 
 self among those Gentiles to whom the Gospel 
 was opened so largely when the main mass 
 (Apol. 1. 53, § 88 b) of the house of Jacob, in 
 which he includes b}- name the Samaritans as 
 well as the Jews, rejected it. He speaks of 
 being brought up in heathen customs, being 
 uncircumcised (Dial. c. 29, § 246 c), and 
 receiving a thoroughly Greek education (Dial. 
 c. 2, § 219). The name of his grandfather is 
 Greek ; of his father and himself Latin. 
 What we know of him is gathered almost 
 entirely from his own writings, and chiefly 
 from his famous description of the studies 
 through which he passed to his conversion, 
 given in his Dialogue with the New Tryphon. 
 The opening of the Dialogue discovers Justin 
 walking in the colonnades of a city, which 
 Eusebius identifies with Ephesus (//. £. iv. 
 18), shortly after the wars of the Romans 
 against Bar-Cocheba in 132-136 (Dial. c. i, 
 §217). To the Jew, who greets him as a 
 philosopher, he recounts his philosophic 
 experiences, though we gain but little clue as 
 to where or at what time these experiences 
 occurred. He speaks of his first longing to 
 share in that wisdom " which is verily the 
 highest possession, the most valued by God, 
 to Whom it alone leads and unites us " ; when 
 with this hope he went successively to a Stoic 
 teacher, a Peripatetic, and a famous Pytha- 
 gorean, but in each case to no purpose. 
 Much grieved at this, he thought of trying the 
 Platonics, whose fame stood high. He went 
 chiefly to one lately settled in his town, who 
 was thought highly of by his school ; ad- 
 vanced some way with him, giving him the 
 greater part of every day ; was delighted with 
 the perception of the Incorporeal ; the con- 
 templation of the Ideas " gave wings to my 
 mind, quickly I thought to become wise, and 
 expected that, if it were not for my dull 
 sight, I should be in a moment looking 
 upon God ; for this sight is the fulfilment of 
 the Platonic philosophy." " While in this 
 frame of mind I one day had a wish for quiet 
 meditation, away from the beaten track of 
 men, and so went to a bit of ground not far 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR r.l7 
 
 I from the sea ; and there, just as I was nearinR 
 the place where I looked to be alone with my 
 
 I thoughts, an old man, of a pleasant countrn- 
 
 i ance, and with a gentle and dignified nii< 11. 
 came following me a little behind." The old 
 
 man asked Justin, "'For what are you conic 
 here ? ' 'I delight,' I answered, ' in these 
 
 strolls, in which I can hold converse with 
 myself, without interrujUion ; a place like 
 this is most favourable for such talking as I 
 love.' ' Ah ! you are a lover of talk, and 
 
 not of action or of reality,' he said. ' You 
 are one, I suppose, who cares more for reasons 
 than for facts, for words than for deeds.' 
 'And how, indeed,' I answered, 'can a man 
 act more efficiently than in exhibiting the 
 reason that go\'erns all, or t!ian in laying hold 
 of it, and there, borne aloft on it[ looking 
 down on others who stray helplessly below, 
 and do notiiing sane, or dear to God ? With- 
 out philosophy and right reason there is no 
 possible wisdom. Every man, therefnre, 
 ought to esteem philosophy as his noblest 
 work, and to let all else come second or third 
 to it ; for by philosophy things are made right 
 and acceptable, without it they become 
 common and vulgar.' ' Philosophy, then, 
 is the true cause of happiness, is it ? ' he asked 
 in reply. ' Yes, indeed, it is,' I said, ' it 
 and it alone.' " 
 
 A discussion follows on the possibility of 
 philosophy giving the true knowledge of God, 
 which is Happiness ; at its close Justin con- 
 fesses that his philosophy supplies no clear 
 account of the soul, of its capacity to perceive 
 the Divine, nor of the character of its life ; 
 the old man speaks with a decision that he 
 professes to owe neither to Plato nor to Pytha- 
 goras, who are the bulwarks of philosophy. 
 What teacher is there who can give certainty 
 where such as these fail? asks Justin. The 
 old man replies that there have been men, far 
 older than all these philosophers, men blessed 
 and upright and beloved of God, who spoke 
 by the spirit of God, and are called Prophets. 
 These alone have seen the truth, and spoken 
 it to men ; not as reasoners, for they go 
 higher than all argument, but as witnesses of 
 the truth, who are worthy to be believed, 
 since the events foretold have come to pass 
 and so compel us to rely on their words, as 
 do also the wonders they have worked to the 
 honour and glory of God the Father and of His 
 Christ. " Pray thou, then, that the gates of 
 the Light may be opened too for thee ; for 
 these things can only be seen and known by 
 those to whom God and His Christ have given 
 understanding." Justin saw the old man 
 no more ; but in his soul the flame was fired 
 and a passion of love aroused for these pro- 
 phets, the friends of Christ ; and as he retU cted 
 upon it he found that here indeed lay the one 
 and only sure and worthy philosophy. 
 
 This is all we know of his conversion. The 
 scene is, perhaps, idealized ; it has a sa\<)ur 
 of Plato; but the imagination of Ju>-tin was 
 hardly equal to producing, unaided, such vi\ id 
 detail of scenery and character. The de- 
 scription would imply that he was somewhat 
 advanced in study, but not past the enthu- 
 siasms of earlier life. The event, apparently, 
 occurred in Flavia Neapolis, i.e. "our town," 
 in which the Platonist teacher had settled; 
 
618 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 but " our town " may mean that in which he 
 and Tryphon were conversing, i.e., according 
 to Eusebius, Ephesus. It must have been 
 before the Bar-Cocheba wars, if it is from them 
 that Tryphon was flying when Justin met him. 
 The conversion takes the form of a passage 
 from the imperfect to the perfect philosophy ; 
 throughout his life it retains that impress. 
 He was not rescued from intellectual despair, 
 but was in the highest condition of confidence 
 when the old man met him. The aim with 
 which he started on his studies was achieved 
 when he became a Christian. Hence he is not 
 thrown into an attitude of antagonism to that 
 which he leaves ; his new faith does not break 
 with the old so much as fulfil it. He still, 
 therefore, calls himself the philosopher, still 
 invites men to enter his school, still wears the 
 philosopher's cloak {Dial. i. § 2:7 ; Eus. H. E. 
 iv. II ; cf. the Acts of Justin). From the 
 first, philosophy had been pursued with the 
 religious aim of attaining the highest spiritual 
 happiness by communing with God ; the 
 certified knowledge of God, therefore, pro- 
 fessed by the prophets, and made manifest in 
 Christ, comes to him as the crown of his 
 existing aspiration. 
 
 One other motive he records to have affected 
 his conversion, i.e. his wondering admiration 
 at the steadfastness of Christians under perse- 
 cution. " When I was still attached to the 
 doctrine of Plato, and used to hear the 
 accusations hurled against Christians, and yet 
 saw them perfectly fearless in the face of 
 death and of all that is terrible, I understood 
 that it was impossible they should be living 
 all the time a life of wickedness and lust " 
 (Apol. ii. 12, § 50 a). This appeal, which the 
 moral steadfastness of the Christians had made 
 to him, he continually brings to bear upon 
 others (i. 8, § 57 ; i. ii', § 58 e, etc.). Per- 
 
 haps, too, the lack of moral reality and energy 
 in the doctrines of philosophy was not unfelt 
 by Justin, for his words seem sometimes to 
 recall the old man's taunt, "You are a man 
 of words, and not of deeds " (cf. i. 14, § 61 e, 
 " For Christ was no Sophist, but His word 
 was the power of God "). 
 
 We have no details of his life after baptism. 
 He seems to have come to Rome, and, perhaps, 
 to have stayed there some time, according to 
 Eusebius (H. E. iv. 11). His peculiar office 
 was to bring the Christian apologetic into the 
 publicity of active controversy in the schools. 
 The collision with Tryphon in the Colonnades 
 is probably but a specimen of the intellectual 
 intercourse which Justin challenged by wear- 
 ing the philosopher's cloak. The introduction 
 to the Dialogue appears to record a familiar 
 habit. The Second Apology mentions a dis- 
 pute with Crescens the Cynic (3, § 43, b, c). 
 The memory of Justin's characteristic attitude 
 is recorded by Eusebius : " It was then that 
 St. Justin flourished, who, under the dress of 
 a philosopher, preached the word of God, and 
 defended the truth of our faith by his writings 
 as well as by his words " ; and the Acts of his 
 martyrdom speak of Justin as sitting in the 
 house of Martinus, a recognized place of meet- 
 ing for Christians, and there conversing with 
 any who visited him, imparting to them the 
 true doctrine. The persons condemned with 
 him are companions whom be has gathered 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 about him and converted. " I took delight," 
 says one of them, Evelpistus, " in listening to 
 Justin's discourse." 
 
 When persecution fell sharply upon the 
 church, he was in the van of those who con- 
 sidered it their first duty to make public to 
 their judges the doctrine and life so foully 
 accused (Apol. i. 3, § 54). So, in the Dia- 
 logue with Tryphon, he speaks of the guilt he 
 would incur before the judgment seat of 
 Christ if he did not freely and ungrudgingly 
 open to them his knowledge of the meaning 
 of Scripture (Dial. c. 58, § 280 b). 
 
 This freedom of apologetic crowned itself 
 towards the close of Justin's life in the three 
 works which alone can be accepted as un- 
 doubtedly authentic : the two Apologies and 
 the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. This 
 same freedom brought him to his death. 
 
 The secret cause of his seizure is supposed 
 by Eusebius to have been the enmity of an 
 opponent whom he had convicted of ignorance, 
 Crescens the Cynic. " Crescens," Tatian 
 writes, " who made himself a nest in Rome, 
 while professing to despise death, proved his 
 fear of it by scheming to bring Justin and 
 myself to death as to an evil thing " (Or. c. 32 ; 
 cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 16). For the reality of his 
 violent death for Christ we have the indubit- 
 able testimony of his historic title, Justin 
 Martyr. For the actual account of it we are 
 dependent on the Acts of his martyrdom, 
 which embody, probably without serious 
 change, the simple and' forcible tradition 
 which the 3rd cent, retained of the death- 
 scene. They have the appearance of contain- 
 ing genuine matter. According to these, he 
 and his companions are brought before 
 Rusticus, the prefect of the city, and are 
 simply commanded to sacrifice to the gods, 
 without any mention of Crescens, or of 
 Justin's Apologies to the emperors. Justin, 
 on examination, professes to have found the 
 final truth in Christianity, after exploring all 
 other systems ; this truth, he declares, con- 
 sists in adoring the one God, Who has made 
 all things, visible and invisible, and Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God, Who was foretold by 
 the prophets to be coming into the world to 
 preach salvation and teach good doctrine. 
 He declares that Christians meet wherever 
 they choose or can, seeing that their God is 
 not limited to this or that place, but fills 
 heaven and earth ; but that he himself, on 
 this, his second visit to Rome, held meetings 
 for his followers in the house of one Martinus 
 only, near the baths of Timotinus. After a 
 brave refusal to sacrifice, and an assurance of 
 salvation in Christ, he and those with him 
 were condemned to be beaten with rods and 
 I beheaded. They died praising God and con- 
 fessing their Saviour. The faithful secretly 
 carried their bodies to a fit burial. 
 
 Such are the fragments left to us of his life ; 
 between what dates do they fall ? The 
 title of the First Apology is decisive ; it is 
 addressed to the " Emperor Titus Aelius 
 Antoninus Pius, Augustus, Caesar ; to 
 Verissimus his son, philosopher, and to Lucius, 
 the natural son of a philosophic Caesar, the 
 adopted son of a pious Caesar." Here we 
 have Antoninus Pius as sole emperor, with his 
 two imperial companions, adopted by him as 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 sons at the request of Hatlrian, t.e. Marcus 
 Aurelius and Lucius Verus (cf. Neander, Ch. 
 Hist, [trans.] vol. ii. 446, 1851). With this 
 the Eusebian tradition agrees; according t<> it. 
 the first Apology was addressed to Antoninus ; 
 in the Chrontcon it is assigned to c. 141, the 
 fourth of that reign. Antoninus reigned from 
 137 to 161 ; will 141 suit Justin's language ? 
 
 According to some, this is not early enough, 
 for the title omits to salute Aurelius as Caesar, 
 which he became publicly in 140. Against 
 this lie several weighty objections : (i) Lucius 
 Verus is called, possibly philosopher, certainly 
 " €pa<iTr)$ TraiHeiai," lover of culture ; b»it by 
 140 he is only ten years old. (2) Marcion is 
 in the Apology the greatest type of heresy, 
 " with a following spread over every race of 
 men." Justin's language seems to belong to 
 a time when Marcion's pre-eminence had over- 
 shadowed the earlier heretics (cf. Lipsius, Die 
 Quellen der Ketzergeschichte. 1873, pp. 21, 22), 
 and this could hardly be till well after 140. 
 It was under Antoninus (according to general 
 authority, cf. Tertullian. Clement, etc.) that 
 Marcion succeeded in putting himself in the 
 front, and arrived at Rome. Yet, already 
 before the Apology, Justin has written a book 
 against him, with other heretics (Apol. i. 26, 
 § 70 c). It is difficult to attribute to Marcion 
 this immense position in the very first years 
 of Antoninus (cf. contra, Semisch, Justin, p. 73, 
 1840). (3) Justin professes to be writing 150 
 years after our Lord's birth, a round number, it 
 IS true, but in a context where the object is to 
 diminish the interval. Without very positive 
 evidence against it, the year 148 — i.e. Justin's 
 A.D. 130 — should be taken as the approximate 
 date. These reasons would place the first A po- 
 logy near the end of the first half of the reign 
 of Antoninus. This would not conflict with 
 two other references to times — to the deifica- 
 tion of Antoninus, i.e. 131 {Apol. i. 29, § 72), 
 and to the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132, 136 (31, 
 § 72). Both have the same formula : t<^ vvv 
 yeyfVT]fxiviL) TroXf^w and 'Avrivdov tov vvv 
 yeytvriix^vov. The expression is vague, but 
 requires the two events to be well within the 
 memories of Justin's readers. 
 
 The address of the second Apology has at 
 last, after many confusions, been determined 
 to refer to Antoninus again, and Marcus 
 Aurelius. It is indirect, and found in 2, § 42 c, 
 where a single emperor is definitely meant, 
 and in the last chapter, where the rulers are 
 spoken of in the plural ; in 2, § 43 b there are 
 two people in office, Pius the ai'TOKpdrwp, antl 
 a philosopher, who is saluted as son of Caesar ; 
 and continued reference is made to the 
 mingled piety and philosophy of these per- 
 sonages. These two, with the well-known 
 titles, can hardly be other than Antoninus and 
 Marcus Aurelius. This is made almost a 
 certainty when we consider that the second 
 Apology seems to have followed close upon 
 the first and bears all the mark of a sequel or 
 appendix (cf. Volkmar, in Theolog. Jahrh. 1H33, 
 N. 14; cf. Hort, in Journ. of Classic and Sacred 
 Philol. vol. iii. p. 155 (1857), of which much 
 use is made in the art.). This is clear, among 
 other things, from the references in the second 
 to the first Apology {Apol. ii. 4. § 43 : 6, § 45 ; 
 8, § 46) as to a writing close at hand and fresh- 
 ly remembered. The date of the Apologies 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 rtin 
 
 : may be thrown bark as f.ir in the r< ign of 
 Antoninus as is consistent with the prominrnce 
 attributed to Marcion. 
 
 Of the date of Justin's birth wc have no- 
 [ thing certain. Lpiphanius states th.it he died 
 I when 30 years old. The evidrnrr is not forth- 
 I coming. For the date of his conversion wc 
 I have scarcely any evidence except th.it it was 
 before the wars of Bar-Civh<ba, 1 32- j ^(t I f)tat. 
 I i. I, § 217). Kusebius supposes he w.is (mron- 
 verted at the date of Antinous. a.d. m (//. F. 
 iv. S), but it is doubtful if Lusebius h.id anv 
 ground for this except Apol.i. 20, § 72, which 
 certainly rlops not r<M]iiirf it. 
 
 The genuineness of the three writings al- 
 readv mentioned is universally accepted. The 
 first .-ipology definifelv pronotinces itself to be 
 Justin's ; the second obviouslv belongs to the 
 first ; the Dialogue claims to be written by a 
 Samaritan, who had addressed the emperor — 
 its personal history of the writer exactly 
 tallies with Justin's attitude towards philo- 
 sophy in the Apologies. The peculiar |)hrase 
 aironvrjfioyet'naTa tQv ' Aw oar dXuv occurs in 
 these three works, and in them alone. The 
 whole tone of the works agrees with the 
 period assigned. The external evidence 
 gathered bv Eusebius is strong and unbroken 
 (cf. Eus. H. !■:. iv. 18). 
 
 But it is otherwise with an Oraiin ad 
 Graecos ; a X(J>05 TrapaivtriKb^ wpb^ 'Y.Wriva^, 
 j or Cohortatio ad Graecos ; a fragment, wtpl 
 \'kva<jTa(Tfw^ \ and a book, rtpi. Mocapx'at. 
 { which must be classed as very doubtful ; 
 ! others are decidedly not genuine. 
 I Several works of Justin have been entirely 
 I lost : (i) The book Against all Heresies, to 
 which he refers in Apol. i. 26, § 70- (2) 
 Against Marcion. referred to by Irenaeus (iv. 
 contra Hiier. c. 14; cf. v. 26), supposed bv some 
 to be part of (i). (3) A book called 4'tt\r7)j, 
 
 and (4) Trepi <pvxT)f, in which he contrasts his 
 own doctrine with that of the Greek philo- 
 sophers (Eus. H. /•'. iv. 18). 
 
 " Many other works of his," says Eusebius, 
 " are in the hands of the brethren." Evi- 
 j dently he must have written a great deal, and 
 I the three undoubted works still extant per- 
 ' haps account for this voluminous character of 
 I his writings. For these three pieces are 
 written loosely and unsystematically, and 
 read like the outpouring of a mind that had 
 ' ranged widely in heathen literature and philo- 
 sophy, and had massed a large store of general 
 knowledge, which could be easily and effec- 
 1 tively brought to bear upon ciirrent topics, 
 without any scrupulous regard to the artistic 
 or symmetrical appearance of the result. 
 
 Justin's writing, especially in the first 
 Apology, is full of direct and striking force; 
 it moves easily and pleasingly ; his thinking 
 is fresh, healthy, vigorous, and to the point ; 
 his wide knowledge is used with practical 
 skill ; his whole tone and character are im- 
 menselv attractive by their genuineness, 
 simplicity, generous high-niindcdness, and 
 frank and confident energy. 
 
 In the first Apology, composed with much 
 ; more care and completeness than the second. 
 ' he defines and justifies his position of apologist 
 before the rulers, with supreme dignity and 
 confidence. Me calls upon them to let it be 
 seen whether they are the loyal guardians of 
 
620 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 right and lovers of culture, which they are 
 reported to be. He demands for himself and 
 his fellows the justice of an exact and critical 
 examination, without regard to prejudice, 
 superstition, irrational panic, or any long- 
 established evil fame. It is, as it were, for 
 the sake of the governors and their justice 
 that he seems to be asking a trial, for, "as 
 for us Christians," he proudly declares, "we 
 do not consider that we can suffer any ill from 
 any one, unless we are convicted of wicked- 
 ness or evil-doing ; you can kill us indeed, but 
 damage us you cannot" (Apol. i. 2, 54 a) ; 
 " Princes who prefer prejudice to truth can 
 do no more harm than robbers in a desert " 
 (Apol. i. 12, § 59 e). So he opens his Apology, 
 which can be roughly divided into three divi- 
 sions, cc. 3-23, in which he refutes, generally, 
 the false charges made against Christianity ; 
 cc. 23-61 exhibiting the truth of the Christian 
 system and how it has got misunderstood ; 
 cc. 61-68 revealing the character of Christian 
 worship and customs. 
 
 The charges against the Christians, en- 
 countered in pt. i., are: (i) The very fact 
 of Christianity is itself treated as a punishable 
 crime (c. iv.). (2) Atheism (c. vi.). How 
 can they with any justice be called atheists, 
 who reverence and worship the Father of all 
 Righteousness, the Son Who came from the 
 Father and taught us this, the whole Host of 
 Angels and the Prophetical Spirit? "These 
 are they whom we honour in reason and truth, 
 offering our knowledge of them to all who will 
 learn of us." (3) That some Christians have 
 been proved malefactors. Yes, very likely, 
 for we all are called Christians however 
 much we vary. Therefore let every one be 
 tried on his merits. If convicted of evil, let 
 him pay the penalty, only as an evil-doer, 
 not as a Christian. If innocent of crime, let 
 him be acquitted though a Christian. (4) 
 Christians are charged with aiming at a king- 
 dom. But this can hardly be a kingdom on 
 earth ; for, then, we should be ruining all 
 our hopes of it by our willingness to die for 
 Christ. Yet we never attempt to conceal our 
 faith ; and here Justin makes a direct appeal. 
 "Surely," he cries, "we are the best friends 
 that a ruler could desire, we who believe in a 
 God Whose eye no crime can escape, no false- 
 hood deceive ; we who look for an eternal 
 judgment, not only on our deeds, but even on 
 our thoughts ! So our Master, Jesus Christ, 
 the Son of God, has taught us." For the 
 reality and true character of this faith in God 
 through Christ, he offers the proof of the 
 Christian's moral conversion. "We who 
 once delighted in adultery, now are become 
 chaste ; once given to magic, now are conse- 
 crated to the one good God ; once loving 
 wealth above all things, now hold all our goods 
 in common, and share them with the poor ; 
 once full of hatred and slaughter, now live 
 together in peace, and pray for our enemies, 
 and strive to convert our persecutors." 
 All this is emphasised by our belief in the 
 resurrection of the body, in which we shall 
 hereafter suffer pain for all our sins done here 
 (c. 18). Is this incredible ? Yet it is be- 
 lieved not only by us, but by all who turn to 
 magic rites, to spiritualists, to witches, to 
 frenzied seers, to oracles at Dodona or Delphi ; 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 by Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and 
 Socrates, by Homer and Virgil. 
 
 Here begins a defence of Christian doctrine, 
 on the ground of its likeness to doctrines 
 already held in heathenism (c. 21). We 
 alone are hated, even though we hold the 
 same as the Greeks ; we alone are killed for 
 our faith, even though we do nothing bad. 
 
 (C. 30.) He turns to a new objection. 
 "How do you know the genuineness of your 
 Christ, or that He was not some clever magic- 
 worker ? " Justin's answer is, by the proof 
 of prophecy. The books of the Jews, trans- 
 lated in the LXX, in spite of the bitter hatred 
 of the Jews against us, speak, years before 
 the event, of us and of our Christ. 
 
 (C. 46.) A new objection : were all men 
 irresponsible before 150 years ago, when 
 Christ was born under Quirinus ? No ; 
 there were Christians before Christ, men who 
 lived in the power of the Word of God, So- 
 crates and Heraclitus, Abraham and Elias. 
 
 (C. 56.) The demons have deceived men 
 before Christ by the tales of Polytheism ; and, 
 after Christ, by the impieties of Simon, 
 Menander, and Marcion : but have never been 
 able to make men disbelieve in the end of the 
 world and the judgment to come, nor to con- 
 ceal the advent of Christ. 
 
 (Cc. 61-67.) He has spoken of Faith in 
 Christ and Regeneration of Life ; he will now 
 tell what this exactly means ; and so proceeds 
 to describe the baptism by which the regen- 
 eration is effected ; the reasons for this rite ; 
 its accomplishment in the Name of the Name- 
 less God called the Father, in the Name of the 
 Son Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, 
 and in the Name of the Holy Spirit Who spake 
 by the Prophets. He describes (c. 65) the 
 Eucharistic Feast to which the baptized are 
 admitted, and gives a brief account of the 
 character to be attributed to the bread and 
 wine then consecrated and of the authority 
 on which this rests. 
 
 He speaks once more of the feast, as it 
 recurs on the Sundays, when they all assemble 
 together, and (c. 68) closes rather abruptly, 
 with the personal directness which throughout 
 gives dignity to the Apology. " If my words 
 seem to you agreeable to reason and truth, 
 then give them their due value ; if they strike 
 you as trifling, then treat them lightly as 
 trifles ; but, at least, do not decree death 
 against those who do nothing wrong, as if 
 they were enemies of the state. For, if you 
 continue in iniquity, we foretell that you will 
 not be able to escape the future judgment of 
 God ; we shall be content to cry, God's will 
 be done ! " 
 
 He adds an epistle of Hadrian to Minucius 
 Fundanus, by which he could claim a fair 
 trial ; but he would rather ask that as a 
 matter of plain justice than by right of law 
 or precedent. This letter of Hadrian's, we 
 are told by Eusebius, was preserved by Justin 
 in its Latin form (H. E. iv. 8), and thrown by 
 him into Greek. Its style suits the age of 
 Hadrian (Otto, ed. of Justin, vol. i. note on 
 p. 190) ; it is considered genuine by Aube, 
 Ueberweg, doubted bv Keim (Theol. Jahrb. 
 t. XV. Tiib. 1856, p. 387). It gives so little 
 to the Christians, that it seems hardly likely 
 to be fictitious. 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 The second Apology, po>-iMy an appeiulix 
 to the tirst (Otto, ed. p. Ixxxi. ; Nolkiuar, 
 Baur tiiui Zdl. I'hfolog. Jahrb. t. xiv. Tiih. 
 1855 ; Keim, Protest. K.-Z. Ber. 1873. n. 2«. 
 col. 610). anyhow written at no long interval 
 after the tirst, begins abruptly with an appeal 
 directly to tlie Romans, but in reality ad- 
 dressed to the imperial rulers (cf. cc. 3, i-j, 13), 
 together with the whole people. These rulers, 
 under whom the affairs which led to the 
 Apology occurred, are, it has been argued, the 
 emperor Pius and the philosopher Marcus 
 .■\.urelius, and, according to a suggested read- 
 ing, Lucius V'erus son of Caesar. The opening 
 betrays by its suddenness, and emphasizes by 
 dwelling on the speed with which the Apoloi^y 
 had been produced, the excitement under 
 which it was composed. "Things had hap- 
 pened within the last two days in Rome," such 
 as the irrational actions of the magistrates, 
 which had driven Justin to write an Apology 
 for his own people, who are, though the 
 Romans know it not and will not have it, 
 their brothers, of like feelings with them- 
 selves. 
 
 (C. 2.) He relates the case which had so 
 fired him with indignation ; it is very typical 
 of what Christians were subject to. The dis- 
 solute wife of a dissolute man is converted and 
 is anxious to separate from her husband. He 
 holds out some hopes of amendment, so she 
 forces herself to remain, but he plunges into 
 worse debauchery. She sends a writ of 
 divorce and leaves him. Then this " good and 
 noble husband " bethought himself of accusing 
 her of being a Christian. While her case was 
 pending, a certain Ptolemaus, the wife's 
 master in the faith, whom Urbicus had im- 
 prisoned, is challenged with being a Christian. 
 Ptolemaus, brought up before Urbicus, is 
 asked, " Are you a Christian ? " and on con- 
 fessing it is at once condemned to death. 
 Lucius a Christian publicly challenges Urbicus 
 to justify a decision wliioh punished a man 
 simply for the name of Christian. " You, too, 
 are a Christian, I suppose ? " is the only 
 answer he gets from Urbicus ; and on con- 
 fessing it he is condemned to death, declaring 
 as he goes that he is glad to be free of rulers so 
 unjust and to depart to the Father and King 
 of Heaven. A third in the same way passes 
 to a like punishment ; " And I myself," 
 breaks in Justin, " look for the same fate, for 
 I, too, have enemies who have a grudge 
 against me, and are likely enough to take this 
 way of avenging themselves ; Crescens espe- 
 cially, the sham philosopher, whom I have 
 convicted of entire ignorance about the Chris- 
 tianity which he slandirs." 
 
 (C. 4.) It may be said in scorn, " Be off, 
 then, to your God in Heaven by killing your- 
 selves, and trouble us no longer ! " But 
 Christians believe the world to be made by 
 God to fulfil His puqiose; they are not at 
 liberty to destroy, as far as in them lies, the 
 human race, for whom the world was created. 
 Nor yet can we deny our faith ; for this would 
 be to allow its guilt and to lie, and would 
 leave you in your evil prejudices. 
 
 (C. 5.) " Why does God not help His own ? " 
 He spares to punish and destroy the evil 
 world, for the sake of thi-i holy seed, the 
 Christians, who are the real reason why <iod 
 
 JUSTINOS MARTYR r.LM 
 
 still preserves the order ..( inture, win. h tJio 
 I fallen angels h.ive so corrupted. 
 
 The effect of these Apologtfs up,.n the rulor« 
 I of Ronie IS unknown; but Justin's cxpecta- 
 tion of death was not disappMiiUwl, and 
 .Marcus Aurelius still mistrusted the m.itivct 
 which made Christi.iiis niartvrs and mw no 
 I reason to stay the outc rv of the Roman crowd 
 when it demanded Christian vi( tims. It 
 remained a legal crime to be a t hrisli.m. 
 I Indeed, acrording to Roman ideas of Kovein- 
 ment, it miild hardly ccise t-i be criminal a« 
 long as Christianity continued its private and 
 pe( uliar organization and found it impossible 
 to conform to the tests of kk.kI citizenship, 
 ' such as the oath to the emperor. The Apol„l 
 I ffi« never hint at conct-^sion on such p..iiits, 
 but persist that their present position is entire- 
 ly innocent. Their vigour must have reveale<l 
 I the irreconcilability of Christi.in life with the 
 I mass of pagan custom and temper in which 
 i the soliditv of Rome had its foundation. 
 
 The Dialogue with Trypho follows the first 
 Apology, and jirobably the second also, be- 
 tween 142 and 148 aci:ording to Hort ; in 155 
 (Volkmar) ; or in 160-164 (Keini). It was 
 written to report to a dear friend, Marcus 
 I Pompeius (cf. c. 8, § 225 d ; c. 141, ^ i;i n), 
 ja discussion which Justin had held with the 
 j Jews during the Bar-Ct)ch. ba wars. The dis- 
 1 cussion represents the Christian polemic 
 I against the Jews ; but Trypho makes his 
 I advance as a philosopher rather than as a 
 Jew, and it is Justin who turns the talk to the 
 Jewish Scriptures by expressing his surprise 
 at a Jew being still engaged in searching for 
 truth in the pagan philosophers when he pos- 
 sessed already in those Scriptures the au- 
 thorized exponent of revealed wisdom, for the 
 sake of whose secured certainty Justin himself 
 had left all other human systems. Trypho is, 
 indeed, a curious type of Judaism ; a light 
 and superficial inquirer in the courts of the 
 schools, surrounded by a band of loud and 
 lively friends, he begins with a reference to a 
 Socratic at Argos, who had taught him to 
 address courteously all who wore the philo- 
 sopher's cloak, in the hope of finding, through 
 the pleasant interchange of thoughts, some- 
 thing useful to both. He smiles gracefully as 
 he inquires \vhat opinion Justin holds about 
 j the gods, and, apparently, justifies his philo- 
 sophic studies in the face of Scripture, by 
 I claiming that the philosophers are equally 
 with Moses searchers after the Being of (hkI. 
 The noisy friends having been avoided by 
 retirement to a quiet seat, Trypho opens the 
 question with the air of a free and tolerant 
 seeker after truth ; he has read the (lospel. 
 and found in it a morality too high for real 
 practice, and is ready to acknowledge the 
 piety of the better Christians. What he 
 wonders at is that with so much giHKlncss. 
 they should nevertheless live as (ientil(*s 
 without keeping the pure laws of ti<Hl, t.g. 
 the Sabbath and eireiinir ision, by whi< h Me 
 separates the holy from sinners ; he wonders, 
 too, how those wiio place their hope in a man 
 can yet hope for a reward from (hhI He 
 would gUdIv have all this explaine<l (ef. c. 57, 
 S 280 A : c.'68, § 203 A). Trypho. then, is n.j 
 fierce Jewish opponent, prepared to atlaek, 
 but adopts the tone alinuil uf an inquirer. Il 
 
622 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 is the Jew under a new aspect that we find 
 here, the Jew of culture, of open and tolerant 
 mind, with the easy courtesy of the literary 
 world. Before such apparent openness and 
 easy-going lightness it is perhaps not without 
 artistic skill that Justin hints at the fierce 
 and implacable hatred of Jew against Chris- 
 tian which had tortured and slain Christians 
 without pity under Bar-Cocheba and made 
 Jews everywhere the most violent and re- 
 morseless of the church's slanderers and 
 persecutors (c. io8, § 335). 
 
 The Dialogue takes two days. Some fresh 
 friends of Trypho join him on the second day 
 (c. 118, §3460); he speaks sometimes of 
 them as if only two, at other times as if many. 
 One is named Mnaseas (c. 85, § 312). They 
 shout disapproval once, as if in a theatre (c. 
 122, § 351 a). The whole is spoken as they 
 sit on some stone seats in the gymnasium, 
 Justin being about to sail on a voyage. 
 
 The actual argument begins at c. 10. The 
 points especially raised by Trypho were two, 
 i.e. how the Christians could profess to serve 
 God and yet (i) break God's given law, and 
 (2) believe in a human Saviour (cf. c. 10, § 
 227 D). The purity of Christian living is 
 acknowledged ; the problem is its consistency 
 with its creed. 
 
 Justin's argument may be roughly divided 
 into three parts (Otto, Prolegomena). In cc. 
 11-47 he refutes Trvpho's conception of the 
 binding character of the Jewish law, which 
 refutation involves him also in a partial 
 answer to -the second part of the problem, 
 i.e. the nature of the Christ in Whom they 
 trust • for the passing away of the Law turns 
 on the character of the Christ of Whom it 
 prophesies. In cc. 48-108 he expounds the 
 absolute divinity of Christ, His pre-existence, 
 incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascen- 
 sion, by virtue of which the belief in Him is 
 proved consistent with behef in God alone. 
 In c. 109 he passes to the necessary outcome 
 of these two principles — the conversion of the 
 Gentiles, the new Israel, and the abandonment 
 of the old Israel, unless they accept the new 
 covenant. The whole is rested on the 
 Scriptures, on the interpretation of prophecy. 
 Justin starts with a claim to believe abso- 
 lutely in the God of Israel ; here is his common 
 ground with Trypho (c. 11)— both accept the 
 old revelation (c. 68, § 298 a ; cf. 57, § 279 b ; 
 56 § 277 d). " I should not endure your argu- 
 ment," Trypho says (c. 56. § 277 d), " unless 
 you referred all to the Scriptures ; but I see 
 you try to find all your reasons in them, and 
 announce no other God but the Supreme 
 Creator of the world." 
 
 The Dialogue, therefore, is a perfect store- 
 house of early Christian interpretation of 
 Scripture. This forms its wonderful value ; 
 it carries us back to that first effort at inter- 
 pretation which dates from St. Peter's speech 
 at the election of Matthias, and knits itself so 
 closely with the walk to Emmaus, when the 
 Scriptures were first opened and it was seen 
 from them that Christ must suffer. The O.T. 
 is still the sacred guide and continual com- 
 panion of the Christian life, the type of the 
 written revelation ; everything is there. Yet 
 by the side of it we already feel in Justin that 
 a new power has appeared, a fresh canon is 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 forming, another book is beginning to assert 
 itself. The work is full of crucial interest, 
 just because Justin appears at the moment 
 when this is gradually becoming clear. 
 
 In the two Apologies and the Dialogue 
 Justin covers a large part of the theological 
 field. His treatment is peculiarly typical of 
 the earliest form of Christian speculation out- 
 side and beyond the immediate lines laid down 
 by the apostolic writings. The apostolic 
 Fathers were rather practical than speculative. 
 The doctrinal works of people like Melito of 
 Sardis are lost. In the Apologists Chris- 
 tianity, according to its preserved records, 
 first prominently applies itself to the elucida- 
 tion of its dogmatic position, and of them 
 Justin is among the earliest and the most 
 famous. But in considering his theology we 
 must remember that we only possess his 
 exoteric utterances. He is not spontaneously 
 developing the Christian's creed, but is striv- 
 ing, under the stress of a critical emergency, 
 to exhibit it most effectively and least sus- 
 piciously to an alien and unsympathetic 
 audience, prepared not merely to discuss but 
 to judge and kill. The whole position tended 
 to quicken the natural tendency of Justin's 
 mind towards an optimistic insistence on like- 
 nesses and agreements, rather than on differ- 
 ences between himself and his opponents. 
 This is not said to discredit his utterances, 
 but simply in order to consider them, as all 
 intelligent criticism must consider them, 
 under their actual historical conditions. Jus- 
 tin is on what is yet new ground to a great 
 extent ; he is pioneering, he is venturing along 
 unmarked and unexamined roads. Christian 
 doctrine is still forming itself under his hands, 
 even on some essential and cardinal points. 
 
 Justin's Theology, then, begins in the pre- 
 sence of (i) Jewish Monotheism, and (2) of the 
 Primal and Absolute and Universal Cause of 
 all Existence, posited by the philosophic con- 
 sciousness of paganism. He has to state how 
 his conception of the Deity stands to these. 
 
 He answers, that he believes (i) in a God 
 identical with the God of the Jews : " There 
 is no other God, nor ever has been, but He 
 Who made and ordered the Universe ; that 
 very God Who brought your fathers, Trypho, 
 out of Egypt, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob" {Dial. 11, § 228 a). This God of 
 creation is the one cause of all existence, 
 therefore known as the Father : 6 Trarijp tQiv 
 6Xwv (ib. 114, § 342 a), or tQjv irdvTwv {Apol. i. 
 8, §57 a). In Apol. ii. 6, § 44 d, he sums up all 
 the names by which the absolute God may be 
 known, iraT-qp, Ge6s, KTia-rrj^, icvpios, deawdr-qs. 
 This is his cardinal and prevailing expression 
 for God the Father — that He is the Maker and 
 Ordainer and Lord of all creation. (2) But, 
 besides the Father, Justin undertakes to ex- 
 hibit the Divinity of a Second Person, the Son, 
 6 /advos \fy6iJ.€vos Kvpius vlos {Apol. ii. 6, § 44), 
 vldv avTou Tov fiiTws Oeov {ib- i. 13, § 60 c), to 
 whom is allotted the second place, in honour 
 and worship, after the arpeirTov Kal ad bvra 
 Qfbv yevvrjTopa tCcv airdvTuv. He is, primarily, 
 6 A670S, the Word of God, with God before 
 creation began, crw^v ry irarpl irpb ndvTuv rdv 
 TroirjfiaTMV {Dial. 62, § 285 d). With Him the 
 Father communicated {wpoaoiJuXd), having 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 begotten Uiin hofore all tliiii^;s (y^wyjua, vr6 
 T«v Ofov ^-ye-f^vfijro). The manner of this ' 
 begetting is spoken of as a projection (ru- 
 6vTi dir6 ToO iraTf>6i irpofiX-qOii' y^vy-ijua). Such , 
 is the A6yos, called by Solomon the Wisdom, 
 who co-existed with the Father at that ; 
 moment when, at the beginning, by Him thej 
 Father made and perfected all things (Apol.. 
 ii. 6. § 44 E ; Dial. O2, § J83 n). He it is Who 
 is 6 Hf6s, dw6 ToC> Trarpdt tiSv S\wi> ^ffi'Tje^tij, j 
 and Who is known as the Word, and the Wis- 
 dom, and the Power, and the Cilorv of Him 1 
 Who begat Him {Dial. 61. § 284 a, b). The 
 Son is the instrument of " Creation " [Si arroe I 
 irdvra f^rifff) ; hence (in addition to His ' 
 primal names, \6yoi, Tioj) called XpurSs, Kara j 
 t6 Kexfti(J'Oat to. Trdi'ra Sl' ainrdf ; but this name 
 is in itself of unknown significance, just as the 
 title " God " is no real name, but rather 
 expresses a natural opinion, inborn in man, 
 about an unutterable fact. Christ's Being, 
 therefore, as well as the Father's, is beyond all 
 human expression, and is known only econo- 
 mically ; for, if this is true of the title Xptur6t. 
 it can hardly but be true of the higher names. 
 \6yoi and f i6j. This A6705 is identical with 
 the Man Jesus, conceived through the will of 
 the Father on behalf of man. named Jesus as 
 being a Man and a Saviour. Justin holds, 
 
 then, the entire Divinity of Him Who was 
 born a Man and crucified under Pontius 
 Pilate. Nothing can be more pronounced or 
 decided than his position ; it is brought to 
 the front by the necessities of his arguments 
 both with the Jew and the Gentile. He starts 
 with this position, that he worships as God, 
 a man Christ Jesus ; it is this that he has to 
 justify to the Gentile (cf. Apol. i. 21, 22, § 67). 
 " In that we say," he says, " that the Word, 
 Which is the tirst-begotten of God, has been 
 born without human mixture, as Jesus Christ, 
 our Master, Who was crucified and died, and 
 rose again;" or, again, " Jesus Christ, Who 
 alone was begotten to be the only Son of God, 
 being the Word of God, and the first-born 
 and the Power of God (npoiTbTOKOi Kal bvvapm), 
 became .Man by the will of the Father, 
 and taught us these things." He justifies the 
 possibility of these statements to the emperors 
 by appeals to Greek mythology, i.e. he is so 
 fast bound to this belief that he has to run the 
 risk of all the discredit that will attach to it 
 in the minds of the philosophic statesmen to 
 whom he is appealing from its likeness to the 
 debasing fables which their intellectualism 
 either rationalized or discarded. That J ustin 
 is conscious of this risk of discredit is clear 1 
 from cc. 53 and 54 of the first .Apology, with 
 which we may compare the taunt of Trypho 
 (Dial. 67. § 219 B). So again, in the Dialogue, j 
 it is the Christian worship of a man that 
 puzzles Trypho ; and the first necessity for 
 J ustin is to exhibit the consistency of this with 
 the supreme monarchy of God. " First shew 
 me," asks Trypho {ib. c. 50), " how you can 
 prove there is any other God besides the 
 Creator of the universe ? " and this not in 
 any economical sense, but verily and indeed 
 (cf. ib. 55, § 274 c); and Justin accepts the 
 task, undertaking to exhibit Jesus, the Christ, 
 born of a virgin, as Qidi koI Kvpiot rCiv ivvi- 
 fuuv (ib. 36, § 254 E), to shew Him to be. at 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 A23 
 
 the same tim.-, l.,,th (»,6t ^ai Kiv^oi. .iiid also 
 dWjp i^at Aft'puwot {lb. yt, f \Si » ). The 
 rigour with which this is Posited may lie 
 tested by the cruri.il case of the appear.inre 
 to .\braham at Mamre. Here, it is allowed, 
 after a little discussion, that no aMKelic 
 manifestation satisfies the Lmgu.iKe tisrd by 
 Scripture. It is c.rt.iinlv (.od HmiMlf Who In 
 spoken of. Justin und.rt.ik.s to prove that 
 this cannot be God the Fath.r. but must be 
 other than He Who created all things— 
 "other," he means, "in nundKT. in person, 
 not in will or spirit " {tb. s<>. § 276 i>. tnpoi, 
 dptO/xi^ \^yu dX\' oi"' yyuifif)). .So. again, he 
 applies to this Divine Being the tremendous 
 words delivered to Moses from the midst of 
 the burning bush, and he will not suffer this 
 to be qualified or weakened bv anv such subtle 
 distinctions as Trvjilio attempts to draw 
 between the angel seen of .Moses and the voice 
 of God that spoke. He insists, against any 
 such subtleties, that whatever Presence of (lod 
 was actually there manifested was the Pre- 
 sence, not of the Supreme Creator. Who cannot 
 be imagined to have left His Highest Heaven, 
 but of that Being Who. being God. announces 
 Himself to Moses as the (iod Who had shewn 
 Himself to .Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To 
 Him, therefore, apply the words " I am that 
 I am." By these two cases, specimens of 
 
 a hundred others drawn from Law and Psalm 
 and Prophets, it will be seen how clearlv the 
 problem was present to Justin, and how 
 definitely he had envisaged its solution s.i far 
 as the O.T. was concerned ; in dirert collision 
 with the Montitheisin of the Jew. he tlefmds 
 himself, not by withdrawing or modifying 
 his assertions, but by discovering the evidence 
 for His dual Godhead in the very heart of the 
 ancient Revelation itself ; not in any by-ways 
 or minor incidents, but in the very core and 
 centre of those most essential manifestations 
 of God to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and 
 Joshua, on the truth of which the whole fabric 
 of Jewish faith and worshiji was reared. 
 
 Justin has next to consider in what relation 
 these two Divine Beings stand to each otiu r. 
 Given the existence of a Second Person \\ li<> 
 can so effectually identify Himself with the 
 First as to be called 6 6(65, how can we con- 
 ceive the harmony and unity of such a 
 duality ? Justin is clear that the distinction 
 between the two Beings is real ; it is a numer- 
 ical distinction. The Word is no mere 
 emanation of the Father, inseiiarable from 
 Him as the light is inseparable from the sun. 
 He is a real subsistence, burn of the Father's 
 Will {Dial. 12H, { 35«B)- The words used, 
 therefore, to express their relation .ire words 
 of companionship, of intercourse, of OKnif^, 
 KpoaofuXil (cf. tb. 62, i 2K5 c, I), where he 
 brings out the fact of this personal intercour^^ 
 as involved in the consultations at tin- creation 
 of man). They are two distinct Brings, but 
 yet must be One in order not to dissolve the 
 absoluteness of the only liudhead. Such a 
 unity may be pictured by the ronnrxion 
 between a thought and the Keason that think* 
 it, or by the unity of a flame with the hrc 
 from which it was taken. Fach of these 
 
 examples of the unbroken unity has the short- 
 coming that they compel us to think of a 
 
624 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 stage prior to the dual condition in which that fount of the Divine life, the expressions used 
 
 which is now dual was single. What, then, abi^ut Him, and abjut the Son, must neces- 
 
 of the existence of the Word before It became sarily impute to Him an underivative, to the 
 
 the TTpo^Xrjdev yevv-qixal Justin is content Son a derivative Being ; and must, therefore, 
 
 with the statements: (i) That "before all tend to class the Son rather with the rest of 
 
 things," already " at the beginning," this pro- 
 jection had been effected, the two Persons were 
 already distinct (cf. ib. 62, § 285 d ; 56, § 276 
 Tov Kai TTjJo TToiqcrtwi Koafiov 6vTa Weov) 
 
 rd yevrird than with the sole a-yevnTov. It 
 could only be at the end of a most subtle and 
 dehcate reflection that Christian logic could 
 possibly realize that it was bound, if it would 
 
 (2) That besides this actual projection of the I be finally consistent with itself, to class the 
 
 A670J there is a state which may be described 
 as a condition of inner companionship with 
 God the Creator (awriv). This precedence is 
 never distinctly asserted to be temporal by 
 Justin. In the Dialogue the uvvtLv is stated 
 to be eternal in exactly that sense in which 
 the yivvrina is eternal, i.e. as being " before all 
 things." 
 
 Justin does not appear to definitely pro- 
 nounce on the question how the process of 
 Begetting consists with the absolute eternity 
 of the Personal Word begotten. There is no 
 precise realization of a A670J ifdidOtros and 
 irpocpopiKOi He hardly seems conscious of 
 this difficulty in his two analogies of the 
 thought and the flame ; he is satisfied with 
 expressing, by them, the unity, and yet dis- 
 tinctness, of the Father and the Son. He is 
 content to state that this unity in difference 
 existed from the very first, before all created 
 things. His analysis seems hardly to have 
 pressed back to the final question, which Arian 
 logic discovered to lie behind all minor issues, 
 i.e. was there a moment when the Father was 
 not yet a Father ? Such a suspension of 
 analysis is not unnatural, since Justin, in the 
 writings before us, hardly enters on the con- 
 templation of the Nature of God in and to 
 Himself. It is always as the source of all 
 things — the Father, the Maker, the Lord of 
 the Universe — that he presents God to us. 
 It is God in His relation to His works that 
 we contemplate. What He was in Himself 
 before all His works does not seem considered, 
 and it is therefore all the more sufficient to 
 state that God came to the making of the 
 world already dual in character. The 
 moment at which creation was to begin found 
 the Son already existent, as 6 Qeos. in personal 
 intercourse with the Father. With this he 
 leaves us, only affirming that that character 
 of paternity which constitutes the relation of 
 God to the world had a prior and peculiar 
 significance and reality in the relation that 
 united the absolute God and His Word (cf. 
 Apol. ii. 6, § 44, 6 fxdvos \fy6,ui(vos Kvpiws vi6i). 
 Justin's metaphysic, then, culminates in the 
 assertion of this essential Sonship pre-existent 
 to the creation. This being so, his language 
 remains as indecisive on the ulterior question 
 of the origin of the Sonship as is the language 
 of Proverbs on the eternity of the Wisdom. 
 In both cases the utmost expression for eter- 
 nity that their logic had attained to is used. 
 It is useless to press them for an answer to 
 the puzzles of a later logic, which carried the 
 problem back into that very eternity which 
 closed their horizon. It was inevitable thai 
 the natural and unsystematized language used 
 before the Arian controversy should be capable 
 of an Arian interpretation. Since the Father 
 is indeed slone dy^yqru^, the sole unoriginate 
 
 derived Being of the Son, by virtue of the 
 absolute eternity of its derivation, on the side 
 of TO d')fvi-)Tbv rather than on that of rd yiv-qra. 
 Justin, in the full flush of readiness to sweep 
 in to the service of faith the dear and familiar 
 language of his former Platonism, may have 
 left himself unguarded and careless on this 
 uttermost point of the philosophy of the 
 Incarnation ; but it will not easily be doubted 
 — by any one who has observed how he de- 
 velops the full divinity of the Son over all the 
 ground which his logic covered with a bold- 
 ness and a vigour that, in face of the inevitable 
 obstacles, prejudices, misunderstandings ex- 
 cited by such a creed, are perfectly astonishing 
 — what answer he would have given if the 
 final issue of the position had once presented 
 itself definitely to him. 
 
 Justin had also affirmed the moral unity of 
 the Son with the Father. This is not stated 
 to be the ground of the Unity. The analogies 
 of the thought and of the flame, on the con- 
 trary, imply a unity of substance to be the 
 ground of the Kvpiu)i viorrjs, but it is introduced 
 in order to explain the consistency of his 
 belief with the reality of a single supreme Will 
 in the Godhead {Dial. 56, § 274), and the 
 explanation naturally led him to affirm the 
 complete subordination of the Son to the will 
 of the Father. The Son is the expression of 
 the Father's mind, the 5in'a,uii' XoyiKrjv. which 
 He begat from Himself. He is the interpreter 
 of His Purpose, the instrument by which He 
 designs. In everything, therefore, the Son 
 is conditioned by the supreme Will ; His 
 office. His very nature, is to be 6 dyyeXo^, 6 
 uirripfTr]s. All His highest titles, vl6s and 
 Xoyos, as well as others, belong to Him by 
 virtue of His serving the Father's purpose and 
 being born by the Father's Will {iK tov dnb 
 TOV vaTpos t)e\ri<T€L yeyevrjcrdai, ib. 61, § 284 
 b). " I say that He never did anything but 
 what the Maker of the world, above Whom 
 there is no God at all, willed that He should 
 do " {ib. 56, § 276). The Father is above all. 
 Trypho would not endure to listen to Justin 
 if he did not hold this {ib. 56, § 278 b). The 
 Son is then subordinate, and perfectly sub- 
 ordinate, but this subordination is such that 
 it can allow the Son to identify Himself 
 utterly with the Father, as with Moses at the 
 bush, and so to be called 6 Kvpios and 6 Beds. 
 
 In the expression " born of the Father's 
 Will " we are once more close to Arian con- 
 troversy. Was there, then, a moment when 
 the Father had not yet willed to have a Son ? 
 If so, how can the Son be eternal ? Yet, if 
 not, how was the Father's will free ? Justin 
 has no such questions put to him. He states 
 this dependence of the Son for His very Being 
 on the Will of the Father without anxiety as 
 to His right to be named 6 Gecj, and to receive 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 worship ill the abs.ihito soiiso in whicli a Jew 
 would understand that title and that worship. 
 And here, again, surely it was inevitable that 
 the Christian consciousness should have so 
 stated frankly the subordinate and dependent 
 character of the eternal Sonship, before it 
 appreciated the subtle puzzle that would 
 ensue when logic began its critical work upon 
 the novel and double-sided conce[Uion. 
 Subordination of the Son to tiie Father must 
 represent the immediate, primary, natural, 
 and intelligible method of presenting to the 
 reflecting mind the reconciliation of the 
 duality of Persons with the unity of Will. 
 The very name of Son, or of the Word, implied 
 it. So far, too, the logic inherited from the 
 philosophies would supply the needful formula. 
 It would take time to discover that Christian- 
 ity held implicitly, in its faith in the entire 
 Divinity of the Son, a position which, if ever 
 it was to be made consistent with the explicit 
 formula of the subordination, must necessitate 
 an entirely new and original logical effort, 
 such as would justify the synthesis already 
 achieved by the Christian's intuitive belief iii 
 the absolute Di\inity of a dependent and 
 subordinate Son. This new logical effort was 
 made when Athanasius recognized the 
 dilemma into which the old logic of the Schools 
 had thrown the Christian position, and, in- 
 stead of abandoning either of the alternatives, 
 evolved a higher logic, which could accept 
 both. For it must be remembered, if we are 
 to be impartial to Justin, that the Nicene 
 controversy was not closed by the church 
 throwing over the subordination, while the 
 Arian threw over the entire Divinity of the 
 Son. Xicaea confessed the subordination, and 
 made it theoretically consistent with the 
 absolute Divinity. This being so, the only 
 possible test by which to try Justin (who 
 certainly held b )th the divinity and the 
 subordination) would be to ask whether, if 
 he had seen the dilemma, he would have held 
 the subordination of the Son to be the primary 
 and imperative truth to the logical needs of 
 which the fulness of the divine Sonship must 
 be thrown over, or whether he would have felt 
 the latter truth to be so intimately essential 
 that a novel logic must be called into existence 
 which should interpret it into accordance with 
 the subordination. It cannot but be felt that 
 Justin's faith is a great deal more pronounced 
 and definite than his Platonic logic ; that the 
 one is clear and strong where the other is 
 vague and arbitrary ; and, if so, that in a 
 conflict between the two his faith would have 
 remained supreme. Justin's temper of mind 
 is the complete reverse of that of Arius. 
 
 On the ministerial activities of the Son for 
 the Father Justin is much more explicit. 
 
 The Word has one chief mission from the 
 Father, that of interpreting Him to man ; 
 hence He received the name of SLyyt\os (cf. 
 Dial. 56, § 275). He accomplishes this (i) to 
 the Jews by means of the Theophanies and 
 through the lips of the pr(jphets. The Word 
 is the direct inspirer Whose spirit moves the 
 prophets, and Whose words they speak (cf. 
 Apol. i. 36, § 76 d). The whole manifold 
 Scripture, with all its many parts and voices, 
 is, as it were, a great play written by a single 
 author, the Word of God, Who alone speaks 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 G2B 
 
 through .ill the ( h.ir.i. t.r-. dihpl.iyid. of thi> 
 Justin gives instances in cc. 37. \^, 39. 
 Again, He is not only the inward forrr, but 
 i\\e outward object also, to Which all prophecy 
 is directed. The Jewish Siripturc has in Him 
 a permanent aim, a f>xi-d canon ; it all 
 arranges itself round Him (cf. Apol. i. ji, 
 § 7i A). To foretell Hiin and His work is the 
 one purpose of prophecy. Uy it His whole 
 life in Its main outlines is described, His 
 advent. His birth from the virgin. His coming 
 to man's estate. His curing of the sick, His 
 raising the dead. His being hated, and un- 
 known, and crucified, His death, resurrection, 
 and ascension. His divine sonship, His mission 
 of the apostles, His success among the Gentiles 
 (ib. i. 31, § 7j). (2) Justin attributes a 
 revelation of the Word to the Cicnliles, as well 
 as to the Jews ; to them He is the dy><.\of, 
 the interpreter of the Father, not hy prophetic 
 anticipations, but by partial manifestation, 
 of Himself. Every man in every race pos- 
 sesses a germ of the Word, by the power of 
 which men knew what truth they did know, 
 and did what good they did do; above all, 
 the philosophers and lawgivers who, in their 
 rational inquiries and speculations, were 
 obeyhig the measure of the Word within them 
 {Kara \6yoi' fxipo^ . . . 5i tvp^atuf Kal Otutftiat, 
 ib. ii. 10, § 48c). It is Justin who promul- 
 gates the famous formula: "Offa irapo waffi Ka- 
 \u)S flprjTai r)fiu)v Tixiv Xpiariavu)!' iari. (ib. ii. 13, 
 § 51). " We do not believe less, but more, 
 than Empedocles and Pythagoras, Socrates and 
 Plato," he says: "we approve what they 
 rightly said ; but our doctrine is higher than 
 theirs ; " and so too with the Stoics, poets, 
 and historians (cf. ib. i. 18, § 65 c ; ii. lo, 13). 
 This is the principle the .Alexandrians are to 
 develop. These ancient friends of Christ, for 
 their obedience to the Word, were hated as 
 Christians are hated, as impious and curious 
 busy-bodies ; chief of them was Socrates, who 
 was martyred for Christ. With him are men- 
 tioned Heraclitus, Musonius the St<jic, etc. In 
 the exercising of human reason to search out 
 (iod such as these obeyed the power of the 
 Word, the Reason of God (\6r^<^ TrapatilvTfi rA 
 ir/3d7juaTa deup^aai Kal iXiy^ai . . . 5ii \6yov 
 frjTriJews dtov tov dyfiiiTTov ^irlyi'uyni'; tb. ii. 10, 
 § 48 ; cf. i. 5, § 55 E : \6yif) dXijOii kcU fitraa- 
 ri/kiDs). This general differs from the Christian 
 revelation in the /»ar/«<j/ character of the \6>oi 
 (TrfpfiaTinds ; each philosopher, etc., saw only 
 a part of the Word. Hence the contradictions 
 of the philosophic system, the inconsistencies 
 of human law ; some had one right part, some 
 another. Christians possess the whole Word <ȣ 
 (iod, in the person of Christ Jesus; they, there- 
 fore, hold the canon of truth which distinguishes 
 all that was good and true »>f old, from the 
 false and the confused with which it was mixed 
 {ib. ii. 9, 10, § 47). This distinction is radical ; 
 " since the germ and image of somelhiiitf, 
 given to iiiaii arcording to the measure of hi* 
 capacity, is <juile tlisliiict from that very 
 thing itself which permits itself, by its own 
 favour, to be so given and communicatetl " 
 {ib. ii. 13, § 51 c). This clear ilLstinction 
 exhibits the full reality of the personality 
 attributed by Justin to the Word revealed itt 
 Christ ; it is personality which distinguishes 
 
 40 
 
626 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 itself so decisively from the influence and 
 energy which it exercises ; it is it again which 
 makes the distinction between a partial and a 
 complete revelation to be so radical. The 
 completeness of the Christian revelation lies 
 in its being the revelation of Christ's Person 
 (cf. ib. ii. 10, § 48, 6j iaTi Xpia-rdi ; ii. 13, § 51). 
 Hence, the Revelation of the Word concen- 
 trates itself in the Incarnation ; for so onlv, 
 and then only, is the Word Himself in His 
 personal reality, as distinct from all his 
 activities, and superior to all His influences, 
 made manifest and actual to man. " Our 
 truth is more sublime than all human doc- 
 trine," says Justin, " on account of the 
 entirety with which the Divine Reason has 
 appeared, for our sakes, as Christ, being 
 manifested as body, and reason, and spirit " 
 {ib. ii. 10, § 48 b). It is because the Word of 
 the absolute and ineffable God has " become 
 a man for our sakes, sharing our passions, and 
 curing our ills," that we surpass all the philo- 
 sophers whose wisdom we claim to be ours 
 {ib. ii. 13, § 50). Christians now can worship 
 and love the Word. Thev possess in Him a 
 doctor who will authoritatively determine the 
 truth, separating it from the confusions intro- 
 duced by the demons {ib. ii. 13, § 51 ; ii. 9, 
 § 48 b). He has thus made the certain and 
 secure revelation of the Father, which Soc- 
 rates pronounced to be so difficult and perilous 
 by the way of human reasoning ; and He has 
 made this revelation effective and universal, 
 by being Himself no mere reasoner, but the 
 very Power of the Ineffable God {Suvapdi ian 
 Tov Tlarpdt, ib. ii. 10, § 49 A ; cf. i. 23, § 68 b). 
 This Power of God avails to ensure security of 
 truth to those even who cannot use reasoning 
 effectively, to artisans and utterly unlearned 
 people. The identification of the man 
 Christ Jesus with the antecedent Word of God 
 is entire and unhesitating. Nothing can 
 exceed Justin's preciseness. " Christ Who 
 was known in part by Socrates, for He was 
 and is the Word which is in everv man, and 
 foretold things both by the prophets and in 
 His own Person, when He took upon Him our 
 nature and taught these things " {ib. ii. 10, 
 § 49 a). Here it is identically the same Per- 
 son Who is known to Socrates, and inspires the 
 prophets, and taught mankind in the flesh 
 (cf. ib. i. 23 : " Jesus Christ, Who is the Word 
 of God, His First-born, His Power, His only 
 Son, was also made man " ; cf. i. 63, § 96 a). 
 In consequence of the pre-existence, the In- 
 carnation could only be effected by a super- 
 natural birth. Because the Christ existed 
 personally in Himself before the ages and then 
 endured to be born as a man, He could not 
 be begotten by man, but must be bom solelv 
 by the will of the Father Who originally begat 
 Him. Such a birth would be unnecessarv for 
 a human Christ ; those, therefore, who held 
 that God's Christ was not pre-existent or 
 divine, would not hold that He was born 
 supernaturally of a virgin. So Justin claims 
 that Tr>T)ho might accept the proofs that 
 Jesus was Christ, even though he should fail 
 to convince him of the eternal pre-existence 
 and virgin-birth of Jesus {Dial. 48, § 267 b) ; 
 and here Justin confesses that some who are 
 called Christians and acknowledge Jesus to 
 be Christ, yet hold Him to be a man bom of 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 men. He himself could never agree with them 
 even if the main mass of Christians were to turn 
 against him ; but he speaks of these Ebionites 
 with a mildness that is rather startling in view 
 of the immense strength and definiteness of his 
 own belief, with which his own church, as he 
 tells us, fully agreed. Apparently he is justify- 
 ing the possibility of the pis a//t;r,'which he pro- 
 poses to Trypho. It is a novelty to Trypho, it 
 seems, to hear of there being such Christians : 
 he expects them to hold what Justin holds. 
 Evidently, the common church faith in the 
 pre-existence and divinity of Christ is so 
 entire that it already has a theology which is 
 anxious to use the agony in the garden and 
 the bitter cry on the cross as proofs that Christ 
 was actually a man Who could suffer pain {ib. 
 103. § 331 D, etc.), as if it were the humanity 
 that was more hkely to be doubted than the 
 divinity. This supernatural birth is justified 
 by Isaiah's prophecy (which he accuses the 
 Jews of having corrupted, by changing 
 irapdivoi into vtavt.^, and which the demons 
 have caricatured in the myth of Perseus) {ib. 
 I 68, § 294) ; by Psalm ex. :' " From the womb 
 j I begat Thee " {ib. 63, 286 d) ; and from many 
 I other texts in which Justin sees it fore- 
 shadowed that the blood of Christ would come 
 not bv human mixture, but solely bv the will 
 of God {Apol. i. 32, § 74 ; Dial. 76, § 301). 
 His language on this goes so far that it seems 
 sometimes hardly consistent with the perfect 
 manhood of Christ. He is " like a son of 
 man," i.e. not born of human seed. His 
 blood is called the " blood of the grape," 
 because it came not to Him from man, but 
 direct from the will of the Father. He is the 
 " stone cut without hands," etc. 
 
 The purpose of the Incarnation is to save 
 men from evil deeds and evil powers, and to 
 teach assured truth {Apol. i. 23, § 68 c ; in' 
 dX\a73 Kox iirayayuyri tov avOpwireloij yivovi ; 
 ii. 9 § 48, b). He brings to bear the full 
 divine energy (i) Siifafiis tov Ilarpjs) on a race 
 diseased and deceived through the action of 
 devils. So He is the medicine to cure {ib. ii. 
 13, § 51 d), which He becomes by sharing our 
 humanity {twv iradQiv rCof rifj.€Tipwv avfj.n(roxos). 
 He is therefore called the Saviour {ib. i. 61, 
 § 94 a), in Whom we receive remission of sins 
 and regeneration. His mode of action is by 
 (i) teaching, as the Word, which is no mere 
 persuasive argument but is a Power penetrat- 
 ing deeper than the sun into the recesses of 
 the soul {Dial. 121, § 350 a), enabling us not 
 only to hear and understand, but to be saved 
 {.Apol. ii. 12, § 49). His truth is an absolute 
 canon by which to sift the true from the false 
 in human speculations, since He, the Entire 
 Word, distinguishes with certainty, amid the 
 confusion of the philosophies, that in them 
 which is His own working. So completely and 
 uniquely authoritative is He, that it is by His 
 teaching alone that men rightly know and 
 worship the one Father and God {ib. i. 13). 
 (2) He saves, secondly, by suffering on the 
 cross : so sharing in all the reality of our flesh 
 (cf. Dial. 98, § 324 D, fiyovev 6.vdpu-no% avTi.- 
 \-t)i?TLKbi iraddov). He destroys death by death. 
 He gains possession of men by the cross {cf 
 ib. 134, § 364 c, 5t' a'l/xaTOi kuI fivcrTijpiov toO 
 arravpov KT7]ad/j.€vos avroijs). By His blood 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 He loosens the power of tlic lievil (ib. 04, 
 § 322 a) ; He removes death (ib. 105. § i^z) ; 
 by His blood He purifies those who believe 
 (Apol. i. 32, § 74 a) : hence, He, as crucified, 
 is the Priest, the Eternal High Priest (c/. Dial. 
 116, 343 e). Man's power to keep blameless, 
 and to drive out devils, follows the economy 
 of His Passion {ib. 31, § 247 n). Hence He 
 is called ^ioijOds and Xi'rpujr^v (16. 30, § 247 c), 
 the hope of Christians is huuK on the cruci- 
 fixion of Christ (ib. q6, § 323 c). Hy His 
 stripes we are healed {tb. 17, § 234 e, 336 d). 
 So He is the Paschal Lamb, Who saves from 
 death by the sprinkling of blood (ib. in, 
 § 338 c). He saved, by submitting to that 
 which all men deserved for sin, i.e. the curse 
 pronounced on all who kept not the law ; 
 therefore He was crucified, because the curse 
 lay on crucifixion ; but He was no more under 
 God's curse when He endured our curse than 
 was the brazen serpent, which was ordered 
 by God, though He had condemned all images. 
 (iod saved of old by an image without violating 
 the Second Commandment ; He saves now, 
 by a Crucified, those who are worthy of the 
 curse, without, for that, laying His curse on 
 the Crucified. It is the Jews, and not God, 
 who now fulfil the text by "cursing Him that 
 hung on the tree" (ib. 96, 323). This cross 
 and suffering the Father willed for man's sake, 
 that on His Christ might fall the curse of all 
 men : He willed it, knowing that He would 
 raise Him again from this death, as Christ 
 testified on the cross by His appeal to the 
 Father. This coming of Christ to be despised, 
 to suffer, to die, is justified by many appeals 
 to prophecy, especially to Ps. xxii. (ib. 98, 
 § 325), to Jacob's blessing, Gen. xlix. 8, 12, 
 etc. It is the " hidden power of God which 
 is exhibited in the crucified Christ " (ib. 49, 
 § 269 c). This power (lax^'^ ''<''' fJ-i'<^rripiov 
 Toii aravpoO, ib. 91, § 318 b) began to manifest 
 its hidden efficacy from the day of the resur- 
 rection ; those who have faith in the cross, 
 and exercise penitence, are, through the power 
 of Christ, the great and eternal priest, stripped 
 of the filthy garments of sin, and clothed with 
 new robes, and made priests, through whom 
 everywhere sacrifices are offered (16. 116, § 
 344). Christ Himself is raised from the grave, 
 to be led up into heaven, by the Father, there 
 to dwell until He shall strike down all the 
 devils His enemies and the number of the 
 elect righteous shall be fulfilled, when He will 
 be shewn in glory on the throne of His mani- 
 fested kingdom. Then will be the great judg- 
 ment of devils and sinners which is delayed 
 solely for the sake of gathering in all who may 
 yet be willing to believe and repent (Apol. i. 
 45, § 82 D ; ii. 7, § 45 B) ; till it comes, 
 Christ sends down power on His Apostles, by 
 which they, and all who will, consecrate them- 
 selves to the one God (ib. i. 50, J 86 b ; 49, 
 § 85 B). This present efficacy of Christ is 
 evident in the power of Christians over devils, 
 who are bound and expelled by their adjura- 
 tion (of. Dial. 76, 5 302 a). This power, I 
 offered to all, manifests itself especially among | 
 the Gentiles, and is rejected by Jew and 
 Samaritan, as many a prophecy had foretold 
 (ib. 91, § 319 A ; cf. I20, § 348, etc. to end of I 
 Dial.). It calls men by the road of faith into 
 friendship and blessing, penitence, and com- ' 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 627 
 
 pimction, and assures thriu of a kiiiKdnin to 
 come, eternal and incorruptible (if. 16. 139, 
 § 369 A). All on whom the power of the 
 cross comes arc gathered with one mind into 
 one synagogue, one church, a church born «>( 
 and called by His name, addres>.«(l by Ihr 
 Word in Scripture as His daughter, " Mr.irktMi, 
 O daughter" (16. 63, § 287 11). This church 
 is descril>ed, with St. Paul, as one body, tt> 
 naXfiTai Aai (<tti aCifux (tb. 42, { 261 a). 
 
 The eternal kingdom comes with ( hrist's 
 second advent, in glory, as judge. He will 
 judge every man, up to Adam himself (16. 
 13-. § 362 a) ; then shall sinners and di-vils 
 weep, for to them He will allot a place in that 
 eternal fire which will destroy this world ; 
 believers He will admit to the kingdom, re- 
 calling the dead to life and est.iMishing them 
 in an eternal and indissoiublr kingdom, them- 
 selves incorruptible, immortal, iniiiless (16. 
 117. § 345. b). This is the Melchisedec, King 
 of Salem, eternal Priest of the Most High, Who 
 will remake a new heaven and a new earth, 
 into which holv land His circumcised shall 
 enter (ib. 113, § 341 a). This kingdom is 
 generally spoken of as in heaven, as not earthly 
 (cf. Apol. i. II, § 59 A, etc.) ; it is a home with 
 God, for the sake of which Christians easily 
 despise all earthly delights and lusts and the 
 fear of death. In one famous passage in the 
 Dialogue (80, § 306 b ; cf. 113, § 341 a) he 
 accepts the Jewish belief of a millennium in a 
 restored and beautified Jerusalem ; he claims 
 to have dealt already with this point, though 
 no such explanation is in the Dialogue ; many 
 share this belief with him, he says, yet many 
 pious and orthodox Christians reject it ; only 
 those whoarc, according to J ustin, ip^o-^vJ^fiovt^ 
 Kara, iravra XpicTtavoi, hold this faith with 
 him, based on Is. Ixv. 17 and on the Revela- 
 tion of " one of themselves, by name John, an 
 apostle of Christ," who speaks of a first resur- 
 rection and then a second eternal resurrection 
 and judgment of all men. Evidently there 
 are no words of our Lord's to support this 
 belief ; it is a pious opinion, resting on the 
 literal reading of the Apocalypse, held by the 
 most strict believers, but not necessary to a 
 pure and true faith («rotfo/)4 *oi ii'at(iT)x 
 yvufjir)). Far different are those who deny the 
 future resurrecticm of the body altogether and 
 believe in an inmiediate entrance of the souls 
 of Christians into heaven : " let Trypho be- 
 ware of deeming such to be Christians at all." 
 The resurrection of the body is a cardinal 
 point of Justin's creed (cf. Apol. i. 18 fl.) ; 
 essential to the reality of future punishment, 
 and to the fullness of a Christian's security 
 against all loss in death, and justified by an 
 appeal to the wonder of our first creation and 
 to Christ's miracles (Dial. 69, f 296 a). 
 
 When this Advent will be, we know not, 
 though it may be soon. It will be preceded by 
 the appearance of the .Man of Iniijuitv. 
 
 On the action of the Third Person, Justin is 
 not so definite ; he is continually speaking of 
 Him, but His person and office arc nt)t always 
 distinguished with precision from those of the 
 Second Person. He is there, in Justin's creed, 
 a recognized element in it, constantly occur- 
 ring; but apparently Justin's metaphysic had 
 not yet had time or occasion to dwell on this 
 point with anxiety or exactness. The most 
 
628 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 definite mention of Him is in the typical 
 formula for the object of Christian worship 
 and sacramental service ; here He is distinctly 
 allied to the First and Second Persons as the 
 alone Third, Who shares with Them the adora- 
 tion of Christians and the ministration of 
 grace (cf. Apol. i. 13, § 60 e, Uvev/xa wpo<pt)TiKbv 
 iv Tpirri Ta^ei Tifji.Cj/j.fv, where he is explaining 
 what it is that Christians worship) ; again 
 {ib. i. 60, § 93 b), he claims for the Spirit the 
 truth of that rb rpiTov which Plato was sup- 
 posed to have suggested. Here, as in the 
 former case, the rpirov is parallel to r; Seinepa 
 Xwpa, the place of the Son, and must, there- 
 fore, be understood in something of the same 
 significance as that ; and that " second 
 place " signified, we know, a difference in 
 number, in fact, in personality, not a mere 
 logical distinction ; yet it included such a 
 unity of substance and will that the termino- 
 logy of the Godhead could be directly applied 
 to it, with the exception of those symbols of 
 absolute supremacy, i.e. the titles, " Father," 
 " Creator," etc. As the Holy Spirit is directly 
 included within the lines of the object wor- 
 shipped, so is He directly implicated in the 
 divine action upon men : thus the baptismal 
 and sacrificial formula unite His name with 
 that of the Father and the Son (ib. i. 61, § 94 
 A ; 65, § 97 D ; 67, § 98 c). He, with the Son, 
 is the medium by which praise and thanks- 
 giving are offered to the Father ; His is the 
 third name in the might of which the Christian 
 receives regeneration. One curious passage 
 gives Him a strange place: Justin refutes 
 (ib. i. 6, § 56 c) the charge of atheism by 
 claiming that Christians honour and adore 
 (o-efi'^fKOa Kal TrpoaKwov/nep) " both God the 
 Father, and the Son Who came from Him, and 
 the host of good angels that follow Him, and 
 are made like to Him, and the Prophetic Spirit 
 also." Here the angels are brought in front 
 of the Spirit, through the need, probably, of 
 expressing their unity with Christ by virtue of 
 which they become the objects of Christian 
 reverence (e^o/xoiovp.^vwi'). Several attempts 
 have been made to avoid this sudden intro- 
 duction of the angels, by various interpreters 
 (cf. Otto's note in loc. ed. vol. i. i, 21) ; but it 
 is hardly possible to read the passage otherwise 
 than as it stands. It must be explained by 
 its position ; Justin is quite precise and clear 
 in other passages, where the position attri- 
 buted to the Holy Spirit is definitely marked, 
 and this sentence, therefore, must be inter- 
 preted in accordance with them, not they be 
 confused by it. The angels are best intro- 
 duced in close company with that Divine 
 Person to Whom they are peculiarly attached, 
 and from Whom especially they derive their 
 title to sanctity (cf. Dial. 31, § 247 e ; Apol. 
 i. 52, §§ 87-88 ; Dial. 61, § 284 b), our Lord 
 being Himself 6 &yye\os, and being therefore 
 named apxicyrpaTtf^os, the captain of the 
 angelic host. Only through Him can they be 
 reverenced ; while the Holy Spirit receives 
 worship by right of Himself. Justin, by 
 throwing in at the end cre^6fj.eda with -n-pocKv- 
 voO/xev,^ covers all the varieties of adoration 
 that his inclusion of angels may have made 
 requisite ; and he adds \6yv Kal aXrjdeig. 
 Ti/j-QvTts, as if to suggest that there were 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 carefully guarded lines of distinction in the 
 Christian's worship. Elsewhere he shews 
 himself perfectly conscious of the impossibility 
 of paying absolute worship to any but God 
 alone {Apol. i. 16, § 63) ; in order to justify 
 the adoration of Christ, he knows clearly that 
 he must shew Him to be higher than all angels 
 {Dial. 56, § 276). The whole argument with 
 the Jew exhibits the precision of Justin's dis- 
 tinction between God and His angelic ministers ; 
 but, on the other hand, his language in this 
 unique passage evidences the reverential 
 service that could be offered, according to 
 Christian use, to those who had been fashioned 
 into the likeness of Christ. 
 
 The Holy Spirit is concerned with creation 
 {tb. i. 60, § 93 b), in His distinct personal full- 
 ness, as 6 Tp'iTos, with a third station peculiar 
 to Himself {"^pi-Tr) X^P"-) in the Godhead. His 
 main office is with inspiration ; He is t6 
 rivev/xa rb TrfO(l>7)TiK6v ; this is His cardinal 
 name. He speaks as Himself to man, using 
 men as His organ (Sia MwiJa-fcjs ir po( pli)vv(T€ , ib. 
 i. 60, § 93 b) ; here, since the words follow the 
 statement of the place of the Holy Spirit in 
 the Triad, they must definitely intend Him, in 
 His distinction from the Word, to be the 
 spring of inspiration ; so, too, in the formula 
 of baptism, it is the name of 7rpo</)r;Tt\6s, which 
 marks His distinction from the Word ; and 
 we must, therefore, apply to Him, in His separ- 
 ate right and existence, the constantly recur- 
 ring use of this name (cf. ib. i. 38, § 77 c ; 
 47, § 84 A, etc., etc.), on all which occasions He 
 is spoken of as the direct author and speaker 
 of prophecy, and prophecy is spoken of as 
 peculiarly the note of God {ib. i. 30, § 72 b, 
 etc.). This Spirit is one throughout ; It spoke 
 once in Elias, and afterwards in the Baptist 
 {Dial. 49, § 268). Yet Justin sometimes attri- 
 butes to the Word this action of inspiration 
 which gives to the Spirit His name (cf. Apol. i. 
 36, § 76 d) ; the prophets speak through the 
 Word which moves them (so again ib. i. 33, 
 § 75 D, OeocpopouvTai X67uj fffiu) ; cf. Dial. 61, 
 § 284 c ; 62, § 285 ; 63, § 236 d). In both cases 
 it is the effective agency by which the prophets 
 are stirred to speak which is attributed to 
 the Word; and Justin attributes this on 
 grounds which he expects the heathen em- 
 perors to acknowledge, it is language they 
 must understand {Apol. i. 33). The action of 
 God on man is so intimately bound up with 
 the Word, in Justin, that it is wonderful how 
 much inspiration he attributes to the Spirit, 
 rather than how little. 
 
 Justin holds very decisively the belief (i) 
 in good angels, attached intimately to our Lord 
 (cf. former quotations), messengers of God in 
 O. and N. T., fed in heaven on some manna 
 {Dial. 57, § 279 c), accompanying Christ in 
 His glory on the last day ; and (2) more 
 particularly in bad angels, to whom the earth 
 and man had been committed by God {Apol. 
 ii. 5, § 44 a), but who overstepped their limits 
 in wicked intercourse with women, who, from 
 them, bore sons, the devils ; they reduced the 
 human race to servitude, by deceitful magic, 
 and by terror, and by instituting sacrifices, 
 etc., to themselves, for which they lusted now 
 that they had known the passion of fleshly 
 desires : they sowed the seeds of war, adultery, 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 crime. Chief aniDiij; tlitMn is the Serpent, the 
 tempter of Adam and live, the Devil, Satanas, | 
 a name ascribed to him by our Lord Himself [ 
 at His temptation, signifyinR Apostate and 
 Serpent {ib. i. 28, § 71 b ; Dial. 103, § 331 b). ; 
 The problem of the human soul ore iipies 
 the chief place in the account of Justin's con- 1 
 version ; the philosophers were felt to be un- 
 certain and insecure in their conception of it, 
 especially as regards its immortalitv, its con- 
 sequent transmigration, and its relation to the 
 divine substance. Justin holds that the soul 
 is no particle of the absolute mind ; has no 
 life in itself ; is created ; is not life, but par- 
 taker of life, so that it could perish ; but 
 receives immortality by the will of God, as is 
 proved by a mass of practical testimony, by 
 the word of Revelation, and by its consonance 
 with the needs of justice ; this immortality ' 
 includes as its essential requisite the resur- ', 
 rection of the body, without which Justice j 
 could not fulfil itself ; it will be given both to , 
 the just and to the unjust (cf. Dial. 4, 5, 6 ; 
 Apol. i. 21, § 67 D ; 18, 19, § 63). though it is j 
 only rightly " immortality " for the just ; j 
 for the others, eternal fire. 
 
 Man. according to Justin, has been impri- 
 soned in sin since the fall of .A.dam, the first 
 man, deceived of the devil, who fell greatly , 
 by deceiving Eve ; hence " ye shall die " ' 
 {Dial. 124, § 353 D, 6jttoiu;s Ttp 'ASan vai rrj 
 K6(f. f^ofioiovfXfvOL. Odvarov eavroii ipyd^ovTai), \ 
 though originally made flt(^ ofioiw dirathh Kai | 
 dOavdTovs (cf. ib. 88, § 316 a). Man, as the 
 angels, was made incorruptible, if he kept j 
 God's laws. This Biblical view falls in with | 
 his account of the whole human race, as j 
 sinning through the deceit of evil angels who 1 
 made them think their own bad passions j 
 possible in gods. This evil state, thus brought ' 
 on, is spoken of as a tyranny from which man 
 had to be delivered by another (cf. ib. 116, j 
 § 344 a; Apol. ii. 6, § 45 a) ; Christ comes 
 firi (caraXiVft rJjf 5aifj.6vwp. The whole race 
 is under the curse ; for, if the Jews were^ by | 
 the laws of Moses, much more were the Gen- [ 
 tiles with their horrible idolatry {Dial. 95, 
 § 322 d). Only by Christ is the curse removed ; 
 He, our Israel, wrestles for us with the devil 
 {ib. 125, § 354 d)- Only by His grace are 
 the devils made subject. I3ut Justin com- 
 bines with this a great anxiety to keep man's 
 free-will intact ; he is continually explaining 
 himself on this point. Man is never deserted 
 of God ; he possesses, after the fall, the ger- 
 minal A(5vos, by which he discerns between 
 good and evil, between true and false (cf. ib. 
 93, § 320 D ; Apol. ii. 10). 
 
 The gift of Christ to man is primarily re- 
 mission of sins (cf. Dial. 116, § 344, ftc), 
 effected through penitence on man's part, 
 excited by his call into true faith in the 
 Creator ; by Christ's power, sin is stripi)ed off 
 and remitted ; we are made regenerate lApol. 
 i. 61, §94 d). This regeneration accomplished 
 and the truth being now known and confessed, 
 we become bound, and fit, to accomplish a 
 good life, to keep the commandments, to 
 attain eternal life {ib. i. 65. § 97 c). We are 
 clothed with garments i)repared of Christ 
 (Dial. 116, § 344) ; we are to imitate God's 
 own virtues, to exhibit ourselves worthy of 
 His counsel by works {Apol. i. 10, § 58 b). 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 A20 
 
 The entire rli.mge ..( . h.»r.»< ter is beautifully 
 given in .4pol. i. 14, § M, 15, etc. 
 
 The most eflertivp guard "of this nurr living 
 is belief in the rcs\irrerti<in of the body ; for 
 this hope consecrates the entire man to the 
 holiness of the eternal kingil^.m and render* 
 real the sense of future puni'^hment ; we shall 
 feel torture, hereafter, in our bo<lies ; without 
 this, future pain would be unreal and mr.ming- 
 less {ib. i. 18, § 65). God will raise and endue 
 with incorruptibilitv the dead bodies, now 
 dissolved and scattered like seeds over the 
 earth {ib. i. 19). 
 
 This human race will endure until the 
 number of those willing to become Christians 
 is complete. It is because God acts by the 
 free choice of man that He docs n<it destroy 
 evil by force, but offers men the chance o( 
 escape, and gives them time to use the chance 
 {Dial. 102, § 320 a). The punishment that 
 awaits sinners, when the end comes, will be 
 by fire and for ever. On this Justin is very 
 pronounced (cf. .Apnl. i. 8, § 57 b^ : "an 
 eternal punishment " {aiuivtov «f6\o(T.r), he 
 says, " and not a mere period of a thotisand 
 years," ajrai'/rrroj? KoXditfOai {Dial. 45, § 264 
 b) ; the kingdom is aiwvios Kai dXiroj. the 
 K6Xa(rts irvpb'i is aiJcvio^ too {Dial. 117, ^ 34IS). 
 He uses the language freely and fr.inkiy, un- 
 hampered, apparently, by his theory of the 
 soul, which makes its immortality dependent 
 on the Will of God, Who wills it in the shape of 
 Holiness (cf. Iren. bk. iii. 36 ; cf. .4pol. i. 21. 
 § 67). He justifies the existence of reward and 
 punishment by the forcible argument, that, 
 without them,' you are compelled to believe 
 God indifferent to good and evil, or else good 
 and evil to have no real actuality ; both which 
 beliefs are impious. The judgment is the wit- 
 ' ncss of (iod's regard to the reality of the dis- 
 tinction (cf. .ipol. ii. 9, § 47 E ; i. 28, § 71 c). 
 j The church is that society of Christians in 
 I which the power of the regencrati m is faith- 
 fully manifested and the pure knowledge re- 
 I veaied in Christ loyally held; so Justin is 
 ! anxious to explain that not all so-called 
 ! Christians are real Christians, any more than 
 i all so-called philosophies mean the same thing 
 {ib. i. 7, § 56 d). Many, professing to confess 
 Christ, hold impious and immoral doctrine, 
 with whom the " disciples of the true and 
 pure doctrine " do not communieate ; they 
 are marked as heretical by assuming the 
 names of their founders, e.g. .Marcion, Valcn- 
 tinus, Basilides {Dial 35. § 2S3 £>>• 
 
 The true Christians hold " the pure teaching 
 
 of Jesus Christ " ; possess " a pure and pious 
 
 doctrine" based r>n Scripture, and the words 
 
 of Christ, not on human doctrine {ib. 48, § 269 
 
 d) ; prove them true by holiness (cf. .4 pot. i. 
 
 26, § 70 b) ; heretics may be capable of any 
 
 wickedness for all Justin knows. He himself 
 
 I has written a work against all the heresies 
 
 {ib. i. 26, § 70 c). The heresies confirm true 
 
 ! believers in the faith, since Christ foretold 
 
 them (cf. Dial. «2, § 308 h ; 35, f 253 c). 
 
 though thev lead many away. 
 
 i True b«-lievers are admitted to the body by 
 
 the rite of baptism, on their acceptance of 
 
 Christian verity and their promise to live 
 
 j accordingly {Apol. i. 61, §93 k). This \>.i\>- 
 
 I tism is the true circunicision of the Spirit 
 
 (Dial. 43, J 261 D) ; works with the cross to 
 
630 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 expiate our sins {ib. 86, § 314 a) ; is appointed 
 by Christ Himself for the remission of sins ; 
 and is our regeneration, by which vve are 
 born again out of a state of sin into Light and 
 Holiness ; so called " Illumination," <pom<Jix6s 
 {Apol. i. 61, 74). It presupposes penitence 
 and a confession of faith {ib. i. 61, 65). Bap- 
 tism admits to the brotherhood, the assembly, 
 where common prayers are made {ib. i. 65, § 
 97 c), the kiss of peace given, and the Euchar- 
 ist offered by the leader of the brethren, 6 
 TTpoeardis ; who takes the bread and water 
 and wine brought him, and sends up praise 
 and glory to the Father, in the Name of the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit ; at the end of his 
 thanksgiving the people give their consent by 
 saying, " Amen " ; after this thanksgiving, 
 evxapi-<TTia, the deacons administer the ele- 
 ments, with which thanks have been offered 
 (toO ei'xaptcrrT;^^^^^ iprov), to each one 
 present and carry some to the absent. This 
 food is itself called the Eucharist ; no one may 
 eat of it who does not believe the truth taught 
 and has not been washed by baptism ; for it 
 is not ordinary bread or wine, Koivdv Aprov, 
 but "in the very manner that Jesus Christ 
 becoming incarnate by the word of God, had, 
 for our salvation, both flesh and blood, so have 
 we been taught that the food, which has been 
 made a thanksgiving by the word of prayer 
 which He gave us, by which food our own flesh 
 and blood are, through a process of transforma- 
 tion, nourished, is both the flesh and the blood 
 of that same incarnate Jesus." He proceeds 
 to quote, from the books of the apostles, the 
 account of the institution of the Last Supper, 
 and compares it with the initiatory offerings 
 in the mysteries of Mithra {ib. i. 65-66, § 97). 
 In this passage the Incarnation is spoken of, 
 as elsewhere, as the work of the Word Him- 
 self ; though He is Himself the Incarnate One 
 (cf. ib. i. 32, 74 B, 6 X670S 5j (TapKoiroirjdeh 
 dvdpwrroi yt/ovev). The principle of the 
 Eucharist is found in the principle of the In- 
 carnation (though the analogy is hardly to 
 be pressed into details) ; it is the flesh and 
 blood of Christ, taken for our salvation, that 
 are identified with the food ; which food is 
 itself so intimately allied with our flesh and 
 blood that it still nourishes our actual bodies 
 Kara. /j.€Taj3o\Tju, though it is the flesh and 
 blood of Jesus, after the word of prayer, di 
 evxvi \6you (by some rendered, " prayer of 
 His word," cf. Otto's notes, p. 181 of 3rd ed.), 
 which He Himself instituted, i.e. the words 
 ordained by Christ, given by Justin as "Do 
 this in remembrance of Me : this is My body : 
 this is My blood." In the Dialogue, 117, 
 § 345 A, Justin speaks again of the " dry and 
 liquid food " in which memorial is made by 
 Christians, according to a received institution, 
 of the suffering of the Son of God, t6 ttci^oj 6 
 ir^TTovde. This memorial is there identified 
 with those prayers and thanksgivings, offered 
 by holy people, which alone are the sacrifices 
 perfect and well-pleasing to God, in contrast 
 with the Jewish sacrifices, and in fulfilment of 
 Mai. i. 10. These sacrifices {6valai) occur at 
 the Eucharist of the bread and of the cup ; 
 the spiritual sacrifice of praise is then and 
 there alone accomplished, by God's injunction. 
 Isa. xxxiii. 13 is fulfilled in the bread which 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 our Christ ordered us (irapeSwKfv) to offer 
 (woteTv) for a memorial of His having taken to 
 Himself a body, and so become passible 
 (wadrjTds) {Dial. 70, § 296 e). 
 
 Justin mentions, beside the Eucharist which 
 followed the baptism, that the Christians met 
 every Sunday {i) tou ijXlov i]p.epa), the day on 
 which God began creation and raised Christ 
 j {Apol. i. 67, § 97). All came in who could, 
 I from country and town, to one place ; the 
 memorials of the apostles or the books of the 
 1 prophets were read publicly ; then, the leader 
 j preached and admonished ; after which all 
 < rose together and prayed ; then the Eucharist 
 j is administered as before described. At such 
 times, offertories were made of voluntary 
 gifts, laid in the hands of the leader, who dis- 
 ! tributed them to the sick, widows, etc. 
 " Ever," says Justin, " do we remind ourselves 
 of this rite " which followed our baptism ; and 
 " ever we live together ; we who are rich give 
 to the poor ; and for everything that we have 
 we bless the Creator of all through Jesus 
 Christ and the Holy Spirit " {ib. i. 67) ; send- 
 ing up to Him solemn prayers (7ro/x7rds) and 
 hymns, not deeming Him to be in need of 
 blood and libations and sweet smells {ib. i. 
 13, § 60 c). Sunday, then, was observed as a 
 peculiar day (cf. Dial. 24, 241 b) ; this is in 
 contrast with (ra/S/SaTifeif, and " regarding the 
 stars," which mean, distinctly, keeping the 
 Jewish feasts; this the main body of Chris- 
 tians repudiated, so that it was by most 
 treated as a criminal heresy to keep the sab- 
 bath, and they refused to hold communion 
 with those Christians who still held to these 
 Jewish customs. This severity Justin con- 
 demns ; but his whole argument with Trypho 
 accepts thoroughly the abolition of the Fourth 
 Commandment. The sabbath symbolizes 
 Moses, and Christians hope not in Moses but 
 in Christ ; the Christian does not think him- 
 self pious for keeping one day idle, but for 
 keeping a continual sabbath. The sabbath 
 was given for the hardness of the Jews' hearts 
 (cf. ib. 10, § 227 B, etc. ; 19, § 237 c ; 21, § 238), 
 Justin's conception of the Law is very 
 strong and decided. Definite as he is against 
 Marcion, in his belief in the revelation of the 
 true God made in O.T., he yet takes an ex- 
 treme view of the partial, local and temporal 
 character of the law. He bases himself, 
 mainly, on his principle of the complete uni- 
 versality of God : God is everlasting, through- 
 out all time, over all people ; He is J udge of 
 all the earth ; His justice must be alike every- 
 where. Hence He cannot shut up His rela- 
 tions to man within the limits of a law ad- 
 dressed to a single people, and for a limited 
 period of time {Dial. 23, § 240 e ; 93, 320 c). 
 Facts prove this : for God was well -pleased 
 with Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisedec, though 
 they were uncircumcised and kept no sabbaths 
 (cf. ib. 19, § 236 c). Again, if virtue lay in the 
 mere act of circumcision, women would be in 
 a worse case than men {ib. 23, § 241 c). It 
 would be against God's nature to value such 
 rites, and limitations, and new sacrifices, for 
 their own sake, as if the good lay in them. 
 Did the Law, then, not come from Him ? Yes ; 
 but God in it accommodated Himself to the 
 Jews ; it was for you Jews alone that it was 
 necessary ; because you forgot Him, He had 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 on I 
 
 to decree your sabbatlis ; because you fell of the Christianit v ..( 14.. At.. Me rPKards the 
 away to idols, He had to demand of you sacri- i Law rather as an evidence of peculiar evil 
 (ices (tb. 19, §236e). He ordered you a 1 than of peculiar ro.kI, in the Jews ; v> he even 
 temple, lest you should worship images. All says in scorn that circumcision only srrven tn 
 was done to distinguish the Jewish race from ! mark them out for condrmnalicn. as the 
 the heathen ; and this, not on account of the accursed who are forbidden t.i rnttr Jrru*a- 
 race's virtue, so much as for its proneness to lem ; it enables the Kom.ms to ex< luilr them 
 evil. To justify this. Justin appeals to the from the Holy Land. 
 
 "everlasting voice of prophecy" ; he quotes! But if Justin is hard upon the Law, he is 
 the many words of the prophets in which very ditterent towards Prophecy. (Jn Pr<»- 
 sabbaths and sacrifices are declared un- phecv. on Scripture, he relics absolutely ; ho 
 pleasing and unavailing. " I am not invent- asks to be believed, oidv so far as he can j.'rove 
 ing all this," he says, but " this is what David his truth by S< rii>lure. It is the word nilxtd, 
 sang, Isaiah preached, Zechariah proclaimed, given by dod through the Word, or chiefly 
 Moses wrote * {ib. zq). Where the prophets ; through the Spirit. This is reiterated con- 
 insist on the laws, it was because of the tinually. The whole O.T. is as a great 
 people's sin {ib. 27, § 244 d). But Justin has, drama, with various actors, but <>( which there 
 still, to account for the Law being, in a relative is a single author, the Spirit of <;<k1 {Afnit. i. 36, 
 sense, worthy of Crod ; and this He does by § 76 d). It is a unity ; so that Justin does not 
 distinguishing two elements in it, one eternal, : believe that any one p.irt can contradict anv 
 the other temporal ; the two stand to each | other; rather he would feel bound to confess 
 other chiefly as sign and reality; so Justin j his own ignorance, where such seemetl the case 
 discovers in the temporal provisions of the ! (/^f<i/. f>5. § 2'<o c). His definition is :" Certain 
 Law allegories of eternal truths. This is what men existed among the Jews, CukI's prophets, 
 
 was meant when Moses gave minute rules 
 about meats and herbs and drinks ; it was to 
 symbolize the moral laws (cf. ib. 20, § 237 c), 
 but the Jewish people took it literally. They 
 supposed, e.g., some herbs to be evil, some 
 good ; while, in truth, God meant all to be 
 good, if it was profitable to men. The cir- 
 cumcision under Joshua was allegorical (cf. 
 
 through whom the prophetic, spirit foretold 
 things before they occurred" {.4pol. i. 31, § 
 72 b). Moses he calls the first ; after Moses 
 he speaks of an "eternal prophecy going forth " 
 {ib. i. 31 ; Dial. 30, § 247 a), they foretold 
 Christ, His coming. His birth from a virgin, 
 His man's estate. His curing disease and raising 
 the dead, His being hated and despised and 
 
 iii- § 332). So, again, meat was a symbol fixed to a cross, His death, resurrection, and 
 of Christ ; so, too, the Passover Lamb, and ascension. His being, and being called, the Son 
 the scape-goats {ib. 40, 41, §259 a). But if of Uod, His sending out apostles, His success 
 the Law was allegorical, symbolic, it neces- among the Gentiles {.-ipol. i. 31, § 73 a). 
 sarily ceased when the reality came. So it 1 Justin offers a very storehouse of Christian 
 ended with Christ Who has enabled us to interpretations of Scripture, such as cann>)t be 
 sever the eternal from the temporal elements : ' classified briefly ; the strongest lines lie : — 
 He is the test and canon of what was real (i) In the exhibition of the divine plurality, 
 in the Law {ib. 67, § 292 c). through which Justin cm, while retaining the 
 
 If Christ took awav sin. He took away the 1 absolute purity and separateness of (iod the 
 reason for the Law ; He gave us the circum- Father such as the Jewish moni>theism made 
 cision of the heart, which made the carnal imperati%-e, yet justify and correlate all the 
 circumcision needless (cf. ftaimuerfTi ttjc manifold manifestations ui Himself by God 
 x^vx^v dTo 6py^5 Kal i5ov, t6 (TcD/ua KaOapSy under local and temporal qualiftc.itions, .ill re- 
 iTTi: ib. 14, 231 D). Justin does not con- ] ceiving their true and complete elucidation m 
 sider that such a principle as this negatives the Incarnation. He Whose nature it is to be 
 the necessity of an outward baptism, or of an the expression and exhibition of the Father s 
 outward Sunday; for both these he holds. I will, was at the tent door with Abraham in the 
 Prophecy speaks of a new covenant to be made : dream with Jacob, m the burning bush with 
 in a Christ ; and this for Jew as well as for Moses at the camp side with Joshua, ab-vo 
 Gentile, for both are to be saved in the same the cherubim with Isaiah, and now is m.i.lc 
 Christ {lb. 64, § 287 B). Why, then, did Christ man of M.iry (cf. Dial. 75. § 301 a). 
 keep the Law ? Out of the economy of God ; ' (2) Justin ably gathers into one the many- 
 He accepted the Law as He accepted the ; sided characteristics of the Messi.inic prophecy 
 Cross, and the becoming-man : it was in order —the many human, mingled with the many 
 to carry out the Father's will ; but He was not divine, names attributed to the C hrist : He is 
 
 otherwise He man— yet t 
 
 to carry 
 
 justified by keeping the Law, 
 
 could not be the Saviour of all men {ib. 67, ] triumphant 
 § 292 a) nor have introduced a new covenant. ---*--« »-■• 
 The admission of the eternal significance of 
 Christ necessarily carries us back behind the 
 Law, to the conditions under which all men 
 had always lived {ib. 23, § 241 b). 
 
 The failure of the Jews to believe in the 
 Christ is no argument for their being right ; 
 for it is foretold all along that the Gentiles are 
 the children of prophecy, the true Israel, the 
 
 be adoretl ; He is suflering, yet 
 He saves His people, Hr is 
 rejected by His people. Justin, in the para- 
 dox of the Cross, h.is a key to the endless 
 paradox of prophecy. All the shifting double- 
 sided revelations of (;<Klhe.id and manho.Kl. of 
 triumph and suffering, meet in a crucihe<l king. 
 He can give a unity of solution to a Christ Who 
 is called " Angel of great Counsel " and " .Man" 
 bv Ezckiel, " As a Son of man " by Daniel. 
 "Servant " or " Child " by Isaiah. " Christ " 
 
 perfect proselytes ;' it is of them that all the and " God " and " Adorable" by David 
 
 good promises are spoken. The whole <>{ the 
 
 Christ " and " the Stone " by many. " Wis- 
 ■ scph, Judah, and the 
 
 end of the Dialogue is devoted to shewing this. I dom " by Solomon. " Joseph. Judah and the 
 We realise in J ustin the complete GentUism 1 Star " by Moses, ' the Morning btar b> 
 
632 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 Zechariah, " Suffering," and " Jacob," and 
 "Israel" by Isaiah, and "Rod," and 
 " Flower," and " Corner-stone " " cut without 
 hands," and " Son of God," Who is " despised 
 and rejected," vet also is proclaimed " King 
 of Kings, King of Hosts, King of Glory," and 
 is " Set on the right hand of God," " Born of 
 a virgin," yet " Existent before all the 
 world," " the power of God, the glory of God," 
 " the Word," " the Lord," " the Captain of 
 the Hosts," "King," " Priest," yet also 
 " Man," " the Stone," " the Child," the 
 Sufferer " (ib. 126, § 355 b ; 61, § 284 a ; 34, 
 § 251 d). In giving force to this last charac- 
 teristic of the Christ, i.e. 6 naO-nros, at the 
 same time that he gave reality to the highest 
 title, 6 debs TTpo(TKvvr]Tbs, Justin shews his 
 power over the Jew, who can only hover aim- 
 lessly between the two, unable to deal with 
 or accept either the lowest or the highest. 
 Justin declares that no one ever understood 
 the prophecv of the sufferings, until Christ 
 opened it to His apostles. 
 
 (3) He is powerful in his deduction from 
 prophecv of the failure, unbelief, and rum of 
 the Jewish race— as the favoured people ; and 
 in the change of the manifestation of God from 
 them to the Gentiles. Here he had much to 
 use which was onlv a stumbling-block to strict 
 Jewish reliance on blood and privilege. 
 
 (4) He is successful in exhibiting the newness 
 of Christ's covenant, the Neii) Law, \.\\e New 
 Heart ; imder this conception the continual 
 discontent of God with the old sacrifices and 
 sabbaths gains intensitv of meaning ; the calls 
 to wash and be clean, and put away sins, are 
 vivified ; the prophetic types of a new and 
 wider dispensation are brought into daylight. 
 Cf. the whole latter part of the Dialogue. 
 
 Where Justin is weakest is, naturally, m 
 knowledge. He is ignorant of the original 
 tongue and verv arbitrarv in his interpreta- 
 tion of details ; he uses Christ as the accepted 
 kev to the whole complicated history, in a way 
 that to a believer is often full of devotional 
 suggestiveness, but to an unbeliever has no 
 argumentative force. Instances may be 
 found in such chaps, as 77. 78 of the Dialogue, 
 or c. 81, etc. He often takes the wrong sense 
 of a passage. He interprets the passages con- 
 demnatory of the Jewish sacrifices, etc., in 
 a wav that wins them a new meaning from 
 Christ, but is certainly not their intended 
 meaning. He can onlv meet Tr\-pho's sharp 
 criticism on this point by appealing to his own 
 presumption that God's approval of the Law 
 can onlv have been an accommodation to the 
 people's sins (Dial. 27, § 244 b). 
 
 Prophecv is to Justin the main form of 
 Christian evidences ; and this for Gentile as 
 much as for Jew. It is to prophecy he turns 
 to prove that the Christian story of the Incar- 
 nation is not a poetic tale, without foundation ; 
 Greek mvthologv offers no testimony to its 
 own realitv (Apol. i. 54, § 89 a). Christ's 
 miracles were no magic or conjuring because 
 thev were foretold [ih. i. 30, 31, § 72 a). Justin 
 is shv of arguing from miracles : there had 
 been too much false wonder-working for him 
 to appeal to them. The miracles of the old 
 Prophets he speaks of as worthy towin them 
 credit, since they were coincident with a lofty 
 (iesire to reveal God and with prophecy of 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 Christ (Dial. 7, § 225 a). Christ's miracles 
 are to be believed on the ground of prophecy 
 (Apol. i. 30). Miracles are, to him, proofs, 
 when they have been testified to, but cannot 
 stand alone as evidence. 
 
 The other evidence to which Justin appeals 
 is the (i) purity of Christian precepts (Apol. i. 
 14, § 6r) ; (2) their constancv under torture 
 (ib. ii. 12, § 50 A ; Dial, no, § 337 b) ; (3) 
 the consecrated lives of uncorrupt virginity, 
 the conversion of penitents to holiness (Apol. 
 i. 15, 62 B, c ; cf. ib. i. 29, § 71 e) ; (4) the 
 exorcising of demons (ib. ii. 6, § 45 b) ; (5) 
 the existence of prophetical gifts in the church 
 (cf. Dial. 82, § 308 b), as well as of gifts of 
 spiritual power (ib. 35, § 254 b), miracle, and 
 healing (ib. 39, § 258 a). 
 
 We mav briefly ask what knowledge Justin 
 shows of (i) Jewish, and (2) Gentile learning. 
 
 (1) He refers frequently to Jewish modes of 
 interpreting texts and seems used to dealing 
 with them (cf. ib. 50, § 269 d) ; but perhaps he 
 knows them rather in their polemic against 
 Christians than in their own inner teaching. 
 He charges them with escaping from texts 
 against them by throwing doubts on the 
 LXX, while all the Messianic texts that can be 
 accommodated to human affairs they attach 
 to whom they choose, but not to Christ [ib. 
 63, §294b). Thus they attribute the fulfil- 
 ment of the triumphs spoken of in the Psalms 
 to Solomon, in Isaiah to Hezekiah (ib. 64, 
 § 287 A ; 77, % 302 b). Justin does not seem 
 to know of any Jewish theorizing on the 
 problem of the A670S. The Jews expect a 
 purely human Christ (ib. 49, § 268 a), to be 
 heralded by Elias in person, and anointed by 
 him ; till which time the Christ is to be in 
 obscuritv ; He will not even know Himself 
 (ib. no,' §3360). The texts that speak of 
 Christ as passible, yet as God and adorable, 
 thev are compelled, Justin says, to attribute 
 to Christ, but they refuse to allow this Jesus 
 to be the Christ, though they have to confess 
 that the Christ will suffer and be worshipped. 
 The divinity of Christ is, according to this, 
 forced upon the Jews' belief by Christian 
 logic, but they do not know what to make of 
 it, and are in straits. 
 
 (2) .\s to Gentile philosophy, Justin's 
 general knowledge was evidently large ; but 
 it is a question how far he held to any system 
 accurately or scientifically ; he sits pretty loose- 
 ly to them all. He places Plato highest, and 
 delights in his doctrine of Eternal Ideas, but 
 no definite Platonic formulae are used ; the 
 Ideas do not appear ; the doctrine of the Word 
 has general relations to Platonism, but that is 
 all ; it is itself utterly unlike any teaching in 
 Plato ; it belongs to the process of thought 
 which has its roots in O.T., and works through 
 Philo up into Christianity. He gives us no- 
 thing of Plato's except the account of the 
 " X " as the law of creation, in the Timaeus, 
 which Justin supposes him to have taken from 
 the account of the brazen serpent ; and the 
 statement of the triad character of things, 
 which is taken from an epistle attributed till 
 lately to Plato. He declares Plato's account 
 of creation from formless matter to have been 
 taken from Genesis ; but he only means this 
 in the most general way, for he seems to fancy 
 that Plato's formula is consistent with Moses' 
 
JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 statement that this fi>riiiloss matter had itself 
 been made by God (cf. Apol. i. 59, § 92 d). 
 It is obvious that Justin's relation to Platon- 
 ism is quite external ; he holds the Christian 
 formulae, and whenever he detects a likeness 
 to them in Plato, he ilelights in bringing it out, 
 without regard to context or system ; these 
 likenesses are entirely arbitrary and super- 
 ficial, and can never be pressed. Justin's 
 canon of truth is absolutely in Scripture ; 
 from that standpoint his kindly love for 
 Plato pleases itself in exhibiting in him frag- 
 mentary resemblance to the truth ; but if 
 these fragments of truth are rooted in error, so 
 much the worse for Plato ; Justin has no idea ' 
 of following them down. There is some- ' 
 thing to be said for his connexion with Stoic- 
 ism; he approved their morals, and found them 
 right, to some extent, as to the ultimate end of 
 Nature ; but objects strongly to their physical 
 doctrines, their belief in fate, their physico- 
 Pantheistic conception of God, by whicli they 
 must either identify God with evil and change, 
 or else deny the reality of evil (ib. ii. 7, 8) ; 
 he considers their physics inconsistent with 
 their ethics. Musonius and Heraclitus he 
 honourably distinguishes ; of the KiMcureans 
 he speaks scornfully {ib. ii. 15, § 32 b). | 
 
 One problem remains to be considered, i.e. | 
 the relation of Justin to our four Gospels. ; 
 The amount and frequency of his references . 
 to our Lord's life and words, in the generation 
 immediately preceding the day in which the \ 
 present Gospels emerge, secure and alone, 1 
 into the full daylight of history, make him ' 
 of salient importance in determining their 
 character ; and the state of the present 
 controversy, which has detected the subtle ' 
 transition, through which the gospel story 
 passed, from the conditions of a living, oral 
 tradition to those of formal written exemplars. [ 
 increases the importance of Justin, as he ' 
 begins the definite references to written re- ' 
 cords, of a fixed character, capable of being 
 used for devotional purposes. Are these 
 records identical in substance and in form 
 with our Gospels ? I 
 
 (i) The substantial characteristics of our 
 Lord's life, down even to minute details, are, [ 
 obviously, the same for Justin as for us. We '' 
 can compose, from his quotations, a full 
 summary of the whole gospel life, from the j 
 angel's message to the Virgin until the 
 ascension, entering into many particulars, 
 illustrating prophecies, supplying the very 
 words of our Lord, in many instances relating 
 all the circumstances ; and, as a whole, it is 
 perfectly clear that the lines which limit and 
 determine in detail our Gospel did so, too, to 
 his. The same body of facts is selected ; the 
 same character, the same limits preserved, 
 the same characteristics bnjught forward ; the 
 same motives, the same interests are con- 
 cerned ; the same prophetic aspects dwelt 
 upon. This is noticeable, when we remember 
 how very special and remarkable a choice 
 must have been originally exercised upon our . 
 Lord's life, to select and retain the peculiar 
 fragments, no more and no less, which are 
 collected and sorted by our Synoptists. 
 
 (2) Justin makes some additions or changes 
 in detail to this main story ; so few that they 
 can be mentioned and their character seen. 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 n3S 
 
 He had a gi-ncdogv whi. h. whrllier <>urs or 
 not, he attributed t<> Marv. not to Jnjwph : 
 Cyrenius he calls the first Procurator o( 
 Judaea; our Lord's birthplace is a ravr ; the 
 Magi come from Arabia ; all the childrrn m 
 Bethlehem are killed ; our Lord is not " come- 
 ly of aspect •• ; He made i)loiighs an.l vokr*. 
 emblems of righteousness ; the Baptist sal by 
 Jordan ; a fire shone in Jordan at our Lord't 
 baptism, and the words from heaven c omplrte 
 the text of the second Psalm; the Jrw» 
 ascribed (>ur Lord's miracles to magic ; John 
 ceased his mission at our Lord's public appear- 
 ance. The Lord said, " There shall b*" 
 schisms and heresies " ; and " In whatsoever 
 I find you, in that will I judge you." 
 
 Of these several are, probably, confusions 
 or amplifications of Justin's own; some 
 rei'rtsent additions found in various texts o( 
 our present Gospels, and were, probably, 
 floating, popular, traditional interpretations 
 of various passages. The onlv remaining 
 points definitely distinct arc, the home of the 
 Magi, the cave of the Nativity, the posture of 
 the Baptist, the two sayings of our Lord. 
 Does Justin, then, take these from tradition 
 or from any uncanonical gospel ? We must 
 hypothesize the gospel that he used, if it is 
 not ours ; for we have no relic f)f it in f>ur 
 hands, and here the remark seems convincing 
 (Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 10 1) 
 that this gospel, if it existed, belongs not to 
 an earlier but to a later stage of the story 
 than our canonical works. 
 
 That they were books that he used he tells us 
 frequently ; it is all " written " ; the books 
 are called by a name peculiar to Justin, 
 diroij.vrifioi'fvuara twv "AiroffriVwc ; they are 
 records of our Lord's sayings and doings, 
 written either by apostles or their followers 
 {Apol. i. 66, § 98 B ; Dial. 103, § 333 n). 
 These books constitute rd (ia-)-f4\ii>i' (tb. 
 10, § 227 E) ; a quotation is referred to this 
 €va-yy(\iov {ib. too, § 326 c) ; the arofirrj- 
 ixovtvfxara are themselves called <i"a-)->Ajo, he 
 tells us, if the text is right {Apol. i. 66). All 
 this points obviously to the existence of 
 various records, " written either by apostles 
 or by their followers," constituting altogether 
 a single story, t6 ti'ayy^Xioi'. So far our 
 Gospels exactly correspond. .More than this, 
 it is almost incredible that he should n^-t 
 have known Matlhexf, at least ; besides the 
 general mass of reference, which exhibits 
 remarkable resemblance to this Gospel, he 
 has marked notices that distinguish Matthew 
 from the other forms of the evangelical tra- 
 diti'>n : the visit of the Magi, the desient into 
 linypt. Joseph's suspicions of .Marv, texts, 
 elsewhere unparalleled, from the Sermon on 
 the Mount, the application of Is. xlii. 1-4 to 
 the colt with the ass ; above all, the commrnt 
 of the disciples upon the identification ">f the 
 Baptist with HIias {Dial. 49. § 269 a ; Malt. 
 xviii. 11-13). the expressions hoxoi *i\ (M.itt. 
 V. 22), iyiaptiiati (v. 41), etc., etc. The 
 resemblance to l.uke in places where we can 
 distinguish St. Luke's peculiar work from the 
 general tradition are in a few cases almost im- 
 possible to resist, such as the quotation of xviii. 
 27 (Apol. i. 20, § 66) ; the use of the unique 
 expression laiyyiXoi. xx. 3^-36 ; and the most 
 remarkable expressions at the annunciation, 
 
634 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 iiria-Kid^eiv Siivafiis vfiarov, etc., which are 
 directly Lucan. Cf., also, the last word on the 
 cross. The only statement entirely peculiar 
 to Mark is the naming of the sons of Zebedee. 
 Thus not only is the whole body of quotation 
 accounted for with a few rare exceptions, 
 from our Gospels, but in some cases where 
 SS. Matthew and Luke affect by their 
 individuality the common original tradition 
 Justin reproduces them. 
 
 The inexactness of quotation is the one 
 opposing element. Justin is inexact, it is 
 true, in his O.T. quotations, but he is more 
 than three times as inaccurate in his N.T. 
 ones. It is intensely difficult to know how 
 much to discount for free combination which 
 Justin uses extensively, how much for lack of 
 memory, how much for mere paraphrase ; or 
 to determine, after such discounting, how 
 much evidence remains to shew Justin's use 
 of any other gospel besides our own. But if 
 Justin used some form of the gospel not now 
 in the canon, it was either a text used by the 
 side of Matthew and Luke, and not differing 
 from them in any degree more than they 
 differ from each other ; and if so, it would 
 multiply the evidence for the authenticity of 
 the narrative embodied in our canon ; or 
 else it was a text compounding and combining 
 with some freedom the other two ; and if so, 
 it supposes these canonical gospels to be 
 already the formal authorities. The suppo- 
 sition that Justin used a perfectly distinct 
 form of the gospel story from any we now 
 possess is met by the invincible difficulty that, 
 though ex hypothesi of sufficient importance 
 and acceptance to be used in the public 
 offices of the metropolitan church as late as 
 the boyhood of St. Irenaeus, it has, neverthe- 
 less, totally disappeared. 
 
 As to John, the main argument against its 
 use is that from silence. Justin is full of 
 doctrine on the subject of the Word, on the 
 pre-existence and divine authority of Christ, 
 yet no words from the Johannine discourses 
 appear in his work. This argument has 
 necessarily great weight, yet any single dis- 
 tinct reference to John must outweigh such a 
 negative. Is there any such reference ? 
 
 In Dial. 88 Justin attributes to the Baptist 
 himself the words of the prophet, rptjjvri (ioQivros. 
 This attribution is one of those remarkable 
 distinctions peculiar to St. John's Gospel. 
 We know of no other ground for it. Twice 
 (in Apol. i. 22, § 68 b, and Dial. 69, § 296 a) 
 he speaks of our Lord healing people infirm ex 
 yeviTrj'i : the only recorded instance of this is 
 the blind man in Jn. ix. 20, (k yeverij^. In 
 Apol. i. 6r, Justin, it can hardly be doubted, 
 is paraphrasing Jn. iii. 3-5. He is referring 
 to a definite statement of our Lord ; and the 
 statement — a most marked and peculiar one — 
 occurs here only. Justin refers to it in a way 
 that makes it hardly possible to suppose him 
 unacquainted with the continuation in John. 
 In its context in the Apology the reference to the 
 physical impossibility of a literal new birth is 
 singularly awkward (cf. Otto, note in loc). 
 Justin, moreover, claims that he is believing 
 Christ's own teaching when he believes in His 
 Divine pre-existence ; which would be more 
 intelligible of John than of the other Gospels 
 {Dial. 48, § 267 d). There is, again, a notice 
 
 JUSTINUS MARTYR 
 
 of our Lord {ib. 106, § 333) which receives its 
 proper interpretation only in Jn. xiii. and 
 xvii. ; Christ, says Justin, knew that the 
 Father gave everything to Him, and Himself 
 demanded this. Such are the possible direct 
 references, rare, indeed, but in one case, at 
 least, remarkably noticeable. Indirectly, 
 Justin holds a doctrine of the Word, clear, 
 pronounced, decisive, such as finds no home 
 or base for itself but in the Fourth Gospel. 
 This doctrine Justin does not originate ; it is 
 the accepted, familiar. Christian faith put 
 forth for the whole body, as their common 
 belief, without hesitation, apology, anxiety, 
 scruple, or uncertainty. It presents the 
 exact features of the Johannine teaching ; the 
 universalism of the Philonic A670S is identified 
 with, and made concrete by, the living, vivid 
 individualism of the Incarnate Messiah. The 
 synthesis is done, is complete, without con- 
 fusion or doubt. Justin is as definite, as full 
 of sanctioned certainty on the reality of this 
 doctrine of the Incarnate Word, as he is on 
 the facts and discourses represented by our 
 Synoptists. The Life of our Lord is already 
 for him the Life as it is in fusion with the 
 dogma of the Word — the Life as it is under 
 the manipulation that is displayed in the 
 Fourth Gospel. Have we any cause of suffi- 
 cient force to have achieved so decided a 
 result but the Gospel of St. John ? (Cf. 
 Thoma, in Zeitsch. fiir Wissenschaft. Theolog. 
 pt. 4 (1875, Leipz.) : an elaborate discussion 
 which concludes, " Justin cites only the 
 Synopt., but he thinks and argues with the 
 Fourth Gospel, evidencing its existence, but 
 not its apostolicity " ; but cf. on last point, 
 Westcott, Canon of N.T. p. 100.) 
 
 In connexion with this there must be men- 
 tioned a passage in Dial. 123, § 353 b, in which, 
 if not the gospel, then the first ep. of St. John 
 can hardly be supposed absent from the 
 writer's mind. The peculiar conjunction of 
 KaXovfieda Kal icTfj.^i' is essentially Johannine 
 (I. John iii. i, 2) ; as is the connexion of 
 " sonship " with keeping ras evroXcis Justin, 
 again, knows the writings of the Valentinians, 
 and this (according to the evidence of Hip- 
 polytus and Irenaeus) must have involved a 
 knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. Altogether, 
 the problem presented by his not quoting 
 John is far easier to solve than the problem of 
 his not knowing it. 
 
 As to the rest of the canon, Justin mentions 
 the Apocalypse by name, attributing it to St. 
 John (Dial. 81, § 308 a). He can hardly but 
 be thinking of Romans in ib. 23, § 241 b. He 
 has references to /. Corinthians {ib. 14, § 231 d; 
 iiii § 333 c ; Apol. i, 60, § 93), and to //. 
 Thessalonians {Dial. 32, § no). He constant- 
 ly repeats the irpuiTdroKOS trdffrjs Kxiaews, 
 which suggests Colossians ; he has references 
 which seem to recall Hebrews {ib. 13, § 229 d ; 
 Apol. i. 12, § 60, dTr6(TToKo% . . . 'I77<ro0s X/)i(r- 
 t6s) ; his words appear in several places to 
 point to Acts (cf. Apol. 50, § 86 b ; 40, § 79 a). 
 Everywhere he exhibits traces of St. Paul ; 
 and his controversy with Marcion must have 
 involved a complete acquaintance with the 
 theology and language of the great apostle. 
 
 Throughout Justin claims to shew forth, 
 with a certainty attested by sacrifice and 
 death, a solid body of certified doctrine, which 
 
JUSTINUS 
 
 apostolic authority sealed and secured ; Christ, 
 as He had been foretold by prophets and 
 announced to the world by apostles, is the 
 assured ground of his faith (cf. Dml. 119. 
 § 343 A ; Afol. i. 39, 42). The apostles are 
 the twelve bells on the border of the high- 
 priest's garment, with the sound of whose 
 ringing the whole world has been filled {Dial. 
 4.J, § 263 c) ; the apostles are the evangelical 
 preachers in whose person Isaiah cried, " Lord, 
 who hath believed our report ? '" the apostles are 
 " the brethren in the midst of whom " Christ 
 gives praise unto God {ib. 106, § 333 c). The 
 Apologies have been pub. in Eng.in the.-} fttf-\ic. 
 Fathers (T. & T. Clark) and in a cheap form in 
 the A. and M. Tluol. Lib. (Ciriffith). [h.s.h.] 
 
 JustiDUS (3), a Gnostic writer, author of 
 several books, only known to us by the 
 abstract which Hippolytus {Ref. Harr. v. 23, 
 p. X48) has given of one of them, called the 
 book of Baruch. The account which that 
 book gives of the origin and historv of the 
 universe makes it to have sprung from three 
 underived principles, two male, "one female. 
 The first of these is the Good Being, and has 
 no other name ; He is perfect in knowledge, 
 and is remote from all contact with the 
 created world, of which, however. He is after- 
 wards described as the Ultimate Cause. It is 
 the knowledge of this Good Being which alone 
 deserves the name, and it is from the posses- 
 sion of it that these heretics claimed the title 
 of Gnostics. The second principle is called 
 Elohim, the Father of the creation, deficient 
 in knowledge, but not represented as subject to 
 evil passion. The third, or female principle, 
 identified with the earth, is called Eden and 
 Israel, destitute of knowledge and subject to 
 anger, of a double form, a woman above the 
 middle, "a snake below. Of her, Elohim becomes 
 enamoured, and from their intercourse spring 24 
 angels — 12 paternal, who co-operate with tiuir 
 father and do his will, and 12 maternal, who 
 do the mother's will. The principal part is 
 played by the third paternal angel, Baruch, the 
 chief minister of good, and the third maternal, 
 Naas, or the serpent, the chief author of evil. 
 
 Lipsius regards this work of Justinus as 
 probably wTitten later than the middle of 
 2nd cent., representing in its fundamental 
 ideas one of the oldest, perhaps the very 
 oldest, form of Gnosticism, and as exhibiting 
 the passage of Jewish Christianity into 
 Gnosis. We cannot share this view. On 
 comparing the system of Justinus with that 
 of the Ophite sect described by Irenaeus (i. 30), 
 the points of contact are found to be too 
 numerous to be all accidental. In the 
 system of these Ophites the commencement is 
 made with two male principle;, and one female 
 On the whole, we feel bound t"^) refer the 
 system of Justinus to the latest stage of 
 Gnosticism, when a philosophy, in which any 
 unproved assumption was regarded as suffi- 
 ciently justified by any remote analogy, had 
 reached its exhaustion, and when its teachers 
 were forced to seek for novelty by wilder and 
 more audacious combinations ; and we are not 
 disposed to quarrel with the verdict of Hip- 
 polytus that he had met with many heretics, 
 but never a worse one than Justinus. [g.s.] 
 
 Justinus (12) I., proclaimed emperor (July 9, 
 518) on the death of the emperor Anastasius 
 
 JUSTINUS II. fl35 
 
 by the troops under hLs comm.uid .»n.| l.v the 
 people {Chron. Pasch. 331. m I'atf. (,k. x<lu 
 85S). the choice brills appro%r<l bv th« 
 senate (Marcell. Chmn.). H,- was 4 man ..f 
 no education, and the aHaini of the »tatr were 
 managed chieflv bv his prudent ministrr 
 Proclus the (juaest<>r and aftrrwards bv liif 
 nephew and eventual surrpssor Justinian. 
 For the most meni<>r.ib|o event of his rrntn, 
 the end of the schism between the K.istrni 
 and Western churches, sec Hokmisuas. For 
 his relations with Persia see Choskoes I. m 
 I). C. H. (4. vol. ed.). 
 
 In 523 Justin issued a constitution af;ainst 
 theManicheansand otlu-r heretics ((oi/n, i. m. 
 v. 12). The former were punished with exile 
 or death; other heretics, pagans, Jews, and 
 Samaritans, were declared incapable of holding 
 a magistracy or entering mihtarv srrvirr. 
 The allied Goths were exempted from tlirs*; 
 provisions. Because of the persecution of hij 
 .\rian co-religionists, Theodoric sent pope 
 John I. in 525 to Constantinople to remon- 
 strate with the emperor. [Epiphanius (17) ] 
 
 In .Apr. 527 Justin caused Justinian, who 
 had long taken the chief part in government. 
 to be proclaimed emperor and crowned, and 
 on .Aug. I died, in his 75th vear. [r.o.] 
 
 Justinus 113) II., emperor, nephew uf Jus- 
 tinian, son of his sister Vigilantia. He was 
 appointed Curopalates or Master of the 
 Palace by his uncle (Corip. i. 138). The ni^ht 
 Justinian died, a deputation of the senate, 
 headed by the patrician Callinicus. hurried t-'i 
 his house and persuaded him to accept the 
 I crown. In the early morning he was saluted 
 ; emperor by the populace in the hippociromc. 
 I The same day (Nov. 14, 565) he was crowned 
 I by the patriarch John (Theophan. Cron. in 
 [ Patr. Gk. cviii. 525), and received the homage 
 of the senate and people in the hippodrome. 
 J ustin, on his accession, declared himself an 
 1 adherent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and 
 j restored to their sees the bishops who had 
 been banished by his predecessor (V'enantius 
 I Fortunatus, ad Justinum, 25-26, 39-44, in I'alr. 
 I Lat. Ixxxviii. 432). The edict is given in prob- 
 ably a corrupt form by Evagrius (//. f.. v. i. 
 in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 2789), and also by Nice- 
 [ phorus Callistus (//. E. xvii. 33). Soon after- 
 j wards another edict was published, given at 
 length by Evagrius (//. E. v. 4), in which, after 
 ■ setting forth the orthodox belief as to the doc- 
 trines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, he 
 exhorted all to return to the Catholic Church, 
 which should remain firm and unchanged for 
 ' ever ; and that no one should for the future 
 dispute about persons or svllables. probably 
 referring to the person of Theodore and the 
 writings of Theodoret and I has. and also to 
 the question as to the Incorruptibility of the 
 body of Christ. This edict gained general 
 approval, as all interpreted it in favour of 
 their own views, but none of the variout 
 sects returned to communion, in consequence 
 of the emperor's declaration that no chaiiKc 
 was to be made in the church. Justin also 
 early in his reign sent Photinus, the stepson of 
 Belisarius, with full powers to reconcile the 
 churches of Egy[>t and Alexandria, but his 
 mission seems to have been fruitless. 
 I For the secular events of his reign see Jfs- 
 1 Ti.sus II.. D. of G. and H. Btogr. 
 
636 
 
 JUVENALIS 
 
 In May 568 a rescript was issued to Spes- 
 in-Deum, the archbp. of the Byzacene pro- 
 vince in Africa, confirming the privileges of 
 his church and synod by which he was the sole 
 judge of charges brought against any bishops 
 or clergy within his jurisdiction, and in Nov. 
 (Clinton, Fasti, 825) a law (Nov. cxlix.) was 
 promulgated addressed to the bishops and 
 leading men of each province directing them 
 to choose the governors (praesides) themselves 
 and to submit the names to the emperor, who 
 would invest them with their offices. At 
 the end of 570 or the beginning of 571, Anas- 
 tasius, bp. of Antioch, was deposed and Gre- 
 gorius substituted in his place. [Anastasius 
 Sinaita(I); Gregorius (31).] On May 18, 
 572, a stringent law was passed against the 
 Samaritans (Nov. cxliv.). They were declared 
 incapable of inheriting under a will or an 
 intestacy and of exercising testamentary 
 powers except in favour of Christians. Other- 
 wise the goods of the deceased were forfeited 
 to the treasury. For the sake of agriculture 
 farmers were exempted from these provisions. 
 Samaritans were also declared incapable of 
 holding any civil or military employments. 
 Baptized Samaritans who observed the sab- 
 bath or other rites of their creed were punished 
 with perpetual exile. A Samaritan was de- 
 clared incapable of having a Christian slave ; 
 if he bought one, the slave ipso facto became 
 entitled to his freedom ; while a Samaritan 
 slave became free on embracing Christianity. 
 Justin at length was seized with madness, and 
 died, Oct. 5, 578, after reigning nearly 13 
 years. [f-d.] 
 
 Juvenalls (2) succeeded Praylius as bp. of 
 Jerusalem c. 420. The ruling object of his 
 episcopate was the elevation of the see of 
 Jerusalem from the subordinate position it 
 held in accordance with the seventh of the 
 canons of Nicaea, as suffragan to the metro- 
 politan see of Caesarea, to a primary place in 
 the episcopate. Juvenal coveted not merely 
 metropolitan, but patriarchal rank, and in 
 defiance of all canonical authority claimed 
 jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, 
 from which he sought to remove Arabia and 
 the two Phoenicias to his own province. 
 Scarcely had he been consecrated bp. of Jeru- 
 salem when he proceeded to assert his claims 
 to the metropolitan rank by his acts. A letter 
 of remonstrance against the proceedings of the 
 council of Ephesus, sent to Theodosius by the 
 Oriental party, complains that Juvenal had 
 ordained in provinces over which he had no 
 jurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii. 728). Cyril of 
 Alexandria wrote to Leo, then archdeacon of , 
 Rome, informing him of this and begging that 
 his unlawful attempts might have no sanction 
 from the apostolic see. J uvenal, however, was 
 far too useful an allyagainst Nestorius for Cyril 
 lightly to discard. When the council met at ; 
 Ephesus, Juvenal was allowed to take pre- j 
 cedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea and to 
 occupy the position of vice-president of the 1 
 council, coming next after Cyril himself (ib. iii. j 
 445), and was regarded in all respects as the ; 
 second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant [ 
 assertion of his supremacy over the bp. of 
 Antioch, and his claim to take rank next after j 
 Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open i 
 remonstrance. At the "Latrocinium " Juvenal i 
 
 JUVENALIS 
 
 occupied thethirdplace, after Dioscorusandthe 
 papal legate, by the special order of Theodosius 
 (ih. iv. 109). When the council of Chalcedon 
 met, one of the matters before it was the 
 dispute as to priority between Juvenal and 
 Maximus, bp. of Antioch. The contention 
 ended in a compromise agreed on in the 
 Seventh Action. Juvenal surrendered his 
 claim to the two Phoenicias and to Arabia, 
 on condition of being allowed metropolitical 
 jurisdiction over the three Palestines (ib. iv. 
 613). The claim to patriarchal authority over 
 the bp. of Antioch put forward at Ephesus was 
 discreetly dropped. The terms arranged be- 
 tween Maximus and Juvenal received the 
 consent of the assembled bishops (ib. 618). 
 Maximus, however, soon repented his too 
 ready acquiescence in Juvenal's demands, and 
 wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo, 
 who, replying June 11, 453, upheld the au- 
 thority of the Nicene canons, and promised to 
 do all he could to maintain the ancient dignity 
 of the see of Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maxi- 
 mum, 119 [92]). No further action, however, 
 seems to have been taken either by Leo or by 
 Maximus. Juvenal was left master of the 
 situation, and the church of Jerusalem from 
 that epoch has peaceably enjoyed the patri- 
 archal dignity. 
 
 On the opening of the council at Ephesus, 
 June 22, 431, Juvenal took a prominent part 
 in the condemnation of Nestorius. As one of 
 the eight legates deputed by the council, he 
 aided in the consecration of Maximian in Nes- 
 torius's room, Oct. 25, 431 (Labbe, iii. 780; 
 Baluz 571 seq.). In retaliation, John of Anti- 
 och and the Orientals on their way back from 
 Ephesus held a synod at Tarsus, which excom- 
 municated Cyril and the deputies of the council, 
 Juvenal at their head (Baluz. 939). 
 
 When, in 449, the " Latrocinium " met at 
 Ephesus, Juvenal was the first to sign the 
 instrument of Flavian's deposition (Labbe, iv. 
 306). The natural consequence of this open 
 patronage of heresy was that the name of 
 Juvenal, together with those of Dioscorus and 
 the other bishops of the " Latrocinium," was 
 removed from the diptychs of Rome and other 
 orthodox churches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Ana- 
 tolium, 80 [60]). This alarmed Juvenal, and 
 he faced completely round at Chalcedon in 
 451, denouncing the doctrines he had sup- 
 ported two years before at Ephesus. The 
 place he occupied in the council indicated that 
 he had been compelled to abate somewhat of 
 his overweening pretensions. Anatolius of 
 Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch both 
 took precedence of him, as did the Roman 
 legates and Dioscorus (Labbe, iv. 79 et passim). 
 The proceedings had not advanced far when 
 Juvenal, seeing the course events were taking, 
 rose up with the bishops of Palestine in his 
 train, and crossed over from the right, where 
 he had been sitting with the Alexandrine pre- 
 lates, to the Orientals on the left amid shouts 
 of "Welcome, orthodox one ! It is God Who 
 has brought thee over here " (ib. 178). This 
 desertion of his old friends barely saved him. 
 Evidence being read as to the violence with 
 which Flavian's condemnation had been en- 
 forced, and the brutality with which he had 
 been treated, the imperial commissioners pro- 
 posed Juvenal's deposition, together with that 
 
 i 
 
JUVENALIS 
 
 of l^ioscorus, Eusebiiis, and the otiurs who 
 had taken a leading part in these disgraceful 
 transactions (ib. 323). J iivenal evidently felt 
 that consistency must now be sacrificed to the 
 maintenance of his position, and having given 
 his vote and signature to the deposition of 
 Dioscorus (ib. 458) and signed the tome of Leo 
 {ib. 7gS). the objections of the commissioners 
 were overruled. Juvenal and his four com- 
 panions were allowed to resume their seats, 
 amid a shout of welcome, "This is the Lord's 
 doing." " Many years to the orthodox ! This 
 is the peace of the churches" {ib. 509). He 
 subsequently took part in drawing up the 
 declaration of faith (ib. 559-362) and signed 
 the letter sent to Leo (Baluz. 1370). We have 
 a Latin translation of a synodical letter 
 written in his own name and that of the 
 bishops of Palestine, a.d. 453, to the archi- 
 mandrites, presbyters, and monks of the 
 province confirming the decrees of Chalcedon 
 (Labbe, iv. 889). j 
 
 His enjoyment of his newly acquired 
 diijnity was speedily disturbed. The decrees 
 of Chalcedon were not at all acceptable to a 
 large number of the archimandrites and monks 
 of Palestine, who generally held Eutychian 
 views, and they, in 452, addressed letters to 
 Marcian and to Pulcheria against the conduct 
 of their bishop. The emperor and empress j 
 administered severe rebukes to the remon- 
 strants (ib. 874, 879). The imperial dis- , 
 pleasure, however, failed to repress the turbu- 
 lence of the malcontents, and under the 1 
 leadership of Theodosius, a fanatical Mono- 
 physite monk, patronized by the empress- > 
 dowager Eudocia, who had made Jerusalem 
 her home, they threw the whole province into 
 confusion. J uvenal's life was threatened. The ! 
 walls and gates were guarded to prevent his ' 
 escape. But he concealed himself, and to- j 
 gether with Domnus made his way to the 1 
 desert, whence he fled to Constantinople and 
 laid his complaints against Theodosius and j 
 his partisans before the emperor (ib. 858 ; I 
 C>Till. Scythop. Euthym. Vit. 82 ; Evagr. ; 
 H. E. ii. 5 ; Theophan. p. 92). iMarciaa took 
 decided measures to restore order. After \ 
 holding possession for two years, Thei)dosius \ 
 was expelled from Jerusalem, 453, and Juvenal 
 was restored. Eudocia returned to Jerusa- 
 lem, and renewed communion with Juvenal, 
 her example proving influential to bring back 
 the large majority both of monks and laity 
 to the cathedral church (Euthym. Vit. 86). 
 One of Juvenal's first acts on his restoration 
 was to hold a council which issued a syni>dical 
 letter to the two Palestines, declaring the 
 perfect orthodoxy of the decrees of Chalcedon 
 and denying that anything had there been 
 altered in, or added tf>, the Niceiie faith 
 (Labbe, iv. 889). Mutual ill-will and suspicion 
 still embittered the relations of Juvenal to his 
 province, and Evagrius complains of the evils ^ 
 which had followed his return (Evagr. H. E. ' 
 ii. 5). Leo (Sept. 4. 454) offered congratul.i- 
 tions on his rest<jration, but told him plainiv 
 that he had brought his troubles on himself 
 by his condemnation of Flavian and admission 
 of the errors of Eutyches, and that having 
 favoured heretics he cannot now blame them. 
 Leo expressed his satisfaction that he had ] 
 come to a better mind, and advised him to | 
 
 JUVENCUS 
 
 037 
 
 study his toni.- lo (..nnnii him in thr (jith 
 (Leo Magn. Ep. 139 (171]). la 457 Lm ad- 
 dressetl Juvenal among tlie mctropohtans of 
 the East, with refi-renco to the trouble* at 
 Alexandria, urging hun to defend the (aith as 
 declared at Chalcedon (Ep. 150 [119)). 
 
 I The statement of Basil of Silruria that 
 Juvenal first " began to ceUbr.Ue the gloriou* 
 and adorable salvation-bringing nativity of the 
 I.onl " (I'atr. Gk. Ixxxv. ^in)) must be iiiter- 
 preti'd to mean that he separated the n-lc- 
 i)ratioii of the Nativity and the Epiphany, 
 which, till then, had been kept on the same 
 day, Jan. 6. We may gather from a letter 
 professing to be addressed by the bp. of Jeru- 
 salem to the bp. of Rome that this change was 
 in accordance with the Western practice. 
 Basil of Selcucia, being a contemporary of 
 Juvenal and associated with him in his jiublic 
 acts, may be regarded as trustworthy evidence 
 for the fact. According to Basil, Juvenal 
 
 I built a basilica in honour of St. Stephen on the 
 site of his martyrdom, for which the empress 
 Eudocia furnished the funds. The death 
 of Juvenal probably occiured in 458 (cf. 
 Tillem. Note sur Juvenal, xv. 867). He was 
 succeeded by Anastasius. Tillem. .\tim. 
 eccl. XV. ; Ceillier, xiii. z\7 ; Cave, Script. 
 Ecd. i. 419 ; (Judin, i. 1270.) [e-v.] 
 
 Juvencus, C. Vettius AquIIinus, a Christian 
 poet, by birth a Spaniard, descended from a 
 noble family. He was a presbyter, and com- 
 posed his poem on the gospels during the reign 
 of peace established by Constantine (//m/. Af. 
 iv. 808 sqq. ; Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 84 ; Ep. 
 Ixx. Chronica ad 332 a.d.). His works shew 
 an acquaintance with the chief Latin poets. 
 
 (i) Historia Evangelica. This is the only 
 extant work attributed to him on the authority 
 of St. Jerome. It is an hexameter poem on our 
 Lord's life, based upon the gospels. It is of 
 interest as the first Christian epic, the first effort 
 to tell the gospel story in a metrical form. 
 Its chief merit lies in its literal adherence to 
 the text. Commencing with the events of 
 Luke i. ii. (i. 1-258), it passes to the account of 
 St. Matthew (i. 18), and follows that to the end, 
 omitting only a few short passages (xiii. 44-53. 
 XX. 29-34, xxi. 10-13, xxiii. 15-26. 29-36, xxiv. 
 28), rarely supplemented from the other 
 Synoptists (v. i. 355, ii. 43), but having larije 
 extracts from St. John, viz. i. 43-iv- (lib. li. 
 99-348), V. 19-47 (ii. 639 sqq.), xi. (iv. 306-404). 
 It is saved from baldness by a clear fluent 
 style, which shews a knowledge of Vergil, 
 Ovid, and Lucan. It seems to have been widely 
 known from the first and (pioted with approval 
 bvSt. Jerome (ad Matt. ii. 1 1), pope (.el.isius, 
 Venantius Fortunatus (de Vita S. Martini, i), 
 Isidore, Jonas Scotus, Bede, and Alcuin (Migne, 
 ProleRg. col. 42 sqq.). It has been edited no 
 less than 30 times. The best separate wld. arc 
 by Keusch (Frankfort, 1710); Arcvalo (Rome, 
 1792) (reprinted in Migne) ; and tsp. Hueincr 
 (Vienna, 1891) in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lai. 
 xxiv. Cf. C.ebser, de C. Vett. Aq. Vila tt 
 S<:r«7>/«.? (lib. i. with intro. and notes), Jena, i8a7; 
 C. Mar..ld. Ueber d. Evang.-buch des Juimcus 
 in semen Verhultnis^ z. Hibeltext in Zeitschr. 
 lur wtisen-icha/t. I he»l. xxxiii. p. 3^') (i*<9o) ; 
 Kritische Beitrdge tur Hut. EvangiUi Juventus 
 von Ur. J. HuenuT in Wiener Studien (Vienna, 
 1880), pp. 8l-H2. 
 
638 
 
 KENTIGERN 
 
 (ii) St. Jerome (u.s) attributes to him 
 " nonnulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum 
 ordinem pertinentia," but these are not extant. 
 
 (iii) Historia Vet. Testamenti. Only extant 
 in parts, and its authorship doubtful. 
 
 (iv) Some later writers attribute hymns to 
 him, but there is no trace of any except the can- 
 ticles in Hist. Ev. and Hist. Vet. Test, [w.l.] 
 
 K 
 
 Kentigern (Conthigemus, Cyndeym, Kente- 
 gernus, Quentigern, Mongah, Munghu, Mungo, 
 bp. of Glasgow and confessor). St. Kentigern 
 shares, with St. Ninian and St. Columba, the 
 highest honour among the early evangelizers of 
 Scotland. The time, extent, and sphere of St. 
 Kentigern's missionary enterprise are suffi- 
 ciently recognized. Strictly speaking, there is 
 only one Life of St. Kentigern known, that by 
 Joceline of Furness, written probably c. 1180, 
 for bp. Joceline of Glasgow (a.d. 1174-1199), 
 from two earlier memoirs, but there is an older 
 fragment which was probably one of the two used 
 by him. From these all others are derived. 
 
 St. Kentigern, perhaps better and more 
 popularly known as St. Mungo, was a Strath- 
 clyde Briton. His parentage is doubtful. 
 He was born at Culross in Perthshire. From 
 his master there he secretly departed, and 
 travelling westward, crossing the Forth prob- 
 ably near Alloa, arrived at Carnock near 
 Stirling, and tlience was led by the oxen which 
 carried the corpse of Fregus to Cathures, now 
 Glasgow, where St. Ninian had already con- 
 secrated a cemetery. There he took up the 
 unfinished work of St. Ninian. The picture 
 presented of the time and field of his labour 
 is a deplorable one. He was consecrated by a 
 single bishop, called for the purpose from 
 Ireland (c. 11). He was raised to the episco- 
 pate in his 25th year (c. 12), but all we know 
 of the date is that it was before his departure 
 to Wales. Ussher places it in 540, which is 
 accepted by Stubbs (Reg. Sacr. Angl. 157). 
 At Glasgow he formed a monastic school, and 
 a beautiful account is given (cc. 12-18) of the 
 man, his austere life and humble piety. He 
 had a wide province, which he traversed 
 mostly on foot, and his message was to the 
 lapsed from the faith and to the morally 
 degraded, as well as to the ignorant pagans. 
 The disorders in the kingdom, and probably 
 the increasing power of the pagan faction, 
 induced the bishop to leave his see and find 
 refuge in Wales a few years after his conse- 
 cration (a.d. 543, Ussher). On his way he 
 spent some time in Cumberland, where his 
 work is marked by churches still dedicated to 
 him (c. 23) ; thence he advanced as far as 
 Menevia, where he visited St. David, and then 
 appears to have returned northwards, settling 
 for a time on the banks of the Clwyd and 
 building his church at its confluence with the 
 Elwy, at Llanelwy, now St. Asaph's, in Flint- 
 shire (cc. 23-25), c. 545 (Stubbs). The monas- 
 tery which he erected at Llanelwy was soon 
 filled. Old and young, rich and poor, prince 
 and peasant, flocked to it, and we have a very 
 graphic picture of how monasteries were 
 raised in ancient days before stone was used 
 for such erections, and how the laus perennis 
 was carried out in large communities, such as 
 
 LACTANTIUS 
 
 this must have been with its 965 brethren in 
 their " threefold division of religious observ- 
 ance " (cc. 24-25). 
 
 Meanwhile the sovereign had changed, and, 
 as a direct consequence, the religious feeling 
 of the kingdom of Strathclyde. Rhydderch 
 Hael, son of Tudwal Tudglud, had come to the 
 throne, and at the battle of Ardderyd (now 
 Arthuret, on the Esk near Carlisle), had de- 
 feated {573) the heathen party under Gwen- 
 dolen, at Ceidio, whereby his kingdom was 
 made to extend from the Clyde to the Mersey, 
 and thus to the confines of St. Kentigern's 
 Welsh see. The first-fruit of this battle was 
 the recall of St. Kentigern to his Cumbrian 
 diocese by Rhydderch, who, himself of Irish 
 extraction, had received the Christian faith 
 during his exile in Ireland. This date is of 
 importance, giving one fixed point in St. Kenti- 
 gern's chronology. Rhydderch's call he at 
 once obeyed ; and consecrating his disciple 
 St. Asaph to fill Ills place in N. Wales, returned 
 to Strathclyde, but went no farther than 
 Holdelm (now Hoddam, Dumfriesshire), where 
 for some years (probably eight) he had his 
 episcopal seat. His leaving Llanelwy was a 
 cause of much lamentation, and a great number 
 of the monks accompanied him. At Hoddam 
 a joyous welcome was given to the saint by 
 king Rhydderch, who is represented (cc. 31-33) 
 as going out with his people to meet him and 
 as conceding to him all power over himself 
 and his posterity. At Glasgow the still more 
 famous meeting took place between St. Co- 
 lumba and St. Kentigern. The districts they 
 evangelized were contiguous. Their meeting 
 was typical of the two currents of Christian 
 faith and practice running alongside and over- 
 flowing the land — viz. the Irish and the Welsh 
 — which were to come in contact again at the 
 great rampart of the Grampian range and give 
 their character to the Scotic and the Pictish 
 churches. The dedications to the N. of Glas- 
 gow, and on Deeside in Aberdeenshire, make 
 it probable that St. Kentigern had extended 
 his labours into the regions of the South Picts, 
 and up, at least, to the dividing line between 
 them and the Northern. His death is various- 
 ly dated from 601 to 614 ; the Welsh autho- 
 rities generally giving 612, as in Annates 
 Cambriae ; but the true date is probably 603 
 (Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 197 n. ; Bp. Forbes, 
 Lives, etc., 369-370). He died on Sun., Jan. 13, 
 and was buried where the cathedral of Glas- 
 gow now stands. The favourite name in 
 dedications is St. Mungo. There are none to 
 him in Wales, but there are in Cumberland at 
 Aspatria, Bromfield, Caldbeck, Crosfeld (in 
 Kirkland), Crosthwaite, Grinsdale, Lethington, 
 Mungrisedale (in Greystock), and Sowerby. 
 His chief dedication and episcopal seat, which, 
 as in like cases, was near, but not quite at the 
 ancient civil capital, .\lclwyd or Dumbarton, 
 is the cathedral church of Glasgow ; and 
 there appears to have been a Little St Mun- 
 go's kirk outside the city walls. [j-c] 
 
 Laotantius (1), Lucius Caelius (or Caeclllus) 
 
 Firmianus, a well-known Christian apologist 
 of the beginning of the 4th cent. : " Rhetor 
 erat ille, non theologus : neque inter ecclesiae 
 
LACTANTIUS 
 
 doctores locum iiiiquaiii obtiiiuit," as bp. Bull 
 says of him (Def. ttd. Nic. ii. 14, 4. and iii. 
 ID, 20). Lactaiitius, eiiuinerating previous 
 Christian apologists, seems only conscious of 
 three — Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and St. 
 Cyprian — but this is explained by supposing 
 tliat he limits himself to his countrymen, viz. 
 African apologists. St. Jerome mentions an 
 Itinerary written by him, in hexameter verse, j 
 of his route fron^ Africa to Nicomedia, as 
 though he were then leaving home for the [ 
 first time. The .African church produced, as ! 
 did no other country, a succession of learned j 
 advocates or rhetoricians, men of the world, 
 who embraced Christianity from conviction, 
 and wrote vigorously in its defence, culminat- 
 ing in St. .\ugustine, each employing Latin 
 with the freedom of a vernacular, and in the 
 case of Lactantius with so much purity as 
 to have procured for him the title of the 
 Christian Cicero ; while Italy produced no 
 Christian apologists and, till St. Ambrose, no 
 great theologian. Divines and men of letters, j 
 as well as emperors, had to be sought in the ' 
 provinces. In all his empire Constantine ! 
 could find no better preceptor for his eldest i 
 son Crispus, then destined to succeed him at 
 Rome, than this .\frican Latin. This brought 
 him to Gaul c. 313, the first date we can fix in 
 his career on any tangible grounds. Lactan- , 
 tius had previously been invited to set up 
 a school of rhetoric at Nicomedia. There, | 
 doubtless, he was converted on witnessing j 
 the superhuman constancy displayed by the 
 Christians, and by his " best beloved " [ 
 Donatus in particular, on whose sufferings 
 in the tenth and savagest persecution, under 
 Diocletian, he dwells with so much tender- 
 ness (de Morte Persecut. cc. 16, 35, and 52). 
 Donatus, he tells us himself, had lain in prison 
 six years when the edict of Galerius, published 
 A.D. 311, procured his release. In Gaul, Lac- 
 tantius died, perhaps in the year of the Nicene 
 council, A.D. 325. To judge from his extant 
 writings, he must have been somewhat austere, i 
 soured it may be by failures, as he had no 
 mean estimate of his own |)owers (de Opif. Dei, 
 c. I ; Inst. V. 1-4) : a man of few and warm 
 rather than of many friends ; thoughtful, 
 learned, conscientious, and pure. liusebius 
 (Chron. a.d. 319) speaks of him as having 
 always been so poor as freiiuently to have 
 lacked the necessaries of life. St. Jerome 
 says it was his ill-success in getting pupils at 
 Nicomedia, from its being a (ireek city, that 
 induced him to write. St. Jerome gives a 
 list of his writings, but whether in the order in 
 which they were published or not he omits to 
 say. The first he names is the Symposium, 
 which he calls a youthful performance ; the 
 second is the Itinerary ; the third, the Gram- 
 marian. Then comes the well-known treatise 
 de Ird Dei, still extant, which St. Jerome calls 
 pulcherrimum ; next, his Institutions, in seven 
 books, extant also, on which his fame prin- 
 cipally rests ; next, his own epitome of the 
 same work. In Lxbro uno acephalo (" a com- 
 pendium of the last three books only," as Cave 
 explains it ; but the first half was claimed by 
 Pfaff to have been recovered a.d. 1712 from 
 a Turin MS., and its genuineness, though dis- 
 puted, is still maintained). The seventh work 
 named by St. Jerome was in two books, ad- 
 
 LACTANTIUS 
 
 n:iO 
 
 dressed to Asclcpiad. •^ ; l>..tli .ur i,..w UM. 
 The eighth, which had ilisappratrd aU... wa* 
 claimed by Haluze as riTovi-red by hini ; it 
 was published in i(>7i> it tin- roniniriirrniriit 
 of his second bo..k ..J Mtsitllantf\. I>iit with 
 the title I.ther ad Donatum ( ontf-^ofrm de 
 Mortibus I'ersecutonim. instead «>( de I'ene- 
 cutione I.ther unus. which is that o( St. Jrr«.mp. 
 Judged by its contents, the first is the nmrc 
 accurate title. His four Imm.Ks oI Irtter* to 
 I'robus, two tt> Severus, and two to his pupil 
 Demetrian, which St. Jrronic regards as rinht 
 consecutive books (in (iai. ii. 4), arc lost. The 
 twelfth and last work assigned to him hv St. 
 Jerome is de Opi/um Dei. vel lurmatumt 
 Hominis. The tract de Morte l'er\ecutorum 
 ends with the joint edict of I.icinius and Con- 
 stantine, published at Nicomedia by the 
 former, a.d. 313, at which the author lays 
 down liis pen in celebrating the triumph ol 
 God, with thankful joy and prayers day and 
 night for its continuance. He c>)uld not have 
 wTitten thus after the diflerences betwi*rn 
 Licinius and Constantine had commenced, and 
 the former joined the ranks of the persecutors ; 
 he therefore probably published it when 
 leaving Nicomedia for (iaul. The hrst chapter 
 of his tract de Opificio Dei shews it to have 
 been written after, probably only just after, 
 his conversion, and " <Juam mininie sin» 
 quietus, et in summis necessitatibus " are just 
 the words that might have been wrung from 
 a recent convert in a heathen capital, where 
 Christians were having to choose daily between 
 death and their faith, and his old pupils were 
 leaving him on learning what he had become. 
 Supposing Lactantius to have been converted 
 about midway in the persecution under Dio- 
 cletian at Nicomedia, and then betaken him- 
 self to writing, peniirid discipitlorum, as St. 
 Jerome says, there was abundance of time for 
 the composition of all his extant works during 
 the rest of his abode there, with the exception 
 of his Epitome. His Epitome and tlie con- 
 fessedly later insertions in \\\s I nstitutions—e.g. 
 his appeals to Constantine (i. i, ii. i, vii. 2(>). 
 his mention of the .Arians, and of the Catholic 
 church, his promise of a separate work on 
 heresies {iv. 30) which it would seem he never 
 fulfilled— would all naturally fall within the 
 period of his removal to (Iaul and luttirship 
 to the heir-apparent, to whom he could have 
 scarce failed to dedicate anv fresh work, had 
 such been afterwards written. Was he the 
 pupil or hearer of Arnobius in his yoiiiigi-r 
 days that St. Jerome makes him in one place 
 (de Vtr. must. c. Ko), or conteinp..rary willi 
 Arnobius, as we might infer from an..tli<r 
 (Chron. A.D. 3if>) ? There is nothing in th.ir 
 works to connect them, and at the ronuiienrr- 
 ment of his fifth book, in sp.cdvmg. ei m yui 
 mihi noli sunt (c. I), those who had written 
 against the assailants of Christianity pre- 
 viously to liimself. he could scarcely have 
 passed over the work of Arnobius. if already 
 published, and still less if Arnobius, beside* 
 being an African, had been his old preceptor. 
 We therefore prefer following St. Jerome in hi» 
 continuation of I- usebius, and making I.artan- 
 tius and Arnobius independent : L.ntantiu-k 
 possibly the older of the two. Kus<bius findt 
 a place for Lactantius in his (kronuoH. but 
 I none (or his supposed master. 1 he work of 
 
640 
 
 LAE6HAIRE 
 
 Arnobius is limited to a refutation of the poly- 
 theism of the day and the popular objections 
 to Christianity ; that of Lactantius, like the 
 City of God by St. Augustine, which cites 
 Lactantius with approval (xviii. 23), first 
 exposes the false religions, but also expounds 
 the true. It has been analysed by Cave 
 briefly (Hist. Lit. i. 162), by Le Nourry 
 thoroughly (ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. vi. 823), by 
 Dupin, with his accustomed vivacity (E. H. 
 vol. i. 185-187, Eng. trans, by W. W.), and by 
 Mountain [Summary of the Writings of Lac- 
 tantius, i. 129). It is trans, in full, with notes, 
 in the Ante- Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). 
 
 The tract de Opificio Dei may challenge 
 comparison with Cicero's de Naturd Deorum 
 in point of style and is far superior to it in 
 depth and originality. The tract de Ird Dei. 
 against the Epicureans and Stoics, is intended 
 to prove God as capable of anger as of com- 
 passion and mercy. The tract de Morte 
 Persecutorum is a collection of historical facts 
 tending to show that all the emperors who 
 persecuted the Christians died miserably, and 
 may be compared with Spelman's de non 
 Temerandis Ecclesiis of modern times. 
 
 As for his theologv, the indulgence should 
 be shewn him that all breakers of new ground 
 may claim. TertuUian was the model that he 
 looked up to most : and no writer had as vet 
 eclipsed Origen. His account of the origin 
 of all things (Inst. ii. 9) reminds us of the 
 speeches of Raphael and Abdiel in Paradise 
 Lost (v. 577 and 808). We cannot read his 
 latest exposition of the Incarnation {Epit. c. 
 43) without discovering in it some well-known 
 phrases of the Athanasian Creed — e.g. " The 
 same person is the Son of God and of man, 
 for He was twice born : first of God in the 
 Spirit before the origin of the world ; and 
 afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of 
 Augustus." Dupin, after having expatiated 
 on his many merits, sums up very justly : 
 " He is accused of doubting whether the Holy 
 Ghost was the third Person, and to have some- 
 times confounded him with the Son, and some- 
 times with the Father ; but it may be alleged 
 in his defence that he meant nothing else 
 but that the name of the Spirit in Scripture is 
 common to the Father and the Son. But 
 whatever the naatter is, we find no footsteps 
 of this error in any of his works, what are now 
 remaining ; though in some places he takes 
 occasion to speak of the Holy Ghost. He 
 seems to be of opinion that the Word was 
 generated in time ; but it is an easy matter 
 to give a Catholic sense to that expression, as 
 we have seen it done to others : and we may 
 be with justice allowed to do so, since he 
 plainly establishes the Divinity of the Word 
 in that verv place." 
 
 For further particulars see besides autho- 
 rities alreadv cited, Le Nourry (.ipparat. ad 
 Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. t. ii. diss. 3), Fabricius 
 \Bibl. Lat. lib. xi.), Oudin [de Script. Eccl. 
 t. i. p. 307), Lardner (Cred. pt. ii. bk. i. c. 65), 
 Schramm [.Anal. Ot). SS. Pat. vol. vii. p. 250), 
 Fessler (Inst. Patrol, vol. i. p. 328), Nouv. Biog. 
 Gen. vol. xxviii. p. 611. See esp. Brandt in 
 Sitzungsberichte der phil.-histor. Klasse der 
 Kgl. Akud der Wissensh. (Vienna, 1889-1891), 
 cxviii.-cxxv. [e.s.ff.] 
 
 Laeghaire (2) (Lagerie, phonet cally Leary), 
 
 LAURENTIUS 
 
 pagan monarch of Ireland, reigning at Tara 
 in the county of Meath. In the fifth year 
 of his reign St. Patrick, having spent the 
 winter in the counties of Down and Antrim, 
 in the spring determined to hold his Easter 
 festival near Laeghaire's palace. The mon- 
 arch, surrounded by his nobles and his Druid 
 priests, saw with wonder and rage the distant 
 light of the Christian paschal fire which was 
 to quench the lights of heathendom, and rode 
 over in force to Ferta-fer-Feic to expel the 
 intruder. But moUified by the stranger's 
 address, or frightened by his words of power, 
 he allowed the Christian mission to be estab- 
 lished. We can hardly believe that he con- 
 tinued a persecutor while such progress was 
 made in the spread of the Gospel around him 
 and in his own family. His queen may 
 perhaps have become a Christian ; his two 
 daughters, Fedhelm the ruddy and Eithne the 
 fair, were certainly converted and numbered 
 among the saints. Several of his descendants 
 (Reeves, St. Adamnan, 173) are beatified. 
 
 He probably died a pagan. The Four 
 Masters give the date as 458, but 463 is more 
 likely [.Ann. Tig., eo an., ap. O'Conor, Rer. 
 Hib. Script, iv. in). He reigned probably 
 35 years. His body was carried to and buried 
 at Tara, in the S.E. side of the external ram- 
 part, with his weapons upon him, and his face 
 turned towards the Lagenians, as if still 
 fighting against them. Vitae S. Patricii, ap. 
 Colgan, Tr. Thaum. pass. ; Lanigan, Ch. Hist. 
 Ir. i. c. 5 ; Moore, Hist. Ir. i. c. 10 ; O'Hanlon, 
 Ir. Saints, i. 163 seq. ; Nennius, Hist. c. 59, 
 ap. Mon. Hist. Brit. pt. ii. 72 ; Keating, Gen. 
 Hist. Ir. B. ii. pp. 325 seq. ; Four Mast, by 
 O' Donovan, i. 144-145 n. g; Wills, ///. Ir. i. 60; 
 Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 100 seq. 428 seq. ; Todd, 
 St. Patrick, 436 seq. ; Joyce, Irish Names of 
 Places, 2nd ser. 230-231. [j.G.] 
 
 Lampetius. [Euchites.] 
 LaurentiUS (tO), antipope, elected on the 
 same day as Symmachus, four days after the 
 decease of Anastasius II., which, according to 
 Pagi (Critic, in Baron.), occurred on Nov. 22, 
 498, Laurentius being brought forward in the 
 interests of concession, Symmachus in the 
 interests of unbending orthodoxy. Fierce 
 conflicts ensued. The members of the senate 
 as well as the clergy were arrayed in two 
 parties. At length it was agreed to refer the 
 settlement to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, now 
 reigning at Ravenna as king of Italy, and he 
 j pronounced Symmachus the lawful pope 
 (Anastas.). Laurentius at first acquiesced, 
 and accepted the see of Nucerina, but his 
 partisans at Rome recalled him, and for three 
 years after his election Rome was divided 
 into two parties, headed by Festus and Pro- 
 binus on the side of Laurentius, and by Faus- 
 tus on the side of Symmachus. Anastasius 
 i states that " those who communicated with 
 I Symmachus were slain with the sword ; holy 
 women and virgins were dragged from their 
 houses or convents, denuded and scourged ; 
 there were dailv fights against the church in 
 the midst of the city ; many priests were 
 killed ; there was no security for walking in 
 the city by dav or night. The ex-consul 
 Faustus alone fought for the church." His 
 account implies that more influential laymen 
 were on the side of Laurentius, but that the 
 
 \ 
 
LAURENTIUS LEANDER Oil 
 
 clergy generally adhered to Syinmachus. The the merits ol Christ. (. hi i^t llio vcoml Adam 
 matter was finally settled in the '• svnodus simplv cancelled the ^in dirived from the 
 palmans," the proceedings of which are sup- first Adam. Original sin therefore crrc 
 posed to be given under Synod. Koinatui III. sponds, in a manner, with the prc-( hristian 
 sub Syinmaclio, the date of which is x. Kal. period. For actual transgression each person 
 Novenibris. Laurentius is said, in a fragment is himself alone responsilde and is to be re- 
 of a catalogue of the popes iiriiited from a leased from it bv penitence, with which the 
 remarkably ancient MS. by Joseph Blanchinus I treatise is maiti'lv occupied, and so ha* re- 
 in his ed. of .A.nastasius, to have retired to a , ceived its present title. For other notices see 
 farm of the patrician Festus. and to have died Ceillier (xi. 95), Dupin {Keel. W'ril. t. i. p. 540. 
 there, "sub ingenti abstinentia." This ae- ed. 1 722). Tiflem. (.U/m. x. 259, 260). (cii.) 
 count evidently emanated from the party of Laurentius (36). Auk. io. archdeacon of 
 Laurentius, if not from Festus himself (cf. Rome, and m.irtvr umUr Valerian, a.d. 258. 
 Pagi's note on Baronius, ann. 502 i.). Cyprian (Ep. Sz al. «o iui Suee^ssum) mention* 
 
 Authorities. — Anastasius (in I'it. Sym- the rescript of Valerian directing that bishops, 
 macht) ; Frag. Cat. Pontif. in .\nastas. Bibl. ed. | presbvtcrs, and deacons should fr)rthwith be 
 1718-1835, Rome, t. iv. Prolegom. p. Ixix. ; [punished, and records the martyrdom of 
 Theodorus Lector (lib. ii.), Theophanes [Chron. \ .Kystus bp. of Rome, in accordance with it on 
 
 p. 123, ed. Paris), and Niceph orus (lib. 16, 
 c. 35) ; Acts of Councils under Symniachus ; 
 Libellus Apologeticus of Ennodius written in 
 justification of Symmachus after his final 
 triumph. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Laurentius (15), surnamed Mdlifluus, 
 thought to have been bp. of Xovara c. 507. 
 A Laurentius, surnamed Mdlitluus, from the 
 sweetness with which he delivered homilies, is 
 mentioned by Sigebert (Scr. Eccl. c. 120 in 
 Pair. Lat. clx. 572) as the author of a treatise 
 Duobus Temporibus, viz. one period from 
 
 .\ug. 6. Laurentius, the first of the traditional 
 seven deacons of Rome, suffered four days 
 afterwards. The genuine .\cts of this martyr- 
 dom were lost even in St. .Vususline's time, as 
 he tells us {Scr. 302, de Saneto Laurent.) that 
 his narration was gained from tradition in- 
 stead of reciting the .Acts as his custom was 
 (S. .Ambr. de Off. i. 41). Laurentius suffered 
 by burning over a slow fire, the prefect think- 
 ing thus to extort the vast treasures which 
 he believed the Christians to have concealed. 
 He was buried in the Via Tiburtina in the 
 
 Adam to Christ, the other from Christ to the cemetery of Cyriaca by Hippolytus and Ju 
 
 end of the world. That this Laurentius was 
 the presbyter who instructed Gaudentius the 
 first bp. of Novara was maintained by Cotta, 
 an outline of whose arguments may be seen 
 in the .4cla Eniditorum (suppl. t. ii. pp. 525, 
 526, ed. Lips. 1696). La Eigne (.Max. Bibl. 
 Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lugd. 1677) suspects that 
 Laurentius .Mellifluus was bp. of Novara, and 
 subsequently the 25th bp. of Milan who is 
 praised by Ennodius in his first Diclio. La 
 Eigne grounds his opinion on certain allusions 
 of Ennodius in his second Dictio, which was 
 sent to Honoratus, bp. of Novara (e.g. Pair. 
 LaMxiii. 269 b). Other corrob jrative passages 
 have baen adduced by Mabillon (ut inf.), as 
 where Ennodius describes Laurentius bp. of 
 
 tinus, a presbyter, where Constantine the 
 Great is said to have built a church in honour 
 of the martyr, which pope l^amasus rebuilt or 
 repaired. Few martyrdoms of the first three 
 centuries are better attested than this one. 
 St Laurentius is conunemorated in the canon 
 of the Roman .Mass. His name occurs in the 
 most ancient Calendars, as Catalog. Liberianus 
 or Bucherianus (4th cent.), in the Calendar of 
 Ptolemeus Silvius (5th cent.), and in others 
 described under Cale.sdar in D. C. .4. (cf. 
 Smedt, Introd. ad Hist. Ecclesiast. pp. 199-219, 
 514). He is commemorated by Prudenlius in 
 his Peristeph. (Mart. Rom. Vet. ; Mart. .\don., 
 Usuard. ; Tillem. Mim. iv. 38 ; Ceillier, ii. 
 423 ; Fleury, H. E. vii. 38, xi. 36, xviii. 33). 
 
 Milan pacifving his haughty brethren by I Cf. Fronton, £/>. W D«ss<rr/. feed. p. 219 (1720), 
 honeyed words of conciliation ("blandimen- | where, in a note on .\ug. 10, in Horn. Kal.. an 
 torum melle," ib. 267 a). The historians of accurate account is given of the churches built 
 literature usually therefore designate Lauren- at Rome in his honour. (c.t.s.) 
 
 tins Mellifluus bp. of Novara, but he is not | Leander (2), metropolitan bp. of Seville 
 admitted bv the historians of the see, as I from (?) 575 to 600. His life covers the mot 
 Ughelli (Itai. Sac. iv. 692) and Cappelletti (Le j important period of VisiKothic Christianity, 
 Chiesed'Ital.\\v.S26). Three extant treatises and with Leovioild, Hf.kmenioild. and 
 are ascribed to Laurentius .Mellifluus, viz. two j Reccaked he plays an indispensable part in 
 homilies, de Poenitentia and de Eleemosyna, 
 printed by La Eigne in his Bibliotheca, and a 
 treatise de Muliere Cananaea, printed by 
 
 that drama, half- political, half -religious, 
 which issued in the conversion council of 5«t>. 
 .\11 that is historically known of the origin of 
 
 Mabillon with a note on the author, supporting I the famous family, which included hi 
 the view of La Eigne, in his Analecta (p. 55, brothers Isidore and Filcentms, and imi. 
 ed. 1723). The homilies are in La Eigne ] only sister Flokentina. is derived from the 
 (.Max. Bib. Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lug. 1677) and 1 opening sentence in Isidore's Life of Leander 
 the three treatises in Migne(Pa/r.LaMxvi. 87) i (<i«^ l'"-- /"■ c. 41; I-->-P- •*>"««'• v. 4^>3) and 
 with both La Eigne's and Mabillon's notices of from the concluding chapter of Leander s 
 the author. Cave mistakenly says (i. 4<ji)\ Regula, or Libellus ad Elorenttnatn (l-.ip. Sagr. 
 that the de Duobus Temporibus is lost, for it I ix. 355)- Their father was Severianus" Car- 
 is evidently the homilv de Poenitentia, which I thagiiiensis Provinciae." At some unknown 
 opens with an exposition of the "duo tern- | dale, while Floreiitina was a child, the family 
 pora," which terms he employs somewhat in 1 left their native place {Ltbell. ad llorent. c. 
 the sense of the two dispensations for the 21), and settled probably at S.ville. It i-, 
 divine pardon of sin. The sin inherited from \ probable that Leander was born between 535 
 Adam is in baptism entirely put away through ; and 540. He would thus be a youth at the 
 
 41 
 
642 
 
 LEANDER 
 
 time of the family exile. Before 579, the 
 date of the outbreak of the Hermenigild 
 rebellion, he had been a monk, and then raised 
 to the metropolitan see of Seville, perhaps at 
 that time the most important ecclesiastical 
 post in Spain. The Catholics under the Arian 
 king Leovigild had especial need of able and 
 faithful leaders. Probably Leander saw the 
 opportunity of the Catholics in Hermenigild's 
 youth and the Catholicism of his wife Ingun- 
 this, and this conjecture is warranted by the 
 evidence that the persuasive and eloquent 
 bishop, who afterwards led the conversion 
 council, laid the first stone of his great work 
 in the conversion and rising of Hermenigild 
 against his Arian king and father Leovigild. 
 Leovigild's Arian council of 581 was succeeded 
 by civil war between father and son in 582. 
 Hermenigild had already endeavoured to 
 strengthen himself by alliances with the 
 Catholic Suevi in the N. and the Catholic 
 Byzantines in the S. and E. In connexion 
 with this last alliance we next hear of Leander 
 at Constantinople, " cum — te illuc injuncta 
 pro causis fidei Visigothorum legatio per- 
 duxisset," says Gregory the Great, describing 
 in after-years (Pref. in Moralia, Patr. Lat. 
 Ixxv. 510) his first friendship with Leander. 
 
 The exact date of this mission is unknown 
 (see Gorres, Zeitschriftfur historische Theologie, 
 i. 1873, p. 103) ; but we incline to place it in 
 583, about the beginning of the siege of Seville, 
 when effectual support from the empire might 
 have given victory to Hermenigild. In 584 
 Seville fell and Hermenigild was captured at 
 Cordova. Thenceforward Arianism was tri- 
 umphant, and that persecution of the Catholics 
 by Leovigild, which is described by Isidore 
 (Hist. Goth. Esp. Sagr. vi. 491) and Gregory of 
 Tours (Hist. Franc, v. 39), was carried actively 
 forward. In Apr. or May 586 occurred the 
 death of Leovigild and the accession of his 
 second son Reccared ; and Leander, on re- 
 ceiving information as to the state of affairs, 
 appears to have hurried home from Constan- 
 tinople. (Cf. what Lucinian says of his 
 " haste " on the journey homewards from 
 Constantinople, Ep. Licin. ad Greg. Pat. Esp. 
 Sagr. V.) In Feb. 587 the preliminary 
 synod took place at Toledo, in which Reccared 
 and his nobles abjured Arianism, and notice 
 of the step was sent to the provinces. 
 
 The Conversion Council. — In 589 a great 
 gathering at Toledo of the king and queen, the 
 court, and 62 bishops, Arian and Catholic, 
 changed the whole outer face of Visigothic 
 history and entirely shifted its centre of 
 gravity. The causes which led to it had been 
 long at work (cf. Dahn, Konige der Germanen, 
 v. on the political causes) ; but this third 
 council of Toledo remains one of the most 
 astonishing and interesting events in history. 
 For a detailed sketch of the proceedings see 
 Reccared. Here we are only concerned with 
 Leander's share in it. " Summa tamen 
 synodalis negotii," says the contemporary bp. 
 of Gerona, Joannes Biclarensis, "penes Sanc- 
 tum Leandrum Hispal. ecclesiae episcopum 
 et beatissimum Eutropiura mohasterii Ser- 
 vitani abbatem fuit." This justifies us in 
 attributing to Leander the main outline of the 
 proceedings and the wording of a large propor- 
 tion of the Acts. Reccared's speeches are prob- 
 
 LEANDER 
 
 ably to be traced to him. They are quite in 
 accordance with Leander's known style, especi- 
 ally with that of the homily which con- 
 cludes the council and was avowedly written 
 and delivered by him. The homily (Homilia 
 Sancti Leandri in laudem ecclesiae ob conver- 
 sionem gentis) is an eloquent and imaginative 
 piece of writing, with an undercurrent of re- 
 ference to the great semi-religious, semi-politi- 
 cal struggle which marked the reign of the 
 last Arian king. " The peace of Christ, then," 
 says Leander, " has destroyed the wall of 
 discord which the devil had built up, and the 
 house which division was bringing to ruin is 
 united in and established upon Christ the 
 corner-stone." Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de 
 Can. de la Igl. Espanola, ii. 247-260 ; Gams, 
 Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, ii. (2), 6, 41 ; 
 Dahn, v. 159, vi. 434 ; Helfferich, Entstehung 
 und Geschichte der Westgothen Recht, 33-46 ; 
 Hefele, iii. 44-49. 
 
 First Synod of Seville. — Eighteen months 
 after the conversion council, Leander, as 
 metropolitan of Baetica, and in obedience to 
 the 1 8th canon of the council of 589, sum- 
 moned the bishops of Baetica to a provincial 
 synod in the cathedral of Seville, "in ecclesia 
 Hispalensi Sancta Jerusalem" (cf. Florez, ix. 
 on the use of "Sancta Jerusalem"). The 
 Acts, on matters disciplinary, are drawn up in 
 the form of a letter to the absent bp. Pegasius 
 of Astigi (Ecija). 
 
 Correspondence with Gregory the Great. — 
 Gregory and Leander, first made friends at 
 Constantinople between 575 and 585, when 
 Gregory was apocrisiarius of Pelagius II. at 
 the East-Roman court. In May 591 Gregory, 
 now pope, wrote a long letter to Leander (Ep. 
 lib. i. 43, apud Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxvii. 497) 
 in answer to his old friend, who had congratu- 
 lated him on his elevation, reported the Visi- 
 gothic conversion and the third council of 
 Toledo, and inquired as to the form of bap- 
 tism to be thenceforward observed in Spain, 
 whether by single or threefold immersion. 
 The pope expressed his joy in the conversion 
 of the Visigoths, declaring that Leander's 
 accounts of Reccared have made him love a 
 man of whom he has no personal knowledge. 
 Let Leander look to it diligently that the 
 work so well begun may be perfected. In a 
 country where unity of faith had never been 
 questioned, single or threefold immersion 
 might be observed indifferently, as represent- 
 ing either the Unity or the Trinity of the God- 
 head ; but as in Spain the Arian mode of bap- 
 tism had been by threefold immersion, it would 
 be well henceforward to allow one immersion 
 only, lest the heretics be supposed to have 
 triumphed and confusion ensue. Finally, the 
 pope sent Leander certain codices; part of the 
 Homilies on Job, which he had asked for, were 
 to follow, as the librarii had not been able to 
 finish the copy in time. 
 
 Gregory's second letter, dated July 595, is 
 a note accompanying the gift of the Regula 
 Pastoralis with pts. i. and ii. of the Moralia. 
 The Pallium. — In Aug. 599 Gregory wrote 
 to Reccared, Claudius Dux of Lusitania, and 
 Leander. The letter to Leander announces 
 the gift of the pallium, to be worn at the 
 celebration of Mass, " solemnia Missarum.". 
 To Reccared the pope writes: "To our honoured 
 
LEANDER 
 
 brother and fellow-bishop Le.uuler we liav<' 
 sent the pallium as a gift from the see of the 
 blessed apostle Peter, which we owe to ancient 
 custom (aniiquae consuetud%fn), to your de- 
 serts, and to his dignity and goodness." The 
 exact force of the gift of the pallium to Lean- 
 der has been much disputed. Florez (ix. 167) 
 maintains it was nothing more than a mark of 
 honour and distinction, and did not carry 
 with it the apostolic vicariate, which had, 
 however, been bestowed on his predecessors 
 in the see, Zeno and Sallustius, bv popes 
 Simplicius and Honnisdas (Tejada y Kainiro. 
 ii. 962, 1015). In support of his supposition 
 that pallium and vicariate were not necessarily 
 combined, he quotes the case of bp. Auxanius 
 of Aries, successor of St. Caesarius, to whom 
 pope Vigilius gave the pallium when the 
 vicariate had been previously bestowed 
 (Vigil. Ep. vii. apud Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixix. 27). 
 Gams, however, holds that in dregory's mind 
 at any rate the pallium carried with it the 
 vicariate, and that the phrase aniiquae con- 
 suetudini is to be taken as referring to the 
 vicariates of Zeno and Sallustius, and as 
 implying the recognition by Ciregory of an 
 ancient claim on behalf of the see of Seville 
 to represent the apostolic see in Spain. The 
 various other bestowals of the pallium on 
 Western bishops by Gregory, especially the 
 cases of .\ugustine of Canterbury (Ep. xi. 64, 
 65) and Syagrius of Autun (ix. 108), should 
 be studied in connexion with the case of 
 Leander (cf. Walter, Lehrbuch des Kirchen- 
 rechis, pp. 308, 277, and Thomassin, Discipline 
 de I'Eglise, ii. i. cc. 25, 26). Very sot)n after 
 the arrival of the pallium, at latest in 600, 
 Leander died, shortly before the king, whose 
 constant friend and adviser he had been. 
 
 Works. — The Libellus ad Florentinam con- 
 sists of an introductory letter and 21 chapters, 
 which constitute the Regula. The style is 
 easy and flowing, rising at time to real pathos 
 and sweetness, as in the beautiful concluding 
 chapter with its well-known reference to 
 Isidore. Its laudation of the celibate life and 
 depreciation of marriage are quite in the taste 
 of the time, and, to judge from can. 5 of C. Tol. 
 iii., seem to have been then in Spain a dis- 
 tinguishing mark of the Catholic as opposed 
 to the Arian clergy. 
 
 The Homily noticed above is the only other 
 work of Leander now extant. Isidore, how- 
 ever, in his Life of his brother (de Vir. III. 
 c. 41) sjieaks of three controversial treatises 
 against the Arians, composed by him during 
 his exile from Spain under Leovigild. Isi- 
 dore's description shews that they were 
 especially intended to meet the arguments and ' 
 expose the pretensions of the .Arian council of 
 581. The last-named was probably in cate- , 
 gorical answer to the libellus issued after the I 
 synod by the Arian bishops and expressly 
 anathematized by the conversion council 
 (J oh. Bid. ad an. 581 ; Tejada y Kamiro, ii. 
 p. 224). 
 
 Auihoriiies. — Besides those alreadv quoted, 
 Baron. Ann. Eccl. a.d. 583. 584, 585, 589. 59i. 
 595. 599 ; Nicolas Antonio, Bibl. Vei. ed. 
 Bayer, 1788, i. 290 ; de Castri Bibl. EspaHola, 
 ii. 280 ; Aguirre, Coll. .Max. Cone. Htsp. iii. 
 281-302 ; Fabric. Btbl. Lat. iv. 252, ed. 1754 ; 
 Mabillon, Ann. Ord. S. Bened. i. 287 ; M-4. SS. 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 (U.l 
 
 Boll. M.ir. h ii. jrs ; Aiu.idor ilr |..s K,,.s, //,,/. 
 (..//. d( la Lit. /-.s/MM. 1, Mi, u\. .Moiuulc,,,. 
 bert, .Motnes Je l\)uuienl, n. [m.a.w.] 
 
 Loo (1) L, emperor (surnanu-d the (.real, 
 the Thracian, and the Hutchcr), born c. 400 
 in the country of the Bessi in Thrare. pro- 
 claimed emperor Feb. 7, 457, and rrowufHl by 
 .■\natolius, patriarch of Coust.intinoplr, bruijc 
 the first Christian sovereign to receive his 
 crown from the hands of a priest. Iniinrdi- 
 ately upon the news of .M.irrian's death, 
 religious troubles broke out in Alexandria, 
 where the .Monophysite party murdered the 
 patriarch I'roterius (Proteius). substitutinf( 
 for him Timothy Aelurus. The orthodox 
 bishops of Egypt rted to the emperor to make 
 complaint. Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, 
 reported their sad case to pope Leo, who 
 energetically seconded their eflorts for re- 
 dress. The emperor, distracted by the 
 demands of pojie and patriarch on the one 
 hand, of Aspar and the heretical party on the 
 other, addressed a circular letter to Anatolius 
 and all other metropolitans, commanding 
 them to assemble their provincial councils, 
 and advise him — (i) whether the decrees of 
 the council of Chalcedon should be held bind- 
 ing ; (2) as to the ordination of Timothy 
 Aelurus. He also consulted the three most 
 celebrated ascetics of the time, Syineon Sty- 
 lites, James the Syrian, and Baradatus. We 
 possess in the Codex Encvclius the answers of 
 all the bishops and hermits consulted, a iiMst 
 valuable monument of ecclesiastical anti- 
 quity. It was apparently composed by 
 imperial order by some unknown CJreek, trans- 
 lated into Latin at the order of the senator 
 Cassiodorus by Lpii)hanius Scholasticus, and 
 first published in modern times by Laurentius 
 Surius. It is in all collections of the councils, 
 but in full only in Labbe and Coss. Concil. i. 4, 
 pp. 890-980 (cf. Cave, Scriptt. Lit. Htst. i. 495 ; 
 Tillem. Mem. xv. art. 167). The bishops, in 
 .\ug. 458, replied, unanimously upholding the 
 decrees of Chalcedon and rejecting the ordin- 
 ation of Timothy, who, however, maintained 
 his position at Alexandria till 460. 
 
 In 468 Leo sent an expedition under the 
 command of Basiliscus, his brother-in-law, 
 against the Arian Vandals of N. Africa, who 
 were bitterly hostile to him on account of his 
 orthodoxy. Aspar and Ardaburius secretly 
 arranged with H.isiliscus for its failure, as they 
 feared any diiiiinuti>>n of the gnat .Arian 
 power. The emperor, having discovered the 
 conspiracy, put .\sp.ir and Ardaburius to 
 death, and banished Basiliscus a.u. 469. Tlie 
 Gothic guards, in rev.-nge, raised a civil war 
 in Constantinople, under one Ostrys, a friend 
 of .Aspar, and attacketl the palace, but were 
 defeated. Leo thereupon issued a severe edict 
 against the Arians aiul forbade them holding 
 meetings or possessing churches. 
 
 In anf)ther quarter controversy burst forth. 
 Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, dying 
 in 471, was succeeded by .\cacius, whom Leo 
 admitted a member of the senate, where no 
 ecclesiastic had hitherto sat. Acacius ob- 
 tained from Leo an edict confirniing the 28th 
 canon of Chalcedon, which raised Constanti- 
 nople to the same ecclesiastical Irvrl as Kome. 
 Pope Simplicius resisted the claim, uid a 
 bitter controversy ensued, lastmg many 
 
644 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 years and most fruitful in divisions (Milman, 
 Lat. Christ, lib. iii. c. i.). 
 
 Leo was very active in church legislation. 
 He made laws in 466 confirming the right of 
 asylum to churches ; in 468 forbidding any 
 persons save Christians to act as advocates. 
 In 469 he issued an edict against simoniacal 
 contracts and one of almost piu-itan strictness 
 upon the observance of Sunday. He forbade 
 iudicial proceedings on that day, and even the 
 playing of lyre, harp, or other musical instru- 
 ment (Chron. Pasch. a.d. 467, where the words 
 of the edict are given). The same year he 
 passed stern laws against paganism and issued 
 a fresh edict in favour of hospitals. In 471 a 
 law was published, apparently elicited by the 
 troubles at Antioch, commanding monks not 
 to leave thfir monasteries. When Isocasius, 
 a philosopher and magistrate of Antioch, was 
 forced by torture to accept baptism at Con- 
 stantinople, the emperor seems to have per- 
 sonally suiierintended the deed (Joan. Malalas, 
 Chronogr. lib. xiv.). Leo died Feb. 3, 474, aged 
 73, and was succeeded by his grandson Leo II. 
 Evagr. H. E. lib. ii. ; Procopii, de Bell. 
 Bandal. ; Theoph. Chronogr. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Leo (5) L, the Great, saint, bp. of Rome, 
 A.D. 440-461. We know but little of him 
 before his papacy. He himself and Prosper 
 of Aquitaine call Rome his " patria " (Prosp. 
 Chron., Patr. Lat. li. 599 ; Leo Mag. Ep xxxi. 
 4, p. 85, Migne). His birth must have been 
 about the last decade of the 4th cent. He is 
 said (Vig. Taps, contra Eutych. lib. iv.) to have 
 been baptized by Celestine ; but if so, this 
 must have been while Celestine was still a 
 sunple priest. There is no trace in his 
 writings that his education comprised any 
 study of pagan authors, and he was through- 
 out iife ignorant of Greek (Epp. cxxx. 3, p. 
 1258 ; cxiii. 4, p. 1194) ; but his elaborate 
 style indicates considerable training in com- 
 position. In 418 we hear, in the letters of 
 St. Augustine (Epp. cxci. cxciv. i), of a 
 certain acolyte Leo, the bearer of a letter from 
 Sixtus, afterwards pope, to Aurelius of Car- 
 thage and apparently also of pope Zosimus's 
 letter in condemnation of Pelagianism, 
 addressed to Aurelius, St. Augustine, and the 
 other African bishops. The mention of Sixtus, 
 with whom Leo was afterwards connected, 
 and the date of the occurrence, would lead us 
 to identify this acolyte with Leo the Great. 
 If so, it is interesting that he should have 
 come in contact early in life with the greatest 
 of Latin theologians. Under the pontificate 
 of Celestine (422-432) he was a deacon, or 
 (according to Gennadius, de Vir. Illus. 61) 
 archdeacon of Rome. His important place 
 in the church is shewn by two incidents. In 
 430 the treatise of Cassian, de Incarnatione, 
 against the Nestorians, was written at Leo's 
 exhortation, and dedicated to him with every 
 expression of respect (Cassian, de Incarn. 
 Praef. Migne, Patr. Lat. i. p. 11). In 431, 
 during the council of Ephesus, St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria wrote to Leo against the ambitious 
 design of Juvenal of Jerusalem to obtain for 
 his see the dignity of a patriarchate {Ep. 
 cxix. 4, p. 12 16). In 439 Leo, on the alert 
 against the Pelagians, urged the pope to ofier 
 a vigilant resistance to the movements of 
 Julian of Eclanum, who was seeking to obtain 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 readmission to the church without any real re- 
 cantation of his errors (Prosper, Chron., Patr. 
 Lat. li. 598). Very soon after, Leo was sent 
 on an important civil embassy to Gaul. The 
 Western empire was in a condition of extreme 
 weakness. Nominally governed by Placidia 
 and her youthful son Valentinian III., the real 
 power lay almost wholly in the hands of the 
 general .\etius, at this moment engaged in a 
 quarrel in Gaul with general Albinus. It is a 
 sign of the important civil position held by 
 Leo the deacon that he was chosen to endea- 
 vour to bring about a reconciliation (Prosper, 
 Chron., Patr. Lat. li. p. 599). During his pro- 
 longed absence pope Sixtus died, and Leo was 
 promptly elected, and an embassy sent to 
 recall him to Rome. " More than forty 
 days," says Prosper, "the Roman church 
 was without a bishop, awaiting with wonderful 
 peace and patience the arrival of the deacon 
 Leo." He was consecrated Sept. 29, 440. 
 The first of his extant works is a brief sermon 
 on this occasion, de Natali Lpsius, in which 
 he praises God and returns thanks to the 
 people, asking their prayers for the success 
 of his ministry. (For date of consecration 
 see Ballerini's note, Patr. Lat. Iv. 193 ; Tillem. 
 XV. note 2 on St. Leo.) 
 
 It was a difficult and trying time. The 
 Eastern empire was in its normal state of 
 " premature decay," the Western empire was 
 tottering to its fall. Africa was already a 
 prey to Genseric and the Vandals. The 
 devastation of the African church was well- 
 nigh complete. The church at large was in 
 evil case. Without, she was encompassed by 
 the .\rian powers; within the Manicheans, the 
 Priscillianists, the Pelagians and the semi- 
 Pelagians, were disturbing her peace ; in the 
 East Nestorianism was still rife. There was 
 an extraordinary paucity of men capable of 
 leading, whether in church or state. A man 
 was needed capable of disciplining and 
 consolidating Western Christendom, that it 
 might present a firm front to the heretical 
 barbarians and remain in unshaken con- 
 sistency through that stormy period which 
 links the ancient with the modern world. 
 The church, preserving her identity, must give 
 the framework for the society which was to be. 
 That she might fulfil her function, large sacri- 
 fices must be made to the surpassing necessity 
 for unity, solidity, and strength. Leo was the 
 man for the post': lofty and severe in life and 
 aims, rigid and stern in insisting on the rules 
 of ecclesiastical discipline ; gifted with an 
 indomitable energy, courage, and persever- 
 ance, and a capacity for keeping his eye on 
 many widely distant spheres of activity at 
 once ; inspired with an unhesitating accept- 
 ance and an admirable grasp of the dogmatic 
 faith of the church, which he was prepared 
 to press everywhere at all costs ; finally, 
 possessed with, and unceasingly acting upon, 
 an overmastering sense of the indefeasible 
 authority of the church of Rome as the 
 divinely ordained centre of all church work 
 and life, he stands out as the Christian repre- 
 sentative of the imperial dignity and severity 
 of old Rome, and is the true founder of the 
 medieval papacy in all its magnificence of 
 conception and uncompromising strength. 
 His is a simple character, if regarded with 
 
LEO I. 
 
 sympathy, not hard to understand and 
 appreciate; representing strongly that side 
 of the developing life of the church specially 
 identified with Rome — authority and unity ; 
 and a special interest attaches to his history 
 from the fact that he stands so much alone, 
 as almost the one considerable man in Chris- 
 tendom. " The dignity of the imperial name 
 may be said to have died with Theodosius the 
 Great." Among churchmen .Augustine was 
 just dead, Cyril very soon to die. The best- 
 known names are those of Theodoret, Prosper, 
 Cassian, and Hilary of .Aries. There was not 
 even an imposing representative of heresy ; 
 " on the throne of Rome, alone of all the great 
 sees, did religion maintain its majesty, its 
 sanctity, its piety" (Milman, Lat. Christian- 
 ity, voi. i. p. 228). In such an age and in 
 such a position, a strong man like Leo could 
 exercise an abiding influence. 
 
 In strengthening the framework of the 
 church, Leo was playing an important part 
 in the reconstruction of civil society. In 452 
 Attila, having spread desolation over the 
 plains of Lombardy, was encamped upon the 
 Mincius, ready to advance towards Rome. 
 In this extremity Leo, accompanied by the 
 consular .Avienus and the prefect Trigetius, 
 met the barbarian, and Attila, yielding to 
 their persuasions, consented to' withdraw 
 beyond the Danube. 
 
 The terms were discreditable enough to the 
 Roman empire ; but that the confidence and 
 courage of St. Leo in meeting the fearful Hun 
 made a great impression on the Eastern as 
 well as the Western world may be seen from 
 the somewhat curious allusion to it by the 
 Eastern bishops in the appeal to pope Sym- 
 machusc. 510 {Pair. Lat. Ixii. p. 63). "If your 
 predecessor, the archbp. Leo, now among the 
 saints, thought it not unworthy of him to go 
 himself to meet the barbarian Attila, that he 
 might free from captivity of the body not 
 Christians only, but Jews and pagans, surely 
 your holiness will be touched by the captivity 
 of soul under which we are suffering." No 
 doubt later ages have exaggerated the import- 
 ance of Leo's action, as may be seen in 
 Baronius's account and that of later Roman 
 Catholic writers (.inn. 452, § 56 seq.). Later 
 tradition has also introduced the well-known 
 legend which represents Attila as confessing 
 himself overawed by a miraculous presence, 
 the apparition of St. Peter, and, according to 
 another account, of St. Paul also, threatening 
 him with instant death if he refused to yield. 
 (Baronius boldly maintains the legend, which 
 can plead no respectable evidence. See 
 Tillem. xv. 751, etc.) Again, in 455, when 
 Genseric and the Vandals were at the gates of 
 Rome, the defenceless city, " without a ruler 
 and without a standing force," found its sole 
 hope in the dauntless courage of Leo. I'n- 
 armed, at the head of his clerpy, he went 
 outside the walls to meet the invader and 
 succeeded in restraining the cruelty and 
 licence of devastation. What exactly the 
 barbarian promised, and how much of his 
 promise he kept, is not quite certain, but at 
 least " the mediation of Leo was glorif)Us to 
 himself, and, in some degree, l>cneficial to his 
 country " ((iibbon). To neither of these two 
 encounters between Leo and the barbarians 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 (.45 
 
 do we find allusi.m in his extant writinRi. 
 Cle.irlv, if I..-., w.is the "saviour ..| hi« 
 country," he w.js not inrlinrd to |.o.«s» -f it 
 He h.id little to mnipl.iin of in thr 
 siveness of thr Wrstrrn nnprror in ! 
 ;tions with himself. Nothing r.in r\, 
 
 ecclesiastical authority which is rrro^;;.; 
 
 belonging to the popr in the ronstitiition <>f 
 Valenlinian. which accompanied I,ro'< Irtirr 
 into (;aul in 448 when Leo wa>» in conflict 
 with HiLiry of Aries (Leo M.ig. f:^. xi.). Thu 
 constitution, which has the names of »H.th 
 emperors, liastern and Western, at its hrad. 
 speaks of the "merits" of St. IVtrr, the 
 dignity of Rome and the authority of a roiinrij 
 as conspiring to confirm the primacy of thr 
 I Roman bishops. If declares that it is nrrrs- 
 sary for the peace of all that all thr churrhr* 
 , ("universitas") should recogni/e hiin as tlirir 
 j ruler, and that his decree on thr subject of thr 
 ^Gallic church would be authoritative rvrn 
 without imperial sanction ; vet by way of 
 giving this sanction, it asserts that "no 
 bishops, whether of Gaul or of otlirr provinces. 
 ^ are to be allowed, contrary to ancient customs, 
 to attempt anything ("ne quid tentarc")with- 
 , out the authority of the venerable man, thr 
 I pope of the eternal city ; but that the onr law 
 for them and for all is " quicquid sanxit vrl 
 sanxerit apostolicae sedis aiictoritas " ; and 
 if any bishop summoned to Rome neglect to 
 come, the provincial magistrate (moderator) 
 is to compel him. Nothing could be stronger 
 I than this language ; the document, however, 
 must be considered entirely Western, the 
 result of pressure put by Leo on the feeble 
 ! mind of Valentinian. (Sec Tillem. xv. 441, 
 i who calls it " une loy . . . trop favorable Ik la 
 puissance du siege fde S. L/'on) mais pen 
 I honorable k sa piete.") That Valentinian and 
 i his family were much under Leo's influence is 
 ; proved also by the letters which in thr early 
 part of 450 he induced him, his mother 
 Placidia, and his wife Eudoxia, to write to 
 Theodosius II., the Eastern emperor, in thr 
 interest of Leo's petition for a council in Italy, 
 all which letters reiterate the views of Leo 
 and assert the loftiest position for the see of 
 Rome (Leo Mag. lCf>p. liv.-lviii.). Thro<losius, 
 however, was not so amenable to Leo's wishes. 
 In the matter of the councils, the pope had to 
 submit to the emperor. It was thr emperor 
 who summoned the council of Enhcsus in 440 
 {Kpp. xxix. 840, XXX. 851); Leo sprakinfc 
 always respectfully of him • (xxxi. 856, 840), 
 but being inclined to complain at least of thr 
 I short notice (857). The emperor drridrd 
 thr occasion, place, and time ; and the popr 
 ajiologizes for not attending in prrsrm (•'>.). 
 .Again, after the disastrous termination <if thr 
 Ephesine synod, Leo cannot obtain from thr 
 emperor his request for a gathering in Italy. 
 The summoning of coiinrils still rlrpindrd on 
 the "commandment and will of prlnrrs " ; 
 and Leo gives a constant |>rartiral rrcognition 
 to thr interference of thr Eastrrn rnipirr in 
 ecclesiastical appointments and affairs grnrr- 
 ally {Ep. Ixxxiv. c. 3, etc. ; cf. aUo cliii. 1. 
 remembering that A»i>ar was an Arian, 
 Tillem. Empereurs, vl. 366). In grnrral Leo 
 conceives of the right relation of the rinpire 
 • CunsidcrinR the tone official liinKuaKr <hcti took 
 I^co cannot l>c accused of nagKt^olctl lUltrrjr. 
 
646 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 and the church as a very intimate one. 
 " Human affairs cannot," he says, " be safe 
 unless the royal and sacerdotal authority 
 combine to defend the faith " {Ep. Ix. 983). 
 He tells the emperor Leo on his accession that 
 his empire is given him " not only to rule the 
 world, but to defend the church " (Ep. civi. 
 1323). When he praises an emperor he 
 ascribes to him a " sacerdotal " mind [e.g. 
 Ep. civ. 13 19). The civil power is constantly 
 called upon, at any rate in the East, where 
 Leo could not always depend on the eccle- 
 siastical authorities, to do the work of the 
 church (Epp. cxii. ii8g, cxv. 1203, cxxxvi.), 1 
 and he justifies the execution of Priscillian in 
 the previous century on the ground " that 
 though the lenity of the church, contented 
 with a sacerdotal sentence, is averse from 
 taking a bloody revenge, yet at times it finds 
 assistance in the severe commands of Christian 
 princes, because the fear of punishment for 
 the body sometimes drives men to seek healing 
 for the soul " (Ep. xv. 696). 
 
 As an ecclesiastical ruler we will consider 
 Leo first in his relation to the various heresies 
 in the West. Septimus, bp. of Altina, in the 
 province of Aquileia, writes (Ep. i. Migne) to 
 inform Leo that Pelagian ecclesiastics are be- 
 ing admitted to communion in that province 
 without recantation, are being reinstated into 
 their ecclesiastical degrees, and allowed, con- 
 trary to the canons, to wander from chiu^ch 
 to church. Leo writes to the metropolitan to 
 complain, desiring him to summon a provin- 
 cial synod and extract from suspected persons 
 a condemnation of Pelagian errors (i. 591). 
 Of his struggle with the Manicheans we know 
 more. Recent troubles, especially the capture 
 of Carthage by Genseric in 439, had driven 
 many of these heretics to Rome. They were 
 to be seen there moving about with pale faces, 
 in mean apparel, fasting, and making dis- 
 tinctions of meats. They seem to have pro- 
 fessed Catholicism and done their best to 
 escape attention (Leo Mag. Serm. xvi. 4, 
 XXXV. ; Ep. XV. 16, p. 708). The vigilance of 
 Leo, however, was too much for them. Of 
 this sect he had a particular horror. Their 
 heresy is a mixture, he says, of all others, 
 while it alone has no element of good in it 
 (Serm. xvi. 4, xxiv. 5). Accordingly, in the 
 beginning of 444, Leo made a diligent search 
 for them. A large number, both of teachers 
 and disciples, and among them their bishop, 
 were tried in the presence of numerous 
 authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, a " senatus 
 amplissimus," as Valentinian calls it, at which 
 confession was made of the most hideous 
 immoralities in their secret assemblies (Epp. 
 vii. p. 624, XV. 16, p. 708 ; Serm. xvi. 4, and 
 Constitutio Valent., Ep. viii.). Those who 
 remained impenitent were banished tn per- 
 petuum by the civil power, and a constitution 
 of Valentinian reviving the previous laws 
 against the sect, dated June 19, 445, put them 
 under all kinds of civil penalties. Leo, by 
 sermons (ix. xvii. xxiv. xxxv. xlii.) and a 
 circular letter to the bishops of Italy (Ep. vii.), 
 did all he could to publish their infamy, and 
 his exertions appear to have stirred up other 
 bishops, both in the East and West, to similar 
 activity (Prosper and Idatius, Chron., Pair. 
 Lot. li. 600, 882). Theodoret, writing in 449, 
 
 LEO L 
 
 counts this exhibition of zeal against the 
 Manicheans one of St. Leo's greatest titles to 
 fame (Leo Mag. Ep. lii. c. 2). In 447 we find 
 Leo sending an account of these proceedings 
 to Turribius, bp. of Astorga (Ep. xv. 16, 708). 
 At this period the Priscillianists were exer- 
 cising a very disastrous influence in Spain. 
 St. Turribius, their active opponent, wTote to 
 Leo for adWce, and Leo replies in July 447 
 (Ep. XV.). He views the heresy as a mixture 
 of Manicheism with other forms of evil, 
 heretical and pagan, and exhorts Turribius to 
 gather a synod of all the Spanish provinces 
 to examine into the orthodoxy of the bishops ; 
 with this view he sends letters to the bishops 
 of the various provinces, but urges that at 
 least a provincial synod of Gallicia should be 
 held (c. 17). We find subsequent allusions to 
 a Galhcian council, to which Leo is said to have 
 written (Labbe, Cone. v. 837 a ; Idat. Chron. 
 xxiii.), and to a council of various provinces 
 at Toledo in 447, which is said to have acted 
 "cum praecepto papae Leonis'" (Labbe, ii. 
 1227 B ; cf. Tillem. xv. 555 seq. ; Ceillier, x. 
 668). Though we hear still of Novatianism 
 j and Donatism in Africa (Ep. xii. 6), Leo did 
 j not take any special measures against these 
 nor other heresies in the West. 
 
 Leo's introduction to Eastern disputes is a 
 somewhat curious one. Eutyches early in 
 448 wrote to Leo apparently deploring the 
 revival of Nestorianism. Leo replied on June 
 I, applauding his solicitude, and apparently 
 heard no more of Eutyches till early in 449 
 he received two letters announcing his con- 
 demnation in the council of Constantinople — 
 one from the emperor Theodosius, the other 
 from himself. Eutyches (Ep. xxi.) appeals 
 to the judgment of the Roman pontiff. Leo, 
 however, maintains a cautious attitude ; 
 writes to Flavian (Ep. xxiii.) complaining that 
 he has sent him no information about the 
 condemnation of Eutyches, that the appeal of 
 the condemned to Rome was, according to his 
 own account, not received and he himself 
 j hastily condemned, though he professed him- 
 self ready to amend anything in his faith 
 which should be found at fault. At the same 
 time Leo writes to the emperor, lamenting his 
 ignorance of the true state of the case (Ep. 
 xxiv.). Meanwhile, it appears that Flavian 
 had really written soon after the close of the 
 coimcil to inform Leo,and toDomnusof Antioch 
 and other prelates. His letter, however (Ep. 
 xxii.)hadnotreachedLeobytheend of Feb- 449. 
 Had it arrived, it would have been calculated 
 to give Leo a clearer view of the dogmatic 
 question at issue. Flavian's second letter to 
 Leo, in reply to his (Ep. xx\'i.), C'mtains no 
 allusions to Leo's complaints of his silence 
 1 and want of consideration ; he characterizes 
 i Eutvches's representations as crafty and 
 j false, explains clearly the drift of his teaching, 
 ' and urges the pope to send his subscription to 
 the condemnation, and to keep the emperor on 
 the right side (ih. p. 788) ; the matter, he adds, 
 only needs his assistance to keep it all straight. 
 Leo, now confirmed in his adhesion to Flavian, 
 writes briefly in May 449, assuring him of 
 his sympathy (Ep. xxvii.), followed in June 
 by "the tome " (Ep. xxviii.), one of the most 
 justly celebrated of pontifical decrees — 
 nominally a letter to an indixddual bishop. 
 
LEO I. 
 
 but rrally addressed to all the world. Western 
 as well as Eastern. At the same time, Leo 
 sent letters directed against Eutyches's doc- 
 trine, and calling attention to his tome, to 
 Pulcheria, Faustus, Martin, and the other 
 archimandrites of Constantin<iple. t<i the Ephe- 
 sine council itself, and two to his close friend 
 Ji'LiAN of Cos (£■/>/>. xxxi.-x.xxv.)- Mean- 
 while Theodosius. at the instance of Eutyches, 
 had directed the assembling of a council, 
 which, professing to be aimed at Nestorianism 
 only, excited much alarm in the minds of 
 Eastern prelates and in that of Leo, who, 
 though praising the emperor's zeal for religion, 
 ventures to hint that there is no occasion for 
 assembling a synod in a matter where there is ! presence 
 no possibility of doubt — an opinion which he Eudoxia 
 
 LEO 
 
 ft 17 
 
 appeal to the empress Pulrhrria {l-ff. xlv.). 
 The ground of the re.jufst is rspr. i.illv the 
 appeal of Fl.ivi,iii t.. K.>mo— .in appeal f..r thn 
 justification of which Leo offers the aulhcrily 
 of a Nicene canon {Ep. xliv. 016 ; vtd. inf.). 
 
 On Dec. 25 Le.i, still surrounde<l bv hi« 
 council, presses his request to the rmperor 
 again (Ep. liv.) ; and in .Mar. 4S0 writes again 
 to stir up Pulcheria, the archimandrites (Ep. 
 xi.), and the clergv and people of Constanti- 
 nople, to press his petition for a " plmaria 
 synodus," and " next to the divine assistanrn 
 to aim at obtaining the favour of the Catholic 
 princes" {Epp. lix. s. qSi, Ix. Ixi). Mean- 
 while, taking the opportunitv ■)f Valentinian'j 
 in Rome with his wife Licinia 
 (Theodositis's daughter) and his 
 expresses more strongly to Flavian. Theo- } mother, (.alia Pladdia, Leo gets them all to 
 dosius had sent a request that Leo would be j write letters urging the Eastern emperor to 
 present at the council. This, as he writes to do what he wished {Epp. Iv. Ivi. Ivii.). (iaila 
 
 Pulcheria, the circumstances of the city would 
 not permit ; and there would, as he tells 
 Theodosius. be no precedent for such a course 
 {Epp. xxxi. 837 ; xxxvii. 887). He sent (" de 
 latere suo ") three legates to represent on his 
 behalf the spirit at once of severity and 
 mercy {Epp. xxix. p. 841 : xxxiv. c. 2 ; xxxiii. 
 p. 866). They seem to have left Rome before 
 June 23. Apparently at the beginning of 
 Oct. news reached Rome that the council had 
 been packed and managed by Dioscorus ; 
 that Leo's tome had not been read; that Euty- 
 ches had been reinstated. St. Flavian and 
 Eusebius condemned and deposed ; finally, 
 that of Leo's legates one only had barely 
 escaped to tell the tale ; and though Leo was 
 ignorant of the crowning enormity of the 
 murder of St. Flavian, his indignation boils 
 over {Epp. xliii. p. 904 ; xliv. p. 912 ; xlv. p. 
 921; cxx. 3, p. 1224; xlv. 2). The pro- 
 ceedings of the council are characterized as a 
 " sceleratissimum facinus "; " it was no synod 
 at all, but a " latrocinium," a den of robbers ; 
 its acts are null and void ; it cuts to the root 
 of the Christian faith {Epp. xliv. i. p. 913 ; 
 Ixxxv. i. p. losi ; xcv. 2 ; xlv. 2, p. 923 ; 
 
 Placidia wrote at the same time to Pulcheria, 
 exjiressing detestation of the Ephesine synofl, 
 and describing how Leo, when solemnlv asking 
 their intercession with Theodosi>is, could 
 hardly speak for grief {Ep. Iviii.). 
 
 In his replies to Valentinian, Placidia, and 
 Eudoxia (Epp. Ixii. Ixiii. Ixiv.) Theodosius 
 asserts his continued orthodoxy, but professes 
 his complete satisfaction with the Ephesine 
 synod. His reply to Leo is not preserved, 
 but contained an absolute refusal to do what 
 he wished. Leo had another cause of anxiety. 
 .\natolius had written to him in the end of 
 449, telling him of his election to succeed 
 Flavian (ii^. liii.). Anatolius had been Dios- 
 conis's representative at Constantinople, and 
 what security had Leo for his orthodoxy ? 
 Moreover, he' had simply announced his con- 
 secration, without asking for I^o's consent 
 to it. Leo wrote in July 450 to Theodosius, 
 whom he still addresses with the utnio>t 
 respect, requiring that Anatolius should read 
 the Catholic Fathers and the Ep. of Cvril, 
 without overlooking his own Ep. to Flavian, 
 and then make a public profession of adher- 
 ence to their doctrine, to be transmitted to the 
 
 xliv. I, 913). Still, Leo is more indignant than apostolic see and all bishops and churches. 
 
 ~ ~ This he demands somewhat peremptorilv, 
 
 sending legates to explain his views, and re- 
 newing his request for an Italian council (Ep. 
 Ixix.). This letter he backs up with others to 
 Pulcheria, Faustus, and the archimandrites 
 (Epp. Ixx.lxxi. Ixxii.). Leo appears even now 
 to have been full of hope (/•:/>. Ixxiii. to Martin), 
 though Dioscorus had the audacity to excom- 
 municate him and the emperor was all against 
 him. But before his legates could reach 
 Constantinople, his chief cause of anxietv was 
 removed. Theodosius died, j uly 450. •"><• was 
 succeeded by Pulcheria, always Leo's friend, 
 who united to herself as emperor, .Marcian, 
 equally zealous for his cause. Dioscorus'* 
 hopes were gone. The letter of the new cm- 
 mcing hi 
 
 dismayed {Ep. xlviii.). The fearful and half- 
 anticipated result of the synod only stirs his 
 energies. There was then sitting at Rome a 
 council apparently representing the whole 
 West, and assembled to consider the present 
 emergency (Epp. Ixi. i ; xlv. 2 : xlvi. 2 ; Ixix. 
 p. 1008).' In his own name and that of the 
 council Leo addresses letters to various 
 quarters. The church of Constantinople and 
 the archimandrites {Epp. 1. H.) are exhorted 
 to be loval to the faith and to Flavian, whose 
 death was not yet known in Rome, and they 
 are assured that no one who usurps his place 
 can be in the communion of Rome or a true 
 bishop (p. 934). Besides those letters (Epp. 
 xliii. xliv. xlv.), there are two to the emperor, 
 
 urgentlv requesting that a more oecumenical | peror (Ep. Ixxiii.), announcing his election, 
 council'mav be held in Italv. Till this has [ promised the council to be held specially under 
 been done, Leo begs the emperor bv all that Uo's influence (" tc auctore ). and the Irttrr 
 is most sacred to allow everything to remain which followed the arrival of Lt-o s messengers 
 as it was before the first decision at Constanti- | at Constantinople asked him cither to come 
 nople(£/>. xliv. 2, p. 915). This request, made to the East to assist at it or, if that was 
 in the name of all the bishops and churches 
 of the West (" nostrae partes," xliv. 3), is 
 accompanied by the strongest condemnation 
 of the Ephesine council and backed up by an 
 
 impossible, to let the emperor summon the 
 Eastern, Illyrian. and Thracian bishops to 
 some place " ubi nobis placuerit " (Ep. Ixxvi.). 
 We hear nothing of Leo's requirement that 
 
648 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 it should be in Italy, though he did not cease 
 to wish that it should be there {Ep. xcv. i). 
 Meanwhile Anatolius had willingly signed the 
 tome, as had "all the church of Constantinople, 
 with a number of bishops" — it appears that it 
 was sent for signature to all the metropolitans 
 {Ep. Ixxxviii. 3; Labbe, iv. 546 c) — the 
 bishops banished for adherence to Flavian 
 were recalled, and all honour shewn to 
 Flavian's body {Ep. Pulcheria, Ixxvii.)- At 
 the same time a large number of the bishops 
 who had been induced by fear to assent to the 
 decrees of the Ephesine synod (by July 451 
 almost all) had testified their sorrow, and, 
 though by the decision of the papal legates 
 not yet admitted to the communion of Rome, 
 were allowed the pri\'ileges of their owm 
 churches ; Eutyches was banished, though 
 not far enough to satisfv Leo, and everywhere 
 " the light of the Catholic faith was shining 
 forth " {Epp. Ixxx. 2 ; Ixxxiv. 3 ; cxxxii. p. 
 1053). The legates, who returned at once, 
 carried back a number of letters to their 
 master, and in Apr. 451 we have a number 
 of letters from him, expressing genuine satis- 
 faction. He commends all that has been done, 
 praises the " sacerdotal " zeal of Marcian, the 
 diligent watchfulness of Pulcheria, and re- 
 joices in Anatolius's adhesion to the truth 
 {Epp. Ixxviii. Ixxix. Ixxx. ; cf. Ixxxv. 3). He 
 praises the conduct of his legates and confirms 
 their wish that the names of those bishops, 
 Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Eustathius, who had 
 taken a chief part in the crimes of the council 
 of Ephesus should not be recited at the altar 
 (Ixxx. 3; Ixxxv. 2). As for the council, he 
 wishes it postponed, but has to yield to the 
 emperor, and writes to him in June 451 (Ep. 
 Ixxxix.), nominating the legates to represent 
 him. He makes it a point that his legates 
 should preside, and that the question of the 
 true faith should not be treated as an open 
 one {Ep. xc. ; cf. xciii.). H Leo, presiding 
 in the person of his legates, secures the posi- 
 tion of his see. and if the prohibition of main- 
 taining heretical positions ("nee id liceat 
 defendi, quod non liceat credi ") gives security 
 to the faith, there will be no cause of anxiety 
 about the council, but a caution is still needed 
 that the condemnation of Eutyches must not 
 be an excuse for any rehabilitation of Nes- 
 torianism {Ep. xciii. end). When the synodal 
 letter of the council of Chalcedon {Ep. xcviii.) 
 reached Leo, it was couched in terms highly 
 complimentary to himself, and brought the 
 best news as regards the question of faith. 
 Eutyches had been finally condemned and 
 Dioscorus deposed. Leo expresses his satis- 
 faction {Ep. to Marcian, civ.). The faith of 
 the church was unmistakably asserted. In 
 Mar. 453 he tells Maximus of Antioch {Ep. 
 cxix.) that " the glory of the day is everywhere 
 arisen." " The divine mystery of the Incar- 
 nation," he tells Theodoret, "has been re- 
 stored to the age "; " it is the world's second fes- 
 tivity since the advent of the Lord" (£p.cxx.). 
 While on this score Leo had every cause 
 for joy, there was one decree of the council 
 against which his legates had protested and 
 which stirred his utmost indignation — viz. 
 the 28th decree on the dignity of the see of 
 Constantinople, which seemed to imperil the 
 unique position of the see of Rome. 
 
 LEO L 
 
 Before treating of this, we will take a general 
 review of the position and influence of Leo 
 as bp. of Rome up to this point of his pontifi- 
 cate. The age into which Leo was born was 
 one which demanded, above all else, a firm 
 consistency and therefore centralization in the 
 church. It was an age of little intellectual 
 energy, and was to be succeeded by ages of 
 still less. The world wanted above all things 
 unity and strength, and this was found in 
 taking Rome for a centre and a guide both in 
 faith and in discipline. Accordingly the papal 
 supremacy made a great stride during Leo's 
 life. He has been well called " the first pope," 
 " the Cyprian of the papacy," for we associate 
 with Leo's name the first clear assertion that 
 metropolitans and patriarchs are subject in 
 some way, still undefined, to Rome. What is 
 Leo's own view of his position ? In his ser- 
 mons preached on his " birthday," i.e. the 
 day of his consecration — an occasion on which 
 a provincial council used annually to be as- 
 sembled at Rome — he expresses his sense of his 
 own insignificance but of the magnitude of his 
 position and of the presence of St. Peter in 
 his see, "ordinatissima totius ecclesiae charitas 
 in Petri sede Petrum suscipit " {Serm. ii. 2 ; 
 cf. iii. 3; v. 4). St. Peter is the rock; St. Peter 
 alone has to " strengthen his brethren " (iii. 
 3 ; iv. 3). Not only has he the primacy (iii. 
 4) but is the channel through which is given 
 whatever graces the other apostles have, and 
 so, though there are many bishops and pastors, 
 yet Peter governs them all by his peculiar 
 office ("proprie"), whom Christ governs by 
 His supreme authority (" principaliter ") ; 
 thus " great and wonderful is the share in its 
 own power which the divine condescension 
 assigned to this man " (Iv. 2). Just as the 
 faith of Peter in Christ abides, so also does the 
 commission of Christ to Peter, and " Peter's 
 care rules still all parts of the church " (iii. 2 ; 
 V. 4). Thus the see of Rome is the centre of 
 sacerdotal grace and of church authority ; it 
 represents Peter, " from whom, as from a head, 
 the Lord wills that His gifts should flow out 
 into the whole body, so that he should know 
 he has no share in the divine mystery who has 
 dared to retire from the solid foundation of 
 Peter " {Ep. x. i, in re Hilary of Aries). The 
 see of Rome again, occupies in the ecclesi- 
 astical world more than the position which 
 the empire of Rome occupies in the secular— 
 " gens sancta, civitas sacerdotalis et regia, 
 caput orbis effecta latins praesidet religione 
 divina quam dominatione terrena " — because 
 the Roman empire uniting the world was just 
 the divine preparation for the spread of the 
 universal Gospel (S^rw.lxxxii. I and 2). This, 
 then, is his theory : let us see how he put it 
 in practice. We see him standing as in a 
 watch-tower, with his eye on every part of 
 the Christian world, zealous everywhere for 
 the interests of the faith and of discipline, and, 
 wherever he sees occasion, taking the oppor- 
 tunity of insinuating the authority of his see, 
 not only in the West, but in the East. The 
 " authority of the apostolic see " to regulate 
 discipline and depose bishops is asserted very 
 absolutely to the bishops of Aquileia and of 
 the home provinces in the beginning of his 
 pontificate ; as for the heretics, " obediendo 
 nobis, probent se esse nostros " {Epp. i. v. iv.). 
 
 I 
 
LEO I. 
 
 With something more of apology (though with 
 the precedent of his predecessors), he asserts 
 his authority — " in order to prn<ent usurpa- \ 
 tions" in Illyria (£/>. v. i). As his prede- j 
 cessors had done, he appointed a vicegerent, j 
 Anastasius of Thessalonica, to whom he 
 wishes the Illyrian bishops to submit as to 
 himself. He is to be to the metropolitans as 
 they are to the ordinary bishops, ami a regular 
 system of provincial administration is or- I 
 dained, by which the assent of the papal : 
 vicarius is required for all episcopal elections 
 and by which metropolitans are to be ordained 
 actually by him (£/>. vi. 4 ; but cf. xiv. 6, : 
 where the latter point is modified). Biennial 
 provincial councils, summoned by the metro- 
 politans, referring graver matters to a repre- 
 sentative synod, summoned by the vicar, 
 whence again difficult questions are to be 
 referred to Rome, are to maintain provincial 
 discipline (Epp. xiv. 7 ; xiii. 2). Moreover, 
 any individual bishop can appeal from the I 
 metropolitan directly to Rome, as Atticus, 1 
 the metropolitan of Epirus Vetus, actually did j 
 some years later, securing the pope's inter- i 
 ference against the cruel treatment of Anas- I 
 tasius {Ep. xiv. i, p. 6S5). This supremacy 
 of the papal vicar, which is of great historical 
 importance, seems to have been accepted 
 without remonstrance by the lll>Tian churches j 
 {Ep. xiii. i). Meanwhile, in 445, a letter from I 
 Dioscorus of Alexandria, probably announcing ! 
 his succession to St. C\Til, gave Leo an oppor- 
 tunity of dictating to the church of Alexandria 
 {Ep. ix.). That church owned St. Mark for 
 her foimder ; should not the church of St. 
 Mark be in complete accord with the church 
 of St. Mark's master ? On the strength of 
 this relation between the churches, Leo gives 
 Dioscorus detailed directions about days of 
 ordination and the celebration of mass. About 
 the same time the restless energy of Leo was | 
 engaged in his famous controversy with St. 1 
 Hilary of .Aries. This controversy (for which | 
 see Hilary), which is of special importance as ■■ 
 being the first case in which " the supremacy ! 
 of the Roman see over Gaul was brought to 
 the issue of direct assertion on the pope's part, 
 of inflexible resistance on the part of his op- 
 ponent," arose out of an appeal of a bishop, 
 Celidonius, to Rome against the judgment of j 
 Hilary. Though some blame attaches to ] 
 Hilary, Leo's conduct was imperious, pre- I 
 cipitate, unjust, and not over-scrupulous. 
 The temptation to press a disputed claim of | 
 the Roman Sfe and extend the Roman pre- ; 
 rogative was too strong ; Leo's violent Ian- | 
 guage about the saintly Hilary {Ep. x.), his | 
 high-handed treatment of Gallic rights, and 
 his attempt to give a sort of primacy in Gaul 
 to Leontius on the mere sore of age cannot be 
 defended. He seems conscious that he is 
 treading on doubtful ground in the beginning 
 of his letter U> the Gallic bishops, for he is ; 
 careful to assert that there is nothing new in 
 his proceedings, and that he is only defending 
 the Gallic bishops from the aggressions of Hilary. 
 He professes to consult them (c. 4) ; he forti- 
 fies himself with an imperial edict, for which ! 
 he must be held mainly responsible {vid. sup.) ; 
 though he apparently excluded Hilary from 
 his communion, he did not venture to depose 
 him from his episcopal functions, and on his 
 
 LEO 
 
 040 
 
 deatl) speaks of him as " sanctae inrmnriar " 
 {Ep. xl. ; cf. Tilleni. xv. 80, K«)). The j^r- 
 emptory orders of Lei> seem to havr obi.iinrd 
 but inadequate execution in Gaul ( lillrni. xv. 
 86) as shown in the election ol Kavrnnni^, 
 Hilary's successor. I eo had d<-*irr<| (hp'. 
 Ixvi. 2) that the privileges he took from Hilary 
 should be given to the bp. of Vienne ; but the 
 latter seems to have taken no part in the 
 consecration of Kavennius, yet Leo spraks 
 of his consecration as constitutionally con- 
 ducted and divinely inspired {Epp. xl. xli.) and 
 appears in the directions he givrs Kavennius 
 to recognize him as a metropolitan (Ep. xiii. ; 
 Tillem. xv. 9^). Of the wav Kavennius was 
 consecrated, the bp. of Vienne seems to have 
 made no complaint. He did, however, rom- 
 plain of the ordination bv Kavennius of a bp. 
 of Vaison {Ep. Ixvi. i). This complaint was 
 followed on the other side by a petition (mm 
 19 bishops of the three provinces formerly 
 subject to .\rles, asking for the restoration to 
 that see of its former dignity. Leo had now 
 an opportunity to mediate. However im- 
 perfectly subservient to Leo's wishes the 
 Gallic church had hitherto been, the tone of 
 this letter is suflicientlv abject. The pope's 
 authoritative attitude and the imperial edirt 
 had done their work. They simply put them- 
 selves in Leo's hands. They ground the claim 
 of Aries on ancient custom, civil dignity, and 
 specially <m the fact that in Trophimus that 
 town had had the first Gallic bishop, and Tro- 
 phimus had been sent by St. I'eter ; they even 
 claim for Aries a certain authority over all 
 Gaul as the vicegerent of the Roman see. 
 Having received this appeal, so sati-^factory in 
 its tone, and the counter-complaint from 
 Vienne, Leo proceeded to divide the authority. 
 He examined carefully, he says, the rival 
 claims of Vienne and Aries, and ultimately 
 assigned a limited authority over four churches 
 to the bp. of Vienne, and the rest of the 
 province of Vienne to Aries ; of the claims of 
 Aries to larger metropolitan rights, he says 
 nothing {Ep. Ixvi.). This decision seems to 
 have been acquiesced in by Kavennius, but 
 did not finally stop the disputes of the rival 
 sees (Tillem. xv. gs, q6). Leo sent also his 
 tome to Ravennius for distribution in Gaul 
 and secret communications, " (juae Ci)mniit- 
 tenda litteris non fuerunt," by the mouth of 
 the messengers. 
 
 Probably c. 446 we find Leo correcting some 
 scandals and asserting his authority in the 
 church of Africa, too weak and disorganized 
 now, from the devastations of Genseric and the 
 recently concluded war, to resist interference 
 as in the days of Celestine. He had sent a 
 representative to make inquiries into allrgrd 
 violations of discipline there in the elec tion of 
 bishops; on receiving his report, Leo wrote 
 {Ep. xii. to the bishops of .Manretania Caesari- 
 ensis) assuming complete authority "ver the 
 administration of their church. Me even re- 
 ceived an appeal from an African bishop, I.rpi- 
 ciNUS, and reversed the decision of the African 
 church in receiving him to communion. 
 
 In 447 we have seen Leo entering into the 
 affairs of the church of Spain, distracted like 
 the African with barbarian invasions, and 
 I dictating the course to be pursued against the 
 1 Ptiscillianist heretics ; and the same year he 
 
650 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 sharply reprimanded the Sicilian bishops for 
 the alienation of church property, of which 
 complaints had been laid before him in a 
 Roman synod by the clergy of the despoiled 
 churches (Ep. xvii.). The Eutychian contro- 
 versy went far to aggrandize the position of 
 Rome as the seat of dogmatic truth and the 
 refuge of oppressed orthodoxy. Rome's pre- 
 tensions to a superior jurisdiction are older 
 than her claims to be the source of dogmatic 
 truth. The claim of infallibility was yet 
 unheard, but it went far to lay the ground of 
 this claim that in the last great controversy 
 about the Incarnation Rome's utterance be- 
 came the standard of orthodoxy. The glory 
 of being the safest dogmatic guide coalesced 
 with increasing authority as the centre of dis- 
 cipline and government. True, the letter of 
 Leo to Flavian went out for signature east and 
 west on the authority of a council ; there is 
 no approach to a claim to dogmatic authority 
 as bp. of Rome on Leo's part ; still, the 
 letter was Leo's letter and the stream of things 
 was running in the direction of his exaltation. 
 Moreover, the position of Rome at this period 
 made Leo the recipient of appeal after appeal. 
 Eutyches, Flavian, Eusebius, Theodoret, the 
 presbyters Basil and John (£^lxxxvii.),made, 
 or were supposed to have made, appeals, and 
 gave Leo opportunities of asserting an old 
 claim. The council of Sardica had framed a 
 canon, allowing appeals from discontented 
 bishops to pope Julius. This canon, with 
 the others of this council, was in the Roman 
 church included with the canons of Nicaea, 
 and as such had been quoted by the popes ; 
 but that it was not Nicene, the African 
 church had shewn quite clearly in the time of 
 Zosimus. Though Leo could not be ignorant 
 of this fact, he still alleges the authority of 
 Nicaea for the right of appeal (Ep. liv. p. 917, 
 in the case of Flavian). No " custom of the 
 Roman church " can justify this. (For the 
 Roman canons, see collection in Migne's Patr. 
 Lat. Iv. init. ; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. § 92.) 
 
 Leo appears to make no exact or definite 
 claim over the Eastern bishops through the 
 Eutychian controversy. He professes his 
 " universalis cura " for the welfare of the 
 whole church {Ep. Ixxv.) and claims to be kept 
 fully alive to what goes on in the East (cf. Ep. 
 to Flavian, xxiii.), while the power of exclud- 
 ing from his own communion gave him some 
 hold on episcopal elections, which he requires 
 to be notified to him with satisfactory proofs 
 of the orthodoxy of new bishops (cf. his lan- 
 guage at his confirmation of Anatolius's elec- 
 tion) ; " nostra communio " all through his 
 writings is an expression of much meaning 
 and weight. Moreover, we have seen that he 
 claimed a right of receiving appeals from all 
 parts of the Christian world, and we shall see 
 him trying to annul the authority of a canon 
 of Chalcedon which displeased him. But 
 when he writes his celebrated letter to Flavian, 
 on the subject of the true faith of the Incarna- 
 tion, he writes in a tone no wise different 
 from that adopted bv St. Cvril in his letters 
 against Nestorius. The bp. of Ravenna (Peter 
 Chrysologus), at the beginning of the Euty- 
 chian controversy, wrote to Eutyches recom- 
 mending him to listen to Rome, because " the 
 blessed Peter who lives and presides in his 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 own see gives the truth of the faith to those 
 who seek it " {Ep. xxv. ad fin.), but there is 
 nothing of this tone in Leo's own words. He 
 classes his letter with that of Cyril {Epp. Ixvii.; 
 Ixix. 1006) : " non aspernetur Anatolius," he 
 says, " etiam meam epistolam recensere, quam 
 pietati patrum per omnia concordare re- 
 periet " (ixx. loio). After the council of 
 Chalcedon, he commends his own letter as 
 confirmed by the council and witnessed to 
 by patristic testimony {e.g. Ep. cxx. to Theo- 
 doret, c. 4 ; cf. esp. Ep. ex. 3, 117, where he 
 fortifies himself by the authority of St. Atha- 
 nasius, and Ep. cxxiii. 2, where he speaks of 
 his tome simply as " synodaUa decreta " ; Ep. 
 cxxxix. 4 ; Leo attached the " testimonia pa- 
 trum " to his tome after the Robber council, 
 Ep. Ixxxviii. 3). 
 
 Of the Eastern bishops, Theodoret, in 
 making his appeal {Ep. lii.), addresses Leo in 
 language very reverential to his see : " If 
 Paul betook himself to Peter that he might 
 carry back from him an explanation to those 
 who were raising questions at Antioch about 
 their conversation in the law, much more do 
 I," etc. ; but while he admits it expedient 
 that the pope should have the first place 
 ("primas") in all things, he grounds this posi- 
 tion on (i) the greatness of Rome; (2) the 
 continuous piety of the church; (3) the posses- 
 sion of the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul : 
 not the sort of prerogatives on which Leo 
 would ground his primacy. Flavian ad- 
 dresses Leo in a way entirely consistent with 
 the dignity of his own see. He informs him 
 of the condemnation of Eutyches {Ep, xxii.), 
 but only that Leo may put the bishops sub- 
 ordinate to him on their guard ; and when 
 Flavian asks for Leo's subscription {Ep.xxvi.), 
 he asks it for an already canonically made 
 deposition. At the council of Chalcedon, Leo 
 was treated with all possible respect. He had 
 required {Ep. Ixxxix. to Marcian) that his 
 legates should preside, " on account of the in- 
 constancy of so many of his brethren." Cer- 
 tainly the doubtful orthodoxy of so many of 
 the chief Eastern bishops, and the connexion 
 of Anatolius with Dioscorus, would have made 
 it difficult to find any one so fit as the Roman 
 legates to preside. Moreover, all the influence 
 of Marcian and Pulcheria was on the side of 
 Leo, " giving him entire authority " (Theodor. 
 Lector, lib. i.), except as regards the place of 
 the council ; hence there were reasons 
 enough for giving him the presidency, even if 
 Leo had not been Leo and Rome Rome. 
 As it was, there was no direct opposition and 
 the influence of his legates was strong enough 
 to enforce in great measure his wishes as to 
 Dioscorus. When the synod proceeded to 
 read Leo's tome, some lUyrian and other 
 bishops raised doubts on certain expressions 
 in it. Explanations were given and confer- 
 ences held, where those points were shewn by 
 the legates and others to be in agreement with 
 the doctrines of councils and the Ep. of Cyril 
 (Labbe, iv. 367 c, d ; 491 d). Finally, his 
 letter was unanimously received, because it 
 was in agreement with the decrees of Nicaea, 
 Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the Epp. of 
 St. Cyril (pp. 471 seq.). " Peter," the bishops 
 cried, " spoke thus by Leo ! Leo teaches 
 truly ! Cyril taught so ! Eternal the mem- 
 
LEO I. 
 
 orv of Cvril ! Leo and Cvril toach alike ! 
 This is the faith of the Fathers ! " (367, 368). 
 Thus Leo's letter was treated by the council 
 like the letter of any other highly respected 
 churchman ; and in the eighth session of the 
 council Leo's decision on the orthodoxy of 
 Theodoret was not accepted till that bishop 
 had satisfied the synod that he really was 
 orthodox ((>2i c, d). On one or two points 
 especial reverence for Leo was shewn in the 
 council. According to the Acts of the council, 
 the form in which the papal legates expressed 
 the condemnation of Dioscorus was, "The 
 archbishop of the great and elder Rome, 
 through us and through the holy synod now 
 present, together with "the . . . apostle Peter, 
 who is the rock . . . has stripped Dioscorus 
 of all sacerdotal dignity" (426 c). This 
 " sentence " indeed exists in a widely different 
 form, as sent by Leo himself to the Gallic 
 bishops {Ep. ciii.). in which Leo is described 
 as " head of the universal church," and con- 
 demns " by us his vicars with the consent of 
 the synod." The Ada are probably the best 
 authority, as we do not know exactly whence 
 Leo's version came. In any case, the papal 
 legates were regarded as passing sentence on 
 Dioscorus with the consent of the council (cf. 
 Pair. Lat. li. p. 9S9, note b ; Hvagr. H. E. ii. 4). 
 The title " oecumenical archbishop " is used 
 of Leo in the plea of Sophronius against Dios- 
 corus (Labbe, iv. 411 d), and "bishop of all the 
 churches," or "of the oecumenical church," 
 by the papal legates.* It is, perhaps, in mis- 
 taken allusion to these expressions of indi- 
 viduals that pope Gregory I. states that the 
 bishops of Rome were called " universales 
 episcopi " by the council of Chalcedon (Greg. 
 Mag. Epp. lib. v. ep. xviii. 743, Migne) and 
 that the title thus offered had been consis- 
 tently rejected (pp. 749, 771, 919). The 
 synodical letter (Ep. xcviii.) which the as- 
 sembled bishops wrote to Leo was highly 
 complimentary. They speak of him as the 
 "interpreter to all of the blessed Peter." He 
 has presided by his legates as " the head over 
 the members " (c. i ). It is he who took away 
 his dignity from Lutyches (c. 2). They ex- 
 press indignation at the monstrous attempt 
 which Dioscorus made to exconmiunicate Leo, 
 " he to whom the Saviour intrusted the care 
 of the vine " (c. 3) ; but all this language, so 
 acceptable to Leo, serves to usher in a very 
 unpleasant matter. The first council of Con- 
 stantinople had decreed that the bishop of 
 that place should have the primacy of honour 
 after the bp. of Rome, because " it is itself 
 new Rome" (Labbe, ii. 94 7 t')- Leo's state- 
 ment, that this canon had never taken effect, 
 is entirely untrue. On the contrary, the pre- 
 cedence of honour had become an extensive 
 jurisdiction (Tiilein. xv. pp. 701 scq.); and 
 this jurisdiction had now been sanctioned by 
 the 28th canon of the council of Chalcedon, 
 which professed to confirm the canon of Con- 
 stantinople. "The Fathers," they say, "gave 
 with reason the primacy to the chair of old 
 Rome, because that was the royal city, and, 
 with the same object in view, the 180 pious 
 
 • Lest we attach tfX) nuich importance to these 
 flattering titles in the Eastern world, we .ihould notice 
 that the same title is applied to Dtoicorusai Rphcsiu 
 (Labbe, iv. 270, 472 a, 479 e; Tillcm. xv. 564). 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 651 
 
 bishops gavp equal primacy (rd l<ta wfnaflua) 
 to the chair of new Rome" (which pha>w, 
 however, is afterwards explained bv thr word* 
 " being next after old Rome ") ; this addition 
 to the rank of new Rome is groiindrd on her 
 imperial position ; it is then further allowed 
 that the see of Coiisl.uitinoplr shoiihl havr the 
 right of ordaining the metropolitans o( I'ontnv 
 .Vsi.i, and Thrace, and certain other bishops 
 (Labbe, iv. 795Dseq.). From thr discus- 
 
 sion on this subject the papal legates had 
 retired, saving they had no directions from 
 Rome in the matter; but when the i:astorn 
 bishops had confirmed the canon, thry de- 
 manded and obtained another session, when 
 they protested in vain against it (Labbe. iv. 
 sess. 12). Doubtless the bishops had been 
 partly inspired by jealousy of R.mie. Leo's 
 oft-repeated sneer, that they had been com- 
 pelled to sign, they stoutly denied in session 
 (16. 809. 813 B seq.). This canon the council 
 announce to Leo : their object, they say. was 
 to secure order and good discipline, and it was 
 made at the wish of the emperor, the senate, 
 and the citizens (Ep. xcviii. 1097) : thev 
 therefore express a good hope that Leo will 
 not resist it as his legates did. At the same 
 time, Leo received letters from Marcian. Ana- 
 tolius (Epp. c. ci.). and Julian, expressing joy 
 at the successful suppression of heresy and 
 endeavouring to conciliate him in regard to 
 the 28th canon. .Anatolius writes in as con- 
 ciliatory a tone as possii>le. urging that the 
 jurisdiction actually reserved ifor Constan- 
 tinople is less than custom had sanctioned, 
 repeating that it was at the wish of emperor, 
 senate, and consuls that the canon was i>assed, 
 j and complaining gently of the conduct of the 
 legates after so much deference had l>een 
 shewn them. It would seem from the words 
 of the " Commonitorium " which he intrusted 
 I to his legates (Labbe, iv. 829 t) that Leo had 
 ' had some inkling of what tlie council might 
 do in this respect. Indeed Eusebius of Dory- 
 laeum stated in session that he had actually 
 read this canon to Leo, when at Rome, in 
 I presence of some clerics from Constantinople, 
 and that he had accepted it (815 h). I,eo is. 
 , however, now extremely indignant. A very 
 ! angry tone runs through the letters to Marcian, 
 ! Pulcheria, .Anatolius, and Julian (Ept>. ci\.- 
 ;cvii.). He urges that when .Anatolius s antr- 
 I cedents were so doubtful, an attitude of 
 humility wrnild have best beseemed him (I- pp. 
 i civ. c. 2 ; cv. 3 ; cvi. 5), that secular import- 
 I ance cannot confer ecclesiastical privilege, 
 " alia enim est ratio rerum saecularium. alia 
 divinarum " (civ. 3). and that the canon is in 
 flat contradiction to the unalterable decrees 
 of Nicaca. alluding probably to the sixth 
 1 canon, on the rights of certain metropolitan*. 
 He treats very scornfully the assent of thr 
 I Chalcedonian bishops ; it is an " cxtorta sub- 
 scriptio " ; what can it avail against the 
 protest of the legates? (Ep. cv. lo.^j). He 
 ' thinks just as little of the decree of Ci>nstantl- 
 noplc (Ep. civ. 2). He charges Anatoliu* 
 with having diverted the council from its own 
 proper object to subserve his ambitious pur- 
 poses (Ep. cvi. 2). and finally takes up thr 
 cudgels for Antioch and .Alexandria, though 
 the bishops of those sees. Theodoret and Maxi- 
 I mus, had signed the decree— which indeed doe* 
 
652 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 not appear to interfere with the prerogatives 
 which the canon of Nicaea assigned them (cf. 
 Tillem. xv. p. 709), while not only had custom 
 long allowed to Constantinople a position of 
 superior dignity, but that position had been 
 secured to her by a council, of the authority 
 of which Leo had no right to speak so scorn- 
 fully. The exhortations to avoid ecclesi- 
 astical ambition which Leo frequently uses 
 and his contention for the canons of Nicaea 
 did not come with a good grace from a bp. of 
 Rome. If anything can justify Leo's claims, 
 surely it is not the council of Nicaea. In 
 Feb. 453 the emperor wrote to Leo, begging 
 him to send as soon as possible his confirma- 
 tion of the Acts of Chalcedon, that none might 
 be able to shelter themselves under the excuse 
 that he had not confirmed them {Ep. ex.). 
 Leo replied, Mar. 11, to the council and to the 
 emperor (Epp. cxiv. cxv-.), saying that, if 
 Anatolius had shewn his letters, which he had 
 motives for concealing, no doubt could have 
 existed as to his approval of the decrees of the 
 council, "that is, as regards faith ("in 'iola. vide- 
 licet causa fidei, quod saepe dicendum est "), 
 for the determination of which alone the 
 council was assembled by the command of the 
 Christian prince and the assent of the apos- 
 tolic see " (cxiv. i). To the emperor he sent 
 his assent to the decrees concerning faith and 
 the condemnation of the heretics as a matter 
 of obedience to him, and begged him to make 
 his assent universally known (cxv. 1204, cf. 
 also Epp. cxxvi. cxxvii.). 
 
 Despite the reverential speeches of council, 
 emperor, and bishops to Leo, neither this 
 canon nor the attitude of the council towards 
 Leo's tome, nor indeed Leo's own way of 
 talking about it, give modern Romanists any 
 great cause for satisfaction with the council 
 of Chalcedon. 
 
 Meanwhile, in maintaining the cause of the 
 faith, Leo was asserting his prerogative in 
 many quarters. In 451 Leo's tome was 
 approved in a council under Eusebius of Milan, 
 which sent him a highly complimentary letter 
 [Ep. xcvii.), in which,' however, the tome is 
 commended as agreeing with St. Ambrose, 
 just as it was by the council of Chalcedon as 
 agreeing with St. Cyril. 
 
 About 452 the East was troubled by the 
 tumultuous proceedings of the Eutychian 
 monks in Palestine, headed by one Theodosius, 
 who elected a bishop in place of Juvenal, 
 seized Jerusalem, and committed all sorts of 
 violences (Tillem. xv. § 138, etc.). These 
 disturbances caused Leo great anxiety (Ep. 
 cix.), and drew from him (Ep. cxxiv.) a clear 
 and admirable exposition of the faith, as lying 
 between Nestorian and Eutychian error. On 
 the death of Marcian in 457 Eutychian risings 
 were attempted in Constantinople and Alex- 
 andria (Epp. cxl. cxliv.). Leo (Ep. cxiv.), 
 writing to congratulate the emperor Leo on 
 his accession, urged him to active measures 
 against the heretics, and by constant letters 
 did all he could to keep Anatolius and Julian 
 also zealous for the Chalcedonian decrees and 
 the suppression of heresy. He urged that the 
 question of the faith should not again be 
 allowed to come into discussion. He com- 
 plained to Basil, the new bp. of Antioch, that 
 he had not, " according to ecclesiastical cus- 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 torn," notified his consecration to him, and 
 addressed other letters against Timotheus 
 Aelurus to the bishops of Thessalonica, 
 Jerusalem, Corinth, and Dyrrhachium, which 
 he sends for distribution to Julian (Epp. cxlix. 
 cl. clii.). He sent the expressions of agree- 
 ment to his tome from the bishops of Gaul 
 and Spain in a letter to Aetius, and wrote 
 (Oct. II, 457) condoling with the refugee 
 Egyptian Catholics now in Constantinople 
 (Epp- cliv. civ. clx.). " They are not," he 
 says, " exiles from God." Meanwhile, a 
 circular letter from the emperor, asking all the 
 metropolitans to summon provincial councils 
 and collect the opinions of their bishops on the 
 conduct of Timotheus Aelurus and the author- 
 ity of the Chalcedonian decrees, gave Leo an 
 opportunity of again impressing his views on 
 the emperor, and urging him to make up by 
 his zeal for any laxity in Anatolius (Ep. clvi. 
 c. 6). He had both to resist all inclination on 
 the emperor's part to listen to the suggestions 
 which accused his doctrine of Nestorianism, 
 and to oppose strongly the idea of assembling 
 another council, which the emperor had enter- 
 tained. When the emperor dropped the idea 
 of a council, he proposed, wherever the sug- 
 gestion may have come from, a conference 
 between some of the Eutychian heretics and 
 an envoy of the pope (Ep. clxii.). This again 
 Leo could not consent to, for it involved the 
 discussion of the faith which had been once for 
 all determined, as if it were an open question 
 (" patefacta quaerere, perfecta retractare, de- 
 finita convellere "). He sent legates, not, 
 however, to dispute, but to teach " what is 
 the rule of the apostolic faith " ; and some 
 time in the same year addressed to Leo a 
 long dogmatic epistle (Ep. clxv.) sometimes, 
 called the " second tome," closely parallel to 
 the epistle he had before sent for the instruc- 
 tion of the Eutychian monks of Palestine. 
 To it is attached a collection of testimonies, 
 more ample than he had previously sent to 
 Theodosius. In 460 Leo saw his wishes 
 realized in the expulsion of Timotheus Aelurus, 
 who, however, was allowed to come to Con- 
 stantinople. Leo writes in June to congratu- 
 late the emperor on his energy against Aelurus, 
 and to impress on him the need of a pious and 
 orthodox bishop for Alexandria (" in summo 
 pontifice," Ep. ccxix. c. 2). At the same 
 time he writes to Gennadius, the new bp. of 
 Constantinople, who had succeeded Anatolius 
 in 468, urging him to be on his watch against 
 Aelurus, whose arrival at Constantinople he 
 deplored and who appeared Ukely to have a 
 considerable following there. The bishop 
 elected for Alexandria, Timotheus Solofacio- 
 lus, met with Leo's warm approval. 
 
 The letters which Leo wrote at this time 
 (Aug. 461) to Timotheus, his church, and some 
 monks of Egypt (Epp. clxxi. clxxiii.) are the 
 last public documents of his life. Before his 
 death Leo saw the peace of the church of 
 .Alexandria established and orthodoxy su- 
 preme, for a period at least of 16 years, in the 
 elevation to its throne of Timothy Sol)faciolus. 
 
 Though Leo was heedless of the rights of 
 national churches, harsh and violent in his 
 treatment of Hilary, and not always very 
 scrupulous in his assertions about the canons 
 of Nicaea, personal ambition was with him 
 
LEO I. 
 
 wholly merged in the sense of the surpassing 
 dignity of his see, and his zeal was alway 
 high-minded and inspired by an overmastering 
 passion for unitv in faith and discipline, and 
 it might have fared ill with that faith and 
 discipline in those days of weakness and 
 trouble if a man of his persistence, integrity, 
 piety, and strength had nut been raised up to 
 defend and secure both the one and the other. 
 The notes of the discipline which he enforced 
 were authority, uniformity, and antiquity, the 
 authorities to which he appealed Scripture, 
 tradition, and the decrees of councils or the 
 holy see. His zeal for uniformity shewed 
 itself in the beginning of his reign by his care 
 that the whole of Christendom should cele- 
 brate Easter on the same day. In 444, 
 according to the Roman calculation, it fell 
 on Mar. 26, according to the Alexandrian on 
 Apr. 23. In this difficulty Leo wrote to St. 
 Cyril, who replied, of course, in favour of the 
 Alexandrian computatii)n, and Leo had t<> 
 surrender his point : " non quia ratio mani- 
 festa docuerit, sed quia unitatis cura persua- 
 serit," and the Roman cycle gave way to the 
 Alexandrian (Epp. Ixxxviii. xcvi. cxxi. cxxii. 
 cxxxiii. [from Proterius of Alexandria], 
 cxxxvii. cxxxviii.). Where it did not clash 
 with his own he could support the authority 
 of other bishops. He maintained the rights 
 of metropolitans and reproved a bishop for 
 appealing to himself in a difficulty instead of 
 consulting his metropolitan (Ef>. cviii. 2). 
 The bishop was to rule with a strong hand. 
 He must know the law and must not shrink ; 
 from enforcing it, for it is " negligent rulers 
 who nourish the plague, while they shrink 
 from applying to it an austere remedy," and 
 the " care of those committed to us requires 
 that we should follow up with the zeal of faith 
 those who, themselves destroyed, would 
 destroy others" {Epp. i. 5; iv. 2; vii.). Among 
 his disciplinary directions were regulations 
 forbidding the ordination of slaves {Ep. iv.), 
 which, though justified on the ground that 
 they are not free for the Lord's service, are 
 couched in language breathing more of the 
 Roman patrician than of the Christian bishop 
 (cf. " quibus nulla natahuin dignitas suffra- 
 gatur," " tanquam servilis vilitas hunc 
 honorem capiat," " sacrum ministcrium talis 
 consortii vilitate poUuitur "). Moreover a 
 second marriage, or the marriage of a widow 
 or divorced woman, was a bar to orders lEpp. 
 iv. 2, 3 ; xii. 3), and those in orders, even sub- 
 deacons, must abstain from " carnale connu- 
 bium, ut et qui habent, sint tanquam non 
 habentes, et qui non habent, permaneant 
 singulares" {Epp. xiv. 4 and clxvii. 3). The 
 day of ordination and consecration was to be 
 Sunday only {Ep. vi.) or Saturday night {Ep. 
 ix.). The proper antecedents of the consecra- 
 tion of a bishop he declared to be " vota 
 civium, testimonia populorum, honoratorum 
 arbitrium, electio clericorum " {Ep. x. 4, 6; 
 ccxvii. i). In case of a division of votes the 
 metropolitan must decide and be guided 
 bv the preponderance of supporters and of 
 qualifications {Ep. xiv. 5). When ordained no 
 cleric was to be allowed to wander ; he must 
 remain in his own church {Ep. i. ; cf. xiii. 4 ; xiv. 
 7). All must rise in due order from the lower 
 to the higher grades (Ep. xii. 4 ; 'f- Ep. xix.). 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 603 
 
 Unambiguous condemnation of hereby i» to bo 
 requirwl befon- ordination from lh<«!kr who arc 
 suspected ; and lh<<se who are rrconvcrtc*! 
 must give up hope of pr.nuMiion (/■•T'f. xviii. ; 
 cxxxv. 2). The niultiplicati.>n of bi»h..p4 in 
 small pl.»ces where Ihcv are not nrnlrd 11 
 forbidden (< . id). .\s he insists on the rrUlivp 
 dignity of dilTerent parts of the body ol Chrut 
 {Ep. I xix. 0), so he reasons that rath part 
 should fulfil only its own functions. I.avnirii 
 and monks — i.e. those rWni orJinem nuer- 
 dotaUm — are not to be allowed to preach {hpp. 
 cxix. ; cxx. 6). He would enforce local dl«- 
 cipline by insisting on provincial counnli. 
 Baptism was only to be given at Kaster «r 
 Pentecost, except in cases of necessity {Epp. 
 xvi. and clxviii.). For the Mass, the rule of 
 the Romait church, which he woul<i enforce 
 on Alexandria also, is that where the rliurch 
 will not hold all the faithful, it should be 
 celebrated on the same dav as often as i» 
 necessary for them all to " offer " {Ep. iz. 2). 
 .\s to ecclesiastical penance, believing that 
 "indulgence of (iod cannot be obtained except 
 by sacerdotal supplication," he gives rules for 
 receiving penitents, etc. {Epp. cviii. 2 ; clxvii. 
 2, 7-14), and directs that in ordinarv casrs 
 (" de penitentia quae a fidelibus postulatur") 
 private confession, first to (iod and then to 
 the priest, should be substituted for public 
 confession, the scandals in which might 
 deter from penitence altogether (f:p. clxviii.). 
 The laity under penitential discipline arc 
 exhorted to abstain from commerce and the 
 civil law courts {Ep. clxvii. 10, 11), and even 
 those who have at any time been penitents are 
 advised to abstain from marriage and ordered 
 to abstain from military service (cc. 12-13). 
 Xeo of Kavenna asked whether returned c.ii)- 
 tives who had no memory of baptism should 
 be baptized. On this, as a "novum it man- 
 ditum" point, Leo consulted the synod, "that 
 the consideration of many persons might lead 
 more surely to the truth " {Ep. clxvi. p. 1406). 
 He greatly dreads appearing to sanction a 
 repetition of baptism, but decides that where 
 no remembrance is possible and no evidence 
 can be obtained, baptism may be given. Leo 
 had a strong opinion on usury. " Fenus 
 pecuniae," he says, "est funus animac." 
 "Caret omni humanitate " {Serm. xvii.), and 
 it is forbidden to the laity as to the clergy 
 {Ep. iv. 2, 4). " Penitence," he savs. "is 
 to be measured not by length of tune, but by 
 sorrow of heart " {Ep. clix. 4) ; " "o' institut- 
 ing what is new, but restoring what is old," 
 is his canon of reformation {Ep. x. 2). Among 
 his rules for ep)iscopal government wc may 
 notice the following as characteristic : " In- 
 tegritas praesidentium salus est sulKlilorum, 
 et ubi est incolumitas obedientiae ibi sana r»t 
 forma doctrinac " (xii. i); or this: " sic Mt 
 adhibenda correptio, ut semper sit salva 
 dilectio" ; or this: "constantiam maiisurtudo 
 commendet, justitiam lenitas trmix-rcl. 
 patientia contineat libertatein." 
 
 Leo's theology is to be gathered chirflv from 
 some six or seven dogmatic epistU-s ami from 
 his sermons (Epp. xxviii. the tome to Flavian, 
 XXV. to Julian, lix. to the church of ( oiutan- 
 tinoplc. cxxiv. to the monks of I'alrsliiip. 
 cxxxix. to Juvenal, cUv. the " wcond tomr," 
 to the emp.Tor Leo, .dl written b«lwrrn 449 
 
654 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 and 458). These epistles are wholly occupied 
 with the controversial statement of the doc- 
 trine of the Incarnation. His others are 
 devoted almost entirely to discipline and 
 organization. Of his genuine sermons 96 
 remain, five, " de natali suo " (vid. sup.), on 
 the see of St. Peter; si.x, " de coUectis," on 
 the duty of almsgiving ; nine, " de dec. mens, 
 jejuuio," on the duty of almsgiving, prayer, 
 and fasting ; ten, " de Nativitate," theological 
 and practical discourses on the Incarnation ; 
 eight, "in Epiphaniae solemnitate," contain- 
 ing more narrative than do the Christmas 
 sermons, and specially applicable to an age 
 no longer tried by persecution ; twelve, for 
 Lent, on fasting and works of mercy ; one on 
 the Transfiguration ; nineteen on the passion, 
 preached on Sundays and Wednesdays in Holy 
 Week, being devotional and practical com- 
 mentaries on the Gospel narrative ; two for 
 Easter, preached on the eve ; two for Ascen- 
 siontide ; three for Pentecost, containing 
 theological statements ; four for the Pente- 
 costal fast ; four on the feasts on St. Peter, 
 St. Paul, and St. Lawrence ; nine on the fast 
 of the seventh month ; one on the Beatitudes ; 
 and one against Eutyches when some Egyptian 
 merchants arrived who tried to justify the 
 doings of the Egyptian Eutychians. 
 
 Leo's stvle is generally forcible, and always 
 to the point — businesslike and severe, epi- 
 grammatic and terse in expression. No doubt 
 the love of epigram and antithesis, character- 
 istic of his age, always tends to simple man- 
 nerism and obscurity, but in Leo the tendency 
 is under control ; he is almost always weighty 
 and clear, and sometimes eloquent. To 
 impress his meaning, he has no objection what- 
 ever to repeating himself {Serin, xxv. init.). 
 Some epistles (e.g. Epp. cxxiv. and clxv.) are 
 extremely similar even in language. His 
 sermons are in very much the same style as 
 his epistles. Sozomen (vii. 19) says " that in 
 his day in Rome neither bishop nor any one 
 else teaches the people in the church." This 
 statement is denied and its meaning disputed 
 (cf. notes in loc. and Migne, Fair. Iv. p. 197), 
 but at least we should judge from Leo's ser- 
 mons that there is no tradition of pulpit 
 eloquence behind him. His tone is that of 
 the Christian bishop, reproving, exhorting, 
 and instructing with the severity of a Roman 
 censor (Milman, Lat. Christianity, i. 233). 
 Sometimes indeed he rises to eloquence, but 
 generally speaks with a terse brevity, more 
 adapted, but for its epigrams which would ; 
 catch the ear, to be read than merely listened I 
 to. The sermons are mostly very short, and 
 the practical aspect of the truth as opposed to 
 the speculative is specially prominent. If 
 Christ has renewed our nature, we must live 
 up to the possibilities of the nature He has 
 renewed. The mystery of the Incarnation is 
 incomprehensible by the understanding ; but 
 for that let us rejoice, " sentiamus nobis 
 bonum esse quod vincimur " {Serm. xxix.). 
 Christ must be God and man — man to unite us 
 to Himself, God to save us, " Expergiscere 
 igitur, o homo, et dignitatem tuae cognosce 
 naturae ; recordare te factum ad imaginem 
 Dei, quae etsi in Adam corrupta in Christo 
 tamen est reformata " (xxvii. 6). 
 
 Leo's theological statements are always 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 characterized by great clearness, fulness, 
 strength, an intense reverence for dogma, and 
 a deep conviction of its supreme importance. 
 His theology is throughout of the Western 
 type, for he is wholly on the practical, not on 
 the speculative, side of theology. Philosophi- 
 cal theory, speculation on the relation of the 
 Persons in the Trinity, there is none, only a 
 clear and powerful grasp upon the dogma 
 as an inexpugnable truth of quite incompara- 
 able practical importance. Moreover, his 
 statement of the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 Western, tallying with the Athanasian Creed, 
 with none of the Eastern doctrine of " subor- 
 dination " remaining, " In Trinitate enim 
 divina, nihil dissimile, nihil impar est, ut 
 omnibus existentiae gradibus exclusis, nulla 
 ibi Persona sit anterior, nulla posterior " 
 {Serm. Ixxv. ; Ixxvi. 2, cf. Serm. xxii. 2, where 
 he interprets " My Father is greater than I " 
 of the Incarnate Son only). Being ignorant 
 of Greek, he could not be versed in Eastern 
 theology ; but in the " testimonia patrum " 
 {Ep. ccxv.), more Greek than Latin fathers 
 are quoted (of course from translations). 
 
 His Doctrine of the Incarnation. — This was 
 produced in antagonism to Eutychianism and 
 is coloured by this antagonism. The Euty- 
 chianism which he opposes is not so much the 
 particular doctrine of the particular man as 
 that which he represents — namely, the denial 
 of the real and permanent humanity of Jesus 
 Christ. He presents a dilemma to Eutyches : 
 either, he says, denying as you do the two 
 natures in Christ, you must hold the impiety of 
 .\pollinaris, and assert that the Deity was 
 converted into flesh and became passible and 
 mortal, or if you shrink from that you fall into 
 the Manichean madness of denying the reality 
 of the body and the bodily acts {Ep. cxxiv. 2). 
 If he can escape from this dilemma, he is sure 
 to be only veering to the opposite pole of 
 Arianism. For Christ is spoken of as being 
 "raised," "exalted," etc. What is exalted 
 if the humanity is not real ? You must assert 
 the divinity of Christ to be an inferior one, 
 capable of exaltation (Ep. lix. 3). Thus 
 Eutyches is to Leo the representative of the 
 " Manichean impiety," as he is fond of calling 
 it, which denies the reality of our Lord's 
 manhood. This gives him his starting-point 
 to assert our Lord's true and perpetual 
 humanity, while avoiding the contrary Nes- 
 torian error of abstracting from His perfect 
 divinity, which was always being charged upon 
 the anti-Eutychians, "in integra ergo veri 
 hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est 
 Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris . . . humana 
 augens, divina non minuens " (Ep. xxviii. 3). 
 The human nature was really created and 
 really assumed ; created in being assumed 
 (Ep. xxxvi. 3). There is the whole of human 
 nature, body and soul, and the whole of the 
 divine (Ep. xxxv. 2) ; each nature remains 
 distinct in its operations, " glorificata per- 
 manet in glorificante, Verbo scilicet operante 
 quod Verbi est et carne exsequente quodcarnis 
 est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud 
 succumbit injuriis " ; " proprietas divinae 
 humanaeque naturae individua permanet." 
 All through the life he traces the duality of 
 the operations in the unity of the Person (Epp. 
 xxviii.; cxxiv. 5). And so perfect is this unity 
 
LEO I. 
 
 that what is proper to one nature can be 
 ascribed to the other (" conununicatio idionia- 
 turn," c. 5). The unity is not a mere inhabita- 
 tion of the Creator in the created nature, but 
 a real mingling of the one nature with the 
 other, though they remain distinct {Strm. 
 xxiii. § I), and the result is " ut idem esset 
 dives in paupertate, omnipotens in abjectione, 
 impassibilisin supplicio, iinmortalisin morte " 
 {Ep. XXXV. 2). Just as the visible light is 
 contaminated by none of the tilth on which it 
 sheds itself, so the essence of the eternal and 
 incorporeal light could be polluted by nothing 
 which it assumed {Serm. xxxiv. 4). 
 
 In proof of this doctrine of the Incarnation 
 Leo appeals to several classes of evidence, 
 sometimes to the anakigies of reason — why, he 
 urges, cannot the divinity and humanity be 
 one person, when soul and body in man form 
 one person ? {Ep. xxvi. 2) ; constantly to 
 Scripture — the very soiurce of heresy is that 
 man will not labour "in the broad fields of 
 Holy Scripture " (" in latitudine SS.," Ep. 
 xxviii. I and 2) ; constantly to the creeds and 
 the past of the church (for he hates novelty) — 
 it is the creed which introduces us to Scrip- 
 ture {Ep. cxxviii. i) ; we need not blush to 
 believe what apostles and those whom they 
 taught, what niart\TS and confessors believed 
 {Epp. clxv. 9 ; clii.j ; but Leo very often and 
 very characteristically appeals also to conse- 
 quences, and looks at a doctrine in the light 
 of the necessities of the church's life. What 
 becomes of the salvation of our human nature 
 if Christ have it not ? How can He be the 
 Head of the new race? How can He clothe 
 our human nature with His divine ? (" Caro 
 enim Christi velamen est verbi, quo onmis qui 
 ipsum integre confitetur induitur," Ep. lix. 
 4). What is the meaning of the Holy Com- 
 munion of His Body and Blood, the very pur- 
 pose of which is that, receiving the virtue of 
 the heavenly food, we may pass into (" tran- 
 seamus in ") His flesh Who became our flesh ? 
 {Ep. lix. 2 ; cf. also Serm. xci. 3). What 
 becomes of the resurrection and ascension ; 
 nay, what becomes of His mediation ? How 
 does He reconcile man to God if He ha\'e not 
 the whole of humanity, except sin ? {Ep. cxxiv. 
 6, 7, and Serm. xxv. 5, etc.). 
 
 The Atonement. — Leo holds the view once 
 prevalent, but now utterly abandoned, which 
 may be stated out of his writings as follows. 
 Man in his fallen state was in slavery to the 
 devil, and, as by his own free will he had 
 fallen, justly so. The devil had certain rights j 
 over him which he would retain unless that 
 humanity which he had conquered could 
 conquer him again. In redeeming man, God 
 chose to overcome the devil rather by the rule 
 of justice than of power. To this end He • 
 became Man. The Incarnation deceived the 
 devil. He knew not with Whom he was 
 matched. He saw a Child suffering the sor- 
 rows and pains of childhood ; he saw Him ' 
 grow by natural stages to manhood, and I 
 having had so many proofs that He was mortal [ 
 He concluded that He was infected with the | 
 poison of original sin. So he set in force 1 
 against Him, as though exercising a right upon 
 sin-stained humanity, all methods and uistru- | 
 ments of persecution, thinking that, if He, ! 
 Whose virtues exceeded so far those of all 
 
 LEO 
 
 ess 
 
 sanits. must yield i.. d.-.uh and His mmt* 
 availed not to deliver Mini, he w..ul,| |„. s.h iirc 
 of every one else for ever. Hut in p.-rsecutin^ 
 and slaying Christ, Whom was he slaviiiK " 
 One Who was man. but sinless, Who .,wr<| 
 him nothmg. and thus, bv i-x.icting the penally 
 of inKinity from Mini in Whom he had f..uiid 
 no fault, he went bev..nd his right. I ho 
 covenant which bound man to the devil w.»» 
 thus broken. His injustice in di manding too 
 much cancelled the whole debt of tiian due to 
 him. Man was free. {.Serm. xxii. ^ 4 |xix 
 3 ; cf. xvi. I, Ixi. 4. The nails whi< h pierre<i 
 our Lord's hands and feet transfixed the devil 
 with perpetual wounds, Ixiv. 2, 3.) Thus to 
 effect our redemption, Christ must have b'ren 
 both man and (.od ; and it was necessarv that 
 He should suffer and die by the operations of 
 the devil ; and His death has a value different 
 in kind from that of all the saints {Serm. Ixiv 
 2. 3 ; hx. I). t)n the cross of Christ the ob- 
 lation of human nature was made bv a saving 
 victim (Iv. 3). His death, the Just for the 
 unjust, was a price of infinite value (Ivi. 3 ■ 
 Ivu. 4). According to this theory, the price 
 was paid to the devil and man was free • 
 " redemptio aufert captivitatem et regenerati.'i 
 mutat t>riginem et fides justificat jieccatorem " 
 (xxii. 4). Nothing is said about— there is 
 hardly clear room left for— an oblation to Gotl. 
 Elsewhere, however, Leo speaks of Christ as 
 offering a " new and true sacrifice of recon- 
 ciliation to His Father " {Sertn. lix. 5 ; cf. 
 Ep. cxxiv. 2, where the sacrifice is clearly con- 
 ceived as offered to the Father. Cf! also 
 Serm. Ixiv. 2, 3). 
 
 The Doctrine of Grace. — Living, though Leo 
 did, in a time when this doctrine was still in 
 dispute, and mixed up, as he ha«l been, in 
 part of the dispute, we have little in' his 
 genuine works on the subject. He speaks of 
 it indeed {Ep. i. 3) in orthodox terms. " The 
 whole gift of God's works depends upon the 
 previous operation of God [' omnis bonoruin 
 operum donatio, divina praeparatio est '], 
 for no man is justified by virtue before he is 
 [justified] by grace, which is to every man the 
 beginning of righteousness, the fount of gootl, 
 and the source of merit." Nothing in us, he 
 implies, can antedate the operation uf gr.iVe ; 
 all in us needs the salvation of Christ ; but 
 this grace of (iod which alone justifies was 
 given, not for the first time, but in larger 
 measure (" aucta non coepta ") by Christ's 
 birth, and this "sacrament of great holim-ss " 
 (the Incarnation) was so powerful, even m its 
 previous indications (" tain poteiis eliaiii in 
 significationibus suis"), that they who hoped 
 in the promise received it no less than thev 
 who accepted the gift " {Serm. xxii. 4). On 
 this subject he often dwells ; the Incarnation 
 is the consummation of a previous presence 
 and operation of the S..n {Serm. xxv. 4). .Ml 
 through the O. T. men were justified by the 
 same faith, and made part of the b.niy ..( 
 Christ by the same sacrament {Serm. xxx. 7 ; 
 liv. I). This same truth comes out in his 
 sermons on Pentecost. There is perfec t eiiual- 
 ity. he there says, in the Trinity. " It is 
 eternal to the Father to be the Father of the 
 ci>-eternal -Son. It is eternal to the Son to bo 
 begotten of the Father out of all lime. It n 
 eternal to the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of 
 
656 LEO I. 
 
 the Father and the Son ; so that the Father 
 has never been without the Son, nor the Son 
 without the Father, nor the Father and the Son 
 without the Spirit. Thus the unchangeable 
 Deity of the blessed Trinity is one in sub 
 stance, undivided and inseparable in operation, 
 concordant in will, alike in power, equal in 
 glory." " What the Father is, that is the 
 Son, and that is the Holy Spirit " ; and what 
 the Father does, that does the Son, and that 
 does the Holy Spirit. There was no beginning 
 to the operation of the Holy Spirit upon man 
 since his creation. The descent at Pentecost 
 was not the " beginning of a gift, but the 
 addition of fulness" (" adjectio largitatis ") 
 (Serm. Ixxvi. 3). The difference has lain not 
 in the virtue and reality of the gifts, but in 
 their measure (cf. on the unity of divine pur- 
 pose and love, from first to last of the divine 
 economv, the end of c. 3 of " the tome"). 
 
 Leo holds that the " merits " of saints 
 can work wonders and aid the church on 
 earth (Serm. v. 4). He often speaks of St. 
 Peter assisting his people with his prayers 
 (xii. xiii. xvi. ad. fin., etc.) and with his 
 merits (Ixxxi. 4). So also of St. Laurence 
 (Ixxxv.). He attributes the deliverance of 
 the city from the barbarians to the " care of 
 the saints" (Ixxxiv. i). The Leonine Sacra- 
 mentary, which certainly contains much of 
 Leo's age, is full of such prayers as " adjuva 
 nos, Domine, tuorum prece sanctorum, ut 
 quorum festa gerimus sentiamus auxihum " 
 (cf. Ep. Iviii. init. ; ci. 3, for similar sentiments). 
 But he never speaks of the blessed Virgin as 
 aiding, nor of any saints but St. Peter, St. 
 Paul (Serm. Ixxxii. fin.), and St. Laurence ; 
 nor does he invoke them, or direct them to 
 be invoked, though he believes that they are 
 aiding the church by their patronage, prayers, 
 or merits. Elsewhere, distinguishing the value 
 of the deaths of the saints from that of Christ, 
 he very zealously guards the prerogative of 
 Christ as the real source of merit. 
 
 To relics he makes no allusion, except where 
 he rejoices that those of St. Flavian had been 
 brought back to Constantinople (Ep. Ixxix. 2), 
 and perhaps when, writing to Eudocia and 
 Juvenal in Palestine, he seeks to stir their 
 faith through the local memorials of Christ's 
 passion (Epp. cxxxix. 2 ; cxxiii.). Comparing 
 his works with Gregory's, we are struck by the 
 total absence of superstition in Leo. His 
 sermons " are singularly Christian — Christian 
 as dwelling almost exclusively on Christ : His 
 birth, His passion. His resurrection " (Milman, 
 Lat. Christ, i. p. 233). We find constant refer- 
 ence to the special dangers and wants of his 
 time — e.g. warnings against the prevalent 
 Manicheism. When he converted a number of 
 Manicheans, he at once applied his sermon, re- 
 gardless of repeating himself, to instruct them 
 (Serm. xxv. i). He reproves the people for for- 
 saking the commemoration of the deliverance of 
 the city, probably from Genseric, which he had 
 instituted on the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, 
 for games and spectacles, and he exhorts them 
 to gratitude to God (Ixxxiv.). He reproves 
 idolatrous practices in the church. Magic, 
 charms, cabalistic doctrines, even a worship 
 of the rising sun, were in vogue. Christians, 
 on their way into St. Peter's basilica, would 
 turn and bow to the sun (Ixxxiv. 2 ; xxvii. 4). 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 This worship, which, as he says, was half pagan, 
 akin to that of the Priscillianists and Mani- 
 cheans, and half due to ignorance in people 
 who really meant to worship the Creator, but 
 which in any case was akin to idolatry, he 
 deeply deplores and earnestly prohibits. 
 
 Leo especially urges purity, strictness, and 
 severity of life, in an age no longer disciplined 
 by persecutions. " Kings now," he says, 
 " do not so much pride themselves on being 
 born to empire as rejoice that thev are 
 reborn in baptism." The devil tries by 
 avarice and ease those whom troubles could 
 not alienate (xxxvi. 3). Hence the interest 
 of his sermons in Lent and at the other 
 fasts of the " Quattuor Tempora " and those 
 (on almsgiving) " de Collectis." * Prayers, 
 fasting, and almsgiving are, in his view, the 
 three chief parts of Christian duty. " By 
 prayer the mercy of God is sought ; by fasting, 
 the lusts of the flesh are extinguished ; by 
 almsgiving, our sins are atoned for [ ' redimun- 
 tur']." "The most effectual petition for 
 pardon lies in alms and fasting, and the prayer 
 which is assisted by such suffrages rises more 
 speedily to the ears of God " (xii. 4, xvi. 2). 
 He uses almsgiving in a large sense almost 
 equivalent to love (xliv. 2). " Alms destroy 
 sins " (Serm. vii., quoted from Ecclus. iii. 30), 
 " abolish death, extinguish the penalty of 
 eternal fire " (x.). It is a grace without which 
 we can have no other (x.). " He who has 
 cleansed himself by almsgiving need not doubt 
 that even after many sins the splendour of the 
 new birth will be restored to him" (xx. ad 
 fin.). But we must look how we give, so as 
 not, e.g., to overlook the retiring ; we must 
 " understand about " the poor (ix. 3 ; " Bea- 
 tus qui intelligii super," Ps. xl. i). Our gifts 
 should go to those who do not yet believe as 
 well as to Christians (xii. 3), and special thought- 
 fulness is enjoined for slaves. What God 
 looks to is, he often insists, not the amount, 
 but the spirit of the gift : " ibi censetur quali- 
 tus actionis, ubi invenitur initium voluntatis " 
 (xciv. i) ; " nulli parvus est census, cui mag- 
 nus est animus " (Serm. xl. 4) ; and gifts given 
 not in the spirit of faith, though ever so large, 
 avail nothing (xliv. 2). Love, he insists, is 
 the fumUing of the law. Truth and mercy, 
 faith and love, go together. "There is no love 
 without faith, no faith without love" (cf. esp. 
 Serm. xlv.). Fasting, too, is constantly en- 
 joined. Virtue is a very narrow mean (xliii. 
 2), and strict self-disciphne is ever absolutely 
 necessary. But fasting is a means, not an end. 
 It must not proceed from any belief in matter 
 being evil in itself. " No substance is evil, 
 and evil in itself has no nature" (xlii. 4). The 
 object of fasting is to make the body apt for 
 pure, holy, and spiritual activity — to subject 
 ihe flesh to the reason and spirit. " A man 
 has true peace and liberty when the flesh is 
 ruled by the judgment of the mind, and the 
 tnind is directed by the government of God " 
 fxxxix. 2 ; xhi. 2). He insists strongly on this 
 dominion of the mind. Otherwise " parum 
 est si carnis substantia tenuatur et animae for- 
 titudo non ahtur " ; " continendum est a cibis 
 
 • I.e. at that stated period of the year when offer- 
 ings were made in the Roman church, by an old 
 custom instituted in place of a still older pagan 
 solemnity; cf. Admonit. in Serm. vi. Migne. 
 
 i 
 
LEO I. 
 
 sed multo inagis ab irroribus jtjuaaiuliiin " 
 (xci. 2). The " abstiueiitia jcjuuantis " must 
 be the " refectio pauperis" (xiii.) ; " seii- 
 tiant hutnanitatem iiostram ae^ritudines de- 
 cumbentiiini, imbecillitates dcbiliuin, hibores 
 exuluni, destitutio pupilloruin et desolatarum 
 maestitudti viduaruin " (xl. 4). Fasting with- 
 out such works of mercy is not a puriftcation 
 of the soul, but a mere affliction of the flesh 
 (xv.). In Lent, prisoners are to be set free 
 and debts forgiven (xli. 3). If a man cannot 
 fast from bodily weakness, let him do works 
 of love (Ixxxvii. 3). Through all Leo's 
 sermons in jienitential seasons there runs 
 a great sense of the unity of the church's 
 work and the co-operation of all her members 
 in the penitential discipline and prayers. 
 " The fullest abolition of sins is obtained when 
 the whole church joins in one prayer and one 
 confession " (Ixxxviii. 3). The merit of holy 
 obedience is the strength of the church against 
 her enemies (Ixxxviii. 2, 3). Public acts are 
 better than individual ones (Ixxxix. 2). Leo's 
 remedies for sins — as well those of habitual 
 laxity as the more venial and accidental — are 
 self-examination, penitential works, fasts, 
 prayers, works of mercy and moral self-dis- 
 cipline as the means of purification (cf. 1. i, 2 ; 
 Ixxxviii. 3 ; xli. i ; xliii. 3). Forgiveness of 
 injuries (xliii. 4) and the exercise of love (xlv.) 
 are insisted on from this point of view : " qui 
 potuit malitia pollui, studeat benignitate pur- 
 gari " (xlv. 4). The Christian is purified by 
 moral effort and discipline and his sanctifica- 
 tion is his purification (but cf. xcii. i ; 1. i, 2 ; 
 Ixxxviii. 5). 
 
 Another aspect of Leo's work as an ecclesi- 
 astical writer remains to be considered. " The 
 collect as we have it is Western in every 
 feature : in that ' unity of sentiment and 
 severity of style ' which Lord Macaulay has 
 admired ; in its Roman brevity and majestic 
 conciseness, its freedom from all luxuriant 
 ornament and all inflation of phraseology " 
 (Bright, Ancient Collects, append. 206) ; and 
 there is no early Western writer to whose 
 style it bears a closer resemblance and with 
 whose character it is more consonant than that 
 of Leo, its reputed inventor. How much of 
 Leo's work the fragment of the Sacramentary 
 attributed to him by its first editor in 1735. 
 P. Joseph Blanchinius, actually contains, it is 
 impossible to say. " Muratori holds it to be a 
 series of Missae, clumsily put together by a 
 private person at the end of the 5th cent., 
 containing much that [Leo] wrote." Certainly 
 it is Roman, certainly the oldest Roman ^ac- 
 ramentarv, and certainly it contains much 
 which is in the stvle and expresses the doctrine 
 of St. Leo. As certainly Leo's work, (Juesncl 
 with propriety specifies two noble " prefaces," 
 for the consecration of a bishop and a pres- 
 byter (" Deus honorum omnium," and 
 " Domine sancte," § xxvii. 11 1 and 113, 
 Migne), and an " Allocutio archidiacoiii ad 
 episcopum pro reconciliaticme poenitentium " 
 (at the end of the Sacramentary in Migne's 
 ed.). In the Liber Pontificalis the addition of 
 the words " sanctum sacrificium, immacula- 
 tam hostiam " to the Canon of the Mass is 
 ascribed to Leo (Migne, Pair. liv. p. 1233)- 
 Collects in the F,nglish Prayer-book derived 
 from the Leonine Sacramentary are those for 
 
 LEO I. 
 
 or. 7 
 
 the 3rd Sun. alter l-..ist.r (rrlerrniK' -.iiK'iuallv 
 to those who had been baptiitxi <iii li.ntrr 
 Eve), the ?ith Sun. alter Trinitv (suggested 
 originally by thedisastersof the dying Western 
 empire), and the <jth. nth, and 14th Simdav* 
 after Trinitv. (See Hright, pp. joS. 2<x)). 
 
 Before concluding this notice of Leo as a 
 theologian, we must mention a statement o| 
 Gennadius (de Script. Eccles. Ixxxiv. ; Patr. 
 Lat. Iviii. 1107), that the letters of p..pr I.ro 
 on the true Incarnation of Christ are said to 
 have been addressed to their various destina- 
 tions, and dictated (" ad divers<is datac cl 
 dictatae ") by Prosper of Aquitaine. It is 
 also stateil that one or two of Leo's sermons 
 are found in one MS. assigned to St. IVospcr. 
 But (lennadius himself attributes " the tome," 
 the chief of Leo's letters on the Incarnation, 
 absolutely to his own hand (c. Ixx). It 
 is very probable that Leo shouUl have brought 
 Prosper, " doctissimus illorum tcmporum," 
 with him from (iaul to Rome, to assist him in 
 his conflicts with heresy : he may have been 
 secretary to him, as Jerome was to pope 
 Damasus • ; he may S|)erially have exerted 
 himself for St. Leo against the Pelagians. 
 But the unity and individuality of style which 
 run all through St. Leo's writings, and which 
 appear not least strongly marked in his dog- 
 matic epistles, forbid us to attribute to Pros- 
 per in any sense their authorship, though he 
 may have assisted in their compositi<in. (Cf. 
 Tillem. xv. p. 540, xvi. 25, and note 7 on St. 
 Prosper ; Arendt, Leo der Grosse, p. 417, etc.) 
 Leo is said to have restored the silver 
 ornaments of the churches of Rt.me after 
 the ravages of the Vandals, and repaired the 
 basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, placing a 
 mosaic in the latter which represented the 
 adoration of the four-and-twenty elders ; and 
 to have built a basilica in honour of St. Corne- 
 lius, established some monks by the church of 
 St. Peter, instituted guardians, called at first 
 " cubicularii," and afterwards " capellani," 
 for the tombs of the apostles (Tillem. xv. art. 
 73; Vita Anaslasii, .Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 55. 
 1234) ; and received St. Valentine, bp. of 
 Passau, at Rome and sent him to missionary 
 work in Rhaltia (Tillem. xv. 175). 
 
 Leo died in 461 (Marcell. Chron., etc.). pos- 
 sibly on Nov. 10 (Tillem. xv. n. 73). He was 
 buried in the church of St. Peter, where, it is 
 said, no previous pope not a martyr was burie<l 
 (Anast. Vita Pontif., Patr. Lat. liv. p. 60, Migne). 
 He has been honoured as a saint and confessor. 
 Benedict XIV. in 17S4 decreed him the title 
 of a doctor ecclesiae (Patr. Lat. Iv. H^s). He 
 is commemorated in the Roman church on 
 Apr. II ; in the Kastern on Feb. i« (.^.^. S.S. 
 Apr. ii. p. 15)- 
 
 I The genuine works of Leo which we possess 
 are g6 sermons and 173 letters. On works 
 
 ' ascribed to him (the de Vocatione, etc.) con- 
 suit discussions in Mignc's Patr. IM. ^ For 
 history of edd. see SchiM-nemann's Sotitia 
 
 j Hist.-Lit. in S. Leonem, prefixed to Mignc's rd. 
 The most famous editions of his whole works 
 
 ' • II .appears pre.»>at.Ic that Fp. cxx. (to ThciKlorcl) 
 wa.i written by a nccrctury. and Ihut \,tv'* prrw.nal 
 saliitiitlon U atlilcl nt the mil. Sec cmclmllnK 
 
 ' worcls, "ct aliii mnnu. Dciw tc lnc«>Iumrm ciutiMjUt, 
 fratcr chnrUslme." Cf. conclusion of Ep. cxsxill. 
 
 , (Protcriu* to l,co), and Marclan* letter, hp. c. 
 42 
 
658 
 
 LEONTIUS 
 
 are Quesnel's (Paris, 1675), a work of consum- 
 mate learning, but condemned by the popes 
 because of its strong Gallican opinions, and 
 the ed. of the Ballerini (Venice, 1753-1757), 
 which re-edited Quesnel in the Roman interest. 
 This is now the standard ed. and is reproduced 
 in the Patr. Lat. of Migne, vols. liv. Iv. Ivi. 
 Select sermons and letters of St. Leo have 
 been edited byH. Hurter, S.J., in Sanc.Patrum 
 Opuscula Selecta, vols. xiv. and xxv. There is 
 an Eng. trans, of selected sermons, with theo- 
 logical notes and " the tome " in the original 
 by Dr. Bright (Lond. 1862). 
 
 Materials and Authorities. — i. Leo's own 
 works, ii. The contemporary chronicles of 
 Prosper, Idatius, etc. ; Acta of council of 
 Chalcedon, etc. iii. Various Lives of Leo, 
 church histories, etc., especially (i) a very 
 brief life in Hist, de Vitis Romanorum Ponti- 
 ficum of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (9th cent.) 
 in Migne's Patr. Lat. cxxviii. pp. 299 sqq. ; (2) 
 De Vita et Gestis S. Leonis in ib. Iv. 153 sqq. ; 
 (3) The exhaustive, accurate, and impartial 
 MemoireoiTiUemont(Ment. eccl. xv. 414-832), 
 {4) Ceillier's Auteurs sacres, vol. x. (for Leo's 
 works) ; (5) The BoUandist Life by Canisino, 
 A A. SS. Apr. ii. 15, of very little value ; and, 
 omitting various partisan lives on both sides; 
 (6) an admirable judgment of Leo's life and 
 works, viewing him chiefly as the architect of 
 the papacy, in Bohringer's Die Kirche Christi 
 und ihre Zengen, i. 4, pp. 170-309 ; (7) Mil- 
 man's, Lat. Christ, vol. i. c. 4, an excellent 
 account of Leo and his time ; (8) Bright's 
 Hist, of the Church, cc. xiv. xv. ; (9) Alzog's 
 Grundriss der Patr. § 78 ; and (10) " Leo I." in 
 Herzog's Real-Encycl. A short popular Life by 
 the present writer is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their 
 series of Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans, of 
 Leo's letters and sermons is ed. by Dr. Feltoe 
 in the Lib. of Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, [cc] 
 
 LeontiUS (2), bp. of Antioch, a.d. 348-357 ; 
 a Phrygian by birth (Theod. H. E. ii. 10), and, 
 like many leading Ariaus, a disciple of the 
 celebrated teacher Lucian (Philostorg. iii. 15). 
 When the see of Antioch became vacant by 
 the removal of Stephen, the emperor Constan- 
 tius effected the appointment of Leontius, who 
 strove to avoid giving offence to either Arians 
 or orthodox. One of the current party tests 
 was whether the doxology was used in our 
 present form or in that which the Arians (ib. 
 13) maintained to be the more ancient, " Glory 
 be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy 
 Ghost." Those who watched Leontius could 
 never make out more of his doxology than 
 " world without end. Amen" (Theod. ii. 19). 
 Among the orthodox of his flock were two asce- 
 tics, Flavian and Diodorus, who, though not 
 yet advanced to the priesthood, had very great 
 influence because of their holy lives. To them 
 Theodoret ascribes the invention of the 
 practice of dividing the choir into two and 
 chanting the Psalms of David antiphonically, 
 a use of the church of Antioch which legend 
 soon attributed to its martyr-bishop Ignatius 
 (Socr. vi. 8). They assembled the devout at 
 the tombs of the martyrs and spent the whole 
 night in singing of hymns. Leontius could 
 not forbid this popular devotion, but re- 
 quested its leaders to hold their meetings in 
 church, a request with which they complied. 
 Leontius foresaw that on his death the con- 
 
 LEONTIUS 
 
 duct of affairs was likely to fall into less 
 cautious hands, and, touching his white hairs 
 predicted, " When this snow melts there 
 will be much mud." The orthodox, however, 
 complained that he shewed manifest bias in 
 advancing unworthy Arians. In particular he 
 incurred censure by his ordination to the 
 diaconate of his former pupil Aetius, after- 
 wards notorious as an extreme Arian leader. 
 On the strong protest of Flavian and Diodorus 
 Leontius suspended Aetius from ecclesiastical 
 functions. Philostorgius (iii. 27) relates that 
 Leontius subsequently saved the life of Aetius 
 by clearing him from false charges made to 
 the emperor Gallus. When Athanasius came 
 to Antioch, he communicated not with Leon- 
 tius and the dominant party, but with the 
 ultra-orthodox minority called Eustathians, 
 who had refused to recognize any other bishop 
 while the deposed Eustathius was alive and 
 who worshipped in private conventicles, 
 Leontius accused Athanasius of cowardice in 
 running away from his own church. The 
 taunt stung Athanasius deeply. He wrote 
 his Apologia de Fuga in reply to it, and always 
 speaks bitterly of Leontius, seldom omitting 
 the opprobrious epithet 6 a.ir6Kviroi. He even 
 (de Fug. 26) accuses the aged bishop of 
 criminality in his early relations with Eusto- 
 lium. If there had been any proof of this, 
 Leontius would have been deposed not for 
 mutilation but for corrupting a church virgin ; 
 and if it had been believed at Antioch the 
 respect paid him by orthodox members of his 
 flock would be inconceivable. The censure 
 of so great a man irretrievably damaged Leon- 
 tius in the estimation of succeeding ages, and 
 his mildness and moderation have caused him 
 to be compared to one of those hidden reefs 
 which are more dangerous to mariners than 
 naked rocks. Yet we may charitably think 
 that the gentleness and love of peace which all 
 attest were not mere hypocrisy, and may 
 impute his toleration of heretics to no worse 
 cause than insufficient appreciation of the 
 serious issues involved. The Paschal Chronicle, 
 p. 503, quotes the authority of Leontius for 
 its account of the martyrdom of Babylas. 
 Leontius died at the end of 357 or beginning 
 of 358. Athanasius, writing in 358, Hist. Ar., 
 speaks of him as still living, but perhaps the 
 news had not reached Athanasius. [g.s.] 
 
 Leontius (62), a scholasticus of Byzantium, 
 and afterwards a monk in Palestine, who wrote 
 c. 610 a Gk. treatise de Sectis (Patr. Gk. 
 Ixxxvi. 1193 ; Cave, 1-543; Ceillier, xi. 666). 
 Cf. Fessler Jungmann, Inst. Patr. ii. 2, p. 95 ; 
 but esp. F. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanzund die 
 Gletchnamigen Schrifts teller der Griechischen 
 Kirche (Leipz. 1887) ; also Herzog's Encycl. 
 3rd ed. s.v. " Leonz. von Byzanz." Ft.w.d] 
 
 Leontius (74), priest and martyr of Ar- 
 menia in the reign of Isdigerd II. of Persia. 
 He acted a conspicuous part in the stand of 
 the Armenian church against the court of 
 Persia, as related chieflv in the History of 
 Vartan by Elisha Vartabed and in the his- 
 torical work of Lazarus of Barb. In Nov. 450 
 700 magian priests, sent under escort to in- 
 struct the Armenians in the court religion, 
 arrived at Ankes in the centre of Armenia. 
 There having lain encamped for 25 days, they 
 ordered the church to be broken open. Thus 
 
LEOVIGILD 
 
 commenced the ixrsecutiiit; vi>)leiice of Persia. 
 Leontius, putting himself at the head of his 
 people, drove the inagiaii party to flight, after 
 which divine service went on in the church 
 unmolested through the day- A general 
 rising followed, and in 451 ()6,ooo Armenian 
 Christians mustered under prince Vartan in 
 the plain of Artass to encounter the Persian 
 army. Joseph and a large body of his clergy, 
 including I.eontius, were present to encourage 
 the Christian forces (Lazarus, § 34 in Langl. ii. I 
 296, 297 ; Elisha. u. inf.). I.eontius, who is 
 everywhere mentioned with Joseph, and is 
 usually the orator, as he is the cliief inspirer, 
 of the whole movement, delivered a fervent 
 address before the battle (given fully bv I.ang- 
 lois), dwelling on the examples of IMiineas, 
 Elijah, Gideon, and other famous believers in 
 O.T. (Langl. ii. 218). The battle (June 2, 451, 
 ib. 298 note) was lost and a remnant found 
 refuge in the stronghold of Pag. This too was 
 taken and many clergy were put to death. 
 Joseph, Leontius, and their companions, were 
 taken to the court of Persia, and put on their 
 defence. Finally they and four others were 
 executed on the 25th of the month Hroditz 
 in the i6th year of Isdigerd (a.d. 455), in the \ 
 province of Abar, near a village of the M<igs 1 
 named Revan. The account of the martyr- 
 dom has every appearance of being a genuine 
 coeval record, simple, natural, unlegendary. 
 Lazarus himself wrote in the following genera- 
 tion, and his position gave him access to the 
 best authorities, which he describes, especially 
 assuring his readers that he faithfully reports , 
 the last words of the martyrs. The most 1 
 severely dealt with was Leontius, he being 
 regarded as the chief instigator of the Ar- 
 menian resistance. The general history of 
 these events may be read in Saint-Martin's 
 Le Beau, t. vi. pp. 258-318. [c.h.] 
 
 Leovi^ld (Leuvichild), Arian king of the 
 Visigoths in Spain from 569 to Apr. or May 
 586. His reign and that of his successor, the 
 convert Keccared, represent the crisis of 
 Visigothic history, religious and political. 
 
 Upon the death of Athanagild in the winter 
 of 567, the C.othic throne remained unfilled 
 until in 568 Leova, dux of the Septiinanian 
 province, was made king by the magnates of 
 Gallia Gothica. In 569 he assigned to his 
 younger brother Leovigild the government of 
 the Spanish portion. In the first year of his 
 reign Leovigild married (ioisvintha, the widow 
 of his predecessor Athanagild and a strong 
 Arian (Greg. Tur. H. F. v. 39). By a pre- 
 vious marriage he had two sons, Hermenigild 
 and Reccared. Leovigild faced the situation 
 with success. His first campaign (a.d. 569) 
 was against the Byzantine settlers and garri- 
 sons of the Baza and Malaga districts. For 
 20 years Cordova had refused to acknowledge 
 the lordship of the (;oths, and the great town 
 of the Baetis had been the headquarters of 
 the Imperialist and Catholic power in the 
 Peninsula. Its fall (early in 572 ?) was a 
 heavy blow to the imperial cause in Spain 
 (Joannes Bid. Esp. Sagr. vi. 377). In 572 
 (573 according to J. Bid.) Leova died, and 
 Leovigild remained master of both divisions 
 of the kingdom. 
 
 Hermenigild' s Rebellion.— \n 572 (or 573) 
 the king had made both the sons of bis first 
 
 LEOVIGILD 
 
 fl59 
 
 marriage " consortes r.-K'iii " (). Hid. p. 378), 
 and b.fore 580 b.tli wer.- h.-trothed to Krank- 
 ish prinres'its. Hi-nnrnigild to his •itrp-nirc« 
 Ingunthis, granddaughter of (.oisvintha, l.r<)- 
 vigild's second wife, Reccared to InKuntliis'f 
 first cousin, Rigunthis, daughter ..( i hilp.-ric 
 and Frcdegonde. In sSo nernifiiigild's liridr, 
 a girl of 12 or 13, passed the Pvrenrr*, " rum 
 magno apparatu " ((Ireg. Tur. v. 39). having 
 been exhorted on her way by bp. FMiiiinius of 
 .\gde to hold fast her orthotlox profession in 
 the midst of the Arian family into which she 
 had married, and who no doubt expcrted hrr 
 to become an Arian. Slie stood firm, and 
 dissension speedily arose with her .^ri.ui 
 grandmother. In order to secure f.miilv 
 peace Leovigild assigned to Hermenigild and 
 Ingunthis the town of Seville, where the in- 
 fluence of his wife, says (iregory of Tours — of 
 the famous metropolitan of Uaetica, I.eander, 
 according to Gregory the Great, Dial. in. 41 — 
 converted Hermenigild to Catholicism (Wis/. 
 Fr. V. 39; Paul. Diac. VV. iii. 21). He was 
 confirmed in the orthodox faith by I.eander. 
 The son thus placed himself in opposition to 
 his father and to all the Gothic traditions, and 
 was brought into natural alliance with the 
 forces threatening the (lothic state, with the 
 Byzantines in the S., the Suevi in the N., and 
 the disaffection smouldering among l.eovi- 
 gild's i>rt)vincial subjects. The young coujile 
 may well have appeared to the Catholics con- 
 venient instruments for dealing a deadly blow 
 at the heretical Gothic mt)narchy ; while in 
 the case of the Byzantines a strictly political 
 motive would also be present. 
 
 The peril was a grave one. Leovigild, with 
 a combination of energy and prudence, as- 
 sembled a council of Arian bishops (581, men- 
 tioned in C. Tol. iii. as occurring in the 12th 
 year of Leovigild), which drew up a formula 
 designed to facilitate the conversion of 
 Catholics to Arianism. Rebaptism was no 
 longer demanded as heretofore. Converts 
 should give glorv to th.- Father " per Filiuin 
 in Spiritu Sancto." (The Gloria Pafri plays 
 an important part in the history of Spanish 
 Arianism. Cf. Greg, of Tours's conversation 
 with Leovigild's envoy, the Arian Oppila— 
 Hist. Franc, vi. 40, and C. Tol. iii.) A Melius 
 containing the decisions of the council was 
 widely circulated (C. Tol. iii. 16 ; Tejada y 
 Ramiro, ii.) and other temptations were 
 offered to the Catholic bishops and clergv. 
 Isiilore and Joannes mournfullv confess that 
 many yielded. The king also began to pay 
 scrupulous respect t<> Catholic fcding and 
 bilief and to Catholic saints, and to pray in 
 Catholic churches (Greg. Tur. vi. i»). " I 
 believe." he is reported to have said. " with 
 firmness that Jesus Christ is the Son ..f <..>d. 
 ecjual to the Father, but I do not at all believe 
 that the Holv Ghost is G.mI, since in no book 
 of Scripture do we re.ul that He is G.hL" Bv 
 such means Leovigild endeavoured to scrure 
 the Catholic party within the ternt-Ty outside 
 Hennenigild's influence. 
 
 During isHi and 582 Hermenigild had as- 
 sumed a more and more foniii.lablc positi.)n. 
 but Leovigild ni.-irche<l S. to the siege of 
 Seville, which Iast.-<1 through ^83 into ^^^. .iiid 
 I after the fall of Seville up the (iuadal.iuivir 
 I valley to Cordova. Here the rebeUioncoUap»<rd. 
 
660 
 
 LEOVIOILD 
 
 The imperial prefect was bribed to give up 
 Hermenigild, who took refuge in a church, 
 whence he was tempted by the promises of 
 his father and brother. Leovigild embraced 
 and pardoned him within the church, but as 
 soon as he was drawn thence is reported to 
 have ordered him to be despoiled of his royal 
 dress and of his servants {Hist. Franc, vi. 43). 
 He was conveyed to Toledo, and thence exiled 
 to Valencia (a.d. 584) (Joh. Bid. p. 383), and 
 in 586 met his death at Tarraco at the hands of 
 Sisebert. Upon this brilliant success followed 
 the final incorporation of the Suevi with the 
 Gothic state in 585. 
 
 Persecution of the Catholics. — Leovigild had 
 crushed the Catholic and Byzantine con- 
 spiracy of which Hermenigild had been the 
 instrument, and there followed an outbreak 
 of that savage and fanatical temper so charac- 
 teristic of the Visigothic race. The persecut- 
 ing temper of the Arian kings, however, had 
 always some political justification. The 
 Catholic church was the natural foe of her 
 Arian rulers, and when her attempts to shake 
 them off failed, it was inevitable that the 
 penalty should fall heavily on her and on her 
 bishops. Leander of Seville was banished, 
 Fronimius of Agde was obliged to fly into 
 Merovingian territory {Hist. Franc, ix. 24), an 
 Arian bishop was sent to Merida, and Masona, 
 after ineffectual attempts by the king to win 
 him over to Arianism, was imprisoned (Paulus 
 Emerit. Esp. Sagr. xiii. p. 369). From the 
 signatures at the conversion council it is 
 evident that in many sees, especially within 
 the newly annexed Suevian territory, a large 
 but indefinite number of Catholic bishops were 
 replaced by Arians. (On the general subject 
 of the persecution, cf. Greg. Tur. v. 39, and for 
 various doubtful details of it, see Greg. Tur. 
 Glor. Conf. xii. ; Glor. Mart. Ixxxii. ; and de 
 Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emerit. c. xi.) 
 
 Leovigild died in Apr. or May, 586, at 
 Toledo, according to some reports constant 
 to the beliefs in which he had lived, according 
 to others — less trustworthy — a repentant con- 
 vert to Catholicism, mourning over the un- 
 righteous death of his first-born son. 
 
 " Leovigild's reign," says Dahn, "repre- 
 sents the last attempt to maintain the Gothic 
 state in its traditional aspects and character 
 by the strenuous use of all possible weapons 
 against its traditional dangers — war with 
 Catholicism, chastisement of the nobility, 
 reinvigoration of the monarchy, and defence 
 of it against its hostile neighbours " (v. 150). 
 An Arian monarchy, strong in all directions — 
 towards its own pillars and supporters, the 
 Gothic nobles, towards foreign outsiders, and 
 towards its natural enemy Catholicism — this 
 appears to have been Leovigild's ideal. To 
 its influence may be traced most of the 
 actions of his government, the association of 
 his sons, his treatment of the rebellious and 
 murderous nobles, his attitude towards the 
 Catholic bishops, and, above all, certain 
 alterations in the outer aspects of Gothic 
 kingship which mark his reign and shew him 
 prepared to accept just so much of Roman 
 custom as would further his ends. 
 
 The conversations which Gregory of Tours 
 reports between himself and Leovigild's Arian 
 envoys on their way through Tours to Soissons 
 
 LEUCIUS 
 
 or Paris (H. F. v. 44 ; vi. 40) throw much light 
 upon the every-day social relations between 
 Arianism and Catholicism at the time. 
 
 Sources. — Joannes Biclarensis, abbat of 
 Biclaro and bp. of Gerona, a contemporary 
 of Leovigild, his Chronicon, apud Florez. Esp, 
 Sagr. vi. ; Isidore of Seville, writing c. 630, 
 Hist. Goth. ib. ; Paulus Diaconus Emeri- 
 tensis, fl. 650, de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emeriten- 
 sium Esp. Sagr. xiii. Dahn's Konige der 
 Germanen remains the best account of the 
 reign in point of insight and treatment ; an 
 exhaustive discussion of all the moot points is 
 that by Prof. F. Gorres, " Kritische Untersuch- 
 ungen iiber den Auf stand unddas Martyrium 
 des westgothischen Konigssohnes Hermenigild," 
 in Zeitschrift fur hist. Theol. (1873). [m.a.w.] 
 
 Leucius (1), the reputed author of large 
 apocryphal additions to the N.T. history, 
 which originated in heretical circles, and 
 which, though now lost, were much current 
 in early times. The fullest account is that 
 given by Photius {Cod. 114), who describes a 
 book, called The Circuits of the Apostles, which 
 contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, 
 Thomas, and Paul, and purported to have 
 been written by Leucius Charinus. This 
 second name Charinus is peculiar to Photius, 
 earlier writers calling the author simply 
 Leucius, a name variously altered by tran- 
 scribers. Photius characterizes the book as 
 in style utterly unlike the genuine N.T. 
 writings, and full of folly, self-contradic- 
 tion, falsehood, and impiety. It taught the 
 existence of two gods — an evil one, the God 
 of the Jews, having Simon Magus as his 
 minister, and a good one, from Whom Christ 
 came. It confounded the Father and the 
 Son ; denied the reality of Christ's Incarna- 
 tion, and gave a Docetic account of His life on 
 earth and especially of His crucifixion. It 
 condemned marriage and regarded all genera- 
 tion as the work of the evil principle ; denied 
 that demons were created by God ; related 
 childish stories of miraculous restoration to 
 life, of both men and cattle ; and in the Acts 
 of John used language which the Iconoclasts 
 regarded as favouring them. From this 
 description we can identify as the same work 
 a collection of Apostolic Acts, from which 
 extracts were read at the 2nd council of 
 Nicaea (Actio v., Mansi, xiii. 167), the story of 
 Lycomedes (see D. C. B. 4- vol. ed.) being 
 that made use of by the Iconoclasts, and the 
 Docetic tales being from this work. In the 
 council was next read a citation from Amphi- 
 lochius of Iconium, denouncing certain heret- 
 ical Acts of the Apostles, and in particular 
 arguing against the truth of a story, evidently 
 that to which we have just referred, because 
 it represented St. John as on the Mount of 
 Olives during the crucifixion, and so contra- 
 dicted the gospel, which relates that he was 
 close to the Cross. With this evidence that 
 the work read by Photius was in existence 
 before the end of the 4th cent., we may prob- 
 ably refer to the same source a statement of 
 Epiphanius {Haer. 51, p. 427) that Leucius 
 was a disciple of John and joined his master 
 in opposing the Ebionites. Church writers 
 frequently reject the doctrine of heretical 
 apocrypha and yet accept stories told in such 
 documents as true, provided there were no 
 
LEUCIUS 
 
 doctrinal reason for rejecting tlieni. The 
 Docetic Leucius, who denied the true manhood 
 of our Lord, was at the opposite pole from the 
 Ebionites, who asserted Him to be mere man, 
 and therefore the Acts of John might well have 
 contained a confutation of Kbionism. The 
 Acts of Leucius were in use among the M.mi- 
 chees in the time of St. Augustine. Faustus 
 the .Manichean (bk. 30. c. 4, vol. viii. p. 447) 
 appeals to .\cts of the four apostles men- 
 tioned by Photius (Peter. Andrew, Thomas, 
 and John), charging the Catholic partv with 
 wrongly excluding them from their canon. 
 In several places Augustine refers to the same 
 Acts {Cont. Adimant. 17, viii. 137. 13c) ; Conl. 
 Faust, x.xii. 79, p. 40Q ; Cont. adv. Leg. et Proph. 
 i. 20, p. 570), and he names as the author 
 Leutius, the name being written in some MSS. 
 Levitius or Leuticius (.-let. cum Feltce, ii. 6, 
 p. 489 ; see also de Fid. cc. 5. 38, .App. pp. 25, 
 33). In the passage last cited, the writer, 
 supposed to be Evodius of I'zala, a contem- 
 porary of Augustine, quotes from the .\cts of 
 Andrew a story of Maximilla. the wife of the 
 proconsul Egeas under whom St. .Andrew 
 suffered, who, to avoid having intcrc<>ur-.e 
 with her husband, without his knowledge 
 substituted her maid in her own place ; and 
 on another occasion, when she and her com- 
 panion were engaged hearing the apostle, an 
 angel, by imitating their voices, deceived the 
 husband into the belief that they were still 
 in her bedchamber. This story, which agrees 
 with what Photius tells of the author's con- 
 demnation of sexual intercourse, is much 
 softened in the still extant Acts of Pseudo- 
 Abdias, which are an orthodox recasting of a 
 heretical original. We find still the names 
 of Maximilla and Egeas ; but Maximilla does 
 not refuse intercourse with her husband, and 
 only excites his displeasure because, on 
 account of her eagerness to hear the apostle, 
 she can be with him less frequently ; and, 
 without any angelic deception, providential 
 means are devised to prevent Egeas from sur- 
 prising his wife at the Christian meeting. 
 These Augustinian notices enable us to infer 
 that it was the same work Philaster had in 
 view when he stated (Haer. 88) that the 
 Manichees had Acts purporting to be written 
 by disciples of St. .Andrew, and describing 
 apostle's doings when he passed from Pontus 
 into Greece. He adds that these heretics had 
 also Acts of Peter, John, and Paul, containing 
 stories of miracles in which beasts were made 
 to speak ; for that these heretics counted the 
 souls of men and of beasts alike (see lipiph. 
 Haer. 66, p. 625). In the (ielasian decree on 
 apocryphal books we read : " Libri omnes, 
 quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocry- 
 phi," where we have various readings, Luci- 
 anus and Seleucius (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont. 
 463). In the spurious cr>rrespondence be- 
 tween Jerome and Chromatins and Heliodorus, 
 Jerome is represented as giving an orthodox 
 version of certain authentic additions to St. 
 Matthew's narrative, of which a heretical 
 version had been given by Leucius (or, as it 
 is printed, Seleucus), the author of thi- .Arts 
 already mentioned. In the letter of Inni>ccnt 
 to Exsuperius (.Mansi, iii. 104 1) he condemns 
 documents bearing the name of Matthew, of 
 James the Less, of Peter and Paul written by 
 
 LEUCIUS 
 
 M\ 
 
 Leucius, of Andrew writt.n l.y .\rn.«:h4ri\ and 
 Leonidas the philosophers, «n<l of Thomat. 
 It has been conjectured that in .\rn<>ch.irt\ an 
 adjective has been joinrd with a proper n.imr, 
 and that we have here a corruption of I h.irinu«! 
 In the Latin vrrsion of the apocrvphal l>ti- 
 census Chrisli ad inferos (Tisrhendorf. htan. 
 ', .Apoc. p. 36i>), two sons of the aged Simeon, 
 named Leucius and Charinns, are rrpmmtrd 
 as having di<'d before our Lord, antl as mir.iru- 
 lously returning to Itrar witness to lii» 
 triumphs in the under world. The writer 
 clearly borrowed these naim-s from the 
 apocryphal Acts ; did he therr find w.irrant 
 for regarding them as the names of distinrt 
 persons, or was Photius right in reporting 
 both names to have been given to tlie same 
 person ? It would seem' that onlv the Act* 
 of John and perhaps of Peter named Lriiriiit 
 as their author : the necessities of the fiction 
 would require the Acts of .Andrew to be 
 attested by a different witness, possibly 
 Charinus, and it is conceivable that Photius 
 may have combined the names merelv from 
 his judging, no doubt rightly, that all thr Acts 
 had a common author. Concerning the Acts 
 of Paul in use among the Manichcans see 
 LiNis and TiitcLA. IJesides the authorities 
 already cited, the .Acts of Leucius are men- 
 i tioned by Turribius. a Spanish bp. of th<- first 
 half of the 5th cent., from whom we learn that 
 they were used by the Priscillianists, and that 
 ! the .Acts of Thomas related a baptism, not in 
 j water but in oil, according to the Manichean 
 ! fashion ; and by Pseudo-Mellitus (Fabric. 
 Cod. Apoc. X.T. ii. 604), who acknowledges 
 the truth of apostolic miracles related by 
 Leucius, but argues against his doctrine of 
 two principles. Pacian {Ep. i. 2 ; .Mignc, 
 Pair. Lat. xiii. 1053) says, "Phryges imbiliores 
 qui seanimatos a Leucio nientiuntur, se insti- 
 tutos a Proculo gloriantur." On this jiassagc 
 Zahn (see infra) mainly relies for dating the 
 Actsof Leucius earlier than 160. But no other 
 writer mentions a Montanist use of these 
 .Acts, and on this subject the authority of 
 Pacian does not count for much. The context 
 does not indicate that he had much personal 
 knowledge of the sect, and his her«tical notices 
 appear to be derived from the Syntagma of 
 Hippf)lytus, where we have no reason to think 
 that he would have found any mention of 
 Leucius. It is highly probably that Pacian, 
 as well as others of liis contcmpor.irn-s, tx-lieved 
 that Leucius was a real companion of St. John, 
 and therefore no doubt earlier than .Montanus ; 
 but that he had any means of real know- 
 ledge as to this we have no reason to Ix-lirve. 
 Besides those authorities which mention 
 leucius by name, oth«Ts speak of apocryphal 
 I Acts, and probably reft r to the same litrratiirr. 
 Thus the S\nopsis Scriplurae ascrif>rd to 
 i .Athanasius (ii. 154) speaks of Inxiks ralbd the 
 : Travels (f»^o3o<) of Peter, of John, and of 
 Thomas ; and by the second the I.iucian 
 story is probably iiit<iidrd. Eusebius (ill. 3^) 
 tells of Acts of' An<lri w and of J..hn ; Fpi- 
 phanius {Haer. 47) states that thr Eiicratltrs 
 used .Acts of .Andrew, John, and Thomas; 
 that the Apostolici relied on .Acts of Andrew 
 and Thomas (16. (n); and that those whom 
 he calls Origeniani UH<'d .Acts i>( Andrew (16. 
 63). It is worth remarking that it Is of the 
 
662 
 
 LEUCIUS 
 
 three apostles, Thomas, Andrew, and John, 
 whose travels were written by Leucius, that 
 Origen {ap. Eus. H. E. iii. i ) can tell where the 
 lot of their preaching had fallen, viz. India, 
 Scythia, and Asia respectively. 
 
 The testimonies we have cited are not 
 earlier than the 4th cent., and several of them 
 speak of Leucius as a Manichean ; but Grabe, 
 Cave, Mill, Beausobre, Lardner, and others 
 consider that he lived in the 2nd cent. ; and, 
 as he therefore could not have been a Mani- 
 chean, was probably a Marcionite. Some 
 have identified him with the Marcionite Lu- 
 CANUS. But no Marcionite would have 
 chosen for the heroes of his narrative the 
 Jewish apostles, John, Thomas, and Andrew. 
 Beausobre (Manichiisme, i. 350) gives six 
 arguments for the early date of Leucius, not 
 one of which is conclusive, all being vitiated 
 by the tacit assumption that Leucius was a 
 real person, and not, as we hold, merely the 
 fictitious name of an imaginary disciple of 
 St. John, whom the forger chose to make the 
 narrator of the story. 
 
 Zahn (Acta Johannis, 1880) published some 
 new fragments of Leucius, which increase our 
 power of recognizing as Leucian things which 
 different fathers have told without naming 
 their authority. The Leucian character of 
 these fragments is verified by various coin- 
 cidences with the old. Names recur, e.g. 
 Lycomedes. There is a story of a miracle 
 performed on one Drusiana, who had sub- 
 mitted to die rather than have intercourse 
 with her husband. This agrees with that 
 of Maximilla and Egeas in revealing the vio- 
 lently Encratitc principles of the author ; cf. 
 that told in the Acts of Thomas (Tischendorf, 
 Acta Apoc. p. 200). Zahn has argued the case 
 for the early date of Leucius in a much more 
 scientific way than previous supporters of the 
 same thesis. He tries to shew that there are 
 statements in earlier writers really derived 
 from Leucius, though his name is not given. 
 All Zahn's arguments do not seem to us con- 
 clusive, yet enough remains valid to lead us 
 to regard the Leucian Acts as of the same age 
 as the travels of Peter (which are the basis of 
 the Clementines) and the Acts of Paul and 
 Thecla. When a writer, who in one place 
 quotes Leucius, elsewhere makes statements we 
 know to be Leucian, they doubtless come from 
 Leucius though he does not there name his 
 authority; e.g. Epiphanius names Leucius only 
 once, but we may safely count as derived from 
 Leucius his reference to the manner of John's 
 death (Haer. 79, 5) and to John's virginity 
 (ih. 28, 7 ; 78, 10). Further, in the immediate 
 context of the passage where Epiphanius 
 names Leucius, he names other heretics of the 
 apostolic age, and the presumption that he 
 found these names in Leucius becomes almost 
 a certainty when in one of the new Leucian 
 fragments one of them, Cleobius, is found as 
 that of a person in John's company. Other 
 names in the same context are Claudius, Merin- 
 thus, and the Pauline Demas and Hermogenes ; 
 concerning whom see the Acts of Thecla and 
 the so-called Dorotheus (Paschal Chron. ed. 
 Dindorf, ii. 124). The Augustinian and Hie- 
 ronymian notices may be treated similarly. 
 We can identify as Leucian several statements* 
 
 ♦ In particular an account of a hymn supposed 
 
 LEUCIUS 
 
 which are described as found " in ecclesiastica 
 historia " or "in patrum traditionibus," and 
 hence probably others reported with the 
 same formulae are from the same source. 
 
 We next enumerate some of the statements 
 which may be characterized as Leucian, nam- 
 ing some of the early writers who have re- 
 peated them, (i) A Leucian fragment (Zahn, 
 p. 247) tells how John's virginity had been 
 preserved by a threefold interposition of our 
 Lord, breaking off the Apostle's designs each 
 time that he attempted to marry. There is a 
 clear reference to this story in a sermon 
 ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nov. Pat. Bib. \. 
 i. 378), and from this soiu-ce probably so many 
 of the Fathers have derived their opinion of 
 John's virginity, concerning which the canon- 
 ical Scriptures say nothing (Ambros. de Inst. 
 Virg. viii. 50, vol. iii. 324 ; Ambrosiaster on 
 IL Cor. xi. 2, vol. iv. 2, 232; Hieron. inlsaiam, 
 c. 56, vol. iv. p. 658 ; adv. Jovin. L 26, vol. ii. 
 278 ; August, cont. Faust, xxx. vol. x. 535, in 
 Johan. c. 21, vol. iv. 1082 ; Epiph. Haer. 58, 
 4). The Leucian Acts, in conformity with 
 their strong Encratism, seem to have dwelt 
 much on the apostle's virginity, describing 
 this as the cause of our Lord's love to him, 
 and as the reason for his many privileges, 
 particularly the care of the virgin mother. In 
 
 I Pistis Sophia the name of the apostle John has 
 
 I usually the title 6 irapBh'os appended, and we 
 may therefore set down Pistis Sophia as post- 
 
 l Leucian, but uncertainty as to its date pre- 
 vents us from drawing any further inference. 
 The earliest mention of John's virginity is 
 found in the epithet "spado" given to St. 
 John by Tertullian (de Monog. 17), whence 
 Zahn infers that Tertullian must have used the 
 Acts of Leucius. We think Zahn does not 
 sufficiently allow for the probability in the case 
 of one who is said to have lived so long, that a 
 true tradition that he never married might 
 have been preserved in the churches of Asia. 
 Zahn contends that because Jerome uses the 
 word "eunuchus," not "spado," he is not copy- 
 ing Tertullian, but that both writers use a 
 common source, viz. Leucius. But when the 
 passage in Tertullian is read with the rest of 
 the treatise, it appears more likely that the 
 epithet isTertuUian's own. (2) Other evidence 
 of Tertullian's acquaintance with Leucius is 
 found in his story of St. John's having been 
 cast into burning oil. Speaking of Rome he 
 says, "Ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam 
 in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in 
 insulam relegatur." What was Tertullian's 
 authority ? Now, though none of the extant 
 fragments of Leucius relate to this, yet that 
 these Acts contained the story is probable from 
 the following evidence. Jerome (vol. vii. 
 p. 655) commenting on Matt. xx. 23 states 
 on the authority of " ecclesiasticae historiae" 
 that the apostle had been " missus in fer- 
 ventis olei dolium, etinde ad suscipiendam 
 coronam Christi athleta processerit, statimque 
 relegatus in Pathmos insulam." Now Abdias, 
 whose work is notoriouslv based on Leucius 
 (Hist. Ap. V. 2, Fabric. Cod. Ps. N.T. ii. 534), 
 
 has "proconsul jussit eum velut rebellem in 
 
 to have been sung on the night before the crucifixion 
 by the apostles holding hands and forming a circle 
 about our I,ord (see Aug. Ep. 237 ad Ceretium, vol. ii. 
 p. 849). 
 
LEUCIUS 
 
 dolio ferventis «>lei iiifi>;i, ((iii b.latiin ut con- 
 jectus in aeneo est, veluti athleta, uiictus iion , 
 adustus de vase exiit." The second passage ' 
 will be seen to be the original, Jerome's use of 
 athUla receiving its explanation from Alxiias. 
 This conclusion is strengthened by another 
 passage in Jerome (oi/r. Jovin. i. 26, vol. ii. 
 278), where, tiiough he naiues Tertullian as 
 his authority, he gives particulars not f(umd 
 in him, viz. the " dolium ferventis olei," 
 and that the apostle came out fresher and 
 more vigorous than he had entered. We feel 1 
 forced to believe that Jerome, who certainly 
 used l.eucius, found in it the statement about 
 the boiling oil ; and then there is a strong I 
 case for suspecting that this was also the au- 
 thority (if Tertullian. But though Tertullian 
 names Rome as the scene of the miracle, it mav 
 be doubted whether this was so in the (Ireek 
 l.eucius. The mention by .\bdias of a " pro- 
 consul" suggests .Asia. Hippolytus, however, 
 agrees with Tertullian in placing John at Rome 
 {de Christo el Atitic. 36). Some of the earliest 
 Fathers who try to reconcile Matt. xx. 23 
 with the fact that John did not sufTer martyr- 
 dom, do not mention this story of the baptism ' 
 in oil (Origen, in loc. De la Rue, iii. 719). A 
 later story makes John miraculously "drink 
 a cup " cif poison with impunity. 
 
 {3) .\n acquaintance with Leucius by Clem- | 
 ent of Alexandria has been inferred from the 
 agreement of both in giving on John's 
 authority a Docetic account of our Lord. ' 
 The " traditions of Matthias " may have been 
 Clement's authority ; but that J ohn is appealed 
 to no doubt gives probability to the cnnjocture 
 that Clement's source is the Acts which treat of : 
 St. John, a probability increased on an exam- 
 ination of the story told by Clement (Hypotyp. 
 ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 14) as to John's composition j 
 of the Fourth Ciospel at therequest of his friends. 
 In the Muratorian Fragment the request is 
 urged bv the apostle's fellow-bishops in Asia ; 
 he asks them to fast three days, begging for a 
 revelation of God's will, and then it is revealed 1 
 to Andrew that John is to write. The stories of ^ 
 Clement and the Muratorian writer are too '■ 
 like to be independent ; yet it is not ronreiv- 
 able that one opied from the other ; therefore 
 they doubtless used a oimmon authority, who 
 was not Papias, else Eusebius, when he quotes 
 the passage from Clement, would srarrely have 
 failed to mention it. Now, several later writers 
 (Jerome in pref. to Comm. on Matt., a writing 1 
 pub. as St. Augustine's— Mai, Nov. Pat. Bibl. I. 
 i. 379 — Victorinus in his Scholia on the Apoc., | 
 Galland. iv. 59 ; and f)thers, sec Zahn, p. 198) I 
 tell the same story, agreeing, however, in addi- j 
 tional particulars, which shew that they did , 
 not derive their knowledge from either the 
 Muratorian writer or Clement. Thus they tell 
 that the cause of the request that John should 
 write was the spread of Ebionite heresy, which \ 
 required that something should be add<-d con- , 
 cerning the divinity of our Lord to what St. j 
 John's predecessors had told about His human- 
 ity ; and that, in answer to their prayers, the 
 apostle, filled with the Holy (ihost, burst into 
 theprologue, " In the beginningwasthe Word." 
 Other verbal coincidences make it probable 
 that this story was found in the Acts of Ixucius. ' 
 which Epiphanius tells us contained an arcount 
 of John's resistance to the Ebionite heresy; 
 
 LEUCIOS 
 
 M3 
 
 and if so, I.ru< his in likilv lo luvc bem 
 Clenienfx .iuth>>ritv al*«>. 
 
 Combining the pr.ibabillllm under the thrrr 
 heads enumerated, ihrre M^m* rravmAble 
 ptouml for thinking that the I mrlau Art* 
 were 2nd cent., and known to ( Irnirnt and 
 Tertullian. Irrnacus, howrvrr, ithrwA no %ign 
 of aequaintance with them, and ( Irmrnt Mui*t 
 have had some other soiirre ..f (ohanninK 
 traditions, hi« story ui John an<l the robhrr 
 being, as Zahn owns, not drnvr^l (nm 
 Leucius ; for no later writer who tclU lli« 
 story shews anv sign of having had any ft<iurra 
 of information but Clement. 
 
 We cannot follow Zahn in combining the 
 two statements of The-xloril {Haer. lab. nl. 
 4) that the Ouartoderimans appralrd to St. 
 John's authority, and that thrv usr<| ap-rrv- 
 phal Arts, and thiiire inff-rriiig tliat Lmc in* 
 represented St. John as sanrtioning th«» 
 Quarto<leriiuan practire. If so, wr think other 
 traces of this Leurian statement w..ul<l have 
 remained. The"xloret would have foun<l in 
 Eusebius that the churches r>f Asia aj<pral<-<l 
 to St. John as sanctioning their prartKe, and 
 that mav have been a true tradition. 
 
 A brief notice will suffice of other probable 
 contents of the work of Leurius. He appears 
 to have luentioned the exile to Patmos, ajnl 
 as resulting from a decree of the Roman 
 emperor; but that the emp«ror was not 
 named is likely from the variations of sub- 
 sequent writers. Zahn ref»>rs to Leu< ius the 
 story of St. John and the partridge, told by 
 Cassianus, wjio elsewhere shews arquaintance 
 with Leurius. .\ ditlerent storv of .i partridgn 
 is told in a non-Leurian fragment (Zahn, 190). 
 The Leucian Acts very possibly contained an 
 account of the Virgin's death. (.Mei.liti'S.J 
 But the most important of the remaining 
 Leucian stfiries is that concerning St. John's 
 painless death. Leucius appears to have 
 given what purported to be the apostle's 
 sermon and Eucharistic praver on the last 
 Sunday of his life. Then after breaking of 
 bread — there is no mention of wine — the 
 apostle commands Byrrhus (the name occurs 
 in the Ignatiaii epistles as that of an Ephesine 
 deacon) to follow him with two ( omp.mions, 
 bringing spades with them. In a friend's bury- 
 ing-plare thcvdig a grave, in whirh the apostle 
 l.iid himself down, and with joyful prayrr 
 blessed his disciples and resigned his soul ti» 
 God. Later versions give other miraculous 
 details ; in particular that which Augustine 
 mentions {in Johann. xxi. vol. 3. p. Rio), that 
 St. John lav in the grave not dea<l but sleeping, 
 the dust hcipcd over him showing his breathing 
 by its motions. For other J oh-uuiine stories, 
 see PHocHOHrs. ... ... 
 
 Besides the Arts Leucius has l)een crc«lite<l 
 with a quantity of other aporrvphal literature. 
 If .-xs we believe, he is onlv a fictitious |»ersi.n- 
 age, it is likely enough that the auth<.r of the 
 romanre wrote other like fictions, though our 
 inf<irmation is too scanty f.-r us to idrniify his 
 work. But there is no trustworthy evidence 
 that he affixed the name of Leurius to anycom- 
 position b«-si<les the Acts of Prter and John. 
 From the natureof thecas* an apostles martvr- 
 dom must be relatetl by one of the aiM.^tles' 
 disripl«-s. but such a one would not be rrgarde*! 
 as a competent witness to the «lec«l» of our Lorxl 
 
664 
 
 LIBERATUS DIACONUS 
 
 Himself, and accordingly apocryphal gospels 
 are commonly ascribed to an apostle, and not to 
 one of the second generation of Christians. The 
 only apparent evidence for a connexion of the 
 name of Leucius with apocryphal gospels is 
 the mention of the name in the spurious letter 
 of Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus, a 
 witness unworthy of credit even if his testi- 
 mony were more distinct. Probably the 
 orthodox, finding in the .\cts which bore the 
 name of Leucius plain evidence that the writer 
 was heretical in his doctrine of two principles, 
 still accepted him as a real personage of the 
 sub-apostolic age, and when they met with 
 other apocryphal stories, the doctrine of which 
 they had to reject as heretical while willing to 
 accept the facts related as mainly true. Leucius 
 seemed a probable person to whom to ascribe 
 the authorship. TLinus.] [g.s.] 
 
 LiberatUS (7) Diaconus, archdeacon of Car- 
 thage, a Latin writer on the Nestorian and 
 Eutychian heresies, an account of which he 
 wrote entitled. Breviarimn Causae Xestorian- 
 oriim et Eutychianorum, in which he records 
 some circumstances of his life. He visited 
 Rome in the pontificate of John IL on the 
 affair of the Acoemetae order of monks (c. 20). 
 In 535 he was deputed to Rome, with the 
 bps. Caius and Peter, by the council of 
 Carthage, to consult John IL as to how con- 
 forming Arian bishops should be received. 
 They arrived about the time of the pope's 
 death (he was buried May 27. 535), and his 
 successor Agapetus (consecrated June 3, 335) 
 replied to the synod by the three envoys 
 (Mansi. viii. 849). Liberatus was an ardent 
 defender of the Three Chapters, and undertook 
 many journeys in that cause. On his return 
 home he composed his Breviarutn, so named 
 as being an abridgment in 24 chapters of a 
 history which, beginning with the ordination 
 of Nestorius in 428, reached to the meeting of 
 the fifth synod in 553. The work was prob- 
 ably written c. 560. Liberatus intimates in 
 his preface that he collected his materials from 
 the Ecclesiastical History which had been 
 recently translated from the Greek into Latin 
 (as Garnier thinks, the Historia Tripartitia of 
 Cassiodorus), from the Acts of the councils, 
 and from episcopal letters. The Brcviarum was 
 ed. with copious notes and dissertations by 
 Garnier in 1675 (8vo, Paris), and this ed. is 
 reprinted by Migne (Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 969). 
 Accounts of Liberatus will be found in Dupin 
 {Eccl. Wr. t. i. p. 55S, ed. 1722), Ceillier (xi. 
 303), Cave (i. 527), Fabric. {Bibl. Lat. t. iv. p. 
 272. ed. Mansi, i754)- [c.h.] 
 
 LiberiUS (4). ordained bp. of Rome May 22, 
 352 (Catalog. Liber.), as successor to Julius I. 
 The assassination of Constans (.\.d. 350) and 
 the subsequent defeat of Magnentius in 351 
 had left Constantius sole emperor. New 
 charges against Athanasius were sent to the 
 emperor and Julius the pope, and the latter 
 dying before they reached him, the hearing of 
 fell to his successor Liberius. These charges 
 were that Athanasius had influenced Constans 
 against Constantius, corresponded with Mag- 
 nentius, used an unconsecrated church in 
 Alexandria, and disregarded an imperial 
 summons calling him to Rome (Athan. Apol. 
 ad Constantium). Thev were considered, 
 together with an encyclic of 75 Egyptian 
 
 LIBERIUS 
 
 [ bishops in behalf of Athanasius, by a council 
 under Liberius at Rome in 352, and on this 
 occasion the first charge of compliance with 
 heresy is alleged against Liberius. Among 
 the fragments of Hilary (Fragm. IV.) there is 
 a letter purporting to be addressed by Liberius 
 to his " beloved brethren and fellow-bishops 
 throughout the East," declaring that he agrees 
 I and communicates with them, and that Athan- 
 asius. having been summoned to Rome and 
 refused to come, is out of communion with 
 himself and the Roman church. Bower {Hist, 
 of the Pdp^s ),Tillemont {Vie de S. Athan. t. viii. 
 art. 64. note 68), and Milman {Lat. Christ, bk. i. 
 c. 2). accept this letter as genuine. Baronius, 
 the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary, 
 Hefele {Conciliengesch. bk. v. § 73) — the last 
 very positively — reject it as an Arian forgery ; 
 I their principal, if not only, ground being the 
 improbability of his writing it. 
 
 The death of Magnentius in the autumn of 
 353 left Constantius entirely free to follow his 
 own heretical bent, when Liberius certainly 
 stood forth as a fearless champion of the cause 
 under imperial disfavour. He sent \'incentius 
 I of Capua, with Marcellus, another bp. of 
 I Campania, to the emperor, requesting him to 
 call a council at Aquileia to settle the points at 
 ', issue. Constantius being himself at Aries, sum- 
 , moned one there, which was attended in behalf 
 : of Liberius by legates. The main object of the 
 \ leaders of the council, in which Valens and 
 ' Ursacius took a prominent part, was to extort 
 ; from the legates a renunciation of communion 
 j with .\thanasius. After a fruitless attempt to 
 obtain from the dominant party a simultaneous 
 I condemnation of Arius, the legates at length 
 complied. Paulinus of Treves refused, and 
 I was consequently banished (Sulp. Sev. 1. 2 ; 
 ; Hilar. Libell. ad' Const. ; id. in Fragm. ; Epp. 
 Liber, ad Const, et Ens.). Liberius, on hearing 
 the result, wrote to Hosius of Cordova much 
 distressed by the weakness of his messenger 
 Vincentius, and to Caecilianus, bp. of Spoletum 
 (Hilar. Fragm. VI.). 
 
 Subsequently (a. D. 354), most of the Western 
 bishops having, under fear or pressure, 
 expressed agreement with the East, Lucifer, 
 bp. of Cagliari, being then in Rome, was, at 
 his own suggestion, sent by Liberius to the 
 emperor, to demand another council. The 
 result was a council at Milan in the beginning 
 of 355, attended by 300 Western bishops and 
 but few Easterns. In spite of the bold remon- 
 strances of Eusebius of V'ercelli, Lucifer, 
 Dionysius of Milan, and others, the condem- 
 nation of Athanasius was decreed, and 
 required to be signed by all under pain of 
 banishment. The pope's three legates were 
 among the few who refused and were con- 
 demned to exile (see Sulp. Sev. 1. 2 ; Athan. 
 Hist. Arian. ad Monachos). Liberius at Rome 
 still stood firm. He wrote to Eusebius {ap. Act. 
 Eus.) congratulating him on his steadfastness, 
 and sent an encyclic (ib. et Hilar. Fragm. VI.) 
 to all the exiled confessors, encouraging them, 
 andexpressinghisexpectation of soon suffering 
 like them. The emperor failed to turn him by 
 threats or bribes. Finally Leontius, the pre- 
 fect of Rome, was ordered to apprehend him 
 and he was taken to Milan (see Athan. op. cit. 
 c. 35 seq.). Theodoret (1. ii. c. 13) recounts in 
 detail his interview with the emperor there. 
 
LIBERIUS 
 
 "I have sent f«.>r you." said CtMislaiitius. " the 
 bishop of my city, that you may repudiate the 
 madness of Athanasius, whom the whole world , 
 has condemned." Liberius continued to insist 
 that the condemnation had not been that of a 
 fair and free council, or in the presence of the 
 accused, and that those who condentned him 
 had been actuated by fear or regard to the 
 emperor's gifts and favour. Liberius having 
 w.irned the emperor against making use oi 
 bishops, whose time ought to be devoted to 
 spiritual matters, for the avenging of his own 
 enmities, the latter finally cut short the dis- 
 cussion by saying. " There is only one thing 
 to be done. I will that you embrace the 
 communion of the churches, and so return to 
 Rome. Consult peace, then, and subscribe, 
 that you may be restored to your see." " I 
 have already," Liberius replied, "bidden fare- 
 well to the brethren at Rome ; for I account 
 observance of the ecclesiastical law of more 
 importance than residence at Rome." " I 
 give you three days," the emperor said, " to 
 make up your mind : unless within that time 
 you comply, you must be prepared to go wiu-re 
 i may send you." Liberius answered, " Three 
 days or three months will make no difference 
 with me : wherefore send me where you 
 please." Two days havim^ been allowed him 
 for consideration, he was banished to Beroea 
 in Thrace (a.d. 355). The emperor sent him, 
 on his departure, 500 jneces of gold, which he 
 refused, saying, " Go and tell him who sent 
 me this gold to give it to his flatterers and 
 players, who are always in want because of 
 their insatiable cupidity, ever desiring riches 
 and never satisfied. As for us, Christ, Who is 
 in all things like unto the Father, supports us, 
 and gives us all things needful." To the 
 empress, who sent him the like sum, he sent 
 word that she might give it to the emperor, 
 who would want it for his military expediti<3ns; 
 and that, if he needed it not, he might give it 
 to Maxentius (the Arian bp. of Milan) and 
 Epictetus, who would be glad of it. Euscbius 
 the eunuch also offered him money, to whom 
 he said, " Thou hast pillaged the churches of 
 the whole world, and dost thou now bring 
 alms to me as a condemned pauper ? Depart 
 first, and become thyself a Christian." His 
 banishment was followed by a general triumph 
 of the Arian party. In Alexandria Athan- 
 asius was superseded by George of Cappadocia, 
 the orthodox there cruelly persecuted, and 
 Athanasius compelled eventually to take 
 refuge among the hermits and coenobites of 
 Egypt. In Gaul, in spite of the fearless pro- 
 test of Hilary of Poictiers, the orthodox were 
 persecuted and banished, and there also 
 heresy triumphed. With regard to Rome, we 
 find traces of two conflii ting stories, one 
 gathered from the practically unanimous 
 testimony of contemporary or ancient writers 
 of repute, some of whom have been our 
 authorities so far — viz. Athanasius'//»s/. Arian. 
 ad Monach. 75), Jerome {Chron. in ann. 
 Abram. mccclx.). Ruftnus [H. E. x. 22), 
 Socrates [H. E. ii. 37), Sozomen (H. E. iv. H, 
 II), Theodoret IH. E. ii. 14). together with 
 Marcellinus and Faustus, two contemporary 
 Luciferian presbyters of Rome, in the preface 
 to their Libellus Precum, addressed to the 
 emperors Valentinian, Tiieodosius, and Arca- 
 
 LIBERIUS 
 
 C65 
 
 dius, during the pontilK.itc o( |).»nusu«, the 
 success<ir of Liberius. 1 he other, in r.mflirt 
 therewith, is in the Pontifical and the Artn o( 
 Martyrs. From the former authorities wr Irarn 
 that immediately after the rxilo of Librriu* all 
 the clergy, including the deacon Fklix (arch- 
 deacon according to Marcrlluius and Fau«lus), 
 swore before thi- prop!,. t,i .vrrpt no other 
 bishop while Liberius lived. The populace, who 
 appear throughout stronglvon hi* Mile. ilrb.irrcd 
 the .Brians from the churches, s.. that thr r|rr- 
 tion of a successor, on whu h the eni|>er<>r wa» 
 determined, had to be made in the imperial 
 palace. The deacon Felix was there chosen and 
 consecrated, three of the emperor's eunmhs re- 
 presenting the people on the .K:c.isi> >ii. and three 
 heretical bishops. Flpictetus of Centumellar, 
 Acacius of Caesarea. and nasilius of ,\ncvra 
 being the c .ns<( rators. It seems probable 
 that a considerable party among the clergv 
 at least concurred in this consecration. .Mar- 
 cellinus and Faustus say that the clergy 
 ordained him. while the people refused to take 
 part ; and Jerome states that after the intru- 
 sion of Felix by the .Arians very many of the 
 clerical order perjured themselves bv support- 
 ing him. Felix appears to have been himself 
 orthodox, no distinct charge of heresy l)eiiig 
 alleged by liis accusers ; only that of conniv- 
 ance with his own unlawful election by .\riaiis 
 I in defiance of his oath, and of communicatinK 
 I with them. Two years after the exile of 
 Liberius(A.D. 357), Constantius went to Kome. 
 I and Theodoret tells us that the wives of the 
 magistrates and nobles waited on the emperor, 
 beseeching him to have pity on the city l»e- 
 reaved of its shepherd and exposed to the 
 : snares of wolves. Constantius was so far 
 ' moved as to consent to the return of Liberius 
 j on condition of his presiding over the church 
 ' jointly with Felix. When the emperor's order 
 was read publicly in the circus, there burst 
 : forth the unanimous cry, " One tiod, one 
 i Christ, one bishop ! " There appears to have 
 i been some delay before the actual return of 
 I Liberius, who was required to satisfy thr 
 emperor by renouncing orthodoxy and Ath- 
 ' anasius. This he was now, in strange contrast 
 to his f<inner firmness, but too n-ady to do. 
 It appears that bp. Fortunatian of Aquihia 
 had been employed by the liusfbians to per- 
 suade him (Hieron. Catal. Scrtf>t. 07). and 
 that Ueinophilus of Ber'>ca had personally 
 urged him to comply lEp. I.iher. aJ Orifttl. 
 Episc. ap. Hilar. Eragm. 17.). Hilarv (Etagm. 
 r/.) gives letters written by liberius from 
 i Beroea at this time. One is to the Eastern 
 I bishops and presbyters ; from which we give 
 I extracts, with Hilary's parenthetical coni- 
 ' ments : " I do not defend Athanasius : but 
 I because my i)rcdecessor Julius had received 
 1 him, I was afraid of being accnunted a pre- 
 varicator. Having leanit, however, that vou 
 ' had justly condemncil him, I soon gave asM-nt 
 I to your judgment, and sent a letter to that 
 ' effect by bp. F'ortunati.an of .\quileia, to the 
 emperor. VN'herefiire Atlianasius benig re- 
 moved from the <-oinfnunion of \\s all 1 1 will 
 not even receive his letters). I sav that I have 
 peace and communion with you and with all 
 . the Fiastern bish>)ps. Thai you may be 
 I assured of my good faith in thus writing, know 
 that my lord and brother Ueniophilus has 
 
666 
 
 LIBERIUS 
 
 deigned in his benevolence to expound to me 
 the true Catholic faith which was treated, 
 expounded, and received at Sirmium by many 
 brethren and fellow-bishops of ours. (This is 
 the Arian perfidy : — This I have noted, not the 
 apostate : — the following are the words of 
 Liberius.) This I have received with a willing 
 mind (/ say anathetna to thee, Liberius, and thy 
 companions), and in no respect contradict ; I 
 have given my assent, I follow and hold it. 
 [Once more, and a third time, anathema to thee, 
 prevaricator Liberius .') Seeing that you now 
 perceive me to be in agreement with you in all 
 things, I have thought it right to beseech your 
 holinesses to deign by your common counsel 
 and efforts to labour for my release from exile 
 andmy restoration to the see divinely entrusted 
 to me." Another is to Ursacius, Valens, and 
 Germinius, begging their good offices, and 
 excusing his apparent delay in writing, as 
 above, to the Oriental bishops. Before 
 sending that letter he had already, he says, 
 condemned Athanasius, as the whole presby- 
 tery of Rome could testify, to whom he seems 
 to have previously sent letters intended for 
 the emperor's eye. He concludes, " You 
 should know, most dear brethren, by this 
 letter, written with a plain and simple mind, 
 that I have peace with all of you, bishops of 
 the Catholic church. And I desire you to 
 make known to our brethren and fellow- 
 bishops Epictetus and Auxentius that with 
 them I have peace and ecclesiastical com- 
 munion. Whoever may dissent from this our 
 peace and concord, let him know that he is 
 separated from our communion." In giving 
 this letter, Hilary again expresses his indig- 
 nation in a note : " Anathema, I say to thee, 
 prevaricator, together with the Arians." A 
 third is to Vincentius of Capua, the bishop 
 whose defection at Milan he had once so much 
 deplored. In this he announces that he had 
 given up his contention for Athanasius, and 
 had written to say so to the Oriental bishops, 
 and requests Vincentius to assemble the 
 bishops of Campania and get them to join in 
 an address to the emperor, " that I may be 
 delivered from my great sadness." He con- 
 cludes, " God keep thee safe, brother. We 
 have peace with all the Eastern bishops, and 
 I with you. I have absolved myself to God ; 
 see you to it : if you have the will to fail me 
 in my banishment, God will be judge between 
 me and you." 
 
 No sufficient grounds exist for doubting the 
 genuineness of the fragment of Hilary which 
 contains these letters, or of the letters them- 
 selves. It is resolutely denied by Hefele 
 (Conciliengeschichte, Bd. v. §8i) and by the 
 Jesuit Stilting in the work of the Bollandists 
 {Acta SS. Sept. t. vi. on Liberius), but their 
 arguments are weak, resting chiefly on alleged 
 historical difficulties and on the style of the 
 letters. All the great Protestant critics accept 
 them ; and among the Roman Catholics 
 Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin, 
 Ceillier, Montfaucon, Constant, and Mohler. 
 Dr. Dollinger does the same. Dr. Newman 
 also (Arians of the Fourth Century) quotes them 
 without any note of suspicion. Baronius 
 accepts the letters to the Eastern bishops and 
 to Vincentius, but rejects that to Valens and 
 Ursacius, though only on the ground of its 
 
 LIBERIUS 
 
 implied statement that Athanasius had been 
 excommunicated by the Roman church. A 
 refutation of Hefele's arguments is contained 
 in P. le Page Renouf's Condemnation of Pope 
 Honorius (Longmans, 1868), from which an 
 extract, bearing on the subject, is given in 
 Appendix to the Eng. trans, of Hefele's work 
 (Clark, Edin. 1876). Even if the fragment 
 of Hilary could be shewn to be spurious, the 
 general fact of the fall of Liberius would re- 
 main indisputable, being attested by Athan- 
 asius (Hist. Arian. 41 ; Apol. contr. Arian. 89), 
 Hilary (contra Const. Imp. 11), Sozomen (iv. 
 15), and Jerome (Chron. et de Vir. Illustr. 97). 
 It was never questioned till comparatively 
 recent times, when a few papal partisans — 
 especially Stilting (loc. cit.), Franz Anton Zac- 
 caria (Dissert, de Commentitio Liberii lapsu), 
 Professor Palma (Praelect. Histor. Eccles. t. i. 
 pt. ii. Romae, 1838) — have taken up his de- 
 fence, relying primarily on the silence of 
 Theodoret, Socrates, and Sulpicius Severus on 
 his fall. Others, as Hefele, endeavour to 
 extenuate its extent and culpability. 
 
 In the letter to the Eastern bishops Li- 
 berius speaks of having already accepted the 
 exposition of the faith agreed upon " by many 
 brethren and fellow-bishops " at Sirmium. It 
 is a little uncertain what confession is here 
 meant. There had been two noted synods 
 of Sirmium and both had issued expositions 
 of doctrine. The first in 351, assembled by 
 the Eusebians, adopted a confession which 
 asserted against Photinus and Marcellus of 
 Ancyra the pre-existent divinity of the Son 
 before His human birth and, but for its 
 omission of the term consubstantial, was not 
 heretical. Hilary of Poictiers (rfgSyn. 38 sqq.) 
 allows it to be orthodox. Baronius and the 
 Benedictine editors of Hilary (with whom 
 agrees Dr. Dollinger in his Papst-fabeln des 
 Mittelalters) maintain that this was the creed 
 accepted by Liberius at Beroea. The formula 
 of the second Sirmian synod, assembled in 357 
 by Constantius at the instance of the Ano- 
 maeans, prohibited both the definitions, 
 homoousios and homoiousios, as being beyond 
 the language of Scripture, and declared the 
 Father to be in honour, dignity, and majesty 
 greater than the Son, and, by implication, 
 that the Father alone may be defined as with- 
 out beginning, invisible, immortal, impassible. 
 The doctrine expressed was essentially that of 
 the Homoeans, though the phrase " like unto 
 the Father," from which they got their name, 
 was not yet adopted. This may have been 
 the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. 
 His credit is not much saved by supposing it 
 to have been the former one, since his letters 
 are sufficient evidence of his pliability. 
 Whichever it was, his acceptance was not 
 enough to satisfy the emperor, who, having 
 gone from Rome to Sirmium, summoned him 
 thither, where he was required to sign a new 
 formula, apparently prepared for the occasion. 
 This was, according to Sozomen, concocted 
 from three sources : first, the creed of the old 
 Antiochene council of 269, in which the term 
 consubstantial, alleged to be used heretically 
 so as to compromise the Son's Personality by 
 Paul of Samosta, was condemned ; secondly, 
 one of the creeds issued by the Eusebian 
 council at Antioch in 341, which omitted 
 
 1 
 
LIBERIUS 
 
 LIBERIUS 
 
 f\^\^ 
 
 I 
 
 that term ; and thirdly, the first Sirmian (Dial. adv. l.uctler. i.,). " Ihr wh->lr world 
 
 creed, above described. Sozonien adds that RTO'ined, and wondered to find itsrU Arun." 
 
 he signed also a condemnation of those who Liberius was not presetit at Anniiiuiin, nor It 
 
 denied the Son to be like the Father according there any reason to siippoxe that he asvrnird 
 
 to substance and in all respects. When to the now dominant cun(rs<non. Jcnmirt 
 
 Liberius is said by some writers to have been lanf;uaKe is rhrtoriral, and, on thr othrr hand, 
 
 sumnioned from Beroea to the third synod of Theodoret {//. E. ii. 2i) »;ivp\ a Irttrr (f mi 4 
 
 Sirmium, and to have signed the third Sirmian svnod of Italian and dalliran bishops hrld at 
 
 confession, we must not understand those Rome under pope I )amasus, statinK tlul the 
 
 sometimes so called, viz. of May 350 (when .\riminian fr>rmula had thr a%srnt iirithrr o( 
 
 a distinctly Homoean formula, prepared by the bp. of Kome, whose judKment was Itryond 
 
 bp. Mark of .\rethusa, was subscribed), but all others to be expected, nor of Vincentiuv 
 
 the compilation abine described. nor of others besides. 
 
 Liberius was now allowed to return to Rome. The drath of Constantius (a.d. yf>i) and the 
 
 Feli.x was compelled by the populace to retire accession of Juli.in the ,\postate haviuR left 
 
 from the city after tumults and bloodshed, the orthodox free from direct prrsrcution. 
 
 .Attempting afterwards to obtain a church 
 beyond the Tiber, he was again expelled. 
 
 Two ways have been resorted to of excusing, 
 in some degree, the compliance of Liberius. 
 One, taken by Baronius and Hefele. is that the 
 
 .\th.inasius returned once more in triumph to 
 .Alexandria (a.i>. 36^). In the council, fanioui 
 for its reassjTtion of orthixloxv, thru hrld at 
 .Vlexandria, Liberius seems to have takrn no 
 prominent part. The glorv of rrstorinK 
 
 formulae he subscribed were capable of being ! orthodoxy and peace to the church is mainly 
 understood in an orthodo.x sense, and so sub- due, not to the bp.of Kome, but toAthanasiu*. 
 scribed by him. though otherwise intended by Eusebius of V'crcelli, and Hilary of I'oiclirrv 
 the emperor : that " Liberius renounced the [ Liberius comes next under notice in the 
 formula 6/uooiVioj, not because he had fallen 1 last year of his episcopate, and during the 
 from orthodoxy, but because he had been j reign of Valentinian and Valens. who br. ainr. 
 made to believe that formula to be the cloak | -^t the beginning of 364. einpen-rs of the Wrst 
 of Sabellianism and Fhotinism " (Hef.le). and East respectively. Valentinian Ix-ing a 
 Baronius, however, condemns him so far as ' Catholic, Valens an extreme and prrserutinR 
 to say that his envy of Felix and his longing j Anan. His persecutions extending to thr 
 for the adulation to which he had been used I semi-Anans as well as to the orth'Klox. raiisrd 
 at Rome led to his weakness. The other way i the former tu incline to union with the latlrr 
 is that of Bellarmine. who acknowledges his and to the position that the differenrr brtween 
 external but denies his internal assent to 1 them was one rather of words than of d.^tnne. 
 heresy : a view which saves his infallibility at I They came about this lime to be calle<l Mare 
 
 the expense of his morality. The facts remain 
 that in his letters from Beroea he proclaimed 
 his renunciation of .\thanasius and his entire 
 agreement and communion with the Easterns, 
 
 donians. and now turned to the Western 
 emperor and the Roman bish<ip for support in 
 their distress, sending three bishops as a 
 deputation to Valentinian and 1 iberius. with 
 
 and that at Sirmium he signed a confession 1 instructions to c(.mmuiiirate with the rhurrh 
 drawn up by semi-.A.rians, which was intended I of Rome and to accept the tmn c'.nsu!»- 
 to express' rejection of the orthodoxy for st.antial." \ alentini.m was absent in (.aul, but 
 which he had once contended. Athanasius, l-iberius received them (a.d. 366). At hrst 
 
 Sozomen, Hilary, and Jerome all allude to his i he reje. tod their overtures because of their 
 temporary compliance with heresy in some 1 i'»pli'-at"'" '" heresy. They rep ir<l th.it 
 form as a'known and undoubted fact. Athan- | they had n..w repented, and had ..Ir. ... v 
 asius, however, unlike Hilary, speaks of it with acknowledged the Son to be 111 all thiiu;- UK- 
 noble tolerance. He says,' " But they [1.^. u»to the Father, and that this expr- ■ i^n 
 certain great bishops] not only supported me meant the sanie as consubstani.il. Mr 
 with arguments, but also endured exile ; rcnt.ired a written crmfesMon of their faith. 
 
 among them being Liberius of Rome. For. if , They gave him one, in which thry rrfrrrr.1 t. 
 
 he did not endure the affliction of his exile to the letters brought by them from thr 1 ..t. rn 
 
 bishops to him and the other Westrrn hist ; - 
 anathematized Arius, the Sabellians. 1 itti 
 passians. Marcionists. I'hotinians, M.ir. ■ ■ 
 ists. and the followers of Paul of Sai;. 
 
 the end. nevertheless he remained in banish- 
 ment for two years, knowing the conspiracy 
 against me " (Apol. contra Arian. 89). .Again, 
 " Moreover Liberius. having been banished, 
 after two years gave way, and under fear of 
 threatened death subscribed. But even this 
 proves only their [i.e. the .Arians'] violence, 
 and his hatred of heresy ; for he supported 
 me as long as he had free chf)ice " {Hist. 
 .4rian. ad Monach. 41). Once in possession 
 of his see and surrounded by his ortho<lox 
 supporters. Liberius appears to have resumed 
 
 ists. and the f< 
 condemned the rrerd of .Ariininum as • 
 repugnant to the Nirrne faith ; and -I- : .: I 
 their entire assent to the Nirrne rrrrd. 1 lirv 
 concluded bv saving that if any one had any 
 charge against them, they were willing it 
 shouhl br heard before such orth-nl.-x hi : ; s 
 as I.iberiii* might approve. I ibrriis 
 admitted them to communion, and dis' > • I 
 
 his old position of resoiiite orthodoxy. In 350 them with letters, in the name of hhiivrli ..1. 
 ^ the other Wr<(trrn bish->p». to the buho|.« ol 
 
 the i:ast who had vnt the enibaMV. 
 
 were held the two councils at Ariminum in the 
 West and Seleucia in the East, resulting in 
 
 the almost universal acceptance for a time Libmus dird m the autumn of ,W.(Marren. 
 of the Homoean formula, which Constantius and Faust.), having thus had a notable op|H.r. 
 
 was now persuaded to force upon the church 
 in the hope of reconciling disputants. This j 
 called forth the famous expression of J< 
 
 tunity of atoning by his latrtt offirial art f. 
 his previous vacillation. 
 
 His extant writings arc the letters referred 
 
668 LICENTIUS 
 
 to above. There is also a discourse of his 
 given by St. Ambrose {de Virginibus, lib. iii. 
 c. i) as having been delivered when Marcellina 
 (the sister of Ambrose, to whom he addresses 
 his treatise) made her profession of virginity. 
 The discourse is interesting as containing the 
 earliest known allusion to the keeping of the 
 Christmas festival, while the way in which 
 Ambrose introduces it shews the estimation 
 in which Liberius was held, notwithstanding 
 his temporary fall. [j.b — y.] 
 
 Licentius (1). [Romanianus.] 
 
 Linus (1), accounted the first bp. of Rome 
 after the apostles, and identified by Irenaeus 
 (iii. 2) with the Linus from whom St. Paul sent 
 greetings to Timothy (II. Tim. iv. 21). For 
 the question of the order of succession of the 
 alleged earliest bishops of Rome, and of the 
 positions held by the persons named, see 
 Clemens Romanus. As Linus there is no 
 difference of opinion, since in all the lists he 
 comes first. Eusebius {H. E. iii. 13) assigns 
 12 years to his episcopate ; the Liberian Cata- 
 logue 12 years, 4 months, and 12 days, from 
 A.D. 55 to 67 ; the Felician Catalogue 11 years, 
 3 months, and 12 days. These cannot be 
 accepted as historical, nor can the statements 
 of the last-named catalogue, that he died a 
 martyr,, and was buried on the Vatican beside 
 the body of St. Peter on Sept. 24- [j.b— v.] 
 
 Under the name of Linus are extant two 
 tracts purporting to contain the account of 
 the martyrdom of SS. Peter and of Paul. 
 These were first printed in 1517 by Faber 
 Stapulensis as an appendix to his Cotnm. on 
 Saint Paul's Epistles. These Acts of Linus 
 have so many features common with the 
 Leucian Acts [Leucius] that the question 
 arises whether we have not in Linus either a 
 translation of a portion of the collection des- 
 cribed by Photius or at least a work for which 
 that collection supplied materials. Linus does 
 not profess to give a complete account of the 
 acts of the two apostles. He begins by briefly 
 referring to (as if already known to his readers) 
 the contest of St. Peter and Simon Magus, his 
 imprisonments and other sufferings and la- 
 bours, and then proceeds at once to the closing 
 scenes. The stories of the martyrdom of the 
 two apostles are quite distinct, there being no 
 mention of Paul in the first nor of Peter in the 
 second. The apostles' deaths are immediately 
 brought about, not by Nero himself, but by 
 his prefect Agrippa, a name, we may well 
 believe, transferred by a chronological blunder 
 from the reign of Augustus. This name, as 
 well as some others mentioned by pseudo- 
 Linus, occur also in the orthodox Acts of Peter 
 and Paul published by Tischendorf and by 
 Thilo. The alleged cause of Agrippa's ani- 
 mosity exhibits strongly the Encratite char- 
 acter common to Linus and the Leucian Acts. 
 St. Peter, we are told, by his preaching of 
 chastity had caused a number of matrons to 
 leave the marriage bed of their husbands, who 
 were thus infuriated against the apostle. 
 
 The intention to destroy Peter is revealed 
 by Marcellus and other disciples, who pres- 
 singly entreat him to save himself by with- 
 drawing from Rome. Among those who thus 
 urge him are his jailors, Martinianus and 
 Processus, who had already received baptism 
 from him, and who represent that the plan to 
 
 LINUS 
 
 destroy Peter is entirely the prefect's own and 
 has no sanction from the emperor, who seems 
 to have forgotten all about the apostle. 
 Then follows the well-known story of Domine 
 quo vadis. St. Peter yields to his friends' 
 entreaties, and consents to leave Rome, but at 
 the gate he meets our Lord coming in. Who, on 
 being asked whither He is going, replies, " To 
 Rome, in order to be crucified again." The 
 apostle understands that in his person his Master 
 is to be crucified, and returns to suffer. Linus 
 tells of the arrest of Peter, and lays the scene of 
 the crucifixion at the Naumachia near Nero's 
 obeliskon the mountain. St. Peter requests to 
 be crucified head downwards, desiring out of 
 humility not to sufifer in the same way as his 
 Master. A further reason is given, that in this 
 way his disciples will be better able to hear his 
 words spoken on the cross, and a mystical ex- 
 planationis given of theinvertedposition which 
 bears a very Gnostic character. An alleged 
 saying of our Lord is quoted which strongly 
 resembles a passage from the Gospel according 
 to the Egyptians, cited by JuUus Cassianus 
 (Clem. Al. Strom, iii. 13, p. 553, see also Clem. 
 Rom. ii. 12), " Unless ye make the right as 
 the left, the left as the right, the top as the 
 bottom, and the front as the backward, 
 ye shall not know the kingdom of God." 
 Linus relates how during Peter's crucifixion 
 God, at the request of the apostle, opened the 
 eyes of his sorrowing disciples, and so turned 
 their grief into joy. For they saw the apostle 
 standing upright at the top of his cross, 
 crowned by angels with roses and lilies, and 
 receiving from our Lord a book, out of which 
 he reads to his disciples. This story has a good 
 deal of affinity with that told by Leucius of a 
 vision of our Lord during His crucifixion, seen 
 by St. John on the Mount of Olives. The story 
 of Peter's crucifixion head downwards was in 
 the Acts known to Origen, who refers to it in his 
 Comm. on Gen. (Eus. H. E. iii. i). Linus relates 
 that Marcellus took Peter's body from the cross, 
 bathed it in milk and wine, and embalmed it 
 with precious spices ; but the same night, as he 
 was watching the grave, the apostle appeared 
 to him. and bid him let the dead bury their 
 dead and himself preach the kingdom of God. 
 The second book, which treats of St. Paul, 
 relates the success of his preaching at Rome. 
 The emperor's teacher, his hearer and close 
 friend, when he canno^ converse with him, 
 corresponds with him by letter. The em- 
 peror's attention is called to the matter by a 
 miracle worked by Paul on his favourite 
 cupbearer, Patroclus, of whom a story is told 
 exactly reproducing that told of Eutychus in 
 Acts. Nero orders St. Paul's execution, Paul 
 turns his face to the east, offers a prayer in 
 Hebrew, blesses the brethren, binds his eyes 
 witha veillent bya Christian matron, Plautilla, 
 and presents his neck to the executioner. From 
 his trunk there flows a stream of milk — a cir- 
 cumstance referred to by Ambrose and by 
 Macarius in a work not later than c. 400. A 
 dazzling light makes the soldiers unable to find 
 the veil; returning to the gate they find that 
 Plautilla has already received it back from Paul, 
 who has visited her accompanied by a band of 
 white-robed angels. The same evening, the 
 doors being shut, Paul appears to the emperor, 
 foretells his impending doom, and terrifies him 
 
LUCANUS, or LOCIANUS 
 
 intoiirdtTing tlu- role.vse of tlu- pris.uu-rs lie h;ul 
 apprelu'iidi'd. The story ends witli an arcoiml 
 of the baptism of the three soldiers who had 
 had charge of St. Paul, and been onverted bv 
 him. After his death he directs them to ro tii 
 his grave, where they fuul SS. l.uke anil Titus 
 praving and receive baptism at their hands. 
 
 Lipsius infers, from tlie coincidences of the 
 tolerably numerous N.T. citations in Linus 
 with the \'ulg., that our present Latin Linus 
 must be later than Jerome ; but he does not 
 seem to have appreciated the conservative 
 character of Jerome's revision or to have con- 
 sulted the older versions. We have found no 
 coincidence with the Vulg. which is not equally 
 a coincidence with an older version ; and in 
 one case, "relinque mortuos sepelire mortuos 
 suos," the text agrees with the quotations of 
 Ambrose, Jerome's translation being " di- 
 mitte." We conjecture the compiler to have 
 been a Manichean, but he is quite orthodox 
 in his views as to the work of creation, the 
 point on which Gnostic speculation was most 
 apt to go astray. [c;.s.] 
 
 Lucanus (l). or Luclanus, Marcionite 
 (Lucanu^. Pseudo-Tert. i8 ; Philast. 46, and 
 so probably their source, the Syntagma of 
 Hippolytus ; Tertull. de Kesur. Cam. 2 ; 
 AovKavoi, Orig. cont. Cels. ii. 27 ; on the 
 other hand, AovKiavos Hippol. Re/, vii. 37 ; 
 Epiph. Haer. 43). The former is the better 
 attested form, and more likely to have been 
 altered into the other. The Lucianites are 
 reckoned as a sect distinct from the Marcion- 
 ites, as well by Origen as by Hippolytus and 
 his followers ; but lack of authentic report of 
 any important difference in doctrine leads us 
 to believe that Lucanus did not separate from 
 Marcion, but that after the latter's death 
 Lucanus was a Marcionite teacher (probably 
 at Rome), whose celebrity caused his followers 
 to be known by his name rather than by that 
 of the original founder of the sect. They may 
 have been so called in contradistinction to the 
 Marcionites of the school of Apelles, who 
 approached more nearly to the orthodox. 
 Origen's language (oi>aO implies that he had 
 no very intimate knowledge of the teaching of 
 Lucanus ; he will not speak positively as to 
 whether Lucanus tampered with the (;ospels. 
 Epiphanius owns that, the sect being extinct 
 in his time, he had difficulty in obtaining 
 accurate information about it. Tertullian 
 alone (u.s.) seems to have direct knowledge 
 of the teaching of Lucanus. He accuses him 
 of going beyond other heretics who merely 
 denied the resurrection of the body, and of 
 maintaining that not even the soul would rise, 
 but some other thing, neither soul nor body. 
 Neander (Ch. Hist. ii. 189) interprets this to 
 mean that Lucanus held that the y/i'X'J would 
 perish and the irutOfia alone be immortal ; and 
 possibly this may be so, though Tertullian's 
 language would lead us to attribute to Lucanus 
 a theory more peculiar to himself than this 
 would be. Some commentators, taking a jest 
 of Tertullian's too literally, have, without good 
 reason, ascribed to Lucanus a doctrine of 
 transmigration of souls of men into bodies of 
 brutes. Thev have, however, the authority 
 of Epiphanius (Haer. 42, p. 330) tor regarding 
 this doctrine as one likely to be held by a 
 Marcionite. Lucanus has been conjectured to 
 
 LUCIANUS 
 
 (109 
 
 be th.- author of the .ip.x-rvphal Acts wliirh 
 bore the name of LKt'ciis. and Lardiirr trral* 
 the idcntitiration as n-rtain. l:vrn, however, 
 if it were certain that the .\cts of Lrucius were 
 M.irciouite. not Manichean, and as early an the 
 2ud cent., there is no ground f..r this idrntih- 
 cation t)Ut the similarity of name. (<•••«.) 
 
 LU0lanUS(8), a famous satirist, the wittiesl. 
 except .-Vristophanes, of all the extant writer* 
 of antiquity. Born (probably r. i2o)atSanuj- 
 sata on the Euphrates, the son of poor parent*, 
 he gradually betook himself to the compoMUK 
 and reciting of rhetorical exercises, which he 
 did with continually increasing success as he 
 journeyed westwards, visiting Cireece, Italy, 
 and (iaul, where hissuccess reached the highe^t 
 pitch. .-Vs in course of time his rhetorical vein 
 exhausted itself, he betook himself, when about 
 40 years old, to that style of writing— tlialo^ue 
 — on which his permanent fame has rested. 
 .\bout the same time he returned eastwards 
 through .Athens, and was at Olympia in a.o. 
 165, when he saw the extraordinary self- 
 immolation by lire of the sophist I'eregrinus. 
 A little later he visited Paphlagonia, where 
 
 ' he vehemently attacked, and made a bitter 
 enemy of, the impostor Alexander of Abono- 
 teichos. Of the extraordinary success of this 
 man in deluding the weak and credulous minds 
 of the rude people of those parts, and even 
 the cultivated senators of Rome, Lucian has 
 left us an animated account in the lalse 
 Prophet (\l/(\'56uavTi^). Lucian once had an 
 interview with him. and stooping down, in- 
 stead of kissing his hand, as was the custom, 
 bit it severely. Luckily he had a guard of 
 two soldiers with him, sent by his friend the 
 governor of Cai)pad<)cia (a proof of Lucian's 
 importance at this time), or he would have 
 fared badlv at the hands of the attendants of 
 Alexander.' The latter pretended reconcilia- 
 tion, and subsequently lent Lucian a ship to 
 return home in, but gave secret instructions 
 to the crew to throw him overboard (»n the 
 
 : voyage. The master of the ship, however, 
 repented, and Lucian was landed at .Aegialos, 
 and thence conveyed to Amastris in a ship 
 belonging to the ambassadors of king Eupator. 
 He endeavoured to get .Alexander punished 
 for this piece of treachery, but the hitter's in- 
 fluence was too strong. Of his later years we 
 know but little; he was, however, appointed 
 by the emperor (probablv Commodus) to a post 
 ()f honour and emolument in Egypt. 
 
 We do not know the cause, manner, or time 
 of his death. His writings, with all their 
 brilliancy, do not convey the impression of a 
 
 \ warm-hearted man ; the I'eregrinus is especi- 
 ally noticeable for the hard unconcern with 
 which he describes both the sclf-sarrifxing 
 love of the Christians and the tragic self- 
 sought death of the sophist. For cool com- 
 mon sense and determmation to see every- 
 thing in its naked reality, apart from the dis- 
 turbing influences of hoi>e, fear, enthusiasm, 
 or superstition, he has never in any age been 
 surpassed. His most ess<-ntial characteristic 
 could not be better described than in his own 
 words, in the dia|r>i;uc entitled 'A\i»i'«, of the 
 Fisherman : " I am a hater of liiij)o»ture, 
 jugglery, lies, and ostentation, and m short 
 of all that rascally sort of men ; and there 
 are very many of them " (§ ao). Shortly 
 
670 
 
 LUCIANUS 
 
 after he says very candidly that there was 
 some danger of his losing his power of esteem 
 and love, for want of opportunities of ex- 
 ercising it ; whereas opportunities in the con- 
 trary direction were ample and frequent. 
 
 For a complete analysis of his works see D. 
 of G and R. Biogr., s.v. Here it must suffice to 
 indicate his relations to the religious influence 
 of his time, and, above all, to Christianity. 
 
 The progress of experience, the leisure of ; 
 research, had in his time shattered all real ! 
 belief in the gods of ancient Greece and Rome 
 in the minds of cultured men. But the vast 
 crowd of deities, which the conflux of so many 
 nations under the protecting shadow of Rome 
 had gathered together, received, collectively 
 and separately, a certain respect from the 
 most incredulous. To the statesman, the 
 gods of Rome were the highest symbol of 
 the power of the imperial city ; as such, he 
 required for them external homage, to refuse 
 which might be construed as rebellion against 
 the state. Philosophers feared lest, if the 
 particular acts of special deities were too 
 rudely criticized, the reverence due to the 
 gods in their remote and abstract sanctity 
 might decay. Hence both classes favoured 
 the sway of religious beliefs to which they had 
 themselves ceased to adhere. The multitude 
 was tossed about from religion to religion, 
 from ceremony to ceremony, from rite to rite, 
 in the vain hope that among so many super- 
 natural powers some might lead men' rightly 
 to safety and happiness. The urgent need 
 felt for guidance and the actual deficiency of 
 sound guidance formed a combination favour- 
 able to the designs of greedy impostors. The 
 Stoic philosophers, it is true, had formed a 
 moral system capable of impressing on in- 
 tellectual minds a remarkable self-restraint 
 and large elements of virtue. But in hopeful- 
 ness, the living sap which gives virtue its 
 vitality, the Stoic was grievously deficient ; [ 
 and hence his phil.isophy was powerless with [ 
 the multitude, and apt to degenerate into a | 
 hypocritical semblance even with its learned i 
 professors. There probably was never a time i 
 when so great a variety of hypocrisies and . 
 false beliefs prevailed among men. Such a ; 
 world Lucian, witha cold, penetrating intellect, | 
 described with an audacity seld^im paralleled. ' 
 The ordinary method of his satire on the 
 mythology of Greece and Rome consists in | 
 simply exhibiting the current legends as he 
 finds them, stripped of the halo of awe and | 
 splendour with which they had habitually been j 
 surrounded, to the amused and critical reader. 
 Sometimes his attack is more direct — as in the 
 Zf I s Tpa7y56s, J upiter the Tragedian, where 
 the plain insinuation is that the general pro- 
 fession of belief in the gods was simply oc- 
 casioned by the odium and alarm which a con- 
 trary assertion would excite. Not so sweeping 
 in extent, but still more unreserved in exposing 
 the dtiings of the heathen deities, is the treatise 
 nepl 6v(Tiu}v, on Sacrifices. The Zei'S Tpa7<jj5os 
 shews Lucian's disbelief in any divine govern- 
 ance of the world ; the treatise Trepi wefdovs, j 
 on Mourning, his disbelief in immortality. I 
 
 But what was Lucian's attitude towards 
 Christianity, which in his age was beginning 
 to be known as no inconsiderable power in all : 
 parts of the Roman world ? Two dialogues I 
 
 LUCIANUS 
 
 have to be considered in answering this 
 question — 'AX^i-apdpos fj '^evSdfj.aPTH, Alex- 
 ander, or the False Prophet ; and wepi t^s 
 Uepeypivov TfXtvnjs, Concerning the death 
 of Peregrinus ; for the Philopatris may be 
 dismissed at once as pretty certainly no 
 genuine work of its reputed author. 
 
 The most sympathetic allusion to the 
 Christians by the genuine Lucian is in the 
 " Alexander," where the Christians are joined 
 with the Epicureans (whom Lucian much 
 admired) as persistent and indomitable op- 
 ponents of that fine specimen of rascality. A 
 much fuller and more interesting account of 
 the Christians is contained in the other work 
 named. This (together with the Philopatris) 
 was placed on the Index Expurgatorius, and 
 hence does not appear in the first and second 
 Aldine editions of Lucian (Venice, 1503 and 
 1522). Yet all that it says about the early 
 Christians is very highly to their credit, ex- 
 cept in attributing to them a too great eurjdiia, 
 a simplicity and guilelessness which rendered 
 them liable to be deceived by worthless pre- 
 tenders to sanctity. The passage contains 
 one or two statements — that about the new 
 Socrates, and the eating forbidden food — 
 which it is difficult to think strictly accurate. 
 Peregrinus Proteus was a cynic philoS(5pher 
 who flourished in the reign of the Antonines, 
 and who, after a life of singularly perverted 
 ambition, burnt himself publicly at the 
 Olympian games, a.d. 165. We quote the 
 passage from Francklin's translation : 
 
 " About this time it was that he learned 
 the wonderful wisdom of the Christians, being 
 intimately acquainted with many of their 
 priests and scribes. In a very short time he 
 convinced them that they were all boys to 
 him ; became their prophet, their leader, 
 grand president, and, in short, all in all to 
 them. He explained and interpreted several 
 of their books, and wrote some himself, inso- 
 much that they looked upon him as their 
 legislator and high priest, nay, almost wor- 
 shipped him as a god. Their leader, whom 
 they yet adore, was crucified in Palestine for 
 introducing this new sect. Proteus was on 
 this account cast into prison, and this very 
 circumstance was the foundation of all the 
 consequence and reputation which he after- 
 wards gained, and of that glory for which he 
 had always been so ambitious ; for when he 
 was in bonds the Christians, considering it as 
 a calamity affecting the common cause, did 
 everything in their power to release him, which 
 when they found impracticable, they paid him 
 all possible deference and respect; old women, 
 widows, and orphans were continually crowd- 
 ing to him ; some of the most principal of them 
 even slept with him in the prison, having 
 bribed the keepers for that purpose ; there 
 were costly suppers brought in to them ; they 
 read their sacred books together, and the 
 noble Peregrinus (for so he was then called) 
 was dignified by them with the title of the 
 New Socrates. Several of the Christian de- 
 puties from the cities of Asia came to assist, 
 to plead for, and comfort him. It is incredible 
 with what alacrity these people support and 
 defend the public cause— they spare nothing, 
 in short, to promote it. Peregrinus being 
 made a prisoner on their account, they col- 
 
 I 
 
LUCIANUS 
 
 lected inoiipy tor liiin, and lie inadf a very 
 pretty revenue of it. These po«.r men, it 
 seems, had persuaded themselves tliat they 
 should be immortal, and live for ever. They 
 despised death, therefore, and offered up their 
 lives a voluntary sacrifice, being taujjht by 
 their lawgiver that they were all brethren, anil 
 that, quitting our Grecian gods, they must 
 worship their own sophist, who was crucified, 
 and live in obedience to his laws. In com- 
 pliance with them they lo«iked with contempt 
 on all worldly treasures, and held everything 
 in common — a maxim which they had adopted 
 without any reason or foundation. If any 
 cunning impostor, therefore, who knew how 
 to manage matters came amongst them, he 
 soon grew rich by imposing on the credulity of 
 these weak and foolish men. Peregrinus, 
 however, was set at liberty by the governor ol 
 Syria, a man of learnini; and a lover of phiU>- 
 sophy, who withal well knew the folly of the 
 man, and that he would willingly have suffered 
 death for the sake of that glory and reputation 
 which he would have acquired by it. Think- 
 ing him, however, not worthy of so honourable 
 an exit, he let him go. . . . Once more, how- 
 ever, he was obliged to fiy his country. The 
 Christians were again his resource, and, having 
 entered into their service, he wanted for 
 nothing. Thus he subsisted for some time ; 
 but at length, having done something con- 
 trary to their laws (I believe it was eating 
 food forbidden amongst them), he was reduced 
 to want, and forced to retract his donation to 
 the city, and to ask for his estate again, and 
 issued a process in the name of the emperor 
 to recover it ; but the city sent messages to 
 him commanding him to remain where he was, 
 and be satisfied." 
 
 It would seem from the above that com- 
 munity of goods, in some degree or other, was 
 practised among the early Christians to a 
 later date than is generally supposed. Lucian 
 confirms the general opinion as to the con- 
 tinual liability to persecution of the Christians 
 f)f those ages. Moreover, though cjusidering 
 them weak and deluded p>' ^ple, he charges them 
 with no imposture or falsehood, though he was 
 very prone to bring such charges. In fact, did 
 we know nothing of the early Christians but 
 whathehererecords.hisaccouut would raiseour 
 interest in them in a very high degree; even 
 their too great simplicity is not an unlovable 
 trait. 
 
 There is an excellent trans, of I.ucian by 
 Wieland into German (Leipz. 1788- 1789, 6 v.ils. 
 8vo), and one of great merit into Hng. by 
 Dr. Francklin in 2 vols. 4to (I.ond. 1780) and 
 4 vols. 8vo (Lond. 1781). For other edd. and 
 trans, see D. of G. and R. liiogr. [j.k.m.] 
 
 Luclanus (12), priest of Autioch, martyr; 
 born at Samosata c. 240, educated at Edessa 
 under a certain Macarius, a learned expounder 
 of Holv Scripture (Suidas, s.v.). l.ucianus 
 went to Antioch, which held a high rank 
 among the schools of the East and was then, 
 owing to the controversies raised by Haulus 
 of Samosata, the great centre of theological 
 interest. There he was probably instructed 
 by Malchion, who seems to have been the true 
 founder of the celebrated Antiochenc school 
 of divines, of whom I.ucian, Chrysostom, 
 Diodorus, Theodoret, and Theodore of Moi>- 
 
 LUCIANUS 
 
 n7i 
 
 sueslia were aflrrwaid* some of |hr ini.st 
 distinguished. During the ciMilroviTMcs ulirr 
 
 I the dej>osition of I'aulus, I.ucian i>o«<in« l>> 
 
 I have fallen under suspicion. S«inir liavr 
 thought that he clu-rishtHl MMitiments akni !<• 
 those of I'aulus himsril, which wire o| .1 S.iImI- 
 lian character, while others tlunk th.it ni 
 opjiosing I'aulus he us«-<l exprovjoiis akin to 
 Ananism (cf. Newman's Anam, \>. 7. ami 
 c. i. $ s). This latter view is supporiitl by 
 the creed presented at the council of .\ntio< h, 
 A.D. 341, and purporting to be drawn up by 
 St. Lucian. which is extremely aiiti-Sabrlliaii. 
 He was separated fr-mi the communion i.f the 
 three immediate successors of I'aulus -I )oin- 
 nus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus. During the epis- 
 copate of Cyrillus he was restored, and became 
 
 I with Dorotheus the head of the theological 
 school, giving to it the tone of literal, as op- 
 posed to allegorical, exposititm of Scripture 
 which it retained till the time of C'hrvsostom 
 and Theodore of Mopsuestia. I.ucian pro- 
 duceil, possibly with the help of Dorotheus, a 
 revised version of the l.X.X, which was used, 
 as Jerome tells us, in the churches of Coitstaii- 
 tinoi)le, Asia Minor, and Antioch, and met 
 with such universal acceptance that it received 
 the name of the Vulgate (Vulgata, Ko<f^), 
 while copies of the LXX in general passes! 
 
 j under the title of Lucianea (Westcott, Hist, of 
 Canon, p. 360). He also wrote some doctrinal 
 treatises, and a commentary on Job. See 
 Routh, Rtliq. Sacr. v. 3-17. 
 
 i In the school of Lucian the leaders and sup- 
 
 , porters of the Arian heresy were traine<l. 
 
 , Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris 
 of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Eudoxius, 
 Theognis of Nicaea, and Asterius appealed to 
 
 1 him as their authority (but see Akits) and 
 adopted from him the party designation of 
 Collucianists (De Broglie, L'i.glise et V Empire, 
 i. 375). Lucian bee ame afterwards iiKJre con- 
 servative, and during Diocletian's persecuti.in 
 he encouraged the martvrs to suffer courage- 
 ously, but escaped himself till Theotecnus was 
 appointed governor of .-Vntiixh, when he was 
 betrayed by the Sabellian partv, seized and 
 forwarded to Nicomedia to the emperor Maxi- 
 minus, where, after delivering a speech in de- 
 fence of the faith, he was starved fi.r many 
 days, tempted with meats offered to idols, and 
 
 ! finally put to death in prison, Jan. 7, 3«i "f 
 312. His b<xly was buried at Drepana in 
 
 I Bithynia, where his relics were visited bv Con- 
 
 I stantine, who freed the city from taxes anti 
 
 ' changed its name to Helenopolis. \ fragment 
 of the apology <lelivered by the martvr ha* 
 been preserved by Kufinus and will be fouiul 
 in Routh, I.e. Dr. Westcott, I.e.. accepts it as 
 genuine. 
 
 As to whether Lucian the martyr and Bibli- 
 cal critic was the same person as I.ucian the 
 
 1 excommunicate<l heretic. Ceillier. Fleury. and 
 De Broglie take one side. Dr. Newman the 
 other. The former contend that neither 
 Eusebius. Jerome, nor (.hrys-stoin inenliotn 
 his lapse in early life. But their notices arc 
 very brief, none of them arc professed bio- 
 graphers, and we cannot depend much upon 
 mere negative evitlencc. On the other hand 
 we have the positive statements of Alexan- 
 der, bp. of Alexandria (in The<Kl. //. E. i- \, 
 and I'hilostorg. H. E. ii. 14 and 15 ; sec aUo 
 
672 
 
 LUCIPERUS I. 
 
 Epiphan. Ancorat. c. 33), which, together 
 with the fact that the Arian party at Antioch 
 sheltered themselves behind a creed said to 
 have been " written in the hand of Lucian 
 himself, who suffered martyrdom at Nico- 
 media " (Soz. H. E. iii. 5), outweigh the im- 
 probability involved in the silence of the others. 
 He may easily have been 30 years in church 
 communion when he died, and with the 4th- 
 cent. Christians a martyrdom like his would 
 more than atone for his early fall. 
 
 The creed of Lucian is in Hefele, Hist, of 
 Councils, ii. 77, Clark's ed. ; cf. Soz. H. E. 
 iii. 5, vi. 12. Bp. Bull maintains its authenti- 
 city and orthodoxy (Def. of Nic. Creed, lib. iv. 
 c. xiii. vi. § 5). Wright's Syriac. Mart. Eus. 
 viii. 13, ix. 6 ; Chrysost. Horn, in Lucian, in 
 Migne, Patr. Gk. t. 1. p. 520 ; Gieseler, H. E. 
 i. 248 ; Neander, H. E. ii. 498. Neander 
 gives the numerous references to Lucian in 
 St. Jerome's writings. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Luciferus I., bp. of Calaris (Cagliari) in 
 Sardinia, mentioned first in a letter of pope 
 Liberius to Eusebius of Vercelli. Moved by 
 great anxiety about the efforts then being 
 made (a.d. 354) to procure a condemnation of 
 Athanasius by the Western bishops, Lucifer 
 had come from Sardinia to Rome, and Liberius 
 accepted his offer to go as an envoy to Con- 
 stantius to ask him to summon a council. 
 The council met at Milan in 334. The Arian 
 party, supported by the emperor, was strong 
 in it, and a proposal to condemn Athanasius 
 was immediately brought forward, but re- 
 sisted by Lucifer with such vehemence that 
 the first day's meeting broke up in confusion 
 and his opponents prevailed on the emperor 
 to confine him in the palace. On the fourth 
 day he was released. The subsequent dis- 
 cussions of the council were held in the palace 
 and Constantius himself apparently took part 
 in them. The proceedings were irregular and 
 disorderly, and after some personal alterca- 
 tions the emperor sent Lucifer into exile. 
 His banishment lasted from 355 to 361, and 
 was mostly spent at Eleutheropohs in Pales- 
 tine, subject to the persecutions of the Arian 
 bp. Eutychius. During his banishment, and 
 probably at Eleutheropolis, his books or 
 pamphlets on the controversy were written. 
 Lucifer addresses Constantius in them with 
 a remarkable vigour of denunciation. He 
 evidently courted persecution, and even mar- 
 tyrdom. He compares the emperor to the 
 worst kings that ever reigned, and regards him 
 as more impious than Judas Iscariot. He 
 sent his vehement invective by a special 
 messenger to Constantius himself. Aston- 
 ished at this audacity, the emperor ordered 
 Florentius, an officer of his court, to send the 
 book back to Lucifer to ask if it were really 
 his. Ihe intrepid bishop replied that it was 
 and sent it back again. Constantius must be 
 allowed to have shewn magnanimity in leaving 
 these violent effusions unpunished. There 
 may, however, have been some additional hard- 
 ship in the removal of Lucifer from Palestine 
 to the Thebaid, where he remained till the 
 death of Constantius in 361. Hearing of his 
 arrival in Egypt, Athanasius sent a letter from 
 Alexandria, full of praise and congratulations, 
 asking him to let him see a copy of his work. 
 After receiving it, Athanasius thanked him in a 
 
 LUCIUS I. 
 
 still more laudatory letter, and calls him the 
 Elias of the age. 
 
 Very soon after his accession, a.d. 361, 
 Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return 
 to their sees. Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercelli 
 were both in the Thebaid, and Eusebius pressed 
 his friend to come with him to Alexandria, 
 where a council was to be held under the 
 presidency of Athanasius, to attempt to heal 
 a schism at Antioch. Lucifer preferred to go 
 straight to Antioch, sending two deacons to 
 act for him at the council. Taking a hasty 
 part in the affairs of the much-divided church 
 at Antioch, where the Catholic party was 
 divided into two sections, the followers of 
 Meletius and the followers of Eustathius, 
 Lucifer ordained Paulinus, the leader of the 
 latter section, as bp. of the church. When 
 Eusebius arrived at Antioch, bringing the 
 synodal letter of the council and prepared to 
 settle matters so as to give a triumph to 
 neither party, he was distressed to find himself 
 thus anticipated by the action of Lucifer. 
 Unwilling to come into open collision with his 
 friend, he retired immediately ; Lucifer 
 stayed, and declared that he would not hold 
 communion with Eusebius or any who adopted 
 the moderate policyof the Alexandriancouncil, 
 which had determined that those bishops who 
 had merely consented to Arianism under pres- 
 sure should remain undisturbed. 
 
 After remaining some time at Antioch, 
 Lucifer returned to Sardinia, and continued, 
 it would seem, to occupy his see. Jerome 
 (Chron.) states that he died in 371. To what 
 extent he was an actual schismatic remains 
 obscure. St. Ambrose remarks that " he had 
 separated himself from our communion " (de 
 Excessu Satyri, 1127, 47) ; and St. Augustine, 
 " that he fell into the darkness of schism, 
 having lost the light of charity" {Ep. 185, note 
 47). But there is no mention of any separa- 
 tion except Lucifer's own repulsion of so many 
 ecclesiastics ; and Jerome, in his dialogue 
 against the Luciferians (§ 20), calls him beatus 
 and bonus pastor. (See a quotation from the 
 Mim. de Trevoux in Ceillier, vol. iv. p. 247.) 
 
 The substance of Lucifer's controversial 
 pamphlets consists of appeals to Holy Scrip- 
 ture, and they contain a very large number 
 of quotations from both Testaments. His 
 writings are in Migne's Patr. Lat. t. xiii. His 
 followers, if they ever formed a distinct 
 organization, disappeared in a few years. 
 Jerome's dialogue adv. Luciferianos purports 
 to be the report of a discussion between an 
 orthodox Christian and a Luciferian. The 
 dialogue was written c. 378, seven years after 
 the death of Lucifer. Five or six years later 
 an appeal was made to the emperor by the 
 Luciferian presbyters. [j.ll.d.] 
 
 Lucius (1) L, bp. of Rome, after Cornelius, 
 probably from June 25, 253, to Mar. 5, 254, or 
 thereabouts. These dates are arrived at by 
 Lipsius (Chronol. der rom. Bischofe) after 
 elaborate examination of conflicting data. 
 
 The Decian persecution having been re- 
 newed by Gallus, and Cornelius having died 
 in banishment at Centumcellae, Lucius, 
 elected in his place at Rome, was himself 
 almost immediately banished. His banish- 
 ment was of very short duration ; for Cyprian, 
 in his one extant letter addressed to him, while 
 
 i 
 
LUCIUS 
 
 alluding to his election as recent, conj;ralul.ites 
 him also on Ins icturii (/•/'. i.i). A large 
 number of Roman exiles lor the faith appear 
 from this letter to have returned to Rome with 
 Lucius. In a letter to his successor Stephen 
 {Ep. 68), Cyprian calls both Lucius and Corne- 
 lius " blessed martyrs," but probably uses 
 the word to include confessors. For, though 
 the Felician and later editions of the Ltbfr 
 Foiitificaiis say that Lucius was beheaded for 
 the faith, the earlier Libcrian Catalogue men- 
 tions his death only ; and it is in the l-iberian 
 Depositio Eptscoporum, not Martyriim, that 
 his name is found. With regard to the then 
 burning question of the reception of the lapst, 
 on which the schism of Novatian had begun 
 under his predecessor Cornelius, he continued 
 the lenient view which Cornelius, in accord 
 with St. Cyprian of Carthage, had maintained 
 (Cypr. Ep. 68). The Roman Martyrology, the 
 Felician, and other editions of the' Liber Pon- 
 ti/icalts, rightly assign the cemetery of Callistus 
 as his place of burial, and De Rossi has dis- 
 covered, in the Papal crypt, fragments of a 
 slab bearing the inscription AOYKIC. Six 
 decreta, addressed to the churches of Gaul and 
 Spain, are assigned to Lucius by the Pseudo- 
 Isidore, and three others by Gratian — all 
 undoubtedly spurious. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Lucius (11), the third Arian intruded into 
 the see of Alexandria, an .-Uexandrian by birth, 
 ordained presbyter by George. After the 
 murder of that prelate Lucius seems to have 
 been regarded as head of the Arians of .\lex- 
 andria ; but Socrates's statement (iii. 4), that 
 he was at that time ordained bishop, is cor- 
 rected by Sozomen (vi. 5) and earlier author- 
 ities. At the accession of Jovian, according 
 to the Chronicon Acephalum, a Matfeian frag- 
 ment, four leading Arian bishops put him 
 forward to address the new emperor at 
 .\ntioch, hoping to divert Jovian's favour 
 from Athanasius. Records of these inter- 
 views are annexed to .-Vthanasius's epistle to 
 Jovian, and appear to have been read by 
 Sozomen, who summarizes the complaints 
 urged against the great hero of orthodoxy. 
 The records are vivid and graphic. Lucius, 
 Bernicianus, and other Arians presented 
 themselves to Jovian at one of the city gates 
 when he was riding into the country. He 
 asked their business. They said they were 
 "Christians from .\lexandria," and wanted a 
 bishop. He answered, " 1 have ordered your 
 former bishop, .\thanasius, to be put in pos- 
 session." They rejoined that .\thanasius had ] 
 for years been under accusation and sentence 
 of banishment. A soldier interrupted them I 
 by telling the emperor that they were tlie j 
 "refuse" of "that unhallowed George" 
 
 LUCIUS 
 
 6M 
 
 who reported that tu do m. publicly wouKI 
 imperii his life, whereupon Tatianii> and 
 Irajanus. with a lar^e force, wnit t.i the 
 house, and brought him out at i ji.iii. on 
 Sept. 2.J. On Sept. i5 hr was conducted out 
 of Fgypt (Chton. I'raftium and Acrphalum). 
 .Athanasius died on May 2, 373, bciiij: suc- 
 ceeded by Peter ; but t'lic prefect PalUduu 
 attacked the churcli, ami Peter was either 
 imprisoned or went into liiding. Iluzolus llic 
 old .\riaii bp. of .Antioch, easily obtained from 
 Valcns an order to install I.iirius. .Accord- 
 ingly Lucius appeared in .Ah-xandria, escortetl, 
 as Peter said in his encyclical letter ( Throil. 
 iv. 25), not by monks and clergy and laH\. 
 but by Euziuus, and the imperial treasurer 
 Magnus, at the head of a large body of sol- 
 diers ; while the pagan populace intimated 
 their friendly feeling towards the .Arian bishop 
 by hailing him as oin- who did not worship the 
 Son of (iod and who must have Ihth sent to 
 Alexandria by the favour of .Serapis. I.uciu« 
 surrounded himself with pagan guards, and 
 caused some of the orthixlox to be beaten, 
 others to be imprisoned, exiled, or pill.iged, for 
 refusing his communion, these seventies being 
 actually carried out by Ma^;nus and Palladius 
 as representing the sicul.ir power, (iregory of 
 Nazianzus calls him a second Arius, and lays 
 to his charge the sacrileges and bari)arities of 
 the new Arian persecution {Oral. xxv. 12, 13). 
 He took an active part in the attack on the 
 monks of Egypt ; finding them immovably 
 attached to the Nicene faith, he advised that 
 their chief " abbats," the two Macarii, should 
 be banished to a little pagan island ; but when 
 the holy men converted its inhabitants, the 
 Alexandrian people made a vehement demon- 
 stration against Lucius, and he sent the exiles 
 back to their cells (Neale, //is/. Alex. i. 203). 
 When the .Arian supremacy came to an end 
 at the death of Valcns, in 378, Lucius was 
 finally ejected, and repaired to Constantinople, 
 but the Arians of Alexandria still regarded 
 him as their bishop (Socr. v. 3). He lived for 
 a time at Constantinople, and contributed to 
 the Arian force which gave such trouble to 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, during his residence in 
 the capital as bishop of the few Catholics, 
 from the beginning of 379. In Nov. 380 the 
 .Arian bp. Ueinophilus was expelled, and 
 Lucius went with him. Theodoret (iv. 31) 
 confounds Lucius with another .Arian prelate 
 of that name, also a persecutor, who usurped 
 the see of Samosata (Tillem. vi. 5<>3). {w.b.) 
 
 Lucius (16) {l.lcttui:. I.le\, I IfuterStaur, 
 Llfurui;). a mytiiical ch.uarter represented as 
 the first ( hristi in king in IJrilaiii. Hy William 
 of .Malmesburv (Ant. Gtasl. 11.). and more espe- 
 cially bv Geolfrey of .Monmouth (WfU. //is/, iv. 
 Jovian" spurred his'horse and'rode away. I v.), besides later writers, Lucius is assigned a 
 Lucius does not reappear until 367, when, 1 most important place in the C hristianuing of 
 having been consecrated, says Tillemont (vi. | Britain. 
 
 582), "either at Antioch, or at some other place! L As represented by (.eoflrcy of Mon- 
 out of Egypt," he attempted to possess him- , mouth, whose narrative has made the dccjKTit 
 self of the bishopric, and entered Alexandria ; impression on popular history. Lucius was 
 by night on Sept. 23, and "remained in a 1 descended from Urutus, the founder and fir»l 
 small house," next the precinct of the cathe- , king of Britain, and succeeded hi» father 
 dral. In the morning he went to the house Coillus, son of Meirig or Marius. like hit 
 where his mother still lived; his presence : father, besought and secured the (riendihip 
 excited general indignation, and the people : of the Romans. 1 he fanic of the (.hristian 
 beset the house. The prefect Latianus and I miracles inspired him with such love for th? 
 the dux Trajanus sent officers to expel him, true faith that he petitioned pope Lieut heru» 
 
 43 
 
674 
 
 LUCIUS 
 
 for teachers, and on the arrival of the two 
 most holy doctors, Faganus and Duvanus, re- 
 ceived baptism along with multitudes from all 
 countries. When the missionaries had almost 
 extinguished paganism in the island, they dedi- 
 cated the heathen temples to the service of 
 God, and filled them with congregations of 
 Christians ; they fully organized the church, 
 making the flamens into bishops, and the arch- 
 fiamens into archbishops, and constituting 3 
 metropolitans with 28 suffragan bishops. 
 Lucius largely endowed the church, and, re- 
 joicing in the progress of the gospel, died at 
 Gloucester (Malmesbury says at Glastonbury) 
 A.D. 156, without leaving any issue (Baron. 
 Ann. A.D. 183 ; Cressy, Church Hist. Brit, iii.iv. 
 at great length and diffuseness ; Lib. Landav. 
 by Rees, 26, 65, 306, 309, but much shorter). 
 
 II. Parallel to the preceding, but without 
 such minute details, is the legend in the Welsh 
 Triads and genealogies, which are of very 
 uncertain date and authority. Lleirwg, 
 Lleurwg, or Lies, also named or surnamed 
 Lleufer-Mawr ("the great luminary," as 
 all the names express the idea of brightness, 
 corresponding to the Latin Lucius), son of Coel 
 ap Cyllin ap Caradog or Caractacus ap Bran, 
 was a Welsh chieftain of Gwent and Mor- 
 ganwg in the S. of Wales. Two of the Triads 
 (Myv. Arch. ii. 63, 68) state that he founded 
 the church of Llandaff, which was the first in 
 Britain, and endowed it with lands and 
 privileges, giving the same also to all those 
 persons who first embraced the gospel. The 
 Welsh Triads would place him about the mid- 
 dle of the 2nd cent. (Rees, Welsh Saints, c. 4 ; 
 Williams, Eniin. Welsh. 276 ; Lib. Landav. 
 by Rees, 309 n. ; Lady Ch. Guest, Mabinogion, 
 ii. 130 ; Stephens, Lit. Cymr. 69.) 
 
 III. In tracing the rise and growth of the 
 legend there is comparatively little difficulty. 
 Gildas makes no allusion to it. The earliest 
 English author to notice it is Bede (Chron. 
 A.D. 180) : " Lucius Britanniae rex, missa ad 
 Eleutherium Romae episcopum epistola, ut 
 Christianus efficiatur, impetrat " ; and again 
 H. E. i. c. 4- 
 
 The source from which Bede received the 
 name of Lucius, and his connexion with 
 Eleutherus, is shewn by Haddan and Stubbs 
 [Comic, etc. i. 25) to have been a later inter- 
 polated form of the Catalogus Pontificum Roma- 
 noruin {ap. Boll. Acta SS. i Apr. i. p. xxiii. 
 Catalogi Veteres A ntiquoriini Pontificum). The 
 original Catalogue, written shortly after 353, 
 gives only the name and length of pontificate 
 by the Roman consulships, but the inter- 
 polated copy (made c. 530) adds to the Vita 
 S. Eleutheri " Hie accepit epistolam a Lucio 
 Britanniae Rege ut Christianus efficeretur per 
 ejus mandatum." Haddan and Stubbs con- 
 clude : " It would seem, therefore, that the 
 bare story of the conversion of a British prince 
 [temp. Eleutheri) originated in Rome during 
 the 5th or 6th cents., almost 300 or more 3'ears 
 after the date assigned to the story itself ; that 
 Bede in the 8th cent, introduced it into 
 England, and that by the gth cent, it had 
 grown into the conversion of the whole of 
 Britain ; while the full-fledged fiction, con- 
 necting it specially with Wales and with 
 Glastonbury, and entering into details, grew 
 up between cents. 9 and 12." 
 
 MACARIUS MAGNES 
 
 Of the dates assigned to king Lucius there 
 is an extreme variety, Ussher enumerating 23 
 from 137 to 190, and placing it in his own Ind. 
 Chron. in 176, Nennius in 164, and Bede 
 [Chron.)in 180, and again [H. E.)m 156. But 
 the chronology is in hopeless confusion (see 
 Haddan and Stubbs, i. 1-26). Ussher [Brit. 
 Eccl. Ant. cc. iii.-vi.) enters minutely into the 
 legend of Lucius, accepting his existence as a 
 fact, as most other authors have done. His 
 festival is usually Dec. 3. [J-g.] 
 
 IV. A final explanation of the Lucius legend 
 was given by Dr. Harnack in 1904 in the 
 Sitzungsberichte der Konigl. Preuss. Akademie 
 der Wissensch. xxvi.-xxvii.. A recovered 
 fragment of the Hypotyposes of Clement of 
 Alexandria suggested to him that the entry 
 in the Liber Pontificalis was due to a confusion 
 between Britannio and Britio. Dr. Harnack 
 shews that the latter word almost undoubtedly 
 refers to the birtha or castle of Edessa. Bede 
 probably misread Britio in the Liber Pontifi- 
 calis as Britannio, and referred the entry in 
 consequence to Britain, whereas it relates to 
 the conversion of Edessa in the time of Lucius 
 Abgar IX. Harnack further shews that the 
 original quotation was probably transferred 
 from Julius Africanus to the Lib. Pont. See 
 the review of the question in Eng. Hist. Rev. 
 xxii. (1907) 769. Thus the mythic king 
 Lucius of Britain finally disappears from 
 history. [h.g.] 
 
 Lupus (2). [Germanus (8).] 
 
 M 
 
 MacarlUS (1) 1., bp. of Jerusalem, the 39th 
 from the Apostles, Hermon being his prede- 
 cessor. His accession is placed by Tillemont 
 in 311 or 312. In a list of defenders of the 
 faith, Athanasius [Orat. /. adv. Arian, p. 291) 
 refers to Macarius as exhibiting " the honest 
 and simple style of apostolical men." A letter 
 was addressed to him and other orthodox 
 bishops by Alexander of Alexandria (Epiph. 
 Haer. Ixix. 4, p. 730). He attended the coun- 
 cil of Nicaea in 325 (Soz. i. 17 ; Theod. H. E, 
 i. 15). During his episcopate, A.D. 326 or 327, 
 Helena paid her celebrated visit to J erusalem. 
 Macarius was commissioned by the emperor 
 Constantine, a.d. 326, to see to the erection of 
 a basilica on the site of the Holy Sepulchre. 
 The emperor's letter is given by Eusebius [de 
 Vita Const, iii. 29-32), Socrates [H. E. i. 9) and 
 Theodoret [H. E. i. 17). Constantine subse- 
 quently [c. 330) wrote to Macarius with the 
 other bishops of Palestine about the profana- 
 tion of the sacred terebinth of Mamre by 
 idolatrous rites (Euseb. u.s. 52, 53). The 
 emperor also presented Macarius with a vest- 
 ment of gold tissue for the administration of 
 the sacrament of baptism, as a token of honour 
 to the church of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. ii. 
 27). The death of Macarius is placed by 
 Sozomen [H. E. ii. 20) between the deposition 
 of Eustathius, a.d. 331, and the council of 
 Tyre, a.d. 335. He was succeeded by Maxi- 
 mus. [E.v.j 
 
 Macarius (9) Magnes, a writer of the end of 
 the 4th cent. Four centuries after, his name 
 had sunk into almost complete oblivion, when 
 in the course of the image controversy a 
 
MACARIUS MAGNES 
 
 quotation from liiin was proiiucnl mi iln- 
 iconoclastic side. Nicophonis. then or after- 
 wards patriarch of Constantinople, had never 
 heard of him, and only after lonj; search could 
 he procure a copy of the work containing 
 the extract (Sf^icile^ium Solfxnmt<if, i. 305). \ 
 Nicephorus evidently hail no knowledRe of the 
 author except from the book itself. The words ' 
 Macarius Majjnes may be both proper names, i 
 or else may be translated either as the blessed ' 
 Magnes or as .Macarius the Magnesian. ! 
 Nicephorus understood Macarius as a proper I 
 name, and so he found it understood in the I 
 title of the extract which he discusses, but will I 
 not undertake to say whttiuT Magnes is a 
 proper name or a geogr.iphical term. He ] 
 concludes that .Macarius was a bishop, because ' 
 the title described the author as ifpdpxv^ ^"d 
 the very ancient MS. from which his infor- 
 mation was derived contained a portrait of 
 the author in a sacerdotal dress. Me dates 
 Macarius as 300 years later than the " Divine 
 and .-Vpostolic preaching," as could be 
 gathered from two passages in the work. The 
 work, called Af^ocritica. was addressed to a 
 friend named Tiieosthenes, and contained 
 objections by a heathen of the school of .\ris- 
 totle. together with replies by Macarius. Nice- 
 phorus finds that the extract produced by the 
 Iconoclasts had been unfairly used, the 
 context shewing that Macarius referred only 
 to heathen idolatry and not to the use of 
 images among Christians. But Nicephorus 
 had no favourable opinion of him on the 
 whole, thinking he discerned Manichcan, 
 Arian, or Nestorian tendencies, and especially 
 agreement with " the impious and senseless 
 Origen " as to the non-eternity of future 
 punishments. Macarius again sank into ob- 
 scurity, only some very few extracts from his 
 writings being found in MSS. of succeeding 
 centuries. Near the end of the i6tii cent, he 
 became again the subject of controversy 
 through the Jesuit Turrianus, who had found a 
 copy of the Apocritica in St. Mark's Library at 
 Venice, whicli when afterwards sought for 
 had disappeared. In 1S67 there was found at 
 Athens what there is good reason to believe 
 was this copy, which, by theft or otherwise, 
 had found its wav to Greece. This was pub. 
 by Paul Foucart '( Paris, 1876). Shortly after 
 Duchesne pub. a dissertation on Macarius 
 (Paris, 1877), with the text of all the attain- 
 able fragments of .Macarius's homilies on (iene- 
 sis. The Apocritica consisted of live books: 
 of these we have only the third complete ; but 
 enough remains to shew that the work pur- 
 ports to contain a report of a viva voce dis- 
 cussion between the author and a Grecian 
 philosopher. In form it is perhaps unique. 
 It is not a mere dialogue ; nor does it proceed 
 in the Platonic method r)f short <pj«-stions 
 and answers. Each speech (jf the heathen 
 objector is made up of some half-dozen short 
 speeches, each dealing with different objec- 
 tions. To these Macarius severally replies, 
 and then follow a few lines of narrative 
 introducing a new set of objections. We 
 doubtless have here a unique specimen of 
 genuine heathen objections of the 4th cent. 
 The blows against Christianity are dealt with 
 such hearty goodwill and with so little re- 
 straint of language that a Christian would 
 
 MACARIUS MAGNES •17.', 
 
 ii-rt.uuly ii.iM- r.^j.mi.d u .is 1 
 
 invent such .m att.ick. Th..! I 
 
 not invent the objection* i» fir v 
 
 his sometimes iuis>HiK thnr p.i... .i, 
 
 answers bemg often very un'».iti»»act<>cv. 
 There is also ,1 clear ilillrrmrr in st\ |r iM-twrrn 
 the language of the objertoi ml .1 (lir 
 respondent. It has therefor. I 
 
 that Mar.irius reproduces the 1 1 
 
 as thesubst.mceof the armnm 1.: 1 
 
 and then arises the question, li... thr 
 diali>gue recortl a real vtva voct di^^u^sion 
 with a heathen objector, ur are tl>c hrathrn 
 objections from a published work against 
 Christianitv, and if so, whose ? " 
 
 The earliest Christian apologists drfrtidrd 
 their religion against men who had a vrrv 
 v.igue knowledge of it. Mut towards tin- rl..sr 
 of the 3rd cent, a svstem.itic .ittack w.»s ni.i<l«- 
 on our religion by its most forniid.iblr adver- 
 sary. Porphyry, founded on a careful study of 
 our sacred books. Three or four of the 
 Macarian objections have been at least 
 ultimately derived from Porphyrv. They do 
 not appear to be verbally copied from him ; 
 and the Macarian objector plac«-s himvlf 300 
 years after St. Paul's death, which, with every 
 allowance for round numbers, is too late for 
 PorphNTy. .Again, there is scarcely any re- 
 semblance between the objections in Macarius 
 and what we know of those of the emperor 
 Julian. Great part of these last is directi-tl 
 against the O.T., those of .Macarius alnx^st 
 exclusively against the New; and the .Mac- 
 arian objections are not attacks of a general 
 nature on the Christian scheme, but rather 
 attempts to find error or self-contradiction in 
 particular texts, e.g. how could Jesus say, 
 " Me ye have not always," and yet " I am with 
 you always, even to the end of the world " ? 
 intermediate in time between Porphyry and 
 Julian was Hierocles, and Duchesne ably 
 advocates the view that the discussion in 
 Macarius is fictitious, and that his book 
 contains a literal transcript of parts of the lost 
 work of Hierocles. We are ourselves inclined 
 to believe that while no doubt .Macarius or the 
 heathen i)hilosophers whom he encountered 
 drew the substance of their arguments, and 
 even in some cases their language, from pre- 
 vious heathen writings, yet on the whole the 
 wording is Macarius's own. We give a few 
 specimens of the objections with .Macarius's 
 solutions, with a warning that the selection i» 
 scarcely f.iir to .Macarius, since it is not worth 
 while printing such of his answer* a» an 
 apologist of to-dav would give. 
 
 Ob. Jesus told ilis disciples " Fear not them 
 who can kill the body," yet when danger wa» 
 threatening Himself, He prayed in an agony 
 that the suffering might pass away. Hit 
 words then were not worthy of a Son of (,(h1. 
 1 nor even of a wise man who denpisrs dratti. 
 I Sol. We must see what it w.\* our I ord 
 : really feared, when He prayed. The dr\ il had 
 : seen so many proofs of ids divinity that he 
 i dared not assault Him again, and »o there wai 
 I danger that that Passion which was to Ix- the 
 i salvation of the wfirld should never take place, 
 i Our l.ord dissembles, therefore, and pretend* 
 I to fear death, and thus deceiving the devil, 
 I hastens the hour of his assault ; (or when He 
 I prayed that His cup might pat*, what fie 
 
676 
 
 MACARIUS MA6NE§ 
 
 really desired was thai it should come more 
 speedily. He thus caught the devil by baiting 
 the hook of His divinity with the worm of His 
 humanity, as it is written in Ps. xxii., " I am 
 a worm, and no man," and in Job xli., " Thou 
 shalt draw out the dragon with a hook." — The 
 doctrine that the devil was thus deceived is 
 taught by many Fathers, e.g. Gregory Nyssen. 
 Ciregory the Great, commenting on Job xli. i, 
 uses language strikingly like that of Macarius ; 
 but the common source of Macarius and the 
 rest was Origen's Comm. on Ps. xxii. 
 
 Ob. How can Jesus say "Moses wrote of 
 Me," when nothing at all of the writings of 
 Moses has been preserved ? All were burnt 
 with the temple, and what we have under the 
 name of Moses was written i,i8o years after 
 his death by Ezra and his company. 
 
 Sol. When Ezra rewrote the books of Moses, 
 he restored them with perfect accuracy as they 
 had been before : for it was the same Spirit 
 Who taught them both. 
 
 Ob. " If they drink any deadly thing it shall 
 not hurt them." If so, candidates for bishop- 
 rics ought to be tested by offering them a cup 
 of poison. If they dare not drink, they ought 
 to own that they do not really believe the 
 words of Jesus ; and if they have not faith for 
 the cures promised in the same context and the 
 power to remove mountains, no ordinary 
 Christian is now a believer, nor even any 
 bishops or presbyters. 
 
 Sol. — Christ's words are not to be under- 
 stood literally. Working cures is no test of 
 faith : for such are often performed by un- 
 believers or atheists. It is not to be supposed 
 Christ intended His disciples to do what He 
 never did Himself, and He never moved a 
 literal mountain. What He meant by moun- 
 tains was demons, and we have in Jer. li. 25 
 this metaphorical use of the word mountain. 
 — Here we have another coincidence with 
 Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi. 35 (Vulg.) ; Migne, i. 
 1000), both no doubt being indebted to Origen. 
 
 It is important to note that St. Mark, as 
 read by the objector and by Macarius, con- 
 tained the disputed verses at the end, as is 
 seen also from his mentioning that out of 
 Mary Magdalen had been cast seven devils (see 
 Orig. Adv. Cels. ii. 55). He speaks of the 
 author of Hebrews as the Apostle, no doubt 
 intending St. Paul. He appears to have used 
 II. Peter (see p. 180). The phrase " the 
 canon of the N.T." occurs p. 168. 
 
 With respect to idolatry the heathen 
 apologist argues : None of us supposes wood 
 or stone to be God, or thinks that if a piece be 
 broken off an image, the power of the Deity 
 represented is diminished. It was by way 
 of reminder that the ancients set up temples 
 and images, that those who come to them 
 might think of God and make prayers accord- 
 ing to their needs. You do not imagine a 
 picture of your friend to be your friend ; you 
 keep it merely to remind you of him, and to 
 do him honour. Our sacrifices are not 
 intended to confer benefit on the Deity, but 
 to shew the love and gratitude of the worship- 
 per. We make our images of Deity in human 
 form as being the most beautiful we know. 
 
 We have not space to give other answers 
 of Macarius, though some are clever enough. 
 Sufficient has been quoted to show the 
 
 MACARIUS MA6NES 
 
 allegorical style of interpretation which Maca* 
 rius used. Other examples could be easily 
 added: e.g. the clouds by which Paul expected 
 to be caught up mean angels (p. 174) ; the three 
 measures of meal (Matt, xiii.) mean time, past, 
 present, and future ; the thong (shoe-latchet) 
 which could not be loosed is the tie between 
 our Lord's humanity and divinity (p. 93) ; 
 the four watches of the night (Matt. xiv. 25) 
 mean the ages of the patriarchs, of the law, 
 of the prophets, and of Christ ; in Elijah's 
 vision the strong wind was the patriarchal 
 dispensation which swept away the worship of 
 idols ; the earthquake was the law of Moses, 
 at the giving of which the mountains leaped 
 like rams ; the fire was the word of prophecy 
 (Jer. XX. 9) ; the still small voice was the 
 message of Gabriel to Mary. Macarius thus 
 belonged to the Alexandrian school of alle- 
 gorical interpretation, as might be expected 
 from the great use he makes of Origen, not to 
 the Syrian literal school. [Diodorus.] Alex- 
 andria might also be suggested by the fact 
 that Macarius has some scientific knowledge. 
 He admires extremely (p. 179) the skill of 
 geometers in being able to find a square equal 
 in area to a triangle ; he knows the astro- 
 nomical labours of Aratus, and is aware that 
 in the discussion of celestial problems the 
 earth is treated as a point. On the other 
 hand, many indications point to the East as 
 his abode. He measures distances by para- 
 sangs (p. 138) ; when speaking (p. 7) of the 
 diversities which exist among the population 
 of a great city, he chooses Antioch as his 
 example. Speaking of the ascetic life, he 
 draws his instances not from the celebrated 
 solitaries of Egypt, but those of the East. In 
 a short list of heretics the Syrian Bardesanes 
 is included. The woman healed of an issue of 
 blood is said to have been Berenice, queen of 
 Edessa, a notion Ukely to have been derived 
 from a local tradition. In a question of lan- 
 guage which became the subject of much 
 dispute in the East he sides with those who 
 speak of rptC'v VTroardaeoji' iv ovirlq. jxiq.. 
 
 Crusius pointed out, and the suggestion has 
 been adopted by Moller (Schiirer, Theol. Lit. 
 Zeit. 1877, p. 521), that at the Synod of the 
 Oak in 403, one of the accusers of Heracleidas 
 of Ephesus was a Macarius, bp. of Magnesia. 
 His identification with our Macarius seems 
 highly probable. It is not a weighty objec- 
 tion that one of the charges brought against 
 Heracleidas was Origenism, while Macarius, 
 as we have seen, was largely indebted to 
 Origen. Macarius had other grounds of hos- 
 tility to Heracleidas, and we have no know- 
 ledge that his own admiration of Origen was 
 such as to induce him to incur the charge of 
 heresy for his sake, or to refrain from bringing 
 the charge of Origenism against an opponent. 
 The Magnesian Macarius sufficiently satisfies 
 the conditions of time and place. 
 
 Duchesne conjectures that Macarius may 
 probably have visited Rome. Of the heroes 
 of the Eastern church he names only Polycarp, 
 telling of him a story found elsewhere. Of 
 Westerns he names Irenaeus of Lyons, Fabian 
 of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage. He has 
 the story told in the Latin Abdias (Fabric. 
 Cod. Ap. N. T. p. 455) of flowing milk instead 
 of blood from St. Paul's headless body (p. 
 
MACARIUS 
 
 182). The duration of St. Pctor's episcopate is 
 made only a few months (p. loi). [cs.] 
 
 MaoariilS ( 12), presbyter of Athanasius. 
 Earlv in his episcopate, perhaps in 329 or 330 
 (if his consecration was on June «, 328, as 
 Hefele reckon*;. Councils, ii. 4), Athanasiis, 
 on a visitation in Mareotis. was informed that 
 a layman named Ischyr.is was exercising 
 priestly functions. Macarius was sent to 
 summon the offender before the archbishop, 
 but Ischyras beiiij; ill, his fatiier was requested 
 to restrain him from the offence. Ischyras, 
 recovering, fled to the Meletians, who invented 
 the accusation that Macuius, by order of 
 .\thanasius. had forced the chapel of Ischyras, 
 overthrown his altar, broken the chalice, and 
 burnt the sacred books (Athan. Apol. c. At. c. 
 63 ; Socr. i. 27 \ Hilar. I'ict. Frai^m. ii. § 18). 
 ^Iaca^ius is ne.xt found at the imperial court 
 at Xicomedia on a mission with another priest, 
 .\lypius, when three Meletian clergy, Ision, 
 Kudaemon. Callinicus, brought their accusa- 
 tion against Athanasius in reference to the 
 linen vestments. Macarius and Alypius were 
 opportunely able to refute the calumny (Socr. 
 i. 27 ; Soz. ii. 22). This may have been late 
 in 330 or early in 331 ; Paci's dale 32S seems 
 too early. Macarius and the three .Meletians 
 were still there when Athanasius arri\cd (331) 
 on a summons from Constantine ; tlie .Nlele- 
 tians brought against the archbisliop the fresh 
 charge of supplying money to Phihinienus and 
 Macarius was charged with the breaking of 
 the chalice (Hefele, ii. 13). The charge was 
 easily disproved. Macarius ag.iin assisted 
 Athanasius when charged with the murder of 
 Arsenius. When .\rsenius had been found 
 alive and John .\rcaph had confessed the 
 fraud, M.icarius was sent to Constantinople to 
 inform Constantine of the collapse of the whole 
 calumny (Athan. Apol. c. Ar. cc. 65, 66). 
 Macarius was dragged in chains before the 
 council at TyTe in 335, and when the com- 
 mission was sent by that council to Mareotis 
 to investigate the affair of the chalice, which 
 was still charged against Athanasius, Mac- 
 arius was not allowed to accompany it, but 
 was left in custody at Tyre. Athan. Apol. c. 
 Ar. cc. 71, 72, 73 ; .Mansi, ii. 1126, 1128, b, c ; 
 Hefele, ii. i.}-23 ; Tillem. viii. 19-23. [cm.] 
 
 Macarius (17). Two hermits or monks of 
 this name both lived in ligypt in the 4th cent.; 
 their characters and deeds are almost indis- 
 tinguishable. The elder is called the Egyp- 
 tian, the younger the Alexandrine. One of 
 them was a disciple of .Anthony and the master 
 of EvAORii's, and one of them dwelt in the 
 Thebaid. Jerome speaks of Kufinus (ilp. iii. 
 2, cd. Vail. A.D. 374) as " being at Nitria, and 
 having reached the abode of Macarius." ^'et 
 Rufinus, who lived 6 years in .\le.xandria and 
 the adjoining monasteries, describes the resid- 
 ence of Macarius (Hist. Mon. 29) — which he 
 names Scithium and says was a day and a 
 half's journey from the raonastcricb of Nitria — 
 from the accounts of others rather than as 
 an eye-witness. Kufinus, however, icems to 
 have seen both hermits (Apol. Ruf. ii. 12). 
 The stories about them are of a legendary char- 
 acter. Kufinus, Hist. .\fon. 28, 29. and //is/. 
 Eccl. ii. 4, 8; Palladius, 19, 20; Soz. iii. 13; 
 Socr. iv. 18; C.onn.id. d. V. III. 11; Uur- 
 tyrolog. Rom. Jan. 5 and 15. [w.n.r.] 
 
 MACEDONIUS 
 
 077 
 
 MaoarllU (34), .1 ( liiis(i.iii<'f Rome wh<>(ritd 
 I of 4th cent.) wrote on the divmr providrnco 
 in opposition to heathen nolionn ■>( l«tc itnd 
 astrology. Fmdintc »on>c ili;i:. ihi- . hp 
 dreamed of a ship bruiKlnK r<: it. 
 
 Kufinus just at this tinir am %• 
 
 tine, .Mac.irius saw in tint t : >n 
 
 t>f his dream anil sought (ri.iu iin, ii, ' t ii.>ni 
 the Cireek falliers. j<uflliiis tr.ilio. dT htm 
 jOrigen's eulogy on the iii.»rtvr I'jinphilu* 
 j (said by Jerome to be really by l.u-u-biu*) and 
 also Origen's rtiA '.V^X"'. t*** publirjtiou of 
 : which led to violent coiitrovc-rsv. lilir.MoNV- 
 I Mus ; Oric.en.I Jerome c-ills him 'oV.^iot. 
 I saying, "Tunc discipulus'oXjiioi. vrrrn<<tniiiit 
 siii si in talem migistriim non iniprg>\*rt " 
 \{Ep. cxwii. ad /'riHf. cd. Vail.) [w.ii.r.] 
 maoedonlus (2). bp. <>( Constantinople. 
 .\t bp. .Mrxandf-r's death in 3<fi party 
 feeling ran high. His r>rth<>d(>x follower* 
 supported Paul, the Arians rallied rouncl 
 Maccdonius. The fr.nn»T was ordained bishop. 
 I but did not hol.l his bi»h..;ii. In.: The 
 I emperor Constantius came t ' 1<-, 
 
 [ convened a synod of Arian I <l 
 
 1 Paul, and, to the disappon. 
 ' donius, translated Eusrbius ■■! m m' ;ii to 
 ' the vacant see (a.d. 1}8). Eusebius's death 
 ; in 341 restarted hostilities between the par- 
 tisans of Paul and Macedonius. Paul re- 
 turned, and was introduced into the Irtnt 
 church of Constantinople ; Arian buh<>|>s 
 immediately ordained Macedonius in St. 
 Paul's church. So violent did the tumult 
 become that Constantius sent his general 
 Hermogenes to eject Paul for a second time. 
 His soldiers met with open resistance ; the 
 general was killed and his body dragged 
 through the city. Constantius at onrc left 
 .\nti<x;h, and punislied Constantinople by de- 
 priving the people of half their daily allowance 
 I of corn. F'aul was e.xpclled ; M.ace<li>nius was 
 severely blamed for his part in these dis- 
 turbances, and for allowing himself to Im? 
 I ordained without imperial sanction ; but 
 practically the .\rians triumphed. Mace- 
 donius was permitted to officiate in the church 
 in which he had be<rn consecrate<l. Paul 
 
 went to Rome, and he and .Athanasius and 
 other orthmlox bishops expelled from their 
 sees were sent back bv Julius with letters re- 
 buking those who had deposed them. Philip 
 the prefet t ex«-cuted the fr«-sh orders of 
 the emperor in hiirrviiig Paul into « xi|e to 
 i Thessalonica, and in reinstating Mace<|oniu«. 
 but not without bl'>o<lsh«-<l (S-K^r. ii. ih). 
 ; .Mac edonius held the see for about six vean. 
 , while letters and delegates, the |H.pr and the 
 -emperors, synods anil counter-svn'Kls. were 
 i debating and disputing the treatment ••( Paul 
 I and Athanasius. In 349 the alternative <i( 
 war offer«-<l by Constans, emperor of the \V'e««. 
 induced Constantius to reinstate Paul; and 
 Macedonius had to retire |<> a private churr.h. 
 The murder of Con»tan^ (a.h iv > y\^r'^^ the 
 East under thesi)leci>ntrolof I .id 
 
 Paul was at onrc exiled- <« 
 
 followed, which permitte<l tt. ;:'i 
 
 to be the dominant faction in i ■ .. 
 
 Macetlonius is said to have signalled his 
 ' return to power by acts which, if truly re- 
 P'.rted, brand him as a cruel bi«ot. The 
 Novalianists suffered perhaps even more 
 
678 
 
 MACEDONIUS II. 
 
 fearfully than the orthodox and some of them 
 were stung into a desperate resistance : _ those 
 of Constantinople removing the materials of 
 their church to a distant suburb of the city ; 
 those at Mantinium in Paphlagonia daring to 
 face the imperial soldiers sent to expel them 
 from their home. " The exploits of Mace- 
 donius," says Socrates (ii. 38), " on behalf of 
 Christianity, consisted of murders, battles, 
 incarcerations, and civil wars." 
 
 An act of presumption finally lost him the 
 imperial favour (a.d. 358). The sepulchre 
 containing the relics of Constantine the Great 
 was in danger of falling to pieces, and ^lace- 
 donius determined to remove them. The 
 question was made a party one. The ortho- 
 dox assailed as sacrilege " the disinterment 
 of the supporter of the Nicene faith," the 
 Macedonians pleaded the necessities of struc- 
 tural repair. When the remains were con- 
 veyed to the church of Acacius the Martyr, 
 the excited populace met in the church and 
 churchyard ; so frightful a carnage ensued 
 that the place was filled with blood and 
 slaughtered bodies. Constantius's anger was 
 great against Macedonius because of the 
 slaughter, but even more because he had 
 removed the body without consulting him. 
 
 When Macedonius presented himself at the 
 council of Seleucia (a.d. 350), it was ruled that 
 being under accusation it was not proper 
 for him to remain (Socr. ii. 40). His op- 
 ponents, Acacius, Eudoxius, and others, 
 followed him to Constantinople, and, availing 
 themselves of the emperor's indignation, de- 
 posed him (a.d. 360) on the ground of cruelty 
 and canonical irregularities. Macedonius re- 
 tired to a suburb of the city, and died there. 
 He is said to have elaborated the views 
 with which his name is connected in his re- 
 tirement. His doctrine was embraced by 
 Eleusius and others ; and Marathonius brought 
 so much zeal to the cause that its upholders 
 were sometimes better known as Marathon- 
 ians. Their grave, ascetic manners and pleas- 
 ing and persuasive eloquence secured many 
 followers in Constantinople, and also in Thrace, 
 Bithynia, and the Hellespontine pro\inces. 
 Under the emperor Julian they were strong 
 enough to declare in synod at Zele in Pontus 
 their separation from both Arians and ortho- 
 dox. In 374 pope Damasus and in 381 the 
 council of Constantinople condemned their 
 views, and they gradually ceased to exist as a 
 distinctive sect. For authorities, consult the 
 scattered notices in Socrates, Sozomen 
 Hefele, ConcUiengeschichte, i. ; the usual 
 Church histories and Holy Ghost in D. C. B. 
 {4- vol. ed. 1882). [J.M.F.] 
 
 Macedonius (3) n., patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople A.D. 495. For an accoimt of his election 
 see EuPHEMius (4). Within a year or two 
 (the date is uncertain) he assembled a council, 
 in which he confirmed in writing that of 
 Chalcedon, and openly professed, as he always 
 did, his adhesion to the orthodox faith. In 
 507 Elias, patriarch of Jerusalem, who had 
 been unwilling to sanction the deposition of 
 Euphemius, united himself in communion 
 with Macedonius. The heterodox emperor 
 Anastasius employed all means to obUge 
 Macedonius to declare against the council of 
 Chalcedon, but flattery and threats were alike 
 
 MACEDONIUS II. 
 
 unavailing. An assassin named Eucolus was 
 even hired to take away his life. The pa- 
 triarch avoided the blow, and ordered a fixed 
 amount of provisions to be given monthly to 
 the criminal. The people of Constantinople 
 were equally zealous for the council of Chalce- 
 don, even, more than once, to the point of 
 sedition. To prevent unfavourable conse- 
 quences, Anastasius ordered the prefect of the 
 city to follow in the processions and attend 
 at the assemblies of the church. In 510 the 
 emperor made a new effort. Macedonius 
 would do nothing without an oecumenical 
 council at which the bp. of great Rome 
 should preside. Anastasius, annoyed at this 
 answer, and irritated because Macedonius 
 would never release him from the engagement 
 he had made at his coronation to maintain the 
 faith of the church and the authority of the 
 council of Chalcedon, sought means to drive 
 him from his chair. He sent Eutychian monks 
 and clergy, and sometimes the magistrates of 
 the city, to load him with public outrage and 
 insult. This caused such a tumult amongst 
 the citizens that the emperor was obliged to 
 shut himself up in his palace and to have 
 vessels moored near in case flight should be 
 necessary. He sent to beg ^lacedonius to 
 come and speak with him. Macedonius went 
 and reproached him with the sufferings his 
 persecutions caused the church. Anastasius 
 pretended to be willing to alter this, but at 
 the same time made a third attempt to tamper 
 with the orthodoxy of the patriarch. One of 
 his instruments was Xenaias, an Eutychian 
 bishop. He demanded of Macedonius a de- 
 claration of his faith in writing ; Macedonius 
 addressed a memorandum to the emperor 
 insisting that he knew no other faith than that 
 of the Fathers of Nicaea and Constantinople, 
 and that he anathematized Nestorius and 
 Eutyches and those who admitted two Sons 
 or two Christs, or who divided the two natures. 
 Xenaias, seeing the failure of his first attempt, 
 procured two infamous wretches, who accused 
 Macedonius of an abominable crime, avowing 
 themselves his accomplices. They then 
 charged him \dth Nestorianism, and with 
 ha\ang falsified a passage in an epistle of St. 
 Paul, in support of that sect. At last the 
 emperor commanded him to send by the hands 
 of the master of the offices the authentic copy 
 of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon signed 
 with the autographs of the bishops. Mace- 
 donius refused, sealed it up, and hid it under 
 the altar of the great church. Thereupon 
 Anastasius had him carried off by night and 
 taken to Chalcedon, to be conducted thence to 
 Eucaita in Pontus, the place of the exile of 
 his predecessor. In 515 pope Hormisdas 
 worked for the restitution of Macedonius, 
 whom he considered unjustly deposed ; it had 
 been a stipulation in the treaty of peace be- 
 tween Vitalian and Anastasius that the pa- 
 triarch and all the deposed bishops should be 
 restored to their sees. But Anastasius never 
 kept his promises, and Macedonius died in 
 exile. His death occurred c. 517, at Gangra, 
 where he had retired for fear of the Huns, who 
 ravaged all Cappadocia, Galatia, and Pontus. 
 Theod. Lect. ii. 573-578, in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. ; 
 Evagr. III. xxxi. xxxii. in ib. 2661 ; Mansi, 
 jviii. 186, 198; Vict. Tun. Chron. in Patr 
 
MACRINA 
 
 Lat. Ixviii. g4S ; Liberal, vii. in tb. o8a ; 
 Th(^oph. r/ir()>i. I20-12^, 128, 1^0. n2. fw.M.s.j 
 
 Macrlna (1). the Khier, the i>atenial Rraud- 
 motluT of Basil and clregory Nvssen, resident 
 at and probably a native of Neoraesarea in 
 Pontus. Both Macrina and her liiisband, of 
 whose name we are ignorant, were deeply 
 pious Christians. Macrina had been trained 
 on the precepts of the celebrated bp. of Neo- 
 caesarea, Gregory Thauniaturgus, by some of 
 his hearers. In the persecution of Cialerius 
 and Maximin, Macrina and her husband, to 
 save their lives, left home with a slender equip- 
 ment and escaped to a hill forest of Pontus, 
 where they are said to have lived in safe retire- 
 ment f'>r seven years. On the cessation of the 
 persecution, a.d. 311, they returned to Neo- 
 caesarea. On the renewal of the persecution 
 they appear to have a^ain sutTered. Their 
 goods were confiscated and Macrina and her 
 husband obtained the right to be reckoned 
 among confessors of the faith (Greg. Nys. de 
 Vit. S. Macr. t. ii. pp. 178, 191). In due 
 time their son Basil married Emmelia, and 
 became the father of ten children, the eldest 
 bearing her grandmother's name Macrina. and 
 the second that of his father Basil. This boy, 
 afterwards the celebrated bp. of Caesarea, 
 Basil the Great, was brouglit ui> from infancy 
 by his grandmother Macrina, at her country 
 house at .\nnesi, to which slie seems to have 
 retired after her husband's death (Basil. 
 Ep. 204 ^75], § 6 ; 223 [79], § 3)- Her death 
 cannot be placed before 340. [e-v.] 
 
 Maorina (2), tJw Younger, the eldest child 
 of her parents Basil and Emmelia, by her 
 position in the family and still more by her 
 force of character, high intellectual gifts, and 
 earnest piety, proved the well-spring of good 
 to the whole household, and so contributed 
 largely to form the characters of her brothers. 
 To her brother Basil in particular she was ever 
 a wise and loving counsellor. Basil was born 
 c. 329, and Macrina probably c. 327. She re- 
 ceived her name from her paternal grand- 
 mother. She was very carefully educated by 
 her mother, who was more anxious that she 
 should be familiar with the sacred writers 
 than with heathen poets. Macrina com- 
 mitted tf) memory the moral and ethical por- 
 tion of the books of Solomon and the whole of 
 the Psalter. Before her twelfth year she was 
 ready at each hour of the day with the Psalm 
 liturgically belonging to it (Greg. Nys. de 
 Vita S. Macr. ii. 179). Her personal beauty, 
 which, according to her brother Gregory, sur- 
 passed that of all of her age and country, and 
 her large fortune, attracted many suitors. 
 Of these her father selected a young advocate, 
 of good birth and position, and when he was 
 cut off by a premature death, Macrina reso- 
 lutely refused anv further pri>posals of mar 
 riage {ib. 180). After her father's death {c. 
 349) she devoted herself to the care of her 
 widowed mother, the bringing up of her 
 infant hrothor Peter, and the sui)ervisii)n of 
 the interests of her family. Kmmelia was left 
 burdened with a large and extensive property, 
 and the maintenance of and provision for nine 
 children. Of the greater part of this load 
 Macrina relieved her. They resided then, or 
 soon afterwards, on the paternal estate near 
 the village of Annesi, on the banks of the Iris, 
 
 MACRINA 
 
 070 
 
 ' near Nc<»c.iesAr<a, \\\n< \\ M , fi. 
 
 Basil returned from Athen-i . ,'.\\ 
 
 his universitv su<ces<ir<i. M.i -u 
 
 the enthuM.istir love l.>r .tn h 
 
 she herself felt {tb. l8l). Hf 'r 
 
 I settli'd on their p trrnal r>.t wr 
 
 banks of the Irin. The pr. : . ,,f 
 
 her most dearly loved brother Naa. i.ttiif.. <in 
 a hunting expedition, 1^7. <ilrrnRthrnr<l her 
 resolution to separate froni the world, and 
 she persuade<l her mother aUo, who wat 
 nearly broken-hearted at their loss, to ontbraco 
 the ascetic life. The nucleus of the sistrrh.Kxl 
 was formed by their female servants and 
 slaves. Devout women, some of hiKh rank. 
 soon gathered roimd them, while the birth 
 and high connexions of Macrina .md hrr 
 mother attr.icted the daughters ^f the nir»»t 
 aristocratic families in Pontus ami t app.»d<icla 
 to the community (ift. 1H4, i,S(>). .^ini-ng it« 
 members were a widow of high rank and 
 wealth, named V'estiana, and a virgin named 
 Lampadia, who is <lescribed as the chief of the 
 band (16. 197). Macrina took to her retreat 
 her youngest brother Peter (16. 186). The 
 elevation of her brother Basil to the see of 
 Caesarea, 370. became a stimulus to a higher 
 pitch of asceticism. Peter was ordaine<l pres- 
 byter by his brother (ib. 187), probably in 371. 
 In 373 Emmelia died, holding the hands of 
 Macrina and Peter and offering them to (lod 
 with her dying breath, as the first-fruits and 
 tenths of her womb, and was buried by them 
 in her husband's grave at the chapel of the 
 " Forty Martyrs." Macrina sustained her 
 third great sorrow in the death (Jan. i, 37<)) of 
 Basil, whom she had long regarded with 
 reverential affection. Nine months after, her 
 brother (iregory Nyssen paid her a visit. 
 Owing to his banishment under Valens and 
 other persecutions it was eight or nine years 
 since they had met. He found the aged 
 invalid, jiarched with fever, stretched on 
 planks on the ground, the wood barely 
 covered with a bit of sackcloth. The pallet 
 was carefully arranged to face the east. On 
 her brother's approach she m.atle a vain effort 
 to rise to do him honour as a bishop ; Gregory 
 prevented her. and had her placed on her be<l 
 (ib. 189). With great self-command Macrina. 
 y\ fieydXr]. as he delights to call her, restrained 
 her groans, checked her asthmatic pantings, 
 and putting on a cheerful countenance en- 
 deavoured to divert him from the present 
 sorrow. She ventured to speak of Basil's 
 death; Gregi.ry completely broke <lown ; and 
 when her consolations proved un.ivailing. she 
 rebuked him for sorrowing like th-.sr who hail 
 no hope for one fallen asleep in C hrist. (ire- 
 gory defending himself, she bid him arnue out 
 the'point with her. .After a s.>mewh.»t prolix 
 controversy, .Macrina. as though under divine 
 inspiration— »a(»dwf/> tf»o<*o(>oi<«Vn »^v A>'v 
 Uffufiari — her Wf>rds pouring out without 
 stav, like water tmm a fountain itb. iRq), de- 
 livered the long discourse on thr rrsurrertion 
 and imm>irtality <'f the soul which (iregon,- 
 has recf)rde<l— more probably in hi* "wn than 
 his dving sister's words— in the d* .4ntma 
 ac Resurrectione Dialogut, entltle<l t4 Materia 
 (0pp. t. iii. pp. iHi-26o). On the conclu- 
 sion of this remarkable discourse Mn which 
 the purificatory nature of the (ire of hell U 
 
680 MAGNENTIUS, FLAVIUS POPILIUS 
 
 unmistakably set forth, the anguish being in 
 exact proportion to the rootedness of the 
 sinful habits — filrpov r^s a\yTi56v7)^ ij t^? 
 KaKlas ev €Kd<XTu} woffdr-qs eariv, p. 227), she 
 noticed that her brother was weary and sent 
 him to rest awhile in an arbour in the garden. 
 Towards the close of the same day he revisited 
 her bedside. She began a thankful review of 
 her past life, recounting God's mercies to her 
 (ib. iqi, 192). At last her voice failed, and 
 only by the motion of her lips and her out- 
 spread hands — SiaaToXri tZv xf'pw" — was she 
 known to be prating. She signed her eyes, 
 mouth, and breast with the cross. Dusk 
 came on ; lights were brought in ; she im- 
 mediately attempted to chant the fTriXi'xno! 
 evxcLpicrria — but " silently with her hands and 
 with her heart." She once more signed her- 
 self on the face with the cross, gave a deep 
 sigh, and finished her life and her prayers 
 together (ib. iqs). Round her neck was 
 found an iron cross, and a ring containing a 
 particle of the true cross {ib. 198). She was 
 buried by her brother in the grave of her 
 parents in the chapel of the " Forty Mart\TS," 
 about a mile from her monastery. Gregory 
 was assisted in carr>ang the bier by Araxius 
 the bishop of the diocese (probably Ibora), and 
 two of the leading clergy. After her death 
 many miracles said to have been performed bv 
 her were rpported to Gregory (ib. 199, 202-204). 
 Tillem. Mfm eccles. ix. 564-573. Fe.v.] 
 
 Magnentlus, Flavlus Popllius, emperor, 
 
 350-35.'^. He rose under Constantius to the 
 rank of count ; and Constans gave him com- 
 mand of the Jovian and Herculian legions 
 embodied by Diocletian and Maximian I. 
 On Jan. 18. 350, he was proclaimed emperor 
 instead of Constans, then absent on a hunting 
 expedition. Constans fled, but was murdered 
 at Helena or Elve at the foot of the W. 
 Pyrenees. Gaul and all the Western Empire, 
 including Italy, Sicily, Spain, and Africa, 
 submitted to the new emperor. Socrates 
 {H. E. ii. 26) says that the general confusion 
 of affairs now encouraged the enemies of 
 Athanasius to accuse him to Constantius ; and 
 Athanasius indignantly disclaims any corre- 
 spondence or connexion with Magnentius, in 
 the apology to Constantius ; some false charge 
 of the kind may have been made (Athan. 
 vol. i. pp. 603 seq. Migne). 
 
 On Sept. 28, 351, the battle of Mursa on the 
 Drave was fought, which deprived Magnen- 
 tius of nearly all his provinces excepting Gaul. 
 His last centre of operations was Lvons, and 
 he fell upon his sword in Aug. 353. His coins, 
 as Tillemont says iHisi. des Emp. iv. p. 354), 
 prove his profession of Christianity ; and he 
 employed bishops in his negotiations with 
 Constantius (Athan. op. cit. p. 606). But his 
 usurpation began an unbroken career of crimes. 
 and Athanasins's somewhat pithy summary of 
 him {ib. 603) as Thv ^lA^oKov '^\a.yvivTiov is 
 confirmed after their fashion bv Zosimus and 
 Julian. " [r.st.j.t.] 
 
 Majorianus, Julius Valerius, declared em- 
 peror of the West Apr. i, 457, at Columellae, 
 six miles from Ravenna. Tillemont argues 
 {Emp. vi. 634) that he did not become em- 
 peror till some months later. Majorian appar- 
 ently remained at Ravenna till Nov. 458, the 
 year of his consulship, which was marked by 
 
 MALCHION 
 
 a series of remarkable laws, which may be 
 foimd among the " Novels " at the end of the 
 Theodosian Code. An outline of these laws 
 is given by Gibbon ; the seventh enacted that 
 a curialis who had taken orders to avoid the 
 duties of his position, if below the rank of a 
 deacon, should be at once reduced to his 
 original status, while, if he had been ordained 
 deacon, priest, or bishop, he was declared 
 incapable of alienating his property. The 
 sixth law, intended to encourage marriage, 
 forbade mms to take the veil before the age of 
 forty. A girl compelled bv her parents to 
 devote herself to perpetual virginity was to be 
 at liberty to marry if at her parents' death 
 she was under 40. The whole of this law, 
 except the restrictions on the testamentary 
 power of widows, was repealed by Majorian's 
 successor, Severus. It is remarkable that the 
 Catalogue of the Popes given by the Bolland- 
 ists {A A. SS. Apr. i. 33) states that Leo the 
 Great forbad a woman taking the veil before 
 60 years of age, or according to a various 
 reading 40, and that the iqth canon of the 
 council of Agde (Mansi, viii. 328), following 
 the law of Majorian, fixes the age at 40. 
 
 On his arrival at Lyons, before the close of 
 458, Majorian was greeted by Sidonius with a 
 long paneg^Tic {Cartn. v.). At Aries, Mar. 28, 
 460, he issued a law declaring ordinations 
 against the will of the person ordained to be 
 null ; subjected an archdeacon who had taken 
 part in such an ordination to a penalty of ten 
 pounds of gold to be received bv the informer, 
 and referred abishop guilty of the same offence 
 to the judgment of the apostolic see. By the 
 same law parents who compelled a son to take 
 orders against his will were to forfeit to him 
 a third part of their property. 
 
 On Majorian's return to Italy in 461 Ricimer 
 excited a mutiny in the armv against him at 
 Tortona, forced him to abdicate on Aug. 2, 
 and five days afterwards caused him to be 
 assassinated on the banks of the Ira. Ff.d.] 
 
 Ma]orinus, a reader in the church at Car- 
 thage, holding some domestic office in the 
 household of Lucilla, who was, through her 
 influence,chosenbp. inoppositiontoCAEciLiAN. 
 This Augustine and Optatus denounced as an 
 act of rebellion, and it was undoubtedly one of 
 the first steps towards definite schism, a.d. 311. 
 His party afterwards became known by the 
 greater name of Donatt's. One of his con- 
 secrators was Silvanus, Donatist bp. of Cirta, 
 who was afterwards proved before Zenophilus 
 to have been a " traditor." Majorinus died 
 c. 315. Aug. Epp. 43 ; 3, 16 ; 89 ; c. Farm. 
 iii. II, 18 ; c. Cresc. ii. 3 ; iii. 30, 32 ; iv. 9 ; 
 de Haer. 69 ; Opt. i. 14, 15, 19 ; Mon. Vet. 
 Don. iv. ed. Oberthiir ; Tillemont, Mem. vi. 
 15, 10, 24. 690,700; Sparrow Simpson's /I «^. 
 and Afr, Ch. Divir^ions (1910), p. 18. [h.w.p.] 
 
 Malchlon, a presbyter of Antioch in the 
 reigns of Claudius and Aurelian, conspicuous 
 for his prominent part in the deposition of the 
 bp. of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, in 272. He 
 was famed as a rhetorician and was a learned 
 man well acquainted with heathen writers, 
 from whom he was accustomed to make 
 quotations (Hieron. Ep. Ixx. 4), and held, 
 while a prp<;bvter "f the church, the office of 
 I president of the facultv of rhetoric (Bus. vii. 
 I 29). The bishop having announced or implied 
 
MALCHUS 
 
 doctrines concemiiifr the nature of Christ 
 which appeared to Malchion and most of his 
 co-presbyters to be identiral with the heresy 
 of Artenion, lie engageil liini in a public tlis- 
 cussion, which was taken down by shorthand 
 writers and published. He compelled Paul 
 unwillingly to unveil his opinions, and ex- 
 hibited him to the assembly as a heretic. A 
 great council of bishops and i>resbyters having 
 then been called together, and having con- 
 demned Paul, Malchion was chosen to write 
 the letter denouncing him as a heretic and a 
 criminal to the bishops of Ri>nie and Alex- 
 andria, and through them to the world. The 
 letter and the report of the discussion were 
 known in the 4th and 5th cents, bv Eusebins 
 and Jerome ; the latter enrolled Malchion in 
 his list of illustrious church-writers, while the 
 former cites at length the principal portions 
 of the condemning letter (Eus. H. E. vii. 29, 
 30 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 71). A trans, of the 
 existing fragments of Malchion are in the 
 A,ite-Nic. Lib. (T. & T. Clark). [w.h.f.] 
 
 Malchus fl), one of the earliest hermits in 
 S\Tia, was seen in extreme old age by Jerome 
 in 374 and told him the story of his life, which 
 was written down by Jerome 16 years after- 
 wards. He was bom at Nisibis near Edessa, 
 and was the only son of a proprietor of that 
 district. He fled from his parents when they 
 importuned hini to marry, and joined one of 
 the monastic establishments in the desert of 
 Chalcis. As life advanced he desired to re- 
 visit his home. The caravan was surprised 
 by .\rabs ; he was mad<> a slave, and set to 
 feed flocks. He worked faithfully, and every- 
 thing prospered in his hands. His master 
 required him to marry a woman who was his 
 companion in slavery. Malchus pretended to 
 comply, but secretly told the woman that he 
 would rather die bv his own hand than break 
 his vow of continehcy. He found her of the 
 same mind, and indeed she h.'\d a husband 
 living. The pair agreed, though living 
 separately, to pass as man and wife. After a 
 time they escaped to the Roman settlements 
 in Mesopotamia. Finding the abbat of his 
 monasterv dead. Malchus took up his abode 
 in the hamlet of Maronia, near .\iitioch, his 
 reputed wife livins with the virgins near. 
 Maronia came by inheritance to Evagrius, 
 afterwards bp. ofAntioch, in whose company 
 Jerome came from Italy in 374 ; and the story 
 of the aged hermit confirmed Jerome in his 
 desire for the life in the desert, on which he 
 entfTpd in 37s (Hieron. Vita Malchi, 0pp. vol. 
 
 ii. 1 1, fl. Vail.). rw.H.p.1 
 
 MamertUS (1), St.. i8th bp. of Vienne, the 
 elder brother of Claudian the poet, whom he 
 ordained priest, and who is said to have 
 assisted him in his episcopal labours. Our 
 first authentic information about him is in 
 
 463. The see of Die had been included by 
 pope Leo in the prf)vincc <\i Arl'-s. but Mamer- 
 tus had consecrated a bislmp of it. (iundeu- 
 chus, or (iundioc, king of the Biircundians. 
 complained to pope Hilary, who took up the 
 matter wannlv, .-iddressing a lettir, Feb. 24, 
 
 464, to various prelates, solemnlv warning 
 MamertUS. Mamertus was still aliv*- at the 
 death of his brother in 473 "f 474 (Sid. Apoll. 
 Ep. iv. II, in Pnlr. I at. Iviii. 515). but how 
 long after is unknown. 
 
 MAMEnrus 
 
 CHI 
 
 I Though not the inventor o( Kouationn or 
 I Litanies. Manu-rtus w,is undowblrdlv thf 
 j founder <if the Ro^.^tion I>.ivs. I ii.uiir^ o( 
 the kind were, on the tvidiii. r o( n.»*il, in uw 
 in the Ivasf and. on th.it of Stdoniu*. in ih* 
 I West, but MamertUS first Nvstitn.ui/nl tlirni 
 on the three d.ivs preceding .Ascension May. 
 The story of their uistitulion ha« born given 
 by his contemporarv Sidoniin, bv Avitu*. 
 (iregory of Tours, and others. Viennr. in 
 some year before 474. had been terrifte«l by 
 portents and calamities. To atone for the 
 sins of which these calamities were thought to 
 be the penalties. Mamertus. with tlie joyful 
 assent of the citizens. ordaine<l a three dav*' 
 fast, with processions and an onlered vrvire 
 of prayer and song, which, for gre.itir labour, 
 was to take plac(> o»itsi<le the city. It» 
 successful issue ensured its pennanenre, and 
 from Vienne it spre.id over France and the 
 West. Already in 470 or 4/4 Sidonius had 
 established tluse services at Clermont, and 
 looked to them as his chief hope in the threat- 
 ened invasion of the C.oths. In 511 the first 
 council of Orleans recognized theni .and <lirect- 
 ed their continuance (.Mansi, viii. 35.S)- For 
 accounts of this institution see Ceillier, x. 346 ; 
 Bingham, .\nliquities, iv. 281 sqq. (18^5) ; 
 Smith. I). C. .!. art. " RoRation Davs " ; Gall. 
 Christ, xvi. iv H.a.v.] 
 
 MamertUS (2), Claudlatius Ecdiolus. a 
 
 learned writ'-r ..f the last half of the sth cent., 
 one of the literary sclxxd of which Sidonius 
 .\pollinaris is the best-known member. He 
 was a native of Gaul, and brother of the more 
 famous MamertUS, .archbp. of Vienne. Trainwl 
 from his earliest years for the monastic life, 
 he was educated in all the stores of (ircek. 
 Roman, and Christian literature. During his 
 brother's archbishopric he worked as a pres- 
 byter in Vienne. and served so effectuallv as 
 his right hand that some writers have repre- 
 sented him as a " bishop " under his brother. 
 This, however, seems the result of a misinter- 
 pretation (cf. Sinnondi, i. p. 539)- '^* Pr'*- 
 byter he was specially useful in training the 
 clergv, organizing the services of the church, 
 and arranging the ..rder of Psalms and Lessons 
 for the ve.ir. and perhaps we mav attribute to 
 his influence the regular use of litanies upon 
 Rogation Davs establishe<l bv his brother. 
 He w,is no less eminent for intellectual power. 
 When, c. 470, Faustus, bp. of Rirz, ptiblishrd 
 .inonvmouslv a treatise asserting the cori«.- 
 reality of the soul, Sidonius and other friend* 
 applied to Mamertus as best qualified to an- 
 swer it, and the de Statu Antmat was the 
 result. Sidonius also mentions with w-irm 
 praise a hvmn he ha<l written, and represents 
 him as a great centre «if intellectual <liv usiion. 
 " homiinmi aevi. I.kI. populi siii ingri.iosi**. 
 imus." full of learning, eater f-.r aruument. 
 patient with those who could not understand, 
 and. in his w.rk as a priest. thi>UKhtftil for all. 
 opcn-h.-inde<l. humble, not letting his benr- 
 volence be known, the adviser and helper of 
 his brother in all dicK^esan matters. He died 
 c. 474, and his epitaph, compowl by Sidonius, 
 is the chief source of information about bis 
 life. (Sid. Apoll. Ep. iv. 2, 3. ". V. 2 ; '".rn- 
 nadius, de Scrip. III. rr. 67 (?) and Hi : and Ihr 
 Preface to his own work, d* Statu Antmat.) 
 Besides two letters of his, we have (i) the 
 
682 MAMMAEA or MAMAEA, JULIA 
 
 book mentioned above, de Statu Animae, and 
 (2) some poems of doubtful authorship. 
 Sidonius {u.s.) mentions with special praise a 
 hymn by Claudian, but does not give its name. 
 One schoUast says that it was the well-known 
 " Pange lingua gloriosi," and one MS. of 
 Gennadius {u.s.) states that that hymn was 
 written by Claudian. It is, however, ordinar- 
 ily found ascribed to Fortunatus (v. Daniel, 
 Thes. Hymnol. iii. p. 285, iv. p. 68). 
 
 Fabricius has also attributed to him an 
 hexameter poem of 165 lines, " contra vanos 
 poetas ad collegam," found in a Paris MS. 
 without any author's name. 
 
 Possibly there should be assigned to him 
 also a few smaller poems found among the 
 works of the heathen poet Claudian, viz. two 
 short hexameter poems entitled " Laus 
 Christi " and " Carmen Paschale," some short 
 epigrammatic praises of the paradox of the 
 Incarnation, an elegiac account of Christ's 
 miracles, an elegiac appeal to a friend not to 
 criticize his verses too severely, and two short 
 Greek hexameter addresses to Christ, Eis t6v 
 (Toyrrjpa and Ets rbv beffiroT-qv XpicTTOf. 
 
 The works are in Migne, vol. liii. ; Bibl. Vet. 
 Pair. Lugd. 1677, vi. p. 1050 ; ed. Galland. 
 X. p. 417, and in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. 
 vol. xi. (1885) ; the poems in Fabricius, Poet. 
 Christ, p. 777. The de Statu Animae has been 
 separately edited, notably by Peter Mosel- 
 lanus (Basil, 1^04), Barth (Cycneae, 1655), 
 Schulze (Dresden, 1883). [w.L.] 
 
 Mammaea or Mamaea, Julia, the daughter 
 
 of Julia Moesa, and niece of Julia Domna, the 
 wife of the emperor Septiinius Severus. She 
 played for a short time a conspicuous part in 
 Roman history, not without some interesting 
 points of contact with the Christian church. 
 By her marriage with the S\Tian Gessius Mar- 
 cianus she became the mother of Alexander 
 Severus, and soon afterwards was a widow. 
 With her mother and her sister Soaemias, the 
 mother of Elagabalus, she went, at the 
 command of Macrinus after the death of Cara- 
 calla, to reside at Emesa. On the election of 
 her nephew Elagabalus as emperor, she went 
 with him and her son Alexander, then 13 years 
 old, to Rome, and it speaks well for her prud- 
 ence and goodness that she continued to secure 
 the life of her son from the jealous suspicions 
 of the t\Tant and to preserve him from the 
 fathomless impurity which ran riot in the 
 imperial court. There are sufficient reasons 
 for assigning this watchfulness to at least the 
 indirect influence of Christian life and teach- 
 ing. Possibly, as in the time of Nero, there 
 may have been disciples of the new faith 
 among the slaves of Caesar's household, whom 
 she learnt to respect and imitate. On the 
 death of Elagabalus, a.d. 222, and the election 
 of her son by the Praetorian Guard, she 
 attained great influence. Her leanings to the 
 Christian society were shewn more distinctly 
 when she was with the emperor at Antioch, 
 and hearing that Origen, already famous as a 
 preacher, was at Caesarea, invited him to visit 
 them with the honour of a military escort, 
 welcomed him with all honour, and listened 
 attentively as he unfolded the excellence of the 
 faith of Christ (Eus. H. E. vi. 21). It does not 
 appear that she ever made a definite profession 
 of belief, and her religion, though it won from 
 
 MANES 
 
 Eusebius (I.e.) the epithets of deoaelBeaTdrr} 
 and ev\a(3ris, and from Jerome (de Script. 
 Eccles. c. 54) that of religiosa, was probably 
 of the syncretistic type then prevalent, which 
 shewed itself, in its better form, in Alexander's 
 adoption of Christian rules of action, and in 
 his placing busts of Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, 
 and Apollonius of Tyana in his private 
 oratory (Lamprid. Vit. Sev. c. 29, 43), and in 
 its worst when Elagabalus wished to build a 
 temple on the Capitol in which Jews, Samar- 
 itans, Christians, and Romans were to unite 
 in worshipping the Deity whose name he had 
 adopted. Both mother and son, in conse- 
 quence of these tendencies, came under the 
 lash of Julian, who sneers at the childish 
 unwisdom of the latter in submitting his own 
 will to Mammaea's and gratifying her greed 
 of gain [de Caesarr. p. 313), and represents 
 him as weakly bemoaning his disaster. Mam- 
 maea shared her son's fate when the troops 
 rose and murdered him in Gaul, and her last 
 moments were embittered by her son's re- 
 proaches for the pride and avarice which had 
 wrought their common ruin (Gibbon, cc. vi. 
 and vii. and authorities cited above), [e.h.p.] 
 
 Manes (called also Mani among Oriental 
 writers, "Slavixaios and Manichaeus among 
 Greeks and Latins). The lives of all ancient 
 heretics have suffered much from the mis- 
 representations of their opponents. In the 
 case of Manes there is the additional difficulty 
 that we have two contradictory accounts in 
 the Western and Eastern traditions. The 
 Western story is derived from the Acts of 
 .\rchelaus, bp. of Caschar ; the Eastern from 
 Persian and Arabian historians. Our earliest 
 authentic notice of him is in Eusebius {H. E. 
 vii. 31), w'here he is described " as a barbarian 
 in life, both in speech and conduct, who 
 attempted to form himself into a Christ, and 
 then also proclaimed himself to be the very 
 Paraclete and the Holy Spirit. Then, as if he 
 were Christ, he selected twelve disciples, the 
 partners of his new religion, and after patching 
 together false and ungodly doctrines, collected 
 from a thousand heresies long since extinct, 
 he swept them off like a deadly poison, from 
 Persia, upon this part of the world." The 
 Acta Archelai were forged by some romancing 
 Greek between a.d. 330 and 340, as we first 
 find them quoted by Cyrill. Hieros. (Catech. vi., 
 written a.d. 348-350), and Eusebius in his 
 history, pub. 326-330, knows nothing of them. 
 If genuine, it is scarcely possible that Eusebius, 
 living but a few miles from Jerusalem and with 
 all the imperial resources at his back, could 
 have been ignorant of a dispute which must 
 have made such a noise all over Syria and 
 Mesopotamia. [Archelaus.] 
 
 Upon the story told by the Syrian, Persian, 
 and Arab historians and chroniclers known to 
 Beausobre he places much more reliance than 
 upon the Western tradition (pt. i. liv. ii. cc. 
 i.-iv.). It runs thus : Manes was born c. 240, 
 and descended from a Magian family. He 
 was well educated in Greek, music, mathe- 
 matics, geography, astronomy, painting, 
 medicine, and the Scriptures. Being very 
 zealous for the faith, he was ordained priest 
 while yet young, but becoming a heretic he 
 went to the court of Sapor, whom he prosely- 
 tized to his views, c. 267, but as soon as he 
 
MANES 
 
 opened his views inure fullv Ihe kinj; resolved 
 to put him to death. In fact, a real revival of 
 Zoroastrian doctrine had taken place uniler 
 his reign, and as soon as Manes disclosed his 
 full plan it was seen to involve the overthrow 
 of the national religion. He tiien fled into 
 Turkestan, where he gained nianv disciples, 
 used his talents to adorn a temple with paint- 
 ings, and hiding himself in a cave for 12 
 months produced his gospel in a book em- 
 bellished with beautiful figures, lie returned 
 to Persia, and presented this to king Hormis- 
 das, who protected him antl embraced his 
 views. This king, dying within two years, 
 was succeeded by Varanes I. a.d. 273, who 
 was at first favourable to Manes. The 
 national priesthood, however, becoming al- 
 armed at the power of his sect, challenged him 
 to a disputation before the king, after which 
 he was condemned to die as a heretic. .^Vccord- 
 ing to some he was crucified, according to 
 others cut in two or flaved alive (Hvde, 
 Rel. Vet. Pt-rs. p. 283 ; ' Kenaudot, Hist. 
 Pat. Alex. pp. 40-40; Eutvch. .iunal. Alex. 
 t. i. p. 387 ; Hotting. Hist. Orient, i. 3). 
 Varanes instituted a general persecution of the 
 Manicheans after his death. Kutychius (I.e.) 
 reports a savage jest of his on this subject. 
 He put to death 200 Manicheans, and caused 
 them to be buried with their heads down and 
 their feet projecting above gromul. He then 
 boasted he had a garden planted with men 
 instead of trees. The persecution was so 
 severe that adherents of the sect fled into all 
 the neighbouring lands — India, China, Tur- 
 kestan, etc. The pretext of the persecution 
 was that the spread of the sect was hostile to 
 the human race through their opposition to 
 marriage (Assem. Bibl. Or. iii. 220). 
 
 Since Beausobre's time the sources of 
 Oriental knowledge have been much enlarged, 
 and modern research inclines more and more 
 to trust the concordant testimony of Persian, 
 Arabic, and Armenian historians, as opposed to 
 the Byzantines, about the affairs of W. .\sia. 
 According to these Eastern authorities, the 
 father of Manes came originally from Persia to 
 Babylon, where Manes was born. One day 
 his father heard in a temple a voice saying, 
 " Eat no flesh, drink no wine, and abstain 
 from women," whereupon he founded the sect 
 of the Mugtasila rir the Washers, identical 
 with the Sabians of the Marshes between tne 
 Tigris and Euphrates, still found near Bass(jra. 
 In this sect Manes was brought up, being 
 instructed in all the knowledge of iiis time. 
 .\l 12 years old an angel annouuffd to him 
 that when older he should abandon that sect. 
 At 24 the same angel sununoned iiim to found 
 Manicheism in these words : " Hail, Manes, 
 from me and from the Lord which has sent 
 me to thee and chosen thee for his work. 
 Now he commands thee to proclaim the glad 
 tidings of the truth which comes from him. 
 and bestow thereon thy whole zeal." .Manes, 
 according to one tradition, entered on his 
 office the day that Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, 
 succeeded to the throne, Sun. Apr. i, 238, as 
 Fliigel determines by a lengthened calculation 
 (pp. 146-149). According to another (p. 8^) 
 Manes appeared in the 2nd year of the em- 
 peror (iallus, A.D. 252 (pp. 150-162). He 
 claimed to be the Paraclete promised by 
 
 MANICHEANS 
 
 flR3 
 
 I Christ, and ih-nved hi>, d ^mas from lVr»Uu 
 and Christian source*. Urforr Manr« inpt 
 Sapor he travrllrtl for 40 \c»n lhr<tu«h 
 various countries. Ipon lii-* return he in- 
 vited 1-iru/. the brothrr of Sapor and »on »1 
 Artax.rxes, to accept his d.K-trinr*. ThroUKli 
 him he was intr<Mlui <■<! t • Sip r wti . ■.! . \vr<i 
 him great respi-ct. th- Iv 
 
 intended to slay him. ,. 
 
 tion of his own life .y , » 
 
 adherents to ]>rearh tli. ii -.>■ ^^-. ml i r. tlip 
 ! sect had spre.id into India, ihiiia, niid lur- 
 i kestan. Manes was put to de.ith bv V.iranr« 
 1 I. (272-276), and his body, cut in two. w.i« 
 I suspended over the two gates of the city 
 I Dschundis.ibur. pp. 00. 3J')-3U- A version 
 I of his history which later research has brought 
 I to light is in .'Vlbinini's Chrnnologv <>/ .imtfnl 
 I Xations, trans, bv E. Sachau and pub. by the 
 Oriental Trans, l-und in 1879. It is a mo,t 
 I iinpcirtant document, and well desrrvrs the 
 I praise the learned editor lavishes upon it in 
 i his introduction. In many particulars it 
 strikingly confirms the narrative of ,an-Nadliii 
 given bv Fliigel, l)i)th being prob.iblv derived 
 from Manif hean sources. Alblninl w.is a 
 native of Khiva, A.n. f)73-i04N. and lived and 
 ' wrote near tiiere. This work proves him to 
 I have possessed vast literary resources n'> longer 
 available, but some of which may yet be found 
 in Central .•\sia. (Cf. art. bv Thomas on Recent 
 Pehh'i Decipherments in J«ur. Asiat. Soc. 1871, 
 p. 417.) The writings of Manes were very 
 numerous. F"roin Albiruni's work we learn 
 that some were still in existence in the nth 
 cent. They were written in Persian and 
 Syriac. and, according to Muhammad ben 
 Ishak, in a character jieculiar to the Mani- 
 cheans. Of this alphabet Fliigel in his com- 
 mentary, p. 167, gives a copy. It contained 
 more letters than the Syriac, and was chiefly 
 used by the Manicheans of Sainarkhand and 
 Transoxania, where the Marcionites who still 
 I existed there in the 10th cent, used a similar 
 , character. The names of his books. acci>rding 
 I to Beausobre, are his Ci'ispel ; his Treasure of 
 I Life; Book of Chai>ters; Treatise about the 
 Faith, which Beausobre (t. i. p. 427) believes 
 identical with his Mysteries luiariffxa. Kpiph. 
 ' Haer. Ixvi. 14), of which too he gives an 
 i analvsis, with which cf. the verv different one 
 ! by Muhammad ben Ishak in Fliigel, p. loa ; 
 j Book about the (iiants, known in Svriar at the 
 j court («f Baghdad so late as the gth rent. 
 i (Jour. Asiat. Mar. 183s. p. 260). Ar. ..rding to 
 I Epiphanius he also wrote treatis«-s on .istron- 
 omy, astrology, ami magic. To his Funda- 
 mental Epistle .\uKustine replies in his treatise 
 cont. Ep. Fundament!. This last serins to 
 have been specially popular in Africa. In 
 I Fabric. {Dibl. Graec. lib. v. c. i.) will br found 
 ! a collection of fragments from his epistles and 
 ' a list of his w..rks. [c.t.s.I 
 
 Manicheans (MaJ'tX'"'ot. Kpiph. Ha^r. txvi.. 
 where they are also calle<l '.\..)i nn"' o, fr>m 
 } 'A»ot'at. one of their leaders, -ic 
 
 I heresy from Mesopotamia t' i 1. 
 
 j For the personal history of Mi it. 
 
 I VVc now treat of the origin, prin. i; i- ^, ■ uitu*. 
 literature, and history of the sri t called after 
 j him ; which was. indeed, not s>, niurh a 
 I definite sect as a vast indefinite spiritual aiul 
 I intellectual inoyeincnt, which from lt» very 
 
684 
 
 MANICMEANS 
 
 vastness eludes, or at least renders very diffi- 
 cult, definite historical treatment. 
 
 (i) Origin and Principles of Manicheism. — 
 For the fountain of the Manichean heresy we 
 must turn to India (see Baur, Das Manichd- 
 ische Religionssysiem, Tiibingen, 1831, pp. 433- 
 451, where there is satisfactory evidence that 
 elements derived both from Buddhism and 
 from Zoroastrism are found in the Manichean 
 system). Darmester recognized the influence 
 of the Zend-Avesta and Zoroastrism upon 
 Manicheism: ci. Zend-Avesta in Sacred Books of 
 the East, t. iv. intro. p. xxxvii. For athorough 
 exposition of this system see the two large 
 works of Beausobre, Baur's vol. of 300 pp., 
 and Neander's Church Hist. fBohn's ed.), t. ii. 
 pp. 157-195. We must content ourselves with 
 sketching the leading principles of the sect. 
 Manes probablv at first merely desired to 
 blend Christianity and Zoroastrism together. 
 From Zoroastrism he took his Dualism, which 
 consisted of two independent principles 
 absolutely opposed to each other, with their 
 opposite creations : on the one side God 
 (Ahura-Mazda), the original good from whom 
 nothing but good can proceed ; on the other 
 side original evil (Angro-Mainyus), whose 
 essence is wild, self-conflicting tumult, matter, 
 darkness, a world full of smoke and vapour. 
 The powers of darkness, contending in wild 
 rage, approached so near in their blind 
 struggle to the realm of light that a gleam from 
 that hitherto unknown kingdom reached them, 
 whereupon they strove to force their way into 
 it. The good God, in order to guard His 
 boundaries, produced the Aeon Mother of Life, 
 by whom the first or spiritual man was pro- 
 duced, together with the five elements, wind, 
 light, water, fire, and matter, to carry on the 
 struggle ; which, however, are not identical 
 with the actual elements, but are the elements 
 of the higher world, of which the mundane and 
 actual elements are a copy framed by the 
 Prince of Darkness, a view we find worked out 
 by the Cathari of the 12th cent. (Gieseler, H. 
 E. iii. 452). Primitive man is worsted by the 
 spirits of darkness, who take from him some 
 of his armour, which is his soul (^vxv)- He 
 prays to the Light- King, who sends the Spirit 
 of Life, who rescues him and raises him once 
 more to the Light- Kingdom. Meanwhile the 
 Powers of Darkness had succeeded in swallow- 
 ing part of the luminous essence of the prim- 
 eval heavenly man, which they proceeded to 
 shut up in material bodies, as in a prison. 
 But this very violence is the means of their 
 destruction. The Divine Spirit is only en- 
 closed in the material prisons for a time and 
 with a view to final deliverance. To illustrate 
 this Manes used a parable. A shepherd sees 
 a wild beast about to rush into the midst of 
 his flock. He digs a pit and casts into it a 
 kid ; the beast springs into the pit to devour 
 his prey, but cannot extricate himself. The 
 shepherd, however, delivers the kid and leaves 
 the lion to perish (Disp. c. Archel. c. 25 ; 
 Epiph. Haer. Ixvi. c. 44). The Spirit of Life at 
 once began his preparations for purifying the 
 souls which had been mixed up with the 
 kingdom of darkness. That part of the soul 
 which had not been affected by matter he 
 placed in the sun and moon, whence it might 
 send forth its influence to release and draw 
 
 MANICHEANS 
 
 back towards itself, through the refining pro- 
 cesses of vegetable and animal life, kindred 
 souls diffused through all nature ; for the sun 
 and moon play as important a part in the 
 Manichean as they do in the Persian, Indian, 
 and Mithraic systems (C. B. Stark, Zwei 
 Mithraeen, Heidelberg, 1864, p. 43). To 
 prevent this gradual despirituahzation the 
 powers of darkness resolve to produce a being 
 in whom the soul of nature, which was ever 
 striving after liberty, might be securely 
 imprisoned. This is man as he is now, shaped 
 after the image of the primitive man with 
 whom they originally waged war. He was 
 formed by the prince of darkness, and em- 
 braces in himself the elements of both worlds, 
 the soul springing from the Light- Kingdom, 
 the body from that of darkness. The powers 
 of darkness now perceive that the light-nature, 
 by concentrating itself in man, has become 
 powerful. They therefore seek to attach him 
 by every possible enticement to the lower 
 world. Here comes in the Manichean story 
 of the Fall, which resembles that of the 
 Ophites. The Powers of Darkness invited 
 man to partake of all the trees of Paradise, 
 forbidding only the tree of Knowledge. But 
 an angel of light, or Christ Himself, the Spirit 
 of the Sun, counteracted their artifices in the 
 shape of the serpent, the parts of the Biblical 
 narrative being thus reversed, God's share 
 being ascribed to the devil and vice versa. 
 The Manichean standpoint with respect to the 
 Fall determined their attitude towards the 
 whole O.T., which they rejected as the work 
 of the evil principle. Likewise their theory 
 about the creation of the material part of man 
 determined their view of the Incarnation, 
 which they regarded as wholly Docetic ; if a 
 material body was a prison and a burden to 
 the spirit of man, Christ could scarcely volun- 
 tarily imprison His divine Spirit in the same. 
 " Moreover, the Son, when He came for man's 
 salvation, assumed a human appearance, so 
 that He appeared to men as if He were a man, 
 and men thought He had been born " (Epiph. 
 Haer. Ixvi. 49). This Docetic view of the 
 Incarnation destroyed the reality of His life. 
 His death, resurrection, and ascension, and 
 struck at the root of all historical Christianity, 
 so that we find at last some later Manicheans 
 maintaining a distinction between the mun- 
 dane or historical Christ, who was a bad man, 
 and the spiritual Christ, Who was a divine 
 deliverer (Gieseler, H. E. iii. 407, note 28). 
 They attached a mystical signification to 
 orthodox language about our Lord, whereby 
 they could use it to deceive the unwary. Thus 
 they could speak of a suffering son of man 
 hanging on every tree — of a Christ crucified 
 in every soul and suffering in matter. They 
 gave their own interpretation to the symbols 
 of the suffering Son of Man in the Lord's 
 Supper (cf. Petrus Sic. Hist. Man. in Bigne's 
 Bib. PP. xvi. 760). For a thorough exposition 
 of the relations between Manicheism and 
 Buddhism see Baur, I.e. pp. 433-451, vvhere he 
 points out Buddhist influence on Manichean 
 doctrines as to the opposition between matter 
 and spirit, upon the creation and end of the 
 world, and upon moral questions. The most 
 striking pciints of contact are metempsychosis 
 (Baur, I.e. p. 440), and the stress laid upon 
 
MANICHEANS 
 
 gnosis. The former is tlic outi-r w.iy, wlicn-by 
 souls can return lliitlu-r wiuiice they have 
 descended. The latter is the inner and | 
 highest way (cf. Colebrooke's Essays, ii. 382, 
 389, for the luiiversal influence <>f this view in 
 India). In both systems asceticism was the 
 practical result of the opposition between I 
 matter and spirit ; the more matter could be 1 
 crushed, the nearer the spirit came to its ori- ' 
 ginal source (cf. Lassen, /«</. Alterthum. iii. : 
 408-415). I 
 
 (2) Organization. — Perhaps, however, it is 
 on the practical organization of the system ; 
 that Buddhist influence is most clearly seen. 
 Manicheism ditlered from Gnosticism, for the 
 latter did not wish to alter anything in the 
 constitution of the existing church, but only j 
 desired to add to the Confession of Faith for j 
 the i/^i'^i\ot a secret doctrine for the wyfinariKoi; 
 while Manes, as the Paraclete, set up a new < 
 church instead of the old. which, even in the j 
 persons of the apostles, had been corrupted by | 
 Jewish traditions. In the Manichean church I 
 the gradations were similar to those among ' 
 the Buddhists (cf. H. H. Wilson's 0/)/>. t. ii. 
 p. 360, Essay on Buddha and BudJhiam). 
 There was first the great body consisting of 
 the auditores, from whom a less strict course 
 of life was demanded, and one of whose leading 
 duties was to supply the other and higher class, 
 the Elect or Perfect, with food and other 
 necessaries. From these last an ascetic life 
 was demanded. They should possess no pro- 
 perty, were bound to a celibate and contem- 
 plative life, abstaining from all strong drinks 
 and animal food. They should hurt no living 
 thing, from a religious reverence for the divine 
 life diffused through all nature. Not only 
 should they take no life, but not even pull up 
 a herb or pluck fruits or flowers (.\ug. cont. 
 Faust, v. 6, vi. 4). Thus Epiphanius (Haer. 
 l.xvi. c. 28) tells us that when their followers 
 presented one of the Elect with food, he first 
 addressed it thus : " I have neither reaped 
 nor ground, nor pressed nor cast thee into the 
 oven. All these things another has done, and 
 brought thee to me. I am free from all fault." 
 Upon which he said to his disciple, " I have 
 prayed for thee," and let him go (cf. Von 
 Wegnern, de Munich. Indulgent, pp. 69 seq.). 
 Here is an essential Pantheism, a tendency 
 which -Manicheism manifestly draws from 
 Buddhism (Hodgson, Jour. Roy. .is. Sac. 1835, 
 p. 295 ; Matter, Hist, du Gnostic, t. ii. 357) 
 and which develops further in the course of 
 its history. St. .\ugustine noted this point in 
 his reply to Faustus, ii. 5, xii. 13 ; cf. Aug. 
 Epp. 165, 166, c. iii. § 7 ; Ep. 74 ad Deuterium 
 F:piscop. ; Toll. Insig. p. 137; .Muratorii, 
 A need. Ambros. Bibliolh. 'n.112. Manesderived 
 from Christianity another element of his tys- 
 tern. As the Paraclete promised by Christ, he, 
 afterChrist's example, chose twelve apostles, in 
 whom the government of the sect was placed. 
 .At their head there was a thirteenth, repre- 
 senting .Manes and presiding over all (Fliigel's 
 Mani, pp. 97, 298, 316; Baur, I.e. p. 305); 
 subordinate to them there were 72 bishops, 
 under whom were presbyters, deacons, and 
 travelling missionaries, a constitution which 
 lasted to the 13th cent, and possibly may not 
 be yet quite extinct. 
 
 (3) Cm«ms.— The Manicheanshad their own 
 
 MANICHEANS 
 
 688 
 
 peculiar rites, th..uK-h tli.n nivstiral intrrpre- 
 tation of lan({u.iKe .n.ibliil th.iu U, hohl ihr 
 highest position in the Christian ministry. a« 
 in an-Nadim's lime. a.i>. .>87. it mublrd Ihcm 
 to conform externally U> the .Mohanunrdan 
 system (Fliigers Slant, pp. 107. 4.)4-4oH). 
 Thus llulychius. Pat. .\\v\. Annal. t. 1. p. 51 j 
 (cf. Kenaudot, //u/. I'atr. AUxand. p. loi). 
 tells how Timothrus. Pat. Alex.. .Iisrovrrrd 
 .Manicheans among the ICgvi.ti.in bishops at 
 the council of Constantinople by pirmittiuK 
 the bishops and monks to oat flesh on Sunday*, 
 which the Manicheans would not do. Their 
 worship consisted in prayers and hymn*. 
 They had neither temples, altars, incense, n<T 
 images. They fasted on Sunday. They re- 
 garded Easter lightly, as a festival which in 
 their system had no meaning. They obvrve*! 
 Pentecost, but not Christmas or Epiphany. 
 Their great festival was that •>( Henia, held in 
 .March in memory of their founder's death. 
 .\i\ empty chair or pulpit, richly upholstered, 
 was then placed in their assembly, as a s>Tn- 
 bol of his presence, while one of his works, 
 probably his Fundamental Epistle, was read, 
 together with the records of his martyrdom 
 (cf. .Aug. Reply to Fund. Epist. c. viii. ; cont. 
 Faust, xviii. 5). As to their sacraments, the 
 authorities vary much. Beausobre (t. 11. 
 liv. ix. c. vi.) maintained strongly that they 
 baptized even infants, and that in the name 
 of the Trinity. On the other hand Augustine. 
 de Haer. c. xlvi. ; cont. Ep. I'elag. lib. ii. and 
 other places cited by Beausobre, I.e. p. 714 n. ; 
 Cedren. Hist. Comp., 0pp. t. i. col. 831, .Migne's 
 Patr. (ik. t. cxxi., expressly assert that they 
 rejected baptism with water ; and Timothcus 
 C. P. in his Form. Recep. Haer. classes them 
 among those heretics who must receive bap- 
 tism on joining the church, a rule which seems 
 to have prevailed from the 4th cent. (Uever- 
 idge. Cod. Canon. Eccles. Primit. lib. ii. c. 12 ; 
 Basil. Ep. clxxxviii.). Certainly their 
 practice in the 12th cent, would support this 
 latter view, as they then substituted their 
 Consolamcntum or laying on of hands- which 
 they called the baptism of the Holy (.host- 
 for water baptism, which they scorned (cf. 
 Gieseler, H. E.iii. 397. 410 n.). For the .Mani- 
 cheans to admit baptism with water would 
 seem inconsistent with their fundamental 
 principle of the essentially evil nature of 
 matter (cf. Tertull. conl. .Marcwn. 1. 23). 
 But we cannot expect perfect consistency, as 
 in another respect they seem to have retained 
 from the Zoroastrian system an exaggerated 
 reverence for water. As to their Eucharist 
 there is the same diversity »if testimony and a 
 similar accusation of filthy practices. They 
 celebrated the communion, substituting water 
 for wine, the use of which they abhorred. 
 About the disgusting cerenumial of Ischas. 
 which Cyril. Hier. {Cat. vi.), .\ugnsiine (Hart. 
 xlvi.), and Pope Leo I. (itr. v. De Jefun. t. 
 .Mens.) accuse them of adding to their com- 
 munion ill a foul manner, see BeauMjbre, hv. 
 ix. cc. 7-9 in t. ii. pp. 72o-7'»i- 
 
 Manicheism has been the prolific parent of 
 false gospels. [LciiiLs (I) ; MASt.s.) Hut 
 the work «»f forgery was due not so much to 
 Manes as to his followers, and it i\ almml 
 certain that Manicheism merely adopted many 
 apocryphal wTiting^. 
 
686 MANICHEANS 
 
 (4) History after Death of Manes. — (i) In the 
 East, where they originated, the Manicheans 
 made rapid progress, spreading, as an-Nadim 
 (Fliigel's Mani, p. 105, cf. p. 394) tells us, 
 into various lands. During their persecution 
 upon the death of Manes, they fled into Trans- 
 oxania, whence they maintained a constant 
 communication with Babylon, their original 
 seat, as the head of the sect always remained 
 there till the Mohammedan invasion. They 
 spread into S. Armenia and Cappadocia, where 
 they found material ready to their hand in 
 the HvpsisTARii of that region (Matter, 
 Gnosticism, ii. 392), whence they came into 
 immediate contact with Europe. A proof of 
 their activity in Armenia is found in the work 
 of Eznig, one of the leading writers of Armenia 
 in the 5th cent., pub. by the Mekhitarite 
 monks at Venice in 1826 under the title Re- 
 futatio Errorum Persarmn et Manichaeoruin. 
 Their progress seems to have been intensified 
 by the Mazdakite movement in the 5th cent., 
 which was only a revival of Manicheism. It 
 displayed the same missionary activity which 
 manifested itself in an aggression upon the 
 orthodox of Armenia, a.d. 590, noted by the 
 Armenian historian Samuel of Ani. He gives 
 us a list of Manichean works which they in- 
 troduced into .-Vrmenia, including the Peni- 
 tence or Apocalypse of Adam (pub. by Renan 
 in the Jour. A'siat. 1853, t. ii. p. 431), the 
 Explanation of the Gospel of Manes, the Gospel 
 of the Infancy, the Vision of St. Paul, and the 
 Testament of Adam. 
 
 (ii) In the West the first notice of an advance 
 is found in an edict (given in Gieseler, H. E. 
 i. 228) of Diocletian, directed to Julian, pro- 
 consul of Africa, dated prid. kal. Apr. 287, 
 wherein Manichean leaders are condemned to 
 the stake, and their adherents punished with 
 decapitation and confiscation of all their 
 goods, as following " a new and unheard-of 
 monster, which has come to us from the 
 Persians, a hostile people, and has perpetrated 
 many misdeeds." The genuineness of this 
 edict has been challenged, but is defended by : 
 Neander, H. E. ii. 195, n. The chief ground ( 
 for disputing it is the silence of the Fathers, 
 specially of Eusebius. But the argument e j 
 silentio is never a safe one, and Ambrosiaster 
 mentions it when commenting upon II.Tim. iii. I 
 7. It is addressed to the proconsul of Africa, ; 
 where the Manicheans were making great pro- j 
 gress. This coincides with the fact, known 
 independently, that Manes sent a special envoy j 
 to Africa, where, during the 4th cent., Mani- 
 cheism flourished, both among the monks and 
 clergy of Egypt and in proconsular Africa, 1 
 ensnaring souls like St. Augustine ; and where i 
 they must have been very numerous and I 
 powerful, since, notwithstanding the severe j 
 and bloody laws enacted against them by 
 Valentinian, A.D.372,andTheodosius, a.d. 381, 
 they assembled, taught, and debated in public 
 in Augustine's time. Yet in some places 
 these laws were not empty threats, for the 
 heathen rhetorician Libanius appealed in be- 
 half of the Manicheans of Palestine {Ep. 1344). 
 Probably, as in the case of the pagan per- 
 secutions, the vigour with which they were 
 enforced varied with the dispositions of local 
 magistrates. From Africa the sect spread 
 into Spain, Gaul, and Aquitaine (Philast. Haer. \ 
 
 MARANA and CYRA 
 
 c. 6r, 84), where it may have originated Pris* 
 cillianism (Muratori, Anecd. ex Ambros. Bib- 
 lioth. Codic. ii. 113, ed. 1698). Later we find 
 the Arian king Hunneric persecuting it in 
 Africa, together with the orthodox, a.d. 477 
 (Vict. Vit. Hist. Persec. Wand. ii. init.). We 
 ! of course find the sect at Constantinople and 
 at Rome. Constantine the Great commis- 
 sioned a certain Strategius — who, under the 
 name of Musonianus, rose to be praetorian 
 prefect of the East — to report upon it (Am- 
 mian. Marcell. xv. 13) ; while again, 200 years 
 I later, in the end of the 5th and beginning of 
 the 6th cent., Manicheism in the Mazdakite 
 I movement made an imperial convert in An- 
 astasius I. At Rome they were found from 
 ancient times. Lipsius in Jahrb. Prot. Theol. 
 ! 1879, art. on Neue Stud, ziir Papst-Chronologie, 
 p. 438, discusses a constitution of pope An- 
 astasius I. a.d. 398, enacted on account of 
 their recent immigration from beyond the 
 seas. After the barbarian invasion of Africa 
 they fled to Rome in great numbers, and pope 
 Leo I. was active in their repression. Leo 
 says that the Manicheans, whom, with the aid 
 of the civil magistrates, he arrested, acknow- 
 ledged their dissolute practices ; whereupon 
 Valentinian III. published a very severe law 
 against them. Notwithstanding all the papal 
 efforts, renewed from age to age, we still find 
 the sect at Rome in 7th cent., under Gregory 
 the Great (cf. Greg. Mag. lib. ii. Ep. 37 ; 
 Gieseler, H. E. t. ii. p. 491, Clark's ed.). 
 
 (5) Remains of the Sect and of its Literature. — 
 In the Yezedees, or Devil-worshippers of 
 Mosul, and the Ansairees of S>Tia, we have 
 their direct representatives ; while mingled 
 with the doctrines of the Sabians or Hemero- 
 baptistae, who still linger in the neighbour- 
 hood of Harran, we have a large Manichean 
 element. See Badger's Nestorians, t. i. cc. 
 ix. X. ; Lyde's Asian Mystery, and Layard's 
 : Nineveh, c. ix., as confirming this view by 
 several interesting facts, cf. also Notes sur les 
 ! sectes de Kurdistan, par T. Gilbert, in Jour. 
 : .Asiat. 1873, t. ii. p. 393. Cahier maintained, 
 i in Mel. archeol. i. 148, that the Bogomili and 
 the Massalians, branches of the same sect, 
 still existed (1S8S) in Russia. We still possess 
 some specimens of their hterature, and a criti- 
 I cal examination of Mohammedan MSS. and a 
 : complete investigation of the interior state of 
 i Western and Central Asia would probably re- 
 veal them in still larger abundance (Beausob. 
 Hist. Man. t. i. p. 366, and n. 4). Renan pub- 
 lished in 1853, in the Jour. Asiat. a Syriac 
 document called the .Apocalypse of Adam, 
 which he shewed to be one of those brought by 
 the Manicheans into Armenia in 590 a.d. and 
 condemned in the celebrated Gelasian decree. 
 See Harnack, Dogmengesch. vol. ii. (4th ed. 
 1909), pp. 513-527- [Gelasius.] [g.t.s.] 
 
 Mar Aba or Mar- Abas. [Nestorian Church ; 
 Thomas (8).] 
 
 Marana and Cyra, two ladies of birth and 
 education of Beroea in Syria, who in their 
 youth devoted themselves to a solitary life of 
 the extremest austerity, which they had perse- 
 vered in for 42 years when Theodoret wTote 
 his Religiosa Historia. According to Theo- 
 doret they left home with some female ser- 
 vants whom they had inspired with the same 
 ascetic fervour and built a small stone en- 
 
MARCELLA 
 
 closure, open to the sky, the door of which 
 they closed up with mud and stones, their only 
 means of communication with the outer world 
 being a small window tliroui;h whirh thev 
 took in food. Only females were allowed to 
 converse with Marana, ami that only at 
 Easter ; C>Ta no one had ever heard speak. 
 For their maidens a small hovel was con- 
 structed within earshot, so that they could 
 encouratre them by their example and bv 
 their words to a life of prayer and holy love. 
 Theodoret often visited these recluses and in 
 honour of his priestly office they unwalied 
 their door and admitted him into the en- 
 closure, which he found devoid of any pro- 
 tection against the heat or cold, rain or snow. 
 Their heads and the whole upper jiart of their 
 bodies were enveloped in long hoods, entirely 
 concealing their faces, breasts, and hands. 
 They wore chains of iron round their necks, 
 waists, and wrists, of such weight as to pre- 
 vent Cyra, who was of weak" frame, from 
 raising herself upright. These they laid aside 
 at Theodoret's request, but resumed after he 
 left. Their fastings equalled in length those of 
 Moses and David. Fired with a desire to visit 
 holy sites, they made a pilgrimage to J erusa- 
 lem, not eating once on the journey nor as 
 they returned, and only breaking their fast at 
 Jerusalem. They practised the same rigid 
 abstinence on a second pilgrimage to the tomb 
 of St. Thccla at the Isauriau .Seleucia. Theod. 
 Hist. Relig. c. 29 ; Basil. Mowl. Feb. 28 ; 
 Tillem. ii. 64 ; Ceill. x. 63. [e-v.] 
 
 Marcella, the friend of Jerome, from whose 
 writingsandmemoirof her (£/>.cxxvii.ed. Vail.) 
 she is chiefly known. She was descended from 
 the illustrious Roman family of the Marcelli, 
 and had great wealth. Her mother Albina 
 was a widow when Athanasius came as an 
 exile to Rome in 340. From Athanasius and 
 his companions she heard of Anthony and the 
 monasteries of the Thebaid, and received her 
 first impulse towards the ascetic life. She 
 married, but her husband died after seven 
 months, and she refused a second marriage 
 offered her by the wealthy Cerealis, a man of 
 consular rank but advanced in years. Her 
 ascetic tendency was confirmed by the coming 
 to Rome of the Egyptian monk Peter in 374. 
 She was the first in the city to make the 
 monastic profession. She continued to live 
 with her mother in their palatial residence on 
 the Aventine, but with the utmost simplicity. 
 She was not immoderate in her asceticism, and 
 followed the counsels of her mother, from 
 whose society she never departed. 
 
 When Jerome came to Rome in 382, she 
 sought him out because of his repute for 
 Biblical learning, and made him, at first 
 against his will, her constant companion. .\ 
 circle of ladies gathered round her, and her 
 house became a Idnd of convent dedicated to 
 the study of the Scriptures, and to i)salrno(ly 
 and prayer. Marcella was eager for infonii.i- 
 tion, and would not accept any doubtful ex- 
 planation, so that Jerome found himself in 
 the presence of a judge rather than a disciple. 
 At times she took her teacher to task for his 
 severity and quarrelsomeness (Ep. xxvii. 2, 
 ed. Vail.). He wrote for her some 15 different 
 treatises on difficult passages of Scripture and 
 church history ; and on his departure in 385 
 
 MARCELLINUS 
 
 687 
 
 hoj;)ed that she mi^'ht have .irrompanied her 
 intimate friends I'aiila and Kutt.K hiuiu to 
 Palestine. \ letter wriUrn bv thosr iw,. 
 I.ulies on their settlement at H.thlrhnn (in 
 Jerome, l-.p. xliv. ed. Vail.) invites hrr in kImw- 
 mg temis to come and enjoy with thrui the 
 Holy Land; but she reinaiiic<l at Kciinr. After 
 her mother's death in vS; she rriirnl t.. a 
 little house outside the ritv with hrr vouuk 
 friend Principia and dev..ted her whole tiinr 
 to good works. She still had a keen interMt 
 in Jerome's theological pursuits, and when 
 Kufinus came to Rome and disputes aros«- a« 
 to his translation of Origen's xtpi 'Apx*^'- *•>« 
 threw herself eagerly into the controvrniv. 
 Having, in conjunction with Paminachius and 
 Oceanus, ascertained Jerome's viiw <.f the 
 matter, she urged the pope .Anastasius {\oo- 
 403) to condemn Origen and his defender* ; 
 and, when he hesitated, went to him and 
 pointed out the passages which, she contended, 
 though veiled in Rufinus's translation, dr- 
 mantled the pope's condemnation. Anasta- 
 sius completely yiehled, and like Theophilus 
 of .^l.'xandria condemned Origen and hi* 
 uiiholders. " Of this glorious victory," says 
 Jerome, " Marcella was the origin." 
 
 She lived till the sack of Rome by Alaric. 
 The Goths, supposing her to be affecting 
 poverty to conceal her wealth, used personal 
 violence, but at her entreaty s[)ared Principia, 
 and at last allowed them to take sanctuary 
 in St. Paul's church. Her f.iith made her 
 seem hardly sensible of her sufferings, but she 
 only survived a few days and died in the amis 
 of Principia, leaving all she had to the poor. 
 Jerome, ed. Vail. Epp. 23-29, 32, 34, 37-44, 
 46, 97. 127. [w.ll.K.] 
 
 Maroelllna (2), a sister of St. Ambrose, 
 older than himself. His three books dt 
 \'irginihus, addressed to her, were written 
 by her request. From iii. i we learn that she 
 was admitted as a consecrated virgin at Rome 
 on Christmas Day, by pope Liberius, in the 
 presence of a large concourse of virgins and 
 others. The address then given by Liberius 
 is recorded by Ambrose from what Marceiliiia 
 had often repeated t<i him. Ambrose praises 
 her devotion and ailvises her to relax the 
 severity of her fasting. She is mentioned by 
 him (Ep. V.) as a witness to the virginal purity 
 of Indicia. A constant correspondence was 
 kept up with her brother. .She is his "domina 
 soror vitae atque oculis praeferenda." He 
 wrote tliree of liis most important letters to 
 her : Ep. xx. describes his conflict with Justina 
 and her son the younger Valentiiiiaii ; xxii. 
 announces the discovery of the bodies of the 
 martyrs (iervasius and Prolasius ; xli. reports 
 a sermon in which he hadreproved Tlieodosiu*. 
 In iiis discourse on the death of his brother 
 Satyrus, .Ambrose speaks of the w;irin family 
 ;i(fection which, bound the three together, iuid 
 of the sister's grief {de Excfuu Salvn, ff 33, 
 7.,). (j.LL.I..) 
 
 MaroelllnUS (1), bp. of Komr after Caiui 
 from June 30, 29O, to Oct. 25 (.'). 304, elected 
 after a vacancy of about two months; called 
 .Marcellianus by Jerome, Nicephoru*. and 111 
 the Chronogr. Synlomon (H53). The alKivc 
 dates .ore those of the Libenan Catalogue (354) 
 and appear correct. In other records hi* 
 chronology is very uncertain, partly, it wmild 
 
688 MARCELLINUS 
 
 seem, owing to a confusion between him and 
 his successor Marcellus. He is omitted alto- 
 gether in the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum 
 and Depositio Martyrum (see Lipsius, 
 Chronol. der rom. Bisch. p. 242). The main 
 question about him is his conduct with regard 
 to the persecution under Diocletian. The 
 Liberian Catalogue says only that it occurred 
 in his time — " quo tempore fuit persecutio." 
 Eusebius (//. E. vii. 32) intimates that he was 
 in some way implicated in it — bv Kai avrbv 
 KaT€l\-q<pev 6 daoyfj-os. The Felician Cata- 
 logue (530) says : " In which time was a 
 great persecution : within 30 days 16,000 
 persons of both sexes were crowned with mar- 
 tyrdom through divers provinces ; in the 
 course of it Marcellinus himself was led to 
 sacrifice, that he might offer incense, which 
 thing he also did ; and having after a few days 
 been brought to penitence, he was by the 
 same Diocletian, for the faith of Christ, to- 
 gether with Claudius Quirinus and Antoninus, 
 beheaded and crowned with martyrdom. The 
 holy bodies lay for 26 days in the street by 
 order of Diocletian ; when the presbyter 
 Marcellus collected by night the bodies of the 
 saints, and buried them on the Salarian Way 
 in the cemetery of Priscillaiu a cell (cubiculum) 
 which is to be seen to the present day, because 
 the penitent [popej himself had so ordered 
 while he was being dragged to execution, in 
 a crypt near the body of St. Crescentio, vii. 
 Kal. Mali." Most probably the statements 
 of his having offered incense and of the place 
 of his burial are true, but his martyrdom is at 
 least doubtful. The charge of having yielded 
 to the edict of Diocletian, which requured all 
 Christians to offer incense to the gods, appears 
 from Augustine to have been alleged after- 
 wards as a known fact by the African Dona- 
 tists. True, Augustine treats it as probably 
 a calumny, and says it " is by no means proved 
 by any documentary evidence " [de Unico 
 Baptism, c. Petilian. c. 16, § 27). Further, 
 Theodoret (H. E. i. 2) speaks apparently with 
 praise of the conduct of Marcellinus in the 
 persecution: rbv iv rip diu}ynu) diawp^xj/avTa. 
 On these grounds Bower, in his history of the 
 popes, warmly maintains his innocence. But 
 it is difficult to account for the introduction 
 of the story into the pontifical annals them- 
 selves and its perpetuation as a tradition of 
 the Roman church, unless there had been 
 foundation for it. Even Augustine, however 
 anxious to rebut the charge, can only plead 
 the absence of evidence ; he does not deny the 
 tradition, or even the possibility of its truth. 
 The expression of Theodoret is too vague to 
 count as evidence. In the story of the mar- 
 tyrdom there is nothing in itself improbable, 
 and it is quite possible that Marcellinus re- 
 covered courage and atoned for his temporary 
 weakness. But there is such a significant ab- 
 sence of early evidence of the martyrdom as to 
 leave itnot onlyunprovedbutimprobable. His 
 name does not appear in the Liberian Depositio 
 Martyrum, nor in Jerome's list, and, apart 
 from the legendary complexion of the Felician 
 narrative (including the statement of 16,000 
 having suffered in 30 days), the addition of the 
 glory of martyrdom to popes in the later ponti- 
 fical annals is too frequent to weigh against 
 the silence of earlier accounts. Further, the 
 
 MARCELLINUS, PLAVlUS 
 
 omission of his name also from the Depositio 
 Episcoporum may be due to his unfaithfulness, 
 if that had not really been atoned for by 
 martyrdom. His burial in the cemetery of 
 Priscilla instead of that of Callistus, where his 
 predecessors since Zephyrinus (236) had been 
 interred, may be accepted without hesitation, 
 the Felician Catalogue being apparently 
 trustworthy as to the burial-places of popes, 
 and the place where he lay being spoken of as 
 well known in the writer's day. A reason 
 for the change of place, independent of the 
 alleged wish of the penitent pope himself, is 
 given by De Rossi (Rom. Sotteran. ii. p. 105), 
 viz. that the Christian cemeteries had been 
 seized during the persecution, so that it had 
 become necessary to construct a new one. 
 It appears {ib. i. p. 203; ii. p. 105) that the 
 Christians did not recover their sacred places 
 till Maxentius restored them to pope Milti- 
 ades ; and this accounts for the fact, that of 
 the two popes between Marcellinus and Milti- 
 ades, the first, Marcellus, was also buried in 
 the cemetery of Priscilla, but the second, 
 Eusebius, as well as Miltiades himself, again 
 in that of Callistus (Catal. Felic.) ; though 
 not in the old papal crypt, a new one having 
 presumably been constructed by Miltiades. 
 In recensions of the pontifical annals later 
 than the Felician the cemetery of Priscilla is 
 said to have been acquired from a matron of 
 that name by Marcellus, the successor of Mar- 
 cellinus ; but in the Felician account Mar- 
 cellinus himself appears as having already 
 secured a place of burial there. The cemetery 
 itself was, according to De Rossi, one of the 
 oldest in Rome, with extensive workings in it 
 at a deep level, which he supposes to have 
 been made during the persecution, when the 
 old burial-place of the faithful on the Appian 
 Way was no longer available. The Salarian 
 Way, where the cemetery of Priscilla was, lies 
 far from the Appian, being on the opposite 
 side of the city, towards the N. [j.b — y.] 
 
 Marcellinus (7), Flavius, a tribune and 
 afterwards a notary (Bocking, Not. Dig. Occ. 
 p. 408), brother to Apringius, afterwards pro- 
 consul of Africa, where Marcellinus appears to 
 have usually resided. He was a Christian of 
 high character, taking much interest in theo- 
 logical matters. In 410 he was appointed by 
 Honorius to preside over a commission of 
 inquiry into the disputes between the Catho- 
 lics and Donatists, an office for which he was 
 singularly well qualified, and which on the 
 whole he discharged (in 411) with great moder- 
 ation, good temper, and impartiality, though 
 not without giving offence to the Donatists, 
 who accused him of bribery (Aug. Ep. 141 ; 
 Cod. Theod. xvi. 11, 5). With Augustine an 
 intimate friendship subsisted which the be- 
 haviour of Marcellinus at the conference no 
 doubt tended to strengthen ; several letters 
 were exchanged between them, and Augustine 
 addressed to him his three books de Pecca- 
 torum Meritis et Remissione, his book deSpiritu 
 et Littera, and the first two books of his great 
 work de Civitate Dei, which he says that he 
 undertook at his suggestion (Aug. Retract, ii. 
 37 ; de Civ. Dei. i. praef. ii. i). Excepting 
 letters about the conference (Epp. 128, 129), 
 the correspondence appears to have been 
 carried on chiefly during 412. It arose mainly 
 
MARCELLUS 
 
 out of the anxiety of Marctllmus for his friend 
 Volusiaiius. who. uotwith>tamling the ctforts 
 of his mother to induce huii to become a C hris- 
 tian, was swayed in a contrary direction by 
 the worlilly society in which he lived, lii 
 413 occurred the revolt of lleraclian, sup- 
 pressed by Marinus, count of Africa, who, 
 bribed by the ilonatists, as Orosius insinuates, 
 arrested and imprisoned M.ucellinus and 
 Apringius. Several Afnc.in bishops joined in 
 a letter of intercession on behaJf ot the pri- 
 soners, whose prayer Caeciliaiius aJlected to 
 support, and he even paid an express visit to 
 Augustine, giving him the strongest hope that 
 they would be released, with solemn assevera- 
 tions of absence of iiostility on his own part. 
 But on the following day, Sept. 15 or lO, they 
 were both put to death. .Augustine mentions 
 their edifying behaviour in prison. See Dr. 
 Spairow Simpson's ^". Aug. and A/r. Ch. 
 L>U'Js;u)is (lylu), pp. lOi-lJO. ["W.l'.J 
 
 Marcellus (3), bp. of Rome probably from 
 .May J4, 307, to Jan. 15, 309, the see having 
 been vacant after the death of Marcellinu!>, 
 2 years, o months, and stj days (l.ip^ius, 
 Chrotwlugu der rom. bucho/.). 
 
 This pope appears as a martyr in the Roman 
 .Martyrology, and in the later recensions of 
 the Ltber Fonli/icalis, a story being told that 
 lie was beaten, and afterwards condemned to 
 tend the imperial horses as a slave. No trace 
 ot this legend, or indeed of his being a martyr 
 at all, appears m the earlier recensions of the 
 I'ontitical, including the I-"elician. Hut a 
 light is thrown on the circumstances which 
 probably led to his title of "Confessor" by 
 the monumental inscriptions to him and his 
 successor liusebius, placed on their tombs by 
 pope Uamasub. Thatto.Marcellus(l'agi, Cr//«c. 
 in Baron, ad ami. 309 ; in Actis S. Junuar. ; 
 Ue Rossi, Rom. Sotter. vi. p. 204) reads : 
 
 " Veridicus rector lapsis quia criinina Acre 
 Pracdixil, miscris full omnibus hoslisaiiiariis. 
 nine furor, hinc odium sequitur, discordia liles, 
 Sedilio, caedes ; solvuntur focdcra pacis. 
 Crimen ob alterius, Christum qui in pace negavit, 
 rinibus expulsus patriae est feritalc tyranni. 
 Haec brcvitcr Uamasus voluit compcrta reicrrc 
 Marcelli ul populus meritum cognoscerc posset." 
 
 It would appear from these lines, together with 
 those on Eusebius [Hlsebils (1)], that when 
 persecution ceased at Rome conflicts arose in 
 the Christian community as to the terms of re- 
 adinission of the lapst to communion ; that 
 Marcellus after his election had required a 
 period of penance before absolution ; that 
 this stern discipline evoked violent opposition, 
 the subjects of it being doubtless numerous 
 and influential ; that the church had been 
 split into parties in conse<juence, and riots, 
 anarchy, and even bloodshed, had ensued ; 
 that " the tyrant " Maxentius had interposed 
 in the interests of peace and banished the pope 
 as the author of the discord. He was not 
 really so, the inscription implies, but " an- 
 other," for whose "crime" he suffered, t.e. 
 the leader and instigator of the opposition, 
 who had " denied Christ in time of peace " by 
 condoning apostasy and subverting discipline 
 after persecution had ceased. But Marcellus 
 was made the victim, and thus was a "con- 
 fessor " (or, in the wider sense of the word, 
 a "martyr"), if not strictly for the faith, at 
 
 MARCELLUS 
 
 .1 ii 
 
 080 
 
 11. 
 
 any rate for c.iiK>iiir.i 
 honour of ihrist. Ihe 
 probably the Hrraclluv 
 scriptionon Kusrbiu .1 : 
 lapsi to mourn !> 
 banished in the 1 
 ant " as well as 11 
 pulsi fcritate lyi.nmi 
 liusebius. Is not said in ; 
 tion to have died in rxi 
 
 tainly buried at Rome, Ii^ , , ,., 
 
 the cemetery of I'risallu on the .S^ldtian Way 
 (Catal. I- flu.), he may have been allowed to 
 return to his sec. (j.n ^ . 
 
 MatmUus (4), bp. of Ancyra, l.« h. . 
 have been present at the synod hcM t 
 '315; but nothing can be provctl li 
 I scriptions doubtful in themselves, .st 
 I asius, writing in ab {llnl. aU .W.<n. 
 j him an old man then ; s<> Ih.ij l:i- 
 
 li.ive been no bar to his I 
 I He was Certainly pres< 1 • 
 I council, where he obt.ii; 
 
 t pope Julius tells the 1 ;. ;. 
 
 1215), lor having contemlid e.irinsii> ii.t ilir 
 Catholic faith ag.nnst the \ri.iiis. I ..trf, 
 j in refuting the heterodox writings ol Aslnius, 
 I he was accused of f-dling into doctiines coin- 
 Itining the errors of S.ibellins .md I'aul wl 
 Saniosata, but his att.ichment t<> St. .Mhaii- 
 asius and the orthodox cause may have sub- 
 jected his book to unlair crilicisin. .\nyliow 
 the Kusebians, piqued at his abs« ncc (liii; tl;r 
 synod of Tyre aiul afterwards the |. ■ 
 at Jerusalem, A. n. 335, in honour ol tl.. 
 tion of the church of the Holy S. , 
 called upon him to render accounl . . .... 
 
 opinions advanced in it, and to nraiil tlmii, 
 and, according to Socrates, extorted a pro- 
 mise that he would burn the otiending book. 
 For not having at once dom- this, tie was 
 deposed in the synod held, by cuinmaiid ol 
 the emperor, at Constantinople by the ehicls 
 of that party, in l-eb. 330, when hiisebius 
 of Nicomedia presided, and husebius of 
 Caesarea was charged by the assrtii('!» <l 
 bishops with the task of refuting th< \ 
 Marcellus. Basil the seini-.\riaii 
 pointed to the see vacated by hiin 'S. ■ 
 Con(lenined at Constantinople, *' • 
 took himself to Rome, app.n 
 loss of time. H must liave 1 • 
 first act of Julius, after his 1 !• 
 337), to receive .Marcellus iiit 
 .Marcellus could have scarcely !• : 
 the liusebi.m deputies, Mac.i;. 
 deacons, arrived (a. r.. 339). hopi; 
 Julius tojoin them in unseating ' 
 who had returned from < \il. 
 synodically restored. 1 
 coming to Rome about 
 synod of more than 50 : 
 Rome by pope Julius in .S"'. , i ■ 
 
 Marcellus was at Rome then. huMtig tx-rn 
 admitted by Juliu-* to communion on a pie- 
 vious visit; and Julius followr.l li. ...-.in.t 
 suggested by .Marcellus at his ; 
 and adopted in his case, vu. t 
 presbyter* to the l-.ustLians w:. 
 ol bringing them to Rome to tvi.:. 
 opponent already there. Neither Ju.i 
 his bishops ventured to rcttoce Marc. 
 St. Athanasius to their rc»p«cl»ve »ec». I It . 
 
690 MARCELLUS 
 
 merely gave their collective voice for ad- 
 mitting them to communion, and declared 
 their innocence. It was now that Marcellus 
 testified to Julias and the assembled bishops 
 that his attempt to return to Ancyra, a.d. 338- 
 339, had only provoked such flagrant scenes as 
 had happened more recently at Alexandria 
 when St. Athanasius was expelled {Apol. c. 
 Arian. § 33, cf. Hil. Frag. iii. 9). 
 
 " Marcellus," Athanasius says, in his history 
 to the monks (§ 6), " went to Rome, made his 
 apology, and then at their request gave them 
 his faith in writing, of which also the Sardican 
 council approved." The Sardicans grounded 
 their verdict in his favour on the book which 
 Eusebius had maligned, but which they pro- 
 nounced consistent with orthodoxy. " For 
 he had not, as they affirmed, attributed to the 
 Word of God a beginning from Mar)', nor any 
 end to His kingdom ; but had stated His 
 kingdom to be without beginning or end" 
 (Apol. c. Arian. §47). Hence they declared 
 him faultless and free from taint. St. Hilary, 
 who also says nothing of his profession, bears 
 them out in their decision on the book ; add- 
 ing that Marcellus was never again tried or 
 condemned in any subsequent synod (Frag. 
 ii. 21-23). Against such testimony — living, 
 competent, and explicit — as this, it is plainly 
 not for moderns to contend, the book being no 
 longer extant to speak for itself ; and there- 
 fore we must — in spite of all Cave may urge 
 to the contrary (Hist. Lit. i. 202), and after 
 him Cardinal Newman (Library of the Fathers, 
 xix. 503) and the learned writer of art. 
 Eusebius in this work — conclude with Mont- 
 faucon (Z)?a/r. c. iii.), that, strongly as the ex- 
 tracts from it may read in Eusebius, whose 
 party bias betrays itself in every line, yet "read 
 by the light of what precedes and follows," as 
 say the Sardican fathers, they may all be in- 
 terpreted in a sense not conflicting with ortho- 
 doxy. St. Hilary, moreover, speaks with un- 
 wonted weight, as he proclaims the fact loudly 
 that Marcellus subsequently by some rash 
 utterances and his evident sympathy with his 
 former disciple, Photinus, the ejected from Sir- 
 mium, came at last to be suspected of heretical 
 leanings by all ; and notably that he was, 
 though privately, put out of communion by St. 
 Athanasius, on which Marcellus abstained from 
 church himself (Frag. ii. 23). Possibly such a 
 rash utterance was in the mind of St. Hilary 
 when he said to Constantius: "Hinc Marcellus 
 Verbum Dei cum legit, nescit," and then 
 adds: "Hinc Photinus hominem Jesum Chris- 
 tum cum loquitur, ignorat," classing them both 
 in the same category. In the work of St. Epi- 
 phanius against heresies the Photinians rank 
 first (71), and the Marcellians follow (72) ; yet 
 even there the inference is, that the latter had 
 been led astray by the former. St. Epipha- 
 nius does not mention the work of Eusebius 
 against Marcellus, but gives extracts from one 
 against him by Acacius, the successor of Euse- 
 bius at Caesarea, but not, as he says, because 
 he thinks it any more conclusive than the 
 Sardican fathers thought the work of Eusebius. 
 But he criticizes the profession made by Mar- 
 cellus in writing to pope J ulius on the principle 
 "Qui s'excuse s'accuse." This profession, 
 what both Marcellus himself and St. Athan- 
 asius call his " iyypatpov wicrTLy," which, he 
 
 MARCELLUS 
 
 says expressly, he gave to pope Julius before 
 leaving Rome, and which St. Epiphanius gives 
 at full length. St. Athanasius says it was ex- 
 hibited to the Roman and Sardican councils as 
 well ; but we have no other proof of this. It is 
 but one of three different professions exhibited 
 at different times on behalf of Marcellus — all 
 characterizedby the same suspicious surround- 
 ings, as will be shewn in due course. The two 
 first are given by St. Epiphanius (Haer. Ixxii. ) ; 
 the third was exhumed by Montfaucon. Dr. 
 Heurtley (de Fide et Symbolo, p. 24) took this 
 creed of Epiphanius as the earliest specimen 
 of a Western creed. It was as certainly the 
 I baptismal creed of the West as it was not that 
 of the local church of Rome (ib. pp. 89-133). 
 For had it been the creed of the church of Rome, 
 would not St. Athanasius have characterized 
 it as such ; would not Julius have recognized 
 and applauded the adoption of his own for- 
 mula ? No doubt Marcellus picked it up in 
 the Danubian provinces, or at Aquileia, in 
 his way to Rome. It is identical with the 
 creed commented upon by St. Augustine, 
 which follows it in Heurtley (op. cit.), saving in 
 the expression tov yevin]dfVTa (k Uvet!ifiaTOi 
 ayiov. etc., which is suspiciously peculiar, and 
 may well have excited the misgivings of St. 
 Epiphanius. Now this creed Marcellus never 
 ventures to call the creed of his own church, 
 yet must have meant that Julius should think 
 it so, as he designates it "what he had been 
 taught by his spiritual fathers, had learnt 
 from holy Scripture, and preached in church," 
 and he begs Julius to enclose copies of it to 
 those bishops with whom he was correspond- 
 ing, that any to whom he was unknown might 
 be disabused of wrong notions formed of him 
 from hostile statements. By way of preface, 
 he recites, to condemn them, the principal 
 errors held by his enemies ; and affirms 
 several points on which his own faith had been 
 questioned. Whether by his own contrivance 
 or otherwise, this profession was never made 
 public, nor appealed to by him again. It satis- 
 fied Julius, and Julius may have communicated 
 it to his correspondents among the Western 
 bishops and to St. Athanasius on his arrival in 
 Rome : but it cannot be proved to have been 
 formally brought before the 50 bishops after- 
 wards assembled there, and there is no proof 
 that it was so much as named at Sardica. In 
 dealing with Easterns, anyhow, the creed in 
 which he professes his faith was that of Nicaea. 
 This profession is extant as well as the other, 
 and was being employed by his disciples in 
 their own justification when it was placed in 
 the hands of St. Epiphanius. It is headed 
 " Inscription of the faith of Marcellus." Yet 
 it can hardly be thought accidental that his 
 own assent is not explicitly given by sub- 
 scription either to this or the third formula, 
 produced on his behalf. Montfaucon. pre- 
 occupied with his own discovery, seeks to 
 connect it with this second profession, with 
 which it has nothing whatever to do. Evi- 
 dently Marcellus aimed at being an Eastern 
 to the Easterns, and a Western to the Westerns. 
 Finally, neither of these professions would 
 seem to have sufficed for him in extreme old 
 age, but he must construct a third, intended 
 this time for St. Athanasius himself. The 
 date fixed for it by Montfaucon is 372, not 
 
MARCELLUS 
 
 earlier, to ^;ivf tiiiu' for some letters that 
 passed on the siibjeet ot >[.\rcellus in 371, be- 
 tween St. Atliauasiiis aiul St. Uasil, elected to 
 the see of Caesarea tlie year before ; not later, 
 because St. .\thanasius dietl in ^7^, and Mar- 
 cellus himself in 374. Hut if Montfaucon had 
 dated it 373, he would have ^ot rid of the very 
 difficulty which perple.xed him most, viz. the 
 absence of the name of St. Athanasius amongst 
 its countersisners (Diatr. c. vi. 4). Far from 
 having been received by St. .Athanasius and 
 his colleagues, the signatures affixed t<i this 
 " aureum opusculum," as Montfaucon in his 
 enthusiasm calls it, are such as go far towards 
 impeaching its genuineness, or else depriving 
 it of the least weight. Surely the signatures 
 to it should have been twt of those to whom 
 it was delivered, but from whom it emanated ! 
 The document purports to be the work of a 
 gathering of the churcli of Ancyra under their 
 father Marcellus ; and it may well have been 
 dictated by a man of his advanced years, re- 
 capitulating and repudiating all the various 
 errors amid which his chequered life had been 
 passed. As no other name is given but his 
 own and that of his deacon Eugenius who was 
 charged with its delivery, we may well dc>ubt 
 whether any third person had a hand in it. 
 The reference in it to the commendatory 
 letters given to its bearer by the bishops of 
 Greece and Macedonia seems consistent with 
 its having been addressed, and ex]icditcd 
 through their good offices, to St. Athanasius 
 (Diatr. ib. § 2). Basil (Epp. 59, 125, 239, 265, 
 ed. Ben.) is just asdisgusted at Marcellus having 
 been received into communion in the West 
 under Julius, as at Eustathius having been 
 similarly received under Liberius {Epp. 226, 
 244, 263). He looked upon both as trim- 
 mers, as indeed their acts prove them ; and 
 heterodox at heart, in spite of their repeated 
 disclaimers, and undeserving of any trust. 
 There was one point of which Marcellus never 
 lost sight and traded upon through life, with 
 whatsoever errors he was charged. " Se 
 communione Julii et Athanasii, Romanac et 
 Alexandrinae urbis pontificum, esse muni- 
 tum " — as St. Jerome puts it (de Vir. lllttsl. 
 c. 86). Some may, possibly, onsider that he 
 duped them both ; and the second more, by a 
 good deal, than the first. All that remains to 
 be said of Marcellus is, that although restored 
 at Sardica, and included in the general letter 
 of recall issued subsequently by the emperor 
 Constantius and preserved by St. Athanasius 
 {Apol. c. Arian. § 54), he never seems to have 
 regained his see. Basilius certainly was in 
 possession of it at the second council of 
 Sirmium a.d. 351, when he refuted I'ht)tinus ; 
 and either he, or Athanasius his successor, 
 with whom St. Basil corresponded in 369 
 (Ep. 25), was in possession a.d. 363, and 
 joined in the petition recorded by Socrates 
 (iii. 25) to the emperor Jovian. St. Athan- 
 asius, according to Cardinal Newman, upheld 
 him " to c. 360," but attacked his tenets 
 pointedly, though without naming him, in his 
 fourth oration against the Arians. The short 
 essay demonstrating this is of the highest 
 interest — Introd. to Disc. iv. pp. 503 sf'l 
 vol. xix., also Vols. viii. and xiii. (p. 52, note 1.), 
 of Lib. of the Fathers. Cf. Miintfaucon, Diatr. 
 de causa Marcelli, vol. ii. collect. Nov. Pat. 
 
 MARCIANUS 
 
 691 
 
 I'raef. 4 I seq. ; Newiii.iu's .1 runs ; KrttbcrK'» 
 I'ref. in Migne, I'air.tik. xviii. ij<>q; NVrizpr'» 
 Ixestit. Vfr. Chionol. ; and l.arfixiur's />»»$. Jt 
 Phot. Uacret. [AtiianasH's ; I'lSKiiiin or 
 Caksaki.a.] [K.s.rF.) 
 
 Marola. In 1S3 a eonspirary aKainst the 
 emperor t'onunodus was dctrctrd and put 
 down, in which the emperor's sister I.ucillaand 
 I his cousin Ouailratus had b<-.-n prime inovrrs. 
 I On tiic execution of Ouailratus and th.- «..n- 
 I fiscation of his property, his conrubiiie M.irria 
 became the concubine of t'onunodus and ob- 
 tained the highest favour with him. She wa« 
 ; granted all the honours due to an acknow- 
 ledged empress, save that of having the 
 I sacred fire borne before her. The cmper.r"* 
 coins displayed her figure in the garb of an 
 .Amazon, ami he hinjself took the title Ania- 
 zonius, aiul gave it t<i a month of the vrar. 
 I She was all-powerful with him, and used her 
 I influence on behalf of the I'hristi.uis. <>b- 
 I taining f'lr them many benefits. This (act, 
 I stated by Dion Cassius (or possibly by his 
 epitomizer .\iphilinus), has led to the sus- 
 i picion that she was a Christian hcrsrlf, a 
 1 susjiicion not disproved by her position as 
 ] concubine ; for the Christian code then dealt 
 ] tenderly with the case of a female slave 
 unable to refuse her person to her master, and, 
 l)rovided she shewed the fidelity of a wife, 
 did not condemn her (Const. A post. viii. 32). 
 We now know from Ilippolytus that the 
 eunuch who brought Marcia uji, and who 
 retained a high place in lur confidence, was 
 a Christian ]>resl)vter. This sufluiently ac 
 coimts (or hiT Christian symiiathii'S ; and the 
 epithet <f>i\60eos, which Ilippolytus applies 
 to her, would have been dilTerent if, besides 
 being friendly to the Christians, she had been 
 a Christian herself. 
 
 Marcia. whose intimacy with her fellow- 
 servant Eclectus had given (Kcasion for re- 
 mark, ultimately became his wife. She ap- 
 pears to have had resolution and spirit corre- 
 sponding to her favourite .Amazonian dress. 
 ; She was put to death in 19 ^ by Didius 
 j Julianus, to avenge the death of Commodus, 
 which she had plaimed and carried out to 
 I save her own life. For the original authori- 
 I ties, see Eci.kctis. [g.s.] 
 
 Marclanl. (ICuchites.I 
 MarclanilS (3). Nov. 2 (.Menol. Grate. Strict. 
 and Mart. Rom.), a celebrated solitary in the 
 I desert of Chal( is in Syria (TIickI. Rel. Hist. 
 c. 3) ; a native of Cyrrhus and t)f roikI family. 
 In the desert he built himself within a narrow 
 I enclosure a cell in which he could neither 
 [ stand upright nor lie at full length. In curv 
 I of time he adniittetl to his sorielv. but in 
 I separate dwellings. Iwii disciples- -llusrbius. 
 his successor in the cell, and .\Kai>etus. At 
 I some distance he establishe<l an ab<M|p. uiuler 
 the care of Eusebius. for those who disirrd to 
 ' pursue a monastic life under r<-gulat»tins 
 framed by him. Agapetus retire«l and brrantc 
 bi). of Apamea. Towards the end of his life 
 Marcian allow.d himself to be visited by all 
 who i>leased, w..men excepte.l, but only after 
 the festival of liaster. About 3«i '>«? «'»» 
 visited by Flavian, the new bp. of Anti'K h. m 
 company with four of the most eminent 
 bishops of Svria— Acacius of Herrhora. I-use- 
 bius of Chalcis, Isidore of Cyrrhus, and Thc<>- 
 
692 MARCIANUS 
 
 (lotus of Hierapulis — besides s<inic religious 
 laymen of high rank. They came to listen to 
 his wisdom, but he persisted in humble silence, 
 and only observed that such as he could not 
 expect to profit men while the word and works 
 of God were so continually appealing to men 
 in vain. Living in the Arian reign of Valens, 
 Marcian's great influence was steadily exerted 
 on the side of orthodoxy and he was an un- 
 compromising opponent of all the prevailing 
 heresies. He zealously upheld the Nicaean 
 rule of Easter and broke off communion with 
 the venerable solitary Abraham in the same 
 desert until he gave up the old Syrian 
 custom and conformed to the new one. Tille- 
 mont (viii. 483, xiv. 222) places his death c. 
 385 or 387. The Roman Martyrology com- 
 memorates him on Nov. 2. His disciple 
 Agapetus founded two monasteries, one called 
 after himself at Nicerta in the diocese of 
 Apamea, and another called after Marcian's 
 disciple Simeon. From them sprang many, 
 all observing the rules of Marcian. His dis- 
 ciple Basil erected one at Seleucobelus. Tillem. 
 viii. 478, X. 533, xi. 304, xii. 20, xiv. 222, xv. 
 340, 349 ; Dupin, i. 455, ed. 1722 ; Ceill. x. 
 52 ; Baron. A. E. ann. 382, Ixviii. [c.h.] 
 
 Marcianus (41, Jan. 10, presbyter and 
 oeconomus of the great church of Constanti- 
 nople. The authorities for his Life are Theo- 
 dorus Lector (H. E. i. 13, 23, in Patr. Gk. 
 Ixxxvi.), the Basilian Menology, Jan. 10, a 
 Vita from Simeon Metaphrastes (Boll. Acta 
 SS. 10 Jan. i. 609) ; and notices in the Bol- 
 landist Lives f)f St. Auxentius (14 Feb. ii. 77o), 
 St. Isidore the martyr of Chios (15 Mai. iii. 
 445), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (9 Mai. ii. 
 4or c, note n). Tillemont (xvi. 161) devotes 
 an article to him. He was originally a layman 
 of the Cathari or Novatianists (Theod. L. i. 
 13), and was then intimate with Auxentius, 
 who was a Catholic (FjY. Auxent.ii.s.). Hewas 
 appointed oeconomus by the patriarch Gen- 
 nadius, therefore after 458 ; and made it a 
 rule that the clergy of Constantinople should 
 retain for their own churches the offerings 
 made in them and no longer pay them over 
 to the great church (Theod. L. i. 13). His 
 erection of the remarkable [OavixacrTdv) 
 church of the Anastasia or Holy Resurrection 
 and of the church of St. Irene is mentioned in 
 the Basilian Menology and by Codinus {Aedif. 
 Cp. p. 88, ed. Bekker), the latter adding that 
 he also built a hospital for the sick. The 
 church of Irene (transformed from an idol 
 temple) was on the shore {Vit. § 14) at " the 
 passage " (Codin.). The Anastasia was (Co- 
 din.) a refoundation of the humble oratory in 
 which St. Gregory ministered, and Marcian 
 bought the site (then occupied by dealers in 
 materials for mosaic work) because there had 
 been found St. Gregory's commentaries 
 (viro/j.i'>i,uara), wherein he had, 50 years before, 
 predicted the restoration of the building in 
 greater size and beauty. The adornment of 
 Marcian's church was subsequently com- 
 pleted by Basil the Macedonian, who added the 
 golden ceiling. How Marcian saved his new 
 church in the conflagration of Sept. 2 by his 
 prayers and tears, while mounted on the roof 
 with the Holy Gospels in his hands, is related 
 by Theodore Lector (i. 23), the Vita, the 
 Basilian Menology, Theophanes (A. C. 454), 
 
 MARCIANUS, FLAVIUS 
 
 and Cedreuus (p. 348, ed. Bekker, p. 610), 
 The year as fixed by Clinton [F. K. i. 666) was 
 465. Codinus's mention of 50 years makes 
 the rebuilding of the Anastasia c. 425, as the 
 Bollandist Lives of St. Gregory {u.s.) and St. 
 Isidore {u.s.) say, long therefore before Mar- 
 cian became oeconomus. He is stated to 
 have placed the relics of St. Isidore in the 
 church of St. Irene (ib.). An account of the 
 two churches, very full as to the Anastasia, is 
 given in Du Cange (Cpolis. Chr. lib. iv. pp. 98, 
 102, ed. 1729). Tillemont dates Marcian's death 
 471, and has minor notices of him at ii. 231, 
 iii. 354, v. 98, ix. 416, xvi. 59, 70. [c.h.] 
 
 Marcianus (8), Flavius, emperor of the East 
 450-457. For his civil history see D. of G. 
 and R. Biogr. 
 
 On his accession he found the world dis- 
 tracted by the Eutychian controversy. Theo- 
 dosius had taken the part of Eutyches and 
 upheld the decision of the " Latrocinium " of 
 Ephesus. His death caused a complete revo- 
 lution in the church in the East. Pulcheria 
 had always been on the side of pope Leo and 
 orthodoxy and naturally chose for her hus- 
 band one who shared her views. Marcian, 
 in his first letter to Leo (S. Leouis, Ep. Ixxiii. 
 in Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 900), speaks of the 
 assembling of a council under Leo's influence. 
 For the correspondence between Marcian, 
 Pulcheria, and Leo relating to the proposed 
 council see Leo I. The disturbed state of 
 the ecclesiastical atmosphere was probably 
 the motive of Marcian's law of July 12, 451, 
 against brawling in churches and holding 
 meetings in private houses or in the streets 
 (Codex, lib. i. tit. xii. 5). The same year 
 Eutyches was banished, though not so far 
 from Constantinople as Leo {Ep. Ixxxiv.) 
 wished, and orders were issued by the em- 
 peror convening a council. Originally in- 
 tended to meet at Nicaea on Sept. i, pressure 
 of public business prevented the emperor, 
 then in Thrace, from going so far from Con- 
 stantinople, so the bishops assembled at 
 Nicaea were directed to repair to Chalcedon 
 (Mansi, vi. 552, 558). For a detailed account 
 of the proceedings of the council see Dios- 
 coRUS and Eutyches. Marcian and Pul- 
 cheria were present only at the sixth session 
 on Oct. 25, when the emperor made short 
 speeches in Greek and Latin to the assembled 
 bishops, who received him and the empress 
 enthusiastically as a new Constantine and a 
 new Helena. [Eut\ches.] 
 
 After the council separated Marcian pro- 
 ceeded to enforce its decrees by a series of 
 edicts. The first two, dated Feb. 7 and Mar. 
 13, 452, confirmed the decisions of the council 
 and prohibited public arguments on theo- 
 logical questions that had been settled by 
 them once for all, as thereby the divine 
 mysteries were exposed to the profane gaze of 
 Jews and pagans (Mansi, vii. 475-480). A 
 third, of July 6, repealed the constitution pro- 
 mulgated by Theodosius at the instigation of 
 the Eutychians against Flavian and his ad- 
 herents Eusebius and Theodoret {ib. 497-500). 
 A fourth, dated July 28 {ib. 501-506), imposed 
 heavy penalties and disabilities on the Euty- 
 chians. Another law, dated Aug. i, 455, re- 
 enacted the same provisions with trifling vari- 
 ations and subjected the Eutychians to all 
 
MARCION 
 
 penalties imposed upon the Apollinarists bv 
 former emperors {ib. 517-5^0). The einporor 
 wrote to the monks of Alexandria bv Joannes 
 the Docurio (16. 481). oxhnrtini; thrrn to 
 abandon their errors and to submit to the de- 
 creesofChalcedon. The troubles at Alexandria, 
 however, were too great to be appeased bv 
 words. The arrival of Proterius. the bishop 
 appointed in place of Dioscorus. led to violent 
 riots (Evagr. 220, 293). 
 
 Palestine was likewise in a disturbed state. 
 Some of the monks of the defeated side, who 
 had attended the council, on their return, 
 headed by Theodosius, a violent monk who 
 had been their leader in the council, stirred up 
 an insurrection of the whole btnlv of desert 
 monks (16. 293). Juvenalis, bp. of' Jerusalem, 
 had, after his return, to fly for his life. Seve- 
 rianus. bp. of Scythopolis, was killed bv an 
 assassin sent in pursuit of Juven.alis ; Jeru- 
 salem was seized by the infuriated monks ; 
 houses were burnt, murders were perpetrated, 
 the prisons broken open and criminals released, 
 and finally Theodosius was elected bishop. 
 Marcian, hearing of the outrages, wrote to the 
 archimandrites, monks, and inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem, rebuked them sharplv, ordered 
 the punishment of the Ruiltv, and placed a 
 garrison in Jerusalem (Mansi,'vii. 487-493). 
 
 Marcian also took measures to suppress the 
 last remnants of paganism. Bv a law of 
 Nov. 12, 45 1 {Codex, lib. i. tit. xi. 7)', he forbade, 
 under pain of death, the reopening of the 
 closed temples, and the offering sacrifices, 
 libations, or incense in them, or even adorning 
 them with flowers, and at the end of his law 
 of Aug. I, 455, directed the strict enforcement 
 of the laws against paganism. 
 
 In Apr. 454 he passed a law granting to 
 nuns, deaconesses, and widows the power of 
 making testamentary dispositions in favour of 
 the church or clergy and repealing all previous 
 contrary enactments. In .^pr. 456 he passed 
 another (ift. tit. iii. 25, and tit. iv. 13), bv which 
 proceedings against the oeconomus or other 
 clerics of the churches in Constantinople were 
 to be taken at the plaintiff's desire either before 
 the archbishop or the prefect of the city, and 
 no oaths tendered to clerics, who were for- 
 bidden to swear by the laws of the church 
 and an ancient canon. 
 
 Dying Jan. 457 (Theod. Lect. 565), aged 65, 
 after a reign of 6A years, he was buried in the 
 church of the .Apostles at Constantinople (Ced- 
 renus, 607. in Pair. Gk. cxxi. 659). [p-d.] 
 
 Marclon, a noted and permanently in- 
 fluential heretic of the 2nd cent. 
 
 Life. — Justin Martyr {.Apol. cc. 26, 58) men- 
 tions Simon and .Menander as having been 
 instigated by demons U> introduce heresv into 
 the church, and goes on to speak of Marcion as 
 still living, evidently regarding him as the 
 most formidable heretic of the day.* He 
 states that he was a native of Pontus who 
 had made many disciples out of every nafi >n. 
 and refers for a more detailed refutation to a 
 separate treatise of his own, one sentence of 
 which has been preserved by Irenaeus (iv. 6). 
 This work seems to have been extant in the 
 time of Photius [Cod. 154). Irenaeus also 
 states that Marcion came from Pontus. He 
 
 • ThouRh the form "iiantiiioHTrvpho 3s) kugire*)* 
 followers of Marcus, we think Marcion is intended. 
 
 MARCION 
 
 flt«3 
 
 adds th.il thence he tun., i.. Koinr, wtutr 
 he became an adhrreni, .in<l aftrrw.udx 
 the successor, o( Cerdo, .» Svrun tr.v hrr 
 who, though he made luiblic r..n(r*M ^n and 
 was reconril.Hl, privatrlv continue,! trachinx 
 heretical doctrine, was belravrd bv v>mr oi 
 his hearers, and again wparatnl. Irrnanu 
 places the coming o( Crrdo to Ronir in the 
 episcopate of Hyginus, which la%lrtl four 
 years, ending, according to I.i(>5iu<(, no, 140, 
 or 141. Irenaeu'; places the activity o| 
 .Marcion at Rome under AnicetU't {" invaluit 
 sub .\nicet.r*). whos<' episcopate of u vrar^ 
 began in 134. He sa\-s (iii. \) that M.ir. i .n 
 meeting Polycan^ -it K'une (pr .bahlv i\| or 
 155) claimed recognition, on whirh Polvrarp 
 answered, " I recognize thee as the fir^ti. n. 
 <if Satan." Irenaeus contemplated mi 
 separate treatise against Marri ,n. I 
 no direct evidence of his having c^ini 
 this design, but as its pr .p >srd metli ,d u 
 stated to have been the c uifntati <n of Marri. n 
 by means of his own g >spel, and as ihi* i> 
 precisely the meth'xi f.ill .wed by T<rt . 
 who is elsewhere largely indebted to Ir 
 the work of Irenaeus mav have b.' :. 
 written and known to Terlullian. It h.is 
 been stated under Hippolvti's how the con- 
 tents of the lost Svntaznui of Hippolytus arc 
 inferred. It appears to have named Sinope as 
 Marcion's native city (Eniph. 42, Philast. 4.s), 
 of which his father was bishop ; and to have 
 stated that he was obliged to leave home be- 
 cause he seduced a virgin and was excom- 
 municated bv his father (Epiph.. F'seudo- 
 Tert. 17). Epiphanius tells, apparently on 
 the same authority, that Marrion. his fre- 
 quent entreaties f >r absolution having f.iiled, 
 went to R..me, where he arrive.l after the 
 death of Hvginus, that he begged n-st >rati >n 
 from the presbvters there, but they declaretl 
 themselves unable to act contrary to the 
 decision of his venerated father. The men- 
 tion of presbvters as then the ruling power in 
 the church of Rome, and their professed in- 
 ability to reverse the decision of a provinrial 
 bishop, indicate a date earlier than that of 
 Epiphanius; but Epiphanius further states 
 that .Marcion's quarrel with the presbvters was 
 not only because they did not restore hint to 
 church communion. t)Ut also because they did 
 not make him bishop. This has been cn*^ 
 ally understood to mean bp. of Rome. ..' ! 
 sibly Epiphanius intended thi«, but ' 
 not say so. His words are u-t oi« n- 
 T'r)¥ wpotipiaf r«. »a2 rrir tic fiiitf t 
 <r('ot. It is absurd that an exc< 1 
 cated foreigner should dream of bri; 
 bishop of a church from which he w.i> .. ,^.1^ 
 in vain for absolution. ICpiphaniuN must h.»vr 
 misunderstood some expression he found in 
 his authority, or Marcion nm^t t;.\. Kmi 
 already a bishop (possibly on- \ 
 
 suffragans), been deposed, an<l ; 
 
 Rome both restor.ition to r .| 
 
 recognition <>f his episcopal dignitv < 'j t itu\ 
 alone directly countenances the latter view, 
 speaking of Slarcion (iv. 5. p. 74) •'»"' " ""^ 
 episcopo factus apostat.i." Hut ther< : 
 indirect confirmation in the fact « 
 learn from .\dainantius (i. 15 : xvi. z<-\ 
 mat/.) that Marcion was afterAvards i.. .,;- 
 nized as bisbup by his own follower* uid wa» 
 
694 
 
 MARCION 
 
 the head of a succession of Marcionite bishops 
 continuing down to the writer's own day. 
 The Marcionites appear to have had no differ- 
 ence with the orthodox as to the forms of 
 church organization. Tertullian's words are 
 well-known, " faciunt et favos vespae, faciunt 
 et ecclesias Marcionitae " {adv. Marcion. iv. 
 5). We may conclude that episcopacy was 
 the settled constitution of the church before 
 the time of the Marcionite schism, else Marcion 
 would not have adopted it in his new sect, 
 and it seems more likely that Marcion had 
 been consecrated to the office before the 
 schism than that he obtained consecration 
 afterwards, or by his own authority took the 
 office to himself and appointed others to it, 
 a thing unexampled in the church, of which 
 we should surely have heard if Marcion had 
 done it. Many critics have believed that the 
 statement as to the cause of Marcion's ex- 
 communication arose from the misunder- 
 standing of a common figurative expression, 
 and that it meant that Marcion by heresy had 
 corrupted the pure virgin church. We are 
 inclined to adopt this view, not on account 
 of the confessed austerity of Marcion's subse- 
 quent life and doctrines, which are not in- 
 consistent with his having fallen into sins 
 of the flesh in his youth, but because the story 
 goes on to tell of Scripture difficulties pro- 
 pounded by Marcion to the Roman presbyters 
 and of his rejection of their solutions. If the 
 question had been whether pardon were to be 
 given for an offence against morality, neither 
 party would have been likely to enter into 
 theological controversy, whereas such dis- 
 cussion would naturally arise if the cause of 
 excommunication had been heresy. 
 
 The story proceeds to say that he asked the 
 Roman presbyters to explain the texts, " A 
 good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and 
 " No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto 
 an old garment," texts from which he himself 
 deduced that works in which evil is to be found 
 could not proceed from the good God, and 
 that the Christian dispensation could have 
 nothing in common with the Jewish. Re- 
 jecting the explanation offered him by the 
 presbyters, he broke off the interview with a 
 threat to make a schism in their church. The 
 beginning of Marcionism was so early that the 
 church writers of the end of the 2nd cent., 
 who are our best authorities, do not them- 
 selves seem able to tell with certainty the 
 story of its commencement. But we know 
 that the heresy of Marcion spread itself widely 
 over many countries. Epiphanius names as 
 infected by it in his time, Rome and Italy, 
 Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cj'prus, and 
 even Persia. Its diffusion in the latter half 
 of the 2nd cent, is proved by its antagonists 
 in numerous countries : Dionysius in Corinth 
 writing to Nicomedia, Philip in Crete, Theo- 
 philus in Antioch, besides Modestus (Eus. iv. 
 25), Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of 
 Alexandria, Rhodo, and Tertullian. Barde- 
 sanes ^vrote in Syriac against the heresy {ib. 
 iv. 30), as did Ephrem Syrus later. 
 
 Now, Marcion would seem to have travelled 
 much and probably used his journeys to pro- 
 pagate his doctrines. Ephrem Syrus speaks 
 of him as wandering like Cain, but possibly 
 only refers to his leaving his country for Rome 
 
 MARCION 
 
 (Hymn 56, Assemani, Bibl. Or. i.'iig). Ter- 
 tullian constantly describes him as " nau- 
 clerus " ; Rhodo {ap. Eus. v. 13) calls him 
 vavTTfs, according to a reading which we 
 believe to be right, though the word is wanting 
 in some MSS. His travels seem more likely 
 to have preceded than to have followed his 
 settling in Rome under Anicetus. Unless, 
 therefore, the story of the interview with the 
 Roman presbyters is to be rejected altogether, 
 we think it must be taken date and all. The 
 interview must be placed immediately after 
 the death of Hyginus and we must suppose 
 Marcion then to have left Rome on his travels 
 and only to have settled there permanently 
 some years later, first as a member of Cerdo's 
 school and afterwards as his successor. 
 
 The authorities as to the chronology of his 
 life are very conflicting. The statement on 
 which we can most rely is that he taught in 
 Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus. We 
 have no good warrant to extend his activity 
 later, for we can give no credit to Tertullian 
 when he names Eleutherus (de Praesc. 30) in 
 connexion with the excommunication of 
 Marcion. If Marcion did not survive Anicetus 
 he may have been born c. 100. The Chron- 
 icle of Edessa names 138 for the beginning of 
 Marcionism, and with this agrees the first year 
 of Antoninus given by the Fihrist (Fliigel's 
 Mani, p. 85). This date is not improbable, if 
 I we suppose an Oriental preaching of the heresy 
 to have preceded its establishment at Rome ; 
 .\.D. 150 is a not unlikely date for Justin 
 j Martyr's Apology, and 12 years' growth is not 
 too much for Marcionism to attain the for- 
 I midable dimensions that work indicates. If 
 Justin Martyr's work is dated earlier, the date 
 of Marcionism will be similarly affected. 
 ! The time of Marcion's death is unknown, 
 but he probably did not survive Anicetus. 
 The only works he is known to have left are 
 his recensions of the Gospel and Pauline 
 Epistles; his Antitheses, in which by com- 
 paring different passages he tried to shew that 
 j the O.T. contradicted the New, and also it- 
 I self ; and Tertullian refers to a letter of his, 
 I then extant, as proving that he had originally 
 J belonged to the Catholic church [adv. Marc. 
 i. i; iv. 4; de Cam. Christ, ii.). We learn 
 from Rhodo (Eus. v. 13) that after his death 
 his followers broke up into sects, among the 
 leaders of which he names Apelles, who only 
 acknowledged one first principle ; Potitus and 
 Basilicus, who counted two ; and Syneros, 
 who counted three (Ref. vii. 31). Other 
 Marcionite teachers mentioned are Prepo, an 
 .\ss\Tian, by Hippolytus, Lucanus by Ter- 
 tullian ; Pitho and Blastus (the latter prob- 
 ably erroneously) by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 
 i. 25). Epiphanius says {de Mens, et Pond. 17) 
 that Theodotion, the translator of O.T., had 
 been a Marcionite before his apostasy to 
 Judaism, and Jerome {de Vir. Illiist. 56) 
 states that Ambrosius was one before his con- 
 version by Origen. These sectaries were 
 formidable to the church, both from their 
 numbers and the strictness of their life. 
 They were very severe ascetics, refusing flesh 
 meat, wine, and the married life. Unlike 
 some Gnostics who taught that it was no sin 
 to escape persecution by disguising their 
 faith, the Marcionites vied with the orthodox 
 
 k 
 
MARCION 
 
 in producing niart>Ts. luisoliius tills (iv. 15) 
 that the same letter of the church of Snivriia 
 from which he drew his account of the inart\T- 
 dom of Polycarp. told also of the niiirtvrdoin 
 of a Marcionite preshyter, Metrodorus.' who, 
 like Polycarp, sutTered at Snjyrna bv fire, and 
 in the same persecution. When, later, the 
 Montanists appealed in proof of their ortho- 
 doxy to the number of their martvrs, thev 
 were reminded that this could be cquallv 
 pleaded for the Marcionites (Kus. v. 16). 
 Other Marcionite martyrs mentioned bv Euse- 
 bius are a woman who suffered under Valerian 
 at Caesarea in Palestine (iii. 12), and a 
 Marcionite bp. Asclepius, who in the Diocle- 
 tian persecution was burned alive at Caesarea 
 on the same pvre as the orthodox Apselamus 
 {Mart. Pal. c. 10). The strictness of the 
 Marcionite discipline is proved by the un- 
 friendly testimony of Tertullian, who tries bv 
 their practice to convict of falsity the Mar- 
 cionite theory, that a good God could not be 
 the object of fear : " If so, why do you not 
 take your fill of the enjoyments of this life ? 
 Why do you not frequent the circus, the 
 arena, and the theatre ? Whv do you not 
 boil over with every kind of lust ? When the 
 censer is handed you, and you are asked to 
 offer a few grains of incense, why not deny 
 your faith ? ' God forbid ! ' you cry— 
 ' God forbid ! ' " 
 
 At the end of the Diocletian persecution the 
 Marcionites had a short interval of freedom of 
 worship. An inscription has been found over 
 the doorway of a house in a Syrian village (Le 
 Bas and W'addington, luscriptioits. No. 2558, 
 vol. iii. p. 3S3) bearing a Syrian date corre- 
 sponding to the year commencing Oct. i, 318. 
 This is more ancient than any dated inscrip- 
 tion belonging to a Catholic church. With the 
 complete triumph of Christianity, Marcionite 
 freedom of worship was lost. Constantine 
 (Eus. de Vit. Const, iii. 64) absolutely forbade 
 their meeting for worship in public or private 
 buildings. Their churches were to be given 
 to the Catholics ; any private houses used for 
 schismatical worship to be confiscated. But 
 the dying out of Marcionism was probably less 
 the result of imperial legislation than of the 
 absorption of the older heresy by the new wave 
 of Oriental dualism which in Manicheism 
 passed over the church. The Theodosian 
 Code (xvi. tit. v. 65) contains a solitary nien- 
 tion of Marcionites. They were not extinct 
 in the fifth cent., for Theodoret, writing to 
 pope Leo lEp. 113, p. 1190), boasts that he 
 had himself converted more than a thousand 
 Marcionites. In Ep. 145 the number of con- 
 verts rises to ten thousand ; in Ep. 81 they 
 are said to be the inhabitants of eight villages. 
 In his Church History (v.) Theodoret tells of 
 an unsuccessful effort made by Chrvsostom for 
 their conversion. Probably this survival <>f 
 Marcionism was but a local peculiarity. But 
 as late as 692 the council in Trullo thought it 
 worth while to make provision for the recon- 
 ciliation of Marcionites, and there is other 
 evidence of lingering remains so late as the 
 loth cent. (Fliigcl's .Mani, pp. 160, 167). 
 
 Doctrine. — There is a striking difference of 
 character between the teaching of Marcion 
 and of others commonly classed with him as 
 Gnostics. The systems of the latter often 
 
 MARCION 
 
 flOft 
 
 which 
 
 ■f ihf 
 
 contain so m.ii.v r!.u..uts .|rrivr.| fr,„„ 
 heathenism, or dr.ixvn Jrom the fancy of the 
 speculators, that we feel as if wr h.vl vAr. riv 
 any common ground with thrm: l.ui uiri, vt ,r. 
 cion Christianity i« plainly th. 
 and the char.icter of hin sysi. ,; 
 
 with his being the »on of a t ' i 
 and brought up as a Christian. H • 
 been pen>lexed by the question of t! 
 of evil, and is dispose*! to arrcpi thr ., 
 much prevalent in the K.ist then, tli.it ,\ii 1, 
 inextricably mixetl up with matter, 
 therefore could not be the rrcation 
 Supreme. He tries to fit in this snhifj :•• 
 
 his Christian creed and with the S<ii 
 but naturally only by a mutilation of |, 
 he force an agreement. Indeed, he soi;.. ;..... , 
 has even to alter the text, e./;. " I am n<>t mme 
 to destroy the law. but to fulfil." im,, •' j am 
 not come to fulfil the law, but ti» di-strov." 
 Still, the arbitrary criticism of Marcion ha* 
 more points of contact with incKlem thought 
 than the baseless assumptions of other 
 Gnostics. A modern divine would turn awav 
 from the dreams of Valentinianism in silent 
 contempt ; but he could not refuse to discuss 
 the question raised by Marri.in. whether thrre 
 is such opposition between different parts of 
 what lie regards as the word ..f (;.k1. that all 
 cannot come from the same author. 
 
 The fundamental point of difference between 
 Marcion and the church was conreming the 
 unity of the first principle. M.arcion plainlv 
 asserted the existence of two Grxls. a goinl one 
 and a just one. What he meant to convev by 
 these words Bcausobre well illustrates bv a 
 passage of Bardesanes. preserved bv HuM-bius 
 (Praep. Evan. vi. 10). He savs that animals 
 are of three kinds : some, like serpents .ind 
 scorpions, will hurt those who have given them 
 no provocation ; some, like sheep, will not 
 attempt to return evil for evil ; others will 
 hurt those only that hurt them. These thr'*- 
 may be called c\-il, good, and just respernvrlv. 
 .Marcion then thought the intli( lion ..f punish- 
 ment inconsistent with jierfert g.M.dn.ss, and 
 would only concede the title of just to thr 
 God of O.T., who had distinctly threntrned 
 to punish the wicked. The (;o<l. he said, 
 whose law was " An eye for an eye. and a 
 tooth for a tooth," was a just (xxl. but not the 
 same as that good God whose command was. 
 " If any smite thee on the •>ne che<-k, turn to 
 him the other also." The conimand. " 1 h"U 
 shalt love him that loveth thee and hate thinr 
 
 enemy " was that of a just Cio<l ; " I. ■> •> 
 
 enemv " was the law of the ro.kI (;. ,' 
 
 thcr, the {;od of O.T. had said r.f 1 
 
 " I create evil " ; but since from a k' 
 
 evil fruit c^innot spring, it f .llows tli.u He 
 
 who create<l evil caiuiot Hims«lf be R'-kI. 
 
 He ould not be the Su| r. f r H. «.,s ..f 
 
 limited intelligence, n t .1 
 
 Adam when he hid hiiii^' 
 
 " Where are thou ? ". ai. 
 
 down to s<-c before H' 
 
 Sodom had done accor 
 
 cion's theory was that f 
 
 the work of the just 1 . . 
 
 whose abodf he pla< i-s m ihe- 1 t 
 
 heaven and whom apparent I 
 
 Icdged as the creator of a ti,: >l 
 
 universe, neither concerned Uuutcli uith 
 
696 
 
 MARCION 
 
 mankind nor was known by them, until, 
 taking compassion on the misery to which 
 they had been brought by disobedience to 
 their Creator who was casting them into his 
 hell. He interfered for their redemption. The 
 Marcionite denial of the unity of the first 
 principle was variously modified. Some 
 counted three first principles instead of two : 
 a good Being who rules over the Christians, 
 a just one over the Jews, a wicked one over the 
 heathen. Others, since the world was sup- 
 posed to be made out of previously existent 
 matter, held that matter was a fourth self- 
 originated principle. Marcion himself only 
 counted two dpxal, but used the word in the 
 sense of ruling powers, for it does not appear 
 that he regarded matter as the creation either 
 of his good or his just God, and therefore it 
 should rightly have been reckoned as an 
 independent principle. Tertullian, indeed, 
 argues that Marcion, to be consistent, should 
 count as many as nine gods. In all these 
 systems the good Being was acknowledged to 
 be superior to the others, so it was not a 
 violent change to assume that from this prin- 
 ciple the others were derived ; and Apelles 
 and his school drew near the orthodox and 
 taught that there was but one self-originated 
 principle. The ascription of creation and 
 redemption to different beings enabled the 
 church writers to convict the Marcionite deitv 
 of unwarrantable interference with what did 
 not belong to him. This interference was the 
 more startling from its suddenness, for Mar- 
 cion's rejection of O.T. obliged him to deny 
 that there had been any intimation of the 
 coming redemption, or any sign that it had 
 been contemplated beforehand. His God 
 then suddenly wakes up to trouble himself 
 about this earth ; stoops down from his third 
 heaven into a world about which, for thou- 
 sands of years, he had given himself no con- 
 cern ; there kidnaps the sons and servants of 
 another, and teaches them to hate and despise 
 their father and their king, on whose gifts they 
 must still depend for sustenance, and who 
 furnishes the very ground on which this new 
 God's worshippers are to kneel, the heaven to 
 which they are to stretch out their hands, the 
 water in which they are baptized, the very 
 eucharistic food for which a God must be 
 thanked to whom it had never belonged. 
 
 Marcion's rejection of O.T. prophecy did 
 not involve a denial that the prophets had 
 foretold the coming of a Christ ; but the Christ 
 of the prophets could not be our Christ. The 
 former was to come for the deliverance of the 
 Jewish people ; the latter for that of the whole 
 human race. The former was to be a warrior 
 — Christ was a man of peace ; Christ suffered 
 on the cross — the law pronounced accursed 
 him that hangeth on a tree ; the Christ of the 
 prophets is to rule the nations with a rod of 
 iron, kings are to set themselves against Him, 
 He is to have the heathen for His inheritance 
 and to set up a kingdom that shall not be 
 destroyed. Jesus did none of these things, 
 therefore the Christ of the prophets is still to 
 come. Tertullian successfullv shews that if 
 Jesus was not the Christ of the prophets, He 
 must have wished to personate Him, coming 
 as He did at the time and in the place which j 
 the prophets had foretold, and fulfilling so 
 
 MARCION 
 
 many of the indications they had given. What 
 Marcion supposed his own Christ to be has 
 been disputed. Some have supposed that he 
 did not distinguish him from his good God, for 
 Marcion's Gospel was said to have commenced: 
 " In the 15th year of Tiberius God came down 
 to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught on 
 the sabbath days " (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 7) ; 
 but we believe the true reading here is " eum," 
 not " deum." and that Marcion held his Christ 
 to be a saving Spirit (i. 19), but did not con- 
 found him with the Supreme. Marcion's 
 Gospel told nothing of the birth of Christ, and 
 Marcion's " came down " has a very different 
 meaning from what it has in the original 
 passage (Luke vi. 31), in Marcion's use 
 I meaning " came down from heaven." In 
 I fact, the story of Christ's birth would repre- 
 sent Him as a born subject of the Demiurge, 
 deriving from his bounty the very body in 
 j which He came ; so it was preferred to tell 
 j the improbable tale of a divine teacher un- 
 heard-of before making a sudden appearance 
 I in the synagogue. That Christ had a real 
 1 earthly body Marcion of course could not 
 j admit. See Docetism for an account of Mar- 
 cion's doctrine on this subject, and that of his 
 disciple .\pelles, who on this point as on others 
 j approached more nearly to the orthodox. It 
 I was an obvious argument against the Docetic 
 theory that if our Lord's body were not real 
 we could have no faith that His miracles were 
 real, nor in the reality of His sufferings and 
 death, which Marcion was willing to regard as 
 an exhibition of redeeming love ; nor in the 
 reality of His resurrection. Marcion, like the 
 orthodox, taught that the death of our Lord 
 was followed by a " descent into hell " ; but 
 Irenaeus tells us that he taught that there 
 Cain, the people of Sodom, and others con- 
 demned in O.T. as wicked, received Christ's 
 preaching and were taken up by Him into His 
 kingdom ; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, 
 .\brahara, the prophets, and other righteous 
 men imagined that the Demiurge was tempt- 
 ing them as on other occasions, and so, being 
 afraid to join themselves to Christ and accept 
 deliverance from Him, were left in the under- 
 world. Christ's salvation, according to Mar- 
 cion, affected the soul only, and did not affect 
 the body, of which he held there would be 
 no resurrection. Indeed, none of those who 
 regarded matter as essentially evil could 
 believe that evil would be made eternal by a 
 material resurrection. Tertullian points out 
 that sin originates with the soul, not the body, 
 and pronounces it unfair that the sinful soul 
 should be redeemed and the less guilty body 
 punished. On unredeemed souls no punish- 
 ment would be inflicted by Marcion's good 
 God — he would merely abandon them to the 
 vengeance of the Demiurge ; but Tertullian 
 shewed that if direct punishment were incon- 
 sistent with perfect goodness, such abandon- 
 ment must be equally so. 
 
 The Marcionite system as described by 
 Esnig has more of a mvthic than of a rational- 
 istic character, and if we accept this as the 
 original form of Marcionism, Marcion owed 
 more to the older Gnostics than we should 
 otherwise have supposed. Marcion is said 
 by Esnig to have taught that there were three 
 heavens : in the highest dwelt the good God, 
 
 i 
 
MARCION 
 
 in the second the liod of the I aw, m the 
 lowest His angels; beneath lay llyle, or 
 matter, having an independent existence of its 
 own. Bv the help of Hvle. which plaved the 
 part of a female principle, the (iod of tiie I. aw 
 made this world, after which he retired to his 
 heaven ; and each ruled in his own doniaiti, 
 he in heaven and Hvle on e.irth. .Vfterwartls 
 the God of the Law, beholding how goodly this 
 earth was. desired to make man to inhabit it, 
 .ind for this purpose requested the co-opera- 
 tion of Hvle. She supplie<l the dust from 
 which man's bodv was made, and he breathed 
 in his spirit, and made him live. He named 
 him .^dam. gave him a wife, and placed him 
 in Paradise. There they lived, honouring and 
 obeying their Maker, in joy and childlike 
 innocence, for as yet they had no children. 
 Then the Lord of Creation, seeing that .Adam 
 was worthy to serve Him. devised how he 
 might withdraw him from Hyle and unite him 
 to himself. He took him aside, and said. 
 " Adam. I am God. and beside me there is no 
 other ; if thou worshippest any other God thou , 
 shalt die the death." When .Adam heard of 
 death he was afraid, and gradually withdrew 
 himself from Hyle. When Hyle came after 
 her wont to serve him. Adam did not listen 
 to her. but withdrew himself. Then Hvle, 
 recognizing that the Lord of Creation had 
 supplanted her. said, "Seeing that he hates 
 me and keeps not bis compact with me, I will 
 make a number of gods and fill the world with 
 them, so that they who seek the true God i 
 shall not be able to find him." Thus she 
 filled the world with idolatry ; men ceased to 
 adore the Lord of Creation, for Hyle had 
 drawn them all to herself. Then was the 
 Creator full of wxath ; and as men died he 
 cast them into hell, both Adam, on account of 
 the tree, and the rest. There they remained 
 29 centuries. At length the good God looked 
 down from the highest heaven and beheld 
 what misery men suffered from Hyle and the 
 Creator. He took compassion on those 
 plagued and tortured in the fire of hell, and 
 he sent his son to deliver them. " Go down," 
 he said, " take on thee the form of a servant, 
 and make thyself like the sons of the law. 
 Heal their wounds, give sight to their blind, 
 bring their dead to life, perform without 
 reward the greatest miracles of healing ; then 
 will the God of the Law be jealous, and will 
 instigate his servants to crucify thee. Then 
 go down to hell, which will open her mouth 
 to receive thee, supposing thee to be one of 
 the dead. Then liberate the captives whom 
 thou shalt find there, and bring them up to 
 me." This was done. Hell was deceived and 
 admitted Jesus, who emptied it of all the 
 spirits therein and carried them up to his 
 Father. When the God of the Law saw this 
 he was enraged, rent his clothes, tore the 
 curtain of his palace, darkened his sun, and 
 veiled his world in darkness. After that, 
 Jesus came down a second time, but now in 
 the glorv of his divinity, to plead with the 
 God of the Law. When the Creator saw J esus 
 thus appear, he was obliged to own that he 
 had been wrong in thinking that there was no 
 other god but himself. Then Jesus said, " I 
 have a controversy with thee, btit I will take 
 no other judge between us than thine own 
 
 MARCION 
 
 ft97 
 
 law. Is It iiui wriltrii ii. 'I V 1." ■• ■• .. 1 -.„ 
 killeth anothrr shall liii i 
 
 whoso sheddrlh innorn • 
 own blood shed ? 1 rt n 
 shed thv blood, (or I w.i!x HiH.K.jil .. 
 hast shed mv blood." Thru hr f.. 
 what benefits he had lK-s|owrd 
 Creator's children, aiul in return h.ul Itth 
 crucified ; and the Creator could makr n.i 
 defence, seeing hiniM-H rondrninrd bv ht- '-'Wn 
 law, and he sai<l : " I w.i>ign«r.iiit ; I (" 
 thee but a man, and did not know tl 
 a God ; take the revengr which is tl 
 Then Jesus left him .iiid brtfxik liih. ■ >; m 
 Paul, and reveale<l to him the wav in which 
 we should go. All who believe in ( hrist will 
 give themselves to this goo<l and righlrou* 
 man. Men must withdraw themwlv« Irocn 
 the dominion of Hyle; but all do not know 
 how this is to be done. 
 
 Though this mythical story differs much in 
 complexion from other ancient accounts of 
 Marcionite doctrine, we cannot absoliilrlv 
 reject it ; for there is nothing in it inconsistrnt 
 with Marcion's known doctrines or such as 
 a Gnostic of his age might have taught. It 
 is. indeed, such a system a> he might have 
 learned from the Syriac Gnostic ( «rdo. Hut 
 Marcion must have given the nn thic element 
 little prominence, or it would not have so dis- 
 appeared from the other accounts. 
 
 Discipline and Worship. — In rites Marcion 
 followed the church model. Thus (Tcrt. a</r. 
 Marc. i. 14) he had baptism with water, 
 anointing with oil, a mixture of milk and 
 honey was given to the newly baptized, and 
 sacramental bread represented the Saviour's 
 Body. Wine was absent from his Lucharist, 
 for his principles entirely forbade wine or 
 flesh meat. [Encratites.) Fish, however, he 
 permitted. He commanded his di^ciplfs to 
 fast on Saturday, to mark his hostilitv to the 
 God of the Jews, who had made that His day 
 of rest. .Marriage h«' condemned. .A married 
 man was received as a cate< hunien, but not 
 admitted to baptism until he had agn-etl to 
 separate from his wife (16. i. 2q and iv. 10). 
 This probably explains the statement of 
 Epiphanius that the Marcioniti-s celebrat«l 
 the mysteries in the presence of uiibapti/rd 
 persons. The sect could not liave fl<>urishe<l 
 if it discouraged married persons fp-ni j'inin;! 
 it ; and if it atlmitted them onlv as 1 .* ' 
 mens, that class would naturallv b- 
 larger privileges than in the Catholic • 
 Nor need we disbelieve th-- ' ■'• 
 Epiphanius th.it a s<< . nd ■ r ■ 
 was pcrniiltrd. If .1 iminbi r 
 who had put aw.tv Ms wid- t> '. 
 not incredible that on repmt.nut a m. lul 
 baptism was nerrssary bef-rc rr«iMratii>n to 
 full privileges of iii< nb' i-! i; Ak'-iin. sinrr 
 the baptism of ■ 
 pennitted in at: 
 
 times happen Ih • ! 
 
 bv death befiirr I 
 ibie that in su'h ■ 
 baptism may h.i 
 
 sostoni tells in ,, .r,..., ., ;.. ,.,,..,,. ... 
 Corinthians about Ixing li^ptunl f<>r the 
 dead. Epiphanius stales that Marcion |>^r- 
 
 • They lu«mird ihHr nmclirr t>y an ot>t>«^<I If 
 tlul. vl. (Mrc HicTun. in /of.l. 
 
698 MARCION 
 
 mitted females to baptize. The Marcionite 
 baptism was not recognized by the church. 
 Theodoret tells that he baptized those whom 
 he converted. (See also Basil. Can. 47, Ep. 
 iqg.) He tells also that he had met an aged 
 Marcionite who, in his hostility to the Creator, 
 refused to use his works, a principle which 
 could not possibly be carried out consistently. 
 Canon of Scripture. — Marcion's rejection of 
 the O.T. involved the rejection of great part of 
 the New, which bears witness to the Old. He 
 only retained the Gospel of St. Luke (and 
 that in a mutilated form), and ten Epp. of 
 St. Paul, omitting the pastoral epistles. In 
 defence of his rejection of other apostolic 
 writings, he appealed to the statements of St. 
 Paul in Galatians, that some of the older 
 apostles had not walked uprightly after the 
 truth of the gospel, and that certain false 
 apostles had perverted the gospel of Christ. 
 Marcion's Gospel, though substantially iden- 
 tical, as far as it went, with our St. Luke's, did 
 not bear that Evangelist's name. That it 
 was. however, an abridgment of St. Luke was 
 asserted by all the Fathers from Irenaeus and 
 not doubted until modern times. Then it was 
 noticed that in some cases where Marcion is 
 accused by Epiphanius or Tertullian of having 
 corrupted the text, his readings are witnessed 
 by other ancient authorities. We have the 
 means of restoring Marcion's Gospel with 
 sufficient exactness. TertuUian goes through 
 it in minute detail ; Epiphanius also has made 
 a series of minute notes on Marcion's corrup- 
 tions of the text ; some notices are also found 
 in the Dialogue of Adamantius. Combining 
 these independent sources, we obtain results 
 on which we can place great confidence. It 
 clearly appears that Marcion's Gospel and our 
 St. Luke's in the main followed the same order 
 and were even in verbal agreement, except 
 that the latter contains much not found in the 
 former. So that the affinity of the two forms 
 is certain, and the only choice is whether we 
 shall regard the one as a mutilation or the 
 other as an interpolated form. The theory 
 that the shorter form was the original was for 
 some time defended by Ritschl and Baur, who, 
 however, were obliged to yield to the argu- 
 ments of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In Volk- 
 mar's Das Evangelium Marcions the differ- 
 ences between the two forms of the Gospel are 
 examined in minute detail, especially with 
 reference to their doctrinal bearings ; and it 
 is found that the only theory which will j 
 explain the facts is that Marcion's is a mutil- 
 ated form. His form exhibits a hostility to 
 Judaism, the Mosaic law, and the work of the 
 Creator, of which there is not a trace in | 
 genuine Pauline Christianity. Dr. Sanday 
 (Gospel in the Second Cent., p. 204) has made 
 a careful linguistic comparison of the portion 
 of our St. Luke which Marcion acknowledges 
 with that which he omits, the result being a 
 decisive proof of common authorship ; the part 
 omitted Ijy Marcion abounding in all the pecu- 
 liarities which distinguish the style of the 
 third evangelist. The theory, therefore, that 
 Marcion's form is the original may be said to \ 
 be now completely exploded. Dr. Sanday [ 
 notes further that the text of St. Luke used | 
 by Marcion has some readings recognized by i 
 some other ancient authorities, but which no I 
 
 MARCUS 
 
 critic now accepts. The inference is that 
 when Marcion used St. Luke's Gospel it had 
 been so long in existence, and had been copied 
 so often, that different types of text had had 
 time to establish themselves. It has been 
 argued that Marcion could not have known 
 our Fourth Gospel, else he would have pre- 
 ferred this, as being more strongly anti- 
 Jewish. But the Fourth Gospel is not anti- 
 Jewish in Marcion's sense, and he would have 
 had even more trouble in mutilating it to 
 make it serve his purpose. At the very outset 
 Christ's relation to the Jewish people is de- 
 scribed in the words, " He came unto His 
 own " ; the Jewish temple is called His 
 Father's house ; salvation is said to be of the 
 Jews ; contrary to Marcion's teaching, Christ 
 is perpetually identified with the Christ pre- 
 dicted in O.T. ; the Scriptures are " they 
 which testify of Me," " Moses wrote of Me," 
 " Had ye believed Moses ye would have be- 
 lieved Me." Great importance is attached 
 to the testimony of John the Baptist, who, 
 according to Marcion, like the older prophets, 
 did not know the true Christ ; and the miracle 
 of turning water into wine would alone have 
 condemned the Gospel in Marcion's eyes. In 
 short, the Fourth Gospel is strongly anti- 
 Marcionite. See esp. Zahn's Gesch. des N.T. 
 Kanons. i. 587-718 and ii. 409-529. 
 
 Marcion's Apostolicon consisted of ten 
 epistles, in the order: Gal., I. and II. Cor., Rom. 
 (wanting the last twochapters), I. and II. Thess., 
 Eph. (called by Marcion the Ep. to the Lao- 
 diceans), Col., Philippians, Philemon. Con- 
 cerning the order of the last two, Tertullian 
 and Epiphanius differ. The Acts and the 
 pastoral epistles are rejected. The Apostoli- 
 con was known to Jerome, who notes two or 
 three of its readings. The most careful 
 attempt to restore it is by Hilgenfeld {Zeit- 
 schrift f. histor. Theol. 1855). It becomes 
 apparent that Marcion struck out from the 
 Epistles which he acknowledged some passages 
 which conflicted with his theory and also made 
 some few additions. The arbitrary character 
 of such criticism would destroy all claim to 
 originality for Marcion's text of the Gospel, 
 even if that claim had not otherwise been 
 sufficiently refuted. [g.s.] 
 
 Marcus (6), bp. of Rome, probably from 
 Jan. 18 to Oct. 7, 336, having been ordained 
 18 days after the death of his predecessor 
 Sylvester. The above dates, from the Liberian 
 Catalogue and Depositio Episcoporum, are 
 confirmed by St. Jerome (Chron.), who gives 
 him a reign of 8 months, and are consistent 
 with historical events. He is said [Catal. 
 Felic. and Anastasius) to have ordained that 
 the bishops of Ostia should consecrate the 
 bishops of Rome and bear the pallium, and to 
 have been buried in the cemetery of Balbina on 
 the Via Ardeatina, " in basilica quam coe- 
 miterium constituit." Baronius notices this 
 as the earliest mention of the pallium. The 
 cemetery of Balbina, called also that of St. 
 Mark from this pope's interment there and 
 variously spoken of in old itineraries as on 
 the Ardeatine and Appian Ways, has been 
 identified as lying between the two by De 
 Rossi, who supposes the " basilica " to have 
 been a chapel, or cella memoriae, built by 
 Marcus at the entrance of an existing cemetery 
 
 4 
 
MARCUS 
 
 and iiiteiuliHi as a placo ..( burial. Interment 
 near the surface of the ground seems about this 
 time to have begun to supersede the use of 
 subterranean catacombs. [j.n — v.] 
 
 Marcus (14). surnamed f^i-wr/a, mentioned 
 by Nicephorus CalHstus as o iro\vOpv\\riTof 
 d<T«c7p-7;5, said to have lived in the reign of 
 Theodosius II. and ta have been a disciple of 
 St. Chrysostom (Niceph. H. E. xiv. ^o). 
 Nicephorus speaks later of the works of a 
 MdpAos a.<TKT)Trii. apparently the same man. 
 Of these he had seen a collection of 8 and 
 another of 2,2, dealing with the ascetic life 
 (H. E. xiv. 54). Photius {Bibl. Cod. 200) 
 gives an account of S works of Marcus the 
 monk, all of which are extant with one doubt- 
 ful exception. His works, pub. in Pair. C,k. 
 Ixv. 905, preceded by two disquisitions on the 
 author by Gallandius and Fe^isler, are : 
 
 (i) wtpl vd/jLov TTveipLaTiKov. a collection of 
 short aphorisms, inculcating especially the 
 duties of humility and constant prayer. 
 
 (2) Tfpt Tilv oioiJ-ivuv ii fpywv SiKaioi'<r0ai 
 shews that as slaves of God we have no wages 
 to expect. All is of grace, which is given 
 Tt\(ia in baptism, and afterwards in measure 
 proportioned to our obedience. 
 
 (3) Tfpi titravoiai shews repentance to be 
 necessary for all. 
 
 (4) dirOKpKTlJ TTpds TOl'S dTTOpofl'TOS Tfpi TOV 
 
 Oelov ^airTl<7fw.T0i, an important treatise 
 on the doctrine of baptisni, states distinctly 
 that by the grace of baptism originiil sin is 
 put away and the baptized are in exactly the 
 condition Adam was before the fall. 
 
 (5) and (9) Trpos Ni\-6\aoj' and irepl vr}ffTfias 
 are ascetic treatises. 
 
 (7) dfTLSoXr] wpbi axo\a(TTiK6v defends 
 monastic life against a man of the world. 
 
 (8) <rvixtiov\ia vooj irpdi ttju eaiToC tf^'XV" 
 shews that the root of evil is in ourselves. 
 
 (10) fit rbv Me\x'«5e'v, against heretics 
 who argued from the language of Hebrews that 
 Melchizedek was the Son of (iod. 
 
 (6) K«pa\aLa vijirTiKd, generally included 
 among the works of Marcus, but not mentioned 
 by Photius, From external and internal 
 evidence it would seem to be wrongly ascribed 
 to Marcu>. [m.f.a.) 
 
 Marcus (17), a Gnostic of the school of 
 Valentiuus, who taught in the middle of the 
 2nd cent. His doctrines are almost exclu- 
 sively known to us through a long section 
 (i 13-21, pp. 35-98) in which Irenacus gives 
 an account of his teaching and his school. 
 Both Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 30-5.'i, PP- 200-220) 
 and Epii>hanius (Haer. 34) have copied their 
 account from Irenaeus ; and there seems no 
 good reason to think that either had any direct 
 knowledge of the writings of Marcus. But 
 Clement of .Alexandria clearly knew and used 
 them. .Although Jerome describes .Marcus as 
 a Basilidian (£/>. 75 ad Theod. i. 449), what 
 Irenaeus reports clearly shews him as a f<jIlower 
 of Valentinus. Thus' his system tells of 30 
 Aeons, divided into an Ogdoad. a iJecad. and 
 a Uodecad ; of the fall and recovery of Sophia ; 
 of the future union of the spirits of the chosen 
 seed with angels as their heavenly bride- 
 grooms. What .Marcus added to the teaching 
 of his predecessors is perhaps the most worth- 
 less of all that passed under the name of 
 
 MARCUS «<)'• 
 
 " kn<.wlidK< ' III ihr .Mui nni. it mnrlv 
 contains magical formulae, which Ihr di>rii.|r* 
 were to get by heart and put trii»t in .ui.l 
 
 puerile speculations, such .n ^•• .- 
 
 among the later Pvth.iKMrr.ins. , 
 in numbers and nanus. M . 
 Scripture and in Nature rrp. , 
 of the occurrence of his mv\ii(.il uun.Urs 
 four, six, eight, ten. twelve, thirty. If \n 
 great mysteries were contained in names, it 
 naturally followed that to know the \\g,h\ 
 name of each celestial power was a m.itt<r <<( 
 vital importance ; and such knowlrdgr the 
 heretical teachers promised to Iwstow. Ihry 
 had formulae and sacraments of rr<lrmption. 
 They taught that the baptism of the vjsiblr 
 Jesus was but for the forgivrnrss of vi: • • • 
 that the redemption of Mmi Who in i! r 
 tisra descended was for perfection ; t 
 
 was merely psychical, the other -■■,\::: 
 
 Of the latter are interpreted Ihr words in 
 which our Lord spoke of another baptism 
 (Luke xii. 50 ; Matt. xx. 22). Some contrrred 
 this redemption by baptism with special in- 
 vocations : others added or substituted v.iri- 
 ous anointings ; others held that these appli- 
 cations could not procure sinritual redemp- 
 tion — only by knowledge could such redemp- 
 tion be effected. This knowledge included 
 the possession of formulae, bv the use of which 
 the initiated would after death become in- 
 comprehensible and invisible to principalities 
 and powers, and leaving their bodies in this 
 lower creation and their souls with the Oemi- 
 urge, ascend in their spirits to the Pleroma. 
 Probably the Egyptian religion contributed 
 this clement to (inosticism. Some of these 
 .Marcosian formulae were in Hebrew, of which 
 Irenaeus has preserved specimens much cor- 
 rupted by copyists. Marcus, as Irenaeus 
 tells us, used other juggling tricks by which he 
 gained the reputation of magical skill. A 
 knowledge of astrology was among his accom- 
 plishments, and apparently some clumical 
 knowledge, with which he astonished and 
 impressed his disciples. The eucharistic cup 
 of mingled wine and water was seen under his 
 invocation to change to a purple red ; and 
 his disciples were told that this was because 
 the great Charis had dropped some of lirr 
 blood into the cup. Sometimes he would 
 hand the cup to women, and bid them in his 
 presence pronounce theeuch.aristic words; and 
 then he woubl pour from their ronscrratrd 
 cup into a much larger one held t>\ hmisclf, 
 and the liquor, miraculously increased at his 
 prayer, would be seen to rise up and fill the 
 larger vessel. He taught his feni ilf disnplf-s 
 to prophesy. ( asting lots at !' 
 he would command her <>n w; 1 
 
 boldly to utt<r the words w 
 gested to her mind, ir: ' ■ ■ 
 
 accepted by the hear" 1 
 ances. He abused thi 
 
 ?|uircd over silly women 1 -y 
 roni them, ana, it is said. » v<ii t.> Kam (roin 
 them more shameful compliance*. He u 
 accused of having used pliiltrr* and love 
 charms, and at least one, if not more, of hi* 
 female disciples on returning to the church 
 confessed that l>odv .u well as mind had Ix-rn 
 defiled by him- ^»olnc of h»» follower* cer- 
 tainly claimed to have been elevated, by thrir 
 
700 
 
 MARI 
 
 knowledge and the redemption they had ex- 
 perienced, above ordinary rules of morality. 
 If we are sometimes tempted to be indulgent 
 to Gnostic theories as the harmless dreams of 
 well-meaning thinkers perplexed by problems 
 too hard for them, the history of Marcus shews 
 how these speculations became a degrading 
 superstition. Everything elevating and en- 
 nobling in Christ's teaching disappeared ; 
 the teachers boasted of a sham science, having 
 no tendency to make those who believed it 
 wiser or better ; the disciples trusted in 
 magical rites and charms not more respectable 
 than those of the heathen ; and their morality 
 became of quite heathen laxity. 
 
 Marcus appears to have been an elder con- 
 temporary of Irenaeus, who speaks of him as 
 though still living and teaching. Irenaeus 
 more than once tells of the resistance to Mar- 
 cus of a venerated elder, from whom he quotes 
 some iambic verses, written in reprobation of 
 that heretic. Though we learn from Irenaeus 
 that the Rhone district was much infested by 
 followers of Marcus, it does not appear that 
 Marcus was there himself, and the impression 
 left is that Irenaeus knew the followers of 
 Marcus by personal intercourse, Marcus only 
 by his writings. We are told also of Marcus 
 having seduced the wife of one of the deacons 
 in Asia {didKovov nva ruiv 4v rrj 'Acr/^), and 
 the most natural conclusion is that Asia 
 Minor was the scene where Marcus made him- 
 self notorious as a teacher, probably before 
 Irenaeus had left that district ; that it was a 
 leading bishop there who resisted Marcus; and j 
 that the heretic's doctrines passed into Gaul ' 
 by means of the extensive intercourse well 
 known to have then prevailed between the two 
 countries. The use of Hebrew or Syriac names 
 in the Marcosian school may lead us to ascribe 
 to Marcus an Oriental origin. [g.s.] 
 
 Mari. [Nestorian Church.] 
 
 Marinus (4), a military martyr in the reign 
 of Gallienus, at Caesarea in Palestine, under 
 a judge named Achaeus, a.d. 262. He was 
 distinguished by his birth, riches, and services. 
 When Marinus was about to be made a cen- 
 turion, another aspirant declared him to be 
 a Christian and unable therefore to sacrifice 
 to the emperors. The judge granted him 
 three hours to choose between death and com- 
 pliance. As Marinus came out of the prae- 
 torium, Theotecnus the bishop led him into the 
 church. Placing him by the altar, he raised 
 his cloak, and pointing to the sword by his j 
 side, and presenting him with the book of the \ 
 gospels, told him to choose which he wished. ' 
 Without hesitation he extended his hand and 
 took the book. " Hold fast then — hold fast 
 to God," said Theotecnus, " and strengthened 
 by Him mayest thou obtain what thou hast 
 chosen : go in peace." He was immediately 
 executed, and buried by a Christian senator 
 named Astyrius. The narrative of Eusebius 
 was probably that of an eye-witness, perhaps 
 the bishop. It is a moot question whether 
 this mart^nrdom resulted from persecution or 
 from military law. Dr. F. Gorres, in an art. 
 in Jahrb. Prot. Theologie, 1877, p. 620, on 
 " Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus," 
 suggests that Marinus could not legally have 
 suffered under Gallienus, who had already 
 issued his edict of toleration, but that it must 
 
 MARIS 
 
 have taken place by command of Macrianus, 
 who had revolted from Gallienus and taken 
 possession of Egypt, Palestine, and the East, 
 and was, as we learn from Eus. vii. 10, 13, 
 23 (cf. Trebell. PolUo, ed. H. Peter. Scripit. 
 Hist. Aug. t. ii. Gallieni duo. cc. i.-iii. xxx. 
 Tyranni, cc. xui. xiv.) the moral author of the 
 Valerian persecution. When possessed of 
 imperial authority, Macrianus vented his hate 
 on the Christians whom Gallienus favoured. 
 Eus. vii. 15, 16 ; Neander, H. E. ed. Bohn, i. 
 194 ; Ceill. ii. 394 ; Tillem. iv. 21 ; Pagi, Crit. 
 i. 276, nr. X. xi.). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Maris (2) [Mares, Magnus, Marius), bp. 
 of Chalcedon, a prominent Arian (Le Ouien, 
 Or. Chr. i. 599), said to have been a disciple 
 of the martyr Lucian of Antioch (Philost. 
 H. E. ii. 14 ; Tillem. v. 770, vi. 253, 646). 
 He wrote in support of Arian opinions before 
 the council of Nicaea (Athan. de Syn. § 17 ; 
 Tillem. vi. 646). At the council he joined 
 with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Ursa- 
 rius, and Valens against Athanasius (Socr. i. 
 8, 27), and was one of five who were unwilling 
 to subscribe on account of the term ofioovaiov 
 (i. 8). Maris at length yielded (Soz. i. 21 ; 
 Nicet. Chon. Thesaur. v. 8 ; cf. Vales, note 71, 
 ad Soz. i. 21). He was one of 17 who held 
 out against the council and supported Arius, 
 according to Gelasius (Mansi, ii. 818 ; cf. 
 878 b). His name occurs among the sub- 
 scribers (ib. ii. 696). Philostorgius states (in 
 Nicet. Chon. Thes. v. 8) that Maris, Eusebius, 
 Theognis, expressed to the emperor their 
 repentance for having signed, stating that 
 they had complied only through fear of him, 
 and that the emperor indignantly banished 
 them to Gaul. Maris assisted at the council 
 of Tyre in 335, and was one of the commission 
 to Mareotis (Athan. ^/>. c. Ar. §§ 13, 72 ; Theod. 
 H. E. i. 28 ; Mansi, ii. 1125 d, 1130 b, 1143 d ; 
 Tillem. viii. 35, 42, 49). In 335 he was one 
 of the deputies sent to Constantinople against 
 Athanasius (Socr. i. 35; Tillem. vi. 290). He 
 frequently wrote to pope JuUus against 
 Athanasius (Hilar. Frag. ii. § 2, in Pair. Lat. 
 X. 632, here written Marius ; Theod. H. E. 
 ii. 6 al. 8 ; Tillem. vii. 270). In 341 he attend- 
 ed the council of Antioch and is named in the 
 Ep. of Julius (Ap. c. Ar. § 20; Tillem. vi. 
 312). In 342 he was of the party who secured 
 the appointment of Macedonius to the see of 
 Constantinople (Socr. ii. 12 ; Tillem. vi. 323, 
 493). The same year he was one of four 
 bishops deputed by Constantius to Constans 
 (Socr. ii. 18 ; Athan. de Syn. § 25 ; Tillem. vi. 
 326 ; Hefele, Cone. ii. 80, 83). Sozomen 
 (iii. 10) omits Maris here. That he was pre- 
 sent at the council of Sardica (343-344) appears 
 certain, although his name is not among the 
 signatures (Tillem. viii. 95, 686, 688 ; Hefele, 
 ii. 92, n. 3). At the council of Philippopolis 
 his name is again absent, and among the sub- 
 scriptions occur Thelaphius as bp. of Chalcedon 
 (Mansi, ii. 138), probabfy by a clerical error. 
 In 359 he defended the doctrine of the Ano- 
 moeans against Basil (Philostorg. iv. 12 ; 
 Tillem. vi. 483) and was at the council of 
 Ariminum (Socr. ii. 41 ; Soz. iv. 24), and in 
 360 at the council of Constantinople {ib. ; 
 Hefele, ii. 271 ; Tillem. vi. 487). In 362 
 Maris, then advanced in age and blind, at an 
 interview with Julian, severely rebuked his 
 
 i 
 
MARIUS MERCATOR 
 
 apostasy, wlnrcui^'U llic iiai'vior i.iuiitiiigly 
 observed, " Thy vialilcan C.ii>d will not heal 
 thy sight." " I thank t'.od," retorted Maris, 
 " for depriving nie of the power of beholding 
 thy face" (Socr. iii. 12; Soz. v. 4; Tiileni. 
 vii. 332). He was living in the rei^n of Jovian 
 (Philostorg. N-iii. 4 ; Tilleni. viii. 764^ and 
 must be the Magnus of Chalcedon at the 
 council of Antioch in 363 (St>cr. iii. 25 ; Mansi, 
 iii- 37ii 372. 511)- III an anonymous IJfe of 
 Isaacius abbat of Constantinople (iii. 12 in 
 Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vii. 254 d), Maris is said 
 to have been present at the council of Constan- 
 tinople in 381, a statement which may safely 
 be rejected. [cn-] 
 
 Marius (l) Mercator, a writer, of whom, 
 until the last quarter of the 17th cent., nothing 
 was known except indirectly through the 
 writings of St. Augustine, who in his work 
 de Octo Quaestionibus DulcHii, mentions him 
 as his son, i.e. his friend or pupil, and who 
 addressed to him a letter, containing a long 
 passage identical with one in that work (Ep. 
 193, de Oct. Quaest. Dulc. qu. 3). 
 
 Probably a native of Africa, in Rome in 
 417 or 418, and thought by Baluze to have 
 outlived the council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451. 
 When Julian of Eclana was lecturim; at Rome 
 in 418 in favour of Pelagianisni, Mercator 
 replied to him, and sent his reply to St. Augus- 
 tine, to whom not long afterwards Mercator 
 forwarded a second treatise. Whether these 
 two works exist or not is doubtful, but a 
 treatise called Hypognoslicon, or Hypermes- 
 ticon, in six books, included in vol. x. of St. 
 Augustine's works (ed. Migne, p. 161 1), has 
 been thought to be the one in question. Five 
 of the books treat of Pelagianism, and the 
 sixth of Predestination. The letter of Augus- 
 tine, forwarded by Albinus, a.d. 418, ex- 
 presses admiration of the learning of Marius 
 and discusses points submitted for con- 
 sideration. 
 
 The works of Marius Mercator, being chiefly 
 translations, some of them from his own 
 writings in Greek, appear in Migne in the 
 following order, together with nmcli matter 
 more or less relevant to the principal subject. 
 Part I. I. Commonitorium super nomine 
 Coelestii. — A memorial against the doctrines 
 of Coelestius and Julian, disciples of Pelagius, 
 written in Greek, and presented by Mercator 
 to the emperor Theodosius II. and to the 
 church of Constantinople, a.d. 429. translated 
 by himself into Latin. It contains a history 
 of Pelagianism and an account of its doctrines, 
 and an appeal to Julian to abandon them. 2. 
 A treatise, to whidi the Commonitoiium is a 
 preface, against Julian, entitled Subnotaliones 
 in verba Juliani, written after the death of 
 Augustine, a.d. 430. 3. Translations of 
 various works relating to Pelagianism, in- 
 cluding the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
 with a preface and a refutation of the creed 
 by Mercator. Part II. Concerning the Ncstor- 
 ian heresy, including extracts from Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia, with preface and refutations by 
 Mercator. Extracts from Theodoret bp. of 
 Cyrus, against Cyril, and from his letters, with 
 remarks by Mercator. 
 
 Marius Mercator appears to have been a 
 layman, but an able theologian. His learning, 
 zeal, and ability entitle him to a respectable 
 
 ,MARTINIANUS 
 
 701 
 
 l>laie anmnn <i 1 l^•si.l^^l^.ll wrilrfs. MiKnr, 
 I'atr. Lut. .xivui.; Ceillirr, viu. j6. [ii.w.i-.l 
 
 Marius (2), St., 3rd bp. »( I.ansannc, whither 
 he is s.iiil to have transferred the see from 
 Avenches, between ChilmrgisiluA and Mag- 
 , nerius (llams. p. 283), or .\rricus {(.all. ( hrtit. 
 I XV. 329). He is better known as .Mariut 
 Avinticensis, the chr'iniclrr. He wa« boru 
 at Autun. of parents of high rank. At about 
 the age of 43 he was madf hishon (a.d. 575). 
 I He constructed a church at ratcrniacuni 
 (Payeme) on his own property, and mailo 
 I various donations to it. In <)K5 he was pre- 
 sent at the 2nd council of M.icon (Mansi, ix. 
 ] 958). and after an episcopate lasting ao years 
 j and 8 months died on the last day of 596, in 
 , his 64th year. .\t the council 0/ Macon, in 
 ; 585, he signed himself " episcopus ecclcsiae 
 Aventicae." The authors of the Gallta 
 I Christiana publish a metrical epitaph ot un- 
 [ known date, which represents him as fabri- 
 cating with his own hands the sacred vessels 
 for his church and ploughing his own glebe. 
 His Chronicon is a work of some historical 
 j importance. Thotigh extremely brief it 
 ! furnishes information with referrncc to Bur- 
 gundy and Switzerland during the periiKi em- 
 braced by it wlii( li is fouml nowhere else, and 
 serves to correct the bias of Gregory of Tours 
 against the Arians of Burgundy. It takes up 
 the chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine in 455 
 and carries it to 581, continuing his method of 
 marking the years by consulates, and com- 
 mencing the indictions with 523. An anony- 
 ' mous author has carried it to 623. For an 
 ; account and criticism of it see Hist. Lilt. iii. 
 401 ; Cave, i. 538 ; Ceillier, xi. 309. 400 ; 
 Wattcnbach, DeulscMands GeschichtsquelUn, i. 
 47; Richter, Annaleti, p. 37 and rels. there 
 given. It is in Bouquet, Kecueil, ii. i2-iy, and 
 Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 791-802. [s.a.u.] 
 
 t Martinianus (l), l.gendary martyr with 
 Processus at Rome. .According to the Acts 
 of Li.vus, these were the two soldiers into 
 whose charge Peter had been given. They 
 were converted by him in prison, and for their 
 baptism, Peter, by making the sign of the 
 cross, caused a fountain, still shewn in the 
 Mamertinc prison, miraculously t'> spring from 
 the rock. After their baptism the tw.. sol- 
 diers give Peter as much liberty as he desires, 
 and when news comes that the prefect .Agrippa 
 is about to put him to death, earnestly urge 
 him to withdraw. Peter at first complies, but 
 I returns to custody in conse<iuence of the well- 
 known vision Domine quo ladis. .\ccording 
 j to a notice in Praedestinatus (Hafr. Su), which 
 ' has the air of being more historical than most 
 of the stories of that author, their cult was 
 already in vogue in the reign of the pretender 
 Maximus, i.e. before the end of the 4th cent. 
 According to this storv, Mi.ntanisis got 
 temporary possession <>/ their relics and 
 claimed them as belonging to their s<-ct. 
 Lipsius conjectures that their cult began in 
 the episcopate of Damasus. when great exer- 
 tions were made to revive the menuTy of the 
 saints of the Roman church. T" this jH-ri<>d 
 mav be referred the Acts of I'r.cessus and 
 Martinianus (Bolland. A A. SS. July i. 303)- 
 They are clearly later than Constantine, con- 
 taining mention of offices which did not exist 
 till his time. They arc evidently based on the 
 
10^ 
 
 MARTIMUS 
 
 Acts of Linus, but the story receives consider- 
 able ornament. Their commemoration is 
 fixed for July 2 in the Sacramentary of Gre- 
 gory the Great (vol. ii. 114), who also mentions 
 a church dedicated to them, and tells of a 
 miraculous appearance of them [Hom.inEvang. 
 ii. 32, vol. i. 1586). On the whole subject, see 
 Lipsius (Petnis-Sage, pp. 137 seq.). [g.s.] 
 
 Martinus (1), St., bp. of Tours in the latter 
 portion of 4th cent. Of all the prelates of that 
 age he made the deepest impression upon the 
 imagination of France and of a considerable 
 part of Western Christendom. 
 
 Authorities. — The authorities practically 
 resolve themselves into one, Sulpicius Severus, 
 who mentions Martin in his Sacra Historia 
 (lib. ii. cc. xlv. seq.), in connexion with the 
 important case of Priscillian. [Priscillianus.] 
 Of three dialogues composed by Sulpicius, two 
 treat de Virtutibus B. Martini. An epistle, 
 addressed to a presbyter named Eusebius 
 (some say addressed to Desiderius), is com- 
 posed contra Aemulos Virtutum B. Martini; 
 and two more, written respectively to a deacon 
 named Aurelius and to the author's mother- 
 in-law Bassula, narrate the circumstances of 
 Martin's death. Finally, we have a bio- 
 graphy, de Beati Martini Vita Liber. In 
 Horn's ed. of Sulpicius (Amsterdam, 1665), an 
 8vo of some 570 pages, including notes, at least 
 a sixth part is occupied with St. Martin. St. 
 Gregory of Toiurs devotes 3 books out of his 
 7 on miracles to those wrought by the relics of 
 St. Martin, andreferencestoMartininhisC/z!(rc/» 
 History again shew the large space in the mind 
 of France occupied by our saint. We possess 
 two versified biographies of St. Martin. Neither 
 the later, in 4 books, by Venantius Fortunatus, 
 merely adapted from the writings of Sulpicius, 
 nor the earlier, more elegant poem, in 6 books, 
 by Paulinus, has any claim to be considered an 
 independent authority. Sozomen (H. E. iii. 
 16) has a brief account of Martin. 
 
 Life. — He was born at Sabaria in that part 
 of Pannouia which is now Lower Hungary. He 
 apparently lived at least 80 years (316-396).* 
 
 A.D. 316-336. — His father, a soldier in the 
 Roman army, rose to be a military tribune. 
 Martin's infancy was passed at Pavia in Italy, 
 where his father was for some time stationed, 
 and there he received his education, apparent- 
 ly a pagan one. But even in boyhood his real 
 bent was made manifest, and at the age of ten 
 he fled to a church and got himself enrolled as 
 a catechumen against the wish of his parents. 
 His father succeeded in checking for a season 
 the boy's desire for a monastic career. An 
 imperial edict ordered the enrolment of the 
 sons of veterans, and Martin, who had become 
 a wanderer among churches and monasteries, 
 was, through his father's action, compelled to 
 serve. Though living with much austerity, 
 he won the affection of his fellows during his 
 three years' service. During this period, 
 between Martin's 15th and i8th year, we must 
 place a well-known incident, which is thor- 
 oughly characteristic. At Amiens, in a winter 
 
 • Although some of the dates are well established, 
 considerable uncertamty prevails respecting others. 
 Thus though his length of life seems unquestioned, 
 its limiting dates are not quite settled. It is difficult 
 to reconcile some of the statements of Severus with 
 the chronology set forth by Gregory of Tours. 
 
 MARTiNtfS 
 
 of unusual severity, he met at the city gate a 
 poor man naked and shivering. His com- 
 rades did not heed the sufferer's petitions, and 
 Martin's purse was empty. But Martin with 
 his sword divided his cloak and gave one half 
 to the beggar. That night Martin, in a dream, 
 saw Christ Himself clad in that half cloak. 
 He regarded his dream as a call to baptism, 
 which he straightway received. At the re- 
 quest of his military tribime, he stayed in the 
 army two years after baptism.* 
 
 A.D. 336-360. — The next important event in 
 his career was his first visit to St. Hilary of 
 Poictiers. Martin was his guest for a con- 
 siderable time, and Hilary was anxious to 
 ordain him deacon. Martin refused on the 
 plea of unworthiness, but accepted the more 
 lowly office of exorcist. Soon after he con- 
 ceived it his duty to visit his parents and con- 
 vert them from paganism. In crossing the 
 Alps Martin fell in with a band of robbers, and 
 was brought with hands bound before the 
 chief, who asked who he was. He answered, 
 " A Christian." To the further query 
 whether he feared, he promptly replied that 
 he never felt more secure, but that he grieved 
 for the condition of his captors. The robber 
 is said to have been converted. Martin's 
 mother, with many more in lUyricum, became 
 a convert to Christianity ; his father remained 
 a heathen. Arianism was particularly pre- 
 valent there, and Martin stood forth as an 
 almost solitary confessor for the faith. He 
 was publicly scourged and compelled to de- 
 part. Gaul being in a state of confusion in 
 consequence of the exile of Hilary, Martin 
 went to Italy, and for a short time found a safe 
 retreat at Milan. But the bp. Auxentius, a 
 leader among the Arians, severely persecuted 
 him, and at length drove him away. He re- 
 tired to the island of Gallinaria (now Galinara) 
 off the coast of the Riviera. 
 
 A.D. 360-371. — Hilary being permitted to 
 retiurn home, Martin kept his promise and 
 returned to Gaul, an attempt to meet Hilary 
 at Rome having failed. Having settled near 
 Poictiers, Martin founded, some five miles oS 
 at Locociagum (Luguge), what is considered 
 the earUest monastic institution in Gaul. 
 Hilary gave him the site. If, as seems to 
 be implied by Sulpicius, Martin returned to 
 Gaul immediately after Hilary, his monastic 
 life commenced a.d. 360. After 11 years in 
 his monastery, his reputation led to his 
 election to the see of Tours. It required what 
 is called a pious fraud to entice him from his 
 monastery ; a leading citizen of Tours, having 
 pretended that his wife was ill, begged Martin 
 to come and visit her. A crowd of the people 
 of Tours and from neighbouring cities had 
 been gathered together, and the all but 
 unanimous desire was for the election of 
 Martin. The few opponents objected that his 
 personal appearance was mean, his garments 
 sordid, his hair unkempt. One of the objec- 
 torswas a bishop named Defensor. At service 
 that day the reader, whose turn it was to 
 , ofliciate, failed, through pressure of the 
 i crowd, to arrive in time. A bystander took 
 up a psalter and read the verse which in A.V. 
 stands thus : " Out of the mouths of babes 
 and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength 
 I * The chronology is here painfully confused. 
 
 I 
 
MARTINUS 
 
 because of Thine enemies, that Thou niightesl 
 still the enemy and the avenger." Hut in the 
 version then employed in liaul, the concluding 
 words were : " ut destruas inimicum et defeiis- 
 orum." It is characteristic of the age that at 
 this point a loud shout was raised by Martin's 
 friends and his enemies were CMufounded, the 
 reader's choice of the verse being regarded as 
 a divine inspiration. Opposition thenceforth 
 ceased, and Martin was duly consecrated. 
 
 A-D. 37i-39t^. — To a great extent thenew bp. 
 of Tours continued to be the monk. He built 
 a monastery two miles from the city, where 
 80 scholars, some of them noble, pursued a 
 severe discipline. The art of transcribing was 
 cultivated by the younger brethren. In time 
 several cities obtained bishops from this 
 institution. Unlike Hilary, whose contro- 
 versies with Arians and semi-Arians formed 
 his chief polemical work, bp. Martin was 
 especially called upon to fight paganism. The 
 country people in Gaul were still largely 
 heathen. Martin, as portrayed by Sulpi- 
 cius, simply lives in an atmosphere of marvels. 
 During the first years of his episcopate the 
 record is especially abundant, though his 
 biographer declares he is restricting himself to 
 a few specimens. 
 
 Martin must be regarded as the great evan- 
 gelizer of the rural districts of Gaul, especially 
 in the considerable and not very defined 
 diocese of Tours. J lis work and influence 
 are facts which no historian of France can 
 omit. Twice he came across the path of 
 emperors — namely, Valentinian I. and Maxi- 
 raus. \'alentinian, the ruler of the West 
 (364-375), for a time (in 368) fi.xed his seat of 
 empire at Treves. Martin repaired thither, 
 for some unspecified reason. .Moved by his 
 Arian wife Justina, the great opponent of 
 St. .Ambrose, the emperor reifused an audience. 
 Martin within a week made his way into the 
 palace. The emperor, indignant at the intru- 
 sion, declined to rise, until his chair caught 
 fire and compelled him to move forward. 
 Convinced of the divine aid, Valentinian 
 granted all Martin's requests and took him 
 into favour. Martin accepted the royal hos- 
 pitality but declined all personal presents. 
 
 Somewhat different were the relations of 
 Martin with the emperor Ma.ximus, who, after 
 the flight of Valentinian II., fixed his capital 
 also at Treves. Martin declined from Maxi- 
 mus such invitations as he had accepted from 
 Valentinian, declaring it impossil)le ti> banquet 
 with one " who had dethrcjned one emperor 
 and slain another." The excuses of Maximus, 
 however, induced Martin to appear at the 
 imperial board. The seat assigned to him was 
 among the very highest. In the middle of the 
 feast the proper functionary offered, according | 
 to custom, a goblet to the sovereign. Maxi- 
 mus ordered that it should first be given to 
 Martin, expecting to himself receive it from the 
 bishop. But .Martin handed the goblet to his 
 chaplain, holding it wrong to allow the 
 emperor higher honour than a presbyter. The 
 bishop's conduct was admired, though no 
 other prelate had acted thus even at the repast 
 of secular dignitaries of inferior rank. 
 
 The intercourse of Martin with .Maximus 
 involved the bishop in the difficulties which 
 troubled the church in connexion with the 
 
 MARTINUS 
 
 708 
 
 Priscilliiuiist error, l he 1« .iding <ip|>unriit ol 
 I'riscillian was the Spanish bp. Ithaclu^. 
 
 Triscillian. though condrinned by a local 
 council, was supported by Munr bish■>l<^. who 
 consecrated him to the vacant srr ii| Avila. 
 The members of the comicil thereupon had 
 recourse to the civil power ; while the frirn«U 
 of I'riscilli.ui sought the aid ..f Dam.i- ' • 
 of Konie. Failing li> obtain it, the\ ' 
 themselves to .Milan, where the great A 
 was bishop. Hut St. .Ambrose shew.i 
 no more favour than naiiiasus. In ^H^ Itbaciu^ 
 went to Treves to seek an interview with Maxi- 
 mus, and obtained the suininoning of a council 
 at Bordeaux. This all recognized as within the 
 fair limits of imperi;il authority. Hut I'ris- 
 cillian. on his arrival at Bordeaux, instead ol 
 difending his cause by argument, appealed to 
 the emperor. The Ithacians had idrrady com- 
 mitted themselves to tin- permission of a am- 
 siderableamountof stateinterference. I'riscil- 
 lian now came to Treves and ltliaciii>. foHowrd. 
 Martin objected to a case of heresy bring left to 
 a secular tribunal, begged Ithacius not to press 
 the charges again-t Itiscillian before such a 
 court, and besought Maximus not to alU»w any 
 other iiunishment of the accused beyond ex- 
 communication. Finding that he must leave 
 Treves and return home, Martin obtained a 
 promise from the emperor that there should be 
 no bloodshed. The trial of i'riscillian, which 
 had been delayed until Martin's departure, was 
 now eagerly pressed on, at the instance of two 
 bishops, .\(agnus and Kufus. The emperor 
 seems to have been sincerely coiivincnl tli.it 
 the heretical teaching of the I'riscillianivt> in- 
 volved gross immoralities ; and, accordingly, 
 in 3H5 I'riscillian was executed with several of 
 his adherents, while others were exiled. 
 
 This was the first instance of the capital 
 punishment of a heretic. St. Martin and St. 
 Ambrose protested, and refused communion 
 with the bishops responsible for this sentence. 
 
 Martin paid a visit to Treves later to plead 
 that some of Gratian's officers might be spared. 
 He found there a number of bishops gathered 
 for the consecration of a new bishop, Felix, to 
 the vacant see of Treves. These prelates had, 
 with one exception, communicated with the 
 adherents of Ithacius, and had endeavoured 
 unsuccessfully to prevent .Martin's entrance 
 into the city. The information that those lor 
 whose lives he came to |)lead were doomed, and 
 that a sort of raid ag.-iinst Friscillianism was 
 contemplated, induced Martin to change his 
 mind, especially as he feared that the charge 
 of sympathy with heresy might plausibly l>e 
 imputed to himself and to others ol ascetic 
 life who had taken the same line. Martin 
 evidently considered himself in a situation 
 which involved a cruel and perplexing question 
 of casuistrv. Felix was hiinsell a giKKl man 
 and well fitted for the vacant see. Still. Mar- 
 tin would not have coiniiiunicatrd, but lor the 
 impending danger to the lives ol innocent iiirn 
 and to the cause t.l religion. On his journey 
 homeward, which he commenced on the day 
 after his communion, he sat down in the vast 
 solitude of a forest, near the village ol Ande- 
 thanna, and again debated with himsrii 
 whether he had acted aright or not. It 
 seemed to him that an angri appeand and 
 told him that his compunction was right, but 
 
104 
 
 MARTINUS 
 
 that he had had no choice. Henceforth he 
 must be more careful. Martin believed that 
 his power of working miracles and of relieving 
 the oppressed was diminished ever after this 
 unfortunate event. To escape such risks in 
 the future, he never, for the remaining i6 
 years of his life, attended any synod or gather- 
 ing of bishops. Sulpicius believes that in due 
 time he regained his supernatural powers. 
 The remainder of his career was spent in the 
 conversion of his diocese, amidst constant 
 prayer and toil. His death was calm, pious, 
 and edifying. It probably occurred in 397, 
 on Nov. II, a date well known throughout the 
 N. of England as the term-day of Martinmas. 
 His funeral is said to have been attended by 
 2,000 monks. He is specially named among 
 confessors in the Mass of pope Gregory, with 
 Linus, Cletus, Hilary, Augustine, and 13 more. 
 One of the oldest churches in England is that 
 of St. Martin at Canterbury ; and the earliest 
 apostle of Scotland, St. Ninian, having heard 
 of Martin's death while labouring in Galloway, 
 dedicated to him the first stone church of the 
 country, Candida Casa. 
 
 A cheap popular Life of St. Martin of Tours 
 by J. C. Cazenove is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their 
 Fathers for Bug. Readers. [j.g.c] 
 
 Martinus (2), bp. of Dumium in Gallicia, and 
 afterwards metropolitan bp. of Braga, died 
 c. 580 ; a person of importance, about whom 
 our information is scanty. 
 
 Our chief sources are: (i) Isidore, (a) his 
 Life in de Vir. III. c. 35, (b) a reference in 
 Hist. Suevorum, Esp. Sagr. vi. 505 ; (2) 
 Gregory of Tours — (a) de Mirac. Scti. Martini 
 Tur. i. II ; {bj Hist. Franc, v. 38 ; (3) some 
 Acts of councils of Braga; (4) a letter and 
 poem addressed to him by Venantius For- 
 tunatus (Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxxviii.). 
 
 Life. — According to Gregory of Tours and 
 Venantius Fortunatus, Martin was a native 
 of Pannonia {" Pannonia Quiritis," Venan- 
 tius). He had travelled to the Holy Land, 
 and had in the East acquired such a knowledge 
 of letters that he was held second to no 
 scholar of his day. Thence (ex Orientis parti- 
 bus) he came to Galicia, arriving " ad portum 
 Galliciae " (? Portucale) on the same day as 
 the relics of St. iMartin of Tours, for which 
 Arianus or Theodoric I., king of the Suevi, had 
 shortly before petitioned the guardians of the 
 saint's shrine. In 561, about eleven years 
 after his arrival in the country, he attended 
 the first council of Braga, presided over by 
 Lucretius, metropolitan bp. of Braga. The 
 Acts of the council, which are in an unusual 
 and highly artificial shape, were probably 
 compiled by Martin, the person of the greatest 
 literary pretensions then in Gallicia. 
 
 This council evidently marks an era of 
 revival and reformation in Galicia, probably 
 under the auspices of the orthodox and ener- 
 getic Martin. The only mention of Arianism 
 in it throughout occurs in a letter of pope 
 Vigilius which was read. Probably this 
 indirect handling, and the penalties decreed 
 generally against intercourse with heretics, 
 were all that the bishops felt themselves strong 
 enough to venture against a creed which had 
 been shortly before the religious confession of 
 the Suevian nation, and had no doubt still 
 many friends in high places. Eleven years 
 
 MARTIKUS 
 
 later another council was held at Braga, and 
 Martin now occupied the metropolitan see as 
 successor to Lucretius, the bishops addressing 
 him in unusually submissive terms. Eleven 
 bishops were present from the two synods of 
 Lugo and Braga, which here appear as two 
 distinct metropolitan dioceses for the first and 
 only time in authentic history. 
 
 We may probably place the correspondence 
 of Martin with Venantius Fortunatus between 
 572 and 580. In 580 Martin died, greatly 
 mourned by the people of Gallicia. His memory 
 is celebrated on Mar. 30. 
 
 Works. — [i) Formula Vitae Honestae, as he 
 himself calls it in the preface, otherwise de 
 Differentiis Quaiuor Virtutum (so Isid. ^c), 
 or de Quatuor Virtutibus Cardinalibus — a 
 little tract extremely popular in the middle 
 ages, and frequently printed during the 15th 
 and 1 6th cents. The best ed. is by Hasse in 
 Sen. Op. iii. 468, where he describes the 
 Formula as more frequently read and quoted 
 in the middle ages than any of the genuine 
 works of Seneca, to whom it was ascribed in 
 early editions. There is an ed. by A. Weidner 
 (Magdeburg, 1871). Cf. Fabricius, Bibl. 
 Med. Ae. Inf. Lat. iii., Bibl. Latina, ed. 1773, 
 ii. 119. 
 
 (2) De Moribus, a tract consisting of 
 maxims from various sources. (Haase, xx.) 
 
 (3) De Correctione Rusticorum. — In this 
 interesting tract Martin discusses the origin 
 of idolatry and denounces the heathen cus- 
 toms still remaining in (ialicia. His theory 
 is that the fallen angels or demons assumed 
 the names and shapes of notoriously wicked 
 men and women who had already existed, 
 such as Jove, Venus, Mars ; that the nymphs. 
 Lamias, and Neptune are demons with power 
 to harm all who are not fortified with the sign 
 of tlie cross, and who shew their faithlessness 
 by calling the days of the week after the 
 heathen gods. The observance of calends, 
 the propitiation of mice and moths by presents 
 of bread and cloth, auguries, the observance 
 of the New Year on Jan. i instead of on the 
 March equinox, when in the beginning God 
 "divided the light from the darkness" by 
 an equal division, the burning of wax tapers 
 at stones, trees, streams, and crossways, the 
 adornment of tables, the pouring of corn over 
 the log on the hearth, the placing of wine and 
 bread in the wells, the invocation of Minerva 
 by the women at their spinning, the worship 
 of Venus, the incantation of medicinal herbs, 
 divination by birds and by sneezing, are all 
 denounced as pagan superstitions, offensive to 
 God and dangerous to him who practises 
 them. The sign of the cross is to be the 
 remedy against auguries and all other dia- 
 bolical signs. The holy incantation, viz. the 
 Creed, is the Christian's defence against dia- 
 bolical incantations and songs. 
 
 (4) De Trina Mersione, a letter to a bp. 
 Boniface on threefold immersion in baptism. 
 
 (5-9) Pyo Repellenda jactantia, de Stiperbia, 
 Exhortatio Humilitatis, de Ira, de Pascha, 5 
 small tracts, first pub. by Tamayo de Salazar 
 in vol. ii. of his Martyrol. Hisp. and rightly con- 
 sidered genuine (Gams, ii. (i) 473)- 
 
 (10) De Paupertate, a short tract, con- 
 sisting of excerpts from Seneca, sometimes 
 attributed to Martin, but not mentioned by 
 
MARTYRIUS 
 
 Florez or by Nicolas Antonio {Bihl. I'al. 
 Bayer's ed. Haaso, I.e. xx. 45S). 
 
 Martin's I runstattofis. — Besides his adapta- 
 tioas of Latin Stoical literature, Martin pro- 
 duced or superintended many translations from 
 the Greek. The chief are (a) the Cafyttula 
 Martini, a collection of S4 canons, which had 
 great vogue and induence in the middle ages. 
 These "capitula sive canones orientalium anti- 
 quorum patrum synodis a venerabili Martino 
 episcopo, vel ab omni Bracarcnsi synodo ex- 
 cerpti, " were incorporated in the earliest form 
 of the Spanish CoJex Canonitm. With it they 
 passed into the pseudo-lsidorian collection, 
 and so obtained widespread induence. The 
 sources of the collection cannot be all ascer- 
 tained, they are not exclusively from Greek 
 sources. They are, jwith some corrections, in 
 Brun's Canonei Apostolorum, (Berlin, 1839), 
 ii. 43. (b) Interrogationes et Reponsiones Pluri- 
 mae, set. Aegyptiorum Patr., trans, from an 
 unknown Greek source by a deacon Paschasius 
 in the monastery of Dumium, with a preface 
 by Martin, at whose command the work had 
 been undertaken (Rosweyd, I'itae Patrum, 
 lib. vii. p. 505, and Prolegomenon, xiv. ; 
 Florez, Esp. Sagr. xv. 433). 
 
 Was Martin a Benedictine? — The great 
 Benedictine writers unhesitatingly answer in 
 the at&rmative. (So Mabillon, Annates 0. S. 
 B. and Bibliothcque generate de I'Ordre de 
 Saint Benoit, ii. 203.) But it is on the whole 
 most probable that Martin adopted one of the 
 various older rules still current in the con- 
 temporary monasteries of S. Gaul, with some 
 of which we know him to have had relations. 
 About 100 years later his illustrious successor 
 in the sees of Dumium and Braga, St. Fructu- 
 osus, drew up a monastic rule for his monas- 
 tery of Compludo, which was mainly an 
 abbreviation of the Benedictine rule, but con- 
 tained also provisions not found in that rule. 
 This is the only piece of historical evidence 
 connecting the Benedictine rule with \'isi- 
 gothic Catholicism. (.Migne, Pat. Lat. Ixxxvii. 
 1096 ; Vepes, Chron. del Ord. de S. Benito, i. j 
 for the ultra- Benedictine view. On the 
 general subject of monasticism in Gothic Spain 
 of. Dahn, Konige der Germanen, vi.) 
 
 Martin's Personality. — That Martin played . 
 an important and commanding part in his 
 generation all that remains of him suggests. 
 His life appears to have been greatly induenced 
 by the parallel so often drawn by his con- 1 
 temporaries between him and the greater 
 Martin of Tours. We may also regard him to , 
 some extent as a piece in a political game. 
 If Martin the missionary, ex Orientts parti- 
 bus, effected the Suevian conversion, his ' 
 career is one element in a scheme of European 
 politics which can be traced through the greater 
 part of 6th cent., and in which the destruction 
 of the Suevian kingdom by Leovigild 5 years 
 after Martin's death, and the West Gothic con- ; 
 version to Catholicism under Keccarcd, are 
 important incidents. (Gams, Kirchengesch. von 
 Spamen, ii. (i) 471-) [m.a.w.] ' 
 
 Martyrlus (3), bp. of Jerusalem, 478-486, a 
 Cappadocian by birth, who had embraced a 
 solitary life in the Nitrian desert. The violent 
 proceedings of Timothy Aelurus drove him and 
 other orthodox monks from Egypt, and he 
 took refuge, a.d. 457, together with hisfellow- 
 
 Masoma 
 
 705 
 
 solitary Elias, also subsequently bp. of Jeru- 
 salem, in the hou>e o( St. Euthymiu\ whu 
 received them with great favour (CyriH. 
 Scythop. \'it. S. liulhym. cc. 94, 95). After a 
 time Martyrius retired to a cave 2 nule» 
 W. lit the laura, which became the site of a 
 considerable monastery (ift.). Martyrius and 
 Elias were present at the death and burial ol 
 St. Euthyinius, a.u. 473, alter which Anas- 
 tasius bp. of Jerusalem ordained Iheni ures- 
 byters, attaching them to the church ol the 
 Resurrection (16. cc. 105, 110. 112). Ana»- 
 tasius dying a.d. 478, Martyrius succeeded 
 him as bp. ol Jerusalem (1/). 113). His church 
 was then rent asunder by the liutychlau 
 .\poschistae, of whom Gcrontius was the head. 
 He succeeded in bringing back these schismatic 
 monks to the unity of the church (16. 123, 124). 
 Cyrillus Scythopolitanus tells us that he died 
 in the 8th year ol his patri.irchate, a.d. 486 
 (\'it. S. Sab. c. 19; Eutych. t. 11. p. 103). 
 Le (juien. Or. Christ, iii. 171 ; Tillem. M/m. 
 eccl. xvi. ii2 seq. [e.v.] 
 
 Ilasona (.Maaona, Mausona, Mansi, ix. 
 1000; X. 478), bp.of .Meridafromc. 571 toe. 606. 
 Except for the de I'tta et Mtraculis Patrum 
 Emeritensium, a series ol Lives attributed to 
 Paulus Diaconus, a supposed writer ol the 7th 
 cent, (printed by Florez, Esp. Sagr. xiii., by 
 Aguirre, Coll. Max. Cone. Htsp. ii. 639, and 
 elsewhere), our information concerning Alasona 
 is extremely scanty. 
 
 Joannes Biclarensis says under a.d. 573, the 
 5th year of Leovigild, " Masona Emcritcnsis 
 Ecclesiae Episcopus in nostro dogmate clarus 
 habetur " ; and at the third council of Toledo, 
 the famous conversion council ol 589, Masona 
 presided, his signature " Ecclesiae Catholtcae 
 Eraeritensis Metropolitanus Episcopus I'ro- 
 vinciaeLusitaniae" being at the headol all the 
 episcopalsignatures, andimmediatelyloUowing 
 that of Keccared. Between these two dates 16 
 years of great importance to the Gothic state 
 had elapsed, comprising the rebellion of Hcr- 
 menigild and the submission of Keccared to 
 Catholicism. From the notice by Joannes 
 Biclarensis 9 years earlier, it is evident that 
 at the outbreak of the rebellion Masona was 
 one of the most prominent Catholic bishops 
 in S. Spain, and therefore would have consider • 
 able induence upon the position assumed by 
 Merida in the ontest. In 589 the great aim o| 
 the Catholic party was achieved, and the Visi- 
 gothic stale became, at least olhtially. Catholic. 
 Eight vears later a gathering ol bishops at 
 Toledo! under the presidency ol Masona, passed 
 two canons, one insisting upon the celibacy 
 of bishops, priests, and deacons, the other 
 reserving the endowments of a church (or 
 the benefit ol its priests and other clerks, as 
 agauist possible exactions Irom the bishop. 
 This assemblv was perhaps a chance gather- 
 ing ol a number ot bish..ps in the capital, who 
 took the opi>ortunity to I.Tiiiulatc rules oii 
 two important diiciplinary p.'iuts. II it was 
 a duly summoned national eountil, the Acts 
 were purposely or accidentally omitted Iroiu 
 the original redaction ol the Spanish Cod*x 
 Canonum made within the hrst 40 years of 
 7th cent. Our last notice ol Masona incurs 
 in a letter, dated Feb. 2«, 606, to him 
 Irom Isidore in answer to an mquiry on 
 a matter ol discipUne. In 610 his succes- 
 46 
 
706 MATERNUS, JULIUS FIRMICUS 
 
 sor, Innocentius, signed 'the Decretum Gun- 
 demari. 
 
 The above Vita remains to be considered. 
 If it be a genuine piece of yth-cent. biography, 
 it gives full and valuable information on his 
 life and also on the general condition of the 
 Spanish church in the 6th and 7th cents. 
 But the Latin of the first three chaps, seems 
 to make it impossible to refer them to 7th 
 cent. The legendary and marv^eUous char- 
 acter of the remainder, and the desire apparent 
 throughout to exalt the ecclesiastical import- 
 ance of Merida, is, on the other hand, no 
 argiunent against genuineness, as contem- 
 porary parallels might easily be quoted. 
 The facts it gives regarding Masona are 
 briefly : his Gothic extraction, his education 
 in the church of St. Eulalia, his persecution at 
 the hands of Leovigild, who sent two Arian 
 bishops, Sunna and Nepopis, at different , 
 times, to undermine Masona's influence and 
 oust him from his church, his intercourse with 
 Leovigild at Toledo, where his resistance to 
 the king's demand led to his exile, and his 
 final restoration to his see after Leo\dgild's 
 various supernatural warnings. After Rec- 
 cared had succeeded and pubUcly embraced ; 
 Catholicism, a struggle took place in Merida 
 between Masona and Sunna. Sunna joined 
 with two Gothic Comes, Segga and Witteric, 
 in a plot for murdering Masona which was 
 miraculously frustrated, and Witteric, after- 
 wards the Gothic king of that name, confessed 
 all to Masona, who was not only protected by 
 miracles, but by the strong arm of the Catholic 
 Claudius Dux of Lusitania (known to us from 
 other sources, as are Sunna and Segga, cf. 
 Isid. Hist. Goth. ap. Esp. Sagr. v. 492 ; Joann. 
 Bid. op. cit. 385, 386 ; and ep. Greg. Magn. ; 
 Aguirre Catalani, Coll. Max. Cone. Hist. ii.). 
 Reccared decided that Sunna should either 
 recant his .Ajianism or go into exile. He chose 
 the latter, retired into Mauritania and there 
 came to a miserable end. Masona Uved to an 
 honoured old age, procuring in his last hours 
 the miraculous punishment of his archdeacon 
 Eleutherius, who had abused the powers en- 
 trusted to him by the failing bishop. 
 
 It is not improbable that the Vita repre- 
 sents the 7th-cent. tradition. Isidore ex- 
 pressly mentions the exile of bishops among 
 Leovigild's measures of persecution {Hist. 
 Goth. I.e. p. 491), and it is most likely that 
 Masona was exiled c. 583, after the fall of 
 Merida, and restored, not diuring the lifetime 
 of Leovigild, as his enthusiastic biographer 
 declares, but upon the accession of Reccared, 
 who sought to reverse his father's policy. 
 Dahn, Konige der Germanen, v. 141 ; R. de 
 Castro, Biblioteea Espaiioles, ii. p. 348 ; Nicolas 
 Antonio, Bihl. Vet. Bayer's ed. i. p. 373 ; note 
 by Morales to the Memoriale Sanctorum of St. 
 Eulogias apud Hist. Ulust. iv. 282. [m.a.w.] 
 
 Maternus(3), Julius Firmicus.an acute critic 
 of pagan rites and doctrines and a vigorous 
 apologist for the Christian faith, known from 
 his treatise de Error e Profanarum Religionum, 
 composed between 343 and 350, very valuable 
 for its details of the secret rites of paganism. 
 It describes every leading form of idolatry 
 then current and gives us information not 
 found elsewhere. It discusses the idolatry of 
 the Persians, Egyptians, AssjTians, the Greek 
 
 MAXENTIUS, JOANNES 
 
 mysteries, the ceremonies and formulae used 
 in the Mithraic worship. Some of the details 
 on this last are very curious, some liturgical 
 fragments being inserted. In opposition to 
 the heathen orgies he presents the pure mys- 
 teries of Christianity in his preface, now almost 
 completely lost, and from c. xxiv. to the end. 
 He concludes with earnestly exhorting the 
 emperors to suppress paganism by force ; thus 
 giving one of the earhest specimens of Chris- 
 tian intolerance. The work illustrates the 
 small amount of philological and etymological 
 science possessed by the ancients. Maternus, 
 arguing against the Egyptians that Sarapis 
 was originally the patriarch Joseph, derives 
 the name Sarapis from Zapas air6, because 
 Joseph was the descendant of Sarah. The 
 work is valuable for BibUcal criticism, as in 
 it are found quotations from the versions used 
 in N. Africa in St. C>T)rian's time. There are 
 probably embodied in it some fragments of the 
 ancient Greek wTiter Evemerus, whose work 
 upon paganism, now lost, was largely used by 
 all the Christian apologists. In Migne's 
 Patr. Lat. t. xii. is reprinted an ed. of 
 Maternus, pub. by Munter at Copenhagen in 
 1826, with an introductory dissertation dis- 
 cussing the whole subject. A contemporary 
 pagan Julius Firmicus Maternus, usually styled 
 Junior, \\Tote a work (between 330 and 360) 
 on judicial astrology, mentioned by Sidon. 
 Apoll. in Ep. ad Pont. Leant. Upon this see 
 the'above dissertation. There is some reason to 
 suppose that he was converted to Christianity 
 and was identical with the subject of our art. 
 See C. H. Moore. Jul. Firm. Mat. der Heide 
 und der Christ. (Mnnich, 1897). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Maurus (2), St., founder and abbat of the 
 
 i Benedictine monastery of Glanfeuil or St. 
 Maur-sur-Loire. He is better known, as Her- 
 zog says, to tradition than to history, but the 
 primary authority is Gregorius Mag. (Dial. ii. 
 cc. 3 seq.). His Life, written by Faustus Cas- 
 
 ' sinensis, and re-\vTitten with alterations by 
 Odo or Eudes, at one time abbat of Glanfeuil, 
 is given by Mabillon [.Acta SS. 0. S. B. saec. i. 
 
 ! 274 seq.) and the BoUand. {Acta SS. Jan. i. 
 
 1 1039 seq.). [Faustus (31)]. St. Maurus, better 
 
 i known in France as St. Maur, was when 12 
 
 ' years old entrusted by his father Equitius, an 
 Italian nobleman, to the charge of St. Bene- 
 dict at Subiaco (or at Monte Cassino) and 
 trained in monastic rule. By St. Benedict he 
 was sent into Gaul e. 543, and established his 
 monastery on the Loire by favour of King 
 
 , Theodebert. He introduced the Benedictine 
 rule, and was the chief means of its acceptance 
 in France, but the details of his work are not 
 given. He died a.d. 584. His monastery, 
 secularized in i6th cent., was in the middle 
 ages one of great influence, and the " Congre- 
 gation of St. Maur " has done much from 
 the 17th cent, to elevate the tone of the mon- 
 astic orders. The genuineness of his life in all 
 its stages has been disputed. Ceillier, Sacr. 
 Aut. xi. 157, 170, 610; Herzog, Real-Encycl. ix. 
 201 ; Cave, Lit. Hist. i. 574 ; Mosheim, Hist. 
 Ch. Ch. cent. xvii. § 2, pt. i. c. i. [j-G-] 
 
 Maxentius (4), Joannes, presbyter and 
 archimandrite. His monastery {Sugg. Diosc. 
 in Labbe, iv. 1520) appears to have been 
 situated within the jmrisdiction of Paternus, 
 
 i bp. of Tomi (Kostendje), the capital of Scythia 
 
MAXENTIUS, JOANNES 
 
 Minor (Dobrvidscha), who subscribed tlio 
 sjiiodical letter of the council held at Con- 
 stantinople, A.D. 520, as " Provinciac Scythiac 
 Metropolitanus " (Labbe, iv. 1525). About 
 517 a controversy arose at Constantinople, in 
 which the credit of the council of Chaicedon 
 (A.D. 431) was considered to be seriously in- 
 volved (Hormisd. epp. 15, 16 in Mansi, viii. 
 418 and Labbe, iv. 1454, 1435). An active 
 part was taken by certain Scythian nKMiks, 
 with Maxentius as their leader, who earnestly 
 contended for tlie position " unus tie Trinitate 
 in carne crucitixus est " as essential to the 
 exclusion of the heresy of Nostorius on the one 
 hand and of Eutyches on the other (Sugggslio 
 Dioscuri, Labbe, iv. 1513, May 13, 519 ; 
 Desprez, Proleg. Fulgent. Rusp. in Mifjne, Ixv. 
 109). The dispute was at its height in 519, 
 when Gennanus bp. of Capua, bp. Joannes, 
 Blandus a presbyter, Felix and Dioscorus 
 deacons, arrived at Constantinople from 
 Hormisdas bp. of Rome, to negotiate a recon- 
 ciliation of the two churches (Baronius, s.a. 
 Ixxxvii.). At the same time the writings of 
 Faustus the semi- Pelagian bp. of Kiez were 
 also the subject of fierce debate at Constanti- 
 nople, the Scythian monks contending that 
 they were heretical. Among the chief an- 
 tagonists of the monks were a deacon n.amed 
 Victor, Paternus bp. of Tomi, and other 
 Scythian bishops (Sugg. Germ. Joann. Fel. 
 Diosc. et Bland, in Labbe, iv. 1514). Both 
 parties had influential supporters in the im- 
 perial court, the monks being vigorously 
 upheld by Vitalian, then apparently in great 
 favour with the emperor Justin, who held the 
 oti&ce of magister militum (Evagr. H. E. iv. 
 3 ; Suggest. Diosc. u.s.), and their opponents 
 no less so at first by Justinian, who already 
 held high office under his uncle (\'ict. Tunun. 
 s.a. 518; Justinian, ad Hormisd. Labbe, iv. 
 1516). Soon after the arrival of the Roman 
 legates at Constantinople the Scythian monks 
 appealed for their help, and Maxentius, in 
 their name, drew up " de Christo Professio," 
 explanatory of their faith, wiiich they sent 
 with the appeal (Migne, Pair. Gk. Ixxxvi. 73, 
 79). They protest that it is from no dis- 
 respect to the council of Chaicedon, but in 
 its defence, that they contend for tlieir position 
 on the subject of the Trinity, and declare that 
 they anathematize all who either oppose that 
 council or hold its decisions to be imperfect. 
 They also denounce the teaching of Pelagius 
 and Coelestius, and the followers of Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia, as " contradictory to that of 
 the apostle." They further pray the papal 
 legates to hear their accusations against Victor 
 and Paternus (May 30, 319, Labbe, iv. 1309 ; 
 Suggest. Legal, u.s. 1514, June 29, 519; 
 Hormisd. Suggest. Diosc. et al. .May 30, 319; 
 Labbe, iv. 13 19 ; Suggest. German, et al. 
 June 29, 319; tb. 1514 ; Hormisd. Fp. 67, 
 ad Justinian. ; tb. 1518). The legates, at the 
 urgent request of the emperor Justin and 
 Vitalian, consented to hear the case, but with- 
 out pronouncing a decision. Failing to ob- 
 tain satisfaction at Constantinople, the monks 
 determined to send four of their number, 
 Achilles, John, Leont^us, Mauritius, to lay the 
 whole case before Hormisdas at Komc (Jus- 
 tinian, Ep. ad Hormisd. Labbe, iv. 1516). The 
 four departed for the West early in May 519, 
 
 MAXENTIUS. JOANNES 707 
 
 I and Justinian and the Koman li>;atcs duly 
 notily their departure to Horini&das, and pray 
 j him to reject their appeal. 
 j Hormisd. IS delaying to hear the (our envoy*, 
 I others wi re sent to join them, Maxrntnu 
 I apparently being one. .Meanwhile Justinian 
 I changed his opinion n( the monks and brcinir 
 I their advocate (Justini.iii. aJ Hormiid. ; H<>r- 
 j misd. /•./>. ()(i, ad Justinian. Sept. 2, 510, u.i. 
 1518). Ihe controversy s«'eins to have in- 
 volved a considerable number of the clergy 
 of the East, especially those of Jerusalrni. .Vn- 
 tioch, and Syria Secuiida (Ju>tin. ad HurmnJ. 
 U.S. 1520, Jan. 19, 520 ; Dcprec. et Suppltc. al> 
 Hieros. et al. u.s. 1542). An active mrrc- 
 spondence followed between Constantinnplr 
 and Rome, during which Possessor, an .Afrir.in 
 bp. exiled by the Arians, wrote to Hormisdas, 
 requesting his opinion as to the orthodoxy of 
 the writings of Faustus and urging that 
 Vitalian and Justinian were equally anxious 
 I to hear from Hormisdas on the subject (Pos- 
 j sess. Ep. Afr. Kelat. Labbe, iv. 1530, received 
 at Rome July 18, 520). Shortly after the 
 I dispatch of this letter Vitalian was put to 
 death (Procop. Hist. .\rc. 6, Op. ed. Bonn, iii. 
 j 46 ; Vict. Tunun. s.a. 523). 
 
 The deputation at Rome, finding the Roman 
 legates at Constantinople too strong for 
 them, and therefore having little hope of 
 success with Hormisdas, resolved to appeal to 
 the African bishops then in exile in Sardinia, 
 some of whom, as Fulgentius of Ruspe, enjoyed 
 a high reputation for ability as well as ortho- 
 doxy. In drawing up the appeal they again 
 appear to have employed Maxentius. It was 
 divided into eight chapters. In the fourth 
 they elaborately defend the position they had 
 maintained at Constantinople. .\t the close 
 of the fifth they solemnly protest their accept- 
 ance of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, 
 ' Ephesus, and Chalceduii, the letters of Leo 
 I anathematizing the writings of Theodore of 
 I Mopsuestia and Nestorius his disciple, and all 
 I writings opposed to the Twelve Chapters of 
 the blessed Cyril against Nestorius ; anathe- 
 matizing in addition, Eutyches and Dioscorus 
 (Petr. Uiac. de Incarnai. et Gratia, Migne. 
 Patrol. Ixv. 442-451)- This appeal was 
 responded to by Fulgentius, bp. of Rusi)e, in 
 his well-known de Incarnatione et dralia 
 Domini nostri Jesu Christi, in which the exiled 
 bishops express their hearty approval of the 
 confession of faith which the appeal con- 
 tained (Fulgent. Ep. 17. Op. u.s. 45I-493)- 
 The monks, after being detained at Rome 14 
 months, had now returned to the East. Be- 
 fore they left thevdrew up a further protesta- 
 tion of their faith, which they caused to be 
 affixed to the statues of the emperors (Hor- 
 misd. Ep. 70, ad Possess.; Labbe, iv. 1331). 
 This, probably, was the '"contra Nestor- 
 ; ianos capitula " of the collected work* of 
 .Maxentius. The title, however, hardly corre- 
 sponds to the contents, which consist of 12 
 anathemas, the 9th being directed against 
 the Eutvchians, and the remaining three 
 against I'vlagius and I oelestius and their fol- 
 lowers (Migne. I'atr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 86). 
 
 Maxentius ami his friends, having returned 
 to ConstantinopU-. sent a copy of the writings 
 , of Faustus of Riez to Fulgentius and thr other 
 i exiles in Sardinia, requesting hiin and lii> 
 
708 
 
 MAXENTIUS. JOANNES 
 
 brethren to send their opinion of these {ib. Ixv. 
 145). Meanwhile Fulgentius wrote his de Veri- 
 tate Praedestinationis, addressed to Joannes 
 presbyter and Venerius deacon, two of the 
 Scythian monks (ib. 603-671), speaking of the 
 monks in the highest terms. On Aug. 13, 520, 
 Hormisdas replied to the letter received from 
 Possessor on July 18, speaking of the monks 
 with unmeasured reproach. They are scatterers 
 of "poison under the pretence of religion," and 
 he writes nowso that, shouldtheyreturntoCon- 
 stantinople, they might not deceive those who 
 didnotknowof theirconductatRome. He does 
 not, however, commit himself to any opinion 
 as to the position " unum de Trinitate," but 
 refers to it in very general terms, saying, "The 
 reverend wisdom of the Fathers has defined 
 what is Catholic doctrine . . . what need, there- 
 fore, to raise any further controversy, when 
 the Christian faith is limited by canonical 
 books, synodical decrees, and the constitu- 
 tions of the Fathers within fixed and im- 
 movable limits ? " Nor is he much more 
 explicit as to the writings of Faustus. He 
 says that he does not receive him nor any one 
 not approved by the authority of the Fathers, 
 but adds, that if he agrees with " right faith 
 and sound teaching" he is to be admitted; 
 if not, he is to be rejected, and concludes with 
 telling Possessor that " although what the 
 Roman, that is the Catholic, church follows 
 and maintains on the subject of free-will and 
 the grace of God may be gathered from 
 various books of the blessed Augustine, and 
 especially from those addressed to Hilary and 
 to Prosper ; nevertheless, there are certain 
 special documents preserved in the ecclesi- 
 astical archives, which, if Possessor has not, 
 and wishes to see, he will send him " (Hor- 
 misd. Ep. 70, ad Possess. ; Labbe, iv. 1530- 
 1532). This letter was widely circulated as an 
 encyclic, and when it came into the hands of 
 Maxentius he at once replied to it in his ad 
 Ep. HormisdaeResponsio,Migne, Ixxvii.g^-iiz. 
 The reply is in every way a remarkable docu- 
 ment. The archimandrite refuses to believe 
 the letter can have been written by Hormisdas, 
 but argues that whether it was so or not, its 
 author was " unquestionably a heretic," as he 
 considers that to " maintain that Christ, the 
 Son of God, is one of the Trinity is to contend 
 about words." He also takes the writer to 
 task for having virtually decided that, al- 
 though the writings of Faustus were not 
 authoritative, they were still to be read. 
 
 We hear nothing more of Maxentius and the 
 Scythian monks until after Hormisdas died in 
 Aug. 523. The encyclic of Hormisdas had now 
 reached the exiled bishops in Sardinia, though 
 there is no reason to believe that they had 
 also seen the Responsio of Maxentius, and they 
 had had ample leisure for consideration of 
 the second appeal addressed to them from 
 Constantinople. They accordingly met in 
 council and sent the monks a reply in the form 
 of a synodical letter. They acknowledge the 
 receipt of the letter of Maxentius and his 
 brethren, and say they rejoice that they 
 " hold a right opinion on the grace of God, by 
 whose light the free will of the human mind 
 is illuminated, and by whose aid it is con- 
 trolled," and express sorrow that any should 
 question the Catholic faith on the point (c. 2). 
 
 MAXIMIANUS 
 
 The position for which John Maxentius and 
 his brethren contended was afterwards for- 
 mally approved by a council at Rome in 532 
 (Labbe, iv. 1761) and elaborately defended in 
 534 by John II. bp. of Rome, who argued 
 that it had always been held by Catholics in 
 the very form used by the Scythian monks, 
 quoting Proclus patriarch of Constantinople 
 and others {Ep. 3 in Labbe, iv. 1751 ; Jaffe, 
 Reg. Pont. 73 ; Pagi, Crit. s.a. 533). The 
 council of Constantinople of 553 anathema- 
 tized all who questioned it (collat. viii. anath. 
 10, Labbe, v. 575)- Yet Baronius (s.a. 519 
 cii.) is unsparing in his condemnation of the 
 monks as impugners of the Catholic faith. 
 They have found an able defender in Cardinal 
 Noris (Hist. Pelagiana, ii. 18, in Op. i. 474-596 ; 
 esp. c. 20, pp. 498-504 ; Hist. Controv. de 
 Univ. ex Trinit. passe, cc. 4-8; 0/?.iii. 800-854), 
 and Pagi (Crit. s.a. 519, vi.) accepts his vin- 
 dication as conclusive. [t.w.d.] 
 
 Maximianus (i) I., M. Aurelius Valerius 
 
 (HerculiUS), emperor of Rome a.d. 286-305 
 with Diocletian, 306-308 with Maxentius or 
 Constantine ; compelled to strangle himself 
 Feb. 310, being probably 60 years old (Tillem. 
 " Diocletian," vol. iv. p. 7, Hist, des Emp.). 
 A Pannonian soldier of humble birth but great 
 military ability and unresting activity, he was 
 created Caesar in 285 by Diocletian, and 
 Augustus in 286. (For the chief events in his 
 history see Diocletian, Constantine, and 
 Maxentius in D. of G. a^id R. Biogr.) The 
 Diocletian persecution began in a.d. 303, and 
 Maximian joined in it. He is said in the de 
 Mortibus Persecutorum to have been the 
 worthy brother of Diocletian, and Eusebius 
 speaks of his death in the same retributive 
 tone as of the other emperors except Constan- 
 tius and Constantine (H. E. viii. 13). 
 
 The military talents and activity of Maxi- 
 mianus were of the greatest value to the 
 Western empire and in Africa, and while under 
 Diocletian's influence or direction he seconded 
 him honestly and well. He was a barbarian 
 soldier without honour, principle, or educa- 
 tion ; crime was familiar to him, though he 
 seems not to have practised cruelty for its 
 own sake. He is accused of the usual sensual 
 excesses, though not to the same extent as 
 Maxentius. [r.st.j.t.] 
 
 Maximianus (2), the man from whom a 
 special sect among the Donatists derived its 
 name ; that schism within a schism, which 
 rent it asunder and helped to bring about its 
 ultimate overthrow. He is said to have been 
 related to Donatus the Great, and was a 
 deacon at Carthage when, at the death of 
 Parmenian, Primian was appointed bp. of the 
 Donatists there a.d. 391. Primian found 
 fault with four of his deacons, especially 
 Maximian, whom he appears to have disliked 
 most. He tried to persuade the " Seniors " 
 of Carthage to condemn them all, but they 
 refused, and Primian then proceeded to ex- 
 communicate Maximian, who was ill and 
 unable to appear. The Seniors summoned 
 Primian to meet them to explain this arbitrari- 
 ness, but he refused. They then wrote to the 
 bishops of the district, entreating them to 
 meet and inquire into the case. Forty-three 
 met at Carthage ; and their proceedings, not- 
 withstanding the violence of the supporters of 
 
MAXIMIANUS 
 
 Priniian, who was hinisolf absent. rcsiiU«"<l in 
 his condemnation. In Tunc or July 30:1, at 
 a second meeting of Donatist bishops at 
 Cabarsussnm, a town of Byzacono, Primian 
 was more formally condemned, his deposition 
 pronounced, and a resolution apparently 
 passed that Maximian should be appointed in 
 his place. He was arrordinRlv ordained at 
 Carthage bv 12 bishops. But Primian was 
 not crushed by this, for at a council of 310 
 bishops at Bagai. .\\->t. 24, 304. at which he 
 himself presided, the supporters of Maximian. 
 of whom none were ]iresent, were coudemueti 
 in most opprobrious language. Notwith- 
 standing the defection of the Maximianists, 
 who appear to have rebaptized th<ise who 
 joined them, the validity of their baptism was 
 not denied bv the other Donatists. a point 
 which .\ugustinc frequently uses against them. 
 Unremitting persecution induced manv Maxi- 
 mianists to return at length to the Donatist 
 community, but of Maximian himself we hear 
 little or nothing subsequently ; other names 
 are most prominent in the party's history. 
 Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 16. 59, iv. 3, 4, 6-9. 55, 57; 
 En. Ps. (Vulg.) xxxvi. 10, 20. 23, 29 ; Ps. 
 cxxiv. 5 ; Epp. 43. 26. 76 ; 44. 71 ; 53. 3 ; 
 141. 6 ; 185. 17; deGest. Einer. 9; c. Farm. i. 0; 
 Tillem. Mem. vi. 65-72 ; Morcelli. .Afr. Chr. 
 vol. ii. pp. 310-326; Ribbeck, Auf^. und Don. 
 
 pp. 206-236. [H.W.P.] 
 
 Maximianus (5). archbp. of Constantinople, 
 A.D. 431. The action of the council of Ephe- 
 sus had thrown the churches of Constantinople 
 into direst confusion. A large proportion of 
 the citizens held strongly to Nestorius ; the 
 clerg>', with one voice, agreed in the anathema; 
 and when the deposition became a fact no 
 longer to be disputed, the excitement was 
 continued about the election of a successor. 
 After four months, agreement was arrived at 
 in the election of Maximian. He had led a 
 monastic life and had entered presbyteral 
 orders ; his action in building, at his own 
 expense, tombs for the remains of holy men 
 had obtained for him a reputation of sanctitv. 
 In principles he followed the former arch- 
 bishops, Chrysostom, Atticus, and Sisinnius. 
 Pope Celestine wrote to him in highly com- 
 plimentary terms on his elevation. The 
 appointment was made by the imanimous 
 vote of rlergy, emperor, and people. The 
 letter of Maximian announcing to the pope his 
 succession is lost, but that to S. C>Til remains, 
 with its high eulogium on Cyril's constancy in 
 defending the cause of Jesus Christ. It was 
 the custom for occupants of the principal sees 
 on election to send a synodical letter to the 
 most considerable bishops of the Christian 
 world, asking for the assurance of their com- 
 munion. Maximian sent his synf>dical to the 
 Easterns as to the others. Communion was 
 refused by Helladius of Tarsus ; and, we may 
 conclude, by Eutherius of Tyana, Himcrius of 
 Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Martianopolis, 
 as Maximian deposed th^m. John of .Antioch 
 approved the refusal of the bp. of Tarsus, and 
 praised him for having declined to insert the 
 name of Maximian in the diptychs of his 
 church. Maximian's earnest appeal for re- 
 union continued. Pope Sixtus wrote to him 
 several times, urging him to extend his charity 
 to all whom he could possibly regain. Maxi- 
 
 MAXIMINUS I. 
 
 709 
 
 , mian spared no effort, and althouKh hr w.n in 
 I closest hannony with St. C\Til, hr prp-i4r<l him 
 , strongly In give up hin .in.ithpman, whirh 
 seemed an insurmotmtablr ohstarlr to rmnion. 
 He even wrote to the omprror'n nrrretarv 
 Aristolaus the tribune, who wa< greatly 
 interested in the question of peare. almost 
 c<Mnplainiiig that he did not prrM Cvril 
 enough on the point, and to hi* arrhdramn 
 Epii>hanius. Harmony being restf.rr<l, John 
 of .Vntioch and the other Kaitmi bishopii 
 wrote Maximian a letter of roniniiinion 
 indicating their consent to liis elrctiou .md to 
 the deposition of Nestorius. Cvril wrote t<» 
 ^ him. attributing the blessed result to the force 
 I of his prayers. A letter to Maximian from 
 I Aristolaus. which Maximian caused to be read 
 I in his church to his people, was pronoijnred 
 spurious bv Dorotheus of Martianopolis, 
 evidently because it took the side of Maximian 
 so decidedly. Maximian held the see of Con- 
 stantinoplo from Oct. 2S. 431. to Apr. 12. 434. 
 Of all his letters, onlv that to St. Cvril i* ex- 
 tant. Mansi. v. 2S7, 2So. 266. 26<>. 271. 273. 
 2S6. 351 ; Baluz. Sov. Coll. Cnnc. sfil seq. rd. 
 j 1681 : Socr. vii. 35. 40 ; I.iberat. Diac. Bret: 
 19 : Ceill. viii. ^04. fw.M.s.^ 
 
 Maximinus (21 I., Roman emperor, a.d. 
 23S-238. C. lulius Verus Maximinus is ron- 
 spicuo\is as the first barbarian who wore the 
 imperial purple, and as one of the emperors 
 1 whose names are connected with the ten per- 
 ! secutions recorded by ecclesiastiral histi^ians. 
 Born in Thrace of a Ciothic father and an .Man 
 j mother, eight feet high and of gigantic 
 1 strength, he attracted the notice of Septinjius 
 ' Severus, and rose into favour with .\lex.ander 
 ] Severus. When that emperor fell into dis- 
 favour with his troops. Maximinus seized his 
 opportimitv and organized a conspiracy which 
 ended in the murder of .Mexander and his 
 mother at Mavence in 23'i. The praetorian 
 guards elected him emperor, and their choice 
 was confirmed bv the senate. 
 
 The hostility <>i Maximinus to his Christian 
 subjects was probablv because of the favour 
 they had enjoyed from the eclectic or syncretic 
 sympathies rif Alexander Severus. They 
 would aiipear to him. as to other emperors, a 
 secret, and therefore a dangerous, society, the 
 natural focus of conspiracies and plots. The 
 persecution was limited in its range, and 
 probably was effectual chieflv in renioving the 
 restraints which the leanings of Alexander had 
 I imposed on the antagonism of the population* 
 I and governors of the provinces. 
 ] Pontianus, bp. of Rome, was banishe<l with 
 I the presbyter Hippolytus to Sardinia, and died 
 I there in 23s, and. according to Baroniiu 
 (Ann. 137. 1 38), his successor .Anteros ntrt a 
 like fate in 238. Origen thoucht it rxpe<lient 
 1 to seek safety with his friend Firmiliatnis. bp. 
 i of the Cappadf>cian Caesarea. That province 
 was under the goycrfiment of Srrmianu*, 
 whom Firmilianus desi ribes (a/». Cvpriaii, Kp. 
 75) as " acerbus et dims pervciitor." Fre- 
 quent earthquakes had rouvd the panic-stricken 
 population to rage against the Christians at 
 the cause of all disasters (Orig. in Matt. xxiv. 
 9). This was all the more keenly frit after thr 
 comparatively long tranquillity which they 
 i had enjoyed under Alrxandrr Reyrnis and his 
 predecessors. From his retirement Origen 
 
710 
 
 MAXIMINUS II. 
 
 addressed two treatises On Martyrdom and On 
 Prayer to his disciple Ambrosius, a deacon of 
 the church of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 28), 
 and Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, both 
 of whom were taken as prisoners to Germany 
 (Orig. Exhort, ad Mart. 41). 
 
 The tyranny of Maximin brought about the j 
 revolt in Mauritania, which for three months 
 raised the two Gordians to the throne of the 
 Caesars. At Aquileia his troops, suffering 
 from famine and disease, became disaffected. 1 
 A party of praetorian guards rose, and he, , 
 with his son and the chief ministers of his 
 tyranny, were slain in his tent. -Their heads 
 were cut off and exhibited on the battlements I 
 to the gaze of the citizens. [e.h.p.] 
 
 Maximinus (3) II. (Jovius), emperor, a.d. 
 305-3 Galerius Valerius Maximinus, ori- 
 
 ginally called Daza, played a somewhat pro- 
 minent part in the complications following on 
 the abdication of Diocletian and Maxi- 
 MiANUs I. Those emperors were succeeded 
 as Augusti by Galerius and Constantius, ] 
 who appointed as Caesars Daza, under the 
 name of Maximinus, and Severus. On the i 
 death of Constantius (a.d. 306) Galerius as- | 
 signed the provinces beyond the Alps to 
 Constantine, but conferred the vacant title of 
 Augustus on Severus, leaving that of Caesar 
 to Constantine and Maximin. Severus was j 
 put to death a.d. 307, and Galerius made 
 Constantine and Licinius Augusti, assigning I 
 Illyricum to the latter. Maximin, who was 
 in charge of Syria and Egypt, jealous of this ' 
 promotion of others to a higher position than ^ 
 his own, assumed, under the convenient plea 
 that his troops compelled him, the title of 
 Augustus, and added to it the epithet Jovius, 
 which had been borne before by Diocletian 
 (Eus. H. E. viii. 13 ; ix. 9). On the death of 
 Galerius in 311, Maximin received the pro- 
 vinces of Asia Minor in addition to Syria and 
 Egypt, and Licinius those of Eastern Europe. 
 The decisive victory of Constantine at Milvian 
 Bridge in 312, and' the betrothal of Constan- ', 
 tine's sister to Licinius, alarmed Maximin, 
 who determined on immediate hostilities. At > 
 Heraclea he was encountered by the army of 
 Licinius, and utterly routed. In 24 hours he 
 reached Nicomedia, 160 miles from the scene ' 
 of his defeat, and made his way to Tarsus, 
 where after a few days' despair he poisoned 
 himself. As a final insult to his memory all 
 inscriptions to his honour were destroyed, his 
 statues disfigured and thrown from their 
 pedestals (ix. 11 ). His character is pre-eminent 
 for brutal licentiousness and ferocious cruelty. 
 Theprovincesof Asia, S>Tia, andEgypt groaned 
 for six years under him, and of all the persecu- 
 tors in that last great struggle between the old 
 and new religions none were so infamous for 
 their cruelties. Though he joined for a time, 
 on the advice of the dying Galerius, with Con- 
 stantine and Licinius in a decree of toleration 
 in 311, he renewed the persecution with greater 
 vigour within a few months (viii. 17). The 
 sufferings of the Christians in Alexandria drew 
 the hermit Anthony from his desert seclusion to 
 exhortthemto steadfastness. Of the mart>Tsof 
 Palestine, to whom Eusebius dedicates a whole 
 book of his history, most suffered by his orders 
 and many in his presence. Heralds were sent 
 through Caesarea ordering all men to sacrifice 
 
 MAXIMINUS 
 
 to the gods, and on his refusal, Appian, a 
 youth of twenty, was tortured and slain. 
 Ulpian and his brother Aedesius were slain at 
 Tyre, Agapius was thrown into the amphi- 
 theatre at Caesarea to fight with a bear and 
 so lacerated that he died the next day. Theo- 
 dosia, a virgin of Tyre, was drowned, Silvanus 
 tortured, and the confessors of Phaeno in 
 Palestine sent to the mines (Eus. de Mart. 
 Palest, c. 4). Silvanus, the aged bp. of Emesa, 
 was thrown into a den of wild beasts. Peter, 
 bp. of Alexandria, with many other bishops, 
 was beheaded {ib. H. E. ix. 6). The church of 
 Antioch supplied yet more illustrious mart\TS. 
 On the application of an embassy from that 
 city, headed by Theotecnos, which he himself 
 had prompted, he forbade the Christians to 
 hold their wonted meetings in its catacombs 
 (ix. 2). Hesychius and Lucian, the latter a 
 presbyter, famous for learning and saintliness, 
 were summoned to the emperor's presence at 
 Nicomedia, half starved to death, and then 
 tempted with a luxurious banquet as the price 
 of their apostasy, and on their refusal to deny 
 their faith were thrown into prison and put 
 to death (ix. 6). Decrees, which Eusebius 
 (ix. 7) copied from a pillar in Tyre, were issued, 
 ascribing the famines, earthquakes, and pestil- 
 ences to the wrath of the gods at the spread of 
 the creed which was denoimced as atheistic, 
 and decreeing, at the alleged request of the 
 Syrians themselves, perpetual banishment 
 against all who adhered to their denial of the 
 state religion. Even the Armenians, though 
 outside the emperor's dominions, and old 
 allies of Rome, were threatened with war, 
 because they were Christians (ix. 8), and 
 this at a time when thousands were dying of 
 starvation from a prolonged famine followed 
 by pestilence. From Nicomedia and the neigh- 
 bouring cities the Christians were banished by 
 an imperial edict, issued here as elsewhere, 
 as at the request of the citizens themselves 
 (ix. 9). Not till after his defeat by Licinius 
 did the tyrant, in the rage of his despair, turn 
 against the priests, prophets, and soothsayers 
 who had urged him on, and, as a last resource, 
 within less than a year after his edicts of ex- 
 termination, issue a decree of toleration and 
 order the restitution of property taken from 
 the Christians and brought into the imperial 
 treasury (ix. 10). [e.h.p.] 
 
 Maximinus (4), St., 5th archbp. of Treves 
 (c. 332-349), known to us from the part he 
 plaved in the history of Athanasius. In Feb. 
 336 the latter was banished by the emperor 
 Constantine to Treves, then the seat of 
 government of his eldest son Constantine II. 
 Maximin received him with honour, became 
 his zealous partisan and friend, and was 
 thenceforth numbered among the champions 
 of orthodoxy in the West (Hieron. Chron. an. 
 346, Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii. 682 ; Athan. Ep. 
 ad Episc. Aegypt. § 8; Apologia ad Imp. 
 Const. § 3, ed. Benedict, i. 278, 297 ; Hilarius, 
 Hist. Frag. ii. ed. Maff. ii. 634, in Patr. Lat. x. 
 644). For the probable influence of Athan- 
 asius's sojourn on the struggle between 
 Arianism and orthodoxy and the growth of 
 monasticism in the West, see Rettberg, Kir- 
 chengeschichte, i. 187, 188. Athanasius left 
 Treves in June 338, and in 340 Maximin was 
 called upon to entertain and assist Paul, the 
 
MAXIMINUS 
 
 banished bp. of Constantinople. His efforts 
 resulted in Paul's restoration in 341. In 342 
 a deputation of four Arian bishops arrived at 
 Treves, hoping to win Constans to their views. 
 They brought a creed of compromise, but 
 Maximin was inflexibly hostile. refu>ed them 
 communion, and was mainly instrumental in 
 securing the rejection of their proposals (Hilar. 
 Hist. Fra^. iii. ed. Maff. ii. 662. 663, in Patr. 
 Lat. X. 674, 675). In 343 Maximin was present 
 at the council of Milan (Hist. liil. de la France, 
 i. B. III). Whether he was also at the great ! 
 council of Sardica, 343 or 344, is not quite 
 certain, but he assented to its decisions 
 (.\than. Apol. contr. Arianos, § so. ed. Bene- I 
 diet. i. 168 ; Hilar. 16. ii. 647, in Patr. Lat. \ 
 659). His prominent part in the conflict ; 
 with .\rianism is shewn by the special excom- 
 munication pronounced against him at the 
 heretical council of Philippopolis {Hist. Frag. \ 
 iii. 27). i 
 
 Maximin's cult was established from very ] 
 early times. The legends that collected round 
 his name are embodied in two biographies, one , 
 by an anonymous monk of St. .Maximin in 8th 1 
 cent. (Boll. Acta 55. Mai. vii. 21-25). the other I 
 by a Lupus, who, in the opinion of Ceillicr (xii. 
 511) and others, was Lupus, bp. of Ch.llons. I 
 It is in Migne, Patr. Lat. cxix. 665-680. 1 
 According to their story, Maximin was a native I 
 of Poitou, brother of Maxentius, bp. of 1 
 Poictiers. Drawn to Treves by the favour of 
 St. Agricius, he was ordained by him and 
 succeeded him in the see. .Against the Arian 
 heresy, then in the ascendant, he boldly con- 
 tended and suSered much persecution. He 
 summoned a council at Cologne, which con- 
 demned Euphratas, the bp. of that city, who 
 denied the divinity of Christ. (This council is 
 now admitted to be fictitious ; see Baron. 
 Ann. 346, vii. sqq. ; Rettberg, Kirchen- 
 geschichte Deutschlands, i. 131). He died in 
 Aquitaine after an episcopate of 17 years, and 
 was buried there. For the early history of 
 his famous monastery see Gall. Christ, xiii. 
 523 sqq. ; Rettberg, ti.s. i. 474- [s.a.b.1 
 
 Maximinus (6), Arian bp. of Hippo Regius, 
 who came with the Gothic soldiers into Africa 
 A.D. 427, 428, and held a discussion with St. 
 Augustine on the Trinity. .Augustine, later, 
 replied in 2 books, which, with that which con- 
 tains the discussion, exhibit the .irguments for 
 and against the Arian doctrine. The line of 
 argument taken by .\ugustine resembles so 
 strongly that expressed in our .\thanasian 
 creed that if this were lost it might almost be 
 supplied from this treatise. August. CoU. 
 cum Max. and Contra .Max. i. ii. Opf>. vol. viii. 
 pp. 719-810, ed. Migne; Vtt. Poss. 17; Ceillicr, 
 vol. ix. 359-3fii- [H.W.P.] 
 
 Maxlmus (2) Magnus, Christian emperor 
 in the West, a.d. 3Sv38«- 
 
 .Authorities. — Besides the regular histo- 
 rians, of whom Zosimus (iv. 35-46) gives most 
 original matter, St. Ambrose has spe( ial 
 notices, Epp. 24 (narrative of his embassies), 
 20, § 23, and 40, § 23 ; Symmachus, Ep. ii. 31 : 
 Sulpicius Sevcnis, almr)St contemporary, 
 Chron. ii. 49-51. Vita S. Martini. 20, Dtalngus, 
 ii. 6, iii. 11. The best modern books arc De 
 Broglie, L'Eglise et V Empire au IV me siicle 
 (Paris, 1866), vol. \n. and H. Rirhter. West- 
 romische Reich (Berlin, 1865), pp. 568 ff., of. T. 
 
 MAXIMDS. MAGNUS 
 
 711 
 
 Hodgkin, Ilalv and her ImaJrr^ (Ox\. 18R0), 
 vol. 1. pp. 147-155. 
 
 History. — Magnus Mnximttn w.is a Spant.ird 
 bv birth (Z^s. iv. 35) .ind a d»«p«'ndant of th«« 
 familv of Theo<J(.siu<i, with whom he vrvM 
 in Britain. In ^8^ he was pri>rlaiin<"<l em- 
 peror bv the soldiers in Britain, whrrr h** held 
 some command, apparenllv not a vorv high 
 one. He landed in Gaul at the motith o( the 
 Rhine, .and was met by the armv o( Gr.atian 
 somewhere near Paris. The troops ramf over 
 to him, and Maximus suddenly found himself 
 in possession of the western provinres. Gr.i- 
 tian was killed at Lyons, Aug. 25, and, a< 
 was generallv reported, bv the orders o( 
 Maximus himself. The Western empire was 
 thus in great d.anger, since Valentinian II. 
 was a mere weak boy, and The-vlnsius wa* 
 occupied in the East. It shews the po<iition 
 of St. Ambrose that he was chosen bv the 
 empress-mother, Tustina, to treat for pearc at 
 this crisis (S. .Xmbr. Ep. 24, §§ 3, 5, 7). Prar« 
 was made. Maximus being arknowle<lge<l as 
 .Augustus and sovereign of the Ga>ils, side by 
 side with Valentinian and Themlosius. 
 
 This state of things lasted for some years, 
 during which Maximus, who had been ba^tirecl 
 just before his usurpation, busied himself 
 much with church affairs, being desirous to 
 obtain a reputation for the strictest orthodoxv. 
 Western wTiters, Sulpicius Sevenis and Or'>- 
 sius, thoiigh treating Maximus as a usurper, 
 give him, on the whole, a good character. 
 Sulpicius making exception on the score of 
 his persecution of the Priscillianists and his 
 love of money fSulp. Dial. ii. 6 ; Oros. vii. 34). 
 Thus Maximus was in general an able and 
 popular ruler, at least in his own dominions, 
 giving his subjects what they most wanted, 
 some feeling of security and peace. But wo 
 must join in the censure passed <ipon his 
 treatment of the Priscillianists by pope 
 Siricius (s\Tiod of Ttirin, a.d. 401, can. 6, 
 Hefele, Councils, § m). St. Ambrose, and St. 
 Martin of Tours. Ambrose, indeed, was a 
 political opponent, but Maxinnis murted 
 Siricius. and was verv obseq\ii.ius to Martin. 
 The Priscillianist heretics, who held a mixture 
 of Gnostic. Manichean. and Sab'-llian opinions, 
 had been condemned bv a synod at Sar.agossa 
 in 380. Their opponents, Ithacius bp. of 
 Ossonuba, and Idarius bp. of F.merita. found 
 in Maximiis a ready instrument of persecution. 
 The Prisrillianists were ordered to appear 
 before a svnod at Bordeaux in ■^84. where one 
 of their chiefs, bp. Instantius. was condemned^ 
 as unworthv of the episcopal ofTice. Pris- 
 cillian denied the competencv of the s\'no<|, 
 and appealed to the emperor. St. Martin be- 
 sought him to abstain from blo.Klsh«-<l, and to 
 remit the case to ecclesiastical ju>lgrs. Itha- 
 cius, their most vehement arruser. <lid not 
 hesitate to charge M.irtin hitns.-lf with Pris- 
 cillianism, but. for a time, better influences 
 prevailed, and Maximus promi'ied that no 
 lives should be taken. After Martin's de- 
 parturc, however, other bishops prnuailed 
 Maximus to remit the case to a secular judge. 
 Rvodius, and finally the emperor condemne<l 
 Priscilli.in and his companions, including a 
 rich widow F.uchrocia, to be beheaded. In- 
 stantius and some others were exile<l. A 
 second s^-nofj, held at Tre^ves in 38 5. approved 
 
712 
 
 MAXmUS, MAGNUS 
 
 by a majority the conduct of Ithacius, and 
 urged Maximus to further measures of con- 
 fiscation. St. Martin returned to intercede 
 for some of his friends, and with this purpose 
 communicated with the faction of Ithacius, 
 who were then consecrating a bishop. There 
 can be no doubt that Maximus wished to be 
 regarded as a champion of catholicity, and 
 to use this merit as a political instrument. 
 As early as 385 he seems to have written to 
 pope Siricius, professing his ardent love of the 
 Catholic faith, offering to refer the case of a 
 priest Agricius, whom the pope complained 
 of as wrongly ordained, to ecclesiastical judges 
 anywhere within his dominions. (This letter 
 is only given at length by Baronius, s.a. 387, 
 §§ 65, 66 ; cf. Tillemont, Les Priscillianisies, 
 art. 10. The part about Agricius is given by 
 Hanel, s.a. 385, from other MSS., thus con- 
 firming the genuineness of the letter.) At 
 the beginning of 387 the struggle about the 
 basilicas gave him a pretext for interfering on 
 the Catholic side with the court of Milan, a 
 proceeding which he may have thought would 
 gain him the sympathy of his old opponent 
 St. Ambrose. He wrote a threatening letter 
 to Valentinian II., which we still possess, 
 bidding him desist from the persecution of the 
 church (Soz. vii. 13 ; Theod. v. 14. This 
 letter is given only by Baronius, s.a. 387, 
 §§ 33-36. cf. Tillem. Saint Ambroise, art. 48. 
 its genuineness seems not absolutely certain). 
 Justina, in this emergency, again used the 
 political skill and intrepidity of St. Ambrose, 
 whose loyalty was unshaken and whose disin- 
 terestedness was universally recognized. Am- 
 brose went on a second embassy to Maximus, 
 of which he has left us a lively record in his 
 24th epistle. He set out after that memor- 
 able Easter which witnessed the baptism of St. 
 Augustine, and found the emperor at Treves. 
 His high spirit and sincerity seem to have 
 disappointed Maximus, who found fault with 
 him for acting against his interest, accused 
 count Bauto of turning barbarians upon his 
 territory, and refused to restore the still un- 
 buried remains of Gratian ; thus clearly 
 shewing that he meant war. Ambrose's 
 refusal to communicate with the Ithacians 
 was the final offence, and the emperor suddenly 
 commanded him to depart (cf. Ei>. 24, § 3, for 
 his judgment on this partv). On his return 
 to Milan Ambrose warned Valentinian to pre- 
 pare for war, but his wise counsels were dis- 
 regarded. A second ambassador Domninus 
 was sent, and was entirelv deceived bv the 
 soft words of Maximus, who persuaded him 
 that Valentinian had no better friend than 
 himself, and cajoled him into taking back into 
 Italy a part of his army, under pretence of 
 serving against the barbarians who were in- 
 vading Pannonia. Having thus cleverly got 
 his soldiers across the Alps, he followed rapidly 
 in person, and entered Italy as an invader 
 (Zos. iv. 42). Justina and her son and 
 daughters fled to Theodosius at Thessalonica. 
 Maximus was thus left in possession of Italy. 
 The details of the campaign that followed 
 belong to secular history. Theodosius de- 
 feated the troops of Maximus at Siscia and 
 Petovio, and seized the emperor himself at 
 Aquileia, where he was put to death, after 
 some form of trial (Zos. iv. 46 ; Pacatus, 43, 
 
 MAXIMUS, PETRONIUS 
 
 I 44), on July 25 or August 28, 388, after 
 a reign of rather more than five years. His 
 son Victor, whom he had named Augustus, was 
 put to death shortly after. Andragathius, 
 his able general, who was accused of the 
 murder of Gratian, threw himself into the 
 Adriatic. It is not said what became of 
 Marcellinus, who had been defeated at Petovio. 
 Legend. — The connexion of Maximus with 
 Britain is obscure, but it has given rise to a. 
 I considerable aftergrowth of legend. He is 
 j called " Rutuoinus latro " by Ausonius, per- 
 ! haps merelv because he started from Rich- 
 borough to invade Gaul. Welsh tradition has 
 incorporated him into its genealogies of saints 
 and royal heroes, under the name of Macsen 
 Wledig, or Guledig, a title considered to be 
 equivalent to imperator. (See H. Rowland's 
 Mona Anttqua Restaurata, pp. 166 ff., ed. 2, 
 Lond. 1766, and cf. Skene's Four Ancient 
 Books of Wales, vol. i. pp. 45, 48, vol. ii. 405. 
 He is usually called Macsen. which rather 
 suggests a confusion with Maxentius, but 
 Skene quotes his Welsh name also as Maxim, 
 i. p. 48.) The " dream of Maxen Wledig " in 
 the Mcbbinogion (ed. Guest, vol. iii. pp. 263- 
 294, Lond. 1849) represents him as already 
 emperor of Rome, and brought to Britain by 
 a dream of a royal maiden Helen Luyddawc 
 or Luyddog, daughter of Eudav ( = Octavius ?) 
 of Caer Segont, or Carnarvon, and then re- 
 turning after seven years with his brother-in- 
 law K-\man to reconquer his old dominions. 
 Another mythical account describes Kynan 
 as raising an army of sixty thousand men, 
 who afterwards settled in Armorica. The 
 desolation of Britain thus left the country 
 exposed to the attacks of the Picts and Saxons 
 (cf. Mabinogion, I.e. pp. 29 ff. ; R. Rees, 
 Essay on Welsh Saints, pp. 104, los, Lond. 
 1836 ; Nennius, Hist. Brit. 5 23). A further 
 development of the legend represents St. 
 Ursula and her company of virgins as sent out 
 as wives for these emigrated hosts. The term 
 Sam Helen applied to Roman roads in N. AVales 
 is explained as referring to the wife of Maximus. 
 It is difficult to say what historical facts 
 may be at the bottom of this. That the with- 
 drawal of Roman troops by Maximus exposed 
 Britain to invasion is an obvious fact, and is 
 alreadv asserted by Gildas (Historia. cc. 10, 
 11). The colonization of Armorica bv some 
 of his auxiliaries is also possible enough. On 
 the other hand, the name of Helen may merely 
 be borrowed from the mother of Constantine, 
 and Sam Helen may be explained as Sarn-y- 
 lleng, " the legion's causeway," just as the 
 story of the cutting out the tongues of the 
 women of Armorica by Kynan's soldiers ap- 
 pears to be only an 'et>-mological myth to 
 explain the name Llydaw applied to that 
 countrv. For further refs.. see R. Williams, 
 Biogr. Diet, of Eminent Welshmen (Llandovery, 
 i8'i2), art. "Maxen Wledig." [j-w.l 
 
 Maximus (3), Petronius, emperor of the 
 West, A.D. 455 ; a descendant of the Maxirnus 
 who usurped the empire in the time of Gratian 
 (Procopius, Bell. Vand. i. 4)- He was of one 
 of the noblest and wealthiest families of Rome, 
 was three times prefect of Rome and twice 
 consul. To avenge the insult his wife had 
 received from Valentinian III. (see Procopius, 
 M.S.), he caused him to be assassinated on 
 
MAXTMUS 
 
 713 
 
 'inindttrd to th« ciuvr at 
 prcs«»nr»» woiiM jjivi 
 
 MAXIMUS 
 
 Mar. 16 or 17, 455. Maxinms thrn !;oizocl the 
 vacant thronp, and compelled Eudoxia, the 
 widow of Valentinian, to niarrv him a few 
 days after her husband's death, his own wife 
 havinp died shortlv before. He also cave 
 her dauRhter Eiidocia t<> his son Palladius. 
 whom he created Caesar (Idatiiis, Chronicnn 
 in Patr. Lat. li. SS.j). The outraped Eudoxia 
 summoned Genseric king of the Vandals to 
 avenge and deliver her. Genseric sailed with 
 a mighty armament for Rome. Maximus 
 endeavoured to flv, but the people .md s. >ldierv. 
 headed by Valentinian's offirers, rose against 
 him, stoned him, tore him limb from limb .and 
 flung his mangled bodv into the river, prob- [ 
 
 ablv on June 12, 4,SS (Chronicon Tms/jiumw- | small band of .Athanasius's supporters. <Avin»t 
 um) ; thus he reigned rather under 3 months, j that it did not become those who bore thr 
 The chronology is discussed at length bvTille- tokens of their sufTerings for the faith to ron- 
 mont in a note (Emp. vi. 628). [f.d.I sort with its adversaries. .Sozomen. who here. 
 
 Maximus (9), bp. of .Alexandria, 14th I as elsewhere, is not consistent, record* th«« 
 " successor of St. Mark," had been a presbvter I same incident {H. E. ii. 2S^. We know little 
 under bp. Dionvsius. During the Decian I of the part taken bv Maximus in the Arian 
 persecution, after Dionvsius had been carried troubles between the council f<f Tvre. A.n. 
 away bv some Christians of Mareotis into ^^s, and that of Sardica. But if he had re- 
 Libya, Maximus with three other prosbvters ; fused complicitv when the solemn recognition 
 " kept themselves concealed in .Alexandria, i of Arius was made bv the 200 bishops as- 
 secretly carrving on the oversight of the | sembled for the dedication of Constantine's 
 
 among those least 
 Athanaslus, whose 
 
 air of impartialitv to its drlibrr.iljom; whom, 
 also for their close vicinltv. it would not h,nv«» 
 been decent to exclude fDe nroglir. I'F.tUtt 
 et VF.mpirf. ii. -126). The part he took is 
 variouslv represented, .\ccr.rdine to Sor. 
 rates (//. F. ii. R) .md So/omen (//. K. iii. 6). 
 he assented U^ the deposition of Athanaslus. 
 Rufinus, howrver (//. F. i. 17). recrds the 
 dramatic incident that the agefl c<infrss..r 
 Pa)ihnutiiis of the Thebaid. whosr mutil-Ued 
 form had attracted so much attontion at 
 N'icaea. when he saw Maximus vacill.itinc. to.ik 
 him bv the hand and led him over to the 
 
 brethren " (Dionys. to Domitius and Didymus 
 ap. Euseb. vii. 11). It is surprising that their 
 ministrations were undetected by the in- 
 quisitorial severity of the local government, 
 which found victims among the virgins of the 
 church (see Eus. \n. 41). Seven years later, 
 when Valerian's persecution began, we find 
 Maximus attending his bishop (who calls him 
 his " fellow-presbyter ") to the tribunal of the 
 prefect .Aemilianus, as involved with him, and 
 three deacons and a Roman lav Christian, in 
 the charge of contumacious rejection of the 
 gods who had " preserved the emperor's 
 sovereignty," and whose worship was in 
 accordance with " natural " law. He was 
 banished with Dionvsius to Cephro in the 
 Libyan frontier, sharing in the rough recep- 
 tion the heathen inhabitants gave to the 
 
 church at the council of Jerusalem, it could 
 hardlv fail to have been recorded. The 
 silence of all historians throws doubt on 
 Rufinus's statement that Maximus remained 
 alwavs faithful to the cause of .\thanasius. 
 He, however, refused to attend the council of 
 the Dedication assembled bv the Eusebians at 
 .Antioch, A.D. ^4T. at which the sentence of 
 the council of T\Te against .Athanasiiis. to 
 which he had been an assenting partv, was 
 confirmed. On this occasion he had been put 
 on his guard in time ; and, consci.)us of his 
 weakness, discreetlv kept awav, fearing lest 
 he might, as at Tvre. be carried awav {ai'vap- 
 TTtt^efs) against his will and led to acquiesce 
 in measures of which he would afterw.irds 
 repent (Sorr. H. F. ii. 8 ; Soz. //. F. iii. 6). 
 .At Sardica he was once more on the orthinlox 
 
 bishop and assisting him in the preaching I side and his name stands first of the Pales- 
 which ere long won over " not a few " of them ! tinian bishops who signed the svnodical letters 
 
 to " the word then sown among them for the 
 first time." After a while the party were 
 removed to Colluthion. much nearer to Alex- 
 andria {ib. vii. 11). When Dionvsius. "worn 
 out with years." died earlv in 265 (in Mav. 
 according to Le fluicn, Oriens Christ, ii. ^o.S ; 
 Neale says Feb.. Hist. Alex. i. ^q, 83), Maximus 
 was appropriately elected to succeed him. 
 Maximus died on Sun. .Apr. o, 282 (I-e Ouien. ii. 
 396) and was succeeded bv Theonas. fw.B.] 
 
 (Athan. ApnloR. I. ad Const, p. 768)- A 
 little later he warmlv welcomed .Athanasius 
 when passing through Jerusalem to resume 
 his seat at Alexandria, summoning an as- 
 semblage of bishops to do honour to him, bv 
 the whole of whom, with two .>r three excep- 
 tions, Athauasius was solemnlv rereive«i into 
 communion. Conirrattdat<'rv letti-rs on the 
 recoverv of their chief pastor were written to 
 the Egyptian bishops, and Maximus w.is the 
 Maximus (10), bp. of Jerusalem, the 40th 1 first to affix his signature (Soer. //. /•'. ii. 24 : 
 in succession from the apostles, succeeded | Soz. //. F. 21, 22; Athan. .It^tl. f. ad 
 Macarius on his death, A.D. 336. He had been j Tofts/. p. 77^, ; Hist. Arian. ad SolU. < 2^ ; 
 a confessor in one of the persecutions (Theod. I Labbe. Cnncil. ii. 02, 62s, <'>7oK Jerome states 
 H. E. ii. 26) — according t<i Philostorgius that Maximus died in possession of his bishop- 
 (H. E. iii. 12) that of Maximiau— in which he | ric. A.n. ^so or ^m. and that Cyril was np- 
 had lost one eve and had the sinews of one pointer! to the vacant se«-. fr.v.1 
 
 arm and one thigh severed whil'- still ser\ing Maximus (11). the Cvnic : the Intrusive bp. 
 
 as a presbyter at Jerusalem. He appears to 
 have had no strength of character, being honest 
 but timid, his simplicitv making him the tool 
 of the stronger and more designing. His 
 career is consequently inconsistent. He 
 attended the council of Tyre, A.f>. ^is, being 
 
 of Constantinople, a.d. ^^o. A native of 
 Alexandria of low parentage, he boastr<l that 
 his familv had prfxlucerl martvrs. He was 
 instnicted in the rudiments of the ChrislLin 
 faith and receivefl baptisnt. but sought to 
 combine the Christian profession with Cvnic 
 
 admitted to a seat, together with MarccUus of , philosophy. Gregory N'azianzen describe* 
 Ancyra, Asclepas of Gaza, and others, as ' him as having had no regular occupathn, but 
 
714 
 
 MAXIMDS 
 
 loitering about in the streets, like a shameless 
 dog, foul and greedy (kvwv, kw'ktkos, dfjL(p6d(iiv 
 virrip^Ttjs). More than once he earned a 
 flogging for his misdeeds and was finally 
 banished to the Oasis. We hear of him next 
 at Corinth, with a high reputation for religion, 
 leading about a band of females — " the swan 
 of the flock " — under colour of devotion 
 (Carm. cxlviii. p. 450). Soon after Gregory 
 Nazianzen had begun to reside there, Maximus 
 shifted to Constantinople. Gregory devotes a 
 considerable number of the biting iambics of 
 his poem, de Vita Sua, to this man, who, how- 
 ever, before long completely gained his ear 
 and heart. Maximus professed the most 
 unbounded admiration for Gregory's dis- 
 courses, praising them in private and in public. 
 His zeal against heretics was most fierce and 
 his denunciations of them uncompromising. 
 The simple-hearted Gregory was completely 
 duped by Maximus, even delivering a panegy- 
 rical oration, in the man's own presence in 
 full church, before the celebration of the 
 Eucharist, inviting him to stand by his side 
 and receive the crown of victory. Meanwhile, 
 Maximus was secretly maturing a plot for 
 ousting his unsuspicious patron from his 
 throne. He imposed upon Peter of Alex- 
 andria, who lent himself to Maximus's pro- 
 jects. Maximus found a ready tool in a pres- 
 byter of Constantinople envious of Gregory's 
 talents and popularity {de Vit. p. 13). Others 
 were gained by bribes. Seven unscrupulous 
 sailors were dispatched from Alexandria to 
 mix with the people and watch for a favour- 
 able opportunity for carrying out the plot. 
 When all was ripe they were followed by a 
 bevy of bishops, with secret instructions from 
 the patriarch to consecrate Maximus. The 
 conspirators chose a night when Gregory was 
 confined by illness, biu-st into the cathedral, 
 and commenced the consecration. They had 
 set the Cynic on the archiepiscopal throne 
 and had just begun shearing away his long 
 curls when the day dawned. The news 
 quickly spread and everybody rushed to the 
 church. The magistrates appeared with 
 their officers ; Maximus and his consecrators 
 were driven from the cathedral, and in the 
 tenement of a flute-player the tonsure was 
 completed. Maximus repaired to Thessa- 
 lonica to lay his cause before Theodosius. He 
 met with a cold reception from the emperor, 
 who committed the matter to Ascholius, the 
 much respected bp. of that city, charging him 
 to refer it to pope Damasus. ' We have two 
 letters from Damasus asking for special care 
 that a Catholic bishop maybe ordained (Migne, 
 Patr. Lat. xiii. pp. 366-369 ; Epp. 5, 5, 6). 
 Maximus returned to Alexandria, and de- 
 manded that Peter should assist him in re- 
 establishing himself at Constantinople. Peter 
 appealed to the prefect, by whom Maximus 
 was driven out of Egypt. As the death of 
 Peter and the accession of Timotheus are 
 placed Feb. 14, 380. these events must have 
 occurred in 379. When the second oecumeni- 
 cal council met at Constantinople in 381, 
 Maximus's claim to the see of Constantinople 
 was unanimously rejected, the last of its 
 original four canons decreeing " that he 
 neither was nor is a bishop, nor are they 
 who have been ordained by him in any 
 
 MAXIMUS 
 
 rank of the clergy " (Labbe, Concil. ii. 947, 
 954, 959)- 
 
 Maximus appealed from the Eastern to the 
 Western church. In the autumn of 381 a 
 synod held either at Aquileia or at Milan 
 under Ambrose's presidency considered Maxi- 
 mus's claims. Having only his own repre- 
 sentations to guide them, and there being no 
 question that Gregory's translation was un- 
 canonical, while the election of Nectarius was 
 open to grave censure as that of an unbaptized 
 layman, Maximus also exhibiting letters from 
 Peter the late venerable patriarch, to confirm 
 his asserted communion with the church of 
 Alexandria, it is not surprising that the 
 Italian bishops pronounced decidedly in 
 favour of Maximus and refused to recognize 
 either Gregory or Nectarius. A letter of 
 Ambrose and his brother-prelates to Theo- 
 dosius (Ep. xiii. c. i. § 3) remonstrates against 
 the acts of Nectarius as no rightful bishop, 
 since the chair of Constantinople belonged to 
 Maximus, whose restoration they demanded, 
 as well as that a general council of Easterns 
 and Westerns, to settle the disputed episcopate 
 and that of Antioch, should be held at Rome. 
 In 382 a provincial synod held at Rome, having 
 received more accurate information, finally 
 rejected Maximus's claims (Hefele, Hist, of 
 Councils, i. pp. 359, 378, 381, Eng. trans.). 
 Jerome tells us that Maximus sought to 
 strengthen his cause by writing against the 
 Arians, and presented the work to Gratian at 
 Milan. He appears also to have written 
 against Gregory, the latter replying in a set of 
 caustic iambics (Carm. clxviii. p. 250) express- 
 ing astonishment at one so ignorant venturing 
 on a literary composition. Theod. H. E. v. 8 ; 
 cf. Soz. H. E. vii. 9 ; Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. 
 xxviii. ; Carm. i de Vita sua ; Carm. cxlviii. ; 
 Tillem. Mem. eccl. ix. 444-456, 501-503. [e.v.] 
 Maximus (15), patriarch of Antioch. After 
 the deposition of Domnus II., patriarch of 
 Antioch, by the " Latrocinium " of Ephesus, 
 A.D. 449, Dioscorus persuaded the weak Theo- 
 dosius to fill the vacancy with one of the 
 clergy of Constantinople. Maximus was 
 selected and ordained, in violation of all 
 canonical orders, by Anatolius bp. of Con- 
 stantinople, without the official sanction of 
 the clergy or people of Antioch. Maximus, 
 though owing his elevation to an heretical 
 synod, gained a reputation for orthodoxy in 
 the conduct of his diocese and province. He 
 dispatched " epistolae tractoriae " through 
 the churches subject to him as metropolitan, 
 requiring the signatures of the bishops to Leo's 
 famous " tome " and to another document 
 condemning both Nestorius and Eutyches 
 (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Paschas. 88 [68], June 451). 
 Having thus discreetly assured his position, he 
 was summoned to the council of Chalcedon in 
 Oct. 451, and took his seat without question, 
 and when the illegal acts of the " Latrocinium" 
 were quashed, including the deposition of the 
 other prelates, a special exception was made 
 of the substitution of Maximus for Domnus 
 on the express ground that Leo had opened 
 communion with him and recognized his epis- 
 copate (Labbe, iv. 682). His most important 
 controversy at Chalcedon was with Juvenal of 
 Jerusalem regarding the limits of their respec- 
 tive patriarchates. It was long and bitter; at 
 
MAXIMUS 
 
 last a compromise was accepted by the council, 
 that Antioch should retain the two Phoenicias 
 and Arabiaand that the three Palest ines should 
 form the p'^'riarchate of Jerusalem (ib. 614- 
 618). Maximus was amonR those bv whom the 
 Confession of Faith was drawn up lib. S30-.S62). 
 and stands second, between Anatolius of Con- 
 stantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem, in the 
 signatories to the decree according metropoli- 
 tical rank to Constantinople (16. 708). 
 
 The next notice of Maximus is in a corre- 
 spondence with Leo the Great, to wh<im he had 
 appealed in defence of the prerogatives of his 
 see. Leo promised to help him against either 
 Jerusalem or Constantinople, exhorting him 
 to assert his privileges as bp. of the third see 
 in Christendom {i.e. only inferior to Alexandria 
 and Rome). Maximus's zeal for the orthodox 
 faith receives wann commendation from Leo, 
 who exliorts him as " consors apostolirae 
 sedis " to rfiaintain the doctrine founded by 
 St. Peter " speciali magisterio " in the cities 
 of Antioch and Rome, against the erroneous 
 teaching both of Nestorius and Eutyches, and 
 to watch over the churches of the East 
 generally and send him frequent tidings. 
 The letter, dated June 11, 453. closes with a 
 desire that Maximus will restrain unordained 
 persons, whether monks or simple laics, from 
 public preaching and teaching (Leo Magn. j 
 Ep. 109 [92]). Two years later, a.d. 455, the 
 episcopate of Maximus came to a disastrous 
 close by his deposition. The nature of his I 
 offence is nowhere specified. We do not know ' 
 how much longer he lived or what became of ' 
 him. Tillem. Metn. eccl. t. xv. passim ; Le i 
 Quien, Orieiis Christiaitus. t. ii. p. 725. \f..v.] 
 
 Maximus (16), bp. of Turin, writer, reckoned 
 as Maximus IL, the third bishop, by Capjiel- 
 letti (Le Chiese d'Ual. xiv. 12, 14, 76), who [ 
 puts a Maximus L in 390 as the first bishop 
 Ughelli {Ital. Sac. iv. 1022) counts them as 
 one (cf. Boll. Acta SS. 25 Jun. v. 48). He was 
 present at the council of Milan in 451 and 
 signed the letter to pope Leo fLeo, Ep. qy ; 
 Labbe, iv. 583). He was also at the council of 
 Rome in 465, where his name appears next 
 after pope Hilary's, apparently on account of 
 his seniority (Labbe, v. 86). Gennadius of 
 Massilia (d.'496) gives a sketch of his works, 
 most of which are still extant, but strangely 
 says that he died in the reign of Arcadius and 
 Honorius, i.e. before 423. This has led some 
 to think that there were two bishops of this 
 name, but the early date given by Geimadius 
 seems irreconcilable with the manv allusions 
 to Nestorian doctrines in the homilies on the 
 Nativity, and the general opinion is that he is 
 wrong (Gennad. de Scrip. Eccl. c. xl. in Patr. 
 Lat. Iviii. 1081). The works of Maximus arc 
 in vol. Ivii. of Migne's Patrologia Latina. 
 Thev consist of 1x7 homilies. 116 sermons. 3 
 tractates on baptism, 2 (of very doubtful 
 authority) entitled respectively contra Paga- 
 nos and contra Judaeos, and a collection of 
 expositions de Capilulis Evangeliorum (also 
 doubtful). Many of the sermons and homilies 
 were formerly ascribed to St. .Ambrn<;«>, St. 
 Augustine, St. Leo, etc. Several are on the 
 great church festivals. 
 
 Points of interest in the homilies and ser- 
 mons are : the notice of fixed lections («./?. 
 Horn. 36 and 37) ; abstinence from flesh meat 
 
 MAXIMDS 
 
 715 
 
 in Lent (Horn. 44) ; no fastiiiK 'T kncrlinic at 
 prayer between Easter and Prntecoiit (Mom. 
 61). In Hum. 6j, on the other h.in<l, he 
 mentions that the vigil of Prntpro*t wat ob- 
 served as a fast. This custom Iherrlore proh- 
 ablv ori«inated in his titnr. St. Lrn. men- 
 tioning the fast of Pentecost, in. !!<<•« it r|r.ir 
 that he means the fast iinineili ((■ ' ' " 
 the festival. In Mom. Si Maxn: 
 on the creed, which is exactly tli 
 
 Roman creed given by Ktifinus. 
 
 temporary events alluded to mav be 11.. li.nl 
 the synod of Milan in 380, at which Jovini.in 
 was condemned (Horn. 0). Seven homilies 
 (86-92) refer to the terror of the city at an 
 impending barbaric invasion, ajiparenlly 
 .^ttila's inroad, 4.'i2. Another homily (94) 
 refers to the destruction of the church oif 
 Milan on the same occasion. He several 
 times refers to superstitions in his diocciw. 
 their observance of the Calends of Jan. (16). 
 their timiults during an eclipse (100), the 
 idolatry still lurking among the lower order* 
 (Serm. loi, 102). There are homilies on the 
 feast of the Nativitv of St. John the Baptist. 
 on St. LawTence, St. Cvprian. St. Agnes, and 
 St. Eusebius of Vercelli. and several on the 
 festival of SS. Peter and Paul which are 
 worth particular attention. In some of these 
 he uses very decided language on the supre- 
 macy of St. Peter, e.g., speaking of him as 
 the keystone of the church (Hom. ^4), the 
 i " magister navis " (Serm. 114); and as en- 
 ' trusted with " totius Ecclesiae gubernacula " 
 ; (Hom. 70). But in other places he speaks of 
 i St. Peter as supreme in discipline. St. Paul in 
 doctrine, and remarks " inter ipsos quis cui 
 praeponatur incertum est " (73). Nowhere 
 does he allude to the church of Rome as in- 
 I heriting exclusively the supremacy of St. 
 : Peter. Gennadius mentions a work of Maxi- 
 \ mus de Spiritali Baptismi Gratia, and three 
 treatises on this subject, formerly ascribed tn 
 St. Augustine, are published by Migne with 
 \ the works of Maximus, on the strength of 
 : three ancient MSS., one of which the church of 
 Turin possesses. Nothing in their stvle is 
 against Migne's conclusion. The first treatise 
 dwells on the significance of the anointing of 
 the ears before baptism ; the second gives an 
 interrogatory creed identical with the one 
 mentioned above in the homilies, and alludes 
 to the custom of baptizing on the third day 
 after the profession of faith ; the third speak* 
 of the anointing of the he.ad after baptism, by 
 which is conferred the full regal and sacerdotal 
 dignity spoken of by St. Peter, and of the 
 custom of washing the feet at the same time, 
 after the example of Christ. See F. Savio's 
 Gli Antichi Veseovi d'ttaUa (Turin. t8<,<)). 
 p. iMv fu.r.A.) 
 
 Maximus (24), an ecclesiastical writer. 
 placed bv Eusebius (//. /•:. v. 27) in the relRti 
 of Severus and episcopate of Victor, i.e. in 
 the Last decade of 2nd cent. Ilusebius s.ivs 
 the subject of his work was tlw .rum ,.( .mI 
 ' and whether matter had been cr- ' 
 where ( /'ra<-/>. Ev.\\\. 22)eiititl' 
 ing Matter" (wtpl r/jt P\»)t). .u ' 
 
 long extract, from which it appeals tu have 
 I been in dialogue form. Routh. whose AV- 
 I liquiae Sacrae (ii. 87) U by far the best cd. of 
 the remains of Maximus. pointed out that the 
 
716 
 
 MAXIMUS OP EPHESUS 
 
 same fragment is in the dialogue on free will 
 ascribed to Methodius, and that other things 
 are common to the work on free will and the 
 dialogue of Origen against the Marcionites, so 
 that both authors probably drew from Maxi- 
 mus. That the work is rightly ascribed to 
 Maximusthe testimony of Eusebius is decisive; 
 and St. Jerome savs' in his Catalogue, that 
 Methodius wrote on free will, while Photius has 
 preserved large extracts from what he knew 
 as the work of Methodius on free will, which 
 clearly prove that it incorporated much of 
 Maximus. The style, moreover, of the opening 
 of the dialogue on free will resembles Metho- 
 dius, and diifers from that of the part concern- 
 ing matter. We leave, then, to Methodius the 
 rhetorical introduction to his dialogue, but 
 the context appears clearly to shew that the 
 part which belongs to Maximus begins earlier 
 than the portion quoted by Eusebius and 
 printed by Routh. It must include the state- 
 ment of the views of the speaker, who main- 
 tains matter to have existed from eternity, 
 destitute of qualities, and also the announce- 
 ment of the presence of the third speaker, 
 who afterwards takes up the controversy, on 
 the hypothesis that matter had been from the 
 first possessed of qualities. In Methodius, the 
 defender of the eternity of matter is appar- 
 ently represented as a Valentinian, for his 
 speeches are marked Val. ; and so also in 
 Adamantius. In Maximus he seems to be no 
 heretic, but a sincere inquirer after truth. 
 He propounds the difficulty concerning the 
 origin of evil ; if evil was at any time created, 
 then something came out of nothing, since 
 evil did not exist before ; and God Who 
 created it must take pleasure in evil, which we 
 cannot admit. He then offers the solution 
 that, co-eternally with God, there existed 
 matter, destitute of form or qualities, and 
 borne about in a disorderly manner ; that 
 God took pity on it, separated the best parts 
 from the worst, reduced the former to order, 
 and left the latter behind as being of no use 
 to Him for His work, and that from these lees 
 of matter evil sprang. The most successful 
 part of the orthodox speaker's reply is where 
 he shews that this hypothesis does not relieve 
 God of the charge of being the author of evil. 
 
 Galland conjectures that the author of the 
 dialogue is the Maximus who was 26th bp. 
 of Jerusalem, and whom Eusebius, in his 
 Chronicle, places about the reign of Commodus. 
 It does not absolutely disprove this, that Euse- 
 bius, though he twice speaks of the writings of 
 Maximus, does not mention that he was a 
 bishop ; probably Eusebius found in the book 
 he used no mention of the author's dignity, and 
 knew no more than we do whether he was the 
 bp. of Jerusalem. But there seems increasing 
 reason to think that Eusebius erroneouslyattri- 
 buted to Maximus the work of Methodius : see 
 Zahn in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. ix. 224-229, 
 and J. A. Robinson, The Phtlocalia of Origen 
 (Camb. 1893), pp. xl.-xlix. [g.s.] 
 
 Maximus (25) of Ephesus. A " master 
 of theurgic science," commonly reckoned 
 among the neo- Platonic philosophers, the in- 
 terest of whose life consists merely in the 
 fact that he supplied an essential link in the 
 transit of the emperor Julian from Chris- 
 tianity to paganism. The account given by 
 
 MAXIMUS OP EPHESUS 
 
 Eunapius, in his Life of Maximus, shews 
 exactly how this was. Julian, while still 
 under tutelage and in early youth, with the 
 natural self-will of a vigorous mind, had 
 rebelled in secret against his Christian instruc- 
 tors and betaken himself to Greek philosophy 
 as a liberal and congenial study. This bent 
 was not disallowed by the emperor Constan- 
 tius, who thought it safe when compared with 
 political ambitions. But philosophy at that 
 era indicated much more than quiet intel- 
 lectual research. It was a name of power, 
 to which all whose sentiments flowed with a 
 strong current towards the traditionary 
 heathenism had recourse for self-justification ; 
 and it was natural that Julian, once he had 
 attached himself to this study, should in- 
 stinctively seek for more practical advantages 
 from it than the mere increase of theoretical 
 wisdom. Maximus, though flashy and meagre 
 as a philosopher, was better supplied with an 
 ostentatious show of practical power than any 
 of his philosophic rivals. The amiable rhe- 
 torician Libanius, the aged sage Aedesius, could 
 please Julian, but evidently were lacking in 
 the force which could move the world. But 
 when Aedesius, compelled by increasing in- 
 firmity, resigned Julian to the tuition of his 
 two followers, Chrysanthius and Eusebius, 
 Julian began to be struck with the terms in 
 which these two spoke of their old fellow- 
 pupil Maximus. Chrysanthius, indeed, alone 
 seemed to admire him ; Eusebius affected to 
 depreciate him ; but this feigned depreciation 
 was calculated to excite the interest of Julian. 
 For what Eusebius spoke of in this slighting 
 manner was a certain miraculous power pos- 
 sessed by Maximus, of which he gave one or 
 two casual instances. Julian had never seen 
 miracles like those with which Maximus was 
 credited ; so he bade Eusebius stick to his 
 learning and hurried off to Maximus. That 
 skilful adept, after a solemn preparation of his 
 imperial pupil, in which he was aided by 
 Chrysanthius, described to Julian the revered 
 religious authority of the hierophant of 
 Eleusis, whose sacred rites were among the 
 most famous in Greece, and urged him to go 
 thither. He went, and was imbued with a 
 teaching which combined a mysterious exalta- 
 tion of the power of the Greek deities with 
 hints of his own personal aggrandizement. 
 By such acts as these, and by his initiation into 
 the Eleusinian mysteries, he passed over to 
 paganism, though his having done so was still 
 unknown to the world. When, Constantius 
 being dead, he became sole master of the 
 Roman empire, he did not forget his instruc- 
 tors. He sent for Chrysanthius and Maximus ; 
 they consulted the sacrificial omens ; the 
 signs were unfavourable, and dissuaded them 
 from accepting the invitation. Chrysanthius 
 trembled, and refused to go ; the more am- 
 bitious Maximus declared it unworthy of a 
 wise man to yield to the first adverse sign, and 
 went. He was received by Julian with ex- 
 traordinary honours, but by his haughtiness 
 and effeminate demeanour earned the censure 
 even of the heathen, among whom was the 
 partial panegyrist Eunapius. After the death 
 of Julian he was severely and even cruelly 
 treated by Valentinian and Valens, and though 
 released for a time, was beheaded by order of 
 
MELANIA 
 
 V'alens in 371, on a chiirgc of liaving conspired 
 against him. His personal appearance is de- 
 scribed by Eunapius as impressive. The (onr 
 e.xtant letters of Julian to him (Nos. 15, ih, 
 38, 39) consist of such indiscriminate panegyric 
 that they tell little of his real character or 
 views. For other authorities see I). 0/ G. atiJ 
 R. Biogr. [j. K.M.J 
 
 Melania (l), a Roman lady of Spanish ex- 
 traction, daughter of Marcellinus, who had 
 been consul ; born c. 350. Her husband died 
 when she was only 22 years old, leaving her 
 with three children, of whom two died im- 
 mediately after their father. Full of ascetic 
 enthusiasm, she rejoiced to be now more free 
 to serve Christ, left her son to the charge of 
 the urban praetor, and, though winter was 
 beginning, sailed for the East (Hieron. Kp. 
 xxxi.x. 4 ; Chron. Anu. 377, vol. viii. ed. Vail.), 
 c. 372. She seems to have been acquainted 
 with Jerome and his friends, who at that time 
 formed an ascetic society at Aquileia. Her 
 slave Hylas accompanied Jerome to Syria 
 (Hieron. Ep. iii. 3), and Kuhnus, from whom 
 Jerome had then recently separated (i/>.), was 
 with her in 374 in Egypt, and possibly in 
 Palestine (16. iv. 2). During their stay in 
 Egypt the persecution of the orthodox by 
 V'alens arose. Kufinus was imprisoned. 
 Melania, who had only been in Egypt six 
 months, went with a large body of exiled 
 bishops, clergy, and anchorets to a place near 
 Diocaesarea in Palestine, where she supported 
 them at her own expense. Apparently she 
 was joined by Rulinus after a time, and they 
 went together to Jerusalem. There she es- 
 tablished herself at the Mount of Olives, where, 
 says Jerome {Chro)t. a.d. 377, properly 375), 
 she was such a wonderful example of virtues, 
 and especially of humility, that she received 
 the name of Thecla. She formed a com- 
 munity of 50 virgins and was the means of 
 reconciling to the church a large body of 
 heretics called Jlc«i7xaro;udxoi. Her house 
 was open to all. Amongst those who visited 
 her was Evagkius, whom she persuaded to 
 embrace the monastic life (a.d. 386). She 
 knew John bp. of Jerusalem intimately, and 
 no doubt shared with Kufinus in the friend- 
 ship of Jerome and Paula when they settled at 
 Bethlehem in 386, and afterwards in his con- 
 tention with them. In 397 she returned with 
 Kufinus to Italy, to confirm her granddaughter 
 Melania the younger {q.v.) in the practice of 
 asceticism. She was received by Paulinus at 
 Nola with great honour, and brought him a 
 piece of the true cross set in gold, sent by John 
 bp. of Jerusalem. She took up her aboile at 
 Kome, where she no doubt assisted Kuhnus 
 through the controversy as to his translation 
 of Origen's works. She lived probably with 
 her son Publicola and his wife Albina and their 
 two children, the younger Publicola, and the 
 younger Melania, with her husband Pinianus. 
 Palladius, when he came to Kome to plead the 
 cause of Chrysost(jm, stayed with them. She 
 desired to induce her granddaughter .Melania 
 and Pinianus to take vows of separation, and 
 was much displeased that, though willing to 
 vow continency, they would not separate 
 from each other's society, in her vehement 
 enthusiasm she spoke of her conflicts with 
 those who resisted her asceticism as " figbtiog 
 
 MELANIA 
 
 717 
 
 ag.iinst wild beasts." In 40.^. h.ily Jn-hif 
 threatened with the mvaj^ou of AUhc, am! 
 her s..n Publicola having dii-d. she ditrmuncU 
 to leave Konie. Kuhnus, li.«ving quitted 
 Aquileia. .n the death i.J Ins lather, wmi with 
 her ami her dauKhterui-law Albma, the 
 younger Publi. ..l.i, M. Iani.> and Pinianus. She 
 liad been to Africa in 41K) with a Irttrr fr..ni 
 Paulinus to Augustine (Aug. /•/.. xiv.), uiul it 
 was now deterinine<l that she shuuUl go to 
 Sicily and thence to Africa, in b-.th whl< h 
 countries she had estates. In Sinly Kuhnu» 
 died. She passed on t.> Africa with the .-thrr* ; 
 and, after vainly attempting t<. induce Me- 
 lania and I'inianus to enibr.ue the niunastic 
 state, went on to her loriner h.ibitation on the 
 Mount of Olives, and 40 days alter died, aged 
 00. Palladius, // 14/. Laus. c. 118; Paulinus, 
 t-pr- 29, 31. 45. 94- (w.H.r.J 
 
 Melania (2), daughter <.f Publicola son of 
 Melania (1) ; born at Koine c. 383. She 
 married Pinianus when exceedingly young, 
 yielding to the wish of her father, though she 
 was already imbued with the ascetic teachings 
 of her grandiiioilur, then living at Jerusalem. 
 The y<'Uiig hu^b,lnd and wile were induced hy 
 Melania the elder in 397 to take a vow ul 
 continence, but refused to sepiirate. Ihey 
 accompanied the grandmother In.ni Koine 
 (a.d. 40S) to Sicily and Africa ; but, when she 
 returned to Jerusalem, they reniamed at Sa- 
 gaste, attaching themselves to the bp. Alypius 
 and enjoying the friendship of Augustine. 
 On the death of the elder .Melania the still 
 considerable remains of her estates became the 
 property of her granddaughter. She gave 
 away those in Gaul and Italy, but kept those 
 in Sicily, Spain, and Africa ; and this led to 
 the attempt of the people of Hippo to induce 
 Pinianus to become a priest of their chun h. 
 In the scene in which a promise was exacted 
 from them to remain at Hippo, Melania shewed 
 great courage. When through the rapacity 
 of the rebel count Heraclian she was denuded 
 of her property and thus set free from the 
 promise to remain at Hippo, she accompanied 
 her husband to Egypt, and, alter staying 
 among the monastic establishments ol the 
 Thebaid and visiting Cyril at Alexandria, 
 eventually went to Palestine, and, together 
 with her mother Albina, settled at liethlehem 
 in 414. There they attached themselves to 
 Jerome, and to the younger Paula, who iheu 
 presided over the convent. I heir ascetic 
 convictions had so developed that they now 
 accepted that separation which the elder 
 .Melania had vainly urged in her lifetime. 
 Pinianus became the head of a niona&tcry and 
 Melania entered a convent. Uy the settle- 
 ment of Melania at Uethlehem the frud was 
 extinguished which had separated the fol- 
 lowers of Kufinus Iri'iii thos«- ol Jeronir ; and 
 although in his letter to Ctesiplion (txxiii. 3, 
 cd. Vail., date 415) Jeronir still has a bitter 
 expression about the eldrr Melania, in his last 
 letter to Augustine (txliii. 2, ed. Vail.) In 419, 
 .-Mbina, Pinianus, and Melania are jouied with 
 Paula in their reverential greetings. Their 
 I intercourse with Augustine coiiltiiued, and In 
 answer to their (juestions on the Pelagian con- 
 troversy he wrote his treatise On Grace and 
 Original Sin, a.d. 418. Melania apparently 
 lived on for many years. Photius ^y% thai 
 
718 
 
 MELETIUS 
 
 she came to Constantinople in 437 and obtained 
 his conversion and baptism at the hands of 
 Proclus. Palladius, Hist. Laus. 119, 121 ; 
 Augustine, Epp. 125, 126, and de Grat. Christt, 
 ii. and xxxii., Surius, p. 380, Dec. 31 ; Photius, 
 Cod. 53, p. 44. [VV.H.F.] 
 
 Meletius (2) {Melitius), bp. of Lycopolis, 
 consecrated not long before the beginning of 
 the Arian controversy. The see of Lycopolis 
 stood next in rank to that of Alexandria, of 
 which Peter, afterwards martyr, was then bis- 
 hop (a.d. 300-311). Meletius took advantage 
 of Peter's flight from persecution (Soz. H. E. 
 i. 24) to intrude into his and other dioceses, 
 ordain priests, and assume the character of 
 primate of Egypt. A protest against his con- 
 duct by four incarcerated Egyptian bishops, 
 Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodore, and Phileas, 
 urged that his act was uncalled-for and carried 
 out without consulting them or Peter, in- 
 volving a breach of the rule which forbade one 
 bishop to intrude into the diocese of another. 
 Meletius ignored the protest. The bishops 
 were martyred, and Meletius went to Alex- 
 andria. He was received by the two elders, 
 Isidore and the afterwards famous Arius ; 
 probably at their instigation he excom- 
 municated two visitors appointed by Peter, 
 and replaced them by others. The archbp. 
 of Alexandria then wrote forbidding his flock 
 to have fellowship with Meletius until these 
 acts had been investigated. A synod of 
 Egyptian bishops under" Peter deposed Mele- 
 tius (a.d. 306) for his irregular acts and in- 
 subordination. Athanasius and Socrates 
 afftnn indeed that the degradation of Meletius 
 was specially due to his having " denied the 
 faith during persecution and sacrificed " ; 
 but in this they probably express only the 
 popular belief which could not otherwise 
 explain why orthodox bishops were im- 
 prisoned and martyred, while Meletius passed 
 through the length and breadth of the land 
 unhindered. The council of Nicaea in its 
 comments upon, and condemnation of, Me- 
 letius, takes no note of impiety ; and the 
 statement of Epiphanius— Meletius " was 
 orthodox in his belief, and never dissented 
 from the creed of the church in a single point. 
 He was the author of a schism, but not of 
 alterations of belief " — is probably true of the 
 bishop, if not of his followers. Meletius 
 retorted upon his deposers by separating him- 
 self and his followers. Peter preached against 
 the Meletians, and rejected their baptism 
 (So.-^. i. XV.) ; Meletius retaliated by abusing 
 Peter and his immediate successors Achillas 
 and Alexander. At length the whole ques- 
 tion was considered by the council of Nicaea. 
 The 2nd, 4th, and 6th canons refer directly or 
 indirectly to the Egyptian schism ; and in a 
 synodical epistle addressed by the bishops 
 assembled there " to the holy and great 
 church of the Alexandrians and to the beloved 
 brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pen- 
 tapolis," the " contumacy of Meletius and of 
 those who had been ordained by him " is dealt 
 with (Socr. i. 9 ; Theod. i. 9). The line 
 adopted was one of " clemency " ; although 
 Meletius is described as " strictly speaking 
 wholly undeserving of favour." He was per- 
 mitted to remain in his own city and retain 
 a nominal dignity, but was not to ordain or 
 
 MELETIUS 
 
 nominate for ordination. The coimcil decreed 
 that those who had received appointments 
 from him should be confirmed by a more 
 legitimate ordination and then admitted to 
 communion and retain their rank and min- 
 istry, but were to be counted inferior to those 
 previously ordained and established by Alex- 
 ander ; nor were they to do anything without 
 the concurrence of the bishops of the Catholic 
 and apostolical church under Alexander. 
 Meletius himself was to be an exception ; " To 
 him," said the bishops, " we by no means 
 grant the same licence, on account of his former 
 disorderly conduct. If the least authority were 
 accorded to him, he would abuse it by again 
 exciting confusion." 
 
 It is doubtful whether Meletius was at the 
 council ; but he did not resist its decrees. At 
 Alexander's request he handed in a list of his 
 clerical adherents, including 29 bishops, and 
 in Alexandria itself 4 priests and 3 deacons. 
 Meletius retired to Lycopolis, and during 
 Alexander's lifetime remained quiet ; but the 
 appointment of Athanasius to the see of 
 Alexandria was the signal for union of every 
 faction opposed to him, and in the events 
 which followed Meletius took a personal part. 
 The uncompromising sternness of Athanasius 
 was contrasted with the " clemency " of the 
 council and of Alexander ; Arian and Mele- 
 tian, schismatic and heretic banded together 
 against the one man they dreaded, and so 
 pitiless and powerful was their hate that it 
 wrung from him the comment on the pardon 
 accorded to Meletius by the council of Nicaea 
 " Would to God he had never been received ! " 
 
 Before his death, the date of which is not 
 known, Meletius nominated, contrary to the 
 decree of the Nicene council, his friend John 
 as his successor (Soz. ii. 21), a rank accorded 
 to him and recognized by that council of Tyre 
 (a.d. 335) in which the Eusebians and others 
 deposed Athanasius {ib. ii. 25). " In process 
 of time," says Sozomen (ii. 21), " the Meletians 
 were generally called Arians in Egypt." 
 Originally differences in doctrine parted them ; 
 but their alliance for attack or defence grad- 
 ually led the Meletians to adopt Arian doc- 
 trines [Arius] and side with Arian church 
 politics. The Meletians died out after the 5th 
 cent. ; the monks described by Theodoret (i. 
 9) being among the latest and most eccentric 
 of the sect. "They neglected sound doctrine, 
 and observed certain vain points of discipline, 
 upholding the same infatuated views as the 
 Jews and Samaritans." Consult Walch, 
 Ketzerhistorie ; Neander, Bright, and the usual 
 church historians. [j.m.f.] 
 
 Meletius (3), bp. of Antioch, previously of 
 Sebaste in Armenia (Soz. H. E. iv. 28 ; Theod. 
 H. £. ii. 31), or according to Socrates (H. E. ii. 
 44), of Beroea in Syria. 
 
 He came to Antioch (a.d. 361) when the see 
 had been vacated through the disorderly 
 translation of Eudoxius to Constantinople 
 (a.d. 360) and the city was still a focus for 
 theological rancour and dispute. The Eusta- 
 thians, now under the venerated priest Paul- 
 inus, represented the orthodox party with 
 whom Athanasius was in communion ; the 
 Eudoxians were Arian or semi-Axian. 
 Meletius owed his appointment to the joint 
 application to Constantius of both parties, and 
 
MELETIUS 
 
 each counted on his support. His arrival 
 was greeted by an immense concourse. It 
 was reported that he maintained the doctrines 
 of the council of Nicaea. He was entreated 
 to give a brief synopsis of his doctrine ; and 
 his declaration " the Son is of the same sub- 
 stance as the Father," at once and unequi- 
 vocally proclaimed him an upholder of the 
 essential doctrine of Nicaea. The appl.uise 
 of the Catholics was met by the cries of the 
 infuriated Arians. The .\ri.ui archdeacon 
 sprang forward and stopped the bisliop's 
 mouth with his hand. .Meletius instantly 
 extended three fingers towanls the people, 
 closed them, and then allowing only one to 
 remain extended, expressed by signs what he 
 was prevented from uttering. When the arch- 
 deacon freed his moutii to seize his hand, Mcle- 
 tius exclaimed, "Three Persons are conceived 
 in the mind, but we speak as if addressing One" 
 (Theod. and Soz.). Eudoxius, .\cacius, and 
 their partisans were furious ; they reviled the 
 bishop and charged him with Sabellianism ; 
 met in council and deposed him ; and iiulucecl ! 
 the emperor, " more changeable than .Aeolus," 
 to banish him to his native country and to 
 appoint Euzoius, the friend of Arius, in his 
 place. The Catholics repudiated Euzoius, but 
 did not all support Meletius. The Eustathian 
 section could not conscientiously unite with 
 one who, however orthodox in faith, had 
 received consecration from Arian bishops ; 
 neither would they communicate with his 
 followers who had' received Arian baptism. 
 Schism followed. The Meletians withdrew to 
 the Church of the Apostles in the old part of the 
 city ; the followers of Paulinus met in a small 
 church within the city, this being allowed by 
 Euzoius out of respect lor Paulinus. 
 
 The death of Constantius (N'ov. 361) and the 
 decrees of toleration promulgated by Julian 
 permitted the banished bishops to return. An 
 effort was at once made, especially by .Athan- 
 asius and Eusebius bp. of VerceUi, to estab- 
 lish unity in order to resist the pagan emperor ; 
 and this was one of the principal objects of a 
 council held at Alexandria in 362 (Hefele, 
 Conciliengeschichte, i. 727), where it was 
 ordered that Paulinus and his followers should 
 unite with Meletius, and that the church, thus 
 united, should in the spirit of fullest toleration 
 receive all who accepted the Nicene creed and 
 rejected the errors of Arianism, Sabellianism, 
 Macedonianism, etc. Eusebius of Vercelli and 
 Asterius of Petra were commissioned to pro- 
 ceed to Antioch, taking with them the synodal 
 letter {Tomtis ad Antiochenos), which was prob- 
 ably the work of Athanasius. The prospects 
 of peace had, however, been fatally imperilled 
 before the commissioners reached the city. 
 Lucifer, bp. of Calaris, had gone direct to 
 Antioch instead of to the council of Alexandria. 
 He appears to have repeatedly exhorted both 
 Meletians and Eustathians to unity; but his 
 sympathies were strongly with the latter; and, 
 when the former opposed him, he took the 
 injudicious step of consecrating Paulinus as 
 bishop. " This was not right," rheod<jret 
 justly protests fiii. 5). When Eusebius reached 
 Antioch, he found that " the evil h.ad, by 
 such unwise measures, been made incurable." 
 The long connexion of Athanasius with the 
 Eustathians made him unwilling to disown 
 
 MELITO 
 
 716 
 
 Paulinus, who accrptwl the svn.Kj.il letter ; 
 and attempts at union were suspended. 
 
 During the short reign ot Julian Mcletim 
 remained at his post. Juvians death (a.d. 
 364) and the eilict of Valrns ro-expclUnK the 
 blsho^ls recalled by Jnli.in onre more drove 
 Meletius into exile. Two devoird Antio- 
 chians, l"lavian and Di.Klorus. ralliwl the per- 
 secuted who refused to cotnmunii ate with the 
 Arian Euzoius and assemblc<l them in caverns 
 by the river side and in the open country. 
 Paulinus, " on account of his eminent nirtv " 
 (Socr. iv. 2), was left unmolestetl. OurinB 
 the i.t years which followed, bitterness and 
 alienation were rife amongst the followers <>( 
 Meletius and Paulinus. Basil {hf: 89) recom- 
 mended Meletius to write to Athanasius, who, 
 however, would not sever the old ties between 
 himself and the Eustathians. The death of 
 Athanasius (a.d. 373) diii not improve matters. 
 His successor Peter, with Damasus of Kmne, 
 spoke in 377 of Eusebius and .Meletius as 
 .\rians (Basil, Ep. 266). The Western bishops 
 and Paulinus susjiected Meletius and the 
 Easterns of Arianism ; the Easterns imputed 
 Sabellianism to the Westerns. 
 
 Gratian, becoming sovereign of the whole 
 empire in 378, at once proclaimed toleration 
 to all sects, with a few exceptions (StK.r. v. 2), 
 amongst which must have been the Arians <>! 
 Antioch (Theod. v. 2). Sapor, a military 
 chief, went there to dispossess the p.irtisans 
 of Euzoius and to give the Arian churches to 
 the orthodox party. He pacified the Meletians 
 by handing the churches over to them, and the 
 animosity of the two parties was for the tinu" 
 allayed by the six principal presbyters binding 
 themselves by oath to use no efiort to s<'cure 
 consecration for themselves when either 
 Paulinus or Meletius should die, but to permit 
 the survivor to retain the see undisturbed. 
 
 In 379 a council at .\ntioch under Meletiusac- 
 cepted the synodal lettcrof Damasus (a.d. 37.'<), 
 which, known as " the Tome of the Westerns." 
 was sent in the first instance to Paulinus ; 
 and two years later (381) Meletius — though 
 disowned by Rome and Alexandria — was 
 appointed to preside at the council of Con- 
 stantinople. He was greeted by the empert>r 
 Theodosius with the warmest alfection (16. v. 
 6, 7). During the session of the council, 
 Meletius died. His remains finally rested by 
 those of Babylas the .Martyr at .■\nti.Kh. 
 
 The schism ought now to have cnde«l. 
 Paulinus was still ahve, and should have been 
 recognized as sole bishop. The Meletian 
 party, however, irritatetl by his treatment of 
 their leader, secured the appointment «>( 
 Flavian ; and a fresh ciivision arose, 
 " grounded simply on a preference of bishops " 
 (Socr. V. 269). The history of the Meletians 
 now merges int<> that of the Flavianists. The 
 schism was practically ended in Flavian's life- 
 time, 85 vears after the ordinatii>n of Paulinus 
 bv Lucifer. (j-n-i'.] 
 
 MelitO, bp. of Sardis, held in the middle of 
 the 2nd cA-nl. a foremost place among thr 
 bishoj>s of .\sia as regards personal influrncr 
 and literary activity. Shortly before the end 
 of that cent, his name is mentioned bv Poly- 
 crates of Ephesus in hLs letter to Victor of 
 Rome (i:us. //. /i. v. 24) as one of the lumin- 
 aries of the Asiatic church by whose authority 
 
?20 
 
 melito 
 
 its Quartodeciman practice had been com- 
 mended. The next extant mention of him 
 some 20 years later is in the Little Labyrinth 
 (Eus. V. 28). He is there appealed to as one 
 ot the writers, older than Victor of Rome, who 
 had spoken of our Lord as being God as well 
 as man. A reference to him in a lost work 
 of TertuUian, known to us through a citation 
 by Jerome in the art. s.v. in his Catalogue 
 (c. 24), shews his high reputation in Tertullian's 
 time. Our fullest information is from the 
 notices in Eusebius {H. E. iv. 13, 26), who 
 gives a list of Melito's works with which he 
 was acquainted, together with 3 extracts. 
 
 His Apology presented to the emperor Marcus 
 Aurelius may have been his latest work. It 
 is placed under a.d. 170 in Jerome's transla- 
 tion of the Chronicle of Eusebius, but the date 
 may be more safely inferred from a passage 
 preserved by Eusebius. Melito, addressing 
 Marcus Aurelius, and speaking of Augustus, 
 says, " Of whom you have become the much- 
 wished-for successor, and shall be so with your 
 son if you keep that philosophy which took 
 its beginning with Augustus," etc. That he 
 here says " with your son," not " with your 
 brother," is evidence that the date is later than 
 the death of Lucius Verus, in 169. Commodus 
 was associated in the empire with his father in 
 176. The passage quoted does not shew 
 whether this association had already taken 
 place or was only anticipated. In 177 per- 
 secutions of Christians were raging \iolently 
 all over the empire. Melito's memorial seems 
 to have been written at the very first begin- 
 ning of that persecution. The Christians 
 seem to be suttering more in their property 
 than in their persons, and MeUto is able to 
 express a doubt whether the emperor had 
 sanctioned the cruelties, and a belief that, when 
 he had examined the case, he would interfere 
 in their favour. Melito declares that Nero and 
 Domitian were the only emperors who had 
 sanctioned persecutions of Christians, and 
 probably from this passage TertuUian derived 
 his argument that only bad emperors had 
 persecuted the Christians. On the other side, 
 as forbidding interference, Mehto quotes the 
 letter of Hadrian to Fundanus, and letters of 
 Antoninus, at a tune when Aurelius himself 
 was associated in the government, to the 
 people of Larissa, of Thessalonica, and of 
 Athens. One extract from the Apology pre- 
 served in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 483, Din- 
 dorf) gave rise to some discussion in the early 
 Socinian controversy. " We are not wor- 
 shippers of senseless stones, but adore one 
 only God, Who is before all and over all, and 
 [over] His Christ truly God the Word before 
 all ages." The second "over" given in 
 Rader's ed. of the Chronicle does not appear 
 in the latest ed. (Dindorf's). 
 
 An Apology is extant in a Syriac trans, in 
 one of the Nitrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus., 
 which bears the heading, " The oration of 
 MeUto the Philosopher held before Antoninus 
 Caesar, and he spoke to Caesar that he might 
 know God, and he shewed him the way of 
 truth, and began to speak as follows." Prob- 
 ably the Syriac translator, finding in his 
 Greek original that the Apology was " ad- 
 dressed " to the emperor, made a blunder in 
 supposing it delivered viva voce. It was 
 
 Melito 
 
 printed in Syriac, with English trans, by 
 Cureton (Spicileg. Syr.) and by Pitra, with a 
 Latin trans, by Kenan (Spicil. Solesm. vol. ii.) 
 which has been revised in Otto's Apologists, 
 vol. ix. Although this Syriac Apology 
 appears complete, it contains none of the 
 passages cited by Eusebius, and its character 
 seems entirely different from that of the work 
 known to Eusebius. The latter was mainly 
 intended to induce the emperor to stop the 
 persecution by shewing that the Christians did 
 not deserve the treatment inflicted. The 
 Syriac Apology is a calm argument against the 
 absurdities ot polytheism and idolatry, such 
 as might have been written with the hope of 
 making a convert of the emperor, but does not 
 exhibit any of the mental tension of one 
 suffering under unjust persecution. The 
 Syriac Apology is, therefore, probably not the 
 same as that from which Eusebius made 
 extracts. Did, then, Melito write two 
 apologies ? The Paschal Chronicle records an 
 Apology of Melito under both a.d. 164 and 
 169, but this is clearly only a double mention 
 of one Apology, probably caused by the 
 double mention in Eus. iv. 13, 26. The 
 ascription of the Syriac Apology to Melito is 
 probably an error, though the document is 
 perhaps not much later. There are slight, 
 but we think decisive, traces of the use of 
 Justin Martyr's Apology : it must therefore 
 be later than that. It is addressed to an 
 emperor Antoninus, who might have been 
 Pius, Aurelius, Caracalla, or Elagabalus. 
 Probably one of the latter two is intended. 
 The writer's point of view seems to be Syrian. 
 In enumerating heathen idolatries he omits 
 (as we should not expect from Melito writing 
 in Asia Minor) Cybele and the Ephesian 
 Diana ; while he speaks in much detail of 
 Syrian objects of worship, and seems to be 
 personally acquainted with the city of Mabug, 
 the Syrian Hierapolis. The admonition, "If 
 they wish to dress you in a female garment, 
 remember that you are a man," suggests 
 Elagabalus rather than any of the other 
 emperors mentioned. One other passage sup- 
 ports a presumption of Syrian authorship. 
 The writer speaks of the world as destined to 
 suffer from three deluges — one of wind, one 
 of water, one of fire ; the first two already 
 past, the third still to come. The deluge of 
 wind is that by which the tower of Babel was 
 supposed to have been destroyed (see the 
 Sibylline verses quoted by Theophilus, ad 
 Autol. ii. 31, and also Abydenus, quoted by 
 Eus. Praep. Evan. ix. 14). " Flood of wind " 
 occurs in the work called The Cave of Treasures 
 (Cureton, Spicil. Syr. p. 94), and in the 
 Etliiopic book of Adam (Ewald's Jahrbilcher 
 der Bibl. Wiss. 1853). It has been contended 
 that the reference to the deluge of fire shews 
 acquaintance with II. Peter; but it seems to 
 us that this can by no means be positively 
 asserted. On N.T. allusions in this Apology 
 see Westcott (A''. T. Canon, p. 219). A- 
 gainst placing it so late as Elagabalus it may 
 be urged that its conclusion, if interpreted 
 naturally, speaks of the emperor as having 
 children ; and though the apologist might be 
 merely expressing a wish on behalf of the 
 emperor's unborn successors, it is simpler to 
 refer the work to the time of Caracalla, who 
 
MELITO 
 
 spent some time in Syria. There seem also 
 traces that Tertulliaii, who was acquainted 
 with the Eusebian Apology of Melito, also 
 used this one. Such perhaps may be the 
 identification of Serapis with Joseph and the 
 remark that the old heathen gods were prac- 
 tically less honoured than the emperors, since 
 their temples had to pay taxes. 
 
 Of other works of .Melito the Trtfti rof- rdcrxo 
 is first in the list of Eusebius. The date is 
 limited by the opening sentence whicli 
 Eusebius quotes : "In the proconsulate over 
 Asia of Servilius Paulus, at the time that 
 Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there took place 
 much dispute at Laodicea about the Faschal 
 celebration (fxirfadi'TOi vard Kaipdv in those 
 days, and these things were written." Kuftn- 
 us here reads " Sergius Paulus," and this 
 appears from other authorities to have been 
 the real name of the proconsul in question, 
 probably within the limits 164-166. 
 
 The appeal of I'olycrates to the authority 
 of Melito makes it clear tliat the latter, in his 
 work on Easter celebration, took the yuarto- 
 deciman side. Eusebius says that the work 
 of Melito drew forth another, no doubt on the 
 opposite side, from Clement of .\lexandria. 
 It has been conjectured that Melito was the 
 Ionian whom Clement (Eus. H. E. v. 11) 
 enumerates as among his teachers. It should 
 be noticed that the extant fragments of Melito 
 refute the notion that Quartodecimanism was 
 inconsistent with the reception of the Fourth 
 Gospel. Melito speaks of our Lord's three 
 years' ministry after His baptism, which he 
 could not have learned from the Synoptists. 
 He accounts for the fact that a ram, not a 
 lamb, was substituted as a sacrifice for Isaac, 
 by the remark that our Lord, when He suffered, 
 was not young like Isaac, but of mature years. 
 Possibly here may be an indication that 
 Melito held the same theory concerning our 
 Lord's age as Irenaeus and other Asiatics, 
 derived no doubt from John viii. 57. The 
 whole passage shews that Melito believed 
 strongly in the atoning efficacy of Christ's 
 death, and l<joked on Him as the sacrificial 
 lamb. The word he uses is d/w6s, as in the 
 Gospel, not apviof, as in the Apocalypse. 
 
 The next work of Melito from which Euse- 
 bius has given an extract is called Selec- 
 tions, addressed to a friend named Onesimus, 
 who had asked Melito to make selections from 
 the law and the prophets of passages concern- 
 ing our Saviour, and concerning all our faith, 
 and also to give him accurate information as 
 to the number and order of the O.T. books. 
 Melito relates that he had gone up to the East 
 to the place where the things were preached 
 and done, and had accurately learned the 
 books of the O.T. He enumerates the five 
 books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kuth, four 
 of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of Uavid, 
 Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, 
 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the 
 Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Minor 
 Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, 
 Esdras. The last, no doubt, includes Nehe- 
 miah and possibly Esther, which is otherwise 
 omitted. This list gives the Hebrew canon 
 adopted by the Church of England ; but 
 gives a difierent order of the books from that 
 of Josephus, and does not attempt to make 
 
 MELITO 
 
 721 
 
 the number ol books 2i. The ezprcstiont " the 
 Old Hooks," •• the IJouks u( the O.T.," »hcw 
 clearly that the church ol Mclito's lime had a 
 .\etv ieslamcnt canon. 
 
 Eusebms enumerates other works of Melito 
 as being known to him. The titles rn.ible us 
 , imperfectly to guess at their contents, and 
 i sometimes the titles thcmvlves are unccrt^ii. 
 (4) t4 T</ji jro,Vr<iot koI rpoipijT<M>, very likely 
 two separate works "on Christian Couvcrsa- 
 tion " and "on tiie Prophets" oupled ti»- 
 gether by Eusebius, because containixl iu the 
 same volume in the Caesareau Library, (j) 
 irefM iKKXrjaias. It has been conjectureil that 
 the breaking out of .Monlanism may have made 
 it necessary to insist im the authority of the 
 church. (0) iripi «ri'/xa»^. Possibly the 
 (Juartodeciinan controversy led to discussion 
 about the Lord's Uay. This word nipiani), 
 used in Kev. i. 10, is touiul also in Igiiatius's 
 Ep. to tlie Magnesians, c. 9, and in the letter 
 of Uionysius of Corinth to Sotcr (Eus. iv. 33). 
 (7) irtpi <pO<Jtu% dvOfxiiirov. («) wtpl w\m*ui. 
 This book on the formation of man, and (7) 
 on the nature of man, if that be the reading, 
 are conjectured to have been directed against 
 Gnostic theories. {9) Xipi ixanorjt riartutt 
 aiaOi/rripiuv. What was the subject of a 
 treatise on the obedience of faith of the senses 
 has perpli'xed ancient as well as modcnx 
 readers of this Ust. Jerome thinks that a rtpi 
 may have dropped out of the text, and that 
 j there were two treatises, one on the Obedience 
 of Faith, one on the Senses. (10) wtfH f i/x^i 
 I Kai aionaroi Kai vo6s, probably on Human 
 j Nature. (11) irtpi XoirrpoO. (12) wtpi dXi/- 
 Cetas, perhaps an apologetic work in commcu- 
 , dation of Christianity. (13) wtpi (cWo-cwt koI 
 yeufirewi Xpiffrov. Ancient writers with one 
 consent apply to our Lord the Kc^oi iKnai 
 j ixi dpx^" oSiix aiiTou of Prov. viii. 22. For a 
 ! full discussion of this verse see Athan. Or. 
 Cont. Ar. li. 44. (14) T</)i rrpo<priTtiai. A 
 I work with the same title written, or intended 
 I to be written, by Clement of Alexandria, was 
 directed against the Montanists (Strom, iv. 13, 
 I p. 605), and this may also have been the design 
 of this work of Melito, if the .Montanist con- 
 troversv had broken out before his death. 
 (15) TTtpi </)iXot«Waj. (16) 17 K\ui. What 
 was the nature of this work we have no inform- 
 ation. A Latin work entitled Melttonis Clavu 
 Sanclae Scripturae mentioned by Labbc in 
 1653 as preserved in llie library of the Cler- 
 mont College is a medieval Latin composition. 
 (17) (i«) rd irtpi Tov 5taii6\ov *ai rr/i dTO*aXi>- 
 \f>iwf ludyi>ov. The form of expression would 
 indicate that both subjects were discussed in 
 a single treatise. (19) irtpi «V<rw>idroi' Otou. 
 It would be natural to translate this. On God 
 I Incarnate, and we have other evitlence that 
 Melito wrote on the Incarnation. When he 
 speaks of the two natures which our Lord 
 combined, there is no trace of anthrojxiinor- 
 phisiii in the attributes which ho ascribes to 
 the Divine nature. On the other hand Origcu, 
 commenting on (.<n. i. 26 (vol. vui. 49. Loinui.) 
 and argumg against the .\uthro|xjuiorphite«, 
 says " of whom is .Melito, who has left a certam 
 ' treatise, wtpi rov ircJfJMTOf dfat rdr tft6*" 
 ! Probably Origeii made a mistake, and that the 
 40 
 
722 
 
 MELLITUS 
 
 subject of Melito's treatise was the Incarna- 
 tion. But it is not impossible that a writer as 
 orthodox as Melito may have held the opinions 
 which Origen imputes to him. 
 
 The list given shews Melito's great activity | 
 as a writer, and the wide range of his writings. 
 
 Of spurious writings ascribed to Melito, we 
 need only mention a commentary on the 
 Apocalj'pse, the ascription to Melito appar- 
 ently having been made by the fraud or 
 ignorance of some transcriber, and not intend- 
 ed in the work itself, which is a compilation 
 from various writers, some as late as the 13th 
 cent. Through two works, de Passione S. 
 Joannis and de Transitu b. Mariae, with which 
 Melito's name was connected, it became widely 
 known in the West, though with various dis- 
 guises of form, such as Mileto, Miletus, and 
 Mellitus, the last being the most common. 
 
 The remains of Melito are given by Routh 
 (Rel. Sac. i. 113-153), and more fully by Otto 
 {Corp. Apol. Chr. ix. 375-478I. See also Piper 
 (Stud, und Krit. 1838, p. 54), Westcott [N. T. 
 Canon, p. 218), Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev. Feb. 
 1876). Cf. esp. Harnack, Die Uberlieferung der 
 Apologeten (Text, und Untersuch. I. 240), and 
 Gesch. der Alt. Chr. lib. i. 246 ff. [g.s.] 
 
 Mellitus, the first bp. of London and third j 
 archbp. of Canterbury. He was not one of the ' 
 original missionaries who accompanied Augus- 
 tine to Britain, but was sent by St. Gregory 
 in 601 to strengthen the hands of the newly 
 consecrated archbishop and to convey to him 
 the pall. Mellitus, accompanied by Lauren- 
 tius, whom Augustine had sent to Rome, and 
 by Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinianus, left 
 Rome c. July 22, 601. They carried letters of 
 commendation to the bps. of Vienne, Aries, 
 Lyons, Gap, Toulon, Marseilles, Chalons on the 
 Saone, Metz, Paris, Rouen, and Angers ; to 
 Theodoric, Theodebert, and Clothair, kings of 
 the Franks, and also to queen Brunichild. 
 These names probably indicate the route of 
 the missionaries, and there is no evidence to 
 support Ussher's conjecture that they visited 
 Columbanus at Luxeuil on the way. To 
 Augustine Mellitus brought also the answers 
 which Gregory sent to the questions laid 
 before him by Laurentius, and a supply of 
 church furniture, " all things which were 
 needed for worship and the ministry of the 
 church, sacred vessels, altar-cloths, church 
 ornaments, priestly and clerical robes, relics 
 of saints and mart>T:s, and several books " 
 (Bede, H. E. i. 29). Some account of the 
 remains of St. Gregory's benefaction, pre- 
 served at Canterbury in the 15th cent., is given 
 by Elmham (ed. Hardwick, pp. 96 seq.). 
 Augustine, having received from the pope 
 authority to consecrate bishops for the newly 
 converted nation, chose Mellitus for the see of 
 London. That city, properly the capital of 
 the East Saxons, was then under Ethelbert, 
 king of Kent, who had prevailed on the 
 dependent kings of the East Saxons to receive 
 Christianity, and who now founded the church 
 of St. Paul as the cathedral of the new bishop- 
 ric. No distinct date is given by Bede for the 
 consecration of Mellitus, but it must have 
 occurred some time between the winter of 601 
 and the early summer of 604, the most prob- 
 able date for the death of Augustine. 
 
 Mellitus continued undisturbed in his see 
 
 MENANDER 
 
 during the reign of Ethelbert. He joined in 
 the letter addressed by Laurentius to the Irish 
 bishops (Bede, H. E. ii. 4), and in 609 went to 
 Rome to treat with pope Boniface IV. on 
 matters necessary for the welfare of the 
 English church. The precise object of this 
 journey is not mentioned by the historian, 
 who, however, tells us that MelUtus was pre- 
 sent at a council on Feb. 27, 610, subscribed to 
 the decrees, and subsequently carried them to 
 the English church. The purpose of this coun- 
 cil was to secure the peace of the monastic order 
 and two versions of a decree are extant (Labbe, 
 Cone. V. 619; Mansi, C071C. x. 504; Haddan and 
 Stubbs, iii. 64, 65). Bede adds that Mellitus 
 also brought letters from the pope to Ethelbert, 
 Laurentius, and the whole clergv and people of 
 the English (W. Malmesb. G. P. lio. i.; Haddan 
 and Stubbs, iii. 65). The monks of St. Augus- 
 tine's also shewed a bull of Boniface IV., dated 
 Feb. 27, 611, addressed to Ethelbert, mention- 
 ing the request presented by Mellitus, and 
 confirming the privileges of St. Augustine's 
 (Elmham, ii.s. pp. 129-131 ; Thorn, ap. Twys- 
 den, c. 1766 ; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 67-69). 
 
 On the death of Ethelbert the newly-founded 
 church was in danger of dissolution.' MeUitus 
 and Justus fled to Gaul, and Laurentius was 
 only saved by a miracle from the disgrace of 
 following them. Bede tells very circumstan- 
 tially the story of MeUitus's flight. The sons 
 of the Christian king Sebert had continued to 
 be pagans. Seeing the bishop celebrate the 
 holy communion and give the Eucharist to the 
 people, they presumptuously asked, " Why 
 do you not give us the white bread which you 
 used to give to Saba our father and still give 
 to the people ? " The bishop replied that if 
 they would be baptized they should have the 
 bread. They refused the sacrament of initia- 
 tion, but still demanded the bread. On 
 MeUitus's persistence in refusing it, they 
 banished him. He fled to Kent and after- 
 wards to Gaul, whence he was recalled by 
 Laurentius after the conversion of Eadbald. 
 He probably remained at Canterbury until the 
 death of Laurentius in 619, when he succeeded 
 to the vacant see, which he held till 624. That 
 his activity was impaired by gout is nearly all 
 that is preserved about him. Bede mentions 
 that he consecrated a church to the Blessed 
 Virgin within the precincts of St. Augustine's 
 monastery, and that, a great fire at Canterbury 
 occurring in a place termed the " martjTrdom 
 of the four crowned mart>TS," he was carried 
 there and at his prayer a wind drove the flames 
 southwards and saved the city (H. E. ii. 16, 
 17)., ^ [s.] 
 
 Menander, a Samaritan false teacher in the 
 early part of the 2nd cent. Our knowledge 
 of him is probably all derived, either directly 
 or indirectly, from Justin Martyr. What he 
 tells directly (Apol. i. 26, 56) is, that Menander 
 was a native of the Samaritan town Cappar- 
 atea, and a disciple of Simon, and. Like him, 
 had been instigated by the demons to deceive 
 many by his magic arts ; that he had had 
 success of this kind at Antioch, where he had 
 taught, and had persuaded his followers that 
 they should not die ; and that, when Justin 
 wrote, some of them survived, holding this 
 persuasion. Justin wrote a special treatise 
 against heresies, and from this, in all prob- 
 
MENNAS 
 
 ability, was derived the somewhat fuller 
 account sivcn by Ironaeus (i. 2}, p. 100). 
 Acc.)rding to this, Monandor did not, like 
 Simon, declare himself to be the chief power, 
 but taught that that power was unknown to 
 all. He gave the same account as Simon of 
 the creation of the world — viz. that " it had 
 been made by angels " who liad taken their 
 origin from the Ennoea of the supreme power. 
 He put himself forward as having been sent 
 by the invisible powers to mankind as a 
 Saviour, enabling men, bv the magical power 
 which he taught them, to get the better of 
 these creative angels. He taught that 
 through baptism in his own name liis disciples 
 received a resurrection, and should thence- 
 forward abide in immortal youth. Irenaeus 
 evidently understood this language literally, 
 and the history of heretical sects shews that 
 it is not incredible that such promises mav 
 have been made ; but the continuance of a 
 belief which the experience of tlie past must 
 have disproved indicates that a spiritual 
 interpretation must have been found. Cyril 
 of Jerusalem (C. I. iS) treats the denial of a 
 literal resurrection of the body as a specially 
 Samaritan heresy. 
 
 Irenaeus (iii. 4, p. 179), having spoken of 
 Valentinus and Marcion, says that the other 
 Gnostics, as had been shewn, took their be- 
 ginnings from Menandcr, the disciple of 
 Simon ; and there is every probability that it 
 was from the "Samaritan" Justin that 
 Irenaeus learned his pedigree of Gnosticism, 
 viz. that it originated with the Samaritan 
 Simon, and was continued by his disciple 
 Menander, who taught at Antioch, and that 
 there Saturuinus (and, apparently, Basilides) 
 learned from him. 
 
 The name Menandrianists occurs in the list 
 of Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22). Tertullian 
 evidently knows only what he has learned 
 from Irenaeus {de Anim. 23, 50 ; de Res. 
 Cam. 5). The same may be said of all later 
 writers, and it is scarcely worth while to men- 
 tion the imaginary condemnation of these 
 heretics by Lucius of Rome, invented by 
 " Praedestinatus." [c.s.] 
 
 Hennas, patriarch of Constantinople, 536- 
 552. On the deposition of .\ntiiimus, Mennas, 
 superior of the great convent of St. Samson at 
 Constantinople, was elected to tlie see. Pojie 
 Agapetus was then at C(jnstantinople, having 
 presided at the council there wliich dealt witli 
 the case of .^nthimus, and himself consecrated 
 Mennas. Mennas accepted the councilof Chal- 
 cedon ; he was a Catholic, well known for his 
 knowledge and integrity. On May 2, 536, he 
 presided at a council assembled by Justinian 
 at Constantinople at the request of 11 bishops 
 of the East and of Palestine, and of 33 other 
 ecclesiastics, to finish the case of Anthimus, 
 and to decide those of Severus of Antit>ch, 
 Peter of Apamea, and the Eutychian monk 
 Zoara. The request had been made to pope 
 Agapetus, who had died on .Vpr. 22, before the 
 council could be held. The result of the coun- 
 cil was that, Anthimus having been si night for 
 in vain, he was forbidden to resume his episco- 
 pate of Trapezus and deposed from his rank ; 
 the others were anathematized. .Mennas ob- 
 tained from Justinian the passing of a law, ; 
 dated Aug. 6, 536, confirming the Acts of this 1 
 
 MERLINUS 
 
 723 
 
 : council. He also sent them to I'ctcr of jcruu- 
 lem, who held a council to receive them. On 
 Sept. 13, s\o. p.pe ViKJlius wrote to Mrnna« 
 and to the emperor Justinian, by the h.iiulit 
 of Dominicus the paliui.iii. I In mdcav.iurctl 
 to carry on the influence which AK.tpetu« had 
 over the affairs of the church o( ConstAiitiiii.plc. 
 He confirmed the anatliemas pronouncetl by 
 Mennas against Sev.rus ..( .\iitioch, Ivtrr of 
 .\pamea, .■\nthiinus. .uid other schism.»tics 
 offering comnumicm again t.i all who should 
 come to a better mind. Menn.is dic<l on 
 Aug. 5, 552, just before the si-comi great 
 council of Const-intinojilc. called the fifth 
 ' general. It was in the midst of the anKry 
 discussions about the " Three Chapter*.'' 
 Mennas had signed the declaration of faith 
 \ addressed to pope Vigilius by Thc(Klorc of 
 Corsaria and others to satisfy his protests and 
 to preserve the peace of the church. 
 
 In the controversies which gave rise to the 
 Lateran council in 649. a Monothelite writing 
 was brought forward by Sergius patriarch of 
 Constantinople as a genuine work of Mennas, 
 supposed to be addresseil to pope Vigilius. 
 But in the third council of Constantinople, 
 I Nov. 10, 680, this document was prove<l to be 
 I the composition of the monk George, who 
 I confessed himself its author. 
 I Mansi, viii. 869, 870, 960, ix. 157, etc., x. 
 863, 971, 1003, xi. 226, etc. ; l.iberatus, Brev. 
 xxi. in Pair. Lat. Ixviii. 1039 (see also the dis- 
 . sertations at the end of that volume) ; Vigil. 
 Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. Ixix. 21, 25 ; Agapet. 
 t Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. xlviii. ; Evagr. iv. 36 in 
 Pair. Gk. Ixxxvi. pt. 2, 416, etc. ; Ceillier, xi. 
 121, 104. 9(^8, xii. 922, 947, 953- [W.M.S.] 
 Merlinus. The prophecies of Merlin, which 
 j had great influence in the middle ages, re- 
 presented the enduring hate of the Welsh for 
 j the English conquerors, and were probably 
 the comp<isition of Merddin, son of Slorvryn, 
 whose patron, (iwenddolew, a prince in Strath- 
 ' Clyde, and an ui)holder of the ancient faith, 
 i perished a.d. 577 at the battle of .\rderydd, 
 j fighting against Khydderch Hael, who had 
 I been converted by St. Columba to C hristianity. 
 When the northern Kymry were driven into 
 j Wales, Cornwall, and Urittany, they re- 
 localized the story of Merlin in their new 
 I abodes. Merddin is now rejiTrsented as a 
 Christian, and said to be buried in Hardsey, 
 the island of the Welsh saints; but much of 
 •his career is p.issed in Cornwall, whicli was 
 I long under tin- s.iiiie dynasty as South Wales, 
 even after tiie English got posst-ssioii of the 
 'coast at Bristol, and broke the connexion by 
 ; land between the two distrii ts. .Vs the mas* 
 of tradition grew into the shape in which wc 
 find it in Nennius, and later on in (icoflrcy. 
 Merlin becomes a wholly mythical character, 
 the prophet of his rac«-. It i* not till Geoflrcy 
 of M<Miinouth that we find the boy rallrti Mer- 
 lin and m.ide theconfulant of Ulherpcndragon 
 and of Arthur, and able to bring the stones of 
 Stonehi.nge from Ireland. .N'eiiiiius does not 
 mention Merlin among the early bards, and 
 tlie poems attributed to him were really com- 
 p(jsed in tlie 1 2th cent., when there was a great 
 outburst of Welsh poetry (Stepliens, Ltteraturt 
 of the Kymry, § 4). Among these poem* there 
 is a dialogue between .Merddin and hi* sister 
 Gwcnddydd ("The Dawn"), which contains 
 
724 
 
 MESROfi£S 
 
 prophecies as to a series of Welsh rulers. The 
 story of Merlin made an impression abroad as 
 well asin England. Layamon alludes to several 
 of his prophecies and they soon gained popular 
 fame. A Vita Merlini in Latin hexameters, 
 also attributed, though wrongly, to Geoffrey 
 of Monmouth, was printed by the Roxburghe 
 Club, 1830 ; the later English forms of the 
 story by the Early English Text Society. The 
 one fact embodied in the legend is the long- 
 continued enmity of the Kymry to the Enghsh 
 invaders ; but even this almost disappeared 
 when the story became part of the great 
 romance of Arthur. [c.w.b.] 
 
 Mesrobes, one of the most celebrated pa- 
 triarchs and historians of Armenia, born in 
 354 at the town of Hasecasus, now Mush 
 (Tozer's Turkish Armenia, p. 286) and edu- 
 cated under Nerses Magnus, the fourth 
 patriarch of Armenia from St. Gregory the 
 Illuminator, to whom also Mesrobes acted as 
 secretary, an office which he likewise filled in 
 the court of king Varaztad till dethroned by 
 the Romans a.d. 386 (Langlois, Fragm. Hist. 
 Grace, t. v. pt. ii. pp. 297-300). He then took 
 holy orders and sought a solitary life. He be- 
 came coadjutor to the patriarch Sahag in 390, 
 when he devoted himself to the extirpation of 
 the remains of idolatry still existing in Ar- 
 menia. Under him a great revival of Arme- 
 nian literature took place. From the intro- 
 duction of Christianity Syriac had become the 
 dominant language, a knowledge of it being 
 deemed a necessary qualification for holy 
 orders (cf. Agathang. Hist. Tiribat. ; Zenob. 
 Hist. Daron. in Langlois, I.e. pp. 179, 335, 
 Disc. Prelim, p. xiv. ; Goriun, Hist, de S. 
 Mesrop; Vartan, Hist. d'Armhiie, p. 51, 
 Venice, 1862). Mesrobes devoted himself to 
 revive the ancient Armenian culture, some 
 fragments of which can yet be traced in Moses 
 Chorenensis. He was an accomplished Greek, 
 Persian, and Syriac scholar, but wished to 
 revive a national literature. His first step 
 was to restore, if not to invent, an alphabet 
 for the Armenian tongue instead of depending 
 on the Syriac character. He induced the 
 patriarch Sahag, alias Isaac, to convoke a 
 national council at the city of Vagharschabad 
 to consider the question, at which the king 
 Vram-Schapouh assisted. Learning that a 
 Syrian bishop, one Daniel, possessed an 
 ancient Armenian alphabet, Mesrobes sent a 
 priest named Abel to him, who brought it 
 back. It is supposed to have consisted of 
 22 or 27 letters. With this as a basis and 
 with the help of various persons who pos- 
 sessed some traditionary knowledge of ancient 
 Armenian, as Plato chief librarian at Edessa 
 and two learned rhetoricians, Epiphanius and 
 Rufinus, he composed the alphabet which the 
 Armenians adopted in 406, the seven vowels 
 having been made known, it was said, by 
 direct revelation from heaven (cf. Langl. I.e. 
 Disc, prelim, p. xv. ; Moses Choren. Hist. 
 Armin. lib. iii. cc. 52, 53, and forminutedetails 
 of the whole question, Karekin, Hist, de la 
 litt. Armen. pp. 8 seq. Venice, 1865; Jour. 
 Asiat. 1867, t. I, p. 200). Mesrobes attracted 
 great niunbers to his schools and sent the 
 ablest pupils to study at Edessa, Athens, 
 Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and even 
 Rome, whence they brought back the most 
 
 METHODttJS 
 
 authentic copies of the Scriptures, the Fathers, 
 Acts of the councils, and the profane writers. 
 These young scholars endeavoured to adapt 
 the Armenian tongue to the rules of Greek 
 grammar, translating intoArmenian the gram- 
 mar of Dionysius the Thracian, an ed. of which 
 with a French trans, was pub. at Paris in 1830. 
 This Hellenizing movement among them in 
 cent. 5 was analogous to similar ones in cents. 
 6, 7, 8, among the Persians and Monophysites, 
 and in cent. 9 among the Arabs, movements 
 to which we owe the preservation of some of 
 the most precious monuments of antiquity, as 
 Tatian's long-lost Diatessaron, pub. at Venice 
 out of the Armenian in 1875, cf. Qtly. Rev. 
 Apr. 1881, art. on the "Speaker's Commentary 
 on N.T." (cf. Renan, Hist, des lang. semit. p. 
 297). Among the disciples of Mesrobes were 
 all the leading writers of Armenia, including 
 Leontius presb. and mart., Moses Taronensis, 
 Kioud of Arabeza, afterwards patriarch, Mam- 
 prus lector, Jonathan, Khatchig, Joseph of 
 Baghin, Eznig, Knith bp. of Terchan, Jere- 
 miah, Johannes of Egegheats, Moses Chorenen- 
 sis, Lazarus of Barb, Gorium biographer of 
 Mesrobes, EUsaeus (Langl. I.e. ; Neumann's 
 pref. to Hist, of Vartan in Public, of Orient. 
 Trans. Fund, London, 1830). The Armenian 
 church through their labours possessed a ver- 
 nacular edition of the Bible in 410. Mesrobes 
 also invented an alphabet for Georgia similar 
 to the Armenian but containing 28 letters. 
 Both alphabets had the letters arranged after 
 the Greek order. The Armenians attribute 
 to him the settlement of their liturgy. Sahag 
 died Sept. 9, 440, and was succeeded as bishop 
 by Mesrobes, until he died on Feb. 19, 441. 
 The Life of Mesrobes by Goriun, pub. by the 
 Mekhitarite Fathers at Venice in 1833, was 
 trans, into German and pub. by Dr. B. Welte 
 (Tiibingen, 1841). See Moses Choren. Hist. 
 Armen. lib. iii. cc. xlvii. lii.-liv. Ivii. Iviii. Ix. 
 Ixi. Ixvi. Ixvii. for copious details of his life, 
 and an art. by Petermann s.r. in Herzog's Real 
 Encyklop. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Methodius (called also Et(bulius), com- 
 memorated June 20 (Basil, Menol.) and Sept. 
 18 {Mart. Rom.), a Lycian bp. highly distin- 
 guished as a writer, bp. first of Olympus, after- 
 wards of Patara, early in 4th cent. Jerome 
 {Cat. 83), Socrates (vi. 13), and Maximus {in 
 Sckol. Dionys. Areop. 7) state that he was bp. 
 of Olympus. Leontius of Byzantium calls 
 him bp. of Patara, and he is thus known to all 
 later Greek authorities. Jerome's unsupported 
 statement that he was translated to Tyre was 
 probably due to a transcriber's error for Patara 
 in the authority which Jerome followed. 
 
 Jerome states that " he was crowned with 
 mart>T:dom at the end of the last [i.e. Dio- 
 cletian's] persecution ; or as some affirm 
 under Decius and Valerian, at Chalcis in 
 Greece." The earlier date is inconsistent, 
 with the facts that Methodius wrote against 
 Porphyry and that Eusebius speaks of him as 
 a contemporary {ap. Hieron. Apol. adv. Rufin. 
 I. vol. ii.). The mart>Tdom of a Lycian 
 or Phoenician bp. at a place so remote as 
 Euboea must also be pronounced incredible. 
 The places were not then even under the same 
 ruler, Greece being under Licinius and the 
 I Eastern provinces under Maximin. Accord- 
 I ingly Sophronius, the Greek translator of St. 
 
METHODIUS 
 
 Jerome, substitutes for Chalcis " in (.irccce." 
 "in the East," wtu'ucr s.>ine nuKleru critics 
 have concluded that Methodius sufTered at 
 Chalcis in S>Tia. But no weight can (airlv be 
 attached to this correction of Sophronius ; 
 and it is more probable that a MethiKlius 
 whose name tradition had preser\ed as a 
 martyr at Chalcis under Oecius was wrongly 
 identitied with the better -known l.vcian 
 Mshop. The evidence that the latter was a 
 inartvr at all is weak, and the silence of Kuse- 
 bius is a difficulty ; but Thcodoret calls him 
 bishop and martyr, as do the late Creek 
 writers, while the Menaea make the mode 
 of death decapitation. 
 
 Methodius wrote much, and his works were 
 widely read and his^hly valued. Jerome 
 several times refers to him : Epiphanius calls 
 him d»7jo \6yios Kai ^(podiii irepi rij^ (i\rj$(iat 
 ayu}¥i(Tiixfvo$ ; Gregory Nyssen or .\nastasius 
 Sinaita (for the authorship is disputed), 6 
 jroXi^s iv ffo't>i<f. ; Andrew of Caesarea, 6 ^l^as ; 
 Eustathius of Antioch, 6 rrjt dyiat Siiot fLyrifi-qs, 
 and he is quoted by Thcodoret, besides many 
 later writers. Photius has preserved copious 
 extracts {Codd. 234-237) ; other shorter ex- 
 tracts are to be found in Catenae, and others 
 are given in the Xitrian MSS. (see Wright, 
 Cal. .\[SS. Syr. in Brit. Mus.). The works of 
 which we ha%e knowledge are : 
 
 (i) The only one extant entire is the Sy»»- 
 posium, or Banquet of the Ten Virgins. It 
 reveals Methodius as an ardent admirer of 
 Plato, from whom he probably derived his 
 preference for dialogue form. In the present 
 case he has not only imitated him in several 
 passages, but has taken from him the whole 
 idea of his work. As in Plato's Symposium 
 the praises of Love arc celebrated, so here are 
 proclaimed the glories of Virginity. The 
 imitation of the form of Plato's work is even 
 kept up in not presenting the dialogue directly, 
 but as reported by one present at it. Eubu- 
 lius, or Eubuliufn, receives from a virgin 
 Gregorion an account of a banquet in the 
 gardens of Arete, not under Plato's plane-tree, 
 but under an agnus-castus. in which ten virgin 
 guests, at their hostess's command, pronounce 
 ten successive discourses in praise of chastity. 
 At the end of the banquet the victor Thecla 
 leads off a hymn, to which the rest standing 
 round as a chorus respond. But Methodius 
 has caught very little of Platcj's stvle or spirit. 
 He has little dramatic power, and there is often 
 little to distinguish one speaker from another. 
 Of his general soundness on (jur Lord's Divin- 
 ity there can be no doubt ; and we have not 
 found anything in the writings ascribed to him 
 which an orthodox man might not have writ- 
 ten, especially before the Arian disputes had 
 made caution of language necessary. Else- 
 where {Cod. 162) Photius mentions Methodius 
 with Athanasius and other great names as one 
 from whose writings Andrew had produced 
 extracts garbled and falsified S'j as to teach 
 heresy. 
 
 (2) In the Catalogue of Jerome he gives the 
 first place to the writings of .Methi>dius against 
 Porphyry. He elsewhere refers to them (in 
 Comm. in Dan. Pref. c. 13. vol. v. pp. 618, 730 ; 
 Apol. ad Pammach. vol. i. ; Ep. 70 ad Mag- 
 num, i. 42s), stating in Ep. 70 that they ran 
 to 10,000 lines. Philostorgius (viii. 14) rates 
 
 METHODIUS 
 
 72» 
 
 the replv of Ap..!liii.irius t.. Porphvrv 4» !« 
 superior to ritlirr th.it In Kuvbiun or by 
 MethodiiK. .\11 thrrr rrplir* h.»vr i^rUhrd. 
 
 (3) On the Kf\urrfclt'>n. This w.irk h«« 
 been lost, but l.ir«e rxtr.irt* h.ivr Ih^h pre- 
 serve<l bv Kpiph.iniu<«. Harr. f.4, .uid by 
 Photius. Cod. 234. *r* .ilv. joh.in. I)4masc 
 de ImaR. Oral. z. The text 4s Kivrn bv Com- 
 bcfis and reprintci by Mignr sui.prr%w-% (he 
 heretical portions o| the EpiphaniAii rxtrart*. 
 This work also is in the form ..f .» PUtonic 
 dialogue, and is in refut.ili<<n of Origen. The 
 Origenist speakers denv the m.iteri.iljiy „( thr 
 resurrecti<m b'xlv. and urge th.it it is rn'Uigh 
 if we believe that the s.une form shall riw 
 again, beautified and Rlorified. In hpavm 
 our bodies will be spiritu.il ; and *•> St. Paul 
 teaches: " It is sown a natur.tl h kIv ; it is 
 raised a spiritu.il b >dv " ; " FIrsh .in-1 blo.«| 
 shall not inherit the kingdom of (,.hI." Man 
 had been originallv in Paradise, that is, in the 
 third he<iven (II. Cor. xii.). having thrr(> none 
 but a spiritual body ; having sinned he wa» 
 cast down to earth, where dxl made him 
 " coats of skins," that is to sav, (or .1 punish- 
 ment clad him in our present gn^ss material 
 bodies, which clog and fetter the soul and out 
 of which spring our temptati^ins to sin ; for 
 without the body the soul cannot sin. When 
 we rise therefore to dwell where sin cannot 
 be, we shall be like the angels, liberated from 
 the flesh which has burdened us here. In 
 reply, Meth'xlius acutely points out the in- 
 consistence of teaching that the soul cannot 
 
 I sin without the body, and at the s.ime time 
 that the body had been impose*! on the soul 
 j as a punishment for sins previously rom- 
 I mitted ; and in truth the body is an instru- 
 ment for good as well as for evil. Paradise and 
 the third heaven are not identifie<l (II. Cor. 
 xii.) ; two distinct revelations are spoken of. 
 It is said that we shall hereafter be as the 
 angels, that is, like them, not subject to 
 change or decay ; but not that wc shall be 
 angels or without earthlv b'xlies. (lod doe* 
 not make mistakes ; if He had meant us to 
 be angels He would have made us so at first. 
 His creatures are diverse : besides angels, 
 there are thrones, principalities, and powers. 
 By death He docs not design to turn us into 
 something different in kind from what He at 
 first meant us to be ; but only as an artificer, 
 when a w.)rk of his is polluted with stains 
 which cannot otherwise be ren»ove<l, melt* it 
 down, and makes it anew ; so by death wc 
 shall be remade free from the pollution of tin. 
 Similarly the world will n>>t be destroyed, but 
 made into a new and purer earth, fit for the 
 risen saints. 
 
 (4) De Pylhonissa. — Jerome tells us that thl» 
 work, now lost, was directe«l .iKJin^t Origen. 
 We may presume, therefore, that it* s<-..j>* 
 was. the same as that bearing the same title bv 
 Eustathius of Anti<Mh, vi/. t"> refute the 
 opinion held by Origrn after Justin Martyr 
 that the soul of Samuel was under the power 
 of Satan, and was evoked bv the magical art 
 of the witch of Endor. Meth-nlius's view, 
 however, could not have been the *aine at 
 that of Kustathiu*, for a passage at the clov" 
 of Photius's extract* fnuii the treatl»r on the 
 Resurrection implies a belief that the appear- 
 ance of Samuel was real. 
 
726 
 
 MILTIADES 
 
 (5) Xeno. — Socrates (vi. 13), expressing his 
 indignation against the reviling of Origen by 
 worthless writers who sought to get into 
 notice by defaming their betters, names 
 Methodius as the earliest of Origen's assail- 
 ants ; adding that he had afterwards by wa}' 
 of retractation expressed admiration of him 
 in a dialogue entitled Xeno. We believe the 
 dialogue referred to by Socrates to be iden- j 
 tical with (6). There is nothing in Metho- ! 
 dius's confutations of Origen inconsistent j 
 with his haxdng felt warm admiration for the 
 man ; and he has certainly followed him in 
 his allegorical method of iiiterpretation. 
 
 (6) Uepl tQv yevrjTil'v. — This work " on I 
 things created " is only known by extracts 1 
 preserved by Photius {Cod. 235). It is a | 
 refutation of Origenist doctrine as to the 
 eternity of the world, the principal arguments 1 
 with which Methodius deals being that we 
 cannot piously believe that there ever was a 
 time when there was no Creator, no Almighty 
 Ruler, and that there cannot be a Creator 
 without things created by Him, a Ruler with- 
 out things ruled over, a wavTOKparup without 
 Kparoifxiva. Further, that it is inconsistent 
 with the unchangeableness of God to suppose 
 that, after having passed ages without making 
 anything. He suddenly took to creating. The 
 orthodox speaker deals with his opponent by 
 the Socratic method of question and answer. 
 Photius's extracts begin with a discussion of 
 the text, " Cast not your pearls before swine " ; 
 and we have near the commencement the I 
 phrase, /xapyapiras rod ^evdvos. It is hard 
 to get good sense by translating " pearls of 
 the guest-chamber " ; and with the knowledge 
 we have that one of Methodius's dialogues 
 was called Xeno, we are disposed to think that 
 Xeno was one of the speakers in this dialogue, j 
 and that we are to translate " Xeno's pearls," j 
 i.e. pearls which Xeno presumably had men- 1 
 tioned, or else that the words tov zlevQvos \ 
 have got transposed and ought to be prefixed i 
 to the extract, the whole being taken from a 
 speech by this interlocutor. Photius savs 
 that Methodius calls Origen a centaur, and 
 interpreters have puzzled as to what he could 
 have meant. In the extracts preserved the 
 orthodox speaker addresses his Origenist inter- 
 locutor as 0) KfVrai'pf without the slightest air 
 of uttering a sarcasm, so that we should be 
 disposed to think that the name of the Origen- 
 ist speaker in this dialogue was Centaurus. 
 
 (7) On Free Will.— [Maxjmvs (24)]. 
 
 For the works of Methodius see Migne, vol. 
 xviii. ; Eng. trans, in Schaff's Ante-Nicene^ 
 Fathers; Jahn ; S. Methodii opera, and S. 
 Method. Platonizans, Halis. Sax. 1865. [g.s.] 
 
 Miltiades (1), an active Christian writer of 
 the 2nd cent. Eusebius tells us (H. E. v. 17) 
 that, besides leaving other records of his dili- 
 gent stud}' of the divine oracles, he composed 
 a treatise " against the Greeks," another 
 "against the Jews," and an "Apology" 
 addressed to the rulers of this world on behalf 
 of the school of philosophy to which he be- 
 longed. It is a natural inference from the 
 plural " rulers " that there were, when Mil- 
 tiades wrote, two emperors, probably Aurehus 
 and Verus. The Apology may be supposed to 
 have been a learned plea for toleration of 
 Christianity, the purity of whose doctrines may 
 
 MILTIADES 
 
 have been favourably contrasted with the 
 teaching of heathen philosophy. It is not 
 extant, but seems to have had at the time a 
 high repute. The ^vTiter of the " Little Laby- 
 rinth " (Eus. V. 28) names Miltiades in com- 
 pany with Justin, Tatian, and Clement among 
 the writers in defence of the truth or against 
 contemporary heretics who, before Victor's 
 episcopate, had distinctly asserted the 
 divinity of Christ. TertulUan (adi'. Valentin. 
 5) names him with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus 
 as a writer against heresy, giving him the 
 appellation, e\adently intended in an honour- 
 able sense, " Sophista Ecclesiarum." St. 
 Jerome twice mentions him (Catal. 39 ; Ep. 
 ad Magnum, vol. i. p. 427), but gives no clear 
 indication that he knew more of him than he 
 had learned from Eusebius. 
 
 Great obscurity hangs over his relation to 
 Montanism, owing to a strange confusion, 
 either on the part of Eusebius or of his 
 copyists, between the names Miltiades and 
 Alcibiades. In H. E. v. 2 Eusebius tells a 
 story about one of the Lyons confessors named 
 Alcibiades, and, going on to speak about 
 Montanism, mentions an Alcibiades as among 
 its leaders. After the death of Montanus, 
 his sect seems to have been known in Phrygia 
 by the name of its leader for the time being ; 
 and in an anti-Montanist document preserved 
 by Eusebius, v. 16, the sect is called the party 
 of Miltiades. This is the reading of all the 
 MSS. ; yet having regard to the earher passage, 
 editors are disposed here to substitute Alci- 
 biades for Miltiades. If we are not permitted 
 to think that there might have been Mon- 
 tanists of both names, it would seem more 
 natural to make the opposite correction. In 
 c. 16 there was nothing to lead copyists 
 astray ; in c. 2 Eusebius, having named an 
 Alcibiades just before, might easily by a slip 
 of the pen have repeated the same name. 
 This view is strengthened by the fact that at 
 the close of the Muratorian fragment, a name 
 transcribed as " Mitiades " occurs as that of 
 one the ecclesiastical use of whose ^\Titings 
 was totally rejected by the church. This 
 would be explained by the supposition that a 
 Miltiades had written records of Montanist 
 prophes\-ings or some other document, which 
 that sect had regarded as inspired and ad- 
 mitted to church use. But the case is com- 
 phcated further in c. 17 of Eusebius. He 
 begins by saying that the anti-Montanist docu- 
 ment mentioned Miltiades as having written 
 against Montanus ; and then, having given 
 extracts from the document, goes on to give 
 the account we have already used of the other 
 works of Miltiades. But the extract, accord- 
 ing to the reading of all the MSS., names not 
 Miltiades but Alcibiades as the author of an 
 anti-Montanist treatise, "that a prophet ought 
 not to speak in ecstasy." Here editors are 
 compelled to correct the Alcibiades of the ex- 
 tract into Miltiades to make Eusebius con- 
 sistent ; vet this leaves it unexplained why 
 transcribers should go so strangely wrong. 
 Cf. Otto, Corpus Apol. ix. 364. [G.S.] 
 
 Miltiades (2) (Mekhiades), bp. of Rome 
 after Eusebius, from July 2, 310, to Jan. 10 
 or II, 314, the see having been vacant for 10 
 months and 14 days. The long vacancy is 
 accounted for by the circumstances of his 
 
MILTIADES 
 
 predecessor's death in exile and the divided I 
 state of the Roman churcii at the tiiu.-. ' 
 
 The pontificate of Miltiades was marked by 
 the accession, and S'>-calleil conversion, o( Con- 
 stantine the fireat, and the definite termina- 
 tion of Dicx-letian's persecution. T<i Miltiades , 
 the possessions of the Christians at Rome, 
 including the cemeteries, were at length re- 
 stored by Maxentius : " Melchiades was re- 
 corded to have sent deacons with letters from 
 the emperor Maxentius and from thi> pref»H-t 
 of the Praetorium to the prefect of the city, 
 that they might recover possession of what 
 had been taken away in the time of persecu- 
 tion, and which the aforesaid emperor had 
 ordered to be restored" (Augustine. Brevic. 
 CoUal. cum Douat. ; die iii. c. ^.j). Constan- 
 tine, after the defeat and death of Maxentius 
 (Oct. 28, 312), promulgated at Milan in 313 
 with Licinius the full edict of t<ileration 
 known as " the Edict of Milan," which Licin- 
 ius proclaimed in June 313 at Nicomedia in 
 the East. All these important events were 
 during the episcopate of Miltiades, who would 
 be a personal witness of Constantinc's entry 
 into Rome after the battle of the Milvian 
 bridge, with the labarum bonie ali>ft. and the 
 monogram of Christ marked upon the shields 
 of his soldiers. But the pope's name does 
 not become prominent until the complica- 
 tions which soon arose in connexion with the 
 African Donatists. Constantine, according to 
 Optatus, was greatly annoyed at being called 
 upon to settle disputes among the clergy, but 
 he complied with the request, nominating 
 three Gallic bishops whom he commanded to 
 go speedily to Rome to adjudge the matter 
 in conjunction with Miltiades. He wrote a 
 letter preserved by Eusebius, addressed to 
 Miltiades and an unknown Marcus. There is 
 no evidence, in this or other acts of Constan- 
 tine, that he regarded the bp. of Rome as the 
 sole or necessary judge of ecclesiastical causes 
 on appeal. He was, indeed, careful to refer 
 spiritual cases to the spirituality, and he 
 naturally and properlv referred the chief 
 cognizance of a case arising in \V. .\frica to the 
 Roman see, though not to the pope singly, 
 but to him assisted bv assessors whom he 
 named himself. The three bishops of Gaul 
 are named in the letter as colleagues of Md- 
 tiades and Marcus, and it appears from Opta- 
 tus that 15 Italian bishops were added to the 
 conclave, summoned, we may suppose, by 
 Miltiades himself, so that he might hear the 
 case canonicallv in synod with the assistance 
 of the Gallic assesstirs. The decisions of the 
 conclave were dulv transmitted to Constan- 
 tine, whom they fully satisfied {F.p. Con- 
 stant, ad vicar. Africae ; ejusd. ad Episc. 
 Syrac.—Labhp, i. p. i445 ; Kus. H. E. x. 5). 
 Moved, however, by the continued complamts 
 of Donatus and his party, he summonetl the 
 general svnod of Aries (a.'d. 314) with a view to 
 a final settlement. In these further proceed- 
 ings the bp. of Rome does not appe.ar to have 
 been consulted by the emperor, or regardetl 
 as possessing anv position of supremacy. 
 Constantine, professing great reverence for 
 the episcopate in general, and recgnumg 
 the right of the rlcrgv to settle ras/«; ptirelv 
 ecclesiastical, himself set in motion and 
 regulated ecclesiastical proceedings, delegated 
 
 MINUCIUS PBLIX. MARCUS 737 
 
 their .idininislr.iti 11 !> mi< h r. . |^%| ctir^ %% 
 ho chose, and cert v '• > - • ' - 
 
 deference to the ! 
 find anv protest 
 of his dav .uMiiix; 
 
 The f.»ct I' 
 met in the I 
 empress F.ui ■ 
 
 J12) as provinj; til.- tr.i liti. a itu.- t!,.il t .a- 
 stantinc had nt.ide ovrr that paUrr to ih« 
 pope as a residcnrr. Hut it i> not known wUh 
 my certaintv when the p..i>r» rame into \^rt- 
 manent possessi.m ..( the I.itrr.tn. 
 
 Milti.ides was, in the time ,,» St. AuRiiMjn«. 
 
 accus«'d bv .VfriiMn Done ■ • ' - 
 
 one of the prrsbvtrrs of 
 with him given up tic 
 
 oflerjHl incense umler t , ; 
 
 Diocletian. Augustine triui<. it><> wh.>l« 
 ch.irge .as unsupported bv dfwumentary 
 eviilencc, and pnb.dily a raiumnv ; and we 
 find no mention of anv »uch charge axain«t 
 Miltiades during his life, when the partv o( 
 Donatus was likely to have m-i'l" i vtr ng 
 point of it h.ad it been know 
 Further, in the onfercrue witli t 
 held A.D. 411 by order of the • 
 onus the charge was alleged, but .n , i . i 
 it broke down (.Vugustine. u.?.). 
 
 Miltiades w.is burie<l, as his predecessor* 
 since Pontianus till the cominen. . mmt ..( 
 persecution hail been, in the r- • 
 Callistus on the .\ppian Way. 1 
 had deposited the remain^ "f : 
 predecessi>r Etisebius (/'< ! -.^cr .]. 
 
 Vet neither of these tw. iiiig to 
 
 [ early recensions of the 1 m the 
 
 old papal cr>-pt of that rr-M.i.i.. imt each 
 ' in a separate cuhiculum apart fr. an it. Do 
 j Rossi supposes the approarhi* t.. the ..Id 
 I cry-pt to have been block' ■ ' •' ( hn*- 
 
 tians to save it from pi I tho 
 
 i state in which the pass.i. '. have 
 
 been found confirms tin , , i He 
 
 has identified positively the cubuulum o| 
 
 Eusebius, but that of .Milti.vles onlv con- 
 
 jecturallv (sec Northote and Br.>wnlow. 
 ; Rom. Sotter. p. nf^. .Milti.ides was the last 
 ! pope buried in this cemetery. [ib — v.J 
 
 MInUCiUS Felix, HarOOI, one of the earliest 
 j and most pleasing of the Latin Chri*ti4n 
 I apologists. His pers.mal hist..rv r.\n ..nlv be 
 
 g.athered from his own I..M.k. The r.irlinkt 
 
 writer to mention •i-- ' .1.1 ...ti,., 
 
 (iMtitut. V. I), wh 
 
 " non ignobilis 1:. 
 
 Lactantius mav !>. ' 
 
 inferencx" fr.>m the mir kIu. ti-u t the h > -k 
 
 its«-lf, where Minucius tell* h..w he hud takm 
 
 .advantage of thee. )urt h.'li<lav\ t !• «•■ K ;:<- 
 
 for Ostia, "ad vindimram fm > 
 
 curam rrhaxaverant." St. I 
 
 times mentions Minucius 'f-'f" /' 
 
 vol. i. p. 221 ; Et> 7" ' ■ 
 : p. 427 ; dt I'ir. llUsl. ■ 
 
 and describe hi"> -•* 
 
 Rom.inif. ri • ' 
 
 drew this ■'■ 
 
 he (iu.>tes. 
 
 the date . i : 
 
 frrome assiiju-. hiiu lik liu lut 1 i! 
 
 men; but there Is n.. cvtdrnre that ! 
 
 really knew more than we know our^ .- 
 
728 MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS 
 
 Still more may the same be said of Eucherius, 
 who speaks of Minucius (Ep. ad Valer. in 
 Pair. Lat. 1. 719). The gens Minucia was 
 widely spread at Rome, and an inscription 
 (Gruter, p. 918) shows among its famihes one 
 with the cognomen Felix. 
 
 The only extant work of Minucius is a 
 dialogue entitled " Octavius," modelled on 
 the philosophical works of Cicero, whose 
 writings, particularly de Natura Deorum and 
 de Divinatione, Minucius has carefully studied. 
 Minucius recalls a conversation of his lately 
 deceased friend Octavius which resulted in 
 the conversion to Christianity of their common 
 friend Caecilius. He tells how Octavius had 
 come to Rome, and gives a charming descrip- 
 tion of the morning walk on the beach taken 
 by the three friends after they had gone from 
 Rome to Ostia, until at last they sat down for 
 rest and serious discussion on large stones 
 placed for protection of the baths. At the 
 beginning of the walk the heathen Caecilius, 
 as they were passing an image of Serapis, had 
 saluted it, as was customary, by kissing hands, 
 whereupon Octavius charged Minucius with 
 culpable negligence in having allowed his 
 friend to continue in such degrading super- 
 stition. Caecilius challenges Octavius to a 
 formal dispute. The little treatise then 
 divides itself into two parts, containing first 
 a lively attack by Caecilius on the Christian 
 doctrines and practices, then a reply, about 
 twice as long, by Octavius, refuting and re- 
 torting the heathen arguments. Each point of 
 the attack is dealt with in order. Caecilius 
 confesses himself vanquished, gladly ranging 
 himself on the conquering side. 
 
 The following is an abstract of the argu- 
 ments used by Caecilius on the heathen side. 
 He censures the presumption of the Christians, 
 who, though unlettered men, venture to pro- 
 nounce positively on questions about which 
 the greatest philosophers have doubted ; he 
 denies that there is any good ground for be- 
 lieving in the existence of a God, since the j 
 chance concourse of atoms will sufficiently 
 account for the origin of the world, while the 
 prosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes 
 of the good shew that the world is governed j 
 by no Providence. Then shifting his ground, 1 
 he urges the duty of worshipping the gods 
 whom their ancestors had worshipped, and the ! 
 folly of rejecting what universal experience I 
 and the consent of all nations had found to be 
 salutary. Each nation had its pecuUar god : | 
 the Romans, the most religious of all, wor- 
 shipped gods of all nations, and so had attained 
 the highest prosperity. The power of their 
 deities had been exhibited in many oracles 
 and prodigies ; only one or two philosophers 
 had ventured to deny their agency, and one 
 of these, Protagoras, had in consequence been 
 banished by the Athenians. Was it not then 
 deplorable that the gods should be assailed by 
 men of the dregs of the people, who, collect- 
 ing credulous women and silly men, banded 
 them in a fearful conspiracy, cemented by 
 secret and detestable rites ? Tales are re- 
 peated, for some of which the authority of 
 Fronto is cited, of the initiation of Christian 
 neophytes by partaking of the blood of a j 
 slaughtered infant, and other customary ! 
 charges. If these things were not true, at : 
 
 MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS 
 
 least the obscurity in which they shrouded 
 their rites shewed that they were such as they 
 had cause to be ashamed of. These members 
 of an illegal society dreaded to bring their 
 doctrines into the light of day ; they had no 
 altars, no temples, no images, and were not 
 even in their manner of worship like the Jews, 
 j the only people besides themselves who wor- 
 shipped that wretched lonely God Who had 
 not been able to save His own people from 
 captivity ; yet wished to meddle with every- 
 thing and pry into every thought and every 
 action. Nor was this the only absurdity of 
 Christian doctrine. They threatened destruc- 
 tion to the world, which always had lasted 
 and was bound together by fixed laws, and 
 said that one day it would be burnt up. Yet 
 for themselves, who were not eternal like the 
 world, but were seen to be born and die, they 
 dared to hope for immortality, and expect 
 that their dust and ashes would live again. In 
 the prospect of this imaginary life they gave 
 up all enjoyment of their real present life, 
 trusting in a God Whose impotence was ex- 
 hibited in their daily sufferings from which 
 He was unable to save His worshippers. In 
 fine, if the Christians had any modesty, let 
 them give up philosophy, of which their want 
 of education had made them incapable ; or 
 if they must philosophize, let them follow 
 that greatest of philosophers, Socrates, whose 
 maxim was, " What is above us we have 
 nothing to do with," otherwise the result will 
 be either the destruction of all religion or the 
 adoption of anile superstition. 
 
 Octavius replies that a hearing shall not be 
 refused to the arguments of Christians because 
 of their low worldly condition. Reason is the 
 common property of all men. It is the rich 
 who, intent on their wealth, are too often un- 
 able to lift their eyes to things divine. Some 
 of those afterwards recognized as the greatest 
 philosophers were at first despised as poor 
 and plebeian. He then establishes, by the 
 ordinary arguments from the order of the 
 universe, the existence and providence and 
 unity of God, confirming his conclusions by 
 the authority of various philosophers, whose 
 opinions respecting the Deity he extracts 
 from Cicero's treatise. In proof how natural 
 is the belief in God's unity, he appeals to the 
 common use of the singular Deus, both in 
 common speech and in the writings of the 
 poets. He shews that the gods whom the 
 heathen worshipped were but deified men, 
 and exposes the absurdity of the fables com- 
 monly told of them, the folly of image-wor- 
 ship, and the cruelty and licentiousness of the 
 rites by which the gods were honoured. He 
 shews that it is false that the Romans owed 
 their prosperity to their religion, since it was 
 by a multitude of irreligious acts that their 
 empire grew, and because their original native 
 gods, to whom, if to any, must be ascribed the 
 origin of their greatness, had been deposed 
 from their position by the adoption of gods of 
 the conquered peoples. He traces the source 
 of all idolatry to the operation of the demons 
 who, having lost their first estate, desired to 
 draw others into the same ruin as themselves, 
 who inspired oracles, wrought fictitious cures 
 and other pretended miracles to deceive men, 
 and were also the inventors and instigators of 
 
MINUCIUS FELIX. MARCUS 
 
 the caluiuiiics again>i Cliii>u.iiiiiv. All lhi>. 
 was attested by their >'\vii coiifessimi when 
 exorcised by Christians. Turning to the 
 charges made against the Cliristians. Octavius 
 not only denies and rof\ites them, but retorts 
 them on the heathen, who had been the more 
 ready to believe that others had been Kuiltv 
 of them because they hatl done the like thenj- 
 selves. If the Christians liad not temples, or 
 images, or altars, it was becavjsc they would 
 not degrade the majesty of the infinite' tiod by 
 limiting Him to a nairow place. Man him- 
 self was God's best image, a holv life the best 
 sacrifice that could be offeretl Him. tiod is 
 invisible, but so is the wind whose effects we , 
 witness ; so is our own soul ; the sun itself, 
 the source of all light, we cannot look at. As 
 for the Christian doctrines which Caecilius had 
 represented as absurd and im redible, different . 
 heathen philosophers had taught a future 
 destruction of the world by fire or otherwise ; 
 some of them had taught a transmigration of 
 souls, a doctrine quite as dillicult as that of 
 the resurrection of the body and less natural. 
 The doctrine of a future life is recommended i 
 by countless analogies of nature ; and though i 
 men whose lives are bad dislike to believe in ; 
 future retribution, and prefer to think that I 
 death ends all, yet the current popular belief 
 in P\Tiphlegethon and Styx, a belief derived 
 from information given by demons and from 
 the Jewish prophets, shews how deep-seated is 
 the conviction that the time will come when it ' 
 shall not be well with the wicked. Nor is it 
 to be thought that (iod deals ill with His i 
 worshippers because He docs not give them a ; 
 larger share of prosperity in this life : the 
 Christians do not covet earthly riches ; they 
 look on trials as their discipline, persecutions 
 as their warfare, in which they are not deserted [ 
 by their God, but combat under His eye. The ; 
 Romans honour with their praises such 
 sufierers as Mucius Scaevola and Regulus, | 
 yet the heroism of these men has been re- 
 peatedly surpassed by that of Christian women 
 and children. Lastly, we need not be dis- | 
 turbed by the failure of sceptical philosophers i 
 to arrive at any certain knowledge of truth. 
 These men's lives gave the lie to their pro- 
 fessions of wisdom ; we, whose excellence is in ^ 
 life and not merely in word, may boast that 
 we have succeeded in finding what they | 
 sought in vain, and have only cause for grati- ' 
 tude that a revelation was reserved for our 
 hands which was denied to them. 
 
 It will be seen how meagre Minucius is in i 
 his exposition of Christian doctrine, thus | 
 differing from all the other apologists. The 
 doctrines of the unity of God, the resurrection 
 of the body, and future retribution make up ' 
 nearly the whole of the system of Christian 
 doctrine which he sets forth. The doctrine 
 of the Logos, so prominent in the ap^ilogies of 
 Justin, .Athenagoras, andTertullian, is absent ; 
 our Lord's name is not mentioned, and though 
 from the manner in which Octavius repels the 
 charge that the Christians worshipped a man 
 who had been punished for his crimes, it may 
 reasonably be inferred that he believed our 
 Lord to be more than man, yet this is not 
 plainly stated. Minucius clearly shews that 
 the topics he omits are excluded, not from 
 disbelief in, or ignorance of, them, but from a 
 
 MINUCIUS FELIX. MARCUS 720 
 
 designed luiillati.ii ..( th-- ..bj.ds ..f hi* work, 
 because at the end, when (..ic<iliu<i ban de- 
 clared himself satisfied on the main qurstion* 
 of the existence of (;<hI and of I'rovtdrnrr and 
 of the general truth of the C hristian r<-liK'ion. 
 he asks for .uiother lonvi-rH.Hi ai, ri.-t br< .m**' 
 of remaining do\ibts. but br< .iu<ir he dr<tirr> 
 to be taught other thniKs siill n<-<-r%v»rv to 
 perfect instruction. It r.mnot \»- .u i i<lrm th.it 
 Minticius does not imitate the iiilire utuf-vrvr 
 with which J ustin speaks of (. hristian dortrinr% 
 and Christian rites. The work o( Minuriu% 
 was doubtless intended maiidy to influrnrc 
 intelligent heathen ; and wr must infer lh.il 
 in the West at least the feelin« prevailr<l wUni 
 Minucius wrote which inadi- C hristiau'i Ir.ir (<■ 
 cast their pearls before swim-. Our striking 
 difference between Mintu ins ami | ustin ii thr 
 former's comi)lete omission ,if the arKUinent 
 from prophecy, yet the inspiration of ihn 
 Jewish |>rophets is incident.illv recignifrd 
 (c. ^f,). Minucius never mentions the writings 
 of either (). or N. T., and has scarcely aiiv 
 coincidence of language with them. There is 
 (c. 29) an echo of Jer. xvii. 5. and perhaps 
 (c. 3.0 of I. Cor. XV. 36, 42. 
 
 His date is generally agreed to have l»rrii 
 before 230, somewhere .ibout which time 
 C\iirian published his df Idnlnnim \'auttaU, 
 in which large use is made of Minucius. A 
 nearer limit depends on settling the relation uf 
 Minucius to Tertullian. His dialogue and the 
 apology of Tertullian have in c.ominon so 
 many argmnents, sometimes in nearlv the 
 same words, that one of the two undoiibte<llv 
 used the work of the other, but as to which 
 was the follower critics have held opposite 
 opinions. The difficulty is mainly cause<l by 
 the excellent use both writers have made of 
 their materials, whcncesocver obtained, and 
 the thoroughness with which they have incor- 
 porated them. We have already shewn the 
 perfect workmanship of the dialogue of Minu- 
 cius. Tertullian's.4/>o/o<,'y is ecjually excellent, 
 though its plan is entirelv dilTerent. It is an 
 advocate's speech, written for i>resentation to 
 heathen magistrates to convince them that 
 Christians did not deserve persecution. It is 
 more loosely constructed, anil evidently more 
 hastily written, than that of .Minucius. but 
 bears a strong stamp of originality. .Manv 
 points briefly touched on in Minucius arc 
 expanded in Tertullian, so that either .Minucius 
 has abridged Tertullian or Tertullian has u»rd 
 and developed the suggestions of Minucius. 
 This has furnished the best argument (or the 
 priority of Tertullian. Tertullian. it has l>orn 
 said, is one of the most origin.il of writers, 
 Minucius quite the reverv. Wc have already 
 mentioned his obligati.)ns to Cicep> ; hi» work 
 is also larKely indebtetl to S«-nr«:a. besides 
 containing traces of Juvenal ami other writers. 
 Is it not, thi-n. most natural t-. b-ii. v. Hi -i ■» 
 he has drawn his arguments (< r ' 
 Cicero, he has taken his defencr 
 from Tertullian? In the r.i; i 
 
 there are considerable diflenu la ui to 
 arrangement and form of expression. If 
 Tertullian were the original, Minucius would 
 have a change of arraugcment (orre<| nn him 
 by the plan of his work, while the changes in 
 form of expression either improve the I^linity 
 01 make the sentence more poiiittnl ; whereas 
 
730 
 
 MIRO 
 
 if Minucius were the original, Tertullian's 
 changes can hardly have any other object than 
 to disguise his obligation. Notwithstanding, 
 a very careful comparison of the common 
 matter led Ebert {K. Sachs. Ges. der Wissen- 
 schaften ; philol.-histor. Classe, Bd. v.) to 
 consider Minucius the original, and Ebert's 
 ability in arguing the case obtained for a time 
 general acceptance of his opinion. But re- 
 cently new evidence has been obtained. The 
 dialogue would seem to describe Minucius as a 
 native of Cirta and fellow- townsman of Pronto, 
 of whom he speaks as " Cirtensis noster," 
 while Octavius refers to him as " Pronto 
 tuus." Now at Cirta (Constantine in Algeria) 
 the French have found six inscriptions con- 
 taining the name of Caecilius Natalis (Momm- 
 sen, Lat. Insc. viii. 6996 and 7094-7098). This 
 Caecilius was chief magistrate of Cirta in 210, 
 and on the completion of five years of office 
 raised at his own expense a triumphal arch in 
 honour of Caracalla, brazen statues in honour 
 of " Indulgentia domini nostri," exhibited 
 " ludos scenicos " for seven days, and in other 
 ways exhibited munificence. See an art. by 
 Dessau {Hermes, 1880, p. 471). We see no 
 good reason for refusing to identify this 
 Caecilius Natalis with the Caecilius of the 
 dialogue. He is not likely to have been a 
 Christian when discharging the functions just j 
 described ; the conversation related by Minu- i 
 cius would therefore have occurred somewhat I 
 later than 215; and the composition itself; 
 might be a score of years later. We thus fall 
 back on the opinion held by the best critics 
 before the publication of Ebert's memoir, that 
 the work of Minucius was written in the peace- 
 ful davs of Alexander Severus, say a.d. 234. 
 
 A useful ed. is in Gersdorf's Bibl. Pat. Ecc. 
 (Leipz. 1847), one with varioriun notes in vol. 
 iii. of Migne's Patr. Lat., an excellent one by 
 Holden(Camb. 1853), and oneby Halm (Vienna, 
 1867) founded on a new collation of the MS., 
 which may therefore be regarded as the best 
 authority for the text, but contains only 
 critical notes. See also Waltzing, Bibliogm- 
 phie raisonnee de Min. Pel. in Musenn Beige 
 (1902), vi. pp. 216 ff.; alsoG. Bossier in La fin 
 du Paganisme, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1898), i. 261. 
 There is an English trans, in the Lib of Ante- 
 Nic. Fathers. [g.s.] 
 
 Miro [Mirio, Minis), king of the Suevi in 
 Spain, 570-583. 
 
 Authorities. — Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, v. 42, 
 vi. 43 ; Joannes Bid. ap. Esp. Sagr. v. 377, 
 380, 383 ; Isid. Hist. Suev. ib. 506 ; Acts of the 
 second council of Braga ; Tejada y Ramiro, 
 Colecc. de Lan. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 620 ; Formula 
 Honestae Vitae, by Martin of Braga ; Pref. 
 £5^. Sagr. XV. 383. 
 
 Miro represents a period in the history of the 
 Suevian kingdom of Gallicia, when, having 
 renounced the Arianism imposed upon them 
 in the 5th cent, by their then existing relations 
 to the Visigoths, the Suevi entered into alliance 
 with the Franks on the one hand and probably 
 the Eastern empire on the other, with the 
 view of checking the power of the Arian West- 
 Gothic king Leovigild, which at the begin- 
 ning of Miro's reign threatened the absorption 
 of the Suevian state in the kingdom of Toledo, 
 a result actually achieved two years after 
 Miro's death. The known facts of his reign, 
 
 MODESTUS 
 
 which although few in number are often 
 contradictorily given by the authorities, are 
 as follows. In 572 the second council of 
 Braga, a kind of supplementary council to the 
 more important gathering of 561 [Martinus 
 (2)] was held, and the king is specially men- 
 tioned as contributing to its assembly. In 
 the same year Miro conducted an expedition 
 against the Ruccones in Cantabria, one of the 
 restless Basque tribes, with whom Suevi and 
 Goths alike were perpetually at war. Pour 
 years later Miro's great West-Gothic contem- 
 porary Leovigild appeared on the borders of 
 Gallicia. Miro sued for peace, and obtained 
 it for a short time. In 580 the Catholic re- 
 bellion of Hermenigild against his father 
 Leovigild broke out, and the rebellious son 
 became the centre of Prankish, Suevian, and 
 Byzantine policy in the peninsula. In 580 we 
 hear of envoys sent by Miro to Guntchramn 
 of Burgundy, Leovigild's worst enemy, and 
 intercepted and detained on the way by Leo- 
 vigild's ally, Chilperic of Soissons. In 583 
 Miro set out from Gallicia at the head of an 
 army destined to raise the siege of Seville, then 
 closely invested by Leovigild. He was met 
 on the way by Leovigild, and, according to 
 Gregory of Tours, who is evidently best in- 
 formed on the matter, withdrew homewards, 
 and died shortly after from the effects of the 
 bad air and water of S. Spain. The two 
 Spanish sources, Joannes Biclarensis and 
 Isidore, say that he died before Seville, and 
 describe him as assisting Leovigild in the 
 siege of the town. On the reconciliation of 
 these conflicting accounts, cf. Dahn, Konige 
 der Germanen, vi. 571 ; and Gorres, Kritische 
 Untersuch. iiber den Auf stand und das M ar- 
 ty rium der Westgoth. Konigssohnes Hermeni- 
 gild, in Zeitschrift fiir Hist. Theol. 1873, I. 
 Miro's relations to Martin of Braga, the 
 Catholic leader and organizer of Gallicia during 
 his reign and that of his father, seem to have 
 been intimate and friendly. Martin's prin- 
 cipal work, Formula Vitae Honestae, is dedi- 
 cated to him, and the Exhorfatio Humilitatis, 
 printed among Martin's works, is also prob- 
 ably addressed to him [Esp. Sagr. xv. Appen- 
 dix). [M.A.W.] 
 
 Modestus (3), prefect of the Praetorium, 
 persecutor of the Catholics under the emperor 
 Valens (Socr. iv. 16 ; Soz. vi. 18 ; Theod. 
 H. E. iv. 18 ; Tillem. vi. 510, 555, 562, 574). 
 who commissioned him to offer Basil the 
 choice between deposition and communion 
 with the Arians. A severe sickness having 
 supervened, which he regarded as a judgment 
 for his insolent behaviour, he entreated Basil 
 to visit his sick-bed, humbly asked pardon, and 
 commended himself to his prayers. Attri- 
 buting his recovery to St. Basil's intercessions, 
 he regarded him with the greatest reverence 
 (Greg. Naz. pp. 352, 353). From this time 
 Basil's influence with Modestus was so great 
 that persons came from a great distance to 
 request letters from him to the prefect. Six 
 of these remain (Basil. Epp. 104 [279], no 
 [277], III [276], 279 [274], 280 [275], 281 
 [278]), in which Basil claims immunity from 
 taxes for all ministers of the church, begs for 
 a lessening of the taxes for the impoverished 
 inhabitants of the Taurus range, commends to 
 him a friend summoned to the capital by legal 
 
MONNICA 
 
 charges, etc. Bdsil .ulilresscs Modcstus with 
 the respect due to his high official position, 
 and expresses much gratitude for las readiness 
 to listen to his requests. (e.v.) 
 
 Monnlca, St. The name of this most 
 celcbr.xtid of Christian mothers is spelt thus 
 (not Miotica) in the<ildest MSS. of the writings 
 of St. .\ugustine. 
 
 Her birthplace, nowhere explii itly nainc<l. 
 may be assumed to be Tagaste, the home of 
 her husband. Patricius. Her family was, 
 probably, like his in point of social gr.ide, 
 curialis (Possidii Vita Aug. c. 2) — i.e. contri- 
 buted a member or members to the senate of 
 the colonia. Her parents' names are not 
 known. They were consistent Christians ; 
 their home was (Conf. ix. 8) " domus fidelis, 
 bonum membrum Ecclcsiac." Monnica was 
 bom 331 or 332. Her e.irly domestic 
 
 training was pure and severe, uniler the strong 
 hand of an aged and trusted Christian nurse, 
 who had once carried the child's father in her 
 arms. By her Monnica and her sisters (no 
 brothers are menti<ined) were tausht to ab- 
 stain entirely from drinking even water 
 between meal-tiincs, with the aim of guarding 
 them beforehand against habits of intemper- 
 ance when, after marriage, thev should become 
 " dominae apothecarum et cellariorum " (16.). 
 Yet Monnica, when scarcely past her early 
 childhood, was on the verge of a confirmed love 
 of wine, as she confessed long after to her son 
 (ib.). She was married, at what age we know 
 not, to Patricius of Tagaste, " vir curialis " ; a 
 man passionate ("ferox'), immoral, and not 
 formally a member of the church ; perhaps what 
 would now be called an " adherent." • With 
 him Monnica lived patiently and faithfully, till 
 at the age of 40 she was left a widow, tenderly 
 attached to his memory, and longing to be laid 
 at death in his grave (ib. ix. 1 1). He was rough 
 and eager, but not ungenerous ; and she was 
 permitted to win him to the Saviour before 
 his end. A curious picture of the manners of 
 that time and region appears (ib. ix. 0) when 
 Monnica, surrounded by her married female 
 friends, and seeing on some of them, " quarum 
 viri mansuetiores erant [Patricio]," the marks 
 of blows, inflicted even on their faces, coun- 
 selled them to adopt, for protection, her own 
 method of calm and unwavering submission. 
 The mother of Patricius was an inmate of the 
 home, and her also Monnii a completely won 
 to respect and affection, in spite of the slanders 
 of the female slaves, by a union of filial obe- 
 dience with vigour as a mistress. 
 
 She bore children more than f)nce, for 
 Augustine not only mentions a brother ex- 
 pressly (ib. ix. II, etc.) but was the uncle of 
 many nephews and nieces {Vita Benedictina 
 Aug. c. i.). Augustine was born when Mon- 
 nica was 23 years old, and when, as we gather 
 from bis language about her whole influence, 
 she was already a Christian in the noblest 
 sense, strong in the power of spiritual holiness, 
 and ardently prayerful for the salvation of her 
 child, and therefore for his personal acceptance 
 of the faith. It is a sign of the popular Chris- 
 tian opinion and usage at the time that she 
 did not bring him as an infant to baptism but 
 merely to the initiation of a catechumen (Conf. 
 
 • Conf. vi. 16 states that both Augustine's p*r- 
 entes procured his initiation am an infant catechunim. 
 
 MONNICA 
 
 1 1. II ; vi. 10). the mk-11 1 til 
 
 salting with -ult. 
 [ baptism require<l ■ 
 I change of will.* I: 
 'illness, he iniplorrd t • I 
 
 hastened to pnxurr it ; 
 
 recovery .\g..\v\ rr-. IvrsI t 
 j .Monnir.i : 
 \ securing tl 
 
 and in sti 
 
 during her :■.,■, 
 
 m.kintain hnn in 1 
 
 unbelief caus<'d h 
 
 vated by his cynii 1 
 
 decline<l his presem <• b- 
 
 her table, " aversans et d 
 
 [filii]" (ib. iii. 11) ; l)ni ^ 
 
 altered her di-cision. Sh«- s.iw 
 
 ("juvenum splendidum. hilar. 
 
 dentem sibi") approach hrr .i% 
 
 woinlen l>eam (" regul.i " 
 
 spiritual ruin ; and he I 
 
 for where she was, there t 
 
 .\<igustine suggested th.»l i...> ......i 
 
 his mother's unbelief; but snr 
 
 731 
 
 • I.I 
 
 •u. 
 
 , , 1 ^ 
 
 but 
 
 nil 
 
 IV 
 
 hl/s. ! Irr 
 
 f'' i 1: 
 
 \\l 
 
 rejouted that the words were not 
 
 is, there thou shalt be." This wis :!•. .> 
 
 before his conversion. .Mxiul ;' 
 
 she received the well-known €■ 
 
 a bishop, wearied ("substoma. ' 
 
 with her entreaties that he would r- 1- w w itli 
 
 her son: "do, prvthec ; the sou of thi>«r 
 
 tears cann'>t perish " (16. 12). 
 She sorely bewailed .\uguslii. ' 
 
 migrate to Italy, and would U't : 
 [ and when he escaped her, aff^ 
 ' friend good-bve on board ship .mo j.. 
 
 her to spenil the night in a ch.kpel tl. 
 
 to Cyprian, she would not give him up. 1 
 ! herself with grief (ib. v. 8), shr to ,W . 
 I followed him, and on a sloni;' 
 I soled the terrified sailors, assni 
 I she had seen a vision which pi 
 
 (t*. vi. i). .\ugustine arrived h<A n i. i at 
 I Milan, and was already under the influence "f 
 j Ambrose, but not yet won to the orth-Kiox 
 
 faith ("non manichaeus, se<l nequo catholic u* 
 
 christianus") ; but she cahnly assure«l him ."f 
 I her certainty that she should st-c him .i b»-- 
 ] liever before she died (tb.). 
 ! The ministrations of Anibrose shr .»i 
 
 with great and reverent delight ("di 
 
 ilium virum sicut augelum I)ei"i .>ii 1 , . 
 
 striking proof of her feeling in 
 
 once to his judgment on a P' 1 
 
 have touched her nearly. Shr ( 
 
 to bring oblatifms «{ vegetabl< n. I :■ i !. .ml 
 
 wine to the shrines of the .\trir.in ni.irtvr». 
 
 and began th, lik.- j-r^'-'i - n Mil.:: Hut 
 
 Ambrose 1 
 1 because it • 
 
 partly (as:. 
 
 rcsemble<l in- i 
 j owns that prob.ii 
 
 obeyed none but '• 
 
 him. I' «'-\. r st 
 
 Am! • 
 
 of ( : 
 
 hrr t 
 
 • \Vc do not Ignore Ihr ■!. 
 dent; tee /.*. Wall ou Inf.i 
 III. But we think Ihr r«H', 
 Ptrutui interfctcd to drier Au^iuiinc » UifjLUm. 
 
 m1.-.| 
 ■I. It 
 
732 
 
 MONNICA 
 
 most devout and diligent worshipper; liberal in 
 alms ; daily attending the Eucharist ("nullum 
 diem praetermittebat oblationem ad altare 
 [Domini]"), and was twice daily in the church, 
 not to gossip there ("non ad vanas fabulas et 
 aniles loquacitates") but to hear the word and 
 pray (ib. v. q). During the struggle of Ambrose 
 with the Arian empress-mother Justina (385) 
 Monnica was the most devout among the host 
 of worshippers who gathered for vigils and 
 prayers in the church {ib. ix. 7). The hymns 
 of Ambrose she greatly loved, and treasured in 
 her memory ; the dialogue de Beatd Vita closes 
 with some noble words from Monnica, intro- 
 duced by a quotation from the hymn " Fove 
 precantes, Trinitas." 
 
 The final crisis of her son's conversion was 
 instantly reported to her by Augustine and 
 Alypius, to her extreme delight {tb. viii. 12), 
 though it involved not only his baptism but his 
 acceptance of a life of celibacy. Between his 
 conversion and baptism she retired with him to 
 Cassiciacum, the carapagna of his friend Vere- 
 cundus. The dialogues de Ordine and de Beatd 
 Vita give a charming picture of this retirement, 
 spent in holy intercourse and in lofty thought 
 lighted up with eternal truth. Monnica appears 
 asan interlocutorinboth dialogues, conspicuous 
 for strength of native sense, and occasionally 
 speaking with a vigour and spirit evidently 
 reported from the life ; a woman who might 
 have shone at any period for intellectual gifts. 
 " We fairly forgot her sex, and thought that 
 some great man was in our circle " {de B. V. 
 § 10). At the close of the dialogue she 
 speaks of the bliss of the Eternal Vision : 
 "This beyond dispute is the blessed life, the 
 perfect ; at which we must look to be enabled 
 to arrive, hastening on in solid faith, joyful 
 hope, and burning love " [ib. ad fin.). In the 
 dialogue de Ordine Augustine speaks of his 
 mother's " ingenium, atque in res divinas 
 inflammatus animus" (ii. § i). 
 
 She was now near the end. Her son, an 
 orthodox believer, was about to return with 
 her to Africa. They were lodging at Ostia, 
 and making the last preparations for the 
 voyage {Conf. ix. 10). Augustine records a 
 conversation with his mother as they sat at 
 a window looking on the viridarium of the 
 house — a delightful colloquy (" colloquebamur 
 soli valde dulciter"), rising from theme to 
 theme of subtle but holy thought to the height 
 of the beatific vision. 'The "colloquy" was 
 surely no mere monologue on Augustine's part, 
 if he has drawn his mother truly in his two 
 dialogues. It closed with a solemn utterance 
 from her : " she had done with the wish to 
 live ; her son was a believer, and fully conse- 
 crated ; what did she there ? " {ib.). Five days 
 later she was taken ill ("decubuit febribus"), 
 and at once recognized the end. Her long- 
 cherished wish to lie in the grave of Patricius 
 was gone. " Nothing," she said, " is far from 
 God. There is no fear lest He, at the last day, 
 should not know whence to raise me up." 
 " So on the ninth day of her illness, in the 56th 
 year of her age, and in the 33rd of my own, 
 that devout and saintly soul was released from 
 the body." She died in the presence of Augus- 
 tine, of another son, of her grandson Adeo- 
 datus, so soon to follow her, and of many 
 others ("omnes nos") {ib. 11, 13). 
 
 MONNICA 
 
 Augustine's grief was great. The burial was 
 tearless ("cum ecce corpus elatum est, imus 
 redimus sine lacrymis "), but another time of 
 anguish followed, and a vain effort for relief 
 at the bath. Then sleep came and a calmer 
 waking, and now Augustine, like his blessed 
 mother, found help in an Ambrosian hymn, 
 " Deus creator omnium," and at last could 
 weep calmly. He records his prayers for the 
 departed soul, and begs those of the reader. 
 Monnica's character was equally strong, 
 lively, and tender by nature and refined by 
 grace to extraordinary elevation. Augustine 
 lavishes his unique eloquence upon her heaven- 
 ly tone of life and influence and the intensity 
 of her longings for the salvation of the souls 
 she loved. He calls her his mother both in the 
 flesh and in the Lord. His whole being was 
 due, under God, to Monnica. Christians who 
 knew her " dearly loved her Lord in her, for 
 they felt His presence in her heart " {ib. 10). 
 She was an eager student of the Scriptures 
 {de Ord. i. § 32). In Brieger's Zeitschrift fiir 
 Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. p. 228, is printed (from 
 Riese's Anthologia l.atina, fasc. ii. p. 127) an 
 epitaph on Monnica, bearing the name of 
 Bassus, ex-consul ; probably Anicius Bassus, 
 consul A. D. 408, and therefore a contemporary 
 of Augustine's. The lines are : 
 
 In tuinulo Monicae. {sic.) 
 Hie posuit cineres genetrix castissima prolis 
 
 Augustine tui altera lux meriti, 
 Qui servans pacis caelestia jura sacerdos 
 Commissos populos moribus instituis. 
 Gloria vos major gestorum laude coronat 
 Virtutum mater felicior subolis. 
 In the last couplet Monnica and her son are, 
 apparently, addressed together. The penta- 
 meter apostrophizes Monnica as " Mother of 
 Virtues," and Augustine as her yet " happier 
 offspring " ; happier, it may be, as a celibate 
 saint. This epitaph is an interesting proof of 
 the religious reverence accorded from the first 
 to Monnica. Brieger's Zeitschrift also men- 
 tions the translation of the bones of Monnica 
 from Ostia to Rome, in 1430, in the reign of 
 Martin V., and at the expense of Mapheus 
 Veghius. The relics were deposited in a 
 chapel dedicated on the occasion to Augustine, 
 and on the sarcophagus were inscribed the 
 following lines, a curious and instructive 
 advance upon the older epitaph in their 
 ascription of mediatorial powers to Monnica : 
 Hie Augustini sanctam venerare parentem, 
 Votaque fer tumulo, quo jacet ilia, sacro. 
 Quae quondam gnato, toti nunc Monica mundo 
 Succurrit precibus, praestat opemque suis.* 
 This translation is dated, in the Roman 
 Martyrology, April g. Monnica appears as a 
 saint in the Roman calendar, Sancta Monica 
 vidua, Apr. 4, and not infrequently as a 
 figure in medieval art. Scheffer's picture, 
 painted 1845, "St. Augustin et sa mere," 
 gives a noble modern realization of Monnica. 
 Together 'neatli the Italian heaven 
 They sit, the mother and her son, 
 He late from her by errors riven. 
 Now both in Jesus one : 
 The dear consenting hands are knit, 
 And either face, as there they sit, 
 Is lifted as to something seen 
 Beyond the blue serene. 
 
 * V. 1. sibi, as the epitaph appears in Papebroch, 
 .4cla Sanctorum Mali, t. i. p. 491. 
 
 I 
 
MONOIMIJS 
 
 Such, we bdievo, is the nnliiiary iutrrpr<l.Ui>in 
 of the picture ; as if it represcuied tlio colliujuy 
 at Ostia. But an ititerestiiig passage in >lrs. 
 Jameson's Sacred and Legendary Art, p. 314, 
 seems to shew tliat Sclu-tler hail in view some 
 moment before Aufjustine's conversion ; per- 
 haps that recordeil Conf. vi. i, when Monnir^ 
 assures Auiiustine that she shouhl yet sec him 
 a bclievor. [h.c.c.m.] 
 
 Monoimiis (a form, possibly representing the 
 Jewish name Menaham), an Arabian tinostic 
 of 2nd cent. His name hail been only pre- 
 served by a brief notice in Tlieodoret (Haer. 
 Fab. i. iS) until the recovery of the lost 
 work of Hippolytus against heresies shewed 
 that from this work Theodoret derived his 
 knowledge. Hippolytus gives a short abstract 
 of the doctrine of Monoimus and an extract 
 from a letter of his to one Theophrastus. The 
 system described might at tirst seem one of j 
 mere pantheism ; but a closer examination 1 
 shews Christian elements in it, so that it is \ 
 rightly classed as a heresy, and not as a form 
 of heathenism. There is an express quotation 
 from Colossians and a probable reference to the | 
 prologue of St. John's Gospel. The starting- ' 
 point of the speculation is the ascription in 
 N.T. of the work of creation tn tiie Son of 
 Man, whence it was inferred that the first 
 principle was properly called Man. It follows 
 that it is a mistake to look for God in creation ; 
 we must seek Him in ourselves, and can best 
 find him by the study of the involuntary 
 operations of our own soul. The relation 
 between the "Man" and "Son of Man" 
 exists from beyond time. The latter is 
 derived from the former, but, it would seem, 
 by an immediate and eternal necessity of His 
 nature, just as from fire is necessarily derived 
 the light which renders it visible. Thus, 
 concerning the first principle, the Scriptures 
 speak both of a " being " and a " becoming " 
 {f)v Kal i'livfTo), the first word properly apply- 
 ing to the " Man," the second to the " Son of 
 Man." The speculations of Monoimus, as 
 reported to us, relate only to the creation ; 
 we are told of none as to redemption. 
 
 His use of the phrases " -Man " and " Son 
 of Man " reminds us of the system of the 
 Naassenes (Hippol. Ref. § 7 ", see also our art. 
 Gnosticism), and a closer examination shews 
 that Monoimus is really to be referred to that 
 sect, although Hippolytus has classed them 
 separately ; for .Monoimus describes iiis first 
 principle as bisexual, and applies to it the 
 titles " Father, Mother, the two immortal 
 names," words taken out ui a Naassene 
 hymn. But there is a common source of this 
 language in the ' Xir6<pa<Ti% ntyaXr] of Simon, 
 this passage also being clearly the original of 
 the description given by Monoimus of the 
 contradictory attributes of his first principle. 
 Further traces of the obligations of Monoimus 
 to Simon are found in the reference to the six 
 powers instrumental in creation, which answer 
 to Simon's six " roots," while a similar indebt- 
 edness to Simon on the part of the Naassene 
 writer in Hippolytus is found on comparing the 
 anatomical speculations connected with the 
 name Eden (v. 9 ; vi. 14). It is inorcd<mbtful 
 whether there is any relation of obligation 
 between Monoimus and the Clementine Hom- 
 ilies ; both contrast " the Son of Man " with 
 
 MONOPHYStTlSM 
 
 78S 
 
 thi>se " born of w.iii.n •• !//.'»«. li. ir)- M.-no. 
 iinus has mystiTiis in connrxion with the 
 number 14, shcwinK th.a hr att.i( hcd lmp«)rt- 
 ance to P.isch.il rrlobration. [ti»J 
 
 Monophysltism. llx- p.issionate protnt 
 raised in ligypt against thr hrrmy ol Nit»- 
 TORius, siippoititl as it was bviourl influence, 
 was carried so f.tr th.it it ltd to a »tri>nK 
 reaction. The Nestorian her«i»y wa» con- 
 denmed because it tendi-il to srpar.ttr Christ 
 into two beings, one (iinl ami the other man, 
 and to regard the inhabitation «•( the latter 
 by the former as ditlrrmg in degree only 
 from the inhabitation bv the Deity of the 
 patriarchs and prophets of the Old Dispenw- 
 tion. The cruel persecution of Nestorius him- 
 self (who, though he undoubtedly went t-Kj 
 far in some of his statements, was willing to 
 qualify many of them), the harsh treatment 
 of the learned and holy Theodoret, and the 
 forcible suppri'ssion of the teaching; of the 
 S\Tian school, produced great indignation, 
 and when the emperor Theodosius II. died, 
 and was succeeded in 450 by Marcian, the 
 reaction against .Monophysilism broke out all 
 the more fiercely in consequence of the vio- 
 lence and long duration of these measures of 
 repression. Cyril had died in 444. and had 
 been succeeded by Dioscorus, a in-in of 
 equallv violent passions and uncharitable 
 spirit, but of far less self-control and diplo- 
 matic skill. Cyril had himself been guilty of 
 confounding the divine and human natures 
 of Christ as completely as Nestorius had beeo 
 guilty of dividing them, and as long as he 
 and Theodosius 11. survived, what was after- 
 wards condemned as .Monophysite heresy was 
 in the ascendant. Extremes very frequently 
 meet, and it was not unfairly contended that 
 Cyril, when he insisted on the oersonal 
 supremacy of the Logos over the Manhoi>d, 
 had practically divided the IVrs-.n of Christ 
 as much as Nestorius had, when he taught 
 that the human nature was no more than a 
 mere adjunct to the Godhead (Domer, On th* 
 Person of Christ, I. div. ii. pp. 67-71. where, 
 however, there seems some " confusion of sulv 
 stance " in the wav in which the author treats 
 the question whether the l.odhead could itself 
 suffer pain, augmentation, or diminution 
 through association with the nianh<xKl). 
 
 History of the Controversy. —When Theodo- 
 sius and Cyril, with the aid of Kabbulas, en- 
 i deavoured altogether to supi-ress the S>Tian 
 school in the East, considerable resistance was 
 offered. As early as 435 <-yril '>•»'* •'<"«"" *" 
 i resume his attacks on the reputation of 
 i Diixlorus and Theodore. Even the patriarch 
 Proclus (Nksto«iis| endeavourc<l to moderate 
 the violence of Cyril's meth<Kls. John ol 
 I Antii>ch informed the latter that the S>Tian 
 I bishojjs would rather be burned than con- 
 ; demn their great teacher The<Klorc. The 
 emperor was prevailed upon to forbid further 
 proceedings, and Cyril himself f itii'l it 
 necessary to yield. Hut he 1 
 irritation by writing a treativ 
 of Christ's Person, to which I 
 bound to reply, so that th^'UK" mi"-""* 
 measures were abandonetl, the controversy 
 continued. Uioscorus, Cyril's »ucr<-Mor, was 
 1 not inclined to let it drop. He intrigued at 
 ' Constantinople, and encouraged two luunks 
 
t34 
 
 MONOPHYSITISM 
 
 named Eutyches and Barsumas to insist on 
 something which approached very near to the 
 absorption of the Manhood by the Godhead of 
 Christ. Theodoret came forward once more 
 (447) with his Eranistes (contributor to a club 
 repast), a work in which he contended that the 
 Logos was drpeTTTos (unchangeable), davyxi!'Tos 
 {i.e. His two natures were incapable of being 
 confounded), and diradi'js {i.e. the Godhead was 
 incapable of suffering). Dioscorus next wrote 
 to the patriarch of Antioch accusing Theodoret 
 of Nestorianism ; and when Theodoret de- 
 fended himself with temper and moderation, 
 pointing out that he had condemned those 
 who had denounced the term deordKos and 
 divided the Person of Christ, and appealing 
 to the authority of Alexander, Athanasius, 
 Basil, and Gregory, Dioscorus encouraged his 
 monks to anathematize Theodoret openly 
 in the church (448). By imperial decree 
 Theodoret was ordered to keep in his own 
 diocese, and not to cause synods to be sum- 
 moned at Antioch or elsewhere. Just then 
 a synod was held at Constantinople (448), 
 under the patriarch Flavian (who had lately 
 succeeded Proclus, and who is sometimes 
 confounded with Flavian of Antioch, who 
 died c. 408), for the dispatch of general busi- 
 ness, and Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum in 
 Phrygia, brought a complaint against the 
 abbot Eutyches as a disturber of the public 
 peace. Flavian bade him visit Eutyches ; 
 for Eutyches, like Dalmatius, had gained 
 great credit for piety by never leaving his 
 cell. Eusebius declined to do this, and 
 Eutyches, when summoned, refused to come 
 forth. When he found that he was about to 
 be condemned for contumacy, he came forth, 
 but brought a large assembly of monks, 
 notables, and even soldiers in his train. By 
 this means he secured a safe return to his 
 monastery, but his adversaries continued to 
 attack him, and to charge him with calling 
 Christ's Body God's Body, and with asserting 
 that It was not 6,uoovaiov with other bodies. 
 When questioned, he denied that our Lord 
 possessed two natures after His Incarnation. 
 He was therefore deposed and excommuni- 
 cated. The party of Eutyches had recourse to 
 court intrigue, and the empress Eudocia con- 
 trived to deprive her sister-in-law Pulcheria, 
 who favoured Flavian, of all her influence with 
 the emperor. Eutyches next demanded a new 
 trial, but though the emperor granted his re- 
 quest, Flavian refused to revise the sentence. 
 Eutyches then, relying on the support of Dios- 
 corus andtheemperor, and alsoof Leo of Rome, 
 whose predecessor had condemned Nestorius, 
 appealed to an oecumenical council. But he 
 triedtosecurehis safetybydeclaring his willing- 
 ness toconfessthetwo natures in the one Christ, 
 if Dioscorus and Leo of Rome should require 
 it. Flavian wished the matter to remain as 
 it had been settled at Constantinople, but he 
 was overruled, and a synod called together 
 at Ephesus in 449. 
 
 Of this synod Dioscorus, not Flavian, was 
 appointed president, and Flavian was present 
 rather as an accused person than as a judge. 
 The violence displayed at it by Dioscorus 
 and his party caused it to be universally 
 rejected by the Catholic church. It obtained 
 the name of the Synod of Brigands, or Robber 
 
 MONOPHYSlfisM 
 
 Synod (Latrocinium), which it has ever since 
 retained. By trickery and tumult the bishops 
 were forced to declare that there was but one 
 nature in Christ, and the patriarch Flavian 
 was so roughly handled at the council that 
 he died shortly after of the injuries he had 
 received. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
 were deposed. Domnus of Antioch yielded 
 to the clamour, in spite of the warnings of 
 Theodoret, but he also was afterwards deposed. 
 Theodoret was exiled to the monastery in 
 which he had been brought up. For fuller de- 
 tails of this synod see Dioscorus ; Eutyches. 
 Within a few months, however, the situation 
 underwent a great change. Theodosius died 
 (450), and was succeeded by Marcian. The 
 new emperor had previously espoused Pul- 
 cheria, who had contrived to regain her 
 influence over the deceased emperor before 
 his death, and who had already honoured the 
 remains of the martyred patriarch Flavian 
 with a public funeral. The bishops who had 
 disgraced themselves by their craven sub- 
 mission to the decrees of the " Robber 
 Synod" — "chameleons," as Theodoret calls 
 them — now further disgraced themselves by 
 as sudden a recantation. Leo, who had sent 
 four representatives to Ephesus, had by this 
 time learned from them the true history of 
 the proceedings there. One of them, Hilary 
 the deacon, had made a formal protest 
 against these proceedings. Hilary had 
 also taken with him from Ephesus the appeal 
 of Flavian for a rehearing of the case in 
 Italy. Leo now determined, if possible, to 
 decide the question himself. As in the Arian, 
 so in the Nestorian and Monophysite con- 
 troversies, the West displayed a marked 
 capacity for seizing on the salient points of the 
 question at issue, which the Easterns often 
 failed to grasp in consequence of their taste 
 for metaphysical subtleties. Leo himself was 
 a man " of strong character, undaimted 
 courage, and clear, practical understanding," 
 though " more skilled in liturgical than in 
 theological questions " (Dorner). He was also 
 by no means averse from making these con- 
 troversies a means for increasing the prestige 
 of his see. Socrates {H. E. vii. 7, 12) has re- 
 marked on the use which the patriarchs of 
 Rome and Alexandria alike were making at 
 this period of all opportunities of adding to 
 their secular importance. Accordingly Leo 
 held several synods at Rome in which the 
 decrees of the " Robber Synod " were re- 
 jected. And even before the assembling of 
 that synod he had written his celebrated 
 letter to Flavian which, though suppressed at 
 Ephesus, was afterwards read at Chalcedon, 
 and accepted as an accurate statement of the 
 doctrine handed down from the first in the 
 church. He now made use of Flavian's 
 appeal to him to procure the assembling of a 
 council at Rome. But the emperor was too 
 politic to permit this, and sent out letters 
 for a council to be held at Nicaea. Such 
 serious riots, however, broke out there that 
 the emperor ultimately resolved to assemble 
 it at Chalcedon, on the opposite side of the 
 Bosphorus to Constantinople, where he could 
 more easily prevent disturbances. There 630 
 bishops assembled. Leo now pretended that 
 it was not only contrary to ecclesiastical 
 
 I 
 
MONOPHYSITISM 
 
 custom, but derogatory to liis diguitv, for him 
 to be present at the couiicil. He further 
 claimed to exercise the presidency tlirou^'h 
 his tive delegates, but his claim was not ail- 
 mitted, and Anatolius, the new patriarch of 
 Constantinople, was associated with the 
 absent Leo in the office of president. The 
 delegates of Leo protested against Dioscorus 
 being allowed to sit with his brother-pa- 
 triarchs, considering the very serious imjiu- 
 tatioMs under which he lay, and they stated 
 tlKit unlesstluirtiemandswereacceded to.they 
 would withdraw from the council. It should 
 be remarked in passing that the presence and 
 action of Leo's delegates dispose of the ob- 
 jections some theologians ami historians have 
 made against the oecumenical character of the 
 synod. Eusebius of Dorvlaeuni now demanded 
 that his petition against Dioscorus should 
 be read. It was couched in the following 
 striking terms (so Evagr. H. E. ii. 4) : " I have 
 been wronged by Dioscorus ; the faith has 
 been wronged ; the bishop Flavian has been 
 murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly 
 deposed by him. Give directions that my 
 petition is to be read." It was read accord- 
 ingly. Eusebius is further declared by 
 Evagrius (ii. 2) to have accused Dioscorus to 
 the emperor of having personally inflicted 
 the injuries of which Flavian died. Dioscorus 
 was convicted of having suppressed Leo's 
 letter to Flavian at the " Robber Synod " ; 
 he was deposed ; the bishops deposed by him 
 — Theodoret and Ibas among them — were 
 reinstated ; and Leo's letter to Flavian 
 accepted by the council amid loud shouts of 
 " Peter has spoken by Leo ; Cyril and Leo 
 teach alike." Dioscoius was depr>j,ed, but 
 permission was given to the EgNi^tian bishops 
 to defer their subscription to the Acts of the 
 synod until their new patriarch had been con- 
 secrated. Eutychcs also was condemned. The 
 proceedings of the council were decidedly 
 tumultuous. One day Theodoret was howled 
 down by the Eg\-ptian bishops ; the day after 
 Dioscorus met with a similar reception from 
 the S>Tian bishops. Some of the laity who 
 were present as representatives of the em- 
 peror openly remarked on the unseemliness 
 of such conduct on the part of bishops. The 
 treatment of the venerable Theodoret was 
 especially unseemly. The reason for which he 
 was howled down was his refusal to anathe- 
 matize Nestorius until he had an opportunity 
 of explaining his position, though this was the 
 position eventually accepted by the Catholic 
 church at large — namely, the rejection at once 
 of the doctrine of two hypostases, and of the 
 doctrine of only one nature, in Christ. It was 
 only in consequence of the emperor's interven- 
 tion that the recejUion of Theodoret by the 
 council was secured. 
 
 The resolution first proposed to the synotl 
 was not adopted, it being considered too 
 favourable to the party of Dioscorus. The 
 Roman delegates threatened to leave the 
 council unless Leo's letter were accepted as 
 an authoritative statement of doctrme. If 
 this were not done, they intimated that the 
 question should be settled at Rome. As 
 many points of importance connected with 
 the relations between the churches of the 
 East and of the West remained unsettled, 
 
 MONOPHYSITISM 
 
 73/1 
 
 especially the .|ii...H..n ..| th.- i/.i/iij ■•« Ihr 
 patriarch of C..n!H.uilin.iplr, ».>iiic o| ihc 
 Eastern prelates feared the prolmiKation of 
 these disputes whirli «. ul.l ..vi,ii t, .,, the 
 retirement of I.eo\ .rrc- 
 
 fore, though not wit: ;.r.>- 
 
 tcsts, Leo's letter . ; the 
 
 request of the cinpci i, .iml a ilrlimiiun of 
 doctrine in accordance with that letter was 
 drawn up. The syii-Kl first rccogniird the 
 ; creed put forth at Nicaea (^ij), and nc«l 
 the enlarged form of it adopted at Con- 
 stantinoi)le (381). Whether -tuch n crcrti wat 
 I actually promulgated at C.nstantini.plr hat 
 been ilisputed nf l.ite. But iu\i. h ><\ the cvi- 
 ' dence existing in 451 h.is ilisapprarrd, and 
 j it seems hardly safe to coiuhulr fruiii the 
 silence of contemporary writers that the 6jo 
 I bishops at Ch.ilcedoii had been misinformed 
 ^ on so vital a jioint. The syiUHl went on to 
 condemn the vain babblings (Afi-o^Wai) of 
 those who denied to the Virgin the title of 
 ; t>(0T6K0i, as well as those who, on the other 
 I hand, affirmed a confusion and mixture 
 I (<ri>7x ''<'«•' "f"' ApaiTO' I in Christ, under the fool- 
 ' ish impre^j^jon that there could be one nature 
 , (consisting) of the Flesh and the Deity in tliiii, 
 and who, in consequence of (this) confusion, 
 resorted to the amazing suggestion that the 
 divine nature of the Unly-begotteii was 
 ! capable of suffering. After having formally 
 I accepted Leo's treatise as in conformitv with 
 [ this statement, the decree went on to declare 
 that Jesus Christ was " Perfect in (iodhead 
 and Perfect in Manhood, truly (iod and truly 
 Man ; that He was possessed of a reasonable 
 or rather rational (Xoyi^^j) soul and b«Kly, 
 of the same substance (otioovaiOf) with the 
 Father according to His tlodhead, and of the 
 I same substance with us as regards His Man- 
 hood " ; and that He is " to be recognircd as 
 existing in two natures, without confusion, 
 j without change, indivisibly, and inseparably 
 (iat'^Xi'TW^, dr/Vrrwj, tt5i(u^ruit, ix^piarun), 
 \ the distinction of the natures being in no way 
 \ removed by their union, but rather the 
 ■speciality (l6i6TT]i) of each nature being 
 preserved, coalescing (avyTptxoi'C-ri\) in one 
 i Person (-rpuauirov) and one hypostasis, not 
 I divided nor separated into two IVrvms, but 
 i being one and the same Son, and Only- 
 I begotten, (mkI the Word, the Lord Jesus 
 I Christ." There can be no doubt that the 
 I decision thus promulgated was a sound <>nr, 
 I and that, as Leo did not fail to remark 
 I pertinently m<>re than once, the dorlrines 
 condemned at the two councils of Kphesus 
 and Chalced.m p..inted out two r.«k» en 
 I which the d.x trine of Christ might be shij>- 
 ' wrecked. " The Catholic church." he goes 
 on to say, "could not tearh the Humanity 
 of Christ apart from His true Divinity, nor 
 His Divinity without His true Humanitv" 
 ' (l.elter to Flavian, r. 5). Yet he ttid not (e«l 
 compelled, as Domer ob»<T\es. t'> rxplato 
 " the internal relations <>f the tw-. nature*." 
 That was, and has remained, a mystery which 
 the human intellect has been unable to un- 
 ravel. All he had to do was to lay down the 
 particular propositions which, when enunci- 
 ated bv too daring thro|f)gians, were in plain 
 conflict with the cxprc»« teaching ol tjod'» 
 
?36 
 
 MONOPHYSITISM 
 
 Word, and must therefore tend to mislead 
 mankind on points essential to their salvation. 
 The general reception of the via media laid 
 down by the council, emphasised as it was at 
 two subsequent councils held at Constanti- 
 nople [see below and Nestorius], leaves no 
 doubt that it represents the mind of Christen- 
 dom upon the point. This conclusion is further 
 accentuated by the fact that, though some Nes- 
 torian and Monophysite communities continue 
 to exist, even they are no longer unwilling to 
 hold communion with those who receive the 
 doctrines promulgated by the council on the 
 questions at issue. 
 
 The resistance against the decrees of the 
 council of Chalcedon has nevertheless been 
 even more formidable than against those 
 of Ephesus, and the communities still in 
 existence which are separated from the 
 church at large on the question of the decrees 
 of Chalcedon are more numerous, less scat- 
 tered, and more thoroughly organized than 
 those called into existence by the decrees of 
 Ephesus. Yet this can hardly be attributed 
 to the more harmless character of Monophy- 
 sitism, because as a fact the opinions advo- 
 cated by Dioscorus and Eutyches were 
 pushed to far greater extremes and far less 
 carefully qualified than those expressed by 
 theologians so competent as Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus. The sur- 
 vival, in forms so fully organized, of Mono- 
 physitism seems rather due to the break-up of 
 the Roman empire, and the progressive decline 
 of its political power, as well as to the spread 
 of Mohammedanism in N. Africa and Armenia. 
 In both cases the attempt at translation of 
 Greek ideas into the Syrian and Egyptian 
 vernacular had been an additional reason for 
 the long continuance of the controversy. 
 
 A violent controversy at once sprung up, 
 and a schism was organized, followed by 
 violent disturbances. But it is notable that 
 Dioscorus disappears from history after his 
 deposition. His adversaries did not subject 
 him to the same severities as those under 
 which Nestorius perished. He had reason to 
 be thankful that the fair-minded and gentle- 
 hearted Theodoret was the leader of his 
 opponents, and not the hard, intolerant, and 
 relentless Cyril. Marcian contrived to restore 
 order. But on his death fresh tumults arose. 
 A rival patriarch, Timotheus Aelurus, was 
 nominated, and Proterius, who had succeeded 
 Dioscorus, was slain. The new emperor, Leo, 
 deposed Timotheus. But the schism continued. 
 The emperor Zeno next (482) issued his famous 
 Henoticon, in which, while Nestorius and 
 Eutyches were anathematized, twelve chapters 
 (or selections) from the works of Cyril were ac- 
 cepted. But Zeno' s manner of life evoked no en- 
 thusiasm, and Philoxenus — favourably known 
 to us as the patron of the Philoxenian-Syriac 
 version of the Scriptures — "Peter the clothier," 
 and Severus, organized a formidable Monophy- 
 site party in Syria, Egypt, and Constantinople 
 respectively. Justinian, emperor from 527- 
 565, did his utmost to support the decrees of 
 Chalcedon, while his consort, the famous, or, 
 as some historians prefer to put it, the in- 
 famous, Theodora, did her best to thwart 
 her husband, at the instance of some ecclesias- 
 tical intriguers who had contrived to worm 
 
 MONOPHYSITISM 
 
 themselves into her confidence. For the con- 
 troversy of the "Three Chapters" see Nestor- 
 ius. ItsresultwastoencourageMonophysitism, 
 and that form of Christian belief rooteditself in 
 Armenia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ultimately 
 in Abyssinia. The Coptic (the word Coptic is 
 etymologically the same as Egyptian) church 
 hasremained asa separate bodyin Egyptto the 
 present day. The Maronites in Armenia form 
 another community which owes its existence 
 to the Monophysite controversy. The Mono- 
 phj'sites called their orthodox opponents 
 Melchites, on the ground that they had 
 accepted their opinions from the civil govern- 
 ment and its head, the emperor ; while the or- 
 thodox bestowed on their opponents the name 
 of Jacobites, from J acob of Edessa, an enthu- 
 siastic disseminator of Monophysite views. 
 
 It is unnecessary to follow out in full detail 
 the history of the Monophysite schism. It 
 only remains to mention that a reaction 
 dating from the condemnation of the " Three 
 Chapters " issued in Monotheletism, or the 
 assertion of only one will in Christ. This 
 controversy led to the summoning of a sixth 
 oecumenical council at Constantinople in 
 680, in which Monotheletism was condemned, 
 after having been anathematized at Rome, 
 under Martin I., in 649. Communion be- 
 tween the East and the West had been broken 
 off for some time on this point, and pope 
 Honorius, like his predecessors Liberius and 
 Vigilius, fell into suspicion of heresy in the 
 course of the controversy. But the decision 
 of the above-mentioned council restored the 
 interrupted communion, and more friendly 
 relations between the East and the West 
 continued to subsist for above 300 years. 
 The Coptic church, persecuted first by its 
 orthodox sister, and afterwards by the Mo- 
 hammedans, has obstinately maintained a 
 precarious and downtrodden existence from 
 the 6th cent, to the present moment. It has 
 practically ceased to be heterodox, and in 
 1843 proposals for union with the Orthodox 
 church would have been carried into effect, 
 but that when the Moslem Government heard 
 of them, the Coptic patriarch was invited to 
 take coffee with a prominent Government 
 official, and went home to die of poison. Since 
 the British occupation in 1882 the Coptic 
 churchhas begun toemergefrom itslong period 
 of depression. The lay Copts have become 
 educated and even wealthy. Though but a 
 seventh of the population, they own one-fifth of 
 the property' of their country. One of their 
 number becameprime minister — the first Coptic 
 prime minister for a very long period — but was 
 unfortunately murdered in an outburst of poli- 
 tical and religious fanaticism early in 1910. 
 Though the Coptic clergy are still ignorant and 
 fanatical, and the aged patriarch refuses to 
 take any steps towards their better education, 
 the laity have extorted a permission from • 
 him for the appointment of a certain number 
 of laity authorized to give instruction to their 
 co-religionists on the truths of the Christian 
 religion. The educated laity are decidedly 
 friendly towards the Anglican church. Two 
 missions to the Copts have been sent of late 
 years from England, one in 1843 and the 
 other in the last decade of the 19th cent. 
 Neither of them were successful, and the 
 
MONOPHYSITlSlI 
 
 Copts will probably be all.w.l f..r the future 
 to carry out the mucliiicoiled reforms in 
 their system iu their own way. Tlie Maron- 
 ites of the Lebanon have remaine<l apart from 
 the Orthodox church of the Kast up to the 
 present time, but the French political in- 
 fluence in the Lebanon since i860 has caused 
 a considerable number of them to join the 
 church of Rome. The church of Abvssinia. 
 though its Liturgy shows some beautiful 
 traces of the purer ages of Christianity, has 
 fallen into many superstitions and corruptions. 
 Yet that church has had sufVicient vitality to 
 claim representation among the numero\is 
 churches and denominations which now gather 
 at the cradle of Christi.mitv. and not the least 
 imposing religious editice to be seen at Jeru- 
 salem is the Abyssinian church. 
 
 Central Effect' 0/ tie CotUroversies nhmt the 
 Personal Christ. — It may not be out of place, in 
 conclusion, to endeavour to arrive at some esti- 
 mate of the influence of these prolonged and 
 bitter controversies upon the history of the 
 Christian church. On the surface that influenrc 
 appears unfavourable. Not only was the 
 church of Christ broken up into antagonistic 
 sections which mutually hated e.ich other, 
 but a divided Christendom fell an easy victim 
 to the M 'lianimedan invader. Wistirn 
 theology, when deprived of the b.ilaiice 
 afforded by the more purely intellectual 
 characteristics predominant in the Hast, 
 crystallized into a R unan mould. Not even 
 the revival of letters cured this evil, and we 
 find that even post- Reformation theology has 
 not altogether escaped from the long domina- 
 tion of purely Western forms of thought. But 
 to st(ip short here would be one-sided and 
 superficial. The effect of these prolonged 
 controversies has undoubtedly been to clear 
 up the confusion which long existed in the 
 Christian mind about the relations of the 
 three Persons (or distinctions) in the Trinity, 
 and of the two natures in the one Christ. 
 The two conflicting tendencies at work in the 
 Nestorian and Monophysite heresies were (i) 
 the disposition to divide the Redeemer into 
 two separate beings, united to one another for 
 God's purpose of salvation, and (2) the 
 disposition either (a) to make the Redeemer 
 a Being compounded out of two other beings, 
 God and Man, being Himself neither one nor 
 the other, or (ft) to regard the Humanity of 
 Christ as swallowed up by His Divinity. Of 
 these two forms of Monophysite doctrine the 
 former is ultimately unthinkable. An Infinite i 
 Being and a finite one cannot possibly 
 coalesce into a third being, which is neither i 
 the one nor the other. The second view, 
 though in itself by no means inconri-ivable. 
 has been felt to contra<li< t the di finite stale- ; 
 ments of Scripture on the n.itun- '.( the union 
 between God the Word and the .Man Christ 
 Jesus, and is therefore inadmissible. The 
 controversy, pursued with great virulmce for 
 about a century and a half, ended by the 
 definite establishment of a mean between ' 
 the two extremes, namely, that Christ con- 
 sisted of two separate natures, the Godhead 
 and the Manhood, conjoined into one Person- 
 ality or Individuality, i.e. one ultimate soun e 
 of thought and action. Not that there was 
 only one mind, or one will, in the Personality 
 
 MONOPHYSmSM 
 
 737 
 
 b'lt th.it iho 
 
 ■ ^Mlhln 
 
 d bv 
 
 I M 
 
 i.f. La.h 
 Hut »o|lir 
 br tlx>krn 
 
 underlvinR thrsr tw . n ii 
 
 action of the lower will « 
 
 certain limit*, .ind ulllin 
 
 the fiat of thr Diviiir .1: 
 
 it was pmnittfsl to Oir x.. . . 
 
 of a communictttn tJi,imitiutn 
 
 attributes), this involved no , 
 
 amalgamation of thr two ii.itur. 
 
 tion of the one by (or into) ihr . 
 
 remains separate and omplrte 
 
 attributes of the one nature tn. 
 
 of as transferre<l to the other, bv rpj«<in o| 
 
 the insrparable conjunction of Imth in thr 
 
 One Person {vw63Taoii or vp^tvrnry Thnx 
 
 if. as is sometiiiu-s thr c.\%r, G.~t 1 f 
 
 as suffering or dving, it i* n <t t 
 
 that the (..nlhcid, a* su. h, 1 
 
 suffering or of death. Thr rxpr 
 
 permissible in conseipiriire <if t! 
 
 conjunction of Christ's <i<Klhi > 
 
 ho k1 in one I'ersonality. Thr ^ 
 
 must be borne in mind when 
 
 Virgin is spoken of as (»»or<J»oi. 
 
 be brought forth into this w 
 
 is brought forth. Vet th 
 
 the Man Christ Jesus a 
 
 tix- nu^M-d 
 
 (i<Hl cannot 
 rid as man 
 Divine W'ird and 
 insrpar.ibly one. 
 
 .\nother point must not be lost sii:(-.t « In 
 the Nestorian and Mon"physit< 
 the word Hypostasis is applie<l i 
 Mind and Will which separates t 
 
 indic.ited from any other exi^. .■ .t 
 
 when, as in the .Arian controversy, the wor<i 
 Hypostasis is applied to the s<>-caile«l I'ervjii* 
 in the Go«lhead, it is not used to indicate 
 separate sources of thought and action, but 
 is employed to denotr certain eternal dis- 
 tinctions declared in Holy Scripture to exist 
 within the Godhead Itself, where there can be 
 only one Mind and Will. We confess that 
 the Father's sole prerogative is to originate, 
 the Son's to reveal, the Spirit's to guidr, 
 direct, inspire. But all these pnrog.iiivi-* 
 co-exist harmoniously in Him, Who is above 
 all, and through all, and in us all. Ihe dr- 
 cisions of the four great iKCumenical councils 
 are thus a standing witness to the f.ict that 
 the church, from the beginning till now, 
 has taught consistently that Jesus t hrist was 
 (i) dXrilluif (truly), (2) 7-<\/wt (coiupU-tfly), 
 (3) aSiaip^Tut (iiidivisibly). and (4) dai-yxi-^nn 
 (without confusion (of nature]) the Word, or 
 Son of the Hternal (iod. Who in the last tinir*. 
 " for us men and for our salvation," took up m 
 Him our ficsh, and manifested HimsrU to the 
 world ■' in the form of a b >nd-»lavr," and that 
 His two naturrs remainrd *f-i .xr itr and 
 uncoinbined . And so, I. 1 I'-rlect 
 
 G<k1 and IVrfrct Man. H. dy l" 
 
 reconcile (^h1 and Man, • the 
 
 empire of sin in the lati.i. .■ .i m the 
 
 end prtsrnt us, rrconnUti and »ayed. At 
 perfect and unbl.imabic before the tiod and 
 Falhrr of us all. 
 
 liibliografhy. — Our authoritie* arc nearly 
 the same as those givrn undrr Nrsiomi %. 
 We have no longer the help of S-«ralr«. bm 
 Mvagrius is vivid, ami gcnrrally accurate. 
 
 though oftrll very rredul'.U*. He acrrpi* 
 
 implicitly the decisions of Kphr»u« and 
 Chalcedon, and of the latter hr gives j de- 
 tailed an<l careful summarv. 1 lie letter* of 
 The.Hlorel. and the rolle<ti..n '.( the letter* 
 .jf other men of mark in his day, f.uud tit 
 47 
 
738 
 
 MONOTHELITISM 
 
 many editions of his works [Nestorius] are 
 full of information on the Monophysite con- 
 troversy. In later times Monophysitism does 
 not seem to have attracted the attention of 
 writers to the same extent as Nestorianism 
 has done. There is no work on the former 
 corresponding to those of Assemani and 
 Badger on the latter. Neander, Dorner, Canon 
 Bright, and, more recently, Mr. Bethune Baker 
 are as useful here as on Nestorianism. Canon 
 Bright has also translated and edited Leo's 
 Sermons on the Incarnation. Gieseler is 
 strangely brief on the controversy in the 5th 
 cent., but has more information on its later 
 developments. Mr. Wigram's Intro, to the Hist, 
 of the Assyrian Church (S.P.C.K. 1910) has 
 some chapters on the later developments of 
 Monophysitism in the East. [j-J-L-] 
 
 Monothelitism. [Monophvsitism.1 
 
 Montanus (1), a native of Ardabau, a village 
 in Phrygia, who, in the latter half of the 2nd 
 cent., originated a widespread schism, of 
 which traces remained for centuries. 
 
 I. Rise of Montanism. — The name Mont- 
 anus was not uncommon in the district. It is 
 found in a Phrygian inscription (Le Bas, 755) 
 and in three others from neighbouring pro- 
 vinces (Boeckh — 3662 Cyzicus, 4071 Ancyra, 
 4187 Amasia). Montanus had been originally 
 a heathen, and according to Didymus (de 
 Trin. iii. 41) an idol priest. The epithets 
 " abscissus " and " semivir " applied to him 
 by Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam, vol. i. 186) 
 suggest that Jerome may have thought him 
 a priest of Cybele. That after his conversion 
 he became a priest or bishop there is no 
 evidence. He taught that God's supernatural 
 revelations did not end with the apostles, but 
 that even more wonderful manifestations of the 
 divine energy might be expected under the dis- 
 pensation of the Paraclete. It is asserted that 
 Montanus claimed himself to be the Paraclete; 
 but we believe this to have merely arisen out of 
 the fact that he claimed to be an inspired organ 
 by whom the Paraclete spoke, and that conse- 
 quently words of his were uttered and accepted 
 as those of that Divine Being. We are told that 
 Montanus claimed to be a prophet and spoke in 
 a kind of possession or ecstasy. He held that 
 the relation between a prophet and the Divine 
 Being Who inspired him was the same as 
 between a musical instrument and he who 
 played upon it ; consequently the inspired 
 words of a prophet were not to be regarded as 
 those of the human speaker. In a fragment 
 of his prophecy preserved by Epiphanius he 
 says, " I have come, not an angel or am- 
 bassador, but God the Father." See also 
 Didymus (u.s.). It is clear that Montanus 
 here did not speak in his own name, but 
 uttered words which he supposed God to have 
 put into his mouth ; and if he spoke similarly 
 in the name of the Paraclete it does not follow 
 that he claimed to be the Paraclete. 
 
 His prophesyings were soon outdone by two 
 female disciples, Prisca or Priscilla and Maxi- 
 milla, who fell into strange ecstasies, delivering 
 in them what Montanus and his followers 
 regarded as divine prophecies. They had been 
 married, left their husbands, were given by 
 Montanus the rank of virgins in the church, and 
 were widely reverenced as prophetesses. But 
 very different was the sober judgment formed 
 
 MONTANUS 
 
 of them by some of the neighbouring bishops. 
 Phrygia was a country in which heathen devo- 
 tion exhibited itself in the most fanatical form, 
 and it seemed to calm observers that the frenzied 
 utterances of the Montanistic prophetesses were 
 far less like any previous manifestation of the 
 prophetic gift among Christians than they were 
 to those heathen orgiasms which the church had 
 been wont to ascribe to the operation of demons. 
 The church party looked on the Montanists as 
 wilfully despising our Lord's warning to be- 
 ware of false prophets, and as being in con- 
 sequence deluded by Satan, in whose power 
 they placed themselves by accepting as divine 
 teachers women possessed by evil spirits. The 
 Montanists looked on the church leaders as 
 men who did despite to the Spirit of God by 
 offering the indignity of exorcism to those 
 whom He had chosen as His organs for com- 
 municating with the church. It does not 
 appear that any offence was taken at the 
 substance of the Montanistic prophesyings. 
 On the contrary, it was owned that they had 
 a certain plausibility ; when with their con- 
 gratulations and promises to those who 
 accepted them they mixed a due proportion of 
 rebukes and warnings, this was ascribed to 
 the deeper art of Satan. What condemned 
 the prophesyings in the minds of the church 
 authorities was the frenzied ecstasy in which 
 they were delivered. 
 
 The question as to the different character- 
 istics of real and pretended prophecy was the 
 main subject of discussion in the first stage of 
 the Montanist controversy. It may have been 
 treated of by Melito in his work on prophecy ; 
 it was certainly the subject of that of Mil- 
 tiades irepl tov firj de'iv TrpocprjTrjv iv iKcrdciei 
 \a\eu' ; it was touched on in an early anony- 
 mous writing against Montanism [Abercius], 
 of which large fragments are preserved by 
 Eusebius (v. 16, 17). Some more of this 
 polemic is almost certainly preserved by 
 Epiphanius, who often incorporates the 
 labours of previous writers and whose section 
 on Montanism contains a discussion which is 
 clearly not Epiphanius's own, but a survival 
 from the first stage of the controversy. We 
 learn that the Montanists brought as Scripture 
 examples of ecstasy the text " the Lord sent 
 a deep sleep iiKaraaiv) upon Adam," that 
 David said in his haste (ev iKdrdaei.) " all 
 men are hars," and that the same word is 
 used of the vision which warned Peter to 
 accept the invitation of Cornelius. The ortho- 
 dox opponent points out that Peter's " not 
 so " shews that in his ecstasy he did not lose 
 his individual judgment and will. Other 
 similar instances are quoted from O.T. 
 
 The same argument was probably pursued 
 by Clement of Alexandria, who promised to 
 write on prophecy against the Montanists 
 {Strom, iv. 13, p. 605). He notes it as a 
 characteristic of false prophets ^f iKcrraaeL 
 irpoecprfTevov ws hv 'AwocrTaTOV Siolkovoi (i. 17, 
 p. 369). Tertullian no doubt defended the 
 Montanist position in his lost work in six 
 books on ecstasy. 
 
 Notwithstanding the condemnation of Mon- 
 tanism and the excommunication of Montan- 
 ists by neighbouring bishops, it continued to 
 spread and make converts. Visitors came 
 from far to witness the wonderful phenomena ; 
 
MONTANUS 
 
 and the condemne.l pr^phots h<»i>ed to reverse 
 the first imfavourablo vcnlii t bv the sentence 
 of a larger tribunal. But all the leading 
 bishops of Asia MiiDr drclarol at;ainst it. M 
 length an att.-niPt was nj.id.- t.. inrtti.Mue or 
 overrule the judgment nf .Asiatic C'hristi.kns 
 by the opini.>n of their brethren bevond the 
 sea. We cannot be sure how long Montanus 
 
 had been teaching, or how long the excesses of 
 his prophetesses had continuisl ; but in 177 
 Western attention was first c^illetl to these 
 disputes, the interference being solicitetl of the 
 martyrs of Lyons, then suffering imprisonment 
 and expecting death f >r the tcstiinonv of 
 Christ. They were informi^l of the disputes 
 by their brethren in .\sia Minor, the n.itive 
 country no doubt of many of the t'.allic Chris- 
 tians. Husebius in his Chronicle assigns 172 
 for the beginning of the prophesying of Mon- 
 tanus. .\ few years more seems iiec«-ssarv for 
 the growth of the new sect in ,\sia before 
 it forced itself on the attention of foreign 
 Christians, and the Epiphani.in date 157 
 appears more probable, and agrees the vague 
 date of Didvmus, " more than 100 years after 
 the .\scension." Possibly 157 m.iy be the 
 date of the conversion of Montanus, 172 that 
 of his formal condemnation by the .\siatic 
 church authi>rities. 
 
 Were the Ciallic churches consulted by the 
 orthodox, by the Montanists, or bv both ? 
 and what answer did the Gallic Christians 
 give ? Eusebius only tells us that their 
 judgment was pious and most orthodox, an<l 
 that they subjoined letters which those who 
 afterwards suffered martyrdom wr^ile while 
 yet in prison to the brethren in .\sia and 
 Phrygia and also to Eleutherus, bp. of Rome, 
 pleading (or negotiating, Tpfaiiiuoi'Ta) for 
 the peace of the churches. If, as has been 
 suggested, the last expression meant entreat- 
 ing the removal of the excommunication from 
 the Montanists, Eusebius, wh<j begins his 
 account of Montanism by describing it as a 
 device of Satan, would not have praised such 
 advice as pious and orthixlox. 
 
 We think that the .\fonlanists had appealed 
 to Rome; that the church partv solicited the 
 good offices of their countrymen settled in 
 Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing 
 the disturbance to the peac^ of the churches (a 
 phrase probably preserved by liusebius from 
 the letter itself) which would ensue if the 
 Roman church approved what the church on 
 the spot condemned. We have no reason to 
 think of Rome as then enjoying such suprem- 
 acy that its reversal of an Asiatic excommuni- 
 cation would be quietly acquiesced in. Yet 
 the .\siatic bishijps might well be .inxious how 
 their decisi(jn would commend itself to the 
 judgment of a stranger at a distance. To such 
 a one there would be nothing incredible in 
 special manifestations of (iod's Spirit display- 
 ing themselves in Phrygia, while the sugges- 
 tion that the new prophesying was inspircnl by 
 Satan might be repelled by its admitted 
 orthodoxy, since all it professed to reveal 
 tended to the glory of Christ and to the in- 
 crease of Christian devotion. To avert, thf-n, 
 the possible calamity of a breach between the 
 Eastern and Western church<-s. the (iallic 
 churches, it would appear, n .t oidy wrote, hut 
 sent Irenaeus to Rome at the end of 177 ur the 
 
 MONTANUS 
 
 739 
 
 bexinninK of lyH. ThU hv....th«j, fhrvc* 
 
 us from the necrs.r ' • .. w^j- 
 
 fitia to have bmi t lullv 
 
 accounts for the 1 
 The Ami>.. .' 
 
 tian world 1 
 
 CAse was si 
 
 bishops. ( I . 
 
 .\polin.irius ^ui • 
 
 bishops who ha«l 1 1 
 
 the Montanist pi 
 
 Sotasof .\nchialus, ..u t!i.- «. t 
 
 Black Se.i, was dead when .Ap-M 
 
 but .\elius I'ubliuH fiilius, tip 
 
 bouring colony of Orbejiuv >:: 
 
 testimtmv that SoUn had tri- 
 
 demon out of Prisrilla but ha'l 1 
 
 by the hypocrites. We Irarn 
 
 writer that /oticus of Coinana .1 1 
 
 .\patnea similarlv attempted l<> 
 
 milla, and were not perniitt<,l : 
 
 other of .\polinarius's an' 
 
 to his signature by apix-i: 
 
 then commonly given t i 
 
 imprisonment or tortun-s ('r ( hi it lUr 
 
 result was that the Roman church approved 
 
 the sentence of the Asiatic bishops, as we 
 
 know independently from Trrtullian. 
 
 II. Sfonlantsm tn the Fa\l. fftonJ \l4igf. — Fur 
 
 the history of .Montanism in thr I- j*.e jftrr its 
 
 definite separation from t' •■ ' ' ' ' - ' 
 
 authorities are fragment 
 bins of two writers, t! 
 already mentioned and A, 
 The date of both thes<> writiiiijs isc.ii . 
 later than the rise of Montanism. A] 
 places himself 40 years after its fir t l- 
 In the time of the .\nonymous ti 
 of the schism had vanished ii 
 Montanus was dead, as wa-. i 
 early leader in the movement. \'^u-' ii ii 1 :•- 
 bably managed its finances, for he i\ saul to 
 have been towards it a kind of /rirporot. 
 The .Anonymous states that at the time he 
 wrote I •[ full years had elapseil and a 14th liad 
 begun since the death of NIaximilla. I'riscilU 
 must have died previously, t'"- \i.>.' 11. 
 b.-li.ved herself to be the last i r 
 church and that after her the . ; 
 Themiso seems to have b< . 
 tanus, the head of the .Montanist.. He »a» 
 at anv rate their leading man at I'rputa ; and 
 this was the headijuarters of the s. < t Tdrre 
 probably Montanus had taukii >• 
 
 prophetesses I'riscilla and >Ja\ 
 there I'riscilla had seen 10 .1 vi 
 in the form of a .^ ' 
 
 wt ispired hei I 
 
 her that IVpu/a t 
 
 there the N- - ' 
 
 heaven. I 
 
 bouring VI t 
 
 holy place. 
 
 There Zotuu* and J ulJ • viu.ilU 
 
 and Themiso was then : tl>..se 
 
 who prevented Ihr inl- 
 
 Montaii'i h' 
 
 to presid' » 
 
 why it is » 
 
 founder. I ll'- ^■•t.lII•-^ r.llir.i t,.i. .,.r« 
 
 WPtviiartkoi, spiritual, and tlir adhrirnlt ••( 
 the church ^i'X««o<, carnal. thu» fuUowUnf the 
 usage o( »omc <.»no»tir ■ ■• !:; ' • 14 
 
740 
 
 MONTANUS 
 
 itself the Catholics seem to have called 
 the new prophesying after its leader for the 
 time being. Elsewhere it was called after 
 its place of origin, the Phrygian heresy. In 
 the West the name became by a solecism the 
 Cataphrygian heresy. 
 
 Apparently after Themiso Miltiades pre- 
 sided over the sect ; the Anonymous calls it 
 the heresy nlv Kara 'MtXTiddrjv. One other 
 Montanist of this period was Alexander, who 
 was honoured by his party as a martyr, but 
 had, according to Apollonius, been only 
 punished by the proconsul, Aemilius Frontinus, 
 for his crimes, as the public records would 
 testify. We cannot, unfortunately, fix the 
 date of that proconsulship. 
 
 Taking the Eusebian date, 172, for the rise 
 of Montanism, Apollonius, who wrote 40 years 
 later, must have written c. 210. The Epi- 
 phanian date, 157, would make him 15 years 
 earlier. The Anonymous gives us a clue to his 
 date in the statement that whereas Maximilla 
 had foretold wars and tumults, there had been 
 more than 13 years since her death with no 
 general nor partial war, and the Christians had 
 enjoyed continual peace. This, then, must 
 have been written either before the wars of the 
 reign of Severus had begun or after they had 
 finished. The latest admissible date on the 
 former hypothesis gives us 192, and for the 
 death of Maximilla 179. It is hardly likely 
 that in so short a time all the original leaders 
 of the movement would have died. 
 
 Before the end of the 2nd cent. Mon- 
 tanist teachers had made their way as far as 
 Antioch ; for Serapion, the bishop there, 
 wrote against them, copying the letter of 
 Apolinarius. It is through Serapion that 
 Eusebius seems to have known this letter. 
 
 Early in the 3rd cent, the church had made 
 converts enough from Montanists born in the 
 sect for the question to arise. On what terms 
 were converts to be received who had had no 
 other than Montanist baptism ? Matter and 
 form were perfectly regular ; for in all essen- 
 
 MONTANUS 
 
 evidence whatever that any Roman bp. before 
 Eleutherus had heard of Montanism, and the 
 history of the interference of the Gallic con- 
 fessors in 177 shews that it was then a new 
 thing in the West. The case submitted to 
 Eleutherus no doubt informed him by letter 
 of the events in Phrygia ; but apparently no 
 Montanist teachers visited the West at this 
 time, and after the judgment of Eleutherus 
 the whole transaction seems to have been for- 
 gotten at Rome. It was in a subsequent 
 episcopate that the iirst Montanist teacher, 
 probably Proclus, appeared at Rome. There 
 was no reason to regard him with suspicion. 
 He could easily satisfy the bishop of his 
 perfect orthodoxy in doctrine ; and there was 
 no ground for disbelieving what he might tell 
 of supernatural manifestations in his own 
 country. He was therefore either received 
 into communion, or was about to be so and to 
 obtain authority to report to his churches in 
 Asia that their commendatory letters were 
 recognized at Rome, when the arrival of an- 
 other Asiatic, Praxeas, changed the scene. 
 Praxeas could shew the Roman bp. that the 
 Montanist pretensions to prophecy had been 
 condemned by his predecessors, and probably 
 the letter of Eleutherus was still accessible in 
 the Roman archives. The justice of this 
 previous condemnation Pra.xeas could confirm 
 from his own knowledge of the Montanist 
 churches and their prophesyings ; and his 
 testimony had the more weight because, 
 having suffered imprisonment for the faith, he 
 enjoyed the dignity of a martyr. The Mon- 
 tanist teacher was accordingly put out of 
 communion at Rome. This story, which has 
 all the marks of probability, is told by Ter- 
 tuUian (adv. Prax.), who probably had per- 
 sonal knowledge of the facts. The bishop 
 could only be Zephyrinus, for we cannot go 
 later ; and as predecessors in the plural num- 
 ber are spoken of, these must have been 
 Eleutherus and Victor. The conclusion which 
 we have reached, that Montanism made no 
 
 tial points of doctrine these sectaries agreed i appearance in the West before the episcopate 
 
 with the church. But it was decided, at a 
 council held at Iconium, to recognize no 
 baptism given outside the church. This we 
 learn from the letter to Cyprian by Firmilian 
 of Caesarea in Cappadocia, when the later 
 controversy arose about heretical baptism. 
 This council, and one which made a similar 
 decision at another Phrygian town, Synnada, 
 are mentioned also by Dionysius of Alexandria 
 (Eus. vii. 7). Firmilian speaks as if he had 
 been present at the Iconium council, which 
 may be dated c. 230. 
 
 So entirely had the Catholics ceased to 
 regard the Montanists as Christian brethren 
 that, as stated by the Anonymous, when per- 
 secution by the common enemy threw con- 
 fessors from both bodies together, the ortho- 
 dox persevered till their final martyrdom in 
 refusing to hold intercourse with their Mon 
 
 of Zephyrinus, is of great importance in the 
 chronology of this controversy. 
 
 The formal rejection of Montanism by the 
 Roman church was followed by a public dis- 
 putation between the Montanist teacher Pro- 
 clus, and Caius, a leading Roman presbyter. 
 Eusebius, who read the record of it, says it 
 took place under Zephyrinus. The Montanist 
 preachers, whatever their failures, had one 
 distinguished success in the acquisition of 
 Tertullian. Apparently the condemnation of 
 the Roman bishop was not in his mind decisive 
 against the Montanist claims, and he engaged 
 in an advocacy of them which resulted in his 
 separation from the church. His writings are 
 the great storehouse of information as to the 
 peculiarities of Montanist teaching. The 
 Italian Montanists were soon divided by 
 schism arising out of the violent Patripassian 
 
 tanist fellow-sufferers ; dreading to hold any ' controversy at Rome at the beginning of the 
 friendship with the lying spirit who animated | 3rd cent. Among the Montanists, Aeschines 
 
 them. Epiphanius states that in his time 
 the sect had many adherents in Phrygia, 
 Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and a con- 
 siderable number in Constantinople. 
 
 III. Montanism in the West. — If we set aside 
 the worthless Praedestiuatus, there is no 
 
 was the head of the Patripassian party, and 
 i in this it would appear from an extract in 
 Didymus that he followed Montanus himself ; 
 Proclus and his followers adhered to the 
 orthodox doctrine on this subject. 
 
 IV. Montanism and the Canon. — The most 
 
MONTANUS 
 
 fundamental iiuu>vati.)n i>f .M.>ntanist tcarhing 
 was the theory of an authorized developmriit 
 of Christian doctrine, as opposed to tlie oldtr 
 theory that Christian dortrii\e was preached 
 in its completeness by the apostles and that the 
 church had merelv to preserve faithfiiUv the 
 tradition of their teaehinj;. The Montaiiists 
 did not reject the apostolic revelations nor 
 abandon any dixrtrines the church had learned 
 from its older teachers. The revelatimis of 
 the new prophecy were to supplement, not to 
 displace, Scripture. They believed that while 
 the fundamental truths of faith remained un- 
 shaken, points both of discipline and doctrine 
 might receive c.tirrection. " .\ process of 
 development was exhibited in (lod's revela- 
 tions. It had its rudimentarv principle in the 
 religion of nature, its infancy in the law and 
 the prophets, its youth in the gospel, its full 
 maturity only in the dispensation of the 
 Paraclete. Through His enlightenment the 
 dark places of Scripture are made clear, 
 parables made plain, those passages of which 
 heretics had taken advantage cleared of all 
 ambiguity " (Tert. de Virg. Vel. i. ; de Res. 
 Cam. 63). Accordingly TertuUian appeals to 
 the new revelations on questit>us of discipline, 
 e.g. second marriages, and also on questions of 
 doctrine, as in his work against Praxeas and 
 his treatise on the Resurrection of the Flesh. 
 Some have thought it a thing to be regretted 
 that the church by her condemnation of Mon- 
 tanism should have suppressed the freedom 
 of individual prophesying. But each new 
 prophetic revelation, if acknowledged as 
 divine, would put as great a restraint on 
 future individual speculation as words of 
 Scripture or decree of pope or council. If 
 Montanism had triumphed. Christian doctrine 
 would have been developed, not under the 
 superintendence of the church teachers most 
 esteemed for wisdom, but usually of wild and 
 excitable women. Thus TertuUian himself 
 derives his doctrine as to the materiality and 
 the form of the soul from a revelation made 
 to an ecstatica of his congregation (de .Anima, 
 9). To the -Montanists it seemed that if (iod's 
 Spirit made known anything as true, that 
 truth could not be too extensively published. 
 It is evident from quotations in Epiphanius 
 and TertuUian that the prophecies of Maxi- 
 milla and Montanus were committed to 
 writing. To those who believed in their divine 
 inspiration, these would practically form 
 additional Scriptures. Hippolytus tells that 
 the Montanists " have an infinity of books of 
 these prophets whose words they neither 
 examine by reason, nor give heed to those who 
 can, but are carried away by their undis- 
 criminating faith in them, thinking that they 
 learn through their means something more 
 than from the law, the prophets, and the 
 gospels." Didymus is shocked at a propheti- 
 cal boi)k emanatinij from a female, whom the 
 apostle did not permit to teach. It wi>uld be 
 a mistake to suppose that the Montanistic dis- 
 putes lf<l to the formation of a N.T. canon. 
 On the contrary, it is plain that when these 
 disputes arose Christians had so far closed 
 their N.T. canon that they were shr>cked that 
 any modern writing should be made equal to 
 the inspired books of the apostolic age. The 
 Montanist disputes led to the publication of 
 
 MONTANUS 
 
 711 
 
 lists rerot;iii/ril bv p.irticiilar rhurrhr^, iitlil 
 
 we consiiler that it was in opp..Mi|,.n to (h« 
 multitudr of Montanist pr>phr(ir Ixh.Ws (hat 
 Caius in his disputation k^vp a list rrroKni/ml 
 bv his church. The rontr^ivrriv alv) undo 
 Christians more strupiiloiis alx>iil pavini: to 
 other books honiuim like thoso ^\\v\\ (■> the 
 books of Scripture, and we l>rl|pvr thai it W4S 
 for this reason that the Shepherd <•< Hrniut 
 ceased to have a y\,\rc in church fraditiK. 
 But still we think it plain from the history 
 that the conception of a closed N.T. canon 
 was found by .Montanism and not then 
 created. 
 
 V. ^tontanUt Doctrines and PratlUes. — The 
 church objected, as against Mont.iiiisin, to any 
 addition being made to the teaching of Scrip- 
 ture. What, then, was the nature of tho 
 additions actually made by the .Montanists? 
 
 (i) Sac Fasi.i. — Thr prophetesses had 
 ordained that in addition to th«- ordinary 
 Paschal fast of the church two wj-eks of what 
 was called Xerophagy should be obvrve*!. 
 In these the Montanists abstained, not only 
 from flesh, wine, and the us<' i>f the bath, but 
 from all succulent footl, e.g. juicy fruit, except 
 on Saturday and Sunday. The weekly 
 stations also, or half fasts, which in the chiirch 
 ended at three p.m., were by .Montanists 
 usually continued till evening. The church 
 party resisted the claim that these two new 
 weeks of abstinence were divinely obligatory. 
 The real (jueslion was. Had the prophetess 
 God's command for instituting them ? This 
 particular revelation only came into promin- 
 ence because at recurring intervals it put a 
 marked diflerence between Montanists and 
 Catholics, similar to that which the Paschal 
 fast put between Christians and heathen. 
 
 (2) Second Marriages. — On this subject 
 again the difference between the .Montanists 
 and the church really reduces its<-lf to the 
 question whether the Paraclete spoke by 
 .Montanus. Second marriages had before 
 .Montanus been rei;arded with disfavour in 
 the church. TertuUian deprecates them with 
 almost as much energy in his pre-Montanist 
 work ati Uxnrem as afterwards in his Mon- 
 tanist de Monogamia. But however un- 
 favourably such marriages were reganled, 
 their validity and lawfulness were not denied. 
 St. Paul had seemed to decl.ire that such 
 marriages were not forbidden (Kom. vii. 3; 
 I. Cor. vii. 30). and thedirecti-nin thcpa»ti>ral 
 epistles that a bishop should be husband of 
 one wife seemed to leave others free. 
 
 (3) Church Disctf'ltne.—T\\<r treatise of Ter- 
 tullian {de Pudictlia) shews a cntroyer^y of 
 Montanists with the church concerning the 
 power of church ofhcers to ijive al>solulii>n. 
 The occasion was the publicati-n. by one 
 whom TertuUian sarcastically calls " Pontifex 
 Maximus" and " Episcopus Epi«-oix)riim.' 
 of an edict of pardon to pervms guilty <»f adul- 
 tery and fi>rnicati'>n on due prrfonnanre of 
 penance. Doubtless a bp. of Rome is in- 
 tende<l, and as Hipp.lvtus tells {ix. IJ) «>f 
 Callistus being the first to intr-nluce »nch 
 laxity in granting absolution, it seems plain 
 that Callistus was referred to. Tertulll.in 
 holds that lor such sin abs'ilution ought never 
 to be given. Not that the sinner was to 
 despair of obtaining God's pardon by repent- 
 
742 
 
 MONTANUS 
 
 ance ; but it was for God alone to pardon ; 
 man might not. 
 
 We refer to our art. Tertullian for other 
 doctrines which, though advocated bv Ter- 
 tullian in his Montanist days, we do not feel 
 ourselves entitled to set down as Montanistic, 
 in the absence of evidence that Tertullian had 
 learned them from Montanus, or that thev 
 were held by Eastern Montanists. The bulk 
 of what Tertullian taught as a Montanist he 
 probably would equally have taught if Mon- 
 tanus had never lived ; but owing to the 
 place which Montanism ascribed to visions 
 and revelations as means of obtaining a know- 
 ledge of the truth, his belief in his opinions 
 was converted into assurance when they were 
 echoed by prophetesses who in their visions 
 gave utterance to opinions imbibed from their 
 master in their waking hours. 
 
 VI. Later History of Montanism. — We gather 
 from Tertullian's language {adv. Prax.) that 
 it was some time before his persistent ad- 
 vocacy of Montanism drew excommimication 
 on himself. To this interval we refer the 
 Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, in the editor of 
 which we may perhaps recognize Tertullian 
 himself. Both martyrs and mart\Tologist 
 had clearly been under Montanist influences : 
 great importance is attached to visions and 
 revelations, and the editor justifies the com- 
 position of new Acts, intended for church 
 reading, on the grounds that the " last davs " 
 in which he lived had witnessed, as had been 
 prophesied, new visions, new prophecies, new 
 exhibitions of the mighty working of God's 
 Spirit, as great as or greater than in any pre- 
 ceding age. Yet the martyrs are evidently 
 in full communion with the church. The 
 schism which soon afterwards took place 
 appears to have been of little importance 
 either in numbers or duration. We hear 
 nothing of Montanists in the writings of 
 Cyprian, whose veneration for Tertullian 
 would scarcely have been so great if his church 
 were still suffering from a schism which Ter- 
 tullian originated. In the next cent. Optatus 
 (i. 9) speaks of Montanism as an extinct heresv, 
 which it were slaying the slain to refute. Yet 
 there were some who called themselves after 
 Tertullian in the 4th cent. Augustine (Haer. 
 86) at Carthage heard that a well-known 
 church which formerlv belonged to the Ter- 
 tullianists had been surrendered to the Catho- 
 lics when the last of them returned to the 
 church. He had evidently heard no tradition 
 as to their tenets, and set himself to search in 
 Tertullian's writings for heresies which they 
 presumably may have held. Elsewhere in 
 the West Montanism entirely disappears. 
 
 In the East, we have already mentioned 
 the councils of Iconium and of Synnada. 
 There is a mention of Montanism in the Acts 
 of Achatius (Ruinart, p. 152). Though these 
 Acts lack external attestation, internal evid- 
 ence strongly favours their authenticity. 
 Their scene is uncertain ; the time is the Decian 
 persecution a.d. 250. The magistrate, urging 
 Achatius to sacrifice, presses him with the 
 example of the Cataphrygians, " homines 
 antiquae religionis," who had already con- 
 formed. Sozomen (ii. 32) ascribes the ex- 
 tinction of the Montanists, as well as of other 
 heretical sects, to the edict of Constantino 
 
 MONTANUS 
 
 depriving them of their places of worship and 
 forbidding their religious meetings. Till then, 
 being confounded by heathen rulers with other 
 Christians, they could meet for worship, and, 
 even when few in number, keep together ; 
 but Constantine's edict killed all the weaker 
 sects, and among them the Montanists, every- 
 where except in Phrygia and neighbouring 
 districts, where they were still numerous in 
 Sozomen's time. He says (vii. 18) that, unlike 
 Scythia, where one bishop ruled over the whole 
 province, among these Phrygian heretics every 
 village had its bishop. At last the orthodox zeal 
 of Justinian took measures to crush out the 
 remains of the sect in Phrygia, and the Mon- 
 tanists in despair gathered with wives and 
 children into their places of worship, set them 
 on fire, and there perished (Procop. Hist. Arc. 
 11). In connexion with this may be taken 
 what is told of John of Ephesus in the same 
 reign of Justinian (Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 88), 
 that A.D. 550 he had the bones dug up and 
 burned of Montanus and of his prophetesses 
 Carata, Prisca, and Maximilla. What is 
 disguised under the name Carata we cannot 
 tell. It is hardly likely that Montanism sur- 
 vived the persecution of Justinian. Besides 
 Cataphrygians they were often called from 
 their headquarters, Pepuzans, which Epipha- 
 nius counts as a distinct heresy. The best 
 j monograph on Montanism is by Bonwetsch 
 (Erlangen, 1881). See also Zahn, Forschanger 
 I zur Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, etc. (1893). v. 3 ff., 
 on the chronologv of Montanism. [g.s.] 
 
 Montanus (3), bp. of Toledo, c. 523-^- 53i- 
 Authorities. — (i) His Life by Ildefonsus (de 
 Vir. III. c. 3). {2) Two letters printed by 
 Loaysa (Cone. Hisp. p. 88), Aguirre (Coll. 
 Max. Cone. Hisp. ii. 159), and Florez (Esp. 
 Sagr. V. 409, 415). (3) The Acts of the second 
 council of Toledo (Tejada y Ramiro, Coll. de 
 Can. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 701). 
 
 His Life. — The facts related by Ildefonsus 
 
 are meagre. We are told that Montanus was 
 
 the successor of Celsus in the " prima sedes " 
 
 of the province of Carthaginensis ; that he 
 
 defended and maintained his office ; that he 
 
 wrote two letters on points of church disci- 
 
 : pline, one to the inhabitants of Palencia, the 
 
 other to a certain Turibius, a "religious"; 
 
 and that he rebutted a scandalous accusation 
 
 I by the help of a miracle wrought in his favour. 
 
 These Acts of the second council of Toledo 
 
 I are curious and important, and have been 
 
 ! suspected of at least containing interpolations, 
 
 I if not of being altogether supposititious, but 
 
 j there seems no sufficient reason for doubting 
 
 ! their genuineness. The council opened on 
 
 May 17 in the 5th year of Amalaric (a-d. 527) 
 
 according to the reckoning generally adopted 
 
 since Florez's day, 531 according to the older 
 
 reckoning. The bishops began by expressing 
 
 their intention of adding to the Codex Canonum 
 
 certain provisions not already contained in 
 
 j the ancient canons on the one hand, and of 
 
 reviving such prescriptions as had fallen into 
 
 disuse on the other. The material of these 
 
 canons is common to most of the various 
 
 Spanish councils of the first half of 6th cent. 
 
 It is the concluding passage of the Acts which 
 
 makes the council of special interest in Spanish 
 
 ecclesiastical history. "According to the 
 
 decrees of ancient canons, we declare that, 
 
MOSES 
 
 Cod willinp. thr council shall be hrld in fnttirr 
 ' apud ■ our brother, the bi-ihop Montanus. so 
 that it will be the dutv of our brother and 
 co-bishop Montanus. who ts in thf mftrof>ohs. 
 to forward to our co-principals, bishops of thr 
 Lord, letters convening the svnod when the 
 proper time shall arrive." An expression of 
 thanks " to the glorious king .\malaric." with 
 regard to whom the bishops pray that 
 " throughout the unnumbered years of his 
 reign he may continue to afford us the licence 
 of carrying through all that pertains to the 
 cultus fidei." concludes the .\cts. In the 
 words in italics is contained the first mention 
 of Toledo as the ecclesiastical metropolis of 
 Carthaginensis, the first indication of that 
 commanding position to which the see was 
 to attain under its 7th-cent. bishops. The 
 passage also indicates the relations of Mon- 
 tanus with king .\malaric. Relying upon 
 his support, upon the physical advantages of 
 Toledo, and upon an ecclesiastical tradition 
 capable of various interpretations. Montanus 
 sought permanentlv to exalt the power and 
 position of his see. But the time was not 
 yet come, and the question still remained an 
 open one in .sSq when Leovigild fixed the seat 
 of the consolidated (iothic power at Toledo, 
 and practically settled the long-vexed question. 
 Cartagena was in the hands of Byzantium, 
 whereas the bp. of Toledo was the bishop of 
 the urbs regia. It took some time to accom- 
 plish, but the Dfcretum Gundftnari as a first 
 step, and the Primacy Canon of the 12th 
 council of Toledo as a second, were the in- 
 evitable ecclesiastical complements of physical 
 and political facts. Hefelc, Cone. Gesch. ii. 
 700 ; Esp. Sagr. v. 131, c. iii. [m.a.w.] 
 
 Moses (3) (.Uovso). Roman presbyter (? of 
 Jewish origin), a leading member of an in- 
 fluential group of confessors in the time of 
 Cyprian, about the commencement of the 
 Novatianist schism. The others were Maxi- 
 mus, NiC'»tratus. Rufinus, I'rbanus, Sidonius, 
 Macarius, and Celcrinus. They wrote early 
 in the persecution, urging the claims of dis- 
 cipline on the Carthaginian confessors {Ep. 27) 
 (cf. Tillem. t.iii. Notes s. .Moyse. t. iv., S. Cyp. 
 a. XV., Lipsius, Chr. d. rom. Bisch. p. 200), and 
 Moyses signed the second letter of the Roman 
 clerus (viz. Ep. 30), drawn up by Novatian 
 according to Cyprian (Ep. 55, iv. ), and he 
 wrote with the other confessors Ep. 31 to 
 Cyprian (Ep. 32). When they had been a 
 year in prison (Ep. 37), or more accurately 
 II months and days (Liberian Catalogue, 
 Mommsen, Chronogr. v. Jahrc 354, p. 635), 
 i.e. c. Jan. i, 251, Moyses died and was ac- 
 counted a confessor and martyr (E.p. 55). 
 Shortly before his death he refused to com- 
 municate with .\ovatian and the five presbyters 
 who sided with him (diro<rxtffa<Tii') because he 
 saw the tendency of his stern dogma (Cornelius 
 to Fabius of Antioch, Eus. vi. 43, KaTiJwr). 
 
 Movses' severance was not because Nova- 
 tian had already left the Catholics, which he 
 did not do till June 4, after the election of 
 Cornelius ; and Novatus, who induced it, di<i 
 not leave Carthage for Rome until April 
 or May (Rettberg, p. 109). Moyses' great 
 authority remained a strong point in Corne- 
 lius's favour, when the rest of the confessors 
 (Ep. 51) after their release threw their in- 
 
 MURATORIAN FRAGMKNT 74^ 
 
 tlueMrr ..n thr sidr of N.>\ ,• • nJlnn 
 
 the slrirtrr disciplinr ag " Thr 
 
 headship <>f thr p.irtv W\ '■' vm-»' 
 
 death to Maximi ^ (S). ;i w ii.| 
 
 Moses (6). of Khorrn ^^f.,^e^ Kh.>rrnfnll^) 
 - -called bv hi» counlrvmrn the Father o( 
 Mistorv- the port, graminarian. ami mmi 
 crlrbratrd writrr of Armrnu, W4^ thr nrphrw 
 and disciple of St. Mrsri>b. thr fiMindrr nt 
 .\rmrnian iitrraturr. (Mr^Monrsl H«Tn »t 
 Khorrn or Khorni. a town <>f thr provinrr of 
 Parou, he was onr of a band <>f %rht>Ur» M>nt 
 bv Mesrob tostiidv at I"dr\sa. I OnstJntinople, 
 Alexandria. Athrns. and Romr. Thrrr he 
 accumulated vrrv widr historical knoMlrdgn 
 (cf. Wis/, .irtnen. iii. fti. fij). Rrlurninx to 
 .\rmenia. he assistrdSt. Mrsr>>b in trAn%lallnK 
 the Bible into his native l.mKuagr. a work 
 which was accomplished brtwrm 407 and 413. 
 This fixes his birth in thr r.irlv part of crnt. v. ; 
 though some place it in thr latlrr part of crnt. 
 iv. Brvond his litrrarv activitv we do not 
 know much about his lifr. Ur stircr^drd 
 Kznig as bp. of Pakrevant, whrrr he dis- 
 played great spiritual activitv. According to 
 the medieval Armenian chronicler. Samuel of 
 Ani. he died in 4RR, aged 120. The followinR 
 works atlribnt«-d t>> him arr rxtant : (\)Htsl.of 
 .4rmenia, (2) Treattseon Rhetoric. (3) Trenlneon 
 Geography, (^)r.etler on. Assumptinnnf n. f. .»f., 
 (S) Homilv on Chrtsfs 1 ransfisutalion, (6) 
 Oration on Hrip-^inta, an .Armenian Vttfin 
 Martyr, (7) Hvmns used i« .Armenian 
 Church Worship. He wrote also 2 work* 
 now lost. viz. Commentaries on the .Armenimn 
 Grammarians, of which fragments arc found 
 in John lirzengatzi, an Armenian writrr of 
 cent, xiii., and Explanations of .Armenian 
 Church Offices, of which we have t.idv v>inp 
 fragments in Thomas .\rdzrouni (crnt. vii.). 
 The Hist, of .Armenia is |>erhaps the work 
 of a Liter writer, but it is in some respects one 
 of the most important historical w<irksi>f anti- 
 quity. It embodies alnm^t our onlv remains 
 of pre-Christian .-Vrmenian literature and pre- 
 serves many songs and traditions retained at 
 that time in popular memory. F>>r special 
 studies of it see Diilaurirr in Journ. .Asial. 
 Jan. 1852. It is also very valuable l>rcaus«« 
 it preserves extensive remains of Assyrian. 
 Ch.ildean, Svrian, and C.rrrk writrrs. Slosrs 
 had studied long at Kdessa, where thr library 
 was very rich in ancient Assyrian chroniclers. 
 This work also throws much light «>n the 
 history of the Roman empire in crnt*. iv- and 
 v., and its struggles against thr rrnrwrd Prr- 
 sian empire and the eflorts of Zoroastn.inism. 
 It has been translated into Italian by thr 
 Mcchitarite Fathers (Vrnicr. 1M41); into 
 French bv V. I.anglois in Hulortens mn<itnM 
 de V.Arm^nie (Paris, iH«.7). Srr alsi. .M. ( ar- 
 riere, M„i\e de Khoren. etc. (Pan- • •> - > 1. 1 
 .\ouveUe^\"Urce<.de.\t<'t>edeKh i\ 
 Id., I.a. Ugende d'.Ahcur. dam I'h: 
 Kh. ; als4> F. ( . Ciivlxarr in / 
 schr. (i'>'>i ). X 4'*'» s'-'I (■..I--! 
 
 Mtirktortan Prarnifnt, a very ancimt list 
 
 <.f the b'M'ks ..f ."SI. nrst pub. in 1740 by 
 Murat'.ri {.Ant. I tat. .Med. .Aev. ill. «>i) and 
 fi>und in a 7th <>r Hth rent. MS. in thr Ainbr-v- 
 sian Library at Milan. rh« MS. had r..n»e 
 from the Irish monastery of Bohbio, and th« 
 fragment seems to have htvn a copy of « loose 
 
744 MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 
 
 leaf or two of a lost volume. It is defective 
 in the beginning, and breaks off in the middle 
 of a sentence, and the mutilation must have 
 taken place in the archetype of oiir present 
 copy. This copy was made bv an illiterate and 
 careless scribe, and is full of blunders ; but is 
 of the greatest value as the earliest -known 
 list of N.T. books recognized by the church. 
 A reference to the episcopate of Pius at Rome 
 (" nuperrime temporibus nostris ") is usually 
 taken to prove that the document carmot be 
 later than c. i8o, some 20 years after Pius's 
 death (see infra). This precludes Muratori's 
 own conjecture as to authorship, viz. that it 
 was by Caius the presbyter, c. 196; and 
 Bunsen's conjecture that Hegesippus wrote it 
 has nothing to recommend it. It is generallv 
 agreed that it was written in Rome. Though 
 in Latin, it bears marks of translation from the 
 Greek, though Hesse (Das. Mur. Frag., Giessen, 
 1873) and others maintain the originalitv of 
 the Latin. 
 
 The first line of the fragment evidentlv con- 
 cludes its notice of St. Mark's Gosper, for 
 it proceeds to speak of St. Luke's as in the 
 3rd place, St. John's in the 4th. A notice of 
 St. Matthew's and St. Mark's must have come 
 before, but we have no means of knowing 
 whether the O.T. books preceded that notice. 
 The document appears to have dealt with the 
 choice of topics in the Gospels and the point 
 where each began (cf. Iren. iii. 11). It is 
 stated that St. Luke (and apparentlv St. Mark 
 also) had not seen our Lord in the flesh. For 
 its story as to the composition of St. John's 
 Gospel see Leucius. The document goes on 
 to say that by one and the same sovereign 
 Spirit the same fundamental doctrines are 
 fully taught in all concerning our Lord's 
 birth, life, passion, resurrection, and future 
 coming. At the date of this document, 
 therefore, belief was fully established in the 
 pre-eminence of the four Gospels, and in their 
 divine inspiration. Next comes the Acts, 
 St. Luke being credited with purposing to 
 record only what fell under his own notice, 
 thus omitting the martvrdom of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul's journev to Spain. Thirteen 
 epistles of St. Paul are then mentioned, (a) 
 epistles to churches, in the order- I. and II. 
 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., I. and II. Thess., 
 Rom. It IS observed that St. Paul addressed 
 (like St. John) only seven churches bv name,* 
 shewing that he addressed the universal 
 church, (b) Epistles to individuals : Phile- 
 mon, Titus, and two to Timothv, written from 
 personal affection, but hallowed by the Cath- 
 olic church for the ordering of ecclesiastical 
 discipline. Next follow words which we 
 quote from VVestcott's trans. : " Moreover 
 there is in circulation an epistle to the Laodi- 
 ceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged 
 under the name of Paul, bearing on [al. 
 
 * I.e. "nomination," whidi might suggest the 
 acknowledgment as St. Paul's of Hebreu-s as not 
 addressed to a church by name. But no mention of 
 that epistle follows, as we should in that case expect. 
 Pi'^i* .."'''''.?'' °^ P=^"^'s Epp. to Seven Churches 
 L c 7 • " ,^ '• "• ^^- '^^''^- '"^''- /«'^- a°tl Optatus, 
 ae Schism Don. 11. 3) and the language of Augustine 
 (de Ctv. Dei.^^n. iv. 4), Victorinus of Padua (in 
 Apoc. I) and Pseudo-Chrvs. (Op. imperl. in Matt. 
 1. 6, pp. VI. XVII. Bened. ed.) suggest the acquaintance 
 of those writers with our document. 
 
 MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 
 
 ' favouring '] the heresy of Marcion, and 
 several others, which cannot be received into 
 the Catholic church, for gall ought not to be 
 mingled with honey. The epistle of Jude, 
 however, and two epistles bearing the name 
 of John, are received in the Catholic [church] 
 (or, are reckoned among the Catholic [epistles]). 
 And the book of Wisdom, written by the 
 friends of Solomon in his honour [is acknow- 
 ledged]. We receive, moreover, the Apoca- 
 lypses of St. John and St. Peter only, which 
 latter some of our body will not have read in 
 the church." Marcion entitled his version of 
 Eph. " to the Laodiceans," and there is a 
 well-known pseud o- Pauline epistle with the 
 same title. It has been generally conjectured 
 that by the epistle " to the Alexandrians," 
 Hebrews is meant ; but it is nowhere else so 
 described, has no Marcionite tendency, and is 
 not " under the name of Paul." The frag- 
 ment may refer to some current writing which 
 has not survived, or the Ep. of Barnabas 
 might possibly be intended. Though only 
 two Epp. of John are mentioned, the opening 
 I sentence of I. John had been quoted in the 
 paragraph treating of the Gospel, and our 
 writer may have read that epistle as a kind 
 of appendix to the Gospel, and be here speak- 
 ing of the other two. The mention of Wisdom 
 in a list of N.T. books is perplexing. Perhaps 
 we should read " ut " for " et " ; and the 
 Proverbs of Solomon and not the apocryphal 
 book of Wisdom may be intended. There 
 may be an inaccurate reference to Prov. xxv. i 
 (LXX). The fragment next says that the 
 Shepherd was written " very lately, in our 
 own time " in the city of Rome, his brother- 
 bishop Pius then occupying the chair of the 
 Roman church ; that, therefore, it ought to 
 be read, but not in the public reading of the 
 church. The text of the last sentence of the 
 document is very corrupt, but evidently 
 names writings which are rejected altogether, 
 including those of Arsinous, Valentinus, and 
 Militiades, mention being also made of the 
 Cataphrygians of Asia. 
 
 Westcott has shewn that no argument can 
 be built upon the omissions (Ep. of James, 
 both Epp. of Peter, and Hebrews) of our 
 fragment, since it shews so many blunders of 
 transcription, and some breaks in the sense. 
 Certainly I. Peter held, at the earliest date 
 claimed for the fragment, such a position in 
 the Roman church that entire silence in re- 
 spect to it seems incredible. Of disquisitions 
 on our fragment we may name Credner, A^. T. 
 Kanon, Volkmar's ed. 141 seq. 341 seq. ; Routh, 
 Rell. Sac. i. 394 ; Tregelles, Canon Murat- 
 orianus ; Hesse, op. cit. ; Westcott, N. T. 
 Canon, 208 seq. 514 seq. ; qndesp. Zahn, Gesch. 
 der N.T. Kanons, ii. i (1890), pp. 1-143; also 
 Lietzman's Das Mur Frag. (Bonn, 1908), be- 
 sides coimtless arts, in journals, e.g. Hamack, 
 in Text und Unters. (1900); Overbeck, Zur 
 Geschichte des Kanons (1880); Hilgenfeld, 
 Zeitschrijt (1881), p. 129. Hilgenfeld (Kanon, 
 p. 44), and Botticher (De Lagarde) in Bunsen's 
 Hippolytus i. 2nd ed. Christianity and Mankind, 
 attempted its re-translation into Greek; an ed., 
 with notes and facsimile by S. P. Tregelles. is 
 pub. by the Clar. Press. The present wxiter 
 expressed in 1874 (Hermathena i.) an opinion 
 which he now holds with more confidence that 
 
 
MUSONIUS 
 
 the fraginpiit was written in tho cpiscdpatp o( 
 Zephyriiius. The words " teinporibus iiostris" 
 must not be too severely pressetl. We have 
 no evidence that the writer was as careful 
 and accurate as Kusebius, who vet speaks 
 (iii. 28, cf. V. 27) of a jv-riod 50 or 60 vears 
 before he was writing as his own time. There 
 are also indications from the historv of the 
 varying position held by the Shff^turJ that 
 the publication of our fragment mav have been 
 between Tertullian's two tracts </<• OriUione 
 and lie Pudicitia (see D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. 
 s.r.) ; and if it be true that Montanism only 
 became active in the Roman church in the 
 episcopate of Zephyrinus, the date of the 
 Muratorian document is settled, for it is 
 clearly anti-Montanist. If we regard it as 
 written in the episcopate of Zeph\Tinus, 
 Muratori's conjecture that Cains wrote it 
 becomes possible ; and we know from Kuse- 
 bius that the disputation of Caius with PriKlus. 
 written at that peri >d. contained, in opposition 
 to Montanist revolati ms, a list of the books 
 reverenced by the Cathi>lic church. [c.s] 
 
 Musonius (1), bp. of Ne<x;aesarea, on whose 
 death in a-d. 368 Basil wrote a long letter of 
 consolatim to his widowed church (Ep. 28 
 [62]), lauding him greatly and designating 
 him no unworthy successor of Circgory Thau- 
 maturgus. He describes him as a ria;id 
 supporter of old customs and the ancient 
 faith, endeavouring to conf<irm his church in 
 all things to the primitive model. His 
 watchful care had preserved his church from 
 the storms of heresy ravaging all neighbouring 
 churches. In so great reverence was he held 
 that, tho\igh by no means the oldest of the 
 bishops, the presidencv in council was always 
 his. He must have attained the episcopate 
 comparatively yoimg, for, though he ruled the 
 church of Xeocaesarea many years, he was not 
 vecy aged when he died. Though Musonius 
 had been prejudiced against Basil, and re- 
 garded his election to the episcopate with no 
 friendly eyes, so that, though they were united 
 in faith and in opposition to heresy, they were 
 unable to co-operate for the peace of the 
 church, Basil mentions him in a second letter 
 to the Neocaesareans as the " blessed Muso- 
 nius," the follower of the traditions of Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, " whose teaching was still 
 sounding in their ears" (Ep. 210 [64]). [e.v.] 
 
 Narcissus (t), bp. of Jerusalem. Clinton 
 (Fasti Romuni) accepts the date a.d. 190 for 
 the commencement of his episcopate. He 
 was the 15th of the Gentile bishops of Jeru- 
 salem, reckoning from Marcus, a.d. 136, and 
 the 30th in succession from the apostles (I£us. 
 H. E. V. 12). .Vccording to the Synoduon, 
 Narcissus presided over a council of 14 bishops 
 of Palestine held at Jerusalem a.i>. 198, on the 
 Paschal controversy, and took part in that at 
 Caesarea on the same subject under the pre- 
 sidency of Theophiius, bp. of the city (I. abbe, 
 Concil. i. 600). Eusebjus sijeaks of the 
 synodical letter of these bishops as still extant 
 in his time (Eus. H. E. v. 23)- Narcissus was 
 conspicuous in the church of his day (.Nealc, 
 Patriarch, oj Antioch. p. 34 ; Eus. //. E. v. 12). 
 
 NEBRIDIUS 
 
 746 
 
 Eusebius records .1 mir.>rle Ir4ilili<>nallv 
 .iscribrd to him, whrrrl>v wjtcr wa» r«»uvrtlr<l 
 into oil one EA<trr Evr. when the oil rr<|uirrd 
 for the grr.tt illumination hail (.iilrd {\.\is. 
 //. E. vi. .)). The s.u>ctitv of hi> li(r r4i%fd 
 against liim a b.md of s|.tndrrrr%. N4rri»»us 
 stung bv their cilumiiv, alxliralrd his l>i\ho|>. 
 ric, and retin-d to the rmtotrsi poit <>( Ihn 
 desert, where for srveral vrar^ he lived Ihtt 
 ascetic life he had long covrtr<l, no «nr kn<iw> 
 ing the place of his concraUnrnl. 
 
 Having In^en sought for in vain, the nriKh- 
 bouring bishops declared the srr vacant. Mid 
 orilained l>ius as his successor, who wa> 
 succeeded by tiermaiiicus, and he by Gordlu*. 
 During the episcopate of (tordnis, Norcistus 
 reappeared. Shortly aftrr his dis.tpj>r4rAncr 
 the faKity of thech.u"ges .igainst him, liusrbiut 
 tells us. had been pr'>ved b\ thrrursrsiinprrca- 
 ted by the f.ilse accusers h.iMiig Ixf-n frarfully 
 made gixxl. This, having evmlu.illy rrachrd 
 N.ircissus's ears, probably led to his return. 
 He at once resumed tlie oversight of his see 
 at the earnest request of all (ift. 0. 10). In the 
 2nd year of Caracalla, a.d. 212 (Eu*. Chromi- 
 con), .Mexander, a Cappadocian bishop, a 
 confessor in the persecution of Sevcru*. visit- 
 ing the holy city in fulfilment of a vow. wa» 
 selected by the aged Narcissus as his coadjutor 
 and eventual successor. Eiisebius preserve* 
 a fragment of a letter written by .Mexander 
 to the people of .\ntinous, in which he s|>eaks 
 of Narcissus as being then in his 116th yr.ir, 
 and as having virtually retired from hi» 
 episcopal office (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). Epipha- 
 nius states that he lived ten ye.\rs after 
 .Mexander became his coadjutor, to the reign 
 of .Mexander Severus, a.d. 222 (Ei)iph. Haer. 
 Ixvi. 20). This, however, is very improbable. 
 Tiliem. Mt'm. feci. iii. 177 f- (k.v.) 
 
 NebrldiuS (4). an intimate friend of Si. 
 .Augustine, and i>robably of about the same 
 age, described by him as very gm)d and of a 
 very cautious disposition. While .\ugustine 
 was at Carthage under the influence of .Mani- 
 chean doctrine, it was partly through Nebri- 
 dius and Vindicianus that he was induced to 
 give up his belief in astrology, or, as it was then 
 callid, m.ithemalics. Nebridius had .ilready 
 abandoned .Manicheism and delivered lectures 
 against it, a.d. 379 (Aug. Conf. iv. 3 ; vii. 2, 6). 
 When .\ugustine removed from Rome to 
 Milan as a lecturer in rhrttiric, a.d. 384, 
 Nebridius, out of love for him, drtermincd to 
 leave his home and mother, and take up hit 
 abode with Augustine and .My|>ius there, " for 
 no other reason," says .-VuKUstine. " than that 
 he might live with me in mo»t ardent pursuit 
 of truth and wisdom " (^^. vi. 7, 10). Hy 
 
 and by Nebridius imdert'M)k to assist Vrrc 
 cundus in his grojiimar lr< turr> .«t lus rarne»t 
 request and that of .Au^jusliiK-. This duty he 
 performed with great c.irr ami discrrtion (ib. 
 I viii. 6). Soon after Nebridius a|iT.irs io have 
 ! taken up the notion of the I><K^rtar. that our 
 I Lord t<K)k human nature not in rralitv but 
 I only in outward appearance, an error which, 
 after a period of unknown Iriigth, he re- 
 t canted. So«in after the conversion of Aurus- 
 tine he died, a true Catholic, having induced 
 ' his houvhold to join him in the change. 
 '• He IS now," says Augustine with conhdrncr, 
 " in the bosom of Abraham " [ib. ix. j, 4)- 
 
746 
 
 NECTARIUS 
 
 Though a much-loved friend, Nebridius was 
 a troublesome correspondent, most persever- 
 ing in his inquiries, which were sometimes very 
 difficult to answer, and not satisfied with 
 brief replies or always ready to make allowance 
 for his friend's occupations (Aug. Ep. 98, 8). 
 Of the 12 letters which remain of their corre- 
 spondence, two only are addressed by Nebri- 
 dius to Augustine. Those of Augustine are 
 very long, chiefly on metaphysical subjects of 
 extreme subtlety. [h.w.p.] 
 
 Nectarius (4), archbp. of Constantinople 
 A.D. 381-397 or 398, successor to St. Gregory 
 of Nazianzus. When Gregory resigned, Nec- 
 tarius was praetor of Constantinople. He was 
 of noble family, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, an 
 elderly man, widely known for his admirable 
 character, still only a catechumen. Pre- 
 paring for a journey to Tarsus, he called on the 
 bp. of Tarsus, Diodorus, who was attending 
 the council, to ask if he could take letters for 
 him. The appearance and manners of his 
 visitor struck Diodorus so forcibly that he at 
 once determined that he should be advanced 
 as a candidate ; and, alleging some other 
 business, took the praetor to call on the bp. of 
 Antioch, who, though laughing at the idea of 
 such a competitor, asked Nectarius to put off 
 his journey a short time. When the emperor 
 Theodosius desired the bishops at the council 
 to suggest candidates, reserving to himself 
 the right of choosing one of them, the bp. of 
 Antioch put at the bottom of his list, in 
 compliment to the bp. of Tarsus, the name of 
 the praetor. The emperor, reading the lists, 
 declared his choice to be Nectarius. The 
 Fathers were amazed. Who and what was 
 this Nectarius ? He was not even baptized. 
 Astonishment at the emperor's unexpected 
 choice was great. Even the bp. of Tarsus 
 seems not to have known this disqualification. 
 The startling information did not move Theo- 
 dosius. The people of Constantinople were 
 delighted at the news. The whole council 
 agreed. Nectarius was baptized. The dress 
 of a neophyte was changed for the robes of the 
 bishop of the imperial city. The praetor, a few 
 days previously a catechumen, became at once 
 president of the second general council. He 
 ruled the church upwards of 16 years, and 
 made an admirable prelate. His name 
 heads the 150 signatures to the canons of the 
 second general council. The 3rd canon de- 
 clares that " the bp. of Constantinople shall 
 hold the first rank after the bp. of Rome, 
 because Constantinople is new Rome." 
 
 The bishops of the West were not disposed 
 to accept the election, and asked for a common 
 synod of East andWest to settle the succession. 
 Accordingly the emperor Theodosius, soon 
 after the close of the second general council, 
 summoned the bishops of his empire to a fresh 
 synod — not, however, as the Latins wished, at 
 Alexandria, but at Constantinople. There 
 were assembled here, early in the summer of 
 382, very nearly the same bishops who had 
 been at the second general council. On 
 arriving they received a letter from the synod 
 of Milan, inviting them to a great general 
 council at Rome. They replied that they 
 must remain where they were, because they 
 had not made preparations for so long a 
 journey, and were only authorized by their 
 
 NECTARIUS 
 
 colleagues to act at Constantinople. They 
 sent three of their number— Syriacus, Euse- 
 bius, and Priscian — with a synodal letter to 
 pope E)amasus, archbp. Ambrose, and the 
 other bishops assembled in council at Rome. 
 
 The Roman synod to which this letter was 
 addressed was the 5th under Damasus. No 
 certain account remains of its proceedings, nor 
 of how its members treated the question of 
 Nectarius. Theodosius, however, sent com- 
 missaries to Rome in support of the statements 
 of his synod, as we learn from the letters of 
 pope Boniface. In his 15th letter (to the 
 bishops of Illyria) he shews that the church 
 in Rome had finally agreed to recognize both 
 Nectarius and Flavian. St. Ambrose, in his 
 63rd letter, adduces the election of Nectarius 
 as an approval of his own by the East. 
 
 Six graceful letters from Nectarius remain 
 in the correspondence of his illustrious pre- 
 decessor Gregory. In the first he expresses 
 his hearty good wishes for his episcopate. The 
 last is of great importance, urging him not to 
 be too liberal in tolerating the Apollinarians. 
 
 In 383 a third synod at Constantinople was 
 held. In spite of the decrees of bishops and 
 emperor, the -Brians and Pneumatomachians 
 continued to spread their doctrines. Theo- 
 dosius summoned all parties to the imperial 
 city for a great discussion in June, hoping to 
 reconcile all differences. Before the pro- 
 ceedings, he sent for the archbishop and told 
 him of his intention that all questions should 
 be fully debated. Nectarius returned home, 
 full of profound anxiety, and consulted the 
 Novatianist bp. Agelius, who agreed with him 
 in doctrine and was held in high personal 
 esteem. Agelius felt himself unsuited for so 
 grave a controversy ; but he had a reader, 
 Sisinnius, a brilliant philosopher and theo- 
 logian, to whom he proposed to entrust the 
 argument with the Arians. Sisinnius sug- 
 gested that they should produce the testi- 
 monies of the old Fathers of the church on the 
 doctrine of the Son, and first ask the heads of 
 the several parties whether they accepted these 
 authorities or desired to anathematize them. 
 The archbishop and the emperor gladly agreed 
 to this scheme. When the bishops met, the 
 emperor asked : Did they respect the teachers 
 who lived before the Arian division ? They 
 said, Yes. He then asked : Did they acknow- 
 ledge them sound and trustworthy witnesses 
 of the true Cliristian doctrine ? The divisions 
 this question produced shewed that the 
 sectaries were bent on disputation. The 
 emperor ordered each party to draw up a 
 written confession of its doctrine. When this 
 was done, the bishops were summoned to the 
 imperial palace, Nectarius and Agelius for the 
 orthodox, Demophilus (formerly bp. of Con- 
 stantinople) for the Arians, Eleusius of Cyzicus 
 for the Pneumatomachians, and Eunomius for 
 the Anomoeans. The emperor received them 
 with kindness and retired into a room alone 
 with their written confessions. After praying 
 God for enlightenment, he rejected and de- 
 stroyed all except that of the orthodox, be- 
 cause the others introduced a division into 
 the Holy Trinity. The sectaries thereupon 
 sorrowfully returned home. The emperor 
 now forbade all sectaries, except the Nova- 
 tianists, to hold divine service anywhere, to 
 
NEMESIUS 
 
 publish their (li>ctrinos or to onl.iin rlrro'. 
 tinder threat of severe civil pen.iltirs. 
 
 In 385 died Pulcheri.*, the emperor'* 
 daughter, and his wife riarill.i. The .irch- 
 bishop asked (".repory of NA-ssa to preach the 
 funeral sermons on b<ith Kcasiofis. 
 
 Titwards the clos* of his episcopate Nec- 
 tarius abolished the office of prcsbvter peni- 
 tentiary, whose duty appears to have l>ern to 
 receive confessions before communion. His 
 example was followed by nearly all other 
 bishops. The presbyter penitentiary was 
 added to the ecclesiastical roll al>out the time 
 of the Novatianist schism, when that party 
 declined to conununicate with those who had 
 lapsed in the Decian persecution, (ir.idu.tllv 
 there were fewer lapsed to reconcile, and his 
 duties became more closely connected with 
 preparation for communion. .\ disgraceful 
 occurrence induced Nectarius to leave the 
 participation in holy communion entirely to 
 mdividual consciences and abolish the office. 
 
 Nectarius died in 397 or 398, and was suc- 
 ceeded by St. John Chrvsostom. (Theod. 
 H. E. V. viii. etc. ; S«Kr. H. E. v. viii. etc.; Soz. 
 H. E. vii. viii. etc. ; The<iph. Chronogr. so. 
 etc.; Nectarii .\rch. CP. Enarralio in Pair. 
 Gk. xxxix. p. 1821 ; Mansi, Concil. t. iii. p. 
 521. 509, 633. 643, 694, etc. ; Hefele, Hist. 
 Christ. Couttcils, tr. Oxenham (Edinb. iS;6). 
 vol. ii. rr- 344. 347. 37S. 380. 382, etc. fw.M.s.] 
 
 NemeslUS (4), bp. of Emesa in the latter half 
 of 4th rent., of whom nothing is certainlv 
 known but that he wrote a rather remarkable 
 treatise, irfpi <pv<rtwt ait^pilirov. de Xatura 
 Hominis, of which cc. ii. and iii. wrongly 
 appear as a separate work, entitled ir(fH 
 \ti'X^i. de Ariirrui, among the writings of Cng- 
 ory Nyssen. I.e Ouien [Or. Chnst. ii. 83<)) 
 places Nemesius fifth among the bishops of 
 Emesa, between Paul 1., who attended the 
 council of Seleucia, a.d. 359, and C>Tiacus, the 
 friend of Chrysostom. The date of his wTiting 
 is tolcrablv certain from his mentioning the 
 doctrines of Apollinaris and Eunomius and 
 the Origenists, but n'>t those of Nestorius. 
 lEutvches. or Pelagitis. He could hardly have 
 avoided mentioning Pel.igius if his teaching 
 had been known to him. in the part of his 
 treatise relating to free will. That he was bp. 
 of Emesa is stated in the title of his treatise in 
 the various MS. copies, and bv .Maxiinus (ii. 
 153, ed. Combefis) and Anastasius Sinaita 
 {Quaest. xviii. and xxiv.) in quoting his work. 
 He is also quoted, though without his name, 
 bv Joannes Damascenus, Elias Cretensis. 
 Meletius, Joannes Grammaticus, and others. 
 The treatise is an interesting work which will 
 well reward perusal, and has received much 
 praise from able judges of style and matter. 
 Nemesius establishes the immortality of the 
 soul against the philoviphers, vindic^ites frer 
 will. oppf)ses fatalism, defends i'oA'i pp.vi.l- 
 ence, and proves bv opi-us examples thr 
 wisdom and go,.dness of the Heitv. He givc^ 
 indications that he was n>>t ign-Tant <.f the 
 circulation of the blo^Kl and the funrtf.ns <.f 
 the bile (cc. xxiv. xxviii. pp. 242. a*^'. "1 
 Matthaci). The best ed. is by C. F. Matthaei 
 (Halae, 1802). reprinted by Migne in Pair. dk. 
 The treatise has been translated into mo^t 
 modem European language*, into Italian bv 
 Pizzimenti(nodatc). English. (;. Wilkes (1636 
 
 NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR 747 
 
 and if>s'i, •••■f ■ ■ 't, 
 
 i»ioi, anil li ri%. 
 
 18441. t >. " "'•^ 
 
 ifint QurllfH I !>• . ■ • 1 
 
 Nero (I). ClkOdilU CmUT. nnprr I KK-I. 
 
 13. S4. I" !""•• •>. '•"' 1 "■•' ' '" I ">n- *' tb* 
 
 interest of Nrr"S hlr ■• i.-.i. ^ 1 , ' r ; - itloo 
 
 of the t hristun*. I ■ »•• 
 
 Menv.ile. cc. lii.-U ^»«n 
 
 t'hristiaiiitv W4« uni » in 
 
 have spre.id rapidiv ..t K -.ur \ .1 >,l.l It 
 re<-eive<l a great im|»<-tu» Iron* the prearhlni 
 of St. Paul during the tw.i vear^ «U«-r hl» 
 arrival, probably earlv in 6|. Hut b«-|..rr l«n« 
 a ternl'lr st>rm w.»* to bur*t on thr inUnt 
 church. On the nurht ol lulv ih 64 a htr 
 
 broke out in the v.>l! • ' -■ •'- '•■'»Mne 
 
 and the .Aventine. ! *»% 
 
 crowded with humi ! <ull 
 
 of inflammable rout.;. , ■* "' 
 
 the citv Iwcame a va .( lUin. . I 1 ux <U%-» 
 the fire raged till it reache«t the fw.t of the 
 Esquiline. where it was stopped bv pullinc 
 down a number of houses. Sn.n altrr a 
 second fire br'>ke out in the gardens of Tutel- 
 linus near the Pinrian. and rase^l for thre* 
 davs in the N. parts ol the nlv. Though the 
 \<^si of life was less in the »«-ond hre. the 
 destruction of temples and public buildino 
 was more s<-riou<. Bv thr ••■ •■'• - •' '-«• ol 
 the 14 re;:ions wrr<- uttrrl < ur 
 
 esrape<l entirely, in the r<v ''Ut 
 
 few hous<-s wrre left stamlf .. <"' at 
 
 .Antium when the fire broke .ut, ami .lid not 
 return to K<.me till it h.vl almost rearhwi th« 
 vast e<lifice he had ronstrurtetl to connrrt hi« 
 palace on the Palatine with the ganleiis o| 
 .Maecenas on the Ks.piiline. 
 
 The horrible suspi. ion that Ner" himself wm 
 the author .f tlu- fire g..ine«l strength. ThI* 
 is asserted as a positive f.»< t bv Suet..niu» 
 (c. 38), Pi on (Ixii. i6). and Plinv the Elder 
 (xvii. I), the last Iwing a routem|>orarv. hut 
 Tacitus alludes to it ..nlv as a prevalent 
 rumour. \Vh<-ther w.ll foundr«l ..r n-.t. and 
 
 whether, supposing it tr-i- •' --for"* 
 
 motive was to rlr.irawav t' 
 
 streets of the old town in 
 
 on a new and rr;;ul.ir plan "a* 
 
 a freak "f m.i.lnrss. nre«l n^ i •Tr. 
 
 At anv rate N.ro f.un.l it ■ ^^'p 
 
 fr-.m himsrll thr r.ute of the ; ' «ne 
 
 blame upon the Christians. 
 
 The onlv auth.>r living near the lime ol the 
 persecution who give* an .irro.,nf f»» it 1% 
 Tacitu.i. .Alter describing t' " ' ^rl%- 
 
 tianitv he proceeds "I "^ 
 
 those who con f.-^'1 thri 
 tion a vast in ' ' ■ 
 
 much on the < 
 if the hiifiijii 
 
 I II 
 
 ( %n 
 
 r 
 
 ■" 
 
 "■' '■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ■ 
 
 'llgl 
 
 
 
 .>it 
 
 to 
 
 *;.iiii A 
 t up 
 
 Jn-. k- 
 
 !. 1 
 
 tfie 
 
 r.irn 
 
 It'll 
 
 II"! >lrs 
 
 
 .ir«l 
 
 • •I 
 
 ■ rt% 
 
 4n4 
 
 Ur% 
 ell 
 thr 
 
 at they were, yet they were pitird. •« ibey 
 
748 NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR 
 
 seemed to be put to death, not for the benefit 
 of the state but to gratify the cruelty of an 
 individual" {Ann. xv. 44). This narrative 
 has been the subject of very various interpre- 
 tations. Lightfoot {Phil. 24-27) considers 
 that the Christians were at this time suffici- 
 ently numerous and conspicuous to attract 
 the fury of the populace. The ambiguity of 
 Tacitus leaves it doubtful whether those first 
 arrested "confessed Christianity" or "con- 
 fessed they were guilty of the burning." 
 Schiller (Geschichte des rom. Kaiserreichs unter 
 Nero, 435) argues that " fateri " in Tacitus is 
 always used of the confession of a crime. 
 According to his view, as many of the shops 
 near the circus where the fire originated were 
 occupied by Jews, suspicion would fall upon 
 them, which would be strengthened by the 
 fact that the Transtiberine, the Ghetto of that 
 time, was one of the few quarters that had 
 escaped the fire. At that time Jews and 
 Christians lived in the same part of the town 
 and in the same manner. Weiszacker {Jahr- 
 biicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, xxi. 269, etc.) 
 considers, with much probability, that Nero 
 and his advisers having selected the Christians 
 as the victims of the popular indignation, 
 those first seized were conspicuous members 
 and were charged as incendiaries, and from 
 thera the names of others were ascertained 
 and these treated in the same way. Thus a 
 vast number were arrested, so many that all 
 could not have been guilty of arson. Why 
 Nero selected the Christians must remain un- 
 certain. The Jews, who at first sight would 
 seem more likely scapegoats, as being more 
 conspicuous and probably more unpopular, 
 were strong enough to make Nero hesitate to 
 attack them. A Jewish persecution in Rome 
 might excite a dangerous revolt in Judea. 
 The Christians, however, were conspicuous 
 and numerous enough to furnish a plentiful 
 supply of victims, but too few and weak to be 
 formidable. From the allusions of St. Cle- 
 ment (Ep. to Cor. c. 6), a little more informa- 
 tion canbe obtained. Like Tacitus, he speaks of 
 the vast multitude, and mentions that women 
 underwent terrible and unholy tortures. 
 
 The persecution was probably confined to 
 Rome. There is little evidence of it extending 
 to the rest of the empire. The Acts of the 
 saints mentioned by Tillemont {Mem. eccl. 
 ii. 73-89) are all more or less fabulous, and 
 even if authentic there seems little or no 
 ground for placing them in the reign of Nero. 
 The accounts in Acts of the journeys of St. 
 Paul shew how easily an outbreak of popular 
 fury might be excited by Jews or heathens, 
 who, either on religious or private grounds, 
 were hostile to the new doctrine, and how 
 easily in such an outbreak a conspicuous 
 Christian might be murdered without any 
 state edict against Christianity, or without 
 the public authorities interfering at all, and 
 it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when 
 Nero set the example of persecution, many 
 provincial magistrates would take a harsher 
 view than previously of the case of any Chris- 
 tian brought before them. 
 
 The question of the connexion between 
 Nero and Antichrist was brought into pro- 
 minence by M. Renan. The significance of 
 the Neronian persecution lies in the fact that 
 
 NERVA 
 
 it was the first. Hitherto the attitude of 
 state officials to Christianity had on the whole 
 been favourable ; at worst they treated it 
 with contemptuous indifference. All this was 
 now suddenly changed. The head of the 
 state had made a ferocious attack on the in- 
 fant church. Henceforth the two powers 
 were in more or less violent antagonism till 
 the struggle of 250 years was closed by the 
 conversion of Constantine. Whatever the 
 date of the Apocalypse, it can hardly be 
 doubted that the Neronian persecution with all 
 its horrors was vividly present to the mind of 
 the author. To have perished obscurely by his 
 own hand seemedboth to pagans and Christians 
 too commonplace an end for a monster who 
 for 14 years had filled such a place in the eyes 
 and the minds of men. Few had witnessed 
 his death, so that the notion easily arose that 
 he was still alive, had taken refuge with the 
 Parthians, and would reappear. Tacitus men- 
 tions_ {Hist. i. 2; ii. 8, 9) the appearance of 
 two false Neros, and Suetonius (c. 56) alludes 
 to another. In the days of his prosperity 
 diviners had predictedhis fall andthathewould 
 gain a new dominion in the East and Jerusalem 
 and at last regain the empire {ib. c. 40). 
 
 According to the theory of M. Reuss {Hist, 
 de la theol. chreiienne, i. 429-452), adopted 
 by Renan, the Apocalypse was written during 
 the reign of Galba, i.e. at the end of 68 or 
 beginning of 69, when men's minds were 
 agitated, especially in Asia Minor, by the 
 appearance of a false Nero in the island of 
 Cythnus (Tac. Hist. ii. 8). M. Reuss inter- 
 prets the first six heads of the first beast as 
 the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, 
 Claudius, Nero, and Galba, of whom the first 
 five were dead, while the sixth, Galba, was 
 then reigning. As he was 73 years old his 
 reign must soon terminate ; a seventh was to 
 follow and reign for a short time, after which 
 one of the emperors supposed to be dead was 
 to reappear as Antichrist. The first four 
 emperors had not been hostile to the Chris- 
 tians, and none of them, except Caius, had 
 died a violent death. Nero therefore alone 
 answers the description. Finally M. Reuss 
 interprets the number of the beast as the 
 numerical value of the letters of the words 
 Nt'pwj' Katcrap when written in Hebrew, and 
 explains the existence of the ancient variant 
 reading 616 by supposing it due to a Latin 
 reader who had found the solution, but pro- 
 nounced the name Nero and not Neron. 
 Whether this theory be well founded or not, 
 the opinion that Nero would return as Anti- 
 christ certainly continued for centmries. 
 Commodianus, who probably wrote c. 250, 
 alludes to it (xli. in Migne, Patr. Lat. v. 231), 
 and even in the 5th cent. St. Augustine {de 
 Civ. Dei, XX. 19, in ib. xli. 686) mentions that 
 some then believed he would rise again and re- 
 appear as Antichrist, and that others thought 
 he had never died, but would appear at the ap- 
 pointed timeand recover his kingdom. Another 
 view was that Nero would be the precinrsor of 
 Antichrist (Lact. Mortes 2, Sulp. Sev. Dial. 
 ii. 14 in Patr. Lat. vii. 197 ; xx. 211.) [f.d.J 
 
 Nerva, Roman emperor, a.d. 96-98. M. 
 Cocceius Nerva was the third in succession of 
 a family conspicuous for legal and administra- 
 tive power in the first century of the empire. 
 
NESTORIAN CHURCH 
 
 On the assassination nf ndinitiaii l>y Strphun- 
 us, the freodiiiaii and ag«-nt «•( |)t>nulil(a, ho 
 was elected as emperor by the soldiers, the 
 people, and the senate, and reversed the policy 
 of his predecessor. The connexion »>/ Stc- 
 phanus with Doniitilla. if she and Flavins 
 Clemens were indeed Christians, may indicate 
 that the movement that placed Nerva on the 
 throne was in part, at least, designed to 
 further a more tolerant system of government 
 than that of Domitian. Such, at anv rate, 
 was its effect. St. John was recalled from his 
 e.xile in Patmos (lius. //. h. iii. 20). The 
 crowd of delatores, who had preferred accusa- 
 tions of treason, atheism, and Judaism, which 
 fell most heavily on the Christians, were 
 banished, and those who had been sent to 
 prison or exile on these charges were recalled 
 and set at liberty. Other measures of the 
 emperor, though not distinctly Christian, 
 tended in the same direction. [f.h.p.J 
 
 Nestorian Church. This is the name given 
 in modern times to those whom sth-cent. 
 writers railed simi'ly " Easterns " ; by which 
 they meant the church that existed to the east 
 of them, outside the boundary of the Roman 
 empire, in the kingdom that was at lirst Par- 
 thian, and later Sassanid Persian. The body 
 is also called " east Syrian " (the term Syrian 
 implying use of the Syriac language rather 
 than residence in " Syria "), and sometimes 
 also " Chaldean " or " Assyrian." 
 
 Foundation of the Church. — During the 
 course of the ist cent. Christianity spread from 
 Antioch, not only to the west but alsi> east- 
 wards, and in particular it extended to lidessa, 
 then the capital of the little " buffer state " 
 of Osrhoene, situated between the Koman and 
 Parthian empires. The political independ- 
 ence of the state ended in 216, but it had lasted 
 long enough to give a definite character to the 
 local church, which was marked off by its 
 Syriacvernacular and Oriental waysof thought 
 from the Greek Christianity to the west of it. 
 Missionaries went out from lidessa to the east 
 again, and founded two daughter-churches, 
 one in Armenia and one in what was then 
 Parthia, the latter of which is the subject of 
 this article. 
 
 The first two " apostles " and founders of 
 this church were .^dai (=Thaddeus) and Mari. 
 Tradition identified the former with either the 
 disciple of Christ — a statement hard to recon- 
 cile with the recorded fact that he was still 
 able to travel in the year 100 — or with one of 
 " the Seventy." He is known to have 
 preached in .Assyria and Adiabene before the 
 close of the ist cent., and to have consecrated 
 his disciple Paqida as first bishop of the latter 
 province, in a.d. 104 {Htst. of Mshtkha-zca) ; 
 while the statement of the •' doctrine of .Adai " 
 that the apostle died in peace at lidessa has 
 the ring of truth in it. The later history of 
 the church in that place is outside our subject. 
 
 Of Mari, his companion, little is known 
 certainly (his life is a mere piece of hagio- 
 graphy), but he appears to have penetrated 
 into the southern provinces of the Parthian 
 kingdom, to have |>rearhed without much 
 success at the capital, Seleu< ia-Ctesiphon, and 
 to have died in peace at I)or-Koni. There 
 seems no reason to doubt the historic charartcr 
 of both these teachers; and later tradition 
 
 NESTORIAN CHURCH 
 
 740 
 
 addr.l that St. lll..Ml.l^ the .\p. \ilr. pMkin| 
 through this I ..(iiiirv ..n hi* »av to ludu, wm 
 cv-foundcr o| the rhiirrh with thrm. 
 
 Tht Chutih unJff ih* At\M%di and Smi- 
 santds. - I'ndcr Parthun rulr. whi<h was 
 tolerant, and whrrr the »iatr rrliKi.n *»a« an 
 outworn and rrlictir paganism, tlir nrw fatih 
 spread rapidlv and rasilv. Thrrr wat no 
 persecution by the K"VTnnirnt. ih><ttKh con- 
 verts from one sprrial religion. /..riatlruniMn, 
 had sometimes l.> fair it. from the powrrfui 
 hierarchy of that faith, the Magiant. Thu* 
 the church had more than 30 buho|>«, and 
 thi-se were distributed over the whi>lr country 
 when, in 2i.s, the 2nd Persian rri>larrd the 
 Parthian kingdom, and the Arvand dvnatly 
 gave way t<i the Sassanid. Thi* rrvolulion 
 was to Its authors a revival of the oUi kinK- 
 dom destroyrd by .Mrxandrr. and the iVrtian 
 nation rose again with a national rrligton. that 
 of Zoroaster. It ma<le no rt|..rt to <lr»lroy 
 the Christianity that it found existing, but, 
 like Islam later, tolerated it as the religion of 
 a subject race, and so put it into the p<>«ilii<n 
 that it still IX rupies in thosr lands, thoufch the 
 dominant religion has changed. ( hri»ttans 
 became a ntfUt (a subject rare organurd in a 
 church), recognized by the governmrnt. but 
 despised bv it. For thmi to prosrlyti/r from 
 the state faith was a crime, punishable with 
 death, though they were alloweci to convert 
 pagans. .Apostasv from Christianity to the 
 established faith meant worldlv prosperity, 
 but there was no perserution. though there 
 wasoften oppression, by the governmrnt, until 
 the adoption of Christianity by the Kmnan 
 emperor (the standing enemy of thr shah- 
 in-shah) made every Christian politnally 
 suspect. Thus Persia continued tobrarrluge 
 for many Christians from Kotnan territory 
 during the "general" persecutions of the 
 3rd cent., and the church grew. b<'th by con- 
 versions and by the advent of " captivities," 
 largely Christian in faith, brought bv con- 
 querors like Sapor 1. from Koman territory. 
 
 Episcopate of Papa. — Though it extended 
 rapidly elsewhere, the chunh made little 
 progress in the capital, and there was no 
 bishop there, and only a few Christians, till late 
 in the 3rd cent. In 270 .Akha »r.\buh', bp. <>( 
 .Arbela, joined with others in roiisri ralinn 
 Papa to that see. and this man brrainr its hrsi 
 bishop since the days of Man. In later days 
 legend supplied the names of earlier holders of 
 what had then become a patrian hal throne, 
 and indeed made Akha d'Abuh' himself one 
 of the series, and told how in a.d. 170 he was 
 recognized by the four " western patriarchs" 
 as the fifth of thr band. 
 
 Papa, as bp. of the capital. si>on claimed to 
 be the chief bishop of the chunh. it« calho- 
 licos ; the claim was favoured bv the circum- 
 stances of the tunc, as in ' - ■'■" ■'! the 
 " greater thrones " were obt tion 
 
 over the Irsser Srrs wlthi of 
 
 attraction, and the patri.u uned 
 
 were so<»n to be rr<ogiu/rd at Sujujl. The 
 conditions of melel life also tend to pro«lu«e 
 some one head, through whom the «ovrinnirnl 
 can dral with the ]>ei<plr. Papa, howrvrr. so 
 claimed the honour as to pri*lmr irritation, 
 and a couiiril mrl in m i<> judxe his rtaini. 
 It was very adverse to Papa, who rrfuw-d in 
 
750 
 
 NESTORIAN CHURCH 
 
 anger to bow to its decision. " But is it not 
 written, ' He that is chief among you ...'?" 
 said one bishop, Miles of Susa. " You fool, I 
 know that," cried the catholicos. " Then be 
 judged by the Gospel," retorted Miles, placing 
 his own copy in the midst. Papa, in fury, 
 struck the book with his fist, exclaiming, 
 " Then speak. Gospel ! — speak!" and, smitten 
 with apoplexy or paralysis, fell helpless as he 
 did so. After such a sacrilege and such a 
 portent his condemnation naturally followed, 
 and his archdeacon Shimun bar Saba'i was 
 consecrated in his room. 
 
 Papa, on recovery, appealed for support to 
 " the Westerns," i.e. not to Antioch or Rome 
 (the " Nestorian " church never deemed her- 
 self subject to either of them), but to the 
 nearest important sees to the west of him, 
 Nisibis and Edessa. These supported him on 
 the whole, but their advice did not, apparent- 
 ly, go beyond recommending a general recon- 
 ciliation and submission to the see of Seleucia- 
 Ctesiphon, on the ground that it would be for 
 the good of the whole church that it should 
 have a catholicos. This recommendation was 
 carried out, all parties being a little ashamed 
 of themselves. Papa was recognized as 
 catholicos, with Shimun as colleague, cum 
 jure successionis, and the right of the throne 
 concerned to the primacy has never since been 
 disputed. Papa survived these events for 12 
 years, and so was ruling during the council of 
 Nicaea, though neither he nor any bishop of 
 his jurisdiction (which did not then include 
 Nisibis) was present at that gathering. Arian- 
 ism passed by this church absolutely, and the 
 fact is both a testimony to its isolation and a 
 merciful dispensation. Church history might 
 have been very different had that heresy found 
 a national point d'appui. 
 
 Persecution of Sapor II. — Shimun succeeded 
 Papa, and in his days the church had to face 
 the terrible " forty years' persecution " of 
 Sapor II. The acceptance of Christianity by 
 the Roman empire meant terrible suffering for 
 the church outside it, in that any outbreak of 
 the secular rivalry of the two empires meant 
 thereafter persecution for the church in one of 
 them. This was inevitable, and the same 
 dilemma exists to-day. Given a state pro- 
 fessing a certain variety of militant religion 
 (Zoroastrianism or Islam), how can loyalty to 
 it be compatible with profession of the religion 
 of its rivals ? Constantine, like some Czars, 
 liked playing the general protector of Chris- 
 tians ; and Christians looked to him as 
 naturally as, in the same land, they have since 
 looked to Russia. 
 
 Thus, when Sapor made war on Constantius 
 in 338, persecution commenced almost as a 
 matter of course. Shimun the catholicos 
 was one of the first victims, 100 priests and 
 clerics suffering with him ; and the struggle 
 thus inaugurated continued until the death of 
 Sapor in 378, in which time 16,000 martyrs, 
 whose names are recorded, died for their faith. 
 
 This greatest of persecutions was not, of 
 course, uniformly severe at all times in all 
 provinces, and both it and others after it were 
 rather the releasing of the " race-hatred " of 
 Zoroastrianism against Christianity than the 
 ordered process of law against a religio illicita. 
 Thus, it resembled both in outline and detail 
 
 NESTORIAN CHURCH 
 
 the "Armenian massacres" of a later age. 
 Clergy, of course, and celibates of both sexes, 
 who were numerous, were specially marked, 
 and so were the Christian inhabitants of the 
 five provinces about Nisibis, when their sur- 
 render by the emperor Jovian in 363 handed 
 them over to a notorious persecutor. 
 
 Practically, though not absolutely, the trial 
 ended with the death of Sapor; but the 
 exhausted church could do little to reorganize 
 herself until a formal firman of toleration had 
 been obtained. The influence of Theodosius 
 II. secured this in 410 from the then shah- 
 in-shah, Yezdegerd I. 
 
 Council of Isaac. — The church was then 
 formally put into the position that it had, 
 previously to the persecution, occupied prac- 
 tically : it was made a melet in the Persian 
 state, under its catholicos, Isaac ; it was 
 allowed to hold a council, under his presidency 
 and that of the Roman ambassador, Marutha ; 
 and it now for the first time accepted the 
 Nicene Creed. Canons were also passed for 
 the proper organization of the body, and some 
 of these are based on Nicene rules. The 
 church shewed its independence, however, by 
 dealing very freely with the canons even of 
 that council. 
 
 Seemingly, the council of Constantinople 
 was accepted also at this time, but it was not 
 thought to deserve special mention. 
 
 A period of rapid growth followed the 
 enfranchisement and organization of the 
 church that had proved its power to endure, 
 and 26 new sees were added in 15 years to the 
 40 existing in 410, these including Merv, Herat, 
 Seistan, and other centres in central Asia. 
 Internal troubles arose, however, caused by 
 the quarrels of Christians, and by their habit 
 of " using pagan patronage " — i.e. applying to 
 non-Christians of influence — in order to escape 
 censure, to gain promotion, etc. The habit 
 was, of course, destructive of all discipline. 
 A council held in 420 to deal with this, under 
 the catholicos Yahb-Alaha, and another 
 Roman ambassador, Acacius of Amida, could 
 only suggest the acceptance of the rules of 
 several Western councils— Gangra, Antioch, 
 Caesarea — without considering whether rules 
 adapted for the West would for that reason 
 suit the East. Persecution soon recommenced, 
 Magian jealousy being stirred by Christian 
 progress, and raged for four years (420-424, 
 mainly under Bahram V.) with terrible sever- 
 ity. As usual, a Perso- Roman war coincided 
 with the persecution, and the end of the one 
 marked the end of the other also. With the 
 return of peace another council was allowed, 
 the catholicos Dad-Ishu presiding. This man 
 had suffered much, both in the persecution 
 and from the accusations of Christian enemies, 
 and was most anxious to resign his office. 
 There was, however, a strong feeling among 
 Christians that their church must be markedly 
 independent of " Western " Christianity {i.e. 
 that of the Roman empire), as too much con- 
 nexion spelt persecution. Thus they insisted 
 that the catholicos should remain, and styled 
 him also " patriarch," and specially forbade 
 any appeal from him to " Western " bishops. 
 The fact that Acacius of Amida, though 
 actually the guest of the king at the time, was 
 not at the council is another indication oi 
 
NESTORIAN CHURCH 
 
 their feelings. Tliis ili-tlarati.>ii of indcncnd- i 
 ence is the first sisiii of the appro.uhinj; schisin, I 
 though the reinaiiider of the eatholicate of 
 Dad-Ishu was peaceful, and the N(>stiirian ' 
 controversy, at the time of its arising, was no 
 more heard i>f in the East than the Arian 
 controversy before it had been. 
 
 The Work of Bar-sopna. — .Another persecu- 
 tion fell on this niuch-trieil church in 44S. but 
 otherwise we know little of its history till ^So. 
 when the Christolo^jical controversv reached 
 it for the first time. 
 
 In the Roman empire at that period 
 Chalcedon was past, and the Monophysite 
 reaction that fi)llowed that council was at its 
 height; the " Henoticon of Zeno " was the 
 official confession, accepted by all the patri- 
 archs of the empire with the exception of the 
 Roman. The church in Persia, however, was 
 emphatically " Dyophysite," and thus there 
 was a theological force at work that hardened 
 the independence already found necessary 
 into actual separation. 
 
 The protagonist of the movement was Bar- 
 soma of Nisibis. a very typical son of his 
 nation ; a quarrelsome and unscrupulous man, 
 who yet had a real love b<.>th for his church and 
 for learning. He was a favourite with the 
 shah-in-shah, Piroz, who employed him as 
 warden of the marches on the Romo- Persian 
 frontier, and he was practically patriarch of 
 the church. The real patriarch, Babowai, 
 had just been put to death for supposedly 
 treasonable correspondence with Rome, and 
 Bar-soma had rather gone out of his way to 
 secure that this prelate (his personal enemy) 
 should not escape the consequences of his 
 own imprudence. Bar-soma easily persuaded 
 Piroz that it would be better that " his 
 rayats " should have no connexion with the 
 subjects of the Roman emperor, and under his 
 influence a council was held at Bait Lapat. a 
 " Dyophysite " (or perhaps Nestorian) con- 
 fession published, and separation brought 
 about. By another canon of this council 
 marriage was expressly allowed to all ranks 
 of the hierarchy. 
 
 Some say that the church was simply 
 dragooned into heresy, but the mass of Chris- 
 tians seem to have at least acquiesced in the 
 work of Bar-soma, and it must be remembered 
 that they separated from a church that was 
 Monophysite at the time. There was, more- 
 over, a better side to the work of Bar-soma. 
 He was a lover of learning, and when the 
 imperial order brought the theological school 
 at Edessa to an end (this had hitherto been the 
 sole means of educatii>n open to sons of the 
 " church of the East "), he took a statesman's 
 advantage of the opportunity by founding at 
 Nisibis a college that was a nursery of bishops 
 to his church for 1,000 years. 
 
 Bar-soma's power ended with the death of 
 Piroz (484), and .\cacius became patriarch. 
 His reign saw the breach with the "Westerns" 
 healed more or less, as the council of Bait 
 Lapat was repudiated (though the canon on 
 episcopal marriage was allowed to stand) and 
 another confession of faith was drawn up. 
 This was not Nestorian. but was indefinite, 
 designedly, and Acacius was received as 
 orthodox during a visit to Constantinople, on 
 condition of his anathematizing Bar-soma. 
 
 NESTORIAN CHURCH 751 
 
 .\s thry were alr>adv at .iprn frud .>ii a niin<>r 
 matter, the patini.h readilv .i^rrrd t.. Ihi*. 
 but the memorv <>! the »rhmn W4» oj rvll 
 omen for the future. 
 
 Mar Aba.— K prri.Kl of confusion (4<)<>-'\4o) 
 fiillowed. The whoir rounlrv o| lVr>ia wat 
 disturbed bv the comniunisin prrjrhrd by 
 .Ma/dak. to whu h even thr kuxti. K.ba.l, wat 
 converted for a while. Tlir »iranKe move- 
 ment was st.unpe<| out wi bl.»Kl. hut it Irft 
 indirect effects on the churc h. and Bar-V'ma 
 also bequeathed thenj a bad tradin..n of 
 quarrelsomeness. This cidminaird \u an oprn 
 schism in the patriarchate. lastiiiK for i) 
 years, with open disorder in the whole < hurrh. 
 a state of things that only tenninatrd with thr 
 accession of .Mar .Aba to the palriarrhalr in 
 540. 
 
 Meantime. M..nopl,vsite supremacy in thr 
 Roman empire had ended with the acrrsMon 
 of the emjieror Justin in siH. and fnrndlv 
 relations between the church there and that 
 in Persia had been resumed: the advanlaK« 
 had to be paid for by the latter, in that it 
 implied a renewal of persecution. 
 
 Mar .\ba. the greatest man ni the series ol 
 patriarchs of the East, reformed the abuses 
 in the church, going round fr^'in diocese to 
 diocese with a " peramljulatorv svnotl." which 
 judged every case on the spot with pleiiary 
 authority— a precedent so excellent that it is 
 surprising that it has never been followed. 
 ' He was able to establish rules for the election 
 ! of the patriarch which still hold gofni in theory. 
 i and founded schools and colleges (in i>artirular. 
 i one at Selcucia). in addition to the one at 
 ' Nisibis. His table of prohibited degrees in 
 matrimony — a most necessary thing for 
 Christians in a Zoroastrian land — is still the 
 law of his church. 
 I In his days the monastic life, which had 
 wilted under Bar-soma and during the period 
 I of disorder, was revived, and was provided 
 with a body of rules by Abraham of Kashkar, 
 a pupil of .Aba. while the friendship i>f the 
 church in Persia with that in the empire led 
 also (though dates are here rather uncertain) 
 to the detinite acceptance, by this " Nes- 
 torian " chur( h, of the ci>uncil of I halccdon. 
 which stands among the "Western synods" 
 received by these " i'asterns." This accept- 
 ance was certainly previous to 544. 
 
 Mar Aba's great work for his church was 
 done in the teeth of great difficulties. He 
 was a convert from Zoroastrianism, and as 
 such was legally liable to be t>iit to death, and 
 therefore lived in daily peril from the .Magiaiis. 
 ! The shah-in-shah. CliosTix-s I., would never 
 allow his execution, but feared also to prolett 
 him efhciently. and for 7 of the »> year* ol his 
 tenure of office he was in pris>>n. ruling his 
 flock thence. Though he was relrasc<l at last, 
 and passed his last days in hon<>ur al curl, 
 there is no doubt that his suflenngs hastened 
 his death. 
 
 PoiilwH of the Church in the bth Cemt.—la 
 the following half-century (i^o-6*K)) there was 
 no special incident. A series of patriarchs i>l 
 the three sttx^k eastern type* 1 court favourllr, 
 respectable ni>neiitity, and strict astriir) 
 ruled the church, and the services wrrr 
 arranged much in their prrsmt t-iriii. In 
 particular the " Rogation ..I the Niiuvitrs," 
 
752 
 
 NESTORIAN CHURCH 
 
 still annually observed, was either instituted 
 or remodelled by the patriarch Ezekiel, during 
 an outbreak of plague. 
 
 The anomalous relation of the church in 
 Persia with other parts of the Catholic church 
 cannot be fitted into any defined theory. 
 Several Christological confessions were issued 
 by these so-called "Nestorians" which are 
 certainly not unorthodox, and individual 
 patriarchs were readily received to communion 
 when they happened to visit Constantinople 
 {e.g. Ishu-yahb, 585). Nevertheless, there 
 was a growing estrangement, and a conviction 
 on either side that the other was somehow 
 wrong, which was strengthened as the church 
 in Persia slowly realized that the man whom 
 they called " the interpreter" par excellence, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, had been condemned 
 at Constantinople. 
 
 In Persia the church was a stationary 
 melet, though beyond the frontier it was a 
 missionary force among Arabs, Turks, and 
 Chinese. It was numerous enough to make 
 the king anxious not to offend it, the mer- 
 cantile and agricultural classes being largely 
 of the faith. On the other hand, the feudal 
 seigneurs were very seldom of it, and soldiers 
 practically never. In " the professions " 
 doctors were generally Christian, and indeed 
 are largely so to this day, while each faith 
 had its own law and lawyers. 
 
 The clergy were usually married, but there 
 was a growing feeling in favour of celibate 
 bishops, though the law passed by Bar-soma 
 was never repealed. 
 
 Monophysite Controversy. — The bulk of 
 Persian Christians were Dyophysite in creed, 
 but there was a Monophysite minority, 
 organized under bishops (or a bishop) of their 
 own, and including many monks. This body 
 was recruited by the enormous " captivities " 
 brought from Syria in 540 and 570. In 612 
 they were strong enough to make a daring and 
 nearly successful attempt to capture the 
 church hierarchy. The patriarchate was then 
 vacant (Chosroes had been so annoyed by the 
 substitution of another Gregory for the Gre- 
 gory whom he had nominated to that office, 
 that he had refused to allow any election when 
 that man died in 608), and when petition was 
 made for the granting of a patriarch, the 
 Monophysites, whose interest at court was 
 powerful, petitioned for the nomination of a 
 man of their own. They had formidable 
 supporters, for Shirin, the king's Christian 
 wife, and Gabriel, his doctor, were both of 
 that confession. 
 
 A deputation of Dyophysites came to court 
 to endeavour to secure a patriarch of their 
 own colour, and a most unedifying wrangle 
 over the theological point followed, Chosroes 
 sitting as umpire. Of course, neither side 
 converted the other, but the occasion was 
 important, for from it dates the employment 
 of the Christological formula now used by this 
 church, viz. " two Natures, two ' Qnumi,' and 
 one Person in Christ," the repudiation of the 
 term " Mother of God " as applied to the 
 B.V.M., and the acceptance of the nickname 
 " Nestorian " now given them by the Mono- 
 physites. Ultimately the Dyophysites saved 
 themselves from the imposition of a Mono- 
 physite patriarch, at the cost of remaining 
 
 NESTORlUS 
 
 without a leader till the death of Chosroes, and 
 the Monophysites organized a hierarchy of 
 their own. 
 
 During the long wars between Chosroes and 
 Heraclius, and the anarchy that followed in 
 Persia, the " Nestorian " church has naturally 
 no recorded history, yet at their conclusion 
 it was once more to have formal relations with 
 the patriarchate and church of Constantinople. 
 
 Drift into Separation. — In the year 628 its 
 patriarch, Ishu-yahb II., was sent as ambas- 
 sador to Constantinople, and he was there 
 asked to explain its faith, and was admitted 
 as orthodox. He was, however, attacked on 
 his return home, on suspicion of having made 
 unlawful concessions, and not all the efforts 
 of men like Khenana and Sahdona could 
 shake the general conviction on each side that 
 " those others " were somehow wrong. The 
 two men named laboured to shew the essential 
 identity, under a verbal difference, of the 
 doctrines of the two churches, but the only 
 visible result was the excommunication of both 
 peacemakers. 
 
 Then the flood of Moslem conquest drifted 
 the two churches apart, and the bulk of 
 organized Monophysitism between them hid 
 each from the other. 
 
 The separation of "Nestorians" from 
 " orthodox " was a gradual process, com- 
 menced before 424, and hardly complete 
 before 640. In that period, however, it was 
 completed, and the " church of the East " 
 commenced her marvellous medieval career 
 in avowed schism from her sister of Con- 
 stantinople. Whether her doctrine, then or 
 at any time, was what the word " Nestorian " 
 means to us, and what is the theological status 
 of a church which accepts Nicaea, Constanti- 
 nople, and Chalcedon, but rejects Ephesus, 
 are separate and difficult questions. [Mono- 
 physitism ; Nestorius (3).] 
 
 Authorities for the History of the Church. — 
 History of Mshikha-zca. (ed. Mingana) ; Acta 
 Sanct. Syr. (ed. Bedjan, 6 vols.) ; Hist, de 
 Jabalaha et de trots patriarches nestoriens 
 (Bedjan) ; Synodicon Orientate (ed. Chabot) ; 
 Bar - hebraeus, Chron. Eccles. pt. ii. ; John 
 of Ephesus, Eccl. Hist. pt. iii. (Cureton) ; 
 Amr and Sliba, Liber Turris ; the Guidi 
 Chronicle (ed. Noldeke) ; Zachariah of Mity- 
 lene (ed. Brooks) ; Socr., Soz., Theod., Evagr., 
 Eccles. Histories ; Book of Governors (Thomas 
 of Marga, ed. Budge) ; Babai, de Unione (MS. 
 only) ; Ishu-yahb III., Letters (ed. Duval) ; 
 Tabari, Gesch. der Sassaniden (ed. Noldeke) ; 
 Assemani, Bibl. Orient, iii. 
 
 Books and Pamphlets. — Labourt, Chris- 
 tianisme dans la Perse ; Chabot, Ecole de 
 Nisibe ; De S. Isaaci vita ; Duval, Histoire 
 d'Edesse ; Goussen, Martyrius-Sahdona ; Hoft- 
 mann, Aussuge aus Syrische Martyrer ; 
 Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching ; 
 Wigram, Doctrinal Position of Assyrian 
 Church ; Introd. to Hist, of Assyrian Church ; 
 Rawlinson, SevenihOriental Empire; Christian- 
 sen, L'Evipire des Sassanides. [w.a.w.] 
 
 Nestorius (l), St. (Nestor), the first known 
 bp. of Side in Pamphylia Prima (Le Quien, i. 
 997), a martyr in the Decian persecution, a.d. 
 250. He was arrested by the local Irenarch, 
 required to sacrifice, and on refusing dis- 
 patched in charge of two lictors to the court 
 
NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 
 
 of the iir.-Ni,l,-nt Pnlli... uli,. t.itiir.-.l .in. I 
 then crucitied liiiii. Tho iinrtvrS .iii>wfr to 
 the presiiienfs queries stitlirientlv iiulirate 
 his theological position. I'ollio said to him. 
 " Are you willing to take part with us or with 
 Christ?" To which Nestor replied. "Cum 
 Christo meo et eram, et sum. et ero " ; to 
 which the president replied that as he was 
 devoted to Jesus Who was crucified under 
 Pontius Pilate, he should be crucified like his 
 God. The .\cts say his martyrdmn was on the 
 5th day of the week at the third hour. I.c 
 Blant {Actes dfs Martyrs, p. 46) points out the 
 accuracy of the details. [(,.j.s.) 
 
 Nestorlus (3) .md Nestorlanlsm. One of 
 
 the most f.ir-roarhing r.nitr.'V.rsies in the 
 history of the church is ronnerted with the 
 name of Nestorius, who became patriarch of 
 Constantinople in a.d. 4^8, in succession to 
 Sisinnius. So protracted has it been that even 
 to the present day Nestorian churches, as they 
 are called, exist in .\ssyria and India, and their 
 members are not in communion with those 
 of the other Christian churches in the East. 
 The history of the form of thought which 
 produced such far-reaching results must be 
 interesting to every student of theology. 
 Xestorius himself was brought up in the 
 cloister, and had, as Neander remarks, im- I 
 bibed the tendencies to narrowness, partban- 
 ship, impatience, and ignorance of mankind 
 which are not unfrequently found among 
 those who have been educated apart from 
 their fellows. He was brought from .\ntifjch, 
 we are told — a fact of which the significance 
 will presently be seen. He appears to have 
 been eloquent and sincere, and his austerity 
 of life had won for him the admiration of 
 man. Socrates, a specially well-informed 
 contemporary, and a layman of judgment 
 and fairness, speaks with some severity of his 
 tirst steps after he became patriarch (H. E. j 
 vii. 29). He is described as addressing the 1 
 emperor (Theodosius II.) immediately after 
 his appointment, " before all the people," 1 
 with the words, "Give me, O prince, a country ' 
 purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven 
 as a recompense, .\ssist me in destroying ] 
 heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing 
 the Persians." Such language was more ; 
 enthusiastic than wise. It was no doubt 
 pleasing to the multitude, but (Socr. I.e.) it 
 made a very bad impression on thoughtful 
 hearers. " Before he had tasted of the waters 
 of the city," the historian proceeds, using a 
 proverbial phrase, he had flung himself head- 
 long into acts of violence and persecution. On 
 the fifth day after his consecration, he resolved 
 to destroy the oratory in which the Arians 
 were wont to celebrate their worship, and 
 thereby he not only drove them to desperation, 
 but, as Socrates adds, he alienated thinking 
 men of his own communion. He next attacked 
 the yuartf>decimans and the Novatianists with 
 equal violence, although neither sect was 
 involved in heresy by its schism from the 
 church, and the Novatianists had steadily sup- 
 p(jrted the church in its controversy with the 
 .Brians. He then turned his attention to the 
 Macedonians. [Macedonius.] For his treat- 
 ment of this sect there is more excuse. The 
 bp. of Germa, on the Hellespont, had treated 
 them with such severity that, driven t'» 
 
 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 76S 
 
 ■ l.sp.T .II..II. Ihrv In. I srnt tW. U■..4.^U1« lo 
 
 tnurdrr luni. For Ihi* raOi art Ihrv wcf* 
 deprivrtJ of their churrhr* in CoM»t4ntin.ip|e 
 and the nrighlxiurhiMNl. It wat At Irjti un- 
 wise to convert the nirmlKT^ «i l.>ur " drnoin- 
 ination*," .i« wr shouM now call them, into 
 bitter antagonist*, and it wa» not very Utig 
 before an ocr.inion «ro*c (i>r thrni In ciUpUjr 
 their hi>stilitv. 
 
 The drvclopmrnt of throlojrv in S\T<a had 
 for some time taken aditfrf • ' ■ • from 
 that whi< h it had t.ikrn in : the 
 
 tendency had been to l.iv st: mr, 
 
 and therefore mvsterion*. hi ity. 
 
 But in Svria a school h.id .11 : 1 >u>- 
 
 dorus of Tarsus anti the <. I |.ir<> 
 
 of MopstiiMitia were the Ira.li 1 ted 
 
 itself to the rriti< al inter]>rrt.ni. ip t s. mturr, 
 and favoured the applir.ition of logiral mvc»- 
 tigation to the facts ati<! d rtrinr^ <>t Chii»- 
 tianitv. These two i ^,re rrrtjtJn 
 
 some (lav to come 1 .md when 
 
 reinforced by the 1 . v («lt by 
 
 succ<'ssivc patriarchs ••; m. * .n.iu.i at the 
 elevation in ySt of Lonstanlinopir, a» New 
 Rome, to the second place among the pa- 
 triarchates, over the head of a church which 
 could boast of St. Mark as it* founder, there 
 was plenty of material for a conflagration. 
 Already premonitions of the appnachinit 
 conflict between Alexandria and Constanti- 
 nople had appeared in the successful inlriRUes 
 of TuEOPiiiLrs, patriarch of Alexandria, 
 against the renowned Jons Ciihvsi>stoii, 
 patriarch of Constantinople. The viol.mc of 
 Nestorius and his supporters s<t tin- ti> the 
 material already provided ; the iiiiniedi.iie 
 occasion being the sermon of a presbyter 
 named Anastasius, whom Nestorii;* had 
 brought with him from Antioch. an<l in whom 
 he reposed much confidence. Anastasius b 
 said to have used the words (S<>cr. //. K. vii. 
 ^2), " Let no man call Marv (^rorikot, for 
 Mary was human, and it is impossible thai 
 (>od could be bom from a hutiiaii l>eing." 
 This utterance naturally caus<-d aniaxrmrnt 
 and distress, for the wortl OtorUoi had been 
 applied to the Virgin by authoritie« as hif(b 
 as Origen. .Athanasius, and lvusrbiu» of 
 Caesarea, and it was in-istrd on with »<>me 
 vehemence by (iregory ol .N'aziaiuus. It U 
 also found in the letter of .Alexander of 
 Alexandria to Ai... .. .1. r . ,. <..,,... ,,.,„.,,. |e. 
 
 [Ahms.J N. • • K*. 
 
 and delivered he 
 
 maintained tl.' ^'th 
 
 ability and eiuTKV, aiiJ with »..ii»< htal. Mc 
 was promptly charge<l with having nivolvrd 
 hinis4-l( in the heresies of I'huiinii* or Paul 
 of Sanu>sata. .S<K-rat.-s denies that thl» wa» 
 the case. But he remark* on the unrr4»t>a- 
 able antipathy of Nestoriun t.. < w- rdt" which 
 orthodox churchmen were v. nird. 
 
 This antipathy may p.irth -^i- 
 
 plained by a dislike on th. "u* 
 
 ti> the teii.l.M • ' I the 
 
 Virgin whi< li • H- 
 
 But it w.is m; •: "I 
 
 ThcKlore of M . -'ich 
 
 had lai<l undur slt.s^ .,11 tli.- huiuaiiUv "I 
 Christ, and had not shrunk Irom rrprr^nlint 
 the inhabitation of the.ManChrt*t Je»«»by the 
 i)ivine Logri« asdiffering rather in drgrrr than 
 4tt 
 
754 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 
 
 in kind from that by which God was pleased 
 to dwell in the prophets and other holy men 
 of old. If, they contended, there were any 
 union of natures in Christ, it was not a 
 personal union, but an ^cwtrij axeriKT) (an 
 union of things diverse in a close relation). 
 Such teaching had a dangerous tendency to hu- 
 manitarianism, and to the division of Christ 
 into two hypostases [Arius, Followers of], 
 as well as implying the existence in Him of 
 two separate and possibly antagonistic sources 
 of will and action. 
 
 The ferment caused by these injudicious 
 utterances spread far and wide, and soon 
 reached Alexandria. Cyril, the patriarch, 
 who had succeeded his uncle Theophilus, was 
 by no means disinclined to lower the credit 
 of a rival whose elevation he at once envied 
 and despised. We must not suppose, how- 
 ever, that Cyril had no convictions of his own 
 on the point, for, as Dorner very properly 
 reminds us, he had already published his 
 opinions on it. Not content, however, with 
 assailing with rare theological ability the 
 opinions of Nestorius, he condescended to 
 less worthy expedients. Not only did he 
 exaggerate and misrepresent the language of 
 his antagonist, but he tried to involve him 
 in charges of ApoUinarianism [Apollinaris] 
 and Pelagianism [Pelagius]. Theodore, 
 from whom Nestorius had imbibed his 
 theology, was in the most direct antagonism 
 to Apollinaris, whose teaching, while insisting 
 strongly on the Godhead of Christ, involved 
 the denial of His Perfect Manhood. And the 
 divines of all schools of thought in the East, 
 in the opinion of the disciples of Augustine, 
 were more or less tinged with Pelagianism. 
 As Nestorius had shewn some kindness to 
 Pelagians who had fled to him from the West, 
 the accusation of Pelagianism suited Cyril's 
 purpose. 
 
 Before entering into the history of the 
 controversy, we must pause for a moment 
 and endeavour to understand the questions in- 
 volved, and the different aspects from which 
 they were approached by the disputants. 
 The Syrian school, as we have seen, approached 
 these questions from the human side, and 
 favoured inductive methods. The starting- 
 point of Theodore was man, in the sphere of 
 the visible and tangible. The starting-point 
 of Cyril was God, in the sphere of the mys- 
 terious and unknown. The development 
 (for of such a development Scripture un- 
 questionably speaks) of the Manhood of 
 Christ when inhabited by the Godhead seems 
 to have been the prominent idea on the part 
 of the S>Tian school. It inquired whether 
 the indwelling of the Godhead in Jesus Christ 
 was one of Nature or simply of energy, and 
 it undoubtedly leaned too much toward the 
 assertion of a dual personality in Christ. 
 The watchword (as Neander calls it) of the 
 Alexandrians, on the other hand, was the in- 
 effable and (to human reason) inconceivable 
 nature of the inhabitation of the Man Christ 
 Jesus by the Divine Logos. We must not 
 forget that the Syrians, though not of course 
 unacquainted with Greek, habitually thought 
 in Syriac, and used a Syrian version of the 
 Scriptures, which had been in existence in their 
 churches in one form or another ever since the 
 
 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 
 
 and cent. The use of the term e€OT6Ko<s had 
 been approved by Theodore himself, under 
 certain limitations, which makes the passionate 
 protest of Nestorius against it the more unfor- 
 tunate. Nestorius, unfortunately for himself, 
 was not a clear thinker or reasoner, and was 
 therefore no match for his antagonist Cyril. 
 Great confusion, it should be remarked in 
 passing, has been caused by the inaccurate 
 translation of deoroKos into modern languages 
 by the words Mother of God. Whether the 
 soul of an infant is derived from its parents 
 is an old and still debated question. But the 
 term "mother" unquestionably involves in 
 many minds the idea of transmission of 
 essence, whereas the title OeardKOi, as 
 Theodoret does not fail to point out in his 
 reply to Cyril's anathemas, simply means 
 that she to whom it was applied was the 
 medium through which a Divine Being was 
 introduced into this world in human form. 
 The controversy raised the question whether 
 the term ffvvd(f>fia {connexion or conjunction) 
 or ^vwcii (union) were the better fitted to 
 denote the nature of the relation between 
 the Godhead and the Manhood in Christ. 
 The Syrians inclined to the former, the 
 Alexandrians to the latter. Some confusion 
 of thought continued to exist about the use 
 of the terms Trpdawwov and v-rrdtXTaaii to 
 signify what we in English express by the 
 one inadequate word "person." These two 
 Greek words [Arius, Followers of] were, 
 from the council of Constantinople onward, 
 usually understood to signify respectively the 
 appearance, as regarded by one outside it, 
 and the inward distinction, or, as Gregory 
 of Nazianzus puts it, "speciality" {i5i6Tr]s), 
 which distmguishes one individual of a genus 
 or species from another. But when the word 
 I'TrdffTaais is applied to the conditions of 
 Being in God, the caution of our own Hooker 
 is very necessary {Eccl. Pol. V. Ivi. 2), that 
 the Divine Nature is itself unique. It seems 
 pretty plain that even so clear a thinker as 
 Cyril, in his defence of his anathemas as 
 well as elsewhere, does not distinguish 
 1 sufficiently between the use of the word 
 inrdcJTaci.'i at Nicaea, and the signification 
 I which had come to be attached to it in 
 the first council of Constantinople. Nor 
 should it be forgotten that though many 
 modern divines are wont to represent Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia as a dangerous heretic, 
 he was rather, like Origen at an earlier period, 
 a pioneer of theological inquiry [Arius], and 
 J that, like Origen, he lived and died in the 
 I communion of the chm-ch, though some of 
 I the propositions laid down by him were 
 afterwards shewn to be erroneous. It may 
 not be amiss to sum up these remarks on the 
 t question at issue in the words of Canon Bright, 
 [ who certainly cannot be charged with undue 
 tenderness for Nestorius, on the title deordKos. 
 I " It challenged objection; it was open to 
 j misconstruction ; it needed some theological 
 I insight to do it justice ; it made the percep- 
 ! tion of the true issue difficult ; it stimulated 
 : that ' cultus ' which has now, in the Roman 
 j church, attained proportions so portentous." 
 
 History of the Controversy. — There was 
 I considerable ferment in Constantinople in 
 
NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 
 
 coiist'i]iu-nrt.- i>f the utt.T.ui.c-; ,.f N.Ht.'rius 
 and his foUowfrs, fveii bofort- tho iiitrrvoiition 
 of Cyril. One Proclus, who had boon ap- 
 pointed bp. of Cyzicus but had not been 
 accepted by the church there, was n^siiiing 
 in Constantinople, and raised a storm by 
 inveighing not a little indecently, in the verv 
 presence of the patriarch, against the doctrines 
 promulgated by him. Ih-oclus was probably 
 giving expression to real convictions, but w.is 
 clearlv not in a position which justified him 
 in undertaking the task. Nestorius replied, 
 and .Utacked the extravagant laudation of 
 the Virgin by Proclus, describing it as dero- 
 gatory to the honour of her Son. But, as 
 was usual with him, he deprecated all noisy 
 applause on the part of his hearers — therein 
 displaying better taste than most of his con- 
 temporaries — and went on to declare that he 
 did not object to the term tfforinot, provided 
 Mary were not made into a goddess. The 
 dispute grew warm. Placards were affixed to 
 the walls of the churches in Constantinople, 
 and sermons preached against the patriarch. 
 The opportunity thus given was not one 
 which Cyril was likely to neglect. Timugh a 
 man of ability and a theologian far above the 
 average, he was ambitious, violent, and un- 
 scrupulous. Socrates does not conceal his 
 sense of Cyril's unfairness toward Nestorius, 
 strongly as he animadverts on the lack of 
 judgment and self-contn)l displayed by the 
 latter. Cyril wrote to the monks of Con- 
 stantinople commenting severely on the 
 action of Nestorius, and insisting strongly 
 that the union of the (iodhcad and Manhood 
 in Jesus Christ was a real union, and not a 
 mere conjuncti<Mi. When he learned that 
 his letter was resented, he wrote one to Nes- 
 torius himself. He complained that the 
 unfortunate language of Nestorius had 
 reached Celestine of Rome, and was thus 
 throwing the whole church into confusion. 
 The affected moderation of his language did 
 not deceive Nestorius, who defended himself 
 with spirit and moderation, and maintained 
 th.it xP'<'''i^''o*os would be a more suitable 
 .ipp.llation for the Virgin than 6(OT6-oi. 
 Approached by an .\lexandrian presbyter 
 named Lampon, who came to Constantinople 
 in the interests of peace, Nestorius professed 
 himself much touched by Lampon's tone, and 
 wrote to Cyril in a more friendly spirit. But 
 it was too late. Cyril had already taken 
 action against Nestorius, and when the latter 
 suggested a council at Constantinople, took 
 measures to undermine still further the in- 
 fluence of his antagonist. He wrote two 
 treatises on the controversy, one addressed to 
 the emperor and empress (Eudocia), and the 
 other to Pulcheria and the other sisters of 
 the emperor. 1 hen he wrote to Celestine of 
 Rome an unfair account of what had occurn-d. 
 He contended that Nestorius had rei«resented 
 the Logos as two separate beings, knit closely 
 together. Nestorius complained that Cyril 
 garbled his quotations. He was. however, 
 pronounced a heretic by two synods held 
 at Rome and Alexandria (430). Whether 
 Cyril acted as craftily as Neander supposes, 
 or whether Nestorius maintained too lofty a 
 tone in his lettertt) Celestine, and thusoflcnded 
 one who was anxious to secure bis supremacy 
 
 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 7U 
 
 over the church o| (inl. iuiinI I ■ Irfi uii- 
 decitletl. Crrtani it l« that th- I 
 
 action of Olrilinr in mpittr 
 toriu* should at unci- rradmit t u 
 
 the presbvtrr* whom he had rrp. II. .1 d n, u^ 
 and that hr hitn«rll nhoiihl *ii;n a wtitiro 
 recant.tti'>n within 1} dav». wa^* -ivK- un- 
 prfce<lented in the hi»tory if" 
 .Another patriarch, John of \ 
 appears on the scene. Cvril ha 1 
 to inlimi<l.tte him by r-- v— ' 
 whole West wa» united 
 Nestorius, and John « 
 mediator. Cyril next 1- 
 
 against the teaching of Ncsi iiu». lit i.t 4 
 these he seenjs to unite the flesh of Chritl 
 with the Logos, atcorJtng lo //is rer%on t»a0 
 i'wijTaffir), and in the 3rd he apprars lo 
 speak of the union of the two hy|>o«t4srs in 
 Him. Nestorius replied by 11 rountrr- 
 anathemas. It is unforttmate f..r our lull 
 comprehension of the position that thrsr arc 
 only to be found in a Latin translation by 
 Marius Mercator, a layman Ir-an N. Africa, 
 who was at Constantinople while the con- 
 troversy was going on. But, as usual In 
 theological controversy, each ot the dispu- 
 tants replies rather to the inlcrrncrs he 
 himself draws from the propositions of his 
 antagonist than to the proposition* Ihcnt- 
 
 1 selvi-s. The famous The-xioret. bp. of C>tus. 
 now (430) came forward, at the request •>! 
 
 I John of Antioch, in defence .f N'.^t ritis. 
 He laid his finger on the weak - 
 anathein.is— his union of two 
 Christ ; and condemned them .1 
 Christianity." Cyril seems also i i ... .1- 
 tended that nothing could be unkii'wn to the 
 humanitv of Christ which was known lo Him 
 as (iod. The doctrine, too. of the fp^n 
 (fu'diK^ (natural union) maintained by Cvril 
 seemed perilously near to MonophvsitiMn. 
 On the other hand, it should not be forgotten 
 that Nestorius publicly stated that he had no 
 objection to the word fioriKOi provided it 
 
 1 was properly explained. The "im-r i -il 
 
 I last resolved to call a council. 1 
 
 j chosen as the place of meeti 
 
 I because f»f the eX( itement pre\ . 
 stantinople). and the meeting wi'- Ux'A t r 
 Whitsuntide 431- The assemblv was con- 
 fined to the bishops of the ni r.- inij- f! mt 
 sees (metropolitans, as tip 
 and the emperor sent 
 Cyril, condemning his 1: 
 ings. Nestorius came at i,.- 
 but fearing the viwU-ncc o| i 
 requi-sted a guard lri>ln the <i 
 request was granted. Cyril an. I 
 were also present. But sonic 40 .S\iijn 
 bishoj)s were detained by fl.KHls. famine, and 
 the riots consequent on the l.iii<t (\tll. 
 seizing the opportunity, and ^ 
 Meninon. bp. ..f Kphr*U«, opn.. 
 which con«.iste«l of »<.nie 200 1 
 and pr.xercb'd to coiidrinn 
 Nestorius in the abiwiue o( tt,. 
 tingent. 1 his sentence ••• <l. 
 
 , affixed to the public buil!;- 
 bv the hrralds. M<•an•.^ 
 trived to remove Ir-m 
 the unfavourable irnpn . 
 
 action had produced. Ne*lo(tu* dc«.luicd. 
 
756 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 
 
 though thrice summoned, to attend the synod 
 in the absence of his Syrian supporters, and 
 sent a complaint to the emperor of the 
 illegality and unfairness of Cyril's proceedings, 
 which was supported by ten bishops and the 
 imperial commissioner. (Socrates, however, 
 says that Nestorius attended one meeting, 
 and left it after having expressed himself 
 in somewhat unfortunate language.) Cyril 
 pretended that the Syrian bishops had pur- 
 posely stayed away. But this is neither 
 probable in itself nor consistent with the 
 subsequent conduct of the patriarch John. 
 
 When John and the Syrian bishops arrived, 
 they, though only between 30 and 40 in 
 number, held a counter-synod, which was 
 ridiculed by Cyril and his party for its great 
 inferiority in numbers. John, however, per- 
 sisted, alleging that the rest of the bishops 
 were simply creatures of Cyril and Memnon. 
 John's party then excommunicated Cyril and 
 Memnon, posted up their sentence and trans- 
 mitted their report to the emperor. A letter 
 had meanwhile arrived from Celestine in 
 condemnation of Nestorius. This letter was 
 read by Cyril to the bishops of his party, but 
 Nestorius replied that it had only been ob- 
 tained by gross perversions of his language. 
 Cyril now resorted to other means of attaining 
 his purpose. He endeavoured to gain over 
 the emperor, a task which was only too easy. 
 He contrived to bring the ladies of the court, 
 including Pulcheria, over to his side. To 
 attain this end, there is evidence extant — 
 though Canon Bright has failed to notice it — 
 (in a letter from Epiphanius, Cyril's arch- 
 deacon and sjmcellus, to the patriarch Maxi- 
 mian, see below), that he made a lavish use of 
 money and presents of other kinds. He also 
 stirred up the monks at Constantinople to 
 tumult through an agent of his, one Dalma- 
 tius, who had immured himself in his cell for 
 48 years, and was in high repute for his 
 ascetic practices. Dalmatius now repre- 
 sented himself as drawn from his retirement 
 by a voice from heaven, in order to rescue the 
 church from the peril of heresy. A torch- 
 light procession to the emperor was organ- 
 ized. The excitement in Constantinople was 
 general. The emperor was terrified at the 
 furious riots which broke out, in which many 
 persons were injured. So the influence of the 
 court was now openly exerted in favour of 
 Cyril, and the Oriental bishops began to 
 waver. Nestorius himself lost heart. Even 
 at the council he had gone so far as to say, 
 " Let Mary be called deorbKos, and let all 
 this tumult cease." He had throughout been 
 less illiberal than his antagonists, and he was 
 probably terrified at their violent and un- 
 scrupulous proceedings. He may also have 
 discovered, when it was too late, that he had 
 rushed into controversy without having been 
 sufficiently sure of his ground. Therefore, 
 although a deputation of 8 bishops from each 
 side were sent to Constantinople, the result 
 was a foregone conclusion. A compromise 
 was arrived at. Cyril and Memnon were 
 reinstated in their sees. John of Antioch 
 signed a condemnation of Nestorius, while 
 Cyril consented in 432 to sign an Antiochene 
 formulary which had been submitted by 
 Theodoret to the Syrian bishops at Ephesus 
 
 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 
 
 j and was afterwards transmitted to the em- 
 peror. It is worth noting that this for- 
 mulary contains the ivwai^ (pvaiK-r) (see 
 above), but guards it by a definite assertion 
 of both the divinity and humanity of Christ. 
 i The sentence on Nestorius was carried out. 
 He was deposed, and Maximian became 
 patriarch in his stead, but soon died, and was 
 succeeded by Proclus, the old antagonist of 
 Nestorius. The controversy continued to 
 rage. Rabbulas, bp. of Edessa, went so far 
 ! as to attack Theodore of Mopsuestia, and 
 i raised a storm of opposition in the East by 
 so doing. Cyril, writing to Acacius of Meli- 
 tene (not to' be confounded with the aged 
 I Acacius of Beroea), declared that though it 
 j was possible theoretically (ev iwoLais) to 
 I conceive of the two natures in Christ as 
 j distinct, yet after their union in His Person 
 they became but one nature. This doctrine, 
 essentially Monophysite as it was, he did not 
 j scruple to attribute to his Syrian opponents 
 in order to magnify the concessions he made 
 to them (Neander, iv. p. 176). Meanwhile 
 I Theodoret still held out, though he offered 
 ■ to condemn those who denied the divinity of 
 Christ, or divided Him into two Sons. And 
 I he implored John of Antioch and count 
 {comes) Irenaeus, a friend of the emperor, 
 1 to accept the word deordKos. But he main- 
 tained that to condemn Nestorius would be 
 unjust. Yet even he had become weary of the 
 I controversy, and was at last prevailed upon 
 to exert himself in favour of a reconciliation. 
 j He had great difficulty in bringing over the 
 j Oriental bishops. So he went so far as to 
 I beseech Nestorius to yield for the sake of 
 '. peace. It has been felt that the extent to 
 ', which he carried his submission has left a 
 j stain on his otherwise high character. In his 
 I Commentary on the Psalms (written c. 433) 
 I he calls Nestorius di^acri^-ns, and a worshipper 
 of a foreign and new God, and classes his 
 ! followers with Jews, Arians, and Eunomians ; 
 but he earnestly begged that the venerable age 
 I of Nestorius might be exempt from violence 
 or cruelty, and besought the patriarch John 
 ' to use his influence to prevent this ; and 
 [Monophysitism] he retrieved by his later 
 conduct his reputation for courage and im- 
 partiality. 
 
 John, however, was not to be softened. He 
 had thrown his influence on the side of the 
 ; court, and he was determined to persevere 
 j in his policy. Nestorius was banished to a 
 [ convent just outside the gates of Antioch, and 
 I Meletius of Mopsuestia, Alexander of Hiera- 
 polis, and Helladius of Tarsus, strong sup- 
 porters of the school of Theodore, were in- 
 [ volved in the fate of Nestorius. In 435 it was 
 ; thought that Nestorius was nearer the patri- 
 ! arch of Antioch than was convenient, so his 
 exile to Petra in Arabia was decreed, though he 
 I was actually taken to Egypt instead. An 
 assault was made on his place of residence by a 
 j horde of Libyan barbarians, who carried him 
 I off. When released, he made his way to the 
 ' Thebaid, and gave himself up to the prefect, 
 ; begging for kindness and protection. This 
 modest request was not granted. He was 
 i dragged about from place to place, with every 
 sign of contempt and hatred. The historian 
 ! Evagrius, who loses no opportunity of loading 
 
NESTORIUS »nd NESTORIANISM 
 
 his mriniry by U\c use ..j ..ppr 'liri >iu Un- 
 gua»;r .uul rrpr«ri»t» his (ate a» a jutlxmrnt o( 
 (;.xl .in.il.«K''US to that which brtr\ Ariut, civr* 
 us d skrtih i>( A s«v..iul 41J1I in. .si jMlhrtir 
 lettrr .nidr<-ss«Hl by NmI'Tiu* to thr prefect 
 and kn.wii as his " TraRniv." In thi* hr 
 implores the protection o( the Roman Uw». 
 and enlarges on the reproach which wouUI (all 
 on the Roman name i( he re«eived better 
 treatment from barbarians than when seeking; 
 the protection of the Roman (joventment. 
 He gives a moving picture of the hardships to 
 which, though " afflicted bv disease and age." 
 he had been subjecteii. But all was in vain. 
 He obtained no mercy, and onlv death released 
 him from his sufferings. 
 
 Though his enemi»~i might remove him from 
 thi>. world, they could not soeasilvdestr.>v his 
 influence. The extent of his error had t>een 
 much exaggerated. His opponents went ulti- 
 mately to greater extremes than he had ever 
 done, though it must be confessed that his 
 Utterances were often ill-consiilere<l, as when 
 he denied without qualihcation that the Son 
 could be said to have suffered. I-'or the hi*- 
 tory of the immediate r>>sults of their victory 
 see MoNOPHVSiTisM. Cyril, in his Kp. to 
 Acacius of Melitene, had, before his death 
 in 444. committed himself to the doctrine 
 that the two natures f^iVrnt) of Christ ht>- 
 came one after the union had been effected. 
 This doctrine, in the days of his successor, 
 brought about a strong reaction in favour of 
 the Syrian interpretation of the word OtordKot. 
 Meanwhile the parly of Nestorius was very 
 rigorouslv treated by the emperor. In 435 
 laws were enacted ordaining that the N'es- 
 torians should be called Simonjans (their own 
 name for themselves was Chaldeans) ; that 
 the writings of Nestorius should be burnt ; 
 that all bishops who defended his opinions 
 should be deposed ; punishments were decreed 
 against any one who should copy, keep, or even 
 read his writings or those of his supporters ; 
 and all meetings of N<^.torians for public wor- 
 ship were rigorously ppjscribed. 
 
 The after-history of N'estorianism is ex- 
 tremely interesting, but cannot be treated in 
 detail here. The rigorous measures above 
 mentioned were fiercelv resisted in Svria and 
 Babylonia, and when Kabbulas sought to pr<H 
 hibit the reading of the works of Di.Klorus and 
 Theodore, the Nestorian teachers cro»se<l the 
 border into Persia. Barsiimas, bp. of Nisibis 
 from 435 to 489, did inuchtospread N'estorian- 
 ism in the far East, and his work received an 
 additional impulse from the policy of the 
 emperor Zeno. who persecuted Nestorian* 
 and Monophysites alike. fMoNopuvsiTisii.l 
 Thence Ne^torianism spread to Chaldea. 
 India, and even China. It has even lieeii 
 
 stated that there was a time «' 1 ■ ■•' ■ 
 
 ciples of Nestorius outnumberei! • 
 
 of all the other communion* iri • 
 
 church. Of the pp-grens of N< • 
 
 China there can be no d<iubt, for ih. Jciuu* 
 
 found a monument there, recording the fact. 
 
 Their statement has \trcn dispnt.! Lit it is 
 
 hardly likely that thev w..ul<l h . 
 
 to have made a disc.v.ry wt 1 
 
 florify what thev regarded as a •; 
 he Nestorian doctrines, however, in ti,- -^i 
 treme form they assumed when interpreted by 
 
 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 7a7 
 
 thrir Uirr r»i. .iiniu, .h : 
 
 
 lh« 
 
 
 
 
 %eoi« of etrrtllly. Ill- 
 
 *m- 
 
 medanum u!n"nt--lv 1 
 
 
 nr0 
 
 floUtlslUllg N 
 
 
 ih« 
 
 lltlllts ..( If.r 
 
 
 \r*b 
 
 C4ll|<lls. J» 
 
 
 ;rh*. 
 
 shew^.l " . 
 
 
 . 1 .. 
 
 a (ru 
 
 
 
 Hot!-.. 
 
 
 
 has Iv 
 
 
 
 Chrisllaii'. .1 .M. lliiiia* .11 
 
 
 
 coast, remain to reprewnt the 
 
 
 
 dominant In tlir f.,t T .^t T' 
 
 
 
 harassed anl 
 
 
 :'ir. 
 
 cent, bv pi It 
 
 
 «kl 
 
 of the I,v, 
 
 
 • r^.- 
 
 Angli. . 
 
 
 1 
 
 Assvi i . 
 
 
 
 verv 
 
 
 
 tecti ! 
 
 
 ,,, 
 
 Rom. 
 
 
 •nd 
 
 bv a.! 
 
 
 ■irth 
 
 • >n til- 
 
 
 
 The r. UV.ll I tlir i,ri 
 
 
 N'r«. 
 
 torian duirches still exist 
 
 \Ttk 
 
 empire in the reigti f I 
 
 
 'O 
 
 nilisl be briefly n 
 
 
 
 Theodora favoure.1 
 
 
 
 peror inclined t" • 
 The tWi> parlies. a(t< r ■ i 
 
 
 
 
 ::;■ i 
 
 for S'>ine years, agreed t 
 
 
 rhrir 
 
 mutual hostility, ami I 
 
 
 " rl» 
 
 against the remn.int of t 
 S»4 Justinian issue<l an 
 
 
 In 
 
 
 rhal 
 
 were called the THtff ' ' 
 
 
 s ol 
 
 extracts from the wnti 
 
 
 -(••re. 
 
 Theodoret, and Ibas. This ^•. ; 
 
 1..-1 
 
 a pr'>- 
 
 longed controvernv. which in 
 
 M7 
 
 broiuhl 
 
 Vigilius, bp. of Rome, to t 
 
 •nstanlinople. 
 
 Justinian ordered him to take 
 
 an " 
 
 4th Cfl- 
 
 demning the Three Chapters. 
 
 He c 
 
 msrnled 
 
 to do this, but afterwirds rrir 
 
 \rt>-\ 
 
 his '..n. 
 
 sent. In 5SI the r ' • ' ■ 
 
 
 
 and the emper-r hi ' 
 
 
 
 the former, who ' 
 
 
 
 detained in < ' 
 
 
 
 take sanctu .: 
 
 
 
 as the fifth 
 
 
 
 moiled at C 
 
 
 
 Chapters were u uil- iisur-!. \ 
 
 
 
 to submit to the decision on tl 
 
 
 
 that Til'- ■! r.- I.i.! .li' .1 in 'm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 with t ' 
 
 
 
 The.-; 
 
 
 
 colUi. ; 
 
 
 
 to pr. 
 
 COUII 
 
 
 but 
 
 died 
 
 
 s lh« 
 
 last .lii • '^ 
 
 
 .ft o| 
 
 members >'i ; 
 
 
 : H lh« 
 
 oru-mal c..,.' 
 
 
 t ( 
 
 In the iJlh yc*r ol ibc rrtcn oi tb« autifMu* 
 
758 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 
 
 Maurice, t.e. in 594. He is painstaking and 
 accurate, and a devout believer in the deci- 
 sions both of Ephesus and Chalcedon. But 
 his language is often violent, and he is credu- 
 lous as regards the miraculous. Cyril and 
 Theodoret, who were actively engaged in the 
 controversy^ have left abundant details of 
 what took place ; their own letters are 
 especially valuable, and with the writings 
 of Theodoret are pub. a collection of im- 
 portant letters from most of the principal 
 persons concerned in it. JSIarius Mercator, 
 who was at Constantinople when the conflict 
 was at its height, has left an account of it in 
 Latin. Of later authorities Mansi, Hardouin, 
 and Hefele have handed down the proceedings 
 of the council of Ephesus, and commented 
 upon them. Assemani's learned work, pub. 
 in the i8th cent., is a mine of information on 
 Nestorianism. Neander and Dorner [Arius, 
 Followers of] give full accounts of the 
 struggle. Gieseler passes over the events 
 more briefly. Mr. Percy Badger published a 
 useful work on Nestorians and their ritual in 
 1852. Loot's Nestoriana (Halle, 1905) should 
 also be consulted. Canon Bright's Age of the 
 Fathers gives a most valuable account of the 
 controversy, though he is somewhat inclined 
 to favour Cyril. Mr. Bethune-Baker's recent 
 work on the early heresies contains much 
 useful information, imparted with great clear- 
 ness and impartiality. 
 
 [Since these words were wxitten, the Editor 
 has called the attention of the writer to a work 
 by Mr. Bethune-Baker, entitled Nestorius and 
 his Teaching, pub. in 1908. It is strange that 
 the discovery which it has made public has 
 not elicited the enthusiasm which greeted the 
 previous disco\'eries of the Teaching of the 
 Twelve Apostles and the Apology of Aristides. 
 It is nothing less than a resurrection of Nes- 
 torius from the dead to plead his cause before 
 a fairer tribunal than that which pronounced 
 upon him when living. A treatise has lately 
 come to light called the Bazaar (or more 
 properly Emporium or Store, i.e. a collection 
 of merchandize) of Heracleides. This treatise 
 appears to have been written in Greek, and 
 translated into Syriac. It is this S>Tian 
 translation which has recently been recovered. 
 The work is evidently that of the patriarch 
 Nestorius himself, and its somewhat strange 
 title is explained by the fact that all copies of 
 the works of Nestorius were ordered to be 
 seized and destroyed. The treatise has a 
 peculiar interest for us, because it shews, as 
 Mr. Bethune-Baker puts it, and as has been 
 suggested in the above article, that " Nes- 
 torius was not a Nestorian." Thus the 
 doctrinal decision reached at Ephesus is vin- 
 dicated, while its personal application to the 
 patriarch himself is shewn to be unfair. In 
 his preface Mr. Bethune-Baker expresses the 
 same respect for the decisions of the four 
 great oecumenical councils which has been 
 expressed by the writer in his summary of 
 their general doctrinal bearing at the end of 
 the art. Monophvsitism — namely, that ihey 
 were " more likely to give us a true theory of 
 the relation between God and man than are 
 the reflexions of any individual thinker or 
 school of theologians." They do this because 
 they " express the communis sensus fide 
 
 NICETIUS 
 
 licun," and " their decisions need to be con- 
 firmed by subsequent acceptance by the 
 church as a whole. "1 [j-J-L.] 
 
 Nicarete (Xu-ap^rTj), a lady of one of the 
 noblest and richest families of Nicomedia, who 
 devoted herself to perpetual virginity in con- 
 nexion with the church of Constantinople. 
 She was warmly attached to Chrysostom and 
 was punished for her devotion to his cause by 
 the confiscation of most of her property in 
 the troubles that followed his expulsion. 
 She was then advanced in life and had a 
 large household dependent on her, but man- 
 aged her lessened resources with such economy 
 that she had enough for their wants and her 
 own, and also to give largely to the poor. 
 Skilled in the compounding of medicines, she 
 often succeeded in curing where physicians 
 failed. Her humiUty and self-distrust would 
 never allow her to become a deaconess, and 
 she decUned the office of lady superior of the 
 consecrated virgins when Chrysostom earnestly 
 pressed it on her. She retired from Con- 
 stantinople to avoid the persecution in 404 
 (Soz. H. E. viii. 23). [e.v.] 
 
 Nicetas (3) {Niceta, Nicaeas, Niceas, Nicias), 
 bp. of Romaciana (Remesiana) in Dacia. Our 
 knowledge of him is derived from the epistles 
 and poems (Nos. 17 and 24) of Paulinus of Nola, 
 whom he visited, a.d. 398 and 402. He was 
 probably a native of Dacia. He evangelized 
 theScythae, Getae, Daci, Bessi, and Riphaei.but 
 settled specially among the Daci, reducing the 
 wild manners of the barbarians to meekness 
 and honesty. He was noted for eloquence and 
 learning, honoured by the Romans when he 
 visited them, and specially beloved by Paul- 
 inus at Nola, but we cannot define the extent 
 of his see or the dates of his episcopate. 
 Boll. Acta SS. Jan. i. 365, and Jun. iv. 243 ; 
 Tillem. H. E. x. 263 seq. ; Fleury, H. E. xxi. 
 c. 31; Ceill. Atit. Sacr. V. 458; viii. 84. For 
 the latest view of the subject of this art. see 
 Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, his Life and Works 
 (Camb. Univ. Press). [g.t.s.] 
 
 NioetiUS (3) (Nicet, Nicesse), St., 25th 
 archbp. of Treves, c. 527-566. In his day 
 the bishop was already beginning to pass 
 into the baron, and Nicetius was a territorial 
 lord (Freeman, Augusta Treverorum, Histor. 
 Essays, 3rd ser. p. in). Our principal know- 
 ledge of him is from Gregory of Tours, who 
 received his information from St. Aredius, an 
 abbat of Limoges, Nicetius's disciple (Vitae 
 Patrum, c. xvii.). At Treves his position was 
 a difficult one. The Franks around him were 
 little else than barbarians, rioting in licence, 
 and scarcely more than nominal converts to 
 Christianity. Their respect Nicetius won by 
 personal asceticism, an inflexible temper and 
 fearless demeanour in the face of the strong, 
 activity in good works, and uncompromising 
 orthodoxy (ib.). He used excommunication 
 freely against princes and nobles in cases of 
 oppression or flagrant immorality (cf. Rettberg, 
 Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, i. 462-464). 
 His orthodoxy is illustrated by two extant 
 letters : one from him to Clodosinda, the 
 wife of Alboin the Lombard, urging her to 
 turn her husband to Catholicism ; the other 
 to the emperor Justinian, whose lapse in 
 his latter days into a form of Eutychianism, 
 Nicetius declares, is lamented by all Italy, 
 
NICOLAITANES 
 
 Africa. Spain, aikI t,.,ul {I'jtr. IM. Ixviii. 
 375-380 ; Honthcim, lA. 47-5«). Ni€<>iiu* vt 
 himself to rcstorr ihr churchm whirh hail 
 suffered in the st.inns <>f the previ.ui* Kenera- 
 tions and partly rebuilt the mrtr.>p»>litan 
 churrh of Treves (Ven.mt. F.-rt. Sttsc. iil. 11. 
 Pair. Lai. Ixxxviii. m). Mis alter.»tioni» and 
 additions are drsrribod by Wilinow-^Wv. 1>*t 
 Dom lift Tritr, pp. ^7 sqq'.. and Freenum. lA. 
 p. in- For his own defence he built a rastir 
 on a l..ftv hill overlooking the M..<iel. The 
 walls, with 30 towers. stretrhe<l d.>wn to the 
 river banks, .ind the bishop's hall, with marble 
 columns, occupieil the hishest point (Venant. 
 Fort. iii. ij, Pair. Lot. •/». 135). It is thr first 
 recordetl buildinR of a class which later was 
 greatly multiplied, but its site is unknown 
 (Freem.in, p. 112). For his architectural 
 undertakings he summonetl workmen fron> 
 Italy (Kufus. Ep. Hontheim. lA. p. 17). He 
 died f. 56^, and was burie<l in the chtir<h of 
 St. Maximin, where his tomb still is. ICven 
 in (iregorv's time it was famous for its miracles 
 (de Gli->r. Canf. 04 ; J'«^* Patr- xvii. ; Call. 
 Christ, xiii. ^f^z). Nirctius also wr^-te two 
 treatises called tie I'tRiliis Sfn-orum l)e% and 
 de Psalmodiae Bono, slii^ht works of a didactic 
 character, to be found in the Pair. luU. Ixviii. 
 365-376, and, with the letters, discussed at 
 some length by Ceillier, xi. 20^206. [s.a.b.] 
 
 NioolaiUneS. The mention of this name in ; 
 the .\p...-alv|ise (see .Murravs lllus. B. D. s.v.) 
 has caused It to appear in almost all lists of 
 heresies ; but there is no trustworthy evidence 
 of the continuance of a sect so called after 
 the death of St. John. Irenaeus in writing 
 his great work used a treatise against heresies 
 bv Justin .Martyr; and that Justin's list 
 began with Simon Magus and made no mention 
 of Nidlaitanes maybe conjectured from the 
 order in which Irenaeus discusses the hercsips, 
 viz. Simon, Mmander, Saturninus. R.isilides, 
 Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Kbi >nites, the 
 Nicolaitanes. So late a place is inconsistent 
 withchronolopicalorder.andthemostplausible 
 explanation is that Irenaeus followed the order 
 of an older list, and added the Nicolaitanes 
 to it. About them he has nothing to say 
 (I. xxvi. 3) but what he found in the Apn- 
 calypse ; for the words " qui indiscrete 
 vivunt," whirh alone have the appoaranc*- 
 of an addition, seem only an inferenrr from 
 Rev. ii. 13, 14, and 20-22. In a later book 
 (III. X. 6) Irenaeus incidentally mentions 
 them as a branch of the (.nostirs and vmis 
 to ascribe to them the whole body of Ophit'- 
 doctrine. Hippolvtis probably derived his 
 view of them from Irenaeus. In his earlier 
 treatise, as we gather from comparing the lists 
 of Epiphanius, Philaster, and Pvudo-Ter- 
 tullian, he brings them into an earlier, though 
 still too late a plarp in his list, his order bring 
 Simon Menander, Saturninus, Basilides. Nico- 
 laitanes ; and he ascril>es to them the trnets 
 of a fully dcvelMpe<i Ophite system Thrrr 
 
 is no sufficirnt evidmce that thr "■ ' 
 
 called thems<-lvcs Nicdaitanes. In t 
 work of Hippolytus, Nicolaus the <'. 
 made the founder of the (.no»tics; ! 
 notice is short, and go** htHe beyond what 
 is told in Irenaeus, bk. i. It is ne«llc*« to 
 notice the statements of later writers. 
 
 Stephen Gobar (cf. Phot. Bibl. ajl) mv* 
 
 NILUS 
 
 that M1..M ivtM I I-. .. > V- 
 
 thr 
 
 rrt 
 
 Igf, .■ 
 
 an.l 1:. 
 none •( t! . 
 NIeoUus 1 
 
 lime .•( I M 
 
 the most ; 
 
 Went. Hi 
 
 hist'.riral rlrinr 
 
 legends ami mi; 
 
 l>een prrsrnt M • 
 
 he waxr<l »o it, 
 
 inflirtnl a Ih.x 
 
 Staillrv {h.aslfrn 
 
 srnts Nicol.ius ax 
 
 in all tradili onal \ i> tutr. 
 
 To/er in his ootrs t > Fmlav s / 
 
 I. i. p 121. ol»vrves thai 
 
 taken the plair o| I'osridoii In 
 
 tianitv. Thus, in the island 
 
 trmple of Posridon has l»reii 
 
 the church oj St. Nicolaus. In 
 
 churches are deshcate<l to hiin 
 
 was formerly connn. ir»l in S 1 
 
 dral, Kton, an<l rlsrwhrfr wi-. 
 
 ceremonial of rh-H-sing a b 
 
 prcsidr^l till the following 1: 
 
 over his fellow. rhoristrrs, arra\. 
 copal attire (cf. Attn}. 0/ < aih. 1 '■ 
 Salisbury, a.D. 172\. PP 7J-NO, w! 
 ritual of the feast is givm). Wr < m : 
 fame back to the Mh cent.. %* 
 built a church in his hon.iur at ' 
 (Pr.Kop. de Aedtf. i. «>). Hi* r- 
 lateil in the middle at'^ " ' 
 whence he is often st\\' 
 His .Acts are givrn at !• 
 Sand., and his legends i.. . 
 in Jameson's Satred Art, I. 11 
 figure of St. Nicolaus is a lea ' 
 celebrated Blenheim Kapharl n 
 (iailery. ; 
 
 Nlllis (8), a famous ascetic of Sinai. | 
 boni in (.alalia, as he sp»-iks f "x- 
 martyr of .\n< vra as I 1 
 became pr<l<-< t at ( "i 
 and h.id two rluldrrn. « 
 3()o to rrtire to Sinai «iiii ■ 1- 
 His epistles .«re vrrv < uri'iis. <!• ■ 
 by demons, .uid reiilving t > \ 
 d.K^trmal. .1. . n 1,.. .r v ■■. 1 
 (.amas. t! 
 hltn the • 
 rhangliig 1m 
 Nilus boldly I ► ' 
 wh<n banished li 
 The St rv f Ms 
 Tlw 
 an<l 
 Nibi 
 and t:.'- 
 men. int' 
 sarrifne^ ' 
 
 75» 
 
 pellM thetn to »rrri •. 
 retunie<J to Sinai, an.l 
 v;lvc» by « ycl »cvcfcr j im 
 
760 
 
 NINIAN 
 
 430. His writings throw much light on mon- 
 asticism and Christian society generally at 
 the end of 4th cent. Epp. 61 and 62, lib. iv., 
 most interestingly illustrate the church life 
 at that period. Olympiodorus, an eparch, 
 desired to erect a church and to decorate it 
 with images of saints in the sanctuary, to- 
 gether with hunting scenes, birds, and animals 
 in mosaic, and numerous crosses in the nave 
 and on the floor — a scheme of decoration 
 which we find carried out some time later in 
 the churches of Central Syria, depicted in 
 De Vogue's Civil and Ecclesiastical Architec- 
 ture of Syria. Nilus condemns the mosaics 
 as mere trifling and unworthy a manly Chris- 
 tian soul. He rejects numerous crosses in 
 the nave, but orders the erection of one cross 
 at the east end of the sanctuary, " Inasmuch 
 as by the cross man was delivered from 
 spiritual slavery, and hope has been shed on 
 the nations." Good pictures from O. and 
 N. T. meet with his approval. They serve as 
 books for the unlearned ; teach them Scrip- 
 ture history, and remind them of God's 
 mercies. The church was to have numerous 
 chapels. Each chapel may have a cross 
 erected therein. Ep. 62 proves that his pro- 
 hibition of mosaics only extended to hunting 
 scenes and probably did not include the images 
 of saints. It was written to e.xalt the fame 
 of his favourite martyr, Plato of Ancyra, and 
 conclusively proves that the invocation of 
 saints was then practised in the East [cf. 
 FiDENTius (2)]. Nilus did not approve of the 
 extraordinary forms which monasticism was 
 assuming. Epp. 114 and 115, lib. ii. are 
 addressed to one Nicander, a Stylite, who 
 must have set the fashion which St. Simeon 
 followed. Nilus tells him his lofty position 
 is due simply to pride, and shall find a fulfil- 
 ment of the words " He that exalts himself 
 shall be abased." In the second epistle he 
 charges him with light and amorous conver- 
 sation with women. Monastic discipline 
 seems to have been then very relaxed, as the 
 charges are repeated in his letters and works. 
 We often find in them the peculiar practices 
 of the monks or of the early church explained 
 with mystical references. Cf. Fessler-Jung- 
 mann. Inst. Patrol. (r8q6), ii. 2. p. 108. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Ninian, British missionary bishop. The 
 general facts of his life and work present com- 
 paratively few points for dispute, there being 
 but one tradition, and that not materially 
 departed from. 
 
 The primary authority is Bede {H. E. iii. 4), 
 who, however, only incidentally alludes to St. 
 Ninian in connexion with St. Columba, yet 
 touches therein the chief points embodied in 
 the later Life^his converting the southern 
 Picts a long time before St. Columba's day, 
 his being " de natione Brittonum," but in- 
 structed in the Christian faith and mysteries 
 at Rome ; his friendship with St. Martin of 
 Tours, in whose honour he dedicated his epis- 
 copal see and church at Candida Casa in the 
 province of the Bernicii, and his building the 
 church there of stone " insolito Brittonibus 
 more " {M. H. B. 176). This is repeated in 
 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a.d. 565 (ih. 303). 
 Ailred's Vita S. Niniani seems little more than 
 an expansion of these details, but whether he, 
 in the 12th cent., had authentic evidence of an 
 
 NOETUS 
 
 j earlier date to assist him we do not know, 
 I except that he specially refers to Bede's in- 
 1 formation and also to a "liber de vita et 
 miraculis ejus, barbario [barbarice] scriptus," 
 [ of the value of which we are ignorant. The 
 : chief Life is Vita Niniani Pictorum Australium 
 apostoli, auctore Ailredo Reivallensi, first 
 printed by Pinkerton (Vit. Ant. SS. 1 seq. ed. 
 ; 1789) and reprinted with trans, and notes, by 
 : Bp. ¥orhes(Historians of Scotland,\'o\.v. 19,7^). 
 i (See also Hardy, Descript. Cat. i. 44 seq. 853 ; 
 j Bp. Forbes, Lives of SS. Kent, and Nin. 
 : Introd. ; Grub, Eccl. Hist. Scot. i. c. 2 et al. ; 
 ! Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3, 444 ; Haddan and 
 Stubbs, Counc. i. 14, 35 ; Pinkerton, Enquiry, 
 ii. 263 seq. ; Pryce, Anc. Brit. Ch. 104 seq.) 
 i Ailred's Life' is of the usual unhistoric 
 \ character, fuller of moralizings than of facts, 
 and having only one fixed point to suggest a 
 date. St. Ninian was of royal birth and be- 
 longed to the valley of the Sohvay ; his father 
 was probably a regulus in the Cumbrian king- 
 dom, and, being a Christian, had his son 
 baptized. The youth soon manifested a 
 i desire to visit Rome, and appears to have 
 reached it in the time of pope Damasus (a.d. 
 \ 366-384), perhaps in 370. After devoting 
 several years there to the Scriptures and holy 
 learning, he was raised to the episcopate, a.d. 
 394, by the pope himself, probably Siricius 
 ; (A.D. 385-399) and sent as bp. to the W. 
 I of Britain, where the Gospel was unknown, 
 corrupted, or misrepresented by the teachers. 
 I Calling on St. Martin at Tours and receiving 
 i from him masons to build churches according 
 to the Roman method, he returned to his 
 native shores and built his church at Witerna, 
 now Whithern in Wigtonsbire, but whether 
 \ near the site of the later abbey or on the 
 island near the shore is uncertain. While 
 building the church the news reached him of 
 St. Martin's death (a.d. 397), in whose honour 
 he dedicated it ; this at the latest must have 
 been in the spring of 398. We have no other 
 landmark for ascertaining his dates. The 
 chief field of his missionary labours was in the 
 central district of the E. of Scotland among 
 those barbarians who had defied the Roman 
 power in the days of Agricola and who were 
 i separated from the Roman province of Valen- 
 i tia by the rampart of Antoninus ; but the 
 veneration attached to his name is shown by 
 his dedications being found over all Scotland. 
 (See Bp. Forbes, Kals. 424.) 
 
 His monastic school, known variously as 
 .Magnum Monasterium, Monasterium Rosna- 
 tense. Alba, and Candida Casa, was famous 
 through Cumbria and Ireland, and was one of 
 the chief seats of early Christian learning to 
 which Welsh and Irish saints resorted, till 
 both school and see were destroyed by the 
 I irruptions of the Britons and Saxons. The 
 j see was revived for a time in the 8th cent., 
 I under Saxon influence from York (Haddan and 
 I Stubbs, Counc. ii. pt. i. 7, 8. 56 seq. ; Stubbs, 
 Reg. Sac. .4ng. 184 et al.), to be again restored 
 ■ in the 12th cent, by King David I. of Scot- 
 land. The date usually assigned for his death, 
 I though on no definite data, is Sept. 16, 432, and 
 { Bede (H. E. iii. c. 4) says he was buried in his 
 i church at Candida Casa, which in the middle 
 j ages becamemuch frequented by pilgrims, [j -c] 
 I Noetus, a native of Smyrna according to 
 
NOMUS 
 
 Hippolytus ; of Ephesus according to Kpiph- 
 anius (Hatr. 57), probablv bv a mistake, as 
 his narrative is in other respects whollv (leri\ rd 
 from Hippolytus. From Asia Min«r also 
 Praxeas, some years before, had imported into 
 Rome the views which Noetus tauRht. Hip- 
 polytus traces the origin of the Patnpassian 
 heresy at Rome to N(v-tus. who in his opinion 
 derived it from the philosophv of Heraclitns 
 (Refutaiton. lib. ix. cc. 3-5. cf. x. 13). N,M-ttis 
 came to Rome, where he converted Kpiijonus 
 and Cleomenes. He was summoned before 
 the council of Roman presbvters. and inter- 
 rogated about his doctrines.' He denied at 
 first that he had taught that " Christ was the 
 Father, and that the Father was »>orn .uid 
 suffered and died," but his adherents mcreas- 
 ing in number, he acknowledged before the 
 same council, when summoned a second time, 
 that he had taught the views attributed to 
 him. " The blessed presbyters called him 
 again before them and examined him. But 
 he stood out against them, saving, ' What 
 evil am I doing in glorifving one (.od ? ' And 
 the presbyters replied to him, " We too know 
 in truth one (iod, we know Christ, we know 
 that the Son suffered even as He suffered, 
 and died even as He died, and rose again on 
 the third day, and is at the right hand of the 
 Father, and cometh to judge the living and 
 the dead, and these things which we have 
 learned we allege." Then after examining 
 him they expelled him from the churcJu And 
 he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that 
 he established a school." Cf. Roulh's Reliq. 
 Sac. t. iv. 243-24R. As to his date, Hip- 
 polytus tells us "he lived not long ago," 
 Lipsius and Salmon think this very treatise 
 was used by Tertullian in his tract against 
 Praxeas [Hippolvtis Romanis], while Hil- 
 genfeld and Harnack date Tertullian's work 
 between a.d. 206 and 210. This would throw 
 the treatise of Hippolytus back to c. 205. 
 From its language and tone, we conclude that 
 Noetus was then dead, a view which Epiphan- 
 ius (Haeu 57, c. i) expressly confirms, saying 
 that he and his brother both difd soon after 
 their excommunication and were biiried with- 
 out Christian rites. The period of his teaching 
 at Rome must then have been some few years 
 previous to 205. But Hippolytus in his Re- 
 futation of Heresies gives us a farther note of 
 time, telling us in ix. 2 that it was when 
 Zephyrinus was managing the affairs of the 
 church that the school of Noetus was firmly 
 established at Rome and that Zephyrinus con- 
 nived at its establishment thrf>ugh bril>es. 
 We cannot, however, fix the date of his excom- 
 munication and death more closely than c. 200. 
 Hippolytus (x. 23) tells us that some Mon- 
 tanists adopted the views of Noetus. He 
 seems to have written some works, fromwhicli 
 Hippolytus often quotes. (g.t.s.] 
 
 Nomas, a leading personage at Constanti- 
 nople in the l.Jtter years of Theodosius II., 
 with whom he was all-powerful — ra t^ 
 olKOi'fjL^vijf (V x^P"^" 'X"^" »/><i'>MaTtt (I^bbe, 
 Concil. iv. 407). Nonius filled in succession 
 all the highest offices in the state. In 443 he 
 was " magister officiorum " (Cod. Theod. Nov. 
 p. 14, i) ; consul in 443 ; patrician in 449, the 
 year of the infamous " I.atrocinium." He 
 was the confidential friend of Chrysapbitu the 
 
 NONNUS 
 
 7(11 
 
 ■ Mirnt 
 
 <Mth 
 ' Miy. 
 
 ' into 
 
 eunuch and »hari>d with hit- " - 
 of the rmprror and tlir 
 then* I>i..»r..ru!» oj Alrxjn 
 chun doriruir^ he Mil I u. 
 favour at court. I \ ■_ 
 TheiHlosiu* wa» in.: 
 
 in 44S contiiung Ih' 
 
 The inlrrestuig vrlr^ , I irttriv t ti,p ,,rtn- 
 opal men of the empire, m whi. h Thr.>ilorH, 
 while observing the nian-l.jf^ t'T" '"^ted 
 against its .irbilrarv rV -^int 
 
 several addrevseti to Nonm jO, 
 
 of The<Hlo<ius and the a. lan 
 
 and Pulcheria, Nonniv >. . ,,^. 
 
 He took, however, .1 I ;,,^h 
 
 state official at It . ,|,,„ 
 
 (I^ibbe, iv. 77. 47S, . ■ . ,,i. 
 
 tion against him was j i- •.tjitr.l 1,> a nrphrw 
 of C>Til, Athanasius by name, a prr«bvlrr of 
 Alexandria, arrusing him of viojpn.p and rx- 
 tortion which had rwliicrd AthanaMiw and hi* 
 relatives to »)eggary and rjuwHl his lirolhcr to 
 die of distress (16. 407-410) 'r vl 
 
 Nonna dl. mother of Cr ' -rn • 
 
 a lady of g..<Kl birth, th. n^n 
 
 parents. I'liillatius and (.■ ; ; u,, 
 
 in the prai tire of il.. 1 , „( 
 
 which she was so ad' ^yir. Her 
 
 son desrrilx-s in gl. s' l...|inr»» n| 
 
 her life and the be.iii' 'voJallhrr 
 
 actions to the highest it.uulanl, of Chrittun 
 excellence. To her example, aided hv her 
 prayers, he as«ril>es the ronvenki..n of hu 
 father from the strange metllev of paganiMn 
 and Christiaiiilv which formed the trnrt* of 
 the Hypsislarian sect, to which bv birth he 
 bel.uiged ((.reg. Naz. Or. 11, 10; (arm. 1. j). 
 We know of twoother children of the inarrtaRr, 
 a sister named (;<jrgonia. probablv older than 
 t.regory, and a brother nanml ( ae^ariut. 
 Nonna's death probably (<-curre«l on Aug. 5 (on 
 which day she is commemorated Ix.th bv the 
 (Ireek and Latin churches) in 374 (Oral, ig, p. 
 31S , Carttt. I, p. 9), Tillcm. Mitn. tul. t. i«. 
 pp. 300-311, 317. 3i«, i2i. 38s. 397- [«v.] 
 
 Nonnus (2) of Panopolis. The name is very 
 common, being properly an Eg\-ptian title 
 equivalent to Saint. Consequentlv confu«ion 
 has arisen between this writer an<l olhrr» ..( the 
 same name. He has been identihe,!. with 
 Si>me i>robability, with a Nonnus wh.v (wm it 
 mentioned by Synesius (Ep. ad .inaHiU. 4J, 
 ad Pyl. 102) ; and. with very litllr probabilitv! 
 with the deacon Nonnus, »rcrrtarv at the 
 Council of Chalcedon, a.o. 4M ; wiih Nonnut, 
 the bp. of Hdessa, electe<l at the »yn'>d t.j 
 Ephesus, A.i>. 449; and with Nt.nnu» the 
 ronunentator on (irejcory Naxianxen (pidt 
 Beiitley, I'halarts. ad in.). 
 
 Life. — He was a native of TanopoUt in 
 Eg\'l)t ; cf. I-:iid-.xia, %.v. Agathia*. iv. p. |j« ; 
 and an epigram in .-In/A. rifitA-ft t p «|o H« 
 is cla*se<i by Agathiat am -rmi. 
 
 and this. supporte<l bv a ' hi* 
 
 poems with other late eji « il 
 
 probable that he wrote at Hir •■u.i , tur 4lh 
 and l>egliiiiing of the jth cent*, a.o. iievond 
 this nitliiiig I* kni<wn li>r certain. Hit Ihnmy- 
 llOfd shews freqitetith ■ i- ' >>i.-.i>- < ■••' no- 
 my (cf. vi. 60 ; XXV . ■ Ul 
 
 interest in liervtn jmA 
 
 Athens (xlvii.K Hut \'nal 
 
 acquaintance with thcM luwu* u uM-crtain. 
 
762 
 
 NONNUS 
 
 In iv. 250 the discoveries of Cadmus are traced 
 to Egypt, but otherwise there is no reference 
 to his native country. The whole tone of the 
 Dionysiaca, with its delight in the drunken 
 immoralities of Dionysus, makes it hard to 
 believe the poem written by a Christian. 
 Probably it was written early in life, and 
 Nonnus converted to Christianity after it, and 
 the paraphrase of St. John written after his 
 conversion, possiblv, as has been suggested, 
 as a contrast to the Dionysiaca, portraying the 
 life and apotheosis of one more worthy than 
 Dionvsus of the name of God. Possibly too, 
 as has also been suggested, Nonnus may have 
 been one of the Greek philosophers who 
 accepted Christianity when the heathen 
 temples were destroyed by decree of Theo- 
 dosius (Socr. H. E. v. 16). 
 
 Works.— Oi his literary position it is possible 
 to speak with more certainty. He was the 
 centre, if not the founder, of the literary 
 Egyptian school, which gave to Greek epic 
 poetry a new though short-lived brilliancy, 
 and to which belonged Quintus of Smyrna, 
 John of Gaza, Coluthus, Tryphiodorus, and 
 "Musaeus. This school revived the historical 
 and mvthological epic, treating it in a pecuhar 
 style of which Nonnus is the best representa- 
 tive. While frequently proclaiming himself 
 an imitator of Homer, and shewing traces of 
 the influence of Callimachus and later writers, 
 he yet created new metrical rules, which 
 gave an entirelv new effect to the general 
 rhythm of the poem— that of an easy but 
 rather monotonous flow, always pleasant, but 
 never rising or falling with the tone of the 
 narrative. The style is very florid, marked 
 bv a luxuriance of epithets and original com- 
 pounds (often of very arbitrary formation), 
 elaborate periphrasis, and metaphors often 
 piled together in hopeless confusion ; and 
 manv unusual forms are invented. 
 
 The Dionysiaca attributed to Nonnus by 
 Agathias (u.s.) is a history of the birth, con- 
 quests and apotheosis of bionysus, spun out 
 at great length. The poem has been regarded 
 "as an allegory of the march of civilization 
 across the ancient world " ; but it would be 
 simpler, and we hope truer, to describe it as 
 " the gradual estabhshment of the cultivation 
 of the vine and the power of the Wine-god." 
 
 The chief modern editions of the Dionysiaca 
 are Graefe (1819-1826) ; Passow (1834) ; Le 
 Comte de Marcellus, with interesting intro- 
 duction, French trans, and notes, in Didot's 
 Bibl. Graeca (1836); Kochly with apparatus 
 criticus (1857), cf. Ouwarow (1817) ; Kohler, 
 Ueber die Dion, des Nonnus (1853). 
 
 The Paraphrase (MeraSoXTJ) of St. John's 
 Gospel, attributed to Nonnus by Eudocia (Viol. 
 3 1 1 ), is a fairlv faithful paraphrase of the whole 
 of the Gospel. The text of the Gospel that 
 lies behind the paraphrase has been reproduced 
 by R. Jannsen (Texte und Untersuchungen, 
 N. F. viii. 4, 1903). The text is faithfully 
 treated. The omissions, except when he has 
 MSS. authority {e.g. v. i, 4, vii. 53 sqq.), are 
 rare (v. i, 29, iv. 27, 41, 42, vi. 41, 53, viii. 
 38, xviii. 16, 18). The additions are chiefly 
 those of poetical expansion. Homeric epi- 
 thets form a strange medley with the Pales- 
 tinian surroundings, and in many cases the 
 illustrations are drawn out into insipid de- 
 
 NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 
 
 tails (cf. iv. 26, vii. 21, xviii. 3, xx. 7). At 
 ; other times we have interpretations sug- 
 gested, in most of which he agrees with the 
 Alexandrine tradition as represented by Cyril 
 and Origen cf. i. 16, 24, 42 (Peter's name) ; 
 i vi. 71 (the motive of Judas) ; vii. 19 (the 
 j reference to the sixth commandment) ; viii. 
 40 (the hospitality of Abraham) ; xii. 6, 10 ; 
 xviii. 15 (1x^1^,36X01; wapa t^x^V^) ; xix. 7. 
 In some he seems obviously wrong, e.g. ii. 12 
 {dvudeKapidtxos) ; ii. 20, X. 12 (the reference to 
 Solomon) ; vii. 28 (v\pQt') ; xi. 44, aoi'Sipiou 
 I explained as a Syrian word ; while in ii. 4, 
 i ri HOI. yyvcLi. rji ^-ai avrrj looks like an attempt 
 to avoid a slight to her who is constantly 
 called 960x6x0?. He shews, too, a looseness in 
 using theological terms (cf. i. 3, ixvdo% ; i, 50, 
 xi. 27, \670s) which, with the luxuriance of 
 periphrasis, forms a striking contrast to the 
 simplicity and accuracy of St. John. The 
 chief modern editions are Passow (1834) ; Le 
 Comte de Marcellus, with French trans, and 
 notes (i860) ; A. Scheindler (1881), with text 
 of the Gospel and criticus apparatus ; Migne, 
 vol. xliii. (with the notes of Heinsius and of 
 Le Comte de Marcellus) ; Mansi, Bibl. Patr. vi. 
 (ed. 1618), ix. (ed. 1677). See also a series 
 of arts, in Wiener Studien for 1880-1881 and 
 Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1891, where the 
 authorship is attributed to Apollinaris. [w.l.] 
 Novatianus and Novatianism {Xovatianus, 
 Cyprian, Ep. xliv. ; Xoot'dros, Eus. H. E. vi. 
 43 ; Naudros, Socr. H. E. iv. 28. Lardner 
 {Credibility, c. 47, note) seeks to prove that 
 Eusebius and the Greeks in general were cor- 
 rect in calling the Roman presbyter Novatus, 
 not Novatianus. He attributes the origin of 
 the latter name to Cyprian, who called the 
 Roman presbyter Novatianus, as being a 
 follower of his own rebellious priest, Novatus 
 of Carthage. Novatian, the founder of Nova- 
 tianism, is said by Philostorgius to have been 
 a Phrygian by birth, a notion which may 
 have originated in the popularity of his system 
 in Phrygia and its neighbourhood (Light- 
 foot's Colossians, p. 98). He was, before his 
 conversion, a philosopher, but of what sect 
 we cannot certainly determine, though from a 
 comparison of the language of Cy-prian in Ep. 
 Iv. § 13, ad Antonian., with the Novatianist 
 system itself, we should be inclined to say the 
 Stoic. The circumstances of his conversion 
 and baptism are stated by pope Cornelius in 
 his letter to Fabius of Antioch (Eus. I.e.), but 
 we must accept his statements with much 
 caution. His narration is evidently coloured 
 by his feelings. The facts of the case appear 
 to be these. He was converted after he had 
 come to manhood, and received clinical bap- 
 tism, but was never confirmed, which furnishes 
 j Cornelius with one of his principal accusations. 
 He was, nevertheless, admitted to the clerical 
 I order. His talents, especially his eloquence, 
 to which even Cyprian witnesses {Ep. Ix. 3), 
 rapidly brought him to the front, and he be- 
 I came the most influential presbyter of the 
 i Roman church. In this character, the see 
 ; being vacant, he wrote Ep. xxx. to the 
 Carthaginan church, touching the treatment 
 of the lapsed, while the anonymous author of 
 the treatise against Novatian, written a.d. 
 i 255 and included by Erasmus among Cyprian's 
 
NOVATIANUS and HOVATIANISM 
 
 works, describes him as " havinR been a 
 precious vessel, an house of the Lord, who, as 
 long as he was in the church, bowailetl the 
 faults of other men as his own, bore the burdens 
 of his brethren as the apostle directs, and by 
 Ills exh<irtations strenKthened such as were 
 weak in the faith." This testimony sufficiently 
 disposes i^f the accusation of Cornelius that 
 Novatian denied the faith in time of persecu- 
 lion, declarinp himself "an admirer of a dif- 
 t<rent philosophy." In 250 he approved of a 
 moderate policy towards the lapsed, but l.itrr 
 ill the year chanKetl his mind and t^xik such 
 
 ■ xtreme views that the martyr Moses, who 
 : I bably sulTered on the last dav of 2So, ci<n- 
 
 1 inned them. In Mar. 251 Cornelius was 
 1 iisecrated bp. (Lipsius, Clirou. d. rom. lU^ch. 
 p. 205). This roused the stricter party to 
 action (Gyp. Ep. xlvi.). Novati's, the Car- 
 thaginian agitator, having meanwhile arrivetl 
 at Rome, joined them and urged them to, 
 set up an opposition bishop. He made a 
 1 >iu-ney into distant parts of Italy, and, 
 hriught back 3 bishops who consecrated ' 
 Novatian. .\fter his consecration Novatian 
 dispatched the usual epistles ann<iuncinR it t(» 
 the bishops of the chief sees, to Cyprian, 
 Pionysius of Alexandria, Fabius of .Antioch. 
 Cyprian rejected his communion at once. 
 Pionysius wrote exhorting him to retire from 
 his schismatical positic->n (Eus. H. E. vi. 45). 
 Fabius, however, so inclined to his side that 
 Pionysius addressed him a letter on the sub- ' 
 ject ; and two bishops, F'irmilianus of Cappa- 
 docia and Theoctistus of Palestine, wrote to 
 I^ionysius requesting his presence at the 
 council of Antioch. to restrain tendencies in 
 that direction (ib. 44, 46). In the latter part 
 "f 25 1 Novatian was formally excommunic^ated ' 
 ly a synod of 60 bishops at Rome. He then 
 bfgan to organize a distinct church, rebaptiz- 
 ing all who came over (Cyp. Ep. Ixxiii. 2) and 
 dispatching letters and emissaries to the most 
 distant parts of the East and West (Socr. 
 H. E. iv. 28). [Cyprian ; Novati-s.] His 
 subsequent career is unknown, save that 
 Socrates informs us that he suffered martyr- 
 dom under Valerian iib.). He was a copious 
 writer, as we learn from Jerome {de I'tr. III. 
 
 ■ . Ixx.), who gives as his works, " de Pascha, 
 lie Sabbato, de Circumcisinne, de Sacerdote, de 
 Oratione, de Instanlia, de Altalo, de Cibis 
 Judaicis, et de Trinitate," only the last two 
 being now extant. (.\n ed. of de Trtn. by 
 W. V. Faussct was pub. in iqoo in the Camh. 
 Patr. Texts.) His wr.rk on Jewish meats was 
 written at some place of retreat from perse- 
 cution. The Jewish controversy seems to 
 have been then very hf)t at Rome, and Nova- 
 tian wrote to refute their contention about 
 distinction of meats. Jcp-me describes his 
 work on the Trinitv as an epitome of Tcrtul- 
 lian's, and as attributed bv some to Cyprian 
 (Mieron. Apol. cont. Rufin. lib. ii. Opp. I. iv. 
 p. 415). It proves Novatian to have been a 
 diligent student, as its arguments are identical 
 with those of Justin Martvr in his Dialnf-. cum 
 Trypk. c. cxxvii. ; Tertull. adv. Prax. cc. xiv.- 
 XXV.; Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 16. v. 11, 12. 
 He deals first with the absolute nerfecti..n of 
 the Father, His invisibility, etc.. then discusses 
 the anthropomorphic expressions of the Scnp- 
 tures, la>-ing down that " such things were 
 
 NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 7ft3 
 
 said alxiut <.-.d indrr<l. but thrv Atr nn| |o b« 
 
 imputed to «,,h1 but to the j>r..p|r. It It not 
 CukI Who is hmile<l, but the prrrrptlon o| thn 
 peopir." In c. VII. hr dr. Urr» that rvrn the 
 terms Spirit. I.iKht. I.ovr, arc only In «n 
 imperfect dearer appllcablr to (,.k1. In rr. 
 ix.-xxviii. he disru^v^ the true doctrine of the 
 Incarnation. ex|>l.iiiiinK. like ( Irnienl «nd 
 others, the theophanir-^ >>( O.T. a* ni4ni(r«t4- 
 tions of Christ, and rrfuliiiK the dortniir of the 
 Sabellians, or Artemonilr*. arcordliiK !•• Nean- 
 der (//. E. ii. 2<)N), which h.id juot then \trr-n 
 developt^l. He ends bv rxplaininc the d.<- 
 trine of the Ho|v Spirit, whrrrin hr u IhouKhi 
 by some to have f.illrn into error. Hr wa* 
 quoted bv the Macedonians of the next rent, 
 as supporting their view (cl. Fabric. Htbl, 
 Gratt. xii. s(>s and references noted there ; 
 Bulls Def. 0/ Suene ( refd, ii. 476. OxI. 
 1852 ; Judg. of ( ath. Ck. pp. 0, H7. aoi. OxI. 
 1R55). Lardner (Credtb. c. 47. t. III. p. 342) 
 shews that Novatian did not accept Htbrtw* 
 as Scripture, since he never quotes anv texts 
 out of it. though there were vvrral which 
 favoure<l his caus<\ n^'tablv Hrb. vi. 4-8. His 
 followers, however, in thr next rent. di<l use 
 them. Some have even thought Novatian to 
 be the author of the Kefulalvn of alt Hettuts 
 (Bunsen. Christ, and Manktnd. i. 4Hn). A 
 trans, of his works is in the vol. of Clark's 
 .Ante-Stcene Lib. which contains pt. ii. o( 
 St. Cyprian's writings (Edinb. 1869). Jack- 
 son's ed. is the best. 
 
 Sovatiatxism. — The members of this sect 
 called themselves Ka.$apoi (Eus. //. E. vi. 41)- 
 Thev were called by others Novatiani (Pacian. 
 Ep.\. § I). 
 
 Novatianism was the first great schism in 
 the church on a pure question of discipline. 
 In Montanism questions of discipline were 
 involved as si'le issues, but did not constitute 
 its esseiiti.il difference. All sects previous to 
 Novatianism had erred on the di«ctrine of the 
 Trinity. The Novatianists alone were ortho- 
 dox thereupon. The church therefore bap- 
 tized even Montanists. but admitt<*d Nova- 
 tianists by imposition of hands (Cone. I.aodio. 
 can. vii. viii. ; Hefele. Counetls, ed. Clark, t. ii. 
 303. 332; Cone. CP. can. vii. in Hefele. /.(. ; 
 Pitra, Jur. Eccles. Grate. Hut. i. 430. V»). 
 
 The principles which Novatian formulated 
 into a svstem, and to which he gave a name, 
 existed and flourished long b«-fTe him. The 
 origin of the N'ovatianist sdiism must be 
 sought in the struggle which. riKiti.iting with 
 the Shepherd of Hennas (B.iur. < hurck HnL 
 trans. Menzies, iH7f,, t. ii. p. ^<> note; cl. 
 Ritschl. Ettlstehuni! der Allkath. Ktrche. jnd 
 e<l. p. ^20). had Iwen raging at Koine (of 70 
 years, at first with the M ontaiiut* and the 
 followers of Tertullian, an«l then I>etween 
 Hippolvtus and CalliNtu Iwrv 11- f the 
 distinctive principles i be 
 
 found adv<>cate<l bv -^ "ir. 
 
 I.e. p. 270. note). It. the 
 
 lap»e<l, and in fact an ^;u^t^ t m .to Mns. 
 TerHillian njrctrd second in.^rrl4Kf-». a« also 
 did the strict ilisfipline of the 2nd rml. 
 (Ambr. de I'tJuu. c. Ii. ; l.uni|>er. Httt. SS. 
 PP. iii. 0^: d* S. Alhenat.; Aug. Ep. ad 
 i Julian, de I'tduU). Hlp|>oIvtii« heUI. in a 
 ' great degree, the same »iem view*. This 
 ! identity in principle betwe«n Montanism and 
 
764 NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 
 
 Novatianism has been noted by many, both 
 ancients and moderns, e.g. Epiph. Haer. 59 ; 
 Hieron. 0pp. Migne, Patr. Lat. t. i. 188, Ep. 
 ad Marcellam, 457, Ep. ad Oceanum ; t. vii. 
 697 cont. Jovinian. lib. ii. ; Gieseler, H. E. 
 t. i. pp. 213-215, 284, ed. Clark ; Neander, 
 Anti-Gnostic, t. ii. p. 362 ; Bunsen, Christ, and 
 Mankind, t. i. 395, 428; Pressense, Life and 
 Pract. of Early Ch. lib. i. cc. 6, 7 ; Baur, I.e. 
 pp. 124-126. With Donatism Novatianism is 
 also allied, for the treatment of the lapsed 
 underlay that schism too. Other points of 
 similarity between the three may be noted. 
 They all sprang up, or found their most 
 enthusiastic supporters, in Africa. Each 
 arose simultaneously with great persecutions. 
 The two earliest, at least, proved their essen- 
 tial oneness, uniting their ranks in Phrygia in 
 the 4th cent. Novatianism may be regarded 
 as a conservative protest on behalf of the 
 ancient discipline against the prevalent 
 liberalism of the Roman church (Baur, I.e. p. 
 271). The sterner treatment of the lapsed 
 naturally found favour with the more enthu- 
 siastic party, who usually give the tone to any 
 religious society. Thus Eleutherus, bp. of 
 Rome, in the latter part of 2nd cent, was 
 inclined to take the Puritan view (Eus. H. E. 
 lib. v. c. 3). Ozanam {Hist, of Civilization in 
 5th Cent. t. ii. p. 214, Eng. trans.) has noted an 
 interesting proof of the prevalence of this 
 view in Rome. Archaeologists have often 
 been puzzled by the symbol of a Good Shep- 
 herd carrying a kid, not a lamb, on his shoul- 
 ders, found in the cemetery of St. Callistus. 
 Ozanam explains it as a reference by the 
 excavators of the cemetery to the prevalent 
 Montanist doctrine, which denied the possibi- 
 lity of a goat being brought back in this life. 
 Novatianism thus fell upon ground prepared 
 for it, and found in every quarter a body of 
 ready adherents. But Novatian was the first 
 to make the treatment of the lapsed the ex- 
 press ground of schism. In fact, many con- 
 tinued to hold the same view within the 
 church during the next 150 years (cf. Hefele, 
 Councils, t. i. p. 134, Clark's ed. ; Innocent I. 
 Ep. iii. ad Exiiperium, in Mansi, iii. 1039). 
 This fact accounts for the rapid spread of the 
 sect. In Africa they estabUshed themselves 
 in many cities within the course of the two 
 years subsequent to Novatian's consecration 
 in the spring of 251. [Cyprian.] In S. Gaul 
 Marcian, bp. of Aries, joined them (Cyp. Ep. 
 Ixviii. ; Greg. Turon. Hist. Francor. lib. i. in 
 Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxi. 175). In the East they 
 made great progress. Between a.d. 260 and 
 the coimcil of Nice we hear scarcely anything 
 about them. The controversies about Sabel- 
 lianism and Paul of Samosata, together with 
 the rising tide of Arianism, occupied the 
 church during the concluding years of the 3rd 
 cent., while the peace it enjoyed prevented the 
 question of the lapsed becoming a practical 
 one. During this period, however, Novatian- 
 ist doctrine became harder and sterner. 
 Obliged to vindicate their position, they drew 
 the reins tighter than Novatian had done. 
 With him idolatry was the one crying sin 
 which excluded from communion. During 
 the long peace there was no temptation to this 
 sin, therefore his followers were obliged to | 
 add all other deadly sins to the list (Socr. | 
 
 NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 
 
 H. E. vii. 25 ; Ambr. dePoenit. lib. i. cc. 2, 3 ; 
 Ceill. V. 466, 467). At the council of Nice we 
 find them established far and wide, with a 
 regular succession of bishops at the principal 
 cities of the empire and of the highest reputa- 
 tion for piety. The monk Eutychian, one of 
 their number, was a celebrated miracle- 
 worker, reverenced by Constantine himself, 
 who also endeavoiured to lead one of their 
 bishops, AcESius, to unite with the Catholics 
 (Socr. H. E. i. 10, 13). During the 4th cent, 
 we can trace their history much more clearly 
 in the East than in the West, for Socrates 
 gives such copious details as to lead some 
 (Nicephorus, Baronius, and P. Labbaeus) to 
 suspect that he was a member of the sect. In 
 the East their fortunes were very varying. 
 Under Constantine they were tolerated and 
 even favoured (Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. 
 xvi. tit. V. p. 1522). Under Constantius they 
 were violently persecuted, together with the 
 rest of the Homoousian party, by the patriarch 
 Macedonius. Socrates (ii. 38) mentions seve- 
 ral martyrs for the Catholic faith whom they 
 then furnished, especially one Alexander, a 
 Paphlagonian, to whose memory they built a 
 church at Constantinople existing in his own 
 day. Several of their churches, too, were 
 destroyed at Constantinople and Cyzicus, but 
 were restored by Julian upon his accession, 
 and Agelius their bishop was banished. " But 
 Maced<mius consummated his wickedness in 
 the following manner. Hearing there was a 
 great number of the Novatian sect in the 
 province of Paphlagonia, and especially at 
 Mantinium, and perceiving that such a 
 numerous body could not be driven from their 
 homes by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by 
 the emperor's permission, four companies of 
 soldiers to be sent into Paphlagonia that, 
 through dread of the military, they might 
 receive the Arian opinion. But those who 
 inhabited Mantinium, animated to despera- 
 tion by zeal for their religion, armed them- 
 selves with long reaping-hooks, hatchets, and 
 whatever weapons came to hand, and went 
 forth to meet the troops, on which, a conflict 
 ensuing, many indeed of the Paphlagonians 
 were slain, but nearly all the soldiers were 
 destroyed." This persecution well-nigh 
 brought about a union between the Catholics 
 and the Novatianists, as the former frequented 
 the churches of the latter party during the 
 Arian supremacy. The Novatianists, how- 
 ever, as in Constantine's time, obstinately 
 refused to unite with those whose church- 
 theory was different from their own, though 
 their faith was alike. Under Valens, seven 
 years later, a.d. 366, they suffered another 
 persecution and Agelius was again exiled. 
 Under Theodosius their bp. at Constanti- 
 nople, Agelius, appeared in conjunction with 
 the orthodox patriarch Nectarius as joint 
 defenders of the Homoousian doctrine at the 
 synod of 383, on which account the emperor 
 conferred on their churches equal privileges 
 with those of the establishment (Socr. H. E. 
 V. 10, 20). John Chrysostom's severe zeal 
 for church discipline led him to persecute 
 them. When visiting Ephesus to consecrate a 
 bishop A.D. 401, he deprived them of their 
 churches, an act to which many attributed 
 John's subsequent misfortunes. An expression 
 
NOVATIANUS ind NOVATIANISM 
 
 utteri-tl by Chrvs. -it.-ni in r<(rrtii< »• t.> t!irir 
 peculiar views about siu alter ba|>tuut. 
 '' Approach [the altar] though \mu luav have 
 repented a thous.ind times," Utl t.> a literarv 
 controversy between hint aiul the learnetl anti 
 witty Sisinnius, Novatianist bp. •>( Constanti- 
 nople (vi. 21, 22). About \74 a m hisni »c- 
 curred in their ranks onceniinjc the tr\ie 
 time of Easter. Hitherto the Novatianitts 
 bad strictly obs«»r\'cd the Catholic rule. A 
 few obscure FhryKi.ui bishops, however, con- 
 vened a synod at Pazuni or Pazaconta, and 
 agreed to celebrate the same day as that on 
 which the Jews keep the Feast of I'nleavened 
 Bread. This canon was passe<l in the absence 
 of Agelius of Constantinople, Maxiniusof Nice, 
 and the bislu>ps of Niconiwlia and Cotyaeuni, 
 their leading men (iv. 28). Jewish influence 
 was also at work, as Soromen (vii. iS) tells us 
 that a number of priests, con vert etl by the 
 Novatianists at Pazum during the reijjn of 
 Valens, still retainetl their Jewish ideas about 
 Easter. To this sect was given the name 
 Protopaschitae {Cod. Theod. u.s. p. 1581, 
 where severe penalties are deimuncetl against 
 them as worshippers of a different Christ 
 because observing Easter otherwise than the 
 orthodox). This question, when raised by a 
 presbyter of Jewish birth nanutl SAnnATirs, 
 some 20 years later, caused a further schism 
 among the Novatianists at Constantinople, 
 under the episcopate of Marcian, a.d. 391; 
 whence the name Sabbatiani. 1 hese finally 
 coalesced with the Montanists, though we 
 can trace their distinct existence till the 
 middle of the 5th cent. (Socr. H. E. v. 21 ; 
 Soz. H. E. vii. 16 ; Cod. Theod. u.s. pp. 
 1566, 1570, 1581.) Many particulars of the 
 customs of the Eastern Novatianists and 
 as to their reflex influence on the church as 
 regards auricular confession are in Socr. 
 H. E. V. 19, 22, who in c. 19 ascribes the 
 original establishment of the office of peniten- 
 tiary presbyter and secret confession to the 
 Novatianist schism. [Nectarius (4).1 The 
 succession of Novatianist patriarchs of Con- 
 Stantinf>plc during the 4th cent, was Acesius, 
 Agelius, Marcianus, Sisinnius (Socr. H. E. v. 
 21, vi. 22 ; S'lz. H. E. vii. 14). During the 
 5th cent, the Novatianists continued to 
 flourish notwithstanding occ.isional troubles. 
 In Constantin<jple their bishops during the 
 first half of the cent, were Sismnius. d. 412, 
 Chrysanthus, d. 419, Paul, d. 41H, and .Man ian. 
 They lived on amicable terms with the orth'>- 
 dox patri-irch Atlitus, who, remembering 
 their fidelity under the Arian pers<Tutii)n, 
 protected them from their enemies. Paul 
 enjoyed the reputation of a miracle-worker, 
 and died in the otlour of universal 8an< tity. all 
 sects and parties uniting in singmg ps.«lm» at 
 bis funeral (S<kt. H. /:. vii. 4'')- I" Al.x- 
 andria, however, they were perseriitr<l by 
 Cyril, their bp. Th»Mpemptus and their 
 churches plundered ; but they continni-<l to 
 exist in large numbers in that city till the 7th 
 cent., when Eulogius, Catholic patriarch of 
 Alexandria, wrote a treatise against them 
 (Phot. Cod. 182, 208; Ceill. xi. 5N9)- J-vni 
 in Scythia their churches existnl, as we find 
 Marcus, a bp. fr^m that country, prevnt at 
 tbe death of Paul, Novatianist bi>. of Con- 
 stantinople, July 21, 438- In Asia Minor thry 
 
 NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 766 
 
 wrrr .,^ XM.lrh ,1,,; .,-..■ ! .. I'.r i .■♦. !> , |n 
 
 i'.«rt» ol II, i: 1 vroni 
 
 |.>r long to h., 1 br 
 
 those who lo . h*- 
 
 niii« IrlU \t% ' -. (»f 
 
 1 1 J vr.«r> ill U ■ 
 
 lumper, //n; h«ti 
 
 rslal.li-i ■ » . it.u« 
 
 (111 II w« 
 
 lind at I u .<n 
 
 a toiiii' ' iiina 
 
 to her huslMiul I'aul, .!..i. :, I llir h<>|y 
 church of the NovalunUI«. while rvrti |o. 
 wards the end o| ttir jr.. ..tit.^r . rtnv.rv St. 
 liasil, though hesil.it: .r to 
 
 those of Cyprian t lUti, 
 
 conchules in its lav 'ind 
 
 that it was for the a.l\ i.ii . ! thi> 
 
 populace that it shoiiM Iw 1 h f. 
 
 clxxxviii. ad .Amf<ktL>th. , iih't 
 
 liasil Ihf Gieat. \y. ii<)). All.: 1 the 
 
 5th cent, we find lew notice* ..) ji., u l,ut>iry. 
 Their protest alx'Ut the U|>vhI Ikn amr <>b*<>- 
 lete and their adherents (ell away to th« 
 church or to wets hke the M'>ntanUlt. A 
 ' formal notice of their existence in the K*»l 
 ; occurs in the 95th canon o| the I rullan (*Julni- 
 ! sext) council A.D. 69J. In the Wr»t we h*ve 
 ' no such particular details of their historv u 
 I in the East. Yet there is clear evidence o| 
 th<'ir widespread and |ong-c4.niinued influence. 
 .Mreatly we have note<l their extension into 
 S. (.aui and .\frica in their very earliest da>-«. 
 In .Mexandria also we have note<l lit last 
 , historical inanil«-station. Hetween Ihe ml<ldle 
 of ^rd cent., when it arose, and the close i>l tbe 
 , 5th, we find relocated iiidic.itioii> o| its exist- 
 ence and power. Constantine's decree [Cod. 
 I Theod. XV'l. v. 2, with t.otho(re«l's comment), 
 giving them a certain restricted lit>erlv, wa» 
 directed to Bassus, probablv vicarius ..f llalv. 
 ': Towards the cli>v of the 4th cent, we find a 
 regular succession of Nov.iii-u>l*l bishop« 
 existing^-doubtless from N ■ •■ • 'ciie — 
 at Rome, and held in su l>t 
 
 piety that the emperor Th' I his 
 
 life to the celebratetl oral, i ' the 
 
 ' prayer of the Novatianist ; *.D. 
 
 ' 388. Early in the Mh r- !•<•»•« 
 
 Celestine jhtsccuIwI them, "" "I 
 
 their churches, and com|>ell..l louii ul.i their 
 bishop to hold his meetings in private, an act 
 which Socrates considers another pr."«f >>< the 
 overweening and unchristian invleiice o| 
 the Roman »ee («. E. vii. n). Inthe(.«le 
 several severe etiicts were dir« t«l alMiut the 
 same time ak'.ilnst the Nov.i'; ■ •• ^ ! ktoJ. 
 
 n\. Haeiiel. lib. xvi. III. v. L 1 «>). 
 
 In S. <..iul. N. Ilalv. and^ -m« 
 
 tohav- •■^. "., , • . *nd 
 
 centr . '' "^ 
 
 ligion '»»» 
 
 mavl, , ' •' 
 
 time Iw 1 -tc li> Ma 
 
 features, *.K Ihe i 
 
 these . ■■uiitn- s, ii. . 
 
 tow.ir . 
 
 The 1 
 
 Ambt 
 
 agaiiiM II.' 
 
 proves t lie s. 
 
 one and a i 
 
 assertion of u. . ., .. - - 
 
766 
 
 NOVATUS 
 
 Ambrose evidently wrote in answer to some 
 work lately produced by them {de Poenit. lib. 
 ii. c. X.). The Separatist tendency begotten 
 of Novatianism in this district and continued 
 through Priscillianism, Adoptionism, and 
 Claudius of Turin (Neander, H. E. t. vi. 119- 
 130, ed. Bohn ; of. esp. note on p. 119) may 
 be a point of contact between the Novatianists 
 of primitive times and the Waldenses and 
 Albigenses of the middle ages. Their wide 
 spread in Africa in Augustine's time is attested 
 by him, cont. Gmtdent. in 0pp. ed. Bened. 
 (Paris), ix. 642, 794. 
 
 The principal extant controversial works 
 against the sect beside those of Cyprian are 
 the epistles of St. Pacian of Barcelona, the de 
 Poeniteniia of St. Ambrose, and the Quaes- 
 iiones in Nov. Testam. No. cii. wrongly attri- 
 buted to St. Augustine and found in the 
 Parisian Ben. ed. t. iii. pars. ii. 2942-2958, 
 assigned by the editor to Hilary the deacon 
 who lived under pope Damasus. The work 
 of Pacian contains many interesting historical 
 notices of the sect. From it we find they 
 refused to the Catholics the name of a church, 
 calling them Apostaticum, Capitolinum, or 
 Synedrium, and, on their own behalf, rejected 
 the name Novatianists and styled themselves 
 simply Christians {Ep. ii. § 3). The following 
 were some of the texts rehed on by them, 
 to the consideration of which the writers 
 on the Catholic side applied themselves : 
 I. Sam. ii. 25 ; Matt. x. 33, xii. 31, xiii. 
 47-49 ; I. Cor. vi. 18 ; II. Tim. ii. 20 ; Heb. vi. 
 4-7 ; I. John V. 15. Novatianism in the tests 
 which it used, its efforts after a perfectly 
 pure communion, its crotchety interpreta- 
 tions of Scripture, and many other features, 
 presents a striking parallel to many modern 
 sects. In addition to authorities already 
 quoted, see Ceillier, ii. 427, et passim ; Walch, 
 Ketzerhist. ii. 185 ; Natal. Alex. ed. Mansi, 
 saec. iii.c. iii.art. iv. ; Tillem. A/ew. ; Bingham, 
 0pp. t. vi. 248, 570, viii. 233 (ed. Lond. 1840); 
 Gieseler, H. E. i. 284 (ed. Clark) ; Neander, 
 H. E. (ed. Bohn), i. 330-345- For an account 
 of recent literature on the subject see Barden- 
 hewer's Patrology, p. 220. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Novatus (1), presbyter of Carthage, seems 
 to have been an original opponent of Cyprian's 
 election, but is first mentioned by him in Ep. 
 xiv. § 5, with three other presbyters — Donatus, 
 Fortunatus, and Gordius — as having written 
 about some question to Cyprian then in retire- 
 ment. This was, doubtless, touching the re- 
 quest of the confessors, to have peace granted 
 to certain of the lapsed which, in Ep. 1., 
 Cyprian refuses until he has consulted the 
 presbyters and faithful laity. Cyprian re- 
 proves certain presbyters, evidently Novatus 
 and his companions, who, " considering 
 neither the fear of God nor the honour of the 
 bishop," had already granted peace to the 
 lapsed. In Ep. xliii., writing to the church 
 of Carthage, he compares Novatus and his 
 associates to the five chief commissioners 
 entrusted with the conduct of the persecution, 
 and, as it seems, intimates that they threat- 
 ened to raise a riot upon his appearance from 
 his place of retirement. In Ep. Iii. 3 Cyprian, 
 writing to Cornelius, gives a very bad char- 
 acter of Novatus. Cyprian's feelings may 
 have here coloured his judgment, as such a 
 
 OLYMPIAS 
 
 bishop as he was could scarcely have tolerated 
 such a bad man in the presbyterate. Cyprian 
 describes Novatus as having made his follower 
 Felicissimus a deacon, and then " at Rome 
 committing greater and more grievous crimes. 
 He who at Carthage made a deacon against 
 the church, there made a bishop," i.e. that he 
 brought about the ordination of both the 
 deacon and bishop. Ep. xliii. 2 proves that 
 Cyprian's wrath was, however, specially stirred 
 by some anti-episcopal innovations of Novatus 
 and his party. After the consecration of 
 Novatian, Novatus was sent by him to organize 
 his party in Africa (Cy-p. Ep. 1.). After this 
 he disappears from sight. Cf. Dr. Pusey's 
 note upon him, appended to Cyprian, Ep. Iii. 
 in Oxf. Lib. of Fathers. Milman, Lat. Christ. 
 t. i. pp. 60-62 (ed. Lond. 1867). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Oceanus, a Roman of noble birth, connected 
 with Fabiola and the Julian family ; a friend 
 of Jerome, Augustine, and Pammachius. He 
 probably became known to J erome during his 
 stay in Rome in 383-385. He first appears as 
 making a public protest against Carterius, a 
 Spanish bp. who, having married before his 
 baptism and lost his wife, had, as a Christian, 
 married a second wife. Jerome points out 
 that there is no law condemning such marri- 
 ages and urges silence ; c. 397. Either in 397 
 or 396 Oceanus, with Fabiola, visited Jerome 
 at Bethlehem, whence they were driven by 
 fear of Hunnish invasion. While there, he 
 apparently met Rufinus, who, according to 
 Jerome's insinuation (adv. Ruf. iii. 4), had 
 an Origenistic document placed in Oceanus's 
 room in Fabiola's house, hoping to identify 
 him with that tendency. Rufinus having 
 gone to Rome (397) and having published 
 shortly afterwards his edition of Origen's Ilfpi 
 'Apxi^". Oceanus and Pammachius watched his 
 actions with critical eyes, and, on the appear- 
 ance of the work, wrote to Jerome (Hieron. 
 Ep. 83) asking him to deny the insinuation of 
 Rufinus that he was only completing a work 
 begun by Jerome, and to furnish them with a 
 true translation of Origen's work. Oceanus, 
 no doubt, took part in the subsequent pro- 
 ceedings which led to the condemnation of 
 Origenism at Rome. On the death of Fabiola, 
 c- 399, Jerome wrote to Oceanus her Epita- 
 phium (Ep. 77), accompanied by his exposi- 
 tion, which had been intended for her, of the 
 42 resting-places of the Israelites in the desert. 
 In 411 Oceanus, who had maintained his 
 correspondence with Jerome, and possessed 
 his books against Rufinus and other of his 
 works, interested himself specially in the 
 Pelagian controversy on the origin of souls. 
 Jerome writes to Marcellinus and Anapsy- 
 chius (Ep. 126) who had consulted him on 
 this, referring them to Oceanus as one 
 thoroughly " learned in the law of the Lord " 
 and capable of instructing them. Augustine 
 writes to Oceanus in 416 on the same subject, 
 and on the reproof of St. Peter by St. Paul at 
 Antioch. [w.h.f.] 
 
 Olympias (2), the younger, widow, a cele- 
 brated deaconess of the church of Constan- 
 
OLYMPIAS 
 
 tinople. th- in.>st i-mintiit ..f the h.uul ..( h.>lv 
 iiul hii-h-borii wnincn wlimn IhrvsostKin 
 i^.ithert'd rouiul him. Hi-r (ainily w.is ■>( high 
 link, but pa«.m. Ih-r birth is jilaiod bv 
 1 illeiiumt c. ^o«. Sh«' w.is left .it an rarly 
 .it;e th<> orphan hi'ir«'ss «>( an iiniuonsc (ortuiir. 
 Happily (or her, hi-r uncU- ami unaniiaii. Pro- 
 1 piiH, was a man oi hii;h rharartor, an in- 
 liiiiatf friend and corr«pondint <>f (iri^ory 
 Na^ianzen. She was equally fortunate in lu-r 
 iustriK tress, Theinlosia, the sister of St. An>- 
 pliilochius of Iconiuni, whom (iregory desired 
 tlie young girl to set before her constantly as ; 
 a pattern. During (iregory's residence at 
 lonstautinople, 370-^^1, he became much 
 iltached to the bright anil beautiful maiden, 
 then probably about 12 years old, calling her 
 his own Olympias," and delighted to be 
 illed " father" by her (lireg. Naz. Ep. 57 ; 
 t .mn. 57, pp. 132, 134). Olympias had many ' 
 -lutors. The one selected by her guardian, 
 I'rocopius, was Nebridius, a young man of 
 liigh rank and excellent character, whom she 
 married in 384. There can be little doubt 
 that her married life was not a happy one 
 ( Pallad. Dial. p. 164). In less than two years 
 she was left a widow without children. She 
 regarded this early bereavement as a declara- 
 tion of the divine will that she was unsuited 
 t.) the married life, and ought not again to be 
 married. Theodosius desired her to wed 
 HIpidiiis, a young Spanish kinsman of his. 
 But Olympias steadily refusing to listen to his 
 suit, Tiieodosius commissiitned the prefect of 
 the city to take the whole of her property into 
 [Hiblic custody until she attained her 30th 
 year. The imperial orders were carried out 
 with so much harshness that she was even [ 
 forbidden to go to church for her devotions, 
 "r to enjoy the congenial society of the lead- 
 ing ecclesiastics. Theodosius soon restored 
 I.J her the management of her estates (16.), 
 .iiid thenceforward she devoted herself and 
 lur wealth entirely to the servii e of religion, 
 practising the greatest austerities. Her 
 whole time and strength were given to minis- 
 t.ring to the wants of the poor and sick, and 
 t I the hospitable entertainment of bishops and 
 iher ecclesiastics visiting the imperial city, 
 ho never left her roof without large pecuniary 
 .f\, Sometimes in the form i.f a farm or an 
 late, tMwards their religi'ius works. Among 
 ii.ese Palladius enumerates .\mphilochiiis, 
 optimus. the two brothers of Basil, (;regor> 
 N vssen (who dedicated to her the Commentary 
 on a portion of the Song of Solomon, which he 
 had written at her request, Creg. Nys. im 
 (ant. t. i. p. 468), Peter, Epiphanius of 
 Cyjirus, and the three who subsequently be- 
 i.ime the unwearied persecutors of Lhrysostom 
 and even of Olympias herself, .■\cacius, Atticus, 
 md Severianus. Her house was the common 
 home of the clergy, and of the monks and 
 virgins who swarmed from all i)arts of the 
 Christian world to Constantinople. She was 
 ttie victim of much imposition and her charity 
 was grievously abused. Indeid, her liberality 
 was so unrestricted and inconsiderate that 
 Chrysf>stom interposed his authority to limit 
 it, saving that her wealth was a trust from 
 (jod which she was bound to use in the most 
 prudent manner for the relief o( the poor 
 and destitute, not in making presents lu the 
 
 OLYMPIAS 
 
 767 
 
 opulent and c.ivrtou* is .• // h viU. 9|. 
 Olvinpias (ollowrtl t hfVv.%|o|,,-» 4«lvkc. 
 which brouKhl upon hrr thr ill-will «■( ihoM 
 who had enjovrti hrr l.ut'.h ►•mrr titv 
 
 When still under i- i4« 
 
 was appointrtt bv N. tlir 
 
 church of tonstantii Ul 
 
 prelate consulte<l hri . t%. 
 
 Hi which he was a n by 
 
 her adviT (Pall.id. p : ;). 
 
 She ret.iinetl this p-m., ! .m 
 
 and became his c.hiei > .■uii«< ll-i ui.<l .«• live 
 agent in all works of pirty and rh4ril\. ni>t 
 only in Constantinopip, but in distant prix 
 vinces of the church. 
 
 On the arriv.il of the Nitrian monks known 
 as the Tall Mrothers in Constantinople in *oi. 
 Olympias received them ht>spilalilv (Pallad. 
 p. 153), careless of the indignant remon- 
 strances of Theophilus (16. p. I^^). t>n I hry- 
 sostom's final expulsion from ( onstanlinoplp, 
 June 20, 404. Olympias was thr chief of thr 
 band I'f courageous women who assemblrtl in 
 the baptisterv <>f the church to take a last 
 farewell of their dernly lovpil bi«hi>i> and 
 friend, and to receive his parting lM'iip«lirtU>n 
 and commands (ib. 8i). qo). Suspicion of 
 having caused the hre in the cathntral whkb 
 immediately followed the departure of t hrv- 
 st>stom from its walls fell on Ot>-inpu» and 
 the other ladies. Olvmpias was broiixht 
 before the prefect Oi>tatus. who bluntly de- 
 manded why she had vt the chun h on fire. 
 He proposed that on condition of ht-r entrriiiK 
 into communion with .Arsacius, .is sonn- oihrr 
 ladies h.id done, the investigation should l»e 
 dropped and she freed from further ann«'y- 
 ance. Olyinpias's proud spirit indignantly 
 rejected the base compromise. A false charKc 
 had been publicly brought against her. of 
 which her whole manner of life, which the 
 prefect could n.>t be ignorant of, was a sufti- 
 cient refutation. The trouble brought on 
 Olympias a severe ami almost fatal illnr«s. 
 Ori recovering her health, in the spring of 405. 
 she left Constantinople So/oiiieii M-eiii* lu 
 speak of a voluntary retirement to t yzn us. 
 But the language of ( hrysostoiii (/•/>. |6, 
 p. 603 C) leads us to believe that Oir wa« 
 never allowed to remain long in one sjh.I, her 
 persecutors hoping that thus hrr spirit nughl 
 be broken and she indu< ed to yirld. Thl» 
 hope being frustrated. (Hvmpi's was ..nrr 
 again summoned before Optatus. who. on hcf 
 renewed refusal to. oiiimuriK ate w nh Arsariu*. 
 imposed a heavy tine of .mh. pounds ol Koki 
 (Soz. //. /•;. viii. 24 ; Pallad p --Nl Tl'«» *•»» 
 readily paid, and the news of Olvnipw»*% 
 heroic disregard of all worldiv l.-ss*-* and 
 sufferings for truths sake gave intrnw joy 
 to Chrys<»stom in his banishment. Ilr wrote 
 congratulating her on her \i. torv. callinit 
 upon her to glorify <. -1 ^^^ ' »' -i •" .1 ''d »'«•» 
 to acquire such gr. • ■^"•• 
 
 i:p. 16. p. 604 A). V ''y 
 
 definitely of thr re.i "W 
 
 onlv trustworthy ini "■ * "'y* 
 
 ».H,t., Ill's 17 letters I which are 
 
 long religiou* tra. ti. I ,. of which 
 
 rrlirveil the teilliini o( l,l^ . iil- ..1..I lliailr him 
 almost forget his mismr*. Wr gather Itoin 
 them that Olympias was subjrrt to Irrqurtil 
 and severe attacks "i Mcknr»i. and that tbc 
 
768 
 
 OPTATUS 
 
 persecution of the party of Arsacius and 
 Atticus was violent and unsparing. The 
 compulsory dispersion of the society of young 
 females of which she was head, and who, like 
 her, had refused to hold communion with the 
 intruding bishops, was a great sorrow to her 
 i^b. 4, p. 577 A). But the dates of these 
 letters are uncertain. The style in which she 
 is addressed in this correspondence is " at 
 once respectful, affectionate, and paternal" 
 (Stephens, S. Chrysostom, p. 383), "but it ex- 
 hibits a highly-wrought comphmentary" tone, 
 full of " bold and lavish praise " of her many 
 signal virtues which is " too widely remote 
 from the mind and taste of our own times to 
 be fairly estimated by us." Chrysostom 
 wrote for her consolation a special treatise on 
 the theme that " No one is really injured 
 except by himself" (t. iii. pp. 530-553); as 
 well as one "to those who were offended by 
 adversities" {ib. pp. 555-612). To both of 
 these he refers in his 4th letter to her {Ep. 4, 
 p. 576 c). The date of her death cannot be 
 determined. She was living when Palladius 
 pub. his Dialogue in 408, but not when the 
 Lausiac History was pub. in 420. [e.v.J 
 
 Optatus (6), bp. of Milevis, or Mileum 
 (Milah), in Numidia, 25 m. N.W. of Cirta 
 (Shaw, Trav. p. 63), a vigorous opponent of 
 the Donatists. He himself says that he wrote 
 about 60 years, or rather more, after the per- 
 secution under Diocletian. St. Jerome speaks 
 of him as having written during the reigns of 
 Valentinian and Valens, a.d. 365-378. But 
 in bk. ii. of his treatise Siricius is mentioned 
 as bp. of Rome, " qui est noster socius." As 
 Siricius did not succeed Damasus until 384, 
 he may have outlived the period mentioned by 
 St. Jerome and himself inserted these words 
 later. The date of his death, however, is un- 
 known. St. Augustine mentions him once in 
 the same sentence as St. Ambrose, and else- 
 where as a church-writer of high authority, 
 even among Donatists. (Opt. c. Don. i. 13, 
 ii. 3; Hieron. Vir. Illustr. c. no, vol. ii. 
 p. 706 ; Aug. c. Don. ep. (de Unit. Eccl.) 19, 
 50 ; c. Farm. i. 3, 5 ; Brevic. Coll. 20, 38 ; 
 Doctr. Christ, ii. 40, 61 ; Baronius, Ann. vol. 
 iv. p. 243 ; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. ii. 275 ; Dupin, 
 Optatus Praef. i.) 
 
 His treatise against the Donatists is in the 
 form of a letter to Parmenian, Donatist bp. 
 of Carthage, in six books, with a seventh of 
 doubtful authenticity. 
 
 Bk. i. opens with a eulogy of peace, which 
 he complains that the Donatists set at nought 
 by reviling the Catholics. He adds some 
 compliments to Parmenian, as the only one 
 of his party with whom he can communicate 
 freely, and regrets being compelled to do so by 
 letter because they refuse to meet for confer- 
 ence. Five points put forward by Parmenian 
 call for discussion, to which Optatus adds a 
 sixth, (i) In accusing Catholics of " tradi- 
 tion," particulars ought to be specified of time 
 and place. (2) The true church ought to be 
 defined. (3) Which side was really respon- 
 sible for calling in the aid of the soldiers. (4) 
 What Parmenian means by " sinners " whose 
 " oil and sacrifice " God rejects. (5) The 
 question of baptism. (6) The riotous and rash 
 acts of the Donatists. Optatus finds fault 
 with Parmenian for his inconsiderate language 
 
 OPTATUS 
 
 about our Lord's baptism, to the effect that 
 His flesh required to be " drowned in the 
 flood" of Jordan to remove its impurity. If 
 the baptism of Christ's body were intended to 
 suffice for the baptism of each single person, 
 there might be some truth in this, but we are 
 baptized, in virtue not of the flesh of Christ, 
 but of His name, and moreover we cannot 
 believe that even His flesh contracted sin, for 
 it was more pure than Jordan itself. The 
 purpose of Optatus is to shew that it was not 
 the church which cast off the Donatists, but 
 they who separated from the church, follow- 
 ing the example of Korah and his company. 
 When they disclaim the right of princes to 
 interfere in the affairs of the church they con- 
 tradict their forefathers, who, in the matter 
 of Caecilian, petitioned Constantine to grant 
 them judges from Gaul instead of from Africa. 
 In bk. ii. Optatus discusses what the church , 
 the dove and bride of Christ, is (Cant. vi. 9). 
 Its holiness consists in the sacraments and is 
 not to be measured by the pride of men. It 
 is universal, not limited, as Parmenian would 
 have it, to a corner of Africa, for if so where 
 would be the promises of Pss. ii. 8, Ixxii. 8 ? 
 And the merits of the Saviour would be re- 
 stricted, Pss. cxiii. 3, xcvi. 7. The church 
 has five gifts: (i) The chair of Peter. (2) The 
 angel inseparably attached to that chair, 
 apparently the power of conferring spiritual 
 gifts, which resides in the centre of episcopal 
 unity. Parmenian must be aware that the 
 episcopal chair was conferred from the be- 
 ginning on Peter, the chief of the apostles, that 
 ujiity might be preserved among the rest and 
 no one apostle set up a rival. This chair, with 
 whose exclusive claim for respect the little 
 Donatist community can in no way compete, 
 carries with it necessarily the " angel" ("ducit 
 adse angelum"), unless the Donatists have this 
 gift enclosed for their own use in a narrow 
 space, and excluding the seven angels of St. 
 John (Rev. i.), with whom they have no com- 
 munion ; or if they possess one of these, let 
 them send him to other churches : otherwise 
 their case falls to the ground. (3) The holy 
 spirit of adoption, which Donatists claim ex- 
 clusively for themselves, applying to Catholics 
 unjustly the words of our Lord about pro- 
 selytism (Matt, xxiii. 15). (4) The fountain 
 (probably faith) of which heretics cannot par- 
 take, and (5) its seal, " annulus " (probably 
 baptism) (Cant. iv. 12). A want of clearness 
 in the language of Optatus renders his mean- 
 ing here somewhat doubtful. The Donatists 
 add a sixth gift, the " umbilicus " of Cant, 
 vii. 2, which they regard as the altar ; but 
 this, being an essential part of the body, can- 
 not be a separate gift. These gifts belong to 
 the church in Africa, from which the Donatists 
 have cut themselves off, as also from the 
 priesthood, which they seek by rebaptism to 
 annul, though they do not rebaptize their own 
 returned seceders. But these gifts belong to 
 the bride, not the bride to them. They re- 
 gard them as the generating power of the 
 church instead of the essentials (viscera), viz. 
 the sacraments, which derive their virtue 
 from the Trinity. Parmenian truly com- 
 pares the church to a garden, but it is God 
 Who plants the trees therein, some of which 
 Donatists seek to exclude. In offering the 
 
OPTATUS 
 
 sacrifice to G^xi in tho llu. harist. th«>v profess 
 to ofler for the one church, but bv their rc- 
 baptism tlu-y really make two' churches. 
 Thanking Pannenian for his lanRuaRe about 
 the church, which, however, he claims as 
 applicable to the Catholic church alone, he 
 challenges him to point out anv act of perse- 
 cution on its part. Constantine t<>.»k pains 
 to restore peace and suppress itlolatrv, but 
 another emperor, who ileclared himself an 
 apostate, when he restored idolatry allowetl 
 the Donatists to return, a pernnssion for the 
 acceptance of which they ought to blush. It 
 was about this time that the outrages broke 
 out in .Africa [Feli.x (186) ; Urbanis], of 
 which when Priniosus complained, the Dona- 
 tist council at Theneste took no notice. They 
 compelled women under vows to disregard 
 them and perform a period of penance, and 
 deposed fmm his office Donatus bp. of Tysedis. 
 Yet they speak of holiness as if Christ gave it 
 without conditions, and take every oppor- 
 tunity of casting reproach on church ordin- ' 
 ances, fulfiling the words of Ezek. xiii. 20. 
 
 In bk. iii., after going over some of the 
 former ground, laying the blame of the schism 
 on the Donatists. Optatus applies to them 
 several passages of Scripture, esp. Pss. Ixxxvii., ; 
 cxlvii.; Isa. ii. 3, xxii. i, q. ! 
 
 In bk. iv., disclaiming all unfriendly feeling ' 
 and appealing to the common possessions of 
 both parties, Optatus charges them with in- 1 
 fraction of unity by appointment of bishops, 
 proselytism, forbidding social intercourse, and 
 perversely applying to Catholics Scripture 
 passages directed against obstinate heretics, 
 as I. Cor. V. II, II. John 10. 
 
 In bk. V. Optatus returns to the oft-re- 
 peated subject of rebaptism. The repetition 
 of baptism, he says, is an insult to the Trinity, 
 worse than the doctrines of Praxeas and the 
 Patripassians. Three elements are requisite : 
 (i) the Trinity, (2) the minister, (3) the faith- 
 ful receiver ; but of these the Donatists exalt 
 the second above the other two. They use 
 as a quotation words not found in Scripture, 
 " How can a man give what he has not re- 
 ceived ? " (see I. Cor. iv. 7) ; but in baptism 
 God alone is the giver of grace. As it is not 
 the dyer who changes the colour of his wool, 
 so neither does the minister of himself change 
 the operation of baptism. Of two candidates 
 for baptism, if one refused to renounce while 
 the other consented, there can be no doubt 
 which of them received baptism effectually. 
 By rebapti^ing. Donatists rob Christians of 
 their marriage-garment, which suits all ages 
 and conditi)ns of life. The rebaptized will 
 rise no doubt at the last day. but will rise 
 naked, and the voice of the Master will be 
 heard, " Friend, I once knew thee, and gave 
 thee a marriage-garment. Who has despoiled 
 thee of it ? Into what trap, amongst what 
 thieves hast thou fallen ? " 
 
 In bk. vi. he repeats s>)me previous charges, 
 and adds others, how they destroyed altars, 
 the " seats of Christ's Bf>dy and BI.mkI," at 
 which they themselves must have offered. 
 They have broken up chalices and sold them 
 to women and even to pagans, yet they quote 
 Hagg. ii. 14 ; but even impurity of men diK-s 
 not profane the vessels of service (see Num. 
 xvi. 37, 38). 
 
 ORIGENBS 
 
 Ilk. VII.. wh 
 ler..me. but v^ 
 i)r av ribetl t 
 answers a fi. 
 
 SI. 
 tuU 
 
 4II<1 
 >t If 
 
 thev are the iluMt.u .1 Ua.ht..|*, a% (l|>- 
 latus says, they ought to in- let x\„nr, and no 
 attempt made to " reron. il. ' tli.m. but, 
 says Optatus, though thru • rvr<! 
 
 to be exctude«l. there Is 11 tjipy 
 
 should be so, for the church ; i/rU 
 
 persons. Christ allows t» 1 1,1 
 
 grow in Mis mid. and no |.i , |„ 
 
 do what the apostles coiij,! ,,41^ 
 
 them. Thev might be- ■ unl- 
 
 cate with Peter be. > : ,,ri|, 
 
 yet he retained the t> ,m' 
 
 The work of Opt , , lunt 
 
 historically than d>« Ininilv. As 4 ihr^y 
 logical treatise it is often lo-^ and rambling, 
 with frequent repetition ; but it ex|><>Mn with 
 clearness and force the inconsistency of the 
 Donatists, and of .ill who. like them, fix their 
 attention exclusively on the ethical snip tif 
 religion, estimated by an arbilrarv staiulard 
 of opinion, to the .lisregard ..( .,i|„r . onditiont 
 of the greatest importam e in the lonstilu- 
 tion of a church. Mow pervers« Iv and incon- 
 sistently the Donatists applied this principle 
 in the matter of nbaptism Optatus again 
 and again demonstr.ites. That there was a 
 doctrine of rebaptism in the African church, 
 to which Cyprian had lent the weight of his 
 authority, there can be no doubt: but with 
 him it was directed against heretics, on the 
 principle that the followers of Marcion. 
 Praxeas, and the like, were in fart not truly 
 Christians and thus their ba{>tisin was value- 
 less. But Optatus is never wearv of urging 
 that though by their own act Donatists had 
 incurred the charge of schism, the chun h did 
 not regard them as heretics, and that ihcy 
 ought not to treat as heretical their brethren. 
 Dupin's ed. {1702, fol.) is the groundwork of 
 all subsequent editions. It has been re- 
 printed in vol. xi. of .Migne's I'aU. I.al., but the 
 map is smaller and less clear than in Dupin's 
 folio, and all documents previous to 363 are in 
 vol. viii. of the Pair. I.at. .An acci .un t < >f Opiatiu 
 and his writings will be found in CeilluT, vol. v. 
 The latest ed. is by /iwsa (I^<J3). in Corftu^i 
 Scr. Ecd. ImI. xxvi. (V'unn.i). See Sparrow 
 Simpson's St. Auf^. aiut Afr. Ch. />iiMiun> 
 (l-»Io), pp. 42 f!. [H.w.r-I 
 
 Origenes. Sources. — The main authority 
 for the details of Origeu's life IS l.usebiu% 
 (//. /:. vi.), who collected UJ>ward» of 100 
 letters of Origen (16. jO). I hrse. toKelher 
 with official documents (i6. 23. 33) and In- 
 fonnation from those acquainted with Origen 
 (tb. 2, 33), formed the basis oi his narrative. 
 His account of the most critKal pen<««l of 
 Origeii's life, his retireinent fr rn Atrt itidrla, 
 was given in bk. 11. of his ( !i he 
 
 compoS4-d with the help o( I .•}). 
 
 This unhappily has u<.{ b. . 
 
 Origen's own wntiiigs K'^' ■ " •■ " ■•. lalU 
 of his life. Hut the loss ..I Ills leltrrs I* Ir- 
 reparable. 1 hey wotdd have given a fuller 
 picture of the man. even if they gave lilllo 
 additional information un the outward clr> 
 cumstances of hi* life. 
 
 Of iiKxlern auth<.ritlrt, ten TlUetn"nl, 
 Mimotrti; Lardner, Cr«^i6i/i/) ; tnllur, 
 
770 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 Auteurs sacres ; Lumper, Hist. Patrum Theol. 
 Criiica ; Walch, Gesch. d. Ketz. ; Du Pin, 
 Nouvelle bibliothique des auteurs ecclis. 
 
 His life and doctrine have been discussed, 
 with special reference to his historical position 
 in the development of Christian thought, by 
 Guericke, de Schula Alex. Catech. (1825); 
 Neander, Kirch. Gesch.; Thomasius, Origenes 
 (1837) ; Redepenning, Origenes (1841-1846) ; 
 Moehler, Patrol. (1840); Huber, Philos d. Ktr- 
 chenvdter {iSsg); Schaff, Church Hist. {1867) ; 
 De Pressense, Hist, des trois premiers siecles 
 (1858 - 1877); Boehringer, Kirchengesch. in 
 Biogr. Klemens u. Origenes (1869, 2'" Aufl.). 
 
 Life. — Origen was probably born at Alex- 
 andria (Eus. H. E. vi. i), but whether of 
 Egyptian, Greek, or mixed descent is not 
 known. The loose phrase of Porphyry, that 
 he " was a Greek and reared in Greek studies " 
 {ib. 19), is in itself of little value, but the name 
 of his father (Leonides) points in the same 
 direction. His mother's name has not been 
 preserved. May she have been of Jewish 
 descent ? He is said to have learnt Hebrew 
 so well that in singing the psalms " he vied 
 with his mother" (Hieron. Ep. 39 [22], § i). 
 
 Origen's full name was Origenes Adamantius. 
 Origenes was the name of one contemporary 
 philosopher of distinction, and occurs else- 
 where. Adamantius has commonly been 
 regarded as an epithet describing Origen's 
 unconquerable endurance, or for the invin- 
 cible force of his arguments. But the langu- 
 age of Eusebius [H. E. vi. 14) and of Jerome 
 (de Vir. III. 54, "Origenes qui et Adamantius") 
 shews that it was a second name, and not a 
 mere adjunct. His father, Leonides, suffered 
 martyrdom in the persecution of the loth 
 year of Severus (202), and Origen had not 
 then completed his 17th year (Eus. H. E. vi. 2). 
 He must have been born therefore a.d. 185- 
 186, a date consistent with the statement (ib. 
 vii. i) that he died in his 69th year, in the 
 reign of Gallus (a.d. 251-254). In Origen we 
 have the first record of a Christian boyhood, 
 and he was " great from the cradle." His 
 education was superintended by his father, 
 who especially directed him to the study of 
 Scripture. The child's eager inquiries into 
 the deeper meaning of the words he committed 
 to memory caused perplexity to his father, 
 who, while openly checking his son's pre- 
 mature curiosity, silently thanked God for the 
 promise he gave for the future. Origen be- 
 came the pupil of Pantaenus (after his return 
 from India) and Clement, in whose school he 
 met Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem 
 (ib. vi. 14), with whom he then laid the foun- 
 dation of that life-long friendship which 
 supported him in his sorest trials. 
 
 When Leonides was thrown into prison, 
 Origen wished to share his fate, but was 
 hindered by his mother. He addressed a 
 letter to his father — his first recorded writing, 
 still extant in the time of Eusebius — in which 
 he prayed him to allow no thought for his 
 family to shake his resolution. This shews 
 the position of influence which Origen already 
 enjoyed in his family. Leonides was put to 
 death and his property confiscated. Upon 
 this the young Origen seems to have fulfilled 
 the promise his words implied. Partly by the 
 assistance of a pious and wealthy lady, and 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 partly by teaching, he supported himself and 
 (as may be concluded) his mother and brothers. 
 Already he collected a library. At first he 
 gave lessons in literature ; but as the Christian 
 school was without a teacher, all having been 
 scattered by the persecution, he was induced 
 to give instruction in the faith. Thus in his 
 i8th year he was, at first informally, the head 
 of the Christian school in Alexandria in a 
 season of exceptional danger. He was so 
 successful that Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, 
 soon definitely committed to him the office. 
 The charge decided the tenor of his life. 
 Origen henceforth devoted himself exclusively 
 to the office of a Christian teacher, and to 
 ensure his independence sold his collection of 
 classical writers for an annuity of four oboli 
 (sixpence) a day, on which he lived for many 
 years, refusing the voluntary contributions 
 his friends offered him (ib. 3). His position is 
 a remarkable illustration of the freedom of the 
 early church. He was a layman and yet 
 recognized as a leading teacher. His work 
 was not confined to any district. Numbers of 
 men and women flocked to his lectures, 
 attracted partly by his stern simplicity of life, 
 which was a guarantee of his sincerity. For 
 he resolved to fulfil without reserve the pre- 
 cepts of the Gospel. For many years he went 
 barefoot, wore only a single robe (Matt. x. 10), 
 and slept upon the ground. His food and 
 sleep were rigorously limited (ib.). Nor did 
 his unmeasured zeal stop here. In the same 
 spirit of sacrifice he applied to himself literally 
 the words of Matt. xix. 12, though wishing to 
 conceal the act from most of his friends. 
 Origen's own comment on the words of the 
 Gospel which he had misunderstood is a most 
 touching confession of his error (in Matt. t. 
 XV. I ff.). But for the time the purpose of 
 the act was accepted as its excuse. 
 
 For 12 or 13 years he was engaged in these 
 happy and successful labours ; and it was 
 probably during this period that he formed 
 and partly executed his plan of a comparative 
 view of the LXX with other Greek versions 
 of O.T. and with the original Hebrew text, 
 though the work was slowly elaborated as 
 fresh materials came to his hands (Eus. 
 H. E. vi. 16). A short visit to Rome in the 
 time of Zephyrinus, to see " the most ancient 
 church of the Romans" (ib. 14), and an 
 authoritative call to Arabia (ib. 19) alone 
 seem to have interrupted his labours. Perse- 
 cution tested the fruit of his teaching. He 
 had the joy of seeing martyrs trained in his 
 school ; and his own escapes from the violence 
 of the people were held to be due to the special 
 protection of Providence (ib. 4, f. 3). During 
 the same period he devoted himself with re- 
 newed vigour to the study of non-Christian 
 thought, and attended the lectures of Am- 
 monius Saccas (cf. Porph>Ty, ap. Eus. H. E. 
 vi. 19 ; Theod. Grace. Affect. Cur. vi. p. 96). 
 Heretics and Gentiles attended his lectures, 
 and he felt bound to endeavour to understand 
 their opinions thoroughly that he might the 
 better correct them (cf. c. Cels. vi. 24). This 
 excited ill-will, but he was able to defend 
 himself, as he did in a letter written at a later 
 time (Ep. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 19), by the 
 example of his predecessors and the support 
 of his friends. His work grew beyond his 
 
ORIGENES 
 
 strength, and Hti.i. lis jouud liini in the 
 catechetical school. Hor.ul.js h.ul bj-on one 
 of his first converts and scholars, and the 
 brother of a martvr (Kus. H. F. vi. ^). Me 
 was a fellow-student with Orij:rn mulor " his 
 teacher of philosophy " (Annnonius Sarras) ; 
 and when he afterwards became bp. of Alex- 
 andria he did not lav aside the tlrrss or the 
 reading of a philosopher [ih. lo). 
 
 At length, c. 21s. a tum\ilt of unusual 
 violence (16. iq ; Clinton. Fasti Komatit, i. 
 224 f.) forced Origcn to withdraw from Kgvpt 
 to Caesarea in Palestine. Mere his reputa- 
 tion brought him into a prominence which 
 occasioned his later troubles. His fillow- 
 pupil Alexander bp. of Jerusalem, and Theoc- 
 tistus (Theotecnus ; Photius. Coii. 118) bp. 
 of Caesarea, bogged him to expoinul the 
 Scriptures in the public services of the church, 
 though he had not been ordained. Deme- 
 trius of .■Mexandria expressed strong dis- 
 approbation of a proceeding he described as 
 unprecedinted. .-Mexaiider and Theoctistus 
 produced precedents. Demetrius replied bv 
 recalling Origen to .Alexandria, and hastened 
 his return by special envo\"s, deacons of the 
 church (Eus. H. E. vi. iq). Origens stay in 
 Palestine was of some length, ana it was prob- 
 ably during this time he made his famous 
 visit to Mamaea, the mother of the emperor 
 Alexander (tb. 21), herself a native of Syria. 
 
 Some time after his return to .-Mexandria 
 (c. 219). Origen began his written expositions 
 of Scripture, largely through the influence of 
 Ambrose, whom he had rescued not long 
 before from the heresy of Valentinus, or as 
 Jerome says of Marcion (Hieron. de \'ir. III. 
 56). Ambrose provided him with more than 
 seven shorthand writers (raxtOpa^o*) to take 
 down his comments and other scribes to make 
 fair copies (Eus. H. E. vi. 23). 
 
 These literary occupations threw Origen's 
 work in the catechetical school yet more upon 
 Heraclas. At the same time the first parts of 
 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of St. John 
 marked him out more decisively than before 
 as a teacher in the church even more than in 
 the school. But the exhibition of this new 
 power was accompanied by other signs of a 
 bold originality which might well startle those 
 unfamiliar with the questionings of philo- 
 sophy. The books On First Principles, which 
 seem to have been written spontaneously, 
 made an epoch in Christian speculation, as the 
 Comm. on St. John did in Christian interpreta- 
 tion. Under such circumstances it is not 
 surprising that Demetrius yielded, in the 
 words of Eusebius, to the infirmity of human 
 nature {ib. 8) and wished to check the boldness 
 and influence of the layman. It became clear 
 that Origen must seek elsewhere than in 
 Alexandria free scope for his Scriptural studies. 
 After he had laboured there for more than 25 
 years, the occasion came in an invitation to 
 visit Achaia for the purpose, as it seems, of 
 combating some false opinions which h.id 
 arisen there (Hieron. de I'tr. III. 54). The 
 exact date is uncertain, but probably between 
 226 and 230. On the way Origen visited 
 Caesarea, and sought counsel from his oldest 
 friends as to his future course. No record 
 remains of their deliberations, but Origen was 
 ordained presbyter " by the bishops there " 
 
 ORIOENES 
 
 771 
 
 (Kus. //. F. vi. .Ml. I l,.-.H ti>tii«o(Cae*4rr4and 
 Alexander of )rru<tjlrni |Mirr..n. tit I'lr. ///. 
 54; Phot. <'o.l. lift). t)riKrn Ihrn vUiled 
 Kphesus (AT-. / r.i.-m np Huf < r ■/ . DrUnie. 
 i. p. <>). an«l .t Alhrnft. 
 
 During t hi* si I met lit* 
 
 teachers of 1 ' , h. //«rr. 
 
 Ixiv. I). At 1. ....>M. ,,>,:,. . M.i lr|r,l hU 
 
 mission, he returne<l to .Mexandru. where he 
 could not have been uiiprrp.irrti for the 
 reception which awaite<l hini tr.iii Denteiriu*- 
 Demetrius had probably shewn clear un- 
 willingness In admit him to the priesthood. 
 .At any rate, the fact that Origen rerrivrd 
 orders from Palestinian biOiop* without hi« 
 consent might be construed as a direct chal- 
 lenge of his authoritv. Origen at onrr per- 
 ceivetl that he must retire before the ritinx 
 storm. The preface to bk. vi. i>f the Comm, 
 on St. John shews how deeplv he felt the 
 severance i«f oKI ties and the ho^tilitv >>f former 
 colleagues. In 231 lie left .Mexandria never 
 to retiim ; and his influence to the last it 
 shewn by the fact that he " left the charge «»l 
 the catechetical school" to hi* coadjutor 
 Heraclas (Eus. H. E. vi. 26). It is difficult 
 to trace the different stages in the condemna- 
 tion which followed. Photius {Cod. ii«). 
 following the .4pologv of Pamphilus and 
 Eusebius, gives the most intelligible and con- 
 sistent account. .According to him Demetrlu*. 
 completely alienated from Origen bv hi« 
 ortlinatioii, collected a synod of " bishops and 
 a few presbyters," which decided that tJngen 
 should not be allowed to stav or te.ich at 
 Alexandria. Demetrius afterwards excni- 
 municated Origen. Jer«ime describes with 
 greatir severity the spirit of Demetrius'* 
 proceedings, anil adds that " he wrote on the 
 subject to the whole world" {de \ir. III. 54) 
 and obtained a judgment against Origen from 
 Rome {Ep. 33 \2<)], § 4)- So far the faclt 
 are tolerably clear, but in the abs<iice ol 
 trustworthy evidence it is impossible to tell 
 on what points the condemnation really 
 turned. Demetrius unquestionablv laid great 
 stress on formal irregularities (Eus. //. E. vi. 
 8), and the sentence against him may have 
 been based on these. Origen's opinions were 
 probably displeasing to manv, and no attempt 
 was made to revers*' the judgment after the 
 death of Deiiulrius, which followed very 
 shortly, and perhaps within three year*, when 
 Heraclas, the pupil and colleague of Origen, 
 succee<led to the ej>isi-opate. Nor again w*» 
 anything done by Dionvsius. the *ucce*vjr ol 
 Heraclas. another devoted scholar >t Origen. 
 who still continued his intcrcurse with hU 
 former master 't*- 4''* NVh..tevrr the 
 
 grounds .if On ' " •'<>«• 
 
 menffthel -'«►« 
 
 absolute disr- """• 
 
 Arabia, Ph.«i t' 
 
 33). and OrigcM .!■ >i **iHUr 
 
 (Hier..n. Apt'l. adi He loou 
 
 afterwards settled .it > i' h l»ec*me 
 
 for more than 20 veai-., ui' t ■ Ins »lrath, the 
 centre of hit labours. It ha.l indeed not « 
 few of the advantages of Alexandria, as a 
 great seaport, the civil capital, and the 
 ecclesiastical metr .p.-lis ..f its dlstrirt. 
 
 Here Origen found imgrudgmg tvmpathy 
 and help lor hl» manifold labours. Alrxandet 
 
772 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea 
 remained devoted to him ; and Firmilian of 
 Caesarea in Cappadocia was no less zealous in 
 seeking his instruction (Eus. H. E. vi. 27 ; 
 Hieron. de Vir. III. 54). Ambrose was with 
 him to stimulate his literary efforts. He 
 formed afresh something of a catechetical 
 school, with a continual succession of distin- 
 guished students. He was unwearied in the 
 public exposition of Scripture, which he 
 explained popularly to mixed congregations 
 in the church, to Christians and to catechu- 
 mens (Horn, in Ezech. vi. 5), as a rule on 
 Wednesdays and Fridays (Socr. H. E. v. 22), 
 but often daily, and even oftener than once a 
 day. His subjects were sometimes taken from 
 the lessons {Horn, in Num. xv. i ; in I. Sam. 
 ii. § i), sometimes specially prescribed by an 
 authoritative request {Horn, in Ezech. xiii. 1). 
 His aim was the edification of the people 
 generally (Horn, in Lev. vii. i ; in Jud. viii. 
 3) ; and not unfrequently he was constrained 
 to speak, as he wrote, with some reserve, on 
 the deeper mysteries of the faith [Horn, in 
 Num. iv. 3 ; in Lev. xiii. 3 ; in Ezech. i. 3 ; 
 in Rom. vii. 13, p. 147 L. ; viii. 11, p. 272; 
 of. Hom. in Jos. xxiii. 4 s.f. ; in Gen. xii. i, 4). 
 
 These labours were interrupted by the per- 
 secution of Maximin (235-237). Ambrose 
 and Protectetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, were 
 among the victims. Origen addressed to 
 them in prison his Exhortation to Martyrdom. 
 He himself escaped (Eus. H. E. vi. 28). Dur- 
 ing part of the time of persecution he was 
 apparently with Firmilian in Cappadocia, and 
 is said to' have there enjoyed the hospitality 
 of a Christian lady Juliana, who had some 
 books of Symmachus, the translator of O.T. 
 (cf. Hieron. I.e.; Pallad. Hist. Laus. 147). 
 
 In 238, or perhaps 237, Origen was again 
 at Caesarea, and Gregory (Thaumaturgus) 
 delivered the Farewell Address, which is the 
 most vivid picture left of the method and 
 influence of the great Christian master. The 
 scholar recounts, with touching devotion, the 
 course along which he had been guided by 
 the man to whom he felt he owed his spiritual 
 life. He had come to Syria to study Roman 
 law in the school of Berytus, but on his way 
 met with Origen, and at once felt he had found 
 in him the wisdom he wasseeking. The day of 
 that meeting was to him, in his own words, the 
 dawn of a new being : his soul clave to the 
 master whom he recognized and he surren- 
 dered himself gladly to his guidance. As 
 Origen spoke, he kindled within the young 
 advocate's breast a love for the Holy Word, 
 and for himself the Word's herald. " This 
 love," Gregory adds, " induced me to give up 
 country and friends, the aims which I had 
 proposed to myself, the study of law of which 
 I was proud. ' I had but one passion, philo- 
 sophy, and the godlike man who directed me 
 in the pursuit of it " (c. 6). 
 
 Origen' s first care, Gregory says, was to 
 make the character of a pupil his special study. 
 In this he followed the example of Clement 
 (Clem. Strom, i. i, 8, p. 320 P.). He ascer 
 tained, with delicate and patient attention, 
 the capacities, faults, and tendencies of those 
 he had to teach. Rank growths of opinion 
 were cleared away ; weaknesses were laid 
 open ; every effort was used to develop [ 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 endurance, firmness, patience, thoroughness. 
 " In true Socratic fashion he sometimes over- 
 threw us by argument," Gregory writes, " if 
 he saw us restive and starting out of the 
 course. . . . The processwasat first disagreeable 
 to us and painful ; but so he purified us . . . 
 and . . . prepared us for the reception of 
 the words of truth ... by probing us and 
 questioning us, and offering problems for our 
 solution" (c. 7). Thus Origen taught his 
 scholars to regard language as designed, not 
 to furnish material for display, but to express 
 truth with exact accuracy ; and logic as 
 powerful, not to secure a plausible success, 
 but to test beliefs with the strictest rigour. 
 Origen then led his pupils to the " lofty and 
 divine and most lovely " study of external 
 nature. He made geometry the sure and im- 
 movable foundation of his teaching, and rose 
 step by step to the heights of heaven and 
 the most sublime mysteries of the universe 
 (c. 8). Gregory's language implies that 
 Origen was himself a student of physics ; as, 
 in some degree, the true theologian must be. 
 The lessons of others, he writes, or his own 
 observation, enabled him to explain the con- 
 nexion, the differences, the changes of the 
 objects of sense. Such investigations served 
 to shew man in his true relation to the world. 
 A rational feeling for the vast grandeur of the 
 external order, " the sacred economy of the 
 universe," as Gregory calls it, was substituted 
 for the ignorant and senseless wonder with 
 which it is commonly regarded. 
 
 But physics were naturally treated by 
 Origen as a preparation and not as an end. 
 Moral science came next ; and here he laid 
 the greatest stress upon the method of experi- 
 ment. His aim was not merely to analyse and 
 to define and to classify feelings and motives, 
 though he did this, but to form a character. 
 For him ethics were a life, and not only a 
 theory. The four cardinal virtues of Plato, 
 practical wisdom, self-control, righteousness, 
 courage, seemed to him to require for their 
 maturing diligent introspection and culture. 
 Herein he gave a commentary upon his 
 teaching. His discipline lay even more in 
 action than in precept. His own conduct was, 
 in his scholar's minds, a more influential per- 
 suasive than his arguments. 
 
 So, Gregory continues, Origen was the first 
 teacher who really led me to the pursuit of 
 Greek philosophy, by bringing speculation 
 into a vital union with practice. In him I 
 saw the inspiring example of one at once wise 
 and holy. The noble phrase of older masters 
 gained a distinct meaning for the Christian 
 disciple. In failure and weakness he was 
 able to see that the end of all was " to be- 
 come like to God with a pure mind, and to 
 draw near to Him and to abide in Him" (c. 12). 
 
 Guarded and guided by this conviction, 
 Origen encouraged his scholars in theology 
 to look for help in all the works of human 
 genius. They were to examine the writings 
 of philosophers and poets of every nation, the 
 atheists alone excepted, with faithful candour 
 and wise catholicity. For them there was to 
 be no sect, no party. In their arduous work 
 they had ever at hand, in their master, a 
 friend who knew their difficulties. If they 
 were bewildered in the tangled mazes of con- 
 
ORIGENES 
 
 flicting opinions, he w.is rr.iJy t.i Ir.xd Ihcm 
 with a firm hand ; if in dan^rr <>( Urma swal- 
 lowed up in the quicksands o( shiftniR error. 
 he was near to hft thrm up to thr sure resting- 
 place he had himself found (o. 14). 
 
 The hierarchy of sciences was not com- 
 pleted till thct>logy with her own proper gifts 
 crowned the succession followed hitherto, 
 logic, physic, ethics. Origen found in the 
 Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Spirit 
 the ifinal and absolute spring of Divine Truth. 
 In this region (.iregory felt his master's pow« r 
 to be supreme. Origen's sovereign command 
 of the mysteries of '• the oracles of ikxl " gave 
 him perfect boldness in dealing with all other 
 writings. " Therefore," Gregory adds. " there 
 was no subject forbidden to us. nothing hidden 
 or inaccessible. We were allowed to beconie 
 acquainted with everv d.Ktrine, barbarian or 
 Greek, on things spiritual or civil, divine and 
 human ; traversing with all freedom, and 
 investigating the whole circuit of knowledge, 
 and satisfying ourselves with the full enjoy- 
 ment of ail the pleasures of the soul " (c. is). 
 Such was, Gregory tells us, Origens meth<Hl. 
 He describes what he knew and what his 
 hearers knew. There is no p.^rallel to the 
 picture in ancient times. With every allow- 
 ance for the partiality of a pupil, the view it 
 offers of a system of Christian training actually 
 realized exhibits a type we cannot hope to 
 surpass. The ideals of Christian education 
 and of Christian philosophy were fashioned 
 together. Under that comprehensive and 
 loving discipline Gregory, already trained 
 in heathen schools, first learnt, step by step, 
 according to his own testimony, what the 
 pursuit of philosophy truly was, and came to 
 know the solemn duty of forming opinions 
 not as the amusement of a moment, but as 
 solid foundations of life-long work. 
 
 From Caesarea Origen visited different 
 parts of Palestine: Jerusalem. Jericho, the 
 valley of the Jordan (t. vi. in Joh. § 24) ; 
 Sidon, where he made some stay {Horn, in 
 Josh. xvi. § 2), partly at least to investigate 
 " the fo<itsteps of Jesus, and of His disciples, 
 and of the prophets" (in Joh I.e.). He als<i 
 went again to Athens and continued there 
 some time, being engaged on his Commentaries 
 (Eus. H. E. vi. 32). In the first of two visits 
 to Arabia he went to confer with Beryllus of 
 Bostra, who had advanced false views on the 
 Incarnation (16. 33) ; in the second to meet 
 some errors on the doctrine of the resurrection 
 {ib. 37). In both cases he was specially in- 
 vited and persu.ided those whom he contro- 
 verted to abandon their opinions. 
 
 His energy now rose to its full power. Till 
 he was 60 (a.d. 246) he had forbidden his 
 unwritten discourses to be taken down. Ex- 
 perience at length enabled him to withdraw 
 the prohibition, and m<«t '>f his homilies arc 
 due to reports made afterwards. The Hooks 
 against Celsus and the Commenlants oh St. 
 Matthew, belonging to the same peri'>d. shew, 
 in different directions, the maturity of his 
 vigour. Thus his varied activity continued 
 till the persecution of Decius in 250. The 
 preceding reign of Philip had fas-oured the 
 growth of Christianity ; and there is no 
 sufficient reason to question the fact of Ori- 
 gen's correspondence with the emperor and 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 '73 
 
 ■.''• 
 
 ^ rf. 
 
 im- 
 •t 
 
 ' t.u 
 
 thn 
 .tef 
 
 br 
 
 t)lt« 
 
 (h« 
 
 .nd 
 
 1 I out (..r ..' 
 
 : %Urrr»»or, ! 
 
 ..• Ir,,, ,ll.-.l 1.. 
 
 I sell ;.u:; 
 
 ( T>Tc — 
 
 but hio 
 
 enemies i'' 1 , II 
 stake, and a report . 
 times that his sull< 
 death (Phot. (■>./ II 
 sharp trial his form' : 
 bp. of .Mexaiidria. .1 I 
 m.utvrdom (Kus. Hi., 
 old aflei tiofi still alive, in *; 
 ati on. Orik'en drs< ribe<l 1 ; 
 consolations in letters whi^ ! ; . . har- 
 acterizes " as full of help to th-M- mIi.. nrrA 
 encouragement" (16. 30). The death o| 
 IVcius (251. Clinton. F.K. i. 370). after 4 vrign 
 , of two vear*. set Origen free. Hut hit hrallh 
 was broken bv his hardships. He die<l at 
 T>Te in 2^3. " having romplete«l wventv veart 
 save one " (Kus. //. h. vii. 1 ; Hirr<>n. Ft*. 65 
 ad Pammach). He was buried there (Wiiltam 
 of Tvre, c. ii.So, Hut. xili. I ■ " ha^^- ITvrtw) 
 et Origenis orpus ■•< iult.it • ■• ■' ' ■ fide 
 etiam hinlie liret inspi< ere nib 
 
 was honoured as lonj; .is th- 
 ' Of the later fortunes of !. . it it 
 
 I enough to say here that his iai« ,ilt< r death 
 ' was like his fate during life ; he conlinur<l to 
 witness not in vain to ni>ble truths. Hit 
 influence was sufficiently proved by the rx-r- 
 sistcnt bitterness of his antagonists, and there 
 are few sadder pages in rhun h historv than the 
 record of the Origenistic ontrover^ien. But 
 in spite of err'>rs easy to condemn, hi» char- 
 acteristic thoughts survived in the work* of 
 Hilarv and .\mbrose and Jerome, and in hi» 
 own homilies, to stir later students in the 
 West. His homilies had a verv wide nrrula- 
 tion in the middle ages in a Latin translation ; 
 and it would be interesting to trace their effect 
 upon medieval commentators down to Hra»- 
 mus. who wrote to Colet in 1504 : " <ViKeni» 
 operum bonam partem evolvi ; quo praeceptore 
 mihi videor non-nulluin fensse operae pre- 
 tium ; aporit enim fontrs quosdani et ratione* 
 indirat artis theologicae." 
 
 Wkitinos. — Kpiphanius »4y» (Harr. Iiiv. 
 63) that in popular reoortsn" !•-** than ft.noo 
 works were ascribed to i-- ■ ^ -r m« 
 denies this {hf>. Ixxxii. 7 wn 
 
 the number to a third iaJ< 'I. 
 
 c. 13). His Works will be 11. t: 'W- 
 
 ingorder ; KxegetK al. DoKiiijli. j1. Aj-l-iJrllC, 
 Practical. Letters. Phil «r .ilia. 
 
 A. Hxr.(.»;TUAL Wmm-. > I , 1, '..mm* 
 states that Origen iv ' >« 
 
 all the b.M.ks of S.ri "««* 
 
 though hi* fde Stat- ' tT 
 
 little value. inde|M-nd. i,l ..u 1 • \ •• t rM,|rnr« 
 goes far to conhrin tl. 
 
 His exegeiK al writinrs nf ■■! lhf-» Wtnd* : 
 detached .V<>//. (It 'he 
 
 narrower sense. riK^' trt- 
 
 prelanJt genutK tf-^*^ '■*' 
 
 audiences Co, ■ ■^•' 
 
 and clab.ratr '«•« 
 
 in the wider s' ••• 
 
 Ettch. I'fol. , ;...., .. -hn. 
 
 Fra4f. 1*1 iVhm. 
 
774 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 i. The Pentateuch. Genesis. — Origen, 
 according to Eusebius, wrote twelve books of 
 Commentaries (To/j-oi) on Genesis, besides 
 Homilies. Of these writings there remain : 
 Greek: (i) On Gen. i. 2 ; Fragm. of Tom. iii. 
 on Gen. i. 14 ; i. 16 f. (2) Fragm. of Tom. iii. 
 (Eus. H. E. iii. i) ; notes from Catenae; 
 Fragm. of Horn. ii. (3) Additional notes. 
 Latin : Seventeen Homilies, of which the last 
 is imperfect, translated by Rutinus. 
 
 One of the fragments of the Commentary on 
 Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of 
 the theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16 ; 
 and in the scattered notes there are some 
 characteristic remarks on the interpretation 
 of the record of Creation. For Origen all 
 Creation was " one act at once," presented 
 to us in parts, in order to give the due con- 
 ception of order (cf. Ps. cxlviii. 5). The 
 Honiilies deal mainly with the moral appli- 
 cation of main subjects in the book. They 
 contain little continuous exposition, but 
 many striking thoughts. Among the passages 
 of chief interest are the view of the Divine 
 image and the Divine likeness as expressing 
 man's endowment and man's end (i. §§ 12, 
 13), the symbolism of the ark (ii. §§ 4 ff.), 
 the nature of the Divine voice (iii. § 2), the 
 lesson of the opened wells (xiii.§ 4), the poverty 
 of the Divine priesthood (xvi. § 5). 
 
 Exodus and Leviticus. — Of the Books, 
 Homilies, and Notes he wrote on these books, 
 no detailed account remains. (Cf. in Rom. 
 ix. § I, p. 283 L. ; Ruf. Apol. ii. 20 ; Hieron. 
 ^P- 33-) The following remain : Exodus. — 
 Greek : (i) On Ex. x. 27 (several fragments). 
 (2) Notes from Catenae. Two short frag- 
 ments of Hom. viii. (3) Additional notes. 
 Latin : 13 Homilies, trans, by Rufinus. 
 
 The main fragment of the Commentary on 
 Exodus [Philoc. 27 [26]) deals with inter- 
 pretation of the " hardening of Pharaoh's 
 heart" (Ex. x. 27), which Origen (to use 
 modern language) finds in the action of moral 
 laws, while Pharaoh resisted the divine teach- 
 ing. The Homilies, like those on Genesis, 
 were translated by Rufinus from the reports of 
 Origen's sermons, which he supplemented with 
 interpretative additions. Throughout Origen 
 dwells upon the spiritual interpretation of the 
 record. " Not one iota or one tittle is," in his 
 opinion, "without mysteries" (Hom. i. 4). 
 The literal history has a mystical and a moral 
 meaning (e.g. Hom. i. 4 f., ii. i, iii. 3, iv. 8, 
 vii. 3, X. 4, xiii. 5). Some of the applica- 
 tions he makes are of great beauty, e.g. in 
 regard to the popular complaints against 
 religious life and the troubles which follow 
 religious awakening (Ex. v. 4 ff., Hom. iii. 3) ; 
 the difficulties of the heavenward pilgrimage 
 (Ex. xiv. 2, Hom. v. 3) ; the believer as the 
 tabernacle of God (Hom. ix. 4) ; turning to the 
 Lord (Ex. xxxiv. 34, coll. II. Cor. iii. 16, Hom. 
 xii. 2) ; the manifold offerings of different be- 
 lievers (Ex. XXXV. 5, Hom. xiii. 3). 
 
 Leviticus. — Greek: (i) Fragm. ol Hom. 2 
 (3). (2) Notes from Catenae. (3) Additional 
 notes. (4) A fragment (cf. Hom. in Lev. viii. 
 6), Mai, Class. And. t. x. p. 600. Latin: 
 16 Homilies (trans, by Rufinus). 
 
 In the interpretation of Leviticus Origen 
 naturally dwells on the obvious moral and 
 spiritual antitypes of the Mosaic ordinances. 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 Not infrequently the use he makes of them is' 
 impressive and ingenious, e.g. his view of 
 man's soul and body as the deposit which he 
 owes to God (Lev. vi. 4, Horn. iv. 3) ; of the 
 office of the Christian priest foreshadowed in 
 that of the Jewish priest (Lev. vii. 28 ff., Hom. 
 v. 12) ; of the priesthood of believers (Lev. 
 viii. 7 ff., Hom. vi. 5 ; cf. Hom. ix. 9) ; of the 
 Saviour's sorrow (Lev. x. 9, coll. Matt. xxvi. 9, 
 Hom. vii. 2), of purification by fire (Lev. xvi. 
 12, Hom. ix. 7). Throughout Christ appears 
 as the one Sacrifice for the world, and the one 
 Priest (Hom. i. 2, iv. 8, v. 3, ix. 2, xii.), 
 though elsewhere He is said to join with Him- 
 self apostles and martyrs (Horn, in Num. x. 2). 
 
 Numbers. — No mention is made of "Books" 
 on Numbers. Of Notes and Homilies (cf. 
 Hom. in Jer. xii. § 3) the following remain : 
 Greek : (1) Notes from Catenae. Small Frag- 
 ment of Hom. xiii. (2) Additional notes. 
 Latin : 28 Homilies, trans, by Rufinus, which 
 follow the whole course of the narrative. 
 
 One main idea is prominent throughout. 
 The struggles of the Israelites on the way to 
 Canaan are the image of the struggles of the 
 Christian. The entrance on the Promised 
 Land foreshadows the entrance on the heaven- 
 ly realm (Hom. vii. 5). The future world will 
 even, in Origen's judgment, offer differences 
 of race and position corresponding to those of 
 the tribes of Israel and the nations among 
 whom they moved (ib. i. 3, ii. i, xi. 5, 
 xxviii. 4). The interpretation of the record 
 of the stations (ib. xxvii.) is a very good ex- 
 ample of the way he finds a meaning in the 
 minutest details of the history. Of wider 
 interest are his remarks on man's spiritual 
 conflict (j6. vii. 6), the wounds of s\n(ib. viii. i), 
 advance in wisdom (ib. xvii. 4), the festivals 
 of heaven (ib. xxiii. 11), self-dedication (ib. 
 xxiv. 2), and the stains of battle (ib. xxv. 6). 
 
 Deuteronomy. — Cassiodorus (de Instit. 1) 
 mentions four Homilies of Origen on Deut. 
 ("in quibus est minuta nimis et subtilis ex- 
 positio"), and doubtless it was these (oratiun- 
 culae) Rufinus proposed to translate if his 
 health had been restored. The scanty re- 
 mains are: (i) Notes from Catenae. (2) 
 Additional notes. One interesting note at 
 least among (i) appears to be a fragment of 
 a homily (in Deut. viii. 7). 
 
 It is probable (Hieron. Ep. 84, 7) that con- 
 siderable fragments of Origen's comments on 
 the Pentateuch are contained in Ambrose's 
 treatise on the Hexaemeron, but the treatise 
 has not yet been critically examined. 
 
 J osHUA-I I. Kings. — Origen appears to have 
 treated these historical books in homilies only, 
 or perhaps in detached notes also. There 
 remain of the several books: Joshua. — 
 Greek : (i) Fragm. of Hom. xx. (2) Notes 
 from Catenae. (3) Additional notes. Latin: 
 26 Homilies, trans, by Rufinus. 
 
 The homilies on Joshua, belonging to the 
 latest period of Origen's life, perhaps offer the 
 most attractive specimen of his popular in- 
 terpretation. The parallel between the leader 
 of the old church and the Leader of the new 
 is drawn with great ingenuity and care. The 
 spiritual interpretation of the conquest of 
 Canaan, as an image of the Christian life, never 
 flags. Fact after fact is made contributorv 
 to the fulness of the idea ; and the reader is 
 
ORIOENES 
 
 forc«»«l to j(kn.>wlrtlKr that ihp f.<rtun«-* ol 
 Israel can at least sj>r.»k t<> us with an intrl 
 ligible voire. Kuhnus hiinseU mav have frit 
 the peculiar charm of the book, for he v1p< tr.l 
 it for translation in answer to 4 general rr- 
 <jucst of Chroniatius to render soniethniR from 
 Greek literature for the e<hfiration of thr 
 church. The homilies rover the whole narra- 
 tive up to the settling of the land (r. xxii.). 
 
 AmonK passages of special interest are those 
 on the help we Rain from the old fathers (l^. 
 iii. 1) ; the broad parallel between the Chris- 
 tian life and the historv of the HkhIiis {th. 
 iv. i) ; the Christian realizing ( hrist's victory 
 (1*. vii. 2) ; growing wisdom (l^. xii. a). 
 
 Judges. — Grrek : (1) Notes from Catenae. 
 (2) Additional notes. Lalin : q Homthes, 
 trans, by Kufinus. 
 
 RiTH. — Grftk : A note on i. 4. 
 
 The Homilies on Judges are of much !e«ks 
 interest than those on Joshua. A passage on 
 martNTdom — the baptism of blond — is worthv 
 of notice {Horn. vii. 2). In Horn. ix. i Ongrn 
 seems to refer to the persecuti<Mi of Maximin, 
 which was but latelv ended. 
 
 I. and II. SAMtEi.. I. and II. Kings (I. -IV. 
 Kings). Greek: (i) Horn, on I.Sam, xxviii. 
 (2) Notes from Catenae and Fragments. (3) 
 Additional notes. Latin : Honulv on 1. Sam. 
 i. 2 {de Helchana el Fenenna), delivered at 
 Jerusalem (§ i : nolite illud in nobis requirere 
 quod in papa .Mexandro habetis). The trans- 
 lator is not known. The remains of Origen's 
 writings on the later historical books are very 
 slight. The homily on the wit<h of Kndor 
 provoked violent attacks. In this C)rigen 
 maintained, in accordance with mm h earlv 
 Christian and Jewish opini'^n. that the soul 
 of Samuel was truly called up from Hades. 
 Among others Eustathius of .Antioch assailed 
 Origen in unmeasured terms. 
 
 The Hagiographa. Job. — Origen com- 
 posed manv homilies on Job (Eustath. 
 Antioch, de Engaslr. 391), which were rendered 
 freely into Latin by Hilary of Poictiers (Hier. 
 d£ Vir. III. 100; Ep. adv. Vigil. 61, 2). The 
 scattered Notes which remain are not suffi- 
 cient to enable us to estimate their value. 
 There remain : Greek : {1) Notes fn-m Catenae. 
 (2) Additional notes. La/iw ; Fragment 
 quoted fr>m a homily of Hilary by August. 
 Lib. ii. c. Jul. § 27, and assumed to be trans- 
 lated from Origen. 
 
 The Psalms engaged Origen's attention 
 before he left Alexandria. At that time he 
 had written commentaries on Pss. i-xxv. 
 (Eus. H. E. vi. 24). He completed the Ixn.k 
 afterwards. Jerome expressly states that he 
 " left an explanation of all the Psalms in manv 
 volumes" [Ep. cxii. §20) ; and his extant b'H.ks 
 contain numerous references to his commen- 
 taries on psalms (cf. Hier. Ep. xxxiv. ) 1). 
 
 Besides these detailed commentarie*, he 
 illustrated the Psalter by sh-.rt Notes (" a 
 handbook " ; "enchiridion ille vw^abat." Auct. 
 ap. Hier. Tnm. vii. .ipp.), and by Homilir^. 
 
 The Homilies which are preiwrvrd in Kufi- 
 nus's Latin trans, belong to the Utrst periKl 
 of Origen's life. f. ni-2^7{Hom. i in /'i.xxxvi. 
 § 2 ; Horn. I in /'s. xxxvii. §1). Thev give 4 
 continuous practical interpretation of the j 
 psalms (r. ml.), an-l ar«- a very go.Kl example 
 of this stvle of exposition. One passage on the 
 
 ORIOENBS 
 
 775 
 
 ll '11.111. ^, >• 
 
 sensr of ( li : 
 
 K'-'m. IV. I : 
 
 dirtaremiis ' , . i.. , . . 
 
 Therr remain *,tt*k 
 
 the T<iMoi and Homih*t 
 
 nientsandno|i>«fr.>m( air 
 
 notrs. l.mlim • n Homi.. . kkvt. 
 
 xxxvii. xxxviii. (iran%. I 
 
 pRnvrRRs. — There rnt (1) 
 
 Fragment*. (2) Nolr» Ir-'m l almac. IMtm: 
 Fragment*. 
 
 FccirsiAsTr'-. V tr'. • n lit i -. i'- f 
 
 I.AMrSTAIi 
 
 taries on ti 
 
 which five t 
 
 of Fiis^bius 'h , .."»...•• 
 
 .If probaMv ilrri\ • 
 
 (ANTKIJS — |>i the W.'fk on 
 
 Cailtlrlrs with rW 1 . I i% <'lheT 
 
 l)o«)ks Origen." hr • v oo« 
 
 else, in this he siii ' ■/. IM 
 
 Horn. %n Cant). I ' 11 
 
 Fragments of his r.nh « tk 
 by l*rocopiii». Latin: Two // •■ 
 by Jerome). I*rol.>gue and f 
 Canticles, trans, bv Kufinus. 
 
 The Prophets. Isaiah.— OrigenintrrpteiiKl 
 Isaiah in each of the three f..rni» whirh he u*e<l , 
 in Books (r<4/io«). in N"t' ' " ■ ' 
 
 Thirty books of his ( ..,, 
 when Huvbius wrote hiv / 
 c. XXX. 6 (Eus. //. / ^ ' 
 had peri5he<l in th- ■ 
 of the work as ab' ■; 
 terpretation of nan 
 There remain : Latin . 1 » It 1. 
 " Books." Nine HomtUei. I 
 were a<ldressed to 4 pojMilar 
 eluding catechumens, but thev 
 of the latest discourse* antl f' 
 order. Subjects : Thf r.ill ■■*. ■ 
 The virgin's son . ' ' 
 vision of (;o<l ; I ' 
 The prophet and ! 
 
 of characteristic n. ^ .. . ^ 
 
 describ«-s the " grcditri ».Hk» " "I Clt«lU'» 
 disciples. 
 
 JrKKMiAH. — Ca*»io<lofu» enumerate* 4) 
 homilies of Origrn on |rreinuh "in Attic 
 style " {de Instit lUv l.itt S \). Thrv were 
 written in a |»erio<l of tr^n r i"'*' "" ' '^"^"^ 
 fore probablv aftrr thr ' 
 tion of .Maximin, t. i4S 
 rrinain : ttrrfk ■ ' » > 
 
 Jeroinr's \' I ' ., . .. ^ 
 
 xxxix. (2' •'*«■• I**'- 
 
 Two Homi:^ 
 
 Tl„ II . Jill .i.t'f 
 
 [.ret,, 
 lani: 
 of tl.. 
 
 want .1 !iia u -il (-• - 
 l>erh»|>» inofr III hi« Ir^ 
 than el%ewhere, fof the !• 
 it practically unintrlhcil u » • 
 •mM of the traitf- rri»i» in » 
 
 placed. ThrfP arr, hoWrvrf. I' 
 
 pa»t4ge« of the Hollilllr* i| • . ■ .« 
 
776 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 beauty, e.g. on the fruitful discipline of God 
 (Horn. iii. 2), the ever-new birth of Christ 
 (ib. ix. 4), the marks of sin [ib. xvi. 10). Cf. 
 Horn, in Josh. xiii. § 3. 
 
 EzEKiEL. — There remain: Greek: (i) 
 Fragments. (2) Notes from Catenae. Latin: 
 14 Homilies. The Homilies only cover a 
 small portion of the book, and do not offer 
 many features of interest. The passages on 
 the responsibility of teachers [Horn. v. 5, 
 vii. 3) are perhaps the most striking. 
 
 Daniel. — Origen commented upon the 
 histories of Susanna and of Bel (Dan. Apocr. 
 xiii. xiv.) in bk. x. of his Miscellanies (^Crpw- 
 /jLareTs), and Jerome has preserved a brief 
 abstract of his notes as an appendix to his 
 commentary on Daniel (Delarue, i. 49 f. ; 
 Lommatzsch, xvii. 70 ff.). 
 
 The Minor Prophets. — Origen wrote ex- 
 tensive commentaries on the twelve minor 
 prophets, of which 25 books remained in the 
 time of Eusebius {H. E. vi. 36). The fragment 
 on Hosea xii., preserved in the Philocalia, c, 
 viii., is all that now remains. [Two books on 
 Hos. (one on Ephraim) ; 2 on Joel; 6 on 
 Amos ; i on Jon. ; 2 on Mic. ; 2 on Nah. ; 3 
 on Hab. ; 2 on Zeph. ; i on Hagg. ; 2 on Zech. 
 (principio) ; 2 on Mai. — h.c.]. 
 
 Writings on the New Testament. — Euse- 
 bius states that Origen wrote 25 Books (rSnoi) 
 on St. Matthew {H^E. vi. 36). The commen- 
 taries seem to have been written c. 245-246. 
 [25 Books ; 25 Homilies. — h.c] 
 
 Bk. x. gives a continuous exposition of 
 Matt. xiii. 36-xiv. 15. The most interesting 
 passages are where Origen discusses char- 
 acteristically the types of spiritual sickness 
 (c. 24) and the doubtful question as to " the 
 brethren of the Lord" (c. 17). On internal 
 grounds he favours the belief in the perpetual 
 virginity of the mother of the Lord. In the 
 account of Herod's banquet he has preserved 
 definitely the fact that " the daughter of 
 Herodias " bore the same name as her mother 
 (c. 22), in accordance with the true reading in 
 Mark vi. 22 (t^j dvyarpb^ avrou ' HpySidSoy) ; 
 but he strangely supposes that the power of 
 life and death was taken away from Herod ! 
 because he executed the Baptist (c. 21). | 
 
 Bk. xi. (c. xiv. 15-xv. 32) contains several] 
 pieces of considerable interest on the discip- 
 line of temptation (c. 6), Corban (c. 9), the 
 conception of things unclean (c. 12), the j 
 healing spirit in the Church (c. 18), and per- 
 haps, above all, that on the Eucharist (c. 14), 
 which is of primary importance for under- 
 standing Origen's view. 
 
 The most important passages in bk. xii., 
 which gives the commentary on c. xvi. i- 
 xvii. 9, are those treating of the confession 
 and blessing of St. Peter (cc. 10 ff.) and the 
 Transfiguration (cc. 37 ff.). He regards St. 
 Peter as the type of the true believer. All 
 believers, as they are Christians, are Peters 
 also (c. II : Trapwpv,aoi werpas irdires ol 
 /jnfirirai XpiffToO . . . XpLcrrou /xi\r) 6vTes irapdivv- 
 /J.OL ixpr]iu.dT(.(Tav XpicrTtafoi. T^rpar 5e ndrpoi). 
 His ignorance of the Hebrew idiom leads him, 
 like other early commentators, to refer the 
 " binding and loosing " to sins (c. 14). 
 
 Bk. xiii. (c. xvii. lo-xviii. 18) opens with an 
 argument against transmigration, and con- 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 tains an interesting discussion of the influence 
 of planets upon men (c. 6). Other character- 
 istic passages deal with the circumstances 
 under which the Lord healed the sick (c. 3), 
 the rule for avoiding offences (c. 24), and esp. 
 the doctrine of guardian angels (cc. 26 f.). 
 
 Bk. xiv. (c. xviii. 19-xix. 11) contains a 
 characteristic examination of the senses in 
 which the " two or three" in Matt, xviii. 20 
 may be understood (cc. i ff.) and a discussion 
 of points regarding marriage (cc. 16 ff. ; 23 ff.). 
 
 Bk. XV. (xix. 12-XX. 16) has several pieces of 
 more than usual interest : the investigation of 
 the meaning of Matt. xix. 12 f. with (as it 
 appears) clear reference to his own early error 
 (c. 2) ; a fine passage on the goodness of God 
 even in His chastisements (c. 11) ; and some 
 remarkable interpretations of the five send- 
 ings of labourers to the vineyard (Matt. xx. 
 I ff.), in one of which he likens St. Paul to one 
 who had wrought as an apostle in one hour 
 more perhaps than all those before him (c. 35). 
 
 Bk. xvi. (xx. 17-xxi. 22) gives some striking 
 pictures of the darker side of Christian society, 
 the growing pride of the hierarchy, the faults 
 of church officers, the separation between 
 clergy and laity (cc. 8, 22, 25). In discussing 
 the heahng of IJartimaeus Origen holds that a 
 choice must be made between supposing that 
 the three evangelists have related three in- 
 cidents, if the literal record is to be main- 
 tained, or that they relate one and the same 
 spiritual fact in different words (c. 12). 
 
 Bk. xvii. (xxi. 23-xxii. 33) contains inter- 
 pretations of the parables of the two sons 
 (c. 4), the vineyard (6 ff.), and the marriage 
 feast (15 ff.), which are good examples of 
 Origen's method ; and his explanations of the 
 questions of the Herodians (cc. 26 ff.) and the 
 Sadducees (c. 33) are of interest. 
 
 The old Latin translation continues the 
 commentary to Matt, xxvii. 63. Passages in 
 it of chief interest are : the application of the 
 woes (Matt, xxiii. i ff.), §§ 9-25 ; the legend 
 of the death of Zachariah the father of the 
 Baptist, § 25 ; the danger of false opinions, 
 § 33 ; the gathering of the saints, § 51 ; the 
 limitation of the knowledge of the Son (Matt. 
 xxiv. 36), § 55 ; the administration of the re- 
 venues of the church, § 61 ; the duty of using 
 all that is lent to us, § 66 ; the eternal fire, im- 
 material, § 72 ; the supposition of three anoint- 
 ings of the Lord's feet, § 77 ; the passover of 
 the Jews and of the Lord, § 79 ; on the Body 
 and Blood of Christ, § 85 ; the lesson of the 
 Agony, § 91 ; tradition of the different appear- 
 ance of the Lord to men of different powers 
 of vision, § 100 ; the reading Jesus Barabbas to 
 be rejected, § 121 ; tradition as to the grave 
 of Adam on Calvary, § 126 ; on the darkness 
 at the crucifixion, § 134. 
 
 St. Mark. — A Latin commentary attri- 
 buted to Victor of Antioch, pub. at Ingold- 
 stadt in 1580, is said to contain quotations 
 from Origen on cc. i. xiv. (Ceillier, p. 635). 
 These, if the reference is correct, may have 
 been taken from other parts of his writings. 
 [15 Books ; 39 Homilies. — h.c] 
 
 St. Luke. — There remain : Greek : (1) 
 Fragments. (2) Notes from a Venice MS. 
 (xxviii.). (3) Additional notes, Mai, Class. 
 Auct. t. X. pp. 47^ ft. (4) Additional notes 
 from Cod. Coislin. xxiii. Latin : 39 Homilies. 
 
ORIOBNBS 
 
 Origen wrote Unit Bi>.>ks on St. 1 tikr (Hirr-«n 
 Prol. aJ Horn.) iroiu \\\\k\\ •' 
 were probably taken. Th 
 St. l,uke. an e.irlv work > ! 
 ih.ir.iiteri&tii- thoujchts. li.. m -iiillwik 
 passages are those ileahMK with ihr inir t anom- 
 <al (tospels {Horn. it. spiritual luaiiidstatioiis 
 (•6. 3). the nobility and triumph ol (aith (if>. 
 7), spiritual growth (16. 11), shepherds o( 
 churches and nations (ih. 12), spiritual and 
 visible co-rulers of diurches (16. 13). infant 
 baptism (16. 14), second luarriaKe* (16. iri, 
 baptism by tire {tb. 24). man as the object ol 
 a spiritual conflict (ib. 35). Besides these 
 homilies Origeu wrote other homilies upon the 
 Ciospol which are now lost, but referred to in 
 .^fatt. t. xiii. 29, xvi. 9 ; in Joh. t. xxxii. .:. 
 
 St. John. — {32 Biv>ks ; some Notes. — ii.c.] 
 The remains of the Commentary on St. John 
 are in many respects the most important of 
 Origen's cxegetical writings. There are left : 
 T6mch i. ii. (iv. v. small fragments), vi. x. xiii. 
 xix. (nearly entire), xx. xxviii. xxxii. These 
 remains extend over the following portions of 
 the Gospel: T. i. (John i. la). ii. (i. ib-7a). 
 vi. (i. 19-29), X. (ii. 12-25). xiii. (iv. 13-44). 
 xix. (part) (viii. 19-24). xx. (viii. 37-52). 
 xxviii. (xi. 39-57). xxxii. (xiii. 2-33). A re- 
 vised text with critical intro. by .\. H. Brooke 
 has been pub. in 2 vols, bv the Camb. Univ. 
 Press. 
 
 The Commentary on St. John was under- 
 taken at the request of Ambrose (ift Joh. t. 
 •• §S 3. 6). and was " the first-fruits of his 
 labours at .Alexandria " (ift. § 4). It marks an 
 epoch in theological literature and thought. 
 Perhaps the earlier work of Heracleos may 
 have suggested the idea, but Origen implies 
 that the Clospel. by its essential character, 
 claimed his first efforts as an inten^reter. 
 
 Bk. i. deals mainly with the fundamental 
 conceptions of " the Gospel" (§§ 1-15). " the 
 beginning" (§§ 16-22). and "the Logos" 
 (SS 19-42)- The Gospels arc the first-fruits 
 {drapxh (>i the Scripture, the Gospel t)f St. 
 John is the first-fruits of the Gospels (§ 6). As 
 the Law had a shadow of the future, sotoohas 
 the Gospel: spiritual truths underlie historical 
 truths (§ 9). The Gospel in the widest sens«- is 
 *' for the whole world," not for our earth only. 
 but lor the universal system of the heavens 
 and earth (§ 15). The discussion of the title 
 Logos marks a critical stage in the history of 
 Christian thought. In what sense, it is asked, 
 is the Saviour called the Logos? It had 
 come to be a common opinion " that Christ 
 was as it were only a ' word ' of God " (§ 23). 
 To meet this view Origen refers to other titles. 
 Light. Resurrection, Way, Truth, etc. (it 24- 
 41), and bv analogy comes to the conclusi<ai 
 that as we are illuminated by Christ as the 
 Light, and quickened by Him as the kesur- 
 rcction. so we are made divinely rational by 
 Him as the Logos, i.e. Keav-n (§ 42)- Me 
 thus preserves the personality of the Lord 
 under the title of I.og.-s. whirh expresses ..nr 
 aspect of His being and n"t His bring iIm-H 
 (as a word) ; but rer..gnizrs that ( hrisi m.iv 
 also be called the L.gos (Word) of (,.^l a* 
 giving expression to His will. 
 
 In bk. li. he continues his discussion of the 
 meaning of the Log.n*. distinguishing, in a 
 remarkable passage () 2), <i«»d and Reason 
 
 ORIOINBI 
 
 t»k.n ..t.N ti:trlv 
 
 rallr.l •• II. .11 
 without Htiii 
 
 and I ! 
 " the \ 
 
 Perhaps It is II t 
 blames those wh" 
 hold that John i 
 evangelist anl • 
 
 Inbk. VI.. .,• 
 the circumst.i 
 
 b..dv. ■■ a\.i ■ 
 reserves for » 
 words >'( ttir I 
 minutr 
 other'. 
 (§ 17)". 
 
 of John ...1.1 I nr.M, .... , . X 
 sence " in the mid*t nl th- 
 His universal presem e as 
 The mention of Bethany n 
 hastily adopt the correrti 
 (§ 24). which he justifies by 
 as to names in the L.\.\. 
 tion of the title of Christ 
 GtKl" m 15 fl ) i" tuW of 
 connexion with this he n^ 
 the bl«K)d of martvrs to <.\. 
 Bk. x. deals with the ! 
 cleansing of the trm5.|»- 
 results (ii. i: ' 
 
 rrepaiiry bet 
 
 soj.iurn at ( > 
 
 soluti'ii cm 
 
 s«-iise (i 2). t 
 
 tribut«-s. th.i. 
 
 •inworthy of : 
 
 " the passovrr v/ ikt J (u i 
 
 position of t hriHt a% the true 
 
 Vti- .I.-.mMn,: f !!•■ t-n.; !■ 
 
 Hk 
 tion • 
 
 VA^«i) fr 
 
 I 1 l.r. I I 1 lii;. 
 larkt that he w»s 
 t^,r W .r.| • (» J6J. 
 
 Mr th4l h» 
 1 VI I J). 
 
 his 
 
 . ol 
 
 . h« 
 
 Ih« 
 
 •■ r M 
 (he 
 Mrh 
 ■ \m* 
 
 l-re- 
 
 of 
 2J). 
 
 . un to 
 
 i..i. lUthubara" 
 
 the trr<|iirnl erT«i*» 
 
 His brief rx|M>«i> 
 
 " as the Lamb ol 
 interest . and to 
 
 tlr.s t>M J- wer ol 
 M. 
 
 !irst 
 
 dIV 
 
 the 
 ' lit 
 
 •u«J 
 
 1,.,^ ! 4!i ex- 
 |-4«*ovrr Itl II fl). 
 
 l^ ^^.f»n !' hav« 
 and 
 I ta 
 
 rb, 
 .Ih. 
 
 -.rnt 
 
r78 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 regard to Origen's own views and method are 
 those on the relation of Christ's personal 
 teaching to the Scriptures (§ 5), the five 
 husbands as representing the senses (§ 9), the 
 incorporeity of God (§ 25), the joy of the 
 sower and reaper, and the continuity of work 
 (§§ 46 f.), the unhonoured prophet (§ 54), 
 spiritual dependence (§ 58), and the distinction 
 between signs and wonders (§ 60). 
 
 Of bk. xix., which is imperfect at the be- 
 ginning and end, a considerable fragment 
 remains (viii. 19-25). The remarks on the 
 treasury (John viii. 20) as the scene of the 
 Lord's discourses (§ 2), and on the power of 
 faith (§ 6), are characteristic. 
 
 Bk. XX. (viii. 37-53) has much that is of 
 importance for Origen's opinions. It begins 
 with an examination of some points in con- 
 nexion with the pre-existence and character 
 of souls ; and, in a striking passage (§ 29), 
 Origen illustrates the inspiration of evil pas- 
 sions. Other interesting passages treat of 
 love as " the sun " in the life of Christians 
 (§ 15) ; the ambiguities in the word " when " 
 (§ 24) ; the need of help for spiritual sight 
 (§ 26) ; and spiritual influences (§ 29). 
 
 The most remarkable passage in bk. xxviii. 
 (John xi. 39-57) is perhaps that on the power 
 of self-sacrifice among the Gentiles illustrating 
 the vicarious sufferings of Christ (§ 14). Other 
 remarks worthy of special notice are on the 
 lifting up of the eyes (John xi. 41) (§ 4), the 
 lesson of the death of Lazarus (§ 6), the duty 
 of prudence in time of persecution (§ 18), and 
 the passover of the Jews and of the Lord (§ 20). 
 
 Bk. xxxii. (John xiii. 2-33) treats of St. 
 John's record of the Last Supper. Origen 
 discusses the feet-washing at length, and says 
 that it is not to be perpetuated literally 
 (§§ 6 f.) ; he dwells on the growth of faith (§ 9), 
 the difference of " soul " and" spirit " (§ 11), 
 the character of Judas and moral deteriora- 
 tion (§ 12), and the sop given to Judas (§ 16). 
 
 Origen's Commentary is for us the beginning 
 of a new type of literature. It has great 
 faults of style, is diffusive, disproportioned, 
 full of repetitions, obscure and heavy in form 
 of expression, wholly deficient in historical 
 insight, and continually passing into fantastic 
 speculations. But it contains not a few 
 " jewels five words long," abounds in noble 
 thoughts and subtle criticisms, grapples with 
 great difficulties, unfolds great ideas, and, 
 above all, retains a firm hold on the human 
 life of the Lord. 
 
 Acts. — [17 Homilies. — h.c] Greek: (i) 
 A single fragment from " the fourth homily 
 on the Acts" is preserved in the Philocalia. 
 (2) A few notes are given in Cramer's Catena, 
 col. iii. 184, on Acts iv. 32, vii. 3, 53, xxi. 38. 
 
 Romans. — [15 Books. — h.c] Greek : (i) 
 Fragments from the first and ninth books 
 contained in the Philocalia. (2) A number of 
 important notes are contained in Cramer's 
 Catena, t. iv. (1844), on the following passages: 
 i. 1, 10; ii. 8, 16, 27; iii. 2, 4, 9, 13, 19, 21, 25, 
 27, 28, 30, 31 ; iv. 2. Latin: Ten books of 
 Commentaries, translated and compressed 
 from the fifteen books of Origen, by Rufinus, 
 at the request of Heraclius. 
 
 The Commentary on Romans gives a con- 
 tinuous discussion of the text, often discur- 
 sive, but still full of acute and noble concep- 
 
 ORIOENES 
 
 tions. Origen's treatment of Rom. viii. as 
 represented by Rufinus, is, on the whole, dis- 
 appointing. It might have been expected to 
 call out his highest powers of imagination 
 and hope. His silence, no less than his rash 
 conjectures as to the persons named in Rom. 
 xvi., is a singular proof of the complete 
 absence of any authoritative tradition as to 
 the persons of the early Roman church. For 
 the passage (x. 43) which refers to Marcion's 
 mutilation of the epistle by removing the 
 doxology (xvi. 25-27) and (though this is dis- 
 puted) the last two chapters, see the papers 
 by bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Hort in Jour, of 
 Philologv, 1869, ii. 264 fif. ; 1871, iii. 51 ff., 
 193 ff. 
 
 I. -II. Corinthians. — [11 Homilies on II. 
 Cor. — H.c] Greek: Jerome mentions {Ep. ad 
 Pammach. xlix. § 3) that Origen commented 
 on this epistle at length ; and Origen himself 
 refers to what he had said on I. Cor. i. 2 [Horn. 
 in Luc. xvii. s./.). A very important collection 
 of notes on I. Cor. is given in Cramer's Catena, 
 vol. V. 1844. Some of the notes contain 
 passages of considerable interest, as those on 
 the vicarious death of Gentile heroes (I. Cor. i. 
 18 ; cf. Horn, in Joh. t. xxviii. § 14), the 
 sovereignty of believers (I. Cor. iii. 21), evan- 
 gelic " counsels " (vii. 25), the public teaching 
 of women (xiv. 34, with reference to Montan- 
 ism). Origen gives the outline of a creed (i. 
 9, 20), and touches on baptism (i. 14) and 
 holy communion (vii. 5). He describes the 
 Jewish search for leaven (v. 7) ; and supposes 
 that many books of O.T. were lost at the 
 Captivity (ii. 9). 
 
 Galatians. — [15 Books ; 7 Homilies. — 
 H.c] Jerome, in the Prologue to his Com- 
 mentary on Galatians, mentions that Origen 
 wrote five Books on this epistle, as well as 
 various Homilies and Notes (tractatus et ex- 
 cerpta), and that he interpreted it with brief 
 annotations {commaticn sermone) in his Stro- 
 mateis, bk. x. (Proem, in Cotnm. ad Gal. ; Ep. 
 ad August, cxi. §§ 4, 6). Three fragments of 
 the Commentary are contained in the Latin 
 translation of Pamphilus's Apology. 
 
 Ephesians. — [3 Books. — h.c] Origen's 
 Commentary on the Ephesians may still be 
 practically recovered. Jerome, in the Pro- 
 logue to his own Commentary, says that " his 
 readers should know that Origen wrote three 
 books on the epistle, which he had partly 
 followed." The extent of his debt could only 
 be estimated by conjecture, till the publica- 
 tion of the Paris Catena (Cramer, 1842). This 
 contains very large extracts from Origen's 
 commentary, sometimes with his name and 
 sometimes anonymous, and in nearly all cases 
 Jerome has corresponding words or thoughts. 
 A careful comparison of the Greek fragments 
 with Jerome's Latin would make it possible 
 to reconstruct a very large part of Origen's 
 work. The corresponding notes on the des- 
 cription of the Christian warfare (vi. 11 ff.) 
 well illustrate Jerome's mode of dealing with 
 his archetype. Origen's comments are almost 
 continuous. A fragment on Eph. v. 28 f., not 
 found in the Greek notes, is preserved in the 
 Latin trans, of the Apology of Pamphilus. 
 
 Philippians, Colossians, Titus, Phile- 
 mon. — [1 Book on Philippians ; 2 on Colos- 
 sians ; I on Titus ; i on Philemon ; i Homily 
 
ORIOBNBS 
 
 779 
 
 ORIGENBS 
 
 on Titus.— H.c.) SliMit (r.iKinmts (r.nn hk. 
 iii. on Col. and the t. omin. on Philrni<<ii, 
 and more considor.ibic (raKiurnts (r<>m Book 
 on Titus (Tit. iii. lo, ii), arc f.uiM.I in the 
 trans, of raniphihis's Apology. No (Irrrk 
 notes on these I^pp. have been preserved. 
 
 I. Thessalonians. (3 Hooks ; j Honiihrs. 
 — H.C] A considerable (raiment from the 
 third book of the Commentary on I. Thess. is 
 preserved in Jerome's trans. : Fp. ad Slmfn-. 
 et .Alex. 9 (I. Thess. iv. i«i-i7). 
 
 Hebrews.— (18 Homilies.— H.C] OriRen 
 wrote Homilies and Conmientaries on Heb- 
 rews. Two fragments of the Homilies are 
 
 preserved by Eusebius (//.£'. vi. 2 s). in whirh „ „ _..^. ... ...... 
 
 Origen gives his opinion on the composition ling the teaching of Origm nijiv »eeni lo tu 
 of the epistle. Some inconsiderable frag- we must bear in mini \h.\\ \h\\ u hi» own 
 ments from the " Books" are found in the account of it. \\r 1 (r«| that all 
 
 trans, of Pamphilus's Apology. he brings forward 1 ith rrmvrd 
 
 Catholic Epistles. — The quotations from teaching. Hr prol. j* frnal lh»i 
 
 Origen. given in Cramer's Catena i>n the same authorities a-> n s' >%• -^ 
 
 Thr tn-alise consists <•! (our IxH.ks. I>iKrr«- 
 
 sions and reprtilions mtrrfrrr with the »vm- 
 
 metrv of tlir |>lan. But to speak grnrfallv. 
 
 bk. i. deals with <."kI and crrati".n freliKious 
 
 riif statics); bks. ii. and iii. with <rrailon and 
 
 providence, man and r»-deniption (rrliKioiu 
 
 itn- dynamics) ; and bk. iv. with Hojv S riplure. 
 
 in The first three books roni.ui) the rx|M^\it|f»n 
 
 f a Christian philosophv, gathrrrd roiuul the 
 
 three ideas of (nxl, thr worhl, -ind Ihr rallonjl 
 
 the Irainetl rvr c.iild %rf it* h«nnnnU^ the 
 in"»^l. Fresh wants madr Iir%h truth* vt»ihlr. 
 He who found mu«h had nolhUiK over; b« 
 who found littir ^.,.^ I, 1,, J, 
 
 TheU»..k . 
 »>-»tem of (I 
 sophy of til. 
 an ep.M-h in t ,.,... 
 in the lontrnts oi • 
 eleinnits o( thr d 
 
 on the authority o| ; ;, _.;., . . 
 
 objrct is, he sav*. to ^Xuv Ifw tlirv 1 «n 1» 
 arranged as a whole, bv Ihr hrli> nthrr of thr 
 statements of Scripture or o| thr nirth<KU o| 
 exact reasoning. Howrvrr stranKe of tiarl- 
 
 Catholic epistles, are apparently taken from 
 other treatises, and not from commentaries on 
 the books themselves: J as. i. 4. 13 ; I- Pet. 
 i. 4 ((K TTji ip/jLvyflas (t'l rA Kara wp6ypuoir 
 9(ov) ; I. John ii. 14 (« rov ^afiarot 
 qfffiarwv T. A'.). 
 
 Apocalypse. — Origen purposed to com 
 ment upon the .Apocalypse iComm. Ser. n 
 Malt. § 49), but it is uncertain whether h 
 carried out his design. 
 
 B. Dogmatic Writings. — Origen's writings soul, and the last gives the basis of it. Even 
 On the Resurrection were violently assailed by in the repetitions {as on " thr restoration n| 
 Methodius, and considered by Jerome to things ") each sucrrssive treatment r<>rre- 
 abound in errors (Ep. Ixxxiv. 7). Probably sponds with a new point of sight, 
 they excited oppositi<m bv assailing the gross In bk. i. Origen sfts out thr final •■Irnienl* 
 literalism of the popular' view of the future of all religi-.iis philosophy. <..kI. thr world, 
 life. The extant fragments are consistnit ration.il cnaturcs. Allrr dwelling on the 
 with the true faith and express it with a wise essential n.iture ..| (..«1 as in<orporra|. m- 
 caution, affirming the permanence through visible, incoinprehensiblr. and on Ihr c harat- 
 death of the whole man and not of the soul terislir relations of the Prrsons of thr Holv 
 only. Thus Origen dwells rightly on St. Trinity to man, as the authors ■>( Iwing. and 
 Paul's image of tlie seed {Fragm. 2), maintains reason, and holiness, he givrs a summary view 
 a perfect correspondence between the present of the end of human life, for the element* of a 
 and the future, and speaks very happily t>f the problem cannot be rrally undrrst<»<xl until we 
 " ratio substantiae con^'^ralis " as that which have comprehended its scope. The endof life, 
 is permanent. : then, according to Origen. is the pr<>Krr»«ivr 
 
 "The book On First Principles is the nicjst assimilation of man to C.fKl by the voluntary 
 complete and charactrristic expression of appropriation of His gift-. «.>-ntil<- phllo- 
 
 Origen's opinions. It was written while at v)phers had prop.M^-d t 
 Alexandria, when he was probably not much of assimilation to <i<Kl, b'; 
 more than 30 years old and still a lavmaii, means. Bv Ihr unrrasing.i 
 but there isno reason to think thathemodihrd, Son. and Holy Spirit tow.i 
 in any important respects, the views he uii- ,•.»< h succ«-ssivr stage of ..in 
 folds in it. It was not written for simple be able, he says, with dilli' 
 believers but for scholars— for those who some fulurr timr, to |.«.k 
 were familiar with the teaching of < Gnosticism 
 and Platonism ; and with a view to questions 
 which then first became urgent when men 
 have risen to a wide view of nature and life. 
 Non-Christian philosophers moved in a region 
 of subtle abstractions, " ideas" : Origen felt 
 
 .nd 
 
 blessed life ; ancl when on< r wr h«vr l»rrn 
 rnable<l to rra< h that, aftrr many »lrui:iclrs, 
 we ought »o to conlinur in It that n'> wrarmr^* 
 may take hold on u». Earh frrsh rnjovnirni 
 of that bliss ought to drrprn our drsue for 
 I ; while we are rvrr rr<eiving. with mofr 
 
 that Christianity converted these abstr.ictions .,r,ip„t l-.ve and largrr grasp, ihr Father and 
 
 into realities, persons, facts of a eomplele 
 
 life ; and he strove to express what he felt in 
 
 the modes of thought and languagr of his own 
 
 age. He aimed at |)resenting the highest 
 
 knowledge {yvCxrn) as an objrclivr systmi. 
 
 But in doing this he had nc) intention «>f 
 
 fashioning two Cliristianities, a ( hristianily . i-o 
 
 for the learned ancl a Christianity for Ihr I h« 
 
 simple. The faith was c)ne, one essentially ji.,.,.; ,,,.,,, ; .,;... :»*• 
 
 and imalterably, but infinite in fullness, so that *pond», in hi> judgment, with the mc be h«» 
 
 the Son and thr H-'ly Spirit 1. ^^■ 
 
 
 But it willl..•^...I tl. .t l).i^• 1.1m n 
 
 f pr'>- 
 
 grrss, rflorl. . 
 
 %%*• 
 
 bllitV of drrl.! 
 
 •i'>n 
 
 of Ihr diviM'- ■ 
 
 >.rd 
 
 
 the 
 
780 
 
 0RI6ENES 
 
 made of the revelations and gifts of God. No 
 beings were created immutable. Some by 
 diligent obedience have been raised to the 
 loftiest places in the celestial hierarchy ; 
 others by perverse self-will and rebellion have 
 sunk to the condition of demons. Others 
 occupy an intermediate place, and are capable 
 of being raised again to their first state, and 
 so upward, if they avail themselves of the 
 helps provided by the love of God. " Of 
 these," he adds, " I think, as far as I can form 
 an opinion, that this order of the human race 
 was formed, which in the future age, or in the 
 ages which succeed, when there shall be a new 
 heaven and a new earth, shall be restored to 
 that unity which the Lord promises in His 
 intercessoryprayer. . . . Meanwhile, both in the 
 ages which are seen and temporal, and in 
 those which are not seen and eternal, all 
 rational beings who have fallen are dealt with 
 according to the order, the character, the 
 measure of their deserts. Some in the first, 
 others in the second, some, again, even in the 
 last times, through greater and heavier suffer- 
 ings, borne through many ages, reformed by 
 sharper discipline, and restored . . . stage by 
 stage . . . reach that which is invisible and 
 eternal . . ." Only one kind of change is im- 
 possible. There is no such transmigration of 
 souls as Plato pictured, after the fashion of the 
 Hindoos, in the legend of Er the Armenian. 
 No rational being can sink into the nature of a 
 brute (i. 8, 4 ; cf. c. Cels. iv. 83). 
 
 The progress of this discussion is interrupted 
 by one singular episode characteristic of the 
 time. How, Origen asks, are we to regard 
 the heavenly bodies — the sun and moon and 
 stars ? Are they the temporary abodes of 
 souls which shall hereafter be released from 
 them ? .\re they finally to be brought into 
 the great unity, when " God shall be all in 
 all"? The questions, he admits, are bold; 
 but he answers both in the affirmative, on what 
 he held to be the authority of Scripture (i. 7 ; 
 cf. c. Cels. V. 10 f.). 
 
 In bk. ii. Origen pursues, at greater length, 
 his view of the visible world, as a place of dis- 
 cipline and preparation. He follows out as a 
 movement what he had before regarded as a 
 condition. The endless variety in the situa- 
 tions of men, the inequality of their material 
 and moral circumstances, their critical spiritual 
 differences, all tend to shew, he argues, that 
 the position of each has been determined in 
 accordance with previous conduct. God, in 
 His ineffable wisdom, has united all together 
 with absolute justice, so that all these creatures 
 most diverse in themselves, combine to work 
 out His purpose, while " their very variety 
 tends to the one end of perfection." All 
 things were made for the sake of man and 
 rational beings. Through man, therefore, 
 this world, as God's work, becomes complete 
 and perfect (cf. c. Cels. iv. 99). The individual 
 is never isolated, though never irresponsible. 
 At every moment he is acting and acted upon, 
 adding something to the sum of the moral 
 forces of the world, furnishing that out of 
 which God is fulfilling His purpose. The 
 difficulties of life, as Origen regards them, 
 give scope for heroic effort and loving service. 
 The fruits of a moral victory become more 
 permanent as they are gained through harder 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 toil. Obstacles and hindrances are incentives 
 to e.xertion. Man's body is not a " prison," 
 in the sense of a place of punishment only : 
 it is a beneficent provision for discipline, fur- 
 nishing such salutary restraints as are best 
 fitted to further moral growth. 
 
 This view of the dependence of the present 
 on the past — to use the forms of human 
 speech — seemed to Origen to remove a diffi- 
 culty which weighed heavily upon thoughtful 
 men then as now. Very many said then that 
 the sufferings and disparities of life, the con- 
 trasts of law and gospel, point to the action of 
 rival spiritual powers, or to a Creator limited 
 by something external to Himself (ii. 9, 5). 
 Not so, was Origen's reply ; they simply re- 
 veal that what we see is a fragment of a vast 
 system in which we can only trace tendencies, 
 consequences, signs, and rest upon the historic 
 fact 9f the Incarnation. In this respect he 
 ventured to regard the entire range of being 
 as " one thought " answering to the absolutely 
 perfect will of God, while " we that are but 
 parts can see but part, now this, now that." 
 This seems to be the true meaning of his 
 famous assertion, that the power of God in 
 creation was finite and not infinite. It would, 
 that is, be inconsistent with our ideas of per- 
 fect order, and therefore with our idea of the 
 Divine Being, that the sum of first existences 
 should not form one whole. " God made all 
 things in number and measure." The omni- 
 potence of God is defined (as we are forced to 
 conceive) by the absolute perfections of His 
 nature. "He cannot deny Himself" (ii. 9, 
 I, iv. 35). It may be objected that our diffi- 
 culties do not lie only in our present circum- 
 stances ; the issues of the present, so far as 
 we can see them, bring difficulties no less over- 
 whelming ; even if we allow this world to be 
 a fit place of discipline for fallen beings cap- 
 able of recovery, it is only too evident that 
 the discipline does not always work amend- 
 ment. Origen admits the fact, and draws 
 the conclusion that other systems of penal 
 purification and moral advance follow. World 
 grows out of world, so to speak, till the con- 
 summation is reached. The nature, position, 
 or constitution of the worlds to come he does 
 not attempt to define. It is enough to believe 
 that, from first to last, the will of Him Who is 
 most righteous and most loving is fulfilled ; 
 and that each loftier region gained is the 
 entrance to some still more glorious abode 
 above, so that all being becomes, as it were, in 
 the highest sense a journey of the saints from 
 mansion to mansion up to the very throne of 
 God. To make this view clear Origen follows 
 out, in imagination, the normal course of the 
 progressive training, purifying, and illumina- 
 tion of men in the future. He pictures them 
 passing from sphere to sphere, and resting in 
 each so as to receive such revelations of the 
 providence of God as they can grasp ; lower 
 phenomena are successively explained to them, 
 and higher phenomena are indicated. As they 
 look backward old mysteries are illuminated ; 
 as they look forward unimagined mysteries 
 stir their souls with divine desire. Every- 
 where their Lord is with them, and they 
 i advance from strength to strength through the 
 ' perpetual supply of spiritual food. This food, 
 1 he says, is the contemplation and understand- 
 
ORIGENBS 
 
 ing of God, acconliii^ to its proper luiMsurr in 
 each case, and as suits a nature whirh is uiadr 
 and created. And this measure— this due 
 harmony and proportion between aim and 
 power— it is riijht that every one should re- 
 gard even now. who is beKinninK to see (iml. 
 that is. to understand Mim in puritv of heart 
 (ii. 11. 6f.). But Orijsen K'H-s on to shew 
 
 that Scripture concentrates our attention upon 
 the next scene, summed up in the words, 
 resurrection. judKment. retribution. Nowhere 
 is he more studiously anxious to keep to the 
 teaching of the Wonl than in dealiuK with 
 these cardinal ideas. For him the resurrection 
 is not the reproduction of any particular 
 organism, but the preservation of complete 
 Identity of person, an identity maintained 
 under new conditions, which he presents 
 under the apostolic tigure of the growth of 
 the plant from the seed : the seed is com- 
 mitted to the earth, perishes, and yet the-vital 
 power it contains gathers a new frame answer- 
 ing to its proper nature. Judgment is no 
 limited and local act. but the unimpeded 
 execution of the absolute divine law by which 
 the man is made to feel what he is and what he 
 has become and to bear the inexorable conse- 
 quences of the revelation. Punishment is no 
 vengeance, but the just severity of a righteous 
 King, by which the soul is placed at least on 
 the way to puritication. Blessedness is no 
 sensuous joy or indolent repose, but the open- 
 ing vision of the divine glory, the growing 
 insight into the mysteries of the fulfilment of 
 the divine counsels. 
 
 In bk. iii. Origen discusses the moral basis 
 of his system. This lies in the recognition 
 of free will as the inalienable endowment of 
 rational beings. But this free will does not 
 carry with it the power of independent action, 
 but only the power of receiving the help which 
 is extended to each according to his capacity 
 and needs and therefore justly implying re- 
 sponsibility for the consequences of action. 
 Such free will offers a sufficient explanation, 
 in Origen's judgment, for what we sec and 
 gives a stable foundation for what we hope. 
 It places sin definitely within the man him- 
 self, not without him. It preserves the 
 possibility of restoratif)n, while it enforces 
 the penalty of failure. " ' G>>d said,' so he 
 writes, ' let us make man in our image after 
 our likeness.' Then the sacred writer adds, 
 ' and God made man : in the image of Gf>d 
 made He him.' This therefore that he says, 
 ' in the image of God made He him,' while 
 he is silent as to the likeness, has no other 
 meaning than this, that man received the 
 dignity of the image at his first creation : 
 while the perfection of the likeness is kept in 
 the consummation (of all things) ; that is, 
 that he should himself gain it by the efforts of 
 his own endeavour, since the possibility of 
 perfection had been given him at the first . . ." 
 (iii. 6, 1). Such a doctrine, he shews, gives 
 a deep solemnity t'> the moral conflicts of life. 
 Wc cannot, even to the last, plead that we are 
 the victims of circumstances or of evil spirits. 
 The decision in each case rests with ourselves, 
 yet so that all we have and arc truly i» the 
 gift of (iod. Each soul obtains from the 
 object of its love the power to ful61 His will. 
 " It draws and takes to itself." he say* in 
 
 ORIOBNBS 
 
 7fll 
 
 an.ithcr place. " thr Word of G.hI in Pri>|H4'> 
 ti.in to it* cap4. itv and faith ,\iid when 
 souls have drawn to lheni*elve« the W<fd t>| 
 (•«hI, and have ). t lliin i i n. K itr tl.rit >rn»r« 
 and their iiikI' . i\nt 
 
 the sweetiirss .«i|h 
 
 vigour and ,Mrr 
 
 him" (lit I um I I (ar 
 
 from tending to I'l I re- 
 
 futation of it. It lav r..| 
 
 freedom is .ibs im. .,,^\ tht< 
 
 power of riglii iJic jM.wrr 
 
 of li.Kl. l-\. .tolafrrr 
 
 being, but n.i . . il done 
 
 without depeiiilnii !• ui u ' ■ '-r in 
 
 ilesj>ite of freedom, resp. i tiut 
 
 under adverse crutstraint. I ir..m 
 
 inoinent t'> moment rests wiih n> lui n t the 
 end. That is determine<l from the firtt. Ihouih 
 the conduct of rre.»tnr«-* r.ui «l'-liv. (hr-UKh 
 untoUl ages, the en ' " •'in|t«. 
 
 The gift of being. ■ i \rr. 
 
 The rational cre.iti:! ^kc. 
 
 of better and worse. : .: .; .*.<• to 
 
 be. What mysteries In- U-liind , wlul i« the 
 nature of the spiritual IxkIv in whi< h we thall 
 be clothed ; whether all that is finite »hall b* 
 gathered up in some unspeakable way into 
 the absolute. — that Origen hold* i* t><>yond our 
 minds to conceive. 
 
 Bk. iv. deals with the dogmatic basl» o! 
 Origen's system. For this to f..ll.,w the moral 
 b.isis is unusual and yet intelligible. It movr» 
 from the universal to the special ; from the 
 most abstract to the most concrete; from 
 the heights of speculation to the rule of 
 authority. " In investigating such great »ul>- 
 jects as these," Origen writes. " we arc not 
 (ontent with common ide.is and the dear 
 evidence of what we see. but we lake le»ti- 
 monies to prove what we state, even lho»* 
 which are drawn from the Scripture* which 
 we believe to be divine" (iv. i). Therefore, 
 in conclusion, he examines with a reverence, 
 insight, humility, and grandeur of feelinK 
 never surpassed, the questions of the inspira- 
 I tion and interpretation of the Bible. The 
 intellectual value of the work may l)e*t Ixr 
 characterized by <>nc fact. A single »entenrc 
 i from it was quoted by Butler as containing 
 the germ of his Analogy. 
 
 Before he left .\lexandria Origen wrote ten 
 
 books r,f Mucellanus {Irpu-tiartit : cf. F.u*. 
 
 //. £.vi. i8). In these he apparentlvdl»cu»»cd 
 
 I various topics in the light of ancient philo»c>- 
 
 1 phy and Scripture (Hier«». hf- ad Sl»i;n. 
 
 \xx. 4). The three fragment* which remain. 
 
 in a Latin translati.in. give no tufficient idea 
 
 of their content*. The first, from bk. vl.. 
 
 touch<-s on the permissibility of drflrrtion 
 
 I fr iin literal truth, fo||..wiiig .m a rnnafk of 
 
 I'lato (Hieron. adv. Kuf. i. S ,h ,1 H.-m. ilx. 
 
 in JcT. S 7. ""»"• "• ' ' T**" 
 
 second, fr^'lll bk. X .rontan ■ the 
 
 history of Susanna and \ \i\.) 
 
 added bv Jerome t" (■' < The 
 
 third, also from bk ^ MLki 
 
 of (.al. V. II. whi. 1 'lual 
 
 understanding "' ! <tivc» 
 
 (\\irT><t\. ad loc .: li. in }(f \\ \\M .ifl). 
 
 The l.ettfT III Jttltui Alutanutom Ikt Httloty 
 of bu\anna (Dan. xiii.) contain* a frplv l<> 
 , objcctiuii* which Juliu* urged a|tain»l lh« 
 
782 
 
 0RI6ENES 
 
 authenticity of the history of Susanna and 
 offers a crucial and startling proof of Origen's 
 deficiency in historical criticism. Africanus 
 pointed out, from its plays upon words among 
 other things, that the writing must have been 
 Greek originally, and that it was not con- 
 tained in the " Hebrew " Daniel. To these 
 arguments Origen answers that he had in- 
 deed been unable {<l>i-^V yap t] dXrjdeia) to find 
 Hebrew equivalents to the paronomasias 
 quoted, but that they may exist ; and that 
 the Jews had probably omitted the history to 
 save the honour of their elders. It must be 
 allowed that right lies with the aged Africanus, 
 who could address Origen as " a son," and 
 whose judgment was in the spirit of his own 
 noble saying : " May such a principle never 
 prevail in the church of Christ that falsehood 
 is framed for His praise and glory" (Fragm. 
 ap. Routh, R. S. ii. 230). 
 
 C. The Eight Books against Celsus. — The 
 earlier apologists had been called upon to 
 defend Christianity against the outbursts of 
 popular prejudice, as a system compatible 
 with civil and social order. Origen, in this 
 work, entered a far wider field. It was his 
 object to defend the faith against a compre- 
 hensive attack, conducted by critical, histori- 
 cal, and philosophical, as well as by political, 
 arguments. He undertook the work very un- 
 willingly, at the urgent request of Ambrose, 
 but, once undertaken, he threw into it the 
 whole energy of his genius. Celsus was a 
 worthy opponent, and Origen allows him to 
 state his case in his own words, and follows 
 him step by step in the great controversy. 
 At first Origen proposed to deal with the 
 attack of Celsus in a general form ; but after 
 i. 27 he quotes the objections of Celsus, in the 
 order of their occurrence, and deals with them 
 one by one, so that it is possible to recon- 
 struct the work of Celsus, in great part, from 
 Origen's quotations. It would be difficult to 
 overrate the importance both of attack and 
 defence in the history of religious opinion in 
 the 2nd and 3rd cents. The form of objec- 
 tions changes ; but every essential type of 
 objection to Christianity finds its representa- 
 tive in Celsus's statements, and Origen suggests 
 in reply thoughts, often disguised in strange 
 dresses, which may yet be fruitful. No outUne 
 can convey a true idea of the fullness and 
 variety of the contents of the treatise. Speak- 
 ing broadly, the work falls into three parts — 
 the controversy on the history of Christianity 
 (bks. i. ii.), the controversy on the general 
 character and idea of Christianity (bks. iii.-v.), 
 the controversy on the relations of Christianity 
 to philosophy, popular religion, and national 
 life (bks. vi.-viii.). There are necessarily many 
 repetitions, but in the main this appears to 
 represent the course of the argument. The 
 lines were laid down by Celsus : Origen 
 simply followed him. 
 
 After some introductory chapters (i. 1-27), 
 dealing with a large number of miscellaneous 
 objections to Christianity as illegal, secret, of 
 barbarous origin, inspired by a demoniac 
 power, an offshoot of Judaism, Origen meets 
 Celsus's first serious attack, directed against 
 the Christian interpretation of the gospel 
 history. In this case Celsus places his argu- 
 ments in the mouth of a Jew. The character, I 
 
 ORIOENES 
 
 as Origen points out, is not consistently main- 
 tained, but the original conception is ingeni- 
 ous. A Jew might reasonably be supposed to 
 be the best critic of a system which sprang 
 from his own people. The chief aim of the ob- 
 jector is to shew that the miraculous narra- 
 tives of the Gospels are untrustworthy, incon- 
 clusive in themselves, and that the details of 
 the Lord's life, so far as they canbe ascertained, 
 furnish no adequate support to the Christian 
 theory of His person. The criticism is wholly 
 external and unsympathetic. Can we sup- 
 pose, Celsus asks, that He Whowas God would 
 be afraid and flee to Egypt (i. 66) ? could 
 have had a body like other men (i. 69, ii. 36) ? 
 would have lived a sordid, wandering life, 
 with a few mean followers (i. 62) ? have borne 
 insults without exacting vengeance (ii. 35) ? 
 have been met with incredulity (ii. 75) ? have 
 died upon the cross (ii. 68) ? have shewn 
 Himself only to friends if He rose again (ii. 
 63) ? He repeats the Jewish story of the 
 shameful birth of Christ, and of His educa- 
 tion in Egypt, where Celsus supposes that He 
 learned magical arts by which He imposed 
 upon His countrymen. These illustrations suf- 
 ficiently shew the fatal weakness of Celsus's 
 position. He has no eye for the facts of the 
 inner life. He makes no effort to apprehend 
 the gospel offered in what Christ did and was, 
 as a revelation of spiritual power ; and Origen 
 rises immeasurably superior to him in his vin- 
 dication of the majesty of Christ's humiliation 
 and sufferings (i. 29 ff.). He shews that Christ 
 did " dawn as a sun " upon the world (ii. 30), 
 when judged by a moral and not by an ex- 
 ternal standard (ii. 40) ; that He left His dis- 
 ciples the abiding power of doing " greater 
 works" than He Himself did in His earthly 
 life (ii. 48) ; that the actual energy of Chris- 
 tianity in regenerating men,"* was a proof that 
 He Who was its spring was more than man 
 (ii. 79). In bk. iii. and following books Celsus 
 appears in his own person. He first attacks 
 Christianity as being, hke Judaism, originally 
 a revolutionary system, based upon an idle 
 faith in legends no more credible than those 
 of Greece (iii. 1-43) ; then he paints it in 
 detail as a religion of threats and promises, 
 appealing only to the ignorant and sinful, 
 unworthy of wise men, and, in fact, not 
 addressed to them, even excluding them 
 (iii. 44-81). Here again Origen has an easy 
 victory. He has no difficulty in shewing that 
 no real parallel can be established between 
 the Greek heroes (iii. 22), or, as Celsus sug- 
 gested, Antinous (iii. 36 ff.) and Christ. On 
 the other side he can reply with the power of 
 a life-long experience, that while the message 
 of the gospel is universal and divine in its 
 universality, " education is a way to virtue," 
 a help towards the knowledge of God (iii. 45, 
 49, 58, 74), contributory, but not essentially 
 supreme. But he rightly insists on placing 
 the issue as to its claims in the moral and not 
 in the intellectual realm. Christians are the 
 proof of their creed. They are visibly trans- 
 formed in character : the ignorant are proved 
 wise, sinners are made holy (iii. 51, 64, 78 ff.). 
 Bks. iv. and v. are in many respects the 
 most interesting of all. In these Origen meets 
 
 * Seen, for example, in one like St. Paul, of whom 
 Celsus took no notice (i. 63). 
 
ORIOENES 
 
 i-'flsus's attack iii'.ii th.it which is the mitral 
 uiea of Christiamly, aiul iiidoi-d ••» liibhcal 
 revelation, the Cuiuiiij; of i.iKf. This iieccs- 
 s.irily includes the discussion of the liihlical 
 \ lew of man's relation to (iod and nature. 
 
 i he contentions of Celsus are that there can 
 be no sullicient cause and no adetinate end for 
 "a coming of CM" (iv. i-j.S); that the 
 account of C'.ikI's dealings with men in the O.T. 
 is obviously incredible (iv. J9-50) ; that 
 nature is fixed, even as to the amount of evil 
 
 iv. 62); and that n»an is presumptuous in 
 > laiming a superiority over what he calls irra- 
 tional animals (iv. 54-9g). In especial he 
 dwells on the irrationality of the belief of a 
 ■ miing of lioii to judgment (v. 1-24) ; and 
 maintains that there is a divine order in the 
 distribution of the world among ditlerent 
 nations, in which the Jews have no preroga- 
 tive (v. 25-50). On all grounds therefore, he 
 concludes, the claims of Christianity to be a 
 universal religion, based on the coming t>f 
 Ciod to earth, are absurd. In treating these 1 
 arguments Origen had a more arduous work 
 than hitherto. The time had not then come ; 
 — probably it has not come yet — when such ^ 
 far-reaching objections could be completely 
 met ; and Origen was greatly embarrassed by 
 his want of that historic sense which is essen- 
 tial to the apprehension of the order of the 
 divine revelations. His treatment of the 
 O.T. narratives is unsatisfactory ; and it is 1 
 remarkable that he does not apply his own j 
 views on the unity of the whole plan of being, 
 as grasped by man, in partial explanation at j 
 least of the present mysteries of life. They 
 underlie indeed all he says ; and much that ' 
 he urges in detail is of great weight, as his 
 remarks upon the conception of a divine 
 coming (iv. 5 ff., 13 f.), the rational dignity of 
 man (iv. 13, 23 fi., 30), the anthropopathic 
 language of Scripture (iv. 71 flf.), and on the 
 resurrection (v. 16 fi.). 
 
 In the last three books Origen enters again 
 upon surer ground. He examines Celsus's 
 parallels to the teai hing of Scripture on the 
 knowledge of (iod and the kingdom of heaven, 
 drawn from Gentile sources (vi. 1-23) ; and 
 after a digression on a mystical diagnosis of 
 some heretical sect, which Celsus had brought ' 
 forward as a specimen of Christian teaching 
 (yi. 24-40), he passes to the true teaching on [ 
 Satan and the Son of (...d and creation (vi. 
 41-65), and unfolds more in detail the doctrine 
 of a spiritual revelation through Christ (vi. 
 66-81). This leads to a vindication of the 
 O.T. prophecies of Christ (vii. 1-17), the com- 
 patibility of the two dispensations (vii. 18-26), 
 and the Christian idea of the future life (vii. 
 27-40). Celsus proposed to point Christians 1 
 to some better way, but Origen shews that he 
 has failed : the purity of Christians puts to 
 shame the lives of other men (vii. 41-61). 
 
 The remainder of the treatise is occupied , 
 with arguments as to the relations of Chris- 
 tianity to popular worship and (ivil duties. 
 Celsus urged that the " demons," the gcnls of 
 polytheism, might justly claim some worship, 
 as having been entrusted with certain ofhci-s 
 in the world (vii. 62-viii. 32) ; that the cir- 
 cumstances of life demand reasonable con- 
 fonnity to the established wi.rship. whi< h 
 includes what is true in the Christian faith 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 7as 
 
 (viii. j\.68); ih..t .i\il olK-dirn.r It par** 
 mount (vni. Og-rM. Uii|{rn irplir* in driall ; 
 and Hpeilally he khrw% that llir w..r%hlp ..| tio* 
 ii>Kl is the «>>*oln e ..1 trilr w>>l%lilp |\ll|. 12 I.) : 
 that (. hristiaiiltv h.i* a 1 ontuirol •ritjiiily at 
 belief. With will, h II.. straliKr .j liii.ii* .an b€ 
 put into < ..lilpatlv.ii (viii. \ » II I . thjt I hrlv 
 tiaiis d... Ill the n..l.|i-»l »«-ii»r. »up|-.tt the mil 
 powers by thrir livm. bv thrir pfuyrr*. by 
 their ..rganizatioii (viii. 7^). 
 
 The stiirit of the ari{Uiiirnt» .>n Ix.th udi-% U 
 ess«Mitially iiiodrm ; in the mode <>t Irratmnit 
 much is rharactrristu of the a|{e in whlrb Ihr 
 writers liveil. Tw.. ix.int* ..| vrrv ditlrrriil 
 nature will especially »trikr the *iudrnl. 
 First, the peculiar stress which OriKrn, tn 
 coiiiiiioii with other earlv wiii-rs. l.\s ii|>.>u 
 is.jlated passages of the pro) i ' > I', 
 
 generally; s<><-ondly, the ui. , liel 
 
 >vhi( h he, in cmunoii with 1 . . lu 
 
 the claims of magic and .i<it.>ii> 1 >'. (>7. 
 iv. <>2 f., vii. <>7, viii. sH|. Hut when c\rry 
 deduction has been liiatle. II would not br 
 e.isy to point to a discussion ..I the claim* o| 
 Christianity more roinpreheii&ive or luorr rith 
 ill pregnant thought. .\in..ng earlv ap>>|>.Ki<^ 
 it has no rival. The constant prr«rncr of 4 
 real antagonist gives unflagging vigour to Ihr 
 debate ; and the conscious power of Origrii 
 lies in the aupeal which he could iiiakr to the 
 Christian life as the one unanswerable pr<H>l 
 of the Christian faith (. f. I'raf/. 2 ; i. 27. 67). 
 
 There are many other passages of great 
 interest and Worthy of stiidv apart from Ihr 
 context. Such are Origeii's rmiaiks <>n the 
 spirit of controversy (vii. 4«.) ; the iii..ral 
 power of Christianity, its universality, and its 
 fitness for man (ii. (>4, iii. 28, 40, 54, 02, 
 iv. 26, vii. 17, 35. 42. yt) ; forrkiiowlrOgr 
 (ii. ig ff.) ; tlie anthropoiiiorphisiii of Stri(>- 
 ture (vi. l>0 ff.) ; the beaiitv of the ideal hop* 
 of the Christian (iii. Hi) ; the ideal ..f worship 
 (viii. 17 f., vii. 44) ; the divisions of Chriv 
 tians (iii. 12 f., v. 61) ; spiritual fellowship 
 (viii. 64) ; and future unity (viii. 72). 
 
 D. Fkactical WokKs.— Origen* essay On 
 Prayer was addressed to .Ambrose andTatiaiia 
 (ipiXofiaO^ararfH Aat *;rv<riurraro( <'r tfto>J^f■U^^ 
 dSiX^oi. c. 33), in answer to their iiitjuiries at 
 to the efficat y, manner, subject, and circum- 
 stances of prayer. No writing of Origrn it 
 more free from his chara. lerisiu faults or 
 more full of beautiful thoughts. Mr rxaiuilirt 
 first the meaning and us*- of lix*! Ii i>. and 
 the objections urged against the rtticacV of 
 prayer, that dod foreknows ih.- lutuK and 
 that all things take place . Hi* 
 
 will (§ 5). Divine forckn-jw I Uv 
 
 points out, take away mai. tv: 
 
 the m.iral attitude of prav.i 1 ii. it -<^11 a 
 sufficient blessing upon it (|t <> II ). Waver 
 establishes an active rommunioii brlwrro 
 Christ and the angrU in heaven itt 10 I I ; 
 and the dutv of pravrr is riiforfrd bv lb« 
 example of t hrist an.l the saints itl I \ t). 
 I'rayer must be addressed t'> <.«*1 only, " our 
 Father in heaven," and not to Chiul the S»«a 
 as apart from the Father, but lo the Fallirr 
 through Him (| i^)- 
 
 Tht hihorlatton lo .UarlytJom.— la Ihr 
 persecution of .Maxiiiiin {2^*,^2^7\ Anibfot* 
 and The'rf^trtus. a pretbvtrr <•! Cartarra. wrrr 
 thrown iuto priton. Origen addrc»»«d tbctu 
 
784 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 in a book written from his heart : as a boy and 
 as an old man he looked face to face on martyr- 
 dom. Their sufferings, he tells them, are a 
 proof of their maturity (c. i), and in some 
 sense the price of future blessedness (2), for 
 which man's earthly frame is unfitted (3 ff.)- 
 The denial of Christ, on the other hand, is the 
 most grievous wrong to God (6 ff.). Believers 
 are indeed pledged to endurance, which will 
 be repaid with unspeakable joys (12 ff.). 
 Moreover, they are encouraged in their trials 
 by the thought of the unseen spiritual wit- 
 nesses by whom they are surrounded in the 
 season of their outward sufferings (18 ff), and 
 by the examples of those who have already 
 triumphed (22 ff.). By martyrdom man can 
 shew his gratitude to God (28 f.), and at the 
 same time receive afresh the forgiveness of 
 baptism, offering, as a true priest, the sacrifice 
 of himself (30 ; cf. Horn. vii. in Jud. 2). So 
 he conquers demons (32). The predictions 
 of the Lord shew that he is not forgotten 
 (34 ff.), but rather that through affliction is 
 fulfilled for him some counsel of love (39 ff.), 
 such as the union of the soul with God when 
 freed from the distractions of life (47 ff.). 
 Perhaps, too, the blood of martyrs may have 
 gained others for the truth (50, rdxa. r TLfxlui 
 a'i/xari tiov fxaprvpuiv ayopadrjcrot'Tai rives : cf. 
 Horn, in Num. x. 2 ; c. Cels. viii. 44). 
 
 E. Critical Writings. [Hexapla.] 
 
 F. Letters. — Eusebius, as already stated, 
 had made a collection of more than 100 of 
 Origen's letters {H. F. vi. 36, 2). Of these 
 two only remain entire, those to Julius Afri- 
 canus (already noticed) and Gregorv of Neo- 
 caesarea, and of the remainder the fragments 
 and notices are most meagre. In one frag- 
 ment (Delarue, i. p. 3, from Suidas, s.v.) 
 he gives a lively picture of the incessant 
 labour which the zeal of Ambrose imposed 
 upon him. Another fragment of great interest, 
 preserved by Eusebius, contains a defence of 
 his study of heathen philosophy (H. E. vi. 19). 
 An important passage of a letter to friends at 
 Alexandria, complaining of the misrepresenta- 
 tions of those who professed to recount con- 
 troversies they had held with him, has been 
 preserved in a Latin trans, by Jerome and 
 Rufinus (Delarue, i. p. 5). 
 
 Gregory was as yet undecided as to his pro- 
 fession when the letter to him was written 
 (c. 236-237 : cf. pp. loi f.). Origen expresses 
 his earnest desire that his " son " will devote 
 all his knowledge of general literature and the 
 fruits of wide discipline to Christianity (c. i). 
 He illustrates this use of secular learning by 
 the " spoiling of the Egyptians " (c. 2) ; and 
 concludes his appeal by a striking exhortation 
 to Gregory to study Scripture. 
 
 G. The Philocalia. — To this admirable 
 collection of extracts from Origen's writings 
 the preservation of many fragments of the 
 Greek text is due. A revised text with critical 
 intro. by Dr. J. A. Robinson is pub. by the 
 Carab. Univ. Press. The collection was made, 
 it appears, by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. 
 TheformersentittoTheodosius, bp. of Tyana, 
 c. 382, with a letter (Greg. Naz. Ep. cxv.) in 
 which he says : " That you may have some 
 memorial from us, and at the same time from 
 the holy Basil, we have sent you a small 
 Volume of the ' choice thoughts ' of Origen 
 
 ORI6ENES 
 
 (irvKTiov TTJs 'Qpiy^uovs ^iXoKaXias), contairl- 
 ing extracts of passages serviceable for scholars 
 (toIs <f>i\o\6yois). Be pleased to accept it, 
 and to give us some proof of its usefulness 
 with the aid of industry and the Spirit." The 
 Philocalia is of great interest, not only from 
 the intrinsic excellence of passages in it, but 
 as shewing what Catholic saints held to be 
 characteristic thoughts in Origen's teaching. 
 The book consists of xxvii. chaps., treating 
 of the following subjects : (i) The Inspiration 
 of divine Scripture. How Scripture should 
 be read and understood. (2) That divine 
 Scripture is closed and sealed. (3) Why the 
 Inspired Books [of O.T.] are 22. (4) The 
 solecism and poor style of Scripture. (5) What 
 is " much-speaking," and what are " many 
 books " ; and that inspired Scripture is one 
 Book. (6) That divine Scripture is one in- 
 strument of God, perfect and fitted (for its 
 work). (7) The special character (roO/SiwMaTot) 
 of the persons of divine Scripture. (8) The 
 duty of not endeavouring to correct the in- 
 accurate {ao\oiKO€Ldri) phrases of Scripture 
 and those not capable of being understood 
 according to the letter, seeing that they con- 
 tain deep propriety of thought for those who 
 can understand. (9) What is the reason that 
 divine Scripture often uses the same term in 
 different significations, and (that) in the same 
 place. (10) Passages in divine Scripture which 
 seem to involve difficulties. (11) That we 
 must seek the nourishment supplied by all 
 inspired Scripture, and not turn from the 
 passages {pvTd) troubled by heretics with ill- 
 advised difficulties {dvacp-rj/uLois tTrairopriaeffiv), 
 nor slight them, but make use of them also, 
 being kept from the confusion which attaches 
 to unbelief. (12) That he should not faint in 
 the reading of divine Scripture who does not 
 understand its dark riddles and parables. 
 
 (13) When and to whom the lessons of philo- 
 sophy are serviceable to the explanation of the 
 sacred Scriptures, with Scripture testimony. 
 
 (14) That it is most necessary for those who 
 wish not to fail of the truth in understanding 
 the divine Scriptures to know the logical prin- 
 ciples or preparatory discipline {ij.a6riiJi.aTa iJTOi 
 wpoTraideufjLaTa) which apply to their use. (15) 
 A. reply to the Greek philosophers who dis- 
 parage the poverty of the style of the divine 
 Scriptures and maintain that the noble truths 
 in Christianity have been better expressed 
 among the Greeks. (16) Of those who malign 
 Christianity on account of the heresies in the 
 church. (17) A reply to those philosophers 
 who say that it makes no difference if we call 
 Him Who is God over all by the name Zeus, 
 current among the Greeks, or by that used 
 by Indians or Egyptians. (18) A reply to the 
 Greek philosophers who profess universal 
 knowledge, and blame the simple faith (tA 
 dve^^TaffTov ttjs wlcrreus) of the mass of 
 Christians, and charge them with preferring 
 folly to wisdom in life ; and who say that no 
 wise or educated man has become a disciple 
 of Jesus. (19) That our faith in the Lord has 
 nothing in common with the irrational, super- 
 stitious faith of the Gentiles. . . . And in reply 
 to those who say, How do we think that Jesus 
 is God when He had a mortal body? (20) A 
 reply to those who say that the whole world 
 
ORIGENES 
 
 was mad.-, not f.<r man, but (.-r irrational 
 creaturi'S . . . who live with low |.>il than 
 men . . . and forfknv)w the Juturo. Whrrnn 
 is an argument against iransnuKration and 
 on augury. (21) Ot free will, with an explana- 
 tion of the savings of Scripture whirh seem to 
 deny it. (22) What is the dispersion of the 
 rational or human souls indicated under » 
 veil in the building of the Tower, and the con- 
 fusion of tongues. (2.0 On Fate, and the re- 
 conciliation of divine foreknowledge with 
 human freedom ; and how the stars do not 
 determine the affairs of men, but onlv indicate 
 them. (24) Of matter, that it is not uncxeated 
 (iyhfyiTOi) or the cause of evil. (25) That 
 the separation to a special work (Rom. i. 1) 
 from foreknowledge does not destroy free will. 
 (26) .\s to things good and evil. (27) On the 
 phrase, " He hardened Pharaoh's heart." 
 
 View of Christian Life. — The picture of 
 Christian life in Origen's writings is less com- 
 plete and vivid than we might expect. It 
 represents a society already sufficiently large, 
 powerful, and wealthy to offer examples of 
 popular vices. Origen contrasts the Chris- 
 tians of his own with those of an earlier time, 
 and pronounces them unworthv to bear the 
 name of " faithful " {Horn, tn Jer. iv. 3 ; cf. 
 in Malt. xvii. 24). Some Christians by birth 
 were unduly proud of their descent (in Malt. 
 XV. § 26). Others retained their devotion to 
 pagan superstitions — astrology, auguries, ne- 
 cromancy (in Josh. v. 6, vii. 4 ; cf. in .Malt. 
 ziii. § 6) and secular amusements [Horn, in 
 Lev. ix. 9, xi. i). There were many spiritual 
 " Gibeonites," men who gave liberal offerings 
 to the churches but not their lives {in Josh. x. 
 I, 3). The attendance at church services was 
 infrequent fin Josh. i. 7 ; Horn, in Gen. x. i, 3). 
 The worshippers were inattentive {Horn, in Ex. 
 xiii. 2) and impatient {Horn, tn Jud. vi. i). 
 Commercial dishonesty (in .Mall. xv. 13) and 
 hardness {Sel. in Job. p. 341 u) had to be re- 
 proved. Such faults call out the preacher's 
 denunciations in all ages. An evil more 
 characteristic of his age is the growing am- 
 bition of the clergy. High places in the 
 hierarchy were sought by favour and by gifts 
 {Horn, in .\um. xxii. 4 ; cf. in .Malt. xvi. 22 ; 
 Comm. Ser. §§ 9, 10, 12). Prelates endeav- 
 oured to nominate their kinsmen as their 
 successors (ib. xxii. 4) ; and shrank from 
 boldly rebuking vi^e lest they should lose the 
 favour of the i>i-opl<- (in Josh. vii. 6), using the 
 powers of discipline from passion rather than 
 with judgment (in .\falt. Comm. Ser. § 14), »o 
 that their conduct alreadv caused open scandal 
 (Horn, in Sum. ii. 17)- they too often forgot 
 humility at their ordination {Horn, in Eiech. 
 ix. 2). Thev despised the counsel of men of 
 lower rank, " not to speak of that of a layman 
 or a t;entile " {Hom. in Ex. xi. 6). Origen in 
 particular denounces the pride of the leading 
 men in the Christian society, whirh already 
 exceeded that of (ientilc tyrants, especially 
 in the more important cities (in .Matt. xvi. «). 
 
 Traces still remained in his time of the 
 miraculous endowments of the apottolic 
 church, which he had himself seen Ic. Celt. 
 ii. 8, iii. 24 ; in Joh. t. xx. 2H. rx*"» '"* 
 Xtf/iwoTtt ; cf. c. Cels. u 2). Hxorrism was 
 habitually practised (Horn, in Jos. xxlv. i). 
 Demons were expelled, many cures wrouf ht. 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 TliA 
 
 future event< r 
 
 »«b 
 
 the help ..r 11 
 
 *i. 
 
 III. y\ Mil. \' 
 
 of je«U»" »»a 
 
 JlttO 
 
 .IU*I 
 
 demon*, even w J»ci» 1. 
 
 lit. 
 
 
 
 1. ; n. v. 4)). 1 
 
 . u*t 
 
 be taken in coniun ' 
 
 1 ta 
 
 magir whirh he »lMir.i 
 
 ■ --tn- 
 
 porarie*. Hr appeal* un! 
 
 th« 
 
 cfhrary of inranlatlon* wit!. 
 
 red 
 
 name* (c I eU. i. aj. Iv. 11 " . • ' 
 
 in MM. 
 
 ( ..i»i»n. Ser. S no), and oiherwtte 
 t.> secret rule» {c. C*U. I. n . H»m 
 
 4rc<>rdtn4 
 
 ,m Sum, 
 
 xiii. 4 ; in Joi. XX fragm. x: '"■' 
 
 T :t ). 
 
 Origen »avs little of llir : 
 
 ri»- 
 
 tians to other b-nlirs in Ih- 
 
 !er- 
 
 |>enetration <1 • Hiiu n 
 
 i*nt 
 
 necessarily <x 
 
 :...*t 
 
 public cereii) 
 
 • tcf. 
 
 course. It .il 
 
 
 wards art, win. h « is .|r\ {r,\ \ 
 
 tl.r old 
 
 religion (c. Celt. 111. 56; d* Or*t. 17 
 
 and hod 
 
 not yet found anv place in - nr.r 
 
 It n with 
 
 Christian worship {c. Cth 
 
 t( U 
 
 remarkable that while On 
 
 uia- 
 
 cntly distinguished for his . ; the 
 
 claims of reason 1 1^. I. ij)atiu 1 • .. um. -..hilo- 
 sophy, as being the ripest Iriiit o| nian't 
 natural power* (rf. Horn, in Oen. xiv. y ; in 
 Ex. xi. 6) and not their corruption I Trnulhon). 
 he still verv rarely refer* to the literature •>! 
 secular wis<lom in hi* general writiiix* *> 
 ancillary to revelation. He even in »oroe 
 cases refers its origin to " the prinrr* of this 
 world " {d* I'nne. in. 3, a) ; an«l. in an inter- 
 esting outline of the course of (.entile educa- 
 tion, remarks that it may onlv acrumuUle 
 a wealth of sins {Horn. in. in i'%. xxxvi. 6). 
 But his directions for dealing with unl^lievers 
 are marked by the truest ciurtrsv iHom. *m 
 Ex. iv. i)). In spite of his ..wii <..ur4gr«.u» 
 enthusiasm, he cunsellcd pruilni. r in time* 
 
 of persecution (in \fi'' ^ 
 for such self-restraii.- 
 
 
 III. 
 
 a»ioiu 
 
 
 .11% 
 
 . For 
 
 Origen notices the ; 
 
 
 nt. 
 
 actlVQ 
 
 from the time of Tn i 
 
 .1 
 
 of Au<uv 
 
 tine, which referred wax 5, 
 
 iammn 
 
 , and 
 
 pestilences" to the spread of 
 
 thr 
 
 fai 
 
 Ih (•« 
 
 .Mall. Comm. Ser. S V< . t %;. . 
 
 .ill\ 
 
 hr 
 
 dwrlU 
 
 upon the animosity : 
 
 
 ^ uld 
 
 rather sec a criminal 
 
 
 
 ted 
 
 bv the rvid'-nr.. ..( 
 
 
 
 t6). 
 
 Of thr . V- • 
 
 
 
 . , to 
 
 gener.il • 
 
 
 My. 
 
 
 
 
 It was 
 
 m*. 
 
 espe< l.iii . ; 
 
 
 
 oit 
 
 the ChincMT. What. ).. 
 
 
 
 .!.«!) 
 
 we say of the Brit..n» ■•! 
 
 
 
 Ih« 
 
 Ocean, Dacians, Sariiiatian . 
 
 
 
 very 
 
 many of whom haven, .t vrt hr^j 
 
 .Ml 
 
 r » 
 
 »d?" 
 
 (lb. S Vt)- H»t *"'"'• inhabltaiiit of Hrilatn 
 
 and Mauritania held the IjuI // -• >n I m*. 
 
 vi.). Christian* geiierall-. Mic 
 
 ofhces, not from lark •>f I ■'»« 
 
 that thrV r .,!M ,rrvr t»:. ticf 
 
 throUK'l ■ M). 
 
 Thr tb« 
 
 Wholr I f»»l. 
 
 Who, ..s tr..- ........ t>rr. 
 
 »o that wiih.ut Mm. 4")- 
 
 In the wide*t wnw- ' -m 
 
 the Creation (in (an: .. , ,. , h • 
 view, which makes the citui«.ii i.^^Aleu%iV9 
 00 
 
786 
 
 0RI6ENES 
 
 with the existence of divine fellowship, carries 
 with it the corollary, that " without the church 
 there is no salvation " (Horn, in Jos. iii. 6). 
 Origen, as has been seen, shewed practically 
 his respect for the see of Rome, but he recog- 
 nized no absolute supremacy in St. Peter (in 
 Matt. xii. ii). He held indeed that he had 
 a certain pre-eminence (in J oh. t. xxxii. 5) 
 and that the church was founded on him 
 (Horn, in Ex. v. 4), but every disciple of 
 Christ, he affirms, holds in a true sense the 
 same position (Comm. in Matt. xii. 10). 
 
 Origen lays great stress upon the importance 
 of right belief (in Matt. t. xii. 23 ; Comm. 
 Ser. in Matt. § 33 ; de Orat. 29). As a yoimg 
 man he refused every concession to a mis- 
 believer in the house of his benefactress (Eus. 
 H. E. vi. 2). In later years he laboured suc- 
 cessfully to win back those who had fallen 
 into error. But his sense of the infinite great- 
 ness of the truth made him tolerant (c. Cels. 
 v. 63). Varieties of belief arose from the very 
 vastness of its object (ib. iii. 12) ; and his 
 discussion of the question, Who is a heretic ? 
 is full of interest (Fragm. in Ep. ad Tit.). 
 
 Casual notices in Origen's writings give a 
 fairly complete view of the current religious 
 observances. He speaks generally of stated 
 times of daily prayer, " not less than three " 
 (de Orat. 12), of the days they kept — " the 
 Lord's days (cf. Horn, in Ex. vii. 5 ; in Num. 
 xxiii. 4), Fridays, Easter, Pentecost " (c. Cels. 
 viii. 22 ; cf. Horn, in Is. vi. § 2) — and of the 
 Lenten, Wednesday, and Friday fasts (Horn, 
 in Lev. x. 2). Some still added Jewish rites 
 to the celebration of Easter (Horn, in Jer. xii. 
 13) and other traces remained of Judaizing 
 practices (ih. x. § 2). Jewish converts, Origen 
 says without reserve, " have not left their 
 national law " (c. Cels. ii. i, cf. § 3) ; though 
 he lays down that Christ forbade His disciples 
 to be circumcised (ib. i. 22 ; cf. v. 48). Chris- 
 tians, however, still abstained from " things 
 strangled " (ib. viii. 30) and from meat 
 offered to idols (ib. 24). Outward forms had 
 already made progress ; and the religion of 
 some consisted in "bowing their head to 
 priests, and in bringing offerings to adorn the 
 altar of the church" (Horn, in Jos. x. 3). 
 
 Baptism was administered to infants, " in 
 accordance with apostolic tradition " (in Rom. 
 V. § 9, p. 397 L. ; Horn, in Lev. viii. § 3 ; in Luc. 
 xiv.), in the name of the Holy Trinity (in Rom. 
 V. § 8, p. 383 L. ; cf. in Jo'h. t. vi. 17), with 
 the solemn renunciations " of the devil and of 
 his pomps, works, and pleasures " (Horn, in 
 Num. xii. 4). The unction (confirmation) does 
 not appear to have been separated from it (in 
 Rom. V. § 8, p. 381 : " omnes baptizati in 
 aquis istis visibiUbus et in chrismate visibili"). 
 The gift of the Holy Spirit comes only from 
 Christ, and Origen' held that it was given 
 according to His righteous will : " Not all 
 who are bathed in water are forthwith bathed 
 in the Holy Spirit" (Hom. in Num. iii. i). 
 Cf. also Sel. in Gen. ii. 15 ; Hom. in Luc. xxi. ; 
 de Princ. i. 2 ; and for the two sacraments, 
 Hom. in Num. vii. 2. Adult converts were 
 divided into different classes and trained with 
 great care (c. Cels. iii. 51). 
 
 Of the Holy Communion Origen speaks not 
 infrequently, but with some reserve (Hom. in 
 Lev. X. 10 ; in Jos. iv. i). The passages 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 which give his views most fully are in Joh. 
 xxxii. § 16 ; in Matt. xi. § 14 ; in Matt. Comm. 
 Ser. §§ 85 f. ; Hom. in Gen. xvii. 8 ; in Ex. 
 xiii. § 3 ; in Lev. ix. 10 ; in Num. xvi. 9. Cf. 
 c. Cels. viii. 33, 57 ; Hom. in Jud. vi. 2 ; Hom. 
 ii. in Ps. xxxvii. 6 ; Sel. in Ps. p. 365 L. The 
 ruling thought of his interpretation is sug- 
 gested by John vi. : " corpus Dei Verbi aut 
 sanguis quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum 
 quod nutrit et verbum quod laetificat ? " (in 
 Matt. Comm. Ser. § 85); "bibere autem 
 dicimur sanguinem Christi non solum sacra- 
 mentorum ritu sed et cum sermones ejus re- 
 cipimus in quibus vita consistit, sicut et ipse 
 dicit. Verba quae locutus sum spiritus et vita 
 est" (Hom. in Num. xvi. § 9 ; cf. xxiii. § 6). 
 The passage which is often quoted to shew 
 " a presence of Christ in the sacrament extra 
 usum," indicates nothing more than the 
 reverence which naturally belongs to the con- 
 secrated elements ("consecratum munus," 
 Hom. in Ex. xiii. 3). The kiss of peace was 
 still given " at the time of the mysteries " (in 
 Cant. i. p. 331 L.) " after prayers " (in Rom. 
 X. § 33) ; and the love- feast ('Ayd-m]) was suffi- 
 ciently notorious for Celsus to attack it (c. 
 Cels.i. i) ; but the practice of " feet-washing," 
 if it ever prevailed, was now obsolete (in Joh. 
 xxxii. § 7 ; Hom. in Is. vi. § 3). His use of 
 J as. v. 14, in Hom. in Lev. ii. 4, does not give 
 any support, as has been af&rmed, to the 
 practice of extreme unction. 
 
 The treatise On Prayer gives a vivid picture 
 of the mode and attitude of prayer. It was 
 usual to turn to the east (de Orat. 31 ; Hom. 
 in Num. v. § i). Standing and kneeling are 
 both recognized (de Orat. I.e. ; Hom. in Num. 
 xi. § 9 ; cf. in Sam. Hom. i. § 9). Forms of 
 prayer were used (Hom. in Jer. xiv. § 14) and 
 prayers made in the vernacular language of 
 each country (c. Cels. viii. 31). 
 
 Origen frequently refers to confession as 
 made to men and not to God only (Hom. in 
 Luc. xvii.; de Orat. 28; Hom. ii. in Ps. 
 xxxvii. § 6) ; and reckons penitence completed 
 by such confession to a " priest of the Lord " 
 as one of the modes for forgiveness of sins 
 (Hom. ii. in Lev. § 4). He speaks of public 
 confession (^^onoXdynffLi) to God as efficacious 
 (Hom. i. in Ps. xxxvi. § 5), a form of penitence 
 to be adopted after wise advice (ib. xxxvii. 
 § 6) ; and he supposes that the ef&cacy of 
 " the power of the keys " depends upon the 
 character of those who exercise it (in Matt. 
 t. xii. § 14). Discipline was enforced lay exclu- 
 sion from common prayer (in Matt. Comm. 
 Ser. § 89) ; and for more serious offences 
 penitence was admitted once only (Hom. in 
 Lev. XV. § 2). Cf. also what is said on " sin 
 unto death" (ib. xi. 2). Those who had 
 offended grievously after baptism were looked 
 upon as incapable of holding office (c. Cels. 
 iii. 51). 
 
 The threefold ministry is treated as uni- 
 versally recognized ; and Origen speaks of 
 presbyters as priests, and deacons as Levites 
 (Hom. in Jer. xii. 3I. The people were to be 
 present at the ordination of priests (Horn, in 
 Lev. vii. 3) and he recognizes emphatically the 
 priesthood of all Christians who "have been 
 anointed with the sacred chrism " (ib. ix. 9; 
 cf. Hom. in Num. v. 3 ; in Jos. vii. 2 ; cf. Exh. 
 ad Martyr. 30). Widows are spoken of as 
 
ORIGENES 
 
 having a di-ftuitc place in the church orxanica- 
 tion (Worn, in Is. vi. § 3; Horn, in Luc. «vii.) ; 
 yet nt>t apparently combined in any order (in 
 Rom. X. §§ 17. 20). 
 
 As yet no absolute rule existeil as to the reli- 
 bacy of the clergy. Ori»jen hinisrW was in- 
 clined to support it bv his own judgment [Horn. 
 in I.n'. vi. § 6). "No bishop, however, or 
 presbyter or deacon or widow ould marry a 
 second time" {Horn, in Luc. xvii.) : such 
 Origen held to be in a second class, not " o( 
 the church without spot " (I.e. ; but t(. note 
 on I. Cor. vii. 8). It was a sign of the dilh- 
 culties of the time that some " rulers of the 
 church " allowed a woman to n»arry again 
 while her husband (presumably a (ientile who 
 had abandoned her) was still living (iw A/a//, 
 t. xiv. § 23). Origoji's own example and 
 feeling were strongly in favour of a strict 
 and continent life (cf. c. Cels. vii. 48 ; Horn. 
 in Gen. v. 4), while he condemns false as- 
 ceticism (i« Matt. Comm. Set. § 10). He 
 enforces the duly of systematic almsgiving 
 (16. § 61) ; and niaintains that the law of 
 offering the firstfruits to i;<k1, that is to the 
 priests, is one of the .Mosaic precepts which 
 IS of perpetual obligation {Horn, in Sum. xi. 1 ; 
 cf. c. Cels. viii. 34). Usury is forbidden (Horn. 
 iii. in Ps. xxxvi. § 11). The rule as to foixl 
 laid down in Acts xv. 29 was still observed (in 
 Rom. ii. § 13, p. 128 L ; c. Cels. viii. 30). 
 
 The reverence of Christian burial is noticed 
 {Horn, in Lev. iii. § 3 ; c. Cels. viii. 30). 
 Military service Origen thinks uidawful for 
 Christians (c. Cels. v. 33, viii. 73), though he 
 seems to admit exceptit>ns (16. iv. 82). 
 
 Origen a.s Critic and Interpreter.— 
 Origen regarded the Bible as the source and 
 rule of truth {Horn, in Jer. i. § 7). Christ is 
 " the Truth," and they who are sure of this 
 seek spiritual knowledge from His very words 
 and teaching alone, given not only during His 
 earthly presence, but through Moses and the 
 prophets (de Princ. Praef. i). The necessary 
 points of doctrine were, Origen held, ci)mi>rised 
 by the apostles in a simple creed handed down 
 by tradition (16. ii.), but the fuller exhibition 
 of the mysteries of the gospel was to be sought 
 from the Scriptures. He made no sharp 
 division between O. and N. T. They must 
 be treated as one body, and we must be care- 
 ful not to mar the unity of the spirit which 
 exists throughout (in J oh. x. 13 ; cf. de Prtnc. 
 ii. 4). The divinity of the O.T. is indeed first 
 seen through Christ (de Prtnc. iv. i, 6). 
 
 (i) The Canon 0/ Scriplure.— In fixing the 
 contents of the collection of sacred bo<iks 
 Origen shews s<jme indecision. In regard to 
 O.T. he found a serious difference between 
 the Hebrew can-.n and the b<joks commonly 
 found in the Alexandrine (jrcek Bible. In 
 his Comm. on Ps. i. he gives a list of the 
 canonical books {ai i^iidtfrikoi (ii(i\<H) ac- 
 cording to the tradition of the Hebrew*, 32 
 in number (ap. Kus. H. E. vi. 2«;). In the 
 enumeration the book of the Twelve (minor) 
 Prophets is omitted by the error of Kusebius 
 or of his transcriber, for it is necessary to make 
 up the number; and the " Letter" (Uaruch 
 VI.) is added to Jeremiah, because (apparmtlv) 
 it occupied that position in Origen** cpy of 
 the LXX., f<jr there is im evidence that it wa» 
 ever included in the Hebrew Bible. The 
 
 ORIOBNBS 
 
 7H7 
 
 liiMkt of the Statiabeti. wl 1 ' ' ' " , » bur« 
 
 a Hebrew title, wrrr U'l Ii > fMV 
 
 Jm). Hut while Origrn tl .i*ry 
 
 place tolhrbooktof ihr H. !.. ~ . ^.. ,. ,.<■ rn- 
 pre*»ly defend*, in hi* Irtirr |.. AtriiaDiu. Ib« 
 u*e ••( the addition* (■•uod lit the AlrijiulriiM 
 I.XX. (rf. p. tli). He wj* uii«llllii« to 
 sacrifice anything *aii< ||.>nr<| by ru*l<>ni and 
 teiiiling to etiihradon. Hi* own ptarltr* 
 refle»-l» thi*<|..ul.lr vir« Mriir\,r. . f^r a* 
 we know, put V (hal 
 
 b.H.ksofO. 1 !.rm 
 
 a* having ... .. uilv 
 
 notes that tin it .luth lus ».is . n liiru^ro. 
 He .juotes the Uifok of hnrxkU. ( V/i v. jj; 
 de Prtnc. iv. j> ; Horn, in Sum. xivilt. 1), 
 the Prayer of Jaeph (in J oh. il. jj. »f rn 
 rfn}<iltTai), the Ai%umt>ttoH of Motet (Homt, 
 in Jos. ii. i), and the ,-lii/niion ol lututh (tt>.' 
 de Prtnc. iii. 2, 1 ; cf. in Matt. t. x. |H) ; anil 
 it is probably to l>o.>k«of ihit rU*« that ht* 
 interesting remarks on 'up<<ryphar' book* 
 in Prol. in Cant. p. 321 I., refer. 
 
 How far Origen wa» from any clear view of 
 the history of O.T. may l>e inferred from the 
 importance he assign* to the tradition of 
 Ezra's restoration of their text from memory 
 after the Babylonian captivity (Set. in Jer. 
 xi. p. 5 L. ; Set. in Ps. td. p. 371). 
 
 His testimony to the contents ' * ' 
 more decided. He notices the : 
 Were geiier.dly ai knowledgrd .1 
 un«]uestionable authoritv •'■ f ,.■■ 
 
 (the Acts •], I. Peter. I. J ../.#, 
 
 of St. Paul. To these he .. />«'. 
 
 for he seems to have been with 
 
 its absence from the Svri . lu*. 
 
 //.£". vi. 2.S). Inaiii.thii ived 
 
 only in the Latin trans. . t m. in 
 
 Jer vii. 1), he enumerates .ill tli- !■ Ws ■( the 
 received N.T., without addition <>t omi**i>>n. 
 as the trumpets by which the wall* <'| the 
 spiritual Jericho are to be overthrown (the 
 Pour Gospels. I. and //. Peter. James. JuJe, 
 the Epistles and Apocalypse ol St. John, the 
 Acts by St. Luke, fourteen Et'iilles of St. Paul). 
 This enumeration, though it cannot b« 
 receivetl without revrve, iiiav repre»rnt hi* 
 popular te<tching. In isolated notKc* he 
 speaks of the disputed Ixx.k* a* received by 
 st.me but not by all (Hebrews ; ap. Ku*. H. h. 
 vi 25 ; Ep. ad Afrtc. | «* , Jame* ; in Jok. 
 XIX. 6 ; //. Peter ; Hom. in Lev. iv. 4 ; JuJe ; 
 in Matt. t. X. 17. xvu. jo) , and he apparently 
 limited d.*trinal authority to the arkuow- 
 ledged books (Comm. Ser. in .Matt S 2»). 
 
 Origen quote* frequently and with lb* 
 greatest respect the shepherd of Hrinia* (#-f. 
 de Prtnc. 1. 3, 3, iv. 1 1 , in .Mail. I. ««v. 
 i 21 ; in Rom. x. 31. p. 4J7 I- I t He quote* 
 or refer* t.. the Ep. (I.) of < lememl. " a dl*(ipl« 
 of the apostle* " (de Prtnc. U. 3. . in lok. 
 t. vi. 36 ; Set. in Em. viil. j) ; " the < alkviu 
 Ep. of Barnabas " (c. Celt. I. 6j ; de Prime m. 
 a, 4 ; cf. Comm. in Rom. i. | iM). the Uoipti 
 according to the Hebrews (in J oh. t. U. 6, 
 
 • Not »pTt;i>lly lurotlufM^. but (n((ni'* amft to 
 dccblvr U-. I. 11 r :-«iit<io he AMtfortl lu It Th* 
 Ucit <.i .itiairt tbr tUogn u4 IIMlMC 
 
 to nty 
 
 t 11.. rarlau* (/•»!/« p tj»' i>*»« 
 
 Otkcu »:■-.. _.caUfy 00 lk« *»/*»*»i »• • !•»•• 
 
 dcdttclioa (>«>&> Um ward Uri^ t m ' ^ (M. I p. a*. lO- 
 
788 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 edi' Trpo(TieTai rts ; Horn, in Jer. xv. 4 ; in 
 Matt. t. XV. 14, Vet. int. Lat. ; cf. Hieron. 
 de Vir. III. 2), the Gospels " according to the 
 Egyptians," and " according to the XII. 
 Apostles," " according to Thomas," and " after 
 Matthias " (Horn, i in Luc, " Ecclesia quatuor 
 habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus 
 . . .," the Gospel according to Peter, the Book of 
 James [in Matt. x. 17, rod i-m-yeypajxixevov 
 Kara IJerpov evayyeXiov fj ttjs /3i'/3Xod 'IaKw/3oi'), 
 Peter's Preaching [in J oh. xiii. 17 ; de Princ. 
 Praef. 8, Petri doctrina), the Acts of Paul (in 
 Joh. XX. 12 ; de Princ. i. 2, 3), the Cletnentines 
 (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 77 ; in Gen. iii. § 14, 
 at irepioSoi), some form of the Acts of Pilate 
 (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 122), the Testaments of 
 the XII. Patriarchs (in Joh. xv. 6), the Teach- 
 ing of the Apostles (?) (Horn, in Lev. xi. 2). 
 
 Savings attributed to the Lord are given in 
 Matt. t. xiii. § 2, xvi. § 28 (Sel. in Ps. 
 p. 432 L and de Orat. §§ 2, 14, 16 ; cf. Matt, 
 vi. 33), xvii. § 31 ; in Jos. iv. 3. A few 
 traditions are preserved : in Matt. Comm. Ser. 
 § 126 (.A.dam buried on Calvary) ; ib. § 25 
 (death of the father of John Baptist) ; c. Cels. 
 i. 51 (the cave and manger at Bethlehem) ; 
 ib. vi. 75 (the appearance of Christ) ; Horn, 
 in Ezech. i. 4(thebaptism of Christin January). 
 
 Anonymous quotations occur, Horn, in Luc. 
 XXXV. ; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 61 ; Horn, in 
 Ezech. i. 5 ; in Rom. ix. § 2. 
 
 (2) The Text. — Origen had very little of the 
 critical spirit, in the modern acceptation of the 
 phrase. This is especially seen in his treat- 
 ment of Biblical texts. His importance for 
 textual criticism is that of a witness and not 
 of a judge. He gives invaluable evidence as 
 to what he found, but his few endeavours to 
 determine what is right, in a conflict of 
 authorities, are for the most part unsuccessful 
 both in method and result. Generally, how- 
 ever, he makes no attempt to decide on the 
 one right reading. He would accept all the 
 conflicting readings as contributing to edifica- 
 tion. Even his great labours on the Greek 
 translations of O.T. were not directed rigor- 
 ously to the definite end of determining the 
 authentic text, but mainly to recording the 
 extent and character of the variations. He 
 then left his readers to use their own judgment. 
 
 This want of a definite critical aim is more 
 decisively shewn in his treatment of N.T. 
 Few variations are more remarkable than 
 those in Heb. ii. 9 : x'^P"'' ^^°^ ^^"^ X'^P'S 
 6eov. Origen was acquainted with both, and 
 apparently wholly undesirous to choose be- 
 tween them ; both gave a good sense and that 
 was a sufficient reason for using both (in Joh. 
 t. i. 40 : fire 5^ X'^P'S ^f^ • ■ ■ f'^* X'^P'''"' • • • 
 ib. xxviii. 14 : the Latin of Comm. in Rom. 
 iii. § 8, v. § 7, sine Deo, is of no authority for 
 Origen's judgment). 
 
 His importance as a witness to the true 
 text of N.T. is, nevertheless, invaluable. Not- 
 withstanding the late date and scantiness of 
 the MSS. in which his Greek writings have 
 been preserved, and the general untrust- 
 worthiness of the Latin translations in points 
 of textual detail, it would be possible to deter- 
 mine a pure text of a great part of N.T. from 
 his writings alone (cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. 
 t. ii.). In some respects bis want of a critical 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 spirit makes his testimony of greater value 
 than if he had followed consistently an in- 
 dependent judgment. He reproduces the 
 characteristic readings which he found, and 
 thus his testimony is carried back to an 
 earlier date. At different times he used copies 
 exhibiting different complexions of text ; so 
 that his writings reflect the variations faith- 
 fully. But great care is required in using 
 the evidence which Origen's quotations 
 furnish. He frequently quotes from memory ; 
 combines texts ; and sometimes gives re- 
 peatedly a reading which he can hardly have 
 found in any MS. (e.g. I. John iii. 8,7e7^>'j'7jTai). 
 Illustrations of this perplexing laxity occur 
 in Hom. in Jer. i. 15 (Matt. iii. 12, xiii. 39) ; 
 ib. iv. 2, V. I (.\cts xiii. 26, 46) ; ib. iv. 4 
 (Luke xviii. 12) ; ib. v. i (Tit. iii. 5 f.). 
 
 (3) Interpretation. — Origen has been spoken 
 of as the founder of a new form of literature 
 in Biblical interpretation, and justly ; though 
 others, conspicuously Heracleon, preceded 
 him in expositions of Scripture more or less 
 continuous. Origen constantly refers to 
 previous interpretors, esp. to Heracleon. 
 
 Origen's method of interpreting Scripture 
 was a practical deduction from his view of the 
 inspiration of Scripture. This he developed 
 in the treatise On First Principles, bk. iv. He 
 regarded every " jot and tittle " as having 
 its proper work (Horn, in Jer. xxxix. fr. ep. 
 Philoc. c. X.). All is precious ; not even the 
 least particle is void of force (in Matt. t. 
 xvi. 12). Cf. Ep. ad Greg. § 3 ; in Joh. t. i. 
 § 4. Minute details of order and number veil 
 and yet suggest great thoughts (e.g. Sel. in 
 Pss. xi. 370, 377 l). It follows that in inter- 
 pretation there is need of great exactness and 
 care (in Gen. t. iii. p. 46 L. ; Philoc. xiv.) 
 and scrupulous study of details (in Joh. xx. 
 29). Origen illustrates his principles by count- 
 less subtle observations of great interest. 
 j His skill in combining passages from different 
 I parts of Scripture in illustration of some 
 ! particular phrase or detail is specially notice- 
 able. Each term calls up far-reaching associ- 
 I ations ; and all Scripture is made to contribute 
 j to the fullness of the thought to be expressed. 
 Though Origen's critical knowledge of He- 
 brew was slight, he evidently learnt much 
 from Hebrew interpreters and not unfrequent- 
 ly quotes Hebrew traditions and "Midrash." 
 He gives also an interpretation of " Corban " 
 I (in Matt. t. xi. 9) and of " Iscariot " (in Matt. 
 Comm. Ser. 78) from Jewish sources. 
 j To obviate the moral and historical diffi- 
 culties of O.T. he systematized the theory of 
 I a " spiritual sense,'' which was generally if 
 j vaguely admitted by the church (de Princ. i, 
 j Praef. 8). There is, he taught, generally, a 
 1 threefold meaning in the text of the Bible, 
 literal (historical), moral, mystical, corre- 
 sponding to the three elements in man's con- 
 stitution, bodv, soul, and spirit (de Princ. iv. 
 II ; Hom. in Lev. v. §§ i, 5). Thus Scripture 
 has a different force for different ages and 
 ■ different readers, according to their circum- 
 stances and capacities (in Rom. ii. § 14, p. 
 150 L.). But all find in it what they need. 
 This threefold sense is to be sought both 
 i in O. and N. T. The literal interpretation 
 ! brings out the simple precept or fact ; the 
 i moral meets the individual want of each 
 
ORIGBNES 
 
 believer ; the mvstii al lUmmuates (eaturra 
 ID the whole work of Kedrniption {Horn, m 
 Ltv. i. §§ 4 (.. ii. § 4 : <if Pnnt. iv. i j. n. jj). 
 There is then inunilolil iustruKion |or jll »>r- 
 lieveri in the precise »t4teinrnt, the ilehnition 
 of prartiral duties, the reveUti'n .•! thr ilix uir 
 plan, which the tcarher mutt endeavour t'> 
 bring out in his ex.inun.ili<>n o( the text. 
 Origen steadily krpt this ol>)ect in view. 
 
 It is easy to point <nit serious errors in d'-lail 
 in his interpretation <>( S<riplurr. On r' 
 there is iv^ need to dwell. His in.un 
 and the real source of his minor faults » 
 lack of true historic feeling. For him , . 
 phccy ceased to have any vital connexion Miiti 
 the trials and struggles of a pe<<ple of (><k1 : 
 and psalms {e.g. Ps. 1.) were no longer the 
 voice of a believer's deepest personal experi- 
 ence. In this Origen presents, though in a 
 mixlified form, many of the ch.uarteristir 
 defects of Rabbinic interpretation. He mav 
 have been directly influencetl by the masters 
 of Jewish exegesis. Just as thev rlaimefl f<>r 
 Abraham the complete fultilment of the Law. 
 and made the patriarchs perfect types of legal 
 rightt'ousness. Origin relus<xl to see in the 
 Pentateuch any signs of interior religious 
 knowledge or attainment. He deeinetl the 
 patriarchs and prophets as wise by Ciod's gifts 
 as the ap.>stles(i« J oh. vi. 3) ; and the deepest 
 mysteries of Christian revelation could be \ 
 directly illustrated from their lives and words 1 
 (ib. ii. 28). though sometimes he seems to feel ' 
 the difbculties uf this position {ih. xiii. 46 ; 
 cf. c. CeU. vii. 4 ff.). 
 
 While this grave defect is distinctly acknow- 
 ledged, it must be remembered that Origen 
 had a special work to do, and did it. In his 
 time powerful schools of Christian speculation 
 disparaged the O.T. or rejected it. Christian 
 masters had not yet been able to vindicate 
 it from the Jews and for themselves. This 
 task Origen accomplished. From his day 
 the O.T. has been a part of our Christian 
 heritage, and he fixed rightiv the general 
 spirit in which it is to be received. The O.T., 
 be says, is always new to Christians who 
 understand and expound it spiritually and in 
 an evangelic sense, new not in time but in 
 interpretation (Horn, iw Sum. ix. $ 4 ; cf. 
 c. Cels. ii. 4). If in pressing this he was led 
 to exaggeration, the error mav be pardoned 
 in regard to the gr«'atness of thr servirr. 
 
 His mcth'xl was tixed and onsistrnt. He 
 systematized what was b.-f.ire trntalive and 
 inconstant (cf. Kedcpcnning, de Pnnc. pp. 
 56 f.). He laid d>wn, once for all, broad out- 
 lines of interpretation ; and mvstical mean- 
 ings were not arbitrarily devisnl t ■ ni'-.t 
 particular emergencies, the inti . 
 views is a sufficient testim>>ny t' 
 It is not too much to say that i 
 interpretati'in of Scripture in th.- V'^.m «.,v 
 inspired by Origen; and through tecondarv 
 channels these inc<lieval commentt have 
 passed into our own literature. 
 
 He was indeed right in principle. " Hr 
 lelt that there was vmrthing more than a 
 mere form in the Hiblr ; he fi-lt that ' thr 
 words of litxi ' must have an rtmial »ignih- 
 cancc, for all that come* into relation with 
 God is eternal : he felt that there i» a true de- 
 velopment and a real (growth in the cleiaeoU vt 
 
 ORIGENII 
 
 7ilt 
 
 .t.^,„- 
 
 • •"•'imit. 
 
 
 (•11 
 
 
 No 
 
 
 (rtl 
 
 
 '«!; 
 
 
 tith. 
 
 
 »•• 
 
 
 .ii%». 
 
 t.. 11.. 
 
 
 
 issue 1 
 
 
 
 of his 
 
 
 . tr 
 
 sent* 
 
 
 tu*l 
 
 appr.! 
 fr.>in 
 
 
 rrni 
 
 
 .. of 
 
 the f . 
 
 
 'pl? 
 
 interr. 
 l-<lge.l t . ... 
 
 
 '. <W' 
 
 
 ■.^,1 
 
 thr rhurrh. 
 
 
 the \p..slle>. ■ 
 
 
 :i*en 
 
 endrav"'^ • 
 
 
 1 
 
 Script;- 
 
 
 
 Hut In 
 
 
 
 fairly « 
 
 
 
 conteinp rarv itiuiKli! ' 
 
 
 • ,i;,^ 
 
 verv little technical tearlu 
 
 
 t 4* 
 
 to the sacramrnis ; if cp • 
 
 
 1 th« 
 
 atonement, i. 
 
 1 lu« 
 
 ti!i. jti-n : 
 
 yet deals wii 
 
 thought and III* 
 
 which lie bel.: 
 
 < i»- 
 
 
 Origen foiiii.j luin- li : 
 
 
 ' - with 
 
 powerful sch.H.ls whuh, " 
 
 
 hom 
 
 the rhurrh, ni.iintained ai.- 
 
 
 V .m 
 
 man, thr world, and (••"I. 
 
 
 . :.>e»l 
 
 forms. There was thr lal 
 
 U li .k.i 
 
 .i.. Ml>l<h 
 
 found expr«-ssion in M<>nt4iii\in , 
 
 tl.r fjlw 
 
 idealism, which spread wu 
 
 rlv in 
 
 thr nianv 
 
 forms of (in>>stii isin. Hrre thr I 
 
 rrjt-* wa» 
 
 degradr<l int" a src..n<larv 
 
 .lace ; 
 
 Ihrre <;aH 
 
 Himself w,is 1 ^t iri His w 
 
 rk< »; 
 
 !!■'• rrprr- 
 
 sented mrn .1 
 
 
 ■ from 
 
 their birth ; 
 
 
 .u»- 
 
 tinrn-.ns "f 
 
 
 j|n< 
 
 IwingK. I li- 
 the»e truth% 
 sin. The p 
 iitued in pr'-vrn 
 of crealim has 
 'r fifiitf tin 
 
 power*. t»v 
 order*, one » 
 
 that I 
 cauw 
 «*wn g'>--<lii' 
 
 I ol 
 
 ha* 
 
 aiir 
 
 Uic 
 
 . J). 
 
790 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 creation answered to a definite thought, and 
 therefore, Origen argues, was definite itself. 
 God " could " not create or embrace in thought 
 that which has no limit {ib. ii. fragm. Gr. 6 ; 
 ii. 9, I ; iv. fragm. Gr. 4). The rational crea- 
 tures He made were all originally equal, 
 spiritual, free. But moral freedom, including 
 personal self-determination, led to difference. 
 Finite creatures, once made, either advanced, 
 through imitation of God, or fell away, 
 through neglect of Him (ib. ii. 9, 6). 
 
 Evil, it follows, is negative — the loss of good 
 which was attainable, the shadow which marks 
 the absence or rather the exclusion of light. 
 But as God made creatures for an end, so He 
 provided that they should, through whatever 
 discipline of sorrow, attain it. He made 
 matter also, which might serve as a fitting 
 expression for their character, and become, 
 in the most manifold form, a medium for their 
 training. So it was that, by various de- 
 clensions, " spirit " (irveuna) lost its proper 
 fire and was chilled into a " soul " (^I'x^). and 
 "souls" were embodied in our earthly 
 frames in this world of sense. Such an em- 
 bodiment was a provision of divine wisdom 
 which enabled them, in accord with the 
 necessities of the fact, to move towards the 
 accomplishment of their destiny [ib. i. 7, 4). 
 
 Under this aspect man is a microcosm. 
 (Horn, in Gen. i. 1 1 ; in Lev. v. 2 : intellige te et 
 ahum mundum esse parvum et intra te esse 
 solem, esse lunam, etiam Stellas.) He stands in 
 the closest connexion with the seen and the 
 unseen ; and is himself the witness of the 
 correspondences which exist between visible 
 and invisible orders (Horn, in Num. xi. 4, xvii. 
 4, xxiv. I, xxviii. 2 ; Horn. i. in Ps. xxxvii. i ; 
 in Joh. t. xix. 5, xxiii. 4 ; de Princ. iv. 
 fragm. Gr. p. 184 R.). He is made for the 
 spiritual and cannot find rest elsewhere. 
 
 As a necessary consequence of his deep view 
 of man's divine kinsmanship, Origen labours 
 to give distinctness to the unseen world. He 
 appears already to live and move in it. He 
 finds there the realities of which the phenomena 
 of earth are shadows (cf. in Rom. x. § 39). 
 External objects, peoples, cities, are to him 
 veils and symbols of invisible things ; and 
 not only is there the closest correspondence 
 between the constitution of different orders of 
 being, but also even now a continuation of 
 unobserved intercourse between them (cf. de 
 Princ. ii. 9, 3). Angels {ib. i. 8, iii. 2, passim) 
 preside over the working of elemental forces, 
 over plants and beasts {in Num. Horn. xiv. 2 ; 
 in Jer. Horn. x. 6 ; c. Cels. viii. 31 ; <ie Princ. iii. 
 3, 3), and it is suggested that nature is affected 
 by their moral condition {in Ezech. Horn. iv. 2). 
 More particularly men were, in Origen's 
 opinion, committed to the care of spiritual 
 " rulers," and deeply influenced by changes in 
 their feeling and character {in Joh. xiii. § 58 ; 
 cf. de Princ. i. 8, i). Thus he recognized 
 guardian angels of cities, provinces and nations 
 (Horn, in Luc. xii. ; de Princ. iii. 3, 2), a belief 
 which he supported habitually by the LXX 
 version of Deut. xxxii. 8 {in Matt. t. xi. § 16; 
 in Luc. Horn. xxxv. ; in Rom. viii. § 8 ; m Gen. 
 Horn xvi. 2 ; in Ex. Horn. viii. 2 ; in Ezech. 
 Horn. xiii. i f., etc.). Individual men also had 
 their guardian angels {in Matt. t. xiii. 27 ; in 
 Luc. Horn. xxxv. ; in Num. Horn. xi. 4, xx. 3 ; 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 in Ezech. Horn. i. 7 ; in Jud. vi. 2 ; de Princ. iii. 
 2,4); and angels in the assemblies of Christians 
 assisted the devotions of the faithful {de Oral. 
 xxxi. p. 283 L. ; Hom. in Luc. xxiii.; c. Cels. 
 viii. 64). But while Origen recognizes most 
 fully the reality and power of angelic ministra- 
 tion, he expressly condemns all angel-worship 
 (c. Cels. V. 4, 11). 
 
 On the other hand, there are spiritual hosts 
 of evil corresponding to the angelic forces and 
 in conflict with them {in Matt. t. xvii. 2 ; 
 in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 102 ; Hom. in Jos. xv. 
 5). He even speaks of a Trinity of evil {in 
 Matt. xi. § 6, xii. § 20). An evil power strives 
 with the good for the sway of individuals {in 
 Rom. i. § 18) ; thus all life is made a struggle 
 of unseen powers {e.g. notes on Ps. xxxvii. ; 
 in Joh. XX. §§ 29, 32 ; Hom. xx. in Jos. Fragm.). 
 
 One aspect of this belief had a constant and 
 powerful influence on daily life. Origen, like 
 most of his contemporaries, supposed that evil 
 spiritual beings were the objects of heathen 
 worship (c. Cels. vii. 5). There was, for him, 
 a terrible reality in their agency. Within 
 certain limits they could work so as to bind 
 their servants to them. 
 
 Origen believed also that the dead, too, in- 
 fluenced the living. The actions of men on 
 earth last, in their effects, after the actors 
 have departed {in Rom. ii. 4, p. 80 L.). Dis- 
 embodied (or unembodied) souls are not idle 
 {in Matt. xv. 35). So the "soul" of Christ 
 preached to " souls " (c. Cels. iii. 43) ; and the 
 saints sympathize with man still struggling on 
 earth with a sympathy larger than that of 
 those who are clogged by conditions of mor- 
 tality {de Oral. xi. ; in Matt. t. xxvii. 30 ; 
 in Joh. t. xiii. 57 ; iii- in Cant. 7). 
 
 Without extenuating the effects of man's 
 sin, Origen maintained a lofty view of the 
 nobility of his nature and destiny (c. Cels. iv. 
 25, 30) ; held that the world had been made 
 by divine wisdom a fitting place for the puri- 
 fication of a being such as man {de Princ. ii. i, 
 I ; 2,2: 3, I ; c. Cels. vi. 44 ; cf. in Rom. viii. 
 10, p. 261) ; and that everything has been so 
 ordered by Providence from the first as to 
 contribute to this end {de Princ. ii. i, 2). Man 
 can, if he will, read the lesson of his life : he 
 has a spiritual faculty, by which he can form 
 conclusions on spiritual things, even as he is 
 made to form conclusions on impressions of 
 sense. The body, so to speak, reflects the 
 soul ; the " outer man " expresses the " inner 
 man" {in Rom. ii. 13, p. 142 L.). There is 
 imposed upon us the duty of service {in Matt. 
 Comm. Ser. § 66), and the offices are many 
 {in Joh. t. X. 23), room being made even for 
 the meanest {Hom. in Num. xiv. 2, p. 162 L.). 
 
 The visible creation thus bears, in all its 
 parts, the impress of a divine purpose ; and 
 the Incarnation was the crowning of the crea- 
 tion, by which the purpose was made fully 
 known, and provision made for its accomplish- 
 ment {de Princ. iii. 5, 6). 
 
 (2) The Incarnation. The Person of Christ. 
 The Holy Trinity. The Work of Christ.— On 
 no subject is Origen more full or suggestive 
 {de Princ. i. 2 ; ii. 6 ; iv. 31). No one perhaps 
 has done so much to vindicate and harmonize 
 the fullest acknowledgment of the perfect 
 humanity of the Lord and of His perfect 
 divinity in one Person. His famous image of 
 
ORIOBNBS 
 
 the " glowing iron " (i*. ii. 6. 6) madr *n epoch 
 in ChristoloRv. Hf-re and ihrre hi» UngtMRr 
 IS liable to misoonrrption. or rvm pr.'vr-l 
 erroneous bv latrr invcsticali m«. but hr Ui<| 
 down outlines o( the (aith. on the baMi .( 
 Scriptiir<\ which remain uashakrn. Mr niaiii 
 tainedthe true ami prrfert manho.xl.>J ChriM 
 subject to the conditions of natural Rrowth. 
 against all forms of I)(>rrt ism; and. on throthrr 
 hand, the true and perfect divinit v of the '" t iml- 
 Word " {titi» \6yo^), so united with " the man 
 Christ Jesus" through the human soul as to 
 be one person. aRainst all forms of Ebionisra 
 and Patripassionism iih. li. 6. 3). 
 
 His doclrme of the Incarnation of the Cod- 
 Word rests in part upon his d<x-trine of the 
 Godhead. " All." he held. " who are b<^m 
 again unto salvation have need of the Father. 
 Son. and Holy Spirit, and would not obtain 
 salvation unless the Trinitv were entire" 
 (ib. i. 3, s). Henf-e he speaks of baptism as 
 " the beginning and fountain of divine gifts 
 to him who offers himself to the divinity of 
 the power of the invocations of the adorable 
 Trinity" (tuv r^t wfxxTKvyrjrfi^ TptdSm iw\- 
 if\rio(tM') {in Joh. vi. 17). But there is, 
 in his judgment, a difference in the extent of 
 the action of the Persons in the Ho|y Trinitv. 
 The Father, " holding all things together, 
 reaches (<p0avn) to each being, imparting 
 being to each from that which is His own, fur 
 He is absolutely (Csv yap farip). The Son is 
 less than the Father (Adrrwr »apd r. r), 
 reaching only to rational beings, for He is 
 second to the Father ; and, further, the Holy 
 Spirit is less {^toi>), and extends (8ii»rot'^Kror) 
 to the saints only. So that in this respect 
 (Kari. ToiTo) the power of the Father is 
 greater in comparison with (rapd) the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit ; and that of the Son more in 
 comparison with the Holy Spirit ; and, again, 
 the power of the Holy Spint more exceeding 
 (4ta0(fpoi'<ra fiaWof) in comparison with all 
 other holy beings." To rightly understand 
 this passage it is necessary to observe that 
 Origen is not speaking of the ess^-nce of the 
 Persons of the Godhead, but of their mani- 
 festation to creatures (< f. de Prtnc. i. 3, 7). 
 Essentially the three Persons are of one (xkI- 
 head, and eternal. The subordination which 
 Origen teaches is not of essence but of person 
 and office. His aim is to realize the Father as 
 the one Fountain of Gfxlhead, while vindicat- 
 ing true deity for the Son and the Holy Spirit. 
 In this respect he worked out first the thought 
 of " the eternal generation " M the S<in. which 
 was accepted from him by the Catholic church 
 as the truest human expression of one side of 
 the mystery of the essential Trinity. 
 
 The peculiar ci)iinfxif>ii which Origrn re- 
 cognizes between the Son (the God Word) and 
 rational beings establishes (sf> to speak) the 
 fitness of the lii< ariiation. The S<in M<xx\ iii 
 a certain affinitv with rational souls ; and th> 
 human soul with which He was united in the 
 Incarnation had alone remained aljs/jlutely 
 pure, by the exercise of free choice, in its pre- 
 existcnce (16. ii- 6. 5). Through this union all 
 human nature was capable of being glorified, 
 without violating its characteristic hmitati>>ns 
 (of. c. Cels. iii. 41 f). The body of Christ wa. 
 perfect no Ibss than His &*ju1 (i^. i. 32 f.). 
 
 ORIOBNBS 
 
 7»l 
 
 The work of t hn%i W4». (>ri(m emphalkAlIy 
 
 in.iinlainrd. f>>r 4II men ami for lh« wboto 
 
 •f man (rf. I*. III. 17.lv. it ). It w«t lh«r»r. 
 
 f rn , , rrvrale.! that It cmld ho apPrrheoUMl 
 
 the tevrfAl |>-.Wrr» anc] wanU r»l 
 
 \l4UI. t. Ill \H, 41. IV. J4I. ivH. 
 
 IV M. vt H* ,„ Jatt u ,,| 
 
 1 ■•■ ...or. in .1 ' ^ %mM>, " ail 
 
 things to all men ' ,| ; %m Jok 
 
 I. XIX. J. XX. JH . . • ,). 
 
 Origen thu» inM\! ..i<i - 
 
 work for the con*ii 
 
 of the individual 
 
 power of evil. H- 
 
 upon the value <A i' 
 
 as a vicarious ».i : 
 
 illustrations of thr . 
 
 of vicarious V ■ -.--n. 
 
 sacrifice (f ' ■ ,h, 
 
 case of man f ,,, 
 
 J<^h. t. vi. ;>.. *v 
 
 not attempt to explain <■ 
 
 Christ was efhrannis. hr • 
 
 it as a rans'iii ki\.i, 1 
 
 Satan, to wl 
 
 Christ, in Hi 
 
 by bearing tl 
 
 so set man lr< r. " gi\ m^ Hi- s ul i ^v^'jj ^^ 4 
 
 ransom for him " {in Matt. I. xvi H , %n Kotm, 
 
 ii. 13. p. 140 1.. ; I'omm. Str. in Mmtt. | i js). 
 
 ,\t other times he regards it as a propitiation 
 
 for the divine remission of sins (Horn, m ,V«m. 
 
 xxiv. I ; IN l,rr. i. 3 ; cf. e. (fit. vii. 17). 
 
 Origen held that the death of ( hrut was 
 of avail f'.r heavenlv being*, if n-.t f.r the 
 expiation of sin yet f^ir ad\anrement In 
 blessedness {Horn, in l.fv. 1 \. 11. 3 ; •■» Komt. 
 V. i./., p. 409 L. ; %h. i. 4 ; Horn, tm Lue. x.). 
 Thus in a true sense angels themselves wera 
 disciples of Christ (in Matt. t. xv -, .M 
 
 times indee«l Origen speaks as il 
 that the Word was actually li 
 other orders of being in a mann- 1 
 ing to their nature, even as He » is r-v-.V-l 
 as soul to the Souls in Hades [Stl. in /'i 111 s. 
 xi. p. 420 I..). In this sense als" he ilutiVi 
 that " He became all things t" .1" ! 
 
 to angels (in }nh. t. 1. ^^) ; an<l 
 shrink from allowing that His ; 
 
 be ma<le available, perhaps in 
 
 shape, in the spiritual world (i# I'ttiu, iv. 
 /ra/j. Gr. a ; cf. iv. 2s U). 
 
 The work of the Holv Spirit, arrordtn« lo 
 Origen, is fulfilled in believer* His "ftitr 1% 
 si'ecialiv to guide |o the fuller truth. whKh 1% 
 the inspirali •11 f n fl- r life l^r ';^^ Htm 
 revelation c 1 
 
 the deeper i 
 
 Him. " Wl. 
 things are 
 Through Hi 
 the Father . 
 
 ^i dc /'fifu I I. Ul : . >•* J ^ < " '• ' 
 
 (3) 7*# ( onii«m»M/inn of Hting Thne 
 
 'I...I .. !rfi-,ti. lln<•^ -f ^yrrr-.UUr. lr.lr« t - Ori 
 
7!)2 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 life. Origen's opinions are further embar- 
 rassed by the constant confusion which arises 
 from the intermingling of ideas which belong 
 to the close of the present order laiwv) and the 
 close of all things. It is again impossible to 
 see clearly how the inalienable freedom of 
 rational beings, which originally led to the 
 Fall, can be so disciplined as to bring them 
 at last to perfect harmony. This, however, 
 Origen holds ; and though he is unable to 
 realize the form of future purification, through 
 which souls left unpurified by earthly exist- 
 ence will be cleansed hereafter, he clings to 
 the belief that " the end must be like the be- 
 ginning " {de Princ. i. 6, 2), a perfect unity in 
 God. From this he excludes no rational 
 creature. The evil spirits which fell have not 
 lost that spirit by which they are akin to God, 
 which in its essence is inaccessible to evil [in 
 J oh. xxxii. II, dveiri^iKTOv tCjv yeipdvwv to 
 wvevfjia Tou avOpdnrov), though it can be over- 
 grown and overpowered (cf. de Princ. i. 8, 3). 
 And, on the other hand, freedom remains 
 even when perfect rest has been reached, and 
 in this Origen appears to find the possibility of 
 future declensions (ib. ii. 3, 3, frag. Gr. ii. 2). 
 Whether matter, the medium through which 
 rational freedom finds expression {ib. iv. 35), 
 will at last cease to be, or be infinitely spiri- 
 tualized, he leaves undetermined. The ques- 
 tion is beyond man's powers {ib. i. 6, 4; ii. 2; 
 ii. 3, 3 ; iii. 6, i), though man cannot but ponder 
 upon it {ib. i. 6, i f. ; iii. 4, 5 s.f.). So he pre- 
 sents, in imaginary outhnes, the picture of 
 the soul's progress through various scenes of 
 chastisement or illumination {ib.i. 6, 3; iii. 6, 
 6 ; iii. 5, 6 ff., and Redepenning's note), till he 
 can rest in the thought of a restoration in 
 which law and freedom, justice and love, are 
 brought to a perfect harmony (cf. de Oral. § 27, 
 p. 227 L.). This thought assists Origen in 
 forming a theory of future punishments. All 
 future punishments exactly answer to indi- 
 vidual sinfulness {in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 16), 
 and, like those on earth, are directed to the 
 amendment of the sufferers (c. Cels. iv. 10 ; 
 Horn, in Ezech. v. i). Lighter offences can be 
 chastised on earth ; the heavier remain to be 
 visited hereafter {Horn, in Lev. xiv. 4). In 
 every case the uttermost farthing must be 
 paid, though final deliverance is promised {in 
 Rom. V. 2 f.). Origen looked forward to a , 
 fiery ordeal, through which men should pass 
 in the world to come. Every one alreadv 
 baptized with water and Spirit would, he 
 thought, if he needed cleansing, be baptized 
 by the Lord Jesus in a river of fire, and so 
 purified enter into paradise {Horn, in Luc. 
 xxiv.). In this sense also he looked forward 
 to a (spiritual) conflagration of the world, by 
 which all beings in need of such discipline 
 should be at once chastised and healed {c. 
 Cels. v. 15 ; cf. iv. 13). ] 
 
 On the other hand, since the future state is 1 
 the direct fruit of this, there are, so Origen I 
 held, varieties of blessedness in heaven (j'n ! 
 Rom. iv. 12), corresponding to the life of 
 saints (ib. ix. 3, p. 303), and foreshadowed bv | 
 the divisions of Israel {Horn, in Num. i. 3'; 
 xxviii. 2 ; Hom. in Jos. xxv. 4). Speaking ! 
 generally, the believer after death enters a 
 state of fuller knowledge and loftier progress 
 {de Princ. ii. 11, 6). The resurrection of the 
 
 ORIGENES 
 
 body completes the full transfiguration, with- 
 out loss, of all that belongs to his true self ; 
 and he begins a nobler development of body 
 and soul — moral, intellectual, spiritual — by 
 which he is brought nearer to the throne of 
 God (cf. ib. i. 3, 8 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 51 ; 
 Hom. i. in Ps. xxxviii. § 8). The relationships 
 of earth come to an end {in Matt. t. xvii. 33 : 
 on this point Origen is not consistent). The 
 visible ceases, and men enjoy the eternal, for 
 which now they hope {in Rom. vii. 5). Thus 
 human interest is removed from the present 
 earth to its heavenly antit>'pe. It is probably 
 due to this pecuHarity of his teaching that 
 I Origen nowhere dwells on the doctrine of 
 Christ's return, which occupies a large place 
 j in most schemes of Christian belief. The 
 coming of Christ in glory is treated as the 
 I spiritual revelation of His true nature {de 
 Princ. iv. 25), though Origen says that he by 
 no means rejects " the second presence 
 (iirt8rifjLla) of the Son of God more simply 
 understood " {in Matt. t. xii. 30). 
 
 Characteristics. — It cannot be surprising 
 that Origen failed to give a consistent and 
 harmonious embodiment to his speculations. 
 His writings represent an aspiration rather 
 than a system, principles of research and hope 
 rather than determined formulas ; and his 
 enthusiasm continually mars the proportion 
 of his work. His theorizing needs the dis- 
 cipline of active life, without which there 
 can be no real appreciation of history or of 
 the historical development of truth. Yet 
 i even in regard to the practical apprehension 
 of the divine education of the world it is only 
 necessary to compare him on one side with 
 Philo and on the other with Augustine, to feel 
 how his grasp of the significance of the In- 
 j carnation gave him a sovereign power to 
 understand the meaning and destiny of life. 
 
 While ready to fully acknowledge the 
 claims of reason (cf. Hom. in Luc. i. p. 88 L.), 
 Origen lays stress on the new data given by 
 revelation to the solution of the problems of 
 philosophy {de Princ. i. 5, 4). He points out 
 repeatedly the insufficiency of reason, of the 
 independent faculties of man, to attain that 
 towards which it is turned. Reason enables 
 man to recognize God when He makes Him- 
 self known, to receive a revelation from Him 
 in virtue of his affinity with the Divine Word, 
 but it does not enable the creature to derive 
 from within the longed-for knowledge. The 
 capacity for knowing God belongs to man as 
 man, and not to man as a philosopher. Origen 
 therefore acknowledges the nobihty of Plato's 
 saying that " it is a hard matter to find out 
 the Maker and Father of the Universe, and 
 impossible for one who has found Him to 
 declare Him to all men." But he adds that 
 Plato affirms too much and too little (c. Cels. 
 vii. 43). As Christians " we declare that 
 human nature is not in itself competent in any 
 way to seek God and find Him purely without 
 the help of Him Who is sought, of Him Who 
 is found by those who confess after they have 
 done all in their power that they have yet 
 need of Him . . ." (cf. Clem. Al. Cohort. § 6). 
 
 In the endeavour to fashion a Philosophy of 
 Christianity Origen did not practically recog- 
 nize the limits and imperfection of the human 
 mind which he constantly points out. His 
 
ORIGENES 
 
 gravest errors arc attcinits to solve the in- 
 soluble. The question of the onsiu <>( the 
 soul, e.g., is still beset by thedifhrultie»l)ri«rn 
 sought to meet, but they are iKnore<l. So too 
 with regard to his speculations on an endleM 
 succession of worlds. Thou^cht must brrak 
 down soon in the attempt t<» ro-ordinate the 
 finite and the inliiiite. But with whatever 
 errors in detail, Ori^jen laid down the true 
 lines on which the Christian apologist must 
 defend the faith at;ainst Polytheism. Judaism, 
 Gnosticism, Materialism. These f'irms of 
 opinion, without the church and within, were 
 living powers of threatening proportions in his 
 age, and he vindicated the Ciospel against 
 them as the one absolute revelation, prepared 
 through the discipline of Israel, historical in 
 its form, spiritual in its destiny ; and the 
 principles which he afhrmed and strove to 
 illustrate have a present value. They are 
 fitted to correct the .\fricanism which, since 
 Augustine, has dominated \V»>stern theology ; 
 and they anticipate many difticulties which 
 have become prominent in later times. In 
 the face of existing controversies, it is invigor- 
 ating to feel that, when as yet no necessity 
 forced upon him the consideration of the prol>- 
 lems now most frequently discussed, a Chris- 
 tian teacher, the master and friend of saints, 
 taught the moral continuity and destination 
 of all being, interpreted the sorr-iws and sad- 
 nesses of the world as part of a vast scheme of 
 purificatory chastisement, found in Holy Scri|>- 
 ture not the letter only but a living voice 
 eloquent with spiritual mysteries, made the 
 love of truth, in all its amplitude and depth, 
 the right and end of rational beings, and 
 reckoned the fuller insight into the mysteries 
 of nature one of the joys of a future state. 
 
 Such thoughts bring Origen himself before 
 us. Of the traits of his personal character 
 little need be said. He bore unmerited suffer- 
 ings without a murmur. He lived only to 
 work. He combined in a signal degree sym- 
 pathy with zeal. As a controversialist he 
 sought to win his adversary, not simply to 
 silence him (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 33). He had 
 the boldest confidence in the truth he held 
 and the tenderest humility as to his own 
 weakness («n Joh. t. xxxii. 18 ; in Matt. t. 
 xvi. 13). When he ventures freely in the 
 field of interpretations, he asks the support of 
 the prayers of his hearers. His faith was 
 catholic, and therefore he welcomed every 
 kind of knowledge as tributary to its fullness. 
 It was living, and therefore he knew that no 
 age could seal any one expression of it as com- 
 plete. This open-hearted trust kept un- 
 chilled to the last the passionate devotion of 
 his youth. He was therefore enabled to leave 
 to the church the conviction, attested by a 
 life of martyrdom, that all things arc its 
 heritage because all things are Christ's. 
 
 Editio.vs. — Through the labours of the 
 great Benedictines of St. Maur the first two 
 vols, of a complete edition of Oritjrn (Onccfin 
 opera otnnta quae Graece lel iMtme lanlum 
 extant el ejus nomine ctrcumferunlur) apj.earr*! 
 at Paris in I733. under the editorship of 
 Charles Uelarue, a pric-st of that »<«iety. 
 Vol. iii. appeared at Pans in i74<». » '«"'* 
 months after the death <>f the editor (Oct. 
 1739), who left, however, vol. iv. to the care of 
 
 OROSIUS. PAULUS 
 
 hl» lirphrw I \ 
 to Usue It till 
 Delarues rrii . 
 
 edition IS \rl , 
 inriits I 
 are fr.i. 
 text ■<> 
 inaile.iu.if- 1 
 
 l.oininatsch. (. 
 ni'Te to f>e rr. 
 been, aiicl arr 
 fragmmts. 1 
 whollv neglrrt 
 latest r<l.l .. 
 done 1 1. 1 
 reprint 
 (Paris. I 
 most .1 : 
 Cramer 
 phltmn: . 
 pub. b\ ; 
 works 1 
 of e.,rlv . 
 \- •• •' ' 
 
 K 
 
 lit. .1 u:.^,:,, I, u. i 
 l.ih. ,,f ihf I ,ithfr\. 
 
 Orosius, ^ulus, was a native of T 
 in Spam, as he himself »av» (Mu/. 
 though an expressi'Hi in a letter of Av 
 be thought to ronne< t him with Hr 
 Avtti, Aug. Opp. Vol. VII. p 
 vol. V. p. 4 35. A. D. 4 IS). ^^ ' 
 Vandals were introdured ini 
 Orosius, though his languag- 
 torical, appears narrowly t" t 
 violence {Hat. in. 20; v. 2 
 danger, more serious in I 
 threatened to disturb the 
 viz. the hen-sies of the Pri 
 the book by Origen. w»p« «if 1 
 lated by St. Jerome and br 
 salem by Avitus, presbyter ■ ; 
 gal. at the same time as a b< 
 was brought by another A\ ■ 
 Both books condenmrd thr 
 cillian, but contained Tr • 
 That by NictMnnus at!: 
 Origen's was widelv t 
 elsewhere ; and Oro-; 
 error, pri>cee<|e<l. n^t 
 church of Spam but 
 Africa, to consult St 
 best to refute lli. s. 
 415. Augustifi' 
 yean, but » \\ 
 in intellect, rr.i ; 
 useful in the w.i W ! ll < 1 
 partial reply t<> thii appr.. 
 contra Pructlliant^t.ii ft <>• 
 but little on tl- 
 He relerre<l < 
 Manirheiuii, .i: 
 1'.' •' • 
 
 I.',' 
 
 ed Uk'.:. 
 
 he t.H.k 
 
 the bith 
 
 Cocle«(iu^ 
 
 ;os 
 
 t the .iiU0-.\t4*mt 
 (w.) 
 arranooa 
 
 Vll. ]]), 
 
 itu* may 
 
 .liTl thp. 
 
 lus 
 :,d 
 
 lIKtl 
 
794 
 
 OROSIUS, PAULUS 
 
 in Africa, a.d. 412 (Aug. Epp. 175, 176), and 
 had abruptly departed from the country ; 
 that Augustine had written against Pelagius 
 and had sent a letter to the clergy in Sicily, 
 treating of this and other heretical questions, 
 which letter Orosius read at the request of 
 the members. He also quoted the judgment 
 of St. Jerome on the Pelagian question, ex- 
 pressed in his letter to Ctesiphon and his 
 Dialogue against the Pelagians (Hieron. vol. i. 
 Ep. 133; vol. ii. p. 495)- On Sept. 13, the 
 feast of the dedication of the church of the 
 Holv Sepulchre, Orosius, on offering to assist 
 bp. John at the altar, was attacked by him as 
 a blasphemer, a charge which Orosius refuted, 
 saying that as he spoke only in Latin, John, 
 who onlv spoke Greek, could not have under- 
 stood him. At the council of 14 bishops at 
 Diospolis (Lydda), Dec. 415, Orosius was not 
 present (Aug. de Gest. Pelag. c. 16), but re- 
 turned to Africa early in 416, bearing the 
 supposed relics of St. Stephen, discovered the 
 previous December, which at the request of 
 Avitus he was to convev to the church of Braga 
 in Portugal (Tillem. vol. xiii. 262.) About 
 this time, on the request of Augustine, Orosius 
 undertook his history, chiefly in order to con- 
 firm by historical facts the doctrine maintained 
 bv St. Augustine in his great work de Civitate 
 Dei, on the nth book of which he was then 
 employed. These facts we gather from c. i., 
 and from a passage in bk. v., where Orosius 
 savs that he wrote his history chiefly if not 
 entirely in Africa. It could not have been 
 begun earlier than 416, and must have been 
 finished in 417, for it concludes with an ac- 
 count of the treat v made in 416 between 
 Wallia, the Gothic king, and the emperor 
 Honorius (Oros. Hist. v. 2, vii. 43 ; Clinton, 
 F. R.). Orosius then proceeded towards 
 Spain with the relics of St. Stephen. Being 
 detained at Port Mahon in Minorca by ac- 
 counts of the disturbed state of Spain through 
 the Vandal occupation, he left his precious 
 treasure there and returned to Africa, and 
 nothing more is known of his history (Ep. 
 Severi, Aug. 0pp. vol. vii. App. Baronius, 418. 
 4). The work of Orosius is a historical treatise 
 rather than a formal history, which indeed 
 it does not pretend to be, though as it includes 
 a portion of the subject belonging to Scrip- 
 ture and to Jewish affairs, its area covers 
 wider space than any other ancient epitome. 
 Besides the O. and N. T., he quotes Josephus, 
 the church historians and writers, asTertullian, 
 Hegesippus, and Eusebius, besides the classic 
 writers Tacitus, Suetonius, Sallust, Caesar, 
 Cicero, and he was no doubt largely indebted 
 to Livy. For Greek and Oriental history he 
 made use of the works of Justin, or rather 
 Trogus Pompeius, and Quintus Curtius ; for 
 Roman affairs, Eutropius, Florus, and Valerius 
 Paterculus, together with others of inferior 
 value, as Valerius Antias, Valerius Maximus, 
 and Aiurelius Victor. Written under the ex- 
 press sanction of St. Augustine, in a pleasing 
 stvle and at convenient length, and recom- 
 mended by church authorities as an orthodox 
 Christian work, it became during the middle 
 ages the standard text-book on the subject, 
 and is quoted largely by Bede and other 
 medieval writers. Orosius is for the last 
 few years of his history a contemporary and 
 
 PACHOMIUS 
 
 so an original authority, and supplies some 
 points on which existing writers are deficient 
 {e.g. V. 18, p. 339, the death of Cato ; vi. 3, 
 376, the acquittal of Catiline), but his work is 
 disfigured by many mistakes, both as to facts 
 and numbers, and by a faulty system of 
 chronology. The general popularity it enjoyed 
 as the one Christian history led to its trans- 
 lation into Anglo-Saxon by Alfred the Great, 
 of which a portion was published by Elstob 
 in 1690, and the whole, with an English ver- 
 sion, in 1773, under the superintendence of 
 D. Barrington and J. R. Foster. This was 
 reprinted in 1853 in Bohn's Antiquarian 
 Library, under Mr. B. Thorpe. The latest ed. 
 of the Hist, and the Lib. Apol. is by Zange- 
 meiiter in Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. v. (Vienna, 
 1882), and a smaller ed. by the same editor in 
 the Biblioth. Teubner. (Leipz. 1889). [h.w.p.] 
 
 Paohomlus (l), St., founder of the famous 
 monasteries of Tabenna in Upper Egypt ; one 
 of the first to collect solitary ascetics together 
 under a rule. Beyond a brief mention in 
 Sozomen, who praises his gentleness and 
 suavity (H. E. iii. 14), the materials for his 
 biography are of questionable authenticity. 
 Athanasius, during his visit to Rome, made 
 the name Pachomius familiar to the church 
 there through Marcella and others, to whom he 
 held up Pachomius and his Tabennensian 
 monks as a bright example (Hieron. Ep. 127, 
 ad Principium). Rosweyd gives a narrative 
 of his life in Latin, being a translation by 
 Dionysius Exiguus, in the 6th cent., of a bio- 
 graphy said to be written by a contemporary 
 monk of Tabenna ( Vit. Patr. in Pat. Lat. Ixxiii. 
 227). If we may trust this writer, Pacho- 
 mius was born of wealthy pagan parents in 
 Lower Egypt, before the council of Nicaea. 
 He served in his youth under Constantine in 
 the campaign against Maxentius, which placed 
 Constantine alone on the throne. The kind- 
 ness shewn by Christians to him and his com- 
 rades in distress led him to become a Christian. 
 He attached himself to a hermit, celebrated 
 for his sanctity and austerities. He and 
 Palaemon supported themselves by weaving 
 the shaggy tunics (cilicia), the favourite 
 dress of Egyptian monks. He became a monk, 
 and many prodigies are related of his power 
 over demons, and in resisting the craving for 
 sleep and food {Vit. cc. 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 
 etc., ap. Rosw. V. P.). His reputation for 
 holiness soon drew to him many who desired 
 to embrace the monastic life, and without, 
 apparently, collecting them into one monas- 
 tery, he provided for their organization. The 
 bishop of a neighbouring diocese sent for him 
 to regulate the monks there. Pachomius 
 seems also to have done some missionary work 
 in his own neighbourhood. Athanasius, 
 visiting Tabenna, was eagerly welcomed by 
 Pachomius, who, in that zeal for orthodoxy 
 which was a characteristic of monks generally, 
 is said to have flung one of Origen's writings 
 into the water, exclaiming that he would 
 have cast it into the fire, but that it contained 
 the name of God. He lived to a good old age 
 (Niceph. H. E. ix. 14). The Bollandists {Acta 
 
PALLADIUS 
 
 SS. 14 Mai. iii. 2S7) ijivo the Ada o( Pachomiu* 
 by a nearly rontemporarv author, in a Latin 
 trans, from the original tlrpck MSS.. with 
 notes and c<iininentarv hv Tapebroch. Pa- 
 chomiusdied {Acta, § 77), aged S7. alxnit the 
 time Athanasius returned to his see under 
 Constantius, i.e. a.d. 340, as romputr<l bv 
 Papebroch. Miraeus (Schol. to Tiennad. Set. 
 Eccl. c. 7) makes him fl-mrish in 340; Tri- 
 themius in 390, under X'alentinian and Theo- 
 dosius. SiRebert iChron. ann. 40s) puts his 
 death in 405 at the age of no. I'ortus 
 Veneris, now Porto Venere, a small town on 
 the N.VV. coast of Italv, near Spezia, (l.iinis 
 that his bixiy rests there. Cf. Amelmeau, 
 EttuU historique sur S. Pack. (Cairo. 1887); 
 also Griitzmacher. Pachomiits un.i i/a« AlUsU 
 KloxterUbfn (Freiburp, i8q6). [i.o.s.) 
 
 PalladiUSiT). bp. of Helenopolis, the trusted 
 friend of Chrvsostom. whose misfi>rtunes he 
 fully shared, was born c. 367. perhaps in 
 Galatia. He embraced an ascetic life in his 
 20th year, c. 386. The ascetic career of I'.il- 
 ladius can only be conjccturally traced from 
 scattered notices in the Lausicu History (but 
 see infra). He never remained long in one 
 place, but sought the acquaintance of the 
 leading solitaries and ascetics of his day to 
 learn all that could br gathered of their manner 
 of life and miraculous deeds. Tilleraont thinks 
 his earliest place of sojourn was with the abbat 
 Elpidius of Cappadocia in the cavernous re- 
 cesses of the mountains near Jericho (Htst. 
 Laus. c. io6), and that he, c. 387. visited Beth- 
 lehem, where he received a very unfavourable 
 impression of Jerome from the solitary 
 Posidonius (ib. c. 78), and passing thence to 
 Jerusalem formed the acquaintance of Mclania 
 the elder and Rufinus, the latter of whom he 
 highly commends (16. c. 5 ; c. 118). In 388 
 Palladius paid his first visit to Alexandria 
 (t*. c. I). Having visited several monasteries 
 near Alexandria, and the famous Didymus, he 
 retired (c. 390) to the Nitrian desert, whence, 
 after a year, he plunged still deeper into the 
 district known as the Cells, t4 KtWia, where 
 he mostly remained for 9 years (ib.). Here, 
 for 3 years, he enjoyed the intercourse of 
 Macarius the younger and subsequently of 
 Evagrius of Poiitus. Palladius appears during 
 this period to have traversed the whole of 
 Upper Egvpt as far as Tabenna and Syene. 
 and to have visited all its leading solitaries. 
 lU-health led him to return to the purer air of 
 Palestine, whence he soon passed to Bithynia, 
 where he was called to the episcopate lib. c. 43). 
 Palladius tells us neither when nor where he 
 became bishop. If it is right to identify 
 the author of the Laustac History with the 
 adherent of Chrvs'^>stom, his see was Hrleno- 
 
 K>lis, formerly called Orepanum, in Bithynia. 
 e was consecrated by Chrysostom, and the 
 Origenistic opinions he was charged with 
 having imbibed from Evagrius became a 
 handle of accusation against his conwrrator 
 (Phot. Cod. 59. P- ^7)- This arcus.ition of 
 Origenism is brought against Palladius by 
 Epiphanius (Ep. ad Joann. ] erus. Hieron., 
 Op. i. cf>l. 252, ed. Vallars.) and Jerome (/Vorwi. 
 in Dial. adv. Pelagianos), though Tillemont 
 argues that this was another Palladius. 
 Palladius was at the synod at Constantinople, 
 May 400, at which Antoninus of Ephcsus was 
 
 PALLADIirS 
 
 TM 
 
 accused bv Fut/'bnu, and hr wa» nni> nf ihrM 
 bishop* drpu(r<| by Chrvvntom \n v)*n AtU 
 and make a prr»->n«l invrtil^alton into ib« 
 ch.»rge» (P.ilL.I ni.if |.(. Ml ntl Whoo 
 Chr\-v«t rr«<>|vr<l 
 
 to g.l t" W4« no* 
 
 of the h\ p H4). 
 
 Palla.li... ..... ..,. , , - „, , t -.Mdrr from 
 
 the persecution whic h .»!|rr 404 Irll up.^1 Ihr 
 adherent* i>f I hrv«-nt>>iii. Thr ni^cuir jI<-« 
 having decrer<l th.il thr hou*r ••( «iiv who 
 harl>oure<l bishop, pnr»i, ..r Ijmimh who 
 c ominiiiurated with 1 hrvA'-«loiii »h<>ul<l br 
 confls<ate«l. P.ilUdlUs. with ni.«iiv \\^<-^ r , |ru 
 astics. fled to Komr. arriviuK' <' lie 
 
 >>f 40s, with a copy ..f thr 1 -e 
 
 which had driven him from , le 
 
 (16. pp. 26. 27). The refugee* vvrf. I ,; KjJ.Iv 
 entertained bv one f^nu.inut jnd hi* wilr and 
 bv some n >ble Lidies of Komr, » klndn<-u 
 which Pall.ulius gratrfiiHv mrnli'>ns (Wwl. 
 lutui. c. 121). and for wlnrh t hrv\o%|,ini wrote 
 letters of thanks fr>in t U" iimi* He wj« 
 honourably received l>v popr lnn'«rent, and 
 his testimony gave the i>oi>r full know|e,l|{e o( 
 the transaction (So*. H. A. viii. aM. On the 
 departure of the Italian deputation vnt bv 
 Honorius to his l>rothrr Arcadius. rrqurAtim; 
 that the whole matter should l>e «nb)r< tr.J t.i 
 a general council, P.ill.uhus ,ind thr i.ihrr 
 refugees accompanied them iPalUd. /^I4^^ p. 
 31). On their arrival the whoir party were 
 forbidden to l.in<l at t on\tanlinoplr. Pal- 
 ladius and his companions were shut up in 
 separate ch.imbers in the fortress of Athvre on 
 the roast, and loade<l with the utmost con- 
 tumely, in the hope i>f breaking their »pirU 
 and compelling them to renounce communina 
 with Chrvsostom, and recognize Atticus {ib. 
 I p. 32). All threats and violence proving vain. 
 \ the bishops were banishetl to distant and 
 j opposite quarters of the empire ; Palladius to 
 Syene. on the extreme Ixader of Fgvpt (1*. 
 I pp. 194, 199). Tillemont considers that 00 
 the death of Theophilus in 412 Palladius wa* 
 ! permitted to leave his j>lace of exile, but no| 
 to return to his see. Hrtwren 412 and 420 
 Tillemont places his resi<lrnre of four years 
 near Antino..pi.lis in the 1 hrbaid. of which 
 district and Us numerous ascetirs the Hut. 
 Laus. gives copious details ice. o6-ioo; rr. 
 137. 138), as well as of the three year* which 
 the writer spent on the M'>uiit of Olivn 
 with Innocent, the presbyter of the churrh 
 there. During this time he mav also have 
 visited Mesopotamia, Svria, and the other 
 portions of the eastern world whirh he si>e«k» 
 of having traversed. The peace of the rhurrh 
 being re-established in 417. P«ll.vltM» wm 
 perhaps restored to his see .t '■ ■ ' H 
 
 so, he did not reni.iin thrrr : -rt 
 
 informs us that he was tr.i' *i 
 
 sec to Aspuna in dalatu I'l ^. 
 
 vii. 36). He had, however. ' l». 
 
 of Aspuna in 431, when llus« '>• 
 
 council of I'lphrsus as bp. ••! (>e. 
 
 lomctl. ill. 4^o). Ihr //iW..fia /.ii# 1.1,1 wa* 
 composed c. 42". It is now. howrvrr. Krnef. 
 .illv cmsidrrrd {vidf » fk'. tv l"rr.i r»:rr, and 
 Butler, m.ih/) that tl.r N U 
 
 not tol^ l<lrfitllir«l » r IS 
 
 Ills conteiii|«.r.ifv. 1 '">• 
 
 from one I.ausus or Laws n. < inn • ..j... -(.ain 
 
796 
 
 PALLADIUS 
 
 in the imperial household, at whose request 
 it was written and to whom it is dedicated. 
 The writer describes Lausus as a very excellent 
 person, employing his power for the glory of 
 God and the good of the church, and devoting 
 his leisure to self-improvement and study. 
 Though the writer is credulous, his work is 
 an honest and, except as regards supposed 
 miraculous acts, trustworthy account of the 
 mode of life of the solitaries of that age, and 
 a faithful picture of the tone of religious 
 thought then prevalent. It preserves many 
 historical and biographical details which later 
 writers have borrowed ; Sozomen takes many 
 anecdotes without acknowledgment. Socrates 
 refers to Palladius as a leading authority on 
 the lives of the solitaries, but is wrong in 
 calling him a monk and stating that he lived 
 soon after the death of Valens (H. E. iv. 23). 
 The Historia Lausiaca was repeatedly printed 
 in various Latin versions, from very early 
 times, the first ed. appearing soon after the 
 invention of printing. The latest and best 
 authorities are E. Preuschen, Palladius and 
 Rufmus (Giessen, 1897); C.Butler, The Laiisiac 
 History of Palladius (vol. i. critical intro. Camb. 
 1898 ; vol. ii. Gk. text with intro. and notes, 
 1904) in Texts and Studies; see also C. H. 
 Turner, The Lausiac Hist, of Pallad. in Jnl. 
 of Theol. Stud. 1905, vi. p. 321. 
 
 The question whether the Dialogue with 
 Theodore the Deacon is correctly assigned to 
 Palladius of Helenopolis has been much de- 
 bated. It is essentially a literary composition, 
 the characters and framework being alike 
 fictitious. It was undoubtedly written by 
 one who took an active part in the events he 
 describes. No one corresponds so closely in 
 all respects to the ideal presented by the nar- 
 ration as Palladius of Helenopolis, nor is there 
 any really weighty objection to his author- 
 ship. For the closing days of Chrysostom's 
 episcopate it is, with all its faults, simply 
 priceless. Tillem. Mem. Eccl. t. xi. pp. 500-530, 
 pp. 638-646 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 376 ; 
 Du Pin, Auteurs eccl. t. iii. p. 296 ; Cotelerius, 
 Eccl. Grace. Monum. t. iii. p. 563. [e.v.1 
 
 Palladius (11), July 6, the first bp. sent to 
 Ireland and the immediate predecessor of St. 
 Patrick. Facts known about him are few, 
 though legends are numerous. His birthplace 
 is placed by some in England, by others in 
 Gaul or Italy ; some even make him a Greek 1 
 (see Ussher, Eccles. Britann. Antiq. i.vi. c. xvi. 
 of Elrington's ed.). His ecclesiastical position ! 
 has also been disputed. He seems to have 
 been an influential man in the earlier part of 
 the 5th cent., as Prosper of Aquitaine, a con- 
 temporary, mentions him twice, affording the ' 
 only real record of his life which we possess. 
 Under 429 Prosper writes in his Chronicle : ! 
 " By the instrumentality of the deacon Pal- 
 ladius, pope Celestinus sends Germanus, bp. 
 of Auxerre, in his own stead, to displace the 
 heretics and direct the Britons to the Catholic 
 faith." Prosper's words under 431 are, " Ad 
 Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa 
 Celestino Palladius et primus Episcopus mit- | 
 titur." This mission of Palladius is referred 
 to in the Book of Armagh, where Tirechan 
 (Analect. Boll. t. ii. p. 67), or more probably 
 some writer towards a.d. 900, calls him Patri- 
 cius as his second name. Rev. J . F. Shearman, 
 
 PAMMACHIUS 
 
 in his Loco Patriciana, p. 25 (Dubl. 1879), has 
 discussed with vast resources of legendary lore 
 the different localities in Wicklow and Kildare 
 where Palladius is said to have preached and 
 built churches, but his authorities have little 
 historical value, being specially the Four 
 Masters and Jocelyn. His work contains, 
 however, much interesting matter for students 
 of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities, 
 its accuracy being guaranteed by his extensive 
 knowledge of the localities. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Pammaohius, a Roman senator of the 
 Furian family (Hieron. Ep. Ixvi. 6, ed. Vail.), 
 cousin to Marcella (ib. xlix. 4), and said by 
 Palladius (Hist. Laus. c. 122) to have been 
 related to Melania. He was a friend of 
 Jerome, Paulinus, and afterwards Augustine. 
 He was a fellow- student of Jerome at Rome 
 {Ep. xlviii. i), but apparently not specially 
 connected with church affairs in early life. 
 During Jerome's stay in Rome in 382-385 
 they probably met, since in 385 Pammachius 
 married Paulina, the daughter of Paula who 
 went with Jerome to Palestine. Pammachius 
 was learned, able, and eloquent {Ep. Ixxvii. i ; 
 xlix. 3). After his marriage, he seems to have 
 occupied himself much with scriptural studies 
 and church life. The controversy relating to 
 Jovinian interested him, and he is thought to 
 have been one of those who prociured the 
 condemnation of Jovinian from pope Siricius 
 (Tillem. x. 568). But Jerome's books against 
 Jovinian (pub. in 392) appeared to Pamma- 
 chius to be too violent. He bought up the 
 I copies and wrote to Jerome asking him to 
 moderate his language. Jerome refused, but 
 i thanked Pammachius for his interest, hailed 
 him as a well-wisher and defender, and pro- 
 I mised to keep him informed of his future 
 writings {Epp. xlviii., xlix.). Thenceforth their 
 intercourse was constant. 
 
 Pammachius is said by Jerome (xlix. 4) to 
 have been designated for the sacerdotium at 
 this time by the whole city of Rome and the 
 pontiff. But he was never ordained. His 
 growing convictions and those of his wife, the 
 fact that all his children died at birth and that 
 his wife died in childbirth (a.d. 397, see 
 Hieron. Ep. Ixvi., addressed to him 2 years 
 later), led him to take monastic vows. He, 
 however, still appeared among the senators 
 in their pmrple in the dark dress of a monk 
 {ib. Ixvi. 6). He showed his change of life by 
 munificent gifts and a great entertainment to 
 the poor (Paulinus, Ep. xiii 11 ; see also Pall. 
 Hist. Laus. 122). With Fabiola he erected a 
 hospital at Portus, which became world- 
 famous (Hieron. Ep. Ixvi. 11). 
 
 At the commencement of the Origenistic 
 controversy, Jerome wrote (in 395) to Pam- 
 machius his letter de Opt. Genere Interpretandi 
 {Ep. Ivii. ed. Vail.). On Rufinus coming to 
 Rome Pammachius, with Occanus and Mar- 
 cella, watched his actions in Jerome's interest, 
 and on his pubUcation of a translation of 
 Origen's Uepi 'Apx'^" wrote to Jerome to 
 request a full translation of the work {Epp. 
 Ixxxiii., Ixxxiv.). These friends also procured 
 the condemnation of Origenism by pope Anas- 
 tasius in 401, and to them Jerome's apology 
 against Rufiuus was addressed, and the book 
 cont. Joannem Hierosol. During the Donatist 
 schism in Africa Pammachius, who had 
 
PAMPHILUS 
 
 property in that |>r.Aiii. <■. wroti* {<■• tlir propl.- 
 of Nuiuidia, wlu-rc tlu- si liisiu liad Ixgun ' > 
 hortiiiK tluiM to rotiirn to tho unity i>! : 
 church. This lottor brought hun int.> i. 
 tions with AuRUstinc, who wrote (in ^oi) t 
 hini {t^p. Iviii.) ronKralul.ttiiiK hiiii on an 
 action likely to help in healing tlir s> hisni, and 
 desiring him to read the letter to his brother- 
 senators, that they ini|;ht do likewise. Alter 
 this we hear of I'atnn>a( hius only in connexion 
 with the Bibh--workof Jerome, who dedicated 
 to him his commentaries on the Minor Pro- 
 phets(4o6)and Haniel uo;), and at his reijuest 
 undertook the commentaries on Is. and Lzek. 
 (prefaces to Comm. on .\m. Dan. Is. and 
 Ezek.). Before the latter was finisheil, Pam- , 
 machius had died in the siege of Rome by ! 
 Alaric, a.d. 409. [w.ii.f.) i 
 
 Pamphllus d), presbyter of Caesarea. the' 
 intimate friend (Hieron. de Scripl. Eccl. 75) ! 
 and literary guide of Eusebius the church 
 historian, who ad<ipted his name as a surname, 
 calling himself ¥.i<fidio% \\anipi\ov. Kusebius 
 composed his friend's biography in three books. 
 The work is entirely lost, and our only know- 
 ledge of this chief among the Biblical scholars 
 of his age is derived from a few scattered [ 
 notices in the existing writings of Eusebius, 1 
 Jerome, and Photius. Pamphilus was a native | 
 of Phoenicia, and, if we accept the doubtful j 
 authority of Metaphrastes, born at Berytus, 
 of a wealthy and honourable family. Having 
 received his earlier education in his native I 
 city, he passed to Alexandria, where he 1 
 devoted himself to theological studies under 
 Pierius, the head of its catechetical school 
 (Routh, Rcl. Sacr. iii. 430; Phot. Cod. 118). 
 Pamphilus afterwards settled at Caesarea, of 
 which church he became a presbyter, prob- 1 
 ably during the episcopate of Agapius. Here 
 he commenced the work of his life, hunting 
 for books illustrative of Holy Scripture from 
 all parts of the world. The library thus 
 formed was subsequently repaired, after its 1 
 injuries during the persecution of Diocletian, 
 by Acacius and Euxoius, the successors of 
 Eusebius in the see of Caesarea (Hieron. Ep. j 
 xxxiv. vol. i. p. 155). Eusebius had cata- l 
 logued it (//. £. vi. 32). It was especially 1 
 rich in codices of the Scriptures, many tran- 
 scribed or corrected by Pamphilus's own hand. 
 In this Eusebius was a zealous coadjutor I 
 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c. 81). Jerome 
 speaks of Palestinian manuscripts of the LXX 
 current in the Syrian church, which, having 
 been carefully prepared by Origen, were pub- 
 lished by the two friends (Hieron. Pratt. »»» 
 Paralip. : adv. Rufin.u. 27. X-'\\- p.522). Among 
 other priceless literary treasures now lost was 
 a copy of the so-called Hebrew text of the 
 Gospel of St. Matthew (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. 
 c. 3) and the Tetrapla and Hexapla of Origeii 
 in the original copy (Hieron. in '/•/. iii. y, t. 
 vii. p. 734). In the catechetical »cho<.l of 
 Alexandria Pamphilus had conceived a ii»<»t 
 ardent admiration for Origen, with w! 
 works he made it his special object to «i.: 
 bis librarv, copving the greater part hin 
 (Yi'KTon. de Script. Eccl. c. 7*,). Jeroinegli. 
 in the possession of Origen's commentaru-* ou 
 the Minor Prophets in 25 volumes in Pam- 
 philus's autograph. Pamphilus proved bii 
 affection for the memory and fame of Origen 
 
 PANTACNUS 
 
 fa? 
 
 ■■-i 
 
 to 
 
 Cinnplrtrd l>rl< rr hl« dr4lh. Ihr tilth brtn( 
 a«ldr*l bv l-.UM-bnu I'tv titit, i A x\h\. 
 l'hotni% give% a brirl tV. 
 
 of which wr have bk 1 .t« 
 
 Latin vrr%ion ol Km .i^. 
 
 iv. pp. V •• \^ .nti 
 
 hail aril : .• 
 
 pertv ol v<^ 
 
 blUS d< V : 4U 
 
 III nee«l. cittut lit lli< : '>>« 
 
 mind, or the »oul. I !;>• 
 
 tures he causeil to l- i.l« 
 
 he distributed gratuil' 11 U. «!il. l.r ui. tally 
 supplied the tniiporal waiit% "i \\\"W in dis- 
 tress (Eus. de Marly. Palatil. r. 11 , Hirri«. 
 adv. Kuftn. i. 9. t. li. p. 4»>.\)- 
 
 In 307 Pamphllus was committed to prtv>€» 
 bv I'rbanus, thr |>rr»^riitin(r govcmttr ol the 
 city, and for tw 
 cheered bv tli' 
 self, Eusebius 1 "•• 
 
 Ep. 84). Paiii II- 
 
 fession of his \' '• le 
 
 centre of a br.i l* 
 
 shone out as tl in 
 
 309, when Firmihaiui!. had -u ■ •. • Irj L rt ,(iiu» 
 as governor. The library he i.illectrd wa« 
 destroyed when Caesarea wa» taken by the 
 Arabs in the 7th cent. (« v.) 
 
 PaneretitU dl, {St. Pancroi), mart\T at 
 Rome on the Via Aurelia, a.d. J04 ; a Phry- 
 gian bv birth, but baptized at Rome bv the 
 pope himself. He ".uflerrtl when onlv 1 4 vrar« 
 of age with his uncle Diouvmus. Hi» martyr- 
 dom was verv celebrated in the rarlv axe*. 
 His church still gives a title to a cardinal, and 
 to a well-known parish church in London. 
 Gregory of Tours {de Glor. Marll. i. ^(^) lelb 
 us that his tomb outside the wall* <•! Rome 
 was so sacred that the devil at once seurd 
 those who swore falsely before it. (.rrnory 
 the Great mentions the martyr in hi« fpp. 
 (iv. i» and vi. 49), and in Homilv (xxvii.) 00 
 St. John (Ceill. lii. agiTilIrm M^m v jho ; 
 /l.-l. S.S. B .11 M.U. II. 17 . H' ■ — ^"«- 
 
 p. 407 : .Marl. K,>m. IV/., Is. 
 
 PantMDtU, (hlrf of the I .1 <<l 
 
 of AUxaiulria. in the !■•,., .ud 
 
 cent, and perhaps lb- : il'f i»d- 
 
 Of his previous life I «»lh ccf- 
 
 tainty. We are n^t u." • : *"" »*• 
 
 originally a Christian .1 Li «>• 
 
 version. Our authoritir* '•r, 
 
 that he was trained in the t.i v, 
 
 and owed to this trainiiiK mU' ■' * 
 
 as a teacher. OriKrii, in a i ""d 
 
 by Eusebius (W f vi j<j' -«« 
 
 example — thri . ■ ^o 
 
 adduce — •<! a ' ** 
 
 hMIIS/-H of his »• 
 
 . . .tb 
 
 '.)>• 
 
 . Jv 
 
 Jrf luc Jt i >r Jii jO 
 
798 
 
 PANTAENUS 
 
 probably without authority) that Pantaenus 
 brought this to Alexandria. He also repre- 
 sents that the people of India had heard his 
 fame as a teacher and sent a deputation to 
 solicit this mission. This is by no means 
 incredible, considering the celebrity of Alex- 
 andria as a seat of learning. But Jerome 
 raises a difficulty when he names Demetrius as 
 the bishop by whom he was sent. For Euse- 
 bius places the accession of Demetrius to the 
 patriarchate in the loth year of Commodus 
 (//. E. V. 22 ; cf. Chron.), a.d. 189 ; while he 
 represents Pantaenus as head of the Alex- 
 andrian school in his ist year (//. E. v. 9, 10) 
 and distinctly conveys that this appointment 
 was after hisreturn from his Indian mission. 
 
 There is a like conflict of authority con- 
 cerning the relation of Pantaenus to Clement 
 of Alexandria. Eusebius (v. 11) unhesitat- 
 ingly assumes that Pantaenus is the unnamed 
 master whom Clement in his Stromateis (i. p. 
 322, Potter) places above all the great men 
 by whose teaching he was profited, " last met, 
 but first in power," in whom he " found rest." 
 To this authority we may add that of Pam- 
 philus, who was principal author of their joint 
 Apology for Origen; for Photius {Bibl. cxviii.) 
 states on the authority of that work (now 
 lost) that Clement " was the hearer of Pantae- 
 nus and his successor in the school." This 
 information Pamphilus no doubt had from his 
 master Pierius, himself head of the same 
 school, a follower of Origen and probably less 
 than 50 years his junior. Maximus the Con- 
 fessor (Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.) styles Pan- 
 taenus " the master " [Kad-qyTjrriv) of Clement. 
 But Philip of Side (c. 427) in his Hist. Chrts- 
 liana, as we learn from a fragment first pub. 
 by Dodwell, made " Clement the disciple of 
 Athenagoras, and Pantaenus of Clement." 
 We unhesitatingly prefer the witness of Euse- 
 bius. Dodwell's attempts to discredit it are 
 ineffectual. This contradiction, however, 
 and the difficulty as to the chronology of 
 Pantaenus, may be solved, or at least ac- 
 counted for, if we suppose that Pantaenus 
 was head of the school both before and 
 after his sojourn in India, and Clement in 
 his absence. Origen afterwards tlius quitted 
 and resumed the same office. If Pantaenus 
 was the senior, Clement was the more 
 brilliant ; and at the close of the 2nd cent, 
 it may well have seemed a question 
 which was master and which disciple. This 
 hypothesis agrees with the probable date of 
 element's headship ; and likewise with the 
 note in the Chronicon of Eusebius, under year 
 of Pertinax, or 2nd of Severus (c. 193), where 
 we read that Clement was then in Alexandria, 
 " a most excellent teacher (5i5a.a KaXos) and 
 shining light (6ie\aixir() of Christian phil- 
 osophy," and Pantaenus " was distinguished 
 as an expositor of the Word of God." Thus 
 also Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem (ap. Eus. 
 H. E. vi. 14), in a letter to Origen, couples the 
 names of Pantaenus and Clement (placing, 
 however, Pantaenus first), as " fathers," and 
 speaks of both as recently deceased. This 
 letter shows, further, that this Alexander and 
 the illustrious Origen himself were almost 
 certainly pupils of Pantaenus. 
 
 We do not know the date of his death, but 
 the Chronicon {vid. sup.) confirms Jerome in 
 
 PANTAENUS 
 
 prolonging his activity into the reign of 
 Severus (193-211), and not improbably, as 
 Jerome states, he lived into the following reign 
 — a statement repeated in the (later) Roman 
 Martyrology. Photius is thus wrong in be- 
 lieving that Pantaenus was a hearer not only 
 "of those who had seen the apostles" (which 
 he may well have been), but also " of some of 
 the apostles themselves." Aman alive after 193 
 and not the senior of Clement by more than 
 a generation could not possibly have been bom 
 so early as to have been a hearer even of St. 
 John. Photius was probably misled by a too 
 literal construction of Clement's statement 
 [Strom. U.S.) — that his teachers " had received 
 the true tradition of the blessed doctrine 
 straight from the holy apostles Peter, James, 
 John, and Paul." 
 
 Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus " inter- 
 preted the treasures of the divine dogmas " ; 
 Jerome, that he left " many commentaries on 
 the Scriptures." Both however indicate that 
 the church owed more to his spoken utterances 
 than to his writings. The two extant frag- 
 ments (see Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 378) appear 
 to be relics of his oral teaching. One bears 
 the character of a verbal reply to a question ; 
 it is preserved by Maximus the Confessor 
 {Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.), who, in illustration 
 of the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite 
 concerning the divine will, tells us that Pan- 
 taenus when asked by certain philosophers, 
 ■' in what manner Christians suppose God to 
 know things that are ? " replied, " Neither by 
 sense things sensible, nor by intellect things 
 intelligible. For it is not possible that He Who 
 is above the things that are, should apprehend 
 the things that are according to the things 
 that are. But we say that He knows the 
 i things that are, as acts of His own will (lis tdia 
 i d(\T)fji.aTa) ; and we give good reason for so 
 ' saying ; for if by act of His will He hath made 
 all things (which reason will not gainsay), and 
 I if it is ever both pious and right to say that 
 I God knows His own will, and He of His will 
 1 hath made each thing that hath come to be ; 
 ! therefore God knows the things that are as 
 } acts of His own will, inasmuch as He of His 
 I will hath made the things that are." The 
 j other, contained in the Eclogae e Propheticis 
 appended to the works of Clement, is intro- 
 duced by " Our Pantaenus used to say " 
 (?\f7e), and lays down as a principle in inter- 
 preting prophecy that it " for the most part 
 utters its sayings indefinitely [as to timel, 
 using the present sometimes for the future and 
 sometimes for the past." Anastasius of Sinai 
 (7th cent.), in his Contemplations on the 
 Hexaemeron (quoted by Routh, i. p. 15), twice 
 I cites Pantaenus as one authority for an inter- 
 i pretation according to which Christ and his 
 I church are foreshewn in the history of the 
 creation of Paradise (I. p. 860 ; VII. cont. p. 
 j 893 in Bibl. Max. PP. t. ix. ed. Lyons, 1677), 
 j the true inference from these references 
 i apparently being that Pantaenus led the way 
 in that method of spiritual or mystical inter- 
 pretation of O.T., usually associated with his 
 more famous followers, Clement and Origen. 
 
 Anastasius describes him as " priest of the 
 church of the Alexandrians (r^j 'AXefaj-Spf'w;' 
 ifpei's) " ; which is noteworthy in the ab- 
 sence of all direct information concerning the 
 
PAPA 
 
 time and place, or even the fact, of hi* ordina- , 
 tion. That he was a |>riest may be interretl — j 
 not indeed from his headship of a sch>M.|, (or ! 
 Origen was a laynian. but — from the fact that 
 he was sent by his bishop to evanReliie India. 
 
 Besides authors quoted, see Baronius, Ann., 
 s.a. 183; Cave. I'rimtltve Fathtts, p. i8s 
 (1677); Hint. Lit. t.i. p. 51 (UkHS); Du I'in. 
 AuUurseccUs. t. i. pt. i. p. 184; I.ardner, Crrdt- 
 bility, c. xxi. ; l.e ^uien. Oriens Chr. t. ii. coll. 
 382, 301 ; Tillem. Mim. t. iii. p. 170. [j.c.w]. 
 
 Papa. [N'fstokian CiiiKcii.) 
 
 Paphnutlus (2), bp. in Upper Thcbias. who 
 sufiFered mutiiatiim and banishment for the 
 faith (Socr. H. £. i. 11 ; Theod. H. K. i. 7). 
 At the council of Nicaea a.d. 325, he was 
 much honoured as a confessor, specially bv 
 Constantine(Socr. M.S.), and earnestly opposed 
 the enforcement of the law of clerical celibacy, 
 on the ground of both principle and expeiliencv, 
 and prevailed (16.). He closely adhered to the : 
 cause of St. Athanasius, and attended him at I 
 the council of Tyre, a.d. 335. Rufinus (//. K. ' 
 I. 17), followed by Sozomen"(//. Ii. ii. 25). tells 
 a dramatic story of his there reproaching 
 Maximus of Jerusalem for being in Arian com- 
 pany and explaining to him the exact pi^ition 
 of affairs. Fleury, H. E. xv. c. 26; Ceill. Aul. 
 sacr. iii. 420, 450 ; Boll. Ada SS. Sept. 11, iii. 
 778. [J.O.] i 
 
 Paphnutlus (5) (PafmUius, Pynuphius, sur- 
 named Buhalus. and Cephala), an anchoret i 
 and priest in the Scetic desert in Egypt, j 
 Cassian's words (Co//, iv. c. i) regarding nisi 
 promotion of abbat Daniel to the diaconate 
 and priesthood have been held to prove that | 
 a presbyter had the power of ordaining, but j 
 Bingham (Ant. bk. ii. 3, 7) will not admit 
 that Cassian is to be so understood. When j 
 Cassian visited him in 395, he was 90 years ' 
 old, but hale and active (Coll. iii. c. i). He 
 seems to have fled twice from the Scetic into I 
 Syria for greater s<^litude and perfection 
 (Cass, de Coen. Inst. iv. cc 30, 31), and with j 
 some others had in 373 already found nfuge 
 at Diocaesarea in Palestine (1 illem. vi. 1 
 250, 251, ed. 1732). In the anthropomorphic j 
 controversy between Th.-ophilus bp. of Alex- 1 
 andria and the monks of the Kgyptian desert, j 
 Paphnutius took the side of the bishop and ' 
 orthodoxy (Cass. Coll. x. c. 2) ; his attempt to 
 convert the aged Serapion and his failurr, till 
 Photinus came, is very curious (ib. 3). (j-i..) 
 
 PaplaS (1), bp. of ' Hierapolis in Phrygia i 
 (Eus. H. E. iii. 36) in the first half of 2nd cent. 
 Lightfoot says (Colon, p. 48), " Papias, or (as , 
 it is very frequently written in inscriptions) | 
 Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is 
 found several times at Hierapolis, not only in 
 inscriptions (Boeckh, 3930, 3912 a, add.), but 
 even on coins (Mionnet, iv. p. 301). This is 
 explained by the fact that it was an epithet 
 of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh, 3912 a. 
 Iloir/^t lit auiTTifn)." The date of Papias used 
 to be regarded as determined by a notice in 
 the Paschal Chronicle, which was thought to 
 record his martyrdom at Pergamus undrr 
 a.d. 163. But we have no ground for ass<-rt- 
 ing that Papias lived so late as 163, and we 
 shall see reason for at least placing his literary 
 activity considerably earlier in the century. 
 
 His name is famous as the writer of a 
 treatise in five books called Expoitttom of 
 
 PAPIAS 7M 
 
 OratUsofthtl.ofJ (.\o-,.„» K ...... r .■^•^^^*ut). 
 
 which title wr «hjll rlv. Th» 
 
 object of the bo.,k tw^n to 
 
 throw light on the 1. rt|^tallv 
 
 bv the hell) of oral trailltl u^ w !.n !i I'jpU* had 
 collrcteil fron> thofir who h4tl met mrtnltrr* 
 of the jpo»to|ir .inlr. Tli4t !'..i i . . I.\r,| 
 when It wa» still p.»k%l|ilr |o n. ii« 
 
 has givrn gtrat iinporianir ; v. 
 
 though oiijv soliir Vrrv (rw ' it 
 
 work rrin.iiii. livrrv word 1 i« 
 
 has brrii ri^idlv s< rutiiiixr<l, . v» 
 
 reasonable whrre s<ilittlr is Wi t« 
 
 have Ivrn built on the silmi < : .., . ut 
 
 sundry matters whu h it is s>ii.|..-».«l lir ..ui(hl 
 to have mentioned and .issoniol tliat hr did 
 n.>t. We give at Iniglh thr lirsi jiid m<>«l 
 important of the (ragiiiriiis, a t>ortion of the 
 preface prevrvcd bv i:usrl.iu» (111. 39). from 
 which we can infer thr ..|i)r<tof the work and 
 the resources wlii( h Pjpi.is 1 lainietl to have 
 available. " And I will not srruplr »\%,t to 
 give for thee a place alon^ with my inter- 
 pretations to whatsoever at aiiv time I Well 
 learned from the elders .ind well store«i up in 
 memory, guaranteeing its truth. For I did 
 not, like the generality, take pleasure in thov 
 who have much to say. l>ut in thov who teach 
 the truth ; nor in those who relate their 
 strange comniandmeiils, but in those who 
 record such as were given from the lord to the 
 Faith and come from the Truth itsrif. And if 
 ever any one came who had been a follower 
 of the elders, I would inquire as to the dis- 
 courses ol the elders, what was said bv An- 
 drew, or what by Peter, or what bv Pliilii', or 
 what bv Thomas or James, or what bv John 
 or Matthew or anv other of the diM iples oj the 
 Lord ; and the things which Arislioii and the 
 elder John, the disciples of the Lord, sav. F«>r 
 I did not think that I could get so much proAt 
 from the contents ni b.x'ks as from the utter- 
 ances of a living and abiding voice." 
 
 The singular "for thee" in the oprning 
 Words implies that the work of Papias wai 
 inscribed to some individual. The hrst sen- 
 tence of the extract had evidently |o|h>Wrd oue 
 in which the writer had spoken ..( the " inter- 
 pretations " which appear to have t>een tlie 
 main subject of his treatise, and f-.r joining his 
 traditions with wliic h he conceives an ap<>io4(y 
 ner.-^sarv. Thus we see that Papias IS not 
 making a first attempt t.- write the lile ..| our 
 Lord or a history of the aposiles, but assume* 
 the previous existence of a written lr<orU. 
 Papias enumerates the ultimate sources of bl« 
 traditions in two 1 lasses : Andrew. Peter, aud 
 others, of whom he speaks in the past truse ; 
 Aristion and John the hider. of whom he 
 speaks in the present. As the pa»%a|(p l« 
 generally iiiulerst.HKl, Papias only claims a 
 second hand knowledge of what these had rr. 
 lated, but had Inqulretl from any who had 
 conferred with elder*, what Andrew. Peter, 
 etc., had said, and what |.ihn and AiUlioo 
 Wfte saying ; the last i" 1 - .. i^.^ i :% .ne* 
 then surviving. Hut ^le 
 
 is a I haiige of pron t<i 
 
 think that there is ai. 'at 
 
 his meaning, however lU n; Hivcvl. »a4 that 
 he learne«l, by inquuy li'in others, thtnr^ 
 that Andrew, Peter, and others had said, aud 
 aho stored up in hi* memory thU»o which 
 
800 
 
 PAPIAS 
 
 Aristioa and John said in his own hearing. 1 
 Eusebius certainly understands Papias to 
 claim to have been a hearer of this John and 
 Aristion. The word "elders" is ordinarily 
 used of men of a former generation, and would | 
 be most naturally understood here of men of j 
 the first generation of Christians, if it were ] 
 not that in the second clause the title seems 
 to be refused to Aristion, who is nevertheless 
 described as a disciple (by which we must 
 understand a personal disciple) of our Lord ; 
 and as those mentioned in the first group are 
 all apostles, the word " elder," as Papias used 
 it, may have included, besides antiquity, the 
 idea of official dignity. As to whether the 
 John mentioned with Aristion is different from 
 John the apostle previously mentioned, see 
 Johannes (444) Presbyter. 
 
 The fragment quoted enables us to fix with- 
 in certain limits the date of Papias. He is 
 evidently separated by a whole generation 
 from the apostolic age ; he describes himself 
 as living when it was not exceptional to meet 
 persons who had been hearers of the apostles, 
 and (if we understand him rightly) he had met 
 two who professed to have actually seen our 
 Lord Himself. Eusebius tells that Philip the 
 apostle (some suppose that he ought to have 
 said Philip the deacon) came to reside at 
 Hierapolis with his daughters ; and that 
 Papias, on the authority of these daughters, 
 tells a story of Philip raising a man from the 
 dead. Eusebius certainly understood Papias 
 to describe himself as contemporary with those 
 daughters and as having heard the story from 
 them. U these were they whom St. Luke 
 describes as prophesying at Caesarea in 58, 
 and if they were young women then, they 
 might have been still alive at Hierapolis be- 
 tween 100 and no. But as Papias speaks of 
 his inquiries in the past tense, a considerable 
 time had probably elapsed before he published 
 the results. On' the whole, we shall not be 
 far wrong in dating the work c. 130. 
 
 Papias evidently lived after the rise of 
 Gnosticism and was not unaffected by the 
 controversies occasioned by it. Strong as- 
 ceticism was a feature of some of the earliest 
 Gnostic sects ; and their commandments, 
 "Touch not, taste not, handle not," may well 
 have been " the strange commandments " to 
 which Papias refers. Lightfoot is probably 
 right in thinking that the sarcasm in the phrase 
 " those who have so very much to say " may 
 have been aimed at the work on the Gospel 
 by Basilides in 24 books, and some similar 
 productions of the Gnostic schools of which 
 the later book Pistis Sophia is a sample. 
 
 Of the traditions recorded by Papias, what 
 has given rise to most discussion and has been 
 the foundation of most theories is what he 
 relates about the Gospels of SS. Matthew and 
 Mark, which he is the first to mention by name. 
 Concerning Mark he says, " This also the elder 
 [John] said : Mark having become the inter- 
 preter of Peter wrote accurately everything 
 that he remembered of the things that were 
 either said or done by Christ ; but however 
 not in order. For he neither heard the Lord 
 nor had been a follower of His ; but after- 
 wards, as I said, was a follower of Peter, who 
 framed his teaching according to the needs 
 [of his hearers], but not with the design of 
 
 PAPIAS 
 
 giving a connected account of the Lord's dis- 
 courses [or oracles]. Thus Mark committed 
 no error in thus writing down some things as 
 he remembered them. For he took heed to 
 one thing : not to omit any of the things he 
 had heard, or to set down anything falsely 
 therein." Concerning Matthew, all that re- 
 mains of what Papias says is, " So then 
 Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, 
 and every one interpreted them as he could." 
 For a long time no one doubted that Papias 
 here spoke of our Gospels of SS. Matthew and 
 Mark ; and mainly on the authority of these 
 passages was founded the general belief of the 
 Fathers, that St. Matthew's Gospel had been 
 originally written in Hebrew, and St. Mark's 
 founded on the teaching of Peter. But 
 some last-century critics contended that our 
 present Gospels do not answer the descrip- 
 tions given by Papias. There is a striking re- 
 semblance between the two as we have them 
 at present ; but Papias's description, it is 
 said, would lead us to think of them as very 
 different. St. Matthew's Gospel, according to 
 Papias, was a Hebrew book, containing an 
 account only of our Lord's discourses ; for so 
 Schleiermacher translates to. \6yi.a, which we 
 . have rendered " oracles." St. Mark, on the 
 I other hand, wrote in Greek and recorded the 
 acts as well as the words of Christ. Again, St. 
 Mark's Gospel, which in its present state has 
 an arrangement as orderly as St. Matthew's, 
 was, according to Papias, not written in order. 
 The conclusion which has been drawn is, that 
 Papias's testimony relates not to our Gospels 
 of SS. Matthew and Mark, but to their un- 
 known originals ; and accordingly many con- 
 stantly speak of " the original Matthew," the 
 " Ur-Marcus," though there is no particle of 
 evidence beyond what may be extracted from 
 this passage of Papias that there ever was 
 any Gospel by SS. Matthew or Mark different 
 from those we have. Renan even undertakes 
 to give an account of the process by which the 
 two very distinct works known to Papias, 
 St. Matthew's collection of discourses, and 
 I St. Mark's collection of anecdotes, came into 
 I their present similar forms. In the early times, 
 ' every possessor of anything that purported to 
 be a record of our Lord desired to have the 
 story complete ; and would write into the 
 margin of his book matter he met elsewhere, 
 and so the book of St. Mark's anecdotes 
 was enriched by a number of traits from St. 
 Matthew's " discourses " and vtce versa. 
 
 If this theory were true, we should expect 
 to find in early times a multitude of gospels 
 differing in their order and selection of facts. 
 Why we should have now exactly four ver- 
 1 sion's of the story is hard to explain on this 
 I hypothesis. We should expect that, by such 
 I mutual assimilation, all would in the end 
 I have been reduced to a single gospel. The 
 j soUtary fact to which Renan appeals in sup- 
 port of his theory in reality refutes it — the 
 fact, i.e., that the'pericope of the adulteress 
 (John vii. 53-viii. 11) is absent from some 
 MSS. and differently placed in others. Such 
 an instance is so unusual that critics have 
 generally inferred that this pericope cannot 
 be a genuine part of St. John's Gospel; but 
 if Renan's theory were true, the phenomena 
 present in a small degree in this case ought to 
 
PAPIAS 
 
 be seea in a multitiulc of lascs. Thrrr oi!.-).> 
 to be many i>arabl.-s aiul imra< irs ..| ^^ 
 we should be uiucrtaiii whcilur thrv ^ 
 comiuon to all the evanuchsU or •>.•■:. 
 one, and what placr lit that our i 
 occupy. Further, accordui^ to K> ;. 
 thesis, St. Mark's desii;u was u». i 
 hensive than St. Matthew's. St. .M.uth. « ..nu 
 related our Lord's discoiu-scs; St. Mark, the 
 " things said or done by Christ," i <• t> t'l 
 discourses and anecdotes. St. M.it' 
 would thusditiertrom St.. Matthew 
 and St. .Matthews read like an ali . 
 St. Mark's, lixactly the opposite »> i .,. 
 
 We count it a mere blunder to tr.insiate 
 Xiiyta "discourses" as if it were the s.ime as 
 Xdyoit. InN.T.(.\rtsvii. 3S; Koni. lii. 2 ; Heb. 
 V. 12; I. Pel. iv. 11) the word has its . i.»ssi< al 
 meaning, " oracles," and is applied to the in- 
 spired utterances of liod in O. I . Nor is there 
 reason to think that when St. I'aul, e.g., savs 
 that to the Jews were committed the orach-s 
 of God, he confined this epithet to thos*- parts 
 of O.T. which contained divine sayings and 
 refused it to those narrative parts from which 
 he so often drew lessons (Kom. iv. 3; I. Cor. x. 
 I, xi. 8; Gal. iv. ii). Philo quotes as a \iyK>¥ 
 the narrative in Gen. iv. is, " The Lord set a 
 mark upon Cain," etc., and the words (Deut. 
 X.), " The Lord God is his inheritance." 
 Similarly the .\postolic Fathers. In Clement 
 (LCor. 53) rd .\67ta roO 610O is used as equiva- 
 lent to rat ifpds 7/>a^t. (See also c. 19, 
 Folyc. ad Phil. 7.) .As Papias's younger con- 
 temporary Justin Martyr tells us that the 
 reading of the Gospels had in his time become 
 part of Christian public worship, we may 
 safely pronounce the silentsubstitutionof one 
 Gospel for another a thing inconceivable; and 
 we conclude that, as we learn from J ustin that 
 the Gospels had been set on a level with the 
 O.T. in the public reading of the church, so 
 we know from Papias that the ordinary name 
 tA Xir/ia for the O.T. books had in Chnstian 
 use been extended to the Gospels which were 
 called -a Ki'i>ia.ka \i>ta, the "oracles of our 
 Lord." There is no reason to imagine the 
 work of Papias limited U) an exposition of our 
 Lord's discourses ; wc translate therefore its 
 title Ki'ptaicwi' \oyiii>v tj»n^"», "Expositions 
 of the Gospels." 
 
 The manner in which Papias speaks of St. 
 Mark's Gospel quite agrees with the inspired 
 authority, which the title, as we understand it, 
 implies. Three times in this short fragnimt 
 he attests St. .Mark's perfect accuracy. " .Mark 
 wrote down accurately everything that he re- 
 membered. " " .Mark committed 110 error." 
 " He made it his rule not to omit anything he 
 bad heard or to set down any false statement 
 therein." Yet, for some rcas<jn, Papias w.i* 
 dissatished with St. Mark's arrangement 
 thought it necessary to apologiic for it. 
 account of the passage is s.iti^f n i f v ■. 
 does not explain why, if I' 
 St. .Mark so much, he was di 
 order. Here the hypothec 
 once, that P.ipias only p • 
 ments unlike in kind, the 
 discourses, the other of aii> 
 ing St. .Mark's accuracy as "'• oi.. . ..i-.^ 
 would certainly have accepted hu order unteM 
 
 least 
 
 kn <«• 
 
 onier. but oi 
 Lightf>H.t <|. 
 
 S'lutl 
 
 St. Luh 
 cxt.int 
 has be. 
 with 1 
 work • ' 
 
 Ml 
 
 ihU 
 
 41 
 
 i^l 
 
 irk 
 
 .cbt 
 M. 
 
 lu 
 
 ^tit 
 ..II. 
 
 give,. ; 
 
 thatEu 
 rcas.>n t 
 
 de<:essors I.j uiuliAiiUi 
 Hilgenteld hnds in 1 
 echoes of the prefa.r 
 which induce him to l> 
 that gospel. To us 
 carry convirti -ti. bni 
 ancc th.i! " 
 In one ii 
 
 
 he 
 
 lal 
 
 ,10- 
 
 ■d L.o..k» ..« the L 
 he preface of 1 
 
 to St. I ukr\ . 
 
 an.jo. 
 'aplAt 
 
 ■.■.,cm 
 
 
 *X' 
 
 
 t«; 
 
 in anot:. 
 
 Jud.isl> > 
 
 recoiuile the story in 
 lllthe.\cts. One ex t 
 have been part of a 
 words preserve*! by St 
 as lightning fall from 
 
 Hut if Papias knew 
 language with respeit 
 explained. St. t.ukr 
 int<nti.'n t > write in 
 
 
 ul 
 
 
 
 
 1 to 
 
 
 •.:.al 
 
 to 
 
 (d't 
 
 .Lake. ■ I UUtid 
 heaven." 
 
 St. I.uk.'> G -Si 
 
 t...st M 
 
 % pr.: 
 
 :>atait 
 
 I. hb 
 
 111* 
 ■f , 
 
 \ iir c< luUl. 1 itu*. *•' iM 
 
 61 
 
802 PAPiAS 
 
 true that Papias did not use our present 
 Gospels, we believe that he was the first to 
 harmonize them, and to proclaim the principle 
 that no apparent disagreement between them 
 affects their substantial truth. Remembering 
 the solicitude Papias here displays to clear the 
 Gospels from all suspicion of error, and the 
 recognition of inspired authority implied in 
 the title Xdyia, we cannot admit the inference 
 which has been drawn from the last sentence 
 of the fragment, that Papias attached little 
 value to the Gospels as compared with the viva 
 voce traditions he could himself attest ; and we 
 endorse Lightfoot's explanation, that it was 
 the Gnostic apocryphal writings which Papias 
 found useless in his attempts to illustrate the 
 Gospel narrative accepted by the church. 
 
 As we have seen, the extant fragments of 
 Papias do not mention the Gospels of SS. Luke 
 or John by name. Eusebius says, however, 
 that Papias uses testimonies from St. John's 
 first epistle. There is therefore very strong 
 presumption that Papias was acquainted with 
 the Gospel, a presumption strengthened by the 
 fact that the list of the apostles in the frag- 
 ment of the preface contains names in the 
 order in which they occur in St. J ohn's Gospel, 
 placing Andrew before Peter, and includes 
 some, such as Thomas and Philip, who outside 
 that Gospel have littleprominence in theGospel 
 record, and that it gives to our Lord the 
 Johannine title, the Truth. Irenaeus (v. 36) 
 has preserved a fragment containing an express 
 recognition of St. J ohn's Gospel ; and though 
 Irenaeus only gives it as a saying of the elders, 
 Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., u.s.) has given con- 
 vincing reasons for thinking that Papias is his 
 authority, a conclusion which Harnack accepts 
 as highly probable. An argument prefixed 
 to a Vatican (9th cent.) MS. of St. John's 
 Gospel quotes a saying of Papias about that 
 Gospel and speaks of Papias as having been 
 John's amanuensis. On the latter statement, 
 see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 854 ; but the evidence 
 seems good enough to induce us to beUeve 
 that the work of Papias contained some 
 notices of St. John's Gospel which Eusebius 
 has not thought it worth while to mention. 
 Papias belonged to Asia Minor, where the 
 Fourth Gospel according to all tradition was 
 written, and where its authority was earliest 
 recognized ; and he is described by Irenaeus 
 as a companion of Polycarp, of whose use of 
 St. John's Gospel we cannot doubt. Euse- 
 bius does not mention that Papias used the 
 Apocalypse ; but we learn that he did from 
 other trustworthy authorities, and on the 
 subject of Chiliasm Papias held views most 
 distasteful to Eusebius. We learn from 
 Irenaeus (v. 33) that Papias, in his fourth 
 book, told, on the authority of " the Elder " 
 [John], how our Lord had said that " the days 
 will come when there shall be vines having 
 10,000 stems, and on each stem 10,000 
 branches, and on each branch 10,000 shoots, 
 and on each shoot 10,000 clusters, and in each 
 cluster 10,000 grapes, and each grape when 
 pressed shall give 25 measures of wine. And 
 when any of the saints shall take hold of a 
 cluster, another shall cry out, I am a better 
 cluster, take me, and bless the Lord through 
 me." The story tells of similar predictions 
 concerning other productions of the earth, and 
 
 PAPIAS 
 
 relates how the traitor Judas expressed his 
 unbelief and was rebuked by our Lord. The 
 ultimate original of this story of Papias was a 
 Jewish apocryphal book made known by 
 Ceriani, Monumenta Sac. et Profan., in 1866. 
 See the Apocalypse of Baruch, c. 29, in 
 Fritzsche, Libri Apoc. Vet. Test. p. 666. To 
 this, and possibly other similar stories, Euse- 
 bius no doubt refers when he says that Papias 
 had related certain strange parables and 
 teachings of the Saviour and other things of a 
 fabulous character. Amongst these Eusebius 
 quotes the doctrine that after the resurrection 
 the kingdom of Christ would be exhibited for 
 a thousand years in a sensible form on this 
 earth ; and he considers that things spoken 
 mystically by the apostles had wrongly been 
 understood literally by Papias, who " was a 
 man of very poor understanding as his writings 
 shew." The common text of Eusebius else- 
 where (iii. 26) calls him a very learned man, 
 deeply versed in the Holy Scriptmres ; but the 
 weight of evidence is against the genuineness 
 of the clause containing this encomium, which 
 probably expresses later church opinion. 
 
 Eusebius tells nothing as to Papias's use of 
 St. Paul's Epistles, and, though the silence 
 of Eusebius alone would not go far, Papias 
 may have found no occasion to mention them 
 in a work on the gospel history. In looking 
 for traditions of our Lord's life, Papias would 
 naturally inquire after the testimony of those 
 who had seen Him in the flesh. The very 
 gratuitous inference from the assumed fact 
 that Papias does not quote St. Paul, that he 
 must have been Ebionite and anti- Pauline, is 
 negatived by the fact that, as Eusebius testi- 
 fies, he used St. Peter's Epistle, a work the 
 teaching of which, as all critics allow, is com- 
 pletely Pauline. If the silence of Eusebius as 
 to the use by Papias of St. John's Gospel and 
 St. Paul's Epistles affords any presumption, 
 it is that Papias gave no indication that his 
 opinion about the undisputed books differed 
 from that which, in the time of Eusebius, was 
 received as unquestioned truth. For Eusebius 
 thought meanly of Papias and, if he had known 
 him to have held wrong opinions about the 
 Canon, would have been likely to have men- 
 tioned it in disparagement of his authority in 
 support of Chiliasm. 
 
 Eusebius says that Papias tells a story of a 
 woman accused before our Lord of many sins, 
 a story also to be found in the Gospel according 
 to the Hebrews. There is a reasonable prob- 
 ability that this story may be that of the 
 woman taken in adultery, now found in the 
 common text of St. John's Gospel. Eusebius 
 does not say that Papias took this story from 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the 
 presumption is that Papias gave it as known to 
 him by oral tradition and not from a written 
 source. If so, Papias need have had no direct 
 knowledge of the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews. Papias has a story about Justus 
 Barsabas having taken a cup of poison without 
 injury. If Papias's copy of St. Mark contained 
 the disputed verses at the end, this story might 
 appropriately have been told to illustrate the 
 verse, " If they drink any deadly thing it shall 
 not hurt them," a promise instances of the 
 fulfilment of which are very rare, whether in 
 history or legend. A story of the kind is told 
 
PAPYLUS 
 
 of the apostle John, but is probal.lv l.itrr tb^n 
 Papias, or we should have been likciv to hav« 
 heard of it here. 
 
 Georgius Hainartohis quotes Papias as 
 saying, in his second b.K>k. that the ap.>stlr 
 John had been killed bv the Jews. That 
 there is some blunder is clear ; b<»t I tirtitfo t 
 has made it very probable from ■ 
 with a passage in Origen that a i 
 of Papias is quoted, but with thr 
 a line or two. Papias. in coniiii. ..i.,,», ,> 
 Matt. XX. 22, may verv well h.ive s.iui, as diws 
 Origen, that John h. id been cond.iunetl bv the 
 Roman emperor to exile at Patmos and that 
 James had been killtnl by the Jews. 
 
 In JoAN.vES Presbyter we quote several 
 authorities (including Irenaeus) who speak uf 
 Papias as a disciple of John the Kvangelisl. 
 He is called by Anastasius of Sinai 6 Tdrv and 
 6 ToXi'i, and passed in the church as an 
 authority of the highest rank. Jerome (Ep. 
 ad Lucinium, 71 Vallars.) contradicts a report 
 that he had translated the writings of Papias 
 and Polycari>, decl.iring that he had neither 
 leisure nor ability for such a task. He d.>es 
 not, in his writings, shew any signs that he 
 knew more of the work of I'apias than he 
 could have learned from Eusebius. The 
 latest trace of the existence of the work of 
 Papias is that an inventory, a.d. 1218, of the 
 possessions of the cathedral of Nismes (Menard. 
 Hist, civil, ecclls. et litUr. de la vtlle de Sismts) 
 contains the entry " Item inveni inclaustro — 
 librum Papie librum de verbis Domini." No 
 trace of this MS. has been recovered. The 
 fragments of Papias have been assembled in 
 various collections, e.g. Grabe {SpiciUgium), 
 Galland and Routh (Rel. Sac), but can best 
 be read in Gebhardt and Harnark's A post. 
 Fathers, pt. ii. ; a trans, is in the vi.l. of .ApoU. 
 Fathers in Ante-Sicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). 
 Dissertations on Papias are very numerous ; 
 we may mention important articles in the 
 Theol. Studten und Kritiken by Schleiemiacher, 
 1832, Zahn. 1S67, Steilz, 1868; an essay by 
 Weiffenbaf h ((iicssen, 1876), a reply by Leini- 
 bach (( iotha, i S78), and a rejoinder bv Weiffen- 
 bach, Jahrbuch f. prot. Theol. 1877 ; Milgenfeld 
 in his /ourna/. 1875, 1877, 1879; I,ightfo..t, Con- 
 temp. Rev. 1867, 1875 ; Harnack, Chronologte. 
 
 Others of the name of Papias are — a martyr 
 with Victorinus (.\ssemani, Act. Mart. Or. et 
 Ou. ii. 60) ; a martyr with Onesiinus at Kom«-. 
 Feb. 16 ; a physician at Laixiic ea (I-abric. liibt. 
 Gr. vii. 154) ; and a grammarian I'api.is in the 
 nth cent., a note "f whose on the .Maries of 
 the Gospel was published by (irabe atiiong the 
 fragments of Papias of Hierapolis and ac- 
 cepted as such until Lightfo<it established 
 the true authorship. fc.s.) 
 
 PapyiUS (/'apiriMS or Papyrius, as Kufinus, 
 and Ado after him, write), April 13. In 1881 
 Aube brought some new facts to light respect- 
 ing this luartvr from the (.reek .MSS. in the 
 Bibliothique Salionale. Papylus is mentioned 
 by Eusebius (//. E. iv. 15) at the ind of his 
 account of Polycarp's martyrdom. Kumart 
 (p. 27), in his preface to the Arts of l'..lv( ar|>, 
 says that according to Hu';.'- ■ '' ■■ - '' - ■• ■' 
 his companions Carpus and .\ . 
 about the same time as P ■! 
 mistake of the Bollandist Mli. 
 out of the Latin version of l.u>tbni.s wind* 
 
 PA9CBNTIUS 
 
 It'll Ih.T Alt.. 
 
 Uttrrlv W..rthlrA«. l! 
 
 ftOS 
 
 the 
 
 lU 
 
 ' hr 
 
 •:■• • ■■ • , ■ .• .►... oi 
 
 M. .\lU.■ll.l^ ..I ..| .S. vrr.l> .. t » 1 
 
 Parmenianut, su<. -ss.r \< n ii.itii< ih* 
 (.rrat. wh.. l..ll,,wr,l M.»)..iimi» ..» |i..nj|it( 
 bp. of larlhage. Optutu* ralU hini '!>«•»• 
 griniLH," 1.0. probably not a native <>( Alrtra. 
 Having adopted Donaliit <>pinloii«, be »uc- 
 ceetled Donatusr. 3<lo. wa<» l>ant*hr<l a.d. Ji«, 
 and rrtuniixl under the decree <■( Julian a.d. 
 \bi (.-Vug. Retract ii ir; •'!- ' i^f^n ap. 
 \\\cT'>i\.upp.\ ' '• iiie, 
 
 if not earlier, .w 
 
 extant, m hv. , .n,_ 
 
 to whu h the t ly. 
 
 About 372 Ti. : »rd 
 
 ill Scripture, l. r .w 
 
 and exclusive \ 1 
 to condemn thtiu, Imi wr, 
 his party. Parincnian re) 
 the d'Ktrine of Tichonius a% r 
 the true church, that of tl • 
 the corrupt one, the Calli 
 African branch. A counnl 
 bishops was conveni'<l at ■ 
 sat for 75 davs and at 1 . 
 " traditors," even if thry r^ 
 
 should be admitted ti» »■... ■,. 
 
 I'P- 93. 4 3)- 
 
 The time ..f this cum il is not kn..wn. 
 
 menian died aii<l 
 c. 392 ; but li: 
 into the hand- 
 request of his I: . 
 in three books, < 
 and n.jte J2) 
 
 (.■-• fs .1.11. n. XI 
 F<.r a full acci.unt 
 
 •k 
 'ng 
 lUK 
 ■«-| 
 lih 
 It* 
 
 !l«t 
 
 >.b 
 • at 
 
 III, 
 A.i4t- 
 
 Par. 
 
 iii.ian 
 
 ;lie 
 
 I I2lt 
 
 >f the 
 
 treatise, with a li<t ■ f S.rt;'Tt!rr rju tittin*, 
 see Kibbek, /) ■ «»- 
 
 366. (SecaK 
 
 PaSMDtltU I of 
 
 imperial pro; 'imj 
 
 reniae, sever.- r 
 .\riaii and a b. 
 faith, verv troi 
 and perhap* n 
 »)f Carthage. 
 
 H.K^king, Sol. / I 
 
 He reque*tc*l M A ;,;>i.!iu>- 
 him at Carthage on the «ul.)r< t 
 406. but refu»e.l t ill w -.vnt' 
 divussion t<. 1 '41 
 
 Augiutinr was .*. 
 
 Augustine Iber i. - 
 
 rrsslmi t of 
 
 reply. p •*• 
 
 nent'» I *«« 
 
 ....I,... . . ,in« 
 
 •f iUu»- 
 
 ; V word* 
 
 I Ii. Af^p. 
 
 Mim V.J 
 
 an 
 
 lie 
 
 led 
 
 .lu.Mitd iicrgjr 
 
 Amg. r. 17; 
 
 it l> \?4 391 ) 
 
 t.. cnfrr wlib 
 
 of rrllKKKi, A O. 
 
 .-Tl n t.-i ' t the 
 
 pp. iJJi IIOJ 
 
 Ml*;!..- , I llir 
 
804 
 
 PASGHASINUS 
 
 xiii. 164, 165 and note 41 ; CeilL, vol. ix. pp. 
 
 185, 186, 194- [H.W.P.] 
 
 Paschasinus (2), bp. of Lilybaeum in Sicily, 
 c. 440, when that country was devastated by 
 Vandal raids (LeonisMagni, Ep. iii. c.i. Migne's 
 ed., note e). Leo the Great, sending him 
 pecuniary assistance, consulted him about the 
 Paschal cycle (a.d. 443). He replies in favour 
 of the Alexandrian computation against the 
 Roman, but in an abject strain of deference 
 to his patron. He relates in confirmation of 
 his view a miracle which used to occur in the 
 baptistery of an outlying church on the 
 property of his see on the true Paschal Eve 
 every year, the water rising miraculously in 
 the font [ib. c. 3). In 451 he received another 
 letter from Leo desiring him to make inquiries 
 as to the Paschal cycle [Ep. Ixxxviii. c. 4) and 
 sending him the Tome to stir up his energies 
 in the cause of orthodoxy. Immediately after 
 he was sent as one of Leo's legates to the 
 council of Chalcedon [Ep. Ixxxix.) and pre- 
 sided on his behalf (Labbe, Cone. vol. iv. 
 p. 580 E, etc. The phrase " synodo prae- 
 sidens," however, does not occur in the Acta 
 of the council, but only in the signatures of the 
 prelates representing Rome.) [c.g.] 
 
 PaschasiUS (3), deacon of Rome, called by 
 Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, bk. iv. 
 c. 40, "a man of great sanctity." He was a 
 firm supporter of the antipope Laurentius to 
 his death, and his adhesion was a great source 
 of strength to the opponents of Symmachus 
 (cf. Baronius, ann. 498). There is extant a 
 work of his in two books, de Sancto Spiritu 
 (Pair. Lat. Ixii. 9-40), which Gregory (u.s.) 
 calls " libri rectissimi ac luculenti." The date 
 of his death was c. 512. [g.w.d.] 
 
 Pastor (1). This name is connected with 
 traditions of the Roman church, which, 
 though accepted as historical by Baronius and 
 other writers, including Cardinal Wiseman 
 (Fabiola, p. 189), must be rejected as mythical. 
 These traditions relate to the origin of two of 
 the oldest of the Roman tituli, those of St. 
 Pudentiana and St. Praxedis, which still give 
 titles to cardinals, and the former of which 
 claims to be the most ancient church in the 
 world. The story is that Peter when at Rome 
 dwelt in the house of the senator Pudens in 
 the vicus Patricius, and there held divine 
 service, his altar being then the only one at 
 Rome. Pudens is evidently intended as the 
 same who is mentioned II. Tim. iv. 21. His 
 mother's name is said to have been Priscilla, 
 and it is plainly intended to identify her with 
 the lady who gave to an ancient cemetery 
 at Rome its name. The story relates that 
 Pudens, on the death of his wife, converted 
 his house into a church and put it under the 
 charge of the priest Pastor, from whom it was 
 known us " titulus Pastoris." This titulus is 
 named in more than one document, but in all 
 the name may have been derived from the 
 story. Thus in the Acts of Nemesius, pope 
 Stephen is said to have held a baptism there 
 (Baronius, a.d. 257, n. 23). Our story relates 
 that the baptistery had been placed there by 
 pope Pius I., who often exercised the episcopal 
 functions in this church. Here the two 
 daughters of Pudens, Pudentiana and Praxe- 
 dis, having given all their goods to the poor, 
 dedicated themselves to the service of God. 
 
 1PATRICIUS 
 
 This church, under the name of Ecclesia Pu- 
 dentiana, is mentioned in an inscription of 
 A.D. 384, and there are epitaphs of priests 
 tituli Pudentis of a.d. 489 and 528 (de Rossi, 
 Bull. 1867, n. 60 ; 1883, p. 107). The original 
 authority for the story appears to be a letter 
 purporting to be written by Pastor to Timothy 
 (see Boll. AA. SS. May 19, iv. 299). He 
 informs Timothy of the death of his brother 
 Novatus, who, during his illness, had been 
 visited by Praxedis, then the only surviving 
 sisters. He obtains Timothy's consent to the 
 application of the property of Novatus to 
 religious uses according to the direction of 
 Praxedis ; and baths possessed by Novatus 
 in the vicus Lateritius are converted into a 
 second titulus, now known as of St. Praxedis. 
 This titulus is mentioned in an epitaph of a.d. 
 491 (de Rossi, Bull. 1882, p. 65) ; and priests 
 of both tituli sign in the Roman council of 499. 
 On this letter are founded false letters of pope 
 Pius I. to Justus of Vienna, given in Baronius 
 [Ann. 166, i.), a forgery later than the Iso- 
 dorian Decretals. Those who maintain the 
 genuineness of the letter of Pastor are met 
 by the chronological difficulty of connecting 
 Pudens with both St. Paul and Pius I. It has 
 been argued that such longevity is not im- 
 possible ; and it has been suggested that 
 Praxedis and Pudentiana were not grand- 
 daughters of Pudens. But the spuriousness 
 of the whole storv has been abundantly shown 
 by Tillemont (ii.'286, 615). [g.s.] 
 
 Patricius (10) (St. Patrick), Mar. 17, the 
 national apostle of Ireland, has been the sub- 
 ject of much controversy. His existence has 
 been doubted, his name ascribed to 7 different 
 persons at least, and the origin and authority 
 of his mission warmly disputed. 
 
 I. The Documents. — The materials for St. 
 Patrick's history which have a claim to be 
 regarded as historical are, in the first place, 
 the writings of the saint himself. We have 
 two works ascribed to him, his Confession and 
 his Epistle to Coroticus. Both seem genuine. 
 
 We have a copy of the Confession more than 
 1,000 years old preserved in the Book of 
 Armagh, one of the great treasures of the 
 library of Trinity College, Dublin. This copy 
 professes, in the colophon appended to it, to 
 have been taken from the autograph of dt. 
 Patrick. " Thus far the volume which St. 
 Patrick wrote with his own hand." Dr. Todd, 
 in his Life of St. Patrick (p. 347), sums up the 
 case for the Confession of St. Patrick : " It 
 is altogether such an account of himself as a 
 missionary of that age, circumstanced as St. 
 Patrick was, might be expected to compose. 
 Its Latinity is rude and archaic, it quotes the 
 ante-Hieronymian Vulgate ; and contains 
 nothing inconsistent with the century in which 
 it professes to have been written. If it be a 
 forgery, it is not easy to imagine with what 
 purpose it could have been forged." This 
 strong testimony might have been made 
 stronger and applies equally clearly to the Ep. 
 to Coroticus. There are two lines of evidence 
 which seem conclusive as to the early date. 
 The one deals with the State Organization, the 
 other with the Ecclesiastical Organization 
 there alluded to and implied. They are both 
 such as existed early in the 5th cent., and 
 could scarcely be imagined afterwards. 
 
PATRICIUS 
 
 To take th.' St.Uo Urt;.iiii£ati.<n t.rvt i„ 
 the Ep. to Ciiroticus he dcscn! 
 thus : " Ingenuus (ui »«cunduiii « u 
 none patre iiascor." \Vc now k 
 decuriuiis — who wcrr not maKistutrs lui 
 town councillors rathrr. and nicn)l>rr« of thr 
 local senates — wjtc found all ovrr thr Konian 
 empire to its cxtrrnirst hounds l>v the rn<l o| 
 the 4th cent. I>isrovories in Spain last rrn- 
 tury showed that decurions wrrr estatili«hr<l 
 by the Romans in evrrv little niininc villaRr, 
 charged with the rare of the gain<-s, the water 
 supply, sanitarv arrangements, education, and 
 the liKal fortitirations ; while Huhner in the 
 Corp. Insc. I.at. t. vii. num. .S4 and i8<), showed 
 that decurions existed in Britain (rf. Mar- 
 quardt and Mommsen, Handbuch der romis- 
 ehtn Altftihumtr, t. iv. pp. 501-516 and Ff>hem. 
 Epigraph, t. ii. p. 137 : t. iji. p. 103). This 
 institution necessarily vanished amid the liar- 
 barian invasions of the 5th cent. Now, St. 
 Patrick's writings implv the existence o( 
 decurions. Again, the Confession calls Eng- 
 land Britanniae, using the plural, which is 
 strictly accurate and in accordance with the 
 technical usage of the Roman empire at the 
 close of the 4th cent., which then dividtxl 
 Britain into five provinces, Britannia prima 
 and secunda. Maxima Caesariensis, Elavia 
 Caesariensis and Valentia, which were col- 
 lectively called Britanniae (cf. Hocking's 
 NotUia Dig. t. ii. c. iii. pp. 12-14). Fiirther. 
 the Ecclesiastical Organization implied is such 
 as the years about a.d. 400 alone could supplv. 
 St. Patrick tells us in the opening words of his 
 Confession that his father was CalpiUTiius, a 
 deacon, his grandfather Potitus, a priest. A 
 careful review of the councils and canons will 
 shew that in Britain and N. (iaul there 
 existed no prohibition of clerical marriage in 
 the last quarter of the 4th cent. Exuperius, 
 bp. of Toulouse, wrote in 404 to pope Inno- 
 cent I. asking bow to deal with married priests 
 who had begotten children since their or- 
 dination. Innocent's reply, dated Feb. 20, 
 405, shews, first, that the prohibition of mar- 
 riage was only a late innovation, as he refers 
 to the decree of pope Siricius, not jjuite 20 
 years before (Mansi, iii. 670; Hefcle, ii. ^h;, 
 Clark's ed.) ; secondly, that Inn'xent per- 
 mitted the clergy of Toulouse to live with 
 their wives if they had contracted marriage 
 in ignorance of papal legislation. 
 
 The aspect of the political horizon, and the 
 consequent action of the church as depicted 
 in these writings, correspond with their 
 alleged age. In the Ep. to Coroticus Patri< k 
 says, " It is the custom of the Roman (iallir 
 Christians to send holy men to the Franks and 
 other nations with many thousand vilidi. to 
 redeem baptized captiv«-5." The tenn Roman 
 was then used to express a citizen of the 
 Roman empire wherever he dwelt ; and the 
 custom itself is one of the strongest evidences 
 as to age. The writings of Zosimu^. S ilvi.m, 
 and Sidonius .ApoUinaris prove t: 
 of the Franks in (iaul about the n.: 
 5th cent. Salvian mentions the ■ 
 captive taken at Cologne in hp. i. .s. . . ^ . ^ - 
 the apostle of Austria, a little later in the 
 century, devoted his life to the same work in 
 another neighbourh'XKl, and lnlr<Kluccd the 
 payment of tithes for this special object. 1 
 
 PATRICIUS 
 
 1 ..;.„ , 
 
 of .Armagh. 
 
 1st, I'atriruii 
 
 cony of the I 
 
 latin ; )rd, t 
 
 The N.T is r. 
 
 copv whirh h . 
 
 Celtic church. 1 h. Ur 
 
 (.ilbert (.\al. .MS.'*, of lttUmJ\. 
 
 SI. 
 
 (h« 
 
 'A 
 -.k 
 
 ■ re ; 
 
 In 
 
 If*. 
 
 I'nl 
 Mr. 
 
 •nrrrnlnx 
 
 St. I'.itri.-k in thr- fir-.t ; .rt f tf.r ft \ .,| 
 
 d«>l.l.ri*tUlll III (r\y\, llt.|.iliue. 
 
 II. I.tff and //iWorv -The sl-rv ..| St. 
 
 I'atrii k's life mav be .1. ii\ .1 ir m thr primary 
 
 authoriti«-s, his ..wn \^ 
 
 
 ' PatrirUn 
 
 documents whji h rr • 
 
 
 .- 7lh and 
 
 Nth cents. He was 
 
 
 .t Kll- 
 
 patrirk, near Hunil 
 Patrick, in the Cont, 
 
 
 Sl. 
 
 
 •-in 
 
 Tabeniiae as the re- 
 
 
 . a 
 
 name which cannot 
 
 
 CI. 
 
 archbp. .Moran in /)i< 
 
 
 I'p. 
 
 
 
 2f)i-32'^>) Me was 
 
 
 trim when i». «, .r. 
 
 
 .Ids 
 
 which Roman 
 
 
 e|. 
 
 linus and Iris) 
 
 
 'rft 
 
 shew were S" 
 
 all 
 
 of the 4th cent. II 
 
 ■ \:'. : .1!:. 
 
 . :;.. ..avr of 
 
 .Milchii, the king of l> 
 
 itaradla. 
 
 thr ronirnrncc- 
 
 ment of wh.»se reign 
 
 he InUf 
 
 M*\Ut\ a««litn 
 
 to ^HK, so that the v 
 
 rrv earli 
 
 r-»t vear fof St. 
 
 Patri< k's birth would !»«• \7J. 
 
 I>4l4ra<ii4 wa« 
 
 the m->^f p'werf'il hi 
 
 ir.t fv . 
 
 » \ K frrUnd. 
 
 J, . ... 
 
 
 ■ ■ » n. 
 
 
 
 u* 
 
 
 
 M»l. 
 
 
 
 .rfP 
 
 
 
 
 WhlK 
 
 of the 1 
 
 
 
 airt til' 
 
 Milchu's ^«ln- . ( 
 
 Down mnd Connor. 
 
 l>r 1 
 
 PP :" 
 
 Mt'-T - Veirx 
 
 r:>- <-i 
 
 . .if"i ■ 
 
 
 
 •.ed 
 II* 
 the 
 
 I VC(> IMlU<^l^>iUl t-^ Utail 
 
806 
 
 PATRICIUS 
 
 in those days to make, though now a port 
 diligently avoided by them. Wicklow head 
 offers shelter along a coast singularly destitute 
 of harbours of refuge. The Danes three cen- 
 turies later learned its advantage, and founded 
 a settlement there, whence the modern name 
 of Wicklow. The nature of the harbour was 
 attractive to navigators like Palladius and 
 Patrick. Its strand and murrough, or com- 
 mon, extending some miles N. from the Var- 
 try, offered special opportunities for dragging 
 up the small ships then used. St. Patrick 
 was received in a very hostile manner by the 
 pagans of Wicklow on landing. A shower of 
 stones greeted them, and knocked out the 
 front teeth of one of his companions, St. 
 Mantan, whence the Irish name of Wicklow, 
 Killmantan, or Church of Mantan (Joyce's 
 Irish Names, p. 103 ; Colgan, A A. SS. p. 451 ; 
 Reeves's Antiquities, p. 378). St. Patrick 
 then sailed N., compelled with true missionary 
 spirit to seek first of all that locality where he 
 had spent seven years of his youth and had 
 learned the language and customs of the Irish. 
 We can still trace his stopping-places. Dublin 
 only existed in those days as a small village 
 beside a ford or bridge of hurdles over the 
 Liflfey, serving as a crossing-place for the 
 great S.E. road from Tara to Wicklow, a 
 bridge, like those still found in the bogs of 
 Ireland, composed of branches woven together, 
 which serve to sustain very considerable 
 weights. St. Patrick landed, according to 
 Tirechan, at an island ofi the N. coast of co. 
 Dublin, still called Inispatrick (in 7th cent. 
 Insula Patricii), whence he sailed to the 
 coast of CO. Down, where his frail bark was 
 stopped by the formidable race off the mouth 
 of Strangford Lough. He sailed up this 
 lough, which extends for miles into the heart 
 of CO. Down, and landed at the mouth of the 
 Slaney, which flows into the upper waters of 
 the Lough, within a few miles of the church 
 of Saul, a spot successfully identified by Mr. 
 J. W. Hanna in a paper on the "True Landing- 
 place of St. Patrick in Ulster " (Downpatrick, 
 1858). There he made his first convert Dichu, 
 the local chief, and founded his first church 
 in a barn which Dichu gave him, whence the 
 name Sabhall (Celtic for barn) or Saul, which 
 has ever since continued to be a Christian 
 place of worship (cf. Reeves, Antiq. pp. 40, 
 220). P'rom Dichu he soon directed his steps 
 towards Central Antrim and king Milchu's 
 residence, where he had spent the days of his 
 captivity. His fame had reached Milchu, 
 whose Druids warned him that his former 
 servant would triumph over him. So Milchu 
 set fire to all his household goods and perished 
 in their midst just as St. Patrick appeared. 
 St. Patrick now (a.d. 433), determining to 
 strike a blow at the very centre of Celtic 
 paganism, directed his course towards Tara. 
 He sailed to the mouth of the Boyne, where, 
 as the Book of Armagh tells us, he laid up 
 his boats, as to this day it is impossible for the 
 smallest boats to sail up the Boyne between 
 Drogheda and Navan. Patrick proceeded 
 along the N. bank of the river to the hill of 
 Slane, the loftiest elevation in the country, 
 dominating the vast plain of Meath. The 
 ancient Liff in the Book of Armagh is here 
 marked by touches of geographical exactness 
 
 PATROCLUS 
 
 which guarantee its truth. Being determined 
 to celebrate Easter on the hill of Slane, he, 
 according to the custom of the early Chris- 
 tians, lit his Paschal fire on Easter Eve, a 
 custom which we know from other sources 
 was universal at that time (cf. Martene, de 
 Antiq. Ritib. t. iii. lib. iv. c. 24, pp. 144, 145, 
 and arts, on " Easter, Ceremonies of," and 
 " Fire, Kindling of," in D. C. A.). 
 
 This fire was at once seen on Tara, where 
 the king of Ireland, Laoghaire, was holding 
 a convention of the chiefs of Ireland. The 
 ritual of the convention demanded that no 
 fire should be lit in his dominions on this night 
 till the king's fire was lit on Tara. St. Pat- 
 rick's act directly challenged the edict of the 
 king, who proceeded to Slane to punish the 
 bold aggressor. The narrative of the conflict 
 between St. Patrick and king Laoghaire and 
 his priests is marked by a series of miracles 
 and legends, terminating, however, with the 
 defeat of paganism and the baptism of great 
 numbers of the Irish, including Laoghaire 
 himself, who yielded a nominal adhesion to 
 the truth. (See Mr. Petrie's great work on 
 the Hill of Tara, where the subject has been 
 exhaustively discussed.) 
 
 The Paschal controversy, about which Cum- 
 mian wrote (a.d. 634), throws an interesting 
 light upon the date of the introduction of 
 Christianity into Ireland. The Irish have been 
 accused of Quartodeciman practices as to 
 Easter, which is quite a mistake. They sim- 
 ply adhered to the old Roman cycle, which 
 was superseded in 463 by the Victorian cycle. 
 ["Easter," in D. C. A. vol. i. p. 594.] The in- 
 vasions of the barbarians then cut off the 
 Celtic church from a knowledge of the more 
 modern improvements in the calendar, which 
 they afterwards resisted with a horror natural 
 to simple people. The English surplice riots 
 of bp. Blomfield's time shew how a much 
 shorter tradition may raise a popular commo- 
 tion. This fixes the introduction of Christian- 
 ity into Ireland in the first half of 5th cent. 
 The alleged connexion of the Irish church 
 with Egypt and the East, as shewn in art, 
 literature, architecture, episcopal and mon- 
 astic arrangements, would afford material for 
 an interesting article on the peculiarities of 
 the Irish church. (See Butler's Coptic 
 Churches of Egypt, Oxf. 1885.) 
 
 See Sir Samuel Fergusson's treatise on the 
 Patrician Documents in the Transactions of the 
 Royal Irish Academy (Dec. i885),andBenjamin 
 Robert's Etude critique sur la vie de St. Patrice 
 (Paris, 1883), where a diligent use has been 
 made of modern authorities, and, pp. 3-7, a 
 convenient summary given of the literature. 
 A cheap popular Life by E. J. Newell is pub. 
 by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, 
 who also pub. the Epp. and Hymns, including 
 the poem of Secundinus in his praise, in Eng. 
 ed. by T. Olden. Cf. csp. The Tripartite Life 
 of Patrick, with other documents, etc., by 
 Whitlev Stokes in Rolls Series, No. 89, 2 vols. 
 (Lond.' 1887) ; also W. Bright, The Roman 
 See in the Earlv Church, pp. 367-385 (Lond. 
 1896). " [G.T.S.] 
 
 PatroclUS (2) {St. Parre), Jan. 21, a martyr 
 supposed to have suffered under Aurelian, and 
 commemoratt'd bv C.rcg. Turon. Glor. Mart. 
 c. 64. His Acts are fully told by the Bollaud- 
 
PATROCLUS 
 
 ists, AA. SS J.iii. ii. 341-349. A rurious 
 story told by liregory [I.e.) slicwsliow hi» Ari» 
 originated. Patroclus had a chapel in ('uul 
 served by a s^tlitary |>riest. Thi- p.iMiIi. -• 
 despised this chapel because it p 
 Acts of his passion, and a irav.i; 
 the priest t>ne day and showed li 
 which proved to be the Acts of his ..«ii Mint 
 The priest sat up all night copying th« in, and 
 then returned the book to the travellt-r, who 
 went his w.»v. The prii-st at onc<- ->•>••• •-" 
 bishop the Acts. The prelate w.i> 
 taxed him with forgery, and. ace. i 
 Stern discipline of the (lallic chui 
 him on the spot. An anny, howcvir, •.liutilv 
 afterwards invaded Italy, and brought back 
 an identical copy of the .•Vets, thus proving 
 the good faith of the priest. The people 
 thereupon built a splendid church in honour 
 of Patroclus. [r..T.s.) 
 
 Patroclus (3), bp. of Aries, between SS. 
 Heros and Honuratus (a.d. 412-426). In 412 
 the people < <i .\rlcs drove out Heros and elected 
 Patroclus. .1 i-reatiire of Constantius (l'n->sper 
 Aquit. Chronicon. Migne, Patr. Lat. li. .s<)o). 
 As bishop he is said to have sold ecrlesi.istical 
 offices ( Prosper Tyro, Chronicon, in Bouquet i. 
 638) and hoarded up stores of ill-gotten wealth 
 (cf. the funeral sermon of Hilary of .\rles upon 
 St. Honoratus, c. vi. Patr. Lat. I. 1265). He 
 seems, however, to have commended himself 
 to pope Zosiraus, who conferred upon him 
 tmprecedented privileges of jurisdiction, and 
 his history illustrates the relations of the 
 French dioceses. On the ground that Aries 
 was the fountain-head of Gallic Christianity, 
 the pope confirmed to the sec all parishes 
 it had ever held, whether within the province 
 or not, and gave Patroclus exclusive rights of 
 ordination over the independent provinces of 
 Vienne, Narbonensis Prima, and Narbonensis 
 Secunda, and deposed Prf>culus, bp. of Mar- 
 seilles, for infringing these privileges by 
 ordaining in his own diocese. On the ground 
 of Patroclus's personal merits, the pope, in a 
 letter addressed to all the Gallic bishops, 
 forbade any cleric of whatever rank to visit 
 Rome without first obtaining hterae formatae, 
 or letters of identification and recommenda- 
 tion, from the bp. of Aries. See the pope's 
 correspondence from Mar. 22. 417, to Feb. 5. 
 418, which is chiefly occupied with Aries, Epp. 
 i. V. vi. vii. X. xi. .Migne, Patr. Lot. xx. 643, 
 663, 666, 668, 673, 674. These privileges were 
 productive of great dissatisfacti -n in the 
 neighbouring provinces and, in the matter of 
 the jurisdiction, Zosiinu-'s rT'lrrs \v.t>- vir- 
 tually rescinded by his su<irss.r, U'.ILlf.l. I'ls 1 . 
 who,' in a letter written F.-b. 0. ^22, .is%.rt..! 
 the right of Hilary, bp. of Narbonne, to con- 
 secrate the bp. of Lcxldvc in his jirovince. as 
 against Patroclus, who had usurped it {Ep. 
 xu. Patr. Lat. xx. 772-774)- '" 4'^ Patr»)clu» 
 was ordered bv The^Klosius to assemble for 
 discussion the (;allic bishoi>s who ppifessrd 
 the Pelagian and Celestian heresies, the 
 emperor decreeing exile for such as should 
 not recant within 20 days. PatP>clus was 
 murdered in 426 by a barbarian offii er {Chron- 
 icon. Pair. Lat. li.' 191-594)- (s.A.B.) 
 
 Patrophllus (1) of Scvlhoiwlis, one of the 
 original .\rian party, took a leading part In all 
 their principal acts and was one of the mott 
 
 PATROPHILUS 
 
 relaotle«s <• 
 
 he 1« .! 
 Strap. 1 
 
 ■il.!. 1. 
 
 bishop* wljo w , 
 in support o( 
 :■. KS6), anil 1 
 
 ( Tvre and I 
 
 '.■A a 1 oral s\ 
 ..iixsion to h'.... I . . 
 (.Sot. H. E. i. M). \ 
 the 17 episcopal 1 
 unitetl with them in li 
 was indignantly rcjr.ird by 
 
 
 nd. 
 at- 
 
 by 
 
 Al. X .11. Irian 
 
 He* 
 
 ol 
 
 .nd 
 
 Mfh 
 
 i uncil 
 
 (The.Hl. H. F. i. :).' Hmbitlrrnt by defrai, 
 
 j he became one of the mo*t r- !• i:[I<-v4 i-rrw 
 cutors <if .\thanasius. In \ :( in 
 
 'the svn<Kl at Antiorh bv ■ iu« 
 
 I was depo»e<l (it>. i. it). '. o| 
 
 i Tvre (a.d. \\s) he wa^ onr rive 
 
 in bringing ab<>ut the of 
 
 .-Vthanasius (l.ablw, ti. 41'' •' t. 
 
 Arian. cc. 7v 74. 77), and ;.■ -.' b« 
 
 attended the abortive svnml nl the l>r<iir^ll<>n 
 at Jerusalem (S.>cr. H. E. i. :?i ; S«.x. H. E. 
 ii. 26; Theod. //. E. i. 31). IVo-mih; ihrnre 
 
 : to Constantinople at the ei- 
 
 I he denounced Athanasius 
 
 j ened the imperial citv wn 
 preventing the sailing of tli 
 
 I corn-ships, and procure<l his banishment to 
 Treves (Socr. //. E. i. 31 ; Th->'1 H F t ji ; 
 Theophan. p. 26; Athan. I " ' m c, 
 
 IK?). In 341 he t'Hik p.irt 1 • •»» 
 
 i council of .\ntioch, in Eni : E. 
 
 iii. s). He was one ol the • I rge. 
 
 the violent heterodox intru • "I 
 
 Alexandria in 353 (ifc. iv hb 
 
 leader Acacius kept entir from 
 
 Athanasius when Maximui> -1 Jiiuvalrm 
 welcome<l hinj on his retuni fronj banishment 
 in 346. and before long contrived !■> rAtabllsh 
 C\TiI in Maximus's place is their own noralncr 
 (Theophan. p. 34 : C.watkin, Studm of 
 Anant'.m. r ir' Hr wit n^ of ihe few 
 H.lSten, ■ .... ,1 „| 
 
 Milan : '»lv 
 
 in th<- art 
 
 ,-- .1- il»C- 
 
 t to 
 
 ' M 
 i bv 
 
 - lit .l.u»- Vcxcrll- 
 1; ^^6. No. oj). 
 ;/ F Iv R.io) 
 itiut 
 •ime 
 .nd 
 
 up th- ■*"• 
 
 Wh^fi • '«• 
 
 
 
 liu IjUvwcii li>--<r. // t 
 
 .11.1 
 . the 
 
 s » //. E. 
 
808 
 
 PAULA 
 
 iv. 23). He immediately retmrned home, 
 where he was kept informed by Acacius of the ] 
 course events were taking in the synod held | 
 at Constantinople (Jan. 360), when Aetius and ' 
 the Anomoeans were condemned, several 
 leading semi-Arians deposed, the Ariminian 
 creed imposed, and Eudoxius enthroned bp. 
 of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. ii. 43)- He 
 died very soon afterwards, for his grave was 
 desecrated during the temporary pagan 
 reaction under Julian in 361, when his remains 
 were scattered and his skull mockingly used 
 as a lamp (Theoph. p. 40 ; Niceph. x. 13 ; 
 Chron. Pasch. (ed. Ducange, 1688), p. 295 ; 
 Tillem. Mem. eccles. t. vi. vii. ; Le Quien, 
 Or. Christ iii. 683). [e.v.] 
 
 Paula (2), a noble and wealthy Roman lady, 
 who accompanied Jerome to Palestine in 385, 
 and lived the rest of her life at Bethlehem, 
 dying in 404. The chief facts of her life were 
 given in Jerome's Epitaphium of her ad- 
 dressed to Eustochium (Hieron. Ep. 108, ed. 
 Vail.). She was born in 347, and while quite 
 young was married to the senator Toxotius, 
 of the Julian family, which traced its descent 
 from Aeneas. Through her mother Blaesilla 
 she was connected with the Scipios and the 
 Gracchi, through her father Rogatus with a 
 Greek family, which traced its descent from 
 Agamemnon. Her family was connected with 
 the Aemilian gens, and her name taken from 
 that of the illustrious Paulus. Jerome re- 
 cords these ancestral glories in her epitaph, 
 
 Scipio quam genuit, Pauli fudere parentes, 
 Gracchorum soboles, Agamemnonis inclyta proles. 
 
 She was possessed of great wealth, owning, 
 amongst other properties, the town of Nico- 
 polis or Actium. During her early married 
 life, though always without reproach in her 
 character, she lived in the usual luxury of 
 Roman patricians. She gave birth to four 
 daughters, Blaesilla, who married, but lost 
 her husband and died early in 384 ; Paulina, 
 wife of Pammachius ; Julia, called Eusto- 
 chium, and Ruffina, who died early, probably 
 in 386 ; and one son, called after his father 
 Toxotius. After the birth of a son she 
 appears to have adopted the practice of con- 
 tinency (Hieron. Ep. cviii. 4), but to have 
 still lived with her husband, whose death 
 (probably in 380) she deeply lamented. In 
 382, during the synod held at Rome (following 
 on the council of Constantinople), she enter- 
 tained the bps. Epiphanius of Salamis and 
 Paulinus of Antinch, and by them her ascetic 
 tendencies, already considerable, were height- 
 ened. Through them Jerome, who had come 
 to Rome with them, became her friend. She 
 imbibed through him her love for the study 
 of Scripture, and, with her daughter Eusto- 
 chium, attended his readings at the palace of 
 Marcella. She gave v^ast sums to the poor, 
 spending her own fortune and that of her 
 children in charity. She assumed a coarse 
 dress and a sordid appearance, and undertook 
 all sorts of menial duties in the relief of dis- 
 tress. But her mind was set upon the mon- 
 astic life and upon the country of the Eastern 
 hermits. After the death of Blaesilla she 
 determined to quit Rome, and. earlv in 385, 
 disregarding the tears of her son Toxotius, 
 then a child, who was left to the wardship of 
 
 PAULA 
 
 the praetor, and the entreaties of Ruffina,then 
 a girl of marriageable age, who begged her 
 mother to wait till she was married, she sailed 
 for the East. After visiting Epiphanius in 
 Cyprus, she rejoined Jerome and his friends 
 at Antioch. With him she braved the winter's 
 journey through Lebanon to Palestine 
 [HiERONYMUs] and Egypt, from whence 
 returning the whole party settled in Bethlehem 
 in the autumn of 386. 
 
 Their life there is related under Hierony- 
 Mus, and only personal details need here be 
 given. Her letter to Marcella inviting her to 
 come to Palestine (Hieron. Ep. 46) shows her 
 enthusiastic delight in every sacred place and 
 association in the Holy Land. Paula and 
 Eustochium lived at first in a cottage till 
 their convent and hospice (diversorium) were 
 built. They then founded a monastery for 
 men, and a convent of three degrees for 
 women, who lived separately, though having 
 the same dress, and met for the services. 
 Paula's capacity of management, her patience 
 and tact, are warmly praised by Jerome (Ep. 
 cviii. c. 19). She is said by Palladius (Hist. 
 Laus. 79) to have had the care of Jerome and 
 to have found it a difficult task. Her scrip- 
 tural studies, begun in Rome, were carried on 
 earnestly at Bethlehem. She had (through 
 her father's family) a good knowledge of 
 Greek, and she learnt Hebrew to be able to 
 repeat and sing the Psalms in the original (c. 
 26). She read constantly with Jerome, and 
 they went through the whole Bible together 
 (ib.). In his account of his writings in the 
 catalogue (de Vir. III. 135) WTitten in 392, 
 Jerome says, " Epistolarum ad Paulam et 
 Eustochium, quia quotidie scribuntur, in- 
 certus est numerus." She was remarkably 
 teachable, and when doubts were suggested to 
 her by Origenistic teachers, she was able at 
 once, with Jerome's help, to put them aside. 
 Her charities were so incessant that Jerome 
 states that she left Eustochium with a great 
 debt, which she could only trust the mercy of 
 Christ would enable her to pay (c. 13). It is 
 believed that Jerome, who had in vain 
 counselled prudence and moderation (ib.), gave 
 her pecuniary help in her later years. Her 
 health was weak ; her body slight ; her morti- 
 fications, against many ' of which Jerome 
 remonstrated and which gave occasion to 
 some scandals, and her frequent illnesses had 
 worn her away ; and in her 57th year (404) 
 she sank under a severe attack of illness. 
 Jerome describe; with deep feeling the scene 
 at her death, the personal attention of her 
 daughter to all her wants, the concern of the 
 whole Christian community. The bishops of 
 the surrounding cities were present. John of 
 Jerusalem, who only four years before had 
 been at strife with the convents of Bethlehem, 
 was there. Her funeral was a kind of triumph, 
 the whole church being gathered together to 
 carry her to her resting-place in the centre of 
 the cave of the Nativity. She is reckoned as a 
 saint by the Roman church, her day, that of 
 her death, being Jan. 26. [w.h.f.] 
 
 Paula (3), granddaughter of foregoing, 
 daughter of Toxotius, and of Laeta the 
 daughter of Albinus. a heathen and a priest. 
 Laeta embraced Christianity and wrote to 
 consult Jerome as to Paula's education, who 
 
PAULIMA 
 
 replied in Fp. 107. wTittrn in 401. Mr dr^ire* 
 that she should lead the A<;rrtir life and pre- 
 pare to consecrate herself tn Christ in vir- 
 ginity : and \^f:< that, if she could not rarrv 
 out at Rome the system •>( instmction in 
 scriptural knowledge which he prescril>«-«l. she 
 miKht be sent to nrthlchmi. She was pri>»»- 
 ably sent there while still a child, thonch not 
 till after her grandmother- death. Several 
 of leron>e'sc">mmentaries are dedicated to hrr 
 with her aunt Kustochiuin, and she is men- 
 tioned by both Jerome and AuRiistine in their 
 correspondence in 416 (Hieron. Ff-f^. 1^4. 14 v 
 both to AuRtistine). [w.H.r.) 
 
 Paulina (I). dauehter of P.uila the friend 
 of Jerome, and wife of I'AMMAriiits. She 
 maTied about the time when her mother and 
 her sister F.ustfvhium went with Jerome to 
 Palestine in ^85. Her children died at birth 
 and she herself pmbably died in childbirth in 
 307- Her merits are described in consolatory 
 letters to Pammachius from Jerome (Fp. M. 
 ed. Will.) and Paulinas (/•'/>. 11. Micne's /'n/r. 
 Lilt. yol. i\z). [w.ii.p.l 
 
 Paulinianus, younger brother of Jrrome. 
 He was -til! young in :^Rs (" adolocens." 
 Hicr'Mi. c. Rut. iii. 22) when he left Rome with 
 his brother and their friend Vincentiiis. and 
 he was under 30 when ordained in 304 
 (Hiernn. adv. Joan. Hirr. f 8). He shared 
 his brother's journevs in Palestine and settled 
 with him in Bethlehem, where he probably 
 remained to the end of his life. He was 
 modest, only desiring to help his brr>thcr in 
 the monastery. But I^piphanius, coming to 
 Jerusalem in 30t. and finding (or rather pro- 
 moting) a schism between the monasteries 
 of Bethlehem and bp. John of Jerusalem, 
 took him to the monastery which he had 
 founded at .\A. and there, against the pro- 
 tests and even resistance of Paulinian, or- 
 dained him priest. (See in Hieron. Fp. li. 
 I, ed. Vail, the trans, of Kpiphanius's ex- 
 planatory letter to John of Jerusalem.) 
 Paulinian may perhaps have acted as pres- 
 byter in the monasteries for a time, but he felt 
 it prudent during the vehement controversy 
 which sprang up between Jerome and bp. 
 John of Jerus.ilem to go to Kpiphanius in 
 Cyprus. Jerome declares (contra Jnannem {41) 
 that his br.ither was in Cyprus. [w.ii.p.) 
 
 Paulinos (3), bp. of T>Te and afterwards of 
 Antioch, A.i>. ^2K-320 (Clinton. F. R.). He 
 was apparently a native of .\ntioch. and. 
 according to his friend and paneg>Tist Kusr- 
 bius (Eus. in Marcfll. i. 4. P- 'o). ft""' «'"• 
 office of bp. of Tvre with great splendour, and 
 after the cessation of the pers/xution rebuilt 
 with great magnificence the cathedral ela- 
 borately described bv the historian in the 
 inaugural oration delivered bv him at it* 
 dedication (tft. //. F. x. 4)- Paulinu* was 
 " claimed by the church of the Aiiti.K-hene^ as 
 their own property." ilit oiinlo> ayafioC' fura- 
 W(xriffiji>ai. and chosen their »>ish-rv Aerord- 
 
 ing to F'hilrKt'irgius. he . : 
 
 dignity for half a year bcfor- 
 
 H. £. iii. 15)- Paulinus. Ii 
 
 bius of Caesarea, was an A: 
 
 Arius in his letter to Kuset 
 
 one of his sympathizers I 
 
 Eusebiiis of Caesarea !i i 
 
 praise on his fcllow-partisau, ded»c*;c* lo hitu 
 
 PAULIKOS 
 
 I u- /^ / III 
 
 MtFtflttUtlua! Ht 
 speakt with 
 foundedrh.»i. 
 Ills, with the 
 tenet tli4t ■■ 
 a rrr.i(rd W 
 
 Patillntii 4 
 
 >4 
 hi. 
 
 Mt^iMtiirr lir ^-.ilIii!!. i- .ihk 
 
 that he wouhl Mgn thr n( 
 
 Photinus and Marrrllii*. I "nn- 
 
 asius (Snlpiriii* Srvrniv //i-; s.i. » n jy. 
 Migne. I'atr. I.at. x\. Mo). .\t thr roiinril ol 
 
 Arlr-, ,r, :^ • Pvitin.f.N UU n-.v rjrrt^l^.-l Th» 
 
 • ■ . ,.»h. 
 
 rlhr 
 
 n\t% 
 
 demne<i bv 1 ■ xllr 
 
 in Phrvgia. I 4nd 
 
 heretics. Tli: '-it. 
 
 in 3S4. not .vs'>. 4s J. I In 
 
 35« or ^^0. The r' (de 
 
 tiie walls was one vr* 
 
 (Wilmowskv. />er /> ■": -. /•■'. , ti; 
 
 For his life see, further, the p4ssaii<-« frmn 
 the works of Afh-invii-^ r .|le<-te.l. TMI. Attm 
 55. .Aug. vi. ' ' • • • . ,,,, 0^ CoHit. Amg. 
 
 lib. i. : ^l^ Imp. 11 ; Frmgr. 
 
 Migne. Pair. I •. I^^t. (s.A.li.) 
 
 Paulinus (5. ...„,.. ,, a priest and a 
 disciple of i:phraem >vru\. C.ennadlii. Id* 
 Script. Feci. C. III. IM/'<l/r. lutl Ivill Io».j)|f|vr* 
 a short aCCi>unt of him : . iWin.- f ! 1 i.'rral 
 
 talent, knowledge ..f 
 
 r at 
 
 a preacher. .After 
 
 he 
 
 " separated from tli- 
 
 •ifh 
 
 against the f.iith." \«iu. 
 
 ■ -m 
 
 temperainiiit and eager for 
 
 ■Jd 
 
 Paulinus (6), bp. of the ! 
 
 Catholic party at Anti<«-h 
 
 '.• ;-- 1 man 
 
 highly esteemed f r piety. 
 
 He W4S one n( 
 
 KustathinsV .>resbvt^rs vid 
 
 sillMj-i^itnillv to 
 
 the (U •' ' • ■ •' 
 
 -- 1 •« 
 
 the h. , 
 
 < to 
 
 hol.J < 
 
 • •m 
 
 they u 
 
 UW 
 
 of his ! 
 
 .«r«l 
 
 bv An 
 
 :( 4 
 
 bishop 
 
 ;■ in 
 
 a small rliurih ■.sitliin <!.■ 
 
 <h. 
 
 the use of which had Iw-' 
 
 the 
 
 Arian bp. I'.v .t.-r tin 'it ' 
 
 oih- 
 
 nu«'s high rl 
 
 cMt 
 
 his way hotir 
 
 prr 
 
 Vr-yr k v 
 
 ■rH 
 
 , ojjUli became L'i 1 Ahti'-^li. 
 
 fr<J 
 
 Met- 
 4 ' J F"» 
 
810 
 
 PAULINUS 
 
 the history of this protracted schism see 
 LuciFERUs of Calaris ; Eustathius (3) of 
 Antioch ; Meletius (3) of Antioch ; Eusebius 
 (93) of Vercelli ; Flaviaxus (4). The death 
 of Paulinus may be dated 388. [e.v.] 
 
 Paullnus (7), writer of the Life of St. Am- 
 brose, a work which he says he undertook at 
 the request of St. Augustine. He was well 
 qualified for his task by his intimate acquaint- 
 ance with St. Ambrose and attendance upon 
 him in his last illness, and by information 
 gathered from well-informed persons, espe- 
 cially his sister Marcellina. He seems to call 
 himself the bishop's secretary (notariiis) and 
 he was certainly with him at his death (cc. 33, 
 35, 38, 42, 47). In his introduction he ex- 
 presses his great anxiety to adhere strictly to 
 the truth and to deliver what he has to say 
 impartially, and this he appears to have done. 
 After the death of St. Ambrose he went to 
 Africa, where he was well received by the 
 church, and distinguished himself by defend- 
 ing the memory of his friend and patron 
 against an attack upon him by Muranus, bp. 
 of BoUita. It was perhaps this which led to 
 his acquaintance with St. Augustine, and his 
 becoming the biographer of St. Ambrose. He 
 took a prominent part in the proceedings of 
 the council of Carthage, a.d. 412, against 
 Celestius. Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. pp. 57, 80; 
 Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 402 ; Ceillier, vol. vii. 
 p. 533. viii. 549, ix- 453- [h.w.p.] 
 
 Paulinus (8), St., bp. of Nola, one of a 
 patrician family of whom some had been 
 Christians (.\usonius, Ep. xxiv. 103 ; Paulin. 
 Ep. xl. Prudentius, Symm. i. 558, 560 ; Baro- 
 nius, 394, 78, 79). They had property in 
 Aquitania, and probably resided there habi- 
 tually (Ambros. Ep. Iviii. i). His father was 
 praefectiix praetorio of Gaul, had large posses- 
 sions in the province in which he lived, and 
 was the founder of the town of Burgus (Bourg) 
 on the Dordogne, and, as well as his wife, 
 appears to have been a Christian. 
 
 I. First Period(T,'sy2,9A)- — Besides Paulinus, 
 his parents had an elder son and a daughter. 
 He was probably born at Bordeaux, a.d. 353 
 or 354, and his tut or was .\usonius, who thought 
 very highly of him as a pupil, regarded him 
 with warm affection, and addressed to him 
 many of his poetical epistles. The affection 
 of Ausonius was fully returned by his pupil, 
 who declares that he owed to him all the dis- 
 tinction he had attained. 
 
 Whatever merit his Latin compositions 
 possess, he was by his own admission not 
 strong in Greek, and in a letter to Rufinus, 
 A.D. 408, regrets his inability to translate 
 accurately an epistle of St. Clement (Ep. xlvi. 
 2). He entered early into public life, became 
 a member of the senate, and filled the office of 
 consul for part of the official year in the place 
 of some one who had vacated it ; in what year 
 is not known, his name not appearing in the 
 Fasti, but before 379 when Ausonius held 
 the office and says that his pupil attained the 
 dignity earlier than himself {.\us. Ep. xx. 4, 
 xxv. 60). Paulinus has been supposed also 
 to have been prefect of New Epirus, a sup- 
 position consistent with his own mention of 
 frequent and laborious journeys by land and 
 sea, but of which there is no direct evidence, 
 though an edict of the joint emperors Valen- 
 
 PAULINUS 
 
 tinian, Valens, and Gratian undoubtedly 
 exists, addressed to a prefect of that province 
 of his name, a.d. 372. He certainly held a 
 judicial office, for in one of his poems he 
 expresses satisfaction at having condemned 
 no one to death during his tenure of it. 
 Lebrun conjectures that after his consulship 
 he became consiilaris of Campania and resided 
 at Nola (Carm. xxi. 396 ; Tillem. vol. xiv. 
 p. 8). Possessed of easy fortune and enjoying 
 the best society, he lived a life free from 
 outward reproach, but one for which he after- 
 wards found great fault with himself. His 
 health was never good, and he suSered much 
 from fatigue in his jomneys (Carm. x. 134; 
 xiii. 2, 10 ; Ep. v. 4). In the course of them 
 he fell in with Victricius bp. of Rouen and 
 Martin bp. of Tours at Vienne in Gaul, and 
 ascribed to the latter the restoration of his 
 sight, the loss of which was threatened, appar- 
 ently by cataract (Ep. xviii. 9; Sulpic. Sev. 
 Vit. S. Mart. xix. 3, ed. Halm.). He also 
 regarded St. Ambrose with great veneration, 
 calling him "father" (Ep. iii. 4). But his 
 chief object of veneration was Felix of Nola, 
 to whom he devoted himself specially when 
 he visited Nola at about 26 or 27 years of age, 
 A.D. 379 (Carm. xiii. 7, 9; xxi. 350, 381). 
 About this time, but not later than 389, he 
 and his brother received baptism at Bordeaux, 
 from Delphinus, the bishop there (Epp. iii. 4; 
 XX. 6 ; XXXV. ; xxxvi. ). Not long after he began 
 to think of retiring from the world, and in 389 
 or 390 went to Spain, residing chiefly at 
 Barcelona. During this time he married a 
 Spanish lady of good fortune and irreproach- 
 able character, named Therasia, and a son was 
 born to them, who died after a few days 
 (Prudentius, Peristeph. v. 41, 44 ; Dexter, 
 Chron. a.d. 296; Carm. v. 66; xxi. 400; xxxv. 
 599, 610). There seems good reason for 
 placing the violent death of his brother about 
 this time, when not only his brother's pro- 
 perty was in danger of confiscation, but that 
 of Paulinus himself and even his life (Carm. xxi. 
 414-427 ; Buse, vol. i. p. 157). It was per- 
 haps partly due to these events that during 
 his stay in Spain he was led to give up the 
 senate and worldly business and refused to 
 take any further interest in " profane " 
 literatiu-e (Ep. iv. 2 ; xxii. 3 ; Carm. x. 304, 316). 
 But he continued to write verses on sacred 
 subjects to the end of his life. Determined to 
 renounce the world, he parted with a large 
 portion of his property and his wife's, spend- 
 ing some of the money in redeeming captives, 
 releasing debtors, and the like. In compliance 
 with a sudden popular demand, he was or- 
 dained priest, but without any especial cure 
 of souls, by Lampius, bp. of Barcelona, on 
 Christmas Day, 393 (Epp. i. 10 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 4). 
 He appears to have been already well ac- 
 quainted with some of the most eminent. 
 African clergy, Alypius, Augustine, Aurelius, 
 and others. In a'letter to St. Augustine he 
 mentions his work against the Manicheans, 
 i.e. probably his de Doctrina Christiana, to- 
 gether with the single volume de Vera Religione. 
 in which Manichean doctrine is discussed 
 (.\ug. Ep. xxvii. 4). In the same letter 
 Paulinus speaks of his own abandonment of 
 the world, and requests Augustine to instruct 
 and direct him. 
 
PAULINUS 
 
 II. Stcond Perxod (.ig4-4i><))-~ In vn h«< 
 determined to retire to Sola, where he had 
 property, including a hotisr. On lu<t wuv hp 
 saw St. Ambr«>se, probahlv at Flormrr. 411. 1 
 in a letter to Sulpicius, whom hr l»r»;s t.> 
 him at Nola, he speaks of much jr.ilousv 1 
 shewn him at Rome l>v popv Sinmis 
 others o( the clerRV. prohablv on .ircoimt 1 
 the unusual circumstances of his ordinatiou ; 
 whereas at Nola. whore not loni{ aftrr his 
 arrival he had a serious illnpss. ho was vi^itetl 
 lay nearly all the bishops of C'ampani.i. oithor 
 in person or bv deputy, bv clorsvimn and 
 some lavnu-n. and received friendly hit. is 
 from many .African bishops who sent • 
 sengers to him. .\t Nola he entered wit 
 wife at once upon the course of life h<- 
 marked out, and which he pursued as far js 
 possible until his death. A.n. 431. SS. .Am- 
 brose, Augustine, ;uid Jerome regarded the 
 self-sacrifice of him and his wife with high 
 respect and admiration (.Ambros. Ep. Iviii. 1-3 ; 
 Hieron. Epp. Iviii. <>: cxviii. s). .Augustine 
 writes to him in terms of warm admiration 
 and afTection (.Aug. Ep. xxvii.). and in a second 
 letter ann<niiices his appointment as coad- 
 jutor to Valerius, bp. of Hippo, and urges 
 Paulinus to visit him in. Africa (.Aug. F.p. xxxi). 
 St. Jerome exhorts him and Ther.isia to pcr-e- 
 vere in their self-denial, and praises highly his 
 panegyTic on the emperor Theodosius, a work 
 which he himself mentions but which h.is 
 perished (Hieron. Ep. Iviii. ; Paul. Ep. xxviii. 
 6; Gennadius, c. 48). In replv to .Augustine 
 and to letters of the .African bishops, Paulinus 
 writes to .Augustine's friend Roniaiiianus. 
 congratulating the African church on the 
 appointment of .Augustine and hoping that 
 his " trumpet " may sound forcibly in tiie 
 ears of Ronianianus's son Liamtiiis, to whom 
 also he addressed a letter ending : 
 
 Vive prccor, scd vive Deo. nam vivere mundo 
 Mortte opus, vera est vivcrc vita Deo. 
 
 When Paulinus settled at Nola, the burial- 
 place of Felix, called in the .Vlartyrologv of 
 Bede in Pincis or in Pineis, about a mile from 
 the town, had l>ecome the site of four churches 
 (basilicae), one built by pope Damasiis, and 
 also a chapel. Prob.ibly none of these were 
 of any great size. Paulinus added a fifth. 
 The church whose dedication he mentions in 
 Ep. 3; is described by him as having a triple 
 apse {trichnrum, t.e. rpi^wpo"). (''•/'• txx'i- 
 17; Isid. On?. XV. 8, 7.) It was porliajw on 
 the site of the one built by Damasus, and 
 contained not onlv the tomb of Felix, but 
 beneath the altar (altarta) remains of v.irious 
 saints and martvrs, including SS. John Uai>t., 
 Andrew. I.uke, Thomas, and others of less 
 note, including St. Nararius, of whom v.me 
 relics were sent to him bv Ambrose {Ep. xxxii. 
 17 ; farm, xxvii. 436, 430). hut above all the 
 precious fragment of the tru.- rross. brought 
 from Jerusalem bv Melania and presented by 
 her to Paulinus a.p. 3';K. .md of whirh he sent 
 a chip {astula) enrlosed in a tube of i-,.\>\ to 
 Sulpicius, as a sjiccial offering' from TheraM.i 
 
 and himself to Hassula. hi ' ' ' ''" 
 
 in-law, to honour the rhur 
 
 at Primuliariim {Ep. xx%\ 
 
 walls, and rolunins .>f thi^ ->., 
 
 and the vaulted roof, from wlucU lami>k »tit 
 
 PAULIHUS 
 
 .lud i f. ■. (lit : 
 drinking i('at>- 
 Paulmus aU 
 to the erecti'-n ( .1 
 place endeare<| to h 
 and !it whi'-h h" 
 
 til 
 
 •hr 
 
 Wr,| 
 
 aW 
 •■tr 
 
 »MI 
 %t- 
 
 \:\g lit 
 
 -1 e.nl 
 
 'i. < 
 nt 
 Ha 
 
 ■!-», 
 
 servim: • 
 
 
 
 
 viai 
 
 bv thru 
 
 
 
 
 ve 
 
 might 1 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 i'w. 
 
 xxi. 3')oi. Mis III -I- 
 the fullest sense, ami 
 m"in.isterv {Ep- v. i<> 
 
 
 
 
 In 
 
 he 
 
 
 
 ,„ 4 
 
 , '' 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 theins.lves ill ' 
 
 
 
 
 lie. 
 
 'lit their li.iir r 
 
 
 
 
 in- 
 
 iiig. w.re i>.i 
 
 ual 
 
 rle.inllli' 
 
 
 
 
 md 
 
 fasliii,' 
 
 
 
 
 r.»| 
 
 until ..! 
 able <li ' 
 
 
 
 
 .el- 
 
 
 Hid. 
 
 wrapp. 
 
 bhink.t K' 
 
 u.- '..l 
 
 ak I 
 
 I. .1.1. 
 
 usual 
 
 w.<k 
 
 the 
 
 time 
 
 V de. 
 
 voted t X 
 
 \ 4 
 
 XXti 
 
 I. 3. 
 
 1.6; 
 
 xx\%. i. 13 ; < '1"" ^^' 
 
 
 He seldom, if ever 
 
 
 
 ' pt t 
 
 . vitil 
 
 Rome tmre a vear !■ 
 
 
 
 '\v»\ 
 
 .1 !iS. 
 
 •heif 
 
 Peter an<l Paul, on | 
 
 
 
 
 iniirt>T<l"m cbru 
 
 
 
 
 4l». 
 
 lem") (A>r ivii. .• ■ 
 
 
 
 
 tho 
 
 xlv. I ; ( arm. xxi 1 
 
 
 
 
 The event ■•( jII • 
 
 
 
 
 rhief interest I'T ! 
 
 
 
 
 III- 
 
 inunity at N-l.. « > 
 ■ in Jan. 14 1 
 
 
 
 
 an. 
 
 
 
 to- 
 
 p'-*ed a p'.ell, 
 
 
 
 
 III- 
 
 .,f the r.ili.i 
 
 
 
 
 tude« . . 
 
 
 
 
 !•« 
 
 . .ire<l ■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ i*^. 
 
 (A.O. t. «o9«ll) — 
 t N U l--f rr tl.r att- 
 
 t-'l-ii-!: m Hit 
 
812 
 
 PAULINUS 
 
 mont and Buse seem to place it a year or two 
 later. The diocese of Paulinus was a small 
 one, and appears, at any rate formerly, to have 
 been notorious for drunkenness and immor- 
 ality {Ep. xlix. 14 ; Carm. xix. 164-218). 
 Without adopting all the glowing panegyric 
 applied by Uranius to his behaviour as bishop, 
 we may well believe that he shewed himself in 
 this, as in other matters, a faithful, devout, 
 humble, and munificent follower of his Master; 
 and when Campania was laid waste by Alaric, 
 A.D. 410, Paulinus devoted all he had to the 
 relief of the sufferers and captives. The bar- 
 barian occupation did not last long, and from 
 this time until his death, in 431, there are few 
 events to record in the life of Paulinus. A 
 letter from St. Augustine, probably in 417, 
 seems to hint at a tendency on the part of 
 Paulinus to adopt some, at least, of the erro- 
 neous doctrines of Pelagius, with whom he 
 had been on friendly terms (Aug. Ep. 186 i. i, 
 and xii. 41). After the death of Zosimus, in 
 Dec. 418, the appointment of his successor in 
 the see of Rome becoming a matter of dispute, 
 the emperor Honorius summoned a council 
 of bishops at Ravenna, and afterwards at 
 Spoletum, and invited Paulinus to attend, but 
 he excused himself on the first occasion on the 
 ground of ill-health and was probably pre- 
 vented by the same cause from appearing on 
 the second (Baronius, 419, 19, 20). After re- 
 siding 36 years in retirement at Nola, a period 
 devoted both by himself, and during her life- 
 time by his wife, to unsparing self-denial, 
 religious observances, and works of piety and 
 charity without stint, he died June 22, a.d. 
 431, aged 77 or 78. An account of his last 
 illness and death has been left bv Uranius in a 
 letter addressed to Pacatus. '" Three days 
 before his death he was visited by two bishops, 
 Symmachus (of Capua) and Acyndinus, by 
 whose conversation he was much refreshed. 
 He desired the sacred mysteries to be ex- 
 hibited before his bed, so that the sacrifice 
 having been offered in their companv, he 
 might commend his own soul to the Lord, and 
 at the same time recall to their former peace 
 those on whom, in the exercise of church dis- 
 cipline, he had pronounced sentence of exclusion 
 from communion. When this was over, he 
 called for his brothers, by whom the by- 
 standers thought that he rtieant the bishops 
 who were present ; but he said that he called 
 for Januarius bp. of Naples and Martin of 
 Tours (both of them deceased), who, he said, 
 had promised to be with him. He then raised 
 his hands to heaven, and repeated Psalm cxx. 
 [cxxi.], ' I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills,' 
 etc. . . . Later in the day, as if the hour for 
 vespers were come, he recited slowly, with 
 outstretched hands, the words, ' I have pre- 
 pared a lamp for my anointed,' Ps. cxxxi. 17 
 [cxxxii. 17]. At about the fourth hour of the 
 night, while all were watching, the cell was 
 shaken by an earthquake, which was felt no- 
 where else, and during this he expired." He 
 was buried in the church of St. Felix, in 
 Pincis, and his funeral was attended even by 
 Jews and pagans (Uran. de ob. S. Paul ap. 
 Migne. Pair. Lat. vol. liii.). 
 
 Writings. — He has left behind 51 letters 
 and 36 poems, (a) P^-os^.— Of his letters, 13, 
 some very long, are addressed to Sulpicius 
 
 PAULINUS 
 
 Severus, the first in 394, and the last in 403 ; 
 5 to Delphinus, bp. of Bordeaux, 6 to Aman- 
 dus his successor, 4 to Augustine, 3 to Aper 
 and Amanda, 2 to another Amandus and 
 Sanctus, 2 to Rufinus, 2 to Victricius, 3 to 
 persons unknown, and single letters to 
 Alethius, Alypius, Desiderius, Eucherius and 
 Gallus, Florentius, Jovius, Licentius, Maca- 
 rius, Pammachius, Romanianus, Sebastianus, 
 besides the account of the martyrdom of 
 Genesius which is a sort of postscript to the 
 letter to Eucherius and Gallus (Ep. 51). It 
 does not appear that he ever saw Sulpicius 
 after his visit to Spain, but the love of the 
 two for each other never failed. His letters 
 to Delphinus and Amandus exhibit his deep 
 humility and cheerful humour, but are chiefly 
 remarkable for the earnest request made to 
 both, that they will offer their prayers on 
 behalf of his deceased brother, of whom he 
 speaks with great affection but with deep 
 regret for his neglect in spiritual matters, 
 hoping that by their prayers he may obtain 
 some refreshment in the other world (Epp. 
 XXXV. ; xxxvi.). Of those to St. Augustine the 
 third is chiefly occupied with remarks on the 
 grief of Melania for the loss of her only son 
 Publicola, and a reply to Augustine on the 
 condition of the soul in celestial glory, which 
 he thinks will be one of highly exalted powers 
 and beauty resembling the condition of our 
 Lord after His resurrection. He asks Augus- 
 tine's opinion on the subject (Ep. xiv.). In 
 the 4th letter Paulinus asks for Augustine's 
 opinion as a doctor of Israel on various Scrip- 
 ture passages according to the Latin version, 
 (i) Ps. XV. 3 [xvi. 4], "Sanctis . . . multiplicatae 
 simt infirmitates eorum, postea accelerave- 
 runt" : who aremeantby the "saints," andhow 
 aretheirinfirmitiesmultiplied? (2) Ps. xvi.15, 
 i6[xvii. 14]: what is meant by "deabsconditis 
 tuis adimpletus est venter eorum," and "satur- 
 ati sunt porcina," or, as he hears is read by some, 
 "filiis." (3) Ps. Iviii. II [lix. 11], "neunquam 
 obliviscantur legis tuae"(Vulg. "populitui"): 
 he cannot understand how knowledge of the 
 law can be sufficient without faith in Christ. 
 (4) Ps. Ixvii. 23, 25 [Ixviii. 21, 23], "Deus 
 conquassabit capita inimicorum suorum, ver- 
 ticemcapilli," etc. : the last expression he thinks 
 void of sense ; though he could understand 
 " verticem capitis," who are the "dogs," v. 25, 
 and what is the meaning of "ab ipso" ? Some 
 questions follow on passages in St. Paul's 
 Epistles, (i) Eph. iv. 11: what are the special 
 functions of each order named by St. Paul ? 
 what difference is there between " pastors " 
 and "teachers"? (2) I. Tim. ii. i, 2: what 
 difference between " prayers " and " sup- 
 plications," etc. ? (3) Rom. xi. 28 : how can 
 the people of Israel be at the same time friends 
 and enemies — why enemies for the sake of 
 Christians, friends for that of the fathers ? 
 (4) Col. ii. 18, "nemo vos seducat in humilitate 
 et religione angelorum." What angels does St. 
 Paul mean ? — if bad angels, how can there be 
 any "humilitas " or "religio" connected with 
 them ? Paulinus thinks that heretics must be 
 intended. (5) Col.ii. 18, 21. He asks Augus- 
 tine to explain these two passages, which seem 
 to contradict each other: what "shew of wis- 
 dom" ("ratio sapientiae") can there be in"will 
 worship" (" superstitio "), and how can " neg- 
 
PAULINOS 
 
 lect of the body " (" non p.ircvndum corpori ") 
 agree with 's.uisfviiisol the flesh" ("suturita* 
 carnis"), which seems contrary to St. Paul's 
 own practice as mentioned I. lor. ix. a; .' Mr 
 also asks .Augustine to expljin whv our I 
 was and was not recoj-nized \>\ tlie w..mr.i 
 disciples on the l>.»y of Kt".urr«Tti..ii. h.u 
 came to be known by the l.itler in the " t.i. .... 
 ing of bread " ; what did He mean bv luddinK 
 Mary not touch lliiu until after liis asniisiMii 
 (John XX. 17) ? He suppt>M-> He meant that 
 He was to be touched by faith lu-reaftcr, 
 though not then by the hand. Again what 
 did Simeon mean bv his words to the Virgin 
 Mother (Luke li. i.\, 35)? What "sword" 
 was to pierce her soul ? Was it tlu* word of 
 CJod ? and how could this cans* the '• thoughts 
 of many hearts " to be " revealeil " ? These 
 questions he doubts not that .\ngustine will 
 be able to explain to him (Ay>. 1.). The letter 
 of Faulinus to Pammachius is a very long tme 
 of condolence and exhortation on the li>ss nf 
 his wife Paulina, dauxiht'T i>f Paula, and sister 
 of Eusti^chiuin. Feeling deeply for him in 
 his loss, he nevertheless doiibt-i wlKther he 
 ought not to HTite more in thankfulness for 
 the faith Pammachius has shewn in honouring 
 her funeral, not with ostentatious pomp or 
 gladiatorial shows, but with alms and good 
 work?, first presenting the sacred oblation to 
 God and the pure libation (" sacras hostias et 
 casta libamina ") with commemoration of her 
 whom he had lost, and then providing a meal 
 for the poor of Rome in great numbers in the 
 church of St. Peter, following in this the exam- 
 ple 01 Scripture saints, Christ Himself, and the 
 first Christians. Faith is a greater comfort 
 than any words of his ; by its means we can 
 walk in Paradise with the souls of the departed. 
 Relying on the truth of Scripture we cannot 
 doubt the resurrection, his only doubt is as to 
 his own claim to admission into the heavenly 
 kingdom. Yet the door, he knows, is open 
 to all, and the departed wife of his friend is a 
 pledge to himself of the future in Christ {hp. 
 xiii. ; see Hieron. Ep. Ixvi.). The letters of 
 Paulinus are generally clear and intelligible, 
 
 C leasing as regards style, remarkable for 
 umility of mind, an affectionate disposition, 
 and a cheerful, playful humour, free trom all 
 moroseness or ascetic bitterness. .Many of his 
 remarks on Scripture and c)ther subjects >.how 
 good sense and sound judgment, and, though 
 free from any pretension to learning, provi- 
 him an industri<jUb student and careful inquirer 
 into the sacred writings in the Latin version. 
 (6) Verse. — Paulinus wrote much in verse 
 throughout his life, and sent many of his 
 poems to his friends. Seventeen are more or 
 less directly in praise of Felix, all of them 
 dated Jan. 14, the day of his death, and con- 
 sequently called Natalitia. though not by 
 Paulinus himself. The ist (Carm. xii.) was 
 written in Spain, but when fuUv intending to 
 retire to .Sola, a.d. 394, the 2n<i shortly after 
 his arrival there (16. xiii.). The 3rd descril)« 
 the concourse from all parts to the tomb of 
 Felix, and the power he manifested of casting 
 out devils and curing diseases («6. xiv. ii-43)- 
 The 15th and i6th relate the legend of Felix. 
 The 17th is a Sapphic ode to .Nicetas, who wa» 
 about to return to his sec after his visit to 
 Nola. A.D. 398 {ib. ivii.). He came a second 
 
 PAULINUS 
 
 I time. A.t>. 401. and hi. 
 I much vttixfartion n. 
 I ihth pi»ein. 6th in I. 
 
 ' in hr\.itnr!rrs tV,.- 
 
 .led 
 
 • y 
 
 • r4- 
 
 Fhi" 
 
 (rimd 
 
 imr he 
 
 Old 
 
 !(ie 
 
 •iKit (u all 
 
 rati 
 
 AIS 
 
 ■><% 
 
 ..b. 
 
 '■ II. 
 \«» 
 I til 
 
 the rrlie* 
 
 tl ..,,. ,,^ 
 
 llloie n..ljl.l. ,^, 
 
 ; honoured an ' „| 
 
 I Felix; and li ,^1, 
 
 I oniament in f 
 j the cross was .1 
 I of l-Vlix, and 1 
 ! ti«)n of the - 
 : piNin last in 
 
 whom he call 
 
 has been th.' 
 
 Consists of a . 
 
 the old myt 
 
 advantages i.t 
 
 whose dcK-trii. 
 
 nient. antl re.l 
 I descriU'd. aiiil 
 I sider the bU-ssing if 1 tirual hi.- 
 
 who accept the offer (16. xxxvi.). 
 i .\s Bosc rem. irks. t!i, 1,^% . ,.f \ 
 ' and prosody w • 
 I in his day. ant 
 
 neglect of tho 
 : afford abundant .mm. ;u. 
 
 truly that they shew mii' 
 
 though inanv are grace (. 
 
 especially his !■ n. r, i . , 
 
 address to Nir^ • 
 ' great plcasuri : 
 I well, but his 1 
 
 rank as poetry. iJ.:ui*aui. 1. ,« 
 
 a very favourable opinion .i>«> 
 
 I lion au cttujuirme sn-tU. vo). - «rj. 
 
 Uf his amiable and atfe< ti'>ii 4t< .||^^ s|(|..q, 
 !lt)ve for his friends, profcund huinililv. mtire 
 I abnegation of self. -■ irrn-st ;M'-tv. in ) drv 11,41 
 ' to the service • ■ ,^^ 
 
 been given. II ^ .0 
 
 ; the Catholic ty. 
 
 which he state, . ,,. , . .,, i.s. liut 
 
 seems in one letter t'> tavour tnr Mrw» o| the 
 
 semi-PelaK'nns (/•./>. xxix. 7). \lc brlirvcd 
 
 devoutly in the [■ w.-t ml mtl'i. 1. . I .Ir- 
 
 parted saints, i •. .(« 
 
 i life from the i . U 
 
 I may be said t ' h« 
 
 carried, as the st ri. . m !.i, 
 
 ly, to the utmost bound of 
 i(.\inp<^rp, Hnu€ dt\ dcui m 
 ' xii. p. r>'>, and l.ill/rattut iHmift'te , 
 
 quii^nu iUde, \->\ 1. \>. j.^^». 
 
 The ed. >>i Ills w .rk% pufi f>v Ih^ 
 
 MiKiie, I'atr. Ijtt. •■ ' '-• •• • 
 
 matter of nio»t of ■ 
 
 however, in all inaf 
 
 • arclessly. and its il 
 
 axurate. An aiounl 
 
 bv Cavr. Hi%l. l.iU I. I 
 
 l:c(l. v.. I. Ul. . lllleli. 
 
 Cclllier, v.. I. vul. I>i 
 
 hit r%m*i, Lund. 1 - 
 lot life, blaminK K' 
 
 tl 
 
 iM rii«- 
 
 «bb« 
 
 th« 
 
 the«>l»Ky, though givin 
 
 l'a>iiiiiiu tk given 
 li^t . l>upui, HiU. 
 . ^ 1 XIV. ; •Oii 
 
 <\ and hH 
 .1111 lull crr<ti| far 
 
814 
 
 PAULINUS 
 
 his piety. la the Revue des deux mondes for 
 1878, vol. xxviii., is au art. by M. Gaston 
 Boissier on a Life of Paulinus by the abbe 
 Lagrange, pub. in 1877. Dr. Adolf Buse, 
 professor at the Seminary of Cologne, has 
 written a book in two vols., Paidin und seine 
 Zeit (Regensburg, 1856), which answers fully 
 to its title, containing all or nearly all known 
 about him, and written with great care, 
 moderation, and critical judgment. He 
 avoids most of the legends, and shews that the 
 use of bells in churches, an invention credited 
 to him by tradition, is not due to him, nor 
 even to the town of Nola. The latest ed. of 
 his works is by Hartel (Vienna, 1894, 2 vols.) 
 in the Corpus' Scr. Eccl. Lat. xxix.-xxx. ; see 
 also Hartel, PatristischeSiudien (Vienna, 1895), 
 V. vi. [H.W.P.] 
 
 Paulinus (12^, son of a prefect (probably a 
 vicarius) of lUyricum ; born at Pella. His 
 father soon afterwards went to Carthage as 
 proconsul, and Paulinus was before long sent 
 to Bordeaux to be brought up by his grand- 
 father. In his 84th year (probably c. 460) he 
 wrote a poem called " Eucharisticon Deo sub 
 Ephemeridis meae textu," in which he returns 
 thanks to God for his preservation and for 
 many blessings throughout a long and rather 
 eventful Ufe. The poem throws some light 
 on the history of his time, particularly on the 
 movement of the northern nations. It has 
 been erroneously attributed to St. PauUnus 
 of Nola. It is in De la Bigne, Bibl. Pair. 
 (App. col. 281, Paris, i579), and was ed. by 
 Daumius (Lips. 1686). Hist. Litt. de la France, 
 ii. 363, where the events of his Ufe are traced 
 in some detail, from the account given in 
 the pof>m itself ; Alzog, Handb. der Patrol. ; 
 Ebert, Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Ltt. ; Cave, Hist. 
 Litt. i. 290; Teuffel, vol. ii. Cf. also J. 
 Rocafort. /){> Paul Pell, vita et ceuv. (Bordeaux, 
 
 1890). [H.A.W.] 
 
 Paulinus (13) of Perigueux [Petrocorius), 
 a poet of the 2nd half of the 5th cent., to 
 whom properly belong certain works some- 
 times attributed to St. PauUnus of Nola, viz. 
 Vita Martini in six books, a poem, " de Visita- 
 tione Nepotuli Sui," and a short poem com- 
 posed as a dedicatory inscription for the 
 basilica of St. Martin at Tours. Nothing can 
 be clearly made out concerning his life or 
 parentage, save the inference, from the name 
 Petrocorius, that he was probably a native of 
 Perigueux. The poem on St. Martin was 
 probably written c. 470, certainly during the 
 episcopate of Perpetuus of Tours (who pre- 
 sided at the council of Tours in 461), since it 
 is dedicated to that bishop, and is partly 
 based on a document drawn up by him. It 
 is mainly a rather rough versification of the 
 Life of St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus and 
 of parts of the dialogues of the same writer ; 
 the last book is especiaUy interesting, as repre- 
 senting a formal account by the bp. of Tours 
 of the miracles wrought at his predecessor's 
 tomb. The short dedication poem for the new 
 basilica was written later, at the request of Per- 
 petuus. The poem "de Visitatione Nepotuli 
 Sui" records a miraculous cure of the author's 
 grandson, by the joint agency, as he appears 
 to consider, of St. Martin and Perpetuus. 
 
 His works are, under the name of St. Paul- 
 inus of Nola, in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixi. (Ebert, 
 
 PAULINUS 
 
 Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Lit. 385 ; Cave, Hist. Litt. 
 i. 449 ; Teuffel, vol. ii. ; Greg. Turon. de Mir. 
 B. Mart., and Ruinart's note in the Benedic- 
 tine ed.) Cf. A. Huber, Die poetische Bear- 
 bietung der Vita S. Mar. durch Paul von 
 Perigueux {Pamplon. iqoi). [h.a.w.] 
 
 Paulinus (20), the first Christian missionary 
 from Rome to Northumbria, and the bishop 
 who begins the recognized succession in the 
 archiepiscopal see of York. 
 
 He was sent from Rome by Gregory in 601, 
 with MelUtus, Justus, and Rufinianus. They 
 joined Augustine in Kent, and would take an 
 active part in evangeUzing that kingdom. 
 
 In 625 Edwin, king of Northumbria, wished 
 to marry Ethelburga, daughter of Eadbald, 
 king of Kent, who objected to a pagan son- 
 in-law. A second embassy revealed Edwin's 
 eagerness. He promised to allow the princess 
 and her suite entire freedom in their religious 
 worship, and even that he himself would 
 adopt her faith, if his wise men should con- 
 sider it right and just. Here was an oppor- 
 tunity for evangelizing Northumbria, and 
 Eadbald sent his daughter. PauUnus accom- 
 panied the princess as her religious adviser, 
 and, to add dignity and importance to his 
 mission, Augustine consecrated him bishop 
 before he set out, on July 21, 625. 
 
 At first, however, PauUnus found the king 
 quiescent though respectful, and that the 
 people paid no attention ; while his own little 
 party was in danger from the taint of heathen- 
 ism. At the feast of Easter, 626, an attempt 
 was made upon Edwin's life. That act 
 probably accelerated the birth of Ethelburga's 
 first child, a daughter, and Paulinus thanked 
 God for the preservation of his master and 
 mistress with such fervour that Edwin, 
 touched at last, promised to become a Chris- 
 tian if he could be avenged upon those who 
 had sent forth the assassin, and, to shew he 
 was in earnest, permitted Paulinus to baptize 
 the new-born princess, with eleven courtiers 
 who chose to accompany her to the font. 
 
 Edwin obtained his revenge, but loitered 
 over the fulfilment of his promise. Paulinus 
 reminded the hesitating monarch of what had 
 taken place twelve years before at Redwald's 
 court. He laid his hand upon Edwin's head, 
 and asked him if he remembered that sign and 
 his pledge. Now was the time for its fulfil- 
 ment. Whether Paulinus was the stranger 
 himself, or had gathered from the queen, or 
 some courtier, that Edwin had seen and heard 
 all this in a dream, is a matter of doubt. A 
 national gathering took place at Goodman- 
 ham, near York, to consider the subject, and 
 resulted in the king, coiurt, and many of the 
 people becoming Christians. 
 
 Northumbria was now opened to the mis- 
 sionary work of Paulinus, and his time fully 
 occupied. He made a convert of Blecca, the 
 reeve of Lincoln, and through his means a 
 church was erected on the summit of its 
 hill in which Paulinus consecrated archbp. 
 Honorius in 627. He is said soon after to 
 have founded Southwell minster, and his 
 appearance was described to Beda as he stood 
 in the river baptizing convert after convert in 
 king Edwin's presence. 
 
 Mark him, of shoulders curved, and stature tall. 
 Black hair, and vivid eyes, and meagre cheek. 
 
t>AULUS Of SAMOSATA 
 
 At Donafflil, iirob.iblv thr lu.Mlcrn iKmrattcr. 
 amid the remains o( ihc Kxniun camp, ihcrp 
 was a Christian basilica with a st.mr altar, 
 which may be ascribe^l to Pauhniis. At 
 Dewsburv was a stone rrovs with an in- : 
 tion stating that he preachetl there : whi 
 Whallcy in Lancishire and near l-.i-iin*: 
 close to York, there were other 
 nected with his name, lie is >■ 
 baptized very many at Hralbrt 
 tenck. In Bcrnicia a streamlet < int .. . ., .■.,.- 
 bum in the \. of N'orthumtvrland retams the 
 great preacher's name, lie is s.iul i<> have 
 been t>ccupied in instrurting and baptuin^- i r 
 36 consecutive days at Adgebrin or Yeav. ; 
 There would yet be very few churches, 
 these at first chiefly baptisteries on i . 
 banks. There the catechumens were tau<;hi. 
 and thence went down with their instructor 
 into the water below. ' 
 
 In 633. after six years of unceasing ami 
 successful exertion, the labours of Paulinus 
 in the north came abruptly to a close. Fdwin 
 fell in battle at Hatfield, near Honcastrr. ■ ' 
 the disaster was so complete that the : 
 born Christianity of the north seemed lit; 
 overwhelmed by the old idolatry, raiili. . 
 thought that he owed his first duty to the 
 widowed queen who had come with him into 
 Northumbria, and he t<x>k her back, with her 
 children and suite, to Kent. There he was 
 made bp. of Rochester, which see had been 
 vacant some time. In the autumn of 633 
 he received from the pope, who had not heard 
 of the great disaster in the north, a pall 
 designed for his use as archbp. of ^■ork. 
 Whether or no, by virtue of the gift of this 
 pall, he has a just claim to be considered an 
 archbishop, he never went back to North- 
 imibria. He is said to have been a benefactor 
 to the monastery of Glastonbury, rebuilding 
 the church and covering it with lead, and to 
 have spent some time within its walls. He 
 died Oct. 10, 644, and was buried in the 
 chapter-house at Rochester, of which place he 
 became the patron saint. Lanfranc trans- 
 lated his remains into a silver shrine, giving a ^ 
 cross to hang over it. .\mong the relics in 
 York minster were a few of his bones and two 
 teeth, but nothing else to commemorate his 
 great work in the north, save an alt.ir which 
 bore his name and that of Chad conjouietl. 
 
 His life has been carefuUv related in I>r. 
 Bright's Chapters of Early hnalisk Church 
 History, and in the Lives of the Archbishops i>i 
 York, vol. i.. for which see a full statement and 
 sifting of the authorities. (j"-l 
 
 Paulas (9) of Samosata. patriarch of An- 
 tioch, A.D. 260-270. A celebrated Monarchian 
 heresiarch. " the Socinus of the 3rd century " 
 (so Bp. Wordsworth), deposed and excom- 
 municated for heretical teaching as to the 
 divinity of our Blessed Lord, a.d. 269. Hi» 
 designation indicates that he was a native of 
 Samosata, the royal city of Syria, whrro he 
 
 may have become known to Zenot : ' 
 
 Palmyra, through whom Cave 
 
 ascribe his advancement to the ! 
 
 in the SyTian church. I>r v< ■ 
 
 out that the beginning "f ' 
 
 synchronizes w^ith the com 
 
 successes of Zenobia's Im 
 
 against Sapor (Ar\ar\s 0/ the luurih Lcni. j . 4, 
 
 alitv , 
 birth, 
 
 the J.. 
 rather t 
 a t hr: • 
 
 PAULUS OP SAMOSATA «IA 
 
 .IV .:... : :■■ ,t..li- , t!-. . .", hrt I'dtU"* 
 
 41x1 rh^r- 
 
 :\r bi»h»t>* 
 
 Tb« 
 
 (h«T«. II • 
 
 IV vain- 
 
 .•ml 
 
 .rat 
 
 ■ ui* 
 
 ■ ■<€• 
 
 \>u 
 
 ral 
 
 . ol 
 
 Ih« 
 
 T* 
 
 hf 
 
 Ullg 
 
 tut 
 
 Ml 
 
 a loity tiibui. . 
 
 Tor) for priv.it. 
 
 public ga/e. ! ' 
 
 the psalms which w. 
 
 which had ever pro\. 
 
 orthodox faith, as in 
 
 a century old (cf. Cams a/ 
 
 li. 129), and to have init 
 
 praise of him^flf which v 
 
 church • ' • ■ . ' 
 
 causiii 
 
 at the 
 
 as an .ti.^ • 
 
 and gifts, an; 
 
 power, he iii'l 
 
 presbvters t" t 
 
 other novelties. Hi, ; tu.itr 
 
 in equally il.irk c. .lours. Hi 
 
 in the |>leasures of th<- t iMr 
 
 society of two Ix-ai.- 
 
 spiritual sisters. " - 
 
 couraged other rlrr 
 
 ampl"-. to the ■ 
 
 of ininv. N • 
 
 had I.ut so >: 
 
 Pauls 
 It was 
 
 clii.il-. 
 
 the 
 M 
 ■ut. 
 
 tii« 
 
 .lid 
 
 4iid 
 
 h;.- i. ilr illlied 
 
 indulged lre*ly 
 
 It,.! r„! .V.-.I tb« 
 
 
816 PAULUS OF* SAMOSATA 
 
 second synod heard from all quarters that his 
 teaching was unaltered, and that this could 
 be easily proved if the opportunity were 
 granted. A third synod, therefore, was con- 
 vened at Antioch, towards the close of 269. 
 The leading part was taken by Malchion, a 
 presbyter of Antioch, at one time president 
 of the school of rhetoric there. Athanasius 
 says that 70 bishops were present (Athan. de 
 Synod, vol. i. p. ii. p. 605, ed. Patav.), Hilary 
 says 80 (Hilar, de Synod, p. 1200). Malchion, 
 as a skilled dialectician, was chosen by them to 
 conduct the discussion. Paul's heresy being 
 plainly proved, he was unanimously con- 
 demned, and the synod pronounced his de- 
 position and excommunication, which they 
 notified to Dionysius bp. of Rome, Maximus 
 of Alexandria, and the other bishops of the 
 church, in an encyclical letter, probably the 
 work of Malchion, large portions of which are 
 preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vii. 30). In it 
 the assembled fathers announced that they 
 had of their own authority appointed Domnus, 
 the son of Paul's predecessor Demetrianus, to 
 the vacant chair. The sentence of deposition 
 was easier to pronounce than to carry out. 
 Popular tumults were excited by Paul's parti- 
 sans. Zenobia supported her favourite in his 
 episcopal position, while the irregularity of 
 Domnus's appointment alienated many of the 
 orthodox. For two years Paul retained pos- 
 session of the cathedral and of the bishop's 
 residence attached to it, asserting his rights as 
 the ruler of the church of Antioch. On the 
 defeat of Zenobia by Aurelian towards the end 
 of 372, the Catholic prelates represented to 
 him what they termed Paul's " audacity." 
 Aurelian relegated the decision to the bp. of 
 Rome and the Italian prelates, decreeing that 
 the residence should belong to the one they 
 recognized by letters of communion (ib.). The 
 Italian bishops promptly recognized Domnus, 
 Paul was driven with the utmost ignominy 
 from the temporalities of the church, and 
 Domnus, despite his irregular appointment, 
 generally accepted as patriarch {ib. ; Cyril Alex. 
 Hoin. de Virg. Deip. ; Routh, iii. 358). 
 
 The teaching of Paul of Samosata was a 
 development of that of Artemon, with whose 
 heresy it is uniformly identified by early 
 writers. Like the Eastern heresiarch, Paul 
 held the pure humanity of Christ, " He was 
 not before Mary, but received from her the 
 origin of His being " (Athan. de Synod, p. 919, 
 c. iii. s. 10). His pre-existence was simply in 
 the divine foreknowledge. He allowed no 
 difference in kind between the indwelling of 
 the Logos in Christ and in any human being, 
 only one of degree, the Logos having dwelt 
 and operated in Him after a higher manner 
 than in any other man. This indwelling was 
 not that of a person, but of a quality. There 
 is no evidence that he denied the supernatural 
 conception of Christ. Athanasius distinctly 
 asserts that he taught eeoi/ €k wapdevov, Geic 
 €K Nafap^T ocpdivra (Athan. de Saint, adv. 
 Apoll. t. i. p. 635) ; but he laid no particular 
 stress upon it. His inferior Being was e/c 
 Tvapdivov ; his superior Being was penetrated 
 by the Logos, Whose instrumentality by it was 
 continually advancing itself towards God, 
 until the " Jesus Christ from below " (^KaTuidev) 
 became worthy of union with God (e/c irpoKowrji 
 
 PAULUS Ii. 
 
 TeOeorroirja-daL). Therefore, although he called 
 Christ God, it was not as God by His nature, 
 but by progressive development. The Deity 
 of Christ grew by gradual progress out of 
 the humanity. He was convicted, according 
 to Eusebius, of asserting that Christ was 
 mere man deemed specially worthy of divine 
 grace (Eus. H. E. vii. 27). He taught also 
 that as the Logos is not a Person, so also the 
 Holy Spirit is impersonal, a divine virtue 
 belonging to the Father and distinct from 
 Him only in conception. 
 
 It deserves special notice that Paul'smisuse, 
 •• (TupLaTiKQs et crasso sensu," of the term 
 6/xooi)(Jio?, " consubstantial," which after- 
 wards at Nicaea became the test word of 
 orthodoxy, is stated to have led to its rejec- 
 tion by the Antiochene council (Athan. de 
 Synodis, t. i. in pp. 917, 922). This is allowed 
 by Athanasius, though with some hesitation, 
 and only on the testimony of his serai-Arian 
 opponents, as he said he had not seen the 
 original documents {ib. pp. 918-920) by 
 Hilary (de Synod. §81, p. 509 ; §86, p. 513) 
 on the ground that it appeared that " per 
 hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem soli- 
 tarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et 
 Filium praedicabat " (in which words he 
 seems mistakenly to identify the teaching of 
 Paul with that of Sabellius), and still more 
 emphatically by Basil (Ep. 52 [30]). 
 
 Dr. Newman regards Paul of Samosata as 
 "the founder of a school rather than of a 
 sect" (Arians, p. 6). A body, called after 
 him Paulianists, or Pauliani, or Samosaten- 
 sians, existed in sufficient numbers at the 
 time of the council of Nicaea for the enact- 
 ment of a canon requiring their rebaptism and 
 the reordination of their clergy on their return 
 to the Catholic church, on the ground that 
 orthodox formulas were used with a heterodox 
 meaning (Canon. Nic. xix. Hefele, i. 43). The 
 learned presbyter Lucian, who may be con- 
 sidered almost the parent of Arianism, was a 
 friend and disciple of Paul, and, as being 
 infected with his errors, was refused com- 
 munion by each of the three bishops who suc- 
 ceeded the heresiarch. The many references 
 to them in the writings of Athanasius show 
 that for a considerable period after the Nicene 
 council it was felt necessary for Catholics to 
 controvert the Samosatene's errors, and for 
 semi-Arians to disown complicity in them 
 (Athan. u.s.). The Paulinians are mentioned 
 by St. Augustine as still existing (Aug. de 
 Haer. 44), though pope Innocent spoke of the 
 heresy as a thing of the past in 414 (Labbe, 
 ii. 1275), and when Theodoret wrote, c. 450, 
 there did nut exist the smallest remnant of 
 the sect {Haer. ii. ir). Cf. Epiphan. Haer. 65; 
 Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. iv. pp. 289-303. [e.v.] 
 
 Paulus (10) II., patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 
 519-521 (Clinton, F. R.). On the expulsion of 
 the Monophysite Severus by Justin, Paulus, 
 a presbyter of Constantinople, warden of the 
 hospice of Eubulus, was nominated by the 
 emperor to the vacant see, and was canonically 
 ordained at Antioch. He strictly attended to 
 Justin's commands to enforce the decrees of 
 Chalcedon, and by inserting in the diptychs 
 the names of the orthodox bishops of that 
 synod caused a schism in his church, many of 
 the Antiochenes regarding the council with 
 
1 
 
 ^AULUS MOLOI tlf 
 
 suspicion, .u tfiuliiK t N'.M riaiiivm rirrifV. l.p f \i!.r.li-.i. . . I r>Mt ,- Imn • i r,< .. 
 
 Idity, aiulri>sia< • 
 
 him bof.rc U. 
 
 that time iii ( 
 
 becoming a bisii p. i in \ 
 
 comint; lo any c»nrlusi.>ii, .4: 
 
 repeatetl bol..rc Jiistin. 1 
 
 clear hiiiiscH. obt.uiu-tl lra\. i in. . ,,., 
 
 to retire (roll) his bishopric, A. n. .Sii. Mr rty 
 
 succecdetl by Euphrasiu*. Kvaijr. //. h. r. 
 
 Thet)phan. p. 14 1; joaiin. Malal. lib. \ 
 
 p. 4" : Eutycii. ii. isi ; hp. Juittnt. I..r >• 
 
 IV. 1555; Lc(Jiiicii. Or. (*rii<. II. 732. ji t. 
 
 Paillas(ll). sumamrd I ht liUik, ]ac e 
 
 patriarcli of .\ntiiH-h from about the ini <«• 
 
 of 6th cent, to 578. was a native of .M > .-.y 
 
 aadria (A&scm. li.O. ii. 3311 ami, hV. : .1 
 
 Egyptians, a Monoph>-Mte. Befon I *>• 
 
 bishop he maintained at Conit.i: •< 
 
 successful public dispute in the ; «• 
 
 palace with the Tritheites lonon an *• 
 
 (16. 329). Either Mennas or liutv ■»• 
 
 then have been patriarch. I'aul w.i •• 
 
 then s>-ncellus to Therxlosius. tl. . *• 
 
 patriarch of Alexandria, who was 1 ^f* 
 
 exile at Constantinople, but ex< i '«i 
 
 authority over the Jacobite roi <^ 
 
 there and in E({ypt. Paul's conn \ '•• 
 
 Theodosius, and his success as .1 '*• 
 
 marked him out for the titular se<- ' '■* 
 
 and the patriarchate of the wh. !■ M •* 
 
 phN-site body, then beKinnin^ to U- r.. «» 
 Jacobites, and he was consecrate*! bv | 
 
 Baradaeus himself who originated ;' •• 
 
 We cannot feel sure that tin-, was I '" 
 
 I'aul apiH-ars in a list of celebritie> : 't 
 
 in 571. All we hear of him aft. ; '5^ 
 
 disastrous. The great i>frs«'cuiioii of •'. 
 
 .Monophysites by the patriarch John S< li '• 
 
 ticus broke out at C<instantinople, if the > S 
 is right, on Mar. 20, 571, and I'aul was ..n< , and Lu IJ a^ic Jti. mJ- I i:. '" : ' -"»«* 
 of four bishops (another being I'alli s (18) ) miserv to the Kr.»vr " p. i«'i. • >• . 
 barbarously treated by him. He w.is iii.lu . .1 Piului 18 I.. ' ;f. » ; << ;;•• riv, j ir. 
 
 to leave the monastery of the A< ■ ' '''* 
 
 Constantinople for the patriarch •• 
 
 whither the three others were als •• 
 
 imder pretence of conferring on liir uur. •'" 
 
 the church. The four were kept in ■ . i'* 
 
 custody, and cruelly used until they jk' * 
 
 to Communicate with the persecutor on "• 
 
 promise to ejert the svn'>d of Chalcedoii I: * 
 
 the church(Johnof Eph. //. / . p. 42). I ' * • 
 
 twice communicated with him, loudly anat; '" 
 
 matizinK the obnoxious synod; but the i-cucd t . t < at •• 
 patriarch put off his part of the compact with of IVarr. r|.^ 
 the excuse that he must fimt obtain tin '-t- it < !. .r. (. 
 consent of the bp. of Koine. Thu« t! 
 
 "fell into communion " with the clef.i' * 
 
 "symxlite," and on their |...iflini: him ^ 
 
 reproaches the severity of tli^ , 
 
 increased and they wrre i! : .'^ 
 
 in the monastery "f H<-flt \ ^ 
 stantinople, w!.' ' ■> - 
 After a time I 
 made his way i 
 
 received him \'.\- , 
 
 keeping him \ ■■ ^^ 
 
 to communi' I. .^ 
 
 new patriarch ..y 
 
 was appointed, anU I'aul "< j 
 
 cealment at Conslantinoplr. .^. 
 
 382. as detailed by John of I.; /.^ 
 
 F^OlOS (13), suruamed c/ fi.J. J4. Mt^ t . «'-«■ \uji\ 1 4 u^ -^i ..,.-• ■ -. 
 
 58 
 
818 
 
 PAULUS EDESSENUS 
 
 people would not hear of violence being done 
 to their bishop ; they rushed upon the house 
 where the general was, set fire to it, killed 
 him on the spot, tied a rope round his feet, 
 pulled him out from the burning building, 
 and dragged him in triumph round the city. 
 
 Constantius was not likely to pass over this 
 rebellion against his authority. He rode on 
 horseback at full speed to Constantinople, 
 determined to make the people suffer heavily 
 for their revolt. They met him, however, on 
 their knees with tears and entreaties, and he 
 contented himself with depriving them of half 
 their allowance of corn, but ordered Paulus 
 to be driven from the city. 
 
 Athanasius was then in exile from Alex- 
 andria, Marcellus from Ancyra, and Asclepas 
 from Gaza ; with them Paulus betook himself 
 to Rome and consulted bp. Julius, who 
 examined their cases severally, found them 
 all staunch to the creed of Nicaea, admitted 
 them to communion, espoused their cause, 
 and wrote strongly to the bishops of the East. 
 Athanasius and Paulus recovered their sees ; 
 the Eastern bishops replied to bp. Julius 
 altogether declining to act on his advice. 
 
 Constantius was again at Antioch, and as 
 resolute as ever against the choice of the 
 people of Constantinople. Philippus, prefect 
 of the East, was there, and was ordered to 
 once more expel Paulus and to put Macedonius 
 definitely in his place. Philippus was not 
 ready to incur the risks and fate of Hermo- 
 genes ; he said nothing about the imperial 
 order. At a splendid public bath called 
 Zeuxippus, adjoining a palace by the shore of 
 the Hellespont, he asked the bishop to meet 
 him, as if to discuss some public business. 
 When he came, Philippus shewed him the 
 emperor's letter, and ordered him to be quietly 
 taken through the palace to the waterside, 
 placed on board ship, and carried off to Thes- 
 salonica, his native town. He allowed him 
 to visit Illyricum and the remoter provinces, 
 but forbade him to set foot again in the East. 
 Paulus was afterwards loaded with chains and 
 taken to Singara in Mesopotamia, then to 
 Emesa, and finally to Cucusus in Armenia, 
 where he died. Socr. H. E. ii. 6, etc. ; Soz. 
 H. E. iii. 3, etc. ; Athan. Hist. Arian. ad 
 Monach. 275 ; Mansi, Coitcil. i. 1275. [w.m.s.] 
 
 Paulus (28) Edessenus, Monophysite bp. of 
 Edessa ; consecrated a.d. 510 in succession 
 to Peter. In the first year of his episcopate 
 he took part with Gamalinus, bp. of Perrha, 
 against certain sectarians who refused the use 
 of bread, water, and wine, except in the 
 Eucharist. Justin, becoming emperor, under- 
 took to force the decrees of Chalcedon on 
 Severus of Antioch and his followers, and 
 committed the task to Patricius, who came 
 in due course to Edessa (Nov. 519), and 
 ordered Paul either to subscribe the council 
 or resign. Paul refused, and took sanctuary 
 in his baptistery ; whence he was dragged 
 by Patricius and sentenced to be exiled to 
 Seleucia. Justin, however, hoping to over- 
 come the bishop's resistance, reinstated him 
 after 44 days. But Paul still refused to sub- 
 mit, and was at length deposed and banished 
 to Euchaita in Pontus, July 522. A later 
 imperial order placed Asclepius in the see. 
 
 Paul translated, no doubt in his days of 
 
 PAULUS 
 
 exile, the Greek hymns of Severus and other 
 Monophysite writers, and arranged them so 
 as to form a Syriac hymnal. A MS. of this 
 collection as corrected by his famous successor 
 Jacob — dated in the lifetime of that prelate 
 (a.d. 675), and probably written by his hand — 
 is in the Brit. Mus. (Add. MS. 17134)- On the 
 death of Asclepius (June 525), Paul "re- 
 pented" (as the orthodox author of the 
 Chronicon Edesseniim states) and made sub- 
 mission to Justinian, then acting for Justin. 
 From him he obtained a letter supporting the 
 petition he addressed to Euphrasius, then 
 patriarch, praying to be restored to his see. 
 He was accordingly permitted to return to 
 Edessa as bp. in Mar. 526. He survived this 
 his third inauguration less than 8 months, 
 dying on Oct. 30, less than a year before J ustin 
 died. The Jacobites, however, cannot have 
 regarded him as a renegade, for he is com- 
 memorated in their calendar on Aug. 23, as 
 " Mar Paulus, bp. of Edessa, Interpreter of 
 Books," a title likewise given to Jacob of 
 Edessa. 
 
 His hymnal consists of 365 hymns ; 295 
 being by Severus, the rest by his contemporary 
 John Bar-Aphtunaya, abbat of Kinnesrin, 
 John Psaltes his successor there, and others. 
 Though the trans, is no doubt mainly Paul's 
 work, it includes a few hymns of obviously 
 later date. Bp. Lightfoot [Ignatius, vol. i. 
 p. 185) gives the hymns of this collection "On 
 Ignatius " at length, with a trans. [j.gw.] 
 
 Paulus (30), bp. of Emesa, one of the most 
 deservedly respected prelates of the period of 
 the Nestorian controversy, the contemporary 
 of Cyril and John of Antioch, the peacemaker 
 between the patriarchs of Alexandria and 
 Antioch after the disastrous close of the 
 council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. He reached 
 Ephesus together with John of Antioch and 
 the other Oriental bishops, and joined in the 
 deposition of Cyril and Memnon (Labbe, iii. 
 597) and in all the proceedings of the Oriental 
 party. He was one of the eight Oriental 
 deputies despatched to the emperor with 
 plenipotentiary powers [ib. 724). His moder- 
 ation in these difficult and delicate negotia- 
 tions was condemned by the uncompromising 
 Alexander of Hierapolis as proceeding from a 
 mean desire for reconciliation at the cost of 
 the truth (Baluz. Concil. Nov. Collect. 800). 
 Paul was a sincere lover of peace, and above 
 all things anxious to put an end to the disputes 
 on points of faith, the mutual violence of which 
 was a disgrace to the church, a scandal to the 
 faithful, and a stumbling-block to unbelievers. 
 He was a man of vast experience in ecclesias- 
 tical matters, an accomplished theologian, 
 possessed of great tact and courtesy, and one 
 who — for unblemished holiness as well as for 
 his advanced age — enjoyed the confidence and 
 reverence of both parties. Weary of conflict 
 and anxious to obtain peace, John of Antioch 
 despatched Paul as his ambassador to Alex- 
 andria to confer with Cyril on the terms of 
 mutual concord, a.d. 432. Paul presented 
 in his own name and John's a confession 
 of faith originally drawn up' by Theodoret. 
 The formulary was accepted by Cyril as 
 orthodox, and he exhibited a formulary of 
 faith which Paul approved as consonant with 
 the creed of the Orientals (Labbe, iii. 1090). 
 
PAULUS 
 
 Paul was then received into communion by | 
 C>Til on exhibiting a written iliKUinent I 
 acquiescinfj in the deposition of Nestorius, 
 anathematizing his writings, and recognizing 
 his successor Maxiinian (Cyrill. £/>^. 3J. 40. 
 t. ii. pp. loo-ioi, i.SJ). I'aul was invited by 
 CvTil to preach on the Sunday before Christ- ' 
 mas Day and on Christmas Day itself. On 
 the festival the chief church of the city was ] 
 crowded, and Paul, having commenced with 
 the " Gloria in excelsis Deo," passed on to 
 Is. vii. 14, and concluded his exordium with 
 words decisive of the whole controversy, 
 " Mary the mother of God brings forth Hm- 
 raanuel." The test title was received with j 
 loud acclamations bv the con^jregation, " This ' 
 is the true faith "; "This is the gift of God," j 
 which were repeated when he proceeded to I 
 enunciate the doctrine of " the combination j 
 of two perfect natures in the one Christ," with | 
 shouts of " Welcome, orthodox bishop, the j 
 worthy to the worthy " (Labbe, iii. 1095). 
 Paul preached a third time the following | 
 Sunday, New Year's Day, 433, with equal 
 acceptance. Portions of all these sermons | 
 are still extant («"6. 1091, 1095, 1097). To ] 
 quicken John's delay in accepting the terms 
 of peace proposed by C\Til, Paul accompanied 
 Aristolaus and a deputation of two of Cyril's 
 clergy to Antioch, to lay before John for his 
 signature a document recognizing Nest'irius's 
 deposition and the anathematizing of his 
 teaching. This, eventually, was signed by 
 John, and brought back with great joy by 
 Paul to Alexandria (ih. 1091). The happy 
 reunion of the long-divided parties was pub- 
 lished by C)Til, in the chief church of .Mex- , 
 andria, Apr. 23, 433. Cyril acknowledged the 
 receipt of John's formulary in a well-known 
 letter — conveyed to him by the aged peace- 
 maker — commencing with the words of Ps. | 
 xcvi. II : " I.aetentur caeli," etc., by which it 
 was subsequentlv known (ib. 1106 ; Baluz. 
 786). The time of Paul's death is uncertain. 
 Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. (index) ; Cave, Hist. 
 Lit. i. 419 ; Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. i. 48 ; 
 Clinton, Fast. Rom. ii. 240 ; .Migne. Patr. Gk. 
 Ixxvii. 1433 ; Hefele, Hist, of Councils, Clark's 
 trans, iii. 127-137- [e-v.] 
 
 Paulus(73), St. (called Tlubafus ; 6 f^ritirjUty. 
 N'iceph.), Jan. 10 ; called by Jerome the 
 founder of the monastic life ("auctor vitae ^ 
 monasticae," Ep. 22, ad Eustock ; " princeps 
 vitae monasticae," Vit. S. Pauli, Prol.), and 
 said to have been the first, in Egypt at 
 least, to lead the life of a hermit, preceding 
 even the celebrated .Anthony (Koswcyd, Vitae 
 Patrum, in Patr. Lat. Ixxii'i. 105 and notes). 
 He lived in the desert of the Thebaid, whither ^ 
 he fled in youth from the terrors of the Dician 
 persecution, and where he died, at an extra- 
 ordinarv age, hale and hearty to the Inst 
 (Hieron. Ep. 21, aJ Paul. Concordiens.). The 
 palm-tree at the mouth of his cave supplied 
 him with food and clothing (Vita Pauli, c. d). 
 The ravens are said to have brought him 
 bread, and two lions dug his grave (i/>. cc. 9. ' 
 13). Anthony is said to have paid him a visit 
 shortly before his death, and ever afterwards ^ 
 to have worn his tunic of palm leaves on ' 
 great festivals. Jerome adds (c. 13), with: 
 characteristic fervour, that such a garment, 
 the legacy of so great a saint, was more | 
 
 PCLAOIA 
 
 H|0 
 
 glorious th.m the purple ol a kmR. Nicrph. 
 Call. //. h. IX. m; HoII. .ida SS. io Jan. ». 
 6(>i ; Hutl<r. J.m. \\. (i.e.*.) 
 
 PauluS (HO) Miinrlinii-t r n. < • 'i.^ 
 Silentiarv." from his position .1 I 
 
 Justinian's court, wrote sr\rr.»l 
 served in the .^ »i/'i.i.' •:.* /'.i.'.i.', ■, . 
 other works of mm . lusixxtitjl 
 
 account of the lim ' at inn nf (hp 
 
 (ireat Church of t iniMt. 4s the 
 
 evidence of a conti 1111 .1 u \ , .ilwavs W 411 
 important authority on the Kreatei>t rffort of 
 Byzantine church architecture. If t- written 
 in Homeric hexameters, with .1 ' ' i 
 
 iambic verse. Its vividness is 
 by .-Xgathias, but. from his n< . 
 ance of technical terms, it 1^ .. ; • . . i.. 
 follow his description of the building. I ogcthcr 
 with the iK<t>pa(Tts tov iniutroi, it was edited 
 by Graefe (Lips. i8j2). .Some assistance to 
 its better understanding in relation to church 
 architecture is given by Ncale, Hiil. of Holy 
 Eastern Church (Intro.). [ii.a.w.J 
 
 PegaslUS (1), bp. of Troas c. yso-ifM. His 
 name was found in a previously unknown 
 letter of the emperor Julian, first published 
 in Hermes (1875), pp. 257-2<>6. This letter 
 gives a very interesting description of a visit 
 paid by Julian to Troy before he became 
 emperor. It describes the graves of Hector 
 and .\chilles, and the temple of Minerva as 
 being still honoured with sacrilices ; wliile the 
 bishop of the nlace I'eg.isius seems to have 
 acted as custodian of the temple and of the 
 images which were in their places and in good 
 order. He had evidently discerned Julian's 
 tendency to paganism. J ulian, upon entering 
 the temple, recognized traces of sacrifices, and 
 asked if the people still sacrificed to the gtxls. 
 The bishop defended the practice on the 
 analogv of the honour paid by Christians to 
 the mart\TS. The bishop turned pagan on 
 the accession of Julian, whose letter was 
 wiitten to plead his cause on the ground that 
 such converts needed encouragement. This 
 letter is of great interest in view of m<Hieni 
 explorations of the site of Troy. Cf. Hoissier'i 
 art. on Julian in Kevue des deut momUi. July 
 i8«o. piJ. 106-108. Ic.T.s.) 
 
 Pelagia (3), sumamed .\tiiri:anta, .Manna, 
 and I'acatnx. an actress of .\ntioch about 
 the middle of 5th cent., c.lebrated for her 
 repentance. Her history is discussed at 
 length in the .\.i. SS. Boll. (Jet. iv. 248-268. 
 where she is distinguished from two other 
 Pelagias of Antioch, and IVlagia of Tarsu*. 
 martvr under Diocletian. The story of our 
 Pelagia has been told by Jacobus, a deacon 
 and eyewitness of her conversion. Nonnu*. 
 bp. oi Kdessa and successor of Ibas in thai 
 see, was onr^ preachine at Anti.ich when 
 present at a synof! ■■< . i.'i.i i.iJi..!.. 1'. l.i.^'ij 
 was then the fav ■ 
 
 Antioch, whose ii. 
 
 upon her and siii : ' 
 
 the number of peai;> ;.h. ssuiL Mir < .iiue 
 into the church during the sermon, to the 
 astonishment and horror of the other bi»hop». 
 Nonnus had b«en an ascetic of the wvcfe 
 order of I'achoniius of ral>enna, and he 
 addressed Pelagia with such plainnrM and 
 sternness touching her »ini and the future 
 judgtneuts of (iod, that she at once rc|>ented. 
 
S20 PELAOIANISM and PELAfilUS 
 
 and with many tears desired baptism, which, 
 after some delay, was granted, the chief 
 deaconess of Antioch, Romana, acting as 
 sponsor for her. She finally left Antioch for 
 a cell on the Mount of Olives, where she lived 
 as a monk in male attire, and died some three 
 years afterwards from excessive austerities. 
 Jacobus the deacon, recounting a visit he 
 paid to her there, gives a very interesting 
 description of an anchorite's cell, such as 
 can still be seen in many places in Ireland. 
 She was living as an enclosed anchorite, in a 
 cell with a window as the only communica- 
 tion with the external world. Her whole 
 history is full of interesting touches, describing 
 the ancient ritual of baptism and other 
 ecclesiastical usages. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Pelagianism and Pelagius (2). The details 
 
 of the early career of Pelagius, whose name is 
 identified with the prominent subject of theo- 
 logical controversy of Latin Christendom in 
 the 5th cent., are very imperfectly known from 
 contemporary history. He is said by Augus- 
 tine, Prosper, Gennadius, Orosius, and Mer- 
 cator to have been a Briton. Jerome's words 
 ("habet progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britan- 
 norum vicinia," Pref. lib. 3 in Hieron.) may 
 imply that he was an Irishman, the Scoti being 
 then settled in Ireland. His name undoubtedly 
 looks like a Grecized version of some earlier 
 name ; but the tradition that the original 
 name of the heresiarch was Morgan (Marigena, 
 neXd7tos), and that he came from Bangor in 
 N. Wales, rests on late and untrustworthy 
 authority. His birth probably occurred c. 
 370. Both Orosius and pope Zosimus speak 
 of him as a layman. He came to Rome very 
 early in the 5th cent. If Mercator's statement 
 is accepted, that he imbibed his opinions from 
 Rufinus the S>Tian in the episcopate of Anas- 
 tasius, we must fix his arrival in Rome not 
 later than 401. His personal character at 
 this period is spoken of with the utmost 
 respect by his contemporaries. His great 
 opponent St. Augustine describes him as 
 being generally held to be a good and holy 
 man, and of no mean proficiency as a Chris- 
 tian (de Pecc. Mer. iii. i). Paulinus, bp. of 
 Nola, who was much attached to him, es- 
 teemed him a special servant of God. Pela- 
 gius was actuated at Rome by a strong moral 
 purpose, enforcing the necessity of a strict 
 Christian morality as against a laxity of life 
 content with external religious observances. 
 To this period must be assigned his earliest 
 3 works : the first, in 3 books, on the Trinity ; 
 the second a collection of passages from Scrip- 
 ture, all bearing on Christian practice, called 
 by Gennadius Eulogiarum Liber, by Augustine 
 and Orosius Testtmoniorum Liber ; the third 
 an exposition of the Epp. of St. Paul. 
 
 At Rome Pelagius became acquainted with 
 Coelestius, whose name was so intimately 
 associated with his in the subsequent contro- 
 versy. Coelestius, originally an advocate, 
 was led by Pelagius to a strict religious life, 
 and very soon became an ardent disciple and 
 a propagandist of his master's views. De- 
 spite the imputations of later opponents, it is 
 evident that during his long residence at Rome 
 Pelagius was animated by a sincere desire to 
 be a moral reformer. The consciousness of the 
 need of a pure and self-denying morality as 
 
 PELAGIANISM and PELA6IUS 
 
 an element in religion led him to lay exag- 
 gerated stress upon the native capacity of the 
 free will of man, to form a wrong estimate of 
 the actual moral condition of human nature, 
 and to overlook or fatally undervalue the 
 necessity of divine aid in effecting the restor- 
 ation of man to righteousness. The first 
 signs of his antagonism to the Augustinian 
 theories, which were then developing and 
 obtaining general acceptance in the Western 
 church, are exhibited in an anecdote related 
 by St. Augustine himself {de Bono Persev. 
 c. 53). Pelagius was violently indignant on 
 hearing a bishop quote with approbation the 
 famous passage in the Confessions of St. A ugns- 
 tine, where he prays, "Give what Thou dost 
 command, and command what Thou wilt." 
 This language appeared to Pelagius to make 
 man a mere puppet in the hands of his 
 Creator. About the same time, apparently 
 (A.D.405), Pelagius wrote to Paulinus (Aug. de 
 Grat. Christi, 38). The letter is not extant, but 
 St. Augustine, who had read it, declared that 
 it dwelt almost entirely upon the power and 
 capacity of nature, only referring most cur- 
 sorily to divine grace, and leaving it doubtful 
 whether by grace Pelagius meant only the 
 forgiveness of sins and the teaching and 
 example of Christ, or that influence of the 
 Spirit of God which corresponds to grace 
 proper and is an inward inspiration. Pela- 
 gius remained at Rome till c. 409, when, as 
 Alaric's invasion threatened the city, he 
 withdrew with Coelestius to Sicily, and shortly 
 after to Africa. He visited Hippo Regius, 
 from which Augustine was then absent, and 
 seems to have remained quiet at Hippo, but 
 shortly afterwards repaired to Carthage, 
 where he saw Augustine once or twice. 
 Augustine was then deeply involved in the 
 Donatist controversy, but learned that Pela- 
 gius and his friends had begun to advocate 
 the opinion that infants were not baptized for 
 the remission of sins, but for the sake of 
 obtaining a higher sanctification through 
 union with Christ. This novel doctrine ap- 
 peared to Augustine to deny the teaching 
 of the church, as it virtually involved the 
 denial of any guilt of original sin which needed 
 forgiveness. Augustine, pre-occupied with 
 the Donatist errors and not ascribing much 
 weight to the chief upholders of the new 
 heresy, did not then wTite in defence of 
 the doctrine assailed. Pelagius, after a short 
 interval, sailed for Palestine, leaving Coeles- 
 tius at Carthage. In Palestine he was intro- 
 duced to Jerome in his monastery at Bethle- 
 hem. Coelestius at Carthage openly dis- 
 seminated Pelagius's views, and on seeking 
 ordination as a presbyter was accused of 
 heresy before bp. Aurelius. A coimcil was 
 summoned at Carthage in 412. Augustine 
 not being present, the accusation was con-, 
 ducted by Paulinus the deacon and biographer 
 of Ambrose. The charges against Coelestius 
 were that he taught that: (i)Adamwas created 
 liable to death, and would ha\e died, whether 
 I he had sinned or not. (2 ) The sin of Adam hurt 
 himself only, and not the human race. (3) 
 Infants at their birth are in the same state as 
 Adam before the fall. (4) Neither by the 
 death nor the fall of Adam does the whole 
 race of man die, nor by the resurrection of 
 
PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 Christ rise a^aiu. (s) Tlio Law inlriKluccs 
 men into the kingdom uf heaven, just in the 
 same way as the C.ospel docs, (h) Kvrn 
 before tlie coming of Christ there were some 
 men sinless, i>. men as a matter of fact 
 without sin. (7) Infants, even though not 
 baptized, have eternal life. 
 
 Coelestius endeavoured to explain away 
 some of his assertions; but his explanations 
 were judged evasive and his doctrines ci>n- 
 demned as unscriptural and contrary to the 
 Catholic faith. .\ sentence of excommunica- 
 tion was passed upon him and his followers. 
 He shortly afterwards sailed to ICphesus. 
 The prevalence of these opinions and the 
 efforts made to diffuse them led .\u>;ustine to 
 denounce them. In three or four sernums 
 delivered at this time (170, 174. 175) he 
 devoted himself to refuting the innovating 
 doctrines, though he does not mention their 
 chief upholders by name. His first written 
 treatise on the controversv was called forth 
 by a letter from his friend .Marcellinus. who 
 was troubled by daily assaults of I'elagian 
 disputations. The work originally consisted 
 of two books. The first established the 
 positions that death in man was the penalty 
 of sin, and not a mere condition of his natural 
 constitution ; that the whole offspring of 
 Adam was affected by his sin, and that bap- 
 tism of infants was for the remission of 
 original sin, the guilt of which they bear from 
 their birth. In the second book .Augustine 
 argued that the first man might have lived 
 without sin by the grace of God and his own 
 free will ; that as a matter of fact no living 
 man is whollv free from sin, for no man wills 
 all that he ought to do, owing to his ignorance 
 of what is right or his want of delight in doing 
 it ; that the only man absolutely without sin 
 is Christ, the God-man and .Mediator. Augus- 
 tine added to this treatise as a third book a 
 letter he wrote to Marcellinus when, a very 
 few days after the compilation of the two 
 books, he became acquainted with some fresh 
 arguments against original sin advanced in 
 the exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul 
 by Pelagius, who, however, put the arguments 
 in the mouth of another and di<l not avowedly 
 express them as his own. In bks. i. and ii. 
 Augustine never mentions Pelagius or Coeles- 
 tius bv name, possible hoping they might yet 
 be won back to orthodoxy ; in bk. iii.. while 
 arguing strongly against the views of the 
 nature of original sin propounded by Pelagius, 
 he speaks of Pelagius with marked respect, 
 calling him a signallv Christian man, a highly 
 advanced Christian ("vir ille tam egregie 
 Christianus," de Pccc. Mer. iii. 6; "non parvo 
 provectu Christianus," th. iii. i). 
 
 Pelagianism continued to propagate and 
 assert itself and found many upholders in 
 Carthage. It claimed the authority of the 
 Eastern churches, whose tendency had always 
 been to lay stress on the power of the human 
 will, and, boldlv retorting the accusatfu of in- 
 novation, it declared that the views of Augustine 
 and the dominant party in Africa were a de- 
 parture from the old orthodoxy. This rous«d 
 the indignation of Augustine. In a sermon 
 preached June 27. 413. he dealt with infant 
 baptism and refuted some new phases of Pe a- 
 glan opinion. From it wc learn that the Pela- 
 
 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS mSI 
 
 ^;Mn^ now t4u»;hi !'^ ■■■ < ■ < — '_ 
 
 ln>t l>rca»sr thrv : 
 
 guilt of original Ml 
 
 were wholly (rrr. 
 
 the kingdom of i.i>U aiuI (. 
 
 salvation and rtrrnal lilr. Tl ' 
 
 sage in Koin. v. m. " \\\ n. t 1 
 
 into the world." tl 
 
 .\dam stniird by 
 
 caused all his <!' 
 
 imitation of his f'\ un; i' 11 ' 
 
 asked, mm are born sinnrrs ■ 
 
 parent, why arc not nirn born ■ 
 
 i>elirving p.irents who liavr !><• 
 
 baptism ? If .\<lam's sin hurt • 
 
 not sinned, whv, bv parilv •■! 
 
 should not the (Irath of 1 liri ■ , 
 
 who have not lK-lievr«l on Hum • J..a.*j.1 \..r 
 
 cloM- of his sermon .\ugiislinr rrad !• tfir 
 
 congregation from the ipistl.- .1 t' . 1: ,: 
 
 tyred bishop St. I vprian. wrili 
 
 pass.ige in whirli the judgm<-n; 
 
 of his day was cmph.itirally | 1 
 
 baptism was administrrrd |o ini m! : 
 
 nmission of sin which th-v had r.i.' 
 
 through their birtli, ami fiidrtl tiv : 
 
 an earnest appe.d to \\: 
 
 continue to maint.iin ■ 
 
 hostile to such a fundan 
 
 doctrine and practice a ; 
 
 be disowned by the chuicti .k- ti<i<iiial. ilr 
 
 entreated them, as frieiuU, to srr tlir rrric 
 
 into which they were driftnik' i" 1 " t '• 
 
 provoke a formal sentence of < 
 
 About the same time he rrrri\ ■ 
 
 Pelagius, who was still in Pil'* ' 
 
 in friendly and afTec 
 
 letter is preserved in A ' 
 
 Gtstis Pdati^ii (c. 5i). *^ 
 
 out the unfair Use whicli i • 11-^. i ■ . > 1 
 
 to make of it at the symxl oi iii.«spoiis. 
 
 The condemnation of IVlagiaiiism bv the 
 synod of Carthage deterr.,1 its m i. 1 r luinrut 
 uph')lders from the con!' 1 
 
 of its doctrines, but a (p;; 
 
 tion of them continued. ' 
 
 so greatly that .Augustin- ; i • 
 to when- the evil might break 
 157). Tidings of su. h a lrr-,h 
 ill 414 from Si< ilv. where our II 
 him that some Christians at 
 asserting that man ran be "1 : 
 
 easily keep the rommaiidmnii 
 will ; that an uiibapti/ed in' 
 by death rannot possiblv pn: 
 as he is born wmIi ni sit. < 
 mentione<i bv Hi 
 eusans exhibit .» I: 
 thought, if thrv 1 ■ «• 
 
 same S'lUrte. Tins, wtlt- th.it ■« II ■■ ':i^'l 
 
 rannot enter the kingdom of (,od milr*« he 
 
 S.-I1 .ill h'- Ills. .111.1 ih it if --aTui t ..v.,tl him 
 
 t.. k. ■ ' ■ ■ '•■' 
 ret . 
 
 oft- 
 
 a . ..u'liti 11 1 1 •' 
 
 exaggeration of t 
 Pclagiii*. a«ul ' 
 
 orately r*-: ' • ' 
 
 the argu 
 
 About tl 
 
 young niei, *' 
 
 liun, Timauu* auU Jainci. LjJ bcc;. in .1 «<J 
 
822 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 by Pelagius to renounce the world and adopt 
 the monastic life and had adopted many of 
 the peculiar opinions of their master. They 
 had, however, been powerfully impressed by 
 the arguments of Augustine on the nature of 
 Christian grace, and forwarded him a book of 
 Pelagius, to which they requested a detailed 
 answer. This Augustine gave in his treatise 
 de Natiird et Gratia. The book of Pelagius, 
 if we may rely upon the fairness of Augustine's 
 quotations, which there is no reason to dis- 
 trust, advocated in the interests of morality 
 the adequacy of human nature for good 
 action. It affirmed it possible to live without 
 sin by the grace or help of God. But the 
 grace thus recognized was the natural endow- 
 ment of free will, itself the gift of God, though 
 sometimes the conception of it was enlarged 
 so as to include the knowledge of right con- 
 veyed by the Law. Sin was pronounced 
 avoidable if men were to be truly accounted 
 responsible moral agents, and sin being rather 
 a negation than a positive entity could not 
 vitiate human nature. When man has 
 actually sinned, he needs forgiveness. Nature 
 was magnified, as if the admission of a sub- 
 sequent corruption was derogatory to the 
 goodness of the original creation. All the 
 O.T. worthies who are described as having 
 lived righteously were quoted as proofs of the 
 possibility of living without sin. The con- 
 tinuance of controversy was obviously leading 
 Pelagius to a more formal and systematic 
 development of his theory. 
 
 The same tendency to systematization is 
 seen in a document of definitions or arguments 
 attributed to Coelestius, which was communi- 
 cated to Augustine by two bishops, Eutropius 
 and Paul, as having been circulated in the 
 Sicilian church. A series of i6, or as some 
 condense them 14, questions is designed to 
 point out the difficulties of the Augustinian 
 theory and to estabUsh the contrary theory 
 by one ever-recurring dilemma, that either 
 man can live entirely free from sin, or the 
 freedom of the human will and its consequent 
 moral responsibility must be denied. Augus- 
 tine replied to this early in 415, in his treatise 
 de Perfeciione Justitiae Hominis, addressed 
 to Eutropius and Paul. 
 
 The scene of the controversy now changed 
 from Africa to Palestine, where Pelagius had 
 been resident for some years. In the begin- 
 ning of 415 Paulus Orosius, a presbyter from 
 Tarragona in Spain, came to Africa to consult 
 Augustine as to certain questions, connected 
 with Origenism and Priscillianism, which were 
 rife in his native land. He had conceived an 
 intense admiration for Augustine and became 
 one of his most devoted disciples. Augustine 
 describes him as quick in understanding, fluent 
 in speech, and fervent in zeal. After giving 
 him the instruction he required, he sent him 
 to Jerome at Bethlehem, ostensibly to obtain 
 further instruction, but really to watch the 
 proceedings of Pelagius, and announce to 
 the church in Palestine the steps taken in the 
 African chmrch to suppress the rising heresy. 
 Orosius reached Palestine in June and spent 
 a few weeks with Jerome, who was then writ- 
 ing his Dialogue against the Pelagians. He 
 was invited to a synod at Jerusalem on July 
 28, and was asked what he could tell as to 
 
 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 Pelagius and Coelestius. He gave an account 
 of the formal condemnation of Coelestius by 
 the council of Carthage in 412, and mentioned 
 that Augustine was writing a treatise in an- 
 swer to a work of Pelagius, and read a copy of 
 the letter from Augustine to Hilary. There- 
 upon bp. John desired Pelagius himself to be 
 sent for to have an opportunity of defending 
 himself from any charges of unsound doctrine 
 alleged. Pelagius was asked by the presbyters 
 whether he had really taught the doctrines 
 against which Augustine protested. He 
 bluntly replied, "And who is Augustine to 
 me ? " This bold and contemptuous rejection 
 of the name and authority of the great bishop 
 whose influence was paramount in the West 
 owing to his signal services in the Donatist 
 controversy, roused the indignation of the 
 presbyters, but, to the amazement of Orosius, 
 thepresiding bishop admitted Pelagius, layman 
 and alleged heretic as he was, to a seat among 
 the presbyters, and exclaimed, "I am Augus- 
 tine here." He proceeded to hear charges 
 against Pelagius. Orosius said that Pelagius, 
 according to his own confession, had taught 
 that man can be without sin and can easily 
 keep the commandments of God, if he will. 
 Pelagius acknowledged that he had used such 
 language. Orosius claimed that such doctrine 
 should be at once denounced as untenable on 
 the authority of the recent council at Carthage, 
 and of the writings of Augustine, and the 
 judgment of their own venerated neighbour 
 Jerome recently expressed in a letter to 
 Ctesiphon. The bishop quoted the scriptural 
 instances of Abraham, who was bidden " to 
 walk before God and be perfect," and of 
 Zacharias and Elizabeth, who were described 
 as " walking in all the commandments and 
 ordinances of the law blameless," as affording 
 a prima facie justification of Pelagius, and 
 argued. If Pelagius said that man could fulfil 
 the commands of God without the aid of God, 
 his doctrine would be wicked and worthy of 
 condemnation, but as he maintained that man 
 could be free from sin not without the aid of 
 God, to deny this position would be to deny 
 the efficacy of divine grace. Orosius pro- 
 ceeded to anathematize the notion of such a 
 denial of grace, and, seeing that John was 
 unwilling to admit a charge of heresy against 
 Pelagius, appealed to another tribunal. De- 
 claring the heresy to be of Latin origin and 
 most formidable in the Latin churches, he 
 demanded that the whole question should be 
 referred to pope Innocent, as the chief bishop 
 of Latin Christianity. This compromise was 
 accepted. The whole account of the pro- 
 ceedings of this synod at Jerusalem is derived 
 from the Apology of Orosius, and must be 
 received with some deductions, having regard 
 to the fiery and intemperate invective which 
 the impassioned Spaniard lavishes upon 
 Pelagius and all his followers. 
 
 A renewed effort to quell Pelagianism, the 
 result, Pelagius says, of the influence of J erome 
 and a small knot of ardent sympathizers at 
 i Bethlehem, was made towards the end of 415, 
 when two deposed Western bishops, Heros of 
 Aries and Lazarus of Aix, laid a formal accusa- 
 tion against Pelagius before a synod at Dios- 
 polis (the ancient Lydda), at which Eulogius, 
 I bp. of Caesarea and metropolitan, presided. 
 
PELAGIANISM ind PELAGIUS 
 
 Feurto.ii l.isli.-ps attciulcd it— l" iilofdu*. 
 John, Ammoiiiaiuis. Eutonius, tw.i Torphy- 
 rvs. Fidus, Zoninus, Zobofniius, Nvniphi- 
 dius, Chromatins, Jovinus, Elcuthtriiis, and 
 Cleinatius. The two accusers were absent 
 from the hearing owing to the illness <>( 
 one of them, but a document {hbtllus) was 
 handed in containing the principal charges. 
 Some of the propositions it attributed to IV- 
 lapius were capable of being explained in an 
 orthodox sense, and he did so exjilain them. 
 It was objected to him that he had said that 
 no one could be without sin unless he had the 
 knowledge of the law. He acknowledged that 
 he had said this, but not in the sense his 
 opponents attached to it ; he intended bv it 
 that man is helped by the knowledge of the 
 law to keep free fri)m sin. The synod ad- 
 mitted that such teaching was not contrary 
 to the mind of the church. It was ch.-irged 
 again that he had affirmed that all men are 
 governed by their own will. He explained 
 that he intended by this to assert the respon- 
 sibility of man's free will, which God aids in 
 its choice of good ; the man who sins is him- 
 self in fault as transgressing of his own free 
 will. This too was pronounced in agreement 
 with church teaching, for how could any one 
 condemn the recognition of free will or deny 
 its existence, when the possibility of God's aid 
 to it was acknowledged ? It was alleged that 
 Pelagius had declared that in the day of 
 judgment the wicked and sinners would not 
 be spared, and it was inferred that he had 
 intended thereby to imply that all sinners 
 would meet eternal punishment, even those 
 who had substantially belonged to Christ — 
 it was probably implied that such teaching 
 was a denial of the temporary purgatorial fire 
 which was to purify the imperfectly righteous. 
 Pelagius replied by quoting our Lord's words 
 (Matt. XXV. 46), and declared that whoever 
 believed otherwise was an Origenist. This 
 satisfied the s\Tiod. It was alleged that he 
 wTote that evildid not even enter the thought 
 of the good Christian. He defended himself 
 by saying that what he had actually said was 
 that the Christian ought to study not even 
 to think evil. The synod naturally saw no 
 objection to this. It was alleged that he had 
 disparaged the grace of N.T. by saying that 
 the kingdom of heaven is promised even in 
 O.T. It was supposed that by this he had 
 proclaimed a doctrine that salvation could l>e 
 obtained by the observance of the works of the 
 Law. He explained it as a vindication of the 
 divine authority of the O.T. dispensation, and 
 its prophetic character. It was alleged that 
 he had said that man can, if he will, b<- without 
 sin, and that in writing a letter of commenda- 
 tion to a widow who had assumed the ascetic 
 life, he used fulsome and adulatory language 
 which glorified her unexampled piety as 
 superlatively meritorious. He explained that 
 though he might have admitted the abstract 
 possibilitv of ■^iniessness in man. yet he had 
 never maintained that there had existed any 
 man who had rf-mained sinless from infancy 
 to old age. but that a man on his conversion 
 might continue without sin by his own eflorts 
 and the grace of God. though still liable to 
 temptation, and those who held an opposite 
 opinion he begged leave to anathematiie not 
 
 wrr« 
 
 ! ttlAtX 
 with- 
 
 .:4in%l 
 vnod 
 I hi* 
 
 VPl 
 
 It U 
 
 -% he 
 >tiip<l. 
 •. thfl 
 1 the 
 . and 
 
 tiiutiC 4IHi 
 
 rjftv 
 
 
 ution 
 
 
 ( vrn- 
 
 ,. 
 
 • Wl^ 
 
 r- 
 
 
 PELAGIANISM and PEUOIUS A3S 
 
 I as hrrrlirs bill .i> ( I 
 
 j sdlislird With thlv . 
 
 by the help ol (i...! 
 ' out sin. Other j i 
 , him. such as thos. 
 I o( Carthage in 41.- 
 
 own, but n>.idr bv < 
 
 he was willing frrrlv t.. 
 
 hard to U-lirvr that m •.. 
 
 not pronouncing cimdcn 
 
 had himself on oit. r ... 
 
 Finally. IVlagius ; 
 
 doctrine of the II 
 
 teaching of the h 
 I the synod arknowled>;ril hnu . 
 
 in full communion with the church. 
 I feeling cvidcntlv ran very lii»;h. J 
 
 regarded as a chief mov. 
 
 of Pelagius. ;ind apparrn 
 
 geance a violent and out 
 
 made upon his monastcrv 
 
 was ascril>ed to some of the I 
 
 with what justice it is not r.i 
 
 .As Neander rem.irks. it '.- '■■ 
 
 Pelagius had any sharr 
 
 proceediiiRs, .\s in that 1 
 
 outrage would doubtless li < 
 
 the Roman bp. Innocent m the ii;U^»ju<;tl 
 
 proceedings. Jerome, suspecting the ortho- 
 doxy of many of its memWrs, sjHtke of the 
 
 synod of Diospolis as a " miserable svno<l." 
 
 .Aiugustine. in his treatise de (ifiln f'flactt, 
 
 wTitten after he had received a full nfftnil 
 
 record of the synod, argued that I' ' ! 
 
 only escaped by a legal acquittal ■ 
 
 worth, obtained by evasive ex; 1 
 
 by his condemning the very do^;...., l 
 
 before professed. 
 The controversy once more returned to (he 
 
 West. A synod of more than '■ j l.i h.; * 
 
 assembled at Carthage toward- • 
 
 416. Orosius produced the arcu 
 
 had been presented against Pilu 1 
 
 and Lazarus. They recognized m t!.i:i t ,•• 
 
 same heretical opinions previoiislv condemned 
 
 at Carthage in 412, and determined t" t;;-'! 
 
 to Innocent, bp. of Rome, on tl • 
 
 tions at issue. Granting th.it t 
 
 Jerusalem and Diospolis riiii.! • 
 
 justified in the accpiittal of P- : 
 
 ground of his explanations, eva 
 
 claimers of resnonsibilitv for 
 
 positions alleged, they calle<l att' 
 
 continued prevalence of doctni.i ^ wl.uli 
 
 affirmed the sufficiency of nature for the aviud- 
 
 ancc of sin and fulfilment 
 ments of (iod (thus virtu 
 need of divine grace), an 
 necessity of baptism in t' 
 the way of obtain: 
 and eternal salvati 
 Numidia in 4i^>. 
 wrote a letter to I: 
 and with these t« 
 a letter from .Ai; 
 bishops, Aureliux 
 Possidius, in which t!.< . 
 the acquittal of Pelagius 
 polis by saving that t!.- 
 obtained by the .1. 
 sentiment* and a< 
 faith in ambiguoi. 
 deceive the La»terti , : . 
 
 .f il. 
 
824 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 were of the full force of Latin words, and at 
 the mercy of an interpreter. They demanded 
 that Pelagius should be summoned to Rome 
 and examined afresh, to see whether he 
 acknowledged grace in the full scriptural 
 sense. To enable the Roman bishop to judge 
 dispassionately of the case they forwarded the 
 book of Pelagius, on which Timasius and 
 James had sought the judgment of Augustine, 
 and the book {de Naturd et Gratia) which 
 Augustine had written in reply. They speci- 
 ally marked some passages in Pelagius, from 
 which they thought Innocent must inevitably 
 conclude that Pelagius allowed no other grace 
 than the nature with which God had originally 
 endowed man. Innocent answered this three- 
 fold appeal in three letters written Jan. 27, 
 417. He began each with a strong assertion 
 of the supreme authority of his see and many 
 expressions of satisfaction that the contro- 
 versy had been referred to him for final 
 decision. He expressed doubt whether the 
 record of the proceedings at Diospolis he had 
 received was authentic. The book of Pelagius 
 he unhesitatingly pronounced blasphemous 
 and dangerous, and gave his judgment that 
 Pelagius, Coelestius, and all abettors of their 
 views ought to be excommunicated. 
 
 Innocent died Mar. 12, 417, and was suc- 
 ceeded by Zosimus, whose name seems to 
 indicate his Eastern origin. Coelestius left 
 Ephesus, whither he had gone on his expulsion 
 from Africa and obtained ordination as pres- 
 byter, and proceeded to Constantinople, 
 whence, as he began disseminating his peculiar 
 opinions, he was driven by its bishop, Atticus. 
 He went at once to Rome to clear himself of 
 the suspicions and charges urged against him. 
 He laid before Zosimus a confession of his 
 faith, which, after a minute and elaborate 
 exposition of the chief articles of the Catholic 
 faith, dealt with the controverted doctrines 
 of grace. Treating them as really lying out- 
 side the articles of faith, he submitted himself 
 to the judgment of the apostolic see, if in any 
 waj' he had gone astray from scriptural truth. 
 He professed his belief that infants ought to 
 be baptized for the remission of sins in accord- 
 ance with church practice, as the Lord had 
 appointed that the kingdom of heaven could 
 not be bestowed save upon the baptized. But 
 he did not admit that infants derived sin by 
 propagation ; sin is not born with man, but 
 is his own act of choice. To impute evil to 
 human nature antecedently to any exercise 
 of the will he held injurious to the Creator, 
 as making Him the author of evil. Zosimus 
 held a synod in the basilica of St. Clement. 
 He asked Coelestius whether he condemned 
 all the errors ascribed to him. Coelestius 
 answered that he condemned all that Innocent 
 had condemned, and was ready to condemn 
 all that the apostolic see deemed heretical. 
 Zosimus declined to pronounce a definitive 
 sentence, but deprived and excommunicated 
 the bps. Heros and Lazarus, who had not 
 appeared to substantiate the charges made 
 against the Pelagians, and after an interval of 
 two months wrote to Aurelius and other 
 African bishops, censuring them for the 
 premature condemnation of Coelestius. He 
 refused to decide upon the merits of the case 
 trntil the accusers appeared before him, whilst 
 
 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 he informed the African bishops that he had 
 admonished Coelestius and his followers to 
 abstain from these nice and curious questions 
 which did not tend to edification. After the 
 despatch of this letter Zosimus received one 
 from Praylius, the new bp. of Jerusalem, 
 speaking favourably of Pelagius, and with it 
 a letter from Pelagius and a confession of 
 faith, which he had drawn up for Innocent, 
 but which, reaching Rome after Innocent's 
 death, were now delivered to his successor. 
 This letter of Pelagius is lost, and known only 
 by quotations in Augustine. The confession 
 of faith is extant. Like that of Coelestius, it 
 recapitulates the great articles of the Christian 
 faith. In it he declared that he recognized 
 free will in such a way as that man always 
 needs the aid of God, and charged with error 
 both those who say with the Manicheans that 
 man cannot avoid sin, and those who assert 
 with Jovinian that man cannot sin. He was 
 willing to amend his statements if he had 
 spoken incautiously, and to conform them to 
 the judgment of the prelate " who held the 
 faith and see of Peter." Zosimus had the 
 letter and creed read in public assembly, and 
 pronounced them thoroughly Catholic and 
 free from ambiguity. He even spoke of the 
 Pelagians as men of unimpeachable faith 
 ("absolutae fidei") who had been %vrongly de- 
 famed. He wrote afresh to Aurelius and the 
 African bishops, upbraiding them vehemently 
 for their readiness to condemn men without 
 a proper opportunity of defence, strongly de- 
 nouncing the personal character of Heros and 
 Lazarus as rendering them untrustworthy 
 witnesses, and gratefully acknowledging that 
 Pelagius and his followers had never really 
 been estranged from Catholic truth — a con- 
 clusion strikingly different from that of his 
 immediate predecessor. Augustine generally 
 passes over in silence this action of Zosimus, 
 speaking of it as an instance of gentle dealing 
 with the accused, and rather implying that 
 Zosimus, with an amiable simplicity, had 
 allowed himself to be deceived by the specious 
 and subtle admissions of the heretics. The 
 African bishops were not willing to accept 
 without remonstrance this judgment in favour 
 of opinions which long study had taught them 
 to regard as inimical to the faith and destruc- 
 tive of all true spiritual life. Meeting at 
 Carthage, they drew up a long letter to Zosi- 
 mus, defending themselves from the charges 
 of hastiness and uncharitableness, justifying 
 the condemnation of Pelagianism pronounced 
 by Innocent,_ and entreating Zosimus to in- 
 quire afresh into the doctrines of Coelestius. 
 The subdeacon Marcellinus was the bearer of 
 this letter. Zosimus replied in a letter. Mar. 
 21, 418, extolling extravagantly the dignity 
 of his own position as the supreme judge of 
 religious appeals, but declaring that he' had 
 not taken any further steps, hinting also at 
 a possible reconsideration. On May i, 418, 
 a full council of the African church, composed 
 of 214 (others say 224) bishops, held in the 
 basilica of Faustus at Carthage, Aurelius 
 presiding, was unwilling to wait for a theo- 
 logical determination from the see of Rome, 
 but asserted its own independence and for- 
 mulated nine canons anathematizing the 
 principal Pelagian dogmas, some of them prob- 
 
PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 ably beiiii; a rcpublitation of lanciis passed 
 at former minor coimcils. Anathemas wcrr i 
 pronounced on the doctrine that infants | 
 derive no original sin (mm Adam which needs 
 expiation in baptism, and th.it there is some 
 middle place of hapi>incss in the kingdom <>( 
 heaven for infants who die unbaptij:ed. A 
 strong protest was made against the views | 
 that the grace of God by whicli we are justified 
 through Jesus Christ avails only for the for- 
 giveness of past sin and not for aid against the 
 commission of sin. i>r that gr.ice is only the ', 
 revelation of tiic will of Ciod and not an in- | 
 spiring principle of righteousness, <>r that ' 
 grace only enables us to do more easily what 
 Ciod commands. The two ((Micluding cmmis i 
 point to a peculiar application of IVlagi.m 
 doctrine, which was a curious anticipation of 
 the teaching of some modern sectaries. They 
 reject the idea that the petition in the Lord's 
 Prayer, "Forgive us our sins," is inappropriate 
 for Christian men and can only be regarded 
 as a prayer for others, and that it can only j 
 be used as a fictitious expression of humility, 
 not as a true confession of guilt. 
 
 .\ppeal was now made to the civil power. 
 The emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued 
 a decree banishing Pelagius and Coelestius ' 
 from Rome, and pronouncing confiscation | 
 and banishment against all their followers. 
 An imperial letter communicated this decree 
 to the .African bishops. Zosimus. whether 
 in vacillation or in alarm at the strong force ! 
 of dominant Catholic opinion now supported 
 by the state, proceeded to investigate the 
 subject afresh, and summoned Coelestius for I 
 fuller examination. Coelestius, seeing the j 
 inevitable result, withdrew from Rome. [ 
 Zosimus thereupon issued a circular letter \ 
 {epistola tractoria) confirming the decisions of | 
 the N. African church. He censured as con- 
 trary to the Catholic faith the tenets of Pela- 
 gius and Coelestius, particularly selecting for ; 
 reprobation certain passages from Pclagius's 
 Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, 
 which since his former consideration of the 
 case had been laid before him, and ordered all 
 bishops acknowledging his authority to sub- 
 scribe to the terms of his letter on pain of 
 deprivation. This subscription was enforced 
 through N. Africa under the protection of the 
 imperial edict by Aurelius the bishop and pre- 
 sident of the council at Carthage, and in Italy 
 under the authority of the prefect. In Italy 
 r8 bishops refused, and were immediately 
 deprived. The ablest and most celebrated 
 was Julian, bp. of Eclanum in Apulia, who 
 entered into controversy with Augustine with 
 much learning, critical power, and well- 
 controlled temper. He complained, not 
 without some justice, that the anti- Pelagian 
 party sought to suppress their opponents by 
 the strong hand of imperial authority rather 
 than convince them by an appeal to reason. 
 He charged the Roman bishop and clergy with 
 a complete departure from their fonner con- 
 victions, and, complaining that subscription 
 to the letter of Zosimus was being enforced 
 on individual bishops in isolation and not at 
 a deliberate svnod, demanded further discus- 
 sion in a fresh council, refusing to acknowledge 
 the dogmatic authority of the N. African 
 church. A letter commonly supposed to be 
 
 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 825 
 
 wniten by turn w.is lu.iil.ilrd !■> i- ■• ■■ it-' 
 profcSSOil object ol Whirh wa-. 
 mischievous convi|»rnrc» <•( i 
 anti-Pcl.igian doctrine; ^nd .u 
 written in the name o( the |H d. , : 
 of Italy to Kufus. bp. of Thrv 
 remonstrating ag.iinitt their • 
 was probably drawn up by Juli.m I li< i» > 
 letters reachetl Honifarr, who at the end <>l the 
 ye;ir succee<led ZosimuH a^i l>p. "I H- nir. and 
 were conununic.ited bv hirn tin ' ' ' 
 to .-Vugustine, who replied ii> 
 contra Puaa hf'islolas IWlnRtamr:, 
 
 to Uonifare. ,ind subscipienllv ,..,.. 
 
 argument ag.iinst Julian, tir>t in .1 trr.iii«4? 
 conlra Juhaiium in six l>o..ks, wnlt'ii in 431, 
 and thi-n in the dosing years ..( his li(r in 4 
 work of which six bo..ks onlv were 1 otnp|rtr<l. 
 Julian throughout his wriling* sought to , .\\l 
 a prejudice upon the Augustini in d'x tmir by 
 raising forcible objections t<> it» more un- 
 guarded assertions and exaggeration*. Ho 
 boldly challenged it as a nvivrrl f nn '■! 
 Manicheism, implying th.it lli> 
 tion of .Augustine might still !>• 
 doctrine. He objected that tl.' 
 system denied the goixliiess .1 
 creation of ("kkI — repres<nle(i 
 though a divine institution, ,is n 
 — disparaged the righteousness 1 . 
 
 saints— denied free will and Us i..ns..)u.ut 
 moral responsibility — and nullifi<tl belie! in 
 the forgiveness of all sins at baptism. Augus- 
 tine shewed that these were unfair de<luction» 
 from his statements, maintaining that the 
 I original goodness of man's nature is not 
 {incompatible with the recognition of ii» 
 [ corruption after Adam's fall, that the O.T. 
 i did not assert the sinlessness or fr'-"'!'-!!! from 
 ; temptation of the saints; that '- " 
 
 so vitiated by the fall that it 
 for righteousness without the 1 : 
 
 ; co-operating grace of Ciod ; and t:...; r 
 
 ' the forgiveness ci>nveyed in b.ipUMu lii> le 
 I remainetl the sinful clement of < .>n< iipis< em e. 
 Augustine could confidently and su< < «-ss(ully 
 appeal to the poi)ular consciousness of Chris- 
 tendom, as bearing witness to man's moral 
 impotence and his need of re<leiiii l" n Tlie 
 experience of the human heart . 
 a better judge of such spiritual : 
 most subtle arguments of re.i- 
 Aiding interpretations of the me.iMn.; t s 1 . 
 I The tendency of IVIagiaiiisni to underrate 
 1 the necessity > f the diviix- rrdeinpiion, and to 
 
 ' disp.iragc the dignity <-i •' •- •■ ■• •'- 
 
 Redeemer bv denying II; 
 , is manifested in the c.is. 
 and presbvter of S. (i.iu; 
 Africa, had been reclaiin.d (fwiii JrU»;ian 
 'views bv Augustine. In rr< anting hr ac- 
 knowledged that he had l.ii.iM tK.l F<>ii> 
 I Christ as a mere man \\ 
 temptation, but bv His 
 \ tions without divin. n ' 
 feet holini-ss. Jesu 
 to redeem inankii 
 an exain|)le <>t hi 
 i. 234 ; <«ennad. 'U ^' "/ • ' • 
 Leporius's peculiar anthrop 
 his theological coiicepti.m «i ( 
 Annianus, a deacon ol Celada, 
 »ame time in dcfenc* »l Pelagian Mtu». aud. 
 
826 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 at the suggestion of Orontius, one of the de- 
 posed bishops, translated the homilies of John 
 Chrysostom on St. Matthew in the interest, 
 he alleged, of a high morality. He claimed 
 Chrysostom as a powerful upholder of evan- 
 gelical perfection, of the integrity of human 
 nature against any Manichean notions of its 
 essentially evil character, and of the free will 
 which it was the glory of Christianity to 
 recognize in opposition to pagan ideas of 
 fate and necessity ; and as giving co-ordinate 
 prominence to grace and free will. 
 
 Pelagianism was not wholly extinguished 
 even in Italy by the forcible measures adopted 
 against it both by the civil and ecclesiastical 
 authorities, for pope Leo, writing c. 444, de- 
 sired the bp. of Aquileia not to receive into 
 communion any in his province suspected of 
 the heresy before they subscribed a formal 
 renunciation. The letters of pope Gelasius 
 also refer to occasional outbreaks of the 
 heresy in Dalmatia and elsewhere towards the 
 end of the 5th cent. 
 
 Pelagianism came under the formal con- 
 demnation of the Eastern church in an 
 incidental way. Several deposed Pelagian 
 bishops repaired to Constantinople, where 
 they found Coelestius. Atticus, the patriarch, 
 had refused to receive them, but his successor 
 Nestorius gave them a patient hearing. He 
 wrote to Coelestinus, bp. of Rome, for infor- 
 mation about the reasons of their condemna- 
 tion and the nature of their peculiar doctrines, 
 but received no answer. When Nestorius 
 himself fell into disgrace because of his own 
 heresy about the person of Christ, he was 
 disposed to sympathize with Coelestius and 
 his followers as the objects of persecution by 
 a dominant party. The East had apparently 
 not specially discussed the Pelagian contro- 
 versy ; its leading rulers and writers re- 
 cognized the co-operation of grace and free 
 will without narrowly determining their 
 limits. But the general council at Ephesus 
 in 431 joined, under the influence of Cyril, in 
 one condemnation the tenets of Nestorius and 
 Coelestius, while refraining from specifying 
 them. It pronounced sentence of deposition 
 upon any metropolitan or cleric who had 
 held or should hereafter hold their views. 
 
 The personal history of Pelagius after the 
 condemnation of his vuews by Zosimus is 
 obscure. He is said to have died in some 
 small town in Palestine, being upwards of 
 70 years old. Coelestius similarly disappears 
 after the council of Ephesus ; the time and 
 place of his death are unknown. Julian is 
 said to have died c. 454 in an obscure town of 
 Sicily, where he maintained himself by teach- 
 ing. ' There is a story that in a time of famine 
 he relieved the poor by parting with all he 
 had. There is a tradition that in the gth cent. 
 the inscription was still visible on his tomb : 
 "Here rests in peace Julian, a Catholic bishop." 
 
 A modiJ&ed form of Pelagianism, called by 
 later scholastic writers semi- Pelagianism, 
 arose in the closing years of Augustine's life. 
 Its advocates were spoken of at the time of 
 its introduction as Massilienses, as they were 
 connected with the church of Marseilles. Its 
 originator was John Cassian, commonly called 
 a Scythian but probably a native of Gaul. 
 He had been brought up in a monastery at 
 
 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 
 
 Bethlehem, and after living some time with 
 the monks of Egypt, went to Marseilles, where 
 he founded two monasteries, one for men 
 and one for women. He differed widely from 
 Pelagius, for he acknowledged that the whole 
 human race was involved in the sin of Adam 
 and could not be delivered but by the right- 
 eousness of the second Adam ; that the wills 
 of men are prevented by the grace of God, and 
 that no man is sufficient of himself to begin 
 or to complete any good work. But though 
 he admitted that the first call to salvation 
 sometimes comes to the unwilling and is the 
 direct result of preventing grace, yet he held 
 that ordinarily grace depends on the working 
 of man's own will. Augustine, at the sug- 
 gestion of two lay-friends, Prosper and 
 Hilary, in two treatises, one on the predes- 
 tination of the saints, the other on the gift 
 of perseverance, defended the doctrines of an 
 arbitrary election and of a will determined 
 wholly by grace, but failed to satisfy the 
 objections felt by the church of Marseilles, 
 and the Gallic theologians continued after the 
 death of Augustine to regard his predestin- 
 arian views as essentially fatalistic and in- 
 jurious to moral progress. The monastery of 
 Lerins''was a principal centre of opposition to 
 ultra-Augustinian views. At length the con- 
 troversy was closed in the time of Caesarius, 
 bp. of Aries, an ardent admirer of St. Augus- 
 tine, at a council at Arausio (Orange) in July 
 529. Of its 25 canons the first two, in opposi- 
 tion to Pelagian doctrine, declare that by the 
 sin of Adam not only his own soul but those 
 of his descendants were injured. The next six 
 expound the functions of grace, affirming that 
 the initial act of faith is not from man but 
 from God's grace, and that we cannot without 
 grace think or choose any good thing per- 
 taining to salvation. Others develop the doc- 
 trine on similar lines, but not one touches the 
 disputed question of predestination. An ad- 
 dress appended by the prelates to the canons 
 repudiates indignantly the belief that any are 
 predestined to evil and asserts that without 
 any preceding merits God inspires men with 
 faith and love, leads them to baptism, and 
 after baptism helps them by the same grace to 
 fulfil His will. Pope Boniface II., who had 
 succeeded Felix, confirmed the decrees of this 
 Galilean council in a letter written to Caesarius. 
 The moderation and good sense of the fathers 
 of Orange, and their earnest desire to avoid 
 the extravagance either of extreme pre- 
 destinarianism, which would annihilate the 
 human will, or an arrogant self-trust, which 
 would claim to be independent of divine grace, 
 had their reward. Their decrees met with 
 general acquiescence, and both Pelagianism 
 and semi- Pelagianism ceased to be dominant 
 forces in Western Christendom. 
 
 Semi- Pelagianism held man in his original 
 state to have had certain physical, intellectual, 
 and moral advantages which he no longer 
 enjovs. In the beginning his body was not 
 subject to death, he had extraordinary know- 
 ledge of external nature and apprehension of 
 the moral law, and was sinless. The sin of 
 the first man entailed physical death and a 
 moral corruption which was propagated to 
 his posterity. Freedom of will to do good 
 was not lost, but greatly impaired. The im- 
 
PELAGIUS I. 
 
 putatioQ of original mh ib. remuvcd m b.iptisin, 
 and baptism is esseatiai to salvation. Man 
 needs the aid of divine prace for the perform- 
 ance of good works and the attainment of 
 salvation. The free will of man works in co- 
 operation with divine grace. There is no such 
 thing as an unconditional decree of GihI, but 
 predestination to salvation or damnation de- 
 pends upon the use wliich man makis .>f his 
 freedom to good. Election is tlicrcfurc con- 
 ditional. The merit of man's salvation is, 
 however, to be ascribed to Ciotl, because, with- 
 out God's Rrace, man's clTorts would be 
 unavailing. Wiggers lias forcibly observed 
 that .\ugustinianism represented man as 
 morally dead, semi-Pcla^;iaiiisin as morally 
 sick, Pclagianism as morally sound. 
 
 The full theory of .\ugustiuianism in all its ! 
 strong asseverations of an unconditional elec- 
 tion and a total corruption of human nature 
 did not retain its hold on the theology of the j 
 Western church dining the succeeding cen- 
 turies, nor was it ever acknowledged in the 
 Eastern church. Men like popes Leo I. and 
 Gregory 1., in the Sth and 6th cents., and Bedc 
 in the 8th, were -Vugiistinian, but the general 
 tendency of the West turned in another 
 direction, while it sternly rejected Pelagianism 
 proper. The famous history of the monk 
 Gottschalk, in the latter part of the gth cent., 
 proves how distasteful unqualified predestin- j 
 arianism had become, but this lies beyond 
 the assigned limits of this Dictionary. ' 
 
 Pelagianism never developed into a schism 
 bv setting up any organization external to the 
 Catholic church. It practised no distinctive 
 rites, it accepted all the traditional ecclesi- 
 astical discipline. It freely retained the 
 practice of infant baptism, though it formed a 
 different opinion on the moral and spiritual 
 significance of the act. It was a mode of 
 thought which strove to win acceptance 
 within the church, but which was successfully 
 cast out. [.\LGiSTiNE, § 10.] Cf. Zuunier. 
 Pelaguis in Irlaiui (Bvdiu. i<)Oi). [w.i.] 
 
 PelagillS (8) I., bp. of Rome after Vigilius. 
 in the reign of Justinian I., a.d. 555-560. A 
 native, and deacon, of Rome, he had been ap- 
 pointed by pope Agapetcs (a.d. 536) as his 
 apocrisiarius at Constantinople. Under Vigil- ' 
 ius he again held the same office, and joined 
 with the patriarch Mennas in moving Jus- 
 tinian to issue his edict for the condemnation 
 of Origenism. .\fter this he returned to 
 Rome, where he was one of the two deacons of 
 Vigilius who applied to Ferrandus of Carthage 
 for advice after the issue of the imperial edict 
 " de Tribus Capitulis " (c. 544 )■ Vigilius being 
 summoned bv the emperor to Constantinople 
 in the matter of the Three Chapters, Pelagius 
 remained as the archdeacon and chief ecclesi- 
 astic at Rome ; and occupied this position 
 when the Gothic king Totila (Dec. 546) entered 
 Rome as a conqueror and went to pay his de- 
 votions in the church of St. Peter. There 
 Pelagius, bearing the gospels, met him, and 
 falling on his knees said. " Prince, spare thy 
 people." The conqueror answered with a 
 significant smile, " Hast thou now come to 
 supplicate me, Pelagius ? " " Yes." he re- 
 plied, "inasmuch as the Lord has made me thy 
 servant. But now withhold thy hand from 
 these who have passed into servitude to thee." 
 
 PEUGIUS I. 
 
 R27 
 
 .Moved by these cntir.Uirs. FolIU lorbadr any 
 further slaughter of the Kotn.in*. He al»o 
 employed IVIagiuv together with » Uvman 
 Thcotlorus, in an embassy to C ititsLinltnople 
 for conchidmg pr.icc with the en>|><Ti>r. bind- 
 ing them with an oath to do thrir Ix'st in hit 
 behalf and to return without drUv to Italy. 
 Tht V executed their cominls»ion and broui{ht 
 back Justinian's reply th.U He||K.irnis vt»\ In 
 milit.iry command, and had authority to 
 arrange matters (Pr<Kop. </<• UfU. doth. L. i). 
 Pope Vk.ilms having procee<led from 
 Sicily on his voyage to lOnstantitiopIr in Ihr 
 early part of 547. Pelacius joined hiin, and 
 appears to have acted with him m his rhaiiKing 
 attitudes of submission or resist.uice t<> the 
 emperor's will. He proceiiL.l i.. k .tn.- .»(!« 
 the death of \'igiliiis .«t ^ I wa% 
 
 there consecrated pope, 1 I by 
 
 Narses, at that time in <■ K>nir. 
 
 who acted under the cmprr..r > .iln^. Tho 
 appointment was not welcome to the Koinaii!!. 
 and there was difficulty in getting prelate* to 
 consecrate him. The real cans*- of his un- 
 popularity was his consenting to condemn the 
 Three Chapters and to support the decisions 
 of the Constantinopolitan council. .\ great 
 part of the western church still, and for many 
 years afterwards, resolutely rejected the**! 
 decisions, and the chief recorded action ol 
 Pelagius as pope is his unavailing attempt to 
 heal the consequent schism. 
 
 In Gaul PeLigius was accused of heresy. 
 Consequently the Frank king C hildel>crt sent 
 to him an ambassador, by name Kulinus. re- 
 questing him to declare his acceptance of the 
 tome of pope Leo, or to express his t>elief in 
 his own words. He readily did both, asserting 
 his entire agreement with Leo and with the 
 four councils, and appending a long orthiKlox 
 confession of faith. But he made no mention 
 of the fifth council, or of the necessity of 
 accepting its decrees. He praised the king 
 for his zeal in the true faith, and expressed the 
 hope that no false reports about himself might 
 occasion any schism in Gaul {hf>. xvi. aJ 
 ChUdebertuni \ Ep. xv. ad Saf>audum). He 
 showed anxiety to conciliate Sapaudus. bp. of 
 .■\rles, fearing, we may suppose, the possible 
 ' defection of the Callican church from Koiiie. 
 He sent him a short friendly letter {Kf. viii). 
 and afterwards the p.ill, and cofifcrre<l on him 
 the vicariate jurisdiction over the churche* of 
 Gaul which former popes had commit tr<l to 
 ; metropolitans of .\rlcs {Epp. xi. xn. xiii.). 
 He speaks of "the eternal S4>!;!" * •' • 
 firm rock on which Christ ha. I 
 church from the rising to the 
 sun, being maintained by the .n;- 
 {i.e. Peter's) successors, actuii; in i-.!."U, »>r 
 through their vicars." And. .is hi* pre- 
 deccssors had. by tii. ^i ,. . . t ■■ I 1 alcd the 
 universal church ol ' • the bp. 
 
 of .\rles. after then :■>« to 
 
 ancient custom, su; firts. 
 
 diction over Gaul, .i^ vn ir t U-.- 
 , It cannot but strike readers of . 
 during the reitrn of |,istiniin I 
 ill the pro. ' ' " 
 
 little the th' 
 thus ellUlK I 
 
 Pelagius hiii.-' .: •■•.■ - 
 
 popedom actiuii a» the ue^liuc of lUc ua- 
 
828 PELAGIUS II, 
 
 peror, who had defied and overruled the 
 authority of the Roman see. [J-b— y.] 
 
 Pelagius (9) II., bp. of Rome after Bene- 
 dict I., under the emperors Tiberius, Con- 
 stantine, and Mauricius, from Nov. 578 to 
 Feb. 590. He was a native of Rome, the son 
 of Winigild, and supposed from his father's 
 name to have been of Gothic extraction. At 
 the time of Benedict's death the Lombards, 
 ah-eady the masters of a great part of N. Italy, 
 were besieging Rome. Consequently the new 
 pope was consecrated without the previous 
 sanction of the emperor (required since the 
 reign of Justinian). Partly, perhaps, to 
 excuse this informality, as well as to solicit aid 
 against the Lombards, the new pope, as soon 
 as possible after his accession, sent a deputa- 
 tion to Tiberius, who had become sole emperor 
 on the death of Justin IL in Oct. 578. It was 
 doubtless now that Gregory, afterwards pope 
 Gregory the Great, was first sent to Con- 
 stantinople as apocrisiarius of the Roman see. 
 On Oct. 4, 584, Pelagius sent him a letter to 
 represent the lamentable condition of Italy 
 and the imminent danger of Rome from the 
 Lombard invasion; Longinus, the exarch at 
 Ravenna, having been appealed to in vain. 
 Gregory is directed to press on the emperor 
 the urgent need of succour. He returned to 
 Rome probably a.d. 585 (Joan. Diac. ib.). 
 
 The emperor Mauricius had engaged the 
 Frank king, Childebert II., for a large pecu- 
 niary reward to invade Italy and drive out 
 the Lombards. The invasion (probably a.d. 
 585) resulted in a treaty of peace between the 
 Franks and Lombards (Greg. Turon. vi. 42 ; 
 Paul. Diac. de Gest. Longob. iii. 17). 
 
 On the retirement of Childebert from Italy, 
 it appears that Smaragdus exarch of Ravenna 
 had also concluded a truce with the Lombards 
 (Epp. Pelag. ii. ; Ep. i. ad Episcopos Istriae). 
 Pelagius took advantage of it to open negotia- 
 tions with the bishops of Istria, who still re- 
 mained out of communion with Rome in the 
 naatter of the Three Chapters. In the first of 
 his three letters he implores them to consider 
 the evil of schism, and return to the unity of 
 the church. He is at pains to vindicate' his 
 own faith, and to declare his entire acceptance 
 of the four great councils and of the tome of 
 pope Leo, by way of shewing that his accept- 
 ance of the 5th council, and his consequent 
 condemnation of the Three Chapters, involved 
 no departure from the ancient faith. He does 
 not insist on condemnation of the Three 
 Chapters by the Istrian bishops themselves. 
 He only begs them to return to communion 
 with Rome, notwithstanding its condemnation 
 of the same ; and this in a supplicatory rather 
 than imperious tone. In his second letter he 
 declares himself deeply grieved by their un- 
 satisfactory reply to his first, and by their 
 reception of his emissaries. He quotes St. j 
 Augustine as to the necessity of all churches 
 being united to apostolic sees, but further 
 cites Cyprian de Uniiate Ecclesiae (with inter- 
 polations that give the passages a meaning 
 very different fromtheir original one) in support I 
 of the peculiar authority of St. Peter's chair. | 
 Finally he calls upon the Istrians to send ' 
 deputies to Rome for conference with himself, 
 or at any rate to Ravenna for conference with 
 a representative whom he would send ; and 
 
 PEREGRINUS 
 
 mentions (significantly, as appears in the 
 sequel) that he has written to the exarch 
 Smaragdus on the subject. Another, called 
 his third, letter to Elias and the IstricUi 
 bishops, is a treatise on the Three Chapters, 
 composed for him by Gregory {de Gest. Longob. 
 iii. 20). Appeals and arguments proving of no 
 avail, Pelagius seems to have called on the 
 civil power to persecute ; for Smaragdus is 
 recorded to have gone in person to Grado, to 
 have seized Severus, who had succeeded Elias 
 in the see, together with three other bishops, 
 in the chiu-ch, carried them to Ravenna, and 
 forced them to communicate there with the 
 bp. John. They were allowed after a year 
 (Smaragdus being superseded by another ex- 
 arch) to return to Grado, where neither people 
 nor bishops would communicate with them till 
 Severus had recanted in a synod of ten bishops 
 his compliance at Ravenna (Paul. Diac. ib. 
 iii. 27 ; cf. Epp. S. Greg. 1. i, Ep. 16). 
 
 Towards the end of the pontificate of Pela- 
 gius (probably a.d. 588), a council at Constan- 
 tinople, apparently a large and influential one, 
 and not confined to ecclesiastics, dealt with 
 Gregory patriarch of Antioch, who being 
 charged with crime, had appealed "ad impcra- 
 toremet concilium" (Evagr. H.E. vi. 7). This 
 council is memorable as having called forth 
 the first protest from Rome, renewed after- 
 wards more notably by Gregory the Great, 
 against the assumption by the patriarch of 
 Constantinople of the title " oecumenical." 
 The title itself was not a new one ; as an 
 honorary or complimentary one it had been 
 occasionally given to other patriarchs ; and 
 Justinian had repeatedly designated the pa- 
 triarch of Constantinople " the most holy and 
 most blessed archbishop of this royal city, and 
 oecumenical patriarch " {Cod. i. 7 ; Novell, iii. 
 V. vi. vii. xvi. xlii.). Nor do we know of any 
 previous objection, and at this council it may 
 have been ostentatiously assumed by the then 
 patriarch, John the Faster, and sanctioned by 
 the council with reference to the case before 
 it, in a way that seemed to recognize juris- 
 diction of the patriarchate of Constantinople 
 over that of Antioch. In Nov. 589 a de- 
 structive inundation of the Tiber at Rome 
 was followed by a plague, described as 
 " Pestis inguinaria," of which Pelagius II. 
 was one of the earUest victims, being attacked 
 by it in the middle of Jan. 590 (Greg. Turon. 
 1. X. c. i). According to Anastasius he was 
 buried on Feb. 8 in St. Peter's. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Peregrinus (1), called Proteus, an apostate 
 from Christianity and a Cynic philosopher of 
 the 2nd cent., whose history has been satir- 
 ically told by Lucian. 1 hat Lucian's work is 
 not a romance is amply shown by the account 
 of Peregrinus in Aulus Gellius, Xoct. Attic, viii. 
 3, and xii. 11. Other writers, pagan and 
 Christian alike, of the same age, mention him : 
 e.g. Tatian, Orat. adv. Graec. c. 25 ; Athena- 
 goras, pro Christian, c. 26, who tells us of his 
 statue at Parium ; Maximus Tyrius, Diss. iii. ; 
 Tertull. ad Mart. c. 4 ; and Eusebius in his 
 Chronicon (ii. 178 seq. ed. Schone) ; cf. also 
 I. Sorgel, Lucian's Stellung zum Christenikum, 
 (1875) ; Schiller's Geschickte der Kaiserzeit, 
 p. 685 ; and Bernays' tract Lucian u. die 
 Kyniker (Berlin, 1879). The story of Pere- 
 grinus is therefore a very valuable illustration 
 
Perpetua 
 
 of the life .>f the Jiul i.iu. ]{,- was born at 
 Parium on the Hellespont, where he c.iu»- 
 mitted various crimes, incUulin*; parriiidc. 
 He escaped justice by transferrin); his property 
 to the municipality and then passtnl over to 
 Palestine, where he became a Christian, and. 
 according to I.ucian's account, a bishop or at 
 least a presbyter. He was imprisoned (i>r the 
 faith, and l.urian's words are a valuable and 
 truthful description of the conduct of the 
 Christians towards confessors K'enerallv. 
 Crowds attended at the prison and ininister.-d 
 to Peregrinus. bribing the ga.>l,rs to obtain 
 admission. The " Teaching of tlu- Twelve 
 Apostles " takes elaborate precautions against 
 wandering apostles and prophets, wlm desired 
 only to make gain of the gospel. Such a f.dse 
 apostle was Peregrinus. His real character 
 was, however, discovered, and he was excom- 
 municated. He then became a Cynic phil- 
 osopher, a sect which Lucian specially ab- 
 horred, and resided at Rome. He made use 
 of the licence permitted them to abuse the 
 emperor himself, but was speedily expelled 
 by the prefect Urbis. He next passed into 
 Greece, and there, to obtain a greater notor- 
 iety, burned himself alive at the Olvmpic 
 games at the 236th Olympiad a.d. 165'. Cf. 
 Strabo, xv. i. 73 ; Dion Cassius, liv. 9 ; and 
 Lightfoot On Colossians, p. 394. Dr. Light- 
 foot has elaborately discussed the relations 
 between the stories of Peregrinus and St. 
 Ignatius (SS. Ignatius and Polycarp, t. i. pp. 
 129. 133. 331. 450, ii. pp. 206, 213, 306, 356; 
 cf. Salmon's Introd. to the N.T. pp. 522, 650). 
 
 [LCCI.\N.] [G.T.S.] 
 
 Perpetua (1), mart>T. Her full name was 
 Vibia Pcri)etua. She was well bom, and had 
 a father, mother, and two brothers living, one 
 of whom was a catechumen. When 22 years 
 old, married, and having lately borne a son, 
 she was arrested. Her father n-peatedly strove 
 to induce her to recant. She and her fellow- 
 mart>TS were baptized after their arrest, 
 possibly before their transference to the public 
 prison 'cf. Le Blant, Actes des Mart. v. 9, p. 
 48). They were attended in prison, according 
 to the ancient discipline of the Carthaginian 
 church, by the deacons Tertius and P<jmponius 
 (Cypr. Ep. 15 ad Mart.). Perpetua now had 
 her first vision, indicative of her future pas- 
 sion. She saw a ladder reaching to heaven 
 guarded by a dragon. Saturus mounted first 
 and then Perpetua followed. They came to 
 a large garden, where was a shepherd clad in 
 white, feeding sheep, while thousands in white 
 robes stood around. The shepherd gave 
 Perpetua a piece of cheese, which she received 
 " junctis manibus " and consumed, the atten- 
 dants saying " Amen." Their trial came soon 
 after. The procurator Hilarianus condemned 
 the martyrs to the beasts. After her con- 
 demnation Perpetua saw a vision of her 
 brother Dinocrates, who had died when 7 
 years old, in punishment, but after continuous 
 prayer for him it was revealed to her that he 
 was removed into a place of refreshment and 
 peace. This vision is a clear proof that 
 prayers for the dead were then used by that 
 party in the church which claimed to adhere 
 most closely to apostolic usages. Some, sup- 
 posing Dinocrates unbaptized, have claimed 
 it as sanctioning the view that the unbaptized 
 
 PERPETUA 
 
 8S« 
 
 ; dcatl are helpril bv t i . . 1 . .. .1 vii.i. j, \\x. 
 I gustinc conibateil ; lib. I. 
 
 I c. 10, and lib. iii. 1 ^ that 
 
 Dinocratm w.is in , . om- 
 
 'nutted alter bapiiMii. 1 :• hrr 
 
 passion Peri'etiu »aw m\ ■ rrrin 
 
 I she triiunphed ovrr .in Kk mtnc 
 
 I the devil, and was rew.inl. .1 wilL 1 Koldrn 
 branch. When the hour of rxcrution arrivrU 
 I the tribune .ittrmpt<-d !•> rrr.iv th^ mm »% 
 priests of Saturn, tt -.«-» of 
 
 teres, but yielded : • . %t o( 
 
 Perpetua. Shr su alter 
 
 being lossi-d by an .-..t, like 
 
 Blandina at Lyons in a iikr trial, was uncon- 
 scious of any pain (tl. Dodwrll'* Dm. in 
 ! Iffn. ii. §§ 43. 46 ; Kouth'* Ktl. ^atr. i. 360). 
 The precise year of the martyrdom 1* un- 
 I certain, the succc'ssion ol African pro«on»uls 
 I being very imperfectly known. We know that 
 I they suffered in the year when Minuntu Tinil- 
 nianus was pri>consul. t)ne cirruni»tanrc 
 would seem to fix therl.itr i- m:. Tit f.irth<--.t 
 I 203. There was .1^ 
 ! of the Christi.tns, - . 
 j itself. The freed.: 
 
 Christians in mim-i..iiii, i iu. ,,....>..- .-. 
 
 sutVn ieiit proof o) this. Why, thni. did they 
 
 suffer? On Jan. i. 202. Severus wasat Antixh, 
 
 where he appointed hiiii>>. li in.l i .irac^Ua 
 
 consuls for the ensuing: i; the 
 
 ; month he priK;eeded by • i 'Ujch 
 
 i Palestine to Egypt, exer« 1 ■■ upon 
 
 j the Jews which, according I ■ K- n iii. have 
 
 I left their mark on the Talmud {Mmton d4 
 
 I Phinicie, pp. 775. 776). He published an 
 
 edict forbidding any fresh convcn>ion» from 
 
 I Paganism to Judaism or Christianity, while 
 
 j imposing no penalties on original Jew* or 
 
 Christians. Now all our martyrs were lre*h 
 
 converts, and as such seem t<> have suffered 
 
 under this edict. 
 
 I Some have maintained that Tcrtullian 
 
 ' wrote the Acts of these martyrs. The »tj'le 
 
 is in many places very similar to his. The 
 
 documents themselves profess to have l>orn 
 
 written mainly by Perj>etua and Saturu», and 
 
 completed for publi<ation by a third party, 
 
 who cannot now bi- identified. Tertulhan 
 
 I certainly knew the Acts, as hr refer* to the 
 
 ' vision of Ferpi-tna in de Antmd, c. 55. 
 
 I All our MhS. are in Latin ; yet Aub* {Ltt 
 
 Chrit. dans I'Emp. Rom. \>. 615) thiiik» they 
 
 may have been originally written in «.rrrk. 
 
 One MS. represents I'erprtu.i a» •ti>caking 
 
 (Ireek to bp. Optatus in l'ara«lise. I he Art» 
 
 contain very many (•rc«k w>rds in LatiD 
 
 characters, whmre we may at Irast cnrlude 
 
 that the martyrs were bi-lingu-il ..n.l tl..»t 
 
 (ireek was then very current 
 
 The Acts contain sonir intrrcstii., 
 
 i of ancient church rust. >ins. Ih. 
 
 is given (c. X.). The Tris.igioii is "in,:, ml in 
 
 (.reek (c. xii.). In the language of thr viu..n« 
 
 we ran clearly »ee the intlilriire of the A\»<»- 
 
 lypse (cl. specially c. xiil. I he Art» were 
 
 cliscovercd and pub. bv I.uca* H.lsiriiiu* ta 
 
 17th cent. Thcv are in kuinart's .-It/a Stnifra ; 
 
 Acta SS. Boll. M.irt. i. p. <.jo. Munter. 
 
 Ftimnrd. KccUs. A/rtc. p. 22O; and Iran*, in 
 
 Clark's Antc-Nirene Series. Cypnan"* »ork», 
 
 , t. ii. p. 376. Aub*. Lc. p. 521. *»a» P"**- 
 
 another version from a Parisian MS. The 
 
830 PERPEtUUS 
 
 best ed. of all three texts is ed. by J. A. 
 Robinson, The Passion of St. Perpetua, with 
 intro., notes, and original Lat. text of the 
 Scillitan mart\Tdom, in Camb. Texts and 
 Studies, i. 2 (ig'oi). [g.t.s.1 
 
 Perpetuus, St., 6th archbp. of Tours, be- 
 tween St. Eustochius and St. Volusianus, both 
 of whom were his relatives, belonged to one of 
 the great senatorial families of the Auvergne. j 
 He possessed considerable wealth (Greg. Tur. ^ 
 Hist. Franc, x. 31), was a student of sacred 
 literature and a friend of the two poets i 
 Sidonius ApoUinaris and Paulinus of Peri- j 
 gueux (Sid. Apoll. Ep. vii. 9 ; Paul. Petr. de 
 Vita S. Mart. vi. ; Ep. ad Perpet. Migne, Patr. 
 Lat. Ixi. 1064 sqq., 1071). Consecrated in 460 
 or 461, he presided in 461 over the council of | 
 Tours, convoked to check the worldliness and 
 profligacy of the Gallic clergy (Mansi, vii. 
 943 sqq.). The council of Vannes, c. 465, 
 over which apparently he also presided, had 
 the same object (ib. 951 sqq.). His principal 
 work was the construction of the great church 
 of St. Martin at Tours. The one built by 
 Briccius had become too small for the fame 
 and miracles of the saint. Of the new one 
 which replaced it at 350 paces from the city, 
 and to which the saint's body was translated 
 with great ceremony (c. July 4, 473), we have, 
 owing to its being Gregory the historian's 
 own church, full and interesting details and | 
 measurements. (See Hist. Franc, ii. 14 ; de \ 
 Mirac. S. Mart. i. 6.) A good many other ; 
 churches were built by Perpetuus, notably one 
 in honour of St. Peter and St. Paul, which he 
 constructed to receive the roof of St. Martin's 
 old church, as it was of elegant workmanship. 
 Perpetuus also bestowed much care on the 
 services. Gregory recounts the fasts, vigils and 
 regulations for divine service instituted by 
 him for different seasons of the year and still 
 observed in Gregory's own time (Hist. Franc. 
 X. 31 ; cf. Hist. Liti. ii. 626-627 ; Ceillier, x. 
 438, 441). Perpetuus died in 490 or 491, 
 after an episcopate of 30 years [Hist. Franc, ii. 
 26; x. 31), and, as he had asked in his will, 
 was buried in the church he had built, at the 
 feet of St. Martin (Epitaphium in Migne, Patr. 
 Lat. Iviii. 755, and elsewhere) [s.a.b.] 
 
 PetUianus, an eminent Donatist bishop, 
 probably a native of Constantina or Cirta, 
 chief town of Xumidia, born of parents who 
 were Catholics ; but while still a catechumen 
 carried off against his will by the Donatists, 
 received by baptism into their community, 
 and subsequently made, between 395 and 400, 
 their bishop in Cirta. (Aug. c. Lit. Petil. ii. 
 104, 238 ; Serm. ad pleb. Caesar, de Emerito, 
 8.) He had practised as a lawyer with great 
 success, so as to obtain the name of the 
 Paraclete, the identity of which name with 
 that of the Holy Spirit, if we may believe St. 
 Augustine, was flattering to his vanity (c. 
 Lit. Petil. iii. 16, 19). He took a prominent 
 part in the Conference, a.d. 411, as one of the 
 seven managers on the Donatist side, but after 
 this we hear no more of him. (Aug. Retract. 
 ii. 34; c. Lit. Petil. ii. 40, 95; iii. 57, 69; 
 Optatus, 0pp. Mon. Vet. Don. liii.) About 
 398 or 400, Augustine in a private letter 
 invited some of the leaders of the Donatist 
 sect in Cirta to discuss the questions at issue 
 between them and the church, an invitation 
 
 PETILIANtJS 
 
 ! rejected by them with contempt. But when 
 he was in the church of that place, together 
 with Absentius (Alypius) and Fortunatus its 
 Catholic bishop, a letter addressed by the 
 Donatist bp. (Petilianus, but without a name) 
 to his own clergy, proposing to cut off com- 
 munion with the Catholic church, was put 
 into Augustine's hands. This proposal seemed 
 so monstrous as to make him doubt whether 
 the letter could have proceeded from a 
 man of Petilian's reputation, until he was 
 I assured that this was the case. Lest his 
 j silence should be misunderstood, he under- 
 took at once to reply to it, though it was 
 plainly imperfect and ought to be presented 
 in a complete state. The writer accuses the 
 I Catholics of making necessary a repetition of 
 baptism, because, he says, they pollute the 
 souls of those whom they baptize. The 
 validity of baptism in his view depends on the 
 character of the giver, as the strength of a 
 building depends on that of the foundation. 
 He quotes Ecclus. xxxiv. 30 [25], applying to 
 his own sect the words " wise men " (Matt, 
 xxiii. 34), and interpreting the word "dead" 
 to mean an ungodly person ; he charges the 
 Catholics with persecution and " tradition," 
 and makes an insinuation about Manicheism. 
 To these charges, Augustine replied in his 
 first book against Petilian. 
 I In his second book, for the benefit of the 
 ; less acute among his brethren (tardiores 
 I patres) he takes one by one the charges of 
 ] Petilian, whose letter had by that time been 
 I received in a complete state. The statements, 
 ro8 in number, including applications of 
 Scriptiure passages, and an appeal to the 
 Catholics, are answered by Augustine seriatim. 
 The arguments used by Petilian come under 
 two principal heads, but are much intermixed, 
 and contain much coarse vituperation, (i) 
 The inefficacy of baptism by ungodly persons. 
 
 (2) The iniquity of persecution. In his reply 
 Augustine shews, (i) The true nature of 
 baptism. Those who fall away after baptism 
 must retiurn, not by rebaptism, but by re- 
 pentance. (2) As to persecution. Augustine 
 
 [ denies the charge, and retorts it upon his 
 adversary, whose partisans, the Circumcel- 
 lions and others, were guilty of persecution. 
 
 (3) In near connexion with the last question 
 ' comes that of appeal to the civil power ; Au- 
 gustine shews that the Donatists themselves 
 
 '• appealed to Constantine, and took advantage 
 of the patronage of Julian. (4) Language of 
 Scripture and of the church perverted. 
 
 Of a second letter from Petilian only some 
 passages quoted by Augustine are extant, but 
 it appears from Augustine's reply to have 
 contained no new arguments but much per- 
 sonal abuse (Possidius, Indiculus, iii.). 
 
 In close connexion with these letters is the 
 
 treatise of St. Augustine on the Unity of the 
 
 I Church, wTitten between the second and 
 
 I third of them, and intended to answer the 
 
 question, " Where is the church ? " 
 
 In the inquiry of 411 at Carthage Peti- 
 lian took a leading part and was chiefly re- 
 markable for ingenious quibbling and minute 
 subtlety on technical details of procediu"e — 
 using, in short, as Augustine said afterwards, 
 every artifice in order to prevent real discus- 
 sion ; and on the third day losing his temper 
 
PETRONILU 
 
 and insulting Aut;ustiuc personally in a coarso 
 and vulgar manner ; appeaniiK throughout as 
 a pettifogging advocate, adroit but narrow, 
 dishonest and suspicious of dishonesty in 
 Others; spinning out the time in niattrrs of 
 detail, taking every advantage he could, lair 
 or unfair, and postponing, though witli much 
 ostentatious protest to the contrary, the real 
 matters in dispute. Set- Sparrow Simpson. 
 5/. .^Kt;. <jMi/ Afr. Ch. Divisions (loio). pp. 
 64 tl. [n.w.p.| 
 
 Petronllla (l), saint and virgin, .\rcording 
 to tiie legend related in the letter attributed 
 to .Marcellus, son of the prefect of the city, 
 and incorporated in the apocryphal .-Vets of SS. 
 Nereus and Achilleus. she was the daughter 
 of St. Peter, was struck with palsy by her 
 father and afterwards restored to health by 
 him. Her great beauty led count Flaccus to 
 fall in love with her and come with soldiers to 
 take her by force as his wife. She rebuked 
 him for coming with an armed band, and 
 desired him, if he wished her as his wife, to 
 send matrons and virgins on the third day to 
 conduct her to his house. He agreed, and she 
 passed the three days in prayer and fasting 
 with her foster-sister Felicula, and on the 
 third day died, after receiving the sacrament, 
 and the women brought by l-laccus to escort 
 her home celebrated her funerid. She was 
 buried on the estate of Flavia Domitilla, on 
 the road to .\rdea, a mile and a half from 
 Rome (.-lc/<iS5. .May, iii. 10, 11, vii. 420-422). 
 
 The legend seems to have originated (see 
 Lightfoot, S. Clement, 259-262) from the com- 
 bination of two elements: (i) the Manichean 
 apocryphal story mentioned by St. Augustine 
 (c. Aditnantum, xvii. Op. viii. in Migne, Patr. 
 Lat. xlii. 161) that St. Peter by his prayers 
 caused his daughter to be struck with palsy 
 (the account in St. Augustine implies also her 
 restoration to health by her father) ; (ii) the 
 existence in the Christian cemetery of Flavia 
 Domitilla of a sarcophagus inscribed with the 
 words Alreliae (or Aureae) Petronillae 
 riLiAE DULCissiMAE. Petrouilla was assumed 
 to be a diminutive of Petros ; the inscription, 
 it was imagined, had been engraved by the 
 apostle himself. Later writers, e.g. Baronius, 
 felt the supposition that St. Peter had a 
 daughter to be a difficulty, and explained fiita 
 as a spiritual daughter, as St. Peter speaks 
 of St. Mark as his son. Petronilla, however, is 
 really derived from Petronius or Petro; and 
 the founder of the Flavian family, the grand- 
 father both of the emperor Vespasian and his 
 brother, T. Flavius Sabiiius, the head of that 
 branch of the Flavii to which the supposed 
 converts to Christianity belonged, was T. 
 Flavius Petro of Reate. Petronilla there- 
 fore was probably one of the Aureiian gens, 
 several of whom are shewn by the inscriptions 
 discovered by De Rossi to have been buried 
 in the same cemetery, and was by the mother's 
 side a scion of the Flavian family, and there- 
 fore related to Flavia Domitilla, the owner of 
 the land over the cemetery, and was probably, 
 like her, a Christian convert. 
 
 Probably on account of her assumed rela- 
 tionship to St. Peter she was held in hi^h 
 veneration. Though the subterranean b.nsil- 
 ioa constructed by pope Siricius between 301 
 and 395 contained the tombs of the martyr* 
 
 PKTR08 
 
 fiSi 
 
 M>i<d 
 
 ' . . . a in 
 
 v\h.kt h.td Uiii tlic iii4Uv..lciint •■( (l.r I tuulUn 
 emtuT.>r«. cl<.*r t.'St. Vrirx'% {Ltl>^ Fomlt^tmiu 
 in I'atr. t .11 I xx\ iii i i •, , 
 
 Cav ■ ! the 
 
 anrini; nnl 
 
 the on. 4n.l 
 
 the t..iiu.s .,, >> \ jnd 
 
 fiiund a fresr.i. j>r<>b , ; ihr 
 
 4th rent. {Hull, ih , x\\% 
 
 St. Pctr'>iiill \ ' ttvT, 
 
 oondurtiiig iw. 
 
 .\ chainbcT « '■lar. 
 
 4, iSSa) in til. . ...f 
 
 ation, akin t<> tti<' i'.*iiii< i.«n. khiMtitK iit 
 irreat antiquity. The in»rripti<>n which had 
 been over the diH.r, wrillrn in rhAractert 
 ol the F-favian era. i* AurLiATt. whtrh »uj(- 
 gests that this iiiight br the t<>nib of the 
 .\mplialus t«) whom St. Pinl illti!.'^ [Horn. 
 xvi. 8). An intrre-i; di»> 
 
 coveries and a diM m < St. 
 
 Petronilla and the I. is in 
 
 Cav. de Rossi's pai-.i- ............. u. ifi*A>- 
 
 logia Christiana, 1H05. 40; 1874, i, o», 112 ; 
 '875. 1-77; tS7S. 12V>4<>; l**7'>. I-20, M9- 
 160; iSSo. 169), and in v.>|. iv. o( Kama 
 Sollerranea. ("D-l 
 
 Petrus (4) L, St., archbp. of Aleiandria. 
 succeeded Theonas, a.d. 300. He had three 
 years of tranquil adniinistratiun, which he »4j 
 used as to acquire the high rrputati"n indic- 
 ated by Eusebius, who calls hiiii a W'liderful 
 teacher of the faith, and " an admirable 
 specimen <>f a bishop, alike in the exrellcnre 
 of his conduct and his familiarity uiih Scrii>- 
 ture" (Ens. viii. 13; ix. 6). Then came the 
 Diodftian persecution, and in thr carlv part 
 of 306 Peter found it neci-ss.irv to draw up 
 conditions of reconciliation t. ti ■ , i.nr, h ami 
 of readmission to her privil who 
 
 through weakness hati < tfirir 
 
 fidelity. The date is detni tint 
 
 words Of this set of 14 " can in i i<«;uU- 
 tions. " Since we arc approaching the fourth 
 Easter from the beginning of the persecution," 
 i.e. reckoning fr >m the lent of 303. (Thi« i» 
 overltMiked in Mason's I'ersecultom of Ihoete- 
 lian, p. 324, where these " canont " are 
 assigned to 311.) The »ul>4tance ol Ihrte 
 remarkable provisions (givrn at Irnicth in 
 Kouth's Kthquiae Sucra*. iv. 13 fl.) it a« 
 foll.iws. (i)Thos,- whodid not give way until 
 extreme torturrs had ovennraincU Ihrlr 
 powers of enduranir. and who had bern («>r 
 thrre years alre.i.ly •' niournrr* " without 
 being .idinitted to regular prnancr. mlichl rora- 
 inuiiiratc after fasting 40 «l-»>*» ">"'«' *•«*• 
 sperial strictn«-4&. (2) Th .»r who. at Peter 
 phrase* it, had en«luretf only the " »ir|tc ol 
 imprisonment," n-.t the "war of l.^liire*," 
 and therefore <lr^rr\-rf! |r-ii pitv, \fi f,c\\t> 
 theinwivesu; ' "' " ' ""the 
 
 Name," alth "'»» 
 
 relieve<l bv • i^*^ 
 
 after .n: ■' *^« 
 
 endur' '"** 
 
 terror, U) 
 
 IS not. .;.- .. '-"^ 
 
 •mlatlou uvei Uf-H »h" Ua*i U-l IcirUtcU 
 
832 
 
 PETRUS !. 
 
 (Neale, i. 98). Peter cites the cursing of the 
 fig-tree, with Is. Ixvi. 24 ; Ivii. 20. (5) Those 
 who, to evade trial of their constancy, feigned 
 epilepsy, promised conformity in writing, or 
 put forward pagans to throw incense on the 
 altar in their stead, must do penance for six 
 months more, although some of them had 
 already been received to communion by some 
 of the steadfast confessors. (6) Some' Chris- 
 tian masters compelled their Christian slaves 
 to face the trial in their stead : such slaves 
 must " shew the works of repentance " for a 
 year. (7) But these masters who, by thus 
 imperilling their slaves, shewed their disregard 
 for apostolic exhortations (Eph. vi. 9 ; Col. 
 iv. i), must have their own repentance tested 
 for three more years. (8) Those who, having 
 lapsed, returned to the conflict, and endured 
 imprisonment and tortures, are to be " joy- 
 fully received to communion, alike in the 
 prayers and the reception of the Body and 
 Blood, and oral exhortation." (9) Those who 
 voluntarily exposed themselves to the trial 
 are to be received to communion, because they 
 did so for Christ's sake, although they forgot 
 the import of " Lead us not into temptation, 
 but deliver us," etc., and perhaps did not know 
 that Christ Himself repeatedly withdrew from 
 intended persecution, and even at last waited 
 to be seized and given up ; and that He bade 
 His disciples flee from city to city (Matt. x. 
 23), that they might not enhance their enem- 
 ies' guilt. Thus Stephen and James were 
 arrested ; so was Peter, who " was finally 
 crucified in Rome " ; so Paul, who was be- 
 headed in the same city. (10) Hence, clerics 
 who thus denounced themselves to the authori- 
 ties, then lapsed, and afterwards returned to 
 the conflict, must cease to officiate, but may 
 communicate ; if they had not lapsed, their 
 rashness might be excused. (11) Persons who, 
 in their zeal to encourage their fellow-Chris- 
 tians to win the prize of martyrdom, volun- 
 tarily avowed their own faith, were to be 
 exempted from blame ; cf. Eus. vi. 41, fin. 
 Requests for prayer on behalf of those who 
 gave way after imprisonment and torture 
 ought to be granted : " no one could be the 
 worse " for sympathizing with those who were 
 overcome by the devil or by the entreaties of 
 their kindred (cf. Passio S. Perpet. 3 ; S. Iren. 
 Sirm. 3 ; Eus. viii. g). (12) Those who paid 
 for indemnity are not to be censured ; they 
 shewed their disregard for money ; and Acts 
 xvii. 9 is here quoted. (13) Nor should those 
 be blamed who fled, abandoning their homes 
 — as if they had left others to bear the brunt. 
 Paul was constrained to leave Gains and 
 Aristarchus in the hands of the mob of 
 Ephesus (Acts xix. 29, 30) ; Peter escaped 
 from prison, and his guards died for it ; the 
 Innocents died in place of the Holy Child. 
 (14) Imprisoned confessors in Libya and 
 elsewhere had mentioned persons who had 
 been compelled by sheer force to handle the 
 sacrifices. These, like others whom tortures 
 rendered utterly insensible, were to be regard- 
 ed as confessors, for their will was steadfast 
 throughout ; and they might be placed in the 
 ministry. These " canons " were ratified by 
 the council in Trullo, c. 2, a.d. 692, and so 
 became part of the law of the Eastern church. 
 (Cf. Eus. Mart. Pal. i ; Passto SS. Tarachi 
 
 f>ETRUS 1. 
 
 et Probi, c. 8, in Ruinart, Act. Sine, p 467 ; 
 C. Ancyr. c. 3.) 
 
 Very soon after these " canons " were drawn 
 up the persecution was intensified by the 
 pagan fanaticism of Maximin Daza. Peter 
 felt it his duty to follow the precedents he had 
 cited in his 8th canon and the example of his 
 great predecessor Dionysius by " seeking for 
 safety in flight " (Burton, H. E. ii. 441). 
 Phileas, bp. of Thmuis, and three other bishops 
 were imprisoned at Alexandria ; and then, 
 according to the Maffeian documents, Meletius, 
 being himself at large, held ordinations in 
 their dioceses without their sanction " or that 
 of the archbishop," and without necessity 
 {Hist. W ritings of St. Athanasius, Oxf. 1881, 
 Introd. p. xxxix). Peter, being informed of 
 this lawless procedure, wrote to the faithful 
 in Alexandria : " Since I have ascertained 
 that Meletius, disregarding the letter of the 
 martyred bishops, has entered my diocese, 
 taken upon himself to excommunicate the 
 presbyters who were acting under my author- 
 ity . . . and shewn his craving for pre-eminence 
 by ordaining certain persons in prison ; take 
 care not to c(m"imunicate with him until I 
 meet him in company with wise men, and see 
 what it is that he has in mind. Farewell " 
 (Routh, Rel. Sac. iv. 94). 
 
 Maximin, besides presiding over martyr- 
 doms in Palestine (a.d. 306, 307, 308), prac- 
 tised other enormities at Alexandria (Eus. viii. 
 14 ; Burton, ii. 451). During Peter's retire- 
 ment his habits had become more strictly 
 ascetic. He continued to provide "in no 
 hidden way " for the welfare of the church 
 (Eus. vii. 32). The phrase ovk dcpavQs is 
 significant, as it points to the well-imdcrstood 
 system of communication whereby a bp. of 
 Alexandria, although himself in hiding, could, 
 as did Athanasius, make his hand felt through- 
 out the churches which still owned him as 
 their " father." Probably Peter's return to 
 Alexandria, and the formal communication of 
 the Meletians above mentioned, took place 
 after a toleration-edict, which mortal agony 
 wrung from Galerius in Apr. 311. This edict 
 constrained Maximin to abate his persecuting 
 energy ; but he soon again harassed his 
 Christian subjects, and encouraged zealous 
 heathen municipalities to memorialize him 
 " that no Christians might be allowed to dwell 
 among them " {ib. ix. 2). Thus at the end of 
 Oct. 311 " the Christians found themselves 
 again in great peril " (Burton) ; and one of 
 the first acts of Maximin's renewed persecu- 
 tion was to smite the shepherd of the flock at 
 Alexandria. Peter was beheaded (Eus. vii. 
 32), " in the ninth year of the persecution " 
 (311), by virtue of a "sudden" imperial 
 order, " without any reason assigned " (ix. 6). 
 
 Johnson and Routh reckon as a " fifteenth " 
 canon what is, in fact, a fragment of a work 
 on the Paschal Festival. In it Petrus says it 
 is usual to fast on Wednesday, because of the 
 Jews " taking counsel for the betrayal of the 
 Lord"; and on Friday "because He then 
 suffered for our sake." " For," he adds, " we 
 keep the Lord's day as a day of gladness, 
 because on it He rose again ; and on it, accord- 
 ing to tradition, we do not even kneel." The 
 custom of standing at prayer on Sunday was 
 again enforced by the Nicene council (c. 20 ; 
 
Pktros II. 
 
 Bright, S'olis on the dinons of the First Four 
 Cou>u-i!<!. p. 73). (xv.H.) 
 
 Petrus (5) II., archbp. of Alexandria, suc- 
 ceeded Atlianasius in May 373. To promote 
 the peaceful succession of an orthodox bishop. 
 Athan.i'ius, being requested to rccoinnicnd 
 one who could be elected by anticipation, 
 nanud Peter, whom Ciregnry Nazianzen 
 describes as honoured for his wisidom ami grey 
 hairs(()ra/. 25. 12), "who had been a companion 
 of ills labours " (Theod. iv. 20), and. in Basil's 
 phrase, his spiritual "nursling" (/•/). 133); 
 and who, in conjunction with another pres- 
 byter, when they were passing through Italy 
 to Egypt in 347, had accepted friun the 
 notorious .-^rian intriguers Wdens and 
 L'rsacius a written attestation of tiieir desire 
 to be at peace with .\thanasius, when his 
 cause was for the time triumphant (.\than. 
 Hist. Ar. 26). The clergy and magistrates 
 assented to the nomination ; the people in 
 general applauded ; the neighbouring bishops 
 came together to attend the consecration, in 
 which, according to a " fragment " of .\lex- 
 andrian iiistory, the dying arciibp. took the 
 principal part (cf. Theod. I.e. ; and Hist. 
 .Aceph. ap. .\than.). Five days afterwards 
 (May 2) .\thanasius died, and IVter took 
 possession of " the evangelical throne." But 
 the .\rians seized the opportunity for which 
 they had been waiting, and employed, as in 
 340, the agency of a pagan prefect. Palladius, 
 by means of bribes, assembled a " crowd of 
 pagans and Jews " and beset that same 
 church of Theonas within which Syrianus had 
 all but seized .\thanasius in 356. Peter was 
 commanded to withdraw ; he refused ; the 
 church doors were forced, and the brutal 
 orgies described in .\thanasius's Encyclical 
 were repeated : a youth in female dress 
 danced upon the altar ; another sat naked 
 on the throne, and delivered a mock sermon 
 in praise of vice (cf. Peter ap. Theod. iv. 22 
 with Greg. N'az. Orat. I.e. ). .\t this point Peter 
 quitted the church ; Socrates says that he 
 was seized and imprisoned (iv. 21), but his 
 own narrative points the other way. It 
 proceeds to describe the intrusion of the .\rian 
 Lucius. Peter tells us that the pagans 
 esteemed Lucius as the favourite of Scrapis, 
 because he denied the divinity of the Son ; 
 and dwells on the brave confessorship (i) of 
 19 priests and deacons whom .Magnus, after 
 vain attempts to make them Arianizc, trans- 
 ported to the pagan city of Heliopolis in 
 Phoenicia, sending also into penal servitude 
 23 monks and others who expressed their 
 sympathy ; (2) of 7 Egyptian bishops exiled 
 to Diocaesarea, a city inhabited by Jews, 
 while some other prelates were " handed over 
 to the curia," their official immunity from 
 onerous curial obligations being annulle<l in \ 
 requital of their steadfastness in the faith. 
 Damasus of Rome, hearing of this new 1 
 persecution, sent a deacon with a letter of I 
 communion and consolation for Peter ; the 
 messenger was arrested, treated as a criminal, 
 savagely beaten, and sent to the mines of ] 
 Phenne. Peter adds that children were tor- | 
 tared, and intimates that some persons were 
 actually put to death or died of cruel usage, 
 and that, after the old usage in pagan per- 
 secutions, their remains were denied burial. 
 
 PETRUS II. 
 
 t)33 
 
 '»<{V. 
 
 The narr.itivp ilhi'.tratr't at ..ik . ilir i> r,,], 
 ritual, and olrctoral cust.'v 
 church. I'ctrr piit'i into ( r iq 
 
 confr-isors .\\\ urgunirnt, <i m in 
 
 tone, from the rtc-rnitv of the I'lsuir 1 4lhcr. 
 hood (cf. Alhan. d* lU<r. Stt. ij): |ik« 
 .\thanasin«, hr there inM%t<i that (xxl coiitd 
 never have existed without Hit " Witdotii " 
 (cf. Ofj/. c .-If. I 14); divownt a inilrruluiie 
 conception of the ->/rr9<rit (cf. dt Dttr. Sit. 1 1 ; 
 ()f.i/. r. .-If. i. 21); quote* the .\ri4n (orroiiU 
 V 6^* oi'* ^r (" onco the Son wa» not." cl. 
 Oral. c. .4r. i. 5, etc.); and rpprr«rnt» the 
 Hoinoousion as sumtnan/ing the pur|x>rt ol 
 manv texts (cf. lU Deer. \ie. 20). 
 
 IVter refers to the invt>cati.>ii -it the Holy 
 Spirit at the Eurhm,!., . .-, . rr.iiion. and 
 intimates that monk ,|r 4 nrwlv 
 
 arrived bishop. ch.Ki im. When 
 
 describing the uncan 1 o( Ltiriii*, 
 
 he refers to the three -l- mtiils of a pr<ij»er 
 episcopal election, as fixed by " the in^litu- 
 tions of the church "— (i) the joint action o| 
 the assembled bishops of the province. (1) the 
 vote {if/ri<P^) of "genuine" clcrgv, (j) the 
 request of the people {air^rtt, the I^itm 
 suffiaeitutn, as Cyprian uses it, Ff>. $5. 7. 
 speaking of the same threefold procrst. " de 
 ciericorum testimonio, dc plebi<i . . . tuftragto. 
 et de sacerdotum . . . collegio ' ; an<l (or the 
 " requests " of the people, soinetimo urgently 
 enforced, sec Athan. .-ipot. c. .\r. o). Peter 
 remained for some time in concealment, 
 whence he wrote his encyclical ( rillein. vi. 
 582) ; he afterwards went to Koine, and wai 
 received by Dam.isus, as Julius welcomed 
 .\thanasius in 340. He remained at Komo 
 five years, gave information as to l-lgvptian 
 monasticism (Hieron. F.p. cxxvii. s), and W4« 
 present, as bp. of .-Mexandria, at a council held 
 by U.im.isus, probably in 377. f"r th<- con- 
 demnation of the .\pollinarians. Timothcua, 
 wiiom .\pollinaris had sent to Koine, and 
 Vitalis, bishop of the sect in .-Kntioch, were 
 included in the sentence pronounce<l against 
 their master (cf. Soz. vi. 25 with Theod. v. 
 to) ; and Facundus of tlermiane, in his Dt- 
 fenee of the Three .■trticle^, quote* part of a 
 letter addressed by Peter to the exiled Egyp- 
 tian confessors at Diocaesarea. " I aik your 
 advice," he wTite«, " under the trouble that 
 has befallen me : what ought I to do. when 
 Timotheus gives himself out for a bishop, that 
 in this character he may with more boUlnc»« 
 injure other* an<l infringe tli«- law* of the 
 
 Fathers ? For he chose (■< •' ■ "• mr. 
 
 with the bps. Basil of ( nu*. 
 
 Epiphanius, and niodoru "ini- 
 
 cate with Vitalis alone "1/ , fiMwi. 
 
 Captl. IV. 2). Here Peter tr.al-. rauliuu*. not 
 Meletius, as the true bp. of Antloch. thu Jx-lnK 
 the .-Mexaiidrian view. Hi. I'lin us with 
 Basil were very kindly; 1 1 love 
 
 and reverence for .\thaii.i ■ nitii 
 
 a correspondence (Basil. / -n In 
 
 373); and a letter of Basil s ii> r • !•-»« *" 
 interest for the chnrch-history of the time 
 {Kp. 266). It aniK-iiP* tint 0\r I- ...vpiijii 
 "confessors" hail f. > " '■ ' "' ■ "■-"'■ 
 
 coiiiinuiiion the v:: 
 of .Marcellus of Ai, 
 B.isil. Peter had 1. ......: .. 
 
 Basil ; and bad romuu>l[«tlcd wtiti ttu ckilcU 
 63 
 
H34 i>ETRUS 
 
 subordinates. Moreover, Basil's enemy Dor- 
 otheus, visiting Rome to enlist Western 
 sjonpathies in favour of Meletius as against 
 Paulinus, met Peter in company with Dam- 
 asus. Peter fired up at the name of Meletius, 
 and exclaimed, " He is no better than an 
 Arian." Dorotheus, angered in his turn, said 
 something which offended Peter's dignity ; 
 and Peter wrote to Basil, complaining of this 
 and of his silence in regard to the exile's con- 
 duct. Basil answers in effect : " As to the 
 first point, I did not care to trouble you, and 
 I trust it will come right by our winning over 
 the Marcellians ; as to the second, I am sorry 
 that Dorotheus annoyed you, but you who 
 have suffered under Arians ought to feel for 
 Meletius as a fellow-sufferer, and I can assure 
 you that he is quite orthodox." 
 
 Peter's exile ended in the spring of 378. 
 The troubles of Valens with the Goths encour- 
 aged the prelates he had banished to act for 
 themselves. Fortified by a letter of com- 
 mendation from Damasus, Peter returned to 
 Alexandria ; the people forthwith expelled 
 Lucius, who went to Constantinople ; and 
 Peter was thenceforth undisturbed in his 
 see. Jerome taxes him with being too easy in 
 receiving heretics into communion (Chron.) ; 
 and in one celebrated affair of another kind, 
 his facility brought him no small discredit. 
 Early in 379 he had not only approved of the 
 mission of Gregory of Nazianzus to act as a 
 Catholic bishop in Constantinople, but had 
 formally authorized it, had " honoured ' 
 Gregory " with the symbols of establishment " 
 (Carm.de Vita Sua, 861), and thereby appar- 
 ently claimed some supremacy over Constan- 
 tinople (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 206). Yet ere 
 long he allowed himself to become the tool of 
 the ambitious Maximus, who pretended to 
 have been a confessor for orthodoxy, and thus 
 perhaps reached Peter's weak side. He aimed 
 at " securing the see of Constantinople ; and 
 Peter, contradicting himself in writing," as 
 Gregory words it {de Vita Sua, 1015), commis- 
 sioned some Egyptian prelates to go to Con- 
 stantinople and consecrate Maximus. The 
 scheme failed disgracefully : Maximus had to 
 leave Constantinople, and after attempting 
 in vain to propitiate Theodosius, went back 
 to Alexandria and tried to intimidate Peter, 
 " putting the old man into a difficulty " {ib. 
 1018), but was expelled by secular force. 
 Peter reconciled himself to Gregory, who 
 panegyrized him as " a Peter in virtue not 
 less than in name, who was very near heaven, 
 but remained in the flesh so far as to render 
 his final assistance to the truth," etc. {Orat. 34. 
 3). Peter died Feb. 14, 380. In ignorance 
 of this event, Theodosius, a fortnight after- 
 wards, named him with Damasus as a standard 
 of Catholic belief in the famous edict of Thes- 
 salonica (Cod. Theod. xvi. i, 2 ; see Gibbon, 
 iii. 363). He was succeeded by his brother 
 Timotheus. [w.b.] 
 
 Petrus (6), siurnamed Mongus fStammerer), 
 Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, or- 
 dained deacon by Dioscorus, and said to have 
 taken part in the outrages against Flavian at 
 the Latrociniura (Mansi, vi. 1017). On the 
 death of the Monophysite patriarch Timo- 
 theus Aelurus in 4.77, arid in the absence of the 
 orthodox Salofaciolus whom he had displaced, 
 
 PETRUS 
 
 the Monophysites determined to place Petef 
 in the see. The emperor Zeno, indignant at 
 the boldness of the Monophysites (Neale, Hist. 
 Alex. ii. 17), ejected Peter, and ordered his 
 expulsion from Alexandria (Mansi, vii. 983- 
 985). Accordingly, Peter was driven out of 
 Egypt ; John, surnamed Talaia, steward of 
 the great church, was chosen patriarch, but 
 neglected to announce his accession to Acacius. 
 who, piqued by this omission, prevailed on 
 Zeno to expel John, and to restore Peter on 
 condition that he should support an attempt 
 to promote doctrinal unity without enforcing 
 the authority of the council of Chalcedon. 
 Zeno ordered Talaia to be expelled from 
 Alexandria and Peter Mongus enthroned after 
 accepting the Henoticok, or instrument of 
 unity (a.d. 4S2). This was addressed to 
 the bishops, clergy, monks, and laymen of 
 the Alexandrian patriarchate; it recognized 
 the creed of " the 318 " at Nicaea as " con- 
 firmed by the 150 " at Constantinople, the 
 decisions of the council of Ephesus, together 
 with the 12 articles of Cyril ; it employed 
 language as to Christ's consubstantiality with 
 man which Cyril had adopted in his " reunion 
 with the Easterns " ; it rejected the opposite 
 theories of a " division" and a "confusion" 
 in the person of Christ, and included Eutyches 
 as well as Nestorius in its anathema. Instead 
 of renewing the explicit censure directed by 
 Basiliscus in a previous circular against the 
 council of Chalcedon, Zeno employed an am- 
 biguous phrase, " We anathematize every one 
 who thinks or ever has thought differently, 
 either at Chalcedon or at any other synod," 
 words which might be explained as pointed at 
 those wlio were admitted to communion at 
 Chalcedon after disclaiming Nestorianism, 
 while, as their adversaries alleged, they were 
 still Nestorians at heart. At the same time 
 all recognition of that council was omitted 
 (Evagr. iii. 14 ; Liberat. c. 18, and note 
 thereon ; Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii. 149). 
 Peter was accordingly enthroned amid a great 
 concourse, at Alexandria. His instructions 
 were to unite all parties on the basis of the 
 Henoticon. This, for the time, be effected 
 at a public festival, when as patriarch he 
 preached to the people, and caused it to be 
 read (Evagr. iii. 13 ; Liberat. c. 18). In 
 letters to Acacius, the patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, and pope Simplicius, he professed to 
 accept the council of Chalcedon (Liberatus) ; 
 and by playing the part of a time-server 
 {Kddopvoi, Evagr. iii. 17) disgusted the 
 thorough-going Monophysite John, bp. of 
 Zagylis in Libya, and various abbats and 
 monks of Lower Egypt, who raised a tumult 
 in the Caesarean basilica (Liberat. «.s.). 
 Peter could not afford to quarrel with them, 
 and probably thought himself secure enough 
 to shew his hand. (See Valesius on Evagr. 
 iii. 16.) He accordingly anathematized the 
 council of Chalcedon and the Tome of pope 
 Leo, substituted the names of Dioscorus and 
 Timotheus Aelurus for those of Proterius 
 andTimotheusSalofaciolusonhisdiptychs, and 
 gratified his own vindictiveness by taking the 
 body of Salofaciolus from its place among 
 the buried patriarchs and "casting it outside 
 the city" (Liberat.; cf. Felix, ap. Mansi, vii. 
 1076I. This caused a great excitement ; the 
 
PETRUS 
 
 earnest Catholics rcnouiucd IVtiT's roninm- 
 nion; and tidings of this turn of events dis- 
 turbed the mind of Acacius. who sent to 
 Alexandria for an authentic account. Peter 
 then surpassed himself in an evasive letter, 
 wliiih Evagrius has preserved. Aearius was 
 glad to accept his explanations, as he could 
 not atTord to break with Mongus ; but he had 
 now to deal with the clear head and resolute 
 will of pope Felix II. (or III), the surc««ssor of 
 Simplicius, who listened re.ulily to the com- 
 plaints of the exiled Talaia and other Hgvptian 
 bishops (F.vagr. iii. 20) against I'cter, and sent 
 two bishops, Vitalisaiid MiM-nus. to Constanti- 
 nople to denounce Peter ami summon Acacius 
 to defend himself before a council at Konje. 
 The legates were partly coaxed and partly 
 frightened into communicating with the 
 resident agents of Peter at Constantinople, 
 and brought back to Rome letters in which 
 Zeno and .\cacius assured Felix that Peter j 
 was an orthixlox and meritorious prelate 
 (Evagr. iii. 20; Mansi, vii. 1055, 1065, 1081). 
 Their weakness was punished by deposition ; 
 and Felix, with his synod, proceeded not only j 
 to anathematize Peter as an " Eutychian " | 
 usurper, but even to excommunicate the bp. ' 
 of Constantinople as his patron (Julv iS, 484). 
 He then wrote again to Zeno, desiring him to 
 " cho(5se between the communion of Peter the 
 apostle and that of Peter the Alexandrian " | 
 (Mansi, vii. 1066). Nothing daunted. Acacius ; 
 broke off ciimmunion with Rome and upheld 
 Peter to the last, although he must have felt 
 his conduct highly embarrassing, for Peter 
 again anathematized the proceedings of 
 Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, and those 
 who would not accept the writings of Dios- 
 corus and Timotheus .Aelurus (Evagr. iii 22). 
 He expelled certain orthodox bishops, and, 
 from one named John, transferred the abbacy 
 or hegumenate of Diolchos to his friend 
 Ammon (Liberat.). These proceedings being 
 reported to Zeno, he sent Cosmas to rebuke 
 Peter and restore peace. Peter again mollified 
 his tone, and wrote to Acacius, as if acknow- 
 ledging Chalcedon. This double-dealing, be- 
 coming known in Egypt, provoked some 
 Monophysite clerics, monks, and laymen to 
 disown him and to meet for worship apart, 
 omitting his name in their diptychs (Liberat. 
 18), and these uncompromising dissentients 
 became known as " Acephali " (Leontius, de 
 Sectts, V. 2), and obtained as their bishop 
 one Fsaias from Palestine (Liberat.). When 
 Fravitas, or Flavitas, succeeded -Acacius in 
 489, he wrote to both Felix (Liberat. 18) and 
 Peter (Evagr. iii. 23) ; but after four months 
 he died, and was succeeded by Euphemius, 
 who, on discovering Peter's real poiition in 
 regard to the council of Chalcedon, indignantly 
 broke off all relations with him (Evagr. iii. 23). 
 A new strife between Constantinople and 
 Alexandria was imminent, when Peter Mon- 
 gus, respected by none, died at the end of 
 Oct. 490 (Le Quien, ii. 422), leaving behind 
 numerous works (Neale, ii. 24). [w.b.] 
 
 PetrUS (10) (surnamed Fullo, " the Ful- 
 ler "), intruding patriarch of Antioch, 47i-4«K. 
 a Monophvsite, took his surname from his 
 former trade as a fuller of cloth. Tilhinont 
 shews considerable skill in harmonizing 
 various statemeats of his earlier life [Em- 
 
 PETRUS 
 
 83S 
 
 f>fUurs, t. vi. p 4„,|. Ilr .....M.lr,, that 
 Peter was oriKUi.dly 4 Mirnilxr o( the cnvrnt 
 of the Aroiinrt.«c which hr pl.irrt in illlhviiU 
 on the .\>ii.uic liili- 1 ii,, 11 .iii||,.ru«. And 
 being expelled t.'f utr hlr Aliil 
 
 heretical d.K-trinr, Con«iAnlt- 
 
 nople, where he bi i.- t.. prrv>n« 
 
 of distmctioii, by wh m h. »,is intr<Hlurp«l to 
 Zeni>, the future cujperor, thr •on-inUw ul 
 Leo, whose favour he v< urrd, obtaining 
 through him the chief place in the rhurrh 
 of St. Bassa, at I halrrdon. Here hit lru« 
 character having speedily become kn<jwn, hw 
 fled to Zeno, who w.is then »ettinf( out ('"r 
 Antioch as coinmandrr of the Fj^t. Arrivini 
 at .\ntiiK-h a.i>. 463, IVterS unbridlp<l am- 
 bition soared to the patri.in hal throne, thm 
 filled by .M.irtvrius, and having gained the ear 
 of the rabble, he adroitly availed himM>n of 
 the poweiful .\pollin.arian element among the 
 citizens and the considerable iiuinl>er who 
 favoured Kutychian doctrines, to etcite sus- 
 picions against M.irtvrius as a concealed 
 Ni-storian. and thus caused hit tunmltuwui 
 expulsion and his own -lection to the throne. 
 This was in 4f'9 'T 47o (Theod. l.ect. p 5\4 ; 
 Labbe, iv. looq, 1082). When establi>ihed ai 
 patri.irch, Peter at once declared himself 
 opeidy .iKainst the council of Chalcedon. and 
 .idded to the Trisagion the words " Who wast 
 crucified for us," which he imposed as a 
 test upon all in his patriatchatc, anathema- 
 tizing those who declined to accept it. Ac- 
 cording to the Synodtcon, he summoned ■ 
 council at Antioch to give syno<lical authority 
 to this novel clause (Labbc, iv. 1000). The 
 deposed .Martyrius went to Constantinople to 
 complain to the emperor Leo, by whom, 
 through the influence of the patriarch Genna- 
 dius, he was courteously receiv«nl ; a omncil 
 of bishops reported in his favour, and his 
 restoration was decreed (The<xl. Lect. p. 554; 
 Liberat. c. 18. p. 122). But notwithstanding 
 the imperial authority, Peter's personal in- 
 fluence, supported by the favour of Z'-iio, was 
 so great in Antiich that .NLirtyrius's pi>silion 
 was rendered intolerable and, wearied by 
 violence and contumely, he soon left .Anti'x:h, 
 abandoning his throne again to the intruder. 
 Leo was naturally indignant at this audactou* 
 disregard of his commands, of which he wat 
 apprised by liennadius. and he despatched an 
 imperial decree for the deposition < J Peter and 
 his banishment to the Oasis (Labbe, iv. n>J<2». 
 
 .According to The«>florus Lect'i 
 and J ulian wa« unanimously clr. 
 his ro<jm, A.n. 471, holdinf; the s> 
 thirdrestorationby Basiliscusin i 
 p. 99; Theod. Lect p. 533)- "1 
 
 Prirr 6eA, 
 
 val Peter dwelt at Constantinople, m ttiiic- 
 I ment in the monastery of the Ac<.imet4e. hi* 
 I residence there being connived at on a pledne 
 j that he would not < reate further dutmbantc* 
 (Labbe. iv. loog, 10S2 ; Theophan p. 104). 
 During the short reign ol thnu.urr-r M iMlisrus 
 (Oct. 475-June 477) il. ' Prter 
 
 revived. Under the 11 : wile 
 
 Basilisciis declared for 1: • ' re- 
 
 ! calle<l Timothy Aelurus. . 
 j dria. from exile, anil bvlu 
 1 encyrlir.il htter to the 
 ! to anathematize the di ; - : 
 1 (Evajr. H. E. »u. 4). Ptler iUUly coUiiiUU, 
 
836 
 
 PETRUS 
 
 and was rewarded by a third restoration to the 
 see ot Antioch, a.d. 476 {ib. 5). Julian was 
 deposed, dying not long after. Peter on his 
 restoration enforced the addition to the 
 Trisagion, and behaved with great violence 
 to the orthodox party, crushing all opposition 
 by an appeal to the mob, whom he had secured 
 by his unworthy arts, and who confirmed the 
 patriarch's anathemas by plunder and blood- 
 shed. Once established on the patriarchal 
 throne, he was not slow to stretch its privi- 
 leges to the widest extent, ordaining bishops 
 and metropolitans for all Syria. The fall of 
 Basiliscus, a.d. 477, involved the ruin of all 
 who had supported him and been promoted by 
 him. Peter was one of the first to fall. In 
 485 for the last time Peter was replaced on his 
 throne by Zeno on his signing the Henoticon 
 (Theophan. p. 1 15 ; Theod. Lect. p. 569 ; Labbe, 
 iv. 1207 ; Evagr. H. E. iii. 16). He at once 
 resumed his career of violence, expelling ortho- 
 dox bishops who refused to sign the Henoticon 
 and performing uncanonical ordinations, 
 especially that of the notorious Xenaias 
 ( Philoxenus) to the see of Hierapolis (Theophan. 
 p. 115). He was condemned and anathe- 
 matized by a synod of 42 Western bishops at 
 Rome A.D. 485, and separated from Christian 
 communion (Labbe, iv. 1123-1127). He re- 
 tained, however, the patriarchate at Antioch 
 till his death, in 488, or according to Theo- 
 phanes, 490 or 491. One of his latest acts was 
 the unsuccessful revival of the claim of the 
 see of Antioch to the obedience of Cyprus as 
 part of the patriarchate. After long debate 
 the council of Ephesus in 431 had declared 
 the church of Cyprus autocephalous. Tillem. 
 Les Empereiirs, t. vi. pp. 404-407 ; Mem. 
 eccl. t. xvi. passim. ; Clinton, F. R. vol. ii. app. 
 P- 55 3- [e.v.] 
 
 Petrus (12), bp. of Apamea, the metropolis 
 of Syria Secnnda, under Anastasius, c. 510 ; a 
 Monophysite, a warm partisan of Severus the 
 intruding patriarch of Antioch, the leader of 
 the Acephali, and charged with sharing in the 
 violent and sanguinary attempts to force the 
 Monophysite creed on the reluctant Syrian 
 church. Peter was accused of having taken 
 forcible possession of his see, in violation of all 
 ecclesiastical order, not having received 
 canonical ordination either as monk or pres- 
 byter (Labbe, v. 120). The first formal com- 
 plaint against him was made before count 
 Eutychianus, governor of the province, by 
 the clergy of Apamea, substantiated by their 
 affidavits {ib. 219, 243). In these he is charged 
 with declaring himself the enemy of the Chal- 
 cedonian decrees, erasing from the diptychs 
 the names of orthodox bishops and fathers, 
 and substituting those of Dioscorus, Timothy 
 Aelurus, and other heresiarchs. Evidence is 
 given of insulting language and overbearing 
 conduct toward his clergy, acts of violence and 
 grossness, and intercourse with females of 
 loose character. He was accused with Severus 
 of having hired a band of Jewish banditti, who 
 slew, from an ambuscade, a body of 350 
 orthodox pilgrims and left their corpses by the 
 roadside {ib. 119). Clergy were violently 
 dragged from the altar by his emissaries and 
 ruthlessly butchered if they refused to ana- 
 thematize the Chalcedonian faith. On the 
 accession of Justin, a.d. 518, the bishops of 
 
 PETRUS 
 
 Syria Secunda laid their complaints against 
 Peter and Severus before the council as- 
 sembled at the imperial city, July 518, asking 
 the emperor to deliver them from so intoler- 
 able a tyranny {ib. 215). Their prayer was 
 granted ; Peter was deposed and sentenced 
 to exile as a Manichee — as the Monophysites 
 were popularly designated (Theoph. p. 142). 
 Nothing seems known of Peter between his 
 banishment and reappearance at Constanti- 
 nople with Severus, on the temporary revival 
 of the fortunes of the Monophysites, through 
 the influence of the empress Theodora. In 
 536 Mennas was appointed to the patriarchal 
 chair, and lost no time in summoning a council 
 to pronounce the condemnation of Mono- 
 physitism and its chief leaders, Peter and 
 Severus being cut off from communion as men 
 who had " voluntarily chosen the sin unto 
 death," and " shown no signs of repentance 
 and a better mind " {ib. 253). Justinian con- 
 firmed this sentence. Peter was forbidden to 
 reside in or near Constantinople, or any other 
 important city, commanded to live in complete 
 retirement, and abstain from association with 
 others lest he should poison them with his 
 heresy {ib. 267). Nothing more is known of 
 him. Letters to him from Severus exist 
 among the Syriac MSS. of the Brit. Mus. 
 (Wright, Catal. p. 559, No. 5, No. 20). Le 
 Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 913 ; Fleury, Hist. eccl. 
 livrexxxi.,40, 44; livrexxxii., 52, 54, 57. [e.v.] 
 Petrus (20), bp. of Edessa, succeeded Cyrus 
 on his death, June 5, 498. During his episco- 
 pate Mesopotamia was ravaged by Cabades, 
 king of Persia, in his endeavour to wrest the 
 province from Anastasius. Of the horrors of 
 this terrible time of war, pestilence, and 
 famine, in which Edessa had a full share, being 
 more than once besieged by Cabades, we have 
 a moving account from a contemporary wit- 
 ness in the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. 
 Peter signalized his entrance on the episcopate 
 by several ritual reforms. He was the first to 
 institute the feast of Palm Sunday in the 
 church of Edessa, as well as the benediction of 
 water on the eve of the Epiphany, and the 
 consecration of chrism on Maundy Thursday, 
 and he regulated the observance of other fes- 
 tivals (Jos. Stylit. c. 32). An earthquake 
 occurring at Edessa a.d. 500, he instituted 
 public processional litanies of the whole popu- 
 lation {ib. 36). The same year, the city and 
 province suffering grievously from famine, he 
 visited Constantinople to petition Anastasius 
 personally for a remission of taxes, but was 
 only partially successful {ib. 39). The famine 
 returning a.d. 505, Peter made a second ap- 
 plication to the emperor, who received him 
 with frowns and rebuked him for leaving his 
 distressed flock at such a time, but, feeling 
 the justice of the request, remitted the taxes 
 for the whole province, sending the order , 
 without informing Peter {ib. 78). Peter died 
 on Easter Eve, a.d. 510. Asseman. Bibl. 
 Orient, t. i. pp. 268 ff., 279, 406 ff. [e.v.] 
 
 Petrus (28), patriarch of Jerusalem, a.d. 
 524-544 (Clinton, F.R.\ Niceph. C/i^on. p. 410), 
 born at Eleutheropolis, succeeded John II. 
 (omitted by Evagr. H. E. iv. 37) in 524. He 
 manifested the same reverence as his pre- 
 decessors for the celebrated ascetic St. Sabas, 
 and frequently visited him in the desert. 
 
PKTRUS 
 
 During his episcopate iHcurred the saiiRiiinarv 
 insurrection against the Christians o( the 
 Samaritans, goaded to madness by the perse- 
 cution of Justinian, offering onlv the alter- 
 native of baptism or rebellion (Ciibbon. c. 48). 
 Many Christians were reduced to beggary. 
 Peter therefore beggeil St. Sabas to go to 
 Constantinople and lay before Justinian a 
 petition for the remission of the taxes. His 
 mission was successful and he was received 
 with much jov on his return bv Peter and his 
 flock (C>Till. Si-ythop. lit. S. Sab. No. 70-76). 
 On the deposition of Anthinuis, the Mono- 
 physite patriarch of Constantinople, by the 
 single authority of pope Agapetus, then 
 present on state business at the imperial city, 
 and the appointment of Mennas as his suc- 
 cessor, Agapetus issued a synodical letter 
 dated Mar. 13, 536, announcing these facts, 
 and calling on the Eastern church to rejoice 
 that for the first time a patriarch of New 
 Rome had been consecrated by the bp. of Okl 
 Rome, and. together with the errors of 
 Anthimus, stating and denouncing those of 
 Severus of .\ntioch, Peter of .\paniea, and 
 the monk Zoaras. On receiving this docu- 
 ment Peter summoned a synod at Jerusalem 
 and subscribed the condenmation, Sept. 10, 
 536, Agapetus having died on Apr. 21 (Labbe, 
 v. 47, 275, 283). The rapid spread of Origen- 
 istic opinions in some monasteries of Palestine 
 under the influence of Nonnus was vehem- 
 ently opposed by other monastic bodies and 
 caused serious tr(jubles which Peter was un- 
 able to allay. The Origenists were supported 
 by a powerful court party, headed by the 
 abbats Domitian and Theodore Ascidas 
 (Evagr. H. E. iv. 38). The dignity and au- 
 thority of Peter, a decided enemy of Origen- 
 istic doctrines, being seriously weakened, he 
 made concessions which compromised his 
 position. His predecessor in the patriarchal 
 chair, Ephraim, had issued a synodical letter 
 condemning Origen, and the Origenistic party 
 cl.nmoured to have his name removed from the 
 diptychs. Peter was convinced that Jus- 
 tinian had been hoodwinked by the powerful 
 abbats and was ignorant of the real character 
 of these doctrines. He therefore instructed 
 two of his own abbats, Gelasius and So- 
 phronius, to bring before him a formal com- 
 plaint, setting forth the heresies of Origen in 
 detail. This document he forwarded to Jus- 
 tinian, with a letter describing the disturb- 
 ances created by the Origenistic monks and 
 beseeching him to take measures to quell 
 them. The emperor, flattered by this appeal 
 at once to his ability as a theologian and his 
 authority as a ruler, the petition being sup- 
 ported by a Roman deputation, headed by 
 Pelagius, then at Constantinople on ecclesi- 
 astical business, granted the request and 
 issued a decree condemning the heresies of 
 Origen, and ordering that no one should here- 
 after be created bishop or abbat without first 
 condemning him and other specified heretics. 
 The emperor's edict was confirmed by a syn'>d 
 convened by .Mennas, and was sent for signa- 
 ture to Peter and the other patriarchs, a.d. 
 541 {Vit. S. Sab. No. 84 ; Liberat. lirevtar. c. 
 23 ; Labbe, v. 6^,5 ; Vtl. S. Euthym. p. 365) 
 The object, however, was thwarted by the 
 Origeoist leaders subscribing the edict, thus 
 
 PETRUS 
 
 M7 
 
 sacrificing truth to srK-inirrr^f n , .1, ,. 
 niaintainrd his position at <<<: 
 ened IVtrr witli drpoMii..u || 1 
 refuse to rrrrivr b.u k the rxprl 
 monks {I'lt. S. Sab. No. 8>). I,: aunt ti.e 
 emperor's attention an attack wa* rrjflllv 
 organised by The.xli.re A^ |<U« and • ilirr* 
 against wriliuKs of Thr.nlMrr of \\..\-. . ■ , 
 Theotloret. and Ibas i>l IMrssa. *iipi' 
 savour of Nrsti>rianjsni. Thrv h.cl 
 diffirultv. backed bv Ihr powrrlul infl' • 
 the empress The<Hlora, an .ivi.wrtl |.i\ 
 Monophysitism, in prrsuading thr rw\ 
 issue an edict condrnining thrsr wn . 
 which, from the three points on win ! 11 
 specially dwells, obtained the naiiir of • | h 
 turn de Tribus Capitulis. ' or " Thr 1 1 rr<- 
 Chapters," by which the whole rontr^-vrrsy 
 became subsequentlv known. This wlirt 
 being published on the solr authority of the 
 emperor, without syn-nlical aiithontv. Krr.it 
 stress was laid on its acceptance bv the 
 bishops, especially by the four Eastern p.^- 
 triarchs. No one of them, however, w.i, .!i 
 posed to sign a document which sr< in. I < ■ 
 disparage the conclusions of Ch.tl' • 1 t 
 
 I Mennas yielded first; Peter's signatur. w..* 
 
 j obtained after a longer struggle. On thr tirst 
 
 j publication of the edict he solemnly de« larrd, 
 before a vast crowd oi turbulent monks 
 clamouring against its impietv, that whoever 
 
 I signed it would violate the decrees of Chalce- 
 don. But Justinian's threats of deposition 
 
 j outweighed Peter's conscientious convictions, 
 and. with the other equally reluctant pa- 
 triarchs, he signed the document (Facun«liis. 
 lib. iv. c. 4). He did not long survive this 
 disgrace, and died, a.d. 544, after a 20 years' 
 episcopate. Vict. Tunun. at>. Clinton, 
 
 ' F. R. ii. 557: Fleiiry. Wis/, eccl. livre 3j; 
 Neander, (h. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 26j ff. ; I.e 
 yuien. Or. ( hrnl. vol. ii. iHq seq. ft. v.] 
 Petrus (35), first bp. of Parembolae in Pales- 
 
 ' tine, i.e. of the military stations of the S.ir.i- 
 
 ; cens in Palestine. He was originally a (.rrrk 
 in the service of the I'ersians under Izdri-ird. 
 
 : The Christians being persecuted by the Magian 
 party, Aspebetus, as Peter was then called, 
 was coijimissioned to close the passes against 
 the fugitives. Being sorry for the iniHK-rnt 
 victims of religious intolerance, he «xrriitrd 
 his duty remisslv. and even assisted Ihrpi in 
 their flight. This being reporte«l to I/,|. cir!. 
 Petrus in fear for his life deserted to tt.-- I 
 mans with his son Tenbo. his rrlati\rv i: 1 
 all his properly. Anatcilius. il'- •■ ' " '■ ' ' 
 the East, gl.Klly welcomed hun 
 in Arabia, and put him in con 
 the tributary Saracen tribes 11, 
 Terebo, still a boy. had before l.i» 1jI!.!i'» 
 flight lost by paralysis the entire use <>! one 
 side. After reaching Arabia tl.< t \ ».is 
 
 \ warned in a dream to apply to I 
 cure. The application was 
 boy recovered, and the gral' 1 
 brother-in-law Marit. and all M^ 
 followers receiveil baptism (tyrill "^ 
 Wtt. S. EMihym. LC. iH-n: Coirlrr. fr.. 
 Monutn. ii. pp. 2l^-J2^). The nrw 
 devote<l himself to 4 rrli«i..us llfr ; 
 number of Arabian convrrts having ' 
 so large as to require a bUhop of their 
 
 I was recommended by Eutbymius lo Juvcual, 
 
838 
 
 PETRUS 
 
 bp. of Jerusalem, by whom, in defiance of the 
 canonical rights of the old metropolitan chair 
 of Caesarea, the new see was created, and 
 Peter appointed its first bishop {Vit. S. 
 Euthym. c. 39 ; Cotel. p. 231). Tillemont gives 
 reasons for placing this event before 428 [Mem. 
 eccl. XV. 196). Peter attended the council 
 of Ephesus in 431. His name appears among 
 those subscribing the deposition of Nestorius 
 and the decrees of the council (Labbe, iii. 541, 
 692). Peter s death must be placed before 451, 
 when his second successor John attended the 
 council of Chalcedon, his immediate successor 
 Auxolaus, a Eutychian, having had a very 
 brief episcopate Le Quien, Or. Christ, iii. 
 767 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. 378, 392, 432, 
 451; XV. 196, 203. [e.v.] 
 
 Petrus (41), bp. of Sebaste, the youngest 
 brother of Basil the Great and Gregory Nys- 
 sen, and the last of the ten children of Basil the 
 elder and Emmelia. His father died almost 
 immediately after his birth, which must be 
 placed before a.d. 349 (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. 
 Macr. ii. 185). His sister Macrina, more than 
 20 years his senior, adopted her infant brother 
 as her special charge, proving herself, in 
 Gregory Nyssen's words, " not only his sister, 
 but his father, mother, tutor, and warder " 
 (iraibayuyos). When Macrina and her mother 
 retired to their religious retreat on the banks 
 of the Iris, Peter accompanied them, where, 
 according to his brother, he proved all in all 
 to them, working with them towards the 
 angelical life. He shared the high physical 
 and mental endowments of the family. His 
 acquirements were very varied, and he had a 
 natural gift for handicrafts, in which, without 
 any direct instruction, he excelled as much 
 as' in intellectual pursuits {tb. 186). He 
 assisted by manual labour to support his 
 mother and sister, and the large crowds at- 
 tracted in time of scarcity by their reputation 
 for charity. For some years his brother Basil 
 was his near neighbour on the other side of 
 the Iris, where he had established a monas- 
 tery for male ascetics, in the presidency of 
 which Peter succeeded him when in 365 
 he was finally recalled to Caesarea by bp. 
 Eusebius. He was ordained presbyter by 
 Basil, c. 370 (ib. 187). He was present with 
 Macrina at their mother's death-bed, a.d. 373, 
 and was offered by her as her tenth to God 
 {ib. 186). He continued to reside in his 
 monastery till after Basil and Macrina died 
 in 370. In 380 he was ordained bishop, 
 probably of Sebaste in Lesser Armenia, on 
 the death or deposition of Eustathius. That 
 Peter was bp. of Sebaste is accepted without 
 question by Tillemont {Mem. eccl. ix. 574). 
 Nicephorus, however, a somewhat untrust- 
 worthy authority, is the first writer who 
 names his see {H. E. xi. 19). Theodoret {H.E. 
 V. 8) and Suidas {sub voc. BacrtXetos, i- 539) 
 simply style him a bishop, without naming 
 his diocese. He took part in the council 
 of Constantinople, a.d. 381 (Theod. u.s.). 
 Olyrapias, the deaconess, the friend of Chry- 
 sostora, entrusted large funds to him for 
 distribution to the poor (Pallad. p. 166). 
 Tillemont places his death between 391 and 
 394. The genius of Peter seems to have been 
 rather practical than literary. Rufinus, 
 instituting a comparison between the three 
 
 PETRUS 
 
 brothers, says that the two younger combined 
 equalled Basil ; Gregory in word and doc- 
 trine, and Peter in the works of faith (Rufin. 
 ii. 9). Theodoret remarks that, though Peter 
 had not received such a training in classical 
 literature as his brothers, r^s Ovpadev 
 TTaideias ou /iereiXrjxws cvv iKfivoLS, he was 
 equally conspicuous in the splendour of his 
 life {H. E. iv. 30). But though undistin- 
 guished in theological literature himself, 
 several of his brother Gregory's most import- 
 ant works were written at his instigation ; 
 e.g. as we learn from the proems, the two 
 treatises supplementary to his brother Basil's 
 Hexaemeron, the Explicatio Apologetica and 
 the de Hominis Opificio (Greg. Nys. 0pp. 
 i. I, 44). The latter treatise was sent to 
 Peter as an Easter gift. Gregory's great 
 doctrinal work against Eunomius was due to 
 his brother's entreaties that he would employ 
 his theological knowledge to refute that here- 
 tic, and disprove the charges brought by him 
 against Basil {ib. ii. 265, 266). Gregory's 
 original intention was to limit his refutation 
 to the first of Eunomius's two books. But 
 Peter wrote a letter to him, his only extant 
 literary production {ib. 268), entreating him 
 to strike with the zeal of a Phinehas both the 
 heretical books with the same spiritual sword, 
 which he knew so well how to wield. The 
 language and style of this letter shew Peter as 
 not intellectually inferior to the more cele- 
 brated members of his family (Tillem. Mem. 
 eccl. ix. 572-580). [E.V.] 
 
 Petrus (64), a solitary commemorated by 
 Theodoret in his Religiosa Historia. By birth 
 a Galatian, he embraced a monastic life when 
 7 years old, and lived to the age of 99. After 
 visiting the holy places at Jerusalem and 
 Palestine, he settled at Antioch, living in an 
 empty tomb on bread and water, and keeping 
 a strict fast every other day. His companion 
 and attendant, named Daniel, he had delivered 
 from an evil spirit. Theodoret relates that 
 his mother, when a beautiful young woman 
 of 23, failing to obtain relief from a malady 
 in her eye from any oculist, was induced by 
 one of her female servants to apply to Peter. 
 Going to him dressed richly and resplendent 
 with gold ornaments and gems, the solitary 
 upbraided her for presuming to attempt to 
 improve on the handiwork of her Maker, and 
 having thus cured her of the malady of vanity 
 and love of dress, signed her eye with the 
 cross and she was speedily healed. Other 
 members of her household he cured in a similar 
 manner. When, seven years after, she be- 
 came the mother of Theodoret and was given 
 up by the physicians, Peter, having been 
 summoned, prayed over her with her attend- 
 ants and she speedily revived. She was ac- 
 customed to bring her child once every week 
 toreceive the old man's blessing. Petermade 
 the young Theodoret a present of half his 
 linen girdle, which was believed to have the 
 miraculous property of relieving pain and 
 curing sickness. The amulet was frequently 
 lent, till kept by one of its borrowers, and so 
 lost to the family. Theod. Hist. Rel. c. ix. ; 
 Tillem. Mem. eccl. xv. 209-213. [e.v.] 
 
 Petrus (721, first abbat of the monastery 
 of SS. Peter and Paul, commonly called St. 
 Augustine's, Canterbury. He was probably 
 
PHILASTER 
 
 PHILASTCR 
 
 A39 
 
 one fif thf monks who arroinp.mir*! Aiijjusiine I been rnpir.1 t.\ si Vm.uj 
 
 on his first joiirupy. and Ihcrrforc probalily matrruls : 
 
 a monk of the monastery of St. Amlrrw at ing Urrtx 
 
 Rome. Hp is first mrntionrd by Bcdc (//. F. trratur ■ u 
 
 i. 25) as joined with I.aurrntius in the mission m) to ihr w iWv I I 
 
 which Augustine after his consecration sent triu*. the f.irnjrr of wli 
 
 to Rome to ann<nince that the (iospel had heresies hrf.ire i.ur I. "fl 
 
 been accepted bv the KuKlish, and that he the ascension, the Uttrr , 
 
 had been made bishop, and In put before the after. AuKustlnr refuM-s 
 
 pope the questions which drew forth the I!piph.iniu>, whom he arc 
 
 ■> l..( ir .,,,1 ,JS 
 t'> Iwhrxr Ihjt 
 
 nn» t.»r it'^ m re 
 
 > ' I 
 
 scttiuK down all the ih. 
 which he disaKreetl. .111 1 
 
 held them as herrti(!i 
 
 down as heretiis who iin..Ki 
 excellent Fathers did, thai tl.^ 
 vi. 2 were the offsprinR of .1: 
 thought that any imcertainty > 
 calculation of the number of t 
 the creation of the world (c 11 
 
 famous " Responsiones Sancti Ciregorii." Me learneil of the two, .,.ul<l h 
 must have returned some time before the of any heresies ku'-wn to 
 death of .Augustine and been appointed or explains the diffrren. r .<f 
 designated by him and Kthelbert as the arising from the word lirr. sn 
 future head of the monastery, which at his sharply define<l applit .it 
 request Ethelbert was building outside the to count opinioiu as h- ■ 
 walls of Canterbury. The building was not so reckone<l by the oil 
 finished when Augustine died, but l.aurentius. fact, F'hil.ister. in his ri. . 
 his successor, consecrated the new chiu-ch and swell his list I'f heresies, h.is 
 Peter became the first abbat. If the Canter- items whn h must f.. tri V 
 bury computation be accepted, and on such count everv en 
 a point it mav not be baseless, Peter must and when he ha>. 
 have perished in the winter of 606 or of 607 sects calle<l afl- 1 
 at the latest. There is a notice of him in long list of an>ii\in . 
 Mabillon's Ada SS. O.S.li. saec. i. pt. i. p. i ; 
 and the Bollandist Acts, Jan. t. i. pp. 3^5, 336. 
 See Gotselinus, de Translatione Sit. Augui- 
 tini, ap. Mab. Acta SS. O.S.B. t. ix. p. 760; 
 Elmham, ed. Hardwick, pp. 92-126; Thorn, 
 CO. 1761, 1766 ; Hardy, Catalogue of Materials, 
 etc. i. 206, 207 ; MonastUon Angl. i. 120. [s.] 
 Phllaster (PhUastnus), bp. of Brixia 
 (Brescia), in the latter part of the 4th cent. 
 His successor in the see, Gaudentius, used plurality of heavens (c. 94) 
 every year to preach a panegyrical sermon on infinity of worlds (c. 115). or 
 the anniversary of his death (July 18). One there are fixed stars, being igi 
 of these (preached on the 14th anniversary) i stars are brought every evenin. 
 is extant, and from its vague laudatory state- , secret treasure-houses, and .t^ 
 ments we have to extract our scantv infor- , have fulfilled their daily task ! 
 
 mation concerning his life and wt)rk. We learn back thither again by the an. 
 from it that he was not a native of Brescia, their course (c. 133). It is t 
 From what country he came we are not told ; ; regards those as heretics (c. 11 
 Spain or Africa has been conjectured. He is 1 days of the week bv their li' ■ 
 commended for zeal in the conversion of Jews instead of the scriptural nainrbtut day. 
 and heathen, and in the confutation of here- second dav, etc. ; and some of his tranv rilxri 
 sies, especially of Arianism ; and is said to have rebelled <>n being asked to write d wn 
 have incurred stripes for the vehemence of his those as heretics who believe (c. iS4) iti >; \\-- 
 opposition to that then dominant sect. He ravens brought flesh as well as bread I I .' 
 travelled much; at Milan he withstood bp. who surely would never have us^l r .! 
 Auxentius, the Arian predecessor of St. food. But it is not true th.it o > 
 Ambrose ; at Rome he was highly successful enumerat<-d bv F'hil.ister. but 
 in his defence of orthodoxy. Finally he Kpiphanius, are such as can l>r t 
 settled down at Brescia, where he is said to I for. When Augustine, .it 1. ■ 
 have been a model of all pastoral virtues. I his correspondent's re-i 
 The onlv details we have for dating his , treatise on heresies, he i: 
 episcopate or the duration of his life arc that of the 60 postChristi.iti ' 
 he took part as bp. of Brescia in a council at Fpiphanius. and then adb j h t \ 1 , m re 
 Aquileia in 381 (see its proceedings in the from Philastrius, remarking that thi» 4.1th. r 
 works of Ambrose, ii. 802, or p. «>35. Migne) ; gives others alv. but that he hiniwH d'*^ ii-t 
 and that he must have died bef'>rc 397. the reg.ird them as heresies . . . , . 
 
 year of Ambroses death, since that bishop The relation between I htUstrr and hplph- 
 interested himself in the appointment of his anius is imp-rntit »«- k!*' "i th- th~.rv "I 
 successor. St. Augustine mentions having l.ipsius. n. u " " .-- . v 
 
 seen Philaster at Milan in company with St. tis). that ' 
 Ambrose; this was probably some time v)ur.rnaii. 
 
 during 384-387. Possibly Philaster had been tus 1; • 
 
 commended to the church of Brescia by it i-- 
 Ambrose, who would know of his opposition dir. ■ • 
 to Auxentius. The notices of Phllaster in mighi 
 ecclesiastical writers arc collected in the Bol- ing l-'f i-iu. »arii> . » I n • 
 landist Life (AA. SS. July 18, vol. iv. p. 299)- Ij »» chron-aoglrally 1 
 He is now chiefly interesting as the author to have read the tre.tis/- 
 of a work on heresies, portioos of which, having appeared in 376 or 377- At 
 
 itadrr 
 
 whlrh 
 
 rrl.-l of 
 
840 
 
 PHILASTER 
 
 his life Philaster's work was written we cannot 
 tell. The notes of time in it are confusing. 
 He, or his transcriber, places his own date 
 (c. io6) over 400 years after Christ, and (c. 
 112) about 430. In c. 83 he speaks of the 
 Donatists, " qui Parmeniani nunc appellantur 
 a Parmenione quodam qui eorum nuper 
 successit erroribus et falsitati." Parmeni- 
 anus became Donatist bp. of Carthage c. 368, 
 and died in 391 ; and the "nuper" would lead 
 us to think that Philaster wrote early in this 
 episcopate. But the form Parmenio, if not 
 a transcriber's error, seems to shew that 
 Philaster knew little of African affairs. Lip- 
 sius suggests that Philaster mentions Praxeas 
 and Hermogenes as African heretics (c. 54), 
 because he got their names from Tertullian. 
 Philaster's anonymous heresy (c. 84) seems 
 plainly identified by Augustine (Haer. 70) 
 with Priscillianism, the breaking out of which 
 is dated in Prosper's Chrontcle a.d. 379. But 
 Philaster's silence as to the name Priscillian 
 seems to indicate an earlier date. 
 
 However, the complete independence of his 
 treatment shews that Philaster did not use 
 the work of Epiphanius. Eager as he was to 
 swell his list of heresies, he does not mention 
 the Archontici, Severiani, Encratitae, Pepu- 
 ziani, Adamiani, Bardesianistae, and others, 
 with whom Epiphanius would hav^e made him 
 acquainted ; and in the discussion of all 
 heresies later than Hippolytus, which are 
 common to Epiphanius and Philaster, the two 
 agree neither in matter nor in order of ar- 
 rangement. Hence Lipsius inferred that the 
 agreements as to earlier heresies must be 
 explained by the use of a common source. 
 This also accounts for a striking common 
 feature, viz. the enumeration by both of pre- 
 Christian heresies. Hegesippiis (see Eus. 
 H. E. iv. 22) had spoken of seven Jewish sects 
 (twi' iwTo. aipiaewu) and had given their 
 names ; and it would seem from the opening 
 of the tract of Pseudo-Tertullian that Hip- 
 polytus began his treatise by declining to 
 treat of Jewish heresies. His two successors 
 then might easily have been tempted to 
 improve on their original by including pre- 
 Christian heresies. 
 
 Concerning the N.T. canon, Philaster states 
 (c. 88) that it had been ordained by the 
 apostles and their successors that nothing 
 should be read in the Catholic church but the 
 law, the prophets, the Gospels, the Acts of 
 the Apostles, 13 Epistles of St. Paul, and the 
 seven other epistles which are joined to the Acts 
 of the Apostles. The omission of the Apoc- 
 alypse and Hebrews seems intended only to 
 exclude them from public church reading. 
 In c. 60 he treats as heretical the denial that 
 the Apocalypse is St. John's, and in c. 69 the 
 denial that the Ep. to the Hebrews is St. 
 Paul's. He accounts for difficulties as to the 
 reception of the latter as arising from its 
 speaking of our Lord as " made " (c. iii. 2), 
 and from the apparent countenance given to 
 Novatianism in vi. 4 ; x. 26. Consequently the 
 public reading of this epistle is not universal : 
 " [leguntur] tredecim epistolae ipsius, et ad 
 Hebraeos interdum." 
 
 The first printed ed. of Philaster appeared 
 at Basle in 1539 ; the most noteworthy subse- 
 quent edd. are by Fabricius in 1721, containing 
 
 PHILIPPUS 
 
 an improved text and a valuable commentary, 
 and by Galeardus in 1738, giving fromaCorbey 
 MS. now in St. Petersburg chapters on six 
 heresies, omitted in previous eds., but which 
 are required to make the total of 1 56 mentioned 
 by St. Augustine. This complete text has 
 been reprinted by Oehler in his Corpus 
 Haeresiologum, vol. i. The latest ed. is by 
 F. Marx, in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. 
 (Vienna, 1898). See also Zahn, Gesch. der 
 N.T. Kanons (1890), ii. i, p. 233. [g.s.] 
 
 Philippus (1), of Tralles, asiarch at the time 
 of the martyrdom of Polycarp. The historic 
 reality of this Philip has been confirmed by an 
 inscription found at Olympia, and Lightfoot 
 (Ignatius, i. 613) printed two new inscriptions 
 relating to him, and also by means of his full 
 name, Cains Julius Philippus, there given, 
 has assigned to him three other previously 
 known inscriptions. Philip is thus proved to 
 have been a well-known man of great wealth 
 and munificence. Lightfoot (u.s.) shews that 
 the date of his tenure of office indicated by 
 these inscriptions is quite reconcilable with 
 the date, otherwise determined, of Polycarp's 
 martyrdom, without need of recourse to the 
 perfectly admissible supposition, that Philip 
 held the office of asiarch more than once. 
 Concerning the office, see Lightfoot, ii. 990, 
 where it is shewn that the holder was " high- 
 priest of the province of Asia " and his tenure 
 of office to be probably four years. [g.s.] 
 
 Philippus (5), "the Arabian," emperor, a 
 native of Bostra in Trachonitis and a man 
 of low birth. Having been made pretorian 
 prefect he supplanted the younger Gordian 
 in the affections of the soldiers, and caused 
 him to be deposed and put to death in Mar. 
 244. After making peace with Sapor the 
 Persian king, he proceeded to Rome. In 248 
 the games to commemorate the thousandth 
 anniversary of the foundation of Rome were 
 celebrated with great splendour. In the 
 summer of 249 Philip was defeated by Decius 
 near Verona and slain. The authorities for 
 his reign are most meagre and conflicting. 
 The only thing that makes it important is 
 the report that he was the first Christian 
 emperor. The chief foundation for this is the 
 narrative which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 34) gives 
 without vouching for its truth, namely, that 
 Philip being a Christian wished at Easter to 
 join in the prayers with the congregation, but 
 that on account of the many crimes he had 
 committed the bishop of the place refused to 
 admit him imtil he had confessed and taken 
 his place among the penitents, and that he 
 willinglv obeyed. The name of the bishop is 
 supplied by Leontius, bp. of Antioch c. 348 
 (quoted in Chron. Pasch. 270, in Migne, Pair. 
 Gk. xcii. 668), who savs it was St. Babylas 
 of Antioch. We are also told that Origen 
 wrote to Philip and the empress (Ens. H. E. 
 vi. 36), but the letters are not preserved, nor 
 do we know their contents. St. Jerome also 
 (Chronicon and de Vir. III. 54) calls Philip the 
 first of all Christian emperors, in which he is 
 followed by Orosius ; and Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria (Eus. H. E. vii. 10) speaks of emperors 
 before Valerian who were reputed to be 
 Christians, but does not mention names. 
 Against this doubtful testimony must be set 
 the following: (i) Constantine is called by 
 
PHILIPPUS 
 
 Euscbius (I'l/. Cons. i. 3) the first Clirislian 
 emperor. (2) No event, except his alleged 
 penitence at Antiorh, is recorded of I'liilip 
 that implies he was a Christian. (3) He 
 celebrated the millennial games witli heathen 
 rites. (4) He deitied his i>redecess<ir, and was 
 himself deified after death. (5) No heathen 
 wTiter mentions that he was a Christian. (6) 
 A year before Decius issue<l his edict against 
 the Christians, and therefore while Philip was 
 still reisning, a violent persecution had broken 
 out at .Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 41). which 
 would not have been allowed to go on had the 
 emperor really been a Christian. It seems, 
 therefore, safer to conclude with Clinton 
 {Fasti Rom. ii. 51) that Philip was not a 
 Christian. Is there, then, anv foimdation for 
 the story of Philip and St Babylas ? Philip 
 may very possibly have been at Antioch at 
 Easter, a.d. 244, on his return to Rome after 
 Gordian's death, and perhaps feeling remorse 
 for the way he had treated Gordian and 
 believing that Babylas was able to purify him 
 from his guilt, may have made some applica- 
 tion to him, and this may be the origin of the 
 story ; but it seems impossible to say with 
 any certainty what parts of it, if any, are 
 genuine and what fictiti<ius. Philip was the 
 first emperor who tried to check the grosser 
 forms of vice at Rome (Lampridius, V. Helio- 
 gabali, 31 ; V. SfX'eri, 23), though his efforts 
 were unsuccessful (Victor, de Caesaribus, c. 28). 
 Zosimus. i. 18-22 ; Vila Gordiani Tertii, cc. 
 28-33 ; Tillcm. Mem. eccl. iii. 262 ; Gibbon, 
 cc. 7, 10. 16. [f.d.] 
 
 Phllippus (8), bp. of Heraclea in Thrace and 
 martyr in the Diocletian persecution c. 304 
 with Severus, a presbyter, and Hermes, a 
 deacon. His Acts present one of the most 
 vivid and minute pictures we possess of that 
 persecution, and are often quoted by Le Blanc 
 in his Actes des Martyrs — eg. pp. 12, 41, 52, 
 54, etc.. where many incidental marks of 
 authenticity are pointed out. The various 
 steps in the persecution can be clearly traced, 
 the arrest of the clergy, the seizure and de- 
 struction of the sacred writings and vessels, 
 and finally the torture and death of the mar- 
 tyrs. Philip was arrested and examined by 
 a president Bassus, who then committed him 
 to the free custody of one Pancratus (c. vii.). 
 Bassus was soon succeeded by a certain Jus- 
 tinus, who was much more stern towards the 
 Christians than his predecessor, whose wife 
 was a Christian. After some lime Justinus 
 brought them to Adrianople, and there burned 
 Philip and Hermes on the same day (Ruinart, 
 Acta Sincera, p. 442). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Phllippus (9), of Side, an ecclesiastical 
 historian at the commencement of 5th cent., 
 a native of the maritime town of Side in 
 Pamphylia, the birthplace of Troilus the 
 sophist, whose kinsman he was proud of 
 reckoning himself. We find Philip at Con- 
 stantinople enjoying the intimacy of Chry- 
 sostom, by whom he was admitted to the 
 diaconate. Tillcmont says that he was the 
 imitator of Chrvsostom's eloquence rather 
 than of his virtue's, and that the imitati.-n was 
 a very poor one. On the death of Atticus, 
 A.D. 425, by whom he had been ordained 
 presbyter, Philip was a candidate for the 
 vacant see, and found a number of influential 
 
 PHILO 
 
 Ml 
 
 supporters (Sf>rr. H. h vii xr). The prrfrr- 
 ing of Sixinniu^ r.»u»r<l hini ntrrenr itcrtth- 
 r.ition, wliirh hr rxhi><itr<t in hi* ( httxttam 
 
 Hislorv. intr>Hlu<ing a violrnl n' ■ '■ ■• « 
 
 the rharartrr b-ith of rlrrtrd 
 more partirul.irly the l.iv 
 Sisinnius. The bittrrnr^* and t 
 charges arc noticed l)y Socralrv 
 them undeserving mention in ! 
 2<>). Philip, when .ig.im » r.n. 
 after the death of Sisinnius, a i> <;■< in 1 n 
 the deposition of Nrst.iritu in 4 \t, had a r<in« 
 siderable and enrrgrtii following (ih. vii. 20. 
 3,s), but was unsurcrssful. and dlrtl a prr*- 
 byter. His chief work, entitled A < hnt. 
 tian Histor\\ was divided into \(t IxM.k* and 
 about a thousand chapters. It range*! fri-m 
 the creation to his own times. Hxrrpt one 
 or two fragments, the whole is l<»si. The 
 descriptions of it given by Sorr.itrs fift. 37) 
 and Photius [Cod. 3s) shew that its l->ss is n^t 
 to be regretted on literarv groun<!s. S'-rratrs 
 describes it as a medley of theorems in grome- 
 try. astronomv, arithmetic, and inusir, with 
 descriptions of islands, mountains, and trees, 
 and other matters of little moment. The 
 chrono|i)gical order of events was ronvt mtl-.- 
 disregarded. Photius's estimate is r; ' 
 low: "diffuse; neither wittv n'>r <!.,,: • 
 full of undigested learning, with verv ••' 
 bearing on history at all. still less on t Im m i:; 
 history." A fragment r<-lating t"> tht- - ' 1 
 of Alexandria and the sucression • 1 th-- 
 teachers has been printed by I)<Kiwell at the 
 close of his dissertations on Irenaeus {Oxt. 
 1680). Of this N'eander writes : " The known 
 untrustworthiness of this author; the 
 discrepancy between his statements and other 
 more authentic reports, and the suspicious 
 condition in which the fragment has Ci>me 
 down to us. render his details unworthv <<( 
 confidence " {Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p. 460, Clark's 
 trans.), .\nother considerable fragment is 
 reported to exist in the Imperial I.ibrarv at 
 Vienna, entitled de Chrislt Satmtale, ft dt 
 Magis. giving the acts of a disputation held 
 in Persia concerning Christianity between 
 certain Persians and Christians, at which 
 Philip was himself present. Tillem. Mim. eat. 
 xii. 431 ; Hist, des empereurs, vi. 130; Cave, 
 Hist. Lot. i. 305 ; Fabric. Bibl. Grate, vl. 
 112. lib. v. c. 4. 5 28. 'I V 
 
 Phllo (2), deacon. Among tt' 
 genuineness of the Ignatian lelt 
 is the fact that we obtain t t' 
 sistent story on pierin.- • 
 n>)tices about obscure 
 deacons are mentionetl, I 
 
 Rhcius .\gath<>pus from .s 
 
 Smvrn. 10, 13) VVe find thai 
 had nr)t started with Ignatius, b 
 afterwards, taking the same r 
 Philadelphia, where Ignatius l.iiu.-:: 
 encounteretl heretical oppo»ttioii. »< n ■ ' ! 
 treated them also with contumelv , lli it •■' • ■ 
 had been too late to overtake the %n ,! ■( 
 Sinvrna. but had Iwscn kinrllv mtrrlaiiiri ) •, 
 the church there. Finillv, thrv wrrr ...... 
 
 Ignatius at Troas. and ft 
 he rcreive<i the joyful n> ' 
 the church of Syria hi 1 
 
 departure. The cIcarnrA, .<..;.. « ;.. 
 
 whole story comc« out from oblique infermcc* 
 
842 
 
 PHILOGONIUS 
 
 is evidence that we have here a true history 
 (Lightfoot's Ignatius, i. 334, ii. 279). 
 
 It was no doubt the mention in the genuine 
 epistles of this Philo from Cilicia that sug- 
 gested to Pseudo-Ignatius to forge a letter in 
 the name of the martyr to the church of Tar- 
 sus, and to specify that city as the place where 
 Philo served as deacon. [g.s.] 
 
 Philogonlus, bp. of Antioch. 22nd in suc- 
 cession, following Vitalis c. 319. He affords 
 an example of a layman, a husband, and a 
 father being raised at once, like Ambrose at 
 Milan, to the episcopate of his city. He had 
 been an advocate in the law courts, and gained 
 universal esteem by his powerful advocacy of 
 the poor and oppressed, " making the wronged 
 stronger than the wronger." The few facts 
 known of his history are gathered from a 
 homily delivered at Antioch by Chrysostom 
 on his Natalitia (Chrys. Oral. 71, t. v. p. 507, 
 ed. Savile). Chrysostom comments upon the 
 great difficulties (bvcrKoXiaC) Philogonius met 
 with at the commencement of his episcopate 
 from the persecution which had so recently 
 ceased, and says that his highest eulogy is the 
 pure and flourishing condition in which he 
 left the church. The earliest ecclesiastical 
 building in Antioch, " the mother of all the 
 churches in the city," traditionally ascribed 
 to apostolic times, the rebuilding of which had 
 been begun by Vitalis, was finished by him 
 (Theod. H. E. i. 3). He was denounced by 
 Arius as one of his most determined oppo- 
 nents (ih. 5). He was succeeded by Paulinus, 
 the Arianizing bp. of Tyre, c. 323. He is called 
 Philonicus by Eutychius (p. 431), who assigns 
 him 5 years of office (Tillcm. Mem. eccl. t. vi. 
 p. 194 ; Neale, Patr. of Ant. p. 84). [e.v.] 
 
 PhllostorgiUS, a Cappadocian, born c. 368, 
 and author of a church history extending from 
 300 to 425. The greater part has perished, 
 but some fragments have been preserved by 
 Photius. They were published by Godefrid 
 at Geneva in 1642, and by Valesius, with a 
 Latin trans, and notes, at Paris in 1673. An 
 English trans, by Walford appeared in 1855. 
 Photius regarded both author and book with 
 worse than contempt. The style he allows to 
 be sometimes elegant, though more frequently 
 marked by stiffness, coldness, and obscurity. 
 The contents he treats as unworthy of reliance, 
 often beginning his extracts by denouncing 
 the author as an " enemy of God," an 
 " impious wretch," an " impudent liar." 
 Even Gibbon, naturally inclined as he was to 
 accept the statements of a heretic in preference 
 to those of an orthodox theologian, is com- 
 pelled to allow that " the credibility of Philos- 
 torgius is lessened, in the eyes of the orthodox, 
 by his Arianism ; and, in those of rational 
 critics, by his passion, his prejudice, and his 
 ignorance " {Hist. c. xxi.). Gibbon thinks 
 that he appears to have obtained " some 
 curious and authentic intelligence " (c. xxv.), 
 yet was niarked in making use of it by " cau- 
 tious malice " (c. xxiii.). These unfavourable 
 opinions are shared by Tillemont {Hist. vol. iv. 
 p. 281), and, though with some just expres- 
 sions as to what might have been the value 
 of his history had it been preserved, by Jortin 
 {Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 122) and Schrockh (vol. 
 i. p. 148). All existing evidence leads to the 
 belief that the history of Philostorgius was 
 
 PHILOXENUS 
 
 less a fair statement of what he had seen and 
 known than a panegyric upon the heretics of 
 his time. [w.m.] 
 
 Philoxenus (4) {Xenaias), a conspicuous 
 leader of the Monophysites at the beginning 
 of 6th cent. He shares with Severus of 
 Antioch, the true scientific head of the pre- 
 viously leaderless party of the Acephali, the 
 reputation of having originated the Jacobite 
 form of Monophysitism, which was long 
 supreme in Egypt and is still adopted by the 
 Copts. Our knowledge of Philoxenus comes 
 almost exclusively from his theological 
 opponents, against whom he was engaged in a 
 determined and not very scrupulous warfare. 
 Much that is stated to his discredit admits 
 of reasonable doubt. Some stories we may 
 absolutely reject. We know him as an acute 
 dialectician, a subtle theologian, and a zealous 
 and uncompromising champion of the unity 
 of the nature of Christ against what he re- 
 garded as the heresy of the two natures, and 
 as one to whose desire for a faithful rendering 
 of N.T. the church is indebted for what is 
 known as the " Philoxenian Syriac Version." 
 We soon find him in Syria, where, having 
 accepted the Henoticon and the Twelve 
 Chapters of Cyril, he proved an active op- 
 ponent of all Nestorianizers and a zealous 
 propagator of Monophysite views in the coun- 
 try villages round Antioch. Calandio, the 
 patriarch of Antioch, expelled him from 
 his diocese. He was recalled by Peter the 
 Fuller, who ordained him bp. of Hierapolis 
 ( Mabug) in place of the more orthodox Cyrus, 
 c. 485. During Peter's turbulent rule Philo- 
 xenus actively supported his measures for 
 suppressing the Nestorianizing section of the 
 church and establishing Eutychian or Mono- 
 physite doctrines in his patriarchate and 
 generally in the East. The accession in 498 
 of the vacillating Flavian to the throne of 
 Antioch, and his change of front from opposi- 
 tion to support of Chalcedon, led Philoxenus 
 to adopt a more active line of conduct (Evagr. 
 H. E. iii. 31), pursuing Flavian with untiring 
 animosity, endeavouring to force him to 
 accept the Henoticon, on his refusal denounc- 
 ing him as a concealed Nestorian, demanding 
 that he should repudiate not only Nestorius 
 but all who were regarded as sympathizing 
 with him, Diodorus, Theodorus, Theodoret, 
 and many others, repeatedly denouncing him 
 to the emperor Anastasius, and at last accom- 
 plishing his deprivation and expulsion. [Fla- 
 viANUs OF Antioch.] In pursuance of his 
 object Philoxenus more than once visited 
 Constantinople. The first time was at the 
 summons of Anastasius, a.d. 507. His 
 arrival caused a great disturbance among the 
 clergy, laity, and monastic bodies. To con- 
 sult the peace of the city, the emperor was 
 compelled to remove him secretly (Theophan. 
 p. 128 ; Victor. Tunun. sub. ann. 499). Un- 
 able in any other way to secure the deposition 
 of Flavian and his supporter Elias of Jeru- 
 salem, Philoxenus obtained from Anastasius 
 an order for convening a synod ostensibly to 
 define more exactly the points of faith, but 
 really to remove the two obnoxious prelates. 
 This synod of about 80 bishops met at Sidon 
 early in 512, under the joint presidency of 
 Philoxenus and Soterichus of the Cappadocian 
 
PHILOXENUS 
 
 Caesarea. FoeliiiK r.iu so high and so much 
 endaugiTcd the public pi-acc that the svnotl 
 was broken up by the oinperor's roininaiul 
 without pronouncing any scntonro {I.abbo, iv. 
 1413 ; Theophan. p. 131; I'tt. S. Sab. ap. 
 Coteler, Man. Eccl. Orate, iii. 297 JT.)- In thr 
 subsequent proceedings, when rival b<Hiics <i( 
 monks poured down from the mountain 
 ranges into the streets oi Antiixh. and were 
 joined by ditlerent parties among the citizens, 
 converting the city into a scene oj uproar and 
 bloodshed (Evagr. H. E. iii. t,2), I'hiloxenus 
 was left practically master of the held. 
 Flavian was banished, and the Monophvsite 
 Severus, the friend and associate of Philo- 
 xenus, was put in his place towards the close 
 of 51; (ib. iii. 33). The triumph of I'hilo- 
 xenus, however, was but short. In 518 
 Anastasius was succeeded by the more 
 orthodox Justin, who immediately on his 
 accession, declaring himself an adherent of 
 Chalcedon, restored the expelled orthcxlox 
 bishops and banished the heterodox. Philo- 
 xenus is said to have been banished to Philip- 
 popolis in Thrace (Asseman. liibl. Orient, u. 
 19 ; Theophan. p. 141 ; Chron. Edess. 87), 
 and thence to tiangra in Paphlagonia, where 
 he died of suffocation by smoke (Bar-heb. ii. 
 56). He is commemorated by the Jacobites 
 in their liturgy as a doctor and confessor. 
 
 The Syriac translation of N.T. known as 
 the " Philoxeniaa Version," subsequently 
 revised by Thomas of Harkel, in which form 
 alone we possess it, was executed in 508 at 
 his desire by his chorepiscopus Polycarp 
 {Moses Agnclius, ap. Asseman. Bibl. Ortent. 
 ii. 83 ; ib. i. 408). It is extremely literal ; 
 " the S>Tiac idiom is constantly bent to suit 
 the Greek, and everything is in some manner 
 expressed in the Greek phrase and order " 
 ( Westcott in Smith's D. B. vol. iii. p. 1635 b). 
 
 Philoxenus and Severus were the authors 
 of the dominant form of Monophysitc doctrines 
 which, while maintaining the unity of the 
 natures of Christ, endeavoured to preserve a 
 distinction between the divine and the human. 
 This doctrine is laid down in eight proposi- 
 tions at variance with the tenets of the early 
 Christians, whom he stigmatized as Phan- 
 tasiasts. Christ was the Son of Man, i.e. Son 
 of the yet unfallen man, and the Logos took 
 the bodv and soul of man as thcv were before 
 Adam's'fall. The very personality of God the 
 Word descended from heaven and became 
 man in the womb uf the Virgin, personally 
 without conversion. Thus He became a man 
 Who could be seen, felt, handled, and yet as 
 God He continued to possess the spiritual, 
 invisible, impalpable character essential to 
 Deity. Neither the deity nor the humanity 
 was absorbed one bv the other, nor converted 
 one into the other. Nor again was a third 
 evolved by a combination of the two natures 
 as bv chemical transformation. They taught 
 one nature constituted out of two, not simple 
 but twofold, /xi'a <pvaii avvOtTW. or ^>■la. <pi-<Ji% 
 SiTTT). The one Person of the Incarnate Word 
 was not a duality but a unity. The same Son 
 Who was one before the Incarnation was 
 equally one when united to the body. In all 
 said, done, or suffered by Christ, there was 
 only one and the same (iod the Word. VV ho 
 became man, and took on Himself the condl- 
 
 PHOCAS 
 
 MS 
 
 tion <if want an<l *u(lritni{, n.>t naturally but 
 vohmt.irilv, for xUr an onipluhmrni o| man'* 
 rrdrmpliMii. It |o||..wr<l ihjl (.<kI thr Word 
 Miflrretl and died, and n^-l mrfrlv 4 Ixwiv 
 distinct (ron> <>r ol>c<ltrnt to Hun. <>r in which 
 He dwelt, but with which He wat n<>( onr. 
 Their view as to the pergonal work o| ( hr»*l 
 is briefly sttminrtl up in the Tho.ipjtchit*' 
 formula. " unu^ e Trinitale dr^rndll do 
 cocio, inrarnatus r«l. rrunfixu*. morluu*. 
 resvirrexit. ascrndil in carhiin." I'hiloxrnu* 
 held that " potuit non nion," not that "' n'-n 
 potuit inori." It followed that hr ^(firnirtl 
 a single will in Chri>t. In Ihr Kurharut he 
 held that the living b.xlv ..| the living <i.«l 
 was received, not anything br|onginK t" « 
 corruptible man like ourvlve*. He W4» 
 tl<cidedlv oppoM-d to all pictorial fprevnla- 
 tions of' Christ, as well as i>l all »pirilU4l 
 beings. No true honour, he !u»id, wa» done 
 to Christ by making picture* of Hun. Mnre 
 His only acceptable worship was that in »|>irU 
 and in truth. To depict the H-'lv Spirit a» a 
 dove was puerile. I-t it is said economirally 
 that He was seen in the likrnr*s, n"^ in the 
 bodv, of a dove. It was contrary to reav>n 
 to represent angels, luirrly spiritual l>einK», 
 by human bodies. He acted up to the** 
 
 opinions and blotted out pictures "i angrU. 
 removing out of sight those of t hrist (]<>ann. 
 
 i Diaconus, de Eccl. Hut. ap. I.ablw. vii. 369). 
 
 He was a very copious writer, and described 
 
 bv ,\ssemaiii as one of the l>rst and in<>*l 
 
 1 elegant in the Svrian tongue (Btbl. Ortent. 
 i. 475 ; ii. 20). .\ssem.uii gives a catalogue 
 
 I of 23' of his works. To these niav Iw added 
 13 homilies i>n Christian life an<i charactrr 
 (Wright. 764); 12 chapters against the 
 holders of the Two Wills (16. 730. 749) : •© 
 against those who divided Christ (16. 73o)- 
 livagr. H. E. iii. 31. 32 ; The .d. Left, fragm. 
 p. 369; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. i n. 12S, 
 120". 131, 141 ; Labbe, iv. 1153, vii. «8. ^68 ; 
 Tillem. Mem. eccl. xvi. 677-681. 701-706; Sean- 
 der, H. E. iv. 2^«i. Clark's trans. ; (.ie*eler, 
 //. E. ii. 94 : Schr<j< kh. Ktrch. Geschuk. xviii. 
 S26-538; Dorner. Penon of ( hrul. div. if. 
 vol. "i. pp. 13V135. Clark's trans. [r.v.] 
 
 Pboeas, of Sinope. a celebrated inart>T, ol 
 
 I wh<iin verv little is actually known and wh«»*e 
 real date is uncertain. Coin»>efi* place* his 
 martyrdom in the last years of Trijin. hut 
 Tillemont considers a later 
 either that of Pecius or that 
 more probable. Uur sole know !• 
 
 , is from an or.ition in his honom ; 
 
 I of Amasea. He states that Ph-^-s *-s 411 
 honest and in<lustriou» gardriirr at Sui'-|>e. 
 a convert to Chrislianitv. and excerdliiKly 
 
 ; hospitabl.- to strangers. Hring denounced u 
 a Christian and sentenced to death, a party 
 of soldiers was drspatchr<l to Siii'i • t • ■ .nrv 
 the sentence inl') execution. I'l 
 ably entertained them, and ' 1. 
 their mission forlx.re to r^' Ay 
 easily have doiir. and, 
 vihvzc they c.-nld find l! 
 known to them and wa» . 
 His trunk was burird in ...... 
 
 lor himsril. over which a c hui 
 quently built. Hit rrlic* wirr 
 miracles that he obtainetl the n i 
 
 I maturgiu. Hi» b«xly w*» liau>lcxica to 
 
844 
 
 PHOTINUS 
 
 Constantinople with great magnificence in 
 the time of Chrysostom, who delivered a 
 homily on the occasion (Horn. 71, t. i. p. 775). 
 A monastery was subsequently built on the 
 spot, in which his relics were deposited, the 
 abbats of which are often mentioned in early 
 times (Du Cange, Constant. Christ, lib. iv. 
 p. 133). Gregory Nazianzen mentions Phocas 
 as a celebrated disciple of Christ (Carm. 52, 
 t. ii. p. 122). That he was bp. of Sinope is a 
 late invention. Some of his relics were said 
 to be translated to the Apostles' Church at 
 Vienne. He was the favourite saint of the 
 Greek sailors, who were in the habit of making 
 him a sharer at their meals, the portion set 
 apart for him daily being purchased by some 
 one, and the money put aside and distributed 
 to the poor on their arrival at port. He is 
 commemorated by the modern Greeks on 
 two days, July 22 and Sept. 22. The former 
 day may be that of his translation (Tillem. 
 Mem. eccl. v. 581). [e.v.] 
 
 Photinus, a Galatian, educated by Mar- 
 cellus of Ancyra and afterwards deacon and 
 presbyter of his church, perhaps too (during 
 the time when Marcellus, expelled from his 
 own see, a.d. 336, was wandering about 
 between Rome and Constantinople) trans- 
 ferred to the see of Sirmium. He made no 
 secret of the doctrines he had imbibed from 
 his master, and succeeded in obtaining a 
 hearing for them. The Eusebians at Antioch, 
 in their lengthiest formula, three years after 
 the Encoenia, were the first to attack him, 
 classing him with his preceptor. He was next 
 attacked at Milan, then the imperial capital ; 
 by the same party soon after at Sardica 
 (D. C. A. "Councils of Milan " and "Councils 
 of Sirmium") ; and two years later another 
 and larger synod decreed his deposition. 
 Moderns are not agreed where this synod met, 
 but St. Hilary, beyond any reasonable doubt, 
 fixes it at Sirmium (Fragm. ii. n. 21 ; cf. 
 Larroque, Diss. i. de Phot. pp. 76 seq.), being 
 the first of the councils held there, a.d. 349 
 (Larroque says 350). Constantius being 
 absent when sentence was first passed on 
 Photinus in his own city, the popularity he 
 had gained there stood him in good stead, in 
 spite of his avowed opinions, which Socrates 
 tells us he would never disclaim. He re- 
 mained in possession till 351, when a second 
 council having assembled there by order of 
 the emperor, then present in person, he was 
 taken in hand by Basil, the successor of his 
 master at Anc\Ta, and having been signally 
 refuted by him in a formal dispute, was put 
 out of his see forthwith. Hefele thinks he 
 may have regained it under Julian for a short 
 time, but was again turned out under 
 Valentinian, to return no more ; and dates 
 his death a.d. 366 (Counc. ii. 199). For a 
 collection of authorities on the chronological 
 difficulties in connexion with his history, see a 
 note to Hefele's Councils (Oxenham's trans, 
 ii. 188-189). [e.s.ff.] 
 
 Photlus, bp. of Tyre, and metropolitan, 
 elected on the deposition of Irenaeus, Sept. 9, 
 448. He is imfavourably known for cowardly 
 tergiversation in the case of Ibas of Edessa. 
 Under the powerful influence of Uranius of 
 Himera, he and his fellow-judges first acquitted 
 Ibas at Tyre and Berytus, and the next year 
 
 PINIANUS 
 
 at the " Robber Synod " of Ephesus zealously 
 joined in his condemnation (Martin, Le Bri- 
 gandage d'Ephese, pp. 118- 120, 181). At the 
 same synod he accused Acylinus, bp. of Byblos, 
 of Nestorianism and with refusing to appear 
 before him and Domnus, the real ground 
 of offence being manifestly that he had been 
 appointed by Irenaeus. On Photius's state- 
 ment alone Acylinus was at once deposed. 
 Photius at the same time undertook to clear 
 Phoenicia of all clergy tainted with Nestori- 
 anism (Martin, u.s. p. 183 ; Actes du bri- 
 gandage, pp. 86-89). With easy versatility 
 Photius took his place among the orthodox 
 prelates at Chalcedon, regularly voted on the 
 right side, signed the decisions of the council, 
 voted for the restoration of Theodoret to his 
 bishopric, presented a resume of the pro- 
 ceedings at Berytus favourable to Ibas, and 
 signed the 28th canon conferring on Constan- 
 tinople the same primacy, wpfa^ela. as that 
 enjoyed by Rome (Labb'e, iv. 79, 328, 373, 
 623, 635, 803). At the same time, after pre- 
 senting a petition to Marcian {ib. 541), he 
 obtained a settlement of the controversy be- 
 tween himself and Eustathius of Berytus as 
 to nietropolitical jurisdiction, in favour of the 
 ancient rights of the see of Tyre, together with 
 a reversal of Eustathius's act of deposition of 
 the bishops ordained by Photius, within the 
 district claimed by the former {ib. 542-546 ; 
 Canon. Chalc. 29). ' Photius was no longer bp. 
 of Tyre in 457, when Dorotheus replied to the 
 encyclical of the emperor Leo. Labbe, iv. 
 921; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 443; Ceillier, Aut. 
 eccl. xiv. 271, etc. ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. vol. xv. 
 index ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. 678 ; Le Quien, 1 
 
 Or. Christ, ii. 808). [e.v.] I 
 
 Pierius (Hierius). An eminent presbyter 
 of Alexandria, famous for voluntary poverty, 
 philosophical knowledge, and public expo- 
 sitions of Holy Scripture. He ruled the cate- 
 chetical school of Alexandria under bp. i_ 
 Theonas, a.d. 265, and afterwards lived at 
 Rome. He wrote several treatises extant in St. 
 Jerome's time, and some were known as late 
 as that of Photius. One was a homily upon 
 Hosea, which he recited on Easter Eve, wherein 
 he notes that the people continued in church 
 on Easter Eve till after midnight. Photius 
 mentions a work on St. Luke's Gospel as part 
 of a volume by him, divided into 12 books. 
 From his eloquence he was called the younger 
 Origen. Photius declares that he was ortho- 
 dox about the Father and the Son, though 
 using the words substance and nature to 
 signify person. But his manner of speaking 
 about the Holy Ghost was unorthodox, be- 
 cause he said that His glory was less than that 
 of the Father and the Son. In the time of 
 Epiphanius there was a church at Alexandria 
 dedicated in his honour. Some have there- 
 fore thought that he suffered martyrdom in 
 Diocletian's persecution. Eus. vii. 32; Hieron. 
 Vir. III. c. 76 ; id. Ep. 70 al. 84, § 4, p. 429 ; 
 id. Praefat. in Osee ; Photius, Cod. 119; Niceph. 
 Call. H. E. vi. 35 ; Du Pin, H. E. cent. iii. ; 
 Ceillier, ii. 462 ; Tillem. Mem. iv. 582. [g.t.s.] 
 
 PInianUS (2), the husband of Melania the 
 younger. Palladius speaks of him as son of 
 a prefect (Vit. Patr. 119). He and his wife 
 entertained Palladius of Helenopolis when he 
 came to Rome on Chrysostom's affairs {Hist. 
 
PIONIUS 
 
 Laus. 12 1). Thev U-fi Koim- in 40S. whni the 
 siege by Alaric was iinpi-iidiUK- Mtl.mi.i tlic 
 eider having died at Bethlchenj. they inherited 
 her vast estates. They were intent i>n dmnj; 
 good and are said to have hberated ft. 000 
 slaves (16. iiy). After the sa.k o( K..nie in 
 410 they setth'd in .\friia at la^iasle with ».i<. 
 Alypius and desired to meet Au^'ustine. lie 
 immediately wrote to welcome them {hp. 1 J4). 
 but was unable to come to them, so thev went 
 with Alypius to Hippo. There the strange 
 scene, so instructive as to the church life of 
 the period, occurred, which is recounted by 
 Augustine (£/>. 126). The clergy and people 
 of Hippo, knowing their wealth, determined 
 that they should, by the ordination of Pini- 
 anus, become attached to their church and 
 city. A tumult was raised in the church, and 
 though Augustine refused to ordain a man 
 against his will, he was unable, or not firm 
 enough, to resist the violence of the people, 
 who extracted from Pinianus a promise that 
 he would not leave Hijipo nor be ordained in 
 any other church. Next day, however, fear- 
 ing further violence, he, with Melania and her 
 mother Albina, returned to Tagaste. Some 
 rather acrimonious correspondence ensued be- 
 tween them and .\ugustine (Ep. 125-12S). 
 Alypius considered that a promise extorted by 
 violence was not valid, Augustine demanded 
 that it should be fulfilled; and the con- 
 troversy lasted until, by the rapacity of the 
 rebel count Heraclian. Pinianus was robbed 
 of his property, and the people of Hippo no 
 longer cared to enforce the promise. Being 
 now free, though poor, Pinianus. with his wife 
 and mother-in-law. went to Egypt, saw the 
 monasteries of the Thebaid, and thence to 
 Palestine, settling at Bethlehem. On the ap- 
 pearance of the Pelagian controversy, their 
 letters to Augustine induced him to write 
 (a.d. 417) his book on grace and original sin. 
 We only hear of Pinianus after this in a letter 
 of Jerome in 419, in which he, Albina, and 
 Melania, salute Augustine and Alypius. 
 Hieron. Ep. cxliii. 2, ed. Vail. ; Aug. de 
 Grat. Christi, ii. and xxxii. [w.ii.f.] 
 
 Plonlus, martyr at Sm\Tna, in the Decian 
 perse( uti'ii, Mar. 12, 250. It was probably 
 this Pionius who revived the cullus of Polv- 
 CARP in Smyrna, by recovering an an< lent MS. 
 mart> rdom of that saint and fixing the day of 
 commemoration in accf»rdance with it. 
 
 When taken to prison, Pionius and his 
 companions, Asclipiades and Sabina, found 
 there already another Catholic presbyter, 
 named Lemnus, and a Montanist woman 
 named Macedonia. The divisi'jns of the 
 Christian community were now well known to 
 their persecutors for in the examinations of 
 the martyrs those who owned themselves 
 Christians were always further interrogated .is 
 to what church or sect they belonged. The 
 Acts give a long report of exhortations de- 
 livered by Pionius to his f ell.. w- prisoners. 
 With Picjiiius suffered a .Man.ionite presbyter 
 Metrodorus, the stakes of both being turned 
 to the east, Pionius on the right, Metro- 
 dorus on the left. The .\rts are iinportant 
 on account of their undoubted antiquity. Wc 
 only know them by a Latin translation, of 
 which two tvpes are extant — one which M-em* 
 more faithfully to represent the oritjinal, 
 
 n08 L 84A 
 
 publUhrU by Surlu% 411.I rrptinfr.l l.v ihr |» ,|. 
 uudi.st<t (Feb. i) . t (.;.» 
 
 StH<era, p. nri « ,. 
 
 cortainlv read b\ 1 
 givi'S a drM riptioii .1 in. 
 agrees too often with th 
 Arts to br intriulrd. 
 
 reprevnts Pioimu u» s 
 
 time as Polvcarp. whih- : 
 
 hiin a century later, a 
 
 Paschal IhronuU. whi< h 
 
 in the Decian pervi iition, ^ud t..,iiiiiii4> . 1 . 
 ! internal evidence. On the l.lfc o| P'l. .4t;> 
 j ascribed to Pionius, »<^ PoLVCAiir. I f. /aim. 
 { Fonchuni^fn lur Gtitk. dtr S.F. Kan-^nx 
 
 : IV. 271. (o.t.) 
 
 ! PIu$ I., bp. of Rome after Mveinin in thn 
 middle part of 2nd cent. Thr ' 
 be fixed with ccrtamtv, the ti 
 contradictt>ry. The LilM-rian 1 
 the Fehcian both name Anti>ni: 
 
 I 161) as the contemporary m.; 
 Kusebius (//. £. iv. 11). I.ii 
 der rum. liischof.), after full div . 
 
 ! chronology, assigns from 1 jg to JS4 a<. the 
 earliest, and fr >ni 141 to 15'> a» the Utr^l, 
 tenable dates The absence of distinrt r.irly 
 records of the early Roman bishop* w w.-.'.y, r 
 shewn by the fact that both the I.it»rri 1 , ! 
 Felician Catalogues place .Anicetui |..t.v n 
 Hyginus and Pius. So also Optatus 11 ♦'^i 
 and Augustine (Ep. 5^. ordo notm). But th.it 
 the real order w.is llyginus, Pius, .\m<rtiii. 
 may be considered certain Iroin the aulhontv 
 of Hegesijipus (tjuoted bv V.ws. H. E. iv. 22), 
 who was at Rome hiins<-lf in the time of 
 .\nicetus, and, when there, made out 4 mh - 
 cession of the Roman bishops. Irena<v. ' 
 visited Rome in the time of Hlruthrni 
 the same order (adv. Haet. in. 3 ; cf. I . 1. 
 II ; V . 24 ; Epipb. adv. Haer. xxvii. (>). 
 
 The episcopate of Pius is important for the 
 introduction of (inostic heresy into Roinek 
 The heresiarchs Valeiitinus and Cerdo had 
 come thither in the time .>f Hvginus and con- 
 tinued to teach there under Plus (Irrri 1 27, 
 ii. 4; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. ni. Mar. i •. f 
 Pontus, who took up the trarhing o| 1 
 and dcvelope<l from it his own peculiar - 
 arrived there after thr death of H.«.:.^» 
 (Epiph. Haer. xlii. i ; cf. Eu*. H. E. iv. ii». 
 
 Pius, according to the .Mikatohia.s Fmac,- 
 ME.NT (c. 170) and the I.iberian Calaloicur. was 
 brother to Hekmas. the writer .if the Skrp- 
 herd. I.ipsius (op. ctl.) considers thi* re- 
 
 j lationship i-stablishcd. Wr^t. tt < .m n of 
 
 I A'.r. pt. i. c. 2) accepts It. ai. ' 
 
 ! ternal evidentc in the w.irk oi : 
 
 I Th'>se wh.> inaint.un th^ virw 
 terian c.instituti'.n ' *' ' 
 
 and of the earh' 
 
 I been in fact onlv 1 
 
 a distinct epis* ••;... 
 
 assigned by way of ttaciiiK ilir su. ■ ■ - • .. 
 would attribute the devrlopinrnt ■! t!'" 
 
 I later epi-u-.-pal »v%t. in t . tlir .«^r 1 1 . 
 Thus I.ipsius si- 
 bishop in thr stri< (' 
 
 [Sinn"). He supi' 1 
 
 to have pre<nil«l ..\.t tl.r . 
 
 ' ter*. though onlv a« ^nmt tntf 
 need of a rrr.icnucd hrad •>! ; 
 resist Liu.itUc icafhcn to ha\c ir 11 u.w 
 
846 
 
 PLACIDIA 
 
 latter obtaining a position of authority which, 
 after his time, became permanent. The ad- 
 vocates of this view adduce passages from 
 the Shepherd of Hermas, in which messages 
 are sent in rebuke of strifes for precedence 
 among the Christians at Rome {Vis. iii. 9; 
 Mandat. ix. ; Simil. viii. 7). These strifes are 
 assumed to denote the beginning of struggles 
 for episcopal power in the supposed later sense. 
 But there is no evidence in the passages of 
 the strifes having anything to do with such 
 struggles. [Hermas.] 
 
 More cogent is the fact that, in the account 
 given by Epiphanius of Marcion's arrival in 
 Rome, he is represented as having applied for 
 communion to the presbyters, without men- 
 tion of the bishop. Those to whom he applied, 
 and who gave judgment, are called " the 
 seniors (irpea^vTai), who, having been taught 
 by the disciples of the apostles, still survived " 
 (adv. Haer. xlii. i) ; also " the presbyters 
 (irpfff^vTepoi) of that time" {ib. c. 2) ; also 
 iirieiK€ts Kal Travdyioi Trpeff^uTepoi Kal Si5d- 
 ffKuXoi T7}{ dyias eKK\rjaias. But these ex- 
 pressions do not disprove the existence of a 
 presiding bishop, acting in and through his 
 synod, who would himself be included in the 
 designation 7r/3c<T/3(7Tepot. For it was not 
 till some time after the apostolic period that 
 the names iirljKOTroi and wpeajStjTepos were 
 used distinctively to denote two orders of 
 clergy. Even Irenaeus, though enumerating 
 the bishops of Rome from the first as distinct 
 from the general presbytery, still speaks of 
 them as presbyters ; using in one place (iii. 2, 
 2) the phrase " successiones presbyterorum," 
 though in another (iii. 3, i and 2) " succes- 
 siones episcoporum." Cf. iv. 26, 2, 3, 5 ; v. 
 20, 2 ; and Ep. ad Victorem {ap. Eus. v. 24) ; 
 where the bishops before Soter are called 
 TrpeffjivTfpoi ol irpo(7TdvT€i rrjs eKKXrjcrla^. Ter- 
 tullian also (Apol. c. 39) calls bishops and 
 presbyters together seniores. Moreover, the 
 omission by Epiphanius of any mention of a 
 head of the Roman presbytery at the time of 
 Marcion's visit may be due to a vacancy in the 
 see. For it is said to be after the death of 
 Hyginus, with no mention of Pius having suc- 
 ceeded. In such circumstances the college of 
 presbyters would naturally entertain the case. 
 Certainly very soon after the period before us, 
 both Pius and his predecessors from the first 
 were spoken of as having been bishops (how- 
 ever designated) in a distinctive sense, and 
 Anicetus, the successor of Pius, appears his- 
 torically as such on the occasion of Polycarp's 
 visit to Rome (Iren. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24). 
 
 Four letters and several decrees are assigned 
 to Pius, of which the first two letters (to all 
 the faithful and to the Italians) and the 
 decrees are universally rejected as spurious. 
 The two remaining letters, addressed to 
 Justus, bp. of Vienne, are accepted as genuine 
 by Baronius, Binius, and Bona, but have no 
 real claims to authenticity. [j.B — y.] 
 
 Plaoidla (1), empress. [Galla.] 
 
 Poemen (l), {Uoi/xvv, Pastor), a famous 
 anchorite of Egj'pt. He retired very young 
 into the monasteries of Scete c. 390, and con- 
 tinued there 70 years, dying c. 460. His Life 
 occupies much space in Rosweyd's Vitae 
 Patrum, v. 15, in Patr, Lat. t. Ixxiii. and in 
 
 POLYCARPUS 
 
 Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Graec. t. i. pp. 585-637, 
 The anecdotes in the last-mentioned authority 
 give the best idea of the man. He treated his 
 aged mother with neglect, refusing to see her 
 when she sought him. His solitary life des- 
 troyed all feelings of human nature. His 
 story is concisely told in Ceillier, viii. 468-470, 
 and Tillemont, Mem. xv. 147. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Polycarpus (1), bp- of Smyrna, one of the 
 most prominent figures in the church of the 
 2nd cent. He owes this prominence less to 
 intellectual ability, which does not appear to 
 have been pre-eminent, than to the influence 
 gained by a consistent and unusually long life. 
 Born some 30 years before the end of the ist 
 cent., and raised to the episcopate apparently 
 in early manhood, he held his office to the age 
 of 86 or more. He claimed to have known at 
 least one apostle and must in early life have 
 met many who could tell things they had 
 heard from actual disciples of our Lord. The 
 younger generation, into which he lived on, 
 naturally recognized him as a peculiarly 
 trustworthy source of information concerning 
 the first age of the church. During the later 
 years of his life Gnostic speculation had be- 
 come very active and many things unknown to 
 the faith of ordinary Christians were put forth 
 as derived by secret traditions from the 
 apostles. Thus a high value was attached to 
 the witness Polycarp could give as to the 
 genuine tradition of apostolic doctrine, his 
 testimony condemning as offensive novelties 
 the figments of the heretical teachers. Ire- 
 naeus states (iii. 3) that on Polycarp's visit 
 to Rome his testimony converted many dis- 
 ciples of Marcion and Valentinus. Polycarp 
 crowned his other services to the church by 
 a glorious martyrdom. When, at the ex- 
 tremity of human life, it seemed as if he could 
 do no more for the church but continue his 
 example of holiness, piety, and orthodoxy, a 
 persecution broke out in which he, as the 
 venerated head of the Christian community 
 in Asia Minor, was specially marked out for 
 attack. He gave a noble exhibition of calm 
 courage, neither courting nor fearing martyr- 
 dom, sheltering himself by concealment while 
 possible, and when no longer so, resolutely 
 declaring in defiance of threats his unshaken 
 love for the Master he had served so long. 
 Such a death, following on such a life, made 
 Polycarp's the most illustrious name of his 
 generation in Christian annals. 
 
 Irenaeus states (III. iii. 4) that Polycarp had 
 been instructed by apostles and conversed 
 with many who had seen Christ, and had also 
 been established " by apostles" as bishop in 
 the church at Smyrna ; and doubtless Tertul- 
 lian {de Praescrip. 2,2) is right in understanding 
 this to mean that he had been so established 
 by St. John, whose activity in founding the 
 episcopate of Asia Minor is spoken of also 
 bv Clem. Alex, in his well-known story of St. 
 John and the robber [Quis. div. Salv. p. 959)- 
 The testimony of Irenaeus conclusively shews 
 the current belief in Asia Minor during the 
 old age of Polycarp, and it is certain that 
 Polycarp was bp. of Smyrna at the time of the 
 mart\Tdom of Ignatius, i.e. c. no. Ignatius, 
 journeying from Antioch to Rome, halted first 
 at Smyrna, where, as at his other resting- 
 places, the Christians flocked from all around 
 
POLYCARPUS POLYCARPUS 
 
 to receive his counsels .iiul bestow attention^ Uiu'<i4;;r in win. li si I'a'ti ' 
 
 M7 
 
 on him. From the city where he next h.tlteil 
 he wrote separate letters to the chiin h of 
 SnuTna .uul to Pi.lyc.irp its bishop. A later 
 stage was Philipni. ami to the rhurrh there 
 Polvcarp wrote alterwanls a letter still extant, 
 sending them copi,-s of the letters .>f Ignatin<i 
 and inquiring ('ir inf<>rmati>>n about Ignatius, 
 the detailed storv of wh.>s«- martvrdom appears 
 not yet t<i have reachetl Snjyrna. 
 
 The question as to the genuineness I'l the 
 extant Ep. of Polvcarp is very nuich ntixtd up 
 with that o( the genuineness of the Ignatian 
 letters. The course of modern investigation 
 has been decidetllv favourable to the genuine- 
 ness i>f the Ignatian letters [Kinatu'sI. and 
 the Ep. of Polycarp is guaranteed bv ex- 
 ternal testimony t>f exceptional go.Hlness. It 
 is mentioned by Polycari^'s disciple Irenaeus 
 (III. iii. 4), and an important passage is 
 
 quoted by Eusebius. Further, as I.ightfoot | epistle are l>ev'>nd what ran f jirl 
 has conclusively shown {('onlfmp. Rei'. May i sidered ar< ident at, ami pr.-bablv th. 
 1875, p. 840), it is impossible that Polycarp's | gainetl bv ( lrinrtit'% ^I1i^tlr t^-i the rx.»iu( 
 letter and those of Ignatius could have had 1 to bishops ' f wrilinr (•• I I'u 
 
 any common authorship. S>>nie of the topics 1 churches. ^, h..wrvrr, il. .t 1 
 
 on which the Ignatian letters lay most stress own letter : d bv thr ■ loii ;. 
 
 are absent from that of Polvcarp; in p.ar- j Philippi. .s u*e ..f p..l\ .: 
 
 ticular, Polycarp's letter is silent about epistle seems to have cntinurtl In Am . 
 episcopacy, of which the Ignatian letters ' jeroim-'s time; if we run lav *tr«-k<> 
 speak so much, and it has consequentlv been rather ubs* ure expression {( aItU \ " rii-i 
 thought probable either that episcopacv had j quae usque h<Klii- m ronvmtu AMar trKitui 
 not yet been organized at Philippi,i>r that the The chief difference iM-twrrn t Innent' 
 office was then vacant. The forms of ex- 
 pression in the two letters are different ; N.T. 
 quotati>)ns, profuse in Polycarp's letter, are 
 comparatively scanty in the Ignatian ones ; 
 and, most decisive of all, the Ignatian letters 
 are characterized by great originality of 
 
 .if. b .ih (irrr .ind in tli. 
 de« Ivivrlv rrfiHr* ihr II . 
 
 op|x«*Jti..n brtwf,-ii tl,r ! 
 
 Paul. It illuvlrjt 
 
 Hu»ebiu« to pr<>it<. I 
 
 NT. IvH.k* undi 
 
 though In- lloIlK-^ IIV Iji I' I 
 
 I. Peter, hr is %llrnt •* \i< \\\l% r\ 
 
 of St. Paul's Irtirr^ p.lv. trt ■' 1 
 tloiis ill! ludr diMi: 
 I. and II. Inn., an 
 a use of Koiii . I I 
 
 riie einploviliriil ..j t i.,.i I 
 
 (iiient. There ih onr iinmi«i . 
 ilelice with .\tX\. Thr \\sf of | 
 is probable. The report of oiii I 
 agrees in subsiaiirr with our i..r«.|><i«. l.i.i ,..^s 
 or may not liavr l»ern dire< ilv lakm ir n 
 them. The coini idmrr* with I Imirni 
 U . I. 
 
 Polycarp's letters is in the uv of the H T.. 
 which is perpetual in the former, vrry tare in 
 the latter. There is oincidniir with ••nr 
 passage in Tobil, two in P- md »tr m I< : 
 and certainlv in one of tli ■ 
 in all three, the adoptrl 
 
 OT 
 
 thought and expression, while Polvcaq^'s isbut directly from th« 
 a commonj>lace echo of the apostolic epistles. | difference, however, is rx 
 When we comp.ire P.)lycarp's letter with the in mind that I lemriit 
 extant remains of the age of Irenaeus, the , br.)Ught up in Judaism 
 
 born of Christian parmt' 
 the apostolic writings It • 
 
 Our knowledge of P 
 thedatcof his letter and 1 
 
 supenor antiquity of the former is evident, 
 
 whether we attend to their use of N.T., their 
 
 notices of ecclesiastical organization, their 
 
 statements of theological doctrine, or observe 
 
 the silence ia Polycarp's letter on the questions! almost entirely fr..m \ n •tl..^ l.v Ui 
 
 which most interested the church towards the I The first is in his letter to Fiorini 
 
 close of the 2nd cent. The question has been second in the trralis* on Hrrr^ir^ (!M 
 
 raised whether, admitting the genuineness of 1 the third in the letter .11 
 
 Polycarp's epistle as a whole, we mav not which part is pn-servr.l 
 
 reject as an interpolation c. xiii., which speaks I Irenaeus, writing in ad 
 
 of Ignatius. The extant MSS. of P.jlycarp's vivid his r.<..ll.- •• • 
 
 letter are derived from one in which the been a hr.»rer .1 1 
 
 leaves containing the end of Polycarp's letter how well herrin. 1 
 
 and the beginning of that of Barnabas w.f m ■! ' ■" '' ■ 
 
 wanting, so that the end of Barnabas seem. : 
 
 the continuation of Polycarp's epistle. II 
 
 concluding chapters of Polycarp are onl 
 
 known to us bv a Latin translation. The , ilunci I ui I r. Is 1.0 
 
 hiatus, however, in the (.reek text begins not ' in complete arr.-rd wii 
 
 at c. xiii. but at c. x. ; and the part which | The reminivm. rs f I: 
 
 speaks about Ignatius is exactly that for which agreement with P 
 
 we have the Greek text assured to us by the picture of hit at: 
 
 quotati<in of Eusebius. There is therrf..re ab- .^^-mn n--\ I-, h-. 
 
 solutely no reason for rejecting c. xiu. mil. 
 
 on the supposition that the forgery of tl. 
 
 Ignatian letters has been demonstrated. 
 
 Though Polvcarp's epistle is remarkable ( •: 
 its co»i..us use of NT. language, there arc 
 no form.il quotations, but it is meiitione<I that 
 St. Paul had written to the church of Philippi, 
 to which Polycarp's epistle i» addrc»»€d. I he . and »-■ Hid *i\U \u ii^' 
 
 the 
 
 hr., 
 
 t|..r 
 
 fr..r. 
 , and y 
 
848 
 
 POLYCARPUS 
 
 attempt to supersede Christ's gospel by fictions 
 of their own devising. Irenaeus tells how, 
 when he heard their impiety, he would stop 
 his ears and cry out, " O good God ! for what 
 times hast Thou kept me that I should endure 
 such things ! " and would even flee from the 
 place where he was sitting or standing when 
 he heard such words. In so behaving he 
 claimed to act in the spirit of his master John, 
 concerning whom he told that once when he 
 went to take a bath in Ephesus and saw 
 Cerinthus within, he rushed away without 
 bathing, crying out, " Let us flee, lest the bath 
 should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the 
 truth, is within " ; and when Marcion meeting 
 Polycarp asked him, " Do you recognize us ? " 
 he answered, " I recognize thee as the first- 
 born of Satan." This last phrase is found 
 in the extant letter. He says, " Every one 
 who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has 
 come in the flesh is antichrist ; and whosoever 
 doth not confess the testimony of the Cross is 
 of the devil ; and whosoever perverteth the 
 oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and saith 
 that there is neither resurrection nor judg- 
 ment, this man is a first-born of Satan." 
 This coincidence has, not very reasonably, 
 been taken as a note of spuriousness of the 
 letter ; the idea being that a writer under 
 the name of Polycarp who employs a phrase 
 traditionally known as Polycarp's betrays 
 himself as a forger striving to gain acceptance 
 for his production. It might rather have 
 been supposed that a coincidence between 
 two independent accounts of Polycarp's mode 
 of speaking of heretics ought to increase the 
 credibility of both. Irenaeus, who reports the 
 anecdote, was acquainted with the letter, 
 and, if we cannot accept both, it is more 
 conceivable that his recollection may have 
 coloured his version of the anecdote. 
 
 One of the latest incidents in Polycarp's 
 active life was a journey which, near the close 
 of his episcopate, he made to Rome, where 
 Anicetus was then bishop. We are not told 
 whether the cause of the journey was to settle 
 points of difference between Roman and 
 Asiatic practice ; those existed, but did not 
 interrupt their mutual accord. In particular 
 Asiatic Quartodecimanism was at variance 
 with Roman usage. We cannot say with 
 certainty what kind of Easter observance was 
 used at Rome in the time of Anicetus, for the 
 language of Irenaeus implies that it was not 
 then what it afterwards became ; but the 
 Asiatic observance of the 14th day was un- 
 known in Rome, although Polycarp averred 
 the practice of his church to have had the 
 sanction of John and other apostles, and 
 therefore to be what he could by no means 
 consent to change. Anicetus was equally 
 determined not to introduce into his church 
 an innovation on the practice of his pre- 
 decessors ; but yet shewed his reverence for 
 his aged visitor by " yielding to him the 
 Eucharist in his church." This phrase seems 
 capable of no other interpretation than that 
 generally given to it, viz. that Anicetus per- 
 mitted Polycarp to celebrate in his presence. 
 
 The story of the martyrdom of Polycarp is 
 told in a letter still extant, purporting to be 
 addressed by the church of Smyrna to the 
 church sojourning (Tro/joi'voi'tr]?) in Pbilome- | 
 
 POLYCARPUS 
 
 lium (atown of Phrygia) and to all the irapoiKlaL 
 of the holy Catholic Church in every place. 
 This document was known to Eusebius, who 
 transcribed the greater part in his Eccl. Hist. 
 (iv. 15). A trans, of this and of Polycarp's Ep. 
 appears in the vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante- 
 Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). The occurrence 
 of the phrase " Catholic Church " just quoted 
 has been urged as a note of spuriousness ; 
 but not very reasonably, in the absence of 
 evidence to make it even probable that the 
 introduction of this phrase was later than 
 the death of Polycarp. We know for cer- 
 tain that the phrase is very early. It is 
 used in the Ignatian letters {Smyrn. 8), by 
 Clem. Alex. (Strom, vii. 17), in the Mura- 
 torian Fragment, by Hippolytus [Ref. ix. 12) 
 and Tertullian. Remembering the warfare 
 waged by Polycarp against heresy, it is highly 
 probable that in his lifetime the need had 
 arisen for a name to distinguish the main 
 Christian body from the various separatists. 
 The whole narrative of the martyrdom bears 
 so plainly the mark of an eye-witness, that 
 to imagine, as Lipsius and Keim have done, 
 some one capable of inventing it a century 
 after the death of Polycarp, seems to require 
 great critical credulity. With our acceptance 
 of the martyrdom as authentic Hilgenfeld 
 (Zeitschrift, 1874, p. 334) and Renan (Eglise 
 chret. 462) coincide. We see no good reason 
 to doubt that the narrative was written, as it 
 professes to be, within a year of the martyr- 
 dom, bv members of the church w^here it 
 occurred and who had actually witnessed it ; 
 and we believe it to have been written spe- 
 cially to invite members of other churches to 
 attend the commemoration on the anniversary 
 of the martyrdom. It is deeply tinged by a 
 belief in the supernatural, but it is uncritical 
 to cast doubts on the genuineness of a docu- 
 ment on the assumption that Christians of the 
 2nd cent., under the strain of a great perse- 
 cution, held the views of their igth-cent. 
 critics as to the possibility of receiving super- 
 natural aid or consolation. 
 
 The story relates that Polycarp's martyr- 
 dom was the last act of a great persecution 
 and took place on the occasion of games held 
 at Smyrna, eleven others having suffered before 
 him. These games were probably held in 
 connection with the meeting of the Asiatic 
 diet (rb Koivbv r^s 'Acr/as), which met in rota- 
 tion in the principal cities of the province. 
 If more information were available as to this 
 rotation and as to the seasons when these 
 meetings were held, we should probably be 
 able to fix the date of Polycarp's martyrdom 
 with more certainty. The proconsul came 
 from Ephesus, the ordinary seat of govern- 
 ment, to preside. It may have been to pro- 
 vide the necessary victims for the wild beast 
 shows that the Christians were sought for 
 (some were brought from Philadelphia) and 
 required to swear by the fortune of the em- 
 peror and offer sacrifice. The proconsul 
 appears to have discharged his unpleasant 
 duty with the humanity ordinary among 
 Roman magistrates, doing his best to persuade 
 the accused to save themselves by compliance, 
 and no doubt employing the tortures, of which 
 the narrative gives a terrible account, as a 
 merciful cruelty which might save him from 
 
POLYCARPUS 
 
 proctviliiin to tlic last ixiriiiKs. In onr r.iso 
 his luTsii.i-iion was siu irssful. V"'"'"*. •« 
 Phrygian by nation, who had prcsciitnl him- 
 self voluntarily (or inartNTdoni. on si«hl oj thr 
 wild beasts lost courage and vieldcd to the 
 proconsul's entreaties. The Christians learne«l 
 from his case to condemn wanton lourtinK o| 
 danger as contrary to the gospel tearhmg. 
 The pn>consul lavished similar entreaties .<n a 
 youth named (iermanicus. but the lad was 
 resolute, and instead of shewing fear, pro- 
 voked the wild beasts in order to gain a 
 speedier release from his perset ut'Ts. The 
 act may have been suggested by the language 
 of Ignatius {Rom. v. 2) ; and certainly this 
 language seems to have been present to the 
 mind of the narrator. At sight of the 
 bravery of Ciermanicus, a conviction seems to 
 have seized the multitude that they should 
 have rather chi>sen as their victim the teacher 
 who had inspired the sufferers with their 
 obstinacy. A cry wasraised. ".\way with the 
 atheists ! Let Polycarp be sought for ! " 
 Polycarp wished to remain at his pt>st, but 
 yielded to the solicitations of his people and 
 retired for concealment to a country house, 
 where he spent his time, as was his wont, in 
 continual prayer for himself and his own 
 people and for all the churches throughout 
 the world. Three days before his appre- 
 hension he saw in a vision his pillow on fire, 
 and at once interpreted the omen to his 
 friends : " I must be burnt alive." The 
 search for him being hot, he retired to another 
 farm barely escaping his pursuers, who seized 
 and tortured two slave boys, one of whom 
 betrayed the new place of retreat. Late on 
 a Friday night the noise of horses and armed 
 men announced the pursuers at hand. There 
 seemed still the possibility of escape, and he 
 was urged to make the attempt, but he re- 
 fused, saying " (iixl's will be done." Coming 
 down from the upper room where he had been 
 lying down, he ordered meat and drink to be 
 set before his captors and only begged an 
 hour for uninterrupted prayer. This was 
 granted; and for more than two hours he 
 prayed, mentioning by name every one whom 
 he had known, small or great, and praying for ' 
 the Catholic church throughout the world. 
 At length he was set on an ass and c.nducted 
 to the citv. Soon they met the irenarrh 
 Herod, the police magistrate under whose 
 directions the arrest had been made, in whose 
 name the Christians afterwards found one of 
 several coincidences which they delighted to 
 trace between the arrest of Polycarp and that 
 of his Master. Her.xl. acompanied by his 
 father Nicetcs, took Polycarp to sit in his 
 carriage, and both earnestly urgeil him to save 
 his life : " Whv, what harm was it to say 
 Lord Caesar, and to sacrifice, and so on, 
 and escape all danger ? " Polycarp, at first 
 silent, at last bluntly answered, " 1 will not 
 do as you would have me." Annoyed .it thr 
 old man's obstinacy, they thrust him 
 the carriage so rudeiv that he scrape<l In 
 the marks no doubt beinff visible t-. his t: 
 when he afterwards stripped for the -.im. 
 But at the time he took no notice of the hurt 
 and walked on as if nothing h.id haj-pened. 
 At the racecourse, where the multitude was 
 assembled, there was a prodlgioiu uproar; 
 
 POLYCARPUS 
 
 M9 
 
 but thr t hli 1 ' ■■• I . . - 
 
 which <rir.l 
 . Ihr ni4n I 
 luinull th' 
 and lh<« t 1 : 
 heaven. I! 
 ha\r pitv .1. 
 
 fortune of I .11 sir. -.iv ' A» 
 atheist* !' " Thr niartvr, »t< 1 
 round on the a^vinblwl hrjthcii , 
 looking up t" hr.ivrn tald, "A\»as »ill. Um 
 atheists!" ■'Swear then. n<>w." Mid the 
 pr^H onsul. " and I will Irl voii Kh ; rrvilo 
 
 Ihrist." Then p. Iv ■• 1- •*- ■- ' I- 
 
 answer. " Ilighlv i 
 Mini, and H<' h.is n 
 then, ran I bias; ! 
 
 Saviour! " The K(> >«ar» naiil <1<ujU i -uul 
 from Polycari»'» bapium ; »o that If wc «r« 
 not to ascribe to hiin an iinpr. b.d Ir I. n^th o| 
 life, we must infer that I • ild of 
 
 Christian parents and hi .1, il 
 
 not in infanrv. in vr-rv r 1 th.f 
 
 magistrate < 
 cut matters 
 a Christian .1; 
 
 to explain wii.n > .;.... 
 
 the consent of the i rtl ihr pf>- 
 
 consul. " Nay." r. ; . " I count 
 
 it your due that I -i ^ drfrnrr to 
 
 you, because we have b««n lau^ht t" give due 
 honour to the powers ordainc<l of (.od; but at 
 for these people. I owe no vindiralion lo 
 them." The prin-onsul then h.vl rrciuti* to 
 threats, but finding them unavailing, ordered 
 his crier thrice to pr rl titu in thr mi.Nt o| 
 the stadium. " Pol\ " ' rnwK 
 
 a Christian." Tl.. irrV 
 
 from heathen and 1 '<hrr 
 
 of the Christians, ' i...- i. «hi* 
 
 destrover i.f the w.-rship --t the g.Kln. i'hilip 
 the asiarch. or president of the gainr«, wa» 
 called on to loose a li-n .-n Poly. arp. I>ut re- 
 fused, saving the wild beast sh..ws were now 
 over. Then with one voice the raultitu<ie 
 demanded that Polycarp should be burnt 
 alive ; for his vision must nrrds be fulfilled. 
 Rushing to the w.rksh.ps and bath* ihrv 
 collected wood and lagg-.ts, thr Jrws. asu*ual. 
 taking the most active i>art. We have evi- 
 dence of the aclivitv of the Jews at Smyrna at 
 an earlier p.ri.Kl, kev. li o. and at a lairr 
 
 in the story of the marf ' '' ' "" 
 
 When the i>ile was rradv I 
 t'l undn-ss hiniMll : and h 
 autoptic- t"<i-i. I. 111.,.- ! 
 marked tin- 
 tried to tak- 
 years since tl 
 perniitte<l him t > i il ni 
 self. When he ha.l been 
 request, n'-l iiiil- 'D t ■' 
 offered up a 1 
 the flame b. 1 
 -siil '.( .1 ^^;; 
 
 l.r 
 
 had 
 
 h«.l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l*lt». 
 
 
 
 : b«~ 
 
 
 
 tSOl IK. 
 
 rly r,(. 
 
 I |i>r 
 
 the I. 
 was 1'. 
 
 
 ( in 
 ^«hrd 
 
 to U»e ■ 
 
 forth that lUc 
 
 Uuiuc 
 
 .^MUbcd, 
 
850 
 
 POLYCARPUS 
 
 The Christians were about to remove the body ; 
 but Nicetes, here further described as the 
 brother of Alee, interfered and said, " If you 
 give the body, the Christians will leave the 
 Crucified One and worship him, ' ' an idea deeply 
 shocking to the narrator of the story, who 
 declares it was impossible for them to leave, 
 for any other, Christ the Holy One Who died 
 for the salvation of the world. Him, as the 
 Son of God, they worshipped ; martyrs they 
 loved on account of the abundance of their 
 zeal and love for Him. The Jews eagerly 
 backing up Nicetes, the centurion had" the 
 body placed on the pyre and saw it com- 
 pletely consumed, so that it was only the 
 bones, " more precious than jewels, more tried 
 than gold," which the disciples could carry 
 off to the place where they meant on the anni- 
 versary to commemorate the martyr's "birth- 
 day." The epistle closes with a doxology. 
 Euarestus is named as the writer ; Marcion 
 [or Marcianus] as the bearer of the letter. 
 
 Then follows by way of appendix a note, 
 stating that the martyrdom took place on the 
 2nd of the month Xanthicus, the 7th before 
 the calends of March [there is a various 
 reading May], on a great sabbath at the 8th 
 hour; the arrest having been made by 
 Herod ; Philip of Tralles being chief priest, 
 Statius Quadratus proconsul, and Jesus Christ 
 King for ever. A second note states that 
 these Acts were transcribed by Socrates (or 
 Isocrates) of Corinth, from a copy made by 
 Caius, a companion of Polycarp's disciple 
 Irenaeus. A third note states that this again 
 had been transcribed by Pionius from a copy 
 much decayed by time, the success of his 
 search for which was due to a revelation made 
 by Polycarp himself, " as will be shewn in 
 what follows," from which we infer that the 
 martyrdom was followed by a Life of Polycarp. 
 The first chronological note may be accept- 
 ed as, if not part of the original document, at 
 least added by one of its first transcribers, 
 and therefore deserving of high confidence. 
 The name of the proconsul Statius Quadratus 
 indicates best the date of the martyrdom. 
 Eusebius in his chronicle had put it in the 6th 
 year of Marcus Aurelius, i.e. a.d. i66. M. 
 Waddington [Memoir es de V Academic des 
 Inscriptions, 1867, xxvi. 235) shewed that 
 Eusebius's date was doubtful, Eusebius 
 seems to have had no real knowledge of the 
 date, and to have put it down somewhat 
 at random, for he places Polycarp's martyr- 
 dom and the Lyons persecution under the 
 same year, though the Lyons martyrdoms 
 were as late as 177. At this time the ordinary 
 interval between the consulship and procon- 
 sulate ranged between 12 and 16 years. 
 Quadratus we know to have been consul a.d. 
 142. We are at once led to reject Eusebius's 
 date as placing the inadmissible interval of 
 24 or 25 years between the consulship and 
 proconsulate. Waddington made out a prob- 
 able case for a.d. 155, and an additional argu- 
 ment appears decisive. The martyrdom is 
 stated to have taken place on Sat. Feb. 23, 
 and among the possible years 155 is the only 
 one in which Feb. 23 so fell. The reading of 
 this chronological date is not free from 
 variations. The " great sabbath " would in 
 Christian times be thought to mean the Sat. 
 
 POLYCARPUS 
 
 in Easter week, and as Easter could not occur 
 in Feb. there was an obvious temptation to 
 alter Mar. into May, but none to make the 
 opposite change, and we have independent 
 knowledge that Feb. 23 was the day on which 
 the Eastern church celebrated the martyr- 
 dom. But we do not know why Feb. 23 
 should be a " great " sabbath. We believe 
 the true explanation to be that the Latin date 
 in this note is not of the same antiquity as the 
 date by the Macedonian month. Probably 
 Pionius, when he recovered the very ancient 
 copy of the martyrdom, translated the date 
 2nd Xanthicus into one more widely intelli- 
 gible and thus determined the date of sub- 
 sequent commemorations. We accept, then, 
 the 2nd Xanthicus as an original note of time 
 faithfully preserved by a scribe who did not 
 understand its meaning, because he inter- 
 preted according to the usage of his own day. 
 When we have abandoned the date Sat. Feb. 
 23 we lose one clue to fixing the exact date of 
 the martyrdom, but we gain another. Since 
 Nisan 2nd was Sat. the year must be one in 
 which that lunar month commenced on a 
 Friday. The only such years within the neces- 
 sary limits were 155 and 159, and 155 again 
 agrees best with the usual interval between 
 consulship and proconsulate. The date Apr. 8, 
 which A.D. 159 would require, is likely, more- 
 over, to be too late. The chief difficulty raised 
 by the date 155 is that if we adopt it the chron- 
 ology of the Roman bishops obliges us to put 
 Polycarp's visit in the last year of his life and 
 the first of the episcopate of Anicetus. 
 
 For the literature connected with Polycarp 
 see bp. Lightfoot's ed. of Ignatius and Poly- 
 carp. An ed. of Polycarp's remains by G. 
 Jacobsonis in Patr. Apost. (Clar. Press, 2 vols.). 
 A small popular treatise on St. Polycarp by 
 B. Jackson is pub. byS.P.C.K. Cf. also Zahn, 
 Forschungen, iv. 249 ; Harnack, Gesch. der 
 .ilt.-Chr. Lat. 1897 (ii. i, 334). [g.s.] 
 
 Polycarpus (5). Moyses of Aghel {c. 550), in 
 a Letter to Paphnutius prefatory to his Syriac 
 version of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria, 
 prepares his readers to find variations from 
 the Peshitto in Cyril's citations of Scripture 
 after the Greek, by referring them to " the 
 translation of the N.T. and of David into 
 Syriac" from the Greek, which "the Chor- 
 episcopus Polycarpus made for Xenaias 
 [Philoxenus] of Mabug " (Assem. ii. p. 82 ; 
 see also Dr. Ign. Guidi in Rendiconti della R. 
 Academia dei Lincei, 1886, p. 397). Now we 
 know from Gregory Bar-hebraeus (Prooem. in 
 Horr. Mysit.) that, " after the Peshitto, the 
 N.T. was more accurately translated again 
 from the Greek at Mabug in the days of 
 Philoxenus." The same facts are stated in a 
 note purporting to be written by Thomas of 
 Harkel in 616, appended in slightly varying 
 forms to many MSS. of the version of the 
 N.T. known as the Harklensian, one of which 
 (Assem. xi., now Cod. Vat. 268) is probably 
 (Bernstein, Das Heil. Evang. des J oh. p. 2) of 
 the 8th cent. In this MS., and others, the 
 note gives also the date of this Philoxenian 
 version, a.d. 508. In all of them it proceeds 
 to describe the Harklensian version as based 
 on this — in fact a revision of it ; and the same 
 description in more direct terms is given by 
 Bar-hebraeus in two places in his Chronicon 
 
POLYCARPUS 
 
 Eccl. (i. 49, ii. 22; Asstiu. 11. \-\<. U4, 4Mi. 
 NVe may safely infer that this iMrlitr vrrsi.m 
 was made by the I'olviarp named bv M.>vsrs 
 (and by no other writer) at the instan.e .>< his 
 bishop. Philoxenus, the ffreat Monoj.hvsite 
 leader (485-522). The aim <>( Philoxenus in 
 having the version made was probablv. as the 
 remark of Mov-ses snggests, to enable Svriar- 
 speaking Monophx'sites to read the Scriptures 
 as they were read by those Creek Fathers 
 whom he owned as authorities and bv their 
 (.ireek-speaking brethren within the Antiorh- 
 ene Patriarchate. It does not appear that the 
 translation shewed, or was ever impugned as 
 shewing, a doctrinal bias. 
 
 Of the PliiK.xciiian N.T. as it was bef.ire 
 Thomas of Harkil revised it, we onlv know with 
 certainty the few small fragments'of St. Paul 
 recovered by Wiseman from the margin of his 
 MS. of the Karkaphensian Syriac, and pub. 
 by him in Horae Syriacae (p. 178, n. ii). 
 
 It seems highly probable that we have a 
 considerable portion of this original Philoxe- 
 nian, in the version of the four minor Catholic 
 Epistles (II. Peter. II. and III. J.>hn.and Jude) 
 not included in the Pt-shitto though printed 
 with it in the Polyglotts and in most SsTiac 
 New Testaments — first published bv Pococke 
 (1630) from a .MS. of no great age (Bodl. Or. 
 119). These four Epistles in the version in 
 question are found also in a few Paris MSS. 
 (see Zotenberg's Calal.), in one (formerly 
 VVetstein's) at .\insterdam, in Lord Craw- 
 ford's MS. in the Cambridge MS. (Oo, i. i, 2). 
 and in several MSS. in Brit. .Mus. ; one of 
 which, Add. 14623 (7). written 823, is theoldest 
 extant copy of this version. It is included 
 also in the " Williams MS." of the N.T. 
 Epistles, whence Prof. Hall issued it in 
 photographic facsimile. This version is dis- 
 tinct from the Harklensian rendering of the 
 same Epistles, which, however, though more 
 servilely exact and greci^ed, is unmistakably 
 founded on it. As then we have in this ver- 
 sion the unmistakable basis of the Harklen- 
 sian, and as the Harklensian is known to have 
 been a revision of the Philoxenian. the iden- 
 tity of this version with the Philoxenian 
 proper (as distinguished from the Philoxenian 
 usually so-called, viz. the Harklensian revi- 
 sion) follows. We have then the materials 
 for judging of Polycarp's merits as a trans- 
 lator, and we find reason to estimate thcin 
 highly. The translation is in the main 
 accurate and close without being servile. Dr. 
 Scrivener (Intro, to M.T. p. 646, ed. 3) justly 
 describes it as one which " well deserves 
 careful study ... of great interest and full of 
 valuable readings," siding as it does frequently 
 with thf oiliest (ireek uncials. Here also we 
 have m.iteri.il to determine the mutual rela- 
 tion between his work and Thomas's revisi.m 
 of it, and we conclude that the latter w.irk 
 is not (as has been taken for granted by many) 
 a merely corrected re-issue of the earlier one, 
 with merely linguistic alterations in the text 
 and variants inserted on its margin ; but is 
 substantially a new version, proceeding on the 
 lines of the former, but freely quitting thctn 
 when the translator saw tit. 
 
 We are niit informed what O.T. bo..ks wcrt 
 included in the w.jrk of Polycarp. Movmt. 
 mentions onlv his versioa of the Fsaln 
 
 POLYCHRONIUS 
 
 S.'i 
 
 rVld- 
 
 ^ the 
 »c by 
 
 Will.h IS i .St. hut wr 1, , 
 
 eiice that a Phil, xriiun 1 
 lor a rendering «>( U, ix ' 
 
 Hexa|>la and from thr II 
 
 jgrmng with a rrjdinK loimtl m 
 of the I..\.\. (H..lnir*-» IS, ,f,, 4 
 q\, 106, 147, jn). I* in»rri..l 
 of the .\iiil)r<>stjii Svfo-H • 
 and is there intr.Hlured .. 
 other text which wa* reii.l : 
 the care of Philoxenu*. bp • ( N| i!;^. ' th« 
 I word being the Mine as in the hr»t • i|j||<>n 
 (above) from theCAron. Hut. «i Marhrbraru*. 
 That the I..\.\. was in the hands "I Svriac 
 I writers antl translators Iwfore the time of 
 Philoxenus is certain. Yet internal rvidrnre 
 concliisivelv pr.'Ves that the Hebrew and not 
 the I..\.\. is the main basis of the Prshiltu 
 Psalter. [J.f.w.) 
 
 PolyOhrOnllU (4), brother of The^nlorr of 
 , Mo^>suestia and bp. of .Apatiiea iHi the C)r.>nte« 
 I in Syria Secumla. He l>e|<>ngrd t«i a wealthy 
 I family of position at .\nti.H h. and the literary 
 character of his remains iiuIk ates that hit 
 I early education was lil>eral and many-sulr<l. 
 I A Polychronius was among the correspondent* 
 I of Libanius {Hf>p. 27, 207, 22N, rtc), but that 
 I he was the same is more than doubtful. That 
 our Polychronius fell more or less dire<tly 
 ' under the influence of Di.nlore seems certain. 
 j Polychronius was probably youn|{er than 
 The.Klore ; at any rate his conserrati>>n as bp. 
 I was some ten years the later. In the srr of 
 .\pamea he must have followrtl .\gapetus, who 
 surceedetl Marcellus a.d. 398 (Thcod. //. f.. 
 v. 27 ; Hist. Relig. § 3). He was still bishop 
 when his brother died, a.d. 42.H (d. Thcod. 
 H. E. V. 40). But within the next three year* 
 he had died or otherwise vacated the see. lot 
 in the records of the Council of Kphr«u« 
 Alexander is bp. of Apainea (Mansi, iv. 123), 
 1270). Both I.e (Juien (Ofi/ns Ckrtst. li. 911) 
 and (iams {Senei I:pi%c. p. 436) strangely 
 omit Polychronius from their lists of the 
 bps. of Apamea. The t'-stimony of Thp»>- 
 d.iret, however, is une<)uivocal, and is that of 
 the contemporary bishop of a iieighbourinK 
 see. The city of Apamea was raisetl by 
 The.Klosius II. to metropolitan rank (J"h. 
 Malal. Chronogr. xiv. ; Migne, I'atr. (.*. xcvil. 
 543) and the see attaine<i a corresponding 
 dignity. In the history of the church, how- 
 ever, the name '>f Polychronius nrruwlr* a 
 coinparativelv insignificant place. Our know- 
 ledge of him is drawn ilrti st rx. Iiisively from 
 the scanty encniiii: ' "' ' irt re-etho*sl 
 by Cassi.jornsanl Wc iiiusi be 
 
 Content to learn ' |». he was 
 
 characterized by it.. . ^k .•! his rule, 
 
 grace of oratory, and conspicuous pufllv of 
 hie (The.Kl. H. F. V. 4"; rf Cas»i.Ml. Httt. 
 Inparl. X. 34 ; Nicei.li. xiv i.. 
 
 It has been geip t vr bp. 
 
 of Apainea is ideiin I the 
 
 same name in I! linlory 
 
 (i 24). Bill «- p.rSII«4 
 
 points in an 
 
 A^adi^M • tt-'h. Poly- 
 
 •If to 
 
 ins, j The following have been aicnbcsl to 1 
 
 (I) 
 
852 
 
 POLYCRATES 
 
 Scholia on the Pentateuch in the catena of 
 Nicephorus. (2) Prologue and fragments of 
 a commentary on Job. (3) Scholia on the 
 Proverbs. (4) A MS. exposition of Eccle- 
 siastes, said to be preserved in several Euro- 
 pean libraries. (5) Scholia on the Canticles. 
 (6) Scholia on Jeremiah. (7) An exposition 
 of Ezekiel, cited by Joannes Damascenus 
 {De Imag. iii. ; Migne, Pair. Gk. xciv. 1380, 
 no\i);)(poi'£Oii eK Trj'S els rbv 'le^eKir)K ep/xr]veiai). 
 This work happily survives in an almost com- 
 plete form, and has been published by Mai 
 {Nov. Patr. Bibl. vii. p. 2, pp. 92 seq.). (8) 
 A commentary on Daniel, quoted in gth cent, 
 by Nicephorus (Pitra, Spic. Solesnt. i. p. 352). 
 Of these remains the scholia on Proverbs, 
 Canticles, and Jeremiah are of more than 
 doubtful genuineness. Those on Proverbs 
 and Canticles are in some MSS. ascribed to 
 " Polychronius the Deacon," and all these 
 collections are characterized by a partiality 
 for allegorical and mystical interpretations 
 quite alien to the instincts of the Antiochenes. 
 The style of Polychronius has been described 
 (Bardenhewer, Polychronius, p. 36) as clear 
 and concise, contrasting favourably with the 
 loose and complex manner of his brother 
 Theodore, a criticism which agrees with the 
 verdict of Theodoret (supra). As an ex- 
 positor Polychronius follows the historico- 
 grammatical method of his school, condemn- 
 ing expressly the Alexandrian tendency to 
 convert history into allegory. " His manner 
 of exposition is scholarly and serious, breath- 
 ing at the same time an air of deep piety." 
 So Mai, who points out the fulness of historical 
 illustration in his commentary on Daniel. 
 His comments are based (the book of Daniel 
 excepted) on the LXX., but he calls in the 
 aid of Symmachus and Theodotion ; and the 
 frequency of his references to the Hebrew, as 
 well as the remarkable fragment on the 
 " Obscurity of Scripture" among the extant 
 fragments of his commentary on Job, shew 
 some acquaintance with that language. With 
 regard to the canon, Polychronius assumes 
 an independent attitude. Against his brother 
 he stoutly maintains the historical character 
 of the narrative of Job, but discriminates 
 between the Heb. Daniel and the Greek addi- 
 tions, refusing tocomment upon the Song of the 
 Three Children as not being in the original. 
 
 Of his doctrinal standpoint little can be 
 learnt from his published remains. His 
 temper was not controversial, and he has no 
 place in the history of polemical theology — 
 a circumstance which has saved him from the 
 stigma of heterodoxy, but consigned his life and 
 works to comparative obscurity. [h.b.s.] 
 
 Polycrates (1), bp. of Ephesus in the last 
 decade of 2nd cent. When Victor of Rome 
 sought to unify the practice of the whole 
 Christian world in the matter of Easter 
 celebration, he first asked for meetings of 
 bishops in different places to report on the 
 practice of their localities. This request was 
 made in the name of his church, as we learn 
 from the use of the plural in the reply of 
 Polycrates. From every other place, as far 
 as we can learn, the answer was that they 
 celebrated the feast of our Lord's Resur- 
 rection on no other day than Sunday ; but 
 Polycrates, writing in the name of the bishops 
 
 PONTIANUS 
 
 of Asia, declared that they had preserved 
 untampered the tradition to celebrate only on 
 the 14th day of the month, the day when the 
 Jewish people put away their leaven. He 
 appeals to the authority of the great lumin- 
 aries which the Asian church could boast, and 
 whose bodies lay among them, Philip, one of 
 the twelve apostles, and his three daughters, 
 John, who lay on our Lord's breast, a priest 
 who wore the ir^TaXov, Polycarp of Smyrna, 
 Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius, 
 Melito, all of whom had observed the 14th day, 
 according to the Gospel, walking according to 
 the rule of faith. Polycrates himself had 
 followed the traditions of his kindred, seven 
 of whom had been bishops before him, and 
 had been confirmed in his view by his own 
 study of the whole Scripture and by conference 
 with brethren from all the world. Although 
 his letter bore no signatvure but his own, he 
 claims that it had received the assent of a 
 great number of bishops (Eus. H. E. v. 24). 
 For the sequel see Irenaeus. [g.s.] 
 
 Pomponia Graeclna, one of the earliest and 
 most distinguished Roman converts. Tacitus 
 (Annals, xiii. 32) tells us, referring to a.d. 57 or 
 58, that Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished 
 lady, wife of the Plautius who returned from 
 Britain with an ovation, was accused of some 
 foreign superstition and handed over to her 
 husband's judicial decision. Following an- 
 cient precedent, he heard his wife's cause in 
 the presence of kinsfolk, involving, as it did, 
 her legal status and character, and reported 
 that she was innocent. She lived a long life 
 of unbroken melancholy. After the murder 
 of Julia, Drusus's daughter, by Messalina's 
 treachery, for 40 years she wore only the attire 
 of a mourner. For this, during Claudius's 
 reign, she escaped unpunished, and it was 
 afterwards counted a glory to her. This is 
 the only notice of her in ancient literature. 
 She came into prominence through De Rossi's 
 discoveries in the catacomb of Callistus (Roma 
 Sotterranea, ii. 360-364). De Rossi identified 
 her with St. Lucina (cf. Aube, Hist, des persec. 
 t. i. p. 180). Cf. for other notices Brownlow 
 and Northcote's Roma Sott. t. i. pp. 82, 83, 
 278-282. De Rossi {op. cit. t. i. pp. 306-351) 
 discusses the crypt and family of St. Lucina 
 at great length (cf. also his Bullettino di 
 Archeol. Crist, passim). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Pontianus (3), bp. of Rome from July (?) 21, 
 230, to Sept. 28, 235. These dates, given in 
 the Liberian Catalogue, are probably correct, 
 though later recensions of the Pontifical give 
 them differently. The same record states 
 that he was, with Hippolytus a presbyter, 
 banished to Sardinia, which it describes as 
 " nociva insula," implying possibly that he 
 was sent to the mines there. His banishment 
 doubtless took place under Maximinus, who 
 succeeded Alexander after the assassination 
 of the latter in May 235. The date, Sept. 28 
 235. was probably that of his deprivation only. 
 His only episcopal act of which anything 
 needs to be said is his probable assent to the 
 condemnation of Origen by Demetrius of 
 Alexandria. Jerome {Ep. ad Paulam, xxix. 
 in Benedict, ed. ; Ep. xxxiii. in ed. Veron.) 
 says of Origen : " For this toil what reward 
 did he get ? He is condemned by tne bp. 
 Demetrius. Except the priests of Palestine 
 
PONTITIANUS 
 
 Arabia, PhiH>ni( ia, ami Arhaia. the world 
 consents to his condemnation. Kome herscH 
 assembles a senate (meaninj; apparently » 
 synod] against him." The condemnation o( 
 driijen by Demetrius beinu supposed (though 
 not with certainty) to have been c. 231. the 
 Roman bishop who assembled the syn<Kl was 
 ini^st [<r >li.ibly Pontianus. Two spurious 
 epistles ir.- assigned to him. [j.b— v.] 
 
 Pontitianus, a s-^ldier, perhaps of the prae- , 
 torian guard, an .\frican by birth and a 
 Christian, who indirectly contribute much 
 towards the conversion <^f St. Augustine, who , 
 relates in his Confessions how one day. while 
 he was at -Milan with .\lypius, Pontitianus 
 came, as it seemed by accident, to visit his 
 countrymen, and found on the table a book , 
 containing the writings of St. Paul, and having 
 expressed some surprise, informed the friends 
 that he was a Christian and constantly prayed 
 to God both in public worship and at hoine. 
 The conversation then turned upon .\nthony 
 the Egyptian monk, of whose history Ponti- 
 tianus knew much more than they did. He ! 
 told them how, when he was at Treves, in ' 
 attendance on the emperor, with three com- 
 rades he went to the public gardens. Having 
 separated, two of them met again at the 
 dwelling of a recluse, and found there an 
 account of St. .■\nthony, which one read to the 
 other until he was stirred to relinquish his 
 military life and enlist in the service of God 
 as a monk, and prevailed on his companion 
 to join him. Pontitianus and the fourth 
 member of the party coming up, the other 
 two endeavoured to persuade them to follow 
 their example, but without success. They 
 returned to the palace while the disciples of 
 St. Anthony remained behind. We hear no 
 more of Pontitianus ; for the sequel see 
 Ai'GL-STiNE (.\ug. Conf. viii. 6, 7). [h.w.p.] i 
 
 Pontius (2), Mar. 8, a deacon of Carthage. , 
 \S' know him only from his Vila Cypriani, 
 I r ! X -d to all editi'>ns of St. Cyprian's works. 
 !!• was chosen by Cyprian to accompanv him 
 into exile to Ciirubis (cc. xi. and xii. ; cf. 
 Dodwell's Dissertationes Cyprianicae, iv. 21). 
 The Vita is evidently an authentic record. 
 Its style is rugged, and in places very obscure ; 
 yet presents all internal marks of truth and 
 antiquity. It uses all the correct technical 
 terms of Roman criminal law, and refers to 
 all the usual forms observed in criminal trials. 
 Jerome, in his Lther de Vir. III. c. 6K, d<rscribes 
 the Vita of Pontius as " egregium volumcn 
 vitae et passionis Cypriani." [g.t.s.] 
 
 Porphyrius (4), patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 
 404-413, succeeded Flavian (Socr. H. E. vii. 9), 
 and is described in the dialogue which g<K^ 
 under the name of Palladius as a man of in- 
 famous character, who had disgraced the 
 clerical profession bv intimacv with the scum 
 of the circus (Pallad'. Dial. p. 143)- Although 
 his character was notorious, by his clrvernr^* 
 and adroit flattery he obtained considrrabl- 
 influence with the magistrati-s, and gaine-l 
 the confidence of some leading bishops of th- 
 province. Flavian's death having .K^rurrr-I 
 almost contemporaneously with Chryv>»tonr» 
 exile, it became vitally important to the anti- 
 Flavian cabal to have the vacant throne of 
 Antioch filled with a man who would carry 
 out their designs for the complete crushing 
 
 PORPHYRIUS 
 
 R53 
 
 of Flavian** adhrrrnt» P rphvrv wa* rh-nrn. 
 To rlear the ijrid Con%t4ntlu«. the Irmlvd 
 friend "f ( hrv^ st m wf, .m Hi-- \r j.ir .f 
 Anti- ' i 
 
 was .1 
 of th. , 
 
 with tli< I'. II i\ tn< ,1 ,, .,,11:. „| 
 
 Porj>hvrv ohtJlnr<l an tipt 
 
 banishing Constantms !•• t: 140- 
 
 tins anti(-ip.ii>-'i ii >- 1 ^ « .«. 
 
 14.M. Porpt 
 hands Cvri.i 
 byters of th-- 
 
 to be troubles lut-, .uul x lini il.c .ij-.-iiuuit v 
 of the Olvmpian festival at .\nti'Th. whrn the 
 population had poured forth to the tp<>rtar|p« 
 of Daphne, to I.kW hiin*rU and hi* three 
 consecraton, .\cai lus, .And >rhuv and Srver- 
 ianus, whom he had k-]>t hi.dnt- n his own 
 house, with a few ' • ih» 
 
 chief church, anil i u at 
 
 thrir hands. The 1 nrji 
 
 morning attacked i vrv. 
 
 seeking to burn it ovrr tn riflu- 
 
 ence of Por])hvry scruml • ij <.( 
 
 a savage ofhcrr as captain , 1 ird», 
 
 who by threats and violrnn- ilj-.-.t il*. ^oi>le 
 to the church (16. 147). Forrwamr*! of hu 
 real character, pope Innocent rrrrivr<| por- 
 ph\Tv's request for Communion with silmre 
 {ib. 141). porphyry was complrtrlvdrvrted 
 by the chief clergy and all thi- l.idir^ of 
 rank of .Antioch, who refu- " h hit 
 
 church and held their nv- ■ mely 
 
 {ib. 149). In revenge P : ••ii a 
 
 decree, issued bv Arcadi.- N > 1-, 404. 
 sentencing all who refused communion with 
 .\rsarius, Theophilus, and Porphvrv to b«« 
 expelled from the churches, and instrurtinK 
 the governor of the province to forbid their 
 holding meetings elsewhere (Sox //. f.. viii. 
 24 ; Cod. Theod. 16, t. iv. p. loj). His efforts 
 to obtain the recognition of the .\ntiorhpnr« 
 proving fruitU^s, while Chrvsostoui's spiritual 
 power in exile became the greater for all hU 
 efforts to crush it. Porphyry's exasperation 
 drove him to take vengeance on Chrvvp«|oin. 
 Through his machinations and ih--*^ '•< 
 
 Severianus, ordrrs were issued f'.f •' ' 
 
 of Chrys >stom from Cm usus t.i I'; 
 
 the exeiution of whn h Ihr 
 
 troubles endrd bv death (Palla.l / .. , , 
 
 Porphvrv's own death is placrti l.y ciini-it 
 
 {Fast. R»m. ii. JS2) in 413 (cf. The.id. H E. 
 
 iii. 5). He was succrrdrti bv Al'ttn.lrr, bv 
 
 whom the long distracted 
 
 It is a misfortune that t' 
 
 only sourre for the char.i 
 
 the violent pamphlet ■ •■ 
 
 warm partisanship ("r ' 
 
 blackf-n* ill hi% ..i.iw.»,.-i,i 
 
 repr- 
 
 .1 Aiiii-o Ik " iu.t>iV 
 tiid of ht« rttnark- 
 
 ■/ / ^ V 4* *rll 
 
 j> bv a sliU -.tr :.. 
 
 in The.Ml..rrts In; 
 
 calls him one " oi 1 
 
 who was adorne<l l> tri »ii(i 4 Miiiuni iiir 
 
 and an acquaintance with divine docirlnn " 
 
854 
 
 PORPHYRIUS 
 
 (Theod. Ep. 83). Fragments of a letter 
 addressed to Porphyry by Theophilus of 
 Alexandria, recommfinding him to summon a 
 synod, when some were seeking to revive the 
 heresy of Paul of Samosata, are found in 
 Labbe (Concil. p. 472). [e.v.] 
 
 Porphyrius (5), bp. of Gaza, a.d. 395-420. 
 According to his biographer Mark, he \yas 
 born at Thessalonica c. 352, of a good family. 
 His parents were Christians, and took care to 
 have him instructed in the Scriptures as well 
 as in secular learning. When about 25 he 
 retired to the desert of Scete in Egypt, which, 
 at the end of 5 years, he left for Jerusalem, 
 and passed another 5 years in a cavern near 
 the Jordan. A painful disease, brought on 
 by his austerities, compelled him to revisit 
 Jerusalem, where he made the acquaintance 
 of Mark, who became his devoted disciple and 
 companion. By Porphyry's desire Mark 
 visited Thessalonica, and turned the proceeds 
 of Porphyry's share of his paternal property 
 into money, the whole of which, on his re- 
 turn. Porphyry distributed to the poor and to 
 various monasteries, supporting himself by 
 manual labour. About his 40th year he 
 reluctantly received ordination from John, 
 bp. of Jerusalem, who committed to his 
 guardianship the sacred relic of the True Cross. 
 After a presbyterate of three years, in 395 on 
 the death of Aeneas he with still greater re- 
 luctancebecamebp. of Gaza, being consecrated 
 by John of Caesarea, who had sent for him on 
 the pretext of consulting him on some scrip- 
 tural difficulty. The people of Gaza were 
 then almost all pagan, and the position of a 
 zealous Christian bishop was one of no small 
 difficulty and even danger. The cessation of 
 a severe drought at the beginning of the 2nd 
 year of his episcopate, J an. 326, was attributed 
 to his prayers and those of the Christians, and 
 caused the conversion of a number of the 
 inhabitants. This was succeeded by other 
 conversions, arousing great exasperation 
 among the heathen population, which vented 
 itself in a severe persecution. Porphyry 
 endured their ill-treatment with the utmost 
 meekness. At the same time he despatched 
 his deacon Mark and his minister Borocas to 
 Constantinople, who, through the powerful 
 advocacy of Chrysostom, obtained the em- 
 peror's order to destroy the idols and close the 
 temples. This was carried out by an imperial 
 commissioner, who, however, it was asserted, 
 was bribed to spare the principal idol named 
 Marnas, and to wink at the entrance of the 
 worshippers into the temple by a secret pas- 
 sage. To these events Jerome refers in a 
 letter to Laeta (Hieron. Ep. vii. p. 54). The 
 idolaters still remained the dominant section, 
 and were able to shut out Christians from all 
 lucrative ofiBces and to molest them in the 
 enjoyment of their property. Porphyry took 
 this so much to heart that he exhorted his 
 metropolitan, John of Caesarea, to allow him 
 to resign. John consoled him, and went with 
 him to Constantinople to obtain an order for 
 the demolition not of the idols alone, but of 
 the temples themselves, arriving Jan. 7, 401. 
 Chrvsostom was then high in the empress 
 Eudoxia's favour, and their suit was success- 
 ful. The bishops reached Majuma, the port of 
 Gaza, on May i, and were followed in ten 
 
 POSSIDIUS 
 
 days by a commissioner named Cynegius, 
 accompanied by the governor and a general 
 officer with a large body of troops, by whom 
 the imperial orders for the destruction of the 
 temples were executed. In ten days the whole 
 were burnt, and finally the magnificent temple 
 of Marnas, and on the ground it occupied the 
 foundations of a cruciform chiurch were laid 
 according to a plan furnished by Eudoxia, 
 who also supplied the funds for its erection. 
 The church was 5 years building, and was 
 dedicated by Porphyry on Easter Day, 405 
 or 406, being called " Eudoxiana " after its 
 foundress. Jerome refers to its erection 
 (Hieron. in Esaiam, xvii. I. vii. t. v. p. 86). 
 The heathen population, irritated at the 
 destruction of their sacred buildings and at 
 the spread of Christianity in Gaza, raised a 
 tumult, in which several Christians were 
 killed, and Porphyry himself barely escaped 
 with his life. We may certainly identify him 
 with one of the two bishops of his name who 
 attended the anti-Pelagian synod at Diospolis 
 in 415 (Aug. in Julian. Hb. i. c. 15). He died 
 Feb. 26, 419 or 420. He is said to have been 
 indefatigable in instructing the people of Gaza 
 in a simple and popular style, based entirely 
 on Holy Scripture. Migne, Pair. Lai. xlv. pp. 
 1 21 1 ff. ; Ceillier, Aut. eccl. vi. 329; Tillem. 
 Mem. eccl. x. pp. 703-716. [e.v.] 
 
 PossidlUS, bp. of Calama, a town of Numidia, 
 S.W. of Hippo, between it and Cirta, but 
 nearer Hippo (Aug. c. Petil. ii. 99 ; Kalma, 
 Shaw, Trav. p. 64). His own account repre- 
 sents him as a convert from paganism, be- 
 coming on his conversion an inmate of the 
 monastery at Hippo, probably c. 390. Thence- 
 forward he lived in intimate friendship with 
 St. Augustine until the latter's death in 430 
 (Possid. Vita Aug. praef. and cc. 12, 31). 
 About 400 he became bp. of Calama. He 
 seems to have established a monastery there, 
 and, probably early in his episcopate, con- 
 sulted Augustine on [a] the ornaments to be 
 used by men and women, and especially ear- 
 rings used as amulets ; (6) the ordination of 
 some one who had received Donatist baptism 
 (Aug. Epp. 104, 4, and 245). In 401 or 402 
 a council was held at Carthage, at which 
 Possidius was present, and challenged in vain 
 Crispinus, Donatist bp. of Calama, to discuss 
 publicly issues between the two parties. 
 After this Possidius, though he modestly 
 conceals his own name, while going to a place 
 in his diocese called Figulina, was attacked 
 by Crispinus, a presbyter, and narrowly 
 escaped alive (Aug. Ep. 103 ; Possid. Vii. 12). 
 In 407 he was one of a committee of seven 
 appointed by Xanthippus, primate of Nu- 
 midia, at the request of Maiurentius, bp. of 
 Tubursica, to decide a question, of whose 
 nature we are not informed, but which was 
 at issue between himself and the seniors of 
 Nova Germania (Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. 34 ; 
 Hardouin, Cone. ii. 922; Bruns, Cone. i. 185). 
 In 408 Possidius was again in trouble and 
 personal danger, in consequence of the 
 disturbances at Calama described above. In 
 409, on June 14, a council was held at Car- 
 thage, and a deputation of four bishops, 
 Florentinus, Possidius, Praesidius, and Benan- 
 tus, was appointed to request the protection 
 of the emperor against the Donatists. On 
 
POSTHUMIANUS 
 
 this occasi Ml Possiilius CDiucycd .i letter fmm 
 Augustine to Pauliuus of Nola, but nothing 
 more is known as to the journey of the depu- 
 tation or their interview, if any, with the 
 emperor, who was then at Ravenna. In 410. 
 however, an edict was issued by Honorius on 
 or about the day on which Ronie was taken 
 by Alaric, viz. Aug. ^6, to Heraclian, c<Mint 
 of .\frica, to restrain by penalties all enemies 
 of the Christian faith, and an<ither of a similar 
 nature on Oct. 14, 410, to Marrellinus, the 
 president of the inference in 411 (.\ug. Ep. 
 93, i. ; 105, i. ; Cod. Thfod. xvi. s, si, and li. 
 3; Baron. 410, 48, 40). At the conference 
 Possidius was one of the seven Catholic man- 
 agers (Coll. Carth. ap. Man. \'et. Don. liii. i ; 
 ii. 29 ; iii. 29, 148, 168, ed. Oberthiir). Me 
 was with Augustine at Hippo in 412 (Aug. Ep. 
 137, 20) and in 416 signed at the council of 
 Mileum the letter sent to pope Innocent 
 concerning the Pelagian heresy (Aug. Ep. 176). 
 He also joined with Augustine, Aurelius, Aly- 
 pius, and Evodius in a letter to the same on 
 the same subject (ib. iSi, 182, 183). He was 
 at the meeting or council of bishops held at 
 Caesareaon Sept. 29, 418. St. .\ugustine men- 
 tions that Possidius(c. 425) brought toCalama 
 and placed in a memorial building there some 
 relics of St. Stephen, by which many cures 
 were wrought (Civ. D. xii. 8, 12, 20). When 
 the Vandals invaded Africa, he took refuge in 
 Hippo with other bishops, and there attended 
 on St. Augustine in his last illness until his 
 death, a.d. 430, in the third month of the 
 siege. He has left a biographical sketch of 
 Augustine, whose unbroken friendship he 
 enjoyed for 40 years, being his faithful ally 
 and devoted admirer. This sketch gives 
 many particulars of great interest as to 
 Augustine's mode of life, and a description, 
 simple but deeply pathetic and impressive, of 
 his last days and death. Though few men's 
 lives are written in their own works more fully 
 than that of .-Vugustine, yet history and the 
 church would have greatly missed the simple, 
 modest, and trustworthy narrative, gathered 
 in great measure from Augustine himself, 
 which Possidius has left us. It was apparent- 
 ly published, not immediately after the death 
 of Augustine, but before 439, as he speaks of 
 Carthage and Cirta as still exempt from 
 capture by the barbarians, and in Oct. 439 
 Carthage was taken by Genseric fPossid. c. 28 ; 
 Clinton, F. R.). Possidius has also left a list 
 of Augustine's works which, though very full 
 and ompiled with great care, does not 
 pretend to be complete and of which some 
 have not vet been discovered. It is given in 
 the last vol. of Migne's ed. of .Augustine's 
 works. Prosper relates in his Chronicle that 
 Possidius, together with Novatus, Severianus, 
 and other bishops of less note, resisted the 
 attempts of Genseric to establish Arian 
 doctrine in Africa, and was driven with them 
 from his see A.D. 4 37- Baron. 437. >• ; M->rcelli. 
 Afr. Chr. iii. 140; Ccillier, ix. 564; Tillcm. 
 vol. xiii. 3S1. [H.w.p.] 
 
 Posthumianus (2), a friend of Sulpicius 
 Severus of Gaul and Paulinus of Nola, was a 
 native of Aquitania, and made at least two 
 journeys to the East. After the first, when 
 he made the acquaintance of Jerome at Beth- 
 lehem, he appears to have visited CampanU to 
 
 PRAEDESTINATUS 
 
 8A5 
 
 see Paulinus (S. I'unliui, l.pp. i». ni MiKn«>. 
 Pair. Lai. Ixi. 227). Hr!Milr«l Ir-un N4rlv>nno 
 in 401 i«r 402 on his second v<iv.«j{r, of whi< h 4 
 full and intrrentmu ac.cunt is in bk. 1. «•( tho 
 Dialogues of Sulpicius Sevrru* (Pair. IM. xx. 
 183), in which Postl)Uini4iius with .Srvrru%4nd 
 (•alius are the sprakm. In five (Iav* ha 
 re.»che<l Carthage, where he visited thr t<inib 
 of St. Cvjirian. Drtaine*! brtwrm .Mm 4 4iid 
 Cyrene bv bad we.ithrr, he l.iiidrd t" explore 
 the country, which was inhabitrd bv 4 very 
 primitive tribi-, who, however, were C hris- 
 tians, and w.is hospitably entrrt4inr<l by 4 
 |>riest. Alex.iiidria w.«s (hen convulsed by 
 the <]uarrel between the patri.in ti Ihe.'philuk 
 and the monks about the writings o( Ori^'en, 
 and Posthumianus went on bv land to Bethle- 
 hem, where he spent six months with Jerome, 
 wh<mi he praises highly both for virtue and 
 learning. Posthumianus then returned to 
 .Alexandria, and thence went to the Theb.iid, 
 spending a year and seven months visiting it» 
 monasteries and hermitages. He penetrated 
 into the Sinaitic peninsula, saw the Kc<l Sea, 
 and ascended Mount Sin.ii. After three 
 years' absence he returned, taking 30 da\-» 
 from Alexandria to Marseilles. He may have 
 been the priest of that name who was present 
 at the death of Paulinus (Uranius, Ep. in 
 Patr. Lat. liii. 861). (p.d.1 
 
 Potamisena (June 28), one of the most 
 celebrated mart>TS at Alexandria in the perse- 
 cution of Severus, being a virgin distinguished 
 alike for her beauty, chastity, and courage. 
 Eusebius (W. E. vi. 5) relates how she was 
 cruellv tortured, and death finally inflicted by 
 burning pitch poured slowly about her from 
 feet to head. Her story is alstt given bv Pal- 
 ladius {Hxst. Imus. 3). (o-ts.) 
 
 Pothlnus (Photxnus. (Ireg. Tur. /-../immj), 
 martvr, first bp. of Lyons in the 2nd cent. 
 Who consecrated hun, and in what year, is un- 
 known, though a desire to find an apostolic 
 foundation has suggested to different writers 
 the names of SS. Peter, John, and Polvcarp. 
 His name suggests that he was a Greek. Of 
 his episcopate we have no record bevond the 
 account of his mart\Tdom by pagans, with 47 
 others, contained in the letter of theChristi-ms 
 of Lvons and Vienne to the churches of Asia 
 and Phrygia, which Eusebius preserve^. Ojv 
 pressed with infirmities and more than <>o years 
 old, he was dragged by soldiers before the 
 tribunal, where he comported hiniself with 
 dignity. To the question of the president 
 what the Christians' God might be, he replied. 
 " If thou wert worthy, thou shouldst know." 
 The blows and ill-usage of the crowd as he 
 was carried back to prison caused his death 
 twodays later. His successor was St. Ireiiacu*. 
 Eus. H. E. v. I ; <;reg. Tur. Htit. Franc, i- 27 ; 
 Sfirac. lib. i. ; dtGlor. Marl. 49. iosa<i ; Gall. 
 Chrtst. iv. 4. . (!**•»•] 
 
 PraodestlnatlU. The author known bv this 
 name wrote .111 anonymous work, first pub. in 
 1643 from a .MS. in the Cathedr-il III' '■• ' 
 Rheims bv Sirmonil, who somewhat 1: 
 priatcly gave it its title from th.*r . 
 whom it was directe<l, .ind several tr 
 printed. r«. bv Migne [Pair. Ut. Uiii. and 
 bk. i. by Ohler in his Cotpu% Hatrtsiologuum. 
 
 The author coinpUms that mm were 
 passing tbcm»elve$ oQ *s of the household ol 
 
856 
 
 PRAEDESTINATUS 
 
 faith who really were most treacherous 
 enemies of the church. These men taught 
 that certain were bv God's foreknowledge so 
 predestined to death that neither Christ's 
 passion nor baptism, faith, hope, nor charity 
 could help them. They might fast, pray, and 
 give alms, but nothing could avail them, be- 
 cause thev had not been predestined to life. 
 On the other hand, those who had received 
 this predestination might neglect and despise 
 all righteousness, yet the gate of life would 
 be opened to them without knocking, while 
 against others who knocked, nay shouted, for 
 admission, it would remain firmly closed. 
 A work by one of these heretics had lately 
 fallen into the writer's hands, and it was 
 necessary to drag it to light and completely 
 refute it. This accordingly is done in the 
 present treatise, consisting of three books. 
 In bk. i. the author clears himself of all sus- 
 picion of sympathy with heresy of any kind 
 by enumerating and repr.)bating the 90 
 heresies by which up to his time Christ's truth 
 had been perverted, the last and worst being 
 that of the Predestinarians. It determines 
 limits for the date of the book that in this list 
 the last but one is the Nestorian heresy. 
 From this and the silence about Eutychianism 
 we may infer that it was written between 431 
 and 449, just the period when the semi- 
 Pelagian controversy was most active. The 
 author professes that his heretical catalogue 
 was epitomized from Hyginus, Polycrates, 
 Africanus, Hesiodus, Epiphanius, and Phil- 
 aster, who, he tells us, wrote against different 
 heresies in this chronological order. It is 
 remarkable that the first four of these con- 
 futations of heresy are not mentioned by any 
 one else, but still more remarkable that the 
 writer is silent as to his obligations to the tract 
 on heresies which Augustine addressed to 
 Quodvultdeus, although his list of 90 heresies 
 agrees, article by article, with Augustine's list 
 of 88, with the addition of the two later here- 
 sies, Nestorianism and Predestinarianism, 
 while the substance of each article is mani- 
 festlv taken from Augustine. These un- 
 favourable suspicions of the writer's literary 
 morality are confirmed as we proceed. It is 
 the author's plan to mention with each heresy 
 the name of the orthodox writer who refutes 
 it. We are thus told of a number of person- 
 ages whom no one else mentions^Diodorus 
 of Crete who refuted the Secundians, Philo 
 the Alogi, Theodotus of Pergamus the Color- 
 basians, Crato, a Syrian bishop, who refuted 
 the Theodotians, Tranquillus the Noetians, 
 Euphranon of Rhodes the Severians, and a 
 host of others of whom we should expect to 
 hear elsewhere if they were not imaginary 
 personages. Moreover, when Praedestinatus 
 ascribes the confutation to real persons his 
 assertions are usually chronologically im- 
 possible. Thus he makes the apostle Thomas 
 confute Saturninus, Barnabas in Cyprus the 
 Carpocratians ; he makes Alexander, who was 
 bp. of Rome at the very beginning of the 2nd 
 cent., write against Heracleon, who lived in 
 the latter half of the century ; the Tertul- 
 lianists are condemned by Soter, who must 
 have been dead 30 years before Tertullian 
 separated from the church ; the imaginary 
 heresiologist, Hesiod of Corinth, is made to be 
 
 PRAXEAS 
 
 the bishop who first opposed Arius, and in 
 answer to whose prayers that heretic died. 
 We have thus before us, not inaccurate history 
 but unscrupulous and unskilful invention, and 
 it can only be from want of acquaintance with 
 i his character as a writer that he is ever cited 
 as an historical authority. [g.s.] 
 
 Praxeas, a somewhat mysterious heretic 
 about whom various theories have been held. 
 He was a Monarchian and Patripassian. Ter- 
 tullian wrote a treatise against him and places 
 his scene of activity first of all at Rome, but 
 never mentions Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, 
 Sabellius or Callistus. On the other hand, 
 Hippolytus, who denounces these in his con- 
 troversial works for the very same tenets, 
 never once mentions Praxeas as teaching at 
 Rome or anywhere else. Some have regarded 
 Praxeas as simply a nick-name. Thus De 
 Rossi (Bullet. 1866, p. 70) identifies him with 
 Epigonus, Hagemann (Gesch. der rom. Kirche. 
 § 234) with Callistus. Dollinger however (//tp- 
 pol. u. Kallist. § 198) and Lipsius (Chronolog. 
 der rom. Bisch. § 175) maintain that Praxeas 
 was a real person who first of all started the 
 Monarchian and Patripassian heresy in Rome, 
 but so long before the age of Hippolytus that 
 his name and memory had faded in that city. 
 They fix his period of activity in Rome during 
 the earliest years of Victor, a.d. 189-198, or 
 even the later years of his predecessor Eleu- 
 therus. This explanation, however, seems to 
 ignore the fact that Hippolytus must have 
 been a full-grown man all through Victor's 
 episcopate, as he expressly asserts (Refut. ix. 6) 
 that he and Callistus were about the same age. 
 Praxeas remained but a short time in Rome, 
 and the shortness of his stay offers a better 
 explanation of Hippolytus's silence. He then 
 proceeded to Carthage, where he disseminated 
 his views. Tertullian [adv. Prax.) attacks the 
 heresy under the name of Praxeas, the local 
 teacher, but was really attacking Zephyrinus 
 and Callistus. The facts of his life we gather 
 from TertuUian's notices in c. i. He was a 
 confessor from .A.sia Minor, where he had been 
 imprisoned for the faith. Asia Minor was 
 then the seed-plot of Monarchian views. He 
 came to Rome when the Montanist party had 
 just gained over the pope. Praxeas con- 
 verted the pope back to his own opinion, which 
 ! was hostile to the Montanists. Most critics 
 ! agree that the pope so converted by Praxeas 
 I was Eleutherus: cf. Bonwetsch's Montanismus, 
 § 174 ; Hilgenfeld's Ketzergeschichte, p. 569. 
 I Dr. Salmon, however, maintains that it was 
 I Zephyrinus. [Mont.^nus.] By this, says Ter- 
 tullian, Praxeas did a twofold service for the 
 devil at Rome, " he drove away prophecy and 
 he introduced heresy. He put to flight the 
 j Paraclete and he crucified the Father." He 
 then went to Carthage, where he induced some 
 I to adopt his opinions. Tertullian opposed 
 him prior to 202, according to Hilgenfeld 
 (I.e. p. 618), and converted Praxeas himself, 
 who acknowledged his error in a document 
 extant among the Catholic party when Ter- 
 tullian wrote. Praxeas then seems to have 
 disappeared from Carthage, while Tertullian 
 joined the Montanists. The controversy 
 some years later broke out afresh, spreading 
 i doubtless from Rome, and then Tertullian 
 I wrote his treatise, which he nominally ad- 
 
 I 
 
PRIMASIUS 
 
 dressed against IV.ix.as as tlu> best known 
 expositor of these views at CarthaKe, but 
 really against the Patripassian system in 
 general. Hilgenfcld {I.e. p. 6ii)) dates this 
 work c. 206; Harnack c. 210. i.r about 251 
 years after the first arrival of I'raxeas in Rome ; 
 while Dr. Salmon dates it after the death of 
 Callistus in 222 : so great is the uncertainty 
 about the chronology of the movement. Mar- 
 Hack's article on " Monarchianismus " in t. x. 
 of Herzog's Real-Encyclopddie contains a good 
 exposition of the relation of Praxeas \.o the 
 Patripassian movement ; cf. I.ipsius Tertul- 
 liati's Schrift uider Praxeas in Jahrb. fur 
 deutsche Theolog,. t. xiii. (i860) §701-724. 
 Among patristic writers the only ones who 
 mention Praxeas are pscudo-Tertullian ; 
 Aiisust. ./(• Haer. 41 ; Pracdestinat. 41; and 
 tieiin.i'i. </c- Efc/fS. Dog. 4. [o.t.s.] 
 
 Primasius, bp. of .\drumetum or Justiniano- 1 
 polis. in the Byzacene province of N. Africa. | 
 He flourished in the middle of 6th cent., | 
 and exercised considerable influence on the ; 
 literary activity of the celebrated theological ; 
 lawyer Junilius, who dedicated to him his 
 Institutes, which spread the views of Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia in the West. Primasius first 
 comes before us in a synod of his province in 
 541, the decrees of which are known only ; 
 through Justinian's decrees confirming them, 
 as given in Baronius, Ann. 541, n. 10-12. He 
 was sent to Constantinople in connexion with 
 the controversy on the Three Chapters c. 351. 
 He assisted in the synod which pope X'igilius 
 held against Theodore Ascidas and was still 
 in Constantinople during the session of the 
 fifth general council, but took no part in it, ' 
 notwithstanding repeated solicitations (Mansi, 
 ix. 199 seq.). He was one of 16 bishops who 
 signed the Constitutum of pope Vigilius, 
 May 14, 553. When, however, Vigilius ac- 
 cepted the decrees of the fifth council, Prima- 
 sius signed them also. Acc<jrding to Victor 1 
 Tunun. (Migne's Patr. Lat. t. Ixviii. col. 939), ' 
 other motives conspired to bring about this 
 change. He was at first exiled to a convent, 
 and then the death of Boethius primate of 
 the Byzacene aroused his ambition to be his 
 successor. He gained his point, but, returning 
 home, his suffragans denounced him as guilty 
 of sacrilege and robbery. He died soon after- 
 wards. His writings {ib. pp. 407-936) embrace 
 commentaries on St. Paul's lipp. and the 
 Apocalypse; likewise a treatise (now lost), de 
 Haeresibus, touching on some points which 
 Augustine did not live to treat with sufficient 
 fullness (Isid. Hispal. r«>.///. xxii. in ih.lxxxiii. 
 I09'5 : Cave, i. 525; Tillem. xiii. 927, xvi. 21). 
 Our Primasius is sometimes confounded with 
 bp. Primasiusof Carthage. The best ace iunt"f 
 Primasius of .Adrumetum is in Kihn's Theodnr 
 von Mopsuestia, pp. 248-254, where a critical 
 estimate is formed of the sources of his 
 exegetical works. [Chiliasts.] Cf. alsoZahn, 
 Forschunzin, iv. 1-224 (iS'Ji)- (G.T.3.] 
 
 Primlanus, Donatist bp. of Carthage, suc- 
 cessor to Parmenian, a.d. 392. Among many 
 things charged against him by the Maxi- 
 mianists, they alleged that he admitted the 
 Claudianists to communion and, when some 
 of the seniors remonstrated with him, en- 
 couraged, if he did not even originate, a 
 riotous attack upon them in a church in which 
 
 PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 857 
 
 soiii,. lost Ihrir livrs. Itirlhir. lli.it he W41 
 guilty of v.inou5 art* o( an arbitrary «nd 
 violciii kind, superseding bi^hopn, rxioni- 
 numicating and (ondemniiig rlrrgvinm with- 
 i>ut suftirirnt cause, rlosinn his < hiir< h do.>r» 
 against the i>eoplr and thr iinprri.d offirrr*. 
 and taking possession of building* to which he 
 had no right. (,\ug. En. in /'i. 36. ao ; c. 
 Cresc. iv. (>, 7. and 7, 9, also 48, 58. and 50, 
 60; Mon. Vet. Don. xxxv. cd ObrrthUr.) 
 M the proceedings before the civil magitlralr, 
 arising out of the decision of the c..unril o( 
 Bagaia, Primian is said to have taunted hit 
 opponents with relying on imperial etlirt*. 
 while his own party bn'Ught with them the 
 C.ospels only (Aug. Post Coll. xxxi. H,|. 
 When the confer.-nrc was proposed, heresintrd 
 it, remarking witli scornful arroR.mre that " it 
 was not fit th.it the sons of martvrs should 
 confer with the bro.nl of tradit.-rs" {CarlH. 
 Coll. iii. 116 ; Aug. lirextc Coll. iii. 4. 4). A» 
 one of the seven managers at the conference, 
 A.D. 411, on the Donatist side, he helpeil to 
 delay the opening of the pr.Keedings and to 
 obstruct them during their progress, but 
 showed no facility in debate (lirevic. (oil. 
 ii. 30 ; Carth. Coll. i. 104). He p.issed a just 
 sentence of condemnation on Cyprian, Dona- 
 tist bp. of Tubursica, for an act of scandalous 
 immorality (Aug. c. Petit, iii. 34. 40). Sec 
 Dr. Sparrow Simpson, .S^ .fu^;.' and .4/r. Ch. 
 Divisions (1910), p. S2. 'le.w.p.] 
 
 PrisclIIIanusandPrlsclIIIanlsm. The Priscil- 
 
 lianists, whose doctrines were .Manichean and 
 Gnostic in character, were organized as a sect 
 by their founder Priscillian. The spread of 
 the heresy was not wide either in time or 
 space. The sect sprang up and flourished in 
 Spain during the last third of the 4th cent, in 
 the reigns of the emperors (iratian and Maxi- 
 mus. After the synod of Saragossa, 381, it 
 ramified into Aquitaine, but never took deep 
 root beyond the P\Tenees. Where the her«-sy 
 first ajjpeared in Spain is unrecorded. There 
 it spread through most provinces, especially 
 in cities. The agitation at Cordova, Merida, 
 Avila, Astorga, Saragossa, Toledo, Braga, 
 sufficiently indicates its prevalence and poi>u- 
 i larity. The council of Bordeaux, 384. fol- 
 lowed by the violent measures of Maximus, 
 intensified for a while the enthusiasm of Pris- 
 cillian's adherents. But in 390, at the synod 
 of Toledo, many leading Pri.srillianists re- 
 canted and were admitted to church com- 
 munion. The sect continued to diminish in 
 number. Pope I.eo I. exerted himself vigor- 
 ously to repress it. It lingered in Spain till 
 the middle of the 5th cent. .After the council 
 of Toledo, 447, .uid th.it at Braga in iialit u, 
 44S, especially held ag.iinst them, they dis- 
 appear from liistorv. Priscilli.inism became 
 a remembrance and a suspi< ion. 
 
 Marcus, a native of .Memphis in Kgypt, 
 introduced the (iiiostic an<l M.inii heaii here- 
 sies. Nothing is known of his life beyond his 
 Hgyptian origin, his coming to Spain, .u : ! 1. 
 teaching. Two of his follower* were A 
 a Spanish ladv. and Melpidius, a rhet n i . 
 Their convert wa* the l.tyman Pris< illi.ui. 
 whi>se place of birth or residence i» unknown 
 He was of good family, wealthy, and well 
 educated. He bccaino at once an ardent pro«r- 
 lyte: an apostle of the Oriental d(xtrinc«. Hit 
 
858 PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 
 
 character is described by the contemporary 
 historian Sulpicius Severus, in his Sacred His- 
 tory (ii. 46). Eloquent, learned, pious, sincere, 
 austere, ardent, and zealous, Priscillian was 
 well fitted to be the apostle and founder of a 
 sect. Modifying and framing the Oriental 
 doctrines into a system of his own, he soon 
 became their able exponent and advocate. 
 Attracting a large following, he organized 
 them into a religious society. Many of the 
 wealthy and noble, and a great number of the 
 people, received his teaching. Some bishops, 
 as well as clergy and laity, became his dis- 
 ciples. The Gnostic mysticism spread rapidly 
 and widely in all Spain. 
 
 Among Priscillian's first and most devoted 
 followers were two bishops, Instantius and 
 Salvianus, in the S. of Spain. Adyginus, bp. 
 of Cordova, was the first to oppose the rising 
 sect. He reported the matter to Idatius, bp. 
 of Emerita (Merida), and took counsel with 
 him. Their conference led to an organized 
 movement against the new errors. All S. 
 Spain became agitated by the controversy. 
 Idatius is blamed as too rough and violent. 
 By intolerant severity he promoted rather 
 than prevented the spread of the sect. Ady- 
 otinus, dissatisfied with his colleague, became 
 rather the protector of the Priscillianists and 
 incurred thereby much reproach and odium. 
 At length a synod was to be held at Caesar- 
 Augusta (Saragossa) on the Ebro, a site 
 sufficiently far north from the localities where 
 the Priscillianists and the orthodox were 
 in hostility to be neutral ground, and also 
 having the advantage of nearness to Gaul. It 
 was proposed to gather there the bishops of 
 Spain and Aquitaine. The synod was held in 
 380. The Priscillianists did not venture to 
 appear. In their absence their opinions were 
 condemned. The four leaders, Instantius and 
 Salvianus the bishops, Helpidius and Pris- 
 cillian the laymen, were excommunicated. 
 The bp. of Cordova fell under the lash of the 
 leaders of the synod. He had received into 
 terms of communion some of the heretics. 
 The council anathematized all who shared 
 or connived at the new errors of faith and 
 practice. The task of promulgating the 
 decrees and executing the ecclesiastical 
 sentences was given to Ithacius, bp. of Sossuba. 
 The important and lamentable result of the 
 synod was the assumption by Ithacius of the 
 leadership of the persecuting party. 
 
 A preconcerted counter-movement now 
 began on the part of the Priscillianists. At 
 the hands of Instantius and Salvianus, Priscil- 
 lian received episcopal ordination. His see 
 was Avila (Abila) on the Adaja, a tributary of 
 the Douro, midway between Salamanca and 
 Madrid (Hieron. de Script. EccL). This 
 measure of defiance shewed the strength of his 
 party. It led to further progress towards 
 persecution. On behalf of the church au- 
 thorities, Idacius and Ithacius applied to the 
 secular government. Aid was brought against 
 the heretics. Powers were asked for execu- 
 tion of the decree of the synod, and in 381 
 Gratian granted a rescript, excluding all ' 
 heretics from the use of the churches and 
 ordering them to be driven into exile. The 
 Priscillianists were thus cut off from civil pro- 
 tection. Vigorous defensive measures were 
 
 necessary to their very existence. An appeal 
 was proposed by them to the two most eminent 
 bishops of the West, Daraasus of Rome and 
 Ambrose of Milan. Their influence, it was 
 hoped, might lead to a rescinding of the 
 imperial decision. Instantius, Salvianus, and 
 Priscillian went to Rome to clear themselves 
 and their party in the papal court. On their 
 way they penetrated into Interior Aquitaine, 
 perhaps to try measures of conciliation among 
 the bishops of that province, who had con- 
 demned them unseen and unknown at Sara- 
 gossa. The seeds of the heresy were sown by 
 them as they travelled. Elusa (Eluso) near 
 Eauze, a town on the Gelise near Auch, is 
 especially mentioned. All the church centres 
 were, however, hostile to them. They were 
 vigorously repulsed from Bordeaux (Burde- 
 gala), by the vigilance of bp. Delphinus. On 
 their journey they were joined by many from 
 Gaul whom they had infected with their 
 errors. Euchrocia and her daughter Procula, 
 amongst these, ministered of their substance 
 to Priscillian and his colleagues. A promis- 
 cuous crowd nf others, especially women, are 
 mentioned. In consequence, injurious re- 
 ports, probably calumnies, were vigorously 
 circulated against Priscillian and his retinue. 
 On their arrival at Rome the Priscillianists 
 were repulsed by pope Damasus. They re- 
 traced their steps to Milan, and found Am- 
 brose, whose power and reputation were at 
 their height, steadily opposed to them. 
 
 The Priscillianists put on a bold front and 
 began aggressive measures against their assail- 
 ants. The wealth of Priscillian and his 
 followers was liberally employed. " The 
 silver spears " were now in the hands of 
 the partisans on both sides. Macedonius, the 
 master of the offices (magister officiorum). was 
 won over to the interests of Priscillian and his 
 party. By his powerful influence a rescript 
 from Gratian protecting them was obtained. 
 The Priscillianists were to be restored to their 
 churches and sees. Instantius and Priscillian, 
 returning to Spain, regained their sees and 
 churches. All things seemed turned in their 
 favour. Idacius and Ithacius, though for the 
 moment powerless, had not ceased to make a 
 show of resistance. The Priscillianists charged 
 them with causing divisions and disturbing the 
 peaceof the church, and Ithacius wascompelled 
 to fly. At Treves resided the Caesar who ruled 
 Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Ithacius escaped 
 thither from Spain. Gregory, the prefect 
 there, warmly espoused his cause and strove 
 to bring the complaints of the orthodox bishops 
 again before Gratian. The Priscillianists had, 
 however, friends at court powerful enough to 
 ward oS the danger. The cause was taken 
 out of the hands of Gregory and transferred to 
 the court of Volventius the vicar of Spain. 
 
 An unlooked-for political change now came. 
 The overthrow and assassination at Paris of 
 the unpopular Gratian, the usurpation of the 
 purple by Clemens Maximus, his proclamation 
 as emperor by his soldiers in Britain, his 
 triumphant entrance into Gaul, with the con- 
 sequent ofiicialchanges, destroyed all the bright 
 hopes of the Priscillianists. The fortimes of 
 their adversaries revived. On the arrival of 
 Maximus at Treves in 384 Ithacius brought a 
 formal accusation with heavy charges against 
 
PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM PRISCILLI A NUS. PR1S( ILLIANISM M» 
 
 Prisiillian and his (oUowrrs. Maxinuis, .1 ^ 
 iard by birth, listciinl to the Spanish t 1 
 and reversed the vacillatinK poliry of (.1 . 
 treating the matter n»t as one o! eerlcM.isti. n 
 rivalrv. but as one <>( nioralitv and s«><-iety. 
 In his letter afterwards to Siricius. who »ur. 
 ceeded Hamasus in 384 in the see i>f K'Hur. he 
 expressly dwells upon these points and slorir* 
 in the part he had OMisequcntly taken against 
 the heresy of Prisrillian. Both parties were 
 suinnione<! to a svnod at Bi'rileaux in i-S^. 
 Instantius and Priscillian were the first to 
 appear. Instantius was declared to have for- 
 feited his bishi>pric. Priscillian n-solvwi to 
 forestall the expected hostile judgment and 
 " appeal unto Caesar." No protest was made. 
 The appeal was allowed. A purely spiritual 
 oflence was remitted for criminal trial to a 
 secular tribunal. In due course both parties 
 appeared before Maximus at Treves. 
 
 At Treves there was one at this crisis of the 
 church whose prophetic insight saw the real 
 significance of the issues at slake, Martin, bp. 
 of Tours, whose influence was then at its 
 height. Through his mediation between the 
 contending parties, the trial of Priscillian was 
 delayed, Maximus for a while yielding to his 
 protests, even consenting to promise him that 
 no life should be sacrificed. But at last St. 
 Martin, at the call of other duties, was obliged 
 to withdraw from Treves. The emperor was 
 now surrounded by other influences. By 
 Idacius and Ithacius, ably supported by two 
 bishops of a like stamp, Magnus and Rufus, 
 powerful at court, Maximus was unremittingly 
 urged to take severe measures. 
 
 The trial of the Priscillianists, once resolved 
 upon, was soon brought ab< >ut and they became 
 a defenceless prey to their enemies. Their 
 " appeal unto Caesar " was truly an appeal to 
 a pitiless Nero. As a stroke of state policy 
 nothing could be wiser in the eyes of the 
 adherents of Maximus than their destruction. 
 Both pagan and Christian authorities attri- 
 bute mercenary motives to the emperor and 
 state that the possessions of the rich Priscil- 
 lian and of his foll.)wers ex< ited his cupidity 
 (Sulp. Sev. Dialog, iii. 9 ; I'anei;\r. of Lai. Pac. 
 Drep. on Theodosius, Panegvr. Vel. xvi. 29). 
 At the same time there could not be a more 
 brilliant inauguration of the lu-w reign than a 
 vigorous assertion of orthodoxy on the lines 
 of the now famous Thc<xlosian decrees. 
 
 Priscillian and his chief followers were con- 
 demned to death by the imperial consistory at 
 Treves. Several others, after confiscation of 
 their go<xis, were banished to the Scilly Isli-s, 
 others into (laul. Priscillian is rcci.rded as 
 the first of those who suffered death ("gladio 
 perempti "). With him died two presbvters. 
 lately become disciples, Feluissimus and Ar- 
 menius, and Latronianus a poet and Kurhr-KUa 
 the rich and noble matron of Bordeaux. In- 
 stantius. depiised from his bishopric by the 
 synod of Bordeaux, and Tibcrianus were ban- 
 ished to the dev>latc Scilly Isles. Asariiiu* 
 and Aurclius, two deacons, were executed. 
 TertuUus, Potamius. and Johannes, as meaner 
 followers who turned king's evidence, wcr. 
 temporarilv banished within Gaul. 
 
 The immediate consequence* were not rr 
 assuring to the persecuting party. At Tr*vr» 
 a violent strife arose between the bisbopt 
 
 I 'M the Ilirtll 
 il«tr«. 4 bitl 
 
 !'v| t»,r tl ••■ 
 
 olth. 
 
 lianis; 
 
 Then . ; 
 
 thovwh..h.. wcht 
 
 to Spam aiii «tlh 
 
 great p>mp . 4% • 
 
 saint, was n>>w, ^lav:^ >.;1, . ^d «% 
 
 a martyr. Signs were n^t » ii(»r«l 
 
 the orth<Ml.<s. lli..l 1!:. ! . irly 
 
 aimeilatshr t t!>r Kut«« 
 
 of a secret r^ 
 
 .\ddition.ii ^1. Mail- 
 
 mus r«i»>lvr<i I . s. n I ii.iiuirs (ritiunr« to 
 Spam with unliitutnl |>..wrr^. They wrtr to 
 investigate rhargcs ■>! hrrt-%y, rsaniinr here- 
 lies, take life and pr'prrlv fr'H' ••• ■ .n-. 
 They were men little likely to I. 
 with merry. At thi*. )uiutui 
 Tours returne<I to rr<^veii. Nm • 
 induce hiin to be reconriled to ih< i^i :;» iri\ 
 and abettors of the late rxecuti.ins. The 
 persuasi m and threats of \h<- rm; . i r fu'i ,; 
 to ni'>ve him. he was <lis: 
 presence in anger. Tidii 
 that the tribunes had bcf i, • 
 He hurried to the ;■ i" 
 and agreed to unit- 
 fellowship. The ell: 
 
 tunity and Martin ;■■ 
 
 side i>f humanity «• 1 he liilxuirs 
 
 were recalled an- 1 ' spared the 
 
 horrors of a religi u :i 
 
 The schism contiuutd * .luc lime betwern 
 those that approveti and tho*e that C"K»demnc«l 
 the severities ag.iinst Pri-- lUim F-r li 
 years the contention w.t^ . I the 
 
 merits of the controversy 1 t. Ue 
 
 canvasse<l. The violent 1 • itnlv 
 
 not extinguishe<l the Iim ' 
 
 even to take deeper root i 
 a council at Toledo mair. 
 over and were readmiiii.i > - . •■ •• 
 munion. .\m>ngst theM; was l>ii tiuiiius, « 
 F'risrilliaiiisl bishop. aulh..r .-f /A/ S<*l*i 
 (Libra), wherein Priscillianut ";i!.i :.•• »'te 
 expounded and adv">cate«l. In 4 : 
 presbyter, ()r>>sius. wr^ie to A . 
 cerning the sect. Alonglett-r • 
 extant, written t'> Cereti'i 
 ing the apocryj'hal Pris 
 especially a hvmn attnbtr 
 years later Tumbius. b, 
 in v>rrow and peri>lcxitv t 
 advice for dralmi? with ; 
 
 danger- •u> .1-1 - ' 
 
 t-i i,e..'» r- 
 
 Tole<l-.in4i 
 
 448, where 1 ; 
 
 the usual ai»i*llt4"».ii- A la-l 
 nienll-.n -•! the Priscillianists ■ 
 binali->n with the Artaiis. In Ih-^ 
 council of Braga. in i<>». 
 
 N-> ancient writer hat itivm «n Accur*!* 
 ...... unt f \hr Prt^'illlintil d---!rtr»r l».ir 
 
 a lew verbal aiiuaiuoa in cualctti|^ai)r ^*€^ 
 
860 PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 
 
 writers. The Priscillianist system, already 1 
 sufficiently dark and perplexed, has had new 
 obscurity added by unstinted misrepresenta- 
 tion. The general outline may be made out 
 of their opinions, fantastic allegories, daring 1 
 cosmogonies, astrological fancies, combined | 
 with the severest asceticism. It is easier to 
 compare the general resemblances of their t 
 doctrine to Cabalism, Syrian and Egyptian 
 Gnosticism, Manicheism, Persian and Indian 
 Orientalism, than to detect, analyse, and i 
 assign the differences. 
 
 There are no authentic extant records of ! 
 the Priscillianist writers. A fragment of a 
 letter of Priscillian himself has come down to 
 us in quotation (Orosii Common, in Aug. Op.). 
 There are allusions to a multitude of aporry- 
 phal scriptures which they used, thus differing 
 from most heretical sects in accepting all 
 apocryphal and canonical books as scripture, 
 explaining and adapting them to their purpose 
 in a mystical manner. 
 
 Our clearest account of their tenets is in 
 the controversial correspondence slightly later 
 than Priscillian, between Leo the Great and 
 Turribius, bp. of Astorga. The latter summed 
 up the doctrines in i6 articles. Leo replied in 
 a lengthy epistle, commenting seriatim on each 
 proposition ( Leo, Ep. xv.). 
 
 ( i) Their wild cosmical speculations were 
 based on the bold Gnostic and Manichean 
 conceptions of a primeval dualism. The two 
 opposite realms of light and darkness, in 
 eternal antagonism, were their basis. ! 
 
 (2) Their anti-materialism led them very far 
 from the sublime simplicity of Scripture. 
 Perplexed by the insoluble problem of the j 
 origin of sin, they indulged in most fantastic i 
 dreams and myths. j 
 
 (3) The astrological fatalism which pope, 
 Leo condemned so sternly as subversive of 
 all moral distinctions was a striking peculiar- 
 ity (Leo, Ep. XV. 11-12). They believed the 12 
 signs of the Zodiac to have a mysterious supre- 
 macy over the members of the body. 
 
 (4) Their Christology is difficult to gather. 
 If thev held a Trinity at all, it was but a 
 Trinity of names. Their adversaries accused 
 them of Arianism and Sabellianism. Leo 
 sharply criticizes their application and inter- 
 pretation of the Scripture attributive of the 
 Redeemer, " the Only-begotten." 
 
 (5) Their rigid asceticism resulted directly 
 from their idea of the innate evil of matter. 
 Marriage was proscribed ; austerities of all 
 sorts required. 
 
 (6) Their moral system plainly deserves the 
 charge of dissimulation. Holding an esoteric 
 and exoteric doctrine, they, with some other 
 theosophic sects, affirmed falsehood allowable 
 for a holy end ; absolute veracity only binding 
 between fellow-members. To the unenlight- 
 ened they need not always and absolutely state 
 the whole truth. This looseness of principle 
 thev supported by Scripture, distorting, e.g., 
 Eph.iv. 25 in support of their practice. It was 
 a Priscillianist habit to affect to agree with 
 the multitude, making allowance for what they 
 considered their fleshly notions, and to conceal 
 from them what they regarded them as incap- 
 able of comprehending (Dictinnius in Libra). 
 In the agitation of controversy some church 
 ecclesiastics were in favour of fighting the 
 
 PRIVATUS 
 
 Priscillianists with their own weapons. Augus- 
 tine's treatise de Mendacio was expressly 
 written against such laxity. It is easy to see 
 how such practice arose from their principles. 
 We may illustrate it by their Gnostic ideas 
 about Scripture. The Christian Scripture was 
 to them an imperfect revelation. What the 
 Jewish rehgion was to Christianity, that the 
 Priscillianists considered Christianity was with 
 regard to their own speculations. As the O.T. 
 was full of types and shadows of Christianity, 
 so the N.T. in their hands became a figurative 
 and symbolical exposition and veil of Priscil- 
 lianism. The outer form was for the ignorant 
 and profane ; the inner truth for the wise and 
 initiated. The grace of faith was fitted only 
 for the rude mass of men ; to know was the 
 vocation of the privileged, the spiritual, the 
 elect. A step further led the Priscillianist to 
 disregard moral distinctions and believe him- 
 self entitled to prevaricate, which often led 
 to things still worse, in his dealings with the 
 common herd (cf. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 
 lect. xii. p. 196 ; ix. p. 135 ; Neander, Ch. 
 Hist. ii. p. 26). See Priscill. qua Supersunt, etc. 
 accedit Orosii Commonitorum, etc. (Vienna, 
 1889), in Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xviii. [m.b.c] 
 PrisCUS (11), St., 30th archbp. of Lyons, 
 has been the subject of much controversy. 
 Gregory of Tours, the historian, his contem- 
 porary, brings against him the gravest charges. 
 According to the Hist. Franc, (iv. 36), he set 
 himself, with his wife Susanna, to persecute 
 and destroy those who had been the friends 
 of his predecessor St. Nicetius, out of malice 
 and jealousy, and never wearied of declaiming 
 against his memory. The Vitae Patrum (viii. 
 5) also has an instance of his contempt for the 
 same prelate, whose chaplain he is said to 
 have been. On theother hand, he is numbered 
 by the church among the saints. He was 
 present at numerous councils, the 4th of Paris 
 in 573, Chalons in 579, Macon in 581 or 583, 
 3rd of Lyons in 581, another at Lyons in 583, 
 Valence in 584 or 585, and the 2nd of Macon 
 in 585, at some of which he presided, and at 
 the last was honoured in the preface with the 
 dignified title, very rare in the West, of 
 patriarcha (Mansi, ix. 949 ; Ceillier, xi. 896). 
 For these and other reasons the Bollandists 
 {Acta SS. Jun. vi. 120-127) refuse credence 
 to Gregory's charges. [s.a.b.] 
 
 PrivatUS (2), once bp. of the important 
 but shortlived city of Lambaesis in Numidia, 
 the present Tazzui or Tezzulot (Momms.). He 
 was condemned for heresy and multa et gravia 
 delicta, by 90 bishops at a council under 
 Donatus, bp. of Carthage (Cypr. Ep. 59, xiii. ; 
 i ro), and apparently under the Roman bishopric 
 of Fabian (a.d. 240, Morcelli). Apparently 
 the council was held at Lambaesis, and after- 
 wards Donatus and Fabian issued letters 
 condemnatory of Privatus and his opinions. 
 1 In 250 Privatus visited Rome, and C\T3rian, 
 ' apprehensive of his influence, warned the 
 clergy against him. They replied (Ep. xxxvi. 
 4) that they had already detected him in an 
 attempt to obtain litterae {communicatoriae) 
 from them fraudulently. 
 
 ! He presented himself {vetus haereticus) and 
 desired to be heard on behalf of the party 
 who took the lax view as to the lapsi, at the 
 1 2nd council Id. Mai., 252, and, on being re- 
 
PROBUS 
 
 jected, consecrated Fortun.iliis |>scud<>-l>ishop 
 ( /ip.lix. 13), assisted by a pscud»-bishu|>, Folix, 
 ut his own consecration, and by Jovinus and 
 Maxiiuus. and a lapsed bishop, Krpostus 
 Suturnicensis. k-wii.' 
 
 Probus (4), S«xtus Anioius Petronliu 
 
 (Cor{>. Inscrif>. vi. i. n. irs-). a nuiubrr «>( one 
 of the most illustrious f.iuulies in Konie, con- 
 sul with Ciratian in a.d. 371. and four tinjes 
 pretorian prefect of Italy, Ulyricuni, the 
 liauls, and Africa. He had also been pro- 
 consul in Africa in 358 (Cod. Thfod. xi. 3(> ; 
 xiii.)- He was appointed pretorian prelect 
 of Italy and Illyricum in 3h8 (Annnian. xxvii. 
 I ). During his tenure of oftice he chose St. 
 Ambrose, then a young advocate, as one of 1 
 his council, and afterwards appointed him 
 ijovernor of Liguria and .-^emilia with the 
 rank of consular. On this occasion Probus 
 uttered the words, afterwards considered 
 prophetic, " Go, act not as a judge but as a 
 bishop " ; and many years later he sent one 
 of his servants, who was possessed with a 
 devil, to be healed by him (Faulinus. Vila 
 Ambr. 5, 8, 21, in Migne, I'atr. Lai. xiv. i8, 
 ^9, 34). Probus continued prefect of Italy 
 until Valentinian died in 374. He appears as 
 pretorian prefect of Italy in 380, and as 
 pretorian prefect in 383-384 {Cod. Theod. j 
 vi. 28 ii. ; xi. 13 i. ; vi. 30 vi.). .\fter the ' 
 murder of Gratian in 383 he acted as regent 
 to Valentinian II. in Italy, accompanying him 
 and his mother Justina in their flight to 
 Thessalonica on the invasion of Maximus in 
 387 (Socr. H. £. V. II ; Soz. H. E. vii. 13). 
 He died before the end of 394 (Claudian. m 
 Frob. el 01. Cons. 31) at the age of nearly 60, 
 after having received baptism (Corp. Inscnp. 
 vi. I, p. 389). It may be owing to his Chris- 
 tianity that .\mmianus (xxvii. 11) paints him 
 in such unfavourable colours, a remarkable 
 contrast to the glowing panegvric of Claudian , 
 and .Ausonius (£p. 16). All agree as to his ; 
 immense wealth and boundless liberality. [ 
 His wife Anicia Faltonia Proba belonged to 
 the .A.nician house, and their sons I»robinus 
 and Olybrius had the unique honour of being 
 consuls together in 395. Six letters of 
 Svramachus, who was his intimate friend 
 (Epp. i. 56-61), are addressed to him (Tillem. 
 Emp. V. 42, 72)- (p-d) 
 
 Prochorus (Ilp6xopo?), the name of one of 
 the seven deacons in Acts vi. 5. Later tradi- 
 tion makes him one of the 70 disciples, and 
 afterwards bp. of Nicomedia in Bithynia (cf. 
 the list of the 70 in the so-called iJorotheus). 
 
 Under his name has been preserved an 
 apocrvphal History of Ihe Aposlle John, first 
 published in the fireek text by .Michael 
 Neander in the appendix to the 3rd ed. of his 
 Graeco-Latin version of Luther's Short 
 Catechism, along with a Latin trans, by 
 Sebastian Castalio (Catechesis Marltnt Lutheri 
 parva graeco-lalina poslremum rfcogmla. 
 Basileae, 1567. PP- 526-663). 
 
 The narrative begins with the parting of the 
 apostles and St. John's mi^^ion mto Asia. In 
 punishment for a first refusal to go by sea John 
 suffers shipwreck, but arrives safely at Kphrsus, 
 accompanied bv l'r(x:horos his disciplc. Here 
 he takes service in a public bath ; restore* to 
 life the owner's son, who has been slain by a 
 demon, destroys the image of Diana (Artemis) 
 
 PROCHORUS 
 
 •61 
 
 and exjM-U tlir .I.111..11 wlnrh h.1.1 h ul..,i4tr«i 
 
 there ; is baiii^lird hiiiixrll ' ' iiii* 
 
 to be again rxiird to Pat *nd 
 
 of the rni|>rrtir. On thr i ho 
 
 rrstiTfS .1 (Irowtinl iii.m to ill. .11 . I : -r«l, 
 
 ..n.t li.-.iN ., M. W ►:m.u.1mu..i. 1 1,. ^■'■.•irr pari 
 ot the siil.s.-.ni.iil ii.»n.iti\r !•. ..<<u|i..| with 
 the w.. lull. Ills ilir.l. ! t . . • t Ir 111 hit 
 baiiishiiient, his m ' ;iilri% with 
 
 demons and sorni itioij ul a 
 
 learned Jew in a 1 nuincf<iu% 
 
 mir.icles of healuifr alul l.ii iiiK If 'in thr dead, 
 and triumphant issues out of rvrry onidict 
 in which his iM-rsrculing cnrinir* involve hiiii. 
 After a resulence in Patni«»» of 15 year* he 
 has converted almost the whole island. Ke« 
 ceiving |>erniission to return to l-.phr«u«, he 
 first retires to a solitary place in the lUand 
 (itardi-aixrit) and there dictate* hi« K<»»tx-| to 
 l*riH horos. and when hni»hed leave* it Iwhind 
 as a memorial of his work in Patnio*. Hp then 
 goes bv ship to Lphesus, and dwells there in 
 the house of Domnus. whom hr had formerly 
 in his youth raised to life. Alter reMdinjt tb 
 years more at Kphesus he bune* hiinsrll alive. 
 Prochoros and six other disciple* dig his ^rave, 
 and when he has laid hini->< H in it. r.vrr him 
 with earth. On the grave 1 .• nlly 
 
 reopened, the apostle has li 
 
 This writing of the allet:. . i^. In 
 
 its main contents at least, in n- w iv .1 recen- 
 sion of the old Gnostic Acts of John, but the 
 independent work of some Catholic auth.*. 
 Though the writer makes s..ine use of the 
 (;nostic Acts, he can hardly have known thera 
 in th<-ir original text. Its purp«»se srrm* lo 
 be to supplement the Lphc^ian hiNtorir* ol 
 the apostle which alre.idv existed in a Catholic 
 recension bv a d.t.uUd account of his deed* 
 and adventures in Patmos. The author can 
 have had no h^cal interest in its coini»'Mtion. 
 His notions of the situation, size, and general 
 characteristics of the island, which he c«-rtainly 
 never saw, are most extraordinarv. In con- 
 structing his narrative he has made only par- 
 tial use of older materials. Hy far the tu.«t 
 of these narrations of the pretended Pri>choro» 
 are free inventions of his own. None brtray 
 any leaning towards (.no>ticisni. The •""'hor 
 shews no tendency to a^r•tl. \ " 
 
 where he draws from older 
 in discourses attributed 1 
 theological element is 'juit- 
 takes no notice of the .\\ 
 
 ncepl 
 
 ipposition to the older tr 
 
 the 
 He 
 
 1. in 
 the 
 composition .'f the Ko*pri Ihe 
 
 .iccount given of this is rrrt.onlv i> I irriveO 
 from the Gnostic ll(^o3«. 
 
 The date of romp, .sit 1 n , ann -t h«- 1>««^ «h»n 
 the middle of 5th r. ;.• 
 not only in the Cht 
 470, ed. Bonn . r< 
 also id thr .!■ 
 to Dori.thr.i 
 Urmtnus a ^u 
 niiig of the s;.. 
 otiw.ird« and not 
 appear to have kn' " 
 the ap'-stlr*. With • 
 fart that the author i an 
 diffusion of Chrutianitv i- 
 Aegean Archipelago. It 1 
 detcnnine the place of ■ ; , 
 
 I. 
 
 r<»i. 
 
 but 
 >ite<l 
 Ihe 
 <ia- 
 time 
 « I Iter* 
 
 tlr«o| 
 s the 
 ^rvil 
 \ the 
 .it lo 
 The 
 
S62 PROCLUS 
 
 author is certainly not a native of Asia Minor, 
 but rather perhaps of Antioch, or the coast 
 region of Syria and Palestine. He is better 
 acquainted with the topograpliy of those parts 
 than with the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Of 
 his personal circumstances we can only say 
 that he certainly was not a monk ; perhaps 
 he was a married cleric, possibly a layman. 
 Cf. Zahn, Acta Joannis (Erlangen. 1880); 
 Lipsius, Die Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, i. 
 
 355-408. [R.A.L.] 
 
 Proclus(t) {Proculus), aMontanist teacher, 
 and probably the introducer of Montanism 
 into Rome at the very beginning of the 3rd 
 cent. For the account given by TertuUian 
 (adv. Prax. i) of the apparently favourable 
 reception the new prophesying at first met 
 with at Rome, and its subsequent rejection, 
 see Montanism. Proclus was publicly op- 
 posed by Caius, commonly called a Roman 
 presbyter, and the record of their disputation, 
 though now lost, was read by Eusebius, and 
 is mentioned by several other writers. [Caius.] 
 Pseudo-TertuU'ian states {Haer. 21) that the 
 Montanists were divided into two sections by 
 the Patripassian controversy, Proclus leading 
 the section whose doctrine on that subject 
 agreed with that of the church, and Aeschines 
 the opposite section. This schism among the 
 Montanists is mentioned also by Hippolytus 
 {Ref. viii. 19). 
 
 We can scarcely be wrong in identifying 
 Proclus the Montanist with the Proculus whom 
 TertuUian in his tract against the Valentinians 
 (c. 5) calls " Proculus noster, virginis senectae 
 et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas." He 
 there refers to him as one who, like Justin 
 Martyr, Miltiades, and Irenaeus, successfully 
 confuted heresy. He is also named as a leader 
 of the Montanists by Pacian {Ep.ad Sympron.), 
 and no doubt it is his name which is disguised 
 as Patroclus in the MSS. of Theodoret (Haer. 
 Fab. iii. 2). [o.s.] 
 
 Proclus (2), St., patriarch of Constantinople. 
 The friend and disciple of Chrysostom, he 
 became secretary to Atticus the patriarch, 
 who ordained him deacon and priest. Sisin- 
 nius, the successor of Atticus, consecrated him 
 bp. of Cyzicus, but the people there refused 
 to receive him, and he remained at Constanti- 
 nople. On the death of Sisinnius, the famous 
 Nestorius succeeded, and early in 429, on a 
 festival of the Virgin, Proclus preached the 
 celebrated sermon on the Incarnation inserted 
 in the beginning of the Acts of the council of 
 Ephesus. When Maximianus died on Thur. 
 before Easter, 434, Proclus was, by the per- 
 mission of Theodosius, immediately enthroned 
 by the bishops at Constantinople. His first 
 care was the funeral of his predecessor, and he 
 then sent both to Cyril and John of Antioch 
 the usual synodical letters announcing his 
 appointment, both of whom approved of it. 
 In 436 the bishops of Armenia consulted him 
 upon certain doctrines prevalent in their 
 country and attributed to Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, asking for their condemnation. 
 Proclus replied (437) in the celebrated letter 
 known as the Tome of Proclus, which he sent 
 to the Eastern bishops asking them to sign it 
 and to join in condemning the doctrines 
 arraigned by the Armenians. They approved 
 of the letters, but from admiration of Theodore 
 
 PROCOPIUS OP CAESAREA 
 
 hesitated to condemn the doctrines attributed 
 to him. Proclus replied that while he desired 
 the extracts subjoined to his Tome to be con- 
 demned, he had not attributed them to 
 Theodore or any individual, not desiring the 
 condemnation of any person. A rescript from 
 Theodosius procured by Proclus, declaring his 
 wish that all should live in peace and that no 
 imputation should be made against any one 
 who died in communion with the church, 
 appeased the storm. The whole affair shewed 
 conspicuously the moderation and tact of 
 Proclus. In 438 he transported to Constan- 
 tinople from Comana, and interred with great 
 honour in the church of the Apostles, the 
 remains of his old master St. Chrysostom, and 
 thereby reconciled to the church his adherents 
 who had separated in consequence of his 
 condemnation. In 439, at the request of a 
 deputation from Caesarea in Cappadocia, he 
 selected as their new bishop Thalassius, who 
 was about to be appointed pretorian prefect of 
 the East. In the time of Proclus the Trisagion 
 came into use. The occasion is said to have 
 been a time when violent earthquakes lasted 
 for four months at Constantinople, so that the 
 people were obliged to leave the city and en- 
 camp in the fields. Proclus died most prob- 
 ably in July 446. He appears to have been 
 wise, moderate, and conciliatory, desirous, 
 while strictly adhering to orthodoxy himself, 
 to win over those who differed from him by 
 persuasion rather than force. 
 
 His works (Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixv. 651) consist 
 of 20 sermons (some of doubtful authenticity), 
 5 more pub. by Card. Mai (Spic. Rom. iv. xliii. 
 Ixxviii.), of which 3 are preserved only in a 
 Syriac version, the Greek being lost ; 7 letters, 
 along with several addressed to him by other 
 persons ; and a few fragments of other letters 
 and sermons. Socr. H. E. vii. xxvi., and 
 passim ; Theophan. sub an. 430 ; Tillem. Mem. 
 eccl. xiv. 704; A A. SS. Act. x. 639. [f.d.] 
 Procopius (8) GazaeUS, Christian sophist, 
 temp. Justin and Justinian (518-565). Of his 
 life we know only that he was the preceptor 
 of Choricius the sophist. His fame rests on 
 his Scripture commentaries. These, though 
 diffuse, are but abridgements of the collections 
 he had made (see his Prolog, to the commentary 
 on Gen.); his profession of belief as to the 
 nature of the Triune God, and the importance, 
 authority, and interpretation of Scripture, is 
 very satisfactory. His style is highly polished 
 and concise. He must be distinguished from 
 his contemporary sophist, Procopius (9) of 
 Caesarea. His collected works are pub. by 
 Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvii. in 3 parts, but his 
 commentaries have also appeared separately. 
 Of more doubtful authenticity and probably 
 belonging to Procopius Caesarensis, though 
 commonly attributed to P. Gazaeus is Pane- 
 gyricus in Imp. Anastasium (Gk. and Lat.) in 
 Corp. Script. Hist. Byz. (Bonnae, 1829), pp. 
 489 seq. and Migne u.s. pt. iii. ; Descriptio Basi- 
 licae Sanctae Sophiae (Gk. and Lat.) Migne, 
 ib. ; and Menodia tn S. Sophiam terraemotu 
 coUapsum (Gk. and Lat.) in Migne, ib. pt. ii. 
 (Cellier, Aut. Sacr. xi. 176 seq.; Cave, Hist. 
 Lit. i. 504 ; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vi. 258 ; 
 vii. 535 ; viii. 375 ; ix. 447 ; L. Eisenhofer, 
 Procopius von Gaza, Freiburg i/Br. 1897.) [j.G.] 
 Procopius (9) Ol Caesarea, Byzantine his- 
 
PROCOPIUS OP CAESAREA 
 
 torian. Born at Cai-san a in r.ilrstinr, he 
 
 went during tin- rii^n <>t Aiiasi.isius to (.on- 
 stantini>plo, wlurc he taught riu-toric and 
 pleaded in the courts. 
 
 We meet him hrst c. ^27. when he was wnt 
 by Justinian to accompany H.li^ariuv »'' 
 secretary and privy councillor, in his ex|>edi- 
 tions against the Persians. In 5^3 he was 
 with him in .Africa, warrinjc a^^'Ust the 
 Vandals, and. after their subjection, was left 
 behind to reduce the coiu]uered into order. 
 A mutiny of the soldiers drove him in ^\b to 
 Sicily, which Belis;u-ius was then ennaKl-d in 
 reducing, and he accompanied the l.ittrr into 
 Italy in his campaign against the tioths. In 
 542 lYocopius returned to Constantinople, 
 where he seems to have remained to the end 
 of his life, devoting himself mainly to writing 
 a history of the expeditions, in which he had 
 borne no unimportant part. 
 
 It is a question whether he was a Christian 
 or a heathen. He speaks of the church of 
 St. Sophia at Constantinople as the temple of 
 the great Christ of Ciod {t6 if/>Af toi" tif)d\ov 
 \piaToO Toi~ etoC, de Bell. Vandal, i. 6). He 
 describes Jesus as the Son of Cod Who went 
 about clothed with a human body, shewing 
 that He was the Son of God both by His 
 sinless life and His superhuman deeds [dt 
 Bell. Pets. ii. 12). Christians are in his eyes 
 those who have right opinions respecting dod 
 (de Bell. Vandal, i. 21). The Virgin Mary is 
 often mentioned under the name t*«oT6«ot 
 (e.g. de .Aedif. v. 7). The Hellenic religion is 
 alluded to as impiety (16. vi. 4). On the other 
 hand, he often alludes alike to Christians and 
 heretics as if he occupied a calm position 
 superior to them both (de Bell. Pen. i. 18). 
 The controversies of the church had done 
 much to alienate him from doctrinal Christian- 
 ity ; and, though he does speak at times as if 
 he had embraced some of its distinct tenets, 
 it is hardly possible to think that he had done 
 so in the sense ^if regarding them as an express 
 revelation of divine truth to man. 
 
 His works consist of a history of the Persian 
 war from 408 to 'S4') ; a history of the war 
 with the Vandals in Africa from v>5 to 545 ; 
 a history of the (iothic wars in Italy from 487 
 to 574 ; a work de Aedifuns Justiniani Imp. ; 
 and a work entitled Anecdola or a secret 
 history of Justinian, the empress Theodora, 
 Belisarius, his wife .AntfUiina. and others of the 
 court. This last, intended for |>ublication 
 only after the author's death, is describ«'d by 
 Cave in the strongest terms of reprobation, as 
 written to shew the court of Justinian as no 
 better than a diaholorum lerna, and as exhibit- 
 ing such audacity, falsehood, calumny, and 
 charges of unheard-of crimes, that It has been 
 doubted whether Procopius really wrote it. 
 (See SchriJckh, vol. xvi. p. 168, etc.) 
 
 As to the- value of the three works first 
 mentioned there can l>e no doubt. l*riK-opius 
 had enjoved most favourable op{«)rtunitirs 
 of acquainting himself with the events he 
 describes. Gibbon draws largely on the 
 "sober testimony of I*rocopius." and als4. 
 describes him as " the gravest historian of the 
 times " (c. xxxviii.). 
 
 De Aedtfictis is throughout a tribute to the 
 glory of Justinian. It is devoted to a de- 
 scription of the great buildings, temple*, forts, 
 
 frodicos 
 
 MS 
 
 castles, »iri.U:r-. m.riu .trr ir . 41. ,t •.tn,.iuir» 
 
 of r\. 
 
 all I) ' 
 Tl.. 
 with ....>..,,,.... , 
 as the roiKtitioii . • 
 the Abasgl. Ktii. 
 Huns, I'rtsians. \ 
 sarius, his rharj< '. 
 notices ol towns, 1 1 
 countries over a » 1 : 
 
 of the blsho|>s, and tt • ■ • « )■ i.i la jl •« c ui • 
 rentes <if his time. rtc. Ihr li«~»t rtl t» that o| 
 nindorfinthe (orpmi Strtf'l. Hnl. H\t.. «ilh 
 th<' I .itiii trans, of Mallrilus. |w h.) 
 
 Prooulus, Monlanisi. (pH(K-Lt«.| 
 Proculus (7). bp. of Marsrillrs. allhrcoUDCtI 
 of .Aquilna, A.l>. j8i. where he joined in roo- 
 demning the errors «>f PalUdius and Se<-un- 
 dinianiis (.\mbros. hp. vm. pp. •>!»• (7«'>). 
 915 (1*02). ()\t) (HoM. ed. .Migne). At t he- 
 council of Turin, A.I). !•*'>. or nmrr prol>al>ly 
 401, though Flrurv pUrrs it as late as 404, 
 I*roculus claimed the primacy as melr<>|><>litan 
 over the churches not only of his own p»i>. 
 vine*, but alscj of NatMtnensis Sttunda. The 
 council, while rulinft that the bishop of tb« 
 civil metropolis of a i-rovinre should be 
 regarded as the metro|H>litan. saiirlionrd the 
 claim of I'roculus for his own life, in considera- 
 tion of his age and high rrpulalion (Hruiis. 
 Cone. ii. 114 , Baron, vol. v. j<j7. 4) , Urucv, 
 H. F. xxi. 52). His high charartrr i- .»rkn..w. 
 ledged by St. Jerome in his lrtt<r ■ 1 • 
 
 A.U. 411 (hp. I2i. 21,), l.Ul 1 
 
 seems to havr had a strong !• 
 him, and in 417 decreed that P.i^ 
 Aries from 412. was entitled to i 
 politan. Whether our I'roculus . 
 bp. of that name to whom St. An. 
 in 427 is not quite clear. Tillein \.l x j p 
 698, 6<><) ; Ceillier, VII. pp. 328-537. (M.w.r.| 
 ProdieUS, a Gnostic teacher of rn.t rrnt . 
 concerning whom trustworthy 11 ■ 
 very scanty. He is not nuiu 
 principal writers iiii h«r«~sii-^, Ir> : 
 iytus, Epiphaniiis, <>r Philast< 
 twice mentions hiiii {.Sforpiaie 1 
 3), both times III coinpaiiv with \ 
 
 such a way as to suggest thai h< 
 
 two heretics as of the same sthi»-i lu li^ 
 first passage PriMlirus and Valrntinus are 
 s[H>ken of as iiarhing that i hiisi did not wish 
 His disciples to ronfrss Him t<ul>lirl\ il thai 
 
 Would expo-t- their lives to lUngrr , in Ihr 
 
 second thrv are drscriUd j ir.lr .li.r.rr tn 
 
 opposition to the ( real. 1 
 
 god like .Marrioii. but a 1 
 
 l)ur only other trust wrif 
 
 l^rtMlicus Is in Ihr ■ 
 
 Alexandria. Thr 
 
 states that th<^w . 
 
 Pr<KllCUs boaslrd 
 
 of /<,r..astrr. A| ; 
 
 PfiKlirus was ilrjil 
 
 still in rxislrlirr. 
 
 that his foll.iwrrs 
 
 prayer. ( letuent .. 
 
 of objection. Th' 
 
 of the«ect i%(iA. Ill < 
 
 who claim to Im- ' 
 
 declare that they j. 
 
 first giMl, and priviir,r,i , > i,..^ii 1. u 
 
864 
 
 Prosper 
 
 to live as they choose, being "lords of the 
 sabbath," and " as king's children above the 
 law " ; and living " as they chose " meant 
 living very licentiously. 
 
 For further information we have to come 
 down to the 5th cent, to Theodoret (Haer. 
 Fab. i. 6), who seems to have no knowledge 
 of Prodicus except from Clement, whom he 
 quotes, mixing up, however, some of the 
 things which Clement says about other licen- 
 tious Gnostic sects ; e.g. it seems an unauthor- 
 ized combination of Theodoret's to connect 
 Prodicus with Carpocrates, and we may reject 
 as equally arbitrary Theodoret's assertion that 
 he founded the sect of the Adamites, of which 
 Theodoret would have read in Epiphanius 
 (Haer. 52). [c.s,] 
 
 Prosper (4), St., a native of Aquitaine, not 
 certainly known to have been in holy orders ; 
 probably born c. 403. About 426-429 he 
 removed to Marseilles, where he lived as a 
 monk until 440. Some time between 420 and 
 427 John Cassian put forth in his Collaiiones 
 a doctrine concerning grace and free will con- 
 trary to that taught by St. Augustine. This 
 doctrine was taken up warmly by many 
 monks at Marseilles, and both Prosper and 
 Hilary (as to whom see further on), afraid lest 
 a doctrine they believed erroneous should 
 becorne prevalent among the monks, were 
 thinking of writing to Augustine to request 
 him to e.xplain some of his statements. In 
 the meantime came out Augustine's Correp- 
 tione et Gratia, by which Prosper hoped all 
 doubts would be settled. But those who 
 thought differently only became more obstin- 
 ate in their opposition. Although Prosper 
 had never seen Augustine, he had written to 
 him by Leontius, a deacon, and received a 
 reply, but neither letter nor reply has survived. 
 He now wrote again to him in 428, as also did 
 Hilary, and his reply to these letters is con- 
 tained in the consecutive treatises de Prae- 
 destinatione Sanctorum and de Dono Persever- 
 antiae, written either in 428 or 429 (see Aug. 
 Epp. 225, 326 ; and 0pp. vol. x. pp. 947-1034, 
 ed. Migne). [Augustine.] Augustine died 
 A.D. 430, and the opponents of his doctrine in 
 Gaul professing willingness to abide by the 
 decision of the Roman pontiff, Hilary and 
 Prosper went to Rome and brought back a 
 letter from Celestine I. to the Gallic bishops, 
 Venerius of Marseilles, Marinus, Leontius of 
 Frejus, Auxentius of Nice, Auxonius of Vi- 
 viers, and Arcadius of Venice. In this he 
 speaks of Hilary and Prosper as men " quorum 
 circa Deum nostrum solicitudo laudanda est," 
 and reproved, but without effect, the indis- 
 cretion and ill-informed zeal of their opponents 
 (Coelest. Ep. xxi. i, 2). To this letter are 
 subjoined in some editions a series of so-called 
 decisions of the apostolic see concerning grace 
 and free will, which, however, cannot be 
 regarded as authentic. When Leo I. returned 
 from his mission into Gaul, a.d. 440, to be 
 made pope, he persuaded Prosper to accom- 
 pany him to Rome, and employed him as his 
 secretary (notarius). Photius says that he 
 confuted the Pelagians at Rome in the time 
 of Leo, and a MS. of the monastery of Corbev 
 adds, but without mention of authority, that 
 he was sent by him on a similar errand into 
 Campania to oppose Julian of Eclanum. 
 
 PROSPER 
 
 Gennadius says that he was the real author of 
 the epistle of Leo against Eutyches concerning 
 the incarnation of Christ. The chronicle of 
 Marcellinus shews him alive in 463. Fulgen- 
 tius (ad. Mon. i. c. 30) speaks of him as 
 " eruditus et sanctus"; Photius (Biblioth. 54) 
 as one who was truly a man of God, but with 
 no other title than Y\p6(xw€ip6s ns.who confuted 
 the Pelagians in the time of Leo. Gennadius, 
 no friend to him, speaks of him (de Scr. Ecc. 
 84) as "sermone scholasticus et assertionibus 
 nervosus " (Butler, Lives of Saints, June 25 ; 
 Ceillier, vol. x. p. 278). The letter of Prosper 
 to Augustine describes the view taken at 
 Marseilles and elsewhere concerning predesti- 
 nation. Those who adopted it, he says, 
 believe that mankind has sinned in Adam, and 
 that without God's grace there can be no 
 salvation for any one. God offers salvation 
 to all, so that they who attain faith and re- 
 ceive baptism are in the way of being saved. 
 But before the creation of the world God fore- 
 knew who would believe and be saved, and 
 predestined them to His kingdom, being called 
 by grace and worthy of being chosen and of 
 going out of life sound in faith. No man, 
 therefore, need despair of salvation, but this 
 selection on God's part makes human exertion 
 needless either for recovery from sin or for 
 progress in holiness. Thus a doctrine of fatal 
 necessity is introduced. They also think 
 that men can by their own merit, by praying, 
 beseeching, knocking, attain that state of 
 grace in which we are born anew unto Christ. 
 Infants dying without baptism will be saved 
 or not according as God foreknows what their 
 conduct would have been if they had grown 
 up. Christ died for the whole race of man- 
 kind, but some miss this salvation because 
 they are known beforehand to have no incli- 
 nation to receive it. They also deny that the 
 merits of saints proceed from divine grace, 
 and that the number of the elect can be either 
 increased or diminished, and they assert that 
 the only way in which a man is called either 
 to repentance or to progress in holiness is by 
 the exercise of his own free will. They thus 
 place obedience before grace, and the first step 
 towards salvation in him who is to be saved, 
 not in Him Who saves. Great difficulties 
 arise, Prosper says, in his attempts to convince 
 the holders of these opinions of their errors, 
 from his own want of ability and from the 
 great and acknowledged sanctity of their lives, 
 a remark which he probably intends especially 
 of Cassian ; and also from the elevation of 
 some of them to the highest office in the 
 church. He therefore begs Augustine to ex- 
 plain (a) how Christian faith can escape 
 division through these disputes ; (b) how free 
 will can be independent of prevenient grace ; 
 (c) whether God's foreknowledge is absolute 
 and complete ; (d) whether foreknowledge 
 depends in any way on human purpose, and 
 whether there can be any good which does not 
 proceed from God ; (e) how those who despair 
 of their own election can escape carelessness 
 of life. He asks him to explain all this in a 
 way consistent with God's previous ordinance 
 of vessels of honour and dishonour. One of 
 these men, Hilary, bp. of Aries, is known to 
 Augustine as an admirer of his doctrine and 
 as wishing to compare his own view with his 
 
PROSPER 
 
 by writiiijj to him. but whether he will d<> so 
 or not Prosper does not know (Aur. Hf. Ji.M. 
 
 The letter of I'rosper was acconip-inird or 
 very soon followed by one on the same subject 
 by Hilary, concerning whom three opini<uis 
 have been held: (i) That he w.vs the bp. of 
 Aries mentioned by Prosper ; H) that he was 
 a lay monk of Gaul; (^) that he w.is ti.. 
 Hilary who wrote to Augustine from Syr i 
 A.D. 414. That he was a lav monk ap 
 tolerably clear. Augustine replied in tl 
 Prafd. and iU Don. Pcrsev., which are riall> 
 consecutive volumes of one work. I 
 
 .\bout the same time Prosper wrote ait I 
 answer on the same subject to a friend n^uned I 
 Ruffinus or Kutinus, about whom nothing is { 
 known except that Prosper addresses him as I 
 Sanctitas tua. perhaps implying a member of I 
 a religious community. He wrote partly to ' 
 vindicate himself from unfavourable reports 
 as to his doctrine, p.artly to direct his attention j 
 to the writings of .\ugustine and clear them j 
 from the accusation of denying free will and I 
 setting up .Manichean doctrine. The line of 
 argument against Pelagian or semi-l'elagian , 
 views is much the same as in the letter to 1 
 Augustine, but he also mentions the cases of | 
 Cornelius and Lydia as instances of persons 
 who had been led by God's grace into the way 
 of eternal life, and as not by any means 
 favouring the Pelagian theory. Why all men 
 are not saved is a mystery of liod's, not 
 explicable by human understanding, and of 
 which we niay be thankful to be ignorant 
 (Ep. ad Rufin. ; for a long account of which 
 see Ceillier, vol. .x. 279-284). 
 
 Prosper also wrote or compiled several 
 works in prose and verse. 
 
 I. Verse. — The longest is the poem de 
 Ingratis, a term by which he describes those 
 who teach erroneous doctrine about grace, viz. 
 the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. It is 
 explained clearly in v. 685 : 
 
 " Vos soli Ingrati, quos urit gratia, cujus 
 Omne opus arbilrio vullis consistcrc vcstro." 
 
 It consists of 1002 lines with a short elegiac 
 preface, and is divided into four parts. A 
 theological treatise in verse ratherthan a poem, 
 it describes accurately the history of the 
 Pelagian doctrine, whose author it calls " colu- 
 ber Britannus," and mentions the treatment 
 his opinions met at Rome, in the Eastern 
 church and in .\frica through the influence 
 mainly of .Augustine, "the light of the age." 
 The manner in which the Roman church is 
 spoken of is worthy of notice, v. 40 : 
 
 ". . . pestem subcuntcm prima reci<lit 
 Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralLi homirU 
 Facta caput mundo, quidquid non poasidcl amsi« 
 Rellglonc leneU' 
 Though without any claim to high rank as 
 poetry, and exhibiting, though in a less degree 
 than does Paulinus, the degenerate standard 
 of its age in language and vfr-.itication, it 
 treats its subject with well-,ustained vigour 
 and generally with clearness, and now and 
 then expresses theological truths, thougii 
 perhaps with severity, yet with remarkiM- 
 force and terseness. .Ampere condemn- 
 he considers its violence, its hard, inelam 
 and desponding tone, amounting s..iii. 
 " to a pale reflection of bell." He also p.-ims 
 
 PROSPER 
 
 80S 
 
 out a %iinilarity in itt M>niin>ri>t {•• f<nir wo«kt 
 of Pascal and thr Port-K .'1 h« 
 
 contra\t* unlavourablv " of 
 
 HosMIrt in lM^ f-1-.lV >>;t I'-. Httl. 
 
 till. ,!<■ I ■ : 
 
 riu. ,4ne 
 
 kind. . ^t of 
 
 ''■"-■ •■CV 
 
 4d- 
 
 SI. 
 
 ■,.• *4 
 
 f I rfm, u 111 s-uiif ! dJ. Ill ra.iu;.^. . ».>rkt, 
 but is quoted by lirdr in hi« trraliw d4 AfU 
 Mflrua as the work >( I'r -; -: Tii . It con- 
 sists of i(» lines of .\ii . wcti 
 by 08 elegiac lim-s, .1 : the 
 Christian life .ind :. . .of 
 considerable force ami 1..1 :,(ht 
 and expression. It was 1 .^hI 
 during the confusion and ! by 
 the b.irbari.iii irv... . i,m 
 there is no 1 r ol 
 .-V<|uitaine w.i uie% 
 the improbal': the 
 poem is not liktlv t i be : 
 
 II. Pkose.— (I) AVv/H.n w . ttmo 
 
 ad CapiluU GaUxrum. A -i ; r ij 
 
 heads of the objections of l\v •> illi< la.hopt 
 to the doctrines of St. .\ugustinc on Predestin- 
 ation, with answers to each. (2) Htif^iHtiomet 
 ad Capitula Obieclionum I'lntfnharutium. A 
 similar work in i»> chapters. The objection* 
 express, in a manner harsh, rrvohiiu;. and 
 unfair, the possible results .1 1 <■■<■ 'Mirjan 
 doctrine carried to its t • (j) 
 
 Kfiftimstonfi ad Eicftpta (• 'tne 
 
 clergymen of Genoa had in vari- 
 
 ous passages from the two lu-itiM . if St. 
 .Augustine, dfl'rufdf^linalntnfSamtorum, and 
 df Dono Fenneranliat, aiul t > tti. s.i I*ro*j>er 
 addresses a courteous c\; tinit 
 
 passages cited by them .1: own 
 
 replies, gathered in some r 1 ^ 'td* 
 
 of .Augustine, and in one c . i an 
 
 egregious blunder made 1 tinK 
 
 as his opinion words int.: • an 
 
 opponent's objection. (4) 1 f/». 
 
 John Cassian had writtni a b.«.k mtillrd 
 Spiritual Conltrtncfi (i\ttlaliont\). 17 in 
 number, in the 13th of which, eiitillrd ds 
 Protectione Del, he condemned %evefrly 
 .\ugustine's d'Ktrinc on prrd«-»tination. Thu 
 is defended by ProsfH-r partly by arKunicnl* 
 drawn from Scripture and the nature of the 
 cise, and p.irtly by the authority of the 
 church's "f R'.mr l\\r I- 1^1 .ind Africa He 
 warns : • ■ .rh to 
 
 the p. -»« 
 
 the h , ">"' 
 
 by th. ,... • ,, a» It 
 
 had been b-. H'f b*wk 
 
 must have : *'^n ihaui 
 
 dates. ,M 1- ' '•• W. 
 
 (omitt; •«n«l 
 
 ..ft.i. ••""• 
 
 St. Au. «»o« 
 
 a mrr. ,. : . and 
 
 judiciou% rci : fteal 
 
 kill of the \ «t«n 
 
 ,.lditi..i,, ..I ^bly 
 
 ,1 f. ^jv ' ■**« 
 
 i ui t..(jctber, probaL.;, ..(, - — *u\nX 
 
866 PROTERIUS 
 
 for his own use. They are very short, and are 
 a sort of compendious index to the opinions 
 of St. Augustine. Other works are assigned 
 to Prosper, but on insufficient authority. 
 
 (6a) The Chronicle, probably the best known 
 of the works of Prosper, is attributed to him 
 without hesitation by Cassiodorus, Gennadius 
 of Marseilles, Victorius, and Isidore, though 
 Pithou and Garnier doubted it. It extends 
 from the earliest age to the capture of Rome 
 by the Vandals, a.d. 455, and consists of three 
 parts: (i) To a.d. 326, founded, as it states, on 
 that of Eusebius, and though much abridged, 
 treating the subject with some independence. 
 (2) From 326 to 378, which uses similarly 
 Jerome's continuation of Eusebius, with both 
 additions and omissions. (3) From 378 to455. 
 As might be expected, predominance is given to 
 ecclesiastical events, especially such as concern 
 the rise and fall of heretical doctrines. The 
 Chronicle arose out of an endeavour to fix the 
 date of Easter, for which purpose Prosper 
 constructed a Paschal cycle now lost. 
 
 (b) Chronicle of Tiro Prosper. Besides the 
 Chronicle just described, another much shorter 
 and relating to the latest period only, bearing 
 the name of Prosper, was edited by Pierre 
 Pithou in 1588 from MSS. in the library of the 
 monastery of St. Victor at Paris It is difficult 
 to believe that the two Chronicles could be by 
 the same writer, or if they were, to understand 
 why he published both, as must have been the 
 case, about the same time. It is much more 
 probable that Prosper of Aquitaine and Tiro 
 Prosper, despite an apparently mistaken 
 statement of Bede, were different persons. 
 
 The best ed. of Prosper's collected works, 
 by Desprez and Desessarts (Paris, 171 1), con- 
 tains all the works rightly attributed to Prosper, 
 together with others not belonging to him, and 
 various pieces relating to the semi-Pelagian 
 controversy. It is revised and reprinted in 
 Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. li. See L. Valentin, 
 St. Prosper d' Aquitaine (Paris, 1900). [h.w.p.] 
 
 ProteriUS, St., patriarch of Alexandria, was 
 presbyter and church-steward under Dios- 
 corus, and left in charge of the church when 
 Dioscorus went to the council of Chalcedon. 
 After Dioscorus was deposed by that council, 
 the emperor Marcian ordered a new election 
 to the see. The suffragan bishops, except 13 
 detained at Constantinople by a resolution of 
 the council (Chalced. c. 30), were assembled 
 in synod ; and the chief laymen of Alexandria 
 came as usual to express their mind and assent 
 to the prelate's choice (cf. Liberat. Breviar. 
 c. 14, and Evagr. ii. 5). There was great 
 difficulty in reaching a conclusion ; for the 
 majority of the Alexandrian church people 
 were profoundly aggrieved by the action of the 
 council. In their eyes Dioscorus was still their 
 rightful "pope," the representative of Cyril 
 and of Athanasius. Ultimately, however, 
 opposition to the imperial mandate was felt 
 impracticable. It was resolved to elect, and 
 then all favoured Proterius, who was con- 
 secrated and enthroned (a.d. 452); but the 
 passions of the Dioscorian and anti-Dioscorian 
 parties broke out at once into tumultuous 
 dissension, which Evagrius likens to the 
 surging of the sea. Proterius sending Leo 
 the usual announcement of his elevation, Leo 
 asked some definite assurance of his orthol 
 
 PROTERIUS 
 
 doxy (Leo, Ep. 113, in Mar. 453), and received 
 a letter which he regarded as " fully satis- 
 factory," shewing Proterius to be a " sincere 
 assertor of the Catholic dogma," inasmuch as 
 he had cordially accepted the Tome (Epp. 127, 
 130). Thereupon (Mar. 454) he wrote again 
 to Proterius, advising him to clear himself 
 from all suspicion of Nestorianizing, by read- 
 ing to his people certain passages from ap- 
 proved Fathers, and then shewing that the 
 Tome did but hand on their tradition and 
 guard the truth from perversions on either 
 side. Leo took care, in thus addressing the 
 " successor of St. Mark," to dwell on that 
 evangelist's relation to St. Peter as of a dis- 
 ciple to a teacher ; and he bespeaks the 
 support of the Alexandrian see in this resist- 
 ance to the unprincipled ambition of Con- 
 stantinople, which in the 28th canon, so 
 called, of Chalcedon had injured the "dig- 
 nity " of the other great bishoprics (Ep. 129). 
 .\nother question prolonged the correspond- 
 ence. The Nicene Fathers were believed to 
 have commissioned the Alexandrian bishops 
 to ascertain and signify the right time for each 
 coming Easter. Leo had consulted Cyril as 
 to the Easter of 444 ; and he now, in 454, 
 applied to Proterius, through the emperor, for 
 his opinion as to the Easter of 455, which the 
 Alexandrian Paschal table appeared to him 
 to place too late {Epp. 121, 127). Proterius 
 replied to Leo at some length (Ep. 133, Apr. 
 454) that Egypt and the East would keep 
 Apr. 24 as Easter Day, and expressed his 
 belief that all Christians everywhere would 
 " observe one faith, one baptism, and one 
 most sacred paschal solemnity." 
 
 Proterius had troubles with his own clergy. 
 Not long after the council a priest named 
 Timotheus and a deacon named Peter (nick- 
 named Mongus) refused to communicate with 
 him, because in his diptychs he ignored Dios- 
 corus and commemorated the council of 
 Chalcedon. He summoned them to return 
 to duty ; they refused, and he pronounced in 
 synod their deposition (Liberat. c. 15 ; Brevic. 
 Hist. Eutych. or Gesta in causa Acacii, in 
 Mansi, vii. 1062). Four or five bishops and 
 a few monks appear to have actively supported 
 them, and to have been included in their 
 condemnation and in the imperial sentence of 
 exile which followed (Ep. Aegypt. Episc. ad 
 Leonew ^Mg. in Mansi, vii. 525). The monks 
 in Egypt, as elsewhere, were generally attached 
 to the Monophysite position, which they 
 erroneously identified with the C>T:illine. They 
 took for granted that the late council had been 
 practically striking at Cyril through Dios- 
 corus ; and that Christ's single personality 
 was at stake. Thus, besides those monks who 
 had overtly taken part with Timotheus and 
 Peter, others apparently had suspended com- 
 munion with the archbishop ; and Marcian 
 had addressed them in gentle and persuasive 
 terms, assuring them that the doctrine of " one 
 Christ," symbolized by the term Theotokos, 
 had been held sacrosanct at Chalcedon, and 
 exhorting them therefore to join with the 
 Catholic church of the orthodox, which was 
 one (Mansi, vii. 481). But the schism, once 
 begun, was not thus to be abated ; the zealous 
 seceders raised a cry, which has practically 
 never died out, that the Egyptian adherents 
 
PRDDENTIUS 
 
 of the council of (."li.ilcriK'ii wcif .1 mere stjtc- 
 made church, upheld hv the cnurt .iKani»t the 
 couvictions of the faithful. To thu dav the 
 poor remnant of orthodoxy in K^vpt In-ari a 
 name which is a stigma. Melchitcs. or •' adher- 
 ents of the kinjj." (Cf. Kenauilot, //m». I'aU. 
 .-J/cr. p. id; Ncale. Htsl. Fair. AUt.\i. 7. Thev 
 both add that the orthodox accepted the ternj.) 
 Even after 1 >ioscorus died in exile Proternis wa* 
 ignored and di-iclauned. and knew that he wa* 
 the object of a hatred that wa'i bubn^ Us tune, 
 and " during the greater part of his pontiti- 
 cate." as Liberatus tells us. depended for 
 safety on a military guard. .\i last, in Jan. 
 457, Marcian died, and the Monophysitc* 
 thought they saw their opportunity. .Sonjc 
 malcontent Egyptian bishops renewed their 
 outcry against the councU (hulogius. m Phot. 
 Bihl. 130. p. J83, ed. Bekk.) ; and Tnnotheus. 
 returning to .\lexandria. began those mtrigues 
 which won him his title of "the Cat." ITiMO- 
 THKis .■Keluri.'S.) The "dux" Dionysius 
 being absent in Upper Egypt. Timotheus 
 found it the easier ti> gather a disorderly 
 following and obtain irregular consecration. 
 DionN-sius, returning, expelled Timotheus ; and 
 the latter's partisans in revenge rushed to the 
 house of Proterius, and after besetting him for 
 some time in the adjacent church of (Juirinus, 
 ran him through with a sword in its baptistery, 
 and he died under many wounds with six of 
 his clerics. His corpse was dragged by a cord 
 across the central place called Tetrapylon, and 
 then through nearly the whole city, with 
 hideous cries, " Look at I^oterius ! " Beaten ! 
 as if it could still suffer, torn limb from limb, 
 and finally burnt, its ashes were " scattered 
 to the winds." The day was Easter Day, 1 
 Mar. 31. 457. See also Evagr. ii. 8 ; LeQuien. 
 ii. 412 ; .N'eale. Wis/. AU\. ii. iz. (w.b.) 
 
 Prudentlus, Marcus (?) Aurelitu Clemens. 
 
 the chief Christian [)oet of early times, born 
 A.D. 34.S (Praef. 24, cf. Apolhfom. 449), some- , 
 where in the N. of Spain, near the Pyrenees [ 
 (Peristeph. vi. 146). His name, education, ; 
 and career imply that he was of gwul family ; 
 he was educated in rhetoric and law, and his 
 poems shew an exact knowledge of the Latin 
 classical poets, especially \'irgil, Ovid, Horace, 
 and Juvenal ; he seems to have known little 
 Greek and no Hebrew. He speaks of his early 
 life as stained with much sinfulness, but must 
 have been held in high respect, for after practis- 
 ing as an advocate, he twice held an important 
 civil office, and was at last raised to some high 
 position at the emperor's court (cf. Kays<r. 
 p. 254 n. ; Brockhaus. p. 16 n.; Fagurt, p. 
 17). Late in life he received some deeo 
 religious impression, in consequence of whu li 
 he gave up public life. Some cxpre^M 
 his seem to imply that he joined a r^ 
 society (Catk. ii. 45; iii. 56; cf. /'sv. 
 573), He has no longer any money t" 
 the poor ; the only offering he can i; 
 God is his poetry [Epil. 10). To thi 
 prayer he devoted his life, seeking t" 
 among the educated classe^i a correct 
 ledge of Christianity, or, like a "( i 
 Pindar," ti> sing the triumphs of the n. 
 on their festal days and so win them gnai.i 
 honour. At some peritxl of great anxieiv to 
 himself he visited Kome; a» he pa*sed Iniola he 
 poured out his soul in prayer before the picture 
 
 PRUDBNTIUS 
 
 M7 
 
 ofSt .• .- ' • . : 
 
 .\t l< 
 
 and ! 
 
 Ivtti. 
 
 .At K .:ur ;,.- W4. 
 
 ineinoriaU of the 
 
 and cluirrlir% n. 
 
 on liie de.ii 
 
 There he ( 1 
 
 the |>oem« ..! 
 
 some of his <>» II 
 
 hiH |H>ein« oil St. 1 
 
 lytus, request ing ; 
 
 ol>wrvancr of ihr 
 
 Spain (XI.). In i 
 
 second IxHik conh . 
 
 published an edit. , . , 
 
 preface shewing that ail !.;. rxt.4i.t w.rffc*, 
 
 except the />!(/»« Aj/on and (>erh4|r« the l'%r- 
 
 i:hitm<Kk%a. were then written. Of hit Uler 
 
 life and death nothing is known. 
 
 His character, juilging from hU «rTil(nc«, 
 was verv lov.iMr \{r vexf. a l^vil K^man 
 proud ..f t!. 
 >)Uests ailil 
 par.ition f..; 
 
 ing for great , , ; 
 
 the cross (I'trnt. ii. i-n. 41 1-4^4, » t^tum , 
 c. Symm. i. 4I5-^o5. ii. S7r-77l). He has * 
 great fondness for art. wishing fo kerp even 
 pagan statues if regarded only as <>mamrnl» 
 (f. .Svmm. i. 50^). He had an intellectual 
 horror of heresy, though with 4 j.r.iijl im 
 dernt-ss for heretics (ifc. II / 
 to all church customs aii<l 
 a strong appreciation of 
 
 his lofty conceptu>n ol tii<- .S-mur ,1 ...^t 
 {Catk. IV. 7-1 ^ ; AMk. H4-QO ; H^tm. J7 »eq. ; 
 c. Symm. i. 325 ; rrrttl. x. <iol. ol the Trur 
 Temple (Catk. iv. ih-21 ; s...«.« o ^49; 
 
 .-l^o/A. 516). the True W..: »4i|. 
 
 the True Nobility of But True 
 
 Kiches (16. ii. 203). the 1 ..1. vi. 
 
 20I-220), the True Kew ard i.. .symm. u 7^0). 
 He shews a pious tenderness ol spirit (cl. 
 Af>oth. yn). kissing tt.r sj. rr.l J kt 
 (lb. 598) and the altar (/ 
 a deep |>rrsonal humili' 
 venture to contend with - 
 which offers his verses to v ;.ii 
 are but the "earthen vessel 1/ 
 "rustic poet " (/VriW. 11. ^74. • 
 has !« "I "■ " ■!' '■ ' ' :- - 
 
 trail • 
 on I 
 
 ft<hl 
 
 k» arr (<<l Ivrkral, 
 
 Ihr 1 
 metir 
 and phrase 1 y 
 
868 
 
 PRUDENTIUS 
 
 asus. The hexameter poems are much in- 
 debted to Virgil, and in a less degree to 
 Lucretius and Juvencus. All shew great 
 fluency, relieved by dramatic vividness {e.g. 
 Perist. V. ; c. Symm. ii. 654 sqq.), rhetorical 
 vigour of description (e.g. Apoth. 450-503 ; 
 c. Symm. i. 415), considerable power of satire 
 (Apoth. 186-206 ; Ham. 246) and humour 
 (Perist. ii. 169, 407, ix. 69, 82), and much 
 epigrammatic terseness of expression ; but he 
 dwells on unpleasant details in the accounts 
 of martyrdoms (e.g. ib. x. 901) and of the 
 coarsenesses of heathen mythology (Cath. vii. 
 115 sqq.). They are full of typical adapta- 
 tions of Bible history (e.g. prefaces to Ham., 
 Psych., and i. ii. Symm.). In this way, and 
 in the substance of their arguments, they have 
 a theological value, as shewing the tone of 
 thought common at the time. Their lack of 
 originality of thought makes them even more 
 valuable for this purpose. (For the substance 
 of the theology v. Brockhaus, c. vii.) But 
 perhaps their historical value is the greatest. 
 They give considerable information about 
 heathen antiquities, e.g. the kinds of torture 
 in use (Perist. i. 42), methods of writing (ib. 
 ix. 23), the corn supplies of Rome (c. Symm. 
 ii. 920), the gladiatorial shows (ib. i. 384, ii. 
 1909), the religious rites (ib. i. ii. passim; 
 Perist. x.), and still more about Christian 
 antiquities : the luxury and avarice of the 
 times (Ham. 246 ; Apoth. 183, 210, 450), the 
 position of deacons and archdeacons at Rome 
 (Penst. ii. 37, v. 29), the times and details of 
 fasting (Cath. iii. 57, vii. viii. 9), the use of 
 anointing (ib. vi. 125, ix. 98; Apoth. 357, 
 493 ; Psych. 360), the sign of the cross (Cath. 
 vi. 129, ix. 84 ; Apoth. 493 ; c. Symm. ii. 
 712), lights in churches, especially on Easter 
 Eve (Cath. v.), funeral rites (ib. x. 49), and the 
 veneration for the saints (Perist. passim, esp. i. 
 10-21, ii. 530 sqq., x. ad fin., xi. ad in. xii.). 
 Especially do they illustrate the art of the 
 time. We have mention of the Lateran 
 church (c. Symm. i. 5S6), that of St. Laurence 
 (Perist. xi. 216), of buildings over the tombs 
 of SS. Peter and Paul (xii.) and of the 
 catacombs (xi. 153) at Rome ; of a church at 
 Merida (iii. 191), and a baptistery apparently 
 at Calahorra (viii.); of a picture of the 
 martyrdom of St. Cassian in the church at 
 Imola (ix.), of St. Hippolytus in the cata- 
 combs (xi. 123), and of St. Peter (xii. 38). 
 The Dittochaeon consists of titles for pictures, 
 and nearly all the symbols which he uses (the 
 Dove, the Palm, the Good Shepherd, etc.), as 
 well as the Bible scenes illustrating his poems, 
 are found on gems or on the walls of the 
 catacombs, so that he may have derived his 
 use of them from thence (Brockhaus, c. ix.). 
 From the first his poems were held in great 
 honour ; they are quoted with high praise by 
 Sidonius Apollinaris, Avitus, Leo, Isidore, 
 Rabanus Maurus, Alcuin, etc. In the middle 
 ages the Psychomachia and the Cathemerinon 
 were special favourites, and the MSS. of them 
 are very numerous. The best eds. of the 
 poems are those of Areval, 1788 (reprinted in 
 Migne, lix., Ix.) ; Chamillard (in the Delphin 
 classics, with useful index), 1687 ; Obbar, 
 1845 ; Dressel, i860. The Apotheosis is 
 separately printed in Hurter, Patrum Opuscula 
 Selecta, xxxiii. Translations of selected poems 
 
 PRUDENTIUS 
 
 were made by F. St. J. Thackeray (1890) ; a 
 study of the text by E. O. Winstedt in Class. 
 Rev. 1903 ; a metrical study by E. B. Lease 
 (Baltimore, 1895) ; and an excellent mono- 
 graph by Brockiiaus, A Prudentius ins einer Be- 
 deutung fiir die Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipz. 1872). 
 We give a fuller account of each poem. 
 
 A. Lyrical, (a) Cathemerinon (i.e. Ka0ri/j.e- 
 pivuv vfxvwv), described in the Pref. 37, 38; a 
 collection of hymns for the hours of the day 
 and for church seasons. Though necessarily 
 too long for public worship, extracts were 
 made at least as early as 9th cent., and are 
 found frequently in the Mozarabic Liturgy 
 (cf. V. vi. vii. ix. x.), and a few in the Roman 
 and Salisbury breviaries ; on Tues., Wed., 
 Thurs. at Lauds (i. ii.). Compline at Christmas 
 (ix.), Compline on Good Friday (vi.), Easter 
 Eve (v.), Epiphany, the Holy Innocents, and 
 the Transfiguration (xii.). (Daniel, i. 119, and 
 Kayser, Gesch. d. Kirchenhymnen, 275-336.) 
 
 (b) Peristephanon (i.e. irepl (TTecpdvuv, de 
 Coronis Martyrum), described in Pref. 42 ; a 
 collection of 14 lyrical poems, all (except viii. 
 which is an inscription for a baptistery) in 
 honour of martyrs. The choice of the martyrs 
 is inspired by circumstances of the poet's life ; 
 the details perhaps taken from existing Acta 
 Martyrum. Half are connected with his own 
 native church of Spain (i. ii. (?) iii.-vi. xiii.), 
 the rest are saints whom he found specially 
 honoured at Rome (ii. vii. x. (?) xi. xii.) or on 
 his journey thither (ix.). 
 
 B. Apologetic (referred to in Pref. 39). (a) 
 Apotheosis = airod(waii, perhaps The Deifica- 
 tion of Human Nature in Christ (cf. Pref. 8, 9, 
 and 176, 177 ; c. Symtn. ii. 268). The writer 
 deals with Patripassian, Sabellian, Ebionite, 
 and Docetic errors on our Lord's Nature. 
 
 (b) Hamartigenia = afxapnyeveia. A treat- 
 ise on the origin of sin ; discussed in a polemi- 
 cal argument against Marcion. The poem 
 falls into two parts, (i) 1-639. God is not 
 the creator of Evil. The existence of good and 
 evil does not justify Marcion's theory of two 
 Gods, for unity is essential to our conception 
 of God. (2)640-931. God permits evil but 
 does not sanction it. The whole object of the 
 Incarnation was to save man from evil (640- 
 669). The cause of evil is man's free will, but 
 this was needed to secure moral goodness and 
 his power of ruling creation. The thought is 
 mainly based on Tertullian, adv. Marcionem. 
 The language shews reminiscences of Vergil, 
 Persius (384), and Juvenal (763). Like the 
 other poems, it is full of O.T. illustrations, 
 mystically applied (Pref. 409, 564, 723). The 
 full description of hell and paradise, and also 
 the graphic portraiture of Satan, are especially 
 noteworthy as the earliest in Christian litera- 
 ture, and so probably of great influence upon 
 later art and literature. Both Dante and 
 Milton may indirectly be indebted to them. 
 
 (c) Libri c. Symmachum (described in Pref. 
 40, 41). In 384 Symmachus had presented a 
 petition to Valentinian II. for the restitution 
 of the altar of Victory in the senate-house, 
 which had been removed by Gratian, and also 
 of the incomes of the vestal virgins. Through 
 the influence of St. Ambrose (Epp. 17, 18) this 
 had been refused. In 392 the altar was re- 
 stored by Eugenius ; in 394 again removed 
 by Theodosius. After his death the heathen 
 
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS 
 
 party. oiicour.»i;(-ii by the invasion of thr 
 r.oths, which thfv attributed to thr npRlrct of 
 hoathotiisin, againattiMuptrdto havritrc>torfil 
 by Arcddius and Mouorius. IVudrntius wrote 
 these books to counteract their influence. 
 The date of bk. ii. is fixed, as after the battle 
 of PoUentia in a. p. 40.1. and before the aboli- 
 tion of the gladiatorial games, a.o. 404 (ii. 
 710. 1 1 14). Bk. i. deals Rencrally with the 
 
 history and character of heathenism (cf. li. 
 1-3). Bk. ii. also has a preface, with a prayer 
 to Christ to help the poet as He once helped 
 St. Peter on the water. The poet then deals 
 in detail with the arguments of Synimachus. 
 Tile poeni is very interesting and of great 
 historical value for the circumstances of the 
 time and for the details of Roman mythology 
 and religious rites. The prefaces consist of 
 the typical use of Scripture, but there is no 
 scope for it in the body of the books. They 
 are full, however, of a sense of Rome's majesty, 
 of vigorous description, and of high moral 
 scorn. The language recalls Vergil (;)<isiim), 
 Ovid, Juvenal, Horace, and Claudian (ii. 704). 
 Plato is quoted in i. 30. The subject-matter 
 is influenced in parts by Tertullian (i. 306) and 
 Minucius Felix (i. 48). but mainly by St. 
 Ambrose, whose arguments arc at times repro- 
 duced almost verbally. 
 
 C. AlUgorical.—Psychomachia = ♦I'xo/xax'a. 
 De CompugnatUia Animi (Gennadius) (the 
 Spiritual Combat). The Preface consists 
 of a mvstical application of Gen. xiv. .■Ks 
 Abraham with his 318 servants freed Lot, 
 was blessed bv Melchizedek, then begat Isaac ; 
 so the Christian, with the aid of Christ's cross 
 {tiij, 3i8 = the cross (t) of 'Irjcovi), frees his 
 soul, wins Christ's blessing, and brings forth 
 good works. The poem opens with a prayer to 
 Christ to shew how the soul is aided in its 
 conflict (1-20), which is then described. 
 
 D. The Dxttochaeon, imSxoiiov, (?) Utto^, 
 6xri- the double food, or double Testament, 
 stands by itself, and can scarcely be called a 
 poem. It comprises 49 sets of 4 verses on 
 scenes from O. and N. T. They are dry and 
 jejune, and chiefly interesting as apparentiv 
 composed to describe a series of paintings. 
 See Lanfranchi. Aur Prud. Clem. 0pp. ix<}i\ 
 1902, 2 V..K. (Turin). (w.L.l 
 
 Pseudo-ChrysoStomUS. opus Impfrfectum 
 in Malthaeum. — .\mong the works which have 
 been ascribed to Chrysostom is a commentary 
 on St. Matthew's Gospel. It is divided into 
 54 homilies ; but this division does not pro- 
 ceed from the author, and (32, 132*) the work 
 was one intended, not for oral delivery, but 
 to be read by persons from whom the writer 
 was absent. The work is defective, wanting 
 from the middle of the 13th to the end of the 
 19th chapter, and breaking ofl at the end of 
 the 25th. Hence its title, Opus Impfrfectum, 
 in distinction to the genuine series of Chrv- 
 sostom's 90 homilies on St. Matthew, which 
 have been preserved complete. It is quoted 
 as Chrvsnstom's by Nicolas I. {Ke^ponx. ad 
 BulR. .Maiwi. XV. 403) and other pope*; and 
 in the middle ages was accepted without doubt 
 as his. In the Catena Aurea of Fhoma* 
 Aquinas it is largelv employed ; and Fabriciu* 
 quotes Dionysius the Carthusian as *aying 
 
 • In the reference* the flr»t flRurc ilenotrt Ih* 
 HomUy ; the second the Benetlicllne page. 
 
 PSEUDO-CMRYSOSTOMUS H«0 
 
 - Ih« 
 
 V • 
 
 Urn 
 
 •tout 
 .-. 1 
 
 that he would r.«tti«T (lAvr 
 perfect than Ik- lord of 
 author, far from Iwnu* 
 other .>rth..<|..x <|i\ :■ 
 bittrr Ariaii M>i< ' 
 fr>>m iiianv of its r- 
 of successive traii 
 some parts inav h.i 
 with ficresv that • 
 suffice. Somp carls • 
 
 the genuinrne** of thr rtj iu»:.iir 1 ( nil. 
 contending that the na%\aite« found In w>tn<- 
 copies, where the rf rtnnr . f -tr I "fd** 
 equality with the F.i- " iled. 
 
 had been but sent ' the 
 
 margin of .tn orthi iith 
 
 mistake had crept iiii ii' i«^ (the 
 
 heretical passages can br rul "iit without 
 iiijurv to the context, but thrtp rrinain manv 
 passages <if ui>>lio ut. .1 .-. n nn. i.rss m which 
 the author ir ' i» position, 
 
 and reveals t of 4 unall 
 
 persecuted ^< , • ! thr domin- 
 
 ant church as li-r- ti. ,.1. ml w.s in turn de- 
 nounced as heretical by thr »tate and as tuch 
 visited with temporal penalti'-- uul *••• markt 
 the reign of Throdosius . Alien 
 
 ortho<loxy was overwhrlii '•hat 
 
 1 he calls the heresy of the H >me 
 
 triumphant (4S. 100 ; 4'j . •^lear 
 
 that the author was not ' the 
 
 Catholic church, it is ww '■ ubt 
 
 the genuineness of the j r- he 
 
 exhibits his .\rianisni, e.g. w!i<i. !;«■ < xplaint 
 
 that our I.ord called hrrelics •spinas et 
 
 tribulos," because, foresenng that heresy 
 
 I would prevail above all others. He called them 
 
 I "tribulos, quasi trinitatis professotrs et trian- 
 
 gulam bajulantes iinpietatrm " NVe must 
 
 therefore regard the exp'ii . pa»- 
 
 ' sages as probably due to t! 
 
 ! was not only the Arian \ 
 
 expurgated, h-e- where in- "..;•, .'•*•»» 
 
 (19. 93) of " offering the sacrince o| bread and 
 
 , wine," he is made to sav " the samlicr of 
 
 Christ's body and bl«H.d " ; and a passage i» 
 
 cut out altogether where he argues that It it 
 
 be dangerous to transfer to private usrs the 
 
 consecrated vessels "which contain not the 
 
 Lord's real bod v. but the mvsterv of H|« 
 
 body " how much m<ire to profane tfie vrsseU 
 
 of our own bodv which (itnl has prepared lor 
 
 His dwelling-place. 
 
 When the controversial passage* had been 
 expurgated, there was nothinx to excite «irtho. 
 dox suspicions in our writers language about 
 our Lords divinitv. Thr Anaiis v»ere not 
 rnitarians. their <l.«-lrin.s. .t. the contrary, 
 being open to the r) .-. 
 cordinglv our writ- 
 concerning our I ■ : 
 great God and Su% 
 minus, whose d'Ktrinr i 
 ance with that of the 
 formula is " l>«-us grsut 
 Sometime* it is 
 7«r»>t*«At). Hml 
 is eager to arjr'ie »' 
 things wrr> 
 neither »>e 1 ' 
 to Hun. he I 
 
 doctrine th.a ..- - - ■ 
 
 hcre«y ol the MoinoouM*i»» l» uwl Ui**«e i«H*»' 
 
 It 
 
 vere 
 
 , ,,f lM''...in Ac. 
 
 .iia«e 
 
 our 
 
 Mail. 
 
 rocd- 
 
 III* 
 
870 
 
 PSEUDO CHRYSOSTOMUS 
 
 bated than that of Photinus, who, in his recoil 
 from Arian ditheism, completely separated the 
 Saviour's manhood from the one supreme 
 Divinity. The Third Person of the Trinity is 
 comparatively seldom mentioned, but on this 
 head the writer's doctrine is even more dis- 
 tinctly heretical. The Holy Spirit is evidently 
 regarded as a third Being, as much inferior to 
 the Son as the Son is to the Father (34, 146). 
 This is the representation also of the Ascension 
 of Isaiah, a work quoted in the present treatise. 
 
 Naturally a better side of Arianism is ex- 
 hibited in this work than elsewhere, in the 
 main not controversial but exegetical and 
 practical, written when all court favour had 
 long been lost, and when the sect met from 
 the state with nothing but persecution. How 
 much there was to recommend the book to a 
 religious mind is evident from the fact that it 
 passed so long as Chrysostom's. The work 
 itself makes no claim to such authorship ; the 
 writer is evidently addressing persons who 
 knew him, and to whom he had no motive for 
 trying to pass himself off as other than he was. 
 He had also written commentaries on St. 
 Mark (49, 211) and St. Luke (i, 23 ; 9, 56). 
 Fragments of ancient Arian homilies on St. 
 Luke have been published by Mai (Bib. Nov. 
 Vet. Pat. iii.), but they have no resemblance 
 to this work Many favourable extracts from 
 this commentary could be given to justify the 
 estimation in which it was so long held ; e.g. 
 the whole comment on the text " Seek and ye 
 shall find " (Horn. 17). But possibly the book 
 was commended to medieval readers less by 
 its merits than by what most modern readers 
 would count its faults, for, utterly unlike 
 Chrysostom, this writer constantly follows the 
 mystical and allegorical method commonly 
 connected with Alexandria. In this style he 
 shews remarkable ingenuity. E.s;. the name 
 Bathsheba, or, as he reads it, Bersabee, he 
 finds in Hebrew denotes "seven wells." He 
 deduces from Prov. v. 15 that " well " denotes 
 " a wife." Bathsheba was the seventh wife 
 the literal David ; but we learn spiritually 
 that Christ is the spouse of seven churches, for 
 so the one church is designated on account of 
 the seven Spirits by which it is sustained, and 
 accordingly both Paul and John wrote to 
 seven churches. This last remark may sug- 
 gest the writer's acquaintance with the work 
 of which the Muratorian Fragment is a part. 
 
 The writer shews a strong preference for the 
 ascetic life. He remarks (24, 135) that when 
 the disciples said " U the case of the man be 
 so with his wife it is not good to marry," our 
 Lord did not contradict them or say it was 
 good to marry. He holds (1,24), thatconjugal 
 union is bad and in itself a sin ; and although 
 on account of God's permission it ceases to 
 be sin, yet it is not righteousness. In the 
 beginning of the world men married sisters — 
 a sin excusable at the time on account of the 
 fewness of men. Afterwards this was for- 
 bidden, but a man was allowed to have more 
 wives than one ; then, as population increased, 
 this too was forbidden, but a man was allowed 
 to have one wife ; " now that the world has 
 grown old we know what is well-pleasing in 
 God's sight, though on account of incontinent 
 men we dare not say it." Some hard language 
 concerning women will be found (24, 135). 
 
 PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS 
 
 Yet to those who will not take his counsel he 
 gives advice concerning the choosing and 
 ruling of a wife. He regards the apostle's 
 permission of a second marriage as but licence 
 given on account of the hardness of men's 
 hearts, a second marriage in itself being but 
 " honesta fornicatio." This is quoted as 
 Chrysostom's in the Decretum of Gratian (par. 
 2, caus. 31, quaest. i, 9). The writer owns 
 there was more continence in the dominant 
 church than in his own sect, but is not any 
 more disposed therefore to condone that 
 church's heresy. A heretical sect is no more 
 a church than an ape is a man. If you see a 
 man who does not worship God in truth doing 
 what seem to you good works, do not believe 
 your eyes and say he is a man of good life, but 
 believe God, Who says " An evil tree cannot 
 bring forth good fruit." If you call him good 
 you make Christ a liar ; you only see the 
 outside, God sees the heart. The works of a 
 man who does not care to believe rightly can 
 spring from no good motive, for it is better to 
 believe rightly than to act rightly. Faith 
 without works is dead, but still it is some- 
 thing ; works without faith are nothing at all. 
 The foolish virgins had the lamps of right 
 faith, but not the oil of good works to burn in 
 them ; but what avails the oil of good works 
 to Jews or heretics who have no lamps wherein 
 to light it ? He will not even own the baptism 
 of heretics as valid. 
 
 It has been questioned whether the original 
 language of this commentary were Greek or 
 Latin, but it appears to us that it was certainly 
 Latin. A translator may conceivably, in- 
 deed, have modified the language "Jesse 
 latino sermonerefrigerium appellatur " (p. 16), 
 or "in graeco non dicit ' beati pauperes " sed 
 ' beati egeni ' vel ' beati mendici ' " (9, 56). 
 But there are other passages where the argu- 
 ment turns on the use of Latin, e.g. (53, 223) 
 money passing from hand to hand — " usu ipso 
 multiplicatur, unde dicitur usura ab usu," or 
 (7, 53) where an explanation is suggested 
 why, at the call of the apostles, Peter and his 
 brother are described as " mittentes retia," 
 John and his brother "retia componentes," 
 " quia Petrus praedicavit evangelium et non 
 composuit, sed Marcus ab eo praedicata com- 
 posuit ; Joannes autem et praedicavit evan- 
 gelium et ipse composuit." The commenta- 
 tor, however, clearly uses Greek authorities. 
 From such he must have derived his explan- 
 ation (49, 205) why the commandments are 
 ten — "secundum mysterium nominis Jesu 
 Christi quod est in litera iota, id est perfec- 
 tionis indicio " (see also i, 23). He knew no 
 Hebrew, though he lays great stress on the 
 interpretation of Hebrew names, making use 
 for this purpose of a glossary which we cannot 
 identify with that used by any other writer. 
 It must have been from the work of some 
 Oriental writer that he came by the name of 
 Varisuas as that of a heretic (48, 199)- for 
 Barjesus seems plainly intended. He does 
 not use Jerome's Vulgate, but a previous 
 translation. Thus (Matt. v. 22) he has " sine 
 causa," which Jerome omits, and he anti- 
 cipates bp. Butler in his observations as to the 
 uses of anger — "Justa ira mater est discip- 
 linae, ergo non solum peccant qui cum causa 
 irascuntur sed e contra nisi irati fuerint 
 
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS 
 
 peccant." In the Lord's I'ravrr he has 
 " quotidianuni." not " siiprrsiihstantialrm." 
 He has the doxolo^'v at the end ; in this difler- 
 ing from the usage of Latin versions hut 
 agreeing with the At>ostolu Consliluttons (iii. 
 1 8), a work he highly valued. In the beati- 
 tudes he follows the received text in placing 
 " Blessed are they that mourn " before 
 " Blessed are the meek," contrary to Jerome 
 and the bulk of the Latin versions. Both 
 here, however, and in the case of the doxoioev, 
 he agrees with the Codex Brixianus. Me 
 reads " neque tilius " (Matt. xxiv. 36); he 
 distinctly omits Luke xvii. 36 (so. 21^). 
 
 Besides the Scriptures he uses the Shfphfrd 
 of Hermas (33, 142). but acknowledges that 
 it was not universally received ; the Clem- 
 entine Recognitions (20. 04 ; 50, 212 ; 51, 
 214). the Af>ostolic Conslttuhons or Canons as 
 he calls them (13, 74 ; 53, 221). The first of 
 these passages does not appear in our present 
 text of the Conslilulions ; the second is from 
 bk. viii., which Krabbe gives good reason for 
 thinking an Axian addition to the previously 
 known work. In the latter half of the 4th 
 cent, the Arians appear to have made active 
 use of literary forgery. In their interests was 
 made the longer edition of the Ignatian ep- 
 istles, which Zahn has conjecturally attributed 
 to .\cacius of Caesarea. Interpolations of 
 Arian tendency were also made in the Clem- 
 entine Recognitions. Our wTiter used Jo- 
 sephus. He had also, besides the Ascenston 
 of Isaiah, another O.T. apocryphal book (not 
 the book of Jubilees) from which he learned 
 the names of Cain and .Abel's sisters, fuller 
 details about the sacrifice of Isaac, was 
 enabled to clear Judah from the guilt of incest 
 in his union with Tamar, etc. He had further 
 N.T. .Apocrypha, which, though not absolutely 
 authoritative, might, in his opinion, be read 
 with pleasure. These related in full detail the 
 story of the Magi, compendiously told by St. 
 Matthew, telling how they had learned to 
 expect the appearance of the star from a book 
 preserved in their nation, called the book of 
 Seth, and had in consequence for generations 
 kept a systematic look-out for this star. 
 Probably the same book told him that Joseph 
 was not present when the angel appeared to 
 Mary, and related how our Lord conferred His 
 own baptism on John the Baptist. Directly 
 or indirectly the writer was much indebted to 
 Origen, and there may be traces of acmiaint- 
 ance with two or three other anti-Sicene 
 fathers. His fanciful interpretations of Scrip- 
 ture, though including some few of what may 
 be called patristical commonplaces, seem to 
 be mostly original. With reference, however, 
 to the question of authorship, it is important 
 to determine whether his coincidences with 
 St. Augustine are purely accidental. He is 
 certainly no follower of Augustine. He has 
 little in common with that fathers comments 
 on the same passages of St. Matthew, and 
 differs in various details, ^./j. (49, 205 ) he follows 
 Origen's division of the Commandm»-nts, 
 making " Honour thy father and mother " 
 the fifth, and (p. 21R) counting it as belonging 
 to the first table ; yet he appears to have Ixrn 
 acquainted with Augustine's Enarraitonts on 
 the Psalms, as he has scarcely a quotation 
 from the Psalms which docs not shew some 
 
 PUBLIUS 
 
 h71 
 
 resrmbUnrr to .\uK'mtin<>'« rommrnl on Iht 
 
 same passage ; e.g. (4. 4,) In \\ viil. 4. " The 
 
 heavens, thr work of Thv fuu'«^i " mr«n 
 
 the Holv Srrn<turr\ . (^ - ■■ 1, n_ 
 
 the rrn».«rk " f'oit.itur n.n 
 
 propter hoiiornn potrvtaii 
 
 with .\ugustinr's " I It. , , 
 
 ad infinnitatrin doi: 
 
 honoriftrentium." 1 
 
 similaritv (7, Si) J ■ • 
 
 "mittentes retia" and Aiuu.t: 
 
 non 
 rum 
 rb«l 
 
 t n« 
 
 tnark* 
 
 on th.it subject in Ps. Ixiv. 4. The intrrpre- 
 tation that the " mountains " t ■•« ' \> '•. ( hrl»- 
 j tians are to flrr ,ire the 11 may 
 
 have been suggr^trd bv An tjv. 
 
 2 ; sec also the srrmon (4- <i%." 
 
 Our author lavs rlaini I iHV. 
 
 Hesavs(52,2i8) that the ti- rd's 
 
 ascension had been nearl\ life 
 
 of an antediluvian palii.i:>.. . liiiirly 
 
 Mill (Praet. N.T.) fixes his <I.iir a.l. -i'-i. In 
 favour of the late date thrrr is thr us«- of lh« 
 medieval word " bladuin " for mrn, thouxh 
 we do not know the exact date when such 
 words crrpt into popular langiiagr. But a 
 very strong argument for an earlirr date It 
 that the author's studies appear all to have 
 , lain in Christian literature earlier than the 
 middle of the sth cent. ; and that hr appears 
 to know nothing of anv of the controvrrsies tn 
 the Christian church after that datr. Maklnic 
 all allowance for tho narrowing influrnrr of 4 
 small sect, we find it hard to tx-lieve that the 
 type of Arianism which existed at the time 
 specified could have been prcscoed in such 
 complete purity two or three centuries later. 
 I Our author does not appear to have lived in 
 j an Arian kingdom outside the limits of the 
 j Roman empire. He draws illustrations (jo, 
 I 130) from the relative powers of the offices 
 I praefectus, vicarius, consul ; from the fact 
 that a " solidus " which has not the " rhar- 
 1 agma Caesaris " is to be rejected as bad 
 1(38, 160). When he wrote, heathenism was 
 i not extinct, as appears from the encl of 
 Hoin. 13 and from what he says (10, lO as to 
 ! the effect on the heathen of the g<Mxl ■»r bad 
 '■ conversation of Christians. All things con- 
 sidered, we are not disposed to date the work 
 [later than the middle of the sth cent., which 
 \ would allow it time to grow into such renute 
 in an expurgated form as to pass for Chtf 
 i sostom's with Nicolas I. If so cjrlv a date 
 can be assigned to it. we have at onrr a claim- 
 ant for its authorship in the Anm bp Mail- 
 minus, who hrld a r ' ■' '■ *:«:u«- 
 tine. The Opus Im i by 
 an Arian bishop at 1 i>le, 
 as Maxiniinus then ■.•. . ' the 
 two writers is idriitiul. -i ml* 
 of agreement in what .M.i' •» to 
 thi! temporal penalties to w ' »»oo 
 of his opinions was liable, anl i ! !' -^ duty, 
 notwithstanding, of confrsMiii; the truth !>•• 
 foremen. MaxiniimiN "hilr n, \friri rr.qld 
 hardiv help makin^t »Uh 
 the writings of St. A • ery 
 conceivably adopt ! dar 
 passages, though "n tur wn ir n.iijlitly 
 regarding his authority. (« »l 
 
 FuMluS (B). ■» solitary, commemorated by 
 [ Thc«xl.iret In his Reltctoi* Hulorui, c v.. b«jfO 
 I at Zeugma, on the Mellespoal, o| a family of 
 
872 
 
 PULCHERIA 
 
 senatorial rank. His person and mental 
 endowments were equally remarkable. On 
 his father's death he sold all he inherited from 
 him, and distributing it to those in need, built 
 for himself a small hut on high ground about 
 7 miles from his native town, where he passed 
 the remainder of his days. He devoted 
 his whole time to psalmody, reading the 
 Scriptures, and prayer, together with the 
 labour necessary for his maintenance and 
 the entertainment of strangers, and latterly 
 for the government of his brotherhood. His 
 reputation for sanctity attracted many, whom 
 he lodged in small huts near his own. He 
 exercised a very strict oversight, imposing on 
 them a very severe rule of abstinence and 
 nightly prayer. After a while, on the advice 
 of one of these fellow-ascetics, he erected a 
 common house, or coenobium, that they might 
 derive profit from their companions' virtues, 
 and all be more immediately under his eye. 
 At first all his fellow-coenobites were Greeks ; 
 but the native Syrians having expressed a 
 desire to join the society, he built another 
 house for them, and between the two erected 
 a church common to both, where each might 
 attend matins and evensong, singing alter- 
 nately in their own language. This double 
 coenobite establishment remained to Theo- 
 doret's time, who gives a record of its succes- 
 sive provosts. [e.v.] 
 
 Pulcheria (2), Sept. lo, daughter of the 
 emperor Arcadius and sister and guardian of 
 Theodosius II. She practically ruled the 
 eastern empire for many years. For her 
 secular history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. She 
 was only two years older than her brother, 
 whose education she superintended, having 
 been born Jan. 19, 399. She was declared 
 Augusta and empress July 4, 414, and at once 
 entrusted with the management of affairs. 
 She was learned and vigorous, could speak and 
 write Latin and Greek, personally investigated 
 the affairs of state, directed much attention to 
 religion, and brought up her brother in the 
 strictest orthodoxy (Soz. H. E. iv. i). She 
 was a correspondent of St. Cyril during the 
 Nestorian controversy, and two letters are 
 still extant from him written in 430, requesting 
 her assistance (see Mansi, iv. 618-883). In 
 450 she had a long correspondence with pope 
 Leo and his archdeacon Hilarius on the subject 
 of Eutyches and the Monophysite heresy. 
 We possess also an epistle of hers addressed 
 to the Palestinian monks and another to one 
 Bessa, abbess of a convent at Jerusalem, both 
 in defence of thecouncilof Chalcedon. Bishops 
 and clergy from every part of the empire 
 appealed to her and on every subject. Theo- 
 doret {Ep. 43) wrote in 445 about the taxation 
 of his episcopal city of Cyrrhus ; the clergy of 
 Ephesus, in 448, concerning the episcopate of 
 Bassianus. She had in early life taken a vow 
 of virginity in conjunction with her sisters 
 Arcadia and Marina. In 450 she was obliged 
 to assume the government of the empire, and 
 feeling herself incompetent for the task 
 married Marcian, an eminent general. She 
 reigned till her death, Feb. 18, 453. She 
 convoked and assisted at the fourth general 
 council of Chalcedon. Her devotion to the 
 culture of relics was very great. She trans- 
 ported to Constantinople those of St. Chrysos- 
 
 QUADRATUS 
 
 torn with great pomp in 438, and of the 40 mar- 
 tyrs of Sebaste in 446 (Soz. H. E. ix. 2 ). Ceillier 
 (viii. 471, 533, X. 20, 67, 213-226) gives fully 
 her religious history. Hefele'sCoMncj7s(Clark's 
 trans, t. iii.) gives details of her action against 
 Nestorius and Eutyches. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Purpurius, bp. of Limata, or Liniata, some 
 place in Numidia, a truculent ruffian, men- 
 tioned both by Optatus and Augustine as a 
 sample of the leaders of the Donatists (Mor- 
 celli, Afr. Chr. i 205). For some cause un- 
 known he murdered his own nephews in the 
 prison of Mileum, and when taxed with the 
 crime threatened the same to any who stood 
 in his way (Opt. i. 13 ; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii. 
 15, 27 ; c. Gaud. i. 16, 17 ; c. Cresc. iii. 27, 30). 
 This had taken place before the council of 
 Cirta, A.D. 305. Purpurius was also dishonest, 
 for of the money distributed by Lucilla in 
 bribes (a.d. 311) his share amounted to 100 
 folks. At some time, perhaps soon after 313, 
 when Christian worship was made legal and 
 heathenism became unpopular, advantage 
 appears to have been taken by some of the 
 "baser sort" of Christians to plunder the 
 heathen temples, and Purpurius carried off 
 some cups from the temple of Serapis, prob- 
 ably of Carthage. This theft was brought to 
 light at the inquiry held by Zenophilus, a.d. 
 320. But the result of the inquiry is unknown, 
 as the MS. is imperfect {Man. Vet. Don. iv. 
 pp. 172, 173, ed. Oberthiir). [h.w.p.] 
 
 Q 
 
 QuadratUS (3), the author of an apology for 
 the Christians, presented to the emperor 
 Hadrian {regn. 117-138). Eusebius {H. E. iv. 
 3) says the work was still in circulation in his 
 time and that he himself was acquainted with 
 it. He quotes one sentence which proves, as 
 he observes, the great antiquity of the work. 
 QuadratUS remarks that the Saviour's mir- 
 acles were no transient wonders, but had 
 abiding effects. Those who had been cured 
 or raised from the dead did not disappear, but 
 remained for a considerable time after the 
 Saviour's departure, some even to the times 
 of QuadratUS himself. Accordingly Quad- 
 ratUS is called a disciple of the apostles by 
 Eusebius in his Chronicle, under the 8th year 
 of Hadrian according to the Armenian, the 
 loth according to the Latin. 
 
 St. Jerome twice (de Vir. III. 19 ; Ep. 70, 
 ad Magnum) identifies the apologist with 
 QuadratUS, bp. of Athens, and states that the 
 apology was presented when Hadrian visited 
 Athens and was initiated in the Eleusinian 
 mysteries. On chronological grounds we 
 must reject this identification. For it is 
 improbable that any one contemporary with 
 subjects of our Lord's miracles should survive 
 to 170. We may doubt also whether the 
 apologist resided at Athens. A writer against 
 the Montanists (ap. Eus. H. E. v. 17) contrasts 
 the behaviour of the Montanist prophetesses 
 with that of those recognized in the church as 
 prophets, e.g. the daughters of Philip, Ammia, 
 and QuadratUS. Eusebius evidently under- 
 stood the reference to be a Quadratus of whom 
 he speaks (H. E. iii. 37) under the reign of 
 Trajan, and who is apparently the apologist. 
 
rabbClas 
 
 But since the author whom I (iNrbiu* qu. !■ 
 HTote in Asia Minor, it w.is i<r..t..»t>lv th. 
 that Quadratus rnjovrd tin- r<j<utati<<ii .t 
 prophet, as did the daughters ..J Philip i.. 
 Hierapolis. and Anunia in Philadelphia. 
 
 His Apolofv seems t<> have survivttl until 
 6th cent., for several passages were quotr<l 
 in controversv between the monk Andrew ai 
 EisEBiis (86) (F'hot. Cod. ifi2). t (. /al. 
 Forschuni:fn (looti), vi. 41; Harnark. (.rj. 
 (iff Alt.-Chr. Lit. 1. <)5 ; ii. i, 3t^-27l. [r.-s.] 
 
 Rabbulas, bp. of Kdessa, 4I2-435- Chief 
 authoritu<: ( i ) a panenvric in SNTiae. compilr ' 
 soon after his death bv a coiUeniporarv cirri 
 himself a native of Hdtssa. extant in a MS. 
 6th cent., of which Mickell has furiusli. ,1 
 German trans, in Thalhofers .-lii . 
 Schriftcn der KtrchenvdUr (vol. x. pp 
 (2) the later and less trustworthy bi . 
 of Alexander, the founder of the .Acomitt.it , 
 According to the panegyrist, Rabbulas was 
 bom in Kenneschrin, known by the (ireeks as 
 Chalcis in Osrhoene, of rich and noble paren- 
 tage. His father was a heathen priest, his 
 mother a Christian. He received a liberal 
 education, and was well versed in pagan 
 literature. From his father he inherited a 
 considerable fortune, and was chosen prefect 
 of his native city. He was still a heathen 
 and for a long time resisted his mother's 
 entreaties to become a Christian. He took, 
 however, a Christian wife. Various instru- 
 mentalities contributed to his conversion. 
 The paneg>Tist attributes it to his intercourse 
 with Husebius of Chalcis and Acacius of 
 Beroea. and to two remarkable miracles wit- 
 nessed by him. The biographer of Alexander 
 ascribes it to Alexander's influence and teach- 
 ing. Both accounts probably are substan- 
 tially true. On his conversion he went on 
 pilgrimage to Jerusalem and was baptized in 
 the Jordan, having previously renounced his 
 property and manumitted his slaves. His 
 wife, daughters, and all the females of his 
 household embraced the religious life, and 
 Rabbulas retired to the monastery of St. 
 Abraham at Chalcis. The see of Kdessa 
 being vacant in 412 by the death of Diogenes 
 Rabbulas was appointed by a synod mettiiig 
 at Antioch. Kdessa was famous for its 
 intellectual activity. Rabbulas liecanie thr 
 leading prelate of the Oriental church, r< 
 garded, according to the exaggerated langua*.. 
 of the biographer of .Mexandt-r. as " tt,. 
 common master of Syria, .Ariv • • ■ i-r 
 nay of the whole world." I . 
 describes him as having stcadi: 
 doctrines of Nestorius from t 
 The church of Kdessa, with the I..1 .t K' 
 followed the teaching of Diodorr of T.n 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which th 
 trines were virtually contained, and : 
 presbyter of his church, who woul 
 personal knowledge, sayv th.it H.ibJ • 
 no exception. Uy degr- ■ 
 las veered round, and < : 
 compromising o[)ponent 
 
 ing, using his utmost • ;. . ..■•■^ 
 
 about the suppression of his work*. li»A».j 
 
 RABBULAS 
 
 1*71 
 
 Irrt.., ;hb „ ,.. ■ 
 
 j fiery «eal (or ■ 
 I anathematixe An 
 I at Kdrsta ; an«l 
 I Rabbulas, whn 
 
 prrarhrd in Ih"- 
 
 i to the Cl.: 
 1/. col. 70^) 
 
 .ties of th.- 
 n''. 725). in ' 
 of Cyril's • 
 vacillation 
 visit to Co: 
 council. 4 : 
 N'estorins' 
 
 Maxi- 
 
 the • 
 
 his.'. 
 
 no ( .1 . ; 
 
 claiiiud t" 
 
 Theodore 
 
 revered thi 
 
 Nestorianisin and .n.' 
 
 was to repudiate the tl 
 
 had been taught to n 
 
 guides. Rabbulas saw 
 
 must be attacked at his 
 
 Diodore and The<«l"r«' 
 
 the strong will an 1 
 
 We have a lett. 
 
 (Labbe, v. 46<<). •: 
 
 author of the 1 
 
 denied that Marv 
 
 Cyril, in his repl 
 
 preserved ( 1'' ' I 
 
 in ex|>elliiu 
 
 indicated I 
 
 from men I 
 
 Cilifiaii," ! 
 
 crr<l«<l. I 
 
 so f ,1 ,1 t" ' 
 
 tbe C)ntUi«tt 
 
 ttiu le*tl lUwUuc* 
 
874 
 
 RADEGUNDIS 
 
 books, which he was everywhere committing 
 to the flames. A synod summoned at Antioch 
 by the patriarch John despatched letters to 
 the bishops of Osrhoene desiring them, if the 
 reports were true, to suspend communion with 
 Rabbulas (Baluz. xliv. col. 749). Meanwhile 
 Rabbulas was corresponding with Cyril on the 
 terms of reconciliation between himself and 
 the East ; and the two prelates were agreed 
 that nothing short of complete submission on 
 the part of the Orientals and the withdrawal 
 of the condemnation of Cyril's anathemas 
 would satisfy them. A letter of Cyril to 
 Rabbulas {ib. cviii. col. 812) in 432 expresses 
 the impossibility of his repudiating all he had 
 written on the subject. The reconciliation 
 was effected in the spring of 433. Andrew of 
 Samosata, becoming convinced of Rabbulas's 
 orthodoxy by perusing his manifesto, at once 
 left his diocese for Edessa to make reparation 
 to his antagonist. Alexander's anger having 
 been aroused, Andrew wrote to the oeconomi 
 of Hierapolis to justify himself. He had not 
 yet seen Rabbulas, but he accepted communion 
 with him and Cyril, and embraced the peace 
 of the church (ib. ci. cvi. coll. 807-810). 
 
 Rabbulas, also, with Acacius of Melitene, 
 wrote to warn the Armenian bishops of the 
 Nestorian heresy in the writings of Diodore 
 and Theodore. In their perplexity they sum- 
 moned a synod, and dispatched two presby- 
 ters to Proclus (who in Apr. 434 had succeeded 
 Maximian as patriarch of Constantinople), 
 entreating him to indicate which was the 
 orthodox teaching. Proclus replied in his 
 celebrated " Tome " on the Incarnation, 
 wherein he condemned Theodore's opinions 
 without naming him, a precaution counter- 
 acted by the ofiiciousness of the bearers of the 
 document (Liberat. Breviar. c. 10, ap. Labbe, 
 V. 752 ; Garnerii Praef. in Mar. Merc. p. lii. 
 ed. Par. 1673). The fiery Rabbulas did not 
 long survive this letter. His death is placed 
 Aug. 7, 435, after an episcopate of 23 years. 
 
 Nearly all his few surviving works were 
 printed by Overbeck in the original Svriac 
 text, in his ed. of Ephrem Syrus (Oxf. 1865), 
 pp. 210-248, 362-378. They include the 
 scanty remains of the 640 letters which, 
 according to his biographer, he wrote to the 
 emperor, bishops, prefects, and monks. See 
 also 'BickeWs Ausgewahlte Schriflen, pp. 153- 
 
 271. [E.V.] 
 
 Radegundis, St., born in 519, queen of 
 Clotaire 1. and founder of the nunnery of 
 Sainte-Croix, at Poictiers. Her father was a 
 Thuringian prince named Bertharius. Her 
 austerities were so incessant that it was com- 
 monly said the king had wedded a nun 
 (Venant. Fort. Acta S. Rad. c. i.). Abhorring 
 the married state from the first, she seems to 
 have finally decided to escape from it upon her 
 husband's treacherous murder of her brother. 
 Withdrawing to Noyon on the pretext of some 
 religious observance, her urgency overcame 
 the hesitation of bp. Medardus to make her a 
 deaconess. She then escaped from her hus- 
 band's territory to the sanctuary of St. Martin 
 of Tours, and thence to St. Hilary's at Poictiers. 
 Here she founded her monastery within a mile 
 or two of the city ; finally, with the consent 
 of Clotaire, clerks were sent to the East for 
 wood of the true cross to sanctify it, and the 
 
 RECCARED 
 
 rule of SS. Caesarius and Caesaria of Aries was 
 adopted. Here the rest of her life was spent, 
 first as abbess, then as simple nun under the 
 rule of another. We have full information 
 about the beginnings of this institution from 
 the two Lives of Radegund, one by Venantius 
 Fortunatus, her intimate friend (Patr. Lat. 
 Ixxii. 651), the other by one of her nuns called 
 Baudonivia (ib. 663) ; and also from the fact 
 that in Gregory's time, after Radegund's 
 death, the attention of all France was drawn 
 to the spot by the scandalous outbreak of a 
 body of the nuns, headed by Chrodieldis, a 
 natiu-al daughter of king Charibert I. After 
 a residence of about 37 years she died Aug. 13, 
 587, and was buried by Gregory of Tours (de 
 Glor. Conf. c. cvi.). [s.a.b.] 
 
 Reooared (the uniform spelling in coins and 
 inscriptions), younger son of Leovigild by his 
 first marriage. For his parentage and life till 
 the death of his father see Leovigild and 
 Hermenigild. Between Apr. 12 and May 8, 
 586 (Hiibner, Insc. Hisp. n. 155 ; Tejada 
 y Ramiro, ii. 217), he succeeded his father 
 without opposition, having been already 
 associated with him in the kingdom. He 
 first allied himself to his stepmother Gois- 
 vintha, the mother of Brunichild and grand- 
 mother of Childebert II. By her advice he 
 sent ambassadors to Childebert and to his 
 uncle GuNTRAMNt's (2), the Frankish king of 
 Burgundy, proposing peace and a defensive 
 alliance. The former alone were received. 
 
 Then followed the great event of Reccared's 
 reign, his conversion from Arianism to Catho- 
 licism. We can only conjecture whether, as 
 Dahn supposes, his motives were mainly politi- 
 cal, or whetherheyieldedto theinfluenceof the 
 Catholic leaders such as Leander or Masona. 
 In Jan. 587 he declared himself aCatholic, and, 
 convening a synod of the Arian bishops, in- 
 duced them and the mass of the Gothic and 
 Suevic nations to follow his example. Some 
 Arians did not submit quietly, and 587-589 
 saw several dangerous risings, headed by coali- 
 tions of Arian bishops and ambitious nobles. 
 Perhaps, from the geographical situation, the 
 most formidable was that of Septimania, 
 headed by bp. Athaloc, who, from his ability, 
 was considered a second Arius. Amongst the 
 secular leaders of the insurrection the counts 
 Granista and Wildigern are named. They 
 appealed for aid to Guntram, whose desire for 
 Septimania was stronger than his detestation 
 of Arianism, and the dux Desiderius was sent 
 with a Frankish army. Reccared's army 
 defeated the insurgents and their allies with 
 great slaughter, Desiderius himself being slain 
 (Paul. Em. 19; J. Bid.; Greg. T. ix. 15). 
 The next conspiracy broke out in the West, 
 headed by Sunna, the Arian bp. of Merida, and 
 count Seggo. Claudius, the dux Lusitaniae, 
 put down the rising, Sunna being banished 
 to Mauritania and Seggo to Galicia. In the 
 latter part of 588 a third conspiracy was 
 headed by the Arian bp. Uldila and the queen 
 dowager Goisvintha, but they were detected, 
 and the former banished. 
 
 Reccared, after his conversion, had again 
 sent to Guntram and Childebert in 587. The 
 implacable Guntram refused his embassy, 
 asking how could he believe those by whose 
 machinations his niece Ingunthis had been 
 
RECCARED 
 
 Imprisoned ami banished and hrr husbaml 
 slain ? ChildfbtTl and his mother Bninirhil.l 
 accepted the present of lo.ooo sohdi. and wri« 
 satisfied with Keccared's declarations that ht 
 was guiltless of the death of hiKunthis. In the 
 spring of 589 Ciiintram, perhaps in concert 
 with C.oisvintha. made one more attempt on 
 Septimania. It was defeated with great loss 
 by the (ioths under Claudius. The rest of his 
 reign was peaceful, except for some expeditions 
 against the Romans and Basques. 
 
 Third Council of Tolfdo. — This the most 
 important of all Spanish councils, assembled 
 by the kings command in May. sHq. On 
 Niay 4 the king shortly declared hisreas<ms for 
 convening them, and the next three days were 
 spent in prayer and fasting. Keccared's ad- 
 dress, read to the assembly by a notary, con- 
 tained an orthodox c<Mifession of belief. He 
 declared thatCiod had inspired him to lead the 
 Goths back to the true faith, from which they 
 had been led astray by false teachers. Not 
 only the Goths but the Suevi. who by the fault 
 of others had been led into heresy, he had 
 brought back. These noble nations he offered 
 to God by the hands of the bishops, whom 
 he called on to complete the work. He then 
 anathematized .\rius and his doctrine, and de- 
 clared his acceptance of Nice. Constantinople, 
 Ephesus, Chalcedon. and all other councils 
 that agreed with these, and pr')nounced an 
 anathema on all who returned to .\rianism 
 after being received into the church by the 
 chrism, or the laying on of hands ; then fol- 
 lowed the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople 
 and the definition of Chalcedon, and the tomus 
 concluded with the signatures of Keccared 
 and Baddo his queen. It was received with 
 general acclamation. Its praises of Reccared. 
 its numerous scriptural quotations, and the 
 clearness with which the Catholic and Arian 
 doctrines are defined shew that it was com- 
 posed bv a theologian, probably bp. Leandrr 
 or abbat Eutropius, who had the chief manage- 
 ment of the council (Jo. Bid.). One of the 
 Catholic bishops then called on the bishops, 
 clergy, and Gothic nobles who had been con- 
 verted to declare publicly their renunciation of 
 .\rianism and their acceptance of Catholicism. 
 They replied that though they had done so 
 already when with the king they had gone 
 over to the church, they would comply. Then 
 followed 23 anathemas directed against Arius 
 and his doctrines, succeeded by the creeds of 
 Nice and Constantinople and the definition 
 of Chalcedon, the whole being subscribed bv 
 8 Arian bishops with their clergy, and by all 
 the Gothic nobles. The bishf>ps were Ignas 
 of Barcelona, Ubiligisclus of Valencia, .Muril.i 
 of Palencia, Sunnila of V'iseo, (iardmgus of 
 Tuv, Bechila of Lugo. Argiovitus of Oporto 
 and Froisclus of Tortosa. The names of at 
 least six shew their Gothic descent. Five- 
 come from sees within the former Suevic king- 
 dom, probably shewing that I.covigild, after 
 his conquest, had displaced the Catholic by 
 Arian bishops. Keccared then bid the council 
 with his licence to draw up any requisite 
 canons, particularly one directing the creed to 
 be recited at the Holy Communion, that hence- 
 forward no one could plead ignorance a» an 
 excuse for misbelief. Then followed 2 3 canon* 
 with a confirmatory edict of the king. The 
 
 REMIGIUS 
 
 NTS 
 
 iirtU 
 
 .\run bishops. pfi. 
 I>ren converted. »■ 
 
 their wives, the ;; 
 
 should be read at « (>i%h.>i- k t^l.ir ib.<iii« 
 meals ; bv the tjth Arun chiirrhe* mrtti 
 transferred to the bishi>|>« f>f thrlr dt»r<>««-« . 
 I the 13th forbade clerics to iirocred •i(«in%l 
 clerics before lav tribunals , the i^ih \>^\\»i\r 
 ; Jews to have ( tiristun wives. r<>nrubinr%, c< 
 slaves, ordered the rhildirn nl swrh unl<>n« lo 
 be bapti/etl. .ind disqiialitied )rw» fr->ni any 
 office in which thev miKht have t.> punish 
 Christians- thristun slave* whom thev had 
 circumcised, or made to share in thrir rite*, 
 were xp^o tado free; the 21st (<>r»>adr rivll 
 authorities to lay burdens on clrurs or the 
 slaves of the church or clergv ; the ijnd f<ic- 
 bade walling at funerals; the Jird forbade 
 celebrating saints' davs with mdecrnt danri>» 
 and songs. The canons were \ut>srril>ed hrsC 
 bv the king, then bv s of the 5 mrtro|>olUans. 
 of whom Masona signed hrst '•: h:- h- p^ Mgned 
 I in person, h by proxy. \ ' Tarra- 
 
 I conensis and Septimania nallv 
 
 j or bypr»»xv; in other pr- «ere 
 
 I missing. The pr'K-eedincM 1 1 - ■ mily 
 
 bv I.eander on the conversion ot the«.oth*. 
 
 The information for the rest of kercared'« 
 reign is most scantv. He is praised bv Uidxe 
 ' for his peaceful government, clenieiirv. and 
 generosity. He restored various r>ro|>«lies. 
 both ecclesiastical and private, conhscaled br 
 ; his father, and founded manv churche* and 
 monasteries. Gregory the (ireat. writinx I" 
 Reccared in .\ug. joo {h-pp- ix. M. tit). 
 extols him for embracing the true faith and 
 inducing his people to do so, and for refusinn 
 ! the bribes offered by Jews to procure the 
 repeal of a law against them. He sends him 
 a piece of the true cross, some fragments of the 
 chains of St. Peter, and some hair^ i>f ^t. John 
 Baptist. Keccared died at Toledo in «k>i. 
 after reigning 15 years, having publicly con- 
 fessed his sins. He was succerded by hi» win 
 I.rova II., a vouthof about iH. luhn. K>mtt* 
 der Gfrmanm. v. ; Helflerich. FmhUkunf ttiU 
 JifscktchU d(s WfU^nikfnHttkti . t.amv 
 ' KtrchenRfschictxtf von Spamm, w {i)- (r.P ) 
 I RemlgiUS (2) (A'rm.). St , arrhbp of Kheims 
 ; and called the Apostle of the Iranks (( 4^:• 
 i S?o), holds .in important p...i«i..n in \\e%|etn 
 history and IS honoured .1 - ' ••'■Rteal 
 patron-saints of France ''li'" 
 
 winiiini; I lovis and his I -doi 
 
 tiu.tid K.t a> lall->, Ji.'J Jl> '■jjI'tJ •■•■ 
 apparently existed [ser «.rrit. Tuf. 
 hranc. ii. 31) was 1. ^t brfnrr the nth 
 Some think that ' 
 the exhortations • 
 both, »ome that h- 
 parti/aiiship of tlir iv 
 stniggle with the Ariai. 
 Visigoths, (t Lovml Ai 
 happy event for orthodox 
 I force ol character to imptcM a l»af Laiu 
 
 will. !i 
 
 .1 by 
 
 lh« 
 hi% 
 
 with 
 )Uk« 
 
876 
 
 RHODO 
 
 Clovis was stationed in the pathway of his 
 conquests. Few details are known of Remi- 
 gius's life. He was born c. 435, and conse- 
 crated in his 22nd year (c. 457)- We first hear 
 of his intercourse with Clovis in the campaign 
 against Syagrius (c. 486). About 492 the king 
 married the Catholic Clotilda, who proved a 
 powerful ally for the bishop. The story of his 
 baptism on Christmas Eve, 496, with his 
 sisters Albofledis and the Arian Lanthechildis 
 and more than 3,000 Franks, is well known. 
 " Mitis depone colla, Sicamber, adora quod 
 incendisti, incende quod adorasti," are the 
 words put by Gregory into Remigius's mouth 
 (ib. 27). His episcopate is said to have lasted 
 70 or more years, his death occurring c. 530. 
 His literary remains are 4 letters (one, to 3 
 bishops, presents a curious picture of con- 
 temporary manners), a spurious will, and a lew- 
 verses ascribed to him (Pair. Lat. Ixv. 961-976 ; 
 cf. Hist. litt. de la France, iii. 158 sqq.). 
 
 The references in Gregory of Tours (Hist. 
 Franc, ii. 27, 31, viii. 21, ix. 14, x. 19 ; Hist. 
 Epit. xvi. ; de Glor. Conf. Ixxix.), Sidonius 
 ApoUinaris {Ep. ix. 7), and Avitus (Collat. 
 Episc. sub init. ; Patr. Lat. lix. 387), comprise 
 all that is historical about him. History and 
 myth are mingled in the exhaustive notice of 
 the Bollandists (Oct. i, 59-187). [s.a.b.] 
 
 Rhodo (1), a Christian writer of the end of 
 the 2nd cent., our knowledge of whom now 
 exclusively depends on the account of his 
 writings, and some extracts from them in 
 Eusebius (H. E. v. 13). He was a native of 
 Asia, converted to Christianity at Rome by 
 Tatian, as he himself says in a treatise against 
 Marcion addressed to Callistion. In it he 
 tells of the sects into which the Marcionites 
 split up after Marcion's death, and gives an 
 interesting account of an oral controversy held 
 by him with the Marcionite Apelles, then an 
 old man. He mentions a book of " Problems " 
 published by Tatian, intended to exhibit the 
 obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, and promises 
 to give the solutions ; but Eusebius does not 
 seem to have met with this work. He also 
 wrote a treatise on the Hexaemeron. Through 
 a lapse of memory Jerome (de Vir. III.) speaks 
 of him as author of the anonymous treatise 
 against the Montanists from which Eusebius 
 makes extracts (H. E. v. 16). [g.s.] 
 
 Romanianus, a wealthy citizen of Tagaste, 
 possessing there and at Carthage a house and 
 other property. He shewed great kindness 
 towards Augustine in his early life, which he 
 did not fail in later days gratefully to acknow- 
 ledge. In a passage of the second book 
 against the heathen philosophers Augustine 
 relates with pathetic simplicity how when he 
 was but a boy and in poverty, arising no doubt 
 from his father's "spirited" disregard of 
 expense, he found in Romanianus a friend 
 who provided him a home and pecuniary help 
 in his studies at Carthage, and shewed him — 
 what he valued more than these — friendship 
 and kindly encouragement. After the death 
 of Augustine's father in 371, Romanianus 
 received him into his house at Tagaste as his 
 honoured guest, and though, in a patriotic 
 spirit, he tried to dissuade him from returning 
 to Carthage, when he saw that his youthful 
 ambition desired a wider range than his native 
 town could afford, he supplied him with the 
 
 ROMANUS 
 
 necessary means. Nor, as Augustine mentions 
 with special gratitude, was he offended at a 
 neglect to write, but passed over it with 
 considerate kindness (Aug. Conf. ii. 3, vi. 
 14 ; c. Acad. ii. 2 ; Ep. 27, 4). Romanianus 
 had a son Licentius, who may have been a 
 pupil under Augustine while he was teaching 
 rhetoric at Carthage, but of this there is no 
 evidence, though he undoubtedly was 10 or 
 12 years later at Milan. Romanianus appears 
 to have had another son, Olympius, frequently 
 mentioned in the various discourses composed 
 by Augustine at Cassiciacum near Milan, who 
 received baptism at the same time as Augus- 
 tine, and who afterwards became bp. of Ta- 
 gaste, of which place he was certainly a native, 
 and of a rank in life agreeing entirely with that 
 of Romanianus (Aug. Conf. vi. 7). Like 
 Augustine himself, perhaps in some degree 
 through his influence, Romanianus fell into 
 the prevailing errors of Manicheism, which, 
 however, he appears to have cast off, though 
 without adopting as yet the true philosophy 
 of the gospel, by the time when, as we gather 
 from the description of Augustine, he visited 
 him at Milan in 385. He had gone thither on 
 important business, and entered with some 
 warmth into the scheme of a life in common 
 of 10 members. In 386, while Augustine was 
 with his friends in the house of Verecundus 
 at Cassiciacum, and meditating the great 
 change of life which he made in 387, he 
 composed 4 discourses, dedicating to Ro- 
 manianus the one against the academic 
 philosophers, entreating him to abandon 
 their doctrines, and declaring his own inten- 
 tion to abide by the authority of Christ, 
 " For," says he, "I find none more powerful 
 than this" (c. Acad. i. i ; iii. 20; Retract, i. 
 1-4). Some time during the 3 years follow- 
 ing the conversion of Augustine Romanianus 
 became a Christian, thus drawing still closer 
 the intimacy between Augustine and himself 
 and his family. The same year Augustine 
 addressed to Romanianus his book on true 
 religion (c. Acad. ii. 3, 8 ; de Ver. Rel. 12 ; 
 Ep. 27, 4 ; 31, 7). We find Augustine also 
 writing, a.d. 395, to Licentius, entreating 
 him in the most affectionate manner to shake 
 off the bonds in which he was held by the 
 world, to visit Paulinus at Nola and learn 
 from him how this was to be accomplished 
 (Aug. Ep. 26, 3). This letter he followed up 
 by one to Paulinus, introducing to him 
 Romanianus, the bearer of the letter, and 
 commending Licentius to his attention (Ep. 
 27, 3, 4, 6). In 396 Paulinus wrote to Romani- 
 anus congratulating the church of Africa on 
 the appointment of Augustine as coadjutor- 
 bp. of Hippo, and expressing the hope that the 
 trumpet of Augustine may sound in the ears 
 of Licentius, to whom he wrote both in prose 
 and in verse, exhorting him to devote himself 
 to God (Paulin. Epp. vii. viii.). [h.w.p.] 
 
 Romanus (7), a solitary, born and brought 
 up at Rhosus, who retired to a cell on the 
 mountains near Antioch, where he lived to 
 extreme old age, practising the utmost auster- 
 ities. Theodoret describes him as conspicu- 
 ous for simplicity and meekness, attracting 
 to his cell by the beauty of his character large 
 numbers, over whom he exercised a salutary 
 influence (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. xi.). [e.v.] 
 
ROMANUS 
 
 Roraanus i9!. St.. a ccKbrjlcd hvmn. 
 writtr oi the Laitmi church, who i<> »aiil lo 
 have wTitten more than i.ooo hymn*. o( the 
 kind called >.omma, a form which he |>rol>- 
 ably invented. It |H>rha|>s drrive* it« vmie- 
 what disputed name from the legend a* to it* 
 origin, found in the Svnaxasion of St. Kom- 
 anus's dav {Mrnafa, Oct. i ). which !uy\ that 
 the Blessed XirRin appeared to him, and com- 
 manded him to eat a roll (•orrdaior) which she 
 gave him, and that, oln-vinR, he found himsrli 
 endowed with the power of composing hvmn- 
 If he was the hrst who wrote kofrdfia, it i 
 an argument in favour of plaring him (as d" 
 Pitra and the Bollandists) in the reign of 
 Anastasius I. (491-518) rather than of .\na-i- ' 
 tasius 11. (713-719). (II. A. w.) 
 
 Ruflnus (3), Ivrattmus, of .Aquileia, th 
 translator of Origen and Kusebius, the frieii.. 
 of Jerome and afterwards his adversary ; .1 
 Latin ecclesiastical writer of some merit, and 
 highly esteemed in his own time ; born r. 345 
 at Concordia in N. Italy ; baptized at .\(]uileia 
 c. 371 ; lived in Egypt some K years and in 
 Palestine about 18 (371-397); ordained at 
 Jerusalem c. 390 ; in Italy, mostly at .^quileia, 
 397-408; died in Sicily. 410. 
 
 Sources. — The works of Kufinus himself, 
 especially his Apology (otherwise Invectivfs), 
 two books, against Jerome; Hieron. AfoUio 
 against Ru/inus, three bmiks ; Id. Chronidf, 
 01. 289, An. I, A.D. 37« ; Id. Ef>p. 3-5, si, 
 57, 80-84, 97, 125, 133; Id. Pr/f. to Comm. 
 on Ezk. and Jer. bk. i ; Paulin. Fpp. 28. 40, 
 46,47; .\ug. Epp. 63, 156; Pallad. His/. 
 Laus. 118; Gennad. de Script. Eccl. c. 17; 
 Sid. Apoll. lib. iv. Ep. 3 ; ('•elasius in Conctl. 
 Rom. {Pair. Lai. li.x. col. 173). 
 
 Literature. — Kufinus's career has usually 
 been treated as an appendage to that of 
 Jerome. There is a full Life of Kufinus by 
 Fontanini (Kome, 1742). reprinted by .Migne 
 in his ed. of Kufinus {Pair. Lat. x.xi.) — minute 
 and exhaustive in details and in fixing dates; 
 a shorter account by Schoenemann. liibiio- 
 iheca Hislorico-Literaria Patrum Lat. (Lips. 
 1792), is also reprinted by Migne. 
 
 Works. — The genuine original works of 
 Rufinus still extant are: .-I Dissertation on 
 the Falsification by Heretics of the Horks of 
 Origen, prefixed to his trans, of Pamphilus's 
 Apology (or Origen; .4 Commentary on the 
 Benedictions of the Twelve Patriarchs {C.en. 
 xlix.); the Apology for himself against the 
 attacks of Jerome, in two b<K>ks; a shorter 
 one addressed to pope Anastasius ; two books 
 of Eccl. Hist., being a continuation of Luse- 
 bins; a History of the ILgyptian Hrrmits, 
 and an Exposition of the Creed. BeMdrs these 
 there are several prefaces to the trjnslation<k 
 from (ireek authors, on which his chief labour 
 was expended, and which include J he .Munattic 
 Rule of Basil, and his « Homilies ; the Apology 
 for Origen, WTitlen by Pamphilusand i;u%ebiu»; 
 Origen's II«/J ApX'^" ^'"1 many of his commen- 
 taries; 10 works of (iregory Na/ian«-n , tli. 
 Sentences of Sixtus or Xystu4 ; the Sentcnc 
 of Evagrius, and his bo<ik addressed to Vn 
 gins ; the Recognitions of Clement ; the 1 
 books of Eusebius's History; the Pa*<:l. >: 
 Canon of Anatolius of .■Klrxandria. 
 
 Early Life: Concordia and Aquileia.— Hi 
 parents were probably Chrisliaof, wnce tb«« 
 
 RuriNus 
 
 tn 
 
 hus 
 I). I 
 ina<!. 
 
 IS %h. 
 
 go 11.; 
 
 work-...! Ui!.,i\ 1 
 
 councils of the 
 
 fw-f.irr (If ifi tit 
 
 .\|>o|ogv against 
 friend. Kuhiiiis w 
 
 lllls.ll.,1 !u. I.-.,!' . 
 
 ' , lllc Uioslu 
 1.. I...t V1I..W 
 
 at the tl>:.. 
 se lavit." li 
 Life in It 
 how long t 
 gether at .\ ; 
 tion. But ' 
 
 Jerome to tin- 1 .l^l. im.: 
 company of MeUnia f.: 
 the monasterirs of Nitri.i 
 
 iiH; Hieron. Ep. In. . 
 
 apparently intended to reuuin. But the 
 church of .Mexandria was then in a state o| 
 trouble. Athanasius died in 37^. and ht* 
 successor, the Arian Luciuv acting with tb« 
 successive governor* of Alexandria, came «t 
 a wolf among the sheep (Kuf // / li \ . 
 Socr. iv. 21-23 ; S«<£. vi. i 1 
 
 was thrown into prison. . 
 manv other confessors, t 
 
 (//. E. ii. 4 ; .</>«>/. aJ in 
 
 carceribus, in exiliis "1 . r re- 
 
 turned as soon as the -; rs«u- 
 
 tion abated. In Egypt .. ■ , .r.| 
 
 Didymus. who wrote for im.. 
 the questions suggested l«v ll • 
 fants (Hier.t. I,' . m .• ' . 
 praises in 1;; ' • .u ,'.• He 
 
 also was a ; iter ward* b|>. 
 
 of Alexan.l: :*' Mr -xw 
 
 also the ).■ ! 
 
 still more 
 .Macarius t 
 other Ma< 
 their teacl 
 and frequ' 
 
 them 111 I • ' - 
 
 6 years he wrnt ici 
 .Melania had »K-^n with 
 cert.«iii Hi ■MkI. I'.iili.!: . 
 her . 
 n<'« 
 But !• 
 
 Val." lir rrt.lM.r.l (,. 
 
 years {Apol. 11. 2 2). M. 
 jmi-^aletn is jl». -1».v f- 
 
 At Uic death ul i'aiulia'^ «1 
 
878 
 
 RUPINUS 
 
 the accession of Theophilus in 385 (Fontanini, 
 Vita Rufini, i. c. ii. § 7)- 
 
 Palestine. — For 18 or 20 years, reckoning 
 either from 377 or 379 to 397, Rufinus lived on 
 the Mount of Olives. He was ordained either 
 by Cyril or more probably by John (made 
 bishop 385 ). He built cells at his own expense 
 (" meis cellulis," Apol. ii. 8a) for monks, who 
 occupied themselves in ascetic practices and 
 learned pursuits. Palladius, who was at 
 Jerusalem and Bethlehem for some time 
 before he went to Egypt in 388, says of 
 Rufinus : " He was a man of noble birth and 
 manners, but very strong in following out his 
 own independent resolutions. No one of the 
 male sex was ever gentler, and he had the 
 strength and calmness of one who seems to 
 know everything " ; and tells us that, in 
 common with Melania, Rufinus exercised an 
 unbounded hospitality, receiving and aiding 
 with his own funds bishops and monks, virgins 
 and matrons. " So," he says, " they passed 
 their life, offending none, and helping almost 
 the whole world." Jerome also, early in their 
 stay at Jerusalem, spoke of Rufinus with 
 highest praise, mentioning in his Chronicle 
 {sub ann. 378) that " Bonosus of Italy, and 
 Florentius and Rufinus at Jerusalem, are held 
 in special estimation as monks " ; and when 
 he settled in Palestine in 386 had frequent 
 literary intercourse with Rufinus and his 
 monks. Rufinus records that Jerome was 
 once his guest at the Mount of Olives (ib.); 
 and Jerome acknowledges {ib. iii. 33) that, up 
 to 393, he had been intimate with him. 
 
 In 394 Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis, came to 
 Jerusalem, and in the dissension which arose 
 between him and John, bp. of Jerusalem, 
 Rufinus was the leader of the clergy who sup- 
 ported John, Jerome siding with Epiphanius, 
 the consequence being an alienation between 
 Jerome and Rufinus. This estrangement was 
 but temporary. Jerome speaks frequently 
 of their " reconciliatas amicitias " {Ep. Ixxxi. 
 I ; Apol. iii. 33). In 397, the year when 
 Rufinus quitted Palestine, they met (probably 
 with many friends on both sides) at a solemn 
 communion service in the Church of the 
 Resurrection, joined hands in renewal of 
 friendship, and, on Rufinus's setting out for 
 Italy with Melania, Jerome accompanied him 
 some little way, perhaps as far as Joppa. 
 
 Italy, 397-409. — Melania returned to Italy 
 in order to promote ascetic practices in her 
 family. Rufinus, whom Paulinus speaks of 
 as being to her "in spiritali via comitem," 
 returned in her company. His mother was 
 still living, and he wished to see his relations 
 and Christian friends again (Hieron. Ixxxi. i ; 
 Apol. ii. 2). After a voyage of 20 days they 
 arrived at Naples in the spring of 397. Thence 
 they went to visit Paulinus at Nola, all the 
 nobles of those parts and their retinues accom- 
 panying them in a kind of triumph (Paulin. 
 Ep. xxix. 12). Melania, who was connected, 
 probably, by ties of property with Campania, 
 since Palladius speaks of her successors Pini- 
 anus and Melania living there {Hist. Laus. 
 119), after staying with Paulinus some time, 
 went on to Rome, where her son Publicola and 
 his wife Albina and her granddaughter Melania 
 with her husband Pinianus were living. Ru- 
 finus went to the monastery of Pinetum near 
 
 RUFINUS 
 
 Terracina, of which his friend Ursacius or 
 Urseius was the abbat, and there stayed 
 probably for a year, from early spring 397 
 till after Lent 398. 
 
 He had brought many works of the Eastern 
 church writers which were but little known 
 in Italy ; and his friends were eager to know 
 their contents. Rufinus, having used Greek 
 more than Latin for some 25 years, at first 
 declared his incompetence {Apol. i. 11), but 
 by degrees accepted the task of translation, 
 which occupied almost all the rest of his life. 
 He began with the Rule of Basil, which 
 Urseius desired for the use of his monks. 
 Next, probably, he translated the Recogni- 
 tions of Clement. [Clementine Literature.] 
 Paulinus begged his assistance in the inter- 
 pretation of the blessing upon Judah in Gen. 
 xlix., and, some months later, of the rest of 
 the blessings on the patriarchs. His reply is 
 extant. Meanwhile he had a scholar named 
 Macarius, who at Pinetum had been much 
 exercised by speculations on Providence and 
 Fate and in controversy with the many 
 Mathematici (astrologists and necromancers) 
 then in Italy. About the time Rufinus 
 arrived he dreamed he saw a ship coming from 
 the East to Italy which would bring him aid, 
 and this he interpreted of Rufinus. He 
 expected help from the speculative works of 
 Origen, and besought Rufinus to translate 
 some of them. Rufinus, though knowing 
 from the recent controversy at Jerusalem that 
 his orthodox reputation would be imperilled 
 by the task, yet undertook it {Apol. i. 11 ; 
 prefaces to bks. i. and iii. of the Tlepl 'Apx^v). 
 He began, however, by translating the Apo- 
 logy for Origen written by the martyr Pam- 
 philus in conjunction with Eusebius, adding 
 a treatise on the corruption of Origen's works 
 by heretics, and a profession of his own faith 
 which he held in common with the churches of 
 Aquileia and Jerusalem and the well-known 
 bishops of those sees. Then he translated the 
 Ilepl 'Apx^f itself, adding to the first two 
 books, which he finished during Lent 398, a 
 very memorable preface, in which he speaks 
 of the odium excited by the name of Origen, 
 but asserts his conviction that most of the 
 passages which have given him the reputation 
 of heresy were inserted or coloured by the 
 heretics. He therefore felt at liberty to leave 
 out or soften down many expressions which 
 would offend orthodox persons, and also, 
 where anything was obscure, to give a kind 
 of explanatory paraphrase. He pointed out 
 also that he was not the first translator of 
 Origen, but that Jerome, whom he did not 
 name but clearly indicated, and of whom he 
 spoke in high praise, had in the time of 
 Damasus translated many of Origen's works, 
 and in the prefaces (especially that to the Song 
 of Songs) had praised Origen beyond measure. 
 Two questions gave rise to great controversy : 
 First, was this reference to Jerome justifiable ? 
 Secondly, was Rufinus's dealing with the book 
 itself legitimate ? The reference to Jerome 
 was hardly ingenuous. If the praises he 
 bestows are not, as Jerome called them, 
 " fictae laudes," they are certainly used for a 
 purpose to which Jerome would not have 
 given his sanction, and their use in view of 
 the controversy at Jerusalem, without any 
 
RUFINUS 
 
 allusion to Jeromes altered attitude towards 
 Origen, was ungenerous and misleading. The 
 second point is obscured by the loss of the 
 chief part of the Greek of the Wtpi A^jxwr. 
 but we have enough upon which to form a 
 judgniont. Some passages, vouched for and 
 translated by Jerome (/•/>. cxxiv. 13), were, 
 with much that leads up to them, omitted by 
 Kufinus, who also carried the licence t>f para- 
 phrasing ditftcult expressions to an extreme 
 length. But the textsof Origen wercsomewhat 
 uncertain ; the standard of literarv honestv 
 was not then what is it now ; and then 
 Jerome himself had in his letter d^ Of>t. (,fn. 
 Intfrpretandi (Ep. 57) sanctioned a mode of 
 interpretation almost as loose as that of 
 Kutinus. (See also his words to Vigilantius, 
 Ep. Ixi. 2, "(^uae bona sunt transtuli, et mala 
 vel amputavi vel correxi vel tacui. I'ex me 
 Latini bona ejus habent et mala ignorant.") 
 We may acquit Kutinus of more than a too 
 eager desire, unchastened by any critical 
 power, to make the greatest exponent of 
 OrientalChristianity acceptable to Roman ears. 
 Rome. — The first two books Iltpi 'ApxCiv, 
 with the preface, were first published probably 
 in the winter of 3q7-398 ; the other two, 
 having been translated during Lent 398, were 
 carried by Rutinus to Rome, whither Macarius 
 had already gone, when he went to stay with 
 Melania and her family. During his stay 
 Apronianus, a noble Roman, was converted, 
 partly through Rufinus, who addresses him 
 as " mi fill." The friends of Melania were, no 
 doubt, numerous. Pope Siricius also (elected 
 in 385 when Jerome had himself aspired to the 
 office) was favourable to Rutinus. But the 
 expectations formed by Rufinus in his preface 
 were realized at once. Many were astonished 
 at the book of Origen, some finding even in 
 Rufinus's version the heresies they connected 
 with the name of Origen ; some indignant 
 that these heresies had been softened down. 
 Jerome's friends at first were dubious. Euse- 
 bius of Cremona, who came to Rome from 
 Bethlehem early in 398 (Hieron. .Ap. iii. 24), 
 lived at first on friendly terms with Rufinus 
 and communicated with him (Ruf. .-{pol. i. 20). 
 But Jerome's friends Pammachms, Oceanus, 
 and Marcella resented the use made of their 
 master's name and suspected Rufinus's sin- 
 cerity. According to his account, Eusebius, 
 or some one employed by him, stole the trans- 
 lation of the last two books of the llf/x '.KpxCii'. 
 which were still unrevised, from his chamber, 
 and in this imperfect state had them copied 
 and circulated, adding in some cases words 
 he had never written (.Ap. i. 19 ; ii. 44). But, 
 being in uncertainty as to the value of the 
 translation, Pammachius and Oceanus sent 
 the books and prefaces to Jerome at Bethle- 
 hem, who sat down at once, made a literal 
 translation of the lltpl Wpx^"- and sent it to 
 his friends with a letter (84) written to refute 
 the insinuations through which, as he con- 
 sidered, Rufinus's preface had associated him 
 with Origenism. He sent them also a letter 
 (81) to Rufinus. protesting against his " fictac 
 laudes," but refraining from any breach of 
 friendship. When these documents arrived 
 in Rome, affairs had changed. Rufmus had 
 gone ; pope Siricius had died (date in Fagius 
 Nov. 29, 398) ; the new pope Anastasius was 
 
 RUPINUS 
 
 h70 
 
 ready to listen to fncnd'* ol I crump . Kuhnu* 
 the Syrian, Jrn.nicS friend, had arrivrti in 
 Rome (ilirron. .ip. in. 24) and with luw- 
 bins of C'rrinona had K""" throuKh the rhici 
 cities of Italy (Ruf. .Ap. i. ji) p.untinK out 
 all the heretical passaKo in OriKrn. Kuhnut, 
 a little before the death of i>.>|h" Sirirau. had 
 obtained from him letters <il rrnuntnrndalion 
 ("llterae furmat.ir "). to wliirh he apfwalrd 
 afterwards as slirwiiig hr w.is in roinnninion 
 with the Roman rhiirrh (Mirroii. .Ap. in. .• 1 ). 
 .\t Milan he nirt Eiisebiiis in ihr prr^nrr of 
 the bishop, and ronfronlrd him when he rraJ 
 heretical passages from a ropy of the \\t^ 
 'ApX"** received from Marcrlla and piir|Miriin|| 
 to be Ruhnuss work (Ruf. .Ap. 1. ig). Mr 
 then went t<i .\>|uileia. where bp. t hroinaliu\ 
 I who had b.ipti/ed iiim 27 yrani brforr, re- 
 ceived him. 
 
 I .Aquilcm.- Mere hrstxin heard that Jrrume't 
 
 translationof the II«/W 'Apx<^''-tl>«>UK>> inirndrd 
 
 only for I'ammachius and his frirnds. had 
 
 been published, and that Jerome's letter 
 
 against him was in circulation. Of this Irllrr 
 
 ; he received a copv from Apronianus [.Apol. \. 
 
 I); but I'ammachius kept back the more 
 
 friendly letter adilressed to Rufinus htinself. 
 
 [This act of treachery, which Jerome »ul>^- 
 
 quently in his anger at Rufinus's Apuloxy^ 
 
 , brought himself to defend (Hieron. .AfnU. ill. 
 
 28), caused Rufinus and Jerome to assail each 
 
 other with fierce invectives. l-"or that con- 
 
 ' troversy and for the letters of luipe .Anastasius 
 
 to Rufinus and John of Jerusaleni, and 
 
 Rufinus's letter of apology. s«'e Jkkome. We 
 
 pass on to the last decade of Ruhnuss life. 
 
 His friends at .A(]uileia were eager as tht»w 
 at Pinetuin had been for a knowledge ol the 
 Christian writers of the l^ast ; and kutinus''i 
 remaining years were almo*t entirely occupied 
 with transl.ition, though several of his original 
 works belong also to this (n-riod. The 
 
 translations have no great merit, but on the 
 I whole are accurate, with no need for omis- 
 sions and paraphrases as in the IN^ 'Afjjwr. 
 They were undertaken in n« distinct order, 
 but according to the request of friend*. 
 Rufinus wished to translate the C4>iniiientarie^ 
 I of Origen on the whole Heptateuch, and «>nlv 
 Deuteronomy remained untranslated when 
 j he died. The Commentary on the Koman«, 
 I however (see preface), and se\eral other*, 
 ', besides other works, intervened. 
 I The Exp<»sitiono( the C reed is of importance, 
 as a testimony to the variations in the creed* 
 of the various churches (that of .Aquilria 
 having " Patrum invtr,tbilem tt impas\tbttem," 
 j " in SpiritM Sanctw," and " huiu\ carnis re^ur- 
 Irectionem" as distinctive |>eculiaiiiir^). and 
 from Its intrinsic merits and as shrMiiiK the 
 influence of Eastern theology, hariiioni/ed by 
 a sound judgment, on Western theology. 
 
 The History is on a i>ar with those of S<k- 
 rates and So/omen. exhibiting no roncet>liua 
 of the real functions ol history ii<< ol the 
 relative proportion of diflermt rla»s<-t ol 
 events, yet dealing h>.nestly with the (art* 
 within the writer's view. It was trans into 
 (ireek. and valur«l in thr East, as his tran« oj 
 Eusebius, of which it Is a continuation, wa* 
 in the West ((.ennad. d* Sinpl. hal xvii.). 
 
 The History «if the ICgvptian in..iiks prrwnl* 
 many diUicultick. It U dutin< tl> attrtbuttd 
 
880 
 
 RUPINUS 
 
 to Rufinus by Jerome {Ep. cxxxiii. 3), but not 
 included in the list of his works given by 
 Gennadius, who says that it was commonly 
 attributed to Petronius, bp. of Bologna 
 (Gennad. op. cit. xli.)- The preface says it is 
 written in response to repeated requests of the 
 monks on the Mount of Olives. Fontanini 
 (Vita Rufini, lib. ii. c. xii. § 4) grounds upon 
 this with much reason the theory that Pet- 
 ronius, having been in the East, and having 
 received the request of the Olivetan monks, 
 but having himself, as Gennadius testifies, but 
 little skill in composition, on his return to the 
 West begged Rutinus to write the history. 
 The adventures recorded would thus be those 
 of Petronius, not of Rufinus. The Historia 
 Lausiaca of Palladius is in many of its sections 
 identical with the Historia Monachorum. It 
 is, however, more probable that Palladius, 
 who did not leave the solitary life in Egypt 
 till 400, and wrote his History for Lausus at 
 Constantinople apparently some time after- 
 wards {he lived till 431). was indebted to 
 Rufinus rather than the contrary. 
 
 Rufinus had not, like Jerome, any large 
 range of literary knov.'ledge, and his critical 
 powers were defective. He quotes stories like 
 that of the Phoenix (de Symbolo, 11) without 
 any question. He had no doubt of the Recog- 
 nitions being the work of Clement, and he 
 translated the sayings of Xystus the Stoic 
 philosopher, stating, without futher remark, 
 that they were said to be those of Sixtus, the 
 Roman bishop, thus laying himself open to 
 Jerome's attack upon his credulity. 
 
 The Apology is well composed and more 
 methodical than that of Jerome. Its reason- 
 ing is at least as powerful, though its resources 
 of language and illustration are fewer. His 
 efforts for peace and refusal to reply to 
 Jerome'slast invectives, thoughthe temptation 
 offered by a violent attack in answer to a 
 peaceful letter was great, shews a high power 
 of self-restraint and a consciousness of a secure 
 position. 
 
 Last Years. — The years at Aquileia were un- 
 eventful. The letter of Anastasius which told 
 him of the rumours against him at Rome and 
 requested him to come there to clear himself, 
 drew from him the Apologia ad .Anastasium, a 
 short document of self-defence not lacking in 
 dignity. He enjoyed the friendship of Chroma- 
 tins, at whose request he consented to cease 
 hisstrife with Jerome, though Jerome, adjured 
 by the same bishop, refused to do so (Hieron. 
 Apol. iii. 2). He enjoyed the friendship of the 
 bishops near him, Petronius of Bologna, 
 Gaudentius of Brixia, Laurentius, perhaps of 
 Concordia, for whom he wrote his work upon 
 the Creed. Paulinus of Nola continued his 
 friendship ; and Augustine, in his severe reply 
 to Jerome, who had sent him his work against 
 Rufinus, treats the two men as equally 
 esteemed, and writes: "I grieved, when I 
 read your book, that such discord had arisen 
 between persons so dear and so intimate, 
 bound to all the churches by a bond of affec- 
 tion and of renown. Who will not in future 
 mistrust his friend as one who may become 
 his enemy when it has been possible for this 
 lamentable result to come to pass between 
 Jerome and Rufinus ? " (Aug. Ep. y^ ad 
 Hieron.). 
 
 RUPINUS 
 
 Last Journey and Death. — Chromatins had 
 died in 405, and Rufinus's thoughts turned 
 again to Melania and to Palestine. He joined 
 Melania in Rome in 408 or 409, Anastasius 
 having been succeeded in 403 by Innocent, 
 who had no prejudice against him. Owing 
 to Alaric's invasion, they left Rome, with 
 .\lbina, Pinianus, and Melania the younger 
 (Pallad. Hist. Laus. 119), and resided in Cam- 
 pania and Sicily. Rufinus records that he 
 was in the " coetus religiosus " of Pinianus on 
 the Sicihan coast, witnessing the burning of 
 Rhegium across the straits by the bands of 
 .\laric, when he wrote the preface to the trans- 
 lation of Origen's Commentary on Numbers. 
 Soon after writing this he died. 
 
 The cloud on the reputation of Rufinus due 
 to Jerome's attacks has unduly depressed the 
 general estimation of his character. In the 
 list of books to be received in the church 
 promulgated by pope Gelasius at the Roman 
 council, in 494 (Migne's Patr. I.at. lix. col. 175), 
 we read: "Rufinus, a religious man, wrote 
 many books of use to the church, and many 
 commentaries on the Scripture ; but, since the 
 most blessed Jerome infamed him in certain 
 points, we take part with him (Jerome) in this 
 and in all cases in which he has pronounced a 
 condemnation." With this official judgment 
 may be contrasted that of Gennadius in his 
 list of ecclesiastical writers (c. 17) : " Rufinus, 
 the presbyter of Aquileia, was not the least 
 among the teachers of the church, and in his 
 translations from Greek to Latin shewed an 
 elegant genius. He gave to the Latins a very 
 large part of the library of Greek writers. . . . 
 He also replied in two volumes to him who 
 decried his works, shewing convincingly' that 
 he had exercised his powers through the 
 insight given him by God and for the good of 
 the church, and that it was through a spirit 
 of rivalry that his adversary had employed his 
 pen in defaming him." See Ruf. Comm. in 
 Symb. Apost. ed. by Rev. C. Whitaker, Lat. 
 text, notes, and trans, with a short hist, of 
 Ruf. and his times (Bell). A trans, by Dean 
 Fremantle of the works of Rufinus is in the Lib. 
 of Sicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, [w.h.f.] 
 
 Rufinus (4), a Roman presbyter at the end 
 of 4th cent.; an admirer of Jerome he espoused 
 his cause in the Origenistic controversy and 
 against Rufinus of Aquileia. Eusebius of 
 Cremona, sent by Jerome to Rome in 398, re- 
 ported the kindness of Rufinus, who wrote to 
 Jerome to ask an explanation of the judgment 
 of Solomon. This Jerome gives him, making 
 the false and true mothers to be the Synagogue 
 and the Church. Jerome speaks of him with 
 gratitude and respect, hoping he may not only 
 publicly defend him, but in private judge him 
 favourably (Ep. 74, ed. Vail.). [w.h.f.] 
 
 Rufinus (5), a friend of Jerome ; known as 
 the Syrian, to distinguishhim from (3) and (4), 
 both his contemporaries. He was one of the 
 company of Italians settled at Bethlehem with 
 Jerome ; and in 390 was sent by him to Rome 
 and Milan in the cause of their friend Claudius, 
 who was accused of a capital offence (Hieron. 
 Ep. Ixxxi. 2 ; cont. Ruf. iii. 24). 
 
 This Rufinus is doubtless the one mentioned 
 by Celestius (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 3) as having 
 been known by him at the house of Pam- 
 machius at Rome and having asserted there 
 
SABAS 
 
 that sin was n<->t iuheriteil. M.iriuH Mercator 
 says that it was this Kutiiuis who instilird 
 into the mind of IVKigiiis the views known as 
 Pelagian (Mar. More. Lib. Subnolattonum in 
 Verba Juliani, c. .;). (w.ii.r.) 
 
 s 
 
 Sabas l2). a Gothic martyr under .\than- 
 aric. king of the (.'loths towards the end of 4th 
 cent. His .\cts seem genuine, and contain 
 many interesting details of C.othic life in the 
 lands bordering on the Danube. Thus village 
 life, with its head men and communal respon- 
 sibility, appears in c. ii. .\fter various tortures 
 he was drowned in the Musaeus. which flows 
 into the Danube. The .\cts are in the form 
 of an epistle from the llothic church to that 
 of Cappadocia, whither Soranus. who was 
 "dux Scvthiae." had sent his relics (Kuinart. 
 Acta Smcera. p. 670 .AA. 5S. Boll. .\pr. ii. «S; 
 Ceill. iv. 278; C. .-v. .\. Scott. Ulfilas. Apostle 
 of the Goths. 1885, p. 80). The topography of 
 the region wliere he suffered is exhaustively 
 treated in the Sitzungsberichte der Wiener 
 Akad. 1S81-1882, t. xcix. pp. 437-40^. by F'rof. 
 Tomaschek, of Graz University. [o.t.s.] 
 
 Sabas (6). St., abbat in' Palestine and 
 founder of the laura of St. Sabas ; born in 
 439, near Caesarea in Cappadocia. When 8 
 years old he entered a neighbouring mon- 
 astery, and at 18 went a pilgrimage to the holy 
 places at Jerusalem, where he entered the 
 monastery of St. Passarion. At 30 he estab- 
 lished himself as an anchorite in a cavern in 
 the desert. Several persons joining him, he 
 laid the foundations of his monastery on a 
 rock on the Kidron river, where it still re- 
 mains. (Cf. Murray's Handbook for Syria, p. 
 229.) He was ordained priest by Sallustius, 
 patriarch of Constantinople, in 491. Several 
 Armenians united themselves soon after to 
 this community, which led to Sabas ordaining 
 that the first part of Holy Communion should 
 be said in .\rmenian, but the actual words of 
 consecration in Greek. In 403 the monastery 
 had increased so much that he built another 
 at a short distance. He was sent as an 
 ambassador to Constantinople in a.u. 511. by 
 the patriarch Elias, to counteract the inllu- 
 ence of Severus and the Monophysites with 
 the emperor .A.nastasius; and again by Peter, 
 patriarch of Jerusalem, in 531, to ask from the 
 emperor remission of the taxes due by Pales- 
 tine and help to rebuild the churches ruined 
 by invasion. He died Dec. 5. 53'. ^Kcd 91 
 years. His Life was written by Cyril of 
 Scythopolis. [Cvrillus (18).] Copious ex- 
 tracts from it are in Ceillier, xi. 2 74-2 77. and 
 Fleurv, H. E. lib. vii. f§ 30-32. The whole 
 Life is in Cotder. Monument, t. iii. (<;.t.s.) 
 
 SabbatlUS (2). ordained by .Marcianus as 
 Novatianist bp. of Constantinople, seceded. 
 before 380, from the main body of that sect, 
 with two others, Theoclistes and .Macarms, 
 maintaining that Easter ought to be celebrated 
 on the same day and in the same manner as 
 by the Jews. He also complained that un- 
 worthy persons were admitted to the N'ova- 
 tianist communion, thus finding the same fault 
 with the Novatianists that Ihcv did with the 
 church. He became bishop of a small »ecl, 
 
 SABELLIANISM 
 
 called afirr him Sjtilutiaui, » 
 was rrrogni/rd in Ihr 7th can^ 
 genrral rounril. So/.iiini [II. I 
 a long arroimt ..f !. 
 
 Sab«lllanUin. t! 
 
 nioveinrtit diMk'n.i! 
 
 8Hl 
 
 West. It f..rnir.l ., ; 
 
 Mon.irrlu.in iimm num. 
 
 rightiv underst I m r 
 
 We can tr.ice its ri^' • ■■ ' 
 Martyr. In his .4; 
 " who affirm that t 
 condemns them — .1 
 
 [.. I , 1 
 .iiip (.«r lh« 
 oiiwn In lh« 
 
 : :> <•( the KTrat 
 ixl rjii Mtilv t>e 
 tir\i<ii) thrrrwtlh. 
 . I' . . r ,,t liuitn 
 
 thoMi 
 and 
 
 !. hfl 
 
 13". «• ♦'• 
 
 the :rd 
 
 repeats in his Dialonue u:tk lf,{'hi. \ 12H (c( 
 Bulls Defence of Sic. (reed, t. I 
 (>2h ; Judgm. Calk. Ch. iii 1 (•<i 
 cent, was the age of Gnosi. 
 of the essential principlrv 
 theory, which places a 
 
 emanations from the IM i..- 
 
 mediate between Go«l an^l • I he 
 
 champions of I hristi.in ort d, in 
 
 opposition, to insist str. ■ the 
 
 Divine Monarchv. tiod's lent, 
 
 and absolute existence .«i > we 
 
 find Irenaeus writing a tri - i,'Xi«t 
 
 f. 190, addressed to a Ki>man j i. .bvter, 
 Florinus, who had fallen awav to Gnmlirtun. 
 .Asian Gnosticism regarde<l the Son and the 
 Holv Ghost as aeons or emanations (rf. Ter- 
 tull. cont. I'rai. c. 8». Christians had to %hew 
 that the existence of the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost could be reconciled with the Divine 
 .Monarchv. Some therefore adoptrd the 
 view which Dorner rails Khionite Monarch- 
 ianism. defending the M'" "■ ' >^ '■ ••' iivin< 
 the deity of Christ. Ot 1 the 
 
 Persons of the (iodhe.id 'T, a 
 
 theory which was called ^ 'iigh 
 
 that name is not derived in.iu ilic .riginal 
 inventor of this view. Salwllianisni, in fact, 
 was one of the mistakj-s men fell into while 
 groping their way to the complete Chri»t.H 
 logical conception. It was in the ind cent, 
 an orthodox reaction against (in-wtieisni fl« 
 in the 4th cent, the Sabellianism ' " " ' 
 of .\nc\Ta was a reaction agait 
 Tertullian exprexslv .isserts. in • 
 
 of his treati • '■^ ■'■ 
 
 heresv had - '•»«" 
 
 orthodox V. 1 ■«* •»( 
 
 the chief^ sti. TMaJ 
 
 struggle was w.»^.d. I lit \i.it ■■! '':i,:en to 
 Koine, some time in 211-217. inu»t have intro- 
 duced him to the c.iifr .\.t^\. ..% abundant 
 references to it an ! 'It are In 
 
 his writings. Th. iracinit the 
 
 development of S . I'lrinit the 
 
 3rd cent, .ire ver'. " '" "•» 
 
 the Trinitv (ec. 11 .» an 
 
 acknowledged heri , ture 
 
 arguments as Ju*lii. i . 
 Trypk. II I20I2.J. .N.OV, 
 author who distinctly r 
 Sal)ellian hereby. I h- 
 emerges into the f'v 
 c. 2'>o. It ixrrmeji 
 of Prntapoli« in I 1 
 of two l)i*hop» of ( 
 
 KiPMKASOH. Dl"i 
 
 against their teai . 
 
 accused of heresy to I M'Unmu. •i i\ ■■ 
 
 docuracotk bcarmK 00 the d»»puir 
 
 rllr^t 
 the 
 
 .«r..te 
 
 wa% 
 
 .. The 
 
 txvtwrea 
 
 :a 
 
882 SABELLIANISM 
 
 these two fathers are in Routh's Rel. Sacr. 
 iii. 370-400 ; for a discussion of the contro- 
 versy see DiONYSius (6). In 4th cent, it again 
 burst forth when Marcellus of Ancyra, in op- 
 posing Arianism and the subordination theory 
 of Origan, was led to deny any personal dis- 
 tinction between the First and Second Persons 
 of the Trinity. Marcellus was probably only 
 guilty of loose expressions, but his disciple 
 Photinus worked out his system to its logical 
 conclusions and boldly proclaimed Sabellian 
 views. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote against 
 McU^cellus, and from the extracts in his two 
 treatises, cont. Marcell. and de Ecclesiast. 
 Theolog. we derive most of our information 
 concerning Marcellus (cf. Epiph. Haer. Ixxii.). 
 Athanasius, Basil, Hilary, Chrysostom, all 
 condemned Marcellus and his teaching. 
 Basil's letters are a repertory of information 
 about the controversy during the latter half 
 of 4th cent. Basil first called Sabellius an 
 African, solely, it would seem, because of the 
 prevalence of Sabellianism in the Pentapolis, 
 under Dionysius of Alexandria, when probably 
 Sabellius himself was long dead. The interest 
 in the controversy ceased by degrees as the 
 great Nestorian and Eutychian discussions of 
 the 5th cent, arose. Yet Sabellianism lin- 
 gered in various quarters. Epiphanius {Haer. 
 Ixii.) says that in his time Sabellians were still 
 numerous in Mesopotamia and Rome — a fact 
 confirmed by an inscription discovered at 
 Rome in 1742, which runs: "Qui et Filius 
 diceris et Pater inveniris," evidently erected 
 by Sabellian hands (Northcote's Epitaph, of 
 Catacombs, p. 102). Augustine speaks of 
 them, however, as practically extinct in 
 Africa (cf. Ep. ad Dioscorum, ex.). 
 
 We add a brief exposition of this heresy. 
 One section of the Monarchian party (see 
 supra) guarded the Monarchy by denying any 
 personal distinctions in the Godhead, and thus 
 identifying the Father and the Son. But 
 Christ is called the Son of God, and a son 
 necessarily supposed a father distinct from 
 himself (Tertul. cont. Prax. c. 10). They 
 evaded this difficulty by distinguishing be- 
 tween the Logos and the Son of God. The 
 Logos was itself eternally identical with God 
 the Father. The Son of God did not exist till 
 the Incarnation, when the Eternal Logos 
 manifested its activity in the sphere of time 
 in and through the man Christ Jesus. " In 
 O.T.," says Sabellius, "no mention is made 
 of the Son of God, but only of the Logos " 
 (Athan. Orat. iv. § 23). The Sonship is a mere 
 temporary matter, however (cf. Greg. Nys. 
 cont. Sab ell. in Mai's Coll. Nov. Vett. Scriptt. 
 t. viii. pt. ii. p. 4), and when the work of 
 man's salvation is completed the Logos will 
 be withdrawn from the humanity of Christ 
 into that personal union and identity with the 
 Father which existed from eternity, while the 
 humanity will be absorbed into the original 
 Divine nature. All this was summed up in 
 the distinction drawn between the \670s 
 evhiddeTos and the \6yo'5 irpocpopiKds. Here 
 Sabellianism merged into Pantheism. The 
 ultimate end of all things, according to 
 Sabellius, was the restoration of the Divine 
 Unity ; that God, as the absolute Movds, 
 should be all in all. If, then, the absorption 
 of Christ's humanity into the absolute Movdj 
 
 SABINA, POPPAEA 
 
 was necessary, much more the absorption of 
 all inferior personal existences. Neander 
 points out that this system presents many 
 points of resemblance to the Alexandrian- 
 Jewish theology. Epiphanius, indeed, ex- 
 pressly asserts (Haer. Ixii. c. 2) that Sabellius 
 derived his system from the apocryphal Gospel 
 of the Egyptians, which stated that Christ had 
 taught His disciples, as a great mystery, the 
 identity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 This Gospel insisted upon the element of 
 Sabellianism most akin to Pantheism, viz. 
 that all contrarieties will be finally resolved 
 into unity. Thus, according to it, Christ 
 replied to the question of Salome when His 
 kingdom should come, " When two shall 
 be one, and the outer as the inner, and the 
 male with the female ; when there shall be 
 no male and no female." Neander {H. E. 
 t. ii. pp. 317-326, Bohn's ed.) gives the clearest 
 exposition of this heresy and its connexion 
 with kindred systems. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Sabellius, heretic, after whom the sect of the 
 Sabellians was called (see preceding art.). 
 The known facts of his history are but few. 
 All 4th-cent. writers follow Basil in saying 
 that he was born in Africa. The scene of 
 Sabellius's activity was Rome, where we find 
 him during the episcopate of pope Zephyrinus, 
 A.D. 198-217. From the statement of Hippo- 
 lytus, he was apparently undecided in his 
 views when he came to Rome, or when he 
 first began to put forward his views at 
 Rome, for the silence of Hippolytus about 
 his birthplace suggests that it may have 
 been Rome. In Refut. ix. 6, Hippolytus 
 says that Callistus perverted Sabellius to 
 Monarchian views. Hippolytus argued with 
 him and with Noetus and his followers {ib. 
 iii.). Sabellius, convinced for a time, was 
 again led astray by Callistus. In fact, during 
 the episcopate of Zephyrinus, Callistus, Sabel- 
 lius and the pope seem to have united in 
 persistently opposing Hippolytus. Soon after 
 his accession Callistus (a.d. 217) excommuni- 
 cated Sabellius, wishing to gain, as Hippolytus 
 puts it, a reputation for orthodoxy and to 
 screen himself from the attacks of his persis- 
 tent foe. Sabellius thereupon disappears 
 from the scene. He seems to have written 
 some works, to judge from apparent quota- 
 tions by Athanasius in his 4th treatise against 
 Arianism. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Sablna (1), Poppaea, empress, 2nd wife of 
 Nero. Like certain members of the Flavian 
 family, it is very highly probable, though not 
 absolutely certain, that Poppaea was a Chris- 
 tian. She was almost certainly a Jewish 
 proselyte, as the language of Josephus, 
 0eo<Te/3r?s 70^ V (■^nt. xx. 8, 11) almost 
 implies. The fact that her body was em- 
 balmed and not burnt after the Roman custom 
 (Tac. Ann. xvi. 6) has been urged to shew 
 that she had embraced a foreign religion. Cer- 
 tainly at least twice (Jos. I.e., and Vita, 3) she 
 exerted her influence with Nero in favour of 
 the Jews (see Lightfoot, Philipp. 5 note). It 
 has even been conjectured that it was through 
 her that the Christians and not Jews were 
 selected as the victims to suffer for the burning 
 of Rome. A romantic theory was put forward 
 by M. Latour St. Ybars of a rivaky between 
 the Jewish Poppaea and Acte the former 
 
SABINUS 
 
 mistress of Noro, wli... ..u tin- strciiKlh of 4 
 pa^-sage in St. Chrysostom (Horn, in Ada xlvi. 
 m Migiie. Pair. Gk. \x. 3^5). ii conjectured to 
 have boon a Christian. ScluUrr. (iesth. J. r^m. 
 Katsirrrfichs untfr Sfro, 430 n., and \\.\\^, Hut. 
 iUs p(Tsic. 421 n. For tln> Keiu-ral histurv <if 
 I'oppaoa see Mcrivale. c. liii. I'-i'-l 
 
 S»bInUS (10). bp. of H.raclia in Thracr. and 
 a lead.-r of the P.irtv and s»-ct of M.irrdonnis. 
 He was the author of a collection «if the .\cts 
 of the councils of the church from the coiwinl 
 of Xicaea to his own time, which was much 
 used by Socrates in his Feci. //is/.. wh>> speaks 
 of it as untrustworthy, because Sabinus was 
 an unscrupulous partisan, and omitted, and 
 even wilfully altered, facts and statements 
 adverse to his views and interests (cf. Socr. 
 op. cit. i. 8; ii. 15). Socrates shews how 
 Sabinus tries to disparage the fathers of 
 Nicaea in the face of the contrary evidence of 
 liusebius, and makes no mention whatever 
 of .Macedonius, lest he should have to describe 
 his evil deeds. Baronius {ad ami. 3^5. xxxi.t., 
 a<i a»iM. 344. iii. etc.) speaks strongly of Sabi- 
 nus's unscrupulous handling of history, calls 
 him " homo mendacissimus.'' and suggests 
 that Sozomen gives a garbled account of the 
 election of .\tiianasius. " ex otficina Sabini." 
 Cave (Hist. Ltt. i. 41 1 ) fixes the date at which 
 Sabinus flourished as c. 425. [g.w.d.] 
 
 Salamanes (2). a solitary of Capersana, a 
 village on the right bank of the Euphrates, 
 who shut himself up in a cell <m the opposite 
 bank, having neither door nor window. Once 
 a year he dug himself out, obtained fond fi>r 
 the next year, and returned, having spoken 
 with none, ffis dioc«>an, desiring to confer 
 orders on so distinguished an .iscttic, had the 
 cell wall broken down and laid iiis hands upon 
 him. Salamanes neither consenting nor dis- 
 senting. With equal passiveness he allowed 
 himself to be transferred to another cell .icro^> 
 the river by the inhabitants of the village, 
 and to be taken back again by his former neigh- 
 bimrs ( Theod. Htst. Relig. c. xix.). [e.v.J 
 
 SalvianUS (3). priest of .Marseilles, a writer 
 whose works illustrate most vividly the state 
 of Gaul in 5th cent. The one external 
 authority for his Life is (iennadius. d* Scrtptt. 
 EccUs. c. 67. who gives a list of hi* writings. 
 In 429 St. Hilary of .\rles. in a sermon on St. 
 Honoratus. describes him as " the most 
 blessed man Salvianus the presbyter." His 
 own expressions (de dub. Det, vi. 72) indicate 
 that he was born in <iaul. probably at Treves, 
 the manners and customs of which place he 
 knew intimately and reproves sharply. He, 
 or at least some of his relations, resided at 
 Cologne, occupying a respectable position in 
 that city. When a young man he married 
 Palladia, daughter of Hypatius, and had one 
 daughter Auspiciola, after whose birth Sal- 
 vianus and his wife adopted the monastic life. 
 This greatly inccns*'d Hypatius, who retired to 
 a distant region, refusing any conuiiunication ! 
 with them for 7 years. Ep. iv. is a very earnest 
 appeal by Salvianus, his wife, and daughter, 
 for a renewal of the love and friendship o( 
 Hypatius, with what success we arc not told. 
 Salvianus was in extreme old age when 
 Gennadius wrote, and w.is held in the highest 
 honour, being expressly termed "l-piscoporum 
 Magister," and regarded as the very type of a 
 
 SALVIUS 
 
 MS 
 
 . ltC4l 
 
 . lit* 
 
 in tn 
 
 . the 
 
 *rrl 
 
 1.1 IV. 
 
 .4111% 
 di%- 
 
 ' iilal 
 mrd 
 
 .li«t. 
 
 monk and 4 \ch0l4r ••■ "■' 
 
 tant from 4 »m:i41. 
 
 point of view. Ill ; 
 
 lively picture of t; 
 
 empire due to the luujiu: 
 
 vogue, riius lib. v. cc. \ 
 
 C4Use of brlg4nd44;r, th< 
 
 system, 4nil the evil* of \ 
 
 14 he refers to the crowds 
 
 III 4ll the cities of (.4ul, .1 : 
 
 covery of Syri4n. .AMyrian 
 
 inscriptions in France h.. 
 
 (cf. l.e Hlanfs ln\. (hr/l 
 
 Nos. 22.^. .S57. and f.i j). II .ler- 
 
 stand the interruption of 1 srra 
 
 Konian and British C hri : and 
 
 oth cents. The empire \\ sur- 
 
 ! rounded by a ring fence ol liM.ulc .tair*. all 
 ' barbarous, and several of thrin heretical 
 ' which served as .i r. ti. .it fi-m It.. • ■■^^^t. and 
 I a barrier to t! > rent. 
 
 , and a half t' mk* 
 
 I and BurguiKii . ^ueiit 
 
 [for Koines nil-.-! •11.11 \ -•< u .>u;. m ti >>it>linK 
 I with the regions Ik-voiuI. The tre4tiM' 4|C4intt 
 avarice is a laudation of the ascetic life and of 
 almsgiving; he even in l-K ■ ......i.iv di»- 
 
 cusses whether 4 man sh" pri»- 
 
 perty at all to his ^on^. 1)'*) 
 
 devotes a lengthenetl notin : , with 
 
 a full analvsis of his wrUings. 
 
 The latest ed. of his works i% that in the 
 Corp. E(cl. Scnptorum of the Vienna .Academy. 
 t.viii.(Vindob. IS.S3). ed. byf-'r. I'4uly. 1<..T.».) 
 Salvlna (Si/iinil), daughter ol the .Mtxiruh 
 chief (iildo, count of .\(ric4. The Chrtttun 
 virtues which, according to Jerome and I hry- 
 sostom, distinguished the Ijdles ol <illdo'» 
 family, were in strong contrast with tirulal and 
 savage vices which rendered his name detect- 
 able. While still a girl, Salvina was trail*- 
 ferred by Iheodosius t<» his own court, at « 
 pledjje of the loyalty of her father and of the 
 province of Africa which he governed. She 
 was brought up with the voung iiieint>er» u( 
 the im|H-rial family, and muti.t . 390 
 •Nebridius, the son of the nii, who 
 
 had been educated with hi ture 
 
 emperors, .\rcadius and II' > im». 
 
 dying s.N.n after, left her witli .• '.a. s. .ri.llU*. 
 and a daughter (Hieron. hp. ix.). Mie devoted 
 herscll to(>o<rs service, and, a* her husband 
 had il.iiie. protected the Oriental churche* and 
 ecclesiastics at the court of .\rcadiu». Her 
 lame having spread to I'alesline. Jrrouie. 
 though a siraiigrr. v>f->ir her a letter the 
 arrogant tone of which might well have 
 iiffended. il the coarseness had not %hockrd 
 her. Iheyouii^c wi.l.vv uu.I l.ri .tul.tfrn then 
 forme«l one h" . .iilo"» 
 
 widow (ti.- h. 1 "»al 
 
 aunt at Con 1 ■ . d* 
 
 Srn'. I'lrf. ; l.p 1 i • ^al* 
 
 vma's ardent pletv : l« 
 
 Chrysontoni. Shr 1 ••«• 
 
 ess«-s, eipialllt ■ ■ ' > m 
 
 devoll.ili to I ' «U 
 
 the last. an. I •»"> 
 
 and I'r.K-uU. • " "» 
 
 the bajtlstrtv ..1 t;.. > at;.' -i: a; ll.r ;..^,.'.; 'I hU 
 linal rxpulsloii (I'alUd p. -^O- U *.| 
 
 S«1tIiU (3). Doi.alist l>p. of .MriubfaM 
 (.Mfditt il llab), one ol the Ii ofdauie** ul 
 
884 
 
 SALVIUS 
 
 Maximian. He is mentioned as one who 
 practised rebaptism (Aug. Farm. iii. 22). 
 Refusing to return to the party of Primian, he 
 was displaced, and Restitutus appointed in his 
 stead. Salvius believed that his opponents 
 could not take advantage of the laws against 
 heretics without implicating themselves in its 
 operation (Aug. c. Cresc. iv. 57, 58, 60, 82 ; 
 Ep. 108. 14 ; En. Ps. 57. 18 ; Cod. Theodos. 
 xvi. 5, 22, 25, 26). The action appears to 
 have been brought during the proconsulate 
 of Herodes, a.d. 394, but not to have been 
 decided until that of Seranus, a.d. 398. When 
 the judgment was published, the people of 
 Membresa, by whom Salvius, now an old man, 
 was greatly beloved, appear to have supported 
 him in opposition to the edict; but the people 
 of Abitina, a neighbouring town, took upon 
 themselves, without any official sanction, to 
 execute it, and having attacked Salvius, 
 maltreated him cruelly and ignominiously. 
 Whether this attack caused the death of Sal- 
 vius we know not, nor do we hear of him again, 
 but his case is often quoted by Augustinewhen 
 retorting on the Donatists their charge against 
 the Catholics of persecution. [h.w.p.] 
 
 Salvius (5) iSauve), St., bp. of Alby, an 
 intimate friend of Gregory of Tours, who gives 
 the story of his early life from his own lips. 
 He had been an advocate, and had led an 
 active and worldly life though unstained by 
 the passions of youth. After his conversion 
 he entered a monastery to embrace a new life 
 of poverty, austerity, and worship. In time 
 the monks made him abbat, but craving for 
 still higher sanctity, he withdrew to a solitary 
 cell, where, after a fever, he fell into a sort of 
 trance, and was laid out for dead. While 
 unconscious he was conducted by two angels 
 to heaven, and shewn the glory of it, but not 
 permitted to remain, as work still awaited him 
 on earth. The account of this Dantesque 
 vision, which Gregory calls God to witness he 
 heard from the bishop's own lips, is interesting 
 (Hist. Franc, vii. i). The authenticity of this 
 chapter has, however, been questioned (see 
 Boll. Acta SS. Sept. iii. 575, 576). As bishop 
 Salvius indignantly scouted the heretical and 
 somewhat crude views on the Trinity which 
 king Chilperic wished to force upon the church 
 {ib. v. 45). He was at the council of Braine 
 in 580, and while bidding farewell to Gregory 
 there, he pointed to the king's palace and 
 asked him if he saw aught above it. Gregory 
 could see nothing but the upper story just 
 built at Chilperic's command. Then Salvius, 
 drawing a deep sigh, said : " Video ego evagi- 
 natum irae divinae gladium super domum banc 
 dependentem," and after 20 days the two sons 
 of the king were no more (v. 51). When Mum- 
 molus carried off some of the flock of Salvius 
 as prisoners, he followed and ransomed them 
 at his own cost ; and when Alby was almost 
 depopulated by a plague that ravaged S. 
 France, he refused to desert the city (vii. i). 
 He died c. 584, being succeeded by Desider- 
 atus (vii. 22). [s.A.B.] 
 
 Samson (1) (Sampson), Welsh saint, bp. of 
 D61. His legend is obscured by the admixture 
 of several traditions. The materials for his 
 Life are of their kind very abundant. 
 
 Taking the Life in Lib. Land, as a type of 
 the British tradition as distinguished from the 
 
 SARBELIUS 
 
 Galilean, Samson was son of Amwn Ddu, 
 prince of Armorica in the 5th cent. Born in 
 Glamorganshire, educated by St. Illtyd at 
 Llantwit Major, ordained deacon and priest 
 by St. Dubricius, he became for three and a 
 half years abbat of St. Peirio or Piro's mon- 
 astery on an island near Llantwit ; some say 
 at Llantwit. Afterwards he lived in a desert 
 near the Severn, was consecrated by St. 
 Dubricius and others to the episcopate, 
 though, according to the common Celtic 
 custom, without reference to a specific see, 
 and in course of time proceeded to Armorica, 
 where he became the deliverer of the captive 
 prince Judual, and died at D61 (Lib. Land. 
 305). Thus far, and excluding the miraculous 
 elements, the tradition is generally consistent 
 and complete, though some Welsh traditions 
 bring him back to die at Llantwit. To this 
 are added several fictions, probably of the 
 12th cent., traceable to Geoffrey of Monmouth 
 and to Girald. Cambr. The monumental 
 inscribed stones to SS. Illtyd and Samson 
 found in the churchyard of Llantwit Major 
 cannot be of this early date ; the Samson there 
 mentioned must have lived in the gth cent., and 
 the lettering would agree with that date. 
 Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 626-628 ; Rees, 
 Welsh SS. 181, 255). [J.G.] 
 
 SarbeliUS (1) (Sharbil). S>Tiac Acts of 
 Sarbclius and other Edessan martyrs are in 
 Cureton's Antiq. Man. Syr. (1864), and a Latin 
 trans., with abundant illustrative matter, was 
 pub. by Moesinger (Innsbruck, 1874). Accord- 
 ing to them, Sarbelius was chief priest of the 
 idol- worship of Edessa. Trajan, in the 15th 
 year of his reign (also described as the 3rd 
 of Abgarus, the 7th king, and the 416th of 
 the era of Alexander the Great), commanded 
 the rulers of the provinces to see that sacri- 
 fices and libations were renewed and in- 
 creased in every city, and to punish with 
 torture those who refused to take part. 
 Barsimaeus, the bp. of the Christians, accom- 
 panied by a priest and deacon, thereupon 
 waited on Seirbelius and warned him of his 
 responsibility in leading so many to worship 
 gods made with hands. They briefly told him 
 of the doctrine concerning our Lord's Incar- 
 nation and death, taught by Paluth, the dis- 
 ciple of Addai the apostle, and believed in by 
 the earlier king .A.bgarus. Sarbelius was at 
 once converted, baptized that night, and made 
 his appearance next day clad in his baptismal 
 robes. A great multitude, including some 
 chief men of the city, were converted with him. 
 The Acts then relate how the governor Licinius 
 brought Sarbelius before him and commanded 
 him to sacrifice. As each form of torture was 
 tried without success, Licinius ordered a new 
 and more severe one, 18 being described. Finally, 
 Sarbelius was put to death with new tortures, 
 being partially sawn asunder and then be- 
 headed, his sister Barbea being martyred with 
 him. There are separate Acts of Barsimaeus, 
 evidently by the same hand. They relate 
 how he, after the martyrdom of Sarbelius, was 
 brought before the tribunal and similarly tor- 
 tured. But a letter, ordering persecution to 
 cease, arrived from Trajan, who had been con- 
 vinced of the excellence of Christian morality 
 and of the general agreement of their laws of 
 conduct with the imperial laws. 
 
SATURNINUS 
 
 SATURNINUS 
 
 M5 
 
 These hdessan Acts acqiiirod \ ery cmiidcr- of life; ami llirsr .uiKrU %4V. 4^ in (.mcit, 
 
 able celebrity. M.Hsiiifjer put.hsli.il an " L*t u* make man aftrr our imaKr." We 
 
 Armenian translation, and Sarlielui> is com- mav count S.itMrtiinti t. thr ..riKinat-.r „J ih« 
 
 memorated in the Creek .Ui-nui-ii and the latin mvth. for t!; : 'n ha« marki of Ir^t 
 
 MartNTolocies under Jan. 2<) and Dot. 15. There simplicity 
 is also a Thathuel. commemorated S<'pt. 4. Satiirnii 
 whose story is identical with that of S.irlx-lius. 
 Moesinger argued that the extant .Acts were 
 
 written by a contempor.iry of Sarbeliiis and 
 were historically trustworthy ; but his argu- 
 ments are too weak to deserve serious refuta- 
 tion. Two marks of tiction are obvious : the 
 
 turiiiii 
 
 the Jews \s.., 
 
 He and his comp.i: 
 with S.I tan and a c 
 likewise, there w. ; 
 men. the bad ever aiJtU 
 their conflicts with the 
 
 it ihAl Ml* (;<>H »( 
 
 h\ iJ.t 
 
 g<MKl. 
 
 Then the 
 
 power of 
 .•\rchons ; 
 
 he Cod 
 and to 
 
 extravagant amount of tortures alleged, and Supreme F-'ather wnt a Saviour to cWtrov the 
 
 the familiarity of Sarbelius with N.T.. which 
 
 would have been noteworthy in a Christian of 
 
 long standing in a.d. 105, but is incredible in 
 
 a newly-made convert. He is made to quote 
 
 the Gospels several times, the Psalms, and 
 
 Romans. We may ascribe the .Acts to the 
 
 latter part of 4th cent. They are probably 
 
 later than Eusebius, who shews no knowledge This is t>ne of 
 
 of the story ; but are largely employed in a between the rej 
 
 S|>ark of life in thri 
 This Saviour had 
 
 f the Jew* and the ..thrr 
 save thov wh<> had the 
 — that is to«..n- thr - .1. 
 o human bi: ' t, 
 
 body, and was i>nlv a man in 1 
 Saturiiinus asrril)rd the Jr«i 
 st>me to the creator angels and 
 rrai points 
 s civrn bv I: 
 
 sermon, printed by Moesinger, by James of teaching of Saturninus and 
 
 Sarug (d. 522). There is a strong family These do not ascril>c any <>f thi- pr..pli,'«.i. , to 
 
 likeness between the .Acts of Sarbelius and Satan, but Irenaeus (f 11) gives the schrme 
 
 those of Habibus, and of Samona and Curia, according to which they di>tributed thrn» 
 
 also given in Cureton's work. Since the latter among the several angrls. Saturninus d<>«-» 
 
 mart>Ts are said to have suffered under Dio- not appe.ir to have left any writings. His \rct 
 
 cletian, the former .Acts, which seem to have is named by Justin Martvr {rnfhn. \\) and 
 
 the same origin, are at least no earlier, [g.s.] by Hege>ippus (lius. //. t. iv. n). N'.i l.»|rr 
 
 Saturninus (l). In the section of his work h» resiologist appears to know anythinK alx>'it 
 
 commencing I. 22 Irenaeus gives a list of 
 heretics, apparently derived from Justin 
 MartvT. The first two are the Samaritan 
 heretics, Simon and Menander ; the ne.xt, a> 
 having derived their doctrines from these, 
 Saturninus and Basilides, who taught, the 
 former in the S>Tian Antioch, the latter in 
 Egypt. Irenaeus says that Saturninus. like 
 Menander, ascribed the ultimate origin of 
 things to a Father unknown to all ; and 
 taught that this Father made angels, arch- 
 angels, powers, authorities, but that the 
 world and the things therein were made by a pcrated the people that 
 
 him beyond what he learned from Irrn.i 
 and Irenaeus probably derived all his know- 
 ledge from Justin Martyr. (<-s.) 
 
 Saturninus (2) (.^^cmin). St., mart>T. first 
 bp. and patmn of Toulouse. According to 
 his Acta, published bv Surius (N..v. 2'}) and 
 bv Kuinart after careful reviMon in his A dm 
 Stnc^ra (pp. 128-133), Saturninus came to 
 Toulouse in the consulship of Decius and 
 Gratius (a.d. 251), apparently from Rome (cf. 
 V'enant. Fort. Misc. li. 12, Sligne. I'air. IM. 
 Ixxxviii. loi). Here his preachinc v) rxas- 
 : the' 
 
 put hiin t< 
 
 certain company of seven angels, in whom n<i sh(K;king death by binding htm to 
 doubt we are to recognize the rulers of the which they infuriated by goads. Th» 
 seven planetary spheres. He taught that two other traditions current in early 
 man was the work of the same angels. They one that Satuniinus was sent into | r 
 had seen a brilliant image (ttVax) descend from st. Clement at the end of the i-t r. 
 the Supreme Power, and had striven to detain other that his mission was from th<- 
 it, but in vain ; for it immediately shot back themselves. The former is in Cr- 
 again. So they encouraged each other : " Let Tours (de dor. .Marl. i. 4*^). a"d the 
 us make man after the image and after the as old as Venantius Fortunatus, 
 likeness " (for finofa xal xad' onoiuxny. Gen. S. Diortysit is rightly ascnlx-d t' 
 i. 25). They made the man, but were too «.». 579). and appears in manv 
 feeble to give him power to stand erect, and sources (ste Ceillirr. ii. 111 n.). ' 
 he lay on the ground wriggling like a worm Imaris celebrated his martynl 
 (wj aKwXriKOi aKapi^ofTOf) until the Upi>er stan/as (/•./>. ix. 16). Vrnantius I 
 Power, taking compassion on him because he vjmr verses on the same ev 
 had been made " in Its likeness," sent a spark working virtues of hi 
 of life which raised him and made him live. Migne, «.».<>'»>. and 01 
 Saturninus taught that after man's death this built towar! •' ■• ■' ■ 
 spark runs back to its kindred, while the rest IxkIi- 
 of man is resolved into the elements whence • " 
 he was made. 
 
 The same creation myth is reported by 
 Irenaeus (I. xxx. 5) to have been included in 
 the svstem commonly known as Ophite ; and 
 literary dependence of the two storit-s is clear 
 from the common use of the word '»«o^i'<< 
 But according to the Ophite story it is not the 
 Supreme Power, but laldabaolh, the chief of 
 
 bull. 
 
 If tl.' 
 
 • hill: 
 
 t..inl. 
 
 the I . 
 
 .( Mh (...; 1 
 
 hr was U.UI..I I., the 
 bull and « '•«• known as du Taur 
 
 or duTani. ! Uhj). (sah ) 
 
 Saturninus i2l). "^tii bp. i>( .\t\n, » pillar 
 
 of .Ananism in the West. In the wuitrr of 
 
 1. .t .it t!,.- f'.unrll .-f Arlrs. whtrti. 
 
 )S^U 
 
 At! 
 to 
 Hll.>r^ 
 
 the creative company, who bestows the breath and wju bcocelocth m the Wot the c: 
 
886 SCAPULA 
 
 of orthodoxy against Saturninus, Ursacius, 
 Valens, and the emperor. In 356 Saturninus 
 presided at the council of Beziers, which 
 decreed the exile of Hilary ; and it seems 
 probable from allusions in Hilary's writings 
 that he was also at the council of Rimini in 
 359, and was one of the legates dispatched 
 thence to the emperor at Constantinople (Hil. 
 ad Const. Aug.W. 3 ; Migne, Patr. Lai. x. 565). 
 This seems to have been the zenith of the 
 bishop's fortune. Hilary, not long after, re- 
 turned to Gaul ; and Saturninus, still unbend- 
 ing in his opposition, was deprived of his see, 
 and even excommunicated, as is thought, at 
 the 1st council of Paris in 362. [s.a.b.] 
 
 Scapula, a proconsul of Africa, with whom 
 Tertullian remonstrated for his persecution of 
 the Christians ; not because the Christians 
 feared martyrdom, but solely because their 
 love for their enemies made them desire to 
 save them from the guilt of shedding innocent 
 blood. Tertullian recoimts the temporal 
 calamities which had overtaken former per- 
 secutors of the Christians, and denounces the 
 injustice of punishing men pure in life and 
 loyal, and whose innocence the magistrates 
 fully acknowledge by their evident unwilling- 
 ness to proceed to extremities and by their ex- 
 ertions to induce the accused to withdraw their 
 confession. If, as had been done in another 
 province, the Christians of Carthage were to 
 present themselves in a body before the 
 proconsul's tribunal, the magistrate, he says, 
 would find before him thousands of every age, 
 sex, and rank, including many leading per- 
 sons, and probably relations and intimates of 
 his own friends, and might well shrink from 
 severities which would decimate the city. 
 The tract is later than the emperor Severus, 
 of whom it speaks in the past tense. 
 
 The Scapula addressed was probably Sca- 
 pula TertuUus, one of the ordinary consuls in 
 195. The usual interval between consulship 
 and proconsulship was 15 to 20 years ; this 
 also would place the proconsulship not very 
 long after Severus died on Feb. 9, 211. [c.s.] 
 
 Sclllitan Martyrs, 12 mart>TS at Carthage j 
 (one of them Felix) from the African town of \ 
 Scillita. According to their Acta, one of the 
 women, Donata, when they were called upon 
 by the consul, Saturninus, to sacrifice, replied, j 
 "We render honoxu: to Caesar as Caesar, but 
 worship and prayers to God alone." On 1 
 receiving their sentence they thanked God. 
 It was Ruinart's theory that the Scillitan 
 MartjTS suffered under Sept. Severus between i 
 198 and 202. M. Leon Renier, an eminent 
 French archaeologist, however, noticed that 
 the first line of the received codices of the Acts I 
 of these mart\TS gave the names of the consuls j 
 for the year of the mart>Tdom very variously, 
 a fragment published by Mabillon {Vet. 
 Analect. t. iv. p. 155) reading, " Praesidente 
 bis Claudiano consule." He therefore sug- 
 gested that the word " bis " ought to follow 
 a proper name indicating a second consulship, 
 and that the word " consule " ought to be 
 replaced by " consulibus." Finding, more- 
 over, in the Fasti the names Praesens II. and 
 Condianus as consuls for 1 80, he proposed that 
 the first line of om: Acts should be read, "Prae- 
 sente bis et Condiano Consulibus." Then in 
 1881 Usener, a Bonn professor, published a 
 
 SECUNDUS 
 
 hitherto unknown text of these Acts from a 
 Greek MS. in the Bibl. Nat. of Paris, dating 
 from the end of 9th cent., and explicitly nam- 
 ing the very two consuls Renier suggested, 
 Praesens II. and Condianus. There is no 
 mention of Severus. It quite correctly speaks 
 of one emperor, since Commodus on July 17, 
 180, was sole emperor. The proconsul of 
 Africa is Saturninus. He continues the policy 
 of the previous reign, which is not yet 
 I modified by the domestic influences which 
 I led Commodus to favour the Christians. In 
 j 177 persecution had raged at Lyons. It was 
 I now the turn of Africa. Usener regarded the 
 I Gk. text discovered by him as a translation 
 from Latin. Aube, viewing the Gk. text of 
 Usener as an original document and the source 
 j of all the Latin texts, replied to Usener's 
 ! arguments, pointing out that Greek was large- 
 j ly spoken at Carthage in the latter half of 2nd 
 cent., and urging many critical considerations 
 j from a comparison of the Latin and Greek 
 [ texts which seem to support his view. For a 
 further discussion of the question see Aube and 
 Usener. To the Biblical critic these Acts in 
 both shapes are interesting, as indicating the 
 I position held by St. Paul's Epp. in 180 in 
 i the N. African church. The proconsul asked 
 J the martyr Speratus what books they kept 
 laid up in their bookcases ? He replied. 
 Our books, or, as the Latin version puts it, 
 j the four Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 I in addition the Epistles of Paul the holy man. 
 Etude stir un nouveau texte des Actes des 
 Martyrs SciUitains (Paris, 1881) ; cf. Light- 
 foot's Ignatius, t. i. p. 507. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Sebastianus (2), Jan. 20, military martyr 
 at Rome under Diocletian. He was of Milan, 
 where he commanded the first cohort. He 
 confessed Christ, and was shot (apparently) 
 to death with arrows in the camp. He was 
 celebrated in the time of St. Ambrose (Enarr. 
 in Ps. 118, No. 44), and is the favourite saint 
 of Italian women, and regarded as the pro- 
 tector against the plague. His symbol is an 
 arrow. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Seoundinus (11), a poet, a contemporary 
 and correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. 
 V. 8) who apparently highly esteemed Secun- 
 dinus as a writer of hexameter verse on minor 
 subjects, such as royal hunting parties and 
 marriages. Secundinus afterwards attempted 
 satire, and Sidonius highly commends a 
 composition in hendecasyllabic metre, urging 
 him to continue this kind of composition. It 
 appears (Ep. ii. 10) that some of his hexa- 
 meters were inscribed upon the wall of the 
 basilica built at Lyons by Patiens (bishop c. 
 451-491), and he may have been one of the 
 many minor poets who flourished at Lyons 
 in the latter half of 5th cent. [h.a.w.] 
 
 Secundus (1), Gnostic of 2nd cent., a disciple 
 of Valentinus, and apparently one of the 
 earliest of that teacher's successors, since he 
 is the first of that school of whom Irenaeus 
 gives an account (I. xi. 2). Irenaeus reports 
 two things as peculiar in his teaching: (i)he 
 divided the primary Ogdoad into two Tetrads, 
 a right-hand and a left-hand one, the one being 
 called light, the other darkness; (2) he did 
 not allow the Sophia out of whose passions, 
 according to the Valentinian theory, the ma- 
 terial world took its origin to have been one 
 
SECUNDUS 
 
 of the io primary Acoii';. Thr short notice 
 in Irenanus seems the iiltim.ite source of all 
 authentic information about Sccundus. (o.";.) 
 
 SeCUndUS (4). bp. of Tij;isis. a f.^rtilied town 
 of Numidia, in the neighbourhood of Lambeso 
 and Thamagada (lYocop. I'antial. ii. u). 
 The persecution under Hiocletian appears to 
 have reached its height in Feb. 304, and on 
 May 19 Paulus, bp. of Cirta. committed the act 
 of "tradition " which partly gave rise to the 
 proceedings in which Secnndus became con- 
 spicuous. Panliis soon died, and some 11 or 
 12 bishops met at Cirta on Mar. .■> (according 
 to Optatus May 8), 305, under the presidency 
 of Secundus, as primate of Numidia, to 
 appoint a successor. Although persecution 
 had virtually ceased, the churches were not 
 vet restored, and the assembly met in the 
 house of Urbanus, where they ordained Sil- 
 vanus. Optatus says that amid the uproar of 
 mutual incrimination [Donatism) Purpurius 
 of Limata taxed Secundus with tradition, 
 because, instead of leaving his post of duty 
 before the inquisition, he remained imtil dis- 
 missed in safety, which would not have been 
 the case unless he had purchased his safety by 
 act of surrender. On this a murmur arose in 
 the assembly, and Secundus, in alarm, ac- 
 cepted a method of escape suggested by his 
 nephew Secundus the younger, that such 
 questions as this of personal conduct ought to 
 be left to the judgment of the .■Mmightv. a 
 judicious evasion received with acclamation 
 by all (Opt. i. 14 ; Aug. Ef>. 43. 6). 
 
 When, on the death of Mensurius, bp. of 
 Carthage, a.d. 311, Caecilian was appomted 
 to succeed him, Secundus was sent for 
 in haste to preside at a meeting of 70 mal- 
 contents at Carthage, and their factious 
 opposition resulted in the schismatic appoint- 
 ment of .Majorinus (Opt i. 19 ; Aug. Parm. 
 i. s). The case was brought up afresh at the 
 conference of 411. Tillem. vi. 5-14 ; Morcelli, 
 Afr. Chr. ii. 194-207 ; Ribbek, Au/^. utui Don. 
 PP- 52-37. 69 ; Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and 
 Afr. Ch. Divtxions (1910), p. 32. [h.w.p.] 
 
 SeduHus (1), a 5th-cent. poet, of whose life 
 very few details are known. The only trust- 
 worthy information is given by his two letters 
 to Macedonius, from which we learn that he 
 devoted his early life, perhaps as a teacher of 
 rhetoric, to heathen literature. Late in life 
 he became converted to Christianity, or, if a 
 Christian before, began to take a serious view 
 of his duties. Thenceforward he devoted his 
 talents to the service of Christ, living as a 
 priest (cf. i. 7-9), in close intercourse with a 
 small body of religious friends (pref.). He 
 gives us a charming account of this group : 
 Macedonius, the father and life of the whole ; 
 Urslnus, the reverent priest spending his life 
 in the service of the King of Heaven ; Laur- 
 ence, the wise and gentle, who has spent all 
 his money on the poor ; Clallicanus. another 
 priest, not learned, but a model of goodness 
 and loyalty to church rule ; I'rsicinus, com- 
 bining the wisdom of age with the brigliln«-s8 
 of vouth ; the deaconess Syncletica, of noble 
 birth and nobler life, a worthy temple of <;<>d, 
 purified bv fasting, prayer, and charity, 
 learned and liberal ; and lastly Perpelua, the 
 young pure matron, perpetual in fame and 
 purity as in name. Sedulius, too, longed to 
 
 SEDULIUS ss7 
 
 devote his t.ilrnt to (.,mI .mcl to strrnKthrn hi« 
 own spiritu.il life by exhorting <>^Urx^. Mr 
 ve.irn.<l |o t.ii thr hr.ithrn of the won.lrri of 
 the Cosprl, .uid WTotr thr ( armm t'axtkaU 
 to invito then to share thr (.mprl (r.l^t. Thi« 
 was dedicate.! to .Macedonius, and aflrrwar.U 
 at his request, was translaird into i.roxr {Opu't 
 PiischaU). The works shew a rharacirr of 
 much humility (rf. i. ad ftn.). of trndrrne** o( 
 heart (v. c,h), of warm gratiliidr {(arm. l'A\ch. 
 
 , pref.), and of krrn susceptibility to criticism 
 (Opiis I'asch. pref.). 
 
 These are the only certain fact*. Lvrn hit 
 date is uncertain, lie refers to St. Jrromr at 
 a well-known student, and his work is praised 
 by a decree of pope Celasiiis in 4'»s ..r 496. 
 
 I Syncletica mav have l>ern a sjstrr of i;usi.|. 
 thius, who livecl early in 5th rent. Hrnrr the 
 
 I date of Sedulius must be c. ^y). A mass of 
 
 ! information about him is in later writers, but 
 much of it arises from a confusion with S<»du- 
 lius the Scotchman. The l)est authenticated 
 
 j account makes him a native of Home who 
 studied philosophy in Italy, l>ccame an am- 
 
 I ttstes (I.e. probably a presbyter) and wrote hit 
 book in .Vchaia. The internal evidence as to 
 these details is very slight : his friends bear 
 
 i Latin names almost entirely ; he is in the 
 
 j presence of educated idolaters and takr< 
 
 I special pains to argue against sun-worshii> ; 
 
 , but these indications are very v.igue. Hit 
 works became popular very soon. Thrv were 
 edited by an editor of Vergil, T. Kuhus Asterius 
 (consul A.D. 494) — perhaps in consequence of 
 the importance attached to them by the 
 pope's decree. Thev are mentioned with 
 praise by Venantius Fortunatus (viii. i) and 
 Theodulf of Aries ; were commented on, 
 perhaps by Remi of ,^uxe^■e (oth cent.), and 
 frequently quoted and imitated by the writers 
 of the middle ages. Areval quotet 16 MSS. 
 dating from cents, vii. to xvi. ; since then 
 more than 40 editions have been printed, 
 and special prominence was given to him 
 by German writers last century. 
 
 (i) Carmen Paschal f, " a poem in honour of 
 Christ our Passover," consists of five t>ooks. 
 Bk. i. is an introductory appeal to the heathen 
 to give up idolatry and listen to the deeds of 
 the true (iod. Bks. ii.-v. dcscrilx? in full 
 detail the miracles of the (lospel and the I.ord't 
 Prayer. In the earlier part the mmttv<-^ of 
 SS. Matthew and Luke .irr pi-' ' ' m 
 
 chronological order. Through 
 to the final entry into Jerusal' 
 
 lows St. Matthew, with a few w ;. m 
 
 SS. John and Luke ; then adds a siiccr>sion o< 
 miracles from SS. Mark and Luke, without 
 regard to chronology (iv. 59.3^1). and the chirf 
 incidents of St. John's <i<»spel ; from the entry 
 into Jerusalem to the end he mainlv follow* 
 St. John. As a rule the details of the 
 
 scenes are given slightly and followed by 
 frequent comment, sometimet doi;matiral 
 (e.g. on the Nature of the Irinitv, i. i6-jo, 
 281 sq<j., ii. 171, the Fathrrho<xl of (i.Ml. ii. 
 234, the lYirsthfHKlof Christ, iv. 207. etc.). at 
 othrr times pointing out the typical niraninK 
 of Scripture, both of O.T. (i. lo.'-irx). IJ7. 
 142. 152. iii. 202. iv. 17") an<i NT. ; t.g. the 
 number of the evangelist* and of the a(><>stle« 
 (Prol. to lib. ii. ; iil. 172), the numlxr and 
 nature of the gifts of the Maf i (ii. 93), the dove 
 
888 SENOCHUS 
 
 (ii. 170), and all the details of the passion (v. 
 loi, 169, 190, 243, 257, 275, 402). More often 
 still they consist of moral warnings or of 
 explanations of our Lord's teaching (cf. ii. 
 106, iii. 321, iv. 16, 163, etc.)- 
 
 The style is rhetorical but pleasant, with 
 considerable terseness and power of antithesis ; 
 and fairly correct in prosody, shewing 
 considerable acquaintance with classical 
 authors. The reference to Origen (Opus 
 Pasch. pref.) and the play on Elias and ^Xios 
 (i. 170) imply some knowledge of Greek ; of 
 Latin authors he knew Terence, Juvenal, and 
 specially Vergil, from whom he frequently 
 borrows ; possibly, too, the poem of Juvencus. 
 There is a growing frequency in the use of 
 leonine rhymes. For an analysis with a dis- 
 cussion of its sources and theology see Leim- 
 bach, Ueber den Christlichen Dichter Sedidms 
 (Goslar, 1879). 
 
 (2) Opus Paschale. — This prose translation 
 mainly follows the Carmen faithfully, but adds 
 illustrations and fills up gaps. It is preceded 
 by another interesting letter to Macedonius. 
 
 (3) Elegia. — An elegiac poem of no lines, 
 corresponding in subject to the Carm. Pasch. 
 It describes the effect of the Incarnation in 
 contrast to the work of Adam, and Christ as 
 the antitype of the types of O.T. 
 
 (4) Hymn. — " A solis ortus cardine." This 
 may be called a hTical expression of the 
 Carmen. It is a call to praise Christ with a 
 description of the chief facts of His birth, life, 
 and death. It is an alphabetical hymn in 
 iambic dimeters with four-lined strophes. It 
 shews a growing tendency to rhyme and a 
 careful attempt to avoid any conflict between 
 accent and quantity. Two extracts have been 
 widely used in church services, viz. A-G in 
 Lauds for Christmais week ; and H, I, L, N, 
 which celebrate the adoration of the Magi, the 
 baptism, and the miracle at Cana, on the feast 
 of Epiphany. These sections are in Daniel 
 Thes. i. p. 143, and with a full German com- 
 mentary in Kayser, pp. 347-383. 
 
 (5) Cento Virgilianus " de Verbi Incarna- 
 tione " is sometimes ascribed to Sedulius (e.g. 
 by Bahr), but is only found in one Corbey 
 MS., and there only follows the other poem's 
 without being ascribed to Sedulius. It is in 
 Martene, Vett. Scr. Coll. ix. p. 125. 
 
 The most available edd. are Migne, Pair. 
 Lat. xix. ; a text of the poetical works by 
 J. Looshorn (Munich, 1879); of the Carm. 
 Pasch. in Hurter's Op. Selecta, xxxiii. ; and 
 Huemer's ed.of thewhole(Vienna, 1885). [w.l.] 
 
 Senochus (l), St., a presbyter of great 
 reputation for sanctity near Tours ; born c. 
 536 in a district near Poictiers called Theiph- 
 alia, which had been for many years settled 
 by a Scythian or Tartar race, to which he 
 belonged. He became a Christian, and in 
 some ruined buildings by Tours built himself 
 a cell, at a spot where an old oratory existed, 
 in which St. Martin, according to tradition, 
 had been wont to pray. St. Euphronius, then 
 bp. of Tours, consecrated it afresh, and or- 
 dained Senoch a deacon. Here with a little 
 company of three he practised the greatest 
 austerities, but aspiring to higher sanctity, 
 afterwards shut himself in a solitary cell. In 
 573 Gregory became bp. of Tours, and received 
 a visit from him. Soon after Senoch went to 
 
 SERAPION 
 
 see his kinsfolk in Poitou, and came back, 
 according to Gregory, so puffed up with 
 spiritual pride that the bishop had to reprove 
 him. He consented, at Gregory's persuasion, 
 to forego his absolute solitude, that the sick 
 might be healed by his virtues. He died, 
 aged about 40, c. '576. He had redeemed 
 many from captivity or healed or fed them, 
 I and miracles were attributed to his corpse. 
 j Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, v. 7 ; Vitae Patrum, 
 c. XV. ; de Glor. Conf. c. xxxv. ; Boll. Acta 
 SS. Oct._ X. 764 sqq. [s.a.b.] 
 
 Senuti, an anchorite whose history was 
 investigated by E. Revillout in a paper on the 
 I Blemmyes (Mem. de I' Acad, des Inscr. 1874, 
 I ser. I, t. viii. p. 395), and still more elaborately 
 in a series of articles in the Revue de Vhist. des 
 religions (1883), Nos. 4 and 5. He was born 
 about the middle of 4th cent. His father was 
 a farmer in Egypt, and Senuti fed his sheep 
 in boyhood. But it was an age when every 
 enthusiast devoted himself to the monastic 
 life. He attached himself to the monastery 
 of Panopolis near Athrebi in Upper Egypt, 
 where he soon attained such fame for sanctity 
 and orthodoxy that Cyril would only set out 
 for the council of Ephesus if he had the com- 
 pany of Senuti and Victor, archimandrite of 
 I Tabenna. Zoega, Cat. MSS. Coptic Mus. 
 I Borg. p. 29, gives us CjTil's account of this 
 affair. Senuti's conduct at the council of 
 Ephesus, as described by his disciple and 
 successor Besa, fully justifies the charges of 
 outrageous violence brought by the Nestorian 
 party against their opponents. A lofty 
 throne was in the centre of the hall with the 
 four gospels on it. Nestorius entered with 
 pomp, flung the gospels on the floor, and 
 seated himself on the throne. This enraged 
 I Senuti, who, snatching up the book, hurled it 
 , against the breast of Nestorius with vigorous 
 1 reproaches. Nestorius demanded who he 
 j was, and what brought him to the council, 
 being " neither a bishop, nor an archimandrite, 
 nor a provost, but merely a simple monk." 
 I " God sent me to the council," replied Senuti, 
 " to confound thee and thy wickedness." 
 Amid the plaudits of his adherents C>Til at 
 once invested him with the rank and robe 
 ! of an archimandrite. His career was now 
 marked by miracle. He was wafted on a 
 I cloud to Egypt. His fame was everywhere 
 established, and Roman commanders sought 
 his assistance. Thus c. 450 the dux of Upper 
 ; Eg}-pt, Maximin, hurrying to repel a terrific 
 I invasion of the Blemmyes, before he would 
 j advance sought the presence of Senuti, who 
 [ gave Maximin his girdle to wear whenever he 
 joined battle. According to the Coptic MSS. 
 Senuti followed Nestorius with bitter perse- 
 cution to the last, even offering him personal 
 violence when he lay dying in Egypt. 
 
 Senuti lived to be a heretic in the opposite 
 extreme from Nestorius. After the council 
 of Chalcedon he became a Monophysite and a 
 violent partisan of the patriarch Dioscorus of 
 Alexandria, dying imder Timotheus Aelurus 
 aged 118 years. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Seraplon (1), bp. of Antioch, reckoned 8th 
 in succession, a.d. 190-203 (Clinton), succeed- 
 ing Maximin in the nth year of Commodus 
 (Eus. H. E. vi. 12 ; Chron.), was a theologian 
 of considerable literary activity, the author 
 
SERAPION 
 
 of works of which Eusobius had no certain 
 knowledge besides those enumerated bv him. 
 Of the latter Jerome gives an account (de 
 Script. Eccl. c. 41) borrowed from Kusebius 
 (H. E. V. K) ; vi. 12). They are— (i) a letter 
 to Caricus and Pontius against the Cataphrv- 
 gian or Montanist heresv. containing a copy 
 of a letter of ApoUinaris of Mierapolis. and 
 substantiated as to the facts by the >ignatures 
 of several other bishops, inciuiliug some of 
 Thrace; (2) a treatise addressed to Domninus, 
 who during the persecution of Severus had 
 fallen away to the Jewish "will-worship"; 
 and (3). the most important, directed against 
 the Docetic gospel falsely attributed to St. 
 Peter, addressed to some members of the 
 church of Khossus, who were being led awav 
 by it from the true faith. Serapion recalls 
 the permission to read this apocryphal work 
 given in ignorance of its true character and 
 expresses his intention of speedilv visiting the 
 church to strengthen them in the true faith. 
 Dr. Neale calls attention to the important 
 evidence here furnished to " the power vet 
 possessed by individual bishops of settling the 
 canon of Scripture" (Patriarch, of Antioch, 
 p. 36). Socrates refers to his writings, as an 
 authority against Apollinarianism {//. £". iii. 7). 
 Jerome mentions sundry letters in harmony 
 with his life and character. Tillem. .Mem. eccl. 
 iii. 168, § 9 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 86 ; Le Quien, 
 Or. Christ, ii. 702. [e.v.] 
 
 Serapion (3), a penitent of Alexandria, who 
 fell during the Decian persecution. Dinny- 
 sius of Alexandria uses his case as an argu- 
 ment against the Novatianist schism, to which 
 his correspondent, Fabius of Antioch, was ' 
 inclined. Serapion lived a long life without 
 blame, but had sacrificed at last. He often 
 begged for admission to the church, but was 
 refused. He was then taken sick, being three 
 days without speech. When he awoke to 
 consciousness he dispatched his grandson for 
 a presbyter, who was sick and unable to ome, 
 but sent a portion of the consecrated Euchar- 
 ist, telling the boy to moisten it and drop it 
 into Serapion's mouth, who then died in 
 peace. Reservation of the Sacrament must 
 then have been practised in .Alexandria. No 
 argument, however, for communion in one 
 kind can be drawn from this, as doubtless the 
 bread had been dipped in the Eucharistic wine, 
 according to Eastern fashion (see Bingham's 1 
 /In/i?. lib. XV. c. v.). Eus.//.£. vi.44. [o.t.s.] 
 Serapion (9), surnamed Scholasticiis, bp. of 
 Thmuis in Egypt. He was a friend of St. 
 Athanasius and St. -Anthony of the desert, and 
 occupied a position of some importance in 
 4th-cent. theological struggles. Anthony be- 
 queathed one of his sheepskin cloaks to Sera- 
 pion and the other to Athanasius {Vita S. 
 Anth. in 0pp. S. Athan., .Migne. I'atr. iMt. 
 t. xxvi. col. 971). Serapion's literary activity 
 was considerable. St. Jerome {Catal. No. <>'») 
 mentions several of his writings, as his treatise 
 contra Manichaeos, his de I'salmorum Tituln 
 (now lost), and some epistles. His work 
 against the Manicheans, described by Jerome 
 as " Egregiura librum," and noticed by 
 Photius {Cod. 85), was for the first time 
 printed in its original form by Urinkmonn 
 m 1894. It had previously been mixed up 
 with a similar work by Titus of Boslra. In 
 
 SERAPION 
 
 HH9 
 
 its restored form it is a valuablr 4rKumrt,t 
 ag.»inst .M.inicijriMu. Iwo Iritrr* by him 
 were pub. by t .irdin.il M41 — <Mir a r<>nsoUlory 
 letter to bp. Eudoxiiiv who had l»rf-n (<irturp<l; 
 the other misurinK soiiir monk« of .Alrv4i»l- 
 ria. In Teite und InlenuthuHgen (Iripi. 
 iSi)«) WobbiTinin publishrd .» d<>»{iiMttr Iriirf 
 "on the Father .iiid thr S>n, " jiid )•■ litur- 
 gical prayers, the 1st and iMh ..« which are 
 the work of Ser.ipion. They have \trrn 
 reprinted, with valuable note-, .mil di»<-u»Mi>nv 
 by F. 1;. Mrighlinan in the Ott. Joutn. •>/ 
 Theol. Studies. iK.).)-i.>ii). under the title .»( 
 The Sacramentary ot Serapion of Ikmuit, and 
 an English trans., ed. by bp. Wordnw.wth of 
 Salisbury, has been pub. by S. I'.l .K. (<..t.».) 
 Serapion (ID. surnamed Sin.l.,niiei from 
 the linen or cott.m clothing hi- alw.ivs wore ; 
 an Egyptian monk in the time o( Palladium 
 Though uneducatrd. hr knew the Scriptures 
 by heart. Some of his sayings are recorded 
 in the I'erha Seniorum (Kusweyd. I'll. I'at. 
 lib. V libell. vi. $ 12. IiIhII. xi. 31). and in the 
 .■ipophlheRtnala I'atrum (lotelrr. <ir. E(€. 
 Monum. i. (>Ss. (>Hf>) there is an account ol hu 
 visit to a lewd woman, whom he brought to 
 repentance. His missionary zeal Ircl liiiu to 
 travel, but in iiif)re than apostolic |K)yerlv. 
 and he even sold his volume of the g<>>|>el to 
 relieve a destitute person, a circutn«t.incc 
 alluded to by Sfxrrates (iv. 23), though without 
 naming Serapion. Once he sold himself a> a 
 slave to a theatrical company, and oner to a 
 Manichean family, with a view to converting 
 them from their errors. He visited .Vthcdi 
 and Sparta. .At Rome he met Domninus, a 
 disciple of Origen (Pallad. l.au^\ Hal. «3. H4 ; 
 Vtt. Joan. Eleemos. c. 22 in Kosweyd. lib. 1.). 
 He died, aged 60, c. 400, not at Koine as stated 
 in the Latin version of the Lau^nac History, 
 but in the desert, as in Her.iclid«-s (/'iiraJit. 
 c. 24)and the (ireek of Palladius. Theiirerk* 
 honoured his memory on .May 21, the Menaea 
 erroneously calling him o d»6 l«(3orot, be- 
 longing to Sidon. He mav l>e the S<-rapion 
 of .Mar. 21 in the Latin .SlartNTologie* {vtd. 
 I). C. .4.), though the Koinan Martyrology 
 makes this one bp. of Thmuis. (<"•»«.] 
 
 Serapion (14), a solitary of Scetc. and 
 leader of the .Anthropoinorphites against the 
 festal epistle »)f I'heophilus, patriarch of Alex- 
 andria. The monks of Scete. with the one 
 exception of Paphnutius, an abbat. rejected 
 the orthodox view as to (tiHl's nature. 
 Serapion, however, was converted bv the 
 efforts of Photinus, an Orii-ntal deacon. 
 Cassian tells us that an abbat Isaac explained 
 to him in connexion with Serapiitri rr^m'-r- 
 sion that the Anthropomorphit 
 simply a relic of paganism. I 
 Serapion had been v> long ar< 
 image that without a malrri.il 1. w .. . — ! 
 their prayers si-tMiiecl objrctlrss. i assian, 
 Collat. X. id; CVill. viii. i7'>. (<..t.».) 
 
 Serapion (16). bp. of llerarlra .111 I K. ; tMU 
 bv birth, ordained deacon Iv 
 (>>r)cr. H. E. vi. 4). and by hr 
 deacon of the church of Con^tr ■ 
 H. E. viii. ')). His rharactrr .l^ .li ..»;. !v 
 contemjH)rary hisioruiis l» ino*t unlavour.iM<-. 
 Presuming on hi* oHicial |M)wer, he tfutnl 
 others with contempt and exhibited u\ 
 intolerable arrogance (Socr. H. E. vl. 11 ; 
 
890 
 
 SERAPION 
 
 Soz. U.S.). His unbounded influence over Chry- 
 sostom tended continually to widen the breach 
 between the bishop and his clergy which the 
 stern line of action originally adopted at 
 Serapion's instance had opened early in his 
 episcopate. Socrates records, as a character- 
 istic speech, that Chrysostom, having vainly 
 endeavoured to enforce his strict notions of 
 discipline on his worldly and luxurious clergy, 
 Serapion exclaimed in their hearing, " You 
 will never be able to master these men, bishop, 
 unless you drive them all with one rod " 
 (Socr. H. E. vi. 4). Chrysostom mistakenly 
 regarded Serapion's harshness as proof of his 
 holy zeal [ib. vi. 17). 
 
 On Chrysostom's leaving Constantinople 
 early in 401 to regulate the affairs of the 
 church of Asia, he deputed Severian, bp. of 
 Gabala, to act as his commissary, but the real 
 management of the diocese and its clergy was 
 left to Serapion. Severian was ambitious and 
 devoid of a high sense of honour, and Serapion 
 had soon to report, probably with exaggera- 
 tions, that he was undermining Chrysostom's 
 influence with the court and aristocracy, and 
 seeking to outdo him as a preacher. Chry- 
 sostom hastened back to Constantinople, and 
 Serapion greeted him with the astounding 
 intelligence that Severian had denied the In- 
 carnation. The grounds of this charge were 
 the following : Serapion having ostentatiously 
 refused to rise to pay Severian as he passed the 
 accustomed homage of a deacon to a bishop, 
 with the express intention, declared to the 
 clergy around, of shewing " how much he 
 despised the man." Severian, at this studied 
 insult, indignantly exclaimed, " If Serapion 
 dies a Christian, then Jesus Christ was not 
 incarnate." Serapion repeated the latter 
 clause alone, and delated Severian as a denier 
 of the chief article of the Christian faith. The 
 report was confirmed by bystanders and 
 readily credited by Chrysostom, who expelled 
 Severian from the city as a blasphemer (Soz. 
 H. E. viii. 10; Socr. H. E. vi. 11). An 
 account favourable to Serapion is found in a 
 fragment (unwarrantably embodied in some 
 Eng. translations of Socrates's Hist.) printed 
 as an appendix to Socr. vi. 11. According to 
 this, Serapion's act of disrespect was brought 
 before a synod, which, on Serapion affirming 
 on oath that he had not seen Severian pass, 
 acquitted him of intentional rudeness, while 
 Chrysostom, hoping to soothe Severian's 
 ruffled feelings, suspended Serapion from his 
 ecclesiastical functions for a short time. 
 Severian, however, insisted on his deposition 
 and excommunication. Chrysostom. annoyed 
 at his pertinacity, quitted the synod, leaving 
 the decision to the bishops, by whom his mild 
 sentence was immediately confirmed. Chry- 
 sostom then broke off all intimacy with 
 Severian and recommended him to return to 
 his own diocese, which he had neglected too 
 long. For the remainder of this unhappy 
 transaction see Severianus (2). Chrysostom 
 rewarded the supposed fidelity of Serapion by 
 raising him to the priesthood, and returning 
 from the brief expulsion which followed the 
 synod of the Oak, gave Serapion the metro- 
 politan see of Heraclea in Thrace (ih. 17). On 
 Chrysostom's second and final banishment 
 Serapion, taking refuge in a convent of Gothic 
 
 SERGIUS 
 
 I monks known as the Marsi (Chrys. Ep. 14), 
 was discovered, dragged from his hiding-place, 
 brought before Chrysostom's enemies, deposed 
 from his bishopric, banished to Egypt, and left 
 at the mercy of the patriarch Theophilus 
 (Pallad. p. 195 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 9). [e.v.] 
 
 Serenus (4), solitary in the Nitrian desert, 
 who, when visited by Cassian, a.d. 395, dis- 
 cussed de Animae Mobilitate et Spiritalibus 
 Nequiliis (Coll. vii.), and de Principatibus seu 
 Potestatibus (Coll. viii. See Migne, Pair. Lat. 
 t. xlix. 667 seq.). In the former he treats 
 mostly of the nature of the soul, the rapid 
 movement of the thoughts, the influence of 
 evil spirits upon them, and the duty of fixing 
 the desire on God. In the latter he declares 
 
 i the nature of evil spirits, their fall, subordina- 
 tion, and occupation. His Life, without 
 details, is in Vitae Patrum, c. 50. Migne, Pair. 
 Lat. t. Ixxiii. 844 seq. ; Ceill. Aut. sacr. viii. 
 170 seq. ; Fleurv, H. E. xx. c. 7. [J-g.] 
 
 Serenus (5), loth bp. of Marseilles c 595-600, 
 known from the letters of (iregory the Great. 
 To his good offices were commended St. Augus- 
 tine on his mission to England in 596 (Greg. 
 Magn. Ep. vi. 52 ; Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxvii. 
 836), and, three years later, the monks dis- 
 patched to help him (xi. 58, Pair. Lat. 1176). 
 Two other letters from Gregory are preserved. 
 Serenus in an excess of iconoclastic zeal had 
 entered the churches of Marseilles and broken 
 and cast forth the images. Gregory, com- 
 mending his fervour against idolatry, reproved 
 his violence, since the use of representations 
 in a church was that the unlearned might read 
 on the walls what they were unable to read 
 in the Scriptures (ix. 105, Patr. Lat. 1027). 
 Serenus, disregarding the warning and even 
 affecting to believe the letter a forgery, re- 
 ceived a severe rebuke and a reiteration of the 
 pope's views (xi. 13, Patr. Lat. 1128, written 
 Nov. I, 600). Gall. Christ, i. 639 ; Ricard, 
 Eviques de Marseille, 24, 25 ; Vies des saints 
 de Marseille, S. Serenus, Bayle. [s.a.b.] 
 
 Sergius (2), a very celebrated military saint 
 and martyr of the Eastern church. His Acts 
 call him " Amicus Imperatoris." He and 
 Bacchus were regarded as the patron saints 
 of Syria. Sergius sufiered at Sergiopolis, or 
 Rasaphe, in Syria, early in the 4th cent. Their 
 united fame soon became widespread. Le Has 
 and Waddington (Voy. archeol. t. iii. No. 2124) 
 notice a church of E. Syria dedicated in their 
 
 I honour in 354 as the earliest case of such con- 
 
 j secration to saints, and (ib. No. 1915) describe 
 one dedicated in 512 to SS. Sergius, Bacchus, 
 and Leontius, and offer reasons for regarding 
 Leontius as a martyr under Hadrian when 
 ruling Syria during the last years of Trajan. 
 Theodora, wife of Justinian, presented a 
 jewelled cross to a church of St. Sergius, which 
 Persian invaders carried ofif. Chosroes, king 
 of Persia, returned it to Gregory, patriarch of 
 Antioch, in 593. (Cf. Evagr. H. E. iv. 28 ; vi. 
 21, where Chosroes is represented as a convert 
 to the cult of Sergius.) The fame of Sergius 
 and Bacchus spread to France, where Le Blant 
 (Christ. Lat. Inscrip. of France, t. i. p. 305) 
 notices a church at Chartres dedicated in their 
 honour. Le Blant (Actes des mart. p. 77) 
 notes the marks of genuineness in his Acts as 
 told in A A. SS. Boll.; cf. Tillem. v. 491. [g.t.s.] 
 Sergius (12), the name of the two Monophy- 
 
SEVERIANUS 
 
 site priests persecuted with John of Ephesu* ! 
 at Constantinople. He relates the sufTerinKs 
 of the Sergii. one of whom was his syncellus, 
 the other his disciple. While John was in»- 
 prisoned in the penitentiary of the hospital 
 of Eubulus the two priests were seized, and, 
 as they would not yield, were publicly scourRecl 
 and then imprisoned in a " diaconate," or hos- 
 pital, attended by deacons and laymen, for 
 40 days. The s>iicellus was finally sent to the 
 monastery of Beth-Kabula. where he was 
 kindly treated, the monks there " having; no 
 love for the council of Chalccdon nor even 
 proclaiming it in their worship " (John of Eph. 
 H. E. p. no, trans. I'avne Smith). [c.h.) 
 
 Severianus (2), bp. of Gabala on the sea- 
 board of Syria, c. 400 ; described by (ienna- 
 dius (///. Eccl. ScripU. c. 21) as "in Divinis 
 Scripturis eruditus, et in Homiliis declamator 
 admirabilis." He repaired to Constantino- 
 ple, and was kindly received by Chrysostom, 
 who often selected him to preach on injport- 
 ant occasions. In spite of a rough provincial 
 accent, he obtained considerable popularity 
 with the people in general and with the 
 emperor and empress, who often appointed 
 him to preach (Gennad. m.s.). When early in 
 401 Chrysostom left Constantinople for the 
 visitation of Asia .Minor, he deputed his 
 official authority to Severian as commissary, 
 all real power being invested in his archdeacon 
 Serapion. Severian. in Chrysostom's absence 
 undermined his influence with the court, and 
 fostered the dislike of the worldly and lu.xu- 
 rious clergy of Constantinople, whom Chrv- 
 sostom's severity had (greatly alienated. His 
 conduct was reported in the darkest colours 
 to Chrysostom by his jealous and artful rival 
 Serapion. For the events which compelled 
 Severian to leave for his own diocese see 
 Serapion. Severian had barely crossed the 
 Bosphorus when the imperious Eudoxia com- 
 pelled Chrysostom to allow his return. But 
 Chrysostom steadily refused to readmit the 
 offender to friendly intercourse. The em- 
 press carried her infant son, the future 
 emperor Theodosius, in her arms, into the 
 church of the Apostles, and casting him 
 in Chrysostom's lap, conjured him with 
 solemn imprecations to be reconciled with 
 Severian. Chrysostom consented, and ex- 
 horted his congregation to submit, as loyal 
 subjects and good Christians, to the wishes 
 of those in authority (Homil. de rectptend. 
 Severian. t. iii. p. 422, ed. .Migne). The re- 
 quest was acceded to with applause. Seve- 
 rian next dav delivered a short rhetorical 
 eulogy on the'blessings of peace (Sermo ipstui 
 Severiant de Pace, ib. p. 493)- The hollow- 
 ness of the reconciliation was soon proved. 
 Severian joined in a plot, under the inspiration 
 of the empress and the powerful female influ- 
 ence of the court, for Chrysostom's humilia- 
 tion, which ultimatelv proved only tO') succ»-ss- 
 ful (Pallad. I>ial. pp. 35. 4«. 72)- At the 
 assembly of the Oak, Severian took a leading 
 part (Pallad. p. 72 ; I'hot. Cod. 59. P- 53). and 
 on Chrvsostom's deposition, mounted the 
 pulpit and publicly expressed approbation of 
 the act, which he said Chrys»jslom had well 
 merited for his haughtiness alone. Thi« 
 "barefaced attempt to justify injustice 
 rendered the people furious, and they were 
 
 SEVERINUS 
 
 HOI 
 
 only retrained from ^u^l^lArv mej\um bf 
 Chrvsostom's sj>erdy recall. S<-vrriAii «nd 
 his brothrr-inlriKurm flc«l (Sorr. //. h. vi. 16, 
 17 ; So/. //. /•:. viii. 10 . I'alljd. htMi. p. ifi). 
 We find them at (<<ii%(4iilinop|p %ecoiidmK 
 new designs for the drxtrurtKin <i( ( hrwNiDin 
 set on f<K)t bv Eudoxia and Ihr court p4rlv. 
 and securing hi« hnal rMiulemnalinn (PjlUd. 
 Dial. pp. 7<), H,8 : So/. //. /-. VIII. 11). srvr. 
 rian's malice did not rrasr with I hrvvi^kiuni't 
 expulsion. He is charged by PalUdiuo with 
 using his influence to obtain the removal •>! 
 the aged invalid from ( uriiMii. whrre the 
 climate had not proved m. fatal as the malice 
 of his enemies desirrd. to thr morr bleak and 
 inaccessible town of Pitvus {Dial. 97). Seve- 
 rian's death may be placed under Theodo- 
 sius II. betwi-en 40H and 430. 
 
 \'ery few of his numerous writinirn are 
 extant. Some homilies printed in Chry- 
 sostom's works have l«"rn attributed to him 
 with more or less prob.ibijuy. The f.>!li>wing 
 are regarded on satisfactnrv gr'iuiuls as his : 
 de Creaiione Mutuii. de S'alivUaU (AriWi, dt 
 Sif;illis Lihroriim. deSerpente .ienro. de Saltvi- 
 tale. We mav add de Storte InnoterUium. and 
 de Cruce Homiha. pub. bv ( omlM"fis with sonic 
 of Chrysostom's. Du Pin attributes to .S«!- 
 verian, from intern.al evidmce, a l.uge nuiiilH>r 
 of homilies which pass under t hrvsf>stom'» 
 name. Severian is said to have conip<»^rd 
 a large number of commentaries on Holy 
 Scripture, the whole |.ein« lost except (or 
 fragments in the Caletute. (•eniiadius read 
 with pleasure Irc.itises i.f his on Haplt^m and 
 the Epiphany. A work contra .Kofatum 
 is quoted by <'ielasius, de Puabui Chri-sh 
 Saluris ; and one contra Judaeos by Cosinas 
 Indicopleustes, vii. 202. According to Mabil- 
 lon (A/i*s. Ital. i. pp. 13, 124), 8H homilies 
 bearing his name exist in MS. in the .Am- 
 brosian library and others in the Coislinian. 
 Fabr. Bibl. Graec. ix. 267 ; Cave, Hut. I.it. 1. 
 37s ; Hupin, H. E. [ev.) 
 
 Severinus (4), monk and apostle of Noricu0) 
 (.\ustria) in the sth cent. He was assisted bv 
 El'gippu'S, who afterwards presided over a 
 mf>nastery dedicated to his iiiemorv, and there 
 wTote his I.ife c. mi, describing Seventm- >. 
 coining from the East to preach in P n • : ' 
 and Noricum. about the time that A' 
 death was followed by contests am'ti.: ' i 
 sons, which wrought havf>c and ile^trurti'ii 
 in these provinces. Severinus lived a life o( 
 the sternest asceticism in a small cell where 
 he could barely stand erect. His I. if' i • 
 of the wonders wrought and pre.l 
 uttered by him. but is imp<irtant a» ii 
 
 ing the v>cial life of the out!- 
 
 of the empire when the (oni: 
 m'xlern European system wer. 
 be laid. Thus c v. i. IK .( t 
 exercised in intri"! 
 He was a most d' ■■ 
 liy Koman and 
 Miught hull out and .|. if.t lu 
 al>out to iiiva<ie Italy. " P<" 
 saint, " your de^in" : i r •<-rr,l • 
 will vxm ca»t a • 
 skins, and your 
 your lil>rrality <■( 
 
 Sevrrinut died a.i-. «--. "i"..* • - *'•• 
 
 Life iiin AA. SS. Boll. (Jan. i, 4»3I«m1 »'»*. 
 
892 SEVERUS, L. SEPTIMIUS 
 
 Scriptt. Res Austr. I. 62. Herzog's Encydop. 
 has a very exhaustive article upon him. [g.t.s.] 
 Severus (1), L. SeptimiUS, emperor, born 
 at Leptis in Tripoli in Apr. 146. His family 
 were of equestrian rank, and two of his 
 uncles had been consuls. His early life at 
 Rome was a mixture of study and dissipation, 
 his talents attracting the attention of M. 
 Aurelius, who conferred various offices upon 
 him. In one capacity or another he held 
 office in nearly all the western provinces. In 
 193 he was in command of Pannonia and 
 Ill>Ticum. When the news arrived of the 
 murder of Pertinax and the sale of the empire 
 to Didius Julianus, it aroused great indigna- 
 tion in the Pannonian army, and Severus, 
 taking advantage of this feeling, got himself 
 saluted emperor by them at Carnuntum in 
 Apr. or May, and immediately marched on 
 Rome. Julian was abandoned by the prae- 
 torians, and put to death by order of the 
 senate on June i or 2. Severus left Rome 
 after 30 days, to fight his most formidable 
 rival Pescennius Niger, who had assumed the 
 purple at Antioch a few days before himself, 
 and overthrew him in 194. Albinus, who had 
 assumed the title of emperor, was defeated 
 and slain on Feb. 19, I97, in the plain of 
 Trevoux near Lyons. In the autumn of 204 
 the secular games were celebrated with great 1 
 magnificence for the last time. In 208 | 
 Severus set out for Britain, and marched 1 
 through Caledonia to the extreme N., cutting 
 down forests and making roads. He added 
 a new rampart to the wall built by Hadrian 
 from the Tyne to the Solway. He died at 
 York on Feb. 4, 211. Of all emperors from 
 Augustus to Diocletian, Severus was probably 
 the man of greatest power. Crafty, ambi- 
 tious, and unscrupulous, he allowed no con- 
 siderations of humanity to stand in his way. 
 Yet he did not delight in cruelty for its own 
 sake, and anv weakness on his part would 
 have been fatal to himself and have plunged 
 the Roman world again in the anarchy from 
 which he had rescued it. Disorder and 
 brigandage throughout the empire were put 
 down with a firm hand. He was an adept in 
 astrology and magic. . , , 
 
 In the earlier part of his reign he favoured 
 the Christians. He believed he had been 
 cured of an illness by oil administered by a 
 Christian named Proculus, whom till his death 
 he maintained in the palace ; and the nurse 
 and some of the playmates of Caracalla were 
 Christians. No Christians took a prominent 
 part on the side of Niger or Albinus, and it is 
 even probable that those who tried to hold 
 Byzantium for Niger ill-treated the Christians 
 there during the siege. The number of 
 councils held in the early years of Severus on 
 the time of observing Easter proves that the 
 church was then unmolested. The first 
 change for the worse appears to have been at 
 the emperor's entry into Rome, a.d. 197, after 
 the defeat of Albinus. The Christians excited 
 the fury of the mob by refusing to join in the 
 rejoicings, an act they considered inconsistent 
 with their religion. But Severus used his 
 influence to protect Christian men and women 
 of rank against the fury of the mob [ad Soap. 
 4). But in 202 he issued an edict forbidding 
 future conversions to Judaism or Christianity 
 
 SEVERUS, L. SEPTIMIUS 
 
 (Vita S evert, 17). His motives are unknown. 
 Probably, as a stern statesman of the old 
 Roman school, he foresaw the peril to the 
 national religion and the constitution of the 
 state that lay in the active Christian pro- 
 paganda, and though personally friendly to 
 some among them, thought it time to check 
 the further progress of the religio illicita. 
 
 Though the edict applied only to new con- 
 verts, and catechumens were accordingly the 
 greatest sufferers, yet there were numerous 
 victims among the Christians of long standing. 
 In the East, the Christians suffered most in 
 Egypt, perhaps because the emperor had 
 visited it immediately after the promulgation 
 of his edict. So terrible was the outbreak 
 that Judas, a Christian writer, made the 70 
 weeks of Daniel expire with the loth year of 
 Severus, and thought the advent of Antichrist 
 at hand. Laetus the prefect and his successor 
 Aquila were merciless enemies of the Chris- 
 tians, who were dragged from all parts of 
 Egypt to their tribunal at Alexandria. 
 Among the most notable martyrs was Leoni- 
 das, the father of Origen, who was only pre- 
 vented by a stratagem of his mother from 
 sharing his father's fate. By a strange incon- 
 sistency Origen was allowed to visit the mar- 
 tyrs in prison and to be present at their trial, 
 and even to accompany them on their way to 
 execution, apparently without being molested 
 by the government, though several times in 
 great danger from mob violence. 
 
 In Africa the persecution began with a 
 violation of the cemeteries, and a bad harvest 
 following, the rage of the people against the 
 Christians increased (ad S cap. 3). [Scillitan 
 Martyrs.] In the spring of 203, under 
 Hilarianus the procurator, who had assumed 
 the government on the death of the proconsul, 
 the famous group of martyrs among whom St. 
 Perpetua was most conspicuous, suffered. Yet 
 here again we find the same inconsistency as at 
 Alexandria. Deacons were allowed to visit 
 the imprisoned Christians, unmolested, to 
 alleviate their sufferings, and even to procure 
 their removal to a better part of the prison. 
 In 205 or 206, under the milder government 
 of Julius Asper, the persecution seems to have 
 abated, after raging for 3 years (de Pallio, 
 2). Many Christians had sought refuge in 
 flight, while others tried to escape by bribing 
 the Roman officials, and in some cases the 
 Christian community as a whole seems to have 
 done so. These subterfuges were regarded 
 with scorn and abhorrence by the more enthu- 
 siastic, but no trace is to be found of the 
 Libellatici so notorious in later persecutions. 
 The abatement seems to have continued till 
 near the close of the reign, but in 210 and 211 
 the persecution broke out again in its sharpest 
 form under the proconsul Scapula and 
 extended to Mauritania. There the sword 
 was the instrument of execution, whilst the 
 cruel Scapula burnt his victims alive or flung 
 them to the wild beasts of the amphitheatre. 
 Of persecution in other parts of the empire 
 we have only a few isolated notices. The 
 aged Irenaeus and his companions suffered at 
 Lyons in this reign, but no details are pre- 
 served, and even the date is uncertain. In 
 Syria, Asclepiades, afterwards bp. of Antioch, 
 was a confessor (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). Cruel as 
 
SEVERUS. AURELIUS ALEXANDER SEVERUS. AURELlUS ALEXANDER ^VJ 
 
 it was. ami stvirt-r th.m auv previous i>nr, the 
 persecution under Severus had not the s\-strjn- 
 atic character of thos<> of Decius and J)i.K-le. 
 tian. Kxcept Irenaeus no bishops or pro- 
 minent men»lH>rs set- ni to have Un-n executr<l ; 
 many, like Tertullian and Orijien. who nuRht 
 have been thought certain victims, were un- 
 molested, and the resohition of the martyrs 
 under their suflerinKs caus<'d manv conver- 
 sions. Kus. H. E. vi. i-ii ; Tillem. SUm. ful. 
 iii. ; tiorres, in Jahrbtuhtr fur Protf^t. I'htol. 
 1878. 273 ; for Africi in particular. Tertullian, 
 Apoloe^eltctts ; <j(/ Martyrfs ; ad Salxones ; ad 
 Siiif>ulam ; </<• /"kj,-.! ; ./<• (",>r,)>i<i Mtlitn ; .\uIh\ 
 Knuf hfitortifuf. xi. ;(t. |F.n.) 
 
 Severus (2). Aurelius Alexander, emperor, 
 born at .-Vrca Cae<area in Svria. Oct. i, 2o."i 
 (Lampridius) or 208 (Herodian). For an 
 account of his family see Elacabahs. Like 
 him he was made in childhood a priest of the 
 Sun at I'mesa. and when his cousin bj-came 
 emperor he and his mother Julia Mainmaea 
 accompanied him to Rome. .Mammaea took 
 the utmost pains to educate her son and to 
 preserve him uncontaminated by the mon- 
 strous excesses of his cousin. Created Caesar 
 by the emperor in 221 ; on Feb. 1.222 (Clinton), 
 he became emperor on the death of Flagabalus 
 and his mother Soaemis at the hands of the 
 indignant soldiery. Being then at most not 
 yet 17, the administration rested with his 
 mother and grandmother Julia .Mammaea and 
 Julia .Maesa, the latter of whom, till her 
 death c. 225, enjoyed the greater power. 
 Their chief minister or regent was the famous 
 jurist L'lpian, whose appointment appears to 
 have been due to Maesa's influence, though 
 Mammaea afterwards acquiesced in it (Lamp. 
 50). He was assisted by a council of at 
 least 70 members. 16 to 20 eminent jurists of 
 whom formed a sort of inner cabinet (cf. 
 Herodian, vi. i. with Lamp. 15) ; separate 
 committees of this council administering 
 different departments of the state. 
 
 The first step of the new administration was 
 to reverse the acts of Elagabalus. The 
 images of the gods he had collected at Home 
 from all parts of the empire were restored to 
 their former shrines. His creatures were 
 removed from offices obtained by disgraceful 
 means. The senate, knights, trilx's. and army 
 were purged of the infamous persons appointed 
 by Llafiabalus. and the imperial establish- 
 ment reduced as low as possible. 
 
 The praetorians and the army did not easily 
 acquiesce in these reforms. I^robably in 
 order to check their mutinous spirit their 
 prefects Flavianus and Chrestus were put to 
 death and Ulpian made sole prefect. From 
 some trifling cause a riot broke out l)etween 
 the praetorians and the people, lasting for 
 three days. The soldiers, getting the worst 
 of it. set fire to the city and thus checked their 
 assailants. They could not endure the firm 
 rule of Ulpian. Several times he had to t.iU-- 
 refuge in the palace, and was saved with di" 
 culty by the emperor from their furv. 
 last, probably in 22H. he w.is killed bv 1 
 soldiers in the presence of Alexander and ■ 
 mother, who were only able bv a strata*;- 
 to punish the ringleader. Throughout i: 
 empire the same insubordinate spirit pre 
 vailed. The tro<jps in Mesopotamia mutinied 
 
 i'annoiiia %» rxnird the 
 
 hatrr ! _ .r. 
 
 tonans that Alrxandrr 
 
 was tllnrii Ij the 
 
 humiliating eX|>e<i|rti| <■( 
 
 tr.|ii<-^lini; him ant 
 
 to Ciiiiir t<i Koiiir il'inn^' 
 
 f,i ., ,- .f,.. ,!■.•,)> 
 
 This spirit ..( 1. 
 
 
 ous as this reigii 
 
 
 under .\rl.i\"Ti 
 
 which. a(!- •' 
 
 
 which th. ■ 
 
 
 pletely l>i 
 
 
 
 m<»st e\ti i 
 
 
 establish, d tl.. k, 
 
 \ . 
 
 heir of the anri. 
 
 1 
 
 the .Asiatic proxir 
 
 
 sions naturally jT-liir. ,| 
 
 a >% It. \i U.r rli.J 
 
 of 231 or the l>eginning 
 
 ■ >! JiJ the rm|i«>r.w. 
 
 accompanied bv (its ni. 
 
 tfirr Irft K tTIl- to 
 
 fight the I'. 
 
 decisive [• 
 
 
 bv news .1 
 
 
 the Khin. 
 
 ,; 
 
 Rome on S.|.t. : 
 
 1 
 
 t.i the Rhine (r 
 
 i 
 
 and killed Ihnr r<>iiiiiiaiidrr. 
 
 Iron. The historian l>|.iO b 
 
 i'annoiiia %<> exn 
 
 lorians that .Me 
 
 liuniilialing ex|><s 
 
 lo c.ime t<i Rome 
 
 This spirit ..( t. 
 mis as this reigii 
 umler .\rla\eTi 
 which. a(!- •' 
 which th- ' 
 I'letely l>i 
 in<»st e\ti , 
 i^tablishrd tl.. k, 
 lieir .>f the anci- 
 the .Asiatic pro\ir 
 »i.>ns naturally p 
 of 231 or the l>e( 
 accompanied bv 
 fight the I'. 
 decisive t- 
 bv news ■ 1 ■ 
 
 the Rhin. 
 
 R.>me .>n S«pt. : 
 
 t.i the Rhine Ir. 
 
 his tent, and hi^ ; : 
 
 ence, at the beginuui(j ol ^35 iCliiiliuw. t>> Itte 
 
 mutin.ius soldiery. 
 
 Thus |H-rished .me of the n>->st vutii-u. ->( 
 the em|>erors. Apparently I 
 were an excessive deference t" I 
 
 a certain want .'f energy. I! 
 temperate, and chaste. H. 
 reading, preferring dreek to 1 
 His favourite works wer>- the h 
 and the df l>[h(ni and J' '■'-' 
 He w.is also fond of \ 
 was acquainted with >; 
 paint, and ould sing > 
 instruments. Though he ati.inJ.d t!ir tem- 
 ples regularly and visited the Capitol every 
 seventh day. and though he rebuilt and 
 adorned the shrines of various deities bv « 
 curious anticipation <>( C»nitism. the ob)r<-t» 
 of his peculiar veiirr.it i"!i were ii-? th" it-xU 
 of the various i ' • . ■ . . ,j 
 
 heroes and men. ' 
 
 he perf.irmed I.; < 
 
 contained no iii< ' 
 
 canoni/ed men 
 predecessors. .M- < 
 l>e called his pair 
 
 of Tyana. Abraham. an.i i :.ii-t. li» a AnW'-t 
 chapel were imager of Achillrs. VergiMwh.xn 
 he used to call the Plato of p.K-1 i ( i- -r ^t' I 
 other great men. From his 1. 
 course with Origen (Lu». // 
 woul-l nnfririllv h.ivr »x-tter i; 
 th. • ■ ■ 
 
 th.. ' 
 
 he 
 
 r\rf |.<[lll null UlJl 11 Ml -.ll.l lo^ f.'---" ' • •-* 
 
 cuok». Thu dcclUoa linpllet a ocrtAtn recwg. 
 
894 SEVERUS 
 
 nition of the right of the Christians as such to 
 hold property, which is also implied by the 
 life of Callistus. Consistently with this, it 
 is in the reign of Alexander that edifices set 
 apart for Christian worship begin to appear — 
 at any rate in some parts of the empire (cf. 
 the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian (in Migne, 
 Pair. Lat. iii. 1163) with Origen, Horn. 28 
 on St. Matthew (quoted in contra Celsum, viii. 
 755, in Migne, Patr. Gk. xi. 1539)). A form 
 of the golden rule of Christian morality ("Do 
 not do to another what you would not have 
 done to yourself") was so admired by the 
 emperor that he caused it to be inscribed on 
 the palace and other buildings. A curious 
 anecdote of Lampridius (44) shews the 
 emperor's acquaintance with Christian usages 
 and also the antiquity of the practice of pub- 
 lishing to the congregation the names of those 
 who sought ordination. In imitation of this 
 the emperor caused the names of persons he 
 was about to appoint to be published before- 
 hand, exhorting any who had charges against 
 them to come with proofs. 
 
 Strange to say, in later tradition the em- 
 peror, whom all writers near his time represent 
 as a friend, nay almost a convert, to Christian- 
 ity, whose chapel contained an image of Christ 
 and whose household was filled with Christians 
 (Eus. H. E. vi. 28), appears as a cruel perse- 
 cutor. It is said that pope Callistus with 
 many companions, St. Caecilia and her com- 
 rades, pope Urban I., and many others suffered 
 in his reign, and that he personally took part 
 in their martyrdom. On the other hand, no 
 Father of the 3rd, 4th, or 5th cents, knows 
 anything of such a persecution, but on the 
 contrary agree in representing his reign as a 
 period of peace. Firmilian (I.e.) testifies that 
 before the persecution of Maximin the church 
 had enjoyed a long peace, and Sulpicius 
 Severus (ii. 32 in Patr. Lat. xx. 447) includes 
 the reign of Alexander in the long peace 
 lasting from Septimius Severus to Decius, 
 broken only by the persecution of Maximin. 
 Against this can be set only the evidence of 
 late authors, such as Bede, Ado, and Usuard 
 and unauthentic Acts of martyrs. The most 
 famous of the alleged martyrs of this reign, 
 St. Caecilia and her companions, are placed 
 by other accounts in the reigns of M. Aurelius 
 or Diocletian. All are given up by Tillemont 
 except Callistus. His chief ground for con- 
 sidering him a martyr is that in the Depositio 
 Martyrum, written in 354 (in Patr. Lat. cxxvii. 
 123), a Callistus is mentioned as martyred 
 on Oct. 14, the day on which the pope is 
 commemorated. Lipsius (Chronol. d. rom. 
 Bischofe, 177) acutely conjectures that this 
 notice refers, not to the martyrdom, but to the 
 confession of Callistus before Fuscianus men- 
 tioned by Hippolytus, as up to the Decian 
 persecution the word " martyr " was still used 
 in the wider sense. We may therefore conclude 
 that all these accounts of persecutions and 
 martyrdoms, so inconsistent with the known 
 character of the emperor and passed over in 
 silence by all authors for more than two cents, 
 afterwards, are fictions of a later date, [f.d.] 
 
 Severus (3) and Severians. [Encratites.] 
 
 Severus (12) SanctUS (Endelechius). Per- 
 haps identical with the rhetorician mentioned 
 in the subscription of the Cod. Flor. of Apu- 
 
 SEVERUS, SULPICIUS 
 
 leius, as teaching at Rome in 395. He is the 
 author of a Christian idyll, in Asclepiad metre, 
 upon the subject of a great cattle-plague ; 
 possibly that mentioned by St. Ambrose 
 [Comm. in Luc. x. 10). This plague occurred 
 c. 376, which fact, together with the date 
 assigned for Endelechius's teaching, and the 
 possibility that he was the correspondent of 
 St. Paulinus of Nola (Ep. xxviii. 6), would fix 
 the date of the poem at the end of the 4th 
 or beginning of the 5th cent. The poem is 
 entitled "de Mortibus Boum," and written 
 with some taste and a good deal of vigour. 
 It represents certain herdsmen — apparently 
 Aquitanians — -discussing their fortunes in the 
 general affliction. One of them asserts that 
 his herds have been protected by the sign of 
 the Cross and by his own belief in Christ. The 
 others resolve to adopt a religion which, ac- 
 cording to his account, is at once profitable 
 and easy. The poem has been often edited : 
 first by Pithoeus (Paris, 1586). It is in Werns- 
 dorf, Poetae Lat. Min. ii. ; Migne, xix. Cave, 
 Hist. Litt. i. 290 ; Ebert, Gesch. der Chr.-Lat. 
 Lit. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graeca, x. 626, 2nd ed. ; 
 Teuffel, vol. ii. [h.a.w.] 
 
 Severus (18), Sulpicius, ecclesiastical his- 
 torian in Gaul, belonging to a noble family of 
 Aquitaine, born after a.d. 353. He became 
 an advocate and married a woman of consular 
 rank and wealth, who did not long survive the 
 marriage. While yet in the flower of his age, 
 c. 392, caressed and praised by all and eminent 
 in his profession (Paulinus, Ep. v., Migne, Patr. 
 Lat. Ixi. 169-170), he braved his father's anger 
 and the flouts of worldly acquaintances [ib. i. 
 col. 154), and retired from the world. Thence- 
 forth with a few disciples and servants he led 
 a life of ascetic seclusion and literary activity. 
 Where he abode is not quite certain, but 
 probably at Primuliacum, a village between 
 Toulouse and Carcassonne, where he built two 
 churches {ib. Ep. xxxii.). It was probably an 
 estate of his wife or mother-in-law, his father 
 apparently having disinherited him (cf. Ep. 
 ad Bassulam). According to Gennadius he 
 was a priest, but this has been questioned, and 
 his tone towards the bishops and clergy, 
 against whom he constantly inveighs as vain, 
 luxurious, self-seeking, factious foes of Chris- 
 tianity and envious persecutors of his hero 
 St. Martin, lends countenance to the doubt 
 (Hist. Sacr. ii. 32 ; Vita S. Martini, 27 ; I^ial- 
 I, 2, 9, 21, 24, 26). Later authors have 
 believed him a monk, some of Marmoutiers, 
 Martin's foundation at Tours, others of 
 Marseilles, whither he may have been driven 
 by the Vandal invasion. This seems probable 
 from c. i. of Dial, i (cf. also ii. 8). Gennadius 
 asserts that in his old age he was deceived into 
 Pelagianism, but recognizing the fault of 
 loquacity, remained mute till his death, in 
 order by penitential silence to correct the sin 
 he had committed by much speaking. Others, 
 from a passage in St. Jerome (in Ezech. c. 
 xxxvi., Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 85), have accused 
 him of Millenarianism. At the Roman 
 council held by pope Gelasius in 494 the 
 Dialogi, under the name of Opuscula Pos- 
 tumiani et Galli, were certainly placed among 
 the libri apocryphi (Mansi, viii. 151). The 
 charge rested on Dial. ii. 14, where a strange 
 theory as to the imminent appearance among 
 
SEVERUS. SULPICIUS 
 
 men of Nero ami An'iclirist is put into the 
 mouth of St. Martin. The chapter has h.-cii 
 expunged in many -.talian MSS. (Ilalm. 
 Sulptc. Sm. Praffatto). Various years between 
 406 and 429 have been suggested for his death. 
 The principal authorities for his Life are 
 the short biofO"aphv of Cienn.ulius (de Scriptt. 
 EccUs. xix., Mi^ne, I'atr. I.al. Iviii. 1071), the 
 letters of his friend Panlinus of Nola, with 
 whom between 304 and 403 he constantly 
 interchanged gifts and letters, though only 
 one letter of Sulpicius, and that probably a 
 forgery, survives {Epp- i. v. xi. xvii. xxii.- 
 xxiv. xxvii.-xxxii., Migne, Patr. I.al. Ixi. 
 153-330; Ceillier, vii. 55 sqq.), allusions in 
 his own writings, esp. the Vila S. Marthtt, the 
 Epislolae, and the Dialogi, and a paneg>Tic 
 by Paulinus of Perigueux {de \'ita i>. Martini 
 lib. V. Pair. Lai. Ixi. losi). A modern and 
 exhaustive notice is bv Jacob Bernays, Die 
 Chronik des Sulp. 5«'. (Berlin. 1861). 
 
 His works consist of the Hislona Sacra or 
 Chronica, a Life of St. Martin of Tours, 3 
 letters, and 3 dialogues. .\n Lng. trans, is 
 in Schaff and Wace's Lib. of Posl-Sicene 
 Fathers. The Historia, written c. 403, was an 
 attempt to give a concise history of the world 
 with dates from the creation to his own times, 
 the consulship of Stilicho in 400. His sources 
 are the LXX, the ancient Latin version of the 
 Scriptures, the Chronicles of Eusebius. and the 
 Historici Ethnici, as he calls the non-Christian 
 authors (Herbert, Notice, p. 7). Bk. i. and part 
 of ii. are occupied with universal history down 
 to the birth of Christ. Then, omitting the 
 period covered by the Gospels and Acts, he 
 adds some details to Josephus's narrative of 
 the siege of Jerusalem, recounts persecutions 
 of the Christians under q emperors, and 
 describes the Invention of the Cross by St. 
 Helena, as he had heard it from I'aulinus. 
 His account of the .\rian controversy (ii. 35- 
 45) is inaccurate and of little value ; but of 
 more importance is that of the Priscillianist 
 heresy, which had arisen in his time and with 
 the details of which he was familiar. 
 
 The Vita S. Martini, the earliest of his 
 writings, is very important as containing, with 
 the Dialogues and 3 letters, practically every- 
 thing that is authentic about that p<»pular 
 saint of Western Christendom. He tells us 
 that, having long heard of the sanctity and 
 miracles of Martin, he went to Tours to see 
 him, asked him all the questions he rould, 
 and got information from eyewitnesses and 
 those who knew (c. 25). This visit, probably 
 c. 394, was followed by many others. The 
 book was pub. during Martin's lifetime. 
 
 In the Dialogi, writt.n c. 405, the inter- 
 locutors are his friend Postumianus. just back 
 from a three years' stay in the East, tiallus, 
 a disciple of St. Martin, now dead, and Sul- 
 picius himself. Twenty-two chapters of Dial. 
 i. contain interesting pictures of the contro- 
 versy at .Alexandria between archbp. Theo- 
 philus and the monks concerning Origen. St. 
 Jerome at his church in Bethlehem, and thr 
 monks and hermits of the Thebaid. Postu- 
 mianus asks about St. Martin, and bears 
 witness to the enormous popularity of the Life 
 in almost every country. Paulinus had in- 
 troduced it at Home, where the whole city had 
 fought for it. All Carthage was reading it. the 
 
 SEVERUS 
 
 MOS 
 
 .Mexandrians knew its ronlrnls almost \ir\m 
 than tlie .lutlxir. an<l it lud tH-iirtrjtrd inlu 
 i;gypf. Nitria. and the Thrluid. All wrr« 
 rJanionring (or thusr (nrthrr w<iiidrr« which 
 Sulpicius h.td iiniutrd (c. i\. cf. Vila, ptol.) 
 ami with wliu h ihr rrniaimlrr of the |ii4l<>Kur« 
 is almost entirely occupied. 
 
 The Epistlr> ar«- als4. alxMit St. Mjrtin. the 
 first giving the story ol his dr.ith .uul burul. 
 Seven more letters have Im-ch piiblulird umirr 
 Sulpicius's n.iine ; several h.ivr Ix-rn grnrr- 
 ally suspectetl (I eillier. iKj-iio). but jll are 
 pronounced spurious bv ll.iliu {Prtl. xi.-dii.). 
 The Iwst ed. of the ollpctr.l w..rks 1* that 
 of C. Halm (Sulpicit Sex'eri l.ihri </mi \Hper%umi, 
 Vindob. i8()«>). His works have Ix^n several 
 times translated into French, e.g. by M. 
 Herbert (Pans. 1H47). 
 
 Apart from tlie uni<]ue History of St. Mirtia 
 (which, however, is the worst of hii wntinKv 
 from a literary point of view). Sulpicius's chief 
 title to fame rests on his beauty and purity »( 
 style, in respect of which he is pre-riainmt. i( 
 not unique, among ecclesiastical authors, and 
 well merits his appellation of the " C hristian 
 Sallust." He seems to have taken Ihit 
 historian as his mmlel. but his writings shew 
 familiarity with Vergil. Livy. Tacitus, and 
 most classical authors. Perhaps his work is 
 somewhat lacking in vigour, and not entirrly 
 free from the affectations and bad taste i>f hu 
 time. The credulity and su|>crstitioii of the 
 narrative had. as regards Martin's Mir.irles. 
 evidently excitrd scfptirisni even among thr 
 Christians in Sulpicius's own time (see Dial. 
 iii.6). [Marti.s (D). For an cstiinatr of Sul- 
 picius's Works see Crill. viii. 121-112. (s.a.b.) 
 S«VerUS (19). bp. of Mileum or Milrus. a 
 native of the same place as .■Kugustine. and a 
 j fellow-student, lifelong friend, and ineinl»rr 
 of the same monastic community. Early in 
 I his episcopate, probably in 401, .■Kugustine, 
 ! Alypius, and Samsucius had to explain their 
 I conduct in the matter of Timotheus and to 
 ! call on Severus to accept their explanation 
 (.■Vug. Epp. b2. t>3), but this temporary mis- 
 understanding ditl not interrupt his (rn-iuKhip 
 with Augustine, nor caus«- any illwill on hi« 
 j part towards Timotheus (.Aug. In. /'%. u't- « ; 
 I de Civitale Dei.xxi. a). In a letter somewhat 
 ' later, perhaps a.I>. 40(). address«>d to Novatus, 
 Augustine regrets U-iiig not oftiii able to ser 
 his old friend, who wrote s«-ld<iin. and thrn 
 chi«-tiy on busim-^s, not from want i>f gixKlwill 
 but from necessity (.•Kug- Ep- «4)- S«-vrru* 
 j exchanged letters and friendly messages with 
 I Paulinus of Nola (16. ji. 4 and u. 1). and .. 
 [ 409 wrote to Augustine expressing his great 
 delight in his writings, as Irading him !•> grratrr 
 I love of Gixi. and iM-gging hiin to write in rrtiiru 
 {Epp. log), .\ugustiiu- replietl. insisting thai 
 he hiins4-lf was thr debtor. Srvcru» apv>eaf» 
 to have joimd in th«- adiirrss to |nnorriiliu« 
 concerning Pi-lagianisiii. \.i>. 4i<> (Aiik'. tpP- 
 17^. 171.). He probably di.d .. 4i<' |M.w.r.| 
 SevertlS (22). bp »i .Minorca, known by hu 
 • luvdicil irttrr nfrrrcd to in the Ixiok d* 
 .Miru(uli\ .S. Stephani. coini«».ird bv ocdrr of 
 Evodiust)f Trails (.Mignr. Pair. IjtI. xt. 7 U »• 
 Orosius had dr-|Kr.,itcd v.mr recmtly di»- 
 covered relics of St. Strphrii in the church dl 
 Magona (Port .Mahon). where thrre were a 
 large number of Jews, one of whoco, the rabbi 
 
^96 
 
 SEVERUS 
 
 Theodorus, was defensor civitatis. The arrival 
 of the relics caused great religious excitement 
 among Minorcan Christians, which led to 
 constant arguments between them and the 
 Jews, ending in riots in which the synagogue 
 was set on fire and burnt to the bare walls. 
 The conversion of a great number of Jews, 
 including Theodorus himself, followed. On 
 the site of the destroyed synagogue the Jews 
 erected a church. These events occurred in 
 the last week of Jan. 418. Gams, Kircheng. 
 von Sp. ii. (i) 406. [F.D.] 
 
 Severus (27), Monophysite patriarch of 
 Antioch, a.d. 512-519, a native of Sozopolis 
 in Pisidia, by birth and education a heathen, 
 baptized in the martyry of Leontius at Tri- 
 polis (Evagr. H. E. iii. 33 ; Labbe, v. 40, 120). 
 
 He almost at once openly united himself 
 with the Acephali, repudiating his own bap- 
 tism and his baptizer, and even the Catholic 
 church itself as infected with Nestorianism 
 (Labbe, M.S.). On embracing Monophysite 
 doctrines he entered a monastery apparently 
 belonging to that sect between Gaza and its 
 port Majuma. Here he met Peter the Iberian, 
 a zealous Eutychian, who had been ordained 
 bp. of Gaza by Theodosius, the Monophysite 
 monk, during his usurpation of the see of 
 Jerusalem (Evagr. I.e.). About this time 
 Severus apparently joined a Eutychian 
 brotherhood near Eleutheropolis under the 
 archimandrite Mamas, who further con- 
 firmed him in his extreme Monophysitism 
 (Liberat. Brev. c. xix. ; Labbe, v. 762 ; Evagr. 
 I.e.). Severus rejected the Henoticon of 
 Zeno, applying to it contumelious epithets, 
 such as k€putik6v, "the annulling edict," and 
 8iaip€TiK6p, "the disuniting edict" (Labbe, 
 v. 121), and anathematized Peter Mongus, the 
 Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, for 
 accepting it. We next hear of him in an 
 Egyptian monastery, of which one Nephalius 
 was abbat, who. having been formerly a 
 Monophysite, had embraced the faith of 
 Chalcedon. Nephalius with his monks ex- 
 pelled Severus and his partizans (Evagr. I.e., 
 of. iii. 22). Severus is charged with having 
 stirred up a fierce religious war among the 
 excitable population of Alexandria, resulting 
 in bloodshed and conflagrations (Labbe, v. 
 121). To escape the punishment of his tur- 
 bulence he fled to Constantinople, supported 
 by a band of 200 Monophysite monks (ib. iv. 
 1419)- Anastasius, who had succeeded the 
 emperor Zeno, the author of the Henoticon, in 
 491, was a declared favourer of the Euty- 
 chians, and by him Severus was received with 
 honour. His advent was an unhappy one for 
 the peace of Constantinople, where a san- 
 guinary tumult was stirred up by rival bands 
 of monks, orthodox and Monophysite, chant- 
 ing in their respective churches the opposing 
 forms of the " Trisagion." This tumult re- 
 sulted, A.D. 511, in the humiliation of Anas- 
 tasius, the temporary triumph of the patriarch 
 Macedonius, and the depression of the Mono- 
 physite cause (Theophan, p. 132). Severus 
 was eagerly dispatched by Anastasius to 
 occupy the vacant throne of Antioch a.d. 511. 
 He was ordained, or, in the words of his adver- 
 saries, "received the shadow of ordination" 
 (Labbe, v. 40), and enthroned on the same day 
 in his patriarchal city (ib. iv. 1414 ; Theod. 
 
 SEVERUS 
 
 Lect. ii. 31, pp. 563, 567 ; Theophan. p. 134), 
 and that very day solemnly pronounced in 
 his church an anathema on Chalcedon, and 
 accepted the Henoticon he had previously 
 repudiated. He caused the name of Peter 
 Mongus to be inscribed in the diptychs ; 
 declared himself in communion with the 
 Eutychian prelates, Timotheus of Constanti- 
 nople and John Niciota of Alexandria; and 
 received into communion Peter of Iberia and 
 other leading members of the Acephali (Evagr. 
 H. E. iii. 33 ; Labbe, iv. 1414, v. 121, 762 ; 
 Theod. Lect. I.e.). Eutychianism seemed now 
 triumphant throughout the Christian world. 
 Proud of his patriarchal dignity and strong in 
 the emperor's protection, Severus despatched 
 letters to his brother-prelates, announcing his 
 elevation and demanding communion. In 
 these he anathematized Chalcedon and all who 
 maintained the two natures. They met with 
 a very varied reception. Many rejected them 
 altogether, nevertheless Monophysitism was 
 everywhere in the ascendant in the East, and 
 Severus was deservedly regarded as its chief 
 champion (Severus of Ashmunain apud 
 Neale, Patr. Alex. ii. 27). Synodal letters 
 were interchanged between John Niciota and 
 Severus ; the earliest examples of that inter- 
 communication between the Jacobite sees of 
 Alexandria and Antioch, which has been kept 
 up to the present day (Neale, I.e.). The 
 triumph of Severus was, however, short. His 
 sanguinary tyranny over the patriarchate of 
 Antioch did not survive his imperial patron. 
 Anastasius was succeeded in 518 by Justin, 
 who at once declared for the orthodox faith. 
 The Monophysite prelates were everywhere 
 replaced by orthodox successors. Severus 
 was one of the first to fall. Irenaeus, the 
 count of the East, was commissioned to arrest 
 him. Severus, however, escaped, and in Sept. 
 518 sailed by night for Alexandria (Liberat. 
 Brev. I.e. ; Theophan. 141 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 
 4). Paul was ordained in his room. Severus 
 and his doctrines were anathematized in 
 various councils. At Alexandria his recep- 
 tion by his fellow-religionists was enthusiastic. 
 He was gladly welcomed by the patriarch 
 Timotheus, and generally hailed as the cham- 
 pion of the orthodox faith against the cor- 
 ruptions of Nestorianism. His learning and 
 argumentative power established his authority 
 as " OS omnium doctorum," and the day of his 
 entrance into Egypt was long celebrated as a 
 Jacobite festival (Neale, u.s. p. 30). Alex- 
 andria speedily became the resort of Mono- 
 physites of every shade of opinion, who formed 
 too powerful a body for the emperor to molest. 
 But fierce controversies sprang up among 
 themselves on various subtle questions con- 
 nected with Christ's nature and His human 
 body. A vehement dispute arose between 
 Severus and his fellow-exile Julian of Hali- 
 carnassus as to the corruptibility of our 
 Lord's human body before His resurrection. 
 Julian and his followers were styled " Aph- 
 thartodocetae " and " Phantasiastae," Sever- 
 us and his adherents " Phthartolatrae " or 
 " Corrupticolae," and " Ktistolatrae." The 
 controversy was a warm and protracted one 
 and no settlement was arrived at. The 
 Jacobites, however, claim the victory for 
 Severus (Renaudot, p. 139). After some 
 
SEVERUS 
 
 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS hu7 
 
 years in Egypt spent in continual literary and forced upon hint hv the c.iirili.it.rv jHrniion 
 polemical activity, Severus was unexpectedly he ainu-d at. HopinK to emhr^rr 4* ntauy 
 summoned to Constantinople bv Justin's as i>osMblp of varvin« thc-oloRical colour he 
 successor Justinian, whose consort Theodora followed the traditionalfornujla* of the church 
 warmly favoured the Eutychian party. The as cl..selv as he could, while athxiUK' hi* ..wn 
 emperor was utterly weary of the turmoil sens*- upon thrin (l)orner. /Vn. 0/ < fcrii*. div. 
 caused by the prolonged theological discus- ii. vol. 1. p. nc. i l.»rks tram.). In i.^m iIw 
 sions. Severus. he was told, was the master - 
 
 of the Monophysite party. Unitv coulil only 
 be regained by his influence. M this period, 
 A.D. 535, Anthimus had been recently ap- 
 pointed to the see of Constantinople by 
 Theodora's influence. He was a concealed 
 Eutychian, who on his accession threw of! the 
 orthodox mask and joined heartily with 
 Severus and his associates, Peter of .\pamea 
 and Zoaras, in their endeavours to get Mono- 
 physitism recognized as the orthodox faith. 
 This introduction of turbulent Mi>nophysites 
 threw the city into great disorder, and l.irge 
 numbers embraced their pernicious heresy 
 (Labbe, v. 124). For the further progress of 
 this audacious attempt to establish .Mono 
 physitism in the imperial city see Justinias 
 
 Agapetls. Eventually, at the instance 
 of pope .\gapetus, who happened to visit J communicate with John, archbji 
 Constantinople on political business at this He was then allowed to return t 
 
 Sixth W<H)I; of Ihf StUd l.ftUr\ ol Sn-frux, in 
 the Svriac version of .AthaiiaMiis of Nitibis 
 were ed. by (,. E. W. Uro«)k> (I.ond). F.< 4 
 full statement of hit opinion* *c« the ((real 
 work of Dorner. and art. " M«mophy»iten " 
 in Hcriog's Encsc. l«.v ) 
 
 Severus (31), patriarch of Aquilria. »uccccd- 
 ing I'Mi.is c. .SS(). I. ike his predecessor*, he wat 
 a strenuous champion of the Three Chapter*. 
 Soon after his consideration the exarch Smar- 
 agdus seized him in his iMsilJca 4I (irado, 
 where the bishops of .■Kijuileia had takrn re- 
 fuge, and c^irried him olT to Kavenna with 
 three othej bishops —Severus of Tric-le. J.>hii 
 of Parenzo, and Vid-mius of Ceneda. Ihero 
 he was imprisoned a whole year and subjected 
 to personal ill-treatment till hrconsented with 
 those three suffragans, and two others, to 
 
 f Kavenna. 
 
 <irado. but 
 
 time, the Monophysites .-Vnthimus and Timo- the people refused to communicate with hini 
 theus were deposed, and Severus again sub- till he had acknowledged his fault in com- 
 jected to an anathema. The orthodox Mennas, municating with those who condemned the 
 succeeding Anthimus (Libcrat. Breviar. c. xxl.; Three Chapters and had been received by a 
 Labbe, v. 774), summoned a svmxi in May and synod of t<'n bishops at .Marano, c. 589 (Paulus 
 June 536 to deal with the Monophysite ' Diac. Hist. Lang. iii. 20). 
 question. Severus and his two companions I Gregory the Cireat, at the end of ^90 or 
 were cast out " as wolves " from the true fold, ! beginning of 591, wrote to him expn-ssing hi« 
 and anathematized (Labbe, v. 253-255). The regret at his relapse into schism, and summon* 
 sentence was ratified by Justinian (ib. 265). ing him by the emperor's orders to Rome, with 
 The writings of Severus were proscribed ; any j his followers, that a symxl might decide the 
 one possessing them who failed to commit | matter (Epp. i. ind. ix. 17 in Migne, Pair. ImI. 
 them to the flames was to lose his right hand 1 Ixxvii. 461). Three separate api>eals were 
 (Evagr. H. E. iv. 11 ; Novell. Justinian. No. ^ presented to the emperor .Maurice, the third 
 42 ; Matt. Blastar. p. 59). Severus returned (and only one extant) Uing by the bishops of 
 to Egypt, which he seems never again to have | the continental part which was in the hands 
 left. The date of his death is fixed variously of the Lombards. In it the bishops urge the 
 in 538, 539, and 542. .\ccording to John of , injustice of the pope, from whose communion 
 Ephesus, he died in the Egyptian desert (ed. ] they had separated, being judge in his own 
 Payne Smith, i. 78). cause. They profess willingness. wh<n peace 
 
 He was a very copious writer, but we pos- \ is restored, to attend and accept the decision* 
 sess little more than fragments. .\n account of a free council at Constantinople, an.i |<..int 
 of them so far as they can be identified, is out that the clergy and people of the s ;-!r i- 
 given by Cave (Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 499 ff-) and gans of Aouileia arc so zealous for th.- 1 ■■■:■■ 
 Fabricius (BM. Graec. lib. v. c. 36, vol. x. Chapters that, if the patriarch is comi>. 11. l t 
 
 iuffragans the new bishoos would 
 consecration from the 
 the province of .\.|iiil<i i 
 •ken up (.Mansi, x. I'l 
 
 Ihr ,,.,;.• t, 
 
 _ atriarch is comp 
 
 pp 614 ff. ed" Harless). A very large number submit by force, when future vacancies ^k:ci 
 
 exist only in Smac, for which consult the among his suflragaiis f 
 
 catalogue of the'Syriac MSS. in the Urit. .Mus. be compelled to seek 
 
 by Prof. Wright. . ^ . bishops of Gaul, and tl 
 
 Severus was successful in his great aim of would thus be brokei 
 
 uniting the .Monophysites into one compact Maurice accrdinglv dirrrtrd 
 
 body with a definitely formulated creed. For leave Severus and his Mi;f- ■ • 
 
 notwithstanding the numerous subdivisions present. Gregory siibim ...,,^ 
 
 of the Monophysites, he was, in Dorner's tamed his position thrMi|. ..1 
 
 words "strlctlv speaking, the scientific le-ider died in ««jO or (h)7 (Pauh. .. ■,''!;' 
 
 of the most compact p.,rtion of the p.irty," .1.1 episcopate of 21 years and .. .a...a .. Me 
 
 and regarded as such by th. Monophysites and l,e.,ueathcd all his pro,.ertv to his cu hrdral 
 
 their opponents. He was the chief object of at (.rado (CAr. I'ulr. UraJ. in >^"r'- ""• 
 
 attack in the long and fierce contest with the iMtti!. V)4)-^^ , ,„ , . ,, l' » I 
 
 r!s;.r r.f.^„«,irs''t^r;;ii" ,.„d"5i^,„'f Mrs, :.,"•,-„"-: 
 
 67 
 
898 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 
 
 near Lyons speaks of him in the highest terms, 
 especially on this account. His great-grand- 
 father held a high ofhcial situation (Sid. Ep. 
 iii. 12, i. 3); his father was a tribune and a 
 notary or secretary under Honorius, and under 
 Valentinian III. became praefectus praetorio of 
 Aquitania I. a.d. 449 [ib. iii. i, v. 9, viii. 6). 
 
 First Period, 431-471. — Sidonius was bom 
 Nov. 5, 431 or 432, probably at Lyons {Carm. 
 XX. I). He was apparently educated at that 
 then famous seat of education, in the same 
 school as his cousin Avitus. Soon after he 
 was 20 years old he married Papianilla, only 
 daughter of Flavins Eparchius Avitus, a 
 native of Auvergne, who was praefectus prae- 
 torio at Aries from 439 to 443. Avitus, a 
 soldier, diplomatist and lover of nature and 
 literature, retired after 451 to his ovm house 
 and patrimonial estate at Avitacum, near the 
 modern Clermont {ib. vii. 230, 316, 339, 460, 
 etc.). Avitus had two sons, Ecdicius and 
 Agricola, with whom, after his marriage, 
 Sidonius lived on most friendly and affection- 
 ate terms. He had a son Apollinaris and two 
 daughters, Roscia and Severiana. A letter is 
 extant, addressed to Apollinaris when almost 
 16 years old, commending his blameless 
 behaviour, and warning him against the bad 
 example and vicious society of some profli- 
 gates at Lyons, where he was studying (Ep. 
 iii. 13). There is also a letter to Agricola, 
 mingling tender feeling with quiet humour, 
 excusing himself from joining a fishing excur- 
 sion as his daughter Severiana was alarmingly 
 ill, on whose behalf, aswell as his own, he begs 
 Agricola's prayers. He expresses his firm 
 trust in Christ as his best support {Ep. ii. 12). 
 On the death of Maximus, Avitus was pro- 
 claimed emperor at Toulouse and at Beau- 
 caire, a.d. 455, and was followed to Rome by 
 his son-in-law, who pronounced on him a 
 panegyric poem of 602 hexameter lines on 
 Jan. I, 456 {Carm. vii. 369-404, 510-572), and 
 as a reward received the honour of a brazen 
 statue in the basilica of Trajan, in a space 
 between the two libraries. The reign of 
 Avitus ended in 456. Majorian, who became 
 emperor, crossed the Alps, defeated the 
 Burgimdian invaders, captiured Lyons, impos- 
 ing hard conditions and heavy taxes on the 
 citizens, which he was induced to remit (Mar. 
 459) by ^ florid panegyric in 603 hexameters 
 pronounced by Sidonius and some elegiac 
 verses addressed to him and to his principal 
 secretary Peter, a man ambitious of literary 
 renown, whom Sidonius calls his Maecenas. 
 Sidonius obtained also, perhaps somewhat 
 later, the office of count of the Palace {Ep. i. 
 II ; Carm. iii. iv. v. xiii.). In 460, when the 
 emperor was holding his court at Aries, and 
 had gathered round him the most eminent 
 literary men of Gaul, Domnulus, Lampridius, 
 and Severianus, Sidonius distinguished him- 
 self by an improvised poem in praise of a book 
 by secretary Peter. From 461 to 465 Sido- 
 nius appears to have lived in retirement from 
 public business, but fulfilling his part as a 
 great landed proprietor at Avitacum of a 
 possession into which he came in right of his 
 wife on the death of Avitus, and which he 
 describes enthusiastically, in a letter written 
 in the style of Pliny to his friend Domitius. 
 His description of the house and grounds is 
 
 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 
 
 very pleasing and picturesque, its trees and 
 underwood, its lake, fountains, and cascade. 
 
 Several letters to friends belong to this 
 period, especially one to Eriphius, a citizen 
 of Lyons, perhaps a.d. 461, describing a 
 church gathering in commemoration of St. 
 Justus at Lyons on Sept. 2, the procession 
 before daybreak, the large congregation of 
 both sexes, the psalms sung antiphonally by 
 monks and clerks, the Eucharistic celebration, 
 the great heat caused by the crowd and the 
 number of lights, cooled after a time by the 
 autumnal morning. 
 
 When Anthemius became emperor, a.d. 
 467, he sent for Sidonius to Rome, on business 
 which the people of Auvergne deputed him to 
 manage on their behalf. Under the favour of 
 Christ, as he says, he undertook the mission, 
 his expenses being provided by the imperial 
 treasury. At Rome he stayed at the house 
 of Paulus, a man of prefectorian rank, possess- 
 ing literary and scientific ability, who per- 
 suaded him, as likely to promote his own 
 interests, to celebrate the inauguration of 
 Anthemius the new consul by a ptoem. The 
 result was a panegyric in 548 hexameters. 
 This was rewarded by the high office of prefect 
 of the senate and of the city of Rome, of which 
 he writes in a tone of gratified ambition to 
 Philimatius. He remained at Rome until 469, 
 and then retired to Gaul, residing partly at 
 Lyons and partly at Avitacum. Towards the 
 end of that year or the beginning of 470, the 
 province of Lugdunensis I. was surrendered 
 by Anthemius to the Burgundians as the price 
 of their assistance against the Visigoths 
 (Tillem. Emp. vi. p. 357). These barbarians 
 Sidonius describes as less ferocious than other 
 German races, but complains of their perverse 
 ways, revolting and odious to those over 
 whom they domineered. Of their ruler 
 (tetrarches) Chilperic II., and his wife Agrip- 
 pina, he speaks more favourably {Ep. v. 7 ; 
 Carm. xii.). About this time a new church 
 was erected at Lyons through the exertions 
 of bp. Patiens, for whom Sidonius had the 
 most affectionate reverence. He was present 
 at the dedication, which he describes in hen- 
 decasyllables {Ep. ii. 10). At the request of 
 bp. Perpetuus he wrote an elegiac inscription 
 for the church of St. Martin at Tours, which 
 Perpetuus had enlarged {Ep. iv. 18). 
 
 Second Period, 471-475.— Threatened by 
 invasion and surrounded by enemies political 
 and religious (for Euric, the Visigothic king, 
 whose capital was Toulouse, was a zealous 
 supporter of Arian doctrine and persecuted 
 the Catholics with great severity), the people of 
 Clermont, when their bishop, Eparchius, died, 
 A.D. 471, united in a clamorous demand that 
 Sidonius should succeed him. He was not in 
 holy orders, but had shewn himself without 
 ostentation a devout Christian, though a 
 somewhat flexible and elastic politician. His 
 ability was beyond question ; as a man of 
 letters he stood in the foremost rank ; he held 
 a high place, probably the highest, among the 
 landed proprietors of his province, whose 
 interests he was firm and patriotic in uphold- 
 ing, and had taken an active part more than 
 once on behalf of its inhabitants, in which also 
 he had been ably and zealously supported by 
 his friends, of whom, both in military and civil 
 
SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 
 
 affairs. Ecdicius, his wife's brotlu-r, held the 
 chief place in the district (CircK. Tur. ii. 21). 
 Fully aware of his own deticiencies, he accepted 
 the office unwillingly, begging his friends, 
 among them Fonteius bp. of Vaison, Euphro- 
 nius bp. of Autun. I^ontius bp. of Aries, and 
 Lupus bp. of Troyes. who wrote to congratu- 
 late him on his appointment, to pray for him 
 {Epf>. V. 3 ; vi. I. 3. 7 ; vii. 8, 9 ; ix. 2). From 
 this time he gave up writing vers»»s of a light 
 kind, as ill-suited to his time of life and the 
 gravity of his otVice (Ef>. ix. 12). Hut at his 
 friends' requests he criticized compositions and 
 wrote hymns in honour of m.irtyrs. With his 
 wife Papianilla, though there is no doubt of 
 his undiminished alTection for her, he prob- 
 ably, as is assumed by Sirmond, Tillcmont, 
 and others, lived on terms not of connubial 
 but of fraternal intimacy ; no evidence of this 
 appears from his own writings. That they 
 continued to live together is plain from the 
 story told by Gregory of Tours, that she found 
 fault with liim for parting with his plate to 
 give to the poor (Greg. Tur. ii. 22). He be- 
 came a diligent student of Scripture, though 
 disclaiming earnestly any ability as a commen- 
 tator, and also of ecclesiastical writers, as 
 Augustine, Jerome, Origen, etc. (Epp. viii. 
 4 ; ix. 2). 
 
 From 471 until 474, when .Auvergne was 
 first attacked formally by the Visigoth, it is 
 not easy to fix accurately all the dates of 
 events or of letters. 
 
 After he came to the throne of Toulouse in 
 466 Euric lost no opportunity of increasing 
 his dominions by aggression upon the Roman. 
 During 473, or early in 474, the province of 
 Berry fell to him, and he took advantage of 
 the weakness of the Roman empire after the 
 death of Anthemius to extend his dominion 
 towards the Rhone and the Loire ; Auvergne 
 being now the only province remaining to the 
 Romans W. of the Rhone and in constant 
 danger of invasion. No form.il attack, how- 
 ever, took place until the autuimi of 474. At 
 some time in 474, as it seems, Avitus, brother- 
 in-law of Sidonius, endowed the see of Cler- 
 mont with a farm called Cuticiacum (Cunhiae), 
 not far from the city, and in the letter men- 
 tioning this Sidonius speaks also of the 
 threatened invasion and of his confidence in 
 Avitus in case of negotiation (fc>. iii. i). 
 Meanwhile, as the autumn advanced, the 
 Visigoths entered the territory of .Auvergne, 
 and communication with distant places 
 became more dilficult. In preparations to 
 resist the enemy Sidonius acted as a leader of 
 the people, and was greatly assi>ted by hi^ 
 brother-in-law Ecdicius, who with a handful of 
 cavalry attacked and defeated a large force 
 of the enemy. They retired at the endof 474 or 
 beginning of 475, but not so completely as 
 to remove the apprehension of future attack 
 or the necessity for watch to be kept on the 
 walls during the snowy days and dark nights 
 of winter (Ep. iii. 7)- A brief truce with the 
 Visigothic king appears to have been arranged 
 earlv in 475, perhaps through the agency 
 of Epiphanius, bp. of I'avia. During this 
 temporary cessation of hostilities a report 
 became current that Euric had invaded the 
 Roman territory of Auvergne. and Sidonius 
 summoned his people to join in acts of fasting 
 
 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS SM 
 
 and pr.iver rondurtp.l like the KiiRation* 
 instituted, or rather rcvivp<l and reorKAnucd, 
 some years previously by .Maiuprtut, bp. oj 
 Vienne, and of which, in a letter to hiin, he 
 recounts the history. He alto \trg* the 
 prayers of the bishop and his tlock (or the 
 people of .\uvergne. and as a rUim upon their 
 attentiim mentions the transfer to virnnr at 
 some previous time of the rem.iins of Frrrcoliu 
 and the head of Julian, both of them inartyrt 
 and natives of .Auvergne. He also wrote to 
 his friend .Aper. entreating him as a riti/en of 
 Clermont to le.ivc his warm baths at .\quae 
 Calidac and come to t lerimmt to take part in 
 the solemn service {Epp. v. 14; vii. i ; (ircg. 
 Tur. Hist. Er. ii. 11, Jt Mtriu. 11. i, i, "Roga- 
 tion Days," D. C. A. vol. ii. p. 1H09 ; Uaron. 
 ann. 475, xii.-xxi. ; Tillem. vol. xvi. pp. 247, 
 1 24S). No actual invasiun of Auvergne ap- 
 pears to have i>ccurred, and negotiations, in 
 which bps. Basilius of .\ix, Faustus of Kiel, 
 (iraecus of .Marseilles, and Leontius of ,\rles, 
 ' were among the acting couns<-llors, ultimately 
 ! resulted in the surrender of Auvergne to the 
 Visigoths. It was probablv during thrs« 
 
 negotiations that Euric, a zealous partisan of 
 the .-Vrian heresy, whose hostility in this 
 ! direction. Sidonius says, he feared more thaa 
 1 his attacks on Roman fortifications, deprived 
 ! of their sees, and in many cases put to death 
 or banisheiL many bishops in the regions 
 i subject to him. allowing no successors to be 
 I appointed. Churches were overthrown, their 
 j sites overrun by animals. Christian discipline 
 destroyed ; and writing to Kasilius, Sidonius 
 I implores him. as in touch with the political 
 ' negotiators, to obtain permission for the 
 ( exercise of episcopal ordination (Ep. vii. 6). 
 The surrender of Auvergne. marking as it 
 did the utter prostratif>n of Roman inmience, 
 was a heavy blow to Sidonius, and he wTote 
 to (Iraecus, bp. of .Marseilles, recounting the 
 1 unswerving loy.iltv of the Auvergnians and 
 their sutferiiik's during the siege, and invcigh- 
 ■ ing bitterly against the selfish policy which, 
 to secure for a time only the districts in which 
 the negotiators were interested, had handed 
 over the faithful province of Auvergne (oc 
 punishment to the enemy. The remonstrance 
 was fruitless, and Auvergne passed to the 
 Visigoth. It was placed under a governor 
 named Victorius, with the title of Count, who 
 appears at first to have behaved with real or 
 affected moderation (Greg. Tur. Iltst. Er. it. 
 20 ; Sid. Ep. vii. 17 ; Chaix. li. 2>>o). 
 
 Third PrrioJ. A.n. 475-4«<>.— Sidonius wm 
 soon banished for a time to a fort named I.ivia, 
 probably Capendu. about ten miles from 
 Carcassonne on the road to Narbonnc {Et>p. 
 viii. 3 ; ix. 3 ; Vaissette. //•»/. d* iMHgufJoc, 
 V. vol. i. p. 501). S«ime of the inconveniences 
 he suffered there arc descril>rd in his Icttrrt 
 to Faustus. bi). of Kiez. and to a friend, l.e-i, 
 a native of .Narlxmnc and -f K"t!nn urigio, 
 but filling a high olficr u ' ' They 
 
 consisted chirrty in the .. . d by 
 
 his luighliours, two qii.iii ■'■n old 
 
 (lOthic w.iinrn {hp. vili. ,, .►.;* I et)'» 
 
 infiuence he s<m)Ii Dbtainrd release from con- 
 finement, but his return to Clernumt was 
 delayed by an enforced sojourn at liurdeaui, 
 whither he went to seek from Euric authority 
 for recovering the inberitaiicc belungin| to 
 
900 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS 
 
 him in right of his mother-in-law. Two 
 months passed before Euric would grant him 
 an interview, nor do we know its result. 
 
 In no letter does he speak of opposition or 
 personal ill-treatment, and the tone of his 
 later letters is cheerful, and he appears from 
 the last of them to have met with no hindrance 
 in his episcopal duties except from weather. 
 Gregory of Tours relates that, in the later 
 years of his life, he was much annoyed by two 
 priests, probably of Arian opinions, whose 
 names he does not mention, but said by 
 Chaix, though without citing any authority, 
 to have been Honorius and Hermanchius. 
 These men, Gregory says, succeeded in pre- 
 venting him exercising his episcopal functions 
 and even in reducing him to extreme poverty ; 
 but after the death of Honorius he was restored 
 to his office, and being attacked by fever, 
 desired to be carried into the church of St. 
 Mary, and there, after speaking words of love 
 to his people, and pointing out Aprunculus, 
 bp. of Langres, as fit to be his successor, he 
 died, though not, apparently, in the church, 
 Aug. 489. He was buried in the chapel of 
 St. Saturninus, in the centre of Clermont, 
 beside his predecessor Eparchius, and an 
 epitaph in hendecasyllabic verse by an un- 
 known author was placed near his tomb with 
 the date, " xii. Kal. Sept. Zenoneimperatore." 
 This has disappeared, but a copy is preserved 
 in a MS. of the abbey of Cluny. 
 
 A gentleman of easy fortune living in the 
 country, Sidonius entered eagerly into its 
 employments and active amusements, but was 
 also keenly sensible of the more refined and 
 tranquil pleasures derived from natural 
 objects. He exerted without scruple a lordly 
 influence over his own dependants in the 
 province, sometimes in a high-handed and 
 peremptory manner, but usually with kindness 
 and consideration. Affectionate and con- 
 stant to his friends, he loved to give and 
 receive hospitality, and some of his most 
 agreeable letters describe such social gather- 
 ings. His eulogies were poured forth without 
 stint or discrimination, alike on Avitus, 
 Majorian, and Anthemius, and even Nepos 
 did not fail to obtain a small share. He has 
 compliments at fitting seasons, direct or 
 indirect, for Euric and his wife. A poet 
 laureate by nature, he must be regarded as a 
 pliant politician, but he never forgot his duty 
 as a patriotic citizen. Faithful to his country- 
 men, whether by birth as of Lyons, or of 
 adoption as in Auvergne, he never failed to 
 plead their cause, uphold their interests, 
 denounce their oppressors, and stand by them 
 against injustice or hostile invasion, nor need 
 we wonder that his memory should be revered 
 by them as that of a saint. Invested against 
 his will, and without previous preparation, 
 with the episcopate, he laboured hard to repair 
 the deficiencies of which he was conscious. 
 He shrank from no duty, personal trouble, or 
 responsibility, and in times of extreme diffi- 
 culty shewed courage, prudence, and discre- 
 tion. His character and abilities commanded 
 the respect and cordial affection of the best 
 men of his time, as Basilius, Felix, Graecus, 
 Lupus, Patiens, Principius, Remigius, as well 
 as Leo and Arbogastes, and many others ; and 
 though he did not shrink from remonstrating 
 
 SIOEBERT I. 
 
 gravely and even bitterly with some of them, 
 especially Graecus, he does not appear to have 
 forfeited their esteem and affection. A man 
 of kindly disposition, he treated his slaves with 
 kindness and took pains to induce others to 
 do likewise. He was friendly to Jews, em- 
 ployed them, and recommended them to the 
 good offices of his friends. 
 
 Literary Character. — Though he shewed him- 
 self a sincere and devout Christian, both before 
 and after he became bishop, it is as a man of 
 letters that he will always be best known, for, 
 as it has been observed, his writings are the 
 best-furnished storehouse we possess of infor- 
 mation as to the domestic life, the manners and 
 habits of public men, and in some points the 
 public events of his period. Gifted with a 
 fatal facility of composition, his longer poems 
 are remarkable more for adroit handling of 
 unpoetical material than for poetry in its true 
 sense, and deserve to a great extent the con- 
 temptuous judgment of Gibbon. Yet some 
 of the shorter compositions, especially those 
 in hendecasyllabic metre, are more successful, 
 and touch scenes and characters with a light 
 and discerning hand. His letters, though 
 often turgid and pedantic, defaced by an 
 artificial phraseology and abounding in 
 passages of great obscurity, often describe 
 persons, objects, and transactions in a very 
 lively and picturesque manner. 
 
 The ed. of his works by M. Eugene Baret 
 (Paris, 1879) has an extremely valuable intro- 
 duction, containing remarks on the times and 
 state of society, and lists of grammatical 
 forms, words, and phrases used by Sidonius, 
 illustrating the transition state of the Latin 
 language, and some peculiar to himself ; also 
 an attempt to settle the chronology of the 
 letters, a task of great difficulty. The best ed. 
 is by Liitjohann, in Monum. Germ. Hist. Auct. 
 Antiquiss. {^tvMn, 1887), viii., and a smaller ed. 
 is by P. Mohr (Leipz. 1895). [h.w.p.] 
 
 Sigebert (1) I., king of the Austrasian 
 Franks (561-575), son of Clotaire I. by In- 
 gundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, iv. i). Scarcely 
 had the four brothers buried their father 
 at Soissons when Chilperic the youngest 
 began the civil wars which desolated France. 
 Seizing the royal treasure at Braine, near 
 Soissons, and purchasing the support of the 
 Franks, he occupied Paris. His three half- 
 brothers leagued together and compelled him 
 to make a fair division. To Sigebert fell the 
 kingdom which had belonged to Theodoric I., 
 i.e. the country occupied by the Ripuarian 
 Franks and a part of Champagne, with Rheims 
 for his capital, which division was now begin- 
 ning to be known as Austrasia (Greg. Tur. iv. 
 21, 22 ; Hist. Epitom. Iv. ; Marius Aventic. 
 ann. 560). To Sigebert fell also, on the death 
 of Charibert I., as far as can be gathered from 
 later events (see Greg. Tur. ix. 20), a third share 
 of the city of Paris, the coast of Provence with 
 Avignon, theformerpossessionsof Theodoric I., 
 in Aquitaine, the N. part of Brie, Beauce, 
 Touraine, and Poitou (Richter, Annalen, 68; 
 Bonnell, Anfdnge des Karolmgischen Hauses, 
 Beilage, pp. 206 sqq. ; Fauriel, Hist, de la GauU 
 Merid. ii. 175-177). About this time he mar- 
 ried the famous Brunichild (Brunehaut), a 
 daughter of Athanagild, the Visigothic king 
 in Spain she having first renounced Arianism 
 
SIGISMUNDUS 
 
 for orthodoxy (lireg. Tur. i%'. 27 ; Vcnant. ' 
 Fort. vi. 2, 3, Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxxviii. 204- 
 209. For the character and accomplishments 
 of this queen, who in later life became almost 
 supreme in France, see aUc^ Fauriel.ii. i(>6sq(])- 
 The remainder of the reign was taken up with 
 miserable civil wars between the brothers, in 
 which Chilperic strove to capture parts of Sige- 
 bert's dominion : Tours and I'oictiers, with tluir 
 respective districts, being his principal object 
 of attack. Two years running (a.d. 574-575) 
 his armies overran those districts (Greg. Tur. 
 iv. 46. 48). On the second occasion Gregory, 
 after depicting the churches burnt and 
 plundered, clergy killed, monasteries in ruins, 
 and nuns outraged, uses these memorable 
 words : " fuitque illo in tempore pejor in 
 ecclesiis gemitus quam tempore persecutionis 
 Diocletiani " (iv. 48. See too his outburst 
 of indignation in c. 49). Sigebert recruited 
 his forces with pagan Germans from beyond 
 the Rhine (iv. 50, 51), and finally in 575, with 
 the assistance of Guntram. carried his arms 
 to Paris and Rouen, and while Chilperic w.is 
 shut up in Tournay. was raised by his subjects 
 on the shield and declared king in his place. 
 At that very moment, however, he was struck 
 down by assassins, probably emissaries of 
 Fredegund (Greg. Tur. iv. 52 ; Marius Avcnt. 
 Chronicon. ; Venant. Fort. Miscell. ix. 2, [ 
 Migne, u.s. 298 sqq.). He left a son of five 
 years, Childebert II. ' 
 
 Sigebert was much the best of the sons of 
 Clotaire. In happier circumstances he might 
 have been a humane and enlightened king, 
 but his misfortune was to reign at perhaps the 
 darkest period of French history. His clem- 
 ency towards Chilperic's son Theodebert, who 
 had invaded his territory (Greg. Tur. iv. 23). 
 his motives in seeking Brunichild's hand in 
 marriage, as described by Gregory (iv. 27). and 
 his intrepid attempts to restrain his barbarian 
 trans-Rhenish allies from plundering (iv. 30), 
 throw light upon his character. He was true 
 to the orthodoxy of his race (iv. 27), and 
 recalled St. Xiceiius of Treves from exile and 
 appointed Gregory to Tours. [s.a.h.] 
 
 Sigismundus, St., martyr, 5th king of the 
 Burgundians (516-524), brought up under the 
 influence of Avitus, the orthodox archbp. of 
 Vieane, who succeeded in winning him, with 
 two of his children, from the Arianism of his 
 nation and family (.\vitus, Epp. 27. 29, 
 Migne, Patr. Lat. lix. 243, 246 ; .Agob-irdus, 
 adv. Leg. Gund. xiii. Patr. Lat. civ. 124), and 
 sought to lead his inclinations towards the 
 Roman empire (see Mascou, Annotation ii., 
 where the passages are collected, and Fauriel. 
 Hxst. de la GauU Merid. ii. 100). He married 
 Ostrogotha, the daughter of Theodoric the 
 Ostrogothic king of Italy (Jornandcs in 
 Bouquet, ii. 28). While his father was still 
 living, Sigismund was invested with regal 
 dignity and held his court at Geneva (Avit. 
 Epp. 29, 30 ; (ireg. Tur. Epitom. xxxiv.). In 
 
 515 he founded or (Hist. litt. de la Erance. iii. 
 89, 91) refounded the monastery of St. Maurice 
 at Agaunum, where tradition placed the 
 martvTdoin of the Legio Thcbaea (.Marius 
 Avent. Chronicon. Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 7')f>)- '" 
 
 516 he succeeded his father (Marius, tb.), and 
 in 517 convened a council, under the pre- 
 sidency of Avitus, at Epaunum (supposed to 
 
 SILVANUS 
 
 001 
 
 be the prevnt Irnc on the Kli.me . " Fpjoii." 
 l). C. .i. ■ /^^^ htl. III. .,). If the rxirnt ol 
 his dominion m.iy be infrrrr«l from the ve« 
 of the bishi»ps present, Hurgundy then in- 
 cluded, besides the later durhy and county, 
 Dauphinv and Savov, the rilv and dominion 
 of Lyons and the Val.iis. besidei .» part of th« 
 present Switzerland (M.isroii, xi. 10. \t). In 
 523 CImlomir, llot.urr, and ( hilclrlxrt, three 
 of the four sons of tlovis. stirred up bv their 
 mother the widowed (lotil.la, invaded Huf' 
 gundy. Sigismund was drfraird and flrd to 
 St. Maurice, where he was Iwlravrd bv hi« 
 own subjects to CI'Mloinir and carrir<l privmer 
 in the garb of a m.mk to Orleans. Shortly 
 afterwards, with his wife and two children, 
 he was murdered at the neighliouring villaKC 
 of Coulmiers, bv being cast alive, as was saul, 
 into a well (Marius. 16. ; Greg. Tur. iii. 6). 
 His brother, Godemar, succeeded hiin as 6lh 
 and last king of the Burgundians. 
 
 Sigismund was well-intentioned but weak. 
 He apparently yielded t>)o much to the influ- 
 ence of Roman ideas and habits for the kinfc 
 of a barb.irian people, neighboured on one side 
 by the powerful Ostrogothic monarchy and 
 on others by the ftercelv aggri-ssive Franks. 
 His partisanship for the orthiKlox faith, while 
 it harmed him with his subjects, was not 
 thorough-going enough to win the clergy from 
 their leaning towards the Franks (see Pauriel, 
 ii. 100 sqq.). (S.A.B.] 
 
 Silvanla. [Svivia.] 
 
 Silvanus (2), bp. of Ga/.a, a mart\T in the 
 piTstrutii>n of Maximin. c. 305. He was a 
 presbyter at its outbreak, and from the very 
 i)eginning he endured many varied suffering* 
 with the greatest fortitude. Not long l>efore 
 his martyrdom, which w.is one of the last in 
 Palestine, he obtained the episcopate. Fuse- 
 bius speaks with high admiration of his Chris- 
 tian endurance, saying that he was " reserved 
 to the last to set the seal, as it were, to the 
 conflict in Palestine " (Fus. //. E. viii. 7. lih 
 He was decapitated, according to the Roman 
 martyrologv, on Mav 4. 308. Theoph. p. 9; 
 I.e Ouien. Or. Christ, iii. 605. [f..v.) 
 
 Silvanus (3), bp. of Emesa. In extreme old 
 age, after 40 years' episcopate, he was thrown 
 to the wild beasts in Diocletian's persecution. 
 Eus. H. E. viii. 13 : ix. 6 ; Theophan. p. 9 ; 
 Le Quien. Or. Chrnt. ii. 837. (r.v.I 
 
 Silvanus (4). bp. of Cirta. siibdr.icon un<ler 
 Paulus. bp. of that see during the i>ers«-cution 
 under Diocletian, and, as well as he. guilty «.f 
 " tradition." Thes<- (arts were elicitetl at the 
 inquiry under Zenophilus, a.k. 5:0. at which 
 it was pr«jved. by ample rvidrncr. that Sil- 
 vanus was guilty of this ch.irge. and also that 
 with others he had appropriated plate and 
 ornaments from the heathen temple i>f Sna- 
 pis; and after he l>ecamr a bishop received as 
 a briln; for ordaining Vict-.r, a fulkr. to W a 
 presbvter, monev which ought to have Xnt-n 
 given to the p.Mir. After the inquiry he was 
 banished for refusing to coinmuniralr with 
 I'rsacius and /mophilus, at the time of thr 
 mission of .Macarius. a.i«. 14«- Aug. /V/i/. i. 2 j. 
 
 . 69, 70 ; de (ieU. Emer. \ : c. Crete. Iii. JJ. 
 
 33. 34. iv. 66; de I'nuo liapl. 30- 3i: Au*- 
 EP- 53- 4 : 
 
 berthlir; pp. 107-17 . 
 
 Silvanns (6). hp- ol Tarsus and inetr<>(xj|it4n. 
 
 MoH. Vet. I), pp. 17". «»«. ««'. «i- 
 Oberthlir; pp. 167-171. ed. Dupin. [M.w.rl 
 
902 
 
 SILVANUS 
 
 one of the most excellent of those semi-Arians 
 whom Athanasius described as " brothers who 
 mean what we mean, and differ only about 
 the terms" (Ath. de Synod. 41). He suc- 
 ceeded Antonius in the reign of Constantius. 
 He was one of the 22 Oriental bishops who, at 
 the council of Sirmium, in 351, joined in the 
 deposition of Photinus (Hilar. Synod, p. 
 129 ; fragni. i. p. 48). On the deposition and 
 banishment of Cyril from Jerusalem, early in 
 358, Silvanus received him hospitably at 
 Tarsus, despite the remonstrances of Acacius 
 (Theod. H. E. ii. 22). That year he took part 
 in the semi-Arian council of Ancyra (Labbe, 
 ii. 790), and in 359 in that of Seleucia, at 
 which he vociferously advocated (v-iyo. dveKpaye) 
 the acceptance of the Lucianic dedication 
 creed of Antioch (Socr. H. E. ii. 39), the mere 
 mention of which made the Acacian party 
 leave the place of assembly as a protest. 
 Silvanus was among the semi-Arian leaders 
 who, first of the rival church parties, memori- 
 alized Julian on his arrival at Antioch after 
 becoming emperor, requesting him to expel 
 the Anomoeans and call a general council to 
 restore peace to the church, and declaring 
 their acceptance of the Nicene faith (Socr. 
 H. E. iii. 25). In 366 he was, with Eustathius 
 of Sebaste and Theophilus of Castabala, a 
 deputy to Liberius. He returned with the 
 letters of communion of Liberius and the 
 Roman synod (Basil. Ep. 67 [30]). His death 
 is placed by Tillemont in 373 (Mem. eccl. t. vi. 
 p. 502 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 872). [e.v.1 
 Silvanus (12), solitary of Sinai, a native of 
 Palestine. " He founded at Geraris near the 
 great torrent a very extensive establishment 
 for holy men, over which the excellent 
 Zachariah subsequently presided " (Soz. H. E. 
 vi. 32). He trained his followers to industrial 
 pursuits. A wandering ascetic seeing all the 
 brethren working very diligently said to them, 
 " Labour not for the meat which perisheth ; 
 Mary chose the better part." Silvanus over- 
 hearing this said, " Give a book to the brother 
 and lead him to an empty cell." When the 
 ninth hour came, no one came to call the 
 stranger to eat. At last, wearied and hungry, 
 he sought Silvanus, and said, " Father, the 
 brethren have not eaten to-day." " Oh yes," 
 replied the abbat, " they have eaten." " And 
 why," said the other, " did you not send 
 for me ? " " Because," responded Silvanus, 
 " thou art a spiritual man, and dost not re- 
 quire food; but we are carnal and wish to eat, 
 and therefore are compelled to work. Thou, 
 however, hast chosen the better part and con- 
 tinuest in study the whole day, nor art willing 
 to consume carnal food." The stranger con- 
 fessed his fault and was forgiven, Silvanus 
 playfully saying, " Martha is evidently 
 necessary to Mary." Cotelerius tells stories 
 of his prolonged trances. On one occasion 
 he awoke very sad because he had been in the 
 eternal world and seen many monks going to 
 hell and many secular persons to heaven 
 (Monument, t. i. p. 679). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Silvanus (14), first known bp. of Calahorra. 
 We know of him from 2 letters of Ascanius, 
 bp. of Tarragona, and the bishops of his pro- 
 vince to pope Hilary, and Hilary's reply dated 
 Dec. 30, 465 (in Migne, Pair. Lat. Iv'iii. 14). 
 The first letter shows that Silvanus had, 7 or 
 
 SILVERIUS 
 
 8 years before, consecrated a bishop without 
 any request from the places comprised in his 
 see or the approval of Ascanius. The other 
 bishops of the province were satisfied with ad- 
 monishing him, and received the new bishop ; 
 but the see in question being again vacant 
 Silvanus had lately repeated the act, with the 
 aggravation that the priest consecrated be- 
 longed to the diocese of another bishop, and 
 the other bishop at the instance of the bishops 
 of Saragossa having refused to join, Silvanus 
 had performed the consecration alone. In the 
 second letter the bishops express their surprise 
 at the pope's delay in answering. His reply 
 was remarkably favourable, in consequence 
 probably of letters from people of rank and 
 property at Calahorra, Tarazona, and neigh- 
 bouring towns, which alleged in excuse for 
 Silvanus that his were not the only irregulari- 
 ties, bishops having been consecrated for other 
 cities without the previous approval of the 
 metropolitan. The pope in consideration of 
 the troubled times granted an amnestv for 
 the past, while enjoining strict observance of 
 the canons for the future. As the first letter 
 was wTitten some time before Hilary's reply, 
 Silvanus probably became bp. c. 455. Esp. 
 Sag. xxxiii. 128 ; Gams, Kirchg. von Sp. ii. 
 (i) 430. [f-d.] 
 
 Silverius, bp. of Rome during the reign of 
 Justinian I. Agapetus having died at Con- 
 stantinople when about to return to Italy (on 
 April 22, according to Anastasius) in 536, 
 Liberatus tells us (Breviar.) that on the news 
 of his death reaching Rome, Silverius, a sub- 
 deacon and son of pope Hormisdas, was 
 elected and ordained, doubtless in the same 
 year. According to Anastasius (Lib. Pontif. 
 in Vit. Silverii) the election of Silverius was 
 forced upon the Romans by the Gothic 
 king Theodatus, who then held the city, 
 the presbyters assenting for the sake of 
 unity. Silverius did not long enjoy his 
 dignity. Belisarius, having got possession 
 of Naples, entered Rome in the name of 
 Justinian on Dec. 10, 536. Vitiges, the 
 successor of Theodatus, commenced a siege 
 of Rome, now in the possession of Belisarius, 
 in Mar. 537. Belisarius, after entering 
 Rome, is said in the Hist. Miscell (lib. 16 in 
 Muratori, t. i. pp. 106, 107) to have been 
 reproved and subjected to penance by Sil- 
 verius for cruel treatment of the Neapolitans; 
 whereas the contemporary historian Pro- 
 copius (Bell. Goth. lib. i.) commends the 
 peculiar humanity of Belisarius after the 
 capture of Naples. 
 
 Vigilius, one of the deacons of Agapetus at 
 Constantinople, had, on that pope's death 
 there, been sent for by the empress Theodora 
 and promised the popedom through the 
 agency of Belisarius on condition of his dis- 
 allowing, after his elevation, the council of 
 Chalcedon, and supporting the Monophysites 
 whom she favoured. Vigilius, on his arrival 
 in Italy, found Belisarius at Naples, to whom 
 he communicated the commands of Theodora 
 (Liberatus, Breviar.). Belisarius havinggained 
 possession of Rome, Vigilius followed him 
 there and measures were taken to carry out 
 the wishes of the empress. Accusations were 
 laid against Silverius of having been in com- 
 munication with the Goths who were besieging 
 
SILVESTER 
 
 Rome, and having writtrn to VitiRr-; oflorinR 
 to betray the city. Summoned before Heli- 
 sarius, with whom was his wife Aiitonina, who 
 was the spokeswoman and real aRCJit in these 
 proceeding's, he was charged with the crime, 
 and banished to Patara and then to C.reece. 
 The emperor, on hearing the facts, asserted 
 himself, ordering his recall to Konie and 
 investigation to be made. But the empress 
 succeeded somehow in keeping her husltand 
 quiet. For, on the arrival of Silverius at 
 Rome (as we are informed bv Liberatus), 
 Vigilius represented to Belisarius that he 
 could not do what was required of him unless 
 the deposed pope were delivered into his 
 bands. He was thereupon given up to two 
 dependants of Vigilius, under whose custody 
 he was sent to Palmaria in the T>Trhene sea 
 (or Pontia, according to Martyrol. Rom. and 
 Anastasius). where he died from famine, 
 according to Liberatus and .■Vnastasius. 
 Procopius (Hist. .Arcan.) speaks of one 
 Eugenius, a servant of Antonina, as having 
 been her instrument in bringing about his 
 death, the e.xpression used seeming to imply 
 a death by violence, .\llemann (note on 
 Hist. Arcan.) argues that the account of Pro- 
 copius. who was living at Rome at the time 
 and likely to know the facts, is preferable ; 
 and attributes the implication of Vigilius to 
 prejudice on the part of Liberatus. 
 
 Silverius died June 20 (xii. Kal. Jul. al. Jun. 
 Attastas.), most probably a.d. 538, his depo- 
 sition certainly occurring in 537. [j-b — v.| 
 
 Silvester (1), bp. of Rome after Miltiades, 
 Jan. 31, 314, to Dec. 31, 335. Though his 
 time was important in church history, we 
 have few genuine records of any personal 
 action of his, but a great store of legend. 
 
 In his first year of episcopate Constantine 
 the Great summoned the first council of .Aries 
 to reconsider the decision against the .African 
 Donatists of the synod held at Rome by his 
 order in 313 under pope Miltiades. At the 
 council of Aries Silvester was represented by 
 two presbyters, Claudianus and Vitus, and 
 two deacons, Eugenius and C>Tiacus, whose 
 names appear in his behalf fifth among the 
 signatures. Whoever presided, the general 
 conduct of the council seems to have been 
 committed by the emperor to Chrestus, bp. 
 of SvTacuse (see a letter to him from Constan- 
 tine preserved by P^usebius, H. E. x. s). 
 Certainly Silvester did not preside, nor did 
 any representative in his place. Constantine, 
 in making arrangements for the council, cvi- 
 dentlv takes no account of him, not even 
 mentioning him in writing to Chrestus. 
 
 There is indeed a letter of the bishops of 
 the Aries council to Silvester. It opens: 
 "To the most beloved pope Silvester," and 
 concludes in reference to the decrees: " \N e 
 have thought it fit also that they should be 
 especially made known to all through you. who 
 hold the f.reater dioceses." The phrase, " <|ui 
 majores dioceses tenes," with the consequent 
 desire expressed that the pope should promul- 
 gate the decrees, has been used in proof of the 
 pope's then acknowledged patriarchal juris- 
 diction over the great dioceses (1.*. exarch- 
 ates) of the western empire. For the word 
 SioU-nffii denoted the jurisdiction of a patri- 
 arch larger than that of metropolitans, the 
 
 SILVESTER 
 
 94>3 
 
 word for 4 diocrsr in the nvxipin \rn\r bring 
 projHurly wapoma. Hut it 1% highly im- 
 probable th.»t diocf^e wa* uv^l rccJrM4\llC- 
 ally in thi< srnse m» p.irlv at JI4. Ilrnro 
 Bingham c<>iitpndp<l {.ini. ix. i. 11, and 11. j) 
 that if the paHS,»gr. " bv all 4ckti'i-.v|f-,1-rt| lo 
 b« a very corrupt one, " l>e 4cr> • " 
 must be taken in the '^iwr i 
 expressed bv waixxKla ; and li' 
 stances of Its Use in this srlis.- m ( 11 .11. .( 
 
 Carthaginian counnls. Hut jTolialilv th»» 
 whole epistle (nolr it* grnrr.il .uiarhronistn o( 
 tone) is a forgery intrndr<l to magnify th* 
 Roman see. 
 
 To the more memorable cmncil of Nicaea 
 in 3iS Silvester wa» invited, but excuMOK 
 himself on account of age, sent two prr^bvtrr*. 
 Vitus and Vincentius, as hii rrprrsrtitativc* 
 (Eus. V.C. iii. 7; S<»cr. //. f. i. 14: So/». 
 H.E.i.17 ; Theod. //. F. 1. 6). The view that 
 thev presided in his name, or that Us B.uonint 
 maintains) Hosirs of Cordova did v>. i^ with- 
 out foundation. In the subscription* to the 
 decrees Hosius signs first, but simply as bp. 
 of Cordova, not as in any way rpprrsentiiic 
 Rome ; after which come those of Vitus and 
 Vincentius, who sign " pro venerabili viro 
 papa et episcopo nostro, sancto Sylvestro, ita 
 credentes sicut scriptum est." The r.irli«>*t 
 and inde<'d only authority for Hosius havinn 
 presided in the poi)c"s name is that of ("irlasiu* 
 of Cvzicus (end of 5th cent.), who sav* only 
 that Hosius from Spain, "qui Silvestri epiv 
 copi maximac Komac locum obtinebat," 
 together with the Roman presbyters Bito and 
 Vincentius, was present (Gelas. Hist. Coii^tl. 
 Nic. I. ii. c. <i, in Labbe. vol. li. p. i6i). 
 Equally groundless is the allegation first mada 
 by the 6th oecumenical council (')8o), that Sil- 
 vester in concert with the cm|)eror summoned 
 the Nicene fathers. The gradual growth of 
 this idea appears in the pontifical .vinals. 
 The catalogue of popes called the Felicjan 
 (A.D. 530) says only that the synml was held 
 with his consent ("cum consensu ejus"); 
 some later .MSS. improve this phrase into 
 " cum praecepto ejus." It is evident from all 
 authentic documents that the synod of Nicaea. 
 as that of Aries, was oMivenrd by the vile 
 authority of the emperor, and that no peru- 
 liarly prominent p<»sition was accorded to the 
 pope in either rase. 
 
 But thf most memorable fable alvnit Sil- 
 vester is that of the baptism of Constantino 
 bv him. and the celebrated " Donation." It 
 is, though variously related, mainly a* follow* : 
 The emperor, having Iw-fore hi» convrr»ii« 
 authorized cruel i>ersecution of th-- rhri^ti ms 
 W.1S smitten with leprmy bv diM ' • 
 
 He w.as advis<-d to use a bath of I 
 
 for cure. .\ great multitude . : 
 accordingly collecte«l for OauKlit" . <""■ '■"- 
 emperor, moved by their c^le^ and Uwse o| 
 their mothers, desisted from hi* puriH.«-. 
 He was thereupon visits.! ••• •<<-■'■■' m in. i.v 
 SS. Peter and Paul, and ' 
 
 recall Silvester from his • 
 
 w<iuld shew him a po*!! !■ ; ' 
 
 he would I)c hcale<l. He rctallc.l ilic ;■••;>€ 
 was instructed by him in the faith, cured ol 
 his leprosy, and baptlre<l. Moved bv Rrati- 
 tudc. he made over to the pope and hl» *uc- 
 cessors the temporal domlDit»n ol Rome, ol the 
 
904 
 
 SILVIA 
 
 greatest part of Italy, and of other provinces, 
 thinking it unfit that the place where the 
 monarch of the whole church and the vicar of 
 Christ resided should be subject to earthly 
 sway. (See Lib. Pontif. in Vit. Sylvestri, and 
 the Lections in Fest. S. Sylvestri in the Bre- 
 viaries of the various uses). The earliest 
 known authority for the whole story appears 
 to be the Acta Sylvestri (see below). 
 
 The attribution of Constantine's conversion 
 and baptism to Silvester is as legendary as 
 the rest. His profession and patronage of 
 Christianity were anterior to the time spoken 
 of, and he was not actually baptized till long 
 afterwards, at the close of his life. There is 
 abundant testimony that he did not seek 
 baptism, or even imposition of hands as a 
 catechumen, till in a suburb of Nicomedia, 
 as death drew near, he received both from 
 Eusebius, the Arian bishop of that see. (Eus. 
 V. C. iv. 6i, 62; Theod. i. 32 ; Soz. ii. 34, iv. 
 18 ; Socr. i. 39 ; Phot. Cod. 127 ; Ambrose, 
 Serm. de obit. Theodos. ; Hieron. Chron. an. 
 2353 ; Council of Rimini.) 
 
 The Acta S. Sylvestri, which seem to have 
 furnished the materials for most of the le- 
 gends — including the banishment to Soracte, 
 the leprosy of Constantine, his lustration by 
 Silvester, and his Donation — are mentioned 
 and approved as genuine in the Decretum de 
 Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis, common- 
 ly attributed to pope Gelasius (492-496), but 
 probably of a later date. They are quoted 
 in the 8th cent, by pope Hadrian in a letter to 
 Charlemagne, where the Donation is alluded 
 to, and in another to the empress Irene and 
 her son Constantine on the occasion of the 2nd 
 Nicene council in 787. The original Acts 
 have not been preserved. The extant edi- 
 tions of them, given in Latin by Surius {Acta 
 SS. Dec. p. 368), and in Greek by Combefis 
 {Act. p. 258), purport to be only compilations 
 from an earlier document. 
 
 Silvester died on Dec. 31, 335, and was 
 buried in the cemetery of St. Priscilla. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Silvia. [GORDIANUS (7).] 
 
 Simeon (l), 2nd bp. of Jerusalem, succeed- 
 ing James, the Lord's brother. According 
 to the statement of Hegesippus preserved by 
 Eusebius, Simeon was the son of Clopas 
 "mentioned in Holy Scripture" (John xix. 
 25), the brother of Joseph, and therefore, 
 legally, the uncle of our Lord, while Simeon 
 himself — 6 iK rod delov rod Kvpiov — was, leg- 
 ally, his cousin, 6vTa a.ve\pdiv rod Kvplov, and 
 of the roj'al line of David (Eus. H. E. iii. 11, 
 32 ; iv. 22). The language of Hegesippus 
 {H. E. iv. 82) evidently distinguishes between 
 the relationship of James and Simeon to our 
 Lord. Dr. ^Iill, however, follows Burton 
 {H. E. i. 290) in regarding Simeon as a brother 
 of James and also of Jude, though perhaps by 
 another mother (Mill, Pantheistic Principles, 
 pp. 234, 253). Such an interpretation of 
 Hegesippus's language is very unnatural and 
 at variance with the statement of Epiphanius 
 that Simeon was the cousin — avi^ptds — of 
 James the Just (Epiph. Haer. Ixxvii. c. 14, 
 p. 1046 ; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 262). 
 Bp. Lightfoot regards his age as "an ex- 
 aggeration," and suggests that his being " a 
 son of Cleopas mentioned in the Evangelical 
 records " requires us to place his death earlier 
 
 SIMEON STYLITES 
 
 than the generally received date. According 
 to Hegesippus, Simeon was unanimously 
 chosen to fill the vacant see of Jerusalem on 
 the violent death of James the Just, the date 
 usually assigned for which being 62 or 63 
 (see jbsephus. Ant. xx. 9. i). Whether the 
 appointment of Simeon immediately succeed- 
 ed or was not made till the retirement of 
 the Christian Jews to Pella cannot be deter- 
 mined. The former seems rather more prob- 
 able. His retreat at Pella would save him 
 from the inquisition after descendants of the 
 royal line of David, made by Vespasian, 
 according to Eusebius {H. E. iii. 12), as well 
 as the later inquiry instituted by Domitian 
 {ib. 19, 20). He must have returned with the 
 Christians to Jerusalem when allowed to do 
 so by the Roman authorities. Of his epis- 
 copate we know nothing. He was martyred 
 in the reign of Trajan (iyrl Tpaiavov ; Eus. 
 H. E. iii. 32), but the exact date is uncertain. 
 By a misinterpretation of the Chronicon of 
 Eusebius, which seemed to assign his martyr- 
 dom with that of Ignatius to the 9th or loth 
 year of Trajan, Simeon's death has been 
 assigned to 107 or 108. Bp. Lightfoot has 
 shewn good reason for placing it earlier in 
 Trajan's reign (Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. 21, 58- 
 60, ii. 442-450). Hegesippus says that in 
 his i2ist year Simeon was accused before 
 Atticus, then proconsul, by certain Jewish 
 sectaries, first, that being of the line of David, 
 he was a possible claimant of the throne of his 
 royal ancestor, and secondly that he was a 
 Christian. He was tortured for many days 
 in succession, and bore his sufferings with a 
 firmness which astonished all the beholders, 
 especially Atticus himself, who marvelled at 
 such endurance in one so advanced in age. 
 Finally he was ordered to be crucified (Eus. 
 H. E. iii. 32). [E.V.] 
 
 Simeon (12) Stylites, a.d. 388-460. Simeon 
 was, according to Theodoret, originally an 
 enclosed anchorite, and raised his cell to 
 avoid the honours paid to him (cf. Reeves on 
 church of St. Doulough, pp. 8-1 1, with Evagr. 
 H. E. i. 21). The fashion rapidly spread even 
 to the sects, as we learn from Joannes Moschus 
 {Prat. Spirit, cxxix. ; cf. Ccill. xi. 701) that 
 the 6th-cent. Monophysites had pillar saints. 
 Sometimes both parties had opposition Sty- 
 lites in the same district. Evagrius tells us 
 that Simeon's pillar was only three feet in 
 circumference at the top, which would barely 
 afford standing ground. Assemani has de- 
 picted Simeon's column in his Life of the saint 
 with a railing or kind of wooden pulpit at the 
 summit. Some such structure must have 
 been there, not only to prevent his fall, but 
 also for him to write the epistles he sent 
 broadcast to emperors, bishops, and councils 
 on all pressing questions. He was born at 
 Sisan, a village on the borders of Cilicia and 
 S>Tia, and when about 16 embraced the 
 monastic life. From 413 to 423 Simeon dwelt 
 in an enclosed cell near Antioch, where his 
 austerities speedily attracted a number of 
 followers, who formed a society called the 
 Mandra. In 423 he built a low pillar, which 
 he gradually raised, till in 430 it was 40 cubits 
 high ; there, with his neck manacled by an 
 iron collar, he spent his last 30 years of life 
 engaged in perpetual adoration, save when 
 
SIMON MAGUS 
 
 he was bestowing advice about mundane ' 
 matters. His extraorilinarv life made a great 
 impression ; large luimbiTs o( Arabians. 
 Armenians, and other pagans were converted 
 by him, while emperors, bistiops, and pilCTims 
 from distant lands, even Spain and Hrit.iin, 
 consulted him most reverently. .\n object 
 of deepest reverence all through life, at the 
 news of his approaching death great crowds 
 assembled (July 450) round his pill.ir t<> 
 receive his last woids. On .\ug. 20 he was 
 seized with a mortal illness, and died Sept 2, 
 459. His body was transported with great 
 pomp to .\ntioch, attended by bishops and 
 clergy, and guarded by the troops under 
 Ardabryius, commander of the forces of the 
 East. The emperor Leo sent letters to the 
 bp. of Antioch demanding it to be brought 
 to Constantinople. The people of Antioch 
 piteously leminded Leo, " Forasmuch as our 1 
 city is without walls, for we have been visited 
 in wrath by their fall, we brought hither the 
 sacred body to be our wall and bulwark," and 
 were permitted to retain it; but this did not 
 avail to protect the city against capture by 
 the Persians. Simeon wrote many epistles 
 on current ecrl ^siastical matters: (i) one 
 Evagrius mentions (W. E i. 13). to the emperor 
 Theodosius against restoring their synagogues i 
 to the Jews. It effectually incited the I 
 emperor to intolerant courses. He withdrew | 
 the concession and dismissed the official who \ 
 advised it. (2) .\n epistle to Leo. on behalf of 1 
 the council of Chalcedon, and against the 1 
 ordination of Timotheus .Aelurus (ii. 10). (3) 
 Evagrius gives {ib.) extracts from one to Basil 
 of .\ntioch on the same topic. (4) An epistle to 
 the empress Eudocia on the same (Niceph. xv. 
 13), by which she was converted from Kuty- 
 chian error. (5) Eulogius of .Alexandria 
 mentions his profession of the Catholic faith, 
 which Cave conjectures to have been identical 
 with (2) (cf. Phot. Rtblioth. cod. 230). Besides : 
 these, there is extant a Latin version of a ' 
 sermon, de Morte Assidue Cogitanda, which 
 in the Btblioth. Patr. is usually ascribed to our ; 
 Simeon. Lambecius, on the authority of a | 
 MS. in the imperial library at Vienna, ascribes 
 it to Simeon of Mesopotamia {Comm. de 
 Bihliolh. Caesarea, vol. viii. lib. v. col. 198 d, 
 ed. Kollar). Evagrius (i. 13) describes the 
 appearance of Simeon's relics in his time, and 
 also (i. 14) a visit he paid to the monastery! 
 and pillar of Simeon. The pillar was then 
 enclosed in a church, which no woman was 
 ever allowed to enter, and where supernatural 
 manifestations were often seen. Count de 
 Vogii6 iSxrie CentraU. t. i. pp. I4i-154. Paris, 
 1865-1877) describes fully the present state of 
 the church, and shews Evagrius's minute \ 
 accuracy. [o.t.s.) 
 
 Simon (1) Magus, the subject of many 
 legends and much speculation. It is import- 
 ant to discriminate carefully what is told of 
 him bv the different primary authoritir-s. 
 
 The' Simon of the Acts of the A po-itles.— Be- 
 hind all stories concerning Simon lies what is 
 related .•\cts viii. 9-24, where we see Simon as 
 a magician who exercised sorcery in Samaria 
 with such success that the people universally 
 accepted his claim to be " some great one," 
 and accounted him " that power of C.od which 
 is called great." We are further told that he 
 
 SIMON MAGUS 
 
 WMi 
 
 wn% %o Jmprrs'.e<l l>v the niirarlr* wrought by 
 Philip, that he a-kkrd and obtatiird admuMiW 
 to christian baptixin ; but that he »ul»*<<« 
 quentlv brtraveil thr ho||ownr%« of hi* ron» 
 version by oflfrriuK inotirv to IVtrr to obtain 
 the power of ronfrrring thr gift of the Holv 
 Ghost. .Ml sul>^rnuriit account* reprr^rnl 
 him as possessing magical powrr an<l cominn 
 personally into colli^imi with I'rtrr, Tha 
 .Acts say nothing as to hi* Ix-ing a trjrhrr of 
 heretical doctrine ; nor do thrv tril whnhrr 
 or not he broke of! all ronnrxion with th« 
 Christian s<x-ictv aftrr his exposure by IVicr. 
 
 The StmoH of Justin Martvr. -W'hrn Ju»tin 
 Mart>T wrote his Af^oloi;v the Siinonian vet 
 appears to have l>ern forinidablr. (or ha 
 speaks four times of their foundrr Simon 
 {Apol. i. 26. 56; ii. t5 ; Dial. jo), and un- 
 doubtedly identified him with the Simon ol 
 .Acts. He states that he wa* a Samaritan, 
 born at a village called C.itta ; he devril>r« 
 him as a formidable magician, who canir to 
 Rome in the davs of Claudius Caesar and 
 made such an impression bv his magical 
 powers that he was honoure<l as a go<l. a 
 statue being erected to him on the ri»>er, 
 between the two bridges. I>earing the inscrip- 
 tion " Simoni deo Sancto." Now in iS74 
 there was dug up in the place indicated bv 
 Justin, viz. the island in the Tiber, a marble 
 fragment, apparently the base of a statue, 
 bearing the inscription, "Semoni Sanro Dro 
 Fidio," with the name of the dedicator (see 
 Ciruter, Inscrip. .4ntiq. i. p. oS, n. ^). The 
 coincidence is too remarkable to admit of anv 
 satisfactory explanation other than that 
 Justin imatjined a statue really d«-dicated to 
 a Sabine deity (Ovid. Fasti, vi. 214) to have 
 been in honour of the heretic Simon. 
 
 Justin further states that almost all the 
 Samaritans, and some even of other nation*, 
 worshipped Simon, and acknowledged him a» 
 "the first God" ("above all principality, 
 power, and dominion," Dial. 120), and that 
 they held that a woman nam<-d Hrlma. 
 formerly a prostitute, who went about with 
 him. was his "first conception" (/rrwa 
 it^tt;). In connexion with Simon. Justin 
 speaks of another Samaritan hrretic. M«s- 
 ANDER, and states that he (Justin I had pub- 
 lished a treatise against heresies. When 
 Irenaeus (Haer. i. 23) deals with Simon and 
 Menander, his coincirlrnces with Justin are 
 too numerous and striking to leave any doubt 
 that he here uses the work of Justin as hi* 
 authority, and we get the following additional 
 particulars : Simon claim«-<l to l)r himsdl the 
 highest power, that is to say. the Fathrr who 
 is over all ; he taught that he was the same 
 who among the Jews appearrd as S.in. in 
 Samaria descended as Father. Inothrr nation* 
 had walked as the H"lv Spirit. \\r was con- 
 tent to be called by whalrver li.iinr mrn rh<»*« 
 to assign to him. Helm was a prostitute 
 whom he ha«! redeemed at Tvrr " ' '• ' ■' "• 
 with him. saving that shr w.i 
 ception of his mind, thr ni'-i' 
 whom he had In the l>rginninK ■ 
 making of angri* and arrhangt U. Ki» r.Mii»{ 
 thus his will, she had lra|M-<l awav from him. 
 <lescended to the lower regions, and grnrrated 
 angel* and power* by whom thi* world wa* 
 made. But this "Knnoca" wat detained In 
 
906 
 
 SIMON MAGUS 
 
 these lower regions by her offspring, and not 
 suffered to return to the Father of whom 
 they were ignorant. In this account of Simon 
 there is a large portion common to almost all 
 forms of Gnostic myths, together with some- 
 thing special to this form. They have in 
 common the place in the work of creation 
 assigned to the female principle, the concep- 
 tion of the Deity ; the ignorance of the rulers 
 of this lower world with regard to the Supreme 
 Power ; the descent of the female {Sophia) 
 into the lower regions, and her inability to 
 return. Special to the Simonian tale is 
 the identification of Simon himself with the 
 Supreme, and of his consort Helena with the 
 female principle, together with the doctrine 
 of transmigration of souls, necessary to give 
 these identifications a chance of acceptance, 
 it not being credible that the male and female 
 Supreme principles should first appear in the 
 world at so late a stage in history. 
 
 It is possible that Justin's Simon was 
 not identical with the contemporary of the 
 Apostles, the name Simon being very common, 
 and the Simon of the Acts being a century 
 older than Justin. Moreover, Justin's Simon 
 could hardly have carried his doctrine of 
 transmigration of souls to the point of pre- 
 tending that it was he himself who had ap- 
 peared as Jesus of Nazareth, unless he had 
 been born after our Lord's death. Hence it 
 is the writer's opinion that the Simon described 
 by Justin was his elder only by a generation ; 
 that he was a Gnostic teacher who had gained 
 some followers at Samaria; and that Justin 
 rashly identified him with the magician of the 
 Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The section on Simon in the Refutation of all 
 Heresies, by Hippolytus, divides itself into two 
 parts ; the larger portion is founded on a work 
 ascribed to Simon called the /J-eydXt) dir6(pa(Tis, 
 which we do not hear of through any other 
 source than Hippolytus. But towards the 
 close of the art. on Simon there is a section 
 which can be explained on the supposition 
 that Hippolytus is drawing directly from the 
 source used by Irenaeus, viz. the anti-heretical 
 treatise of Justin. In connexion with this 
 section must be considered the treatment of 
 Simon in the lost earlier treatise of Hippoly- 
 tus, which may be conjecturally gathered from 
 the use made of it by Philaster and Epipha- 
 nius. Between these two there are verbal co- 
 incidences which prove that they are drawing 
 from a common source. When this common 
 matter is compared with the section in the 
 Refutation, it is clear that Hippolytus was 
 that source. 
 
 But one thing common to them was appar- 
 ently not taken from Hippolytus. Both speak 
 of the death of Simon, but apairt from the 
 section which contains the matter common to 
 them and Hippolytus, and here they have no 
 verbal coincidences. Both, however, know the 
 story which became the received account of 
 his death, viz. that to give the emperor a 
 crowning proof of his magical skill he at- 
 tempted to fly through the air, and, through 
 the efficacy of the apostle's prayers, the 
 demons who bore him were compelled to let 
 him go, whereupon he perished miserably. 
 
 We may conclude that the story known to 
 Philaster and Epiphanius, though earlier than 
 
 SIMON MAGUS 
 
 the end of the 4th cent, when they wrote, is of 
 later origin than the beginning of the 3rd cent, 
 when Hippolytus wrote. That Hippolytus 
 did not find his account of Simon's death in 
 Justin may be concluded from the place it 
 occupies in his narrative, where it is in a kind 
 of appendix to what is borrowed from Justin ; 
 and also because this form of the story is 
 unknown to all other writers. 
 
 The Simon of the Clementines. — The Clemen- 
 tines, like Justin, identify Simon of Gitta with 
 the Simon of Acts ; but there is every reason 
 to believe that they were merely following 
 Justin. Justin has evidently direct know- 
 ledge of the Simonians, and regards them as 
 formidable heretics ; but in the Clementines 
 the doctrines which Justin gives as Simonian 
 have no prominence ; and the introduction 
 of Simon is merely a literary contrivance to 
 bring in the theological discussions in which 
 the author is interested. 
 
 The Simon of igth Cent. Criticism. — The 
 Clementine writings were produced in Rome 
 early in 3rd cent, by members of the Elkesaite 
 sect, one characteristic of which was hostility 
 to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as 
 an apostle. Baur first drew attention to this 
 characteristic in the Clementines, and pointed 
 out that in the disputations between Simon 
 and Peter, some of the claims Simon is repre- 
 sented as making {e.g. that of having seen our 
 Lord, though not in his lifetime, yet subse- 
 quently in vision) were really the claims of 
 Paul ; and urged that Peter's refutation of 
 Simon was in some places intended as a 
 polemic against Paul. The passages are 
 found only in the Clementine Homilies, which 
 may be regarded as one of the latest forms 
 which these forgeries assumed. In the 
 Clementine Recognitions there is abundance 
 of anti-Paulism ; but the idea does not appear 
 to have occurred to the writer to dress up Paul 
 under the mask of Simon. The idea started 
 by Baur was pressed by his followers into 
 the shape that, wherever in ancient documents 
 Simon Magus is mentioned, Paul is meant. 
 We are asked to believe that the Simon of 
 Acts viii. was no real character, but only a 
 presentation of Paul. Simon claimed to be 
 the power of God which is called Great ; and 
 Paul calls his gospel the power of God (Rom. 
 i. 16 ; I. Cor. i. 18), and claims that the power 
 of Christ rested in himself (II. Cor. xii. 9), and 
 that he lived by the power of God (xiii. 4). 
 In Acts viii. the power of bestowing the Holy 
 Ghost, which Philip does not appear to have 
 exercised, is clearly represented as the special 
 prerogative of the apostles. When, therefore, 
 Simon offered money for the power of con- 
 ferring the Holy Ghost, it was really to obtain 
 the rank of apostle. We are therefore asked 
 to detect here a covert account of the refusal 
 of the elder apostles to admit Paul's claim to 
 rank with them, backed though it was by a 
 gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem. 
 Peter tells him that he has no lot in the matter, 
 i.e. no part in the lot of apostleship (see Acts 
 i. 17, 25); that he is still in the "gall of 
 bitterness and bond of iniquity " — i.e. full of 
 bitter hatred against Peter (Gal. ii. 11) and 
 not observant of the Mosaic Law. We are 
 not to be surprised that St. Luke, Paulist 
 though he was, should assert ia his history 
 
SIMON MAGUS 
 
 this libel on his niastrr. He knew the story 
 to be current among the Jewish disciples, and 
 wished to take the stinp out of it by tellinR it 
 in such a way as to represent Siujon as a real 
 person, distinct from Paul. So. having begun 
 to speak of Paul in the beginning of c. viii.. 
 he interpolates the epistxle of Philip's adven- 
 tures, and does not return to speak of I'aul 
 until his readers attention has been drawn 
 off. so as not to be likely to recognize Paul 
 under the mask of Simon. 
 
 It is not necessary to spend much time in I 
 pulling to pieces speculations exhibiting so ' 
 much ingenuity, but so wanting in common I 
 sense. If. by way of nickname, a public ' 
 character is called by a name not his own. 
 common sense tells us that that must be a 
 name to which discreditable associations are 
 akeady known to attach. If a revolutionary 
 agitator is called Catiline, that is because the 
 name of Catiline is already assiKiated with 
 reckles"; and treasonable designs. It would 
 be silly to conclude from the modern use of 
 the nickname that there never had been such 
 a person as Catiline, and that the traditional 
 story of him must be so interpreted as best ' 
 to describe the modern character. Further, 
 while obscure 3rd-cent. heretics, fearing the 
 odium of assailing directly one held in venera- 
 tion through the rest of the Christian world, ' 
 might resort to disguise, Paul's opponents, in 
 his lifetime, had no temptation to resort to J 
 oblique attacks : they could say what they 
 pleased against Paul of Tarsus without needing 
 to risk being unintelligible by speaking of 
 Simon of Ciitta. 
 
 Lipsius, whose account of his predecessors' 
 speculations we have abridged from his art. \ 
 "Simon,"' in Schenkel's Btbel-l.fxikon. excr- , 
 cises his own ingenuitv in dealing with the 
 legendary history of Simon. The ingenuity 
 which discovers Paul in the Simon of the Acts j 
 has, of course, a much easier task in finding 
 him in the Simon of the legends. But since 
 the history, as it has come down to us, leaves 
 much to be desired as an intentional libel on 
 Paul, we must modify the legends so as best 
 to adapt them to this object, and must then 
 believe we have thus recovered the original 
 form of the legend. Thus, the Homtlus 
 represent the final disputation between Peter 
 and Simon to have occurred at Larxlicea ; but 
 we must believe that the original form laid it 
 at Antioch, where took place the collision be- 
 tween Peter and Paul ((ial. ii.). The Clemen- 
 tines represent Simon as going voluntarily to 
 Rome ; but the original must surely have 
 represented him as taken there as a prisoner 
 by the Roman authorities, and so on. It is 
 needless to examine minutely speculations 
 vitiated by such methods of investigation. 
 The chronological order is— the historical 
 personage comes first ; then legends arise 
 about him ; then the use made of his name. 
 The proper order of investigation is, therefore, 
 first to ascertain what is historical about 
 Simon before discussing his legends. Now, it 
 cannot reasonably be doubted that Simon of 
 Gitta is an historical personage. The here- 
 tical sect which claimed him for its founder 
 was regarded by Justin Martyr as most 
 formidable ; he speaks of it a» predominant 
 in Samaria and not unknown elsewhere ; 
 
 SIMPLICIANUS 
 
 9«»7 
 
 probably he h.id mr| mrmlx-r't of it at Rome. 
 Its exisiencc i* teslilir<l by llr(;t~tippu« (|;u». 
 IV. 21); trlsu« (Orig. adv. Crh. v. hj). who 
 states that some of thmiwrrr rj||r<lllrlrni4nl, 
 and I Irmrnt of .Mrx.indria {Sirom. vti. 17), 
 who states th.it "IIP branch W4% cjjlrd lluty- 
 chitae. It had Ix^oine alnnni r»|inr| In 
 Origen's tiinr, who <lotil>t\ (44/r. (fix. t. ^7) 
 whether tlurr were thru \n Siinonun\ in the 
 world ; but we nrr«l iiMt doubt ll« rxistrnrr 
 in Justin's time, n.>r Ihr fact that it cUuhmI 
 Simon of (.itta as iiv foundrr. Wrilino •" hit 
 name were in rircuUtion, Ustr the ( Irmrntine 
 Rfcognition'i, and Kpiphaniiis 4x c<mhrntin|t 
 Hippolytu>. The Simon of Arts is alv> a real 
 person. If we read .Acts viii., which rrUtrt 
 the preaching of Philip, in connexion with c. 
 xxi.. which tells of M-veral davs sprni by I uke 
 in Philip's house, wr have tlir simple explana- 
 tion of the insertion of tlie former rh.i|trr. 
 that I.uke gladiv included in his hi.i c, .1 
 narrative <.( the e.ulv prearhing of the i.; ..|«-| 
 communicated bv .\i\ evr. witness. \Vc n<-ed 
 not ascrif)e to I uke .inv more recondita 
 motive for relating the incident Ih.in that ho 
 belit'ved it had occurred. There is no rvid- 
 ence that this Samaritan in.igirian had ob- 
 tained elsewhere any great notoriety ; and 
 there is every reason to think that alt later 
 writers derive their knowledge from the .\rl* 
 of the Apostles. We have already sanl that 
 we believe Justin mistaken in identifying 
 Simon of the Acts with Simon of (iitta. whom 
 we take to have been a 2iid-cent. (in<r.tic 
 teacher; but this identification is followed in 
 the Clementines. In any case, we see that the 
 whole manufacture of the latter stiM-y is later 
 than Simon of ("litta, if not. as we believe, 
 later than Justin M.irtyr. The anti-Paulisis, 
 therefore, who dressed Paul in the disguise >.f 
 Simon, are more than a cenlurv later than anv 
 opponents Paul \ud in his lifetime, who, if 
 they wished to fix *nickiiaine on the apostle, 
 were not likely to go to the Acts of the Ap<»stle* 
 to look for one. [<• "».l 
 
 Simpllclanus, St.. bp. of Milan next after 
 St. Ambrose, a resident there l>etween iSo 
 and ^^o, and instrumental in ronverlmg 
 Victorinus (Aug. Conf. viii. 2). later j>erhaps 
 than this he became intimate with St. .Am- 
 brose, whose father in the Christian faith hn 
 is called bv Augustine. About 174. the vear 
 Ambrose was rais«>d to the episcopate. Sun- 
 plician appears to have s«-ttled at .Milan 
 (Tillem. vol. x. p. 308). Mr w.is held in deep 
 reverence bv St. Ambrose, who wai often 
 consulted by him, and speaks of Ins continual 
 study of Holy Scripture (Aug. Con/, viii. 2 ; 
 Ambr. /;/>/». 37. 2 ; »>5. 1). Four replv-lcttrr* 
 to him by St. Ambrose <in |»oiiit4 of Scrip, 
 ture arc extant (Ambr. hff'. \7. i8. 61. 67). 
 
 Augustine, residing f ■' M'l'" »" '">. 
 b<-cainc acipiainted wr >• 
 
 account of the con\' 
 
 awakened an eager deMf ' > 
 
 {Conf. viii. M. and the iji. ua.hii' l.l.^ted 
 throughout Augustine'i life. Simplician'i ap- 
 pointment to the see of Milan, A.n. if)7. >« dc- 
 scril>edby Paulinus in his life of St. An»br.»\e 
 (C. 46). Me app.ireiitly die<l in 4<»«i, and wa» 
 
 succeeded by Veneriu*. 
 
 quiri' 
 
 c» elicited 
 
 the treatise of Augustine, d/ Ihvfrui Qu**^ , 
 concerning various passages In O. and N. T. 
 
908 
 
 SIMPLICIUS 
 
 Tillem. x. 401 ; Ceill. iv. 325, vi. 7, ix. 6, 78, 24.9- 
 254 ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 299. [h.w.p.] 
 
 SImpliclus (7), bp. of Rome after Hilarius, 
 from Feb. 22, 468 (according to the conclusion 
 of Pagi, in Baron, ad ann. 467, iv.), to Mar. 483. 
 According to Lib. Pontif. he was a native of 
 Tibur, the son of one Castinus. He witnessed, 
 during his episcopate, the fall of the Western 
 empire and the accession (a.d. 476) of Odoacer 
 as king of Italy. This change, however 
 politically important, does not seem to have 
 affected at the time the pope or the church 
 at Rome. The later emperors, Anthemius, 
 Nepos, Augustulus, who reigned during the 
 earlier years of Simplicius's popedom, being 
 merely nominees of the Eastern emperor, had 
 little power ; and Odoacer, himself an Arian, 
 did not interfere with church affairs. 
 
 The reigning emperors of the East were, 
 first Leo I., the Thracian, called also " the 
 Great," and after him Zeno, his son-in-law, 
 who succeeded him a.d. 474, but whose reign 
 was interrupted from 475 to 477 by the 
 usurpation of Basiliscus. The contemporary 
 bp. of Constantinople was Acacius (471-489). 
 The most memorable incidents of the ponti- 
 ficate of Simplicius were his negotiations, and 
 eventual breach, with this prelate and with 
 the emperor Zeno who supported him — 
 leading up to the long schism between the 
 churches of the East and West, which ensued 
 in the time of the following pope, Felix III. 
 (or II.). The difference arose on questions 
 connected partly with the rival claims of the 
 sees of Rome and Constantinople, partly with 
 the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy. 
 
 The first occasion was the promulgation of 
 an edict by the emperor Leo I., at the instance 
 of Acacius, confirming the 28th canon of 
 Chalcedon. This canon, said to have been 
 passed unanimously by all present except the 
 legates of pope Leo" I., not only confirmed the 
 3rd canon of Constantinople, which had given 
 to the bp. of new Rome (i.e. Constantinople) 
 a primacy of honour (i.e. honorary rank) next 
 after the'bp. of old Rome, but further gave 
 him authority to ordain the metropolitans of 
 the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, thus 
 investing him with the powers as well as the 
 rank of a patriarch, second only to the pope 
 of Rome. Pope Leo had subsequently ob- 
 jected to this canon and never gave it his 
 assent. He claimed that it was an infringe- 
 ment of the canons of Nice and entrenched on 
 the rights of other patriarchs. It indicated 
 a desire on the part of the bps. of Constan- 
 tinople, then the real seat of empire, to rival 
 and perhaps eventually to supersede the old 
 primacy of Rome. At Rome the position 
 maintained was that the authority of a see 
 rested on its ecclesiastical origin, and that of 
 Rome especially on its having been the see 
 of St. Peter. The view at Constantinople was 
 that the temporal pre-eminence of a city was 
 a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical ascen- 
 dancy. Hence the long struggle. 
 
 Acacius, by inducing the emperor to con- 
 firm the 28th canon of Chalcedon by a special 
 edict, hoped to make it plain that the emin- 
 ence and authority thereby assigned to his see 
 were still maintained and had not been con- 
 ceded to the remonstrances of pope Leo. The 
 language used by the emperor in his edict — 
 
 SIMPLICIUS 
 
 styling the church of Constantinople " the 
 Mother of his Piety, and of all Christians, and 
 of the orthodox faith" — confirms the supposi- 
 i tion that an idea was even entertained of the 
 new seat of empire superseding the old one in 
 ecclesiastical prerogative as well as temporal 
 rank. Simplicius naturally took alarm. He 
 sent Probus, bp. of Canusium in Apulia, as his 
 legate to Constantinople to remonstrate ; but 
 with what success we know not. 
 
 In the doctrinal controversies of the day 
 between Rome and Constantinople, Simplicius 
 appears to have been in accord with the 
 emperor Leo. and for some time with Zeno, 
 as well as with Acacius. The great patri- 
 archal sees were, during the first years of his 
 reign, occupied by orthodox prelates, who had 
 the imperial support. Alexandria had been 
 held by Timothy Salofaciolus since the Euty- 
 chian Timothy Aelurus had been banished 
 by the emperor Leo I. in 460. At Antioch 
 Julian, an orthodox patriarch, elected on the 
 expulsion of Peter FuUo by Leo I., a.d. 471, 
 was still in possession. But the usurpation 
 of the empire by Basiliscus, a.d. 475, intro- 
 duced immediate discord and disturbance. 
 Basiliscus declared at once for Eutychianism, 
 and promptly recalled Timothy Aelurus to 
 Alexandria. Having taken possession of the 
 see and driven Salofaciolus to flight, Aelurus 
 repaired to Constantinople to procure the 
 calling of a new general council to reverse the 
 decisions of Chalcedon. 
 
 Certain clergy and monks of Constantinople 
 sent a messenger with letters to represent this 
 state of things to Simplicius at Rome. Sim- 
 plicius promptly wTote to Basiliscus and 
 Acacius. His letter to Basiliscus expresses 
 horror at the doings of Aelurus, of whom he 
 speaks in no measured language. The op- 
 portunity is not lost, in the course of the 
 letter, of insinuating to the new emperor the 
 peculiar spiritual authority of the Roman see: 
 " The truths which have flowed pure from the 
 fountain of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed 
 by any arguments of cloudy subtilty. For 
 there remains one and the same rule of 
 apostolical doctrine in the successors of him 
 to whom the Lord enjoined the care of the 
 whole sheepfold — to whom He promised that 
 the gates of hell should not prevail against 
 him, and that what by Him should be bound 
 on earth should not be loosed in heaven." And 
 the pope conjures the emperor in the voice of 
 St. Peter, the unworthy minister of whose see 
 he is, not to allow impunity to the enemies of 
 the ancient faith, and especially urges him to 
 prevent, if possible, the assembling a council 
 to review the decisions of Chalcedon. 
 
 Meanwhile Basiliscus at Constantinople, 
 issuing an encyclic letter, repudiated and 
 condemned the council of Chalcedon ; re- 
 quired all, under pain of deposition, exile, and 
 other punishments, to agree to this condemna- 
 tion ; and ordered the copies of pope Leo's 
 letters and of the Acts of Chalcedon. wherever 
 found, to be burnt. The document is given 
 in full by Evagrius (iii. 4). Acacius refused 
 to sign it. But in the compliant East else- 
 where it was accepted generally. At Constan- 
 tinople Acacius, supported by the clergy and 
 monks, was resolute and successful in his 
 resistance. Daniel Stylites, descending from 
 
SIRICIUS 
 
 his pillar, aided in rousing the populace ; and 
 Basiliscus had to leave the city for safety. 
 The disaffection was taken advantage of by 
 Zeno, who in 477 marched on Constantinople, 
 and without further ditficulty In'canje again 
 emperor of the Kast. 
 
 During these troubles under Basiliscus 
 Simplicius seems to have had no opportunity 
 of exercising influence ; but as siH>n as he 
 heard of the restitution of Zeno he WTote to 
 that emperor, exhorting him tofollow the steps 
 of his predecessors Marcian and Leo. to allow 
 no tampering with the decisions of Chalcedon, 
 to drive all Eutychian bishops from the sees 
 they had usurped, and especially to send 
 Aelurus into solitude. To .\cacius he wTote 
 to the same effect. Zeno does not appear, 
 however, to have taken any step against Peter 
 Mongus. Possibly the emperor and his 
 advisers were already disposed to the con- 
 ciliatory policy towiu-ds the liutychians which 
 they afterwards maintained in spite of indig- 
 nant protests from the pope. Simplicius 
 complained, too, of the Eutychian leaders 
 having been allowed to remain at .\ntioch, 
 and attributed the troubles there to this 
 cause. 
 
 The death of Timothy Salofaciolus at Alex- 
 andria in 482 gave rise to much more serious 
 differences between Constantinople and Rome. 
 Strained relations now resulted in decided 
 conflict, ending in an open schism, which 
 lasted 35 years, between Eastern and Western 
 Christendom. John Talaias was elected 
 canonically by a synod of the orthodox at 
 Alexandria in the room of Salofaciolus. Sim 
 plicius received a notification of the election 
 from the synod, and was about to express his 
 assent, when he was startled by a letter from 
 Zeno accusing Talaias of perjury, and intimat- 
 ing that Peter .Mongus was the most proper 
 person to succeed Salofaciolus. Simplicius 
 at once (July 15, 482) addressed Acacius (who 
 had not written himself), imploring him to do 
 all he could to prevent it. The letter written 
 to Zeno himself has not been preserved. 
 Hearing nothing from .\cacius, he wrote to 
 him again in Nov., but still got no reply. So 
 much appears from the extant letters of 
 Simplicius (Epp. xvii. xviii. Labbe). [Acacius 
 (7); JOA.sNES (11).] 
 
 Liberatus (c. iS) informs us that, driven 
 from Alexandria, John Talaias appealed for 
 support to Simplicius, who on his behalf wrote 
 to Acacius, but received the reply that 
 Acacius could not recognize Talaias, having 
 received Peter .Mongus into communion on 
 the basis of the emperor's Henoticos. Sim- 
 plicius wrote to .\cacius that he ought nut to 
 have received Peter into communion without 
 the concurrence of the apostolic see ; that a 
 man condemned by a common decree could 
 not be freed from the ban except by a common 
 council ; and that he must first accept un- 
 reservedlv the council of Chalcedon and the 
 Tome of pope Leo. Simplicius received no 
 reply to this second letter, and died not long 
 after, early in .Mar. 483. according to Anas- 
 tasius. (J-B— v.] 
 
 SiriclUS,bp.of Romeafter Uamasus from late 
 in Dec 3«4, or earlv in Jan. 3«S. to Nov. 26 (■'). 
 3.58. He followed the example of Damasu* in 
 maintaining the authority of the Roman see. 
 
 SIRICIUS MM 
 
 When the prefecture of Matt lllvricum had 
 l>eeii a'vsigncd (a. 11. }7>>) t<> the KaUem divi- 
 sion of the empire. i)am.is<n hit in-i.t'- t .>a 
 its Ix-iiig still subject til t . V 
 
 of Rome, .iiid had con 
 
 of Thess.iliiiiica. and .il'. . > 
 
 succeeiled .\cli.>liu4 a.i>. i w m. .«ii si..nt 
 for the in.iintenaiire <>i hucIi authority. 
 Siricius, on his .»cc<"ssion. rnicwrd I hit vicariate 
 jurisdiction to .Xnysnu (IninK". l-.pp i-. »iii.). 
 One of hiH earliest acts was ti> issue ihr hr»t 
 I Papal Di-cretal that has any claim to genuine- 
 ness, though he si>eaks in it of earlier dtcttU 
 sent to the provinces bv |>oi>e Lilteriut. 1 1 it 
 dated Feb. 11, 3H5. Its genuinenes* it un- 
 disputed. It is plainly referred to by p<>(»« 
 Innocent I. (Et>. vi. ad Et^uperium). <Ju«^ncl 
 incluiles it without hoitalion in hit CoJ. Kom. 
 cum Leone edit. c. 24. Its ckx-isiou wa» a 
 letter from Mimcrius, bp. of Tarragona in 
 Spain, addressed to Dainasiis but recrivcJ by 
 Siricius, asking the jx)pe's advice on mat ten 
 of discipline and with regard to abuses pre- 
 valent in the Spanish church. Siricius. havniK 
 taken counsel in a Roman synod, issued thit 
 decretal in reply, to be communicated by 
 I Himerius to all bishops of Spain and neigh- 
 bouring provinces with a view to univtrsal 
 observance. The opportunity was taken of 
 asserting in very decided terms the authority 
 of the Roman see : " We bear the burdens of 
 I all who are heavy laden ; nay, rather the 
 bless«^d apostle Peter bears them in us. who, 
 as we trust, in all things protects and guards 
 us, the heirs of his administration. " .\iiioiig 
 the rules thus promulgated f«>r universal 
 observance, one relates to the rcbaptuiiig of 
 .■\rians returning to the church, and another 
 to clerical celil)acy, which is insisted on. 
 Thus what the oecumenical council had re- 
 fused to require Siricius now, on the authi»rity 
 ' of the apostolic see, declared of general obliga- 
 tion. The rule laid down by him atfectcd. 
 however, only the higher clerical orders, not 
 including subdeacons, to whom it was ex- 
 j tended by Leo I. (c. 442. Sec Ef>p. xiv. 4 ; 
 cxivii. 3), in Sicily, by pope Gregory the 
 i Great (Greg. Epp. lib. i. Ind. ix.. Ep. 42). 
 I The zeal of Siricius against heresy api>ear» 
 I in his correspondence with the usurper Maxi- 
 I raus, who in 383 had obtained the iini>eiial 
 ! authority in Gaul. The uooc wrote, cxh )rtiin( 
 him to support the Catholic faith and com- 
 plaining of the recent ordination of one .Agri- 
 cius, who seems to have been suspected of 
 heresy. Maximus, in his extant replv. 
 declares his desire to maintain the true (aitn. 
 undertakes to refer the case of AgTicmt to a 
 synod of clergy, and takes credit f.* measures 
 already in force against the .Manichcjiu in 
 Ciaul, doubtless alluding to the I'riscillian- 
 ists, who were often called M f" ' ■ ■" I (i*- 
 pope was zealous against tli' 'i 
 
 Rome, where " he found .M.. 1 
 
 he sent into exile, and pro.. ■ v 
 
 should not coininunicate with lUc UilUlul, 
 since it was not lawful to vcx the l.«)cd» Uxlv 
 with a polluted mouth " (l.*b. Ponitf- •«• *'«X* 
 ^iririi). The reference teem* to be to the 
 alleged habit of the .Manicbcant to make a 
 show of conforinitv bv frequenting Catholic 
 cuminunioii. It i» added that even convrtt* 
 Iroia them were to be »enl mto inou*»leric», 
 
no 
 
 SIRICIUS 
 
 and not admitted to communion till at the 
 point of death. 
 
 Another class of heretics afterwards fell 
 under the condemnation of Siricius. Jovin- 
 ian, notorious through St. Jerome's vehement 
 writings against him, having been expelled 
 from Milan, had come to Rome and obtained 
 a following there. His teaching came under 
 the notice of two eminent laymen, Pam- 
 machius and Victorinus, who represented it 
 to pope Siricius who assembled a synod of 
 clergy at which Jovinian was excommuni- 
 cated, together with his abettors, Auxentius, 
 Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Frontinus, Mar- 
 tianus, Januarius, and Ingenius. These 
 departed to Milan, whither Siricius sent three 
 presbyters with a letter to the Milanese 
 clergy, informing them of what had been 
 done at Rome, and expressing confidence 
 that they would pay regard to it. The 
 letter is full of strong invective against 
 Jovinian and his colleagues — "dogs such as 
 never before had barked against the church's 
 mysteries " — but contains no arguments. 
 Siricius disclaims any disparagement of 
 marriage, " at which," he says, " we assist 
 with the veil," though he "venerates with 
 greater honour virgins devoted to God, who 
 are the fruit of marriages." The synodical 
 reply from Milan is preserved among the 
 epistles of St. Ambrose (Ep. xlii. ed. Bened.), 
 who presided at the Milanese synod. He and 
 his colleagues thank Siricius for his vigilance, 
 concur with his strictures on Jovinian, supply 
 the arguments which the pope's letter lacked, 
 and declare that they had condemned those 
 whom the pope condemned, according to his 
 judgment. The introductory words of this 
 epistle have been adduced in proof of the view 
 then held of the pope's supreme authority. 
 They are : " We recognize in the letter of your 
 holiness the watchfulness of a good shepherd, 
 diligently keeping the door committed to thee, 
 and with pious solicitude guarding the sheep- 
 fold of Christ, worthy of being heard and 
 followed by the sheep of the Lord." This 
 language, though expressing recognition of the 
 bp. of Rome as the representative of St. Peter, 
 cannot be pressed as implying that he was the 
 one doorkeeper of the whole church or an 
 infallible authority in definitions of faith. 
 On the contrary, the bishops at Milan endorsed 
 his judgment, not as a matter of course or as 
 being bound to do so, but on the merits of 
 the case, setting forth their reasons. Tiiese 
 proceedings apparently occurred in 390. 
 
 About the same time, or soon after, the 
 Meletian schism at Antioch came under the 
 notice of Siricius. His attitude to it is not 
 certainly known. Some six months after the 
 death of Damasus, whose highly valued 
 secretary he had been, Jerome had left Rome 
 for ever. In his bitterly expressed letter to 
 Asilla, inveighing against his opponents and 
 calumniators, he does not mention the new 
 pope ; but it may be concluded, if only from 
 his silence, that he had lost the countenance 
 he had enjoyed under Damasus. One expres- 
 sion suggests that he had been a little dis- 
 appointed at not being made pope himself, 
 and that coolness between him and Siricius 
 may have arisen from this. Siricius and he 
 were at one in their advocacy of virginity 
 
 SIRMIUM, STONEMASONS OP 
 
 against Jovinian and in their general ortho- 
 doxy, but there seems to have been no inter- 
 course between them, and, even in the course 
 of the controversy against Jovinian, Siricius 
 appears to have joined others at Rome in 
 disapproving of J erome's alleged disparagement 
 of matrimony. Further, Rufinus, the once 
 close friend of Jerome, having quarrelled with 
 him in Palestine about Origenism but been 
 temporarily reconciled, in 395 left Jerusalem 
 for Rome. He was favourably received by 
 Siricius, who gave him a commendatory letter 
 on his departure, the quarrel with Jerome 
 having recommenced with increased violence. 
 
 For his neglect of Jerome and patronage of 
 Rufinus, Baronius disparages Siricius, even 
 saying that his days were shortened by divine 
 judgment (Baron, ad ann. 397 ; xxxii.). A 
 further ground of complaint (ad ann. 394 ; xl.) 
 is his supposed unworthy treatment of another 
 ascetic saint, Paulinus of Nola, who says he 
 was badly treated by the Roman clergy when 
 passing through Rome (a.d. 395) on his way 
 to Nola, and especially blames the pope 
 (Paulin. ad Sulpic. Severum, Ep. i. in nov. edit. 
 v.). For such reasons Baronius has excluded 
 Siricius from the Roman Martyrology. Pagi 
 (in Baron, ad ann. 398, I.) defends the pope 
 against the animadversions of Baronius. 
 Siricius died in 398. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Sirmium, Stonemasons of. The Acts giving 
 the history of the martyrdom of the five 
 stonemasons of Sirmium have been known 
 for centuries, being found in substance in 
 Ado's Martyrology, but only last century 
 was their relation to the history of Dio- 
 cletian's period recognized. They were stone- 
 masons belonging to Pannonia, engaged in 
 the imperial quarries ; one of them, Sim- 
 plicius, was a pagan. They distinguished 
 themselves by their genius and ability, and 
 attracted the notice of Diocletian by the 
 beauty of their carving. Simplicius was 
 converted by his four companions, and bap- 
 tized secretly by a bishop, CjTil of Antioch, 
 who had been three years a slave in the 
 quarries and had suffered many stripes for the 
 faith. The pagans, jealous of their skill, 
 accused them before Diocletian, who, however, 
 continued to protect them. When, however, 
 the emperor ordered them to make, among 
 other statues, one of Aesculapius, the masons 
 made all the others, but refused to carve that. 
 The pagans thereupon procured an order for 
 their execution. They were enclosed in lead 
 coffins and flung into the Save. Their Acts 
 then proceed to narrate the martyrdom of the 
 saints called the Quatuor Coronati, whose 
 liturgical history has been told at length in 
 D. C. A. t. i. p. 461. Diocletian, coming to 
 Rome, ordered all the troops to sacrifice to 
 Aesculapius. Four soldiers, Carpophorus, 
 Severus, Severianus, and Victorinus, refusing, 
 were flogged to death, and their bodies buried 
 by pope Melchiades and St. Sebastian on the 
 Via Lavicana at the 3rd milestone from the 
 city. These Acts are very valuable illustra- 
 tions of the great persecution, but are full of 
 difficulties. The whole story is in Mason's 
 Diocletian Persecution, p. 259. Attention was 
 first called to the Acts as illustrating Diocle- 
 tian's period by Wattenbach in the Sitzungs- 
 berichte der Wiener Akad. Bd. x. (1853) S, 
 
SISINNIUS 
 
 1 18-126. Tliey were di-icussed in Biidingrr, 
 VnUrsiich. sur rom. Kaisergfich. ii. 2b2, iii. 
 321-338, with ilaboralf ;irchaeoIoi;ical and 
 chronological conuncntarios. [g.t.s.) 
 
 Sisinnlus (7), a bishop of tho Novatianists at 
 Constantinople, succciding on Marcian's death 
 in Nov. 3ys (Socr. //. /•.. v. ji ; vi. i ; Soz. 
 H. K. viii. 1 ). Ho puMi-;lu-d a treatise warmly 
 controverting Chrysostoni's impassioned lan- 
 guage as to the etticacy of repentance and the 
 restoration of penitents to communion, de 
 Poenitfntia (Socr. H. E. vi. 21). Chrysostom, \ 
 taking umbrage at this and at bis claim to 
 exercise episcopal functions in Constantinople, 
 threatened to stop his preaching. Sisinnius 
 jocosely told him he would be much obliged 
 to him for sparing him so much trouble, and 
 thus disarmed his anger (ib. 22). Sisinnius 
 enjoyed a great reputation for witty repartees. 
 Several are collected by Socrates (I.e.), but do 
 not give a very high idea of his powers. He 
 is described as a man of great eloquence, 
 enhanced by dignity of countenance and 
 person, gracefulness of action, and by the 
 tones of his voice. He had a considerable 
 reputation for learning, being very familiar 
 with philosophical writings as well as exposi- 
 tions of Scripture, and was well skilled in 
 dialectics. Together with Theodotus of 
 Antioch he composed a synodic letter against ^ 
 the Thessalians, in the name of the Novatian- 
 ist bishops assembled at Constantinople for ! 
 his consecration, addressed to Berinianus, 
 Amphilochius, and other bishops of Pamphylia 
 (Phot. Cod. Iii. col. 40 ; Cave, Hut. Lit. i. 290). 
 Though a bishop of a schismatic body, he was 
 much estetined by the orthodox bishops, 
 especially by .\tticus, and was the honoured 
 friend of leading aristocrats of Constantinople. 
 He kept a sumptuous table, though not ex- j 
 ceeding the bounds of moderation himself. 
 Sisinnius died the same year as Chrysostom, 
 A.D. 407, and was succeeded by Chrysanthus 
 (Socr. H. E. vii. 6 ; Cave, u.s.). [e.v.] 
 
 SlXtUS I.— so called in the Liberian Cata- , 
 logue by Optatus (1. 2) and Augustine {hp. 
 liii.) ; but A'yWus, .\istu-i, or .\estu!>, in Catal. 
 Feltc, Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 3), Eusebius 
 (//. £. iv. 4, 5. and Chron.). Hpiphanius 
 (Haer. 97, 6)— one of the early bps. of Rome, 
 called the 6th after the apostles, and the 
 successor of .■Mexander. \\\ assign him an 
 episcopate of ab<jut 10 years, and place him 
 in the reign of Hadrian. Culal. l.ibfr. dates his 
 episcopate 117-126; Husebiiis (//. /•-'.) ii<)- 
 128 ; his Chronicle i I4-I-24- l-ip^ins (Chronol. 
 der rom. Bischof.) gives 124-126 as the possible 
 limits for his death. The Felician Catalogue 
 and the Martyrologies represent him as a 
 martyr, and he is commemorated among the 
 apostles and martyrs, after I.inus, Cletus. 
 Clemens, in the canon of the mass. But 
 Telesphorus being the first bp. of Rome 
 designated a martyr by Irenaeus, the claim 
 to the title of Sixtus and other early bps. of 
 Rome, to the great majority of whom It has 
 been since assigned, is doubtful, [j.b— v.) 
 
 Sixtus II. (.Vx-s/us). bp. of Rome after 
 Stephen for about one year, martyred under 
 Valerian Aug. 6, 25H. A conteinpc,rary letter 
 of St. Cyprian (Ep. 80) confirms this date as 
 given in the Liberian Catalogue. I'robably 
 bis accession was on Aug. 31, 257 (see Lipsius, 
 
 SIXTUS III. 
 
 I'll 
 
 Chronol. Jtr r-m. HmH-f). Hit pre- 
 
 decessor Strphrii had Ik^u at i*»uc with 
 Cyprian of I artliJKe as t<i the rrbaptiun uf 
 liorctics. Under XvHtii*, who wa* inure ci>n- 
 ciliatory. though he uplirld the Kntnan u«aKr, 
 l>eacc was rrstorrd (Hut. //. /•.. vii. V7). 
 
 The cirruiiistatires of his martvrdiiiii apix-Ar 
 to have be<-n as (oll.iws. Ihr rnn«-r.if Vale- 
 rian had alri'.idy, lirforr tlir arrrssion of 
 .\ystus, forbidden the resort of l hrisiiaitt to 
 the cemeteries on pain of baiiishiunit. Hut 
 in the middle of 3^H, when Wilman wat 
 arming for his Persian war, he vnt .1 rescript 
 to the senate <if much severer import ; i>rdrr- 
 ing bishops, priests, and deacons to i>e turn- 
 m.irilv execute<l ; M-nators and other |x-r»on» 
 of rank to Im« visited with loss of dignitv and 
 gi>ods, and, on refusal t'l renounce ( tiristianiiy, 
 with death ; matrons to l>e despoiled and 
 exiled; and iin|H-rial ollicials (( uz-tanami to 
 be sent in chains to labour on tli<- iMi(M-rial 
 domains (Cyp. Ep. «■>)• .Xystiis fell an f.ulv 
 victim to this rescript. He was found by the 
 soldiers seated on his episcopal chair, in the 
 cemetery of Praetextatus <hi the .\ppian Way, 
 surrounded by memlx-rs of his Hnck. As 
 these endeavoured to protect him. he thrust 
 himself forwaril l«t they should sutler m 
 his stead, and was beheaded and several 
 companions slain. His body was afterward* 
 removed by the Christians to the usual burial- 
 place of the bishops of that |HTi.Ml. the 
 neighbouring cemetery i>f Callistus. Hi* two 
 deacons, .\gapetus and IVIirissiinus. with 
 others, were buried in the cemetery where they 
 fell. This account of the 4>ccurreiicc \% 
 gathered from Cypri.ui's conteiniH>rary letter 
 to Successus (Ep. 80), and from the Daiuasiiic 
 inscription in the papal crvpl of the cemetery 
 of Callistus, of which a few fragments have 
 been found by De Rossi, and which originally 
 began as follows : 
 
 " Tempore quo gladiti^ «<niit pla vbcrt« m«t(i« ^ 
 Hie posltus rector coticstlu dona ducrtium . . .' 
 (I'.rutcr, 117). i «'. 
 
 That these verses refer to .\ ystus, and not, 
 as assumed in the .Acts of St. Stephen, to hi« 
 predecess<ir, is satisfactorily shewn by l.ipsiu» 
 (op. cit.). That he was buried there is e»- 
 pressly stated in the l.il«rian I ata|..»;u.- ..1 
 Martyrs, as well as bv all later autli ; '.> 
 and the statement is contirined by nwi 
 
 f-raffitt on the walls of the crvpt, m wi.i 
 
 name is prominent. The line " Hir p...ini 
 etc., may refer to the calHeJru on whuli he sal 
 when found by the M.ldiers. which had In-en 
 removed with his lunly to the pap tl -•- • 
 That the cemetery of Praetextatus 
 scene of his martyrdom ancieiil trailiii 
 wiliH-ss, and in arcrdaiice willi it an 
 was afterw.irds built on the siKit. •"r.-iii.te 
 rium ubi d<-collatus est .Xvsius " Ihe iraili- 
 lion is contirined by repri-sriilatioeis of hiin 
 and his chair in this criuclery, under irtie ol 
 which is the legend svsTvs. |).ii V-l 
 
 Slxtiu III., bp. of Roiiir fn- «!'> ««"^ 
 
 C<>eU»,linus. and the ii.. 
 
 of l-eo the « treat. Tw- 
 I daywerePeUgianistnaii.i 
 
 I his acces4ioii he had tak.-ii i ■■( 01 . • 
 
 I trovcfiies. It ap|>€ars from Augu»tii»e » icUci* 
 
(12 
 
 SIXTUS III. 
 
 to him when he was still a Roman presbyter 
 under Zosimus, that the Pelagians had claimed 
 him as being, with the pope, on their side ; but 
 that, when the pope was at length induced to 
 condemn the heresy, he also had written to the 
 African church expressing his concurrence with 
 avigour of language that fully satisfied Augus- 
 tine, who also rejoices to have heard that he 
 had been foremost in anathematizing Pelagian- 
 ism in a large assembly at Rome (Aug. Epp. 
 191, al. 104, and 194, al. 105). Apparently 
 Sixtus had, before his accession, also inter- 
 vened in the Nestorian conflict, for in his letter 
 to John of Antioch {Ep. ii.) he speaks of having 
 once admonished Nestorius ; and this must 
 have been before the latter's final condemna- 
 tion, and hence before the accession of Sixtus, 
 who was evidently a man of mark and influ- 
 ence at Rome before becoming pope. 
 
 It seems, however, that the Nestorians as well 
 as the Pelagians claimed Sixtus as once having 
 favoured them ; and he was reported to have 
 taken in ill part the condemnation of Nestorius. 
 These claims may have arisen from his having 
 evinced a conciliatory spirit and a reluctance 
 to condemn too hastily. 
 
 There are two extant epistles of his, written 
 to Cyril and John of Antioch, expressing his 
 great joy in their reconciliation ; from one of 
 which it further appears that he had written 
 often previously to Maximian, the successor 
 of Nestorius at Constantinople. A synod had 
 been held at Rome on the occasion of his 
 birthday, at which the joyful news of the 
 reconciliation had been made known, and he 
 was, when he wrote, expecting the speedy 
 arrival of a deputation of clergy from John 
 of Antioch. These two letters are given by 
 Baronius (a.d. 433, xii. and xvii.) ; from a 
 Vatican MS., which he speaks of as corrupt 
 but trustworthy. (See also Labbe, Concil. 
 Eph. iii. 1689, 1699.) The letter to John is 
 quoted by Vincent of Lerins (adv. Haer.). 
 
 Two previous letters of Sixtus, conceived 
 in a similar spirit, are given by Cotelerius from 
 MSS. in the Biblioth. Reg. (Coteler. Monum. 
 Graec. Eccles. vol. i. p. 42). One was to 
 Cyril ; the other was apparently an encyclic 
 to him and the Easterns generally, sent by 
 two bishops from the East, Hermogenes and 
 Lampetius, who had been present at the 
 pope's ordination. Both announced, as was 
 usual, his accession to his see, and declared 
 his communion with the Eastern churches. 
 But in both, while he fully concurs in the 
 condemnation of Nestorius by the council of 
 Ephesus, he refers with regret to the dissent 
 of John of Antioch and his adherents, whose 
 reception into communion he desires and 
 recommends, if they should come to a better 
 mind, as he hopes they will. 
 
 Sixtus was no less vigilant than preceding 
 popes in maintaining the jurisdiction of the 
 Roman see over lUyricum, and that of the 
 bp. of Thessalonica as the pope's vicar over 
 the rest of the bishops there. Four letters of 
 his (two written in 435, another in 437) on this 
 subject were read in the Roman council held 
 under Boniface II., a.d. 531. (See Labbe, 
 vol. v., Concil. Rom. III. sub Bonifac. II.) 
 In the fourth, addressed to all the bishops of 
 lUyricum, he enjoins them to submit them- 
 selves to Anastasius of Thessalonica as, like 
 
 SOCRATES 
 
 his predecessor, vicar of the apostolic see, with 
 authority to summon synods and adjudicate 
 on all cases, except such as it might be neces- 
 sary to refer to Rome. He bids them pay no 
 regard to the decrees of " the oriental synod," 
 except those on faith, which had his own 
 approval. He probably refers to the council 
 of Constantinople, which in its 3rd canon had 
 given a primacy of honour after old Rome to 
 Constantinople. On the strength of this the 
 patriarchs of Constantinople had already 
 assumed jurisdiction over the Thracian dio- 
 ceses, though not till the council of Chalcedon 
 (A.D. 451 ; can. xxviii.) was the express power 
 of ordaining metropolitans in lUyricum for- 
 mally given to them, despite the protest of 
 pope Leo's legates. 
 
 Towards the end of his life Sixtus still 
 concurred decidedly in the condemnation of 
 Pelagianism. For we are told by Prosper 
 (Chron.) that Julian, the eminent Pelagian, 
 being deposed from the see of Eclanum in 
 Campania, essayed in 439, by profession of 
 penitence, to creep again into the communion 
 of the church, but that Sixtus, under the 
 advice of his deacon Leo, " allowed no 
 opening to his pestiferous attempts." This 
 Leo was the successor of Sixtus in the see of 
 Rome, Leo the Great, who thus appears to 
 have been his archdeacon and adviser. 
 
 Three works issued under the name of Sixtus 
 (de Divitiis, de Malis Docioribus, etc., and de 
 Castitate) are apparently of Pelagian origin 
 (see Baron, ad ann. 440, vi.), possibly put out 
 in his name on the strength of the old report 
 of his having once favoured Pelagianism. 
 
 Sixtus died a.d. 440, and was buried 
 (according to Anastasius, Lib. Pontif.), "ad 
 S. Laurentium via Tiburtini." He is com- 
 memorated as a confessor on Mar. 28 : 
 " Romae S. Sixti tertii, papae et confessoris " 
 (Martyrol. Roman). Why he should be called 
 a confessor is not obvious. The title may 
 rest on a spurious letter to the bishops of the 
 East, which complains of persecution. 
 
 In the Lib. Pontif. extraordinary activity 
 in building, endowing, and decorating churches 
 is attributed to him, and to the emperor Valen- 
 tinian under his instigation. He is said to 
 have built the basilicas of St. Maria Maggiore 
 on the Esquiline (called Ad Praesepe), and of 
 St. Laurence, and to have furnished both with 
 great store of precious instruments and orna- 
 mentations. Pope Hadrian, in writing to 
 Charlemagne {Ep. 3, c. 19) alludes to the 
 former. [j.b— v.] 
 
 Socrates (2), one of the most interesting and 
 valuable historians of the early Christian age, 
 was born at Constantinople, probably early in 
 the reign of Theodosius the younger, a.d. 408. 
 He tells us that he was educated there under 
 Helladius and Ammonius, two heathen gram- 
 marians, who had fled from Alexandria to 
 escape the emperor's displeasure. They had 
 been guilty of many acts of cruel retaliation 
 upon the Christians there, who had sought to 
 overthrow the idols and temples (H. E. v. 16). 
 Socrates studied rhetoric, assisted Troilus the 
 rhetorician and sophist, and entered the legal 
 profession, hence his name Scholasticus, the 
 title for a lawyer. His life was spent at 
 Constantinople, and hence he, in his history, 
 occupies himself much with the affairs of that 
 
SOCRATES 
 
 city. " No wonder," he says " I write more 
 fully of the famous acts done in tliis city 
 (Constantinople), partly because I behold 
 most of them with my own eyes, partly be- 
 cause they are mi>re famous and thought more 
 worthy of remembrance than many other 
 acts "(v. 23). Here we see the true spirit of 
 the historian, and a worthy anxiety to be 
 correct. How sincerely Socrates desired to 
 be so is shewn by his use of similar expressions 
 in the beginning of bk. vi., where he says he 
 had a greater liking for the history of his own 
 than of bygone times, because he had either 
 seen it or' learned it from eye-witnesses. A 
 certain Theodorus, otherwise unknown, en- 
 couraged him to become a historian of the 
 church. His object was to continue its 
 history from where Eusebius had ended down 
 to his owni day. His work is divided into 
 seven books, from Constantine's proclamation 
 as emperor, a.d. 306 to 439, a period of 133. 
 or, as he himself calls it, in round numbers, 
 140 years. Especially in bks. i. and li. Rutinus 
 appears to have exercised considerable influ- 
 ence. But at that point, the writings of 
 Athanasius and the letters of other celebrated 
 men coming into his hands, he ft)und that 
 Rufinus had been misinformed and had misled 
 him on many points. His own statement seems 
 to imply that he re\vT0te those books to have 
 the satisfaction of knowing that he had set 
 forth the history " in a most absolute and 
 perfect manner" (ii. i). 
 
 Of his own style Socrates, addressing Theo- 
 dorus, says, " But I would have you know, 
 before you read my books, that I have not 
 curiously addicted myself unto a lofty style, 
 neither imto a glorious show of gay sentences ; 
 for so peradventure, in running after words 
 and phrases, I might have missed of my 
 matter and failed of my purpose and intent. 
 . . . Again, such a penning proftteth very little 
 the vulgar and ignorant sort of people, who 
 desire not so much the fine and elegant sort 
 of phrase as the furtherance of their know- 
 ledge and the truth of the history. Where- 
 fore, lest our story should halt of both sides, 
 and displease the learned in that it doth 
 not rival the artificial skill and profound 
 knowledge of ancient writers, the unlearned 
 in that their capacity cannot comprehend the 
 substance of the matter by reason of the 
 painted rhetoric and picked sentences, I have 
 tied myself unto such a mean as that, though 
 the handling be simple, yet the effect is soon 
 found and quickly understood " (vi. pref.). 
 
 His matter was to be chiefly the affairs of 
 the church, but not to the complete exclusion 
 of " battles and bloody wars," for even in 
 these there was something worthy to be 
 recorded. He believed the narrative of such 
 events would help to relieve the weariness 
 which might overcome his readers if he dwelt 
 only on the consideration of the bishops' 
 affairs and their practices everywhere one 
 against another, .\bove all, he had observed 
 that the weal of church and state was so 
 closely bound up together that the two were 
 either out of joint at the same time, or that 
 the misery of the one followed closely the 
 misery of the other (v. pref.). It was the 
 troubles of the church, too, that he desired 
 chiefly to record. His idea wai that, when 
 
 SOCRATES 
 
 m: 
 
 ! peace prevailed, Ihrrr wa* no nutter (.* a 
 historiographer (vii. 47). 
 
 One important qualihcatiun Socratr* po*i- 
 cssed for his task v/,is that he wa* 4 Uvmaa. 
 This in no degree hindrrrd hi» cjpabiiiiv «>( 
 forming a correct ju<lgmrnt <in tlir..l.i«iral 
 
 contruTrsirs, for arouml tli-- •■■-in 
 
 interest of lay an well as cl< ; . 
 
 centred in his davs and they w 
 I undexstixxl bv all educated t . , 
 
 while his lay position and training uinu. .lion- 
 ably helped to raise him alnivr thr bitter 
 I animosities and prrsrculing spirit o( hit aKr, 
 j and led him to see the amount <>( h.iir>plitting 
 \ in not a few of the current dispute*. Hii 
 I recognition of rimmI in those from whom he 
 , differed forms one of the most plcttmij 
 I characteristics of his history. Hit iiiip.irti- 
 I ality has, indeed, exposed him to a chatK'c o( 
 heresy. He saw, and ventured to uwn, some 
 good in the Novatiaiiists. and espi-cially in 
 several of thiir bishops, and he hat been 
 accordinglv often charged with Novati.initm. 
 But his historv shows little, if any. reason why 
 we should doubt his orthodoxy. Like the 
 
 most enlightened men of his age. he gave caty 
 ' credence to miraculous stories, and there are 
 manv scattered throughout his page* quite ai 
 improbable and fo<illsh as those lound in the 
 most superstitious writers of his time. Yet 
 Socrates often displays a singular propriety 
 I of judgment, while his occasional reflection* 
 t and digressions constitute one of the most 
 I interesting and instructive parts of his history. 
 : Thus his defence of the study by Chn.liant 
 ' of heathen writers may still be read with 
 profit, and perhaps much more could not 
 : even now be added to his argument (111. 14)- 
 His chapter on ceremonies, their nlacc in the 
 Christian system, the ground of their obliga- 
 i tion, and their relati(m to the true word ol the 
 I gospel, shews an enlargement and enlighten- 
 ment of mind (V. 21 ). His whole history shews 
 I his keen eye for the mischief done by heated 
 I ecclesiastics, and for the unworthy motives that 
 , frequently swaved them (vi. 14)- 
 I F.w manv other points the student will find 
 his Wis/orv valuable. It contains manyoriginal 
 d.Kuments, e.g. decre.^ of councils and letters 
 of emperors and bishops. It gives many 
 important details as to the councils of Nicaea. 
 Chalccdon. Antioch, Alexandria. Conttanti- 
 noplc, Ephesus. etc. ; the ciniK-rors o< the 
 time treated of ; the most distinguished 
 bishops, B.isil of Caesarea, (iregory of Na/ian- 
 zum Ambrose, Athanasius. Chrysostoiii. 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia. Cyril, etc. : the 
 Egyptian monks and their miracles : I Iphila*. 
 bp.of the (ioths. and the famous Hypati i M 
 embraces some important statements ■ ■ t:,. 
 independence ..f Koine cKumrd bv tlir I . ; : a 
 
 church and the encroachf: * •*■ ■' 
 
 see upon the lattrr ; 011 ' 
 
 secular power of the K": ' 
 
 the introtluction <■* ■'' ' ' ' 
 
 The progress of ti "1 ,1.*; 
 
 Saracens, and IVi *" ""^ 
 
 Jews, and the pi '» ^OM- 
 
 troversy are treated at lar^'-. 
 
 A (.reek and Latin cd.. with note*, by 
 
 Valesius. wa* pub. at l'ari« in H>68. repealed 
 
 at Cambridge in 1720. and in Migne-. latf. 
 
 Gk. (t. Ixvii.) in i»59- In «'*53 apinrarcd Ibe 
 
 68 
 
914 
 
 SOPHRONIUS 
 
 Gk. and Lat. ed. of R. Hussey (Oxf. 3 vols. 
 8vo). An ed. with Eng. notes and intro. by 
 W. Bright is pub. by the Clar. Press. There 
 s an Eng. trans, by Meredith Hanmer, Prof, 
 of Divinity, pub. in London by Field, i6iq, and 
 more recent ones pub. by Bagster in 1847, and 
 in Schatf and Wace's Post-Nicene Lib., and in 
 Bohn's Lib. (Bell). [w.M.] 
 
 Sophronius (7), a learned Greek friend of 
 Jerome, who was with him in 391-392, and is 
 included in his catalogue of ecclesiastical 
 writers. He had, while still young, composed 
 a book on the glories of Bethlehem, and, just 
 before the catalogue was written, a book on 
 the destruction of the Serapeum, and had 
 translated into Greek Jerome's letter to Eus- 
 tochiuin on virginity, his Life of Hilarion, and 
 his Latin version of the Psalms and Prophets. 
 Jerome records that it was at Sophronius's 
 instance that he wrote the last-named. So- 
 phronius had, in dispute with a Jew, quoted 
 from the Psalms, but the Jew said that the 
 passages read differently in Hebrew. Sophro- 
 nius therefore asked from Jerome a version 
 direct from the Hebrew, which Jerome gave, 
 though he knew that alterations from the 
 received version would cause him some 
 obloquy. The importance of these alterations 
 led Sophronius to translate the versions into 
 Greek. They were well received, and were 
 read in many of the Eastern churches instead 
 of the Septuagint. The translations have 
 not come down to us ; but a Greek version 
 of the catalogue of ecclesiastical writers bears 
 the name of Sophronius. It is not quite 
 accurate, but appears to have been the version 
 used by Photius. The presence of his name 
 on this book probably gave rise toL ts insertion 
 in some MSS. between the names of Jerome, 
 who, however, does not appear to have 
 adopted it. Hieron., de Vir. III. 134 ; cont. 
 Ruf. ii. 24; Ceillier, vi. 278 ; and Vallarsi's 
 pref. to Jerome, de Vir. III. [w.h.f.] 
 
 Sophronius (10), bp. of Telia or Constantina 
 in Osrhoene, first cousin of Ibas, bp. of Edessa. 
 He was present at the synod of Antioch which 
 investigated the case of Athanasius of Perrha, 
 in 445 (Labbe, iv. 728). At the " Robbers' 
 S3^od " of Ephesus in 449 (Evagr. H. E. 10) 
 he was accused of practising sorcery and 
 magical arts. He was also accused of Nes- 
 torian doctrine, and his case was reserved for 
 the hearing of the orthodox metropolitan of 
 Edessa, to be appointed in the place of Ibas. 
 No further steps appear to have been taken, 
 and at the council of Chalcedon he took his 
 seat as bp. of Constantia (Labbe, iv. 81). 
 His orthodoxy, however, was not beyond 
 suspicion, and in the 8th session, after Theod- 
 oret had been compelled by the tumultuous 
 assembly reluctantly to anathematize Nes- 
 torius, Sophronius was forced to follow his 
 example,with the addition of Eutyches (Labbe, 
 iv. 623). Theodoret wrote to him in favour 
 of Cyprian, an African bp. driven from his see 
 by the Vandals (Theod. Ep. 53). Assemani, 
 Bibl. Orient, i. 202, 404 ; Chron. Edess. ; Tille- 
 mont, Mem. eccl. xv. 258, 579, 686 ; Martin, 
 Le Pseudo-Synode d'Ephese, p. 184 ; Le Quien, 
 Or. Christ, ii. 967. [e.v.] 
 
 Soter, bp. of Rome after Anicetus, in the 
 reign of Marcus Aurelius, during 8 or 9 years. 
 Lipsius (Chronol. der rom. Bischot.) gives 166 
 
 SOZOMEN 
 
 or 167 and 174 or 175 as the probable dates 
 of his accession and death. In his time the 
 Aurelian persecution afflicted the church, 
 though there is no evidence of Roman Chris- 
 tians having suffered under it. But they 
 sympathized with those who did. Eusebius 
 (//. E. iv. 23) quotes a letter from Dionysius, 
 bp. of Corinth, to the Romans, acknowledging 
 their accustomed benevolence to sufferers 
 elsewhere, and the fatherly kindness of bp. 
 Soter : " From the beginning it has been your 
 custom to benefit all brethren in various ways, 
 to send supplies to many churches in every 
 city, thus relieving the poverty of those that 
 need, and succouring the brethren who are in 
 the mines. This ancient traditional custom 
 of the Romans your blessed bp. Soter has not 
 only continued, but also added to, in both 
 supplying to the saints the transmitted 
 bounty, and also, as an affectionate father 
 towards his children, comforting those who 
 resort to him with words of blessing." 
 
 The unknown author of a book called Prae- 
 destinatus (c. 26) states that Soter wrote a 
 treatise against the Montanists. But the 
 writer is generally so unworthy of credit that 
 his testimony is of no value. [Montanus ; 
 Praedestinatus.] 
 
 As to the Easter dispute between Rome and 
 the Asian Quartodecimans, it seems probable 
 that Soter was the first bp. of Rome who was 
 unwilling to tolerate the difference of usage. 
 His immediate predecessor Anicetus had 
 communicated with Polycarp when at Rome ; 
 but Victor, who succeeded Soter's successor 
 Eleutherus, incurred the reproof of St. Ire- 
 naeus and others for desiring the general 
 excommunication of the Asiatic churches on 
 account of the dispute ; and Irenaeus, in 
 remonstrating with Victor, refers only to 
 bps. of Rome before Soter, mentioning them 
 by name, and ending his list with Anicetus, as 
 having maintained communion with the Quar- 
 todecimans (Eus. H. E. v. 24). [j.B — Y.] 
 
 Sozomen, author of a well-known Eccle- 
 siastical History, born c. 400. In his book 
 Sozomen has some notices of his birth and of 
 his bringing up (v. 15). His family belonged to 
 Bethelia, a small town near Gaza in Palestine, 
 where his grandfather had been one of the 
 first to embrace Christianity. Thus Sozomen 
 was nurtured amidst Christian influences. He 
 tells us (I.e.) that his grandfather was endowed 
 with great natural ability, which he consecrated 
 especially to the study of the sacred Scriptures, 
 that he was much beloved by the Christians 
 of those parts, who looked to him for explana- 
 tions of the word of God and the unloosing of 
 its difficulties. Sozomen came to the writing 
 of ecclesiastical history in no spirit of indiffer- 
 ence. He believed in Christianity, and even 
 in the more ascetic forms of it, with a genuine 
 faith, " for I would neither," he says, " be 
 considered ungracious, and willing to consign 
 their virtue [that of the monks] to oblivion, 
 nor yet be thought ignorant of their history ; 
 but I would wish to leave behind me such a 
 record of their manner of life that others, led 
 by their example, might attain to a blessed 
 and happy end " (i. i). 
 
 He was probably educated at first in Beth- 
 elia or Gaza, for some memories of his youth 
 are connected with Gaza (vii. 28). Thence 
 
SPYRIDON 
 
 he seems to have gone to Berytus, a city of ! 
 Phoenicia, to l>c trained in civil law at its 
 famous school. His education tinishcd, he 
 proceeded to Constantinople, and there 
 entered on his profession (ii. 3). 1 
 
 VV'hile thus enRafjed he formed the plan of 
 his EccUsiii.-;ticai History (ii. 3), being attracted 
 to the subject both by his owi taste and 
 the example of Kusebius. It appeared in 9 
 books, extending over the years 3^3-430. and 
 was dedicated to Theodosius the Younger. It 
 thus covers the same period as that of Soc- 
 rates, and as both were written about the same 
 time and have many resemblances, the ques- 
 tion arises as to which w.is the original and 
 which not unfrequcntly the copyist. V'alesius, 
 upon apparently good grounds, decides against 
 Sozomen, although allowing that he often adils 
 to and corrects his authority. Like Socrates, 
 Sozomen is habitually trustworthy, and a 
 consciei\tious and serious wTiter. In his 
 account of the council of Nicaea, which may 
 be taken as a favourable specimen of his work 
 as a whole, he seems to have drawn from the 
 best sources, to have proceeded with care, and 
 to have made a sufliciently good choice among 
 the apocryphal traditions and innumerable 
 legends which in the 5th cent, obscured the 
 reports of this great council (cf. De Broglie, 
 iv. siecle, ii. 431). But he inserted in his 1 
 history not a little that is trifling and super- 
 stitious. In style he is generally allowed to be 
 superior, but in judgment inferior, to Socrates. 
 His History is especially valuable for its 
 accounts of the monks, wliich, though by an 
 admirer, are not therefore to be despised, or we 
 should be equally entitled to set aside accounts 
 by their detractors. It is impossible to read 
 his repeated notices of the monastic institu- 
 tions of his time or his long account of their 
 manners and customs (i. 12). without feeling 
 that here are statements as to the nature and 
 influence of monasticism which cannot be set 
 aside. He also gives not a few important 
 particulars concerning both theevents and men 
 of the time covered by it, particularly of the 
 council of Nicaea, the persecutions, the general 
 progress of the gospel, the conversion of Con- 
 stantine, the history of Julian, the illustrious 
 Athanasius, and many bishops and martyrs of 
 the age ; and also a number of original docu- 
 ments. 
 
 The best ed., by Valesius, appeared at Paris 
 in 1668, and was followed by one, with the 
 notes of Valesius, at Cambridge, in 1720. The 
 ed. of Hussey (Oxf. i860) al^o deserves men- 
 tion. An ling, trans, in Bohn's Eccl. /-ift.(i855) 
 deserves high commendation; another was pub. 
 by Baxter in 1847 ; and there is one in the Lib. 
 of Xicene and Poit-Stcene Fathers. [w.M.) 
 
 Spyridon, bp. of Trimithus in Cyprus, one of 
 the most popularly celebrated of the bishops 
 attending the council of Nicaea, although his 
 name is not found ui the list of signatures. 
 He was the centre of many hgendary stories 
 which Socrates heard from his fellow-islanders 
 (Socr. H. E. i. 12). Spyridon was married, 
 with at least one daughter, Irene. He con- 
 tinued his occupation as a sheep farmer alter, 
 for his many virtues, he had been called to the 
 episcopate. He is mentioned by Athanasius 
 among the orthodox bishops at the council of 
 Sardica (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 768)- His body 
 
 STEPHANUS I. 
 
 915 
 
 was first buried in his native islauil, tlirn rr- 
 moved to I'onstaniuioplr, and when the I urk« 
 captured the city it was tr-inMiiittrd to t orlu, 
 where it is annually carrir<l tn prxr^iimi 
 round the ca^>it.il as the patron saint ol (he 
 loni.m isles (Stanley, Ea.sUrn Chur(h. p. lifi). 
 His Life, written in iambics bv liis ^>upll, 
 Triphylhus o( I.cdra, is spoken of by SuuUi 
 as " very protitalile " (Suulas iub wtt. Irl- 
 phyllius, II. <)47). Kutin. i, 3-^ ; .S.<:r. //. E. 
 I. 8, 12 ; St»/. //. /•.. i. II ; Niceph. //. h. . vili. 
 15, 42; Tillemoiit, St^m. reel. vi. <>4 j. «>;<>, 
 vil. 242-24(> ; Hefele, //n/. 0/ Couiuilt, vol. i. 
 p. 284, Clark's trans. ; Stanley, o/>. cil. i>p. 
 i24-t2<., 132). le.v.) 
 
 SUglrus {Slaginus), a young friend of 
 Chrys«)stoin, of noble birth, who against hi% 
 father's wishes einbracrtl .1 monastic life, join- 
 ing the brotherhoinl of which t hrvsostom wat 
 a member, and continuing there aftrr (allure 
 of health compelhd I hrysosioin's return to 
 .\ntioch. Ihe self-indulgent lite StaKirus h.id 
 led was a pi>>r prep.ir.ition t'>r the austerities 
 i_)f monasliciNin, and he proved a \ery un- 
 satisfactory monk. He found the nightly 
 vigils intolerable, aiul reading hardiv less dis- 
 tasteful. He spent his time in attenduig to 
 a garden and orchard. He also manifested 
 much pride of his high birth. His health 
 broke down under the strain of s«) uncon- 
 genial a life. He became subject to convul- 
 sive attacks, which were then considered to 
 1 indicate demoniacal possession. He employed 
 I all recognised means for expelling the evil 
 I spirit. He applied to pers«)ns of sui)crior 
 j sanctity, often taking long journeys to obtain 
 the aid of those who had thr r«-putatii>n of 
 healing those alllicted with spiritual maladies, 
 and visited the most celebrated martVTs' 
 i shrines, and pr.iyed long and fervently both 
 j there and at home, but in vain, though his 
 religious character sensibly improv»il. He 
 I rose at night and devoted much tune to 
 I prayer and became meek and humble. Chry- 
 sostom's counsels to him are in the 3 bo<iks aJ 
 Slanirium a daemone veiatum, or de Ihvina 
 Frovidenlia (S<K:r. //. /•-. vi. 3). What the 
 physical issue was we do not know, .\ilus 
 highly rjiinmends his piety, humility, and 
 contrition, but uses language which uidicate* 
 that his attacks did not entirely pass away 
 (Nilus. Ef>r>. lib. III. i<»). (K-v.) 
 
 Stephaaus (1)1., bp. of Kome. after l.ucms. 
 from .May 12. 254. to Aug. 2. 257- The>c 
 dates are arrived at by l.it>sius {I hroH. dtt 
 rum. Uischof.) after careful examinaliou. 
 , Those given by the ancient catalogues are 
 erroneous and conQicting. II Lucius died, ai 
 is supposed, on .Mar. y 2i4. Stephen wa« 
 appointed after a vac.incy of 61 day*. 
 
 At the time of his accession the |M-rsecution 
 of the church, begun by Decius and renewed 
 by (iailus, had ccas«-d for a timr under 
 Valerian. The internal disputes a* to the 
 reception of thr Utf">t. which had given ri*« 
 to the schism of NoVATlAV. still continued. 
 
 In the autumn of 254 •» council was held at 
 Carthage, the first during the episeopatc of 
 Stephen, on the matter of two Spanish bi*hop%. 
 U.isilidcs and Martiali*, de;M,4ed lor compli- 
 ance with idolatry. Uasilidc* had Ix^n to 
 Rome to represent his ca«c to Stephen and 
 procure reiuslatemeul ui hi» »oe ; and Slcpboo 
 
916 
 
 STEPHANUS 
 
 had apparently supported him. The synod- 
 ical letter of the council (drawn up, without 
 doubt, by Cyprian) confirmed the deposition 
 of the two prelates and the election of their 
 successors, on the ground that compliance 
 with idolatry incapacitated for resumption of 
 clerical functions, though not for reception 
 into the church through penance. The action 
 of Stephen was put aside as of no account, 
 though excused as due to the false representa- 
 tions of Basilides (Cyp. Ep. 67). A letter from 
 Cyprian to Stephen himself, probably written 
 soon after the council and in the same year, 
 is further significant of the relations between 
 Carthage and Rome. Stephen seems to have 
 been determined to act independently in 
 virtue of the supposed prerogatives of his see, 
 while Cyprian shews himself equally deter- 
 mined to ignore such prerogatives. The 
 subject of the letter is Marcian, bp. of Aries, 
 who had adopted Novatianist views, and 
 whose deposition Stephen is urged to bring 
 about by letters to the province and people 
 of Aries. The letter shews that Faustinus of 
 Lyons had repeatedly written to Cyprian on 
 the subject, having also, together with other 
 bishops of the province, in vain solicited 
 Stephen to take action. While allowing that 
 it rested with the bp. of Rome to influence 
 with effect the Gallic provinces, Cyprian is far 
 fiom conceding him any prerogative beyond 
 that of the general collegium of bishops, by 
 whose concurrent action, according to his 
 theory, the true faith and discipline of the 
 Church Catholic was to be maintained. In 
 praising the late bps. of Rome, Cornelius 
 and Lucius, whose example he exhorts 
 Stephen to follow, Cyprian seems to imply a 
 doubt whether the latter was disposed to do 
 his duty {ib. 68). 
 
 A new question of dispute, that of the re- 
 baptism of heretics, led to an open rupture 
 between Rome and Carthage, in which the 
 Asian as well as the African churches sided 
 with Cyprian against Rome. The question 
 was raised whether the adherents of Novatian 
 who had been baptized in schism should be 
 rebaptized when reconciled to the church (ib. 
 69 ad Magnum). But it soon took the wider 
 range of all cases of heretical or schismatical 
 baptism. It had been long the practice in 
 both Asia and Africa to rebaptize heretics, 
 and the practice had been confirmed by 
 synods, including the first Carthaginian synod 
 under Agrippinus. Cyprian (Ep. 73, ad 
 Jtibaianum) does not trace the African custom 
 further back than Agrippinus, but he insisted 
 uncompromisingly on the necessity of re- 
 baptism, and was supported by the whole 
 African chiurch. At Rome admission by 
 imposition of hands only, without iteration 
 of baptism, seems to have been the immemo- 
 rial usage, the only alleged exception being 
 what Hippolytus states (Philosophum. p. 291) 
 about rebaptism having been practised in the 
 time of Callistus. Stephen took a view 
 opposite to that of Cyprian. Cyprian would 
 baptize all schismatics, whether heretical in 
 doctrine or no ; Stephen would apparently 
 rebaptize none, whatever their heresies or the 
 form of their baptism (Cyp. Ep. 74). 
 
 The first council of Carthage on the subject, 
 held in 255, issued a synodal letter supporting 
 
 STEPHANUS 1. 
 
 Cyprian's position. Cyprian then sent to 
 Stephen a formal synodal letter, agreed on in 
 a synod at Carthage, probably at Easter, 256, 
 in which the necessity of baptizing heretics 
 and of the exclusion from clerical functions 
 of apostate clergy on their readmission into 
 the church, is urged. But the tone of the 
 letter is not dictatorial. Stephen may retain 
 his own views if he will without breaking the 
 bond of peace with his colleagues, every pre- 
 late being free to take his own line, and 
 responsible to God (Ep. 72). 
 
 Stephen's reply, written, according to 
 Cyprian, " unskilfully and inconsiderately," 
 contained things " either proud, or irrelevant, 
 or self-contradictory." Cyprian charges 
 Stephen with "hard obstinacy," "presump- 
 tion and contumacy," referring, by way of 
 contrast, to St. Paul's admonition to Timothy, 
 that a bishop should not be "litigious," but 
 "mild and docile," and replying to the 
 arguments advanced by Stephen. Stephen 
 had so far apparently not broken off com- 
 munion with those who differed from him 
 (Ep. 74). Cyprian summoned a plenary 
 council of African, Numidian, and Mauritanian 
 bishops, numbering 87, with presbyters and 
 deacons, in the presence of a large assembly 
 of laity, which met on Sept. i, 256. Cyprian 
 and other bishops separately gave their 
 opinions, unanimously asserting the decision 
 of the previous synod. But Cyprian was 
 careful, in his opening address, to repudiate 
 any intention of judging others or breaking 
 communion with them on the ground of dis- 
 agreement. After this great council, probably 
 towards the winter of 256, Firmilian, bp. 
 of Neocaesarea, wrote his long letter to 
 Cyprian, from which it appears that Stephen 
 had by this time renounced communion with 
 both the Asian and African churches, calling 
 Cyprian a false Christ, a false apostle, a deceit- 
 ful worker. The question has been raised 
 whether Stephen's action was an excommuni- 
 cation of the Eastern and African churches, 
 or only a threat. H. Valois and Baronius 
 say the latter only ; but Firmilian's language 
 seems to imply more, and so Mosheim (Comm. 
 de Rebus Christian, pp. 538 seq.) thinks. Routh 
 and Lipsius also hold that excommunication 
 was pronounced. Stephen claimed authority 
 beyond other bishops as being St. Peter's 
 successor, and took much amiss Cyprian's 
 independent action ; Cyprian, supported by 
 all the African and Asian churches, utterly 
 ignored any such superior authority ; his well- 
 known position being that, though Christ's 
 separate commission to St. Peter had ex- 
 pressed the unity of the church, this com- 
 mission was shared by all the apostles and 
 transmitted to all bishops alike. Unity, 
 according to his theory, was to be maintained, 
 not by the supremacy of one bishop, but by 
 the consentient action of all, allowing consider- 
 able differences of practice without breach of 
 unity. Stephen seems to have taken the 
 position, carried to its full extent by sub- 
 sequent popes, of claiming a peculiar 
 supremacy for the Roman see, and requiring 
 uniformity as a condition of communion. 
 
 The arguments of Stephen were mainly 
 these : " We have immemorial custom on our 
 side, especially the tradition of St. Peter's see, 
 
STEPHANUS 
 
 which is above all others. We have aUo 
 Scripture and reason on our side ; St. Paul 
 rejoiced at the preachiuR of the gospel, and 
 recognized it, though preached out of envy and 
 strife. There is but one baptism ; to reiterate 
 it is sacrilege, and its eflicacv depends, n<»t on 
 the administrators, but on the institution of 
 Christ ; whoever, then, has been once baptized i 
 in the name of Christ, even by heretics, has ! 
 been validly baptized, and may not be bap- 
 tized again." Cv-prian's answer was : " .\s to 
 your custom, however old. it is a corrupt one, 
 and not primitive ; no custom can be set 
 against truth, to get at which we must go back 
 to the original fountain. Scripture is really 
 altogether against you ; those at whose 
 preaching of the gospel St. Paul rejoiced were 
 not schismatics, but members of the church 
 acting from unworthy motives ; he rebap- 
 tized those baptized only unto St. John's bap- 
 tism, without acknowledgment of the Holy 
 Ghost ; he and the other apostles regarded 
 schism and heresy as cutting men off from ■ 
 Christ ; the Catholic Church is one. ' a closed 
 garden, a fountain sealed ' ; outside it there 
 is no grace, no salvation, consequently no 
 baptism ; people cannot confer grace if they 
 have not got it ; we do not reiterate baptism, 
 for those whom we baptize have not previously , 
 been baptized at all ; it is you that make two 
 baptisms in allowing that of heretics as well ' 
 as that of the church." 
 
 Stephen's martyrdom under Valerian is 
 asserted in the Felician Catalogue, but not in 
 the earlier Liberian Catalogue. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Stephanus (12), bp. of F.phesus at the time 
 of the " Robber Synod " and the 4th council of 
 Chalcedon. The nth session of that council 
 (Oct. 29, 451) was wholly occupied with in- 
 vestigating a complaint brought by Bassianus, 
 formerly bp. of Ephesus, against Stephen, 
 who was in advanced age, having been then 
 50 years one of the clergy of Ephesus. Bassi- 
 anus had been expelled by violence from the | 
 see c. 448, and succeeded by Stephen. Both 1 
 were deprived of the see by decree of the 
 synod, but allowed a pension of 200 gold 
 pieces (Mansi. t. vii. 271-294 ; Hefelc's Coun- 
 cils, t. iii. p. 371, Clark's trans.). The name ' 
 of Stephen of Ephesus is attached to a .MS. 
 collection of sermons in the Vienna imperial 
 librarv (Lambecii, Comment, iii. 66; Fabric' 
 Bih. Grace, xii. 183, ed. Harles). [r,.T.s.| 
 
 Stephanus (16) 1., patriarch of Anti<x:h 
 A.D. 47S-4S0 (Clinton, F. R. ii. 536. 553)- 
 Stephen having sent a synodic letter to .\cacius 
 bp. of Constantinople acquainting him with 
 the circumstances of his consecration, Acacius 
 convened a synod, a.d. 478, by which the 
 whole transaction was confirmed. The parti- 
 sans of Peter the Fuller accused Stephen to 
 Zeno of Ncstorian heresy, and demanded to 
 have his soundness in the faith investigated 
 by a synod. Zeno yielded, and a syiKxl was 
 called for the SvTian Lafxlicea (I.abbe, iv. 
 1 1 52). The charge was declared Kr<>undle^s 
 (Theophan. 108). Stephen's enemies, rendere*! 
 furious by defeat, m.ide an onslaught on the 
 church of St. Barlaam in which he was ct-le- 
 brating the Eucharist, dragged him (r<>m th«- 
 altar, tortured him to death, and threw his 
 body into the Orontes (Evagr. H. E. iii. 10 ; 
 Niceph. H. E. xv. 18). The emperor, indig- 
 
 SYMMACHUS 
 
 017 
 
 nant at the mur.lir ..f hw n..nunrr. .|r^p,,trhr<l 
 a military fnrrr !■• punish the Kutvrhian party, 
 at whoHe instigation thr criinr hail Iktii coin- 
 mitted (.Siw/'/ifM /•/.. tie. ad Zfiunum. 
 l.abl>e, iv. ion ; l.th. .SynoJ. 16. nsi). Ac- 
 cording t«i s<inie authorities it was Stephen'* 
 successor, .inothrr Stephen, who was (hu* 
 murdered. Valesius Seb. Minnis. lillrni.mt 
 l.Mfm. xvi. 31 s) iiiid I.e yiiirn {Or. (^hn^t. 
 ii. 7-'') take the view given .»bovr. (r.v.) 
 
 Stratonloe, martvr at Cyzirum in M>-»ia 
 with Seliiirus her husband at the quinqiicn- 
 nalia of (ialerius during Diocletian's persecu- 
 tion. The wife of a leading magistrate of the 
 town, she came to see a large numl>er <if 
 Christians tortured. Their patience converted 
 her and she converted her husliand. Hrr 
 father, .\pollonius, after every effort to win 
 her back to paganism had failed, brranie hrr 
 most bitter accuser. Husband anci wife were 
 beheaded, and buried in on«' tomb over which 
 Constantino built a church (.Assemani. Acta 
 .Mart. Orient, t. ii. p. As). The Acts offer many 
 marks of authenticity. Cf. I.e Blant. Acta dei 
 Martyrs, p. 224, etc. ; A A. SS. Boll. Oct. xiii. 
 pp. 89V9i<> ; Ceill. ii. 481-48^. [c.t.s.) 
 
 Sylvia iSilvania), sister of Flavins kufinus, 
 consul in 392 and prefict of the liast under 
 Theodosius and .Arradius. A work wTitten 
 by her was discovered at Arezzo in 18H5, 
 bound up with an unpublished work of St. 
 Hilary of Poictiers [dc .Mystenn). It con- 
 tained 2 hymns and an account of a journey 
 in the East. M. Ch. Kohler gave an anal\-sis 
 of the text in Bibl. de i Ecole des Chartrrs, and 
 .M. (.amurrini discussed its authorship in a 
 paper before the .Academy of ( hristian .Archae- 
 ology at Rome (cf. Ke\ue Critique, May 2 J. 
 1885, p. 410). It has since bern shown bv 
 M. Feratin that the pilgrim author is Etheri.V, 
 a Spanish nun, mentioned by the monk 
 Valerius(Migne, Patr. l.at. Ixxxvii. 421 ). It has 
 been generally quoted, however, as the Pere- 
 grinatio Silviae. It is of the highest interest 
 from its account of the services at Jerusalem 
 at the time (r. 385). Important extracts from 
 it are given in Duchesne's ihtgines du Culle 
 Chretien, of which a go«Hl tr.in>. bv .Mr*. 
 McCliire has been pub. by S.P.C.K. ( f. aNo 
 F. Cabrol, I.ex Enlises de Jeru\alem ; la du- 
 ctpline et la liturRie au IV"^ Steele, Etude siir 
 la f'erecrinatso Stlviae. (ri.T.s. anh m.w.) 
 
 SymmachlU (2), author of the (.reek vrrsi.in 
 of O. T., which in Origen's Hexapla and letra- 
 pla occupied the column next after that of 
 Aquila and before those of the I.X.X and 
 Theodotion. Eusebius speaks of Symmachut 
 as a heretical Christian, while I-'piphaniu* 
 represents him merely as passing from the 
 Samaritan sect to Judaism. The account of 
 Eusebius is confirmed (i) by the name " Svtn- 
 machians," which, a* we know from the 
 Ambrosiaster {I'rol. in Ef. ad dalat.) ami from 
 Augustine {(onl. Cresc. i. 31 ; cont. EauU. 
 xix. 4), was appllc<| even in thr 4th cent, to 
 the Pharis.iic or " Na/arran " l-,l>ionitr^ ; (2) 
 by the fact that Eusebius could refer to a work 
 of Syminachu* as extant, in which he main- 
 tained the Ebioiiile hrrrsv In the »ha|>r of an 
 attack on St. Mattlirw's *.os|m-I. Thu work, 
 according to Euvbius (//. E. vi. 17; />r- 
 momtr. Evang. vii. i ). was stated by Orii;en 
 to have been obtained by hitn, together with 
 
918 SYMMACHUS Q. AURELIUS 
 
 other interpretations on the Scriptures, from 
 one Juliana, who had received them from 
 Symmachus himself. A later writer, Palla- 
 dius (c. 420), adds that this Juliana was a 
 virgin who lived in Caesarea of Cappadocia, 
 and gave refuge to Origen for two years during 
 a persecution, adducing as his authority an 
 entry which he found in Origen's own hand : 
 " This book I found in the house of J uliana the 
 virgin in Caesarea, when I was hiding there ; 
 who said that she had received it from Sym- 
 machus himself, the interpreter of the Jews " 
 {Hist. Laus. i47)- Heut (Origemana, libb. I. 
 iii. 2 ; 111. iv. 2) is probably right in assigning 
 the sojourn of Origen in this lady's house to the 
 time of Maximin's persecutions (a.d. 238-241). 
 Eusebius speaks of the version of Symmachus 
 (vi. 16) as being, like those of Aquila and 
 Theodotion, in common use in Origen's day, 
 in contrast with the obscure " Fifth " and 
 " Sixth " versions, which Origen brought to 
 light ; and Origen's extant remains shew that 
 he knew and used Symmachus's version long 
 before the time of Maximin (236-239). 
 
 Palladius, by his incidental statement, 
 coming almost direct from Origen himself and 
 resting on the testimony of a lady who had 
 known Symmachus personally, powerfully 
 confirms Eusebius, and makes it clear that 
 Symmachus was a Christian (or " semi- 
 Christian " as Jerome expresses it) of the 
 Nazareo-Ebionite sect. Epiphanius's ac- 
 count is therefore to be rejected ; and with 
 it the theory of Geiger, who seeks to identify 
 him with the Jew Symmachus, son of Joseph. 
 The authority of Epiphanius has, however, 
 been commonly accepted for placing the date 
 of Symmachus under the reign of Severus 
 ( 193 -'2 1 1 ) — e-g- by the compiler of the Chronicon 
 Paschale {s.a. 202), Cave {Hist. Lit. s.a. 201), 
 etc. The extract from Palladius roughly 
 fixes limits for the possible date of Symma- 
 chus, by shewing that he was an elder con- 
 temporary of Juliana, who was contemporary 
 with Origen, but that he had died before 
 Origen's sojourn in her house. 
 
 Symmachus's object in his version seems to 
 have been to imitate Aquila in following the 
 Hebrew exclusively, but to avoid his bar- 
 barous diction and to commend his work to 
 Greek readers by piurity of style. Thus, his 
 renderings are externally dissimilar to Aquila's, 
 but (frequently) internally akin. Remark- 
 able cases of identity of translation between 
 these two versions occur, e.g. Dan. ix. 26, 27, 
 which appears to have been borrowed by 
 Symmachus verbally from Aquila. Of his 
 other writings nothing is known. [j.Gw.] 
 
 Symmaohus (3) Q. Aurelius.the last eminent 
 champion of paganism at Rome, son of L. 
 Aurelius Avianus Symmachus, who was pre- 
 fect of the city in 364, consul suffect and pre- 
 torian prefect in 376, and one of the envoys 
 sent by Julian to Constantius (Ammian. xxi. 
 12, 24). He was educated at Bordeaux {Epp. 
 ix. 88), where he and Ausonius became firm 
 friends (Auson. Id. 11, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xix. 
 895 ; Symm. Epp. i. 13-43)- After being 
 questor and praetor, he became corrector of 
 Lucania and Bruttium in 365 and proconsul 
 of Africa in 373 {Cod. Theod. viii. tit. v. 25 ; 
 xii. tit. i. 73)- Being again in Gaul c. 369, 
 he delivered his first panegyric on Valentinian 
 
 SYMMACHUS Q. AURELIUS 
 
 as he witnessed the construction of his for« 
 tifications on the Rhine {Laud, in Valent. Sen. 
 ii. 6). He was appointed prefect of the city 
 at the end of 383 or the beginning of 384. He 
 bore himself modestly in that office, which had 
 been conferred on him unsolicited, declining 
 the silver chariot which his predecessors had 
 permission to use {Epp. x. 24, 40) and the title 
 of " Magnificence " {Epp. iv. 42). In 382 he 
 headed a deputation in the name of the 
 majority of the senate, to the emperor Gratian, 
 to request the replacement of the altar of 
 Victory in the senate house and the restoration 
 of their endowments to the vestals and the 
 colleges of priests. The Christian senators, 
 who, according to St. Ambrose, were really the 
 majority, forwarded through pope Damasus 
 a counter-petition, and by the influence of 
 St. Ambrose the efforts of Symmachus were 
 defeated, as again in 384, after Gratian's 
 death (S. Ambr. Epp. 17, 18, 57, in Patr. Lat. 
 xvi. 961, 972, 1175 ; Symm. Epp. x. 6r). He 
 probably took part in the missions for the 
 same purpose sent by the senate by Theodosius 
 after the fall of Maximus, and to Valentinian 
 11. in 392 (S. Ambr. Ep. 57), and again suffered 
 the same disappointment. In 393 the pagan 
 party had a momentary triumph. Eugenius, 
 at the instigation of Flavian and Arbogast, 
 who had placed him on the throne, restored 
 the altar of Victory and the endowments of 
 the priests (Paulin. Vita S. Amb. in Patr. Lat. 
 xvi. 30), but they were again abolished by 
 Theodosius after the defeat of Eugenius and 
 Arbogast. Symmachus appears to have made 
 a final attempt in 403 or 404 ; at least such is 
 the natural inference from the two books of 
 Prudentius, contra Symmachum, written after 
 Pollentia and consequently c. 404. 
 
 Though a champion of the pagan cause, 
 Symmachus was on excellent terms with the 
 Christian leaders. He was a friend of pope 
 I Damasus and apparently of St. Ambrose him- 
 i self, whom Cardinal Mai considers to be the 
 Ambrose to whom seven of his letters are 
 addressed {Epp. iii. 31-37), of St. Ambrose's 
 brother Satyrus (S. Ambr. de Excessu Fralris, 
 i. 32, in Patr. Lat. xvi. 1300), and of Mallius 
 Theodorus, to whom St. Augustine {Retr. i. 2, 
 in Patr. Lat. xxxii. 588) dedicated one of his 
 works. When prefect, he sent St. Augustine 
 as a teacher of rhetoric to Milan {Conf. v. 19, 
 in Patr. Lat. xxxii. 717), and was thus the 
 unconscious instrument of his conversion. 
 His Christian opponents always speak in high 
 terms of his character and abilities. He was 
 a member of the college of pontiffs, and as such 
 exercised a strict supervision over the vestal 
 virgins. In the case of one of the Alban 
 vestals, who had broken her vow of chastity, 
 he demanded the enforcement of the ancient 
 penalty against her and her paramour {Epp. ix. 
 128, 129), and sternly refused the request of 
 another to be released from her vows before 
 her time of service ended {Epp. ix. 108). 
 
 The letters of Symmachus give a remark- 
 able picture of the circumstances and life of a 
 Roman noble just before the final break-up of 
 the empire. His wealth, though not above 
 that of an average senator (Olymp. ap. Phot.), 
 was very great. He had a mansion on the 
 Coelian near S. Stefano Rotondo and other 
 houses in Rome {Epp. iii. 14), and numerous 
 
SYMMACHUS 
 
 country residences, of which he mentions four 
 suburban (£/>/>. i. 6. ii. 57, iii. 55. vi. s«) and 
 several more, remote {Epf>. i. i, 8, 10, ii. (>o, 
 iii. 50, iv. 44, vi. (>(>. 81, vii. is. 35). He 
 had property near Aquileia and in Sam- 
 nium, Sicily, and Mauritania (i>^. iv. 68. vi. 
 II, ii. 30. vii. (>(>). The expenses of his son's 
 praetorship, which he paid, amounted to j.ooo 
 pounds of Kold (Olymp. u.s.), and in many of 
 his letters he asks his friends to send him rare 
 wild beasts for the sports of his son's praetor- 
 ship and que^torship. AmonR other, seven 
 Irish wolf-dogs are mentioned (Epp. ii. 77). 
 In three of his letters he speaks of his advanc- 
 ing years (Epp. iv. 18, 32, viii. 48). He was 
 cextainly alive in 404. 
 
 His letters are reprinted in 10 books in 
 Patr. Lat. .xviii. Early in the iqth cent. 
 Cardinal Mai discovered in the Ainbrosian 
 Library fragments of g speeches of Svin- 
 machus, which he published in 1815. and 
 again in 184(1. A new ed. of the Relaiiones, , 
 his official correspondence with emperors, was 
 pub. in 1872 bv \V. Meyer. [f-d-I 
 
 Symmachus (9), bp.of Rome from Nov. 
 498, to July, 514, when Theodoric the Ostro- 
 goth was king of Italy and Anastasius 
 emperor in the East. For the circumstances 
 of his election see Laurentius (10). 
 
 The virulence of the two opposed parties is 
 accounted for by the fact that they repre- 
 sented two opposite policies with regard to 
 the then existing schism between the Western 
 and Eastern churches. Laurentius was elect- 
 ed in the interests of the policy of concession 
 to Constantinople and the East, which the 
 previous pope, .\nastasius II., had favoured ; 
 Symmachus for the maintenance of the 
 unbending attitude taken by Felix III. when 
 the schism first began. 
 
 Several extant letters of Symmachus refer 
 to the rivalry between the Gallic sees of Aries 
 and Vienne. [Zosimus ; Leo I. ; Hilarius 
 (pope); Hilarius Arelat.] Anastasius II., 
 the predecessor of S>Tiimachus, had sanctioned 
 some invasion, on the part of Vienne, of the 
 jurisdiction assigned to Aries by Leo. After 
 the accession of S>'inmachus, Eonus, then the 
 primate of Aries, complained to him, appar- 
 ently in 499, of .\vitus of Vienne having, 
 under such sanction, ordained bishops beyond 
 his proper jurisdiction. The reply of Sym- 
 machus shews an evident readiness to impute 
 blame to Anastasius (whose whole policy, with 
 regard to the East, he had been elected to 
 counteract), and is remarkable as a decided 
 repudiation by a pope of the action of a pre- 
 decessor. He lays down the principle that 
 the ordinances of former popes ought not to 
 be varied under any necessity, as those of Leo 
 had been by .Anastasius, and must be now 
 maintained. He, however, requires both 
 Eonus and Avitus to send full statements of 
 their case to Rome ; and in his letter to 
 Avitus, while he repeats that the confusif)n 
 introduced by Anastasius was not to be 
 tolerated, he invites Avitus to state any 
 reasons for some equitable dispensation under 
 existing circumstances. It was not till 513 
 that we find the bp. of Aries finally confirmed 
 in the rights accorded to his sec by pope Leo ; 
 Caesarius having then succeeded Eonus. 
 Symmachus then wrote to this effect to the 
 
 SYMPHORIANUS 
 
 1M9 
 
 bishops of Caul, and in M4 to (\«e<wiriuv 
 waming him to rrspert llir anrirnt riK'hls of 
 other inetrr)politans .uul to rrport anything 
 amiss in liaul or Spain to Kf>iiir. 
 
 •After the defeat of the p.irtv of I^urentitu 
 at Rome and the final sritlnnent of Sym- 
 machus in the see. tli<> rmprmr An.i>.tasiiiv to 
 whom the result would br prruli.irly unwrN 
 come, issiu-d a in.uiifcsto .i^.tiiist Symm.ichiiv 
 reproaching hiin with having been util.iwfiillv 
 elected, accusing him of Manich< an hrr«-sy. and 
 protesting against his pnsnmplion in having 
 (as he saitl) excommunir.ilcd an emiirror. 
 Symm.ichus replied in a letter entitled 
 " .Apologetica adversus Anastasii imprratoru 
 libellum famosum," and in strong and indig- 
 nant language rebutted the charges aKaiiut 
 himself, and retorted that of heresy on the 
 emperor ; he accuses him of presuming on his 
 temporal position to think to trainpir on St. 
 Peter in the person of his vic.ir. and remind* 
 him that spiritu.il dignity is, at least, on a 
 par with that f>f an emperor ; and he protest* 
 strongly against the vif)lencc used against the 
 orthodox in the East. Anastasius w.is by 
 no means awed or deterred by these papal 
 fulminations, which had probably the opposite 
 effect. He appears after this more than ever 
 determined to support Eutychianism. 
 
 Some time during the episcopate of Sym« 
 machus Theodoric visited Rome. Cassio- 
 dorus gives an account of the visit, placing it 
 under the consuls of a.o. 500 ; and that 
 Theodxric rein.iined at Ravenna while the 
 case against the pope w,is pending may f>« 
 gathered from the d<Kuments that refer to it. 
 Himself an Arian, Thcotl'ric evidently had 
 no desire to intervene personally in the dis- 
 putes of the Catholics, declaring it his s<>lo 
 desire that they should agree among them- 
 selves and order be restored at Rome. 
 
 Symm.ichus is said by .Vnast.isius {Ltb. 
 Pontif.) to have built, restoreti, and enriched 
 with ornaments many Roman churches, to 
 have spent money in redeeming captives, to 
 have furnished yearly money and clothing 
 to exiled orthodox bishops, and to have 
 ordered the " Ciloria in exa-lsis " to l>c sung 
 on all Sundays and Saints' days, [j.ii— v.) 
 
 Symphorianus (1). mart\T, according to the 
 MSS. of his .\rts, under Aurelian. for which 
 name Ruin.u-t would substitute .Aurclius, 
 dating his passion c. 180. He was born in 
 Autun, of noble parentage, and trained in 
 Christianity from his childhoo<l. Autun w.»s 
 devoted to the worship of Berccynthia ; and 
 the consul.ir Hcraclius, who governed there, 
 anxious to convert the Christians bv argu- 
 ment, entered into discussion with S\im, ' 
 anus, who reviled his f.ilsr driiirs. Iti' i 
 used threat* and tortures, .md hnally !>• ! 
 him outside the walls in tin- pl.icr of <..i, ,;.... 
 execution. The Acts of this m.irtyr h.ivr l>. . u 
 evidently compiled out of very anrieiit .1- n- 
 meiits. The judici.il investigati<in is rrpori. .1 
 in the mml exact and technical form* of 
 Roman law. The questioa* proposed and the 
 answers given arc such as wc fiml in the inmt 
 genuine remains of antiquity. Vet Ihrrr .\tc 
 also indications that they have Iwen worknl 
 up into their i>resriii shape. The details of 
 the worship of Cvl>ele may be very uvfullv 
 compared with those given in the p»»»ion ol 
 
920 SYNESIUS 
 
 St. Theodotus and the Seven Virgins of 
 Ancyra. Celtic idolatry in Asia and in Gaul 
 followed precisely the same ritual. Ruinart, 
 Acta Sincera, pp. 67-73 ; Ceillier, i. 472 ; 
 AA. SS. Boll. Aug. iv. 496-498- [g.t.s.] 
 
 Synesius (2), bp. of Ptolemais in the Libyan 
 Pentapolis, early in 5th cent. A treatise by 
 H. Druon, Etudes st4r la vie et les cBuvres de 
 Synesius (Paris, 1859), gives valuable informa- 
 tion respecting the chronological arrangement 
 of Synesius's writings, especially the letters ; 
 another by Dr. Volkmann, Synesius von Cyrene 
 (Berlin, 1869), is a well--vvritten treatise, but 
 not so elaborate. 
 
 Synesius of Cyrene witnessed the accomp- 
 lishment of two great events on which the 
 whole course of history for many centuries 
 depended — the ruin of the Roman empire and 
 the complete triumph of Christianity. He 
 was born when the pagan world was mourning 
 the untimely death of the last of the pagan 
 emperors. He died amidst the horrors of the 
 barbarian invasions, when the recent fall of 
 Rome seemed to every portion of the Roman 
 empire a sign of impending ruin. 
 
 He was born c. 365 at C>Tene, " a Greek 
 city of ancient fame," but then already in 
 decay, and superseded by Ptolemais as the 
 capital of Pentapolis. He was of good 
 family, inheriting an ample fortune, with 
 considerable estates in the interior of the 
 country. In his early years he served in the 
 army and was passionately fond of field 
 sports. Leaving the army, he commenced 
 his studies at Alexandria, where Hypatia then 
 lectured in philosophy. Through her he be- 
 came attached to neo-Platonism. 
 
 But the great school of Alexandria was not 
 then considered sufficient for any one who 
 aimed at the reputation of a philosopher. To 
 Athens, therefore, Synesius was driven by the 
 remonstrances of his friends. But both with 
 the city and its teachers he was profoundly 
 disappointed. He returned to Pentapolis, de- 
 termined to divide his time between country 
 pursuits and literature, planting trees, breed- 
 ing horses, training dogs for hunting, writing 
 poetry, and studying philosophy. From this 
 pleasant life he was called to plead the cause 
 of his native city before the court of Constan- 
 tinople, arriving there a.d. 397, and remaining 
 3 years. Through the friendship and influence 
 of Aurelian, a distinguished statesman, the 
 leader at that time of what may be called the 
 patriotic party, Synesius was allowed to 
 pronounce before the emperor Arcadius and 
 his court an oration on the nature and duties 
 of kingship. This oration is still extant, but 
 the language is in parts so bold, the invective 
 so personal, as to suggest a doubt whether it 
 was actually delivered, at least in its present 
 form. 
 
 Some of the evils which Synesius anticipated 
 were soon realized. The Gothic leader Gainas 
 revolted, and triumphed without diflSculty over 
 the effeminate court of Arcadius. Aurelian 
 was sent into banishment, and his sup- 
 porters in Constantinople exposed to consider- 
 able dangers. Synesius declared afterwards 
 that he had only escaped the devices of his 
 enemies through warnings sent him in dreams 
 by God. In a few weeks the power of Gainas 
 sank as rapidly as it had risen. Part of his 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 army perished in a popular rising in Constan- 
 tinople. The rest were destroyed by an army 
 of Huns in the pay of the emperor. Aurelian 
 returned to Constantinople, and for the 
 remainder of Arcadius's reign had great in- 
 fluence at court. Through him Synesius 
 obtained the boon he asked for Cyrene, and 
 was able at length to quit the hateful city. 
 
 From his country retreat, and from the city 
 of Cyrene, Synesius kept up a brisk corres- 
 pondence with his friends in different parts of 
 the world, especially at Alexandria and Con- 
 stantinople. Some of his letters were 
 to influential friends in behalf of persons in 
 distress. Of the 156 letters still extant, 49 
 are to his brother Evoptius. They form a 
 pleasant series, full of interesting details. 
 
 With the death of Theodosius the last hope 
 of maintaining the grandeur of the Roman 
 empire seemed suddenly to pass. Rome and 
 Milan, Lyons and Aries, fell by turn before 
 Goths and Vandals, leaving many records of 
 suffering, but not one of a heroic struggle for 
 life and liberty. The characteristics of the 
 time are well illustrated by the letters of 
 Synesius. The miseries of the empire did not 
 spare the distant province of Pentapolis. 
 The nomadic tribes of Libya took advantage 
 of the weakness of the Roman government to 
 sweep down upon the fertile land. Their 
 inroads were at first merely predatory incur- 
 sions. They seem to have begun not long 
 after Synesius's return from Constantinople. 
 At Cyrene, as elsewhere, there were no troops 
 to oppose them. Synesius's spirits rose with 
 the danger. "I at all events," he writes, 
 " will see what manner of men these are who 
 think they have a right to despise Romans. 
 I will fight as one who is ready to die, and I 
 know I shall survive. I am Laconian by 
 descent, and I remember the letter of the 
 rulers to Leonidas — ' Let them fight as men 
 who are ready to die, and they will not die.' " 
 Here and there a few displayed the same 
 courage. Things grew worse, till he wrote 
 almost in despair this touching letter to 
 Hypatia : " I am surrounded by the mis- 
 fortunes of my country, and mourn for her as 
 each day I see the enemy in arms, and men 
 slaughtered like sheep. The air I breathe is 
 tainted by putrefying corpses, and I expect 
 as bad a fate myself, for who can be hopeful 
 when the very sky is darkened by clouds of 
 carnivorous birds ? Still, I cling to my 
 country. How can I do otherwise, I who am 
 a Libyan, born in the country, and who have 
 before my eyes the honoured tombs of my 
 ancestors ? " Shortly afterwards, owing to 
 the arrival probably of a new general, the 
 Ausurians were repulsed, and Synesius in 403 
 left for Alexandria, where he married and 
 remained two years. Returning, he found 
 Cerealis governor, under whose rule the pre- 
 datory incursions of the barbarians became 
 a regular invasion. " He is a man," wrote 
 Synesius to an influential friend at Constan- 
 tinople, " who sells himself cheaply, who is 
 useless in war, and oppressive in peace." 
 Obviously Synesius thought that, at least in 
 Pentapolis, the country might have been 
 easily protected against the barbarians if there 
 had been any ability in the government or 
 vigour in the people. He was probably right. 
 
SYNESIUS 
 
 The Roman empire (ell because so few of its 
 citizens c.ired to do anything to preserve it. 
 
 It was Init natural that men. even of strong 
 patriotic feelinR. like Svnesius. should turn 
 from the (ioKTadatioii of crtuial life to live in 
 thought amoiiK the glories of the heroic age 
 of action in the images of Homer, and the 
 heroic age of thought in those of Plato. His 
 philosophical studies did not meet with much 
 encouragement among the people of Penta- 
 polis. " I never hear in Libya the sound of 
 philosophy, except the echo of ray own voice. 
 Yet if no one else is my witness, assuredly Cod 
 is, for the mind of man is the seed of f.od. and 
 I think the stars look down with favour on me 
 as the only scientific observer of their move- 
 ments visible to them in this vast continent." 
 He pursued the study of astronomy, not only 
 from his love for the beauties of nature, but 
 as a valuable introduction to the highest 
 branches of philosophy. To him, as to IMato, 
 astronomy is " not only a very noble science, 
 but a means of rising to something nobler 
 still, a ready passage to the mysteries of 
 theology." He had received instruction in it 
 from Hypatia, his " most venerated teacher," 
 at Alexandria. While at Constantinople he 
 sent his friend Paeonius a planisphere, con- 
 structed in silver according to his own direc- 
 tions, with a letter giving a curious description 
 of it. He mentions that Ptolemy, and the 
 sacred college of his successors, had been 
 contented with the planisphere on which 
 Hipparchus had marked only the i6 largest 
 stars by which the hours of the night were 
 known, but he himself had marked on his 
 all the stars down to the 6th degree of mag- 
 nitude. 
 
 In philosophy Synesius is not entitled to 
 rank as an independent thinker. He is simply 
 an eclectic blending together the elements of 
 his belief from widely different sources, with- 
 out troubling to reduce them to a strictly 
 harmonious system. He had neither depth 
 nor precision of thought sufficient to win a 
 high place in the history of philosophy. But 
 he constantly speaks of his delight in philo- 
 sophical studies, and always claims as his 
 especial title of honour the name of a philo- 
 sopher. If he had been asked which he con- 
 sidered the most philosophical of his writings, 
 he would probably have answered his poems. 
 For, from his point of view, poetry was in- 
 separably connected with philosophy ; for 
 both are occupied with the highest problems of 
 life ; both look at the ideal side of things, and 
 in the union of the two religion itself consists. 
 The Homeric poems were valuable to him, not 
 only for literary excellency, but as furnishing 
 a rule of conduct. He quotes Homer as a 
 Christian then quoted his Bible. He evident- 
 ly regarded Homer as an authority in political, 
 social, moral, and even religious questions. 
 He was certainly well vers<-d in the whole 
 range of Greek literature. There is hardly a 
 poet, historian, or philosopher of eminence 
 not quoted or alluded to bv hwu. In this, as in 
 other respects, he faithfully represents one of 
 the latest phases of thought in the Alexandrine 
 school. The ascetic system of Plotinus and 
 Porph^TV had failed as an opposing force to 
 the rising tide of Christianity. The theurgical 
 rites and mysterious forms of magical incan- 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 f»2I 
 
 tation with which l.iml)lirhu\ and olhrrt 
 sought to pri>p up the l.tlling rrrnl h.id UmI 
 but a limited success. Krpratrd Uw» oj 
 incxeasing severity had brrn passed to rri>res» 
 the m.igic.d arts, .tiid many accused of 
 practising them imprisoned and even r»e« 
 cutetl. Besides, the very persons ovrr 
 whose credulity such prrimsions couUI rx- 
 ercise any intlumce would in the 4th cent, 
 naturally Ih> much more attr.irtecl l>v Ihr far 
 more wonderful pretensions of thr I hristian 
 hermits, and the countless t.iirs of visions srrn 
 and mirach>s wrought by mouk» of Nitria .ind 
 Scetis. which continually exciteil the wonder 
 and stimulate<l the religion ol the |>eople o( 
 .Mexandria. In supposed inir.icles, as in r«-al 
 austerities, no pagan philosopher was likely 
 to rival Anthony or .Amnion. Among the 
 higher classes the great majority of thinkiuK 
 men, who were still unwilling to rmbrace 
 Christianity, were chiefly influenced in the 
 Eastern empire by their attachnimt to (,rrrk 
 literature, in the Western empire by thrir 
 reverence, partly politiciil. partly religious 
 for Koine itself, whose greatness s/rmed to 
 them to depend on the maintenance of that 
 system, partly political, partly religious, under 
 which it had been acquired. The drerk 
 mythology had lost its hold on thi-ir »>elief. 
 but the poetry that mythology hatl inspired 
 still retained its power over the imaginati<^>n 
 of educated men among the cities of the 
 Eastern empire, which, however slightly 
 Cireek in origin, had become thoroughly 
 Greek in language and in culture. Besides, 
 the ideal of life presented in Greek literature 
 was far more attractive to many minds than 
 that presented by the popular teaching of 
 Christianity, especially to those minds in 
 which the intellectual were stronger than the 
 moral impulses. Those who " still cared for 
 grace and Hellenism," to use Synesius's 
 expression, turned with increasing fondness 
 from the intellectual degeneracy of their day 
 to the masterpieces of former times, seeking 
 to satisfy the universally ft-lt craving for a 
 definite religious creed, by taking from all the 
 writers they admired the elements of a vague 
 system, which they called a philosophy, but 
 which (l<p<ii(l<(l f.ir lUMrr upon poetical feeling* 
 than phiiosophic.il arguments. 
 
 Synesius's own poems are his most original 
 works. Their literary merit is not of the 
 highest order. His power lay not so much in 
 the strength of imagination as in warmth o( 
 
 f)oetical feeling. The metre's are unfortunate- 
 y chosen and not sufl^cientlv varied to escai>« 
 monotony. The fatal facility of the »hr)rt 
 lines constantly led to a jingling re[>etiti(>n o( 
 the same cadenc«-s and turns of construction. 
 Still, the ten hymns extant would l>e interest- 
 ing, if only as specimens of a stvlr of |\-rical 
 poetry, the meditative poetry partly philo- 
 sophical and partly religious, which was 
 hardly ever attempted in aii'""' <.r«.-r- 
 though common enough in i 
 Their chief value, howrvrr, t 
 light thrown on the religiou 1 
 
 ex|>criences of a man of drrplv lutit! .tmg 
 character. Any one who wishes to know the 
 religious aspect of neo-Platonism and the 
 different ph.ises of thought throuxh which an 
 able roan of strong religious (oelingt could in 
 
922 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 the 5th cent, pass to Christianity, can hardly 
 do better than study these hymns. 
 
 The God to Whom he thus offers the " un- 
 bloody sacrifice " of his prayers is at once One 
 and Three — " one root, one source, a triple 
 form." To attempt to explain the mystery 
 of this Trinity would be the atheistic boldness 
 of blinded men. The three persons of the 
 Trinity, to use the Christian form of expres- 
 sion never employed by Synesius himself, are 
 not as with Plotinus — Unity, Intelligence, 
 Soul. Most frequently the Christian terms 
 are used — Father, Spirit, Son — for the resern- 
 blance between the attributes assigned in 
 neo-Platonic philosophy to the soul, the third 
 God, the ruler of the world, and the attributes 
 assigned by Christianity to the Son apparently 
 led Synesius to place the Son third in his 
 system of the Trinity. The Father is also 
 called the Unity. The Spirit is nowhere 
 called the Intelligence, but is often called the 
 Will. The Son, Who emanates from the Father 
 through the Spirit, is also called, with a curious 
 combination of expressions, the Word, the 
 Wisdom, and the Demiurgus. The stream of 
 life and intelligence descends from the Father 
 through the Son to the intellectual worlds, and 
 from them to the visible world which is the 
 image of the intellectual. To all in heaven 
 and in the sky, and on the earth and beneath 
 the earth, the Son imparts life and assigns 
 duties. Nor is the Father, however myste- 
 rious in His nature, so " hidden in His glory " 
 as to be inaccessible to sympathy for His 
 children. In the efficacy of prayer and in the 
 reality of spiritual communion with God 
 Synesius firmly believed. " Give, O Lord, 
 to be with me as my companion the holy 
 angel of holy strength, the angel of divinely 
 inspired prayer. May he be with me as my 
 friend, the giver of good gifts, the keeper of 
 mv life, the keeper of my soul, the guardian 
 of mv prayers, the guardian of my actions. 
 May he preserve my body pure from disease, 
 may he preserve my spirit pure from pollution, 
 may he bring to my soul oblivion of all pas- 
 sions." And again in the beautiful prayer of 
 the soul for reunion with God : " Have pity. 
 Lord, upon Thy daughter. I left Thee to 
 become a servant upon earth, but instead of 
 a servant I have become a slave. Matter has 
 bound me in its magic spells. Yet still the 
 clouded eye retains some little strength, its 
 power is not altogether quenched. But the 
 deep flood has poured over me and dimmed 
 the God-discerning vision. Have pity. Father, 
 on Thy suppliant child, who, often striving to 
 ascend the upward paths of thought, falls back 
 choked with desires, the offspring of seductive 
 matter. Kindle for me, O Lord, the lights 
 which lead the soul on high." 
 
 Synesius has nowhere expressly stated that 
 he regarded matter not as created by God but 
 as existing independently and necessarily evil, 
 but this idea is most consistent with the lan- 
 guage he generally employs. God is nowhere 
 said to have created the world, but the Son 
 is said to have framed the visible world as 
 the form and image of the invisible. At all 
 events the corruption of the soul in each 
 individual is attributed to the seductive in- 
 fluence of matter, a view expressed at some 
 length in his very curious treatise on D^e^mls. 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 The soul, he says, descends from heaven in 
 obedience to a law of Providence to perform 
 its appointed service in the world. It then 
 receives, as a loan, the imagination, figurative- 
 ly called the boat or chariot by which the soul 
 travels on its earthward voyage. In other 
 words, it is the connecting link between mind 
 and matter. It is something intermediate 
 between the corporeal and incorporeal, and 
 philosophy therefore has great diflftculty in 
 determining its real nature. It is the duty of 
 the soul to purify and elevate the imagination. 
 It is the constant aim of the daemon of 
 matter to corrupt and degrade it. 
 
 The action of Providence in the government 
 of the world is described by Synesius in his 
 treatise written at Constantinople. All exist- 
 ence, he says, proceeds from God and has 
 been assigned by Him to an infinite variety 
 of beings, descending in regular gradations 
 from God Himself, Who is pure existence, to 
 matter, which, being in a state of constant 
 flux, does not, properly speaking, admit of 
 existence at all. The beings of the highest 
 order are called gods, and they are divided 
 into two classes, the first controlling the upper 
 parts of the universe, the other ruling this 
 earth. These gods find their chief happi- 
 ness in contemplating the God Who is above 
 them, but to preserve the earth from the evils 
 which would soon result from the destructive 
 activity of the earth-daemons thev must in- 
 terpose from time to time. This they do 
 gladly, because thus they render their ap- 
 pointed service to the supreme Deity. 
 
 As regards a future state, Synesius says 
 that philosophy teaches us that it is the result 
 of the present life. With death the husk of 
 matter, which we call the body, perishes, but 
 the soul and the imagination remain. 
 
 He repeatedly protests against giving pub- 
 licity to doctrines which are above the com- 
 prehension of men not thoroughly trained in 
 philosophical studies. " Philosophy is one of 
 the most ineffable of all ineffable subjects." 
 He reproves his friend Herculian for talking 
 of such with unphilosophical persons, and 
 will not even discuss them in letters lest they 
 fall into the hands of others. Proteus is the 
 problem of the true philosopher eluding vulgar 
 curiosity by concealing the divine under 
 earthly forms, and only revealing it to the per- 
 sistent efforts of heroic men. This desire for 
 secrecy arose from a fear lest the highest 
 truths should be corrupted and degraded by 
 those unfit to receive them, a feeling by no 
 means unknown in the Christian church at that 
 time.* Lysis, the Pythagorean, quoted by 
 Synesius with great approbation, says that 
 " the publicity given to philosophy has caused 
 many men to look with contempt upon the 
 Gods." Doubtless enough is plainly stated for 
 us to form a sufficiently accurate idea of Syne- 
 sius's philosophical and religious views, but 
 there are subjects — e.g. the nature of the 
 Trinity, the connexion between the old mytho- 
 logy and philosophy, the reabsorption of the 
 soul and of all intelligence and existence into 
 
 * So Theodoret {qiioted by Bingham, vol. i. p. 35) 
 says: "We speak of the divine mysteries in obscure 
 language because of the uninitiated (the unbaptizcd), 
 but when they are gone we instruct the initiated (bap- 
 tized) plainly." 
 
SYNESIOS 
 
 the Divinity, the nature and origin of matter, 
 the nature and work of the imaKiuation, the 
 scientific arrangetnent and nomenclature of 
 the virtues — on whicJi we have not the last 
 word of Hypatia's teaching. 
 
 We cannot say what means Synesius had of 
 becoming acquainted with Christianity in his 
 early years. No one living in any part of the 
 Eastern empire at the close of the 4th cent, 
 could fail to be brought into frequent cont.ict 
 with Christians. Hut throughout his works, 
 WTitten before he became a Christian himself, 
 the same phenomenon appears which is so 
 striking in Claudian's poems — the existence 
 of Christianity is entirely ignored. In his 
 speech addressed to .\rcadius, though the 
 greatest prominence is given to the religious 
 idea of duty, there is no allusion to the prin- 
 ciples of Christianity, even where such a 
 reference would have given force to his argu- 
 ments. The orator appears unconscious that 
 he is addressing a Christian emperor. The 
 deity to whom he appeals is the god of the 
 Theist. " whose nature no man has ever yet 
 found a name to represent." Still more 
 striking is a passage in one of the hymns 
 written immediately after his return from 
 Constantinople: " to all Thy temples, Lord, 
 built for Thy holy rites I went, and falling 
 headlong as a suppliant bathed with my tears 
 the pavement. That my journey might not 
 be in vain, I prayed to all the gods Thy min- 
 isters, who rule the fertile plain of Thrace, and 
 those who on the opposite continent protect 
 the lands of Chaltedon, whom Thou hast 
 crowned with angelic rays, Thy holy servants. 
 They, the blessed ones, helped me in my 
 prayers ; they helped me to bear the burden 
 of many troubles." Of course the temples of 
 which he speaks were Christian churches. No 
 pagan temples had been erected in Constan- 
 tinople, and even in the other cities they had 
 been closed some years by an edict of Theo- 
 dosius. Yet it is perfectly certain that 
 Synesius was not then a Christian. This 
 picture of a pagan philosopher praying in a 
 Christian church to the saints aiid angels of 
 Christianity, while investing them with the 
 attributes of the daemons of neo-Platonism, 
 is no bad illustration of the almost uncon- 
 scious manner in which the pagan world in 
 becoming Christian was then paganizing Chris- 
 tianity. As eclectic in religion as in philoso- 
 phy, Svnesius took from Christianity whatever 
 harmonized with the rest of his creed, often 
 adapting the tenets he borrowed to make 
 them accord with his philosophical ideas. 
 
 How his opinions were so far altered in the 
 next four years that he became a Christian, 
 we have, unhappily, but scanty means of 
 knowing. In none of his letters is there the 
 slightest trace of any mental struggle. The 
 change was effected gradually, probably 
 almost imperceptibly even to himself. He 
 had never been really hostile to Christianity, 
 and as the world gradually became more 
 Christian he became more ChrislLm too. 
 Almost without a struggle the old |)agan 
 society had yielded, and was still yielding, to 
 the tide which each year set more strongly in 
 the direction of Christianity. With all the 
 vigour he displayed, in great emergencies 
 Synesius was not a man to stand long alone 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 0J3 
 
 or to fight to the en<l 4 b,Utlr .drrjdv |o%t. 
 Some personal intliirnecs h.id jIvo Ixrn 
 brought to hc.u on him. He had known and 
 highly resprctrd ( hrvv.stnm at Con»tanti. 
 nople. .ind afterwards come into rontart with 
 Theophilus the iiatri.irch of Alexandria. Hi« 
 wife, to whom hr was warmly .ittached and 
 whom he ni.irried at Alexandria in 401, wan a 
 Christian, and in her he may have h.i<| an 
 opportunity of rem.irkiiig one of the nol.lr^t 
 features of Christianity, the elevation it im- 
 parted to the female character by the promin- 
 ence given to the frnimiiie virtues m the 
 character of Christ and therefore in the trarh- 
 ing of the church. Hut above all, when he 
 returned to Pcntapolis. in 404, to hnd hi* 
 country desolated by barbarian invasion he 
 must have f.-lt how little the highest form of 
 neo-Platonism could meet the wants of iuch 
 a troubled age. The philtKophical and 
 poetical creed was the religion of a prosperous 
 man in peaceful times. When sufiering and 
 danger came, its support failed precisely 
 where most needed. To rnjoy that intellec- 
 tual communion with (iod for which he craved 
 with his whole heart, and on the possibility 
 of which his whole system of belief depended, 
 he needed above all things an untroubled 
 mind. It was one of the points which had 
 marked most strongly his separation from 
 Christianity, that in his hvinns he had alwa\-!i 
 prayed at least as earnestly for freedom from 
 anxieties as for freedom from sin. He had 
 formed an ideal of liff which could not he 
 maintained in troubled times, and with it 
 necessarily fell the beliefs with which it was 
 intimately connected. The old creed told 
 him that " the woe of earth weighs down the 
 wngs of the soul so that it cannot rise to 
 heaven." The new religion taught him that 
 cares and sorrows rightly borne, so far from 
 hiding the divine light, reveal it in increased 
 brightness. In former days, when he shrank 
 into private life from " the polluting influence 
 of business and the vicissitudes of fortune," 
 he had probably considered the doctrine of the 
 Incarnation as the greatest obstacle to his 
 becoming a Christian, because it s<>emed to 
 degrade the Deity by connecting it with the 
 contamination of matter. Now, when he had 
 left his seclusion to battle and suffer with his 
 fellow-citizens, no doctrine of Christianity had 
 such attr.iction for him as that which told 
 of a Cod Who had resigned His glory to share 
 the sufferings of His creatures and to Ik? 
 the Saviour of mankind. Formerly he had 
 sought to purify his mind that it might ascend 
 in thought to God ; now he caught at the 
 dfx;trine of the Holy Spirit devrending into 
 men's hearts to make them the temples of ( .ixl. 
 So the first hymn which in.irks the transition 
 to Christi.inity begins with an invocation to 
 Christ as the .Son of the Holv N'irgin. and ends 
 with a prayer to Christ and to the Fatlirr to 
 s<nd down upon him the Holy .Spirit " to 
 refresh the wings of the soul, and to prrfrct 
 the diyinr gifts." Hut though his pravrs 
 were now addressed to Christ, it is obvi.nis 
 that he had rather added certain Chrutian 
 tenets to his old creed than adopted a new 
 religion. The attributes of Christ are de- 
 scribed in almost exactly the same terms as 
 the attributes of the Son had been described 
 
924 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 in former hymns. The prayers for himself 
 are almost identical. It is also cmrious to find 
 that he still considered the Spirit the second 
 person of the Trinity ; to use his own illustra- 
 tion, " the Father is the root, the Son the 
 branch, the Spirit intermediate between root 
 and branch." Still, the decisive step had 
 been taken by acknowledging Christ as the 
 Saviour of mankind ; after that the subse- 
 quent steps were natural and almost inevit- 
 able. He was baptized, probably about five 
 years after his marriage. How far he then 
 felt it necessary to give up the language and 
 ideas of his old creed may be imagined from 
 the following hymn, addressed to Christ : 
 "Thou earnest down to earth and didst 
 sojourn among men and drive the deceiver, 
 the serpent-fiend, from Thy Father's garden. 
 Thou wentest down to Tartarus, where death 
 held the countless races of mankind. The old 
 man Hades feared Thee, the devouring dog 
 (Cerberus) fled from the portal ; but, having 
 released the soul, of the righteous from suffer- 
 ing, Thou didst offer, with a holy worship, 
 hvmns of thanksgiving to the Father. As 
 Thou wentest up on high the daemons, powers 
 of the air, were affrighted. But Aether, wise 
 parent of harmony, sang with joy to his seven- 
 toned hnre a hymn of triumph. The morning 
 star, day's harbinger, and the golden star of 
 evening, the planet Venus, smiled on Thee. 
 Before Thee went the horned moon, decked 
 with fresh light, leading the gods of night. 
 Beneath Thy feet Titan spread his flowing 
 locks of light. He recognized the Son of God, 
 the creative intelligence, the source of his own 
 flames. But Thou didst fly on outstretched 
 wings beyond the vaulted sky, alighting on 
 the spheres of pure intelligence, where is the 
 fountain of goodness, the heaven enveloped 
 in silence. There time, deep-flowing and 
 unwearied time, is not ; there disease, the 
 reckless and prolific offspring of matter, is not. 
 But eternity, ever young and ever old, rules 
 the abiding habitation of the gods." 
 
 While the old and new were thus strangely 
 blended in his creed, an unexpected event 
 changed the whole current of his life. In 
 defiance of the law, which enacted that no 
 one should hold the governorship of the 
 province of which he was a native, Andronicus 
 had been appointed governor of Pentapolis. A 
 native of Berenice, of low origin, he had gained 
 the office, Synesius says, by bribery. Against 
 his appointment Synesius vigorously pro- 
 tested, in a letter to an influential friend at 
 Constantinople: "Send us legitimate gover- 
 nors ; men whom we do not know, and who 
 do not know us ; men who will not be biassed 
 in their judgments by their private feelings. 
 A governor is on his way to us who lately took 
 a hostile part in politics here, and who will 
 pursue his political differences on the judgment 
 seat." When the ancient Romans were 
 threatened with oppressive rulers, they chose 
 the bravest of their fellow-citizens as tribunes 
 to protect them. In the 5th cent, of the 
 Christian era, under similar circumstances, 
 the people of Ptolemais elected Synesius a 
 bishop. They knew him as a man of high 
 character and great abilities, universally liked 
 and respected, but probably still more recom- 
 mended to them by the \'igour he had dis- 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 played in the recent siege. No one who has 
 attentively studied his life and writings can 
 doubt that he was sincere in his wish to decline 
 the proffered honour. A frank statement of 
 his feelings was made in a letter written to 
 his brother Evoptius, then resident at Alex- 
 andria, and intended to be shewn to Theo- 
 philus : " I should be devoid of feeling if I 
 i were not deeply grateful to the people of 
 Ptolemais who have thought me worthy of 
 higher honours than I do myself. But what 
 I must consider is not the greatness of the 
 favour conferred, but the possibility of my 
 accepting it. That a mere man should receive 
 almost divine honours is indeed most pleasing, 
 if he is worthy of them, but if he is far from 
 being so, his acceptance of them gives but a 
 poor hope for the future. This is no new fear, 
 I but one I have long felt, the fear lest I should 
 i gain honour among men by sinning against 
 I God. From my knowledge of myself I feel I 
 ! am in every respect unworthy of the solemnity 
 of the episcopal office.* ... I now divide my 
 time between amusements and study. When 
 I am engaged in study, especially religious 
 studies, I keep entirely to myself, in my 
 amusements I am thoroughly sociable. But 
 the bishop must be godly, and therefore like 
 God have nothing to do with amusements, 
 and a thousand eyes watch to see that he 
 observes this duty. In religious matters, on 
 the other hand, he cannot seclude himself, 
 but must be thoroughly sociable, as he is both 
 a teacher and preacher of the law. Single- 
 handed, he has to do the work of everybody, 
 or bear the blame of everybody. Surely then 
 it needs a man of the strongest character to 
 support such a burden of cares without allow- 
 ing the mind to be overwhelmed, or the divine 
 particle in the soul to be quenched, when he 
 is distracted by such an infinite variety of 
 employments." Again, there was the diffi- 
 culty of his marriage. " God and the law, and 
 the sacred hand of Theophilus, gave me my 
 wife. I therefore declare openly to all and 
 testify that I will not separate entirely from 
 her, or visit her secretly like an adulterer. 
 The one course would be contrary to piety, 
 the other to law. I shall wish and pray to 
 have a large number of virtuous children." 
 Still more important in his opinion was the 
 question of religious belief. " You know that 
 philosophy is opposed to the opinions of the 
 vulgar. I certainly shall not admit that the 
 soul is posterior in existence to the body. I 
 cannot assert that the world and all its parts 
 will perish together. The resurrection which 
 is so much talked about I consider something 
 sacred and ineffable, and I am far from sharing 
 the ideas of the multitude on the subject." 
 He would indeed be content to keep silence 
 in public on these abstruser points of theology, 
 neithei pretending to believe as the multitude, 
 nor seeking to convince them of their errors, 
 " for what has the multitude to do with 
 philosophy ? the truth of divine mysteries is 
 • iepfus and the kindred terms are applied by 
 Synesius after he became a Christian only to bishops ; 
 the term presbyter is always used of the second order 
 of the Christian ministry. Before his conversion he 
 uses iepevs apparently of heathen priests, and on one 
 occasion certainly of Christian presbyters. In one 
 or two instances, however, iepev'? may be intended to 
 include presbyters as well as bishops. 
 
SYNESlUS 
 
 not a thing to be talked about. But if I am 
 called to the episcopacy 1 do not think it ri^ht 
 to pretend to hold opinions which I do not 
 hold. I call God and man as witnesses to this. 
 Truth is the property of (."lod. before Whom I 
 wisii to be entirely blameless. Though fond 
 of amusements — for from mv childhood 1 have 
 been accused of being mad after arms and 
 horses— still I will consent to give them up— 
 though I shall regret to see my d.irling dogs 
 no longer allowed to hunt, and my bows moth- 
 eaten ! Still I will submit to this if it is Citnl's 
 will. And though 1 hate all cares and 
 troubles I will endure these petty matters of 
 business, as rendering my appointed service 
 to God, grievous as it will be. But I will have 
 no deceit about dogmas, nor shall there be 
 variance between my thoughts and my tongue. 
 ... It shall never be said of me that I got 
 myself consecrated without my opinions being 
 kiiown. But let Father Theophilus. dearly 
 beloved by God, decide for me with full know- 
 ledge of the circumstances of the case, and let 
 him tell me his opinions cle;irly." 
 
 For seven months at least the matter re- 
 mained undecided. Synesius went to .Alex- 
 andria to consult Theophilus, and popular 
 feeling ran so high throughout the country 
 that he felt if he declined the bishopric he 
 could never return to his native land. The 
 people also sent two envoys to Theophilus 
 urging him to use all his influence to overcome 
 Synesius's scruples. This Theophilus was 
 sure to do, for, apart from the regard he may 
 well have had for Synesius, it must have been 
 a welcome triumph for him over his opponents 
 at Alexandria that the most distinguished 
 pupil of the Alexandrine school should be 
 consecrated by him a Christian bishop, a 
 visible sign to the people that even the noblest 
 form of paganism was found insuthcient by 
 its noblest disciples. The religious difficulties 
 were just those which might be expected in a 
 pupil of the Alexandrine school, whether he 
 derived his inspiration from Origen or from 
 Hypatia. How far, and in what way, Theo- 
 philus, already so well known as a vigorous 
 opponent of such views, succeeded in inducing 
 Synesius to change them we have unfortun- 
 ately no means of knowing. After all, these 
 views were rather in opposition to the com- 
 monly received opinions among Chri'^tians 
 than to any dogmatical teaching of the ciuirch. 
 Even as regards the doctrine of the resurrec- 
 tion, S^Tiesius would probably have had no 
 difficulty in accepting the Greek form of the 
 creed, the resurrection of the dead, though he 
 could hardly have accepted the Latin form, 
 the resurrection of the body, or the resurrec- 
 tion of the flesh. His amusements and his 
 hunting seem to have been given up entirely. 
 It has been assumed that he retained his wife, 
 but there is no evidence whatever to shew that 
 he did so. His own letter is a sufficient proof 
 that a bishop was generally expected to 
 separate from his wife, or, in the language oi 
 the day, to live with her as a sister, though it 
 may be true, as Socrates asserts, that excep- 
 tions might easily have been found in the 
 Eastern empire. The bishop, especially if 
 occupying an important post, felt that by 
 retaining his wife he lost caste among his 
 people, and Sjoiesius, in giving up so much in 
 
 SVNEStUS 
 
 925 
 
 the hope of bemhting the people «>( Pt<>lrtnai«, 
 was hardly likely to pursue a courte which 
 must fatally damage hit inlhirncc. cvni if hit 
 wife would have coiivntcd to a imnic of lif« 
 which must inevitably lower both hrrsrU and 
 her husband in public r%timatioii. iirMdr«, 
 Synesius never mentions his wifr in anv sub- 
 sequent letter, and in one written only one 
 year afterw.irds he speaks of his drsolatioa 
 in terms whidi make it almost incrrdibl« 
 that his wife was living with him then. .So 
 child was born to him after he was elected 
 bishop. 
 
 Yielding at last to the importunities and 
 arguments of his friends, Synesius. in 410, 
 WTote to the presbyti-rs of the diocese of I'tole- 
 mais : " Since (iod has laid upon me not what 
 I sought but what He willed, 1 pray that tie 
 Who has assigned me this life will guide me 
 through the life He has assigned me." 
 
 He soon found that his fears h.id Ix-en more 
 prophetic than his friends" hop«'s. When he 
 returned, I'tolemais presented the ap|>earance 
 of a city taken by storm. Nothing was to l>e 
 heard in the public places but the groans of 
 men, the screams of women, and the cries of 
 boys. New instruments of punishment had 
 been introduced by .\ndronicus, racks and 
 thumbscrews and machines for torturing the 
 , feet, the ears, the lips, the nose. 
 
 At first Synesius remonstrated ; his remon- 
 strances were treated with contempt. He 
 reproved ; his reproofs made the governor 
 I more furious. His house was b«"set with 
 I crowds demanding sympathy and protection. 
 He could not move without seeing and hearing 
 the sutTerings of his people. To add to his 
 grief " the dearest of his children died.' With 
 a heart wrung with anguish he turned for con- 
 solation to Ciod. " But what was the greatest 
 of my calamities, and what made life itself 
 hopeless to me, 1 who had hitherto alwa)** 
 ' been successful in prayer, now for the tirst 
 time found that I prayed in vain." He 
 had accepted the office of a bishop in times 
 of difficulty without being sulficiently m 
 sympathy with the prevailing spirit of the 
 Christian church, and the consciousness of 
 : this increased his natural self-distrust. The 
 ' calm serenity of thought, with which in 
 happier years he had held communion 
 with Ciod, was gone. As he prayed, the 
 calamities of his house and country rose up 
 before him as a sign that he had, by his un- 
 worthiness, profaned the mysteries of (kxI. 
 The soul, distracted by conflicting feelings, 
 I grief and anger, shame and fear, could not 
 rise above the earth. He prayed, an. I (...d 
 was afar off. M first it s«-eined that Ip 
 sink in despair under th«-sc accu:. 
 sorrows ; there were even thoughts of 
 He was roused by fr«-sh tidings of .\n<lr 
 i excesses. Kver ready to assist othrr-> 1 
 misfortunes, however great his own im, 
 he heard the people murmuring that ih. . ■•■ ;• 
 forsaken by their bishop. Srlf-distrwst gave 
 wav to indignation. Once rousrd hr acted 
 with vigour and judgment. He wrote to 
 influential friends at Constantinoplr. drtailin* 
 the cruelties of An<lr<jnicus, and rarnrstly 
 pleading for hi« recall. Then, without wait- 
 ing the result of his appeal to thr «uthontic« 
 of the state, be proceeded tuprououucc agauut 
 
926 
 
 SYNESIUS 
 
 the offender the judgment of the church by a 
 formal act of excommunication. 
 
 Before this letter of excommunication was 
 sent, Andronicus professed his penitence for 
 his crimes, and entreated that the sentence 
 against him might not be published — a strong 
 proof of the power which the sentence of ex- 
 communication then exercised on men's minds. 
 Synesius unwillingly yielded to his entreaties 
 and to the representations of the other bishops 
 of the province. Relieved from this moment- 
 ary fear, Andronicus soon returned to his old 
 cruelties, and the sentence of excommunica- 
 tion was definitely pronounced. A short time 
 passed and Sjmesius wrote in triumph to 
 Constantinople thanking his friends for pro- 
 curing the dismissal of Andronicus. Another 
 short interval, and Synesius was writing to 
 the patriarch of Alexandria to implore his 
 good offices for the fallen governor. " Justice 
 has perished among men ; formerly Androni- 
 cus acted unjustly, now he suffers unjustly." 
 Freed for a time from these secular cares, 
 Synesius could attend to other episcopal 
 duties. In a long letter addressed to Theo- 
 philus he has given a very interesting account 
 of a visitation tour, undertaken atTheophilus's 
 request in the course of the same year, through 
 a part of the country still exposed to the 
 incursions of the barbarians, to the villages of 
 Palaebisca and Hydrax on the confines of the 
 Libyan desert. Near the village of Hydrax, 
 on the summit of a precipitous hill, stood the 
 ruins of an old castle, much desired by the 
 people as a place of retreat in invasion. Their 
 bishop Paul had obtained it for them by a 
 surreptitious consecration, turning it into a 
 church ; but Synesius refused to sanction that, 
 and insisted on a regular purchase. 
 
 The next subject which occupied his atten- 
 tion was one of the worst evils resulting from 
 the misgovernment of the country. He found 
 that even bishops were often accused by other 
 bishops, not that justice should be done but 
 to give the commanders of the armies oppor- 
 tunities for extorting money. 
 
 Then Synesius asked the patriarch's advice 
 as to certain bishops who did not choose to 
 have a fixed diocese, wandering to wherever 
 they thought they would be best off. 
 
 The time during which he held his bishopric 
 was so short, apparently only three years, and 
 marked by so many public and private 
 calamities, that we possess but few letters 
 which throw much light upon his life. His 
 principal correspondent at this period was 
 Theophilus, whom he always addresses with 
 a reverence and affection which may surprise 
 those who have only known that prelate as 
 the persecutor of Chrysostom, and which are 
 the more important because Synesius, even 
 in writing to Theophilus, professed his admira- 
 tion for Chrysostom. Equally noticeable is 
 the unqualified obedience which Synesius, 
 though himself metropolitan of Pentapolis, 
 cheerfully yielded to the " apostolic throne " 
 of Alexandria. " It is at once my wish and 
 my duty to consider whatever decree comes 
 from that throne binding upon me," he \vrites 
 to Theophilus. The unquestionable superior- 
 ity of Alexandria to all the cities of E. Africa 
 had given to the patriarch of Alexandria an 
 authority over their bishops unsurpassed, even 
 
 TARACHUS 
 
 if it was rivalled, by the supremacy of Rome 
 in that day over the bishoprics of Italy. 
 
 Of the bp. of Rome, and of the affairs of 
 Rome, there is no mention in any of his letters 
 — one of the many proofs his works afford of 
 the greatness of the separation, in government 
 and in feeling, between the Eastern and Western 
 empires. Though thoroughly well versed in 
 all the branches of Greek literature, he never 
 alludes to any Latin author. It is almost 
 impossible to resist the belief that he was 
 ignorant of the Latin language. Still some 
 notice of the crowning calamity, when Rome 
 yielded to Alaric without a struggle, could 
 hardly have failed to appear in his writings, 
 had not the misfortunes of Pentapolis been so 
 great as to absorb all his thoughts. 
 
 In the winter Synesius lost " the last com- 
 fort of his life, his little son." The blow was 
 too much for the father already crushed by 
 the cares of his office and the misery of his 
 country. As death drew near his thoughts 
 were curiously divided between the two 
 objects to which in life he had given his faith. 
 His last letter was addressed to Hypatia. His 
 last poem was a prayer to Christ. The pagan 
 philosopher retained to the end the reverence 
 and affection of the Christian bishop. " You 
 have been to me a mother, a sister, a teacher, 
 and in all these relationships have done me 
 good. Every title and sign of honour is your 
 due. As for me, my bodily sickness cornes 
 from sickness of the mind. The recollection 
 of the children who are gone is slowly killing 
 me. Would to God I could either cease to 
 live, or cease to think of my children's graves." 
 In the hymn to Christ Synesius added an 
 epilogue to the poems in which he had already 
 recounted the drama of his soul. The actor 
 who began so confident of success ended with 
 a humble prayer for pardon. " O Christ, Son 
 of God most high, have mercy on Thy servant, 
 a miserable sinner, who wrote these hymns. 
 Release me from the sins which have grown 
 up in my heart, which are implanted in my 
 polluted soul. O Saviour Jesus, grant that 
 hereafter I may behold Thy divine glory." 
 So in gloom and sadness, cheered by the 
 Christian hope of the resurrection, closed the 
 career of one who in his time had played many 
 parts, who had been soldier, statesman, 
 orator, poet, sophist, philosopher, bishop, and 
 in all these characters had deserved admira- 
 tion and love. A cheap popular Life of Synesius 
 of Cyrene, by A. Gardner, is pub. by S.P.C.K. 
 in tlieir Fathers for Eng. Readers. [t.r.h.] 
 
 Tarachus, also called Victor, martyr, an 
 Isaurian from Claudiopolis, and a soldier, who 
 left the army on the outbreak of Diocletian's 
 persecution. The Acts of Tarachus and his 
 companions Probus and Andronicus are one 
 of the most genuine pieces of Christian 
 antiquity. They were first pub. by Baronius 
 in his Annals, under a.d. 290, but from an 
 imperfect MS. Ruinart brought out the most 
 complete ed. in Greek and Latin from a com- 
 parison of several MSS. in the Colbertine 
 Library. The martyrs were arrested a.d. 304 
 in Pompeiopolis, an episcopal city of Cilicia. 
 
TATIANUS 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 »27 
 
 They were publicly examined and tortured at The chronol..(;y ..| Ins literary carerr i* more 
 
 three principal cities— Tarsus, Mopsuestia. or less ronnrcted with the in.irlvrdoiii uJ 
 
 and Anazarbiis. where they were put to death Justin c. ib\-H>7. Manv critics coti%idrr 
 
 and their relics carefully preserved. The Justin's .-IMocy and the (Vu/io t<i have b«>cn 
 
 Acts are often quoted by Le Hlant {l.es AcUs composed about the \ame time (rl. /ahn. p. 
 
 des martyrs) to illustrate his argument. Thus. 279 ; liarn.ick. I fit* u. I'ntfnuih. 1. 6/ifA. d. 
 
 p. 9, he notes the sale of copies of the IViKon- altchrist. I. it. i. p. i<>0), if. a.i». lio-ijj. 
 
 sular .\cts by one oi the othcials for two 
 hundred denarii. He also illustrates by them 
 the judicial formularies, proconsular circuits, 
 etc. (cf. pp. 27-2g, 32, 63, 68, 72, 74, etc.). 
 They suffered under a president Numerianus 
 
 Othirs place the Ord/io .liter the death of 
 Iu>lin (l.ij-litfcHit HI Conlftnp. Rf\-. Mav. 1H77 ; 
 Hil^jenfeld, Kflier^f',chi(hte. p. 3<>s . l-unk. /ur 
 Chronol. Tattan'i m TulunKen / hfol. (Jtuitlal- 
 schrtfl for 1S.S3, p. J 19, etc.). Ihe dillrrrnce 
 
 Ma.\imus(Ruinart, .4r/dSim:. 454-4Qi)- l^-TS.) in opinion turns very much u|H»n the e%timalc 
 
 Tatlanus (1) the ".Apologist," " born in the formed of a passage in llusi'biU'. (//. f. iv. !«»)• 
 
 laiid of .\ssyria " (Oratio, c. xlii.), i.e. E. of the ,\ similar want of unanimity prevails a» t.. Ihe 
 
 Tigris, in a land incorporated, under Trajan, place of compoMtion of the Oralto. Ilarnack 
 
 with Mesopotamia and Armenia into one (pp. i<>S-r9<)) ari{ues from its latiKuage that it 
 
 Roman province of Syria (Zahn, Forsch. x. was not written at Rome, where /ahn( p. 280) 
 
 Gesch. d. N.T. lichfn Kanons ; 1. Theil, places it. 
 
 " Tatian'sniatessaron," p. 268). Of his parents, 
 date of birth (c. no, Zahn ; c. 120, Funk), and 
 early training, little or nothing is known. In 
 S>Tia were Clreek official representatives of 
 Rome, merchants, and residents. Among such. 
 
 A. 1 he Oralio. -The Oraito. by which he i% 
 best known, Ix-longs to that part i>( latian't 
 the most interesting and ditlirult of the t.rerk 
 apologetic writings. The title, TariOJ-oe w^. 
 'E\\7)»'at, terse and abrupt, is ch.irarteristic of 
 
 stationed in the .\ssyrian district, may have life which is reckoned orthodox. It is one of 
 been the parents of Tatian ; persons perhaps the treatise. Tatiaii did not care for style, 
 of birth and wealth (cf. Oratio, c. xi.). The lad, 1 Christianity was not, in his opinion, de|>endent 
 Semitic as regards the land of his birth, but ' upon it. It was absent from the Scripture* 
 possibly Greek by parentage and name, was which had fascinated him ; it Ixdoiiged to the 
 educated in the Greek teaching open to him Creek culture he had left behind. Vet he at 
 (Ora/io, c. xlii.). As he grew older his iiupiiring times shews himself no novice in the art he 
 mind led him to a personal examination of condemned. C. xi. is a noble piece of declam- 
 the systems of his teachers (c. xxxv.). A [ ation ; c. xix. a scathing denunciation of the 
 peripatetic by disposition if not in philosophy, , false, passing into a grave appeal in behalf of 
 he " wandered over many lands, learning from the true. He can draw word-pictures, eg- 
 no man," but with eyes open and ears un- those of the actor (c. xxii.), the wealthy patron 
 stopped, listening, observing, hearing, ponder- of the arena (ih.), and the Cynic philov.pher 
 ing, until he abajidoned the learning that had (c. xxv.), which are as clever and lifelike as 
 made him a pessimist, and became a teacher ; those of Tertullian. The ihalw has two 
 of that " Word of God " which had taught principal divisions introduced by a preface (cc. 
 him a holier faith and a happier life (cc. xxvi. i.-iv.). Div. i. states the Christian doctrim-* 
 xlii.). He notes that the simplicity of style 1 and their intrinsic excellence and sui>rriority 
 
 of Holy Scripture first attracted and then , to heathen opinions (cc. v.-xxx.) ; div. li. dc- 
 converted him (c. xxix.). The "barbaric [i.e. I monstrates their superior antiquity (cc. xxxi.- 
 Christian] writings, ■ upon which he stumbled xli.) ; the whole clos<'s with a f«w word* 
 by chance, charmed him by their modest autobiographical in character (c. xlii). 
 diction and easy naturalness. He sofm dis- Tatian opens (c. i.) by deprecating as un- 
 covered that these writings were older than 
 the oldest remains of Greek literature, and in 
 their prophecies and precepts diviner and 
 truer than the oracles and practiri-s of the 
 must powerful gods or the purest philo^iphers. 
 Tatian's information about himself ceases 
 with the autobiographical allusions and state- 
 ments in the Oratio. .According to Irenaeus 
 {adv. Haer. i. c. 28 ; cf. Eus. //. /•-". iv. 29) 
 he was a hearer (d»voar/j?) of Justin Martyr; 
 and the Oratio indicates that he and the " most 
 admirable" Justin were at Koine together, 
 and were both exposed to the hostility of the 
 Cynic Crescens (cc. xviii. xix.). 
 
 Tatian's Christian life, like that of Tertul 
 
 (c. 
 reasonable the contemptuous aiiimo-,itv of the 
 Greeks towards " B.irbarians." and point* out 
 that there was no practice or ru-.toiu current 
 among them which they did not owe to 
 "Barbarians." ()iifirol..gy, astrology, aug- 
 uries from birds or s.icrihees had come to thrm 
 from ext.-rnal sourc.-s. lO Habvloiiia IhrV 
 owed astronomy, to IVrsia magic, to l-gvpt 
 geometry, to I'hiM-nicia instruction by lettrri. 
 Orpheus had taught th.iii jMH-try. song, and 
 initiation into the mysteries, tlie Tuscan* 
 sculpture, the l!gyptians history, rustic 
 Phrygians the harmony of the sliej.herd's \>i\x; 
 Tyrrhenians the triiin|>rt, the I vrlot>r* the 
 smith's art. and .\tossa. ipirrn of the Persian*, 
 liari, divides into pre-heretical and heretical the method of joining letter-tablets (*«•«• into* 
 periods. So long as Justin was alive, says note). They should not lH)ast of thnr excel- 
 Jrenaeus he brought out no * blasphemy " ; lent diction when they importetl into it t.ar- 
 after his' death it was different. baric " expr.ssion and maintaine*! no unil.«-m- 
 
 The testimony of his pupil Khodon (Eus. ity of oronunriation. Of l>«>ric .A"»c, 
 H E V 13) leaves the impression that Tatian Aeolian. Ionian, which wa* the real (.rc«-k 
 for some time after Justin's death worked and Further, let them not lM,a*t whilr they us^d 
 taueht at Rome busying himself with his rhetoric to »ul>*«rrye injustice and »ycophancv. 
 "book of questions " ^r^.o^\mdru>' fi^,'i\>o.U poetry to depict battle^ the amour* of r-Js 
 dealing with what was " hidden and obscure and the corruption of the «,u I. 
 in the sacred writings " {t.e. of O.T ). C. v.. one of the mmt Important (doc 
 
d2g 
 
 TAtlANUS 
 
 trinally) and difficult in the Oratio, opens 
 thus: 
 
 " In the beginning was God. We have been 
 taught that the beginning is the power of the 
 Logos. For the Lord of all, being Himself the 
 substance (vTroaraan) of all, in so far that 
 creation had not yet taken place, was alone ; 
 but in so far as He was Himself all power, and 
 the substance of things visible and invisible, 
 all things were with Him : (and thus) with 
 Him by Logos-power (5td XoyiKiii Swdfieu^), 
 the very Logos Himself, Who was in Him, 
 subsisted (i^n-^orryo-e). By the simple will of 
 God the Logos springs forth, and not proceed- 
 ing forth without cause {Kara k€vov), becomes 
 the first-begotten work of the Father. Him 
 we recognize as the beginning of the world. 
 He was born by participation, not by scission 
 (/card )X€picr/x6i> ov Kara dtroKOTnii') ; for He 
 Who proceeds by scission is separated from 
 the first, but He Who has proceeded by par- 
 ticipation and has accepted a part in the 
 administration of the world (rb . . , oi<ovofxia% 
 TTjv a'ipeaiv TrpoaXajSdv), hath not rendered 
 Him defective from Whom He was taken. 
 Just as many fires are lighted from one torch, 
 but the light of the first torch is not lessened 
 through the kindling of the many, so the Logos 
 coming forth from the power of the Father 
 hath not made Him Who begat Him without 
 Logos (dXoyof)." 
 
 Tatian upholds the belief in the resurrection 
 of the body at the end of all things. His 
 argument is briefly : " There was a time 
 when I did not exist : I was born and came 
 into existence. There will be a time when 
 (through death) I shall not exist ; but again 
 I shall exist, just as before I was not, but was 
 afterwards born [cf. Tertull. Apol. xlviii.]. 
 Let fire destroy my flesh, let me be drowned, 
 or torn to pieces by wild beasts, I am laid up 
 in the treasure-chambers of a wealthy Lord. 
 God Who reigneth can, when He will, restore 
 to its pristine state that which is visible to 
 Him alone." In c. vii. Tatian returns to the 
 Logos, that he may demonstrate His work as 
 regards angels and men. 
 
 The thoughts of the better land and of God's 
 revelation by the prophets lead Tatian to 
 God's revelation of Himself in the Incarnation. 
 That doctrine he treats in a manner likely to 
 be admitted by a Greek, if very differently 
 from the way (e.g.) Justin Martyr presented 
 it to the Jews. We are not mad, he says (c. 
 xxi.), nor do we utter idle tales when we say 
 that God was made (7e7o^^i'ai) in the form of 
 man. The mythology of the Greeks was full 
 of such appearances — an Athene taking the 
 form of a Deiphobus, a Phoebus that of a 
 herdsman, etc., etc. Further, what did so 
 frequent an expression as the origin of the 
 gods imply but that they were mortal ? The 
 difficulty attendant upon the heathen belief 
 was not removed by the tendency to resolve 
 all myths and gods into allegory. Metrodorus 
 of Lampsacus, in his treatise on Homer, in- 
 vited men to believe that the Hera or Athene 
 or Zeus, to whom they consecrated enclosures 
 and groves, were simply natural beings or 
 elemental arrangements. That, argues Ta- 
 tian, was to surrender their divinity ; a siur- 
 render he freely endorses, for he will not admit 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 any comparison between the Christian God and 
 deities who " wallow in matter and mud." 
 
 Tatian (c. xxii.) lashes with ridicule the 
 teaching offered to and accepted by the 
 Greeks, the teaching of the theatre and arena. 
 It might be urged that such places were fre- 
 quented and delighted in by the uncultured 
 only. Tatian therefore places the philosophers 
 also at the bar of judgment, and his contempt 
 for their teaching is only equalled by his ridi- 
 cule of their appearance (c. xxv.). He 
 denounces them as tuft-hunters and gluttons, 
 to whom philosophy was simply a means of 
 getting money. No two of them agreed. 
 One followed the teaching of Plato, a disciple 
 of Epicurus opposed him. The scholar of 
 Democritus reviled the pupil of Aristotle. 
 Why, protests Tatian, do you who are so 
 inharmonious fight us Christians who are at 
 least harmonious ? " Your philosophers 
 maintain that God has a body : I maintain 
 that He is without a body ; that the world 
 shall be often consumed by fire, I once for 
 all ; that Minos and Rhadamanthus will be 
 the judges of mankind, I God Himself (cf. c. 
 vi.) ; that the soul alone is immortal, I the 
 body together with the soul." We, he con- 
 tinues, do but follow the Logos of God, why 
 do you hate us ? We are not eaters of human 
 flesh ; the charge is false. It is among you 
 that Pelops the beloved of Poseidon is made a 
 banquet for the gods, that Saturn devours his 
 own children, and Zeus swallows Metis. 
 
 After all, the philosophers do but make a 
 boast of language taken from others (c. xxvi.), 
 like the jackdaw strutting about in borrowed 
 plumes. The reading of their books is like 
 struggling through a labyrinth, the readers 
 must be like the pierced cask of the Danaids. 
 Why should they affirm that wisdom was with 
 them only ? The grammarians were at the 
 bottom of all this folly ; and philosophers 
 who parcelled out wisdom to this and that 
 system-maker knew not God and did but 
 destroy each other. "Therefore," Tatian 
 concludes scornfully, " you are all nothing — 
 blind men talking with deaf ; handling 
 builder's tools but not knowing how to build ; 
 preaching but not practising ; swaggering 
 about in public but hiding your teaching in 
 comers. We have left you because this is 
 your character. We can have nothing more 
 to do with your instructions. We follow the 
 word of God." 
 
 Tatian then explains (c. xxix.) how he be- 
 came a Christian. It was not through want 
 of knowledge of what he was leaving. He had 
 been initiated into the (Eleusinian) mysteries, 
 and had made trial of every kind of religious 
 worship. The result had sickened him. Among 
 the Romans he had found the Latiarian Jupi- 
 ter delighting in human gore, Diana Aricina 
 similarly worshipped, and this or that demon 
 systematically urging on to what was evil. 
 He withdrew to seek by some means to dis- 
 cover the truth. "As," he says, "I was 
 earnestly considering this I came across certain 
 barbarian writings, older in point of antiquity 
 than the doctrines of the Greeks, and far too 
 divine to be marked by their errors. What 
 persuaded me in these books was the simplicity 
 of the language, the inartificial style of the 
 writers, the noble explanation of creation, the 
 
TATIANUS 
 
 predictions of the future, the pxc<>Ileuce of 
 tlie preci'pts. aiui the assortiou of the- ^jov.tu- 
 ment of all by One Beiuc. Mv soul beiuK I'jus 
 taught of r.od I understand how the writiuK's 
 of the Gentiles lead to condemnation, but the 
 sacred Scriptures to freedom from this world's 
 slavery, liberating us from thousands of 
 tyrants, and giving us. not iiuleetl what we 
 had not received, but what we had once re- 
 ceived but had lost through error." 
 
 Tatian. with all the energy of a convert. . 
 loudly proclaiujed the truth which satisfied 
 him. He goes on to shew (cc. xxxi.-xli.) that 
 the Christian religion was a " philosophv " far 
 more ancient than that of the Greeks. He 
 compares Homer and Moses, " the one the 
 oldest of poets and historians, the other 
 the founder of our barbarian wisdom." The 
 comparison proves the Christian tenet* older 
 than those of the Greeks, and even than the 
 invention of letters. After enumerating 
 numerous variant opinions as to the date, 
 parentage, and poetry of Homer, he rem.irks 
 upon such discordant testimnny as prnvnig 
 the history untrue ; so difTerent from the 
 unanimity comnion among Christians. " We 
 reject everything." he says, "which rests 
 upon human opinion ; we obey the conimand- 
 ments of God arid follow the law of the Father 
 of immortality. The rich among us follow 
 philosophy, and our poor are taught gratui- 
 tously. We receive all who wish to be taught, 
 aged women and striplings : every age is 
 respected by us. . . . We do not test them by I 
 their looks, nor judge them by their outward i 
 appearance. In body they may be weak, but ' 
 in mind they are strong. . . . What we do keep 
 at a distance is licentiousness and falseh(X)d." 
 His mention of the women who received 
 Christian instruction leads him to a digression 
 in defence of them. The (ientiles scolT«'d. he 
 says, at them, and alleged that the Christians 
 talked nonsense among them. Tatian retorts 
 (cc. xxxiii. xxxiv.) by pointing to the disgrace 
 the Greeks cast upon themselves, not only by 
 their unbecoming conduct to women gener- 
 ally, but by the statues they erected to coiut- 
 esans and wanton poetesses. " All our 
 women," bursts forth Tatian, " are chaste ; 
 and our maidens at their distaffs sing nobler 
 songs about God than a Sappho." The 
 Greeks should repudiate the lesion of immor- 
 ality which their statues had immortalized and 
 the foul practices inculcated by indecent 
 writers, and turn to Christianity which en- 
 joined truth and purity of thought and life. 
 " I do not." says Tatian (c. xxxv.). " speak of 
 these things as having merely heard about 
 them. I have travelled much ; I have 
 studied your philosophy {al. rhetoric, cf. lius. 
 H. E. iv. 1 6, and Otto's note here), and y<mr 
 arts and inventions. At Rome I saw the 
 multitude of statues you have collected there. 
 And, as the result. I have turned from Kotnan 
 boastfulness, Athenian exaggeration, ill- 
 connected doctrines, to the barbaric Christian 
 philosophy." 
 
 He now returns to the subject started in c. 
 xxxi., after one word in deprecation of the 
 sneer at himself: "Tatian, the man so 
 superior to the Greeks, so superior to the 
 numberless teachers of philosophy, ha* 
 opened up a new vein of learning — the doc- 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 0:>tt 
 
 trine5 of the barb.irian* ! " WJicther Homer 
 W.1S c.ntrmpor.irv wnh the TroJ4n w,»r m a 
 s«»ldier under Ag.imrmn.>n. or rvm livwl \h>' 
 fore the invention ,>f Irttrrs. M. >%«••» vrt Iivr«| 
 long before cither th.- biiildiiig or taking nt 
 Troy. In pr.n.f of this. rati.iii apjyraU to ih« 
 Chaldeans. PhiH-niriaiis. and i:t:v|>luii«. /• r. 
 BcT.Kus. the Babylonian historian. "4 n»mt 
 comiH-t.Mit authority. ' sixikr of the wat* oJ 
 N'ebuchadnezz.ir against the I'h.K-ninan* and 
 Jews which happened 70 vear* b«-forr the 
 Persian rule, and l.mg after the agr of SUncx. 
 Ph.HMiician histr.rians. such a* The.Mioluv 
 Hvpsicrates, and M.^-hus had referred to 
 events connect.-d with Hiram of Tvrc. whm« 
 date w.is somewhere alxnit thr rroj.»n w^r. 
 Both Solomon and Hiraiii lived lon^' aJtrr 
 .Moses. The Kgvptiaiis w.rr not.-<l for the 
 accuracy of their chronicles, and I'tolrmv. the 
 priest of .Mendes, spoke of the dep-irture of 
 the Jews fmin Kgypt as having takm place under 
 the leadership of Mos<-s under king Aukmu. 
 This king, according to him. lived in thr time 
 of the .\rgive king. Inachus, after who>.- r«ign, 
 dating 20 generations, the taking of Troy wai 
 reached. Therefore, if .Mos«-s was a contmi- 
 porary of Inachus. he lived some 4(«> year* 
 before the Trojan war. It was not till after 
 the time of Inachus that the mo-it illu-triou* 
 deeds of gods and men in (ireecr were com- 
 mitted to writing and became known. Such 
 records, therefore, were far less anrunt than 
 the time of .Moses. Tati.m sums up (c. xl.) 
 by affirming it self-evident that .Mos«-s was of 
 far greater antiquity than the ancient heriH~*, 
 wars, or gods (demons). .Men ought, there- 
 fore, to believe the more ancient authority in 
 preference to the (;re.-ks, who ha.l Uirrowetl 
 from .Moses, as from a spring, without acknow- 
 ledgment {al. unconsciously) ; and 111 many 
 cases had perverted what they t<Mik. .Mos4-h 
 was. moreover, older th.in all the writer* 
 before Homer. <".»,•. th.iii I.inus. the teacher o( 
 Hercules, who lived in the geiier.ition Ixfore 
 the Trojan war, than Orpheus, wlio was a 
 contemporary with Hercules, and than th« 
 wisest of the wise men of (ireece. en. .Minos — 
 so famous for his wisdom, shrewdiu-ss, and 
 legislative powers— who lived in the nth 
 generation after Inachus ; Lycurgus, lh« 
 Lacedemonian lawgiver, who was Utrn Ioiik 
 after the taking of Troy ; Draco. Sol<iii. 
 Pythagoras, and thi>se s«-ven wis<- men. the 
 oldest of whom lived alxMit the 50th of thoMi 
 Olympiads which began alxmt 400 years after 
 the taking of Troy. 
 
 The tre.»tis<' is a defence of Chrittianity 
 rather than of ( hristians. and not v> much a 
 defence of doctrines as an answer <»r oration 
 to those who sneered at them. He depict* 
 Christianity a* contrasting by it* gixxlnr^*. 
 wisdom, and truth with the hrathenittit 
 which revelled in vice, foolishnc**. and rrrer. 
 I'niike other ajxilogists. there is little care to 
 diicus* Thyrstean bani|uets (cf. c. x»v.), or 
 refute want of patrioiitin (c. iv.) Hi* 
 weapons are weaj>on% of orteiicr rather thaa 
 of defence. In Tatian "barbaric {t.e. Chri*- 
 tian) philosophy " dares to tarry thr war into 
 the enemv's camp, and scorn is turiie<l ufnta 
 the scorners. It it a typical sjwTimen of the 
 clas* to which the IrrtMo tiffttitium Pktia%9- 
 phorum of Hkrmiaa aUu bclonfi. 
 
 6» 
 
930 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 The Opinions of Tatian. — (a) God (see c. 
 iv.)- — With Tatian, as with Justin, God, not 
 contemplated as He is in His nature but as 
 revealed in His works, is the starting-point of 
 all Christian philosophy. Tatian's doctrine 
 about the creation is in c. v. In the creation 
 itself he recognizes two stages (c. ii.) : (a) mat- 
 ter, shapeless and unformed, is put forth 
 {wpo^f^Xrj/xfVT]) by God ; and (/3) the world, 
 separated from this matter, is fashioned into 
 what is full of beauty and order, though 
 eventually to be dissolved by fire (c. xxv.). 
 
 {b) The Logos (see c. v.)- — The relation 
 between God (6 deairdrris) and the Logos Who 
 subsists in Him, the Hypostasis, is conceived 
 from a different point of view, and set forth 
 in different terms from those of Justin. With 
 Tatian the Logos springs forth (Trpoir-qda.) by 
 the Will of God. The process of begetting, 
 the relationships of Father and Son, and the 
 worship due to the Son, are not brought 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 wickedness " (c. xv.). Though material, none 
 of the demons possess flesh ; their structure 
 is spiritual like that of fire or air (ib.). 
 
 (e) Man. — Tatian recognizes the three parts 
 of body, soul, and spirit. At the fall man lost 
 the spirit or highest nature, which had in it 
 immortality (c. vii.). As the angels were cast 
 down from heaven, so man was driven forth 
 from earth, "yet not out of this earth, but 
 from a more excellent order of things than 
 exists here now." Tatian would seem to 
 place Paradise above our earth ; he describes 
 it (c. XX.) as one of the better aeons unaffected 
 by that change of seasons which is productive 
 of various diseases, as partaking of a perfect 
 temperature, as possessing endless day and 
 light, and as unapproachable by mortals such 
 as we are. Man, though deprived of the 
 spirit, must aim at recovering his former 
 state. Body and soul are left him. The soul 
 is composite : it is the bond of the flesh ; yet 
 
 forward. The inward communion between \^^° that which encloses the soul is the flesh 
 
 them which carries with it these truths 
 indeed expressed by the deep phrase <tw 
 airrip 5id \o-yu-^5 5l'^'a.^leoJS avrbi /cat 6 \670s ; 
 but the outward exhibition of this communion 
 — the " springing forth " — is suggestive of 
 emanation rather than of begetting. The 
 distinction between the X670S evdidOeros and 
 the X6>o? ■irpo(popiK6s, so strongly expressed 
 by the apologist Theophilus (ii. 10), is more 
 than visible. Tatian, in fact, presents the 
 Logos as the personification of an abstraction. 
 (c) The Holy Spirit is evidently with Tatian 
 a distinct personal Being. He does not, as 
 
 The soul cannot appear without a body, nor 
 can the flesh rise again without the soul. 
 
 Faith is a necessity for knowledge of divine 
 things ; 6 in<jTevwv iiri-yvihaeTai (c. xix.) ; faith 
 and knowledge together help towards the 
 victory over sin and death. Men, after the 
 throwing away (aTroiio\r}v) of immortality, 
 have conquered death by the death which is 
 through faith (cf. c. xi. : " Die to the world ! 
 Live to God ! ") ; and through repentance a 
 call has been granted to those who (according 
 to God's word) are but a little lower than the 
 
 <» u.^uuct pci.un^ii racing, n^ uoes nui, as ^"^^^f (^-/.y;)- Through laith. and as ^he 
 Justin Upol. i. 60), speak directly of His share I °^J^?,^ ^^ .^^'V^, Tatian proclaims that God 
 in the creation ; he rather leads up to His work ^'^^ ^o™, '" ^he form of a man (c. xxi. , and 
 and office as "the Minister of the suffering i "P'^^J^^ ."t.^.^ie .Holy Spirit as the minister of 
 God " (c. xiii.), when he would present its 
 bearing upon the nature of man. Stalling 
 from the initial positions, " God is Spirit," and 
 the Logos "a Spirit born of the Father," 
 Tatian recognizes two varieties of Spirit : (a) 
 " the spirit which pervades matter, inferior 
 to (^3) the more Divine Spirit " (c. iv.). To 
 the Spirit is attributed pre 
 Abiding with the just and locked in the em- 
 brace of the soul {<Tvp.ir\eK6iJ.evov ry i'^XV)' 
 He proclaims to other souls by means of pro- 
 phecies that which is concealed. He uses the I 
 Prophets as His organ (cf. c. xx.). This action 
 Tatian has also attributed to "the Power of the j 
 Logos " (c. vii.). Perhaps, as with Justin, this 
 title of the Logos, i] Suva/Jus, defines for Tatian 
 the meaning of the irvev/xa (cf. IL Cor. iii. 17). 
 The Spirit is the Divine Power of the Logos. j 
 
 (d) Angelology and Demonology. — Of good 
 angels Tatian says nothing ; but he speaks as ' 
 
 strongly as Justin of evil angels, though he souls in his conception. Though the flesh 
 presents their work and ways in different j were destroved by fire or wild beasts, or dis- 
 language and (in some respects) from a : persed through rivers or seas, " L" says 
 different point of view. When expelled from Tatian, "am laid up in the storehouses of a 
 heaven the fallen angels or demons lived with j wealthy Lord. God the King will, when He 
 animals. Some of these they placed— the i pleases, restore to its former state my substance 
 dog, the bear, the scorpion, etc.— in the hea- , which is visible to Himself alone " (c. vi.). 
 vens as objects of worship. Of demons, Tatian \ As regards free will, Tatian uses even more 
 recognizes two classes. Receiving alike their ' emphatic language than Justin (e.g. Apol. i. 
 constitution from matter, and possessing the j 43). He opposes the Scriptural (and Platonic) 
 spirit which comes from it, few only turned j belief in free will to the fatalism of philosophers 
 to what was purer, the many chose what was , (cc. viii.-x.), and while he pours scorn upon 
 licentious and gluttonous (c. xii.) ; they be- j their views, pens a touching appeal to them 
 came the very " effulgences of matter and I as men " not created to die " (see c. xi. end). 
 
 the God Who hath suffered {toi' diaKovov rev 
 ■weTTovdoTos deov, c. xiii.). If he never men- 
 tions the names Jesus or Christ, it is because 
 the facts of the Incarnation and Passion would 
 commend themselves independently of names 
 to Gentiles, to whom such facts were illus- 
 trated by their mythology (cf. Justin, Apol. i. 
 tv,^ c„- t • *4. u . A- u\- I 21). Faith animates the famous passage on 
 
 the ,Spirit IS attributed^ ^l^.^f]': P°A^I^- | the soul (c. xiii.), and especially in connexion 
 
 with the resurrection. " We have faith in this 
 doctrine," he exclaims (c. v.) ; but he does 
 not rest his reasons on the resurrection of 
 Christ (as St. Paul), but on an argument which 
 may have suggested the more elaborate 
 reasoning of Tertullian (Apol. c. xlviii.) : 
 There was a time when as man he was not ; 
 after a former state of nothingness he was 
 born. Again, there would be a time when he 
 would die ; and again there would be a time 
 when he should exist again. There was no- 
 thing of metempsychosis or transmigration of 
 
TATIANUS 
 
 Christian Pnic/ic^.— Though Tatian docs not 
 speak of his co-religiouists as Christians, but 
 accepts willingly the contemptuous expression 
 " barbarians," it is the diKtrines of Christ 
 which alone have, in his opinion, raised them 
 above a world deluded by the trickeries of 
 frenzied demons (c. .\ii.),'and wallowing in 
 matter and mud (c. xxi.). Where the old 
 nature has been laid aside, men have not only 
 apprehended God (c. xi.), but through a 
 knowledge of the True One have remodelled 
 (nerap^vOniidf) their lives (c. v.). Holy 
 baptism and meinbersliip in the church did 
 not enter into his .irguincnt. A passing allu- 
 sion to the Holy Kucharist perhaps underlies 
 his indignant protest against the frequent 
 defamation that Christians indulged in Thyes- 
 tean banquets (c. xxv.). He seems to prefer 
 advancing the great help which the Scriptures 
 had been to himself, and might be to his 
 philosophical opponents. " Barbaric " though 
 these Scriptures were, they were in the O. T. 
 portion both older and more divine, more full 
 of humility and of deep knowledge, more 
 marked by excellence and unity than any 
 writings claimed by the Greeks (c. xxix.j. 
 These "' divine writings " made men " lovers 
 of God " (c. xii.) ; and men thus God-taught 
 were helped by them to break down the 
 slavery in the world, and gain back what they 
 had once received, but had lost through the 
 deceit of their spiritual foes (c. xxix.). 
 
 The O.T. seems to have greatly attracted 
 Tatian. It probably formed the basis of the 
 lost work TTpodXrj^.dTuji' liifi\lov mentioned by 
 Rhodon ; and in his attempt to collect and 
 solve O.T. difficulties, Tatian was among the 
 first, if not the first, of Christian commenta- 
 tors. The Oratio shews that he knew well the 
 Gospels, .\cts, and Pauline Epistles. H 
 reference to O. and N. T. is more marked by 
 allusion than by direct quotation, the cause 
 is the well-known practice of the apologists, 
 who usually abstain from such quotations 
 when writing to Gentiles who would have 
 allowed little authority to them. Tatian's 
 references to St. John's (iospel are, however, 
 both exceptional and indisputable, and testify 
 to a widespread knowledge of that (iospel at 
 the period in question. Independently of co- 
 incidences of exposition, three passages may 
 be specified : 
 
 Tatian. St. John. 
 
 Ch. iv. irvivna o «co? Ch. iv. 24. wwi>»a u »«0<. . 
 
 Ch. xiii. i|(7ltoTloTO(^<.<^ou Ch. i. 5. to <>w« tV Tp 
 
 KOTaAaji^om. atotuf^int. 
 
 Kat t| fficorta 
 
 Ch xix. 7701TO i-ir" avrov Ch. 1. 3. nana ii' a aiiToi, 
 
 Kai x-P'? a^"" t-)r.«TO, ««. 
 
 Y«-yon»' oiitt if. J"*"* avrov 
 
 fycwTO oi>4« 
 
 .V. ( Wfttcoll 
 
 & Hort.) 
 
 Of these the second is prefaced by rh tlfnf- 
 nivuv, the expression which in N.T. introduces 
 the Scriptures (cf. Luke ii. 24 ; Acts ii. 16, 
 xiii. 40 ; Kom. iv. i«). The third passage is 
 punctuated by Tatian in the manner invari- 
 ably followed by the early Christian writers 
 (contrast the textus receptus. ovS^ fy i itfooty). 
 The coiacidence is, as noted by Up. I.ightfoot, 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 lt3| 
 
 remarkable, (or the words arc rsirrmelv tiinpU 
 in theiiiselvi->. I hnr ordrr and adaptation 
 give uniqueness to the rxprrssion. 
 
 11. The IhaltManm. <i) //n/ory.— The 
 history of the rrcoverv of (his w<ick It 
 sulhciently romantic. In the liirraturr o( 
 the Western church there 1* lui srrvirrable 
 testimony to it till the middle o( dtb crnt. ; 
 in the Kastern rhurch luisrbiut (tjig-j^o) 
 is the only (irerk writer of the lir»t (our 
 cents, who givi-s any iii(orinalioii alxiut il. 
 It was apparently (see CoJ*t /-MUmui, ed. 
 kanke. 1S08, ix. 1) mere chance which put 
 into the hands of bp. Victor of Capua (t J54) 
 a Latin book ..( the (..^pels without title <« 
 author's name, but evidently rompile<l (r<im 
 the four canonical books. Thii unknown 
 work excited his interest ; and se.»rrhiin{ in 
 vain the I-atin Christian literature <>( the past, 
 he turned to the (ireek, and (ound in l':u%<-biut 
 two notices of Harmonies, (ii) In the Irtier 
 to Carpianus the harmony of .\minonius of 
 Alexandria (ird cent.) was descril>ed. Itt 
 principle was that of comparison. The G<>«|>el 
 of St. .Matthew was followed continuously, and 
 the passages — and only those— from the other 
 Ciospels which tallied with the text o( St. 
 Matthew were referred to at inserted in the 
 margin or in parallel columns. This excluded 
 the greater part of St. John's (•<>s|>el and 
 much of St. Luke's. The Harmony was f<ir 
 private use. not for the public service of the 
 church. Whether or not the descriptive title 
 given to it in Husebius -rA iii Ttaaif>um 
 fi''a->y\joi»— was that ol the church historiaa 
 or of .\inmonius remains undetermined, (h) In 
 his Church History (iv. 29. 6), Euscbius refer* 
 to Tatian as having composed a " s<irt of 
 connexion or compilation, I know not how, 
 of the Gospels, and called it the l)talf\%aton " 
 iavva<ftnOiV Tn>a »oi tfi'»'a")urYi)r oi''« oJ3' 6rwt 
 Twr tuayytXiwi' <rv»fO(i% Cf. Up. Lightfoot in 
 ConUmp. Rev. May 1877 ; Zahn, i. pp. 14. 15) ; 
 and he adds that this work was current in hi« 
 day. Its principle was ainalgaination. not 
 comparison, \ictor came to the conclusion 
 that his unknown work was substantially the 
 DiaUssaron of Tatian. This acute vrrdici — 
 purged of some unimportant errors (see light* 
 f(H)t, I.e. ; /ahn. i. pp. 2. 3)— has survived the 
 difficulties which a comparison ■ if (heCuJ^i hut- 
 
 I dfnsii with the Dtatf^'-aron at first prevnted. 
 
 I A notice in the treativon Heresies, written 
 
 I in 453 by Fheodoret (t 457-4 V*). I>p.<'( Cyrrhu* 
 on the 1-uphrates, is the tirst ilrhnitr rvitlriire 
 
 ' to the Dtatessaron alter (he time o( Lusebius. 
 The ideiititication o( it by Lpiphaiiius (Hurr. 
 xlvi. I) with the <t<ts|>el according to (he 
 Hebrews is an earlier tcsdinoiiy iti p<>iii( of 
 date (Li>iphanius t 403), but is cmnrrtrd with 
 a blunder which, (hough capable o( rxplaiia- 
 tion. somewhat dlsqiiallhe> (he e\ ideiice. 
 Testimony to (he l}ial*s\aron coinr« ralhrr 
 from the SvTiac-sifeakinx church o( (he hast 
 (han from (he <irerk. The.Kloret »av» i»f 
 Ta(ian : " He composed the <.<^|>el which It 
 called Dtatfisaron. cutting out the geiiealoKle* 
 and such other passagi-s as »hew tnr |.or«i tu 
 have been born o( (he sre<I of David a(ter (lie 
 flesh. This work wa» in use no( only ani<>ii< 
 persons belonging (o his m-c(, liu( alwi ain»<iK 
 (hose who (oilow (he a|Mn(olic dor(rine, a« 
 they did not jxrccivc the uU* hicl u( the 
 
932 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 composition, but used the book in all sim- 
 plicity on account of its brevity. And I 
 myself found more than 200 such copies held 
 in respect in the churches in our parts. All 
 these 1 collected and put away, and I replaced 
 them bv the Gospels of the four Evangelists " 
 (i. 20. ' Cf. Lightfoot, I.e.; Zahn, i. p. 35). 
 This passage indicates a considerable circula- 
 tion of the Diatessaron in the bishop's diocese 
 and neighbourhood. The language of that dis- 
 trict was SvTiac (Zahn, i. pp. 39-44); therefore 
 the book to which Theodoret refers was in 
 Syriac and not Greek. This simple fact helps 
 to explain the language of Eusebius and the 
 blunder of Epiphanius ; and is itself illustrat- 
 ed by the fact that the commentary on the 
 Diatessaron was composed not by a Greek 
 writer, but by Ephrem the Syrian. Epi- 
 phanius's statement that Tatian on leaving 
 Rome went into Mesopotamia, points to a 
 visit to Edessa, the only place in the district 
 where Christianity had secure footing (see 
 Zahn, i. p. 282 and Excursus ii.) and a city 
 famous for its schools. To the same Tatian 
 rumour assigned the Diatessaron which some 
 called " the Gospel according to the Hebrews." 
 How did Epiphanius confound two works so 
 essentially different ? Zahn's explanation 
 seems perfectly satisfactory. The report 
 was current that there was a Syriac book of 
 the Gospels, called a Diatessaron, used in the 
 Syrian churches, e.g. those of the diocese of 
 Cyrrhus. Further, it was reported that there 
 was another book of the Gospels, written in 
 a kindred dialect and used e.g. at Beroea, i.e. 
 in the neighbourhood of CvTrhus, by the half- 
 heretical Nazareans. An outsider like Epi- 
 phanius might very easily confound them and 
 even identify them (i. p. 25. See VVace, 
 Expositor for 1882, p. 165). Eusebius had 
 not actually seen Tatian's Diatessaron. His 
 statement, " I know not how " Tatian com- 
 posed it, shews that he had not personally 
 examined it, doubtless because of non- 
 acquaintance or non-familiarity with S>Tiac. 
 
 Theodoret's language implies, moreover, 
 that the Diatessaron had been current in his 
 diocese for a very long period ; and this is 
 confirmed by an examination of the com- 
 mentary of Ephrem S>Tus{t 378). Dionysius 
 bar Salibi, bp. of Amida in Armenia Major 
 (t 1171 Mosinger and Bickell, or 1207 Assemani 
 and Lightfoot, see Zahn, i. p. 98, n. 4), states in 
 the preface to his own commentary on St. Mark 
 (quoted in Assemani, Bihl. Or. i. 57, ii. 159 ; 
 see Mosinger, p. iii. ; Zahn, i. pp. 44, 99) that 
 Tatian, the pupil of Justin, made a selection 
 from the four Gospels (al. Evangelists), which 
 he wove together into one Gospel, and called 
 a Diatessaron, i.e. Miscellanies. This writing I 
 St. Ephrem interpreted. Its opening words 
 were, " In the beginning was the Word." An 
 Armenian version (5th cent.) of Ephrem's 
 Commentary was printed at Venice in 1836, 
 but remained unserviceable until a MS. Latin 
 and literal translation of the Armenian made 
 by J. B. Aucher, one of the Mechitarist monks 
 of that city, together with one of the Armenian 
 codices, was placed in the hands of a Salzburg 
 professor. Dr. G. Mosinger, who revised, cor- 
 rected, and published t^e Latin text at 
 Venice in 1876. Internal and external [ 
 evidence (see Mosinger, pp. vi-x) combine in 1 
 
 TATIANUS 
 
 justifying the conclusion that in this Latin 
 translation of the Commentary of Ephrem is 
 contained substantially Tatian's Diatessaron, 
 and that from it Tatian's text may be in a 
 great measure recovered. 
 
 The bearing of Mosinger's translation upon 
 the corresponding portion of the Codex Ful- 
 densis may be briefly summarized. Dr. Wace 
 (Expositor for i88r, pp. 128 seq.) may be said 
 to have proved that Victor of Capua's Har- 
 mony preserved in that Codex is not only very 
 closely allied with Tatian's Diatessaron, but 
 exhibits substantially the document on which 
 Ephrem commented with some occasional 
 alterations of order and few additions ; the 
 difference being remembered that in Victor's 
 Evangelium Tatian has been transferred into 
 the Latin text of St. Jerome, whereas Ephrem 
 commented upon him in a Syriac translation. 
 The Mosinger text and the Codex proceed pari 
 passu, and agree in order where that order is 
 certainly remarkable. The very interesting fact 
 is thus established, that Tatian's Diatessaron 
 found acceptance in the West as well as the 
 East, and was transferred rather than trans- 
 lated into a Western version. This is not 
 surprising. Theodoret's statement as to its 
 popularity in his diocese may well account for 
 its existence in a Latin form a century later. 
 
 It remains to indicate the manner in which 
 the Syriac Diatessaron passed into Latin form, 
 such as is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis 
 (Zahn, i. pp. 298-328). The interesting fact 
 comes out that this took place without the use 
 of any intermediary Greek Diatessaron. In 
 language and form the Latin Harmony is based 
 upon St. Jerome's version ; and the differ- 
 ences between the Codex and Tatian — -such as 
 alterations in chronological order, expansions 
 and abbreviations, coincidences and devia- 
 tions — indicative as they are of dependence 
 of the Codex upon Tatian, do not require the 
 explanation which an intermediate Greek text 
 would easily supply. The Codex Fuldensis 
 must be dated between 383 (when Jerome 
 put forward his revision of the translation of 
 the Gospels) and 546 (when Victor of Capua 
 wrote down the Latin Harmony preserved in 
 the Codex) ; or, more approximately, c. 500 
 (Zahn, i. p. 310). Translations from Syriac 
 into Greek existed in 4th cent. (Eus. H. E. 
 i. 13, iv. 30), and the fact — with its conse- 
 quence, a further translation from Greek into 
 Latin — might be quoted in proof of a more 
 early date than a.d. 500 for the Codex Fulden- 
 sis ; but, independently of other reasons, the 
 age of Victor of Capua has yielded proofs of 
 direct translations from Syriac into Latin, 
 which render appeals to a Greek Diatessaron 
 unnecessary. Kihn (Theodor von Mopsuestia 
 mid Junilius .Africanus ; see Zahn, i. p. 311) 
 has shewn that in the days of Victor of Capua, 
 Junilius, Quaestor sacri palatii at Constanti- 
 nople (c. 545-552) sent to Primasius, bp. -of 
 Adrumetum, a Latin introduction to the 
 Scriptures (Instituta regularia divinae legis) 
 which was a free rendering of a work written 
 {c. 533-544) by the Syrian Nestorian Paul, a 
 pupil and teacher of the school of Nisibis. 
 
 {2) Recovery of the Diatessaron. — This is 
 due to the energetic scholarship of Zahn. By 
 the use principally of Ephrem's commentary 
 (ed. Mosinger) and of the quotations in the 
 
TATIANUS 
 
 Homilies of Aplir.iatcs he has priiitcd the text 
 (i. pp. II3-2IQ) in detail; coinparinR it 
 throughout with the Svriac of Curcton (Sc), 
 the Peshito (P.), and frequently the I'hilo- 
 xenian text revised bv Thi>ni.is of H.trkrl 
 (HI.), with the Greek MSS. X. K, and P. and 
 with Sabatier and Bianchini's editions of the 
 MSS. of the Itala. \erse by verse the text 
 is reconstructed and tabulated in sections. 
 Each section is accompanied by an exhaustive 
 critical and expository comment, and an index 
 to all the passages incorporated in the Har- 
 mony enables the student to examine the evi- 
 dence respecting any individual verse. These 
 sections indicate the character of the Harmony 
 and may be seen as given by Zahn. with the 
 refs. to Ephrem omitted in favour of I-ng. 
 headings in Fuller's Harmony of the GospfU 
 (S.P.C.K.). Zahn has pursued the subject 
 further in his Forschungfn iur GeschichU des 
 N.T. Kanons, ii. 286-299, and his Geschichte 
 des N.T. Kanons, (iS88)i. i, 369-429 ; (189a), 
 ii- 2, 530-556. 
 
 {3) The Theological Opinior%s of Tatian. — 
 Until the death of Justin Martyr he was 
 considered orthodox ; after that heterodox. 
 The change can only be roughly sketched. 
 In the Oratio are found traces of the three 
 heretical \iews which Irenaeus attributed to 
 him. (i) The allusion to Aeons above the 
 heavens (c. xx.) may very well have led on to 
 theories akin to those of Valcntinus (Iren. 
 adv. Haer. i. 28). (ii) The doctrine that the 
 protoplast lost the image and likeness of (lod 
 (cc. viii. xii. xv.) might lead to the denial of 
 the salvation of Adam (ib. iii. 23, \ 8). (iii) 
 His allusion (c. xv.) to man as distinguislied 
 from the brute — implying by contrast points 
 of resemblance between them — makes pos- 
 sible a transition to the severer views of 
 denouncing marriage as defilement and forni- 
 cation as did Marcion and Saturninus (Iren. 
 c. XV. ; Hieron. Cnmm. I.e. in Ep. ad Gal. vi.), 
 and also the use of meats (Hieron. adv. Jovin. 
 i. 3). Were the heretical writings in existence 
 which Irenaeus affirmed that Tatian had 
 written and he himself had read (Zahn, i. p. 
 281), we might be able to judge how far they 
 justified Irenaeus in describing him as " elated, 
 puffed up as if superior to other teachers, and 
 forming his own type of doctrine," and to 
 trace something of his erroncousness in 
 the Problems, and other lost works, e.g 
 Concerning Perfection according to the 
 Saviour ; and in the criticisms, para- 
 phrases, or translations of some of St Paul's 
 Epistles, which Euscbius (//. E. iv. 20) had 
 heard of, and which Jerome described as 
 repudiations of those apostolic writings (Pra<'/. 
 in Comm. to Tttus, see Zahn, i. p. 6, n. 4). A 
 few hints only arc forthcoming on these 
 points, and these filtered through unfriendly 
 channels. But the general impression cannot 
 be resisted. Tatian became first suspected 
 and then denounced. He left Rome, possibly 
 pausing at Alexandria to teach, among his 
 pupils being Clement of Alexandria (cf. 
 Lightfoot, p. 1133 ; Zahn, i. p. 12), and then 
 proceeding to the East, to Mesopotamia (Epi- 
 phan. Haer. xlvi. i. Correct his error in 
 chronology by Lightfoot and Zahn, i. p. 282), 
 there to live until his death. It is more than 
 probable that on leaving Rome he carried 
 
 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" .'.IS 
 
 the /)i.j/<',%\.if(>M with liiiii. llnl.^lMl^h^^^. In 
 the West he h.id txrcoinr uiiarrrptablr. The 
 langu.ige of Irrii.ieus c. !>>>', t.f. prob.ibl V 4(t^r 
 Tati.m's de.ith leaves ni> «lout>t upon (htt 
 point. .Men hoimured An<l valued the Oraho 
 (cf. tnt. al. Milgenfcld. Kflterefuhuhte. pp. 
 386, 387); but sdv nothing of the l>iatriiarnH. 
 in the (ireek-spe .iking churches (»f the l-.ast 
 the writer of the Dratio was not Irs* valued 
 (cf. Eus. //. E. iv. 2'>. v. 28), and thrv sjx-ak 
 of the Dtatessaron ; but it is bv report or at 
 second-hand only. I'glv rumours nrculalr<t. 
 Tatian, described broadly as "connrxio 
 omnium haercticoruin " (Iren. aJv. Haer. ni. 
 23), had become, in dehanre nf histoncd 
 I>robability(Zahn. i. p. jSH). .in Km HATirr. one 
 whose tenets had spread into .\sia Minor from 
 Antioch. and who blossomed out at last 
 into " Encralitaruin acerrimus haeresiarches " 
 (Hieron.). Had Irenaeus. Eusebius, or Je- 
 rome known the l>iatesiaron, would they not 
 have examined it as they had examined 
 Tatian's Oratio and other works ? Would not 
 the very compilation of a Dtatessaron have 
 been obnoxious to one who, like Irenaeu«, 
 counted the fourfold (iospels (neither more, 
 nor less) an absolute necessity ? But in the 
 S>Tiac-speaking l-.ast he was unknown, or not 
 followed by troublesome reflections upon hi» 
 orthtxloxy. and there the teacher who wa* 
 eclectic rather than heterodox rovild pr^xluca 
 and circulate that work, which commended 
 itself to the " simplicity " of the churches 
 .(round l>lessa " on account of its brevity," 
 till Theodoret enlightened them. 
 
 The date of his death is unknown, but if h« 
 left Rome c. 172 or 173 he would have been 
 about 62 years of age, and, humanly speaking, 
 with time before him to circulate the lUalei- 
 saron before he died. 
 
 j Literature. — In the prolegomena (pp. xiii- 
 ! xxix) to Otto's ed. of the Oratio will be found 
 a description of the M.SS., edd., etc, in exist- 
 ence (cf. also Harnack, op. cit. pp. i-07 : 
 Donaldson, History of Christian Literature atul 
 Doctrine, iii. pp. 60-62). For other work* 
 besides those freely used and specified in 
 this art. see Preuscheii's art. s.n. in Herzog't 
 A*. E.3 The text of the Diates^aron cd. by J. 
 White is jMib. iiv < >xf. I iiiv. I'r.ss. .md a trans, 
 in ifil,-.\ic<ne I i'>. (j-M.P.) 
 
 " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. ' Brven- 
 nius discovered at Constantinople a .MS. thu« 
 entitled in a vol. containing an unmutilaled 
 .MS. text of the two Epp. ascril>ed t-> ("lenient, 
 .ind pub. it at the close of 1H83. no other copy 
 being known to exist in MS. or print. 
 
 The .MS. bears the heading " Teaching n( 
 the Twelve .Apostles," followed by the fuller 
 title "Teaching of the lord bv the Twelva 
 Apostles to the (.entiles." That both title* 
 belong to the original form appears probable 
 , from the phrase " the Twelve .\postles." The 
 phr.ise Jiiax*) t'uh' dfotfroXwr fKCurs in Acts li. 
 42 ; and the earliest writers who have been 
 suppose<i to speak of the work (Euvbius and 
 Athanasius) do so inerrlv under the name 
 "Teaching of the Apostles" ; the additKm of 
 "Twelve" being su|>er(luous when the wi>rd 
 " Apostle " had becr>me limite«l to the Twelve. 
 In the work itself " .\(M>stle " is usr«l in a verr 
 wide sense ; so that if this really reprevnt% 
 church usage when it was wriltcn, the title 
 
934 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" 
 
 " Teaching of the Apostles " would be quite 
 vague without the addition " Twelve " (cf. 
 Luke vi. 13 ; Rev. xxi. 14). 
 
 The title was only intended to describe the 
 substance of the work, not to assert anything 
 as to its direct authorship. Though called 
 " Teaching (Didache) of the Lord," our Lord is 
 certainly not represented as the speaker ; see 
 such expressions as " concerning these things 
 spake the Lord," " as the Lord ordered in His 
 Gospel," "as ye have in the Gospel of our 
 Lord." Neither is it written in the name of 
 the twelve apostles ; for the author uses the 
 singular, addressing his disciple as " my 
 child." Nor does the treatise contain any 
 indication that the author of the whole 
 claimed to be one of the apostles, or that the 
 work is to be broken up into sections supposed 
 to be spoken by successive apostles. In this 
 respect it is favourably distinguished from a 
 number of spurious works which claimed 
 apostolic authorship in early times. But, as 
 in the case of the Apostles' Creed, a title 
 apparently originally only intended to assert 
 conformity with apostolic teaching, came to 
 be understood as an assertion of authorship, 
 and later authorities undertook to specify the 
 portions contributed by each apostle ; and 
 later works founded on the Didnche are 
 divided into sections supposed to be contri- 
 buted by individual apostles. 
 
 The work divides into two parts : the first, 
 which we shall refer to as the " Two Ways," 
 forming the first 6 chapters of Bryennius's 
 ed., contains moral instruction ; the second 
 (cc. 7-15 Bryennius) deals with church ritual 
 and discipline, a chapter (16) being added on 
 our Lord's Second Coming. Several very early 
 writers exhibit coincidences with pt. i., such as 
 to prove that they borrowed from the Didache, 
 or the Didache from them, or that both had a 
 common source. With pt. ii. similar coinci- 
 dences are much later and much more scanty. 
 Part i. was intended for catechumens, or at 
 least for use in their instruction, for part ii., 
 which begins by treating of baptism, directs 
 that candidates shall first have received the 
 preceding teaching. 
 
 Contents. — The work begins by declaring 
 that there are two ways : one of Life, the other 
 of Death ; phrases borrowed from Jer. xxi. 8, 
 a passage itself derived from Deut. xxx. ig. 
 It then describes first the Way of Life, which 
 is summed up in two precepts ': love God Who 
 made thee ; and love thy neighbour as thyself 
 and do not to another what thou wouldest not 
 have done to thyself.* Then follow several 
 precepts from the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 As c. i. is based on the Sermon on the 
 Mount, so is c. ii. on the second table of the 
 Decalogue. C. iii. instructs the disciple to 
 flee not only from every evil, but from every- 
 
 • This negative form is found in substance in Tob. 
 iv. 15. It may be due to the influence of the Didache 
 that it is found appended in this form to the instruc- 
 tions to Gentiles in Acts xv. in D. and some cursive 
 MSS., confirmed by Irenaeus or his translator (III. 
 xii. 14) and Cyprian (Test. iii. 119). The precept is 
 found in the same form in Theophilus (ad Autol. ii. 
 34) ; but the context does not furnish coincidences 
 such as would prove the Didache the source. I,am- 
 pridius says (Alex. Sev. 51) that Alexander Severus 
 was fond of quoting this precept, which he had 
 learned either from some Jews or Christians. 
 
 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE " 
 
 thing like it. C. iv. contains miscellaneous 
 precepts. C. v. gives an enumeration of the 
 sins which constitute the way of death. C. vi. 
 is a short exhortation to abide in the fore- 
 going teaching ; but giving permission if the 
 disciple cannot bear the whole yoke, especi- 
 ally as regards food, to be content with bearing 
 as much as he can ; provided always he 
 abstains from things offered to idols. Here 
 terminates the section addressed to the 
 catechumen. Then follow (c. vii.) directions 
 for the baptism of candidates who have 
 received the preceding instruction. It is to 
 be in the name of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit ; in rimning water if it can be had ; if 
 not, in any water, even warm water. If 
 sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, 
 it will suffice to pour water three times on the 
 head. Baptizer and baptized must fast 
 beforehand ; the baptized for a day or two : 
 others, if possible, to join in the fast. This 
 rule of fasting may be illustrated by the 
 account given in the Clementines {Horn. iii. 
 1 1 ; Recog. vii. 36) of the baptism of Clement's 
 mother. Peter directs that she shall fast one 
 day previous to baptism. 
 
 C. viii. relates to fasting and prayer. The 
 disciples must not fast " as the hypocrites," 
 on the 2nd and 5th days of the week ; but on 
 the 4th and on the preparation day. Neither 
 must they pray as the hypocrites, but as the 
 Lord ordered in His Gospel. The Lord's 
 Prayer is given in conformity with St. Mat- 
 thew's text with but trifling variations, but 
 adding the doxology " Thine is the power and 
 the glory for ever." This prayer is to be used 
 thrice daily. Chaps, ix. x. contain Eucharistic 
 formulae. In the opening words " Concerning 
 the thanksgiving, give thanks in this manner," 
 we can scarcely avoid giving to the word 
 fi'XapKTTla the technical meaning it had as 
 early as Ignatius (Philad. 4 ; Smyrn. 6, 8 ; 
 Eph. 13 ; cf. Justin, Apol. 66). This interpre- 
 tation is confirmed by a direction that of this 
 " Eucharist " none but baptized persons 
 should partake, since the Lord has said " Give 
 not that which is holy unto the dogs." But 
 the forms themselves are more like what we 
 should expect in prayers before and after an 
 ordinary meal than the Eucharist proper. 
 There is no recital of the words of institution ; 
 no mention of the Body and Blood of our 
 Lord, though both Ignatius and Justin Martyr 
 so describe the consecrated food. The sup- 
 position that we have here private prayers to 
 be said before and after reception is excluded 
 by the direction that " prophets " should be 
 permitted to offer thanks as they pleased, 
 where it is plain that public thanksgiving is 
 intended. The explanation seems to be that 
 the celebration of the Eucharist still accom- 
 panied the Agape or Love Feast, and that we 
 have here the thanksgivings before and after 
 that meal. In the Clementines, which in 
 several points manifest affinity with the 
 Didache, it is not merely the Eucharist from 
 which the unbaptized are excluded. They 
 can take no food of any kind at the same table 
 with the initiated. An unbaptized person is 
 the home of the demon, and until this demon 
 has been driven out by baptism, no Christian 
 can safely admit him to a common table 
 (Recog. ii. 71 ; see also i. 19, vii. 36) ; and all 
 
"TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE' 
 
 through the Clcmoutiiirs (h.- l.tuKua^f in 
 which the benediction of everv uual is de- 
 scribed is such as to make it imrrrtaiii 
 whethera celebration of theKucharist is meant. 
 In the form in the Didachi we notice that : ( i ) 
 the benediction of the cup precedes that of the 
 bread (see Luke xxii. i7-i'>). (2) The broken 
 bread has the technical name rd (r\d<rfia. (i) 
 The thanksKiviuR for the cup runs : " We 
 give thanks to Thee our Father, for the h..lv 
 vme of Thy servant David which Thou hast 
 made known to us through Thv servant 
 Jesus." This expression the "vine of Oavid ' 
 was known to Clement of .\lexandria, who savs 
 of Christ (Quts Dives Salv. 29). " Who poured 
 forth the wine, the blood of the vine of David, 
 for our wounded souls." Elsewhere {Paed. i. 
 5 ).treating of Gen. xlix. "binding the colt to the 
 vine," he interprets " the vine of the Logos 
 Who gives His blood, as the vine yields wine. 
 
 (4) The benedictory prayer contains a petition 
 that as the broken bread had been scattered on 
 the mountains and had been brought together 
 and made one, so might the church be col- 
 lected together from the ends of the earth. 
 
 (5) The thanksgiving praver after reception is 
 directed to be said " after being filled " (fitTi 
 t6 (urXrjffHrjvai). words answering better to the 
 conclusion of an .\gape than of a Eucharist ic 
 celebration (cf. Reco^. i. ig). 
 
 Chaps, xi. xii. xiii. treat of the honour to 
 be paid to Christian teachers, who are de- 
 scribed as " apostles and prophets." This 
 combination of terms reflects N.T. usage 
 (I. Cor. xii. ;8, 20 ; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 8, iv. 11). 
 The word " apostle " in our document is not 
 limited to the Twelve, but is used as our word 
 " missionary." Every true apostle was a 
 prophet, but only those prophets received the 
 name apostle who were not fixed in one place, 
 but accredited by churches on a mission to 
 distant localities. This terminology is a proof 
 of the antiquity of our document {see Light- 
 foot on the word Apostle, Gal. p. 92). The 
 word was used by Jews to denote an envoy 
 sent by the authorities at Jerusalem to Jews 
 in foreign places, especially the envoy charged 
 with the collection of the Temple tribute. 
 Our document is solicitous to provide for the 
 due entertainment of Christian missionaries, 
 and yet to guard against the church's hos- 
 pitality being traded on by imp<istors or lazy 
 persons. Every apostle was to be received 
 as the Lord ; but if he wanted to prolong his 
 stay beyond two days at most, he betrayed 
 himself as a false prophet. Clearly the 
 apostle is an envoy on his way to another 
 place ; for it could never have been intended 
 to forbid a missionary to settle down in one 
 spot for a longer period of preaching. The 
 false apostle is said to betray himself if he 
 asks for money or for a larger supply of tra- 
 velling provisions than will provide for his 
 next stage. There are commands in a similar 
 spirit for the hospitable treatment of ordinary 
 Christian strangers. If such a one wishes to 
 settle among them, he must work at a handi- 
 craft or employ himself in some other wav ; 
 but if he wants to eat the bread of idleness, he 
 is one who makes merchandise of Christ 
 (XptffT^/ziropii <'<rrti'). The use of this word 
 by Pseudo-Ignatius {ad Trail. 6, ad .Magn. 9) 
 agrees with the conclusion, drawn from other 
 
 ttSA 
 
 c.iiisidii.ili..ii.. th.»t III. iiiirr|-.l.it.< WM 
 acquainted with the Otdofh/. 
 
 There Is a coiiitiiand in which r<iiiimrnt4l<ir« 
 have found a dithcullv, that .1 prophrt siirak- 
 ing in the spirit must not \w proved n<ir 
 tested. " Every sin shall Ik- f.irKivm. but 
 not that." Vet there follow m.irk% hit di%- 
 cerning the false prophet from the true. The 
 subsequent history of .MoiitaniMn casts 4 clear 
 light on the su»»jrrt. The bishops atlrniplr<| 
 to test the Montanist prophrlrssrs by applvuiK 
 to them the fciniuilae of rxorrism. to (tiicl 
 whether it were possiblr to cast out ^n rvil 
 spirit who poss«-sse<| thrill. Tills the Mon- 
 
 tanists naliirallv resisted as a frightful imliR- 
 nity. Such testing bv rxorrisni is hrre 
 manifestly forbidden, as involving, if applied 
 to one really inspired by th»> Spirit of <,.kI, 
 the risk of incurring the penalties denounced 
 by our lord, in words plainly here refrrrrd to, 
 upon blasphemy against the Ho|y <.hmt. 
 That this precept of thr IhJach/ was appar- 
 ently not quoted in the M<intanist disputes it 
 one of manv indications th.it our document 
 had only a very limited cirrnlatioii. tlilKen- 
 feld's notion, that the l)tJac>w is as late a« 
 Montanism, is condemned Iwith liy the whole 
 ch.iMCter of the docuim-nt and bv its silenru 
 on the vital question in the Montanist con- 
 troversy, whether true prophets lost thrir self- 
 command when prophesying. To label every 
 early document which speaks of prophesying 
 Montanistic is to ignore the f.ict that pro- 
 phetical gifts were recognized in the early 
 church, and that M(mtanism was an unsuc- 
 cessful Irical attempt to revive pretensions to 
 them after they had gener.illv ceased to Im 
 regarded as an ordin.iry feature of church 
 life.* The Didachi gives a diflen-nt way of 
 discerning the false prophet from the true, 
 viz. by his life and convers.ition. If he 
 taught th<- truth but did not practiv it. he was 
 a false prophet. He might, when s|>eaking 
 in the spirit, command gifts to l>e l>estow«<| 
 on others ; but if he asked anything for him- 
 self, or gave commands in the l>enefit of which 
 he was to share, he was a fake prophet. Hut 
 a true prophet, settling in one place, deserves 
 his maintenance. So also <irx>s a teacher, by 
 which apparently is meant a preacher who 
 dfX's not speak in prophetic ecstasy. To the 
 prophets are to l»e given the first-fruits of all 
 produce ; " for they are your high priest*." 
 If there are no prophets, the first-fruits aic to 
 go to the poor. 
 
 C. xiv. directs Christians to come together 
 each Lord's Day to break bread and rivo 
 thanks, having confess«'d their sins in order 
 that their sacrifice may l)e pure. Th<»%e at 
 variance must not pollute the sacrihce f>v 
 coming without having f>een first reconcilcl. 
 Our document then guotrs Mai. i. 10, in which 
 so many Fathers from Justin d-iwnwards 
 (Trvphn, 41, 116) have seen a pre<lictlon of tho 
 Eucharistic oblation. C. xv. f>egins : " Elect 
 therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons." 
 Tln-s<- arc to receive thr same honour as the 
 prophrts and teachers, as fulfilling a like 
 ministration. In the preceding chapter* 
 where church officers arc s|)<jkrn of, mention 
 
 • In the l-;p. of Ivnatlui, "thr Ptophcl* " 
 me.in« O.T. pfophcln, and Ihcrr b 00 imllcalkm o( 
 •n order o( prophrl* thn la the Chrbtkn chufch. 
 
936 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" 
 
 is made, as in T. Cor., only of apostles, prophets 
 and teachers ; and of these, apostles are only 
 stranger visitors of the church, and prophets 
 are men endowed with supernatural gifts of 
 the Holy Ghost, who may or may not be found 
 in any particular church. Bearing in mind 
 the account given by Justin {Apol. i. 66) of 
 the share taken by " the president " and the 
 deacons in the Eucharistic celebration, we 
 seem warranted in inferring from the " there- 
 fore " at the beginning of c. xv. that it was 
 with a view to the conduct of the weekly 
 stated service that bishops and deacons are 
 described as appointed ; and that, though 
 gifted men were allowed to preach and teach 
 in the church assemblies, the offering of the 
 Eucharist was confined to these permanent 
 officers. It is possible that the section on 
 " bishops and deacons " may have been added 
 later when the Didache assumed its present 
 form, the editor feeling it necessary that 
 mention should be made of the recognized 
 names of the officers of the church in his time. 
 
 C. xvi. is an exhortation to watch for 
 our Lord's Second Coming, in order to be able 
 to pass safely through the heavy trial that 
 was immediately to precede it. This time of 
 trial was to be signalized by the appearance 
 of one who is called the " deceiver of the 
 world " ((fOfT^uoTrXdi'os), who should appear as 
 God's Son and do signs and wonders, and into 
 whose hands the earth should be delivered, so 
 that under the trial many should be scandal- 
 ized and be lost (cf. II. Thess. ii. 3, 4 ; Rev. xii. 
 9 ; Matt. xxiv. 21, 24, x. 22). But then shall 
 appear the signs of the truth : first the sign 
 of outspreading (e\-7r6Tdo-ew?) in heaven (a 
 difficult phrase which need not here be dis- 
 cussed) ; then the trumpet's voice (Matt. xxiv. 
 31 ; I. Cor. XV. 52 ; I. Thess. iv. 16); thirdly 
 the resurrection of the dead — not of all, but, 
 as was said, the Lord shall come and all His 
 saints with Him. Then shall the world see 
 the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven. 
 
 External Attestahon. — The sketch just given 
 shews that our document bears marks of very 
 high antiquity. We next ask what ancient 
 WTiters expressly speak of the Didache, or 
 manifest acquaintance with it, earlier than 
 the appearance in its present shape of the 
 Apostolic Constitutions, the first half of bk. 
 vii. of which contains an expansion of the 
 Didache. The forger of this book was plainly 
 acquainted with the whole Didache ; for he 
 goes through it from beginning to end, making 
 changes and additions, the study of which 
 throws interesting light on the development 
 of church ritual during the interval between 
 the two works. Harnack has given good 
 reasons for thinking that the same forger 
 manipulated the Didache and the Ignatian 
 letters, and that his work may have been as 
 early as a.d. 350. Hence the Didachi was 
 by then an ancient document, but one in such 
 small circulation that it could be tampered 
 with without much fear of detection. 
 
 It is necessary here to notice the tract 
 professing to contain apostolic constitutions, 
 published by Bickell in 1843 and described 
 D. C. A. i. 123. This is quite independent of 
 and earlier than the work commonly known 
 as the Apostolic Constitutions. The two forms 
 employ some common earlier documents, but 
 
 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" 
 
 there is no reason to think that the framer of 
 either was acquainted with the other. Bickel 
 calls this tract Apostolische Kirchenordnung, 
 and to avoid confusion with the Apostolic 
 Constitutions, we refer to it as the Church 
 Ordinances. It had been translated into 
 various languages, and is the foundation of 
 Egyptian Canon Law. It has so much in com- 
 mon with Bryennius's Didache that either the 
 Church Ordinances certainly used the Didache 
 or both drew from a common source. In form 
 they differ ; for in the Ordinances the precepts 
 are distributed among different apostles by 
 name, the list being peculiar, Cephas appearing 
 as distinct from Peter ; he and Nathanael 
 taking the place of James the Less and 
 Matthias. In substance the two works closely 
 coincide, but only in the section on the " Two 
 Ways." 
 
 Writers earlier than the Apostolic Consti- 
 tutions know of a work which professed to 
 contain the teaching of the apostles, but 
 concerning them we cannot say with certainty 
 whether the work to which they witness is 
 the same as ours. The list of direct witnesses 
 is indeed much shorter than it must have been 
 if the work had obtained any wide acceptance 
 as containing really apostolic instruction. 
 Earliest isEusebius, who to his list of canonical 
 Scriptures (H. E. iii. 25) adds a list of spurious 
 books of the better sort, recognized by church 
 writers, and to be distinguished from writings 
 which heretics had forged in the names of 
 apostles. Among these he enumerates next 
 after the Ep. of Barnabas, " what are called 
 the Teachings of the Apostles " (tQv awocrTd- 
 \oi}v ai \ey6/x(vai 5i5axai). Some 3'ears later 
 Athanasius {Ep. Fest. 39) adds to his list of 
 canonical Scriptures a list of non-canonical 
 books useful in the catechetical instruction of 
 converts, viz. the Wisdom of Solomon, the 
 Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the 
 so-called Teaching of the Apostles {diSaxri 
 KoKovnivrj Tuiv dTt-o(TT6\u}v), and the Shepherd. 
 The only obstacle to our supposing our Didache 
 to be here referred to is the Eucharistic for- 
 mulae it contains, which Athanasius would 
 scarcely place in the hands of the uninitiated, 
 unless indeed he thought them so unlike the 
 truth as to make no revelation of Christian 
 mysteries. It will be observed that Eusebius 
 uses the plural (SiSaxat), Athanasius the sin- 
 gular. Unmistakable coincidences with the 
 Didache have been pointed out in writings 
 ascribed to Athanasius, but rejected as spu- 
 rious in the Benedictine ed., though the 
 genuineness of at least the second of these is 
 still urged : viz. de Virginitate (Migne, p. 266), 
 Syntagma Doctrinae ad Monaches (p. 835), 
 and Fides Nicena (p. 1639). Among the 
 spurious writings printed with those of Athan- 
 asius is a Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae, which, 
 because of its coincidences with the Sticho- 
 metry of Nicephorus, Credner has dated as late 
 as loth cent. The Stichometry doubtless 
 preserves an ancient list, and there among the 
 apocryphal books appended to the N.T. Canon 
 we find the Sidaxv awocrTdXwv. Those that 
 precede it are heretical apocrypha ; but those 
 that follow, viz. the Epp. of Clement, 
 Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Shepherd, are all 
 orthodox. The number of (rri'xot attributed 
 to the Didache is 200 ; whereas 1,400 are 
 
"TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" 
 
 assigned to the Revelation of St. John. I al- 
 dilations foiuuied on slichoinetry are uncer- 
 tain ; so we cannot lay nuicJi stress on the 
 fact that this appears to indicate a somewliat 
 shorter work than Bryennius's 3i5ax»j. which 
 according to Harnack would make about 300 
 (TTixw. and on a rough estimate seems about 
 a quarter the length of the .-Kpucilvpse. A 
 list of 60 books of Scripture appended to a 
 writing of Anastasius, patri.irch of Antioch in 
 the reign of Justinian, is in Wcstcotts .V.7. 
 Canon, p. 550. This gives as an appendix a 
 list of apocryphal books ; one being the 
 Travels {ir(pio&oi) ami Trackings {St&axai) of 
 the Af^ostUs. The absence of the Ihdath^ 
 from the list of the Codex Claromonianus 
 agrees with other indications that this work 
 possessed no authority in Africa. In one of 
 the fragments, published by Pfaff, as from Ire- 
 naeus, we read : "Those who have followed the 
 Second Ordinances of the Apostles (oi rats 
 5fiT^pai5 Tu)>' diro(Tr6\wv SiaTa^tai wap1)^o\ov^ 
 OvKdTf^) know that our Lord instituted a 
 new offering in the New Covenant according 
 to the saying of Malachi the prophet, ' From 
 the rising of the sun to the going down, my 
 name has been glorified in the (ientiles ; and 
 in every place incense is offered to my name 
 and a pure offering.' " This passage is quoted 
 in the Didachi with reference to the Eucharist ; 
 not, however, textually, as in the fragment, 
 but very loosely. We can only say then that 
 it is possible the Dtdache may be the Second 
 Ordinances of the Apostles referred to here. 
 The fragment is probably ancient, but con- 
 tains a citation of Hebrews as St. Paul's, which 
 proves, as Zahn and others have remarked, 
 that Irenaeus could not have been the author. 
 
 Western testimony to the Didachi is scanty, 
 and rather indicates that anv book which 
 circulated in the West as the Teaching of the 
 Apostles was not the same as Bryennius's 
 Didachi. Rufinus (Comm. in Symb. A post. 
 38) gives a list of canonical books which bears 
 marks of derivation from that of Athanasius ; 
 but where the Didache should come he has 
 '■ qui appellaturDuae Viae vel Judicium Petri." 
 This suggests that either the entire Didachi, 
 or at least the first half, the "Two Ways," 
 had been translated into Latin and circulated 
 under the name of the Judgment of Peter, 
 to whom, and not to the apostles generally, 
 the authorship would seem to have been 
 ascribed. The existence of a Latin "Two 
 Ways " is independently proved by the dis- 
 covery of a fragment by von ("lebhardt, re- 
 printed in his Texte und Vntersuchungen, ii. 
 277. It is so short as to leave it undetermined 
 whether the Latin version contained anvfhing 
 corresponding to what follows the "Two 
 Ways " in Bryennius. Lactantius {Div. 
 Itisiit. vi. 3, etc., and ICpil. c. 50) gives an 
 unmistakable expansion of the teaching of the 
 "Two Ways," who must have used our Latin 
 version, thus proving it older than a.d. 310. 
 
 The treatise de .-lleatoribus, falselv ascriln-d 
 to Cyprian, contains a quotation from l>oc- 
 trina Apostolorum (Hartcl, ii. <)(>) not found 
 in the Didachi. though there is one passage 
 (xiv. 2) which might have suggested the idea 
 to the framer of the Latin. If we may ever 
 rely on the argument from silence, wc should 
 
 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" lt37 
 
 k-alher fn.iu Trrtullun'i diiu-iuMun on the 
 "Stations " (dr Oral. 19. de /n*"* i. i". i«> 
 that he was unac.juamted with «>ur docummt. 
 Thus, scantv though the Wr^itrrn notier* «rr. 
 thev seem to prove that the lUdathi, in 
 Mrvennniss form, never rirruUtrd in the 
 «est; that the Latin Doclnna ApoUoUtrum. 
 •"y*"" '?,'' fRards the Motion on the "Two 
 Wavs. " was not a tr.iiisl.ition of Iirvrniitu\°% 
 Dtdach/, but contained a ditfrrent inunipuU- 
 tion of a probablv common oriK'nial ; and that 
 l>eyond the " Two WaN-s " there \s no evidrnre 
 that the Latin form had anything in common 
 with the Dtdachi. 
 
 We now come to coincidences with the 
 Dtdachi in works which do not mention it by 
 name. Far the most im|M)rtant of thrv are 
 found in the Kp. of n.irnab.is, in whirh, after 
 the conclusion of the doctrin.il tearhmg. the 
 writer proposes to pass to another dortrine 
 and discipline (-yfuffn- «at iihaxrt*), and adfU 
 an appendix of moral instructions. Thi» 
 appendix agrees so completelv in substance 
 with the section on the " Two Wavs " th.it a 
 literary connexion between the two dortinirnt« 
 is indisputable. Hut there is great diverMty 
 of detail. The precepts in H.irnabat are 
 without any orderly arrangement, while the 
 Dtdachi contains a systematic comment on 
 the second table of the l>ecalogue. Hrvenniu* 
 differ-* from Liter critics and some earlier 
 ones who consider it probable that Harnaba* 
 was the borrower. The whole character o| 
 the Didachi makes it unlikely that its author 
 collected the precepts scattered in Harnabas's 
 appendix, digested them into systematic 
 order, and made a number of harmonious 
 additions ; while if in what Harnabas sa\-» 
 about the " Two Ways " he is but repro- 
 ducing an older document, his uns\'^tematic 
 way of quoting its precepts, just as thev came 
 to mind, is quite like his mode of dealing with 
 O.T. We have still to inquire whether Har- 
 nabas borrowed from the Dtdachi t»r from a 
 common source. Now a studv of the Dtdachi, 
 as compared with Jewish literature, shew* 
 very clearly its origin among men with Jewish 
 training, and the work fr<^in which t>oth 
 borrowed may have be«-n not onlv Jewish but 
 I)re-Christian. For Barnabas's letter is of so 
 earlv a date that, if we sutiiM)s«- him t"> have 
 copied an earlier ( hristian document, we briiiK 
 that document into the apostolic age. which 
 would give It all the authority that has »>ern 
 claimed for it. We must, then, in romparmi; 
 Barnabas with the Didachi. distinguish care- 
 fullv the specially Christian element from 
 those p.irts which might have t>een written bv 
 a Jew unacquainted with ( hristianitv. II 
 llarnabas ropie<l thr Didachi. he would have 
 naturallv included thr (hristian element. If 
 Barnabas and the Didachi iiide|>«-n<lrnily 
 copi<-d an originally Jewish doriimriit, the 
 C hristian elements they might add would iio( 
 Iw likely to l»c the same. In thr section in 
 BarnalMs we are struck by the extreme 
 meagreiirss of the t hristian element. There 
 is no mention of our Lord, scarcely anv coin- 
 cidence with N.T. language, very little that 
 might not have been written by 4 jew tiefore 
 our Lord's coming. In the Didachi coin- 
 cidences with N.T. are extremely numerous, 
 and it begins with a whole section cmbodyin( 
 
938 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" 
 
 precepts from the Sermon on the Mount. 
 This section is entirely absent from Barnabas- 
 It is impossible to resist the conclusion that 
 Barnabas did not know the Didache in Bry- 
 exinius's form. He has elsewhere coincidences 
 with N.T., and had no motive for avoiding 
 them. If a book before him contained a 
 number of N.T. precepts he would never have 
 studiously avoided these in using the work, 
 nor have forgotten them even if he wrote 
 from memory. The coincidences between the 
 two works, therefore, must be explained by 
 the use of a common document. 
 
 This conclusion is confirmed on taking into 
 the comparison also the Latin "Two Ways," 
 and the Egyptian Church Ordinances, both of 
 which, like Barnabas, do not recognize the 
 Didache section founded on the Sermon on the 
 Mount. Neither is this section recognized in 
 Pseudo-Athanasius. The Church Ordinances 
 exhibit signs of acquaintance with Barnabas ; 
 the Latin form does not. In the order of the 
 precepts the Ordinances and the Latin both 
 agree with the Didache against Barnabas. 
 The Ordinances differ from the Latin by excess, 
 but scarcely at all otherwise. The same 
 reasons that forbid us to think that Barnabas. 
 if he had known the Didache, would have left 
 out its Christian element, prove the Ordin- 
 ances and the Latin likewise independent of 
 the Didache. The phenomena are explained : 
 if we assume an original document in substan- \ 
 tial agreement with the Latin, enlarged in the ' 
 Didache by additions from N.T., and after- 
 wards independently enlarged by the framer 
 of the Church Ordinances, who broke it up 
 into sections supposed to be spoken by differ- 
 ent apostles ; while Barnabas worked up in 
 his own way the materials he drew from the 
 document. We cannot say positively whether 
 this original proceeded beyond the " Two 
 Ways." The Latin fragment breaks off too 
 soon to give any information as to the length 
 of the original : the Church Ordinances cease 
 to present coincidences with the Didache after 
 the section on the "Two Ways" ; but this 
 may be because the directions for ritual and 
 discipline had become out of date when the 
 Ordinances were put together, the editor 
 therefore designedly substituting what better 
 agreed with the practice of his own age. The 
 quotation by Pseudo-Cyprian leads us to think 
 that the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum did go 
 beyond the " Two Ways." No great weight 
 can be attached to the length ascribed to the 
 Dtdache in the Stichometry, but this rather 
 favours the idea that the document intended 
 was longer than the "Two Ways," but 
 shorter than the Didache of Bryennius. 
 
 It remains to be mentioned that there is a j 
 coincidence between Barnabas and the 
 Didache outside the " Two Ways." The 
 opening of the Ep. of Barnabas and the last 
 or eschatological chapter of the Didache both 
 contain the warning that the disciples' faith 
 would not profit them unless they remained 
 stedfast in the last times. There is a good | 
 deal of difference in the wording of the warn- [ 
 ing, but not more than is usual in quotations 
 by Barnabas. The supposition that Barnabas ; 
 was acquainted with Bryennius's form of the | 
 Didache has akeady been excluded ; therefore 
 either (i) the earlier form which Barnabas did I 
 
 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" 
 
 use included an eschatological chapter con- 
 taining this warning, or (2) the editor 
 who changed the earlier form into that of 
 Bryennius was acquainted with the Ep. of 
 Barnabas. We prefer (2), on account of the 
 reasons we shall presently give for thinking 
 the document used by Barnabas to have been 
 pre-Christian. If the editor of Bryennius's 
 form knew Hermas, he might also have known 
 Barnabas, with whom he has a second coin- 
 cidence in a passage about almsgiving, which, 
 as implying a knowledge of Acts and Romans, 
 Barnabas was not likely to have found in his 
 original. Possibly there is a third coinci- 
 dence ; for a plausible explanation of the diffi- 
 cult word iKviraffLS in c. xvi. is that it means 
 the sign of the cross, being derived from Barna- 
 bas's interpretation of eieTriracra in Is. Ixv. 2. 
 
 Hermas also presents coincidences with the 
 Didache, but it is not easy to say that there 
 is literary obligation on either side, except in 
 one case, viz. a coincidence between the 
 second " commandment " of Hermas and the 
 " Sermon on the Mount " section, which we 
 have already seen reason to think belongs to a 
 later form of the Didache. In this case the 
 original seems clearly that of Hermas. His 
 instructions as to almsgiving are perfectly 
 clear. The corresponding passage in the 
 Didache has many coincidences of language, 
 but expresses the thought so awkwardly as to 
 be scarce intelligible without the commentary 
 of Hermas. It begins, " Blessed is he that 
 giveth according to the commandment, for 
 he is blameless : woe to him that receiveth." 
 The words "for he is blameless," as they 
 stand, are puzzling ; for we should expect the 
 " for " to introduce something stronger than 
 merelv an acquittal of blame. By comparison 
 with Hermas we see that the case contem- 
 plated is that of giving to an undeserving 
 person. Then the receiver deserves the woe ; 
 the giver obtains an acquittal. We conclude, 
 then, without disputing the greater antiquity 
 of the original Didache, that the interpolator 
 who brought the work to the form published 
 by Bryennius was later than Hermas, and 
 drew from him. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria was certainly ac- 
 quainted with the Didache in some form. He 
 expressly quotes one sentence as Scripture 
 (Strom, i. 20, p. 377), " My son, be not a liar, 
 for lying leads to theft." This saying is not 
 quoted by Barnabas ; but the Church Ordin- 
 ances attest that it belongs to the earlier form 
 of the Didache. Even the later form of the 
 Didache may well be considerably older than 
 Clement ; and he might easily have met with 
 a copy during his travels in the East. He 
 uses {Quis Dives Salv. 20) the phrase " vine of 
 David," found in one of the benedictory 
 prayers of the Didache. He shews a know- 
 ledge (Strom, vii. 7, p. 854) of the W^ednesday 
 and Friday fasts (c. r2, p. ^77), but does not 
 seem to attribute to these institutions the 
 authority which belongs to the name Scripture 
 bestowed by him on the Didache. 
 
 Origen was later than Clement and must 
 have been well acquainted with the literature 
 current in Egypt and Palestine ; so that we 
 might naturally expect him to be familiar with 
 the Didache. Yet no satisfactory proof of 
 his knowledge of it has been produced. 
 
"TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" 
 
 Place of Composition.— l\\f Church Ordi- 
 nances, at the basis of which lies thr Dulaih/ 
 in some form, are with good reason reK.inlotl 
 as of Egyptian origin ; Clement, one of the 
 earliest to quote the nidachf, wrote in ICgypt, 
 and so very possiblv did B.irnabas. Hence, 
 it was natural to think th.jt the Ihdachi also 
 is of Egyptian origin. Hut attention was 
 called to the petition in the prayer of Ix-ne- 
 diction of the bread, that as it had been scat- 
 tered on the mountains, and collected together 
 had become one, so the church might 1m- 
 collected together from the ends of the earth 
 into the Lords kingdom ; and it was pointed 
 out the words " on the uioinitains " could not 
 have been WTitten in Egypt ; and. moreover, 
 the proper inference froni the use made of the 
 Didachi in the Church Ordinances is that when 
 the latter work was put together, the former 
 was almost unknown in Egvpt. There is 
 nothing to contradict the inference suggested 
 by the intensely Jewish character of the book, 
 that it emanated from Christian Jews who, 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, had their 
 chief settlements E. of Jordan. 
 
 Time of Composition. — The theory set forth 
 is that the original, alike of Barnabas and of 
 all the forms of the Dtdachi. was a Jewish 
 manual for the instruction of proselytes. If 
 Palestinian Christians had habitually used 
 such a manual while still Jews, it would be 
 natural for them to employ it, improved by 
 the addition of some Christian elements, in 
 the moral instruction of converts before 
 admission into the church. The document, 
 being a formula in constant practical use, 
 would be added to and modified ; and we 
 seem to be able to trace three stages in its 
 growth. 
 
 (1) Barnabas represents for us the original 
 Jewish manual ; probably quoting, not from 
 any written document, but from his recollec- 
 tion of the instruction he had himself received 
 or had been given to others. Barnabas's 
 quotations do not proceed beyond the section 
 on the " Two Ways," corresponding to cc. 
 i.-iv. of the Didache. 
 
 (2) In the Church Ordinartces and in the 
 Latin Doctrina we have the manual as it was 
 modified for use in a Christian community. 
 The Latin book may have been the first pub- 
 lication of this catechetical manual of I'ales- 
 tinian Christians, brought to the West by one 
 himself instructed in it. It was probably 
 called the Teaching of the .Apostles, because the 
 authorized formulary of a church founded by 
 apostles and claiming to derive its institutions 
 from them. We are without evidence whether 
 this manual contained more than the " Two 
 Wavs," though it probably did. The only 
 clue to the date of this publication is that 
 the Church Ordinances contain that prewpt 
 about almsgiving which we have alrcadv not«rd 
 as the solitary instance of use of the N.T. in 
 this section of Baniabas. Reasons have been 
 already given for thinking that Barnabas was 
 not here employing a Christian document, and 
 we find it hard to believe that the phraM-s in 
 which coincidences (xrcur are older than N.T., 
 so we seem forced to conclude that the first 
 editors of the Teaching of the Apostles knew 
 Barnabas. This would not be inconsistent 
 with a date before the end of ist cent. 
 
 TEILO 
 
 ti3fl 
 
 (U In the Diduih/ published t>v nrvrimiut 
 wi- h.ive the nialiu.il riilargrd by fiirthrj ( hll»- 
 tian additions ; the nrrcrpts in (hr i>ri»:in4l 
 manual U-ing e\p4n<le<l, others addrd (roin 
 N.T., and also vmie wholly new MH-tion%. 
 \'vl the whole character of the HiJach^. and 
 in particular the lively rx|xTt4lion of our 
 
 I Lord's S<coiid C OiniiiK in c. xvi.. <Iisjm»m-s n^ to 
 give It III its present forui as rarlv a dale a« 
 we can ; and since we place Hrrinas at thn 
 beginning of in<l cent., we have no difficulty 
 in d.iting (he l>ida(h^ as e.ulv as a.i>. ii». 
 
 ( Literature. JUv publication of the lUiUnki 
 bv Brvenniiis produced an eiiorinuus crop of 
 liter.itnii'. The list- in SchafI s and in Mar- 
 n.irk's editions m.iv be siippleinetned bv *n 
 article of n.irnack's Theol. Literatur:. iHHf,. p. 
 171. Mere we only mention, of rditions. thos« 
 
 I by I)e Koniestan (I«H4). Sprncr (iHHs). Schaf! 
 
 ; (iSSs and iS«f)). Sabatier (iH.H.s). Hilg-nfeld in 
 a .:nd ed. of pt. iv. of his Sov. le\t. ett. Can. 
 (i«S4). .ind by (.ebh.irdt and Marnack. IfxU 
 
 \ und Inlersuchuncen, vol. ii.(iH84). Bp. Light- 
 foot's paper at the Church Congress «»l 1H84, 
 
 ] pub. in the Expositor, Jan. iHHs ; Zahn'* 
 discussions in his FnnchunRen, pt. iii. p. J7* 
 
 I(iHS4). and Taylor's Lectures at the Hoy.il 
 
 ; Institution. iKH<i, in which the Didachi \% 
 
 \ illustrated from Jewish literature. A new 
 
 led. with a fasciinile (autoty|>e) text and a 
 commentary from the MJi. of the Molv 
 Sepulchre, Jerusalem, ed. by J. K. Harris, it 
 pub. bv Camb. I'niv. Press, as is alv» an Enjc. 
 trans, from the Svriac bvPr. Margaret (Wbvin; 
 while S.P.C.K. pub. an Eng. trans, with 
 intro. and notes bv Dr. C. Bigg. See also 
 Bigg's Sotes on the lUdachi m Journ. of 
 Theol. Stud., ]u\v I't'H- [i..s.] 
 
 Tello, bp. of LlandafI and one of the prin- 
 cipal saints of Wak-s. was son of Enlleu ap 
 Mvdwn Dwn and cousin to St. Davi.l. He 
 was born ne.v Tenby, and educated with St. 
 David and other celebrated Welsh s,unts. He 
 opened a school near LlandafI. called Bangor 
 Deilo. and on account of his proficiency in the 
 Scriptures is said to have received the name 
 
 I Elios or Eliud. His withdrawal to .\rmorica 
 on the outbreak of the vellow plague in Wale* 
 
 lis counted bv Prvce {.4nc. lint. Ch. i6i) one 
 
 ( of the few incidents in his life which can l>e 
 considered historical. In the Chmn. Series of 
 the Bpp. of l.landaO (Lib. l.andav. bv Uecs.f.j 
 
 I he is said to have become bp. of Llandart in 
 512. so that Kees (Welsh .S.S. ny) \s prol>« 
 
 ; ably safest in saving that his pericnl in thai 
 see ended in its first stage with the ap|>«araiice 
 of the plague. (Di iiKU Its.) 
 
 Ketuniing from Armorica after a stay. *» l» 
 said, of 7 years and 7 months, he found SI. 
 
 ! David dead and the see of Menevia vacant. 
 
 I St. Tcilo IS said to liavc l>een elected to the 
 vacant chair as archbp. of Mrnevia. but, pre- 
 
 1 fcrring his old see. he consecrated Ishniael, 
 
 ' one of St. David's earliest «lisfiplr%. !•> I>r hl» 
 
 ' suffragan at Menevia, rai^-d tither* t<> the 
 same rank in different part* of South W ale*. 
 
 ■while he hiiiisjlf removed to I landafi, and. 
 carrying with Iniii the primacy. iK-came arch- 
 bp. with the title of the inferii.r m-c (Stubhs 
 Ree. 154, 15'.; Haddan and Stubl>*, ( ounc. 
 i. 115 seq. ; Kers. WeUk SS. 174. 14} *^1- i 
 
 , Pryce, Anc. Br. Ch. 15H tcq.). The date ..J 
 
 i his death is variously fixed from 563 (Li*. 
 
940 
 
 TELESPHORUS 
 
 Land. 623) to 604 (Ussher). He is said to 
 have died at a very advanced age. 
 
 The chief authority for his Life is Vita S. 
 Teliavi Episcopi a Magistro Galfrido Fratre 
 Urhani Landavensis Ecclesiae Episcopi dicata, 
 belonging to 12th cent., and printed, with 
 trans, and notes, in Lib. Land, by Rees, 92 
 seq., 332 seq. For MS. and other authorities 
 see Hardy, Desc. Cat. i. pt. i. 130-132, pt. ii. 
 897, app. ; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 146, 1 
 app. C. 159. [J.G.] 
 
 Telesphorus (2), bp. of Rome, accounted the 
 7th from the apostles. According to Euse- I 
 bius {H. E. iv. 5) he succeeded Xystus in the 
 I2th year of Hadrian (a.d. 128), and suffered 
 martyrdom in the nth year of his episcopate 
 and the ist of the reign of Antoninus Pius ! 
 (iv. 10). Lipsius (Chron. der rom. Bischof.) I 
 considers his earliest probable dates to have 
 been 124 to 135 or 126 to 137 as the latest. 
 If so, Eusebius erred in placing his mart>Tdom 
 in the reign of Antoninus Pius instead of Ha- 
 drian. For the fact of his martwdora he 
 alleges the authority of Irenaeus ; the assertion 
 of the date is his own. Telesphorus is remark- 
 able as being the only one of the early Roman 
 bishops, afterwards accounted mart\Trs, who ' 
 appears on the early authority of Irenaeus as 
 such (Iren. //a^r. iii. ; cf. Eus. /.c). [j.b — v.] 
 
 Tertulllanus (1), Quintus Septimius Florens. 
 
 I. Life. — The earliest of the great Latin 
 Fathers, their chief in fire and daring, [ 
 and the first to create a technical Christian j 
 Latinity, is known almost entirely through his 
 writings. It can only be conjectured that he j 
 was born between a.d. 150 and 160, and died 
 between 220 and 240. with preference for the [ 
 later dates. He was born at Carthage (Hieron. 1 
 Catal. Script. Eccl. 53 ; cf. Tertull. Apol. c. ix.) \ 
 of heathen parents {de Poen. c. i. ; Apol. c. 
 xviii. " de vestris sumus "), his father being 
 a proconsular centurion (Hieron.). Tertullian 
 received a good education (Apol. c. xiv. ; 
 adv. Prax. c. iii.). In after-life he recalled his 
 school studies in Homer (ad Nat. i. ex.); but 
 poetry attracted him less than philosophy, 
 history, science, and antiquarian lore. He 
 spoke and composed in Greek, but his Greek 
 writings are lost. He studied the systems of 
 the philosophers if he mocked and hated the 
 men (cf. de Anima, cc. i.-iii.). Possibly de- 
 stined for state-official life, he was celebrated 
 for his knowledge of Roman law (Eus. H. E. 
 ii. 2), and the legal fence and juridical style 
 of the advocate are observable throughout his 
 apologetic and polemical writings. 
 
 He was probably attracted to Christianity 
 by complex irresistible and converging forces : 
 " Fiunt, non nascuntur Christian!" {Apol. c. 
 xviii.). The constancy of the Christians in 
 times of persecution staggered him. He knew 
 men who began by denouncing such " obstin- 
 acy," and ended in embracing the belief which 
 dictated it (Apol. c. 1. ; ad Scap. c. v.). De- 
 mons confessed the superiority of the new 
 faith (Apol. c. xxiii.), and Tertullian, in 
 common with his heathen and Christian con- 
 temporaries, was a profound believer in 
 demons (cf. Reville, La Religion a Rome sous 
 les Sevires, pp. 44, 46, 130 seq.). These facts 
 led him to examine the faith which seemed to 
 promise a foothold which no philosophical 
 system furnished. It was illustrated by a life 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 of holiness and humility — that of its Founder, 
 the Just One — in contrast with which the life 
 of the Cynic and the Stoic sickened him. 
 
 His conversion took place c. 192, in Carthage 
 more probably than in Rome. Carthage was 
 his home and usual dwelling-place (de Pallio, 
 c. i. ; Apol. c. ix. ; Scorpiace, c. vi. ; de 
 Resur. Camis, c. xlii.) ; Rome he had visited 
 (de Cultu Femin. i. c. vii.), and he was well 
 known there for his abilities (Eus. I.e.), but 
 critics are by no means agreed whether he 
 ever went there as a Christian (cf. Baron. 
 Annul. Eccl. ii. 476, ed. Theiner). He was 
 married but childless (cf. the two treatises 
 ad Uxorem), and became a priest of the 
 church. He probably exercised his presby- 
 terate at Carthage and not at Rome. 
 
 In middle age (c. 119-203), says Jerome, 
 Tertullian became a Montanist, his constitu- 
 tion and temperament predisposing him to a 
 rigour opposed to the laxity prevalent at 
 Rome, and so finding the austere doctrines 
 and practices of Montanus perfectly congenial 
 (Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian 3 
 p. 34). He became the head of the Montanist 
 party in Africa — a party which existed till the 
 5th cent, under the name of " Tertullianists." 
 II. Times. — The golden age of the empire 
 died with Marcus Aurelius (161-180) ; the age 
 of iron began with his son Commodus (r8o- 
 193). The golden age of the church began 
 [ with that iron age of the empire (Aube, Les 
 j Chretiens dans I' empire romain, a.d. 180-249, 
 pp. iii, 495-498). Expiring polytheism and 
 j ancient philosophy were confronted by a new 
 
 philosophy and a nascent faith. 
 
 I From one quarter only of the empire was 
 
 ! the comparative peacefulness noticeable else- 
 
 i where absent. In Africa persecution, sharp, 
 
 short, fitful, and frequent, marked the reign of 
 
 Septimius Severus and the most active period 
 
 of TertuUian's life. It is stamped in letters 
 
 of blood upon his pages. 
 
 The church in Africa has no historian before 
 Tertullian, though its foundation is placed, 
 with much probability, at the end of cent. i. 
 or the beginning of cent. ii. By the end of 
 cent. ii. the Christians in Roman Africa were 
 to be counted by thousands (cf. Aube, p. 152) 
 if not by millions (cf. Apol. c. xxxvii. ; ad 
 Scapulam, cc. ii. v.). They were fully organ- 
 ized and had their bishops, priests, deacons, 
 places of assembly, and cemeteries. Immunity 
 [ from the wholesale decimation which had 
 : befallen, by imperial command (cf. Apol. c. 
 j v.), other Christian bodies of the East and 
 I West, allowed in Africa growth and develop- 
 ment, accelerated by occasional suffering and 
 martwdom. But the tempest broke upon the 
 ; African church at last. 
 
 Facts connected with the persecutions can 
 I be followed in those wTitings of Tertullian 
 I which all critics place between a.d. 197 and 2T2, 
 I from the ad Martyres to the ad Scapulam. 
 I The tract ad Martyres depicts men and 
 women in prison, visited and relieved by the 
 \ brethren, exhorted to unity, and prepared by 
 ; fasting and prayer for the death which should 
 j be a victory for the church. Vigellius Satiu:- 
 I ninus was the first proconsul to draw the 
 1 sword against Christians (ad Scapulam, c. iii.), 
 I and his date is not apparently earlier than 
 198 (see Aub6, p. 191, etc.). The martyrology 
 
TERTULLIANUS 
 
 of Africa had begun in iSo. In a time of 
 peace the Scillitaii inartvrs hail died at lar- 
 thage (Gorres, Jahr. f. Prot. iheol. 1K.S4. pts. 
 ii. iii.); but after that there is a blank till 
 198, when Naniphanjo \%as the new " archi- 
 martNT " of the church. A few months' 
 respite followed. It was disturbed bv an 
 event which is with some plausibility alleged 
 to have taken place at Carthage. .\ certain 
 soldier refused the doiuitivum of Sevcrus and 
 Caracalla, publicly declined the laurel crown 
 accepted by his fellow-soldiers, and pro- 
 claimed himself a Christian. The incident is 
 described in the de Corona ; Tertullian, making 
 it a test case, debated whether the Christian 
 could accept military service. His advice, 
 and the conduct founded upon it, infuriated 
 the heathen. Under Hilarian (202-203) per- 
 secution broke out again. It took the special 
 form of refusing the Christian dead their usual 
 place of burial ; the cry invaded the pro- 
 consul's tribune, " .\reae non sint ! " (" No 
 cemeteries for the Christians ! "). Just then 
 the decree issued in 202 by Severus indirectly 
 if not directly gave sanction to all measures 
 of repression. It forbad proselytizing by 
 either Jew or Christian. It was easy, were 
 the African proconsul so minded, to read into 
 this purely prohibitive measure a licence to 
 persecute. The " fight of martyrdom and the 
 baptism of blood " which ensued is perhaps 
 to be traced in Tcrtullian's de Fuga and 
 Scorpiace (between 202-212). These treatises 
 are fiercely scornful against the flight once 
 counselled when persecution raged. The de 
 Fuga (c. V.) denounces, not less angrily, a 
 growing practice — purchase of immunity. 
 Of sterner mould and of more loving faith 
 were the brothers Satyrus and Saturninus, the 
 slaves Revocatus and Felicitas, and the nobly- 
 born and nobly-wedded Ferpetua. The .\cts 
 of their passion, by some (e.g. Bonwetsch and 
 Salmon) attributed to Tertullian himself, have 
 preserved a picture of the times — a reluctant 
 proconsul, all-willing martyrs, and a scoffing 
 crowd saluting their baptism of blood with the 
 mocking cry, " Salvum lotum " (see the .\cts 
 in Migne's Patr. Lot. iii., and .Aube's collation, 
 op. cit. pp. 221-224, 509, etc.). 
 
 Again there came a respite, and again must 
 the character of the proconsul have been 
 instrumental in securing it. Of Julius Aspcr 
 (proconsul in 205 or 206) it is told that not 
 only did he refuse to force a Christian to 
 sacrifice who under the torture had lapsed 
 from the faith, but publicly express<'d regret 
 to his assessors and the advocates at having 
 to deal with such cases (ad Scapulam, c. iv.). 
 For five or six years persecution was stayed, 
 years of literary activity on the part of Tertul- 
 lian. In 211, for some unknown reason, the 
 religious war broke out afresh, and its cruel 
 if brief progress is told in the aJ ."icupulam. 
 Tcrtullian's last "Apology" is worthy of the 
 Christian gladiator. Stroke upon stroke he 
 deals his ponderous blows against the procon- 
 sul. "We battle with your cruelty," he 
 cries; but his weapons are the "offensive" 
 weapons which Christ had put in his hands- 
 prayer for the pers«-cutors, love for enenues 
 (Matt. V. 44). (iod's judgments, he warn* 
 them, were abroad. Drought, fires, eclipses, 
 declared His wrath ; the miserable deaths of 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 lUI 
 
 perseruting i.ri>r..niuU Iwtokmrd it. " Thi» 
 our soct sli.ill iirvrr I41I." 1% hi* triiiinphant 
 shout. " Strike It iltiwn. it will ri%c the more. 
 We recompense to no man evil (or evil, but 
 we warn you— Fight not again%t (iinl 1 " 
 
 In 212 the blessing o( |>racr rmtrd attain 
 upon .\frica and continur<l (i>r vmie yearn. 
 
 III.WHiTiMiS.— Trrtullian'slitrraryactivilv 
 is by sKiiie roiihncd to i"<7-ji2 ; by other*, 
 with f.ir greater probability, it is extended to 
 at least c. 223. A gener.il chroiiologirjl 
 arrangement only is possible, the dates given 
 being few and uncertain. The only work 
 which siippli«-s positive evidence of date 1* the 
 first b<M>k adv. Marctonem (3rd ed). In c. 
 XV. Tertullian says he is writing in the 15th 
 year of Severus. now considered to l)e a.i>. J07 
 (Bonwetsch, Die Schriflen lerlulliam nath der 
 Zett threr .ibfassung. p. 42). Tertullian wa» 
 then a Montanist, but his i>eii h.id for some 
 years been employed in In-half ol the church. 
 Tertullian's wiitings represent him v.»rioUH- 
 ly as layman, priest, and schismatic ; and 
 divide broadlv into works written in the 
 Catholic or .Montanist p<-ricKls of hi* life. 
 The latter must further be subdivided into 
 treatises in which Catholic or schismatic ele- 
 I ments are respectively prominent. In 
 j character they are thrwfold : (a) AtM)logetic ; 
 I (b) Dogmatic and polemical ; (c) Moral and 
 I ascetic. The arrangements of Up. Kaye and 
 I Bonwetsch have in the main suggf-sted that 
 ! which follows ; though the dates attached 
 ; are in almost all cases conjectural. 
 
 (1) Works written while still in the church ; 
 \ (a) .\pologetic writings (c. i<j7-i<)H) ; ad 
 
 .Marty res ; .A pologetuum . de Te\ttmonio 
 .-inimae : ad Satione'i, i. ii ; adv. Judaeo%. 
 (b) (ither w.irks of this period, but of le-.s 
 certain date : de Oralume : de Haptumo . 
 de Poenitentia ; de Stifctaculi'i . de Cuitu 
 Feminarum, i. ; de Idololalria : de Cullu 
 Femiftarutn, ii. ; de Patienlm ; ad I' lorem. 1. 
 ii. (the last live c. i97-><>'») ; lif Prae^crip- 
 
 ^tione Haereticorum (c. 199); adv. .Marcionem 
 
 ii. (ist ed.), c. 200. 
 
 (2) .Montanistic writings: - 
 
 I (a) Defending the church and her te.iching* 
 {c. 202-203) : de Corona . de Fuga in Ptr- 
 
 , secutione : de Exhorlattone CaWi/j/n. 
 
 (b) Defending the Paraclete and His dis- 
 
 i ciplinc : de I'trginibus \'etandif (c. 203-204. 
 
 ] a transition work) ; aJv. .Marcion. (2nd ed. ; 
 c. 206) ; 16. (3rd ed. ; c. 207). lietween 2ou- 
 207 or later: adv. Hennogenem ; adv. Valen- 
 tintanos , adv. Starcxon. (iv.); de Came ChriUt : 
 de Hesurrecttone Carnt\ . adv. .Maroon, (v.). 
 De Pallto and de .Anima (c. 2oM-2o<)) ; Scorp»a<t 
 (c.211; «/. 203 tjr 204); adSiapulam(<. i%i). 
 Three c. 217. <«/. 203-207; de .Monogamiu . 
 de Jefunio ; de Puduitia . and adv. Praiean 
 
 (C. 223. al. C. 2oH.20<>). 
 
 A. iertulhan. Layman and .Apolo(til.—Ad 
 .Marlyrei. -Two thoughts (c. ill.) fthuuld 
 animate the martyrs. (1) «t.r.vi..i.. ^rr^ 
 s*»ldicr». "called to the militjr 
 living (jod " by a sacramental ' 
 
 they must l>c true. (2) They . i 
 
 athletes whose privm was their traiiiiu,; -ih -)l 
 (palaestra), where " virtus duritia evtruitur, 
 ' mollitia vero destruitur." The w..rd» of 
 Christ (.Matt. xxvi. 41) should help Ihein !«• 
 mbjcct the flrih to the npirit. the weaker to 
 
942 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 the stronger ; the example of the heathens, 
 Lucretia and Mucins. Heraclitus and Pare- 
 grinus, Dido and the wife of Hasdrubal, 
 would teach them to count their sufferings 
 trifling if, by enduring them, they might 
 obtain a heavenly glory and a divine reward. 
 In their own day many persons of birth, rank, 
 and age had met their death at the hands of 
 the emperor. Should Christians hesitate to 
 suffer as much in the cause of God ? 
 
 Apologeticum. — This Apology — the greatest 
 of his works — was a cry for bare justice. 
 
 (i) A heading to c. i., " Quod religio Chris- 
 tiana damnanda non sit, nisi qualis sit prius 
 intelligatur," sums up its protest : The rulers 
 of Carthage were persecuting and condemning 
 a " sect " which forthcoming evidence proved 
 unworthy of condemnation. Their conduct 
 was the reverse of that enjoined by the em- 
 peror Trajan — that Christians were not to be 
 sought out ; but if brought before Pliny were 
 to be punished. Tertullian reminds the 
 rulers (c. v.) that the laws against Christians 
 had been enforced only by emperors whose 
 memory men had learnt to execrate : e.g. 
 Nero and Domitian. Not such as these was 
 Tiberius (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 2), in whose day 
 Christ came into the world (cf. c. vii.), and 
 who had desired the senate to admit Him 
 among the Roman deities. Marcus .\urelius 
 was a protector. Not even Hadrian, Vespa- 
 sian, Pius, nor Verus had put into force the 
 laws against Christians. The men who were 
 demanding this were daily and contemptuous- 
 ly infringing laws of all kinds. In proof he 
 draws a sad picture of luxury and immorality. 
 The good old laws had gone which encouraged 
 in women modesty and sobriety. 
 
 (2) Chaps, vii.-ix. What were the charges 
 against the Christians ? " We are called 
 miscreants" — and the evidence was only 
 rumour ! " Fama malum, quo non aliud 
 velocius uUum." It was, Tertullian retorts, 
 the existence (secret or open) of evil practices 
 among the heathen which explained their 
 belief in similar deeds among Christians. 
 
 (3) Chaps, x.-xxvii. Tertullian faces the 
 first of the two great charges, " sacrilege and 
 treason." His "apology" as regards the former 
 consists, briefiv speaking, of (a) " demon- 
 stratio religionis eorum " (cc. x.-xvi. xxiv.- 
 xxvii.) and of (h) " demonstratio religionis 
 nostrae " (cc. xvii.-xxiii.), a most valuable 
 evidential passage. 
 
 (a) You Christians, said the heathen, do not 
 worship our gods. No, said Tertullian, and 
 we won't, because we do not recognize them 
 to be gods. They were nothing but men of 
 long ago, whose merits should have plunged 
 them into the depths of Tartarus. How much 
 better would it have been if the deus deificus 
 had waited and taken up to heaven in their 
 place such men as Socrates, Aristides, The- 
 mistocles, and others. The images excite 
 Tertullian's intense scorn, as " the homes of 
 hawks and mice and spiders." Caustically 
 does he describe the heathen treatment of 
 their household gods. " You pledge them, 
 sell them, change them. They wear out or 
 get broken, and you turn your Saturn into a 
 cooking-pot and your Minerva into a ladle ! 
 You put your national gods in a sale-catalogue; 
 and the man who will sell you herbs in the 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 herb-market will sell you gods at the Capitol. 
 Or what could be more insulting than the 
 company you give them ? You worship 
 Larentina, the prostitute, together with Juno 
 or Ceres or Diana. You erect (at Rome) a 
 statue to Simon Magus and give him as in- 
 scription the title of sanctus deus (see Kaye's 
 Tertull. p. 542, and Oehler's note here). You 
 turn into a god a sodomite like Antinous " 
 (see Kellner's note). 
 
 What then, it was asked, did Christians 
 worship if not the gods ? Tertullian answers, 
 "Take in this first of all : they who are not 
 worshippers of a lie are worshippers of truth." 
 From this might be deduced the whole of the 
 Christian religious belief. But before Ter- 
 tullian proceeds to do this, he refutes some 
 very false, but common, opinions about the 
 Christians, e.g. the vulgar belief that the god 
 of the Christians was an ass's head, that they 
 worshipped the cross, or the sun. Lately 
 a bestiarius (see Semler's and Kellner's notes) 
 had exhibited a picture at Rome inscribed 
 Deus Christianorum ovoKoiTrjs. The figure 
 had the ears of an ass, one foot was hoofed, 
 in his hand was a book, and he was dressed in 
 a toga (see D. C. A. s.n. '" .\sinarii"). The 
 name and the form only made us laugh, says 
 Tertullian ; and then he retorts : " But our 
 opponents might well have worshipped such 
 a biformed deity : for they have dog-headed 
 and lion-headed gods, gods with horns, gods 
 with wings, gods goat-limbed, fish-limbed, 
 or serpent-limbed from the loins ! " 
 
 {b) Tertullian turns from what Christianity 
 was not to what it was, and the main lines of 
 the evidences of Christianity in the 2nd cent, 
 are still those of our own. These chapters 
 (xvii.-xxiii.), so valuable in the history of 
 religious belief, deserve the student's close 
 attention. The eloquence, fervour, humility, 
 and devoutness of the writer will be felt to 
 be contagious. Irony and passion are com- 
 paratively absent. The section details 
 (fti) the nature and attributes of the Creator, 
 (bj) the mission of the prophets, men full of 
 (inundati) the Holy Spirit, (b^) the character 
 of the Scriptures, and (b^) the history of the 
 Lord. Under 63 Tertullian notes two things. 
 These Scriptures were marked, first, by that 
 antiquity which his opponents rightly valued. 
 The most ancient heathen writings were far 
 less ancient than those of Moses, the contem- 
 porary of the Argive Inachus, and (as some 
 thought) 500 years older than Homer. Nay, 
 the very last prophet was coeval with the first 
 of the (heathen) philosophers, lawgivers, and 
 historians. " Quod prius est, semen sit 
 necesse est." Secondly, the Scriptures were 
 marked by majesty. " Divinas probamus 
 {scripturas), si dubitatur antiquas." This in- 
 ternal evidence was a proof of their antiquity, 
 while the external and daily fulfilment of pro- 
 phecy was a reason for expecting the verifi- 
 cation of what was not yet fulfilled. 
 
 64 is in answer to the questions. Why did 
 Jews and Christians differ ? Did not these 
 differences argue worship of different gods ? 
 Tertullian's reply (c. x.xi.) is a history of the 
 origin of the Christian sect and name, and an 
 account of the Founder of Christianity, such 
 as we have in the Gospels. His account is 
 interspersed with most interesting statements, 
 
TERTULLIANUS 
 
 f-g. the Ji'wisli im\Tfi»cc iroin tin- liuiiulitv ol 
 Christ that He was oiilv man. ami from Mis 
 miraculous power that Me was a magician, 
 and not the I.oros of (.".od ; the record ol the 
 darkening of the sun at the crucihxion pre- 
 served in the si-cret archives of the empire ; 
 the reason for the seclusion of the Lord alter 
 the resurrection, viz. " that the wicked should 
 be freed from their error, and that faith de- 
 stined for so glorious a rewaril should he estab- 
 lished upon difftculty '" ; his own opinion that 
 Caesars (such as Til>erius) would have believed 
 in Christ, if they could have been Caesars and 
 Christians at the same lime ; the sutTerings 
 of the disciples at the hands of the Jews ; and 
 at last, through Nero's cruelty, the sowing the 
 seed of Christianity at Rome in their blixid 
 (cf. c. 1.). He concludes : " Deum colimus per 
 Christum." Count Him a mere man if you 
 like. By Him and in Him Clod wishes to be 
 known and worshipped. 
 
 One more point remained. Romans con- 
 sidered their position as masters of the world 
 the reward of their religious devotion to their 
 gods, and affirmed that they who paid their 
 gods the most service flourished the most. 
 Tertullian traverses this " assumption " in 
 ironical terms, or meets it with positive denial. 
 
 (4) Chaps, xxviii.-xxxvi. — The charge laesae 
 auguatioris majeslatis is now reached. The 
 evil spirits stirred up the heathen to conjpel 
 Christians to sacrifice pro salute impfratoris ; 
 and that compulsion was met by resistance not 
 less determined. Ironically does Tertullian 
 commend in the heathen the dread with which 
 they regarded Caesar as more profound and 
 reverential than that which they accorded to 
 the Olympian Jupiter. Christians were 
 counted publici hostea, because they would not 
 pay to the emperor vain, lying, or unseemly \ 
 honours ; and because, as verae nligionis 
 homines, they kept the festival days not las- 
 civiously, but as conscientious men. Truly 
 if public joy was to be expressed by public , 
 shame, the Christians deserved condemnation. | 
 
 (5) Chaps, xxxvii.-xlv. — This section, deal- 
 ing with minor points of objection to the ' 
 Christians, opens with an impassioned protest i 
 on behalf of men who, actuated by the prin- 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 • 43 
 
 ciple " Idem sumus imperatoribus qui et Carthage, this 
 \icinis nostris," never took vengeance for the 
 wrongs done to them. Mob-law had attacked less prolonged, 
 them with stones and fire, or with Bacchan- " 
 
 alian fury had torn their dead from the graves 
 to rend their bodies asunder. Had Christian- 
 ity tolerated repaying evil with evil, what 
 secret vengeance could have been wrought in 
 a single night with a torch or two ! Or, had 
 they determined to act as open enemies, what 
 numbers and resources would they have had ! 
 "We are but of yesterday," is Tertullian's 
 proud boast (cf. c. i.), "and yet we have 
 filled your cities, fortresses, towns, assemblies, 
 camp, palace, senate, and forum : sola vohis 
 reliquitnus Umpla. Should we determine to 
 separate from you and betake ourselves to 
 some remote corner of the globe, your loss of 
 so many citizens would cover you with shame. 
 The solitude, silence, and stupor as of a dead 
 world would fill you with fear. \'»n would 
 have to seek subjects to govern. Vour 
 enemies would be more numerous than your 
 citizens. At present it is your Christian 
 
 citi/eiis whii ni.ik.- v.iiir .•ii.iiiii-> s.> lew," 
 Tirtiilliaii lherel..re .isks Ih4t ChrlMi4n« 
 should U- adiiiltlid ••iiit.T lirit.»s larlionr^." 
 The " s<Tt ' was inc.itiablr ol any %urh 4Ct« 
 as were dreadetl m {.ifliiddrn vtcietm. H 
 thev h.id indeed their own orrupatlon« 
 [ne^.Uiii). whv should that give .iflcncr > Foe 
 what were the " iirgoti.i C hristutur fac- 
 tionis " ? (c. xx\ix.). Trrlulli^n's jiiswrr 1* 4 
 touching picture of the simple Christrndoni o| 
 his day. " We are a IhmIv Imkrtl together by 
 a common religious profrsMon, by unilv of 
 discipline, and bv a common ho|H-. Wr mr«-t 
 as a congregation and prav to (umI hi united 
 supplication. Hatc in Deo grata <•»/. We 
 pray for the emperors, their miiiisierv and 
 those in authoritv, for the welfare of the 
 worUl, for peaceful times, and f«>r the driaviiig 
 of the end (see c. xxxii.). We come togrthrr 
 to listen to our Holv Scriptures (cf. Just. .Mart. 
 Apol. ii.); and bv holy words we nourish faith, 
 raise hope, stablisli coiitulence, and stretigthrn 
 discipline. Our preMdeiits are rider* of 
 approved character, who have obtained thi» 
 honour not bv purchase but by d»-sert. On 
 the monthly d.iv appointed each gives to the 
 chest what he liki-s ; tlx* inoiiev is disbursed 
 not in feasting iiid drinking, but in siip|>ortiiiK 
 and burying the po<ir. in providing for de-.ti- 
 tute orphan bovs and girls, in supporting the 
 aged, liie intinn. and the shipwrecked, and in 
 succouring those sent to the mines or incar- 
 cerated in prisons e\ (Ummj l>ei seclue." 
 
 (t») Chaps, xlvi.-l. .\ccusations had U'en 
 met and the case of the Christian stated. 
 What rem.tined .' One last jH-rversion on tlie 
 part of unbelief : " Christianity was no divine 
 institution, but simply a kind of philosophy." 
 The refutation of this closes the Apoloo'. 
 Tertullian. if fre(juentlv satirical, is at hrst 
 grave and dignified, sober and patient, more 
 than is his wont ; but the smouldering fire 
 bursts out at last ; his last chapter is a climax 
 of withering scorn and impassioned ap(>cal. 
 
 A J .\aliones (i. ii.) is practically a short 
 form of the Apology. It covers the same 
 ground, uses the same arguments and largely 
 the same language. But the ApuUigv was 
 addressed to the rulers and magistrates of 
 
 the people. Its whole cast 
 IS consequently more popular, its argummit 
 llustratioiis less ri-M-rved 
 (cf. I. cc. iv. viii. xvi. ; il. c. xi.). 
 
 De Jesltmonio Animae was written very 
 so<jn after the Apology, to which it refers (c. v.). 
 Some have thought it the most oriKinal and 
 acute of his works (s«-e Neander. Aniignoi- 
 licui, p. 251*). Many of his pretlcccsstirs, MV* 
 Tertullian (c. i.), had ransacked heathen 
 literature to discover in it sup|>ort of the 
 Christian efforts to ex|H'l error aiui admit 
 eipiity. The attempt was. in his opinion, a 
 mistake and a failure. He would not rr|K-j| 
 it. Neither would he adduce Christian 
 writings when dealing with heathrn. for no- 
 b<Kly consulted them unless already a I hn%- 
 tiaii. Therefore he turns to anolhrr and a 
 new testimony, that of the »4)ul. AjHntro- 
 phizing It, he crie*, " Thou art not, vi far 
 as I know. Christian. The m»uI i* not b<>rn 
 Christian (rf. AfnA. xvin.l, but brcomr* 
 Christian. Vet Christian* beg now for a 
 te>timony from thcc, as from oue uui\td« 
 
944 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 them ; a testimony against thine own that 
 the heathen may blush for their hatred and 
 mockery of us." The testimony of the soul 
 to God is found in popular phrases indicative of 
 knowledge and fear of God ; then it is adjured 
 to speak about immortality and the resurrec- 
 tion of the body (c. iv. ; of. Apol. xlviii.). 
 
 Adversus Judaeos. — The authenticity and 
 integrity of the treatise, as usually printed, 
 have both been disputed ; the latter with 
 justice, the former needlessly, and principally 
 on account of the discredit attaching to the 
 latter portion. Chaps, i.-viii. are certainly 
 Tertullian's, written while still a church- 
 man. The latter chapters are different, both 
 in character and style. The treatise was 
 occasioned by a dispute between a Christian 
 and a heathen converted, not to Christianity 
 but to Judaism. Practically, the question 
 between them was the exclusion or not of 
 Gentiles from the promises of God. But 
 there was a preliminary question. Was any 
 one expected, and if expected, had any one 
 come, " novae legislator, sabbati spiritalis 
 cultor, sacrificiorum aeternorum antistes, 
 regni aeterni aeternus dominator," or was His 
 advent still matter of hope ? (c. vii.). The 
 fulfilment of prophecy rightly understood was 
 the answer. TertuUian does not need to prove 
 that the Christ should come. Every Jew 
 believed and hoped it. Is. xlv. i was sufficient 
 proof of it. [He renders the passage different- 
 ly from the present Hebrew text, and with one 
 especially interesting variation, reading, 
 " Thus saith the Lord God to my Christ the 
 Lord (Ki/p/o;)," etc., instead of "to Cyrus 
 Kt''p(f)) His anointed," etc. So also in adv. 
 Prax. cc. xi. xxviii.J In the then fulfilment 
 of this prophecy he sees the proof that the 
 Christ had come. Upon whom but upon 
 Christ had the nations believed ? — nations 
 such as (int. al.) Moors, Spaniards, Gauls, 
 Britons, " inhabiting places inaccessible to the 
 Romans but subjugated to Christ " (in the 
 same chapter he speaks of them as " shut up 
 within the circuit of their own seas "), Ger- 
 mans and others, unknown to him, and too 
 numerous to mention. Christ reigned every- 
 where, was adored everywhere : " omnibus 
 aequalis, omnibus rex, omnibus judex, omni- 
 bus Deus et Dominus est." 
 
 B. TertuUian the Pr^•es^— TertuUian had 
 hitherto written as a layman. The writings 
 now to be considered indicate more or less 
 directly that he had become a priest (cf. 
 de Baptismo, cc. xvii. xviii.). Persecution 
 was for a time suspended. It is highly 
 probable that about this time a synod of 
 African bishops met at Carthage to discuss 
 matters affecting the organization, discipline, 
 and teaching of the church ; and the occasion 
 may have been used to ordain one who, as an 
 " apologist," had proved himself so fearless a 
 champion of the church. Questions concern- 
 ing heretical baptism, and the attitude of the 
 church towards the heretical sects, were very 
 probably discussed, and Tertullian's lost 
 treatise on heretical baptism was written in 
 Greek to circulate the synod's decisions beyond 
 the confines of the African church. 
 
 Other points, however, dealing with Chris- 
 tian life and ethics, came before him in hiswork 
 in Carthage as a priest. The flock looked to 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 their pastors for guidance : prayer, baptisnti, 
 repentance, and the discipline connected with 
 them ; woman's dress and woman's life, 
 married or unmarried ; pleasures, amuse- 
 ments, how far lawful or unlawful, — all were 
 matters upon which direction was desirable, 
 and to all does TertuUian apply himself. 
 Roughly divided, the treatises were practical 
 and doctrinal, but the division must not be 
 pressed too closely. 
 
 (i) Practical Treatises. — De Oratione. (a) 
 Of the Lord's Prayer specifically (cc. i.-xi.) ; 
 (b) of prayer generally — times, places, and 
 customs (cc. xii.-end). 
 
 (a) As Christ was Spirit, Word, and Reason, 
 so His prayer was formed of three parts : the 
 word by which it was expressed, the spirit by 
 which alone it had power, the reason by which 
 it was appropriated (the reading is disputed) ; 
 and the practice of prayer was recommended 
 with three injunctions : that it should be 
 offered up in secret, marked by modesty of 
 faith," and distinguished by brevity. It was 
 in very truth " breviarium totius evangelii." 
 It is reckoned as containing seven clauses, the 
 doxology not being given ; and each clause is 
 considered separately. The comments are 
 reflections rather than interpretations ; and 
 if unequal and sometimes fanciful, they are 
 very beautiful and can never be read without 
 profit. His own summary (c. ix.) is a mine 
 of spiritual thought. He approves of other 
 prayers being used corresponding with the 
 special circumstances of him who prays, but 
 never to the omission of this, the regular and 
 set form of prayer. 
 
 (b) Certain ceremonies, " empty " {vacuae) 
 TertuUian calls them, but illustrative of many 
 an interesting point of ritual and practice of 
 the time, are next considered : Washing the 
 hands before prayer ; praying with the cloak 
 taken off ; sitting after prayer ; the kiss of 
 peace ; the " Stations " (c. xix. ; see Oehler's 
 note) ; the dress of women, and veiling or 
 non-veiling of virgins ; kneeling in prayer ; 
 place and time of prayer ; prayer when 
 brethren met or parted ; prayer and psalm. 
 The closing chapter, dealing with the power 
 and effect of prayer, is one of the gems of 
 Tertullian's writings. " Never," he cries, 
 "let us walk unarmed by prayer. Under 
 the arms of prayer guard we the standard 
 of our emperor ; in prayer await we the 
 angel's trump. Angels pray ; every creature 
 prays. 'Quid amplius? Etiam ipse Dominus 
 oravit.'" 
 
 De Baptismo. — One Quintilla, " a viper of 
 the Cainite heresy," had sought to destroy 
 baptism. " What good could water do ? 
 Was it to be believed that a man could go 
 down into the water, have a few words spoken 
 over him, and rise again the gainer of eter- 
 nity ? " (see c. vi.). Quintilla was apparently 
 a Gnostic, and the very simplicity of the 
 means of grace repelled her. " Miratur sim- 
 plicia quasi vana, magnifica quasi impos- 
 sibilia." Her sneers had corrupted some ; 
 others were disturbed by such doubts as. Why 
 was baptism necessary ? Abraham was 
 justified without it. The Christ Himself did 
 not baptize. No mention was made in 
 Scripture of the baptism of the apostles ; St. 
 Paul himself was bidden not to practise it. 
 
TERTULLIANUS 
 
 Answers had to l)e given, lest catechumens 
 should perish through lack of right in- 
 struction. 
 
 (a) The foundation for the sacrament (rf- 
 Ugfoni^m) of baptism Tertullian finds in (cc. 
 i.-ix.) the history of the creation. The hover- 
 ing of the Spirit of God over the waters was 
 typical of baptism ; and water still, after 
 invocation of God. furnished the sacrament 
 of sanctitication. Shortly but beautifully 
 he describes the baptismal ceremonies (cf. de 
 Sped. c. iv.), notes the types and figures of 
 baptism in O.T., and the testimony to baptism 
 in the life and passion of the Ixjrd. 
 
 (b) Larger questions acquiescing in the 
 necessity of baptism awaited consideration. 
 
 (i) Heretical B<j/>/i.sw. —Christians held 
 firmly to a belief in one God, one Baptism, 
 one Church. This unity was, as regards 
 baptism, imperilled by heretical baptism. 
 ThQ ademptio communicationis (by some-» 
 deprivation of communion ; by others=- 
 excoramunication) stamped heretics as stran- 
 gers. " We and they have not the same God, 
 nor one [i.e. the same] Christ. Therefore 
 we and they have not one [i.e. the same] 
 baptism. What [baptism] they have, they 
 have it not rightly, and therefore have not 
 baptism at all." On these grounds he rejected 
 heretical baptism. On the whole subject 
 consult Libr. of the Path. x. pp. 280 seq. 
 
 (ii) Second Baptism. — The belief and prac- 
 tice of the church Tertullian states thus : 
 " We enter the font but once ; our sins are 
 washed away but once, because they ought 
 not to be repeated." The Christian had. 
 nevertheless, a second baptism, viz. the 
 Baptism of Blo<id (cf. Luke xii. 50). Two 
 baptisms had Christ sent forth from the 
 wounds in His pierced side, that they who 
 believed in His Bl<x)d might be washed with 
 water, and that they who had been washed 
 with water might also drink His Blood. This 
 was that Baptism which stood in the place of 
 the font when it had not been received, or 
 restored it when lost (cf. Scorp. c. vii.). 
 
 (c) The remainder of the treatise deals with 
 points of church practice and discipline as 
 regards baptism (cc. xvii.-xx.). Laymen as 
 well as clerics could administer it, but only 
 if disciples and in cases of necessity. " Lay- 
 man " was not taken to include women. 
 Baptism was not to be administered rashly 
 (cf. Matt. vii. 6). Tertullian, like the teachers 
 of .Alexandria, recommends delaying it in the 
 case of children, till they had passed " the age 
 of innocence." and in the case of the unwedded 
 and widowed. The times most suitable for 
 baptism were the Passover and Pentecost ; 
 but not to the exclusion of other opp«jrtunities. 
 When about to receive baptism, candidates 
 should prepare themselves by prayer, fasting, 
 vigil, and confession of sins (cf. .Matt. iii. 6) ; 
 and after baptism they should rejoice rather 
 than fast. Tertullian suggests to them a 
 prayer : " When you rise from that holy font 
 of your new birth and spread your hands (<>r 
 the first time in the house of your mother 
 Church with your brethren, ask of the Father, 
 ask of the Lord, special grace [" t>cculia 
 
 fratiae "] and the divers gifts of the Holv 
 pirit [" distributiones charismatum "j. 
 And, he adds with touchiog humility, " I 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 945 
 
 ; pray you that whm v.u uA. v..u remcmlKT 
 
 in your pr.ivrrs TiTtullun the Miinrr." 
 
 I l>e l'oenilmtni.-~\irj>rul»ncr of oui l>r(<)re 
 
 , baptism (re. i.-vi.). Irui- rr|H<iit4nrr had it* 
 
 measure and its limit in thr Ir^r of (»<hI. (kmI 
 
 Hims.lf initialed repentance, when lie rr- 
 
 I scinded His srntrnro on AcLun. Me c«h.*tr.l 
 
 I men to it bv His I'Tophrtn ; by St. John Hr 
 
 . pointed out lis sign and s<-,il in hapti*ni. It« 
 
 aim was the salvation of man llirou«h the 
 
 abolition of sin. Therr was 4 trmlrncv lo 
 
 j say "(mhI was sali*fir<l with Ihr drvoii.iii of 
 
 I heart and mind. Kven if men did \in in act, 
 
 ' they could do v> without prejudice to their 
 
 faith and fe.ir." With an intensity of mt- 
 
 cisin Tertullian n-nlirs. " Vou »hall b« 
 
 thrust down into hrll without prejudice to 
 
 your p.irdon." Such Antinonuani\ni ex- 
 
 j plained another frr<pient and laiiientable 
 
 pr.actice. The Christians of the dav mmt 
 
 I finnly beliived in the washing awav of \u\% 111 
 
 Holy B.iptisin, and in the nrct-sMty of true 
 
 repentance as preparatory to the reception of 
 
 it ; but this lea " novices " (" inter auditorutn 
 
 I tirocinia ") not to a willing and holy eagernrvt 
 
 to receive baptism, but to a presuiiiptuou^ and 
 
 unholy spirit of delay, that they (the vtldier^ 
 
 of the Cross) might steal the intervening time 
 
 as a furlough ( ' commentum ") for «inninx 
 
 rather than for learning not to sin. Tenderly 
 
 and wisely di>es Tertullian plead with them. 
 
 " H a man who has given himself to (iod is not 
 
 ' to cease sinning till he be bound by baptism. I 
 
 hardly know whether he will not feel, after 
 
 baptism, more sorrow than joy." 
 
 De Spectacults. — .\ period of tem|>orary 
 peace after persecution (cf. c. xxvu.) had 
 ! fallen upon the church in Carthage. Si>ec- 
 tacular shows and g.imes were being given. 
 ' possibly in commemoration of the victory of 
 Severus over .\lbinus. and the grave question 
 had to be faced — Should Christians attend 
 j them ? The seal (sigtuiculum) of baptism 
 
 \ supplied the reason ag.iiiist attendance. All 
 j the preparations coiuuctcd with the s|>ectacle< 
 were based upon idolatry, and idolatry wa« 
 I renounced at the font. In cc. v.-xiii. fertul- 
 lian draws out in detail the origin of the 
 spectacles, their titles, apparatus, localities, 
 and arts ; and the reader can realize to the 
 very life the places and scenes he descril)c* in 
 impassioned but ofti-n one-sided invective. 
 1-Iverywhere in the circus were imager and 
 statues, chariots dedicated to gods, their 
 thrones, crowns, and equipments. Keligiou« 
 rites preceded, intervened, ami succee»led the 
 games ; guilds, pri«-st». and altemUnts served 
 the conventui daemontorum. Consecrated to 
 the sun. the solar temple rose 111 the initUl, 
 the S4>lar elTigv glittered on the suininil. The 
 chariots of the circus were de(iiratr<l lo the 
 gods, the charioteers wore the colours (white, 
 I red. green, and blue) of idoUtrv. The 
 I desiKtialor and the karuspet were two m.»»t 
 befouled masters of the ceremonies connected 
 with the funereal and tarriticial rite*. The 
 thtatrum was the home of Venus and Itarchu* ; 
 the |>erformances there claimed their patron- 
 age. The very artistic gilt« employe*! in 
 prmlucing the s|>ectacW were the inspiralloit 
 of demonn, glozcd over by a fallacion* con- 
 secration. Men pleaded, " We cannot live 
 without pleasure." Well, Chritliant had 
 60 
 
946 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 pleasures many and noble. What greater 
 pleasure could be conceived than reconcilia- 
 tion to God and pardon of the many sins of a 
 past life ? What delight should exceed the 
 trampling idolatry under foot, the expulsion 
 of demons, acts of healing, a life unto God ? 
 These were the pleasures and spectacles of 
 Christians, holy, perpetual, and free. In the 
 Christian circus they might behold immodesty 
 hurled down by chastity, perfidy slain by 
 fidelity, cruelty bruised by mercy, wantonness 
 overcome by modesty ! These were the 
 contests in which to gain the Christian crown. 
 "Or do you wish to see the blood shed ? 
 Behold Christ's ! " Then Tertullian closes 
 his eyes to the spectacles of earth. There 
 looms before him (c. xxx.) the spectacle close 
 at hand of the Lord coming in His glory and 
 triumph. He depicts angels exulting, saints 
 rising from the dead, the kingdom of the just 
 and the city of the New Jerusalem, the hell 
 of the persecutor and scoffer ; and there were 
 spectacles even more glorious still. Man 
 could not conceive them ; but they were 
 nobler than those of the circus, the amphi- 
 theatre, or the racecourse. 
 
 De Culiu Feminarum, i. and ii. — The luxury 
 and extravagance of the women of the time is 
 matter of notoriety. Tertullian and Clement 
 of Alexandria do not express one whit more 
 strongly than Seneca their ambition, cruelty, 
 and licentiousness. Therefore, when women 
 became Christians, and matronly and wifely 
 virtues or virgin purity and modesty char- 
 acterized them, it extorted the admiration of 
 some and the impatient scorn of others. But 
 luxury began to creep in and overrule the 
 daughters of the church. Tertullian saw it, 
 and the above works were among other efforts 
 to recall Christian women to the Christian life. 
 
 De Idololatria is a protest against serving 
 two masters — Christianity and heathenism. 
 Many Christians had in adult age come over 
 to Christianity from heathenism, and many 
 Christian craftsmen gained their living by 
 distinctly heathen trades, and would not or 
 could not see that they were wrong. Many 
 " servants of God " had official or professional 
 engagements which brought them perpetually 
 in contact with heathen customs, legal forms, 
 sacrificial acts, and social courtesies. They 
 drew sophistical distinctions between what 
 they might write but not speak, or the image 
 they might make but not worship. To 
 Tertullian such contact and collusion, and 
 therefore such professions and trades, were 
 radically wrong. Heathenism in all its shapes 
 was idolatry. Two professions connected 
 with idolatry were especially obnoxious to 
 him, (a) the astrologer (c. ix.), arguing that 
 " astrology was the science of the stars which 
 affirmed the Advent of Christ " ; (6) the school- 
 master (ludimagister) and other professors of 
 letters (c. x.), who had to teach the names, 
 genealogies, honours of heathen gods, and 
 keep their festivals from which they derived 
 their income. On festival-days, in honour of 
 emperors, victories, and the like, the doors of 
 Christians were more decorated with lamps 
 and laurels than those of the heathen (cf. Apol. 
 c. xxxv.), men quoting Christ's command, 
 " Render unto Caesar the things which are 
 Caesar's" (Matt. xxii. 21). Private and 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 social festivals stood on a different footing 
 (c. xvi.), e.g. the natural ceremonies connec- 
 ted with the assumption of the toga virilis, 
 espousals, nuptials, and the naming of children. 
 It was a more important question (c. xvii.) 
 what was to be the line of slaves or children 
 who were believers, of officials in attendance 
 upon their lords, patrons, or the chief magis- 
 trates when sacrificing ? Tertullian answers 
 all such questions in detail. From idolatry 
 in act Tertullian passes to idolatry in word 
 (c. XX.), forbidding ejaculations such as " By 
 Hercules ! " " By the god of truth " (Medius- 
 fidius, see Andrews's Lex. s.n. Fidius). Lastly 
 a yet subtler form of idolatry is considered 
 (c. xxiii.). Christians borrowed money from 
 the heathen, and by giving bonds in security 
 avoided taking an oath. " Scripsi sed nihil 
 dixi. Non negavi, quia non juravi." In- 
 dignantly does Tertullian protest against such 
 sophistry : faults committed in mind were 
 faults in deed (Matt. v. 28). 
 
 De Patientia, one of the most spiritual of 
 Tertullian's compositions, is a sermon 
 preached to himself quite as much as to 
 others. His experience as a priest had 
 taught him the need of patience every time 
 he confronted pettiness not less than pride, 
 frivolity not less than idolatry. 
 
 Ad Uxorem, i. and ii. — Among the questions 
 discussed in, and disturbing, the Christian 
 church at Carthage was that of second mar- 
 riages. These were evidently numerous. 
 Tertullian gave his advice in a treatise in two 
 books addressed to his wife, which he hoped 
 might be profitable to her and to any other 
 woman "belonging to God." He does not 
 go here beyond the position taken by St. Paul. 
 If he evidently considered celibacy the higher 
 state, though himself married, he does not 
 forbid marriage. But second marriages were 
 different, and he argues strongly against them. 
 
 (2) Doctrinal Treatises. — Three positions 
 laid down by Tertullian (de Praes. Haer. cc. 
 xxi. xxxii. xxxvi.), [a) apostolic doctrine, 
 
 (b) episcopal succession from the apostles, 
 
 (c) the apostolic canon of Scripture, were rocks 
 on which the church was then firmly fixed. 
 
 (a) His Regula Fidei (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. 
 xiii. ; de Virg. Vel. c. i. ; adv. Prax. c. ii.) is 
 the form given by Irenaeus {contr. Haer. 1 
 c. X. ; cf. the two in Denzinger's Enchiridion, 
 pp. I, 2), expanded upon points which had 
 come to the front during a lapse of about 30 
 years. But it had become something more 
 than a mere regula ; it had risen to a doctrina ; 
 and in the brotherhood of Carthage it was the 
 contesseratio (cf. de Praes. Haer. cc. xx. 
 xxxvi.) which reason and tradition united in 
 approving. (6) The regula had come down 
 to them through bishops " per successionem 
 ab initio decurrentem " (cf. ib. c. xxxii.), and 
 those bishops had received " cum successione 
 charisma veritatis certum" (Iren. iv. c. xxvi. 
 2). The former fact gave historical value to 
 the regula, the latter dogmatic credibility. 
 The unworthy life of many a successor of the 
 apostles (cf. de Pudicitia, c. i.) did not annul 
 the validity of the doctrine. For (c) it was 
 supported by the Scriptures. In the time of 
 Irenaeus and Tertullian the Law and the 
 Prophets, the Gospels and the Apostolic 
 Epistles (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. xxxvi.) 
 
TERTULLIANUS 
 
 formed an uiulisputfci canon. Tertullian's 
 nomenclature for the Bible (see Konscli. Ihii 
 \. 7". rcrtiilUdH's, pp. 4 7-4<)) is alone snUicient 
 record of the high value attached to the 
 writings in the custody of "the one Holy 
 Catholic Church." The sacred Scriptures 
 contained the solution of every difficulty (cf. 
 de Idolotat. c. iv. ft pas^.). It was the 
 armoury of weapons offensive and defensive 
 which the church permitted her children 
 alone to use (cf. df Pra^s. c. xv., etc.), for she 
 alone had taught them to use them aright. 
 With such an equipment and in defence of 
 "mother " church (u</ Mart. c. i.; d^Orat. c. ii. 
 and aliter). Tertullian went forth to attack 
 the " heresies " of men who, c.illing them- 
 selves Christians, yet abandoned the .ipostolic 
 tradition for doctrines whose parent. ige he 
 attributed to the devil, and whose precepts 
 he scorned as derived from non-Christian 
 religious systems and speculations, or as the 
 offspring of self-willed wickedness. 
 
 De Praescriptione Haeretkorum. — This 
 treatise, with its title drawn from the language 
 of jurisprudence, consists of (i), an intro- 
 duction (cc. i.-xiv.), (ii) the main division of 
 the work (cc. xv.-xl.). It is more than 
 probable that it originated in the desire to 
 emphasize the doctrinal stability of the 
 African church in the face of some fresh 
 tendency towards Gnosticism in general and 
 the views of Marcion especially, (i) Persons 
 of weak faith and character (c. iii.) were un- 
 settled because some once accounted firm in 
 the faith were passing over to heresy ; and it 
 was not sufficient simply to refer to Scripture, 
 which the Gnostic teachers could apply as 
 much as the orthodox. I-or the time Tertul- 
 lian conceived no better way of meeting their 
 diflicultv than by positive injunction to re- 
 fuse appeal to Scripture to their would-be 
 seducers, to note the character of the heretics, 
 and to surrender themselves entirely to the 
 guidance of the church. The authority men 
 advanced for their deviations from the faith 
 was nothing less than the words of the Lord, 
 " Seek, and ve shall find " (Matt. vii. 7). Ter- 
 tullian argues that Christ's words could bear 
 no such interpretation ; they contained 
 advice to search after definite truth and to 
 rest content with it when found. There was 
 safety only in the belief that " Christus 
 instituit quud quaeri oportet, quod credi 
 necesse est." Parables (Luke xi. 5. xv. 8, 
 xviii. 2, 3) taught the same lesson — " finis est 
 et quaerendi et pulsandi el petendi." There- 
 fore Christians were to seek " in their own, 
 from their own, and concerning their own ; 
 and onlv such questions as might be dr- 
 liberated without prejudice to the rule of 
 faith. 
 
 This mention of the regula fidei leads (c. xiii.) 
 to the statement of it. This passage is there- 
 fore one of the m<jst important in Tertullian's 
 writings as an index to the articles of the 
 Christian faith believed and accepted in his 
 dav (consult Pusev's notes in l>co]. This 
 "rule" the Christians held to have »>een 
 taught by Christ. Tertullian is quite willing 
 (c. xiv.) that it should be examined, discussc<l. 
 and explained to novices by some " doctor 
 gratia scientiae donatus." But he giv<-s a 
 caution. It was not Biblical skill (" excr- 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 1*41 
 
 citalio scriptur.irum ") but l.iith which *aved 
 (cf. Luke xviii. 41). Faith Uv deposited in 
 this " rule " ; it had a law, and In thr krrpinf 
 of that law came salvation. " Cc<lat cuiioiitat 
 fidei, cedat gloria saluti." 
 
 (ii) Chaps, xv.-xl.— Meresv wa* vnnrtimn 
 deiendetl on the ground that hrrrtir* UM*d and 
 argue»l from the Scriptures. But. an^wrrcd 
 Tertullian, their use of thrin was " audacKnii " 
 and not to be admitted. None but thrv who** 
 were the Scriptures h.id a right to u>r thcin. 
 Tertullian ad.ipts this position not from anv 
 distrust of his c.tuse. but in accordance wiili 
 apostolic injunctions (c. xvi. ; cf. I. Tim. vl. 
 3. 4 ; Tit. iii. 10). Heretics did ii.>t deal 
 fairly with the Scriptures ; one passag"- they 
 ' perverted, another they interpreted to «uit 
 their own purpjwes (cf. c. xxxviii.). A man 
 might have a most .idmirablr knowledge of 
 I the Scripture, but yet make no progress with 
 I heretical disputants. Hverything he niain- 
 I tained they would deny, everything he denied 
 ' they would maintain. As a result, the weak 
 [ in faith, seeing mither side had decidedly the 
 better in the discussion, would go away con- 
 firmed in uncertainty. Certain questions 
 , had therefore to be settled. Where was the 
 ' true faith ? Whose were the Scriptures ? 
 From whom, through whom, when, and to 
 ! whom had been handed down the " discipiina 
 i qua fiunt Christiani " ? It might Ik- assumed 
 I that wherever the true Christian discipline and 
 faith was, there would be also the true Scrip- 
 lures, true exposition, and all true Christian 
 j traditions (c. xix.). In Christ, Tertullian 
 I finds Him Who first delivered the faith oj>cnly 
 to the people or privately to His divriples, of 
 whom He had chosen twelve " destinatos 
 nationibus magistros." These twelve (St. 
 .Matthias having been chosen in the place o( 
 Judas) went forth and founded churches 
 evervwhere ; and from them other churches 
 derived then, and still derived, the tradition 
 i of faith and the seeds of doctrine. Hence 
 j their name of "apostolic churches." Though 
 so many, they sprang from but one, the 
 i)rimitive church founded by the ajxistles. 
 I Thus all were primitive, all apmtolic, all one ; 
 1 and this unity was proved by their peaceful 
 inter-communion, by the title of brotherhood, 
 and bv the exercise of hospitality— all of 
 which owed their basis and continuance to one 
 and the same sacramental faith. From thi» 
 was to be deduced the first rule (c. xxi.) : 
 .N'one were to be received (cf. Matt. xi. 17) a* 
 preachers but those (aposil.'>) whom the Lord 
 Jesus Christ api>ointed and sent. A srcond 
 rule was that what the ap.rstles preached 
 I could onlv be proved bv thi^ churches which 
 ' the apostles thems«-lv.'s foun.led. to which they 
 I preached, and to which they afterwards %<-nt 
 I epistles. All doctrine therefore which agreed 
 ' with these aiMi^tolic churches (" inatriribus et 
 originalibus fidei") was to \yr c.iunte«l true. 
 i and firmlv held as having been received by the 
 ; church from th.- ap.Mtles bv ihr ap .sllr^ from 
 ' Christ, bv Christ from «..hI ; aii.l all doctrine 
 'must Im- pronounced falsr which ciitamed 
 anything contr.iry to the truth tirclared bv the 
 churches and a|H)%ile<» of ( hrist an.l --f God. 
 Thev- ruU-s Tertullian and hi". c..religf>nl»t» 
 afhrmed to Iw held bv the Holy Church to 
 which they belonged : " Coramunicamui cum 
 
948 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 ecclesiis Apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina 
 diversa. Hoc est testimonium veritatis." 
 
 Heretics advanced two " mad " objections 
 to these rules : (a) The apostles did not know 
 all things (c. xxii.). (b) Arguing from 
 I. Tim. vi. 20 and II. Tim. i. 14, the apostles 
 did not reveal everything to all men. Some 
 doctrines they proclaimed openly and to all, 
 others secretly and to a few (c. xxv.). Ter- 
 tullian addressed himself to both these points. 
 
 C. Tertullian and Montanism. — About the 
 end of 2nd cent. Montanism invaded Africa. 
 Tertullian would seem to have embraced it 
 wholeheartedly. It suited his temperament ; 
 it furnished the logical solutions to problems 
 practical and theological which had been 
 disturbing him. But his Montanism was 
 not the Montanism of 172-177 or of Asia 
 Minor ; it had come to him through the 
 purifying medium of distance and time. 
 He knew or remembered nothing of the 
 extravagances connected with the first de- 
 liverances of the " new prophets." Montan- 
 ism was in truth to Tertullian little more than 
 a name ; development and restoration rather 
 than novelty underlie the intention, and are 
 stamped upon the thoughts, of every treatise 
 which follows those hitherto considered. The 
 practices Tertullian favoured and advocated, 
 the doctrines he loved and enforced, had alike 
 their roots in the existing practices and doc- 
 trines of the church. It is the manner in 
 which he has insisted upon the one which has 
 so much discredited it ; it is the juridical 
 fence with which he has driven home the other 
 which has angered opponents. He defended 
 his practice and teaching as necessary for his 
 day. New fasts, protests against second 
 marriages, a sterner accentuation of discipline, 
 were conceived as absolutely necessary by the 
 man who, beginning by tightening bonds 
 which the church had wisely left relaxed, 
 ended by the Pharisaic assumption that he 
 and his were irvevixariKol and his opponents 
 xpi'XiKol. But if he drew his descriptive lan- 
 guage from Gnostic codes, he burned in the 
 spirit to depose Gnostic heresy. The merit 
 he assigned to ecstasy, dream, vision, new 
 prophecy, and special endowment by the 
 Paraclete, were expansions of simpler but 
 Scriptural teaching, with something of Phari- 
 saic lordliness, but ever directed against the 
 Sadduceeism, the materialism, the Patripas- 
 sianism, and the Monarchianism of his day. 
 
 The career of Tertullian, his whole being and 
 character, left him no choice when he had to 
 make his decision. He was bound to side 
 with the sterner party, and he did. If at first 
 he retained his position in the church, that 
 position before long became intolerable. The 
 breach took place of which the de Virg. Vel 
 gives the ostensible cause ; and the passion 
 which animated the apologist in defence of the 
 church was presently employed to revile, 
 discard, and injure her. Few treatises are 
 more painful to read than the de Monogamia, 
 de Jejunio, and de Pudicitia. It is a relief 
 to turn from them to the adv. Praxean. If 
 the heart of the ascetic has been alienated 
 from the church, he can still defend her faith 
 with all his old loving energy, and, by his last 
 existing writing, command respect from those 
 whose affection he had lost. 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 (i) Practical Treatises. — De Corona is 
 usually counted the first treatise which in- 
 dicates traces of Montanism (cf. c. i. ; Hauck 
 places the de Virg. Vel. before it), and it was 
 written after the de Spectac. (cf. c. vi.). 
 Opinions were divided as to the soldier's 
 conduct. Some blamed him as rash, as eager 
 to die, some as bringing trouble on the Chris- 
 tian name about a mere matter of dress. 
 Tertullian, with one word of laudation of the 
 man— -''solus scilicet fortis inter tot fratres 
 commilitones, solus Christianus " — turns furi- 
 ously upon his decriers. 
 
 De Fuga in Persecutione. — It may well have 
 been that excitement threatening persecution 
 was aroused against Christians by the conduct 
 of the soldier specified in the de Corona. In 
 Carthage (c. iii.) the question was anxiously 
 debated, " May Christians flee from persecu- " 
 tion or not ? " The clergy answered " Yes," 
 and set an example (c. xi.), which they prob- 
 ably defended by Christ's words (Matt. x. 
 23), and by the practice of a Polycarp and 
 others. A few years before [ad Uxor. i. c. iii.) 
 Tertullian himself had conceded that flight 
 was " better " where the Christian was likely 
 to deny the faith through the agony of tor- 
 ture ; but now he thought differently. Mon- 
 tanistic severity had laid its spell upon him. 
 His work deals with the two modes by which 
 the timid and doubtful sought to evade per- 
 secution : (a) flight (cc. i.-xi.), and {b) 
 bribery (cc. xii.-end). 
 
 De Exhortatione Castitatis. — Some years had 
 elapsed since Tertullian had written ad 
 Uxoretn, deprecating for women a second 
 marriage. The death of a friend's wife gave 
 him an opportunity of urging upon men a like 
 continence ; and he did so in language de- 
 claratory of views far more exaggerated. 
 
 De Virginibus Velandis. — The veiling of 
 virgins was a burning question among Chris- 
 tians at Carthage ; and partisans in Carthage 
 took sides according as they argued from 
 what St. Paul (I. Cor. xi.) had said or had left 
 to be inferred. Did his term " women " 
 include virgins ? Christian married women 
 appeared veiled everywhere, in the church as 
 well as the marketplace ; their veil was the 
 mark of their status. The Christian virgin 
 did one of three things : she went everywhere 
 unveiled, or veiled in the streets but unveiled 
 in the church, or everywhere veiled. Of these 
 the first was the oldest and local custom — it 
 was the mark of the virgin and the practice 
 of the majority. But a strong minority had 
 adopted the last of the three practices. This 
 Tertullian approved (cf. de Oral. cc. xx.-xxii.). 
 
 (2) Doctrinal Works. — The majority of 
 these were written when Tertullian had be- 
 come a Montanist. They present more or 
 less the catch-words of the sect, and refer to 
 the Paraclete and the new prophecy, if the 
 doctrines inculcated and defended are those 
 of the church Catholic. To be a Montanist 
 was not with Tertullian to be a seceder from 
 the church in points of faith, though the 
 church found it necessary for the sake of her 
 unity in life and doctrine to count him and 
 his outside her. 
 
 Adv. Hermogenem. — For the nature of the 
 opinions of this heretical teacher and of Ter- 
 tullian's treatise against him see Hermogbnes . 
 
TERTULLIANUS 
 
 The treatise contains two verv beautiful 
 passages, (a) the eulogy of wisdom (c. xviii.). 
 and (6) the description of the development of 
 cosmical order out of chaos (c. xxix.). 
 
 Adv. I'alenliniatu^s. — For a review of the 
 opinions of this schtxil (" frequentissimura 
 plane collegium inter haereticos ) sec Valen- 
 TiNUS. Tertullian's treatise dix-s not so much 
 discuss these opinions as state them ; it is not 
 so much a refutation as a satire, intended 
 to provoke mirth (c. vi.). It claims no origin- 
 ality, but to be a faithful ret^inrtion of the 
 teaching of Justin. Miltiades (cf. Eus. H. E. 
 V. 17) Irenaeus, and Proculus. 
 
 Df Carne Christi. — This is Tertullian's 
 principal contribution to the Christological 
 problem of the time : Was the flesh of Clirist 
 born of the Virgin and human in its nature 
 (c. XXXV.) ? In his de K(surrfcttone Carnts 
 (c. ii.) he himself specifies the tenets he opposes 
 here to be those of Marcion, Basilides, Valen- 
 tinus, and Apelle5. These " modem Saddu- 
 cees " (c. i. ; de Praes. Haer. c. xxxiii.) were 
 apprehensive lest if they admitted the reality 
 of Christ's flesh, they must also admit Hi> 
 resurrection in the flesh, and consequently 
 the resurrection generally. It was necessary 
 to discuss, therefore. His bodily substance, (i) 
 (a) Marcion's views are examined (cc. ii.-v.) ; 
 then (b) those of .\pelles (cc. vi.-ix.) ; then (c) 
 that of the N'alentinians (cc. x.-xvi.). (ii) The 
 second part of the treatise deals more especi- 
 ally with the single point — " Did Christ re- 
 ceive flesh from the N'irgin " (cc. xvii.-end) ? 
 
 The treatise fully responds to the intention 
 of the wTiter. It examines the arguments 
 employed and the Scriptures advanced (see 
 esp. c. xviii.) ; and does so, on the whole, in a 
 style moulded by the recollection that the 
 subject was a grave and solemn one. There 
 are bursts of irony (e.g. cc. ii. iv.) ; paradoxes 
 (see c. v., perhaps the most famous of Tertul- 
 lian's many paradoxes) and retorts ; but the 
 total result is a valuable contribution to the 
 literature of the subject. His line of argu- 
 ment and his statement of the rhurch's 
 doctrine is that of Irenaeus. For a general 
 
 view of the opinions attacked see Apelles, 
 Marcion, and Valentists. 
 
 De Resurrectione Carnts. — Tertullian wTote 
 this (c. ii.) in fulfilment of the intention ex- 
 pressed in the dt Carm Chnsli (c. xxv.). 
 against those who allowed that the soul would 
 rise again, but refused resurrection to the flesh 
 on account of its worthlessness. It was a 
 logical sequence to their fundamental position 
 that the works of the Demiurge, or the god 
 who created the world and was opposed to the 
 supreme God, were marked by corruption and 
 worthlessness, and that the flesh of man was 
 consequently so aUo. Tertullian grants that 
 his subject was invested with uncertainty ; but 
 it was too important to be passed over. The 
 question affected the very Oneness of the 
 Godhead. To deny the resurrection of the 
 flesh would be to shake that df>ctrinc. to vindi- 
 cate the resurrection f.f the flesh would estab- 
 lish it. In contrast to the uns<-emly language 
 {spurciloquium) of heathen and heretic, he will 
 adopt a more honourable and mo<lest style (rf . 
 de .Amma. c. xxxii.) ; and he has kept hi- 
 word. There are few sentences which grate 
 upon the ear, while there are many passage* ol 
 
 TERTULLIANUS U9 
 
 considerable beauty and profound Chrl«(lAa 
 faith. 
 
 .4Jv. Mariiofum. bk*. i.-v.— Thi* weirk in 
 its jiresrnt form is 4s^iRned to the isth vr4r 
 of Severus (bk. i. r. xv.) or c. ioH . .md comet 
 to us as a work tourhr<l .ind rrtoiirhrd cluriiiK 
 many years (cf. i. c. xxii). Trrtullian h^d m 
 other cavs felt diss.iti\farli«ii with hi* wrilinir« 
 of .m e.irlier periiwl. or altrrr«J hi* arcumrnit 
 to meet the evrr-altering phases of (4l«« 
 belief. Thus in the earlier work, d* I'rart. 
 Haer. c. xix., he declines to allow appeal to 
 the Scriptures in the discussion of hrrrsv ; in 
 a later treatise, de Kesurr. Camn, c. iii., he 
 demands of heretics that thev should sup|Mirt 
 their inquiries from Scripture alone (rf. aJv. 
 Prax. c. xi.). So now, his rarlirst rdilion n( 
 this treatise, if placed (ronjecturallv) c. j<hi. 
 would have seemed to hitn vrrv drfrrlivo 
 when wTiting c. 20H. He had separated from 
 his old friends, now branded as the " iSy. 
 chics" (iv. c. xxii.), to find among the .Mon« 
 tanists the true church (1. c. xxi. ; iv. c v.). 
 To him " thr new prophecv " was now the 
 highest .luthority, thf I'ararlrte the vile guide 
 
 , unto all truth. The doctrinal controversy 
 between Tertullian and .Marcion turnrd prin- 
 cipally on questions of anthro|>o|ogv and 
 Cfiristology. .Ml that Tertullian has to say 
 upon it has been summed up undrr MABrioy. 
 De .An\ma.--\i\ the treatise df t'eUimonto 
 .Antmae Tertullian had sought to prove that 
 the soul of man bore natural testimony to the 
 truth of the representations given in Holy 
 Scripture of the unitv, nature, and attribute* 
 of (iod, and of a future state. In the treatise 
 de .intma. written some ten ye.irs or so latrr, 
 he deals with the soul itself. Between thes« 
 surviving treatises is to l>e placed one now Imt, 
 de Censu .Animae, in which he had coinl)ated 
 the opinion of Hejinogenes that the origin of 
 the soul was to In- found in matter by the 
 counter-opinion that it was formed by the 
 afflatus of (;<k1 (cf. de .inima, cc. 1. lii. xi. ; 
 a<iv. Marc. ii. c. ix.). The attributes of the 
 soul (ammae naturalta) |><>inted, in his opinion, 
 
 ' to propinquity to (;<xl and not to matter (cl. 
 de .Amma, c. xxii.), an opinion supported by 
 the views of Plato, who had taught the 
 dtvtnaitn antmae (cf. de .Anima, c. xxiv.). 
 The discussion of its origin is followed by a 
 general inquiry respecting the nature, power*, 
 and destinv of the soul. .\n admirable 
 analysis is that of Mp. Kaye (pp. irl^-soy : cl. 
 also Neander, the careful analysis of Bohr- 
 
 I inger, and Hauck). In c. xxii. Tertullian 
 
 gives his definition of the soul as deriving il« 
 origin from the breath of G.kI (iv. xi.). The 
 soul is immortal, cor|><>real (v.-viii.), and 
 
 I end'twed with form (ix.) ; simpir in its sub- 
 stance- (X. xi.) ; p<>ssessing withm it«-ll the 
 principle of intelligence (xii); working in 
 diffi-rent wavs or channrU (»iii.-xv.) ; rndtied 
 
 ' with free will ; aflertrd bv external rircum- 
 stances, and thus pr'Mluring th-- it^^^ttr vari- 
 ety of disposition observaf>l' i:id ; 
 rationaKxvi.); supreme ovn t); 
 and iM>ssrssing natural iti ;. :ily 
 (xix.). Thr (,.«iK-U. in («• ^ r i.,. ■,..,.., ol 
 the rich m.in in lormrnt (l.iike xvi. jy 34 ». 
 prove«l thr cor|H.riitv ..f thr vmiI (c. vii. ; alto 
 1 Stoic opinion), and medical srirnrr, "the 
 
 [•ister oi pbilusopby," in the vulumei of a 
 
950 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 contemporary physician, Soranus (c. vi.), also 
 attested this belief. The invisibility of the 
 soul was no disproof of its corporeity ; witness 
 St. John, who, " when in the spirit," " beheld 
 the souls of the martyrs " (Rev. vi. 9) ; wit- 
 ness also the testimony of " the sister so 
 endowed with gifts of revelation " (c. ix.). 
 This latter testimony is of interest as exhibit- 
 ing Montanist religious observances. Revela- 
 tions used to come to her in the church on 
 the Lord's Day. While the solemn services 
 were being performed, she used to fall into an 
 "ecstasy in the spirit." In that state she 
 conversed with angels, sometimes even with 
 the Lord ; she saw and heard mysteries 
 (sacramenta) ; she read men's hearts ; she 
 prescribed remedies to the sick. Sometimes 
 these visions took place when the Scriptures 
 were being read, or when the Psalms were 
 being chanted, or at the time of preaching or 
 of prayer. On one occasion Tertullian thinks 
 that he must have been preaching about the 
 soul. The "sister" was rapt in spiritual 
 ecstasy. After the people had been dismissed, 
 she told him, as was her habit, what she had 
 seen. " The soul was shewn to me in a bodily 
 form. It seemed a spirit ; not, however, an 
 empty illusion, but one which could be grasped, 
 ' tenera et lucida et aerii coloris, et forma per 
 omnia humana.' " Such testimony was to the 
 Montanist Tertullian all-conclusive. 
 
 The main purpose of cc. xxiii.-xxvii. is to 
 prove that the souls of all mankind are derived 
 from one common source, the soul of Adam. 
 In cc. xxviii.-xxxv. Tertullian ridicules the 
 conclusions necessitated by metempsychosis 
 and metemsomatosis. 
 
 As a preliminary to the consideration of the 
 manner in which the soul encounters death, 
 Tertullian considers the subject of sleep — the 
 image of death (cc. xlii.-end). He adopts by 
 preference the Stoic definition of sleep as the 
 temporary suspension of the activity of the 
 senses (" resolutionem sensualis vigoris "), and 
 limits the senses affected to those of the body ; 
 the soul, being immortal, neither requiring nor 
 admitting a state of rest. While the body is 
 asleep or dead, the soul is elsewhere. 
 
 Death, to which Tertullian now turns (c. 1.), 
 was to be the lot of all, let Epicurus and 
 Menander say what they would. The voice 
 of God (Gen. ii. 17) had declared death to be 
 the death of nature. Independent of heathen 
 examples of this truth, Tertullian finds one in 
 the translation of Enoch and Elijah. Their 
 death was deferred only ; " they were re- 
 served for a future death, that by their blood 
 they might extinguish Antichrist " (Oehler 
 refers to Rev. xi. 3). Where would the soul 
 be when divested of the body (cc. liii.-lviii.) ? 
 Tertullian answers. In Hades ; but his Hades 
 is not that of Plato, nor his answer to the ques- 
 tion that adopted by philosophers. To Hades, 
 " a subterranean region," did Christ go 
 (Matt. xii. 40 ; I. Pet. iii. 19) ; therefore 
 Christians must keep at arms' length those 
 who were too proud to believe that the souls 
 of the faithful deserved to be placed in 
 the lower regions. From Hades shall men 
 remove to heaven at the day of judgment. 
 But what would take place while the soul 
 was in Hades ? Would it sleep ? No, Ter- 
 tullian replies ; souls do not sleep when men 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 are alive. Full well the soul will know in 
 Hades how to feel joy or sorrow even without 
 the body. The " prison " of the Gospel 
 (Matt. V. 25) was Hades, and "the uttermost 
 farthing " the very smallest offence which had 
 to be atoned there before the resurrection. 
 Hence the soul must undergo in Hades some 
 compensatory discipline without prejudice to 
 the full accomplishment of the resurrection, 
 when recompense would be paid to the flesh 
 also. This conclusion Tertullian affirms to be 
 one communicated by the Paraclete, and there- 
 fore accepted by all who admitted the force of 
 His words from a knowledge of His promised 
 gifts. 
 
 De Pallio. — This, a treatise intentionally 
 extravagant, is a vindication of the philoso- 
 j pher's mantle (pallium) ridiculed by the people 
 of Carthage. It might be called a juridical 
 ! plea, couched in witty and forensic language, 
 1 in an imaginary case of Pallium (see descrip.- 
 i tion s.v. in D. C. A.) v. Toga. Some have seen 
 ! in Tertullian's assumption of the pallium an 
 i indication that he adopted it to show his separ- 
 ation from the church. The conjecture has 
 nothing to prove or disprove it. The mantle 
 had virtues of its own (cc. v. vi.). Did it not 
 j illustrate simplicity and capacity, economy and 
 I austerity, in protest against the follies and effe- 
 minacies, the gluttony and extravagance, the 
 impurity and intemperance of the togati ? 
 "Grande pallii beneficium est." It was the 
 garb not only of the philosopher, but also of 
 those benefactors of the human race — the 
 grammarian and the rhetorician, the sophist 
 and the physician, the poet and the musician, 
 the student of astronomy and the pupil of 
 national history. In face of such facts, why 
 mind the sneer, "The pallium ranked below 
 the toga of the Roman knight," or the indig- 
 nant question, " Shall I give up my toga for the 
 pallium " ? There was no indignity in the 
 matter. " ' Gaude pallium et exsulta ! ' Thou 
 art honoured by a better philosophy from the 
 time that thou didst become a Christian 
 garment." 
 
 Scorpiace. — A defence of mart>Tdom strong- 
 er than is found in the Montanist works of his 
 previous period, perhaps c. 211. 
 
 Ad Scapulam. — Probably at the beginning 
 of the reign of Caracalla, a.d. 211, the African 
 proconsula Scapula authorized the persecution 
 to which this work refers. He was a fierce 
 opponent of the Christians, and permitted his 
 fanaticism to override his sense of justice (c. 
 iv.). This treatise uses the arguments of the 
 Apology, but with a change in tone. Tertul- 
 lian's passion is still strong, but gravely and 
 soberly expressed. There is the same appeal 
 for justice, but defiance has given place to 
 prayer, and hatred of the persecutor to love 
 for the enemy. The treatise may fairly take 
 rank among the best and most interesting of 
 all which have been preserved. Scapula is 
 told frankly that they who had joined the 
 " sect " of Christians were prepared to accept 
 its conditions. The persecutions of men 
 ignorant of what they were doing did not alarm 
 them or make them shrink from heathen 
 " savagery." Against the charges usually 
 brought against them (cf. c. ii. ; Apol. cc. vii.- 
 ix.) Scapula should set one plain fact — the 
 behaviour of Christians. They formed the 
 
TERTULLIANUS 
 
 majority in cvtry city, yit their conduct was 
 always marked by m Icnce and inoilest y. Tlieir 
 "discipline" enforced a patience which was 
 divine : if they were known at all among men, 
 it was for their reformation of the vices which 
 once degraded them. Tertullian dors not 
 
 WTite to intimidate, but to warn— /irj t)^o^ax^i''■ 
 " Perform your duties as proconsul, but 
 remember to be humane." If the Christians 
 of Carthape should see tit to come to Scapula 
 how many swords and tires would he iin-d for 
 such multitudes of everv sex, age, and rank ! 
 He would have to slaughter the leading persons 
 of the city, and decimate the noble men and 
 women of his own rank, friends and relations 
 of his own circle. "Spare thyself. Scapula, 
 if thou wilt not spare us. Spare Carthage, 
 if thou wilt not spare thyself. Sp.ire thy 
 province, which the mere mention of thine 
 intention has subjected to the threats and 
 extortions of soldiers and of private foes (cf. 
 de Fuga, cc. xii. xiii.]. As for us, we have 
 no Master but God. Those whom you reckon 
 your masters are but men, and must one day 
 die. Our community shall never die. The 
 more ymi pull it to the ground, the more it will 
 be built up." 
 
 De Monogamia. — Some years passed, of 
 peace from without but not from within ; and 
 a third time (c. 217) Tertullian returns to that 
 question — marriage — which had occupied him 
 in the ad Uxorem and de Exhortaltone Casti- 
 tatis. The third treatise is the bitterest. 
 Tertullian now claims for his party that 
 they and they alone were guided by the 
 Paraclete. From Him they had received their 
 teaching on monogamy. He had come to 
 supersede the teaching of St. Paul by yet 
 higher counsels of perfection. Much of Ter- 
 tullian's argument— <-.g. from Scripture— is 
 repeated from his former treatises, and much 
 of it is strained and conjectural, as he felt it 
 would be said to be (c. ix.) ; but no one will 
 dispute Tertullian's earnestness. Immorality 
 was prevalent and contagious, and in mono- 
 gamy — supposing celibacy and widowhood 
 to be impossible — he saw a counteracting 
 agency. Discipline and spirituality would be 
 at least practicable to those who would rally 
 round the standard of monogamy. 
 
 De Jejunio Adversus Psvchicos (al. de Jeju- 
 niis). — Another great subject of difference 
 between churchmen and Montanists had refer- 
 ence to fasts. Tertullian's paper is most 
 distressing to read, scanty in argument, 
 plentiful in abuse. Both sid»>s indulged in 
 unmeasured invective ; both had lost their 
 temper. The charges of luxury, gluttony, 
 and immorality unhesitatingly and almost 
 exultingly brought by Tertullian against 
 church ecclesiastics and laymen arc so gross 
 as almost to refute themselves by their very 
 exaggeration. They are more than the retort 
 of a man infuriated by unjust accusations 
 and meeting them by counter-charges. The 
 ascetic has becf)me a fanatic, and in his mad 
 hatred besmirches and calumniates the church 
 he had once so tenderly loved. 
 
 De Pudictha.—Jh\9, work has been placed 
 before the dt Monngamia and the de Jejunto, 
 but internal and negative evidence, if slight, 
 seems to assign it a place after them. An 
 edict (c. i.) of the bp. of Kpmc (Zcphyrinus, 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 OAI 
 
 Joi-ii8, c^r (.allistu«.. ji,H..'.-u U'.hrd IVfiul- 
 lian into furv, and romplrtrlv di<.M<lvr<l ihn 
 last links of union l>rlwmi hiiii .ind Ihn 
 ISychics. The treatise is m.irkrd by inlrnM) 
 bitterness from Ix-ginning to riid. 
 
 AdversHs I'raxran. For the hi«tnry of 
 IVaxcas. the nature of hi'* view* and Tcrlul' 
 lian's answer, see I'hax^as. 
 
 Tertullian was the first whi>. in the cnnlro- 
 versv against the Mon.uchian\ introdurrd 
 prominently the <loctnne of the H<ilv Spirit. 
 Waxeas did not loiirh it. Heiirr the value 
 of siirh ch.ipters as viii. ix. xxv. xxx. Ha 
 fully maintains the |>«rs<>iialitv of the Third 
 Person of the Trinity (cl. ad Matl. c. 111.) if 
 his language is occasionallv ambiguous (c(. 
 c. xii.. Ills cxniment <>n den. 1. H^). \\r bawn 
 as Usual his arguments on Scripture (cc. xxi. 
 to end), and if not .ilwavs free from his well- 
 known tendency to read into them what he 
 wants, the passages are as a rule well and 
 wisely handled either in defence of the I athohc 
 position or in refutation of that of I'raxeas. 
 He gives (c. xx.) the \ text* especially valued 
 by this teacher in support of his heresy (Is. xlv. 
 5 ; John X. 30. xiv. r>, 10), and refute* his 
 views at length (cc. xxi.-xxiv.). 
 
 IV. SiMMARV.— The brief sketch here pre- 
 sented of these powerful wTitings will have 
 indicated the investigation of many a doctrine 
 and the record of contemporaneous practice* 
 heathen and Christi.in. as well as illustrated 
 the mind, character, and style of their writer. 
 
 (a) Tertullian and Healhenusm.- On its 
 moral side, extravagance, luxury, immorality, 
 ' and cruelty were to all external appearance 
 as rampant in his day as ever. Tertullian 
 knows heathenism only in its coarseness and 
 repulsivcness. \el a reformation was pro- 
 ceeding, religious in origin and intention, 
 which must not be forgotten in any true 
 estimate of the age. Tertullian liv<<l when 
 old pagan traditions and new tendenci« were 
 co-operating ; when there had rison that 
 religious movement which, fiwing its impulse 
 to the eclecticism of a Julia |)omna, passed 
 through the stirring phaM-s successively 
 represented in the net)-Pythagore.mism of her 
 salon, in the subordination by Kl.igabalus of 
 everv other cultus to that of the Oriental 
 sun-god, and in the equalization bv .\lexander 
 Severusof all worshipful beings in his common 
 cultus of the hiToes of humanity- That move- 
 ment was the prfxiuct of a real awakening. 
 
 The main centre of these change* and 
 developments w.is l<i>me, but Tertullian't 
 WTitings against heathenism j>r<>ve that l ar- 
 thagc at le.ist felt the effects of this great tulal 
 wave of religiousness. They are as full of 
 attack as of defence. He strikes at a vigofu* 
 paganism as much as he beats of! the charge* 
 alleged .igainst Christianity. lAery page 
 teems with allusions which reflect without 
 effort the firm f.M.tli.-ld .icquirrd bv all form* 
 of heathen cultus. Ridicule ..f thr w.ifship 
 of the ancient dr|tii-s ..f (.rrerr 0.1 K ..., ,,( 
 the cultus <■! thr rinp<ri.rs, ..ft 
 and of dein-.ns is l..uiid allird u 
 of the g.Kis ..( Alrx.mdria (Is|s 
 of I'hrvgiadhe M.igna Mater and B-1! ua). "f 
 Syro-Ph-Tnicia (the I)ea Syra). and of Car- 
 thage (the Juno ( .«-lc*tls). The very fierce- 
 ncss of his invective and »<:om againit the 
 
952 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 polytheistic revival, the ridicule he pours upon 
 gain and flamines, priests and priestesses, 
 itinerant and mendicant propagators of this 
 or that cultus, guilds, processions, festivals, 
 evidences the success and popularity of 
 heathenism. The Apology of Apuleius (end 
 of 2nd cent.) is illustrated by the Apology of 
 Tertullian, and the statements of Dio, Spar- 
 tian, Herodian, Lampridius, etc., can be com- 
 pared with those of our writer. Were those 
 heathen works lost, it would be almost possible 
 to reproduce from his pages, shorn of their 
 extravagance, a picture of the religiousness 
 of the age such as they have given. 
 
 (b) Tertullian and Christianity. — In passing 
 from heathenism to Christianity, Tertullian 
 believed himself to be passing from darkness 
 to light and from corruption to purity. He 
 embraced it with all the strength of a matured 
 mind and life. All the more intelligible, 
 therefore, is his vehement anger with any 
 form of Christian precept and practice, 
 whether at Rome or Carthage, which fell 
 short of his ideal. The church was to him 
 the Virgin and spotless Bride of the Ascended 
 Lord, and her children — bishops, priests, and 
 people — must worthily reflect her purity and 
 faith. He would permit no shortcomings 
 because he would admit no failure. A writer 
 of the 4th cent, has left on record that the 
 Africans as he knew them were " faithless and 
 Cunning. There might be some good people 
 among them, but they were not many " 
 (quoted in Mommsen, The Provinces of the 
 Roman Empire, "ii. p. 340). This estimate 
 is reflected a century earlier in TertuUian's 
 pages. It is a summary of his opinion of the 
 spurious devotion which marked the Christian 
 fop {de Poenit. c. xi. ; cf. de Cultu Fern. ii. 
 c. viii.), the would-be penitent (dc Poenit. 
 c. ix.), the rich Christian lady (de Cultu Fern. 
 i. c. ix., ii. cc. v.-viL ; de Virg. Vel. c. xvii.), 
 the fashionable virgin {ib. c. xii. ; in contrast 
 with her holy sister, c. xv.), the drugged and 
 petted mart\T (de Jej. c. xii., in contrast 
 with the willing and happy martyr, ad 
 Martyres, cc. i.-iii.) ; and it explains that final 
 revulsion of mind which, spurning every kind 
 of compromise, heaped indiscriminate abuse 
 on what was best as well as what was worst 
 in the life of the Christians of the church, and 
 turned to find in asceticism and Montanism a 
 seriousness and elevation impossible to him 
 elsewhere. Paradoxical as it may seem, it 
 
 was the same impulsive spirit which kept him 
 staunch to the faith of that church whose 
 discipline and ritual he abjured or carried 
 with him to a schismatic body. Gnosticism 
 was to Tertullian the embodiment of theo- 
 logical corruption, darkness, and falsehood, 
 and he fought it with all his natural vehem- 
 ence. His theology, if developed by Mon- 
 tanism, is in substance that which the church 
 accepted, and accepts. The admiration felt 
 for his wTitings by his countryman Cyprian 
 (200-258), bp. of Carthage, should never be 
 forgotten. Cyprian, says St. Jerome, never 
 passed a day without reading a portion of 
 TertuUian's works ; he frequently asked for 
 them with the words. " Da mihi magistrum " ; 
 and it is impossible to read Cyprian's existing 
 treatises without seeing how largelv the 
 thoughts of Tertullian have been absorbed by 
 
 TERTULLIANUS 
 
 him, if the language has been softened and 
 deepened. In our own country Bp. Bull 
 (Defensio Fidei Nicenae) and Pearson (On the 
 Creed) have used many an argument which 
 the Montanist of Africa had prepared for 
 I them, and Bp. Kaye's illustrations of the 
 I Articles of the Church of England from Ter* 
 I tullian's writings (pp. 246, etc.) concur in 
 ; establishing the force of Mohler's description 
 I of his dogma as " so homelike " (Patr. i. p. 
 737). It is based on the teaching of Christ 
 as handed down by apostles and apostolic 
 men, and formulated in the " regula fidei una, 
 sola, immobilis et irreformabilis " (cf. de 
 Praes. Haer. cc. viii. ix. ; de Virg. Vel. c. i.). 
 Theology owes practically to him such words 
 (int. al.) as Trinitas, satisf actio, sacramentum, 
 substantia, persona, liberum arbitrium, trans- 
 ferred (some of them) from the Latin law 
 courts to take their definite place in the 
 j language of Latin divinity (cf. the index 
 verborum at the end of Oehler, vol. ii.). 
 I (c) Tertullian, the Man. — Of no one, says 
 Ebert, is Buffon's saying truer, " the style is 
 1 the man," and the best illustration of his 
 ' style he finds in the Apology (Geschichte der 
 I Christlich-Lateinischen Literatur, pp. 34-37). 
 I Tertullian cared nothing for form save as it 
 I best expressed his thought. He said right 
 out from his heart what he had to say about 
 ] friend or foe, without attempt to clothe his 
 : speech with the graceful charm of the Greek 
 cr the dignified periods of the Roman. A- 
 brupt and impetuous, eloquent and stern, his 
 sentences follow one another with the sweep- 
 ing, rushing force of storm-waves. The very 
 exceptions do but prove the rule. Such 
 tender or beautiful passages as those which 
 i depict the life of Christ on earth (de Pat. c. 
 j iii. ; Apol. c. xxi. ; were these written with 
 any acquaintance with the Life of the pagan 
 Christ, Apollonius of Tyana, edited by Philo- 
 I stratus at the command of Julia Domna?), 
 the power and effect of prayer (de Oral. c. 
 xxix.), the virtues and portrait of patience 
 j (de Pat. c. XV.), contemporary civilization 
 j (de Anima, c. xxx.), the happy marriage (ad 
 Uxor. ii. 8), and faith, the barque of the 
 church (de Idol. c. xxiv.) ; or the impressive 
 I analogies of the resurrection he finds in nature 
 j (re Resurr. Carnis, c. xii.), and the illustra- 
 tions of the Trinity (adv. Prax. c. viii.), come 
 , upon the reader as a surprise, as something 
 '■ so unlike one who is more in his recognized 
 j element when describing the place-hunter (de 
 I Poenit. c. xi.), the traitor (.Apol. c. xxxv.), and 
 I the knowing Valentinian (adv. Val. end), or 
 ! painting that ghastliest of his portraits, 
 I murder and idolatry crooning over adultery 
 ! (de Pud. c. v.). His paradoxes are charac- 
 teristic : To him the unity of heretics was 
 schism (de Praes. Haer. c. xlii.) ; and heresy 
 itself " tantum valeat quantum si non fuisset " 
 (ib. c. i.). "God is great when little " (adv. 
 Marc. ii. c. ii.) ; " Lie to be true " (de Virg. 
 Vel. c. xvi.), contain thoughts only a shade 
 less startling than the " Mortuus est Dei 
 Filius ; prorsus credibile est quia ineptum 
 est ; et sepultus resurrexit ; certum est quia 
 impossibile est " (de Came Christi, c. v.), or 
 the well-known " the blood of martyrs is the 
 seed of the church " (Apol. c. i.). His right 
 i appreciation of the methods of Scripture 
 
TERTULLIANUS 
 
 exegesis {de Pud. c. ix. ; cf. df /?«. Cam. 
 c. xxi.) is found side by side with such siRnal 
 examples of perverse interpretation as those 
 which disfigure the Jf Jejunio and df I'udt- 
 Cftta, or such fanciful expositions as his view 
 of the cross {adv. Marc. iii. c. xviii. ; cf. <i«/f. 
 Jud. cc. x. xiii.), St. IVter and the sword {dt 
 Idol. c. xix.). God's \oice to .-Xtlaiu (adv. 
 Marc. ii. c. xxv.), and the phoenix {df K/s. 
 Carti. c. xiii.). Such paradoxes, contrasts, 
 and contradictions are cliaracteristic indica- 
 tions not so much of a want of comprehensive- 
 ness as of a determination to occupy himself 
 with but one idea or one aspect oif a great 
 truth, and subjugate to that the wider bear- 
 ings of the question. His great acuteness. 
 power, eloquence, and causticity are concen- 
 trated for the time being upon a single prin- ' 
 ciple ; and whatever will illustrate it, prove 
 it, and drive it home, is drawn into its service, 
 often regardless of its fitness (see this drawn 
 out in Pusey's pref. to Libr. of the Path. vol. x.) 
 Tertullian's style is strongly marked by the 
 early training of his life : it is juridical in 
 thought, language, and exposition— a fact 
 which explains so much of its difficulty. The 
 advocate is always present. His conduct of 
 the contest between Christianity and heathen- 
 ism is that of a law-court contest, dod v. the 
 devil ; his conception of the contest between 
 Montanist and Churchman is that of one who 
 asserted and developed Christianity v. one 
 who surrendered it or left it defective, Ter- 
 tullian was often wrong, and the < hurch has, 
 with sorrow, so adjudged him ; but the charac- 
 ter of the man explains everything. 
 
 What that character was he has himself 
 told : " Miserrimus ego, semper aeger cal'<ri- 
 bus impatientiae " (dt Pat. c. i.). The 
 sentence, caught up by Jerome, explained to 
 him the man ("homo acris et vehementis 
 ingenii "), as it explains his secession to 
 Montanism and his intellectual and moral 
 defects. Perverse in the sense of wrong- 
 headed he often was in his narrow estimates, 
 but he was never wTong-hearted. His life and 
 work, full of the shades and contrasts of one 
 who loved well and hated well, were after all 
 a life and a work from which more has been 
 gained than lost. If Hilary can regret that 
 his " later error took away from the authority 
 of what he had written," Vincentius can 
 remind us that those writings were " thunder- 
 bolts " ; they were hurled forth in defence of 
 faith and practice. It will be to his earlier 
 life or less polemical treatises that the reader 
 will turn with Cyprian by preference, and in 
 the perverse impatience of his later life see at 
 once " the fire which kindles and the beacon 
 which warns" (Pusey). 
 
 V. Literature. — Oehler's ed. of Tcrtullian 
 is on the whole the best extant. A new and 
 scientific ed. was commenced by Ruflerscheirl 
 and Wissowa in the Vienna Corpus Scr. Ecd. 
 Lai. XX. See a full ILst of recent litt. in IJar- 
 denhewer's Palrologv (Freiburg im Hr. 190.H). 
 Kaye is most serviceable in elucidating many 
 points as to his life, era, teaching, and style. 
 Translations into ling. r)f some of hi« ajxilo- 
 getic and practical treatises are in I.ih. of tht 
 Fathers, vol. x., and of alni.«,t all his works 
 in Ante-Sicene Lib. vols. ii. vii. xi. xviii.; but 
 the translations are very unequal. Recent cdd. 
 
 THECLA 
 
 9.%3 
 
 are d« Praescnp. Hart , ad Ma,ly,tt. and «4 
 
 Scapulam in one vol. with inlr->. and n>,ir% and 
 adv. Gentry Ix.th rd. bv T. 11. Mindlry (<>»|. 
 I'niv. IVpss): de Uaplnmo, rti. with intro. and 
 notes by J. M. l.upton (Camb. Iniv. IVp**) : 
 de Pien. and de Pud. with Irrtirh tr Tr. ,n^ 
 intro. bv Prof, dr I .ibriollr .: " , 
 
 reprint of the bp. of |tri»to|\ 1 
 Kcrl.'siasticalHistorvtroinTrrtu. 
 \\\\\\f A.atid M. /7i<-<i/. /.iftr. ((.riii.i,,. ,, m , , 
 
 ThaddMUS. lai^rbius (Hi\l. I ai. 1. 1 jncivc* 
 a storv, which he savs hr (.>iind in the archixr* 
 of i:des>a. that attr-r the asrrn»|oii ,,f ,,i,r 
 Lord, the ap.>st|e Judas I homas M-nt Ihail. 
 darus, one i>f the srventv .llscipks. |o IMrsva. 
 to king .M.g.irus the Hlack. and that hr rured 
 the king of a serious illnrsv ct>nvrrtrd hira 
 with all his people to Christianity, and died 
 at Kd<'ssa after inanv vears of <turrr»s|ii| 
 labours. The name •■f this apt.>tlr of the 
 Ldessenes is given bv the Syrians as .\di|aru« 
 {Doclhna Addat. ed. Phillips, p. ^. l-ng. 
 trans. iHyh), and it is jx^sibl-- that Liisrbiu* 
 misread the name as Thaddaeii^. Thaddariu 
 was at a later date confiisr<| with the 4[><^^^|e 
 Judas Thaddariis. The documrnls givm by 
 Husebius contain arMrrr,|M,iidrnrr Ix-l wren .Ab- 
 gar and our LortJ. which of course is sixirioiis. 
 t f. K. .\. I ipsius. Die Edewentstht .ihiiar\ate 
 krtttsch untenucht (Mraunschwrig, i«Ro|, and 
 in I). ( . Ii. vol. iv. ; alvi, bv the ■v.unr. lUt 
 apnkryphen ApostelgeschtthteH, vol. n. 2, I7rt- 
 201, and Suppl. p. 105; aUo Ipxrfont. /./i 
 Oripnes de I l:RU\e d'Pdei,e et la Ifgendt 
 d'Ah^ar (Paris, l«HH). (11. w.) 
 
 Thats, St., a penitent courtesan of llgypi, 
 converted c. 344 by r'aphniitius of Sidon. 
 Her story illustrates her age. Hrr laiiir rrach«"d 
 to Paphnutius's monastery, whereupon hr «lr. 
 lermined to make a great effort to convert hrr. 
 though she was evidently a nominal Christian. 
 He assumed a secular dress and put a Mngtc 
 coin in his pocket, which he offered to Thai* 
 on arriving at her house. Kecogni/ing hi» 
 true character, she cast herself at his feet, 
 destroyed all her precious dr«-ssrs. and 
 entered a female monastery, wlicrr Paph- 
 nutius shut her up in a cell, sraimg the door, 
 and leaving only a small window, ihrouich 
 which to receive f<H>d. .After j years she received 
 abstilution, and died 15 days after ( I'l/. /'/*. in 
 .Migne's Pair. Lot. Ixxiii. <.6i). ((..t.h.) 
 
 Theela (l), the heroine of a romantic st<ify 
 which from a very early date h.is h.id a »tron«; 
 hold on the imagination of thr 1 hurch. anti 
 which, though under the form in wliich it it 
 now extant it tan only br recnvnl as a tirlion. 
 has enough appearance of a fi>undat|on in fart 
 to warrant us in treating of hrr as a r< •' ' 
 son. She was. as wr rra<l in thr .ict\ ■ 
 and Theela. a contemporary of St. 1 
 virgin of Iconium. ilatightrr of a won...;. .1 
 rank (apparently a widow) named Thrt«:lria, 
 and affianced to Thamyris. a youth who wa« 
 first among thr noblr^ of that city. .\\ tlir 
 time when the narrative o|>ens St. 1 
 represente<l as l)eing on hit wav t'> \< 
 after having Iwrn driven from Anii 
 Pisidia ; but whether his flight from \ 
 related in .Acts xiil. I ^. Is meant, 41 
 
 M-<piriitly whrlhrr thr rlisuing rvriit 
 
 be taken a« l>elonKing to his hrst vimi !•■ 
 Iconium. U nut clear. One One»ipburu> o\ 
 
964 
 
 THECLA 
 
 Iconium, whose house adjoined that of Theo- 
 cleia, hearing of his approach, went with his 
 wife and sons to meet him, and recognizing 
 him by a description he had received fiom 
 Titus, invited him to his house with joy. Two 
 persons named Demas and Hermogenes, who 
 under a hypocritical guise of seeking instruc- 
 tion in the gospel had attached themselves 
 to the apostle on his journey, were at their 
 urgent request admitted along with him by 
 Onesiphorus (though not without demur). 
 In this house Paul began at once to preach 
 " the word of God concerning temperance and 
 the resurrection " ; his discourse consisting 
 of a series of beatitudes, in form like those of 
 the Sermon on the Mount, but in substance 
 taken up with the commendation of asceticism 
 and celibacy. Thecla, sitting at a window in 
 her mother's house, heard his words and 
 became filled with passionate faith and zeal 
 for virginity. Being restrained from satisfy- 
 ing her longing to see him and hear his doc- 
 trine face to face, she remained listening at 
 her window, despite her mother's remon- 
 strances. The tender entreaties of her be- 
 trothed Thamyris, whom Theocleia sum- 
 moned, proved equally unavailing. The 
 lover, thus repulsed, hurried into the street 
 and watched the house where the stranger was 
 preaching, whose eloquence had cast this 
 deplorable spell over Thecla. Observing 
 Demas and Hermogenes among those going 
 in and out, he questioned them, invited them 
 to a rich banquet at his house, and offered 
 them money for information concerning the 
 preacher. They disclaimed personal know- 
 ledge of Paul, but represented him as urging 
 on the young abstinence from marriage, under 
 the threat of forfeiting their part in the resur- 
 rection, which (they said) he promised to the 
 celibate only ; whereas the true resurrection 
 (as they professed themselves ready to explain) 
 was already past for those that have children 
 in whom they live anew ; and men rise again 
 when they fully know the true God. They 
 also advised him to bring Paul before Castelius 
 the governor on the charge of teaching " the 
 new doctrine of the Christians," which (they 
 assured him) would ensure his execution. 
 Accordingly, next morning Thamyris, with 
 other magistrates, and a great multitude, 
 repaired to the house of Onesiphorus, and 
 dragged Paul before the tribunal of Castelius 
 the " proconsul," accusing him merely of 
 dissuading maidens from marriage ; though 
 Demas and Hermogenes were at hand prompt- 
 ing him, " Say that he is a Christian, and thus 
 shalt thou procure his death." St. Paul, being 
 called on by the governor for his defence, de- 
 livered a speech, not answering the specific 
 charge of Thamyris, but declaring his gospel 
 message and pleading his mission from 
 God. The governor committed him to prison 
 until it was convenient to hear him more 
 attentively. Thecla made this imprisonment 
 her opportunity. That very night, by bribing 
 her mother's doorkeeper with her bracelets 
 and the jailer with her silver mirror, she 
 visited St. Paul's cell ; and there, after a night 
 spent at his feet in hearing his doctrine, was 
 found next morning by her mother and lover. 
 At their instance St. Paul was immediately 
 dragged again before the governor, pursued 
 
 THECLA 
 
 by the multitude with the cry, " He is a 
 sorcerer ! Away with him ! " Thecla was 
 summoned likewise, and followed him exult- 
 ingly to the tribunal. Castelius was at first 
 disposed to listen favourably to Paul, as he 
 declared the works of Christ ; but afterwards, 
 finding that Thecla would give no reply to 
 his interrogations, but remained silent with 
 her eyes fixed on Paul, and being wrought on 
 by her mother, who demanded that her 
 daughter should be burnt alive as an example 
 to warn other women, he scourged Paul and 
 cast him out of the city, and sentenced Thecla 
 to the stake. When the pyre was ready, she 
 mounted it undismayed. A deluge of hail 
 and rain quenched the fire, the people fled, 
 and Thecla escaped. Meantime St. Paul, with 
 Onesiphorus and his family, on their way to 
 Daphne, had taken refuge in a tomb, where 
 he continued in prayer for Thecla, and sent 
 one of the lads back to Iconium to sell his 
 outer garment and buy bread. The youth 
 met Thecla, who was seeking Paul, and 
 brought her to the hiding-place. There they 
 found Paul praying for her deliverance, and 
 a scene of joyful thanksgiving ensued. The 
 apostle with Thecla went on his way to 
 Antioch. As they entered Antioch her 
 beauty caught the eye of Alexander the Syri- 
 arch (this seems to prove that the city here 
 meant is the capital of Syria), who sought to 
 obtain possession of her by offering money to 
 Paul. Baffled and enraged the Syriarch 
 brought her before the Roman governor, who 
 condemned her to be cast to wild beasts ; 
 committing her meanwhile to the care of 
 Tryphaena, a widow lady (afterwards de- 
 scribed as a queen, and kinswoman of the 
 emperor), who, having lately lost her daughter 
 Falconilla, found comfort in the charge of the 
 condemned maiden, who converted her to 
 Christ. After a series of marvellous escapes 
 from the beasts, Thecla, interrogated by the 
 governor, made profession of her faith : "I 
 am a handmaid of the living God, and I be- 
 lieve in His Son in Whom He is well pleased ; 
 and therefore it is that none of the beasts hath 
 touched me. . . . Whoso believeth not on Him 
 shall not live for ever." Amid the jubilations 
 of the women she was released. To rejoin 
 St. Paul was her first thought, and hearing 
 he was at Myra in Lycia, she disguised herself 
 in man's attire and set out with a train of 
 attendants, male and female. There she 
 found him preaching the word. After relating 
 to him in the house of Hermaeus (or Hermes) 
 the wonderful story of her deliverances, she 
 proceeded to Iconium, receiving from him the 
 parting charge, " Go and teach {5l8acrKe) the 
 word of God." Arrived at Iconium, she first 
 visited the house of Onesiphorus, and there 
 prostrating herself on the spot where St. Paul 
 had sat and taught, she thanked God and 
 the Lord Jesus Christ for her conversion and 
 preservation. There was no longer anything 
 to fear from the importunities of Thamyris, 
 who had died. She found her mother still 
 living, and endeavoured, but apparently 
 without success, to bring her to believe in the 
 Lord. Finally, she departed to Seleucia, 
 where she " enlightened many and died in 
 peace." Thus the story ends in its oldest 
 form, as preserved in ancient Syriac and 
 
THECLA 
 
 Latin versions ; but th«- four extant Greek 
 copies represent her as livinR an anchorite's 
 life in a cave, on herbs and water, antl thev 
 subjoin a marvellous account (certainly of 
 more recent composition) of her latter years. 
 She (accordiuR to three of these conirs. A, 
 B, and C) went to Rome to see St. Paul 
 again, but was t(Xi late to find him alive. 
 She died there s<Hin after, aged go, and was 
 buried near his tomb 72 years after her 
 martvTd^>m. 
 
 Thouph the storv was undojibtedlv wTitten 
 originally in Greek, the oldest <;reek MS. is 
 not earlier than loth cent. But ample proofs 
 of its high antiquitv are forthcoming. The 
 so-called Decree of C'.elasius, de l.ihns h'eci- 
 piendis et non RecipienJis, which is pr.il)ablv 
 of the early yearf of the 7th cent., formally 
 excluded (c. vi.) from the list of "scrii'ttires 
 received by the church " the " book which is 
 called the Ads of Paul atul Thecla." The 
 S>Tiac version, extant in four MSS.. one 
 of 6th cent., contains internal evidence that 
 the (ireek text had been long in existence and 
 frequently copied before the Syrian translator 
 did his work. We have also an expanded 
 Life of Thecla. composed before the middle of 
 5th cent, by Basil, bp. of Seleucia (in Isauria). 
 professedly framed on the lines of a prt\ious 
 work then ancient. A comparison of our 
 Acts of Paul and Thecla with this Life leaves 
 no doubt that the former is the basis of the 
 latter. These Acts (as we shall now call 
 them") were thus "ancient" early in the 
 5th cent., and can haidly therefore be later 
 than 300. In the 4th cent. Hilary (the 
 Arabrosian) has several clear references to 
 these Acts (Comm. on L Tim. i. 20 ; IL Tim. i. 
 15, iv. 14 ; cf Ads i : also on IL Tim ii. i.S; 
 cf. Acts 14) ; and even, as it seems, cites them 
 in connexion with the last passage, as " alia 
 Scriptura." Jerome, then or a few years 
 later, mentions {de Vtr. III. c. 7) but rejects a 
 book called Ufpiohoi UaiXov xal Hf»\»7t, which 
 he says was discredited by startling marvels ; 
 probably Jerome is here inaccurately describ- 
 ing the book as we have it. The very early 
 currency in Christendom of a wTitten narrative 
 of the life of Thecla is proved by the much 
 earlier, more exact, and more authentic 
 evidence of the writer whose authority Jerome 
 here appeals to, Tcrtullian, in his treatise de 
 Baptismo (c. 17), written c. 200. Tertullian 
 refuses to admit the authority of certain 
 writings falsely assuming the name f)f Paul, 
 which some alleged in support of the claim of 
 women to teach and baptize after " thi- 
 example of Thecla " ; for these (he says) were 
 the production of a certain " presbyter of 
 Asia," who was. on his own confession, proved 
 to have composed them " through love of 
 Paul " (as he said) and who for this fraud was 
 degraded from the presbyterate. Jerome 
 represents this degradation as fKrcurring in 
 St. John's time, which seems to t)e merely an 
 addition of his own, and is inconsistent with 
 our Acts, for they, in the ag<- to which they 
 prolong Thecla's life, imply that she survived 
 St. John. Tertullian is our earliest witness 
 that a storv of Thecla existed ; but whether 
 the extant book of her Acts is identical with 
 the .Asian presbyter's pnxluction is a question. 
 The balance of probability distinctly favours 
 
 THECLA 
 
 0A5 
 
 the identification. il *<>. 11 would tx- the 
 oldest of ihr rxtani N.T. A|xicjv|>h«. 
 
 The slorv thus Irarnl lijrk. rrrtjinlv 4% 
 regards its substance and protublv 4» reitariit 
 Its existing writlrn form, to jnd rrnt.. W4% 
 widely current in the rhwrch. Last and \NVst. 
 thereaftrr. Hut Ihoiich she i\ trrqumily 
 mentioned bv the Kaiherv none <i( thrin. 
 except H.isil of Seleuria. rite our Atl% of «ny 
 written narrative. Hut of j|| ihc relrrrnr*-* 
 to Thecla in ecclesustiral wrilrr%. not ime 
 (except that alr«-a<lv noticrd in Irmnir) lir« 
 distinctly outside thr rangr of thr inridrni* 
 which the Ads rrlatc- ; so that 4 hist.<v of 
 Thecla reconstructed out of the rrfrrmcrs to 
 her in early C hristian writers would W in fart 
 
 an abriilgment of these Ad*, roi!' ■ • ■ 'iv 
 
 all its chief points and addi 
 them. (»f these WTiters, the • 
 be Methodius, in his .S> m/vun. • . 
 
 I^tnum (written c. 300 ; srr Mum. / x:». <,k. 
 xviii.). The inciiirnt of Thecla* samhrini; 
 her ornaments to purchase access to Paul i« 
 turned to account by C hrvsostom. " Thrcla, 
 for the sake of seeing Paul, gave hrr jewels ; 
 but thoii. for the sake of seeing I hrist. wtft rt-.t 
 give an obolus " [Horn. 2S in Ada >"• 
 Isidore of Pelusium (lib. 1. h.p. 87) is .1, 
 ly the first to style her by the glon 
 ever since appropriate<| to her. ol , . 
 mart\T — that is, as Basil of Seleucia explain* 
 (p. 232). first among women as Stephen among 
 men. Themlore of .Mopsue>tia is staled by 
 Solomon of Bassora. a ijth-cent. Ne>t<iri4n 
 (cf. Assem. /?. O. iii. p. 323). to have com- 
 posed an oration on Thecl.», in which it 
 appears that her prayer for Falconilla was men- 
 tioned. Kpiphanius {Haer. Ixxviii. i6. Uxix. 
 5) praises her for sacrificing under St. Paul 1 
 teaching her prospects of pros|>erous marriaKe, 
 and reckons her near to Llias, John the Bap- 
 tist, and even the \'irgin Mother. In the West 
 her name is similarly joined with that of 
 .Agnes as a virgin worthy to rank with .Mary 
 herself, by .Ambrose {dt l^psu I'trf. p. 307) ; 
 and by Sulpicius Sevcrus (r. 400). who relate* 
 (Dial. ii. 13) how St. Martin of Tours was 
 favoured with a vision, in which M.iry. .Agnn. 
 and Thecla apiware*! and conversed with him 
 (Migne, Pair. iMt. t. xx. col. 210). V 
 likewise associates her with Mary tli' 
 mother, and Miriam, Mo»e*' sister 
 ad Vercell. Fed. t. ii. pt. i, p. 10 »o) 1 ■ 
 and in de \'trRinthu\ (ii. if), p. iWi) A 
 her deliverance from the wild beasts. 
 
 in one of his /•;/>/>. (xxii ; ' ■ 
 
 her with Marv and M; 1 
 
 they shall welcome Kii ■ 
 writf-s, into the virgin 1 I 
 
 in his ChrtmtcU (i.a. 3;;; he trlU uf one 
 Melania, a K'unan lady who by her »anctay 
 earned the name of Ther! « 
 
 That the IxM.k as we 1. * 
 
 will doubt ; but it IS a : r 
 
 it has been f firmed on .1 I 
 
 if so, how f.ir we CAW 1 
 
 ficti'-n. The incident..l < 
 
 by Kusebius proves th .• * 
 
 real prrvin ; and if .Atln. ■ -■>, 
 
 he niu»t be recki>ne<l on the same >i.lr. Ter- 
 tullian, e\in in rejecting her written hist.*y. 
 raise* no doubt a» to her existence, 4% he 
 certainly would if be had »u»pected her to b« 
 
956 
 
 THECLA 
 
 a creature of the Asian presbyter's imagina- 
 tion. Jerome, while still more emphatic in 
 condemning the book, expressly names her 
 as a virgin saint. It is hardly likely that if 
 Thecla had not existed, her history and 
 example could have so powerfully impressed 
 themselves on the mind of Christendom for 
 so many ages and been honoured by so many 
 generations of the devout faithful, including 
 some of the foremost intellects of the church. 
 The monastery that marked her place of 
 retreat and bore her name, which, as we learn 
 from Gregory of Nazianzum {Oral. xxi. p. 399, 
 t. i. ; Poemata Hist. s. i. ir, p. 703, t. ii.), had 
 made Seleucia a place of pilgrimage before he 
 retired there (c. 375), is a further evidence of 
 her reality, and also confirms the localization 
 in that city of the traditions concerning her. 
 It thus appears that our Acts probably grew 
 out of a true tradition, handed down from the 
 later apostolic age, of a maiden of Asia Minor 
 who was converted to the Gospel and for its 
 sake renounced all and braved death that she 
 might remain a chaste virgin for Christ, and, 
 having escaped martyrdom, lived and died in 
 sanctity at Seleucia. The Asian presbyter 
 whom Tertullian makes known to us, casting 
 about for materials for a story in exaltation 
 of virginity, would naturally choose for his 
 hero St. Paul, as an unmarried apostle and the 
 only N.T. writer from whom the doctrine of 
 the superiority of the celibate over the married 
 state could claim any support. The tradition 
 which we have supposed current in the church, 
 of a Christian who incurred the peril of mar- 
 t^Tdom for virginity and ended her days as 
 an anchorite near Seleucia, would supply his 
 heroine and leading incidents. Her name 
 was probably part of the traditional story ; 
 for an invented name would no doubt have 
 been either a Scriptural one or one of obvious 
 Christian significance. II. Tim. iii. 11 might 
 suggest the scene, " at Antioch, at Iconiiim." 
 Being of no critical turn, and writing for un- 
 critical readers, the author would not inquire 
 to what stage of St. Paul's course this Epistle 
 belonged, or which Antioch was meant. 
 
 The history of Thecla, as we have it, 
 whether this account of its origin be accepted 
 or not, is not without literary merit. It has 
 many touches of pathos, its incidents are 
 striking and effectively told, and here and 
 there the speeches (never of tedious length) 
 rise nearly to the height of eloquence. De- 
 fective as we have seen it to be in structure, 
 yet even here, as well as in interest of narra- 
 tive, it compares advantageously with the 
 clumsy dullness of the Clementine literature ; 
 its marvels, however startling, are less extra- 
 vagant than those of the apocryphal Gospels 
 and Acts ; and on the whole it is distinctly 
 above the level of the class of writings (most, 
 if not all, of later date) to which it is usually 
 referred. Its chief defect is the failure to 
 realize and reproduce the spirit and personality 
 of St. Paul. Schlau's opinion (p. 17), that the 
 local knowledge displayed in the work is such 
 as might naturally belong to a resident in 
 Asia Minor, is not to be accepted without 
 qualification. It might, on the contrary, be 
 said that if the author had more carefully 
 studied the canonical Acts with a view to 
 local and chronological knowledge, he might 
 
 THECLA 
 
 have assigned the scene and date of his 
 narrative with much more definiteness and 
 accuracy. For instance, he seems uncertain 
 how Lystra lay relatively to Iconium (cc. 1,3), 
 and his idea of the position and distance of 
 Daphne seems equally indistinct (c. 23). So 
 too in his records of Thecla's journeys he is 
 content to name the starting-point and the 
 terminus, never noting any place on the way. 
 His knowledge of political geography is shewn 
 to be lacking when he represents the chief 
 magistrates of Iconium (c. 16) and Antioch 
 (c. 33) as addressed by the title of proconsul 
 (dvdvrraTe), thus betraying that he supposed 
 these cities to belong to proconsular provinces, 
 whereas Iconium, though territorially in- 
 cluded in Lycaonia, was in St. Paul's time 
 extra-provincial, as the head of an independ- 
 ent tetrarchy (Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 25), and 
 Antioch was the capital of Syria, an imperial 
 province governed by a propraetor. Even if 
 we regard Iconium as of Lycaonia, and the 
 Antioch meant to be the Pisidian, in neither 
 city would so high an official as the proconsul 
 of Asia be resident, as the Acts represent. 
 The author, being of Asia^ — that is, of the 
 Roman province — supposed a proconsul to be 
 found at Iconium and at Antioch, because he 
 had himself been accustomed to see a pro- 
 consul at Ephesus or Smyrna ; and thus 
 Tertullian's statement that he was of Asia 
 (taken in that limited sense) is borne out, not 
 by his exact knowledge, as Schlau supposed, 
 but by his mistake. He has such knowledge 
 of places and political arrangements, and only 
 such, as would naturally belong to an untra- 
 velled ecclesiastic of the Roman province of 
 Asia, possessing a familiar but far from 
 critical or precise knowledge of N.T. in 
 general and the book of Acts in particular. 
 The contents of these Acts serve indirectly to 
 confirm the authenticity of the canonical Acts 
 by shewing how difficult — it may safely be 
 said how impossible— it would be for a fal- 
 sarins, even if writing at no great distance in 
 place or time from the scene and date of his 
 fictitious narrative, to avoid betraying himself 
 by mistakes ; and the history of the reception 
 of his work proves that such attempt to palm 
 off pseudo-apostolic documents for genuine 
 was not difficult of exposure, nor passed over 
 as a light offence. The Asian church of the 
 2nd cent, was quick to detect the pious fraud 
 and severe in punishing it ; and in her 
 dealing with the case there is no trace of 
 uncritical promptitude to receive whatever 
 offered itself as apostolical, or of the lax 
 morality that would accept as true whatever 
 seemed edifying- — such as some writers have 
 imputed to the early generations of Christians. 
 Dr. Lipsius, indeed, maintains (p. 460) that 
 the work and its author were condemned, not 
 because of the fraud attempted, but because 
 of the Gnostic doctrine which he supposes it 
 to have originally embodied. But this is 
 mere conjecture ; and, moreover, one which, 
 while professedly based on Tertullian's au- 
 thority, substitutes for his express statement 
 an essentially different one. Tertullian, writ- 
 ing of a matter on which he was apparently 
 well informed, and which was recent, is surely 
 a competent witness ; and his testimony is 
 express, that the author of the Acts was de- 
 
THEMISTIUS 
 
 THEODORA I. 
 
 M7 
 
 posed from the prcsbyler.Uo, not b«caus« the MerovinRiun kiiiKH. Mjriu* cM% him " lh« 
 
 teaching of his book was heretical, but because c;rcjt " {ChroH. ^d mui. ^4.H) ■ 4ii<l 4cc.i*.lnn( 
 
 its narrative was an imposture. to CrcKory of V»»r\ when hr had omir to the 
 
 Of edd.the best isTischendorrs{inhis .■Icfa throne "ho »hrwrd hiin*4-l| KovrrniiiK with 
 
 Apost. Apocrypha, p. 40; 1851). For Hng. justice, honouriuK the prir»l%, doinK good to 
 
 translations see Hone's .4 />t>Cf>7>Aa/ .V.r. p. 83, the churche^ »ucei>unnx the |m»< and di»- 
 
 andCKirk's Antf-.Xufnf Libr. vol. xvi. p. i7g. tributu»K benrhtt charitablv and librrallv • 
 
 The principal authorities on which this article (//ij». Fraiu. iii. ly \(,). In«l4urr« ••( hit 
 
 is based have been specified. To Dr. Schlau's Rood ()ualitie<t ap|>rar in \u% lit>crj|iiv «.. ihr 
 
 work it is largely indebted for its materi.ds, churches at the .AuvrrKue, which hi ' " - 
 
 and in some cases for its conclusions. For 
 
 further discussion of the story see Tillem. 
 
 Mchn. t. ii. p. 60 (^nd ed.) ; Spanheim Hut. 
 
 Christiana, i. 11 ; IttiR, d^ HibliotHfcn, c. xx. 
 
 p. 700 ; Kitschl, Die Entstehunc tUr altkath. 
 
 Kirche (2 .\ufi.), pp. 2q2-2(i\ ; Harn.ick, Zett- 
 
 schri/t /. Kirchcngesch. ii. pp. qo-qi ; Ramsay. 
 
 Church in Rotnan Empire be/ore 170 (ind ed. 
 
 Lond. 1893), pp. 37.S-428 ; and by the same, Sept. 5. 5<)o, .Vuth.iri died («trr«. l-.pp 
 
 A Lost Chapter of Early Christian Hist. (.\cla Theodelin<la, taking couu'^l with her wi 
 
 Pauli et Theclae), in Expositor, i<)02, pp. chose in Nov. .\K>lulf, the duke of I 
 
 27!<-2')5. [jiiw.l kinsman of hex late husb.ind (IViul. I 
 
 ThemlstiUS. [.\gnoetae.] SS). who in the following Mav wa-. arr- 
 
 TheootistUS (2), bp. of Caesarea in P.alestine, ail the l.omb.irds as kinx in Milan. I : 
 
 who on Oriseus visit to Palestine received bards, like the other Teut'inic iiati'in 
 
 him at Caesarea and, like .\lexander of Jeru 
 
 salem, permitted him, though still a layman. 
 
 had plundered (iii- i^h ami hi« t^rnn 
 
 thf impoverished city of Verdun, at i 
 
 of their bishop (ill. 34). .Src, i.mi. .\iii. . 
 
 2S, and tlie leiiir of .\urelianuv art 111 , I 
 
 .\rles. Ill Hou.|u<t. iv. t>\. (s * " , 
 
 TheodelintU. «iueen of the l.otiit...i.U. 
 daughter of (i.iribaltl, king of the llava{iaii«. 
 married to king .\uth.iri probably in ^H.f. On 
 
 tiie Franks, had received Ihristiami 
 an .\ri.in form, to which thev still 
 
 to preach before him (Phot. Coii. 1 18). On the Further, ne.irly all who hrld the 
 
 remonstrance of Origen's bishop, Uemetrian- 
 us, he joined with .\lexander in a letter defend- 
 
 creed in the temtorw5 comjurre*! I 
 Lombards were in schism from thnr r< !> 
 
 ing their conduct (Eus. H. E. vi. 19). Later, to accept the fifth general council which had 
 c. 230, Theoctistus and .\lexander ordained condemned the Three Chaj>ter». In thu 
 Origen {ib. \i. 8, 23). Theoctistus probably complication the p.rsition of Thr-Klrlinda wa» 
 died when -Xystus was bp. of Rome 257-25<j. peculiar. By her influence king .\giluH br- 
 and was succeeded bv Domnus (16. vii. 14). came eventually a Catholic, though apparently 
 Clinton. Fasti Rnmani. i.245. 271, 287, No. 83; not till after a.u. <>oj (i.r.-g. Epp. xi. 4. «iv. 
 Le Quii-n. Or. Christ, iii. sti. [ev.] 12), gave munihcently to the church, and 
 Theoctistus (3) Psathyropola('l'atfi7)o»-i:»\>;f). restored the orthodox bishops to ihi-ir i>osi- 
 or the cake-seller, the head of a sect among tions (Paul. Diac. iv. 0). On J^he other hand. 
 
 the Arians of Constantinople c. 390. His fol 
 lowers were called, from his occupation 
 
 she continued to supjmrt the Three Chapten 
 threatened to withdraw from communion with 
 
 Psath>T s. Led bv a certain Marinus fr.un Constantius. archbp. of Milan, and refuie*! to 
 
 Thrace, thev maintained that the First Person accept the fifth council (tireg. Epp. iv. 2, i, 
 
 of the Trinity was in a proper sense Father, 4. 3». 39; cf. Columbanos, Epp. 5 "> Migiie. 
 
 and so to be styled before the Son existed; Pair. IM. Ixxx. 274)- ('rcgtiry touche* thi» 
 
 while their opponents, the followers of the diflerencc m.^.t delicately, and was. "J-tJ?^*'"- 
 
 Antiochene Dorotheus, maintained that He standing, on most friendly terms with fheo- 
 
 was only a Father after the existence of the delinda. Mainly by her influence Agilull wa» 
 
 Son. Alarge party of the .\rian Goths, taught induced to m.ike peace (Paul. Diar. iv. 8; 
 
 by their bp. Selena, adopted the Psathvri.in (;reg. Epp. ix. ^i. 43). -"'J '"regory con- 
 
 view which continued to divide the ( hurch gratulated her upon thr birth of her w.n Ada- 
 
 of Constantinople for 35 years, till in the reign loald in (x>2. and s<-nt him a ct>,^-. < i.t utoii.- a 
 
 of Theodosius Junior a reconciliation was piece of the true cross and a 1 
 
 effected (Socr. H. E. v. 23). [ct.s.] gos^S a|'J thrre rings to lu 
 
 Theodebert (1) I., king of the Franks (534- perga. Theodelinda built an . i- 
 
 548), the most capable and amb 
 
 bitious of the 
 
 ilica of St. John Haptist at M 
 
 Merovingian line after Clovi 
 
 For thi- extent th.- death of Agilulf in (>ii>. Ad.doald %ucccrdcd 
 
 of the kingdom inherited from his father m with Fhe-Klelmda as regrnt. 1 he datr o| l.rr 
 
 s^^ see TiiEODOKicus I. It was increased in death was i.robably l>rl.*c t,iU (laul. I >iac. 
 
 534 by a portion of the now finally cr.nquered iv. 41)- "'T "n^*\ «»'^. •»"^* aiirimt m 
 
 Burgundy (Marius, Chron. ad ann. 534)- I" existence except the Iron Crown, her an, her 
 
 538 an artnv of The^nleberfs Burgundian comb, the golden hen and chickens she gave 
 
 subjects entered Italy with his connivance and to the church, and the cr.^* vent >'V -reg-^v 
 
 helped the(ioths to conquer Mil.m (Pr.--op. are still preserved in the treasury of the 
 
 deBell. Ootth. ii. 12 ; Marius, Chr.m. ad ann.). cathedral at M;""'- 
 
 In 539Theodebert, invading Italy at the head Theodor* (10) I., einpre 
 
 of 100,000 Franks, overran a great part 
 
 be 
 
 ml 
 %. wife of Justini- 
 ( an I., daughter of Acrius. a Iw-ar kee|K-T at the 
 VenVtiari-iKuria, and the Cottian Alps, till amphitheatre at t .M.stanlinople, who died m 
 hunger and disea^ dr..ye the remnant of his the reign of Ana»taMu% when she was 7 ye*» 
 army back to France ( Marius. ann. 539 : MarccU. old. When old enough, she ■'I'l-^'^. ''« !j? 
 Chron ann S3g Pr.K:op. «.s. 25). Death st.»ge, as her elder Ulster had done. Though 
 ?ut short his^a'.nbitious pmjects in'548. from the whole animu. o« hi» w.xk ^d^ 
 
 Theodebert was perhaps the be«t «•( the absolute mIcom oI all other writer. »« m«y 
 
958 THEODORETUS 
 
 infer that Procopius exaggerates, yet we may 
 well believe that her life was an abandoned 
 one, without believing all his scandalous 
 stories. Reduced to great distress, she in 
 appearance or reality changed her mode of 
 life, and supported herself by spinning wool. 
 Justinian, nephew of the reigning emperor 
 Justin, married her, and succeeding his uncle 
 in 527, caused her to be crowned as empress 
 regnant, but not till 532 does she appear to 
 have exercised a preponderating voice in 
 public affairs. She died of cancer in June 
 548. Unlike her husband, she was an ardent 
 Monophysite. Her influence was unbounded, 
 her cruelty insatiable. She assumed an especial 
 jurisdiction over the marriages of her subjects, 
 giving the daughters of her former associates 
 to men of high rank, and marrying noble ladies 
 to the lowest of the people. 
 
 Her portrait in the mosaics at St. Vitale at 
 Ravenna has been well engraved in Hodgkin's 
 Invaders of Italy, vol. iii. 606. 
 
 Sources. — The three works of Procopius, 
 esp. the Anecdota ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 10, ii ; 
 Victor. Tunun. Chron. ; Liberat. Breviar. 
 20-22 ; Lib. Pont., Vitae Silverii et Vigihi. 
 
 Literature. — Gibbon, cc. 40-41 ; Dahn, 
 Prokopius von Cdsarea ; Hodgkin, Invaders 
 of Italy, iii.-iv. ; Prof. Bryce, in Contemp. Rev. 
 Feb. 1885 ; M. Debidour, Thesis (pub. in 1877), 
 who tries to make the best of Theodora, [f.d.] 
 
 Theodoretus (2), bp. of Cyrrhus, or Cyrus, 
 in the province of Euphratensis, was born 
 at Antioch probably c. 393 (Tillemont). His 
 parents held a high position at Antioch. Hjs 
 maternal grandmother was a lady of landed 
 property (Relig. Hist. p. 1191, vol. v. ed. 
 Schulze, Halae, 1771). His writings indicate 
 a well-trained and highly cultivated mind, 
 enriched by complete familiarity with the 
 best classical authors. But his chief study 
 was given to the Holy Scriptures and the 
 commentators upon them in several lan- 
 guages. He was master of Greek, Syriac, 
 and Hebrew, but unacquainted with Latin. 
 His chief theological teacher, to whom he 
 never refers without deserved reverence and 
 admiration, was Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
 " the great commentator," as he was called, 
 the luminary and pride of the Antiochene 
 school, but one who undoubtedly prepared 
 the way for the teaching of Nestorius by his 
 desire to provide, in Dorner's words, " for a 
 free moral development in the Saviour's 
 manhood. ' ' Theodoret speaks also of Diodorus 
 of Tarsus as his teacher, but this can only 
 have been through his writings. 
 
 The parents of Theodoret were both dead 
 when he was 23 years old. Being their sole 
 heir, he immediately proceeded to distribute 
 his inheritance among the poor (Ep. 113), 
 taking up his abode in a monastery, one of two 
 founded in a large village called Nicerte, 3 
 miles from Apamea, and about 75 from 
 Antioch (Ep. 119). 
 
 After some 7 years in the Apamean mon- 
 astery, he was drawn to assume the cares of 
 the episcopate. Of the circumstances of his 
 consecration we are entirely ignorant. The see 
 was that of Cyrus, or more properly C>Trhus, 
 the chief city of a district of the province of 
 Euphratensis, called after it Cyrrhestica, an 
 extensive fertile plain between the spurs of 
 
 THEODORETUS 
 
 the Amanus and the river Euphrates, inter- 
 sected by mountain ranges. His diocese was 
 40 miles square, and contained 800 distinct 
 parishes, each with its church. It was singu- 
 larly rich in monastic houses for both sexes, 
 some of them containing as many as 250 in- 
 mates, and it boasted of a large number of 
 solitaries. All of these enjoyed Theodoret's 
 unremitting and affectionate solicitude and 
 frequent visits. Cyrrhus was equally fertile 
 in heretics. The East has ever been the nur- 
 sery of heresy. Lying, as it were, in a corner 
 of the world, not reached by the public posts, 
 isolated by the great river to the E. and the 
 mountain chains to the W., peopled by half- 
 leavened heathen, Christianity there assumed 
 many strange forms, sometimes hardly recog- 
 nizable caricatures of the truth. Eunomians, 
 Arians, Marcionites, and others who still more 
 wildly distorted the pure faith abounded. 
 To the recovery of these Theodoret devoted 
 his youthful ardour and still undiminished 
 strength, at personal risk. "Often," he writes, 
 " have I shed my blood ; often have I been 
 stoned ; nay, brought down before my time to 
 the very gates of death." Nor were his labours 
 fruitless. Eight villages polluted by Marcionite 
 errors, with their neighbouring hamlets com- 
 prising more than a thousand souls, one village 
 filled with Eunomians, another with Arians, 
 were brought back to the sound faith. He 
 could boast with all honesty to pope Leo L 
 in 449 that by the help of his prayers not a 
 single plant of tares was left among them, and 
 that his whole flock had been delivered from 
 heretical errors (£/)/j. 81, 113, 116, vol. vi. pp. 
 1141, 1190, 1197). He carried his campaign 
 against error, which embraced Jews and hea- 
 then as well as misbelieving Christians, beyond 
 his own diocese. He was unwearied in preach- 
 ing, and his acquaintance with the Syrian 
 vernacular enabled him to reach the poorest 
 and most ignorant. His care for the temporal 
 interests and material prosperity of his diocese 
 was no less remarkable. The city of Cyrrhus, 
 though the winter quarters of the tenth legion, 
 could boast little dignity or architectural 
 beauty. He calls it " a small and desolate 
 city," with but " few inhabitants, and those 
 poor," whose ugliness he had striven to re- 
 deem by costly buildings erected at his own 
 expense (Ep. 183, p. 1231). From his own 
 ecclesiastical revenues — which cannot have 
 been small — ^he erected public porticos, two 
 large bridges, and public baths, and, finding 
 the city without any regular water-supply, 
 constructed an aqueduct, and by a catchwater 
 drain guarded the city against inundation 
 from the marshes (Epp. 79, 81). These works 
 attracted architects and engineers to the city, 
 and afforded remunerative employment to 
 many people, for whose benefit he secured the 
 help of presbyters skilled in medical science 
 (Epp. 114, 115). Finding that the severity 
 of the state imposts caused many to throw up 
 their farms, leaving the civil authorities to 
 make good their deficiency, a liability they 
 were seeking to avoid by flight, he wrote to 
 the empress Pulcheria, entreating her to light- 
 en so intolerable a burden (Ep. 43, p. 1102), as 
 well as to the patrician .A-natolius (Ep. 45, p. 
 1104). With considerable trouble he obtained 
 from Palestine relics of prophets, apostles, and 
 
THEODORETUS 
 
 THEODORETUS 
 
 mart>Ts, for the nr.-atcr glory of a chiirrh hf ' anticipatinR thr Orinu.il brrlhrm. who** 
 had built (AV/ij;. Hi.s7. c. xxi. p. lisi ; /•7>. «•(>). arrival ho. with (>.s hishoii%, V4inly urn«l 
 So threat was his /.mI (,.r orth.xloxv that should Ur wail.-d lor Im-|.*o the r.ninril 
 having discoverid in the churches of his ! opened (Halu*. c. vii. «m,7.(iv4). «)n the 
 diocese more than 200 copies of the />m/«- j arrival of John and hi-. <>nrni4l brnhrcii. 
 saron of Tatian, which he regarded as tainted 1 Theodoret at once unite<l hinisrM to ihnn. 
 with heresy, he destroyed them all, and I and gave his voice lor the dr|H>Miioii and 
 substituted the ordinary text of the four ! oxconiinunication ol (. vtiI. Meinnon. and 
 Gospels (//a<T. Fuft. lib. i. c. JO). His life as their adherents (Labln-; ni. vr^ri) »e 
 bishop differed as little as possible Iroin that took part also in the proceedings « ' 
 
 he had lived in his nionasterv. State and when the " conciiiuiu " and U 
 official routine were very distasteful t.i him, ' bulum " launched thiinderbolls 
 
 and he avoided them as far as possible, de- 
 voting himself to the spiritual side of his 
 office (Epfy. 16. 71), ,Si, 14^). 
 
 The critical period in the life of Theodoret 
 was in connexion with the Nestorian contro 
 
 other, <lepo^ing and exconiiiiuiiu .iim, 1 ,i- ■•■ 
 doret was one of the Oriental Ci'ininis»ionrr» 
 to the emperor rhe<Hl<rsiws II. at (dn^taiiti- 
 tiople, representing his ineiro|hilit4n Alex- 
 ander (16. 7J.S). The ileputK-s not Ix-inn 
 
 versy, through which he is chiefly known to ' allowed to enter Constanlinople, audirncn 
 us. His personal share in it began towards | with the emperor were held at t halceiloii, 
 the end of 430, with the receipt by John, the Sept. 431. TheiKloret's name ap|>rar« in the 
 patriarch of .\ntioch, of the letters of Celestinc 'letters and other documents passing Wtwerti 
 and C\Til, relative to the condemnation of the Oriental p.irty at llphesus and their 
 the doctrines of Nestorius obtained by the representatives in i halccdoii. in which much 
 Western bishops in .\ug. 419. The high- j was said and written in a bitter spirit (I. abl>r, 
 handed behaviour of the patriarchs of Koine I vol. iii. 7 2 4-7 4(1 ; Theod. ed. Schiil/e, v.il. iv. 
 and .\lexandria towards the bp. of the new j pp. 1336-1354). Of the five s<-sMofis held at 
 Rome, a personal friend of long standing to Chalcedon the proceedings of the hrst alone 
 
 both of them, was no less offensive to Theo- 
 doret than to John. When these documents 
 arrived, Theodoret was at .\ntioch with other 
 bishops of the province. The admirable 
 letter (see Labbe, iii. 3<)o seq. ; Baluz. col. 
 445, c. xxi.) despatched in the name of John 
 
 le proceeilii 
 are recorded. \Ve have also a lew scanty 
 fragments of speeches and homilies of Theo- 
 doret at this perioil, characterized by dis- 
 tressing acrimony (The«Kl. ed. Schul/e, vol. v. 
 pp. 104-100), and a letter of his to .Alexander 
 if llierapolis, whom he was reprt-seiiting. 
 
 and his suffragans to Nestorius, exhorting ! informing him how matters were going on at 
 
 him to give up his objections to the term "The 
 otokos," seeing that its true sense was part 
 of the Church's faith, and entreating him not 
 to throw the whole of Christendom into con- 
 fusion for the sake of a word, has been with 
 great show of probability ascribed to the 
 practised pen of Theodoret. The controversy 
 
 Chalcedon. telling him of the |M>pularitv of 
 the deputies with the people, who, in spite of 
 the hostility of the clergy and monks bv whom 
 they had been rej>eatedly stoned, Hitcked to 
 hear them, assembling in a large curt sur- 
 rounded with porticos the churches iM-ing 
 closed against them ; but Theodoret laniriit« 
 
 was speedily rendered much fiercer by the their ill-success with the emperor. Helore tlie 
 
 publication of Cyril' 
 .Anatheinatisms 
 
 celebrated twelvi 
 .\rticles." Designed 
 
 deputies fin.illy 
 delivered addre 
 
 ft t halcedon. the Orientals 
 he adherents ol the 
 
 to crush one form of heretical teaching as i deposed Nestorius who had cross<-d the B<r,- 
 
 regards our Lord's personal nature, these 
 "articles" (detached, against Cyril's inten- 
 tion, from the letter on which they were 
 based) hardly escaped falling into the opposite 
 error. The (iodhead of Christ was asserted 
 with such emphasis that to some readers His 
 manhood might seem obscured. John was 
 shocked at what he deemed the p.witive affinity 
 to .Apollinarian doctrine of some of tht-se 
 articles, and applied hr^t to .Andreas of Samo- 
 sata and then to Theod>)ret to confute them. 
 Theodoret readily replied to theanathematisins 
 seriatim. So completely at variance with or 
 
 phorus from Constantinople. The hrst of 
 these was by Theodoret. He and his com- 
 panions, he said, were shut out from tlie nival 
 city on account of their hdelitv to C hrist, but 
 the Heavenly Jerusalem was still .n>eii to 
 them. On their way home Iroin liphesus the 
 Orientals. Theodoret among them, held a 
 synoil at Tarsus and renewed the seiilriice of 
 deposition on Cyril in conjunction with the 
 sevin orthodox deoutirs to ThetHl.n.iu% II.. 
 which they published in a circular letter. 
 They eng.iged al-i never to abandon Nes- 
 t<irius. Theodoret returned t.. his di<ice^. 
 
 thodoxv did he regard them, that in the letter i and devoted hims«-l! to comi>.«ing a Iresh 
 to John (reckoned as lip. 150) prefixed to his work assailing the obnoxious anathematiMUt. 
 observations upon them, he expresses a sus- entitled PentaloKui. Iroin its division into 
 picion that some " enemies of the truth " had I five iKwks. Onlv a lew lr.igiiients remain, 
 beensheltering themselves under C>Tirs name. Other treatises he wrote then are |..st. Hut 
 For the nature <jf these documents and for the ! we have, in a Latin version, a Imn letter 
 objections urged bv Theodoret and his friends, ad.lressed to the lollowrrs ..I Nrsi.<ius at 
 which with much' that is illogical and incon- , C.mstantinople, declaring his a.lherence to the 
 sistent, contain much that is prima fiuie orth.nlox laith. although he had Irit unable 
 Nestorian see Cvriilis. The documents to acquiesce in the ronilemnatioii -.1 Nrstoriu* 
 were prior to the council of Lphi-sus and to n-.t believing that the d.K-trine^ ascribed to 
 the formal condemnation of Nestorius then him were actuallv held by him (llaluz. >viwJ. 
 passed. At that gathering Theodoret, ac- | c. 40. 7*i)- OtiI found it imjtHnslblc to 
 companying his metropolitan. Alexander ol accept the terms orojxned In The.Kj.icel % 
 Hierapolis was among the earlier comers. | article*. He explained bis objection* In • 
 
960 THEODORETUS 
 
 long letter to Acacius, which, however, 
 opened a way for pacification by interpreta- 
 tions of some questionable points in his 
 anatheinatisms which he refused to withdraw. 
 This letter Theodoret regarded as orthodox, 
 but irreconcilable with the anathematisms, 
 which he still regarded as heretical. He was, 
 however, precluded from accepting the terms 
 of peace which John and others were in- 
 creasingly inclined to acquiesce in, by the 
 demand that he should anathematize the 
 doctrine of Nestorius and Nestorius himself. 
 To do this (Theodoret writes to his friend 
 Andrew of Samosata) would be to anathema- 
 tize godliness itself. He is ready to anathe- 
 matize all who assert that Christ was mere man, 
 or who divide Him into two Sons, or who deny 
 His Godhead. But if they anathematized "a 
 man of whom they were not the judges, and 
 his doctrine which they knew to be sound, en 
 bloc, "indeterminate," they would act im- 
 piously (ib. 766, c. 61). At this epoch, as 
 Hefele remarks {Hist, of Councils, vol. iii. 
 p. 127, Eng. trans.), the Orientals were divided 
 into two great parties : the peace-seeking 
 majority, with John of Antioch and the 
 venerable Acacius at their head, ready to 
 meet C\Til half-way ; the violent party of 
 irreconcilables, with Alexander of Hierapolis 
 as their leader, opposed to all reconciliation as 
 treason to the truth ; while a third or middle 
 party was led by Theodoret and Andrew of 
 Samosata, anxious for peace, but on terms of 
 their own. Theodoret and his scanty band 
 of adherents failed to secure the confidence of 
 either of the two great parties. His inflexible 
 metropolitan, Alexander, vehemently de- 
 nounced as treason to the truth any approach 
 to reconciliation with C\Til. Against this 
 reproach and against the suspicion that he 
 had given in to escape persecution or to secure 
 a higher place Theodoret sought to defend 
 himself (ib. c. 72, 775)- Though still hold- 
 ing back from reconciliation with C\Til, he was 
 virtually the means of bringing about the 
 long-desired peace. The declaration of faith 
 presented to C>Til by Paul of Emesa, as 
 representing the belief of John, and accepted 
 by Cyril, had been originally drawn up by 
 Theodoret at Ephesus. The paragraphs 
 directed against C>Tirs twelve articles were 
 slightly modified, but the main body was 
 unaltered (C>Til. ed. Pusey, vi. 44 ; Baluz. 
 c. 96, 97, 804 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. 531 ; 
 Hefele, op. cil. iii. 130 ff.). The reconciliation, 
 however, was by no means acceptable to 
 Theodoret. For it demanded acceptance of 
 the deposition of Nestorius, the anathematiz- 
 ing of Nestorius's doctrines, and the giving up 
 the four metropolitans of his party who had 
 been deposed at Constantinople. Theodoret's 
 protest was in vain. Theodosius insisted on 
 the deposition and expulsion of all bishops 
 who continued opposed to union. Finding 
 his growing isolation more and more intoler- 
 able, Theodoret invited the chiefs of the fast- 
 lessening band of his sympathizers, Alexander, 
 Andrew, and others, to take counsel at Zeug- 
 ma, in reference to the union with C\Til, which 
 had been accepted by John and' earnestly 
 pressed upon them by the combined weight 
 of the ecclesiastical and civil power. Alex- 
 ander refused to attend the synod except 
 
 THEODORETUS 
 
 on his own terms. The bishops who met, 
 as Theodoret informed John (Baluz. c. 95, 
 662, 801), accepted the orthodoxy of Cyril's 
 letter and regarded it as a recantation of his 
 obnoxious twelve articles, but would not 
 pronounce an anathema on Nestorius. John, 
 now hopeless of peace otherwise, applied to the 
 secular power. His method proved generally 
 effectual. One by one the recalcitrant pre- 
 lates yielded, except Alexander and some 
 others. Theodoret was one of the last to 
 yield. The coldness arising between him and 
 John after John's reconciliation with Cyril 
 had been much increased by John's uncanon- 
 ical intrusion into the province of Alexander 
 in the ordination of bishops. Theodoret, with 
 the other bishops of the province, on this, 
 withdrew from communion with him, and 
 published a synodical letter charging him with 
 ordaining unworthy persons (ib. 831, 850). 
 Long and painful controversy ensued, only 
 crushed at last by John's appealing to the 
 imperial power. All eventually yielded to 
 combined entreaties and menaces save Alex- 
 ander and a small band of irreconcilables, 
 who were banished from their sees. Theo- 
 doret was assailed on his tenderest side by 
 harassing his diocese. The unhappy renewal 
 of strife, concerning the doctrines of Diodorus 
 and Theodoret, brought Theodoret and Cyril 
 once more into collision. For the details' of 
 the conflict see Cyrillus of Alexandria ; 
 Proclus ; Rabbulas; Ibas. The long and 
 bitter controversy, in which both parties did 
 and said many regrettable things, was closed 
 by the death of Cyril, June 9 or 27, 444. 
 
 The succession of Dioscorus to Cyril's patri- 
 archal throne led to fresh trials for Theo- 
 doret. Dioscorus was resolved to bring about 
 Theodoret's overthrow, as Theodoret was one 
 of the first to discern the nascent heresy of 
 Eutyches, and directed the powers of a well- 
 trained intellect and great theological learning 
 to exposing it. The ear of the emperor was 
 gained, and Theodoret was represented as a 
 turbulent busybody, constantly at Antioch 
 and other cities, taking part in councils and 
 assemblies instead of attending to his diocese ; 
 a troublesome agitator, stirring up strife 
 wherever he moved (Ep. 79, p. 1135, etc.). 
 He was also accused on theological grounds. 
 Dioscorus, who seems to have regarded him- 
 self as " the lawful inheritor of Cyril's guard- 
 ianship of anti-Nestorian orthodoxy," wrote 
 to Theodoret's patriarch, Domnus, who c. 442 
 j had succeeded his uncle John in the see of 
 I Antioch, informing him that Theodoret was 
 creating a crypto-Nestorian party, practically 
 teaching Nestorianism under another name 
 and striking at " the one Nature of the In- 
 carnate." These accusations were accepted 
 at court, and Dioscorus obtained an imperial 
 edict (dated by Tillemont Mar. 30, 449) that 
 as a disturber of the peace of the church 
 Theodoret should keep to his own diocese. 
 Theodoret submitted, leaving the city without 
 bidding his friends farewell (Ep. 80, p. 1137). 
 From the " Latrocinium " or "Robbers' 
 Synod," at Ephesus (449) [Dioscorus ; Euty- 
 ches], Theodoret was excluded by an imperial 
 edict of Mar. 4, unless summoned unanimously 
 by the council itself (Labbe, iv. 100). Theod- 
 oret's condemnation was evidently the chief 
 
THEODORETUS 
 
 purpose in suinmonini? this iiifanious <vncxl. 
 From his "interiu-meiu" at Cvrrhiis Thi-oJorat 
 calmly watched his eiicmics' pr.KrwiliiiKs. Mr 
 had not long to wait for the conftnnation of 
 his worst fears. Hioscorus and his n.irtisAns. 
 having by brutal violence obtained the ac- 
 quittal of liutyches and the deposition of 
 Flavian, Ibas. Irenaeus. and other sympath- 
 izers with Theodoret. proce.-ded on the third 
 session to deal with him. The indirtment was 
 formulated by a presbyter of Anti.H-h named 
 Pelaijius, who in language of the most atro- 
 cious violence, proceeded to demand of the 
 council to take the sword of (;od and. as • 
 Samuel dealt with Agag. and F.lijah with the 
 priests of Bial, pitilessly di*strov those who 
 had introduced strange doctrines into the 
 church. Those who adhered to the poisonous 
 teachings of N'estorius deserved the flames- 
 "Burn them! — burn them!" he cried. 
 Pelagius was allowed to lay bef.jre the sviiod 
 the proofs of his accusation, contained in 
 "The .\pology of Theodoret, bp. of Cyrrhus, 
 in behalf of Diodorus and Theodorus, cham- 
 pions of God." The council exclaimed that thev 
 had heard enough to warrant the immediate 
 deposition of Theodoret, as the emperor h.id 
 already ordered. The unanimous sentence was 
 that he should be deposed from the priesthood 
 and deprived of even lay communion. His 
 books were to be committed to the flames (i7>. 
 125, 126, 129 ; Le Brigan.la^e, pp. iqj-kjs). 
 
 Dioscorus was now master of the whole 
 Eastern church ; "il regne partout." The.i- 
 doret knew that deposition was usually fol- 
 lowed by exile, and prepared for the worst. 
 He was allowed to retire to his monastery 
 near .-Vpamea {Ep. 119, p. 1202). An appeal 
 to the West, forbidden him in person by Theo- 
 dosius, was now prosecuted by letter, which, 
 though addressed to Leo individually, was 
 really meant for the bishops of the \V«-st 
 assembled in the synod, to which he begs his 
 cause may be submitted (.Ut'm. eccl. xv. 
 294). " In this remarkable letter," writes 
 Dr. Bright {Htst. of Church, p. 395). "he 
 traces the primacy of Rome to her civil great- 
 ness, her soundness of faith, and her possession 
 of the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul. 
 He eulogizes the exact and compnhensive 
 orthodoxy with which the Tome of I.eo con- 
 veys the full mind of the Holy Spirit." He 
 entreats Leo " to decide whether he ought to 
 submit to the recent sentence. He awaits his 
 decision. He will acqui<?sce in it, whatever 
 it be, committing himself to the judgment «f 
 his God and Saviour." Theodosiu* continued 
 to pay no heed to the remonstrances of l^o, 
 asserting that everything had been deci<led 
 at Ephesus with complete freedom and in 
 accordance with the truth, and that the pre- 
 lates there dep'^>sed merited their fate for 
 innovations in the faith. The inter|><rsitii>n 
 of Pulcheria and of the Western princess<-s was 
 employed in vain. On Jiilv 29. 4^'». Theo- 
 d.»ius IL was killed by a fall from his h<>rs<-, 
 and the imperial dignity passed to the ri-v>l»ite 
 hands of the orthodox Pulcheria and her 
 soldier-husband Marcian. All was now 
 changed. Eutychianism became the losing 
 cause, and the orthodox sufferers were tpeniilv 
 recalled. Theodoret appears to have been 
 mentioned by name in the edict of recall. 
 
 THEODORETUS 
 
 on I 
 
 The «tigm4 of hrtrro«|oxv W4« «|vr<s|ilv n»- 
 ni.ived from him. Thrrr \% n.i rravm to iloubl 
 that he wa* oa.- •! l!i. Li ..'i : . «;. . i.nr.l tho 
 Tome of 1^., , h,, 
 
 own faith r<v . (|,4| 
 
 i>n thi* I^.i : Miilk: 
 
 bishoptTillnu XV J.., . liu .;. jv. II ;j-J4». 
 Though now at lilxrlv to g.i whrrr he plraiwl. 
 rhe.Hlorrt prrfrrrrd \., rr;niiii ri »!!. n, .rui- 
 tervCKp. IV). His. • 
 the complete Inuiii. 
 vino* olhrrs of Ihr ; 
 
 This desire h- - . ' .,....., I. ,v I .1 
 
 his Complet. 411 orriimPtilCAl 
 
 council was n , bring that about 
 
 he lalxiured \v i,'lit. 
 
 The council .1 U»ul..d-.n met on ()cl. «. 
 45'- Thc<»doret'* entrance wa\ ihr digital for 
 outrageous violcncr on the part ..f the adhrr- 
 ints of I)ioscoru<>. The hall rrrchriod with 
 cries and Ct>uiiter-rrii-N whirh interruplrd 4II 
 proceedings. The<Hloret sat df.vTi " m the 
 midst." not among his br ' Me 
 
 c.ntiniied t-> attend tli the 
 
 roiiiicil. but Wlthnllt voli .; no 
 
 p.irt in the ile|x>Mli • 1 ■ iwn 
 
 ciuse came on at t!. • j6. 
 
 Although his ortli mw 
 
 ledge<l bv I.<'.i .ind li; , I bv 
 
 the enHM-ror. the anti-.Ni st=.u.*ii ... u .ii w.iuld 
 not hear of his recognition a« a bishop until 
 he ha»l in express terms an.ilti" m iti.-. 1 Nc*- 
 toriiis. This step he had !• 1 <re«l 
 
 he Would never take, an I I to 
 
 satisfy the remonstrants wr liorl 
 
 of it. but in vain. Wear. ! he 
 
 yielded to their clamour .1 i the 
 
 lest words, " .\nathema t I to 
 
 every one who dem-- " rgiii 
 
 Mary is the mother idr* 
 
 the one Son, the ' two 
 
 Sons." The impeii now 
 
 declared that all doubt ha^l b. i :i f.;u ...d and 
 that Theodoret should now receive back hi« 
 bishopric. The wlmle ass.iiiM\ r.i.d the 
 cry that Thetxloret was w : .me, 
 
 and that the church inii i . her 
 
 orth.xlox teacher. The I. . .(rd 
 
 for his restoration, the i their 
 
 assent bv acclamation, aii.l iier% 
 
 gave sentenci- that bv th. (n.lv 
 
 council The«Hl.>ret should . ^ ...i the 
 
 church of t yrrhus (I.abiM-, iv. (.i.,-(.j«». 
 
 But few years reinaine<l to rhr.K|..rrt. and 
 of thestr verv little Is kn"i\*ii ll is u •! even 
 certain whether he return. : ..ipal 
 
 ilutii-s at Cvrrhus or rein luirl 
 
 Ap.imean monasters >l 1 !•> 
 
 literary lalniurs. I .1 he 
 
 probably did not li. I Ihr 
 
 , statement "f (;fiiii . that 
 
 his d. ." • ' ' i*M. 
 
 fie m 
 
 His 'Aa 
 
 f. hi(..: and 
 
 N. T. 11. ' »«•• 
 
 atheinati\li> 'e»y, 
 
 and, in 4 w..i , ! ^i« 
 
 life, with herrsi. 11 
 including the '.m/. . 
 OfO/cms on l>ivin< 
 
 oratioiit and levvr I1.4I1.. . w iii 1 'i. u, 
 and V. EpuloUry. 
 
 01 
 
362 
 
 THEODORETUS 
 
 I. Exegetical. — These include works on (i) 
 the Octateuch, {2) the books of Sam., Kings, 
 and Chron., (3) the Pss., (4) the Canticles, (5) 
 the Major Prophets, (6) the Twelve Minor 
 Prophets, (7) the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 
 including that to the Hebrews. The work on 
 the Octateuch consists of answers to difficult 
 points, for the most part characterized by the 
 sound common-sense literalism of the Antio- 
 chene school, with but little tendency to alle- 
 gory. Heoften, instead of his own opinion, cites 
 that of his great masters Diodorus of Tarsus 
 and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Origen. In 
 Leviticus and Numbers he naturally adopts 
 more of the allegorical method, regarding the 
 whole Levitical ritual and the moral ordin- 
 ances as tv^pical of the sacrificial and media- 
 torial work of Christ, and of the new law He 
 came to inaugurate. The commentary on the 
 Canticles was his earliest exegetical work. 
 He controverts the opinion that this book 
 contains the story of the earthly loves of 
 Solomon either with Pharaoh's daughter or 
 with Abishag, or that it is a political allegory, 
 in which the bridegroom represents the 
 monarch and the bride the people, and adopts 
 the spiritual interpretation by which the 
 bridegroom stands for Jesus Christ and the 
 bride for the church. From one passage in 
 the very interesting prologue we learn that 
 Theodoret held the then current opinion, that 
 the whole of the O.T. books having been burnt 
 under Manasseh and other godless kings, or 
 destroyed during the Captivity, Ezra was 
 divinely inspired to rewTite them word for 
 word on the return from the Captivity. He 
 denounces the iniquity of the Jews, who had 
 excluded Daniel from the prophets and placed 
 his book among the Hagiographa, because no 
 prophet had so clearly predicted the advent of 
 Jesus Christ, and the very time of His appear- 
 ance. The only portions of the N.T. com- 
 mented on by him are the Epistles of St. Paul, 
 including that to the Hebrews. Of these bp. 
 Lightfoot wTites, " His commentaries on St. 
 Paul are superior to his other exegetical 
 writings, and have been assigned the palm 
 over all patristic expositions of Scripture. 
 For appreciation, terseness, and good sense 
 they are perhaps unsurpassed, and if the 
 absence of faults were a just standard of 
 merit, they would deserve the first place ; but 
 they have little claim to originality, and he 
 who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in 
 Theodoret which he has not seen before. It 
 is right to add, however, that Theodoret him- 
 self modestly disclaims any such merit. In 
 his preface he apologizes for attempting to 
 interpret St. Paul after two such men who 
 are 'luminaries of the world,' and he pro- 
 fesses nothing more than to gather his stores 
 'from the blessed Fathers.' " (Gal. p. 220). 
 
 II. Controversial. — (i) The Refutation of the 
 Twelve Anathematisms of Cyril. (2) Eranistes 
 or Polymorphus, " a work of remarkable in- 
 terest and of permanent value for theological 
 students, to be read in connexion with the 
 Tome of Leo and the definitions of Chalcedon " 
 (Bright, Later Treatises of Athanas. p. 177). 
 It consists of three dialogues between the 
 "Mendicant " 'EpavlcTr/i who represents Euty- 
 chianism, and Theodoret himself as 'OpOddo^ot. 
 
 THEODORETUS 
 
 Their respective titles indicate the line adopted 
 in each. These are 'ArpeTrros, Immutabilis, 
 'A(Ti''7x'''''05> Inconfusus, and ' AiraOri's, Impati- 
 bilis. (3) Alp€TiKrj^ KaKO/j.vdiai iiriTOfxri, 
 Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, a work 
 directed against heresies in general, in five 
 books. The fourth book, the most important 
 as treating of matters with which he was more 
 or less personally acquainted, begins with the 
 heresies of Arius and Eunomius and comes 
 down to those of Nestorius and Eutyches. 
 His disgracefully violent language with regard 
 to his former friend Nestorius — whom he 
 stigmatizes as an instrument of Satan, a man 
 who by his pride had plunged the church into 
 disorders, and under the cloak of orthodoxy 
 introduced the denial of the Divinity and of 
 the Incarnation of the Only-begotten Son, and 
 who at last met with the punishment he de- 
 served, a sign of his future punishment- 
 would warrant the charitable hope that this 
 chapter has been erroneously ascribed to 
 Theodoret. Of this, however, there is no 
 evidence, and we are, though most reluctantly, 
 compelled to accept it as his work, together 
 with the equally atrocious letter to Sporacius 
 on the Nestorian heresy. It is accepted by 
 Photius (Cod. 56) and Lenntius of Byzantius 
 (art. 4, de Sectis) (cf. Neander, iv. p. 246, note, 
 Ceillier, .Aut. eccles. x. 84). 
 
 III. Theological. — The chief is an apologetic 
 treatise, intended to exhibit the confirmations 
 of the truth of the Christian faith contained 
 in the philosophical systems of the Gentiles, 
 under the title 'Eki]VLKQiv depaireiTiKT) iradr}- 
 fxcLTwi', Graecarum .Affectionum Ctiratio, seu 
 Evangelicae Veritatis ex Gentilimn Philosophia 
 Cognitio. It is in 12 discourses, and furnishes 
 a very able and eloquent defence of Christian- 
 ity against the ridicule and ignorant accusa- 
 tions of pagan philosophers, WTitten probably 
 before 437. It was followed by another of a 
 similar character, in ten orations, on Divine 
 Providence, regarded by the best critics as 
 exhibiting Theodoret's literary power in its 
 highest form, as regards the careful selection 
 of thoughts, nobility of language, elegance and 
 piu-ity of style, and the force and sequence of 
 his arguments (Ceillier, p. 88, § 10). To these 
 may be added a discourse on Charity, -rrepl 
 Beiai Kai aylas dyd-n-qs (Schulze, 14, 1296 seq.) 
 and some fragments of sermons, etc., given by 
 Garnier {Auctarium, ib. t. v. pp. 71 seq.). 
 
 IV. Historical. — This class contains two 
 works of very different character and of very 
 different value : (i) the Ecclesiastical History 
 and (2 ) the Religious History, (i ) The former, 
 in five books, was intended to form a continu- 
 ation of that of Eusebius. It commences with 
 the rise of Arianism under Constantius and 
 closes with the death of Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, A.D. 429. From his opening words 
 he has been thought to have had in view the 
 histories of Socrates and Sozomen, and to have 
 WTitten to supply their omissions and correct 
 their mistakes (Valesius). This is questioned 
 by some, and must be regarded as doubtful. 
 He gives more original documents than either 
 of his brother-historians, but is very chary of 
 dates, and wxites generally without sufficient 
 chronological exactness. Photius finds fault 
 with his too great fondness for metaphor, 
 while he praises his style as " clear, lofty, and 
 
THEODORETUS 
 
 free from redundancy" (CoJ. ^i). The his- 1 
 tory is learned and generally impartial, 
 " though it is occasionally one-sided and runs ' 
 off into a theological treatise." An Kng. 
 trans, was pub. by Haxter in 1847. {2) The 
 Religious History, <t>i\6<ito^ iaTo^a. is devoted 
 to the lives of 30 celebrated hermits and 
 ascetics, his contemporaries, and was wiitten 
 from personal knowledge and popnl.ir report 
 before his Ecclfiiastical History. It excites 
 our wonder at what Dr. Newman calls the 
 " easy credence, or as nioderns would sav large 
 credulousness." which appears more astonish- 
 ing as he had been brought up in the most 
 matter-of-fact, prosaic, and critical school of 
 ancient Christendom. "What." writes Ur. 
 Newman, "made him drink in with such 
 relish what we reject wuh such disgust ? 
 Was it that, at least, some miracU-s were 
 brought home so absolutely to his sensible 
 experience that he had no reason fur doubting 
 the others which came to him second-hand ? 
 This certainly will explain what to most of us 
 is sure to seem the stupid credulity of so well- | 
 read, so intellectual an author " (//is/. 
 Sketches, iii. 314). The whole subject presents 
 a very curious intellectual problem. 
 
 V. Epistolary. — No portion of Theodoret's ' 
 literary remains exceeds in interest and value 
 the large collection of his letters. .\s throw- 
 ing light on his personal history and character, 
 and as helping us to understand the perplexed 
 relations of the principal actors in that stormy ^ 
 period of theological strife and their various ] 
 shades of theological opinion, their import- 
 ance cannot be over-estimated. They give us 
 a heightened esteem of Theodoret himself, 
 his intellectual power, theological precision, 
 warm-hearted affection, and Christian virtues. 
 An Eng. trans, of this remarkable series of | 
 letters, arranged according to date and subject, 
 is much to be desired. I 
 
 The .4uctarium of tiarnier also contains the j 
 following : (i) Prolegomena and Extracts of \ 
 Commentaries on the Psalms, probably derived 
 from Catenae. (2) .\ Short Extract from a 
 Commentary on St. Luke. (\) Sermon on the 
 Nativity of S. John Baptist. (4) Homily 
 spoken at Chalcedun in 431. (5) Fifteen 1 
 additional letters of Theodoret. (6) Seven 
 dialogues composed a little befcjrc the council 
 of Ephesus, 2 each against .inomoeans and 
 Apollinarians, and 3 against .Macedonians. 
 Their authorship is doubtful ; they have been 
 ascribed to Athanasius or Maximus, but 
 Garnier claims them for Theodoret. 
 
 Editions. — There are 2 edd. of his complete 
 works in Gk. and Lat. ; the first in 4 vols. ful. 
 (Paris, 1642), by the Jesuit jac. Sirmond. to 
 which a 5th vol. was added after Sirmoiids 
 death by his fellow-Jesuit, J. Garnier (I'aris. 
 1684), containing an auctarium, compris- 
 ing fragments of commentarii-s and mt- 
 mons and some additional letters, together 
 with Garnier's 5 learned but most one- 
 sided dissertations on (i) the life, (2) the 
 writings, (3) the faith of The.Kioret, (4) on the 
 fifth general council, and (5) the cause of 
 Theodoret and the Orientals. This was 
 succeeded by another ed. based on it, with 
 additions and corrections bv l.ud. Schul/e and 
 J. A. Noesselt (Halae Sax. i76o-t774). in 5 
 vols, and in 10 parts. To this eduion our 
 
 THEODORICUS 
 
 MS 
 
 rcferencM arc made. The cd. of T. Gditfurd 
 is pub. bv the Cl.ireni|i>ii l»rr%«. Thrf* t« 
 a Irani, of ThcKloret's w.irk* in Hohn't Ub. 
 (iiell), and bv lUomltrUI Jarkvn tit l.tb. of 
 P,nl-.\,(ene latherK. i (. \ (,lulx>ko«r%ki. 
 I he Hle^'^e.i IheoJorel. bp. of (yrm (M..«;iiw. 
 iS.,n. .• v.. Is); Harnack in tktot. LUrralmr 
 Zeitunt: (is.,o). p. 502. l«v.| 
 
 ThftOdorlouS (I) I. {ThfttdfTKux). chiMcn 
 king of the Visi);oih<i on the ciralh o| ValU. 
 A.l>. 4l<). tie was the real loundrr oj the Wrmt 
 liothic kingdom. On hi» acmsioii the Vi»i- 
 goths held nothing in Snain, but ocruptrd in 
 Gaul .'Vquitania Sccumla. the region lyinjt. 
 roughly speaking, between the I.oire ami the 
 G.ironne, with somr lu-ightxiurinK cille*. of 
 which roulouse, their capital, wm the mmt 
 important. This lerrit'irv had Ixrn crdrtl 
 to Valia as the price of the ' ' ■ ■■•'■ '^ .me. 
 The history of Theo»I..ric- ; >t a 
 
 series of endeavours to c\: tiry 
 
 when the Romans were ot .'te<l. 
 
 with intervals of rencw.d ul thi ;.>(Ju\. the 
 Goths, however, ret.iining wh.«t thev hail Wi>n. 
 In the great battle of the Mauriac |iuin% Theti- 
 doric, who was advanceil in life, fell from hit 
 horse and was trampled to death l>v hii own 
 troops (a.d. 4SI). Salvian (i^ dub. ttet. vil. 
 154) praises him for his piety, to which be 
 attributi-s the defeat of the self-confident 
 l.itorius. Though, like the rest of his rac. 
 an .\rian. he did iKit j)ersecute the Catholicx. 
 Prosper and Idatius, (.hronica; Jordanr*, titt. 
 34-40 ; Isidorus. Hist, (ioth.. Hist. Suev.. Dahn. 
 Die Konit;e der (iermanen, v. 71. (ri>-l 
 
 TheodorlOUS (3) (Iheoderum). the IKtro- 
 
 goth, king III Italy. The second is th«- s|>ellini( 
 
 of .ill inscriptions (Miimiiis«-n, Jordants, 144). 
 
 He was the son of i'liiudimer by his concubine 
 
 I Erelieva. and was born proiiably in ^*t^. 
 
 His father was the second brother of Valamir, 
 
 I king of the Ostrogoths, Vidimer l>eing the 
 
 j third. The three lived in amity. occupviiiK 
 
 I N. Pannonia, the part of the tril>e under 
 
 Thiudimer b«-iiig settled near Lake PrUo at 
 
 Theodoric's birth. Ht- succeeded his father in 
 
 474 or 475, and assisted in 477 in /eno'» 
 
 restoration. In 4H7 /eno induced Thr.Klofic 
 
 j to undertake an expedition to Italy for the 
 
 purpose of overthrowing odoacrr. Thet.- 
 
 I doric willingly consente«l ; his |>e»iple, who in 
 
 the course of their wanderings had mmtlv 
 
 settled in Ij>wer Moesi.i. Nova near Kilstchult 
 
 ' being his capital, were discontented with thnr 
 
 ! settlements ; and in the autumn of 4«,'< they 
 
 started. It was not the m.»rch of an arinv. 
 
 but the migration of a who|r i--..plr Their 
 
 progress bv Sirmiutn and I' " low. 
 
 imiKde.l by the winter ! the 
 
 opposition of the (.epi.l , ■:4n«; 
 
 not lill the summei of 4«<i : . : their 
 
 wav through the Julian Alps 11. t.. I1.4K. F«* 
 the events of the w.ir, terminated in Mar. 4'ij 
 bv Thi-mloric's complete viclorv. srr />. C. li. 
 (4 vols. Ic><x)). art. "Oiloarer " .Mtrr The..- 
 doric had shut up Odoacef in Kavenna in 
 autumn 4'>o, h- ■ i.t Fiu.fi the ehtrf -!(»,•• 
 senate, and I: 
 to ask his 
 rolnrs. Zen 
 
 having Colin- ii in i.i ■ I'' • >».■•> ■* 
 
 the (all of Kavrnna the armv |>ficJ4UiirU 
 .Tbcodoric king (.An. Vol. jj J7). Alrr*dy 
 
964 
 
 THEODORICUS 
 
 king of the Ostrogoths, he was thus recognized 
 as king over his new conquests ; but, like 
 Odoacer, he assumed the title without any 
 territorial definition such as " king of Italy." 
 Gregory of Tours (iii. 31) indeed styles him 
 "Rex Italiae," but this is merely a description, 
 not a formal title ; cf. the parallel of Odoacer 
 and Victor Vitcnsis. This independent as- 
 sumption was regarded at Constantinople as 
 a usurpation, and not till 498 was a recognition 
 grudgingly obtained by the embassy of the 
 senator Festus, and the imperial ornaments 
 returned which Odoacer had sent to Con- 
 stantinople (.4m. Val. 64, Theodorus Lector, 
 ii. 16, 17, in Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. i, 189). 
 Theodoric, while really independent, was 
 ready to pay the emperor marks of respect, 
 such as submitting for approval the name of 
 the consul he nominated. But there was no 
 real cordiality between the two. At Con- 
 stantinople Theodoric was regarded merely as 
 de jure the lieutenant of the emperor who had 
 commissioned him to recover Italy, and the 
 Byzantine claims were only kept in abeyance 
 for a convenient opportunity. 
 
 His first care after the overthrow of Odo- 
 acer was to arrange the settlement of his 
 followers in Italy. A third part of the lands 
 was distributed to them. The Goths were 
 very unequally distributed. In Calabria and 
 Apulia there were none (Procop. i. 15) ; they 
 began to appear in Samnium, and then in- 
 creased to the N. and E., the settlements being 
 thickest in the Aemilia and Venetia. The 
 Goths were probably settled by families and 
 tribes (Var. v. 27), and did not, like the 
 Vandals, clear out and occupy the whole of a 
 continuous province. Their dispersion among 
 the previous inhabitants had many important 
 consequences, the most important perhaps 
 being the increase of the royal power, which 
 was further strengthened by Theodoric uniting 
 to his hereditary kingship the derelict pre- 
 rogatives of the Western emperor. He 
 governed the two nations — the Romans and 
 the Goths — who lived side by side without 
 intermingling, in a twofold capacity : the 
 former as the successor of the emperor, the 
 latter as the king of immemorial antiquity. 
 The Roman forms of government were kept 
 up ; the senate met, and Theodoric submitted 
 his appointments of patricians, consuls, etc., 
 for their ratification. The Roman systems of 
 taxation and administration were maintained. 
 The Goths, like the Romans, had to pay taxes, 
 but their special obligation was that of mili- 
 tary service. Theodoric's care for his domin- 
 ions is shewn by the multifarious subjects of 
 the Variarum — e.g. drainage of marshes, 
 regulations of the posting service, repairs of 
 harbours, roads, and public buildings, such as 
 Pompey's theatre and the cloacae at Rome, 
 fortifications, searches for mines, etc. Under 
 his firm rule Italy enjoyed 33 years of peace 
 and prosperity such as she had not kno\vn for 
 nearly a century, and was not to know again 
 for generations. 
 
 The state of affairs in Gaul after 507 de- 
 manded Theodoric's interference. When his 
 negotiations failed to prevent a breach be- 
 tween Clovis and his son-in-law Alaric, and 
 when the rout and death of .Alaric threatened 
 that all Gaul, and perhaps Spain, would pass 
 
 THEODORICUS 
 
 into the hands of the Franks, he felt compelled 
 to interpose. The result was the preservation 
 of Spain and the district of Narbonne or Septi- 
 mania for the Visigoths, and the acquisition 
 by Theodoric of a territory corresponding 
 with the modern Provence, including Aries 
 and Marseilles. He was thus placed in 
 immediate communication with the Visigoths, 
 among whose kings he is reckoned by Spanish 
 historians as guardian of his infant grandson. 
 
 Though, like his countrymen, an Arian, 
 Theodoric for most of his reign acted not only 
 with impartiality but favour to the Catholics, 
 some holding high offices under him. On his 
 one recorded visit to Rome in 500, where he 
 spent six months (An. Val., Cassiod. Chron.), 
 he gave magnificent presents to St. Peter's as if 
 he had been a Catholic ; he was on friendly 
 terms with the most eminent bishops, such as 
 Epiphanius, whom he employed on an em- 
 bassy to the Burgundians to obtain the release 
 of the prisoners taken in their inroads into N. 
 Italy during the war with Odoacer ; and in 
 his interference in the troubles following the 
 disputed election of Symm.\chus and Laur- 
 ENTR-s he seems to have acted solely with a 
 view to benefit the church. Nor did he object 
 to the nullification by the synod, under 
 Symmachus, of Odoacer's law against the 
 alienation of ecclesiastical property, on the 
 ground that it rested only on lay authority. 
 He was careful also not to infringe on the 
 privileges of the church, and extended his 
 protection to the Jews. 
 
 During most of hir reign the difficulties of 
 his position were much lightened by the schism 
 between the Eastern and Western churches. 
 To the pope and the orthodox party a Euty- 
 chian emperor was as hateful as an Axian king. 
 But when in 518 .Anastasius was succeeded by 
 Justin and the 37 years' schism was ended by 
 the complete triumph of Hormisdas, whose 
 I negotiations with the East had been conducted 
 by Theodoric's permission (Vita Hormisdae), 
 the obstacle to the desires of the orthodox 
 Romans for reunion with the empire was 
 removed. On the Eastern side the breach was 
 widened by the persecution of heretics, com- 
 menced by Justin in 523. By the law of that 
 year (Cod. i. v. 12), heretics were subjected 
 to many civil and religious disabilities. The 
 Goths serving in the army (foederati) were 
 exempted from its provisions, but must, like 
 the rest of their co-religionists, have felt the 
 next measure, the seizure of all the churches 
 belonging to heretics. Theodoric appears to 
 have intended to occupy the churches of the 
 Catholics and hand them over to the .\rians as 
 reprisals for the similar treatment they had 
 experienced in the East, when he was seized 
 with illness, and died Aug. 30, 526. He 
 apparently never had a son. His only sur- 
 viving daughter Amalasuintha he had given 
 in marriage in 515 to Eutharic, a descendant 
 of the Amals, whose consulship in 519 was 
 celebrated with great magnificence at Rome. 
 He died before Theodoric, leaving one son, 
 Athalaric, whom his grandfather, shortly 
 before his death, declared king, under the 
 regency of his mother. 
 
 Theodoric was a great builder. He restored 
 the aqueducts at Verona and Ravenna, built 
 palaces at Verona and Ravenna, and baths 
 
THEODORICUS 
 
 there and at I'aM.i. Hut his Kreatfst «..ikv 
 are at Ravenna, his own niausolciiin, wiih its 
 marvellous dome, (ornx-d o( otir block of 
 Istrian stone, and what is now St. .ViHillmarr 
 Nuovo, the church he built for his Arian 
 fellow-worshippers, of which thev rctainrtl 
 possession till the time of bp. Akik-IIus (Ac- 
 nellus. Lib. Pont, in Kfrum Sinf>l. I atQ. 31,4). 
 
 Almost our only source of information as to 
 his internal administration is the riiri<irii»i of 
 Cassiodorus (i»</. Mr. Hod»;kin"s preface to 
 this work). Of modern writinss. Dahn's 
 Konige der Gennanen. ii.-iv. is the most valu- 
 able. Du Koure h.is published a Life of 
 Theodoric, and there is a brilliant sketch in 
 tiibbon. c. 3>), of his rule in Italy. (f.h.) 
 
 TheodorlCUS (5) I. (//irr-rri. Iheud(rt(h). 
 king of the Franks (511-533), one of the four 
 sons of Clevis, by a concubine. He was con- 
 siderably older than his three b.ilf-brothers, 
 the sons of Clotilda, and had a grown-up son, 
 Theodebert, when his father died ((irei;. Tur. 
 Hist. Franc, ii. 28. iii. i) in 511. The four 
 sons divided the kingdom, nominally into 
 equal portions, but reaJly Theodoric, owing 
 probably to his greater age and cipacity. 
 obtained the largest portion. His capital 
 was Metz, and his kingtlom comprised the 
 Ripuarian Prankish territory, Champagne, 
 the eastern portion of .Aquitaine and the ohl 
 Salian Frankish possessions to the Kohlen- 
 wald (Richter, .■iniialen, p. 46). Fauriel says 
 that besides Frankish Germ.iny he had so 
 much of Gaul as lies between the Rhine and 
 the Meuse and, as his share of Aquitaine, the 
 Auvergne with the Velai and G6vaudan. its 
 dependencies, the Limousin in part or whole, 
 and certain other cantons of less importance 
 (Hist, de la Gaule Merid. ii. 92). Theodoric 
 died in 533. He was a strong and capable 
 
 king, but to the ferocity and lawlessness of his 
 race he added an unscrupulous cunning of his 
 own (ib. iii. 7). His attitude towards the 
 church seems to have been one of indifference, 
 influenced neither by fear nor superstition. 
 Orthodo.xy had been so useful a political 
 weapon to his father that the son was pre- 
 sumably a professing Christian, though he is 
 not mentioned among the members of Clovis's 
 family baptized by St. Remigius. He did not 
 shrink from involving churches in his army's 
 pillage and destruction in the Auvergne (iii. 
 12). and though he exalted St. Quintian, bp. 
 of Clermont, it was not as a priot. but as a 
 partisan who had suffered in his cause (iii. 2). 
 while he bitterly persecuted Desiderius. bp. 
 of Verdun (iii. 34). He has the credit of re- 
 ducing to wTiting and amending the l.iws of the 
 Franks, .Xlamanni. and Havarians (Migm-, Patr. 
 Lot. Ixxi. 1163). Is.A.B.) 
 
 Theodoras (6) Askldas (o 'AamSii), archbp. 
 of Caesarea in Ca|>p.idc.cia. the chief sup|>orter 
 of Origen's views in the first half of cent. vi. 
 and the originator of the celebrated contn»- 
 versy concerning the " Three Cha|>ters."' The 
 general history of his life belongs to that sub- 
 ject ; we now give merely a brief outline. Hr 
 was a monk of the convent of Nova I^ura in 
 Palestine, and made. c. 537, archbp. of 
 Caesarea under Justinian. ICe siipj.orted the 
 views of Origen when they were persecuted 
 in Palestine. He secretly favoured .Monophy- 
 site views, and, when J ustinian condemned 1 
 
 TMFODORUS B«A 
 
 < 'I it;rii. ^.i\v .1 rh.i! . ; 
 
 aiitht»ritirs on thr 
 
 rhrt«|..rr. and I 
 
 Ihroiik'h thr nnpt 
 
 Justini.ui to altn; 
 
 phvMtP party; I 
 
 issuitii; hiN crlrbr.i" 
 
 the great rontrov 
 
 Chapters. At thr . 
 
 Iinopir archbp. 1 1.- 
 
 drmnation of Ori^rn ■n id'- ■n 
 
 ThrtHlorrt. Thr<K|orp, 4nd \h»-. 
 
 Mr dirfl pr-biMv r ^^^ it » 
 
 The / . -■ • 
 
 the ; 
 
 nop, , 
 
 Slan.i, ; ., , ■ , ,. . ,,. v. ,. 
 
 Hefclc s < nuntii\, ) isr^]. |<,.t ».| 
 
 Theodorus (26). bp. of VopMirsiM ; aiw* 
 
 known, from thr pl.icc <•( his birth and |>rt»- 
 byterate. as Thoxlorc of ,\ntioch. thr nimt 
 prominent rrpri^rntativc of the middle 
 Antiochcnr schtnil of hermrnrulicA. 
 
 L Liff aiui M'or*.— ThejMlorr wa» bom at 
 Antioch (. 350 (»re Fnl/vhr d* Ik. M. 
 I', fl .Scr. pp. 1-4. for the chroiio|o|{y : cl. 
 Kihn. Thfodnr u. Juniliu\, p. »o. n. 1 1. Hit 
 father held an ottinal (>o^i(|on at .^n^l•>ch. 
 and the family was wrallhv (Chrv. «./ fk. 
 iMps. li. in Mignr, /Wf. Gk. -'• ■ • v 
 Theodore's cousin, I'aranius, to 
 of Chrysostom's letter* are ad ( 
 05, 193, 204, 220, III Migne. 111.). 1 
 tant post of civil govrrniiirnt 
 Polychroiims l>ecame bp. of Ih- 
 s«'e of .\pamea. Thro<|orp first 1 
 early companion and friend of t (u . .!■ tn. 
 his fellow-townsman, his equal in rank, 4nc| 
 but two or three vr >r-. ht- -'-nt'T in .ir**. 
 Together with th. i; 
 afterwards bp. of 1 
 tom and The<Klori- 
 sophist I.ibanius (S... .. .. ,. .i -■. ..,. ... 
 
 then at .■Kntioch in th*- /niith of fiis tame. We 
 have the assurance of So/oinni that he en- 
 joyed a philosophical ecluriti n w' i 1. 1 hiv- 
 sostom credits his frieml • 
 but the luxurious life of ; 
 to have rj-ceived an equal 
 When C hrysostom himsrlt h il ' 
 from the pliasurrs of the worM 
 ence of Il.isil, he siircerdpcl tn • 
 nius anil Thefnlorc to tJi- 1 'i** 
 
 three frirnds left I ibai .hi a 
 
 retreat in the !n<>fi i»(ir . .<•»"! 
 
 Carteriiis an ><■'-■ ■■ - 
 
 already ati ' 
 
 been previ, 
 sostom. howi . . 
 wards in tmns ^ 
 baptism (ad Th. I 
 the new Iranui!.: 
 His da vs. .. 
 reading, hi' 
 lay on the ' 
 form of a'^' 
 withal of li. 
 the srrv\rt. 
 His c 
 niar\- 
 rra' ; 
 
 of hi. : . : 
 
 kigned bmiicii lu a ccIiImIc U(« wUu ha 
 
966 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 was fascinated by a girl named Hermione 
 (Chrys. tb. i., Migne, xlvii. p. 297), and 
 contemplated marriage, at the same time 
 returning to his former manner of life (Soz. 
 viii. 2). His "fall" spread consternation 
 through the little society. Many were the 
 prayers offered and efforts made' for his re- 
 covery. " Valerius, Florentius, Porph^,Tius, 
 and many others," laboured to restore him ; 
 and the anxiety drew forth from Chrysostom 
 the earliest of his literary compositions — two 
 letters " to Theodore upon his fall." The 
 second letter reveals at once the strength of 
 Chrysostom's affection, and the greatness of 
 the character in which at that early age 
 (Theodore was not yet 20) he had already 
 found so much to love. Theodore remained 
 constant to his vows (Soz. I.e.), although the 
 disappointment left traces in his after-life. 
 
 Chrysostom's connexion with Diodore was 
 probably broken off in 374, when he plunged 
 into a more complete monastic seclusion ; 
 Theodore's seems to have continued until the 
 elevation of Diodore to the see of Tarsus a.d. 
 378. During this period doubtless the foun- 
 dations were laid of Theodore's acquaintance 
 with Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical doc- 
 trine, and he was imbued for life with the 
 principles of scriptural interpretation which 
 Diodore had inherited from an earlier genera- 
 tion of Antiochenes, and with the peculiar 
 views of the Person of Christ into which the 
 master had been led by his antagonism to 
 Apollinarius. The latter years of this decade 
 witnessed Theodore's first appearance as a 
 writer. He began with a commentary on the 
 Psalms, in which the method of Diodore was 
 exaggerated, and which he lived to repent of 
 (Facund. iii. 6, x. i ; v. infra, § III.). The 
 orthodox at Antioch. it seems, resented the 
 loss of the traditional Messianic interpretation, 
 and, if we may trust Hesychius, Theodore was 
 compelled to promise that he would commit 
 his maiden work to the flames^an engagement 
 he contrived to evade (Mansi, ix. 284). 
 
 Gennadius {de Vir. III. 12) represents 
 Theodore as a presbyter of the church of 
 Antioch ; and from a letter of John of Antioch 
 (Facund. ii. 2) we gather that 45 years elapsed 
 between his ordination and his death. It 
 seems, therefore, that he was ordained priest 
 at Antioch a.d. 383, in his 33rd vear, the 
 ordaining bishop being doubtless ' Flavian, j 
 Diodore's old friend and fellow-labourer, 
 whose " loving disciple " Theodore now be- 
 came (John of Antioch, ap. Facund. I.e.). 
 The epithet seems to imply that Theodore was 
 an attached adherent of the Meletian party ; 
 but there is no evidence that he mixed himself 
 up with the feuds which for some years after 
 Flavian's consecration distracted the Cath- 
 olics of Antioch. Theodore's great treatise 
 on the Incarnation (Gennad. I.e.) belongs to 
 this period, possibly also more than one of his I 
 commentaries on the O.T. As a preacher he 
 seems to have now attained some eminence 
 in the field of polemics (Facund. viii. 4). 
 Theodore is said bv Hesvchius of Jerusalem 
 (Mansi, ix. 248) to have left Antioch while 
 yet a priest and betaken himself to Tarsus, I 
 until 392, when he was consecrated to the see I 
 of Mopsuestia, vacant by the death of Olvm- j 
 pius, probably through the influence and | 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 by the hands of Diodore. Here he spent his 
 remaining 36 years of life (Theodoret. I.e.). 
 
 Mopsuestia was a free town (Pliny) upon 
 the PjTamus, between Tarsus and Issus, some 
 40 miles from either, and X2 from the sea. It 
 belonged to Cilicia Secunda, of which the 
 metropolitan see was Anazarbus. In the 4th 
 cent, it was of some importance, famous for 
 its bridge, thrown over the P^Tramus by Con- 
 stantine. It is now the insignificant town 
 Mensis, or Messis (D. of G. and R. Geogr.). 
 
 Theodore's long episcopate was marked by 
 no striking incidents. His letters, long known 
 to the Nestorians of S>Tia as the Book of 
 Pearls, are lost ; his followers have left us 
 few personal recollections. In 394 he at- 
 tended a synod at Constantinople on a ques- 
 tion which concerned the see of Bostra in the 
 partiarchate of Antioch (Mansi, iii. 851 ; cf. 
 Hefele, ii. 406). Theodore preached, probably 
 on this occasion, before the emperor Theo- 
 dosius I., who was then starting for his last 
 journey to the West. The sermon made a 
 deep impression, and Theodosius, who had 
 sat at the feet of St. Ambrose and St. Gregory 
 of Nazianzus, declared that he had never met 
 with such a teacher (John of Antioch, ap. 
 Facund. ii. 2). The younger Theodosius in- 
 herited his grandfather's respect for Theodore, 
 and often wrote to him. Another glimpse of 
 Theodore's episcopal life is supplied by a letter 
 of Chrysostom to him from Cucusus (a.d. 
 404-407) (Chrys. Ep. 212, Migne, Iii. 668). 
 The exiled patriarch " can never forget the 
 love of Theodore, so genuine and warm, so 
 sincere and guileless, a love maintained from 
 early years, and manifested but now." Chry- 
 sostom {Ep. 204) thanks him profoundly for 
 frequent though ineffectual efforts to obtain 
 his release. No titles of honour, no terms of 
 affection, seem too strong to be lavished on 
 his friend. Finally, he assures Theodore 
 that, " exile as he is, he reaps no ordinary 
 consolation from having such a treasure, such 
 a mine of wealth within his heart, as the love 
 of so vigilant and noble a soul." Higher 
 testimony could not have been borne, or by 
 a more competent judge ; and so much was 
 this felt by Theodore's enemies at the fifth 
 council that they vainly made efforts to deny 
 the identity of Chrysostom's correspondent 
 with the bp. of Mopsuestia. 
 
 Notwithstanding his literary activity, Theo- 
 dore worked zealously for the good of his 
 diocese. The famous letter of Ibas (Mansi, 
 vii. 247 ; Facund. vii. 7) testifies that he 
 converted Mopsuestia to the truth, i.e. extin- 
 guished Arianism and other heresies there. 
 Several of his works are doubtless monuments 
 of these pastoral labom-s, e.g. the catechetical 
 lectures, the ecthesis, and possibly the treatise 
 on " Persian Magic." Yet his episcopal work 
 was by no means simply that of a diocesan 
 bishop. Everywhere he was regarded as " the 
 herald of the truth and the doctor of the 
 church " ; " even distant churches received 
 instruction from him." So boasts Ibas to 
 Maris, and his letter was read without a 
 dissentient voice at the council of Chalcedon 
 (Facund. ii. i seq.). Theodore "expounded 
 Scripture in all the chiurches of the East," 
 says John of Antioch {ib. ii. 2) with Oriental 
 hyperbole, and adds that in his lifetime Theo- 
 
THEODORUS 
 
 dore was never arr.nKned hv anv o( the i^rtho. 
 dox. But ill a letter to Nestorius (ih. %. i) 
 John beRs him t<> retract. iir^MiK the exainpir 
 of Theodtiro, who, when in a sermon at Aiitux-h 
 he had said something which nave great and 
 manifest offence, for the sake of pearr and to 
 avoid scandal, after a few davs as puMirlv 
 corrected himself. Leonlius tells us (MiK'ne 
 Ixxxvi. i3t)3) that the ciuse of offence was a 
 denial to the Blessed Virgin of the title 
 ff(0T6K0t. So great was the storm that the 
 people threatened to stone the preacher (l vril. 
 Alex. /•:/). f>q ; Micne. Ixxvii. 340). The hereti- 
 cal sects attacked bv Theodore shewed their 
 resentment in a wav less overt, but perhaps 
 more formidable. Thev tampered with his 
 writings, hoping thus to involve him in hetero- 
 dox statements (Facund. x. i ). 
 
 Theodore's last years were perplexed bv a 
 new controversy. When in 41 H the Pelagian 
 leaders were deposed and exiled from the West, 
 they sought in the East the svmpathv of the 
 chief living representative of the school of 
 Antioch. The fact is recorded bv Manns 
 Mercator, who makes the most of it {Pra//. 
 ad Symb. Thend. Mop. 72). With Theodore 
 they probably remained till 422. when Julian 
 returned to Italy. Julian's visit was doubt- 
 less the occasion upon which Theodore wrote 
 his book Against the Defetuifrs of Ortf;inal 
 Stn. Mercator charges Theiidore with having 
 turned against Jtiiian as soon as the latter had 
 left Mopsuestia, and anathematized him in a 
 provincial synod (0/1. cil. 3). The synod can 
 hardly be a fabrication, since .Mercator was a 
 contemp<irary writer ; but it was very pos- 
 sibly convened, as Fritzsche suggests, without 
 any special reference to the Pelagian question. 
 If Theodore then read his ecthesis, the 
 anathema with which that ends might have 
 been represented outside the council as a 
 synodical condemnation of the Pelagian 
 chiefs. Mercator's words, in fact, point to 
 this explanation. 
 
 A greater heresiarch than Julian visited 
 Mopsuestia in the last year of Theodore's life. 
 It is stated by Evagrius (//. K. i. 2 ; Migne, 
 Ixxxvi. 2425) that Nestorius, on his way from 
 Antioch to Constantinople (a.d. 42H), took 
 counsel with Theodf)re and received from him 
 the seeds of heresy which he shortly after- 
 wards scattered with such disastrous results. 
 Evagrius makes this statement on the author- 
 ity of one Theodulus, a person otherwise 
 unknown. We may safely reject it, so far as 
 it derives the Christologv of Nestorius from 
 this single interview. The germ of the 
 Nestorian doctrine was in the teaching of I)|o- 
 dore and in the earliest works of Thet>dore ; 
 it could not have been new to Nestorius, as a 
 prominent teacher of the church of Antioch. 
 
 Towards the close of 428 (Thco<loret, //. K. 
 V. 39) Theodore died, worn f>iit bv so vear* 
 (Facund. ii. 2) of literary and pastoral toil, at 
 the age of 78, having been all his life engaged 
 in controversy, and more than once in conflict 
 with the popular notions of ortho<loxy ; vet 
 he departed, as Facundus (ii. i) triumphantlv 
 points out, in the peace of the church and at the 
 height of a great reputation. The storm wa» 
 gathering, but did nf>t break till he was gone. 
 
 II. Posthumous //is/on'.— The popularity 
 of Theodore was increased by hi» death. 
 
 TMEOnORUS 
 
 0»»7 
 
 Mrlrtnis. his Mirre*vir ;it M'>I 
 te%tr<l th.it hi* life w.nitfl havr t . 
 if he had nl(rre<i 4 w.nd 4j!4in%t 
 sor ( Tilleni. M/m. xtt. p. 44 j). \\r |.r;ir\r 
 
 as Thr.Klorr Iwllrvrd ; l..n« ||vr the fjllh of 
 ihrtMlorr ! •■ wa\ 4 try ..ftrn he,rd in tSe 
 churches of thr |.a»t (I Vril. AI. ' ■ 
 " We had rathrr l>c burnt tK 
 Theodore." was the reply •>( il 
 SxTia to the parly ragrr (..r his . 
 iPp. 72). The flanir wa* Ir.l b 
 who had been disnplr* of thr It,' 
 Theodiiret. who rrgardrd him .1 
 of the universal rhiirch " (//. /■. v i,) , l,v 
 Ibas (if Edessa. who in 4 H wrote hit lamou% 
 letter to Maris in praise i.f Thr.KlofP . by 
 John, who in 4.''l surrrr.lrd to thr sfr nt 
 .Antioch. Net Th«-.Ml<.rr s ashrs wrtr srarrrlv 
 cold whrn in other fjn irtTs ni«-n Ix-^An to 
 hold hini up to .'I ' • ' irlv perhjpt 
 
 as 431 Marius Mer. 1 him 4* the 
 
 real authi>rof the I'. ./.|A. im/>h<V. 
 
 iM irf>i<i Juhani. /•, ... PtUt. 1,mI. 
 
 xlviii. no) ; and not l..ii^ ad. 1 ward* prrfacr-d 
 his translation of Themlorc's ecthe^is with 4 
 still more violent attack on him as the pre- 
 cursor of Nestorianism {th. pp. inH, 104^. 
 1048). The council of Ephrsus. however, 
 while it conrlemned Net this bv name, con- 
 tented itself with • Theod<ire'« 
 cree<l without ineiili e ; 4t,d the 
 Nestorian partv f : ; b^rk ui>on 
 the Words of Theixi..!. ... ■ -. mUi^ 
 them in several l.ingiiages , Iw^t 
 available exposition of t!: Tat. 
 Brn'. 10). This circum-i i: . , .1 the 
 mistrust of the orth.wlox. ami ewi» m the East 
 there were not wanting some who pr'X-e«Kle<l 
 to con<leinn the teaching of Th<-<M|ore. He»v- 
 chiiis of Jerusalem, alwiut 4 u. alt.irkrd him 
 in his EccUsnislKal Hi\li>r\ ; Kablxilas. bp of 
 Edessa. who at Ephesus had sided with John 
 of Antioch. now publicly analhcmatixed 
 Theodore (Ibas. F.f<. ad Matin.)- Proclu* 
 demanded from the bishops "f 'i\Tin a con- 
 demnation of certain pr^; ; •>*e<l 
 to have l>een drawn from t' Theo- 
 dore. (^Til. who h.id oni • jf>lv 
 
 of some of Theodi'res work . . 111. ^). 
 
 now under the influence of Kabbtil^a look a 
 decided attitude of omvtsition ; he wrote to 
 the svno<l of Antioch (Ep. 67) that the opinion* 
 of l>io<lore. ThefKlorr, and others of the unte 
 sch'M.ls had " lM>rne down with full sail upon 
 the glorv of ( hrist " ; to il,.- ni.i-ri.r lEp. 
 71). that DifHlore and I •- th«« 
 
 parents of the blaspheinv |o 
 
 Procliis {Ep. 72). that ha-l . , tllll 
 
 alive an<l o|>rnlv approved .1 i ■ r ir „ runit o| 
 Nestorius. he ought lindoiil)te<llv to h*\e been 
 anathemali/ed : but as he was ilead. it W4» 
 enough to roiidenin the >■•'■■•■- •■< t •• >"<ok«. 
 having regard to the |. me*^ 
 
 more extreme nie.isMres u th»» 
 
 East. Me rollefted an<l ir les of 
 
 proposiiitins gathered from the Mutiny n| 
 Pirxlore and TherKlore (MiKne. itvt. 14 (N 
 se<|.). a w«»k to which The.«|.ifel reddled short- 
 ly afterwards. The ferment then subsulnl 
 for a time, t>t|t the dlsriples of The'xlofe. fe. 
 pulsed in the West, pushe.l their W4V from 
 
 Eastern S\Tia to Persia. Iba*. who •urere«lr<I 
 RabbuUt in 4 1). resitted tb« tchral ol Kci<>iMi. 
 
968 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 and it continued to be a nursery of Theodore's 
 theology till suppressed by Zeno, a.d. 489. 
 At Nisibis Barsumas, a devoted adherent of 
 the party, was bp. from 435 to 489. Upon 
 the suppression of the school of Edessa, Nisibis 
 became the seat of the Antiochene exegesis and 
 theology. The Persian kings favoured a 
 movement distasteful to the empire ; and 
 Persia was henceforth the headquarters of 
 Nestorianism. Among the Nestorians of 
 Persia the writings of Theodore were regarded 
 as the standard both of doctrine and of 
 interpretation, and the Persian church re- 
 turned the censures of the orthodox by pro- 
 nouncing an anathema on all who opposed or 
 rejected them (cf. Assem. iii. i. 84 ; and for 
 a full account of the spread of Theodore's 
 opinions at Edessa and Nisibis see Kihn, 
 Theodor u. Junilius, pp. 198-209. 333-336). 
 At a later period the school of Nisibis reacted 
 on the West, and the influence, though not the 
 name, of Theodore appears in the Instituta 
 Regularia of Junilius Africanus, and in the de 
 Institutione Divinarum Literarum of Cassio- 
 dorus (Kihn, pp. 209 seq.). 
 
 The 6th cent, witnessed another and final 
 outbreak of bitter hatred against Theodore, 
 The fifth general council (533), under the in- 
 fluence of the emperor Justinian, pronounced 
 the anathema which Theodosius II. had re- 
 fused to sanction and which even Cyril shrank 
 from uttering. This condemnation of Theo- 
 dore and his two supporters shook the fabric 
 of the Catholic church. This is not the place 
 to enter upon the history of the "Three 
 Chapters," but we may point out one result 
 of Justinian's policy. The West, Africa 
 especially, rebelled against a decree which 
 seemed to set at nought the authority of the 
 councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and also 
 violated the sanctity of the dead. It was from 
 no particular interest in Theodore's doctrine 
 or method of interpretation that the African 
 bishops espoused his cause. Bp. Pontian 
 plainly told the emperor that he had asked 
 them to condemn men of whose writings they 
 knew nothing (Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixvii. 997)- 
 But the stir about Theodore led to inquiry ; 
 his works, or portions of them, were translated 
 and circulated in the West. It is almost cer- 
 tainly to this cause that we owe the preserva- 
 tion in a Latin dress of at least one-half of 
 Theodore's commentaries on St. Paul. Pub- 
 lished under the name of St. Ambrose, the 
 work of Theodore passed from Africa into the 
 monastic libraries of the West, was copied into 
 the compilations of Rabanus Maurus and 
 others, and in its fuller and its abridged form 
 supplied the Middle Ages with an accepted 
 interpretation of an important part of Holy 
 Scripture. The name of Theodore, however, 
 disappears almost entirely from Western 
 church literature after the 6th cent. It was 
 scarcely before the iqth cent, that justice was 
 done by Western writers to the importance of 
 the great Antiochene as a theologian, an 
 expositor, and a precursor of later thought. 
 
 III. Literary Remains. — Facundus (x. 4) 
 speaks of Theodore's " innumerable books " ; 
 John of Antioch, in a letter quoted by Facun- 
 dus (ii. 2), describes his polemical works as 
 alone numbering " decem millia " (i.e. fivpia), 
 an exaggeration of course, but based on fact. 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 A catalogue of such of his writings as were 
 once extant in Syriac translations is given by 
 Ebedjesu, Nestorian metropolitan of Soba, 
 A.D. 1318 (J. S. Assem. Bibl. OrienLiii. i. pp. 
 30 seq.). These Syriac translations filled 41 
 tomes. Only one whole work remains. 
 
 (a) Exegetical Writings.— (i) Old Testa' 
 ment. (a) Historical Books. — A commentary 
 on Genesis is cited by Cosmas Indicopleustes, 
 John Philoponus, and Photius (Cod. 3, 8). 
 Fragments of the Greek original survive in the 
 catena of Nicephorus (Lips. 1772). Latin 
 fragments are found in the Acts of the second 
 council of Constantinople, and an important 
 collection of Syriac fragments from the Nitrian 
 MSS. of the British Museum was pub. by Dr. 
 E. Sachau (Th. Mops. Fragm. Syriaca, Lips. 
 1869, pp. I -21). Photius, criticizing the 
 
 style of this work in words more or less 
 applicable to all the remains of Theodore, 
 notices the writer's opposition to the allegori- 
 cal method of interpretation. Ebedjesu was 
 struck by the care and elaboration bestowed 
 upon the work. The catenae contain frag- 
 ments attributed to Theodore upon the re- 
 maining books of the Pentateuch and of 
 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings 
 (Mai, Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. praef. p. xxi.). 
 Theodore is stated by Leontius (Migne, Patr. 
 Gk. Ixxxvi. 1368) to have rejected the two 
 books of Chronicles, and there is no trace of 
 any comments upon them bearing his name. 
 
 (b) Poetical Books. — Theodore's commentary 
 on Job was dedicated to St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria. Of all his works it seems to have been 
 the least worthy of this dedication. Only 
 four fragments survive (Mansi, ix. pp. 223 seq.), 
 but they are sufficient to justify the censure 
 pronounced upon the work by the Fifth 
 council. Theodore regards Job as an histori- 
 cal character, but considers him as traduced 
 by the author of the book, whom he considers 
 to have been a pagan Edomite. 
 
 The Psalms were the earliest field of Theo- 
 dore's hermeneutical labours. The printed 
 fragments, Greek and Latin, fill 25 columns in 
 Migne. More recently attention has been 
 called to a Syriac version (Baethgen), and new 
 fragments of a Latin version and of the ori- 
 ginal Greek have been printed. That his 
 first literary adventure was hasty and pre- 
 mature was frankly acknowledged by Theo- 
 dore himself (Facund. I.e.). His zeal for the 
 historical method of interpretation led him to 
 deny the application to Christ of all but 3 or 
 4 of the Psalms usually regarded as Messianic. 
 No fragments have hitherto been discovered 
 of the commentary of Ecclesiastes, which 
 Ebedjesu counts among the Syriac transla- 
 tions. From the remains of the commentary 
 on Job it appears that Theodore expressly 
 denied the higher inspiration of both the 
 sapiential books of Solomon. Of the Canticles 
 he writes in terms of positive contempt (Mansi, 
 ix. 225). He repudiates imputations of im- 
 modesty on it, but denies its spiritual charac- 
 ter. It is merely the epithalamium of 
 Pharaoh's daughter, a relic of Solomon's 
 lighter poetry, affording an insight into his 
 domestic life. For this reason, he adds, it 
 had never been read in synagogue or church, 
 (c) Prophetical Books. — A commentary on 
 the four greater prophets is in Ebedjesu's list ; 
 
 I 
 
THEODORUS 
 
 but one or two incditrd fr.iijincnts .»l'<nr 
 remain. The coininentarv on the iniiinr 
 prophets has boon prosor\od and pul)lisho»l ui 
 its integrity by Mai (Konio. iS^s-iS^j) ami 
 Wegnern. Its exoRelical value is dimin- 
 
 ished by Theodore's absolute conlidence in the 
 LXX, excessive independence of earlier her- 
 meneutical authorities, and reluctance to 
 admit a Christoloi;ical reference, as well as 
 by hi* usual defects of stylo. It is. neverthe- 
 less, a considerable monument of his exposi- 
 tory power, and the best illustration we 
 possess of the .\ntiochene method of inter- 
 preting O.T. prophecv. 
 
 (ii) .V.r. {a) The ' Gospels. —Ebediesii re- 
 counts commentaries on SS. Matthew, Luke, 
 and John. Fragments of these, with the 
 remaining NT. fragments, wore collected and 
 ed. by O. F. Fritzsche (Turici. 1847). and 
 reprinted by .Migne. The commentary on 
 St. John exists in a S\Tiac version, and has 
 been pub. by J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1897). 
 
 {b) .icts and Catholic Epistles. — One frag- 
 ment only remains of the commentary on the 
 Acts ; we owe it to the zeal of Theodores 
 opponents at the Fifth council. Notwith- 
 standing Mai(/.c.p. xxi), it is more than doubt- 
 ful whether Theodore wrote upon the Catholic 
 Epistles. With the rest of the .\ntiochians he 
 probably followed the old S\Tian canon in 
 rejecting II. Peter and II. and III. John. 
 
 (c) The Epistles of St. fdfi/.— Fbedjesu dis- 
 tinctly states that Theodore WTOte on all the 
 Pauline epistles, including among them 
 Hebrews. The commentary on Hebrews is 
 cited by the Fifth council, Vigilius and Pela- 
 gius II. ; that on Romans by Facundus (iii. 
 6). A fortunate discovery last century gave 
 
 us a complete Latin version of the commentary 
 on Galatians and the nine following epistles. 
 The Latin, apparently the work of an African 
 churchman of the time of the Fifth council, 
 abounds in colloquial and semi-barbarous 
 forms ; the version is not ahways careful, and 
 sometimes almost hopelessly corrupt. But 
 it gives us the substance of Theodore's inter- 
 pretation of St. Paul, and we have thus a 
 typical commentary from his pen on a 'con- 
 siderable portion of each Testament (pub. by 
 Camb. Univ. Press, 1880- 1882). 
 
 (b) Controversial Writi.st.s. — (a) Chief 
 amongst these, and first in point of time, was 
 the treatise, in 15 books, on the Incarnation. 
 According to (iennadius {de I'ir. III. 12) it 
 was directed against the .Apollinarians an<l 
 Eunomians, and written while the author was 
 yet a presbyter of .Antioch, i.e. a.d. ^Hz-yii. 
 Gennadius adds an outline of the contents. 
 After a loi^ical and scriptural demonstration 
 of the truth and perfection of each of the 
 natures in Christ, Theodore deals more at 
 length with the Sacred .Manh'H>d. In bk. xiv. 
 he approached the mystery of the Holy 
 Trinitv and the relation of the croalure to the 
 Divine Nature ; in xv. the work w.is con- 
 cluded, teste Gennadius, with an appeal tn 
 authority : " citatis etiam patrum traditioni- 
 bus." Large fragments of this treatise have 
 been collected from various quarters. None 
 of the remains of Theodore throw such import- 
 ant light upon his Christologv. 
 
 (ft) Books agatnU A pnllinariantsm. — Facun- 
 dus (viii. 2) says that Theodore wrote several 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 l»fl9 
 
 f»nr. 
 
 distiurl tr- r 
 
 rnlitlrd df 
 
 writ ton, .IS I cvlv- 
 
 ing Ir.tgmnit. ,,. s. ,, , .,, i i-.. i:. ,:■. r ..„ |ho 
 Inranntion (F.icund. x. i ). A numl^rr of im- 
 portant fragmrntH i>rrs<-rvr<l m thr Coti«i4nli- 
 nopolitan .\rt* ami '•• "■ ..•..,., .1 t-inm. 
 dus, Justinian, I.r. , ,| j,, 
 
 bks. ill. .ind IV. " \ 
 
 (f) ThrcHlorewp.t. ,Mln»t 
 
 Hunomius, and a ^in^;ll rh.irji i< n.tu trj^mmt 
 has survived (F.»cunil. ix. \). The work pro- 
 fessed to br a defrncr of ^( II , il In the 
 original it re.iched the pr- ' of J5 
 
 (Phot. Cod. ^) or even of K>k*. 
 
 Photius complain-i bittn; i» o| 
 
 style, and doubts thr ..it;i..|,,v ..( the 
 wTitor, but admits its rlr.»riirs<i of arftumrtil 
 and wealth of scriptural pr.wif. 
 
 id) I-:bedjcsu includes in his li»t " two tnmct 
 on the Holy Spirit " ; orobaMv a work directed 
 against the heresy of tne Pnetimatomachi , hut 
 see Klener, Svmh. I, iter. p. 7<>. 
 
 (<") Three books on " Persian Ma^jic." We 
 le.ini from Photius that bk. 1. was an ex|Hnure 
 of the Zoroastrian svstnn ; bks. h. and ill. 
 cont.iined a comprehensive sketch of the 
 history and d'X-trines of Christianitv, Iwnin- 
 ning with the Biblical account of the Cre.»tion. 
 In this portion, especiallv in bk. lii., Theodora 
 botraved his " Nestorian " views, and even 
 advanced the startling theorv of a final re- 
 storati<m of all men. One cannot but regret 
 the utter loss of so remarkable a volume, 
 especially as it se<'ms to have been wTitten in 
 the interests of Christian missions, an earnest 
 of the missionary snirit which was afterwards 
 so marked in the Nestorian church. 
 
 (/) .According to Kl>edjesu. Theo<|<ire wrote 
 " two tomes against him who ass<rts that sin 
 is inherent in human nature." The heading, 
 as given in .Marius .Mercator, who published 
 Latin excerpts from this book shortly after 
 The<xlore's death, is merely an ex parte de- 
 scription of its contents : " t Ontra S. .Angus- 
 tinum defendcntem originale j»eccatum rt 
 .Adam per transgrossionem tnortalem tarluin 
 catholice rlisserontem." Mercator, a friend 
 and disciple of .St. .Augustine, n<>t unn.ilurallv 
 imagined Thetnlore's work to be directed 
 against the great Western assailant of JVIa* 
 gius ; but The<Hlore sr«-fns ariuallv to have 
 selected Jerome as the representative of the 
 principh's he attacks. Such as Ihev are, the 
 remains of this Ixnik form our l>e\t guide to 
 the anlhro|X)logv of The<H|ore. 
 
 (C) PkACTItAL, PaST<»MAI, and l.lTtlHilCAL 
 
 Wkitisc.s.- -Fbe<l)csu mention* a Ireatiw (>» 
 
 the I'rieithood, which w;-- • 1. •- - > .-i 
 
 extensive one, probably u ' 
 
 of the Sarrailients as b.i- 
 
 of the Incarnation. It 
 
 chius tells us. In The«K|..r< , ..i.l a^r. .A 
 
 more popular treatment of the same «iib)rct 
 
 seems to havel>ecn alt<ni| |. I in \hr t lir, d^i. 
 
 ical Lectures (" ( .1' 
 
 Marius Mercator; : 
 
 " Allfw-titi.nr- nrl 
 
 (ix. 
 
 The 
 
 viii.. 
 
 of the .,....■„.■> A .. ^ ■• 
 
 Syriac exists in the library ot the Americao 
 
970 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 College at Beyrout. Fritzsche thinks that to 
 some copies at least of these lectures Theodore 
 appended (i) an explanation of the creed of 
 Nicaea, a fragment of which, preserved by the 
 Fifth council, suggests that its object was to 
 interpret the creed in harmony with the 
 bishop's teaching upon the Person of Christ ; 
 and (2) the ecthesis afterwards produced at 
 the Third council by the Philadelphian pres- 
 byter Charisius, and condemned, but without 
 mention of the author's name (Mansi, iv. 1347 
 seq.)- The document corresponds closely 
 with Theodore's teaching, reveals his style in 
 both its weakness and strength, and was 
 attributed to him by his contemporary Mer- 
 cator, who bases on it his attack upon Theo- 
 dore's Christology. The ecthesis was probably 
 composed in good faith, and intended to serve 
 the interests of the Catholic doctrine. 
 
 Lastly, Leontius intimates that Theodore 
 wrote a portion of a liturgy ; " not content 
 with drafting a new creed, he sought to impose 
 upon the church a new Anaphora " (Migne, 
 Ixxxvi. 1367). A Syriac liturgy ascribed to 
 " Mar Teodorus the Interpreter " is still used 
 by the Christians of Assyria for a third of the 
 year, from Advent to Palm Sunday. The 
 proanaphoral and post -communion portions 
 are supplied by the older liturgy "of the 
 Apostles " (so called), the anaphora only being 
 peculiar. A Latin version of this anaphora is 
 in Renaudot, pub. in English by Dr. Neale 
 (Hist. H. E. Ch.) and Dr. Badger {Eastern Ch. 
 Assoc, occasional paper, xvii., Rivingtons, 
 1875). Internal evidence confirms the judg- 
 ment of Dr. Neale, who regards it as a genuine 
 work of Theodore. 
 
 IV. Doctrine. — We deal with the peculiari- 
 ties of Theodore's teaching under: (a) An- 
 thropology, (b) Christolog3', (c) Soteriology. 
 
 (a) His whole doctrinal system hinges, as 
 Neander and Dorner rightly judged, upon his 
 conception of man's relation to the Universe 
 and to God. (i) The L^niverse (6 K6(Tfxos = r] 
 <r^lJ.ira(Ta Kritris) is an organic whole {iv (TCifta). 
 consisting of elements partly visible and 
 material, partly invisible and spiritual. Of 
 this organism man is the predestined bond 
 {<pi\las ivix^'pov, <TiV5e(r/xos, ffvva.4)(La, copula- 
 tio), and therefore made a composite creature, 
 his body derived from material elements, 
 his spiritual nature akin to pure spirits, the 
 vorjTai (phceis. He was also to be the image 
 of God, i.e. His visible representative, and as 
 such to receive the homage of all creation. 
 Hence all things minister to him, and even 
 angelic beings superintend the movements of 
 the physical world for his benefit. Man is 
 thus the crowning work of the Creator, and 
 the proper medium of communication between 
 the Creator and the creature. (2) In the 
 history of all intelligent created life, Theodore 
 distinguishes two stages {KaracTTdireis), the 
 first a state of flux, exposed to conflict, temp- 
 tation, and mortality ; the second immutable, 
 and free from all the forms of moral and 
 physical evil. From the beginning God pur- 
 posed that the second of these conditions (17 
 /LieXXoi'cra KaTacrTacns) should be revealed 
 through the Incarnation of His Son. Man 
 was created in the former state, his nature 
 being from the first liable to dissolution. 
 " Earth to earth " — the human body natur- 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 ally returns to the element from which it was 
 taken. (3) The fall therefore did not intro- 
 duce mortality, but converted the liability 
 into a fact. It was not said, " Ye shall 
 become mortal," but " Ye shall die." As a 
 matter of fact, " death came by sin " ; and 
 the dissolution of soul and body was followed 
 by the still more serious dissolution of the 
 bond which in the person of man had hitherto 
 knit together the visible and invisible crea- 
 tions. The fall of the first man gave sin a 
 foothold in the world. The same result fol- 
 lowed in the case of each descendant of Adam 
 who sinned ; and since all sinned, death 
 " passed upon all men, for that all sinned." 
 (4) As our mortality was no after-thought with 
 God, so neither was the sentence of death 
 a vindictive punishment. The present life, 
 with its vicissitudes and probationary trials, 
 is a wholesome discipline, affording room for 
 the exercise of free will and the attainment of 
 goodness, which without our efforts would be 
 destitute of moral worth. Although human 
 nature is free, yet in its present condition of 
 mortality and mutability it is insufficient to 
 conquer the forces of evil and attain perfect 
 virtue without supernatural aid. A new 
 creation is needed to abolish sin and death. 
 
 (b) We are thus brought to Theodore's doc- 
 trine of the mission and Person of Christ, 
 (i) The mission of Christ is primarily to restore 
 the shattered unity of the Kdafios and gather 
 up all things to Himself, by realizing in His 
 Person the position of man as the visible 
 Image of God and the head of the whole 
 Creation ; secondarily, to restore mankind by 
 union with Himself as the Second Adam and 
 the Head of the Church to a condition of per- 
 fect deliverance from sin and death. (2) To 
 fulfil this mission it was necessary that God 
 the Word should become perfect man. The 
 perfection of His manhood required Him to 
 possess a rational human soul, capable of 
 exercising a real choice between good and 
 evil, although persistently choosing good ; and 
 to attain the perfection of human experience 
 it was necessary for Him to take human nature 
 in its mutable state, to pass through a period 
 of growth, and to enter into conflict not only 
 with the Evil One, but with the passions of 
 j the human soul. (3) Though perfect man, 
 the man Christ surpassed all other men. He 
 was absolutely free from sin, and His life was 
 a continual progress from one stage of virtue 
 to another, a meritorious course of which the 
 end was victory over death and an entrance 
 into the immortal and immutable state. This 
 sinlessness and ultimate perfection of the 
 manhood of Christ was due {a) to His super- 
 natural birth and subsequent baptism of the 
 Spirit, which He received in a manner peculiar 
 to Himself, i.e. in the fullness of His grace ; but 
 yet more (6) to His union with the Person of 
 the Divine Word. This union he had indeed 
 received as the reward of His foreseen sin- 
 lessness and virtue, for with Him, as with the 
 rest of mankind, divine gifts depended upon 
 the action of the human will. The union, 
 however, necessarily reacted on the Man, with 
 whom the Word was made one ; the co- 
 operation of the Indwelling Godhead rendered 
 it morally impossible for him to fall into sin. 
 (4) But after what manner did the Word unite 
 
THEODORUS 
 
 Himself to the Man whom He .insuiucI a 
 priori there mv thror conceivaMe m.«lr> ol 
 divine indwelling : it nujcht l>e essrnli.il, 
 effectual, or moral (icor' oiViar. Kar «'r,,i->f ,ar. 
 Ka.T (vboKia¥). An ejwciuial indwrllmn i 
 God is excluded by every adequate idea of lli 
 Nature. The indwelliuK of liod in (. hrist an.! 
 in the saints is genfrtcally the vame. but there 
 is an all-important sputfic difference, bv which 
 Theodore strives to retain the conception of a 
 true incarnation of dod. " I am not so ntail." 
 he says, " as to affirn* that the indwi-llniK of 
 God in Christ is after the same manner as m 
 the saints. He dwelt in Christ an in a Son {J, 
 iv ii<^) ; I niean that He united the assumed 
 man entirely to Himself and httrd him t<. 
 partake with Him of all the honour of which 
 the indwelling Person. Who is Son bv nature, 
 partakes." Further, the union of the \V(.rd 
 with the man Christ differs from the divine 
 indwelling in the saints in two other im(v>rtant 
 particulars. It began with the first f<irmalion 
 of the Sacred ManhiM>d in the Xirgin's womb 
 (" a prima statim plasmatione . . . Creator . . . 
 occulte eidem copulatus existens non aber.ii 
 cum formaretur, non dividebatur cum nasce 
 batur '■). .\nd once having taken effect, the 
 union remains indissoluble (axt^piaror ■wp6\ 
 •njf OfioiV <t)V(Tiv l^wv TTji- (Tvvaf tiav). So close 
 was the union, so ineffable, that the Word and 
 the man He assumed may be regarded and 
 spoken of as One Person, even as man and 
 wife are " no longer two but one fl<'sh " ; or 
 as " the reasonable soul and flesh are one 
 man." Hence in ScrijUure things are often 
 predicated of one of the natures which belong 
 to the other. Hence the question whether the 
 Virgin is rightly called avepu}-roT6\m or 0(ot6- 
 Ko% is an idle one ; for she was both. She 
 was the mother of the .Man, but in that Man 
 when she gave Him birth there was already the 
 indwelling of (iod. On the other hand, every 
 idea of the Incarnation which tends to a con- 
 fusion of the natures is to be jealouslv ex- 
 cluded. When St. John says that " the Word 
 was made flesh." we must understand him to 
 speak only of what the Word apparently be- i 
 came ; not that the flesh He t<M)k was unreal, 
 but that He was not really transformed into 
 flesh (t6 ' lyhxro "... «cari t6 ioKU¥ . . . ov i 
 ■)dp ix(TCKoir)9r\ fit aapxa). (5) There are not 
 two Sons in Christ, for there are not two ; 
 Christs ; the unity of the Person must be as ' 
 carefullv preserved as the distinction of the 1 
 Natures; the .Man is Son only by virtue of 
 His indissoluble union with the Divine Word ; 
 when we call Christ the Son of <.od. wr think 
 principally of Him Who is truly an<I essentially 
 Son, but we include in our conception the man 
 who is indissolul)ly One with Him. and iherr 
 fore shares His honours and His Name. 
 
 (c) Lastlv, what arc the elements, condi- 
 tions, and iiltimate results of the restorative ^ 
 work which the Incarnate Son came to do ' 
 (I) Theodore pl.ired the redemptive virtue of 
 the death of Christ chieflv in this, that it was 
 the transition of the S«cond .\dam from the 
 mutable state into the immutable, the nerrs- 
 sary step to the resurrect ion -life, in which 
 death and sin are finally abolished. (2) Bap- 
 tism, which represents the death and resur- 
 rection of the I.ord, unites us to the ris«i 
 Christ by a participation of His Spirit, to that I 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 iii.'ul.l th- 11 J I! ,c-nt li\ci Uit" I 
 
 the life o| the r»%rii i hfi»l. <>nd ' 
 
 of the future »tjtr I i\ lu^ • 
 
 juslified bv faith. : 
 
 in somr virt to ai • 
 
 ness. (4) M(i( SI- ■ , 
 
 can onlv be ' ■ 1 [,« 
 
 ParouMa 1 t th* 
 
 church, as Krr4l 
 
 results of t: ^. ,.,^^r^i% 
 
 and the a^/'aprtia ..t the |i.¥lv f>» t hfl»l. 
 Nothing short ..f the final %lJte ..| t>rf frrll.ti 
 which will l>e then inaugurated can ethauti lh« 
 meaning of sueh terms 4« " redemption." 
 "forgiveness of sin*.' and " »alv«tioo." (^) 
 
 Altll .iu-t> III. S.-. ..,> I \.Kr,,t «,1| t,,,„c ttirv* 
 
 pared to be ho|>e|ess. The ptini 
 condi-nined will inder<l Iw |•^ 
 etern.il. Iwing such as W ■ 
 
 not to time ; but both f 
 shew that thev will Iw rn 
 
 ; ance. Where (he .vU,, ; 
 
 I of a resurrection t ii ihrv wrte 
 
 raised onlv to f>e | :t remedy «r 
 
 I end ? What woul : .- meaning nf 
 
 such texts as Matt. \. ih, l.ukr xii. 47. 4K ? 
 Moreover, Thefnlore'* fundamental ermcepKon 
 of the missi<in and Person of t hri»t enmpeU 
 him to l>elieve that there will b« a An«l re> 
 storation of all creation. 
 
 V. Method of Interprrtatiom. ~A* a M'hnUr 
 and success^ir o( DicMlore (cf. S<»rr. vi. \ ; Sox. 
 viii. 2). The(Mlore inherited the Aniiorhrne 
 system of gramm.it iral and historical inter- 
 pretation, and denounced the licence o| the 
 .Mexandrian allegori/er*. The recovery of the 
 commentary on Gal. iv. 24 shews that Theo- 
 dore convinced himself th.it the jtlei;<iriral 
 meth<»d was essentially raliotiaiisiie. under 
 mining the hist<^ical truth "f the O.T. narra- 
 tive. St. P.iul's use of d\Xir>«r<' wa» different 
 in kind, since it presupi*osed the fact* of the 
 historv ami employed them onlv bv way n| 
 illustration. In his own 11 irr ; rrt .tl n -f 
 
 both the historical and | t 
 it was a first principle wii' 
 t.Tin the intefi'i'»n "f the ^• 
 
 
 
 1 car- 
 
 
 
 !fln- 
 
 
 
 
 'ions. 
 
 such as (1) V 
 
 
 •f nr 
 
 of the indiM 
 
 
 e f>| 
 
 the COM. r„ 
 
 
 Mtrr». 
 
 the f 
 
 
 • 401. 
 
 The 1 
 
 
 > 1 1<^ 
 
 (a) l( 
 
 
 ' lh« 
 
 propar.lrutf 
 
 
 > thai 
 
 the divine 1 
 
 
 . Ih* 
 
 whole of Its . 
 
 
 ^ma- 
 
 lion and the «...,[h-i ,. 
 
 < l.fMt llii ' 
 
 tnmenl- 
 
 ary on the minor prophet* ap|>*ar» lo have 
 
972 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 been written to counteract the allegorists. 
 The God of both Testaments, being one and 
 the same, worked out His purpose with a 
 single aim. Hence the events of O.T. were so 
 ordered as to be typical of those which were 
 to follow. Consequently the histories and 
 prophecies of the older revelation are suscep- 
 tible of an application to the facts and doc- 
 trines of the Gospel, to which they offer a 
 divinely foreseen and instinctive parallel. 
 The words of the Psalmists and Prophets are 
 constantly Christological, because the events 
 to which they relate find a perfect counterpart 
 in Christ {in Ps. xvi. xxii.). Their language 
 is often hyperbolical or metaphorical, if viewed 
 in reference to its original object ; exhausting 
 itself only in the higher realities of the king- 
 dom of heaven {in Joel ii. 28I. (b) Except- 
 ing some few passages in which he recognizes 
 direct prophecies of the Messiah and His times, 
 Theodore holds that the language of O.T. is 
 applied to Christ and the Christian dispensa- 
 tion only by way of accommodation. This 
 accommodation is, however, amply justified 
 by the fact that in the divine foreknowledge 
 the earlier cycle of events was designed to be 
 typical of the later. Thus Ps. xxii., Theodore 
 says, is clearly a narrative of David's conflict 
 with Absalom, yet rightly used by the Evan- 
 gelist to portray the passion of Christ, in which 
 the words found a complete, and even to some 
 extent a literal, fulfilment. Again, the words 
 of Joel ii. 28 cannot possibly have been a 
 prediction of the coming of the Holy Ghost, 
 since the O.T. writers knew nothing as yet of 
 a personal Spirit of God ; "I will pour out of 
 my Spirit " meant only " I will extend to all 
 the divine favour and protection." Yet St. 
 Peter rightly quotes the prophecy as finding 
 its accomplishment in the Pentecostal effu- 
 sion ; for its fulfilment to the Jews of the 
 Restoration was a pledge and type of the 
 descent of the Spirit upon the universal 
 church. This view (so Theodore argues) at 
 once secures for the prophecy a historical 
 basis, and magnifies the Christian economy as 
 that which converted into sober fact the 
 highest imagery of the ancient Scriptures. 
 
 If Theodore's N.T. exegesis is less charac- 
 teristic, it is certainly more satisfactory than 
 his interpretation of the Hebrew prophecies. 
 His mind and education were Greek ; in 
 expounding the O.T. he trusted entirely to 
 the guidance of the LXX ; in commenting 
 on the Evangelists and St. Paul he found 
 himself face to face with an original which he 
 was competent to handle upon his own prin- 
 ciples. In the remains of his commentaries 
 of the Gospels we notice the precision with 
 which he adheres to the letter of his author 
 {e.g. on Matt. xxvi. 26), his readiness to press 
 into the service of the interpreter minor words 
 which are commonly overlooked (John xiii. 
 33, dpTi), his attention to the niceties of 
 grammar (iii. 21) and punctuation (ix. 27), his 
 keen discussion of doubtful readings (i. 3), his 
 acuteness in seizing on the iSiW/uara of Scrip- 
 ture (i. 14), and in bringing out the points of 
 a parable or discourse (Mark iv. 26 ; John iii. 
 5, X. I seq., XV. 4, 26). Yet we note a want 
 of spiritual insight (John xi. 21, 6 5^ X^yei 
 K.T.X.) and feeling (xi. 35), and detect an 
 occasional departure from the author's own 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 first principles under the pressure of theo- 
 logical prejudice (xx. 22, 28). The com- 
 mentary on the Pauline Epistles seems on the 
 whole worthy of its author's great name. It 
 manifests in yet greater measure his care and 
 precision, and, in addition, an honest and 
 unceasing effort to trace the sequence of St. 
 Paul's thought. Its principal fault is the 
 continual introduction of theological disquisi- 
 tions, which break the course of the interpre- 
 tation and not seldom carry the reader into 
 speculations entirely foreign to the mind of the 
 Apostle. But even these digressions have 
 their value as expositions of Antiochene theo- 
 logy and as shewing the process by which so 
 acute an intellect as Theodore's could elicit 
 that theology from the Epistles of St. Paul, or 
 reconcile the two systems where they appear 
 to be hopelessly at variance. 
 
 The worth of Theodore's contributions to the 
 exegesis of Scripture has been very variously 
 estimated. He is for ourselves the best 
 exponent of Antiochene exegesis. Diodore 
 has left too little to be representative ; Chry- 
 sostom was a homilist rather than a scientific 
 expositor ; Theodoret is little else than a 
 judicious compiler from Chrysostom and 
 
 ; Theodore. Theodore is an independent writer, 
 yet influenced more deeply than either Chry- 
 sostom or Theodoret by the Antiochene 
 traditions. He had no audience to propitiate, 
 no council to dread, and treads with the firm- 
 ness of a man conscious that he represents a 
 great principle and is fully convinced of its 
 truth. His expositions, especially of N.T., 
 possess intrinsic value of no common kind. 
 Except when led astray by theological pre- 
 possessions, his firm grasp of the grammatical 
 and historical method and a kind of instinctive 
 power of arriving at the drift of his author's 
 thought have enabled him often to anticipate 
 the most recent conclusions of exegesis. Be- 
 sides, however, being deterred by his unwieldy 
 style, the reader misses the devotional and 
 spiritual tone which recommends most Pat- 
 
 ; ristic commentaries. His abundant theo- 
 logical discussions and moral teachings do not 
 compensate for this. Yet after every fair 
 deduction on these and other grounds, we may 
 still assign to Theodore a high rank among 
 commentators proper, and a position in which 
 he stands among ancient expositors of Scrip- 
 
 j ture almost alone — that of an independent 
 inquirer, provided with a true method of 
 eliciting the sense of his author and consider- 
 able skill in the use of it. 
 
 Life and Writings. — O. F. Fritsche, de 
 Theod. Mops. Vita et Scriptis Commentatio 
 Hist. Theologica (Halae, 1836); J. L. Jacobi in 
 Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Christl. Wissenschaft 
 (1854) ; F. J. A. Hort in the Journal of Class. 
 
 I and Sacred Philology, iv. (Camb. 1859) ; 
 
 ! Bickell, Conspect. Rei Syror. Liter. (Monast. 
 
 j 1871) ; H. Kihn, Theodor. v. Mops. u. Junilius 
 Africanus (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1880) ; F. 
 .Loofs,art. "Theodor. v. Mopsuestia" inHauck- 
 Herzog, Realencyklopddie, xix. (1907) ; O. 
 Bardenhewer, Patr. pp. 301 ff. ; F. Barthgen, 
 " Du Psalmenkommentar d. Theodor. v. Mops 
 in Syrichen Bearbeitung," in Z. A. T. IV. v. 
 (1889), " Sichenzahn Makkabaische Psalmen " 
 in Z. A. T. W. vi. (1887); J. B. Chabot, 
 Commentarius Theod. Mops, in Evang. D. 
 
THEODORUS 
 
 Johannis i. {//i/us S\ru^cH^) (Paris. iS.j;) ; 
 J. Lietzinann, Dfr PsaltiirnkoiumftUar. S.li.A. 
 (190;). I'or doctriiif aiul iiiftlnKl ol in- 
 
 terpretation see Neaiult-r, Allgftn. (ifschichu, 
 II. iii. ; DoriUT, l.fhre v. dfr VeT\on 
 Chrislt. n. i. ; art. in Ch. (^^uart. Krv. 
 Oct. i8;5. entitU-d " Thooil..ro and M.«lrrn 
 Thought " ; Prof. Sanday in /-.t/oKi/or. j iino 
 18.S0 ; A. Harnack, art. " Antii>chi-nisrh»- 
 Schule " ill Hauck-Horzog. l\falfncykl«f>iulu, 
 i. (i8q6) ; History 0/ />oi;»»ws (Hng. trans.), iii. 
 279 ff.. iv. 165 ff. : J. H. Soarsby. art. " .\n- 
 tiochene Theology " in Hasting, KhcycIo- 
 paedia of Religion and Ethics, i. (1908) ; j. V. 
 Bethune- Baker, Early History of Christian 
 Doctrine, pp. 256 ff. ; Sestorius anJ his Teach- 
 ing. pa<:sim (1908). Migne's useful hut un- 
 critical od. (vol.66, 1864) of all the pub. works 
 and fragments is in his Patr. <ik. In 1S69 
 Ur. E. Sachau piiblished the inedited Svriac 
 fragments scattered throufih the Nitrian SlSS. 
 of Brit. Mus., with a reprint <>f tlu- Theotlore.ui 
 matter already collected by 1'. de I.agarde in 
 his Analecta Syriaca (Lips. 1858). The an- 
 cient Latin version of the comnientari'.'s on 
 some of the Epp. of St. Paul, with a fresh colla- 
 tion of the Greek fragments, was issued by the 
 Camb. Univ. Press in 1 880-1882. A complete 
 critical edition of all the literary remains of , 
 Theodore is still a desideratum. Of. Zahn, Das 
 N.T. Theoiiors von Mops, in Seue Kirch. 
 Zcitichr. 1900, xi. pp. 7HS f. [n.n.s.] I 
 
 Theodorus (50), bp. of Tyana, a fellow- 
 countryman and correspondent of Cireijory 
 Nazianzen. He was a native of .\ri.inzus. 
 Accompanying Ciregory to Constantinople in 
 379, he shared in the ill-treatment received 
 there horn the .\rian monks and rabble. He 
 subsequently became bp. of Tyana. but not 
 before 381. .After Gregory returned to .Arian- 
 zus many letters of friendship passed between 
 him and Theodore. On the attempt of the 
 .ApoUinarians to perpetuate the schism at 
 Nazianzus. by appointing a bishop of their 
 own. Gregory wrote verv earnestly (a.d. 382) 
 to Theodore, calling on him. as metropolitan, 
 to appoint a bishop to replace him, as age 
 and ill-hea'.th forbad his efficient superintend- 
 ence of the church there {Ep. 88). After 
 being compelled reluctantly to resume the care 
 of Nazianzus, Gregory felt reason to complain 
 of Theodore apparently siding with hi' 
 enemies, and expressed his feelings with 
 vehemence (Ep. 83). Their friendship, how- 
 ever, was not weakened, and on the comple- 
 tion, in 382, of the I'hilocalia — the collection 
 of extracts from ()ri;,'en made by him and 
 Basil many years before— Gregory sent Theo- 
 dore a copy as an Easter gift (Ep. 115 al. 871 
 Theodore was one of the bisho;)s attending tin 
 council summoned against Chrysostoiii b\ 
 Theophilus at the end of 403. Palladium 
 describes him as a man of much wisdom and 
 authority, who, when he disC(jv<Ted the 
 malicious intention of Theophilus and his 
 partisans, retired to his diocese soon after hi* 
 arrival (Pallad. p. 23). The Theodoru* to 
 whom Chrysostom addressed his Ep. 112 has 
 been identified with Theodore of Tyana by the 
 second council of Constantinople (Labbe, v. 
 490). Tillemont decides (xi. 608) for Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia. (k.v.| 
 
 Theodorus (53), priest and abbat of Tab- 
 
 THEODORUS 
 
 973 
 
 enna in the Thrbaid. Hifn * t». J14. of noM« 
 parents in the I'piH-r Thrbjul. he l<i«M«.k. 4t 
 .Ml early age, hl% worlllv i r..,| r, t . 411. 1 ! utul 
 asylum with Palam. 
 in the nioiustrry .1; 
 under whom he )" 
 Pachoniius dird I 
 abbacy, but with!: 
 on whiisp retireiii. I, 
 
 reforms. visiir<l tli^ . ,...; 
 
 founded 5 new ones ul >>i Hvf 
 
 mothis, Cains. Obi. and H t .S.S. 
 
 Mai, iii. 327-328). liuii iiiir of 
 
 Pachoniius Theodorus met M. AihauaMu* in 
 the Thebaid, and is sanl to have announrnl lo 
 him the ileath of thr rtiip.r.r Inli.n t^. n 
 occurring in Persi 1 
 .Athanasius had a . 
 and bewailed his ! 
 
 in I'atr. (ik. xxvi. j 1. -i >n i-. .»r 'r.u. 
 c. 8) giv«>s an anecilote "t hiin. Me »lird a.o. 
 307 (Tilleni. //. A. vii. 22s) or ^i.H (Boll. mi. 
 2<)i). (iennadius {de Script. Enl. 1. «) calls 
 him presbyter, and aivn the ^ub^lancn ui j 
 epistles he is s.iid to have addrrv»e<l to other 
 monasteries Boll. m.<. 287-362, give the mo*l 
 elaborate acrountof Pachomiusand Thmdora*. 
 Fabric. Hibl. Grace, ix. 318; Tillem. H. E. 
 vii. 469 seq. 758 MMj. ; Cave. Hi\t. Lit. i. 20.S ; 
 Ceill. .AiU. Sacr. iv. i\\ s«-i|. \<)\ [j.«<.| 
 
 Theodorus (S4) Lector. rr.i<i<T of the church 
 
 of Const. uitinople. He roiii|x>sed in two 
 b(V)ks a tripartite lii>t<>rv out of Socralc*. 
 So/oinen, an»l Theodoret. extant in .M.S. at 
 Venice. It was cooieil by Leo Allatiu«, bul 
 not published. Vah-sius used his .MS. in h»« 
 edition of those authors. He alvi coin|MtMxl 
 a history which extends from the last da\-« o( 
 Theodosius the younger to the reign of the 
 elder Justin, a.d. 518 ; some i>ortions of which 
 remain, and are in Migne's ratr. (ik. Ixxxvi. 
 col. 157-2280. They have been collected oul 
 of Nicephorus Callistus, John of Damascus, 
 and the fifth action of the vventh grnrral 
 council. His history abounds with wonder- 
 ful stories in defence of orthodoxv. He lelU 
 that Tiniotheus, bp. of Constantinople, a.o. 
 571. was the first to ordain the recitation of 
 the Niceiie Creed at all celebration* of the Holy 
 Communion. It was p^eviou^lv only recited 
 once a ve.ir. at the end of l^nt. llvidently 
 the .\rian p.irty must have Iweii *till ^^^^»^f 
 at Constantinople in cent. vi. .\ question h«t 
 been rais«-d whether our ThetMlore did ni>t live 
 in cent. VIII. rather than cent. vi. CointM-h* 
 in his Originum Kerumque Conxtant M amp. 
 and Baudurius in his Imper. t>nfnl. have 
 I'ivrii -Mriir -jnot.itioti-. ir-in ^ Dif-l'-f 11* 
 
 p. 1 1 ; iiautl. p. nn); bul twoiiimoi titr %atue 
 name niav have occupletl the value atbcr. 
 
 Ceiii. XI. IoJ.«o^, I ii. /(.•; '.f.i<^. •• I > I 
 Theodorus i83) 
 
 who itudered III tl 
 
 mian and Gahriu 
 
 a recruit. Our auili nt ' 
 
 of (iregory Nv»»efi (t. in , « 
 
 le\\ trustwiifthv Acl». 1 • 
 
 ijcigin (wrcic^irv %av» "■ (x-t fr.iun > j.. 1 a 
 
 coiitcript. In wlnlrr quarter* at AmaM-a ih« 
 
974 
 
 THEODOSIUS 
 
 capital of Pontus, his refusal to join his com- 
 rades in sacrifice declared him a Christian. 
 His trial was deferred some days to offer him 
 time to recant. This interval he employed in 
 firing the temple of the Mother of the Gods on 
 the banks of the Iris in the midst of the city- 
 The building and the statue of the deity were 
 reduced to ashes. At the judgment-seat Theo- 
 dore boldly acknowledged and gloried in the 
 act. From prison, where he was visited at 
 night by angels who filled the cell with light 
 and song, he passed to death in a furnace. 
 No fewer than three churches were dedi- 
 cated in his honour at Constantinople (Du 
 Cange, Constantinop. Christ, vol. iv. c. 6, Nos. 
 100-102). He had also a martyry at Jeru- 
 salem (Cyr. Vit. S. Sab. ap. Coteler. Eccl. Gr. 
 Mon. iii. No. 78) and Damascus (Johan. 
 Damasc. de Sacr. I mag. Or. iii.). The little 
 circular church of San Teodoro. popularly 
 known as St. Toto, at the base of the Palatine 
 Hill in Rome, is well known. Zonaras, Annal. 
 lib. .xvii. c. ^, p. 213 (ed. Par. 1687) ; Credenus, 
 Hist. Compend. pars. ii.p. 681 (ed. Par. 1647) ; 
 Greg. Nyssen. Oratio de Magno Martyre Theo- 
 dora, t. iii. pp. 578-586 (ed. Par. 163S); Surius, 
 Nov. 9, p. 231, § 7 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. v. 
 PP- 369-377, notes 732-735 ; Ruinart, Acta 
 Martvritm, pp. 505-511. [e.v.] 
 
 TheodosIUS (2) I., the Great, born a.d. 346 
 at Cauca, a Spanish town upon a small 
 tributary of the Douro ; died Jan. 17, 395. 
 His father, an eminent general serving under 
 Valentinian and Valens, was treacherously 
 executed in 376. For the secular history of 
 Theodosius see D. of G. and R. Biogr. We 
 shall here set forth his ecclesiastical polity and 
 his powerful influence on the fortunes of the 
 church. His accession was the turning-point 
 which secured the triumph of Trinitarian 
 orthodoxy over the Arianism dominant in the 
 East for at least the previous 40 years. Theo- 
 dosius turned what seemed in many places an 
 obscure and conquered sect into a triumphant 
 church, whose orthodoxy, on this point at 
 least, never afterwards wavered. In 378 the 
 Roman empire was in great danger. Valens, 
 the emperor of the East, had been defeated 
 and put to death by the Goths on Aug. 9 in the 
 fatal battle of Hadrianople, and the whole 
 empire was depending on the young Gratian, 
 then less than 20 years old. Gratian per- 
 ceived that the crisis demanded the ablest 
 general the empire possessed ; he boldly 
 summoned the deeply-injured Theodosius 
 from his retirement, and invested him with 
 the imperial purple, Jan. 19, 379, allotting him 
 the government of the East with Illyricum in 
 Europe. Theodosius fixed his residence at 
 Thessalonica, skilfully selected as the head- 
 quarters of his operations against the Goths. 
 Constantinople was just then the centre of the 
 conflict between the Catholics and Arians. 
 About July 379 Gregory of Nazianzus, coming 
 there, assumed the care of its one orthodox 
 church, the Arians having possession of the 
 see and all the other churches. Meanwhile 
 at Thessalonica, during the winter of 379-380, 
 Theodosius had a severe illness which led to his 
 baptism by Ascolius, the local bishop, a devoted 
 adherent of the orthodox party. This was fol- 
 lowed by his first edict about religion, issued 
 at Thessalonica, Feb. 28, 380, and addressed 
 
 THEODOSIUS I. 
 
 to the people of Constantinople. It orders that 
 the religion which St. Peter taught the Romans 
 and which Damasus of Rome and Peter of 
 Alexandria profess, should be believed by all 
 nations ; that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
 should be equally adored ; that the adherents 
 of this doctrine should be called Catholic 
 Christians, while all others were to be desig 
 nated heretics, their places of assembly refused 
 the name of churches, and their souls threat- 
 ened with divine punishment. 
 
 On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his 
 formal entry into Constantinople, and at once 
 took action against the unorthodox. He 
 turned the Arian bp. Demophilus out of the 
 churches, and personally installed Gregory 
 in the great church. But he does not seem 
 to have satisfied the orthodox zeal of Gregory, 
 who in his Carmen de Vita Sua, 1279-1395, 
 speaks very slightingly of him, finding fault 
 with his toleration, and complaining that he 
 made no attempt to heal the wounds and 
 I avenge the wrongs of the Catholics. Theo- 
 ! dosius, however, soon improved under Gre- 
 gory's tuition, direct or indirect. Gregory's 
 tenure of the bishopric of Constantinople was 
 only for 7 months. He retired about the end 
 of June 381, yet continued to exercise a most 
 active influence over the emperor through his 
 successor Nectarius. Gregory in the East and 
 Ambrose in the West must be largely credited 
 with the intolerant ecclesiastical legislation of 
 the Theodosian Code, lib. xvi. We may take 
 the ecclesiastical legislation under two heads : 
 (i) against heretics; (2) against pagans. 
 Theodosius's first laws against heretics were 
 issued immediately after the council of 
 Constantinople, and rapidly increased in 
 severity. In June or July, 381, he issued a 
 law which must have been directly inspired 
 by the council {Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. 
 leg. 6), prohibiting all assemblies of Arians, 
 Photinians, and Eunomians, and ordering the 
 surrender of all churches to the orthodox. 
 A few weeks later two edicts {ib. tit. i. 
 leg. 3, and tit. v. leg. 8) prohibited Arians, 
 Eunomians and Aetians from building 
 churches to replace those taken from them. 
 In law ix., Mar. 382, first appeared the word 
 inquisitor in connexion with religious contro- 
 versy, officers being appointed to detect and 
 punish the Manicheans. Law xi. of July 383 
 prohibited any kind of heretical worship, 
 while in Sept. law xii. prohibited heretical 
 assemblies for worship, building of churches 
 and ordinations of clergy, and confiscated to 
 the fiscus places where they met. Evidently 
 the heretics had many official supporters, and 
 manv magistrates were lax in proceeding 
 against them, as stern penalties were threat- 
 ened against such. Yet the heretics main- 
 tained their ground. So in Feb. 384, law xiii. 
 was directed against the Eunomian, Mace- 
 donian, Arian, and Apollinarian clergy who 
 had ventured back again and were concealed 
 in Constantinople. The Apollinarians especi- 
 ally erected a regular church organization 
 and established an episcopal succession. 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, much troubled by the 
 Apollinarian party, addressed Ep. 77 to the 
 prefect, telling how they took advantage of 
 his absence at the hot baths at Xanxaris to 
 ordain a bishop at Nazianzus. He calls on 
 
THEODOSIUS I. 
 
 the prefect to puiiisli tlu-iu for di'^olirvinR 
 the edict, hut re.iiiests a li^lit peii.iltv. His 
 influence, too. seems to have caused the 
 orifjinai issu.- of this edict uf Feb. 384. for in 
 ihtit. 40. .uidresseil to Nectarius, patriarcli of 
 Coiist.iiitm..|)le. he calls for it as necessary, 
 and in his Kp. to Olvnipius praises it. ai>olo- 
 gizing for his own toleration which had le.l 
 the heretics to act with incre.ised boldness. 
 
 Nectarius. Ambrose, and Ascolius of Thessa- 
 lonica, who baptised Theod.isius. also urged 
 persecution (cf. esp. Fp. x. of St. .\mbrost\ 
 written in the name of the council of Aouileia, 
 demanding the suppression by force of here- 
 tical assemblies and ordinations (Opp. Am- 
 bros. in Migne's I'atr. I.at. xvi. 1)40)). In 
 Mar. 388, when marching against the usurper 
 Maximus. he issued for the Kast. and in June 
 caused the younger X'alentinian to issue for 
 the West, a still more stringent edict, specially 
 directed against the Apojlinariaiis (Cn.l. Thfoii. 
 xvi. tit. V. 14 and is), .iiul against chrgv and 
 laity alike. It banishes all Apollinarians, 
 deposes and degrades their bishops, forbids 
 new consecrations, and denies them all 
 approach to the emperors. liven this does 
 not seem to have satisfied his advisers or to 
 have stopped the progress of heresy. The 
 Eunomians were very troublesome at Con- 
 stantinople, where Hunomius himself had 
 long lived, and whence Theodosius had ban- 
 ished him. Theodosius, in May 389, issued a 
 law rendering him and his followers incapable 
 of making bequests and confiscating to the 
 public treasury all bequests made to them. 
 
 Theodosius sought to suppress paganism 
 also. The ruins of many temples, st.itues, and 
 fountains may be traced to his legislation, which 
 went far beyond that of his predecessor. Cod. 
 Theod. xvi. tit. x. " de Paganis. Sacriticiis et 
 Templis," enables us to trace accurately his 
 progress. The policy of Constantine and his 
 sons may be said to have abolished sacrifices 
 as madness and essentially connected with 
 immorality and crime, specially those cele- 
 brated at night, while at the same time pro- 
 tecting the temples. Constantius was the 
 severest legislator in this respect. The temples 
 were closed, but preserved as public monu- 
 ments and caretakers appointed at the public 
 expense. Had this policy continued, the world 
 would have been now much richer in artistic 
 treasures. It continued, with the short interval 
 of Julian's reign, till the accession of Theo- 
 dosius. Even he retained the a[)|>earance of 
 it. He issued no decree for the destruction of 
 the temples. But anew force, the monks ha<i 
 now become a power throughout the liast. 
 They began the destruction in the very teeth 
 of imperial edicts, trusting for protection to 
 the influence of Ambrose, Nectarius, and other 
 bishops with the emperor. In 3H2 Theodosius 
 issued a rescript to I'alladius. dux of the pro- 
 vince of Osrhoene, which was marked by a 
 wise and tolerant spirit. There was a magni- 
 ficent temple in Edessa. useful for popul.ir 
 assemblies, festivals, elections, and other public 
 meetings. Thef>dosius seems to have been 
 specially anxious to use such temples for his 
 provincial councils, a form of l<»cal government 
 he largely developed and strengthened (cf. Cod. 
 Theod. xii. tit. xii. legg. 12, 13). The local 
 bp. Eulogius wished, however, to shut up Ibe 
 
 THEODOSIUS I. 
 
 075 
 
 temple romi.Klelv. \W pleaded Ih4l Ihr Uw 
 was clear. All .irrrss |.i irnipirs wa* lon< 
 since forbidden, and lhi< one wa» i|><vmIIv 
 dangerous l»ring richly furnKhrd with uk.U 
 of rare l>,Muty. The 4<lv.K-4tr% o| (..Irruli.Hi 
 for once gained the iipiM-r h.in.l \1I „nnc<^ 
 were strictly f..rbiddrn. but ^j* 
 
 to be us<-<l (or piililir piirp. .lyc* 
 
 retained as ornamrnis anl iin«%. 
 
 Five years, however. eLips..i i i,, . u.iH-f,.r 
 was taking sterner measures ag.uiist Orirnlal 
 paganism, and h.id just sent I vne^iu* a* hi« 
 deputy into l.gvpt and the Fust to m^ thai 
 his orders were strictly carried .ml ; whrrr- 
 uiKin the monks, as l.ibaiiius exiirrssly »i4lr* 
 r<Ke up and utterly d.-stroyrd ihr trinplr! 
 The rage (or destruction spread. The iiiob 
 in another part ol the same pr.ivinrr, headed 
 by the bishop, .it tacked and burned 4 |rwi»h 
 sAiiagogue .ind a \ale11tln14n liiretiiig.hoiiM'. 
 Theodosius was ront,iin.|.,ti„^. ||„.,r .,m,Kh- 
 ment when .Ambrose iniervenetl. 4tlilres%iii|| 
 a letter (F.p. xl). which frightme.! theciiUKTuf 
 from his purp.>se. He issue.!, however, a 
 decree in 3.»i to the count of the i;a>t. pro- 
 hibiting all iiiter(erence with Jutlaisui and 
 specially forbidding attacks on their syna- 
 gogues ; but he significanllv oiniKrd all such 
 protective measures as regar.ls pagan Iriiiplrs. 
 Uestniction and coiiliscatioii raged <mi every 
 side, and the destroyers found jwrfect im- 
 punity. The most notori'iits acts of destruc- 
 tion were in llgvpt. and s,K-cially at Alex- 
 andria, as described by Six rates (//. /•.. v 10, 
 17) when the celebrated S«-ra|)fum wa* de- 
 stroyed. S.»crates asM-rts, indeed, thai llu« 
 destruction t«M>k place at the iiii|H-ri4l order. 
 a special decni- having iM-eii issued at the 
 desire of the patriarch Theophilus, but of ihi« 
 there is no trace in the Code. .\\ Kome the 
 same |>olicy was pursued, either directly k 
 indirectly, by Thonlosius. In 382 (, rattan 
 issued an order abolishing the altar of Victory, 
 as hitherto retained in the s<>nale hous«-. and 
 the other traces of paganism which still re- 
 mained. He confiscated the pro|><-rly of the 
 vestal virgins and probably seized their 
 college. Ill 3H3 an eflort to rescind this .irilef 
 was defeateii by the vigorous action of |m>|>« 
 Damasus. Svmin.ichus renewed the allriiipt 
 in 384 and appe.ded to tin- voimg eiii|>rrur 
 \'alentinian. .VmbroM-. nplving with extreme 
 intolerance, warned \'aleiiiiiii4ii to consult 
 Thi'odcrsius before coinplvili); with the s<-n4lr't 
 prayer. For this letter of .Ambrose and lh« 
 Relatxo of Symmachus, see St. .\iiibr<>«. hp. 
 t lassis i. Epp. xvii.. xviii. The protect of .Am- 
 bros<- was successful. The usur|M-r Fiigeniu* 
 r<>stored the pagan embleiiit and ritual, but 
 The<Mli>sius, on his victory, again alM>ll«he<l 
 thein, and adopted sterner iura%ure« 4K4tii»t 
 the vestal college. 
 
 ThetKlosius was 4 |H»sitive a« well as a 
 negative legislator. His IrKl^lalioii alMnii |be 
 clergy and the internal \l ii- ' ■' ' -r(, W4« 
 minute and far-re.irhiiig . |H(a, 
 
 a stringent edict for lh< t Iha 
 
 Lords |)ay. siis|hii.Iw..' in>-%« 
 
 and branding as s.i< tiing 
 
 its sanctity (Cud. I < \\. 
 
 .Another edict. a.D >; the 
 
 I annual holiday* the -• ilj\ ^ U (.rr usd allef 
 I Easter (16. U. tit. viii. leg. i), (cl. "Lord's 
 
976 
 
 THEODOSIUS II. 
 
 Day" ia D. C. A. p. 1047), and another (ib. 
 xvi. ii. 27) lays down most minute rules for 
 deaconesses ; while the previous law exempted 
 guardians of churches and holy places from 
 public duties. Cod. xi. xxxix. 10 exempted 
 bishops and presbyters from tort ure when giving 
 evidence, but left the inferior clergy subject to 
 it. Theodosius was appealed to on all kinds of 
 subjects by the bishops, and we find decrees 
 dealing with all manner of topics. If, e.g., 
 religious controversy burst forth with special 
 violence in Egypt or Antioch, the bishop ap- 
 plied for edicts imposing perpetual silence on 
 the opposite factions (cf. Cod. xvi. iv. 2 and 3). 
 
 Theodosius was devout to superstition, 
 passionate to an extreme. Two incidents, the 
 insurrection of Antioch upon the destruction 
 of the imperial statues, and the massacre of 
 Thessalonica, illustrate his character in many 
 respects. [Ambrosius ; Chrysostom.] [g.t.s.] 
 
 Theodosius (3) II., emperor, born early in 
 401, the only son of the emperor Arcadius by 
 EuDO.xiA (2), had four sisters, Flaccilla, Pul- 
 cheria, Arcadia, and Marina. Pulcheria 
 exercised a predominant influence over Theo- 
 dosius throughout his life. He was appointed 
 Augustus Jan. 402, and succeeded to the 
 throne at the age of 7 on his father's death 
 in 408. For the secular history of his reign 
 see D. 0/ G. and R. Biogr. ; we deal here only 
 with his actions and legislation so far as they 
 bore on the history of the church. His reign 
 was very long, covering the first halt of 5th 
 cent., and embracing the origin and rise of 
 two great heresies, the Nestorian andMonophy- 
 site. His education was conducted by Pul- 
 cheria, who acted as Augusta and his guardian, 
 from July 4, 414, when she was herself little 
 more than 15 years old. Sozomen (ix. i) tells 
 us that she " superintended with extraordin- 
 arj'- wisdom the transactions of the Roman 
 government, concerted her measures well, and 
 allowed no delay to take place in their exe- 
 cution. She was able to write and to converse 
 with perfect accuracy in the Greek and Latin 
 languages. She caused all affairs to be trans- 
 acted in the name of her brother, and devoted 
 great attention to furnishing him with such 
 information as was suitable to his years. She 
 employed masters to instruct him in horse- 
 manship and the use of arms, in literature, and 
 in science. He was also taught how to maintain 
 a deportment befitting an emperor. . . . But 
 she chiefly strove to imbue his mind with 
 piety and the love of prayer ; she taught him 
 to frequent the church regularly, and to be 
 zealous in contributing to the embellishment 
 of houses of prayer. She inspired him with 
 reverence for priests and other good men, and 
 for those who in accordance with the law of 
 Christianity had devoted themselves to philo- 
 sophical asceticism." Socrates (vii. 22) tells us 
 about his training that " such was his fortitude 
 in undergoing hardships that he would cour- 
 ageously endure both heat and cold ; fasting 
 very frequently, especially on Wednesdays and 
 Fridays, from an earnest endeavour to ob- 
 serve with accuracy all the prescribed forms 
 of the Christian religion. His palace was so 
 regulated that it differed little from a mon- 
 astery ; for he, together with his sisters, rose 
 early in the morning and recited responsive 
 hymns in praise of the Deity. By his training 
 
 THEODOSIUS II. 
 
 he learnt the Holy Scriptures by heart, and 
 would often discourse with the bishops on 
 scriptural subjects as if he had been an eccle- 
 siastic of long standing. He was an indefati- 
 gable collector of the sacred books and of 
 expositions written on them, while in clem- 
 ency and humanity he far surpassed all 
 others." Pope Leo L, in one of his letters to 
 Theodosius, which is intended to be very laud- 
 atory (Mansi, v. 1341 ; cf. Socr. vii. 43), de- 
 scribes him as having " not only the heart of 
 an emperor but also that of a priest." Theo- 
 dosius delighted in that magnificent cere- 
 monial which gathered round the cultus of 
 relics. He brought the remains of John 
 Chrysostom back to Constantinople, laid his 
 face on the coffin, and entreated that his 
 parents might be pardoned for having per- 
 secuted such a holy bishop. He assisted at 
 the discovery and removal of the relics of the 
 Forty Martyrs (Soz. ix. 2), and felt his reign 
 honoured through the simultaneous discovery 
 of the relics of the proto-martyr St. Stephen 
 and Zechariah the prophet (ix. 16, 17). Dur- 
 ing the latter portion of his reign, terminated 
 by a fall from his horse July 28, 450, his sister 
 lost her power, a comparatively healthy 
 influence, and Theodosius fell completely 
 under the guidance of selfish and tyrannical 
 eutmchs. Pulcheria had vigour and deter- 
 mination. Theodosius seems to have taken 
 refuge from her sway by yielding himself 
 completely to a rapid succession of favourites. 
 He had 15 prime ministers in 25 years, the 
 last of whom, the eunuch Chrysaphius, 
 retained his power longest, a.d. 443-450. 
 Under Theodosius H. paganism became in 
 itself a disability. Some of the highest ser- 
 vants of the state towards the end of cent. iv. 
 had been pagan ; now by a law of Dec. 7, 416 
 (Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. x. 21), pagans were pro- 
 hibited from entering the military and civil 
 services or attaining any judicial office. 
 This law was followed by 4 others within the 
 next ten years, following closely upon the 
 lines of Western legislation in the same direc- 
 tion as contained in the previous laws ; law 
 25, for instance, passed at Constantinople 
 Nov. 426, orders the cross, " signum \'eneran- 
 dae crucis," to be placed on such temples as 
 were allowed to remain intact, while the 
 materials of those pulled down were to be used 
 in repairing bridges, roads, aqueducts, etc. 
 (ib. t. v. lib. XV. tit. i, leg. 36). These meas- 
 ures seem to have produced an apparent uni- 
 formity, as Theodosius, in law 22 passed in 
 423, refers to the " pagans who remain, though 
 we believe there are none such." The law, 
 however, as yet protected them if they lived 
 peaceably ; thus law 24 forbids Christians 
 making attacks on Jews and pagans living 
 among them. Heretics scarcely came off so 
 well. The Novatianists still, as throughout 
 cent, iv., were specially favoured, though 
 occasionally a law was aimed against their 
 rebaptisms and unorthodox celebrations of 
 Easter (lib. xvi. tit. vi. leg. 6, passed on Mar. 
 21, 413) ; but severe measures of exile, con- 
 fiscation, and other penalties were dealt out 
 against Montanists, Eunomians, etc., and 
 their employment in the army or civil service 
 was prohibited except apparently in the local 
 militia (xvi. v. 58 and 61). Law 65 (tit. xvi.) 
 
THEODOSIUS 
 
 is the most sweeping passoil m tlu< n-JKn. 
 N'estorius was its author, aiul law 06 is a 
 severe one against himself and his part v. 
 The Jews were protected, as hithertu, but 
 certain restrictions were by deKTeini pl.iced 
 upon them. Their svnagO({u<>s were not t<} 
 be seized or destroyed, and if destroyed were 
 to be restored, but no new ones were to be 
 built (xvi. tit. viii. 25). Thev were forbidden 
 to serve in the anny, but permitted to be 
 physicians and lawyers (lex 24). Their eccle- 
 siastical and civil organization under their 
 patriarchs was protected. The patriarchs, 
 indeed, c. 415. seem to have advanced so far 
 as to exercise jurisdiction over Christians and 
 to force them to receive circumcision, while the 
 Jewish people mocked the Christian religion 
 and burned the cross (Socr. H. E. vii. 10). 
 Under the induence of Nestorius. however, 
 severer laws were enacted against Jews. 
 In 429 we tind one forbidding and confiscating 
 the usual tribute to the patriarchs. This 
 law with Gothofred's commentary is very im- 
 portant as regards the organization of Judaism 
 in cent. v. (cf. the whole series of laws in lib. 
 xvi. tit. viii. leg. 18-29). [g.t.s.] 
 
 Theodosius (20). a celebrated solitary of 
 S\Tia contemporary with Theodoret, born at 
 Antioch of a rich and noble family. Aban- 
 doning his worldly possessions, he dwelt in a 
 hut in a forest on the mountain above the 
 city of Rhosus, where he practised the severest 
 self-discipline, loading his neck, loins, and 
 WTists with heavy irons, and allowing his 
 uncombed hair to grow to his feet. He 
 speedily gathered a colony of ascetics, whom 
 he taught industrial arts, as weaving sack- 
 cloth and haircloth, making mats, fans, and 
 baskets, and cultivating, setting an example 
 of laborious diligence, and carefully superin- 
 tending every department. He was an object 
 of reverence even to the Isaurian banditti, 
 who on several predatory iiuoads left his 
 monastic settlement uninjured, only request- 
 ing bread and his prayers. Fearing, however, 
 that the Isaurians might carry him off for 
 ransom, Theodosius was persuaded to remove 
 to Antioch, settling near the Orontes and 
 gathering about him many who desired to 
 adopt an ascetic life, but not long surviving 
 his removal (Theod. Hist. Keh^. c. x.). (k.v.| 
 
 Theodosius (21), a fanatic;il Monophysite 
 monk. Having been expelled from his mon- 
 astery for some crime, he repaired to Alex- 
 andria, where he stirred up strife, was scourged, 
 and paraded round the city on camelb.-ick as 
 a seditious person (Kvagr. H. E. ii. 5). We 
 attended the council of Chalccdon in 451, 
 apparently as one of the ruffianly followers r.f 
 Barsumas. On the termination of the synod 
 Theodosius hastened to lerusalem, complain- 
 ing that the council had betrayed the faith, 
 and circulating a garbled transl.ition of Leo's 
 Tome (Leo Magn. Ep. 97 («?)»■ H's protes- 
 tations were credited bv a large number of the 
 monks and people, and having gamed the ear 
 of the empress dowager Kudocia, the former 
 patroness of Eutvches. who had settled at 
 Jerusalem, he so thoroughly iK)iv.ned the 
 minds of the people of Jerusalem against 
 Juvenal as a traitor to the truth that they 
 refused to receive him as their bishop on his 
 return from Chalcedon, unless he would 
 
 TMEODOTION 
 
 W77 
 
 anatheiu.iii/r till- 1! rmtv 
 
 joined in dirl.irmK iiial- 
 
 contents attcinptr<i ! hf 
 
 barelv escape«l with in iii 
 .\fter Juvenal's flight Ihr.. 
 bp. of jerils.ilriii ill the r!. 
 rection, and at once i>i >,,,> 
 
 bishops (or I'aleslme, rhi. ni«~» 
 
 whose bishops h.id not uom 
 
 Chalcedon. \ reign of t. ,ri III 
 
 Jerusalem. The public |i rown 
 
 ooen and the liberated 1 : rm- 
 
 ployed to terrify by their '. ■ who 
 
 refused cniiimuiiion with Ihr ..i.mim I'huv 
 who refused to atiatheniati/e the council were 
 pilLiged and insulted in the most law|i>«« 
 manner. Fiiiallv, the rmprror MarcMii inter- 
 posed, and issued or.lrrs to I)..rothru» to 
 apprehend riie.xloMus. win., howrvrr. man- 
 aged to esc^ipe to the inountam fasliir%««<i of 
 Sinai (l^blw,, iv. 87.)). What ultimalclv 
 became of him is unknown. Kvagr. //. E. 
 ii. 5; Coteler. .Won. Grafc. i. 41^ scq. ; 
 Theophan. Chron. p. qj ; Leo Maxn. Ep. lib 
 [157]; I-abbe, Concil. Iv. «7<) seq. ; Niwph. 
 H. E. XV. : Fleury. H. E. livre 3H ; Tillrm. 
 Stftn. (Cil. XV. 731 scq. ; Le Qiiicn. Ot. 
 Chnsl. HI. ir.4). [«-V.l 
 
 TheodoUon. otherwise Thfndotui (»o Suidan 
 s.i'. Ai'tfwK). author of the (ireck version of 
 the O.T. which followed, as those of Aquila 
 and Symmachus preceded, that of the L.\.\ 
 in Origen's columnar .irrangemeiits of the 
 versions. Of his personality even lr*s i* 
 known than of either of the other two trans- 
 lator'-. The earliest author to mention him 
 is Irenaeiis, in a passage which, bv rravm 
 of its higher antiquity and authority, must be 
 our standard to test the accounts of later 
 writers, who probably d<Tive<l their account* 
 partly from it. Irenaeus (111. xxi. i, p. 215), 
 referring to the word '* t'lririw " (»a^/r©f) in 
 Is. vii. 14, affirms that the passage is to Ix? 
 read " not as certain of th<»se who now 
 venture to misintej-pret the Scripture, " Be- 
 hold, the damsel (¥ta.n\) shall Ix- with child 
 and shall be.ir a son ' ; as Theo<lotion of 
 l-4)hesus interpreted it ami .\qtiila of I'onluv 
 both Jewish proselvtes ; following whom tb« 
 Kbioiiites preteiirl that he w.is l>egnttcn ol 
 J.^eph." Fiisebiiis cites this (//. E. v. «). 
 .idding nothing to it. 
 
 In attempting to fix the time when Theo- 
 <lotion flourish<-d, the one r. rtain .md i..Icr4bly 
 determinate datum we \»<. • iv l'i.«l hi« 
 version must h.ive Iwen ii> i < om* 
 
 l>osition of the ab >ve tn- '» — 
 
 therefore In-fore |K,i-|8.,. le*« 
 
 available d.itum is th.- (.iri. ..iiiUM.i i.v all. 
 that he calm- after A<|uil.i. Thus we con- 
 elude that his work cannot h.ivr \>rrn mi Ule 
 
 as iHo "r earlK-r than Mo. ^ • ''-rthat 
 
 the expres-iioii of Irni.ieus ' ■ «u>«r 
 
 venlurmt" impli'-H th.it I! thru 
 
 oiilv just r.«iiipl<ir<l his tr . • «hi» 
 
 puts uiidur (i.rre oil the W-ifd-. 1 he nprr*- 
 sioii mrnlv r..Ill^.l^ls omparalivrly remit 
 translations with the anri.-iit .ui.I (tiiiiarv 
 aiithorilv of the l..\.\. H. i-^nc* 
 
 Icails us to pUcr Thc«Mloti vm- 
 
 inarhus from \s to yt %■ \A\r* 
 
 which agree well with the lr%v m...«ii lacl%. 
 Indirect evidence ol aa eorlirr d-ile Ui€ 
 62 
 
978 
 
 THEODOTION 
 
 Theodotion has been claimed as found in 
 the apparent use of his version in the Trypho 
 of Justin Martyr, a work written not later 
 than 164, perhaps some 20 years earlier. 
 But the fallacious character of this evidence 
 is shewn in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed. 1887). 
 
 Theodotion's work was not so much an 
 independent translation as a revision of the 
 LXX, with its insertions usually retained, 
 but its omissions supplied from the Hebrew — 
 probably with the help of Aquila's version. 
 Theodotion's was the version Origen usually 
 preferred to the other two for tilling omissions 
 of the LXX or lacunae in their text as he 
 found it ; and from it accordingly comes a 
 large part of the ordinary Greek text of 
 Jeremiah, and still more of that of Job. Thus 
 in these books we have fuller materials for 
 learning the character of his version than that 
 of either of the others ; and still more in his 
 version of Daniel, which has come down to us 
 entire, having since before Jerome's time (how 
 long before we are not told) superseded that 
 of the LXX so completely that the latter was 
 lost for centuries, and is now extant only in 
 a single Greek copy, the Cod. Chisianus, and 
 in the Syro-Hexaplar translation contained in 
 Cod. Ambrosianus (C. 313 Inf.). Any one 
 who compares this version with Theodotion's 
 which is usually printed in all ordinary edi- 
 tions of the Greek O.T. must agree with 
 Jerome (Praef. in Dan.) that the church chose 
 rightly in discarding the former and adopting 
 the latter. Indeed, the greater part of tliis 
 Chisian Daniel cannot be said to deserve the 
 name of a translation at all. It deviates from 
 the original in every possible way ; transposes, 
 expands, abridges, adds or omits, at pleasure. 
 The latter chapters it so entirely rewrites that 
 the predictions are perverted, sometimes even 
 reversed, in scope. We learn from Jerome 
 (in Dan. iv. 6, p. 646) that Origen himself 
 ("in nono Stromatum volumine ") abandoned 
 this supposed LXX Daniel for Theodotion's. 
 Indeed, all the citations of Daniel, some of 
 them long and important passages, in Origen's 
 extant works, agree almost verbatim with the 
 text of Theodotion now current, and differ, 
 sometimes materially, from that of the reputed 
 LXX as derived from the Chisian MS. He 
 seems, moreover, to have found the task of 
 bringing its text to conform to the original 
 by the aid of Theodotion's a hopeless one, as 
 we may judge by his asterisks, obeli, and 
 marginalia in the two MSS. referred to. Yet 
 that this is the version which Origen placed 
 as that of the LXX in the penultimate 
 column of the Hexapla and Tetrapla is certain. 
 Theodotion, though not an independent 
 translator, was by no means an " unlearned " 
 one, as Montfaucon (Praelimm. in Hexapla) 
 calls him. The chief, and apparently the 
 only, ground for this is his practice of fre- 
 quently transliterating words of his original. 
 Dr. Field, however, has well shewn (Prolegg. 
 in Hexapla, IV. iii.) that he guides himself 
 mostly by definable rules — the words so dealt 
 with being names of animals (as devvlv for 
 (Tiiprives), plants (as dx' for jiouroiuof), vest- 
 ments (as (ia55ii> for wob-qp-qs), or articles used 
 in worship (as depacplv for Kei'ordfpia or [Aq.] 
 fxop<puj/j.aTa). In such cases, his chosing to 
 transliterate, rather than adopt a conjectural 
 
 THEODOTUS 
 
 Greek rendering from a former version or 
 hazard a new guess of his own, indicates 
 scrupulous caution, not ignorance. He proves 
 at least that he diligently consulted the 
 original, and often shews a wise discretion in 
 forbearing to translate a word whose meaning 
 cannot be determined, or for which the Greek 
 language has no equivalent. As well might 
 the English translators of 161 1 be called " un- 
 learned " for retaining such words as " tera- 
 phim," " Belial," or the revisers of 1881-1884 
 because they replace the "scapegoat" of 
 A.V. by "Azazel," and for "hell" give 
 "Sheol " in O.T. and " Hades " in N.T. 
 
 Theodotion's version included all the 
 canonical books of O.T. except, probably, 
 Lamentations. Of the apocryphal books, he 
 is only known to have included Baruch and 
 the additions to Daniel. [J-gw.] 
 
 TheodotUS (4) of Byzantium. Eusebius 
 (//. E. V. 27) has preserved extracts from a 
 treatise directed against the heresy of Arte- 
 mon, who taught that our Lord had been mere 
 man. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii. 5) says that 
 this treatise was called the Little Labyrinth ; 
 and the author was doubtless Caius of Rome, 
 and its date the end of the first quarter of 
 cent. iii. [Hippolytus Romanus.] These 
 heretics claimed to hold the original doctrine 
 of the church which, they alleged, had con- 
 tinued incorrupt till the episcopate of Victor, 
 the truth being first perverted by his successor 
 Zephyrinus (c. 199). Their antagonist replies 
 that, on the contrary, it was in the episcopate 
 of Victor that this God-denying heresy had 
 been first introduced, that Theodotus the shoe- 
 maker (oKVTfvs) was the first to teach that 
 our Lord was mere man, and he had been 
 excommunicated for this by Victor, and had 
 then founded an organized sect, with a bishop 
 j (Natalius) to whom they paid a salary. Its 
 leading men in the time of Victor's successor 
 were Asclepiades and another Theodotus, a 
 banker. These two undertook to clear the 
 text of N.T. of corruptions, but our authority 
 describes what they called " corrected " 
 copies as simply ruined, the two not even 
 agreeing as to their corrections. 
 
 Our sole other primary authority for this 
 Theodotus is Hippolytus. The section on 
 Theodotus in the lost earlier work on heresies 
 by Hippolytus may be partly recovered by a 
 comparison of the corresponding articles in 
 Pseudo-TertuUian, Epiphanius, and Philaster ; 
 and Epiphanius, whose treatment (Haer. 54) 
 is the fullest, almost certainly drew his 
 materials altogether from Hippolytus. There 
 is an article on Theodotus in the later treatise 
 of Hippolytus (Ref. vii. 35). The influence of 
 Theodotus did not extend much beyond his 
 own generation ; later church writers appear 
 to have only known him from the two nearly 
 contemporary authorities we have named. 
 
 The place in which the article on Theodotus 
 came in the lost work of Hippolytus exactly 
 corresponds to the date assigned to him in the 
 Little Labyrinth. He comes immediately after 
 Blastus, whom we otherwise know to have 
 caused schism in Victor's time by endeavour- 
 ing to introduce the Quartodeciman usage in 
 Rome. Hippolytus stated that Theodotus 
 was a native of Byzantium, who denied Christ 
 in time of persecution — a fact which accounted 
 
THEODOTUS 
 
 for his heresy, since lie couUl thus lu.iiiit.iiit 
 that he had only denied man. not (mhI. Hip- 
 polytus reports'that as to the Deitv and the 
 work of creation the doctrine of TheiHlntus 
 was orthodox, but as to our Lord's jx-rson he 
 agreed with Cinostic speculations, espi«ciallv 
 in distinguishing Jesus and Christ. The 
 miraculous conception of Jesus he w.is willing 
 to admit ; but he held Mini a man like others, 
 though of the highest virtue and pietv. He 
 taught that at the baptism of Jesus, Christ 
 descended on Him in the form of a dove, and 
 that He was then able to wi)rk miracles, though 
 He had never exhibited any before : but even 
 so He was not God; though some of the sect 
 were willing to acknowledge His right to the 
 title after His resurrection. 
 
 Theodotus chiefly relied on texts of Scrip- 
 ture, specimens of which are given by Epi- 
 phanius (Haer. 54). He evidently acknow- 
 ledged the authority of St. John's Ciospel. 
 for one of these texts was John viii. 40. He 
 appealed to the prophecy Deut. xviii. 15, of 
 the prophet who was to be like unto Moses, 
 and therefore man, and quoted also Is. liii. 3, 
 Jer. xvii. g (LXX), and other texts in which 
 our l.ortl is called man. [o.s.l 
 
 TheodotUS (5) the banker, distinct from 
 Theodoti s (4), as asserted both in the Little 
 Labyrinth and by Hippolytus. For the 
 speculations which this Theodotus added to 
 the heresv of (4) see Melcmizedkk. [c.s.) 
 
 Theodotus (9). May i«. martyr at .\ncvra 
 in Cialatia in Diocletian's persecution. The 
 narrative of his mart>Tdom is intermingled 
 with that of the Snen Virgins of Ancyra. 
 Theodotus was a devout dealer in provisions. 
 Theotecnus, the apostate from Christianity, 
 was sent with ample power to enforce con- 
 formity to the imperial edicts, and began by 
 ordering all provisions sold in the market to 
 be first presented to the gods. This would 
 render them unfit for use in the Holy Com- 
 munion. Theodotus supplied the Christians 
 with bread and wine free from jiollution. The 
 persecution waxing hot, he was compelled to 
 fly from Ancyra to a place, distant some 40 
 miles, where a cave, through which tlie Halys 
 flowed, was a refuge for some fugitive Chris- 
 tians. The narrative shews us how quietly 
 Christians in country districts pursued their 
 occupations and enjoyed daily worship, while 
 those in the cities were sufTtring tortures and 
 death, and is most valuabh- as illustrating the 
 general condition of the Christians in Asia 
 Minor during the earlier years of I)i«Kletian's 
 persecution. In the cave Theodotus found 
 certain brethren who had overturned the altar 
 of Diana, and were being carried by thi-ir 
 relations for judgment to the prefect when 
 Theodotus had brilxjd the accust^rs to let them 
 off. Thev were delighted to s«re their drliver- 
 er. and invited him to a meal, of which we 
 have a graphic picture : the fugitives reclining 
 on the abundant grass, surrounded with trei--.. 
 wild fruit, and flowers, while grasshoppers, 
 nightingales, and birds of every kind mad.- 
 music around. In this pass;ige (f 11) we find 
 one of the few instances where an early Chris- 
 tian author seems capable of appreciating the 
 beautv of nature. We then have a glimpse 
 of the religious life of the time. Before he 
 would eat, Theodotus sent »ome of Ihcir 
 
 THEODOTUS 
 
 07» 
 
 numl>cr to tununon the pirsbvter Irmn Ihc 
 neicht>oiiring village n( Mahi% li» dme with 
 them, prav wit'i tf.nn (. f re thry %|jrlci| 
 afresh on th. 1: , li|r«%inK €»n 
 
 thnr f.xHl. f. : s^int nrvrr 
 
 t.H.k f.Hxl un! I l( " The 
 
 |)resbvtr>r. wli..-. u.i.M. « 1 - -icd' 
 
 mg to (he MollaiKtist l'.i; r(o. 
 
 was just leaving thr rliur^ l.iay 
 
 hour of pravrr. The vill . >' kr<l 
 
 the mess<-ngers, and the ; Irjvp 
 
 them awav. askr<l if thev vv 4nd 
 
 informed them that he h > ' in 4 
 
 vision the night bf-fore. brin^in*; a i imoiw 
 treasure to hiin. Thev told him Ihrv had the 
 most precious of treasurr<i with thrm. the 
 martyr Thetulotns. to whom the ore^bvlrr at 
 once departed. During the inral Thr<Miotu* 
 suggested the spot as a fit place lor 4 mart Ntuim 
 or receptacle for relies, and exhorle<l thr pne«l 
 to build one. When he said he |his\«-s»«h1 
 no r«-lics. The.nlotus gave him a ring oil hit 
 finger in token th.it lie wiuiM provide Ihrm. 
 He then returned to .\nc\Ta. which he founil 
 greatly disturl>e<l by a violent |>rrseculioii. 
 [■\ncvra, Skvks Martvks of.| A writer in 
 the Kn>. archM. (t. xxviii. p. \o\) n>>les 4 
 passage in the .Acts of th«-se siiflrrers (| 14) 
 as a valuable illustration of the paganism o( 
 (iaiatia. TlK^Hlotus having resriird the 
 liodies of the nuns from the lake into which 
 Theotecnus ha«l cast them, prepared t<i 4u(ler. 
 He prave<l with th<- brethren, and told thrm 
 to give his relics to l-Vonio if he brought a ring 
 as a token. Then hi- went to the tribunal, 
 where the priests of Minerva were deinaiidmK 
 his arrest as the leader of the ChriMian 
 opposition. The Acts now offer *4>nie of the 
 most striking illustration* use<i by I.e Itlant 
 in his Acta dti Martyrs (cf. pp. 2$. b2, 7H. Ho). 
 They illustrate evi-rv detail of Koman crimmal 
 procedure, especially the offer made to the 
 martvrs of high promotion and im|>erial favour 
 if thev recanted. Theodotus was offered the 
 high-priestlKMxl of Aju'llo. now esteemed the 
 k-reatest of all the gmis. but in vain, till at latt 
 the president ordered him to be lK-h<jdr<l and 
 his biKly burned. He was eterutrtl and hu 
 binly placed on a pvre. whrii sudilenlv a bright 
 light shone around it, so that ni> oiir dared 
 appro.ich. The president ordrrrd It to be 
 guar<lrd all night, in the place of common 
 execution, bv S4ildirr» whom he had )u«t 
 flogged for sulfering the bo.lip* of the nun* to 
 be carried ofl. Fronto, who was a farmer, 
 and kept a vineyard where he made wine, 
 came to Ancvra to sell his wine. )>rini;ing the 
 ring of The-Hl.tii' with hitn «tvl ir'iving al 
 the phice of ' ! W4« 
 
 falling and ■ ^'^a 
 
 rl.^-d. fouipl ^'l'"* 
 
 br.iiirlu-s wl. ...... i • ., "■' 
 
 soldiers invite«l linn to ) 
 
 did. Disrovering what 1 
 
 !,.• >.. .,!.• i!..iii drunk will. I 
 
 .• iiiarlvr'» UmIv, |4aiun: it iii the 
 
 !us had iiiarke.! 4» the %lte »t 4 
 
 111.- \. ts lurf .ft I • l.-»ve hem 
 
 wriU'-ii l.v rh«"V 
 
 soeak of Ih. fV of 
 
 Theodotus. V. d'Oe 
 
 when peace w.i. rr.i..tr.i 1 . 11. -• . ;,>ir<.. Fher 
 
 are ia Kuioort, AcU Stmt. p. 354. uxd tr*i»»- 
 
980 
 
 THEODOTUS 
 
 lated into English as an appendix to Mason's 
 Persecution of Diocletian. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Theodotus (11), bp. of Laodicea in Syria 
 Prima, claimed as a zealous advocate of Arian 
 doctrines by Arius in writing to Eusebius of 
 Nicomedia (Theod. H. E.i. 5; v. 7). Eusebius 
 gives him a high character for skill as a 
 physician of both body and soul, remarkable 
 for kindness, sympathy, sincerity, and zeal to 
 help all who needed aid, reinstating the church 
 in its prosperity which had suffered much by 
 the cowardice of its last bishop, Stephen, who 
 seems to have renounced the faith in the 
 persecution of Diocletian (Eus. H. E. vii. 32). 
 Theodotus was at the council of Nicaea in 
 325 (Labbe, ii. 51) ; before which he is coupled 
 by Athanasius with the Eusebian party 
 (Athan. de Synod, c. i. § 17, p. 886). On the 
 visit of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Jerusalem 
 in 330 or 331, ostensibly to see the newly built 
 church, he formed one of the Arian" cabal 
 which, proceeding to Antioch, succeeded in 
 deposing Eustathius (Theod. H. E.i. 21) and 
 electing Eusebius of Caesarea in his room (Eus. 
 Vit. Const, iii. 62). He also took part in the 
 council of Tyre in 335 (Labbe, ii. 436) and of 
 the Dedication at Antioch in 341 (ib. 560), and 
 is mentioned by Athanasius as having been at 
 Seleucia in 359 (Athan. de Synod, c. i. § 12, 
 p. 880). The two ApoUinarii, father and son, 
 were e.xcommunicated by Theodotus for being 
 present at the recitation of a hymn in honour 
 of Bacchus, composed by a sophist of Laodicea 
 with whom he had interdicted an intercourse. 
 He restored them on their repentance (Soz. 
 H. E. vi. 25 ; .Socr. H. E. ii. 46). Gelasius of 
 Cyzicus (bk. iii. c. 3) gives a letter from the 
 emperor Constantine to Theodotus, warning 
 him to return to the orthodox faith (Labbe, ii. 
 284). It is quoted as genuine by Benignus of 
 Heraclea at the fifth general council {ib. v. 
 481). According to Gams, Theodotus was 
 bishop 30 years. [e.v.] 
 
 TheodotilS (18), patriarch of Antioch, .\.d. 
 420-429 (Clinton, F. R. ii. 552). He suc- 
 ceeded Alexander, under whom the long- 
 standing schism at Antioch had been healed, 
 and followed his lead in replacing the honoured 
 name of Chrvsostom on the diptychs of the 
 church. He is described bv Theodoret, at 
 one time one of his presbyters, as " the pearl 
 of temperance," " adorned with a splendid 
 life and a knowledge of the divine dogmas " 
 (Theod. H. E. v. 38 ; Ep. 83 ad Dioscor.). 
 Joannes Moschus relates anecdotes illustrative 
 of his meekness when treated rudely by his 
 clergy, and his kindness on a journey in insist- 
 ing on one of his presbyters exchanging his 
 horse for the patriarch's litter (Mosch. Prat. 
 Spir. c. 33). By his gentleness he brought 
 back the Apollinarians to the church without 
 rigidly insisting on their formal renouncement 
 of their errors (Theod. H. E. v. 38). On the 
 real character of Pelagius's teaching becoming 
 known in the East and the consequent with- 
 drawal of the testimony previously given by 
 the synods of Jerusalem and Caesarea to his 
 orthodoxy, Theodotus presided at the final 
 synod held at Antioch (mentioned only by 
 Mercator and Photius, in whose text Theo- 
 philus of Alexandria has by an evident error 
 taken the place of Theodotus of Antioch) at 
 which Pelagius was condenoned and expelled 
 
 THEONAS 
 
 from Jerusalem and the other holy sites, and 
 I he joined with Praylius of Jerusalem in the 
 j synodical letters to Rome, stating what had 
 been done. The most probable date of this 
 j synod is that given by Hefele, a.d. 424 (Marius 
 1 Mercator, ed. Garnier, Paris, 1673, Corn- 
 monitor, c. 3, p. 14 ; Dissert, de Synodis, p. 
 207 ; Phot. Cod. 54). When in 424 Alex- 
 ander, founder of the order of the Acoemetae, 
 j visited Antioch, Theodotus refused to receive 
 \ him as being suspected of heretical views. His 
 I feeling was not shared by the Antiochenes, 
 who, ever eager after novelty, deserted their 
 own churches and crowded to listen to Alex- 
 ander's fervid eloquence (Fleury, H. E. livre 
 XXV. c. 27). Theodotus took part in the 
 ordination of Sisinnius as patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople, Feb. 426, and united in the 
 synodical letter addressed by the bishops then 
 assembled to the bishops of Pamphylia against 
 j the Massalian heresy (Socr. H. E. vii. 26 ; 
 •• Phot. Cod. 52 ). He died in 429 (cf . Theodoret's 
 ! Ep. to Diosc. and his H. E. v. 40). Tillem. 
 t. xii. note 2, Theod. Mops. ; Theophan. Chron. 
 p. 72 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 720 ; Cave, 
 Hist. Lit. i. 405. [E.v.] 
 
 TheognostUS (l), a priest of Alexandria and 
 I a writer of about the middle of cent, iii., whom 
 ' we only know from quotations in St. Athan- 
 I asius and Photius. He composed a work 
 called Hypotyposes in seven books, still extant 
 when Photius wrote (Cod. 106). He used lan- 
 guage in bk. ii. of very Arian sound, speaking 
 of the Son as a creature, and in bk. iii. of the 
 Holy Ghost in a style as little orthodox as that 
 of Origen. In bk. v. he attributed bodies to 
 angels and devils. In bks- vi. and vii. he 
 discussed the doctrine of the Incarnation in 
 a more orthodox manner than in bk. ii. Yet 
 St. Athanasius regarded him as a useful wit- 
 ness against Arianism. Philip of Side says 
 that he presided over the school of Alexandria 
 after Pierius a.d. 282 (cf. Dodwell, Dissert, in 
 I Irenaemn, p. 488). The fragments of Theog- 
 j nostus are collected in Routh's Reliq. Sac. t. 
 iii. 407-422, and trans, in Ante-Nic. Lib. Cf. 
 j Migne, Pair. Gk. t. x. col. 235-242 ; Ceill. ii. 
 1 450 ; .\than. Ep. 4 ad Serap., de Decretis Nic. 
 ' Svn. [G.T.S.] 
 
 Theonas (1), 15th bp. of Alexandria (whom 
 Eutychius absurdly calls Neron), succeeded 
 .Maximus in 282. His episcopate, says Neale 
 {Hist. Pair. Alex. i. 86), was a time of much 
 suffering to the Egyptians, owing to the revolt 
 of Achilleus. Diocletian besieged Alexandria 
 in 294 ; and after eight months' siege the city, 
 " wasted by the sword and fire, implored the 
 mercy of the conqueror, but experienced the 
 full extent of his severity " in the form of 
 "promiscuous slaughter" and sentences "of 
 death or of exile " (Gibbon, ii. 76). Yet 
 Theonas has left a very interesting and attrac- 
 tive picture of the relations which the emperor 
 earlier in his reign maintained towards his 
 Christian servants. Eusebius's testimony 
 
 that those imperial domestics who held the 
 faith (three of whom he afterwards names, 
 Dorotheus, Gorgonius, and Peter) were al- 
 lowed perfect freedom therein, and were even 
 peculiarly valued bv their master (viii. i), is 
 singularly illustrated by the " letter of Theo- 
 nas the bp. to Lucian/praeposituscubiculari- 
 orum or high chamberlain," published in cent. 
 
THEOPHILUS 
 
 xvii. by D'Achcry. It is obviouslv a trans- 
 l.Uiiin from a (Ireck ori^iii^, which i(i» mir 
 will now hesitate to ascrit>e to I'heoiias of 
 Alexandria. (See it in Kouth's A'W. Sac. iii. 
 439, and an Eng. version in Mason's I'frsfcu- 
 Uon of Diocletian, p. 348. and see ih. p. 3<)). 
 After some opening; words on the duty of so 
 using the peace which the church was then 
 enjoying " by means of a kindly sovereign " 
 that Ciod might be glorified bv gcntiinrlv 
 Christian lives, Theonas urges I.tician to th.iiik 
 Him for a signal opportunity of thus promot- 
 ing His cause by fidelity to " an emperor who 
 was indeed not yet enrolled in the Christian 
 ranks," but who might be favourably im- 
 pressed in regard to Christianity by the 
 loyalty of the Christians to whose care he had 
 " entrusted his life." Thus it was a primary 
 duty to avoid everything that was " base and 
 unworthy, not to say flagitious," lest the name 
 of Christ should thereby be blasphemed. The 
 Christian chamberlains were not to take monev 
 for procuring audience, must be clear of all 
 avarice, duplicity, and scurrility, acting in all 
 things with modesty, courtesy, affability, and 
 justice, must discharge their several duties in 
 the fear of God. with love for their prince and 
 with exact diligence, regarding all his orders 
 which did not clash with God's as coming from 
 God Himself, and taking care in their minis- 
 trations to put away all gloom or bad temper, 
 and to refresh his weariness by a cheerful 
 manner and glad obedience. [e-v.] 
 
 Theophilus (4), bp. of .\ntioch (Eus. H. E. 
 iv. 20 ; Hieron. Ep. <ui Ali;as. quaest. 6). 
 succeeded Eros c. 171, and was succeeded by 
 Maximin c. 183, according to Clinton (Fasit 
 Rotnani). but the dates are oidy approxima- 
 tions. His death may probablv be placed c. 
 183-185 (Lightfoot, S. Ipnalius, vol. ii. p. .\(if>). 
 We gather from his wTitings that he was born 
 a heathen, not far from the Tigris and Eu- 
 phrates, and was led to embrace Christi.mity 
 bv studying the Holy Scriptures, especially 
 the prophetical books (*/ .^ «//>/. i. 14, ii. 24)- 
 He makes no reference to his office in his 
 existing writings, nor is any other fact in his 
 life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of 
 the zeal which he and the other chief shep- 
 herds displayed in driving away the heretics 
 who were attacking Christ's flock, with special 
 mention of his work against Marcion (//. E- 
 iv. 24). He was a fertile writer in different 
 departments of Christian literature, polemics, 
 exegetics. and apologetics. \)r. Sandav de- 
 scribes him as " one of the precursors of that 
 group of writers who, from Ircnaeus to Cy- 
 prian, not only break the obscurity which 
 rests on the earliest history of the Christian 
 church, but alike in the East and in the West 
 carry it to the front in literary eminence, and 
 distance all their heathen contemporaries " 
 [Sltuiia Btblica, p. 00). Ilusebius anrl Jerome 
 mention numerous works of Theophilus cur- 
 rent in their time. They arc fi) the cxistinc 
 Apology addressed to .Autolycus ; (2) a work 
 against the heresy of Hcrmogcnes \ (■\) against 
 that of Marcion: (4) some catechetical writ- 
 ings ; (5) Jerome also mentions having read 
 some commentaries on the gfwpel and on 
 Proverbs, which bore Theophilus's name, but 
 which he regarded as inconsistent with the 
 elegance and style of his other works. 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 t>K| 
 
 The one uiidoubte<l rxtant work o| Theo 
 philiis i> hi« ApfU-cia ad AttU^'^tum, in Ihrra 
 b(M>ks. Its ONlmviblp objifl lo In rotiMiirr • 
 he.ithrn friciwl. .\iitolvcii«, 4 tii4n o| grral 
 learning and an c.irnest \erKrr iiflrr truth, f>( 
 the iliMiir authority of tlir t hri«(i4n rrliKion. 
 whili- .It the same time hr rthll>ll« ihr (4IW 
 hu<Hl and absurdity of p.tg.iniMn Hi* «ritu- 
 ineiits. drawn almost piitirrly from O.T.. with 
 but very scanty rrfrrrncr to N.T.. are larKrIy 
 chronoloj^iral. Mr lu.ikrs tlip truth of ( hri»- 
 ti.uiitv depend on Ills dfinon^tration Ih4l thf 
 books of O.T. wcrr It-- .Ml,t, r I . !! w i»^rU- 
 ings of the Grerks .1 ir««d. 
 
 Whatever of truth • 'on- 
 
 tain he regards as I and 
 
 the prophets, who .il..u. il'i lif i..! trvela- 
 tion to man. He contrasts thr |HTfr<-| con- 
 sistency of the divinr oraclrA. which hs 
 reg.irds as a convincing proof of thdr inspira- 
 tion, with the incoiisistmcirs of hralhrn 
 philosophers. He contrasts the acroimt n( 
 th'- creation of thr iiiiiversr and o( m.»n. on 
 which, together with the history c«.ntainrd in 
 the earlier chapters <A Grm-sis. hr commrnts 
 at great length but with singiil.irlv little 
 intelliKence, with the slat'inrnts of fMato, 
 "reputed the wisest of all the (.rrrks" (UK 
 iii. cc. 15, 16), of .Vr.itus, who had the hardi- 
 hood to assert that the e.irth was spherical 
 (ii. 32, iii. 2), and other <irrek wTiters on whom 
 he pours contempt a^ m- rr i,ri r uit rrtailer* 
 of stolen goods. H' \ lies, 
 
 beginning with M > irciis 
 
 Aurelius, who h.«) >!. lote. 
 
 i.e. early in the t,-i^,x ... . . ,m, 1 o. \\t> 
 regards the Sibylline verses as aiithrnlic and 
 inspired productions, quoting them I.irgelv 
 as declaring the same truths with the pr<». 
 phets. The omission by the Greeks of all 
 mention of O.T., fnun which they draw all 
 their wis<loin, is ascribed to a soH-ch<»srii 
 blindness in refusing to recogiii/e the only 
 God and in pers'-cutins the follower, of lliin 
 Wh-» is the only fountain of truth (ill. v>. •d 
 fin.). He can recogni/e in th<-ni no aspira- 
 tions after the divine life, no rani'st «P«pings 
 after truth, no gleams of the allilbiiiuning 
 
 light. The heathen religion w '- 
 
 worship of idols, Ix^aring the 11 r 
 men. .Almost the only point in 
 allow the he.ithen writers to b< ; 
 with revealed truth is in the diH-triu. .>| tdn- 
 bution and punishment after death (■¥■ «in« 
 committed in life (ii. 37. I**). The Iiterarv 
 character of the Apolo^v <lrs«TVc» conunrn- 
 dation. The style i» characteri/rd bv diicnitv 
 and refincni.M.t. It i> clear and |.*cible. 
 The diction v, II ch-.vn. Thro- 
 
 philns also and nnillifarioitt 
 
 though sue ■ 'I"' » «4mili4r 
 
 acqu.iintancr uir. . 1 1 . ... 1 .,,p,|j 
 
 writers. His <1U'' *»'• 
 
 y.irird. Hut I)on> <'■ !••• 
 
 i>lunders. 111! 
 
 6, 16), raiu 
 
 (iii. 20). ail'! . 
 
 only run a ruk ol ■>Ij!\ lU'H n 
 
 .ictually starved to dr.iih in 1 
 
 Minerva (i6.). His critical !»'>" 
 
 above hU age. He »lopl» fur m i u . 
 
 derivation (Ii. 5a) "< *•*« '»«» ''*'*^' •''»*• 
 
982 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 God set all things in order, comparing with it 
 that of Plato {Crat. 397 c) from d^etv, because 
 the Deity is ever in motion {Apol. i. 4). He 
 asserts that Satan is called the dragon {dpaKuv) 
 on account of his having revolted {d-TrodeSpa- 
 K^vai) from God (ii. 28), and traces the Bac- 
 chanalian cry " Evoe " to the name of Eve as 
 the first sinner (/&.)• His physical theories 
 are equally puerile. He ridicules those who 
 maintain the spherical form of the earth (ii. 
 32) and asserts that it is a flat surface covered 
 by the heavens as by a domical vault (ii. 13). 
 His exegesis is based on allegories usually of 
 the most arbitrary character. He makes no 
 attempt to educe the real meaning of a pas- 
 sage, but seeks to find in it some recondite 
 spiritual truth, a method which often betra^'s 
 him into great absurdities. He discovers the 
 reason of blood coagulating on the surface of 
 the ground in the divine word to Cain (Gen. 
 iv. 10-12), the earth struck with terror 
 ((t>oprj6f7<ra i) yr)) refusing to drink it in. 
 Theophilus's testimony to the O.T. is copious. 
 He quotes very largely from the books of 
 Moses and to a smaller extent from the other 
 historical books. His references are copious 
 to Ps., Prov., Is., and Jer., and he quotes Ezek. 
 Hos. and other minor prophets. His direct 
 evidence respecting the canon of N.T. does 
 not go much beyond a few precepts from the 
 Sermon on the Mount (iii. 13, 14), a possible 
 quotation from Luke xviii. 27 (ii. 13), and 
 quotations from Rom., I. Cor., and I. Tim. 
 More important is a distinct citation from the 
 opening of St. John's Gospel (i. 1-3), mention- 
 ing the evangelist by name, as one of the 
 inspired men (ivvevna.TO(p6poi) by whom the 
 Holy Scriptures (al ayiai ypacpai) were wTitten 
 (ii. 22). The use of a metaphor found in II. 
 Pet. i. 19 bears on the date of that epistle. 
 According to Eusebius {I.e.), Theophilus quoted 
 the Apocalypse in his work against Hermo- 
 genes ; a very precarious allusion has been seen 
 in ii. 28, cf. Rev. xii. 3, 7, etc. A full index 
 of these and other possible references to O. 
 and N. T. is given by Otto (Corp. Apol. 
 Christ, ii. 353-355). Theophilus transcribes 
 a considerable portion of Gen. i.-iii. with his 
 own allegorizing comments upon the success- 
 ive work of the creation week. The sun is 
 the image of God ; the moon of man, whose 
 death and resurrection are prefigured by the 
 monthly changes of that luminary. The first 
 three days before the creation of the heavenly 
 bodies are types of the Trinity — tvttoi t^s 
 rpiaSos — the first place in Christian writings 
 where the word is known to occur (lib. ii. c. 15) 
 — i.e. " God, His Word and His Wisdom." 
 
 The silence regarding the Apology of Theo- 
 philus in the East is remarkable. We find the 
 work nowhere mentioned or quoted by Greek 
 writers before the time of Eusebius. Several 
 passages in the works of Irenaeus shew an 
 undoubted relationship to passages in one 
 small section of the Apology (Iren. v. 23, i ; 
 Autol. ii. 25 tnit. : Iren. iv. 38, i, iii. 23, 6 ; 
 Autol. ii. 25 : Iren. iii. 23, 6 ; Autol. ii. 25, 
 26), but Harnack (p. 294) thinks it probable 
 that the quotations, limited to two chapters, 
 are not taken from the Apology, but from 
 Theophilus's work against Marcion (cf. 
 Mohler, Pair. p. 286 ; Otto, Corp. Apol. 11. 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 viii. p. 357 ; Donaldson, Christ. Lit. iii. 66). 
 In the West there are certain references to the 
 Autolycus, though not copious. It is quoted 
 by Lactantius (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title 
 Liber de Temporibus ad Autolycum. There 
 is a passage first cited by Maranus in Nova- 
 tian (de Trin. c. 2) which shews great similar- 
 ity to the language of Theophilus (ad Autol. i. 
 3). In the next cent, the book is mentioned 
 by Gennadius (c. 34) as "tres libeUi de fide." 
 He found them attributed to Theophilus of 
 Alexandria, but the disparity of style caused 
 him to question the authorship. The notice 
 of Theophilus by Jerome has been already 
 referred to. Dodwell found internal evidence, 
 in the reference to existing persecutions and 
 a supposed reference to Origen and his fol- 
 lowers, for assigning the work to a younger 
 Theophilus who perished in the reign of 
 Severus (Dissert, ad Iren. §§44, 50, pp. 170 ff. 
 ed. 1689). His arguments have been care- 
 fully examined by Tillemont (Mem. eccl. iii. 
 612 notes), Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 70), Donaldson 
 (M.S. ii. 65), and Harnack (u.s. p. 287), and 
 I the received authorship fully established. Cf. 
 i W. Sanday in Stud. Bibl. (Oxf. 1885). p. 89. 
 I Editions. — Migne's Patr. Gk. (t. vi. col. 1023- 
 I 1168), and a small ed. (Camb. 1852) by the 
 I Rev. W. G. Humphry. Otto's ed. in the Corpus 
 Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund. vol. ii. (Jena, 
 1861, 8vo) is by far the most complete and 
 useful. English trans, by Belty (Oxf. 1722), 
 Flower (Lond. i860), and Marcus Dods (Clark's 
 \ Ante-Nicene Lib.]. [e.v.] 
 
 Theophilus (9), bp. of Alexandria, succeed- 
 ing Timotheus in the last week of July 385. 
 He had probably been a leading member of 
 the Alexandrian clergy. Socrates states that 
 ; Theophilus (probably two years later, Clinton, 
 i Fast. Rom. i. 522) obtained from Theodosius a 
 I commission to demolish the pagan temples of 
 Alexandria (Socr. v. 16). Sozomen corrects 
 this by saying that Theodosius granted to 
 Theophilus, at his own request, the temple of 
 Dionysus, on the site of which he proposed 
 to build a church (vii. 15). Socrates says that 
 Theophilus "cleared out the temple of Mith- 
 ras, and exposed its bloody mysteries." 
 Socrates adds that the foul symbols used in 
 the worship of Srrapis and other gods were, 
 by the archbishop's order, carried through the 
 agora as objects of contemptuous abhorrence. 
 The votaries of Alexandrian idolatry arranged 
 a tragically successful onslaught on the Chris- 
 tians and then took possession of the vast 
 Serapeum, in the N.W. quarter of the city, 
 which had been the popular sanctuary of Alex- 
 andrian paganism, and now became their 
 stronghold of " furious despair " (Oral, of 
 Athan. against the Arians, p. 5, ed. Oxf.). 
 They made sallies from its precincts, cap- 
 tured several Christians, dragged them within, 
 and inflicted torture or death on those who 
 would not sacrifice. The general in com- 
 mand at Alexandria and the Augusta! prefect 
 summoned them to surrender, but in vain. 
 Olympius, a philosopher, sustained their 
 obstinate resolution until the arrival of an 
 edict ordering the destruction of all the 
 temples. Terrified by the shouts which pro- 
 claimed this mandate, the desperadoes 
 abandoned the Serapeum ; and Theophilus, 
 with a great body of soldiers, exultant Chris- 
 
THEOPHILUS 
 
 tians, and astuuiulrd p.iK.ms. ascriuird thr 
 hundred steps Ic.idiiiK up thr in.uMul. .lud 
 penetrated into the f.untiv lithtrtl s,inclu.irv. 
 from within which the Christians altrrw.ir.ls 
 believed that Dhinpius, on the nij;ht Ixl^rr 
 the evacuation, had heard a voice chanliin: 
 "Alleluia" {S.u. vii. is). There was the 
 huge seated statue of Serapis, constructed <»( 
 various metals, now dusky with age. and 
 inlaid with various precious stones (llem. 
 Alex. Cohort. 48). The successor of Athan- 
 asius gazed on this visible concentration of 
 the power of Eg\-ptian idolatry, no doubt the 
 symbol to nianv .Me.xandrians of the piinciple 
 of life and of the powers that ruled the under- 
 world. It was .\ supreme moment ; at last 
 the church had her foot on the neck of her 
 foe. Mutterincs of super-titious fear were 
 heard ; to draw near the linage was to cause 
 an earthquake. The archbishop turned to a 
 soldier who held an axe. and bade him " strike 
 hard." The man obeved. A shriek of terror 
 burst from many ; another and another blow 
 followed, the head was lopped off, and there 
 ran out a troop of mice, which had " dwelt 
 within the god of the Egyptians." Misgiving 
 and alarm gave way to noisy triumph ; the 
 body of Serapis was broken up and burned ; 
 the head was made a public show. At Cano- 
 pus, 14 miles from Alexandria, temples were 
 immediately laid low. The images were 
 melted down into cauldrons and other vessels 
 required in the eleemosynary work of the 
 Alexandrian church. The one exception was 
 an image of an ape, which Theophilus set up 
 in a public place " in perpetuam rei memo- 
 riam," to the vexation of the pagan gram- 
 marian Amnionius, who lived to teach the 
 young Socrates at Constantinople, and used 
 to complain seriously of the injustice thus 
 done to " Greek religion " (Socr. v. 16). 
 During the demolition of various temples 
 there were found hollow statues of bronze and 
 wood, set against the walls, but capable of 
 being entered by the priests, who thus carried 
 on their impostures, which Theophilus ex- 
 plained to his paean f<ll.,w-citizens (Thefnl. 
 v. 22). But when the Nile-gauge was removed 
 from the Serapeum to the church, the pagans 
 asked. Would not the god avenge himself by 
 withholding the yearlv inundation his power 
 had been wont to effect ? It was, in fact, 
 delayed. Murmurs swelled into remon- 
 strances ; the state of the city was becoming 
 dangerous ; the prefect had to consult his 
 sovereign. Theodosius's answer was : " If 
 the Nile would not rise except by means of 
 enchantments or sacrifices, let Kgypt remain 
 unwatered." Forthwith the river l>egan to 
 rise with vehemence ; the fear was now of a 
 flood (Soz. vii. 20). We know not the nature 
 of those concessions to the pagans which, 
 according to a letter from Atticus to Thro- 
 philus's nephew C>Til, Theophilus made at 
 this time for the sake of peace (C>Til. h.f>p- p. 
 202), but they did not prevent a pagan like 
 Eunapius from abusing him. To Eunapius 
 the temple-breakers were impious men who 
 " threw everything into confusion. boaste<I o( 
 having conquered the gods," enriched them- 
 selves by the plunder, " brought into the 
 sacred places the so-called monks, men in form 
 but swinish in life," deified the " bonc< and 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 hra.l 
 bv II 
 
 the l.lMi th. Iitir ,.| |„.,.tw. .11.1 Mll^,.r^^.,^ 
 
 With the s.mK." 
 
 In \<}t or joj Th«n»htl<i« «»•• n«m»«»1 hv 
 
 the council of 1 4p'M ■' '" ' — 
 
 l>etween Klavian. .. 
 
 succession to the -, 
 
 wh<»Ne riaimv lik' 
 
 Paulinus, were uph«M 1.. il»r .'. 
 
 philus undertook to examine thr . 
 
 aiti of his suffragans. I \ n-n 
 
 but Flavian was not rer. , 
 
 until I hrvsostoin prima: 
 
 secon<Iarilv. ellected th.«i 
 
 viii. ^; ct. Tillem. x. s\>^) 
 
 In A.o. \<)4 we find The<iphilii* («w the hr»t 
 time at ( <>no|anlino|>l» at a r»iinr(| in lh« 
 bapti-texy of the ;•- • ''••-'■ • -- • 
 Me sat next to N' 
 and there were yt- 
 of Nvssa, and 1 
 
 Theophilus was in tl-.^: xlati'it- «il!t lUe 
 solitaries of Kgvpt. In the Savtmgx of lh« 
 FathfTi he appears as inviting *ome of ifiem 
 to be present at the destructi'Wi of the temples, 
 and again as visiting those of the famnu* 
 Nitrian settlement, and prnrfr.itinr f- tSf 
 more distant Seel is. Sii" t 
 
 was his intimacv with ( 
 known as " the Tall Hr.' 
 
 were the best in Theophil .1 
 
 if it had lasted only ten \ Uavn 
 
 left the name, if not of . • -if a 
 
 good as well as an able .r • Ut'-. 
 
 But in 3gs the storv ol liu h: 
 character. He begins to justif'. 
 tion afterwards given of him bv .1 
 " Naturally impulsive, headlong- iiiI.-iik. Iv 
 contentious insatiable in grasping at hi* 
 objects, awaiting in his own r.isc TiHthfr tnil 
 nor inquiry, impatient • f 
 mined to carry out his nw 
 Dial. p. 7')). In yts. ai 
 John of Jerusalem, he s. • 
 said to have l>een an On 
 into Pal«>stine. to al)at' 
 John and Jerome. Isi.l 
 
 three times, but would 11 't ^r.. !.i:u 4 1- ttrr 
 which The«iphilus had written him (\h. \<t) ; 
 and his so-called median. n •■ I 1 • bire<l « 
 soreness on The<iphiluss i 'tome, 
 
 whose letters for viine ti 'At 
 
 last he wrote, coldiv .- ••- to 
 
 resnect the authorltv of i ' "•. 
 
 and again in vn (a<"< 
 urgiiii; Ii-rofiif to romr I 
 
 Tf, •'■•■• '■■' ' ■ 
 
 Ant' 
 th.- 
 ill-i> 
 
 .1.1. 
 
 ai>te<l to the 
 
 O.I 
 him 
 
 t»eel. . . 
 
 nature {llafr rn. •; 
 
 and 7h ■ W " ' 
 
 scriptural - 
 
 hands of < . 
 
 examinatiofi . -i .... .-• 
 
 Tbrophilu*, in hi» Fmc1»*1 Ullc* «»< iw. 
 
984 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 sisted peremptorily on the immateriality of the 
 divine nature, a storm of wrathful zeal broke 
 out among the solitaries ; one of them, 
 indeed, named Serapion, was candid enough 
 to be convinced by argument, but the pain 
 which ensued was such that when his brethren 
 were engaged in their devotions, he exclaimed 
 with tears, " They have taken away my God, 
 and I know not whom to adore ! " (Cassian, 
 Coll. X. 3 ). Many others were of fiercer mood : 
 was the " image of God " to be thus nullified ? 
 They hurried from their deserts to Alexandria 
 and menaced the " pope " whom they had 
 been wont to honour. " Impious man ! thou 
 deservest death ! " He saw that they were 
 not to be defied, but a smooth prevarication 
 might disarm them. " In seeing you I see 
 God's face ! " It was enough : he had 
 appeared to accept the imperilled phrase : 
 they asked more calmly, " If you admit that 
 God's face is like ours, anathematize the books 
 of Origen ; for some people contradict us on 
 their authority. If you will not do this, be 
 prepared for the treatment due to those who 
 fight against God." Theophilus uttered the 
 fateful words of compliance : " I will do what 
 you think fit ; do not be angry with me, for I 
 object to Origen's books, and blame those 
 who approve them." Here he was using 
 "economy"; he stooped to propitiate the 
 Anthropomorphists by using their phrase in a 
 sense of his own and letting them think that 
 he condemned Origen absolutely. About the 
 end of 399 or beginning of 400 he held a svnod 
 at Alexandria, at which " Origenism " ' was 
 condemned. He then wrote to Anastasius of 
 Rome and Jerome, informing them of this. 
 At the beginning of 401 he attacked Origenism 
 in his Paschal Letter (Hieron. Ep. 96), a re- 
 markable document which anticipates the 
 Christology of his nephew and successor Cyril, 
 while excluding all Apollinarian ideas. Theo- 
 philus traces to Origen the (Marcellian) notion 
 that Christ's kingdom would have an end. 
 He goes on to denounce Origenistic Univer- 
 salism, and the notions that Christ would 
 suffer again on behalf of the demons, and that 
 after the resurrection human bodies would 
 again be subject to dissolution. Fortified bv 
 an imperial edict forbidding all monks to read 
 Ongen (Anastasius, ad Joan. Jems.), he 
 ordered the neighbouring bishops to banish 
 the chief Nitrian monks from their own moun- 
 tains and from the farther desert. Some of ' 
 the monks came to remonstrate with him. 
 They probably disclaimed the special errors 
 associated with the name of Origen, and urged 
 that they ought not to be treated as heretics 
 because they opposed the degrading literalism 
 of the Anthropomorphists. Palladius repre- ' 
 sents him as glaring at them in a furv, throw- : 
 ing his scarf or omophorion over the neck of 
 Amraonius, one of the Tall Brothers, and with 
 a blow on the face drawing blood, and fiercely 
 exclaiming, " You heretic, anathematize Ori- 
 gen ! " (Dial. p. 54). Palladius adds that 
 fie induced five of the Nitrian monks (" men 
 unworthy even to be doorkeepers"), whom he '■ 
 had promoted to ecclesiastical office to sign 
 accusations against three of their chief bre- 
 thren, who were accordinglv excommunicated 
 in a council. At his request the Augustal • 
 prefect decreed their expulsion from Egypt • | 
 
 THEOPHILUS 
 
 and Theophilus is said to have attacked the 
 Nitrian settlement by night at the head of a 
 force which was to execute this order. A wild 
 scene, according to Palladius, ensued (Dial. 
 p. 57). Against this account is to be set 
 Theophilus's own statement in what is called 
 , the synodical letter to the bishops of Palestine 
 and Cyprus (trans, by Jerome, Ep. 92), 
 [ intended to be read by them when assembled 
 I for the Dedication Festival at Jerusalem in 
 Sept. 401. Theophilus says that, having been 
 memorialized by orthodox " fathers and 
 1 presbyters," he went to Nitria with a great 
 number of neighbouring bishops, and there, 
 in presence of many fathers who come together 
 from nearly the whole of Egypt, some of 
 Origen's treatises were read, and the adherents 
 of Origenism condemned. The Origenist monks 
 i were now going about in foreign provinces, 
 i " seeking whom to devour with their im- 
 piety " ; their mad impetuosity must be 
 restrained. Theophilus protests that he has 
 done them no hurt and taken nothing wrong- 
 fully from them. It is clear that Theophilus 
 did' personally visit Nitria, and that its 
 " Origenist monks " were put under ban, and 
 I driven forth, probably in the early summer of 
 I 401, and that their places were filled by others 
 ; of whose " docility " Theophilus could rely. 
 
 The persecuted " Brothers " found a tem- 
 ' porary refuge with many other fugitives (Dial. 
 i p. r6o) at Scythopolis, on the slope of mount 
 Gilboa. Sonie bishops of Palestine who 
 shewed them countenance were peremptorily 
 warned by Theophilus (ib. p. 58). Hunted 
 from place to place, the Nitrians determined 
 to seek redress at Constantinople. Here the 
 current of the Origenistic controversy flows 
 suddenly, and with momentous consequences, 
 into the stream of Chrysostom's episcopate. 
 Towards the close of 401 some 50 elderly 
 men of the Nitrian party fell at his feet as 
 suppliants (ih. p. 58). The bishop, moved 
 to tears, asked who had accused them. 
 " Sit down, father," thsy answered, " and 
 j provide some remedy for the harm that pope 
 Theophilus has done us. If out of regard to 
 him you will not act, we shall be obliged to 
 '• apply to the emperor. But we beg you to 
 induce Theophilus to let us live in our own 
 country ; for we have not offended against 
 I him or against the law of our Saviour." 
 [ Chrysostom promised to do his best. " Mean- 
 ' while," he said, " until I have written to my 
 brother Theophilus, keep silence about your 
 affairs." He assigned them a lodging in the 
 precincts of the church of Anastasia, and 
 pious ladies contributed to their support. 
 He wrote to Theophilus, " Oblige me as your 
 ! son and brother " (alluding to his own con- 
 secration by Theophilus), "by being recon- 
 ciled to these men." Theophilus saw his way 
 to a blow, not only at the Origenists, but at 
 Chrysostom, whom, according to Palladius, 
 he had disliked from the first. He wTote to 
 Epiphanius, urging him to get Origenism con- 
 demned by a synod of his suffragans in Cyprus. 
 Epiphanius obtained from a synod of his 
 insular church a decree forbidding the faithful 
 of Cyprus to read Origen's works (a.d. 402). 
 Meantime the " Brothers " had laid before the 
 emperor Arcadius their charges against Theo- 
 philus, and requested the empress Eudoxia 
 
THEOPHILUS 
 
 to promote a formal hrariiiR of the case, ami 
 evpn to cause Thoiphilus to Uc broiiKht to 
 Constantinople to l>e trioil l>v its lushop. 
 Arcadius ordered Theophilus to be summoned. 
 Tfieophilus delayed to ol>ey the imperial cita- 
 tion. When at last he set forth, as he pas-ied 
 through Lycia he is said to have luMstetl that 
 he was " going to court to depose John " (i/>. 
 p. 72). It was not a mere braj; ; he knew his 
 own diplomatic ability, and that Chrvsosti>m's 
 unworldly strictness had alienated Kudoxia 
 and some people of rank, and even not a few 
 ecclesiastics. The great nan»e of the sw of 
 .\thanasius would also go for much, and the 
 watchword of " No Origenism " for yet more. 
 He felt that he could exchange the position 
 of a defendant for that of a judge. Theophilus 
 landed at Constantinople at midday on a 
 Thursday in the latter part of June 403 (l^. 
 p. 64). Not one of the clergv went to meet 
 him or pay him the usual honour (S4KT.). 
 Chrysostom invited him to the episcopal resi- 
 dence (Chrys. Ef>. i. to Innocent ; Pallad. p. 
 12), but he ignored all friendly messages, 
 would not enter the cathedral, and bet<H)k 
 himself to lodgings without the city. The 
 emperor now urged Chrysostom to sit as judge 
 in the case ; he refused, for he " knew " (so 
 he says) "the laws of the Fathers, and had a 
 respect for the man." Theophilus had no such 
 scruples. Proceedings against Chrysostom 
 were taken at the council of "the Oak." a 
 suburb of Chalcedon. and a sentence of deposi- 
 tion passed. [CHR^ sosTOM.] Theophilus was 
 afterwards pleased to take up the almost 
 forgotten question of the Nitrian exiles. 
 They were persuaded to ask their pope's 
 forgiveness, and Theophilus restored them to 
 his communion. Returning to Constanti- 
 nople he boldly entered the cathedral with an 
 armed following to enforce the installation of 
 a successor to " John," but finding that he 
 had undertaken too much, and that the people 
 were resolutely loyal to Chrysostom. he went 
 on board a vessel at midnight and (led with 
 his followers {Dtal. p. 16). It was high time, 
 for, savs Palladius drily, " the city was seeking 
 to throw him into the sea " (16. p. 7S). Theo- 
 philus did not attack Chrysostom in his 
 Paschal Letter for 404. but returned to the 
 subject of Origenism as an error which de- 
 ceived " simple and shallow " minds. He 
 informed pope Innocent that he had depos<-d 
 Chrysostom ; and Innocent, disposed to 
 censure his " hasty arrogance " in not com- 
 municating the grounds of the condemnation 
 (16. p. 9) wTote. " Brother Theophilus, we are 
 in communion with you and with our brother 
 John. . . . Again we write, and shall do s*' 
 whenever vou write to us, that unless that 
 mock trial'is followed by a proper one, it will 
 be impossible for us to withdraw from com- 
 munion with John." 
 
 Theophilus seems to have written a work 
 of great length against Origenism ({;ennadius. 
 de Vtr. III. 33), from which C>Til quotes in 
 his treatise, ad Arcadiam el .\tannam (P. 
 Pusevs Cyril, vii. if.6). in supt«.rt of the 
 " Personal Union," and Theodoret in his 
 second dialogue on the distinction between 
 Christ's soul and the Word. Theophilus 
 affirmed that Origen had been condemned (m.t 
 only by Demetrius, but) by Heraclas. Either 
 
 •nlv 
 
 !h4l. 
 
 •^nlit 
 
 tho 
 
 ^ nf 
 
 who 
 
 THKOPMILUS 
 
 in thit w.H-k (.IS IillriMii.t • 
 
 in another, he ^trov^ to »ii. 
 
 seeme<l to Anirr »iih fhr \ 
 
 for " he »hewed. 
 
 according to the 1 i 
 
 " neijue iilli* ornmi^ 
 
 compositum '• 
 
 eccentric pi ; 
 
 sirs to the I 
 
 th.inked him 
 
 411. and wtshtd lull) rf ; 
 
 age (Svnes. hf'. <}). In 1 
 
 sins, after professing his i 
 
 as a law whatever the tlifn- 1 Al- ijultia 
 
 might ordain." asks the archbishop what thould 
 
 be done in rr^rinl t < fhr jr.; 1.- ..f I'll irburji 
 
 and Hydra \ t . Iw 
 
 placed, as 11 hop 
 
 of their own tidrr 
 
 Paul. bp. of I i % i ji t)ie«« 
 
 " villages " had alu Ahlle 
 
 Siderins was thru had 
 
 also asked him to i- . ; , ; l.ry. 
 
 thrum and Hardanis to i^tU oiliet U f>. b;). 
 
 Th«>ophilus died "of lethargy " on Oct. 15. 
 412 (Socr vii. 7). after an episropate o( 37 
 years an<l ne.irlv 3 months. The m<*al of ht« 
 life is the deterioration which too icreat power 
 can prtnhice in .mr wh '^e real in the cau«<- o| 
 religion, altli ind active, if not 
 
 combined «:• t heart. 
 
 .Ml his i\ are collected in 
 
 Gall.indius iHi .. 1 .. '.."1 v. I. vii. pp. 60} f|.); 
 his "canons" in heverid»;e i I'anJ. Cam. li. 
 170). The sense of the^e ranoi»% i« ^iven in 
 Johnson's lade Meium, 11. i\s. Ser alv) 
 Zalin. Fnr^chungen, 11. 2uti. (w.n.) 
 
 Theophilus (13). a Christian who diviis^ed 
 Christianity with Simon, a Jew. in a treati\e 
 published by a (iallir writer named KvAt.mi » 
 in sth cent. The title as given by <>ennadiiu 
 (de I'ir. III. c. Si) is Allercalio S»moHi\ JuJaet 
 et Iheophtli ( hn\liani. This work lay hid 
 till Zacagni. the \'atican librarian, iioiirrd it 
 in 169H in his Colled. .U<>»i. pp. ^i. M. W4- It 
 was printc<l by Migne {Pair. l.al. t. xx. r. 
 ii6s) andbv (iebhardt and Haniack {Itilfu. 
 Vntersuch. tut Gesch. der .ilUhttU. I %t. lid. 1. 
 Hft. 3 ; I.eipr. 1«K3). with . » I, ..isi ,•. r n.i.v 
 and dissertations. It has 1 
 on the controversy <luriii. 
 tween the cJuirch ami J ud 1 
 discuss various arguments .(*;.ii! t !!.• Uixs • ( 
 Christ drawn from O.T.. Throphilu* niaklnji a 
 very lilx-ral use of th.- nvtir,! n:rth v1 .-f 
 ex|v>sition. The J- ■ 
 Christ cannot Im- ( . 
 it is sai«l " There i 
 and Isaiah says. ' I 
 and l>eside .Me th. r 
 then defends his ; 
 o( .Abraham towar 1 ; 
 
 ship|>ed at the 0.1k ..( N! ■• tJio 
 
 Psalms. He ()llote* U. Id. « 
 
 virgin »hall r<inceive." that 
 
 the virgin wa» the daugt,t.-r • t JrruNjIrin. 
 whom Isaiah reprrwnt* ai de^puinK .Sh«l> 
 mane/er, while th.- uu-rl w». . .mtr the 
 Assyrians is the i 
 contained in the 
 was for them II 
 
 The<.philu% retr<ts ti...i .^.- ^..K.M .....fc...^. -i 
 Jerusalem hud broufht forth no »«». Th« 
 
986 
 
 THEOPHRONIUS 
 
 difficulties of the Incarnation are then dis- 
 cussed, and Christ's descent from David 
 maintained by Theophilus, who argues that 
 conception by a virgin was no more difficult 
 to God than bringing water out of a rock. 
 Simon then raises the favourite difficulty of 
 the Jews from 2nd cent, downwards, drawn 
 from Deut. xxi. 23, " He that is hanged is 
 accursed of God " [Aristo Pellaeus], which 
 introduces the subject of Christ's passion, 
 where Theophilus urges that Ps. xxii. describes 
 all the circumstances of our Lord's sufferings. 
 Harnack {I.e. ) has a learned monograph on this, 
 and discusses the Jewish controversy as it was 
 maintained by the Fathers. He devotes 50 
 pages to stating the relation between the Alter- 
 catio and Tertullian's Tract, adv. /wrf., Cyprian's 
 Testimonia, Lactantius's Institutiones, and Jus- 
 tin's Dialogus cum Tryphone, and skilfully uses 
 the AUercatio to determine the nature and con- 
 tents of the similar 2nd-cent. work, AUercatio 
 Jasonis et Papisci, which he considers the 
 groundwork of the jth-cent. document, [g.t.s.] 
 
 Theophronius. [Ar.NoiiTAE]. 
 
 Theophylactus (1) Simocatta, an Egyptian 
 
 by birth, related to Peter, who was viceroy 
 of Egypt at the death of the emperor Maurice 
 in 602. His Oecumenical History, or Historiae 
 Mauricii Tiherii Imperatoris, is very impor- 
 tant for Byzantine history at a critical period, 
 just before the rise of Mahomet, and during 
 the beginning of the struggles with the Turks 
 and Slavs. For church history his historical 
 writings are interesting, as giving a vivid 
 picture of the rites, superstitions, and ideas of 
 the close of cent. vi. They shew, e.g. that the 
 emperor Maurice was in many points superior 
 to his spiritual teachers. Thus in lib. i. c. 11 
 we have the story of a sorcerer named Paul- 
 inus, whom the patriarch of Constantinople 
 brought before the emperor, pressing for his 
 capital punishment. The emperor suggested 
 that instruction, rather than punishment, was 
 required. Many other points of interest occur, 
 e.g. the frequent use of a miraculous image 
 (dxetpoTTotTjTos) of our Lord (ii. 3 ; iii. i) ; the 
 conversion of Chosroes (v. 15), and of a woman 
 of noble birth among the Magi of Babylon, 
 named Golinducha, her escape, pilgrimage to 
 Jerusalem, and life at Nisibis (v. 12) ; the con- 
 tinued existence of the Marcionists (viii. 9) ; 
 the church in honour of St. Paul at Tarsus 
 (viii. 13) ; the incredulity of the emperor about 
 the liquefaction of the blood of St. Euphemia 
 (viii. 14); his overthrow and murder by Phocas, 
 and the miraculous announcement of it by his 
 statues at Alexandria the same night (viii. 13). 
 The History of Theophylact is included in the 
 Bonn series of Byzantine historians, but the 
 most complete and convenient ed. is bv C. H. 
 Fabrottus in Labbe's Corpus Hist. Byzani. 
 (Paris, 1648). [G.T.s.l 
 
 Theosebas, a deacon of the Thirian (? 
 Tyrian) church, ordained priest by bp. John 
 of Jerusalem. Jerome takes this ordination 
 as a justification of the ordination of his 
 brother Paulinian by Epiphanius, bp. of 
 Salamis. He describes Theosebas as an 
 eloquent man, and believes John to have 
 ordained him in order to employ him to speak 
 against himself and his friends (Hieron. Cont. 
 Joan. Hierosol. 41). [w.h.f.] 
 
 Theotimus (2), bp. and metropolitan of 
 
 THOMAS EDESSENUS 
 
 Tomi, the capital of Scythia Minor in Lower 
 Moesia. By birth a Goth, he was educated 
 in Greece, where he took the name by which 
 he is known. Adopting strict asceticism for 
 himself, he kept a liberal table for the savage 
 Goths and Huns who visited Tomi as the great 
 central market of the province, endeavouring 
 by hospitality, gifts, and courteous treatment 
 to prepare them to receive the Gospel. In 
 some instances the seed was sown in good 
 soil, and the Hunnish strangers returned to 
 their distant homes as converts, eager to 
 convert their fellow-barbarians. Theotimus 
 is with much probability identified by Baro- 
 nius {sub ami. 402) with the successful mission- 
 ary to the Huns mentioned by St. Jerome. 
 He was regarded by the Huns with super- 
 stitious reverence, and was styled by them 
 " the God of the Romans." The long hair of 
 a philosopher flowed over his episcopal attire. 
 He was a frequent and much revered visitor 
 at Constantinople. In 403, during the visit 
 of Epiphanius of Salamis, he refused to affix 
 his signature to the decree of the council of 
 Cyprus condemning the teaching of Origen, 
 denouncing the attempt to cast insult on a 
 justly honoured name and to question the 
 decisions of wise and good men before them. 
 He supported his refusal by publicly reading 
 passages from Origen. He was an author of 
 some note. Jerome ascribes to him some 
 treatises in the form of dialogues. Fragments 
 of his are in John Damascene's Parallel. Sacr. 
 (vol. ii. pp. 640, 675, 694, 785, Le Quien's ed.). 
 The archimandrite Carosus at the council of 
 Chalcedon boasted that he had been baptized 
 by Theotimus and charged by him to keep the 
 Nicene faith inviolate (Labbe, Concil. iv. 530). 
 Socr. H. E. vi. 12 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 26, viii. 14 ; 
 Tillem. Mem. eccl. xi. 190; Le Quien, Or. Chist. 
 ii. 1217 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 288. [e.v.] 
 
 Thomas (8) Edessenus appears in the Life 
 of Mar Abas. The latter, originally Magian 
 by religion, was converted to Christianity, 
 learnt Syriac at Nisibis, and Greek at Edessa 
 from Thomas a Jacobite, whom he afterwards 
 took with him to Alexandria and there with 
 his help translated the Scriptures {or, the 
 books) from Greek into Syriac (Gregory 
 Bar-hebr. Chr. Eccl. ii. 22, t. iii. col. 189). 
 Amrus {ap. Assem. iii. 75) gives a similar 
 history of their relations ; but only ascribes 
 to them the translation of the works of Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia. He relates how they 
 went to Constantinople, and finding their lives 
 in peril in consequence of their refusal to 
 " anathematize the Three Fathers," fled to 
 Nisibis. There Mar Abas became a teacher, 
 and an eloquent assailant of Zoroastrianism. 
 Gregory says that he was at one time taught 
 by John Grammaticus, the Tritheite ; but the 
 facts alleged by Amrus lead us to conclude 
 that he lapsed early into Nestorianism. He 
 was elected catholicus of the Chaldeans in 
 536, and persecuted by the Magians. Chos- 
 roes called on him to return to his original 
 faith or to conform to Christian orthodoxy. 
 Refusing to do either, he was exiled, and 
 venturing to return to his see without the 
 king's permission, was cast into prison, and 
 died there, 552. Among his disciples Amrus 
 (Assem. ii. 411) reckons " Thomas of Edessa," 
 no doubt his former teacher drawn by him 
 
THOMAS APAMEENSIS 
 
 from the opposing sect into Nrstori.tni^m. ' 
 Of their joint work, the version o| Theo<|orrs 
 liturgy survives (Brit. Mus. 7181. Rich.. 
 R.-F. Calal. p. 5<)— see .ils<i Ken-uulot. l.ilurf. 
 Or. t. i. p. 616) ; and the litur^v of N»'st<»riu> 
 (16. p. 6i6). still in use in the Nestorian 
 churches, is probably their version mentioned 
 by Ebedjesu {Catal. .Assem. iii. ^f.). who .^Iso 
 savs they translated the O.T. (ift. 7s). and adds 
 a list of the \\Titinf;s ,.( Mar .\bas. ' ( j.r.w.] 
 
 Thomas (9) Apameensis, bp. of .Apanua. 
 
 the metropolis of S\Tia Secunda ; one of the 
 bishops sent t'> invite pope \ii:ilius to the 
 second council of Constantinopie. Me him- 
 self attended it. Two contempor.iry histo- 
 rians, Procopius and Kvagrius (the latter 
 praises Thomas as a " man most mightv in 
 word and in deed "), record his tact and 
 courage when a great peril threatened his citv. 
 In 540 Chosroes. at the head of his Persians, 
 after burning Antioch. was reported to be 
 marching on .\pamea. The panic-stricken 
 people entreated their bishop to strengthen 
 them to meet their fate bv displaying a piece 
 of the true cross, a cubit in length, which was 
 treasured in their church in a casket richly 
 decorated with gold and gems, and usually 
 shewn to the faithful but once a year. Thom- 
 as fixed a day for its exhibition, to which 
 the people of the neighbouring towns also 
 eagerly repaired ; among them the parents of 
 Evagrius, bringing with them the future 
 historian, who vividly describes the crowds 
 pressing to see. and seeking to kiss, the sacred 
 wood. The bishop (as both narrators relate) 
 took it out of the casket, and raising it up in 
 both hands proceeded round the church, 
 according to usage. " .\ flame of fire shining, 
 but not consuming," around and above the 
 relic, moved as he moved, lighting up the roof. 
 This was repeated several times. The people 
 greeted with joy this visible token of divine 
 protection, and drew from it confident hopes 
 of deliverance. As Chosroes approached, the 
 bishop met him, and assured him that no 
 resistance was contemplated by the citizens, 
 on whose behalf he engaged that the king with 
 a limited guard should be admitted within the 
 gates. Chosrf>es accordingly, leaving his army 
 in camp, entered with 200 men. In violation 
 of a compact he had recently entered into with 
 the emperor (to receive 5.000 pounds of gold 
 paid down and 500 annually, and make no 
 further demands), he exacted from the bishop 
 more than 10,000 pounds of silver, and all 
 the gold and silver ornaments in the church 
 treasury. Thomas produced last of all the 
 casket that enshrined the cross, and, shewing 
 its contents to the king, said, " This alone is 
 left ; take the gold and genLs— I grudge them 
 not ; only leave us the |>recious wikkI of sal- 
 vation." The king granted his petition. 
 Thomas conciliated Chosroes by as-idiiously 
 courting his favour. It would be unfair to 
 judge him hardly under circumstances of such 
 great responsibility and peril, tlx'iigli he shews 
 politic sut)pleness and tact rather than the 
 higher virtues of a prelate and patriot. () '■\* 1 
 
 Tiberius (2) II., emperor of Constanii 
 57S-582. Fi.r the secular history of I. 
 see D. of G. and fi. Hwgr. We shall • 
 ourselves to the religious historv of the [►.n..!. 
 for which the church history of the Monophy- 
 
 TICHONIUS 987 
 
 »lte John of Kphr»u» (I>r. I', 
 trans.) nffiirdrfl |rr%h main: 
 presented a «trikini; ex4fnp|r ..| ■ 
 an intolerant age. The palrurrl. 1 1 ...1. 
 stantiiiople were ardent <>pi>onenl« o| ih« 
 MonophvMtrs. The palrurrh |..hn Vho- 
 lasticuv »<K(ii after the eiii ,.,n lo 
 
 the (MMttion of ( arNar 1 < .| on 
 
 him to IMTsecilte the " Thi- 
 
 cmprr.r t> .V 111 • . ^ f ..!. ... I. 
 
 an .1' 
 actet 
 tian !• 
 
 Kutychi'.is. rcsi.tid altrr J..I111 : 
 urged Til>rri(i» in the same <\r 
 again Til>eriiis refused, win ifM; 
 of his iiwn motion, vt th- 
 in o|>eration (cf. John <>( i 
 72. joi). On p. 107 J. ill 
 
 only act of persecution. n. n m tumi jii 
 army of (...ths (Arians) to light aRaunt the 
 Persians. Thev left thnr laniilirs at « Hn- 
 stantinople, stipulating l-r '•■ ■• ' ..>....». 
 for .Arian worship. Til • 
 patriarch, whereu|M>n int- • 
 the mob to hoot the emt • 
 of Arianism. To clear hiiuvill hr irmjitird 
 the mob to attack the houses of all heretic^. 
 A book concrrning the nature of the resur- 
 rection, published by Kutvchiuv taught that 
 the body would be impalpable like a pure 
 spirit, (iregory, afterward* ;^*:'<- 'rrre-irv the 
 dreat, then a deacon and 1" 
 at the imj>erial court, at 
 in the patriarch's tear) 
 
 lieing appealed to. decul' ...■ 
 
 gory, while the patriarch t>um 
 
 the obnoxious Iwxik. 1 ". P 
 
 iqz, says that Til>erius -u ■%« on 
 
 his coins for a female figure, lik< \(iius which 
 Justin introduced. Sw-e al»o Kvagr. H. F.. v. 
 tt-22; Paul I»iac. Hut. MtutU. lib. xvil. ; 
 Theophan. ( hrotuigr. i. 3H0-387 ; Baron. Anmml. 
 A.I). S^j-sH^ ; Clinton'» /-Asfl, p. 840. ((..T.B.| 
 
 TiburtllU. (Cakcilia.) 
 
 TichonilU (/vrAnniuO, an African t><>na> 
 list, whose personal historv 1^ verv little 
 known, but who wa* conspicuous in the 
 
 |)onatist ronlrover-' - i...<i- i.- - v 
 
 tine meiiti Ills hiin 
 
 and els*' where. H' 
 
 iM'tween iHo and \. 
 
 niont his date may be a* rail> .ii i;a. Mr 
 
 was apparently a layman with a ttrong Him 
 
 for church matters. inclu<link' lli<-"I kv »4» 
 
 well versed in Scripture. ■ . 
 
 tist, revolted from the r\ 
 
 sect, and occupied a jv>mi. 
 
 Neander savs, l>etween it .mi in«- r.iurn 
 
 (( h. Hal. III. 2»<o. ed. Hark, ct. IH. Sparr-.w 
 
 Simpvin. SI. Aug. and .4tr < k. />iiiiiw<ii 
 
 [l<»|o]. p. M). FarlV 111 •■ . .r^^r .^.V.i.s 
 
 ?7o-17V he published 1 
 the universality of thr 
 no miscoiidm t • 1 .1 1 
 promise of 
 eli.t'where. 
 Ill .Africa »' : 
 
 I, but ^tIll . • Mr 
 
 ..1 cut the 1 ••' the 
 
 ilisl test of h. .. '" th« 
 
 < 1 ii;r.immatic phra*'-. 'lu-i \ninui» Mne- 
 
 turn r»t " (Aug. r. Panm. t. 1 ; It. IJ. 5« ; •*• 
 
988 TIMOTHEUS I. 
 
 also ii. 21, 40, and 22, 42 ; iii. 3, 17 ; Ep. 93, 
 43). In support of his argument he quoted 
 the decision of a council at Carthage of 270 
 bishops, who, having debated for 75 days, con- 
 cluded, as the words of Augustine seem to 
 imply, that traditors ought to be invited to 
 receive rebaptism, but if they declined to do i 
 so ought to be admitted to communion. He | 
 adds that down to the time of Macarius, a.d. 
 348, communion was not refused to Catholics 
 by Donatists (Aug. Ep. 93, 43). Of this 
 council no other record exists than the state- 
 ment of Tichonius, who gives it no date. His 
 book has perished, but is probably the same 
 either as the one in three books mentioned by 
 Gennadius under the title Bellum Intestinum, 
 or the one entitled Expositiones Diveraarum 
 Causanim, unless these two titles refer to one 
 book only, in which, says Gennadius, Tichonius 
 mentions some ancient councils (de Scr. Eccl. 
 18). Though denounced strongly for his incon- 
 sistency by St. Augustine, he appears to have 
 continued his allegiance to the Donatists (Aug. 
 de Doctr. Chr. iii. 30 ; Gennad. u.s.), and while 
 still belonging to them wrote another book 
 entitled The Seven Rules or Keys of Christian 
 Life, which was discussed by Augustine in his 
 work de Doctr. Christ, iii. 30-42. Its main 
 heads are : (i)The church is the Lord's body, 
 indivisible from Him, so that in Scripture lan- 
 guage applicable to Him is applied also to the 
 church. (2) The two-fold Body of the Lord. i.e. 
 the distinction between bad and good people in 
 the church. (3) The promises and the law. 
 (4) Genus and species. Readers must be careful 
 not to ascribe to the one what belongs to the 
 other, e.g. in explaining Ezek. xxxvi. 23, which 
 must be compared with N.T. and the promise of 
 baptism there contained. The " new land " 
 is the church to be gathered from all nations, 
 but not yet revealed. (5) Concerning Jewish 
 expressions denoting time, as " three days and 
 three nights," etc., and also such numbers as 
 7, 10, 12, etc. (6) Concerning what he calls 
 Recapitulation. (7) The personality of Satan. 
 Tichonius also wrote a commentary on the 
 Revelation, which, Gennadius tells us, he 
 interpreted entirely in a spiritual sense — that 
 the human body is an abode of angels (" an- 
 gelicam stationem corpus esse"); that the 
 Millennium in a personal sense is doubtful, 
 that there is only one resurrection in which 
 human bodies of every sort and age will rise, 
 and that of the two resurrections mentioned, 
 one is to be understood of the growth of grace 
 in the soul of man and in the church. The 
 Seven Rules are printed at length in the Bibl. 
 Max. Patr. (Lyons, 1677), vi. 49, andBibl. Patr. 
 Galland. (Venice, 1765), viii. 107. Prof. F. C. 
 Burkitt pub. a critical ed. of them in the Camb. 
 Texts and Studies (1894), iii. i. [h.w.p.] 
 
 Timotheus (7) I., archbp. of Alexandria, 
 unanimously elected, as Theodosius I. affirms 
 (Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 348 ; Tillem. vi. 621), 
 on the death of his brother, Peter II., in the 
 latter half of Feb. 381. He was an elderly 
 man of high character, who had sat at the feet 
 of .A.thanasius ; and his distinguishing epithet 
 of ciKT-qfxwv (Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. i. 366) 
 indicates that he had parted with all his 
 property. The council of Constantinople met 
 in May 381 ; he and his attendant suffragans 
 arrived late, and did not contribute to the 
 
 TIMOTHEUS 
 
 peace of the assembly (Greg. Naz. Carm. de 
 Vita Sua, 1800 ff.). They were annoyed at 
 finding Gregory of Nazianzus established in 
 the see of Constantinople ; their jealousy of 
 the " Oriental " bishops who had " enthroned 
 him " broke forth in angry debate. They 
 assured Gregory that they had no objection 
 to him personally ; but they probablj' resented 
 the disgrace of Maximus, who had attempted, 
 by the aid of some Egyptian bishops, to 
 possess himself of the see. Gregory was glad 
 to take this opportunity of resigning it, and 
 Timotheus perhaps presided over the council 
 during the few days between this abdication 
 and the appointment of Nectarius (Tillem. 
 ix. 474)- The third canon gave to the see of 
 Constantinople the second rank throughout 
 I the church ; Neale says that Timotheus 
 "refused to allow" its "validity" (Hist. 
 Alex. i. 209). The council of Aquileia alludes 
 to some annoyance given to him and Paulinus 
 of Antioch by those whose orthodoxy had 
 previously been suspected (Ambr. Ep. 12) ; 
 yet that he did not break off openly from the 
 majority is proved by the law of July 30, 381, 
 in which Theodosius names him as one of the 
 centres of Catholic communion (Soz. vii. 9 ; 
 cf. Tillem. ix. 720). His episcopate was brief 
 and uneventful. Facundus transcribes a 
 I letter of his to Diodore of Tarsus, referring to 
 Athanasius as having spoken highly of Dio- 
 dore, and professing his own inability to do 
 justice to his virtue and orthodox zeal (Pro 
 Defens. Tri. Capit. iv. 2). Timotheus \\Tote 
 an account of several eminent monks, which 
 Sozomen used (vi. 29). His 18 " canonical 
 answers" to requests by his clergy for direction 
 are interesting, and became part of the church 
 law of the East (see Beveridge, Pand. Can. ii. 
 { 165 ; Galland. vii. 345). He died on Sun., 
 July 20, 385 (see Tillem. vi. 802), and was suc- 
 ceeded bv Theophilus. fw.B.] 
 [ Timotheus (18), commonly called Aelurus, 
 a Monophysite intruder into the see of Alex- 
 andria. He had been at first a monk, then a 
 presbyter under Dioscorus, and soon after the 
 deposition of the latter at the council of 
 , Chalcedon had come into collision with his 
 successor Proterius. Deposed from office 
 and banished into Libya (Mansi, Concil. vii. 
 ' 617), he awaited, as his opponents afterwards 
 said, the death of the emperor Marcian (ib. 
 ; 525, 532). When that occurred in Jan. 457, 
 I he returned to Alexandria, and practised the 
 ' artifice which apparentlv procured him the 
 j epithet ai'Xoi'pos, "cat." "Creeping" at night to 
 the cells of certain ignorant monks, he called 
 to each by name, and on being asked who he 
 was, replied, " I am an angel, sent to warn 
 you to break off communion with Proterius, 
 and to choose Timotheus as bishop " (Theod. 
 Lect. i. i). Collecting a band of turbulent 
 men, he took possession, in the latter part of 
 Lent, of the great " Caesarean " church, and 
 was there lawlessly consecrated by only two 
 bishops, whom Proteiius and the Egyptian 
 ' synod had deposed, and who, like himself, had 
 been sentenced to exile. Thus, without the 
 i countenance of a single legitimate prelate (see 
 I Mansi, vii. 585), "he enthroned himself," as 
 , 14 Egyptian bishops express it in their mem- 
 , orials to the emperor Leo I. and to Anatolius 
 1 of Constantinople {ib. 526, 533), while the real 
 
TIMOTHEUS 
 
 TIMOTHEUS SAI.OFACIOLUS 
 
 .iiv.wii>iKii' was MtHilK m Ills p.il.icr .uUiiHK his l si. "Ilir I jt " »4» 
 clergy. He instantly proceeded to j)cr<orn» nhrwrd hi* wonlnl acut 
 • piscopal acts ; but after tluis playing the (xTnusMon in ounx i<« 
 anti-patriarch for a few days, he was cs|>cnrd prctnul that h.f '■ t ' • ' ■ ■ 
 tiy the "dux " Diunysius ; and it was appar- doctrinr. a^ ii 
 eiitly in revenge that his adherents {ib. jici. (.mlt. an<l v. 
 5j.i) hunted I'roterius into a baptistery and hope to ret.n;. 
 murdered him (liastor, 457). Thereu|>on Juno t;, 4(m>, t.> tti- 
 Timutheus returned and acted as archbishop, nadiuv the new p.it 
 He declared open w.^r against the m.iintainers urKing that Tiiiioti.' 
 of " two natures " as being in elTect Nesto- conversion sinrrre. w.ti .|i 
 riani/ers. and on this ground boldly broke ofl 
 communion with Uome. Constantinople, and 
 Antioch, denouncing bishops of the .\\v\- 
 andrian patriarchate who had accented the 
 formula of the council, and some of whom had 
 held their sees before the acci-ssion of Cyril ; 
 he also sent to cities and monasteries a pro- 
 hibition to communic^ite with such bishops or 
 to recognize clerics ordained by them. The 
 
 liul 
 
 and 
 
 >i«n 
 •nly 
 Uhl 
 
 KTcat a 
 
 vu-. 
 
 hu 
 
 vinic 
 
 iinir 
 
 " invaded so 
 of Its bi.h'p 
 
 liinul! 
 broth, 
 on hl^ 
 
 on th<- -. i ill- ' .1. 1 •.... ..I . .- >>!< 
 
 chius rails .Mar^uphia (ct. t.vaicr. 
 Liberal. Hm\ ih ; Throphan. Ckritrntfr. I. 
 iSd ; Mutvchius, 11. io\) ; aiut duruiK 16 vr«rt 
 
 > hi. 
 i.pti. 
 
 i.uty- 
 
 14 prelates who supply our most authentic the church over which he had t>-ranni/r<l wa* 
 
 information on these events were forced by at i>eacc under ihe rule of hi« nainrvikr, 
 
 the storm thus raised to abandon their homes, Timothcus, called SalofarioUu. Hut when «hr 
 
 travel to Constantinople, and present me- next ctn|>oror. Zeno. fled from the uturt>rf 
 
 morials to the emperor and archbishop. Uasiliscus, towards the clov «>( 47^, 4 new 
 
 These are extant in Latin versions (16. 524 fl.). scene o|>ene<l It Arlnnn Mr wis ^ innnincl 
 
 Timotheus .\elurus seut some bishops and to Constantiu ' e|rt| 
 
 clerics to plead his cause with the emperor, him with "1 . the 
 
 We possess a fragment of their i>etition name of the I : vii. 
 
 (ifc. 536), to the effect that under their " most g70). The (.i, ,..,.., ^ the 
 
 pious archbishop, the great city of the .\le\- churches .igainst him. bin «-» in 
 
 andrians, with its churches and monasteries, private houses (Maasi. /.<■ . •<■'>«• 
 
 was bv Ciod's favour enjoying complete nized him as rightful bp. 1. and 
 
 peace,"' and that they and their archbishop by his advice put forth a cinulur tu the cpi*- 
 
 held firmly to the .Nicene Creed, refusing to copate, condemning " the innovation m the 
 
 admit anv alterations in, or additions to, its faith which was made at Chalcr.lon " (Kvaxr. 
 
 text. The document, as we now have it, iii. 4). But when the Hutvchiann of t oa*tan- 
 
 breaks off abruptly with the words, "for the tinoole, deeming his arrival a g«Klvnd, ha*t- 
 
 church of the great citv of the Alexandrians ened to pav court to him, he diKap|H>intr<l 
 
 does not accept the council of Chalcedon " ; them by d«'cl.iring that hr for his part accpptcU 
 
 but it appears from other evidence (l^o, Ep. the statement which ( vril had in cflrct 
 
 149 ; -Mansi. vii. 522) that it went on to ask adopted at his reunion with John of Anti.--h. 
 
 that the sanction given to that council might that " the Incarnat 
 
 be recalled, and a new council summoned 
 asserting that the .\lexandrian people, the 
 civil dignitaries, the municipal function.iries, 
 and the company of transporters of corn- 
 
 Wor. 
 with us. according to tli< 
 his wav home he vi^lted I 
 its clergy and laity bv d> . 
 (the fifth in Christendom iii \^>im ■•! .bniittv) 
 
 freights desir.'d to retain Timotheus as their to be fr.-*- from that subjection to (...ntlan- 
 bishop. The emperor Leo refused thcrenuest tinoplc which had Ixrrn inuH»«-d .>n it bv the 
 of the emiss.aries of Timotheus for immediate 28th canon of t h.ilccd")n (16. «.). V\hen he 
 action against the authority of the council of reached Alexandri.i, the kindlv and iH.pular 
 Chalcedon, which he had .already constructive- Salofaciolus was all.,wr,| t.i rrtirr t . hh mm- 
 ly upheld by confirming the ecclesi.istical acts 
 of his predecessors (cf. pope I^-o's Ef>. I4'> 
 with Mansi, vii. 524), hut vet deemed it 
 expedient to send copies of both meinori.iN t.. 
 the bishops of Rome. Constantinople, .Xiiti-i li 
 and Jerusalem, and to 55 other prelat-s ml 
 three leading monks (one of them b. ing 
 
 .isterv at the suburt 
 did not long sur\i 
 iiituinn <if 477 (Nt 1 
 
 Tlmotheiu (i9i. 
 
 factolus, I'.itnarch o( .Air' 
 
 til.- .viuNi.in of Timoii 
 xniniiig of .\uK. 4'" 
 
 tificd with the " Timothruv prr^bytrf. and 
 a 4trWard of the .Mrxaii.li 1 4:1 r!>u:. !i " »?.• 
 igned thr memorial h! 1 
 
 Symeon Stvlit-s), requesting their opinion as the Chalced. .nun dogma 
 
 to the case of Tim..theus and as to the auth..r. •'■- '^ "- "^ ' 
 
 ity of the council (Lvagr. ii. 9; .Mansi. vii 
 
 521). Of the prelates consulted, all but one, ... 
 
 the inconstant Amphil-K-hius of Side, accepted Catholic bishops pre*rtit 
 
 the council of Chalce.lon (I-:v,igr. li. 10). and 11. 4'.7 'M .a 1 «-i. 
 
 all condemned Timotheus in more or Ics 
 
 energetic terms, although some with " a salv.. 
 
 if the statem'.nts of the exiles were true 
 
 (Mansi. vii. 537 tt.). In the early suiniiirr o* 
 
 460 Leo L sent orders to Stilas, the " dux 
 
 commanding at Alexandria, to cx|>rl Iimo. 
 
 theus from the church, and to promote the couki 
 
 election of an orthwlox bishop (Liberal, brev. ed Calb^Uc 
 
 I6^ , 
 t.. I 
 
 bt*tn<f 
 
990 
 
 tiMOTHEUS 
 
 church " to root out all remains of Kestorian 
 as well as of Eutychian error (Ep. 171, Aug. 18, 
 460). Ten orthodox Egyptian bishops had 
 also written to Leo that the election had been 
 unstained by " canvassing, sedition, or unfair- 
 ness of any kind," and that Tiinotheus was 
 approved as worthy of so eminent a bishopric 
 for purity of character and integrity of faith 
 (£^.173). "In his episcopal administration," 
 says Liberatus, " he was exceedingly gentle, 
 so that even those who were of his communion 
 complained of him to the emperor for being 
 too remiss and easy-going towards heretics, 
 in consequence of which the emperor wrote to 
 him not to allow the heretics to hold assem- 
 blies or to administer baptism ; but he con- 
 tinued to treat them gently, and while he thus 
 discharged his office the Alexandrians loved 
 him, and cried aloud to him in the streets and 
 in the churches, ' Even if we do not com- 
 municate with thee, yet we love thee.' " This 
 gentleness became weakness when, in the hope 
 of conciliating the Monophysites, he reinserted 
 the name of Dioscorus in his church diptychs 
 (Mansi, vii. 983), and so gave occasion for the 
 blundering Eutychius to rank him with the 
 other Timotheus as a "Jacobite" (Ann. ii. 
 103). When Timotheus Aelurus returned in 
 476 and took possession of the archbishopric, 
 Salofaciolus was allowed to reside in the mon- 
 astery of the monks of Tabennesus, situated 
 in a suburb of Alexandria called Canopus (see 
 Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 415). He remained 
 there when Aelurus died, fearing to cause a 
 " tumult " if he shewed himself in the city ; 
 whereupon the Monophysites took the oppor- 
 tunity of electing and enthroning Peter 
 Mongus, who had been archdeacon under 
 Aelurus ; but the Augustal prefect Anthemius, 
 acting on a mandate from Zeno, expelled Peter 
 from the church, and reinstated Timotheus 
 Salofaciolus (Evagr. ii. 11). This step was 
 followed up by rigorous edicts, intended to 
 overawe the numerous clerics, monks, and 
 laymen who refused to communicate with the 
 restored patriarch (Brev. Hist. Eutych. in 
 Mansi, vii. 1063). Peter Mongus was lurking 
 in corners of Alexandria, " plotting against 
 the church " ; the patriarch wrote to Zeno 
 and Simplicius, begging that he might be 
 removed to a distance (Liberat. Brev. 16; 
 Mansi, I.e.). Simplicius pressed the point in 
 letters to Acacius ; but Zeno could not be 
 induced to take this step against Peter, and 
 probably Acacius was at least lukewarm in the 
 cause. At last, according to the Breviculus, 
 Timotheus sent John Talaia again to Con- 
 stantinople, and obtained a promise that he 
 should have a Catholic successor. Soon after- 
 wards he "died undisturbed" (Liberat.), 
 about midsummer 482, as we learn from 
 letters of Simplicius dated July 15, 482 (Mansi, 
 vii. 991). fw.B.] 
 
 Timotheus (24), patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, appointed in 511 by the emperor 
 Anastasius the day after the deposition of 
 Macedonius (3). He had been priest and 
 keeper of the ornaments of the cathedral, and 
 was a man of bad character. He apparently 
 adopted the Monophysite doctrines from 
 ambition, not conviction. Two liturgical 
 innovations are attributed to him, the prayers 
 on Good Friday at the church of the Virgin, and 
 
 tiTUS 
 
 the recital of the Xicene Creed at every service, 
 though the last is also ascribed to Peter the 
 Fuller. He sent circular letters to all the 
 bishops, which he requested them to subscribe, 
 and also to assent to the deposition of Mace- 
 donius. Some assented, others refused, while 
 others again subscribed the letters but 
 refused to assent to the deposition of Mace- 
 donius. The extreme Monophysites, headed 
 by John Niciota, patriarch of .Alexandria, 
 whose name he had inserted in the diptychs, 
 at first stood aloof from him, because, though 
 he accepted the Henoticon, he did not reject the 
 council of Chalcedon, and for the same reason 
 Flavian 11. of .\ntioch and Elias of Jerusalem 
 at first communicated with him. With 
 Severus of Antioch he afterwards assembled a 
 synod which condemned that council, on which 
 Severus communicated with him. Timothy 
 sent the decrees of his synod to Jerusalem, 
 where Elias refused to receive them. Timothy 
 then incited Anastasius to depose him (Lib- 
 erat. 18, 19 ; Mansi, viii. 375). He also 
 induced the emperor to persecute the clergy, 
 monks, and laity who adhered to Macedonius, 
 many of whom were banished to the Oasis in 
 the Thebaid. His emissaries to Alexandria 
 anathematized from the pulpit the council of 
 Chalcedon. Within a year of his accession 
 Timotheus directed that the Ter Sanctus should 
 be recited with the Monophysite addition of 
 " Who wast crucified for us."' On Nov. 4 and 
 5 this caused disturbances in two churches, in 
 which many were slain, and the next day a 
 terrible riot broke out which nearly caused 
 the deposition of Anastasius. Timothy died 
 Apr. 5, 517. Vict. Tun. Chron. ; Marcell. Chron.; 
 Theod. Lect. ii. 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 ; Evagr. 
 iii. 33 ; Theophanes ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xvi. 
 
 691, 698, 728. [F.D.] 
 
 Titus, emperor. [Vespasiasus.] 
 Titus (2), bp. of Bostra in Arabia Auranitis, 
 c. 362-371, of very high repute for learning and 
 eloquence. He is named by Jerome among 
 the many distinguished Christian wTiters of 
 great secular erudition and knowledge of Holy 
 Scripture (Hieron. Ep. 70 [84]). Jerome 
 mentions his works, dwelling especially on 
 three written against the Manicheans (Hieron. 
 de Vir. III. c. 102). He is also enumerated 
 by Sozomen (H. E. iii. 14, ad fin.) with Euse- 
 bius of Emesa, Basil of Ancyra, C\Til of Jeru- 
 salem, and others, as writers of the highest 
 celebrity, whose learning is proved by the 
 many remarkable writings they left. The 
 appearance of Titus in such company, and his 
 being distinctly reckoned among the Acacians 
 by Socrates (H. E. iii. 25), makes his ortho- 
 doxy doubtful. He is chiefly known to us 
 from the attempt made by the emperor Julian 
 to induce the citizens of Bostra to expel him 
 as a calumniator of their city. The pagan 
 inhabitants made the authoritative revival of 
 their cult by Julian the signal for organized 
 attacks on their Christian fellow-citizens. 
 The Christians retaliated. Julian, choosing 
 to assume that the Christians were responsible 
 for these disturbances, threatened to call 
 Titus and the city clergy to judicial account if 
 any fresh outbreak occurred (Soz. H. E. v. 15). 
 Titus replied that though the Christian popu- 
 lation exceeded the heathen in numbers, in 
 obedience to his admonitions they hadremained 
 
TRAJANUS. M. ULPlUS 
 
 quiet iiiKitr st-vi-n- provixMtioiis. aiul tlu-n- 
 was no te;ur of the peace of the citv bem^ dis- 
 turbed by them {ih.). Julian then issued a 
 rescript to the citi/ens of Nostra. Auk. «. J<>i. 
 charging Titus with caluiuniatinn them bv his 
 representations that thev onlv abstained fr.mi 
 violence in obeilience to his monitions, and 
 calling upon them to drive him out of their 
 city as a public enemy (Julian Imp. /•/). sj. 
 p. 437)- The death of Julian found Titus still 
 bp. of Bostra (Keiidell, Emf^fror Juhan, pp. 
 188, 222). On the accession of Jovian. Titus 
 is enumerateti by Socrates (//. f.. iii. 25) as a 
 member of the .\cacian p;u-ty. .According to 
 Jerome, he died in the reign oi Valens. c. 370. 
 Of his works (Soz. //. E. lii. 14) we have onlv 
 very scanty remains. Of that against the 
 Manichees in four books (" fortes libros." I.e.) 
 commended by Jerome and referred to bv 
 Epiphanius (Haer. Ixvi. c. 21) and TheiKlore't 
 {Haer. Fub. lib. i. c. 26). three books exist in 
 MS. in the library of the Johanneum at Ham- 
 burg. Tillem. yinn. eccl. vii. 385 ; teill. .Aul. 
 eccl. vi. 43 flf. ; Cave, Ht^t. Lit. i. 228 ; Migne, 
 Fair. Gk. x\-iii. 1069 flf. ; Fabr. Btbl. Grate, vi. 
 748, viii. 084, ix. 320; Clinton, Fastt Rom. 
 No. 141. [K.v.) 
 
 Trajanus d). M. Ulpius (Nerva), emperor. 
 
 belonged to a laiiiily ut It.iliaii origin settled 
 in the colony of Italicj in Baetica. He was 
 born on Sept. 18, probably in a.d. 53, and 
 passed his early life in the army undi-r his 
 father, a distinguished otticer who had risen 
 to the consulship. In Oct. 07, being then in 
 command of the army t)f Lower Ciermany, he 
 was adopted by Nerva, with whom, till his 
 death on Jan. 27, he reigned jointly, and then 
 became sole emperor. He remained i>n the 
 Rhine, placing that frontier in a state of 
 defence, till in the latter half of «jq he made 
 his entrance into Kome. being received with 
 the greatest joy. He died at Selinus in 
 Cilicia, probably c. .\ug. 7 or 8, 117. 
 
 For us the interest of his life centres in the 
 famous rescript, addressed to his friend I'liny 
 in reply to his letter detailing his procedure 
 towards the Christians in Bithvnia. I'lmy 
 had arrived in his province immediat<lv befon- 
 Sept. 18, no, or more probably in (.Moiiim- 
 sen, Hi-rmes. 1869, 59). and the letter was 
 probably written in the year after his arrival. 
 The rescript is one of a series of replies to 
 inquiries on the most various subjects— p«ilice, 
 baths, sewerage, precautions against fires, 
 water supply, public buildings, etc.— and 
 neither Fliny nor Trajan seems to have con- 
 sidered the subject one of special imp<irtancr. 
 Pliny's letter is the earliest heathen account 
 of the services and behaviour of the Christians, 
 and Trajan's reply is the earliest piece of 
 legislation about Christianity that we p<r,s«-ss. 
 
 After stating that, having never been pre- 
 sent at trials of Christians, he was ignorant of 
 the precise nature of the crime and the usual 
 punishment, and also how far it was the 
 practice to pursue the inquiry, I'liny asks the 
 emperor whether any distinction should be 
 made on the ground of age ; wluthi-r thoM- 
 who abjured Christianitv should Ix- pardoned, 
 or a man who had embraced Christianity gain 
 by renouncing it ; whether the mere name 
 apart from anv crime or the crimes associated 
 with the nanie should be punished ? Pro- j 
 
 TRAJANUS, M. ULPIUS 
 
 Ml 
 
 visi..n.illv h.- h.i.l t ikrii thr l..ll..*ini{ r»ur«« 
 in the rase of ihov rhantnl lw(.<r him with 
 l>eing Christians. " I druiandrd. " he »4y%. 
 "of the acriisr<l thrliisrl\r% t( Ihcv wrr«> 
 I hristians. and il Ihrv 4<lniiltr«l ii. I rr|>«-4lrti 
 the qiH-stion a srciid and 4 thtnl timr. 
 threaleuing tlirtii wHh puiiishniriil . tl ihrv 
 persisted. I ordered them l<i Ik- Ird (o rtrrulKMt. 
 r"or I felt convinre.l that. Hhalrvrr il iiukIiI \— 
 they ronlessed thrv wrr<- .1 .iu\ r iir ihcir 
 unyielding obsliii.irv dr ' uriil. 
 
 S<ime others who wrrr I i». I 
 
 decided should Ih- ^iil to I In 
 
 the ctiurse of the procrr.li [4llv 
 
 the cast-, the nunilMr •■! Ivwl 
 
 incjeasr«l and several van- i An 
 
 anonymous doriiment was | r. .mi.i i,i nM> 
 which contained the nameN of many. rh»«« 
 who denied that they were or ever had l»rrn 
 Christians I thoUKht should Ix- rrlraso*! when 
 they li.id. after mv example, mvokrtl the Kott« 
 and otferrd incense ami wme to vour iniat;e, 
 which I had ordered to Im- brought lor lh<> 
 piirpos*- along with thi>se of the K'hU. and had 
 also blasphemetl t hrist, nolle of which thuiK%. 
 it is said, can those who are really t hrtslunt 
 be coniixlled to do. Others, wh^i were 
 accus«'d by an informer, hrst said they were 
 Christians and then denied it. saving that Ihev 
 had be«>n, but had re.ised to l>e. v>me Ihrr* 
 years, some s<'veral. ami one twenty years jko. 
 .\\\ adored your image and those of the g'"'*. 
 and blasphemed I hrist. Thev drrlarrd ihal 
 all the wrong they had committed, willingly 
 or unwittinglv, was this, that thev had itrni 
 accustomed on a fixetl dav to inerl befi^r 
 dawn and sing aiitii>honally a hymn to C hrul 
 as a god. and biiul theinselvrt bv a v>lrtun 
 pledge [\acramenlo] not to commit anv 
 enormity, but to abstain from theft, brigand- 
 age, and adultery, to keep their wont, and not 
 to refuse to re>tore what had Imtii entrusted 
 to their charge if demaUiled. .After tUesr 
 ceremonies tln-v used to disperse and assemblr 
 again to share a common iii<>al of lunorml 
 
 fo<Kl. and even this th.-y hi' i'trf I 
 
 had issued the edirl bv w : lo 
 
 Vour m^lruelioiis. I pr-ihil . ■ iie^ 
 
 [hetaeriaf]. I therefore TiH, lu'ifr 
 
 necessary, in onlrr to asreitaiit mI.^I truth 
 there was in this acrotint. t'> examine two 
 slave-girls, who were called dearonrsM-* 
 lmini\lraf\. and even to U'v«- lorlure. I found 
 nothing except a |x-rvertr<l and unlMiundetl 
 superstition. I therefore h ivr i |j .tirnr.l ihr 
 investigation and hasteiird t 1 lor 
 
 I thought the inatlrr w.i iiiiic 
 
 Vou about. es|>eciallv oil .1 uni- 
 
 (>ers who iire mvolvrd l<-i ,,.,,.. .i ■ ..i* aK« 
 and rank, and '»f l»>th sexes, are already aii«l 
 will Im- siiminonol to stand thrir trial. F<ir 
 this superstition ha« infected not only lb* 
 towns, but alvi thr villages and ciunlrv , vet 
 It apparent I V can l>e cherke«l and CtiCTrctril. 
 At any rate it is rni.iu.l'. i!.r > 4 .«• ili.l (he 
 temi>l«-s which werr . !'• to 
 
 l>e Irequeiitril. thr .'ilch 
 
 had loi.^' t... h ir.t.i ' and 
 
 there . ;>in» 
 
 [••past ^•h^• 
 
 f.«it). : **« 
 
 tolM-loWMl t .MM i... .,...-. lUa* 
 
 what a number ol people iu«y b« rviuraMd, 
 
992 
 
 TRAJANUS, M. ULPIUS 
 
 if they are given a chance of repentance." 
 Trajan replied with the following rescript : 
 " You have followed the right course, my dear 
 Secundus, in investigating the cases of those 
 denounced to you as Christians, for no fixed 
 rule can be laid down for universal adoption. 
 Search is not to be made for them ; if they 
 are accused and convicted they are to be 
 punished, yet with the proviso that if a man 
 denies he is a Christian and gives tangible 
 proof of it by adoring our gods, he shall by his 
 repentance obtain pardon, however strong the 
 suspicion against him may be. But no notice 
 should be taken of anonymous accusations in 
 any kind of proceeding. For they are of most 
 evil precedent and are inconsistent with our 
 times " {Plini et Trajani Epp. 96, 97). 
 
 Besides the interesting information thus 
 afforded on the belief and practice of the early 
 Christians (hints are apparently given of the 
 existence of some formula of prayer, of the 
 Eucharist and Agape), what light does it 
 throw on the legal position of the Christians ? 
 That trials of Christians had to Pliny's know- 
 ledge already taken place appears by it, and 
 the allusion cannot be to the Neronian per- 
 secution when he was scarcely three years old, 
 and hardly can be to that which was com- 
 menced and almost immediately discontinued 
 by Domitian, assuming that the objects of it 
 were Christians and not Jews. Pliny's lan- 
 guage points rather to proceedings of a regular 
 kind against Christians. On the other hand, 
 the fact that a man who had attained dis- 
 tinction at the bar, and who had held all the 
 high offices of state, had never witnessed a 
 trial of this kind, proves that they were rare. 
 Again, no statutory enactments as to Chris- 
 tianity existed, or Trajan would have referred 
 to them in his rescript according to his usual 
 custom, when senatus consulta or edicts of pre- 
 ceding emperors bore on the subject on which 
 he is writing (cf. Ixvi. and Ixxiii.). Pliny's 
 action was therefore based on the fact that 
 Christianity was a religio illicita, its professors 
 members of a collegium illicitum, at what 
 might be termed the Roman common law. 
 While Christians were regarded by the Roman 
 government as a mere variety of Jews, they 
 shared in the toleration enjoyed by Judaism 
 as a religio licita. When the separation be- 
 tween the two religions became apparent to 
 Roman eyes, Christianity lost this shelter and 
 its professors fell under the ban that extended 
 to all unlawful associations. The exact time 
 when the Romans became aware of the dis- 
 tinction has been the subject of much contro- 
 versy ; at any rate, it had become apparent 
 by the end of the ist cent. Nero does not 
 appear to have issued any edicts against 
 Christians in general, and if Christianity, 
 either apart from or along with Judaism, 
 suffered under Domitian (Dion, Ixvii. 14). all 
 the measures on the subject were repealed by 
 Nerva on his accession (ib. Ixviii. i). 
 
 What, then, was the effect of Trajan's 
 rescript ? Formally it made the position of 
 the Christians worse. It confirmed, by a 
 positive enactment, the view Pliny had taken 
 of their status at common law. Practically, 
 however, the qualifications that they were 
 not to be sought for, and anonymous accusa- 
 tions ignored — qualifications due to Trajan's 
 
 TROPHIMUS 
 
 abhorrence of delation in all its forms (cf. Juv. 
 iv. 87 ; Tac. Ann. iv. 30 ; Pliny, Pan. 34, 35), 
 and from which it was his especial pride to 
 be free — must frequently have been a boon 
 
 i to the Christians. This secondary bearing of 
 the rescript was first insisted on by Tertullian 
 {e.g. Apol. c. 5, in Migne, Pair. Lat. i. 276) and 
 the primary thrown into the background. 
 From Tertullian this view of the rescript 
 passed to Eusebius and from him to other 
 Christian writers, till at last it came to be 
 taken as an edict of toleration terminating a 
 general persecution (Sulp. Sev. ii. 31 ; Orosius, 
 
 ' vii. 12, in Pair. Lat. xx. 146, xxxi. 1091), a 
 theory excluded by the words of the rescript 
 itself, " That no fixed rule could be laid down 
 for the whole empire." It was not from 
 favour to the Christians that these limitations 
 were introduced, and Trajan's chief objection 
 to them was his dread of secret societies, which 
 
 ■ were especially prevalent in Bithynia (Epp. 
 
 ■ xxxiv. xciii. cxvii.). 
 
 Overbeck (Studien zur Geschichte der Alten 
 Kirche) maintained that the rescript was the 
 law that regulated the position of the Chris- 
 tians till the beginning of the persecution of 
 Severus in 202, and that from Tertullian down- 
 wards a thoroughly mistaken view of it had 
 been taken. He asserts that during this 
 period it regulated the practice of the em- 
 perors, and that they did not deviate from it 
 either in favour of the Christians or against 
 them. He supports his position by pointing 
 out that Justin Martyr under Antoninus Pius, 
 I Athenagoras under M. Aurelius, and Tertullian 
 I under Severus (.Apol. I. 4, Legatio pro Christ. 1 
 and 2, in Pair. Gk. vi. 333, 892-893, and Apol. 
 \ 1-4, in Patr. Lat. i. 259-289), all agree in 
 j stating that the mere name of Christian was 
 I punishable. The trials of Ptolemy and Lucius 
 ; before the prefect of the city are conducted 
 i precisely in the manner laid down by the 
 rescript (Justin, Apol. II. in Patr. Gk. vi. 445). 
 M. Aurelius, on the occasion of the persecution 
 of Lyons, issues a rescript following the same 
 rule, that those who abjured Christianity 
 should be released, those who refused should 
 be executed (Eus. H. E. v. i). Overbeck, 
 I therefore, rejects not only the protection edicts 
 I ascribed to M. Aurelius and Antoninus Pius, 
 ! which are now generally considered to be 
 forgeries, but also, following Keim, argues 
 (134-148) for the spuriousness of Hadrian's 
 letter to Minucius Fundanus, which has usu- 
 1 ally been thought to be genuine, and which 
 is not really inconsistent with Trajan's 
 rescript. 
 
 The only martyrs known by name as 
 having suffered under Trajan are the bishops 
 Symeon of Jerusalem and Ignatius of 
 Antioch. 
 
 For Trajan's relations with the Christians 
 consult also Eusebius (H. E. iii. 32, 33, 36), 
 Tillemont, Mem. eccl. (ii. 167-212), and 
 Gibbon (c. 16). The ancient authorities for 
 his reign are singularly meagre, and the dates, 
 and even the order of many important events, 
 have been determined only by the evidence of 
 inscriptions and coins. [f-d-] 
 
 Trophimus (1) (Cyp. Ep. 55, n), an Italian 
 bishop (sacerdotii) who with all his flock offered 
 incense in the Decian persecution. He was 
 restored to lay-communion by Cornelius, bp. 
 
TROPHIMUS 
 
 of Rome. It is iu)t lUiiird that his j>eoi>lp'-s 
 attachment to liim, ami thi- as>iur.nicr that 
 they would follow his rptiirn. casci\ the rrcrp- 
 tiou of Trophimus. The Novatiamsts for- 
 warded to Africa the misstatrmriit that I or- 
 uelius had restored him to his episcopal 
 orders, and so shiv.k the cmlidencc of some 
 in him ; but Cvprian of his own knowlwlRr 
 denies the statement. It is improhaMe that 
 a lapsed bishop would be obliged or allowed 
 to do public penance. The expression that 
 Trophimus with " penance of etitrfalv con- 
 fessed his own fault '" is itself against it. and 
 although it is said that he m.idn " satisf.ic- 
 tion," it is presently added that "the return 
 of the brethren m.idc satisfaction for him." 
 The restoration seems to have been made at 
 the Roman council of June (or julv) a.d. 
 251. from the words (Ep. 55. ix. (<>1. H. 11), 
 "Tractatu cum coUegis plurimis habito sus- 
 ceptus est." Ritschl (Cyprtan von Karlkafo, 
 p. 79) calls Trophimus a " sacriticatus," 
 though the case of the sacrificati is treated 
 separately in the next section of Ep. ss. 
 and the words "Trotimo et turiticatis" do 
 not make it certain that he was even a 
 ■ Turificatus." [e.w.b.) 
 
 Trophimus (3), St., ist bp. of .\rles. a 
 subject of eager controversy, .\ccordmg to 
 the tradition of the see. he was the disciple 
 of St. Paul mentioned in .\cts and II. Tim., 
 and was sent forth as a missionary to .\rles 
 by St. Peter or St. Paul, or both. As early as 
 417 pope Zosimus, in a letter to the bishops of , 
 (^laul, speaking of the city of .\rles, says. 
 " -Ad quam priraum ex h.ic sede Trophimus 
 summus antistes, ex cujus fonte totae (jalliae 
 tidei rivulos acceperunt. directus est " {Ep. i, 
 Fatr. Lai. xx. 645); and in the same popes 
 letter to Hilary, bp. of N'arbonne. Trophimus 
 was *' quondam ad .Arelatensem urbem ab 
 apostolica sede transmissus " {Ep. 6. Pair. 
 Lat. ib. 667)- .\gain, the 19 bishops of the 
 province of .-Vrles. writing to pope Leo about 
 the middle of 5th cent., assert that it is known 
 to all Gaul and to the church of Rome " prima 
 intra Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum a 
 beatissimo Petro apostolo sanctum Trophi- 
 mum habere meruit sacerdotem, et exinde 
 aliis pauJatira rcgionibus Galliaruin bonuin 
 6dei et religionis infusum " {Fair. Lai. liv. 
 1880), though it should be mentioned that the 
 genuineness of this letter has been questioned. 
 So, too. Ado. in his .Marly rologtum (Dec. n/) 
 and Chronicon. On the other hand, Gregory 
 of Tours, apparently quoting from the .■iciu 
 of St. Satuniinus, says in eflect that Tro- 
 phimus arrived in Gaul with the first bishops 
 of Tours, Paris, and other cili«-s in the con- 
 sulate of Decius and Gratus, t.e. after the 
 middle of 3rd cent. ; and in a very old cata- 
 logue of the archbishops published by .Mabil- 
 lon, VeUra .Analecta. p. 220 (Paris. 1 721). he 
 is preceded by Dionyiius, as though he were 
 the second bishop. The <|uestion. to which 
 some bitterness has been imparted as being 
 closely connected with the hotly rc*cnte<l 
 claims of the early archbps. of Arlr* to a 
 stirt of primacy i'l (iaul, is elalxiratcly du- 
 cussed by Trichaud [Hisl. de lEgliu JArU\. 
 i. 21-143). The cathedral church at Arlc. 
 was dedicated to Trophimus, with St. Stephen 
 {Gall. Christ, i. 519). [».A.i.J 
 
 'I ***. 
 *l lb* 
 
 ULFILAS W»3 
 
 u 
 
 UlOIti {Irf'hiU^ >u ri.il .^i.irKiu*), ib« 
 aix.stlp of the 1...1L . cml. Hit 
 
 carp«-r IS involved 1 nHy. The 
 
 sthrent. church \>. our uoljr 
 
 sourer until Walt/, in i-i .. ..i.. .\rfrd 4 M!». 
 o| the l.oiivrr, rotitaiiiiiiK an in<t<'|>«<ii(Val 
 account, written bv oiir o| l'lhla«°* o«m 
 pupils. .\u\ri.liMs \.i.i, I,, ,.( ->.:, I,,, who 
 IS thus an '>: : . ivr« 
 
 details whii l> iity. 
 
 l-'rom these i« • wAt 
 
 born earlv in (tli • <ut . i t l.ill. m m He 
 was coiisrrralc<i bishop whm \n vror* 
 
 po^Mblv bv In .(,.1, ,,f \„ .T...,tl,. 
 
 • oiincil o( til. ti.ich 
 
 Ml. In <S" and 
 
 <lle«l there l!. »«l. 
 
 The circuinsl.«ii. . ^ .. ti<»n 
 
 of the origin ot iioihic t i|»- 
 
 storgius tells us that, in and 
 
 Gallirnus in the socond hi.: the 
 
 (ioths from N. of the I>ainiU- li.va.l.d tb« 
 Roman trrritorv. laid waste the province o| 
 Mocsia as far as the HIack Sf-a. rf»sM-*| tnio 
 .\sia and ravaged Cappadocia and GaUtU. 
 whence they took a vast number oj captive«, 
 including manv ( hrt'iti.ui rr.-|r-.i4«ti«. 
 ■ These pioii- ' iir»« 
 
 with the bar! im- 
 
 lK>rs to the ti . a to 
 
 embrace the v.,..-;..... , • ol 
 
 heathen superstitions. «': ol 
 
 these captives were the ai. Ml*« 
 
 himself, who were of (.a;. . rnt. 
 
 deriving their cKigin from a villo^it- callr<i 
 Sadagolthina, near the citv of Parnassus" 
 (Philost. //. E. II. 5). The ('...ths r.ini. d back 
 these Christian captiv»-s lilt i they 
 
 were settled, ami where C'l A>et% 
 
 embraced C hri^ti init v th- .^iru- 
 
 mentality. ' ' • 'i thr%« 
 
 Christi.iii cai i Christian 
 
 principles. > he was a 
 
 disciple of .. -•■■ wat 
 
 present at N rrr<l. 
 
 He wa-. at tii Fho 
 
 king of the ' . tan- 
 
 tinople as ai iiui-ci.^, t. 140. 
 
 when he w , bishott. He re- 
 
 turned to III !(i'i. ft- vcorv 
 
 and then nugr.it. .1 liii • M troiu 
 
 his original home bv a yn .blv 
 
 f.rf.vrrtl U' -^'I'l ^^" •^' ' '»• 
 
 .iinK 
 I the 
 ! the 
 
 thrv 
 
 i r^ 
 
 are a : 
 
 the '. 
 war, w. 
 
 thrir llillltal . i a- , i. 
 them on U> deeds ot war 
 
 IH vl !,...r .( Ir-' . 1- 
 
 I of 
 
 !.rck 
 itM9 
 
 t . f 
 
 ' a«t 
 
 It «« 
 
 the poMtiou ol UUtU*. 
 
 
994 
 
 URBANUS 
 
 runs thus : "We do not despise the An- 
 tiochian formula of the synod in Encoeniis, but 
 because the terms 'Onooicnos and ' O/uotoiyo-ios 
 occasion much confusion, and because some 
 have recently set up the di'6/Aotos, we there- 
 fore reject 6fxoo6(nos and 6tioiov<nos as 
 contrary to the Holy Scriptures ; the dudfioios, 
 however, we anathematize, and acknowledge 
 that the Son is similar to the Father in accord- 
 ance with the words of the apostle, who 
 calls Him the image of the invisible God. We 
 believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Who 
 was begotten by Him before all ages without 
 change, the oniy-begotten God, Logos from 
 God, Light, Life, Truth, and Wisdom. . . . And 
 whoever declares anything else outside this 
 faith has no part in the Catholic church " (see 
 Hefele, ii. 265, Clark's ed. ; and Gwatkin's 
 Studies of Arianism, pp. 180-182). The sub- 
 sequent history of Ulfilas is involved in much 
 obscurity. Sozomen (vi. 37) intimates that 
 Ulfilas and his converts suffered much at the 
 hands of Athanaric, a lively picture of whose 
 persecution, a.d. 372-375, will be found in the 
 Acts of St. Sabas (Ruinart's Acta Sincera, p. 
 670) and of St. Nicetas, Sept. 15 (cf. A A. SS. 
 Boll. Sept.), both of which documents are full 
 of most interesting details concerning the life 
 and manners of the Goths. Mr. C. A. Scott, 
 of Cambridge, published an interesting and 
 full monograph on Ulfilas, in which he dis- 
 cusses his history and that of Gothic Chris- 
 tianity during this period. Arianism seems 
 to have specially flourished during the first 
 half of cent. iv. in the provinces along the 
 Danube. Valens and Ursacius, who lived 
 there, were the leaders of Western Arianism, 
 and Sulpicius Severus expressly asserts (Chron. 
 ii. 38) that almost all the bishops of the two 
 Pannonias were Arians. This would suffi- 
 ciently account for the Arianism of the Goths 
 who were just then accepting Christianity. 
 The literary fame of Ulfilas is connected with 
 his Gothic translation of the Bible, the one 
 great monument of that language now extant. 
 It does not exist in a complete shape. 
 The fragments extant are contained in (i) 
 the Codex Argenteus, now at Upsala ; (2) the 
 Codex Carolinus ; and (3) the Ambrosian 
 fragments published by Mai. A complete 
 bibliography of these fragments, as known till 
 1840, will be found in Ceillier (iv. 346), and 
 a complete ed. in Migne (Patr. Lat. t. xviii.) 
 with a Life, Gothic grammar, and glossaries. 
 Scott (Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths, 1885) 
 gathered together the literature after 1840, 
 and gave a long account of the MS. of Waitz. 
 He also discussed (p. 137) some fragments 
 attributed to Ulfilas. The best German works 
 on the life of Ulfilas are those of Waitz (1840), 
 Kraff t ( 1 860 ), and Bessel (i860). Works on the 
 Gothic Bible are by E. Bernhardt (Halle, 1875). 
 and Stamm (Paderborn, 1878) ; Bosworth's 
 Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels (1874); Skeat, 
 Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic (Oxf. 1883) ; 
 An Introduction, Phonological, Morphological, 
 Syntactic, to the Gothic of Ulfilas, by T. Le 
 Marchant Douse (1886). The chief ancient 
 sources for the life of Ulfilas are Philostorgius, 
 H. E. ii. 5 ; Socr. ii. 41, iv. 33 ; Soz. vi. 37 ; 
 Theod. iv. 37. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Urban US (1), bp. of Rome under the 
 emperor Alexander Severus, from 223 (or 222) 
 
 URBANOS 
 
 to 230. The Liberian Catalogue gives 8 years 
 II months and 11 days as the length of his 
 episcopate. Nothing certain is known of his 
 life. The Acta S. Urbani cannot be relied on. 
 The discovery by De Rossi in the papal 
 crypt of the cemetery of St. Callistus of a 
 broken stone (apparently once the mensa of an 
 altar-tomb), bearing the imperfect inscription 
 OVRBANOC E . . . has raised an interest 
 in the question of his burial-place and alleged 
 connexion with St. Caecilia. Lipsius inclines 
 to the view that the Urban of the papal crypt 
 was some other Urban, not necessarily a 
 bishop, since the letter E after his name might 
 have begun some other expression than 
 iirlaKowo^, e.g. iv elprivri. De Rossi, however, 
 thinks that the slab in the papal crypt must 
 have been that of the pope, who was actually 
 buried there ; and he attributes the contrary 
 tradition to a confusion between him and the 
 earlier Urban, whom he supposes to have been 
 contemporary with St. Caecilia and buried 
 in the cemetery of Praetextatus. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Urbanus (6), bp. of Sicca Veneria, a town 
 of proconsular Africa (Kaff) 22 miles from 
 Musti (Ant. Itin. xli. 4 ; Shaw, Trav. p. 95 ; 
 Aug. Ep. 229). Apparently a member of 
 Augustine's monastic society at Hippo (Aug. 
 Ep- 139- 34), he had occasion to remove 
 from his office for grave misconduct a pres- 
 byter named Apiarius. Apiarius appealed to 
 Zosimus, bp. of Rome, who ordered his 
 restoration. In a council which met May i, 
 418, the African bishops decreed that no 
 priest, deacon, or inferior clerk should pro- 
 secute any appeal beyond sea. Zosimus then 
 sent a commission to Africa, headed by 
 Faustinus, bp. of Potenza, with instructions 
 as to four points they were to impress on 
 the African bishops: (i) That appeals from 
 bishops of other churches should be made to 
 Rome. (2) That bishops should not cross 
 the sea unnecessarily (importune) to visit the 
 seat of government (comitatum). (3) About 
 settling through neighbouring bishops matters 
 relating to priests and deacons excommuni- 
 cated by their own bishops. Zosimus quotes 
 a decree purporting to be one of the council 
 of Nicaea, enjoining appeal to the bp. of Rome 
 in case of bishops degraded by the bishops of 
 their own province. (4) About excommuni- 
 cating Urbanus, or at least summoning him 
 to Rome unless he revoked his decision against 
 Apiarius. This was in the latter part of 418. 
 The African bishops were willing to accept 
 provisionally the first and third propositions, 
 until the canons of Nicaea, on which they were 
 said to be founded, should be examined, for 
 they were not aware of the existence among 
 them of such rules. But at the end of 418 
 Zosimus was succeeded by Boniface, and no 
 further action was taken until May 419, when 
 217 bishops met in council at Carthage 
 (Hardouin, Cone. vol. i. p. 934 ; Bruns, 
 Cone. i. 156, 157 d). Faustinus and his 
 colleagues attended, and stated the conditions 
 proposed by Zosimus. The bishops insisted 
 on seeing them in writing, and the documents 
 were accordingly then produced and read. 
 On this Alypius, bp. of Tagaste, remarked that 
 the decree referred to as one of Nicaea and 
 quoted by Zosimus did not appear in the 
 Greek copies with which the African bishops 
 
URSACIOS 
 
 were acquaiiUod. He [roposrd lh.it rrfcrouco 
 should be madi- by ttuiii>flv»-> .uid bv lioiiit^cr 
 to the bishops of eoiistaiitiuople. Alexandria, 
 and Antioch, to obtain in(orn>.»tion as to its 
 genuineness. Pending these consultation's 
 the council determined that .\piarius shoulil 
 be allowed, under a circular letter, to exercise 
 his office in any place except Sicca. No 
 mention is made of any action taken in this 
 matter by Boniface, who died a.d. 42 j. and 
 was succeeded by Celestme I.; but in 4i(> the 
 question was revived by further iniscondiict 
 on tlie part of .\piarius at Tahraca. and, when 
 removed from his oflice by the .\frican bishops, 
 he again appealed to Koine. .\t a council 
 summoned for the purpi>se Faustinus ap- 
 pealed again and behaved with ^r^'at insolence, 
 demanding on the part of the Roman pontiff 
 that Apiarius should be restored. The 
 bishops refused. .\ strenuous dispute lasted 
 3 days, and was ended by .\piarius confessing 
 his guilt. The assembled bishops took the 
 opportunity of requesting the bp. of Rome to 
 be less easy in receiving appeals, and not to 
 admit to communion persons excommunicated 
 by them ; all appeals ought to be terminated 
 in the province in which they begin, or in a 
 general council. Rolu-bacher says some good 
 theologians thought the whole history of 
 Apiarius a forgerv (//is/, de I'Eglise, vol. iv. 
 pp. 34S-37I)- ' [ii.w.p.] 
 
 UrsaoillS (l), bp. of Singidunum (Belgrade). 
 He and N'alens, bp. of Mursa, appear at every 
 synod and council from 330 till c. 370, as 
 leaders of the .-Vrian party both in the East and 
 West. They seem to have imbibed their 
 Arian views from .\rius himself during the 
 period of his exile into Ilhricum immediately 
 after the council of Nicaea. They are de- 
 scribed by .\thanasius [aJ Episc. Afgypl. 7. 
 p. 218) as the disciples of .Arius. This could 
 scarcely have been at Alexandria, but they 
 may easily have come in contact with him 
 during his exile, which seems to have been 
 very fruitful in spreading his views, as almost 
 all the bishops of the Danubian provinces, 
 together with L'llilas and the Gothic converts, 
 appear as .\rians immediately afterwards (cf. 
 Sulp. Sever. Chron. ii. 38). L'rsacius must 
 have been born, at latest, c. 300, as we find 
 him a bishop, actively engaged in conspiracy 
 against .\thanasius, when .■\rius was recalled, 
 c. 332. From Socrates we gather the leading 
 events of his life. In H. /•:. i. 27 we find hiin 
 united with Eusebius of Nicoinedia, Theognis 
 of Nicaea. .Mans of Chalcedon, and Valens, 
 in getting up a case against .Athanasius and 
 fabricating the scandalous charges of theft, 
 sacrilege, and murder, investigated at the 
 council of T>Te in 335. L'rsacius and Valens 
 being present there. They must have bren 
 very active and influential members of the 
 party even at that early period, for they were 
 sent to Egypt, as deputies of the syn.nJ, to 
 investigate the charge on the s|)ot, notwith- 
 standing the protests of .\thaiiasius [I.e. i. 31). 
 In 342 they assisted at Constantinople at the 
 consecration of Maccdonius as patriarch. 
 Upon the triumph of Athanasius in 34'^ they 
 made their peace with Julius, bp. of Rome, 
 accepted the Nicene formula, and wrote to 
 Athanasius, professing their readiness to hold 
 communion with him. At the »yD.»d ol 
 
 URSINUS 
 
 005 
 
 Siriniiiin iti - ■ .,. - 
 
 inrinbrrs «>( ; 
 
 the Dated < 
 
 prrsentctl t!. 
 
 nuin a few vstik. lain, mUiiIi ii.auitl)' 
 
 rejectetl It, dr|>i>siti|{ rrvacitit and V4lrn% irum 
 
 thrir sr. s •■.,. Wrll f.r ll.rlt llr.rl.t ...„• 
 
 spiral . 
 
 sion 1 
 
 thrir ; 
 
 and \ I < 
 
 prexi. -.ide. 
 
 The . . lh« 
 
 eni|Hi .. The 
 
 emperor ulusevl 1 ! Ih«» 
 
 council, and sent t "• at 
 
 Hadriaiiople first, .li tACr; 
 
 where l'rsacius aii>l \aliii iiil;"! thr*# 
 s.ime deputies to sign, on t)ct. lo, \yi. » re- 
 vised version o( the CTec«l, which thr council 
 had rejected. Sn-rate-* tells us that Nice in 
 Thrace was chosen in ordrr that it nilcht 
 impress the ignorant, who would confound It 
 with Nicaea in Bithvni.i. whrre the i>rlho<lui 
 symbol had been framed. If. S..«. //. /•.. lv. 
 14; Hieron. oJi . /.i«<-i/. p. iH.) , Sulp. S«v. 
 Chron. ii. 44 ; and dwatkins SluJte* of 
 Ananism, pp. «S7-I78, for the history o( Ibu 
 period, l'rsacius and Valens seem to have 
 remained influential with the court till the 
 end of life, for the last notice of either of them 
 in history tells how Salens obtained the recall 
 of the .\rian Eunoiuius from exile in 307 
 (Phil.hitorg. H. E. ix. «). The writmit* of 
 .\thaiiasius and Hilary frequently mention 
 them. i;watkins Studtt\ is very full o| 
 information, and Hefele's ComiutU (t. 11. 
 Clark's trans, s.nn.) gives abundant re(ereoc« 
 to the svikmIs in which they l.x.k part ; »«• 
 also Tillein. Stfm. vi. (t,.!.*.) 
 
 UrslntU (2) (l'tu(tnui), antijH)|>e, elected 
 after the death of IjIhtius in Sept. 366. tn 
 opp(n,iiion t<i DsMA'^i >. F..r tli. ...r.flirti 
 during the life of I r 
 ents and thos*- of I • 
 into the see by tin 
 
 I.iBtRirs(«)aiid 1 1 ■^ •'■ 
 
 up bv the partv «t ; jt oj 
 
 I.iU-rius, Conrtirti '..the 
 
 circumstances. St. J.. ■ " 
 
 10), and Socrates (IV. 24? 
 
 was elected hrst. and lay i! 
 
 who after this election IS -. 
 
 with his followers of thr i : • if 
 
 Sicininus), and to have b. . ^>«o- 
 
 men(vi. 22) and .Nicephon. "itlar 
 
 accountv A council at i 
 
 afterward.*, and an influei.' 
 
 A.D. 381, in wfiirh '^t A 
 
 minriit part 
 
 Usurprr, ali'l 
 
 (•rattan alit 
 
 Cun<tl.Homu.. 
 
 II. p. mH7 . /•/.. y. i .'«.. .^v-i. -.1 i"j-'- ^"•f ■ 
 
 lb. p. iiHi). M. Ainbr.Fsr {tf in speak. o| 
 I)amasush.iviiiKlK-enrlrctr.n % il.r iitKiurtil 
 of (kmI. The em|«rror'> flvil 
 
 auth<iritirs at Roinr, thr iil»%l 
 
 supported I >Jln.i u . .. t' 
 
 Hut a diC' 
 cellinus an<t i 
 who, being ■ 
 UU», prcvrutrl 4 I'lliisi ,,.-..-. ....-., 
 
996 URSlNUS 
 
 to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and 
 Arcadius (c. 383). They had been supporters 
 of Ursinus, and in the preface to their petition 
 assert that he was elected before Damasus by 
 the people who had been in communion with 
 Liberius in the church of Julius beyond the 
 Tiber, and was ordained by Paul, bp. of Ti- 
 voli ; and that Damasus had subsequently, 
 with a mob of charioteers and other low 
 fellows, broken into the church of Julius, 
 massacred many persons there, and after 
 seven days had, with his bribed followers, got 
 possession of the Lateran Basilica, and been 
 there ordained. The balance of evidence 
 appears decidedly in favour of Damasus, the 
 only witnesses against him, the two Luciferian 
 presbyters, being partisans whose veracity 
 we have no means of testing. After the two 
 elections all accounts agree that the rival 
 parties disturbed Rome by continual con- 
 flicts, in which lives were lost. At length 
 Juventius, the praefectus urbi, and Julianus, 
 the praefectus annonae, concurred in banish- 
 ing Ursinus, but the disturbances continued. 
 Ammianus Marcellinus, the historian, throws 
 light on the Roman church at this time from 
 the point of view of an intelligent and im- 
 partial heathen. "The ardour of Damasus 
 and Ursinus to seize the episcopal seat sur- 
 passed the ordinary measure of human 
 ambition. They contended with the rage of 
 party ; the quarrel was maintained by the 
 wounds and death of their followers, the pre- 
 fect . . . being constrained by superior violence 
 to retire into the suburbs. Damasus pre- 
 vailed: . . . 137 dead bodies were found in the 
 basilica of Sicininus, where the Christians hold 
 their religious assemblies ; and it was long 
 before the angry minds of the people resumed 
 their accustomed tranquillity. When I con- 
 sider the splendour of the capital, I am not 
 astonished that so valuable a prize should 
 inflame the desires of ambitious men and 
 produce the fiercest contests. The successful 
 candidate is secure that he will be enriched 
 by the offerings of matrons ; that as soon as 
 his dress is composed with becoming care and 
 elegance, he may proceed in his chariot 
 through the streets of Rome ; and that the 
 sumptuousness of the imperial table will not 
 equal the profuse and delicate entertainment 
 provided by the taste and at the expense of 
 the Roman pontiffs. How much more 
 rationally would those pontiffs consult their 
 true happiness if, instead of alleging the 
 greatness of the city as an excuse for their 
 manners, they would imitate the exemplary 
 die of some provincial bishops, whose temper- 
 ance and sobriety, mean apparel and downcast 
 Jooks, recommended their pure and modest 
 virtue to the Deity and His true worshippers!" 
 (Ammian. 27, 3, Gibbon's trans, c. xxv.). 
 
 In 367 the emperor Valentinian permitted 
 those who had been banished to return, but 
 threatened severe punishment in case of 
 renewed disturbance. (Baronius, ad ann. 368, 
 ii., iii. iv., gives extracts from these rescripts.) 
 Ursinus returned, and is said to have been 
 received by his followers on Sept. 15, 367, 
 with great joy (Lib. Precum), but was again 
 banished by order of the emperor (Nov. 16), 
 with seven of his adherents, into Gaul. Yet 
 peace was not at once restore'* His followers 
 
 valens 
 
 continued to assemble in cemeteries, and got 
 possession of the church of St. Agnes without 
 the walls. Thence they were dislodged ; 
 Marcellinus and Faustinus say by Damasus 
 himself with his satellites, and with great 
 slaughter. We may doubt the pope's per- 
 sonal complicity. After this the prefect 
 Praetextatus banished more of the party, 
 and the two presbyters allege cruel persecu- 
 tion, having been themselves among the 
 sufferers. Rescripts of the emperors 
 
 Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian (a.d. 371) 
 again release Ursinus and his friends from their 
 confinement in Gaul, allowing them to live 
 at large, but away from Rome and the sub- 
 urbicarian regions (Baron, ad ann. 371, i. ii. 
 iii.). A Roman council (a.d. 378) addressed a 
 letter to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian 
 II., representing that Ursinus and his followers 
 continued their machinations secretly (Labbe, 
 t. ii. pp. 1187-1192). 
 
 After this we find Ursinus at Milan, where 
 he is said to have joined the Arian party, who 
 promised him their support (Ambrose, Ep. 4). 
 But St. Ambrose, bp. of Milan, having 
 informed the emperor Gratian of what was 
 going on, the latter banished Ursinus from 
 Italy, and confined him to Cologne (Ep. I. 
 Cone. A quil. U.S.). No more is heard of Ursinus 
 till after the death of Damasus (Dec. 384), 
 when he opposed Siricius, who, having been a 
 supporter of Damasus against him, was elected 
 with the general consent of the Roman people. 
 Ursinus appeals not to have then had suffi- 
 cient support in Rome to cause conflict and 
 disturbance. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Ursula, a famous British virgin and martyr, 
 celebrated as having suffered with 11,000 
 other virgins at Cologne. Her notice in the 
 Roman Martyrology is simple : "At Cologne, 
 the natal day of SS. Ursula and her com- 
 panions, who, being slain by the Huns for 
 their Christianity and their virginal constancy, 
 terminated their life by mart>Tdom. Very 
 many of their bodies were discovered at 
 Cologne." On this foundation the new Bol- 
 landists have raised a prodigious edifice of 230 
 folio pages, where they discuss (A A. SS. Boll. 
 Oct. t. ix. pp. 73-303) every conceivable fact, 
 topic, or hypothesis concerning these prob- 
 lematical martyrs. Their story, which is 
 purely medieval, is briefly this. Ursula, the 
 daughter of Dionoc, king of Cornwall, was 
 sent by him with her numerous companions 
 to Conan, a British prince, who had followed 
 the tjTant Maximus into Gaul, c. 383. They 
 were somehow carried up the Rhine to Cologne 
 by mistake, where the Huns murdered them 
 ail. The enormous number of her compan- 
 ions has been explained as a mistake of the 
 early copyists, who found some such entry as 
 " Ursula et xi. M. V.", which, taking M. for 
 millia, not for martyrs, they read Ursula and 
 11,000 virgins instead of 11 martyr virgins. 
 Such mistakes frequently occurred in the 
 ancient martyrologies. [Ma.ximus (2).] [g.t.s.] 
 
 Valens (4), Arian bp. of Mursa in Pannonia, 
 and together with Ursacius the leading 
 Western opponent of Athanasius. He must 
 have been born c. 300, as we find him ' most 
 
VALENS 
 
 VALENTINIANUS I. 
 
 Thr, 
 
 ValtOttllUllBS (I) I.. rmt^r< AD. ifni7\, 
 4 nativr •>( I iti4li« In I'4nn'>ni4. Il«vtn« 
 
 MTvr<| in thr Arni\ »i!!i .1 li;,.- -1 ' «• »i» 
 
 C4pl4in o( thp K' ' 
 
 liun. whrn hr 
 
 IraxUxrt IrlU li 
 
 iulun W4» ■>nr .1 r I 
 
 •iirtiinr wilh icT<- ^ w»« 
 
 marrhinc In thr i • T»n 
 
 prir»t* wrrr 4l tt 
 pntrrr.l with |ii%lt 
 Vjlrntinijn'* r.ilw 
 hr W4^ <lr»:l' " 
 
 ririrst 4n<l ' 
 Vhrn J. 
 
 Arian* and othrr hrrri; 
 lishrd an edict at thr s. 
 r<'i>;n. Kiviin; ri>Tnplr|^ i..:^: ,•, •■ -. ■,, 
 
 .>(>II11.'I1. To this (.irt »r hA\r Xhr in 
 
 influential bishop (rmn a.p. 3w (cf. Rocr. H. F. 
 i. 27). Thr actjvitv .ind iiiflurncr' of Valrn^ 
 was confined to the Mast. The W«t W4« 
 always hoslilr to him. and (rrnupntlv rxcnm- 
 municatfd him, the last ix-rasion hnnR at a 
 council held at Rome in ^h.j. He probaMy 
 died some time prior to 375. (r..T.».l 
 
 Valens (5), emperor, a.d. .■\64-378. the 
 brother of Wilentinian 1. and born c. Jj8. 
 Ky his wife, .Mbia l>oininira. he had a -jin. 
 Cialates, and two daughters, .^nasta^ia and 
 Carosa. Made emperor of the Ivast in Mar. 
 364, he immediately displaye<l sympathy with 
 Arian di>ctrines and was actively hostile to 
 the Athanasian party. For his secular histnrv 
 see D. of G. and R. Bwgr. He was baptized Feb. a'l. 3 
 in 368 by the .A,rian Eudoxius, patriarch of I 17. 375. Fi>r an jcciiiiil 
 Constantinople. In 370 he is credited by all ' ser h. of G. amJ R. /?i<ifr 
 the historians (Socr. iy. 16; S<iz. vi. 14 : 1 rare phennmemm of an emi 
 Theod. iv. 24) with an act of atrocious cruelty. ' attached to orthodotv. w , 
 Eighty ecclesiastics, led by L'rbanus, Theo- 
 dorus, and Mendemus. were sent by the 
 orthodox party of Constantinople to protest 
 against the conduct r)f the Arians there. 
 
 Valens is said to have sent them all to sea, i.pj>..siir trstini.>tii»^ 
 
 ordering the sailors to set (ire to the ship and it in l oJ. 1 hfoJ. n. ifi <>. in i 1 ■ ' '■■•■■ '^'1 
 then to abandon it. They all i^rished of! the | against the practices of th 
 coast of Bithynia, and arc celebrated as .Ammianus Marcrllinu* [\\x. ■, 
 mart\Ts on Sept. s (Mart. Rom.). In 371 he j for it, and St. Ambrose, in h i' 
 
 made a tour through his Asiatic province. ; 0^^/tl I'a//^/. /MHiofU, implicillv cruiu-^. turn 
 At Caesarea in Cappadocia he came into con- (cf. Hilar. I'ictav. i'nnt. .iuimt. Opp. t. III. 
 flict with St. Basil, whose letters (Migne, /'a/f. ! p. 64). Hi^ t.>ler4ti.in .11.1 n f h-.wri-vrr. 
 Gft. t. xxxii.) afford a very lively picture of the 1 extend to practices. Tti 
 persecution of Valens. He proposed to send j i^sue<1 a law (C'tJ. ThrrtJ 
 St. Basil into exile. Just then his •>nly son j nocturnal sacrifices and < 
 fell sick. Valens had recourse to the saint, and further eiif.>rce<l it ' 
 who promised to heal him if he received I uf the same title. Tliev 
 orthodox baptism. The Arians were, how- 1 been issued m.ifr fr»m a ; 
 
 ever, allowed to baptize the young prince, who I religious point of view. .. 1 
 
 thereupon died. Basil and the orthodox , against imni'iralitv. not paK-tiii>iii. ** u 
 attributed his death to the judgment of 1 evident from the fart, which Ambro*/' (It.) 
 heaven on the imperial obstinacy. In 374 laments that he tolerated the public profe*. 
 Valens raised a persecution against the neo- j sion and practices of paganism in the K.mtan 
 
 Platonic philosophers, and put to death senate-house. One circumstance drm.»n- 
 several of their leaders, among them Maxims . strates his tolerance towarlv rhr f ') wrr-, ^f 
 
 (25) of Ephesus, the tutor and friend of the ] the ancient reliKion. TV 
 emperor Julian, Hilarius, Simonides, and ; edict in the Theo<l.»sian . 
 
 Andronicus. His anger was excited at this 1 the crlebrii-d tnl«" W< /'; 
 
 period against magical practices by a con- with • — • ' ■ 
 
 spiracy at .\ntioch (Socr. H. E. iv. 19; ^*- brt« 
 
 vi. 35) for securing the succession of Theo- will 
 
 dorus, one of the principal court officials. tU flu.- , 
 
 Numerous acts of persecution at l-.drssa, and viii. Mir ..nr r*cri.ti..ii 1 . ■ 
 
 Antioch. .\lexandria, and Constantinople are | here»y. which he sirirtiv prohi' 
 
 attributedto Valens, in all of which Moi.KSTf*. of 372 {CoJ. Theod. \\\ -■ 
 
 the pretorian prefect, was his most active punishment of their tea- ' 
 
 agent, save in Egypt, where Lucius, the .Arian tion of the hous*-s wherr 
 
 successor of Atha'nasius. endeavoured in vain pupils in H-m.- ; f -t '^' 
 
 to terrify the monks into conformity. The th.it • ' 
 
 last year of Valcns's life was marke<l by a phil 
 
 striking manifestation of monkish courage, thi • 
 
 In 373 he was leaving Constantinople for his ; t-i » 
 
 fatal struggle with the Coths at Adrianople. iiii'!' 
 
 As he rode out of the city an anchonte, Isaac. Ik- 
 
 who lived there, met the cmprr<»r and t»oldlv t .. 
 
 predicted his death. The em|>er<iT ordered I.' 
 
 imprisonnunt till his return, when he won: 
 
 punish him— a threat at which the moi.^ 
 
 laughed. Sec Clinton's Faxti, \. 47'>. •>• «• ' 
 
 for the chronology of Valen*. Tillemont 
 
 Emp. (t. V.) and He Broglie'ii LEkUu n ■ ■ 
 
 V Empire Romatn (t. v.) give good account* of law tir^- . 
 
 the career and violence of Valen*. (o.i » ) 1 olj Home. 
 
 leritv (I*, tv. 11. 17 
 
 . ..{ ti.?. in-n t-. t . 
 
 ^crlpuoo *' l>« VH«. 
 
998 VALENTINIANUS II. 
 
 Honestate, Conversatione Ecclesiasticorum et 
 Continentium," which was the model for much 
 subsequent legislation. (Cf. the commentary 
 of Godefroy, Theod. Cod. t. vi. p. 54, where all 
 contemporary notices of this law are collected.) 
 The legislative activity of Valentinian in 
 every direction was very great, as shewn by 
 the Theodosian Code. 
 
 Other modern authorities are Clinton's 
 Fasti, i. 460, and appendix, pp. 110-119, where 
 is an exhaustive statement of all his legislation, 
 together with notices of medals, coins, etc., 
 bearing on his reign, and De Broglie's L'Eglise 
 et VEmpire Roinain, pt. iii. c. i. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Valentlnlanus (2) XL, emperor, A.D. 375- 
 392, son of Valentinian I. and of Justina, his 
 second wife. For his secular life see D. of G. 
 and R. Biogr. His name is celebrated in 
 church history in connexion with two matters : 
 (i) An attempt in 384 by the Roman Senate 
 to restore the altar of Victory and the pagan 
 rites connected with the Senate. We possess 
 the document Relatio Symmachi Vrhis Praefecti 
 on the one side and the Epp. xvii. and xviii. 
 of St. Ambrose to Valentinian on the other 
 (cf. St. Ambr. opp. Migne, Pair. Lat. t. xvi. 
 col. 962-982). St. Ambrose carried the day, 
 and the senatorial petition was rejected, as 
 again in 391 (see Tillem. Emp. v. 244, 300, 
 349)- (2) The other matter concerned the 
 necessity of baptism. Valentinian died at 
 Vienne in Gaul, being then about 20, and only 
 a catechumen. Being anxious to receive 
 baptism, he sent for St. Ambrose to baptize 
 him. Before the sacrament could be admin- 
 istered, he was found dead. St. Ambrose's 
 treatise, de Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, §§ 
 51-56, shews how Ambrose rose superior to 
 any hard mechanical view of the sacraments 
 and recognized the sincere will and desire as 
 equivalent to the deed (cf. Tillem. Emp. v. 
 356 ; De Broglie, L'Eglise et VEmpire, pt. iii. 
 CO. v. and viii.). At one time Valentinian 
 was inclined to support the Arian party at 
 Milan, influenced by his mother Justina, who 
 was bitterly hostile to St. Ambrose. Sozomen 
 (H. E. vii. 13), followed by Ceillier (v. 386), 
 represents Valentinian and the empress as 
 persecuting St. Ambrose and the Catholics of 
 Milan in 386, referring to Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. 
 tit. i. leg. 4. [Ambrosius ; Justina.] [g.t.s.] 
 
 Valentinianus (3) III., emperor, 425-455, 
 
 the son of Constantius III. by Galla Placidia, 
 daughter of Theodosius the Great and con- 
 sequently great-grandson of Valentinian I. 
 For his civil history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. 
 His reign was signalized by several laws 
 bearing on church matters. At its very 
 beginning (July 17, 425) there was issued at 
 Aquileia in his name a decree (Cod. Theod. lib. 
 xvi. tit. V. 1. 62), expelling all heretics and 
 schismatics from Rome. A special provision 
 ordered the adherents of Eulalius, elected 
 anti-pope in 419, to be removed to the looth 
 milestone from the city. This law has been 
 illustrated at great length by Gothofred, t. vi. 
 204. Identical laws (tit. v. 11. 63, 64) were 
 issued for the other cities of Italy and for 
 Africa in 425, and also edicts (lib. xvi. tit. ii. 
 II. 46 and 47) renewing clerical privileges and 
 reserving clerical offenders to the tribunal of 
 the bishops alone, a rule which he abrogated 
 later. In tit. vii. of the same bk. is a law against 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 apostates dated Ravenna Apr. 7, 426, depriv- 
 ing them of all testamentary power. On the 
 next day a law was enacted (tit. viii. 1. 28) 
 preventing Jews from disinheriting their 
 children who became Christians. The most 
 interesting portion of his ecclesiastical legisla- 
 tion is in his Novels embodied in Ritter's 
 appendix to Gothofred's great work (Lip. 
 1743, t. vi. pt. ii. pp. 105-133). Thus tit. ii. 
 p. 106, A.D. 445. treats of the Manicheans and 
 gives particulars as to the action of pope Leo 
 the Great against them; tit. v. p. ui, a.d. 
 447, of the violations of sepulchres, with severe 
 penalties against such crimes, of which the 
 clergy themselves were frequently guilty. Tit. 
 xii. p. 127, A.D. 452, his most celebrated law, 
 is an anticipation of medieval legislation ; it 
 withdraws the clergy from the episcopal courts 
 and subjects them to lay judges. Baronius 
 (Annals, a.d. 451) heartily abuses Valentinian 
 for this law, and considers Attila's invasion a 
 direct and immediate expression of Heaven's 
 anger. [g.t.s.] 
 
 Valentinus (1) (OvaXevT'tvos), founder of 
 one of the Gnostic sects which originated in 
 the first half of 2nd cent. 
 
 I. Biography. — According to the tradition 
 
 of the Valentinian school witnessed to by 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom, vii. 17, 106, p. 
 
 1 898, Potter), Valentinus had been a disciple 
 
 I of Theodas, who himself, it is very improbably 
 
 said, knew St. Paul. Valentinus cannot have 
 
 begun to disseminate his Gnostic doctrines 
 
 I till towards the end of the reign of Hadrian 
 
 j (i 17-138). Before this he is said to have been 
 
 I a Catholic Christian. It must have been, 
 
 therefore, at most only shortly before his 
 
 appearance as the head of a Gnostic sect that 
 
 Valentinus became a hearer of Theodas and 
 
 ! received, as he said, his doctrines from him. 
 
 j The Gnostics were fond of claiming for their 
 
 secret doctrines apostolic tradition and tracing 
 
 them back to disciples of the apostles. To 
 
 this otherwise unknown Theodas the Valen- 
 
 tinians appealed as an authority in much the 
 
 same way as Basilides was said to have been 
 
 a disciple of Glaucias, and he, in turn, an 
 
 "interpreter of Peter." 
 
 Irenaeus (i. 11, i) speaks of Valentinus as 
 the first who transformed the doctrines of the 
 Gnostic " Heresy " to a peculiar doctrinal 
 system of his own (et's Wiov xo.pa.KTrjpa SiSacr- 
 KaXeLov). By the expression yvwariK^ aipeais 
 we understand a party which called them- 
 selves " Gnostics," whom we may recognize 
 in the so-called Ophites, described by Irenaeus 
 (i. 30), when he remarks that the Valentinian 
 school originated from those unnamed heretics 
 as from the many-headed Lernean Hydra (i. 
 30, 15). Concerning the home and locality of 
 these so-called " Gnostics " Irenaeus tells us 
 nothing. But we know from other sources 
 that those Ophite parties to whom he refers 
 had their homes both in Egypt and S>Tia. 
 
 Concerning the fatherland of Valentinus 
 himself Epiphanius is the first to give accurate 
 information, which, however, he derived 
 simply, it appears, from oral tradition (Epiph. 
 Haer. xxxi. 2). According to this his native 
 home was on the coast of Egypt, and he 
 received instruction in Greek literature and 
 science at Alexandria. Epiphanius, who 
 makes him begin to teach in Egypt, relates 
 
VALENTINUS 
 
 further that he also wmt to K,>mr, and 
 appciupd as a rolipioiis teacher thrrr, but that, 
 both in ligvpt ami at Komr, hr was rrgartlrd 
 as orthodox, and first made shipwTcck <>( (aith 
 in Cyprus and bo^an to dissrniinatr hrrrtiral 
 i>pinions. Hut this statcnirnt rrsts nirrrlv 
 on a combination of dillrrcnt accounts. 
 .\ccording to Ironacus, Valcntinus "flour- 
 ished " at Rome in the times of Pius and 
 .\nicetus. Epiphanius. on the other hand, 
 read (as we learn from Philaster. Harr. \S) in 
 the <rOvTa-)ma of Hippolvtus. that \alentmus 
 stood once in the communion of the church, 
 but being drawn by overweening pride into 
 apostasy had. during his residence in Cvprus. 
 propounded his heretical diKtrine. But we 
 cannot doubt that when Irenaeus speaks of 
 Valentinuss flourishing at Rome during the 
 times of Pius and Anicetus. he refers to the 
 fact that his chief activity as a religious 
 teacher was then displaved. and that undej 
 Anicetus he stood at the head of his own 
 (inostic school. With this there is no diffi- 
 culty in reconciling Tertullian's statement, 
 that Valentinus no more than Marcion 
 separated himself from the Church on his 
 arrival at Rome (Praescnpl. Haerrt. 36). For 
 the Gnostics, for the very sake of disseminat- 
 ing their dix;trines the m<»re freely, made a 
 great point of remaining in the Catholic 
 church, and made use for that end of a twofold 
 mode of teaching, one exoteric for the simpler 
 sort of believers, the other esoteric for the 
 initiated, as is shewn in the fragments which 
 have come down to us, the most part of which 
 purposely keep the peculiarly Gnostic doc- 
 trines in the background. 
 
 We mav, then, conclude that Valentinus. 
 towards the end of Hadrian's reign (f. 130). 
 appeared as a teacher in Kgvpt and in Cyprus, 
 and earlv in the reign of Antoninus Pius he 
 came to Rome, and during the long reign of 
 Antoninus was a teacher there. He had 
 probably developed and secretly prepared his 
 theological svstem before he came to Rome, 
 whither he doubtless removed for the same 
 motive as led other leaders of sects, e.R. 
 Cerdon and .Marcion, to go to Rome— the hoj>e 
 to find a wider field for his activity as a 
 teacher. From a similar motive he attached 
 himself at first to the communion of the 
 Catholic church. 
 
 II. History of Ihf S^'cr— Valentinus had 
 numerous adherents. They divided them- 
 selves, we are tftld. into two scho-jls— the 
 anatolic or oriental, and the It.ilian schcH.I 
 (Pseud-Orig. Philosnph. vi. 35, p. uiS. Milh-r. 
 of. TertuUian, adv. Valentinian. c. 11. and the 
 title prefixed to the excerpts of Clemens K. 
 Tov dtohirrov /tai r^« 'Ai-aroXiirVji naXovnirm 
 Ma<TKa\ia%). The ff)rmer of these sch.oN 
 was spread through FRvpt and S\Tia, the 
 latter in Rome. Italv. and S. < .aul. Among his 
 disciples. Secundus appears to have »M-en one 
 of the earliest. TertuUian (adv. Valrnhntan. 
 4) and the epitomators of Hippolvtus men- 
 tion him after I'tolemaeus (Pseudo-Tertull. 
 Haer. 13 ; Philast. Haer. 40) ; the older work, 
 on the other hand, excerpted bv Irenaeus is 
 apparently correct in naming him first a* 
 Valentinus's earliest disciple {Hart 1. 11 J). 
 Then follows, in the same original work m 
 quoted by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 11. 3). another 
 
 VALENT1NU.S fM 
 
 illustrious teacher > ■ 'i,<(«. 
 
 \oi). of whom 4 • 4iof 
 
 heresiolo^ists has 1 ,.J«-». 
 
 nametlllpiphanrs; .■ hr» 
 
 was is inatirr of .li ..,|,. 
 
 able ronjerturc is •' i:(lk« 
 
 SwUmf, p. ifv)) .» o II 
 
 wa» Mauci s (17). " ,r||v 
 
 corresjxinds to thai ^ hrr 
 
 (rf. Harr. 1. i>, 1. • 1 ' .icu» 
 
 hiniM-li will, in anv rasf , 1 • lM-*t 
 
 of Valentinus's dlsriplrs d M d«t 
 
 itlUslfH SfUrrcf^ih p »i in 
 
 Asia were pfobablv rini- with 
 
 \alentinus's residence an I me, 
 
 and there a " r-kIIv eldri . t (ha 
 
 truth." whom Irenaeus qn tr i: ti a» an 
 older authority, made him the sub)eci of 
 metrical ob)urgati >n as the " (tirerunnrr ol 
 anti-C hristian malice" (Iren. Hart. 1. t\. 6). 
 
 I'toirxAKi s. on the other hand. wa% a 
 contemporary of Irenaeus hiinsell, and one o| 
 the leaders of the Italian srho-)! (Iren. //•/». 
 Prarl. 2, Pseud-«»riK. Phtlo\. vi \\\, whom 
 Hippolvtus in the ts\nta(i%n*, and probably 00 
 the basis of an arbitrary combination o| Iren. 
 i. «. ^ with 1 1. 2. puts at the head of all other 
 disciples of Valentinus. Hr.iiA< 1 toy was tlill 
 younger than Ptolemaeuv aiul the »r<-nnd 
 head of the Italian school. His dxtrinal 
 svstem appears to l)e that mainlv kept in view 
 in the Philcophumma (c(. vi. :<> iM. Ire- 
 naeus names him as i( ''■ •• '■■ ■ . .•., n ,,,, u. 
 4. I), while Tertulli .ii<in 
 
 to his predecessors \'. 'inu» 
 
 shewed the wav. Pi ■\a II, 
 
 Heracleon struck out viiiir ulr laiti* (itdv. 
 VaUnttHian. 4). He inake^ alvt the like 
 remark concerning Secundus and Marcuv. 
 Clemens sj>eaks of Heracle<Mi (r. i'))| a« the 
 most distiiiKuished among the disriplrs ol 
 Valentinus (Slmm. iv. 0. 73. P- .\'>>>. nieanlnn. 
 of course, among those of his own lime. 
 OriKen's statement, therefore, that he had a 
 personal aojuaintance with Valentinus (Ori- 
 gen. in Jnann. t. ii "1 '- ••• '• '<. .ivr.i with 
 caution. In part ^Hh 
 
 him ap|>ear to ha\> •■ the 
 
 anat<ilic (oriental) ■^' '• Har- 
 
 desanes ("Apfln*"*"?'. i'hiU^i.\>. isi. »»liolx>lh 
 lived into the hrst deremua o| crnt. III. 
 
 Axionik.»s was still w.^king at Aniiorh when 
 TertuUian comiH.se<| his N-ik axaintt lh« 
 Valentinianv theref.K^e c. iiH (Tertull. I.f-U 
 We cannot here dl»russ how f.ir th»- r^!.-».f aled 
 Kdessene Gn<rstir HabI'I * ' Ml 1% 
 
 ri«htlv acr..unte<| a Vain llian 
 
 iii.1ir.itf~. Ationik.rw as thr . hit 
 
 .'.. ..n .< -I.- K ol 
 
 Ife. 
 .. lo 
 . 'irr» 
 
 ol the I..* A. «a.. It hrr. 
 
 The same was als • *»«*> 
 
 Alesander, the Valr. -itin» 
 
 TertulUan had in his ban. Is [if < t'tr ' intlt 
 cr. |f> s<j<| ). 
 
 ( onrerning the Uter hfl'f 
 tiiiian sect w- ' 
 TertuUian. » 
 liniaiis III ! 
 
 " (reiiurnlis.i! ..- r"v 
 
 Thu u cool»rm«J by -bat u t«>W u» of Um 
 
 .( ihc Vatm- 
 
 len- 
 
1000 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 local extension of the sect. From Egypt it 
 seems to have spread to Syria, Asia Minor, and 
 to Rome. Its division into an oriental and 
 an Italian school shews that it had adherents 
 even after the death of its founder, in both the 
 East (Egypt, SjTia, Mesopotamia) and West 
 (specially at Rome). In Asia Minor the doc- 
 trine appears to have been mainly dissemin- 
 ated by Marcus, who was so vigorously 
 attacked (c. 150) by the " godly elder," quoted 
 by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 15, 6). Disciples of 
 Marcus were found by Irenaeus in the Rhone 
 districts (Haer. i. 13, 7), where also he appears 
 to have met with adherents of Ptolemaeus 
 (Haer. Praef. 2). In Rome, c. 223, an impor- 
 tant work of the Italian school came into the 
 hands of the writer of the Philosophumena, 
 who speaks of both schools as being in exist- 
 ence in his time (Philos. vi. 35, p. 195). Ter- 
 tullian also mentions the duae scholae and 
 dtiae cathedrae of the party in his time 
 (adv. Valent. 11). Remains of the sect were 
 still found in Egypt in the time of Epiphanius 
 (Haer. xxxi. 7). Theodoret, on the other 
 hand (H. f. Praef.), can only speak of the 
 Valentinians as of other Gnostic sects (whom 
 he deals with in his first book) as belonging 
 to the past — iraXatas aip^creis — of whom he 
 possesses a mere historical knowledge. 
 
 III. Writings. — The fragmentsof thewTitings 
 of Valentinus have been collected by Grabe 
 (Spicilegium, ii. 45-48), and more completely 
 by Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, pp. 93-207). 
 They consist of fragments of letters and 
 homilies preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus 
 (Strom, ii. 8, 36, p. 448 ; ii. 20, 114, pp. 488 seq. ; 
 iii. 7, 59, P- 538 ; iv. 13, 91, p. 603 ; vi. 6, 52, 
 p. 767), and of two pieces contained in the 
 Philosophumena, the narrative of a vision 
 (6pa/j.a) seen by Valentinus (Philos. vi. 42, p. 
 203), and the fragment of a psalm composed 
 by him (Philos. vi. 37, pp. 197 seq.). Psalms 
 of Valentinus's authorship are mentioned by 
 Tertullian (de Came Christi, 17, 20). 
 
 Remains of the writings of the school of 
 Valentinus are more abundant. Beside the 
 numerous fragments and quotations in Ire- 
 naeus and the Philosophumena, and in the 
 excerpts from Theodotus, and the anatolic 
 school, which seem yet to need a closer 
 investigation, we may mention : the letter of 
 Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap. Epiphan. Haer. xxxiii. 
 3-7), numerous fragments from the comment- 
 aries (vTrofj.vr)jxaTa) of Heracleon on St. Luke 
 (ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, 73 seq., pp. 595 
 seq. ; excerpt, ex prophet. § 25, p. 995), and 
 on St. John (ap. Origen in Joann. passim), 
 collected by Grabe (Spicil. i. 80-117) and 
 Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, 472-498) ; lastly, 
 a rather large piece out of an otherwise un- 
 knowTi Valentinian writing preserved by 
 Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6). 
 
 IV. Account'^ given by the Fathers. — State- 
 ments concerning Valentinus and his school 
 are very numerous, but many are so contra- 
 dictory that it is difficult to distinguish the 
 original doctrine of Valentinus from later 
 developments. Even in his day Tertullian 
 made the complaint (adv. Valentiman. 4), 
 " Ita nunquam jam Valentinus, et tamen 
 Valentiniani, qui per Valentinum." Among 
 those who before him had controverted the 
 Valentinians, Tertullian enumerates (ib. 5) ; 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and the 
 Montanist Proculus. Of the writings of these 
 four on this subject one only has been pre- 
 served, the great work of Irenaeus in five 
 books, entitled 'EXeyxoi Kal dvaTpoiri^ rijs 
 xl/evSwuvfiou yvwa-eui, which has come down to 
 us in great part only in the ancient Latin 
 version. This work was written (see iii. 3, 3) 
 in the time of the Roman bp. Eleutherus, c. 
 180-185. The greater part of bk. i., which 
 Epiphanius has preserved to us almost com- 
 pletely, deals exclusively with the Valentini- 
 j ans, and the refutations in the following books 
 I are principally concerned with them. 
 
 The sources which Irenaeus used are of 
 sufficient variety. In the preface to bk. i. 
 I (c. 2) he refers to the writings of those who call 
 : themselves disciples of Valentinus, adding 
 ' that he had met some of them himself and 
 heard their opinions from their own mouths. 
 Immediately afterwards he indicates that the 
 contemporary Valentinians, whose doctrine 
 \ he promises to describe, are those of the school 
 of Ptolemaeus. In bk. i. (c. 8, 5) he intro- 
 duces into a detailed description of the 
 Valentinian method of interpreting Scripture 
 a large fragment which undertakes to prove 
 the truth of the higher Ogdoad of the Valen- 
 tinian Pleroma from the prologue of the 
 Gospel of St. John. The concluding notice 
 (found only in the Latin text) expressly 
 ascribes the authorship of this fragment to 
 Ptolemaeus. Irenaeus likewise obtained his 
 information as to the doctrine and practices of 
 the Marcosians partly from a written source, 
 partly from oral communications. We can 
 hardly assume that Marcus was still alive 
 when Irenaeus wrote, but it is not unlikely 
 that adherents of Marcus may have appeared 
 then in the Rhone districts. The section 
 which specially treats of Marcus (i. 12-15) is 
 apparently from a written source ; but what 
 he brings to light for the first time (cc. 16-18) 
 concerning the mysteries celebrated by the 
 Marcosians is from oral information. 
 
 Next in importance to the statements of 
 Irenaeus, as a source of information con- 
 I cerning Valentinus and his school, are the 
 ; fragments preserved among the works of 
 I Clemens Alexandrinus, and entitled 'Ek tCov 
 QioSbrov Kai riji dcaroXtK^s Ka\oviJi.^vr]s 
 5i5a<TKa\ia^ eTnTOfiai, The text has come 
 down to us in a somewhat forlorn condition. 
 The best ed. is Bunsen's, in Analecta Antini- 
 caena, vol. i. (Lond. 1854), pp. 205-278. The 
 I general character of these excerpts is similar 
 to others in other writings of Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus, and does not justify the assumption 
 that their present abrupt fragmentary form 
 j proceeded from Clemens himself. 
 
 Very little is obtainable from the Syntagma 
 \ of Hippolytus, preserved in the excerpts of 
 [ Pseudo-Tertullian (Haer. 12) and by Philaster 
 ! (Haer 38), as also partly by Epiphanius (Haer. 
 ' xxxi. 8 ; cf. Quellen d. alt. Ketzergesch. p. 166). 
 1 Hippolytus combined Irenaeus (cc. 1-7) with 
 ; some authority belonging to the older jmatolic 
 system. 
 
 Pseud-Origines, now almost universally 
 assumed to be Hippolytus, gives us in the 
 Philosophumena (the larger "EXevx"' KaTo. 
 iraawv alpiffeuv) a quite peculiar account of 
 the Valentinian system, one more uniform and 
 
VALENTINUS 
 
 synoptical than that ni Ironaru*. Thr 
 original authority on which this description 
 IS based caiincU have been the same as that in 
 the Syntagma which Ix-longed to the anatolic 
 scho<i|. the former being a prcxliict of the 
 Western or Italian. The doctrinal svstrtn 
 reproduced by Pscud-Oigines is in general 
 akin to the Ptolemaic presented bv Irenaeuv 
 But his original authority is entirely inde- 
 pendent of the sources used bv Irenaeus. 
 
 Tertullian's tractate a,ltfrsus Valmtinian^'i 
 IS not an independent aulhoritv. Apart from 
 a few personal notices concerning him and his 
 disciples which he mav have taken from the 
 lost work of Proculus (c. 4. cf. c. ii ), his whole 
 account is a paraphrase of Irenaeus. whom he 
 follows almost word for word, and more or 
 less faithfully from c. 7 onwards. 
 
 Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 9-32) has incoqior- 
 ated the whole long section of Irenaeus (i. i-io) 
 in his Pananon. Haer. xxxii. and xxxiv. 
 (Secundus. Marcus) are simply taken from 
 Irenaeus. He follows Irenaeus also in his 
 somewhat arbitrary wav in what he savs 
 about Ptolemaeus, Colarbasus, Heracleon 
 (Haer. xxxiii. xxxv. xxxvi.). On the other 
 hand, Haer. xxxi. 7, 8, is taken from the 
 Syntafima of Hippolytus : Haer. xxxiii. 3-7 
 contains the important letter of Ptolemaei's 
 to Flora. Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6 gives a frag- 
 ment of an unknown V'alentinian WTiting, 
 from which the statements in c. 2 are partly 
 derived. This wxiting, with its barbarous 
 names for the Aeons and its mixture of 
 Valentinian and Basilidian doctrines, shows 
 anatolic Valentinianism as already degenerate. 
 Later heresiologists, r.p. Theodoret, who 
 (Haer. Fab. i. 7-9) follows Irenaeus and Epi- 
 phanius, are not independent authorities. 
 
 V. The System. — A review of the accounts 
 given by the Fathers confirms the judgment 
 that, with the means at our command, it is 
 very difficult to distinguish between the ori- 
 ginal doctrine of \'alentinus and the later 
 developments made by his disciples. A 
 description of his system must start from the 
 Fragments, the authenticity of which (apart 
 from the so-called S(>oi OiaXtyrivov in iJial. 
 de Recta Fide) is unquestioned. But from the 
 nature of these fragments we cannot expect 
 to reconstruct the whole system out of them. 
 From an abundant literature a few relics only 
 have been preserved. Moreover, the kinds 
 of literature to which these fragments belong 
 — letters, homilies, hymns — shew us only the 
 outer side of the system, while its secret 
 Gnostic doctrine is passed over and concealed, 
 or only indicated in the obscurest manner. 
 The modes r>f expression in these fragments are 
 brought as near as possible tf> thos<_- in ordinary 
 church use. \\V see therein the evident desire 
 and effort of V'alentinus to remain in the 
 fellowship of the Catholic church. f)f sj>ccific 
 Gnostic doctrines two only appear in their 
 genuine undisguised shape, that of the celestial 
 origin of the spiritual man (the Pneumatico^), 
 and that of the Demiurge ; for the docrtic 
 Christology w.as not then, as is clear from 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, cxclusivrlv peculi.ir 
 to the Gnostics. All the more einphaticallv is 
 the anthropological and ethical side of the 
 system insisted on in these fr.igments. 
 As the world is an image of the living Aeon 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 loot 
 
 iroi' fu'rr<H o/Jrof ). so is man «n Im4«r of iho 
 pre-existent man of the Af^pwot wpojf 
 ValeiUiniiv according to ( Irmen* Airland- 
 rinii* ( I <i;4^/tNi //r>Hti/. 4,,. (Urn. Slr^m. iv. 
 H. OJ), s|»,.ke of the S.iphi4 «« an artM 
 ({uTfpd^oi) making thi\ vuit.'r I .urr » fM « 
 Picture of the glori-.u* A; ■ th^ 
 
 he.wer or reader would a^ ; • ,„,! 
 
 theheavrnlv WimIoiu <>f Id. rfj,, 
 
 to lie meant bv thi^ Soph,., ,. , ,r , . , ., 4,,^ 
 fallen .\eon. I'nder her (.«rr.«-»tiii,. |,, Valrn- 
 tinus) stand the worldcrrativr angrU, wh"w< 
 head is the Demiurge. Hrr f.v^jti.m 
 {v\d<rna) is Adam create<l in thr name ..f the 
 'Ar^pwrot wpouf In him thu« made 4 higher 
 power puts the seed of the heavenly pneuma- 
 tic essence (trr^pua rrft ArutOtr otViai). Thu» 
 furnished with higher insight. Adam excHr« 
 the fears of the angels ; for even at toam^oi 
 Aytfpwwot are seized with fear of the ima«et 
 m.ide bv their own hands t<» l>ear the name 
 of God. i.e. the idols, so these angel* cauM- the 
 images thev have made to dis.ip|var {Ff>. *d 
 .Amtcos. Ait.Ciem. AUi. Strom. 11. 8. 36). The 
 pneumatic seed {wrn^^ia i<a<t>^ixm ih >/r*t 
 3(o0//>oi') nevertheless remains in the world, 
 as a r.ace bv nature capable r>f Iteing \ave«l 
 (^I'trn <tu(6fniror "y/rotl, and which ha* 
 come down from a higher sphere in or»ler to 
 put an end to the reign of death. IVath 
 originates from the Demiurge, tr) whom the 
 word (Ex. xxxiii. 20) refers that no one can 
 see the face of God without dving. The 
 members of the pneumatic church are from 
 the first imm0rt.1l, and children of eternal life. 
 They have onlv assumed mortality in order 
 to overcome death in themselves and bv 
 themselves. They shall disv.lve the world 
 without themselves suffering dissolution, and 
 be lords over the creatifui and over all tran- 
 sitory things {I'ateni. Horn. ap. CUm. Strom. 
 iv. 13. 91 SCO.). But without the help of the 
 only good Father the heart even of the 
 spiritual man (the pneumaticos) cannot (>« 
 cleansed from the many evil spirits which 
 make their abode in him, and each accom- 
 plishes his own desire. Hut when the only 
 good Father visits the soul, it is hallowed and 
 enlightened, and is called tilessed In-cause one 
 day it shall sec (iod. Thi» cleansing and 
 illumination is a consequence of the revelation 
 of the Son {ib. ii. 20, 114). 
 
 We learn from the fragments only {I'mlenL 
 Fp. ad .Agathopoda ai>. ( lem. Strom, iv. 7, )<)) 
 that Jesus, by steadfastness and «l»stinenc», 
 earned for Himself Deity, and l)y virtue ol 
 His abstinence did not even suffer to b« 
 corrupted the f.nxl which llr rr,.,.^,! , / it 
 did nr)t undergo the natural .rn- 
 
 tion). because He HimseH rrt 
 
 to eorru|>tion. It must rrii: , ni 
 
 how V'alentinus definetl thr ' .lu 
 
 to the vi6i If the text of t! ■•-<] 
 
 almve l>e »oiinc|, Icsut put Hi <-%• 
 
 sion of GiKlfiead by His own ii (iiiri„r. « 
 notion we should rxpe<-t In Ibionite rather 
 than in (inostic rirclrt. Hut the true reading 
 may be tUd{tTo (not flfi^id{fre), and In that 
 case the meaning will l>e that by an ei- 
 traordinarv aseetirum Jr^us «Vf>ide<J every 
 kind of material |Millution. and *n bocaroe 
 HinueH the Image ol the Incorruptible and 
 
1002 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 imperishable Godhead. At any rate, this 
 fragment does not tell us whether, according 
 to the teaching of Valentinus, the body of 
 Jesus was pneumatic or psychical. According 
 to another fragment attributed to Valentinus, 
 and preserved by Eulogius of Alexandria (ap. 
 Photium, Bibl. Cod. 230), he appears to have 
 treated with ridicule the opinion of the " Gali- 
 leans " that Christ had two natures, and to 
 have maintained that He had but one nature 
 composed of the visible and the invisible. 
 Hilgenfeld {I.e. pp. 302 seq.) supposes the 
 Valentinus of this fragment to be the Gnostic, 
 while others take him to have been the 
 Apollinarian. But we have no other instance 
 of any Gnostic giving to Catholic Christians 
 (as did the emperor Julian later) the epithet 
 "Galilean." Further, although Tertullian(arfi'. 
 Prax. 29) and Origen (de Princip. i. 2, i) may 
 have spoken of two natures or two substances 
 in Christ, we can hardlvimagine Valentinus pro- 
 nouncing a doctrine ridiculous, and yet it find- 
 ing acceptance in his school. For we find the 
 Occidental Valentinians actually teaching in 
 very similar terms, that Soter, the common pro- 
 duct of the whole Pleroma, united himself with 
 the Christus of the Demiurge the Man Jesus. 
 Could we otherwise assume that the fragment 
 is genuine, it would serve to prove that the 
 doctrine of the Oriental school concerning 
 the pneumatic body of Christ was in fact the 
 original teaching of V^alentinus. How Valen- 
 tinus thought concerning the origin of matter 
 and of evil cannot be made out from existing 
 fragments. When, however, we find him 
 designating the Demiurge as author of death, 
 we can hardly suppose that he derived the 
 transitory nature and other imperfections of 
 the terrestrial universe from an originally evil 
 material substance. The view, moreover, 
 which underlies the psalm of Valentinus, 
 of which the Philosnphumena have preserved 
 a fragment (Philos. vi. 37, pp. 197 seq.) is 
 decidedly monastic. He there sees in the 
 spirit how " all things are hanging {Kpend/ieva) 
 and are upborne (oxovneva), the flesh hanging 
 on the soul, the soul upborne by the air, the 
 air hanging on the aether, from Bythos fruits 
 produced and from the womb the child." An 
 interpretation of these sayings current in the 
 Valentinian school is appended. According 
 to this interpretation, flesh is the i'Xt; which 
 depends upon the soul (the psychical nature) 
 of the Demiurge. Again the Demiurge hangs 
 from the spirit which is outside the Pleroma, 
 i.e. the Sophia in the kingdom of the Midst, 
 the Sophia from Horus and from the Pleroma, 
 and finally the world of Aeons in the Pleroma 
 from the abyss, i.e. their Father. If this 
 interpretation be, as we may assume, correct, 
 Valentinus must have conceived the whole 
 universe as forming a grand scale of being, 
 beginning with the abysmal ground of all 
 spiritual life, and thence descending lower and 
 lower down to matter. The whole scale then 
 is a descent from the perfect to ever more and 
 more imperfect images ; according to the 
 principle expressly laid down by Valentinus, 
 that the cosmos is as inferior to the living Aeon 
 as the image is inferior to the living counten- 
 ance (ap. Clem. Strom, iv. 13, 92). This view 
 of the nature of the universe exhibits a much 
 nearer relationship to Platonic philosophy 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 than to the Oriental dualism which underlay 
 the older Gnostic systems ; and Hippolytus 
 is therefore completely right, when dealing 
 with the psalm of Valentinus, to speak of 
 Platonizing Gnostics {Philos. vi. 37, p. 197). 
 
 The fragments do not give us any detailed 
 acquaintance with the doctrine of Valentinus 
 concerning the Aeons. The narrip or Bvd6s 
 stands at their head ; but what place in the 
 Vadentinian Pleroma was assigned to the 
 'AvOpuTTos TTpodii' in whose name Adam was 
 created, is difficult to determine. 
 
 Of a two-fold Sophia, a higher and a lower, 
 we read nothing. Sophia is the artist (forypd^os) 
 who forms the world after the archetype of the 
 living Aeon, in order to be honoured by his 
 name. The world as formed obtains credit 
 and stability through the invisible nature of 
 God {Strom, iv. 13, 92). 
 
 To what authority Valentinus made appeal 
 as the source of his doctrine cannot be made 
 out from the fragments. From the Homily 
 to the Friends Clemens Alexandrinus has 
 preserved a sentence which defines " many of 
 the things written in the public books " 
 {SrjfjLocrloii /3//3\ot5 : he means doubtless 
 the writings of the O.T.) as " found \vritten 
 in the church of God" — "for," he adds, 
 " those things which are common " {i.e. not 
 merely found in books — read, with Heinrici 
 Koivd instead of Kevd) " are words from the 
 heart " ; and proceeds, " The law written in 
 the heart is the People of the Beloved One, 
 both loved and loving " (Grabe was wrong in 
 proposing to emend Xa6s into X67os). The 
 meaning is that this " People " is in virtue of 
 the inward revelation of the Logos a law unto 
 itself (cf. Rom. ii. 14). But this inward 
 revelation has reference only to " that which 
 is common " {to. Koivd), i.e. to the universal 
 ethical truths written in the heart which " the 
 chm-ch of God " needs not first to learn from 
 " the public books." But this passage tells 
 us nothing about the sources whence Valen- 
 tinus derived his Gnosis. For these we must 
 go back to the statement of Clemens {Strom. 
 vii. 17, 106), according to which the Valen- 
 tinians spoke of their leader as having learned 
 of a certain Theodas, a disciple of St. Paul. 
 But the actual statement of Irenaeus is more 
 to be depended on, that Valentinus was the 
 first who transformed the old doctrines of 
 " the Gnostics " into a system of his own 
 {Haer. i. 11, i ; cf. Tert. adv. Valentinian. 4). 
 The fragments, moreover, give a series of 
 points of contact with the opinions of these 
 older " Gnostics." We may therefore regard 
 as an axiom to be adhered to in our investi- 
 gations that of any two Valentinian doctrines, 
 that is the older and more original which 
 approaches more closely to the older and 
 vulgar Gnosis (Iren. i. 30). Yet the system 
 of Valentinus had a peculiar character of its 
 own. He was the first to breathe a really 
 philosophic spirit into the old vulgar Gnosis, 
 by making use of Plato's world of thought to 
 infuse a deeper meaning into the old Gnostic 
 myths. Baur, therefore, was quite right in 
 emphasizing the Platonism of Valentinus 
 {Christliche Gnosis, pp. 124 seq.), to which the 
 Philosophumena had already called attention 
 {Philos. vi. 21 sqq.). 
 
 Irenaeus completes the information afforded 
 
VALENTINUS 
 
 by the frafrmrnts ODcrrning ValfntiniiVn 
 doctrine of tho Aeons. At the head o( them 
 stands a JiAt arofrf^affTot, the 'A/l,')»|Tot 
 (called also Bi'*>(5^ and llorJi^i d-)«Vnfrot) and 
 his (Xi'inot the Ij-)»> From this Oy.id pro- 
 ceeds a s««cond Hvad. Ilar^p and 'AXnf'fia. 
 which with the first Pvad forms the hiRhrst 
 Tetrad. From this Tetrad a second Tetr.id 
 proceeds — .\6yo% and Zoji) 'Ai^pwwot and 
 E<^\^><r(a. and these complete the First (^jjdoad. 
 From .\<5-)ot and Za)>) proceed a neca<i, from 
 Avdpwrat and 'E*<\»j<t<o a Podecad of .\e<ins. 
 In this the number .^o of .\eons forming the 
 Pleroma is completed. The names of the 
 Aeons composing the Pecad and the PiHleead 
 are not given. We may. however, venture 
 to assume that the names elsewhere given bv 
 Irenaeus (i. i. 2). and literally repeated bv 
 Pseud-Origenes(PAi/(i.'i. vi. 30). and then again 
 by Epiphanius (xxxi. 6) with some differences 
 of detail, in his much later account, did really 
 originate from Valentinus himself. They are 
 as follows : From Aiyot and 7,w^ proceed 
 Bi'$ios and M/^i*. ' Ayytparof and KruKrit. 
 AvTcxpyrjs and HSoi'i), 'AxlyijTof and ~fyfpa 
 fftj, MovoyfvTii and Ma»op/o. From 'Af(>ptJwoi 
 and 'EKK\ri(rla proceed ; WapdtXrrrof and 
 UiffTii, UarfKudi and EXirit. MtjrptKdf and 
 A7djr7j, 'Advovt and lictac?, 'V.KKXrftriaaTiKM 
 and yiaKapi&TTjt, Of\TjT(4j and -cxf'ia. How- 
 ever arbitrary this name-giving may seem, it 
 is evident that the first four masculine Aeons 
 repeat the notion of the First Principle, and 
 the first four feminine the notion of his 
 syzygy, in various forms of expression. The 
 names Movoyfvrj^ and Nofj (here 'AtcVoit) 
 meet us again among the Valentinians of 
 Irenaeus as expressions for the secend Mas- 
 culine Principle, and Ilapd^Xvrot as that for 
 the common product of all the .Aeons — the 
 Soter. TiarpiKd^, M-rjrpiKdf, 'KKK\v<ria<TTiK6i 
 are names simply expressing that the .Aeons 
 which bear them are derived from the higher 
 powers within the F'leroma. The feminine 
 names Maxapia. rn^Ttt, 'EXirit. 'Aydwif. SiiVc 
 ffii, 71o<pia, describe generally the perfection 
 of the Pleroma by means of I»redicates bor- 
 rowed from the characteristics of the perfect 
 Pneumaticos. So that all these inferior .\eon 
 names are but a further and more detailed 
 expression of the thought contained in the 
 names of the first and second Tetrad. The 
 first Tetrad expresses the essence of the I'pper 
 Pleroma in itself, the second Tetrad divided 
 into two pairs of Aeons expresses its revelation 
 to the Pneumatici and the Pneumatic World. 
 The last of the 30 Aeons, the Sophia or 
 Jdfr-np, falls out of the Pleroma. In her re- 
 membrance of the better world she gives birth 
 to Christus with a shadow t^Lrra (rxtai rd-ot). 
 Christus, being of masculme nature, ciitsaw.iv 
 the shadow from himself and hastens l>ark 
 into the Pleroma. The mother, on the other 
 hand, being left behind and alone with the 
 shadow, and emptied of the pneumatic sub- 
 Stance, gives birth to another Son the Prmi- 
 urge, called also llcwToupdri^p, ^n<\ at the same 
 time with him a sinistrous arrhon (the Koano- 
 Kpirwp). So then from these two eirmentv 
 "the right and the left." the psychical and 
 the hylical, proceeds this lower world- Thi» 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 the nriitinal doctrine nf \'y. 
 have had in ct>mmon with ; 
 (Iren. i. y^\ tti.t t . rh .t • ■ 
 one Sophia, 
 I hristUN Ir..\. 
 hiin>.rl( into '. 
 
 Thr notion .., , : 
 from the rierotna. .< 
 tion of this lower « 
 fall. IS new ,ind r>r< 
 rec<instr\ietion of i! 
 set his Pl.ite>nic M. 
 Oriental Pualism. I 
 the souls fall anil lon>;!ii 
 of light he combined with the other Platonic 
 thought of the thin;:- ' t fVi- Iw-rr w^r" i \^mt 
 
 . *nt\ 
 '■m% 
 
 -VI I. 
 
 . ht» 
 too 
 
 looa 
 
 .% in 
 i|e« 
 nly 
 
 in«- 
 that 
 hU 
 ll« 
 the 
 I ol 
 
 ll>r I .( world 
 
 tvpes and ini.i. 
 so obtaine<l .1 
 of the worl<r 
 
 The stateii.. (.;. , 
 
 teaching are, alas • too ix > 
 uncertain to supplv a cot: 
 svstem of Valentiniiv. Hi- 
 Clemens .Alex, taken from ri;r.«l.;t..^ iiid the 
 anatolic sch<»ol contain a doctrine In H ••«». 
 which at anv rate standi mucii nearer to (he 
 views of Valentinus than the detailed account 
 of Ptolemaic dcKtrines which Irenaenv give* in 
 i. 1-8. We have in thi-^<- >-Tr.-TT-f- .1 •"m<-what 
 complete whole, diH^ •'4nt 
 
 re*.pect-i from the d>" • • ilic 
 
 sch>M)|. and agreeint; - tn 
 
 that it knows of on:. , .. .ifj- 
 
 spring Christus, leaving hisniothrr. rnlrr* the 
 Pleroma. and sends d-'wn Jesus fof the re<lemp" 
 tion of the forsaken One. 
 
 The doctrine of the .Aeons stands as much 
 behind the anthropological and ethical pro- 
 blems in these excerpts as it do«^ in the 
 fragments. We find something about the 
 FHeroma in an interpretation of the prologue 
 of St. Johns Cospel [Exerrfl. H f<. 7) By the 
 ipX^ of St. John i. I, in which the I.ognt 
 " was," we must understand the Moroytr^ft 
 " Who is also calle<l dod " (the readmit i 
 uoroytr^ 0t6i John i. i« l>einK followril). 
 " The I,og(»s was <»- ifiXV " "leans that lie wa» 
 in the Monogenes, in the No<"t antl the 'AX4<*»i« 
 — the reference l>eing to the svzvgv <.| AA>«i 
 and Zwti which is said to have procmlrd (riin» 
 Not'f and 'AX^no. The I.og.-s is calle,! <;od 
 because He is in (',<y<\. in the Not'i. Hut when 
 it is said 4 yfyortr i* aimj) (uit V. the refer- 
 ence is to the 7.un> a« tfi'^-^oi ol (he I n«i««. 
 The fnknown Father (warrp iyrttrrot) willed 
 to be known t-> the Ae»ms. On knowing Him- 
 self through His own '¥>9i-uvti which was 
 indeed the spirit ■< u- .»ui.-,- rrtCt* 
 yruKitut), \lr. by kn ite 
 
 (he Monogenes. I xng 
 
 emanated from thr 'fiv 
 
 mesis of the Fathrr. I. i:i ' < *. 
 
 S->n. for It Is through the ^ 'her 
 
 is knoVI*. The Vr'iMO i'l • - '^e|( 
 
 with the »r»iM<« 7rjtf«un 4^ ll-- I jt.'iri with 
 
 the S<in (IV. thr Monoiceii'^ t* No»-i) and lh« 
 Knthvmesis with ■AV<><»««». |»roeer«lMU Unm 
 thr Aletheia as the «.nml» pf.«rr«l» bom 
 the Mnthvmr^ts. The >i«»ir>«rltf ri^l. Who 
 
 abides in the b«is<>tn ol (h<> Father. etnanalM 
 Irom the Father's bosom and th«rrbv dccUi** 
 yiffyiirat) (he Kn(hyn«»i» throufh GoosM to 
 
1004 
 
 VALENTINUS 
 
 the Aeons. Having become visible on earth, 
 He is no longer called by the apostle Monogenes 
 (simply), but d)S fiovoyevifii. For though 
 remaining in Himself one and the same, He is 
 in the creation called irpwrdroKos. and in the 
 Pleroma MovoyevT)^. and appears in each 
 locality as He can be comprehended there. 
 
 The preceding survey shews that in the first 
 42 paragraphs or sections of Clemens's frag- 
 ments from Theodotus we really have a well- 
 connected and consistent doctrinal system. 
 The scattered notices in §§ 1-28 fit tolerably 
 well into the dogmatic whole, and doubtless 
 we have here an account of the so-called 
 anatolic school, and in substance the oldest 
 form of the Valentinian system. 
 
 The historical development of the Valen- 
 tinian doctrine can be traced with only approx- 
 imate certainty and imperfectly. The roots 
 of the system are to be found in the old vulgar 
 Gnosis. For even if the original dualistic 
 foundation is repressed and concealed by a 
 Platonizing pantheism, it still gives evident 
 tokens of its continued existence in the back- 
 ground. The v\-n and " dark waters " into 
 which the Ophitic Sophia sinks down (Iren. i. 
 30, 3) are here changed into the K^vw/xa or 
 v<Tripi)ixa, which in antithesis to the wXripuifjia 
 is simply an equivalent for the Platonic /xr] Sv. 
 
 The notion of a psychical Christus who 
 passes through Mary as water through a 
 conduit (Iren. vii. 2) is to be found everywhere 
 in the Italic school (Philos. vi. 35, pp. 194 seq.). 
 
 The centre of gravity of the whole system 
 lies undoubtedly in its speculative interests. 
 The names alone of the 30 Aeons are a proof 
 of this. It deserves notice that the designa- 
 tions NoOs and 'S\.ovoy€vr)% applied to the first 
 masculine principle emanating from the 
 supreme Father do not seem to have been used 
 by Valentinus himself. It was called simply 
 JlaT-qp or 'Avdpuwoi {vlbi avdpdiwov). It is a 
 genuinely speculative feature that the know- 
 ledge of the Father through the Son is derived 
 from a union of the Spirit of Love with the 
 Spirit of Knowledge. 
 
 Since the doctrine of Valentinus concerning 
 the Aeons originated in the cosmogonic and 
 astral powers of the old Syrian Gnosis, one 
 cannot doubt that the Aeons were originally 
 thought of as mythological personages and not 
 as personified notions, although Tertullian 
 (adv. Valentin. 4) would refer the former view 
 to Ptolemaeus, and not Valentinus, as its first 
 author. 
 
 A yet more widely different conception of 
 the Valentinian doctrine of Aeons is found in 
 the fragment given by Epiphanius (xxxi. 5-6). 
 Here, too, the speculative interest is manifest 
 in the endeavour to follow up in detail the 
 process of the emanation of individual Aeons 
 within the Pleroma from the Ai'roTrdrwp. But 
 the whole description, bathed as it is in sen- 
 suous warmth, with its peculiar plays with 
 numbers and its barbarous names for individ- 
 ual Aeons, appears to be merely a degenerate 
 Marcosian form of Gnosis. 
 
 Finally, we have a quite peculiar trans- 
 formation of the Valentinian system in the 
 doctrine of the so-called Docetae, as preserved 
 in the Philosophumena (viii. 8-11). From the 
 irpurros deds, who is small as the seed of a fig- 
 
 VALERIANUS 
 
 tree but infinite in power, proceed first of all 
 three Aeons, which by the perfect number ten 
 enlarge themselves to thirty Aeons ; from 
 these proceed innumerable other bisexual 
 Aeons, and from these an infinite multiplicity 
 of Ideas, of which those of the third Aeon 
 are expressed and shapen in the lower world 
 of darkness as (pwreivcd xapafXTjpes. 
 
 The Platonic foundation of the Valentinian 
 system is very perceptible in this its last 
 offshoot, though mixed up in a peculiar way 
 with Oriental Dualism. At the same time 
 j these Docetae endeavour to reduce the meta- 
 physical distinctions which they maintain to 
 merely gradual ones. No part of Christen- 
 dom therefore is entirely excluded from the 
 knowledge of the Redeemer, and participation 
 I in His Redemption : all, even those of the 
 j lower grades of the spirit-world, participate 
 [ at least iK fi^povs in the Truth. The way in 
 which all, and each according to his measure, 
 attain knowledge of the truth, is, as in the doc- 
 trine of the church, Fafife. Since the Redeemer's 
 advent — so we read expressly — " Faith is an- 
 nounced for the forgiveness of sins." 
 
 Beside working out philosophical problems, 
 the disciples of Valentinus were much occupied 
 I with seeking traces of their Master's doctrine 
 in Holy Scripture. The excerpts of Clemens 
 and abundant notices in Irenaeus tell of an 
 j allegorical method of scriptural exposition 
 I pursued with great zeal in the Valentinian 
 I schools, not limited to the Gospels or the 
 Pauline Epistles, but extending to the O.T., 
 and attaching special significance to the 
 history of creation in Genesis. Valentinian 
 expositors shew a special preference for St. 
 John's Gospel, and above all for its prologue. 
 j Some allegorical expositions have been pre- 
 served belonging to the anatolic school (Exc. 
 ex Theod. §§ 6, 7) and others derived from 
 i Ptolemaeus (Iren. i. 8, 5). But before all we 
 I must make mention of the laboiurs of Hera- 
 j cleon, of which Origen has preserved numerous 
 specimens. From Heracleon proceeded the 
 first known commentary on St. John's Gospel. 
 I VI. Literature. — Valentinus occupies a dis- 
 1 tinguished place in all works on Gnosticism, 
 e.g. in Neander, Baur, Matter, Lipsius, Mohler 
 I (Geschichte der Kosmologie in der Christlichen 
 Kirche), Mansel (The Gnostic Heresies of the 
 \ First and Second Centuries — a posthumous 
 work, ed. by Bp. Lightfoot), and in the Prole- 
 I gomena of Harvey's ed. of Irenaeus. The best 
 i monograph is by Heinrici (Die Valentinianische 
 Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, Berlin, 1851), 
 with which cf. the review by Lipsius (Protes- 
 tantische Kirchenzeitung, 1873, pp. 174-186). 
 [Heracleon ; Marcus (17).] [r.a.l.] 
 
 Valerlanus (1), C. Publius Llcinius, emperor. 
 
 A.D. 253-260. Before the close of 253 Valerian 
 I was proclaimed emperor by the legions of 
 Rhaetia and Noricura, and he associated his 
 son Gallienus with him in that dignity. 
 
 Their reigns were the most disastrous period 
 in the history of Rome until that of Honorius. 
 The empire seemed on the verge of dissolution. 
 Every frontier was menaced by barbarian 
 attacks, and even the interior provinces were 
 invaded and ravaged. A German host 
 entered Italy itself, and penetrated to Raven- 
 na. The Franks, now first appearing under 
 this name, assailed the Rhine frontier. The 
 
VALERIANUS 
 
 CiDths ami tlifir kimlr.-.l lrit>«-s ivmrcil acxo^^ 
 tlie Danube into Illvricuiii .uul M.trttioiiu. 
 The IVrsidus took N'isihis, aiul. iHMirtratiiiK 
 into Syriii, captured AiUukJi (? a.i>. 2\'t). 
 Worse even than all these wars was the Kreat 
 plague which had be>;un in the rei>:n o< D.-cius 
 and which ra^ed h>r 15 years (/on. xii. n). 
 
 To these citaniities was added the nuot 
 terrible persecution the church had vet 
 experienced. In the early part of his reiK'n 
 Valerian was exceedingly favourable to the 
 Christians, and his palace was hlled with them. 
 But in 2S7 a terrible chauKe t<H>k place. 
 Valerian fell more and more under the influence 
 of the pretorian prefi>ct Marrianus. an llgvp- 
 tian, chief of the " magi " of that country. 
 Under his influence \'alerian ordered those 
 who did not belong to the religion of Konie 
 at least to render outw.ird signs of cunforinitv 
 to it under pain of exile. By the same edict. 
 Christians were forbidden, under pain of 
 death, to assemble for worship i>r enter their 
 cemeteries. The cases of St. Cyprian {Acta 
 Procons. c. i, in Migne, Pair. Lai. iii. i4<»g) 
 and St. Dionysius of .\lexandria (Hus. H. K. 
 vii. ri) shew how uniform the procedure was 
 under this edict. St. Cyprian was apparently , 
 the first to suffer in Africa, and the date of his 
 exile (.Aug. 257) shews when the persecution 
 began. His sentence was simple banishment, 
 but a great number of .\(rican l)i>hops. priests, 
 deacons, and some of the laity, were sent to the 
 mines and endured gieat hardships (Cypr. 
 Epp. 77-So in Pair. Lat. iv. 414). 
 
 This edict was followed in 258 by a rescript 
 of tremendous severity from Valerian, who, 
 in the interval, had probably set out to the 
 Hast to take command against the Persians. 
 (Early in the year he had held a council of war 
 at Byzantium [Vopiscus, I'll. AureUani, 13).) 
 The punishment for the clergy of every grade 
 was death. .Apparently even recantation was 
 unavailing. Senators, fin es^re^ti. and knights 
 were punished with degradation and con- 
 fiscation of property, and with death if they 
 refused to recant. Noble ladies were to forfeit 
 their property and be exiled. .Members of the 
 imperial household suffered a similar forfeiture, 
 and were to be sent in chains to work on the 
 imperial possessions. It is remarkable that 
 mention is only made of the clergy and the 
 higher classes of the laity. The emperor's 
 policy was apparently to strike at the leaders. 
 The first victim of this rescript was poi^- 
 Xystus, put to death on Aug. o as he s.it in his 
 episcopal chair. Four of his deacons sulfifed 
 with him. This was the beginning of a violent 
 persecution at Rome (Cypr. Ep. «2) in which 
 four days later the famous St. Lawrence fol- 
 lowed his master. Cyprian was beheaded on 
 Sept. 14. Both in Home and Africa a great 
 number of Christians suffered. The Iw-st proof 
 of the violence of the pepM-cution is the long 
 vacancies (about 11 months) of the v-«-s of 
 Rome and Carthage. In Spain Friirtuosu*. 
 bp. of Tarragona, with two deacons, was burnt 
 alive in the amphitheatre (Jan. 21. iS'»)- In 
 Palestine the names of three martyrs are pre- 
 served by liusebius (//. /•-. vii. 12). I hrv 
 came before the governor and tleclared thrm 
 selves Chri'-tians. \ woman who was a f..l 
 lower of Marrioii sh.ired thnr fate. 
 
 But the reign of Valerian wa» not de%tiued 
 
 VERECUNDUS 
 
 lOOd 
 
 to be ..I long .luratlon. |>,,..n 
 his iHTseculloii as laolliii; the ^i ■ 
 tii>ne»l in thr \ivH-.ilv",r || 
 against Sap • ■ \- __ , 
 
 which was t: , w«« 
 
 disastrous. .: <> m 
 
 2(H.. How 1 . un- 
 
 known, (lalliriiii^. iiiuH' hi% 
 
 lathers raptiviiv. »top| . .u.i«. 
 
 but It probably lasted iti ( ■ .r Ull 
 
 of Macrianus, who hail av^umrd lUr purpi* 
 in 3f.j. Z.n,. I. iH-\t,; /..n. «U. li, Ji , Ifcem- 
 hartlt, (ifichuku Komi vom Ciii/rMM , Tillrm. 
 Emp. lii.. M^m. Hfl. iv. i ; Vict<«', d* t«#i. 
 ^2 ; Epa. M ■ the Life of Valerian In the 
 Augustan history; (iiblxm. re. n», ih). (r.u.| 
 ValerlaniU, martvT. ICAnniiA.l 
 
 Valerius (6). bp. ol llipiH. Krgiuv |>rr<lec<-»- 
 
 s.ir .•( .AiiK'ustine. whom lie ha<i adiiillletl lu 
 
 lnillle«l lu 
 
 < lh« 
 
 • 1 in 
 
 TlU* 
 
 the priesthood at H" •■„,,, 
 ivople. against An.- 
 a letter to Valerius 
 thought. t«> hi» owi, *i ; 
 
 PiKsidius. \'tl. Au( 4. jj 4...alrarv lu 
 .\frican. but in accordance wiih Kaslrrn, 
 usage. Valerius cause«l Augustine to preM:h lit 
 his presence when he himv-lf Ix-eaine unable 
 to do so. When Valerius felt his own in- 
 tirmities increase, he obtaine<l the r-msriit of 
 the other bishopy but at first not thai ol 
 .Megalius of Calama, primate of S'uinidia. to 
 ordain .\ugustine as ciiailjulor to hiniselt, 
 contr.iry to the usual pram.. .1 ti.. .hurch 
 and to the express wi»h who 
 
 refused nn this ground t ihce. 
 
 though, as he said afterw.ir : t tbrit 
 
 aware of the canon of the i .im il t S\c*eJk, 
 forbidding two bisho|>« in the uine plarr. 
 (C«>nc. Sic. can. H. Uruiis, Cone. \>. 10 ; Auk. 
 c. Pftil. iii. 16, ) II). c. Crete, iv. 64. | 7v ; 
 Brevtc. Coll. iii. 7, | 9). His objection wa* 
 overruled bv the earnest detire of all con- 
 cerned, and by similar instancei in .\lriea and 
 elsewhere (.\ug. Epp. 31. 4 ; 2 1?. 4). Valeriu*, 
 better ac<iuaiiited with <.rerk than with 
 Latin, was rejoiced to have one s.i able at 
 .Augustine to teach and preach in the Latin 
 language. He is %p<iken of in the hinhmt 
 terms by .\ugustinc, Pmsidius. and PaultniM 
 of Sola (.Aug. Epp. ji. 4; 12 ; P<i*»*d. i'tl. 
 Aug. i ; Paulinus. Ep. )|. Alter .\ui(ustinv'« 
 apiKiintmenl. Valeriu* Kave him • pierr o| Und 
 for his monastery (.\ug. Sftm. J^^. 1. 2). He 
 died A.D. 396 (.Aug. Ep. )t. 4). Prxuletanu* 
 was bp. of the Doiialists at Hip|M> duriiiK hit 
 lilrtimr (Aug. I p. n). r.. u. f I 
 
 VerMundttt (S). d. j^i. bp. . ; 
 
 Junceiisis III Hv/acma. He w. 
 
 to ( olistatilinoptr in ^4<<. lourlir 
 
 tloll ol the ■■ Threr t hajitrts." Ilr lIi. J at 
 
 C h.ilcedon the year l>r|orc the »r<-ond rounrti 
 
 ol Constantinople. In tt.r .. utiAr,.., j. ihr 
 
 •• Three lhaj>trr% ' 
 
 until his death wi! 
 
 W'ifks III i|u«-iti'(i 
 
 in hit cms. if 
 
 Menat ..II. 
 
 presbyter \ • 
 
 -■J J 
 
1006 
 
 VERONICA 
 
 printed in vol. iv. of the Spicilegium Soles- 
 mense, with other works attributed to Vere- 
 cendus. It shews some philosophical learning 
 and historical knowledge, and some illustra- 
 tions are drawn from his own experience. 
 His manner of referring to the Vandal per- 
 secution in Africa and the unsettled state of 
 affairs seems to fix its date before 534, when 
 the persecution ended. The poems attributed 
 to him, and also published in the Spicilegium, 
 are (i) " Exhortatio Poenitendi," (2) " de 
 Satisfactione Poenitentiae," (3) " Crisias." 
 
 The spirit of the first two poems is alike : 
 both express a strong sense of the need of 
 repentance and an earnest anticipation of 
 the Judgment. The poems are hortatory 
 rather than penitential. The third poem, 
 concerning the signs of the Judgment, is 
 probably not by the same hand. It has much 
 more artificiality and much less earnestness. 
 
 A Breviarium Concilii Chalcedonensis, 
 drawn up so as to favour the supporters of the 
 "Three Chapters," is attributed to Verecun- 
 dus. It is very possibly his, but may have 
 been composed by a more extreme partisan 
 and issued under his name by one who re- 
 garded him as a confessor and wished to obtain 
 the influence of his reputation. Pitra prints 
 this also in the Spicilegium. [h.a.w.] 
 
 Veronica (Haemorrhoissa, t) aiuoppoouaa), 
 the woman cured of a bloody issue (Matt. ix. 
 20). Eusebius (H. E. vii. 18) relates that she 
 was a native of Caesarea Philippi, and adds 
 that " at the gates of her house, on an 
 elevated stone, stands a brazen image of a 
 woman on a bended knee, with her hands 
 stretched out before her, like one entreating. 
 Opposite to this there is another image of a 
 man erect, of the same materials, decently 
 clad in a mantle, and stretching out his hand 
 to the woman. Before her feet, and on the 
 same pedestal, there is a strange plant growing 
 which, rising as high as the hem of the brazen 
 garment, is a kind of antidote to all kinds of 
 diseases. This statue, they say, is a statue 
 of Jesus Christ, and it has remained even until 
 our times, so that we ourselves saw it whilst 
 tarrying in that city. Nor is it to be won- 
 dered at that those of the Gentiles who were 
 anciently benefited by our Saviour should 
 have done these things. Since we have also 
 seen representations of the apostles Peter and 
 Paul and of Christ Himself still preserved in 
 paintings, it is probable that, according to 
 a practice among the Gentiles, the ancients 
 were accustomed to pay this kind of honour 
 indiscriminately to those who were as saviours 
 or deliverers to them." Legendary tradition 
 about Veronica flourished during and after 
 4th cent. Macarius Magnesius says she was 
 princess of Edessa, and that her name was 
 Veronica or Berenice (Macarii Magnet, ed. 
 Blondel, Paris, 1876 ; Tillem. Mem. i. 20 ; 
 Hist, des emp. iv. 308), following whom 
 Baronius (Annal. xxxi. 75) makes her rich 
 and noble. A late tradition represents her 
 as a niece of king Herod and as offering her 
 veil, or a napkin, as a sudarium to the suffering 
 Christ on the Way of the Cross, Whose pictured 
 features were thus impressed upon the linen. 
 This tradition has found no acceptance since 
 the nth cent. ; the " veronicas " often shewn, 
 and accredited with miraculous powers of 
 
 VETTIUS EPAGATHUS 
 
 healing, are face-cloths from the catacombs 
 on which Christian reverence and affection 
 have painted the features of the Saviour (see 
 Wyke Bayliss, Rex Regum, 1905), and the 
 legend has arisen from the finding of these ; 
 the name of the saint being clearly formed 
 from the description of such a face-cloth as a 
 vera icon. The Gospel of Nicodemus introduces 
 her as one of the witnesses on behalf of 
 Christ at His trial by Pilate; (Thilo, Cod. 
 .4pocryph. N. T. p. 560 ; Acta SS. Bol. Jul. iii. 
 273-279). [g.t.s. and ED.] 
 
 Vespasian US, Titus Flavins, emperor July i, 
 69, to June 24, 79, and his son TituS, emperor 
 June 24, 79, to Sept. 13, 81. As a great part 
 of the imperial power was exercised by Titus 
 during his father's reign, of which his own 
 short reign may be regarded as the continua- 
 tion, it seems convenient to treat them to- 
 gether. The influences of these princes on 
 Christianity was wholly indirect. The de- 
 struction of Jerusalem and the temple tended 
 to hasten the complete separation of Judaism 
 and Christianity. This distinction, however, 
 had not as yet become apparent to the Roman 
 authorities, and as far as they had any know- 
 ledge of the existence of Christians, they 
 regarded them as merely a Jewish sect. A 
 long and almost unbroken chain of Christian 
 authorities bear witness to the favourable 
 condition of Christianity under these emperors. 
 Melito of Sardis, writing in the reign of M. 
 Aurelius (Eus. H. E. iv. 26), knows of no 
 imperial persecutors except Nero and Domi- 
 tian. Tertullian (Apol. 5) expressly denies 
 that Vespasian was a persecutor. Lactantius 
 (Mortes 2, 3) knows of no persecution between 
 Nero and Domitian. Eusebius (//. E. iii. 17) 
 expressly asserts that Vespasian did no harm 
 to the Christians. Hilary of Poictiers, writing 
 after 360, is the first to make any charge of 
 persecution against Vespasian. In a rhetori- 
 cal passage (contra Arianos, 3, in Migne, Patr. 
 Lat. X. 611), contrary to all previous Christian 
 testimony, he couples Vespasian with Nero 
 and Decius. Sulpicius Severus (//. E. ii. 30 
 in Patr. Lat. xx. 146), in a passage whose style 
 suggests it was borrowed from one of the lost 
 books of Tacitus, states that the motive of 
 Titus in destroying the temple was to abolish 
 not only Judaism but Christianity, but he 
 does not mention any hostile act on the part 
 of Vespasian or his son against the Christians. 
 
 We may consider that the reigns of these 
 first two Flavian emperors were a period of 
 tranquillity for the church. For their relation 
 to the church see Tillemont, Mem. eccl. ii. 
 102, 152, 555 ; Aube, Hist, des persec. c. 4 ; 
 Gorres, Zeitsch. fitr wissent. Theol. xxi. 492. 
 M. Double (L'Empereur Titus) ingeniously 
 that maintains, contrary to the usual opinion, 
 he was a monster of wickedness. [f-d.] 
 
 Vettius Epagathus. In the early persecu- 
 tions the Christians felt it to be a gross injus- 
 tice that a man should be put to death merely 
 because he acknowledged himself to be a 
 Christian, and without any investigation 
 whether there was anything contrary to 
 morality or piety in the Christian doctrines 
 or practices. It not unfrequently happened 
 [Lucius] that a bystander at a trial would 
 press on the judge the necessity of such an 
 investigation, whereupon the magistrate 
 
VICTOR 
 
 1007 
 
 \ul>|r<-t in v^loll* 
 Thr^iphiliu .>r I .. 
 Jrruvulriii. Ill i'liiii 
 uiulrr lrrnarii«. in 
 Huclulliiv M (KrI. 
 rlsrwhrrc, by all 
 wrrr u%ur<l. iinann 
 .1 
 
 11(11) •>( thr I ..ri| I: 
 phxhr,! .1.1.. 
 
 CI..S. 
 
 Hut t 
 
 of th' 
 
 Hlliticirlil K'"U">1 '"< l'l>'.tikiitM ■ ;: 
 
 wUh thcin. Nirlor al'Mir wa% . 
 
 iliflrrmrr. Ilr hj«l i*«urtl a In; 
 
 of thr Koinuii rinirrh !<> thr hkr nirri ...(h 
 
 th«>sr i>f thr »vmHU hrlil rl^rwhrrr Fr.>iu 4 
 
 rrplv to It Wr IU4V r'.TtrliiiJr tt »•> hivr f«rm 
 
 III Its t 
 rillN rrplv wjs li. : 
 sus, as lirj(i ■>( til' 
 
 N'irtiir's ilc^irr. hu.l . 
 
 l>|sli<>|>s which roiinirtnl with i 
 hl> rrjoliulrr. Hr rrvilulrU 
 
 Asi.m tr.uliti>>ii. Mi|>|M>rtiiiK it \<\ • 
 
 VICTOR 
 
 Would say. 1 think youiiui>ll>r .» C'hristi.U) aUo 
 yourseU, and oii the ddv.H-.»tc» cvmi(«-s%iiij5 that 
 he was, would srnd hiiii to sharr thr tatr ol 
 thi>se whom hi- had attriuptrd to drlnul. 
 Thisbrfell N'rttius lioaf^athus. a distiiiKUtshcd 
 Christian citi/rn of Lyons in thr prrsrciitioii 
 of A.D. 1 77. Me came forward as thr advoratr 
 of the Christians first apprrhrndrd. and in Asian rust< 
 consequence was himself " taken up unto thr I .uds Pax- 
 lot of the martyrs." The word " inartvT. ' as 
 at first used, did not necessarily iinpiv that hr 
 who bore witness for Christ seaUxl his tr>li- 
 mony by death; and Kenan {.Uarc AurfU. 
 p. 307) is of opinion that \'rttius had " onlv 
 the merits of martyrdom without thr rralitv." 
 since no mention is made of Vrttius in thr 
 subsequent narration of the suflrrinKs of 
 Christians tortured in the ainphithratrr. and, 
 what Kenan thinks decisive, the epistle of thr 
 churches says of Vettius that "he was and i< 
 a genuine disciple of Christ, followiiit; thr |><rrmpt 
 Lamb whithersoever he mnth." Hut the This rrp 
 addition " following the Lamb, etc." indicates 
 that the "is" does not refer to the life of 
 Vettius in this world, but rather to that whuh 
 he enjoyed in company with «. hrist. \tttnis 
 was probably a Roman citizen, and as such 
 
 was simply beheaded instead of undergoing »' I'hiliP thr a|x>stlr, who. with In. ti»>< -i«;rj 
 the tortures of the amphitheatre. (<;.s.) virgin daughters. wa« burinl at llirrai>.>li« . 
 
 Vletor (1), bp. of Kome after Eleuthcrus, of another saintiv .1.4ii»;fit. r f fn »!. ■ Ia-. jt 
 in the reigns of Commodus and Severus. The Hph«~%us ; of St. /■ l 
 Eusebian Chronicle assigns him 12 years, of Tolvcari' "< Si . 
 ending 198 or 199 ; Eusebius (W. £. v. 28) 10 of Thraseas of 1 
 years, and says that Zephvrinus succeeded martyr, who sirpt at -mumh.i. 
 him about the 9th year of Severus, i.e. a.d. others who had kept thr 14th '. 
 202. Lipsius(C/irow. </<^f ruw.fiisfAu/.)suppt>ses to thr li«r.|vl, he s|>rak« of \r\ ■ 
 his episcopate to have been from iHq to 198 kiiisinrn. all bishops, who had n 
 or 199. Soon prt)bably after his accession he vainr usagr. Mr aililv, ' I th-i 
 excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium (o Imth fi* f>5 vrars in thr L<<.l 
 OKVTti-\\ who had come to Kome. and taught conferred with thr brrtlirrn It 
 that Christ was a mere man (Eus. H. F. v. 28 ; world, and having iK^usrd all t: 
 cf. Epiphan. Hafres. liv. i). Eus«'bius is ture, am not scared with th.iM- . 
 quoting from an opponent of the sect of stricken. For tho*r who arr >i 1 
 
 Artemon. who afterwards under pope Zephv- have said, ' It is right to oIk-v «..-! r..ih.r t!,4u 
 rinus maintained a similar heresv. It appear* mm." " Aftrr rrcnving thi% reply Vlrl.K 
 from the qu.itation that the Artemonitrs cndr.ivntirrc1 to ituJtirr thr rh„rrh ,1 l^rpr 
 alleged all the bps. of Kome l>efore Zephy- to . \ ■ 
 
 rinus to have held the same views with them- Wli. 
 selves; and the allegation is refuted by thr nov)i. 
 
 fact of Victor, the predecessor of Zephyrinus. of tli. iv 
 
 having excommunicated Theod.itus, "thr langu.«gr of hus«-i 
 founder and father of the (;od-drnving savs hr did ; an: 
 apostasy." Montanism also was rife in .\su (dt I'lr. Ill c. \\ 
 Minor during the reign of Victor, who is sup- have thrin gnin . 
 posed bv some of have been the bp. of Koine thr judgmrnt <• 
 alluded to bv Tertullian (adv. Hrat. c. i) as that agr rjir. 
 having issued letters of peace in favour of its 
 upholders, though afterwards fxTsuadcd bv 
 Praxcas to revoke his approval. But other-; 
 think it more probable that Eleuthcrus w.i 
 referred to. See. however, .Mostasih. 
 Victor's most memorable action was wit 
 
 regard to the Asians on the Easter qursti x.. ■• > 
 
 ThevstiilpersistedinthrQuartrHlecimanu^agr, rJiurrh ol t.aul 1 
 pleading the authoritv of St. John for krrping off wh-lr churrhr* 
 their I'asch on the 14th of Nlsan. on whatever tradition ..( ..1. 41.. 
 day of the week it fell. So far intrrcommu- cilr» " thr . 
 niiin between them and the church of Konir 
 
 other rht 
 u« that 
 
 bthMT". 
 
 had not been broken on this acr. 
 time of Victor the usage of the A 
 according to Eusebius, thev st. 
 all the churches of Christen ; 
 general attention. Synod* wcr. 
 
 In tl 
 
 KumAn cl. 
 
1008 VICTOR, CLAUDIUS MARIUS 
 
 other apostles with whom John lived," he had 
 always observed, and though himself not 
 persuaded to renounce the custom of the 
 elders in his own church, had still honourably 
 accorded the Eucharist in the church to 
 Polycarp, and parted from him in peace (Eus. 
 H. E. V. 24). Jerome (u.s.) alludes to several 
 letters written by Irenaeus to the same purpose. 
 The Quartodecimans seem to have maintained 
 their usage till the council of Nicaea, which 
 enjoined its discontinuance. The intolerance 
 of Victor evidently neither won general 
 approval nor effected his_intended purpose. 
 Victor is mentioned by St'. Jerome (op. cit. 
 c. 34) as a writer of a treatise on the Easter 
 question and other works. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Victor (39) (Victorius, Victorinus), Clau- 
 dius Marius, the author of three books in 
 hexameter verse, containing the narrative of 
 Genesis down to the destruction of the cities 
 of the Plain ; author also of a letter to 
 " Salmon," or Solomon, an abbat, in hexa- 
 meter verse, on the corrupt manners of his 
 time. He is probably the Victorius, or 
 Victorinus, mentioned by Gennadius (de Vir. 
 III. 60) as a rhetorician of Marseilles, who died 
 " Theodosio et Valentiano regnantibus " (i.e. 
 425-450), and who addressed to his son 
 Aetherius a commentary on Genesis. Genna- 
 dius says "a principio libri usque ad obitum 
 patriarchae .ibrahae tres di versos edidit 
 libros." This does not accurately describe the 
 work we have under the name of CI. M. Victor. 
 But there is a diversity of reading in the 
 passage of Gennadius. In Erasmus's ed. of 
 St. Jerome the passage stands " quatuor ver- 
 suum edidit libros." If this be the right 
 reading, it seems almost certain that the three 
 books we have of CI. M. Victor, ending as they 
 now do at a point which seems to call for some j 
 explanation, are the first three books of those 
 mentioned by Gennadius, and that a fourth 
 book, now lost, carried on the narrative to ] 
 Abraham's death, where a natural halting- j 
 place for the work is presented. The three | 
 books correspond very well with what Genua- j 
 dius says of the work of Victorius ; they are 
 written in a pious and Christian spirit, but ! 
 without depth or great force of treatment. ; 
 They are, mainly, a paraphrase in verse of ' 
 part of Genesis with but few reflections ; 
 the narrative, with one or two exceptions, 
 keeping closely to that of Scripture. The 
 most notable variation is the introduction of 
 a prayer by Adam on his expulsion from 
 Paradise, which is followed by a strange 
 episode. The serpent is discerned by Eve, 
 who urges Adam to take vengeance on him. 
 In assailing him with stones, a spark is struck 
 from a flint, which sets fire to the wood in 
 which Adam and Eve had taken shelter, and 
 they are threatened with destruction. This ! 
 mishap is the means of revealing to them I 
 metals, forced from the ground by the heat, 
 and of preparing the earth, by the action of the ; 
 fire, for the production of corn. The style | 
 of the poem and its language are in no way 
 remarkable ; its versification is generally 
 tolerable, but there are instances of wrong 
 quantities of syllables. The Ep. to Salomon 
 is a poem of about 100 hexameters, and more ! 
 original, though not of special interest. Both 
 are in De la Bigne's Bibl. Pair, viii. 278, and 
 
 VICTOR VitENSiS 
 
 Appendix ; and in Maittaires' Corpus Poet- 
 arum Lat. ii. 1567. [H.A.W.] 
 
 Victor (44) Vitensis, a N. African bishop and 
 writer. The known facts of his life are very 
 few. He was called Vitensis either after his 
 see or after his birthplace. He seems to have 
 been numbered amongst the clergy of Car- 
 thage c. 455. His Hist. Persecutionis Pro- 
 vinciae Africanae is very interesting, as he 
 appears to have been with safety an eye- 
 witness of the Vandal persecution for more 
 than 30 years. He was actively employed by 
 Eugenius, metropolitan of Carthage, in 483. 
 Early in that year Hunneric banished 4,966 
 bishops and clergy of every rank. Victor was 
 used by Eugenius to look after the more aged 
 and infirm of the bishops. The History gives 
 us a view of the religion of the Vandals. It 
 also relates many particulars about Carthage, 
 its churches, their names and dedications, as 
 those of Perpetua and Felicitas, of Celerina and 
 the Scillitans (i. 3). It shews the persistence 
 of paganism at Carthage, and mentions the tem- 
 ples of Memory and of Coelestis as existing till 
 the Vandals levelled them after their capture 
 of Carthage. This temple of Coelestis existed 
 in the time of Augustine, who describes in his 
 de Civ. Dei, lib. ii. cc. 4, 26 (cf. Tertull. .Apol. 
 c. 24) the impure rites there performed. Its 
 site was elaborately discussed by M. A. Castan 
 in a Mem. in the Comptes rendus de I'Acad. 
 des Inscript. t. xiii. (1885), pp. 118-132, where 
 all the references to its cult were collected out 
 of classical and patristic sources. Victor's 
 History contains glimpses of N. African ritual. 
 In lib. ii. 17 we have an account of the healing 
 of the blind man Felix by Eugenius, bp. of 
 Carthage. The ritual of the feast of Epiphany 
 is described, while there are frequent refer- 
 ences to the singing of hymns or psalms at 
 funerals. In Hist. lib. v. 6, we read that the 
 inhabitants of Tipasa refused to hold com- 
 munion with the Arian bishop. Hunneric 
 sent a military count, who collected them all 
 into the forum and cut out their tongues by 
 the roots, notwithstanding which they all 
 retained the power of speech. This remark- 
 able fact has been discussed by Gibbon, c. 
 xxxvii., by Middleton in his Free Inquiry, 
 PP- 313-316, and by many others. The 
 History of Victor is usually divided into five 
 books. Bk. i. narrates the persecution of 
 Genseric, from the conquest of Africa by the 
 Vandals in 429 till Genseric's death in 477. 
 Bks. ii. iv. and v. deal with the persecution 
 of Hunneric, a.d. 477-484 ; while bk. iii. 
 contains the confession of faith drawn up by 
 Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Hun- 
 neric at the conference of 484 (cf. Gennadius, 
 de Vir. III. No. 97). In the Confession (lib. 
 iii. II) the celebrated text I. John v. 7, con- 
 cerning the three heavenly witnesses, first 
 appears. (See on this point Porson's letter 
 to Travis, and Gibbon's notes on c. xxxvii.). 
 The life and works of Victor have been the 
 subject of much modern German criticism, 
 which has not, however, added a great deal 
 to our knowledge. Ebert's Literatur des 
 Mittelalters im Abendlande (Leipz. 1874), t. i. 
 433-436, fixes the composition of the History 
 at c. 486. In A. Schaefer's Historische Unter- 
 suchungen (Bonn, 1882), ."^ug. Auler (pp. 253- 
 275) maintains, with much learning and 
 
VICTOR 
 
 acutfiiess. that \irt..r w.is t-.m iii \ ita. that 
 his sec IS uiikiu>wii. thai he was roiivrrrjtrti 
 bishop aUt-r the prrsrcutum. aeul wr.>tr \\\* 
 History UvioTe 4.S7. and that this Union is 4 
 piece of tendency-WTitinj: ami untriistwiirthv. 
 He cannot recoKni/e in the actum •>( (.cnsrric 
 against the Catholic party anvthinR hut a 
 legitimate measure of state repressi-.n. The 
 best of the older editions of the Hnlon is 
 that of Kuinart, reprinted with its elalxiratr 
 dissertations in Mignes I'ulr. l.al. Iviii. 
 Michael I'etschenig. in the Vienna ("(>r;>iiJ 
 Scrtpil. EccUstasl. Lai. t. vii. (Vindob. iHHi) 
 abandons the old division of the text. datinK 
 from t'hirtlet in irth cent., and divido it int.. 
 three b.voks. In all the editions will Ix- found 
 the .\otilia Frov. tt Ctxit. Africae. a valuable 
 document for the geographv and eccU-siastical 
 arrangements of N. .Africa. Ceill. (x. 44S. 
 405) gives a full analysis of \ictt)rs History. 
 It was translated into French in 1563 and 
 1664, into English in 1605. (ii.T.s.) 
 
 Victor (47). bp. of Capua, apart from his 
 writings is known only by his epitaph, which 
 states that he died in .\pr. 55,4. after an 
 episcopate of about 13 years from Feb. 541 
 (L'ghelli, vi. 306). 
 
 H'rihfigs. — I. He is best known from his 
 connexion with the CoJei Fuldensis (F). after 
 the C. Amiattnwi the most ancient and 
 valuable MS. of the Vulgate, transcribed by 
 his direction and afterwards corrected by 
 him. The MS. is remarkable for containing 
 the Gospels in the form of a Harmony. In his 
 preface he relates that a MS. without a title 
 had come into his hands containing a single 
 Gospel composed of the four. Inquiring into 
 its authorship, he concludes, though with 
 some doubt, that it was identical with the 
 works of Tatiants (T), which by a blunder 
 he calls Diapentt instead of Dialfssarott. So 
 little was known till 1876 of the Diatessaron 
 that it was generally supposed that Victor was 
 mistaken. It was known that the Dtateaaron 
 began with John i. i. whereas F begins with 
 the preface from Luke. But .Mosinger's ed. in 
 1876 of .\ucher's Latin trans, of the .\rmeiiian 
 version of Kpmraim Syrus's Commentarv on 
 the iJiatessaron (t). followed by /ahn's Fon- 
 chuni^en tur Geichichtf des S'fut^stamfHtltchfn 
 Aiin-ns, i. (Z). made known the contents and 
 arrangements of the Dtateisamn suthcientiv 
 to show that the archetyj>c of F was formed 
 by taking T and substituting for each Svtuc 
 fragment in Tatian's mf>saic the correspond- 
 ing fragment from the Vulgate, the aclapter 
 occasionally altering the order and inserting 
 passages missing in T. The dlscr^pallc|p^ 
 between the index and text in F shew that it 
 underwent further changes after assuming a 
 Latin shape, but it is im|H»ssiblr to vay how 
 far the differences between it and T proccrd 
 from such subsequent alterations of are due 
 to the original adapter. The date of the 
 adaptation is unc<Ttain, the limits being jHj. 
 the date of the Vulgate being brought out. and 
 545, the date of F. The discrepancies Ixr- 
 tween index and text deiiiaii'l a date con- 
 siderably before the latter limit, but it must 
 have been made after the Vulgate had brromr 
 well known and |H>pular. which was not till long 
 after it appeare<l. The most probable dale, 
 therefore, seem* to be midway between tb« 
 
 VICTOR 
 
 1009 
 
 4V t, 
 
 lit). 
 
 • (lb 
 
 r.lrf : 
 
 r.m. 
 
 \un% 
 
 limits, or II.. 
 47o- The II 
 who wrote 
 /ahn \.\\3. 
 was a Syi : 
 with one . , 
 Lgvpt and 1 
 subslituir I 
 fragliiriils 
 much less It. 
 an inde|H-ndrii( u^ 
 F alwi roiiiaiiis ! 
 the Fp. to the I 
 
 Pauline I pistlrsd : 
 
 II Tl.rss.. ( .,!.. I , 
 
 Tit.. I'hllrii...n. aii.l ; 
 
 t athohr Fi'istirs 41, 1 \- 
 
 whole conrluding with t 
 
 |)am.isus on St. I'aiil. I 
 
 the LaiHlice.iiis. is )•■ ». . . ' 
 
 heatlings. ami |o r , 
 
 Hebrews, and to tl ■ 
 
 a short preface. I 
 
 al«> prefixed a table ■! , 
 
 general preface or arguni' 
 
 si>ecial argument of the 1 • ■ .n 
 
 oirdance of the Ilpistlrs . 
 
 the various passages treali: 
 
 doctrine. T.i the .\cls is , 
 
 of the burial-places of l! 
 
 is a short general preface •. 
 
 Fpisllrs. and also the 
 
 pur|K)rting to be St. Jeroiij. 
 
 the accusation, referred to bs S^rsicil auJ 
 Hort ((•. T. II. .V..//1 on SfUd K/aJimt*. la^^. 
 against the Latin translal>>rs of i>mitlin« lh« 
 " Patris Filii et Spiritiis lestiimxiium " tn I* 
 John v. 7. «. while the text Itself |% fre* lr«>in 
 the interpolation. Besides this there ar« 
 other places where, as in the (•.>»|>e|. th« te«l 
 and supplementary matter no longer ctirre- 
 spond exactly, shewing that ehanr-» h*v» 
 i>ccurred since the former w.i ' 
 
 F.g. the (ieneral .\rgunirnt t" 
 Fpistles reckons but 14 •» -»". ' 
 Hebrews, and thrrrforr rvrlitdliu - -^ 
 l.a.Kliceans, though it stamls lii ll.c l<-»l. 
 .\gain. the prrlacr |.. thr ( ..{..ssians. ■' ( ok»« 
 senses rt hll ^I'lt I i !:'I'Iim-s sUIiI A»l*nl," 
 
 must have L' '><-n the l.aiHiKr«n« 
 
 preceded ih- I the irantpottlioQ 
 
 may l>e dur t 't 
 
 The whole Ms ! and 
 
 c<»rrecte<i by Victor '.(ire* 
 
 notes, one at the n. . ■ > »t 
 
 the end of the .Ajwi. u , 
 cording that he had hnisi 
 on May i. ^4'>. Apr. ft 
 time <•., V. - I • *.' I: 
 
 .iccaM '"•< 
 
 the ex '« •«» 
 
 the !• W*» 
 
 ed. in f-'-r^ I..;. 1- H^ukr. (ullr 
 
 drscrilN-k It *n<l H» hist 'JOy 
 
 only Is III Mi>;i"- /'j.'' / • 
 
 n Victor 
 mentaries oi: • 
 inir "f -\tf • 
 
 some on < >• I , ciKilainrd in 
 in HffUlfMtkmm bv J<MiniM-« 
 
 i.,_. \uulbcr Wu»k IS the Krtumlmt. i* 
 
 On Ad^ * Afk (p. mB7). oaolalnloc ut viirt- 
 6i 
 
1010 
 
 VICTOR TUNUNENSIS 
 
 ordinary calculation to shew that its dimen- 
 sions typify the number of years in the life of 
 our Lord. On N.T. Victor wrote a commen- 
 tary, II fragments of which, preserved in the 
 Collections of Smaragdus, are collected by 
 Pitra (Patr. Lat. cii. 1124), according to whom 
 a St. Germain MS. of Rabanus Maurus's 
 Commentary on St. Matthew marks numerous 
 passages as derived from Victor. Fragments 
 of Capiiula de Resurrectione Domini are given 
 in Spicil. Sol. i. (liv. lix. Ixii. Ixiv.), in which 
 Victor touches on the difficulties in the 
 genealogy in St. Matthew and on the dis- 
 crepancy between St. Mark and St. John as to 
 the hour of the Crucifixion. Of the last he 
 gives the explanation of Eusebius inQiiaestiones 
 ad Marinum, and also one of his own. 
 
 III. Victor's most celebrated work was that 
 on the Paschal Cycle mentioned by several 
 chroniclers and praised by Bede (de Rat. 
 Tempa. 51), whose two extracts are in Patr. 
 Lat. Ixviii. 1097, xc. 502. The rest was sup- 
 posed to be lost till considerable extracts from 
 it contained in the Catena of Joannes Diaconus 
 were pub. in Spicil. Sol. (i. 296). It was 
 written c. 550, to controvert the Paschal Cycle 
 of ViCTOKius (2), according to which Easter 
 Day would have fallen that year on Apr. 17, 
 while Victor considered Apr. 24 the correct 
 day in accordance with the Alexandrine 
 computation which he defends. [f-d.] 
 
 Victor (48) Tununensis, an African bishop 
 and chronicler. He was a zealous supporter of 
 the "Three Chapters," enduring much per- 
 secution after 556 and till his death c. 567, 
 both in his own province and in Egypt. Of 
 his Chronicle, from the creation to a.d. 566, 
 only the portion 444-566 remains, dealing 
 almost exclusively with the history of the 
 Eutychian heresy and the controversy about 
 the " Three Chapters." It also gives details 
 about the Vandal persecution, the memory of 
 which must have been still fresh in his youth, 
 and various stories telling against Arianism. 
 The Chronicle is very useful for illustrations of 
 the social and religious life of cent. vi. It is 
 printed in Migne's Patr. Lat. t. Ixviii. with 
 Galland's preface. Cf. Isid. de Vir. III. c. 38 ; 
 Cave's Hist. Lit. i. 415. A treatise On Peni- 
 tence, included among the works of St. 
 Ambrose, is attributed to Victor ; Ceill. v. 
 512, X. 469, xi. 302. [g.t.s.J 
 
 Victorlnus (4), St., of Pettau, bishop and 
 martyr. He was apparently a Greek by 
 birth, and (according to the repeated state- 
 ment of Cassiodorus) a rhetorician before he 
 became bp. of Pettau (Petavio) in Upper 
 Pannonia. He is believed to have suffered 
 mart>Tdom in Diocletian's persecution. 
 St. Jerome (our chief authority concerning 
 him) mentions him several times, and with 
 respect even where his criticisms are adverse. 
 He enumerates among his works {Catal. Script. 
 Eccl. 74) commentaries on Gen., Ex., Lev., 
 Is., Ezek., Hab., Eccles., Cant., Matt., and 
 Rev., besides a treatise "adversus omnes 
 haereses." Jerome occasionally cites the opin- 
 ion of Victorinus {in Eccles. iv. 13 ; in Ezech. 
 xxvi. and elsewhere), but considered him to 
 have been affected by the opinions of the 
 Chiliasts or Millenarians (see Catal. Script. 
 18, and in Ezech. I.e.). He also states that he 
 borrowed extensively from Origan. In con- 
 
 VICTORINUS 
 
 sequence, perhaps, of his Millennarian ten- 
 dencies, or of his relations to Origen, his works 
 were classed as " apocrypha " in the Decretum 
 de Libris Recipiendis, which Baronius (ad ann. 
 303) erroneously refers to a synod held under 
 Gelasius. Little or nothing is left — nothing, 
 indeed, which can be said to be his with any 
 certainty. Poems are attributed to him with 
 no authority better than that of Bede ; while 
 the two lines Bede quotes as his were clearly 
 written by some one with a tolerable know- 
 ledge of Latin. [h.a.w.] 
 
 Victorinus (6), called Caius Marius (Hieron. 
 Comm. on Gal. Proleg.) and also Marius 
 Fabiiis (see Suringar, Hist. Scholiast. Lat. p. 
 153, note) ; known also as Afer, from the 
 country of his birth. He is to be distinguished 
 from two Christian writers called Victorinus 
 mentioned by Gennadius (de Scriptor. Eccl. 
 cc. 60 and 88), and from Victorinus of Pettau, 
 the commentator on the Apocalypse. He was 
 a celebrated man of letters and rhetorician in 
 Rome in the middle of 4th cent. 
 
 His conversion is the subject of the well- 
 known narrative in St. Augustine's Confes- 
 sions (bk. viii. cc. 2-5). In extreme old age 
 zealous study of Scripture and Christian 
 literature convinced him of the truth of 
 Christianity. He told Simplician, afterwards 
 bp. of Milan, that he was a Christian, and when 
 Simplician refused to regard him as such till 
 he saw him "in the church," asked him in 
 banter " whether walls, then, make Chris- 
 tians ? " — a characteristic question from one 
 disposed to regard Christianity rather as 
 another school of philosophy than as a social 
 organization. The fear of his friends, how- 
 ever, which kept him from making profession 
 of his faith, was removed by further medita- 
 tion, and after being enrolled as a catechumen 
 for a short time, he was baptized, and by his 
 own deliberate choice made his preliminary 
 profession of faith with the utmost publicity. 
 St. Augustine gives us a vivid account of the 
 excitement and joy his conversion caused in 
 Christian circles at Rome. This was at 
 
 least before the end of the reign of Constantius, 
 A.D. 361 ; but he continued to teach rhetoric 
 in Rome till 362, when Julian's edict forbad 
 Christians to be public teachers (Aug. Conf. 
 I.e.). Then, " choosing rather to give over 
 the wordy school than God's Word," he 
 withdrew, and as St. Jerome emphasizes his 
 great age before conversion, it is not surprising 
 that we hear no more of him. He lived, how- 
 ever, long enough to write a number of 
 Christian treatises and commentaries, and it 
 is possible that Jerome alludes to him as 
 alive on the outbreak of the disputes con- 
 nected with the name of Jovinian in 382. 
 (See Proleg. to Victorinus in Migne's Patr. Lat. 
 vol. viii. p. 994 for question of reading.) 
 
 The following is a list of his Christian 
 writings: (i) The anti-Arian treatise, de 
 Generatione Verbi Divini, in reply to the de 
 Generatione Divina by Candidus the Arian. 
 
 (2) The long work adversus Arium, elicited by 
 Candidus's brief rejoinder to the former 
 treatise. Bk. ii. must have been written not 
 later than 361 (see c. 9), bk. i. c. 365 (see c. 28). 
 
 (3) The de ofioovalqi Recipiendo, a summary 
 of (2). (4) Three Hymns, mainly consisting 
 of formulas and prayers intended to elucidate 
 
VICTORINUS 
 
 the relations of tin- Tunitv. (s) i Oiii- 
 
 menturii-s on Gal.. Phil., ami Kph. Though 
 larking; continu»u'« merit (s4-<- l.iKhlftxit. (iai. 
 p. 227), these are jirobahlv the lirst l.atin 
 commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles (vr 
 Hieroii. Comm. tn ('„tl. ProUg.). («.) An 
 
 anti-Manichean treatise, with reasonahle rrr 
 taint V ascril^d to him (MiRne, ProUg. f _\). 
 (Ui Juatinum .\taHichtifum. is the earliest ext.uit 
 treatise against the Manirheans, and in-^isi* 
 with considerable insight on the inronMstenries 
 of their dualism. (7) .\ verv -.tran^'e little 
 treatise, de I'frbis Scrif>turaf " hailum /•%/ 
 vfspfre ft mane difs mmms." I'or an I-hk- 
 trans. i>f the fraKinents see AnIfStcrnf l.th. 
 
 Besides these we mav i\otire the df Pkysins, 
 ascribed to him by tardinal Mai (see his re- 
 marks in Migne prefixed to the treatise, p. 
 1295). It is an ablv written treatise on the 
 Creation. Fall, and Recovery of Man. But the 
 style does not suggest the authorship of \ic- 
 torinus. and the character of the ipiotations 
 from N.T. seems to argue a different author. 
 
 We have some allusions in his exUint works 
 to others which have perished, f.g. on Kph. iv. 
 10 (lib. ji. inil.) there is an allusion to a com- 
 mentary on Cor. Cardinal Mai refers to a 
 commentary on Leviticus by \'ictorinus 
 extant in the Vatican (see Ceillier, Aulfurs 
 sacres. vol. iv. p. 328, note 2). 
 
 All these wxitings of Victorinus (except the 
 commentaries, which approach more nearly ti> 
 lucidity) are very astonishingly obscure for 
 one of Victorinus's reputation as a rhetorician. 
 This, together with the recondite nature of the 
 theological subjects he treats, the extremely 
 corrupt condition of the text as hitherto edited, 
 the barbariius mixture of (ireek and bad 1-atin 
 in which he often writes, and his prolixity and 
 repetitions, have caused him to be ignored 
 more than his substantial merits dt-scrve. 
 There is one notable exception to the us\ial 
 severe judgments on his style and matter. 
 Thomassin. whose theological judgment is 
 weighty, sj^eaks of him as "inferior to none 
 in the profunditv of his insight into the 
 inmost mysteries" of the Divine Being, and 
 the relation of the Persons of the Trinity to 
 one another (dt Incarn. Verht, bk. ii. c. i. | 6). 
 This judgment will put us on the right lines 
 for estimating his position and |>owers. He 
 has no special merits as a commentator, nor 
 the capacities of a dogmatic theologian in the 
 ordinarv sense. He d<>.-s not manipulate 
 skilfully the stock anti-Arian arguments. He 
 combats, generally as badly as |x>s-.ible. the 
 objection to the ouootVriot as an unscriptural 
 term (adv. At. i. 30. p. 1063 b, c • ; and 11. 
 P. 9. PP- 'o94-io<)5)- He has none of the 
 controversial |M)Wer and vividness of .\thana- 
 sius or .Augustine. .Almost all his im|Nirtance 
 lies in his metaphvsical and »|>eculative 
 capacities, and in his belief in the jxiwer of the 
 intellect to give a rational presentation of the 
 Trinitarian Creed, etc. He d<K-<t. indeetl. feel 
 the danger of such sjjeculation. " It i* mad- 
 ness," he sa>-s (adv. Jutlin. 2. hjoo c), "to 
 suppose that while we are alm<»st unknown to 
 ourselves, we should have either •' • ' ■• " " 
 or the leave to investigate wh." 
 ourselves and the world." H<- 
 didus for writing al>out f«od " t.i:.. 
 
 • Referenca are to voL rlU. of M%iic'* *'*!>. Ok. 
 
 VICTORINUS 
 
 ami not k' 
 tuain intell 
 a%ks. -l), 
 
 Hut tlii U^ 114^(1..). 
 
 feeU to the full. and. on t 
 
 that thev are within thr 
 
 niinale«l Chrivtian intrlleri, | ,!t uj. thv 
 
 M-lf, niv spirit!" he rtie*. "and rr«-<>(nif<> 
 
 that to tiTi Irr-tind (mnI t% diflirull. but n<»« 
 
 l>evoii ' ■ Ar. tit. i\ iiui v). 
 
 Tti ..-ter «>l hl« the<i|ii((v may 
 
 •>e (> ,| bv two e^.ith^f. It) 
 
 Thoi^,. , ... in dale. It I- :-■■ * —.' 
 
 in character. 1 he doctrine n| I! 
 tion of the S<in is eniphasi/etl fiv 
 very sulMtrdination dortrine it 
 .Arianisni without the lea«i *u«piti.>4i ■•! t(* 
 l>eing Itself o|>en to the charKe of anv .Arian- 
 izing tendencv. He sees. a« boldiv a* the 
 earlier thei>logianv anticipation* of the In- 
 carnation in the Theophanirt of O.T. isJv. 
 .4r. iv. 32, 1 1 36 r). He rrt iin-> thr ante- 
 Nirene interprrtali<H>s of , : "My 
 
 Father is greater than I ' etc. 
 
 " What has coiue into fwi life * 
 
 (John i. 3). He K-- • 1 the 
 
 Incarnate in thee! •. • the 
 
 Cosmic function of : rj. 
 
 (2) His throlo^v tone. 
 
 Here !•< the s|>ecial intrust attatluuji to Vic- 
 torinus's works. He had grown old in the 
 neo-Platonist schools l>efiife hl« rl»ll\rr^i .11. 
 Whi-n coiivi-rtetl. he applied in.ii. • 
 of the Plotiiii.in phil<>v>phv to th 
 of the (hri-.fi)!! mv tf-Tt<-. M 
 in th; ... 
 
 in th' 
 Pm-u ! 
 
 deal 1:. . . .... .. 
 
 iKHi-Platonist than 1* no liouid 
 
 due in p.u-t to th>- .id attaint 
 
 l>efore studving t In 
 
 We deal with. I. Ju. : lem ; 
 
 II. its relation to neo-Il.ii ■ :rthrr 
 
 ixtints in his theology wh; tice; 
 
 IV. his lin|Mirtancr in relati'ii i-> 4iii<- H»ef<>- 
 nymi in versions of the I.alin Ullde. 
 
 I. The following Is a summary <if his nvid* 
 of conreiving the relations of the TriiiHv and 
 
 the processes of rrr.itloii .iikI rrilrmptlon. 
 I aiidtdus had ob)retrd to the .irth'Hlot 
 
 d'>cu.- •'• ■ ■- " ". '.-I. 
 
 It a ■ \Ht 
 
 iniit i: I th» 
 
 essriit: .; llie 
 
 idea of a ^tiiit . 
 sulntantia " i« in • 
 !■ 
 
 plirilv ' ..f 
 
 hr 
 
 ■ HI III' . 
 
 
 blllts 
 
 
 hghtn . 
 
 
 Contrti.ln,.- 
 
 
 infinite. i>i< 
 
 
 able the 
 
 
 iviblc tiUUuO tj aa)thiii4 
 
1012 
 
 VICTORINUS 
 
 beyond Himself. To become a creator at a I 
 certain moment in time — to act in creation as I 
 much involves change as the act of generation. 
 If you admit, as you must, that God can i 
 create without change, you must admit equally 
 that He can generate. You have admitted a [ 
 " motus " which is not " mutatio " (de Gen. 30, ! 
 1035, A, b). But this proceeding forth of God in I 
 the action of creation is only not a "change" I 
 in the Divine Essence, because it has its origin j 
 and ground there. It has been the eternal j 
 being of God to proceed forth, to move, to live. 1 
 This eternal motion, eternal transition in God, | 
 it is, that we, speaking in the necessarily in- 
 adequate terms of human discourse, call the 
 " eternal generation of the Son " (de Gen. i, 
 1019 D ; de Gen. 29, 1034 b ; adv. Arium, i. ; 
 43, 1074 A, B. The "esse" of God is equi- 
 valent to "moveri," " et moveri ipsum quod 
 est esse "). This " generatio " is expressed 
 as the eternal utterance of the Divine Will, 
 moving eternally into actuality ; the will of 
 God not for one instant failing of its absolutely 
 self-adequate effect. " Every act of will is the 
 progeny of that which wills." Thus of the 
 Father's will, the Word or Son is the summary 
 or universal effect. 
 
 As the Son is thus conceived of as the eternal 
 object of the Divine will, so He is the eternal 
 and adequate object of Divine self-knowledge. 
 As the Father eternally wills, so He eternally I 
 knows Himself in the Son. The Divine know- ] 
 ledge, like the Divine will, must have its 
 adequate object. God knows Himself in the 
 Son ; for the Son is the expression of His own 
 being. The Son is thus the " forma " of God 
 and His limitation. This thought constantly 
 recurs. It is not that God is limited from | 
 outside, but that the infinite and the indeter- 
 minate in expressing Himself limits or con- 
 ditions Himself. He knows Himself in the 
 Logos or determinate, definite Utterance ; 
 and thus the unconditioned, the absolute, the 
 Father, limits or conditions Himself in that 
 eternal utterance by which He knows Himself. ] 
 Knowledge is thus conceived of as limitation 
 or form ; it is an eternal abiding relation of 
 subject and object. Once for all the Father 
 knows Himself as what He is in the Son. 
 
 It is only stating this same principle in 
 broader terms to say that the Son is to the 
 Father as effect to cause (adv. .Arium, iv. 3, 
 1115 a), that is to say, He is the revelation of 
 all the Father is. What the Father is, the 
 Son expresses, exhibits, manifests. As outward 
 intelligence and life express our inner being, 
 so the Father, the inner Being, is expressed in 
 the Son. The Father is the esse, the vivens, 
 the Son the vita, the actualized life (i. 32, 42). 
 Substance can only be known by its mani- 
 festations in life (iii. 11, 1107 b). The Father 
 is the " motio," the Son the " motus." What 
 the Father is inwardly (" in abscondito ") the 
 Son is outwardly (" foris "). 
 
 The passages in which the distinction 
 between the fpSidderos and the irpo<popiKbi 
 A 670? are implied are not many nor emphatic 
 in Victorinus, as, e.g., in Tertullian. The Son 
 is eternally Son and self-subsistent. That 
 " effulgentia " " Filietas " is out of all time, 
 absolute (i. 27, 1060 d). " Catholica disciplina 
 dicit et semper fuisse Patrem et semper 
 Filium " (in Phil. 12 10 a). Yet Victorinus 
 
 VICTORINUS 
 
 admits a sense in which he may be called 
 " maxime filius " in Humanity (1061 a), and 
 speaks of Him as getting the name of Son, 
 the " Name above every Name," only in His 
 Incarnate exaltation (1210 c, d, " ita ut 
 tantum nomen accesserit, res eadem fuerit "). 
 His thought expresses itself thus naturally in 
 the doctrine of the generation of the Son and 
 His co-essential equality with the Father. 
 But it does not so easily adapt itself to for- 
 mulae which express the Being, Procession, and 
 Substantiality of the Holy Ghost. He intends 
 to be perfectly orthodox. He accepts the 
 faith, even though he finds it difficult to 
 formulate. He teaches emphatically that the 
 Holy Ghost proceeds " from the Father and 
 the Son." He is subsequent in order to the 
 Son. But as " Spirit of the Father " there 
 is a sense in which He precedes the Son ; 
 that is, as that which God is — Spirit — He is 
 that in which the Father begets the Son. He 
 conveys the Father's Life to the Son. 
 
 The distinction of Son and Spirit is carefully 
 maintained, but yet the essential duality 
 which is in God — the distinction of that which 
 is from that which proceeds forth — the dis- 
 tinction expressed in all the antitheses 
 referred to above, is clearer to Victorinus than 
 the Trinity of relations. The Son and the 
 Spirit seem to him more utterly one than the 
 Father and the Son. They are " existentiae 
 duae," but they proceed forth " in uno motu " 
 and that " motus " is the Son ; so that the 
 Spirit is, as it were, contained in the Son 
 (aiiv. Ar. iii. 8, 1105 a). Thus Victorinus 
 
 sometimes speaks as if the Spirit were the Son 
 in another aspect (he even says " idem ipse 
 et Christus et Spiritus Sanctus," see ib. iii. 18, 
 1113 D and i. 59, 1085 b). He has also 
 a subtle mode of speaking of the Spirit as the 
 " A 670s in occulto," and Christ Incarnate as 
 the " A6yoi in manifesto " ; Logos and 
 Spiritus being used interchangeably ■* ; or again 
 Christ is the " Spiritus apertus," the Spirit 
 the "Spiritus occultus " (iii. 14, 1109 b, 
 c). Again, the Spirit is the " interior Christi 
 virtus " (iv. 17, 1125 c) in Whom Christ is 
 present (1109 c). The confusion seems to 
 spring from the use of " Spiritus " as meaning 
 the Divine nature. But in intention and 
 generally the two persons are kept distinct. 
 If Christ is the " vox," the Spirit is the " vox 
 vocis " (iii. 16, nil c, i. 13, 1048 a), or 
 again, as the Son is Life the Spirit is Know- 
 ledge ("vivere quidem Christus, intelligere 
 Spiritus," i. 13, 1048 b), or again the rela- 
 tions of the Trinity are expressed in formulas 
 such as these: " visio, videre, discernere" ; 
 " esse, vivere, intelligere," expressing three 
 stages of a great act (iii. 4, 5 ; the latter 
 chapter should be studied). Victorinus is the 
 first theologian to speak of the Spirit as the 
 principle of unity in the Godhead, the bond 
 or " copula " of the eternal Trinity, complet- 
 ing the perfect circle of the Divine Being, the 
 return of God upon Himself (i. 60, 1085 c, d, 
 "sphaera," " circularis motus"). 
 
 • So the words " genitus," " procedens," are not 
 kept strictly to the second and third Persons of the 
 Trinity respectively. The Spirit is said once {adv. 
 At. iv. 33, 1138A) to be "genitus," and the " pro- 
 cessio " of the Son is frequently spoken of, e.g. i. 27, 
 1060 d; i. 14, 1048 B. 
 
VICTORINUS 
 
 Wf pass on to his cucrpUon »( thr rrlation 
 of Cod to Crp.Uion. All thinfr* arc conmvrd 4\ 
 prpexi>ting in CM - p..triitullv iii thr l-athn. 
 actually in cs>pncr in thr Son. In Hiin <l»vrlU 
 all thr fullness Ixxiilv. that is (.icconlinj; |.> V.) 
 in the Kternal \V,»rii dwells all existence sub- 
 stantially— owria.u't. Whatever came into 
 being subsequently in time, in Mini was 
 eternally life. Thus the A<r>ot is the • AA>o« 
 of all things "—the universal I.oijos the see<l 
 of aJl things, even in His internal Being, con- 
 taining all things in Himself in orchetvpal 
 reality. {AJv. Ar. i. zs. i<>s<)a ; ii. \. i<m)i b . 
 iii. 3. iioo c, and iv. 4. 1 1 1(> c. where the Word 
 is almost identified with the Platonic "ideas"; 
 at least. He contains the ideas in Himself, as 
 "species" or " jxitentiae principales.") It 
 follows that the Son is verv mainly considered 
 as existing with a view to Creation. He exists 
 as the " .\6^ot of all that is " with a view to 
 the being of whatever is ("ad id qutnl est esse 
 iis quae sunt "). It is His essence to move, as 
 it is the Father's to repose. The " motus " 
 in virtue of which He is. is still pressing out- 
 ward, so to speak, from the " fontan.i vita " 
 of the Father. 
 
 .\ll this is somewhat neo-Platonic in tone. 
 What follows is almost pure and undiluted 
 neo-Platonism, f./;. his description of the 
 process of Creation, as a drawing out of the 
 plenitude of God into a chain or gradation of 
 existences. He adopts the neo- Platonic con- 
 ception of " anima " as something capable of 
 spiritualization, but not yet "spirit" — inter- 
 mediate between spirit and matter. He 
 follows neo-Platonism in his conception of the 
 " return of all things " into God {a4iv. Ar. in. 
 I, 1098 b; iv. II, II2I A. B ; de Gen. to, 
 1026 A, b; adv. .4r. iii. 3. 1100 c ; Hvmn i, 
 1141 A ; tn Eph. i. 4. 12308, r ). He is 
 simply neo-Platonic in his conception of 
 matter and the material wt)rld. " Matter " 
 has no existence independent of r,o<i ; m itself 
 it is "non-existent" — an abstraction. .Man 
 is regarded as a mixed being, a spiritual 
 "anima ' (see i« Eph. i. 4. 1230c) merged in 
 the corruption of matter. He call* the human 
 race " animae seminatae saeclis " corrupted 
 by the material darkness in which they are 
 merged (Hvmn i, 1142A; adv. Ar. i. 26. 
 1060 A ; i. 62. 10H7 b). .Misled bv this 
 ineradicable misoinception of material life, 
 he thinks in a Platonic and non-( hristian 
 spirit of men as existing in an unlallrn con- 
 dition, in a pre-nHindane slate t.f Iwing, an<! 
 being born into the corruption nf ni.itm.il life 
 at their natural birth. Moral evil, from this 
 point of view, must be phvsical .ukI i.- 1 • o •. 
 
 The other main effect of I'l ^• 
 Victonnus's anthropology is ' 
 profound and unmitigated l*rc'l' 
 His ideology leads him (in his ( 'mm i« / ' h 
 at least) to assert not only the pre-existencr 
 of the abvilute " anima " in the I- jtti il W-.rd 
 but the pre-cxistenre of all j <" 
 All the history of the v)ul in i- 
 matter, and its recovery thrr. 
 the Incarnate Christ, is • • ' ' 
 of the idea of the soul v, 
 nallv, individually, an.l 
 Mindand Willof G<k1. (i . 
 1239 b, 1242 B. What cxuu lu OuJ » ;Uuuihl 
 must exist substantially.) 
 
 nut Ihtne I 
 
 VICTORINUS 
 
 loia 
 
 ing do not - 
 side l«v sidr 
 I hristian tri/ 
 than the PI.- 
 
 
 ■^ It* 
 
 view of 1:1 , 
 
 of evil 
 
 
 
 empli > 
 1(1. I 
 the 1. 
 Viet.: 
 he is: 
 rf. i; . 
 
 
 
 see in iHti. I iii ». 
 sfqufrmtur " , m Eph. 1.1 
 restaurant ur wti iiuae in • 
 1274 c. "quae vilvari p<>»u^iit. 
 prets such pa%sagr« «« I2^2 1 ) 
 
 .■\Rain. thoii>;fi ..i. ..;ir H. 4 
 given of th- ' 
 notion of I! 
 {a.ti-. .ir. \ ■. 
 tion tearhitin i^ 
 diates by antirinat 
 heresy. c;.k1 the 
 of real humanity, 
 whole and coinplrir ini.t 
 Person (It Is an ' arrr; ■ 
 proper " griieration " of 
 lives, G.xl in Manh'xwl ( /'--m 
 (homo - manh'Mid I «./!■. Ar. 1. 
 4.S. 1075 ■ ; •»• /'*'■' '- "* ■" 
 however, uses an A 
 I. io. mis r.) Tl 
 Is emphasized a* 1. 
 univ-Tsali* annua . 1:1 1 
 erant. ■ iii. j. not a). I 
 which He suffers f.* man 
 versal, Iveeausc He tuf1er\ -. . 
 the rare He is to re-crrale d" 
 \zz\ 11. *i\t\adv. .ir. I.e.). The. 
 taking humanity u to make thr 
 which He assume<l -v>nl and fir 
 new capacities of life. The 
 flesh " makes the flesh He t w v 
 Him Who is the life (" 
 est vita aeterna est." etc 
 language al>out hurhari"! 
 humanity —siMfit. ' 
 
 Christ t.N.k. He i. . 
 tiiH b . cf. *H hi ^ 
 
 " Of''"' 'li- rn..ir • 
 
 in H 
 
 is, t' 
 
 ( hn • 
 
 c, I) . cl U 'I ti;. aiil «•■ •«f • 
 
 botlv and v>ul. in I hrui Urn l'> 
 
 I...' s rf in hr*< '••" «». 
 
 : f«i 
 
 lima 
 . cl. 
 inl«v- 
 
 view 
 
 I ho 
 
 *Hrt 
 
 , in >:jmiHt 
 14. I04A O . i. 
 
 disillar in ( hrttio 
 
 .f a-/'. ♦» . 1... 
 
 ,l> I-XJ S.,l.-.( Mitl I h- r:X Mtir ,.4,,,-. 
 
 and relcrrvd (•> (b« EuciMrtM. •od. U> lb« 
 
1014 
 
 VICTORINUS 
 
 same way, " populus irepiovcnos " is given an 
 Eucharistic reference, as meaning "populus 
 circa Tuam Substantiam veniens." See 
 quotation from old African Liturgy, p. 25 ; 
 and (on ministry) in Eph. iv. 12, 1275 c. 
 
 II. It is necessary further to explain in what 
 general relation Victorinus's teaching stands 
 to the neo-Platonic system, since his chief 
 claim upon our attention is that he was the 
 first systematically to convert the results of 
 that system to the uses of Christian theology 
 and that he developed in one or two cases as 
 against Arianism the really higher philosophi- 
 cal truth latent in Catholic doctrines. 
 
 The idea of a being or beings mediating 
 between the supreme God and the lower world 
 was common to almost all the later schools of 
 ancient philosophy (see Zeller, pp. 219, 220). 
 Eusebius of Caesarea had already seen in this 
 a common ground tor philosophers and Chris- 
 tians. (See Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, 
 p. 22. Cf. Athan. de Incarn. c. xli.) It 
 appeared in Plotinus's theory of the vods and 
 anima, which with the One, the God, make up 
 what is called "the neo-Platonic Trinity." 
 Now, a good deal of Victorinus's language, in 
 which he seeks to express the relation of the 
 Aoyos to the Father, is based on Plotinus's 
 language about the relation of the vovi to the 
 One. But as a Christian, Victorinus is able 
 to fill the neo-Platonic formulas with the 
 powers of a new life. Again, Victorinus's 
 formula for the Trinity, the " status, pro- 
 gressio, regressus," is the reflex of a neo- 
 Platonic idea — an idea first definitely for- 
 mulated by Proclus but implied by Plotinus — 
 the idea of all progress and development of 
 life involving (i) the immanence of the caused 
 in that which causes it, (2) the issuing of the 
 caused out of that which causes it, (3) the 
 return of the caused into that which causes it. 
 This threefold relation of immanence, pi ogress, 
 return, the neo-Platonist regarded as essential 
 to the development and unity of life both in 
 general and in detail (Zeller, pp. 787-789). 
 This conception in its earlier stage Victorinus, 
 whether consciously or not, adopts, and what 
 new force it gains when it is seen to find its 
 highest expression in the very life of God 
 Himself ! This threefold relation is seen to 
 be the very being of God. The Son is eternally 
 abiding in the Father, eternally proceeding 
 from the Father in His eternal Generation, and 
 eternally pouring back into the bosom of the 
 Father that which He receives, in that Holy 
 Ghost Who is Himself the life of Father and 
 Son, the love and bond of the Holy Trinity. 
 
 It isindescribingtherelationof the A6705 to 
 the world, in His function as Creator, that, as we 
 have seen, Victorinus allows himself to be too 
 entirely moulded by neo-Platonic ideas. His 
 "development of the plenitude " (Gwatkin, p. 
 20), his pre-existing " anima " and " animae," 
 his corporeal demons, his matter the seat of 
 corruption — all these have their source in the 
 Plotinian system, and are only very imperfect- 
 ly adapted to Christianity (see Zeller, pp. 543- 
 557, 570-575)- We may wonder that he did 
 not use even more emphatically an element 
 of right-minded inconsistency in neo-Platon- 
 ism and with that system' emphasize the 
 freedom of the will (Zeller, pp. 585-587). 
 
 This brief account will help us to recognize 
 
 VICTORINUS 
 
 ' the " divine preparation " for Christianity 
 involved in the independent growth of the 
 neo-Platonic system — so many philosophic 
 ideas needed for the intellectual presentation 
 j of Christianity being made ready to hand — 
 : and shows Victorinus as a pioneer in claiming 
 for Christianity the products of philosophy, a 
 pioneer whose name has well-nigh passed into 
 undeserved oblivion. 
 
 III. A few other characteristic points in 
 Victorinus's teaching still deserve notice. He 
 is cm intensely ardent follower of St. Paul, 
 devoted to St. Paul's strenuous assertion of 
 justification by faith. Indeed, he uses very 
 strongly solifidian language and (by anticipa- 
 tion) very strongly anti-Pelagian language. 
 This element in his teaching is most remark- 
 
 \ ably emphatic in his commentaries, e.g. in Gal. 
 iii. 22, 1172 ; in Phil. iii. 9, 1219 c, d. This 
 solifidian tendency led him, like Luther, to a 
 disparagement of St. James and a somewhat 
 minimizing tone as regards the efficacy of good 
 works. (See some very remarkable passages 
 in Comm. in Gal. i. 19, 1155 b, c, 1156 a, b, 
 cf. 1161 B, 1162 D.) 
 
 It is worth while calling attention to the 
 evidence, suggested by a good deal of Vic- 
 torinus's theology, of a closer connexion than 
 has been yet noticed between him and St. 
 .\ugustine. His strong insistence in his 
 Trinitarian theology on the double Procession 
 of the Holy Spirit — his conception of the Holy 
 Spirit as the " Bond " of the Blessed Trinity 
 
 \ — his emphasis on the unity of Christ and His 
 church — his strong predestinarianism — his 
 
 J vehement assertion of the doctrines of grace 
 — his assertion of the priority of faith to 
 intelligence (p. 16, note n), — all reappear in 
 St. Augustine, and it may be that the (hither- 
 
 I to unsuspected) influence of the wTitings of 
 the old philosopher whose conversion stirred 
 him so deeply was a determining force upon 
 the theology of St. Augustine.* 
 
 IV. A word must be said on the Latin text 
 of the Bible used by Victorinus. No adequate 
 use seems yet to have been made of the very 
 large bulk of quotation in his writings. 
 
 Sabatier (Bibl. Sacr. Lat. Versiones Antiq. 
 I t. iii. Remis 1749) occasionally refers to him, 
 but omits some of his most remarkable quota- 
 tions, and wrote before Mai's publication of 
 the commentaries, etc. Some quotations, 
 not noticed by Sabatier, may be given : 
 
 St. John i. I is quoted as " A6yos erat circa 
 Deum," and it is added, " Romani apud Deum 
 dicunt," Libri de Gen. 20, 1030 c. Elsewhere 
 he uses " circa Deum " and " ad Deum " (adv. 
 Ar. I, 3). These do not seem to be merely his 
 own renderings. (" Ad Deum " is noticed by 
 Sabatier.) In Phil. ii. 30 (p. 1216) " ex- 
 ponens in incertum animam suam " is a better 
 
 * There are one or two contributions to the history 
 of heresies, made by Victorinus, which are worth 
 noticing. In Gal. i. 19, we have an account of a 
 Judaizing or Ebionite sect called the " Symma- 
 chians " (see pp. 1155 B and 1162 d). They made a 
 point of the apostolate of James, the Lord's brother. 
 See also for heresies in regard to Christ's person an 
 interesting passage, adv. Ar. i. 45, 1075 b,c; cf. i. 
 28, 1061 B, c. He calls the definition of Nicaea " a 
 wall and a defence " (ii. 9, 1093 d). We notice also 
 that he probablv is the first to use " paganus " for the 
 heathen [d^ Rec'ip.biJiOovaiu,!.; in Gal. 1158c). For 
 the origin of the term godfather see in Gal. 1184 a. 
 
VICTORIUS 
 
 rendering than the Viilg.itr " tr^dens " and 
 the St. Cienujin " p.ir.ibol.itus de .iniiiij su4." 
 Ih. iii. JO (p. ijjs) he iise> " Salut^ris '• (..r 
 Saviour, a term mu found in other aulhurilies 
 in this place (cf. Konsch. llala unJ I'Hlg.Ua. 
 p. loo, 1875). /''■ iv. 3 (p. ijjR) " unijuge " 
 is a reni.irkalile rendiring of <T»-rj-i-)t, Ih. 
 
 iv. 6, 7 (p. i.'ji,) reads ; " Nihil .id v.lliritud- 
 ineni redigatis. sed in onini prrcatn'iie et 
 oratione cum bona gratia iH-titmno votrae 
 iniiotescant apud I'euin. lit pax l>ei quae 
 habet oinneiu intellectuin custiHliat crda 
 vestra, item corpora ve^tra in jesu thri>l>>.' 
 St. Luke ii. 14 : " Vd\ in terra homiHthui honi 
 iUcreli" (p. 130b). These words, from the, 
 de Physicis, conclude a long ijuotation 
 thoroughly independent of any known vrrMoii. 
 Eph. iv. 14 {wp6i TJtr nt(fo6fl(W T^5 rXoi'iTti, 
 "ad rtnifiiium ermns " (p. nyh p). a riMding 
 found also in other authorities, lb. vi. 14. 
 " et omnihus fffettis stare," sup|>orts the, 
 correct reading of Ji-rome's text, " et omnthus 
 perlectts stare." Tit. ii. 14 : beMde> the 
 version " populum abundantem " (p. ii><)4 i>). 
 a remarkable rendering of the worcl rf^nui^rior 
 is given as occurring in a Eucharistic office 
 ("the prayer of the oblation ") to which he 
 more than once refers (see <uiv. At. i, 30, 1063 1 
 B. and ii. 7, 1094 d). It is as follows : " Munda 
 tibi populum circumvttalfm emulatorem bon- i 
 orum operum, circa tuam substantiam ir«ir»- ] 
 trm " (p. 1063 B). (c.G.l 
 
 Victorias (2) of Aquitaine. During the 
 pontihcatc of Leo the (ireat in 444 and 4^3 
 diflerences arose between the Western 
 churches headed by Rome, and the Eastern 
 headed by Alexandria as to the correct day for 
 celebrating Easter. Pope Lko yielded <in 
 both occasions, but to avoid such disputes in ^ 
 future, directed his archdeacon Hilarhs. who 
 succeeded him, to investigate the question. I 
 Hilary referred it t>i his friend Victorius. who 
 in 457 drew up a cycle to determine the date 
 of Easter in past and future years. 
 
 The cycle of 532 years, consisting of 28 
 Mctonic (28 X 19) or rather 7 Calippic (7 • ?(>) 
 cycles, was adopted or independently dis- 
 covered by \'ictorius. He began it with the 
 year of the crucifixion, which he |>laced on 
 Mar. 26, in the consulship of the two (iemini. 
 As the year in which he composed his cyclr, 
 the consulship of Constantinus and Kufm, 
 which corresponds with a.d. 457, was thr 430th 
 of his cycle, its first year correspondrd with 
 A.D. 28. He made his earliest Eastrr limit , 
 .Mar. 22, the same as the .\lex.indrians ; his | 
 latest Apr. 24, while theirs was thr 25th. 1 
 
 The cycle of Vict«)rius was widrlv, th-u^h 
 not universallv, acceptecl in the Wrsi 
 cspeciallv in (iaul. In 527. howrvrr. I' 
 sius published a new peri'xl of the t \ ; . 
 qj-year cycle, which would terminate m ^ u , 
 and Victor of Capua, c. 5^o, wrotr ag.iiiist 
 Victorius's cycle and in favour of thr Alrx- 
 andrian mrthml of computation \i. t.rm 
 cycle seems thereafter to have I- 
 in Italy, but lingered much lat< 
 Gaul. It has brrn edited with ■ 
 sertations by Kuchcriuv dt Dudnrui I ft 
 porum. where all notices of Victorius Mr col- 
 lected. The only additional information thr^ 
 give is Gennadius's statement (d* I'lr. lU. M«) 
 that he was a native of Aquitaine, As Hilary ' 
 
 •urn. frieod 
 
 /».<«/ nt r ; 
 
 VICTUHINUS 
 
 cjilU him "l>ilr. 
 sanclu« fralrr." h- 
 
 A full .irr .M„t ,f • 
 [Hani 
 out I' 
 thr •)■. 
 
 that If MM 
 Ihc fact ih..! 
 rvrlr Itrcjti ; 
 vrar "t .1 n. • 
 
 thr l.f 
 
 birth 
 
 h.td()> 
 
 cycle, .11). 1 t.iit'.l .1 ur.» j 
 
 Victofius is l>v Liter writ' 
 
 Victorinusan<l\irt..r th- 
 
 to roiifusMn wHh \ > 
 
 Vietrloliu. St . M 
 
 of St. M.»rtiii of r.iw; 
 
 Holl. .4(la .s.s. AtiK 1. 1 ,« ' .■. 1 • " • 
 
 of ,\ola, to wllov Irtlrrs Wr iiwr 
 
 of his life. Hr iMfamr Jip of I 
 
 190. and ocrupird 111'" • !' ■»''*' ' 
 
 ;»f the heathrn M'>ii 
 
 and Hraliant. Ilr 
 
 39.S to Dritam to .1 
 
 re-establishing pracc, j i ■lu! l> m t!ii 11 uui- 
 
 test with Pelagiani%m (Virtriciuv /•*. ds 
 
 iMudf .S.S.. Migne. I'aO. [.if w 4111 \t\ 
 
 accusation of hrrr%v. .i» it 
 
 viii. 70), brought him to I 
 
 403 to defend him^rlf tw' 
 
 inus, f>. XXV .. m 
 
 3.S3). Whil. r to* 
 
 request for 1 1^ "I 
 
 Innocrnt I. c.t.. 
 
 of various hr.ifis Ml 
 
 disriplinr (Ttilr. ImI ii».J 
 
 Thr church at K- r hu 
 
 care. The rrlics hr .I'tauirl, t!ir tiunlral 
 
 services hr instituted, and thr drvo(i.>n undrr 
 
 his guidance of thr virgin* ami widow*. 
 
 caused the city, hitherto unknown, to \mi 
 
 spoken of with reverrncr m distant liiulv and 
 
 countr<l among cities fame*! for Ihrir v«crrd 
 
 spots (Paulmuv Ep. xviii. f s, Pali. ImI. c«4. 
 
 219). In 4'X) *»«" *** apparrntiv dead (f>. 
 
 xlviii. col. v)"*)- (.Micnr, I'tlr. IjU x«. 4 17. 
 
 438; HtU. l.tU. ii. •"^- -■^t I r Hrun m ttcill. 
 
 Acta SS. M.J. ; (Mtil 
 
 An rxtant trrali calW th* 
 
 l.ther de lutud* San.: ■ •-■1 -n lb« 
 
 occasion of thr receipt .( ii Si. 
 
 Ambrose of Milan. wa« ! I to 
 
 St. Geriiiiii'i. -f \'i\frr^ .-M. 
 
 750). ' 
 in th- 
 to Vf 
 
 I o| Ihr chtucb at 
 -^rbain read Ihit 
 
 '^ * n 1 
 
 VIclurliiu-. 1 
 nobl. 
 
 itmc 
 and 
 
 be coatullcd tbe aiciiU»bo|>. 
 
1016 
 
 VIGILANTIUS 
 
 the bishops present at the council of Agaunum, 
 in 515, if it is to be accepted as genuine, and 
 also at Epaon and Lyons in 517. [s.a.b.] 
 
 Vigilantius (1), a presbyter of Comminges 
 and Barcelona, known by his protests against 
 superstitious practices in the church. He 
 was born c. 370 at Calagurris, near Comminges 
 (Convenae), a station on the great Roman 
 road from Aquitaine to Spain (Itiner. Antonin. 
 quoted in Gilly's Vigilant, p. 128). His father 
 probably kept the statio or place of refresh- 
 ment there ; and Vigilantius was apparently 
 brought up as an inn-keeper and wine-seller 
 (" Iste Caupo Calagurritanus," Hieron. cont. 
 Vig. i), but had from the first an inclination 
 to learning. Sulpicius Severus, who had 
 estates in these parts, took him into his 
 service, and probably baptized him. It is 
 certain that in 395 he was sent with letters 
 from Sulpicius to Paulinus, then recently 
 settled at Nola (Paul. Ep. i. 11), by whom he 
 was treated as a friend. Paulinus speaks of 
 hm as " Vigilantius noster " (Ep. v. 11), and 
 reports the care with which he had watched 
 him during illness, refusing to let him depart 
 till well. On his return to Severus, then 
 living at Elusa in Gaul, he was ordained ; and, 
 having a desire for learning and a wish to visit 
 Jerusalem, set forth by way of Nola. His 
 father, it seems, had died, since he was wealthy 
 enough to have many notaries in his employ 
 (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. 4), and he was the proprietor 
 of the inn at Convenae (ib. Ixi. 3 ; cont. 
 Vig. i.). Paulinus gave him a very honour- 
 able introduction to Jerome (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. 
 3), then living at Bethlehem, where he was 
 received with great respect (Iviii. 11). He 
 remained there a considerable time, staying 
 partly with Jerome, but partly, it is supposed, 
 with others, possibly with Rufinus (Hieron. 
 Apol. iii. 11). The schism between the mon- 
 asteries of Bethlehem and the bp. of Jerusalem 
 was at its height ; and probably in connexion 
 with this Vigilantius had his first disagree- 
 ment with Jerome (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. i ; Apol. 
 iii. 19). Origenism, which had caused the 
 schism, and with which Vigilantius afterwards 
 connected Jerome's name, was, no doubt, the 
 subject of this disagreement. But Vigilantius 
 was brought to confess himself in the wrong 
 and to ask pardon (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. end). He 
 was an inmate of Jerome's monastery on the 
 occasion of a tremendous storm with earth- 
 quake and eclipse (cont. Vig. ii.). He was for 
 a time favourably impressed by what he saw 
 at Bethlehem, and on one occasion, when 
 Jerome was preaching upon the reality of the 
 body at the resurrection, sprang up, and with 
 applause of hands and feet saluted Jerome as 
 champion of orthodoxy (Ep. Ixi. 3). But the 
 extremes of asceticism, the corruption pro- 
 duced by indiscriminate almsgiving, and the 
 violence, perhaps the insincerity, of Jerome's 
 dealing with the question of Origen [Hieronv- 
 Mus, § Origenism] produced a reaction against 
 Jerome. Vigilantius begged to be dismissed, 
 and left in great haste (Ep. cix. 2) without 
 giving any reason. He bore Jerome's reply 
 to Paulinus at Nola (Ep. Ixi. 11); but his 
 journey home was first by Egypt (ib. i ; cont. 
 Ruf. iii. 12), "by Hadria and the Cottian 
 Alps" (Hieron. Ep. cix. 12). He landed 
 probably at Naples, and, after visiting Nola, 
 
 VIGILANTIUS 
 
 went home by the land route, staying a con- 
 siderable time at various places. His account 
 of what he had seen in the East, which was 
 related to Jerome either by report or by some 
 writing of Vigilantius to or about Jerome, pro- 
 voked a reply (Ep. Ixi.), wherein Jerome shews 
 a jealous sensitiveness for his own orthodox 
 reputation, and treats him with contempt, 
 declaring that he had never understood the 
 points in dispute (Ixi. i). On his return to 
 Gaul, Vigilantius settled in his native country. 
 
 His work against superstitious practices was 
 written c. 403. We may presume that his 
 intercourse with Severus, Paulinus, and 
 Jerome furnished the principal motives and 
 materials for it. Similar practices no doubt 
 arising in a grosser form in his own neighbour- 
 hood among a population emerging from 
 heathenism provoked his protest against the 
 introduction of heathen ceremonial into Chris- 
 tian worship. The work is only known to us 
 through the writings of Jerome, of whose 
 unscrupulousness and violence in controversy 
 we have many proofs. Nothing of the kind 
 appears in the quotations from the book of 
 Vigilantius, which, considering the extreme 
 difficulty of his position in the rising flood of 
 superstition, we must presume to have been 
 a serious and faithful protest. It was not 
 written hastily, under provocation, such as 
 he may have felt in leaving Bethlehem, but 
 after the lapse of six or seven years. His own 
 bishop (Hieron. Ep. cix. 2) and others in his 
 neighbourhood (cont. Vig. ii.) approved his 
 action, and he was apparently appointed 
 after the controversy to a church in the 
 diocese of Barcelona (Gennad. ut infra). 
 
 The points against which he argues are four : 
 (i) The superstitious reverence paid to the 
 remains of holy men, which were carried round 
 in the church assemblies in gold vessels or 
 silken wrappings to be kissed, and the prayers 
 in which their intercession was asked; (2) 
 the late and frequent watchings at the basili- 
 cas of the martyrs, from which scandals 
 constantly arose, the burning of numerous 
 tapers, which was a heathen practice, the 
 stress laid on the miracles performed at the 
 shrines, which, Vigilantius maintained, were 
 of use only to unbelievers ; (3) the sending 
 of alms to Jerusalem, which might better 
 have been given to the poor in each diocese, 
 and generally the monkish habit of divesting 
 oneself of possessions which should be admin- 
 istered as a trust by the possessor ; and (4) 
 the special virtue attributed to the unmarried 
 state. Vigilantius held that for the clergy to 
 be married was an advantage to the church ; 
 and he looked upon the solitary life as a 
 cowardly forsaking of responsibility. 
 
 The bishop of the diocese (possibly Exu- 
 perius of Toulouse, known to have had com- 
 munications with pope Innocent about this 
 time on points of discipline) strongly favoured 
 the views of Vigilantius, and they began to 
 spread widely in S. Gaul. The clergy who 
 were fostering the practices impugned by him 
 found their people imbibing his opinions, and 
 two of them, Desiderius and Riparius, wrote 
 to Jerome, representing the opinions of 
 Vigilantius and asking for his advice. Jerome 
 answered Riparius at once (Ep. 109, ed. Vail.), 
 expressing chagrin and indignation but with- 
 
VIGILIUS THAPSENSIS VIGILIUS 
 
 out sober arsuiiunt. He dccUrr-. ih^t no ' vj later thrv ! ■ 
 
 adoration was paul to martyr*, but that their lii»n a* thr in 
 
 relics were hum.urrtl as a means <>| w<<r>hi|<piiiK xwall..wr<l up , 
 
 God. He expresses wonder that the bishop to this In bk. i a. 
 
 of the diiKTcse should ac«juirs<-e in Vit:ilaiiliu« % not by all. In bk |\ 
 
 madness. It was a case (or such dealiiii; a* of St. I r.. jul t».r ;■ 
 
 that of Petej- with Anani.ts and Sapphira. He « 1 
 
 offered to answer more fully if the w.irk of i 
 
 Vigilantius were s<>nt him. This ..fler was >• 
 
 accepted. Through their friend Sismniu*. '. 
 
 Kiparius and Hesiderius sent the Ixmk in the t 
 
 latter part of 40h {Prrt. to C^mm. en /a<A.). . 
 
 Jerome ^jave little attention to it at first, but ui 
 
 hnding Sisinnius obliged to leave Hethlehein 
 
 in haste, sat down, and in one night wMte 
 
 his treatise contra X'tf^tlanltum. This treatise 
 
 has less of reason and more ul mere abuse than 
 
 any which he wrote. He throughout imputes 
 
 to his advers.iry extreme views, which it mav 
 
 certainly be assumed he did n.>t hold. 
 
 What effect was produced bv this philippic 
 
 is unknown. r<»siblv Kxiiperius. if Vigilan- 
 
 tins was in his duK«-se. bv degrees change<l 
 
 towards him. and that it was <>n this account 
 
 that Vigilantius passed into the diocese of 
 Barcelona, where Ciennadius places him. 
 Jerome in his Apology (iii. iq) expressly re|H'ls 
 the imputation of having asserted that the 
 character of Vigilantius had l)een stained bv 
 communion with heretics. But the official lutely i. ■ 
 leaders of the church came to reckon as (bk. \ 
 enemies those wh>>m Jerome had so treated, eis libr: 
 and X'igilantius was by degrees ranked among et .Xri.tiiMiu 
 heretics. The judgment of (iennadius [de simus." thr' 
 Sc. Eccl. 35) is: " \igilantius the presbyter, against Pall i 
 a Gaul by birth, held a church in the Spanish among the ■ 
 dir>cese of Barcelona. He wTote with a cer- dreg^v Na/i 
 tain zeal for religion ; but was led astray by rouiicil of A ; 
 the praise of men. and presumed beyond his St. .\nilr . 
 strength ; and l)eing a man of elegant si>eech been .i" 
 but not trained in discerning the sense of the the cr^ 
 Scriptures, interpreted in a perverse manner the uti: 
 the second vision of Daniel, and put forth forward 
 
 (. hllilel. Mil.. 
 
 i«.«>4) •>! his 
 dialogue in I ; 
 among the work 
 against an .^rlan 
 
 uii.t-^r Th.^ V. -.ni. 
 
 course 
 confer" 
 in tw.. ; 
 alone apjxar . 
 which Sal>elliu 
 His autli.r>h,| 
 
 other works of no value, which must W placed natures in 
 in the catalogue of heretical writings. He was 
 
 thltflr 
 ^hirli 
 
 answered by the blessed presbyter Jerome." 
 This judgnient lasted long. In 1H44 '^- reprin- 
 Gillv. r^nor. of Durham, published a work on Vlflili: 
 Vtgilanttus and hn Times (Set'ley), bringing 
 together all the known facts, and shewing the ) 
 true signitirance of his protest bv <lev3nt>ing 1 
 the life of Severus, Paulinus. and Jerome ftoiii 1 
 their own writings. (w.H.r.) wlxii ' 
 
 VlgllllU (4) Thapseiuls. an .\frican bishop \\h ..• 
 mentioned in the Ao/i/iu [)ublished at the end tion . • 
 of the Hislona of Victor Vitensis. wa* present and t» 
 at the conference convened by the Vandal The W 
 Hunneric in 484. He belonged t > th. nv.vi- rhr- \ 
 cene province, and was b.inishe<l I. 
 king. He seems to have fled t 
 nople, where he wrote against 1 
 and .\rianism. He publi-!. ' 
 under his own name. viz. Ii 
 Eutyches, stating verv r|. 
 
 mcnts against the Kutvi: 
 
 extremely good and copious an ■ 
 
 in Ceillier (x. 47i-4»5)- It i» •• 
 
 specimen of sih and 6th cent ' 
 
 and shews the evolution of thouglit 
 
 the Eutychians wh-i in his <lav had n^' 
 
 Dieted or thought out their s\-stem. 1 
 
 hadnot fixed, rf., onadatc f'»r the dl»ap:-r..r- uni it rj,:,.r t.j.. , .t.r ;,. 
 
 ance of Christ's human nature. A cent, of le«*t »eveo m»ntb» bU potlllna 
 
 Me 
 
 '•w>. 
 
 ted 
 of 
 
 ol 
 
 Il»l. 
 
 • 4rv. 
 <. I* 
 
 T.| 
 
 the 
 
 by 
 
 '.fa- 
 had 
 
1018 
 
 VIGILIUS 
 
 an unlawful antipope, his predecessor never 
 having been canonically deposed. However, 
 as pope he was accepted, the deposition of 
 bishops and the ordination of others in their 
 room under imperial dictation being at that 
 time, however irregular, common enough 
 elsewhere ; and the ancients seem to have 
 dated his episcopate from his intrusion. 
 
 Through Antonina, the wife of Belisarius 
 and the real agent of the empress throughout, 
 Vigilius sent without delay letters to Anthi- 
 mus, Theodosius, and Severus, in fulfilment 
 of his secret promise, expressing his entire 
 agreement with them in matters of faith, but 
 charging them to keep his avowal in the dark, 
 that he might more easily accomplish what he 
 had undertaken. He added a confession of 
 his own faith, condemning the Tome of pope 
 Leo (in which the orthodox doctrine of two 
 Natures in Christ was enunciated), and 
 anathematizing Paul of Samosata, Diodorus 
 of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, 
 and all who agreed with them. Binius and 
 Baronius, jealous for the credit of the Roman 
 see, argue that this letter was forged by the 
 Monophysite party. But no valid ground has 
 been adduced for suspecting it. It is given 
 by Liberatus and Victor Tununensis; and 
 Facundus (c. Mocianum), like them a con- 
 temporary, seemingly alludes to it. Pagi 
 (Baron, ad ann. 538) refutes all the arguments 
 of Baronius, while alleging that the Roman see 
 was not compromised, since Vigilius was not 
 the true pope when he wrote. 
 
 Justinian was evidently kept in the dark 
 about these secret proceedings, since, after 
 the death of Silverius, he wrote to Vigilius, 
 sending a confession of his own faith and 
 recognizing him as pope without any suspicion 
 of his orthodoxy. In his reply, dated 540, 
 Vigilius declares himself altogether orthodox, 
 accepts the Tome of Leo and the council of 
 Chalcedon, and condemns by name all abettors 
 of the Eutychian heresy. 
 
 In 541 began at Constantinople the new 
 theological disputes which led to the 2nd 
 council of Constantinople (called the 5th 
 oecumenical), in the course of which Vigilius 
 came in conflict with the emperor. Peter, 
 the patriarch of Jerusalem, who was opposed 
 to the Origenists, sent two abbats to Con- 
 stantinople, with a letter to the emperor, and 
 extracts from Origen's writings, complaining 
 of the commotions excited by the Origenistic 
 party and praying for their condemnation 
 (Vit. S. Sabae). The emperor, readily acced- 
 ing, issued a long edict, addressed to the 
 patriarch Mennas, setting forth and confuting 
 the heresies attributed to Origen ; command- 
 ing the patriarch to assemble the bishops and 
 abbats then at Constantinople for the purpose 
 of anathematizing him, his doctrine, and his 
 followers, and to suffer no bishop or abbat to 
 be thenceforth appointed except on condition 
 of doing the same. There seems to have been 
 no resistance to this imperial command. 
 
 Justinian was engaged, we are told, after 
 his condemnation of Origen, in composing a 
 treatise on the Incarnation in defence of the 
 council of Chalcedon and in refutation of the 
 Eutychians. But there were two Origenistic 
 abbats from Palestine, resident at his court, 
 in great credit with him, Theodore of I 
 
 VIGILIUS 
 
 Ascidas and Doraitian, who suggested that 
 he might better serve the cause of orthodoxy 
 by procuring a condemnation of certain 
 writers accused of Nestorianism but acquitted 
 by the council of Chalcedon, viz. Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas, the 
 alleged author of a letter to Maris. It was 
 represented to the emperor that, if these were 
 now authoritatively condemned and the 
 council of Chalcedon freed from the imputa- 
 tion of having approved their errors, the 
 Acephali would no longer refuse to accept that 
 council. The emperor, who warmly desired 
 this reconciliation, readily fell into the snare. 
 The writings thus prepared for condemnation 
 are known as the "Three Chapters " ("Tria 
 Capitula"). The imperial edict against them 
 [irfpl TpiQv K€<pa\aiwi'), issued probably c. 
 544, anathematized their deceased authors 
 and all defenders of them, with a saving clause 
 to guard against any inculpation of the 
 council of Chalcedon. But the edict was re- 
 garded as disparaging its authority. Mennas, 
 at first refusing, at length gave his acquiescence 
 in writing. The three other patriarchs of the 
 East also yielded to threats of deposition, as 
 did the rest of the Eastern bishops, except a 
 few who were deposed and banished. In the 
 West, less accustomed to imperial despotism, 
 there was more difficulty. Vigilius, from his 
 antecedents, might have been expected to 
 obey, but shewed considerable independence 
 of spirit, being probably influenced by the 
 prevailing feeling at Rome and in the West 
 generally. He refused his assent to the 
 emperor's edict, and being thereupon sum- 
 moned peremptorily to Constantinople, un- 
 willingly obeyed. 
 
 He sailed first to Sicily, where he was joined 
 by Datius, bp. of Milan, a resolute opponent 
 of the condemnation of the Three Chapters. 
 Arrived at Constantinople (a.d. 547), he per- 
 severed for a time in the same attitude, but 
 before long gave a secret promise to condemn 
 the Chapters (Facund. c. Moc), and presided 
 over a synod with the hope of inducing it to 
 do what the emperor required. Meeting 
 opposition there, especially from bp. Facundus 
 of Ermiana, who requested leave to argue the 
 question (Facundus himself tells the story), 
 he suspended the proceedings, requiring the 
 bishops separately to send him their opinions 
 in writing. Seventy bishops were thus 
 induced to declare for the condemnation of the 
 Chapters, including many who had previously 
 refused. Vigilius, supported by these 70 sig- 
 natories, issued the document known as his 
 Judicatum, addressed to Mennas, on Easter 
 Eve, 548 {Ep. Vigilii, ad Rustianum et Sebas- 
 tianum), condemning the Chapters, though dis- 
 avowing any disparagement of Chalcedon. The 
 Judicatum provoked serious opposition. At 
 Constantinople Facundus continued resolute, 
 protesting against bishops who betrayed their 
 trust to win favour with princes. Vigilius's 
 own deacons, Rusticus and Sebastianus, 
 declared against him, but were deposed and 
 excommunicated. The bishops of Illyricum 
 condemned the Judicatum in synod ; those of 
 N. Africa did the same, and even formally 
 excommunicated Vigilius (Vict. Tunun. ad 
 ann. 549, 550). Alarmed by these conse- 
 quences, Vigilius now recalled his Judicatum, 
 
VIGILIUS 
 
 and srems to luvr rrprrsrntfd tn the \Vr*tem» 
 that hr had is-iu-d it uiiwillm^lv. KacundiH 
 attribute. hi> wholr actmii to drMfc nl court 
 favour and |H>Mtiou, a.s his rarlirr secsrt pro. 
 mise to Theodora had Ixvn due Ut anUu- 
 tion. V'i);ilius could not now undo what he 
 had done, lor the JuJicmtum was known 
 far and wide. II anv lurther nnxil wrrr 
 needed i>l his double dealms we should h.iv. 
 a siKiial one in the lact (li it l>e one) th^t 
 while thus trviiiK to |H>r>uade the \\ . 
 that he was on their side, he was indue 
 the einiH-ror to take a secret 0.1th l>e|..i. uuu 
 to do all he could to bring alniut the con- 
 demnation ol the Three Chapters. The oath, 
 dated the 23rd vear ol Jusiinian. is Rivrn 
 among the Acts ol the 7th session ol the uh 
 council (Labl>e. vol. vi. p. kh). There srenis 
 to be no sufficient reason to doubt its genuine, 
 ness. In it he swore to unite with the 
 emperor to the utmost ol his jxiwer to causr 
 the Chapters to be condemned and anathe- 
 matized, and to take no measures or counsrU 
 with anv one in their lavour against the 
 emperors will. The result o| his cr-n.ked 
 policy was that neither party trusted him. 
 
 In the ye-ar in which the JuJualum was 
 issued Thet>dora died ; but the emperor 
 continued resolute in carrying out his pr<»ject 
 for the condemnation ol the Three Chap- 
 ters by lull ecclesiastical authority. N'igil- 
 ius, hampered by the repudiation ol his 
 Judicatum in the VVest and by his own secret 
 understanding with the emperor, would gladlv 
 have lelt the scene ol action. But his presence 
 was still reouired at Constantinople by the 
 emperor. The plan he now adopted was to 
 persuade the emperor to >ummon the bishops, 
 both ol the East and West (including especi- 
 ally those ol .Ulrica and Iil>Ticum who had 
 shewn themselves so stronglv op|><.sed to the 
 J udtcatum), to a council at Constantinople, and 
 meanwhile to take no further steps. Justin- 
 ian acted on his advice ; but th<uigh the 
 obsequious Easterns oln-yed the suniinons, 
 very lew ol the Westerns came— a small 
 number Irom Italy, two Irom Ill>Ticuni, but 
 none from Airica. Justinian would have had 
 Vigilius proceed at once with such bishoj>s as 
 were in Constantinople. N'lgilius, with con- 
 siderable spirit, refused. Thereujxin the 
 emperor issued a new edict against the 
 Chapters, which he caused tr) be jx>sted in 
 the churches. Vigilius protested against this 
 as a violation ol their agreement, calird an 
 assembly ol bishops in the palacr .>| 1'l.icidia 
 where he lodged, cjnjured them to usr thnr 
 efforts to prf>cure a revi«cation ol the edict 
 till the episcopate ol the Wrst should have an 
 opportunity ol pronouncing its opinion, and 
 in virtue ol the authority o| the a[-' t lir <■<■ 
 declared all excoimnunicatrd 
 meanwhile sign or recrivp it. J 
 the praetor whf>se office it w.t» ' 
 
 common malelact'irs, with 
 
 seize the i>opc in his i)lac« 
 
 escaped to Chalcrclon, 
 
 sanctuary in the church >■( 
 
 days belorc Christ ma», 551. •**■ 
 
 made to violate thi» sanctuaf. 
 
 was able Irom it to dictate trrm 
 
 would take part in the locthconiihK < 'innl 
 
 The emperor, anxiotu to tccure his concurrence 
 
 VIGILIUS 
 
 at the ctfuncil, at lennth 
 dllKMis. and ie\.ikiHt the niki 
 
 \'lgllllU frti... .^ I I . . . .. 
 
 the end o| 
 I'.uphriiua. 
 to nirrt ■!! " 
 
 in nu: 
 I•:ul^. 
 
 Mr;,:, . 
 
 ol 
 
 'h nt 
 
 ••f. 
 
 a^aiitsl (ti. . 
 
 tm- 
 
 sell as a hrt' 
 
 had 
 
 n..t »>e.-n V. . 
 
 ha.1 
 
 died in Ci'lii 
 
 4nd 
 
 also against . 
 
 : u*tf 
 
 d..ret or ■ ( V 
 
 '•r*n 
 
 aojuit" 
 
 .l«. 
 
 don. 
 
 was M 
 
 -h 
 
 d.K-SI. 
 
 •Af4\ 
 
 It to ' 
 
 "O 
 
 May . 
 
 h«d 
 
 once 1 ; 
 
 had 
 
 pledgrd liiii.>4li 1...I.. ,.. 1.. 
 
 4n.l 
 
 s-.lemn oath, and had l.<^ 
 
 Ibr 
 
 council .11'. 1 f f ; r.\ ( , 
 
 'tn*» 
 
 were 1 
 
 M.V- 
 
 suesti 1 
 
 .te*l 
 
 writiii. 
 
 : <rt 
 
 and l»... . 
 
 r to 
 
 delrnd the 
 
 if 
 
 ecclrsMstir> 
 
 . or 
 
 lavinr" -■ 
 
 
 Vu-i 
 
 «e. 
 
 assriil 
 
 and 
 
 thus »;; 
 
 >. the 
 
 Koinaii ^4 . 1 iijt 
 
 ..»4e. 
 
 and acceding t.. 1 
 
 «i in 
 
 wiling. O->^0wi . 1 
 
 aJld 
 
 reason to doubt thr ^r;. 
 
 two 
 
 written documents In wh: 
 
 xUrm 
 
 IS declarc<l. Th- fir t f • 
 
 f to 
 
 the patriarcli 
 
 ^M. 
 
 It. SIX moil- 
 
 th« 
 
 council. Th- 
 
 »». 
 
 \S4) Is enltli". 
 
 I^o 
 
 dainnatione Iriuni 
 
 ^ In 
 
 lab»>r. vj. VI p . 
 
 (He 
 
 agre».iuriit «it!i t;. 
 
 »ciU 
 
 and r: 
 
 .. »^d lor 
 
 word 
 
 
 I') • 
 
 ! hi. rnd. 
 
 Mil 
 
 t . !.4\r \^ru 4 J-.f riral 
 
 pitiaMy uoav«iiui(. To lu* 
 
1020 
 
 VINCENTIUS 
 
 to Justinian's will is due the important fact 
 that the Fifth council, the origin, purpose, and 
 conduct of which had so little to commend 
 them, came at last to be universally accepted, 
 in the West as well as the East, though not 
 without prolonged resistance in some parts of 
 the West, as oecumenical and authoritative. 
 For, though its anathemas against the dead 
 and their writings were passed under imperial 
 dictation in defiance of the pope and of the 
 Western church, Vigilius's eventual approval 
 of them was endorsed by his successors. 
 
 There is no lack of contemporary authority 
 for the history given above — viz. the Brevi- 
 artum of Liberatus, archdeacon of Carthage ; 
 the Eccl. Hist, of Evagrius ; the Chronicon of 
 Victor, bp. of Tununum ; the Pro Defensione 
 Trium Capitulorum, and the Liber contra 
 Mocianum of Facundus, bp. of Ermiana ; and 
 the Hist. Bell. Goth, and the Anecdota, or 
 Hist. Arcana, of Procopius. The writings of 
 Facundus are peculiarly valuable in giving an 
 insight into the state of parties, and the course 
 of events in which he was himself implicated, 
 having been, with Victor Tununensis, a pro- 
 minent opponent at Constantinople of the 
 condemnation of the Three Chapters. We 
 have also the letters written by Vigilius, of 
 great historical value, and the Acts of the 
 Fifth council, with contemporary documents 
 preserved among them. [j.b — v.] 
 
 Vincentius (8), presbyter of Constantinople, 
 intimately attached to Jerome, through whose 
 writings we hear of him throughout the last 
 20 years of 4th cent. Jerome became 
 acquainted with him when he came to Con- 
 stantinople in 380, from which time Vincentius 
 shared his interests and pursuits. To him, 
 with Gallienus, Jerome dedicated his trans- 
 lation of Eusebius's Chronicle in 382 (Hieron. 
 cont. Joan. Hieros. c. 41). We may therefore 
 suppose he was ordained early in 382. But he 
 never fulfilled the office of presbyter. That 
 he knew Greek and Latin and was interested 
 in general history is shewn by Jerome's preface 
 to the Chronicle of Eusebius. He shared 
 Jerome's admiration of Origen, then at its 
 height, and asked Jerome to translate all his 
 works into Latin. In 382 he accompanied 
 Jerome to Rome, but without intending to 
 stay there. We do not hear of him during 
 Jerome's stay, but they left Rome together in 
 385 and settled at Bethlehem (cont. Ruf. iii. 
 22). He shared Jerome's studies and his 
 asceticism and controversial antipathies. He 
 was severe in his judgment upon Vigilantius 
 (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. 3, a.d. 396), and co-operated 
 eagerly in the subsequent condemnation of 
 Origenism. In 396 or 397 he went to Rome, 
 for what cause is unknown (cont. Ruf. iii. 24). 
 No doubt he took part in the proceedings 
 against Origenism, in which Eusebius of 
 Cremona and Jerome's Roman friends were 
 actively engaged. On his return to Bethle- 
 hem in 400 he was full of the subject. All 
 Rome and Italy, he reported, had been de- 
 livered ; and his praise of Theophilus of 
 Alexandria as having by his letter to the pope 
 Anastasius procured this deliverance is com- 
 municated to that prelate in Jerome's letter 
 (Ep. 88, ed. Vail.) to him, the last mention of 
 Vincentius which we have. [w.h.f.] 
 
 Vincentius (11) Lirinensis (Vincent of 
 
 VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS 
 
 Lerins), St., a distinguished presbyter of 
 Gaul in 5th cent. Date of birth uncertain; 
 must have died in or before a.d. 450. 
 
 Authorities. — Gennadius, Vivoruyn Illus- 
 trium Catalogus (c. 64). References to himself 
 and to his times in his chief (most probably his 
 sole) work, the Commonitorium. 
 
 Life. — Concerning the events of Vincent's 
 life we are almost entirely ignorant. He was 
 a native of Gaul, possibly brother of St. Loup, 
 bp. of Troyes [Lupus (2)], involved in the 
 turmoils of worldly life before his retirement 
 into a monastery near a small town, remote 
 from the stir of cities. This was that of Lerins 
 (Lerinum), situated in the island of that name 
 near Antibes, now known as L'lle de St. 
 Honorat, from the founder of this celebrated 
 institution. Here he wrote adversus Profanas 
 Omnium Novitates Haereticorum Commoni- 
 torium, almost 3 years (as he tells us in c. 42) 
 after the council of Ephesus, i.e. in 434. 
 
 Writings. — The only one universally ad- 
 mitted to be the genuine and authentic pro 
 duction of Vincent is briefly known as Com- 
 monitorium. In the form in which we have it 
 it extends, even in a i2mo ed., to only 150 
 pages, and consists of 42 short chapters. 
 Peregrinus (as Vincent called himself) begins 
 by stating that he thought it might be useful 
 and in accordance with scriptural precepts 
 (Deut. xxxii. 7 ; Prov. xxii. 17, iii. i) to write 
 down certain principles which he had received 
 from holy Fathers. His tests to discern the 
 truth of the Catholic faith from heresy will be 
 sought first in the authority of the divine law, 
 and next in the tradition of the Catholic church. 
 The second source of information would not 
 be needed had not all the leading heretics 
 claimed the support of Holy Scripture (cc. 
 i. ii.). We must hold that which has been 
 believed everywhere, always, by all ("quod 
 ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus 
 creditum est ") ; in other words, we must 
 follow Universitatem, Antiquitatem, Consen- 
 sionem ; understanding by the last the agree- 
 ment of all, or almost all, bishops and doctors 
 (c. ii.). A small portion of the church dis- 
 senting from the rest must be cut off like an 
 unsound limb ; nay, even a large portion if it 
 does not abide by antiquity. Illustrations are 
 afforded negatively by Donatism and Arian- 
 ism ; positively by the teaching of St. Am- 
 brose and other eminent confessors (cc. iv.- 
 viii.). Antiquity was on the side of pope 
 Stephen, bp. of the apostolic see, and against 
 the excellent Agrippinus, bp. of Carthage, 
 who desired to rebaptize heretics. True, the 
 rebaptizers claim the sanction of the holy 
 Cyprian ; but to do so is behaving like Ham 
 towards Noah, for on this point that pious 
 martyr erred (cc. ix.-xi.). Apostolic warrant 
 for what has been advanced may be found in 
 St. Paul's writings, e.g. in Tim. and Tit. 
 (passim), Rom. xv. 17, and Gal. i. 7-10. 
 Those who would make accretions to the faith 
 stand thereby condemned for all time. The 
 Pelagians are such (cc. xii.-xiv.). Valentinus, 
 Photinus, Apollinaris, and others are similarly 
 condemned by the warnings of Moses (Deut. 
 xiii I -11). Even good gifts, such as those of 
 Nestorius, or useful labours like those of 
 Apollinaris against Porphyry, cannot be plead- 
 ed against their novelties (cc. xv. xvi.). He ex- 
 
VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS 
 
 plains Willi somr iiiiiiuteiifb.s wluTiiii consisted 
 the heresies of Fhotiniis, Apollinaris, and 
 Nestiirius, and the true doctrine of the church 
 as opposed to them (cc. xvii.-xxii.). 
 
 The danger of ignoring the principles here 
 laid down, more especially the test of anti- 
 quity, is painfully exhibited in the case of 
 Origen, whose acute, profounii, and brilliant 
 genius (fully recognized by imperial disciples 
 and the church at large) has not saved his 
 writings from becoming a source of tempta- 
 tion ; though it is just possible, as some think, 
 that they may have been tampered with (c. 
 xxii.). A very similar judgment must be 
 passed upon Tertullian, of whom Hilary (of 
 Poictiers) too truly said that " by his errors 
 he had diminished the authority due to his 
 approved writings " (c. xxiv.). The true and 
 genuine Catholic is he who loves Christ's body, 
 the Church ; who puts Ciod's truth before all 
 things, before any individual authority, 
 affection, genius, eloquence, or philosophy. 
 Many who fall short of this standard, when 
 ni^it slain, are yet sadly stunted in their spirit- 
 ual growth (c. XXV.). .\dditions to the faith 
 or detractions from it are alike condemned by 
 Holy Scripture, especially by St. Paul (I.Tini. 
 vi.). The deposit is the talent of the Catholic 
 faith, which the man of tiod must, like a 
 spiritual Bezaleel, adorn, arrange, and display 
 to others, but not injure by novelties (cc. 
 xxvi. xxvii.). Certainly there is to be pro- 
 gress ("profectus religionis "), but it must 
 resemble the growth of the infant into man- 
 hood and maturity — a growth which preserves j 
 identity. The dogmas of the heavenly philo- 1 
 sophy may by the operation of time be j 
 smoothed and polished, and gain, by greater 
 fullness of evidence, light and elucidation 
 (" distinctionem "), but they must retain 
 integrity and all essential characteristics (cc. 
 xxviii.-xxx.). Such has been the church's 
 task in the decrees of councils, which have 
 simply aimed at adding clearness, vigour, and 
 zeal to what was believed, taught, and prac- I 
 tised already (cc. xxx.-xxxii.). St. John, in i 
 his 2nd epistle, is as emphatic as St. Paul 
 against the teacher of false doctrine. Such 
 an one cannot be encouraged without a virtual 
 rejection of saints, confessors, and martvTs — 
 a rejection, in short, of the holy church 
 throughout the world. Pclagius (with his 
 disciple Coelestius), Arius, Sabellius, Nova- 
 tian, Simon Magus, were all introducers of 
 novelties (cc. xxxiii. xxxiv.). The heretics 
 use the Scriptures, but only in the way in 
 which bitter potions are disguised for children 
 by a previous taste of honey, or poisons 
 labelled as healing medicines. The Saviour I 
 warned us against such perils by His words i 
 concerning wolves in sheep's clothing. We ' 
 must attend to His subsequent advice, by ■ 
 their fruits ye shall know them. His apostle i 
 bids us beware of false ap<jstles (11. Cor. xi. 
 I3-I5), the imitators of Satan, who transform | 
 themselves into angels of light. Their em- [ 
 ployment of Scripture resembles that of Satan : 
 in the temptation of our Lord. They pre- I 
 sume, in the teeth of the teaching of the 
 church, to claim a special illumination for 
 their own small conventicle (cc. xxxv.-xxxvii.). 
 Catholics must apply to the interpretation of 
 Scripture the tests of universality, antiquity. ' 
 
 VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS M)-2I 
 
 and cnusrnt. U hi-r.- tli.v cm, Irt tlimi 
 adduce the decrees of general counriU ; IjiIiiik 
 th«>>e, the consistent rulings of grr.it doclufk. 
 This does not apply to small questions, but 
 only to whatsoever aflrcts the rule o( (.nth. 
 Inveterate heresies can genrr.illv l«- met 
 bv Holy Scripture alone, or by cle.ir t|.-ciMi>n>> 
 of oecumenical councils. Now ones often 
 present at first greater difliculty. and wc must 
 be careful to cite those Fathers only who lived 
 and died in the faith. What all or the 
 majority clearlv and p»'rseveriiitlv recrivrd, 
 held, and taught, let that be hi-ld as undoubted, 
 certain, and ratified. Hut anv nirrely private 
 opinion, even of a saint or mart\T. must l>e 
 put aside. This again agrees with St. Paul 
 (I. Cor. i. lo, xii. 27. 2«, xiv. vv 1<> ; l-ph. iv. 
 11). That Pelagian writer Julian neglected 
 these cautions, and broke awav from the senti- 
 ments of his colleagues (cc. xxxviii.-xl.). 
 
 Bk. ii., as (iennadius informs us, was mostly 
 lost, having been stolen from its author, 
 who gives a recapitulation of its substance, 
 which occupies 3 additional chapters. The 
 tirst of these (c. xli.) simply re-states the main 
 proposition of the earlier b(M>k. The author 
 then, to shew that his view is no offspring of 
 private presumption, adduces the example of 
 the council of Kphesus, held nearly 3 years 
 before the time of writing, in the consulship of 
 Bassus and .\ntiochus. Great pains were taken 
 to avoid an unfortunate issue, such as th.it of 
 the council of Kimini {Cutuil. Artminen^e); 
 and the testimonies of martyrs, confessors, 
 and orthodox doctors were considered by an 
 assemblage of nearly 200 bishops to prove 
 Nestorius an irreligious impugner of Catholic 
 truth, and Cyril to be in accordance with it. 
 Amongst the saintly doctors present in person, 
 or whose works were cited as authoritative, 
 were Peter of .\lexandria, .\thanasius, Theo- 
 philus, Cyril, C.regory Nazianzen. Basil and 
 his excellent brother (Iregory of Nyssa. The 
 West was represented by letters of Felix and 
 of Julius, bps. of Rome; the South bv the 
 evidence of Cvprian of Carthage ; the .North 
 by that of .\inl)rose of Milan. The whole of 
 the bishops, for the most part metropolitans, 
 acted upon the principles maintained in this 
 treatise and censured .Nestorius for his 
 unhallowed presumption — that he was the 
 first and only man who rightly understood the 
 Scriptures (xli.). 
 
 One element must be added, lest to all this 
 weight anything seem lacking, namely, the 
 authority of the apostolic see, which was 
 illustrated by the twofold testimony of the 
 reigning j|>ope, Sixrrs III., and of his pre- 
 decessor CcK-lestine. It was on the principle* 
 herein set forth that pope Sixtus condnniird 
 Nestorius ; and Cix-lestine wrote in the same 
 spirit lo certain priests in <iaul who were 
 fostering noveltit-s. It is, in (act, an accr(»t- 
 ance of the warning of St. Paul to Timothy 
 to keep the depo\it (I. Tim. vi. 20. K.V. niarg.) 
 and to the (ialatians, that he w.iuld be atut- 
 thema who should preacii to theiii any other 
 gospel ((Jal. i. 8). Justly ui>on thi-s<" grounds 
 are Pelagius and Coelestius as well as Nes- 
 torius condemned* (xlii.). 
 
 • It miMl Ik' ijwiird thai there U a crrlain amount 
 of difficulty, one may almont wy mystery, omnectcd 
 with these last two chapters. In the first pUcr, thry 
 
1022 VINCENTIDS LIRINENSIS 
 
 It may safely be asserted that few theo- 
 logical books of such modest bulk, published 
 within our period, have attracted so large a 
 share of attention. It has been included in 
 all the best known collections of the Fathers 
 (e.g. in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patruni, Lug- 
 duni, A.D. 1677 ; and in that of Migne), re- 
 peatedly published separately in many lands, 
 and not unfrequently translated. A Scottish 
 trans., dedicated to Mary Queen of Scots, was 
 issued by Kncx's opponent, Ninian Winzeit, 
 at Antwerp, in 1563*; an Engl, one in 
 Schaff and Wace's Post-Nicene Lib. by Dr. 
 Heurtley, and another by Rev. W. B. Flower 
 (Lond. 1866). 
 
 The Commonitorium has gathered around 
 itself a literature. How far its leading prin- 
 ciples have been accepted, either explicitly or 
 implicitly, in the past ; how far they made 
 a line of demarcation between those who 
 accepted or rejected the Reformation ; to 
 what extent they are available in the contro- 
 versies between the various Christian com- 
 munions, or in the contest between Christian- 
 ity and unbelief — these questions have all 
 been keenly discussed. To review these con- 
 troversies would far exceed our limits, but it 
 seems right to call attention to one or two 
 features of the debate which have not received 
 elsewhere the notice which they deserve. 
 
 That the Commonitorium lays down a broad 
 line of demarcation between the Protestant 
 and the Roman churches is an obvious over- 
 statement. The Magdeburg Centuriators 
 distinctly pronounced in its favour as a 
 work of learning and acuteness ; as a book 
 which revealed and forcibly assailed the 
 frauds of heretics, supplied a remedy and 
 antidote against their poisons, set forth a 
 weighty doctrine and displayed a knowledge 
 of antiquity with skill and clearness in its 
 treatment of Holy Scripture. The praise 
 given by Casaubon to the principles of the 
 English Reformation, the challenge of Jewel, 
 and a large consensus of I7th-cent. divines, all 
 rest, more or less explicitly, upon the famous 
 dictum of Vincent — which, indeed, derives 
 considerable support from certain portions of 
 the Prayer-Book, Articles, and Canons. 
 
 It is, of course, equally true that Roman 
 Catholic divines, especially at the epoch of the 
 Reformation and long after, also professed to 
 take their stand upon the principles asserted 
 in the Commonitorium. There is no reason 
 to doubt their sincerity in so acting. They 
 introduce a newelement into the discussion — namely, 
 theauthority claimed for the Roman see. Theauthor 
 appears to assume that this authority will always 
 be manifested on the side of his great maxim of the 
 "quod semper, quod ubique, quad ab omnibus," and 
 makes no provision for the possibility of a divergence 
 between the teaching of Rome and that of antiquity. 
 Secondly, while the language concerning Nestorius 
 and his opponent Cyril is clear and emphatic, there 
 does seem to be a certain degree of reticence about 
 some of the opponents of Augustine, e.§. Julian. The 
 name of Augustine is not even mentioned, and 
 though this is equally true of Jerome and Chrysos- 
 tom, there was no special reason to introduce 
 their names, while the repeated mention of Pelagius 
 would have rendered the introduction of that of 
 his chief opponent only natural. 
 
 * " A richt goldin buke writtin in Latin about xi c 
 jeris [years] passit and neulie translated in Scottis be 
 Niniane Winzet a cathoUk Preist." (Original title.) 
 
 VITALIUS 
 
 were not in a position to judge the evidence 
 on behalf of this and that portion of medieval 
 doctrine and practice, and they appealed with 
 confidence to such stores of learning as lay 
 open to them. A day came when this confi- 
 dence was rudely shaken. The Benedictine 
 editions of the works of the Fathers appeared, 
 with honest and discriminating criticism ap- 
 plied to their writings. Not only was it seen 
 that a considerable portion of their works, 
 long accepted as genuine and authentic, was 
 in reality spurious, but also that while dis- 
 tinctively Roman tenets and practices 
 received much support from the sermons and 
 treatises relegated into the appendix of each 
 volume, the case was widely different when 
 reference was made to genuine Patristic 
 remains. A new school of Roman Catholic 
 divines arose, of whom Father Petau (Peta- 
 vius) may perhaps be considered the earliest, 
 as he is certainly among the greatest. The 
 process of development in the church of Rome 
 has widened the breach between her teaching 
 and the principles of Vincent of Lerins. 
 The church which set forth the doctrine of the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother, 
 not merely as a lawful opinion but as a dogma, 
 has broken with the maxim, " Quod semper, 
 quod ubique, quod ab omnibus." A new 
 ed. for academical use was ed. by Jiilicher, 
 Sammlung . . . Quellenschrifter (Freiburg i. 
 Br. 1895). [j.G.c] 
 
 Vitalius (Vitalis), bp. of the ApoUinarian 
 congregation at Antioch. Vitalius was a man 
 of high character, brought up in the orthodox 
 faith at Antioch, and ordained presbyter by 
 Meletius (Theod. H. £. v. 4 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 
 25). Jealousy of his fellow-presbyter Flavian 
 caused a breach between him and his bishop, 
 deprived of whose guidance Vitalius fell 
 under the influence of Apollinaris and em- 
 braced his theological system. Tidings of his 
 unsoundness having reached Rome, Vitalius 
 made a journey thither in 375 to clear him- 
 self before pope Damasus, and to be received 
 by him into communion. By the use of 
 equivocal terms he convinced Damasus of his 
 orthodoxy. Damasus did not, however, re- 
 ceive him into communion, but sent Vitalius 
 back to Antioch with a letter to Paulinus, 
 whom, during the Meletian schism, Rome 
 and the West recognized as the orthodox 
 and canonical bishop of that see, remitting 
 the whole matter to his decision. Shortly 
 after Vitalius had left Rome Damasus des- 
 patched a second letter to Paulinus, contain- 
 ing a profession of faith, which, without 
 naming Apollinaris, condemned his doctrines, 
 desiring Paulinus to require signature to it as 
 the terms of admission to communion (Labbe, 
 ii. 900 seq. ; Theod. H. E. v. 11). Vitalius 
 refused, and the breach between him and 
 Paulinus became complete. Apollinaris or- 
 dained Vitalius bishop of his schismatical 
 church, his holiness of life and pastoral zeal 
 gathering a large number of followers, the 
 successors of whom were still at Antioch under 
 the name of Vitalians when Sozomen wrote 
 (Soz. H. E. vi. 25). The unsoundness of 
 Vitalius on the point on which Apollinaris 
 diverged from the orthodox faith did not 
 prevent his receiving much esteem and 
 affection from leaders on the orthodox side, 
 
VITUS 
 
 With whom, this »in- p..iut c\rr|>tr«l, hr f..in- 
 pifti-ly aKrcfd. It must hjvp Ih^ii vrrv 
 shortly a(t«T Vit.ilius's rrlurn to Aiitioch ihjt 
 Epiphaiiius, ur^rd thrrrto l.v Hasil (IU». t p. 
 25« [3^51). viMLil AntUMrh to try to hrjl the 
 dinfrcnc«*s then n-iuhiiK thjt chiirrh. Thrrr 
 he iiu't " Vitaliiis the l>isho|»." ol whom hr 
 speaks in Ih.- hij;h.-st terms. Mr rarnrstlv 
 b«^ouj{hl him to rcunitr hiiusolf to the 
 Catholic church. l-'iiuliiiK thjl thr misumlrr- 
 standin(( was chiellv a |xTN.in.il onr lirtwrrn 
 him and I'aulinus. each rh.irt;inK thr other 
 with unsoundue<vs m the laith. i piphainiii 
 invited both to a coiWen-nre. .\t first \ita- 
 lius's lannuajje ap|>eared |>errertlv orthiN|..x. 
 He acknowledged as (iilly as Pauliiuis ih.it 
 Christ was perdrt man with a human UhIv 
 and soul (1^1 X';) ; luit when pressed as to 
 whether lie also had a human mind (ro«'t), he 
 said that His divinitv was to Hini in its place. 
 Neither party could jM-rsuade the other, ami 
 Epiphanius had t») give up theho|>eless attempt 
 (Epiph. Ixxvii. cc. 20-23). (I)imoi HiTAr.) 
 The schism of Vitalius added a third or. 
 counting the .Ariaiis. a fourth church at j 
 Antioch, each denouncing theothers. Melelius, | 
 Pauliiuis, and Vitalius each claimed to l>e the 
 orthiKlox bishop. The |»erplexity cj^eated is 
 graphically described by Jerome to [>*>\>r Da- | 
 niasus (Hieron. £>/>. 57. 5«)- Tilleni. M^m. 
 eccl. vii. 617-022; Dorner. I'mon of Chml. 
 div. I. vol. ii. pp. 386 (I.. Cl.irks trans. (f:.v|. 
 Vitus (1) {(iuy). St.. a youthful niart>T in 
 Diocli tian's persecution ; the s«in of a pagan 
 gentleman in Sicily, but s«-cretly trained in ' 
 Christianity by his nurse C r<-scentia and her 
 husband Modestus. .After the Xntj had en- 
 countered much cruel suffering, they sue- ' 
 ceeded in carrying him over to Italy, where all 1 
 three fell victims, either in I.ucania or at Koine I 
 (Boll. Acta SS. 15 Jun. iii. 401. ed. 1867). 
 He is invoktxl against sudden death and hy- | 
 drophobia (tb. .App. p. 21 •). and against I 
 prolonged sleep and the complaint known as ! 
 the chorea or dance of St. Vitus ((iuf^rin. Ln \ 
 tet. bull. vii. 30). He is also, says (.u<^rin, j 
 the patrtjn of comedians and dancers. Twi> 1 
 (iernian medical writers, (iregory H«>rst and | 
 John Jun<ker, of the i;tb and iHth cent*. 
 res|)eclively. relate how the malady rame to ' 
 take his name (se* K«-<-4"s Fruycloprdia. i.f. 
 "Chorea"). There sprang up. they s.iv in 
 Germany in the 17th c*iit.. a su|>rrsti'. 
 belief that by pn-M-ntiiig gifts to the n 
 of St. N'ltus, and dancing l>rf»*r U di- 
 night on his festival, pi-ople ensur< ! • ' 
 good health through the year. I 
 two cha(H-ls at I'lin an<l Havens) 
 more f--i.»Tj illy noted for the ji... 
 
 o( tl.' •• 1 ilirih,^ f.iii.ilir.. (. Ml 
 
 Voluslaniu Hy C. VIbliu Aflnliu Callus 
 
 VeldumnlanUS, joint emi-er.ir with his lather 
 (jallus, A.b. 251-254. At the end of 251 
 (iallus was proclaiinetl emi>eror after the 
 defeat and death of l>eriuv which he i% void 
 to have caus<-d by his treachery. He »%%»■ 
 ciated \'olusian with himself in the rtiipire, 
 and, after making jTace with the doth* on the 
 shameful terms of allowing them to ket-p their 
 prisoners and paying them tril>iite. the 
 emj)erors prtjcerdetl to Korne. Their thori 
 reign was marked by the dreadful i>cttilrncr 
 which began in Ethiopia and tpreaa over Ibe 
 
 ZfPM YHINUS 
 
 Wholr 
 the s. 
 with ( 
 
 
 iiunirt t 
 
 A,H.||0 
 
 the air 
 
 and 
 
 (1 rk 
 
 III*; \'> ..|.r\ ll,. ( 1,11 IMI. 
 
 of the (MipiiUrr. In Alli< 
 
 pnaiium ad Ir.timi" w^ 
 
 the outbreak 
 
 of Derius H . 
 
 •'<5N, ^».l| I 
 
 reall/e,l, fl.. . ,.^ 
 
 we crrtainlv know ■ 
 
 The outbreak »aN 
 
 aiul I orneliiis, bp 
 
 smgle.l out b* a! 
 
 bravelv round him. 
 awav III tlie Pectali , 
 theinselvr* bv their lnn.i 
 ti32). tie with some of t: 
 to ienlum Cellar, whrrr 
 a natural death. |uii> 
 Jrr firm. Hiuh. 2<. 
 was awpareiitlv el. 
 allowed to return, 
 probably owing to t 
 There is no clear pr- 
 nieiit than exile in t' 
 thr worst llientlonrtl by It-- 
 Cyprian and St. iM.mvsiu 
 Eus. //. t. vii, I). I.. (' 
 .Aeinilianiis wa« i>r -< 
 s<»ldlerv and (■ let. . 
 were inurdrretl by ll. 
 i. 23-2M ; /on. an. 21 1. 
 
 XystOS. (SixTr% 11.) 
 
 Z«nO(te). em|>rror ••! th 
 IS famous III church btst>4\ 
 
 ..f tr..- Id S..TI. ..'. ..i..i t .. 
 
 loss 
 
 iKl. 
 
 ;n>f» 
 
 
 im4 
 
 lli#. 
 
 .Ilv 
 i»eU 
 .ilrtt 
 l.e»| 
 •A. 
 
 I.ed 
 .My 
 
 V It 
 
 HI 
 
 
 .tMJO 
 
 .ml 
 
 lb* 
 
 Z«ph)rir,ijs. 
 
 
 thr r>.. 
 
 
 ralh. 1 
 
 ■^ 
 
 have ben. ritl,-i 1^ 
 
 I 1 J •, r 41 .. (r . .<li 1 '^H 
 
 iw «o 217. Ml 
 
 frljn W4» mjikrti 
 
 ■..rrl u ,tl ti.rt.anr. 
 
 jt P ti.r wtnr t . <V 
 
 k^Mtt* wt lit* ttu** «l H^Aue 
 
1024 
 
 ZEPHYMNUS 
 
 The two notable heresies of the time were 
 Montanism and Monarchianism. The see of 
 Rome, when occupied by Zephyrinus, declared 
 against Montanism (Eus. H. E. ii. 25 ; iii. 
 28, 31 ; vi. 20). [Caius.] Thus Zephrinus, 
 though no action of his in the matter 
 is recorded, may certainly be concluded 
 to have been no favourer of the Montanists. 
 But neither he nor Callistus, who succeeded 
 him, is free from the imputation of having 
 countenanced one school of the Monarchians, 
 that which Praxeas had introduced into Rome. 
 Montanism and Monarchianism represented 
 two opposite tendencies. The former was the 
 product of emotional enthusiasm, the latter 
 of intellectual speculation grounded on the 
 difficulty of comprehending the mystery of 
 the Godhead in Christ. Those called by the 
 general name of Monarchians, though differing 
 widely in their views, agreed in denving a 
 divine personality in Christ distinct from that 
 of the Father, being jealous for the Unity, and 
 what was called the Monarchy of God.' One 
 school was also called Patripassian, because 
 its position was held to imply that in the 
 sufferings of Christ the Father suffered. 
 "They taught that the one Godhead, not one 
 Person thereof only, had become incarnate, 
 the terms Father and Son with them denoting 
 only the distinction between God in His 
 Eternal Being, and God as manifested in 
 Christ. Such views were obviously incon- 
 sistent with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, 
 and their outcome was the Sabellian heresy. 
 Praxeas appears to have been the first to 
 introduce this form of heresy at Rome, and, 
 if Tertullian is to be believed, the popes of the 
 time supported Praxeas and his doctrine rather 
 than otherwise. In addition to this testimony 
 of Tertullian (whose treatise against Praxeas, 
 written in the time of Zephyrinus, has been 
 supposed, not without reason, to have been 
 directed against the reigning pope as much as 
 against the original heresiarch) we have that 
 of the Refutation of all Heresies, attributed to 
 HiPPOLVTUs, a learned \vriter of great note in 
 his day, whose real ecclesiastical position is 
 still open to discussion. He probably was 
 bishop over a community at Rome which 
 claimed to be the true church, out of com- 
 munion with the pope, after the accession of 
 Callistus, and possibly also under Zeph\Tinus. 
 
 Callistus, in the time of pope Victor, had 
 been residing under suspicion at Antium. 
 Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, seems to 
 have had no misgivings about him, recalled 
 him to Rome, gave him some position of 
 authority over the clergy, and " set him over 
 the cemetery." Zeph>Tinus is described as 
 an unlearned and ignorant man, entirely 
 nianaged by Callistus, who induced him, for 
 his own purposes, to declare generallv for, but 
 sometimes against, the Patripassians. The 
 picture of the Roman church during the 
 episcopate of Zephyrinus, as given in the 
 Refutation of Hippolytus, discloses a state of 
 discord and disruption not recorded by the 
 historians. The picture, indeed, may be 
 somewhat overcoloured under the influence 
 of odium theologicum, and Callistus may not 
 be the unprincipled adventurer, or Zephyrinus 
 altogether the greedy and ignorant tool, that 
 the writer describes. Dr. Dollinger (Hip- 
 
 ZEPHYRINUS 
 
 polyt. und Callist.), who attributes the whole 
 work to Hippolytus, takes this view. He 
 defends Callistus against the libel on his 
 character, which, however, he allows may 
 have had some ground, but acquits Hippolytus 
 of wilful misrepresentation, supposing him to 
 have been partly misled by false reports and 
 partly by prejudice, being himself a strict 
 maintainer of ancient discipline, while Callis- 
 tus was a liberal. It is difficult, however, to 
 acquit the writer of deliberate and malignant 
 slander unless the picture given of the popes 
 was mainly a true one. There remains the 
 idea of Dr. Newman, that "the libellous mat- 
 ter " in the Elenchus of Hippolytus was not 
 his ; but for this there is no foundation beyond 
 the supposed difficulty of believing it so. 
 If Hippolytus wrote it, it is to be remembered 
 that he was undoubtedly a divine of greater 
 learning and repute than his rivals, and that 
 he seems to have left a name without reproach 
 behind him. All three (like some others who 
 were bitterly at variance during life) are 
 now together in the Calendar of Saints. 
 
 ZephvTinus is further accused of undue 
 laxity in matters of discipline. Our informant, 
 Tertullian, WTiting in his time, speaks indig- 
 nantly of a papal edict allowing admission of 
 adulterers, after penance, to communion. 
 
 There was yet another school of Monarch- 
 ians at Rome in the time of Zeph\Tinus, adding 
 to the discord. Its teacher, Theodotus the 
 banker, who held that Christ, though con- 
 ceived by the Holy Ghost, was a mere man, 
 and even inferior to Melchizedek, had his sect 
 apart and out of communion with the church 
 (Eus. H. E. V. 28 ; Tertull. de Praescript.). 
 Eusebius (I.e.), quoting from an unnamed 
 writer of the time, tells a story of Natalius, 
 a confessor for the faith, having been per- 
 suaded by Theodotus and his colleague 
 Asclepiodotus to be made bishop of their 
 sect, of his having subsequently thrown him- 
 self in sackcloth and ashes with many tears 
 at the feet of Zeph\Tinus, and been thereupon 
 received into communion. Another of the 
 same school, .\rtemon or Artemas, taught at 
 Rome under ZephvTinus, and apart from his 
 communion. He alleged that his own doc- 
 trine was that which the apostles had handed 
 down, and which had been accepted by the 
 Roman see till pope Victor's time, Zephyrinus 
 having been the first to falsify the ancient 
 creed. To this bold assertion his opponents 
 replied that the fact of Victor having excom- 
 municated Theodotus the currier, who was 
 " the leader and father of this God-denying 
 apostasy," was proof that Artemon's doctrine 
 had not been formerlv that of the Roman 
 church (Eus. H. E. v. 28 ; cf. Epiphan. Haer, 
 Ixv. I, 4 ; Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 4 ; Phot. 
 Biblioth. 48). During this episcopate the 
 emperor Severus, a.d. 202, issued an edict 
 which forbade anv person to become a Jew 
 or a Christian (Aelii Spartiani Severus, c. 17), 
 which was probably interpreted so as to 
 include existing converts ; for in some parts it 
 was followed by severe persecution, though 
 there is no evidence that Zeph>Tinus or the 
 Christians at Rome were then molested. 
 
 Some time during this episcopate Origen 
 
 paid a short visit to Rome (Eus. H. E. vi. 14). 
 
 Zephyrinus is said (Catal. Felic.) to have 
 
ZOARAS 
 
 been buried "in cimittrio suo jiixta ciiuite- 
 rium via Appia" — i.f. apparently not in "the 
 cemetery " itself, over which CaJlistus had 
 been set {supra), but in one of his own adjoin- 
 ing it. Lipsius supposes that the cemetery 
 here meant was one which Zephyrinus had 
 acquired, and that, Callistus having greatly 
 added to it, the larger extension was after- 
 wards called "the cemetery." 
 
 Zephyrinus is said in Calal. Felic. to have 
 ordered that no cleric of any order should be 
 ortlaineil vxcept in the presence of the clerpy 
 and faithful laity, and to have made a con- 
 stitution, the purport of which, as it stands 
 now in the texts of Cat. Fel., it is not easy to 
 understand, but which is given in the Lib. 
 Pontif. (Vtt. S. Zephyr.) as meaning that 
 "the ministers should carry patens of glass 
 in the church before the priests when the 
 bishop celebrated masses, and that the priests 
 should stand in attendance while masses were 
 thus celebrated." There is other conclusive 
 evidence that anciently, and to a date con- 
 siderably later than that of Zeph>Tinus, glass 
 patens as well as chalices were in use (see 
 Labbe, p. 619 — nota Binii (c.) in Vit. Zephyr.). 
 Together with most of the early popes, St. 
 Zephyrinus is commemorated as a martyr ; 
 "Aug. zb. Komae S. Zephyrinus Papae et 
 martyris " (Martyr. Rom.). There is no 
 ground for supposing him to have been one. 
 Two spurious epistles have been assigned to 
 him (see Labbe). [j.b — v.| 
 
 ZoaraS (2). a turbulent Monophysite S>Tian 
 monk, a zealous adherent of Severus, asso- 
 ciated with him and Peter of Apamea in the 
 petitions of the orthodox clergy of Syria to the 
 council of Constantinople under Mennas, a.d. 
 536, as leaders of the Monophysite heresy, and 
 condemned with them by the synod. He be- 
 came a Stylite. On being driven after several 
 years from his pillar by the orthodox party 
 (the " Synodites "). he started for Constanti- 
 nople with ten of his monks to complain to Jus- 
 tinian, who hastily summontd a synod to give 
 him audience. Ztjaras uncompmmisingly de- 
 nounced " the accursed council of Chalcedon." 
 This greatly irritated Justinian, who rebuked 
 him for his presumption. Zoaras in no meas- 
 ured terms denounced the emj^eror for his 
 support of heresy. A monastery in the suburb 
 of Sykas was assigned as a residence to him 
 and his followers by the emperor, where he 
 li\ ed quietly, exercising great liberality. The 
 embassage of Agapetus, patriarch of Rome, 
 with whom Zoaras held a very stormy en- 
 counter which resulted in the deposition of 
 the patriarch .Anthimus as a concealed 
 Monophysite and the appointment of Mennas, 
 A.D. 536, caused an outbreak of orthodox fury 
 against Zoaras and his followers. In the 
 various " libelli " presented to the synod 
 under Mennas he and his heresy are denounced 
 in no measured terms. He is described as a 
 leader of the Acephali (Labbe, v. io«). He 
 had been already condemned and excom- 
 municated by Anthimuss predecessor lipi- 
 phanius (ih. 251). Mennas and his synod 
 repeated the condemnation, and Justinian 
 banished Zoaras from Constantinople and its 
 vicinity, and from all the chief cities of the 
 empire, charging him to live in solitude. ^ 
 According to the biography in Land, however, ' 
 
 ZOSIMUS 
 
 1025 
 
 Justinian assigned him a niunasterv in Thrace, 
 named Dokos, 30 miles away. Ilerc Theo- 
 dorus.'the Monophysite patriiirch of Alexand- 
 ria, was living and propagating his doctrines. 
 The length of Zoaras's residence here is 
 uncertain. After a time he left Thrace, and 
 after some years died, leaving as liis successor 
 his disciple the presbyter Ananias. A!«i>em. 
 Btbl. Or. ii. 58, 235 ; Land, Anecdol. Syr. ii. 
 12-22; Bar-heb. Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos, i. 
 pp. 206-208; Labbe. V. 108, 2S4, 267. (e.v.) 
 
 Zosimus (4), bp. of Home after Innocent I., 
 from Mar. iH, 417, to Dec. 25, 418, under 
 Honorius as the Western and Theodosius II. 
 I as the Eastern emperor. 
 
 CoELESTiis, having been expelled from 
 Constantinople by the patriarch Atticus, went 
 to Rome, a.d. 417, hoping for the support of 
 Zosimus, who had newly succeeded to the 
 Roman see. .Atticus had written letters about 
 Coelestius to Asia, Carthage, and Thessalonica, 
 but not to Rome ; the churches of Rome and 
 Constantinople not being then in full com- 
 munion, owing to the name of Jt>hn Chry- 
 sostom not having been restored to the 
 diptychs of the latter church. On the other 
 band, Zosimus had before him, when Cotles- 
 tius appealed to him, letters addressed by 
 Pclagius to pope Innocent, but not received 
 by him before his death. These letters had 
 by no means satisfied St. .\ugustine (de Pecc. 
 Orig. c. 17, 21 ; De Grat. x. 30, 31); but 
 being expressed so as to evade the main points 
 at issue, they may have seemed a sufficient 
 exculpation to the pope, less sharpsiglited than 
 Augustine in detecting heresy, and apparently 
 less ready to find fault with it in this case. 
 Thus Zosimus was disposed to receive Coe- 
 lestius with favour, while the independent 
 action of the .African bishops in the time of 
 Innocent may have further inclined him to 
 give the condemned persons a chance of 
 clearing themselves. Coelestius appeared 
 before him in the church of St. Clement, 
 presented his defence, and was questioned as 
 to whether he spoke sincerely and assented 
 to what pope Innocent had written to the 
 African bishops against the heresies imputed 
 to him and Pelagius. This, Augustine tells 
 us, he did, but refused to condemn the alleged 
 errors imputed to him in the libellus of 
 Paulinus (his original accuser at Carthage, 
 A.D. 412), which had be* n sent to Rome. He 
 further, according to Augustine, desired the 
 pope's correction of any error of which he 
 might through ignorance have been guilty 
 (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 607). Zosimus there- 
 upon toiik up his cause, as that of one unfairly 
 and improperly condemned. He wrote to this 
 efTfct to Aurelius and the African bishops, 
 desiring them either tf) send persons to Rome 
 ti> convict the accused of heresy or to hold hira 
 innocent, and inveighing against the two 
 (iallican bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who had 
 been the accusers of Coelestius. Zosimus 
 wrote a second time to Aurelius and the 
 Africans, having meanwhile received a letter 
 in favour of Pelagius from Praylius, bp. of 
 Jerusalem, and others from Pelagius himself. 
 The-e last had entirely satisfied him of the 
 writer's orthodoxy ; they had been iniblicly 
 read at Rome, and received (says Zosimus) 
 with universal joy ; and Zosimus wrote again 
 03 
 
1026 ZOSIMUS 
 
 to Carthage, declaring Pelagius and Coelestius 
 to have fully vindicated themselves against 
 the calumnious accusations of those "whirl- 
 winds and storms of the church," Heros and 
 Lazarus ; to have been condemned by unjust 
 judges ; and to be still in the church's com- 
 munion. He sent with his letter copies of 
 those which he had received from Pelagius. 
 
 By the same messenger Zosimus summoned 
 Paulinus, the original accuser of Coelestius, 
 to Rome. Coelestius had retorted on Paulinus 
 the charge of heresy, and neither the latter 
 nor any other accusers had come to Rome to 
 prove their charges, and now Paulinus respect- 
 fully refused to go, saying there was no need. 
 He assumes in his extant reply that the pope's 
 verdict had already been on his side, in that 
 Coelestius had been called upon at Rome, 
 however in vain, to condemn the heresies 
 which he, Paulinus, had charged him with. 
 Aurelius also, and the other African bishops, 
 remained resolute. Several letters, no longer 
 extant, appear to have passed between them 
 and Zosimus, alluded to by Augustine {contra 
 Duas Ep. Pelag. lib. ii. c. 3), and by Zosimus 
 himself. Early in 418 they held a council of 
 214 bishops at Carthage, which confirmed their 
 condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius, and 
 declared, with regard to Rome, that they must 
 hold the verdict of Innocent against the heresi- 
 archs to be still in force, unless the latter 
 should recant. The decrees of this council 
 were sent to Zosimus ; and he, in his extant 
 reply, dated Mar. 21, 418, begins by a lengthy 
 assertion of the authority of the Roman see 
 inherited from St. Peter, which was such, he 
 says, that none might dare to dispute its 
 judgment. Still, he declares himself willing 
 to consult his brethren, though not as being 
 ignorant of what ought to be done or requiring 
 their concurrence. 
 
 Zosimus is further memorable for his ad- 
 judication on the question of the jurisdiction 
 of the see of Aries in Gaul, when some of the 
 Gallic bishops were as little ready as the 
 Africans to submit to his authority. Patro- 
 clus had been elected and ordained metro- 
 politan of Aries, a.d. 412, on the expulsion by 
 the people of the former metropolitan, Heros 
 — the Galilean bishop, above named, who 
 subsequently, with Lazarus, accused Pelagius 
 of heresy in Palestine and Africa. There had 
 been a long rivalry and struggle for jurisdiction 
 between the two ancient sees of Aries and 
 Vienne. A recent synod at Turin had decided 
 against the claim of Aries to general jurisdic- 
 tion over other provinces. Consequently 
 other metropolitans — Simplicius of Vienne, 
 Hilarius of Narbonne, and Proculus of Mar- 
 seilles — had claimed the right of ordaining 
 bishops in their respective provinces ; and, 
 notably, Proculus, acting on powers assigned 
 him by the Turin synod as metropolitan of 
 Narbonensis Secunda, had ordained Lazarus 
 (the friend and associate of Heros) to the see 
 of Aquae Sextiae (Aix). Patroclus appealed 
 to Zosimus (a.d. 417), who at once wrote to 
 the bishops of Gaul, to the Spanish bishops, 
 and to Aurelius of Carthage and the rest of 
 the African bishops, asserting the authority 
 of the bishop of Aries over the provinces of 
 Vienne and Narbonensis Prima and Secunda, 
 and declaring all who should ordain bishops. 
 
 ZOSIMUS 
 
 or be ordained, within those provinces without 
 his concurrence, to be degraded from the 
 priesthood. He required that ecclesiastics of 
 all orders from any part of Gaul whatever, pro- 
 ceeding to Rome, or to any other part of the 
 world, should not be received without letters 
 commendatory (firmatae) from the metropoli- 
 tan of Aries. This last privilege he rests, not 
 on ancient right, but on the personal merits of 
 Patroclus. The jurisdiction of Aries over the 
 above-named provinces he rests on ancient 
 right, derived from Trophimus having been 
 sent from Rome as first bishop of the see, and 
 all Gaul having received the stream of faith 
 from that fountain. Gregory of Tours (Hist. 
 Franc, i. 28), referring to Passio S. Saturnini 
 Episc. Tolas., speaks of seven missionary 
 bishops, including Trophimus, who founded 
 the see of Aries, having been sent from Rome 
 to Gaul, " Decio et Grato consulibus," i.e. a.d. 
 250. But the see of Aries must have existed 
 before then, since it appears from Cyprian (Ep. 
 vi. 7) that in 254 Marcion had long been bishop 
 of it. Possibly some Trophimus of an earlier 
 date had been sent from Rome to Aries ; but 
 if so, nothing is known about him. 
 
 Zosimus WTOte also to the bishops of the 
 provinces Viennensis and Narbonensis Se- 
 cunda, disallowing the independent authority 
 conceded to the metropolitans of those pro- 
 vinces by the Turin synod ; to Hilarius of 
 Narbonne, the metropolitan of Narbonensis 
 Prima, forbidding him to ordain bishops 
 independently of Aries, declaring all whom he 
 should so ordain excommunicate, and threat- 
 ening him with the same sentence ; and also 
 to Patroclus, confirming to him the alleged 
 ancient rights of his see, together with the 
 privilege, above mentioned, of alone giving 
 firmatae to ecclesiastics from all parts of Gaul. 
 Simplicius of Vienne so far deferred to the 
 pope's authority as to send a legate to him ; 
 and Zosimus, writing to him on Oct. i, 417, 
 allowed him, for the sake of peace, to go on 
 for the present ordaining bishops in the 
 neighbouring cities of the province in accord- 
 ance with the order of the Turin synod. No 
 such deference to Rome was shewn by Pro- 
 culus of Marseilles, who continued to ordain, 
 though the pope had pronounced his deposi- 
 tion. Tumults ensued at Marseilles, where 
 there seem to have been two parties. Con- 
 sequently in 418 Zosimus wrote to the clergy 
 and people there, warning them to oppose the 
 attempts of Proculus, and to submit to Patro- 
 clus ; and to Patroclus himself, enjoining him 
 to assert his authority. Notwithstanding this, 
 Proculus maintained his position as bp. of 
 Marseilles and metropolitan of Narbonensis 
 Secunda. The jurisdiction of Aries was long 
 a bone of contention in Gaul. Zosimus died 
 soon after writing the letters last mentioned, 
 and was buried, according to the Lib. Pontif., 
 on Dec. 26, " via Tiburtina juxta corpus beati 
 Laurentii mart^Tis." 
 
 The main authorities for his life are his own 
 letters and other documents to be found in 
 Baronius and Labbe, the works of Augustine, 
 and Prosper (Chron.). [j.b— Y.l 
 
 Zosimus (5), a Byzantine historian worthy 
 of particular attention, not only for his general 
 merits as an historian, but because, as a 
 heathen bitterly opposed to Christianity, he 
 
ZOSIHUS 
 
 pivei the heathen view of the ciiHes of the 
 decline and fall of the Roman empire. There 
 is con>iderable uncertainty a■^ to when he 
 flourished. The middle of the 5th cent, is a 
 probable date. Zosimus was not a polytheist, 
 for in one passage at least of his history, when 
 referring to an oracle which had predicted the 
 greatness of Old Byzantium, he speaks of the 
 Deity in highly worthy terms (ii. 37). He 
 paid honour, however, to the heathen religious 
 rites, as having come down from former 
 generations (v. 23), complaining of the 
 attempts of various emperors to extinguish 
 them (ii. 29; iv. 59), lamenting that the oracles i 
 of the gods were no Ioniser listened to (i. 57), j 
 and finding in the abandonment of the old | 
 religion one main cause of the decline of the | 
 empire (iv. 59). He ridicules Christianity as 
 an unreasonable conglomerate. dXoyoi <xvy- 
 Kard^ecris (iv. 59), sneers at Christian soldiers ! 
 as only able to pray (iii. 2 ; iv. 23), and wel- ! 
 comes any opportunity of giving the most • 
 false representations of the Christian faith (ii. 
 29 ; iv. 59). An historian of such a spirit can 
 hardly be relied on for an account of the events 
 of a time when the old superstitions he 
 venerated were compelled to yield to the 
 advancing power of a religion he abhorred ; 
 and even his admirers are constrained to admit 
 that he is not to be trusted where his religious 
 prejudices come into play. Reitetneier, who ^ 
 defends him on the whole, allows that he was ' 
 too partial to the heathen, too unjust to 
 Christians (Disquis. p. 26) ; and Gibbon speaks 
 of his " passion and prejudice," '" ignorant and 
 malicious suggestions," and " malcontent 
 insinuations " (cc. xvii., xx.). His accounts 
 of the conversion of Constantine, and of the 
 character of Theodojius (ii. 29; iv. 26-33) 
 suffer from this prejudice. To the former, 
 as well as to many other of his most scandalous 
 charges against that emperor, Evagrius replied 
 in fierce language, addressing him as a 
 "wicked spirit and fiend of hell" (iii. 41); 
 and for the latter he has been condemned by 
 Gibbon in hardly less emphatic language (c. 
 xxvii.). De Broglie refers, for a full refuta- 
 tion of the story regarding the conversion 
 of Constantine, to the Mem. de I'Acad. des 
 Inscrip. 49, p. 470, etc. 
 
 The inference must not, however, be hastily 
 drawn that Zosimus is an historian unworthy 
 of our regard. On the contrary, he may be 
 justly described as one of the best historians 
 of these early centuries. liven his views on 
 church matters are highly interesting, as 
 shewing how they were regarded by the more 
 intelligent heathen ; nor are they always 
 wanting in truth. In estimating, too, his 
 value as an historian, it must be remembered 
 that he treats more largely of civil affairs than 
 others had done, and we owe to him many 
 facts connected with the condition of the 
 military, their degeneracy, ex.actions, and 
 dissoluteness, which contributed in no slight 
 degree to the fall of the empire. 
 
 There seems indeed no sufficient ground 
 to ascribe intentional bad faith to his history. 
 That he was mistaken in many of his conclu- 
 sions, and especially in those relating to the 
 influence of Christianity, is unquestionable. 
 That he occasionally gave too easy credence 
 to unfounded statements is not less so ; but 
 
 ZOSIMUS 
 
 1027 
 
 it has never been i>roved that he wilfully per- 
 verted facts to establish any theory. 
 
 He was not in all respects an original his- 
 torian. His//«s/orycloseswithA.D.4io. Hither 
 he had been hindered by death from prosecut- 
 ing it further or some porti<ins have been lost. 
 He is thus occupied throughout with events 
 before his own day, and in relating these he 
 seems rather to epitomize works of predeces- 
 sors than to write original narrative. Reite- 
 meier finds that in the first part of his//i.?/ory 
 he f'>llowed the Synop<iis of Denippus, in the 
 middle and larger part the Chronicnn of 
 liunapius, and in tiu- l.i^t part the Stlva of 
 Olympiodorus (Disquis. p. 35). Photius 
 charges him with extensive copying of liuna- 
 plus (cf. Fabric, vi. p. 232, note). It seems 
 to have been his admiration of I'olybius that 
 led him to write. Th.it historian had de- 
 scribed the rise of the Roman empire, and 
 Zosimus, beholding everywhere around him 
 its majestic ruins, would describe its fall. 
 Nor will he merely describe the phenomena : 
 he proposes also to investigate their causes. 
 He begins, accordingly, with the reign of 
 .Augustus, and, passing hastily over the time 
 till the accession of Constantine, he occupies 
 himself mainly with the reigns of that em- 
 peror and his successors. He sets forth as the 
 causes of the fill of the Roman empire : the 
 change of government to its imperial form 
 (i. 5) ; the removal of the soldiery into cities 
 where they were debased by luxury and vice 
 (ii. 34) ; the iniquitous exactions of successive 
 emperors (ii. 38 ; iv. 28, 29, 41 ; v. 12) ; above 
 all, the casting aside of the old religion, and 
 the neglect of the responses of the oracles (i. 
 57)- There can be little doubt that he re- 
 garded this last as the most important, so 
 frequently does he allude to it (ii. 7; iv. 37, 59; 
 V. 38, etc.). He expresses what was often 
 thought and said at the time, and to the 
 view thus taken we owe, in no small degree, 
 St. Augustine's immortal work, de Civitate 
 Dei. 
 
 The style of the History of Zosimus has been 
 praised by Photius as concise, perspicuous, 
 pure, and, though not adorned bv many 
 figures, yet not devoid of sweotness [Cod. 98). 
 (Cf. Heyne, Corp. Ser. H.B., Zosimus, p. 16.) 
 These commendations are deserved. Zosimus 
 is generally free from the ambitious periods of 
 most historians of his age. His narrative is 
 circunistantial, but clear ; his language well 
 chosen, and often very nervous and anti- 
 thetical. He was not free from superstition ; 
 and the fact that an historian, geu'-rally so 
 calm and so far removed from the credulity 
 of his day, should have put his faith in oracles 
 and recorded without hesitation appearances 
 of Minerva and .Achilles to .\laric, and various 
 other miracles (see them in Fabric, vi. p. 610), 
 shews how deep-seated such ideas were in the 
 minds of his contemporaries, and may help to 
 prove that the Christian belief in visions and 
 miracles then prev.iiliii).; was nr»t inconsistent 
 with sobriety of judgment and sound prin- 
 ciples of criticism in other matters. 
 
 The History of Zo>imus may be consulted 
 for the lives and actions of the emperors 
 between Augustus and a.d. .\io, more especi- 
 ally for those of Constantine, Constantius, 
 Theodosius the elder, Honorius, and Arcadius ; 
 
1028 
 
 ZOSIMUS 
 
 for accounts of the Huns, Alamanni, Scythians, 
 Goths, and minor barbarous tribes ; the war 
 in Africa in the time of Honorius, the cam- 
 paign of Alaric in Italy, and the taking of 
 Rome ; for the right of asylum in Christian 
 churches, and the changes introduced into the 
 army ; for an important description of Byzan- 
 tium, old and new, and of Britain ; and 
 finally, for an account of the secular games to 
 
 ZOSIMUS 
 
 I which, celebrated only once in no years, the 
 
 people were summoned with the stirring yet 
 I solemn cry, " Quos nee spectavit quisquam 
 I nee spectaturus est." Some of the ancient 
 
 oracles are preserved by him. 
 
 The best ed. is by Reitemeier, in Gk. and 
 
 Lat., with Heyne's notes (Leipz. 1784) ; 
 
 Bekker's ed. (Bonn, 1837) has Reitemeier's 
 notes. [W.M.] 
 
 Printed by Huzell, Watson &■ Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury 
 
RETURN TO the circulation a^-sk of any 
 University of Or.'" "j ' " '/ 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER 
 ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL 
 
 UC DAVIS - CARLSON 
 
 . HEALTH SQIENCES LIBRARY 
 Bm\ by interHbrary Loatji 
 
 _ UC DAVIS -CARLSON 
 EALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY 
 Jent by fnterfibrary Loan 
 for 2 weeks' use 
 
 CARLSON HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 
 
 (916) 752-1162 
 
r RtOkLl t V 1 KM. 
 
 .„„ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 CDMc^jLliDc 
 
 i